×

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 3.0 Released, Allows Apps Outside the Browser

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the trying-desperately-to-regain-the-cool-factor dept.

335

Many different sources are reporting that Microsoft has unleashed the third major version of Silverlight to the masses. With 3.0 we see things like better 3D graphics support, the ability to offload tasks to a GPU, and the ability to run apps outside of the browser. "Silverlight's video capabilities have always been impressive when compared to Flash, and the new version boasts some new features that should keep the competition with Flash hot. It uses a media broadcasting technology Microsoft calls Smooth Streaming, an adaptive technology for playing the same H.264 video stream at the highest bitrate the device and its bandwidth limitations will allow. So if you've got a fast computer with an HD monitor and a wide open pipe, you'll see super high quality video at up to full 1080p HD. If you've got a dinky smartphone with mid-level data service, you'll see a constrained version of the same video."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

335 comments

3D graphics support (4, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#28651855)

3D graphics support does sound interesting, specially when thinking how many flash games there are out but how they lack better graphics. Maybe we start to see DirectX like games directly in web browser too.

Re:3D graphics support (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28651883)

And then Chrome OS can run Silverlight which will run Windows 7 with Aero and everybody wins!

DirectX on WebApps? (4, Insightful)

wfstanle (1188751) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652177)

Why would you want a security atrocity like DirectX? Aren't there enough security holes already? If anything, we should think about banning DirectX from the Web? We should also ban ActiveX.

Re:DirectX on WebApps? (2, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652313)

I've never heard of any exploits targeting DirectX or someone breaking in via GPU. In a same way someone could exploit Windows sound driver via flash applet to break in. I dont think I've used any ActiveX objects for 10 years, and times have changed. Obviously security has also come up too.

Re:DirectX on WebApps? (2, Insightful)

Java Pimp (98454) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652389)

Microsoft Security Bulletin MS05-050 [microsoft.com] : Vulnerability in DirectShow Could Allow Remote Code Execution (904706)

Re:DirectX on WebApps? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652819)

Wow, yeah... DirectX is clearly riddled with holes. I know all my games rely heavily on DirectShow. I hope I don't get haxored!

Re:DirectX on WebApps? (2, Interesting)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652589)

I've never heard of any exploits targeting DirectX or someone breaking in via GPU. In a same way someone could exploit Windows sound driver via flash applet to break in. I dont think I've used any ActiveX objects for 10 years, and times have changed. Obviously security has also come up too.

Speaking of ActiveX, am I missing something or does that part about "apps outside the browser" sound like a more modern reimplementation of the old ActiveX? By that I mean, whether it's "inside the browser" or in a different window, this still amounts to running executable code from remote hosts. Let's hope this isn't the security nightmare that ActiveX proved to be, and yes, it's reasonable to look at a company's track record when speculating about these matters.

Like too many articles linked on Slashdot, this is more like a press release and is extremely light on details. You'd really think that whether or not they avoided repeating the mistakes that gravely plagued the last similar idea would be worthy of mention. Anyway, I would like to know what kind of sandboxing and other security measures are in place to handle the untrusted executables.

Re:DirectX on WebApps? (1)

repka (1102731) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652565)

If anything, we should think about banning DirectX from the Web? We should also ban ActiveX.

And flash, and flash!!! ...with other Adobe products

Re:3D graphics support (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652265)

Maybe we start to see DirectX like games directly in web browser too.

Too bad "we" doesn't include "me." My linux-based PVR can't run Netflix on demand because it's silverlight-based, so that's my main association with the technology. Hulu is also linking out to broadcaster's own incompatible streaming sites rather than hosting stuff itself. I fear we are returning to the bad old days of a few years ago when a lot of multimedia on the web was incompatible with linux. Poor linux users, under-represented minority that we are :)

Re:3D graphics support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652357)

There is a silverlight client for linux called moonlight. More info here http://www.mono-project.com/Moonlight

Re:3D graphics support (1)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652783)

looking at their site, they have a "Moonlight 2.0 Preview", which is supposed to provide support for Silverlight 2.0 media. I'm not exactly confident that Silverlight 3.0 content will be supported any time soon.

Re:3D graphics support (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652823)

With, or without DRM enabled?

That's what I thought. No mainstream Silverlight video will play that way...

