What do you thing of this?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Abe Sep 10, 2007 12:09 PM EDT |
This question is for all of those who thing Mono, Silverlight, Moonlight are Free and not Trojan Horses? .Net, Mono, Silverlight and Moonlight could be the best thing since sliced bread, but are they worth their trouble when we have FOSS application and tools from vendors other than the convicted Monopolist that can do the same if not better implementation? [Edited]Sorry about "Thing" instead of "think" in the title |
| Libervis Sep 10, 2007 1:29 PM EDT |
I initially dismissed the part about Mono and other Microsoft based technologies being proliferated on GNU/Linux as a real danger as long as its under Free Software licenses, but this makes me think twice. Mind you, I'm not yet sure if we are to be really alarming about this though. I still don't quite realize how exactly can Microsoft hurt Free Software by leading everyone to use .NET/Mono based stuff. Software patents? Yeah, like the software we already use is safe on that front anyway. How much would that change, we have patent saber rattling already. Changing the license of Mono stuff? So what? The previous version can be forked and we can go our way. So if they can't exactly retain control of it via patents and apparently not via copyright either, how exactly do we lose? It seems, in fact, that we might be gaining more than Microsoft here and they're playing a rather weird and dangerous game for themselves. But, as I said, it still doesn't really smell very pleasantly and it could very well be a "trojan horse infection" *attempt*. What I need is some more convincing arguments as to why would this attempt ever actually succeed? |
| herzeleid Sep 10, 2007 1:46 PM EDT |
Quoting: libervis: Changing the license of Mono stuff? So what? The previous version can be forked and we can go our way.The totally perfect situation for microsoft is this: you get linux users to buy into the silverlight hype, and using all of your usual dirty tricks (bribes, threats, massive blaring hype), you get content providers to switch to silverlight, and reduce flash market share, just as happened with ie against netscape. Now, you change the terms - and whoops! surprise, surprise, linux is no longer supported, so sorry. But you offer linux users a 10% discount to buy windoze and gain the ability to experience the windoze-only flash-replacement. At this point we can fork all we want, and it's about as much use as polishing the brass on a sinking ship. Microsoft has just made incompatible changes in the interface, pressured/enticed/bribed key sites hosting ms-centric content to upgrade, and the old linux version is now simply irrelevant. |
| Abe Sep 10, 2007 3:02 PM EDT |
@Libervis, I just want to add to what Herzeleid clearly said and described. Contamination of the mind, which is traditionally called marketing, is far more dangerous than any code contamination. That is how MS has been winning for a long time. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 10, 2007 3:04 PM EDT |
Quoting:Software patents? Yeah, like the software we already use is safe on that front anyway. How much would that change, we have patent saber rattling already. What I fear is that a lot more Microsoft technology besides the published/open .net standard is appearing in Mono and Moonlight. So far Microsoft has been huffing with patents that are all on open specs, or well known, or on stuff that shouldn't have been patented in the first place. I.e. any patent suit they throw at us will not stick. Perhaps Microsoft has realized that, so they are now luring us into technology for which they *do* have valid patents. Thanks to the MS-Novell deal, there is a lot of technology that Miguel de Icaza can legally implement in Mono/Moonlight but which is not part of the open standards and which cannot safely be redistributed outside of Novell (sans a patent protection racket). |
| tuxchick Sep 10, 2007 3:09 PM EDT |
In addition to the other comments, what bothers me is the idea of yet more bloat. MS has been pushing dot Net on desktop systems for years, and I can't see a single good reason for it. Not for users, anyway. Mono has been trying to stick its nose into Gnome in the same way. What for do we need these things? How do users benefit? I suspect that user benefit isn't even on their radar. |
| dinotrac Sep 10, 2007 3:20 PM EDT |
>Not for users, anyway. Bingo. Like Java, .Net is crap for users. It's all about developers. .Net developers can spit out a fair amount of functionality in a short period of time. Mind you, ask them to get down to nitty gritty and you'll get a bunch of blank stares, but they can crank up an application that interacts with another .Net application pretty darned quickly. |
