Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd May 2007 19:17 UTC, submitted by WillM
Mono Project "The Mono open-source project will create a Linux version of Silverlight by the end of year, said Miguel de Icaza, a Novell vice president and head of Mono. At the Mix '07 conference on Monday, Microsoft touted the ability to write Silverlight Web applications that run on Internet Explorer, Firefox and the Safari browser on Mac OS. Next up for Silverlight is an edition for mobile devices, including Windows Mobile. Asked about plans for Linux, Microsoft executives have been non-committal, saying that it will depend on demand. But de Icaza, who is attending Mix, was able to commit without hesitating."
Order by: Score:
v Hmm...
by Almafeta on Wed 2nd May 2007 19:28 UTC
RE: Hmm...
by Mukunda on Thu 3rd May 2007 05:44 UTC in reply to "Hmm..."
Mukunda Member since:
2006-11-05

Mind trying to explain why you're so completely anti GNU/Linux and the GPL, Almafeta? Because it seems completely illogical...

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Hmm...
by FruitSmack on Thu 3rd May 2007 15:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm..."
FruitSmack Member since:
2007-05-03

It is. If that's the Almafeta I think it is, he's got a personal crusade against Linux because in his illogical little world it's stealing.

In fact if it is the same Almafeta, at one point he thretened to leave the internet after finding out that a good chunk of webservers ran on Linux.

I have no idea how one comes to that conclusion. Although concidering how many people explained what FLOSS software is and how Linux isn't just a pirated, re-jiggered version of Microsoft code there shouldn't be any more problems.

At this point, it's ignorance.

ab

Reply Score: 3

Suicide?
by pgquiles on Wed 2nd May 2007 19:35 UTC
pgquiles
Member since:
2006-07-16

What is Icaza trying to do? Kill Linux?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Suicide?
by GhePeU on Wed 2nd May 2007 19:41 UTC in reply to "Suicide?"
GhePeU Member since:
2005-07-06

What is Icaza trying to do? Kill Linux?

I don't understand how improving compatibility with a technology that potentially could be used by many web sites could "kill Linux".

Support for WMV files is a must and everybody blames the distros who don't support them out of the box but allowing Linux users to use the future Silverlight web applications is bad?

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Suicide?
by hamster on Wed 2nd May 2007 19:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Suicide?"
hamster Member since:
2006-10-06

"I don't understand how improving compatibility with a technology that potentially could be used by many web sites could "kill Linux". "

You cant make all people happy. Trying will only get them all mad at you.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Suicide?
by walterbyrd on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Suicide?"
walterbyrd Member since:
2005-12-31

>>allowing Linux users to use the future Silverlight web applications is bad?<<

Yes, if it's part of msft's embrace, extend, extingish, strategy.

Consider what Microsoft did with ActiveX. They pushed ActiveX as cross-platform, delivering an ActiveX SDK for the Mac and supporting ActiveX components in IE.

Then after a while, they dropped ActiveX support, saying it was too much effort to make it work on OS X.

Then after a while longer, they dropped IE too.

Same with WMV. Seen Windows Media Player for the Mac? No? That's because they dropped it a while back, and killed all support for DRM-protected Windows Media on the Mac. (Instead they suggest that people use a third party QuickTime plugin that only handles unprotected WMV.)

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Suicide?
by butters on Thu 3rd May 2007 00:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Suicide?"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Yes, if it's part of msft's embrace, extend, extingish, strategy.

You have it backwards and inside out. The free software community is doing the embracing, not Microsoft. If Microsoft extends it, then the free software community stands to benefit as well.

Further, remember that this is an attempt to unseat Flash, which has hardly been a darling in the eyes of the community. Free software isn't in a position, from a marketshare standpoint, to unilaterally drive web programming standards. If developers will be programming for Silverlight, the we need to support it, or free software will have competitive problems in the Web services space, one of its strongest markets.

I realize your historical rhetoric, but it just doesn't apply in this situation.

Edited 2007-05-03 00:38

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Suicide?
by twenex on Thu 3rd May 2007 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Suicide?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

You have it backwards and inside out. The free software community is doing the embracing, not Microsoft. If Microsoft extends it, then the free software community stands to benefit as well.

Microsoft's definition of "extend" means "write software in ways that makes everyone else's version incompatible".

It's hard to believe you don't realize this. What the hell do they do, put cannabis in people's food?

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Suicide?
by tomcat on Thu 3rd May 2007 17:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Suicide?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Microsoft's definition of "extend" means "write software in ways that makes everyone else's version incompatible".


Practically everybody's implementation of so-called "open standards" doesn't comply in one way or another. Show me a browser that complies completely with CSS standards, Acid2, without at least screwing up in some way. The point is ... Microsoft isn't alone in producing software that isn't compliant. The difference is ... you're so ideologically-driven that you can't see that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Suicide?
by baadger on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Suicide?"
baadger Member since:
2006-08-29

"WMV3" (the WMV codec that was introduced by Microsoft with WMP9 and above) only got native support on *nix/BSD in ffmpeg (and hence mplayer, xine and gstreamer) recently, and I think that was party due to the format (now known as VC-1) becoming documented for HD DVD and Bluray.

Personally i'm all for FOSS implementing formats that are formally, and well, documented whether they come from Microsoft or not.

I look forward to my "-silverlight" USE flag.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Suicide?
by dylansmrjones on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Suicide?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I'll probably turn on that useflag

/etc/portage/package.use :

media-video/vlc cdda corba live mod shout silverlight stream [add in /etc/make.conf]

Why not use it if it is available?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Suicide?
by baadger on Wed 2nd May 2007 21:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Suicide?"
baadger Member since:
2006-08-29

I'll be disabling it because it'll depend on Mono. Last time I tried Mono it was for Beagle and F-Spot and both were resource hogging whore's. So far I just haven't seen any compelling Mono applications (but thats just my opinion).

Still if MS can make Silverlight popular and Mono implement it I may just have to show them my support, after all neither Sun or Adobe can be bothered to produce a browser plugin on x86_64 for their respective acclaimed cross-platform web platforms.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Suicide?
by twenex on Thu 3rd May 2007 01:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Suicide?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Personally i'm all for FOSS implementing formats that are formally, and well, documented whether they come from Microsoft or not.

Getting a formally-and-well-documented format from Microsoft that they stick to and allow everyone else to use would be like waking up and finding that Iran and North Korea had stopped developing nuclear weapons, that Iran and the Muslim countries had all agreed to the existence of Israel sans the right of return, Bush had signed into a law a bill permitting gay marriage, the Democratic Unionist Party of Ulster had merged with Sinn Fein, Thabo Mbeki believed that AIDS was not a disease caused by poverty, the insurgency in Iraq had stopped, no country lacked free and fair elections, the Eurosceptics disappeared, we'd been openly visited by friendly alien life, and Jesus came back, all at once.

And it would be about as likely.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Suicide?
by dylansmrjones on Thu 3rd May 2007 14:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Suicide?"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Heey.. what's wrong with Euroscepticism?

I have my doubts about Microsoft documenting fully anything. But if the format becomes widespread among Windows users then we'll have to support as well - especially if web developers are dumb enough to embrace it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Suicide?
by Michael on Thu 3rd May 2007 15:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Suicide?"
Michael Member since:
2005-07-01

...if web developers are dumb enough to embrace it.


That's a big "if".

After all, it's not going to run on mobile devices any time soon. Then again, the same is true of Javascript (to an extent) and Flash.

Most web devleopers seem to be reasonably concerned about multi-platform support and you can bet that they aren't going to produce anything that doesn't work on Mac OS X!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Suicide?
by kaiwai on Thu 3rd May 2007 04:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Suicide?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't understand how improving compatibility with a technology that potentially could be used by many web sites could "kill Linux".


I don't understand it either; Microsoft actually benefits; lets assume that Microsoft starts demanding royalties for the technology - then one assumes that you can purchase them.

Right now you can purchase WMA/WMV/ASF CODEC from Fluendo, which are derived directly from Microsoft's own source code - compression support will be provided apparently sometime this year.

To Microsoft, sure, they want people to run Windows, but at the same time, they realise that for people to get on in this world, they need Microsoft technology - be it delivered through Windows or through other operating systems, Microsoft benefits either way.

Hence the reason why Microsoft is so tiffy about their patents, because ultimately patents are Microsofts lifeline, without that lifeline, they would then have to go back and actually develop technology and compete on merit rather than tie up compatible products from competitors with legalese.

