Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Software Media Media (Apple) Linux

Web Based Rhapsody Targets Linux 201

Posted by Hemos from the moving-outside-of-the-box dept.
Asklepius M.D. writes "According to Marketwatch, RealNetworks is releasing a web based version of Rhapsody called.....Rhapsody.com that will function on other-than-IE browsers including Firefox and Safari. The article quotes Jupimedia analyst Joe Wilcox as saying "...it brings the first real subscription music service to Mac and Linux-based products.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Web Based Rhapsody Targets Linux More

Web Based Rhapsody Targets Linux

Comments Filter:

  • Drm on linux (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hug_the_penguin ( 933796 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @12:50PM (#14185698) Homepage
    DRM has no kernel support in linux, and one assumes they're using DRM. An estimate of 3 days 'til it's cracked?

    • Re:Drm on linux (Score:3, Informative)

      by EtherAlchemist ( 789180 )

      Not sure the DRM applies here- the music is streamed into a player, not downloaded for playback later.

      • Re:Drm on linux (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Wolfger ( 96957 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:35PM (#14186136)
        Hence the application "StreamRipper", which records streaming audio to mp3 for later playback. This is nothing more than modern-day "taping songs off the radio", except when I was a kid, I could tape more than 25 songs a month. I'm much more interested in Independant and Creative Commons music these days. The RIAA doesn't want to play nice, so I just won't play with them at all.
        • I'm very much with that view myseld. i'm currently setting up a site for independent artists to put on their music and get revenue through adclicks and donations instead of murdering their art.

    • Re:Drm on linux (Score:5, Funny)

      by knipknap ( 769880 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:14PM (#14185939) Homepage
      DRM support [sourceforge.net] has been in the Linux kernel for years.
    • I admit to being way out of the loop on Windows, but it was my understanding that Windows didn't have or require kernel support for DRM technology in current wide use.

      The mainstream Linux kernel has had a driver for infineon trusted platform modules [prosec.rub.de] since 2.6.12. I didn't even know any motherboards had shipped with those chips (have any?). User libraries and kernel patches were available well before 2.6.12. Linux has supported kernel-level encryption for ages, and is also on the forefront of technologi

  • iTunes (Score:4, Funny)

    by sardonic2 ( 576701 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @12:51PM (#14185700) Homepage
    I figured iTunes worked on Mac's.. guess I know less about Apple Strategery than I thought.

    • Re:iTunes (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BushCheney08 ( 917605 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @12:53PM (#14185735)
      You missed the key word there - subscription. It is the first music service on Mac and Linux where you can pay and pay, but ultimately never own anything in the end.
      • It's by subscription only. Sign up now and we'll waive our mandatory legal fees and court costs for the first month!

      • Some songs you just don't want to "own" (Score:5, Insightful)

        by robla ( 4860 ) * on Monday December 05, 2005 @04:44PM (#14187897) Homepage Journal
        Disclaimer: I'm an ex-Real employee and still own stock. However, no one is paying me to say this.

        Subscription music occupies an interesting niche for the way I listen to music. I've got several levels of music:
        1. Stuff I need to own: this is the music I can listen to a lot, and not get sick of it quickly. Even when I do get sick of it, I can put it away for a while, come back in 6 months and like it again.
        2. Stuff it's nice to own: good tunes that I may or may not get sick of, but I want to be able to listen to wherever I want
        3. Stuff I'd never buy (for much), but still have fun listening to: I have a very large collection of vinyl, most of which I picked up in the late 1980s/early 1990s for 99c an album when everyone was moving to CD. I would have /never/ paid full price for a lot of it, but it is fun to be able to pull it out. Still, it's a PITA to deal with vinyl.
        4. Novelty items that I listen to once or twice
        5. Stuff that I never knew I'd want, but if I could listen to it in the course of the day, I'd buy.

        Rhapsody is not a good choice for #1 or #2. However, I've found it great for #3-#5. I've discovered a lot of music that I never would have without Rhapsody, since it really encourages exploration. I can grab my tattered Billboard Top 40 book, and look for old sludgey hits and occassionally have one of those "oh my god...I remember /that/" moments. Generally, those songs are not the type of songs that I then get all uppity about needing to own.

