Microsoft Silverlight - now with hidden Windows bias
Richard Rasker
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/silverlight_4_windows_bias/
"Unfortunately, some of these features are not what they first appear. The
HTML control in Silverlight 4 is not a new embedded browser from
Microsoft, but uses components from Internet Explorer on Windows, or
Safari on the Mac, which means that the same content might render
differently.
...
More seriously, COM automation is a Windows-only feature, introducing
differentiation between the Mac and Windows implementations."
Ah well, what else is new ... but how about Linux?
"There is also the awkward matter of Linux support, which Microsoft leaves
to third parties, mostly Novell's Mono but also Intel in the case of
Moblin, a version of Linux for netbooks."
And of course those third parties can't exactly keep up. Sorry mr. Toshok,
it's not that I don't appreciate your great efforts, but it sure looks like
Microsoft has sent you Moonlight developers chasing after moonlight itself:
Microsoft Silverlight version 3 has been released months ago, version 4.0
has already been presented, yet there's not even version 2 support for
Linux yet. Something tells me that this is not completely accidental -- and
I'm afraid that someone at Microsoft is laughing his ass off about those
Linux loons who frantically try to keep up.
Then again, perhaps that Google's Chrome OS may help speed things along in
this respect:
"This last point is interesting in the context of Google's recently
announced Chrome OS, which is based on Linux and likely to prove popular.
If it does, Microsoft will have to take Linux support more seriously, or
lose all pretense of cross-platform support."
But so far, I don't have high hopes.
Richard Rasker
--
http://www.linetec.nl
Joel
>Microsoft appears to be playing its old game once again:
>
>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/silverlight_4_windows_bias/
If anyone but MS themselves are actually developing Silverlight
content, whose fault is that? It fascinates me how willing people are
to use their inferior junk like that. (Is anyone even using it?)
It's not like using Windows forces me to use everything MS, and that's
fortunate, 'cause I'd be joining the Linux gang quick, if that day
ever came.
--
Joel Crump
Richard Rasker
> Richard Rasker <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote:
>
>>Microsoft appears to be playing its old game once again:
>>
>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/silverlight_4_windows_bias/
>
>
> If anyone but MS themselves are actually developing Silverlight
> content, whose fault is that? It fascinates me how willing people are
> to use their inferior junk like that. (Is anyone even using it?)
Unfortunately: yes. Quite a few TV stations and other media companies here
in the Netherlands have switched to Silverlight for offering their news
items, and their audio and video streams. I can only guess at their motives
for doing so (e-mail inquiries from me with regard to this haven't been
answered at all).
My problem is that I have dozens of Linux users who used to be able to watch
that content, but not any more, so I'm getting more complaints by the week.
Moonlight has worked more or less for the past three or four months, but
it's been broken for several weeks now -- at least on Mandriva. At this
moment, it's a total mess.
> It's not like using Windows forces me to use everything MS, and that's
> fortunate, 'cause I'd be joining the Linux gang quick, if that day
> ever came.
I think Silverlight is yet another attempt by those assholes from Redmond to
steer the world towards Windows, while preaching interoperability.
Snit
4b06f125$0$729$7ade...@textreader.nntp.internl.net on 11/20/09 12:42 PM:
> Joel wrote:
>
>> Richard Rasker <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft appears to be playing its old game once again:
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/silverlight_4_windows_bias/
>>
>>
>> If anyone but MS themselves are actually developing Silverlight
>> content, whose fault is that? It fascinates me how willing people are
>> to use their inferior junk like that. (Is anyone even using it?)
>
> Unfortunately: yes. Quite a few TV stations and other media companies here
> in the Netherlands have switched to Silverlight for offering their news
> items, and their audio and video streams. I can only guess at their motives
> for doing so (e-mail inquiries from me with regard to this haven't been
> answered at all).
> My problem is that I have dozens of Linux users who used to be able to watch
> that content, but not any more, so I'm getting more complaints by the week.
> Moonlight has worked more or less for the past three or four months, but
> it's been broken for several weeks now -- at least on Mandriva. At this
> moment, it's a total mess.
What does Silverlight offer that other solutions do not? Easier training?
Better end user results? Faster download times? I really do not know - but
if large numbers of people are moving over to it there likely is a reason...
and that reason might be a usability based one. Might not... as I said, I
do not know. Maybe it is being pushed in some way.
>> It's not like using Windows forces me to use everything MS, and that's
>> fortunate, 'cause I'd be joining the Linux gang quick, if that day
>> ever came.
>
> I think Silverlight is yet another attempt by those assholes from Redmond to
> steer the world towards Windows, while preaching interoperability.
Well, Silverlight works with more than just Windows, but it is pushing
people to MS technologies. Then again, Flash is much the same. I would
like to see both shrivel (even though I have done some Flash on a few of the
websites I have done... ).
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Mr. Majestic
Sorry, Silverlight content? If you think Silverlight is about passing
video junk, which is only a small aspect of Silverlight, this tells me
that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to using
Silverlight and the usage of Silverlight.
Silverlight is a .NET UI solution that can be used by a Windows Desktop
or Web solution in many various business type applications, with using
SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) solutions.
<http://weblogs.asp.net/dwahlin/archive/2008/06/16/pushing-data-to-a-silverlight-client-with-wcf-duplex-service-part-i.aspx>
<http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/nipuntomar/DataAccessSilverLightEnabledWCFService07152008013110AM/DataAccessSilverLightEnabledWCFService.aspx>
Chris Ahlstrom
> And of course those third parties can't exactly keep up. Sorry mr. Toshok,
> it's not that I don't appreciate your great efforts, but it sure looks like
> Microsoft has sent you Moonlight developers chasing after moonlight itself:
> Microsoft Silverlight version 3 has been released months ago, version 4.0
> has already been presented, yet there's not even version 2 support for
> Linux yet. Something tells me that this is not completely accidental -- and
> I'm afraid that someone at Microsoft is laughing his ass off about those
> Linux loons who frantically try to keep up.
