Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Killing Silverlight?

Posted by samzenpus on from the so-long-farewell-Auf-wiedersehen-goodbye dept.

SharkLaser writes "Silverlight 5 might be last version released by Microsoft. Several industry insiders and partners for the last few weeks have heard from their own Microsoft sources that there won't be new versions released after Silverlight 5. Status on service packs and support for Silverlight is unclear, as Microsoft haven't yet released lifecycle support end date even for the previous Silverlight 4. By their support page they will give full year head-up before ending support. With Adobe ending development of Flash for mobile browsers and Microsoft ending development of Silverlight, HTML5 video looks a lot more promising. But will content providers be able to give out their material without DRM and how does HTML5 perform with non-video side of Flash and Silverlight?"

50 of 324 comments (clear)

  1. And... by TheP4st · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...nothing of value were lost.

    --
    "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    1. Re:And... by muon-catalyzed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      HTML5 will get crippled down soon over 'security considerations' just wait a few months... Flash was really a dangerous hybrid that allowed apps on the web, they do not want web apps eating your real paid apps lunch. This strangely binds all, Apple, Microsoft and even Adobe, pawing the way for the appstore only deliveries for software and securing their corporate cut.

    2. Re:And... by MrNthDegree · · Score: 2

      The important parts (,) will remain, as the same codecs would be as vulnerable in WMP as they would be in IE on Windows. On Linux, we wouldn't care anyway as we have SELinux and AppArmor securing Chromium by default and Firefox (mozilla_t) on lockdown too. Mac OS X? Well that has never really been that secure anyway!

    3. Re:And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Adobe Flash was like having another proprietary browser inside the browser. Nothing the browser makers could do would lock it down (except for unloading the plugin). The advantage of HTML5 is that Mozilla/Google/Apple/Microsoft can place restrictions on how subfeatures are implemented. Out-of-tab & off-page animations can be halted. Storage can be blocked for cross-site requests. Video can refuse to play automatically. Canvas can require explicit permission. Shaders can be statically verified & limited to a stricter subset of GLSL. Etc.

  2. Netflix by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Doesn't Netflix use Silverlight for streaming? Will Netflix move to some other technology?

    1. Re:Netflix by imamac · · Score: 4, Funny

      They do indeed use Silverlight. Obviously they will move to much successful Flash.

    2. Re:Netflix by MrEricSir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yup. Would anyone have installed Silverlight if it hadn't been for Netflix?

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    3. Re:Netflix by hedwards · · Score: 2

      In this case that would be a step in the right direction. Flash is much more widely available than Silverlight is at present.

    4. Re:Netflix by nepka · · Score: 2

      Well, Netflix isn't available in my country, but the television stations here use it. So if you want to watch their shows online, you have to install it. It probably comes from the fact it's much harder to download Silverlight streamed videos than Flash ones.

    5. Re:Netflix by bennomatic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They somehow manage to do without it on iOS devices. Perhaps a desktop application is coming for Mac OS/Windows/Linux.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    6. Re:Netflix by ossuary · · Score: 2

      I think you are right. Netflix and the Olympics were the only two reasons that anyone I know ever installed it.

    7. Re:Netflix by milbournosphere · · Score: 2

      That might be a step in the wrong direction, as Adobe announced that they're ending development for the mobile versions of Flash today. I wouldn't be surprised if the full version eventually follows. I think it'd be smarter for Netflix to latch onto HTML5.

    8. Re:Netflix by Chrisq · · Score: 3, Informative

      In this case that would be a step in the right direction. Flash is much more widely available than Silverlight is at present.

      Much as i don't like flash at least flash sites are accessible from Linux. I have been told that a few Silverlight sites work with moonlight but have not found any myself

    9. Re:Netflix by Guspaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except Adobe is clearly moving towards killing off flash. They've announced the death of mobile flash in favour of HTML5, and it seems likely that desktop flash will eventually follow.

      After all, it doesn't really matter to Adobe what runtime is used. They don't make money off people downloading the Flash runtime. They do make money off selling the flash designer software, which costs hundreds of dollars, and the streaming server solutions. What difference does it make if Adobe's software is spitting out stuff that runs in the flash runtime or HTML5?