Support for WMV files is a must and everybody blames the distros who don't support them out of the box but allowing Linux users to use the future Silverlight web applications is bad?


The only people who complain about it is the GNU fundamentalists who want free code, free software and free love - the reality is that there is a muddy middle ground; ESR see's it, and many other former GNU advocates now see it.

Now, if it requires that I might have to pay $20 for a CODEC kit so that I can run WMA/WMV/ASF content, I'm happy to do that; if Microsoft came out and offered a complete CLR/DLR/SilverLight for OpenSolaris and it costs $50, I would be more than happy to pay for it.

The problem with Microsoft is that they assume that everyone who isn't running a Microsoft operating system is obviously some sort of nut - some of us don't run Windows because they don't like how things are done - we prefer the UNIX way *BUT* at the same time, it doesn't mean we hate Microsoft or hate their applications.

Microsoft Office and their whole middle ware ecosystem is pretty damn good - its a diamond in the rough, its up to Microsoft to ignore the nuts, and just put those those mentioned frameworks out there, and see how things go - let people purchase and download them.

Believe me, if Microsoft offered these technologies for OpenSolaris tomorrow, I would purchase them straight away, and I know many who would too - just because we're not noisy and vocal doesn't mean we're not here.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Suicide?
by l3v1 on Thu 3rd May 2007 07:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Suicide?"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Support for WMV files is a must

I completely disagree. And I say again: why should everybody else work and die trying to create compatibility bridges that MS with its resources is not willing to make and even stands in the way ? It's not just MS who has good technology, and by dividing the efforts we will have less resources concentrating on bettering FOSS and not-FOSS alternatives, and at the same time it's MS who will benefit from this. We should just try to stop praising our redmond overlords for a while and think they are the only ones capable of creating technology worth mimicing.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Suicide?
by viton on Thu 3rd May 2007 09:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Suicide?"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

I don't understand how improving compatibility with a technology that potentially could be used by many web sites could "kill Linux".
Microsoft is pushing their own standards to kill the competitors in their usual way.
Kill netscape/java/jpeg/pdf/flash etc.

-How to discredit the standard (c)MS-
Create incompatible software and force majority of people to use incompatible "extensions".

Edited 2007-05-03 09:02

Reply Score: 2

RE: Suicide?
by deanlinkous on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:34 UTC in reply to "Suicide?"
deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

That is my feeling too. Following down the MS trail is not on my to-do list...

Reply Score: 5

RE: Suicide?
by suslik on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:58 UTC in reply to "Suicide?"
suslik Member since:
2005-07-27

No, what he is trying to do is help MS kick Adobe in the gonads.... which is long overdue

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Suicide?
by kaiwai on Thu 3rd May 2007 05:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Suicide?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

No, what he is trying to do is help MS kick Adobe in the gonads.... which is long overdue


True; and want to know what really annoys me - Adobe and their refusal to provide software for *NIX.

Look at Microsoft in one corner, be it in an unofficial capacity, they're working and encouraging the use of technology - they haven't stamped out Mono, but they haven't encouraged it either.

With that being said; lets be honest, they've got their own platform, thats what they're focused on - making sure that their technologies work best on the platform they sell.

What confuses me is the other corner; you have Adobe one of the vocal critics of Microsoft and yet has done NOTHING to bring their applications to *NIX.

Where is their flash/flex/web/etc development tools for *NIX? where is their Creative Suite for *NIX? I see the constant bashing of XPS and yet, where is their PDF creation tools for other platforms besides Windows? why not *NIX? Sun offered to pay for the porting of Adobe Acrobat to Solaris x86, and Adobe refused to do it - why?

I find it funny when I see people here swoon around Adobe and standing up for it - what have Adobe done for *NIX? I'd sooner be in bed with Microsoft, at least you know where you stand with Microsoft versus Adobe who says one thing (bash Microsoft) and do a completely different thing (refuse to provide their complete software portfolio on *NIX).

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Suicide?
by apoclypse on Thu 3rd May 2007 06:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Suicide?"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

I kind of agree with you for the most part. Adobe has done little, to nothing for *nix. Be it slow releases of the flash plugin or very little help if things don't work exactly right. My only issue with silverlight for *nix is Mono, which I dislike, and the fact that its a third party interpreter which has no liability to make the product work other than a best effort scenario is disconcerting. Had MS released the product themselves, then I would use it the same as I do flash.

The open source community could have created their own take on this idea. The issue is the tools. The tools for easy content creation just aren't there, at least for flash. Maybe this will push Adobe to release their content creation tools for *nix, the community least likely to adopt silverlight would be the OSS community. Adobe would do well to focus on platforms other than windows if anything to cover their bases.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Suicide?
by l3v1 on Thu 3rd May 2007 07:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Suicide?"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

True; and want to know what really annoys me - Adobe and their refusal to provide software for *NIX.

And want to know what really annoys me - Microsoft and their refusal to provide software for *NIX.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Suicide?
by kaiwai on Thu 3rd May 2007 09:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Suicide?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

And want to know what really annoys me - Microsoft and their refusal to provide software for *NIX.


Want to know what annoys me? people who reply who don't have a clue.

Microsoft has a vested interest in only providing their software for their own platform - they use both products (along with others) to gain market share and maintain it. That is why they don't provide their software for *NIX.

What Adobe has to do with Microsofts lack of providing software for *NIX? absolutely nothing, it has no relevance.

The issue I have with Adobe is their anti-Microsoft stance and yet they do everything to prop up Microsoft's monopoly by refusing to provide software for *NIX - you really think that Adobe is so stupid to think they don't play a major role in the software market? please, for Adobe, Microsoft is merely an convenient whipping boy.

Their double standards; lobbying the EU, complaining about Microsoft 'spreading' their monopoly, and yet, through their lack of providing their software portfolio for *NIX, undermine the ability for an alternative platform to come through and present itself as a replacement for Windows.

If they provided their software for *NIX, it would undermine Microsoft's monopoly; hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, could leave Microsoft Windows, and their strangle hold on the software industry would cease to exist, and with Adobe, would come other software companies to take advantage of this fresh new market not dominated by a single supplier.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Suicide?
by ebasconp on Wed 2nd May 2007 21:04 UTC in reply to "Suicide?"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

de Icaza looks for interoperability between Windows and Linux; the sad side of the story is that he wants to achieve that goal putting Windows technology on the Linux side... if that is a noble goal, it implies that Linux will be always one step behind on using the same technology.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Suicide?
by buff on Thu 3rd May 2007 13:51 UTC in reply to "Suicide?"
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

What is Icaza trying to do? Kill Linux?

I think Icaza has good intentions. He wants to really bring a cross platform standard to Linux. He is a bright and highly motivated individual. He just really hasn't thought through entirely the legal/political factors involved in using MS tech. In the legal area he is being a little naive.

Reply Score: 2

Flash Killer
by fretinator on Wed 2nd May 2007 19:48 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

Assuming de Icaza is successful, and assuming Silverlight were to take off, there is the possibilty that Flash could be greatly trivialized. I would welcome a cross-platform toolkit that was open and available for creating Flash-like apps. My son would be very great at creating these type of games, but neither I nor he can afford Flash. I wonder, though, since this is based on the .NET framework, what kind of resource requirements will be necessary. It seems like it could be a little piggy!

Reply Score: 3

RE: Flash Killer
by Adam S on Wed 2nd May 2007 19:50 UTC in reply to "Flash Killer"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Flash being trivialized is as likely as PDF being replaced by XPS... ain't gonna happen.

Flash is a web standard, and Sliverlight, while cool right now, has to offer demonstrably more for a user than Flash, which has an install base of well over 90% of graphical browsers. I don't see that difference today. I think Flash is "good enough" for most people today.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Flash Killer
by fretinator on Wed 2nd May 2007 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Flash Killer"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, even if it could just open up another (more open) alternative I would welcome it. I realize java applets could be considered an alternative, but it seems to be too big a hill for many people to climb [I'm a java developer BTW]. I would like to see a simpler alternative toolkit for developing web animations. It would be nice for it to be available for all platforms and Free as in Liberty.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Flash Killer
by baadger on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Flash Killer"
baadger Member since:
2006-08-29

You forget that Microsoft bundled Macromedia Flash 6 with Windows XP. As soon as they bundle Silverlight with Vista SP1 or 2 or push it out via Microsoft Update as part of WPF/.NET 3.0 they gain instant statistical share. XP SP3 is due for release too. Is this likely? Who knows.

