PDA

View Full Version : Don't Install Silverlight



SuperMike
May 18th, 2008, 03:49 PM
Don't fall for Microsoft's trap. They want Linux users to install Silverlight. But once they do, some dark evil will overcome Linux later on down the line. Remember Microsoft's mantra about competition: embrace, then extend, and then extinguish. And they have never failed this gameplan, consistently. They stick to their guns, and we should stick to ours.

Remember, Linux is about openness and that's where it has always succeeded, and I can't tell you in any way when Linux starts licensing proprietary stuff that they have succeeded in the long run. We need to get the world to accept non-proprietary media. That means that the W3C and the XHTML working group needs to focus on supporting media formats like Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora, even as oddly named they are, in order to get us off having to install illegal codecs (at least in the USA) to play MP3, WAV, WMV, and Quicktime. We need to get the world to accept ODF instead of Microsoft's OOXML, and if ODF isn't where we need it to be, then we need to encourage and participate to make it what it needs to be.

By enabling more functionality through standards in our Office applications and web browsers, this is where we succeed in the long run, not taking shortcuts to please Adobe, Microsoft, and Apple. It's only a matter of time before these bad guys start calling all the bets in court.

Swarms
May 18th, 2008, 03:53 PM
If they give 64 bit support, they are better in my book than Adobe, competition won't hurt.

Half-Left
May 18th, 2008, 03:53 PM
Oh dont worry I won't be, it's not like all websites are going to use it instead of flash anytime soon or even ever.

chucky chuckaluck
May 18th, 2008, 03:58 PM
is youtube safe?

will1911a1
May 18th, 2008, 04:02 PM
I don't even have flash installed. Silverlight just isn't going to happen.

Frak
May 18th, 2008, 04:40 PM
My bad, turns out I develop in Silverlight now, so I'm in a bind with Silverlight being a need-to-have program.

aktiwers
May 18th, 2008, 04:43 PM
http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/resources/LicenseWin.aspx

Does it even have a Linux version? I'm not gonna install it anyways..

Half-Left
May 18th, 2008, 04:45 PM
http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/resources/LicenseWin.aspx

Does it even have a Linux version? I'm not gonna install it anyways..

Yes, it's called Moonlight developed by Novell.

cb951303
May 18th, 2008, 04:56 PM
its linux version (moonlight) is open source hence better than adobe ;)

FuturePilot
May 18th, 2008, 04:58 PM
This will probably pressure Adobe to put more effort into that horrible Linux version of a Flash plugin.

karellen
May 18th, 2008, 05:02 PM
why not? I'm no MS hater, so for me a little more competition won't hurt

FuturePilot
May 18th, 2008, 05:07 PM
why not? I'm no MS hater, so for me a little more competition won't hurt

Agreed. I don't see why there's all this hate for Silverlight. It has a native Linux version which, unlike Flash, is open source.

Joeb454
May 18th, 2008, 05:11 PM
I don't see the hate for silverlight, though I installed it on my Windows partition, and it shows up as installed in the Add/Remove programs list, though I visit the Microsoft Download Center (silverlight version) and it tells me I don't have silverlight installed :confused:

Perhaps it's because I'm using Firefox, and it doesn't actually support Firefox, like it says it does :p

qazwsx
May 18th, 2008, 05:11 PM
Adobe have already released swf specs. I am going to thank silverlight for that . Can't wait to change compatible and native flash player :popcorn:

Moonlight is open source as well but only supports firefox. So I am not going to install it unless it becomes more universal.

geoken
May 18th, 2008, 05:19 PM
Disapointing.

Although flash may not be the best Linux app out there I can't recall Adobe ever doing anything to actively try to kill off Linux. I've never seen Adobe make legal threats against Linux. I've never seen Adobe fund a companies legal battles as it attempts to claim ownership over Linux (SCO).

What does Microsoft have to do before you guys start questioning their actions/intents? They have a track record of trying to destroy Linux, yet you're willing to give them another opportunity because they show you something shiny.

Half-Left
May 18th, 2008, 05:20 PM
Agreed. I don't see why there's all this hate for Silverlight. It has a native Linux version which, unlike Flash, is open source.

