snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Martin Heller finds Silverlight 3 gaining ground on Adobe Flash, Flex, and AIR in all the areas where Silverlight 2 had lagged. No longer do developers need to build desktop WPF apps based loosely on corresponding Silverlight RIAs, as Silverlight 3 adds the ability to install Silverlight apps on the desktop, update them in place, detect Net connectivity state changes, and store data locally and securely. Moreover, solid Expression Blend 3 and Visual Studio 2010 betas provide developers with much improved tools to create Silverlight RIAs. '"I do not expect many Adobe shops to give up their Flash, Flex, and AIR for Silverlight 3. I do expect many Microsoft shops to do more RIAs with Silverlight now that it's more capable and to create lightweight browser/desktop Silverlight 3 applications where they might have fashioned heavier-weight Windows Forms or WPF client applications," Heller says.'"
Well, not in the grand scheme of things it's not, I'd rather see the likes of Silverlight and Flash dissapear altogether. I think however in this context Silverlight might actually be a good thing. Flash has become so widespread because there was really no challenge to it, Java applets never really ever managed to perform as was originally hoped.
On one hand I'm glad to see some competition for Flash rather than it be allowed effectively a monopoly on RIAs but on the other the worry is of course that this'll just mean more RIAs!
I'd personally rather see the advances in Javascript allow us to move forward for RIAs because no plugin is required, and it's not some compiled proprietary lump of bits. Google's chrome demos mentioned here a couple of months ago looked very promising in this area so hopefully this will eventually the path we see taken for RIAs but in the meantime I think Silverlight is possibly a good thing, if not only because even in the worst case it forces Adobe to make Flash a better product.
There's at least one more "challenger" (I use the term loosely) in the form of JavaFX. The fact that you hadn't even heard of it says a lot about its potential for success.
I do think you're being unfair on Java applets, though. It took a long time for them to perform as originally hoped, but I think they're there now.
I think Java applets seem to perform better now because processors are faster, and because people are comparing it to Flash/.NET/Javascript, not to C++. For example, the JVM took forever to load, but I don't think the JVM is any bigger than the.NET framework. Java was just ahead of its time and hardware caught up.
Now I see it can install apps and updates directly to the desktop, and is based on.net/mono - absolutely no way!
It's not running native code apps, sheesh. It's the same managed code sandbox and security model as the browser plugin, but can run without being in a browser proper.
But the (high) security model remains the same. It's just like opening "Default.html" from the desktop.
Seriously. Silverlight is gaining on flash in all areas. What about portability... open standards... interoperability. Not that flash is really that much better, but at least Adobe is making a token effort.
What about portability... open standards... interoperability.
No-one cares about such things in the real world. Everyone uses Windows, remember?/sarcasm... or is it?
Doesn't seem to matter much. Slashdotters want such things, business don't care, because such benefits aren't seen when the vast majority of people are using Windows. I see it time and time again - we are losing the battle for open standards. If Silverlight and other proprietary technologies are GAINING prominence, how can we win?
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday June 13 2009, @06:52AM (#28318941)
What would the web be without JPEG, GIF and PNG? Can you imagine what a hot mess it would be if you had to install proprietary binary plug-ins to view images on web pages? And if some of the plug-ins weren't available on your platform?
Then go in the other direction and imagine what the web could have been with a universal video format and vector animation format. That's the crazy amount of damage Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Real and the MPEG4 LA have collectively wreaked on the web at large.
So please, please avoid Silverlight (or Flash, for that matter). It aims to balkanize the web into mutually-incompatible, vendor-dominated fiefdoms in which the overwhelming incentive is to tax users for their access to data.
The real underlying problem is software patents. As long as software patents exist, somebody will always find a legally enforcible way to tax users for their access to data.
True, but in my experience the difference between Java and the.NET stuff is performance.
Sure, some synthetic benchmarks might show that Java beats.NET by some margin, but in practice, that's not what matters.
What users notice is that Silverlight loads almost instantly (as fast as Flash), and that desktop.NET apps run just as fast as native, and look as good, or better than native apps.
I can always tell when a Java app starts because the JVM startup brings my machine to its knees, and the end result is in
For Silverlight, the only direction it had to go was "up". I mean, it had an almost zero percent installed base. Now if I were Adobe, I would seriously consider open sourcing Flash and all technologies around it. Otherwise Adobe will only continue to lose market share to Silverlight.
That's probably going to be a good thing. But I think it's going to have to start from the browser side. I like what Google is doing with Chrome in that respect. They have the capability to distribute and support a browser that will encourage or maybe even require open standards on the web.
