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 To Open Source Some of Silverlight

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the short-on-ideas dept.

Microsoft 204

Kurtz writes with word that Microsoft is about to follow in Adobe's footsteps by releasing the source code to part of its Silverlight technology. The news comes less than a week after Adobe announced plans to open source the Flex SDK. Microsoft is hungry to build the developer base for its rich Internet app tools, if it can.

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

It's Microsoft (2, Funny)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938271)

It's Microsoft, they'll probably release the comments in the code and keep everything else shut in. I mean comments are part of the source code, why not just release those and claim it's open source?

It's not quite a complete lie, but it's underhanded in the evil villian sort of way.

Re:It's Microsoft (4, Insightful)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938303)

No, they will just open source the simple bits that Mono already has mostly sorted out, leaving a fairly small but extremely critical patent-encumbered bit (video codec, maybe) that prevents anyone else making a useful implementation.

The PR people will then jump around saying Microsoft==open!!!eleven!. Do you see?

Re:It's Microsoft (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18938439)

Next week after Adobe announced its plans ..., M$ started to fuck her ...

... aspect of Silverlight will be beta open-sourced were not available, and Microsoft's public relations firm declined to comment.

He still is a STUPID!

Re:It's Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18939097)

what?

Ohhhhh Sources (4, Insightful)

Fox_1 (128616) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938281)

"according to sources familiar with the company's plans.----Specifics on which aspect of Silverlight will be open-sourced were not available, and Microsoft's public relations firm declined to comment."

So RTFA - but none of it's official, there are no details other then a little about the market space. In fact I suspect the discussion on Slashdot will be more interesting.

Re:Ohhhhh Sources (5, Informative)

Heir Of The Mess (939658) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938483)

Read this article http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2123859,00.as p [eweek.com] as it's a bit more interesting. The open source bits are the Dynamic Language Runtime (DLR) and the IronPython language. The DLR sits on top of .NET, so if you are using Mono and IronPython, then I would assume that you would then have all the source from top to bottom.

The MS stuff is here http://www.codeplex.com/IronPython [codeplex.com]

This time I even checked my links :-)

Re:Ohhhhh Sources (3, Informative)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938575)

The OpenLazlo [openlaszlo.org] TFA mentioned in passing looks kind of interesting, at least enough to check out further. The source for their demos looks pretty clean and straightforward.

Re:Ohhhhh Sources (2, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#18939115)

IronPython was already open source before Microsoft got to it. It started out as an independent project that's obviously been acquired by Microsoft. They even changed the license from the Common Public License, which OSI-approved, to the Microsoft Permissive License, which is not.

Re:Ohhhhh Sources (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18939243)

So fork the last version released under the CPL and cut Microsoft out of the loop.

Re:Ohhhhh Sources (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18938493)

I've said it before, but here goes again:

You can't trust ANY of these fucking companies when it comes to open source these days. The advent of Trusted Computing hardware (Microsoft being one of the main advocates and users of the hardware), means that open source software is essentially meaningless. They used to remain in control of you by keeping their source code secret... with Trusted Computing, they can release the source... and control DECIDE WHAT BINARIES YOU RUN. These companies will control the keys, and only trust binaries made by themselves. Obviously, kernels, device drivers and media players will be first on this "trust list -- allowing them to implement what most people understand as DRM (your kernel, devices and media player are not made up of trusted code? No "premium" content you for buddy), on a supposedly "open" PC platform.

The companies involved in this shit include: IBM, Sun, Apple, HP, AMD, Intel (Intel is fucking Satan himself as far as hardware DRM is concerned, although MS has a higher profile). In fact, just about every tech company is slavering over the potential for control over the customer that this hardware gives them. I include such, supposedly, Free software companies as Red Hat in that list too.

In short, Microsoft can afford to "open source" more software these days, because they will control what binaries your new computer will trust.

Re:Ohhhhh Sources (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938561)

You can't trust ANY of these fucking companies...

You could have stopped right there. We are entering the post-capital period.

Re:Ohhhhh Sources (1)

Zonk (troll) (1026140) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938811)

You can't trust ANY of these fucking companies when it comes to open source these days. The advent of Trusted Computing hardware (Microsoft being one of the main advocates and users of the hardware), means that open source software is essentially meaningless. They used to remain in control of you by keeping their source code secret... with Trusted Computing, they can release the source... and control DECIDE WHAT BINARIES YOU RUN. These companies will control the keys, and only trust binaries made by themselves. Obviously, kernels, device drivers and media players will be first on this "trust list -- allowing them to implement what most people understand as DRM (your kernel, devices and media player are not made up of trusted code? No "premium" content you for buddy), on a supposedly "open" PC platform.
While it's true that Treacherous Computing is a threat to computing freedom, it's still not very prevalent. You're forgetting the largest current threat to online freedom and innovation: patents. You can be certain that whatever parts of Silverlight Microsoft releases will be heavily infested with patents. Basically, "here's the source, but if you try to use it for anything useful we'll sue your ass".

