[News] Microsoft Silverlight promises to modernize the Web
The Ghost In The Machine
though I'm not sure it will do so in a good way.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/17/2346202&from=rss
http://www.daniweb.com/blogs/entry1418.html
Just as it seemed that Linux users (especially 64-bit users) would
finally be able to enjoy streaming content with a minimum of hassle,
Microsoft's new Silverlight software promises to throw a wrench in
the works.
[...]
The Silverlight software, based on the preexisting Windows Media
Video standard, is a “cross-platform plug-in for delivering the next
generation of media experiences and rich interactive applications
(RIAs) for the Web,” according to a recent press release available
here on Microsoft's website. Though Silverlight sounds very
promising, and may actually displace Flash video as the means most
sites use to stream content, Microsoft has yet to even hint at the
planned existence of a Linux plug-in. Apparently, cross-platform
only includes Windows and OS X, even though there is an
ever-increasing Linux user base.
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2007-04-18-025-26-OP-MS
And of course the official news release:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/apr07/04-15WPFEPR.mspx
Silverlight Scales From HD to Mobile, With Peace of Mind for Content
Owners
(note: *not* content consumers)
Silverlight uses Windows Media Video (WMV), Microsoft’s
implementation of the Society of Motion Picture and Television
Engineers (SMPTE) VC-1 video standard, enabling immediate
compatibility with the millions of hours of content already
available on the Web, and adds support for interactive video
experiences that scale from full-screen high-definition (HD) to
mobile scenarios.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Insert random misquote here.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Roy Schestowitz
They are able to 'extend' this at will. It's about control. A company with so
many conflicting and intersecting interests cannot be trusted (think
browser-O/S integration for instance). Also support for SL would probably be
better on one particular platform.
--
~~ Best regards
Roy S. Schestowitz | Windows: as good as Richard Stallman's dental
higiene
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
run-level 5 Apr 28 15:45 last=S
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
amicus_curious
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:jving4-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> Uh...no, not really. But this will certainly get interesting,
> though I'm not sure it will do so in a good way.
>
> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/17/2346202&from=rss
>
> http://www.daniweb.com/blogs/entry1418.html
>
> Just as it seemed that Linux users (especially 64-bit users) would
> finally be able to enjoy streaming content with a minimum of hassle,
> Microsoft's new Silverlight software promises to throw a wrench in
> the works.
> [...]
> The Silverlight software, based on the preexisting Windows Media
> generation of media experiences and rich interactive applications
> here on Microsoft's website. Though Silverlight sounds very
> promising, and may actually displace Flash video as the means most
> sites use to stream content, Microsoft has yet to even hint at the
> planned existence of a Linux plug-in. Apparently, cross-platform
> only includes Windows and OS X, even though there is an
> ever-increasing Linux user base.
>
supply it. If no one wants it, it will go away. What I think the Linux/OSS
fans are really complaining about is that the commercial companies, out to
win the business of the world's consumers, are likely to actually convince
some customers to try it out and they fear that some will actually like it
and pay enough for the service to keep it in business. Right now media
content is easy to steal, from a technology point of view, and there is a
vociferous group opposed to anything that might change that. They suggest
that DRM mechanisms will make it less convenient for the legitimate
customers, since they can't really moan about being stymied in efforts to
glom onto the tunes and videos for "free" (as in whatever meets the needs of
making them look noble).
The Ghost In The Machine
<AC...@sti.net>
wrote
on Thu, 3 May 2007 09:03:57 -0400
<4639ddc2$0$20097$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> news:jving4-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> Uh...no, not really. But this will certainly get interesting,
>> though I'm not sure it will do so in a good way.
>>
>> http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/17/2346202&from=rss
>>
>> http://www.daniweb.com/blogs/entry1418.html
>>
>> Just as it seemed that Linux users (especially 64-bit users) would
>> finally be able to enjoy streaming content with a minimum of hassle,
>> Microsoft's new Silverlight software promises to throw a wrench in
>> the works.
>> [...]
