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!

Moonlight 1.0 Brings Silverlight Content To Linux

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the cue-the-brouhaha dept.

Graphics 346

An anonymous reader writes "Novell has unveiled some of the fruits of its technical collaboration with Microsoft in the form of Moonlight 1.0, a Firefox plug-in which will allow Linux users to access Microsoft Silverlight content. Officially created by the Mono project, it is available for all Linux distributions, including openSUSE, SUSE Linux Enterprise, Fedora, Red Hat and Ubuntu. Also included in Moonlight is the Windows Media pack, with support for Windows Media Video, Windows Media Audio and MP3 files."

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

But... (0, Troll)

FunkyRider (1128099) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838617)

Will it run Linux? on wait.... I'm I getting Frosty Pisst?

GlasDOS agrees... (5, Funny)

gbarules2999 (1440265) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838623)

'[fake-coughing] Moonlight... so deadly... Choking... [laughs] Kidding! When I said "Firefox plug-in," the deadly was in massive sarcasm quotes. I could take a bath in this stuff, put it on cereal, rub it right into my eyes, honestly, it's not deadly at all. To me. You, on the other hand, are going to find its deadliness a lot less funny.

Re:GlasDOS agrees... (-1, Redundant)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838961)

GLaDOS

speaking of poison (-1, Troll)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839377)

Speaking of poison, any word if this will handle the silverlight DRM? I'd like to watch movies from netflix, so frankly I'm hoping it does. ( And all you DRM fetish purists can just tighten your chastity belts another notch. ooh the temptation. Hey just tell yourself it's okay cause you're doing it on linux--take that Borg!)

One Word (-1, Flamebait)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838627)

No

Why? (4, Insightful)

linumax (910946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838703)

If Adobe is finally taking Linux seriously, it's because they are afraid of Microsoft. Best outcome we can have is Adobe and MS each taking a 50% share of this market. We'll reap the benefits, regardless of OS of choice.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

erayd (1131355) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838841)

Which I think they probably are, noting that 64bit flash was available on the Linux platform before any of the others.

Re:Why? (0, Flamebait)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839429)

Which I think they probably are...

They should be. Microsoft doesn't set their sights on a company and then let them live. They have no forbearance, no mercy. They take no prisoners.

Re:Why? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26839545)

Much like Apple!

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838939)

Making the web dependent on binary plugin formats....users are probably the only ones who DON'T win.

Re:Why? (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839205)

All hail the <video> tag! Because of the ad money, there's no way it'll ever take over commercial video sites, but it will make video delivery easier for sites which don't embed ads and viewing easier for those without plug-ins (on different arches).

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

PenguSven (988769) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839311)

define dependant? i don't know too many serious sites (that matter) that actually RELY on Flash for anything. 98% of all flash content is either banner ads or YouTube/RedTube/etc

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26839347)

Making applications dependent on web technologies that weren't meant for building applications...developers are probably the only ones who don't win.

It's a good thing that this tech is used to build Applications and not Web Pages.

Re:One Word (3, Funny)

geckipede (1261408) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838747)

The one word I was thinking of was "Meh."

Now to spend the next few minutes trying to work out whether that actually counts as a word...

Re:One Word (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839177)

Yes. The Yiddish "Nu" also works.

Re:One Word (2, Funny)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838753)

I sort of agree:
From TFA:

Also included in Moonlight is the Windows Media pack, with support for Windows Media Video, Windows Media Audio and MP3 files.

Yes, I can just see the lines of linux users just queuing up in anxious trepidation waiting to be able to use Windows Media Video and Audio files on their beloved linux systems...

Re:One Word (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838909)

It's not like you have to actually make use of them, but being able to is rather convenient ..

I do understand that a few may not see it as free enough though, but well, let the masochists worry about that.

Re:One Word (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839473)

Its just annoying that its hard/impoissible to find a foss version of moonlight. One say i will put the effort in and compile an ffmpeg version, but until then i have no intention of touching the microsoft codec pack.

