Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Silverlight 2.0 Released

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the opposite-of-sun dept.

Microsoft 164

rfernand79 writes "Via Scott Guthrie's Blog for Microsoft, we find out that Silverlight 2.0 has been released. The blog post notes some interesting statistics, including the magnitude of video streamed during the Olympics and the Democratic National Convention (both using Silverlight). 'Hello Worlds' and educational links are included in the post."

cancel ×

164 comments

About time (5, Insightful)

Aggrajag (716041) | more than 5 years ago | (#25433649)

As I still haven't installed Silverlight 1.0 or seen a site that requires it.

Re:About time (0, Offtopic)

collinstocks (1295204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25433665)

Hopefully it will stay that way!

Re:About time (0, Offtopic)

AppleOSuX (1080499) | more than 5 years ago | (#25438105)

OMG, I was blind but now can see thanks to your insightful comment!

Thank You!

Re:About time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25433809)

That and it was released Tuesday. A little late, aren't we? Providing information such as major changes would have been too useful, I suppose.

Re:About time (4, Interesting)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#25433905)

Silverlight 1.0 should never have come out. Silverlight 1.0 vs Silverlight 2.0 is like comparing Flash to Flex, and make the gab between the two 5 times wider. SL1.0 was useless as hell, and even several of Microsoft's more vocal employees and public figures said that much. It was just something the marketing dep pushed when development of SL2.0 was taking too long. And that same marketing dep messed up big time.

Fortunately, Silverlight 2.0 (which really should be SL 1.0) actually has -some- features.

Re:About time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25433913)

This URL does: http://memorabilia.hardrock.com/

I've already registered my complaint.

Re:About time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25436327)

Me too. Thanks for pointing it out, I'd never actually seen one before.

W00t! (1)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 5 years ago | (#25433953)

Does this mean it's time for me to burn my Fedora 9/MacOS 10.5 CDs and install Microsoft Vista?

Re:W00t! (3, Informative)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434219)

No need :) There's even development tools that will run on non-windows platforms (funded by Microsoft mind you, but still)

http://www.eclipse4sl.org/#features [eclipse4sl.org]

Re:W00t! (1)

Jorophose (1062218) | more than 5 years ago | (#25436255)

I think he was talking of support, though. And there is only support for one; windows (moonlight developpement is slow, and I don't know if there's a MS version for Macs...).

Re:W00t! (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#25436467)

Yup, there is version for Mac, made by MS, and fully supported.

Re:About time (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434019)

NBC Olympics' videos [nbcolympics.com] did. I recall it gave out a v1.0 beta version. :(

Re:About time (1)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 5 years ago | (#25435163)

It used a 2.0 beta version.

Re:About time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437557)

I maintain that the only reason Silverlight is on this computer is because that was the only way I'd get to see any of the fencing.

How is this news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25434055)

Like Vista, this is unwanted technology from a company who's main goal is isolating their customers from the customers data while forbidding access by people not fully paid up an using their technology. Its like me building a toll road that people have to go out of their way to get to, then pay me money for using my road, then do another detour to get back to where they were going. Its really quite insane (gee, no takers huh?). I am going to start calling this technology Pilferblight.

Here's one (1)

Amazing Quantum Man (458715) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434521)

Major League Baseball (mlb.com)

This is the year! (4, Funny)

bonch (38532) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434661)

This year will be the Year of Silverlight on the Desktop! Just you wait!

Re:This is the year! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25437429)

I am willing to bet that Silverlight will be more successful within 1 year than Linux has been for its entire existence. Not bashing Linux, just saying that is probably how it will unfold.

Re:This is the year! (1)

OldManAndTheC++ (723450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25438071)

Damn straight! I hear they are rewriting Duke Nukem Forever to run on Silverlight! Right in your browser!

Re:About time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25434711)

How about watching video online about the Olympics? Anyway nothing 'required' flash at first either.

Re:About time (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 5 years ago | (#25435107)

I sent an email to to comedy.ca since several dozen of their videos required it, asking when they were going to switch back to flash/and or offer both.

I never got an answer.

Try harder (1)

AppleOSuX (1080499) | more than 5 years ago | (#25438145)

Why should they switch back to Flash or do twice the work to offer both?

Just because you personally don't like Microsoft? Really? In that case, don't expect a response because they already consider you a crackpot.

And nothing of value (3, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#25433681)

was gained.

