Yahoo Keeps Offering Real; Fox Now Allows Linux 135
Jason Shindler writes "Looks like Yahoo! is back on the "real" bandwagon -- they will continue offering Real as an option to broadcast.com customers. Slashdot earlier reported that they were switching exclusively to Windows Media Player (yuck!)" Internetnews.com story here. Another quick followup: Fox got lambasted here on Slashdot earlier this month for denying www.fox.com access to people who don't use Windows or Mac operating systems. Later they apologized and said they'd fix the problem. They have kept their word. Thanks, Fox people!
Interesting Read (Score:1)
Another victory for the masses! (Score:2)
It's nice to see that The Big Guys(TM) do listen to the community once in a while.
May other corporations follow this precedent!
Huzzah! (Score:1)
First post??
Re:Huzzah! (Score:1)
The Fox page (Score:3)
One more problem. I usually leave javascript off to avoid popups, which I hate. No javascript == blank page.
I just checked in Lynx and got the same thing.
Yet again, many blind and low bandwith are locked out of a site.
I hate "web designers."
Wow, I'll still be able to send my info to Real N. (Score:1)
of Real Networks crap off of my computer
since they like to scan my mp3's and
track other info of mine and steathly
send it to them.
Plus their software crashes all the time
and I'm tired of seeing ad's when I run
the player.
Re:Windows NT (Score:1)
Is bundling Netshow free with NT Server (which costs more than NT workstation because its license allows you to 'serve') tantamount to forcing users to buy Netshow even if they would rather buy RealServer?
This sounds too much like Micros~1's arguments for using IIS. IMHO this is the most blatant anti-competitiveness of M$, and yet, so few people outside the technical circles even think about it.
Payment in kind (Score:2)
Now, let's all behave like the grownups we are: everyone who sent them an harrassing email after the "fox hates linux" story, send them a very nice email now thanking them for considering our suggestions.
;)
Re:The Fox page (Score:2)
Of course, if they don't, we ought to let them know Slashdot en masse fashion. I'll be setting a cron entry for the middle of January to check their progress. I suggest several of us do it; We can't make the 'net bearable again without a little work..
Re:Payment in kind (Score:2)
1) Fox Network main phone = 310-369-1000
2) News Corp. (parent company) = 212-852-7017
3) e-mail publicity@foxinc.com
4) e-mail askfox@foxinc.com
Platforms (Score:1)
QT4 is great, just no content.
Work together for the Common Geek Good:
Re:Windows NT (Score:1)
Embrace, extend, eradicate. Clone, bundle, annihilate.
In Microsoft's defense, Media Player appears to do a better job than Real most of the time. If they weren't 'bundling' the server software, I'd say they'd get a fair bit of the action anyway, not only from brand-name syndrome.
Fox should support all browsers. Hit this link! (Score:1)
Re:The Fox page (Score:1)
Quickie (Score:1)
Linux CANT be ignored (Score:1)
This is just one of many signals that linux is
being accepted into the mainstream, EVEN if its
by force. It supposedly has a larged market share
than Mac, but alot of people still dont know anything about it. This is obviously changing.
We've reached critical mass people! Time to let everyone know Linux is HERE and CANT BE ignored.
This will mean simul. releases for linux and other OSes of software and hardware, and more and more support.
About time.
Math
American Civil Disabilities Act (Score:1)
Don't sound so fanatical about Linux! (Score:4)
No longer can people who obviously dont know a thing about linux or have ignored it because it seemed unimportant at the time (fox webdesigners, ahem) continue to IGNORE linux.
Fox.com never ignored Linux - right from the start they wanted to make their site accessible by every browser and every platform - they simply needed time to get to that stage (at least that's what it says in the article).
This is just one of many signals that linux is being accepted into the mainstream, EVEN if its by force.
No it isn't - as Fox said, they wanted accessibility by everyone. Linux supporters had zero impact on fox's decision since they were already going to support Linux in the first place. Nobody forced anyone to do anything.