      My concern is that HTML5 is clearly not up to the level where it has feature parity (or stability/consistency) with Flash or Silverlight. For example, HTML5 currently has no agreed upon standard for dynamic audio. Sure, it can play a sound or music file, but if you want to actually generate or process audio, that's impossible. Mozilla and WebKit both have their own proprietary competing APIs to do this, but neither is final yet, and certainly not a standard.

      Given a few years, HTML5 will probably be able to replace Flash/Silverlight, but clearly not yet!

    10. Re:Netflix by MrNthDegree · · Score: 2

      There already is, it's called a 3rd-party codec, DRM'ed WMV anyone? ;-)

    11. Re:Netflix by Riceballsan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which I have to consider the greatest idiocy ever IMO. Considering you know what is easier to download in the highest possible quality. The darn TV and DVD sources, that are available for download within an hour of the initial airing or DVD release at the latest, a few weeks to a month earlier if there is a leak. I will never understand the compulsion to need DRM and require the release to be weeks after the fact for most services, Why DRM something that already is available unDRMed on every torrent site known to man. Do they still think the main method of piracy is people copying the movies onto floppy-disks and handing them out to friends?

    12. Re:Netflix by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny

      In this case that would be a step in the right direction. Flash is much more widely available than Silverlight is at present.

      Flash might be more widely available, but the Silverlight performance is clearly better, so it would be a step in the direction of lower video quality and higher processor and memory utilization.

      Wow. That would be about as bad as the VCR market adopting VHS over the vastly superiour quality of Betamax!

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    13. Re:Netflix by ynp7 · · Score: 2

      No, the largest "gaming base" in the world would be either a) Facebook or b) Steam.

    14. Re:Netflix by Abreu · · Score: 2

      Wizards of the Coast use Silverlight to power their Dungeons and Dragons online tools.

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    15. Re:Netflix by oldlurker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In this case that would be a step in the right direction. Flash is much more widely available than Silverlight is at present.

      Flash might be more widely available, but the Silverlight performance is clearly better, so it would be a step in the direction of lower video quality and higher processor and memory utilization.

      Wow. That would be about as bad as the VCR market adopting VHS over the vastly superiour quality of Betamax!

      Pet peeve. VHS did not win as result of marketing, or porn, and Betamax wasn't really a better product. As someone there at the time, the Betamax had somewhat better image quality, yes. Vastly is just going overboard, but partly depending on PAL or NTSC you did see it as somewhat better. But a video recorder that couldn't tape a full movie without you returning home from your dinner to turn the tape before leaving again is not a superior home video technology. And, another reason you would think Slashdot appreciated, VHS won because it was an open standard a myriad of manufactors freely adopted, Betamax wasn't - it was controlled and licensed at significant cost. Because of this obvious stronger consumer appeal, they got the content owners betting on them, including porn.

    16. Re:Netflix by Cid+Highwind · · Score: 2

      There are practical considerations. It means that instead of writing and maintaining an entire programming platform (and making users pay the storage/memory/startup time costs that using it entails) to watch a movie, they're only going to use a video codec.

      There's no ideological considerations, a WMV + WMDRM plugin is just as proprietary and locked-down by itself as when it's bundled inside Silverlight.

      --
      0 1 - just my two bits
    17. Re:Netflix by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      My concern is that HTML5 is clearly not up to the level where it has feature parity (or stability/consistency) with Flash or Silverlight. For example, HTML5 currently has no agreed upon standard for dynamic audio. Sure, it can play a sound or music file, but if you want to actually generate or process audio, that's impossible. Mozilla and WebKit both have their own proprietary competing APIs to do this, but neither is final yet, and certainly not a standard.

      On the other hand, this will spur some more active evolution of HTML5 - now that all the big boys are in this together (I'm specifically referring to IE9, and HTML5 used as an app platform in Win8; Apple and Google were there much earlier), they'll have much more incentive to figure it all out - so it doesn't have to take a few more years, but more like a few more months...