Well, considering that it all has to come from Novell and their license agreements only last till 2011 and can be canceled at anytime.

mr.propre
May 18th, 2008, 05:28 PM
Can i intrest you in a nice Tin Foiled hat? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin-foil_hat)

FuturePilot
May 18th, 2008, 05:32 PM
Disapointing.

Although flash may not be the best Linux app out there I can't recall Adobe ever doing anything to actively try to kill off Linux. I've never seen Adobe make legal threats against Linux. I've never seen Adobe fund a companies legal battles as it attempts to claim ownership over Linux (SCO).

What does Microsoft have to do before you guys start questioning their actions/intents? They have a track record of trying to destroy Linux, yet you're willing to give them another opportunity because they show you something shiny.

I have never not questioned Microsoft's motives. I do not like Microsoft and I do not agree with them either. But I don't think that everything MS = Evil. If they even tried to bring anything up about IP infringements, especially regarding Silverlight, they would fail and fail horribly. Because they specifically documented that they would help Novell develop a Linux version of Silverlight, their arguments go out the window.

qazwsx
May 18th, 2008, 05:34 PM
Can i intrest you in a nice Tin Foiled hat? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin-foil_hat)
nice distro:
http://tinfoilhat.shmoo.com/

:)

Half-Left
May 18th, 2008, 05:37 PM
Can i intrest you in a nice Tin Foiled hat? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin-foil_hat)

There was no proof that Microsoft were anti-competitive, people kept saying it, oh wait!

Τitus
May 18th, 2008, 05:39 PM
Is Silverlight on Linux actually supported directly by MS?

Half-Left
May 18th, 2008, 05:41 PM
Is Silverlight on Linux actually supported directly by MS?

No, it's licensed through Novell as Moonlight which is developed by Novell.

eragon100
May 18th, 2008, 05:41 PM
They have. Flash player 10 now supports 3d applications and movies, among other things.

How do I get moonlight working BTW? I installed the firefox extension, but on nba.com, the full screen photo gallery still doesn't work.

There was some mention of it not working with the latest firefox 3 beta and a script to solve that problem, but where can I get that script, and how do I get it installed?

I really want to have moonlight :guitar:

Jammy4041
May 18th, 2008, 05:48 PM
I don't like Silverlight and I prefer flash. All Microsoft is trying to to is to crush the competition.

Think about it- They release XPS as a competitor to Adobe PDF and then they release Silverlight as a competitior to Adobe Flash.

I agree that hardly any websites will actually use Silverlight, and that Adobe Pdf and Flash will be safe.

P.S it's good to know that the Moonlight is open source. if only the flash player was open source.

That would be sweet.

cb951303
May 18th, 2008, 05:50 PM
No, it's licensed through Novell as Moonlight which is developed by Novell.

does microsoft have a say on moonlight?

edit: wow apparently they have...http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx
I might consider not using it since it can be taken away anytime M$ wishes...

edit2: can anyone enlighten me how a reimplementation of silverlight can be controlled by microsoft? I mean ofcourse they may decide to close the specifications of it when the agreement between novell end microsoft ends but can they stop people continuing to develop moonlight (reverse engineering etc...)?

eragon100
May 18th, 2008, 05:52 PM
Well, anyone knows how I get it working :)

That M$ stuff doesn't even work on linux :lolflag:

Frak
May 18th, 2008, 05:53 PM
Agreed. I don't see why there's all this hate for Silverlight. It has a native Linux version which, unlike Flash, is open source.
Best of all, Microsoft is helping Novell create the Linux port.

Microsoft helping the Open Source effort. Ironic isn't it.

Titan8990
May 18th, 2008, 05:54 PM
Where does Gnash play in to all this? Isn't it a open source flash player? Is it not any good?

Frak
May 18th, 2008, 05:58 PM
Where does Gnash play in to all this? Isn't it a open source flash player? Is it not any good?
Unlike Moonlight, Adobe does not help out the Gnash team, but instead tries to hinder their development.

