Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Jul 2009 21:20 UTC
Internet & Networking A day earlier than expected, Microsoft has released version 3 of its Flash alternative Silverlight, including a number of related tools to aid in Silverlight development. It comes with a whole lot of new features.
Order by: Score:
Silverlight, AIR, Flex, Flash
by Kroc on Thu 9th Jul 2009 21:24 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Because according to them, the web should look like this:

<html>
<object ...>
Install Silverlight.
</object>
</html>

Reply Score: 13

RE: Silverlight, AIR, Flex, Flash
by smashIt on Thu 9th Jul 2009 22:21 UTC in reply to "Silverlight, AIR, Flex, Flash"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

Because according to them, the web should look like this:

<html>
<object ...>
Install Silverlight.
</object>
</html>


at least all of what i've seen from silverlight was human-readable
thats a bit of a difference to flash

just open the file in your favourite texteditor:
http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/xaml/FmaShowcase.xaml

Reply Score: 1

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

at least all of what i've seen from silverlight was human-readable
thats a bit of a difference to flash

just open the file in your favourite texteditor:
http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/xaml/FmaShowcase.xaml


In fairness, Flash doesn't inherently mean human-unreadable content. Most SWFs that dynamically load content do so by loading the data from an XML file. And if the XML file is being generated dynamically from a database, there's nothing preventing you from displaying the same content in a more human-readable format.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Silverlight, AIR, Flex, Flash
by Anon on Thu 9th Jul 2009 22:47 UTC in reply to "Silverlight, AIR, Flex, Flash"
Anon Member since:
2006-01-02

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
Content-Type: application/x-silverlight-app
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET

<BINARY GARBAGE GOES HERE>

Reply Score: 8

v Technology is ...
by Isolationist on Thu 9th Jul 2009 21:44 UTC
RE: Technology is ...
by Isolationist on Fri 10th Jul 2009 08:37 UTC in reply to "Technology is ..."
Isolationist Member since:
2006-05-28

getting so boring ... yawn.


I knew I would get modded down for that ;)

Reply Score: 0

Wow
by Moredhas on Thu 9th Jul 2009 23:17 UTC
Moredhas
Member since:
2008-04-10

My Moonlight plugin doesn't even work with Silverlight 2 yet. Can anyone say "Antitrust probe"?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Wow
by anduril on Thu 9th Jul 2009 23:59 UTC in reply to "Wow"
anduril Member since:
2005-11-11

How exactly would that be reason for an anti-trust probe?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wow
by Moredhas on Fri 10th Jul 2009 00:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow"
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

If Silverlight gains traction they can be seen as leveraging their monopoly position (again) to exclude competitors.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Wow
by greatbob6 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 00:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow"
greatbob6 Member since:
2009-07-09

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!

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Wow
by lemur2 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 03:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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!


You LIKE being manipulated and ripped off by big corporate interests?

Strange person.

Tell me, do you believe that you own your own machines?

BTW, the category of "web client machines" is a lot bigger than "desktop machines" and therefore bigger again than "Windows machines". The latter category, "Windows machines", would represent only a part of the world's "web client machines".

Edited 2009-07-10 03:32 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Wow
by greatbob6 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 05:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow"
greatbob6 Member since:
2009-07-09

You LIKE being manipulated and ripped off by big corporate interests?

Strange person.

Tell me, do you believe that you own your own machines?

BTW, the category of "web client machines" is a lot bigger than "desktop machines" and therefore bigger again than "Windows machines". The latter category, "Windows machines", would represent only a part of the world's "web client machines".


How am I being manipulated or ripped off by big corporations? Or at least by MS in this case? (I hate the fact that Comcast has no real competition in my area.)

And yes, I do own my machines. MS may try to claim that they own they copy of Windows on my machine and that I am merely licensing it from them (which is true) but I have the choice to not run Windows if I don't want to. I am knowledgeable and aware of the alternatives, but at this time I choose to run Windows because I find it to be the best product at the time. I have honestly considered switching to PC-BSD because I'm a big FreeBSD fan but I decided against it simply because I like Windows.

Although many people will disagree with this, but in my experience Windows just works. I don't have to mess with configuration files and compile sound card drivers or any junk like that to just run my machine. I run a FreeBSD server with Apache, PostgreSQL, and various other services and its awesome...haven't had a problem with it. It just runs. I'm familiar with Unix-like systems and I enjoy learning more about them and technology in general, but I've made the conscious choice to stay with Windows because I don't want to have to screw with it just to be able to browse the web or listen to music or play a game. For me, for now, it just works.