| Libervis Sep 10, 2007 3:27 PM EDT |
Hezeleid and Sander, do I have your permission to quote you in an upcoming story on this? I'd rather just let you speak than paraphrase. You'll see it out very soon. Edit: Oh and Abe too. ;) Cheers |
| Abe Sep 10, 2007 4:26 PM EDT |
Quoting:.Net developers can spit out a fair amount of functionality in a short period of time.True, but I don't attribute that to .Net, but rather to Visual Studio tools. There is a difference? As I said before, FOSS would have benefited a lot if De Icaza had created tools similar to VS for Java, Javascript, PHP etc. instead. |
| tracyanne Sep 10, 2007 4:26 PM EDT |
This Boycott Novell reads, to me, like FUD of Microsoftian proportions. There is some real crap published there. |
| Abe Sep 10, 2007 4:37 PM EDT |
@Libervis, Feel free, it is open and I assure you, there are no hidden patents.:) |
| herzeleid Sep 10, 2007 4:42 PM EDT |
LIbervis: Sure, feel free to quote me freely... |
| Libervis Sep 10, 2007 4:45 PM EDT |
Thanks guys.. Well here is what I was writing: http://www.libervis.com/article/is_net_on_gnu_linux_a_trojan... |
| schestowitz Sep 10, 2007 7:34 PM EDT |
Before you call "FUD", Novell has responded ( http://boycottnovell.com/2007/09/10/moonlight-only-novell/ ) and, if anything, Novell confirmed a lot of what was said and escaped comment on what was too hard to deny. |
| tracyanne Sep 10, 2007 8:39 PM EDT |
Moonlight http://www.mono-project.com/Moonlight see for yourself. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 10, 2007 9:20 PM EDT |
Quoting:Hezeleid and Sander, do I have your permission to quote you in an upcoming story on this? I'd rather just let you speak than paraphrase. You'll see it out very soon. Please do :-) |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 10, 2007 10:20 PM EDT |
PS: I am not the only one seeing a patent trap here. This from the KDE blog: http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/2985Quoting:C# is a legit ECMA standard, as far as I can see. I don't remember if it was accepted by ISO or not, but it's okay. As is the standard for the CLI written underneath it. Which would also kind-of settle the debate from a few days ago about what's so bad about Mono when GNU is also implementing C#/.Net. |
| tracyanne Sep 10, 2007 10:42 PM EDT |
People aren't complaining about DotGnu, because most people haven't heard of it, whereas Mono is news, in part because it's associated with Novell, and we all know that Novell has been taken over by the dark side. |
| jacog Sep 11, 2007 1:21 AM EDT |
If Silverlight becomes commonplace on the web and popular sites start to use it, there will be a perceived dependance on it. All these enterprises who are switching to Linux are going to get very comfortable with it over the next few years, but at soon as Novell's agreement with Microsoft expires and it suddenly becomes illegal to run Moonlight, these companies are going to go "Well geeez, this Linux stuff just innut legally compatibol with this here interwebs stuff here, gawrsh... lettuce flush it dawn the terlet." |
| tracyanne Sep 11, 2007 1:38 AM EDT |
Moonlight [HYPERLINK@www.mono-project.com] see for yourself. I can't stand this bloody uninformed twaddle. |
| jacog Sep 11, 2007 1:54 AM EDT |
?? Talking to me? It's a nice product page, but it won't say what the long-term political strategy is. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 11, 2007 1:54 AM EDT |
@jacog: Perhaps. But as I see it now, we're not worse off with Moonlight as we are with Flash currently. Both are browser plugins that we cannot redistribute or include in distros.Quoting:I can't stand this bloody uninformed twaddle. You talking about us? Then please enlighten me, where on that page you linked does it say that we can redistribute Moonlight when it's done, and package it in all distros under strict FOSS licenses sans patent protection racket. |
| jacog Sep 11, 2007 2:05 AM EDT |
Sander. Perhaps not a whole lot worse off... but I do see Microsoft integrating it very tightly with Visual Studio, and all these point-and-click developers that they are creating may end up building sites that use Silverlight for the most basic functions. I work in a Microsoft-only company, and these developers are very used to just drag-n-dropping their pages together. For front end stuff anyway. Microsoft have this power which Adobe don't have. |
| tracyanne Sep 11, 2007 2:15 AM EDT |
