Username or EmailPassword
Because according to them, the web should look like this:
LOL!!! Too true.
Microsoft would still not be happy with that and would prefer that there was no annoying HTML used at all...
HTTP/1.x 200 OK
<BINARY GARBAGE GOES HERE>
getting so boring ... yawn.
My Moonlight plugin doesn't even work with Silverlight 2 yet. Can anyone say "Antitrust probe"?
How exactly would that be reason for an anti-trust probe?
If Silverlight gains traction they can be seen as leveraging their monopoly position (again) to exclude competitors.
I'm really sick of Microsoft bashing...all companies do the same things that MS was doing, just most of them aren't big enough to warrent any attention. What about Apple tying the iPod to iTunes and proprietary music formats? That seems pretty anti-competitive. Maybe they should be fined and forced to inter-operate with other music stores or devices. Oh wait, that would actually probably be bad for consumers because it would probably make things more difficult for them.
Same with Windows...its too bad for Netscape that MS included Internet Explorer with Windows but if it was worth having then people would have gotten it anyway. Look at Firefox...its done fine even though its not bundled with Windows. They key should be to make a better product, not get the government to punish successful companies...like Opera is doing now. Opera can't compete because their product is sub-par but instead of making a better product they just go to the legal system.
And to say that MS should be probed for anti-trust because they entered a field which another company already has a virtual monopoly on? That's just ridiculous. Besides, they aren't even pushing Silverlight because of those very reasons...if they wanted I bet they could have Silverlight on 75% of Windows machines in a week if they pushed it through Automatic Updates but they haven't because they know if they did everyone would cry about it. I say let them do it and may the best product win!
Yeah, the thing is there is a different standard for Monopolies to prevent them from growing more powerful. There are somethings that are OK for smaller firms to do, that Microsoft should not be allowed to do.
I pretty much agree with the rest of what you're saying except this piece:
Except its not being bundled with the computers, its being used as an optional update. Also, I hardly see anti-trust being entered into the equation when Flash dominates it in terms of web usage.
Let me reinforce the fact that its an OPTIONAL update. On XP most users wont even KNOW to download it since you have to manually go to Windows update, do a custom search and then add it. Vista/Win7 makes it easier since its listed under the built in client but again, you have to click View All Updates and its listed as...OPTIONAL. So, how is that abusing their position? Considering flash comes bundled on most computers now adays by the OEM and is virtually required for all web usage. Silverlight atleast as the possibility of being open and Microsoft is working with (though slowly) the linux base to port it Edited 2009-07-10 02:20 UTC
Except there is no standardized codec now for video watching with HTML5...so its going to be another cluster. How many different implementations and bastardizations will there be? (again, NO standard) Hell, when is HTML5 actually going to be finished? Its been worked on since what...originally 2004 and 2007? So in 2015 it might be finished?
Funny, know who's name wasnt listed in what you quoted? Microsoft. Have we heard anything from them about it? No, don't think we have. No reason Microsoft wont be supporting it with their "increased" push towards support web standards (and as still sub-par as IE8 is compared to its competitors in some areas, it IS an improvement) I dont see any reason why it WONT support ogg
And yeah... silverlight is soooooo proprietary that they allow the open source crowd to reimpliment it in all ways.
You want to install our 2.0 version:
I'm more than willing to use OGG regardless of people saying it's not "ready for prime-time".
I think the more people that use it, the more attention it will get for better quality. I'm sure the folks responsible for the codec are working extremely hard to improve it as I type this.
I'm a professional web developer by trade so I have some idea of what I'm talking about and I personally get very frustrated with the "standards" of the web because they are anything but standard. And yes, I hate IE because their renderers seem to be the worst but even open source renderers render things differently. Having to test page layouts in multiple browsers because they might render things slightly differently sucks.
Now, I've seen a lot of stuff on here lately about HTML 5 and the video tag, like Kroc mentioned in the first comment in this thread...and personally, I don't forsee myself ever using it because nobody can agree on a video codec. If I use Silverlight or Flash then I can guarantee that my video will work, I don't have to encode every video in 3 different formats hoping that the users browser will support one.
Similarly to the above mentioned issues is the problem with scripting. With libraries like jQuery (which I think is awesome) this is usually mitigated but still an issue in that different browsers work in different ways. And again, that's one thing that Silverlight and Flash don't have problems with (or at least Silverlight doesn't, I'm not a Flash guy). There is one standard API that is guaranteed. No quirks in different browsers.
I also really love that Silverlight uses .NET because that means that I can program in my preferred language depending on what I'm doing...I could use a strongly typed compiled language like C# or use a dynamic typeless language like Python, or any of the other options available (which are quite a few now).