What about the .NET developers frantically trying to keep up with Microsoft?
:-D
A Los Angeleno would say "I don't breath anything I can't see!":
--
Caution: breathing may be hazardous to your health.
Joel
>> If anyone but MS themselves are actually developing Silverlight
>> content, whose fault is that? It fascinates me how willing people are
>> to use their inferior junk like that. (Is anyone even using it?)
>
>Unfortunately: yes. Quite a few TV stations and other media companies here
>in the Netherlands have switched to Silverlight for offering their news
>items, and their audio and video streams. I can only guess at their motives
>for doing so (e-mail inquiries from me with regard to this haven't been
>answered at all).
>My problem is that I have dozens of Linux users who used to be able to watch
>that content, but not any more, so I'm getting more complaints by the week.
>Moonlight has worked more or less for the past three or four months, but
>it's been broken for several weeks now -- at least on Mandriva. At this
>moment, it's a total mess.
Sorry to hear that. Almost makes me feel bad for supporting MS.
Except that I honestly do like the OS itself. I guess at some point,
I just expect developers to choose their tools/etc. wisely, and
concern myself with what I use. I have Flash and Silverlight
installed, but don't use sites with their content a whole lot (not
sure I've ever seen Silverlight used on a non-MS site, although I
might not have noticed).
>> It's not like using Windows forces me to use everything MS, and that's
>> fortunate, 'cause I'd be joining the Linux gang quick, if that day
>> ever came.
>
>I think Silverlight is yet another attempt by those assholes from Redmond to
>steer the world towards Windows, while preaching interoperability.
In this case, I certainly could see the possibility of that. :(
(Then again, I'm pretty anti-Web, in general, so I'm more likely to
buy into such a theory.)
--
Joel Crump
TomB
> What does Silverlight offer that other solutions do not? Easier training?
> Better end user results? Faster download times? I really do not know - but
> if large numbers of people are moving over to it there likely is a reason...
> and that reason might be a usability based one. Might not... as I said, I
> do not know. Maybe it is being pushed in some way.
How about 'hype'?
> Well, Silverlight works with more than just Windows, but it is pushing
> people to MS technologies. Then again, Flash is much the same. I would
> like to see both shrivel
The sooner, the better.
--
Your own qualities will help prevent your advancement in the world.
Snit
PM:
> On 2009-11-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> What does Silverlight offer that other solutions do not? Easier training?
>> Better end user results? Faster download times? I really do not know - but
>> if large numbers of people are moving over to it there likely is a reason...
>> and that reason might be a usability based one. Might not... as I said, I
>> do not know. Maybe it is being pushed in some way.
>
> How about 'hype'?
Could be... I asked the question not to push that my suggestions are the
reason why - I really do not know. Is it just because it is from MS and
people look to MS solutions based on their effective monopoly on the
desktop? That could be, too...
And, to be fair, I have not seen much Silverlight stuff myself (other than
at Bing and other MS sites)... though I occasionally run into it.
I will say that with Bing and Win 7 and recent versions of MS Office, MS
does seem to be trying to focus on - gasp! - quality and even, dare I say
it, some level of innovation. Not that I think their products do not have
weaknesses - such as Bing not making it easy to open "hits" in alternate
tabs, but overall I am pretty happy with their recent products.
I think both Linux and Apple are pushing them to do better. Even if neither
gains any more market share than what they have now, they are, in that way,
succeeding. Good to see. The customer is winning... and that is really
what matters.
Oh... off-topic rant over. :)
>> Well, Silverlight works with more than just Windows, but it is pushing
>> people to MS technologies. Then again, Flash is much the same. I would
>> like to see both shrivel
>
> The sooner, the better.
No argument here.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Mr. Majestic
> Richard Rasker pulled this Usenet boner:
>
>> And of course those third parties can't exactly keep up. Sorry mr. Toshok,
>> it's not that I don't appreciate your great efforts, but it sure looks like
>> Microsoft has sent you Moonlight developers chasing after moonlight itself:
>> Microsoft Silverlight version 3 has been released months ago, version 4.0
>> has already been presented, yet there's not even version 2 support for
>> Linux yet. Something tells me that this is not completely accidental -- and
>> I'm afraid that someone at Microsoft is laughing his ass off about those
>> Linux loons who frantically try to keep up.
>
> What about the .NET developers frantically trying to keep up with Microsoft?
>
> :-D
It's money in the pockets, because they will pay for that .NET expertise
on the MS platform.
Mr. Majestic
Look man, Silverlight is more than about some video junk, and more .NET
platform enterprise clients are calling for the use of Silverlight in
their solutions that have nothing to do with video -- period.
TomB
> TomB stated in post 200911202...@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/20/09 1:29
> PM:
>
>> On 2009-11-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>> What does Silverlight offer that other solutions do not? Easier training?
>>> Better end user results? Faster download times? I really do not know - but
>>> if large numbers of people are moving over to it there likely is a reason...
>>> and that reason might be a usability based one. Might not... as I said, I
>>> do not know. Maybe it is being pushed in some way.
>>
>> How about 'hype'?
>
> Could be... I asked the question not to push that my suggestions are the
> reason why - I really do not know.>
Neither do I. I just don't understand why the internet had to be
poisoned with yet another proprietary product. People that use
alternative operating systems are left out in the cold as usual.
> Oh... off-topic rant over. :)
It was pretty on-topic.