So while we do have a few companies seeking their own private monopolies, choosing a browser that requires open standards to render will register as feedback to the various websites we visit. Remember that each bro
Exactly. I see a repeat of the browser wars here. If Adobe doesn't do something radical, and soon, flash is going to relegated to the dustbin of history.
Fwiw, Adobe already/has/ open-sourced Flex, the Flash framework that really makes Flash useful for developing RIAs (they haven't open-sourced their compiler, I don't believe, but all of the Flex ActionScript is available). I'm a Flash/Flex developer, and at least a few times a week I grep through their source code to figure out how to do something, or how to change something about a built-in component, etc. Adobe has also released a specification for their swf file format, available at http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/ [adobe.com].
I hate to feed a troll, but obviously no one is suggesting Adobe should open source their dev tools.
Just the flash interpreter. They give it away for free anyway (those commie bastards), why not let other people deal with fixing it? Then they can proceed to rake in tons of profits from people who want to build apps that they now can rest assured will run on the coming generations of Flash-enabled smartphones.
Silverlight is a terrible marking choice for a name. I automatically think 'silverfish' when I see the word in print, and find myself substituting that word when I say 'silverlight' or sound it out in my head.
Silverfish, as far as I know, are a small bug that scuttles down further into your mattress when you pull up the covers.
Work on it a little in your head:
Silverlight,,, Silverfish
Silverlight... Silverfish
I think you, too will start to associate silverfish... er..light, with a scourge.
I am rather uninformed, but since when has that ever stopped me from making commentary?
I have heard/read casually that a lot of HTML 5 will do what Flash does. That rather puts Flash and anything Flash-like (including Silverlight) out of business soon doesn't it?
Flash and Silverlight 1, yes, you're right. Flex and Silverlight, not so much: they're just not browser APIs, but actual app frameworks, so they go a lot further than just providing end user features: they help the programmer, too (like Silverlight can consume an ADO.NET data service with LINQ, which is a lot better than using the built stuff, even in HTML 5. Flex has BlazeDS, and so on. Just an example)
'No longer do developers need to build desktop WPF apps based loosely on corresponding Silverlight RIAs, as Silverlight 3 adds the ability to install Silverlight apps on the desktop, update them in place, detect Net connectivity state changes, and store data locally and securely'
I don't have admin rights on this computer and how does installing some remote app make this computer more not less secure?
I think he was referring to "isolated storage". Basically you can allow "applicatoions" to store data locally on your machine. By default only a limited quota is granted (the application can ask for more and the user has to approve it).
The stored data is obfuscated to avoid malicious apps downloading files/scripts and then use social engineering techniques to fool the user into launching them. This allows an app access to data even when offline.
Silverlight itself executes inside a pretty restricted sandbox. Silverlight has an impeccable security record Secunia reports zero vulnerabilities in both SL1 and SL2. That is not to say that there are no vulns in SL. But at least compared to Flash it's quite good.
Even so, installing yet another plugin/app will *never* make your computer *more* secure, except when you're installing some lock-down app or firewall. Obviously any app only increases the attack surface.
Just in case anyone decides to post the parent as informative, I'll point out Moonlight [mono-project.com] which is an implementation of Silverlight that runs on Linux. There is also Mac support in Firefox and Safari.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday June 13 2009, @07:44AM (#28319143)
Moonlight supports Silverlight 1. Support for Silverlight 2 is in "preview".
Thus far the Moonlight project is "compatible" enough to tell you your version of Silverlight is out of date, and please upgrade.
That's not even close to what I'd call multi-OS or useful. Hell, I barely put up with flash (no-script saves the day most of the time). If sites are forcing Silverlight down my throat, I'll just not use them.
For the forseeable future, the bulk of desktops and notebooks on this planet are going to be running Windows software. If the failures of VISTA did not push a significant fraction of Windows users to Mac OS or Linux, nothing is going to change that. So yes, site developers will be using Silverlight, especially if MS makes it cheaper to develop for than Flash, because they don't really care if you're going to avoid thier site if the bulk of the computing market doesn't share your issues.
This doesn't pl
I had a couple of Microsofties come in to work to present to us about Virtual Earth. They talked a lot about VE's Silverlight integration, but when asked they admitted that only about 35% of desktop users had Silverlight installed. Even if that is not a high estimate, it's pathetic.
Even if you only care about Windows users, Silverlight is not a suitable technology to roll out to end-users. Flash 9+ has something like 98% market penetration.
Moonlight supports Silverlight 1. Support for Silverlight 2 is in "preview".
Thus far the Moonlight project is "compatible" enough to tell you your version of Silverlight is out of date, and please upgrade.
