Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Aug 2007 17:45 UTC, submitted by WillM
"Microsoft, apparently, is helping the folks at Mono to port Silverlight to Linux. This is good news, as the primary fear I've heard from developers is that Silverlight will be locked to Microsoft platforms and products. Microsoft has already committed to supporting Silverlight cross-browser on Windows, and has a version that runs on Mac OS X (which is even available from the Apple web site). The last step is Linux, and Microsoft is working with Novell and Mono to make this happen."
Thread beginning with comment 263677
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: People Still Don't Understand
by sappyvcv on Wed 15th Aug 2007 14:48
in reply to "RE[3]: People Still Don't Understand"
Member since:2005-07-06
RE[4]: People Still Don't Understand
by Flatland_Spider on Wed 15th Aug 2007 20:04
in reply to "RE[3]: People Still Don't Understand"
Member since:2006-09-01
Actually, for most industries, this is most definitely NOT how it works.
It is. Corporations are in it for the money; they're not non-profit entities.
For most industries, there is a standard set that all manufactures must work to. Any example would be a telephone handset connection to the PSTN ... no competitor is excluded, and no competitor is advantaged by the standard. All handsets connect to the PSTN and signal in the same way.
Consumers set standards as they found one type of tech enhanced their lives. Once the market is established then other manufacturers jump in to claim their share of the pie. Industries generally don't set standards as they want to corner a market; consumers eventually force a standard.
It's chicken and the egg dude. There has to be a chicken before there can be a chicken produced egg. There has to be an established market first before companies start producing knock offs of the first product in the market.
The PSTN handset connection standard was set by the courts when AT&T was a monopoly. AT&T didn't set that out of the goodness of their hearts. They were forced to by the government.
http://www.cclab.com/billhist.htm
Look for Hush-A-Phone
Gasoline was standardized on after a battle with electric cars where the internal combustion engine proved it was better. Once again consumers set the standard then companies sold to the market.
Roads are flat because it is too hard to make roads for square wheels. Yes, it can be done, but circles and flat roads are easier. This is just silly. It's a law of nature that surfaces are flat. You might as well mention humans breathing air and drinking water. This is more on an example of us adapting to the environment.
Radio and TVs are good examples but there wasn't technology at the time of their creation to lock people in to one manufacturer. This is more a function of the privative analog tech that became a way of life. In digital broadcasting, XM, Sirus, DirectTV, and Dish network use proprietary broadcast formats. The cable companies are resisting the open CableCard requirement because they don't want to give up the lucrative cable box market.
CDs and DVDs are industry created standards. There wasn't any free enterprise at work here though. The industry decided that they were going to move to those standards. There wasn't a competing CD or DVD standard, so there were no free market forces at work here to debunk your last statement.
Hate to break it to you, but you are in fact way off the mark here. Most companies do not work by locking out other companies products
Lock-in, or brand loyalty as it is more commonly know, is the holy grail for companies. Just like drug dealers they want you coming back for more. Why do you think cigarette companies uped the addictive quality of cigarettes? Repeat customers.
What is the purpose of marketing aimed at children? Brand recognition which leads to Repeat Customers.
Why do video game console manufacturers use proprietary connections and hardware? Lock-in due to accessory creep, after while it becomes less attractive to jump ship.
Consumers are supposed to be able to choose any of several competing products in the full expectation that their choice will work with products from another manufacturer that other consumers may have chosen.
Ideally yes. In the real world, buyer beware. Read the package and make sure it's compatible with the product because there is no requirement for manufacturers to make their products inter operate with one another. If they can hook consumers into accepting their lock-in, eg. Apple, especially in the PowerPC days, then they are going to.
In order for what you propose to work, the consumer would have to standardize on one OS or the vendors would have to standardize on a set of APIs, like POSIX.
For the most part consumers have standardized on Windows. The programs they own will transfer from one Installation to the next for the most part. POSIX is a nice gesture, but apps still need some work to be ported to each operating system as they are all slightly different.
RE[5]: People Still Don't Understand
by lemur2 on Wed 15th Aug 2007 23:44
in reply to "RE[4]: People Still Don't Understand"
Member since:2007-02-17
In order for what you propose to work, the consumer would have to standardize on one OS or the vendors would have to standardize on a set of APIs, like POSIX.
For the most part consumers have standardized on Windows. The programs they own will transfer from one Installation to the next for the most part. POSIX is a nice gesture, but apps still need some work to be ported to each operating system as they are all slightly different.
For the most part consumers have standardized on Windows. The programs they own will transfer from one Installation to the next for the most part. POSIX is a nice gesture, but apps still need some work to be ported to each operating system as they are all slightly different.
No. Not so.
Interoperability doesn't require standard ABIs/APIs, it only requires standard, open, unencumbered formats and protocols (able to be implemented without advantage or penalty by any party) for digital data interchange.
Witness the situation with diigital cameras. I can take a photo on my "conforms to standards" digital camera, and because the photo information is stored in a standard way I can transfer it to any machine that understands the "USB standard" and the "JPEG standard" and get my photo printed.
Because of this there can be many parties competing to deliver me the best service to print my digital photo. This is an essential characteristic for having a free enterprise system. Anything that restricts this type of competition is anti-free-enterprise, and it leads only to bad outcomes for the people.
Interoperability doesn't rely on having standard APIs or ABIs or having a CPU/OS architecture monoculture. All that is required is a set of standards for digital data interchange.
Edited 2007-08-15 23:49
Member since:
2007-02-17
Actually, for most industries, this is most definitely NOT how it works.
For most industries, there is a standard set that all manufactures must work to. Any example would be a telephone handset connection to the PSTN ... no competitor is excluded, and no competitor is advantaged by the standard. All handsets connect to the PSTN and signal in the same way.
Petrol ... a standard formulation from all petrol suppliers, works with engines made by any car manufacturer. Roads ... all cars can drive on them. CDs ... work on all brands of CD player. DVDs, FM radios, televisions, all sorts of things interoperate from different manufacturers, even mundane products like garden hose fittings.
Hate to break it to you, but you are in fact way off the mark here. Most companies do not work by locking out other companies products ... most products have standards ... true open standards ... and that is, in fact, the very basis of free market competition. You must have companies competing to realise the benefits of a capitalist economy ... if you do not have competition amongst alternative suppliers the whole "supply and demand" thing breaks down.
Consumers are supposed to be able to choose any of several competing products in the full expectation that their choice will work with products from another manufacturer that other consumers may have chosen.
If you don't have this free choice in a given market, the system is broken. Sick. In need of fixing. It undermines the whole "free enterprise" economy.
Edited 2007-08-15 14:14