It seams like something that could easily be packaged in a tar or deb by people who don't care about legal threats and then linked to by everybody (well apart from the shills that produce moonlight).

Re:One Word (1)

hydromike2 (1457879) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839083)

this is to try and have some form of control on the netbook market --> no windows, only linux

Re:One Word (1)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839137)

I think this is another "meh" considering Windows Media and MP3 formats are both taken care of by gstreamer plugins, w32(64)codecs and other codec packs avaliable in various repo's. Though I must admit Moonlight crashes my firefox less than Flash.

Re:One Word (3, Informative)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839227)

The interesting thing is that Moonlight downloads the codecs for you on demand (no need to add other repos) and they are properly licensed (as opposed to w32/w64codecs). I can see a lot of Linux users doing this, actually.

Since Ubuntu and Suse already ship Mono (or have drunk the MS kool-aid, depending on how you feel), they should include this plug-in by default so that it works out of the box.

...and Moonshine! (0)

benwaggoner (513209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839209)

Moonshine runs Moonlight from inside a Firefox plugin to emulate the older Windows Media Player ActiveX embeds. It can also play back local WMV files.

http://abock.org/moonshine/ [abock.org]

Which is good, as VLC and thus presumably ffmpeg hasn't been able to play VC-1 files with B-frames for years, which is pretty much the default these days.

Re:One Word (4, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839495)

Yes, I can just see the lines of linux users just queuing up in anxious trepidation waiting to be able to use Windows Media Video and Audio files on their beloved linux systems...

The day this article [arstechnica.com] hit slashdot I said that the purpose for this was to insert Microsoft IP into Linux. People called me crazy. Well, we're here! Let's all get comfy in this brave new world, shall we?

Does anybody still trust Novell? Why?

Oh, and Windows Media Player is way cool, because it has the codecs for Plays For Now [ft.com] .

Re:One Word (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838895)

Weird from someone with a "Javascript + Gaming = Amazing (PC & Wii)" signature.

Personally I much rather have an open-source silverlight to javascript layer in my browser than Adobes flash plugin.

I installed miro 2 and removed flash, though that will suck for plenty of sites :D

Re:One Word (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839131)

I don't see why. I love web standards. They open up platforms and make the Internet a better and more powerful place for all users. Microsoft's attempts to subvert those standards don't make me happy. Nor does Miguel's backwards attempts [slashdot.org] at bringing Microsoft technology to Linux.

Microsoft technology was once at the top of its field. While Microsoft lied, stole, and crushed to get there, at least it really was superior to the alternatives. Now they're instead planting their either ancient or useless alternative technology in the way of progress in an attempt to bar the industry from moving forward. I cannot agree with that. I cannot allow that. I will not support Microsoft until their ACTIONS match what their high words about standards support.

Re:One Word (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26839411)

"Now they're instead planting their either ancient or useless alternative technology..."

Right, because Flash/Actionscript is light-years ahead of the WPF/C#/IronPython which is just !useless. OK. Or were you thinking JavaFX or Ajax/XHTML? Puhleaze.

Let's meet here in about 2 years and compare how many business internet/intranet apps are using your favorite tech or Silverlight.

freely implementable standard? please (5, Insightful)

xzvf (924443) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838629)

Moonlight is a neat project and Silverlight looks interesting, Flash works. But why can't an open, rich experience, open standards solution for building web sites emerge? Surely that would be better for web site developers and consumers.

Re:freely implementable standard? please (5, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838653)

Something like this [youtube.com] perhaps?

SVG + Video > Silverlight

And that's only the tip of the technological iceberg. Behold the power of HTML5. Coming to every web browser except Internet Explorer.

Re:freely implementable standard? please (1)

big_groo (237634) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838721)

Coming to every web browser except Internet Explorer.

Perhaps you missed the last Slashdot post?

Re:freely implementable standard? please (5, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838775)

Which post would that be? The one where Microsoft failed to implement DOM2 events, then implemented HTML5 features based on DOM2 events and therefore incompatible with the standards, therefore not HTML5?