The reason I'm having a go at you (in a friendly way ;) is that while it is great that you are an avid Linux supporter, you sound like one with a big inferiority complex.
Relax, Linux is destined to take it's place amongst the big guns of the OS marketplace - you don't do the Linux camp any favours by sounding fanatical.
Cheers.
Re:Why is Media Player bad? (Score:2)
I've noticed a lot of places that offered RealAudio streaming now converted to Windows Media Player (i.e. a local radio station), which means that I wouldn't be able to listen to it unless I use Windows (or Mac, if they do have such a port -- note they have money invested into Apple). That's why it's wrong. Plus, RealPlayer works well under NATs, which WMP could hardly stream @28.8Kbps on Cable.
I haven't seen anything about MPEG-4, but nevertheless it's an open standard and will most likely have an open source library with support for it, if there isn't one already. Lastly, the Windows Media Player Features [microsoft.com] page doesn't mention anything about MPEG-4, either.
Re:Don't sound so fanatical about Linux! (Score:2)
Post more often! Hopefully it will raise the collective IQ back up into the triple-digits!
shite vs. shite? (Score:2)
Wonderful.
As long as I've got a MS OS on any of my computers, I'll use their product. I will never let RealAnything near one of my systems again, now that they've proven to be a bunch of thieving criminals.
Anyone want to write a good, robust, multi-platform streaming audio player? I'd pay money (yes, cash!) for that.
real issue comes down to site design principles (Score:5)
If the site doesn't work under lynx, there's a problem. The main page should at least properly autodetect browser type or offer different content options.
Better yet, don't use features that would require a particular browser version, or at least don't use feature that only work in the latest verison on $BROWSER with latest version of $PLUGIN
There's going to be significantly less flash, flair, and graphics on sites in the upcoming future to support mobile users using WAP on PDAs to access the internet wirelessly over low speed connections and displaying on small screens.
Render your non-portable html on that!
Conspiracy theory (Score:2)
1) Block Linux users, calling them "garbage".
2) Tell Slashdot you've done this.
3) Give the Slashdot readers time to stew.
4) Stop blocking Linux users.
5) Let Slashdot know of the change.
Wow! Look at all those hits!
Re:Windows NT (Score:1)
--
Using Us (Score:1)
Now it turn out that it was a Hoax designed to help yahoo reduce costs. I am so very sorry for yahoo and there high costs (HA!) but I am getting really mad they they played around with loyal listers to solve there problum. Stressing out loyal listers is not the way to solve problums. Yahoo could have solved this problum a number of way, with this being the worst.
Personaly, I hope WFMU gets a differnt stream like they were planning on when this whole "problum" broke out. I don't like dealing with anyone who throws around the "consumer" when dealing with B to B problums. Becides, if yahoo really wanted to decrese costs *and* get more listeners, they only need to switch to the FREE streaming mp3 format.
Sorry for the rant and bad spelling. It happens.
Re:Platforms (Score:1)
grrr, that was just javascript code (Score:2)
Yuck? (Score:2)
Re:Stop complaining (Score:1)
Get it?
Free clue for you (Score:2)
Whether or not you agree with the Department of Justice, their accusations only pertain to desktop computing, not servers. There's absolutely no way that anyone could accuse Microsoft of having a server monopoly.
The hypocrisy around here about Microsoft's bundling things with NT/2000 Server is pretty astounding. One minute, Slashdotters are telling us that NT Server is a horrible value. The next minute, they bitch whenever Microsoft adds something to increase the value of NT Server. Make up your minds, please.
Just as Sun can decide to add anything they want to their operating systems, so can Microsoft with NT/2000 Server. If they want, they can make it so that it has zero compatibility with any Unix out there. If the customer or developer decides they don't like it, they can pick a different OS to use or develop for. In case anyone hasn't noticed, Microsoft has a pretty good track record of getting people to choose theirs.
Ya know, for telling everyone that GNU/Linux is going to dominate the world, an awful lot of you sure seem concerned whenever Microsoft gives away something to its customers. I guess only the holy apostles of the GNU movement are supposed to ever get anything for free.
