Beta
×

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!

MS Silverlight To Stream Obama Inauguration Events

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the open-to-most dept.

Microsoft 589

Ilgaz writes in to let us know that we will have to install MS Silverlight 2 to watch the US President's inauguration online. Everyone running Mac PPC, Linux, and FreeBSD has been left out, as there are no working Silverlight 2-capable alternatives on these systems. Here is Microsoft's press release announcing the selection of Silverlight yesterday. Streaming of various events around the inauguration begins today at the Presidential Inaugural Committee site, which touts its "inclusive and accessible" coverage.

cancel ×

589 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So much for a tech savvy Whitehouse. (5, Insightful)

retech (1228598) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500229)

That certainly didn't take long to have the rhetoric fail and the reality take charge.

The OB Me$$iah comes! (0, Troll)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500243)

All hail the OB Me&$iah!

Re:So much for a tech savvy Whitehouse. (2, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500255)

That certainly didn't take long to have the rhetoric fail and the reality take charge.

Oh, they're plenty tech savvy ... they're just not tech willing. Microsoft now owes the Obama Administration a favor.

Re:So much for a tech savvy Whitehouse. (1, Troll)

Rasta_the_far_Ian (872140) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500299)

Need to make noise about this in every public forum / newsgroup / polital meeting now.

From these events, it is obvious that the new administration either does not know about or does not care about the passion this community has for free ideals.

I shudder to think of any Microsoft friendly legislation coming before the new President - this is a clear signal that he will support MS over non-MS objectives.

Re:So much for a tech savvy Whitehouse. (5, Insightful)

Joe Jay Bee (1151309) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500371)

From these events, it is obvious that the new administration either does not know about or does not care about the passion this community has for free ideals.

A very tiny community, compared to the overwhelming majority who a) don't give a toss about "free ideals" and b) have seen this story for the bullshit it is, in that only one website requires Silverlight to watch the inauguration, whereas YouTube and many others will be showing it in Flash video.

Re:So much for a tech savvy Whitehouse. (5, Interesting)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500575)

Any chance of WikiMedia or someone else hosting an OGG for Firefox 3.1 and Opera users to enjoy the <video> tag?

Joost is advertising that they will stream it live (4, Informative)

Tran (721196) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500629)

Since I watch Joost shows sometimes on the Mac without having silverlight installed, I assume that it is not a requirement there either.

Re:So much for a tech savvy Whitehouse. (3, Interesting)

xlotlu (1395639) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500763)

[...] in that only one website requires Silverlight to watch the inauguration, whereas [...]

Yeah, it just so happens that the "one website" is the official presidential inaugural committee site, which pompously dares to call it the most open inauguration in history [pic2009.org] .

Welcome to the change.

Re:So much for a tech savvy Whitehouse. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500369)

This is just Microsoft lying about end-users being required to use their product to accomplish a given task. They have done this for years. Why do people still believe Microsoft?

Or alternatively (5, Informative)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500233)

You can watch it using flash video here [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Or alternatively (2, Informative)

tacocat (527354) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500805)

Interesting that the UK has this and US doesn't.

It's day one, so maybe there should be a little slack granted. But he needs to be careful. I think a LOT of people who did vote for Obama did so on the ideas he presented with a we'll see how he does. Otherwise the Republicans will lay waste to the Democrats in four years.

I would welcome a third party.

Humm... (2, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500237)

Let's see. Wants to renew Bush's tax cuts, says it will take a while to figure out how best to close Gitmo, and picks a Windows only solution for streaming....
So far so good.

Re:Humm... (1, Offtopic)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500347)

says it will take a while to figure out how best to close Gitmo

Most reasonable people would acknowledge that it's going to take awhile to close down Gitmo. Many of the people held there are simply too dangerous to let go. Many of the others who aren't have no where to go -- their home countries won't accept them. It should be obvious that you can't just close the facility down and give everybody there a bus ticket home. Obama has committed himself to ending torture and finding a safe way to closing down Gitmo. What more do you want?

Wants to renew Bush's tax cuts

And? Do you really think raising taxes in the middle of the ongoing economic meltdown is wise?