Don't get me started. IE8 is a sore point for me. You WON'T appreciate what you hear. (Or maybe you will. But it won't be the most pleasant conversation.)

Re:freely implementable standard? please (1)

big_groo (237634) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838897)

You are correct. I can't seem to find any references to DOM2 being included in IE8, while they tout the inclusion of HTML5 support...

I use Konqueror, btw.

Re:freely implementable standard? please (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839189)

Sorry if I'm a little edgy. I do mean that IE8 is a sore spot for me. Slowness to implement standards I can understand. Microsoft has an uphill battle with the Trident engine. But blatant disregard? Flaunting their non-implementation of standards? Closing bugs for standards support as "By Design"? That I cannot stomach.

Death to Microsoft. May the phoenix be a stronger company and a better citizen.

Re:freely implementable standard? please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26838745)

I'm sorry, but this is severely misinformed. Silverlight is far more powerful than what you've vaguely described. I strongly encourage you to read about it and try to do something -- you'll notice the API is very rich, and it takes you very few LOCs to accomplish useful, fast, RIAs. (AC because defending an MS technology costs you karma)

Re:freely implementable standard? please (2, Funny)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839073)

As it should (cost you karma). May your next life be spent working at a Windows ME help desk support center. (j/k, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.)

Re:freely implementable standard? please (2, Interesting)

benwaggoner (513209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839183)

I don't see anything in that demo that wasn't in Silverlight 1.0 demos a couple of years ago.

Re:freely implementable standard? please (5, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839299)

And I don't see anything in Silverlight that isn't similarly addressed by HTML5. Ergo, HTML5 is superior for its standardization, true cross-platform support, and competing implementations that can meet the needs of many different ideals.

For the record, I don't have anything against people such as yourself who work at Microsoft. Many people who work there are great people. But from the inside looking out, you can't see the forest through the trees. You especially can't see the massive amount of harm and disrespect your company is paying the industry. And that harm is why I can't stand Microsoft anymore. Mr. Wilson can complain about negativity all he wants, but he refuses to recognize the trail of broken promises he and your company have given to the industry.

Re:freely implementable standard? please (0, Redundant)

benwaggoner (513209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839403)

And I don't see anything in Silverlight that isn't similarly addressed by HTML5. Ergo, HTML5 is superior for its standardization, true cross-platform support, and competing implementations that can meet the needs of many different ideals.

As I said elsewhere, HTML5 has no way to do anything like this:

http://www.smoothhd.com/ [smoothhd.com]
http://on10.net/blogs/benwagg/Expression-Encoder-2-Service-Pack-1-ndash-Intro-and-Multibitrate-Encoding/ [on10.net]

As for cross-platform, Moonlight 2.0 should be able to run SmoothHD just fine, and more importantly a whole lot of content published using that platform.

Actually... (1)

weston (16146) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839199)

Behold the power of HTML5. Coming to every web browser except Internet Explorer.

And IE, too, as soon as someone writes a something to render SVG + video in Silverlight. :)

Re:Actually... (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839439)

You know, I actually did that for the Canvas tag. Except I used Java as the rendering engine. (Occasionally I even link to the demo here.) I had an entire plan for getting IE up to speed. Then Microsoft intentionally shafted the industry with their IE8 development. And then I stopped caring. I just... couldn't bring myself to feel anything positive toward Microsoft. I just wanted IE to die.

So I no longer support these efforts. Instead, I just watch IE's market share numbers drop. 67% and falling.

Re:freely implementable standard? please (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839389)

though a neat demo, it really does little to show a powerful framework.

So video can be mapped into the background of and object, and it can move and resize. It can even be transparent, and the volume can be controlled.

It is great that it can be done, but if flash or Silverlight can't do the same, then they are seriously defunct.

I am hardly more impressed with the video you sent me, than the real time bandwidth in Tomato Firmware.