Neat, but... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25433711)

...call me again when Mono has an implementation.

Re:Neat, but... (2, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434283)

If current progress is any indicator, you'll be in business roughly 2015-16.

I can't wait!

Re:Neat, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25435829)

Isn't the FOSS mantra "if it's not built, just make it yourself!"?

Well, what's stopping you? Go ahead and contribute to Moonlight.

"But I don't want Silverlight anyway, I'm not going to waste my time on that!" you say? Well then quit your bitching.

Re:Neat, but... (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437627)

I don't want Mono anyway, I'm not going to waste my time on *anything related to* that.

Re:Neat, but... (1)

ThaReetLad (538112) | more than 5 years ago | (#25438303)

Then why the hell are you spending your time moaning about the non-existence of something you don't want????

Re:Neat, but... (4, Informative)

nacturation (646836) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434405)

...call me again when Mono has an implementation.

I couldn't find your phone number, but here you go [mono-project.com] -- Mono project's Moonlight, the open source implementation of Silverlight.

Re:Neat, but... (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25435779)

I think the AC is looking for an implementation which is at least alpha quality. Moonlight describes itself as pre-alpha for silverlight 1.0 still.

Re:Neat, but... (1)

orkybash (1013349) | more than 5 years ago | (#25436131)

AC was me, accidentally hit the "Post anonymously" checkbox... anyway, I'm well aware of Moonlight but that isn't exactly going to implement 2.0 soon, is it? I was more trying to make the point that to me, a new version of Windows-only software is useless. Not that this shouldn't be news though, slashdot != linux.com after all.

Re:Neat, but... (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437615)

AC was me, accidentally hit the "Post anonymously" checkbox... anyway, I'm well aware of Moonlight but that isn't exactly going to implement 2.0 soon, is it?

I was more trying to make the point that to me, a new version of Windows-only software is useless.

Okay, fair enough... but it comes across as more of a Microsoft bash than anything. It's well understood that if software X comes out for platform Y and a person uses platform Z which is incompatible with Y, that they won't be able to use software X... whether it's Apple software for OS X that Windows users can't use or any other combination. It really doesn't need to be pointed out any more than an article on a cure for ovarian cancer ought to be filled with posts saying "But I don't have ovaries, so this is useless to me." -- which might be true, but it's certainly useful for others.

Mono? (1, Flamebait)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434683)

call me again when Mono has an implementation.

Mono is the camel's nose under the tent.

Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25433743)

No downloads for Linux! I'm safe!

Re:Great! (4, Funny)

psergiu (67614) | more than 5 years ago | (#25433817)

Also no 2.0 for PowerPC Mac! I'm safe too!

FTA: "Silverlight 2 is a cross-platform...." (2, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25436447)

Which platforms are available? XP and Vista?

Re:FTA: "Silverlight 2 is a cross-platform...." (4, Informative)

benwaggoner (513209) | more than 5 years ago | (#25436661)

http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/resources/install.aspx#sysreq [microsoft.com]

Platforms for Silverlight 2:
Windows Vista (including Windows Server 2008)
Windows XP SP2
Windows 2000
Windows Server 2003
Mac OS 10.4.8+ (Intel only)

Browsers:
Internet Explorer 6 and 7
FireFox 1.5, 2, and 3
Safari

The Problem (2, Interesting)

Jephir (1379751) | more than 5 years ago | (#25433765)

I don't know what the value of using Silverlight is over using Flash.

Re:The Problem (5, Informative)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#25433851)

The value is on the developer side, not so much the user in this case. Silverlight allows one to use WPF and the .NET framework in a semi-crossplatform manner and in a browser. Saves time and money if you're a .NET shop. Not super useful for a web site thats going to be heavily public though, but nice for web -applications-, like internal apps or web apps that are heavily targeted (like say a CMS)

Re:The Problem (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434485)

So basically it's good as a replacement to Active-X, except a bit more cross-platform from the client side.

Re:The Problem (3, Informative)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434575)

Negatory. ActiveX was built to interact with the user's computer; such is generally not possible with Silverlight.

Re:The Problem (2, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25435065)

So Microsoft decided that developer support was more important than porn site support. Uh, that was stupid. Basically, the only way Microsoft is going to get people installing Silverlight is to put up a FREE PORN site that requires Silverlight exclusively. On Windows Vista or later only.

Re:The Problem (0, Troll)

ednopantz (467288) | more than 5 years ago | (#25435067)

Um, you're doing it wrong. This is slashdot.

