Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mozilla The Internet

RealPlayer To Incorporate Mozilla 70

Posted by Hemos from the adding-yet-more-functionality dept.
Will in Seattle writes "cNet has a story on RealNetworks using code from Mozilla.org's open-source browser code in a private-label version of its media player and server for Web broadcaster Global Media. This version lets RealNetworks' system stream and display Web elements including HTML and Macromedia Flash animation files, and you can download their mods here. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RealPlayer To Incorporate Mozilla More

RealPlayer To Incorporate Mozilla

Comments Filter:
  • So now I can dump all of my browsers and just use my media player.

    One less thing to take up disk space.
    One less thing to crash the system.
    If it runs on PalmOS and fits in my limited memory I'll start showing colleagues that Victoria's Secret fashion show during meetings. 8=]

  • Re:Layer on Layer on Layer... (Score:3)

    by Breace ( 33955 ) on Wednesday April 26, 2000 @08:22AM (#1109557) Homepage
    Uhm... Microsoft has done that.

    It's called IWebBrowser and a newer interface called IWebBrowser2.

    As M$ describes it here [microsoft.com] it may sound like it's IE specific, but there's a Mozilla version available here [www.iol.ie].

    This is what Real should have used.

    If any program wanted a web widget, it would just call the general API and get back whatever browser was set as the default tool

    Of course one of the drawbacks of this is that if you have for example an HTML based help system that uses JavaScript, you don't know that the browser that you load actually supports it.

    Breace.

  • Alright, this is somewhat off-topic, but I was just wondering why the Mozilla team chose to use a red star (a symbol of state communism) as their logo. Wouldn't an anarchist black and red [iww.org] star be more appropriate? That is, if you're into using political iconoclastic images...

    Just a thought...

    Michael Chisari
    mchisari@usa.net

  • Is this really necessary? (Score:5)

    by Vector7 ( 2410 ) on Wednesday April 26, 2000 @07:56AM (#1109559) Journal
    Do we really need to get the roles of all our software tangled and confused like this? Wouldn't life be much simpler if everything was logically divided into seperate applications (browser, mail, news, video players, etc.), rather than gargantuan applications that try to do all of the above, to varying extents?

    Anyone think that the "minibrowser" or whatever in WinAmp is the most ridiculous thing you've ever seen?

    On a somewhat different, some would argue that excessive use of streaming media and abuse of HTML for really complex designs (strung together with Javascript, with all kinds of animated silliness) is really undesirable. Abusing standards just for a little graphical flair is really a bad thing anyway - it makes it both more difficult for users to view your content (by narrowing the range of browsers that can view it correctly), and makes it difficult for future software to evolve when so much effort must be spent on preserving backward compatibility.

    Thoughts ?
  • Good codecs from Microsoft..
    Good code from Mozilla...

    ...and still RealPlayer sucks ass.

  • Re:Mozilla's future? (Score:3)

    by jilles ( 20976 ) on Wednesday April 26, 2000 @08:44AM (#1109561) Homepage
    Mozilla is an opensource project with the specific goal of producing components for third party use (which is probably one of the reasons they don't use GPL). They ultimately aim to be a platform for developing web based applications.

    Therefore Real embedding Gecko is a good thing. The more companies that follow Real's example the more mozilla becomes a threat for IE. People have been complaining a lot about Netscape's GUI without realizing they can just take the browser component and wrap it into whatever GUI they like.

    I don't particularly like Real's GUI either (though it does improve if you disable all the non essential stuff) but that's not the point. The point is that Gecko is becoming a damn good browser component and that just about anybody can embed it in their product (and that includes MS). More people embedding it means more users, which means more pressure on MS to either comply with standards or even to start using Gecko themselves.

    A little sidenote on real embedding Mozzilla: why don't they rewrite the GUI in XUL? That would make it much easier to port the damn thing.
  • We're gonna miss you man. Your trolls rocked.

    May the hair on your toes never fall out...

    kwsNI

  • Life would be simpler the way you state if (IF) everyone thought like us *nixers did, and like having a bunch of little tools that all mesh together.

