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!

Silverlight 5 Released

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the hp-totally-stole-their-thunder dept.

Microsoft 107

New submitter CaptSlaq sends word that Silverlight 5 has been released. Microsoft has not revealed whether it will be the last version. "New features in Silverlight 5 include Hardware Decode of H.264 media, which provides a significant performance improvement with decoding of unprotected content using the GPU; Postscript Vector Printing to improve output quality and file size; and an improved graphics stack with 3D support that uses the XNA API on the Windows platform to gain low-level access to the GPU for drawing vertex shaders and low-level 3D primitives. In addition, Silverlight 5 extends the ‘Trusted Application’ model to the browser for the first time. These features, when enabled via a group policy registry key and an application certificate, mean users won’t need to leave the browser to perform complex tasks such as multiple window support, full trust support in browser including COM and file system access, in browser HTML hosting within Silverlight, and P/Invoke support for existing native code to be run directly from Silverlight."

cancel ×

107 comments

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

asdfwer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38319650)

frst

Maybe we'll get lucky (2, Insightful)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 2 years ago | (#38319666)

and Silverlight will go the way of mobile Flash. Plug-ins simply must die for the web to thrive in the future.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (2, Interesting)

thedonger (1317951) | more than 2 years ago | (#38319746)

and Silverlight will go the way of mobile Flash. Plug-ins simply must die for the web to thrive in the future.

Silverlight is actually a pretty cool way to handle data in ways tedious or unwieldy in HTML or Xml/Xslt. And if you work for a company totally wrapped up in Microsoft technology and you find you have this requirement for an internal application, I say run with it. I do agree, however, that requiring plug-ins for end users, particularly infrequent or uneducated ones, is a bad practice. But give the browser market two or three years - in which time I expect a radical shift in consuming web-based content - and plug-ins may be a moot point.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (0)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#38319884)

Silverlight is a bit player at best. Nobody actually gives a crap, and everyone's praying for Flash to die as it is, and certainly not going to jump on some other plugin's bandwagon.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (2, Funny)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38320196)

Oh, well fuck his opinion then.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38320852)

As of about 2 years ago Flash was our main development platform for web applications. We still have clients that demand IE 6 support so in those cases Flash was always the better option to ensure a fast development cycle that works on 90%+ of browsers. Especially since each version of IE counts as a separate testing platform.

Now, however, we're moving away from flash at a *rapid* pace. Why? Mostly Mobile. Flash is *terrible* on mobile, where it's supported. My opinion is that Flash is only on mobile to allow adverts.

Our Clients are a demanding lot, and they demand Mobile support for their applications now. They also still ask for IE 6 support. Now we say to them: You can have Mobile, or IE 6, not both. We develop websites for mobile, we develop using Javascript only, no more flash. It carries over well to the full site too (really, the only differences between mobile and desktop is the layout and the CSS), and while it'll technically work fine on IE6, it will be slow as molasses and look terrible. Our clients love the shiny, and when they see IE 6 doesn't do the shiny, they're actually more inclined to just say 'screw it, so long as it runs, it can run as slow as it wants, it's the users fault'

We're up to our eyeballs in Microsoft tech here too. IIS, ASP.net, Visual Studio, Azure Cloud. But we've only used silverlight for 2 applications, and that was just to try it out. It does video better than flash, but it's low penetration really rules it out of larger projects. With our move away from flash we won't be ramping up silverlight.

Certainly, the main reason we stay with flash is for Video playback. We've got one client with a video library site that requires an encrypted streaming server. So far we've not found a way to make that work in Javascript alone.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38322536)

well you just keep on praying you useless apple cocksucker.

forgive me on this, but i tend to go with the statistics on the flash vs html5 issue.

you see just because your choice of computer is actually the digital equivalent of a designer handbag doesn't at all mean everyone else should suffer the same technical limitations.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38320754)

if you work for a company totally wrapped up in Microsoft technology and you find you have this requirement for an internal application, I say run with it

MSFT shop and internal app? Yup, Silverlight is a good choice - in fact, there's a higher-level tool/framework you can use that targets exactly that scenario - LightSwitch.

http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us/lightswitch

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (3, Insightful)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38319806)

Except things like Netflix... if Silverlight or Flash didn't exist, you couldn't watch Hollywood movies or TV shows because the studios simply will not allow their content to be shown on the web without some kind of a DRM.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 2 years ago | (#38320188)

