×

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!

Cross-Platform Microsoft

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the good-tools-is-good-tools dept.

Microsoft 348

willdavid sends us to the ZDNet blogs for a provocative opinion piece by John Carroll. He points to Microsoft's evident cross-platform strategy with Silverlight, and wonders whether the company couldn't make money — and win friends — by extending its excellent development ecosystem cross-platorm. "Microsoft, apparently, is helping the folks at Mono to port Silverlight to Linux. This is good news, as the primary fear I've heard from developers is that Silverlight will be locked to Microsoft platforms and products. Microsoft has already committed to supporting Silverlight cross-browser on Windows, and has a version that runs on Mac OS X (which is even available from the Apple web site). The last step is Linux, and Microsoft is working with Novell and Mono to make this happen."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

348 comments

The last step is Linux? (4, Funny)

RandoX (828285) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238049)

Guess I can forget about it for BeOS.

Re:The last step is Linux? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238529)

Guess I can forget about it for BeOS.
Most of us already have

Re:The last step is Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238779)

Wait... isn't Microsoft the one that keeps copying stuff from the open source community (old TCP/IP stack), packaging it up, and then selling it back? Who wants to play with these guys?

Re:The last step is Linux? (2, Funny)

JFitzsimmons (764599) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238881)

Everyone? Can you imagine how bad their network stack would be if they had written it themselves?

Directions from Microsoft (5, Funny)

UncleWilly (1128141) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238053)

1. Insure all your Linux DLLs (*.dll) are in your PATH statement.
2. type make
3. ???
4. profit!

Re:Directions from Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238133)

Ahhh...If you can't beat'em...figure out a way to charge'em.

    Or I guess more accurately for Micro$oft:
If you can force them out of business, buy them out, or figure out another monopoly extension angle.

**IF** they actually hold up on this and go cross-platfrom, wonder if that will somehow trigger into Microsoft leadership some better production methods, or if they will just hack it together for the different platforms.
Personally - hope they decide to do a good job, which they show they are capable of from time to time. I love Linux platforms, but would be nice to have the Office package.

Some day M$ will own all the code. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238299)

Novell's Miguel Icaza did copies of the source codes from Microsoft CLR C# to develop Mono.

Novell's Miguel Icaza did violate the copyrights and patents from Microsoft, even if ECMA is a standarization's organization.

The problem is a street-with-out-exit after.

Microsoft did pacts with SCO.
Microsoft did pacts with Novell.

Damages from SCO to Novell.
Damages from Novell to Microsoft.

Microsoft will become in the new SuperSatan!!!

Microsoft will own all from Novell and SCO: Unix, Mono, GNOME, UnixWare, OpenServer, eDirectory, Linux!!!

Re:Some day M$ will own all the code. (2, Funny)

clem (5683) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238399)

Shouldn't you be doing something else? Like updating your website [timecube.org]?

And if Novell will be bought by MS??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238447)

Suse was bought by Novell.

And if Novell will be bought by MS???

Argghhhhhh!!! Argghhhhhh!!! Arrggghhhh!!!! xDDD

Novell was a Linux's VIRUS for all the time!!! Its team was too!!!

bleh (4, Insightful)

WPIDalamar (122110) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238069)

Microsoft has NEVER supported a competitor at first and then let that version slip to a very sub-optimal state so the Windows-only version seems better, have they?

Re:bleh (5, Funny)

nine-times (778537) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238125)

Well they've always done a good job at their Macintosh ports and keeping them up to date...

Oh, hold on a second while I minimize this window of IE5 for OSX. I have to open Outlook for OS9 to reply to an e-mail.

bleh-Fair. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238167)

"Microsoft has NEVER supported a competitor at first and then let that version slip to a very sub-optimal state so the Windows-only version seems better, have they?"

Slashdot has NEVER given Microsoft an even break.

Re:bleh-Fair. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238201)

You don't read the Games section, do you?

Re:bleh (3, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238239)

Microsoft always plays nice when it is the new guy on the block. Once it gets a good enough foothold it bites back. Right now Microsoft needs to deal with Adobe. Adobe is a tough company in its own rights, and it already has a huge lead on Microsoft, in this area. Developers right now are going should I choose Microsoft new product that rightnow only works for Windows and Macintosh OS X (says it works for Macintosh (I have already found sites that use Silverlight that doesn't seem to run on Mac Sliverlight, I just get an Icon telling me to download it), it is still beta so most people won't go and get it. Vs. Flash wich is about everywhere, sure the Linux version is a bit out of date but we will just develop for that version. Microsoft has a huge uphill battle to prove to the developer comunity that their tool is both Technically superior and has a chanse of being widly enough used to be useful.

Re:bleh (5, Insightful)

Locutus (9039) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238423)

yup, MS Silverlight is their planned attempt at killing off not only Adobe Flash but also all this AJAX stuff. If they can kill off Flash, they'll make sure developers use Silverlight for browser application development and move as many as possible away from AJAX. In time, they'll start breaking AJAX components in their browser to harm those who stick with AJAX and we're back at web applications which only run on Microsoft Windows and which is ultimately controlled by Microsoft at the API levels. This sticks it to Google too. Because 'Google Must Die' is another Microsoft concept these days.

Read your history books folks, it's all in Microsoft's history. Who needs a crystal ball?

LoB

Re:bleh (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238489)

MS Silverlight is their planned attempt at killing off not only Adobe Flash but also all this AJAX stuff

Killing off Flash and AJAX? So, you're saying we should LIKE Microsoft now?

Re:bleh (1)

spectecjr (31235) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238867)

yup, MS Silverlight is their planned attempt at killing off not only Adobe Flash but also all this AJAX stuff.

Didn't Microsoft pretty much invent all this AJAX stuff? (Wikipedia [wikipedia.org])

Re:bleh (1)

Repossessed (1117929) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238415)

At least at the moment, my understanding is that moonlight is at least as far along as silverlight for the moment. Moonlight is written in c++ instead of c# as well, so the Linux version will probably be faster... Throw that on top of open sourceness for our version, and as long as M$ honors its promise to continue to release the specification we shouldn't see any real problems with using silverlight web functions.

Microsoft will probably close up the spec if Silverlight is ever a huge success. I have a solution to this though. Since Moonlight has a good chance of being faster than Silverlight, then by porting Moonlight to Windows and Mac, we could make a interpreter for the Silverlight spec that could, in theory, become preffered to Microsoft's version. Especially if we can attract the attention of developers that want to build large complex programs that aren't really aren't suitable for a double interpreted language like M$ is building.

Addendum: It's strange.. the Novell-Microsoft agreement may turn out to be a good thing yet. Maybe, hell would have to freeze over and all, but maybe.