>> The Silverlight software, based on the preexisting Windows Media
>> Video standard, is a â?ocross-platform plug-in for delivering the next
>> generation of media experiences and rich interactive applications
>> here on Microsoft's website. Though Silverlight sounds very
>> promising, and may actually displace Flash video as the means most
>> sites use to stream content, Microsoft has yet to even hint at the
>> planned existence of a Linux plug-in. Apparently, cross-platform
>> only includes Windows and OS X, even though there is an
>> ever-increasing Linux user base.
>>
> Well, if there is enough interest shown in a Linux capability someone will
> supply it. If no one wants it, it will go away. What I think the Linux/OSS
> fans are really complaining about is that the commercial companies, out to
> win the business of the world's consumers, are likely to actually convince
> some customers to try it out and they fear that some will actually like it
> and pay enough for the service to keep it in business. Right now media
> content is easy to steal, from a technology point of view, and there is a
> vociferous group opposed to anything that might change that. They suggest
> that DRM mechanisms will make it less convenient for the legitimate
> customers, since they can't really moan about being stymied in efforts to
> glom onto the tunes and videos for "free" (as in whatever meets the needs of
> making them look noble).
>
Just remember what they did with CIFS/SMB and Samba. :-)
Jeanette Russo
More FUD. Microsoft will never learn that their restrictive software is
a thing of the past. They have never been able to do well in the
internet where more open minded companies like Skype, google, Adobe
continue to thrive.
The Ghost In The Machine
<jru...@hotmail.com>
wrote
on Thu, 03 May 2007 09:31:03 -0700
<b7o_h.102164$2Q1....@newsfe16.lga>:
Indeed....though one wonders why Microsoft tries at this
point. Flash is the de facto standard for certain webgames
and visual presentations. It is relatively open, though
I'd have to look, but its format is now fairly well-known.
What Silverlight will bring to the table is less than clear.
> Microsoft will never learn that their restrictive software is
> a thing of the past. They have never been able to do well in the
> internet where more open minded companies like Skype, google, Adobe
> continue to thrive.
So they'll obviously have to throttle 'em. No problem;
they've done it before...erm...wait, why is the market
going over there? Come back! Microsoft's better!
Really!
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. Because vaporware only goes so far.
amicus_curious
>
> Just remember what they did with CIFS/SMB and Samba. :-)
>
Are you having a problem?
amicus_curious
"Jeanette Russo" <jru...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b7o_h.102164$2Q1....@newsfe16.lga...
>
> More FUD. Microsoft will never learn that their restrictive software is a
> thing of the past. They have never been able to do well in the internet
> where more open minded companies like Skype, google, Adobe continue to
> thrive.
Well it is hard to paint Microsoft as a loser in that space. After all, if
100 people use the internet, 95 of them are using it with a Windows machine.
But you are entitled to an opinion even one that seems to only be an
attitude.
amicus_curious
>
> Indeed....though one wonders why Microsoft tries at this
> point. Flash is the de facto standard for certain webgames
> and visual presentations. It is relatively open, though
> I'd have to look, but its format is now fairly well-known.
>
marketing a solution to the content providers that they are sure to be
interested in having if it works and becomes popular. I would say that it
has a chance. If being a minor player and late to market is the kiss of
death, what of Linux? Besides, I don't think that Flash is in the same
league as what is being proposed here.
> What Silverlight will bring to the table is less than clear.
>
>> Microsoft will never learn that their restrictive software is
>> a thing of the past. They have never been able to do well in the
>> internet where more open minded companies like Skype, google, Adobe
>> continue to thrive.
>
> So they'll obviously have to throttle 'em. No problem;
> they've done it before...erm...wait, why is the market
> going over there? Come back! Microsoft's better!
> Really!
>
Whatever losses they may have incurred along the way, they have gains that
far outweigh them. Consider that 65% wins will lead the league in basebal.
You don't have to have 95% in everything, just more than the next guy.