You are supposed to rag on it without understanding what it is or what it does. Then turn immediately and gobble down some press release from Google as the greatest thing ever.

Re:The Problem (1)

kjart (941720) | more than 5 years ago | (#25435261)

Not super useful for a web site thats going to be heavily public though

That's funny, I would've thought that the NBC Olympics site would've fallen into that category.

Re:The Problem (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#25435361)

Sorry. Not useful for web sites that are going to be heavily public, that traffic is not garenteed (so you can't pull the arm of your customers to get them to install it), AND you're not paid large amounts of money to do it. The NBC Olympics site was also using a -beta- version of SL. Would you put beta stuff on your production servers normally? I think not :)

Re:The Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25438413)

I agree.
As a c# developer it's very simple to get a useful silverlight application up and running. And I can do it using Visual Studio, no need to learn a new tool.

Re:The Problem (3, Insightful)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434689)

Have you ever tried using Flash *heavily* in a web application?

ActionScript is an abomination, at best.

I'll take Silverlight over Flash for that simple reason.

I'd still prefer neither.

Re:The Problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25436857)

Yes I have and I was quite pleased.
Flex Builder 3 is quite nice also for building RIA.
So why is ActionScript 3 an abomination... besides because you just say so?

Re:The Problem (1)

grahamd0 (1129971) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437037)

ActionScript is an abomination, at best.

Why do you say that?

If you honestly feel that way I'd guess that you haven't tried using Actionscript in the last couple of years.

Re:The Problem (2, Insightful)

jejones (115979) | more than 5 years ago | (#25436365)

It's a way to bind web sites to Windows, so it's of great value... to Microsoft.

Meh (4, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 5 years ago | (#25433781)

I was more excited to hear Garfield The Movie was getting a sequel.

Silverlight $NEXT_VERSION will trounce all comers (3, Informative)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25433805)

Good Lord. Who cares?

Re:Silverlight $NEXT_VERSION will trounce all come (4, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25433907)

Microsoft today announced the release of version 2.0 its world-beating Silverlight multimedia platform for the Web. As a replacement for Adobe's Flash, it is widely considered utterly superfluous and of no interest.

"We have a fabulous selection of content partners for Silverlight," announced Microsoft marketer Scott Guthrie on his blog today. "NBC for the Olympics, which delivered millions of new users to BitTorrent. The Democrat National Convention, which is fine because those Linux users are all Ron Paul weirdos anyway. It comes with rich frameworks, rich controls, rich networking support, a rich base class library, rich media support, oh God kill me now. Google haven't called back. My life is an exercise in futility. I'm the walking dead, man, the walking dead!"

Silverlight was created by Microsoft to leverage its desktop monopoly on Windows, to work off the tremendous sales and popularity of Vista. Flash is present on a pathetic 98% of computers connected to the Internet, whereas Silverlight downloads are into the triple figures.

Re:Silverlight $NEXT_VERSION will trounce all come (0)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434013)

Were you trying to be modded +funny?

Especially the "tremendous sales and popularity of vista" part.

Meanwhile, any developer with a shred of common sense knows silverlight is like asking to create more viruses for windows.

Silverlight wouldn't even get a glance from lazy developers if it wasn't for that flash is a horrible piece of crap as well.

"Yes" (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434653)

Were you trying to be modded +funny?

"Yes"

Re:"Yes" (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25435043)

Well, I have to pass the time somehow.

Re:Silverlight $NEXT_VERSION will trounce all come (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25435037)

So the "tremendous sales and popularity of Vista" part struck you as humorous, but not the bit about Linux users? Oooooookay ...

Re:Silverlight $NEXT_VERSION will trounce all come (5, Informative)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434547)

Full version up now [today.com] :

Microsoft today announced the release of version 2.0 its world-beating Silverlight multimedia platform for the Web. As a replacement for Adobe's Flash, it is widely considered utterly superfluous and of no interest to anyone who could be found.

"We have a fabulous selection of content partners for Silverlight," announced Microsoft marketer Scott Guthrie on his blog today. "NBC for the Olympics, which delivered millions of new users to BitTorrent. The Democrat National Convention, which is fine because those Linux users are all Ron Paul weirdos anyway. It comes with rich frameworks, rich controls, rich networking support, a rich base class library, rich media support, oh God kill me now. My resumé's a car crash, Google won't call me back. My life is an exercise in futility. I'm the walking dead, man. The walking dead."