  3. This is hardly a shock... by RocketRabbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Flash and Silverlight represent the mid-1990s way of doing things with third party browser addons. Back when we needed crutches like these, they were useful. The leg has healed, though, so it's time to throw the crutches under a bus.

    Content producers should just suck up and use non-DRM video streams. They should all know by now that both Flash and Silverlight video "protections" have been circumvented just like Blu-Ray, DVD, etc and that there is really no technological recourse against this.

    1. Re:This is hardly a shock... by Alkonaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Flash and Silverlight represent the mid-1990s way of doing things with third party browser addons. Back when we needed crutches like these, they were useful. The leg has healed, though, so it's time to throw the crutches under a bus.

      No. We never needed flash to play internet video. If you link to a video directly, it will play in your system's default video player.

      That's downloading a video file and playing it. That is the same as 1990's video. In 2011 I want to be able to seek in my video file (or watch live streams), I want autmatic adjustment of bitrate depending on my bandwidth, and whoever I'm downloading the video from want's to make sure I pay my subscription to watch this game. There are basically only a few technologies that handle this. And html5 isn't one of them.

    2. Re:This is hardly a shock... by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Worked for online music stores, didn't it?

      --
      Dilbert RSS feed
  4. Good riddance by Hortensia+Patel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The idea that a general-purpose applet platform, with all the attendant security risks, is worth keeping simply to play DRM-encumbered video strikes me as utterly daft. It's like keeping a rabid rottweiler in your kid's playroom so that they'll have something to draw.

    1. Re:Good riddance by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are NO times I need DRM. And know what? DRM on VCRs just didn't work; I always copied tapes I rented, as well as Pay Per View.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    2. Re:Good riddance by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The idea that a general-purpose applet platform, with all the attendant security risks, is worth keeping simply to play DRM-encumbered video strikes me as utterly daft. It's like keeping a rabid rottweiler in your kid's playroom so that they'll have something to draw.

      Silverlight is not just for video. Nether is Flash.
      Silverlight's DRM can be harnessed by anyone seeking to make (get this!) secure applications.

      When it's something you don't understand, it's an "attendant security risk".
      When it's security that prevents you from stealing shit, it's DRM.

    3. Re:Good riddance by sexconker · · Score: 2

      DId I say it was? I don't have anything against DRM for video rental; in that context I'd even call it sensible. My point is that if (as seems to be the case) the only traction Silverlight has got is in playing video, that niche would be much better served by a smaller and far less general plugin.

      Do you not understand the concept of "attack surface"? Do you not think that a general-purpose platform maybe has a larger one than, say, a dedicated video player? Or are you just trolling, as your tone suggests?

      You referred to video with DRM as being "encumbered", and yet this post now says such a scheme is "sensible". Way to backpedal on that vitriol.
      And Silverlight is used for far, far more than video, just as Flash was. The view of Silverlight that you present is myopic and highlights the fact that you do not understand it.

      "Attack surface"? Making the browser do everything that Silverlight does increases the browser's attack surface just as much as adding the Silverlight plugin does.
      When you have plugins, you can disable them individually, or only use the ones you want. When your entire browser is bloated to include features you don't want or need, then you're fucked. This is the direction modern browsers are going, and it is bad.

      Of course, you are too focused on video to see this, and you're probably already typing your "OMFG You're against HTML5?!" post. Not only is HTML5 far more than <video>, the <video> aspect of HTML5 is mostly good. The spec fails because it doesn't specify a codec, but it works. It doesn't work when you want DRM, but it works. It doesn't present a larger "attack surface" in and of itself because your browser won't be relying on a system codec to do the job (unless you're using MS's plugin that makes FF work with H.264, of course, but hey - we're back to a plugin to make shit work).

      The problem lies with people like you. People who think that plugins are inherently bad because they're slow, insecure, or not available on all platforms. The only valid point of contention is shit not being available on all platforms, but guess what - the people making the content and the people making the plugin cover every platform they care about. If you're not on that list, either buy a device to get on that list or just deal with it - you probably didn't want that content anyway. Performance and security are not intrinsic to the plugin model - any browser with the same capabilities would have the same amount of shit to deal with in those departments.