Re:3D graphics support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652359)

I can't imagine the Linux community will go long without a port of Silverlight as it continues to gain popularity. Maybe not always up to date or working perfectly, but that's generally the state of things with Linux ports of Windows origin.

Re:3D graphics support (1)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652393)

My linux-based PVR can't run Netflix on demand because it's silverlight-based

Virtualbox running windows does it for me. Not sure how you'd set that up on a PVR, but I watch netflix in using Linux on a desktop that way.

Re:3D graphics support (4, Informative)

rsclient (112577) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652695)

It's not three-d graphics. It's layered two-d graphics with interesting transforms. You can make something look like it's flipping in or out, and you can do sprites, but you can't make a fully three-d game (that is, you can't rotate something around with bits sticking out).

Why not? Because this approach gets you a bunch of cool effects without the pain of real 3D programming.

(Disclaimer: I worked on silverlight)

Ogg was supposed to do this (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28651871)

They called it bitrate peeling.

Re:Ogg was supposed to do this (4, Interesting)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652709)

Sure, just send the most significant bits in a high-priority packet, and send the least significant bits in lower-priority packets. It seems so simple, it's hard to believe such a feature isn't supported in every audio and video codec.

And where exactly is moonlight? (4, Insightful)

PrescriptionWarning (932687) | more than 4 years ago | (#28651879)

I think one of the most reasonable concerns against the rising usage of silverlight, and therefore the need for moonlight for linux, is that if new version of moonlight can't keep up with the updated version of silverlight then its not the multiplatform wonder that it should be to be competitive with flash.

Re:And where exactly is moonlight? (1)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#28651929)

I think one of the most reasonable concerns against the rising usage of silverlight, and therefore the need for moonlight for linux, is that if new version of moonlight can't keep up with the updated version of silverlight then its not the multiplatform wonder that it should be to be competitive with flash.

Er, "moonlight"? Cripes, change the name already, sounds like an HD streaming porn plugin.

Then again, like Flash or Silverlight isn't...

Re:And where exactly is moonlight? (1)

Mystra_x64 (1108487) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652399)

You have pretty weird associations

Re:And where exactly is moonlight? (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652853)

According to Microsoft Calendar, it is a Full Moon tonight.
Would you like to associate this with your recent porn browsing?
[Cancel][Allow]

Re:And where exactly is moonlight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652585)

Flash or Silverlight

Fleshlight?

Re:And where exactly is moonlight? (0, Troll)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652079)

I dont think multiplatform (or the lack of it) actually does a lot in competition sense. There is a Mac version of Silverlight too, and linux is quite minority market. Main problem for Silverlight is how to get more sites use it instead of Flash, and this is where the advanced features and good developing tools come in and I think MS understands that seeing how they keep developing them all the time.

Re:And where exactly is moonlight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652137)

If memory serves, even the Mac version of silverlight is often quite a bit behind the release curve for new versions.

Re:And where exactly is moonlight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652191)

I downloaded v3 last night for my Mac. Works fine.

Re:And where exactly is moonlight? (1)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652799)

it installs okay and runs basic stuff ok, but have you tried an "3.0 heavy content" to see if it actually is up to snuff?

Re:And where exactly is moonlight? (1)

ioErr (691174) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652433)

The Mac version of Silverlight only works on Intel Macs, where Flash works on both PPC and Intel.

Re:And where exactly is moonlight? (3, Informative)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652805)

The Mac version of Silverlight only works on Intel Macs, where Flash works on both PPC and Intel.

"Works" is stretching things a little. PPC Flash was always painfully slow, even by Flash's usual miserable standards.

Google Chrome also won't support PPC users, and Apple is officially depreciating PowerPC support in its next OS release. Should we complain about that too?

I've still got a 12" Powerbook that I'll likely cling on to as long as it works -- it's easily the best laptop I've ever used. However, even I'll acknowledge that it's not practical for commercial software vendors to continually support old platforms.

Re:And where exactly is moonlight? (1)

Vahokif (1292866) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652319)

Moonlight is always hot on their heels [tirania.org] .

Re:And where exactly is moonlight? (1)

Vahokif (1292866) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652443)

Besides, Flash (official or otherwise) isn't so hot on the "keep up to date with the Windows version" front.

Re:And where exactly is moonlight? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652821)

If my memory serves me right, Flash 10 had 64-bit Linux support right out of the box. Did Windows users enjoy 64-bit support for Flash 10 right away?

