Linux Not Supported For Democratic Convention Video

bucketoftruth writes "If you browse to the Democratic Convention website and attempt to check out any of their upcoming streams, you bump into the following limitation: 'We're sorry, but the Democratic Convention video web site isn't compatible with your operating system and/or browser. Please try again on a computer with the following Compatible operating systems: Windows XP SP2, Windows Vista, or a Mac with Tiger (OS 10.4) or Leopard (OS 10.5). Compatible browsers: Internet Explorer (version 6 or later), Firefox (version 2), or, if you are on a Mac, Safari (version 3.1) also works.'"

User agent

I wonder how the website might respond if you spoof the browser's user agent string. Would it function well enough, or is their notice legitimate?

Re:User agent

It requires Silverlight. If you spoof the agent string, it asks you to install both Silverlight and Move Network's media player plug-in.

Furthermore

Biden his VP choice is against net neutrality [gizmodo.com]

I think Obama has lost his mojo.

Re:Furthermore

Obama lost his mojo two months ago [slashdot.org].

Tech Savvy Convention

This Page [demconvention.com] claims:

Building on a commitment to bring more people into the Convention experience than ever before, the Democratic National Convention Committee has taken a comprehensive approach to ensure the 2008 Democratic National Convention will be the most technologically-savvy event of its kind.

Really? If it were the "most technologically-savvy event" wouldn't it at least make an effort to support ALL operating systems, especially the one used mostly by the "technologically-savvy" people. It isn't a difficult feat to use technology which is supported by the three major OSes on the market. This isn't acceptable in this day and age. =/

I'm watching it on xine right now

Here's the direct link to CSPAN's feed

http://play.rbn.com/play.asx?url=cspan/cspan/wmlive/cspan1v.asf&proto=mms?mswmext=.asx [rbn.com]

use this with VLC

http://cnn-cnnlive-2-primary.wm.llnwd.net/cnn_cnnlive_2_primary?MSWMExt=.asf [llnwd.net]

Email Time

Rather than everyone speculating WHY they chose to use such an annoying setup and complaining here, let's just all Email them and let them know we are not happy and why. I did (not that I even WANT to watch the video). Doesn't take long.

Here is the Email address: [e-mail]

Hah!

We're sorry, but the Democratic Convention video web site isn't compatible with your operating system and/or browser.

Phew. That's a relief.

The party is screwed up

I attended a number of conventions within our state and if it is as screwed up everywhere else as it is here, they could actually lose.
They lost my vote when Obama voted for immunity for Telco's.
I was hoping that they were going to be on the forefront of technology issues. They weren't even close. During the computer/technology meeting they spent 45 + minutes during a 2 hour session talking about Short Wave Radio issues.
Finally some other people took over the meeting and it started getting more towards computer and technology issues. but basically a lot of it was hog wash.
They spent a lot of time talking about caps on downloads. They were upset that they couldn't download more than 10 movies during a month.
I'm sorry but I feel there are more pressing issues, like broadband for rural areas, software usage in schools and government, open internet. Just to name a few. They were all more interested in who got elected, not what they were getting elected for.
Later I had someone come talk to me about my blog. He told me there were some things we just shouldn't talk about. He never mentioned my blog, but I think it was more than a coincidence that he came and talked to me the day after I posted the info.
I met some good concerned people there, but the people in charge were totally off the wall and I felt that it was more of a way to pacify the masses, making them have a feeling that they had an input to the party. I left the convention feeling like they were so screwed up that they could actually lose the next election.
And I bet it is going to be a lot closer than they thought.
It's going to be interesting, a large number of Republicans don't want McCain and a large number of Democrats don't want Obama.

Not working on my Mac

Okay, on my Mac it doesn't work in either Firefox or Safari. I have intentionally not installed the Silverlight plugin; but it doesn't tell me I need it! It just says it's not compatible with my browser - and then tells me to use... my current OS and browser.

There's a web developer that's on the ball...

Re:Doesn't matter to me

Quite possible, and the McCain camp is still trying to figure out what Linux is, and if it is a threat to national security.

Re:Doesn't matter to me

They should get a hold of Ted Stevens. He knows alot about computers and networking stuff.

Re:OS Related?

Since invention of flash video we are free from unnecessary plugins and related burden.

Right, because Flash is free software, so it works with every current OS and browser.

Re:OS Related?

