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!

Microsoft's Silverlight Strategy 'Has Shifted'

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the writing-on-the-wall dept.

Microsoft 212

An anonymous reader writes "It looks like Microsoft might finally be realizing that Silverlight can't cover every platform, according to this conversation with Bob Muglia: '... when it comes to touting Silverlight as Microsoft’s vehicle for delivering a cross-platform runtime, "our strategy has shifted," Muglia told [ZDNet]. Silverlight will continue to be a cross-platform solution, working on a variety of operating system/browser platforms, going forward, he said. "But HTML is the only true cross platform solution for everything, including (Apple's) iOS platform," Muglia said.'"

cancel ×

212 comments

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

Heh (1)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 3 years ago | (#34068944)

"But HTML is the only true cross platform solution for everything, including (Apple's) iOS platform,"

I believe you meant HTML 5... right? =V

Re:Heh (1)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 3 years ago | (#34068962)

I mean, unless I missed some HTML 4 or lower video inclusion somewhere.

Re:Heh (1)

mobets (101759) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069132)

Seems to me that websites had embedded video long before FLV and HTML5. What was so bad about the pluggins and competition in codecs?

Re:Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34069466)

Nothing, unless you want them to work on all platforms. You know, because you get more customers or advertizing revenue instead of shutting people out because their iphone doesn't support this particular version of encrypted real player or what ever the flavor of BS is these days. Seriously, I remember those days when I spent more time installing and updating the different players than I did watching videos. I don't miss them.

Re:Heh (3, Informative)

MasterEvilAce (792905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069500)

The fact that most of them suck, and you would have to install multiple plugins just to be able to browse the internet regularly.. but then because of that you end up having lots of security holes all of the place due to hastily written plugins. Back in the day you had Real Audio, and you hated it, because all it did was BUFFER all the time. A lot of sites had WMV, which couldn't be played on Macs. A lot of sites had MOV which required QuickTime, which behaves horrendously on Windows. Now, the majority of sites use flash, which is prone to security problems, crashes, and also can't be played on Macs, if Apple has their way. With a unified codec, each browser is free to implement the specifics however they want, and the media is still guaranteed to play across all platforms. EVERYBODY wins.

Re:Heh (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069704)

Yes on part of your post, but nobody has yet explained to me why supporting HTML V5 with H.264 is BETTER than supporting flash. It seems nobody is willing to talk about the elephant in the room: H.264, which is the biggest patent minefield in the history of bad patents. If we were talking WebM then yes, 100% right there behind you. But FOSS browsers like FF can't support H.264, since MPEG-LA has made it clear you WILL be cutting them a check, whereas Adobe doesn't give a shit who or what packages flash. Start advertising native H.264 support in a distro and watch MPEG-LA drop the troll hammer upon thee, whereas Adobe don't care, package away. So far they haven't even said boo about alternative render projects like Gnash.

So unless we can get the two Steves (Ballmer and Jobs) to get on board WebM I think we have a serious problem here. H.264 simply trades one master for another, and while I personally don't mind proprietary software as long as there is competition switching over to HTML V5 would pretty much hand the keys over to MPEG-LA, which have proven they just aren't nice. I only hope the web developers of the world will unite and demand that HTML V5 have a FOSS codec for video, be it Theora or WebM, rather than simply trade one lock in for another.

Re:Heh (1)

MasterEvilAce (792905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069842)

I absolutely agree with you, really. FireFox refuses to support H.264 (you already stated why), which defeats the whole purpose of one unified standard, which is what HTML5 is shooting for. The only thing I hope, is that whatever codec gets used, it better be good. H.264 has already been proven.. that's why it's so popular. WebM, for the most part seems to be pretty identical. If WebM doesn't make the cut, I honestly believe the whole push will stall out. Whichever codec gets used has to be GOOD for all platforms (desktop and mobile, good on CPU, etc.). Reason being, it's going to stick around for a while... like MP3; it might not be the best, but it's the standard.

Re:Heh (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069164)

You did, its called the object and anchor (a) tags. It just isn't exactly what a lot of people wanted.

Well, duh? (3, Insightful)

caywen (942955) | more than 3 years ago | (#34068968)

I would think that HTML 5 being more cross platform is pretty obvious. Along the gradient of machine code -> interpreted/jit code -> scripting -> markup/declarative language, the more to the right you get, the more portable you inherently become.

Re:Well, duh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34069012)

Not necessarily. Try running an IBM JCL script on anything but a mainframe.

Re:Well, duh? (1)

DittoBox (978894) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069114)

You mean to tell me that a machine that doesn't have the components to interpret your script, can't interpret your script?

And all this time I've been lead to believe...

Re:Well, duh? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069286)

From what I remember of JCL, you could probably have adapted it to any machine.

And I seem to remember a few emulators that ran on UNIX...

Re:Well, duh? (1)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069334)

There are emulators, or were, until IBM sued their asses not long ago.