As for the whole "web client machines" vs "Windows machines" thing, you are correct. Probably the biggest category of "web client machines" would be cellphones...but how many of those support HTML 5? And yes, "Windows machines" is a subset of "desktop machines" but just barely. At least 90% of "desktop machines" are "Windows machines", and most of the rest are "OSX machines"...which can run Silverlight. And yes, I do know that PowerPC macs can't run Silverlight but I'm not terribly surprised...even Apple isn't supporting PowerPC any more.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Wow
by lemur2 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 05:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

And yes, I do own my machines.


No you don't. Didn't you just admit that Microsoft has control over what is installed on your machine? If Microsoft control it, how can you claim ownership of it with a straight face?

MS may try to claim that they own they copy of Windows on my machine and that I am merely licensing it from them (which is true) but I have the choice to not run Windows if I don't want to.


Microsoft's control of market channels for desktop computers is such that you don't have a choice not to buy Windows (unless you do as I do and assemble together your own machines from component parts).

If you don't have any effective choice, you are not a true owner of the property.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Wow
by greatbob6 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 05:25 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wow"
greatbob6 Member since:
2009-07-09

"And yes, I do own my machines.


No you don't. Didn't you just admit that Microsoft has control over what is installed on your machine? If Microsoft control it, how can you claim ownership of it with a straight face?

MS may try to claim that they own they copy of Windows on my machine and that I am merely licensing it from them (which is true) but I have the choice to not run Windows if I don't want to.


Microsoft's control of market channels for desktop computers is such that you don't have a choice not to buy Windows (unless you do as I do and assemble together your own machines from component parts).

If you don't have any effective choice, you are not a true owner of the property.
"

I do own my machine, and I do have control over what is installed on it. By putting Windows on my machine I do give them some ability to have an influence over it but I ultimately have the choice to remove it. Microsoft has no direct control over my machine, they have no authority to come to my house and make me put Windows back on if I choose to remove it. In fact, if I disable Automatic Updates (which I do) they don't (or at least shouldn't) have the ability to install anything without my permission. Now, I do understand that they may have the ability to install something covertly but I choose to take that risk because I know there are alternatives if they do something I truly dislike.

And I totally disagree with you that Microsoft controls the market so much that you can't get a machine without Windows. I could go to Dell right now and buy a machine without Windows. Or I could go the route you do and build my own machines, which I have done the last couple of machines I've bought. The thing is that Windows is something that people know so they don't ask for anything different, and in my opinion the only alternative that is usable by the general public is OSX and Apple's machines are too much money. I honestly think that Apple could gain huge market share if they had cheaper machines (I might buy one).

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Wow
by puenktchen on Fri 10th Jul 2009 09:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow"
puenktchen Member since:
2007-07-27

And yes, I do know that PowerPC macs can't run Silverlight but I'm not terribly surprised...even Apple isn't supporting PowerPC any more.


but ms does offer silverlight for osx on ppc. wimre they skipped version 2, but they seem to offer a download for this new version (or at least the article says so - i'll test it later).

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Wow
by puenktchen on Fri 10th Jul 2009 10:37 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wow"
puenktchen Member since:
2007-07-27

but ms does offer silverlight for osx on ppc. wimre they skipped version 2, but they seem to offer a download for this new version (or at least the article says so - i'll test it later).


ups, sorry - no, they don't. only silverlight v1 for all ppc-macs.
well, i think i will get along without v3 just fine.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Wow
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 10th Jul 2009 03:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Wow
by kaiwai on Fri 10th Jul 2009 05:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I pretty much agree with the rest of what you're saying except this piece:

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?


What proprietary music format? the only thing proprietary is the DRM technology they use but the format of their iTunes Plus DRM free music uses AAC (which does NOT stand for Apple Advanced CODEC as some windows advocates here like to lie about):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Wow
by greatbob6 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 05:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow"
greatbob6 Member since:
2009-07-09

What proprietary music format? the only thing proprietary is the DRM technology they use but the format of their iTunes Plus DRM free music uses AAC (which does NOT stand for Apple Advanced CODEC as some windows advocates here like to lie about):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding


Well, isn't the fact that its protected by proprietary DRM so no other players can play it make it essentially a proprietary format? ;)

I personally am just plain anti-DRM to begin with...music, movies, games. DRM sucks. People will find a way around it anyway so then the only thing DRM does is make itself a pain in the butt for people who aren't going to doing anything with it anyway.

I used to work for a computer game development company and the publisher forced us to put some stupid CD protection schemes in the game. Of course it was cracked before the game was even released so there was no real usefulness in it...but they made us put it in anyway.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Wow
by kaiwai on Fri 10th Jul 2009 05:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, isn't the fact that its protected by proprietary DRM so no other players can play it make it essentially a proprietary format? ;)


How about the fact that you're a liar makes anything you say invalid.