The Ghost In The Machine
<463a329b$0$20095$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>:
It has since been repaired, but how do we know they won't
break it again?
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=15850
http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2004-May/035632.html
http://www.rmschneider.com/writing/xp_and_samba.html
It is not clear that Microsoft deliberately intended to
break Samba, but one does have to wonder.
That is the danger of using unstandardized proprietary
protocols. To be sure, Microsoft also has to balance
their breakage with their own support; if they update the
protocol to break Samba, they might break their own tools
as well.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. Because Windows' Blue Screen Of Death is just
way too frightening to novice users.
The Ghost In The Machine
<463a333a$0$20108$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>:
>
> "Jeanette Russo" <jru...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:b7o_h.102164$2Q1....@newsfe16.lga...
>>
>> More FUD. Microsoft will never learn that their restrictive software is a
>> thing of the past. They have never been able to do well in the internet
>> where more open minded companies like Skype, google, Adobe continue to
>> thrive.
>
> Well it is hard to paint Microsoft as a loser in that space.
> After all, if 100 people use the internet, 95 of them are
> using it with a Windows machine.
Possibly more.
http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox48-microsoft-internet-explorer-usage.html
indicates that 85.85% of Web browsers indicate IE; of the
11.49% using Firefox, one can assume (absent additional
data) that 85.85% of *them* are on Windows as well, which
yields a total of 85.85% + 85.85% * 11.49% = 95.71%.
If one uses Netherlands data (which has the highest
percentage of IE), one can get as high as 97.11%.
Granted, my calculation method is very suspect; IE is
rarely run on Linux [*], but Mozilla Firefox and derivative
browsers often are. However, it can't be far off if
http://blogs.zdnet.com/web2explorer/?p=262
is correct; that blog suggests Microsoft has 97% of the OS market,
as of August 2006, with Linux standing at a paltry 0.36% and
Macintosh 2.47%.
Of course Linux is a great stealth OS, and a number of
websites have to be told that IE is browsing them, as
the admin thereof apparently doesn't want to be bothered
regarding non-IE browser issues.
And then there's
http://www.innerexception.com/2007/02/mac-os-x-web-market-share-numbers.html
which suggests Mac OSX Web usage could be as high as 6.22%.
Since 97% + 6.22% = 103.22% someone's a little off
(though there is the faint chance of one node using
more than one browser). But considering that Mozzie has
better SVG and PNG support, one has to wonder how long it
will be before IE bites the bullet -- or bites the dust.
(To its credit, IE7 did try to fix PNG. AIUI, the fix,
however, is only partially successful. I'll have to flip
to XP to see.)
>
> But you are entitled to an opinion even one that seems to only be an
> attitude.
>
[*] IE, however, can be run on Linux, at least for IE6;
see http://ies4linux.org/ -- presumably, the audience
for such efforts would be limited to Website developers
and those of us unlucky enough to run into a website that
malfunctions when Mozzie is pointed at it. Ies4linux has
partial IE7 support but it's most definitely beta, and
the "skin" is IE6.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. Because Windows' Blue Screen Of Death is just
way too frightening to novice users.
--
amicus_curious
lack of evidence supporting the claim of acceleratin Linux desktop usage.
My feeling is that the Linux fans are rather in your face with their
superior choice of OS and would not want to disguise it as Windows simply to
convenience themselves.
amicus_curious
>
> which suggests Mac OSX Web usage could be as high as 6.22%.
> Since 97% + 6.22% = 103.22% someone's a little off
> (though there is the faint chance of one node using
> more than one browser). But considering that Mozzie has
> better SVG and PNG support, one has to wonder how long it
> will be before IE bites the bullet -- or bites the dust.
>
the lack of any real consensus or any available proof that IE is actually
deficient in regard to processing these file types and the corresponding
metric as to how highly such functionality is scored by potential customers,
it is pretty certain that, if Microsoft were to start losing some business
due to that lack, the gap would be plugged pretty quickly. It isn't like it
is any secret as to how it could be done, eh? Source seems to be everywhere
for the viewing.
