7 ms·

Did you know that you could just grab an old computer slap Ubuntu on it, and get all of those services through only 1 HDMI slot?

nehal3m 3y ago
If you want an inferior experience due to DRM you could absolutely do that. [1] Please don't grease the wheels of the attestation hype train. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/netflix/comments/n8ilcz/4kuhd_on_linux/ https://www.reddit.com/r/netflix/comments/n8ilcz/4kuhd_on_li...
vladvasiliu 3y ago
If you're talking about doing the playback on Ubuntu, you lose the high-definition. I guess it may not be important for you, but I expect someone who sunk a fair amount of change on a high-end TV to care.
- ronsor 3y ago
  At that point, hit the high seas and ditch the nonsense
  - papichulo2023 3y ago
    Even then, last time I checked HDR playback on linux was a very hit-or-miss thing.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Do you mean HDR? High definition video playback works fine on Linux. Very performant even with low end hardware.
  - callalex 3y ago
    The content providers will refuse to serve the video to you without DRM, attestation, HDCP, whatever new crap some MBA came up with to justify a paycheck to some other MBA…
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      Oh, well using linux to use the same services would be pointless of course. I thought the point was to play local media.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - natdempk 3y ago
    A lot of streaming services limit the resolution they provide via DRM restrictions on Linux unfortunately.
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    What is meant is that services explicitly short change Linux users by restricting resolution based on client in a fashion that isn't trivially circumvented by fudging the user agent. For instance a given content may be available in glorious 4K only via an app on a TV, 1080p via a windows or mac machine, and dogshit 720p that actually manages to look worse than old SD on Linux. This is basically true of every service with Youtube TV being the least bad and showing at least reasonable quality. In theory showing lesser quality streams to less locked down platforms is supposed to make piracy harder. In reality popular shows are always available same day anyway. Ultimately if you want creators to get paid and to enjoy the highest quality on Linux you need to both pay for and pirate the content and watch for instance on jellyfin.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      I've heard the others are as you say, but Youtube delivers 4k to me on Linux, in Firefox or mpv.
      - michaelmrose 3y ago
        Youtube has the video service with cats, puppies, howtos, reviews, and conspiracy theories and YoutubeTV which has live TV, as well as movies, and shows. It is the latter which is artificially limited on Linux but LESS so than for instance hulu or Amazon. In case any confusion remains these latter are available at tv.youtube.com with a subscription.
        mcpackieh 3y ago
        Huh, I didn't know this exists. Seems antithetical to the point of youtube to be honest, is this actually popular?
        michaelmrose 3y ago
        It's a cheaper version of a cable package that can be used by up to five google accounts that might not share the same physical household. EG a subscription with multiple premium channels and a good range of channels available in two households could easily be $400-$500 not including internet. YoutubeTV for a similar range of content would be ~$100. The purpose of youtube for most consumers is to consume video content. Much of the professionally produced video content is TV shows and movies which obviously remains popular. This includes by reference content originating from a range of platforms HBO/Showtime/Starz/Paramount/AMC and so forth EG you select HBO and Showtime as part of your package and can view the same content as is on MAX or showtime in the singular unified youtubeTV interface. Kind of a mixture of TIVO and netflix with a better interface.
elabajaba 3y ago
And then be limited to 720p because you don't have the right DRM because Linux.
- arbitrage 3y ago
  I mean, blame is probably better assigned "because capitalism", not "because Linux".
- ndiddy 3y ago
  That's assuming you get the content through the services themselves rather than through other means.
  - CuriouslyC 3y ago
    This right here. You're anti-consumer? Enjoy losing money with your content "monopoly"
    - speedgoose 3y ago
      I also enjoy spending time on shady websites with scams ads and virus. That will teach Netflix and Apple.
      - thefurdrake 3y ago
        I don't spend any time on shady websites with scams, ads, and viruses, and I surf the high seas for video content with regularity. It's very easy to do safely, and in this day and age, it beggars belief that this comment was made in good faith. Stop spreading misinformation.
        ygjb 3y ago
        It's not really misinformation though. Most vuln researchers aren't burning browser 0-days targetting pirates, but many piracy sites host malicious content, even if that content isn't looking to deliver malware through browser vulnerabilities. There is a significant segment of the internet that thrives in the gutters between paid services, straight up piracy sites, and actual "dark web" sites that require TOR or other specialized access. The restreamers that live in those gutters are questionable at best, straight up illegal at worst, and fund themselves through fraudulent ads, or legit ads for sketchy or dangerous services and sites. It is entirely possible to use those sites safely, just like it's also possible to navigate dark alleys in major urban centres in the late hours, but that doesn't make it a low-risk activity.
andrewmackrodt 3y ago
I don't have (all of) those services but they're not like for like comparable for any services using Widevine, e.g. Amazon, Netflix and Disney. A Linux install will give you access to L3 content using the browser (usually limited to 720p but you can get a 1080p stream out of Netflix using a browser extension). I think the poster was having a bit of a joke though.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  I'm really surprised that no one has bothered (or managed) to create an open-source TEE emulator. I mean, there's a ton of different ARM CPUs around there, and it's all ARM under the hood, so it should be possible to create a virtual TEE/TPM and provide it transparently to a VM?
  - IntelMiner 3y ago
    It's not that it can't be done, just that it's an arms race of reverse engineering to try and keep it working against a motivated and financed adversary
  - vladvasiliu 3y ago
    What I'm more surprised, is that since most of the decoding and stuff is done on the GPU anyways, and the GPU has to be HDCP compliant, why can't they just directly send the stream to the GPU as is, tell it where to display it, and be done with it.
    - gjsman-1000 3y ago
      Well, then you couldn't have a play button, or pause button, or video text over the top of the video; unless there was some way of turning the GPU into a hardware-level compositor... which is generally not recognized as a good idea.
      - vladvasiliu 3y ago
        > unless there was some way of turning the GPU into a hardware-level compositor... which is generally not recognized as a good idea I admit this isn't a domain I'm particularly fluent in. As a matter of fact, I thought that was already the case with all the talk about "GPU acceleration" of desktops. I think there was an HN post about Windows a few days ago, with people commenting on how all this changed between Windows 95 and 8/10.