    Oh yeah, kind of like EMACS for instance? ;)
  • No! It will not stop only get more convoluted.

    [insert a bunch of stuff here that will crash netscape] XYZZY [/crash]

    The whole mess is offensive. I still waiting for this feature - "auto stop anything that; blinks, has animation, is music, real* " . -d

  • OK, I know I'm just sticking my head out here for a good whack with the Clue Stick, but what is console moderation? I haven't heard of this one.

  • it's understandable that they would go with Mozilla over IE

    Eh? What part of "The system RealNetworks created for Global Media will use Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser if it is installed on a person's computer and will download the Mozilla-based browser otherwise," did you not understand?

    Looks like they specifically are going with IE over Mozilla; only in the infrequent case (less than 20%) where a user doesn't have Internet Explorer will the Mozilla-based browser be downloaded.

    Besides, didn't you get the memo from Larry Wall that laziness is one of the three chief virtues of a programmer? ;)

    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com,

  • It's not a browser, it's a minibrowser. It's just a wrapper to whatever the default browser is.
  • I'm thinking Real is making a nice chunk of change off of selling their RealServer software and Realnetwork service. Their ad clutter is actually turning content providers away because their competing with their customers. Not the smartest business room. Shockwave seems to be sliding slowly that way too...

  • You'll sure be missed, man.

    (Question - did you submit this as a /. story? That would have been the ultimate irony... ;)

  • Re:Shhhh...don't tell them.... (Score:3)

    by puetzk ( 98046 ) on Wednesday April 26, 2000 @07:58AM (#1109570) Homepage
    They did post the source (well, diffs against the main tree, close enough for me) of their modified mozilla, and placed them under the MPL-1.1. mozilla developers have been looking over them this morning (discussions in #mozilla), and there is some good stuff in there - if they work as claimed, real has fixed some long-standing bugs that nobody else had gotten to yet. Don't knock these guys too hard, it seems at first glance that they did everything right :-).

    The only fault? there's no email address with any of it, so it's going to take a little searching for contact information to properly credit them if (or when) their work gets checked in.
  • RealPlayer just doesn't crash enough as it is; this should help.

    /me ducks and runs

    ;)
  • Does anyone else here use Windows Media Player for the sole reason that it doesn't inundate you with banner ads, SPAM opt-outs, clutter, millions of buttons, and useless flash?

    Now they're going for the Macromedia angle too. God.

    RealNetworks has a gigantic slice of the market pie in streaming media. Yet more evidence that the average consumer does not share the tastes of the average geek.

    -konstant
    Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!

  • The system RealNetworks created for Global Media will use Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser if it is installed on a person's computer and will download the Mozilla-based browser otherwise.

    So, this is Real using OSS to smooth out the installation pains of a hypothetical dumb user. What benefits does this have for OSS? Whoo-hoo! real companies like to take free code?

    RealNetworks has come under pressure to open its own software, but Rotholtz said the company has no intention to do that beyond continuing to offer application programming interfaces--programming shortcuts that let developers build on top of applications such as the RealSystem.

    So that would be sort of like Microsoft then? Release the API's but not the source. Blagh. Are we supposed to feel happy that there is another closed-source competitor taking on MS in the browser market? Personally I really couldn't care.

    Rotholtz did offer a ringing endorsement of Mozilla's open-source effort, however. "It's a great cause," he said. "Thanks to Mozilla, people have been able to go out and build new solutions and extend the world of what people are able to do on the Web. One company alone does not move the Internet along as the next mass medium."

    I bet he did. They're just trying to leverage against Microsoft. I'm afraid that I _do_ have RealPlayerG2 installed but it's a damned finicky piece of software and will probably continue to be so as long as they keep it closed.
  • Your comedy will be missed by all.
    Now we have only OOG to keep us company....

    :)

  • No.... Winamp has a 'Browser Window' which is wrapped in the WinAmp user interface. To answer the original posters question, it's the IE control.

