Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 18th Dec 2009 16:58 UTC
Mono Project The Mono project has released Moonlight 2, the open source implementation of Microsoft's Silverlight. Moonlight allows Silverlight content to run on platforms that do not have an official Silverlight client, such as Linux and PowerPC Macs. Microsoft also expanded its patent agreement with Novell to cover all users of Moonlight, no matter the Linux version.
Order by: Score:
...
by Hiev on Fri 18th Dec 2009 17:00 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Thank you Microsoft and thank you Novell.

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by kragil on Fri 18th Dec 2009 17:30 UTC in reply to "..."
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

And I say: "Thanks but no thanks."

Flash and Silverlight AND Moonlight have to die a slow painful death.

Extent HTML5 to do what you need to do, but don't use big browser plugins that only work on a small subset of devices.

They always suck, always, without exception.

Reply Score: 12

RE[2]: ...
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 18th Dec 2009 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Extent HTML5 to do what you need to do


Gladly, but sadly, with the pace standards are developed, we might see the finalised HTML 5 spec around the time the stone gets put on my grave.

But yes, they obviously need to die.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: ...
by Kroc on Fri 18th Dec 2009 18:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

we might see the finalised HTML 5 spec around the time the stone gets put on my grave.


So? HTML5 is already working in browsers now. HTML5 is not a standard where we wait for the final call to be made before we do anything with it. It grows and finalises as the _implementations_ grow and finalise too. The spec learns just as much from what vendors are doing as what the spec asks them to do.

Google are already rolling out HTML5 features in chrome, have been doing so for ages. Firefox just added the file API allowing developers to accept drag-and-drop files, query images for their EXIF metadata and size &c, before the upload even occurs. Heck, using canvas you can manipulate the image without ever uploading it to the server.

Then there’s the people writing games in JS http://www.megidish.net/awjs/ ,
emulators http://benfirshman.com/projects/jsnes/ , there’s 3D with WebGL too, on mobile devices even.

HTML5 is taking off. Developers and browser vendors are playing with the possibilities and the results are astounding.

Your attitude to the standard is outdated.

Edited 2009-12-18 18:26 UTC

Reply Score: 11

RE[4]: ...
by Hiev on Fri 18th Dec 2009 18:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

HTML 5 needs to be a defacto standar, if moonlight and flash are not standars, why would HTML5 be considered differently?, but that's just one thing, how about the tools to build an HTML5 standar professional webpage? do you spect we use notepad? what tools are available that leverage the power og HTML5? now, the broswers, Google keeps adding new features to HTML standars, when will it be finished and stable?.

The job is not for use to waith for them, the job is for them to hurry.

Edited 2009-12-18 18:33 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: ...
by Kroc on Fri 18th Dec 2009 18:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Never forget this:

With nothing but Notepad, you can write the most successful website in the world. You can compete directly with the biggest corporations with the biggest budget, regardless of your status, your class or your income.

I do not want to live in a world where somebody like Microsoft dictates what tools I use, and what OS I run them on, in order to contribute to the Internet.

So _yes_. Use Notepad if you want. Use anything _you_ want. Make your own tool if Notepad is not good enough.

Reply Score: 9

RE[6]: ...
by Hiev on Fri 18th Dec 2009 18:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

I'll spend my entire life to be competitive with notepad mean while others using professional tools will finish first and will get pay first, and becuase I need to eat and make a living of it, and who knows when I finish with notepad there will be another standar already.

I really wonder if you do this for a living and if you do I wonder if you do bussiness web applications and not just the classic shopping car.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: ...
by Kroc on Fri 18th Dec 2009 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I’m competitive with a text editor (TextMate), but Notepad would suffice. In fact, I’m well ahead of the curve—I’m developing on the cutting edge. I’m writing code that WYSIWYG tools _can’t_ do because this stuff requires _skill_ and knowledge. If you want the _best_ website, you _have_ to hand write it. If you want the fastest site, you _have_ to hand write it, because the tools cannot think for you.

I’m hand writing the next version of OSnews. It is going to be faster than any other news site. It will be incredibly elegant, and well designed, and it will be HTML5. It will work in IE. It is the best piece of code I’ve ever written and it is leagues ahead of the game.

If you can’t compete with Notepad, then you don’t know your craft well enough. Get learning, all the knowledge is freely available on the Internet.

Reply Score: 7

RE[6]: ...
by dvhh on Fri 18th Dec 2009 18:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

these gifs can be difficult to pull off at first though

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: ...
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 19th Dec 2009 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

With nothing but Notepad, you can write the most successful website in the world.