Since invention of flash video we are free from unnecessary plugins

Plugins like, oh, I don't know, maybe, FLASH?!

Re:OS Related?

"Since invention of flash video we are free from unnecessary plugins"

*headexplodes*

Re:Priorities

I do not want the Democratic party wasting its money on a partisan Operating System war by supporting a fringe OS that has less than 1% share of the desktop.

Odd.

If it is compatible with the firefox 2 browser, then they have already spent the money on supporting a fringe OS. In fact, it would have taken them MORE effort to give error messages based on OS type as well as browser type like they have than to leave well enough alone.

So in effect, they wasted your money on a partisan operating system war by thinking theres even a difference between the two once its browser compatible. Malice or stupidity, it's still a waste of manpower as that stands right now.

Not exactly a platform (heh) breaking issue, but still rather ignorant of them.

Re:Priorities

Let's be serious here - nobody's spending money to block anything. The DNC didn't build anything themselves, nor should they - they're a political party, not a software shop. They chose a vendor to build out and operate a video infrastructure for the convention, and that vendor happens to have built on Silverlight (that's where incentives and support from MS likely came in, not directly to the DNC). Why the vendor did that, I have no idea.

I'm a pretty big believer that these things should be built on open technologies, not the least of the reasons being that it's GOOD for political parties to have their content built upon and reused (that's much of what fuels political blogs). As such I'm a little miffed that they chose a vendor that didn't support open technologies, but my guess is that someone's list of questions didn't extend past "can you run it on a Mac" (thereby showing that they're not part of the old Windows-only generation, they're part of the new Mac generation). Given the size of the Linux market, I think the use of content question is much bigger than the runs-on-a-particular-OS question.

Re:Priorities

The DNC didn't build anything themselves, nor should they... They chose a vendor....

First, we do agree that they chose this vendor -- so they probably should have gone with a different vendor, right?

Second, whether it's the DNC, some vendor, or Microsoft itself, there was, at some point, someone who made a choice to spend a bit of extra work on "choosing an OS"... which implies that money was spent (somewhere, somehow) to block that OS, instead of letting the site fail (or succeed!) on that OS.

Silverlight does exist for Linux. Perhaps not in a usable form, but it does exist. Because of the user-agent detection here, someone would not only have to get Moonlight working, they'd also have to spoof their user-agent -- which, among other things, tells the DNC that they have no Linux users.

Now, what's the alternative? sakusha was implying that getting Linux support would mean spending extra money, but you've made it very clear -- it would, instead, be about choosing a vendor who's already implemented Linux support (or simply Flash support).

I believe it would be worth it, even if there was some cost. But I don't think there would be.

Re:So what?

It says you have to install Silverlight to see it.

I hate to say it, but Flash has existed, and been a viable option, for long before Silverlight, and it's got a far greater install base. Why'd they choose Silverlight over Flash?

I'm sure there are valid reasons, I'd just like to hear them.

Does silverlight for linux exist?

Short answer: Yes [mono-project.com].

Re:So what?

agreed. This is the exact same setup as the olympics. Gotta hand it to microsoft, when they lock people out from anything other than their own solution, they go all the way.

Re:What's a better option?

There's Flash, Silverlight, QuickTime, RealPlayer, and Windows Media Player to choose from.

I'd suggest h.264 in an mp4 container. Quicktime will play it, Media Player should play it, and Linux (totem/kaffeine/xine/etc) will play it.

Flash is the known quantity -- it works on Linux, just not very well.

But I think pretty much all of the ones you suggested are a better choice than Silverlight, in its current state.

Re:Obama hates linux!

Well, he is the bigger evil. The bigger and the better evil(I mean, he could be the devil's great-great-grandfather).

That's why he gets my vote. Because Obama is a lesser evil and I don't like to vote for lesser.

Flamebait? It's true!

Sheesh, we even had a story about McCain's tech platform [slashdot.org] (once he finally formulated one).

It specifically says that he believes in protecting children from porn and the RIAA's War on Sharing, but NOT 'prescriptive' legislation like Net Neutrality.

Re:And so... ? Many websites don't do Linux

Exactly. Rather than complaining on Slashdot, send the Democratic Convention people an Email at tell THEM you are not happy. I did. Took about 2 minutes to compose a polite and informative message.

Linux/*ix users might be in the minority, but they do tend to be more vocal.... and often it works (to my utter surprise)