  • ...take the lazy man's way out and incorporate IE.

    Acutally, from a "lab rat" [zazzo.com] friend that worked at RealNetworks, I understand that they are a real (pardon the pun) Linux shop... so it's understandable that they would go with Mozilla over IE...

  • Re:Clarification of GPL vs. MPL/NPL? (Score:3)

    by drivers ( 45076 ) on Wednesday April 26, 2000 @08:01AM (#1109577)
    The answers to your questions can be found here. It is a chapter written by Bruce Perens from the book "Open Sources".

    http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/pe rens.html [oreilly.com]

    Specifically, scroll down to "Analysis of Licenses and Their Open Source Compliance". There is also a nice grid comparing the licenses.
  • This differance is, with the NPL, Netscape retains rights to relicense code under other terms. For example, if you modify a file in Mozilla that is NPL licensed, Netscape aka. AOL can sell that modification, or use it elsewhere in binary only form. Netscape claims that this clause was nessisary due to exsisting contracts they had at the time they released the netscape source, which was why they could not use the GPL.

    The MPL is similar to the NPL, but it has the relicense parts removed. The purpose of this license is to all new code to be submitted to the Mozilla project, that can legally be linked to the MPL'd code, but which Netscape/AOL can not relicense. You cannot submit GPL'd code to mozilla, because it would be compiled with the NPL code.
  • This would imply that all the benefits of having Mozilla's quality in the best interests of a huge software corporation (i.e. real monied interests involved in making it a better product) would be gone if the software were GPL...Real is not about to release the source code for RealPlayer, right?
  • For years I used real player without a hitch and then one day for one reason or another Real got the idea that their program needs to be the endall be all for all types of media play! They encorporate everything but the kitchen sink into their program and forget that the vast majority of people who use it just want to be able to play real media files and not to use all the bells and whistles of streaming news and interactive content that come with it. It's worthless now. The program is a good 2 - 6 meg download just for the ability to play real media, and even the most basic package of downloads includes things most people never want or need!! Real, if you are listening, please, distribute a version with simple barebones realmedia playing capability. If I want a browser, I'll get a browser. If I want an mp3 player, I'll get an mp3 player...etc...etc

  • Oh man, this really bums my day. Your posts rock.

    At least put up a web site somewhere of "The Best of Trollmastah" so that future generations can experience the trolling magic.


    --

  • This brings up an interesting point: The Netscape Public License is a lesser copyleft (similar to Stallman's GNU Lesser GPL [gnu.org]) with two minor problems [gnu.org]:
    • Changes to source files propagate back to original maintainer for use in its closed-source projects.
    • Not compatible with other popular free software licenses (e.g. GNU GPL [gnu.org]).
  • Wait for Media Player 7 [microsoft.com], which will add lots of useless visual crap (don't know about banners, though).
  • I hate spam as much as the next guy, but they gotta make some money somewhere. I view it as an annoyance more than an inconvienence. If Real had the financial horsepower MS does, I don't think you'd see the spam...

    If MS did it, it would be pretty pointless. For them, WMP is more of a control issue than a making money issue, I suspect. Kinda like the browser wars all over again?

    Maybe I'm way off base.... just my 2% of a dollar.

  • Exactly. Likewise Netscape would not be able to bundle, for example, the Flash player (unless it was open sourced) in Netscape 6. Another problem would be with certain proprietary code which Netscape includes in NS4 but which is licensed from others. Additionally, in 1998 there was a much greater issue than today concerning open source cryptographic modules

  • Here is another option that is BETTER! I got a program called Steambox Ripper. It will allow you to convert .ra, .ram files to .wav. These guys reverse engineered the Realnetworks encoding scheme and wrote a decoder for it.

    SO, if the hackers out there in Linux land were to reverse steambox Ripper to see how they are decoding the realfiles they could write a better player for the realnetworks files or/and have it convert the files . streaming mp3 or whatever. They could probably get it to do the streaming files as well I would think. Which is something that Steambox doesn't do though.