Re:Well, duh? (1)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069230)

So, future of programming is HTML5? We are doomed just like Neanderthal people (with last remaining male representative being wasted MTV celebrity on LSD).

Re:Well, duh? (1)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069702)

So, future of programming is HTML5?

Only in the parallel universe where web applications are an appreciable percentage of the total software in use.

Web apps are certainly more visible than other apps, but for much the same reason that TV shows are more visible than other forms of art: everyone (or nearly everyone) has a web browser and a TV. But just as all the television shows ever made represent fewer works than are in the average large chain bookstore this evening, web applications represent a negligible proportion of the software in use.

Of course, if you spend a lot of time browsing the web and/or writing web apps, you might not notice this. It's the same phenomenon where a programmer who works mostly in language A on platform B announces that language X on platform Y to the amusement of the huge number of programmers and users of X and Y.

Some applications translate well to the web, others do not. And even for the former, there are often reasons to prefer local versions, e.g., security (nothing beats an air gap), lack of reliable (or any) network access, limited resources in embedded apps, and just plain stubbornness, etc.

So no, we're not doomed to do everything in HTML5, just as neither C++ nor Java took over the world nor even retained what dominance they had. Your pet technology won't conquer the world, either. By the time it gets here, the Singularity will probably turn out to be the Multiplicity, and we'll get to spend all day just trying to get the gist of flamewars on Slashdot between superhuman intelligences.

Re:Well, duh? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069268)

Well, not really.

There are still things in HTLM3 that not every platform does.

It all depends on who has access to reference environments, money, access to the internals, and motivation to make the changes to make it work.

Microsoft, being buried in cash and having access to just about anything it wants to play with, and the only access to Silverlight, could easily set a goal of making it better propagated than similar functions in HTML5.

I think what it really wanted was for, somehow, people to adopt Silverlight and go "HTLM5, who needs that?"

Or -- and this is just a gut feeling -- they've finally got a few people on top of the software strategy pile who aren't constitutionally incapable of letting a standard succeed.

Re:Well, duh? (4, Informative)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069380)

the more to the right you get, the more portable you inherently become.

No, you don't. That is only the case if the language(s) you're dealing with are transportable due to having a virtual machine/runtime compilation design - and those languages have a multitude of platform-specific interpreters.

Examples: perl, python, java, javascript, .NET.

Silverlight is a very 'high level' language - but it only has runtimes for Firefox and Safari on OSX, and (essentially) Windows. There are no mobile implementations (except for possibly Windows Mobile 6.x, couldn't find any info on it.) Flash is much more portable and cross-platform.

Even javascript isn't all that cross-platform/portable due to the use of different browsers/javascript implementations.

Re:Well, duh? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34070100)

There are no mobile implementations (except for possibly Windows Mobile 6.x, couldn't find any info on it.)

There is an implementation for Symbian (S60) [silverlight.net] , but, quite obviously, it's too little too late.

Re:Well, duh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34069822)

It doesn't matter what language you code in. I just export my code to a pdf that way everyone can run it. Everyone can open pdfs!

Re:Well, duh? (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34070132)

iirc, mozilla is working on a JIT for javascript...

Translation (5, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34068990)

Translation: "Well, I'd say that Silverlight plan crash and burned. I guess we'll have to back to plan A, and try to kill HTML. What's that I heard from R&D about a <activex> tag?"

no (2, Insightful)

wodkamichi (1545967) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069008)

this can't be real - silverlight on multible platforms? does that mean we get the same crap on linux. perhaps even on solaris :(

Re:no (3, Informative)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069038)

Moonlight [mono-project.com] works ok.

Re:no (1)

wodkamichi (1545967) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069064)

yeah, almost the same - but built on top of mono! and mono itself runs on many platforms - contrarily to most ms products.

Re:no (0, Offtopic)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069220)

TROLL? SERIOUSLY? damn there are some script kiddies with mod points.

Re:no (3, Funny)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069274)

In Linux, I need .NET like I need shotgun blast to the face!

Re:no (5, Insightful)

Joe Tie. (567096) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069378)

Moonlight seems to be a solution in search of a problem. It works great with aspects of silverlight nobody uses. And the only thing lacking in it is the ability to play the drm video of the few siliverlight using sites anyone actually cares about.

Re:no (3, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069398)

The only thing I ever needed Silverlight for was to watch Netflix streaming, and Moonlight didn't help any there. It's like Mono to run .net, or Wine to run Win32; you'll get a little ways with it, just not enough to be very useful. Microsoft simply does not do cross-platform (not even to the point of releasing and then following their own standards so others can make compatible implementations). If they say they are going to, it's a ploy. Sorry to have to repeat slashdot dogma, but it happens to be true in this case.

Re:no (1)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069486)

Moonlight/Mono is part of Microsoft's cross-platform Silverlight/.NET strategy in the same way that Libre Office's OOXML support is part of Microsoft's cross-platform document strategy. Ie, at best it's an attempt by others to support Microsoft's de facto standard as best they can to avoid using Microsoft's software (especially in places where Microsoft doesn't actually offer software for the platform) and at best it's Microsoft's push to lure others into creating inferior supporting applications* which will in turn lure people to use "the real thing" in the form of Microsoft's software (and the one or two platforms they actually support).