Possibility != likelihood.

Also, why in the world would you want to? I doubt I've used Notepad to edit an HTML file since 1997 or '98. Using Notepad, when there are more sophisticated code/HTML editors available, is masochism on par with wearing a hair shirt.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by Ventajou on Fri 18th Dec 2009 19:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
Ventajou Member since:
2006-10-31

Woohoo! With Chrome I can run a NES emulator full speed! Yeah! My dual core 2GHz computer can finally emulate a Motorola 6502 based system in a web browser! I'm so impressed!

Wake up people, web browsers as a development platform suck. They were not made for applications and even less for games. HTML5 will not change that, it will merely add a few more features to the hackfest. Chrome might be faster than other browsers, but it merely reaches the level of a Pentium 100MHz (which could emulate the NES with full screen graphics and sound).

Silverlight is a much better platform to work with (as a developer) and it offers tons of great features; but yeah it's proprietary and it's a plugin so that really sucks.

In the end, they both suck, but for different reasons...

Reply Score: 9

RE[5]: ...
by FunkyELF on Fri 18th Dec 2009 19:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

Woohoo! With Chrome I can run a NES emulator full speed! Yeah! My dual core 2GHz computer can finally emulate a Motorola 6502 based system in a web browser! I'm so impressed!

Wake up people, web browsers as a development platform suck. They were not made for applications and even less for games. HTML5 will not change that, it will merely add a few more features to the hackfest. Chrome might be faster than other browsers, but it merely reaches the level of a Pentium 100MHz (which could emulate the NES with full screen graphics and sound).

Silverlight is a much better platform to work with (as a developer) and it offers tons of great features; but yeah it's proprietary and it's a plugin so that really sucks.

In the end, they both suck, but for different reasons...


Couldn't agree more. Silverlight is just another Flash or Java Applet that won't run on my mobile web browser. If you need Silverlight for a web application you're writing perhaps it shouldn't be a web application.

I have a 3GHz Pentium 4 with HyperThreading and I can't visit websites with more than 2 embeded youtube videos (all the stupid compilations on digg "Top 5 Fails", "Top 10 MMA knockouts", etc).

I forsee abuse of HTML5. Look at this...
http://people.mozilla.com/~prouget/demos/DynamicContentInjection/pl...

I saw some demo where they were playing an HTML5 video that had a green screen and using javascript to swap out the background. This crap doesn't belong in a web browser.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: ...
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat 19th Dec 2009 00:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

perhaps I use silverlight so I can deploy my desktop app tot he web and transition to silverlight 4 and allow subscribers to my site to install it to their machines or use it on the webpage and access the data created from both locations in one place?

webbased desktop applications created through air, silverlight or even... HTML5 and javascript is the future of application delivery. People want access to their apps with or with out an internet connection, they like the feel of desktop apps, but they want the power of the web for information. Vendors in turn want a way to protect their product, offer services to their users in an inexpensive fashion and make money. Web based apps that can be installed to the desktop and feed the cloud answer this need.

BTW... Silverlight is on its way to the mobile world. The Pre and winmo already have it... Android is next when Eclair is available on most handsets by early next year. and as Mozilla recently said... appstores are going to die in the moble market because of the ability to deploy apps via mobile web pages using high speed javascript (and silverlight and flash).

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: ...
by SlackerJack on Fri 18th Dec 2009 21:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

I think the point is that it shows you can do almost anything in a web browser and have no codec, plugin OS platform limitations.

I don't want to have to install Flash, Moonlight/Silverlight, QuickTime, Windows Media Player media codecs just to play or view stuff on the web. I think HTML 5 just makes it a lot more transparent for the user and that's on all platforms.

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: ...
by boldingd on Fri 18th Dec 2009 21:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

You know, I'd rather not have my content sealed inside the browser, and have only the interface and capabilities that the browser allows. If I'm going to be watching video, I'd like to download it to my actually, physical local machine, and watch it with whatever player on whatever device I can get to work on. It's neat that browsers are becoming so capable, and there are probably some tasks that it makes a lot of sense to move into the browser... but that's not true of everything!

I like web radio a lot. I listen to WBUR Boston continuously at work. I do not use the damned web-based flash app, and I do not listen to web radio stations that do use those things, for exactly the reasons I mentioned. I'd much rather have the ability to use whatever client I want, including - for example, VLC or XMMS - that will be at least as powerful and feature-rich as any browser-hosted, flash-based application, and probably much more so. I don't want my interactions with that radio stream to be limited to what the people creating the flash app felt like implementing.

