Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Jun 2008 22:19 UTC
Microsoft During his last public speech for Microsoft as Chairman of the company, at TechEd 2008, Bill Gates made some interesting announcements regarding Internet Explorer 8 and Silverlight 2.0. In the meantime, Windows XP made the headline news at CompuTex.
Order by: Score:
v bad news
by satan666 on Tue 3rd Jun 2008 23:15 UTC
RE: bad news
by helf on Tue 3rd Jun 2008 23:38 UTC in reply to "bad news"
helf Member since:
2005-07-06

yeah... no.

Reply Score: 1

v anoucement!
by flojlg on Tue 3rd Jun 2008 23:45 UTC
Typo
by fernandotcl on Wed 4th Jun 2008 00:21 UTC
fernandotcl
Member since:
2007-08-12

s/has/his/ ?

Reply Score: 1

v Comment by satan666
by satan666 on Wed 4th Jun 2008 01:04 UTC
RE: Comment by satan666
by kaiwai on Wed 4th Jun 2008 01:36 UTC in reply to "Comment by satan666"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Ok, so I've been moded down by some slaves. What's wrong with Vista on ULPC? I thought Vista is a capable operating system. Capable of frying the poor ULPCs some might say, but still capable ;)


The reason why you were marked down is because it is a dead horse that is contiously flogged by people here (btw, I didn't mark you down, I don't mark anyone down on this site). There is nothing wrong with Vista, simply people doing cheerleading high kicks whilst screaming "Vista sucks" does start to wear a little thin after a while.

As for Internet Explorer 8 and Silverlight; given the crap quality of the Flash plugin by Adobe on non-Microsoft platforms (and even on Microsoft platforms), I would have thought that the non-Microsoft OS users would be the first to celebrate. Maybe if Adobe was subject to some competition, they might actually get off their behinds and hire some decent *NIX programmers who know how to programme.

Internet Explorer 8 is going to be interesting, and I'm looking forward to seeing what it'll be like when it is shipped; Firefox 3.0 is a great browser, but I am hesitant right now given the number of unfixed bugs in their nightly builds and in some cases, regressions that are occuring. Opera is doing no better with their refusal to fix log standing compatibility issues between Opera web browser and websites. Simply blaming the websites doesn't help anyone - the end user will simply look at the browser not doing what it should and conclude that the browser is crap. You either step up fix the compatibility issues or step aside and allow someone else to take the spotlight.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by leos on Wed 4th Jun 2008 02:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

As for Internet Explorer 8 and Silverlight; given the crap quality of the Flash plugin by Adobe on non-Microsoft platforms (and even on Microsoft platforms)


Flash works alright for me on Linux. And the open source implementations like gnash are starting to mature.

I would have thought that the non-Microsoft OS users would be the first to celebrate.


Absolutely not. I would much rather have a somewhat inferior official Linux version of the Flash plugin than Moonlight, which isn't even officially acknowledged by Microsoft, and could be obsoleted or shut down by Microsoft at some point in the future.

Maybe if Adobe was subject to some competition, they might actually get off their behinds and hire some decent *NIX programmers who know how to programme.


Competition is good, but I will complain to any website that uses Silverlight. It's a big threat to alternate platforms. It's pretty common sense not to let the dominant OS maker also control a big web media delivery mechanism. Adobe is not great, but at least they have no motivation to lock out competing platforms.

Firefox 3.0 is a great browser, but I am hesitant right now given the number of unfixed bugs in their nightly builds and in some cases, regressions that are occuring.


Really? So far I've had nothing but good experiences with Firefox 3. But I guess there are lots of system variations. Hopefully your issues get addressed before release.

Edited 2008-06-04 02:57 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by satan666
by jpobst on Wed 4th Jun 2008 04:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by satan666"
jpobst Member since:
2006-09-26

I would much rather have a somewhat inferior official Linux version of the Flash plugin than Moonlight, which isn't even officially acknowledged by Microsoft, and could be obsoleted or shut down by Microsoft at some point in the future.


You are of course welcome to not use Moonlight, but to say it isn't officially acknowledged by Microsoft is completely false.

Here is the Microsoft press release on Microsoft's site about it: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/sep07/09-04Silverligh...