  5. Re:Netflix on Linux natively in 3...2...1... by nepka · · Score: 2

    I don't think MS is paying any "bribe money" to Netflix. They only chose Silverlight because it supports better DRM methods than Flash, as of course required by content producers.

  6. What about Video?? by bradgoodman · · Score: 2, Interesting
    With the decline of these client-side frameworks, where is that going to leave video??

    ...and don't say "HTML5" - because that doesn't define just about ANYTHING.

    First there was Flash video over RTMP, then there was Adobe HTTP Dynamic streaming (HDS). Both of these were ADAPTIVE streaming technologies, and extremely popular an widley used. Moreso RTMP, but HDS is starting to gain adoption.

    HTML-5 does not provide any method for any kind of adaptive bitrate, or fragmented video delivery. It is strictly PROGRESSIVE download - i.e. download the whole file, and play it. There are a billion problems with this. No adaptive bitrate (downgrade video quality if you cannot meet the sustained bitrate), and difficulty in caching (caching one giant file very difficult for a reactive, real-time cache, as opposed to caching smalller HDS or HLS "fragments"). The only other really "competitor" would be Apples HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) - which is the standard for iOS devices, and starting to gain adoption on Set-Top Box-devices, but pretty invisible on the desktop space.

    So...my question is... "What about video!?"

    1. Re:What about Video?? by randallman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry. You're just wrong about the progressive download thing. And it's not in the scope of HTML5 to define bitrate or fragmented delivery. Fragmented delivery is turf for HTTP and bitrate is for the browser or embedded player.

      Read:

      14.35.2 Range Retrieval Requests

      HTTP retrieval requests using conditional or unconditional GET methods MAY request one or more sub-ranges of the entity, instead of the entire entity, using the Range request header, which applies to the entity returned as the result of the request:

                  Range = "Range" ":" ranges-specifier

      Please read the HTTP 1.1 RFC

      http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html

  7. Can you back up this claim? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 5, Informative

    Flash and Silverlight represent the mid-1990s way of doing things with third party browser addons. Back when we needed crutches like these, they were useful. The leg has healed, though, so it's time to throw the crutches under a bus.

    Content producers should just suck up and use non-DRM video streams. They should all know by now that both Flash and Silverlight video "protections" have been circumvented just like Blu-Ray, DVD, etc and that there is really no technological recourse against this.

    Really? Do tell how exactly those Silverlight protections have been circumvented. Unless you are talking about a streaming media recorder which simply records the stream as it plays on your PC, I am not aware of any way to defeat Silverlight DRM. The use of separate protected streams for audio and video is fiendishly clever and I've never heard of a successful way to crack it. A video forum where I regularly participate gets posts all the time asking how to record Netflix streams and nobody has ever suggested anything but a streaming media recorder.

    1. Re:Can you back up this claim? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The streaming recorder works though, doesn't it? It's the "rubber hose" principle applied to Big Media - encrypt it all you want, but if you can see/hear it, you can copy it.

    2. Re:Can you back up this claim? by purpledinoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because it hasn't been cracked, it doesn't mean it's not crackable. At some point, the video must be decrypted and displayed to the user. Therefore, 100% bullet proof copy protection is impossible. The only way they can make DRM 100% full proof, is to encrypt it and throw away the key. At which point, you'll be watching random noise and listening to static.

    3. Re:Can you back up this claim? by Alkonaut · · Score: 2

      I doubt sufficient motivation exists to crack it. You can get higher quality from DVD (or especially Blu-Ray) rips off TPB for anyone so inclined, leaving the only people who want to record Silverlight those people who don't know / don't want to use BitTorrent. Most of those people aren't the sort to know how to crack it. And with only Netflix using it, there really just doesn't seem to be a point.

      So maybe no one has circumvented it, but probably just for lack of trying. Witness how fast the much-vaunted PS3 was hacked after removing OtherOS support. And as you say, streaming media recorders always work. DRM simply does not work.

      I watch silverlight drm:ed streams everyday. For live sports. Since it is live, the argument about dvd:s and download of course doesn't work.