For most people Flash still isn't an *essential* thing to have. It's only really gained critical mass to Sally and Joe because of Flash enabled video sites like Youtube and MySpace.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Flash Killer
by Adam S on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Flash Killer"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

As soon as they bundle Silverlight with Vista SP1 or 2 or push it out via Microsoft Update as part of WPF/.NET 3.0 they gain instant statistical share.


Statistical share is irrelevant. All that matters is what developers CAN and DO use. IE supports client-side VBscript. Few use it, because they instantly leave out a large share. What remains to be seen is whether Flash developers migrate to Silverlight. I remain convinced that there has to be a compelling reason to go to a platform that WILL have a smaller deployment for at least years.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Flash Killer
by borker on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Flash Killer"
borker Member since:
2006-04-04

certainly you have the heart of the argument down: can MS attract enough programmers fast enough to get a critical mass?

MS have had mixed success at this in the past... some of their developer dependent pushes have work outed while others haven't. I'm particularly thinking about their 'passport' technology from a few years ago that was released with huge fanfare and then sank like a stone.

Adobe's response to silverlight will be interesting... the partial open sourcing of flex is a start at keeping hold of the developer market. I think the best thing they could do would be to open the flash player myself.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Flash Killer
by Adam S on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Flash Killer"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

I think the best thing they could do would be to open the flash player myself.


It's exciting. Ultimately, the downfall of Microsoft may be that their competitors continue to open source their software. Because Microsoft may go cross-platform, but they usually balk at open sourcing anything significant.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Flash Killer
by borker on Wed 2nd May 2007 21:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Flash Killer"
borker Member since:
2006-04-04

It does seem to be more and more one of the methods that companies/technologies that are fighting MS on some front are turning to. And more open == more good for users outside of MS by and large

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Flash Killer
by Doc Pain on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Flash Killer"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Flash is a web standard [...]."

No. HTML and XHTML are web standards, open image formats may be considered web standards, even open media formats may be considered web standards, but proprietary stuff like "Flash" is no standard.

You may define standard as "it is required by many web pages", but I won't follow this argumentation that leads into the wrong direction.

"Flash" has made several web pages unusable and especially inaccessible for people with disabilities, i. e. for blind people. You may consider this not being a fault by "Flash" primarily, but as you might know from studying some weg page's source code, "Flash" is more and more a substitute for HTML than embedded content. Many web developers are not able to use "Flash" the way it should be.

Additionally, "Flash" stuff needs a proprietary product to be created. This cannot be called a "web standard". While I can create a web page using a plain text editor, "Flash" does not have this concept.

"I think Flash is "good enough" for most people today."

As long as web pages force me to install it, I will avoid installing it, because I think it's a barrier that should not exist.

If web developers (and furthermore, users) would be aware of free and open (and even standardized) alternatives, there would be no need for "Flash".

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Flash Killer
by Adam S on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Flash Killer"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

"Flash is a web standard [...]."

No. HTML and XHTML are web standards, open image formats may be considered web standards, even open media formats may be considered web standards, but proprietary stuff like "Flash" is no standard.


Yeah yeah yeah. You're arguing semantics with me. Flash is THE standard for media beyond animated gifs and embedded audio files, and I further suspect you know what I meant, because no one has suggested that Flash is somehow a W3C spec.

Flash is THE multimedia app to beat for Silverlight.

As long as web pages force me to install it, I will avoid installing it, because I think it's a barrier that should not exist.


Oh please. We get it: you're too cool for Flash. We'll miss you as we're off enjoying YouTube, Google Video, Break.com, and trillions of games while you tip-tap away at Lynx.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Flash Killer
by Beta on Wed 2nd May 2007 21:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Flash Killer"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

The words both of you were looking for was "de facto".

Many standards exist for animations, videos, and interactivity. Sadly not everyone picks just the one that should be adopted. Choice in this domain is a bad thing for users.

Adobe/Macromedia has always had plugins for alternative platforms (admittedly only 32bit), but they at least try to make everyone equal. When Microsoft does the same, hell will have frozen over.

(you enjoy YouTube?)

Reply Score: 3

YouTube
by unavowed on Thu 3rd May 2007 00:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Flash Killer"
unavowed Member since:
2006-03-23

Thing is, it's already possible and feasible to implement the same thing using purely open standards and popular installed programs -- see ogg/theora streaming using the cortado (http://www.flumotion.net/cortado/) java applet.

I wish it became more popular than flash for streaming video, especially in light of sun's releasing java to the public.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Flash Killer
by Doc Pain on Wed 2nd May 2007 21:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Flash Killer"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Yeah yeah yeah. You're arguing semantics with me."

It seems to be neccessary because you're using words in an incorrect manner.

"Flash is THE standard for media beyond animated gifs and embedded audio files, and I further suspect you know what I meant, because no one has suggested that Flash is somehow a W3C spec."

I agree with your statement, it describes the real situation, but I would like to see "standard" to be replaced by "manner", because "Flash" is not a standard which I've explained before.

There could be better alternatives, but unfortunately, they do not exist or they are not used enough.

"Flash is THE multimedia app to beat for Silverlight."

We'll see if it can.

"Oh please. We get it: you're too cool for Flash."

No need to be offensive. If you like barriers, just put a preamble to your web page that checks for the newest "IE" version, else just prints "your browser sucks, go buy a new one". Maybe that's the coolness you're talking about?

I'd like to mod your post down because of insulting use of language, but I think it's better to bring arguments.

"We'll miss you as we're off enjoying YouTube, Google Video, Break.com, and trillions of games while you tip-tap away at Lynx."

Seems you are the new elected speaker of the rest of the world?

I don't like the way you're talking to me, because I think you offend blind people here who get cut off from web pages where "Flash" is used - but not in the way recommended, so blind people see nothing on the web page. Not even a title or something that makes them know where they are. If you are interested in a barrier free web, lynx is a good test, not only for braille output, but for synthesized voice output, too. If it displays nothing, well, maybe your page is not worth looking at?

To add this: I'm not a fan of YouTube et al., I took a look at it, but for me that's nothing I enjoy. Same for "Flash" games. Furthermore, I'm not a friend of proprietary formats, especially if they are (ab)used to raise barriers. Please note that this is my very individual point of view which obviously differs from yours, but this does not make me insulting you.

If you enjoy things requiring "Flash", it's okay for you. If you're a web developer, use "Flash" in a wise way.

I'm looking forward to a free, open and standardized replacement for "Flash", time will tell what we get.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Flash Killer
by renox on Wed 2nd May 2007 21:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Flash Killer"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

>you're using words in an incorrect manner.

I disagree: when one talk about a standard, it can be a 'de facto' standard or a 'de jure' standard.

Flash is a 'de facto' standard in the web, the GP is correct, you're the one who is artificially restricting the meaning of standard to make a (stupid) point.

One may like or not Flash, it is still a standard..

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Flash Killer
by Hiev on Wed 2nd May 2007 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Flash Killer"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

In your logic .DOC is a standar too, right?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Flash Killer
by Adam S on Wed 2nd May 2007 21:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Flash Killer"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

In your logic .DOC is a standar too, right?


It is. It's the standard method for business documents in every office I've ever worked.

That doesn't make it right. It doesn't make it good. It only makes it the standard by which businesses operate.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Flash Killer
by Doc Pain on Wed 2nd May 2007 22:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Flash Killer"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"I disagree: when one talk about a standard, it can be a 'de facto' standard or a 'de jure' standard."

Okay, that's a point of view I can agree with. I still would avoid the term standard because this is misleading.

So if "Flash" would be a web standard (and therefore included in the web subset of the Internet set), why can't I find any evidence at, let's say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_standard ?

"Flash is a 'de facto' standard in the web, the GP is correct, you're the one who is artificially restricting the meaning of standard to make a (stupid) point."

One could argument that you're the one who's extending the meaning of "standard" to anything existing. Because something exist at a certain amount, it's not neccessary a standard.

"One may like or not Flash, it is still a standard.."

As you might have read from another reply, following this logic everything established with an appropriate usage share would be a standard. The example was .DOC to be a standard, too. So is .WMV? Or .MOV?

