×

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!

New Microsoft Silverlight Features Have Windows Bias

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the open-is-as-open-does dept.

Microsoft 251

An anonymous reader writes with this quote from a story at El Reg about an early look at the Silverlight 4 beta: "There are ... major changes to Silverlight's out-of-browser functionality, a loose equivalent to Adobe Systems' AIR runtime for Flash. Even when fully sandboxed, which means having the same permissions that would apply to a browser-hosted Silverlight applet, out-of-browser applications get an HTML control, custom window settings, and the ability to fire pop-up notifications. ... Unfortunately, some of these features are not what they first appear. The HTML control in Silverlight 4 is not a new embedded browser from Microsoft, but uses components from Internet Explorer on Windows, or Safari on the Mac, which means that the same content might render differently. The HTML control only works out-of-browser, and simply displays a blank space if browser-hosted. Clipboard support is text-only in the Silverlight 4 beta, though this could change for the full release. More seriously, COM automation is a Windows-only feature, introducing differentiation between the Mac and Windows implementations."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

251 comments

COM Automation = ActiveX (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30179870)

For those not up to speed on the windows acronyms, COM automation is just another word for ActiveX. It's exactly the same thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLE_Automation#cite_ref-5 [wikipedia.org]

Re:COM Automation = ActiveX (5, Funny)

Kratisto (1080113) | more than 4 years ago | (#30179906)

No it's not. ActiveX was the source of countless security bugs. COM Automation is new and sexy and contains a TLA.

Re:COM Automation = ActiveX (2, Interesting)

segedunum (883035) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180104)

ActiveX was the sexy name for COM, so it was the other way around. I find it amusing that after nigh on ten years of .Net and MSDN magazine telling us to rewrite everything, COM automation and access is still needed. I'm puzzled though, because COM within Windows is a huge behemoth and the security implications for giving a web-based browser platform access to it, even if it is almost certainly limited, is going to be rather interesting. Mind you, if they expect Silverlight to be the future of Windows client development (as .Net, Windows.Forms, Avalon aka WPF et al were before it) then this is pretty much a given and they can also try and create the lock-in via the Windows client that they tried to get via ActiveX in IE. Whether it will work and be adopted or not outside of corporate MS-oriented intranets is anyone's guess. ActiveX didn't exactly take the web by storm on a large scale.

Re:COM Automation = ActiveX (2, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180148)

So what you're saying is that any time now they'll announce Windows 9 will be written in Silverlight!

Re:COM Automation = ActiveX,shoes,handbags,ugg (-1, Offtopic)

coolforsale116 (1683092) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180392)

http://www.coolforsale.com/ [coolforsale.com] Christmas is around the corner: And old customers can also enjoy the gifts sent by my company in a can also request to our company. Gifts lot,Buy more get the moreOnly this site have this treatmentOur goal is "Best quality, Best reputation , Best services". Your satisfaction is our main pursue. You can find the best products from us, meeting your different needs. Ladies and Gentlemen weicome to my coolforsale.com.Here,there are the most fashion products . Pass by but don't miss it.Select your favorite clothing! Welcome to come next time ! Thank you! http://www.coolforsale.com/productlist.asp?id=s76 [coolforsale.com] (Tracksuit w) ugg boot,POLO hoody,Jacket, Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal Thanks

Re:COM Automation = ActiveX (3, Insightful)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#30181048)

Close, but not quite. ActiveX is a COM component that implements the IDispatch interface. IDispatch is a 'meta' interface that allows dynamic binding to COM objects, rather than the purely static binding that COM defines, allowing COM objects to be called from dynamic languages (like JavaScript). From a purely technological perspective, it's quite slick really, and if you've ever played around in Win32 Python you'll know what I mean.

The security problems with ActiveX was that Microsoft exposed these low-level interfaces to untrusted websites through JavaScript, opening up an enormous attack surface (as now many ActiveX objects on your system, which were never designed with security in mind, were being called from untrusted JavaScript and running under local user permissions). Worse, was allowing websites to request the installation of ActiveX objects themselves. So yeah.... clever technology but a TERRIBLE use.

wow!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30179872)

Story submitter and first post

History (4, Insightful)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 4 years ago | (#30179880)

Anybody who didn't see this coming when MS came out hard about the "amazing cross compatibility besting Adobe!" a few years ago is insane. This is the same old shit they have pulled time and time again. At least they let the cat out of the bag before this needless plug-in gained any real traction. And no I'm no Flash fan. Adobe treats us like dogs too.

