Slashdot Mirror
Silverlight Released, Linux Version Coming
Today Microsoft announced the release of Silverlight 1.0 for Windows and Mac OS X. This cross-browser, cross-platform browser plug-in is fully supported and competes directly with Adobe Flash. Included in this release was the promise from Microsoft to support the 100% compatible Linux version, called Moonlight.
Want an alternative to Adobe's Flash? Take a look at gnash, the GNU Project's Flash player. It's still in alpha but works with a lot of flash stuff, including eg YouTube, and on 64-bit.
We don't need Yet Another Microsoft 'Standard'.
-- Alastair
MS didn't produce Moonlight. The Mono guys did. MS may try some patent-fu, but at the very least the code is out there. I personally don't respect software patents enough to abide by them anyway.
this move makes Adobe finally release a x86_64 version of Flash
Flash works fine on x86_64, it not working on 64-bit Linux is an urban myth. Seriously, just google for it...
It doesn't appear to work with Mozilla Firefox. I wonder when they'll fix that?
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
FYI, it won't work if you have Flashblock enabled on FF.
Slackware
http://halo.msn.com/videosHD.aspx
http://www.tafiti.com/
http://silverlight.net/showcase/
http://silverlight.net/community/communitygallery
C# and Friends are sure mopping the floor with Java. http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.htm
Try the showcase site, from the Silverlight home page.
http://silverlight.net/Showcase/
This space for rent.
Actually, Moonlight as of today already integrates with Mono, already exposes all of the Silverlight 1.1 API and already runs most of the samples on the net (modulo a lot of bugs
Miguel.
Hi there, I work for the client platform team here at Microsoft and thought I'd take this opportunity to quickly answer the valid questions you raise.
Firstly, we're not trying to hide anything in terms of developer APIs or documentation. We've got a good set of reference material online that is targeted at someone developing Silverlight content for display on a website. On the other hand, Moonlight is developing a compatible implementation of the Silverlight runtime, which is a pretty specialist requirement. There are different needs that Miguel and team have - for example, how to parse ill-formed content, and there are internal development specs that will help in making a 100% compatible implementation.
Secondly, the codecs themselves are licensed implementations of the VC-1 standard. We're not in a position to put them into the public domain, unfortunately, but making binaries available at least exposes the functionality.
Hope this explains where we're coming from and dispels at least in part the perception that every strategic move has evil intent!
All you are doing is listing old technologies. How does .NET "Pretty them up" ? While .NET can use COM dlls, it only does so through .NET wrappers, you make it sound as if .NET is built on top of these technologies. It is not.
So... Why isn't all the .NET applications running smoothly and correctly in Linux. The thing with partnerships is that they can be broken. Microsoft should put the money where their mouth is and fully support Silverlight for Linux. This looks like Microsoft Cheap way of doing things. Too Bad too, Microsoft devleopers could learn a few tricks programming in Linux that may make Windows a better product.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The last thing we need is another proptietary content format for the web. The open source community really needs to be focusing on implementing SMIL and SVG on Firefox which will turn it more into the high performance graphics environment which can compete with Flash. This would bring it a long way there. The w3c standards are good starting points however in many cases I think they come short of implementing enough control over the browser and features to make interactive applications more doable and eisier to implement. The sad fact is that a large number of indespensable technologies, including xmlhttprequest, designmode, innerhtml, scrolltop, and so on have been originated by microsoft, and the obvious need for these have been completely overlooked by w3c. Often it seems w3c standards are not designed by real users where the need for certain features becomes apparent. In the area of standards it is a good idea to apply the standard as a minimum, but at the same time if there is a feature that would improve the programming environment and add beneficial functionality that would allow for a broader scope of applications to be developed, it should be go ahead and be implemented and then standardisation of the feature can then occur. When we have badly needed features that need to be implemented we should not wait till a standard is realesed for them but implement them and at the same time work to get them integrated into a standard. Not doing so simply holds us back and encourages the implementation of proprietary, closed source technology, due to the shortcomings of the open standards and technologies, so ultimately waiting for something to be standardised before implementing it can do far more harm than good. I do agree standards are very important but they should not hold back progress in technology, so if we have an idea for a good feature, it should be implemented and we can begin a standards process too. But standards processes can take a long time so the feature should go ahead and be made avialable. Its more important to well document a technology and make it open source, which allows it to be used in a non-proprietary manner and with maximum portability without being locked into a certain browser, etc. Browsers should and do pick up features that have been introduced in other browsers. Firefox has implemented many features of IE, because, they were simply good ideas, like xmlhttprequest. Those features should also be integrated into w3c standards.
"Flag on the moon. How did it get there?"
Flash started as FutureSplash, a system for simple vector based goofy animations on the web.
Macromedia bought it, and ramped it up. About, oooh, a week (?) after Flash was bought, the writing was on the wall - Macromedia Director was a Dead Duck. What made Director useful, however, was its craptacular programming language, Lingo. Once the vision shifted from Director to Flash, the move was on to develop a programming language for Flash - the result? The even MORE craptacular ActionScript.
Several year ago, a survey was done and it was found that a full 80% of the users of the web would click "skip intro" and avoid using flash if they could. This set off a sea change at Macromedia, and now at Adobe, where Flash is no longer the funky little animation engine that couldn't if its life depended on it, but to become a "development environment" and platform for web based applications. Now, isn't THAT a totally stupid idea...
So, what Microsoft is trying to do is strangle and/or marginalise Flash as a dev environment before it gets any real traction.
Now you know.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
The video codecs for moonlight will be provided as binary blobs, directly from the Microsoft website and licensed only to be used in moonlight.
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
In this case, it is useful to understand where its coming from. With .NET 3.0 (which was originally meant to be Vista-only, but never ended up being so), Microsoft implemented a new GUI API called Windows Presentation Foundation to somewhat replace the old Win32/MFC/etc that has been around forever.
.NET Click Once, except even simpler to use for the end user.
.NET code to make cross-platform clients for backend apps. Win-Win for windows developers, thats for sure. Now if its win for non-windows...we'll see.
Part of the features of WPF is that its applications can be ran in "Express" mode, via a browser (this isn't like Silverlight or Flash where its part of a web page. In this case it IS its own "markup" and all, there's no html or anything, has its own extension, etc). That uses the full features of Windows' UI API, including direct x and such, so thats obviously Windows-only (also only works in IE, though I think I heard there's a Firefox plugin for it now, but still Windows-only, it uses core APIs and such). Running these "express applications" is a bit like Java Web Start or
Now, this has an obvious limitation: it can't seriously be used on the public internet, being Windows-only (this isn't 10 years ago anymore), so there was a subset of WPF that was to be implemented for Mac OSX, WPF/E (Windows Presentation Foundation Everywhere). That would let people use a subset of XAML/WPF in other browsers and on other platforms. So it was made.
Now, having that, well, the marketing people and such obviously saw a "Why Not" opportunity to expand its market into other areas than simple "Express applications". It could be used a bit like Flash, on top of its original purpose. And thus the name got switched to Silverlight, and the marketing came.
So it this case, the Flash counterpart really came kindda "after" the implementation and is pure marketing. Its not WPF/E's original purpose. Its a lot more useful in its Silverlight form though. Lets you reuse existing