Silverlight was created by Microsoft to leverage its desktop monopoly on Windows, to work off the tremendous sales and popularity of Vista. Flash is present on a pathetic 96% of all computers connected to the Internet, whereas Silverlight downloads are into the triple figures.

"But it's got DRM!" cried Guthrie. "Netflix loved it! And web developers love us too, after all we did for them with IE 6. Wait, come back!"

Similar Microsoft initiatives include its XPS replacement for Adobe PDF, its HD Photo replacement for JPEG photographs and its earlier Liquid Motion attempt to replace Flash. Also, that CD-ROM format Vista defaults to which no other computers can read.

In a Microsoft internal security sweep, Guthrie's own desktop was found to still be running Windows XP.

Re:Silverlight $NEXT_VERSION will trounce all come (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25435071)

May I say how pleased I am that that comment got a +1 Informative mod. o_0

Re:Silverlight $NEXT_VERSION will trounce all come (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25435947)

the many C# devs who will now start forcing users to switch to Silverlight business based apps and give html+javascript a bad name..

just wait and see what silverlight and sharepoint will do together in the corporate world..

"Linux is like the electric car.. not a chance"

Pointless (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25433865)

- Adobe bought Macromedia for Flash (amongst other things).
- Microsoft is trying to compete with Flash.
- Google, Apple (via MobileMe) and most programmers are pushing for a standards-based, browsers-neutral Web 2.0 approach.

Death to Flash and to Silverlight.

Re:Pointless (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437461)

"Google, Apple (via MobileMe) and most programmers are pushing for a standards-based, browsers-neutral Web 2.0 approach."

By "browsers-neutral" you must mean "it sort of works in most browsers" because Web 2.0 apps certainly don't work identically in all browsers unless browser-specific handling is included.

In any case, I think that the standards should eventually embrace something better than a hack added to a HTTP/HTML/Javascript environment that wasn't designed for web applications.

Thank you Microsoft (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25433929)

Flash10 appeared as a regular update on my Fedora installation(adobe repo), just when it was released.
Never would had happened without you.

Javascript communication (3, Funny)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 5 years ago | (#25433935)

We're looking for a replacement for canvas in IE. excanvas sucks. We could use flash, but the Javascriptflash interface is very slow. (It serializes to XML twice.) Is Silverlight's any better?

use SVG, it IS XML (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25434629)

maybe together with some other open web standards

Re:use SVG, it IS XML (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434731)

No. SVG is no good for what we need. Also, its cross-browser support is actually poorer, and performance is abysmal.

My prediction: Silverlight will be like Windows (1)

kbrasee (1379057) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434161)

Version 1.0 will be a joke and no one will buy into it. Version 2.0 will be only moderately better than 1.0 and it will gain a little momentum. Version 3.0 will be only moderately better than 2.0 and almost everybody will switch to it within a year or two.

Re:My prediction: Silverlight will be like Windows (4, Informative)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434179)

Close. Though version 2.0 isn't just "moderately better" than 1.0... its night and day, and shouldn't even have the same name. (Note: I'm not saying 2.0 is good or not... just that its a billion times better than 1.0...)

Oh this is too precious! (3, Insightful)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434195)

From the silverlight terms of agreement:

You may not

 work around any technical limitations in the software;

There - right there - it says that if your computer is limited by this software you may not find a way to fix it!

Oh my goodness! I am so glad I got "your browser or hardware is incompatible with silverlight" or some generic message when I browsed to the silverlight page...

I wonder if "not allowed to work around" includes uninstalling it...

7. SUPPORT SERVICES. Because this software is âoeas is,â we may not provide support services for it.

So if it breaks your computer you are on your own!

Oh dear - what a chuckle. Trusted computing my left buttock.

Joy of joys! (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434217)

http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/resources/install.aspx?mode=sysreq&reason=unsupportedplatform [microsoft.com]

Seems I am safe after all.

(sorry for the ugly linkage...)

Re:Joy of joys! (1)

PaKL (1236442) | more than 5 years ago | (#25435735)

OMG ! It doesn't support Opera ! Oh well, so sad ... care factor "0"
I wonder if Microsoft are counting the number of hits to that "This Web browser or operating system may not be compatible with Silverlight." web page?
You can bet they ARE counting the number of successful instals so the can boast about it someday!

why? (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434311)

Let me see if I have this right.

