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.

79 of 462 comments (clear)

  1. From the tirania.org link by alx5000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The binary codecs will initially support x86 and x86-64

    They also provide a complete list of the supported codecs. I hope that, though I'm never touching *light with a 10-foot pole, this move makes Adobe finally release a x86_64 version of Flash (yeah, we all hate those banners and such, but being able to watch youtube videos without hacks like nspluginviewer would be quite nice. Besides, my nspluginviwer-ed version of Flash SUX at playing real time streaming video...).

    --
    My 0.02 cents
    1. Re:From the tirania.org link by John+Betonschaar · · Score: 2, Informative

      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...

  2. What can posibly happen... by Daimanta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Microsoft will include Silverlight as an update and makes it high priority. Silverlight becomes success and passes Flash as the major app in the sector. MS will discontinue Moonlight because of BS reason. Linux is locked out by vendor lock-in.

    This is purely hypothetical but not at all improbable.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    1. Re:What can posibly happen... by 808140 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:What can posibly happen... by everphilski · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Note that Moonlight is being developed **outside** of Microsoft, although it has the support (not just verbally, but engineering support) of Microsoft. So it can't be killed quite that easy.

    3. Re:What can posibly happen... by AirLace · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remeber that the Mono project has already independently implemented large parts of Silverlight in their Moonlight implementation with little or no help from Microsoft. Microsoft's official support will definitely be helpful when it comes to test suites and some further details, ie. the "last few percent", but it has already been demonstrated that the community is entirely capable of implementing and maintaining this platform by itself.

      Some strange withdrawal by Microsoft will not result in a significant loss of resources here, and will not get in the way of replacing the proprietary Flash platform with a more free alternative. Kudos to the Mono team -- they have played their cards well here.

    4. Re:What can posibly happen... by gral · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, if we are talking what they have done in the past:

      * The first version will be done in completely open, to show "They" want to work with the
      community.
      * The next version will have a couple things that are different, but not necessarily documented, so it is difficult to "Know" exactly what is being done, people will still use it because it is not too problematic
      * Future versions will continue this trend, until the MS version has completely broken compatibility with other OS systems, and it will be the other companies just aren't cooperating.

      --
      Scott Carr
    5. Re:What can posibly happen... by Alphager · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Note that Moonlight is being developed **outside** of Microsoft, although it has the support (not just verbally, but engineering support) of Microsoft. So it can't be killed quite that easy. It can't be discontinued from one day to the next, that's right. But if Microsoft decides to no longer provide documentation, moonlight automatically falls behind silverlight and is therefore useless.
    6. Re:What can posibly happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Strange???

      What happens when they release an update and decide NOT to release the specs for the new features?

      Then Moonlight devs get to learn what it's like to be WINE developers!

    7. Re:What can posibly happen... by jhol13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      DRM. I am certain the Linux version will not play DRM'd content.

    8. Re:What can posibly happen... by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
    9. Re:What can posibly happen... by 808140 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Man, if you think MS's problem is lack of developer talent, you clearly haven't met anyone who works for MS.

    10. Re:What can posibly happen... by mounthood · · Score: 4, Informative

      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
    11. Re:What can posibly happen... by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I never said that. But a Microsoft programer are use to programming Microsoft Products on Microsoft OS's. If they did some say more programming for Linux I am sure they will go in some sections boy that was easy, much easier in windows, We should incorprate this feature or programming method into the next version of Windows/Visual Studios. As a primarly Linux/Unix developer when I have to do windows programming I always feel like I am dealing with more Black Boxes that tend to break, eg Call this library to get this information from the OS, vs. Open this virtual File and read in the information about the OS. It has its plusses and minuses, But with more experience with different platforms the better programers they become. I would say that a lot of Linux Developers stay away from Visual Studios and it hurts them too. Because they fail to learn what development platforms makes Windows better then Linux.

      I know that MS has a lot of talented developers and a Lot of them will be able to code circles around me... But also I would be able to code circles around other MS developers. But what happends people get stuck into thinking the same way and keep recoding the same problems over and over again, while a different perspective will be able to fix the problems.

      Sometimes there are problems that they didn't even know there was a problem yet.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    12. Re:What can posibly happen... by aminorex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed, Microsoft has destroyed some of the best minds of our generation.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    13. Re:What can posibly happen... by Nazlfrag · · Score: 4, Funny

      They're not destroyed, just wrapped up tightly in multiple layers of DRM.

  3. It's a trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...stick to open formats and Free code ;-)

    They are trying hard to encourage .net to kill off the huge popularity of Java, especially now that Java is moving to GPL they are trying extra hard to kill it off.