Silverlight 1 and 2 are much more different than 2 and 3. The Mono development team has explain that implementing the full CLR for Moonlight 2 is one of the largest stages of the development process. For instance, Moonlight 2 Preview already has many Silverlight 3 features implemented. So, once Moonlight 2 is out, it will not be long before Moonlight 3.
Furthermore, I consider this the best pro-developer free software rant explaining the pros of mono in general:
Moonlight supports Silverlight 1. Support for Silverlight 2 is in "preview".
Thus far the Moonlight project is "compatible" enough to tell you your version of Silverlight is out of date, and please upgrade.
Silverlight 1 and 2 are much more different than 2 and 3. The Mono development team has explain that implementing the full CLR for Moonlight 2 is one of the largest stages of the development process. For instance, Moonlight 2 Preview already has many Silverlight 3 features implemented. So, once Moonlight 2 is out, it will not be long before Moonlight 3.
Furthermore, I consider this the best pro-developer free software rant explaining the pros of mono in general:
And as soon as Moonlight catches up with Silverlight 2, Microsoft will have Silverlight 4 out. Let's face it, this is _exactly_ what everybody was predicting back when Moonlight started: endlessly running after Microsoft but never catching up, a perpetual existence as a "nice, but not useful for anything current" piece of software.
Advertising something as "multi-platform" is a joke when one platform is always at least one version ahead of the other platforms: it looks like silverlight 3 support will be available on Windows before Moonlight actually supports silverlight 2.
Now, keeping things that way might not be Microsofts intention in this case but knowing their track record [robweir.com] I'm not betting on it.
I call the bluff. To run moonlight you need mono. Microsoft holds ALL the pattens on the dotNET programming environment. When you can show me an app that runs on Mono that Microsoft gives one of those royalty free licenses to, then come talk to me.
I am an old Forth programmer so I don't mind building my own stuff. However, I would appreciate some actual "proof" that I won't get sued. A supporter of Mono saying that "Microsoft would not dare get into a patent war over d
Just in case anyone decides to post the parent as informative, I'll point out Moonlight which is an implementation of Silverlight that runs on Linux. There is also Mac support in Firefox and Safari.
And I'll point out that it doesn't bloody work on video sites. So pretty much pointless. Offer Moonlight as a token effort, and then try to take over Adobe's niche. SOP pretty much.. Why yes Mr customer.. Silverlight is cross platform.. (It works with Vista and XP..) So your customers will be able to view the rich multimedia experience no matter what platform they use..
Air on the other hand, works great with the BBC iPlayer on Linux AND Windows. No idea if it is available for Apple.
I asked Becker about Microsoftâ(TM)s plans to support Silverlight 3 on Linux clients. He said if and when that support happens, it will most likely come from Novell, which created the Silverlight port to Linux, known as Moonlight.
So no, it's not really multi-OS. Silverlight will never come to Linux. It will always be Moonlight which will always be behind Silverlight and will always run the risk of MS undermining it.
I'm pretty sure I have Silverlight 2 running on my Mac OSX Leopard - it's what I use to watch the ITV Catch-up service. It's possible that it's just Silverlight 1, but I'm pretty sure the button I clicked to download it said "Silverlight 2.0"...
Mac does have SilverLight 2.0. Macs are already popular so porting SilverLight won't be a big problem but I suspect MS wants Linux to be as inconvenient as possible for users.
by Anonymous Coward
on Saturday June 13 2009, @07:35AM (#28319107)
No?/me doesn't care
That's just exactly the problem. TBH I dont care either. I browse with no flash plugins (if absolutely needed then yes I have a separate installed browser with it), noscript, and all the other little useful privacy goodies.
I want information and I want it fast. In all reality text is still text information is information. I dont need popups, animations, ads, etc etc the list is long.
The problem arises when technologies like flash, silverlight, etc come out. Major websites and corporations start publishing there material and information with these technologies because everyone wants to be "up to date". Then your normal user who doesn't have and idea about technologies being used comes along. These users who think the internet is that blue "e" or the little "fox around the globe" on their desktops. These types of people want content too, and if they cant view it then they start to feel they are "missing out". They just don't care and just want it to "work like designed".
Like another reader commented about "balkanizing the web" I feel that this hits the nail on the head. Think of the repercussions if major social networking sites, or other major web presences starting implementing code "X" which doesnt run on every system. (And I am not saying it hasnt already happened) They are alienating people. Which then in turn makes movements like FOSS, OSS, or other kind of free and open standards look bad because your "normal user" thinks while it sounds nice and the idea is good nothing "works as designed" and is in the end limiting their user experience.
imo I think its time that the experienced user base starts taking back the web. Implementing more "open" standards. Showing some of these major asshat corporations that it can be done differently. The internet was not intended just to make a $
It has been around for a while and I'm sure it'll eventually get to 3.0 compatibility rather quickly
And I'm sure it'll remain consistently at least one version behind the Windows one, and still missing features, just as Microsoft would prefer. Moonlight has not even reached parity with Silverlight 2.0 as a final release, let alone 3.0.