Re:Humm... (4, Insightful)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500413)

Many of the people held there are simply too dangerous to let go. Many of the others who aren't have no where to go

The US Department of Defense operates many military prisons. They can all easily be transfered to a military prison within the US. They were only held offshore to avoid jurisdiction, and that point's been rendered moot.

Re:Humm... (0, Offtopic)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500513)

The US Department of Defense operates many military prisons. They can all easily be transfered to a military prison within the US.

So it's ok to hold them without charges on American soil but not ok to hold them without charges on foreign soil?

They were only held offshore to avoid jurisdiction, and that point's been rendered moot.

Then who cares that they are held offshore?

Re:Humm... (1)

nbarriga (877070) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500521)

If they are transfered to a prison within the US, then they have to press charges. As far as I know in the US(I'm not from the US) you cannot detain somebody indefinitely without charges, except at Guantanamo that is. Please somebody clarify this.

Re:Humm... (4, Insightful)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500613)

Isn't that sort of the point of closing gitmo? To try them in a court of law, as opposed to hold them illegally and indefinitely without trial?

Re:Humm... (3, Insightful)

Bertie (87778) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500539)

Most reasonable people would acknowledge that it's going to take awhile to close down Gitmo. Many of the people held there are simply too dangerous to let go. Many of the others who aren't have no where to go -- their home countries won't accept them. It should be obvious that you can't just close the facility down and give everybody there a bus ticket home. Obama has committed himself to ending torture and finding a safe way to closing down Gitmo. What more do you want?

Call me a woolly-minded old liberal, but they could always, y'know, try them, and either bang them up legitimately or let them go as appropriate.

Re:Humm... (2, Insightful)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500713)

That's the plan Obama has. They have to be moved into the States, at which point they must legally be tried.

But will it run linux? (3, Funny)

gapagos (1264716) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500239)

Ah, fuck.

Huh? What? (5, Informative)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500245)

Boy, talk about cherry picking a slanted conclusion...

The actual copy from the references story is...

Microsoft's Silverlight technology has been chosen to stream U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's swearing-in ceremony live on the Presidential Inaugural Committee's Web site...

Nowhere does it say that all the networks will be using Silverlight exclusively.

Re:Huh? What? (0, Redundant)

krygny (473134) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500627)

"Boy, talk about cherry picking a slanted conclusion..."

Really. Please. We can stop that practice now that George "Fuckin'" Bush is almost gone.

Re:Huh? What? (4, Informative)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500687)

To enlarge upon your point, that would be a committee that Obama is NOT heading up. He probably won't be personally supervising the mowing of the White House lawn either. I suppose people will be blaming Obama if the D.C. dept of Sanitation doesn't provide enough waste baskets as well.

Change we can believe in my b**** (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500247)

Change we can believe in my b****

All hail President Bush the 3rd

change we can believe in my b**** (-1, Troll)

unix_geek_512 (810627) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500261)

change we can believe in my b****

All hail Pres Bush the 3rd

Re:change we can believe in my b**** (2, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500311)

"All hail Pres Bush the 3rd"

That would have been McCain. Obama is Clinton the Second, to judge by his cabinet.

Re:change we can believe in my b**** (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500335)

Either way, we're fucked.

Re:change we can believe in my b**** (2, Insightful)

unix_geek_512 (810627) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500455)

He's Bush the 3rd with Clinton's cabinet, talking like Clinton, acting like Bush

The AC is right, we're screwed either way

Re:change we can believe in my b**** (1)

mazarin5 (309432) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500475)

Whoops [slashdot.org]

Re:change we can believe in my b**** (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500695)

http://digg.com/ [digg.com]

Doesn't mean much to me ... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500277)

I have little use for Flash and less for Silverlight ... and the inauguration will still be on TV (and will be broadcast and re-broadcast ad nauseam anyway) so it's not like we won't get to see it if we don't knuckle under. I wonder what Microsoft will have to give in return for this great boon?

Re:Doesn't mean much to me ... (2, Funny)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500593)

Letting the white house's computers run for another four years.

To the mac ppc users (both of you) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500281)

it wont work from your dialup modem/AOL connection anyway.

Re:To the mac ppc users (both of you) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500715)

My G4 Mac comes with internal wifi, so it is quite capable of streaming video.

