MS Silverlight a Step Back For Linux Users

mattb0611 writes "Just as it seemed that Linux users (especially 64-bit users) would finally be able to enjoy streaming content with a minimum of hassle, Microsoft's new Silverlight software promises to throw a monkey wrench in the works — as they have yet to suggest any sort of Linux platform support."

Comments

Surprise, surprise!

[Mostly a lurker]

Microsoft does not act to make desktop Linux more attractive.

Re:Surprise, surprise!

[pete.com]

Linux does not act to make desktop Linux more attractive

Re:Surprise, surprise!

[sortius_nod]

explain to me what linux is then...

Re:Surprise, surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

flamebait moderated improperly will gaurantee a flamewar.

Re:Surprise, surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is, do the people who encode their streaming content with sliverlight, know that others will not be able to decode it unless they are using the sliverlight, and consequently that their data is locked in a format that can only be used if they pay their MS tax?

Re:Surprise, surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

Operating System for servers, and very little else.

Re:Surprise, surprise!

[Ngarrang]

(tongue firmly in cheek this entire post)

Personally, I am shocked by this news. And here I thought Microsoft was becoming more open.

In another news thread, a poster noted that it was expensive to maintain a monopoly in the face of the Linux threat. News like this just seems to continue to support that theory.

Re:Surprise, surprise!

[Yvanhoe]

How could they ?
Microsoft does not even act to make desktop windows attractive at all !

Re:Surprise, surprise!

[Guuge]

To be fair, I don't think anyone expects an operating system to automatically generate new features.

Re:Surprise, surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

He works for Microsoft. We have his address right here folks. We're going to send him free copies of Ubuntu right away. Thanks for your cooperation.

Re:Surprise, surprise!

[PyroMosh]

You mean do people who intend the data to reach people online realize that people will need computers to view it?

I suspect they have some idea, yeah.

Re:Surprise, surprise!

[eno2001]

Interesting that... As I'm using it on the desktop on every machine I own (all 15 of them). I use it as a desktop at work. AND I use it in the server room too. The only people who say Linux isn't ready for the desktop, are people who themselves aren't ready for the desktop. ;P

Re:Surprise, surprise!

[shaitand]

'You mean do people who intend the data to reach people online realize that people will need computers to view it?'

Using a computer != Using Windows

Re:Surprise, surprise!

[PyroMosh]

Yeah, I get that. And in theory, I could order a PAL TV and bitch and moan that none of the local broadcasters support it, just NTSC. Have fun with that.

Honestly, if you're going to produce online content, you've already resolved yourself to the fact that you're not going to reach the users who aren't online, or aren't on broadband, or don't have computers. So I doubt you care about the Linux users. They're dwarfed by the others.

Using a computer = Using Windows for most practical purposes.

Re:Surprise, surprise!

[1lus10n]

No. On top of that asinine suggestion you (much like the ass who posted the article) fail to realize that microsoft only needs to be open (open != open source, a published spec or api would suffice) and standard in order for things like this to gain acceptance. As it stands someone will reverse engineer this and we will have an open source version shortly (far before anything of note uses it).

Re:Surprise, surprise!

[ccp]

Microsoft does not act to make desktop Linux more attractive.

One word: Vista

Cheers,

Re:Surprise, surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

I dual boot 64 studio and debian and i had to install windows in a virutal machine so that i could watch streaming video for my horseracing, as it requires windows media player. I have w32codecs installed and i've even tried changing my browser's user agent to ie and i couldn't get my streaming horseraces to work under linux. It makes me sick that sites require windows only. If i didn't enjoy watching the races, i would delete my windows vm. I would not recommend linux for desktop users, as popular sites often visted that are streaming content, often do not work with linux. nfl.com is another site i cannot get video to work. If it were up to me, i'd pass a law that requires open standards for websites, it would help to increse linux's popularity on the desktop.

Aw, come on

[lukas84]

It supports BOTH platforms. Windows AND Mac. How much better can it get?

Re:Aw, come on

[BecomingLumberg]

Oh come on, self righteous defenders of Linux! I love my Linux, but take a joke already. If you don't know what sarcasm is, you obviously haven't been here that long.

Re:Aw, come on

[kripkenstein]

It supports BOTH platforms. Windows AND Mac. How much better can it get?

;) Indeed.

This got me to thinking, though - they support Mac. Perhaps that could be leveraged into Linux support somehow? I mean, Macs have a BSD-like basis, and a neat set of well-documented Mac APIs on top of it (Cocoa, etc.). How hard would it be to take a Silverlight runtime and write a 'wrapper' (an emulation layer, perhaps like WINE but on a much smaller scale) to get it to work on Linux?

Something tells me the problems might not all be technical. The Silverlight's Mac version's EULA will probably say something like "You may only use this software on Apple Macintosh computers running OSX".

(But then, Novell have this 'interoperability' arrangement with Microsoft, don't they? They're already implementing Microsoft's .Net on Linux, perhaps they'll implement Silverlight as well? That might be amusing/interesting.)

Re:Aw, come on

[Anonymous Coward]

MS has a bad habit of dropping cross platform support for their products:
1) IE for the mac
2) WMP for the mac
3) Degraded MS Office functionality in Office 12 (scripting support for the mac).

They did announce that there might be support for Linux. If there is it won't last.
Step 1: Create cross platform product
Step 2: Get everyone to use cross platform product
Step 3: Drop support for every product that doesn't run Windows
Step 4: Profit (get customers to switch back to Windows)

Re:Aw, come on

[Anonymous Coward]

This got me to thinking, though - they support Mac. Perhaps that could be leveraged into Linux support somehow? I mean, Macs have a BSD-like basis, and a neat set of well-documented Mac APIs on top of it (Cocoa, etc.). How hard would it be to take a Silverlight runtime and write a 'wrapper' (an emulation layer, perhaps like WINE but on a much smaller scale) to get it to work on Linux?

Very, very hard. Forget the smaller scale than WINE - you're going to need large parts of the MacOS video infrastructure (CoreVideo, Quartz, likely QuickTime). If the mac client is not written in Cocoa, you'll need large parts of Carbon. (If it is in Cocoa, you could use GNUstep as a basis and avoid some work). You'ld be better off trying your luck with running the Windows version of Silverlight using WINE.

MacOS's BSD-like basis (and X11 support) means it is usually fairly simple to port Unix applications to MacOS (often just a recompile); the other direction is a lot more difficult.

Re:Aw, come on

[Delkster]

Not to mention that they could well do a half-assed job of it in the first place. Since it's the same software, it should work the same, so hey, it's obviously Linux' fault if it has problems.

I'd also imagine that licensing could prevent distros from including it even if they accept proprietary software, and MS would probably do the minimum effort required for packaging it itself, possibly causing problems or at least a "software is hard to install on Linux" effect.

The best way of playing on two sides at the same time is to pretend to be cooperative while doing the actual job in such a way that the benefit the other parties in the game get is as small as possible.

Or they might actually be releasing something reasonable. I'm not holding my breath yet but I guess anything's possible.

Re:Aw, come on

[illeism]

It supports BOTH platforms. Windows AND Mac I am so watching the Blues Brothers tonight (the good one with John Belushi)

Re:Aw, come on

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Shouldn't that be BOTH platforms: Vista and XP?

Re:Aw, come on

[nametaken]

You mean it's not supported on OS/2?!?! F'ing Microsoft.

Re:Aw, come on

[und0]

1) IE for the mac

And for Solaris...

Re:Aw, come on

[Anonymous Coward]

Like "i support both platforms Republican and Democrat".

Re:Aw, come on

[TechForensics]

Why does this remind me of this from The Blues Brothers?:

Belushi: What kind of music do you have here?
Bar Owner's Wife: Oh, we have BOTH kinds, Country AND Western!

(I know this is offtopic but darn it it's funny...)

Re:Aw, come on

[demon]

Which was just IE for Windows built against a (huge, fat, slovenly) Win32 API compat library for Solaris. Why anyone would want to run it (with its reputation as a system crashing app) is beyond me. :)

Re:Aw, come on

[delire]

Increasingly it appears that OS X isn't considered enough of a threat to strategically ignore. If the leaked European antitrust memos are any indication we've moved from a "there aren't the numbers to justify supporting Linux" to "supporting Linux will undermine our grip on the market".

Anyway, the best outcome here is that users simply learn to tell the difference between open and closed standards, and turf formats that are closed. Formats become 'standard' (in the market sense) when they become popular. Closed standards don't happen to us, we happen to them (if you get my drift).

Re:Aw, come on

[glas_gow]

I mean, Macs have a BSD-like basis, and a neat set of well-documented Mac APIs on top of it (Cocoa, etc.). OS X might have a BSD-like layer, but there is plenty of opacity to the kernel to prevent the like-for-like porting you're talking about. For starters, the OS X port won't use the BSD layer, or Cocoa. It'll use its own binary framework. So you'd have to port it from OS X blob to OS X source code first, before even thinking about porting to linux. But you're right, that final step would be pretty straightforward.

Re:Aw, come on

[asninn]

"Oh, we got both kinds. We got country *and* western.". :)

Re:Aw, come on

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a huge fan of microsoft but think of it with an open mind:

WHY should microsoft/windows have to support other platforms?

Thats like saying any program that you create has to support EVERY platform.

Perhaps linux is the one who should be supporting other platforms and not vice versa.

In some companies, programmers are required to support all other applications, while not having the flexibility of having their applications supported.

Re:Aw, come on

[Bert64]

They shouldnt, but they should support open standards so that other people are able to support other platforms themselves.
As it stands, they keep things proprietary and don't support any platforms other than their own, in an effort to force people to use their other products.

Re:Aw, come on

[mackyrae]

I'm confused. Did you just say Linux should support other platforms? Are suggesting yanking the NT kernel out of Windows and putting the Linux kernel in its place? If you mean architectures, Linux already supports a whole ton of them, while OSX supports 2 (PPC & x86) and Windows supports 1 (x86) or maybe 2 if the PDAs have a different processor. The most sense I can make out of what you said is that maybe you're confusing Linux with Free Software in general. If THAT's the case, then you should look at the Open CD, which is a cd for Windows with 30-something Win32 Free Software applications and a nice installation GUI. Of course, that's just a tiny selection. Quite a lot of Free Software is ported to (or written on) Windows. The ones that aren't? Generally, it's because A) the dev can't do it because s/he lacks Windows or B) there's already software serving the same purpose for Windows which may not be Free-libre but is free-gratis and then well, most people seem to care more about free-gratis than Free-libre, so...doesn't make a difference to most users.

Re:Aw, come on

[bmo]

"It supports BOTH platforms. Windows AND Mac. How much better can it get?"

ahem...

"We have BOTH kinds of music here! Country AND western!" - Blues Brothers

--
BMO

Re:Aw, come on

[e2d2]

I don't think it's a plan of evil intent. More like:

1. write software
2. sell to users who actually spend money on software
3. profit

Seriously, if you ran a for profit software company and wanted to keep your job, wouldn't you strive to create profit? Giving away software in this particular case would not help their profits in any way whatsoever. So is this really a surprise? It's not an "evil thing", just the reality of the system. When giving away software becomes profitable I'm sure they'll lock that down. Until that freezing day in hell we wont see much Linux support from MS.

Re:Aw, come on

[PyroMosh]

Thanks for pointing that out!

Re:Aw, come on

[shaitand]

'WHY should microsoft/windows have to support other platforms?'

Because Microsoft has a desktop monopoly. That means they have a different set of rules than normal businesses. Specifically, they can't use their existing monopoly to gain new monopolies and they do anything to prevent competition (like leveraging proprietary new technologies to force people onto their platform).

I realize this sounds alien, almost every move Microsoft makes is doing one of those things they aren't supposed to be doing. But they have found that they make dramatically more money than have to pay out in Anti-trust suits. For some odd reason governments don't think companies who have made all their profits illegally should be bankrupted by the fines. Never made sense to me, I think the company should be fined MORE than they made illegally and the amount of ill-gotten gains as a minimum.

Re:Aw, come on

[markdavis]

MacOS's BSD-like basis (and X11 support) means it is usually fairly simple to port Unix applications to MacOS (often just a recompile); the other direction is a lot more difficult.

To that I would say: That is probably the #1 reason Apple chose to shun/reject X and use their own, proprietary GUI.

As Compiz/Beryl now show, X (X11, of course) is quite capable of doing anything that Apple's GUI can do. Apple could have used X in MacOS 10 by adding/extending the 3D support, adding X extensions, and developing an Appley toolkit and window manager (they had to do that ANYWAY for their own propietary stuff). But if Apple HAD chosen to use X, then they would have made it FAR too easy for companies to port Apple MacOS software to Linux. Instead, they have an Xserver for the purpose of running non-native (read: all the GNU/BSD/Linux/Native Unix GUI) stuff in addition to their own apps.

Many people have to wake up and realize that Apple has very little altruism... they have no desire to have competition from Linux any more that Microsoft does. Apple is quite happy to take apps/technology/whatever from BSD, GNU, X, even Linux... but it unfortunately doesn't work the other way around.

Re:Aw, come on

[uhlume]

Open standards like what, Flash? Show me the standards committee. Oh wait, there is none. Or how about the open source Flash player? Whoops, you can't — Adobe's open licensing of SWF only permits generation, not playback.

(And if you're talking about SVG, sorry — your comment deserves a +5, Funny. It was a nice idea, but...)

Re:Aw, come on

[Anonymous Coward]

While I fully agree with you that Apple has little interest (read: none) in making it easy to port MacOS software to other platforms (which I think is a mistake on their part - they should actively support GNUstep), you are (IMO) mistaken about X11's suitability. X11's only claim to fame is its networking ability (which is nice) - everything else about it is decidedly inferior even to QuickDraw (Apple's graphics API before Quartz): no regions or anything equivalent, nothing anywhere near the power of CopyBits (which could scale and dither while copying if necessary), no color management, etc. Not to mention that QuickDraw was very very fast compared to X11. Quartz adds everything that is great about PostScript - device indepence, affine transforms, anti-aliasing ... Even if Apple wanted all this stuff to be open source, they would be better off simply open sourcing Quartz as is than trying to retrofit all that functionality into X11.

And as to altruism - as an Apple customer I am well aware that Apple is a corporation that is primarily interested in seperating me from my money, grudgingly willing to give me a computer in return for it. No altruism is involved or expected. As long as they don't try to lock up my data by forcing me to use their proprietary data formats I have no problem with this.

Re:Aw, come on

[zbaron]

It was marketed as Internet Explorer for UNIX. It required root access to install, the installer checked and bailed if it was not running as root. And it only ran on Solaris 2.5, it would not run on 2.5.1. I saw someone manage to get it to load and display on 2.6, but it could not do anything after that. One of the selling points was being able to run ActiveX controls. Not sure how they managed to get compiled Win32 code to run on a SPARC!

Re:Aw, come on

[dysprosia]

You're forgetting a few things. Mac OS X was derived from OPENSTEP, and OPENSTEP's underlying display technology is Display PostScript (DPS), not X. As a design decision, throwing away an already mature technology for something completely different and then rewriting a whole heap of libraries to support it is much more work rather than using PDF, an already PostScript based technology, wouldn't be very intelligent. You may be right regarding Apple's altruism, but there's more to the picture regarding X than you're really revealing.

Re:Aw, come on

[markdavis]

You (and the "anonymous coward" poster) have some very good points. I did neglect to take the Openstep history into better account, which was a mistake.

Of course, we must recognize that X really is and has been *the* choice for all Unix systems and had been the most mature solution at any given point in time. I understand it wasn't what Apple was looking for, and that Openstep/DPS did/does have certain advantages. But the amount of development effort that went into adapting Openstep to mutate into what Apple now uses (Quartz/Aqua) could probably have been applied to X, extending it in ways more flexible for everyone. They already had experience with X under A/UX, and A/UX could run with just X. But, that was not their objective.

It is unfortunate it had to turn out this way, because there could have been a situation that developers would not be faced with three choices: MS-Windows, Unix/X, and Unix/Quartz, but only two.... it would have made the decision to support non-MS-Windows platforms more attractive to those who didn't and easier to expand for those who did... a win for Apple and non-Apple *ix platforms. Oh well.

Re:Aw, come on

[Osiris Ani]

1) IE for the mac

...sucked.

2) WMP for the mac

...sucked.

You've just pointed out two great examples of Microsoft offering crappy software for another platform that was later superseded by superior alternatives. IE was a native OS X app prior to the creation of Safari, but it was — at best — a mediocre implementation of a web user agent. Once Safari was released, IE lagged far behind, and Microsoft publicly acknowledged that it was a better representation of what customers wanted.