I would argue that the reason support (as is the option to use, not requirement to use) for DRM hasn't been a priority for HTML5 or other standards is because of the crutch these plug-ins provide. Why bother implementing it through a complicated process and implementation when 95%+ of browser have a plug-in that can do it already, and damn the users who have to deal with the bugs, poor performance, and lack of wide OS support. And frankly if Silverlight or Flash disappeared tomorrow I don't think even the MPAA is dumb enough to totally ditch the massive growth of online rentals/services, especially since sites like TPB are not going anywhere. But it is a fair point, and I'm the first to admit that I'm just making an educated by purely opinionated guess.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#38321882)

As we've seen with the Pirate Bay though, whether or not the studios allow it or not has no bearing on the content being available online. All it has a bearing on is whether or not people will pay for it or not. Music piracy used to be the big thing - now with iTunes and Amazon, they're available to purchase cheaply, easily, in a compatible format. Now, most people I know just buy it legit. There's no reason not to.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38323206)

Unless you want to *have* the actual music file. So you can copy it where ever you like.

And, so you can change it. I often crop out annoying parts of great songs.

(btw, i'm off-topic. Silverlight5...)

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (1)

tibman (623933) | more than 2 years ago | (#38323630)

Last i saw, music on iTunes and Amazon was drm free? No tracking or limiting of any kind.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (1)

macshome (818789) | more than 2 years ago | (#38322750)

Not in all cases. Netflix on Mac and Windows may use silverlight, but it is just H.264 streaming on the mobile platforms like iOS.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (1)

devent (1627873) | more than 2 years ago | (#38324342)

If SL or Flash wouldn't exists and Netflix would just use standard HTML5 with no DRM, then I would watch it. But as of now I just go to google.com and enter torrent and watch it a day later. (Also if they just get in their heads that in the global internet a limitation on country does not make sense anymore. I don't care if the shows are in English or German, I just want a convenient way of viewing them.)

What happens with Apple iTunes and DRM? The music studios were so happy how it went with the forced DRM on iTunes. They created a iTunes monopoly with set Apple in the position to dictate prices to the music studios. As a result we now have almost everywhere DRM free music.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (5, Insightful)

slapout (93640) | more than 2 years ago | (#38319852)

It's not necessarily that plug-ins must die -- they push the web in new directions. It's that HTML should take the good ideas that plug-ins come up with and make them part of the standard.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38320234)

Assuming they can keep the good ideas and shed the bad parts of them at the same time of course. The vulnerabilities attached to many of Flash's features, would be even more disastrous if it were a standard feature of the browser.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (1)

JackAxe (689361) | more than 2 years ago | (#38321410)

You're going to encounter vulnerabilities with any popular standard, that's a given; and BTW, Flash has already been attached to Chrome and it's currently the most secure browser; http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/245856/chrome_is_most_secure_of_the_top_three_browsers_study_finds.html [pcworld.com]

So that throws your theory out the door.

Anyways, look at Windows, the majority of its vulnerabilities that were exploited were not because Microsoft hadn't addressed them, but because many people had not bothered patching their OS. The same can also be said about Flash, which Adobe has addressed many vulnerabilities. They release security updates often and if you're using Chrome it's a transparent update and if you're on a PC there's an automatic updater -- OS X is a different story, but I still keep Flash up to date on FireFox and Safari; even thoughI rarely use them.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (1)

snemarch (1086057) | more than 2 years ago | (#38322636)

Does OS X run on anything that's not a PC?

Yes, this is a tongue-in-cheek question, but it's meant as a serious question and not merely a troll.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (1)

macshome (818789) | more than 2 years ago | (#38322766)

iOS is based on OS X and they share a codebase.

So sorta?

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (1)

isCreeper($('Ssss')) (2424986) | more than 2 years ago | (#38329538)

I can't think of anything more personal than my mobile phone! I don't get out much...

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (2)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 2 years ago | (#38320246)

Agreed, but the existence of these plug-ins, their ubiquity, and the prior monetary "support" provided by their creators has certainly slowed the growth and widespread interest in developing an open standard. Remember up until recently Adobe and MS were not big HTML5 supporters, despite being some of the key companies tasked with creating the standard. Its not a stretch to think they crippled it as much as they could to support their own products.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38326674)

Would you really let Microsoft push the web in a new direction? Are you crazy? Silverlight _must_ die. We cannot risk MS dominated internet anymore.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38320324)

Agree. MS is making developer to believe SL is open. In fact that was newer the idea. The idea was to make internet MS-only.
I think we all can agree that competition is the only way to make future happen. We have been witnessing USSR-like halt in development for two decades now in PC-software industry.
It is fun to just collect the taxes. And that's what MS plans to keep going on.
Every open standard is poisonous for monopoly. MS can not say that directly. Instead it is making us to believe it if for open standard, but is in practice doing everything to prevent competition to happen. If MS wanted HTML5 to work, it would already be main stream. Like with Java, or with WedDAV, or with WS. MS is stalling everything.
Monopoly is never able to compete in real market, it does not have to.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (2)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38322090)

SilverLight is open. All the specs are out there and you're free to make your own implementation. There would be better Linux version too if someone would just actually maintain it. Microsoft isn't trying to stop anyone from doing so, in fact they have helped the project too.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (1)

multi io (640409) | more than 2 years ago | (#38322702)

Yeah, MS isn't bothered about SL implementations on non-MS patforms because they're irrelevant. As long as that's the case, MS can use them as showcases for proving how "open" they are. If you want to know what MS will do to non-MS patforms once they do become relevant, look at what they're doing to Android.