Re:To the mac ppc users (both of you) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500807)

*whoosh*

Standards? (1, Insightful)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500283)

Sweet so something that should be accessible to everyone is only available to people using some propriety piece of software. Why couldn't they just stream in MPEG? Flash would be better, but fails for the same reasons as Silverlight.

Re:Standards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500353)

Streaming MPEG? Not so easy.

Re:Standards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500439)

Re:Standards? (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500731)

You do know that Obama has next to nothing to do with the PIC, right? Hell, I don't like the guy (voted "none of the above" because both candidates sucked), but making a mountain out of a molehill is stupid as shit.

I don't see why Flash would be better. Both the Flash and Silverlight formats are open standards.

For the rest of us there is Hulu (2, Informative)

rev_deaconballs (1071074) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500285)

Re:For the rest of us there is Hulu (1)

Plug (14127) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500429)

For the rest of you in the US, that is, who can already watch it live on television...

Typical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500287)

Typical MS method of crowbaring in technology that no one was interested in or wanted. Now if you want to see something that many people ARE interested in watching, you have to install some crapware which will either be 'uninstallable' or so difficult to remove that you'll just leave it.

Eventually it'll require an upgrade that will break something else you use, but MS will continue to crowbar it in with 'compelling uses', and eventually you'll find the other technology to be not worth your time to upgrade...

And M$ will have another foothold... I for one say 'stomp on that foot as hard as you can'. Don't buy in. Go watch the event at a bar, friend's house, or on tv (if you have one).... Go to a TV store - it'll be on... No need to install SilverTongue

Re:Typical (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500633)

Asshole! Silverlight is necessary for one web site, go elsewhere if you like. Its uninstallable like any other program. Its not unstable. It works at least as well as flash. I would have figure that you people would have learned by now. .Net was a reimplimentation of Java, only they got it right. Silverlight is a re-implementation of flash, only they got it right. When MS steals an idea and re-impliments it, they do it right (like they did in the past with Citrix and the remote desktop ecosystem)

HULU anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500289)

just use hulu or half a dozen other flash based streamers to watch it or turn on the old fashioned Television, 20 different channels including ESPN are covering it.

WRONG! (4, Informative)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500291)

Typical garbage from KDawson.

The story *DOES NOT* say that Silver light will be used exclusivly accross all channels. It says:

Microsoft's Silverlight technology has been chosen to stream U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's swearing-in ceremony live on the Presidential Inaugural Committee's Web site

...on the Presidential Inaugural Committee's Web site...

Re:WRONG! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500517)

So you are forced to use Silverlight on that website, which is just wrong and is what the guy is complaining about.

Re:WRONG! (4, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500565)

Especially since Silverlight is a brand new technology with small market share(flash is around 94% last I checked). This is much different than complaining about having to use popular, longer-lasting MS software such as Word or Visual Studio.

Re:WRONG! (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500753)

It's still free to access, and Moonlight will work on Linux and OS X. Macs with PPC won't do it, no, but there's kind of a point where you ignore outdated computers anyway.

Re:WRONG! (0, Troll)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500745)

No, you stupid fucktard, you can choose to use Silverlight if you want to use that website. They set the requirements for their own site--you don't like it, go elsewhere.

You cannot read (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500543)

No where do either the submitter nor kdawson claim what you are alleging, The submitted article makes it perfectly clear right in the summary that it is pertaining to the stream off the inaugural website, where *they* claim to be ""inclusive and accessible"", which silverlight is not. The submitter and editor are correct, you are wrong, I hope the mods rearrange those clueless points you received for failing simple English.

Re:WRONG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500631)

Wow, getting modded up twice for the same post, well done.

Re:WRONG! (2, Informative)

jejones (115979) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500733)

...on the Presidential Inaugural Committee's Web site, which states at the top of the page, "The Presidential Inaugural Committee, at the direction of President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden, will organize an inclusive and accessible inauguration..."

There, fixed that for you.

Re:WRONG! (1)

DiegoBravo (324012) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500751)

I don't know what's the importance of that "Presidential Inaugural Committee's Web site", and apparently there is no story here since we can see the Obama-event from other sites.

The reason I ended reading this, was the main title: "MS Silverlight To Stream Obama Inauguration Events" (that shows the rss feed) sounds really bold and relevant, and I expect "stuff that matters" from /. Apparently /. doesn't care anymore.