Re:History (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30179916)

Who the fuck cares? Just how many people actually use Silverlight anyways? They might as well release "Steve Ballmer's Excrement Beta 4 - Now With More Cherry Flavoring!"

Re:History (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30179942)

Mod parent up, you fucking' philistines. Silverlight is the Zune of application frameworks.

Re:History (-1, Offtopic)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30179976)

Worse, how is it off topic? How do people with the intellectual capacity of a box of rotten eggs get mod points, or even manage to breathe unassisted?

Re:History (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30180066)

Today my friends we are all off-topic.

sorry (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180592)

Actually, I'm not on crack. The Slashdot moderate-the-moment-you-change-the-dropdown-box UI, however, might be. imma go poke preferences and see if that can be turned off....

Re:sorry (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180882)

It can be. I did so, after the very first time of choosing the wrong fucking drop-down. Now if only someone could invent some sort of Web 2.0 confirmation dialog...

Re:History (1)

Tawnos (1030370) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180276)

So it's less used, but after a few iterations, superior in every way to the predominant market holder? :)

Re:History (3, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180492)

A cross platform framework having platform specific features is hardly superior. I had it installed, but no longer.

Re:History (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30180768)

I will agree with you on that, it was much better, but now Microsoft just went and ruined it like they do with everything.

OS lock-down and bias is awful. :(
Especially because it means Adobe won't need to care as much and might decide to suddenly "stagnate" their development a little.

Re:History (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30180534)

Tell that to De Icaza

Re:History (1)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#30179998)

They might as well release "Steve Ballmer's Excrement Beta 4 - Now With More Cherry Flavoring!"

You know, this being the internet and everything, I'm sure Slashdot is going to be getting hits at 2AM from all over the World by folks with their pants down and well... just because of your comment.

Re:History (3, Informative)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180146)

So Netflix, the Olympics and the US Presidential Inauguration aren't high profile enough for you? Just because you have a seething inner hatred towards MS doesn't mean no one uses their technology.

Re:History (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30180354)

Two singular events that are long over and a single company don't constitute widespread use.

Re:History (1)

mR.bRiGhTsId3 (1196765) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180368)

There are plans to use Silverlight for the 2010 winter olympics [techcrunch.com] as well. It seems to be a trend.

Re:History (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30180666)

We should be boycotting the Olympics then. This is unacceptable.

Re:History (3, Interesting)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 4 years ago | (#30181086)

That may well be true; the Olympics committe doesn't feel it is responsible to anybody and will do anything for money. However; if we judge from history the complaints and problems this will raise will help set back Silverlight acceptance. After the way it was done last time nobody sensible would use silverlight for anything. In fact I'd suggest everybody get ready; set up a system which doesn't work with silverlight and then complain about it, but most of us on Slashdot probably already have several and it really isn't needed anyway.

Re:History (1)

EvilIdler (21087) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180364)

Netflix and US presidents: Not available in Europe, although Obama is visiting Norway these days. I doubt they're keeping him, though. He's just a loaner.

Olympics? Come on. This is Slashdot.

Re:History (3, Informative)

tthomas48 (180798) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180372)

Those are high profile, but use kind of drops off after that. Sharply.

It's great if you want to stream DRM content and don't want to use flash. Otherwise the java and flash plugins are more widely installed for the stuff that silverlight's trying to do. They're late to the party and except for DRM they don't really have a compelling story for why someone would want to use their technology.

Re:History (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30180374)

...and that's really too bad...

Re:History (3, Informative)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180186)

I believe netflix instant viewing is written on top of silverlight.

Netflix (1)

Radical Moderate (563286) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180490)

That would explain why it sucks so bad. Has to recalibrate every 10 or 15 minutes because my connection speed has diminished.

Yeah, I have crappy DSL, but Hulu manages to deal with it much better than Netflix via Silverlight..

Re:History (1)

Afforess (1310263) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180386)

Netflix uses Silverlight. That's a pretty big crowd right there. And If I recall correctly, the Olympics were broadcast online with Silverlight.

Re:History (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30180702)

Virtually every website I visit uses Flash in some small way. (thanks Flashblock!) I have yet to encounter a website that required Silverlight.

In the grand scheme of the internet, Silverlight practically doesn't exist.