Re:actually it's a brilliant strategy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238577)

"Microsoft has NEVER supported a competitor at first and then let that version slip to a very sub-optimal state so the Windows-only version seems better, have they?"

Consider this, if MS can get some code portable to Linux / OSX, the ultimate goal being, crappy bug ridden security nightmare cross-platformness, with all the new security holes it will open up. It will trash a major argument in favor of Linux / OSX. So I propose they really intend to port insecurity and undermine one of the strong points of the competition. It's a brilliant move on MS's part.

Oh and that whole thing about "hey it works, but there's some headaches...", and the slowly tightening the screws. Windows for the optimum experience... down to we own you. What would be really fun to see come out of Microsoft? Fully armored and armed with machine guns police / law enforcement robots. Robocop anyone? MS robocop? heheh

Re:bleh (1)

WPIDalamar (122110) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238635)

It is funny that MS is pushing into Adobe's world with Silverligh, but Adobe is also pushing into Microsoft's world with AIR...

Re:bleh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238675)

It's not like this has ever happened before.

In ancient history, Windows NT was cross-platform, now all dropped.

More recent examples: IE on Mac OS X (dropped), Windows Media Player on Mac (dropped), MS Office still not Intel architecture on Mac (when even Adobe Photoshop is by now), etc. History has shown that they will support "cross platform" as a selling point for as long as it takes for something to become entrenched, at which point their motivation for keeping it that way wanes, and they delay, degrade, or drop it, usually in that order. The implication is that new versions are *always* deployed as "Windows exclusives" first to lure people to the obviously preferred platform.

I understand that they have to focus on their bread-and-butter business because it pays the bills (and all businesses do this), but if they want to be taken seriously when they claim "cross platform" support, they have to follow through and stick with it for a while before people will believe them. Past experience means *saying* they are going to be cross-platform isn't good enough. They're working up to it with Silverlight (they have an OS X version, although it is only for some versions and is a bit behind), but I'm not going to be interested until they are actually there, including Linux support.

So the real question is.. (1)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238077)

Is this the embrace or extend step?

and when does step three kick in?

Re:So the real question is.. (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238185)

I think this is the "let's make use of free labor" step. The Mono guys, assuming they're happy not getting paid, would be smart to ensure that Microsoft grants them full immunity from any legal claims as a result of their development. Otherwise, if they decide to pull out they can simply say "Silverlight on Mono violates a number of our patents, sorry we forgot to tell you".
 

Re:So the real question is.. (1)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238301)

Miguel de Icaza, vice president of develop platforms for Novell and leader of the Mono project, said that Microsoft offered up its opinion and guidance on how to build a Mono-based implementation of Silverlight that runs on Linux.
I somehow imagine if that made it to a courtroom, they'd simply have to print off the press release.

Re:So the real question is.. (2, Informative)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238315)

Most of the mono team works for Novell so are getting paid. I also assume cooperation between MS and Mono is part of the larger Novell/MS IP sharing agreements, but that is just an assumption.

Re:So the real question is.. (2, Insightful)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238625)

Unfortunately the Novell/MS IP sharing deal doesn't extend past Novell and it's direct customers. So even if Miguel and the rest of the Mono team are covered, Debian, Ubuntu and Red Hat may still be found to violate MS patents if they distribute this (assuming Moonlight utilizes MS patents).

Re:So the real question is.. (1)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238861)

Unfortunately the Novell/MS IP sharing deal doesn't extend past Novell and it's direct customers.

Correct me if I'm wrong (as I'm sure others here have looked into this deal much more than I have), but doesn't that clause only relate to the "we won't sue you for any patents of ours which may be in Linux" piece. There is a much broader IP sharing, interoperability, and cooperation on projects which I don't believe has anything to do with that "Novell and thier clients" business.

Extinguish (5, Insightful)

Tony (765) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238557)

First, you have to recognize the target, which is *not* Linux. It's Flash.

Right now, Flash is a cross-platform delivery system for highly interactive content. (READ: unstable piece of shit that is not a real standard.) It's very popular for media players (Youtube), ads, and cheezy games. It basically made ActiveX irrelevent, and Microsoft is still a little peeved.

So, by helping the Mono folks make Silverlight available cross-platform, they get to look like the good guys, as well as give Adobe a full-frontal assault on Flash.

Right now, we are in the "embrace" stage.

Once Silverlight takes off and displaces Flash as the delivery system of choice for shitty-assed content, Microsoft will be free to extend Silverlight in any way they desire, without passing those changes on to the Mac or to Mono. So, they get to extinguish Java and Flash, and then once Silverlight is the only delivery system on the internet, they get to displace the web, as well.

This is just like their bid with ActiveX. The main difference is, they learned their lesson the first time. Don't make it MS-Windows-only until *after* it is perceived as the only system available.

Yes, this is paranoid ranting. But after you've been kicked in the balls four or five times by someone, you get a little antsy around them.

What the ...? (3, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238079)

No. The "primary fear" is and has always been that Microsoft will get some "Intellectual Property" into a Linux project in such a way that it will allow Microsoft to sue the developers/users of that project.

If Microsoft wants to port something to Linux, that's their option. They have the people and they can download all of the source code.

And they can license their product any way they want to.

The only problems arise when Linux developers (as opposed to Microsoft developers porting something to Linux) have access to Microsoft "Intellectual Property" and may become "tainted" by it.

Re:What the ...? (1)

blueZhift (652272) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238263)

The only problems arise when Linux developers (as opposed to Microsoft developers porting something to Linux) have access to Microsoft "Intellectual Property" and may become "tainted" by it.

Yeah, that's definitely a danger of dancing with the bear. For now, I'll assume that the crossplatform love-in at MS is the real deal. If that is so, then there must be some business advantage to MS to do this now.

Exactly: (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238321)

The key point to remember here is that Microsoft acting friendly towards Linux is not the same thing as Microsoft acting friendly towards Free Software. If this Silverlight stuff -- even the Mono implmentation -- is actually open enough that it could have been released under the GPLv3 without somebody getting sued, I'll eat my hat!

Re:What the ...? (1)

Mockylock (1087585) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238413)

As long as both linux and Microsoft exist, there will never be a complete yin/yang understanding. Even if Microsoft made their own flavor of linux, they would still be under fire.

Looks like the MS fanbois got mod points. (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238609)

Deal with it.

Ballmer talks about how the GPL is a "cancer". Yet you hang out on /. hoping to get mod points so you can bury comments you don't like.

That doesn't change the facts.

Microsoft can put Microsoft coders to work releasing Microsoft products on Linux.
Microsoft can license those products under whatever license Microsoft wants.
And no one could complain.

But when Microsoft talks about "working with" non-Microsoft coders to get Microsoft products on Linux, there's too much of a risk of Microsoft's "Intellectual Property" being "improperly" incorporated into such projects.