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by satan666
by leos on Wed 4th Jun 2008 04:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by satan666"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Here is the Microsoft press release on Microsoft's site about it: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/sep07/09-04Silverligh...


Interesting. That's the first official mention I've seen. Then again, the official silverlight site (http://silverlight.net/) has absolutely no mention of linux anywhere, not even some indication that it could be eventually a supported platform. So for now I wouldn't put too much stock in that press release.

Edited 2008-06-04 04:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by satan666
by BluenoseJake on Wed 4th Jun 2008 12:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by satan666"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Interesting. That's the first official mention I've seen. Then again, the official silverlight site (http://silverlight.net/) has absolutely no mention of linux anywhere, not even some indication that it could be eventually a supported platform. So for now I wouldn't put too much stock in that press release.


That is interesting, considering that press release is almost a year old, coming from Sept 4 2007. I would say that if that's the first time you've heard official mention of Moonlight from MS, then you haven't been listening.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by satan666
by lemur2 on Wed 4th Jun 2008 04:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by satan666"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I would much rather have a somewhat inferior official Linux version of the Flash plugin than Moonlight, which isn't even officially acknowledged by Microsoft, and could be obsoleted or shut down by Microsoft at some point in the future.


You are of course welcome to not use Moonlight, but to say it isn't officially acknowledged by Microsoft is completely false.

Here is the Microsoft press release on Microsoft's site about it: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/sep07/09-04Silverligh...
"

The "officially acknowledged" bit is off the mark ... but the "could be obsoleted or dropped by Microsoft at any time" observation is absolutely spot on.

1. Moonlight = Binary codecs, available only from Microsoft.

2. Microsoft counts Linux as its major threat.

You do the math.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by satan666
by jpobst on Wed 4th Jun 2008 14:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by satan666"
jpobst Member since:
2006-09-26

The "officially acknowledged" bit is off the mark ... but the "could be obsoleted or dropped by Microsoft at any time" observation is absolutely spot on.

1. Moonlight = Binary codecs, available only from Microsoft.


Microsoft could drop the binary codecs used by Moonlight, but Moonlight itself is fully open source code developed and released by the Mono project. Moonlight is also developed to use ffmpeg codecs should you choose not to use the Microsoft binary codecs. (Moonlight does not ship with ffmpeg for obvious legal reasons.)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by satan666
by stabbyjones on Wed 4th Jun 2008 04:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by satan666"
stabbyjones Member since:
2008-04-15

flash does work semi well for me on linux but compared to flash on other operating systems, it is without a doubt completely terrible.

I agree with the comment above also that non ms users should appreciate anything that isn't flash cause i sure do.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by TLZ_ on Wed 4th Jun 2008 06:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
TLZ_ Member since:
2007-02-05

Opera havea "on-the-fly-fixer" built in.
It's a set of what technically is "User JS"(or in Firefox jargon: greasemonkey scripts) for the most popular websites that modify them on the fly to make them complaint.

Personally I find Opera's true, non-compromise approach to web standards very appealing. ;)

Anyhow, it's been some years since I've noticed any problems with sites though. The only site I can think of is my company intranet(and their support for Firefox is bellow decent), and a friend of mine also said that the new beta gmail also have problems.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by MamiyaOtaru on Wed 4th Jun 2008 15:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
MamiyaOtaru Member since:
2005-11-11

"The reason why you were marked down is because it is a dead horse that is contiously flogged by people here"

While baseless Vista bashing does get old, I think the OP was bashing Vista less than he was pointing out that it takes more resources than XP, a reality Microsoft themselves acknowledge by "extending the life of XP Home for 2 years for budget laptops". As such, I don't think it's unreasonable of him to state that had they not done so, the higher requirements of Vista (making for a less performant** experience on ULPCs) might have driven a few more people than otherwise to use Linux on such devices.

Some people may object to the way he phrased it, but I'm not sure how one could quibble with the basic point he was making. If they can, I'd rather about hear it than see a comment moderated down with no reason given. Ah the new moderating system ;)

** neologism ahoy!

Reply Score: 3

hopefully it works well
by stabbyjones on Wed 4th Jun 2008 01:19 UTC
stabbyjones
Member since:
2008-04-15

a more open browser market rather than an IE dictatorship is always going to be good for users and developers.