Re:History (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180430)

Steve Ballmer's Excrement Beta 4 - Now With More Cherry Flavoring!

I thought that was the internal name for Vista? Must have missed that memo.

Trying to tie Silverlight to their OS is pretty par for the MS course. Take promising technology, a concept made popular by another company and run it straight into the ground.

Re:History (3, Funny)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180452)

Who the fuck cares? Just how many people actually use Silverlight anyways?

"Back in the day" when Netscape was king, how many people used IE? Microsoft will keep pounding away with Silverlight to the large "enterprise" clients, and eventually, one day, it will pass Flash. At that point, AOL will merge with Adobe, and it'll be all over.

Re:History (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180750)

Remind me why that's bad. Flash sucks, period. Sliverlight has it's own issues, but at least it's something that isn't Flash or shockwave. Macromedia and now Adobe have had their chance, completely screwed it up, now it's time for somebody else to try.

Re:History (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30181002)

Wait... you mean it's better to be Microsoft than it is to be Flash or Shockwave? I hate them all, it's a tough call, but I'd take the Flash/Shockwave over the Silverlight. Microsoft dominates enough major areas as it is.

IMO, no matter who provides the means of producing flashy audio/video web crap, it will always be abused. It will suck 99% of the time no matter who made it possible. And advertisers will be the first to make sure of it.

Re:History (2, Insightful)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30181102)

Wait... you mean it's better to be Microsoft than it is to be Flash or Shockwave?

I'd say it's better that there's competition between the two, than having just one or the other.

Re:History (2, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 4 years ago | (#30181112)

Enterprise clients is exactly how they are planning to get in the door. COM integration says it all. Microsoft is really competing with their own technology as a first step, Adobe is down the road. They need to get silver light on the corporate desktops first. That way people can use it watch football highlights and clips of the Olympics on their lunch break; its after that they decide they want it at home and take the time to install it.

Microsoft has push a great deal of their tech out the door that way. Fat clients are out of vogue these days and usually banned by some nearsighted corporate policy; so everyone writes web apps now which are really fat clients doing most of the work on the client side. Its hardly removed from the client sever model at all, but because it has web browser window decorations around it the policy folks don't notice.

Now we can talk about the security problems and piles of bugs in COM all day long; but its one of the really useful things Microsoft has put into Windows, and it really is better than any of its competitors. Yes its being slowly replaced with some more modern alternatives in the .net framework but there are allot of com objects out there in the corporate world.

If Microsoft wants those developers using silverlight than they have to have easy access to COM otherwise those "web" applications are being done as a good old fashion mess of activeX. If that happens there is really no reason to get silverlight installed on the PCs; which means Flash will be.

Re:History (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30180506)

To be honest, as someone who has spent a year developing with and comparing online frameworks, Silverlight is actually close to or already surpassing other available technologies like Flex and JavaFX. Probably the only real competitor to Silverlight is GWT.

Re:History (1)

msclrhd (1211086) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180952)

How about (X)HTML, SVG, SMIL, CSS and JavaScript.

Oh, wait, IE still doesn't support those despite people keeping asking for them. Oh noes, CSS3 is not finalised! Oh noes, there are too many standards! Woe is us! (Read: we want people to use Silverlight instead.)

Re:History (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30181154)

I really don't understand how a comment that uses a "word" like "anyways" gets a 5. Shame on you all. Have fun with Windows 7.

Re:History (5, Informative)

Azheim (1197149) | more than 4 years ago | (#30181164)

Unfortunately, some of us have to.

I'm a med student, and many of my lectures are viewed and reviewed at home via MediaSite, a Silverlight-based lecture management system from Sonicfoundry. While our lectures do play in Firefox, Safari, and Chrome with the Silverlight plugin, advanced features (such as the ability to play the lecture at whatever speed you wish) are only available in Internet Explorer. The crippling of Silverlight in competing browsers has forced me to return to IE.

Re:History (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30179918)

i know, if there is one thing i wish the OSS community would make a decent competitor to, it's flash. silverlight looks promising, but this kills it for me outside of work.

Re:History (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30180088)

Any web page plugin that exists outside of the normal flow of browser control and navigation history is a bad idea. Perhaps HTML5 will go some way to addressing this, which Microsoft will presumably get round to working towards some time around IE12 at their current rate of non-progress.