Interesting that they focus on Flash/Flex as the competitor, when really the more important rival for developers' attentions is HTML 5, and the various APIs built on top of the open web (Google Gears etc).
If you're developing a web app, why develop using tech which will only ever work properly on Windows? I guess for a shop which thinks they'll never stop using Microsoft software for everything, it might seem like a good idea.
In theory, with support for Canvas, Audio/Video tags etc, HTML 5 does seem like a better option than Silverlight (and even Flash, for most purposes). But when you consider that not even IE 8 will support these elements from HTML 5, and that a huge part of the userbase still uses (and will continue to use) IE7 / IE6, it doesn't take much to realize that we won't be seeing developers leaving Flash for HTML 5 anytime soon.
Microsofts assistance to Moonlight is actually increasing.
Microsoft helped Moonlight users get legal access to commercially licensed codecs by allowing Moonlight users to download the codecs from Microsoft's site. That way the codecs are covered by Microsofts licenses (Microsoft licences these codes from 3rd party IP companies).
Perhaps more importantly Microsoft also open sourced the control widgets for Silverlight so that the exact same controls can be used in Moonlight.
And I'm sure it'll remain consistently at least one version behind the Windows one, and still missing features, just as Microsoft would prefer. Moonlight has not even reached parity with Silverlight 2.0 as a final release, let alone 3.0.
Functionally, Moonlight is probably somewhere between Silverlight 2 and 3. It already includes quite a few Silverlight 3 features in its current preview.
And bear in mind that Silverlight 3 isn't out yet.
Silverlight already had Mac/Win parity, and most of the code sits on top of a platform abstraction layer. So it's already proven to have full functionality outside of Windows.
The story of Microsoft and IE is a good example of why people distrust your company so much. A technically interesting browser, which foreshadowed a lot of the developments on the web now, was deliberately left to stagnate for years after Microsoft imposed it as the dominant browser.
The IE6-IE7 gap wasn't due to some clever plan. IE7 was always meant to ship with Vista, and so with the Vista delays, IE6 remained on the market longer than anyone had imagined. But Microsoft certainly was at least as frustrated by how late Vista and IE7 were as anyone else.
Given that every IE6 user is also an XP user who hasn't upgraded to Vista or (soon) Windows 7, Microsoft has a big business incentive to make IE6 go away. And the very fact that IE7 and IE8 exist and are architected to balance compatibility with IE6-specific sites and standards based sites is exactly what needs to happen, so that businesses don't feel like they have to stay on IE6 forever to retain compatibility with crufty old LOB intranet pages.
HTML 5 support doesn't look like it's coming to IE8 - I wonder why not?
Er, because it shipped:)? HTML5's not coming to Safari 3, is it? I assume you're speaking of the tag; IE8 does have some other HTML5 features. Also, HTML5 is still in draft form, and no one has as full implementation of it. There's no tagged content that works in both Safari and Firefox. It's an interesting technology, but it's not final, no one has a robust implementation of what's in there yet, and the whole "what's the basline codec/format" question remains wide open.
If anything, Silverlight would be a great way to implement HTML5. Silverlgiht already has the compositing and media playback engines browsers lack, supports managed code codec plugins, and can have logic updated as managed code out of band without binary updates.
Silverlight would be a better platform to implement than will be a viable competitor to Silverlight anytime soon.
I'm sure *in theory* Silverlight could have exactly the same functionality on Windows, Mac and Linux, but until I see it actually happen, it's really of no interest.
Well, what have you seen so far? Any sites that work in Silverlight for Windows but not Mac? Any features in Silverlight which Moonlight isn't going to be able to implement? increasing divergence between Silverlight/Moonlight? It seems like things are going in the direction you're saying you want them to go.
With HTML 5 this sort of binary plugin becomes less and less relevant every day.
Why do you think HTML 5 won't be implemented with a binary plugin? Chrome uses ffmpeg. Safari uses QuickTime. Building a robust media pipeline is HARD; it'd take browser developers years to integrate that kind of functionality as a truly native part of the browser model, instead of a "oh, binary over there, you own this rectangle" approach.