You know, now that I think about it...maybe instead of complaining about Silverlight and Flash and saying that HTML with new tags is the answer maybe someone should develop an open source alternative that would have all the benefits that Silverlight and Flash provide but would also be open source and not controlled too tightly by any single organization. Although, if no single entity controlled it then it would probably stagnate and never grow...look at how long it takes things to happen with HTML, OpenGL, and lots of those big open "standards". The official standard changes so slowly that it becomes fractured. Edited 2009-07-10 00:44 UTC
In the case of silverlight, it is a 15 second download and does not require the browser to be restarted (in the case of IE at least) and stays on the page that the content is on.
Take a look at all the different operating systems avaiable and have a look which one of them support at least one web browser (even if only textbrowsers). Afterwards compare this number with operating systems for which a 100% compatible (aka offical) version of Flash/Silverlight exists. I think you get the point (If you don't get it look at the first post in this thread :-)).
Although I agree that it is annoying that some browsers have/had different interpretations of e.g. rendering box models (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_box_model_bug) etc. in my oppinion you (and probably most other companies and webdesigners) don't get what (X)HTML is meant for.
As a (eXtensible) Hypertext Markup Language it is not meant to implement things on a per pixel base and since ages (X)HTML per itself is not meant for anything rendering specific (take CSS for this issue).
Right so Silverlight doesn't work on my Linux machine runing Firefox but you don't care is that it? Because it's harder to get video decoder for h264... right...
Microsoft just don't get it and never will get it. If they want to win over developers they need to create a Silverlight creator on both Windows and Mac - Adobe provide a complete work flow from Photoshop to Flash, and the majority of the work I see take places on Macs. If you want to win over the users you have to win over those who create the content and you win them over by creating development tools for their platform.
Don't get my wrong, I would sooner see HTML5 video support come through on top but at the same time we only have to look at the sorry state of Flash - its pathetic on MacOS X, appalling on *NIX and only slightly tolerable on Windows. I might be willing to cheer-lead for Adobe if they dropped their hatred of open source and opened up FULLY their Flash specifications without requiring an NDA to be signed AND to fully fund an open source implementation of the plug-in and developer tools so that development and deployment aren't rigidly bound to the Windows and Mac OS X duo-poly.
I welcome Silverlight 3 given that the alternative to it (Flash) is so utterly crap - Moonlight is always going to be one step behind Silverlight and when it does catch up to Silverlight 3.0 it will be interesting how Novell will pay for the h264, MPEG4 etc CODEC support that has been added.
Talking is cheap. The reason why Flash became so popular is exactly the reason why you were able to have a VIDEO tag in 2009 while Flash solved this problem like 7 years ago. If you don't understand this "little" difference, you just become a priest of nothing.
Reason why proprietary technologies become popular is linked to their ability to solve a problem in the very same moment it will arise. If you like open standards, tell them to be able to provide solutions for problems when they occurr, not 10 years after they do and then complain.
And btw, if you think you could wean YouTube Flash support because now you have VIDEO tag, maybe you didn't actually check what Flash (or Silverlight) really is. You have to go way far than VIDEO tag to wane Flash/Silverlight.
The codec pack is separate. There is no need for a Moonlight developer to need to use anything other than Theora since it is moonlight that decodes it, thus a moonlight user does not need to care that it is a theora video. Silverlight 3 will automatically support this because its plugin will pick up that codec from the server.
It is interesting how well Silverlight works, even more interesting is the outdated information silverlight bashers have. Edited 2009-07-10 14:43 UTC
So I welcome Silverlight3 a lot. My only concern is I would want more from Microsoft, where "more" means a way to integrate Silverlight with ASP.NET server-side code. Yes, we have WebServices, REST and blablabla but I would have expected to be able to call server-side code from Silverlight managed code in a way which wouldn't require me to develop a separate WebService or page :-\
That's my biggest complaint towards Silverlight, which I like a lot.
does silverlight 3.0 support multi-channel audio playback?
flash only support stereo, html 5 video tag in firefox can play multi-channel, but no audio processing possible.
i wonder if silverlight is the solution...
As users be FORCED to download install and harbour these "applications" just so we can watch a video listen to music or do other things in the cloud. I have heard the arguments of some of these developers but if the end user experience is important to them then why subject the consumer to unnecessary hardship? Dont developers want their sites content to be able to be played ANYWHERE like linux the bsd's android,iphone,symbian phones set-top boxes and other odd devices that may NOT run flash or silverlight? Edited 2009-07-10 22:40 UTC