Everyone who isn't a Microsoft fanboi needs to ask themselves WHY Microsoft wouldn't handle such project itself, with its own people, if it saw the need for such on Linux.

yuck (1)

cyphercell (843398) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238091)

So this is like ActiveX 2.0, the cross platform edition? Another with Ajax, Flash, and a host of other technologies, silverlight just seems like a blatant attempt at locking the net into the .Net framework.

One word... ActiveX (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238097)

Silverlight may port but all the stuff that Silverlight pograms are going to link into are NOT. ActiveX, DirectX, etc are not going to port. Unless Microsoft plans on going whole hog on cross platform compatibility, this is only an attempt to get the web dev community which has historically been LAMP/JAVA based to switch to Microsoft products and not to actually provide a cros platform product. People think Silverlight is the answer but once people start tying into Microsofts backend (as I'm sure they want), you can say goodbye to that cross platform compatibility and Firefox's market share as you will again require IE and Windows to use Silverlight alot of those programs that use AciveX and DirectX and others of the Microsoft non-cross platform tools and features.

Re:One word... ActiveX (2, Insightful)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238149)

ActiveX? Are you fracking kidding me? Microsoft itself has admitted that ActiveX was a major cluster-fuck from a security view. It seems more like they want Silverlight to replace ActiveX.

Re:One word... ActiveX (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238669)

Yes, but they never said that Silverlight won't also be a major cluster-fuck from a security view.

Re:One word... ActiveX (4, Insightful)

Mattintosh (758112) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238311)

There's no need to port all that stuff.

ActiveX is dead. Microsoft doesn't do anything with it, and there certainly isn't an interoperability push for .Net-to-ActiveX. There's a tiny amount of support for COM interop in the full .Net library. In case you don't know, COM is the mid-90's ugly-hack programming "standard" that Microsoft pushed for library (dll) programming.

DirectX is simply "the Windows graphics API". Microsoft has stopped trying to make it more than that. Once upon a time, they wanted to go up against OpenGL, but when they realized they'd have to play nice on other platforms and give up some "superiority" in the gaming market (read: the only thing people "need" Windows for), they dropped the idea and moved on.

Silverlight is a subset of .Net. It's going to be .Net-by-the-ECMA-standard instead of .Net-direct-from-R&D-in-Redmond. Which is basically Mono anyway. It wouldn't be wise for Microsoft to attempt to kill Silverlight after getting everyone to use it, either. Web designers and programmers move from one technology to another very quickly. Ajax already is losing ground to better stuff. Perl isn't as popular as it once was. Neither is PHP. Nor Tomcat. And since much of the Silverlight development for non-Windows platforms is done by the Mono project, I'd guess that Microsoft has minimal control of whether or not updates are issued. And that's ignoring the fact that it's all based on a published standard.

I don't think Microsoft can get away with the same shenanigans they pulled in times past.

Re:One word... ActiveX (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238411)

DirectX is simply "the Windows graphics API". Microsoft has stopped trying to make it more than that. Once upon a time, they wanted to go up against OpenGL, but when they realized they'd have to play nice on other platforms and give up some "superiority" in the gaming market (read: the only thing people "need" Windows for), they dropped the idea and moved on.


DirectX is high performance graphics, sound, input (keyboard/mouse/joystic), and I think a couple other things API for Windows. The main Windows graphics API is something else (GDI I think?)

OpenGL is the graphics only one. Were it cross platform, I doubt OpenGL would compete with DirectX, since DirectX bundles everything. Though with LibSDL, you can get the same effect with only two libraries, rather than one for each thing...

Re:One word... ActiveX (1)

Mattintosh (758112) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238843)

GDI for Windows 9x/ME, GDI+ for Windows NT/2k/XP. Vista uses DirectX for everything.

What I meant was "DirectX is simply the Windows 3D graphics API" as opposed to it being a real cross-platform replacement for OpenGL.

Re:One word... ActiveX (0, Redundant)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238897)

Ahh, sorry for nitpicking, but I must

"Direct3D is simplty the Windows-only 3D graphics API"

Re:One word... ActiveX (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238481)

Sliverlight is client side not server side. It is a competitor to Flash and Ajax. It doesn't compete with LAMP since LAMP is serverside.

Silverlight like Flash is useful for things like video "YouTube" and "rich" interfaces. It is also regularly abused for ads, and other such total BS.

SVG "Pretty much killed by Adobe" and the Ogg Theora tag would be my ideal replacements for Both Flash and Silverlight. The Open Source community have been too slow in developing them so Microsoft has this opportunity. We shouldn't complain when we leave Microsoft a huge opening like this. It is a market niche that they where bound to exploit sooner or later. If there had been a great FOSS product already filling that need then Microsoft would have a much harder time. The only competitor is Flash which is even less Open than Sliverlight!

Re:One word... ActiveX (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238711)

Has the open source community ever NOT been slow at developing anything?

Re:One word... ActiveX (0, Troll)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238817)

Has the open source community ever NOT been slow at developing anything?

Fast, Secure, Reliable. Pick two.*


*This is a generalization, like all generalization not applicable to all cases, use at own risk, may cause cancer in lab rats, yada yada yada.

Re:One word... ActiveX (3, Informative)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238567)

Unless Microsoft plans on going whole hog on cross platform compatibility, this is only an attempt to get the web dev community which has historically been LAMP/JAVA based

Huh? I made my living as a web developer using MS as a platform. So did everyone at my former employer (who is being bought out). I don't think you know the true market, because we never had any problem finding clients.

Quick! (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238123)

Someone get the 'itsatrap' tag in here quick! We know it's impossible for Microsoft to directly support a competitor in any way. /sarcasm
Seriously, if they actually make good on this and continue to support the Mono version, more power to them.

Re:Quick! (1)

sayfawa (1099071) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238203)

Yeah. Maybe I haven't been paying attention to the tech world for long enough, or maybe I'm just gullible, but I'm starting to think that MS is actually starting to see the value of contributing to open source.

At the very least, it makes for good /. articles, what with all the suspicion and guessing about what their intentions are.

Re:Quick! (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238281)

Someone get the 'itsatrap' tag in here quick! We know it's impossible for Microsoft to directly support a competitor in any way. /sarcasm
Seriously, if they actually make good on this and continue to support the Mono version, more power to them.


You should have used /naive, not /sarcasm. It's not impossible for Microsoft to directly support a competitor without any tricks, it's merely without precedent in their entire history. Seriously, it is completely normal for Microsoft to appear to directly support a competitor for a while, to support cross-platform interoperability at first, and then once everyone is complacent -- and more importantly using Microsoft software -- they pull the rug out from under them.