Along similar lines, the Microsoft-distributed Telestream Flip4Mac is far better than the OS X version of WMP could ever have hoped to be. A plugin for QuickTime that integrates reasonably cleanly with the rest of the OS was a much better idea than that buggy standalone app.

Re:Aw, come on

[Anonymous Coward]

One of Quartz's designers posted on Slashdot his reasons for not using X11 for the Window System.

News?

[solevita]

Is anyone surprised by this? After all, a few stories down from this on the front page is news of the Microsoft Firefox plugin that works "only on Vista and XP". Who would have ever imagined that this would be any different?

Re:News?

[solevita]

Ignore my previous comment, I see what this is all about now. Summary should be renamed to "Submitter pushes traffic to own site, ad revenue follows".

Re:News?

[tsalaroth]

Actually, I'm pretty sure Matt doesn't profit from the ad revenues, the Dani in daniweb does.

He did, however, push traffic to his own blog on the daniweb site.

Unless there's something I don't know about Matt - like he's a Dani's boyfriend/partner/stalker or something.

just as i was being bashed by people in the other

[unity100]

thread about microsoft's development tools.

"one needs to 'experience' new products before drawing them off the list" they said.

"this is anti ms rant" they said.

and i said "ms has a bad track record when it comes to hidden motives and reliability".

and voila, now this.

Whatever - Flamebait Story

[N8F8]

I'm as much a Linux fan as the next guy but I HATE when I see this crap where MS is supposed to wipe the penguin's ass. Time for hte Open Source folks to innovate or get out of the way. Adobe(Macromedia) Flash has been around for a LONG time and I have yet to see anyone attempt to come up with a serious Open Source alternative.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree with the gist of your argument, creating an open source replacement for an existing proprietary software application is not innovation, it's imitation. If the imitation is better than the original, you could call it refinement.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[dalesc]

You're clearly not "as much as Linux fan as the next guy" or you might have thought it through for 10 seconds before commenting.

If Silverlight is widely adopted, a whole bunch of the web becomes inaccessible to Linux users. What if sites Linux users depend on start to use Silverlight because it's easier to code than, say DHTML. What if my bank decides to use it? What if it gets used for more than just pretty animations? What if it becomes a critical component of a site?

Any site that deploys Silvershite is going to get a pretty strong email from me.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Anonymous Coward]

Because to make linux a viable desktop it has to meet with the current accepted standards, which happens to be Flash, which happens to change drastically everytime Adobe releases a player (or so it seems.) Look at all the pages that refuse to work without Flash 9. Also, how happy do you think Adobe would be with us engineering a tool to work with their precious format? The fact is there are Open Source alternatives to MS crap. We have open source media formats and media players. We have an open source OS and an open source office suite. We have an open source browser. However, practically none of these are compatible with "accepted standards". If your goal is to see Linux as a desktop for the masses, then it will not happen with Microsoft continually trying to kill off competitors who support it. (Look at Real and now Adobe.)

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Realistic_Dragon]

That is highly unrealistic. The biggest reason is that as soon as Microsoft pushes Starlight as a 'critical update' (as they did for IE 7) its market share will take a massive jump to over 60%. The best Linux/OSS could manage in an initial stage would be 10% and that is a WILDLY OPTIMISTIC estimate.

If I were a media manager, considering the current penetration of Flash, I might think about targeting a platform with a 60% share in addition to Flash, 10% would be extremely unlikely. So, a new OSS rich media format wouldn't work not because of the player but because of the content producers.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Anonymous Coward]

The serious Open Source alternative to Flash is supposed to be animated SVG + JavaScript, I think.
No guesses as to when MS Internet Explorer will support that. I don't even know if Firefox does.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Anonymous Coward]

Flash has been around for a LONG time and I have yet to see anyone attempt to come up with a serious Open Source alternative

You haven't really looked hard enough.

1. I'll discard the obvious open-source reimplementations of flash, some of which work pretty well nowadays (e.g. gnash), they're not really alternatives to flash as a platform.

2. Java applets ARE a serious alternative to flash. A bloaty alternative, but java has a superset of flash functionality, and the bloatiness matters much less in 2007 than it did in 1997. Java is now open source. Okay, it wasn't always open source (it was always "source available" though), so maybe that doesn't satisfy you either.

3. Obviously, one could use Mono to implement java applet-like functionality. Not sure anyone's bothering, but it's mentioned as something suitable for a "StudentProject" by the mono crowd.

4. Most serious "total alternative": javascripted SVG/SMIL animation in native Firefox: http://brian.sol1.net/svg/2006/01/09/smil-animatio n-in-mozilla-report/. THAT is open source, open standard work.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[N8F8]

Silverlight is based on C# (a reduced subset) which is a public standard that is already being implemented for Linux in the Mono project and the DotGNU project. It's a matter of effort, little else. And you same arguments hold true when you turn this on it;s head and say that Firefox 3.0 features for building XUL applications will make it hard for IE users and developers.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[alexhs]

Wow, a copy of an OS News flame post :) (same team of astroturfers ?)

Seriously, there is none so deaf as he who will not hear.

What about all these fine standards made available by the W3C ? SMIL maybe ?

Wait, nobody uses it because MSIE, used by 80% of people, doesn't implement it. Who's at fault ?
From the Wikipedia, implementation have been made mainly for handheld and mobile devices... where MSIE doesn't rule.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[N8F8]

Or look at it from MS's perspective. Flash on one side, Google Office on another side and XUL in FF 3.0 on another. Either add their own version of Browser-As-Platform or they sit back and lose the market.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that Active X doesn't exactly have wide support outside of IE either? Only thing I have to use IE for now a days is a help desk application that uses a bunch of Active X controls.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Timesprout]

No its a frequent refrain round here about how badly Flash sucks, all the smart people have it disabled, cant be arsed looking at sites which require it, etc. MS start to develop a competing technology and suddenly it's the end of the web? Get real.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[morgan_greywolf]

Actually, I've been batting around ideas lately for a cross-platform, independent, free/open source format and browser plugins (not necessarily compatible with anything like Flash or Sliverlick) for video and other interactive media, with support for open standards like Theora-based video, Vorbis-based sound, SVG-based graphics, JavaScript, XML and even GTK. The idea is to come up with something that allows Web developers to do fancy things with video and interactive media that hasn't been done before -- further blurring the lines between desktop and Web apps.

If anyone's interested and/or has ideas, you know where to find me if you look at my .sig.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[N8F8]

Actually, I don't believe there is much that would prevent someone from writing an extension to Mono that supports Silverlight (WPF/E) applications. Silverlight is basically XAML + C# running as a browser add-in.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Zonk (troll)]

And unless IE supports it out of the box (like Flash and soon Silverlight), most developers won't use it.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Yfrwlf]

Sounds like a wonderful idea, but what about gnash? It is open, and can view flash files up to Flash version 7 from last I heard. Perhaps building upon it would be a good decision?

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't the .NET framework aspects of Silverlight. The Linux community could develop a compatible implementation, and you're absolutely right that the burden is on them to do so. The problem is the VC1 video CODEC, which is encumbered by many patents. The Linux community can certainly come up with their own VC1 implementation, but anybody who distributes it is going to be open to a lawsuit.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Aladrin]

I guess you're going to just keep posting that same comment over and over and over until you get modded up on it, eh?

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[N8F8]

It's up to content producers to decide what video codec they use. MPEG-4 is a valid alternative and the market seems to lean toward non-proprietary media codes.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Just Some Guy]

The best Linux/OSS could manage in an initial stage would be 10% and that is a WILDLY OPTIMISTIC estimate.

Know who I want to see enter the fray? Apple. I could easily imagine them releasing a slick little web plugin that's open source and well-hyped. After all, whether you like them or not, nobody makes mundane things seem sexy and must-have like Apple. I bet they could get much higher market penetration than 10%, especially if they talked the Firefox team into including it by default.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[eMbry00s]

Software patents kind of get in the way. Adobe are big software patent proponents, and would without a doubt shoot down any project trying to take a bite out of their market.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[N8F8]

No, actually I was trying to make the same point to another commenter. In this case the person was implying that the W3C standard was a valid alternative that MS could have chosen to adopt instead.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Yfrwlf]

Gnash is one that I know of, it seems to be just a replacement for Flash.

You're right that MS can "invent" whatever technologies they want to, but unfortunately anything that relates to the infrastructure of the Internet needs to be open and cross-platform. Companies like Google, from what I've seen so far, at least encourage everyone to keep on standards that everyone can use. MS loves to suggest things are free to use, but then makes them depend on certain things which actually aren't free. So they lay the trap, it becomes popular, then they start strong arming. If you haven't seen this from MS, you've been living under a rock.

Open standards will and should win, closed are a threat. That's the point.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[gratemyl]

MSIE does not, FF does. Anybody know about Opera?

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[alexhs]

Or look at it from MS's perspective. Why should I do ? I see it from my perspective. I see nothing wrong with MS doing a Flash copycat, if they don't use anti-competitive means to strongarm it on web developpers (abusing monopoly and all that, which remains to be seen). But calling it cross-platform is a bit of a stretch - especially when it is less "cross-platform" than competitors. Well, a plug-in being available for (MS-Windows version of) Firefox is better than nothing I guess...
BTW, MS doesn't seem to respect other's registered trademarks. If they write Internet Explorer®, shouldn't they write Firefox® ?

Google Office on another side Isn't that one really cross-platform, using open standards ? Of course it would require MS to compete on a foot of equality to do the same...

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[trollzor]

Mod parent down, there is a difference between competition between peers and a monopoly doing the same thing. One is legal, the other is not (if government bothers to enforce anti-monopoly laws that is). If MS rolls out this Silverlight to Vista and XP in servicepacks / updates and provides a ton of incentives and free tools to use it on server side that isn't innovation at all, that's leveraging existing monopoly market share in one market to enter a new market. Even if Linux didn't exist, this is an unfair abuse against Adobe.

And Microsoft *is* a monopoly, convicted even, they just bought their way out of sanctions:
"The decision by the Bush administration to vacate the lawsuit that was first initiated in 1998 by the Clinton Justice Department is considered a major victory for Microsoft, which nearly tripled its campaign contributions and more than doubled its lobbying expenditures during its fight against the antitrust case."
http://www.opensecrets.org/alerts/v6/alertv6_26.as p
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/indusclient.a sp?code=B12&year=2006&sort=A

And don't tell me open source hasn't innovated - there exists public domain/BSD-style code to implement theora/vorbis ANYWHERE, but vested interests want to keep video locked up with patent encumbered mp3 or AAC audio (which vorbis defeats in listening tests) and patented video codecs (with which theora is competitive and if patents weren't a problem the x264 is one of the best h.264 encoders). The real anti-innovation scam is patent abuse, and monopoly abuse.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[oyenstikker]

You'd be more likely to see it from Sun or IBM. Apple writes software to push their own hardware.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Oktober Sunset]

The don't even need to make a new thingy, they could just make it part of the quicktime plugin.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[TobascoKid]

how happy do you think Adobe would be with us engineering a tool to work with their precious format?

Well, there's gnash

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[rbanffy]

It's _NOT_ just a question of effort.

By handing over the control of the requirements to Microsoft (as the Mono project does) you give Microsoft - who would pretty much wish them dead - the power to drive developer efforts as they wish. If they control what it means to be "compatible", then they already own the other projects.

What if MS waits for a free (as in speech) 1.0-compatible implementation to release the all-new-2.0-that-breaks-everything release? Will developers start coding right away? What if the format is not published? Will they have to reverse engineer it too? For how long and at what cost? Wouldn't those resources be better spent doing something else?

MS has not to worry about its user base because updates can be pushed down Windows Update to all their users. They can break compatibility as they wish provided they silently pushed the updates a month earlier.

So, I will pretty sure boycott and send very strong messages to any site that uses this technology and will recommend everybody to do the same.

This is a battle about open standards and a level playfield. We should not allow them to have it their way.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Applekid]

My guess would be that it would wind up how IE5 included support for VML and AOL graphics formats. They were included by default and inherited a huge install base but, who used them? Did everyone switch away from GIF and JPG? Did everyone start redoing their sites to take advantage of 3D and vector art? Hardly.

There are a lot of really good Flash developers out there. Does Silverlight really offer anything to them? A lot of the big problems with Flash are already worked out with their own scripts and getting used to all the language changes Macromedia kept flipping out onto them.

Even if the install base all of a sudden became 90%, I don't think there will be any real push to move away from Flash. No end user has Flash because they like IT, they have it because they like the content produced on it. It's completely content driven.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[mormop]

"That is highly unrealistic. The biggest reason is that as soon as Microsoft pushes Starlight as a 'critical update' (as they did for IE 7) its market share will take a massive jump to over 60%. The best Linux/OSS could manage in an initial stage would be 10% and that is a WILDLY OPTIMISTIC estimate."

Sounds like using an existing monopoly to leverage your way into another market to me. Can't wait to see what the EU does with this one.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[mikkelm]

So blame Microsoft for linux projects being too cheap to license technology like everyone else does?

Right.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Anonymous Coward]

True. However, Apple has huge things to gain from platform independence. That is the real reason they almost exclusively use open standards. Every lock-in to MS lost is a potential Mac user gained.
 
At least as long as Apple has less than 50% of the market, and possibly longer, they'll push open file formats which, coincidentally, benefits everyone.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Delkster]

Know who I want to see enter the fray? Apple. I could easily imagine them releasing a slick little web plugin that's open source and well-hyped.

What would be Apple's motivation for making it open source?

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Bovarchist]

So, why do we have to wait for Sun or IBM or Apple? I mean, a group of hobbyists tied together by the internet have created an OS that can compete with the largest software company in the world. Why can't we create our own cross-platform plug-in that can do the same thing? I've seen plenty of open-source apps (Gimp, Blender, OpenOffice) that rival their proprietary counterparts, or at least are "good enough" for the common user. So where is the web-plugin-that-can-do-almost-anything-ala-Flash? Have I missed it? Is there an OSS effort to create such a thing? I would gladly support it, as it would make my life as a web app developer easier in the long run.

-----
"Anything sounds impressive if you put quotes around it and a famous name behind it." --Genghis Khan

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[clintre]

Please Apple has just a many hidden motives and questionable tactics as M$. They both are just as evil. M$ is just better at being evil. ;)

Apple is better at eye candy and marketing at this time though.

However I do agree if something like this is created it needs to be truly standards compliant and run on all OSs. M$ has a bad history in this area.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[mr_mischief]

What's new about JavaScript and SVG?

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[cyphercell]

...they sit back and lose the market.

Exactly, no one, especially OSS wants them to own the market. Every move MS makes is intended to hurt and vanquish the competition and MS considers everything competition. As bad as Adobe is, they are "friendly" to Linux, MS on the other hand is thoroughly predatory. Personally, I don't understand why people would want another MS format on their Linux boxen, but I don't blame them for being agitated with MS, as Adobe has recently renewed interest in their Linux support.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[cyphercell]

Frankly, OSS doesn't have the market penetration, effectively the only companies that can compete with Adobe are MS and maybe Apple, because they can tie things in with the OS or ipod/zune. OSS will not gain any traction without a large installed base, maybe firefox would be helpful there, but most developers will not target 25% of the market exclusively.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Macthorpe]

The only web plugin I ever see from Apple is Quicktime and I wouldn't call that sexy or must-have. From my experience even the WMP plugin is lighter and more stable, though YMMV.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Christianfreak]

That is highly unrealistic. The biggest reason is that as soon as Microsoft pushes Starlight as a 'critical update' (as they did for IE 7) its market share will take a massive jump to over 60%. The best Linux/OSS could manage in an initial stage would be 10% and that is a WILDLY OPTIMISTIC estimate.

So? That doesn't mean that 60% of the content providers are going to suddenly start supporting it. We use online video in a project I'm involved with. Even if this did support Linux, I'm not going to change because FLV already meets my needs! I'm guessing that most providers are going to feel the same way. Also the article says nothing about how its served, though it does talk about .NET so I'm guessing its going to require Windows + IIS. I doubt this will get off the ground.

If I were a media manager, considering the current penetration of Flash, I might think about targeting a platform with a 60% share in addition to Flash

Why would you say this? Flash has something like 95% of the market. Even at 60% a provider would still have to maintain a version in Flash. Unless there is just some mind-blowing amazing feature that comes with this I just don't see providers rushing to convert to it.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[cyphercell]

I don't, I blame microsoft for single handedly shitting on the entire software industry. Where have you been?

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[cyphercell]

Apple is largely Open Source http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Just Some Guy]

What would be Apple's motivation for making it open source?

Market penetration. OS X users would use it, Windows users could use it, and as a bonus they'd even get the Linux crowd on the bandwagon (probably doing much of the work). They've been pretty big lately on pushing open standards to compete, and this would dovetail nicely into it.