    4. Re:Can you back up this claim? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      You can have the strongest steel door, with the best locks in the world and it doesn't matter if I can get in through the window.

      IN fact, no one will bother trying to get through the door, sine the window would be easier. And thats true if the door just as the appearance of being a heavily locked steel door.

      Meaning, it so easy to get around, no one bothers to crack it.

      or maybe it's magic, who knows.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  8. That's because... by wjsteele · · Score: 2

    From what I understand, Silverlight functionallity is being rolled into WinRT. With Windows 8, WinRT takes care of the exact same things that WPF and Silverlight did and brings to the table the inclusion of HTML5/Javascript.

    No functionallity will be lost with this and it's not much of a transition for developers either, as their code is directly portable to WinRT.

    Bill

    --
    It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
    1. Re:That's because... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      It's not all quite as simple.

      First of all, functionality is lost in a sense that Silverlight is a browser plugin, whereas Win8 apps run out of browser. People use in-browser apps for intranet to enable "seamless updating" - that does not apply here.

      Second, Silverlight is a portable browser plugin - it also runs on OS X. Win8 apps, obviously, only run on Win8.

      Finally, Silverlight code can be easy to port, but it can also be hard depending on what dependencies it has. Easiest case is when you just have to rename a bunch of namespaces in your "using" statements - that's all well and good. It gets trickier if you depend on some .NET libraries that use features not available in .NET 4.5 Core Profile that is used for Win8, such as runtime code generation via System.Reflection.Emit (Expression.Compile is still there).

      Generally speaking, WP7 Silverlight apps are a breeze to port, whereas ones written for browser/desktop can be trickier.

  9. World of Goo by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 2

    So will World of Goo run under HTML 5?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  10. Re:.NET is next. by halivar · · Score: 2

    Given the market penetration of .NET as opposed to Silverlight, I think this is utter nonsense. And now that Oracle is screwing the pooch vis-à-vis Java, you can expect more .NET, not less.

  11. DRM and HTML5 by sohmc · · Score: 2

    This may be a bit off-topic, so I apologize. I know that content publishers nag and nag about losing revenue so they punish the people who actually pay for the privilege.

    I wonder how much piracy would happen if publishers just trusted their users and released videos without horrible amounts of DRM. (My biggest pet peeve is not being able to just play a Blu Ray disc but having to sit through at least 15 minutes of ads.)

    While I know some bad eggs would copy the file, isn't it being done regardless? So my question is DRM the only thing keeping HTML5 from really taking off?

    --
    We don't live in Shouldland.
  12. Re:Netflix on Linux natively in 3...2...1... by Marillion · · Score: 2

    Exactly. This historical blog entry sums it up pretty nicely. http://blog.netflix.com/2008/11/encoding-for-streaming.html
    In order to get the content from the content producers, I presume Netflix had to provide some sort of promise that the streams could not be ripped. Since Silverlight was born in the DRM era, I can only conclude that DRM was a design feature rather than a bolt on. And when the Netflix techies and lawyers got together, Silverlight gave them the most confidence in living up to the UnRippable promise. We on Slashdot will no doubt question the validity of those choices because this is Slashdot, but we were not in the room at the time.

    --
    This is a boring sig
  13. Native Apps by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 2

    They have an app for Android and iOS phones, no reason they wouldn't make a Windows or OSX app if they really wanted to.

    --
    I8-D
  14. That would be weird by sangreal66 · · Score: 2

    Since Silverlight is coming to the Xbox in a big way within the next few weeks. I suppose they could transition that to a different platform, but I don't think the large number of content providers they lined up for this release would be thrilled.

  15. Silverlight is great for OOB Business apps by danparker276 · · Score: 2

    There is so many things HTML 5 can't do like print. Silverlight out of browser applications are great because they are very easy to update. I guess people will just download apps instead of going to websites then.

  16. Character Builder by TheMiddleRoad · · Score: 2

    Yes, and it sucks eggs. Most importantly, I can't access it from my Android phone.

  17. Re:Wait? There is STILL DRM out there? by westlake · · Score: 2

    I thought DRM was already a thing of the past. Who is still doing that?