The problem with Silverlight (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18938499)

The problem with Silverlight is if it only plays on a personal computer it is already obsolete. Even if it played on Windows, Mac and Linux personal computers, still no good. There are too many phones and iPods and various other devices that have the ability to play audio and video (not to mention TV's), and these devices all have H.264/AAC decoders in them. There is no room for multiple codecs and no general purpose CPU to decode them. Spoiler: Mary Jane dies. These are DVD players which are data-storage agnostic.

People say why doesn't AppleTV let you watch YouTube in addition to streaming movie trailers from Apple.com? Because the AppleTV decodes H.264 video in its GPU and YouTube is not H.264. Spoiler: Mary Jane dies. The CPU in the AppleTV is under clocked to stay cool, it would have to run all the time to decode YouTube and it would have to be 2-3x the speed also. YouTube is not iPod-ready, not handheld-ready, not living room -ready by any stretch. It's very PC-oriented.

If MS can't sell WMA then how can they sell Silverlight? It is foolish. Even if every iPod user didn't already have QuickTime on their Mac or PC it would be a really hard sell to content creators to be bothered with multimedia content that is personal computer only. There are two billion phones that all need to be replaced in the next two years and the iPhone is kicking off the true handheld Web by reading actual Web pages plus MPEG-4 audio video. Spoiler: Mary Jane dies. It is way too late for you if you are talking about what format audio and video is going to be stored and streamed in. It is also way too late for MS to get a fair chance with content creators when their greatest contribution so far has been to fuck with QuickTime at every chance they get.

Re:The problem with Silverlight (0, Flamebait)

uberchicken (121048) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938909)

Mod prick of a parent down. Whether true or not, contains spoilers.

Re:The problem with Silverlight (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18939031)

Your Fnord post makes me feel uneasy Fnord.

Auto-print (1)

jdh41 (865085) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938289)

I like the way the link wants to print automatically.

Perhaps next we can get one of those nifty `email this automatically to everyone on my contacts list' scripts?

Re:Auto-print (5, Funny)

lolocaust (871165) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938393)

It was probably the printer friendly version that was linked, so it'd make sense to automatically show the print dialog. The alternative would be to have the article on 8 pages each with its own talking smiley pop-up that scares the shit out of you due to its creepy "I wuv you" catchphrase and the fact you forgot that your speakers were on pretty loud.

Re:Auto-print (1, Offtopic)

owlnation (858981) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938735)

Since the beginning of the web, I think that's the first time I've ever come across an autoprint link.

What unfettered arrogance on behalf of the publication that's hosting it in believing that their hack paragraph on a minor tech story is worth a piece of tree - presumably they have a deal going with HP to use up as much ink as possible.

Techworld - a website I will never, at any time, ever visit again. Makes Flash, or its MS competitor, look positively non-invasive.

mod parent down! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18939141)

What unfettered arrogance on behalf of the publication that's hosting it in believing that their hack paragraph on a minor tech story is worth a piece of tree - presumably they have a deal going with HP to use up as much ink as possible.

Techworld - a website I will never, at any time, ever visit again. Makes Flash, or its MS competitor, look positively non-invasive.


The submitter linked directly to the printer friendly version of the page - notice the printerfriendly=1 in the URL ? It's hardly "unfettered arrogance" for them to assume that anyone who clicks on their "Printer friendly version of this article" link might want to, you know, print the article. The fact that a slashdot submitter bypassed that step is not the fault of Techworld in any way, and to suggest a conspiracy with HP is just ridiculous!

Really. (2, Insightful)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938297)

Call me cynical, but...

They..
Get behind their new technology and push
Use every leverage they can to promote it to their "partners"
Give away source code under a restrictive license
Give away development tools
Wait until it is a eb de-facto standard
... Then refuse to allow it on any operating system but Windows?

Flash works, Flash movies work, Flash is ubiquitous, Linux/OSX support it, Everybody knows it. So why do we need anything else?

The underlying argument goes like this: when a technology is established and "good enough" for everyday use then nobody needs to fix what is not broken.

Re:Really. (3, Insightful)

sjwest (948274) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938327)

Some of us hate flash - small tip if you don't have a T1 connection and things are slow Block flash and the internet really speeds up.

