Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 15th May 2008 13:38 UTC, submitted by gonzo
Mono Project On his blog, Miguel de Icaza announced the first public releases of Moonlight. Moonlight is the open source implementation of Microsoft's Silverlight, the company's Flash competitor. Moonlight is not yet free of bugs, though.
Thread beginning with comment 314264
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by satan666
by satan666 on Thu 15th May 2008 13:57 UTC
satan666
Member since:
2008-04-18

Yet another Microsoft product creeping into Linux. Mono was not enough.

Reply Score: -2

RE: Comment by satan666
by CodeMonkey on Thu 15th May 2008 14:35 in reply to "Comment by satan666"
CodeMonkey Member since:
2005-09-22

Unlike most .NET supporters, I don't think .NET is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It is a pretty good thing though. Just because Microsoft comes up with something doesn't instantly make it "BAD". .NET brings an entire set of easy to use and fully capable APIs along with countless different languages can use those APIs to create OS agnostic (but perhaps limited to x86 and x64) applications. Sure .NET is slower than native code in most cases and sure it uses more resources than native code in most places. But the rapid application development it allows for while simultaneously supporting such diversity has not really been achieved with much else.

From a corporate standpoint .NET is a fantastic platform for in house development. Development time is crucial so the RAD is a huge plus. And with the advent of Mono most .NET applications can be easily deployed to Windows and Linux servers both 32 and 64 bit all with a single build.

Silverlight / Moonlight simply brings this same environment to a browser.

While there are countless situations where .NET is simply not an appropriate choice, the same can be said for virtually any other software development technology.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by TechGeek on Thu 15th May 2008 14:59 in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

No, coming from Microsoft doesn't make it bad from a technical point. It makes it bad because Microsoft is openly campaigning against the Linux platform. There is NO patent protection in using their platform. FOSS is better off steering clear of this technology. Adobe on the other hand, is opening the specs on their products so that GPL'd versions (Gnash and others) will actually work right without having to reverse engineer everything. There are also opening up their development tools to Linux. When Microsoft actually starts working with open standards and file formats, then it will be time to consider their technology.

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by Matzon on Thu 15th May 2008 16:11 in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
Matzon Member since:
2005-07-06

You have heard of Java, right?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by aliquis on Thu 15th May 2008 17:42 in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Sounds like Java, what are the major differences between both?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by satan666
by evangs on Thu 15th May 2008 18:16 in reply to "RE: Comment by satan666"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

Sure .NET is slower than native code in most cases and sure it uses more resources than native code in most places. But the rapid application development it allows for while simultaneously supporting such diversity has not really been achieved with much else.


So that's why Tracker, a project that started out much later than Beagle with a lot less funding has more features, is more stable, consumes less memory and indexes faster? Given the so called Mono flagship applications of Beagle, F-Spot and Muine, how many people actually prefer them to their natively written counterparts?

People who criticize GTK+ have a point. However, when given the chance users will never ever tolerate an application that runs in a VM (even if there is a JIT). Such applications start up slower, take more memory and frequently run slower than their native counterparts.

It would be better to come up with GTK+ v3 or something and try to bring GTK+ inline with the clean Qt4 API.

Reply Parent Score: 9