You can purchase DRM free AAC tracks from iTunes, there is nothing stopping you from doing it. AAC is not a proprietary format - the original author claimed that AAC was - he was NOT talking about DRM but the format of the music track in general. There is nothing stopping ANY of the other vendors from selling AAC tracks either - but most choose not too because MP3 is more common due to the lower licensing requirements for it (or so I am told).

If you want to see rip off - look at the chumps who pay subscription fee's for their music collection. If one is going to sign up for that - you might as well empty your whole bank account and forward it to the company or better still, set it alight given how you're signed up to throwing your money into a black hole.

I personally am just plain anti-DRM to begin with...music, movies, games. DRM sucks. People will find a way around it anyway so then the only thing DRM does is make itself a pain in the butt for people who aren't going to doing anything with it anyway.

I used to work for a computer game development company and the publisher forced us to put some stupid CD protection schemes in the game. Of course it was cracked before the game was even released so there was no real usefulness in it...but they made us put it in anyway.


Then don't purchase it! hell, its a difficult thing to find decent quality music these days so the loss of a couple of CD's is hardly something I'm particular unhappy about. Right now the music I listen to is on cd and DRM free or its downloads of record -> MP3 transfers of out of print artists.

Edited 2009-07-10 05:54 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Wow
by Slambert666 on Sat 11th Jul 2009 16:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wow"
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

How about the fact that you're a liar makes anything you say invalid.


So... He is a Liar...

You can purchase DRM free AAC tracks from iTunes, there is nothing stopping you from doing it.


Because you can buy some different product from apple that behaves differently?

WTF????? How is this even an argument?

Apple has proprietary DRM and a proprietary interface to the iPod (That's a fact) so he is not a liar.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Wow
by vivainio on Fri 10th Jul 2009 05:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

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.


Just have to invoke Godwin right now.

There were many antisemitic/ultranationalist groups in Germany back in ~ 1900. You probably just hate all the Hitler bashing since any of those smaller groups would have done the same holocaust thing, given equivalent power.

And yeah, Apple sucks too; I think the industry is gradually starting to wake up to that fact.

Regarding Silverlight - just ignore it and it will go away.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Wow
by kaiwai on Fri 10th Jul 2009 06:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Just have to invoke Godwin right now.

There were many antisemitic/ultranationalist groups in Germany back in ~ 1900. You probably just hate all the Hitler bashing since any of those smaller groups would have done the same holocaust thing, given equivalent power.

And yeah, Apple sucks too; I think the industry is gradually starting to wake up to that fact.

Regarding Silverlight - just ignore it and it will go away.


Ignore Silverlight and allow Flash to keep its grip on power, talk about a crappy future. I'd sooner see Silverlight.

Yeah, and Apple sucks of course - run along little one to your tree house so you can play spin the bottle with your friends; maybe Suzzy Smith might kiss you this time! oh goodie!

Edited 2009-07-10 06:07 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Wow
by vivainio on Fri 10th Jul 2009 06:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Ignore Silverlight and allow Flash to keep its grip on power, talk about a crappy future. I'd sooner see Silverlight.


Flash "grip" will be over as soon as <video> tag goes mainstream. The only flash thing people care about is youtube.

The future of web programming is Javascript (like it or not). Users want stuff that "just works", no matter how much web developers would want to develop differently. Web site developed with flash/silverlight is just much less valuable to user than html/javascript ones, even if the development with html/javascript may cost a bit more in developer time.

To repeat, silverlight can be safely ignored. It's just not very compelling a technology anymore; html/js is just not as stagnant as we thought it would be (see the "canvas" widget, for example, used in https://bespin.mozilla.com/ ).

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Wow
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri 10th Jul 2009 14:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wow"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

uh-huh.... the video tag will save us all... oh... no it won't... silverlight is a web development platform and its programming model is about 10^1024 times better than Javascript+html.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Wow
by anduril on Fri 10th Jul 2009 02:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow"
anduril Member since:
2005-11-11

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

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Wow
by lemur2 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 02:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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


You don't need proprietary junk like Silverlight or Flash that is constrained to run only on platforms which the proprietary owners decide to port it to.

Everyone is immeasurably better off if no one vendor gets to decide which devices can and which cannot support rich multimedia content. This is so fundamental it can be considered as a guiding principle for the entire internet.