If people wish to develop sites that we cant view (think scfi channel) or adverts in it then its not a problem here as we associate flash with rubbish/spam.

Also a defacto standard is not if no 'upto' date linux plugin is available. It is possible to live without flash, and yes the world is a better place.

Flash (and wannabe ompetitors)is a childrens program whether the flash developers suck more the program is something that becomes conjecture.

Re:Really. (2)

lolocaust (871165) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938401)

If you don't like flash, you probably won't like this thing either. Either way, theres no point in doing this. And what the hell is up with the posting delay? Its a bit excessive.

Re:Really. (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 7 years ago | (#18939191)

For Microsoft, spending 50 or 100 million dollars on something like this, just in case Flash goes away, makes perfect sense.

Re:Really. (-1, Flamebait)

rikkus-x (526844) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938479)

I hope you realise that no-one actually cares that a few geeks can't get Flash working in their non-32-bit-x86-Linux. The rest of the world is using Flash quite happily. Yes there are some bad Flash user interfaces, but there are also many good uses of flash and plenty of great games. If you want to sulk, that's fine with the rest of us. Just try not to let that bitterness eat you up inside.

Re:Really. (1)

sjwest (948274) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938737)

Bitter moi ? - just think of the crap i dont download, and by the way windows nt cannot also do latest flash theres no plugin for that

yes while nt is old, if it sits behind many firewalls and routers its safe enough until it gets upgraded to linux. There must be some nt users out there other than us and some might even be non geeks.

Re:Really. (3, Interesting)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938765)

And if you visit Korean websites, everything is either Flash or ...get this... pictures of text. That's right -- most of the "text" I find on Korean websites can't be searched or indexed because they made a graphic out of it! Flash and pictures of text. Wow. I would hate to be a blind Korean trying to use the Internet.

Re:Really. (0, Redundant)

owlnation (858981) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938791)

Has to be said, sorry - in Korea, only old people use HTML

Re:Really. (1)

totally bogus dude (1040246) | more than 7 years ago | (#18939221)

Actually, there isn't a Flash plugin for 64-bit Windows, either. http://www.adobe.com/go/6b3af6c9 [adobe.com]

That's going to become more of an issue as people get more memory-hungry: XP 32-bit can only see 3.2 gigs of memory. My work PC has 4 gigs, but some of that's wasted because I decided to opt out of the 64-bit hassle. (I'm not sure if Vista 32-bit can see more than 3.2 gigs; I would expect that it can, seeing how Windows 2003 can. Perhaps that's what will eventually cause people to willingly migrate to Vista, unless XP SP2 includes PAE. For now, I've also opted out of the Vista hassle.)

Anyway, I suspect Adobe will sort it out eventually. A more interesting issue is mobile devices: these are becoming more and more popular, but it will be some time before they're powerful enough to be able to comfortably play Flash without killing the battery life... and even when they can, many displays will be way too small for what Flash developers are targeting. This keeps the age-old question alive: do you create a "dull", standards-based, accessible site; or a media-rich, heavy site which may exclude some people? Or do you do both?

Re:Really. (3, Insightful)

dFaust (546790) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938549)

Actually, Adobe released Flash Player 9 for Linux last October... I'm not sure what more you want. They now have Flash Player for Solaris, too. Obviously it exists for Windows and OSX, as well. Yes, Flash can be abused... but Flash can also be really useful for creating engaging user experiences and it's also an EXCELLENT platform for application development, particularly via Flex. Flex 2 is great, Actionscript 3 is a really nice language featuring the best of OO and dynamic languages, the AVM2 virtual machine is a really nice piece of work. I know more and more enterprise developers who do .NET or Java that have been exposed to Flex 2 in recent months and come to like it very quickly. The power that it affords is great, it "just works" (regardless of browser/OS), and it's infinitely better to develop apps of all kinds in than HTML/CSS/Javascript.

So I'm sorry that you have such issues with Flash. But as a development platform, it's appealing in many ways. And ever since the Adobe/Macromedia merger, Adobe has really become more open with their developers and has been releasing more and more tools to help them out (checkout labs.adobe.com for some examples).

Re:Really. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18938645)

Actually, Adobe released Flash Player 9 for Linux last October...

Actually they released it for Linux on x86, which is not the same thing
(posted from a Sun blade 1000 running Debian, but hey, I can live without
it till swfdec is ported).

Re:Really. (1)

Zonk (troll) (1026140) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938833)

Try gnash. It works mostly. It's much better than swfdec, though it can't handle stuff like youtube yet.