But more disappointing are people that defends the editor/submiter because after carefully reading the last sentence of the resume, you discover that they are not announcing something relevant for most people, so technically, they are not lying at all, and we have to be happy with this stupid way of news/traffic promoting.

AND, it begins... (1, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500297)

So folks, now that the new Administration is showing itself to be like every other... How do you feel? Like the slut that nobody respects in the morning maybe?

For "change" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500301)

Remember, you of could have had your "lipstick on a pig", and Joe the Plumber would of streamed it for you out of his basement. But oh no. 99% marketshare says no.

Also they will not be supporting fat people who refuse to go on a diet.

This is considered (5, insightful) for neurotypicals (aka not linux users)

You can watch it livde on YouTube (5, Funny)

gapagos (1264716) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500303)

You can watch it Live on YouTube on this channel [youtube.com] .

Exclusively Silverlight? (1)

pieterh (196118) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500333)

It's not encouraging that the committee's website will stick to this proprietary format, which is mainly designed to kill JavaScript and launch Microsoft's conquest of the free and open Internet.

However, is this really exclusive? Will the inauguration be streamed in other formats from other sources? Presumably. In which case, this is really not a problem. It's MSFT getting some marketing.

The marketing won't work. Silverlight will die, and pretty rapidly. I predict MSFT will stop pushing it early 2010.

The free and open Internet was a big part of Obama's winning machine and there's no way he or his team can switch to the old cronyisms without losing their entire support base. It will not happen.

Re:Exclusively Silverlight? (1)

Skreems (598317) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500409)

The marketing won't work. Silverlight will die, and pretty rapidly. I predict MSFT will stop pushing it early 2010.

Good luck with that, since it's going to happen the second people stop using Netflix (their Silverlight-only "Watch Instantly" software is in Beta, and will at some point replace the old version entirely).

Re:Exclusively Silverlight? (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500771)

It's not encouraging that the committee's website will stick to this proprietary format, which is mainly designed to kill JavaScript and launch Microsoft's conquest of the free and open Internet.

Wrong, wrong, fucking wrong.

If Microsoft wanted to "kill JavaScript", then why exactly is it heavily used by ASP.NET? Why is jQuery being packaged with new releases of ASP.NET?

If Microsoft was trying to "conquer the free and open Internet" (it's never been free and only rarely and in brief periods been open), then why would the Silverlight spec be openly available?

Get a clue.

Moonlight...? (1, Interesting)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500339)

Whatever happened to Moonlight? I thought they covered Silverlight 2.0 just fine:

http://www.go-mono.com/mono-downloads/download.html

Oops, bad link (1)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500351)

http://www.mono-project.com/Moonlight [mono-project.com]

meant that. I somehow got to the parent mono download link instead. Feel free to mod parent down.

Re:Moonlight...? (2, Informative)

Skreems (598317) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500423)

Their implementation is only Silverlight 1. Silverlight 2 is in Alpha, but does not work with anything real, as I understand it.

Re:Moonlight...? (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500783)

Silverlight 1.0 handles video streaming fine; unless the PIC's website is idiotically coded, it should work fine on Moonlight.

Worst case, go get it from SVN and it'll work fine. (I'm well aware how stupid that advice is, but hey--that's how the open-source world likes to roll, and I don't personally have the time or the interest to package the current working SVN trunk just for something like this.)

Stupid submitter (1, Informative)

Ren.Tamek (898017) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500341)

I just installed silverlight 2 on my mac, so obviously someone didn't do their homework before submitting.

Re:Stupid submitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500447)

Are you on an intel mac? Notice the ppc clause.

Re:Stupid submitter (4, Informative)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500449)

I did very well. Mac PPC means Macintosh PowerPC. You know, not everyone switched to Intel and MS left out PPC users on release of Silverlight 2.0 without any kind of explanation. Mono Silverlight 2.0 support is in pre-alpha stages and there is no guarantee it will do a trick like that (live streaming).

There should be another way of doing it and if I was Mr. Obama, I would really check that committee's ties with that convicted monopolist as this is not the first time they do this trick. It doesn't really give a good image. Even MS themselves offer Flash or at least WMedia alternatives on their own site.