>>> Well, Silverlight works with more than just Windows, but it is pushing
>>> people to MS technologies. Then again, Flash is much the same. I would
>>> like to see both shrivel
>>
>> The sooner, the better.
>
> No argument here.
Imagine that!
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
Mr. Majestic
Your ignorance about Silverlight is very apparent.
Joel
>Sorry, Silverlight content? If you think Silverlight is about passing
>video junk, which is only a small aspect of Silverlight, this tells me
>that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to using
>Silverlight and the usage of Silverlight.
>
>Silverlight is a .NET UI solution that can be used by a Windows Desktop
>or Web solution in many various business type applications, with using
>SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) solutions.
Sounds pretty much like buying a box of variety-colored pencils at
OfficeMax, but hey, if you're into that, enjoy.
--
Joel Crump
Snit
on 11/20/09 2:06 PM:
I share a good deal of ignorance about Silverlight. Please enlighten me.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
7
sock Mr. Majestic wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil
Department of Marketing:
You are out of date.
Java pays a lot more.
Snit
PM:
> On 2009-11-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>> TomB stated in post 200911202...@usenet.drumscum.be on 11/20/09 1:29
>> PM:
>>
>>> On 2009-11-20, the following emerged from the brain of Snit:
>>>> What does Silverlight offer that other solutions do not? Easier training?
>>>> Better end user results? Faster download times? I really do not know - but
>>>> if large numbers of people are moving over to it there likely is a
>>>> reason...
>>>> and that reason might be a usability based one. Might not... as I said, I
>>>> do not know. Maybe it is being pushed in some way.
>>>
>>> How about 'hype'?
>>
>> Could be... I asked the question not to push that my suggestions are the
>> reason why - I really do not know.>
>
> Neither do I. I just don't understand why the internet had to be
> poisoned with yet another proprietary product. People that use
> alternative operating systems are left out in the cold as usual.
>
>> Oh... off-topic rant over. :)
>
> It was pretty on-topic.
Well, it stretched the topic.
>>>> Well, Silverlight works with more than just Windows, but it is pushing
>>>> people to MS technologies. Then again, Flash is much the same. I would
>>>> like to see both shrivel
>>>
>>> The sooner, the better.
>>
>> No argument here.
>
> Imagine that!
Well, we could try to find a place of significant disagreement on this. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Mr. Majestic
Well, at least have a little class about what you don't know. :-P
Let's talk about the latest Linux hack.
Mr. Majestic
You're not programming with either of them making any money, and you're
making peanuts I suspect sweeping floors.
Richard Rasker
> Joel wrote:
>> Richard Rasker <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft appears to be playing its old game once again:
>>>
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/silverlight_4_windows_bias/
>>
>>
>> If anyone but MS themselves are actually developing Silverlight
>> content, whose fault is that? It fascinates me how willing people are
>> to use their inferior junk like that. (Is anyone even using it?)
>> It's not like using Windows forces me to use everything MS, and that's
>> fortunate, 'cause I'd be joining the Linux gang quick, if that day
>> ever came.
>>
>
> Sorry, Silverlight content? If you think Silverlight is about passing
> video junk, which is only a small aspect of Silverlight, this tells me
> that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to using
> Silverlight and the usage of Silverlight.
>
> Silverlight is a .NET UI solution that can be used by a Windows Desktop
> or Web solution in many various business type applications, with using
> SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) solutions.
Fine. And as long as those Silverlight business applications are meant for
internal use only, I don't give a damn. But when TV stations and news
organizations are stupid enough to increasingly use this crap for serving
content on their formerly universally accessible Web sites, the clock has
been set back a decade, with "Windows only" signs being erected all over
the Web once again. So I guess we join battle once again.
TomB
> TomB wrote:
>> Neither do I. I just don't understand why the internet had to be
>> poisoned with yet another proprietary product. People that use
>> alternative operating systems are left out in the cold as usual.
>
As is your ignorance about quoting properly.
But seriously: I have read a couple of articles on Silverlight, and I
know there more to it than streaming video, but that doesn't matter in
this context. Fact is that there are already quite a few sites
presenting content authored with Silverlight, and people on
unsupported platform are missing out on that content. That really is a
shame. The internet is a publicly available medium, and should be
available to anyone.
--
Artistic ventures highlighted. Rob a museum.
Mr. Majestic
I don't care either about some damn video bullshit you are talking.
I am more interested in enterprise level business solutions that would
use Silverlight that have nothing to do with the junk you're whining about.
However, I did sign up for Netflix, which installed Silverlight on my
Vista laptop machine with no problems, and I can watch on demand movies
with no problems. :-P)
Joel
>>> Sorry, Silverlight content? If you think Silverlight is about passing
>>> video junk, which is only a small aspect of Silverlight, this tells me
>>> that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to using
>>> Silverlight and the usage of Silverlight.
>>>
>>> Silverlight is a .NET UI solution that can be used by a Windows Desktop
>>> or Web solution in many various business type applications, with using
>>> SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) solutions.
>>
>> Sounds pretty much like buying a box of variety-colored pencils at
>> OfficeMax, but hey, if you're into that, enjoy.
>
>Well, at least have a little class about what you don't know. :-P
Don't get me wrong, the links were interesting to skim, at least in
the sense that I now know enough to know I don't want to know. ;)
>Let's talk about the latest Linux hack.
>
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html
Interesting. Any further info on the hacking itself (security holes
they could and should have patched, but didn't, etc.)?
--
Joel Crump
Snit
To be fair, Silverlight is not Windows only.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Mr. Majestic
I am using Netflex on demand that installed Silverlight on my Vista
laptop, with a $9.00 a month fee to Netflex, and I can watch movies in
real time on demand without having to go to Hollywood Video.