Re:Really. (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938881)

Actually they released it for Linux on x86, which is not the same thing

Linux has tiny market share [thecounter.com] , and the vast majority of that is x86. They probably need to distribute a load of binaries to get it to work on all x86 distributions. Why should they spend time on Linux/Sparc support which is a minority of a minority?

Re:Really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18938925)

Some of us hate flash - small tip if you don't have a T1 connection

A "T1 connection"... Man, it's not your grandpa's Internet anymore. These days kids in Tokyo have 2 Megabytes/s upload speed if they're in a modern building (you correctly read both Megabytes and upload). Besides that consumers in most cities now have various DSL flavors and Flash is quite fast for them. Nobody besides your grandpa remembers what a T1 is (and it never in Europe for that matters, they were called differently).

Re:Really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18938433)

Right, but the Flash/PDF etc are broken from Microsofts perspective as long as they can't control and make profit of it at will.

Lack of control to product, is the very reason why they chosed to build their own platform instead communicating with Adobe to get the needed feature(s) in existing products. Apparently the only feature Adobe won't make, for a good reason indeed, would be a feature handing complete control to Microsoft only.

ac

Re:Really. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18938443)

This comment came from slashdot? Im surprised... there is one word that can explain why we need anything else, it is the same word to explain why there are so many flavours of linux distros, many different text editors, many different everything, and it's called choice.

Yes, choice.

Re:Really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18938521)

Windows works, Windows applications work, Windows is ubiquitous, All PCs support it, Everybody knows it. So why do we need anything else?

Re:Really. (4, Interesting)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938759)

The problem is that Flash doesn't integrate in with anything ASP or .NET . XML is good in some ways for this, but no .NET developer wants to learn ActiveScript, buy FlashMX, learn a whole new way of creating UIs, and learn about AJAX to get Flash integrating with their current systems.

I think if Adobe invested more in Flash, and specifically getting more developers into Flash, they'd have a solid niche. But they've made Flash development more difficult to get into than it needs to be, and I think that based on that alone you can predict that Silverlight will probably fight a downhill battle and win over Flash.

Re:Really. (1)

ScottyH (791307) | more than 7 years ago | (#18939045)

There isn't too much difference between MXML (Flex's UI layout) and XAML (Microsoft's UI layout). And .NET can integrate with Flash just fine, using Flash remoting or SOAP.

Re:Really. (1, Funny)

ryants (310088) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938761)

So why do we need anything else?
To scratch an itch?

Re:Really. (3, Insightful)

nwbvt (768631) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938769)

"Linux/OSX support it"

Does it? Aside from the fact that it cannot be offered with the OS because of license restrictions, I have heard of many people having problems running Flash on Linux. What we really need is something like this that uses entirely open standards so third party players can be developed (not sure if MS will agree to do that for Silverlight, though).

From what I have heard, the main advantage to Silverlight is that it integrates better with .NET applications on the server-side. Besides, how can a little bit of competition be a bad thing? Worst case it will force Adobe to improve their product in order to keep from losing out to Silverlight. If you were to argue we don't need new technologies when there is already something that is "good enough", we should all be running applets in Netscape.

Re:Really. (2, Insightful)

jeswin (981808) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938961)

....Give away development tools, Wait until it is a eb de-facto standard.....
Flash works, Flash movies work, Flash is ubiquitous, Linux/OSX support it, Everybody knows it. So why do we need anything else?


Apart from the obvious point that competition is good, Flash is yet another lock-in that is waiting to happen. From the Flash Specification [adobe.com] :
"This license does not permit the usage of the specification to create software which supports SWF file playback."

Why would you want to protect a format/specification, if not for a lock-in? Even MS-Word formats are becoming more open.

Everything you said is more applicable to Adobe than to Microsoft. Microsoft is in no position to shove SilverLight down unsuspecting throats. They don't have the trust, the respect or the distribution of Flash to be able to do that.

Re:Really. (5, Insightful)

moderators_are_w*nke (571920) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938971)

They've certainly pulled that trick before. Where are:

* MS Core fonts for the web
* IE for Mac / UNIX
* Windows Media Player for Mac

Microsoft's idea of cross platform is do it till its popular and then EOL everything but Windows. The only reason they're doing this at all is that Flash video is killing WMV.

Re:Really. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18939119)

They've certainly pulled that trick before. Where are:

* MS Core fonts for the web
Here [sourceforge.net] .

Competition is good! (1)

Dan_Bercell (826965) | more than 7 years ago | (#18939011)

Just because Flash is good, it doesnt mean something cannot be better.

Re:Really. (1)

hemanman (35302) | more than 7 years ago | (#18939233)

Because, Flash DOSEN'T work on several other platforms than Windows/Linux/OSX.

