Netflix Comes To Linux Web Browsers Via 'Pipelight' 303
An anonymous reader writes "With Netflix continuing to rely upon Microsoft Silverlight, the video streaming service hasn't been supported for Linux users as the Mono-based 'Moonlight' implementation goes without Silverlight 5 DRM support. However, there is now Netflix support for Linux-based web-browsers via the open source Pipelight project. Pipelight supports Netflix and other Silverlight-based web applications by having a Netscape plug-in that in turn communicates with a Windows program running under Wine. The Windows program then simulates a browser to load the Silverlight libraries. Netflix then works as the Pipelight developers implemented support for the Netflix DRM scheme within Wine."
Re:Easy solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Easy solution: cut off your nose to spite your face.
Ridonculous (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point you just spend $130 and buy an Android tablet at wally world. Or a $50 Roku.
Re:Easy solution (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM, in the virtual rental situation is acceptable, I'm not doing anything like purchasing the content, so they get to retain control. In exchange it's pretty cheap for what you get (see also: Steam)
Fails on multiple counts (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, claiming to "come to linux" but only working under WINE is not really coming to linux at all. You can run Windows Notepad under WINE as well.
Secondly, WINE (with win32 compatiblity) is not officially supported on native 64 bit Linux systems unless you have 32-bit libraries installed. While this is probably fine if you are only installing binaries, but for distributions which install some applications by compiling them from source, it can cause some consternation when building some applications because the linker might end up trying to use the libraries in the 32 bit library directory instead of the 64-bit one which causes what's supposed to be an automated build process to fail, abruptly and unceremoniously. Although such errors are ultimately the result of faulty assumptions in the actual build script, and not the fault of actually trying to use both 32 and 64-bit libraries simultaneously on one platform, such errors are still frequent enough to be annoying... and I'd rather not deal with them.
Finally... it's Netflix. Their movie selection sucks.
The Inevitable (Score:5, Insightful)
Although having the word "Netscape" in there.....
Re:Easy solution (Score:4, Insightful)
"Easy solution: cut off your nose to spite your face."
Huh? How so?
Their product is not something that is going to get me ahead in any way, it's not something I have to have to survive, or to thrive. It's a source of entertainment. One among many. If they dont want my business I will spend my money elsewhere, simple as that.
Re:Easy solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Easy solution: cut off your nose to spite your face.
Correction: This nose smells funny, so detach it and use any of the other ones that work in browsers in Linux. Hulu, for example.
compholio (Score:5, Insightful)
I watch netflix in ubuntu. I accomplished it by adding one rep and installing one package. It manages the wine version, the windows firefox version, the silverlight version, and whatever other unholy nonsense is involved in making it work. The only glitch is that sometimes the audio is on fastforward when I first start watching something and I have to wait for it to go back to normal, then start the show over. This is on a relatively ancient macbook (it has an ethernet port), and it is still fast enough.
Re:Easy solution (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM does affect your usage of a product sometimes (see Steam, you buy a game for a high price but then the system acts as if you only rented it). DRM systems should be upfront and honest that you're merely purchasing limited access to content, which is true for streaming television but not true for purchased song files or games or books.
Note also that in the US we've been able for decades to record television programs with the full support of of the Supreme Court. The new DRM streaming forbids this. You can ONLY see the shows as long as you continue subscribing and as long as the publisher allows it. In this sense, the rights that you are granted for streaming video is more like attending a movie theater than watching television. Ie, there is no equivalent of VHS recording in the secured digital video stream.
Just like Steam, the customers happily accept being branded with a hot iron as long as they're also given a carrot. The problem remains the same; most customers are excited to get the new content quickly but have no interest in access to their previously purchased old content.
These all seem like ways to get around the legal system or legal access to content, and ensuring that they have full control at all times. And this is just with their toe in the door, imagine how much further this will be locked down in ten or twenty years if no one objects today. What if George Lucas could have pushed a button and suddenly every single copy of Star Wars in existence was changed to show that Han did not shoot first, and no evidence remained anywhere that it used to be otherwise?
Re:Easy solution (Score:2, Insightful)
DRM that doesn't affect your use of the product works just fine.
I'm glad you agree that DRM is never OK.
Re:Convoluted (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes me wonder... I somehow doubt that the PS3, Tivo or Asus Transformer have Silverlight so the DRM itself likely isn't a Silverlight exclusive. Why aren't there smart people foaming at the mouth to reverse-engineer that stuff? I guess Netflix is mostly a US service and countries where doing such reverse-engineering isn't illegal have no incentive? There are already plenty of people working on Blueray DRM and what not, I can't see this being as complicated.
Re:Easy solution (Score:5, Insightful)
I prefer to pay for what I use when those who are providing it ask for money.
Principles.. It's good to have them.
Re:Easy solution (Score:5, Insightful)
"Personally, I consider the $8/mo I pay for Netflix to be well worth it, especially when compared against the cost of a TV subscription."
The $8/month is not the issue. That part of the price I would be perfectly willing to pay, that would be reasonable, if the rest of the conditions were not unreasonable and unacceptable. And the alternative for me isnt a satellite or cable subscription. Seriously, it's not only possible to live without TV, it's actually something that will probably do you good.
Re:Easy solution (Score:1, Insightful)
Principles.. It's good to have them.
Why do you assume that people who download the content for free do not have principles? Just because they don't have the same principles as you doesn't mean that they don't have any at all.