One hilarious comment on MSDN about this, to paraphrase, was that is was "unfair that Microsoft was expected to keep modifying its browser to account for all these new standards competitors keep coming up with." and that they should "stop making new standards and give Microsoft a chance to implement existing ones." Or as I like to think of it, "stop the world, Microsoft needs to catch up."

Re:History (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180178)

The thing is, instead of releasing plugins, the Open Source community is just agreeing on standards in browsers (so theoretically, any brower that can do javascript and html5 can do whatever you want without a plugin).

Re:History (3, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180612)

*And* make an editor like the Flash suite. That's one of the main reasons Flash succeeded: it's easy to use by designers, instead of coders. That's also why most Flash apps/websites suck.

Re:History (1)

pyrbrand (939860) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180618)

I think this is actually more of a result of there being two audiences interested in Silverlight. The first is the audience interested in Silverlight as a media streaming or flash replacement browser plugin. For them, nothing changes. These new Windows only features are more for the other audience which is client app developers looking for a lightweight replacement to .Net (one that doesn't take at least 30 minutes to install!). For them SL was interesting in that it was easy to deploy, but they could give a heck about sandboxing - they wanted a way to access the whole system and want their apps to behave just like any other client application. The COM interaction lets them do this if there's some piece of functionality not available in SL on the system, they can just write a native DLL and interact with SL through COM.

New Silverlight features have Windows bias? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30179910)

Pope discovered to be Catholic

Bears recorded shitting in woods.

Re:New Silverlight features have Windows bias? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30180224)

At 11: Scientists have determined that water is, in fact, wet.

IT'S A TRAP! (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180038)

It's a trap!

/Wait... am I late? I'm always late to these things. It WAS a trap. The next one is not a trap though. The next one will be just fine. Trust me.

Anything about Linux? (4, Insightful)

Edmund Blackadder (559735) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180056)

I really want to run Silverlight in Ubuntu! Well, no that was sarcasm, but Linux should be mentioned when one talks about cross comparability. We should not allow the meme to emerge that the only options are Mac or windows.

Re:Anything about Linux? (1)

Draek (916851) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180764)

Linux compatibility is handled by Mono's Moonlight project, and I doubt they'll be retarded enough to implement this functionality in such a stupid, problematic way.

Re:Anything about Linux? (2, Informative)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180964)

Moonlight. From the same folks who brought you Mono (and sharing much of the code), Moonlight is a free, open-source implementation of Silverlight runnable on Linux, *BSD, and so forth. It's under pretty heavy development, and like Mono itself tends to lag somewhat behind the MS version (unsurprisingly), but it's usable for many of the things that require Silverlight.

Download link (may also be in repositories): http://www.go-mono.com/moonlight/ [go-mono.com]
Download for development version (2 beta 8): http://go-mono.com/moonlight-beta/ [go-mono.com]
Project page (including links to source): http://www.mono-project.com/Moonlight [mono-project.com]

a bit early for lock-in? (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180092)

Isn't the idea to wait to lock in until, oh, at least 10% of the population is actually using your product?

How surprising that MS couldn't hold off that long.

Re:a bit early for lock-in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30180798)

1. Create a new product that copies somebody elses ideas but is incompatible
2. Use your market share/money to try to become the standard
3. Make constant changes so the open source implementations cant stay up to date
4. Watch your product disappear into obscurity as better alternatives gain traction
5. Cease work on your product leaving everyone who invested time, effort & money on the DRM encrusted crap is left dangling

I guess Microsoft has optimized it's development process to remove steps 3-4

COM is windows only... (4, Interesting)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180122)

...thank God.

Only Microsoft has the peculiar genius that allows them to take a relatively straightforward concept (reference counting/smart pointers) add a totally over-the-top, incomprehensible library that was designed around the limitations of the broken template support in VC6 (ATL), then totally abandon it for "teh new shiny" because you lost a court case against Sun (.net).

I have written a *lot* of code in ATL, and I regret practically every moment of it; I liked the idea of COM/ActiveX, it's actually a really cool concept, and it even seemed to have an awesome future (all these COM objects that could talk to each other...Excel could control my toaster via my custom ActiveX dll) but suddenly it became all about the web and the era of a component-laden operating system ended before it really ever began. So for that I slogged through a bunch of ATL books, got to the point where I thought I knew how it all worked, and then all Microsoft wanted talk about was C# and .net.

