Slashdot Mirror


Moonlight 1.0 Brings Silverlight Content To Linux

An anonymous reader writes "Novell has unveiled some of the fruits of its technical collaboration with Microsoft in the form of Moonlight 1.0, a Firefox plug-in which will allow Linux users to access Microsoft Silverlight content. Officially created by the Mono project, it is available for all Linux distributions, including openSUSE, SUSE Linux Enterprise, Fedora, Red Hat and Ubuntu. Also included in Moonlight is the Windows Media pack, with support for Windows Media Video, Windows Media Audio and MP3 files."

39 of 346 comments (clear)

  1. GlasDOS agrees... by gbarules2999 · · Score: 5, Funny

    '[fake-coughing] Moonlight... so deadly... Choking... [laughs] Kidding! When I said "Firefox plug-in," the deadly was in massive sarcasm quotes. I could take a bath in this stuff, put it on cereal, rub it right into my eyes, honestly, it's not deadly at all. To me. You, on the other hand, are going to find its deadliness a lot less funny.

  2. freely implementable standard? please by xzvf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Moonlight is a neat project and Silverlight looks interesting, Flash works. But why can't an open, rich experience, open standards solution for building web sites emerge? Surely that would be better for web site developers and consumers.

  3. Re:freely implementable standard? please by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Something like this perhaps?

    SVG + Video > Silverlight

    And that's only the tip of the technological iceberg. Behold the power of HTML5. Coming to every web browser except Internet Explorer.

  4. Why? by linumax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If Adobe is finally taking Linux seriously, it's because they are afraid of Microsoft. Best outcome we can have is Adobe and MS each taking a 50% share of this market. We'll reap the benefits, regardless of OS of choice.

    1. Re:Why? by mrsteveman1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Making the web dependent on binary plugin formats....users are probably the only ones who DON'T win.

    2. Re:Why? by afidel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unfortunately many restaurants have sites designed by web monkeys that require flash to function, this is bad because most mobile platforms don't have flash. I know I've skipped places that might have been good because I couldn't check out their menu from my Blackberry and chose another restaurant where I could.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Why? by DavoMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Binary formats? Like JPG, PNG, GIF or PDF?

      Yes, if horrors like that were allowed onto the web, we'd all be doomed.

      Oh, wait...

      The difference is that with the image formats you mentioned are all manipulatable via HTML, aren't interactive in any way.

      They are all explicitly content-only with no interaction.

      PDF though, that isn't really for the web. Thats aimed at pixel for pixel, screen for screen uniformity - which HTML battles against. HTML and open web standards is all about the browser showing the content in whatever way the user needs to see the info, and have it all work.

      What the previous anonymous coward was getting at was when you put the structure, interactivity, and applications all running encapsulated inside a plugin (where the browser/user can't config it), then you either subvert HTML (redundant) or provide non-accessible content (bad thing). The goal should be to move structure/architecture out of plugins and into the markup where it belongs. That way, in 10 years time when you can't see anymore, your browser will be able to jazz the content together so you can access it with your futuristic hypersensor.

      --
      Whats the harm in yelling 'Computer, end program!'? You could be living in Star Trek! Go on.. give it a try.
    4. Re:Why? by javilon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If Adobe is finally taking Linux seriously, it's because they are afraid of Microsoft. Best outcome we can have is Adobe and MS each taking a 50% share of this market. We'll reap the benefits, regardless of OS of choice.

      If Adobe is finally taking Linux seriously, it's because they are afraid of Microsoft. Best outcome we can have is Adobe and MS each taking a 50% share of this market.

      Supporting Silverlight is not necessary for that. In fact it can be the quite the opposite. If Adobe sees having a Linux plugin as a competitive advantage, they'll give it a lot of love. But if Silverlight is (badly) supported in Linux, it gives them the wrong message. Basically it is just another tick on the box, and they don't need to make it work properly, just pretend that it does, exactly like Microsoft is doing.

      --


      When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
  5. Re:One Word by geckipede · · Score: 3, Funny

    The one word I was thinking of was "Meh."

    Now to spend the next few minutes trying to work out whether that actually counts as a word...