Re:freely implementable standard? please (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838655)

Because W3C standards have become functionally indistinguishable from articles on The Onion?

Re:freely implementable standard? please (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838757)

As far as MS is concerned they probably are.

I wouldn't be surprised if silverlight was created (which IE magically supports very well) to give non MS browsers something else to choke on.

Having a big share in the browser market gives you a loud voice as to what standards will or will not be followed by web publishers. Web publishers kowtowing just to keep IE happy keeps their support for other browsers to a minimum, surfers find IE more supported so they ditch competing browsers and the cycle is complete.

The funny thing about open standards...monopolies don't like them.

Re:freely implementable standard? please (2, Funny)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838825)

Clearly, you've never read a W3C standard. No-one likes them.

Re:freely implementable standard? please (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838657)

You mean like AJAX? The problem with AJAX is that some browser developers (read: MS) can't be bothered to implement standards. So we have to have the same browser developer develop Silverlight in order to fix a flaw caused by MS's negligence. Now, Silverlight will be better than AJAX for a few things (video streaming, more native-style applications), but then there is Flash for that.

Re:freely implementable standard? please (4, Insightful)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838763)

XmlHttpRequest, the 'X' in AJAX, started life as a Microsoft only, proprietary ActiveX object back in IE5.

Given that, your post doesn't really make sense.

Re:freely implementable standard? please (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26839067)

You are a fucking retard.

Re:freely implementable standard? please (2, Interesting)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838811)

The WebKit CSS extensions added in Mobile Safari are interesting. I wish for people to agree on a version of this for all browsers, as it would replace Flash in at least some areas.

http://webkit.org/blog/324/css-animation-2/ [webkit.org]

Re:freely implementable standard? please (1)

kawabago (551139) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839163)

Those are train tracks you're standing on!

Re:freely implementable standard? please (1)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839249)

Um, portions of Silverlight are public source and moonlight *is* OSS.

It may not be Richart Stallman perfect, but it works for even a jaded manager like me.

OK installed it... (2, Funny)

13bPower (869223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838645)

OK I installed this. Now what? Any sites use this?

Re:OK installed it... (2, Informative)

13bPower (869223) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838671)

Nevermind, it crashes my firefox on some sites and doesn't work with 2.0 version websites.

Re:OK installed it... (1)

Darundal (891860) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839237)

Or, in other words, is essentially useless.

Miguel (0, Flamebait)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838647)

The poster boy for turncoats.

Microsoft wants to crush Flash, Novell is happy to oblige.

When those pundits said that one day Microsoft would go open source, I'm sure they didn't have this in mind.

It hurts my brain.

Re:Miguel (5, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838877)

short memory you have there. before MS started working on silver light a decent flash player on linux was but a pipe dream. say what you want about them, but anything MS takes an interest in ends up with savage competition that benefits us all.

Re:Miguel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26839133)

but anything MS takes an interest in ends up with savage competition that benefits us all.

Uh, no. PC desktop software was once a vibrantly competitive collection of markets. Then Microsoft succeeded in establishing Windows 3.0 as the standard, which was diabolical: the platform was so unstable that only they had the immediate, inside know-how and resources to identify and work around the problems (compared to everyone else at any rate). All the DOS-based market leaders withered, and were mostly replaced by Microsoft. See any breakthroughs in desktop productivity software over the last 10 years or so? Don't give me the ribbon bar.

Then Netscape invented a whole new category, the Internet browser, and Microsoft went after them with a slew of anti-competitive devices including bundling and coercion of OEM's. Remember Steve Ballmer testifying that he didn't know how to deliver Windows without IE? After IE won out, Netscape quietly went away and the browser market was forgotten... especially by Microsoft, who by their own admission did practically nothing with IE for about 8 years, until Firefox started taking serious market share.

Microsoft will throw a slew of resources at a market segment until they own that segment. Then they pretty much lose interest.

Re:Miguel (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839527)

uh, you just restated my point.

competition good. having MS as the monopoly is no better and no worse than any other company.