    Gabriel/TSS!
  • Buy is't communism and socialism the embodiment of open source software?
    Why do you think the linux zealots praise China for embracing Linux. Who cares about the slave labor camps, those are all MS-fabircated stories!

  • Finally! (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 26, 2000 @07:41AM (#1109588)
    a browser plug-in for my media player!

  • Whee (Score:2)

    by VAXGeek ( 3443 )
    Suggested trolls:
    • Hey! Keep Mozilla out of Realplayer! Realplayer is bloated enough!
    • Hey! Keep Realplayer out of Mozilla! We don't want our precious little browser getting bloated.

    At least now I can get streaming audio with all the porn I look at with Mozilla.
    ------------
    a funny comment: 1 karma
    an insightful comment: 1 karma
    a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
  • Don't tell them about the Mozilla license until it's too late. That way we can sue and get the RealPlayer streaming formats....

    Seriously, though, I thought the MPL was like the GPL--viral. Is it instead more like BSD?
    --
    Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?

  • Farewell (Score:4)

    by Trollmastah ( 129873 ) on Wednesday April 26, 2000 @07:43AM (#1109591)

    So long Slashdot my old friend.
    I won't come to troll you again.
    because the console softly creeping,
    killed my karma while I was sleeping.
    And the flames
    with just remnants in my brain,
    don't remain,
    upon the threads... of Slashdot.

    In flick'ring lights I type along.
    Submit my troll, before to long,
    Letters haloed by my squinting,
    at the rant that I was typing.
    For my eyes were blurred
    by the flash of the cathode beam,
    term'nal screen,
    and all the trolls... on Slashdot.

    And in the fuzzy light I saw
    10,000 zealots, maybe more:
    Zealots karma farming,
    Zealots flaming without thinking.
    Zealots modding posts
    that karma never shared.
    (No one dared,
    disturb the balance... of Slashdot)

    "Fools," said I, "you do not know.
    Honest opinion makes the karma grow.
    They post the rules so that we might read them.
    Meta mod 'cause we don't heed them."
    But my posts
    like trolling karma fell,
    (Oh well...)
    An echo,
    On the threads... of Slashdot.

    Thanks folks, it's been a blast. After a long time under the TM account, I feel it's time I call it quits. The TM account was created and used on a bet that a spamming troll could not survive moderation and last more that a few week, made even harder by having to do it with an account name as silly as Trollmastah.

    I'm ending my trollish run with:

    * +33 Karma (lowest level I hit was around -20)
    * Due to being over +25, I receive the +1 bonus (kind of ironic)
    * A long run at -2 default.(Well deserved)
    * A console initiated permenant tag which keeps default post at -1 regardless of karma. (sort of a select club)
    * About 50/50 percent positive/negative e-mail(Thank you all)
    * Easily over 100 "First Posts!"(Woo Hoo!)

    Even though trolls are generally discouraged, I did find that trolling is a valuable addition to the /. culture and when done without being offensive, vulgar or mean, even trolls can keep positive karma and add not only to the culture of Slashdot, but also to the content.

    I'd like to thank Rob, Jeff and the gang at Andover for providing such a cool forum and for putting up with so much noise, the daily moderators for participating, and also to the trolls, you add the character which makes Slashdot a community.

    Hope you enjoyed the posts,

    Regards,
    TM

  • Forget the good emulation layering contests.

    Now I can open my browser, load a plugin that includes a browser that has a plugin that... Talk about "thinking outside the box"! Now Real wants Netscape as a plug-in.
  • If Microsoft had created a "WinWeb" interface similar to the "WinSock" interface, all these browser wars would have been a non issue. If any program wanted a web widget, it would just call the general API and get back whatever browser was set as the default tool. This is along the lines of how KDE is doing it. Any app can embed a browser and it won't care which browser tool is installed.

  • *crash* (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    person1: Hey! You got media player in my browser!
    person2: Hey! You got browser in my media player!
  • well, the diffs give us *all* the changes that they made to mozilla. So they are equivalent to a 30 meg tarball (and much more informative to read) if you want to know what they changed.