Microsoft is providing Novell with information on Silverlight and even partially developing portions of it.

eragon100
May 18th, 2008, 06:05 PM
MS is getting better and better and better in my book :)

(And most of the books around here, I believe :))

qazwsx
May 18th, 2008, 06:06 PM
Unlike Moonlight, Adobe does not help out the Gnash team, but instead tries to hinder their development.

Not true anymore
http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2008/04/licensefree_spec.html

Half-Left
May 18th, 2008, 06:10 PM
Best of all, Microsoft is helping Novell create the Linux port.

Microsoft helping the Open Source effort. Ironic isn't it.

No really, Microsoft have realized that in order to get anywhere today it has to be as crossplatform as possible. What are Microsoft good at again?, thats right, making a technology that undermines the competition. Moonlight is not even GPL.

Luke has no name
May 18th, 2008, 06:14 PM
nice distro:
http://tinfoilhat.shmoo.com/

:)

The Illuminati are watching your computer, and you need to use morse code to blink out your PGP messages on the numlock key.

HAHAHA

saulgoode
May 18th, 2008, 06:15 PM
Agreed. I don't see why there's all this hate for Silverlight. It has a native Linux version which, unlike Flash, is open source.

Moonlight is not open source. It fails (according to Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx), anyway) seven, perhaps more, of the ten criteria set forth by the Open Source Definition (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php) as described by the Open Source Initiative.

jrusso2
May 18th, 2008, 06:56 PM
They have. Flash player 10 now supports 3d applications and movies, among other things.

How do I get moonlight working BTW? I installed the firefox extension, but on nba.com, the full screen photo gallery still doesn't work.

There was some mention of it not working with the latest firefox 3 beta and a script to solve that problem, but where can I get that script, and how do I get it installed?

I really want to have moonlight :guitar:

Its not working for me either.

Frak
May 18th, 2008, 07:01 PM
Its not working for me either.
It's still mostly pre to normal alpha. It isn't even close to being completed.

eragon100
May 18th, 2008, 07:22 PM
Hope they get it sorted out soon :(

Xanderfoxx
May 18th, 2008, 07:28 PM
I may not hate M$, but I sure as hell don't trust the wily bastards. There are good reasons they have survived without any decent products besides Office:
1) They
2) Don't
3) Play

cardinals_fan
May 18th, 2008, 07:37 PM
Where's my tinfoil hat? The FBI is reading my brainwaves...

EDIT: Dang, somebody beat me to it!

Xanderfoxx
May 18th, 2008, 07:38 PM
Wolf : Sheep's Clothing :: Microsoft Corp. : Open Source Sponsor

chris4585
May 18th, 2008, 08:09 PM
I don't use microsoft stuff, and I use what works.

madjr
May 18th, 2008, 08:42 PM
No really, Microsoft have realized that in order to get anywhere today it has to be as crossplatform as possible. What are Microsoft good at again?, thats right, making a technology that undermines the competition. Moonlight is not even GPL.

time to start working on gSilver a real GPL version of silverlight like gnash.

it's better to be prepared

qazwsx
May 18th, 2008, 08:58 PM
Moonlight is under dual license according to wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight_(runtime)

Microsoft provides closed source codecs but with some patent issues we can use ffmpeg codecs as well.

Frak
May 18th, 2008, 09:36 PM
It's open source, Microsoft has decided to help. Whether or not their efforts are FOSS or Proprietary makes no difference as to the fact that they are trying to help anyway.

DigitalDuality
May 18th, 2008, 10:07 PM
d

graabein
May 18th, 2008, 10:12 PM
My hope is that Adobe opens up because of Silverlight and that Silverlight fails to gain popularity because of this.

Frak
May 18th, 2008, 10:15 PM
My hope is that Adobe opens up because of Silverlight and that Silverlight fails to gain popularity because of this.
Agreed.

Half-Left
May 18th, 2008, 11:02 PM
It's open source, Microsoft has decided to help. Whether or not their efforts are FOSS or Proprietary makes no difference as to the fact that they are trying to help anyway.