If their standard caught on, then they get to remain relevant as a desktop OS without praying that Microsoft cuts them out of the loop. Maybe they wouldn't make money off it, but it might very well keep them from losing money.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[quanticle]

Personally, I don't understand why people would want another MS format on their Linux boxen

I don't want another Microsoft format on my Linux box. However, as long as Microsoft has the majority of users in the given market, I have to show at least token support for these formats in order to keep from being completely marginalized.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Anonymous Coward]

OSS (GPL specifically) projects can't license technology because no negotiable license would be compatible with the GPL.

If it were only about money, most of Linux's problems would be solved right now. Unfortunately, it's more about freedom and the law.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[mikkelm]

Yes. If only it were. Instead, it's suffering from self-imposed limitations and blaming everyone else for not living in their world.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[dk.r*nger]

as soon as Microsoft pushes Starlight as a 'critical update'

If this happens, MS will get a big fat courtorder, courtesy of the nice men and women of the Adobe Legal Corps. Doing that is a textbook example of an exploitation of a monopoly, especially given the current penetration of Flash.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Delkster]

Apple is largely open source in the parts of their software that isn't directly part of their core business, which often means "where open source alternatives already exist". That means low-level OS stuff etc. and using other projects' OSS components where it happens to suit them. How many of all those open source components in OS X are actually original Apple production? Using other people's OSS components in the OS is quite different from opening up their own stuff.

Apple is not largely open source when it comes to their own applications, libraries etc., and particularly not so when it comes to features and applications that originally came from Apple itself and that other platforms don't have yet.

In other words, Apple uses open source components when it is in their interests. I'm yet to hear any reason why it would be in Apple's interests to release such an application as open source were they to develop one.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Delkster]

Market penetration. OS X users would use it

Easily doable without open source. They'd bundle it with their OS anyway.

Windows users could use it

Easily doable without open source. Just release a Windows binary package just like they do with Quicktime, iTunes and whatnot.

and as a bonus they'd even get the Linux crowd on the bandwagon (probably doing much of the work)

That doesn't seem to have interested Apple much in the past. In fact, Apple rarely even admits that Linux exists. There isn't much market share to be gained from Linux anyway.

Obviously Apple would release such an application also for Windows. It wouldn't be able to gain much market share otherwise. The motivation for making it open source or even releasing a Linux binary is still unclear.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[demon]

Try to fine Microsoft, then cue the US government complaining to them about how un-capitalistic and unfair it is to restrain the business of a fine corporate citizen like Microsoft. I think we all know where that's going.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[ThaReetLad]

There is already an OSS VC1 implementation, and you're free to use it in any country that does not allow software patents. You can hardly blame Microsoft when they have an obligation to their shareholders to take advantage of any opportunity that the law allows. If it's anyone's fault, its the fault of those who elect governments that allow software patents.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[cyphercell]

Quick, tag this article "haha" http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/18/151221 6

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[cyphercell]

UPDATE: It worked!!!

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[mikkelm]

My, you're a funny one

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[ajs318]

VC-1 may be covered by patents, but those patents are null and void in places such as Europe and Britain. In addition, distributing the codec as Source Code (therefore, legally in kit form) probably would get around the letter (if not the spirit) of patent restrictions (since the user must perform some deliberate act to cause the thing to act in a way that is covered by a patent, and probably would satisfy the requirements for an exemption in any case).

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[cyphercell]

Yea, well as long as your just venting, I figured I'd add little to nothing to the conversation also. PS Thank you!

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Hal_Porter]

Actually, that's not strictly true. The open source codec could be packaged up into an ActiveX control. You could get people to embed the content in webpaged as an ActiveX control with a parameter pointing to the file. Even IE7 will prompt people to install and run it.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/IETechCol/cols/dnexpie/activex_secu rity.asp?frame=true

Autodesk use it to get their dwf viewer installed

http://dwf.blogs.com/beyond_the_paper/2007/04/can_ somebody_ca.html

You just need to write an ActiveX control, sign it and pack it into a cab file and add this code to the webpage

<object CLASSID="clsid:xxxxxxxx-yyyy-zzzz-aaaa-bbbbbbbbbbb b"
CODEBASE="http://www.sourceforge.net/opensourc ecodec/windowsbinaries/
install.cab#version=a,b,c ,ddd"
width="640" height="480">
<param name="Src" value="filename.ext">
</object>

When IE finds the page it will prompt people if they want to install the codec. If they say yes, it will pull the CAB file, install the control. Then the control can play filename.ext, the media clip. Next time around, the clip will play transparently. Obviously, if they say No, the codec won't install.

I'm pretty sure I've seen flash install this way at least once.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[mikkelm]

What? Venting? I'm asking valid questions and you're adding nothing but distractions from the topic at hand.

Please, stop the offtopic posts. You've already gone through the trouble of adding a "freak" to my list. Way to stomp your feet. Go bother someone else.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[cyphercell]

So blame Microsoft for linux projects being too cheap to license technology like everyone else does?
Right.

So, you were going for insightful here? Sorry, I didn't realize you had eaten paint chips as a child.

PPS, I wasn't always like this, I'm just sick of wintrolls.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about market share. Microsoft of course goes for the biggest and easiest part of the pie--- people who already use or develop for Windows. Whether or not Microsoft cares to support other platforms with its 'flash killer' is only interesting to the extent that it affects their ability to take the market from Adobe.

I think it's an uphill battle for MS. Developers already know Flash. Users already have flash plugins. Microsoft could try to woo developers/designers/tech people who use linux-- the people who are among their most vocal critics-- by supporting the platform. That could translate into positive word of mouth from early adopters. I'm hoping they don't.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[PastaLover]

Yes. If only it were. Instead, it's suffering from self-imposed limitations and blaming everyone else for not living in their world. I agree, let's ditch this open source thing, it's clearly not working out.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[mikkelm]

I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you fail to see the validity of the question.

If anyone is trolling here, surely it's you. Go somewhere else and take your pointless insults with you.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[cyphercell]

Ok, I promise I'll try to quit laughing at you, but if you know nothing about OSS do you really think you're in a place to argue about it?

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[mikkelm]

That has to be the most pointless comment I have ever seen. Nowhere have I suggested anything at all about the viability of open source.

I like the philosophy behind open source. I just don't like when people do nothing but complain like stubborn children about how the world doesn't always work the way they like it to and how other people are horrible for not thinking the way they do.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[mikkelm]

I would have taken this further if you were of a less childish disposition.

No more feeding the troll.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[cyphercell]

Say something intelligent and I'll take you off my foes list.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[cyphercell]

That's true, but Mac seems more transitional to me than anything, I think they understand that they cannot fight against OSS forever. I think they would have a lot to gain by implementing new OSS technologies.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[PastaLover]

First you go:

Yes. If only it were. Instead, it's suffering from self-imposed limitations and blaming everyone else for not living in their world. Then:

Nowhere have I suggested anything at all about the viability of open source. Patents are mutually exclusive with open source. You can't really have one together with the other. We are discussing the threat this poses to open source and specifically the way in which Microsoft is apparently using it to gain leverage over linux. Your response to this amounts to "you hippie fools should just shut up and take it like a man". I refrained from trying to point this out to you and went with a sarcastic comment instead, since you obviously just don't get it. At all.

If that makes my post useless, then so be it. But then it's posted in the most useless thread in a useless discussion so excuse me if I don't really care.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[DamnStupidElf]

Adobe(Macromedia) Flash has been around for a LONG time and I have yet to see anyone attempt to come up with a serious Open Source alternative.

As a user of open source, I generally detest flash. It's only good for making annoying, flashy, moving advertisements and web pages. I hate flash movies, because there's no reason not to just provide an AVI or MP4 stream. I hate flash menus, because if they're broken it's impossible to view the source and maybe have a chance of figuring out where they were trying to send you. Everyone hates flash ads. For interactive web pages, there's cross platform AJAX that you can actually see the source for, and Java for applications that just don't work in AJAX.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[mikkelm]

So because you believe that anything that requires a license is incompatible with anything that has an open source, it means that I'm somehow talking about the viability of open source?

Yes, we're discussing the threat it poses to open source. The threat exists as a natural incompatibility. My response to this is that open source zealots should stop complaining about how unfair everything is because they cannot come in from left field and challenge the core of the business models of the established software industry. You obviously just didn't get that. At all.

If the collective open source world amasses to one big pity circle jerk, no one is going to get anywhere. You've picked your philosophy. Stop complaining about how others aren't following it. It's just as annoying as religious zealots.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Knuckles]

self-imposed limitations

Right, let's get rid of this stupid "freedom" thing.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen plenty of open-source apps (Gimp, Blender, OpenOffice) that rival their proprietary counterparts, or at least are "good enough" for the common user.

GIMP may be an example, but both Blender and OpenOffice.org were written by professional programmers as commercial products and only open-sourced later on.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Perky_Goth]

Like, using SVG and adopting OGG as the default media for the format? That kind of innovation that MS is stalling in the comitte on which it has no intereset to succed?

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Anonymous Coward]

Or patent infrignement.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[Bert64]

XUL is already cross platform and open source, so it places no restriction on what OS or hardware you run it on.
It's also an openly documented spec, so anyone could write their own implementation of it.

That's the difference, XUL doesnt force you to buy a proprietary product from a single vendor.
I don't mind so much being forced to install mozilla, providing there are no restrictions as to what OS or hardware you need to use.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[oyenstikker]

Because the OS runs applications that serve according to specifications. Apache on Linux speaks HTTP. Postfix on Linux speaks SMTP. JBoss on Linux speaks HTTP, JK, and various J2EE dialects. People read the specifications and write great software. The problem with things like these new browser plugins is that the specifications will not be available unless you pay a lot of money, and there will be patent and licensing issues.

Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story

[panaceaa]

Why should anyone implement SMIL? Just 'cause some people at the W3C specified it? The world doesn't work by people writing specifications for someone else to implement. People should write specifications if they're going to implement them, like a development lead on a software development team.

If open source is going to have a Flash competitor, someone needs to come out of the woodwork and just implement one. And make it better than Flash. Silverlight is retarded -- it does absolutely no more than Flash, supports fewer platforms, and has absolutely 0% adoption so far. It's going to be just as successful as the last Microsoft product to attack Adobe's position, Metro, or whatever they called it in Office 2007.

Open source shouldn't follow Microsoft's mistakes -- do something new -- like make video more efficient/robust with downsampling, fastforward, immediate playback after you scroll forward. Or allow video editing in a browser without massive server involvement. Or allow vector graphics to be drawn over HTML rendered in Firefox. There's tons of incredibly innovative new approaches that Microsoft could never push through its beaurocracy, and Adobe couldn't implement due to its previous technical decisions. (Adobe/Macromedia's done a great job, but they do have past implementation decisions behind them, and new products can take different paths on trade-offs to come up with a new direction.)

Unnecessary technology

[Werrismys]

We already have java for real stuff and flash for multimedia whatnot. They are ubiquitous and well understood, tested technologies. Silverwind is already dead.

Re:Unnecessary technology

[Mr Pippin]

I wouldn't say dead. I would say "golden opportunity" for more virus development. This is Microsoft, after all.

Everyone can soon look forward to a torrent of Sliverlight security fixes in addition to all their current patches.

Re:Unnecessary technology

[steve_l]

Java, for all its strengths server-side, is still hard to write for on the client. Swing, SWT, AWT: all are hard to write and test. Applets suck, and Java Web Start, although it works (even on linux), isnt that common.

If you look at the popularity of Ajax sites its because
  -it works on all three platforms: IE, Firefox and Safari
  -it lets you extend existing sites instead of moving to a new platform
  -there's no download/startup hit
  -it lets you had off to Flash the multimedia stuff

Silverlight is effectively MS promising to port a subset of Avalon to the Mac. Avalon is an XML format for the GUI, backed by .NET code, or remote code. Its goal is to let you write rich apps, more easily than today.

For OSS, we have something equivalent: XUL. There is good JavaScript+XUL support, and some Java+XUL integration, but it doesnt have the full backing of people like Sun (yet).

Re:Unnecessary technology

[scdeimos]

Everyone can soon look forward to a torrent of Sliverlight security fixes in addition to all their current patches.

Yes, it is getting to the point where Microsoft should start shipping their volume of patches with .torrent files. :)

Re:Unnecessary technology

[SenFo]

Flash has always suffered from some inherit design flaws. For example, it's difficult to build a crawler that can index a flash-based site. Microsoft claims, however, that "content created with Silverlight would be more searchable and indexable than that created with Flash."

I, for one, actually look forward to seeing what Microsoft can deliver with Silverlight. As of now, Adobe has Flex, which has some features that are somewhat appealing. However, being Flash-based, it will suffer from some of the same limitations. Ignoring the Linux community, however, would leave an incredibly bad taste in my mouth.

Re:Unnecessary technology

[Anonymous Coward]

We also have MPlayer's firefox plugin! I was pretty surprised the other day when I learned that you can click through the "Warning: you need Windows Media Player" dialog on CNN's video feeds, and still access the content.

Huh?

[aurelian]

Does that mean every technology or product released by anybody not supporting Linux is a 'step back for Linux'?

Re:Huh?

[Svippy]

No, only Linux users... and this annoys me, because I was seriously trying to get to the store this day. All the steps forward seems like the worst hassle.

Re:Huh?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Does that mean every technology or product released by anybody not supporting Linux is a 'step back for Linux'? Anything that is not pro Linux is a step back for Linux. Just ask any Linux advocate.

Re:Huh?

[Yfrwlf]

Any standard, if it is a real standard, should be completely uncontrolled. Does MS have a patent on this so-called standard? Is it actually an open standard? From what I've, you know, actually witnessed myself, is that whenever MS calls something an open standard, what they really mean is a standard for them that somehow relies upon their technologies so that it isn't actually as "open" as it first seems. MS is free to innovate, but creating something controlled and proprietary that is supposed to be accepted as an open standard *would* be bad. Do you honestly think MS would make something completely uncontrolled that is an actual improvement over current open technologies, for the good of everyone? If they have, that would be a first to my knowledge.

Re:Huh?

[tsetem]

Maybe a step back (or at least standing still) for Microsoft. You could argue that MS not acknowledging Linux interest further validates Linux's threat, while MS is playing it's usual tricks.

Someday, MS will have to realize that they are losing the desktop game, and the only way they can stay relevant is to go online (which they are) and embrace all OS's* (which they aren't).

* - Yes there are a bazillion OS's, and they have limited resources. But the obvious ones to support are Windows, MacOS & Linux. Sorry Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, *BSD & VMS Users.

Re:Huh?

[FlatLine84]

I wouldn't say necessarily that it's a step back, but it does the wind out of the sails. I mean, now where Linux did have a chance to take over some of the market, they may not. It slows things down, but as well all see, Linux will adapt, it always does.

First Vista then we'll see

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be so much in hurry. Let them first to have it working on Vista then in 5 years Linux port will become an option.

What did you expect?

[QuietLagoon]

they have yet to suggest any sort of Linux platform support.

That is one of the main goals behind Silverlight, to take control of the active media web content delivery mechanisms, so that Microsoft can provide support only for "friendly" operating systems.

Do you really think that Microsoft would do anything to promote the Linux platform on the desktop?

Re:What did you expect?

[LaughingCoder]

so that Microsoft can provide support only for "friendly" operating systems.

Oh please ... then why is Mac included? My take is, if Linux wasn't fragmented into dozens of viable distributions MS would have supported Linux as well.

Re:What did you expect?

[ajs318]

The thing is, it shouldn't matter which Linux distribution you're using -- or, for that matter, if you're using Solaris, one of the BSDs or even -- the ultimate exercise in teaching a gerbil to bark -- Cygwin. When you type ./configure, the magic pixies should sort everything out for you.

As long as the OS conforms (more or less) to the "Portable Operating Systems Interface (eXtended)" specification and includes an ANSI C compiler (with or without the GCC extensions, which are in themselves almost a de facto standard), any well-written C code should compile on it. And any code that doesn't is obviously badly-written :)

Re:What did you expect?

[mgblst]

Ha, you sure made me laugh coder boy.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

I first assumed that Mac support was included to support (warning: generalisation) the creative Mac market...but it dosen't appear that the authoring software (Expression) is supported for anything but Windows, which puzzles me.

Re:What did you expect?

[twenex27]

so that Microsoft can provide support only for "friendly" operating systems.

Oh please ... then why is Mac included? Because with only one manufacturer behind it, and being a proprietary platform, the Mac doesn't compete on Microsoft's home turf? Especially now that with the ability to run Windows XP native or virtualized, Windows does compete on the Mac's home turf.