        Since I use Linux on my desktop, I've had to use my wife's Windows box to listen to/use Rhapsody, which irritates me, but I'll survive. The bad news is that it doesn't look like there's /quite/ enough there yet for me to switch over to using it primarily on Linux (unless I'm missing something...I need to access my private playlists), but I understand it'll get there.

        Rob
    • First subscription music service.


    • I figured iTunes worked on Mac's.. guess I know less about Apple Strategery than I thought.

      iTunes is not a subscription service. From the headline - "...it brings the first real subscription music service to Mac and Linux-based products."
       

  • Mac? BSD? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by uberjoe ( 726765 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @12:52PM (#14185711)
    Maybe to be more inclusive the article should read "Rapshody Targets non-windows users" instead of linux. Last I checked Safari was was not available for linux.

    • Re:Mac? BSD? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:12PM (#14185931) Homepage Journal
      Last I checked Safari was was not available for linux. Maybe not, but you can get a browser based on Apple's WebCore rendering engine (essentially modifications to KHTML) for Linux called Gtk+ WebCore [sourceforge.net], which is based on GTK 2.x.
      • I am under the impression that (almost?) all of the WebCore enhancements over plain KHTML were re-integrated in Konqi 3.5 (which I am using nowadays). Flame on about ACID2 being relevant or not! Woot!!!
      • So you're saying Gtk+ WebCore is so badly coded it will ONLY run on a linux kernel based OS?

    • Maybe to be more inclusive the article should read "Rapshody Targets non-windows users" instead of linux. Last I checked Safari was was not available for linux.

      A music subscription service for Mac isn't newsworthy, though, with iTunes being widely available there. ;) As for BSD, while it may be possible to use this service there, the realplayer port requires Linux emulation to be installed last I checked, so they wouldn't appear to be 'targetted'. Rather, they'd be jumping in front of the arrow, hopi

      • Yeah presuming you're running on ia32 architecture you can run the linux emulation port. OpenBSD on my wife's ibook won't work of course. As for the relevance of rhapsody vs itunes, I'm an itunes and rhapsody customer. iTunes is great for songs that I really want to keep. Rhapsody is nice for entertaining and casual listening when i'm at home. It takes up much less disk space. (streaming) My issue with rhapsody is that anything in your library is subject to random screw ups since licenses don't auto
    • "Unix" would have probably been a better headline here; remember that a plurality of Unix users are specifically using Mac OS X, and that's probably the market Real after which Real wants to go with this action.

    • Re:Mac? BSD? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dr.badass ( 25287 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @04:34PM (#14187802) Homepage
      Maybe to be more inclusive the article should read "Rapshody Targets non-windows users" instead of linux.

      And maybe to be more accurate it should read "Rhapsody Flails Around Aimlessly in the Dark In Search of User Base".
  • It's a shame it's not a naitive app, but these days it's mattering less and less that something is browser based. Still, nice that more firms are acknowledging non-windows users, albeit in a slightly lipserviced manner.
    • It's not *that* tight-lipped. If you go to the www.real.com page in a Linux browser, you'll see a section in big letters: "Helix Community needs Linux users like you"
  • It's really nice of them to release a web-based service, but wouldn't the customers still be beholden to WMV files infected with DRM? They'll work fine when I'm using my work PC running Windows XP, but they're utterly useless on my iBook + iPod or my (admittedly little used) Ubuntu installation.

    • Not WMV. Whatever it is, not that (Score:4, Interesting)

      by CdBee ( 742846 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:02PM (#14185832)
      Real use their own DRM scheme on AAC (Advanced Audio Codec [vialicensing.com])

      Its likely - from my guess, not the article - that they'll stream a file to an in-browser player. But then, remember this is all the words of a third-party "analyst" - which often means rumour-monger.
    • Since it's a subscription service, yes. It is intended to be more or less streaming only. The player will cache content so that you don't have to stream it *every* time, but encryption is required to make it a subscription service rather than a free download site.