So what does a standard require? First, a documentation that is accessible for everyone and it contains a complete specification of what defines the standard. Examples are the documentations published by the ISO. Second, required for a standard being universal (not an internal standard for a company about how to write a memo), the standard needs to be established. This usually happens when developers use the standard to write applications for it, e. g. OpenOffice using the ODF standard. A company may not sue a developer for using the standard, because it's free and it gives him the right to use it. A HTML enginge developer may use the HTML standard specifications to write his own HTML renderer without getting sued by the W3C. :-)

Logical conclusion: "Flash" is a standard when (1) the file format and engine specifications are published and (2) free implementations are developed afterwards.

Please note: "Flash" does not neccessarily have to be a barrier in the web, but unfortunately, usually it is. But one can construct similar barriers with HTML, too, as I have described before.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Flash Killer
by Adam S on Wed 2nd May 2007 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Flash Killer"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Are you honestly suggesting that using Flash is intentionally discriminating against blind people?

You're points are all coming with a certain condescending tone - Flash is beneath you because it's proprietary, etc.

If you decide it's honorable or somehow better or cooler to not run Flash, good for you. But to parade it around like a badge is silly. Furthermore, "you're too cool for Flash" is not "insulting language." If you want to comment in an online forum and suggest that your manner of use is superior ("*I* will not be locked in to proprietary formats!"), be prepared to have your elitist bs called. I respect your right to do what you like, respect mine to suggest that your reasons appear to be based on a very personal principal. A principal, I'd add, that can very easily reduce productivity in the name of honor. You may find non-commercial software to be evil, I'm perfectly happy on OS X.

The fact remains that Flash does something that nothing else does, and it does it well. So until something else comes along, Flash offers, IMNSHO, much more good than bad.

For the record, I hope to see a free, open source Flash-like standard too. We agree there.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Flash Killer
by Doc Pain on Wed 2nd May 2007 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Flash Killer"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"Are you honestly suggesting that using Flash is intentionally discriminating against blind people?"

Itentionally? No, surely not. But in fact, de facto, it does.

Do you remember the (noframes) HTML tags? They are used to do something if a browser cannot handle frames. Do you know the alt= and longdesc= attributes to the (img) HTML tag? They indicate a picture being there, providing a description of its content. Take a web page with "Flash" intro without any similar encapsulation. Let's assume (title) HTML tag is set to someting like "Home" or "Untiteled Page 1", the visible (body) content is ... nothing. What would you think where you are? Blind people often are lead in such situations. Something like "Attention, Flash animation here; use this link to enter the Flash free content" would be great, but where do you find it? I do even believe it's possible to construct something like this.

Using "Flash" with proper encapsulation surely would be no problem, given the possibility to navigate a web page using the standard means for this purpose, the (a) HTML tag. If no "Flash" is installed, why bother the user with messages suggesting him to download a plugin which will not fit his browser or OS?

"You're points are all coming with a certain condescending tone - Flash is beneath you because it's proprietary, etc."

I surely would think different if "Flash" would be an open standard (such as HTML), but it is not. It is tied to a corporation forcing a user to install a plugin where he cannot be sure what it's doing. I'm not a friend of proprietary solutions.

"If you decide it's honorable or somehow better or cooler to not run Flash, good for you."

It's neither honorable, better or cool. It's just a decision. Another decision could be: "I don't install Linux allthough all the people I know are using it." or "I won't buy a Mac just because it exists."

"But to parade it around like a badge is silly."

Be sure, I don't wanted to look like this.

"Furthermore, "you're too cool for Flash" is not "insulting language." If you want to comment in an online forum and suggest that your manner of use is superior ("*I* will not be locked in to proprietary formats!"), be prepared to have your elitist bs called."

Elitist? Wow, I'm impressed. :-) Since when is not using new stuff elitist? I always thought it was the other way round.

As I described above, it's just a decision, based on individual experience and logical considerations.

I know that the OSnews discussion forum is often used to insult people with an unpopular opinion (bashing the GPL friends, laughing about the Mac OS guys etc.).

"I respect your right to do what you like, respect mine to suggest that your reasons appear to be based on a very personal principal."

Yes, you're seeing it the right way. Maybe you only had good, joyful and entertaining experiences with "Flash", but I didn't (in fact, it was the opposite), so this is one of the reasons for my decision. But please note the unarguable facts I mentioned, it's not that I'm just judging out of my stomach.

"A principal, I'd add, that can very easily reduce productivity in the name of honor."

This would be correct if I'd produce machine guns or atomic bombs. :-)

"You may find non-commercial software to be evil, I'm perfectly happy on OS X."

No, I would not say evil. It's just I don't think it's up to me to support it. Furthermore, the free software solutions perfectly fit my needs, so why should I buy a (worse) alternative when I have a good free product which can be improved even by my work?

Just to have it added, I like Mac OS X a lot, and I've been using it for a while without any problems, just had to sell my Powerbook because of poverty. :-(

"The fact remains that Flash does something that nothing else does, and it does it well."

I would not claim anything different, that's a fact I'm aware of. Of course, there are free standards for media streaming, interaction, and even for vector graphics. But they are not used, maybe, because they are not integrated with each other...

"So until something else comes along, Flash offers, IMNSHO, much more good than bad."

At least you're admitting that it's offering something bad. :-)

Just as an example, a moral consideration: If I have to choose from two evils, I would be forced to choose the lesser evil. But if I'm aware of the alternative not to choose any evil, I may do this as well, knowing no matter which evil I choose, I'd choose an evil. (This is the way most people handle elections here in Germany - they do not elect.)

"For the record, I hope to see a free, open source Flash-like standard too. We agree there."

Yes, we do. It would make many things easier. Media streaming et al. could be implemented to any browsers, even the "workarounds" described above could be implemented properly.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Flash Killer
by Soulbender on Thu 3rd May 2007 02:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Flash Killer"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Yeah yeah yeah. You're arguing semantics with me. "

No, he's using the correct terms. Flash is an ad-hoc standard, not a web standard.

"We'll miss you as we're off enjoying YouTube, Google Video"

Judging from the YouTube content we're not missing much. If I want to rot my brain with stupid videos I can watch TV.
Btw, it's perfectly possible to watch YouTube and Google Video's without Flash.

"trillions of games"

So what? Trillions of them suck.

Edited 2007-05-03 03:00

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Flash Killer
by Laurence on Thu 3rd May 2007 09:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Flash Killer"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"

Oh please. We get it: you're too cool for Flash. We'll miss you as we're off enjoying YouTube, Google Video, Break.com, and trillions of games while you tip-tap away at Lynx.
"

I think you're being more than a little hard on the guy yu're replying to.

I have flash installed but turned off by default - there are very very few occations I ever feel the need to enable it (youtube being the biggest, but most of the stuff on there isn't worth the time viewing)

Youtube aside, the only other example you gave for flash being a worth while format is games, but then there's an equal amount of java/javascript games on the web as well - so i'm not loosing out there either.

Maybe I'd feel a little less resistant towards flash if it wasn't so glitchy on PDAs and *nix platforms, and if more webdevelopers didn't abuse the technology by using Flash excessively / inapropiately.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Flash Killer
by XemonerdX on Thu 3rd May 2007 16:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Flash Killer"
XemonerdX Member since:
2005-07-03

Additionally, "Flash" stuff needs a proprietary product to be created. This cannot be called a "web standard". While I can create a web page using a plain text editor, "Flash" does not have this concept.


You don't have to use Flash in order to create SWF's as you are implying here. At http://osflash.org/ames you can find instructions on how to create SWF's using only open source software.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Flash Killer
by Doc Pain on Thu 3rd May 2007 18:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Flash Killer"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"You don't have to use Flash in order to create SWF's as you are implying here. At http://osflash.org/ames you can find instructions on how to create SWF's using only open source software."

I'm already aware of this fact. As far as I know, theres swftools existing, described as "SWF manipulation and generation utilities", but I'm not sure they're 100% compatible and up to date.

Most browsers need special plugins that need to be installed, usually coming form Macromedia. At the point when browsers render "Flash" like they today render HTML, process JavaScript, show images and create forms - with no additional software to be installed -, then, maybe, "Flash" can be called a standard...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Flash Killer
by jayson.knight on Wed 2nd May 2007 21:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Flash Killer"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"I don't see that difference today. I think Flash is "good enough" for most people today."