I have no problems using Silverlight in that capacity. :-P
Richard Rasker
> Richard Rasker wrote:
>> Mr. Majestic wrote:
...
>>> Silverlight is a .NET UI solution that can be used by a Windows Desktop
>>> or Web solution in many various business type applications, with using
>>> SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) solutions.
>>
>> Fine. And as long as those Silverlight business applications are meant
>> for internal use only, I don't give a damn. But when TV stations and news
>> organizations are stupid enough to increasingly use this crap for serving
>> content on their formerly universally accessible Web sites, the clock has
>> been set back a decade, with "Windows only" signs being erected all over
>> the Web once again. So I guess we join battle once again.
> I don't care either about some damn video bullshit you are talking.
Frankly, I don't care about multimedia content on the Web either. But quite
a few of my users do.
> I am more interested in enterprise level business solutions that would
> use Silverlight that have nothing to do with the junk you're whining
> about.
As I said, I don't care one bit about "enterprise level business solutions"
or whatever. Businesses can choose to use whatever they like, in any
format. But Silverlight sould not be used for offering Web content.
> However, I did sign up for Netflix, which installed Silverlight on my
> Vista laptop machine with no problems, and I can watch on demand movies
> with no problems. :-P)
How nice for you. Lots of Linux users, however, feel quite screwed: for
years, they could enjoy TV shows and news items without problems. But then
they got shut out because their favourite sites switched from Flash or
other streaming formats to Silverlight.
Mr. Majestic
Man they have governments hacking into other government sites, they are
hacking into banks world wide taking money that was not reported by
banks in fear of loosing customers, and they are knocking out areas in
countries that were out for several hours on electricity.
None of it on any computer platform it seems can be protected. And
*clown* Google wants to go into 'cloud technology' to the public?
Mr. Majestic
> Mr. Majestic wrote:
>
>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>> Mr. Majestic wrote:
> ...
>>>> Silverlight is a .NET UI solution that can be used by a Windows Desktop
>>>> or Web solution in many various business type applications, with using
>>>> SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) solutions.
>>> Fine. And as long as those Silverlight business applications are meant
>>> for internal use only, I don't give a damn. But when TV stations and news
>>> organizations are stupid enough to increasingly use this crap for serving
>>> content on their formerly universally accessible Web sites, the clock has
>>> been set back a decade, with "Windows only" signs being erected all over
>>> the Web once again. So I guess we join battle once again.
>
>> I don't care either about some damn video bullshit you are talking.
>
> Frankly, I don't care about multimedia content on the Web either. But quite
> a few of my users do.
>
>> I am more interested in enterprise level business solutions that would
>> use Silverlight that have nothing to do with the junk you're whining
>> about.
>
> As I said, I don't care one bit about "enterprise level business solutions"
> or whatever. Businesses can choose to use whatever they like, in any
> format. But Silverlight sould not be used for offering Web content.
You're the one that's doing the yapping.
Like I said, I don't care about what you're talking about. It's not
putting one dime in my pockets.
>
>> However, I did sign up for Netflix, which installed Silverlight on my
>> Vista laptop machine with no problems, and I can watch on demand movies
>> with no problems. :-P)
>
> How nice for you. Lots of Linux users, however, feel quite screwed: for
> years, they could enjoy TV shows and news items without problems. But then
> they got shut out because their favourite sites switched from Flash or
> other streaming formats to Silverlight.
Though! Should I get you some tissues for you issues?
Rafael Behringer
Cry me a river, ass-hat.
<BEGIN QUOTE>
May 14
Silverlight Losing Another Major Customer
Microsoft, Silverlight Add comments
Dealing another significant blow to the Microsoft Silverlight web
development platform, the New York Times is abandoning Silverlight and
Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF). Rob Larson from the New York
Times writes:
Next week we’ll be introducing Times Reader 2.0. This version is
powered by Adobe AIR and will run equally well on Windows, Mac and Linux
computers. With this latest release, Times Reader resembles the printed
paper even more closely, and it updates every five minutes with the
latest news from the Web.
The timing is awkward to say the least, with Microsoft actively promoting
its New York Times Silverlight Kit. This toolkit enables developers to
use the Times’ APIs with little or no coding, instead using mostly XAML.
The Times is dropping Silverlight for many of the same reasons that Major
League Baseball benched Silverlight in April: compatibility and
glitches. Though Microsoft still enjoys a near-monopoly on the PC
desktop, it doesn’t enjoy the same ubiquity in the browser. Hence, Apple
users complained about missing features that were available to Windows
users and compatibility problems with Safari 4. Developers also
complained that Silverlight had too many limitations compared to WPF and
often ended up having to maintain two separate code bases.
Silverlight also produces blurry text for small print, a major issue for
a newspaper. Though the problem has been known since 2006, Microsoft has
done little to fix it:
It is clear that our text rendering is not clear enough in many
scenarios. Unfortunately, the other design considerations make solving
this problem very difficult. We are investigating our options, but we
have not found any good solution yet.
The lesson here for Microsoft is that it can no longer rely on its
monopoly for customers to forgive its cross-platform limitations and
buggy software. With strong competition from Adobe AIR, Google Gears,
and other open source solutions, Microsoft must learn to play nice in a
multi-platform world that demands better quality and faster resolution of
known problems.
<END QUOTE>
http://www.devtopics.com/silverlight-losing-another-major-customer/
Now go read porn and masturbate so you'll feel good, you worthless twat.
--
RafB
Mr. Majestic
<snipped>
<pfft>
<yawn>
You stupid clown, if you read my post to another poster, your dumbass
would no that Silverlight is more than about some damn multimedia,
business are using Silverlight in other capacities, stupid.
