Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
| From: | Rob Lanphier <robla-AT-robla.net> | |
| To: | lwn-AT-lwn.net | |
| Subject: | Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release | |
| Date: | Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:04:34 +0000 |
Hi everyone, Here's some news which I hope will be of interest to LWN readers: The Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 has been released. The Helix Player is an audio and video player based on the Helix DNA Client engine, which is at the foundation of RealPlayer from RealNetworks. The Helix Player is designed for Linux and Solaris desktops, built using GTK+, and includes a Mozilla browser plug-in, with versions compiled using GCC 2.95 and GCC 3.2 (thus getting around some of the pesky plugin problems). It supports local file playback and streaming over RTSP/RTP, RTSP/RDT, and HTTP. It supports video zoom in original, double size and full screen, and has support for the following media types in open source: SMIL 2.0, MP3, Ogg Vorbis, H.263 video, JPEG, GIF, PNG, and RealPix. Additionally, RealVideo (RV9, RV8, RV7, RVG2), and RealAudio (RA8, G2 audio) are available in binary form. This release is intended for developers and community testing. Please download and try this out, especially playing around with web page embedding! We're hoping to release an end-user ready version sometime early next year. All of the information is available on the Helix Player project page: https://player.helixcommunity.org Thanks Rob
Posted Oct 22, 2003 15:49 UTC (Wed)
by prometeo (guest, #16200)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Oct 23, 2003 4:26 UTC (Thu)
by robla (subscriber, #424)
[Link] (1 responses)
I do know that it's possible to set build options to really put this thing on a diet. The assumptions that were made was that 4MB wasn't a big price to have all of the features turned on for the typical desktop user. We've got a pretty large team working on handset ports (e.g. Symbian and a version for Motorola Linux handset), and as a result, we've got all sorts of crazy #ifdefs and build system options to bring this down to something pretty tiny, depending on what features you can live without.
Rob Lanphier
Posted Oct 23, 2003 9:05 UTC (Thu)
by prometeo (guest, #16200)
[Link]
Posted Oct 22, 2003 17:43 UTC (Wed)
by TheOneKEA (guest, #615)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Oct 22, 2003 18:30 UTC (Wed)
by uraeus (guest, #4668)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Oct 22, 2003 18:36 UTC (Wed)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (6 responses)
And would there be much point in shipping this helix without the proprietary code? Whenever people mention mplayer, I mention the previous licensing problems, then I get shouted at because they've been fixed. I've never been able to confirm this in any authorative way though. I do know that mplayer isn't in the Debian archives.
Posted Oct 22, 2003 20:51 UTC (Wed)
by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Oct 23, 2003 14:31 UTC (Thu)
by elanthis (guest, #6227)
[Link]
Posted Oct 23, 2003 16:02 UTC (Thu)
by torsten (guest, #4137)
[Link] (2 responses)
"I just checked the source tree for mplayer 1.0-pre1 for the LICENSE file, and sure enough, it's the GPL. So I see no reason for any problems."
While mplayer is GPL, most of the AV libraries on which it depends are hacked copies of Windows DLL's, not original works. This player (I believe originally released from Real codebase), contains AV libraries they developed themselves.
Posted Oct 23, 2003 20:20 UTC (Thu)
by jonabbey (guest, #2736)
[Link] (1 responses)
The problem so far as I'm aware is that those codecs are patented, not that mplayer is shipping Windows DLL's.
Posted Oct 26, 2003 7:55 UTC (Sun)
by torsten (guest, #4137)
[Link]
"I don't believe this is correct. Yes, mplayer is capable of using winelib and Windows codec DLL's, but it also uses the ffmpeg library for processing a lot of codecs (Sorensen, etc.)."
You are a little dated. The Linux library loader has long had the ability to dllopen Windows DLL files directly. Those backend libraries that get put in "/usr/local/lib/win32", yup, win32 DLL's. This is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of fact. Check your facts, not your beliefs.