    Netflix, for one.

    Move over, Web surfing. Netflix movies now take up more of the Internet pipes going into North American homes.

    A study published Tuesday by Sandvine Inc. shows that Netflix movies and TV shows account for nearly 30 percent of traffic into homes during peak evening hours, compared with less than 17 percent for Web browsing.

    Only about a quarter of homes with broadband subscribe to Netflix, but watching movies and TV shows online takes up a lot of bandwidth compared with Web surfing, email and practically every other Internet activity except file sharing and videoconferencing.

    As late as last year, both Web surfing and peer-to-peer file sharing â" mainly the illegal trading of copyrighted movies â" were each larger than Netflix's traffic.

    Netflix's Internet traffic overtakes Web surfing [May 17]

    Barnes & Noble made a big deal out of its brand-new Nook Tablet's compatibility with Netflix and Pandora at its recent unveiling, apparently giving Amazon a bit of a complex. Amazon did its best to one-up the Nook in today's release, rolling out the laundry list of Fire-friendly apps that will be available on day one, including "Netflix, Rhapsody, Pandora, Twitter, Comics by comiXology, Facebook, The Weather Channel and popular games from Zynga, EA, Gameloft, PopCap and Rovio."

    Amazon now says "several thousand" Android apps will be available through the Amazon Appstore for Kindle Fire, considerably less than the hundreds of thousands of apps currently populating the Android Market. Of course, this could be a good thing, as much of what's offered there is pure garbage.

    Kindle Fire: Yep, it'll have Netflix, Pandora, and more

  18. Re:No they possibly cant. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

    there has been numerous news regarding how they were wavering about .net, and when those articles appeared here, the same people lambasted anyone suggesting that microsoft may ditch .net people too, even while .net users were in a stampede in their own forums over questions over future of .net.

    The reason why people lambasted those that suggested such things is that because the suggestions were based off rumors which proved to be completely unfounded after the Win8 developer conference (BUILD). If you recall, the original story was that "Win8 apps will be HTML5/JS only". That, in turn, was due to rumors that were triggered by summer demo of Win8 where Sinofsky showed off a bunch of Metro-style tiled apps, and boasted that "all of them are written in HTML5".

    The reality was demonstrated in BUILD - specifically, that XAML/.NET is a fully supported platform for Metro apps alongside HTML/JS and XAML/C++. That's also where the future of Silverlight became clear already - the news was that Silverlight was not what you'd have to use to write apps for Win8, but the replacement framework is, essentially, Silverlight under a new name (and with C++ bindings).

  19. Re:General Problem with Developing on Microsoft by zyzko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I honestly can't see this as a big problem on Microsoft - they have quite a long track record of supporting their tools - even legacy Visual Basic skills can be used today quite effortlessly. Yes, they have had their misses and some tools or even languages (J++ comes to mind from the old days...) have been deprecated quite quickly after a blistering start but take a look around - there are frameworks and languages coming and going everywhere. If you want to bet safely learn C and C++ and code your own supporting libraries. Yes, it sucks when vendors pull plug on technology. But the days of learning Fortran or Visual Basic once and expecting to have guaranteed job for the rest of your life are over (well, if you are a true Fortran or VB genius you can get a nice paying job in maintenance these days...), And the same applies to OSS as well - they are not immune. Projects and languages come and go - yes, in the support side they are at an advantage because if you are a true guru you can dive into the source and support the platform - but I don't see the platform support as a huge issue on Microsoft side either. With right DLLs you can still run Win32 VB applications just fine - yes, the vendor doesn't support those anymore and doesn't develop new features but you still got what you have when you chose the platform.

    Can you give examples of Open Source projects (in programming) which Microsoft has tried to emulate and has ended up with barely working and sucking copy?

    Silverlight on web had really no big and bright future, it was just a poke on Adobe to steal marketshare on (DRM) video delivery. But those skills learned there are not totally wasted, it is not *that* hard to transform from one Microsoft architecture to another. But if your big bet was Silverlight on browsers (cross-platform/browser) then well, you are out of luck but it did not require a genius to figure that out from the start.