      On the other hand, if you use the Windows app and purchase content, you'll download CD-quality tracks that you can burn, and have all the rights you'd have to any audio CD.

  • From Real? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by b4k3d b34nz ( 900066 )
    I already don't trust Real--I sure wouldn't want to give them any money to continue their annoying advertising and generally poor quality programming by paying their subscriptions. Also, I don't think I'd want to stream music through a browser. When I'm listening to music, I want the player down in a tray.

    • Re:From Real? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by hug_the_penguin ( 933796 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @12:57PM (#14185771) Homepage
      Their realplayer for windows is practically spyware. How many legitimate programs can get away with passing advertising messages, embedding adverts, popping up annoying content etc. and not get called adware.

      How many companies can do this and then charge for `premium` functionality?

      Real's days are at an end. They support very few portable music players, and what happens when noone wants to let real support their player? What happens to all your DRMed music then? And what happens when their ads get more invasive and more annoying?

      • The continued existence of Real has confused and infuriated me since at least 1999... seriously, how can the company function? And how can you be so sure that their days are at an end when there has been no compelling reason for their days to be at all for so long? I do hope you're right though.

      • Re:From Real? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by joeljkp ( 254783 ) <joeljkparker.gmail@com> on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:17PM (#14185975)
        Ever used their Linux player? It's very simple, doesn't do any unwanted things, fits in with the rest of the GNOME desktop, and is open source (except for the codecs in the commercial version). Real's the only major online media company out there paying Linux any attention at all. I say we keep them around.

        • I say we keep them around.

          I agree. I use mplayer which plays both windows media and real files just fine, (in fact the windows media files stream a little smoother).

          Whenever I am on a web site that does video streaming I will choose real if it is available, just to keep the Real usership numbers up on site. This isn't because I love Real but rather because they released a player for Linux when there were no others available.

          I also expect Microsoft to do as Apple does and try to break open viewers wit

      • Re:From Real? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Albanach ( 527650 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:44PM (#14186230) Homepage
        First off, Real have been around a long time and while the big media sites stream using their software they're going nowhere.

        Secondly, RealPlayer is a heck of a lot better than it once was. It's also straightforward to find the free player on their site, after a period where they hid it in the depths of real.com

        Sure this is a subscription service - that means it's not for everyone. However there are also lots of folk who are happy to pay $10 a month for a huge music library.

        Real made their player available for linux, made their server open source and suffer only complaints.

        They're a big company and they make their music player available so it works on Linux and the Mac and supports Firefox perfectly. Folk still complain.

        Real's business model is subscription music. That might not be of interest to you so go bug Apple to provide you with iTunes on Linux. In the mean time don't take out your frustrations that apple are ignoring you on another firm that has chose to welcom Linux - Real should be applauded for this

      • there is nothing wrong with adware, realplayer used to be crappy but they have improved it tremendously. i have it installed on both of mymachines and only see it when i launch it manually or open real media files/streams
      • How many legitimate programs can get away with passing advertising messages, embedding adverts, popping up annoying content etc. and not get called adware.

        How many companies can do this and then charge for `premium` functionality?

        Good question, there are lots of ad-based apps and services that are not generally considered adware. For instance, until very recently, you could count Opera in that category. You still can count Google (Maps, Earth, and Gmail, anyone?), Yahoo and their ilk in that category. (I

    • Re:From Real? (Score:4, Informative)

      by pregister ( 443318 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:07PM (#14185882)
      I've used Rhapsody for a year or two now. It's a decent service. Ignore their "programming". Listen to what you want to listen to. As far as it being in a browser, their windows based program pretty much implements a browser in the app itself...which is kinda slow and kludgy...i think trying one that is actually stand alone browser-based might improve things.

      NOTE: I don't buy music through rhapsody. I use it to sample new releases, catch up on things I might have missed before, track down the odd song from my youth, and listen to stuff that is available on usenet before I download it. ;)

      For the $9/month (or around there, i haven't checked in a while) its the easiest way to listen to music that i don't already own (the only exception is the old days of audiogalaxy. Best. Site. Ever.) ...helps me decide what music i wanna track down to stick on my ipod.