If that's your argument, why not say: Windows works, why use anything else?

-H

Always late... (4, Interesting)

Beuno (740018) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938355)

Am I the only one who gets the feeling they keep on arriving too late every single time?

Re:Always late... (1)

kjart (941720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938409)

Am I the only one who gets the feeling they keep on arriving too late every single time?

Too late for what exactly?

Re:Always late... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18938463)

Don't worry, they have made a search engine [live.com] for finding their late and forgotten attempts to copy other software/websites.

Although this time around, Microsoft actually has a pretty decent chance (with the .NET backend for Silverlight) at outdoing Adobe Flash Player for consuming the most system resources. So I wouldn't discount them straight away!

Adobe can't keep up (1)

mattgreen (701203) | more than 7 years ago | (#18939131)

They'll need to build on Java if they want to keep pace with Microsoft in that category. ;)

Finish what you started (3, Funny)

Riquez (917372) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938359)

I mean, call me picky, but shouldn't they finish developing IE to an acceptable standard before they start on a Flash competitor?

Re:Finish what you started (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938509)

Different development teams with different interests... At the size of Microsoft, its not uncommon to end up an hydra with 2 heads. Though IE's crappiness ends up helping Silverlight indirectly, since quite a few developers will move to that to avoid having to deal with IE's quirks...

Re:Finish what you started (1)

GauteL (29207) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938511)

This is easily summarised by The Mythical Man Month [wikipedia.org] .

Throwing more people at IE would make it worse, not better. Therefore, it is better to spend those people doing other useful projects.

Re:Finish what you started (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938527)

That's really funny. This whole campaign reminds me of nothing so much as when they were cranking up IE and telling everyone "What with ALL the sites using Active-X, (there were none) you're gonna want to be using IE, or you'll miss out on the whole Internet experience". For a while there, it became a self-fufilling prophecy, at least until everyone realized that Active-X was crap, Netscape was dead, and the net was full of sites relying on IE's "I know what you mean, you don't have to write well-formed HTML" behavior.

Re:Finish what you started (1)

ms1234 (211056) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938559)

No. This is Microsoft and they need to on every new field as soon as possible once they recognize such a field in order to crush the competition before it becomes to successfull (Google).

Re:Finish what you started (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18938959)

So you want a company that large and diverse to only do one thing at a time?

Once a noble idea (2, Interesting)

Seiruu (808321) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938383)

Of a system being worked on by the users for the users to gain a better system through the networking effect, now is slowly becoming another means for industries to get cheap labor. From the OS community POV quite saddening.

From a commercial POV, if prices do go lower and more people would buy/use it with the backings of corporate Marketing, compared to when it was just OS and mouth to mouth, it might (emphasis on MIGHT) spread more awareness and interest in genuine/creative software.

Re:Once a noble idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18938407)

Only this time MS is making a new tool which will be easy to deploy widely. Very widely if they come through with a Firefox plugin, which there may be market pressure for them to do. Then their adding interoperability with much loved OS tools such as Python and soon Ruby as well as .net. Seems to me they're making all that hard work people did for a community benefit and which a larger world fell in love with that much more powerful. Again, it serves MS interests to do this. But it's not exactly the end of integrity.

Re:Once a noble idea (1)

pallmall1 (882819) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938661)

But it's not exactly the end of integrity.
As far as Microsoft is concerned, integrity ended long ago. Why do these shills keep lying? Oops, I've already answered that question.

Why the hell would I put MSFT in a webstack? (1, Insightful)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938391)

Microsoft is anti everything the internet stands for.

The Internet is for open, platform neutral communcation.
Microsoft if for closed source mono-culture.

The internet is for the creation of new tools, paradigms and technology by anyone for anyone.
Microsoft is all about where they think you want to go today.

Fact is, Microsoft has made it their mission to break everything they possibly can, whether it be standard, language or platform.
If it's not from microsoft, they want to kill it.

So any developer that sincerely uses MS in anything but their server-side stack is a user hating pro-MS pundit that wants to try to force their user base to use Windows and Windows related products. And personally, has no business whatsoever calling themselves a web developer. Anti-web developer is more like it.

So I don't care what MS does. A psychopathic culture can not be changed.
And MS has always been and always will be a psychopathic culture, feigning to be "nice" if it thinks it there is something in it for them.

Adobe has been quite sincere and has done some great things with Flex, Apollo and will also be creating some nifty webservices.
Buying Macromedia was a great move and wise to insure that technologies such as Flash, Flex and Director lived on and became more prominant.
Microsoft on the other hand is reviled and dying a public death in the online marketplace.
MSN and it's related services are a joke. Online music? maps? Online calender? Search?
MS will tie their apps to Vista Servers and .Net stacks and the dotcoms will laugh and fart in their general direction.