Re:Stupid submitter (3, Insightful)

heffrey (229704) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500595)

Those running Windows 9x are out in the cold too.

Re:Stupid submitter (2, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500657)

I did very well. Mac PPC means Macintosh PowerPC. You know, not everyone switched to Intel and MS left out PPC users on release of Silverlight 2.0 without any kind of explanation.

PPC on the desktop is a small market getting smaller by the day. Sorry, but thats the way it is.

Re:Stupid submitter (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500705)

It is not sub 5% levels yet as you know, PPC macs didn't explode in horror right after Intel switch announced at WWDC. What I know is, Adobe ships Flash 10 for PPC, even enhancing it to use multiple CPU/cores.

Gaming is a very different matter and some people will of course switch to Mac Intel immediately but if we speak about population, it is not at stage of abandoning. It is like "Lets cut 4:3 compatible TV airing, everyone is on 16:9 now". The "everyone" is the trendy people who keeps up with latest.

It is extremely easy fro White House to figure PPC users as Mac browsers will tell which arch they run on browser headers. That committee site too. Hell, even Apple can provide stats, guy is the President.

Re:Stupid submitter (1)

msuarezalvarez (667058) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500811)

That's one of the things FOSS excels at. Once the makers of software become uninterested in the software, those that are interested can pick up. Proprietary software and formats only lead to forced obsolescence and pain.

Re:Stupid submitter (1)

Drencrom (689725) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500453)

The post only mentions PPC macs. Maybe you have an intel mac.

Re:Stupid submitter (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500467)

The slashdot summary clearly states "Mac PPC". Apple switched to intel CPUs only a few years ago.

Re:Stupid submitter (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500469)

I just installed silverlight 2 on my mac, so obviously someone didn't do their homework before submitting.

They mentioned PPC Macs - that's PowerPC-based Macs. In other words, if your Mac is several years old you are starting to be left behind with regards to newer tech - at least if you were hoping to watch the inauguration from one specific website.

While the lack of support for PPC Macs bothers me somewhat in principle, from a practical standpoint I don't think it's all that significant. Unfortunately there is a lot of new software that doesn't support PPC at all; so this is just one more example of that.

Re:Stupid submitter (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500579)

They mentioned PPC Macs - that's PowerPC-based Macs. In other words, if your Mac is several years old you are starting to be left behind with regards to newer tech

My PPC laptop is only 3 years old. Intel Macs are still rather new to the user base.

Re:Stupid submitter (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500471)

Mac PPC. [wikipedia.org]

You use Mac x86. [wikipedia.org]

Do your homework before posting.

And whoever modded this informative should also do some homework.

Re:Stupid submitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500477)

You are using an Intel Mac.

Same bullshit as the convention (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500355)

Yes I know there are other sources, but it still pisses me off. They did the same thing with the convention in Denver, and forced us all to download yet another crappy plug-in (Silverlight 1) to do something we already have 15 that can already do. Flash is bad enough, I don't need a shoddy MS knockoff version too.

Re:Same bullshit as the convention (1)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500803)

Silverlight's arguably much better tech than Flash. Calling it "shoddy" reveals a lack of understanding.

(Don't get me wrong, both Silverlight and Flash suck. But Silverlight really does suck less.)

Silverlight video currently down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500373)

I went there to see, since there's supposedly a feed from the Whistle Stop tour. Clicking the link I see wide vertical stripes of color with large text letters reading: "iSteamPlanet - CAP01. Osprey-230 #1. Composite. bus.slot=11.4. s/n=8052427."

Good ol' Microsoft.

Forcible adoption? (1)

kolbe (320366) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500387)

One has to wonder if this was a matter of Microsoft using its White House lobbyists, the tossing in of a free temporary datacenter, and free infrastructure to get Silverlight 2 as the defacto standard for this Inauguration.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp [w3schools.com]

To me, it sounds like Microsoft is doing everything it can to not lose further market share to the likes of Google or the Mozilla Foundation and to strengthen its supposed "Flash killer" Silverlight technology.

Unfortunately, as IE comes standard with every Windows system, Microsoft will continue to have a majority hold over most of the desktop experience.