  6. Re:freely implementable standard? please by jlarocco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    XmlHttpRequest, the 'X' in AJAX, started life as a Microsoft only, proprietary ActiveX object back in IE5.

    Given that, your post doesn't really make sense.

  7. Re:freely implementable standard? please by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Which post would that be? The one where Microsoft failed to implement DOM2 events, then implemented HTML5 features based on DOM2 events and therefore incompatible with the standards, therefore not HTML5?

    Don't get me started. IE8 is a sore point for me. You WON'T appreciate what you hear. (Or maybe you will. But it won't be the most pleasant conversation.)

  8. Cool, but... by AndrewStephens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't get me wrong, I think its cool that projects like this exist and I am not going to criticize anyone for spending time working on it.

    But Silverlight really seems like a solution in search of a problem. Flash provides nice interactivity at the cost of an annoying plugin, and HTML5 is quickly catching up and should be the long term method of constructing web apps.

    The only advantage of Silverlight seems to be the unified language for both backend and content, but that doesn't seem compelling to me. Anyone here using Silverlight for anything interesting that couldn't be done in Flash or HTML?

    --
    sheep.horse - does not contain information on sheep or horses.
    1. Re:Cool, but... by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's designed to directly compete with Flash. The "problem" that it solves is that Adobe is dominating a market that Microsoft wants. You may notice that most of Microsoft's products attempt to solve similar problems.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  9. STILL can't use "Watch It Now" on Netflix!! by hacker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, even with this, I STILL can't watch anything on Netflix's "Watch It Now" section... because THAT requires Moonlight AND ActiveX (and I still had to forge my UA just to get that far).

    We're no farther along than we were before.. as always.

    1. Re:STILL can't use "Watch It Now" on Netflix!! by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There must be a non-ActiveX version of the page if it works on Macs... keep at it! :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  10. Re:Miguel by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    short memory you have there. before MS started working on silver light a decent flash player on linux was but a pipe dream. say what you want about them, but anything MS takes an interest in ends up with savage competition that benefits us all.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  11. Yeah.. by tjstork · · Score: 3, Informative

    I got a bid in a gig for Silverlight, and, the thing is, Flash is actually a bit better for some of the special effects. I think its fair to say that Flash and Silverlight are designed to do two different things. Flash has more fancy graphics options, but, Silverlight is easier to assemble content dynamically with. You could go one of two routes with Silverlight. One way is to send out the binary blob ala Flash, but you can also just send out xml straight out to it.... that makes it a bit more like working with a normal web server paradigm. In that sense, you can view Silverlight as more of a stopgap to HTML5 than you would Flash.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Yeah.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not a stopgap, it's an alternative. Microsoft is trying to kill HTML5 with Silverlight. They will fail I think, because IE market share is dropping and nearly everyone technical wants them to die now. If IE6 didn't do it, Vista did.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  12. Re:Am I going to be sued for patent infringement? by alienunknown · · Score: 3, Informative

    That seems to be the message Microsoft is sending

    I used to think it was mass-hysteria when I heard people say what you just said. Until a while back I stumbled upon this on Novell's site:

    This protection extends far beyond our broad Novell Indemnification Program; you also benefit from the Novell and Microsoft patent cooperation agreement. It ensures that when you buy any Novell productsâ"whether Linux-based or proprietaryâ"you receive a patent covenant from Microsoft.

    And:

    Under the Novell and Microsoft patent cooperation agreement, when you buy any Novell productsâ"whether Linux-based or proprietaryâ"you receive a patent covenant not to sue from Microsoft. Microsoft's covenant not to sue a Novell customer applies to a Novell offering independent of the channel of distribution and licensing terms, and whether any code is covered by GPLv2 or GPLv3.

    Here is the direct link: http://www.novell.com/licensing/ntap/

    Suffice it to say, I no longer use OpenSUSE :)

  13. Smooth Streaming! by benwaggoner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    On the media side, check out:

    http://www.smoothhd.com/

    I encoded the "Big Buck Bunny" clip up there :). It's still in pre-alpha, but you should be able to get the idea

    This uses a new API called MediaStreamSource, which enables file parsers and protocols to be built in managed code, and then hand off the video and audio bitstreams to Silverlight's built int decoders.