I am happy to see MS blowing wads of money on what is bound to be yet another failure.

Re:Why the hell would I put MSFT in a webstack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18938713)

>>So any developer that sincerely uses MS in anything but their server-side stack is a user hating pro-MS pundit

Grow the fuck up!

Project requirements and clients dictate the technologies we use.

Who modded parent insightful ffs?

Re:Why the hell would I put MSFT in a webstack? (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938775)

Yes, that is mostly true.

But... Flash is against everything browsing stands for too - closed source, breaks the back button, invasive, bloated, not available to all. So, I actually do appreciate anything that stands up and fights Flash - it is good for everyone that there is competition in this market. It would be better that there were a genuine open source alternative, however.

Should anyone from the Flashblock team be reading this, can you start working on a sliverlight block too please? I think I'm going to need one of them too.

Re:Why the hell would I put MSFT in a webstack? (1)

Banarak (1095591) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938829)

"Microsoft is all about where they think you want to go today." This pissed me off so bad I had to sign up after 5+ years and write a responce. I don't agree with Microsoft and their practaces, but you are making a judgement based of "a very lame" advertising marketing campaign. The internet dosen't conform to any one idea. To say that there ISIN'T room on the internet for a company which is trying to be #1 is bullshit and renders the rest of your argument mostly pointless. I say mostly, because the rest I do agree with. But they have made Windows, which is the most established OS on the planet, that they have made X360, which (IMHO) I better then Sonys new offering and has been taking most of my time lately. (Personal opinion here on the console folks - but deny it's the most widespread OS.) I agree with the rest of your post as well - let them realise the majority of the Internet has diferent morals and values then they do. But to use "Microsoft is all about where they think you want to go today." as an excuse proves how weak of an argument you have to try to denounce that point. Drink more then I do please. Kthxbye.

Re:Why the hell would I put MSFT in a webstack? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18938843)

Microsoft is anti everything the internet stands for. ... Microsoft has made it their mission to break everything they possibly can ... If it's not from microsoft, they want to kill it.

yeah, Bill Gates eats live kittens, Steve Balmer has a cold green ichor instead of blood, and every new hire at Microsoft is ritually put to death before being reanimated as a life-sucking zombie slave of their abhorrent plan.

Where was I .. oh yeah: grow the hell up, child.

Adobe Speak to your lawyers (0, Flamebait)

roshanpv (1090393) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938431)

Adobe should just file an anit trust case against microsoft if
1) They start to ship silverlight with windows in built
2) They give it away with Visual Studio for free
3) They Bundle it with IE

Adobe should rise to occasion and save the world

cause some time later they will close source and some time later they will make it windows only this could be damaging to linux user as they will not be able to access the media, nobody should render any support to microsoft regarding this............
I'ts insidiously dangerous

Microsoft is the satan for linux
We should fight our crusades(jehad if your a muslim!!! ) against this

Adobe Who? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18938469)

Remember that Adobe is the company that sais:
"you are allowed to read the SWF specification, but if you use the information and thoughts created in your brain by reading this document, you are not allowed to implement a SWF viewer!"

Or in other words, legal barking:
"If you threaten our monopoly in the SWF business, we'll sue the crap out of you for the most absurd reasons".

So, legally, Adobe is worse than MS.

ActiveX all over again (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18938435)

Been there, done that. M$ is trying to do an ActiveX 2.0. Too late. I for one welcome our new Adobe overlords!

Re:ActiveX all over again (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18938503)

I fear a working Silverlight more than I do ActiveX (because it never worked - thank God!).

Flash/ActiveX/Java Applets/Silverlight/etc totally break usability.

I don't want to see websites with letters flying in one character at a time because some clueless hack thought website animation was "really cool" and "the way of the future".

If I visit a website, I am going there to find out information quickly and effortlessly in a way that is well implemented into every browser and operating system. This includes even the basic things such as selecting text, copying it, opening links in a new tab, etc (context menu!).

How much/what license? (1)

mikearthur (888766) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938455)

Read the article but it is intentionally vague on the license and the quantity.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this but I think Microsoft have released shared-source programs before but never properly allow modification and redistribution rights. I'd be surprised if this is any different.

Re:How much/what license? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18938487)

The open source aspects are released under Microsofts permissive source license, which allows for modification and redistribution, even commercially. I don't know why this article is so light on the details, the others aren't.

