| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Silverlight-to-Linux Moonlight 2.0 preview ready for testers | |
|
||
| Time: 14:21 EST/19:21 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft, for its part, already has released a beta of Silverlight 3.0. Toshok said that the differences between Silverlight 2.0 and 3.0 “are much, much smaller than the differences between 1.0 and 2.0.” He noted that the Moonlight team has been able to add support for some of Silverlight’s planned 3.0 features to the Moonlight 2.0 preview, including: | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 169 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:07:48 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/6/2009 10:24:44 AM |
| Who cares. Nobody is using Silverlight. Content creators certainly aren't, except ones paid by MS to do so. Linux users don't give a damn about it. I suspect that the only reason Moonlight is alive is to give MS something to point to when the EU antitrust division comes a-knockin'. MS can claim interoperability but the reality is that Moonlight will always be, by MS design, a generation or two behind the Windows implementation. |
| #2 By 92283 (142.32.208.233) at 5/6/2009 10:51:48 AM |
| #1 LOL!!! That Latch Parody is excellent! |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/6/2009 12:00:53 PM |
| #2: Heh, not as good as your impression of a 10-year-old. Oh wait, it's not an impression. |
| #4 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 5/6/2009 12:06:47 PM |
| #3: Not one of you better combacks. |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/6/2009 12:21:58 PM |
|
#4: Hey, they can't all be gems. Besides, I save my 'A' material for ketchum. parkkker gets the dregs... "ahhh, ahhh-hh-hhhh, bitter dregs". You got that I was riffing on Byron's comment re: parkkker in the IPhone dev thread, right?
|
| #6 By 92283 (142.32.208.233) at 5/6/2009 2:03:55 PM |
|
#5 " Hey, they can't all be gems"
LOL. Perfect parody of Latch. He's so clueless he thinks some of them are gems!!! |
| #7 By 17855 (205.167.180.132) at 5/6/2009 2:54:43 PM |
| I love the diversity of opinions on Activewin. :) |
| #8 By 16797 (65.93.214.121) at 5/6/2009 2:57:28 PM |
|
#1 MS can claim interoperability but the reality is that Moonlight will always be, by MS design, a generation or two behind the Windows implementation.
Why do you think it matters that much? Here where I work we still mostly target .NET 2.0, even though versions 3.0, 3.5 and 3.5 SP1 are already available. We also used Java 1.4 long after 1.5 was released, even 1.6. You also need time to develop an application. By the time you finish it, Linux will probably have support for that, latest, version. The thing is, Silverlight 2.0 was major release. Once Moonlight 2 is released, they will be able to match Silverlight 3.0 much quicker (they already have pieces of SL 3.0 in this Moonlight 2.0). Other factors will decide on success of Silverlight, Linux support or acceptance (all, what, 1% users?) not so much. Anyway, how some competition to Flash can be bad? |
| #9 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/6/2009 3:27:57 PM |
|
#8: Why do you think it matters that much?
Because MS uses it to marginalize non-Windows platforms. You also need time to develop an application. By the time you finish it, Linux will probably have support for that, latest, version. Moonlight is about a year, at least, behind Silverlight. Unless you're coding a MMORPG in Silverlight, it shouldn't take that long to develop your widget. And, with MS's resources, there is no excuse that Moonlight isn't in lockstep with Silverlight... unless that's the plan. Anyway, how some competition to Flash can be bad? Competition isn't bad. I object to how they compete. First they use their desktop monopoly to shove Silverlight at everyone under the guise of a recommended update, then they throw bags of money at content people for exclusive rights. I didn't appreciate that Obama's inaug was SL only. Then there was NBC's Olympics, and MLB. At least MLB had the sense to ditch SL and go back to Flash. I can't help but feel that everything they do these days is in support of maintaining their dominance by continually trying to lock the user into Windows. For example, the new SP for Office 2007 has direct ODF support, but for some funky reason Office fails to read ODF reference documents properly and none of the largest ODF-supporting doc editors can read MS ODF documents. It must be stunning incompetence for MS to adhere to a standard and yet be completely incompatible with other implementations, or it's an attempt to be compliant but still proprietary. I, personally, don't attribute much to incompetence at MS. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090503215045379 |
| #10 By 16797 (65.93.214.121) at 5/6/2009 3:54:22 PM |
|
Because MS uses it to marginalize non-Windows platforms.