Posted Oct 22, 2003 21:49 UTC (Wed)
by uraeus (guest, #4668)
[Link]
As for licensing. Remember that the GPL contains a clause which revokes the license if the code is covered by a non-free patent etc., which means that Red Hat is legaly barred (even if they got a mpeg license etc.) from distributing GPL'ed multimedia packages like mplayer in the US.
Posted Oct 22, 2003 18:05 UTC (Wed)
by judge (guest, #6234)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 22, 2003 18:43 UTC (Wed)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
(and that it doesn't have mplayers dubious legal history)
Posted Oct 22, 2003 18:23 UTC (Wed)
by TimCunningham (guest, #10316)
[Link]
Posted Oct 22, 2003 19:52 UTC (Wed)
by jonabbey (guest, #2736)
[Link] (22 responses)
Using illegal software of that sort is simply not tenable in the United States, if we want Linux to ever be accepted as suitable for mainstream use. Having a competent, modern, legal media player is essential. If Real are the only folks willing to provide legal client software for use on Linux, then I for one am willing to make noise in preference of Real's formats whenever I have the choice. Yes, freely licensable codecs like Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora would be greatly preferable, but until someone puts the money into pushing Theora for video content distribution (the way Apple supports the use of Quicktime for movie trailers with marketing and hosting dollars, the way Real and Microsoft push content in their formats with marketing dollars), I'll take legal Real content over illegal use of Quicktime or WMV.
Posted Oct 22, 2003 19:56 UTC (Wed)
by jonabbey (guest, #2736)
[Link]
As long as they support less encumbered codecs with good will, they deserve encouragement and support, imho.
Posted Oct 22, 2003 22:26 UTC (Wed)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (20 responses)
Theora and RealPlayer are in direct competition. RealPlayer have more mature technology at the moment, so using their software gives you an immediate technical/user benefit. In the long term, it increases the popularity of their format, making it harder for Theora to compete. Overall, I think we are harming ourselves if we choose to support RealPlayer. Free Software Vs. Proprietary will be a twenty year battle. Over this time scale, I hope Theora becomes our dominent streaming video format, and I don't think we should make their work harder. They're already the underdog. > to make noise in preference of Real's formats The revenue they gain from proprietary file format lock-in can fund a marketing team to make this noise. I'd recommend putting energy into helping our FreeOS in a more effective way such as making noise encouraging media distributors to choose a non-proprietary format for their content.
Posted Oct 22, 2003 22:56 UTC (Wed)
by jonabbey (guest, #2736)
[Link] (19 responses)
If the choice is between legally using Real's software on Linux or not, I choose to use it. That doesn't mean I'll choose to create new content with Real's codecs or that I'll choose to use Real over Ogg when content is available in both formats, but I won't spurn Real's contributions. Real is supporting open source software development with Helix, and they are supporting the production of a legal player with support for free formats such as Ogg. That's an unmitigated good, in my view. If it helps their proprietary codec hold out a little bit longer against Microsoft's closed, proprietary, and monopolizing efforts, all to the good.
Posted Oct 22, 2003 23:19 UTC (Wed)
by stuart (subscriber, #623)
[Link] (5 responses)
And as Apple bundle iTunes and M$ WMP, I think the base operating system now can be said to include a media player so if we want to use GNU/LINUX as our operating system, by simple logic we should use a Free media player. This is not real player (which crashes a lot) and is certainly not helix (which I presume crashes less). If Real actually wanted to support GNU/Linux / open source they would have released their current Real One and all supporting (non third party) libraries under an open source license just as Netscape (eventually) did with Mozilla. Stu.
Posted Oct 23, 2003 1:00 UTC (Thu)
by robla (subscriber, #424)
[Link] (4 responses)
For example, this presentation utilizes SMIL 2.0 to synchronize Ogg Vorbis audio with JPEG slides (exported from OpenOffice), providing smooth transition effects between slides
RealNetworks is a company that wants to work with the free software and open source community. Personally, I'm a very vocal advocate, and there are many others like me at the company, but we need your help to prove to the (fewer and fewer) remaining doubters at the company that working with the community is worth the extra overhead of working in the fishbowl.