In short, no, Moonlight doesn't count given the context of the discussion.

*Btw, this is incredibly stupid on Microsoft's part. One of the major reasons people chose Microsoft products in the past is because they offered good enough at a cheaper price. Mono/Moonlight and Libre Office are good enough.

Re:no (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069512)

good but they will always be playing catch up.

Anyway the move from MS is most unsurprising, playing nice and interoperable until enough traction is achieved, then use the marketshare to push a more ruthless domination agenda. And back.

IE is the perfect example.

   

Re:no (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069672)

Moonlight just can't do what the Windows version can unless there was some huge upgrade to it in the last 6 months that I missed. If I am incorrect, than I will be downloading it tonight, but last check, Moonlight is not very robust compared to the Windows version. I am talking SL 1.0 support only (maybe a version that is before 2.0, but I am unsure). SL 3 is awesome, and I have not touched SL 4 yet, but the leap from a media player to something where you can use it like a platform similar to flash.

I am pretty confident Moonlight just can't support the later versions of SL

Re:no (1)

Noitatsidem (1701520) | more than 3 years ago | (#34070022)

It has some support from versions later than 2- but not full support (if I remember correctly anyways.) Either way, it doesn't support DRM so there's really no point to it. I mean, wow there's an implementation that can't run 90% of the silverlight based websites worth running.

Mono isn`t Silverlight (2, Informative)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 3 years ago | (#34070136)

Moonlight [mono-project.com] works ok.

Mono is not at feature parity with Silverlight. I don`t even talk about non existing developer and designer environment for Linux/OS X/BSD.

Even MS admits that Silverlight may not be really cross platform as once envisioned and you Mono/Moonlight/Icaza fans still mention Moonlight.

For industry (if they took SL serious, silverlight is whatever offered at MS Windows Update, which is version 4 or something now.

Re:no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34069174)

perhaps even on solaris :(

With Oracle's behavior as of late, who would run Solaris?

Re:no (1)

wodkamichi (1545967) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069250)

I'd guess only people that run oracle databases...

I don't care about the DRM implications... (3, Interesting)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069022)

I want Silverlight for Linux; essentially the only reason I ever boot into Windows is for Netflix's "Watch Instantly" feature.

Of course, my desire for this despite the DRM probably means I'm going to open-source fundamentalist hell...I mean, I even use the proprietary nVidia drivers...

Re:I don't care about the DRM implications... (5, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069042)

Of course, my desire for this despite the DRM probably means I'm going to open-source fundamentalist hell...I mean, I even use the proprietary nVidia drivers...

Those that sell Essential Liberty for decent 3D effects deserve neither Liberty or 3D effects!

Re:I don't care about the DRM implications... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34070072)

Ubuntu NE team contact here, running 10.10 with Gallium3D Nouveau. Works great. 0 bugs observed so far, surprisingly, even with basic 3d games.

Re:I don't care about the DRM implications... (1)

PolyDwarf (156355) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069062)

*gasp*

Unless you let the gospel of RMS into your heart, you will burn in the fires of Hades!

He who hath heard the Good News and let it fill his soul will have taken their first steps to redemption. Every time you say "GNU/Linux", you take another step upon that path (but, watch out... if you say Linux, without the "GNU", you will fall off the path, into the waiting hands of the Ballmer Devil!)

Re:I don't care about the DRM implications... (1)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069102)

Would it kill performance to use VMWare? I'm going to GNUHell too.

Re:I don't care about the DRM implications... (1)

mobets (101759) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069158)

Moonlight has kept up with Silverlight in supporting Silverlight on Linux. I'm pretty sure Linux is banned from NetFlix for entirely different reasons.

Re:I don't care about the DRM implications... (4, Informative)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34070014)

You'd be wrong. Sort of.

Netlix never "banned" Linux. If you can get it to work with the site, great, they'd be happy for you. The problem comes in with the studios, who demand that Netflix use DRM when a user streams a video on their site. So they use Silverlight's built-in DRM API, which the studios are okay with. The only problem is that Moonlight does not implement Silverlight's DRM scheme. The details are proprietary, and although Novell has asked Microsoft for permission to use their DRM scheme in Moonlight, Microsoft has said "no." They don't want to share it, they definitely don't want it open-sourced (what's the point of an open-source DRM implementation?). This all makes sense from both parties' perspective; the only one really making a stupid mistake is Netflix, for using Silverlight in the first place. (Although I don't know whether their licensing terms played a part in that or not---in any case Flash nowadays has lots of DRM support, and would of course be a viable solution should Netflix decide to switch.)

Re:I don't care about the DRM implications... (2, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069182)

the only reason I ever boot into Windows is for Netflix's "Watch Instantly" feature.

Of course, my desire for this despite the DRM probably means I'm going to open-source fundamentalist hell..