Stop the presses and call in the DoJ!!
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail
Re:Stop complaining (Score:1)
fox.com (Score:1)
Re:real issue comes down to site design principles (Score:2)
Settle down, Beavis (Score:1)
As of the end of September, Linux accounted for 0.22% of all web users worldwide. (Source: Statmarket [applelinks.com], 1999/09/29).
FOX wanted everyone to be able to view their site -- Linux users just happened to be part of "everyone." This has absolutely zilch to do with that silly critical mass thing you're talking about.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
FAFSA the same? (Score:1)
WFMU site has a clue (Score:1)
WFMU may not be big enough to have clout, but sooner or later the content producers are going to get wise to how the folks at Yahoo! and RBN and Broadcast etc. use the format wars to jerk them around as well... With any luck, this will result in a universal client and a quality open source server than can play to it... Then, and only then, will streaming media have the universality necessary to break out bigtime.
Re:Windows NT (Score:1)
Basically, people just don't like QuickTime. Most people are fairly neutral about Real Player and Windows Media Player, but I've yet to meet one single non-Mac user who actually likes using QuickTime. In fact, the most common reaction is a strong dislike for it. Unless QTSS can serve up ASFs or RA files (I'm guessing that it can't, is that correct?), I don't think it has much chance.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
How about britannica.com? They suck too! (Score:2)
They too are sucking very badly, ie:
"To experience Britannica.com, you'll need a more recent version (version 4.0 or higher) of your Web browser."
And the code they use:
What *INSANE* person wrote this? Basically it says that whatever browser you have, if it reports version two or three, then it's not good enough! I'm running Opera and it works just fine, when one disables scripting or hack the executable to present itself as version '4'.
Another way around this is to query their database 'directly', something like this:
<form method="get" action="http://search.britannica.com/bcom/search/r esults/1,5843,,00.html" name="BasicSearch" onsubmit="return submitBasicSearch()"> <input type="hidden" name="chooseSearch" value="0"></input> Encyclopæda Britannica: <input type="text" name="p_query0" size="35"></input> <input type=submit value="Find"></input> </form>
Am I missing something? (Score:2)
--
Ahhh (Score:1)
Re:How about britannica.com? They suck too! (Score:2)
Re:real issue comes down to site design principles (Score:3)
In actual numbers, I'll bet that there are more Internet Explorer-using Croatians than the entire web-browsing Linux community. If some question that assumption, pick Italians instead. Hell, pick the Chinese or even the Finnish. The same ratio probably applies. It seems to me rather pathetic that we whine when the trivial content of a single website is inaccessible to a tiny fraction of the web-browsing world, and yet we don't even consider it worth our notice that millions of users can't access the content of the majority of arguably more important sites.
We can't design for everybody, and I don't believe that we should try. We should design for the majority, yes, but it is obstinate to insist that we should design for all. If that is part of your credo, bless you, but don't expect everyone to share your religion.
Slashdot uses JavaScript, which means that it isn't accessible to everyone, but I don't think many of us rue the extra capabilities that this provides. As for as the aesthetics versus functionality argument, I think that both can be achieved. When the two behemoths in the browser war are entirely CSS and XML compliant, then that dual nature should be easy, or at least much-simplified.
One final point: I'm seen very few websites with essential or non-duplicable information. If people really don't like the "flashy" extensions, stop visiting the sites that use them. When the numbers drop, so will the extensions. However, personally, given the choice between an aesthetically-pleasing site which provides the same information as a dull or unimaginatively presented site, I'll choose the former every time. I'm not talking about the garish, how-many-fonts-can-I-fit-on-one-page, midi-music playing, banner-scrolling, dark blue letters on black background travesty. And, yes, I know that one person's aesthetic dream is another's design nightmare. Still, I believe that reasonable compromises can be reached, and will satisfy a far larger audience.
Time to dismount from your Lynx high-horse (Score:3)
That was before I realised I was trapped in the past. In the past, the HTML was just a markup language and the Internet merely a big library of text documents ... sorry, documents with hyperlinks.