Well, not really. MS does provide OSX version. Beside, Linux desktop market is already marginal. Having Moonlight, one version behind Silverligh, is hardly a bad thing for Linux. Actually it can only help Linux, in my view. First they use their desktop monopoly to shove Silverlight at everyone under the guise of a recommended update, Are you sure that is how it gets distributed? I just finished installing Windows 7 the other day.. can't tell for sure, but I don't think Silverlight was offered to me as recommended update until I first visited a web site that required it. Or when update was offered it was not checked by default and was, I believe, among optional updates, not recommended ones. Again, I am not sure..I'll be installing Windows 7 again in a day or two, so I'll try to pay attention to that. then they throw bags of money at content people for exclusive rights. Why not? It is not like you can have only one, Flash OR Silverlight on your computer. You can have both, running side by side. So what is the problem? |
| #11 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 5/6/2009 4:20:28 PM |
|
Latch, dude stop... have you even looked at the dev tools around SL? MS is smoking Adobe's bags. Forget media for a second (though SL is great for that), take a look at what you can do to produce RIA's (the browser is toast, dead and gone). So of course, SL will run on all *nix - just as it should. And using the cloud - yours, mine and theirs all at once? Yep. S3/Azure/Android/Yahoo's API's/behind the firewall/in front of it/who cares...
|
| #12 By 16797 (65.93.214.121) at 5/6/2009 6:48:09 PM |
|
Latch, if Microsoft is forcing Silverlight via Windows Update, why is Silverlight still at around 30% of computers? Should it not be much higher?
http://www.RIAstats.com |
| #13 By 3746 (72.12.161.38) at 5/7/2009 6:17:48 AM |
| Silverlight is not a forced update. It is in the list of updates but it has to be checked to be installed. They do the same with their live essentials package. Most people are going to get slverlight when they go to a website that needs it not through an update process. |
| #14 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/7/2009 8:51:00 AM |
|
#10: MS does provide OSX version.
And if I remember correctly, it's also behind like the Linux version. Having Moonlight, one version behind Silverligh, is hardly a bad thing for Linux. Actually it can only help Linux, in my view. Of course it's a bad thing if MS works to ensure that premium content is distributed using the features of the latest version. I'm not sure how you think it can help Linux. They're putting Linux & Mac in a ghetto where MS can claim interoperability but a lesser "experience" for all but Windows. Like I said earlier, there is no good reason that Moonlight couldn't be in lockstep with Silverlight unless MS wanted it that way for *some* reason. Are you sure that is how it gets distributed? My mistake on that one. I thought it was a recommended update. Why not? It is not like you can have only one, Flash OR Silverlight on your computer. You can have both, running side by side. So what is the problem? I don't object based on technological reasons; I object based on philosophical reasons. If Moonlight was a peer to Silverlight then I wouldn't have a problem. #11: have you even looked at the dev tools around SL? No, and I'll wager that sweet round pair of peaches has never been forced 'twixt two splintered planks, to plug a leak and save a ship! #12: Wow, I didn't know it was THAT low. I would have figured with it being on WU, and with obnoxious SL install prompts whenever you go to ms.com, and the Olympics, MLB and Obama thrown in, the numbers would be higher. #13: Thanks, I stand corrected. Update: this was just published today by Ars: (http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/05/moonlight-2-preview-shows-promise-still-needs-work.ars) "Although a significant amount of progress has been made in the effort to achieve Silverlight 2.0 compatibility, the plugin is still at a relatively early stage of development and will require more work before it's production-ready. At the present time, it only works with a fraction of existing Silverlight 2.0 content." I doubt it will ever be fully compatible, or if it does it will be years down the road. This post was edited by Latch on Thursday, May 07, 2009 at 12:05. |
| #15 By 16797 (65.93.215.165) at 5/7/2009 12:27:20 PM |
|
#14 "And if I remember correctly, it's also behind like the Linux version. "
No, OSX version is on par with Windows. As for the Ars comment on Moonlight 2.0.. Man, Moonlight 2.0 is still PREVIEW. Not even beta. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 169 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:07:48 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