So you think the plan is for Silverlight, opensourced(not our opensource)it and force Adobe do open up?, I dont think so. The proprietary world of the Windows platform is not that interested, you must know that they have a agenda and their agenda's are usually bad for any competition.

Frak
May 18th, 2008, 11:08 PM
Without the proprietary MS codecs, Moonlight is 100% lgplv2.

Microsoft cannot change that since Moonlight does not use any MS code.

Methuselah
May 18th, 2008, 11:11 PM
It's better for flash to have better support in linux than for silverlight to replace it. The consequences of our addiction to windows should teach us that you don't want to become addicted to MS software. I agree with those who say the best case scenario is that silverlight scares Adobe enoughfor them to become more open without silverlight gaining too much ground.

Half-Left
May 18th, 2008, 11:16 PM
Microsoft can do whatever they want because silverlight is patented, only Novell have the license to develop Moonlight and distribute it. it's that gray area of software patents again which is why mono had people in such a fuss,

Microsoft funded Moonlight development so draw your own conclusions.

angryfirelord
May 18th, 2008, 11:42 PM
Microsoft can do whatever they want because silverlight is patented, only Novell have the license to develop Moonlight and distribute it. it's that gray area of software patents again which is why mono had people in such a fuss,

Microsoft funded Moonlight development so draw your own conclusions.
Exactly. It's the same mess with Mono, where people keep calling it open-source when actually the code is encumbered by patents and hasn't been thoroughly checked over for any encumbered code. I understand Novell's position to bring over some Microsoft technologies to help out with Linux's growth, but unless the code is completely "lawsuit free" and released under a good open-source license like the GPL, then I'm not going to touch it. That's why I always purge mono off my fresh Ubuntu installs.

LaRoza
May 18th, 2008, 11:44 PM
I think Silverlight is a good thing. Flash has had a monopoly and may be slacking off in development, it needs a competitor. Realistically, I don't think Silverlight can topple Flash, but it can make Flash better.

karellen
May 18th, 2008, 11:58 PM
Disapointing.

Although flash may not be the best Linux app out there I can't recall Adobe ever doing anything to actively try to kill off Linux. I've never seen Adobe make legal threats against Linux. I've never seen Adobe fund a companies legal battles as it attempts to claim ownership over Linux (SCO).

What does Microsoft have to do before you guys start questioning their actions/intents? They have a track record of trying to destroy Linux, yet you're willing to give them another opportunity because they show you something shiny.

MS is a corporation. a commercial one. driven by profit. like any business in this world. it's natural they want Linux out of the market. same like "bug no 1" for Ubuntu. no hate, no emotions. just plain old business...:confused:
morality has nothing to do with that.

mrgnash
May 19th, 2008, 01:00 AM
I won't be installing it. It will never compete with Adobe anyway.

kayel_justice
May 19th, 2008, 01:03 AM
I am with SuperMike on this one



Don't fall for Microsoft's trap. They want Linux users to install Silverlight. But once they do, some dark evil will overcome Linux later on down the line. Remember Microsoft's mantra about competition: embrace, then extend, and then extinguish. And they have never failed this gameplan, consistently. They stick to their guns, and we should stick to ours.

Remember, Linux is about openness and that's where it has always succeeded, and I can't tell you in any way when Linux starts licensing proprietary stuff that they have succeeded in the long run. We need to get the world to accept non-proprietary media. That means that the W3C and the XHTML working group needs to focus on supporting media formats like Ogg Vorbis and Ogg Theora, even as oddly named they are, in order to get us off having to install illegal codecs (at least in the USA) to play MP3, WAV, WMV, and Quicktime. We need to get the world to accept ODF instead of Microsoft's OOXML, and if ODF isn't where we need it to be, then we need to encourage and participate to make it what it needs to be.

By enabling more functionality through standards in our Office applications and web browsers, this is where we succeed in the long run, not taking shortcuts to please Adobe, Microsoft, and Apple. It's only a matter of time before these bad guys start calling all the bets in court.

Mateo
May 19th, 2008, 01:11 AM
Wow, this topic is wrong on so many levels.

1) You can't install Silverlight if you use Ubuntu. It's not available on Linux.