If that Hell is a world where the middle-men have even greater control over distribution than they do now, where the first sale doctrine is an anachronism, where cultural history can be rewritten or censored as easily as deleting a file, then yeah, you are merrily skipping down that path.

HTML5 (3, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069060)

HTML5--another in a long line of standards forcefully popularized by Apple that Apple won't get credit for when everyone takes it for granted. See also: 3.5-inch floppies, USB hardware, the "File Edit View Window Help" menu layout, and more...

Re:HTML5 (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34069086)

HTML5--another disaster waiting to happen that Apple will deserve all credit for popularizing when the number of annoyances, exploits and general chaos on the web gets exponentially worse.

Re:HTML5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34069098)

Apple popularized Firewire (which became IEEE 1394), not USB.

Re:HTML5 (3, Insightful)

R.Mo_Robert (737913) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069140)

Apple popularized Firewire (which became IEEE 1394), not USB.

You must have missed the iMac (G3, I mean).

Re:HTML5 (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069282)

Actually, USB is an Intel designed standard and came with the ATX board design and the BX430 chipset, also from Intel.

Re:HTML5 (2, Informative)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069400)

I didn't say Apple invented USB. I'm saying that it wasn't until the original iMac that hardware manufacturers fully embraced the standard in order to support the new Mac, which used USB ports. At the time, the standard with PCs was still a PS/2 mouse and keyboard, a parallel port for printers, and so on, so the iMac's design was very forward-thinking.

Re:HTML5 (2, Informative)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069302)

Actually, Apple *invented* Firewire; Sony made it popular outside of the Mac world by taking the generic specification (IEEE1394) and using it on their DV cameras. But Apple did indeed popularize USB by making it the only peripheral port on the iMac, encouraging more peripheral manufacturers to support it (the iMac was pretty wildly successful when it first came out), and it was largely because of this that *every* PC manufacturer started making USB a priority over the old serial ports.

Re:HTML5 (1)

gfody (514448) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069316)

and iomega zip drives! remember those?

Re:HTML5 (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069904)

Those were horrible. I hope that they never come back into vogue, no matter how many GB the next revision can handle. They had this nasty habit of losing files, even worse that floppy disks.

Re:HTML5 (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 3 years ago | (#34070090)

Plus they never went down in price for like 15 years.

Re:HTML5 (2, Informative)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069368)

The first iMac was controversial at the time because it eschewed all previous peripheral connector types for USB ports. At the time, USB was a new standard that wasn't as widely adopted as it is today.

Like I said--another popularization of technology taken for granted.

Re:HTML5 (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069138)

I'm confused are we talking about the 3.5" floppies that everybody had but Apple killed first. Or USB hardware that was running in oposition to Apple's preferred standard: Firewire?

Re:HTML5 (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069266)

dude... Apple killed the 3.5" floppy before everyone else because it was time to do it.

you must be 12 or something because I recall seeing 3.5 inch floppies on the first Mac in 1984

Re:HTML5 (3, Informative)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069294)

I'm talking about the 3.5-inch floppies that Apple was first to include in its Lisa and Macs. They were removed in the late 90s when nobody was using floppies anymore. If you're seriously arguing that 1.5MB floppies were still widely used by 2000, I don't know what to say.

Firewire was started in the mid-80s to replace parallel SCSI, nearly a decade before USB's existence. It is still the standard for data transfer between devices such as A/V equipment. Apple's been phasing it out over the years has always been a supporter of USB, adopting it in the original iMac to the exclusion of older keyboard and mouse connectors, forcing hardware manufacturers to support the new standard.

Re:HTML5 (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069598)

Firewire was started in the mid-80s to replace parallel SCSI, nearly a decade before USB's existence. It is still the standard for data transfer between devices such as A/V equipment.

Yep, most notably all DV cams and even HDV cams. But the modern cams based on AVCHD don't anymore, things get stored to a HDD/memory card so no need for firewire's perfect realtime capture. It's just transferred as any other file...

P.S. (1, Flamebait)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069312)

Further, how is Firewire their preferred standard when every iPod and iPhone comes with a USB connector? Apple has always been the biggest supporter of USB. They even put extra USB ports on their keyboards and cinema displays, for crying out loud.

Re:P.S. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34069640)

Further, how is Firewire their preferred standard when every iPod and iPhone comes with a USB connector?

Every iPod came with a Firewire connector until 2005, and every Macintosh produced between 1995 and 2008 included a firewire port.

Re:P.S. (1)

GlassHeart (579618) | more than 3 years ago | (#34070064)

Every iPod came with a Firewire connector until 2005, and every Macintosh produced between 1995 and 2008 included a firewire port.

Which is because we're talking about USB 1.1 in those days, when the 400 Mbps that Firewire provided exceeded both USB and Ethernet. Today, in a world of USB 2.0 and gigabit ethernet, Firewire has mostly outlived its uniqueness.

Re:HTML5 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34069336)

I'm confused are we talking about the 3.5" floppies that everybody had but Apple killed first.