Moonlight is and will always be GNU GPL (LGPL), you can take the code at anytime, do what you like with it, under theterms of the GPL. What you can't do is package the Microsoft CODECs with it, never can. You can, of course package free CODECs with it. There is nothing that can stop you doing anything with the parts of Moolight that is covered by the GPL, and the bits that aren't covered by the GPL are specically the Microsoft CODECs.Quoting: Media Codecs There is in fact nothing about Moonlight's code, that would stop someone from forking the damn thing and using the Fluendo licensed plugins or ffmpeg, or the current Win32 Codecs that are available legally outside the US. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 2:19 AM EDT |
tracyanne - I notice that your point about DotGNU got roundly ignored. Hmmm....Do I detect a little hypocrisy here? |
| tracyanne Sep 11, 2007 2:20 AM EDT |
Quoting:but I do see Microsoft integrating it very tightly with Visual Studio, and all these point-and-click developers that they are creating may end up building sites that use Silverlight for the most basic functions. I work in a Microsoft-only company, and these developers are very used to just drag-n-dropping their pages together. They aren't developers. They wouldn't last 5 minutes working for the company I work for, and we develop in Visual Studio. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 2:26 AM EDT |
>They aren't developers. Point and click is too harsh, but I have seen an awful lot of .Net developers who were absolutely lost whenever a problem arose that required getting under the covers. The problem isn't that a good developer can't use .Net. The problem is that companies hire for .Net more than they hire for good development, debugging, and trouble-shooting skills. |
| jacog Sep 11, 2007 2:32 AM EDT |
@tracy: Well, their c# is ok, and they are generally competent in that area... but not many of them are very good at doing client-side code. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 2:51 AM EDT |
>but not many of them are very good at doing client-side code. Not to mention falling down when you have to get into the basics of underlying protocols. I have had many a hair-pulling moment with .Net developers and http problems. |
| jacog Sep 11, 2007 3:04 AM EDT |
Indeed... and Microsoft like to brand things and invent their own names for every damnedable thing that already has a name. So often, Microsoft professionals will know everything by their MS terminology and are pretty much linguistically incompatible with the rest of the tech world. |
| tracyanne Sep 11, 2007 3:59 AM EDT |
Quoting:I notice that your point about DotGNU got roundly ignored. I noticed that too. |
| Libervis Sep 11, 2007 4:01 AM EDT |
dinotrac:Quoting:I notice that your point about DotGNU got roundly ignored. Hmmm....Do I detect a little hypocrisy here? Or perhaps it's a conspiracy! tracyanne: Quoting: People aren't complaining about DotGnu, because most people haven't heard of it, whereas Mono is news, in part because it's associated with Novell, and we all know that Novell has been taken over by the dark side. DotGNU isn't as popular indeed, but it also never was a part of a company who made an exclusionary patent agreement with Microsoft either. You can ridicule the quotations of that fact all you want, but the fact isn't changed and the complains are largely coming out of exactly that very fact. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 4:13 AM EDT |
>but it also never was a part of a company who made an exclusionary patent agreement with Microsoft either. So what? Seems to me that every argument against mono applies equally well to DotGNU. |
| Libervis Sep 11, 2007 4:34 AM EDT |
Quoting:Seems to me that every argument against mono applies equally well to DotGNU. Hmm, isn't the argument you just quoted a valid exception to that? Or you're just dismissing it as invalid? :) Quoting:So what? So, using DotGNU does not bring with itself the implication of Microsoft having shared its valid patents with it in order to later be able to turn around and litigate with greater legitimacy than it could today, or at least spread fear which might have larger foundations than it has today. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 5:14 AM EDT |
>So, using DotGNU does not bring with itself the implication of Microsoft having shared its valid patents with it in order to later be able to turn around and litigate with greater legitimacy than it could today No less than mono does. Microsoft has shared all of its valid patents with the DotGNU folks because patents are public documents. |