      -p

  • Good news (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @12:53PM (#14185729)
    Because services are moving to the Web. They should have done it much earlier.

    But the question is: Will Linux users use Real's product? Reviews on Real's products here on slashdot have not been that favuorable in the past.

    • Re:Good news (Score:5, Informative)

      by EtherAlchemist ( 789180 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:06PM (#14185871)

      Will Linux users use Real's product?

      If you use Xandros the RealPlayer comes as the default media player. This is not a bad deal either, because the Linux player [real.com] is not crammed full of ads- it does what a media player should: play media. I give the Xandros guys a lot of credit, too, because ever since they started bundling the RealPlayer with their distro, they've been the ones to actually make the install work. Prior to that, Real had (still does I think) it listed as an alpha.

      I would think more Linux folks would be attracted to Real, actually, because they have the open source version of the player and server, Helix [helixcommunity.org] and last I checked neither Apple nor MS have made their player OSS.

      • Yeah, right. The problem is the Helix player doesn't do the one thing linux people have been clamoring about for years: play Real files! You have to separately download Realplayer, which means going to their website, accepting their license, downloading a .bin file, blah blah blah (in other words, no apt-get install realplayer). It is the exact same issue as before. The player is fine, but the licensing crap is a pain. It's not like we didn't already have several media players that work just fine. We don't
    • if it is cheap enough, functional, high enough quality (192kbps minimum), and works in the formats requested (see: mp3 and ogg), they may be able to grab a few customers away from iTMS.
    • Under Debiab, RealPlayer is available on the Marillat archives, and works quite well.

  • Capitalization is everything (Score:5, Insightful)

    by richdun ( 672214 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @12:55PM (#14185752)
    "...it brings the first Real subscription music service to Mac and Linux-based products."

    Silly Real, of course it's their first subscription service available to Mac and Linux users.
    • It's one of those phrases that can work both ways. It's the first Real (as in the company) subscription service for Macs and Linux, as well as the first real (as in actually existing - well, once it's rolled out) subscription service for Macs and Linux. And for those of you out there saying "But what about iTunes?!?", it doesn't count because it's a music store. It is not a subscription service.
    • they don't mean 'Real' the company. this is actually the first subscription music service for mac and linux.
  • Rhapsody.com that will function on other-than-IE browsers including Firefox and Safari. The article quotes Jupimedia analyst Joe Wilcox as saying "...it brings the first real subscription music service to Mac and Linux-based products."

    If it sucks anything like Realplayer plugins... then who cares!
  • They could be the first real subscription music service for Linux, but if other companies see that it's working they will follow.

  • really? (Score:3, Funny)

    by andy4322 ( 844920 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @12:59PM (#14185802)
    When I tried their free trial, I got this:

    http://cache.ultramercial.com/d/033-218/civic_hyb_ os_false.html [ultramercial.com]

  • It bothers me (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 4D6963 ( 933028 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:00PM (#14185818)
    The name Rhapsody bothers me, everytime I hear it I think it's gonna be something about Apple's Rhadsody, Mac OS X's daddy, seriously, they should pick another name..
    • The name Rhapsody bothers me, everytime I hear it I think it's gonna be something about Apple's Rhadsody
      I always think (seriously) that it's going to be something about ILogix Rhapsody [ilogix.com].

      Either way I agree - Real should have picked a more novel name...

    • Right, they need to change the name of their fully released product because you keep mixing it up with the codename of an old Apple project.

      That sure sounds smart.
    • The name Rhapsody bothers me, everytime I hear it I think it's gonna be something about Apple's Rhadsody, Mac OS X's daddy, seriously, they should pick another name..