They killed them when nobody was using them anymore in the era of CD burning and the internet.

Or USB hardware that was running in oposition to Apple's preferred standard: Firewire?

iPods/iPhones use USB. Apple obviously prefers USB, at least for non-professional users, since they keep removing Firewire ports from their Macs, and they put USB ports on everything (I run my mouse through one of the USB ports on my keyboard). Apple started Firewire to replace SCSI back in 1986. USB came out in 1995.

Re:HTML5 (3, Interesting)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069360)

WRT the floppies, you must either be joking or a kid. Long before Apple was the first to abandon 3.5" floppies, they were among the first mass market computer makers to adopt their use. When the original Mac came out, nearly every other system came by default with 5.25" floppy drives. 3.5" drives were available as options for those other systems, but the Mac was, if not the first, one of the first to have 3.5" as the built-in standard.

WRT FireWire vs. USB, I'm pretty certain (although I could stand corrected) that Apple's stance has always been that there are some things for which FW is better, and other things for which USB is better. I'm pretty sure that every Mac that has shipped with a FW port has also shipped with at least one USB port. Apple never, ever, ever tried to push anyone towards FW keyboards and mice, for example.

What's interesting is that with USB2.0--while it's still not as fast as FW400 due to its half-duplex connection--Apple has accepted that FW's benefits aren't really all that tangible outside of the professional realm. Running a music studio and need to do 32-track digital audio? Get a Mac Pro with FW800. Recording your neighborhood jam sessions with Garage Band? The USB interface on your MacBook is good enough.

I wouldn't be surprised if, once USB3.0 ships, Apple even moves away from FW800 on pro devices and just puts USB3 on everything. My understanding is that USB3 goes full duplex *and* increases to 800Mbps (though I could be wrong). If that is indeed the case, then unless there's something I'm not aware of, the benefits of FW400/800 are essentially nil.

Re:HTML5 (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069894)

Firewire had serious security implications which weren't particularly well advertised and I'm not sure that I'd really know how to handle them. Part of why Firewire was faster than USB was that it had direct access to the computers memory. I remember connecting two computers via Firewire and then connecting a peripheral to one only to have it appear on the other computer.

I assume that my memory is a bit glitchy, but that's pretty close. Firewire was great for debugging computers, but you had to be sure that you could trust whatever it was that you were plugging in there every time.

Re:HTML5 (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34070044)

This was a feature not a bug. Firewire was designed to replace SCSI. PCI and PCIe both have DMA. If someone can touch your computer the game is over, security wise.

Re:HTML5 (3, Informative)

phillymjs (234426) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069484)

Though 3.5" floppy drives had been around since 1982, they did not meet with success until the 3.5" floppy drive was chosen for the original 1984 Macintosh (quickly followed by the Atari ST and Amiga the following year). Apple was not too far ahead of their time when they killed the floppy in 1998, but they saw where things were going and made the right call-- Mac users who still really needed a floppy drive were able to buy an external one. Windows users questioned it because they weren't (really, still aren't) accustomed to being able to boot from any device with an OS on it that's connected to their computer, so floppies were their lifeline.

Though USB had been on PC motherboards beginning in 1996, nobody did anything with it until Apple put it in the iMac in 1998 and excluded all other port types. Lots of people will argue that Microsoft finally adding USB support to Windows (in Win95 OSR2) was the tipping point, but that's bull. Windows users had the option of clinging to their peripherals that used the ancient parallel and serial ports, and cling they did. iMac users had no such option, and the popularity of the iMac meant that if hardware makers wanted iMac owners' money, they had to start churning out USB-based peripherals for them.

As an aside, Firewire did not appear in a Mac until the Blue & White G3, in January of 1999. It did not appear in an iMac until the 6th revision, in October of 1999. Apple's view was that USB and Firewire were complementary... USB for low-bandwidth stuff like keyboards and mice, and Firewire for hard drives, video cameras, and other high-bandwidth devices. Intel was the one that had the apparently inferiority complex and started working on USB2, to compete. Based on my experience using both, Firewire 800 is superior to USB2, and if I have the choice between those two I'll always pick Firewire. (As for the future, Firewire 1600 and 3200 have been approved by the IEEE but aren't in any shipping product, I haven't seen a USB3 device in the wild yet, and Light Peak is a wildcard at this point.)

To sum up, Apple is the tech company that is not afraid to chop off legacy stuff at the knees, and by doing so indeed often drags the rest of the industry kicking and screaming with it.

~Philly

Is this the offical end of Flash? (1)

Slutticus (1237534) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069082)

Sounds like MS is in line with what Jobs has been saying for a quile now about HTML5

Re:Is this the offical end of Flash? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069824)

It's probably more a matter of Flash being so awful that they have to agree that it's terrible. So they try to kill it only to realize that like IE6 it's undead.

Sounds like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34069116)

they're going to do the old shutout routine again.