For end users, perhaps...but to write a flash website means you need developers who know how to author/program in flash/actionscript. With Silverlight being a .Net native component, MS has essentially tapped into the millions of .Net developers (such as myself) who already know how to program against .Net...they don't have to learn a new technology.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Flash Killer
by kaiwai on Thu 3rd May 2007 05:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Flash Killer"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Flash being trivialized is as likely as PDF being replaced by XPS... ain't gonna happen.

Flash is a web standard, and Sliverlight, while cool right now, has to offer demonstrably more for a user than Flash, which has an install base of well over 90% of graphical browsers. I don't see that difference today. I think Flash is "good enough" for most people today.


Based on what evidence? do you know *why* Microsoft wins in many cases? you seem to think that things simply stay the same because the existing technology is 'good enough' - bullrot.

Microsoft will win because they'll provide superior developer tools - that is why Microsoft's own IDE is the platform of choice for developers when developing for Windows.

What will decide the success or failure of Silverlight will be how their Silverlight development tool compares to Adobes own Flex/Flash tools - if there is significant benefits for developers to move to SilverLight, you will see a rise in the number of sites starting to use it.

XPS is a different situation, but still, as Office 2007 becomes more common, Windows Vista installations rise, and the number of XPS native printers rise - currently Xerox is the only vendor offering XPS native printers; you will find that XPS will become a more common place. Give that XPS is available for anyone to implement, and will become the native language for many new printers out there in the future, it will also benefit *NIX as well, as long as those programmers on *NIX avoid the anti-Microsoft rhetoric and concentrate on the technology.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Flash Killer
by l3v1 on Thu 3rd May 2007 07:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Flash Killer"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Flash is "good enough" for most people today.


Well, Linux is good enough too. If someone can manage to "trivialize" flash, it's MS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Flash Killer
by butters on Thu 3rd May 2007 08:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Flash Killer"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Flash being trivialized is as likely as PDF being replaced by XPS... ain't gonna happen.

I'm not sure about the comparison between document formats and web development frameworks. After all, there's only so much you can do with a document before it becomes an interactive application. Interoperability more or less trumps advanced features in the context of describing documents.

But Flash/Silverlight are about building web applications, and it would be incredibly short-sighted to claim that any of the current web development frameworks are "good enough." The web is far from a mature platform. The technology behind the web and the scope of its applications is expanding and evolving rapidly.

While Flash and Silverlight will be competing on the basis of interoperability and ubiquity, they will also be competing to enable the web applications of tomorrow. Developers will adopt Silverlight if it has demonstrably more to offer in its ability to build web applications. Users will adopt Silverlight if the applications it powers have demonstrably more to offer.

While Silverlight's prospects in particular are debatable (and I'm no expert on the specifics), it seems inevitable that a web application framework will come along and unseat Flash at some point over the next 10 years. Who knows what the next Big Thing might be? It is crucially important that free software is not excluded from participating in the evolution of the web. Wherever we don't lead, we have a mandate to follow.

As the webmaster of OSNews, you have a perspective on how much the site has grown over the years and how the underlying technology has evolved to meet these challenges. It continues to evolve, and it's hard to imagine what it might look like in five years' time. Will it adopt more of the social networking features characteristic of Web 2.0 applications? Will the content evolve from text to include rich media? Will technology similar to Flash or Silverlight eventually power portions of the OSNews experience?

Or is it good enough?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Flash Killer
by buff on Thu 3rd May 2007 13:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Flash Killer"
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

Flash being trivialized is as likely as PDF being replaced by XPS... ain't gonna happen.

Hmm. I think trivializing Flash will be pretty easy for MS. I read that the plans for IE8 include plugins for Silverlight. So what MS will probably do is include that in an urgent Windows Update package. Users won't even know they have installed it. People will start to develop web sites using Silverlight only markup code and eventually Flash will be pushed out. The transition won't happen overnight but it will probably follow the same path that Real Media format was pushed out by Windows media on most news sites in the U.S.

Edited 2007-05-03 13:37

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Flash Killer
by Adam S on Thu 3rd May 2007 13:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Flash Killer"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Hmm. I think trivializing Flash will be pretty easy for MS. I read that the plans for IE8 include plugins for Silverlight. So what MS will probably do is include that in an urgent Windows Update package. Users won't even know they have installed it.


Once again... having it installed is irrelevent. It only matters if web developers actually USE it. If I were writing a dynamic app and I knew that Silverlight existed on 60% of computers of my target audience and Flash on 95%, which would I use? What if I KNEW that Mac and Linux users would almost DEFINITELY not have said plugins installed?

Having Silverlight installed means nothing unless devs actually use it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Flash Killer
by buff on Thu 3rd May 2007 13:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Flash Killer"
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

Once again... having it installed is irrelevent.

I don't see how this is irrelevant. On the contrary, once Silverlight's plugins are incorporated into IE8, a simple Window's Update will bring this capability to the majority of the Windows market overnight. Once it is there developers using .Net will jump on it since it will have tie-ins to ASP.net and make a nice complete package. This is all currently hypothetical but past MS behavior makes this very relevant today. Parts of Silverlight are open sourced but the major tech. parts are closed source. This will probably create problems for Linux users, surprise, surprise...

Edited 2007-05-03 14:01

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Flash Killer
by Adam S on Thu 3rd May 2007 14:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Flash Killer"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Once it is there developers using .Net will jump on it since it will have tie-ins to ASP.net and make a nice complete package.


Whoa! That's a HUGE leap of faith. Just because it's installed in SOME computers (remember, not every runs Windows, not every has automatic updates turned on) does NOT mean all .net developers will immediately say "Ok, let's dump Flash and move to Silverlight. You've made a MASSIVE assumption, and I don't know if it passes muster.

I maintain there must be a compelling reason to move to a plugin that is going to have a much smaller install base for years. Is being able to write in .NET that reason? That remains to be seen.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Flash Killer
by buff on Thu 3rd May 2007 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Flash Killer"
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

This giant leap of faith is based on some research I did into companies planning to use MS's new tech. I'm not saying it is going to happen overnight. Companies are already incorporating Silverlight into current development versions of their software. Limelight has already started to make this jump. Granted this is only one example but give it some time. Read about it here: http://tech.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1298315.php/Microso...

Also, .Net code will be deliverable via Silverlight creating an attractive development framework: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,131415-pg,1/article.html

Edited 2007-05-03 14:18

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Flash Killer
by Xaero_Vincent on Thu 3rd May 2007 17:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Flash Killer"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

Not only is some version of Flash installed on 95-99% of the world's computers. But whos to say Adobe won't rival Silverlight in Flash 10. Perhaps by introducing Hi-Def video support and reducing the prices of their Flash creation products?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Flash Killer
by doctor_shim on Thu 3rd May 2007 05:52 UTC in reply to "Flash Killer"
doctor_shim Member since:
2007-01-17

You don't need to afford Flash. Get the Flex SDK, and you have an ActionScript 3 compiler to make your games in. Free.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Flash Killer
by fretinator on Thu 3rd May 2007 13:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Flash Killer"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

You don't need to afford Flash. Get the Flex SDK, and you have an ActionScript 3 compiler to make your games in. Free.

Is this really all you need to create Flash games? This is what my son wants to do, so I am very interested.

Reply Score: 2

Good on novel boss
by lord-storm on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:11 UTC
lord-storm
Member since:
2005-07-12

Linux is a major platform especialy in countries with a low income. Linux mobile devices exist so there is a demand. Are sun going to come to the table as well and everyone get behind Silverlight. What about other operating systems?

Now dont forget people... Microsoft revitalised iSCSI and iSCSI is a major win for linux unix alike. I just hope standards arnt moving so we do need fully concrete standards for the new web2.0

Reply Score: 1

A Brilliant Idea - To Shoot Yourself
by segedunum on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:32 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

Pointlessly boost support for a Microsoft based and directed technology where there is currently zero demand, whose scope for being cross platform will be dramatically and mysteriously reduced once Microsoft feels it has gained enough critical mass. It also sounds like a really great thing for a Novell backed project to do, to support software that their competitor would like to use to embrace and extinguish other platforms.

However, given the installed base of Flash and the fact that Silverlight doesn't do anything Flash can't (think PDF versus XPS - what does XPS actually do?), I can't see it gaining any attention nor do I see the need for Mono to come along and support it on that basis. It's rather like VBscript and ActiveX in IE. Yes, they're supported by the browser with most share, but there are practical reasons why no web developers used them on a widespread basis.

Edited 2007-05-02 20:35

Reply Score: 5

Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Lets see if you say the same at the moment Trolltech ambrase this technology in its framework, Im eager to see it.