I thought .NET was good technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38320586)

Flash is big and bloated. I thought .NET, and by extension, Silverlight, were good pieces of technology. If HTML 5 doesn't do it, who does other than plugins?

Most open source programmers don't see to want to make good Graphical Environments, and reliable drivers for the many obscure devices out there. Microsoft will do all that tedious stuff for a small fee. I think it is worth it.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (5, Insightful)

petsounds (593538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38320846)

1) Plug-ins are a part of the HTML5 standard. The committee understands the two can co-exist and thrive.
2) The web has been thriving for many years now with plug-ins. I think it'll do just fine.
3) It was Flash that kept the progress of the web moving forward, when standards committee progress turned glacial. Go read about the history of Javascript. It's a sad tale, and that language is still 10 years behind Actionscript even though they are both based on the root ECMAScript language. Eventually Adobe had to go their own way with Actionscript because nothing was getting done.

Mod this guy up! +1 (1)

JackAxe (689361) | more than 2 years ago | (#38321242)

I don't have any mod points or I would, but you have actual insightful information unlike the parent post.

Re:Mod this guy up! +1 (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 2 years ago | (#38323178)

The point wasn't that HTML5 is god, it was that plug-ins are by definition are exclusionary. Or is that not painfully obvious?

Re:Mod up (1)

JackAxe (689361) | more than 2 years ago | (#38323344)

RAGE!! Grrr!!! So you think HTML5 is god? Did you reply to the wrong comment? Were you having a rage-conversation in your head when you replied to my comment? It baffles mes that you got all of that from my comment, which when it comes down to it states I agree with the insightful comment above, and definitely not your orignal and rather myopic comment.

And great! Since you've spewed your fanaticism at me, I'll bite... So you're under the assumption that an optional plug-in is exclusionary? Really? When the alternative for a very long time has been the limitations and incompatibilities of browsers and platforms; which btw has not changed. Plug-ins have been a consistent bridge that have helped to progress the web beyond just Hyper Text Markup and browser progressing a slug's pace and rarely being on the same page -- and btw, how do you think Apple plays back HTML5 video on their devices? It's via plug-in called Quicktime.

It's painfully obvious that those that want to exclude choice like a plug-in, are rather naive to the web's past, and in some cases not too bright; and always myopic.

Re:Mod up (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 2 years ago | (#38324104)

Yes I think html5 is god... despite my entire topic sentence saying the opposite. A more reasonable question to you is, does the yeast you harvest off Mr Gate`s cock create enough bread too feed you and your mom/girlfriend ? Lemons knows

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38324094)

Ask yourself, which would you rather do: write a library in JavaScript or write a library in as3? Having done both hundreds of times I would conclude that ActionScript actually took the language a few steps backward.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38321286)

There's no "maybe" here, it's the plan. In Windows 8, Metro version of IE does not support any plugins. That includes Flash, and yes, that also includes Silverlight. HTML5 only.

This means that Apple and MS are now in agreement to ditch browser plugins. That leaves Google with NaCl, but they seem to be promoting it mainly for "Chrome web apps", not as a way to extend regular browsing experience - and are also actively shifting their services to HTML5. The final nail is already in the coffin.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38321880)

But you are missing the big IF here friend and that is IF MSFT can get people to take Windows 8, and from the now 170 customers I've shown it to I have gotten NOTHING but hate. they don't like it, they don't want it, they wanted to know if they got stuck with a Windows 8 machine " can you put Windows 7 on it?". hell the closest i got to an endorsement of Windows 8 was this: "That's a nice looking cell phone screen, is that Android? i heard its quite nice...what do you mean Windows? Windows what? Well that is just stupid! Why would i want a cell phone on my computer?"

Frankly I think Ballmer is gonna get a pink slip when he finds out that like Vista you can't just ram crap down folk's throats anymore, MSFT just doesn't have the pull. The PCs being sold now that run Win 7 are frankly so insanely overpowered that most folks could keep them for a decade or more and not care. Does anybody think Suzy the checkout girl is gonna stress an AMD quad with 4gb of RAM? of course not. So when Ballmer's Folly comes out I predict we'll hear a giant "Yuck!" and folks will stick with win 7. if he tries to quit selling 7 to force people the pirates are gonna have a field day as Win 7 is beyond trivial to pirate.