2) Moonlight is. It's not proprietary.

3) Ogg Vorbis, Ogg Theora, and ODF are not competitors to Silverlight/Moonlight. Supporting them will have no effect on web graphics technologies like Silverlight/Moonlight and Flash. Maybe you mean something like JavaFX?

saulgoode
May 19th, 2008, 01:28 AM
2) Moonlight is. It's not proprietary.

Your assessment contradicts not only Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx), but Moonlight Project Lead Miguel de Icaza (http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2008/030608-mix-novells-de-icaza-criticizes.html?page=2).


"There is a patent covenant for anyone that downloads [Moonlight] from Novell," answered de Icaza, who then acknowledged that "as to extending the patents to third parties -- you have to talk to Microsoft."

Mateo
May 19th, 2008, 01:32 AM
I know you are fishing for a "what is open source" argument but I'm not biting. My statement is accurate for anyone but the most fanatical advocates.

LaRoza
May 19th, 2008, 01:35 AM
I know you are fishing for a "what is open source" argument but I'm not biting. My statement is accurate for anyone but the most fanatical advocates.

Discrediting people concerned with this project by calling them "most fanatical advocates" is easy, defending your position is probably harder.

Microsoft's business practices make all of its actions suspect. That is a fact.

Mateo
May 19th, 2008, 01:40 AM
Discrediting people concerned with this project by calling them "most fanatical advocates" is easy, defending your position is probably harder.

Microsoft's business practices make all of its actions suspect. That is a fact.

I don't have a position here. Every mainstream outlet has called Moonlight open-source. I'm taking their word. Since I'm not participating in what in my opinion is a time-wasting argument, I challenge anyone who considers Moonlight to not be open-source to edit the wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight_%28runtime%29) so that it no longer says that it is.

Methuselah
May 19th, 2008, 01:51 AM
I think silverlight is the generic name for this microsoft technology. Moonlight is essentially silverlight for linux.
Apparently Moonlight is open source but 'encumbered'.
As such it might not qualify as FOSS by the FSF definition.
I'm no expert here though.

Frak
May 19th, 2008, 01:54 AM
And this thread has proven that it is possible to go nowhere very quickly.

LaRoza
May 19th, 2008, 01:55 AM
I don't have a position here. Every mainstream outlet has called Moonlight open-source. I'm taking their word. Since I'm not participating in what in my opinion is a time-wasting argument, I challenge anyone who considers Moonlight to not be open-source to edit the wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight_%28runtime%29) so that it no longer says that it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight_(runtime)#Microsoft_support

It isn't free by most standards. It is actually very restrictive.

Andrewie
May 19th, 2008, 01:56 AM
I think silverlight is the generic name for this microsoft technology. Moonlight is essentially silverlight for linux.
Apparently Moonlight is open source but 'encumbered'.
As such it might not qualify as FOSS by the FSF definition.
I'm no expert here though.

silverlight and moonlight are the same thing for the time being. I'm pretty use if qualifies as FOSS, I'm just worried that Microsoft will stop helping the moonlight guys and we'll all get screwed.

saulgoode
May 19th, 2008, 02:29 AM
I know you are fishing for a "what is open source" argument but I'm not biting. My statement is accurate for anyone but the most fanatical advocates.

I already mentioned the Open Source Definition as described by the Open Source Initiative in this post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=4987688&postcount=34). This definition puts forth 10 different criteria. Here is my assessment of Moonlight meeting that criteria:

1. Free Redistribution - According to MS and the Moonlight project, you must obtain your copy of Moonlight from Novell or a "subsidiary". Ubuntu would have to make arrangements with Novell if they wish to include Moonlight, and this would also mean that users would no longer be permitted to distribute copies of Ubuntu.

2. Source Code - Yes, the source code is available. If that is all that it takes for software to be considered "open source" then fine. Just ignore the other nine points.

3. Derived Works - The MS Covenant (http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx) seems to only cover "specific copies of Moonlight Implementations distributed by Novell" -- so I am guessing that derived works would not be indemnified.