You would know what a UI using SOA was about if it hit you upside your head.
Mr. Majestic
<snipped>
<correction>
You would not know what a UI using SOA was about if it hit you upside
your head.
Richard Rasker
> You stupid clown, if you read my post to another poster, your dumbass
> would no that Silverlight is more than about some damn multimedia,
> business are using Silverlight in other capacities, stupid.
OK, you have it your way, then. So what you're basically saying, is that
with Silverlight, Microsoft isn't just screwing private PC users who want to
use Linux to enjoy multimedia content, but also business users who want to
use Linux machines in their company. Well, all the more reason to shun it
then, now wouldn't you agree?
Richard Rasker
--
http://www.linetec.nl/
Rafael Behringer
You wouldn't know what hit you in the mouth if someone punched your
lights out, pussy.
Go read porn and masturbate. At least you'll feel better about your
worthless writings, twat.
--
RafB
William Poaster
say:
Mr. Majestic = The Bee = The Duh-Inane Arnold troll.
--
Linux. The Malicious Software Removal
tool which wipes Windows from your PC in
seconds!
Peter Köhlmann
> Above the wailing & moaning of the trolls, Richard Rasker was heard to
> say:
>
>> Mr. Majestic wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You stupid clown, if you read my post to another poster, your dumbass
>>> would no that Silverlight is more than about some damn multimedia,
>>> business are using Silverlight in other capacities, stupid.
>>
>> OK, you have it your way, then. So what you're basically saying, is
>> that with Silverlight, Microsoft isn't just screwing private PC users
>> who want to use Linux to enjoy multimedia content, but also business
>> users who want to use Linux machines in their company. Well, all the
>> more reason to shun it then, now wouldn't you agree?
>
> Mr. Majestic = The Bee = The Duh-Inane Arnold troll.
>
And unworthy to serve as fertilizer
The best linux advocate there is. It does not get any dumber than that
imbecile. A truly "worthy" windows user. Very typical, I'd say
--
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Tim Smith
Richard Rasker <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote:
> I think Silverlight is yet another attempt by those assholes from Redmond to
> steer the world towards Windows, while preaching interoperability.
Then why do they provide Silverlight for Mac?
--
--Tim Smith
Mr. Bee
Must you and Pussy Balls Leg Humper Dumb Willie Poaster hump each other
Petey Humping dog?
That's all you two are good for is humping each other.
Mr. Bee
> You wouldn't know what hit you in the mouth if someone punched your
> lights out, pussy.
>
> Go read porn and masturbate. At least you'll feel better about your
> worthless writings, twat.
>
<pfft>
<yawn>
I am sure your daddy punched your lights out when you tried rape him,
dickweed.
Tim Smith
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> What does Silverlight offer that other solutions do not? Easier training?
> Better end user results? Faster download times? I really do not know - but
> if large numbers of people are moving over to it there likely is a reason...
> and that reason might be a usability based one. Might not... as I said, I
> do not know. Maybe it is being pushed in some way.
It's similar to Flash, but much friendlier to programmers. For instance,
in Silverlight you can use any language supported by the .NET CLR. In
Flash, you have to use, I believe, ActionScript.
There are a lot of languages people have put on top of the CLR. Not all
of these are production ready, and some may be experiments that are no
longer being maintained, but here are the ones I've read about:
C#, F#, Visual Basic, Cobol, Prolog, Python, Ada, APL, BrainFuck,
Managed C++, Haskell, Logo, Lua, Perl, PHP, PL/1, Scala, Smalltalk,
Scheme.
From what I've read in programing forums, the Silverlight environment is
nicer than the Flash environment. Nicer APIs, better ways of specifying
things, and so on.
--
--Tim Smith
Nigel Feltham
So they can claim to not be using it to try and monopolise the web when they
get their next anti-trust trial (while at the same time making sure their
real biggest competitor can't run it)?
Mr. Bee
Have it your way. I can't help it, because you don't know what you're
talking about here.
The usage of Silverlight in the business that has NOTHING TO DO WITH
MULTIMEDIA USAGE is about using services in a SOA (Service Oriented
Architecture) solution to provide data to the front-end of a UI (User
Interface)/MVP (Model View Presenter)/BLL (Business Logic Layer)/WCF
(Windows Communication Foundation) service/DAL (Data Access Layer)/(ORM
Object Relational Mapping)Model infrastructure in a n-tierd .NET solution.
No Linux machines would be involved in an all MS platform .NET solution
in a corporation that's on the .NET MS infrastructure platform -- none.
I could care less as to what you're whining about with Silverlight,
Linux and multimedia.
That is your problem and not my problem. What do you want me to do about
your problem?
Is it that hard for you to understand something with more than a single
purpose?
<copied>
Silverlight provides several different ways to access data stored in
remote locations. Data can be pulled from Web Services and RESTful
services and even pushed from servers down to clients using sockets (see
my previous articles on sockets here, here and here). Silverlight 2
Beta 2 introduces another way to push data from a server to a client
using Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) and HTTP. WCF's support
for duplex service contracts makes this possible and opens up unique
opportunities for pumping data to Silverlight clients. In this first
part of a two part series I'll demonstrate how a WCF push service can be
created and cover the steps to get a sample service up and running. The
second article will focus on the client and show how to communicate with
a WCF duplex service and listen for data that's sent.
<end>
<copied>
Data binding is a connection between the User Interface and a business
object or other data provider. The data binding capabilities of XAML and
Silverlight offer more power and flexibility with less runtime code. The
User Interface object is called the target; the provider of the data is
called the source.
<end>
Joel
>Man they have governments hacking into other government sites, they are
>hacking into banks world wide taking money that was not reported by
>banks in fear of loosing customers, and they are knocking out areas in
>countries that were out for several hours on electricity.