So, pitch in. If you don't like the fact that RealAudio and RealVideo have the deepest support in Helix, then write an Ogg Theora plugin for the system. Write SVG support. Do things that promote open formats; we welcome that type of contribution.
Rob Lanphier
Posted Oct 23, 2003 4:16 UTC (Thu)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (3 responses)
Also, you may want to point you managers to this document: Hope this helps.
Posted Oct 23, 2003 6:58 UTC (Thu)
by robla (subscriber, #424)
[Link] (2 responses)
Cheers,
Posted Oct 23, 2003 20:10 UTC (Thu)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (1 responses)
My critisms are levelled at RealNetworks, I acknowledge that their may be people with good intentions within the company. I haven't looked at SMIL, it may indeed be useful, I've heard that it has good accessability features. All the more pity it's not under a GPL/LGPL compatible license so that GNOME could benefit from this release of code. My issue is with people being encouraged to use the proprietary RealPlayer format, thus bringing secret file format lock-in to GNU/Linux users, and making system upgrades difficult because the proprietary code has to be single-sourced, so to run the HelixPlayer, users have to run system software that is supported by RealNetworks. My issue with OSI certification is that they previously certified the APSL-1.2 which required that people publish all changes, even if only made for private use. This takes away from a users privacy, and means that changes can only be made if you are capable of publishing them. They're may have been other pitfalls, but I remember this one. The man at the helm of OSI also gives me cause to question their credibility. His defense of VA Systems going closed source, and his use of the closed source SourceForge system show that he is not very committed to OpenSource.
Posted Oct 24, 2003 9:08 UTC (Fri)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
Posted Oct 22, 2003 23:31 UTC (Wed)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (12 responses)
If you look at RealNetworks business model, the greatest thing that could happen to them is that they would achieve monopoly status in the video realm. In their technolgy model, the underlying OS isn't important. Each person that uses RealPlayer gives content providers a bigger justification to encode their video in RealPlayers format. We lose flexibility because if we rely on their software, we can only use platforms that they support (no sparc, ppc, Free/Open/NetBSD, etc.). We get diversity in the short term, because as well as our own players, we get Helix. In the long term, our players become less useful because all streaming video is RealPlayer. So our OS is Free, but we will only run one media player. If we hold out a little longer for Theora, we can have as much diversity as we like.
Posted Oct 23, 2003 0:28 UTC (Thu)
by robla (subscriber, #424)
[Link] (11 responses)
Thanks
Posted Oct 23, 2003 1:01 UTC (Thu)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (10 responses)
Thank you for explaining my point. Of course RealNetworks want their player to be the best. And they can make it the best because they can compete with us on our formats, but they won't let us compete with them on their format. The funniest bit is that they've decided to ask us to help them gain their monopoly. RealNetworks talk the talk, but they laugh at us when our backs are turned.
Posted Oct 23, 2003 1:26 UTC (Thu)
by jonabbey (guest, #2736)
[Link] (9 responses)
Given that you consider Ogg Theora (apparently) one of "our formats", perhaps you should talk with the Ogg folks about why they are licensing their stuff under terms (BSDish) that allow them to be used in commercial software in the first place.
Posted Oct 23, 2003 1:56 UTC (Thu)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (8 responses)
ah, I see the problem now. They have made up 4 new licenses, all long and hard to read, 1 is OpenSourceInitiative approved, 0 are compatible with the GPL, 0 are Free Software Foundation approved. Use of the BSDish license for Theora was Richard Stallmans idea. To prevent people getting locked into a proprietary format, they want to make the Theora format as easy to use as possible. If it was GPL, it couldn't become a standard because non-GPL'd players couldn't include it. The LGPL would also create a practical disadvantage. BSD was chosen to make it possible for everyone to use the software, so it can become a standard. An open, public, free standard which allows competition, diversity etc.