    1. Re:It's a trap by Mattintosh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They aren't trying very hard. Java has a 15-year head-start on .NET. Meanwhile, .NET is vastly superior and is mopping the floor with Java. Why? Because Java sucks. Why should I have to mess with a classpath when I can just include references in a build file or dump a binary into a "magic" directory? Flexibility is no excuse for stupidity. This extends to the rest of the Java vs. .NET issue. Java is flexible but clunky and stupid. .NET lacks a tiny amount of that flexibility in a compromise to ease of use.

      Basically, Microsoft finally got something right. That's not to say they didn't take some lessons from Java, but the fact is .NET is way nicer than Java.

      I just hope the Mono guys make hay while they can and get Mono up to a fully-usable state before MS decides they've given enough engineering support to the Linux-support guys. I'd love to use .NET to make cross-platform apps that work as well as .NET on Windows does now.

    2. Re:It's a trap by thammoud · · Score: 4, Informative

      C# and Friends are sure mopping the floor with Java. http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.htm

    3. Re:It's a trap by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Every 10 years or so, programming languages take another incremental step. We take the best lessons over the last decade and incorporate them into a new language. Java took the best parts of C and C++, cleaned them up, added a virtual machine, incorporated the best exception handling designs of the time, and standardized a good class library. Java is/was a huge step forward. .NET was the next incremental improvement on Java. They added in some of the things that were missing from Java, removed a few over-complications, and made a new class library that incorporated the lessons Sun learned.

      Maybe, in another 5-10 years we will see another language emerge. One of these languages will finally become dominant when they design it by committee and make it an ISO standard, like what happened with C++. The problem is, by the time the language makes it through the standardization process, some upstart will already have another language ready.

      The game continues forever.

    4. Re:It's a trap by jfbilodeau · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As both a Java and .NET developer, I must say that from personal experience, you may be right in saying that .NET has a lesser learning c.NET is a thinly disguised layer to 'pretty up' some old MS technologies. Futhermore, it not just slightly inflexible, but highly inflexible.

      As for the classpath complain, I find it moot. I haven't had to fight with classpath in years. I develop on Windows, Mac OS X & Linux and I've used Eclipse, Netbeans and other IDE, as well as the command line.

      My $0.02

      J-F

      --
      Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
    5. Re:It's a trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Read how that works, please. It's a count of the various percentages of search results found for "x programming" where x is one of the languages supported.

      Java's numbers are purely because it's been around longer and has always had a large net presence. The fact that there are more hits for "Java programming" versus "C sharp programming" is really meaningless. Java's been around longer. Of course there are more hits.

      That means nothing, though, since search hits don't determine which language is used the most.

    6. Re:It's a trap by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    7. Re:It's a trap by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:It's a trap by amccaf1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ant is not used at runtime, of course
      Sure it is! The Hello World! tutorial shows you how to compile, build and run straight from Ant. (Never used Maven, can't comment on it.)
      --
      "Flag on the moon. How did it get there?"
    9. Re:It's a trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah, yes, Maven. Because downloading and executing unsigned Java applications is always the best idea!

      Even if they fixed that (and I can only pray they did), Maven is still so horrendously overly complicated that it's the number one reason to avoid Java. Maven makes Ant seem easy, and Ant is the number two reason to avoid Java.

    10. Re:It's a trap by mhall119 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Java's numbers are purely because it's been around longer and has always had a large net presence. I see, and the explanation for Java also ranking higher than C, C++, VB, Perl, Cobol and Fortran would be?
      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    11. Re:It's a trap by david_thornley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Every 10 years or so, programming languages take another incremental step by implementing a little more of what's already in Lisp.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. what about solaris by ptr2004 · · Score: 5, Funny

    will it be called sunlight :-)

    1. Re:what about solaris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...and the one for embedded systems is called fleshlight.

      err, wait.

  5. Gnash by AJWM · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
    1. Re:Gnash by alx5000 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've tried gnash, and I can only conclude it's incomplete. I use the knash part and it sux both ends. YouTube works when there's a full moon and the day of month is prime...

      --
      My 0.02 cents
    2. Re:Gnash by jandrese · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The "good authoring tools" are the stumbling block. Flash is popular because it is easy to develop for (well, at least for simple projects like online animation). Any competitor has a rather high bar to hurdle to make their stuff easier and better than Flash (well, better isn't too hard, but easier...).

      Also, there's the fact that everybody already has Flash, so you have to fight the market inertia to get a foothold.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:Gnash by ettlz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Er, "Kick out the YAMS, motherfucker"?

