7 ms·

Exactly. Associating "Netflix" with "opensource" is kind of ironic considering they still haven't been able to deliver any workable streaming solution for the f

Exactly. Associating "Netflix" with "opensource" is kind of ironic considering they still haven't been able to deliver any workable streaming solution for the free OS.

mapleoin 14y ago
What does the free OS mean?
- lhnz 14y ago
  The free operating systems?
- evinugur 14y ago
  Netflix only functions on desktop operating systems with Silverlight, a Microsoft plugin for some browsers that only is supported on modern OS X versions and Windows. Additionally, there is a native Android and iOS version. People who want to watch it on Linux, are forced to something extremely impractical like emulate Android - it is a closed system.
  - jedberg 14y ago
    This proposal is really important to cross platform vendor agnostic support: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-medi...
- aquayellow 14y ago
  Sorry for being melodramatic. I meant Linux :D. And evinugur has listed exactly what my problem with Netflix is.
anu_gupta 14y ago
I'm streaming Netflix on my Android tablet. Not quite sure what you mean.
- etcet 14y ago
  I think they're talking about GNU/Linux.
  - azinman2 14y ago
    Ironically that's what Android is built on.
m0th87 14y ago
Doesn't seem at all ironic. Linux doesn't have a monopoly on open source, and they have no obligation to open source their software nor provide a steaming experience for Linux.
- donniezazen 14y ago
  Oh yeah Apple and Windows have monopoly over open source. Way to go Apple and Windows. BTW Netflix does have obligations to their paying members.
  - saryant 14y ago
    Yes, Netflix has an obligation. An obligation to provide what they say they'll provide and nothing more. Netflix has always said they have no plans to support Linux. It may suck for Linux users but they're being honest about it. I think it's a big stretch to imply that they have an obligation to support such users.
    - donniezazen 14y ago
      Of course, obligation in moral sense and not legal-boundation sense.
totallymike 14y ago
Unfortunately their hands are tied on this one. The DRM is a part of their licensing agreement with their content providers. I'm sure if they could move off Silverlight for their desktop streaming platform, they would in a heartbeat. Interestingly enough, they use FreeBSD for their servers.
- angryasian 14y ago
  was there any reason other that what I'm assuming are MS incentives that they even chose silverlight over flash
TallGuyShort 14y ago
Saying Netflix can't be associated with open source because they don't have a Linux client is very close-minded. Netflix sent an engineer to a recent BSD conference to talk about some of the custom caching servers they use in their CDN. He went into detail about how they designed the system and what they learnt. They've published a huge amount of information about how they've built on top of AWS. What about these actions indicates that they're not dedicated to open-source? Probably the only reason they haven't been quicker to develop for Linux is the same agreements that allow them to carry so much content - the developers have been quite clear that they would love to have a Linux client.
- aquayellow 14y ago
  Not everyone who advocates opensource is a developer. I am an end user of Netflix. I would like to see Netflix run on my Linux laptop and I don't care if Netflix talks about the underlying architecture in open source conferences (M$ does that too) or how they use opensource for their infrastructure. The only reason they don't support Linux is because they know it's a small user base. If they really want they can come up with a solution just like they did for Android (and ChromeOS too I guess ?) Even if I do agree with your reasoning about the inverse relation between content and Linux, why haven't they yet come up with something that provides altleast limited access to their content for Linux users ?
  - TallGuyShort 14y ago
    Because it's still not worth it. I find it inconvenient too, so I'm not disagreeing with you that it would be great, but I disagree with the attitude I've seen in several comments that this Netflix isn't being open here. They've released everything they feasibly can. They're under no obligation to develop a client for the operating system you and I happen to use. edit: I just noticed you did acknowledge the small user base. So, that being the case, are you actually arguing that some executive at Netlifx is like, "Nah - screw open source - we totally have the spare resources to develop a Linux client that will have a negligible return on investment, but they can suck it?" If it's not worth it, they won't do it. It's like accusing Linus Torvalds of not being open because he hasn't yet supported your feature-of-choice from some other OS.
drone 14y ago
Delivering a software solution for linux does not make one a contributor to opensource. Open-sourcing technology does. One could make nothing but software for Windows, or OSX, or OS2 for chrissakes, and still be a contributor to open-source by contributing the source of their code. The point is in giving, not whether or not you care to receive.