My take is, if Linux wasn't fragmented into dozens of viable distributions MS would have supported Linux as well. My take is, if Linux weren't fragmented into dozens of viable distributions it would never have gained the worldwide community necessary to make it the success it is. Microsoft has seen off all other corporate comers, why should OneAndOnlyLinux Inc. be any different?

Re:What did you expect?

[Waffle Iron]

then why is Mac included?

The Mac is Microsoft's antitrust insurance card. It only costs them ~5% lower market share to keep the government mostly off their backs. That's why MS bailed out Apple with a big cash transfusion and commitments for Mac versions of Office about 10 years ago.

Microsoft knows that with Apple's hardware lockin business model, there's little chance of their computer market share ever increasing by a significant amount, so this is a safe move for MS. Linux, OTOH, is a more dangerous unknown quantity. With an alien business model and dozens of companies involved with it, the ultimate impact on Microsoft's market share is unpredictable.

Re:What did you expect?

[QuietLagoon]

The Mac is Microsoft's antitrust insurance card. It only costs them ~5% lower market share to keep the government mostly off their backs.

That is exactly correct. Microsoft has always used the Mac as their anti-trust insurance card.

Just look at the partially-functional, partially-compatible Mac version of Microsoft Office. Just enough compatibility to read most Windows documents, not enough compatibility to be a threat to the core cash-cow Windows Microsoft Office business.

Re:What did you expect?

[LaughingCoder]

I noticed you used the word "should" three different times. It "shouldn't" matter, the magic pixies "should" sort everything out and C code "should" compile. In the open source world, "should" is sufficient. After all, it is *free* and you do have the source, so you can just change/fix it. However, when you charge for your products you have to support them, and "should" doesn't cut it because there is an "or else" clause. If it doesn't work on "pick you favorite Linux distro" and MS sold it as Linux compatible, then MS "must" rectify the situation.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think that Microsoft would do anything to promote the Linux platform on the desktop?

And, care to explain, why should they spend $$$ to aid their direct compeititor?

Re:What did you expect?

[drsmithy]

The Mac is Microsoft's antitrust insurance card. It only costs them ~5% lower market share to keep the government mostly off their backs.

Apple and Microsoft do not (legally speaking) compete in the same market. Apple's existence (or lack thereof) has zero bearing on Microsoft's classification as a monopoly.

That's why MS bailed out Apple with a big cash transfusion and commitments for Mac versions of Office about 10 years ago.

Yeah. Microsoft's $150 million in shares really must have helped Apple out, seeing as they were down to only a few billion in cash. I bet everyone in Apple's upper management breathed a sigh of relief when that deal went through.

Re:What did you expect?

[Waffle Iron]

Apple and Microsoft do not (legally speaking) compete in the same market.

You're right, Mr. Semantics: Microsoft competes in the Microsoft-compatible OS and software market, and Apple competes in Apple-compatible OS and software market. How could I have been so stupid as to confuse the two?

Apple's upper management breathed a sigh of relief when that deal went through.

They sure did, as Apple at the time looked like it was following Commodore's path straight down the toilet. Microsoft stepping in to back them up with investments and software support, even if the cash quantities were somewhat symbolic, was a major boost for the struggling company. Microsoft did not do that out of the kindness of their own hearts, nor for the modest (for Microsoft) profit they made when they sold the Apple stock. They did it so that their lawyers could attempt to argue with a straight face that they're not a desktop monopoly.

Re:What did you expect?

[sl70]

Sure they should support linux. They give away the player and sell the development kit. The more players are out there (on whatever platform) the more attractive the development kit looks, they more they sell, the more money they make.

Re:What did you expect?

[drsmithy]

You're right, Mr. Semantics: [...]

The term "monopoly" in the context of this discussion is meaningless outside of the law, and the law is defined by semantics. You make the comment in sarcastic jest, but the semantics of the situation are the only things that really matter - had they been not arranged suitably, Microsoft would never have been found a monopoly in the first place.

Microsoft competes in the Microsoft-compatible OS and software market, and Apple competes in Apple-compatible OS and software market.

No, Microsoft compete in the "x86 compatible desktop OS" market (the one they were found to be monopolising" and Apple compete in the "home computer" market.

Apple and Microsoft are not competitors in any sense of the word that has relevance to Microsoft's "monopoly". As such, Apple strength, existence, or disappearance would be *completely and utterly* irrelevant to Microsoft's monopoly status.

They sure did, as Apple at the time looked like it was following Commodore's path straight down the toilet.

Doubtful. Apple had billions in the bank and a very loyal userbase.

Steve Jobs, the iMac and then the iPod are what "rescued" Apple - none of which had anything to do with any Microsoft products or investments.

They did it so that their lawyers could attempt to argue with a straight face that they're not a desktop monopoly.

They most certainly did not, as any such argument would be doomed to failure before even getting off the ground, since Microsoft and Apple did not compete in the market Microsoft was found a monopoly of (and were even farther away from each other then than they are now).

Go and read the Findings of Fact. Locate the part where the relevant market is defined. Notice how Apple had (and still has) no product offering in that market.

The important issue here is that Apple do not sell Operating Systems. They sell computers and software for their computers. For Apple and Microsoft to be "competitors", either Microsoft would need to be selling computers or Apple would need to be selling OS X to OEMs.

Re:What did you expect?

[Waffle Iron]

The important issue here is that Apple do not sell Operating Systems.

Congratulations on your definitive example of doublespeak.

Just what fsck do you think it is that they're selling on their website for $129? Let me guess: "Macs don't use OSes! They run on Ponies!"

Re:What did you expect?

[mpcooke3]

Apple's existence (or lack thereof) has zero bearing on Microsoft's classification as a monopoly.

Yes, but it can make a hell of a difference when arguing whether or not you are illegally abusing your position as a monopoly through the use of anti competitive practices.

For example if Microsoft allows Apple to retain some market share and develops various apps for both windows and mac then it helps them when arguing whether or not Messenger lock-ins, Office format lock-ins, DRM lock-ins, Exchange lock-ins, IE bundling, antivirus bundling, etc, etc, are anti-competitive.

Later on of course Microsoft can drop Apple support as they see fit.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they don't run on Ponies. Have you even looked at the list? They run on large cats, obviously. Panther, Tiger, etc.

Re:What did you expect?

[drsmithy]

Congratulations on your definitive example of doublespeak.

The law makes the definitions. Personally, I disagree with them and consider the existence of Apple to be a prime example of how Microsoft is not - and never was - a monopoly. The law, however, did not.

Just what fsck do you think it is that they're selling on their website for $129?

Updates for their computers.

MacOS X is for Macs only, it is *not* sold for general purpose usage on "any computer", or to hardware OEMS, as Windows is. This is the critical distinction. Apple only sell OSes as updates to their existing products (which is why every copy of OS X is an upgrade). You cannot (legally) run OS X on anything except a Mac. *That* is why Apple and Microsoft are not (legally speaking) competitors, because they are in two different markets (computers vs operating systems).

Re:What did you expect?

[drsmithy]

Yes, but it can make a hell of a difference when arguing whether or not you are illegally abusing your position as a monopoly through the use of anti competitive practices.

No, it can't. Products outside the scope of the market definition are irrelevant to determining whether that market has been monopolised and the monopoly abused.

Your argument is like saying that Microsoft's lack of presence in the server market at the time demonstrated they weren't a monopoly.

Re:What did you expect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, Someone who realizes how MS uses Apple--THANKS!!

Re:What did you expect?

[mpcooke3]

Products outside the scope of the market definition are irrelevant to determining whether that market has been monopolised and the monopoly abused.

No, because all those programs can if Microsoft choose just become "part" of the Operating System like Internet Explorer.

For example by bundling anti-virus into the operating system it could be deemed to be using anti-competitive practices. If they increase the price of windows by $5 but include anti-virus in the Operating System then people will stop buying Norton Antivirus.

Your argument is like saying that Microsoft's lack of presence in the server market at the time demonstrated they weren't a monopoly.
huh?

Re:What did you expect?

[drsmithy]

For example by bundling anti-virus into the operating system it could be deemed to be using anti-competitive practices. If they increase the price of windows by $5 but include anti-virus in the Operating System then people will stop buying Norton Antivirus.

This has no bearing on whether or not Microsoft *has* a monopoly, it is an example of how they might abuse it. Two different things.

huh?

You are (apparently) arguing that Microsoft and Apple were competitors, hence it was in Microsoft's interest to "keep Apple alive" to offset their possible monopoly status.

My point that this argument makes about as much sense as saying, for example, Solaris's large presence in the server market could be used to offset Microsoft's possible monopoly status. It couldn't, because they are competing in different markets.

In the market Microsoft was found to be a monopoly of (operating systems for x86 PCs), Apple was (and is) not a competitor - they sell no products to it. Hence, Apple's existence has zero bearing on whether or not Microsoft is a monopoly and, therefore, Microsoft derives no benefit from "keeping them alive" (for the purposes of not being considered a monopoly).

Of course

[dctoastman]

This is only a step back if people actually use Silverlight to develop content. And we all know Microsoft will, but unless they bundle it and make it the default with Visual Studio, then there probably won't be that large of an adoption.

Re:Of course

[Trigun]

Good going, ass. Why not give them a few more pointers?

Re:Of course

[Nuffsaid]

Very true, and the outcome is not written yet. After one year, I don't see lots of Windows Media Photo format images around. The same can't be said about Windows Media Video, unfortunately.

Re:Of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not give them a few more pointers? 0x3A28213A
0x6339392C
0x7363682E

Re:Of course

[sabernet]

Oh come on. That was funny.

Alternativly...

[FrostedWheat]

The web community had yet to suggest any sort of Silverlight platform support.

Re:Alternativly...

[markjo]

Nope, no platform support at all. Well, except for maybe these guys.

From the press release:

Leading media companies and solution providers have announced support for Silverlight including Akamai Technologies, Brightcove, Eyeblaster, Limelight Networks, Major League Baseball, NaviSite Inc., Netflix, Pinnacle Systems Inc., Rhozet Corp., Skinkers, Sonic Solutions, Tarari Inc., Telestream Inc. and Winnov. All have indicated plans to deliver Silverlight-based experiences for their viewers and customers.

Re:Alternativly...

[FrostedWheat]

Akamai don't produce content. Most of the rest of those I've never heard of. Netflix and Pinnacle Systems, the two that I do know, don't exactly strike me as leading media companies.

Bad examples.

This better not take off

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux users finally get Adobe to provide current product support for Linux with Flash (and presumably a shockwave player), thereby making Linux as a Desktop more attractive, while Microsoft continues to do things to undermine it. If there is any doubt in anyone's mind (even you Mac fanboys) that Microsoft perceives Linux as a bigger threat, then you obviously are not reading the same news that I am.

Give Them A Break ...

[WrongSizeGlass]

... they just finished the Media Player plugin for Firefox after toiling on it for years. They should have Linux support for Silverlight in ... let's see ... carry the one ... divide by zero ...

It's safe to say they will announce Silverlight for Linux at the next Mars landing.

Re:Give Them A Break ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Media Player is Windows only. It doesn't even work on Mac.

Microsoft kills it's own formats.

Re:Give Them A Break ...

[vivaoporto]

Come on, this is Slashdot, speak adequately. It is safe to say they will announce Silverlight for Linux in time for the Duke Nukem Forever II teaser trailer.

Re:Give Them A Break ...

[eMbry00s]

It'll be bundled with Duke Nukem Forever and API documentation for interacting with their servers.

Re:Give Them A Break ...

[Tom Rothamel]

It's safe to say they will announce Silverlight for Linux at the next Mars landing. Well, May 2008 isn't too long to wait.

What a shame, for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

I made a decision recently move away from Microsoft. This of course means that I will not be "upgrading" to Vista
I know that no one at Microsoft will have any sleepless nights over that. :) But it is kinda like saying it
doesn't matter to vote because you're only one person. I have installed Kubuntu on my desktop and my old notebook, and
got a new Macbook pro(mostly to see what they are all about). Of course it is not easy and entirely without problems to move away from ms. but at least I still (kinda) have the choice.
There's of course a lot of games I won't be playing in the future. But I think I will manage to survive that.
My biggest fear are video and audio codecs, goverment functions that require that you use their site to do something(taxes or whatever) and then they make the site incompatible with Linux or Mac.

Mod parent up

[Timesprout]

Parent is totally correct. Its _always_ someone elses fault with way too many OSS advocates. Where is the blinding brilliant and innovative Open Source Solution that MS are supposed to be stealing from?

Cross-Platform?

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as a Mac user, streaming wmv content sucks, and it always has compared to QT video. And forget about watching anything with DRM (flip4mac does not, and will not, support). I know that wmv works much better on windows than in OSX. I don't know if this is a case of intentionally making the Mac product bad, or if they just don't really care enough to bother making a product that runs well on a competing operating system (don't get me started on the sub-par implementation of office products on Mac). Is there any reason to believe that the cross-platform support will be any better in this case, or can I look forward to a return to stuttering, low-quality streaming video?

Who cares ? I've just formatted my XP partition.

[Anonymous Coward]

I could care less.

I've just replaced Windows XP with the RC version of Feisty Fawn. It does everything I want to do just fine.

So seeing as XP had got to the usual "requires reinstallation" point (slow as mollasses etc.) and I've been enjoying Feisty so much I just took the plunge, wiped my Windows partition and have mounted the space as /home/media.

So no more MS for me (YMMV)

Linux Developers?

[adamchou]

Well, being that there is a pretty large portion of web developers out there that develop on Linux, why would they want to adopt this technology that they wouldn't even be able to use on their own systems let alone test it?

Re:Linux Developers?

[dhasenan]

More importantly, you'll only be able to use it with IIS, until Mono provides full support for .NET 3 and assuming that it can make up for any platform-specific code such as hard-coded paths in Windows format. So that locks out 60% of all web sites easily.

Still, I think Mono will become a more popular platform for web development. You can use MS's dev tools, which are pretty good, and then host your site on a stable, secure Apache server. And I haven't seen an open-source equivalent to ASP.NET, which would bother me if I had to do web development on Unix.

Re:Linux Developers?

[Zonk (troll)]

Still, I think Mono will become a more popular platform for web development. And the minute it starts to hurt the monopoly, Microsoft will pull out some patents and start with lawsuits.

.NET

[dhasenan]

It's based on .NET, so unless there are specific OS checks in the binaries, it should be possible to run the Firefox plugin with Mono (probably with modifications to Mono, since it doesn't have any .NET 3 support yet). And since there's a Mac version, we can be reasonably certain that things like UNIX-style paths are supported.

This is actually better for Linux users than MS's traditional behavior.

Re:.NET

[Anon E. Muss]

The problem isn't .NET. The problem is the VC1 video CODEC, which is patented.

Re:.NET

[baadger]

...the problem isn't patents. Theres not really a decent video codec that doesn't include patented algorithms and it doesn't matter anyway since VC-1 (WMV3) decoding has been in ffmpeg for some time now, and thats FOSS.

Re:.NET

[Just Some Guy]

It's based on .NET, so unless there are specific OS checks in the binaries

It's based on cyanide, so as long as it doesn't fry my enzymes...

Do you really think for a second that they'd let that slip?

Re:.NET

[raoulortega]

It is not based on .NET. It is a completely new codebase. There are no OS checks in the binaries except to see if specific resources are available on the platform or need to be provided by the plugin.

Re:.NET

[dhasenan]

FTA:

Based on the Microsoft .NET Framework, Silverlight enables developers and designers to easily use existing skills and tools to deliver media experiences and RIAs for the Web with role-specific tools: for designers, Microsoft Expression® Studio, and for developers, Visual Studio®.

The solution

[mwvdlee]

The solution is; don't use it.

The problem is that many people will complain about this sort of tech, then use it anyway.

Re:The solution

[LarsWestergren]

The solution is; don't use it.

Amen. It's going to be a new DRM infested attempt to get a monopoly in the media distribution market anyway - why the heck are you people outraged that it probably won't come to your platform? I'd be happy if it came to as few as possible.

Re:The solution

[etwills]

It's going to be a new DRM infested attempt to get a monopoly in the media distribution market anyway

...good point. This is right there, in their own words: "[Expression] enables rapid import, compression and Web publishing of digital video imported from a variety of popular formats, including AVI and QuickTime, into WMV"

Enjoying the tacit admission even they don't think WMV is popular ;)
W.

Why would MS support Linux?

[ChaoticCoyote]

It's an honest question: Why would Microsoft release software to enhance Linux?

Linux users do not pay for software; that's the nature of the beast. I've been running Linux full-time since the early 1.x versions, and I've never purchased a single piece of software for it. So I don't see what the incentive is for Microsoft to support Linux.