    4. Re:Gnash by Aleksej · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hope the video tag gets into Firefox and Opera. They (Mozilla) were also going to put the ability to write JS to rotate/drag/resize the video being played -- like that for photos in that Microsoft table demo, whatever it was called. With JavaScript, it should be possible to mix SVG in. Too bad text resizing affects SVG in a bad way now, but as they are implementing full zoom (and it did work already), there is still a chance for Gran Paradiso.

  6. Yeah, Right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Like I'm gonna let Billy boy put his binary in my linux box.

  7. MLB.com by hansamurai · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Silverlight has been on mlb.com for a few weeks now, I guess they were one of the first partners. I find this all extremely obnoxious as that site is a huge crap mix of Flash, pop-ups, WMV, and now Silverlight. And that's not counting all the issues with the pay-to-view content, DRM, and content black outs. Sometimes all I want to see is some highlights from last night's games, but I don't want to jump through hoops to do so. Silverlight is just the next annoying hoop, it may look pretty, but it's also on fire.

    1. Re:MLB.com by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wouldn't it be cool if some hacker got creative and instead of defacing sites, replaced them with logical layouts and no ads. Sort of a Benevolent Defacer.

      Sure, it would take some extra effort, but the aftermath from disappointed customers now seeing what they missed, as they restored the site to the bloated mess could get pretty funny. :)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  8. Miguel must be happy today by kripkenstein · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I am generally quite paranoid about Microsoft's intentions, but this got even me to thinking. On the one hand,
    • Microsoft are publicly endorsing Linux as a respectable OS. Not more of the "multiplatform = Windows and Mac OS" crap.
    • It does appear that Microsoft is willing to conduct a true partnership here - even offering Novell their internal test suites, which means they really do want it to work. Hopefully this isn't a temporary thing.
    However, on the other hand,
    • "[D]etails that might be necessary to implement 1.0, beyond what is currently published on the web" ...why are not all Silverlight specs and APIs publicly available? Are people supposed to pay money to develop on this platform, or are they strategically delaying publishing the specs, or what? In any case it sounds very fishy. Enlighten me if there is a good explanation for this that I am missing.
    • The codecs are binary-only and only for use in a web browser. This is annoying, but it is about the same as Adobe do with Flash, I guess. Bad, but not quite 'Microsoft' bad.
    So what is going on here? Hard to say. The only thing I am sure about is that after years of Miguel de Icaza following a not-always-popular pro-Microsoft approach, today he must feel quite vindicated: Microsoft has taken another big step towards respecting and collaborating with Linux (or at least Novell), and Miguel is a big part of that.
    1. Re:Miguel must be happy today by TimSneath · · Score: 2, Informative

      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!

    2. Re:Miguel must be happy today by miguel · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Hello,

      "[D]etails that might be necessary to implement 1.0, beyond what is currently published on the web" ...why are not all Silverlight specs and APIs publicly available? Are people supposed to pay money to develop on this platform, or are they strategically delaying publishing the specs, or what? In any case it sounds very fishy. Enlighten me if there is a good explanation for this that I am missing.


      Let me explain.

      The specs as published on the web are pretty complete as far as a programming API goes. But there are some things that we do not quite understand how they work (either because the docs are not as complete as they should be, or because as implementors we need more details about the internals than those that are visible to the end user.

      One thing that we have noticed over the years is that internal specifications are probably built by PMs at Microsoft. And these PMs use these internal specifications to explain certain behaviors on their blogs. I suspect this is because it is a fast path of communication as opposed to going through the documentation pipeline for released products. They are also probably able to clarify things for docs that have been already published. This is my guess.

      So access to the specs is basically access to some documents and explanations that might not have made it to the public specification (for example recently Jackson and Chris had some questions about how the namespaces for CreateFromXaml behaved in the presence of merged trees, and it was not entirely clear how it worked; Luckily the Microsoft PM in charge of this was able to resolve the question in seconds).

      he only thing I am sure about is that after years of Miguel de Icaza following a not-always-popular pro-Microsoft approach, today he must feel quite vindicated: Microsoft has taken another big step towards respecting and collaborating with Linux (or at least Novell), and Miguel is a big part of that.


      Thanks for the nice words; I do feel that way.

      In general, I think that there is much to be gained by having friendly relations with everyone in the industry instead of taking an antagonistic position. You attract more bees with honey than with vinegar kind of thing, and am glad that this is starting to show. I hope to see more collaborations between Microsoft and the Linux community in the future, not limited to Mono, but going beyond that.

      Miguel.
    3. Re:Miguel must be happy today by Just+some+bastard · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hope to see more collaborations between Microsoft and the Linux community in the future, not limited to Mono, but going beyond that.