I'm honestly asking, I never checked.

Re:And where exactly is moonlight? (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652739)

Adobe has yet to release a stable 64b Flash player for Linux. So Flash isn't a multiplatform wonder, either.

Re:And where exactly is moonlight? (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652921)

Adobe has yet to release a supported 64b Flash player for Linux. So Flash isn't a multiplatform wonder, either.

Fixed that for you. The one from Adobe Labs works just fine.

The majority of people still run 32-bit anyway. 64-bit linux on the desktop is a niche of a niche.

Re:And where exactly is moonlight? (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652951)

The 64b alpha Linux Flash player from Adobe Labs crashes about every ten minutes, bringing FireFox down with it. Supported? It's not even usable.

Re:And where exactly is moonlight? (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652863)

Fine.

Develop for the lowest common denominator, and things will work on both platforms. Also consider that not all Silverlight users will be using 3.0 immediately after its release.

HTML5 will be released soon, but likely won't be implemented in the wild for another 3-4 years until most users are running supported browsers. CSS existed for several years before it was considered "safe" to use on a production site.

Security problems with a MS product? nah. (5, Insightful)

Serilleous (1400333) | more than 4 years ago | (#28651905)

and the ability to run apps outside of the browser.

It seems to me like this offers a remarkable opportunity for some very serious vulnerabilities if it is not handled very very carefully.

Re:Security problems with a MS product? nah. (3, Informative)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 4 years ago | (#28651975)

Exactly what I was thinking. But I would say that this is still more innovation from MS and they look to be getting their crap together a bit lately - that is I would say that, if this wasn't /.

Re:Security problems with a MS product? nah. (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 4 years ago | (#28653017)

If by "innovation", you mean "copying the feature list from Adobe Air and the next version of Flex so they could check the same boxes on the marketing literature without actually coming up with anything new", then...

...oh, wait. You were using the Microsoft definition of "innovation". I guess you're right then.

Re:Security problems with a MS product? nah. (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 4 years ago | (#28653021)

The problem isn't how good your development teams are, because they will never be perfect and there will always be exploitable bugs somewhere. Actually, Bruce Schneier posted on his blog today about how it's demonstrably impossible to make an OS 100% virus proof.

The problem is that Silverlight is a browser plug-in, and plug-ins are much more vulnerable than for example Javascript or SVG which run inside a sandbox inside the browser. At least with Flash everything is sandboxed in the browser still, but it now looks like Silverlight apps will be able to access stuff outside the browser, much like a normal program. The attack surface (the number of points where a vulnerability could exist) is much larger, especially as it will then include things like DirectX which have not traditionally been that important in terms of security (after all, if an app can access DirectX you have already downloaded and executed it, so it's too late anyway and thus there is little point spending a lot of time checking DirectX itself for vulnerabilities).

Re:Security problems with a MS product? nah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652097)

Did you have something specific in mind or just spewing standard zealot bullshit? I'm thinking the latter since your statement sounds just like a government sponsored generic warning...

"Driving while intoxicated offers a remarkable opportunity for some very serious car accidents if it is not handled very very carefully."

Feh!

Re:Security problems with a MS product? nah. (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652259)

Whereas your comment sounds like the standard Microsoft mitigation that "this is not a critical vulnerability, because the majority of people aren't bad".

It's yet another "autorun" vector allowing things on webpages to do / launch things elsewhere in your computer ... haven't you learnt anything from ActiveX, autorun.inf, resgistry Run & RunOnce & RunService and the hundred of other vectors that allow people to do bad things with Windows products ?

If they'd lock the thing down properly, it wouldn't have such a bad reputation ... still, let's wait for the first Silverlight 3 zero-day and then you'll know you were talking out of your ass, just as the rest of us have already realised.

Re:Security problems with a MS product? nah. (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652757)

We aren't speaking about the average driver. We are speaking about the guiness book world records champion of car crashing. The one that created not one, but several industries categories to mitigate and try to prevent how badly specifically it crash and how much innocent casualties it provokes.

Now it took a new car, and will start driving again in the highways, promising again as every time before that will not crash, ever. Is so weird to start wondering if will crash again?