The Ghost In The Machine
<463a653d$0$2283$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>:
Lack of evidence = evidence of lack in this case, yes.
Linux is being adopted by all of 0.36% of the populace, absent
additional data. Plan accordingly. In particular, do the following.
[1] Ensure that you use all IE extensions you can, consistent with
website needs. These include conditionals.
[2] Ensure you use WMP formats. These are more efficient (and
demonstrably so) than RealVideo. Of course one may have to
purchase additional hardware (including firewalls), but that's
OK; one will make millions from the streaming. Won't they?
[3] Ensure that you encourage Microsoft Windows Vista, the most modern
OS ever(tm).
> My feeling is that the Linux fans are rather in your face with their
> superior choice of OS and would not want to disguise it as Windows simply to
> convenience themselves.
FSVO "superior". Remember that Linux (and, for that matter, Linus)
won't make a dime. RHT makes most of its money from support contracts,
AFAIK.
Therefore, Windows is superior in terms of revenue.
I'll leave it to the individual user as to whether that's
more important than actual usability, though Windows Vista
is reputed to be The Easiest OS To Use Ever(tm), as well.
Of course, we'll probably have to convince this individual of
that, since he seems to be a bit sour on the concept thereof.
http://kadaitcha.cx/vista/dogsbreakfast/index.html
But that's OK; he's...unusual.
[rest snipped]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #2239120:
void f(char *p) {char *q = p; strcpy(p,q); }
The Ghost In The Machine
<463a66fe$0$2285$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
> news:vhtpg4-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>>
>> which suggests Mac OSX Web usage could be as high as 6.22%.
>> Since 97% + 6.22% = 103.22% someone's a little off
>> (though there is the faint chance of one node using
>> more than one browser). But considering that Mozzie has
>> better SVG and PNG support, one has to wonder how long it
>> will be before IE bites the bullet -- or bites the dust.
>>
> It is a mistake to treat these situations as if they were static.
They haven't changed all that much for 10 years. One might as well
treat them as static absent additional information.
> Ignoring
> the lack of any real consensus or any available proof that IE is actually
> deficient in regard to processing these file types and the corresponding
> metric as to how highly such functionality is scored by potential customers,
> it is pretty certain that, if Microsoft were to start losing some business
> due to that lack, the gap would be plugged pretty quickly. It isn't like it
> is any secret as to how it could be done, eh? Source seems to be everywhere
> for the viewing.
>
IE is deficient in processing certain instances of XML, CSS, and PNG.
These are not important. What's more important are video,
HTML, and OLE/.NET/ActiveX.
The content's the thing.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #11823822:
signal(SIGKILL, catchkill);
Mark Kent
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, amicus_curious
><AC...@sti.net>
> wrote
> on Thu, 3 May 2007 15:05:59 -0400
><463a329b$0$20095$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>:
>>
>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
>> news:f08pg4-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>>>
>>> Just remember what they did with CIFS/SMB and Samba. :-)
>>>
>> I don't recall them doing anything to Samba. It still works on my machines.
>> Are you having a problem?
>>
>
> It has since been repaired, but how do we know they won't
> break it again?
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=15850
>
> http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2004-May/035632.html
>
> http://www.rmschneider.com/writing/xp_and_samba.html
>
> It is not clear that Microsoft deliberately intended to
> break Samba, but one does have to wonder.
Yes it is... Roy posted some material some time ago where Microsoft
employees were told to "f*ck with samba".
>
> That is the danger of using unstandardized proprietary
> protocols. To be sure, Microsoft also has to balance
> their breakage with their own support; if they update the
> protocol to break Samba, they might break their own tools
> as well.
>
That's why it's not been all that easy for them to break samba. Had
they been really cute and designed their OS in a modular way, then they
could quite possibly have just forced upgrades on people in the same way
as they do with their applications, however, they have not been able to
do so. Possibly they also prefer to encourage people to replace a whole
os?