    They are just embedding mozilla by using the standard mozilla embedding API's I think, which would not fall under the viral nature of any license... MPL made them keep their mozilla work public, precisely what it was meant to do. Working on an opensource project shouldn't force you to make anything else you also work on opensource! Nor should using an embedding API specifically designed for outside apps to acess the functionality of the opensource product.
  • continuing in parallel with the above?

    anyone who wants to can use the mozilla code (and API's are provided to make this easier), that's sort of the point...

  • Re:Why we need GPL (Score:4)

    by MarkKomus ( 71304 ) on Wednesday April 26, 2000 @08:07AM (#1109597)
    "If the GPL was in effect, this would require Real to publish the entire source, not just diffs, for the Real product. "

    And if Mozilla was GPL Real would never have used it in their player. This is why we need alternatives to the GPL, I, and many others I'm sure, are quite happy if someone else uses/modifies our code, as long as changes made to the part we write are made public. Real's code is up to them to release if they wish to.

  • I think the NPSL is more like the LGPL, as I understand the LGPL, anyway. You can embed it with commercial apps, but you have to open source any and all changes made to the open sourced components. The Gecko engine was written with the intention that other companies could embed it in their software. The ability to get people to adopt the Gecko engine (and thus, the Gecko engine's style of web design) would be diminished if the license was viral like the GPL.

    Plus, Real wouldn't be stupid enough to accidentally build a large new feature of their product around a piece of code that could potentially make them have to open up all their source without checking the license in detail first. Of course, if they wanted to open source their code...

    ...they would've made a press release about it and lapped up the OSS PR goodness that other companies seem to be riding right now. However, I don't see them open sourcing their streaming video format's codecs, as that would destroy their authoring software business.
  • you're right, they didn't have to make their changes public - but they did anyway. Kudos to them for getting into the spirit of this!
  • What do you think winamp has had for awhile now? :)
  • First Meept!, then the real Mr. Petrified, then Fattime and Lubie, now you?? We'll only have OOG!! Well, OOG and the "I'M GONNA KICK YOUR ASS" guy.. C'ya, we'll certainly miss you..
  • If Trollmastah would contact me (through my website), I'd be happy to put up a "TMH Shrine" on our LUG's page (http://www.dialug.org [dialug.org]). I think he's been one of the brightest spots on /.

    kwsNI
  • Life would be simpler the way you state if (IF) everyone thought like us *nixers did, and like having a bunch of little tools that all mesh together.

    Uhh, those tools are already here. It's called (XP)COM, and it allows application developers to embed a IE/Mozilla web browsing component into their applications.

    Now, if Real includes a full seperate copy of Mozilla with their player, that'd be pretty stupid. They should just 'integrate' the Microsoft way and require that Mozilla/NS6 be preinstalled.

    (The big monolithic applicaiton is already near dead in Windows land. Soon the Unix desktops will be there too, and Mozilla is a key piece.)


    --

  • the upcoming MPEG-4 standard

    Is based on Apple's QuickTime technology last time I checked. Fat chance of seeing QT support on any system other than Mac OS and Windows.

  • Wuzz Dat? I never use it.
  • This is just plain fucking stupid. *Everybody* who runs RealWhatever already has a browser. Why should we need to have the same code occupying space on our hard disks twice? If you want to serve up streams with accompanying HTML then use the damn browser with the RealWhatever plugin, don't give us a new browser plugin to go with the standalone player.

    The idiot who dreamed this up should be fired for gross incompetence as they clearly don't know a thing about software.

    Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
    Thought exists only as an abstraction
  • How Ironic...
  • Could someone please take a moment to clarify the major differences between the GPL and the MPL/NPL licenses under which Mozilla is released? The article states "The modifications we made to the source code are publicly available, in accordance with the terms of the Netscape Public License 1.1." which leads me to understand that they must be pretty close, and the MPL passes the Debian Free Software Guidelines [debian.org] but I'm curious as to what the exact differences might be.