Specifically Linux, or other kinds of Unix as well?
>None of it on any computer platform it seems can be protected. And
>*clown* Google wants to go into 'cloud technology' to the public?
Yeah, as far as that thing goes, I'm pretty secure (so to speak) in
Windows' dominance.
--
Joel Crump
Mr. Bee
I suggest you watch the 60minutes link to see who is doing what to whom,
if it's still there. They are sitting out there parked and doing some
serious hacking and espionage. I know that all of it is not MS sites, no
way. :)
High Plains Thumper
> No Linux machines would be involved in an all MS platform .NET
> solution in a corporation that's on the .NET MS infrastructure
> platform -- none.
There's the problem, monopoly maintenance.
> I could care less as to what you're whining about with Silverlight,
> Linux and multimedia.
Of course, but you're a Wintroll.
> That is your problem and not my problem. What do you want me to do
> about your problem?
Your problem is you don't belong here.
Another nym for the bozo bin. <PLONK!>
--
HPT
Mr. Bee
> Mr. Bee wrote:
>
>> No Linux machines would be involved in an all MS platform .NET
>> solution in a corporation that's on the .NET MS infrastructure
>> platform -- none.
>
> There's the problem, monopoly maintenance.
>
Don't whine to me about this, because you control nothing in the grand
scheme of things, but your worthless life.
>> I could care less as to what you're whining about with Silverlight,
>> Linux and multimedia.
>
> Of course, but you're a Wintroll.
And you're a COLA Leg Humping Loon, so we're even.
>
>> That is your problem and not my problem. What do you want me to do
>> about your problem?
>
> Your problem is you don't belong here.
You control nothing stupid.
>
> Another nym for the bozo bin. <PLONK!>
>
Yeah right, now run along and find someone's leg to hump.
Ruel Smith
> Microsoft appears to be playing its old game once again:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/silverlight_4_windows_bias/
>
> HTML control in Silverlight 4 is not a new embedded browser from
> Microsoft, but uses components from Internet Explorer on Windows, or
> Safari on the Mac, which means that the same content might render
> differently.
>
> "There is also the awkward matter of Linux support, which Microsoft leaves
> to third parties, mostly Novell's Mono but also Intel in the case of
> Moblin, a version of Linux for netbooks."
Silverlight is pretty cool but why not stick with Flash? Flash seems
to be the standard these days and available for most platforms although
linux x64 and flash haven't has the best starts.
Snit
reply_in_group-44B...@news.supernews.com on 11/20/09 5:08 PM:
> In article <C72C4510.54FFC%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> What does Silverlight offer that other solutions do not? Easier training?
>> Better end user results? Faster download times? I really do not know - but
>> if large numbers of people are moving over to it there likely is a reason...
>> and that reason might be a usability based one. Might not... as I said, I
>> do not know. Maybe it is being pushed in some way.
>
> It's similar to Flash, but much friendlier to programmers. For instance,
> in Silverlight you can use any language supported by the .NET CLR. In
> Flash, you have to use, I believe, ActionScript.
That is a big benefit - or so it would seem to me.
> There are a lot of languages people have put on top of the CLR. Not all
> of these are production ready, and some may be experiments that are no
> longer being maintained, but here are the ones I've read about:
>
> C#, F#, Visual Basic, Cobol, Prolog, Python, Ada, APL, BrainFuck,
> Managed C++, Haskell, Logo, Lua, Perl, PHP, PL/1, Scala, Smalltalk,
> Scheme.
>
> From what I've read in programing forums, the Silverlight environment is
> nicer than the Flash environment. Nicer APIs, better ways of specifying
> things, and so on.
It is much newer - would not surprise me. Thanks for the info.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Chris Ahlstrom
For the DOJ. :-D
--
There are three infallible ways of pleasing an author, and the three form a
rising scale of compliment: 1, to tell him you have read one of his books; 2,
to tell him you have read all of his books; 3, to ask him to let you read the
manuscript of his forthcoming book. No. 1 admits you to his respect; No. 2
admits you to his admiration; No. 3 carries you clear into his heart.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
Lusotec
> Microsoft appears to be playing its old game once again:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/silverlight_4_windows_bias/
>
> "Unfortunately, some of these features are not what they first appear.
> The
> HTML control in Silverlight 4 is not a new embedded browser from
> Microsoft, but uses components from Internet Explorer on Windows, or
> Safari on the Mac, which means that the same content might render
> differently.
> More seriously, COM automation is a Windows-only feature, introducing
> differentiation between the Mac and Windows implementations."
>
> Ah well, what else is new ... but how about Linux?
> (...)
How is this a surprise?!
Embrace: completed.
Extend: ongoing.
Extinguish: on standby, to start shortly.
Silverlight is at version 4, Moonlight is way behind, struggling for
compatibility with Silverlight version 2. The platforms that use Moonlight
are a small minority - be it 1%, 2%, or 5% - and of those I would say that
the majority don't even have Moonlight installed.
In these conditions, will the developers restrict them selfs to what
Moonlight supports? My guess is no, just as I don't test or care about
testing my web pages/apps on any of the less used browsers. If they are
standards compliant it will work, if not it won't.
In this situation the defacto standard is Silverlight and Moonlight either
steps up development and keeps up with Silverlight or it becomes irrelevant.
Regards.
Richard Rasker
To fool the gullible and stupid into believing that Microsoft sincerely
strives for interoperability and universal support of their crap, while
slipping in Windows-only features at the same time, so that only Windows
users have full functionality.
Mr. Bee
This sounds like a personal problem here. Personal problems don't count.
Kadaitcha Man
> How is this a surprise?!