nehal3m 3y ago

If you want an inferior experience due to DRM you could absolutely do that. [1] Please don't grease the wheels of the attestation hype train. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/netflix/comments/n8ilcz/4kuhd_on_linux/ https://www.reddit.com/r/netflix/comments/n8ilcz/4kuhd_on_li...

vladvasiliu 3y ago

If you're talking about doing the playback on Ubuntu, you lose the high-definition. I guess it may not be important for you, but I expect someone who sunk a fair amount of change on a high-end TV to care.

ronsor 3y ago
At that point, hit the high seas and ditch the nonsense
- papichulo2023 3y ago
  Even then, last time I checked HDR playback on linux was a very hit-or-miss thing.
mcpackieh 3y ago
Do you mean HDR? High definition video playback works fine on Linux. Very performant even with low end hardware.
- callalex 3y ago
  The content providers will refuse to serve the video to you without DRM, attestation, HDCP, whatever new crap some MBA came up with to justify a paycheck to some other MBA…
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    Oh, well using linux to use the same services would be pointless of course. I thought the point was to play local media.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- natdempk 3y ago
  A lot of streaming services limit the resolution they provide via DRM restrictions on Linux unfortunately.
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  What is meant is that services explicitly short change Linux users by restricting resolution based on client in a fashion that isn't trivially circumvented by fudging the user agent. For instance a given content may be available in glorious 4K only via an app on a TV, 1080p via a windows or mac machine, and dogshit 720p that actually manages to look worse than old SD on Linux. This is basically true of every service with Youtube TV being the least bad and showing at least reasonable quality. In theory showing lesser quality streams to less locked down platforms is supposed to make piracy harder. In reality popular shows are always available same day anyway. Ultimately if you want creators to get paid and to enjoy the highest quality on Linux you need to both pay for and pirate the content and watch for instance on jellyfin.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    I've heard the others are as you say, but Youtube delivers 4k to me on Linux, in Firefox or mpv.
    - michaelmrose 3y ago
      Youtube has the video service with cats, puppies, howtos, reviews, and conspiracy theories and YoutubeTV which has live TV, as well as movies, and shows. It is the latter which is artificially limited on Linux but LESS so than for instance hulu or Amazon. In case any confusion remains these latter are available at tv.youtube.com with a subscription.
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        Huh, I didn't know this exists. Seems antithetical to the point of youtube to be honest, is this actually popular?
        michaelmrose 3y ago
        It's a cheaper version of a cable package that can be used by up to five google accounts that might not share the same physical household. EG a subscription with multiple premium channels and a good range of channels available in two households could easily be $400-$500 not including internet. YoutubeTV for a similar range of content would be ~$100. The purpose of youtube for most consumers is to consume video content. Much of the professionally produced video content is TV shows and movies which obviously remains popular. This includes by reference content originating from a range of platforms HBO/Showtime/Starz/Paramount/AMC and so forth EG you select HBO and Showtime as part of your package and can view the same content as is on MAX or showtime in the singular unified youtubeTV interface. Kind of a mixture of TIVO and netflix with a better interface.

