Code has been released for the open-source version of Silverlight that closes the gap on the as-yet-unfinished next version of Microsoft's browser-based media player. Moonlight 2.0 has been delivered for preview featuring APIs from Microsoft's Silverlight 3.0 that the project's organizers said it made sense to add. Moonlight …
But will it run ITVPlayer?
Still waiting for that fantastic content to be available in Linux... Oh well back to watch ashes to ashes on the iplayer
Why are these clowns insisting on legitimatizing Silverlight for MS?
I understand the need for MS compatibility products such as Wine and Samba which can be useful for switchers to maintain compatibility with existing and ubiquitous MS based products and services.
The keyword here however is "ubiquitous". So far, even 'dozers are resisting the temptation to install Silverlight which is currently making it hard for MS to entrench itself in that particular market space, which has to be a good thing.
It's not as if the internet is covered in great swathes of sites that require Silverlight. Apart from a few high profile sites that MS have bribed into going Silverlight there is hardly anything out there at all.
I wonder if Ballmer is secretly paying this Miguel fellow to do all this work. After all the more people using Silverlight the better, even if some of them are those dirty Linux creeps, and it's not as if he can't just pull the rug out from under those hippies with some well aimed patent lawsuits once Silverlight is entrenched, then he can go back to making sure that Silverlight remains a Windows only lock in technology and just another reason that people will have to run Windows.
What's the bet that the new MS Office product uses Silverlight extensively and will no longer be runnable under wine?
Oh and also, I WANT MY EVIL BALLMER ICON!
That is all.
Just tell us what we all want to know. Does netflix work yet?
"Plus, there's the ability to drag content built in Silverlight out of the browser to run on the desktop."
Why does that sound like something that will be exploited heavily in the future and Microsoft will remove after it is.
MS can shove it where the sun don't shine.
This won't, and never will be, installed on either of my computers. Ever.
works fine for me
Why is Flash an acceptable alternative? It's even more closed. The web needs a rich media player, Flash is a dog. I don't know if Silverlight is much better, but competition = good.
Silverlight crap > Flash shit
Meguel is Meguel. He likes the stuff from Microsoft and he is a big fan of the stuff they do right. He is also a lover of Open Source/Free software and all that. His first move in his carreer was to apply for a position in the Internet Explorer development staff. Tried to convince them to open it, even. But couldn't get the visa to program in the USA.
So combine those two features (love of open source and admiration of Microsoft) and you get things like Gnome and Mono.
Which isn't bad. Gnome, dispite all the KDE fanbois's objections, is the standard Linux desktop environment. It's the most stable one and provides the most advantages to both software open source developers and proprietary ISVs. It provides the most usable desktop and is the simpliest for new users to use.
Mono is fine also. I prefer to have a combination of Python and C, were appropriate, but whatever. It's personal taste.
All the MS hate isn't doing anybody's any favors. They are not satan incarnate nor are they any worse then Adobe, Apple, Oracle, or any other company that makes almost all their money off of proprietary software. If you have any doubts who is the bigger asshole google for "apple sues". For every one Microsoft sues lawsuit you'll find at least 3 for Apple.
In the case of Silverlight it's a open format and documented. Microsoft encourages Moonlight, even going as far as to license codecs for Moonlight users to use.
Meanwhile Adobe flash is still proprietary shit with a 2 half-working open source attempts at compatibility.
If given a choice between Adobe's closed source undocumented crap and Microsoft's documented crap with a decent open source version.. I'll take silverlight every time.
That the gap is closing is irrelevant. What's important is that there is a gap at all. Don't expect MS to ever allow a functional equivalent implementation on linux. It is nothing more an attempt to buy some godwill in standards-concious government-cirles while bullying media-sites into adopting another lock-in technology
I'll second this one, the trick is to ignore it and hope it fades away. I have enough other plugins to maintain, I don't really need another one that largely duplicates functionality that I've already got.
Silverlight moving target
I think Silverlight is better than Flash -- at least, most of the specs are open. However, it seems like Moonlight will never be enough: by the time they got out 1.0, there were absolutely no Silverlight 1 compliant sites left on the web: all had moved on to Silverlight 2. Now that Moonlight 2 is coming, Silverlight 3 will arrive, making it again meaningless. And on, and on?