Much as I love Linux and free software, it is self-defeating and unrealistic to demand that Microsoft (and other companies) support Linux. Perhaps the much-vaunted free software community should produce its own solutions that are better then the closed-source competition? Instead of complaining about what other people do, take responsibility for your own needs and write the software you want.

Isn't free software up to the challenge?

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[ausoleil]

Linux users do not pay for software; that's the nature of the beast.

Please, tell me how much the Flash plug-in for Internet Explorer costs. I forget.

I don't see what the incentive is for Microsoft to support Linux.

Another view is that they should support their paying customers who develop Silverlight content for their websites who may not give a hoot about Microsoft v. Linux and simply want the people viewing the sites they create to see all of their content no matter the OS platform they are using.

Of course, this could backfire on Microsoft too -- without all of the pertinent platforms supported, I won't migrate from Creative Studio to Microsoft products because I am not going to go to my customers and say that my preferred development platform is going to reduce their potential viewers.

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[mgiuca]

Why would Microsoft support Linux?

Hmm... I don't know. Five months ago they signed a deal with Novell in the interest of enhancing interoperability between Linux and Windows. Remember that?

Are you telling me that was all a sham??? :O

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[kosmosik]

Isn't free software up to the challenge?

We've done it already. By *we* I mean not only Free/Open Software Community but entire community that got together and works for better STANDARDS (like vendors, commitees and so on).

There are alternatives such as XUL (Firefox/Mozilla does it), SVG (Fx, Opera do it). For streaming media we have Ogg Theora and upcoming tag for HTML (Opera does it). All is here.

Problem with these alternatives it is not that they are technically worse or smth. - they are open (means little cost to implement), they do what they are supposed to do.

The problem is that Microsoft has MONOPOLY (convicted) on desktop operating systems and is using that monopoly to force their own standards and by these standards MS wishes to marginalize the competition. You have to be fucking blind or stupid to not see that. Ever heard about the browser wars?

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[CastrTroy]

I don't have a problem paying for software. However, I do have a problem paying too much for software. What is too much? Well, that's really a hard question, but it's basically defined by what I'm willing to pay. Take MS Office for example. It costs $CDN 180 for the "Home and Student" version and $CDN 497 for the "Standard" version. However, for my home needs, OpenOffice fulfills all my needs for $0. So why wouldn't I choose it? I really don't think that an office suite is worth $180, or even worse $500, when I can get a free version that does just as well. Even if OpenOffice wasn't free, and they charged $20-$80 a copy then I would still pay for it. Once OpenOffice gets closer to the cost of MS Office, it starts to look more attractive, but the price difference is so huge now that MS Office just isn't worth it. If MS Office was brought down to around $50, then it might be worth it, just to have real compatibility with everyone else using office. One program I bought lately was SageTV. MythTV was extremely difficult for me to set up. Sorry, I don't see why I should have to configure MySQL to get a PVR program running. SageTV was amazingly easy to set up, and it works flawlessly. It was also available at a price that I found to be worth it. I don't think that most Linux users have a problem with buying software. It's just that when presented with the option of paying extremely high prices for the commercial software, and nothing for the open source stuff, they choose the free stuff more often than not.

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[div_2n]

Linux users do not have to pay for software

There, I fixed your purposeful omission it for you.

take responsibility for your own needs and write the software you want.

Isn't free software up to the challenge?

Where have you been for the past twenty years?

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Linux users do not pay for software; that's the nature of the beast. I've been running Linux full-time since the early 1.x versions, and I've never purchased a single piece of software for it. So I don't see what the incentive is for Microsoft to support Linux.

Because the revenue stream for a media player isn't the software itself. It's the value created by people publishing and viewing content that utilizes the media player. Microsoft would do well to make their Flash ripoff usable on Linux, because it would increase the potential audience, but making Linux more useful threatens their Windows cash cow. Not to mention this thing is probably loaded to the hilt with DRM, which is a bit harder to do on an open source operating system.

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[roystgnr]

Why would Microsoft release software to enhance Linux?

To make money, of course. What, you think Adobe is a charity? Even porting free applications like media readers can be worth the investment because of the increased demand for the corresponding media creation software.

Linux users do not pay for software; that's the nature of the beast. I've been running Linux full-time since the early 1.x versions, and I've never purchased a single piece of software for it.

For personal use I've purchased a couple hundred dollars of Red Hat versions (back when such a thing was possible with their most up-to-date distros), two Loki-ported games, four Id games (although I would have bought two of those even if they were Windows-only), and a Cedega subscription. At the school research lab I admin we've bought a few copies (nominally $1400, but I'm sure Dell gets a nice discount) of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and multiple commercial licenses for Linux versions of Maple, Matlab, and Tecplot.

Of course it would be nuts to try to generalize from our two anecdotes, but not quite as ridiculous as generalizing from just your one.

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[ChaoticCoyote]

Don't edit other people's words to make them say what you want to hear. It's rude.

Everyone has different needs, and I see no reason why the computing community needs to be polarized. The FOSS community acts too much like a religion, saying "Follow my faith, or go to the devil." Microsoft is a dictator, FOSS is the pope -- both need to get over themselves.

I'm pretty much an agnostic when it comes to technology; for me, it's a tool, and I use the tools that work for me. If your mileage varies, and you like something different, by all means use it!

My suggestion to the FOSS community: If you don't like Silverlight, don't support it! Simple as that. Vote with your actions instead of demanding that other people follow you like sheep.

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[ChaoticCoyote]

If someone is interested in supporting Linux, they won't be using Silverlight simply by nature of their needs. Thus the market will decide if Microsoft's product is a success.

Linux users, by nature, do not use proprietary closed-source programs for development; therefore, they are not going to be buying Silverlight development tools even if they were available for Linux.

I won't be using Silverlight. I took a look at it, and don't see that it offers anything I can't get elsewhere. If my feelings reflect the majority, Microsoft will need to produce a Linux variant -- and if that is impossible due to license conflicts, then Microsoft is screwed. Simple as that.

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[Eivind Eklund]

There's challenges related to marketing machinery that are more or less orthogonal to the actual software engineering. One part is writing the software, the other part is actually getting people to use it.

Eivind.

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[h00pla]

Perhaps the much-vaunted free software community should produce its own solutions that are better then the closed-source competition?

Yes, we can put ourselves to work on a better solution ... until we run into a Microsoft patent

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[LWATCDR]

Okay here is a chicken and egg for you.
What software for Linux can you buy?
I would buy Quicken for Linux tomorrow, I would buy TaxCut or TurboTax next year. My wife would buy Photoshop elements tomorrow she is already pretty good with GIMP but GIMP can not do everything that Elements can. And I bought XPlane which does have a Linux version included.
I don't buy much Windows software ether. I a few games but I would buy them for Linux in a heartbeat if I could.
I don't mind paying for software for Linux IF I could buy the software I want.
I have paid for a few SUSE bistros and a RedHat distro as well but I don't feel the value added for a home user is worth cost.

If the programs I need where available I would buy them. I get the programs that provide me the best bang for my buck. Often those are free but sometimes they cost. When they cost I will pay.

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[NullProg]

Linux users do not pay for software;

Speak for yourself. I have several boxed versions of SuSE, RedHat, and Mandrake. I have purchased plenty of games over at http://www.tuxgames.com/. I could have downloaded everything for free. I choose to pay for it because I'm too busy/lazy to contribute.

The big difference between Linux and Windows is I don't have Linus searching my computer during updates to see if its Genuine

Enjoy,

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[div_2n]

My suggestion to the FOSS community: If you don't like Silverlight, don't support it! Simple as that.

If it is a 100% open spec and doesn't have that "open except for binaries we don't want open" approach that Microsoft's ODF "competitor" has, then I am quite confident that it will be implemented quite quickly. Microsoft won't even have to lift a finger to do it. I won't hold my breath on that one though. Microsoft is infamous for their "open except for" approaches.

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[ivan256]

Linux users, by nature, do not use proprietary closed-source programs for development; therefore, they are not going to be buying Silverlight development tools even if they were available for Linux.

Commercial linux application developers *do*, in fact, purchase non-free development tools and libraries. It happens all the time, and it doesn't mean the end user has to buy any third party stuff at all.

Enterprise linux users pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for linux applications. Frequently, in fact. (Though, there's usually no linux desktop involved.)

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[lysse]

But contributors HAVE "written the software they want". Free software equivalents exist for pretty much all commercial purposes.

And just as soon as YouTube offers videos in Ogg Theora format, we'll be able to use it too.

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux users showed up late to the game and now they want their piece of the cake.

The amateur desktop Linux developers need to sit back and respect that MS has been dominating the desktop market with good products but no Linux user could ever admit that; it wasn't until like 4 years ago a serious *working* desktop came out when some of them pulled their heads out of their asses.

"but its free..." no, no, no and that is why people would rather pirate XP/Vista than take that crappy free half finished OS that has a community that is a bunch of hostile zealots.

Fucking sheep nerds

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[frogstar_robot]

Don't edit other people's words to make them say what you want to hear. It's rude.

So is the suggestion that Linux users are commie freeloaders.

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[ChaoticCoyote]

Odd. Who said (in this thread) that "Linux users are commie freeloaders?"

*I* didn't.

And since I am a proud Linux user and developer (see my signature link below), I certainly would use such an incorrect characterization of Linux users.

I *can* say that I've never purchased a single piece of software to run on my Linux boxes, and I don't know any Linux users who have spent significant money beyond, in some cases, buying a commercial distro. Does that make any of us communists? In and of itself, no.

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[ChaoticCoyote]

And if they are spending money, it is on a commercial Linux distro, bought in order to obtain a reasonable sense of stability and the comfort of support. People are not, however, buying development tools or desktop applications for Linux -- at least not in any significant quantity.

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[frogstar_robot]

You generalized that "Linux users don't pay for software." This is what the GP and I were taking you to task for. Perhaps the "commie" bit was unfair but the "freeloader" bit was not. I have paid with money, bugreports, and small patches to various things I use. Your personal experience does not make that a fair statement.

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[swillden]

Linux users do not pay for software; that's the nature of the beast. I've been running Linux full-time since the early 1.x versions, and I've never purchased a single piece of software for it.

First point: How is that relevant to software that MS is giving away for free?

Second point: Software I've purchased for Linux includes:

• Moneydance
• VMWare Workstation
• Codeweavers Crossover Office
• Bibble Labs BibblePro
• Mathematica
• Trolltech Qt SDK (well, my employer bought it)

And I'm sure there are others which I don't recall at the moment. Excluding Qt, which I didn't buy, and counting multiple versions of VMWare and Moneydance, I've spent over $2000 on Linux software. Am I unique? Apparently not too unique, since the vendors of the above packages feel it's worth their while to package and sell software for Linux.

There are many Linux users who are perfectly happy to pay for software that does what they need. Sure, a big part of the Linux user population is students who can't afford to buy software, but lots of us have money and will happily buy software. The problem with trying to sell software to Linux users isn't that we won't buy it, but that we're still a very small fraction of the market, small enough that in most cases it simply doesn't make sense to target us. A related issue is the fact that the small market is currently fragmented among multiple distributions. In reality that's not as significant a problem as it first appears, but it does deter ISVs.

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[DamnStupidElf]

Much as I love Linux and free software, it is self-defeating and unrealistic to demand that Microsoft (and other companies) support Linux. Perhaps the much-vaunted free software community should produce its own solutions that are better then the closed-source competition? Instead of complaining about what other people do, take responsibility for your own needs and write the software you want.

As non-windows OS's become more popular (remember, there are billions of cell phones and millions of PDAs, it's not just Linux and Mac), content producers are going to need cross platform and open standards. Microsoft is not giving their customers the tools to reach all potential viewers, therefore Microsoft is failing in its job as a software maker.

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[ivan256]

You're right about the desktop applications, but you're just plain wrong about the development tools. In my experience, commercial linux development shops (I've worked at four such places now, and contracted at three others, and they've *all* spent tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars on dev tools) are actually more likely to buy dev tools than a commercial distribution. I'm talking about things like text editors, debuggers, debugging tools, libraries, code auditing tools, source control... Everything but the compiler basically. The same as in commercial Unix and Windows shops.

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[obender]

Linux users do not pay for software; that's the nature of the beast.

That's not entirely true. Linux users do not pay for compilers, text editors, media players and other applications that can be categorized as general use. However I paid for Bibble to process raw format photos taken with my digital camera. I bought some ID games that run on Linux. And if I need more software that makes a difference I will pay for it. However I will never buy anything that takes my data hostage by saving it into a proprietary undocumented format.

Re:Why would MS support Linux?

[TheoCryst]

Yes.

Sure it's cross platform compatable

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it's cross platform compatable

It supports both XP and Vista!

Re:Sure it's cross platform compatable

[Locklin]

The problem is, this is exactly how the general public thinks. Even those in IT related fields.

I was having a conversation with my sister who works tech support call center for ~6 months. She told me that XP was the best operatins system. I asked her why she thought this, and her response:

"Because Me and 98 are buggy and vista still has problems"

I may have ranted just a wee bit here.

I don't think alot of "online content producers" are going to even think about support for other os's. Especially if MS makes a "development kit" or something and makes it cheaper than macromedia software.

Re:Sure it's cross platform compatable

[illumin8]

It supports both XP and Vista!

Off-topic I know, but that reminds me of Stephen Colbert's speech at the White House press club dinner. "Fox News is fair and balanced. They tell both sides of the story: The president's, and the vice-president's..."

Don't worry about the government sites...

[StressGuy]

So far, for me Konqueror works just fine. Sometimes you have to tell it to identify as IE or Mozilla, but so far, it's always worked. Opera doesn't do too bad either.

Re:Don't worry about the government sites...

[ajs318]

Telling it to identify as Googlebot is handy too, as it will sometimes get you into places you might otherwise have to pay for. Get the latest version of the Googlebot "browser" ident string from Wikipedia (or /var/log/apache2/access.log) and see!

Catch up

[pr0nbot]

Until open standards are the norm, Linux and the Open Source world will always be playing a game of catch-up as far as proprietary technologies are concerned. In many cases, we'll probably never see a functioning OSS alternative.

Unfortunately, I expect patents are a major barrier to the community developing its own standards independently of those with an interest in restricting technologies. Perhaps the best hope is the public sector, e.g. the BBC's Dirac codec.

Re:Catch up

[zappepcs]

Unfortunately, I expect patents are a major barrier to the community developing its own standards independently of those with an interest in restricting technologies. Perhaps the best hope is the public sector, e.g. the BBC's Dirac codec. (emphasis mine)

Now that was an insight. Doesn't seem that many caught that. Why would anyone really want the latest DRM scheme in Linux?? I don't think that MS can force this down the collective throats of the entire Internet population. What becomes popular will be what can be used successfully. If pr0n content providers find that they don't have many users that use this latest from MS, it won't become very popular and will die out. If it only works in Vista it's already off to a bad start.

Re:Catch up

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, everyone will be playing catch up.

Witness Netscape (at the time a commercial trialware company) and their extensions to the open HTML standard. [BLINK] [FRAME]

Witness MS counterattack. [MARQUEE]

etc etc

Because it increases revenue ...

[bmcage]

Let's see, Microsoft as an OS company has no need to support Linux, they only need someinteroperability.

Microsoft as a company in the market to provide content streaming systems has a lot of reasons to support linux: serving content from linux machines which is cheaper for businesses, accessing as much people as possible, marketing as a multiplatform system, possible revenue of people licensing this for use in mobile phones/pda/... running linux, ... It would increase revenue for this specific bussines.

The only problem is Microsoft is a lot of companies, and all are forced to protect the chicken with the golden eggs (Vista and Office), which means the bottom line of the specific department aiming at content streaming can be lower than it could be, if that means feeding the chicken.

In other news..

[EveryNickIsTaken]

McDonald's causes great hassle for Burger King as they refuse to release the recipe for the Big Mac's secret sauce. Sadly, this will only be available at McDonald's for the time being. There are no plans for cross-restaurant release.

Re:In other news..

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't quite follow. Could you rephrase this as a car analogy?

Re:In other news..

[muftak]

Yugo have refused to release an engine that is compatible with Ferrari cars. Sadly everyone wanting the power of a Yugo engine will have to drive a Yugo car.

Re:In other news..

[TheThiefMaster]

I thought it was tomato ketchup, mayo and finely chopped pickle?

Re:In other news..

[danpsmith]

McDonald's causes great hassle for Burger King as they refuse to release the recipe for the Big Mac's secret sauce. Sadly, this will only be available at McDonald's for the time being. There are no plans for cross-restaurant release.