Surely you jest? The Silverlight tools [microsoft.com] are an installable plug-in to either Visual Studio 2008 or Visual Web Developer Express [microsoft.com], which is Microsoft's free IDE.
Microsoft have also provide support to open source projects like Eclipse4SL [eclipse4sl.org] to add support to the Eclipse IDE to "enable Java developers to use the Eclipse platform to create applications that run on the Microsoft Silverlight runtime platform".
Silverlight a good thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, not in the grand scheme of things it's not, I'd rather see the likes of Silverlight and Flash dissapear altogether. I think however in this context Silverlight might actually be a good thing. Flash has become so widespread because there was really no challenge to it, Java applets never really ever managed to perform as was originally hoped.
On one hand I'm glad to see some competition for Flash rather than it be allowed effectively a monopoly on RIAs but on the other the worry is of course that this'll just mean more RIAs!
I'd personally rather see the advances in Javascript allow us to move forward for RIAs because no plugin is required, and it's not some compiled proprietary lump of bits. Google's chrome demos mentioned here a couple of months ago looked very promising in this area so hopefully this will eventually the path we see taken for RIAs but in the meantime I think Silverlight is possibly a good thing, if not only because even in the worst case it forces Adobe to make Flash a better product.
Re:Silverlight a good thing? (Score:4, Interesting)
There's at least one more "challenger" (I use the term loosely) in the form of JavaFX. The fact that you hadn't even heard of it says a lot about its potential for success.
I do think you're being unfair on Java applets, though. It took a long time for them to perform as originally hoped, but I think they're there now.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now I see it can install apps and updates directly to the desktop, and is based on .net/mono - absolutely no way!
It's not running native code apps, sheesh. It's the same managed code sandbox and security model as the browser plugin, but can run without being in a browser proper.
But the (high) security model remains the same. It's just like opening "Default.html" from the desktop.
Mod story flamebait (Score:5, Interesting)
Gaining ground! (Score:3, Funny)
I would sooner accept the existence of elves, gremlins, and Eskimos, than Silverlight apps in the wild.
UltraLearn (Score:2)
UltraLearn Studio [ultralearn.com] uses Silverlight.
Re:Mod story flamebait (Score:5, Interesting)
No-one cares about such things in the real world. Everyone uses Windows, remember? /sarcasm... or is it?
Doesn't seem to matter much. Slashdotters want such things, business don't care, because such benefits aren't seen when the vast majority of people are using Windows. I see it time and time again - we are losing the battle for open standards. If Silverlight and other proprietary technologies are GAINING prominence, how can we win?
Parent
Balkanization of the web (Score:5, Insightful)
What would the web be without JPEG, GIF and PNG? Can you imagine what a hot mess it would be if you had to install proprietary binary plug-ins to view images on web pages? And if some of the plug-ins weren't available on your platform?
Then go in the other direction and imagine what the web could have been with a universal video format and vector animation format. That's the crazy amount of damage Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Real and the MPEG4 LA have collectively wreaked on the web at large.
So please, please avoid Silverlight (or Flash, for that matter). It aims to balkanize the web into mutually-incompatible, vendor-dominated fiefdoms in which the overwhelming incentive is to tax users for their access to data.
Re:Balkanization of the web (Score:4, Informative)
The real underlying problem is software patents. As long as software patents exist, somebody will always find a legally enforcible way to tax users for their access to data.
Parent
Silverlight is becoming ... Java (Score:5, Interesting)
Applications that can be run in the browser or installed on the desktop? Java's had both for many years (applets and webstart).
Ability to update desktop apps? Webstart again.
Access to a rich, general purpose library? Yup, Java provides that - and it's very similar to .NET for some reason.
So suddenly the old thing is the new thing.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but in my experience the difference between Java and the .NET stuff is performance.
Sure, some synthetic benchmarks might show that Java beats .NET by some margin, but in practice, that's not what matters.
What users notice is that Silverlight loads almost instantly (as fast as Flash), and that desktop .NET apps run just as fast as native, and look as good, or better than native apps.
I can always tell when a Java app starts because the JVM startup brings my machine to its knees, and the end result is in
I have a question about that... (Score:2)
Thanks.
This is what adobe should do (Score:5, Interesting)
For Silverlight, the only direction it had to go was "up". I mean, it had an almost zero percent installed base. Now if I were Adobe, I would seriously consider open sourcing Flash and all technologies around it. Otherwise Adobe will only continue to lose market share to Silverlight.
Re: (Score:2)
So while we do have a few companies seeking their own private monopolies, choosing a browser that requires open standards to render will register as feedback to the various websites we visit. Remember that each bro
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is what adobe should do (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I hate to feed a troll, but obviously no one is suggesting Adobe should open source their dev tools.