Posted Oct 23, 2003 2:44 UTC (Thu)
by vblum (guest, #1151)
[Link] (7 responses)
I am sure a number of people at Real would feel better with a straight GPL behind them <rant>
Posted Oct 23, 2003 4:12 UTC (Thu)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (6 responses)
All four of their licenses are incompatible with the GPL and the LGPL. So we can't use their code in our software. Basically, they've given us the freedom to improve their interface and delivery method for them. They have one thing we would like: the RealPlayer video codec. But if they ever gave this to us, their business model would collapse. So you don't like dependency hell? p.s. Debian is a great distro for avoiding dependency hell
Posted Oct 23, 2003 5:22 UTC (Thu)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 23, 2003 17:43 UTC (Thu)
by vblum (guest, #1151)
[Link]
what I am saying is not that "it can be fixed easier with Open Source." I know that. The problem with multimedia is that it is so much in flux that you have to keep fixing your base system just in order to play a video?? You may be in the position to do that, but trust me, when it gets to the point where you need your computer to work because it is a tool ... you do not want to upgrade the system every few weeks. Anybody who brings _stability_ into this game in a reasonable fashion is welcomed by me. All the more so since they are actually trying to be nice. Think about it: Do you not think that it may be a bit unfair to bash the people inside Real who are pushing for Open Source for having wrought a compromise with (I presume) their management and legal team? At least they made an effort! I really appreciate your arguing for true Freedom, and in the long run I very much agree. But, think whether your harsh criticism of _people_ who are trying to make their way there might not be a bit patronising. Essentially, your various postings sound as if you deliberately did not listen to the people that you "respond" to. You reiterate the same point again and again, but you refuse to give credit to what others actually say. You respond only to what you'd like them to have said. cheers V.
Posted Oct 23, 2003 5:33 UTC (Thu)
by robla (subscriber, #424)
[Link] (3 responses)
Rob
Posted Oct 23, 2003 6:13 UTC (Thu)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (2 responses)
Not exactly strict about certifying licenses though, are they?. And what about the other 3 licenses? y'know, the ones that cover the good stuff?
Posted Oct 23, 2003 7:17 UTC (Thu)
by robla (subscriber, #424)
[Link]
As far as OSI having low standards, have you actually complained to them? If you don't believe that the RPSL meets the Open Source Definition or that the OSD isn't stringent enough, I think a mail to the license-discuss alias is in order.
Rob Lanphier
Posted Oct 24, 2003 17:44 UTC (Fri)
by ogre (guest, #14142)
[Link]
People are sick of zealots who whine because software isn't "Free" enough for them. Did you use Netscape on Linux before it was Mozilla? We didn't complain that Netscape wasn't free enough, we were just happy to surf with a decent browser. Perhaps that was before your time. Real was there too. Real was shipping RP way before it was cool to have a Linux version of an application. At the time we were exstatic to have a good streaming media player and didn't care that it was closed source. Now they switch to a more open license and the whiners come out to bitch that it's not free enough. If you don't like Helix then don't use it. Help out the folks who are writing alternatives that are "free enough" for you. In the mean time stop harrassing people who have been releasing free (as in beer) software for Linux for a long time. You don't represent the views of the community, you are just on whining voice in a crowd of content people.
Posted Oct 23, 2003 13:41 UTC (Thu)
by jonabbey (guest, #2736)
[Link] (1 responses)
Thanks Helix Community.
Posted Oct 25, 2003 2:25 UTC (Sat)
by vikman (guest, #16254)
[Link]
I echo RobLa in that, the success of this project will make it a bellweather for the opensource wave at Real.
I have updated the schedule to be more detailed. That should give you a clearer idea of what the initial versions of the player might look like. As you will see, there is tentative Theora support filled in (tentative because it depends on how much community participation I can count on - can't do everything in version 1 with just the core HelixPlayer team). I hope, if nothing else, that you would give us a try from time to time. Maybe we (not just me and folks from Real that are working on this - but the many others who are coming and helping the project) can change your mind about our commitment to the opensource software community.
Aside from the amusing flamewars that went up above, I would really like to thank the many folks who quietly came by, downloaded, ran (and crashed) the player and plug-in and have been actively giving me feedback. Thanks to you guys, we have found and fixed a bunch of bugs. There are also a few of you who have come and lent a hand in patching some of the bugs and cheers to those!