      Beyond that into more threats of patent litigation, more ghost lawsuits, more FUD and even more heavy handed lobbying? Here's what I hope to see; Microsoft competing in the market without abusing its monopoly position (Re Java, flash, pdf ...).

      Most of us get Microsoft loud and clear, how strange that you do not.

  9. for FF users by freshman_a · · Score: 3, Informative

    FYI, it won't work if you have Flashblock enabled on FF.

  10. History by allthingscode · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Doesn't this sound like the history of the browser all over again:

    Someone comes out with a technology that threatens Microsoft's dominance: Netscape.
    Microsoft develops a multiplatform technology to defeat it: IE on Mac.
    Microsoft incorporates it into its OS to get it into 90% of the PCs.
    Once the competition is destroyed, it levels off development, and ends support on non-Windows platforms: IE on Mac.

    It'll support *light on Linux/OSX until Flash is defeated.

    1. Re:History by dc29A · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IE was abandoned pretty much everywhere, not just Mac. It took Firefox for MS to wake up and start making IE7.

    2. Re:History by simpz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And HP-UX.. Along with Outlook Express on both. See the Wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_for _UNIX MS promised you could have a standard IE browser across all platforms. However as soon as the Netscape threat was out of the way it was discontinued without warning (good luck if you were a cross platform business that took their advice, MS listens and serves it's customers don't you know). I don't see how MS would treat this any differently. Even if the Linux implementation is open source they just have to load the MS one with patented codecs etc.

  11. Silverlight IS a wonderful thing by El+Lobo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been creating some Silverlight apps the last monts and my impresions are very positive. I have created some flash apps in the past, and there is no comparation. With Silverlight you have a very important subset of the .NET platform ready to use. Silverlight is not only the presentation forms (whichis also goos), but you can transparently use databases, manipulate and parse HTLM, wire handler events for HTML, excellent communication capabilities, and a lot more. IMO everything is more powerful/organized than the flash conteirpart.... Way to go!

    --
    It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
    1. Re:Silverlight IS a wonderful thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      With Silverlight you have a very important subset of the .NET platform ready to use.

      Interesting. Now I haven't done anything with .NET yet, so I have to ask. Is .NET also cross-platform, or will Silverlight be a case of "Oh it's crossplatform, but if you actually want it to be easy, you should be using a .NET enabled OS"?

      Which I'm guessing is only Windows at present?

  12. kdawson by evanbd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why is the entire front page populated with stories by kdawson? Did the rest of the "editors" quit or something? It'd be nice to have more of a mix of stories on occasion.

  13. Patent-fu? by wild_berry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would hope that Novell were awake enough to include actual licenses for Microsoft patents in last year's pact. I would hope that would protect Mono and Moonlight from patent-fu.

  14. Doing the right thing? by blueZ3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So far, what they've done is create "yet-another-MS-proprietary-format" to compete with the existing standard. Microsoft's new tool offers almost nothing technically innovative (at which I must say I'm shocked, shocked!) and exists merely to compete with Flash for the simple reason that Flash exists and Microsoft doesn't own it. There's no immediate financial benefit to MS from this, since they're giving it away (the sample is always free, right?)

    I don't expect the Mac version of this to last past the point where this gets to 50% market penetration (Mac IE, anyone?).

    This is another exercise in Microsoft suckage, straight up.

    --
    Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
    1. Re:Doing the right thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Good god. Shave off your fucking neckbeard. Try actually READING the fucking specs on silverlight and then saying that. It's actually a pretty nice transition from flash. But you're the average slashdot poster. Steve Balmer could save 25 children from burning to death in a building and you dumb fuckers would say he strapped them to a chair and threw them out the window to save them.

    2. Re:Doing the right thing? by _xeno_ · · Score: 3, Funny

      You haven't been watching Adobe if you think Microsoft is doing this just to compete with Flash. Adobe is planning on turning Flash into a complete OS-independent application delivery platform. (The Adobe rep insisted this included Linux when asked.)

      The best example of a similar technology is Java Web Start. Adobe has the install base to push a new version of Flash to enough end users to get a large enough user base to really try something like this. Continuing the analogy with Java, Flash currently fills the Java Applet niche, and Adobe wants to move into the Java Web Start niche.

      Microsoft wants that market, which is the point behind XAML and other technologies. Silverlight is simply Microsoft firing back at Adobe. They both see a future in rich applications delivered over the web, and are both competing for that market. Silverlight is just one part of that - both hope to get web developers hooked on their platform, to support their rich application delivery framework.