It is quite likely that even Windows users are not hitting Silverlight's moving target. What proportion of computers are Silverlight 2 enabled today? Probably not that many.
Yes, I see your point.
Well argued sir, I stand corrected.
Or maybe not.
Re: "Why is Flash an acceptable alternative?"
I don't recall suggesting that it is. Having said that though, considering that we already have 1 plugin that provides "a rich multimedia experience" and in my opinion that is one too many.
However, considering we DO have Flash, and also considering that, closed source or not, Flash does run natively and relatively well under Linux* then having another closed but in this case effectively reverse engineered variant is of little value to those outside Fortress Redmond.
Considering that MS has a history of allowing their proprietary tech to become entrenched in a market before attempting to pull it away again either thru use of legal threats or subtle undocumented API changes I see no reason whatsoever to endorse, support or even use any of their products or protocols unless absolutely necessary and as I pointed out earlier there is hardly a surfeit of Silverlight sites, nowhere near enough to make the installation of Moonlight attractive or necessary to me.
* I am aware of the 64 bit tardiness, the patented Adobe bloatiness as well as the occasional crashing issues when using multiple flash sites simultaneously but due to the nature of surfing the net these days I tend to end up using it lot and I don't have a lot of trouble with it, apart from the fact that some websites seem to think it is necessary to download multiple megabytes just to show me a welcome page. Not to mention out of control flash menus. But that is the web devs fault and not Adobes really.
The Flash file format is open and documented, the free java based Flex SDK (compiler and libraries) is likewise open source. There's even an IDE that runs on Linux - for now - but see http://gruchalski.com/2009/04/28/vote-for-flex-builder-for-linux/
"Meguel is Meguel. He likes the stuff from Microsoft and he is a big fan of the stuff they do right. He is also a lover of Open Source/Free software and all that."
Right, so he is what the Soviets used to refer to as a "useful idiot".
Paris, because she's another example of a useful idiot . . .
We all know that MS makes things precisely because they already exist. Silverlight is here because Flash is already successful. However with Flash you only get locked into Flash itself. Silverlight is more sinister.
It's important that once these things take hold they are reimplemented. Portability undermines their entire purpose. The question is when to go ahead. As others here have said, Silverlight hasn't really caught on, so it may be wiser to ignore than implement.
PS @ Frank Gerlach - Lemmings is one of the greatest things ever put on a computer and if VMs are like Lemmings with a capital L (and therefore probably the Lemmings I'm thinking of) then bring on the VMs.
Open Source Headline?
Will people here please stop thinking that Open Source projects always = Linux.
This is not true !!!
Open source can run on a Windows server.
Check out http://www.dotnetnuke.com - a very successful open source framework based on .NET. it's about time this project got some more publicity from the Reg.... please broaden your minds. Just because it runs on MS software it does not mean it isn't Open Source or somehow contaminated!
Just because the base layer might not be open source, it doesn't mean that projects running above this layer aren't open source....!
The headline should have been "Linux closes gap on Microsoft's next Silverlight".
Please Let ITV.COM have your comments. Link Below.
I use the BBC Iplayer (based around the Adobe Air product) on Opensuse Linux which I find works pretty well now they have ironed out a few of the bugs.
However like the first comment it drives me nuts when a company like ITV use silverlight which does not work with Linux ( Moonlight does not work on the ITV.COM website) Even after you install moonlight the ITV.COM insists you install Silverlight which then redirects you to the moonlight download. Typical bloody Microsoft bullshit.
If you use Linux please visit the ITV.COM link below and comment on why you would like to see ITV use a cross platform ( windows/Linux/MAC..) DRM based media player such as Adobe Air like the BBC use and not a product like Silverlight which is only designed to keep out alternative operating system competition.
It takes only a few minutes to give ITV some feedback, you never know they may listen, just like the BBC did.
The silverlight player with ITV for Windows OS's is rubbish as well.... you aren't missing anything.
I don't think they have the server power to cope with demand.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- Peak Facebook: British users lose their Liking for Zuck's ad empire