As for TFA just one more tech Ballmer will most likely sacrifice on his altar to Steve Jobs and mobile. I swear for a CEO the man is retarded, trying to stick Windows on ARM? What a fucking disaster! they should stick with X86 on windows and just keep improving WinPhone for ARM. From what I've been told silverlight is pretty damned powerful, after all it'd have to be to make an entire OS in a browser [silveos.com] . I'd love to see someone try to hack something that impressive together with just JavaScript!

But instead of helping Moonlight and making it a solid multi-OS framework Ballmer is probably gonna piss it all away trying to be Jobs. I can just imagine his "pep" talks "And with this we'll be as hip and cool as Apple! Yes we will! We really will! STOP LAUGHING AT ME!" followed by chairs flying.Oh and if there are any Apple guys here? I was one of those that made fun of you when the pepsi guy was running the company you depended on into the ground and I just want to say...I'm sorry alright? Its not funny anymore! I don't want to spend two damned years wiping Windows 8 like I did Vista!

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (1)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38322112)

Why are you showing Windows 8 to your everyday shopping customers when it hasn't been even released yet? The only version out currently is a developers preview which intention is to let software developers to get to know the new system. It's far from finished and is going to dramatically change before release date.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38322902)

If you HONESTLY think they are gonna gut the ENTIRE UI before release day? here is a cookie to go with the koolaid you have been drinking. as for why show it to them? well to generate buzz dummy! With the win 7 Beta I had plenty of customers asking me all kinds of things, like "How fast is it? Does it have cool stuff? Is it worth it?" and when RTM hit I had 5 new builds, more than a dozen installs waiting,it helped generate more buzz!!

But I'm sorry if your a fanboy but win 8 is such a trainwreck its gonna make Vista look like win95. Hell even with Vista people were interested...until they actually played with the beta machine i had set up and saw what a buggy slow POS it was. With the Win 7 beta I was showing them the cool tricks like slamming windows on the sides to fit two apps (they love that one BTW, its great for having a chat and another app at the same time) or the breadcrumbs. with Win 8 it was unanimous, they all said "its a cell phone" and promptly hated it. folks PUT UP with their cell phone, most don't sit there caressing the thing and they sure as hell don't want to spend their day in front of it!

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (1)

Com2Kid (142006) | more than 2 years ago | (#38324212)

If you HONESTLY think they are gonna gut the ENTIRE UI before release day? here is a cookie to go with the koolaid you have been drinking. as for why show it to them?

Actually the Start tiles experience was redesigned due to customer feedback about the Developer Preview.

The concept is not going away, but the implementation is improving a lot before release.

Compare the design after feedback [msdn.com] was taken into account to the earlier design [askvg.com]

It was improved.

I know this may surprise you, but Microsoft relies on selling stuff to customers. As such, as a general rule (though not always, everyone messes up from time to time), they try to create products that customers want to buy. If they get feedback that something can be improved, and if it is possible to improve it given budget/time/etc, quite often it ends up being improved. Not always, but features have a cost to implement (both financial and in terms of human resources).

folks PUT UP with their cell phone, most don't sit there caressing the thing and they sure as hell don't want to spend their day in front of it!

Try talking to a younger demographic.

Also, if you are putting up with technology, try getting better technology.

In regards to the new start screen though, it is basically a simple evolution of the original Windows 95 flyout start menu that just now takes up the entire screen. It is a full screen start menu. Live Tiles are Desktop Icons that can display snippets of information, and that are easier to arrange in to meaningful groups.

Do either of those sound that bad to you? Does de-cluttering desktops (while still allowing users to put things on the desktop! Just making those things easier to organize!) really sound horrible? And why the hell not make the start menu full screen? It damn well should be, much better than the stupid small hit boxes that existed on the Win95 through WinXP start menus, and tons better than the seriously unusable start menu that debuted with Vista and continued on to 7.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38325856)

More than 35% of my customers are under 25, surprise surprise. I often have to sit down with "customers" as young as tweeners whose parents bring them in to get either their first desktop or more often a netbook/laptop so i get their feedback just like I do the older folks. And your "improvements"? Its a BIGGER cell phone, that's not improving, that's screen clutter!

Look we'll see at RTM but Ballmer has made it VERY clear that he is pushing to try to get into the tablet market which frankly wouldn't take Windows 8 on a bet, I mean why should they when they can have Android for free? Windows ONLY real selling point anymore is WINDOWS PROGRAMS and of course an ARM tablet sure as fuck ain't playing windows programs so the returns are gonna be insane. As a retailer I can tell you that it doesn't take much when it comes to returns to eat right through any profits you have and make all your black ink turn to red.