It most certainly is a trap, like every Microsoft move at being "open". Oh developers are concerned Silverlight will be locked to the Windows platform? Oh, don't worry, we're porting it to Linux! So the still-mostly-Windows development community starts using Silverlight, thereby getting locked into to using it, and then suddenly you find that the non-Windows versions are lagging behind in their patch level, and new features are coming in that require some Windows-only feature, and suddenly you're once again locked into Windows.

But yeah, maybe I'm wrong, and this is completely different than every other trick MS has pulled. I hear Bill Gates was born again last week.

Microsoft's future (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238153)

I have often wondered when Microsoft's troubles will come home to roost. The problem with fences is that not only do they keep others out, they keep you in. Microsoft has gone to great trouble to lock people to their OS, and to design it with that lockin in mind rather then security or speed or reliability. At some point, it will be too crippled to compete with Linux. I don't mean next year, I mean 5 or ten years down the line.

It seems to me that Microsoft has to eventually modernize, and the easiest way would be to drop Windows and go with Linux. By easiest, I don't mean best for Linux fanboys, I mean with the least effort on their part. It would be easier to write a system call translate layer than write a brand new OS from the ground up. It will also make it harder to write in the crippleware lockin features they love so much.

Now I doubt Microsoft will want to do this any time soon. But they could migrate that way slowly, starting with porting their Office suite to Linux. As I understand it, they have only two profit centers -- the OS, mostly from OEM installs, and Office.

So I wonder if this move to cross platform, and their two recent open source licenses, is their way of dipping their toes in the water. I don't say they have a ten year plan for this, but maybe small ventures like this one will eventually turn into a full blown platform-neutral version of Office, and maybe a way to wean themselves from the burden of maintaining their crippled lockin OS.

How cross-platform are we talking here? (3, Informative)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238159)

How exactly is Microsoft going to be supporting these cross-platform apps? Maybe they're thinking about doing what they did with IE on Macintosh, produce a version for other platforms, then stop distributing or providing updates to it once they decide it's no longer convenient.

Business applications are kind of strange beasts in the software world because of the long usage life they're expected to see. That's one of the reasons companies often want some big name company behind a product because they're afraid somewhere down the road the company might fold and they'd be left without support for a vital application. The problem is most of these companies haven't yet realized that open source applications provide much better guarantee because even if the original developers quit working on the application, it's always possible for someone else to take up the reins. In a proprietary system, even with a big developer behind it, there is nothing insuring that development continues on any given application.

Of course, in this case it sounds like maybe Microsoft is doing the right thing and actually helping the Mono guys make their product compatible with Microsoft's, but I'll still be wary of anything Microsoft is distributing directly.

Re:How cross-platform are we talking here? (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238323)

the GNU/GPL goes against microsoft's philosophy too much, i would think microsoft would sooner follow Apple's example and make their own fork of BSD for a base system and build on top of that. the BSD license allows this --not-the-GPL

Re:How cross-platform are we talking here? (2, Interesting)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238885)

``Business applications are kind of strange beasts in the software world because of the long usage life they're expected to see. That's one of the reasons companies often want some big name company behind a product because they're afraid somewhere down the road the company might fold and they'd be left without support for a vital application.''

Considering that, it's strange that people keep going with Microsoft, which isn't exactly folding, but has been known to pull the rug from under people's feet once in a while. New OS releases that come with new and incompatible driver models. New Office releases that save in new file formats that can't be read by older software. Visual Basic 6 will no longer be supported. Oh, and they gave you free, automatic upgrade to Internet Explorer 7. Right, that means Internet Explorer 6 won't work anymore, and neither will software that requires it. Oh, your app doesn't work in Vista? Well, guess you'll have to update it. And on and on.

Microsoft isn't actually all that terrible when it comes to backward compatibility, but they don't exactly provide a stable platform, either. You know there's something wrong when people complain about Vista being released too _soon_ after XP.

Bad news... (1)

Organic Brain Damage (863655) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238169)

...for Adobe and Flash/Flex. For Linux, it's no news.

As for locking people into .NET...well, I've worked with .NET, at least the handcuffs are golden.

cross platform is meaningless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238193)

The F/OSS community has by and large rejected Mono due to total (and warranted) distrust of Microsoft.

I don't care if $silly_marketing_product_name runs on linux, OSX, FreeBSD and Haiku. I don't trust Microsoft and I don't want a software on my box that will let them extort money through threats of patent litigation. I trust Sun a whole lot more and if $silly_product_name gets big we can legally reverse engineer it implement it on top of the JVM.

this might be good. (4, Interesting)

igotmybfg (525391) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238195)

Honestly, the MSFT folks are a bunch of smart people. They hire pretty much only the best. I would wager that a significant chunk of their workforce, and even a majority of their developers and researchers, would love to do interoperability and open-source. If they can convince the business guys, the people in charge who make the high level decisions, that cooperating is better than extending and extinguishing, they're on the way to making the software world a better place for all.

Re:this might be good. (1, Troll)

Locutus (9039) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238579)

gawd are you living in a dream world. Developers at Microsoft do not run the company and do not determine direction. Never have and never will so wake up and smell the acid that's eating your brain. Microsoft is out to terminate Adobe Flash, gain control of the cross-platform AJAX developers, stop Firefox growth, and force Google to work under Microsofts terms.

Microsoft is losing control of the development community. First it was Java on the servers, Then it was AJAX, and now with the addition of Adobe Flash and Flex. They are losing control and they know it. MS Silverlight is one attempt at bringing those all home to Microsoft and Microsoft's control. Watch for some massive campaign to tie MS Silverlight into college CS curriculum real soon. Remember all the financial deals MSFT was making which resulted in dropped Java courses and added MS .Net courses?

MS Silverlight is their golden egg laying goose. The world needs that goose to drop no egg. IMO.

LoB

Jumping the gun a little, aren't we? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238197)

by extending its excellent development ecosystem cross-platorm.

We haven't even established that this product is mediocre yet, let alone 'excellent'. Lets see if its even worth side-tracking the resources of a lot of developers before we drink this particular Kool-Aide.

Re:Jumping the gun a little, aren't we? (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238451)

Think they were referring to .NET when they said "excellent development ecosystem cross-platorm"

Re:Jumping the gun a little, aren't we? (1)

Nef (46782) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238523)

I think that comment was more referring to Visual Studio and it's associated tool set than to Silverlight itself. While VS certainly has it's own share of problems, it's by far the most productive dev system I've ever used, and this coming from someone who traditionally does most coding in vi or Notepad++. (And for reference, I've used quite a few IDE's including Eclips, NetBeans and more, and none hold a candle to VS in ease of use or productivity enhancement)

Off-topic question (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238219)

How do I load a file into readline?

I have a number of short one-line scripts that I sometimes want to change slightly before executing. I'd like to be able to somehow read this right into readline so I can edit it and then hit enter to execute.

Is this possible?