Most things evolve over time and that is what has happened with the Internet. Sure, non-graphical browser compatible pages have a place, but for entertainment sites (that is the business fox is in), plain non-graphic sites are about as entertaining as ... well ... as plain text documents.
So if a site doesn't render properly in a text browser - who cares?!? Times have moved on - the Internet isn't about text anymore, it is about entertainment, aesthetics, convenience and ease of use. To the common person, text is (for the most part) the exact opposite of these values.
I also disagree with your point about WAP on PDA's. They will be no less flash or flair when WAP takes off (and it will take off). I predict that most sites will optimise certain sections of their sites for WAP and leave the rest with all the gee-wiz graphic/Javascript stuff.
For example, a movie site will have a sections which contains the movie sessions times and is optimised for WAP. The rest of the site with movie trailers, reviews etc. will be the same as it is now.
Let's take a reality check: If I wanted to watch Seinfeld, I wouldn't choose to watch it on a small portable handheld TV if I could watch it on a 20" TV. Similary, most people would prefer to surf the Net on a computer/TV screen rather than a 3" by 4" Palm V screen - people will choose the most appropriate tool for the application.
Anyway, to get to the end of my long-winded spiel, my point is that to design a purely 'flash and flair' site is no crime. It is simply catering to what the markets wants and making use of the technology in it's current evolved state.
Those that complain that sites should be viewable in a text browser all the time simply show that they haven't understood the transformation that the Internet has undergone since it first went 'public' (and I mean that in the nicest possible way :)!
Cheers.
If Broadcast.com has dropped Real format.... (Score:2)
If Yahoo! Broadcast.com had dropped RealPlayer support, that could have been a deadly blow against Real. That's because by far, it is the most popular site for streaming media on the Internet, and losing the support of Broadcast.com would have dramatically reduced the demand for Real's products.
Why do I have this feeling that RealNetworks cut a very sweetheart deal for streaming media servers that supports the Real G2 format?
Speaking of compatible web design... (Score:1)
Re:How about britannica.com? They suck too! (Score:1)
Maybe something need to be done to reach the people who are teaching this nonsense.
Re:real issue comes down to site design principles (Score:1)
Slashdot uses JavaScript, but it doesn't REQUIRE it. Actually, it renders quite fine on Lynx (I use it from time to time).
The problem here is reaching what UI people call "graceful degradation". Ok, so the page won't have all the spiffy features on Lynx/Palm/Other resource-starved environment, but the basic info should be available.
I've done it at my job, and it's not that hard. Checking the User-Agent and customizing the content to it (or actually, major families, as Text-only/Old browser/Modern browser) is something every major site should do.
Re:Why is Media Player bad? (Score:2)
"I was working at my box [127.0.0.1] and listening to CNN [cnn.com]. A subordinate clause spoken there [cnn.com] indicated that Microsoft intends to push Windows Media Player over mp3 because of the copyright protections it affords. I tried to find a press release on microsoft.com [microsoft.com], but found very little [microsoft.com]. What I did find were claims [microsoft.com] to compression superiority over mp3 and general references to pay-per-view media formats [microsoft.com] and the like [microsoft.com]. The compressi on stats [microsoft.com] were based on conversions of WAV's and PCM's to both formats with Microsoft claiming 50% greater compression at the same quality level. The pay-per-view idea reminds me of RMS [gnu.org]'s 'Right to Read' [gnu.org] essay. Regardless of what happens with Yahoo! and Real Networks [slashdot.org], if an open source competitor doesn't appear, this [cnet.com] could threaten the viability of free software in the desktop market."
When I cut, pasted and previewed just now, I found errors in what was displayed. Such as the failure to acknowledge the closing tag at 'claims'. I kluged it for this post. There was also a stray caret-M which MS uses for EOL. I wonder why we haven't seen recent sources for slashdot.
Re:Time to dismount from your Lynx high-horse (Score:2)
Having just spent a few minutes browsing around the now accessible fox.com, I'm glad they decided to let users of non-monopoly platforms in, but find the site woefully lacking in information that's worth reading. Certainly not anything I want to wade through 10 minutes of frame-ridden, bandwidth hogging animations to get to.