| hchaudh1 Sep 11, 2007 6:26 AM EDT |
@dinotrac "Bingo. Like Java, .Net is crap for users." I disagree. Java brings a lot to the table which .Net does not. vast libraries, a truly Open Source license, the advantage of being fairly platform independent et. etc. I would not put Java along with .Net. Of course, many many people still judge their technical prowess by their ability to crank out Perl scripts and what not. So, I understand the hostility of many FOSS types to Java. But using that as a crutch to make a point about .Net does not seem very fair to me. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 6:36 AM EDT |
>I disagree. Java brings a lot to the table which .Net does not. vast libraries, a truly Open Source license, the advantage of being fairly platform independent et. etc. Ummm....Ummm.Ummm.... Just exactly what are you disagreeing with. I talked about benefits to users, not to developers. I have yet to see any user benefit to java. Beyond that... >a truly Open Source license I don't know what you're talking about as there are two (count 'em, two) implementations of .Net with truly Open Source licenses. There is also a proprietary implementation. > But using that as a crutch to make a point about .Net does not seem very fair to me. I don't know what you're talking about. Java and .Net are similar strategies aimed at similar audiences, and neither one is great shakes for users. |
| hchaudh1 Sep 11, 2007 7:08 AM EDT |
@dinotrac I am disagreeing with your statement that Java and .Net is crap for users. I am saying that it depends on the app, how it was coded, how competent the devs were etc. If something is better for devs, there is a very good chance that that particular app might be better designed, maintainable in the future and all that good stuff. Which means that while users might not be able to see a halo around their app, but there is a good chance that a well designed app might mean lesser headaches for users. So, putting out a blanket statement saying that such and such technology is crap for users is not really fair. Coming to my preference for Java over .Net. I don't have to pay ridiculous fees for an IDE, server etc. Or, the vast libraries for Java already out there. Lesser development times, meaning faster time to market and maybe, just maybe, cheaper products. Take Hibernate, or POI, or any XML API's, the list goes on. About your second point. You point out in nearly every post that MS has truly open source compliant technologies. It is as compliant with Open Source as work places are free of racial/national/gender bias. Just because a pretty piece of paper says so, dosen't mean squat. Of course that stand might put me in the loony, conspiracy theorist category and you in the logical, pragmatic technologist category, but its ok. I think along with what's on paper, there are more important facts to consider like history. And MS's history does not bear out for me. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 11, 2007 7:30 AM EDT |
Quoting:People aren't complaining about DotGnu, because most people haven't heard of it, whereas Mono is news, in part because it's associated with Novell, and we all know that Novell has been taken over by the dark side. Quoting:I notice that your point about DotGNU got roundly ignored. Hmmm....Do I detect a little hypocrisy here? Objcetion your honour. Asked and answered. As I said above, Mono (re)implements a lot more technology and proprietary .net libraries than just the open CLS standard. DotGNU only implements the CLS and nothing more. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 7:50 AM EDT |
>Mono (re)implements a lot more technology and proprietary .net libraries What proprietary .Net libraries would those be? |
| herzeleid Sep 11, 2007 9:11 AM EDT |
Quoting: tracyanne: There is in fact nothing about Moonlight's code, that would stop someone from forking the damn thing and using the Fluendo licensed plugins or ffmpeg, or the current Win32 Codecs that are available legally outside the US.You merely lack imagination. Think outside the box. Be really devious. There are lots of nasty little things microsoft could do to render the fork irrelevant. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 9:46 AM EDT |
>there are lots of nasty little things microsoft could do to render the fork irrelevant. Be creative yourself: To what end? Why do they even need Silverlight? Hint: Flash. All fo the nasty little things they could do to render a fork irrelevant would also risk destroying any value in having Silverlight. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 11, 2007 10:03 AM EDT |