Exactly. Associating "Netflix" with "opensource" is kind of ironic considering they still haven't been able to deliver any workable streaming solution for the free OS.

mapleoin 14y ago

What does the free OS mean?

lhnz 14y ago
The free operating systems?
evinugur 14y ago
Netflix only functions on desktop operating systems with Silverlight, a Microsoft plugin for some browsers that only is supported on modern OS X versions and Windows. Additionally, there is a native Android and iOS version. People who want to watch it on Linux, are forced to something extremely impractical like emulate Android - it is a closed system.
- jedberg 14y ago
  This proposal is really important to cross platform vendor agnostic support: http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-medi...
aquayellow 14y ago
Sorry for being melodramatic. I meant Linux :D. And evinugur has listed exactly what my problem with Netflix is.

anu_gupta 14y ago

I'm streaming Netflix on my Android tablet. Not quite sure what you mean.

etcet 14y ago
I think they're talking about GNU/Linux.
- azinman2 14y ago
  Ironically that's what Android is built on.

m0th87 14y ago

Doesn't seem at all ironic. Linux doesn't have a monopoly on open source, and they have no obligation to open source their software nor provide a steaming experience for Linux.

donniezazen 14y ago
Oh yeah Apple and Windows have monopoly over open source. Way to go Apple and Windows. BTW Netflix does have obligations to their paying members.
- saryant 14y ago
  Yes, Netflix has an obligation. An obligation to provide what they say they'll provide and nothing more. Netflix has always said they have no plans to support Linux. It may suck for Linux users but they're being honest about it. I think it's a big stretch to imply that they have an obligation to support such users.
  - donniezazen 14y ago
    Of course, obligation in moral sense and not legal-boundation sense.

totallymike 14y ago

Unfortunately their hands are tied on this one. The DRM is a part of their licensing agreement with their content providers. I'm sure if they could move off Silverlight for their desktop streaming platform, they would in a heartbeat. Interestingly enough, they use FreeBSD for their servers.

angryasian 14y ago
was there any reason other that what I'm assuming are MS incentives that they even chose silverlight over flash

TallGuyShort 14y ago

Saying Netflix can't be associated with open source because they don't have a Linux client is very close-minded. Netflix sent an engineer to a recent BSD conference to talk about some of the custom caching servers they use in their CDN. He went into detail about how they designed the system and what they learnt. They've published a huge amount of information about how they've built on top of AWS. What about these actions indicates that they're not dedicated to open-source? Probably the only reason they haven't been quicker to develop for Linux is the same agreements that allow them to carry so much content - the developers have been quite clear that they would love to have a Linux client.

aquayellow 14y ago
Not everyone who advocates opensource is a developer. I am an end user of Netflix. I would like to see Netflix run on my Linux laptop and I don't care if Netflix talks about the underlying architecture in open source conferences (M$ does that too) or how they use opensource for their infrastructure. The only reason they don't support Linux is because they know it's a small user base. If they really want they can come up with a solution just like they did for Android (and ChromeOS too I guess ?) Even if I do agree with your reasoning about the inverse relation between content and Linux, why haven't they yet come up with something that provides altleast limited access to their content for Linux users ?
- TallGuyShort 14y ago
  Because it's still not worth it. I find it inconvenient too, so I'm not disagreeing with you that it would be great, but I disagree with the attitude I've seen in several comments that this Netflix isn't being open here. They've released everything they feasibly can. They're under no obligation to develop a client for the operating system you and I happen to use. edit: I just noticed you did acknowledge the small user base. So, that being the case, are you actually arguing that some executive at Netlifx is like, "Nah - screw open source - we totally have the spare resources to develop a Linux client that will have a negligible return on investment, but they can suck it?" If it's not worth it, they won't do it. It's like accusing Linus Torvalds of not being open because he hasn't yet supported your feature-of-choice from some other OS.

drone 14y ago

Delivering a software solution for linux does not make one a contributor to opensource. Open-sourcing technology does. One could make nothing but software for Windows, or OSX, or OS2 for chrissakes, and still be a contributor to open-source by contributing the source of their code. The point is in giving, not whether or not you care to receive.