If I want to read about The X Files, there are dozens of fan sites with better information delivered in a more efficient manner. Image galleries, episode summaries, audio and video clips, cast and crew bios, and guess what? Users aren't required to traverse through piles of junk to get to it.
Javascript is fine in limited doses, when used well, but the glut of it at sites such as fox.com makes me want to leave and never come back.
I suspect the real reason Fox continues to harrass their biggest supporters [ign.com] is that they are jealous of fan sites getting more traffic than they do. Maybe instead of trying to suppress people, they should look at why amateurs are more popular than they are, and try to learn something from it. Don't put down others; improve yourself! They'd be better off if they did.
Well, at least their web designers are trying, and I can't fault them for that. Their lawyers, on the other hand... grrr.
Remember to say "thanks"... (Score:1)
Not quite.... (Score:1)
I checked the page source, found the URL it was supposed to have sent me to, and entered it by hand. It gave me the page, and opened yet another window for the site's navigation bar. Then the main window puked: Not Found. Apparently the Nav Ticker calls on some command URL: http://www.fox.com/uni_nav/FSComman d:check_time [fox.com] that gives the retrieval error. I'm not up on Javascript. Anybody know what this is supposed to be doing?
For the record, I'm using Netscape 4.61 on a Mandrake 6.1 installation.
The internet != The web (Score:2)
Of course there was a huge text focus, think Usenet, but it has not been strictly text for a very long time.
Regards,
Ben
Comment removed (Score:3)
Netscape crashes on me (Score:1)
Re:Forgot something? Actually I didn't. (Score:2)
I never said that all text should be removed from a web page - I was merely commenting that the argument that web pages should be just as accessible for text browsers is bunk.
A balance is needed in everything and a site purely composed of "Macromedia crap" as you put would indeed be just that ... crap.
But just like a blind person may listen to the TV and glean some information from the shows, they still miss the whole experience. Yet no-one complains that all TV shows should be fully 'backward' compatible so that blind people don't miss out.
And you are wrong on the point about FOX catering to the needs of their customers. Appearently they recieved enough complaints that they decided to change the accessibility of their site so that everyone can view it.
If you read the article, Fox.com always intended to make their site accessible by any browser on any platform. It was simply that they had time constraints and so released the site initially with only IE and Netscape support. So fox.com changed nothing as a result of the complaints.
Cheers.
Re:Forgot something? Oh one more thing (Score:1)
Oh yeah, oops ... my terminology starts getting loose after a day at the office - be grateful I didn't start referring to it as 'the thingy', or 'you know, that thing' ;)
Re: (Score:1)
Linux specfically? (Score:1)
Re:Platforms (Score:1)
(Of course the real problem is MS Windows' crappy file type association mechinism, but all of these media players have gotten in the habit of smashing everyone else's file types for political reasons.)
--
Re:Britannica and OED boycott Freenix systems (Score:2)
Good question about the CD's. Why do they have to mix the data and software?
On a related note, I keep wondering what kind of crap Gates is going to pull with Corbis. Who ever heard of such a thing as exclusive rights to digital reproductions of great works of art? Talk about claiming to own things you didn't create, hmph!
ADA will force lynx compliance (Score:2)
I'm not advocating this; it's just something people need to think about, because it's starting to happen. Lynx compliance is the wave of the future. You can still do your fancy stuff; but you had better supply "equivalent" content that can be viewed in lynx.
Re:real issue comes down to site design principles (Score:2)
Non dynamic sites can accomplish the same thing by having a plain vanilla front with links to different versions.
That's basically what fox did, it sounds like. But they didn't include LInux. I wonder if we'll run into problems like this where minority browsers/platforms aren't supported. Then it becomes harder for new classes of web-enabled devices to get support....
Re:Free clue for you (Score:2)
Yes. Good point. The DoJ didn't sue Microsoft for bundling IE with Windows. There is not problem with add value to your product. There's no problem with giving away products either. Many companies do.