It kinda ties into the whole "do one thing and do it well" design philosophy: I'd much rather have one extremely capable, local application, than a hundred bare-minimum browser-based applications all doing the same job.


Heh, that isn't relevant to what you said at all, was it? My apologies.

Edited 2009-12-18 21:29 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by charlieg on Fri 18th Dec 2009 19:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
charlieg Member since:
2005-07-25

Wow. The future of computers... a game running at 12fps on my machine that is nearly 2 decades newer than the Amiga the game originally debuted on.

Why is the majority of the world convinced that everything should be in a browser? I'll never know...

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: ...
by Kroc on Fri 18th Dec 2009 19:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Which will be 24fps in a years time, double again in another year, and so on so forth.

Talk about miss the point. You’re not impressed by the fact that you didn’t have to choose the right binary for your system, download it, install it—then locate the ROM, download it, open the emulator, open the ROM and _then_ start playing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: ...
by Hiev on Fri 18th Dec 2009 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Performance, concurrency and scalability are as important to me than it is for you, but that's another subject, it has nothing to do with standars or tools or whatever. You can have even faster result if you don't rely on standars did you even knew that?

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: ...
by Kroc on Fri 18th Dec 2009 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

JSNES is an extreme case that isn’t even meant to be practical right here and now. But it shows just how much browsers have improved over the last few years, and this is going to continue even faster going forward. Have some imagination, good grief. I’m going to live to regret commenting on this damn thread.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: ...
by sbenitezb on Sat 19th Dec 2009 05:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

Which will be 24fps in a years time, double again in another year, and so on so forth.

Talk about miss the point. You’re not impressed by the fact that you didn’t have to choose the right binary for your system, download it, install it—then locate the ROM, download it, open the emulator, open the ROM and _then_ start playing.


If you are looking for an old console emulator, then you most certainly know how to get it without having to suffer the pain of 12fps. Why people find more important installation, that only happens once, than normal and day to day usage?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: ...
by strcpy on Sat 19th Dec 2009 06:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

Wow. The future of computers... a game running at 12fps on my machine that is nearly 2 decades newer than the Amiga the game originally debuted on.

Why is the majority of the world convinced that everything should be in a browser? I'll never know...


Yeah. You stole my thoughts. Someone should write a big philosophical editorial about the big and devastating regression that the "web 2.0" has brought.

I mean that's what this is all about: we are debating about how we can play videos? Hello? What year is this?

Edited 2009-12-19 06:55 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: ...
by Kroc on Sat 19th Dec 2009 18:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Feel free to write it up if it moves you so, I think that would be a great read!

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: ...
by StephenBeDoper on Sat 19th Dec 2009 23:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

"Wow. The future of computers... a game running at 12fps on my machine that is nearly 2 decades newer than the Amiga the game originally debuted on.

Why is the majority of the world convinced that everything should be in a browser? I'll never know...


Yeah. You stole my thoughts. Someone should write a big philosophical editorial about the big and devastating regression that the "web 2.0" has brought.
"

You say that like it's a bad thing ;) Look how far we've come: 15 years ago, if you wanted to take part in an online discussion, there was Usenet - where you had a measly 2 or 3 levels of abstraction (a NNTP client, running on your OS, running on top of your hardware).

But today, to do the same thing, you get 5 or 6 levels of abstraction (web-based forum software using an API implement in JaS, executed by the JS interpreter of your browser, running on your OS, on top of your hardware). That's progress, right?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: ...
by daveak on Sat 19th Dec 2009 11:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
daveak Member since:
2008-12-29

While your point is well made I think you have given Google too much credit. Chrome has HTML 5 features due to all WebKit developers, not just Google, so any WebKit browser such as Safari or Epiphany is also making the new features available.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by hackus on Sun 20th Dec 2009 02:16 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
hackus Member since:
2006-06-28

Agreed.

We don't need proprietary closed systems to deliver content.

That is very very bad.

Particularly if it is scientific or political content.

We already have enough hank panky going on with Flash and Silverlight sites, we don't need anymore.

-Hack

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by trenchsol on Mon 21st Dec 2009 13:37 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

That is your wishful thinking and nothing else. Flash, Silverlight and Moonlight are moving on. Flash is being used by countless people daily.

I am not fan of those technologies, too, but they are here to stay. One should learn to live with it, like it or not.