4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code - Since redistribution of builds is not covered, it does not matter how the binary was built.

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups -- The MS covenant seems to preclude any "Linux operating system other than Novell-branded operating system software". I think that qualifies as a "group".

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor - The MS Covenant only covers the technology if it is used to implement a Silverlight player which is to be used as plug-in to a webbrowser. You can't make a stand-alone player, nor can you create a program which actually generates Silverlight content.

7. Distribution of License - You must obtain Moonlight from Novell; downstream distribution is not covered.

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product - The MS Covenant only covers webbrowser plug-ins for the purpose of playing Silverlight content. No other usage is covered.

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software - I will grant this one. Though the MS Covenant disavows any indemnity for "(e.g., any versions of the General Public License)" -- I am unable to fathom how a LGPL version can possibly covered -- this doesn't appear to preclude other software being shipped (just as the GPL does not preclude other software).

10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral - This would be up to the manner in which Novell makes Moonlight available. Shouldn't be a show-stopper, but since Novell has exclusive distribution rights, it might be problematic.

At least with Mono itself, the project claims that Microsoft patents aren't a worry -- with Moonlight, even this defense doesn't seem to be promoted.

Dr. C
May 19th, 2008, 03:18 AM
With Moonlight released under LGPL v2, it can get real interesting if subsequent distribution is done under GPL v3 when it comes to the Microsoft patent covenant.

Section 3 of the the LGPL V2 says:
3. You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, instead of to this License. (If a newer version than version 2 of the ordinary GNU General Public License has appeared, then you can specify that version instead if you wish.) Do not make any other change in these notices.

Once this change is made in a given copy, it is irreversible for that copy, so the ordinary GNU General Public License applies to all subsequent copies and derivative works made from that copy.

This option is useful when you wish to copy part of the code of the Library into a program that is not a library. from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/library.html#TOC1

So it may turn out that the way to keep Moonlight as Free Software is to change the license from LGPL v2 to GPL v3 after obtaining the code from Novell but before further distribution in order to deal with the Microsoft patent covenant issues.

biomega
May 19th, 2008, 03:36 AM
What's the problem my I ask?, the killer plan of Microsoft won't work on linux 'cause linux is NOT an enterprise, linux is us, the devolopers, testers, traslators and users...

Its better for linux that Microsoft uses his evil plan... we will win if he does... by the way...

id1337x
May 19th, 2008, 03:37 AM
Microsoft doesn't support W3C alternatives to Silverlight like SVG and Canvas as I have talked about previously (. It breaks apps I made in JS with Canvas and in terms of SVG the it doesn't successfully integrate plugin recommendation to point the client to Adobe's plugin.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=783810

If Microsoft apparently has good intentions and wants to add more competition why don't they support alternatives. They don't even ship Flash on Windows, OEM's do so themselves because Flash is mainstream.

JAPrufrock
May 19th, 2008, 04:25 AM
Major League baseball has a deal with Microsoft. If you want to listen to a baseball game, the only audio plugins that work are MS media player and Silverlight. I was able to connect using mplayer. However, that was until I logged into my account from my friends XP box which had Silverlight installed. Now I can only connect to the audio using Silverlight- I can't change back to mplayer because the config settings are located on MLB's server. I spent hours trying to find out how to change the setting for the default plugin. So I'm locked out unless I use a computer with XP or Vista. I bet that next year the only option will be Silverlight. I tried emailing MLB, but they never answer emails. I could Skype them, but I decided to kiss MLB goodbye instead. And yes,

MS is EVIL

Trail
May 19th, 2008, 08:51 AM
Not interested in silverlight. Bye.

Tundro Walker
May 19th, 2008, 10:39 AM
I'm not quite sure how this will play out, but I'm guessing it will have to do with MS dropping flash support from IE at some point in favor of silverlight support only.

MS still has a large browser market share with IE, so companies will have to bow to that change instead of vice-versa. If a customer using IE goes to a flash site and can't see products (encoded in flash movies) to purchase, then they'll just go to another site that has full functionality to buy from.