To that end, W3C standards HTML5 + SMIL (+ open codecs) + SVG + ECMAScript + animated PNG are far, far preferable to either Silverlight OR Flash.

http://blog.dailymotion.com/2009/05/27/watch-videowithout-flash/

http://www.dailymotion.com/openvideodemo

The W3C open standards are just as capable performance-wise too.

http://pinstack.blogspot.com/2009/06/hey-youtube-we-want-open-video...
http://people.xiph.org/~maikmerten/youtube/

"It is possible to use Theora to serve streaming content on the web without inflating bitrate or dramatically decreasing quality compared to the H.264 encoding setup used by the web's most popular online streaming service."


Edited 2009-07-10 02:31 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Wow
by anduril on Fri 10th Jul 2009 02:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow"
anduril Member since:
2005-11-11

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?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Wow
by lemur2 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 02:53 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wow"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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?


It is exactly as "finished" as proprietary interests have allowed it to be.

It isn't through lack of trying, or any fault with HTML5, that proprietary interests have held it up from being approved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Html5
"HTML 5 was initially said to become a game-changer in Web application development, making obsolete such plug-in-based rich Internet application (RIA) technologies as Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight, and Sun JavaFX. Such applications would be made obsolete by specifying a standard video codec for all browsers to use. However, in July 2009, the editor of the burgeoning draft specification announced the dropping of Ogg Theora, the open standard, due to opposition from Apple, as well as the rival H.264 codec due to opposition from other browser vendors. This means HTML 5 does not currently specify a common video codec for Web development."


In other words, there is nothing wrong with HTML5 other than that some big proprieatry vendors feel they won't be able to rip people off enough. In other words, the only thing missing from HTML5 being complete is the specification of the codec.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg_controversy

Not to worry though, HTML5 + Ogg Theora and Vorbis codecs will work today in Firefox, and it will soon also work in:

"Opera Software and Mozilla have been advocates for including the Ogg formats into the HTML standard and have included native decoding for these formats in their browsers. Google is planning on including Vorbis and Theora support in Chrome."


... Opera and Chrome as well as Firefox.

Almost 50% of the desktop web browser market will support it, even though it isn't an official endorsed standard.

PS: I have heard that there is an open source project under way right now to create an ActiveX plugin for IE that would add support for HTML5 and Ogg format codecs.

Opera and Firefox represent a huge slice of the non-desktop-platform web browser market as well.

Edited 2009-07-10 03:06 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Wow
by anduril on Fri 10th Jul 2009 02:57 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wow"
anduril Member since:
2005-11-11

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

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Wow
by greatbob6 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 04:50 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wow"
greatbob6 Member since:
2009-07-09

It is exactly as "finished" as proprietary interests have allowed it to be.


This is my point exactly...whenever you are trying to get people to agree (especially companies) and you don't have one entity with the power to make an absolute decision then things start to stagnate. Everyone just has their own best interests at heart.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Wow
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri 10th Jul 2009 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

Javascripts SUCKS!!!!! sorry, but is is a horrid tool that is being shoehorned into places it does not belong.

And yeah... silverlight is soooooo proprietary that they allow the open source crowd to reimpliment it in all ways.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Wow
by miguel on Sat 11th Jul 2009 16:08 UTC in reply to "Wow"
miguel Member since:
2005-07-27

You want to install our 2.0 version:

http://www.go-mono.com/moonlight-preview

Reply Score: 1

Video
by WorknMan on Fri 10th Jul 2009 00:30 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Whether you want to participate in bringing an alternative to Flash closer to ubiquity is a whole different matter. When it comes to video content, please promote the HTML5 video tag, possibly using a fallback technique like Video For Everybody which does not require JavaScript.


And what are you going to use for the codec? According to folks like Google, the Ogg video codec isn't quite ready for prime time (eg: Youtube), and H.264 apparently has license restrictions. So, what else is htere? I haven't seen Silverlight video in action, but IMHO Flash is ok. At least it's a helluva lot better than the days of yore when you needed 9 million different players installed to view video on the web.

Edited 2009-07-10 00:31 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Video
by lemur2 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 01:44 UTC in reply to "Video"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Whether you want to participate in bringing an alternative to Flash closer to ubiquity is a whole different matter. When it comes to video content, please promote the HTML5 video tag, possibly using a fallback technique like Video For Everybody which does not require JavaScript.
And what are you going to use for the codec? According to folks like Google, the Ogg video codec isn't quite ready for prime time (eg: Youtube), and H.264 apparently has license restrictions. So, what else is htere? "

The person from Google who made the claim that "Theora would take up all bandwidth" was well and truly rebutted.