elabajaba 3y ago

And then be limited to 720p because you don't have the right DRM because Linux.

arbitrage 3y ago
I mean, blame is probably better assigned "because capitalism", not "because Linux".
ndiddy 3y ago
That's assuming you get the content through the services themselves rather than through other means.
- CuriouslyC 3y ago
  This right here. You're anti-consumer? Enjoy losing money with your content "monopoly"
  - speedgoose 3y ago
    I also enjoy spending time on shady websites with scams ads and virus. That will teach Netflix and Apple.
    - thefurdrake 3y ago
      I don't spend any time on shady websites with scams, ads, and viruses, and I surf the high seas for video content with regularity. It's very easy to do safely, and in this day and age, it beggars belief that this comment was made in good faith. Stop spreading misinformation.
      - ygjb 3y ago
        It's not really misinformation though. Most vuln researchers aren't burning browser 0-days targetting pirates, but many piracy sites host malicious content, even if that content isn't looking to deliver malware through browser vulnerabilities. There is a significant segment of the internet that thrives in the gutters between paid services, straight up piracy sites, and actual "dark web" sites that require TOR or other specialized access. The restreamers that live in those gutters are questionable at best, straight up illegal at worst, and fund themselves through fraudulent ads, or legit ads for sketchy or dangerous services and sites. It is entirely possible to use those sites safely, just like it's also possible to navigate dark alleys in major urban centres in the late hours, but that doesn't make it a low-risk activity.

andrewmackrodt 3y ago

I don't have (all of) those services but they're not like for like comparable for any services using Widevine, e.g. Amazon, Netflix and Disney. A Linux install will give you access to L3 content using the browser (usually limited to 720p but you can get a 1080p stream out of Netflix using a browser extension). I think the poster was having a bit of a joke though.

mschuster91 3y ago
I'm really surprised that no one has bothered (or managed) to create an open-source TEE emulator. I mean, there's a ton of different ARM CPUs around there, and it's all ARM under the hood, so it should be possible to create a virtual TEE/TPM and provide it transparently to a VM?
- IntelMiner 3y ago
  It's not that it can't be done, just that it's an arms race of reverse engineering to try and keep it working against a motivated and financed adversary
- vladvasiliu 3y ago
  What I'm more surprised, is that since most of the decoding and stuff is done on the GPU anyways, and the GPU has to be HDCP compliant, why can't they just directly send the stream to the GPU as is, tell it where to display it, and be done with it.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    Well, then you couldn't have a play button, or pause button, or video text over the top of the video; unless there was some way of turning the GPU into a hardware-level compositor... which is generally not recognized as a good idea.
    - vladvasiliu 3y ago
      > unless there was some way of turning the GPU into a hardware-level compositor... which is generally not recognized as a good idea I admit this isn't a domain I'm particularly fluent in. As a matter of fact, I thought that was already the case with all the talk about "GPU acceleration" of desktops. I think there was an HN post about Windows a few days ago, with people commenting on how all this changed between Windows 95 and 8/10.