Very Computer

by **Doug.** » Fri, 01 Feb 2002 15:32:14

First of all I know that you can get QuickTime working using CodeWeavers
Plugin CrossOver plugin and that is nice and all. The thing is I much
rather have something native that runs in *NIX and particularly in
Linux.Why is it that Apple feels that it is okay to give out free versions
of QuickTIme for WIndows but not for *NIX?? Were is the support that Apple
was suppossed to give back to the Open Source community ? I know that they
have certian projects going on like Darwin and such but I would much rather
have the oppurtunity to buy some of their apps for Linux or download a
Native port of QuickTime then playing around with CodeWeavers stuff while
waiting for certian projects to mature.Hell I can get RealPlayer for
Linux but not QuickTIme ? Something just feels wrong with not being able
to have a native port of QuickTime to me ever since they decided that
they were going to use BSD code and "support" Open Source.

by **Marc Jorda** » Fri, 01 Feb 2002 21:32:34

Quote:> Why is it that Apple feels that it is okay to give out free versions
> of QuickTIme for WIndows but not for *NIX??

I have sent them an email demanding to do. It is a positive
advocacy act. Some may think I am a wintroll based on some of
my posts (I do not believe it anyway), well it's up to them ...

Quote:> Native port of QuickTime then playing around with CodeWeavers stuff while
> waiting for certian projects to mature.Hell I can get RealPlayer for
> Linux but not QuickTIme ?
> Something just feels wrong with not being able
> to have a native port of QuickTime to me ever since they decided that
> they were going to use BSD code and "support" Open Source.

Be careful, since your sentences could be interpreted that Linux can't
perfectly do MOV's and you can be said to be a liar.

by **Sinister Midge** » Sat, 02 Feb 2002 00:18:22

> First of all I know that you can get QuickTime working using CodeWeavers
> Plugin CrossOver plugin and that is nice and all. The thing is I much
> rather have something native that runs in *NIX and particularly in
> Linux.Why is it that Apple feels that it is okay to give out free
> versions of QuickTIme for WIndows but not for *NIX?? Were is the support
> that Apple was suppossed to give back to the Open Source community ? I
> know that they have certian projects going on like Darwin and such but I
> would much rather have the oppurtunity to buy some of their apps for
> Linux or download a Native port of QuickTime then playing around with
> CodeWeavers stuff while waiting for certian projects to mature.Hell I
> can get RealPlayer for Linux but not QuickTIme ? Something just feels
> wrong with not being able to have a native port of QuickTime to me ever
> since they decided that they were going to use BSD code and "support"
> Open Source.

I can't answer all of the questions. I'd say the free Quicktime is more a
quid pro quo over MS giving them cash and putting some nice little virus
detectors/enhancers on the desktop (OE, IE). If linux would do things
like that for them, they might make one for linux.

With OS X we may see one eventually anyway. Maybe not.

--
Intel: where Quality is job number 0.9998782345!

by **Bone** » Sat, 02 Feb 2002 03:14:59

>> Why is it that Apple feels that it is okay to give out free
>> versions of QuickTIme for WIndows but not for *NIX??
> I can't answer all of the questions. I'd say the free Quicktime is more a
> quid pro quo over MS giving them cash and putting some nice little virus
> detectors/enhancers on the desktop (OE, IE).

I believe the problem lies with intellectual property. There is a pervasive
stereotype that the Linux community is made up of hoards of "warez"
distributors just waiting to mass-distribute copyrighted material. Even
though this isn't true, the notion persists because of an ugly secret which
commercial software vendors don't want to become common knowledge:
Commercial software's regular consumers also happen to produce the bulk of
illegally duplicated software. Now, we can't blame the regular customer, can
we? That would be bad business practice, so we'll find a scape-goat! Let's
pick on the open source users, they are an odd bunch, and it's entirely
believable they would be eeeeeeevil h4x0rz.

Anyway, Linux is perfectly capable of playing any common and/or royalty free
digital video format that can be encapsulated in a Quicktime format file.
The problem lies with .MOV files which use Sorenson codecs for the best
possible compression and quality retention (this is debatable). These codecs
are patented/copyrighted, and Apple presumably doesn't want the source code,
getting into the hands of "evil hackers".

--

Bones

The opinions stated here are my own, and do
not necessarily reflect those of my employer.

by **Sinister Midge** » Sat, 02 Feb 2002 08:23:39

>>> feels that it is okay to give out free versions of QuickTIme for
>>> WIndows but not for *NIX??

>> I can't answer all of the questions. I'd say the free Quicktime is more
>> a quid pro quo over MS giving them cash and putting some nice little
>> virus detectors/enhancers on the desktop (OE, IE).

> I believe the problem lies with intellectual property. There is a
> pervasive stereotype that the Linux community is made up of hoards of
> "warez" distributors just waiting to mass-distribute copyrighted
> material. Even though this isn't true, the notion persists because of an
> ugly secret which commercial software vendors don't want to become
> common knowledge: Commercial software's regular consumers also happen to
> produce the bulk of illegally duplicated software. Now, we can't blame
> the regular customer, can we? That would be bad business practice, so
> we'll find a scape-goat! Let's pick on the open source users, they are
> an odd bunch, and it's entirely believable they would be eeeeeeevil
> h4x0rz.

If the program is given away, but the licensing stiuplates various
requirements on use, that summarizes what licensing is all about. SuSE
and Redhat have proprietary tools in their distributions (Redhat usually
only on the boxed sets). The licences on those tools are different than
those with the remainder of the release. There's nothing against that in
the GNU license. If Quicktime were released for linux, the source still
could be a closely held secret.

The fact that licensing prohibits reverse-engineering Quicktime doesn't
prevent that act. I would almost guarantee you that it has been done and
is availabel to a few. What would get them into trouble is making known
and available the source.

Quote:> Anyway, Linux is perfectly capable of playing any common and/or royalty
> free digital video format that can be encapsulated in a Quicktime format
> file. The problem lies with .MOV files which use Sorenson codecs for the
> best possible compression and quality retention (this is debatable).
> These codecs are patented/copyrighted, and Apple presumably doesn't want
> the source code, getting into the hands of "evil hackers".

All the more reason to release a binary. If the tool is available, what's
to gain from trying to crack the product and make it available? Yes,
somebody might want to find ways to improve it, but that's not usually
the realm of the cracker. And the responsible programmer would lobby to
have the source opened up, not just start cracking and trying to improve
it from what was learned.

What you're saying may indeed be the thinking. But, if so, reality should
be explained to Apple. As it stands, cracking what already exists is the
challenge. They could easily remove that.

--
XP: What patch do you want to apply today?

Very Computer

Just wondering but why hasn't Apple put out a native *NIX QuickTime Player ?

Just wondering but why hasn't Apple put out a native *NIX QuickTime Player ?

Just wondering but why hasn't Apple put out a native *NIX QuickTime Player ?

Just wondering but why hasn't Apple put out a native *NIX QuickTime Player ?

Just wondering but why hasn't Apple put out a native *NIX QuickTime Player ?

Just wondering but why hasn't Apple put out a native *NIX QuickTime Player ?