Quoting:>Mono (re)implements a lot more technology and proprietary .net libraries ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Forms for starters. They are all part of Mono but not part of DotGNU. That's because they are not part of the CLS/CLI ECMA standard, but they are supplied in Microsoft's .Net with which Mono wants to be 100% compatible. PS: Guess what Silverlight/Moonlight need (among others): Windows forms. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 10:35 AM EDT |
>ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Forms for starters. Cool. So mono is both a spec implementation and a sort-of Samba-ish compatibility extension. Hmmm. I can see the sense in that. So... if you stick to the stuff in the spec, you can be sure of cross-platform compatibility. Otherwise, you've still got a shot but there are no guarantees that it will always work. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 11, 2007 10:48 AM EDT |
Quoting:Cool. So mono is both a spec implementation and a sort-of Samba-ish compatibility extension. You could put it that way. You could also say that DotGNU is an implementation of the ECMA's .Net standard and Mono is an implementation of Microsoft's .Net standard. Either way, I think it's wise to be wary of MS patents (or threaths thereof) on things that are in MS's .Net but not in ECMA's .Net. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 10:58 AM EDT |
>You could also say that DotGNU is an implementation of the ECMA's .Net standard and Mono is an implementation of Microsoft's .Net standard. You could say that, but you would be wrong. Mono is very clearly an implementation of the ECMA standard. Apparently, it also implements additional APIs. >Either way, I think it's wise to be wary of MS patents (or threaths thereof) on things that are in MS's .Net but not in ECMA's .Net. Given that mono is not MS's .Net, there is no problem, or, at least, no problem beyond what any other development project has to worry about: Quoting: Mono is a community project, and as such, we will continue to implement the policy of not integrating knowingly infringing code into Mono. Sounds a lot like what the kernel developers say and what Red Hat promises in it's patent protection provisions. |
| herzeleid Sep 11, 2007 12:59 PM EDT |
Quoting: dino: Why do they even need Silverlight? Hint: Flash. All the nasty little things they could do to render a fork irrelevant would also risk destroying any value in having Silverlight.Perhaps you know something I don't but last I checked, microsoft as a company does not like having competitors, and invest a lot of time and energy into trying to cut them off at the knees. Let's face it, flash is a player on the web, and it bothers microsoft that flash is not controlled by them. Even more galling to microsoft is the fact that flash is available for non-microsoft operating systems. You ask about the purpose of silverlight, then "hinted" that you already know the answer. So you know that it's all about control of the market. If microsoft can wrest mindshare away from flash, they gain more control, and come a bit closer to the actual monopoly they seek - and if you think microsoft will continue to play nice with linux once they've cut flash and other cross-platform players out of the picture, you haven't been paying attention. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 1:20 PM EDT |
>you haven't been paying attention. Talk about not paying attention. Have you been asleep the last 5-6 years? Remember a little nasty called Windows Media Player? Remember how much of the internet used to be made for it? How it looked like everybody was going to go there? Then came flash, with the ready ability to bring video to just about everybody. Microsoft is doing Silverlight because the WMP strategy is falling apart. If they do to Silverlight what they did to WMP, it will fall apart too. The web is a place of big business these days. Businesses want to reach MORE people, not fewer. In case you hadn't noticed. |
| tracyanne Sep 11, 2007 1:41 PM EDT |