Re:COM is windows only... (1)

TheNarrator (200498) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180234)

This is why being a Microsoft developer sucks. You learn one shiny knew complicated kludgy technology and then they throw it all away when the next shiny new version of windows comes out. The new shiny new kludge has pretty much the same function and api but everything's named differently and it has a whole slew up different quirks and gotchas to work around.

Re:COM is windows only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30180286)

As opposed to say sound on Linux?

Re:COM is windows only... (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180396)

So you are complaining that Microsoft changes too much. Another commenter in this story is complaining that Microsoft is complaining that the world is changing too fast and MS can't keep up.

I suppose being a web dev is bad, too, because CSS keeps changing and browsers keep changing and ... man, why can't we just learn something and use it for the next 20 years?

Re:COM is windows only... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30180906)

man, why can't we just learn something and use it for the next 20 years?

emacs

Re:COM is windows only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30180970)

So you are complaining that Microsoft changes too much. Another commenter in this story is complaining that Microsoft is complaining that the world is changing too fast and MS can't keep up.

No... the point is that MS is so big that they force massive non-backwardly compatible changes on the backs of the developers ....

  MFC, COM, ATL, GDI, GDI Plus, .NET, WTL, WPF, Avalon, blah, blah, blah.

Re:COM is windows only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30181060)

No, but see that is where you are wrong.

Microsoft aren't changing anything, they are completely ditching it in favor of some new uniquely half-assed replacements.
That is a MAJOR difference.

Microsoft reinvent the the atoms of the wheel with everything it seems.
This is why we ended up with the Vista mess. XP was fine, it just needed some smarter patching of holes and some changes to the system internals to improve security overall.

Re:COM is windows only... (1)

msclrhd (1211086) | more than 4 years ago | (#30181082)

The CSS and JavaScript you knew yesterday will still work today. HTML is slightly different, but the core is the same, and is easy with tools like html tidy to clean up; the actual markup remains (mostly) the same.

With Microsoft and their ever changing shiny APIs is that they want you to use something *completely different* to what you are using yesterday in each release of Windows (GDI+, .NET, WinForms, WPF) in a way that if you want to support new shiny API you need to rewrite your existing application. Only you find that after porting your C/C++ Win32 application (or ATL/WTL or MFC) to Windows Forms, you find that it is no longer being maintained and that you should use WPF or Silverlight because it is new and shiny.

Re:COM is windows only... (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 4 years ago | (#30181124)

So you are complaining that Microsoft changes too much. Another commenter in this story is complaining that Microsoft is complaining that the world is changing too fast and MS can't keep up.

These things are not contradictory. In fact one causes the other. The fact that MS spends it's entire time dreaming up ways to inconvenience users of other products means that it seldom has time to do the needed improvements to it's own software. It also means that their products become Byzantinely complex slowing down their own development.

Re:COM is windows only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30181134)

I'm sorry but you're mistaken, it wasn't a complaint. And too fast? I think you need to re-read that comment, my friend.

You also appear to conflate change with progress. Microsoft may continually change their shiny new complicated technology for the next new shiny. Yet that shiny, although different and incompatible, shall have no more functionality than their last.

Re:COM is windows only... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180318)

ATL and COM didn't go away. It's still there, a lot of Windows APIs are built on top of it, a lot of Microsoft applications also are, and it's still the best way to do cross-language, interprocess components. .NET fully supports COM interop, and new features are still being added to improve that (a whole slew in the upcoming C# 4.0, for example).

Re:COM is windows only... (1)

caywen (942955) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180462)

My eyes are still rolling with ActiveX. Asking users to decide to trust or not trust unmanaged code is such a crappy model. Everyone except Microsoft knew it from the start, and it only took them a decade to realize that even code written with the best intentions can be a real threat if it's even partially unmanaged.

(btw, I mean "managed" in a more general sense, not specifically the .NET environment)

Re:COM is windows only... (1)

BudVVeezer (585625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180888)

COM isn't Windows-only. It's a cross-platform technology that happens to be used far more often on Windows than any other platform. However, as anyone who's done anything with IOKit on Mac can tell you, COM isn't limited to just Windows.

Quick, someone notify Miguel! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30180152)

Obviously this is some kind of mistake. Miguel assured all us Linux users that Microsoft was a changed company, they would NEVER do something like this! Surely Moonlight would be 100% compatible with Silverlight and Linux would be considered a tier 1 platform!