Thanks Apple! (5, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069130)

Yet again, we all benefit from the fact that Steve Jobs is an asshole. His refusal to adopt WMA or license FairPlay killed DRM in the music industry, and now his refusal to allow Flash/Silverlight is pushing Internet standards forward.

What's next? Video? Can we get a real TVoIP system to kill cable? DRM-free movie/TV purchases?

Re:Thanks Apple! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34069168)

Oh yes, by all means let's let the Apple worship continue here. Let's all ignore the fact that everything Apple does, it does for their own benefit. Video? SURE! As long as it's quicktime and heavily encumbered with patents and DRM...it's the STEVE JOBS WAY!

You're an idiot if you think HTML5 will serve anyone except those that want to shackle the web to patented codecs and proprietary ways. Steve is NOT a friend of open source, Linux or anything but Steve.

The HTML5 web is going to be a fun trip back to the days when Linux didn't have any of the gizmos needed to view video or anything else. Boy, I can't wait! Thanks Steve!

Re:Thanks Apple! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34069438)

And what about the cases where "things for Apple's benefit" coincides with "things that benefit consumers"? They are not two mutually exclusive categories.

The HTML5 web is going to be a fun trip back to the days when Linux didn't have any of the gizmos needed to view video or anything else. Boy, I can't wait! Thanks Steve!

I'm sorry, what - other than a dogmatic refusal to run "non-open" software on your Linux system - prevents you from viewing H.264 video in something like VLC, or a browser like Chrome or Opera that supports it?

Oh brother. (2, Insightful)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069692)

Yeah, because MS Silverlight is *so* easy to view in Linux in comparison to HTML5.

Ideology is spread pretty thick around these parts.

Re:Thanks Apple! (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069276)

It is called Roku.

Re:Thanks Apple! (1, Insightful)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069394)

His refusal to adopt WMA or license FairPlay killed DRM in the music industry

I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with the fact that WMA and FairPlay sucked, nor a little out-of-bottle genie called Napster.

Re:Thanks Apple! (0, Troll)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069706)

Apple didn't kill DRM. Music from the iTunes store continued to be laden with DRM for more than a year after Amazon's DRM-free MP3 store opened. It was only after Amazon took away about 10% of the MP3 market that Apple removed DRM and that was only done in order to remain competitive.

Thanks Amazon! Without you, we'd still be stuck choosing between piracy, buying CDs to rip to MP3s or buying DRM-laden MP3s that could only be played on iPods.

Re:Thanks Apple! (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069938)

It was only after Amazon took away about 10% of the MP3 market that Apple removed DRM and that was only done in order to remain competitive.

Your premise is somewhat based on the assumption that Apple has the only say in the matter. It assumes that the music companies would gleefully allow Apple to sell music with no DRM. It was always the music companies that insisted on DRM.

In fact almost a full year before Amazon offered DRM free music in January 2008, Steve Jobs publicly stated [apple.com] in February 2007 that Apple would sell DRM free music if allowed. And EMI allowed Apple to sell DRM-free tracks since May 29, 2007.

Unfortunately for the other music companies, they didn't see the consequence if Apple became the #1 music seller. It would ironically make them more dependent on Apple because of DRM. That and when Apple agreed to tiered pricing did the rest finally relent.

Re:Thanks Apple! (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069834)

Except he mysteriously waited until the iPod had an almost unassailable grip on the market and then started to attack the DRM. Having used the DRM to lock everybody else out of the ITMS.

Re:Thanks Apple! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34070154)

Yet again, we all benefit from the fact that Steve Jobs is an asshole. His refusal to adopt WMA or license FairPlay killed DRM in the music industry, and now his refusal to allow Flash/Silverlight is pushing Internet standards forward.

Steve Jobs is a former phone phreak, I fear Apple post-Jobs. Steve Jobs, yeah he may be an asshole -- but he's an asshole that's lived in the real world; he's our type of asshole. I think everybody in the tech game can respect Jobs while Ballmer is viewed as the outright business-cunt that he is.

Blast from the Past (2, Insightful)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069146)

Here's something you don't hear much anymore: de facto standard

Good riddance, too.

Silverlight, we barely knew ye.. (4, Insightful)

mewsenews (251487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069180)

Thou were intended to be the ActiveX of our age, to witness the glorious rise of the ye Microsoft of old, alas, tis not to be.. alas..

