For *live* streaming, I suspect that it's far cheaper to set up a bunch of Windows Media servers than it is to set up a bunch of Flash servers.
Flash Streaming Server licenses are *extremely* expensive. There are open-source alternatives, but so far as I know none of them are very good at handling thousands (or tens of thousands) of simultaneous connections.
Windows Media servers, however, are just regular ol' Windows servers -- couple hundred dollars per box with no user limits, and they do quite well with heavy loads.
Unless Adobe manages to compete better on pricing, or unless some of the open-source alternatives get better at scaling to thousands of users, then I bet we'll see more and more developers pushing Silverlight without Microsoft having to pay them to do anything.
And note that I'm talking about *live* streaming, not streaming prerecorded stuff like YouTube.
I get the feeling that anyone who grew up playing early video games gets a real sense of disgust at seeing the level of depravity present in today's titles.
What? The guy who made "Smash T.V." and who spends the majority of this article gleefully describing how much of a good person he is by making video games that encourage almost genocidal levels of violence against brown people (sorry... "terrorists", because we know how well fleshed out the bad guys in all his video games are likely to be) is against "vile acts... rendered in detail to a young audience?"
Does it stike anyone else what a hypocritical fuck this guy is? He's not against advocating massive, cruel forms of violence in his video games--he just wants a hollow, conservative, Reganesque (his words) justification for doing it, which apparently "Grand Theft Auto" doesn't neatly provide.
This is whitewashing morals to a disgusting degree--the games he's making aren't any less violent or graphic than Grand Theft Auto--it's just more ok if you say "you're defending your country!" at the beginning of the game before you start the slaughter. What bullshit.
This *is* marketing, to a degree -- a group like mi2g probably needs a spin in a world of increasing Linux servers.
The paragraph description on the mi2g site does discriminiate between "overt" attacks and those perpetrated by "malware" -- viruses, worms, etc. So, they can make a press release that initially seems as though they've found that Linux/UNIX/BSD is as vunerable as Windows -- if they discount SoBig, Blaster, ILoveYou, etc.
And this is very important to them, not merely because they want to sell reports, but because they want to sell their business. If people start switching to Linux with the idea that it's safer--if they no longer have to worry nearly as much about the obscene level of damage that can be done by worms and viruses--then mi2g's business suffers. It's worth their while to make companies feel as unsafe and needful of their services with Linux as with Windows.
The report is interesting in that it indicates that Linux may be as hackable as Windows on a 1:1 ratio, particularly if people aren't careful--but it's still market-speak.
Slashdot Mirror
Why'd they choose Silverlight over Flash?
For *live* streaming, I suspect that it's far cheaper to set up a bunch of Windows Media servers than it is to set up a bunch of Flash servers.
Flash Streaming Server licenses are *extremely* expensive. There are open-source alternatives, but so far as I know none of them are very good at handling thousands (or tens of thousands) of simultaneous connections.
Windows Media servers, however, are just regular ol' Windows servers -- couple hundred dollars per box with no user limits, and they do quite well with heavy loads.
Unless Adobe manages to compete better on pricing, or unless some of the open-source alternatives get better at scaling to thousands of users, then I bet we'll see more and more developers pushing Silverlight without Microsoft having to pay them to do anything.
And note that I'm talking about *live* streaming, not streaming prerecorded stuff like YouTube.
Does it stike anyone else what a hypocritical fuck this guy is? He's not against advocating massive, cruel forms of violence in his video games--he just wants a hollow, conservative, Reganesque (his words) justification for doing it, which apparently "Grand Theft Auto" doesn't neatly provide.
This is whitewashing morals to a disgusting degree--the games he's making aren't any less violent or graphic than Grand Theft Auto--it's just more ok if you say "you're defending your country!" at the beginning of the game before you start the slaughter. What bullshit.
This *is* marketing, to a degree -- a group like mi2g probably needs a spin in a world of increasing Linux servers. The paragraph description on the mi2g site does discriminiate between "overt" attacks and those perpetrated by "malware" -- viruses, worms, etc. So, they can make a press release that initially seems as though they've found that Linux/UNIX/BSD is as vunerable as Windows -- if they discount SoBig, Blaster, ILoveYou, etc. And this is very important to them, not merely because they want to sell reports, but because they want to sell their business. If people start switching to Linux with the idea that it's safer--if they no longer have to worry nearly as much about the obscene level of damage that can be done by worms and viruses--then mi2g's business suffers. It's worth their while to make companies feel as unsafe and needful of their services with Linux as with Windows. The report is interesting in that it indicates that Linux may be as hackable as Windows on a 1:1 ratio, particularly if people aren't careful--but it's still market-speak.