But when even the kids are telling me "That is just an ugly cell phone" not a SINGLE person, not one, has anything nice to say about it? its a flop, its a turkey. hell look at MSFT under Ballmer its been more flops than hits across the board. Killing playsforsure for Zune market (which bombed HARD), rushing the X360 out when it had a fatal hardware flaw that to this day scares customers, Zune, WinMo, WinPhone, Kin, Vista, its been one PHB moment after another so the odds are in my favor friend.

Look I hope you're right friend, I really do as i make my living with MSFT products. I truly hope they pull back from the cliff they are headed towards because otherwise its gonna be a disaster. Windows 7 is frankly the best UI have they have ever designed bar none. Nice features, good memory management, easy for noobs while also giving power users plenty of features, and of course my customers love it, its a damned fine OS.

But its sadly been pretty damned clear than Ballmer sees iMoney and drools like a retard. Just look at how many times they have tried to get into apple's sandbox, Zune, Kin, WinPhone, Ballmer wants to be Apple so bad it hurts. But he doesn't seem to be capable of seeing that Apple products are basically toys for rich folks. Very damned few are trying to get any real work done in their iPad or iPhone, they are watching videos and playing angry birds. You watch my prediction come true, either MSFT offers a simple kill switch that tosses Metro for a standard Windows 7 desktop or Win 8 will go the way of Vista, an OS you can't even give away. I have 3 or 4 Vista CALs here at the shop, word of mouth has spread enough that even the noobs don't want it and i predict the same will be said of Win 8.

When the ONLY real question I get about Win 8 is "But YOU can get me a copy of windows 7 and stick it on, right?" you can just smell the fail.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38322710)

My point was simply that all major browser developers now agree that plugins are, generally speaking, a bad idea. This means that, long-term, both Flash and Silverlight on the web are dead. The popularity of Win8 is largely irrelevant here - if it won't win the market, then iOS will fill it, and end result is the same in long-term.

Also, I hope you aren't charging those customers on whose machines you've installed Win8 - the license of the only version that is publicly available so far (which, I must add, is a pre-beta - meaning it's not even feature-complete or feature-final) expressedly forbids it.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (1)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38323164)

Metro IE lacking Silverlight support is kinda moot, as it can natively run XAML-based apps.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (1)

JackAxe (689361) | more than 2 years ago | (#38323362)

Only Metro 8 for "Tablets" does not support anything but Microsoft's plug-in. This is not true for desktops. Windows 8 desktop supports all plug-in; and if and when that changes, computers are going to suck IMO, as that means they'll all be really locked down.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38323638)

Only Metro 8 for "Tablets" does not support anything but Microsoft's plug-in.

IE for Metro does not support any plugins, Microsoft or otherwise. IIRC, the only extensibility point there is the ability to install WebM codec from Google so that it is supported for HTML5 video.

This is not true for desktops. Windows 8 desktop supports all plug-in

That much is true. However, with all the talk of tablets taking over, you can safely assume that Metro version is what MS would like IE to be, whereas classic desktop version is what it has to be for the sake of backwards compatibility.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38323834)

However, with all the talk of tablets taking over....

It is just a matter of making enough people believe that they can work as productive on a tablet as they can on a PC/Laptop/Netbook.
Needs more iTards

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38323902)

>Plug-ins simply must die for the web to thrive in the future.

I think your attitude needs to die for the web to thrive in the future.

Re:Maybe we'll get lucky (1)

RStonR (2471390) | more than 2 years ago | (#38324376)

Actually, given Microsoft's statement that "We have no obligation to return data to you." [in-other-news.com] , that's very lightly.

They still behave like they had a monopoly. But that days are over. The tactics that worked 10 years ago are now hurting them. And they don't seem to realize it.

Is Microsoft the new HP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38319668)

I thought they abandoned Silverlight already?

Re:Is Microsoft the new HP? (1)

jinushaun (397145) | more than 2 years ago | (#38319764)

No, they didn't. The death of SL is all speculation. MS has never officially said they're dropping it, although everybody thinks they will given their new pro-HTML5 direction.

Re:Is Microsoft the new HP? (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#38320602)

MS has never officially said they're dropping it, although everybody thinks they will given their new pro-HTML5 direction.

And yet you can write Metro-style apps in XAML+.Net, and XAML+.Net is basically the definition of Silverlight. The branding might disappear, but it sounds like the technologies are going to be baked right into future versions of Windows (which makes a lot more sense than making everyone download them, if you ask me).