      Since that's the point, you can expect Microsoft to support cross-platform Silverlight as long as Adobe supports cross-platform Flash. They're both hoping to slide into a new market using Flash-like technology.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    3. Re:Doing the right thing? by FatherOfONe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Balmer, chair throwing.... Man that brings back memories. Speaking of memories... you do remember the company that champions the motto of "If it isn't invented here: kill it". Or "We need to piss all over Java2". Or better yet "You develop a browser for Windows 95 and we will cut off your air supply". These are just a few that I can think of, and there are plenty more. So to use your analogy, I could see Steve Balmer running in to the building and saving the 25 kids that actually bought Vista, then burning the rest of the building down, killing hundreds of other kids. Microsoft would of course spin this as "Balmer saves 25 kids from burning building" and say that the other kids died because the sprinkler system ran on a JVM.

      If it sounds like I am jaded about Microsofts business practices then all I can say is look at the last 20 years and tell me why I shouldn't be. The good news is that they are floundering around now and can't seem to find their direction. They have lost their focus (much like IBM did in the past), and have way too many battles going on. Office profits dropping, New OS sales slumping, developers excited and working on other companies products.... ~40 billion in the bank now down to around 20 billion. 1 billion in recalls of the 360... Yes they are not going anywhere, but the 800 pound Gorilla is now down to around 300 pounds...

      This product from them will go largely unnoticed by most of the development community except those that already live and breath Microsoft (current .Net developers).

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
  15. Readers digest version: by packetmon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Original Microsoft® Silverlight(TM) is a cross-browser, cross-platform plug-in for delivering the next generation of .NET based media experiences and rich interactive applications for the Web. Silverlight offers a flexible programming model that supports AJAX, VB, C#, Python, and Ruby, and integrates with existing Web applications. Silverlight supports fast, cost-effective delivery of high-quality video to all major browsers running on the Mac OS or Windows.

    True translation: Microsoft® Silverlight(TM) is a cross-browser, cross-platform plug-in that will ultimately be leveraged by bot-net herders using the next generation of .NET attacks. Silverlight offers bot-net herders a flexible programming model that supports AJAX, VB, C#, Python, and Ruby, and integrates with existing Web applications that can be used for spam, IRC, DDoS and XSS "I hax0r3d j0or payGe". Silverlight supports fast, cost-effective delivery of all major attacks.

  16. Re:Hmm... by everphilski · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It actually does work on Firefox. I have it working here, FF 2.0.0.6.

  17. Obviously it's a trap - but it can be stopped by toby · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Open letter to Adobe - release Flash under the GNU GPL today

    Dear Adobe,

    No doubt you've seen the news that Microsoft and Novell are to work on a version of Silverlight for GNU/Linux. This puts Silverlight onto all three major platforms now, and puts yourselves and us into a difficult position. As the free software community, we want users of computers to have freedom to do all the jobs they can, including all those nice interactive websites out there that use Flash. We have Gnash now, but it's not finished yet, but it at least lets us look at YouTube movies in the browser with little or no problem, and Homestar Runner works very well as well. We're not there yet, but we're getting somewhere. Now, from your point of view, you give away the Flash player, but only in binary form, which means that while I'm sure it's better than Gnash, your license prevents us from using it with freedom. So, here's the rub... if you'll do a little thing for us, we can do some great things for you. We can help you beat Microsoft and crush Silverlight, but you're going to have to do something a little unusual, and a lot of people at Adobe aren't going to like it, but you have to do this and do it quickly.

    Here goes... Make Flash free software, specifically, release Flash - the player, the editor, the server, for all platforms, including embedded stuff, under the GNU GPL v3 and do it quickly. As soon as you do this, we can start to win. We can get Flash Player onto the One Laptop Per Child machines, which gets a ton more eyeballs looking at Flash. We can get gNewSense, Ubuntu, Debian, Red Hat, Fedora, SuSE, Slackware, Mandriva and all the others to distribute Flash Player with their distributions. OpenSolaris can have Flash Player, too. You can still sell copies of the Flash editor, in lovely cardboard boxes on the shelves of computer stores, even as Free Software - you just need to add value. Bundle DVDs of freely licensed shapes, characters, sounds, loops and effects and dead-tree editions of your now freely licensed manuals, and people will still buy it, and of course, you bundle it in with things like Creative Suite, so it gets onto more machines, and you make it a free of charge download, too. You encourage people to torrent it, and the source, and you'll see more features being added, you'll see more video formats being supported and you'll see people doing amazing things with software you created, but only if you act quickly and get this right.

    Don't lose this to Microsoft, for the sake of freedom of computer users everywhere, for the sake of a free web and for the sake of generations of people to come, don't let Microsoft get away with this.

