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.
Thread beginning with comment 400313
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 9

RE[5]: ...
by FunkyELF on Fri 18th Dec 2009 19:19 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: ...
by modmans2ndcoming on Sat 19th Dec 2009 00:22 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: ...
by SlackerJack on Fri 18th Dec 2009 21:05 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 Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: ...
by boldingd on Fri 18th Dec 2009 21:27 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 Parent Score: 2