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
The Ghost In The Machine
<mark...@demon.co.uk>
wrote
on Fri, 4 May 2007 14:55:52 +0100
<8kqrg4-...@ellandroad.demon.co.uk>:
> The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> espoused:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, amicus_curious
>><AC...@sti.net>
>> wrote
>> on Thu, 3 May 2007 15:05:59 -0400
>><463a329b$0$20095$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com>:
>>>
>>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
>>> news:f08pg4-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>>>>
>>>> Just remember what they did with CIFS/SMB and Samba. :-)
>>>>
>>> I don't recall them doing anything to Samba. It still works on my machines.
>>> Are you having a problem?
>>>
>>
>> It has since been repaired, but how do we know they won't
>> break it again?
>>
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=15850
>>
>> http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2004-May/035632.html
>>
>> http://www.rmschneider.com/writing/xp_and_samba.html
>>
>> It is not clear that Microsoft deliberately intended to
>> break Samba, but one does have to wonder.
>
> Yes it is... Roy posted some material some time ago where Microsoft
> employees were told to "f*ck with samba".
It ain't done until Samba won't run. Can't be too careful
with Al Qaeda running amount, it might lead to dancing.
Oh, wait, wrong newsgroup.
(Side issue:
http://slashdot.org/articles/05/08/02/2219208.shtml
suggests that the "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run" is
a bit of a myth, though it's hard for me to say which way
-- and DOS stands for "Dumb, Ossified, and Stupid" anyway
by now, though FreeDOS at least allows it to be dumb,
ossified, stupid, and freely available with source code.)
Once a monopolist...
>
>>
>> That is the danger of using unstandardized proprietary
>> protocols. To be sure, Microsoft also has to balance
>> their breakage with their own support; if they update the
>> protocol to break Samba, they might break their own tools
>> as well.
>>
>
> That's why it's not been all that easy for them to break samba. Had
> they been really cute and designed their OS in a modular way, then they
> could quite possibly have just forced upgrades on people in the same way
> as they do with their applications, however, they have not been able to
> do so. Possibly they also prefer to encourage people to replace a whole
> os?
>
Every 3 years.
Roy Schestowitz
Here's the missing reference, FWIW:
FLOSS Weekly 14: Jeremy Allison of Samba
,----[ Quote ]
| Vista is to ship with a new version of SMB, called SMB2. At
| minute 40 in this FLOSS Weekly podcast, Jeremy Allison of
| Samba talks of behavior that will flood the network with
| 1500 packets just to do a network file delete. This will
| turn Vista computers into a DOS (Denial of Service) attack
| upon Samba based computers on the network.
`----
,----[ Quote ]
| 'In the section of the interview from around 33m30s to 39m00 Jeremy
| Allison reports how he was told that the Microsoft team implementing
| SMB2 were ordered to "f**k with Samba".'
`----
--
~~ Best regards
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: Women blink twice as much as men
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux Ś PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
5:00am up 6 days 13:22, 5 users, load average: 1.27, 0.94, 0.84
John Bailo
> Uh...no, not really. But this will certainly get interesting,
Silverlight is a reference to Ozzie's hair.
Another insider joke.
But a joke...is all it is...
--
http://you-read-it-here-first.com
Get a 3% t-shirt:
http://dyo.customink.com/cink/r.jsp?E=jabailo%40texeme.com&F=3percent3
The Ghost In The Machine
<newsg...@schestowitz.com>
wrote
on Sat, 05 May 2007 05:03:58 +0100
<4095196.U...@schestowitz.com>:
Sounds more like dumb programming. "Uh, gee, Wally,
we've just deleted this file so now we have to reload the
entire directory?"
Although it's probably more complex than that. I suspect
a client program deletes the file, checks the parent
directory for updates, finds that the parent directory's
mod time has changed (since that file was just deleted),
and then reloads everything.
Whoops? Wonder why this deluge of network traffic's happening?
Hmmm...does Windows change a directory's mod times when a file
is deleted?
Ye gods.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #11823822:
signal(SIGKILL, catchkill);
--