Re:Is Microsoft the new HP? (1)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38323188)

It's possible to support two products at once. Adobe still sells Director, along with Flash. Heck, they also sell Dreamweaver for HTML5 development.

Now Microsoft just needs an HTML5/XAML development environment that isn't a slow, bloated piece of junk like Expression.

HTML5 & Silverlight (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#38324192)

Why, does the adaption of HTML5 signal curtains for Silverlight?

multiple window support (2)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38319670)

won’t need to leave the browser to perform complex tasks such as multiple window support

Is the intent to support a whole desktop environment inside the browser?

Re:multiple window support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38319714)

They want to compete with Citrix XenApp.

Re:multiple window support (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 2 years ago | (#38319750)

And Java WebStart, and Flash.

Only one question... (3, Insightful)

laughing rabbit (216615) | more than 2 years ago | (#38319790)

...why?

Re:Only one question... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38319810)

Oh come now, habitable environments for viruses don't just write themselves, you know.

Re:Only one question... (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38327874)

Yeah, look at all those crazy Silverlight viruses, I mean come on! Oh...wait.

So how is Silverlight different (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38319824)

from ActiveX?

Re:So how is Silverlight different (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38319866)

It's sandboxed and doesn't run native code. It's more like Java applets.

Re:So how is Silverlight different (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38319896)

Not any more. The whole point of P/Invoke is to run native code which won't be sandboxed.

Re:So how is Silverlight different (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38320122)

Not any more. The whole point of P/Invoke is to run native code which won't be sandboxed.

The summary says that there is a registry key needed to be set, and the app will need a certificate. This means there wont be drive-by operations that are not sandboxed. Anything that uses P/Invoke has to be given permission to run from outside the browser. This means that any Silverlight app the general public could run will still be sandboxed. Please read things before spreading FUD.

Re:So how is Silverlight different (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 2 years ago | (#38320278)

It's yet another attack surface, and what's the point? Silverlight is hardly some uber-successful technology, and most developers want to get out of the hell produced by these kinds frameworks.

Re:So how is Silverlight different (1)

ags1 (1883204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38321018)

most developers want to get out of the hell produced by these kinds frameworks.

Sadly not the ones I work with. We sent a developer to asp.net training and he came back saying he was being left behind. He was talking about how silverlight was the future. The trainer brain washed him good.

Re:So how is Silverlight different (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38327898)

Silverlight isn't the "future" per se, but if you're developing enterprise applications it can be one of the best solutions.

Re:So how is Silverlight different (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38322596)

you tedious apple cunt you - most people around the world are not the slightest bit interest in buying a computer that is more an expression of their consumerism than a way to get stuff done.

if you've got an apple shaped hole in your heart then that's that, but don't believe that everyone else is quite so inadequate.

sorry but it just ain't so.

oh and fuck off, you apple drones are ruining slashdot.

Re:So how is Silverlight different (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38327892)

Most developers find something simple that works for them and never bother to look any further. Silverlight is one of the best options there is for line of business apps in the enterprise.

Not everything has to be out on the Internet on some trendy retail shop or Web 2.0 site to be successful in other scenarios.

Netflix (1)

slackerfilm (520597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38319826)

Is this going to break Netflix again?

Anyone uses Silverlight? (0, Flamebait)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38319834)

I ask because I have never met a single soul that employs it. Never!

But again, I agree that I am no geek. Could it be that case that I am using it without explicit knowledge, since I currently use Windows 7 Home Premium? I also know that Microsoft has tightly woven piece of software into Windows in the past.

Maybe I am using it without specifically agreeing to use it. Is it the case?

Re:Anyone uses Silverlight? (5, Informative)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38319878)

The multi-ton elephant in the room is Netflix.

Netflix isn't only using Silverslight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38321528)

There are non-microsoft platforms that work with Netflix. Heck, there are even Linux systems that work with Netflix, but they use hardware-based DRM. The WD TV Live HD Plus is such a platform. It runs Linux and works great with Netflix.

All those BluRay players that support Netflix - do you really believe those run Silverlight? Nope. Linux, but with hardware-based DRM thanks to Sigma Graphics.

Re:Anyone uses Silverlight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38324274)

Well that and line of business apps. Silverlight is a dream compared to the alternatives. You get the ease of deployment of web apps without having to mess around with fscking javascript.

Of course it's utterly dead on the open web and rightfully so.

Re:Anyone uses Silverlight? (2)

Deltaspectre (796409) | more than 2 years ago | (#38319892)

You don't know anyone that streams Netflix on their computer?

Re:Anyone uses Silverlight? (1)

Yaztromo (655250) | more than 2 years ago | (#38320192)

You don't know anyone that streams Netflix on their computer?