(fucking rot in hell)

Re:Silverlight, we barely knew ye.. (-1, Offtopic)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069330)

Never lose confidence in the effectiveness of prayer if you are not answered right away. Answers to some prayers, such as those for personal relief from distress or for increased responsibility in one’s service to God, may have to wait for the time that God knows is right and best. (Luke 18:7, 8; 1 Peter 5:6) If you are praying regarding a matter of deep personal concern, show God by your persistence that your desire is intense, your motive pure and genuine. Jacob manifested this spirit when, after wrestling at length with an angel, he said: “I am not going to let you go until you first bless me.” (Genesis 32:24-32) We must have similar confidence that if we keep asking, we will receive a blessing in due time.—Luke 11:9.
One final thought. To receive a hearing ear from the Sovereign of the universe is a precious privilege. In view of this, do we carefully listen when Jehovah God, through his Word, speaks to us of his requirements? As our prayers bring us intimately closer to our Creator, we will want to give serious attention to everything that he has to say to us.
What hope is there for real healing from all sickness?
Rev. 21:1-4: “I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away . . . ‘And he [God] will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.’”
Isa. 25:8: “He will actually swallow up death forever, and the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will certainly wipe the tears from all faces.” (Also Revelation 22:1, 2)
Isa. 33:24: “No resident will say: ‘I am sick.’”
So at times our adversities will not be removed. Rather, we will have opportunity to prove our reliance on our Creator. (Acts 14:22) Furthermore, we can be assured that even if Jehovah does not remove the affliction, he will “make the way out in order for [us] to be able to endure it.” (1 Corinthians 10:13) Yes, it is for good reason that Jehovah is called “the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our tribulation.” (2 Corinthians 1:3, 4) He gives us what we need to endure with considerable peace.
Think for a moment about ‘your own plague and your own pain.’ At times you have perhaps felt as did the psalmist David, who wrote: “I kept hoping for someone to show sympathy, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none.” Yet, you can be assured that God cares about your situation, for later in the same psalm, David wrote: “Jehovah is listening to the poor ones, and he will indeed not despise his very own prisoners.”—Psalm 69:20, 33.
Applying David’s words in a broad sense, we can rest assured that the Creator of mankind listens to the prayers of those who are imprisoned, so to speak, by their afflictions. More than that, he reacts to their plight. Consider the following statements that reveal Jehovah’s compassion for the afflicted.
“You people must not afflict any widow or fatherless boy. If you should afflict him at all, then if he cries out to me at all, I shall unfailingly hear his outcry; and my anger will indeed blaze.”—Exodus 22:22-24.
“Shall not God cause justice to be done for his chosen ones who cry out to him day and night, even though he is long-suffering toward them?”—Luke 18:7.
“He will deliver the poor one crying for help, also the afflicted one and whoever has no helper. He will feel sorry for the lowly one and the poor one, and the souls of the poor ones he will save. From oppression and from violence he will redeem their soul, and their blood will be precious in his eyes.”—Psalm 72:12-14.
“He that is touching you [God’s people on earth] is touching my eyeball.”—Zechariah 2:8.
These few examples illustrate our Creator’s deep interest in the welfare of his people. Hence, we have good reason to follow the apostle Peter’s admonition: “Throw all your anxiety upon him, because he cares for you.” (1 Peter 5:7) But how will God help us during times of affliction?

Re:Silverlight, we barely knew ye.. (0, Troll)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069792)

Let me speak plainer: don't have Silverlight, never, ever needed Silverlight, don't know what Silverlight is, don't care. Plainest of all: Suck. My. Balls. Ballmer.

Realizing something else (2, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069196)

Perhaps realizing that even longtime Windows user like myself refuse to click the "must install Silverlight" link on the few websites that have it.

The only place I have this problem is on a few streaming radio sites. In almost all cases, they have another link for the "basic player" which gives me what I wanted: audio from their station without having to install more crap.

Re:Realizing something else (1, Offtopic)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069426)

To the exception of Netflix, I can think of no site I've been to which uses silverlight.

I've got a friend who, despite his worthwhile attributes, really likes Microsoft software (always has). He's mentioned that "does not work with silverlight" is a big game killer for him: apparently there are a number of sites and appliances which require silverlight plugins to use, which are important to his clients and their management. IMO, that's a huge fail.

Unfortunately, like IE6 is now, it looks like Silverlight will be another Y2K type problem for IT in a couple years, if MS starts avoiding Silverlight improvement. They had been pushing Sharepoint + silverlight for some time, even. People won't be able to upgrade their systems to Windows 2015 or whatever, because they need Silverlight. Shame...

(And people think IPv6 is a good idea. Hrmph. Lacking IPv6 support is an even lower level shortcoming than requiring IE, and there are many, many, many 'must have' appliances and devices which need to be gotten rid of before we can even consider rolling out IPv6. - Does your smartphone support IPv6?)

Re:Realizing something else (1)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069686)

AFAIK, IPv4 and IPv6 will be able to coexist for a long time. Devices that do not actively support IPv6 will probably fall into disuse or disrepair before it becomes a blocking issue.

Re:Realizing something else (1)

Symbha (679466) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069498)

It's 'for all intents and purposes'.

HTML wins (2, Interesting)

rsborg (111459) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069228)

Nice. For those of you complaining about how HTML doesn't or can't do everything that Flash/Silverlight/Java can do, realize that most of that stuff is not really necessary for basic information display purposes.

Now I'm waiting to see how Silverlight+WP7 and AdobeAir+Playbook will pan out. If the responsiveness and capabilities can't parallel native, these interpreted OS layers will be at a significant disadvantage. However, Palm did deliver something quite great with WebOS which was based on HTML/CSS/JS, so maybe this is the next step and most natural fit for technologies like Silverlight and Air...