    Sun are doing this with Java, they did it with OpenOffice.org. You can do this as well.

    It's entirely down to you now. If you need help, ask. If you have questions, shout.

    Call the Free Software Foundation today, and make this happen.

    (+1-617-542-594)

    Do the right thing.

    Do it.

    Best,

    matt


    Exploring Freedom blog.

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:Obviously it's a trap - but it can be stopped by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Open letter from Adobe to Matt

      Dear Matt,

      I'm so sorry but real-world companies can't survive on misguided idealism, and if you haven't noticed, we need some money to pay the salaries of our employees. This means we'll not just open source our player, which is already a de facto standard, and s result for which we paid millions upon millions and years of hard work to build.

      In fact we've still not released the Flash 9 spec out there, and when we release it, it'll be full of errors and incomplete, just like the previous flash specs were.

      We open sourced parts of our platforms strategically, but only enough to appeal to the OSS crowds, and ensure our platform is seen as a standard, and not enough so we lose control. As you know The Flash scripting engine will be part of Firefox 4. We also open sources the Flex framework and soon the compiler an Eclipse plugin. It didn't sell well anyway, so what else could we do.

      Recently we announced that we'll embrace open standards like MPEG4 for our video codec, but what we forgot to mention is we'll still require that you buy our owns streaming servers for live streaming, since we intentionally don't support the standard streaming protocol all other MPEG4 videos stream in.

      It's also possible we'll sue the authors of Gnash, if they ever start to matter (they don't now), since our specification of the Flash format specifically says you're not allowed to build players with it, just Flash file exporters.

      Basically, it's business like any business for us and Microsoft. Drop the idealism and get on with your life.

      Sincerely, Adobe.

    2. Re:Obviously it's a trap - but it can be stopped by everphilski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      good for you. Nothings ever good enough unless it is under your terms, precisely, is it? I suppose you don't use the Linux kernel, it is GPLv2? Horror of horrors...

  18. Re:i hope this is well received by NickFortune · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not so much that I think it's evil - more that I find myself profoundly distrustful of Microsoft's motives.

    I mean it's possible the leopard really has changed its spots this time. But that's not the smart way to bet.

    --
    Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
  19. Re:[AC]What can posibly happen... by everphilski · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why? All they need to do is make a point-and-click "silverlight director" and dictate that everybody must use that to create their silverlight files.

    Because they are marketing it as a programmable language in Javascript/C#/Ruby/Python ... they'd be killing their own market and give room for a competitor to arise.

  20. Evil Plan by terrymr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So now people can pwn my linux box by exploiting microsoft bugs ?

  21. Re:Now that I've downloaded it... by Osrin · · Score: 3, Informative

    Try the showcase site, from the Silverlight home page.

    http://silverlight.net/Showcase/

  22. Details of cooperation by recoiledsnake · · Score: 3, Informative
    From Moonlight's Blog:

    The highlights of the collaboration are: Microsoft will give Novell access to the test suites for Silverlight to ensure that we have a compatible specification. The same test suite that Microsoft uses for Silverlight. Microsoft will give us access to the Silverlight specifications: details that might be necessary to implement 1.0, beyond what is currently published on the web; and specifications on the 1.1 version of Silverlight as it is updated. Microsoft will make the codecs for video and audio available to users of Moonlight from their web site. The codecs will be binary codecs, and they will only be licensed for use with Moonlight on a web browser (sorry, those are the rules for the Media codecs[1]). Novell will implement Silverlight 1.0 and 1.1 and will distribute it for the major Linux distributions at the time of the shipment. We will offer some kind of one-click install for Linux users (no "Open a terminal and type su followed by your password..." as well as RPM and DEB packages for the major distros and operating systems.
    Licensed codecs on Linux should put corporate types to rest. The restriction that it must be used only in Moonlight sucks though.
    --
    This space for rent.
  23. There is no catch by LS · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Everyone is wondering what the bait and switch scheme is. Perhaps there is none. Microsoft may be realizing that the OS battle is a losing one. Just look at the Vista fiasco. The move to from local apps to web services has been predicted for a while and has had several false starts, but recently there seems to be some light at the end of the tunnel. Microsoft doesn't care if the the underlying operating system is Linux as long as you are running their web services on top of it.

    LS

    --
    There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    1. Re:There is no catch by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, there's some real light at the end of the tunnel. Just look at the OOXML ISO fiasco.

      I don't know what you put in your Wheeties pal, but some of us take the null hypothesis with Microsoft to be "They're trying to fuck us over somehow".