Quoting:Perhaps you know something I don't but last I checked, microsoft as a company does not like having competitors, and invest a lot of time and energy into trying to cut them off at the knees. We've already agreed, on another thread that Microsoft has no good will towards Linux, or indeed any other competitor. It's a given that Microsoft will try to use Moolight for devious ends. But i's also a given that they will attempt to use any other technology for devious ends. Nothing has changed Moonlight neither makes Microsoft's ill intententions a greater or a lesser threat. One thing that is certain though, is that if the FOSS community doesn't implement Moonlight, or something like it, there will be a large enough body of work that is based on Silverlight that will not work on Linux, giving the "I won't use Linux because it lacks.............." crowd yet another excuse not to move to Linux. On the other hand the existence of Moonlight removes that objection. As I've already pointed out, if the uptake of Linux is sufficient to reach critical mass, then Microsoft would cut their own throat to mess with the protocols/licenses etc, and if the uptake of Linux doesn't then it won't matter. There are several possible reasons why Microsoft has helped the implementation of Moonlight, in no particular order the uptake of desktop linux is greater than we know, but Microsoft has a better idea than the community Miguel implemented Moonlight far faster than Microsoft anticipated, and Microsoft doesn't really have any patentable technology in it. Microsoft are desperate to eat into the Flash market, because they can't control Flash. All of the above. (there may be others, but I think evil intentions are a given) If the Linux desktop market is growing faster than we suspect, it's reasonable to assume that Microsoft want a part of it, the deals with Novell, Xandros, Linspire are probably evidence of that. The fact that they are allowing Novell to bundle the Microsoft CODECs in with Moonlight in an exclusionary manner demonstrates an effort to control Moonlight. But Moonlight can only be controlled by Microsoft in so far as Novell or any other Linux/FOSS developer is willing to concede the issue over Microsoft CODEcs. There is certainly nothing that would stop any other FOSS developer from implementing Free CODECs and bundling those, and also bundling the Win32 CODECs outside of the US. Microsoft may want to gain a monopoly, if they don't already have one. They may even be seeking to maintain their current monopoly, but all of this depends on people continuing to buy into the Microsoft OS, far more than it depends on them taking market share from Adobe. Using Moonlight to eat into the Flash usage on Linux is not going to gain them much in the way of market share, they could do it just as well not supporting Linux with their product. But having Moonlight on Linux does make Linux a more attractive option for those considering moving from Windows. So on balance, I see Moonlight as a greater advantage for Linux than the fact that Microsoft are making their CODECs available via Novell is a detriment. |
| herzeleid Sep 11, 2007 2:44 PM EDT |
Tracyanne: I actually agree with you for the most part - but IMHO we need to be really careful in dealing with a dangerous animal like microsoft. My crystal ball is a bit cloudy, so I can't tell you for sure how this will play out, and it could well turn out that linux comes out stronger as a result of this, but it would be a mistake to look to silverlight as our new standard. It's IMHO important to keep our eyes wide open going forward, and fight to ensure that viable alternatives exist, and that we don't simply agree to hand over the reins of this buggy to microsoft. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 11, 2007 2:50 PM EDT |
Quoting:>You could also say that DotGNU is an implementation of the ECMA's .Net standard and Mono is an implementation of Microsoft's .Net standard. And ECMA's standard + those additional APIs = MS's .Net standard. I'm not wrong. We're saying the exact same thing. My beef is not with what's in ECMA, but what's in all those additional APIs and libraries (and anything that depends on it, like Moonlight) that Mono is reimplementing to make it fully compatible with MS's implementation. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 3:03 PM EDT |
>My beef is not with what's in ECMA, but what's in all those additional APIs and libraries (and anything that depends on it, like Moonlight) that Mono is reimplementing to make it fully compatible with MS's implementation. Is it correct, then, that you also disapprove of Samba and WINE? |
| Abe Sep 11, 2007 3:42 PM EDT |