We expect to post refresh builds (with bugfixes) and then nightlies soon. So hold out for an announcement on our homepage and mailing lists.
Thanks all!
Well, despite its claims of not working with glibc 2.3.x NTPL,Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
it worked fine with RH9 here. The UI (GTK 2.2)is simple, audio (using ALSA)
seems flawless. Mozilla plugin is poor (hey, this is the first release!),
as it relies on the external hxplay. At over 4MB for the tarball, it's a bit large for just a player, but it's a good start.
Glad you like the direction we're going. There's a lot of functionality packed in that 4MB. Nonetheless, it'll get smaller. I believe that there are some things that are statically linked (e.g. Glade) that make this release larger than it otherwise would need to be -- but I could be talking out my ...um... ear (I should leave that sort of comment for the devs).
Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
Helix Community Coordinator
RealNetworks
Well, actually I've badly expressed myself. The ranting about the big file size was due to the search for a *working* RP plugin for mozilla: I should have added that this is a *full* player, that happens to have also a plugin for mozilla! :o)Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
A small critic: state somewhere clearly on Helix site that you need to read and accept the Binary EULA to download the player (or any other binary package). Took it a while to figure it out myself. (Ok, I'm stupid, so what? :) )
I don't mean to condemn the hard work of the Helix developers, but after looking at their website, how is this any different from mplayer?
Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
Well one major difference is that people like Red Hat can actually legally ship it. Another major addition is SMIL with is important for the accessibility aware GNOME project.
Difference from mplayer
Would RedHat ship proprietary code with their distro?Difference from mplayer
(I thought they went all Free, like Mandrake, Gentoo, Debian etc)
I just checked the source tree for mplayer 1.0-pre1 for the LICENSE file, and sure enough, it's the GPL. So I see no reason for any problems.
Difference from mplayer
Most of mplayer is illegal in one way or another, tho - plugins are "hacked", and there's been tons of discussions about the nature of a lot of the source (not discussions I've been a part of, so I can't provide specific details).
Difference from mplayer
Difference from mplayer
I don't believe this is correct. Yes, mplayer is capable of using winelib and Windows codec DLL's, but it also uses the ffmpeg library for processing a lot of codecs (Sorensen, etc.).Difference from mplayer
Difference from mplayer
Well I can't really talk for Red Hat, but from my discussions with various people there they have come to the conclusion that they want to ship support for some popular formats with at least their enterprise versions. Never talked about this Real client with them, but I guess it could be one option.Difference from mplayer
It's different from mplayer in that it supports less video formats :)
Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
And that it isn't Free Software ;pHelix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
This looks pretty nice... I'm a little disapointed that it doesn't play back most video formats (who uses Real any more?), but maybe they'll address that in a later release...
Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
It's extraordinarily important to have legitimate media player services on Linux. Mplayer is really great stuff, but it includes codecs (mpeg4, sorenson) that include patented algorithms not licensed for legal distribution and use in the United States, though they may currently be in Hungary where the Mplayer team is based.Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
Note also that Helix Player does support Ogg Vorbis, and that they support mpeg4 if you have separately obtained an mpeg4 license (or are in a country where mpeg4 is not under patent protection, presumably).Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
> Ogg Theora would be greatly preferable, but untilHelix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
> someone puts the money into pushing Theora
Not all of us are such free software ideologists as you are, coriordan. I think that Linux's success is more important than Real's failure. If the base operating system is not controlled by a monopolist, there'll be a greater diversity of software to run on it, both commercial and non, and that's how I like it.Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
Real is not supporting open source at all. They are releasing binary modules. W00te.A free media player for a free OS.
We're releasing open source. Everything is open source except for the RealAudio and RealVideo codecs, and the RDT protocol (which is only used for RealAudio and RealVideo). That's a lot of code that does a lot of stuff (multiple protocol support, video interfacing, with multiple sources, audio interfacing, etc).A free media player for a free OS.
Helix Community Coordinator
RealNetworks
Hi Rob,A free media player for a free OS.