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:There is no catch by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I still consider this to be a bad idea, to use a closed source proprietary plugin for creating content on the web. Microsoft says they are supporting Linux, but this assumes Linux is the only operating system besides Windows people use. It leaves those who run FreeBSD and other OSs still pretty much in the same situation and leaves us in a similar predicament as we were before, proprietary closed source plugins that can only be used on paritcular OSs, locking people out of viewing web content on a broad range of other platforms.

      Really we ought to be looking to improving the browser html/css/javascript/svg environment itself including SVG and SMIL and adding all the features it needs so it can complete with things like silverlight, and do so in a matter where it can be viewed using an open source software program. SVG and SMIL support has been coming along much too slowly in firefox even though the internet is being ruined by multitudes of proprietary flash content pages.

  24. Re:Itsatrap. Here is why: by miguel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Acording to CNet (http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9769714-7.html): Version 1.1 will be announced in may, and will be tightly integrated with .NET. Game over. Mono can't keep up.


    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.
  25. YABP - Yet Another Binary Plugin by mauriatm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes I do but I don't want another version of FLASH! Flash just sucks. It really does. Action Script is a terrible language there are all sorts of issues with flash.

    Flash does suck in your case, but at the same time *someone* likes to develop using it. Who are these mysterious developers?

    Why doesn't the FOSS community come up with a replacement for Flash and not just a copy?

    Because there is absolutely no incentive. Look at all the reasons Flash is being used: ads, quick games, video, music, forms, etc. With the exception of ads, there is a totally free (open source) method that could work (java, ajax, svg, ogg, etc.). So then why would the "FOSS" community want to reinvent something?

    Make a plug in for IE and get Firefox, Opera, and Safari to include it in their browsers?

    While making a plugin is not so difficult, who would develop for it if there is no content for it? And if there was content for it, why would they want to move from their already existing platforms (Flash) and switch to something new?

    Make it FOSS BSD please so the embedded people can use it for their systems.

    Actually I've seen some Nokia devices that support Flash, I think one of the mini tablets also runs Linux. So Flash *could* be more widely supported, and I suspect it *eventually* will. ... I'll bet Windows embedded devices will support Silverlight. ... But again, without content it doesn't matter.

    Use Ogg for the codecs.

    Windows still won't ship with an OGG codec. I also remember reading that OGG was notably more CPU-intensive (still true?). While I have no objections to OGG, I do wish it was more widely supported (especially in some more popular mp3 players).

    And write good authoring tools.

    *** That's the biggest kicker. *** I personally think major FOSS "developer" products are seriously lacking when it comes to multimedia compared to commercial products (Flash, Director, etc.). Even if there was an perfect plugin, the SDK and all related tools including deployment would take a serious effort to polish to be even remotely competitive with current offerings.

    Make it good, open, and free.

    A great goal, but unrealistic. In the end the commercial incentive for Flash (or Silverlight) are what pushes it forward, not any form of openness or accessibility. If you can't make money out of it, I doubt it will be widely used or developed.

    Ultimately it would be in everyone's best interest to use what (non-proprietary) plugin systems that already exist interfaced with already open standards/technology.

  26. Extreme Paranoia at Microsoft by Prototerm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd like to know what the people at Microsoft have against anyone else having a slice of the computer software pie. While I appreciate the idea of competition, Microsoft isn't about competing fairly. It appears they will not be content until they are the only software company left. Do they have so little confidence in their own ability to compete that they must drive everyone else into oblivion?

    Just for the record, I despise Flash in all of its incarnations. Most web sites only use it for annoying ads anyway, so avoiding it is a small loss. But why Microsoft feels it has to drive Flash out of the market with their monopolistic efforts is beyond me.

    --
    "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
    1. Re:Extreme Paranoia at Microsoft by Shados · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      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 .NET Click Once, except even simpler to use for the end user.

      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 .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.

  27. Compare it to Adobe Flex, not Flash by arete · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you're comparing it only to Flash - and especially older Flash - you're not giving Adobe a fair shake.

    Put briefly, Adobe Flex is in beta of it's 4th major version, and it's what Adobe is offering for programming targeting the Flash Player. For a programmer, it is worlds better than Flash.

    Silverlight might be awesome, I haven't touched it, but everything you said about it are all the same improvements over Flash that Flex has been doing for years now.

    Flash is an animation tool. People starting using it for applications, and starting in 2002 and again in 2004 Macromedia gave it real support as a programming language. This is all still true, and they've continued to improve that.