Re:Off-topic question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238695)

You can put readline macros in ~/.inputrc. The readline(3) man page tells you how, and the readline package for your OS should include some examples in a documentation directory, e.g. /usr/share/doc/libreadline5/examples.

Re:Off-topic question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238829)

A simple macro suffices only for a single line of text. Suppose I want to be able to edit any number of one-line commands prior to executing them.

Right now I'm forced to copy-and-paste using gnome-terminal but that's an ugly solution. Ideally, there would be some command that would change the contents of the edit buffer to the contents of whatever file I choose.

Thanks for trying.

Re:Off-topic question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238865)

man sed
man awk

Then Google both.

I could believe if I hadn't seen... (1)

thelima (1045360) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238225)

...many examples before. Have You remember Internet Explorer for Unix? Cross-Platform Active X? Anything Microsoft did cross-platform before and it survived for more than few months? If not, why someone should believe this is THE case, THIS time? Artur

For one (2, Informative)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238511)

Everyones a skeptic, I know, but there are a few good signs. For one, the dev work isn't being done at Microsoft, its being spearheaded by the MONO crew. The Microsoft folks are kind of technical advisors, in direct contact with the Linux developers, giving advice and recommendations on implementation, etc. That I think is the biggest sign this will be a success. This isn't an internal project that we know of based on a memo or press release, this is an active project [mono-project.com] which has screenshots [mono-project.com] and source that can be downloaded and played with ...

Excellent Development Ecosystem?? (-1, Troll)

oaklybonn (600250) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238231)

Seriously, I've tried using the visual studio tools and I can't believe how mind boggling unproductive I find them to be.

I mean, when you hit compile, it generates and spews out a command line to a little text window. Which is fine, but it doesn't bother to actually parse that data and present it in a meaningful way. You end up scrolling through dozens of warnings (if you're not compiling with the equivilent of -ferror) to find relevant errors.

Oh, and then there's deployment. I worked for a while with some folks that had a C++ application that talked with the Microsoft SQL database and IIS. Their "push" procedure involved remote desktop to the server, clicking buttons to take down the server, pointing it at the maintenance site, creating a new directory in the file explorer, naming it correctly and copying the existing database files to it, copying over the newly compiled bits, testing it in situ and finally pointing the server back to the live site.

This took them between 3 and 6 hours, every Friday night. I asked them why they can't just write a shell script (or dos shell script, whatever the hell windows has) and they said that it would take too long to develop that. Idiots.

But thats not what I'm here to rant at you about. I'm here to rant about Visual Studio. Why, if the OS is called Windows, am I only allowed to have one of them in my development environment? I never got the MDI thing, but I routinely, on Mac OS, have 20 source files open and visible. Why does Visual Studio insist on cramming them into one single pane? Gargh, its frustrating. Why can't the compiler take normal command line switches with meaningful names? Since we're talking about the "development ecosystem", why does the command.com shell so completely fail at being useful?

The debugger is even worse, hiding and showing things based on what it *thinks* I want to see. The only benefit it has over gdb on the command line is mixed assembly/source view, but at least with gdb I can quickly disassemble whatever I need to, not just where the PC is.

Can someone please describe what is so great about visual studio? I've heard other people say it, but I really don't see it. (Please compare and contrast to Eclipse and/or Xcode.)

(FWIW, I use Xcode to manage my projects and I do a lot of editing with the editor since its there, but I do all my debugging in gdb/emacs since Xcode's debugger sucked ass the last time I tried it...)

Re:Excellent Development Ecosystem?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238465)

I think it sucks compared to Eclipse/Java. Stock, there's little refactoring support, the templates/generators aren't a nice to access, the code completion isn't nearly as context smart, and the list goes on. Eclipse is just much more complete and seems to know what I want to do more than VS.

Re:Excellent Development Ecosystem?? (4, Insightful)

CaymanIslandCarpedie (868408) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238475)

I mean, when you hit compile, it generates and spews out a command line to a little text window. Which is fine, but it doesn't bother to actually parse that data and present it in a meaningful way. You end up scrolling through dozens of warnings (if you're not compiling with the equivilent of -ferror) to find relevant errors.

Of course if you choose to view the raw output via the "Output" view, then yes you will get that. Of course, I always find it much easier to choose the "Error List" view where you can just toggle to choose if you want to see errors and/or warnings and/or information messages. Then just click on each any item in that list to take me to the corresponding issue in code.

I think the above shows your level of "I've tried using visual studio tools", so I don't see the need to go further (in fact I didn't read any further) ;-)

Amen. (1)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238643)

I think the above shows your level of "I've tried using visual studio tools", so I don't see the need to go further (in fact I didn't read any further) ;-)

Apparently 5 minutes in the IDE is all GP needed to discover he didn't like it. I actually read the whole post and the entire thing was filled with things that were easily correctable, like what you pointed out.

When I first tried tabbed browsing, I honestly didn't like it. I first tried giving it a shot in Firefox and then in IE when IE7 came out. Now I use Firefox 2 throughout the day (except when I'm debugging in VS2005) and I wouldn't want to live without tabs.

Some people fear change.

Re:Excellent Development Ecosystem?? (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238565)

Agreed, the last Windows development I did was some years ago, but even then VC++ and later Visual Studio got kind of annoying. But their debugger really is good, and very fast too even on crappy hardware.

I think it's probably hard to design an IDE that appeals to everyone. Clearly VS appeals to some wide developer demographic, or else it wouldn't be the success that it is. But there will always be those who write and compile everything manually, and if they hop into an IDE at all, it's to use the debugger (for Java development, I debug in IDEA, and it's pretty sweet. I'd never actually edit code in it, though).

Re:Excellent Development Ecosystem?? (5, Interesting)

Mattintosh (758112) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238713)

You end up scrolling through dozens of warnings (if you're not compiling with the equivilent of -ferror) to find relevant errors.

I see you haven't discovered the "Error List" window. View > Error List (Alt-V-I or Ctrl-/-E). It has 3 toolbar buttons at the top (checked-state type) one for errors, one for warnings, one for messages.

I asked them why they can't just write a shell script (or dos shell script, whatever the hell windows has) and they said that it would take too long to develop that. Idiots.

Idiots, indeed. Create a new installer project. Tell it to use the output of one or more of the other projects in your solution. (Solutions are multi-project binders, projects are apps, libraries, services, sites, etc.) You can even add wizards and (*shudder*) registry entries in addition to the regular file copying functions. You can specify new files/folders/shortcuts in the program files, start menu, or any other place in the filesystem. From nothing to a functional (but ugly) installer takes little more than 5 minutes. And it handles all the uninstall stuff (and install-new-version-in-place-of-the-old-one stuff) for you too (your program will appear in the Add/Remove Programs panel automatically).