Just the flash interpreter. They give it away for free anyway (those commie bastards), why not let other people deal with fixing it? Then they can proceed to rake in tons of profits from people who want to build apps that they now can rest assured will run on the coming generations of Flash-enabled smartphones.
Silverlight = Silverfish (Score:2, Funny)
Silverlight is a terrible marking choice for a name. I automatically think 'silverfish' when I see the word in print, and find myself substituting that word when I say 'silverlight' or sound it out in my head.
Silverfish, as far as I know, are a small bug that scuttles down further into your mattress when you pull up the covers.
Work on it a little in your head:
Silverlight ,,, Silverfish
Silverlight ... Silverfish
I think you, too will start to associate silverfish... er ..light, with a scourge.
I am rather uninformed but... (Score:2)
I am rather uninformed, but since when has that ever stopped me from making commentary?
I have heard/read casually that a lot of HTML 5 will do what Flash does. That rather puts Flash and anything Flash-like (including Silverlight) out of business soon doesn't it?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Flash and Silverlight 1, yes, you're right. Flex and Silverlight, not so much: they're just not browser APIs, but actual app frameworks, so they go a lot further than just providing end user features: they help the programmer, too (like Silverlight can consume an ADO.NET data service with LINQ, which is a lot better than using the built stuff, even in HTML 5. Flex has BlazeDS, and so on. Just an example)
securly install Silverlight on the desktop (Score:2)
I don't have admin rights on this computer and how does installing some remote app make this computer more not less secure?
Re:securly install Silverlight on the desktop (Score:4, Informative)
I think he was referring to "isolated storage". Basically you can allow "applicatoions" to store data locally on your machine. By default only a limited quota is granted (the application can ask for more and the user has to approve it).
The stored data is obfuscated to avoid malicious apps downloading files/scripts and then use social engineering techniques to fool the user into launching them. This allows an app access to data even when offline.
Silverlight itself executes inside a pretty restricted sandbox. Silverlight has an impeccable security record Secunia reports zero vulnerabilities in both SL1 and SL2. That is not to say that there are no vulns in SL. But at least compared to Flash it's quite good.
Even so, installing yet another plugin/app will *never* make your computer *more* secure, except when you're installing some lock-down app or firewall. Obviously any app only increases the attack surface.
Parent
Ad paid by Microsoft? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Bottom Line: Microsoft Silverlight 3 is catching up to the capabilities of Adobe Flash, Flex, and AIR in all the areas where Silverlight was behind."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just in case anyone decides to post the parent as informative, I'll point out Moonlight [mono-project.com] which is an implementation of Silverlight that runs on Linux. There is also Mac support in Firefox and Safari.
Re:I'll pass. (Score:5, Insightful)
Moonlight supports Silverlight 1. Support for Silverlight 2 is in "preview".
Thus far the Moonlight project is "compatible" enough to tell you your version of Silverlight is out of date, and please upgrade.
That's not even close to what I'd call multi-OS or useful. Hell, I barely put up with flash (no-script saves the day most of the time). If sites are forcing Silverlight down my throat, I'll just not use them.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'll pass. (Score:5, Informative)
I had a couple of Microsofties come in to work to present to us about Virtual Earth. They talked a lot about VE's Silverlight integration, but when asked they admitted that only about 35% of desktop users had Silverlight installed. Even if that is not a high estimate, it's pathetic.
Even if you only care about Windows users, Silverlight is not a suitable technology to roll out to end-users. Flash 9+ has something like 98% market penetration.
Parent
Re:I'll pass. (Score:5, Insightful)
when asked they admitted that only about 35% of desktop users had Silverlight installed. Even if that is not a high estimate, it's pathetic
It's not pathetic at all.
Flash has been around since 1996.
Silverlight is a product two years in beta.
If the geek calls a 35% share of the client desktop "pathetic" - what is one to make of Firefox at 20% and Linux at 1%?
Parent
Re:I'll pass. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Moonlight supports Silverlight 1. Support for Silverlight 2 is in "preview".
Thus far the Moonlight project is "compatible" enough to tell you your version of Silverlight is out of date, and please upgrade.
Silverlight 1 and 2 are much more different than 2 and 3. The Mono development team has explain that implementing the full CLR for Moonlight 2 is one of the largest stages of the development process. For instance, Moonlight 2 Preview already has many Silverlight 3 features implemented. So, once Moonlight 2 is out, it will not be long before Moonlight 3.
Furthermore, I consider this the best pro-developer free software rant explaining the pros of mono in general:
http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/124/ [apebox.org]
Re:I'll pass. (Score:5, Insightful)
Moonlight supports Silverlight 1. Support for Silverlight 2 is in "preview".
