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 314434
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by satan666
by lemur2 on Fri 16th May 2008 02:06 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by satan666"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

"Virtually all Linux users, even OpenSuse users, are apparently still liable to be sued (in Microsoft's eyes) for running "Microsoft technology" ... even when Microsoft hasn't actually written any of the actual code involved.


Microsoft has, to the best of my knowledge, agreed to allow any user (no matter what distro) to use Moonlight+MSCodecs in any browser. However, they do not allow anyone to use their codecs outside of Moonlight hosted within a browser. That is the only restriction afaik.
"

Microsoft is just pretending to be open with Silverlight. When Microsoft announced Silverlight, their claim to it being cross-platform was based on the fact that it could be used on windows or Mac. Their omission of Linux was pointed and quite deliberate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Silverlight#Criticism

"The Mono team is currently developing a free and open-source implementation of the Silverlight runtime which they named Moonlight. The project is officially supported by Microsoft who, under an agreement with Novell, has made available the specifications, beyond what has been made publicly available, and test cases to the Mono team. The Mono team also has access to the Silverlight Base Class Library APIs which other developers do not have access to. Microsoft will also provide binary codecs for use in Moonlight. Moonlight targets both version 1.0 as well as 2.0 of Silverlight."

...

"Microsoft has also been criticized for not using the Scalable Vector Graphics standard for Silverlight, which, according to Ryan Paul of Ars Technica, is consistent with Microsoft's ignoring of open standards in other products, as well. However, according to David Betz, an independent .NET technologies specialist, Microsoft would have needed to alter the SVG specification to add .NET integration and UI constructs on top of SVG to make it suitable for scenarios Silverlight uses markup for (UI and vector markup, by default). Consequently, he thinks the "choice by Microsoft to use XAML over SVG, served to retain the SVG standard by not adding proprietary technology [to extend SVG]".

Typical. Hide bits of the spec. Hide bits of the API. Make some vital pieces available as binary blobs only.

Pointedly ignore any open standard. Use something invented by Microsoft instead, with the express intention of adding Microsoft-proprietary hooks into it.

Then pretend it is open, and try to get the whole world to use it, so that everything depends on Microsoft-proprietary technology, especially in areas that are currently supposed to be platform neutral.

... eg. binary codecs aren't going to be any use when trying to run Moonlight under Linux on a PS3 or a Sun Sparc or a Linksys router or NAS, for example, are they?

This way, all other platforms become lesser platforms, incapable of doing most things because they are not blessed by Microsoft (and they pay Microsoft no dues).

To hell with Microsoft. Avoid Silverlight and Moonlight and related technologies like XAML like the plague. Use the open equivalents instead, such as JavaFX, SVG ... even flash has recently become open enough to allow unencumbered implementation by any party.

The really disappointing thing about Moonlight and similar efforts (eg. Mono) is that it is well-intentioned FOSS authors who are walking straight into the mire of Microsoft's encumberances, apparently with very effective blinkers firmly in place.

Edited 2008-05-16 02:23 UTC

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 4

RE[8]: Comment by satan666
by sbergman27 on Fri 16th May 2008 02:25 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by satan666"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

The really disappointing thing about Moonlight and similar efforts (eg. Mono) is that it is...

Random comment, but I'm curious. Do you write code, implement OSS systems professionally, or do anything else to forward the open source cause in the real world? Or do you just post on internet forums? That's a sincere question.

Edited 2008-05-16 02:28 UTC

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[9]: Comment by satan666
by lemur2 on Fri 16th May 2008 02:50 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by satan666"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"The really disappointing thing about Moonlight and similar efforts (eg. Mono) is that it is...
Random comment, but I'm curious. Do you write code, implement OSS systems professionally, or do anything else to forward the open source cause in the real world? Or do you just post on internet forums? That's a sincere question. "

I am involved in engineering development. Most of my customers are prepared to pay for (my team's) engineering development time on the proviso that there are no proprietary encumberances (including our own) on the technologies that I deliver to them.

It makes my task much quicker, and my customers costs much lower, if I am able to integrate open solutions as far as possible into the final systems. Both parties win.

Both parties lose if I am forced to integrate closed, single-source technologies as part of the systems.

BTW, in what manner is trying to make people aware of issues surrounding such hidden encumberances not "forwarding the open source cause in the real world"?

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 5

RE[8]: Comment by satan666
by basket on Fri 16th May 2008 16:35 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by satan666"
basket Member since:
2007-09-28


... eg. binary codecs aren't going to be any use when trying to run Moonlight under Linux on a PS3 or a Sun Sparc or a Linksys router or NAS, for example, are they?


Actually, Microsoft has gone out of their way to ensure that we are able to deliver those codecs for as many Linux platforms as needed.

Provided we have the hardware to the platform and a working setup (ie, no "buy this machine on ebay, then hack it with this to boot" or variations of this) we will be happy to do the codec builds.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1

RE[9]: Comment by satan666
by lemur2 on Sat 17th May 2008 08:49 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by satan666"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"
... eg. binary codecs aren't going to be any use when trying to run Moonlight under Linux on a PS3 or a Sun Sparc or a Linksys router or NAS, for example, are they?


Actually, Microsoft has gone out of their way to ensure that we are able to deliver those codecs for as many Linux platforms as needed.

Provided we have the hardware to the platform and a working setup (ie, no "buy this machine on ebay, then hack it with this to boot" or variations of this) we will be happy to do the codec builds.
"

So why not just release the specifications for the codecs, and let any platform (such as, for example, a Nokia Internet Device running Debian on ARM I believe) write their own codecs without fear of legal reprisal?

That is clearly the better way. That way, no-one is beholden on Novell or Microsoft to be magnanimous and kindly give them a binary blob codec.

Your competitor, Adobe, is miles ahead of you in this respect. You won't win ground against them unless you are more open and co-operative and less secretive and threatening about it all.

Edited 2008-05-17 08:51 UTC

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2