Your dramatic posts are not going to change anything, not even a little bit.

Reply Score: 2

A good reason not to use
by FunkyELF on Fri 18th Dec 2009 17:43 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

One of the main reasons I got into open source software is because I didn't like the idea that newer versions of software could cost anything.
Why invest time in learning Photoshop when this version costs $600 but the next version may cost $3,000.
Some might say, just keep using the version you already bought. What happens when you can't buy a computer that comes with an OS that your version is compatible with?

Microsoft saying, "We won't sue users of Moonlight 2.0", is saying what about 2.0.1, or 2.5, or 4.0?

Reply Score: 8

RE: A good reason not to use
by Hiev on Fri 18th Dec 2009 17:59 UTC in reply to "A good reason not to use"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

I read the same comment in SlashDot.

Nobody can predict the future, but right now im glad we have open source implementations, I'll use them till HTML5 catch ups, it may take a while thougt.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: A good reason not to use
by FunkyELF on Fri 18th Dec 2009 19:08 UTC in reply to "RE: A good reason not to use"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

I read the same comment in SlashDot.


You caught me. I wasn't stealing though... that was me on there too.

Nobody can predict the future, but right now im glad we have open source implementations, I'll use them till HTML5 catch ups, it may take a while thougt.


Its a trap. Microsoft doesn't care about users. Look at IronPython. Microsoft did a ton of work to get great dynamic support in their runtime... but do you see Microsoft shipping any of their development tools with Python support? They'll make their platform attractive for Python developers, but would never promote Python because people might realize that its portable and can be run on non-Windows machines. Same thing with Moonlight. They won't sue but they aren't doing a hell of a lot either. Maybe by paying one guy's Salary they're just trying to avoid lawsuits by saying they made an effort. Who knows what their intentions are but we know from experience they can't be good.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: A good reason not to use
by Hiev on Fri 18th Dec 2009 19:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: A good reason not to use"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Wow wow wow, cut the paranoia, MS promote dinamycs languajes as python also:

http://channel9.msdn.com/tags/Python/

It doesn't ship with python because they only release it for their oficitial languajes C++, C#, VB and now F#, but languales like python, ruby, chrome (aka pascal), etc. can be integrated also.

And what I can remember, not even python developers give you the tools for python, just a console, you need to get the tools from else where.

Reply Score: 3

RE: A good reason not to use
by strcpy on Fri 18th Dec 2009 18:02 UTC in reply to "A good reason not to use"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

DELETED.

Edited 2009-12-18 18:08 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: A good reason not to use
by sbergman27 on Fri 18th Dec 2009 18:11 UTC in reply to "RE: A good reason not to use"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

DELETED.

Yep. These would not be users or customers of Microsoft. They would be users and/or distributors of a third party reimplementation of "Microsoft IP". Like TomTom.

Reply Score: 1

RE: A good reason not to use
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 18th Dec 2009 18:21 UTC in reply to "A good reason not to use"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

More than that, Microsoft is also saying they won't sue for Moonlight. If I throw moonlight in a larger project call it Earth-light, then what? Its a derived product, so it would still be covered under gpl, but would MS sue me, and any/all that use it?

Reply Score: 5

RE: A good reason not to use
by Ripples on Fri 18th Dec 2009 23:54 UTC in reply to "A good reason not to use"
Ripples Member since:
2005-07-06

Worse yet, what if somehow the word "license" changes its meaning to "small rodent". The probability of that alone means that Microsoft is trying to ruin the open source community once again.

Why is Microsoft always trying to keep us down!!!!

Reply Score: 1

Comment by talaf
by talaf on Fri 18th Dec 2009 19:44 UTC
talaf
Member since:
2008-11-19

You could craft professional b2b or b2c websites with just notepad. But development projects require more than the text editor. There are team integration, unit test, specs, workflow, etc, etc...

You may do all this in your text editor. You'll just spend ages doing it (or learning how to do it all) and other businesses will beat you to it.

I do agree that precise, elegant websites (and more generally softwares) have to be written by very competent programmers who use mainly knowledge and handcraft alot of things. But it has drawbacks.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by talaf
by Kroc on Fri 18th Dec 2009 19:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by talaf"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

team integration, unit test, specs, workflow, etc, etc...


Terminal, GIT/SVN, Python, Latex.

Some people prefer doing things this way. What I’m saying is that even in 2009, using a text editor is still equal in power to any other way and that this means _equality_. Anybody, in any country, with any tools they can afford can compete on the world stage. Can OSnews not see the importance of that!?