IE8 passes acid 2 doesn't it?

Reply Score: 3

lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

"To keep up with the growing popularity of the recent wave of small, low-cost, flash-drive-equipped, wireless "netbook" computers, Ubuntu Linux today announced a specially modified version of the Linux operating designed to run on such machines."

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB...

Apparently Microsoft aren't the only OS provider keen to make an offering for this emerging market segment.

It seems that OS vendors are predicting that ULPCs could become a not-insignificant section of the market.

And why not? Acer has just announced a 9-inch screen ULPC (basically an EEEPC competitior) based on the new Intel Atom processor call the Aspire One, with a significant price advantage over the EEEPC.

Acer are hoping to sell 7 million of these units a year.

The Acer unit uses Linpus Linux Lite, the EEEPC uses Xandros, the MSI Wind uses SuSe, Wallmart's offerings use gOS ... so I wonder which vendors Canonical has in mind for Ubuntu Remix? The Dell Mini Inspiron, perhaps?

Reply Score: 3

I'm actually looking forward to IE8
by TLZ_ on Wed 4th Jun 2008 07:00 UTC
TLZ_
Member since:
2007-02-05

I wont' be using it, but maybe I now finnaly can start coding completely standards-complaint pages without resorting to IE-specific hacks to make it work in IE.

Although I am a bi sceptical to MS' claim of being focused on crossplattform on Silverlight I think Flash definetely needs some preasure to become better. (And maybe the Moonlight-thing will make Adobe want to support Gnash, or at least make a better *nix version of Flash?)

Reply Score: 3

Nice move from MS
by jimwmiller on Wed 4th Jun 2008 07:19 UTC
jimwmiller
Member since:
2008-04-20

It's funny. I never thought I would see the day when people on Linux would prefer a closed environment (flash) over an open one (mooonlight). I know... patent issues... but can anyone site a place where MS has gone after anyone for a software patent? Especially .Net? I am curious about how real this threat really is.

Admittedly, I really like Silverlight. I think it is the best thing to come out of MS in a very long time. And I thank Miguel and team for doing the OSS version. While I know a lot of people have issues with it, the reason he states for doing it is to not be left out, and I believe he is right. The Olympics are a good example. I really doubt that anyone at the networks care if content is viewable on Linux. So, we have the mono folks to thanks for being able to see these videos. And to the point above, MS has invited Miguel to present at several MS events (including keynotes!) and is giving the team the entire Silverlight test suite. Additionally, MS opened up a good chunk of the Silverlight code (such as the controls) under the permissive license so those parts are technically FOSS. Adobe is trying to say that they are being more "open", but there are still huge chunks that need licensed (RTMP as an example).

So, let's give MS credit when it does the right thing, and take them to task when they don't.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Nice move from MS
by liamdawe on Wed 4th Jun 2008 09:00 UTC in reply to "Nice move from MS"
liamdawe Member since:
2006-07-04

Agreed it is nice to see Microsft finally make IE 8 have some standards and support moonlight. Even if they get pressured either way, they are doing the right thing now, so anyone bashing them, well are you ever happy with anything, seriously??

Reply Score: 3

RE: Nice move from MS
by lemur2 on Fri 6th Jun 2008 14:24 UTC in reply to "Nice move from MS"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

It's funny. I never thought I would see the day when people on Linux would prefer a closed environment (flash) over an open one (mooonlight). I know... patent issues... but can anyone site a place where MS has gone after anyone for a software patent? Especially .Net? I am curious about how real this threat really is.


You got it the wrong way around.

Moonlight is not open. There are binary codecs required, available only from Microsoft.

Silverlight itself is certainly not open. There are bits of the API and bits of the specification that are secrets, disclosed on a non-disclosure basis to Novell only.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight_(runtime)#Microsoft_support

Flash on the other hand ... the specs have been opened, available for anyone to implement, no restrictions ... fill your boots.

http://www.adobe.com/openscreenproject/
http://www.adobe.com/openscreenproject/developers/

Now that IS open.

Heck ... it is even FSF/GNU:

http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/

Edited 2008-06-06 14:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2