It isn't. Illiteracy is rife.
TomB
You may want to read the article again:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/silverlight_4_windows_bias/
--
Q: Why was Stonehenge abandoned?
A: It wasn't IBM compatible.
Tim Smith
Richard Rasker <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote:
> >
> > Then why do they provide Silverlight for Mac?
>
> To fool the gullible and stupid into believing that Microsoft sincerely
> strives for interoperability and universal support of their crap, while
> slipping in Windows-only features at the same time, so that only Windows
> users have full functionality.
Do you also object, then, to the Linux-only features that have been
slipped into most Linux languages and development environments?
Your original post complained of two things.
1. Using the system's native HTML renderer. Most people see that as a
good thing. It means that HTML rendered in Silverlight on my Mac will be
rendered the way I expect.
In essence, your complaint here is that Microsoft isn't bringing IE to
the Mac.
2. You can use COM from Silverlight on Windows. All that means is that
people who are developing Windows-only applications will have the option
of using Silverlight for their presentation. They've also said that they
will be adding Applescript support to the Mac version, so people doing
Mac-only applications can use Silverlight.
The essence of your complaint boils down to they are making Silverlight
a general purpose environment, instead of limiting it to just portable
web-based stuff.
--
--Tim Smith
JEDIDIAH
>
>
> Joel wrote:
>> "Mr. Majestic" <Maje...@Majestic4.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, Silverlight content? If you think Silverlight is about passing
>>> video junk, which is only a small aspect of Silverlight, this tells me
>>> that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to using
>>> Silverlight and the usage of Silverlight.
>>>
>>> Silverlight is a .NET UI solution that can be used by a Windows Desktop
>>> or Web solution in many various business type applications, with using
>>> SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) solutions.
>>
>>
>> OfficeMax, but hey, if you're into that, enjoy.
>>
>
> Well, at least have a little class about what you don't know. :-P
>
>
> Let's talk about the latest Linux hack.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html
...which is probably the result of a dedicated motivated attacker.
Lemmings attempting to conflate viruses with burglars again.
--
Oracle... can't live with it... |||
/ | \
can't just replace it with postgres...
JEDIDIAH
>
>
> In article <4b07c47f$0$731$7ade...@textreader.nntp.internl.net>,
> Richard Rasker <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote:
>> >
>> > Then why do they provide Silverlight for Mac?
>>
>> To fool the gullible and stupid into believing that Microsoft sincerely
>> strives for interoperability and universal support of their crap, while
>> slipping in Windows-only features at the same time, so that only Windows
>> users have full functionality.
>
> Do you also object, then, to the Linux-only features that have been
> slipped into most Linux languages and development environments?
"Linux languages"
That would be the toolchain that was being used widely before Linux even existed?
[deletia]
Lusotec
> Richard Rasker wrote:
>> To fool the gullible and stupid into believing that Microsoft sincerely
>> strives for interoperability and universal support of their crap, while
>> slipping in Windows-only features at the same time, so that only Windows
>> users have full functionality.
>
> Do you also object, then, to the Linux-only features that have been
> slipped into most Linux languages and development environments?
>
> Your original post complained of two things.
>
> 1. Using the system's native HTML renderer. Most people see that as a
> good thing. It means that HTML rendered in Silverlight on my Mac will be
> rendered the way I expect.
>
> In essence, your complaint here is that Microsoft isn't bringing IE to
> the Mac.
From a developer point of view, this is a bad thing, requiring testing and
tinkering on multiple platforms/browsers to make it work and look as it
should, much like current HTML+CSS web development.
From a user point of view, if the developers do their work right it should
not make a difference what platform/browser is used. If not, then some users
will see a rendering artifacts, at best, or broken functionality, at worse.
> 2. You can use COM from Silverlight on Windows. All that means is that
> people who are developing Windows-only applications will have the option
> of using Silverlight for their presentation. They've also said that they
> will be adding Applescript support to the Mac version, so people doing
> Mac-only applications can use Silverlight.
>
> The essence of your complaint boils down to they are making Silverlight
> a general purpose environment, instead of limiting it to just portable
> web-based stuff.
Why is it that others are capable of making full featured web and local
clients cross development frameworks with minimal, if any, client specific
features and Microsoft is not? Also, if COM is so useful and unavoidable for
local client development why did they wait for version 4 to add it?
I have not looked at the programming details of Silverlight v4 but from what
I have read it is a poor local client for cross development platform and
even for web development it is restricted to Windows and Mac. Moonlight is
far behind and, at this rate, will not catch up with Silverlight any time
soon.
This is nothing unexpected from Microsoft.
Regards.
Mr. Bee
Go find a COLA leg to hump, stupid home user.
Chris Ahlstrom
> On 2009-11-21, Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> In article <4b07c47f$0$731$7ade...@textreader.nntp.internl.net>,
>> Richard Rasker <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Then why do they provide Silverlight for Mac?
>>>
>>> To fool the gullible and stupid into believing that Microsoft sincerely
>>> strives for interoperability and universal support of their crap, while
>>> slipping in Windows-only features at the same time, so that only Windows
>>> users have full functionality.
>>
>> Do you also object, then, to the Linux-only features that have been
>> slipped into most Linux languages and development environments?
>
> "Linux languages"
>
> That would be the toolchain that was being used widely before Linux even
> existed?
I think the Smith troll is confusing "Linux" with "POSIX", which even now
Windows doesn't support all that well.
--
A morgue is a morgue is a morgue. They can paint the walls with aggressively
cheerful primary colors and splashy bold graphics, but it's still a holding
place for the dead until they can be parted out to organ banks. Not that I
would have cared normally but my viewpoint was skewed. The relentless
pleasance of the room I sat in seemed only grotesque.