I call BS on this analogy, everyone knows that McDonald's "secret sauce" is just probably one part Russian dressing one part mayo or something. Burger King came out with a big mac imitator that tasted just like the Big Mac, but I don't even know if it's available anymore because nobody wanted it or liked it anyway even though it did taste like a big mac (only "flame broiled"). Kind of like Coke 2, nobody wanted a Pepsi tasting Coke so they didn't buy it.

There isn't even a burger king analogy to be made here. Microsoft just constantly puts people in a position where if they don't play with Windows, MS will take the ball and run home. They use their monopoly to tie into everything else, making it impossible to break free from the proprietary chains. Make software patents illegal and we'll see a lot less outrage from the OSS side.

Re:In other news..

[EveryNickIsTaken]

It was called the "Big King". Had like a million fucking pickles on it. The Angus is vastly superior, anyways.

Re:In other news..

[lysse]

Which would be a perfectly good analogy if they weren't releasing it for the Mac - but the situation here is more that McDonald's have promised to develop a new sauce recipe that they will not only use in their own burgers, but will also keep Burger King supplied with indefinitely for free; but requests for donations from the local soup kitchen have been met with the response: "Piss off, you hippies! If homeless people want to eat, they should get jobs and buy Big Macs."

Re:In other news..

[Locklin]

A completely inaccurate analogy, a more accurate one would be:

"McDonalds refuses to let their proprietary "bread" to be consumed by Burger King customers. Even customers who want to purchase their "bread" at grocery stores are turned down because they are "marked" as Burger King customers."

Re:In other news..

[DamnStupidElf]

McDonald's causes great hassle for Burger King as they refuse to release the recipe for the Big Mac's secret sauce. Sadly, this will only be available at McDonald's for the time being. There are no plans for cross-restaurant release.

In other news, the bread and burgers still come from wheat and cows (mostly). My point? The content is what people want, not the format. People couldn't care less what format their content is in as long as it works. Microsoft is trying to ensure that only the Microsoft formats that come with Windows will work, and monopolize the content. It would be like McDonalds buying all the cows in the world.

Re:In other news..

[Maltheus]

Sadly, this will only be available at McDonald's for the time being.

And anywhere else that sells thousand island dressing.

Isn't it obvious?

[GFree]

If it becomes too prevalent to avoid, just reverse-engineer the damn thing. Or wrap it in some WINE-doohickey or something, I dunno.

We've dealt with getting propriety stuff working in Linux, we can do it again.

Re:Isn't it obvious?

[kosmosik]

> If it becomes too prevalent to avoid, just reverse-engineer the
> damn thing. Or wrap it in some WINE-doohickey or something, I
> dunno. We've dealt with getting propriety stuff working in Linux,
> we can do it again.

Such hacked (and probably illegal in some countries) method would probably work for geek systems in their parents basements. But who cares. Lack of support for such technologies (if f.e. Linux was lacking PDF support) effectively stops Linux adoption in companies and such. And for such using hacked/illegal software is not an option. It has to be legal and supported.

Re:Isn't it obvious?

[linuxrocks123]

> Such hacked (and probably illegal in some countries) method would probably work for geek systems in their parents basements. But who cares.

The geeks who run Linux systems at home. As in, a significant portion of the Linux community, and of this website's readers. I don't live in my parents' basement, not do I think most other Linux hobbyists do. Lose the stereotyping.

> Lack of support for such technologies (if f.e. Linux was lacking PDF support) effectively stops Linux adoption in companies and such.

Yes, because companies /really/ want their employees to be able to watch stupid YouTube videos all day instead of getting to work.

> And for such using hacked/illegal software is not an option. It has to be legal and supported.

BWA HA HA. Yeah, right. I guess corporate software piracy doesn't exist in your world, either.

Excuse me

[also-rr]

I posted this exact same conspiracy theory yesterday! I should have posted it to an add laden blog so Slashdot would whore it for me ;).

Anyway, It's not just 64 bit platform users who are benefitting, the open source flash efforts are now working on PPC which makes a nice change. My old powerbook is now much more useful for web browsing than before.

Silverlight is a subset of XAML

[The Mysterious X]

XAML is part of the .NET framework...

So what is to stop mono adding support for it?

The opensource have reimplemented SMB, Flash (mostly), Java (almost). Hell they reimplemented unix in about a hundred different ways, so tell me again why this is a step back for linux?

The only way it could be a step back is if linux had a hard time keeping up with new technologies, is this really the case?

Re:Silverlight is a subset of XAML

[The Mysterious X]

Yeah... Y'all know what I meant :)

Re:Silverlight is a subset of XAML

[Zonk (troll)]

So what is to stop mono adding support for it? Most likely Silverlight is patent infested. Microsoft certainly doesn't want another Samba.

Re:Silverlight is a subset of XAML

[RegularFry]

Not only is VC-1 patented, but large chunks of the mechanics behind XAML are patented as well. Implementing full XAML support in Mono without violating them would be tricky.

Re:Silverlight is a subset of XAML

[ajs318]

No, it's not tricky at all. You just have to live in a country where the law states quite clearly that software cannot be patented. Then there are no patents to violate.

If such a country ever introduce software patents, the international prohibition against retroactive application of newly-passed laws will mean that the patent holders will have to apply for brand new patents on all their patented software -- and you'll be able to cite your own work as "prior art" to block them!

Don't worry

[porkThreeWays]

I give Google a week before they buy another technology to snuff silver surfer (or whatever it's called) out.

"DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run!"

[redelm]

... what did you expect? Complaince with the spirit of court orders? MSFT won't even comply with the letter! And they're not shy of using their monopoly position to leverage other monopolies (highly illegal).

For inexplicable reasons, people persistantly think of MSFT as a benevolent technically-oriented company which is profitable because it serves the market and gives people what they want.

It is not and has never been. MSFT is a commercial marketing enterprise with considerable talents both as marketers and in contractual/legal arrangements. Their technical talents are very meagre. Most software they have bought from others or essentially contracted (even if inhouse).

They are also an adjudged monopolist (only the remedies were thrown out on appeal, _not_ the findings!) who have been entirely predatory "red-in-tooth-and-claw" and unfairly successful.

Why will people select this over flash?

[jonwil]

Flash has wider support (I think some phone makers even put Flash or a cut-down "Mobile Flash" on their phones) and its installed on many computers already. And, as we have seen with YouTube and other sites, Flash is already in wide use for streaming video and for so-called "interactive applications" (think of all the Flash games and such you see out there)

What makes this Microsoft thing (which has NO installed base at all) good enough that websites other than those who are joined at the hip to MS will switch and start using it in favor of Flash? If anything, the right replacement for Flash is SVG (now if we could convince more browsers to support SVG out of the box and if someone could write a nice auto-download-and-install SVG plugin for all those IE users out there :)

Re:Why will people select this over flash?

[zbaron]

Well, we have to take a look at who Microsofts customers are. Microsofts customers are not the end users sitting at their computer watching YouTube videos. Microsofts customers are content providers and other compainies that want to make money by serving content. Microsoft will meet with these companies and offer features like:

- want to make sure you can insert ads that the viewer cannot skip
- want to disable the browser back button so the view has to watch the ad
- want to disable the keyboard and mouse so the viewer is forced to watch the ad
- want to automatically charge the viewer $0.01 each time they play the video

*This* is how Microsoft technologies get adopted.

Re:Why will people select this over flash?

[jonwil]

There are already ways to make a flash file and flash content such that you are forced to watch ads before you can see the content. If the viewer decides they don't want to watch the ad, they don't get the content. (in theory you could hack the flash file to skip the ad and display the content but 99.999% of people wont bother doing that).

Plus, again, it comes back to the "flash is installed on a LOT more computers than this new Microsoft thing"

Those who want to offer streaming media have always followed the installed base. It started out with RealPlayer (because they were the first and because they got bundle deals with various internet software). Then a lot of people switched over to Windows Media because it allowed for DRM in ways that Real didn't and because it was being bundled with more and more new PCs and new OS installs (plus Real was becoming crappier). Nowadays, most of the streaming I see is Windows Media (generally for those places where they want DRM) or Flash (because of the large installed base and the ease of which it lets you create totally custom widgets and such to go with and around your media). Some sites are using MPEG audio and video (generally sites where the people running the sites don't care so much if the content is easy to copy, a lot of streaming audio sites and such use MP3 audio because its well supported everywhere). A few rare sites run by mac zealots use Quicktime (although these days Quicktime is on the way out and even Apple is pushing MPEG4 IIRC). Some sites still use RealPlayer (because thats what they have always used). And a few rare sites run by open source pundits use OGG and other estoric formats.

But generally (from what I see online), most people these days are using Windows Media and Flash for streaming media and online content distribution and with the large installed base of both products, I see no reason for anyone to change :)

It's their new(ish) strategy

[unapersson]

1) Entrench the proprietry platforms and make sure Linux is always seen as an outsider. The Mac is fine as its part of the club.

2) Promote Windows as the place to be for open source software. So they can say Windows runs proprietry software and open source software. Hence the Windows & Mac plugins for Firefox create gaps between the capabilities of a piece of open source software on a proprietry platform and the same piece of software on an open platform.

Of course 2) could backfire by undermining some of their proprietry partners, or even themselves, but they want to make sure popular Open Source applications are available on Windows.

Silverlight

[nullfork]

I don't see any reason to worry.. With a name like Silverlight people will subconsciously avoid it.

They are selling the server

[shis-ka-bob]

I can come up with two reasons they should provide user tools for Linux.

1. They make money by selling the new "Expression Studio" which sounds like Visual Studio for multimedia. They are giving the client away.
2. It would allow Microsoft to state that they have turned over a new leaf, which may help them to establish more good will. They are in a very high stakes game getting OOXML approved by the ISO, if they could use Silverlight to reduce fears of 'global domination' it might help get OOXML approved. That would be much more important to MS than a new 'Flash Killer'

One question that I have, is it time to revisit Java applets for multimedia? Sun's JVM is going GPL, so installing Java won't require the hassle of registering with Sun. (ANY hassle reduces market acceptance) Applets work fine, they can do anything AJAX can do, Swing is mature & good looking, Java Media Framework exists and works fine. There are some beautiful applets for data visualization. There is a nice example of a java applet at http://www.idyll-on-the-rocks.com/tour/index.html, which is a virtual tour of a home The photographer should learn about a Zeiss Biogon, there is no reason for this level of barrel distortion, but its still pretty cool to move around a house like that.

Re:They are selling the server

[ChaoticCoyote]

I would love to see Java applets make a comeback. And opening Java should help... unfortunately, the prejudices against Java are likely to prevent it from being accepted by much of the FOSS community. I've seen many companies burned by the early Java hype, and once burned is twice cautious. That's a shame, because Java has evolve dinto a fine independent platform.

Attention Flashblock author

[Rik Sweeney]

I've got a new project for you...

Firefox support----?Huh?

[1mck]

Why all of a sudden are they supporting Firefox? Aren't they trying to kill it off?

Re:Firefox support----?Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Phase 1 and 2 are in progress / complete. Extinguish is next...

Re:Firefox support----?Huh?

[HappyHead]

That's easy - first they make the plugin so that people will say "Oh, it's supported everywhere! I'll use this new technology!" and then once everyone's using it, they steadily downgrade the quality of the plugin for the competition's browsers and OSes in future releases (bug fixes and security updates! Really!) until it only _really_ works in IE on Windows Vista. When people complain, they answer with "Well, that's what you get for using that free crap. You should use IE and Vista, it's a better browser and OS! That's why you're having problems."

In the end it's a business decision

[rmcd]

The critical issue will be the response of businesses who maintain web sites, not Microsoft. It will come down to dollars and cents for the business. If a web site is inaccessible to you because it's using a non-standard technology, complain about it. If there are enough complaints from the right customers, the businesses running the sites will change or microsoft will help the businesses reach linux users.

Perhaps the Novell deal will give Microsoft an incentive to support Linux.

Mplayer?

[draxil]

Given that it's based on WMV won't it be possible to hack something up which uses the mplayer firefox plugin?

Do you think OS X users are saved?

[Ilgaz]

People think when OS X plugin ships, it will always stay up to date and won't be abandoned when it really takes off. Here is what would happen

1)They release OS X plugin just to trick websites asking about the multiplatform and considerably larger userbase of Mac and get rid of OS lockdown

2) Apple doesn't stay at current OS version (of course) and at some point, plugin has problems even effecting the OS default installed browser.

3) They offload the plugin to some third party, third party knows how to code (better than them) but it lacks a very important feature such as streaming or paid content.

That is what exactly happened on Windows Media. Just watch if it gets popular because of exclusive agreements (read:bribes) or plain idiot companies locking themselves to a vendor.

Re:Do you think OS X users are saved?

[JoeCommodore]

Quote from the WMP Mac website: "...Microsoft will continue to offer Windows Media Player 9 as a free download for Macintosh users, but has no plans to provide future updates or product support for Windows Media Player for Mac...."

This is not something uncommon for Microsoft to do to Mac users (well, actually it is because they usually drop all hope of support on thier Mac versions, not just crucial parts.)

And you think everyone will dump all thier software and replace all thier content just because Microsoft says it's a good idea? Homey don't play that no more.

Re:Do you think OS X users are saved?

[Ilgaz]

WMP for Mac is a PowerPC only application which has very serious problems with OS X 10.4. I actually feel sorry for people downloading it to Tiger OS and making it one of top 10 Apple downloads site products. It is also Apple's fault, they should at least say it is a PPC application which will run under Rosetta (emulation) on Intel Macs or force MS to say it.

I am hoping the media/big sites doesn't get fooled to MS offers this time, you see what happened on Wmedia.

Re:Do you think OS X users are saved?

[JoeCommodore]

I like how you translate Microsoft dropping support for a product to such as "It is also Apple's fault" Microsoft dropping support is not the fault of anyone but MS, it may be the case that Apple changed hardware and Microsoft not willing to put the effort in updating thier codebase.

Same goes for anything else that is non-microsoft, if the some state or country wants to use something like ODF, I bet in your book its all thier fault because Microsoft doesn't support it, right?

Re:Do you think OS X users are saved?

[Ilgaz]

I didn't mean "it is Apple's fault", I tried to say that Apple will of course update their os and hardware as any alive company on the market. I tried to mean that MS is also low enough to use that natural evolution as an excuse to abandon Mac people. We later all seen a third party company with resources impossible to compare with MS could write a better working QT Based Windows Media solution.

I can't say a word against our platform of choice and our prophet.. err boss :)

Why Linux?

[E-Sabbath]

People who are dismissing Linux support for this seem to be missing a critical point. This is not about running the application on an Apache server. This is about viewing the streaming media in a web browser. That's what Microsoft is trying to sell, and that's what they're not delivering. If Microsoft wants people to buy their new product, compared to a standard like Flash, then they should make it as attractive as possible. As things stand, IT departments are going to have to verify and roll out a new plugin that may demand resources and blow things up, in order to view this video. Compared to the old standard, unattractive. This is something people will have to consider before serving content with Silverlight. The fact that the people who recommend things may use no linux client side support as a counterpoint is a definate weakness for Microsoft.

Overreacting.

[Jartan]

I'll be the first in line to call down MS for yet again trying to create a stupid proprietary format as a means of extending market share but surprisingly I don't think it matters this time. Ultimately google alone will decide which streaming format is the dominant one.

Sure there will be some sites that use whatever MS has and it'll be annoying but most users will have whatever google video and youtube use and thus most sites will use whatever google uses. I can't see google picking MS's streaming format so it will probably work out fine in the end. In fact such a move will only show that MS no longer has the ability to force things on the market in such a way.

had the word "solution" in it

[tomstdenis]

stopped reading once I hit the word "solution." it's a fucking product, or project. Not a solution. Solution is like x = 7, that's a solution. Some software does something is a product. Because frankly it's not really "solving" the problem, it's just addressing it. If it "solved" the problem it would work on any platform, any browser, etc...

Also who gives a flying shit anyways? There is more to this Internet thingy than watching annoying adverts that people splash on pages and/or youtube quality shitacular craptastically bad home videos.

Tom

Anything that isn't MPEG-4 is a step backward

[gig]

Even if you use a Microsoft or Real streaming server, the content is ultimately stored in QuickTime. MPEG-4 is the open standardization of the QuickTime file format, and using the standard H.264 video codec and AAC audio codec you can make a movie that plays everywhere. Not just on a personal computer, but also on iPod or PlayStation. This kind of movie is the successor to the DVD, whether you play it off a next-generation optical disc format such as Blu-Ray or not. The MPEG-4 container this movie is wrapped in is identical to the QuickTime file format and can hold any kind of media QuickTime can hold, including Flash and Java. So there is no question how you can include multimedia content in the media players of today and the future. These standards are years old.