Why, if the OS is called Windows, am I only allowed to have one of them in my development environment? ... Why does Visual Studio insist on cramming them into one single pane?

Again, you didn't actually learn to use the tool. Tools > Options (Alt-T-O) shows you the typically huge (and rightfully so) options pane of an IDE. It's no larger or more complex than Eclipse's, if you want to get into comparisons. But notably, the first option on the first pane of the first item listed in the tree-control on the left (Environment > General) is called "Window Layout". It has a set of two radio buttons. The first one is the default, labelled "Tabbed documents". The second one is labelled "Multiple Documents". I'm guessing you want the second one.

Can someone please describe what is so great about visual studio? I've heard other people say it, but I really don't see it. (Please compare and contrast to Eclipse and/or Xcode.)

Personally, I find the all-in-one IDE (Eclipse and VS) much more usable than the everything-spread-over-hell-and-creation IDE (Xcode).

VS has advantages in working with .Net because it's optimized for that. The code-assist, templates, and help files are all geared toward .Net development. If you're doing .Net, there's nothing better. That's where VS's advantages stop, though.

Eclipse kicks VS's ass in supporting eleventy-thousand languages and has a slightly less developed template system, probably due to most of those languages' plugins being in perpetual beta. Code-assist is nearly non-existent in anything other than Java, and is mostly useless because of that. Help files are also non-existent.

Xcode is geared toward C and Objective-C. Ugh. Screw that crap. It complains if you try to use Java, and it seems to ignore your commands if you try to use C++. You aren't doing it The One True Way With The One True Programming Language (Obj-C), thus you aren't worthy of, well, anything. Get off its lawn. I'm not wild about Xcode, mostly for that reason. Apple includes PHP, Perl, Python, Ruby (?), and probably a half-dozen other nice little languages with their systems, but they don't get off their ass and add the necessary meta-code to make Xcode work properly for those languages.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if Microsoft would give Windows up as a good try and focus on bringing .Net and VS to other platforms, as well as keeping up Office and Visio, they could still dominate the software industry without the headaches that Windows brings. I want VS and .Net for the Mac!

Re:Excellent Development Ecosystem?? (3, Informative)

Rycross (836649) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238737)

I mean, when you hit compile, it generates and spews out a command line to a little text window. Which is fine, but it doesn't bother to actually parse that data and present it in a meaningful way. You end up scrolling through dozens of warnings (if you're not compiling with the equivilent of -ferror) to find relevant errors.

Huh? You're looking at the Output window, which shows the build output. Visual Studio does parse that into a list of errors and warnings, accessable from, the "Error List" window. You can turn off warnings in this window to just show the errors. Double clicking on the errors will take you to the correct source file and line that generated the error.

Oh, and then there's deployment. I worked for a while with some folks that had a C++ application that talked with the Microsoft SQL database and IIS. Their "push" procedure involved remote desktop to the server, clicking buttons to take down the server, pointing it at the maintenance site, creating a new directory in the file explorer, naming it correctly and copying the existing database files to it, copying over the newly compiled bits, testing it in situ and finally pointing the server back to the live site. This took them between 3 and 6 hours, every Friday night. I asked them why they can't just write a shell script (or dos shell script, whatever the hell windows has) and they said that it would take too long to develop that. Idiots.

Yes, they're idiots. We do all of this automatically through NAnt. I'm pretty sure you can do this all through the command line if you're masochistic (quite frankly, the Windows command line sucks hairy balls). But theres seriously no excuse not to have deployment automated, especially if its taking several hours.

But thats not what I'm here to rant at you about. I'm here to rant about Visual Studio. Why, if the OS is called Windows, am I only allowed to have one of them in my development environment? I never got the MDI thing, but I routinely, on Mac OS, have 20 source files open and visible. Why does Visual Studio insist on cramming them into one single pane?

Theres a setting in Visual Studio that lets you switch to a windowed environment. Tools->Options->Environment->General->Window Layout->Multiple Documents. It still constrains those source code windows to the area of the parent window (Visual Studio's window), but you can pane them and everything. If what you want is to be able to drag the source code windows outside of the main Visual Studio window, then you can't do that. I would agree that it would be much nicer if you could. I prefer the tab layout, personally.

Gargh, its frustrating. Why can't the compiler take normal command line switches with meaningful names?

I use MSBuild to compile our app, and it takes command line switches. I'm not sure what kind of switches you are looking for, however. You don't get things like specific optimization switches, since those are in the project settings, but I typically build one of a set of pre-defined modes (Release, Debug, etc).

Since we're talking about the "development ecosystem", why does the command.com shell so completely fail at being useful?

cmd sucks. Big time. It would be nice if they could actually start pushing powershell, but thats unlikely to happen anytime soon. They should have put it in Vista, at the very least. Hopefully their next server product has it.

The debugger is even worse, hiding and showing things based on what it *thinks* I want to see. The only benefit it has over gdb on the command line is mixed assembly/source view, but at least with gdb I can quickly disassemble whatever I need to, not just where the PC is.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any examples of the debugger hiding and showing me things. It pretty much shows me what I ask it to.

Can someone please describe what is so great about visual studio? I've heard other people say it, but I really don't see it. (Please compare and contrast to Eclipse and/or Xcode.)

Of those two, I've only used Eclipse, and only a little bit, so I don't think I could give you a valid comparison. I would have to say that I like Visual Studio because I find it very usable. For C++ I find it kinda meh. But I do a lot of coding in .Net for my job, and thats where it shines. Not that theres a lot of other options for .Net development, mind you, so I guess it kinda wins by default there. If you're not doing .Net work, I'm pretty sure you could find equivalent or better.

Re:Excellent Development Ecosystem?? (2, Informative)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238769)

I mean, when you hit compile, it generates and spews out a command line to a little text window. Which is fine, but it doesn't bother to actually parse that data and present it in a meaningful way. You end up scrolling through dozens of warnings (if you're not compiling with the equivilent of -ferror) to find relevant errors.

*Sigh* Here we go. Its call the "Error List" window. By default its there, so I would go and reopen it the next time you compile. Code properly, and the warnings go away. If you can't figure out good coding practices, then clicking on the Warnings button on the Error List window will filter out all the warnings.

Oh, and then there's deployment. I worked for a while with some folks that had a C++ application that talked with the Microsoft SQL database and IIS. Their "push" procedure involved remote desktop to the server, clicking buttons to take down the server, pointing it at the maintenance site, creating a new directory in the file explorer, naming it correctly and copying the existing database files to it, copying over the newly compiled bits, testing it in situ and finally pointing the server back to the live site.

Sounds like that's the process they wanted. My deployment is a simple nant script. All it does is copy files and create and sign a manifest file. I use Sql Compare to update the database along with some custom scripts. That's it. I can do an upgrade in 15 minutes. ClickOnce is a great way to deploy an application.