Re:Security problems with a MS product? nah. (2, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652199)

I think this is more like running the apps on your desktop when you doubleclick the icon, like Flash players can do already. It doesn't mean all Silverlight apps on websites or even on your computer suddenly gets access to all your files and stuff.

Re:Security problems with a MS product? nah. (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652409)

I suppose, if you only read the sentence and then never bother to look into how SL handles this...

Re:Security problems with a MS product? nah. (2, Informative)

Vahokif (1292866) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652593)

Downloaded Silverlight apps run with the same permissions as embedded ones, meaning no filesystem access etc. The only difference is that they can use the function keys.

Re:Security problems with a MS product? nah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28653001)

Wether it runs in or out of the browser, silverlight is still in the same sandbox. I don't believe there will be any significant security difference between the two.

Re:Security problems with a MS product? nah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28653039)

You sir, are a moron.

Great (-1, Flamebait)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#28651925)

More crap from MS that nobody cares about, that people will hate, that will lead to lock in, that will add nothing new, etc.

I am not the geeky/nerdy person that will throw parties whenever there's a new AmaroK release or something, but when Windows dies I will celebrate it with a party!

C'mon Microsoft Yes Man (C)(TM)(R). Mod me down. Make my day.

Sounds like a great reason for human cryogenics (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652027)

since most of us will probably be dead before Windows is.

Re:Great (1)

Delusion_ (56114) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652073)

I used to think Silverlight was unnecessary and not useful to me. Then I found Visifire and have had to admit, whether or not Visifire could have been done in Flash isn't so much relevant to me as the fact that this is very useful software to me, and if that means installing Silverlight, so be it. I don't use it for web usage (I'm using it to create static images, not live graphs), so whether Silverlight has a future as a general web platform isn't an issue for me.

Having said that, I suspect it won't, just because Flash is such a juggernaut, for all its flaws.

Re:Great (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652321)

that this is very useful software to me, and if that means installing Silverlight, so be it.

If you've already drunk Adobe's Kool-Aid, what's Microsoft's? It's like Coke and Pepsi, neither one particularly cares about the health effects of consuming their product.

Re:Great (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652247)

... that will add nothing new, etc. ...

Did you actually even read the summary? It listed lots of new features that dont exist in Flash, so I dont think it "doesn't add anything new".

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652455)

I take it you don't have a vested interest in developing web based apps? Silverlight helps make tasks that were previously very complicated, into something much easier to handle.

More importantly, Silverlight is getting attention in the corporate world, from companies who are looking to develop their Intranet (what I do for a living). They often demand comprehensive graphing, hierarchy visualizations, streaming quarterly calls, etc... tasks that were previously "challenging" to implement with Flash or JavaScript. With Silverlight these tasks are much easier, and therefore cheaper, to develop, which has been netting me a lot more contracts of late.

Stereotypes are fatal in the business world, just because Microsoft does not make a top notch OS (I'm writing this on a Linux box) does not mean you should immediately invalidate all of their products.

Linux? Microsoft anti-competitive move? (1, Insightful)

rlh100 (695725) | more than 4 years ago | (#28651937)

Does it run under Linux (not Moonlight) and if so is it not a trash port that is wonky with poor performance?

If it does not run under Linux could this be considered an anti-competitive move by Microsoft to keep Linux out of the desktop or netbook market?

Inquiring minds want to know

RLH

Re:Linux? Microsoft anti-competitive move? (2)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652287)

If it does not run under Linux could this be considered an anti-competitive move by Microsoft to keep Linux out of the desktop or netbook market?

Is Office not being on Linux an anti-competitive move, or just not targeting a miniscule segment of the market?

Re:Linux? Microsoft anti-competitive move? (1)

lambent (234167) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652499)

microsoft has no obligation to port programs to other OS's. Their history of anti-competitive suits, fines, and complaints relates to keeping other companies from running software on Windows.

I would call it a hypercompetitive move (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652505)

Silverlight is interesting because it provides a markup that can be thought of us as a sort of an HTML 5. If Silverlight is widely adopted in the Windows world, then there's not going to be much of an impetus to have browsers other than to download applications for Windows with. So Microsoft is not competing against Flash per se, as much as they are competing against Google Chrome and ChromeOS.

Re:Linux? Microsoft anti-competitive move? (0, Flamebait)

mozzis (231162) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652555)

Why should MS support their competition? Why don't you Linux whiners develop your own "integrated set of application programming tools for creating compelling applications, content, and video for every possible audience"?