That's not so hard to imagine. Netflix doesn't have much penetration outside the US -- they don't expand to Europe until 2012, they just expanded to Latin America in September, and has been in Canada for only a year. I don't know about Latin America, but the Canadian selection is exceedingly poor when compared to that of the US. From what I could see scanning through recently, it appears that most of the selection is direct-to-DVD stuff that I've never heard of.

Here in Canada, I know exactly 0 people using Netflix. Some people I know are starting to ask me about it (mostly as more and more DVD video rental stores close down -- in my parents town, Blockbuster was the only choice, and now that they're gone, they have nothing), but until they improve their selection here to include more movies and shows people have actually heard of, I suspect the number of users to remain low

(It doesn't help that our major ISPs have bought most of the TV stations in the country now, and don't want competition from online networks like Netflix. As such, they've been bringing in pretty strict monthly download limits in some areas of the country that discourage people from even trying such services in the first place. I'd love nothing more than to get rid of our cable TV subscription and use nothing but streamed/downloaded content from a provider such as Netflix or iTunes. My wife and I are getting closer to that goal, but most people I know are far from that goal).

Yaz.

Re:Anyone uses Silverlight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38319960)

My workplace uses it for an internal browser-based application.

Re:Anyone uses Silverlight? (2)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 2 years ago | (#38320040)

The BI platform used by Dundas Data Visualization, Dundas Dashboard [dundas.com] , is in Silverlight. I use it on a daily basis. However, they are now offering HTML5 as well. But having a dashboard designer, in the web with a very rich experience, is one example where Silverlight has an advantage. But of course, as HTML5 improves/adopts, that advantage is going away, making plug-ins no longer needed.

Re:Anyone uses Silverlight? (2, Insightful)

Bitsy Boffin (110334) | more than 2 years ago | (#38320094)

I was asked to evaluate a website (for a large and well known company) only 3 days ago with a view to "taking it over".

Let's say my review was less than favourable when I found that if you didn't have silverlight you were not able to use the site, the home page simply told you that without silverlight you could not continue to use the normal site and pushed you to a crappy antiquated mobile phone design of the site as an alternative.

And the reason they had silverlight as a requirement? As best I could tell it was because they had bad low resolution videos in the background of some pages.

Even with silverlight enabled, the site was disastrously slow, not to mention unnavigable by search engines (not even real URLs for products etc).

Like I told them, who ever had the good idea to make that site, should never be allowed to have any more good ideas.

Re:Anyone uses Silverlight? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#38321302)

As best I could tell it was because they had bad low resolution videos in the background of some pages.

This is a huge WTF regadless of technology used to enable it - even if it were an animated GIF, say.

Re:Anyone uses Silverlight? (1)

Secret Agent Man (915574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38321416)

Sounds to me like less of a problem with Silverlight and more of a problem with the designer's choice to run the entire thing inside of a plugin.

Re:Anyone uses Silverlight? (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 2 years ago | (#38320310)

its actually fairly common for internal applications in big companies, especially finance, legal, etc.

On the open internet though? Nope.

Re:Anyone uses Silverlight? (1)

Saxophonist (937341) | more than 2 years ago | (#38320798)

It did no good, of course, but I wrote an e-mail to the State of Minnesota complaining about the Minnesota Revenue "Where's My Refund" site [state.mn.us] . I can't think of any legitimate reason for a site like this to use Silverlight (or Flash or any other plugin). Here was my message:

Do you offer a non-Silverlight version of the income tax refund status application? It does not seem to work with a recent stable version of Moonlight, though I have tried little to try to make it work.

Further, why would Silverlight be of any benefit for such a (relatively) simple application? I deal with ASP.NET for a living, and I can't imagine any serious consideration of Silverlight for a public application like this one. Unless there are some requirements of which I am unaware, a simple ASP.NET application would more than suffice (because your site is already .NET-based).

Of course, there is little that can be done now, but perhaps next year...

Here was the ridiculous response:

Good Morning, There is no other version offered at this time. I do not know why this version was chosen.

Thank you for using our website.

Regards,
<name omitted to protect the stupid>

<name omitted to protect the stupid, again, since it was here twice>
Minnesota Department of Revenue
Individual Income Tax Division

This was in 2010, and of course, the same application is still in place.

Re:Anyone uses Silverlight? (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 2 years ago | (#38327924)

He basically told you to piss off. That's because your mail was meaningless. There are close to 0% of people who don't have access to a Windows machine to login to the site. Your obscure choice of operating system shouldn't guide their decisions.

Personally I wouldn't use Silverlight for a site like that either, but probably the reason they did is it's easier to develop and support in Silverlight.