If you are developing a rich internet application and need it to work with the most possible platforms, you use AJAX. If you are willing to settle for a smaller number of platforms in exchange for more UI flexibility, you use Flex. If you are... uh... trying to watch the 2008 Olympics, you use Silverlight.

Right?

Re:why? (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434407)

If you're trying to save time and money by reusing your existing development tools and training by using .NET, you use Silverlight, if you're making an app where the fact that users will have to install a plugin isn't a big deal (intranet, targeted web app, etc).

silverlight 1.0 didn't even have the above... thats why it was so stupid. It had less features than even many javascript libs like ExtJS or JQuery, it supported even less platforms than Flex (or even other more obscure ones), no one had it installed, and you still had to code against it in Javascript, using a shitty feature anorexic API (ASP.NET AJAX, which, while the name confuses it, is more about Javascript API than Ajax, like JQuery and stuff, but still, almost no features).

That was a total joke.

Re:why? (1)

ThaReetLad (538112) | more than 5 years ago | (#25438343)

Yes, if you willing to only reach 98% of all computer users out there, go ahead, use Silverlight! See if we care!

Silverlight is terrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25434557)

It's locked-down, proprietary and a M$ product. Need I say more?

The only thing that Silverlight has over it's opponents is less vulnerabilities than Flash, but I think it's security through obscurity.

Re:Silverlight is terrible (1)

jisatsusha (755173) | more than 5 years ago | (#25438129)

It's locked-down, proprietary and a M$ product. Need I say more?

A bit like Flash then, except with "Adobe" in place of "M$"? That doesn't seem to have bothered many people.

OOS needs to create their own (1)

Twillerror (536681) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434573)

Sure HTML and Javascript have gotten us a long way. But even the best DHTML/JS tree control, tabs, slider panel, etc run slower then native widgets, Silverlight, Flash/Flex.

Get the source code for Firefox and read the code in the parser directory if you can...try not to throw up. HTML parsing is just old school...time for a real f'ing GUI library for application development. Sure slashdot and fark can get by with HTML and it's got life left, but I think there are better ways of creating a portable GUI.

Who is "OOS"? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434625)

Who is this "OOS" you're referring to?

Re:OOS needs to create their own (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#25436211)

What about XUL?

Re:OOS needs to create their own (1)

benwaggoner (513209) | more than 5 years ago | (#25436531)

But even the best DHTML/JS tree control, tabs, slider panel, etc run slower then native widgets, Silverlight, Flash/Flex.

Isn't Flex just a development environment on top of the normal Flash ActionScript 3 implementation? I don't know why Flex would offer any better performance than Flash. The .NET CLR/DLR in Silverlight is enormously faster than either.

Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25434783)

By far the longest and slowest and most complicated "Hello World" example I have ever done.

I thought the Olympics was a silverlight failure? (4, Interesting)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 5 years ago | (#25434937)

My impression was that the amount of Olympics streaming using Silverlight was less than YouTube during the same time period. If so, it doesn't seem like much of a success to me.

(Calling it a success because people installed silverlight isn't much. Afterall, the same people would have probably installed a rootkit and trojan in order to watch the Olympic streaming. They just don't care.)

Re:I thought the Olympics was a silverlight failur (1, Interesting)

benwaggoner (513209) | more than 5 years ago | (#25436497)

My impression was that the amount of Olympics streaming using Silverlight was less than YouTube during the same time period. If so, it doesn't seem like much of a success to me.

If the bar for success for video on the web is deliver more content than YouTube, than there has not been a success in web video since YouTube launched :). 9.9 million hours of video in 17 days is a whole lot of video.

Some better metrics for success might be:
Was it profitable for NBC?
Did viewers get a good experience?
Did it innovate anything new in video delivery?

My biased opinion is "yes" in all three categories.

I've got this blog post with some more details about Silverlight and the Olympics:
http://on10.net/blogs/benwagg/Final-Olympics-numbers/ [on10.net]

(Calling it a success because people installed silverlight isn't much. Afterall, the same people would have probably installed a rootkit and trojan in order to watch the Olympic streaming. They just don't care.)

People don't care what software they install as long as it delivers what they want? Probably true, but that sounds more like a feature of Silverlight, not a bug.

If a consumer is always aware what technology is in their media player, the player is probably too obtrusive. The user should be mainly aware of the awesome experience.