Quoting:One thing that is certain though, is that if the FOSS community doesn't implement Moonlight, or something like it, there will be a large enough body of work that is based on Silverlight that will not work on Linux, giving the "I won't use Linux because it lacks.............." crowd yet another excuse not to move to Linux.Tracyanne, I really don't understand your logic angle. Sileverlight/Moonlight just have been released and there isn't much implementation yet. What is the rush? Why do you want to help MS take off with this technology and leave out what is available from Adobe? Flash has much bigger implementation currently, add to that the new release coming out soon with very nice new features, why do you want to abandon it? You keep saying if this and that don't exist on Linux, we will not have adopters. Well let me break it for you, Linux didn't have many of the stuff it has now, yet there have been many adopters. Guess what, we didn't need any thing from MS. FOSS is continually improving, look at the DM (GNOME & KDE). Look and the razzle-dazzle that CompizBeyrl can do. We didn't need anything from MS either.. So what is up with FOSS have to have MS technology to flourish? OK, let's assume Silverlight became popular and FOSS have to have it, fine, that can be done later if it is necessary. For now, I don't see the urgency. Apply the same to Mono please. |
| herzeleid Sep 11, 2007 4:00 PM EDT |
mod parent up (insightful +5) |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 4:11 PM EDT |
>So what is up with FOSS have to have MS technology to flourish? Sigh. This is not about FOSS's ability to flourish. FOSS is flourishing now...with one notable exception. This is about reaching out to ordinary users and their desktops. If Silverlight gets no traction, it won't matter to anybody. Of course, if Silverlight gets no traction, Moonlight won't matter, either, for good or for bad. If, however, Silverlight gets traction, the absence of Moonlight or something that does what Moonlight does becomes Yet Another Thing that Linux Can't Do. Ordinary users have a hard time seeing a desktop as "better" when there are things they want to do but can't. |
| tracyanne Sep 11, 2007 4:25 PM EDT |
Quoting:Why do you want to help MS take off with this technology and leave out what is available from Adobe? I don't. On the other hand the technology is there, implemented as Free software, and from what I understand the implementating of it was relatively trivial. I'm merely arguing that Moonlight is not evil, which seems to be the case many are trying make. It's just technology, it's what you do with it that matters. Quoting:Flash has much bigger implementation currently, add to that the new release coming out soon with very nice new features, why do you want to abandon it? I don't. On the other hand Macromedia/Adobe have never really been big supporters of Linux. Maybe this will impel them to become truly OS agnostic, and even supply proper tools for Flash development on Linux, because Moonlight will provide FOSS/Linux with development tools. Quoting:You keep saying if this and that don't exist on Linux, we will not have adopters. Well let me break it for you, Linux didn't have many of the stuff it has now, yet there have been many adopters. Guess what, we didn't need any thing from MS. You are quite correct, we don't need anything from Microsoft. But Moonlight for all it's Microsoft beginnings, in Silverlight, isn't a Microsoft application, it's a FOSS application. What we need are applications, and drivers, and documentation, and mind share, Most of those we already have, or are getting, mindshare could be better though. Quoting:FOSS is continually improving, look at the DM (GNOME & KDE). Look and the razzle-dazzle that CompizBeyrl can do. We didn't need anything from MS either.. Yes GNOME thanks, in part , to Mono, and Miguel. Quoting:So what is up with FOSS have to have MS technology to flourish? Pardon Quoting:OK, let's assume Silverlight became popular and FOSS have to have it, fine, that can be done later if it is necessary. For now, I don't see the urgency. Nor do I, but Moonlight is here now, do you propose that Miguel and his team unprogram it, so we can do it later? Quoting:Apply the same to Mono please. Mono also is here now, and very useful too, so it seems, from some of the articles I've read. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 11, 2007 4:35 PM EDT |
Quoting:Is it correct, then, that you also disapprove of Samba and WINE? They were not created under a deal with Microsoft. Quoting:Yes GNOME thanks, in part , to Mono Why does everone keep bringing that up? There is no Mono in GNOME and for the foreseeable future there never will be Mono in GNOME. Miguel can shout all he wants, but he's no longer a GNOME lead and current management doesn't want to have it. All that ever happened was that Mono had GNOME bindings early on, while it took a lot longer for it to grow KDE bindings. How surprising with Miguel leading Mono. |
| tracyanne Sep 11, 2007 4:50 PM EDT |