      I always think of Wayne and Garth singin along to Bohemian Rhapsody in the car. . .
  • Apple has always stated that iTMS exists to sell iPods, not the other way around. if someone creates another service to expand the use/sales of iPods, who cares?
  • Yes, Real today launched the beta Helix-powered www.Rhapsody.com, a Web version of the music service that offers consumers a free and legal way to play full length songs from all the major music labels. Any US-based consumer can freely access up to 25 songs/mo, via the new www.Rhapsody.com site and for the first time Linux and Mac users can experience Rhapsody.

    The music service enables your favorite browser (IE, Firefox, or Safari) to instantly find, listen, and share, for free, up to 25 full tracks (from
    • Just tried it - awesome! I might subscribe if I use it enough.

      One request (besides the standard "make it open-source" ones): can I use it in Epiphany? I get a browser error when I try, but I'm not sure if that's due to some UI detection, or if it really is a Firefox-only thing.
    • I can see this idea working as a "try it before you buy it" type of thing. I mean, it'd allow me to hear a song on the radio, then legally hear the whole CD before deciding to buy it. I use iTunes mostly anyways, but it beats the mere 30-seconds iTunes plays the songs for free.

      But paying money for browser-only music? Forget that. I don't feel like carrying my laptop around with me, and holding it open to listen to songs. If I pay for a song, I'm going to pay to be able to play it wherever, whenever.
    • Since it's * Helix-powered * you can count me in!!!

  • Speaking of Linux Support (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:02PM (#14185840)
    Using konqueror, it says:

    "Incompatible Browser
      We're sorry. We currently only support the following browsers: Internet Explorer 6 and higher, Firefox 1.0.1 and higher, Safari 1.3 and higher and Netscape 8 and higher.

      Firefox 1.0 users, click here to upgrade"

    Ok, let's try using Firefox 1.5:

    "To play music, you'll need to do a quick install
    Just follow these two easy steps.

          1.

                Install Rhapsody Music Engine

                Click the button below and follow our direction on the next screen.
          2.

                Register Free

                Get a free Rhapsody Account.
                No Credit Card required.

    We're sorry but the combination of your operating system and Firefox 1.5 is not currently supported."

  • Another horrible execution plan by Real (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    As typical by this poorly organized and completely out-to-lunch company a great idea put together with horrible execution. Obviously companies try to launch products on their first day with a big media blitz. So far so good, they get the front page of Slashdot, many newspapers ( http://seattle-pi.com/ [seattle-pi.com] articles and widespread coverage on mac news sites (http://www.macnn.com./ [www.macnn.com]

    So, how about trying it? Well, you can go to the Rhapsody site, http://rhapsody.com/ [rhapsody.com] and try to get to it. Well, NOTHING on the rha

    • Re:Another horrible execution plan by Real (Score:4, Insightful)

      by b4k3d b34nz ( 900066 ) on Monday December 05, 2005 @01:39PM (#14186179)

      Well, either Real's servers recovered or your browser/internet connection sucks. It loaded in less that a second on our less-than-perfect connection here at work.

      By the way, I don't think your 15 year old sister could do a better job. I think too many people don't understand that just because "anyone can create a website" doesn't mean that everyone does it well. Their website isn't that bad. In fact, it seems to be the best thing Real has ever done. Their main product is Real Player. Guess what's at the top of the page? Real Player. Guess what's new? Rhapsody? It's at the top of the page too. I think you just got out of the bed on the wrong side this morning...they seem to be doing a fine job of releasing their product, crappy though it is.

    • what are you talking about? I went to real.com (it loaded up just fine on firefox". Clicked on the listen for free button. Downloaded the plugin for firefox. Signed up. And it started playing music. Seems like an okay execution. No problems for me (except ofcourse the 25 play limit / mo).
    • It sounds like you hit the URL before the service actually went live. You might want to try again ...
  • watched the ad for the some-days-free.. sounded like an honest deal.

    *after* the ad, i'm informed that the service is not available in my country.

    now i'll have some sweet memories about the product being advertised there... and will surely buy a dozen
  • I probably missed something but on every page at rhapsody.com, you will read:
    System Requirements: Windows XP, Me, 2000 or 98 SE. 350 MHz, 380 MB HD Space, 64 MB Ram
    RTFA. Ok, on Monday. Not yet. OK. is going to be realeased. probably.