    Afterall, if they're so close, why didn't Netscape just go with the GPL?

    --Cycon

  • Gross, gross, GROSS!

    It's bad enough I have to use their constantly-updating plugins to view/listen to content, but now I'm going to be forced to use their browser? Once upon a time, companies looked to modularity. Plugins were the rage. Consumers had a choice (OK, not MUCH of a choice, but a choice) in browsers. I could see adding functionality to web pages as a good thing. How 'bout a streaming-media slashbox for MP3s, vids, etc? But the first website I hit that REQUIRES the RealPlayer to view the site... I'll post it here to be slashdotted, maybe teach them a lesson.
    Puke.
  • If the GPL was in effect, this would require Real to publish the entire source, not just diffs, for the Real product.
    I don't know if thie MPL has the same requirements, but this is exactly why the GPL is viral.
    Does anyone have information on how the MPL allows the distribution of only the diffs?
    - Serge Wroclawski
  • That's what I'm talking about.

    That's just what I need a browser plug-in for my real player.
    I got enought crap in real player, I don't need any more. I don't use real player much anyways seeing as how the media player is a piece of ....
    but you gotta love that line. I think all my software needs some crack.


    flatrabbit,
    peripheral visionary
  • WTF? Not only do I have to look at the the RN sponsored adverts by using the fscking player, but now the stream provider can spam me?

    Just wait. The little fscker will get into a registry war with IE 5.0 over who is the default browser. I have a hard enough time convincing it to NOT play .mp3 files as is!
  • NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
    This makes me sadder than when Bambi's mom died...

    --
  • correction, MPL did not in any way force them to release anything (it's more BSD-like). But they released their changes. Nice of 'em.
  • On the contrary, I think it is great that Real is using open source for a portion of their commercial product.
    This will be a boon for Mozilla. Now Real has some stake in the Mozilla code base and presumably will dedicate some resources to it. Where would Mozilla be today without the resources dedicated by Netscape/AOL with the intention of using it in their commercial product?
    There is a difference between open source and software at no charge. I'm sure that the mere thought of not being able to make money from software would trigger panic attacks in legions of slashdot readers.
  • Does anyone know what Winamp uses as it's browser plug-in?

  • Not e-mail anymore... (Score:5)

    by Paul Neubauer ( 86753 ) on Wednesday April 26, 2000 @08:15AM (#1109617)
    Once upon a time it was...

    Any program will grow until it can read mail.

    But now it seems...

    Any program will expand until it can browse the web.

    How about one job per program?
  • Life would be simpler the way you state if (IF) everyone thought like us *nixers did, and like having a bunch of little tools that all mesh together. Unfortunately, Joe Dumbass who just bought his Gateway wants it ALL...NOW.

    *shrug* I'm torn, myself. If an app *can* do "it all" and pull it off without becoming too overbearing and complicated, then sure, let me at it. Odds are, no it can't.

    Re: minibrowser in WinAMP. I've seen (heard?) a few sites/stations that use the URL prop. of their stream to show a little logo or whatnot in the minibrowser, actually is kinda neat. Used this way it works great. Try to read slashdot or it fails. It's got a specific purpose.

    Re: backwards compatibility. I dig Flash. Sorry, but I think its a bit ahead of the bandwidth situation, but it rocks. WHEN USED PROPERLY. Overkill is another thing altogether. We saw and said the same thing 5 years ago when BLINK tags, animated gifs, and sound were available in browsers. "Oh my god! The humanity!" Now it's pretty much standard fare. (save for blink thank god.) They're still too much when used badly, and/or in excess....bad design is bad design no matter what.

    Otherwise we'd all still be using gopher and lynx now wouldn't we?