    In the case of Smooth Streaming, every two seconds of the video is a seperate http request, and each of those chunks is available in six different data rates. Managed code heuristics running inside of Silverlight dynamically pick the right bitrate for the next chunk based on available CPU power, network speed, and window size (no reason to download 720p if the brower window is shrunk down in a corner of the stream).

    And because this is based around small http requests, chunks get proxy cached, so 100 people watching the same video behind the same firewall would only need to get a single copy, providing much better scalability than traditional unicast streaming.

    Anyway, this is something that Flash certainly can't do, and I haven't seen any hint of HTML5 being able to do. Pulling it all together requires some pretty specific characteristics of the video decoder (the ability to switch resolutions with a new sequence header without any pause), an API like MediaStreamSource, and having a performant enough runtime to be able to run all the heuristics and parsing without using much CPU.

    I blogged the authoring workflow for this and some other details here:
    http://on10.net/blogs/benwagg/Expression-Encoder-2-Service-Pack-1-ndash-Intro-and-Multibitrate-Encoding/

  14. You know what? by moniker127 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We all can bash silverlight, but but theres nothing wrong with it. Its a newer, and from what i've seen, more stable alternative to flash.

  15. Re:One Word by Daengbo · · Score: 3, Informative

    The interesting thing is that Moonlight downloads the codecs for you on demand (no need to add other repos) and they are properly licensed (as opposed to w32/w64codecs). I can see a lot of Linux users doing this, actually.

    Since Ubuntu and Suse already ship Mono (or have drunk the MS kool-aid, depending on how you feel), they should include this plug-in by default so that it works out of the box.

  16. Unusable microsoft software as usual. by MarkKnopfler · · Score: 4, Informative

    Keeping up with the microsoft tradition novell unleashes a much touted piece of software which really does not work. Typically inept.

    Firefox 3.0.6 32 bit Intrepid

    Randomly tried some different stuff from the microsoft showcase http://silverlight.net/Showcase/:

    Lasercopter: Cannot work with 1.0 compiled for 2.0
    autocosmos tv: Does not even detect the plugin
    Meshviewer: Does not detect the plugin
    Lorenzo Reca: Does not detect the plugin
    Manic Miner: Does not detect the plugin

    My teeth start gnashing and give up

    1. Re:Unusable microsoft software as usual. by dalleboy · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is probably due to the Silverlight initialization Javascript which only works on Windows for IE, Firefox, and on OS-X for Safari. Unless the Silverlight initialization Javascript is updated on the webserver which hosts the Silverlight application, which I doubt Microsoft will do, there is almost no way that this will work in Moonlight.

    2. Re:Unusable microsoft software as usual. by javilon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is not only that in practical terms it doesn't work. There is something else here. If you look at the press release for the Moonlight 1.0 release, they tell you about a number of things Microsoft had to do to allow this to happen. For example, releasing their codecs for linux, providing patent indemnification, releasing some microsoft code as open source.

      This tells you that Microsoft has complete control over Moonlight in terms of allowing it to progress or not. I am sure that for Moonlight 2.0 there will be another bunch of things that Microsoft will need to do (or not) if they decide to make it happen.

      So what do we have? a free implementation of a non industry standard solution that can't exist without the approval from Microsoft.

      Moonlight is just meant for the MS marketing drones to be able to tick the box when users ask about multiplatform.

      --


      When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
  17. Re:freely implementable standard? please by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And I don't see anything in Silverlight that isn't similarly addressed by HTML5. Ergo, HTML5 is superior for its standardization, true cross-platform support, and competing implementations that can meet the needs of many different ideals.

    For the record, I don't have anything against people such as yourself who work at Microsoft. Many people who work there are great people. But from the inside looking out, you can't see the forest through the trees. You especially can't see the massive amount of harm and disrespect your company is paying the industry. And that harm is why I can't stand Microsoft anymore. Mr. Wilson can complain about negativity all he wants, but he refuses to recognize the trail of broken promises he and your company have given to the industry.

  18. Re:One Word by symbolset · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, I can just see the lines of linux users just queuing up in anxious trepidation waiting to be able to use Windows Media Video and Audio files on their beloved linux systems...