Reply Score: 0

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Lets see if you say the same at the moment Trolltech ambrase this technology in its framework

Why would they do that, and what does Trolltech have to do with it?

Reply Score: 2

force adobe to open flash?
by TechGeek on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:50 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

The real question is will this force adobe to open flash. Flash will need something more that adobe alone can give it if it wants to stay a standard browser plugin. MS is going to try and kill adobe's market by releasing the tools for this freely, you watch and see. Course, I think Adobe charges too much for flash anyway. But hey, what do I know?

Reply Score: 1

Microsoft is Clever!
by christianhgross on Wed 2nd May 2007 20:54 UTC
christianhgross
Member since:
2005-11-15

Hmmm, this one I did not see coming, but it is clever...

Ok, Microsoft does not want to do Linux. And if Microsoft does Linux Mono will not be impressed. Yet Mono needs something to give the impression of a "real project."

What does Microsoft do? Release enough to make it trivial for Mono, but not enough to seem it like they are supporting Linux. With Mono supporting SliverLight they have something to say, "ooohhh look we have portability, and something that will interest you."

Clever! Its a win-win-win all around... Congrats Mono, and Microsoft...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Microsoft is Clever!
by tomcat on Wed 2nd May 2007 22:56 UTC in reply to "Microsoft is Clever!"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Mono needs something to give the impression of a "real project."

Since when isn't Mono a "real project"? It's regularly bashed by Linux zealots. That's more of an endorsement than it needs or deserves.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Microsoft is Clever!
by Darkelve on Thu 3rd May 2007 12:14 UTC in reply to "Microsoft is Clever!"
Darkelve Member since:
2006-02-06

"Clever! Its a win-win-win all around... Congrats Mono, and Microsoft..."

Except that Mono, IMO, has a big stinking cloud of IP FUD around it.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Microsoft is Clever!
by Silent_Seer on Fri 4th May 2007 21:57 UTC in reply to "Microsoft is Clever!"
Silent_Seer Member since:
2007-04-06

I am sure MS does not care about Mono. Mono tries to make their tech cross platform. Something that they do not want except in special cases. Such as MS Office, and they make money off it.

Reply Score: 1

...
by Hiev on Wed 2nd May 2007 21:09 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Flash is Adobe's litle monopoly, some open competition won't hurt.

Reply Score: 5

I think
by SlackerJack on Wed 2nd May 2007 21:15 UTC
SlackerJack
Member since:
2005-11-12

The mono developers are out of there depth here, with the constant threat of IP infringement and now they are going full on with MS for Silverlight.

The fact is Adobe have flash on just about all platforms, it's being more and more used for media rather than WMV(which is not on every platform and dont work to well either)

I don't like this, I just don't like the sound of this at all.

Edited 2007-05-02 21:17

Reply Score: 2

Take off the knee-pads Miquel
by dogen on Wed 2nd May 2007 21:31 UTC
dogen
Member since:
2005-11-13

Microsoft still won't hire you.

Reply Score: 4

fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft still won't hire you

It's good to hear Miguel is a praying man. ;}

Reply Score: 2

Mean spirited
by snowflake on Wed 2nd May 2007 21:56 UTC
snowflake
Member since:
2005-07-20

Both of you (fretinator and dogen) are mean spirited. If you want to beat MS do it by creating a better technology rather than going into the gutter and making your arguments personal.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mean spirited
by fretinator on Wed 2nd May 2007 22:08 UTC in reply to "Mean spirited"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Both of you (fretinator and dogen) are mean spirited. If you want to beat MS do it by creating a better technology rather than going into the gutter and making your arguments personal.

Actually, I was trying to poke fun at dogen's comment. It was obvious that he was talking about something disgusting. I just tried to turn his mean thing into a good thing. I certainly don't think prayer is a mean thing! Personally, I think Miguel is doing some amazing things, and even Microsoft is experimenting (in my opinion) with some degree of openness. Nothing offensive intended on my part.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mean spirited
by twenex on Thu 3rd May 2007 02:04 UTC in reply to "Mean spirited"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Both of you (fretinator and dogen) are mean spirited. If you want to beat MS do it by creating a better technology rather than going into the gutter and making your arguments personal.

Let's see if I can think of a better technology MS has beaten it's competitors with....Nope, there aren't any.

I'd rather be mean-spirited than ignorant.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mean spirited
by jayson.knight on Thu 3rd May 2007 04:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Mean spirited"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"Let's see if I can think of a better technology MS has beaten it's competitors with....Nope, there aren't any."

I'll help you out.

Exchange
SQL Server
Office
IIS
Visual Studio
.Net (C#/ASP.NET/etc)

My money is on Silverlight joining that list very soon.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Mean spirited
by apoclypse on Thu 3rd May 2007 06:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mean spirited"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

They are not necessarily better, but they are more widely used. So in essence you are right about these products beating the competition. Though SQL server is questionable, there are better alternatives that are as widely used.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Mean spirited
by jayson.knight on Thu 3rd May 2007 07:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mean spirited"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"Though SQL server is questionable, there are better alternatives that are as widely used."

SQL Server regularly wins over on TPC in the price per transaction category, which is arguably the most important factor for business use. That being said, MySQL/PostgreSQL/etc (FOSS RDBMS's) don't have any entries posted for reasons that are beyond me.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Mean spirited
by twenex on Thu 3rd May 2007 10:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mean spirited"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

"Let's see if I can think of a better technology MS has beaten it's competitors with....Nope, there aren't any."

I'll help you out.

Exchange
SQL Server
Office
IIS
Visual Studio
.Net (C#/ASP.NET/etc)


Last I checked, people were taking up MySQL like hotcakes. WordPerfectOffice is comparable to MS Office, and plenty people are happy OpenOffice. Picking IIS and .Net as examples of "successful Microsoft technologies" just makes you look like a fanboi.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Mean spirited
by Matzon on Thu 3rd May 2007 12:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mean spirited"
Matzon Member since:
2005-07-06

bollocks

Exchange: as a groupware server yes, as an MTA no.
SQL Server: Nah - DB2, Oracle, MySQL - no one beaten yet
Office: They win this one
IIS: nah, Apache easier to manager setup and more widely deployed.
Visual Studio: meh, depends on what you develop - lots of other IDE's that are better, IDEA for instance.
.Net: huh? you've got to be kidding me, which competitor did they beat ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Mean spirited
by Adam S on Thu 3rd May 2007 13:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mean spirited"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Exchange
SQL Server
Office
IIS
Visual Studio
.Net (C#/ASP.NET/etc)


Yikes dude. Seriously? Exchange is a great collaboration app, but many big companies who use Exchange for their internal stuff still use Linux/Unix for their actual mail gateways.

SQL Server sucks compared to Oracle, DB2, and arguably Postgres. I don't even find their management tools to be very nice.

Office I'll give you.

IIS was a mess until recently, and is still vastly inferior to Apache and lighthttpd. Plus, there are still tons of "things" to do to get your sites to work that even developers don't understand, like going under "Application Settings" and clicking "Create" and then setting the "Default Application" to "read." I've met several devs who barely know what it does, but know it needs to be done to get things to work.

Visual Studio is worth nothing unless you're doing ASP or ASP.net. Otherwise, you're better off with Zend Studio, or Dreamweaver, or any of the custom IDEs for Python, Ruby, etc.

And .NET is a great concept, but is still far from mature. Until recently, you needed to recompile your entire website to make relatively small changes. And while managed code is a step in the right direction and reduces the code for desktop apps significantly, I'm not sure it's "superior" or even "leading the pack" like Office can be said to be doing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Mean spirited
by IanSVT on Thu 3rd May 2007 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mean spirited"
IanSVT Member since:
2005-07-06

Yikes dude. Seriously? Exchange is a great collaboration app, but many big companies who use Exchange for their internal stuff still use Linux/Unix for their actual mail gateways.


Which big companies? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm curious as to who is doing that and why they would do it?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Mean spirited
by Adam S on Thu 3rd May 2007 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Mean spirited"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

Which big companies? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm curious as to who is doing that and why they would do it?


I can't be specific, but many United States Department of Defense agencies do it. Also, several large American companies. They used multiple levels of security and multiple gateways.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Mean spirited
by jayson.knight on Thu 3rd May 2007 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mean spirited"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

Looks like we're going to venture off topic here a bit ;-)

"but many big companies who use Exchange for their internal stuff still use Linux/Unix for their actual mail gateways."