He wouldn't have lied, would he?

Re:Quick, someone notify Miguel! (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180208)

He didn't like, Miguel is just the dumbest chump that ever came along. The guy was born with a sign on his back that said "Stick Your Hand Up My Ass And Move My Mouth!"

Everything Microsoft does is a time bomb, or crippled to ruin the competition.

Re:Quick, someone notify Miguel! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30180352)

Stick Your Hand Up My Ass

If I publicly whore for microsoft can I get them to do that to me. I like hands up my ass.

How is this a surprise? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180160)

This is from the folks who claim linux support, but then refuse to supply the DRM package needed to actually use it.

Either you want to compete with Flash or you want to use this to promote windows, you can't have it both ways.

Talked about using Applescript on Mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30180196)

COM is a Windows technology, but right before this story was posted I was watching a video from Channel 9 where they said they were looking at options for using Applescript on Mac to provide similar features. More info here:

http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Charles/Joe-Stegman-Silverlight-4-Out-of-Browser-Evolves/ [msdn.com]

Re:Talked about using Applescript on Mac (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180348)

Similar features in an incompatible way, meaning that this won't be cross platform at all. They are counting on developers not realising, only testing on windows and putting out tons of windows-only sites because having a product people are forced to use is much better than making something people actually want to use.

So what? Freedom of choice is good. (2, Informative)

awitod (453754) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180268)

It has the ability to support older API's that aren't available on all platforms. Developers who care about maximum cross-platform reach just won't use them. On the flip-side, if it didn't allow interop with the old stuff, the current adopters would be pissed for obvious reasons.

This way the people creating Silverlight apps have freedom of choice and choice is good.

As far as IE goes, I have a product that integrates with IE. I looked closely at Webkit and Gecko. Neither one is very friendly to program against with .NET and the API's don't expose nearly as much automation capability as IE. If the maintainers of those browsers want developers to embed them in desktop apps as an alternative, they need to make an investment.

Why should Microsoft do it? As far as I know, anyone can create and distribute Silverlight components. If you want a good API for WPF/Silverlight for Gecko, talk to the Mozilla Foundation. I'd be glad to have it, but I'm not mad at Microsoft because it doesn't exist. (BTW, I am aware of GeckoFx and XulRunner. The API is very shallow compared to the IE COM interfaces.)

Re:So what? Freedom of choice is good. (1, Flamebait)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180378)

When you picked .Net you decided against portability. The maintainers of those browsers are not interested in you using their work to make a not portable app. Why should they be?

More over if you used IE for display in your app we can all rest assured nothing of value was lost for those of us who cannot run it. I have never seen a decent app that did this and am very sure I never will.

Re:So what? Freedom of choice is good. (1)

awitod (453754) | more than 4 years ago | (#30181078)

Everything in the app I mentioned is compatible under mono except for the browser integration (at least it was at that point, wouldn't swear to it now). We went with IE because the full API did what was required. I appreciate that we could have created our own API to Gecko, but from what we saw, the crucial bits were missing. More to the point our goal was to create an application that happened to have some browser functionality - not to create a rich API to a platform when a ready to use alternative was already at our disposal.

Some may not like mono, but in my experience it is a pretty decent platform.

As far as the quality of the app, I'm glad you won't be using it. You sound like someone I'd give their money back to if I ever had the pleasure of taking a support call from you. You must be a super genius to know all about it based on the presence of a single component.

Re:So what? Freedom of choice is good. (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180394)

As a developer you have a lot more freedom with gecko or webkit, you don't need to automate the browser or its rendering engine, you can modify it to do exactly what you want, or incorporate its code into your program and call its internal functions directly.
There's nothing stopping you from implementing the api that you want.

How many developers will care about cross-platform?
Some developers create cross platform apps by default, but the vast majority create them by accident using cross platform languages... How many flash objects or java applets were ever tested or designed on more than one platform? If you make cross platform ability an option rather than the default, then the vast majority of apps will not be cross platform.

Re:So what? Freedom of choice is good. (2, Insightful)

RingDev (879105) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180610)

I wouldn't say that's quite a fair estimate in this case. Silverlight apps are still cross platform (mine run identically on Win 2k, 2k3, 2k8, XP, Vista, 7, and even a few Mac clients running IE6, 7, 8, and FF3.5) and will continue to be so in v4. But, if you call COM services, they only exist in Windows anyways. So who' cares that the COM functionality only exists in the windows bin, so long as it compiles and throws an exception when COM services aren't available for Mac bins.