Xiph.org was able to demonstrate that current Theora software can in fact out-perform much of what is on YouTube right now.
http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html

On Jun 13th 2009 Chris DiBona of Google made a remarkable claim on the WhatWG mailing list:

"If [youtube] were to switch to theora and maintain even a semblance of the current youtube quality it would take up most available bandwidth across the Internet."
Unfortunately, open video formats have been subjected to FUD so frequently that people are willing to believe bold claims like these without demanding substantiation.

In this comparison I will demonstrate that this claim was unfair and unreasonable. Using a simple test case I show that Theora is competitive and even superior to some of the files that Google is distributing today on YouTube.


Rather than the question being "what else is there?", the real question is actually "why are people lying about the performance of open codecs?".

Here is the actual state of play:
"Theora isn't the most efficient video codec available right now. But it is by no means bad, and it is substantially better than many other widely used options. By conventional criteria Theora is competitive. It also has the substantial advantage of being unencumbered, reasonable in computational complexity, and entirely open source. People are often confused by the correct observation that Theora doesn't provide the state of the art in bitrate vs quality, and take that to mean that Theora does poorly when in reality it does quite well. Also, the Theora encoder has improved a lot lately so some older problems no longer apply."


The statement "When it comes to video content, please promote the HTML5 video tag, possibly using a fallback technique like Video For Everybody which does not require JavaScript" should actually be strongly endorsed by everyone who is on the side of internet users.

Edited 2009-07-10 01:56 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Video
by 10wattmindtrip on Fri 10th Jul 2009 13:38 UTC in reply to "Video"
10wattmindtrip Member since:
2007-04-01

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Video
by lemur2 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 13:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Video"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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.


Seriously, Ogg-Theora has already caught up. Please don't help to spread the false FUD that it is behind, or that it is somehow not already "ready for prime-time".

To satisfy yourself that it is indeed ready for prime time, if you are able, then have a look at these side-by-side comparison videos:

http://people.xiph.org/~maikmerten/youtube/

http://people.xiph.org/~greg/video/ytcompare/comparison.html

If anything, the Ogg Theora videos are slightly better for the same file sizes and bit rates.

If you can't see the Ogg stuff, it is high time you downloaded Firefox 3.5 or Opera 10.

Reply Score: 2

Minor Rant
by greatbob6 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 00:44 UTC
greatbob6
Member since:
2009-07-09

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.

I've done some Silverlight (mostly HTML/CSS/JavaScript though) and one thing that is wonderful about it is that it renders the same in every browser. All I really have to worry about is whether the Silverlight plugin shows up or not. It works the same on all browsers that Silverlight works with.

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

Reply Score: 9

RE: Minor Rant
by lemur2 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 01:52 UTC in reply to "Minor Rant"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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.


Theora has by far the best chance here.

"Fallback" mechanisms allow for programs (other than the browser) to play videos that the browser itself cannot.

Theora would easily be the format most able to be supported on any and all platforms.

Even when it comes to recalcitrant desktop platforms like Windows and Mac, the user can just install a player such as VLC and the video can be made to play.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Minor Rant
by greatbob6 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 04:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Minor Rant"
greatbob6 Member since:
2009-07-09

Theora has by far the best chance here.

"Fallback" mechanisms allow for programs (other than the browser) to play videos that the browser itself cannot.

Theora would easily be the format most able to be supported on any and all platforms.

Even when it comes to recalcitrant desktop platforms like Windows and Mac, the user can just install a player such as VLC and the video can be made to play.


I do wish that Google would truly endorse Theora because I do wish there were better standards. In a perfect world there would be no need for Silverlight/Flash and open standards compliant technology would be ubiquitous. I'm just so tired of the bashing of proprietary technologies where those technologies exist because of a lack of standardization or because the standards are stagnating.

In my opinion the exact same thing happened with OpenGL and DirectX, although I don't see anyone complaining about DirectX. OpenGL was/is a great technology but since it was design by committee it wasn't growing at the pace it needed to so Microsoft came up with its own technology that it could grow at whatever pace it wanted.

When ever you have committees trying to reach agreements and compromises with various companies things are always going to move at a snails pace, if they ever get done. Exactly like what is happening with the HTML 5 video codecs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Minor Rant
by lemur2 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 04:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Minor Rant"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

In my opinion the exact same thing happened with OpenGL and DirectX, although I don't see anyone complaining about DirectX. OpenGL was/is a great technology but since it was design by committee it wasn't growing at the pace it needed to so Microsoft came up with its own technology that it could grow at whatever pace it wanted.

When ever you have committees trying to reach agreements and compromises with various companies things are always going to move at a snails pace, if they ever get done. Exactly like what is happening with the HTML 5 video codecs.