Re:Anyone uses Silverlight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38320982)

Yeah, that's pretty much the main place I've seen it deplyed. It's actually rather nice for internal use situatiosn where you *know* they have it cos you had IT put it on their boxen. And it's pretty nice as an interim smart client solution. Of course, we're all waiting ofr HTML5 to come along and render it obselete, but in the meantime, it does idneed have a niche in corporateland. Which is kind of funny, as that's about the last thing the Silverlight team had in mind when they first created it.

Re:Anyone uses Silverlight? (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38321668)

Sky [sky.com] in the UK requires it for online viewing so I use it (on the Mac too).

Die in a fire. (-1, Troll)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 2 years ago | (#38319840)

(my heartfelt wishes to everyone involved in development, promotion and use of this abomination).

Seconded! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38319888)

Seconded.

Nice. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38320114)

So it's officially as awesome as RealPlayer now?

Great idea for Microsoft here... You guys should come up with a new format to create digital versions of songs from vinyl records to use on our Google machines; and, then come out with http://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/12/09/2148249/silverlight-5-released#a vastly inferior version of your groundbreaking new audio format that pretends to support linux.

Yep, it's Microsoft. (2)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38320272)

a significant performance improvement with decoding of unprotected content using the GPU

So it's great for everything you don't use Silverlight for.

tactical choice of h.264 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38320282)

Microsoft's expanding support of h.264 would help Netflix and other enterprise MS clients transition their catalog to html5 video if silverlight is dropped. This would put some of the most commercially viable video content on the web into h.264 and not Google's webM. This is a direct salvo in the html5 browser wars.

Silver what? (1)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 2 years ago | (#38320410)

oh, light you say.... OK then.

Big security hole (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#38320618)

Now, from the people who brought you the Active-X security hole, we have a new Silverlight-based security hole.

1. Buy Authenticode code-signing certificate. [digicert.com]
2. Create web site with hostile code running under Silverlight.
3. Spam to get website trafffic.
4. User visits site with IE, Silverlight content runs, hostile code gets installed.
5. PROFIT!

Microsoft's model of "trusted code" doesn't involve anybody actually testing or looking at the code.

Re:Big security hole (2)

DeathFromSomewhere (940915) | more than 2 years ago | (#38320960)

You forgot 2 steps:
Convince the user to install your certificate (admin privileges needed).
Convince the user to change a setting in group policy or hack the registry (more admin privileges needed).

Re:Big security hole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38323950)

As if authenticode cert doesn't take care of the first step, and if your victim has silverlight installed, that's enough, it's not like group policy can't be subverted, it's Windows FFS...

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38321246)

Ptft

Version 5 supported until 2021 (2)

Rogue Orion (209687) | more than 2 years ago | (#38321370)

According to this: http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifean45#sl5 [microsoft.com]
Silverlight 5 will be supported for 10 years. Not many software vendors are prepared to do that.

Re:Version 5 supported until 2021 (1)

InsightIn140Bytes (2522112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38322172)

Yep, it's also why companies rather choose Microsoft. They know they will have long support dates and MS won't just suddenly pull the plug. Unlike for example Google, which announces end of life cycle on products like two weeks before.

Re:Version 5 supported until 2021 (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 2 years ago | (#38323242)

While I agree Google might be overly aggressive... no actually they are- Chrome version numbers are insane. But it still doesn't make MS's obsession with supporting old shit and dragging forward progress down any better or more acceptable. It might sound great that IE6 is supported until the armageddon, but in reality at a certain point support becomes a liability not a plus.. Especially when you own a vast majority of the world's internet capable computers. And no MS is not the only one to do this, but I would say it as they are the biggest player in the PC world and the power they wield has noticeably retarded the progress of the web as seen by IE 6/7.

Re:Version 5 supported until 2021 (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 2 years ago | (#38326342)

sure, but MS supports all end-of-life products for 10 years, even VB6 was supported until recently.

What you get for your support however, generally means security bugs are squashed and MS will spend a tiny amount of effort making your apps work on future versions of Windows, if they feel like it. If you have a problem they'll tell you to install the latest service pack and if that doesn't fix it, tough - it doesn't support what you want it to do.

"...in browser HTML hosting within Silverlight..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38323130)

Finally! I can have HTML in my web browser!

Silverlight only just got H.264 hw accel? (1)

wdef (1050680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38323716)

How retarded is that delay (pun not intended)? Even Flash has had that for a while.

Re:Silverlight only just got H.264 hw accel? (1)

Gr33nJ3ll0 (1367543) | more than 2 years ago | (#38325740)

It's also the non-DRM version, which means that it won't help netflix a bit!
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>