-- Pat Cadigan, "Mindplayers"
Tim Smith
Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
> >> Do you also object, then, to the Linux-only features that have been
> >> slipped into most Linux languages and development environments?
> >
> > "Linux languages"
> >
> > That would be the toolchain that was being used widely before Linux even
> > existed?
>
> I think the Smith troll is confusing "Linux" with "POSIX", which even now
> Windows doesn't support all that well.
So your position would be that I can't write a C program on Linux that
uses the various non-POSIX things in Linux?
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
Lusotec <nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
> > 2. You can use COM from Silverlight on Windows. All that means is that
> > people who are developing Windows-only applications will have the option
> > of using Silverlight for their presentation. They've also said that they
> > will be adding Applescript support to the Mac version, so people doing
> > Mac-only applications can use Silverlight.
> >
> > The essence of your complaint boils down to they are making Silverlight
> > a general purpose environment, instead of limiting it to just portable
> > web-based stuff.
>
> Why is it that others are capable of making full featured web and local
> clients cross development frameworks with minimal, if any, client specific
> features and Microsoft is not?
Microsoft did. It's called Silverlight. You aren't required to use the
Windows-specific COM stuff (or the Mac specified Applescript stuff when
that becomes available).
All they are doing here is trying to make it a general purpose
environment. This is a good thing, the same way it is good that C on
most platforms provides access to platform-specific functions. If I am
writing C code on Linux and want it to be portable, I avoid using
libraries and system calls that are Linux-specific. If I don't care
about running off of Linux, I can use Linux-specific stuff.
> Also, if COM is so useful and unavoidable for local client
> development why did they wait for version 4 to add it?
It's not useful or unavoidable for local client development if you are
interested in portable clients, which is what Silverlight has mostly
been used for.
--
--Tim Smith
Chris Ahlstrom
> In article <hebh8j$ilj$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Don't be an idiotic, fatuous, patronizing word-shifting troll.
These things have not
>> slipped into most Linux languages and development environments?
And, although a developer can use code that runs on Linux only, that is a
far cry from the Windows-only gavage that Microsoft deliberately (and for
quite a long time) cultivates whenever it pushes development environments.
You know that "Linux developers" as a rule use cross-platform facilities,
and bend over backwards to support Windows applications and protocols.
--
Perilous to all of us are the devices of an art deeper than we ourselves
possess.
-- Gandalf the Grey [J.R.R. Tolkien, "Lord of the Rings"]
Tim Smith
Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>
> These things have not
>
> >> slipped into most Linux languages and development environments?
Take it up with the original poster. I'm just using his terminology, in
the same way he used it.
--
--Tim Smith
Lusotec
> Lusotec <nom...@nomail.not> wrote:
>> Why is it that others are capable of making full featured web and local
>> clients cross development frameworks with minimal, if any, client
>> specific features and Microsoft is not?
>
> Microsoft did. It's called Silverlight.
Silverlight runs on Windows and Mac OSX. Compare that to Java, Qt, or
wxWidgets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Silverlight
http://qt.nokia.com/products
http://www.wxwidgets.org/
Moonlight provides GNU/Linux Silverlight support but Moonlight is an
independent implementation, and unfortunately significantly lagging behind
Silverlight.
Just the above makes Silverlight a poor cross development platform.
> You aren't required to use the Windows-specific COM stuff (or the Mac
> specified Applescript stuff when that becomes available).
OK, I may not have made my self clear. The problem is not providing a way to
access the native features the platform is running on. The problem is the
way they are doing it. All the cross-platforms I have used allow access to
the underlaying platform on all target platforms in an equivalent way (e.g.
Qt and wxWidgets by simply calling the C/C++ libraries, JNI on Java,
P/Invoke on .NET/Mono).
Why provide support for specific native technologies in particular
platforms, or should I say, in COM in Windows, and not provide a general way
to access the underlaying platform?
Note that .NET already has a way, P/Invoke, but is not possible to be used
in Silverlight, at least not in version 3. I have not read anything that
indicates this has changed in version 4.
Note that with P/Invoke accessing COM objects and any native DLL is already
possible with .NET, so I would guess Microsoft is adding COM access and
still block the general P/Invoke.
> All they are doing here is trying to make it a general purpose
> environment. This is a good thing, the same way it is good that C on
> most platforms provides access to platform-specific functions. If I am
> writing C code on Linux and want it to be portable, I avoid using
> libraries and system calls that are Linux-specific. If I don't care
> about running off of Linux, I can use Linux-specific stuff.
In C/C++ (and Java, Qt, wxWidgets), I can access platform specific features
on *all* platforms in a perfectly similar way. Is that possible on
Silverlight? No, just on Windows! That is the problem.
Now, my above question still stands. "Why is it that others are capable of
making full featured web and local clients cross development frameworks with
minimal, if any, client specific features and Microsoft is not?"
I believe the answer is simple, they simply don't want to. Microsoft is
doing what Microsoft has done, time and time again: embrace, extend,
extinguish.
>> Also, if COM is so useful and unavoidable for local client
>> development why did they wait for version 4 to add it?
>
> It's not useful or unavoidable for local client development if you are
> interested in portable clients, which is what Silverlight has mostly
> been used for.
I agree with the above but I would like to make one point. Web development
has shown that too many developers will develop for the majority platform
(e.g. Internet Explorer) and ignore the rest, and in traditional web
development most of the code lives on the server.
Will we see a significant fraction of Silverlight apps that only runs on the
majority platform, Windows?
Regards.
JEDIDIAH
So Linux is good enough for "stupid home users" how is it?
Thanks for the vote of confidence Lemming...
Mr. Majestic
I got yap from a COLA Leg Humper.