The problem is, of course, using a monopoly in one market to force people to use a different product. Microsoft violated anti-trust law, because they tried to force IE on consumers by denying Windows Licenses to OEM's that felt that consumers wanted Netscape.
If Microsoft were to not allow customers to use NT if they also used Real, then the situation would be the same. Of course, because Microsoft has very little share in the server world, this would be foolish for them, since then people just wouldn't use NT. So they can add value to their product, and aren't violating anti-trust laws.
And there's no problems.
-BrentNorwest/Wells Fargo (Score:1)
Don't badger Fox.com anymore. (Score:2)
2. We complained.
3. They promised a fix.
4. A fix was mad.
5. People are complaining about this being a wa to "use the
This last part sucks big time. Sure it's probably true but you need to be responsible. If you make a threat of force with accompanying demands then once those demands are met the argument has essentially ended.
Wrong (Score:2)
Is Linux 50% of the market? Of course not, but it is positively absurd to try to claim that it is less than a quarter percent.
Re:real issue comes down to site design principles (Score:1)
Right now web design is easy because you can write crappy HTML and let it through as long as it tests OK on (Windows | Mac) & (Netscape | IE) & Version 4 or better with default configuration. A small minded approach, but one that currently gets you to 95% of your audience without thinking too hard.
But, this is going to change fast. Even without special formats like WAP and AvantGo, we are already seeing an explosion of alternative browsers: iCab, Opera, KDE, WebTV, Sega Dreamcast, Playstation 2 and so on. When Mozilla goes gold, it's going to be ported to virtually every device from a wristwatch to a Buick, with slightly different capabilities on every platform. IE shops are already universally disabling Internet JavaScript and ActiveX. The If-Then-Else = "Garbage" approach is going to have to disappear very quickly, and people are going to have to start writing common HTML and forgetting about the little differences.
What happens when Fox starts pushing "Enhanced TV", and those embedded enhanced TV viewers can't get to their web site? Big fuck-up. These embedded browsers are going to far out number the Unix users very soon (if they haven't already), but the Unix users will benifit from a more open and less client-dependant web.
--
Fox's code (Score:1)
Re:Conspiracy theory (Score:1)
coke under the handle "Cola-Cola Classic". in the end the Coka-Cola corporation looked the like good guys.
personally i don't think enough people give a damm about this to compare the two however.
WARNING OFFTOPIC BRAIN FART
the fox site looks awful foxy, such fanfare, etc.. i'm kind of suprised they even got it to work under netscape, Y2k is coming up and i'm really wondering if slashdot
is going to have a headline like, "linux is Y2k compliant, apparently....". oh and the only reason i use X is to browse the web, i wish i didn't have to load the fat
bastard just to wank off to some pics or read the news. if mozzila would have X statically linked or something, that would rule..... oh and if any of you use a sblive
the latest CRV from creative is pretty darn good, 4 speaker and mixer support... yum..
-Jon
But have you tried it with lynx? (Score:1)
Be sure to thank them. (Score:1)
I have had a quick look at their website, and the only relevant address I can seem to find is askfox@fox.com... send a quick, polite email to this address, and you will go far.
Realbleargh (Score:1)
Real has always SUCKED on each of my Linux systems. It makes Art Bell sound like Aquaman broadcasting live from a bowl of Jello.
--
Re:Am I missing something? (Score:2)
Winamp (For windows) and mpg123 (for *ix) both have support for streaming urls.
Who are the luddites and who are the technologists (Score:2)
I think it's funny that the 'flash and flair' stuff is somehow interpreted as being more modern "technology" than HTML.
All this plugin stuff is really just a web programmer's way of executing code on your machine. Of course, no one really wants to download and execute binaries, so there's pressure to settle on a relatively small number on binary libraries (plugins), and higher-level ways of calling them, like scripting languages. (And then there's the Microsoft camp with ActiveX who actually does want to just send you binary code.) But what it comes down to is that they want to run a "demo" type program on your computer.