Neither one of us know which companies do that, but my guess would be fewer than the number who use Exchange for everything if they have it deployed internally (less admin overhead). It's been my personal experience with large companies that if they have Exchange deployed, they are an Exchange only shop. From a pure numbers standpoint, Exchange is the most widely used groupware product, so that's why I give it the nod in the success dept.

"SQL Server sucks compared to Oracle, DB2, and arguably Postgres. I don't even find their management tools to be very nice. "

As I stated earlier, SQL Server regularly wins in the TPC cost per transaction benchmarks. From 7.0 back, SQL was horrific, but from 2000 onwards it easily holds its own against the big boys. If you'd ever used Oracles mgmt tools, you'd be wishing you had Enterprise Manager/Management Studio back. Regardless, most DBA's use CLI, and SQLCMD.exe for SQL 2005 is very nice. I'll give you postgre in the non-closed source RDBMS, but it's marketshare is negligible compared to SQL/Oracle/DB2.

"IIS was a mess until recently, and is still vastly inferior to Apache and lighthttpd. Plus, there are still tons of "things" to do to get your sites to work that even developers don't understand, like going under "Application Settings" and clicking "Create" and then setting the "Default Application" to "read." I've met several devs who barely know what it does, but know it needs to be done to get things to work."

IIS 4.0 and prior were indeed a disaster. 5.0 made some decent progress, and 6.0 is a very nice, polished, secure product...IIRC it has the best security record of any of the most widely used web servers. 7.0 is going to blow the doors off the competition, but that's outside the scope of this post as it hasn't been released yet. IMO it's hard to compare IIS and Apache as generally speaking developers don't really get a choice on what they want to use. I'm an asp.net guy, so I have no choice but to use IIS. Most of your PHP/etc guys would never want their code to run in anything besides Apache.

As for the "things" you pointed out, there is no need to do those steps if you create your web application from within IIS itself. And if the content isn't dynamic (non ASP/ASP.NET) there is no need to do those steps. All creating an application does is register that application in the IIS metabase so that requests made to it can be forwarded on to the correct ISAPI handlers for processing. I don't find that particularly hard to understand, but some folks might.

"Visual Studio is worth nothing unless you're doing ASP or ASP.net. Otherwise, you're better off with Zend Studio, or Dreamweaver, or any of the custom IDEs for Python, Ruby, etc. "

In its category (Windows (unmanaged) and .Net (managed) development), nothing else even comes close. If you're writing apps that target the Windows environment, it has no competition so IMO it's the most successful product on the list.

"And .NET is a great concept, but is still far from mature. Until recently, you needed to recompile your entire website to make relatively small changes."

A great concept? You do realize .Net has been out for 7 years now, and version 3.5 will be shipping later this year. Hardly what I'd classify as "not mature." As for the recompiling, if you do everything in code-behind then you'll need to recompile the assemblies that need code changes. If you structure your website correctly (make it modular, extensible, etc) you should never need to recompile the core assemblies that power the site...you can write assemblies that plug in to the existing architecture and plop them into your /bin. Aside from all that, recompiling/redeploying causes zero downtime for the application itself, so it's not a big deal at all. The whole "recompiling" argument is usually made by people who don't understand how the asp.net runtime works. Aside from that, the benefits of running compiled code for your web app far outweigh any other perceived downfalls of recompiling.

Reply Score: 4

Um, it is.
by snowflake on Wed 2nd May 2007 21:57 UTC
snowflake
Member since:
2005-07-20

>In your logic .DOC is a standar too, right?

Is it, it is the de facto standard for many organizations.

Reply Score: 2

This can't just be me
by buff on Wed 2nd May 2007 22:08 UTC
buff
Member since:
2005-11-12

I don't see that difference today. I think Flash is "good enough" for most people today.
When I go to a flash only site it is such a bummer. I want to bookmark a certain page and I can't. The print wasn't working very well. I couldn't copy and paste the text for some reason. It was just plain and annoying. It seems like a big mistake to make the whole site navigation Flash based. I like the way youtube uses Flash in a small window you can control. This is a much better approach leaving the main site in HTML/Javascript/AJAX/XML and then have the rich media part in Flash, only if it is really necessary. It seems like this problem has gone on for so long on the internet. You would think web designers would figure this out already.

Reply Score: 4

Its not the framework
by IkeKrull on Wed 2nd May 2007 22:22 UTC
IkeKrull
Member since:
2006-01-24

It's the authoring environment.

You can port APIs all you like, but without usable tools to create content, you've got nothing.

People have been able to programatically create web applications using Java, ActiveX etc. but Flash gets used because it's authoring tool is simple and usable for content creators, not coders.

Unless Miguel and his team are going to provide this as well, then its just going to be a maintenance exercise, fixing compatibility bugs as MS introduces them - nobody in the Linux community will be able to author Silverlight content effectively unless they use Windows.

What I don't understand is why there isn't a browser plugin that allows the creation of client-side GTK and Qt widgets based on an xml markup (e.g. glade/Qt Designer). and an embedded script to enable interaction and functionality.

These APIs are free, well understood, and cross platform, unlike whatever garbage MS is churning out.

This is one way Linux could offer clear superiority - allowing native-speed GUI apps to be distributed on a completely free platform.

Why does the Linux community seem to ignore the need to build it's own killer apps, in favour of cloning other peoples?

Reply Score: 2

Anti-mono folks don't get it
by PlatformAgnostic on Wed 2nd May 2007 22:34 UTC
PlatformAgnostic
Member since:
2006-01-02

Linux needs to support .NET technologies more than Microsoft needs Linux support. As far as Microsoft cares, as long as it runs on the Mac and on Windows, that's all that's required. They are under the impression that the only paying desktop customers are on Mac and Windows, so those are the only platforms that are monetarily worth supporting. They help out Mono where they can, for server-side stuff and so that their engineers can "unofficially" say that it's cross-platform, but when it comes to actual large-scale financial investment, Linux won't likely get any from Microsoft.

Is it a disadvantage for Linux to implement Microsoft technologies? I don't think so. If you want Linux to succeed, you need to reduce the pain of transitioning from the previous leader (Windows). Making Linux interoperate as seamlessly as possible with Windows will do great things. Not everyone uses the latest cutting-edge stuff in .NET, so even if Mono's a version or two behind, it can be quite useful to bring Win apps to Linux. Microsoft is also limited in how much it can break between versions, because they have to be compatible with themselves. Most of the people who are against Mono seem like spectators who have never coded anything of consequence themselves. That's the only way you get these stupid comments like "Microsoft will break compatibility with Mono with an update."

Reply Score: 3

RE: Anti-mono folks don't get it
by buff on Wed 2nd May 2007 22:43 UTC in reply to "Anti-mono folks don't get it"
buff Member since:
2005-11-12

I agree with some of what you are say but disagree with Mono support. I like the idea of cross-platform compatibility with Mono and C#. I don't think the complaints with mono can be generalized so easy. MS has already accused Linux of using proprietary MS code. Look what happened with Novell and their deal with MS so they potentially won't get sued. Windows.Forms is proprietary intellectual property and incorporating linux applications that supports it begins to open up a gray area in Linux. I don't want to have to end up buying a home user license from MS to cover proprietary MS code in Linux. You could say this is paranoia but if you look at MS's track record they are not known as an ethical standard in the industry. As desktop Linux begins to grow the threat of legal action become more probable as more MS tech gets incorporated. It pays to be cautious when dealing with MS.

Edited 2007-05-02 22:51

Reply Score: 4

sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

I agree with some of what you are say but disagree with Mono support. I like the idea of cross-platform compatibility with Mono and C#. I don't think the complaints with mono can be generalized so easy. MS has already accused Linux of using proprietary MS code. Look what happened with Novell and their deal with MS so they potentially won't get sued. Windows.Forms is proprietary intellectual property and incorporating linux applications that supports it begins to open up a gray area in Linux. I don't want to have to end up buying a home user license from MS to cover proprietary MS code in Linux. You could say this is paranoia but if you look at MS's track record they are not known as an ethical standard in the industry. As desktop Linux begins to grow the threat of legal action become more probable as more MS tech gets incorporated. It pays to be cautious when dealing with MS.Edited 2007-05-02 22:51


Just don't use all those fcking MS technologies.