I'm not sure I agree with this. There is already millions upon millions of copies of Firefox out there, compliant with standards, and able to play HTML5 video on any platform without resorting to plugins.

User demand to support that audience may well be enough to start to tip the balance in favour of the users, for once.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Minor Rant
by greatbob6 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 04:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Minor Rant"
greatbob6 Member since:
2009-07-09

Theora has by far the best chance here.

"Fallback" mechanisms allow for programs (other than the browser) to play videos that the browser itself cannot.

Theora would easily be the format most able to be supported on any and all platforms.

Even when it comes to recalcitrant desktop platforms like Windows and Mac, the user can just install a player such as VLC and the video can be made to play.


Also, part of my frustration is that the sites my company develops are primarily for marketing campaigns and that sort of thing, so my perspective is a little different than others perhaps. For our clients its about having everything nice looking so being able to have fallbacks doesn't necessarily work. We don't have the freedom to just say "If the user can't play the video it will just popup in their media player or they can download VLC." It just has to work, and look nice doing it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Minor Rant
by lemur2 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 04:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Minor Rant"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Theora has by far the best chance here. "Fallback" mechanisms allow for programs (other than the browser) to play videos that the browser itself cannot. Theora would easily be the format most able to be supported on any and all platforms. Even when it comes to recalcitrant desktop platforms like Windows and Mac, the user can just install a player such as VLC and the video can be made to play.
Also, part of my frustration is that the sites my company develops are primarily for marketing campaigns and that sort of thing, so my perspective is a little different than others perhaps. For our clients its about having everything nice looking so being able to have fallbacks doesn't necessarily work. We don't have the freedom to just say "If the user can't play the video it will just popup in their media player or they can download VLC." It just has to work, and look nice doing it. "

Fair enough ... although if you do implement a fallback correctly, then an external player such as VLC or Mplayer or even WMP (with appropriate extra codecs) can be made to play the video within the browser window AS IF it were browser itself playing it.

BTW ... most of the video on toaday's web is Flash ... for which people have to download an extra program. Silverlight is also an extra download. Why no objection for them, but there is an apparent objection for users having to download VLC? (or for that matter an HTML5/Theora/Vorbis ActiveX-based plugin).

Do I detect a double standard here?

I think from the face of it that you might be just making these spurious objections up ...

Edited 2009-07-10 04:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Minor Rant
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri 10th Jul 2009 14:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Minor Rant"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Minor Rant
by Surtur on Fri 10th Jul 2009 14:29 UTC in reply to "Minor Rant"
Surtur Member since:
2009-04-15

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).

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Anusko
by Anusko on Fri 10th Jul 2009 00:54 UTC
Anusko
Member since:
2009-06-30

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...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Anusko
by greatbob6 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 01:01 UTC in reply to "Comment by Anusko"
greatbob6 Member since:
2009-07-09

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...


I think you missed my point entirely, the point is that with something like Silverlight/Flash there is a stable environment. No questions about if they support feature X or Y, or whether a certain set of components will render 5 pixels to the left in one browser or 5 to the right in another...I know the same thing works the same in every browser. Not just video. Not just rendering. Everything.

And here's the thing, if your browser doesn't support h264 then you're going to have some sort of plugin to get it to work anyway and thus the usefulness of the video tag becomes nothing because you have to use a browser plugin to get it anyway.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Anusko
by lemur2 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 04:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Anusko"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"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...
I think you missed my point entirely, the point is that with something like Silverlight/Flash there is a stable environment. No questions about if they support feature X or Y, or whether a certain set of components will render 5 pixels to the left in one browser or 5 to the right in another...I know the same thing works the same in every browser. Not just video. Not just rendering. "

Here is the thing ... there are tests for compliance with the standards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3

Pass those tests, and your browser will render the same as other browsers that pass the tests.

Fortunately, most of the major browsers (bar one) pass most of these tests.

Everything. And here's the thing, if your browser doesn't support h264 then you're going to have some sort of plugin to get it to work anyway and thus the usefulness of the video tag becomes nothing because you have to use a browser plugin to get it anyway.


Firefox, Opera and Chrome will all support HTML5, Theora + Vorbis, and over 90% of the standards tested by acid3.

Even IE might be able to be brought into line, screaming and kicking, via the use of an ActiveX plugin. AFAIK there is already one such that supports the canvas tag, and there is work underway to support html5 as well.

Edited 2009-07-10 04:03 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 10th Jul 2009 05:21 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by greatbob6 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 05:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
greatbob6 Member since:
2009-07-09

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.