  • Not Quite First (Score:2, Informative)

    by 10sball ( 80009 )
    "...it brings the first real subscription music service to Mac"

    If you ignore EMusic.. which has had an OS X download client for some time now
  • Have to say I liked Rhapsody when I had the free trial with Speakeasy a couple of years ago, and don't like that it's not available on Linux. So then, it was launched on Monday, and presumably that means "today", 05Dec2005. So where do I go to use this? Why have Real not updated the Rhapsody site?
  • Never mind, I found it. Click here [rhapsody.com] and play.
    • When I tried to play a track, I got the following -

      U.S. Only
      We're sorry. We have detected that you are outside of the United States. This service is currently only available to residents within the United States.

      Pity, as I am running FF 1.5 on FC3, and it would have been a nice test. The Realplayer plugin has always worked fine in firefox, so I was hoping it would be ok.

  • About Time! (Score:2, Informative)

    by cresswell ( 778016 )
    I used Rhapsody on Windows, (when I still ran Windows) and I liked it a lot. But no linux, no rhapsody. I'll be following this closely.

    Barbara
  • I've been a Rhapsody subscriber for three years. A few months ago, Rhapsody released a new version of their client (3.0) that included support for DRM so you can copy files to your portable player. The problem is that this client was much more of a resource pig than their previous version (2.0). If you don't care about copying music and just want to be able to listen to it on demand, 3.0 would tie up much more of your system resources than the previous version - for no discernable improvement in audio qu
  • Apparently the Rhapsody music application is a XUL app or something. I just went there and installed it like any other firefox plugin.

    It plays audio but it sounds like it's got some sampling issue on my system, because everything sounds very slooooww and the pitch is very low.

    You can't burn any songs or put stuff on janus devices on linux.

    I'm running ubuntu breezy. I wonder how hard it would be to create some kind of ripper. You could always redirect the audio output to a file I suppose, but you'd have t
  • First of all, I got it working fine at work on my Win XP laptop + Firefox 1.5.

    I can't wait to try this at home, where my only machines are OS X and Linux.

    I can live with the web interface, though I wish they didn't rely on a pop-up window for the player.

    I'm a little disappointed they didn't use the web launch as an opportunity to include a few of my wishlist features:

    • instead of creating playlists, I wish I could just bookmark artists/albums. there are a lot lot lot of albums on rhapsody, and after
  • What is to stop anyone who has a subscription from simply bypassing all DRM at the kernel level with a simple module to record whatever they want?

    • What is to stop anyone who has a subscription from simply bypassing all DRM at the kernel level with a simple module to record whatever they want?

      Wouldn't it make everyone's year (at least those not associated with Sony or Rhapsody) if the rootkit installed by Sony's DRM invalidated the Rhapsody DRM?

  • I get blank window, running FC3 amd64.
  • Okay, I see a few comments about this, maybe someone can actually HELP instead of just insulting.

    I'm trying to try this service, but I get this message:

    "We're sorry but the combination of your operating system and Firefox 1.5 is not currently supported."

    Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8) Gecko/20051111 Firefox/1.5 - Build ID: 2005111116

    Fedora Core 4 (2.6.11-1.1369_FC4).

    Any ideas? I already have Real Player 10 installed...
  • Too bad...I was actually kind of interested in this, but since I live in Canada I can't use it. Is there any way to spoof it so they think I live in the US?
  • Insufficient disk space. Error code -235.

    $ df
    Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
    /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol00
    129724020 57796176 65338200 47% /
    /dev/mapper/VolGroup00-LogVol02
    59476116 44880076 11574832 80% /old
    /dev/hda1
  • If it requires them to have OS- and CPU- specific software anyway, why bother making it browser-based? That actually decreases the potential user base, because now you have to have the right OS and the right CPU, but the right browser as well.

    Yes, yes, you can use common GUI code on all three platforms. But you can do that with any number of other technologies, from scripting languages like Tcl/Tk, through Java, to cross-platform libraries. It seems like a bad move to me.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close