    The day this article hit slashdot I said that the purpose for this was to insert Microsoft IP into Linux. People called me crazy. Well, we're here! Let's all get comfy in this brave new world, shall we?

    Does anybody still trust Novell? Why?

    Oh, and Windows Media Player is way cool, because it has the codecs for Plays For Now.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  19. Re:speaking of poison by geckipede · · Score: 4, Funny

    And all you DRM fetish purists

    "Ohhh, encrypt me stronger baby. More Secure, more secure! That's it! Ohhhhh..." ?

  20. You bring up an interesting point by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd like to watch movies from netflix

    Ok, so you need this for Netflix.

    Any other reasons why you'd want Silverlight?

    Honestly, not trolling. Netflix is apparently one reason, and a good one. What are the others?

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:You bring up an interesting point by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 4, Funny

      yeah, that Inauguration thing was so thinly covered by so few sites, people without Silverlight were really left out in the cold for that one

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    2. Re:You bring up an interesting point by LingNoi · · Score: 3, Informative

      because it's not been standardised and when the W3C tried to Nokia and Apple got all shitty about it.

  21. Re:freely implementable standard? please by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

    Do what exactly? Linking off to a site that requires Silverlight with no explanation doesn't seem like a very good argument when you're posting to a forum that doesn't want to install your plugin. (Or more to the point, many of them can't install Silverlight 2.0.)

    Your second link talks about multi-bitrate encoding. Which strikes me as (like the entire Silverlight platform) a solution looking for a problem. Despite the fact that Microsoft has had the technology deployed for years as part of WiMP, the market hasn't bought into it. It's just as easy (and probably less confusing) to simply provide different sizes. 95%+ of current streaming videos don't even have to worry about that. The closest thing we have to an issue is Youtube using low quality as the default. And even that has more to do with backwards compatibility and paced rollouts than it does a strict technology problem.

    Perhaps Silverlight will be better positioned when HD streaming becomes the norm. More likely however, is that HD will be the norm when the majority of hardware on the market is both capable of HD streaming and integrated into the standard home in a way that would make HD streaming a superior enough experience for consumers to want to use it. At which point the advantage of technologies like multi-bitrate streaming simply vaporize. Microsoft would do better to spend those resources on implementing the web standards they've been blatantly ignoring for the past decade.

    As an aside, why is it that every Silverlight website stops you cold? There's not even a description of what it is you're missing and/or why you should install the plugin. It's simply "install this or go away". So I go away. No skin off my nose.

  22. No, do go on... by weston · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't get me started. IE8 is a sore point for me. You WON'T appreciate what you hear. (Or maybe you will. But it won't be the most pleasant conversation.)

    Well, if it's something to the effect that though for years, you've absolutely hated Internet Explorer 6's limitations and the fact that Microsoft all but abandoned its development, and during those years, while you put up with all its idiosyncracies you accumulated a metric ton of contempt for the company whose half-life might -- if all the issues were addressed today -- only have you wishing painful chronic illnesses on the IE product development team in 5 years, and that despite all that, you allowed yourself a glimmer of hope when you heard the Microsoft folks talking about how IE 8 would support web standards, only to discover that they're basically still planning on being 4-5 years behind everybody else while dumping a lot of effort into silverlight, but you weren't really surprised because honestly, if they had either the skill or will to keep up, they could have done it without breaking a sweat back when IE6 was actually briefly in the lead, and so your contempt, rather than diminishing, is actually pretty much cemented on a monotonically increasing curve which will eventually cause the cretins involved in IE's product development team to suffer debilitating effects proportional their proximity to you.... then by all means, do go on.

  23. Re:freely implementable standard? please by benwaggoner · · Score: 4, Informative

    Do what exactly? Linking off to a site that requires Silverlight with no explanation doesn't seem like a very good argument when you're posting to a forum that doesn't want to install your plugin. (Or more to the point, many of them can't install Silverlight 2.0.)

    The second link is about how the stuff in the first is authored, and doesn't require Silverlight. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

    Your second link talks about multi-bitrate encoding. Which strikes me as (like the entire Silverlight platform) a solution looking for a problem. Despite the fact that Microsoft has had the technology deployed for years as part of WiMP, the market hasn't bought into it. It's just as easy (and probably less confusing) to simply provide different sizes. 95%+ of current streaming videos don't even have to worry about that.