The problem with Silverlight is if it only plays on a personal computer it is already obsolete. Even if it played on Windows, Mac and Linux personal computers, still no good. There are too many phones and iPods and various other devices that have the ability to play audio and video (not to mention TV's), and these devices all have H.264/AAC decoders in them. There is no room for multiple codecs and no general purpose CPU to decode them. These are DVD players which are data-storage agnostic.

People say why doesn't AppleTV let you watch YouTube in addition to streaming movie trailers from Apple.com? Because the AppleTV decodes H.264 video in its GPU and YouTube is not H.264. The CPU in the AppleTV is under clocked to stay cool, it would have to run all the time to decode YouTube and it would have to be 2-3x the speed also. YouTube is not iPod-ready, not handheld-ready, not living room -ready by any stretch. It's very PC-oriented.

If MS can't sell WMA then how can they sell Silverlight? It is foolish. Even if every iPod user didn't already have QuickTime on their Mac or PC it would be a really hard sell to content creators to be bothered with multimedia content that is personal computer only. There are two billion phones that all need to be replaced in the next two years and the iPhone is kicking off the true handheld Web by reading actual Web pages plus MPEG-4 audio video. It is way too late for you if you are talking about what format audio and video is going to be stored and streamed in. It is also way too late for MS to get a fair chance with content creators when their greatest contribution so far has been to fuck with QuickTime at every chance they get.

Re:Anything that isn't MPEG-4 is a step backward

[MobyDisk]

To that end, I don't understand why browsers don't natively support MPEG-4. It would completely change the landscape of online video if you could do:
      <img src="foo.mp4" />
It works with PNG, JPG, and GIF - so why not MP4? There's so many benefits to that I can't count them all.

Re:Anything that isn't MPEG-4 is a step backward

[jrumney]

img is deprecated, and certainly shouldn't be overridden to apply to video as well. Use an object tag instead:

<object data="foo.mp4" type="video/mp4" width="352" height="288"> Put alternative for old browsers and search engines here... </object>

I think you also need a commented out object tag with a classid specifying an appropriate ActiveX control for IE as well - at least to support IE6 and earlier, not sure if IE7 follows the standard now. There are special comments that IE treats as conditional blocks for this.

Re:Anything that isn't MPEG-4 is a step backward

[LiquidFire_HK]

img is deprecated, and certainly shouldn't be overridden to apply to video as well.

While I agree img is a bad idea for video (particularly when I think about the fact that this would be usable in message boards to complement the wonders of animated GIFs), what gave you the idea that img is deprecated?

Re:Anything that isn't MPEG-4 is a step backward

[3choTh1s]

Let me get this out of the way before my head explodes...

Even if you use a Microsoft or Real streaming server, the content is ultimately stored in QuickTime. MPEG-4 is the open standardization of the QuickTime file format, and using the standard H.264 video codec and AAC audio codec you can make a movie that plays everywhere.

Nice slant you got there. But the Quicktime file format(.mov) is only the basis for MPEG-4 file format(.mp4). You can have H.264 video in a .mov container but it it better not be using High Profile. Quicktime is a nice base but it's no end all be all.

YouTube files don't have to be portable or any of that jazz. They were meant to be streamed to an internet connected device. These aren't high quality by any stretch of the imagination but they are user created and I just want to watch them casually. Not a big deal. And if my non-video dedicated Windows P3-700 box with 256MB ram can run it I'm absolutely positive it won't burn down the AppleTV. Shit my 5 year old xbox runs it great.

Honestly you have a serious case of rabid fanboism that needs to be cured. And to top it off... This isn't a container for static video. It also allows for interactivity. Something no video codec can do by itself. Lets just be happy that there is some competitiveness left in the world and we're not all sitting idle with only one way to do things.

Re:Anything that isn't MPEG-4 is a step backward

[Chandon Seldon]

"Media producers" want control over "their" video content. Most web browsers already do support [object src="foo.mp4"] tag syntax, but people won't use it because it would allow users to download the video content and save it.

Re:Anything that isn't MPEG-4 is a step backward

[TheNetAvenger]

Ok I'm going to ignore all the errors and misconceptions in your post and just assume you are an average Joe and don't realize you are misleading people via ignorance.

But please, go look up VC1 before you go on a rant about MPEG4 or talking about how WMV/WMA is not used.

Technially, even on the internet WMV is the most widely streamed content format, even with all Youtube Flash Video sites. (Yes there are numbers for this, go look them up.)

So if you think MS has no chance and MPEG4 has won, then you don't realize every HD player in the world ships with WMV support, even the PS3. Geesh.

You also don't seem to understand the difference between providing WMV content in the Silverlight player control concepts. This is in addition to WMV supporting clickable moving video content for taking Hyperlinking beyond hypertext to hypervideo.

I repeat go look up VC1.

Re:Anything that isn't MPEG-4 is a step backward

[jrumney]

img was deprecated in an earlier revision of XHTML 2.0, they may have resurrected it in the latest revision, I haven't been keeping up.

They are the copyright owners

[Anonymous Coward]

nobody else can see how to get it to run. You have to sign licenses to interoperate or extend and that is because the copyright owner (MS) want it that way.

So, yes we can blame MS for lack of support.

Because nobody else can.

Whatever - Anecdotal post.

[Anonymous Coward]

"That is highly unrealistic. The biggest reason is that as soon as Microsoft pushes Starlight as a 'critical update' (as they did for IE 7) its market share will take a massive jump to over 60%."

Maybe in your corner of the world, but in mine it didn't even show up. And anyway considering the advantages of IE7 over 6, I'd say that upgrading is a good thing.

"If I were a media manager, considering the current penetration of Flash, I might think about targeting a platform with a 60% share in addition to Flash, 10% would be extremely unlikely. So, a new OSS rich media format wouldn't work not because of the player but because of the content producers"

Alternative? You all haven't even come up with a good copy.

Yes, it is obvious

[RPoet]

It is quite patently obvious.

Re:just as i was being bashed by people in the oth

[cyphercell]

It's ok unity, I knew you were right.

Microsoft suggests Linux support a possibility

[massysett]

As for which platform Silverlight will support next, Key said, "Linux is an open question. We're looking at the desktops and browsers by volume. We want to put muscle behind supporting the bulk of the market." And Linux support is still under discussion, he said.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2114418,00.as p

Re:Microsoft suggests Linux support a possibility

[Tony Hoyle]

No he didn't he said it was 'under discussion', which means nothing.

I bet discussion went something like:

Developers: "What about linux support?"
Microsoft: "ROTLMAO!!!"

bullshit

[nanosquid]

Time for hte Open Source folks to innovate or get out of the way

The "open source folks" have excellent and innovative streaming media technologies. The problem is that they don't have the marketing muscle or the desktop monopoly to foist them on consumers.

I HATE when I see this crap where MS is supposed to wipe the penguin's ass.

MS is simply supposed to stop leveraging its monopoly. And pushing out Silverlight through their desktop and server distribution channels is leveraging their monopoly.

You may notice that the open source community doesn't have a big problem with Flash anymore, in particular since Adobe has documented most of it fairly well and there are starting to be open source implementations of it now.

To paraphrase you: it is Microsoft that should innovate or get out of the way. Unfortunately, as long as they can make heaps of money shipping bad, outdated technologies, why should they bother?

Re:bullshit

[N8F8]

Silverlight is more like Adobe/Macromedia Flash/ActionScript than simply a streaming technology. "Silverlight is a cross-browser, cross-platform plug-in for delivering the next generation of media experiences and rich interactive applications (RIAs) for the Web."

Re:bullshit

[nanosquid]

Yes, and, obviously, open source has that part covered, too.

Fail

[Yfrwlf]

This will go down in history as one of the many attempts of a dying company to continue having a foothold on the industry. Snap, no I did-n't. But seriously, no one cares about this, we already have this technology.

Re:just as i was being bashed by people in the oth

[cytg.net]

like a bashing of ms requires some level of validation. i think not.

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Like I would run this MS stuff on my linux boxen anyway.

Not as bad a situation as it seems.

[inflex]

Previously the big problem with being a linux user was that there were very few common online media formats that could be shared with and between Windows / OSX, however with the advent of a working Flash plugin on Win/OSX/Linux (what? there's other OS's? ;) ) a common ground is now available.

Even if Silverlight takes over the bulk of the downward push media (ie, CNN/Disney/whoever) it doesn't matter for the people who are publishing their own media since there is a viable option already that almost everyone has installed.

Inconceivable!

[Jesus_666]

What, really? I can't believe it! Impossible! Microsoft not supporting Linux - impossible to fathom! The very fundament of reality is shaken! Microsoft, so well known for their deep commitment to the Linux platform, fail to support that which should be expected to be their first tier platform? That's simply, to quote a famous Sicilian, inconceivable!

Re:Inconceivable!

[steeviant]

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Plea to web developers

[walterbyrd]

1) Please don't use proprietary formats designed specifically to enhance vendor lock-in. You are throwing away about 15% - 20% of your market, and pissing off a lot of people. And, of course, you are locking yourself into a specific vendor, for no good reason.

2) Please make websites that are simpler, saner, more standards compliant, and faster. Please spare us the all the annoying dancing monkeys, or whatever. Please note that some of the most successful sites are also the simplest: slashdot and google, for example.

Re:Plea to web developers

[solidfusion]

Tell that to all the flash developers out there that are "locking in" Adobe into the market. Personally, I'd much rather support Microsoft than Adobe. At least Microsoft gives incentives to developers and education. Seriously, do you think Adobe would ever release a "free" version of flash studio to develop simple applications? Not even close! Microsoft has the express editions of visual studio that allows anybody who has an interest in programming to learn their technologies and languages for absolutely free. Yes, I know there is eclipse for JAVA that is a free IDE, but that's about it.

Re:Plea to web developers

[walterbyrd]

You do realize that msft only offers things for free so that msft can further cement it's vendor lock? Once msft owns the market, don't expect that freeness anymore.

Re:just as i was being bashed by people in the oth

[cyphercell]

Unity was offering well reasoned opinions based on his experiences in web development. Others were unjustly attacking him, I started bashing M$ and you weren't there.

Since when did the market support free codecs?

[quanticle]

MPEG-4 is a valid alternative and the market seems to lean toward non-proprietary media codes.

Since when? The vast majority of music downloads are in proprietary, patent encumbered codecs, like MP3, WMA, and AAC+Fairplay. Most audio and video streams on the net are in WMA or Real. If the market favors non-proprietary codecs, then why don't we see greater adoption of OGG, or FLAC?

Re:Since when did the market support free codecs?

[N8F8]

You are correct. It would have been more proper to say the market supports codecs that aren't limited to use by large commercial companies with deep pocketbooks. OGG is great and you do see more and more adoption but it has to compete with a free, for most practical purposes, established alternative - MP3. FLAC compression only appeals to a narrow niche who value fidelity over size. Plus the name sucks.

Re:Since when did the market support free codecs?

[jZnat]

What year are you living in? Most video streams out there are Flash (either H.263+ or that other proprietary codec from On2), and most audio streams are MP3 (ever heard of internet radio?) and Ogg Vorbis (more internet radio).

This even worse than their netscape behavior?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they pushed it as an 'update,' how would they not be leveraging monopoly power to oust competition? Another case in sight?

Re:just as i was being bashed by people in the oth

[cytg.net]

i do believe that you 1. missed the point and 2. missed the context.
you're justifying a ms bashing AND i never ever implied that i in fact was present at the time of before mentioned ms bashing.
perhaps you inverted my post and made a funny ? i wich case hoho and haha :).

Re:just as i was being bashed by people in the oth

[unity100]

i am confused as to your positions against each others' arguments.

then again, i am working right now, listening to "Mr Postman" from 60s, so thats to be expected.

Another MS "killer"?

[beerdini]

I want to make sure that I'm getting this right...Sliverlight is going to kill Flash (which is everywhere on the internet right now) just like Zune killed the iPod, and Vista killed all other OSes, Xbox killed Playstation and Nintendo...and I'm sure I'm missing a few. Is it just me or is MS getting violent these days? I thought they were supposed to (try) writing software, not be some sort of wannabe hit man that keeps missing its target.

If the adoption of Zune and Vista are any indication of how quickly Sliverlight is going to be adopted, I'm not worried, and everything I have at home runs on Linux.

And this is news how?

[Qbertino]

WTF? Even with Adobemedia I have allways been extra sceptic about their supposed trueness to Linux and Open Source (I'm a full-scale professional Multimedia Designer with 7 years of Flash experience under my belt). Flash Player 9 seems to have done away with the glitches and hopefully Linux developement will be in line with other Plattforms from here on. After the next two iterations have passed and Linux is not lagging behind again by two years in the Adobe line of plugins then it will be safe to say that we have a true x-plattform multimedia RIA kit from Adobe. If not, any professional RIA developer worth his rates will be away from Flash again.
From a professional standpoint this MS Silverthingie isn't even worth mentioning - even if you are a MS user.
There's Flash, then a large gap, then Java, then another large gap and then come XUL, the Laszlo Generator and tons of Ajax Kits. Somewhere down further down the way you'll find Wild Tangent, Curl, Director and some other older plattorms, along with an abandoned Blender plugin codebase.
MS new PR stunt Multimedia tool isn't even on the radar of professionals. And it would take a complete instant 180 turn of MS policiy and 5 years of quality developement from MS for that to change. And we all know how likely that is. It's actually more likely that Java Multimedia will pick up, now that Java is GPLd.

Bottom line:
Silverlight is absolutely nothing more than the usual MS semi-vaporware combined with marketing bullshit as a toping. I don't expect it to get any more attention than Curl.

Re:And this is news how?

[Anonymous Coward]

with Adobemedia I have allways been extra sceptic about their supposed trueness to Linux and Open Source What "supposed trueness," n00b? There's never been a single hint of such a thing, ever.

Re:And this is news how?

[Anonymous Coward]

"the usual MS semi-vaporware"

You are an moron.

A beta 'vaporware' has been available for more than 3 months. Yes, including the OS X version.

That is pretty much the opposite of 'vaporware'.

Silverlight is not about Linux, it's about Flash

[rudi_v]

Adobe is making huge progress in media delivery with Flash. That's the target Microsoft is after. They really don't care if you can watch anything on Linux using their technology or not for lack of market share.

Temporary

[ProfessionalCookie]

It always starts out that way...just until they convince the content makers...

Re:Temporary

[ProfessionalCookie]

Realizing of course that you meant Mac & Windows weren't the only two platforms.

Re:just as i was being bashed by people in the oth

[unity100]

and the truth shall set us free !

Business strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, heres what I would do if I were to run a company producing something everybody "has" to use; a company producing roads. I would create a road that only cars bought by me or my friends would run on.

Re:just as i was being bashed by people in the oth

[cyphercell]

If you weren't there then how do you know he was bashing microsoft? There is a difference between bashing and analysis right?

This is so weird for me...

[CrayDrygu]

It's really weird for me to see all these stories about Silverlight, because a few years ago, I was the webmaster/administrator of silverlight.org (see the bottom of that page), which MS now owns. Of course back then, it was just personal web and email hosting for a group of friends. My friend who owned the domain sold it to a broker a couple of months ago for...well, to MS it was pocket change, but he had no idea who the buyer was.

I had an email address at that domain for several years, so it's just really, really weird to see "silverlight" everywhere on Slashdot and in the news.

It's a support issue

[malevolentjelly]

Microsoft is a large company that needs to support every one of its products- that's part of its platform.

This is not a surprise or a problem because:

A) Desktop linux is a fringe marketshare

B) There's not a ton of money in people who refuse to spend money on things

Also, linux is a wacky mess. No company that wants to take itself seriously will support it- because it's completely disorganized and lacks any semblance of standards across distributions. Apple and Windows are solid platforms that are much cheaper to support. This is why people generally only release RPM packages for certain linux distros and versions, such as redhat and suse.

Speaking of which, I wouldn't be surprised if this supports SUSE/RH once they get past pre-alpha.

Re:It's a support issue

[syrion]

IBM and Red Hat don't take themselves seriously? IBM is basically the definition of "serious." Big Blue doesn't have a joke in its massive, bloated corporate body.

Re:It's a support issue

[malevolentjelly]

IBM and Red Hat don't take themselves seriously? IBM is basically the definition of "serious." Big Blue doesn't have a joke in its massive, bloated corporate body. I meant provide customer support to a desktop implementation. I am sorry for the confusion. Not internal use or distribution of server products as 'support'.

Re:It's a support issue

[syrion]

That's probably more accurate, but it's really idiocy in a lot of cases. Unix is easier to administer, on the whole, than Windows. Windows has too many damn obscure errors, and buggy commercial "services" that are supposed to patch holes in its capabilities.