Re:Miguel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26839187)

Flash 10 for 64-bit Linux is still just adequate.
I want a decent, open standard for video.

I mean, all I use Flash for is fucking video anyway.

Yet apparently there is something horribly wrong with regular streaming video, and it needs to be wrapped up in a Flash interface so I can't use it at full speed.

netflix (2, Interesting)

jameson71 (540713) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838663)

Would this work with Netflix?

Re:netflix (2, Informative)

benwaggoner (513209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839087)

Nope, not yet. Netflix requires Silverlight 2.

Re:netflix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26839351)

Treadmill much?

Am I going to be sued for patent infringement? (2, Interesting)

sk999 (846068) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838667)

That seems to be the message Microsoft is sending.

Oh yes, will it run on my ARM processor (where Flash runs just fine)?

Re:Am I going to be sued for patent infringement? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838711)

No. [mono-project.com]

x86 only... I was kinda hoping that this would lead to a PPC version, but I suspect not - they won't be "killing Flash" just yet.

Re:Am I going to be sued for patent infringement? (3, Informative)

alienunknown (1279178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839057)

That seems to be the message Microsoft is sending

I used to think it was mass-hysteria when I heard people say what you just said. Until a while back I stumbled upon this on Novell's site:

This protection extends far beyond our broad Novell Indemnification Program; you also benefit from the Novell and Microsoft patent cooperation agreement. It ensures that when you buy any Novell productsâ"whether Linux-based or proprietaryâ"you receive a patent covenant from Microsoft.

And:

Under the Novell and Microsoft patent cooperation agreement, when you buy any Novell productsâ"whether Linux-based or proprietaryâ"you receive a patent covenant not to sue from Microsoft. Microsoft's covenant not to sue a Novell customer applies to a Novell offering independent of the channel of distribution and licensing terms, and whether any code is covered by GPLv2 or GPLv3.

Here is the direct link: http://www.novell.com/licensing/ntap/ [novell.com]

Suffice it to say, I no longer use OpenSUSE :)

promise not to sue agreement (1)

FunkyRider (1128099) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838681)

Does this "Windows media pack" contains "promise not to sue agreement" in them? Is moonlight an open source implementation? Are media pack codecs open source implementations, too? But even if all above answers are "yes", I'm still not entitled to use it as it uses ".net" as foundation. ".net" as foundation is M$'s ultimate dream of crushing the world!

Re:promise not to sue agreement (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839393)

... what you should ask yourself is if you will also get a tinfoil hat with your installation, it seems like you need (yet another?) one.

Cool, but... (5, Insightful)

AndrewStephens (815287) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838803)

Don't get me wrong, I think its cool that projects like this exist and I am not going to criticize anyone for spending time working on it.

But Silverlight really seems like a solution in search of a problem. Flash provides nice interactivity at the cost of an annoying plugin, and HTML5 is quickly catching up and should be the long term method of constructing web apps.

The only advantage of Silverlight seems to be the unified language for both backend and content, but that doesn't seem compelling to me. Anyone here using Silverlight for anything interesting that couldn't be done in Flash or HTML?

Re:Cool, but... (4, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838981)

It's designed to directly compete with Flash. The "problem" that it solves is that Adobe is dominating a market that Microsoft wants. You may notice that most of Microsoft's products attempt to solve similar problems.

Yeah.. (3, Informative)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839041)

I got a bid in a gig for Silverlight, and, the thing is, Flash is actually a bit better for some of the special effects. I think its fair to say that Flash and Silverlight are designed to do two different things. Flash has more fancy graphics options, but, Silverlight is easier to assemble content dynamically with. You could go one of two routes with Silverlight. One way is to send out the binary blob ala Flash, but you can also just send out xml straight out to it.... that makes it a bit more like working with a normal web server paradigm. In that sense, you can view Silverlight as more of a stopgap to HTML5 than you would Flash.