    But we're now on version 2 (3 is in beta, 1.5 was a major version) of Adobe Flex, which should be considered the follow-on to Flash for programmers and applications. The Actionscript which underlies this is identical in the two platforms, although Flex is driving the new AS versions and Flash lags behind a bit. But Flex also removes all the major craziness that programmers hated in Flash - layout is in an MXML (specific kind of XML) file, there is no binary source file like a fla, and it has further strengthened the already-present OOP capabilities. They have a Dreamweaver-like WYSIWYG layout editor and IDE - and it's also an Eclipse plugin. But like Dreamweaver and unlike Flash, there's no requirement that you use that.

    Oh, and if you don't mind command-line compilation and a text editor, the SDK is free.

    And that's all only if you don't install the Flex server. It is ALSO a presentation layer server, and Flex Data Services have a bunch of really smooth ways to give shared persistence or to interact with any other application server you might have.

    I don't know whether Silverlight also requires the server to support it - I imagine it must to have "a subset of .NET" available; Flex can definitely make standalone swf and can operate with it's full server installed. (The server can also compile on the fly)

    REALLY, though, my big issue is mostly that I just do not trust Microsoft to make a good secure sandbox; they've shown no evidence of being able to pull this off in the past. Using something like this is inherently allowing complex arbitrary code to run... I'm sure this will be better than ActiveX, because it couldn't be worse...

    --
    Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
  28. what can Microsoft's motives be? by Locutus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why would they being doing this supporting other platforms thing? Here's my best guess:
    1) knock Adobe Flash down from the top of the hill
    -why? Adobe has nearly the same distribution channels as Microsoft since Flash is installed on nearly all computers sold. Flash is an API Microsoft does not control and its multimedia underpinnings are a threat to Microsoft's media file formats, ie control.

    2) Makes Silverlight look like it's good to everyone in the industry by supporting the three major platforms, Windows, Linux, Mac.
    -why? initial support from the industry for one thing. Linux is embedded in way too many devices to be ignored and Mac isn't doing too bad either. As stated by the parent, this won't last if Silverlight is successful in displacing Flash in the market. Microsoft has NEVER been a friend to anybody who's not a Windows-only vendor and they've never considered other platforms in their business model/methods other than how they threaten the cash flow of the Windows monopoly.

    3) Make a platform to replace the browser neutral AJAX kits and eventually bring it all home to Windows-only.
    -why? AJAX is spread all over the place and businesses are migrating old apps and/or creating new apps which run on any browser/platform. There is no NEED for Windows in this world and Silverlight brings that all home to Bill, Steve, and the friendly people at Microsoft.

    Microsofts motives in everything they have done over the past 15+ years has been to keep Windows in a position of power and control. There has never been any desire to profit from cross platform software and nothing shows they've changed. This attempt at cross platform support is only a tool, or hammer if you will. It's going to smack everyone but Windows users on the head. But Microsoft has changed you might say. Just look at how they are manipulating the ISO process in attempts to get a proprietary format, MS-OOXML, as an international standard. They have not changed and Silverlight on Linux and Mac is nothing but a carrot hanging over the trap. There is no trusting of Microsoft and Novell is the fool for thinking once again, they can play in the pen with the wolf. IMO.

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  29. Re:Extreme Paranoia at Microsoft, explained. by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 4, Informative
    I also detest Flash. I think it is an abomination. However: you are missing the point of what Flash is.

    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.
  30. Re:[AC]What can posibly happen... by everphilski · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They want to kill off Adobe, not Linux.

  31. bzz bzz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You attract more bees with honey than with vinegar
    So you're responsible for all these goddamn bees!
  32. Re:[AC]What can posibly happen... by Rasputin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They want to kill off Adobe, not Linux.

    Wow! Where have you been? Microsoft wants to kill-off everyone who isn't Microsoft.

    --
    "I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
  33. Re:SVG/SMIL by Dragonshed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's true there's some parallels, but Xaml is much more flexible.

    Xaml at it's core is essentially an object instantiation language. It allows developers to declaratively create objects, describe their members, and relate them to other objects. As long as the objects referenced follow some simple rules, said Xaml is compiled down and loaded, either while building an application or on the fly, as may be the case with Silverlight.

    It's handy when the UI and Codebehind for a Window or Canvas can be worked on independently by the designer and developer, and have both parts compile down to the same class. It also makes for some interesting solutions if you want to alter look or behavior after shipping.

  34. Perhaps I'm too suspicious... by jesterzog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...but I don't understand why Microsoft even needs its own closed source implementation when it's actively supporting an OSS implementation. Surely the OSS implementation could be ported to Windows, and probably will be anyway sooner or later.

    The only reason for a closed source edition that I can think of are that Microsoft is using the OSS support for PR purposes only, and has future plans to make sure they're incompatible over time.