Re:How much/what license? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18939209)

Microsoft has released "open source" software. IronPython is released under a fairly liberal license, allowing modification and redistribution. In fact, there is already a (minor) fork of IronPython, the IronPython Community Edition [sourceforge.net] .

Quiz time (-1, Offtopic)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938461)

Who's got two thumbs and doesn't care?

*points to self*

Hey, I'm Tom St Denis, please to meet you. Now get out of my face.

Gotta stop watching scrubs box sets....

Tom

Does not compute (2, Funny)

Inquisitor911 (935895) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938609)

Microsoft?... Open Source?... Does not compute, does not compute!

Silverlight In Action (2, Informative)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938675)

Re:Silverlight In Action (3, Informative)

bsantos (655278) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938723)

Lots of people on here worried about interoperability, cross platform runtimes and the likes, but those comments on msdn show that those using MSFT technology couldn't care less. *sigh*

What? (1)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938745)

It's a cross platform CLR? I don't read any negative comments at all.

Re:Silverlight In Action (2, Interesting)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938751)

No sluh. People using MSFT tech are the types who are easily impressed and afraid of change. I don't see what the world gains from yet another flash type scripting thingy, but now MSFT can split up yet another market by virtue of it running on Windows.

Being an unfan of Flash anyways makes me not really care what MSFT is doing to hurt/help that market. But it's sad to know that MSFT just will never change.

Oh well.

Tom

Re:Silverlight In Action (1)

gakguk (530867) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938987)

> People using MSFT tech are the types who are easily impressed and afraid of change...yet another flash type scripting thingy.

You don't care to read what's inside Silverlight, yet you mark (lots of) people as being afraid of change with a single move. Nice.

It's not a script thingy. It's the ability to use CLR [wikipedia.org] on the browser (including all the cool stuff like Generics, LINQ etc.), DLR [wikipedia.org] on top of CLR which means a new world of dynamic languages, XAML [wikipedia.org] (the thing what you think a script thingy but actually an object serialization notation), etc etc.

MS developer community is currently bombarded with new technologies / methodologies / patterns since the last three or four years. Some ideas came from Java land (IoC containers, ORM), some built by MS (WPF, WCF) etc. It's in fact hard for the community to grasp all the new bits in such a short period of time but we are keeping up.

It seems that you have ideas without having the necessary knowledge.

IronRuby [typepad.com]
DLR [msdn.com]

Re:Silverlight In Action (0, Flamebait)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#18939085)

Hey tell me Nancy, what part of OMG I don't care didn't you get? Cuz I'd really like to sort this out for the next time one of you newbie spawns of whatever deity I pissed off comes around toting the virtues of the morally corrupt.

Until MSFT starts making their wonderful stuff available for other platforms I'm just gonna have to go ahead and ignore everything you types have to say, for ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ...

Re:Silverlight In Action (1)

gakguk (530867) | more than 7 years ago | (#18939347)

You are one brave soul. Keep up the good work.

Re:Silverlight In Action (1)

amilham (737749) | more than 7 years ago | (#18939359)

Until MSFT starts making their wonderful stuff available for other platforms I'm just gonna have to go ahead and ignore everything you types have to say
Silverlight is going to be available for at least one other platform: Mac OS X. It will be available in Firefox, IE, and Safari. And supposedly, Linux support is still being considered.

Re:Silverlight In Action (1)

pallmall1 (882819) | more than 7 years ago | (#18939177)

It's the ability to use CLR on the browser.
No, it's the ability to use CLR on windows.

Re:Silverlight In Action (1)

gakguk (530867) | more than 7 years ago | (#18939305)

It works on Macs. Safari, Firefox, IE / Win, Mac.

Re:Silverlight In Action (3, Informative)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 7 years ago | (#18939189)

Before you jump on the MS bashing bandwagon please take a look at the linked video. Even better, download the client plugin and view the demos. It's cross platform and supports a ton of languages including C#, Ruby, Javascript, etc.

Re:Silverlight In Action (0, Flamebait)

pallmall1 (882819) | more than 7 years ago | (#18939225)

It's cross platform and ...
Yet another Microsoft liar.

Re:Silverlight In Action (1)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 7 years ago | (#18939255)

Dude, you can run it now in apple [microsoft.com] .

here's a preview (3, Funny)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938689)

#include "bsod.h"

main() { if(running_on_linux()) { crash(horribly, messily); } return proprietary_blob(patented); }

/* anyone remember the days when slashdot allow you to quote pre-formatted text? */

Re:here's a preview (1)

Verte (1053342) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938967)

#include "bsod.h" main() { if(TRUE) { crash(horribly, messily); } return proprietary_blob(patented); }

Re:here's a preview (1)

Zonk (troll) (1026140) | more than 7 years ago | (#18939003)

/* anyone remember the days when slashdot allow you to quote pre-formatted text? */
Umm, select "plain old text" instead of "html formatted" and then put your comment inside of <code></code>. I always keep it at "plain old text" so I don't have to bother with <p></p> and <br> tags, but I still can use the allowed html, ie, italic, bold, etc.