This took them between 3 and 6 hours, every Friday night. I asked them why they can't just write a shell script (or dos shell script, whatever the hell windows has) and they said that it would take too long to develop that. Idiots.

How is that the fault of any MS product?

But thats not what I'm here to rant at you about. I'm here to rant about Visual Studio. Why, if the OS is called Windows, am I only allowed to have one of them in my development environment? I never got the MDI thing, but I routinely, on Mac OS, have 20 source files open and visible. Why does Visual Studio insist on cramming them into one single pane? Gargh, its frustrating. Why can't the compiler take normal command line switches with meaningful names? Since we're talking about the "development ecosystem", why does the command.com shell so completely fail at being useful?

I guess you don't know how to redock the windows or use the split pane features. I also guess csc /? is too hard for your. If you want to script something, there's the newer Powershell coming down the line. Until then, Nant is a wonderful scripting tool.

The debugger is even worse, hiding and showing things based on what it *thinks* I want to see. The only benefit it has over gdb on the command line is mixed assembly/source view, but at least with gdb I can quickly disassemble whatever I need to, not just where the PC is.

Ya, its a pain how it makes the point the exception occurred at highlite in yellow, with a big box pointing to the line explaining what the exception is, and what some common causes are. That's AWFUL. How dare it do exactly what you tell it to (no, it doesn't change its behavior randomly, there are settings that YOU control which dicate how much to show or hide).

Can someone please describe what is so great about visual studio? I've heard other people say it, but I really don't see it. (Please compare and contrast to Eclipse and/or Xcode.)

Maybe if you took the time to learn the tool you'd have an easier time.

Re:Excellent Development Ecosystem?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238801)

Your a dumb ass. Try using a product before you rant about it. I bet you played with it for a week or two and that was it. Much like the people who try Linux for a month and hate it. All you Linux/mac people kick and scream that if they only spent more time with it. Well right back at you, why don't you spend more time with Visual Studio.

Re:Excellent Development Ecosystem?? (1)

blindd0t (855876) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238863)

Let me start with the whole MDI/Tabbed interface thing: if you're using a Mac, I can see where you're coming from. However, when you have a "task bar" showing you all open windows (rather than all open applications as OSX does), it gets cluttered very quickly, as does the alt-tab selection. This is where it comes in particularly handy.

Oh, and to bring you up speed with the Windows command line is sadly still sorely lacking in the flexibility of shell scripting, though Windows PowerShell [wikipedia.org] is a vast improvement available for Windows 2003 Server and will be included with Windows 2008 Server

Now, quite a good deal of what you've mentioned about Visual Studio really don't include the more visual aspects of it, much of which focus around Microsoft-centric technologies. For example, if you're going to use a visual designer for QT-driven GUIs, you'll probably use the QT designer (though I must admit QT GUI development is simple enough to not really need a visual approach like this, imo). Likewise, if you are going to create an MFC application, it makes sense to use Visual Studio. The same is true, of course, for .NET's System.Windows.Form namepsace. One also has to admit that Microsoft did implement features such as IntelliSense (yes, I expect you probably dislike their implementation) pretty early on.

I've done my fair share of development on Windows and Linux, and I've dabbled with XCode on OSX. My personal opinion is that the tools available on all platforms each have their individual strengths and weaknesses, but my preference definitely leans toward Eclipse. I suspect that the primary reason for using Visual Studio is for those developing with/for Microsoft-centric technologies, which is really quite practical. For others, it is a matter of simply not knowing (and not caring to know) about the alternatives out there (I'd say QT easily has the upper hand on MFC, of course) and/or staying with their comfort-zone.

So unfortunately, I was unable to tell you what makes Visual Studio so much better than Eclipse or XCode; however, they all fulfill their purposes well, in my humble opinion. So now it's just a matter of sitting back and waiting for the super Microsoft-haters to berate me for saying that something from Microsoft is actually useful, as there's no way so many business could use them if they weren't. :-)

Interesting To See (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238235)

I can only imagine how many ways this can go bad, and I am sure that I am not alone. But how about all of us that think that this likely to go bad just be quiet on this one - lets hope for the best, what's the worse than happen?

eh? (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238255)

"...and wonders whether the company couldn't make money -- and win friends"

Didn't learn anything at all from the elementary school story about the fox/crow/rabbit and the hungry, hungry alligator, eh?

But MS will still control its development., right? (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238257)

Clarify for me please. From what I know, Microsoft will still control Silverlight's development. If I am right, then I guess the Linux version will always be "inferior" as compared to its Windows counterpart, right?

Anyone remember how IE and Microsoft Office had similar stories on Windows and the Mac? Tell me this will not happen again.

Famous Quote (1)

popejeremy (878903) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238273)

"When Microsoft writes an application for Linux, I've Won." - Linus Torvalds

Re:Famous Quote (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238391)

Sorry, but don't pull out the Guinness just yet:
1) Microsoft isin't writing it, it's the Mono team, with guidance from MS
2) And they aren't really writing it for Linux, they're writing it for Mono, which is a cross-OS develpoment platform (like Java) that happens to run on Linux, as well as other OSes.

Re:Famous Quote (1)

HomerJ (11142) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238641)

Then Linux won like 12 years ago, when I ran Microsoft's DirectShow client for Linux.

Won't happen (2, Insightful)

JosefAssad (1138611) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238279)

The development ecosystem is not a profit center, it is a means to drive demand for the Microsoft platform.

Office and Windows are what is keeping Microsoft alive, and they know it.

Read [arstechnica.com], and read [com.com].

I'm not going to rag on the writer of TFA since he makes it clear he's presenting things from the perspective of a developer, but from the business side, no way. Ever.

their goal is to protect Windows, Flash Must Die (5, Insightful)

Locutus (9039) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238305)

I'm sorry but MS Sliverlight is a direct attack on Adobe and their Flash product and this is a direct move to protect the Windows monopoly. Adobe Flash is a well established development platform which runs across all desktop computing platforms. Heck, Nokia even has it running on the N800. Adobe is the new Netscape and Flash the new Navigator with MS Silverlight being the new MS Internet Explorer.

So anything which grows that MS product will be good for protecting the Windows monopoly. If Flash is killed off, and in typical Microsoft fashion, MS Silverlight will become a Windows-only product. In 20 years of Microsoft history, there is absolutely NOTHING which shows any other path. A press release does not mean squat when it comes from Microsoft. Talk about doublespeak and truthiness.

And to even think that Microsoft wants to help enable Linux by the goodness of their heart is a fool. At Microsoft, it's all about 'Adobe must die, Linux must die. Long live Windows, long live Microsoft.' and only a complete newbie would/could think otherwise. IMO.