I agree completely...although at least MS provides their free tools on Windows so people can develop Silverlight for free on that platform at least. And their Visual Studio based products are really excellent. The Expression tools...need a bit more love. ;)

I really honestly wish that Moonlight was moving along quicker. I understand the problems and why it takes so long but having the power of Silverlight in an open source package and tools that are available to everyone would be awesome...whether provided by Moonlight or a completely different technology base.

All I know is that, strictly speaking from the development side of things, web development is a pain in the butt and doing things in Silverlight can be a breath of fresh air sometimes simply because of the stability of the platform its built on.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 10th Jul 2009 06:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree completely...although at least MS provides their free tools on Windows so people can develop Silverlight for free on that platform at least. And their Visual Studio based products are really excellent. The Expression tools...need a bit more love. ;)

I really honestly wish that Moonlight was moving along quicker. I understand the problems and why it takes so long but having the power of Silverlight in an open source package and tools that are available to everyone would be awesome...whether provided by Moonlight or a completely different technology base.

All I know is that, strictly speaking from the development side of things, web development is a pain in the butt and doing things in Silverlight can be a breath of fresh air sometimes simply because of the stability of the platform its built on.


Even if they do move along, the development tools on Linux either suck or are non-existent; use Monos own attempt to create a development IDE and it is a joke; truly it is. Novell still don't get it - developers within large corporations want drag, drop, double click on widget and assign some code to it. That is how it should work - just like visual studio.

Instead we have Novell stuck in this retro 1980's where there is no integration between the presentation and programming side of the equation; they fail to grasp that the tools they provide a hugely inefficient and will provide no stepping stone for transitioning customers until their tools equal or better that of Visual Studio.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by lemur2 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 05:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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.


The difference between HTML5 + open standards and things like Flash and Silverlight is that the latter two are closed and controlled by one company, whereas HTML5 + open standards can be developed by anyone.

We have unlimited and undeniable proof that anything popular that can be developed by anyone will be developed (and video on the web is certainly popular). In the case of things that can be developed over the internet, they will be developed by many thousands, if not millions, of people.

In that scenario, there will be no "sorry state".

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 10th Jul 2009 06:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The difference between HTML5 + open standards and things like Flash and Silverlight is that the latter two are closed and controlled by one company, whereas HTML5 + open standards can be developed by anyone.

We have unlimited and undeniable proof that anything popular that can be developed by anyone will be developed (and video on the web is certainly popular). In the case of things that can be developed over the internet, they will be developed by many thousands, if not millions, of people.

In that scenario, there will be no "sorry state".


When has the proprietary state of a given technology ever stopped the brain washed developers of the world from embracing it; from ActiveX to the pointless extensions to Javascript and HTML that both Microsoft and Netscape did - is there any wonder why proprietary technologies seem to get thrust to the forefront instead of embracing an open standards alternative that does everything one needs in regards to RIA.

One has to be realistic, as long as their are brain dead developers out there, there will be some form of Flash or Silverlight sitting around attempting to displace open standard technologies - and they'll gain traction because the C*O's are swayed by any marketing then demand that their IT staff fall in line, their IT staff fall into line because many of them never look at the larger picture - they only thing occupying their mind is quick and dirty rather than the long term implications of a given decision on future directions in regards to IT infrastructure in a company.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by lemur2 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 06:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"The difference between HTML5 + open standards and things like Flash and Silverlight is that the latter two are closed and controlled by one company, whereas HTML5 + open standards can be developed by anyone. We have unlimited and undeniable proof that anything popular that can be developed by anyone will be developed (and video on the web is certainly popular). In the case of things that can be developed over the internet, they will be developed by many thousands, if not millions, of people. In that scenario, there will be no "sorry state".
When has the proprietary state of a given technology ever stopped the brain washed developers of the world from embracing it; from ActiveX to the pointless extensions to Javascript and HTML that both Microsoft and Netscape did - is there any wonder why proprietary technologies seem to get thrust to the forefront instead of embracing an open standards alternative that does everything one needs in regards to RIA. One has to be realistic, as long as their are brain dead developers out there, there will be some form of Flash or Silverlight sitting around attempting to displace open standard technologies - and they'll gain traction because the C*O's are swayed by any marketing then demand that their IT staff fall in line, their IT staff fall into line because many of them never look at the larger picture - they only thing occupying their mind is quick and dirty rather than the long term implications of a given decision on future directions in regards to IT infrastructure in a company. "

This is all true enough. None of it need impede the progress of HTML5 however.

The only thing that will stop things like Silverlight and Flash is a lack of interest in them from mass-market consumers.

Fortunately, in the case of Silverlight, we have that already.

Now we just need to wean YouTube off Flash, and we may be on our merry way to an equitable web.