Re:Linux? Microsoft anti-competitive move? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652971)

That's a really damn good idea.

Oh yeah! (1)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652005)

Woohoo party! Wait, ...has Mono's Moonlight even caught up with Silverlight 2.0 yet? ..Nope.

Why won't Adobe open source Flash? (0)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652061)

With the "threat" of Silverlight's assault on the desktop looming, I wonder why Adobe will not open source Flash and all its components. Do they want to procrastinate like SUN did with their Java?

Seriously, in future, Flash will be in trouble.

Re:Why won't Adobe open source Flash? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652205)

What would open sourcing Flash do for them? There are really two possibilities. First, it could attract contributions from external developers. The chance of this is slim, and most of the contributions would probably be poor, so this would just add administrative overhead on Adobe's side for accepting patches. Second, it could lead to forks of Flash. This would be devastating for Flash - the whole premise of Flash, and the reason it's so popular, is that It Just Works (tm) consistently across platforms.

Re:Why won't Adobe open source Flash? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652407)

How does undercutting the competition by giving away the store do any good? It might help Flash, but would Flash still help Adobe?

Re:Why won't Adobe open source Flash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652891)

Moonlight is already open source, it doesn't appear to matter.

Fris.t stop (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652071)

= 1400 NetBSD 8evel in our gay

Who cares? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652075)

Does anyone outside of Microsoft use Silverlight?

Seriously?

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

I thought not. Stop giving Microsoft press every time they "update" their shitty little plugin that no one cares about, and let it die.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652343)

Netflix, for one.

Some actually do (1)

jDeepbeep (913892) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652539)

Does anyone outside of Microsoft use Silverlight? Seriously? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? I thought not. Stop giving Microsoft press every time they "update" their shitty little plugin that no one cares about, and let it die.

I wouldn't say that nobody [silverlight.net] uses it, exactly.

Silverlight's video capabilities have always... (5, Interesting)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652115)

...been impressive when compared to Flash? Really? Then why did mlb.com switch from Silverlight to Flash [cnet.com] ? I remember when they did this - I had unsubscribed because the Silverlight player was such a mess, and I went back and signed up for the rest of the season.

That said, the ability to write Silverlight apps in Ruby [silverlight.net] is interesting.

Re:Silverlight's video capabilities have always... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652795)

Do a search on "netflix tearing".... If all movies would just limit their object movement and panning to the vertical plane Silverlight would be perfect.

Re:Silverlight's video capabilities have always... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652897)

...been impressive when compared to Flash? Really? Then why did mlb.com switch from Silverlight to Flash [cnet.com] ? I remember when they did this - I had unsubscribed because the Silverlight player was such a mess, and I went back and signed up for the rest of the season.

That said, the ability to write Silverlight apps in Ruby [silverlight.net] is interesting.

Because so many more people already have flash installed.

Re:Silverlight's video capabilities have always... (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652909)

Netflix's Silverlight player has always worked just fine for me.

Feature creep (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652169)

How long before Silverlight adds email support?

Re:Feature creep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652735)

A better question is when will Silverlight implement emacs. Then, the only thing left to implement on the platform will be a decent text editor.

No "whatcanpossiblygowrong" tag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652171)

With 3.0 we see things like better 3D graphics support, the ability to offload tasks to a GPU, and the ability to run apps outside of the browser.

Silverlight running apps outside of the sandbox? Yeah, I'm downloading this right away.

The Light (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652189)

Don't walk towards the Light. Run.

Silverlight, although not widely used yet (less than 5% of market), is great and innovative compared to Flash which itself now requires a $1499 set of programs for development.

Again, MS is building something better than the people who built it first. (OS, GUI, Office Tools, Chat, Browser, now Flash)

MS is not a Monopoly by accident. They are a Monopoly by improvement.

Re:The Light (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652601)

Silverlight, although not widely used yet (less than 5% of market)

5% of *what* market? The only time I was stumbling on it was when I was actively looking for information related to it.

H.264 licensing (4, Insightful)

reginaldo (1412879) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652237)

The one step up I see that Silverlight 3 has is licensing for H.264 codecs. Microsoft has the deep pockets to purchase licensing such as this.