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Comment by talaf
by boldingd on Fri 18th Dec 2009 20:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by talaf"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Relevant to nothing, I must interject:

WOOT WOOT LaTeX! And xterm!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by talaf
by sbenitezb on Sat 19th Dec 2009 06:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by talaf"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

Terminal, GIT/SVN, Python, Latex.


Usually faster than IDE's way of doing stuff.

Some people prefer doing things this way. What I’m saying is that even in 2009, using a text editor is still equal in power to any other way and that this means _equality_.


Let's be honest, Notepad doesn't cut it for a large project.

If you compare eclipse with emacs, you probably agree that emacs users are seen as more "pro" than eclipse users; the same applies to vim users. But both emacs and vim are really powerful, more so than an IDE if setup correctly with good plugins. But then you could say both emacs and vim *are* IDEs; the difference is that they require more knowledge on how to operate them, unlike eclipse which is a lot more easier to start with.

Anybody, in any country, with any tools they can afford can compete on the world stage. Can OSnews not see the importance of that!?


I could compete perfectly well with pirated software, like a lot of hungry programmers do out there in the real world. Companies already know that and they won't even care, because if you are poor today, you pirate their software to build the next big thing, then you'll get enough money to pay for it in the future. If that wasn't the case, they would be providing their tools with hardware lock keys to make the life of the poor programmers more misserable, but then they are losing potential customers and also making their platform only accessible to those that can pay.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by talaf
by Kroc on Sun 20th Dec 2009 15:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by talaf"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

And rampant piracy creates monopolies with massive, massive drawbacks. Look at the situation in South Korea and China where IE usage is horrendous, with little hope of bringing it down. They are stuck in the Internet we had in 2003.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by talaf
by strcpy on Sat 19th Dec 2009 06:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by talaf"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20


Terminal, GIT/SVN, Python, Latex.

Some people prefer doing things this way. What I’m saying is that even in 2009, using a text editor is still equal in power to any other way and that this means _equality_. Anybody, in any country, with any tools they can afford can compete on the world stage. Can OSnews not see the importance of that!?


Fully agreed. My "IDE" has always been four xterms and Emacs. Add version control system and various other tools. I couldn't imagine anything that an IDE could give me.

And besides, most of the hype is just typical marketing crap. That these new "superior" tools give outstanding boost to "productivity", etc. Kind of the same thing as with the classical "Taylorism".

And while I've tried something like Visual Studio and agree that it is a fine tool, I still strongly dislike IDEs. Mainly more because of the implicit things these typically seem to imply; a collar around your neck and that kind of drag-and-drop programming. But maybe I shouldn't dislike IDEs themselves; maybe this is a direct result of badly designed and over-complex APIs that almost every new language seem to carry.

But obviously the bottom line: each to their own, bad carpenter blames his tools, etc.

Edited 2009-12-19 06:49 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by talaf
by memson on Mon 21st Dec 2009 13:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by talaf"
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

Terminal, GIT/SVN, Python, Latex.


Unit testing? SVN is a shockingly poor SCM too.. GIT is a nice theory, till you try to use it with a large team working on common code or interdependent modules. In my experience it's better to use a locking mechanism in SCM, because it forces methodical thinking and gets developers talking to each other. Non-locking only works in a single developer/widely dispersed scenario. If all the team members are in a single office space, communication works best; locking forces communication.

Some people prefer doing things this way. What I’m saying is that even in 2009, using a text editor is still equal in power to any other way and that this means _equality_. Anybody, in any country, with any tools they can afford can compete on the world stage. Can OSnews not see the importance of that!?


I predict that whatever you produce will either be unmaintainable by anybody except yourself or will fail to run correctly. I've seen this attitude before, usually with fairly novice gung-ho developers. It's all very well making big statements, but results need to be documented, fully tested and stable. To be honest, any coder worth their salt can code in a plain text editor - the reason many don't is more to do with the amount of time they save. That is not being lazy, that is being pragmatic.