Smooth Streaming! (5, Interesting)

benwaggoner (513209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839161)

On the media side, check out:

http://www.smoothhd.com/ [smoothhd.com]

I encoded the "Big Buck Bunny" clip up there :). It's still in pre-alpha, but you should be able to get the idea

This uses a new API called MediaStreamSource, which enables file parsers and protocols to be built in managed code, and then hand off the video and audio bitstreams to Silverlight's built int decoders.

In the case of Smooth Streaming, every two seconds of the video is a seperate http request, and each of those chunks is available in six different data rates. Managed code heuristics running inside of Silverlight dynamically pick the right bitrate for the next chunk based on available CPU power, network speed, and window size (no reason to download 720p if the brower window is shrunk down in a corner of the stream).

And because this is based around small http requests, chunks get proxy cached, so 100 people watching the same video behind the same firewall would only need to get a single copy, providing much better scalability than traditional unicast streaming.

Anyway, this is something that Flash certainly can't do, and I haven't seen any hint of HTML5 being able to do. Pulling it all together requires some pretty specific characteristics of the video decoder (the ability to switch resolutions with a new sequence header without any pause), an API like MediaStreamSource, and having a performant enough runtime to be able to run all the heuristics and parsing without using much CPU.

I blogged the authoring workflow for this and some other details here:
http://on10.net/blogs/benwagg/Expression-Encoder-2-Service-Pack-1-ndash-Intro-and-Multibitrate-Encoding/ [on10.net]

Re:Smooth Streaming! (1)

bfizzle (836992) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839467)

Awesome info thanks for sharing. Wish I had mod points left for you.

Re:Cool, but... (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839401)

To me I'm just happy if it can provide something html/css/svg/javascript/.. don't. I really hate flash so ..

All I have to say (1)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838815)

All I have to say is I can now watch MLB.tv in Linux without the freaking hassle I used to have. It's getting very close to the point of not having to dual boot much longer.

Re:All I have to say (1)

undertow3886 (605537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839541)

Don't fret, I'm sure MLBAM is hard at work coming up with new ways to hassle their customers. Like removing the "classic player" for no other reason than to shove Silverlight down peoples' throats before it was ready (even on Windows).

wtf? (1)

lazlow (94602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838835)

Why? It's just another M$ product that's full of bugs. How many of their patents are in it?

Re:wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26839191)

Grow up and get a life.

Re:wtf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26839283)

STFU you ungrateful little shit!!!

STILL can't use "Watch It Now" on Netflix!! (4, Interesting)

hacker (14635) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838837)

Well, even with this, I STILL can't watch anything on Netflix's "Watch It Now" section... because THAT requires Moonlight AND ActiveX (and I still had to forge my UA just to get that far).

We're no farther along than we were before.. as always.

Re:STILL can't use "Watch It Now" on Netflix!! (2, Interesting)

digitalderbs (718388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838859)

I watch it in VirtualBox/WinXP. Yes, I know that this defeats the purpose of moving over to Linux. But the holes are closing in quickly.

Re:STILL can't use "Watch It Now" on Netflix!! (4, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26838947)

There must be a non-ActiveX version of the page if it works on Macs... keep at it! :)

Re:STILL can't use "Watch It Now" on Netflix!! (2, Informative)

Deltaspectre (796409) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839061)

Silverlight 2.0 :(

Re:STILL can't use "Watch It Now" on Netflix!! (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839181)

Bummer!

Well, moonlight seems to be lagging Silverlight by about a year and a half. Try again in a little over a year :(

Re:STILL can't use "Watch It Now" on Netflix!! (1)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839195)

Correction: We're all lot further along, except for Netflix has fallen behind. Do you even see Microsoft actively pushing ActiveX anymore? Nope!

