Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft

Microsoft To Open Source Some of Silverlight 204

Posted by kdawson
from the short-on-ideas dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft To Open Source Some of Silverlight

Comments Filter:
  • Always late... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Beuno (740018) <argentina&gmail,com> on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @05:34AM (#18938355) Homepage
    Am I the only one who gets the feeling they keep on arriving too late every single time?
  • Once a noble idea (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Seiruu (808321) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @05:41AM (#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.
  • Adobe Who? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @06:10AM (#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.
  • Re:Ohhhhh Sources (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @06:17AM (#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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @06:18AM (#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!).
  • Re:Really. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @07:04AM (#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).
  • by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenis.gmail@com> on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @07:30AM (#18938751) Homepage
    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:Really. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kestasjk (933987) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @07:31AM (#18938759) Homepage
    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. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Daengbo (523424) <daengbo@gmaiOPENBSDl.com minus bsd> on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @07:33AM (#18938765) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by tt42 (647778) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @08:01AM (#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]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @08:17AM (#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:Really. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pollardito (781263) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @10:58AM (#18940969)
    i wonder if that might be an old work-around from times when not all browsers were good at displaying alternate character sets?
  • Re:It's Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ady1 (873490) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @12:21PM (#18942313)
    They can also release most of the source code and later change the specifications/implementation and license, making it close source again.
  • Re:Really. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jsebrech (525647) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @12:36PM (#18942559)
    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.

    1. Obviously you have no experience with flex (flex is flash for web app development)
    2. Flash/flex integrates extremely well with both javascript and any and all server-side platforms
    3. ActionScript 3 corresponds to JavaScript 2 (they're both based on the same ECMAScript revision), so anyone who knows javascript knows actionscript.
    4. You don't need to buy anything, the flex sdk is a free download from adobe's site and contains everything you need (compiler, debugger, framework, documentation, getting started guides, ...). The flex sdk is what adobe open-sourced by the way.

    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.

    The flex sdk is easier to learn than most ajax libraries (like yui or gwt). I would find it very difficult to design a framework that is more sensibly structured than flex 2. I used to hate flash also, but having seen what it can do I consider it a must-know technology for any serious web app developer.

    Silverlight feels like a shameless flex rip-off. Until it has a unique selling point other than fitting well into a .NET dev workflow it won't see much adoption outside of .NET shops.
  • Re:Ohhhhh Sources (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thomas.galvin (551471) <.moc.nivlag-samoht. .ta. .todhsals.> on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @01:29PM (#18943453) Homepage

    The OpenLazlo 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.


    You have not experienced pain until you have tried to express a complex UI and set of interactions in XML, with JavaScript embedded in CDATA tags.

    I was really excited about Lazlo when I first heard about it; it seemed like it was "Flash for programmers." But the way they went about implementing it... one more victim of the XML Bandwagon of Doom.

Passwords are implemented as a result of insecurity.

Working...