This is hardly the dreaded lock-in that people are making it out to be. It's an added tool that (IMO) no one should ever use.

It's like claiming that Mono is a lock in because it contains extra functionality that exploits extra functionality available in Linux environments.

If you want to do cross platform development, you must make sure you either account for all environments, or explicitly only use those entities that are proven safe. It is really quite simple to make an HTML page (with a JSP/PHP/Ruby/what ever) back end that will not render correctly on different platforms. Or toss a couple of OS API calls in Java and watch it bomb out when you run it on a different OS.

-Rick

Re:So what? Freedom of choice is good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30180918)

This is hardly the dreaded lock-in that people are making it out to be. It's an added tool that (IMO) no one should ever use.

Silverlight is a web technology, if it's not 100% cross-platform, it's worthless.

It's like claiming that Mono is a lock in because it contains extra functionality that exploits extra functionality available in Linux environments.

Apples and oranges.
Mono and .NET, by design, assure you that they can run a certain form of bytecode, have certain libraries available and provide access to native C code. That's all and nobody expects more.

Silverlight was promised to run _all_ applications written for it, across the three main platforms on the web - Windows, OSX and Linux. Including COM support is clearly breaking that promise and makes it inferior to Adobe Flash.

Re:So what? Freedom of choice is good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30180644)

In my country, this kind of freedom of choice is called choosing between plague and cholera.

Microsoft pollution at its best (4, Interesting)

jeanph01 (700760) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180274)

Each time I read about silverlight I get angry. Why won't Microsoft invest time and energy making IE html5 compliant instead of promoting this f*** product that nobody wants anyway. I mean, look at the competition for god sake. IE is stuck with Javascript 1.5 since November 2000. Man we are now 9 years since Ms has updated its Javascript engine. Firefox, Chrome, Safari, name it, all have javascript support almost if not ready for ECMAScript 5.

What is comforting in a way is the low deployment of silverlight. Google can give us a slight idea : http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=adobe%20flash%2Cmicrosoft%20silverlight&date=today%2012-m&cmpt=q [google.com]
I know at least that it is not deployed at work : 20,000 less pcs for Microsoft + the 2 mine at home.

Re:Microsoft pollution at its best (2, Informative)

Dragonshed (206590) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180950)

Perhaps you should click on the "Learn what these numbers mean" link. Here, I'll do it for you:

The numbers on the graph reflect how many searches have been done for a particular term, relative to the total number of searches done on Google over time. They don't represent absolute search volume numbers, because the data is normalized and presented on a scale from 0-100. Each point on the graph is divided by the highest point, or 100. When we don't have enough data, 0 is shown. The numbers next to the search terms above the graph are summaries, or totals.

The number of searches in google has no objective relation to the number of deployments, for either flash or silverlight.

Farnsworth: "Bunk! Bunk, I say! Bring me a bag of Bigfoot's droppings, or shut up!"

Re:Microsoft pollution at its best (3, Interesting)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 4 years ago | (#30181020)

I don't know where they are in terms of language support (not great, if Acid3 is any indication), but IE8's JavaScript engine was a massive step up from IE7's and an even more massive step up from IE6. It's more standards-compliant (i.e. less incorrect behavior), implements more of the spec (not necessarily any of the newest changes to the spec, but more of the language as a whole), and is much, much faster than before.

Don't get me wrong, it's still way behind the other big-name browsers, but claiming 9 years since MS updated the javascript engine is a bald-faced lie.

MS releases Silverlight 4, nobody cares (5, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180304)

Microsoft today announced the release of version 4.0 of its world-beating Silverlight multimedia platform for the Web. As a replacement for Adobe’s Flash, it is widely considered utterly superfluous and of no interest to anyone who could be found [today.com].

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

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

“But it’s got DRM!” cried Guthrie. “Netflix loved it! And web developers love us too, after all we did for them with IE 6. Wait, come back! We’ll put porn on it! Free porn!”

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

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

Speaking of Bias.. (5, Interesting)

Dragonshed (206590) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180342)

From TFA:

Unfortunately, some of these features are not what they first appear. The HTML control in Silverlight 4 is not a new embedded browser from Microsoft, but uses components from Internet Explorer on Windows, or Safari on the Mac, which means that the same content might render differently. The HTML control only works out-of-browser, and simply displays a blank space if browser-hosted.