If you're interested in getting all or part of the Helix software released as Free Software, you could try talking the FSF. They worked with Apple to iron out the problems with the APSL 1.2. Now the APSL 2.0 is Free Software.
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html
"Make Your Open Source Software GPL-Compatible. Or Else."
Thanks...I appreciate the pointer, and have forwarded it around. We have had several good conversations with FSF regarding licensing. This is a slow process, though, and one where we're evaluating just how far we should go. Also, like many people, we're anxiously awaiting GPLv3.A free media player for a free OS.
Rob
FYI, or you might know already, the GPLv3 is on hold until mid 2004.A free media player for a free OS.
Actually, shall we call this discussion dead?A free media player for a free OS.
(no respose is a good yes)
> If the base operating system is not controlled by a monopolist,Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
> there'll be a greater diversity of software to run on it
Please write a Theora plugin for Helix. Nothing would make us happier.Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
Rob Lanphier
Helix Community Coordinator
RealNetworks
hahaha, roflmaoasdfetcHelix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
RealNetworks isn't capable of gaining a monopoly with the Helix software. They don't have a monopoly operating system platform to tie their codecs to, and the Helix software is under a license that ensures it can be freely used and extended.Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
> the Helix software is under a license thatHelix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
> ensures it can be freely used and extended
If you read the license details you'll find that this isn't true.
https://www.helixcommunity.org/content/licenses
Free, almost free, monopoly, world domination, etc etc are all interesting ideas. But, it may Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
sometimes be preferable to give people a break who actually want to work with the Open
Source community, and make contributions to that effect.
(cause then they could simply code instead of leading theoretical discussions), but at least
give them some credit for what they have achieved. Real is far away from a monopoly IMO;
in fact, on the multimedia issue there is much rather the risk of being marginalized by the
MS juggernaut, unless that has already happened.
Linux and multimedia are still non-trivial issues ... my distribution is 1 1/2 years old and
already my only choice is to upgrade the _entire_ system, thanks to the dependency hell, if I
want the latest multimedia stuff to work. Sure, many can do that, but not when it's your
production machine. Reconfiguring my Inbox just for current multimedia support is really
not a thing that I look forward to. If anyone is willing and capable of making a serious
contribution to stabilize that end before those 20 years of the "battle" are up, and offers to
work with a community - they are certainly welcomed by me.
</rant>
IMO, their offering is closer to SharedSource than it is to OpenSource.Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
Say you need to install OpenOffice.org. It might require libgcc1-3.3 and your Helix player might only work with libgcc1-3.2. What do you do then? Dependency hell goes from hard to impossible. Even less fun.
(In my dependency hell scenario, I forgot to mention that the reason there is no solution is because you can only single-source the Helix stuff, you can't fix it yourself, and you can't search the net to see if someone else has fixed it.)
Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
Ciaran,OT: Dependency Hell
Just curious, do you get paid by Microsoft to FUD their open source competitors, or do you do it for free?
Paid Microsoft lackey or volunteer?
:) ok, this is good, I really laughed out load when I put my mouse over your link and saw that you are bragging about the OSI accepting 1 of your 4 licenses?Work with the community or parasite?
The vast majority of the code in the Helix Player is open source. I'm disappointed that you read my earlier response (re: "A free media player for a free OS") describing the 100% open source implementation of an advanced multimedia presentation here and yet continue to claim that there isn't "good stuff" in what we offer. The other licenses (two by my count, unless you are referring to the site terms of use) are not relevent to the conversation.
There's plenty of good stuff under the RPSL
Helix Community Coordinator
RealNetworks
Chill Out
Licensing wars aside, I just wanted to give my compliments on the software itself. It worked fine on my Red Hat 9 system, and the GTK+ interface was nice and clean. Very unusual to have a media player themed to fit my desktop, rather than skinned to look like a geiger painting.Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
Thank you for the compliments. Me and my team are working very hard to make sure we can get to a point where there won't be any doubt that we intend to create an open and free multimedia player for Linux (not to mention legal).
Helix Player 1.0 Milestone 1 release
V
--
Vikram Dendi
Program Manager for Helix Player
THE mediaplayer for Linux/Unix/Solaris