LoB

Re:their goal is to protect Windows, Flash Must Di (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238585)

I see... So because there is already a well established product out there, there is no need for another compeeting product? Personally I've never looked at silverlight beyond thier demo site, I wasn't all that impressed. But I can't stand working with flash. If silverlight uses .NET I'm all for it, I'd rather have a consistant development environment than work in both VS and the Flash IDE.

It's the dev tools that matter (1)

ehanuise (672994) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238343)

Porting the plugin makes sense, but will the dev tools be available on other platforms than windows ?
If not, move around, nothing to see.

Frontpage is cross platform (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238347)

Microsoft supports cross platform capabilities for their web editing program, Frontpage. Frontpage users have been able to upload their pages to Linux servers for years.

Re:Frontpage is cross platform (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238443)

Frontpage users have been able to upload their pages to Linux servers for years.


You say that like it's a good thing!

Re:Frontpage is cross platform (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238525)

Frontpage users have been able to upload their pages to Linux servers for years.

That defect will soon be patched.

You have to be joking, right? (5, Informative)

theolein (316044) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238433)

John Carroll the author of the FUD piece, who literally spent years doing trolling the ZDNet talkback forums back in the day in support of Microsoft, so much so that, lo and behold, he was then given a column of his own to write Microsoft FUD articles, and was eventually, in 2005 awarded with a job at Microsoft, something he's been hoping for for years (only took him something like 7 years). The guy is the biggest shill for Microsoft I have ever seen. He was praising VB and ASP as being superior to Java (no lie, look it up in the archives at ZDNet) back when the whole .Net circus was still a wet fart in BillG's pants. It is HIS JOB to paint Microsoft in a favourable light and as being better than anything else.

Does anyone really expect Microsoft to continue development of Silverlight for Mac and/or Linux after Silverlight has killed Flash? After Microsoft killed Internet Explorer for Mac and Windows Media Player for Mac (not that they even remotely considered maknig any of that available on Linux)? You trust them? You trust some guy who has been praising Microsoft exclusively to the detriment of all else for almost a decade?

You have to be joking, right?

Cross-platform (ideally) means platform-agnostic (3, Insightful)

yoprst (944706) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238441)

Microsoft is trying to expand their platform, which won't make you platform-agnostic at all. While that can technically be labeled as cross platform it isn't what either you or me would call cross-platform.

Tread cautiously, Penguins (1)

RiffRafff (234408) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238471)

I cannot tell you just how much my wolf-in-sheep's-clothing detector is tingling (okay, it's just the hairs on the back of my neck, but still).

Be verwy, verwy careful...

What if the customers became savvy? (2, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238583)

What if the third party developers develop tools for Silverlight in Linux and these tools become very important for the customers? MSFT can release the next version and wait for the previous one in Linux to die a quiet death. But if the customers refuse to budge? Could this happen. I know it is almost wishful thinking but still, why would the customers continue to play the same game after knowing so much about the tactics of MSFT?

Re:What if the customers became savvy? (1)

orclevegam (940336) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238723)

What if the third party developers develop tools for Silverlight in Linux and these tools become very important for the customers?

In that case I imagine certain third party developers would suddenly find a very large cash infusion from Microsoft with certain strings attached. Of course, MS could also opt to simply clone the particular tool and bundle it with Silverlight once again putting the open version at a disadvantage (see IE/Outlook bundled with Windows).

Excellent Development Ecosystem? (4, Informative)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238721)

``extending its excellent development ecosystem cross-platorm.''

Excellent development ecosystem? Don't make me laugh. I've been hearing about the asserted superiority of Microsoft's development tools and the wonderful enterprise features of their products for years, and always thought to myself "well, probably." However, I recently started working in a Microsoft shop and I can tell you first hand that the Microsoft "development ecosystem" is not excellent. It's not terrible, but it's not great, either. Certainly not worlds better than some already available environments (cross-platform or otherwise).

Without going into specifics, I can say that I spend more time struggling with Visual Studio than doing anything else. Most of the features I want are actually there, but it's not always obvious where to find them or how to use them. Some features are missing, or are nominally there, but fail to work in the situations where I need them. Then there is a load of baggage that just gets in the way. Erorr messages that it gives me are almost always uninformative, wrong, or both (my favorite so far is "'1' is null or not an object"). At first, I thought it was just me being inexperienced, but even colleagues with years of experience run into these same issues. And it's not like I'm very demanding; usually, I'm just trying to find out what the value of something is or how the program got to a certain point.

And that's just Visual Studio. We use a number of other Microsoft products in our workflow, and there are issues with most of them. For the most part, these are usability issues. They don't actually prevent you from getting work done, but they do slow you down. Stability issues come a distant second. One issue that hasn't affected me but is affecting the company as a whole is that a lot of time goes into making sure things work with the current _and_ previous versions of Microsoft products. Sometimes, this is as simple as just not using some new feature, but sometimes it takes up a lot of time.

Note that I have purposefully highlighted the bad parts and omitted the good ones. My point is not to give an objective impression of the Microsoft platform for development purposes, but to show that it falls short of excellence. I would never choose it myself, but I wouldn't say it's actually bad. Just not excellent.

Re:Excellent Development Ecosystem? (3, Insightful)

nagora (177841) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238903)

Most of the features I want are actually there, but it's not always obvious where to find them or how to use them. Some features are missing, or are nominally there, but fail to work in the situations where I need them. You are learning the truth of the User Interface Myth. The UIM states that Microsoft/Apple/Whoever have invested lots of money in designing coherent user interfaces which are superior in every way possible to anything in Linux. The User Interface Truth, however, states that these crappy corporate interfaces only work because people are used to them and fear change more than they desire better interfaces. You always know when someone has fallen for the User Interface Myth when you see a "Minimise" widget right up tight against a "Close" widget - a moronic interface error which is blindly followed in the name of "user expectations".

TWW

YHBT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20238797)

John Carroll started out writing pro-MS trolls at ZD net as comments. He was so good at it, garnering loads of comments from ignorant biters (myself included) that they have him writing for ZD now, presumably for money.

Come on, guys, you bought this? Cross platform MS? I'm laughing at the (so far) 77 biters who bit this troll's bait.

I guess myself included, as this is, uh, a comment I guess.

Damn. IHBT.

-mcgrew

Another Standard and Mono is a Boat Anchor (1)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 6 years ago | (#20238859)

Why do I need another 'flash-like' player that has no meda for it, that has no widely availabe development tools, etc.

And I've had to try to install Mono before (on Centos 4) and it was an involved process and then found out a dependency was broken (Centos's prob, low support, "oh well") and stopped there. Then I relized I didn't want to go through all that extra effort of crapifying my systems for one specific program, and located a just as capable light weight alternative that comes without all the cruft.

I'm much less stressed. :-)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...