Re:HTML wins (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069636)

For those of you complaining about how HTML doesn't or can't do everything that Flash/Silverlight/Java can do, realize that most of that stuff is not really necessary for basic information display purposes.

Yeah, but we want dancing mouse-cursor kittens that cast rainbow shadows. It makes paying bills more pleasant.

Seriously, though I agree with you for most consumer websites, business needs better CRUD GUI's for frequent usage, such as decent editable data grids (not like the clunky jittery AJAX shit). HTML5 seems more geared toward eye-candy and multimedia than CRUD. I'd like a see a good GUI markup language become a standard that gives desktop-like GUI's over HTTP.

Re:HTML wins (3, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34070130)

Silverlight does not go away - it will simply take the place of ActiveX as the platform of choice for "kinda Web but not really" apps in MS-centric shops. A few places like that I know are all either already using Silverlight in that role, or are seriously considering it. On the other hand, I know of few sites on the Net which serve Silverlight content to end users.

If you look at the feature set changes in recent versions (especially Silverlight 4), it seems that this is also the direction in which it is being pushed. It now has a fairly complete widget library, and not one but two (WCF Data Services client library, and WCF RIA Services) data manipulation frameworks which integrate seamlessly with ORM on the backend, support integrated Windows authentication, etc. Immensely useful for business apps, but not so much so for typical consumer stuff.

HTML not completely cross platform... (2, Funny)

cleepa (1142305) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069278)

If only it would work in IE6!

Re:HTML not completely cross platform... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34069448)

IE 6 is a cross platform -- the developers forced to use IE6 are cross, the users forced to use IE6 are cross.

Embrace-Extend-Extinguish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34069300)

Do they intend to use Javascript for their web applications or what?

That makes more sense with the Embrace-Extend-Extinguish strategy than just cornering yourself with your own obscure platform. It's all about controlling the platform, after all. So, I'm not that surprised.

Netflix (2, Interesting)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069616)

They use Silverlight. They use it on the Mac. I am assuming that Microsoft is basically shouting at them to drop it and switch to Flash.

Which really doesn't mean anything for Windows or Mac users, but does mean that Linux users may be able to use Netflix streaming sometime soon.

the guy's an idiot. (0, Troll)

justdrew (706141) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069646)

HTML + javascript he means. oh, and silverwhat? does he mean that thing I uninstall from every PC I go near? I've never seen or heard of anything that uses silverlight. microsoft is crazy to spend one dime on this crap. idiots abound, like all the damn fools who built web apps based on IE6 instead of real standards based solutions. those people should never be permitted to work in IT again. Also the executives and managers who greenlighted or demanded such development. Fire them all.

Hey Microsoft, here is a cloud seed for you... (4, Insightful)

NullProg (70833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069728)

The 5 primary Desktop computers in my home run Linux. I purchase services (annual subscriptions in Microsoft speak) from the NFL/MLB/HBO and several others. They all work with Linux. They all work with my Windows Netbook, Wii, MacBook, and Linux Laptop. The producers know the product they produce is viewable with Linux and several other OS's. They get my subscription fees while Microsoft doesn't. Check it out, I'm not tied to any platform.

        Cross platform does not mean Windows XP/Vista/CE/7 only. Cloud services does not mean Windows XP with IE 99 or Windows 7 with IE 8.5. Cross platform and cloud services mean Droid, Windows, Linux, Mac, Blackberry, iPhone, HP, Wii, PS3 or any other platform that is standards compliant.

Come out with a .Net runtime with Silverlight that runs native on Multiple non-Microsoft platforms. And no, Mono sucks and is full of traps.

My rant.
Enjoy

Not Cross-Platform ? (4, Funny)

eulernet (1132389) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069858)

Hey, it works on Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7, so it's cross-platform.

Once again, Slashdot promotes an article bashing Microsoft.

This is so unfair !

Silverlight is only one of the faces... (2, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | more than 3 years ago | (#34069882)

... of Microsoft's XML based / GUI / animation-friendly / .NET based vector interface technology. The beast underlying Silverlight will continue to find its widest audience in WPF on the desktop, and possibly a decent sized user base in Windows Phone 7 -- if MS can get traction on the latter. Displacing Flash on the web has always been a pipe dream, and based on the dictates of iOS not even a pipe dream worth so very much effort anymore.

Are you listening Netflix! (1)

ScaredOfTheMan (1063788) | more than 3 years ago | (#34070052)

Netflix? Are you listen as MS kills off that piece of bloated junk. I never let Sliverlight touch my Mac, and so I was forced to watch Netflix streaming on my inferior windows laptop. Do you you know the pain and anguish I felt as I tried to enjoy my netflix on the lenovo's screen? My eyes have slowly melted.

So Netflix, please move all your web base streaming to a nice non MS standard like HTML5 based players or Flash or anything that keeps my machine free of extra players.

Thank you, your humble customer
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>