WPFE (1)

rjcobain (1095583) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938705)

i thought "windows presentation foundation everywhere" was more catchy, anyway, I don't see it getting everywhere like Flash, so let's just forget about it

This post's comments amuse me. (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938749)

MS finally announces they'll open-source something, and all that the Linux users do is complain.

Microsoft has open-sourced a lot of stuff... (4, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938841)

Microsoft has been using open source for some time, albeit sometimes with restrictive licenses, but rarely has any of it been useful for anything but developers already committed to Microsoft's platform.

There are several reasons people may be interested in open source, but they all have one thing in common ... people are interested in what open source does for them. Open source frees them from dependence on a single vendor, it frees them from license fees and royalties, it allows them to share responsibility with a large pool of like-minded developers, and so on. Open source products tied to a single vendor, whether it's hardware (like a Linux-based set-top box or PDA) or software (one of Microsof's efforts was an open-source installer for Windows applications) is only going to be interesting if it's useful for the things they're already doing.

Open-sourcing *part* of a product, when you're potentially going to have to pay Microsoft to use the rest (the price I read was the first million users free, then 25 cents per user after that), is a pretty obvious poison pill.

Re:Microsoft has open-sourced a lot of stuff... (1)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938935)

...but rarely has any of it been useful for anything but developers already committed to Microsoft's platform.
So, essentially the gripe is that when MS does open up their source, it's either intuitively (or by license) restricted to development for Windows? Given that MS *nix and MS OSX do not exist, I'm not sure what platforms you expect them to encourage or allow development on. It would be counterproductive for them to release proprietary code to enhance other OS's, wouldn't it? I mean, I'm sure that's what the Linux community wants, by why on earth would MS do that?

Re:Microsoft has open-sourced a lot of stuff... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18939019)

I'm not sure what platforms you expect them to encourage or allow development on.
Well, if the code is closed to certain platforms, then it is not open.

Re:Microsoft has open-sourced a lot of stuff... (1)

pallmall1 (882819) | more than 7 years ago | (#18939343)

I'm not sure what platforms you expect them to encourage or allow development on.
Platforms other than just windows and mac -- if they're going to call it "cross-platform".

Xaml v/s Flex, Format is the key (1)

jeswin (981808) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938837)

More important than the source code is an Open Format, which IMO is a key advantage over Flex/Flash. Silverlight's Markup Language, XAML is pure XML and easier to decode. Flash is a proprietary, binary format and the Specification [adobe.com] forbids you from building an alternative player.

The Flex Plan
1. Open Source Flex, and Flash Runtime
2. Drive a strong adoption wave, since its "Open Source"
3. Alternate Tools spring up, Flash becomes the "*.doc" of RIA
4. Flash format remains proprietary, all RIA belongs to Adobe
5. Profit!

I can't imagine any other reason why anyone would want to open source the tools, while protecting the format.

Anyway competition is good, and might actually result in Adobe opening the Flash Specification.

Reverse engineering opportunity (1)

rumith (983060) | more than 7 years ago | (#18939033)

As far as I have understood, Adobe is releasing the source for all tools necessary to create fully capable Flash objects; that includes some sort of a compiler, too. Isn't it possible to document the Flash format itself by examining the code of the mentioned compiler?

define Open Format .. (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 7 years ago | (#18939313)

'More important than the source code is an Open Format .. Flash is a proprietary, binary format and the Specification [adobe.com] forbids you from building an alternative player'

According to this [adobe.com] Adobe is releasing Flex under the Mozilla Public License (MPL) which states:

'The Initial Developer hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license .. to make, have made, use, practice, sell, and offer for sale [mozilla.org] , and/or otherwise dispose of the Original Code'

How is 'Open Format' defined in the current context and do you have a citation for the Silverlight license.

was Re:Xaml v/s Flex, Format is the key

Scott Guthrie on Silverlight (3, Interesting)

tt42 (647778) | more than 7 years ago | (#18938897)

While not directly related to the open-source angle of this story, here is Scott Guthrie (Silverlight team manager) talking about some of the more in-depth aspects of it. (36m long) http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=3045 08 [msdn.com]

SlashTerd (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18938975)

I hate slashdot!!!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?