    The challenge with offering multiple sizes is that in forces the user to know what their system and connection can play, and it really only works with progressive download models, not real instant-on, easy random access long-form "streaming." That's fine for some audiences, but not for the mass market. Multibitrate done right means nearly instant startup and gapless playback, dynamically adjusted to what the user's machine can play back. It's a very different use model than YouTube.

    Perhaps Silverlight will be better positioned when HD streaming becomes the norm. More likely however, is that HD will be the norm when the majority of hardware on the market is both capable of HD streaming and integrated into the standard home in a way that would make HD streaming a superior enough experience for consumers to want to use it.

    Ah, that's the point! Smooth Streamings gets us out of having to wait for everyoen to be able to do HD to use it for mass audience content. If only the top 40% of users can get full 720p, the top 40 % of users get full 720p. And users who have less get the best experience their hardware and network is capable off. We don't have to sweat the lowest common denominator.

    As an aside, why is it that every Silverlight website stops you cold? There's not even a description of what it is you're missing and/or why you should install the plugin. It's simply "install this or go away". So I go away. No skin off my nose.

    There's a lot of flexibility in how a site can present the install option. For example, NBCOlympics.com offered a fallback to an IE embedded WMP ActiveX component. I agree that more sites could do a nicer job of it, and we're talking to them about improving that experience.

  24. Re:freely implementable standard? please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's crystal-clear:

    XmlHttpRequest is a "de facto" standard, yes. It was introduced by Microsoft, yes (it was not intended for AJAX, though), and IE implements it right by definition.

    On the other hand, it's not possible to do AJAX if if the DOM and every thing else in the browser is not standards conformant, and boy, Microsoft has troubles doing that! It's the same old problem with JavaScript, only much worse.

    Makes sense now?

  25. Significantly... by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Moonlight features codecs that have already been licensed by Microsoft from major media companies. Moonlight users are indemnified against litigation that might arise from their use in Moonlight due to the Novell whole agreement...thing. In other words, everyone's safe from the (possible or otherwise) threat of litigation, honest!

    Also, Moonlight 1.0 has been tested with, and passed, all the regression-testing tools Microsoft tested with Silverlight. Meaning a guaranteed high level of compatibility.

    Of course the motivation behind this isn't of course Microsoft's "throbbing heart" for the FOSS community; it's purely and simply that it wants to blow Flash out of the water, and is even willing to Open Source, support, and invest heavily in OSS to do it if necessary.

    And that's good because it means Adobe will have to raise the bar on flash now someone's invading it's territory...put another way, did you REALLY think you'd get 64-bit flash support on Linux from Adobe if Silverlight hadn't been released?

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
  26. Re:Permisive MS by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Excellent point. If Silverlight took off and Adobe became an "also ran" there would be a patent-protected, copyrighted "Silverlight 3" that could not run on non-M$ operating systems.

  27. Choice. by RulerOf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any other reasons why you'd want Silverlight?

    Say it with me, "Monopolies are bad."

    Just because it's Microsoft doesn't make it evil. What's truly evil is being forced to rely on something like Flash to bring you content--no matter what.

    Am I the only person dismayed by the fact that flash video is *so* horrible, you can't full screen youtube's HD stuff on a 2.8 GHz Pentium 4 machine?

    I mean, FFS, Adobe had Flash ready for the iPhone in months.... But we can't even get a native x64 version of it on ANY OS. If Microsoft can force some swift kicks in Adobe's ass (which they should for forcing me to download a damned plugin to save to PDF in Office 2007 anyway) and vice-versa, I see nothing but good things on the road ahead.

    --
    Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
    1. Re:Choice. by mixmatch · · Score: 3, Informative

      I mean, FFS, Adobe had Flash ready for the iPhone in months.... But we can't even get a native x64 version of it on ANY OS.

      Funny you should say that, because I'm running the x64 linux flash plug-in right now. Its supposedly in alpha, but seems entirely functional to me. Check out the release notes. Yeah, they came up with something for the iPhone in a few months, but it is simply running a derivative of OS X, and the plug-in had a huge demand.