Edited 2009-07-10 06:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by TBPrince on Fri 10th Jul 2009 08:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by vivainio on Fri 10th Jul 2009 09:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

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.


Agreed. The solution is to fix the standards process, which admittedly sucks.

You have to go way far than VIDEO tag to wane Flash/Silverlight.


Let's see silverlight gain popularity in the first place. Flash is, in practice, a video tag in drag (oh yeah, it also supports making stupid games, ads, and intros - but those are not particularly interesting).

And don't forget Java applets (remember those from the 90's?), which is what the Silverlight basically is. That technology failed spectacularly, and Silverlight is going down the same path (albeit with much deeper pockets to keep it alive).

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai
by TBPrince on Fri 10th Jul 2009 10:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

Agreed. The solution is to fix the standards process, which admittedly sucks.


Or resolve to adopt the best proprietary technology which is available at the moment and ask its propietor to standardize it. I don't think they would refuse and evolution process could start over from there, in a open way.

Let's see silverlight gain popularity in the first place. Flash is, in practice, a video tag in drag (oh yeah, it also supports making stupid games, ads, and intros - but those are not particularly interesting). And don't forget Java applets (remember those from the 90's?), which is what the Silverlight basically is. That technology failed spectacularly, and Silverlight is going down the same path (albeit with much deeper pockets to keep it alive).

Right parallel. However, Java applets where far too advanced for what computers and browsers could do at that moment. They were slow and they lacked a server-side counterpart. When those failed, Sun didn't really invest in them anymore until computers were ready. And at that time it was too late.

It's true that Flahs is mostly used for videos but there's much it could do. And Silverlight has a few advantages over Flash too.

The key point here is how fast Internet connections can be. If connections gets faster and faster (and widespread by using wireless technologies), smarter frameworks like Flash and Silverlight will gain popularity. If connections will improve but not so quickly, HTML+JavaScript will be the preferred way.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by ichi on Fri 10th Jul 2009 11:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

Or resolve to adopt the best proprietary technology which is available at the moment and ask its propietor to standardize it. I don't think they would refuse and evolution process could start over from there, in a open way.


Flash has already become the de-facto standard for video.
Go ask Adobe to standardize and open it and see how far you get.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by lemur2 on Fri 10th Jul 2009 12:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The key point here is how fast Internet connections can be. If connections gets faster and faster (and widespread by using wireless technologies), smarter frameworks like Flash and Silverlight will gain popularity. If connections will improve but not so quickly, HTML+JavaScript will be the preferred way.


I don't think so.

The new HTML5 video tag + open codecs + javascript/CSS3 + some svg filters too + animated PNG = far better technology than Flash or Silverlight.

I mean people generally have no idea just how much open source software is starting now to take the lead. Just for one example, KDE 4.3 is now almost upon us, and here is a preview of the humble image viewer for that desktop:

http://tuxarena.blogspot.com/2009/07/review-gwenview-23-powerful-kd...

This type of stuff, and lots more besides (including way, way more functional web browsers) comes out-of-the box with a current Linux desktop. It blows out-of-the-box Windows 7 away.

Edited 2009-07-10 12:34 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by modmans2ndcoming on Fri 10th Jul 2009 14:39 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

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

Reply Score: 2

Great!
by issvb on Fri 10th Jul 2009 08:14 UTC
issvb
Member since:
2009-01-12

It's great to see a new update to Silverlight! As a professional developer that has to work on Silverlight applications day in day out I can assure you that Silverlight is a breeze to develop for and to work with when you need to build web based business applications with a rich & complex interface. Although it still has its flaws, I wouldn't want to switch back to HTML & javascript based applications!

Reply Score: 0

Comment by TBPrince
by TBPrince on Fri 10th Jul 2009 08:19 UTC
TBPrince
Member since:
2005-07-06

Anyone who tried to develop for Silverlight (or latest Flash, for that matter) knows that those are great technologies and personally I would love to get rid of HTML+Javascript mess.

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.

Reply Score: 1

multi-channel audio?
by smoerk on Fri 10th Jul 2009 09:40 UTC
smoerk
Member since:
2009-07-10

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...

Reply Score: 1

RE: multi-channel audio?
by n4cer on Sat 11th Jul 2009 15:58 UTC in reply to "multi-channel audio?"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

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...


Multi-channel audio is currently downmixed to stereo by Silverlight's WMA codecs, and not supported for AAC. It may be possible to add a multi-channel codec via Silverlight 3's raw audio/video API.

Reply Score: 2

why should we
by viator on Fri 10th Jul 2009 22:26 UTC
viator
Member since:
2005-10-11

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

Reply Score: 1