None the less, I think the inauguration being broadcast over the net, regardless of the medium, is still a step in the right direction. Too bad the Obama Administration didn't chose to go with a more robust standard of Adobe Flash.

Moonlight ? (4, Informative)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500391)

Oddly enough Jan 20th is the official release date for Moonlight 1.0 The Linux implementation of silverlight. But only of the silverlight 1.0 spec. I wonder if 2.0 is really required.

moonlight roadmap [mono-project.com]

The story is crap, but (4, Interesting)

melted (227442) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500459)

I think Silverlight is one of the few things Microsoft got right. I've been using Silverlight quite extensively on my Mac since Netflix switched to it, and it's rock solid. This kind of got me interested into looking into the programming aspects of it, and it's pretty darn easy if you know .NET Framework and WPF already, and if you don't, the learning curve is not that bad. I wanted to write a multi-file uploader for one of my apps, and I was able to do so in just a couple of hours, end to end.

Re:The story is crap, but (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500603)

I wanted to write a multi-file uploader for one of my apps, and I was able to do so in just a couple of hours, end to end.

It took you a couple of hours to write something to upload multiple files? Damn you suck major ass. That's an ancient already solved problem.

Let me guess, you think you're cool because you wrote a web page with images on it? Loser.

 

Re:The story is crap, but (4, Insightful)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500637)

I refuse to support Silverlight for the same reason I won't support the Xbox. I simply do not want MS to dominate any more markets. We all should know by now that when that happens, things get bad.

Re:The story is crap, but (3, Insightful)

eaa428e6f46aa9f93f47 (1236204) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500643)

It may be the most perfect software ever written, but it is not open, its not free, and its not inclusive. So its exclusive, proprietay, and elitist. On top of that it doesn't do anything significantly better than the competition they are trying to use their market share to squelch. Its just a f'n shame that our leaders who espouse freedom, don't get it.

Re:The story is crap, but (2, Insightful)

Trogre (513942) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500793)

Its just a f'n shame that our leaders who espouse freedom, don't get it.

You mean like RMS? Who has yet to produce a suitable Flash or Silverlight replacement.

(removes tongue from cheek)

Re:The story is crap, but (2, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500799)

I wouldn't care even if it would be the best coded thing ever. Reasonable people shun non multiplatform, non-open formats and that's that.

I have a dream (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500463)

I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of the internet.

Point nine score years ago, a great Fin, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, wrote the Linux kernel. This momentous project came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Windows slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering computers. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But eighteen years later, the Linux user still is not free. Eighteen years later, the life of the Linux user is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. Eighteen years later, the Linux user lives on a lonely island of disconnectivity in the midst of a vast ocean of information prosperity. Eighteen years later, the Linux user is still languished in the corners of internet society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the internet dream.

I have a dream that one day this userbase will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every website and every blog, from every newsgroup and every tweet, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, Linux users and Windows users, Mac users and BSD users, OS/2 users and Amiga users, will be able to join networks and tweet in the words of the old Linux spiritual:

                                Free at last! Free at last!

                                Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

False, false false... (0, Troll)

po134 (1324751) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500505)

How could an information so wrong have made it to frontpage?
http://silverlight.net/GetStarted/ [silverlight.net] there's a mac runtime.

Re:False, false false... (3, Insightful)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500639)

It is Intel only. Lots of people , especially G5 home/business users excluding big time gamers didn't upgrade to Intel yet. Apple knows this fact very well as they still ship iLife/iWork 09 as Universal binary. Adobe Flash 10 for example is both universal binary and recently SMP enabled for PPC dual G4s etc.

Like the dotcom boom days, MS can air a "exclusive Madonna concert" via silverlight, to make it popular and make people install it but this event isn't a Madonna concert or a Hollywood trailer. They couldn't convince their own OS users yet.

Re:False, false false... (1)

Pop69 (700500) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500641)

Because it's correct, there's only a version 1 runtime for Mac PPC.

version Silverlight 1 GDR 2 (1.0.30109.0) according to Firefox 3.0.5 on my G4 iBook

Re:False, false false... (1)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500667)

Note the PPC, PowerPC.

Hulu? Youtube? (1)

E3nder (908983) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500587)

I think the moderators really dropped the ball on posting this story. There are lots of other sites you can watch the inauguration on without having to install silverlight. This is just shoddy moderation, and lends credence to people's complaints about /. being horribly biased.