MS has a long term plan, and it'll probably be another 5 years before this ship hits the sand.

madjr
May 19th, 2008, 11:12 AM
It's better for flash to have better support in linux than for silverlight to replace it. The consequences of our addiction to windows should teach us that you don't want to become addicted to MS software. I agree with those who say the best case scenario is that silverlight scares Adobe enoughfor them to become more open without silverlight gaining too much ground.

+1

damoxc
May 19th, 2008, 11:51 AM
I'm not quite sure how this will play out, but I'm guessing it will have to do with MS dropping flash support from IE at some point in favor of silverlight support only.

MS still has a large browser market share with IE, so companies will have to bow to that change instead of vice-versa. If a customer using IE goes to a flash site and can't see products (encoded in flash movies) to purchase, then they'll just go to another site that has full functionality to buy from.

MS has a long term plan, and it'll probably be another 5 years before this ship hits the sand.

If they did that they would be annihilated in court. Actively blocking competition from their browser wouldn't go down well.

Frak
May 19th, 2008, 06:45 PM
If they did that they would be annihilated in court. Actively blocking competition from their browser wouldn't go down well.
They are having enough trouble justifying the inclusion of IE into the OS.

PmDematagoda
May 19th, 2008, 06:52 PM
They are having enough trouble justifying the inclusion of IE into the OS.
And at the current rate at which Firefox is growing, this would be a failure anyway.

LaRoza
May 19th, 2008, 07:07 PM
And at the current rate at which Firefox is growing, this would be a failure anyway.

And the rate of Opera and the fact that IE is not longer available for Macs.

z0mbie
June 18th, 2008, 04:38 PM
There are definitely uncertainties when Microsoft controls a technology. Lets not forget the IP threats Microsoft made against the Linux communities earlier this year. It's another EEE strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extinguish). Building long term dependencies on these technologies will inevitably create IP issues, just what Microsoft wants. They are doing this to ODF also. It's not like they're going to become friendly with Linux overnight like many people want us to think.

Delever
June 18th, 2008, 05:10 PM
When enough of this silver flashy lighted "technology" gets out, we will simply have truly open sourced implementation of it. I don't know, but I guess such project is already started.

ukripper
April 28th, 2009, 04:34 PM
Anyone managed to install silverlight 2 on ubuntu? Can't see moonlight2 though. i need it for itvplayer

stewacide
April 28th, 2009, 04:51 PM
Clearly a truly open standard would be best, but is there any way in which Silverlight is less open than Flash? (because it seems to me Silverlight is far more open).

The OSS community should continue to promote free alternatives like SVG+Ogg, but Silverlight seems like the lesser of proprietary evils.

MysticGold04
April 28th, 2009, 04:52 PM
Silverlight? Nah, no thanks, I'm trying to get rid of the MS bug!

stewacide
April 28th, 2009, 05:12 PM
re: Promoting free alternatives (scriptable SVG, OGG, etc.), and the problem of Internet Explorer's terrible support for them, a clever strategy would be to release a plugin for IE (based probably on Webkit or Gecko) that would be invoked to render such content. Just as IE doesn't ship with Flash, but everyone installs it at the first prompt, IE could become modern and standard compliant where it counts through a plugin.

Of course this is premature since neither Webkit nor Gecko support these technologies in any deployable state yet, but once they do the possibility is there for someone to roll a plugin.

Steve_Barker
May 2nd, 2009, 09:42 AM
Anyone managed to install silverlight 2 on ubuntu? Can't see moonlight2 though. i need it for itvplayer

My other halfs machine uses Ubuntu and Opera - Moonlight not installed. I have noticed that itn.com, and a few other sites that use Silverlight, switch of the plugins (flash, pdf, etc.) and you have to re-enable them.

Some users might be put of using Opera thinking it keeps going wrong, if they had not worked out what is happening and when. I wonder what mischief Silverlight will do when established and has a wide userbase?

3rdalbum
May 2nd, 2009, 10:36 AM
Okay, I won't install Silverlight.

I'll install Moonlight, but I don't support content creation using Silverlight, as it's only available on two platforms, none of those embedded and none of those Linux.