Reply Score: 4

PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

I did a recent paper for a business ethics class (stupid requirement) on the MSFT antitrust trial, so I saw what "unethical" things they did. Most of it was just strong-arming OEMs with discount contracts and that's about it. That's all they got busted for in the end, in any case.

Microsoft's management was really competitive and they had a vision that technology would solve a lot of the world's problems and that they (a bit arrogantly) were in the best position to offer that technology. So they signed contracts with OEMs and focussed a lot of resources into the initiatives that were important to Gates and Co. This included the Internet. They had no idea that Netscape was going to just go dark for two years and produce a buggy pile of code at the end, so of course they competed really hard in the browser space and used Windows as the vehicle to deliver that browser. They weren't really expecting to even win the browser war... they just wanted to get on the map. It also made sense to include a browser because in 1998 it was difficult to get one if you didn't have one on your system already. And the HTML help system depended on it.

These are the evil tactics that rendered them guilty of violating the Sherman antitrust act. Aside from one case of suing Belkin for blatantly taking some Microsoft hardware IP without a license, I have not heard of any other evilly litigious acts actually committed by Microsoft. Let me tell you: by the time Microsoft starts suing Linux and Open Source for IP violations, Linux will have already won.

Ignore the FUD Ballmer may fling and ignore all the whiny GPL-zealots who want other people to do things on precisely their terms (and contribute little themselves). Pay attention to people like Miguel de Icaza who does not whine about licenses but instead produces good Open-Source code for the community. These are the leaders who will take you somewhere.

Reply Score: 5

buff Member since:
2005-11-12

I have not heard of any other evilly litigious acts actually committed by Microsoft.

You need to do a little research. Just taking a quick inventory among my software developer friends is an eye opener: 1) OEM deals use strong arm tactics threatening companies that didn't comply with MS's wishes -- comply or face being cut off. 2) Small business's intellectual proprietary software was reproduced almost exactly causing a friend's company to go out of business almost overnight. Fighting MS's legal dept. backed by billions of dollars is a daunting prospect. 3) Forced upgrade policies causing older file formats to become obsolete forcing users to purchase new MS tech (Office). 4) Anti-trust violations that were brushed off with big money and a team of lawyers. 5) Failing to comply with EU standards about bundling multimedia and browser software. 6) Taking other companies tech, like Java and JavaScript (remember JScript?), and modifying it so it becomes MS proprietary format breaking compatibility with other vendors. etc, etc, etc... In psychology you can predict behavior by examining patterns in the past. There is nothing to indicate that as more MS tech. gets incorporated into Linux that MS will attempt to play fair.

Edited 2007-05-03 13:17

Reply Score: 1

PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

Look at your list. Which one of those dirty deeds involves suing people?

Reply Score: 4

Adobe you listening?
by viator on Wed 2nd May 2007 22:39 UTC
viator
Member since:
2005-10-11

Adobe better open source flash asap.
With the help of the mono project ms will have ANOTHER monpoly bfore you know it!

Reply Score: 4

RE: Adobe you listening?
by tomcat on Wed 2nd May 2007 22:57 UTC in reply to "Adobe you listening?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Seriously, who wants a monopoly on crappy web applets?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Adobe you listening?
by twenex on Thu 3rd May 2007 02:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Adobe you listening?"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Seriously, who wants a monopoly on crappy web applets?

Probably the same people who want a monopoly on crappy operating systems.

>hands tomcat a WA phone directory<

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Adobe you listening?
by tomcat on Thu 3rd May 2007 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Adobe you listening?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Probably the same people who want a monopoly on crappy operating systems.

Oh, you mean Red Hat. Because Microsoft already has a monopoly on operating systems. They don't "want" anything.

Reply Score: 1

Misread
by snowflake on Thu 3rd May 2007 00:54 UTC
snowflake
Member since:
2005-07-20

Apologies to fretinator for misreading your comment.

>Actually, I was trying to poke fun at dogen's comment.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mean spirited
by milles21 on Thu 3rd May 2007 04:15 UTC
milles21
Member since:
2006-11-08

I appreciate your comment snowflake I went ahead and voted you you back up. It amazes me how people use the rating system to vote down comments the just don't agree with. In any case I have really stopped visiting Osnews.

As much as I have respect for Eugenia I have found that the pro-Linux people are no longer commenting on merit or up rational debate they have really become just Anti-microsoft. I say Pro-Linux people as I use to be all PRO-Linux but the GPL v3 issues, Novell-bashing just makes me feel like I am in high school all over again.

I still contribute code to open source I just no longer get involved with the community movement. I am a fan of technology I am not looking for another religion. I go to church for that, and personally I think the comments about Miguel are way off base. I mean this is a person and his views and choices on TECHNOLOGY does not warrant the comments on his personal lifestyle or integrity. No one is one thing any one who is decides on an issue based on a group without looking to see the individual benefits is a fool.

If siverlight was the standard there would be all kinds of calling for integration. Just as Windows 2007 will use OpenXML so the community needed to work on integrating OpenXML in OpenOffice. In any case just my 2cents.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Mean spirited
by PlatformAgnostic on Thu 3rd May 2007 05:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Mean spirited"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

Thanks for a good comment. But I'm not sure the people you're talking about are pro-linux at all. They're just religiously anti-MS. It's almost like a fascist movement on the Web with leaders calling for all kinds of attacks against some small, but dominant group. I agree that we should always watch a corporation's actions with skepticism, but the sheer delusions of some people seem to control their lives. Microsoft's goal will always be to get people to use their platforms and technologies instead of their competitors' alternatives. It's not a crime.

Your position on de facto standards is absolutely right, though: to defeat the leader in the field, you have to do what they do even better. In technology, old code and practices are good because they are tested. Switching automatically gets -100 points, so your new solution must have more than 100 points in its favor. If you can reduce the hole by making your software compatible with the old, then you stand a greater chance of winning.

Reply Score: 3

Why play catch up?
by apoclypse on Thu 3rd May 2007 05:06 UTC
apoclypse
Member since:
2007-02-17

I personally don't understand why Miguel is so eager to implement Mono. the OSS community isn't really embracing it at this point and people are skeptical of the motives. Silverlight looks great, but I don't really see what the point is in implementing it in an architecture that the OSS community doesn't have a say in. Basically, we'll be playing catch up with MS as we do now with Mono. MS will have no incentive to make sure that silverlight works properly on linux. At least Adobe has an incentive, they are the creators of the linux plugin, they have liability if something doesn't work. What if MS extends the architecture at some point, adding some functionality that doesn't get documented what will happen with the mono implementation then? That's not to say I wasn't impressed with the short demo.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Why play catch up?
by PlatformAgnostic on Thu 3rd May 2007 05:25 UTC in reply to "Why play catch up?"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

People don't use new stuff on the day it comes out in production applications. Additionally, Microsoft has to document everything. Otherwise, it's useless to have it in the platform. Who's going to develop on something that's not documented? How will developers know what to do?

Reply Score: 2

"We're in, Says Mono Founder"
by l3v1 on Thu 3rd May 2007 06:58 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

We're in, Says Mono Founder

Forgive my intolerable anger, but why on earth are some people in so freaking rush to invade us with Microsoft technology on Linux ? And Silverlight ? Why doesn't the guy work towards having better Flash instead ? Oh, forget it, we need more MS, give us more MS. And please, don't concentrate your efforts on Linux and FOSS technologies, but on bringing MS in our collective beds.

Reply Score: 4

Cutting to the Chase
by chaosvoyager on Thu 3rd May 2007 17:07 UTC
chaosvoyager
Member since:
2005-07-06

Adobe is no better than Microsoft here. They both intend to control their respective UI technologies very tightly.

The problem is that there is no open source equivalent to either Flash or Silverlight. But why not? We've had SVG for over a decade. I know I sound like a broken record on this, but it's still not ready for practical use.

To be honest, I'm not even sure you can implement a decent SVG renderer without patent infringement (frex, subpixel rendering) at this point. And it doesn't even matter if such patents are valid. As long as they're valid 'enough' to start a trial, most companies (and it appears quite a few open source pundits as well) will avoid such technology simply out of fear of a lawsuit.

In the meantime, those latter standards are well documented, much more ubiquitous (or will be very quickly, even if Silverlight only gets installed on half the Windows installations out there), and backed by companies who will protect you from patent lawsuits, as long as you pay for their products of course.

So if porting Sliverlight is a dumb idea, what's the alternative, because we really need one?

Reply Score: 1