Silverlight must die (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500673)

Fuck this shit. Microsoft does not own the inauguration, and they should not force its shit-ware on the public to view this once in a lifetime event.

Businesses who are streaming this event should be using technologies that are cross-platform and work with any standards compliant client, not just the ones running Microsoft.

Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500681)

I'd rather watch Porn.

I guess in a way, it is porn for the Left.

Send MIX09 some comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26500683)

Gee, according to the website all you need is an internet connection to watch live. Not. Send MIX09 a few comments: http://visitmix.com/News/44th-Inauguration-Streaming-in-Silverlight

Buying market share (1)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500737)

So this is how Microsoft plans to get Silverlight adopted. They paid a lot of money to get the Olympics streamed using Silverlight and they've probably paid a lot of money for the inauguration too. Meanwhile, anyone building a video site in the absence of Microsoft bribes is using Flash.

Can't say it won't work, but I hope it doesn't.

Lying or Insane or just SlashDot? (0)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500787)

The site does not specify Silverlight 2.0; however, considering that is the latest release, lets assume so for the sake of argument...

Everyone running Mac PPC, Linux, and FreeBSD has been left out

Uh?

1) OS X

Silverlight 2.0 is available for OS X.

I do understand that 1.1 and up do not work on the PPC, so if the site does require 2.0, then it probably won't work on the PPC.

So this could be 'technically' accurate; however, Apple has been dropping support for PPC themselves. So why should MS support an Apple platform that Apple no longer fully supports?

(Yes there are many Apple applications that WILL NOT RUN on PPC OS X, and 10.6 is also suppose to drop support for PPC.)

2) Linux
Silverlight 2.0 is available via moonlight (yes the 2.0 support is Alpha, but it works, and especially works for video.)

3) FreeBSD
If you are using FreeBSD, and don't know how to get Moonlight binaries for FreeBSD, you shouldn't be running FreeBSD, and you need to get a Mac or Windows, preferably a system with less 'scary' buttons.

You can run Moonlight (Yes even 2.0 Alpha versions) on FreeBSD, the code and binaries are out there.

---
So, even though they picked Silverlight, it can run on 99.9999% of the computers in the world.

And this still isn't good enough for the SlashDot world. Holy cow...
---

How about from the PIC's viewpoint.

By Using Silverlight they get:

-Unicast stream - one stream for each bitrate, so extremely light server load, meaning if they have 5 bitrates available, they only have to provide bandwidth for the 5 bitrates combined once, even if 500 million people are watching.

-MBR content - this means they can provide several BitRates of the broadcast and depending on what the client's bandwidth is, scale from a 56K modem quality bitrate to a full HD quality bitrate. And do so seamlessly, and even upscale or downscale while viewing if your connection bandwith changes on the fly. (This is why NetFlix uses Silverlight/WMV/VC1 encoded content as well.)

-Quality - Silverlight natively handles VC1/WMV formats, and this is the preferred format for BluRay HD content because of quality. So they can offer broadcast level video if they choose with full 7.1 surround if they got fancy.

---

Microsoft has actually done Ok work with Silverlight, especially in the light video/codec department client with far better quality and lighter bandwidth than Flash or other solutions, and even better client performance.

Anyone watch video with Flash lately? Wow, talk about a freaking pig - version 10 especially. I personally would take Silverlight content on Linux or OS X or Windows over Flash crap any day.

With Flash you get to watch your CPU spike and run around 30% even with GPU acceleration enabled and 70% with GPU acceleration turned off.

In contrast, maybe 10% with Silverlight.

Test it, 99.9% of the time, a Flash Ad or Flash crap on a page will eat more CPU % to show a flashing gopher than a HD Silverlight Video playing on the same page.

Obvious, but... (1)

Smitty825 (114634) | more than 4 years ago | (#26500815)

I know that just about everything posted by kdawson should be moderated as a "-1 Troll", but what good, cross-platform video codecs exist for streaming video? Obviously, Silverlight isn't that cross platform, Flash is proprietary, so I can't use it on a PPC linux box I have here, etc.

Open, Free Codecs that work everywhere are surprisingly non-existent. I'd like to see that change!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>