Re:It's a support issue

[malevolentjelly]

That's probably more accurate, but it's really idiocy in a lot of cases. Unix is easier to administer, on the whole, than Windows. Windows has too many damn obscure errors, and buggy commercial "services" that are supposed to patch holes in its capabilities. Windows is a great desktop or workstation system, though. I agree with you on the 'unix' front, but I don't necessarily believe that all the benefits of unix are inherited by linux. The open source community has too much of a conflicting focus to compete with the organization and direction of a large corporation.

Re:It's a support issue

[syrion]

I'd probably use BSD in a workstation environment. And no, I don't agree that Windows is a great workstation system. Where I am, we've got tons of XP and 2000 workstations, and there have been a lot of virus problems in the past. If you lock them down enough to prevent that, there are problems getting real work done on the damn things. Not to mention our security issues.

Re:It's a support issue

[malevolentjelly]

I'd probably use BSD in a workstation environment. And no, I don't agree that Windows is a great workstation system. Where I am, we've got tons of XP and 2000 workstations, and there have been a lot of virus problems in the past. If you lock them down enough to prevent that, there are problems getting real work done on the damn things. Not to mention our security issues. For those of us working in consumer technologies and media, we simply don't have the option to pick and choose. However, it's difficult to find a more efficient or productive office environment than that offered by the microsoft platform for everything from groupware to casual programming/scripting- the research really does go pretty far for most employees. Apple certainly doesn't offer the benefit of focused or dirt-cheap workstations, either- and especially not the software support. Either way, it's not realistic to think that most office employees or consumers will drop the mouse.

If security were a major issue for us (we've only had one major virus outbreak- and it was custom made for us- that could have happened to any OS.) I think I'd run windows virtualized on something like Green Hills Software's IntegrityOS system to get the best of both worlds.

Re:It's a support issue

[syrion]

Well, see, I think most workers rely on two things: word processors and spreadsheets. Those are easy to provide on any platform. Here, we also have some custom-built apps, which are very small and easy to duplicate. There is also a mainframe which many people deal with via a terminal application, which would function identically. Unfortunately, we have a lot of people who install tons of programs on their computers--and not useful programs, either. Disable the installations and they complain because they can't install a program they actually need. We use Novell Groupwise for "groupware," but honestly it's horribly underutilized and unnecessary. Nobody even uses it to schedule meetings--they just send out voice mail. I would dispute that Windows is superior for casual programming and scripting, especially given the level to which networks and computers must be locked down, but most of our users don't even do that. I do that, and I ssh into a Linux box.

Microsoft's relationship with Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

"Our strong relationship with Microsoft over the years has produced..." -- Jim Wilson CTO Microsoft Technologies

WTF?

Buzzword density vs. market forces

[spaceyhackerlady]

I get nervous when I read product announcements with such a high density of buzzwords.

I wonder, though: in every other field, the market decides what to buy and what not to buy, what to support and what not to support. This isn't the case with the Internet, where technologies are pushed, err, widely deployed by vendors and become the pseudo-standard, whether people use them (or even want them) or not.

How can we change this?

...laura

IE7 'critical update' - not widely used?

[Anonymous Coward]

> 'critical update' (as they did for IE 7)

That reminds me. Since IE7 was being pushed via the Microsoft automatic patch thingy as a 'critical update', why does it still have such a low share in my web server stats? I was really hoping that IE7 would quickly replace IE6 on those machines where the user won't install Firefox, and since IE7 has rather better CSS support I would eventually be able to stop messing around with IE compatibility hacks. Yet so far I think no more than 25% of the IE users in my logs are using IE7. Why?

Re:IE7 'critical update' - not widely used?

[silent_artichoke]

Your Users: "You know that little thingy down by the clock? The one that keeps saying something about update and annoying me when I'm looking on the Intarweb? I hate that thing. It's a popup. I learned that from my grandkids. I just click the X until it goes away. I don't need to update anything, my computer's only a year old!" That's why.

Re:just as i was being bashed by people in the oth

[cytg.net]

"this is anti ms rant" they said. "

questions ?

Re:just as i was being bashed by people in the oth

[cyphercell]

THEY???!!! That's your qualifier? ROFLMAO!!!

Let's be honest...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you actually TRUST Microsoft software on your Linux system? Color me paranoid, but the only way I would run MS software on my Linux box is under a VM or Wine sandbox.

Re:just as i was being bashed by people in the oth

[cytg.net]

if you get a "ROFLMAO" out of a bridge between "rant" and "bashing", i'd hate to see what you'd pull out of "horse"'n "arse" .. i speculate somethin like ROFLBBQFTWOMFGAOAOAOAO!!11!! in endless permutations.
c'mon .. why do you persue this? afraid you'll loose your balls if you dont ?

Surprised

[Martin Spamer]

The only surprise about this should be that they didn't call it Microsoft Video(TM) and sue everybody that tries to use the word Video.

The solution is real simple; create your content in MPEG and tell everybody you know that uploads content to Goggle Video/utube etc to do the same.

Re:just as i was being bashed by people in the oth

[cyphercell]

You really don't understand do you? It's not the bridge between "rant" and "bashing". It's your using heresay as a lead in as an authoritative source. You discounted unity as a troll, when you had absolutely no basis to do so. All you had on your hands was an account of trolling that happened in a thread you haven't bothered to read. Maybe I ought to run around calling you a thief after you tell me a story of being wrongfully accused of thievery.

Re:just as i was being bashed by people in the oth

[cytg.net]

nope i didnt get that at all. the intent was an utterly objective observation, that a ms bashing is valid anyday, and in no way trollify unity.
I can appreciate your angle though, sorta noble, thought you were trolling..
Im signing out here.

Netflix

[LeedsSideStreets]

Apparently Netflix has stated that they will be an early adopter of Silverlight. I was just thinking to myself yesterday that I would never switch to Blockbuster, on principle, even if they had a better service. Now I think I might now have to switch away from Netflix, on principle (and to be able to access the site content on any platform I use), to another service... maybe Blockbuster, maybe not.

Instead of whining, show your support for a port

[high]

"Though Silverlight sounds very promising, and may actually displace Flash video as the means most sites use to stream content, Microsoft has yet to even hint at the planned existence of a Linux plug-in."

I've seen Microsoft talking about Linux support several times and they've said that they take into account market share and what customers want. To bad the article and the Slashdot news post doesn't do anything to mention this but instead chooses to go with the they're-after-us-conspiracy-talk. Instead of being a cynical reactor, be active! Step up to the challenge and make yourself heard, instead of entertaining your Microsoft disapproval. Say to them that you would like Silverlight support for Linux. Start a petition or something.

Don't believe me? Here is an example:

http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?Pos tID=988552&SiteID=1

Alternative?

[phorm]

Well, one of the reasons that a "serious" alternative is not so much necessary is that a linux version of flash exists... although one could definitely comment on the lack of cross-architecture (AMD64) support.

Is it just me?

[Organic Brain Damage]

Or has anyone else noticed the Microsoft Advertisement between the original topic and the replies is running in a Flash player?

I admit that I enjoy using Microsoft Visual Studio 2003, C#, and MS-SQL Server. They're expensive compared to the alternatives, but they're worth the money in the time they save me.

That said, I'm working on a project that needs to be O/S independent and Adobe Flex in Flash player seems like the way to go. Microsoft's vested interest, keeping us all on Windows, is too strong for me to put much faith in any Microsoft controlled cross-platform solution.

Blackbird reincarnated?

[Shadowfire3000]

Blackbird reincarnated? (Microsoft playing the same game at a later date)

Since Linux can proform well with latest standards in media, Microsoft is pushing a new on of their own to mess this up.

They tried to do this once before with BLACKBIRD.

http://www.vnunet.com/itweek/comment/2086343/propr ietary-standards-grow-online

http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/spring96/0113.htm l

At the time of Blackbird, it was Microsofts secret weapon against on-line services, such as America Online, and the W3C group. (that was Microsofts big enemies at the time.)

Silverlight is just the same type of combative propietery software to make the same issues for linux (incompatibility issues so people will not want to run it anymore and stick with XP and Vista.)

Becarefull to adopt propriety software such as Silverlight as it puts limits to your use of your computer and your choice! It also seems to push up the cost of something that could be free of charge.

Hope everyone can at least take that in to consideration.

Re:Blackbird reincarnated?

[Anonymous Coward]

on-line services, such as America Online, and the W3C group. (that was Microsofts big enemies at the time.)

Really? "The W3C group" is an "online service?" And they were Microsoft's big enemy because of this? Really?

Idiot.

Look on the bright side

[bonefry]

Microsoft does manage to make Linux more attractive by releasing a crappy OS after 5 years of development and God knows how many resources invested in it.

And this new technology is actually a Good News for Linux ... now Adobe will have to improve that crappy Flash plugin that on Linux still doesn't support transparency ... and maybe even make it open-source in face of the danger posed by Microsoft.
They already released the ActionScript engine as Tamarin ... so I think they at least are considering the possibility (thanks to Microsoft) ;)

Re:Look on the bright side

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not Adobe's fault transparency on Linux doesn't work, it's Mozilla's. Mozilla bug #137189. Basically, the plugin hosting end didn't support it...

MPEG-4 is not interactive

[Wolvey]

Last time I checked, MPEG-4 was not interactive. Perhaps somebody can direct me to an interactive MPEG-4 application?

Re:MPEG-4 is not interactive

[Maltheus]

That would be up to the container, not the codec. MKV supposedly can do menus and is a commonly used container for MPEG-4. I'm not sure how extensive it's capabilities are, but it might do the trick.

Tamarin! Tamarin! Tamarin!

[Anonymous Coward]

#!/bin/sh
export CVSROOT=:pserver:anonymous@cvs-mirror.mozilla.org: /cvsroot
echo "Pulse ENTER"
cvs login
cvs -z3 co -R mozilla/js/tamarin
tar -jcf tamarin_cvs-$(date +%Y%m%d).tar.bz2 mozilla
rm -fr mozilla

Good lucking! It's gratis :)

Microsoft's Dillema: Security vs Obfuscation

[TheNarrator]

It seems that Microsoft's security problems are due to them wanting to make every technology they deliver have access to all the low level guts of Windows and the x86 architecture. This creates security problems because if the applications are not well sandboxed there will be many security holes.

Re:The solution: THE BEST!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm shuffling the software from M$, Adobe, Mozilla, Opera, etc and i rename them as A, B, C, D navigators and X, Y, Z, T plugins.

I will do a benchmark.

A with X is good.
B with Z is a little more good.
D with X is better.
C with T is a little worse.
Y with X is a little better. ,,,

I will always choose the BEST of the world's combinations!!!

Who cares?

[Master of Transhuman]

If this product is like ninety percent of Microsoft products other than Windows itself and Office (and maybe XBox - is that FINALLY making a profit?) - it's going no where, won't be adopted by anybody, and is recognized as a total POS.

Besides which, by end of the month, somebody will reverse engineer it anyway.

Microsoft is going to put Flash out of business?

Email me when this happens.

Linux - MONO a .NET FRAMEWORK

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that having the .NET Framework on Linux is a good thing; that means there will be less need for WINE. The project that is making this happen is http://www.mono.org/. (I think that having a boycot on Novell is some what stupid.) Infact have more Windows application that run on Linux is not all a bad thing. If you are Linux purest then you would have an issue with the whole thing of having Microsoft on Linux. Then this means that Microsoft has to think about how deal with the whole open source thing. And by have Sliver running on Linux would make easier to run multimedia content on Linux.

Why should anybody use it if they don't?

[Rob Y.]

In an ideal world, people serving up content would refuse to use a Windows-only format. Because content formats should be about what they the providers, not Microsoft, want in terms of accessibility by every possible customer.

And then Microsoft would have to support all those platforms in order to play.

But because of Microsoft's near-monopoly, and the stupidity of those who assume the 'great software' offered up cheap by Microsoft will work for everybody, they can get away with this.

After all, the only reason for Microsoft to build a Flash clone (I'm assuming that's what this thing is), is to nudge the internet into Windows-only territory. And there's no good reason (other than ignorance) for content producers to go along with it.

Re:Why would MS support Linux ... buying software

[pbhj]

I'd have bought Dreamweaver, PS Elements and Sage (accounting software).

But as it happens I had to go and find replacements ... so I'm using Quanta Plus (and now won't buy DW, or whatever it's to be called, for Windows again); I've not spent so long with the Gimp/Inkscape that I use them on Linux and XP; haven't found a replacement for Sage yet but have been considering SQL-ledger

Ummm...

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, they DID say they were going to develop this for Linux. Got a lot of press and... surprise, it ain't there.

Funny thing, too--I was going to submit the original story myself last Monday, but I felt it was probably BS and didn't.

Linux platform support

[nurb432]

Why should they support the competition when they hold such a stranglehold on the market at this point?

Get to work!

[stimpy77]

Oh please, give it a rest. Silverlight is just XAML (XML) + Javascript. Silverlight isn't open-sourced but it is open standard. Get to work on it or hush.

This is sad, really

[Anonymous Coward]

I attended Microsoft's MIX'06 conference last year, when they first started publicly showing and talking about s/WPF\/E/Silverlight/. Many of the lead developers and architects for the platform were there, and I had a chance to talk to them. WPF/E seemed like a very interesting choice, since it looked like MS was working of finding ways to scale down .NET CLR functionality into something small enough to work in the browser. And they were taking the approach that most folks here would applaud (I think): let it run everywhere (hence the "E") at the end of the name. We were even shown working demos of early code for Macs and Linux. Overall, it was very encouraging.

Then I had lunch with one of the architects.

He proferred enthusiasm for the multi-platform approach and seemed committed to the idea of making this stuff work on platforms other than Windows XP/Vista. But then we had a very weird turn in the conversation, when he asked several us at the table whether it mattered if the tools being built for this stuff ran on other platforms, too. I was shocked. How could you have a ubiquitous media platform with a closed tool set? I told the architect that if they wanted to make this succeed, they would absolutely need to open up the tools to platforms beyond windows. The response? "But we still feel there's a lot of value in the Windows platform, and we'd like to capitalize on that". Ugh.

It was clear right then that even though this team had placed themselves partially on the path to openness and broad support, they were still stuck in the MS proprietary mindset.

The fact that MS hasn't been clear on what it will do with Silverlight on Linux underscores my earlier concerns. It's not news that Microsoft has chosen to be proprietary and place their own products before others. It is sad they seem to be trying and failing to find a way to walk a "new path". Maybe next time.

Re:Anything that isn't DRM'd, is out!

[gdrumm0356]

I'm sure that DRM will be well represented in the new format, OH-maybe we don't need one!

Re: Of -- fTopi -- Course

[wild_berry]

My pointers are only 16-bit, you insensitive clod!

Re: MS Silverlight & Linux Support

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel everyones pain. I am not much of a Linux user...if at all...but it does give me bad juju thoughts as I am running a dual-boot WinVistaUlt/XP Environment so I can run the very few things I need because of lack of support. If anyone out there can find work arounds for both issues being spoke of (Silverlight for Linux and Vista Compats), please post them. Sorry for your luck gents!

Binary Daddy

Re:Why would MS support Linux ... buying software

[LWATCDR]

You may want to look at Appgen for accounting if you want a supported commercial accounting system.
Quicken and TurboTax/Taxcut are the big ones that keep my wife on Windows. For me it is Microsoft Flight simulator and Age of Empires.
There is good free software but I am also willing to buy software for Linux if it is available. I think a lot of Linux users would buy Quicken and TurboTax if you could get it on Linux.
Just about every thing from Adobe would probably find buyers.
I will have to take a look at Quanta. I am using HTMLToolkit.

Quanta Plus!

[pbhj]

Thanks for the tip. As for me I've moved around with my web editors.

I started with Pico back in about 95/96.

Then I think I used Notepad / Wordpad and possibly things like StarOffice (just as a text editor).

Recently I've tried DW, Bluefish, kate, Eclipse, Jedit, Quanta, Nvu and a few others.

I tend to code directly and just occasionally am tempted to use a WYSIWYG view. The bit that kept me with DW first was the server upload stuff and how it integrated - the templating stuff was cool too I guess. DW never rendered my pages correctly (xhtml/css).

Quanta used to be buggy as anything and in my previous trials I couldn't finish testing it before it crashed. But now it seems stable and the upload facility is good. Just yesterday I found I could drag images from the folder view on to the code view and they get put in (with H and W) as xhtml tags.

I've since looked at QuantaGold, but it doesn't appear to have anything else that I'd really need. All I want is upload; (regex) search-replace (with backup); tag completion; code hints (eg for badly named php functions where they switch between run on names and _delimited_names and switch attribute orders ... grr).

Worth a squeeze!

And when they start throwing...

[CRConrad]

...bottles, we play "Rawhide"!