It is interesting that Moonlight is not currently pursuing H.264, which makes me wonder if MS is purposely gimping their linux/unix implementation.

Re:H.264 licensing (1)

Vahokif (1292866) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652513)

Moonlight uses a binary blob containing proprietary codecs so it can legally decode H.264. Also, Silverlight 3 allows you to use your own codecs, and the Mono project has implemented Ogg/Vorbis [tirania.org] .

Re:H.264 licensing (1)

Ardaen (1099611) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652557)

which makes me wonder if MS is purposely gimping their linux/unix implementation.

That would be consistent with their business strategy. So the answer is probably "Yes, they are gimping the implimentation of thier silverlight system that runs on competing platforms by implimenting features requiring incompatible licensing rather than using one of the less expensive alternatives."

Re:H.264 licensing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28653043)

Excel produces CSV files which work with Linux. Word produces RTF files that work with Linux! Who says Microsoft doesn't embrace open standards.. Ok that was sarcastic.... Really the strategy Microsoft pursues is to make a very pathetic subset of features available to competing platforms via badly implemented or minimal standards, but if you want to upgrade to "real" computing you have to use all Microsoft.

Sounds nice, but.. (3, Interesting)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652275)

..I still think that Microsoft did not understand what the Internet is about: interoperability. You can create whatever nice framework you want - as long as it is not supported by many systems the adoption rate will be slim. If they would make the API a public standard (that is not restricted) then people might adapt, if it is any good.

Now I know, someone will surely insist that the Windows platform still has the majority of the market share and most users don't care, but you see, most users also don't write applications, and as long as you try to feed BS to the later group of people, you are going nowhere.

Another thing is I see is that the Silverlight frameworks seems to have some severe design issues as it is necessary to bring out a new version seemingly every half year. A well designed platform would try to get the basics right in the first few iterations and then add libraries to it that provide more functionality without having to do a 180 on the whole basic coding.

Guess this will even turn down Microsoft sympathising developers as they can't keep up with the change that's happening continuously. I mean many people are fed up that everything Microsoft does is obsolete in three years time and you can start anew with learning and development (see VB, classic ASP and so forth).

Another thing is, that though the feature list sounds impressive, there are a lot of undressed issues like security that is a very important one with this kind of networked technology.

Re:Sounds nice, but.. (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652495)

It will catch on. They'll get a bunch of Visual Studio programmers to use it, and then a bunch of companies will use it for their internal stuff, then prototypes will hit production, and it will snowball, leaving Linux users unable to use a bunch of business specific applications and unable to see a million punch-the-monkey ads.

Re:Sounds nice, but.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652507)

If you had spent the time it took to write this post, and instead read up on silverlight it would have spared us all from this random guessing game; at which you are not very good at.

Re:Sounds nice, but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652691)

Another thing is, that though the feature list sounds impressive, there are a lot of undressed issues like security that is a very important one with this kind of networked technology.

undressed issues? Cool!

Lets learn it all over again..... (3, Funny)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652531)

> the ability to run apps outside of the browser.

What could Possibly go wrong with that?!?

Competition is good (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652603)

Even when that competition comes from Microsoft. We all complain - and justly so - about Microsoft's monopolistic behavior; but Adobe's "software monopoly" has allowed it to continue releasing bloated crapware across most of its product line. Flash seems to be the biggest pig in the pen, too, in terms of resources needed for what it does.

Flash's one big plus, as I see it, is its wider cross-platform availability; but given Adobe's past behavior with regards to Apple, it would not be surprising to see Adobe drop Linux support with little notice.

I don't really trust Microsoft; but having suffered through the bloat and bugginess of CS4, I say more power to them in this case. I hope Silverlight starts to make some significant headway against Flash. I'd like to see it reach (and stabilize at) somewhere around 20-40 percent of Flash's current market.

Hot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28652607)

Oooh, the competition for video between Flash and Silverlight is "hot"! Using that word to describe the competition would only make sense if you are

a) A nerd
or
b) An online porn enthusiast.

But I repeat myself.

Argh, recursion (3, Interesting)

shish (588640) | more than 4 years ago | (#28652701)

So basically after all this time and effort, the current state of the art wonderful new technology is "the thick client"? Colour me unimpressed :-/

People really need to stop being amazed every time the paradigm switches from thin client to thick and back, only each time with more abstraction layers...

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...