Re:I thought the Olympics was a silverlight failur (1)

J-1000 (869558) | more than 5 years ago | (#25438053)

(Calling it a success because people installed silverlight isn't much. Afterall, the same people would have probably installed a rootkit and trojan in order to watch the Olympic streaming. They just don't care.)

It is much. It's not a contest of public opinion, it's a contest of install base. If Microsoft can get the numbers, it doesn't matter whether the people thought rationally about it first.

It seems silly to write off Silverlight. Windows, IE and Direct 3D come to mind. You can't take over the world in only one version!

I'm JavaFX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25435049)

You are my bitch Silverlight, just like Flash.

Re:I'm JavaFX (1)

EvilRyry (1025309) | more than 5 years ago | (#25435403)

Unlike JavaFX however, they both actually managed to get a release out into the world.

Srsly: who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25435095)

I was *NEVER* asked or prompted to install the damn thing on any website. Plus...it's a Flash competitor? If i ruled the world, Flash would be limited to streaming media and shitty online games.
I want my hyperTEXT back in my interwebs please.

Scott Guthrie (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25435667)

Where did Scott Guthrie work before Microsoft and HP? His name is so familiar, not from the Microsoft press but in a personal way. It seems like I may have worked with him many years ago (cica 1995 or so). I don't know if he worked at the same company as me or if he was working with us.

And...where's Moonlight 1.0? (3, Insightful)

jfbilodeau (931293) | more than 5 years ago | (#25436273)

I'm sure that Microsoft kindly shared the specs for SilverLight 2.0 with Mono/Novell during the development so that the Mono project would not have to play catch-up once 2.0 came out. Right?

Otherwise, Microsoft would be releasing a technology that will only work reliably on Windows and shun the other major platforms.

Hum... I wonder why they just don't do like Adobe or Sun and release a version for Linux, Mac and Windows?

Surely, I must be misinterpreting Microsoft's intentions with Silverlight!

Re:And...where's Moonlight 1.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25436399)

Also would be nice a Windows Server 2003 for 64bit since it's not supported.

Re:And...where's Moonlight 1.0? (1)

benwaggoner (513209) | more than 5 years ago | (#25436747)

I'm sure that Microsoft kindly shared the specs for SilverLight 2.0 with Mono/Novell during the development so that the Mono project would not have to play catch-up once 2.0 came out. Right?

Are you looking for something like publishing the XAML spec under the Open Specification Promise?

http://blogs.windowsclient.net/rob_relyea/archive/2008/10/14/ms-slxv-silverlight-xaml-vocabulary-2008-specification-v0-9-published.aspx [windowsclient.net] .

Otherwise, Microsoft would be releasing a technology that will only work reliably on Windows and shun the other major platforms.

Hum... I wonder why they just don't do like Adobe or Sun and release a version for Linux, Mac and Windows?

All versions of Silverlight have shipped day-and-date Mac/Win. Mono is doing a Linux version called Moonlight.

Re:And...where's Moonlight 1.0? (1)

jfbilodeau (931293) | more than 5 years ago | (#25438839)

And where is Moonlight 2.0?

Who is 'surprised' that Microsoft is not contributing more code/resources to a Linux version?

Just like .NET (and so many other Microsoft 'cross-platform' techs), it will become more and more Windows centric.

Re:And...where's Moonlight 1.0? (1)

gronofer (838299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25438159)

I'm sure that Microsoft kindly shared the specs for SilverLight 2.0 with Mono/Novell during the development so that the Mono project would not have to play catch-up once 2.0 came out. Right?

Specs? If they were serious about Linux support, they would have provided source code, paid somebody to port it, and had it ready for easy installation on the launch date. (I don't consider the possibility of them porting it themselves, I don't think they have the skills.)

I suspect their only real interest in Linux is in trying to keep it locked out from as much of the web as possible.

Re:And...where's Moonlight 1.0? (1)

ThaReetLad (538112) | more than 5 years ago | (#25438423)

Why would they bother? They'd have to bend over backwards to implement something for just a couple of percent of internet users, who probably won't use it anyway simply because Microsoft wrote it.

Re:And...where's Moonlight 1.0? (1)

StrawberryFrog (67065) | more than 5 years ago | (#25438969)

Otherwise, Microsoft would be releasing a technology that will only work reliably on Windows and shun the other major platforms.