Thus far the Moonlight project is "compatible" enough to tell you your version of Silverlight is out of date, and please upgrade.
Silverlight 1 and 2 are much more different than 2 and 3. The Mono development team has explain that implementing the full CLR for Moonlight 2 is one of the largest stages of the development process. For instance, Moonlight 2 Preview already has many Silverlight 3 features implemented. So, once Moonlight 2 is out, it will not be long before Moonlight 3.
Furthermore, I consider this the best pro-developer free software rant explaining the pros of mono in general:
http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/rants/124/ [apebox.org]
And as soon as Moonlight catches up with Silverlight 2, Microsoft will have Silverlight 4 out. Let's face it, this is _exactly_ what everybody was predicting back when Moonlight started: endlessly running after Microsoft but never catching up, a perpetual existence as a "nice, but not useful for anything current" piece of software.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Advertising something as "multi-platform" is a joke when one platform is always at least one version ahead of the other platforms: it looks like silverlight 3 support will be available on Windows before Moonlight actually supports silverlight 2.
Now, keeping things that way might not be Microsofts intention in this case but knowing their track record [robweir.com] I'm not betting on it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I call the bluff. To run moonlight you need mono. Microsoft holds ALL the pattens on the dotNET programming environment. When you can show me an app that runs on Mono that Microsoft gives one of those royalty free licenses to, then come talk to me.
I am an old Forth programmer so I don't mind building my own stuff. However, I would appreciate some actual "proof" that I won't get sued. A supporter of Mono saying that "Microsoft would not dare get into a patent war over d
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just in case anyone decides to post the parent as informative, I'll point out Moonlight which is an implementation of Silverlight that runs on Linux. There is also Mac support in Firefox and Safari.
And I'll point out that it doesn't bloody work on video sites. So pretty much pointless. Offer Moonlight as a token effort, and then try to take over Adobe's niche. SOP pretty much.. Why yes Mr customer.. Silverlight is cross platform.. (It works with Vista and XP..) So your customers will be able to view the rich multimedia experience no matter what platform they use..
Air on the other hand, works great with the BBC iPlayer on Linux AND Windows. No idea if it is available for Apple.
Re:I'll pass. (Score:5, Insightful)
I asked Becker about Microsoftâ(TM)s plans to support Silverlight 3 on Linux clients. He said if and when that support happens, it will most likely come from Novell, which created the Silverlight port to Linux, known as Moonlight.
So no, it's not really multi-OS. Silverlight will never come to Linux. It will always be Moonlight which will always be behind Silverlight and will always run the risk of MS undermining it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure I have Silverlight 2 running on my Mac OSX Leopard - it's what I use to watch the ITV Catch-up service. It's possible that it's just Silverlight 1, but I'm pretty sure the button I clicked to download it said "Silverlight 2.0"...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I still use Windows XP. (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:But will it run on linux? (Score:4, Interesting)
No? /me doesn't care
That's just exactly the problem. TBH I dont care either. I browse with no flash plugins (if absolutely needed then yes I have a separate installed browser with it), noscript, and all the other little useful privacy goodies.
I want information and I want it fast. In all reality text is still text information is information. I dont need popups, animations, ads, etc etc the list is long.
The problem arises when technologies like flash, silverlight, etc come out. Major websites and corporations start publishing there material and information with these technologies because everyone wants to be "up to date". Then your normal user who doesn't have and idea about technologies being used comes along. These users who think the internet is that blue "e" or the little "fox around the globe" on their desktops. These types of people want content too, and if they cant view it then they start to feel they are "missing out". They just don't care and just want it to "work like designed".
Like another reader commented about "balkanizing the web" I feel that this hits the nail on the head. Think of the repercussions if major social networking sites, or other major web presences starting implementing code "X" which doesnt run on every system. (And I am not saying it hasnt already happened) They are alienating people. Which then in turn makes movements like FOSS, OSS, or other kind of free and open standards look bad because your "normal user" thinks while it sounds nice and the idea is good nothing "works as designed" and is in the end limiting their user experience.
imo I think its time that the experienced user base starts taking back the web. Implementing more "open" standards. Showing some of these major asshat corporations that it can be done differently. The internet was not intended just to make a $
Parent
Re:Moonlight? (Score:5, Insightful)
It has been around for a while and I'm sure it'll eventually get to 3.0 compatibility rather quickly
And I'm sure it'll remain consistently at least one version behind the Windows one, and still missing features, just as Microsoft would prefer. Moonlight has not even reached parity with Silverlight 2.0 as a final release, let alone 3.0.