Re:STILL can't use "Watch It Now" on Netflix!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26839399)

TY for answering the question. I hate having to have ms-win on my tv computer for this, even have xbmc running in win. my intrepid part rarely gets booted.

i don't blame netflix, though, 'cause its all about the drm. if they hadn't caved, they would not have got the studios to allow 12k titles online. ms markets silverlight on the drm (the vaporware apps are only d&p (dog and pony) for the suits).

it's kinda funny, not too long ago everybody was bashing flash; at least it is mostly portable (even if i still need duct tape to run in amd64).

Feel the power of the Dark Side. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26838913)

Muahahaha

ALL Linux distributions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26838937)

[quote]
Officially created by the Mono project, it is available for all Linux distributions
[/quote]

Somehow I doubt this. Anyone care to test this on some long-abandoned decade-old distribution?

Useless. Noone uses Silverlight 1.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26838985)

I see Microsoft have managed to sucker Novell into playing "eternal catchup" to their "its flash, but its not flash" technology. So now they just need to string Linux users along enough to make Silverlight a little more popular. After that, they can keep Linux users in their back pocket by simply witholding new release specifications on a whim.

Good job Novell. You are now even more Microsoft's bitch.

Mod parent up. (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839509)

This is exactly how microsoft operates to keep people from switching to alternative platforms (e.g. oss solutions)

they did it with WMV for ages until the pressure became too great.

now they're trying to do it with silverlight.

I find it a little too convenient that they release 2.0 the moment news arises of linux support for 1.0. As soon as they develop 2.0 for linux they'll upgrade to 3.0, and so on and so forth.

It's Sun's fault (2, Insightful)

speedtux (1307149) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839013)

Sun could have owned this market, but Java was a piece of crap for multimedia and video applications, and so people dropped it. Instead of coming up with nice looking, robust, real-world solutions, Sun was busy building a platform designed by committee and with some of the world's most bloated and least tested APIs on it.

FROST PISjT.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26839051)

and has insteA3 40,000 coming

hah (0, Redundant)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839093)

No Thanks.

BALLS!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26839117)

Yeah, I said it.

But do you want someone that stupid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26839153)

But do you want to pay attention to someone so stupid that they locked their message inside an overly complex bottle? If they're making such a mistake with their front door, do you want to trust that their floors will support you?

You know what? (3, Interesting)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839169)

We all can bash silverlight, but but theres nothing wrong with it. Its a newer, and from what i've seen, more stable alternative to flash.

Unusable microsoft software as usual. (4, Informative)

MarkKnopfler (472229) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839259)

Keeping up with the microsoft tradition novell unleashes a much touted piece of software which really does not work. Typically inept.

Firefox 3.0.6 32 bit Intrepid

Randomly tried some different stuff from the microsoft showcase http://silverlight.net/Showcase/ [silverlight.net] :

Lasercopter: Cannot work with 1.0 compiled for 2.0
autocosmos tv: Does not even detect the plugin
Meshviewer: Does not detect the plugin
Lorenzo Reca: Does not detect the plugin
Manic Miner: Does not detect the plugin

My teeth start gnashing and give up

Re:Unusable microsoft software as usual. (2, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839371)

Even with Silverlight they majority of the demos don't work or work so entirely poorly that they make Flash look good.

Proprietary=suxx0rz, F/OSS=r00lz!!!!1111 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26839269)

Part of the Mono project but is it open source and free software? Because if it is not, then it is garbage. Plain and simple. Garbage. All software that is not open source and free software under an OSI approved license is garbage. Trash. Rubbish. ALL such software. But if it is open source and free software, then it r00lz. Right on baby.

Re:Proprietary=suxx0rz, F/OSS=r00lz!!!!1111 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26839349)

You are both an idiot and a homosexual.

Re:Proprietary=suxx0rz, F/OSS=r00lz!!!!1111 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26839535)

The homosexuals would like you to retract your statement as such claims are quote, "making us look bad."

blah (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26839487)

we don't want it!

So what... (2, Informative)

kdekorte (8768) | more than 5 years ago | (#26839513)

The HBO example page they use works just fine with gecko-mediaplayer and mplayerplug-in, that Linux users have had for years.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?