    Real should just stick to making a real media player. Period. What "real media" is is up to them, but they shouldn't be trying to make the next greatest mp3 player/web browser/bsod inducer on the planet. (My $.02)

  • The licenses are more or less the same with the exception that the NPL gives Netscape special rights with respect to modifications of the initial Netscape code (MozillaClasic that is). If you change the code in a existing file then Netscape had additional rights (under the NPL). However if you attribute new code then it falls under the MPL and Netscape does not have special rights

    I believe the initial reasoning was that they wanted to be able to shared code between the client (Navigator/Communicator) and their server products without having to open source their server software as well. However taking into consideration that in the end the client was *almost* completely rewritten I think there should be little or no consequence of the NPL. I maybe wrong of course as there is still 5% of the old NS4/5 code in Mozilla.

    All of these are much better documented in the NPL FAQ at mozilla.org : http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/FAQ.html [mozilla.org]

    From the same FAQ: The main reason they did not choose the GPL is because Netscape (and others) will want to include proprietary code with a finished product (Flash/AIM/cryptographic modules) and under the GPL this was not possible. So the MPL/NPL combines terms from the GPL and the LGPL.

  • I really hope that Mozilla doesn't get the short end of the stick here. I downloaded M15 and it looks real nice. I think it's really promising what they can/will produce. However, if Real.com takes their product and creates a Web+Media browser that does everything, and Microsoft follows suit, where does that leave Mozilla?

    Hopefully not in the dust.

  • All things nice and dandy for Real, but why can't they (and others too!) drop the idea of sending user information to their server. Or at least give people the chance to opt out of it permanently, so nothing except for the things needed for the protocol are sent (ie. link speed and such). I don't care if they send anonymous information, since in the end it isn't anyway.

    What I want is a player for the media format and not a unilateral contract with the company.

    Of course they want to find out what kind of stuff "sells" the most, but can't they do that on the server side? And how do we know that these privacy statements are honoured? Trust-e (or whatever the spelling of the name is) is a joke.

    I understand that the people at RealNetworks are humans just like the rest of us and probably have no conspiratory malicious intentions, but can't we give this nonsense a rest already.

    Small part of the beef:
    What Information We Gather and Track
    To provide a great consumer experience and to operate effectively, RealNetworks' software products occasionally send information to servers at RealNetworks. With the exception of product download, purchase and registration, and RealPlayer Plus/RealJukebox Plus software updates, each of these information exchanges occurs anonymously. This anonymous information is not associated with personally identifiable user information such as name and e-mail unless you have provided consent.

    "Occasionally". Does this mean when exactly?? You can read more about their privacy statement from the "consumer software privacy statement" on their web site.
  • I seem to think that WinAmp has some kind of built in browser also. (I could never get it to work). I never really understood it their either. I guess that this is kind of a me-too thing.

    I don't see the point of this really. I want my plug-in-add-ons to be lean & mean.

    Its kind of like having to run windows just to get access to that IE plug-in.

  • Full Circle (Score:3)

    by DeepDarkSky ( 111382 ) on Wednesday April 26, 2000 @07:55AM (#1109624)
    Indeed, as RealPlayer used to be a plug-in (or had a plug-in version, however you want to say it) for browsers, now mozilla's gonna be integrated as a plug-in for RealPlayer! What they have in mind is actually staggering - by saying that they can treat everything as a stream, and they are creating a player that plays any kind of stream, they are saying, we are aiming to be broader than the web and all the web pages, etc., because the web is really only http, running mostly on port 80 or 443.

    Of course, they could have borrowed a lesson from Winamp [winamp.com], who's had a little browser in their MP3 player for a while. But then, maybe the guys at Winamp (Nullsoft, whatever) should learn from this and incorporate Mozilla into their player.

    They are seeking to turn the tables on the browser with this move. I'm sure if this is greeted warmly by the general public, you can bet they will position it more agressively as a "stream" browser/player, unlike what they said about their intentions were not to create a "browser".

  • Winamp uses whatever the system says is the default browser. Netscape, IE, etc, it could care less. All it does is invoke [browser] whatever.html

Slashdot Top Deals

If you didn't have to work so hard, you'd have more time to be depressed.

Close