Interesting that they focus on Flash/Flex as the competitor, when really the more important rival for developers' attentions is HTML 5, and the various APIs built on top of the open web (Google Gears etc).
If you're developing a web app, why develop using tech which will only ever work properly on Windows? I guess for a shop which thinks they'll never stop using Microsoft software for everything, it might seem like a good idea.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Microsofts assistance to Moonlight is actually increasing.
Microsoft helped Moonlight users get legal access to commercially licensed codecs by allowing Moonlight users to download the codecs from Microsoft's site. That way the codecs are covered by Microsofts licenses (Microsoft licences these codes from 3rd party IP companies).
Perhaps more importantly Microsoft also open sourced the control widgets for Silverlight so that the exact same controls can be used in Moonlight.
That said, Moonlight still hav
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And I'm sure it'll remain consistently at least one version behind the Windows one, and still missing features, just as Microsoft would prefer. Moonlight has not even reached parity with Silverlight 2.0 as a final release, let alone 3.0.
Functionally, Moonlight is probably somewhere between Silverlight 2 and 3. It already includes quite a few Silverlight 3 features in its current preview.
And bear in mind that Silverlight 3 isn't out yet.
Silverlight already had Mac/Win parity, and most of the code sits on top of a platform abstraction layer. So it's already proven to have full functionality outside of Windows.
Re:Moonlight? (Score:4, Informative)
The story of Microsoft and IE is a good example of why people distrust your company so much. A technically interesting browser, which foreshadowed a lot of the developments on the web now, was deliberately left to stagnate for years after Microsoft imposed it as the dominant browser.
The IE6-IE7 gap wasn't due to some clever plan. IE7 was always meant to ship with Vista, and so with the Vista delays, IE6 remained on the market longer than anyone had imagined. But Microsoft certainly was at least as frustrated by how late Vista and IE7 were as anyone else.
Given that every IE6 user is also an XP user who hasn't upgraded to Vista or (soon) Windows 7, Microsoft has a big business incentive to make IE6 go away. And the very fact that IE7 and IE8 exist and are architected to balance compatibility with IE6-specific sites and standards based sites is exactly what needs to happen, so that businesses don't feel like they have to stay on IE6 forever to retain compatibility with crufty old LOB intranet pages.
HTML 5 support doesn't look like it's coming to IE8 - I wonder why not?
Er, because it shipped :)? HTML5's not coming to Safari 3, is it? I assume you're speaking of the tag; IE8 does have some other HTML5 features. Also, HTML5 is still in draft form, and no one has as full implementation of it. There's no tagged content that works in both Safari and Firefox. It's an interesting technology, but it's not final, no one has a robust implementation of what's in there yet, and the whole "what's the basline codec/format" question remains wide open.
If anything, Silverlight would be a great way to implement HTML5. Silverlgiht already has the compositing and media playback engines browsers lack, supports managed code codec plugins, and can have logic updated as managed code out of band without binary updates.
Silverlight would be a better platform to implement than will be a viable competitor to Silverlight anytime soon.
I'm sure *in theory* Silverlight could have exactly the same functionality on Windows, Mac and Linux, but until I see it actually happen, it's really of no interest.
Well, what have you seen so far? Any sites that work in Silverlight for Windows but not Mac? Any features in Silverlight which Moonlight isn't going to be able to implement? increasing divergence between Silverlight/Moonlight? It seems like things are going in the direction you're saying you want them to go.
With HTML 5 this sort of binary plugin becomes less and less relevant every day.
Why do you think HTML 5 won't be implemented with a binary plugin? Chrome uses ffmpeg. Safari uses QuickTime. Building a robust media pipeline is HARD; it'd take browser developers years to integrate that kind of functionality as a truly native part of the browser model, instead of a "oh, binary over there, you own this rectangle" approach.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
No, they won't. Silverlight 3 is miles ahead of Mono technically right now.
I don't see that changing any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
The market for Flash is huge. That there is a need (perceived or real) is self evident, MS are simply trying to get in on this.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Surely you jest? The Silverlight tools [microsoft.com] are an installable plug-in to either Visual Studio 2008 or Visual Web Developer Express [microsoft.com], which is Microsoft's free IDE.
Or you can get the Silverlight(TM) 2 SDK [microsoft.com] without the extra tools to use it without any IDE at all [microsoft.com].
Microsoft have also provide support to open source projects like Eclipse4SL [eclipse4sl.org] to add support to the Eclipse IDE to "enable Java developers to use the Eclipse platform to create applications that run on the Microsoft Silverlight runtime platform".
I have never