The version that Microsoft released works on Windows and Mac OS X.
The "Moonlight [mono-project.com] " project is the version for "for Linux and other Unix/X11 based operating systems"

And the other major platforms are ... ?

Has anyone actually created a Silverlight app? (4, Informative)

compupc1 (138208) | more than 5 years ago | (#25436983)

Relative to Flash, Silverlight doesn't really bring any more or less to the table from a user's perspective. But as at least one other poster mentioned here, the real power is on the development side of things. Relative to ActionsScript on the Flash side of things, and relative to some weird HTML/CSS/JavaScript combination on the "legacy" side of things, Silverlight is the best, most advanced web development platform I have seen to date, hands down. Sure, there are libraries that help with JavaScript development...YUI, the GWT, etc. But those are slow...and let's face it, the GWT, however effective it might be, is still one big hack for a set of technologies that were never meant to host full-blown applications.

With Silverlight, you get a couple key things:
1) Clean division between UI design and implementation. Gone are the days when the UI designer hands over an HTML prototype to the programmer, and the programmer mangles that into a JSP page, PHP page, oor whatever else. In the old world, making changes to the UI design was a mess, unless those changes were limited to CSS. Now the UI designer and developer are both on equal ground -- either can easially import the other's work for updates.

2) You don't have to write your front-end in a crappy language -- or more specifically, in a crappy runtime. Despite all the love that dynamic languages are getting these days, if you look at it, JavaScript's lack of built in libraries, the cumbersome DOM access, and the awful runtime implementation in browers like IE make it a real pain. With Silverlight, a development shop can pick whatever language they see fit -- it could be JavaScript, it could be C#, or it could even be Python or Ruby. And they get the power of a subset of the .NET framework. There is a LOT of value here.

3) Good tooling. Having proper tools is of critical importance. You get Visual Studio OR Eclipse on the development side and Expression Blend on the UI design side. I don't know how Expression Blend stacks up against the Adobe products, but I do know that on the development side, Visual Studio is one of just 2-3 top of the line IDEs. I love hacking in emacs as much as the next guy, but any serious large-scale development shop is unlikely to be using emacs or vi or notepad. Having the same tool you use for your back-end development apply to your front-end development is a very, very good thing.

4) Technology that was meant for application UIs. Let's face it: HTML was meant as a document presenation language. Sure, it's been updated over the years and other technologies like CSS have greatly helped. But at its core, it's still not architected to really be an application development platform. And it will never be that, no matter how many bells and whistles you may add.

It's easy to dismiss Silverlight because it's a Microsoft product or whatever. My background is in C and Java, mainly on Linux and Solaris. But Silverlight impressed the hell out of me. So long as they maintain the cross-browser, cross-platform compatibility, I feel it's a perfectly valid choice for developers to make. Keep in mind that competition is a good thing. Firefox was the best thing that ever happened to IE; both browsers now motivate improvements in the other. The same applies between Flash and Silverlight. It will be interesting to see whether Silverlight sees more widespread adoption going forward.

Time for a GUI revolution (2, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#25437683)

Perhaps its time to skip the HTML browser and create a "GUI browser" that is designed for decent GUI's from the ground up. That way we don't have to worry about whether MS will support it or not.

Re:Has anyone actually created a Silverlight app? (1)

mrpacmanjel (38218) | more than 5 years ago | (#25438431)

Wow, a positive Microsoft post on Slashdot!

What's it like working at Microsoft? :)

Kidding aside, something like this is desperatly needed for the internet.

What really worries me is that it's from Microsoft and the needs of thier OS *always* comes first no matter what happens.

Just look at .Net, version 2 seemed to be the sweet-spot on size and features. Version 3.x included yet more libraries, the bloat is growing at an alarming rate and seems to be more Windows-centric.

If the Silverlight technology was truly open-source and not affected by patents then people would jump at something like this.

There is still alot of dis-trust at the moment because Steve "Throw me a monkey-ass chair" Ballmer has threatened to use patents against companies in the past.

I have great respect for the Developers (specifically the development products) at Microsoft, they have produced some great software.

Unfortunately it is "the management" of the company I have a problem with and will I probably avoid Silverlight for the time being.

Fancy options! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25438369)

FTA: Below is a screen-shot of the Silverlight DataGrid, RadioButton, CheckBox and DatePicker controls in the final release

oh my.. See if you can beat that, Adobe! RadioButtons, CheckBoxes and even a DatePicker!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...