Reply Score: 2

Netflix
by emerson999 on Fri 18th Dec 2009 20:43 UTC
emerson999
Member since:
2007-12-08

Any news on whether this works with netflix streaming now? It's the only place I've ever seen silverlight in the wild. And that's also the only reason I have windows on my netbook.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Netflix
by Mellin on Fri 18th Dec 2009 22:44 UTC in reply to "Netflix"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

moonlight will never get silverlight drm

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Netflix
by chrisfriberg on Fri 18th Dec 2009 23:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Netflix"
chrisfriberg Member since:
2009-04-08

One problem remains, and as you can guess, it's the codec issue. Microsoft may have paid for licenses for various codecs and may have made sure that Novell could use them too, but this of course doesn't extend towards other distributors. To solve this, distributors can negotiate directly with the owners of the codecs


moonlight will never get silverlight drm


"Dear Microsoft, ..."

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Netflix
by Mellin on Sat 19th Dec 2009 01:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Netflix"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

silverlight drm is going to be windows only


it was the same with wmp for mac before they canceled it

Reply Score: 3

moonlight
by historyb on Fri 18th Dec 2009 20:53 UTC
historyb
Member since:
2005-07-06

I went and got the new moonlight and went to a couple of siverlight sites and it works great. I am surprised

Reply Score: 2

RE: moonlight
by Tuishimi on Fri 18th Dec 2009 22:55 UTC in reply to "moonlight"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

They have been working hard on it. I say kudos to them for their hard work.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Sat 19th Dec 2009 01:40 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

I've got nothing fundamentally against the concept of Silverlight or even Flash, my issue is the development of these technologies, compatibility and patents. Both Adobe and Microsoft need to develop a way where third parties can create compatible implementations in the same way in which Java is developed by a committee, a test suite created and certified implementations are able to use the Silverlight branding to ensure compatibility between the various implementations.

Right now, however, Adobe has flat out refused to fully open up flash specifications which make implementing a compatible version all the more difficult. On the other hand Microsoft has Silverlight well documented (due to it being a recent project and having to conform to the new internal standards) but the downside is the issue of patents and transparency with the development process.

Again, I'm not fundamentally against the concept of Flash and Silverlight, the problem I have is the implementation side of it, when it goes off the drawing board and implemented by way of development processes, transparency between the main implementation and third parties.

Reply Score: 5

v MONO/MOONLIGHT IS NOT OPENSOURCE... ;p
by Daemon_ZOGG on Sat 19th Dec 2009 15:22 UTC
Crazy
by segedunum on Sun 20th Dec 2009 00:53 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

To develop with something like this that requires explicit patent grants from a single organisation, and a competitor in Novell's case, is stir fry crazy. However, some just see what they want to see and you can't persuade the deluded in any way.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Crazy
by lemur2 on Mon 21st Dec 2009 09:41 UTC in reply to "Crazy"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

To develop with something like this that requires explicit patent grants from a single organisation, and a competitor in Novell's case, is stir fry crazy. However, some just see what they want to see and you can't persuade the deluded in any way.


I'd give this post a +1 moderation if the system had allowed me to.

Reply Score: 2

Embrace extend extinguish
by jabjoe on Sun 20th Dec 2009 12:34 UTC
jabjoe
Member since:
2009-05-06

You embrace, you will be extended and extinguished. How many times are people going to fall for this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Halloween_documents_leak

MS even did a very similar trick with WISE and Win32
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/07/18/analysis_how_ms_used/

Even standards mean nothing if you don't intend to work together.
http://tuxdeluxe.org/node/296

There is no new Microsoft, I don't doubt some are genuine, but the top isn't.

You should judge by past actions, so I'm not sure there is anything that MS can do ('say' means nothing) that could make me trust them and embrace their technology. Not that I normally like their technology anyway.

Reply Score: 0

different kind of debate this time about Mono
by JeffS on Sun 20th Dec 2009 15:43 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

The debate in this thread has mostly been about the virtues of HTML5 vs browser plugins (Flash, Silverlight, Moonlight, Java, etc).

That is very refreshing for a Mono/Moonlight article. We usually get the "Mono is evil because it's MS tech, or a patent trap".

Microsoft has continued to get more and more open about it's tech, and it's become safer and safer to use Mono.

But HTML5, I have to agree with Kroc. I see that as the future, or just the more attractive selection as opposed to the proprietary, resource hogging, patent encumbered plugins.

Reply Score: 4

Real danger
by XCoder on Mon 21st Dec 2009 08:48 UTC
XCoder
Member since:
2006-08-11

IMHO the Google is far bigger danger to freedom then silverlight + flash + java + any other plugin.

Reply Score: 1

Wha...?
by bolomkxxviii on Mon 21st Dec 2009 12:46 UTC
bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

Wake me up when netflix can play on a mainstream linux distro immediately after installation.

Reply Score: 3