That isn't "technology in it's current evolved state" -- it's retro! You could (and people did) do that back in the 80s BBS scene. Just zmodem the program down to your machine and run it. If Fox wanted to do their current "web site" with 1988-level technology, they easily could (except for bandwidth issues). Just tell people the Fox BBS phone number instead of the URL, and then have them download specialized binaries that play X-Files animations or whatever.
The technological breakthrough was that someone realized that we didn't need to do things like that anymore. Users just need one binary that can serve as a viewer for content that is stored in a universal and standardized form. The power and benefits of this approach (performance, security, platform independence, etc) turned out to be immense.
I see the stereotypical Macromedia "web programmers" as luddites who have rejected this level of technology, because they just couldn't figure out a way to make it work for them. They think back to how cool the Amiga "EuroDemoes" of the 80s were, and want to recreate the phenomenon. Their web sites are actually quite sparse and boring places, whose purpose is really just to give people a place to download their demo from.
---
Re:Forgot something? Actually I didn't. (Score:1)
But just like a blind person may listen to the TV and glean some information from the shows, they still miss the whole experience. Yet no-one complains that all TV shows should be fully 'backward' compatible so that blind people don't miss out.
TVs render both video and audio (even text, if you have closed captioning on). But text-based browsers rely nearly exclusively on the text that you seem so fond to throw out in favor of more "advancced" methods of presentation. So you can't exactly have some "glearning" of information if the site doesn't include some sort of textual content. Ergo, text is necessary and as long as you have some on your page, you might as well go to the trouble of making your site look purty to everything.
In case you're wondering... (Score:1)
http://www.fox.com [fox.com] supports not only linux, but Irix too!
It would have been a damn shame if all of us Irix users had been blocked out just because we don't run Linux... I mean how else would I have gotten all of the "hot" and late breaking information about such hits as Worlds Wildest Police Videos?
Re:FAFSA the same? (Score:1)
It appears that they've fixed it.
Re:FAFSA the same? (Score:1)
The Department of Education, along with other Federal agencies, is putting a great deal of effort into electronic access to government services. You can see the education piece of this at http://www.students.gov [students.gov], the Access America for students page. There are links from there to other agencies including the IRS and the Department of State.
Given this situation, I think the Department of Education will be value and act upon suggestions for improvement from technically savvy Linux users who happen to be up and coming college students (and thus, customers).
POWER (Score:1)
We should keep this trend up, and keep mentioning sites where this community is being hurt. Slashdot will cause an uproar and we WILL get our way becuase *nix owns the internet!
- Mike Roberto
-- roberto@apk.net
--- AOL IM: MicroBerto
Re:Citibank's citifi.com also blocking linux users (Score:1)
If you want financial services that don't care what browser you use, use Charles Schwab, I do trading there with Netscape 4.61 and FreeBSD and NetBSD. They're a much better organization IMHO.
Re:Stop complaining (Score:1)
Re:Free clue for you (Score:1)
Regardless of law, is it ethical to subsidize development of a program designed to compete directly with another company's primary product with the cost of the operating system on which they both run? There is no free lunch. All NT Server licensees are paying for the development of the extra little widgets that ship with it, whether they use them or pay more money for competitive products.
Re:Free clue for you (Score:2)
Yes, it's just as ethical as Apple including the CyberDog web browser with MacOS for free, as ethical as Sun including the HotJava web browser with Solaris for free, etc. It's completely ethical. A company that makes an operating system should have the ability to define what comes with it, and if customers don't like it, they have the freedom to leave.
And yes, Virginia, there is a free lunch. For example, our friendly BeOS user downloads Mozilla. What are the hidden costs to him involved with this?
And actually, the cost of Netshow Server is mortgaged by the potential income and power that will be there for Microsoft if they're able to spread their particular media solution far and wide.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Fox didn't 'give in'... (Score:2)
I don't know why people think that Fox gave in to the 'pressure' from the community, unless, maybe, people haven't been reading the articles.
The other bit about realplayer/windows media might be another case, but having not read those articles I know I'm not in a position to comment.
--Parity