The difference in rendering between IE on Windows and Safari on Macosx is a reality, whether silverlight is involved or not. The purpose of the HTML Control is to allow scenarios dependent on the HTML Bridge, the part of silverlight that blurs the lines and allows communication between the html dom + javascript and C# code, to run correctly when the app is hosted out of the browser. It's essentially a crutch to allow developers that want to use siverlight a way to leverage existing investments in web application development.

More seriously, COM automation is a Windows-only feature, introducing differentiation between the Mac and Windows implementations. Since cross-platform Mac and Windows is a key Silverlight feature, it is curious that Microsoft has now decided to make it platform-specific in such an important respect. Microsoft Office and parts of the Windows API have a COM interface, so access to COM makes Silverlight a much more capable client.

This is a fairly obscure feature, and I'm fairly surprised that it was included at all, but doubt it'll be of use to the vast majority of current and future silverlight developers out there. Like the html control, it's a crutch, to allow developers that want to use silverlight a way to leverage existing investments. The mantra I've heard out of the silverlight team is to focus on unblocking customer scenarios (scenarios they cannot unblock themselves) without compromising the overall feature goals (like keeping the runtime download small).

Nevertheless, Silverlight has crossed a threshold. It is now a runtime that has extended functionality only on Windows. That will not help Microsoft win developers from Adobe AIR, which has the same features on both Mac and Windows.

I don't think it'll matter. Any developer that is seriously considering using silverlight over Adobe AIR, but is then persuaded not to because Silverlight's Trusted Out-Of-Browser scenario has COM support on Windows and not on Mac is "Doing It Wrong". It's an edge case feature that doesn't affect Silverlight's over all "Cross-Platforminess".

Flame On.

Features? (5, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180346)

So far, the only feature in TFS that I can see as having "Windows bias" is ActiveX support. Which is kinda not surprising (I mean, who doesn't know that ActiveX is "that evil Windows thing" - even people who don't even understand what it is and how it works?). Qt also has an ActiveX support module, and it doesn't make it any less cross-platform - no-one forces you to use it. Same applies here.

Re:Features? (4, Insightful)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 4 years ago | (#30181076)

Thank you for a voice of sanity and reason. The fact that you can embed COM objects in the latest version of Silverlight does nothing to harm Silverlight on other platforms; it simply means that if you (as a developer) are willing to limit yourself to Windows users, you can now embed third-party controls written in C++ into your desktop app (what a bizarre concept, I know...) If you want portability, you don't use this feature (any more than if a Java developer wants portability, he doesn't rely on a native code module that does registry I/O).

As a desktop Linux user, I avoid Sliverlite... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30180408)

Think about it:
Why would I want to help MS get more market share when it comes to the delivery of on-line multimedia? I'm sure if MS gets a large percentage of the market, they would shiv me in the back by pulling codec support from the Linux version or sabotaging it in some other manor.

We're talking about the same company that tried to lock out free audio codecs from PMPs a wile back to screw free software users.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/27/accidental_music_monopoly_bid/

I'm happy to stick with Flash. It may be closed source, but at least it isn't made by (or under the control of) a company that regularly goes out of its way to screw people over.

That being said, I'm sure MS could buy Adobe, so a free solution would still be much better/reliable than flash.

Windows bias? Is that what you see? (2, Interesting)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180568)

The HTML control in Silverlight 4 is not a new embedded browser from Microsoft, but uses components from Internet Explorer on Windows, or Safari on the Mac, which means that the same content might render differently.

So on the Mac it'll use Webkit, which means it'll render correctly. On Windows it'll use IE, which means... okay, anyone who's done any web development at all knows what that means.

I guess I'm not seeing the "pro-Windows bias" here - it looks like an anti-Windows bias to me!

You are bitching about a lack of IE on Mac!? (2, Insightful)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180710)

WTF? If I'm viewing something on my Mac, I want it to use Safari components, so it will behave like I'm used to on the Mac. If I'm viewing the same thing on Windows, I want it to use IE components, so it will behave like I'm used to on Windows. This is a good thing.

Surprise surprise (2, Funny)

kikito (971480) | more than 4 years ago | (#30180894)

Microsoft software quality again.

Seriously, is anyone not payed by microsoft using this Silverlight stuff?

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...