Quoting:They were not created under a deal with Microsoft. Nor was Moonlight. Microsoft became involved after the fact, and only to the extent that they made their CODECs available via Novell under and exclusionary deal. |
| dinotrac Sep 11, 2007 4:57 PM EDT |
>They were not created under a deal with Microsoft. Neither was mono. Mono has been under development for years, long before the deal with Microsoft was hatched. At some point, you really do have to care about the facts. |
| Abe Sep 12, 2007 5:53 AM EDT |
Quoting:and only to the extent that they made their CODECs available via Novell under and exclusionary deal.OKay, and what is that deal going to benefit the normal non-Novell-Linux users? Quoting:Neither was mono. Mono has been under development for years, long before the deal with Microsoft was hatched. At some point, you really do have to care about the facts.Before or after is irrelevant and not important. But what makes you so sure that Mono, among other things, didn't have anything to do with making the deal? Quoting:This is not about FOSS's ability to flourish. FOSS is flourishing now...I think that is what I said in my post. With some of MS inadvertent help but NOT its technology. Quoting:with one notable exception.So, you are saying FOSS needs MS technology to help it flourish on the desktop. Aren't you? And why would we want MS technology, that is not widely used yet, and participation where Flash/Flex is already widely used and almost, if not the De facto standard. We all agreed that MS can't be trusted and MS doesn't want to see FOSS flourishing and wish it can kill it right now and for ever, so why help MS make .Net & Silverlight dominate the Web? WHY!? Shazam, never mind, I guess I know. It is the bags of money, isn't it? Well, not on the expense of FOSS. Never, Never ever. |
| dinotrac Sep 12, 2007 6:08 AM EDT |
> OKay, and what is that deal going to benefit the normal non-Novell-Linux users? Oh gee, let me think. That depends on whether a "normal" user might ever want to view a site using SilverLight. That normal user might appreciate being able to do so. Seriously, Abe. Your disdain for the facts is getting tiresome. You know darned well that Moonlight and the Microsoft codecs will not be limited to Novell users. >Before or after is irrelevant and not important. Depends on the argument. Some people have been claiming that mono was in some way a product of the Microsoft-Novell deal. It just ain't so. >But what makes you so sure that Mono, among other things, didn't have anything to do with making the deal? Never tire of that penchant for making up your own reality, do you? I have no idea if mono played any role in making the deal. Neither do you. >And why would we want MS technology, that is not widely used yet, and participation where Flash/Flex is already widely used and almost, if not the De facto standard. Maybe for the same reason that we use other MS technology now. How about all those Xine and Mplayer users with their w32codec packages, eh? You are certainly free never to view a wmv video, but others may choose to do differently. Even you may eventually realize that getting major desktop share requires getting a lot of desktop users. Limiting growth to those who share you own rigid views and preferences ain't likely to do the trick. |
| Abe Sep 12, 2007 6:52 AM EDT |
Quoting:You know darned well that Moonlight and the Microsoft codecs will not be limited to Novell usersAnd where are those users going to be downloading the CODECS from? MS sites? What kind of agreement these users have to agree to? Do you have any idea what are the terms? Quoting:I have no idea if mono played any role in making the deal. Neither do you.True, but it is a possibility, wouldn't you say? But, knowing MS history and track records, I would say it is very probable and I wouldn't discount it. I would rather speculate to be prepared than be surprise and caught of guard. Quoting:Maybe for the same reason that we use other MS technology now. How about all those Xine and Mplayer users with their w32codec packages, eh? You are certainly free never to view a wmv video, but others may choose to do differently.Some are using w32codec because they have to and they can legally do that in there own countries. Others can't or don't want to, and that is why FOSS has the OGGs and trying hard to over come the domination of MS in the market. So why do we want to add more obstacles to overcome when there are other options in place to avoid doing that? It just doesn't make sense. Quoting:Your disdain for the facts... Limiting growth to those who share you own rigid views and preferences ain't likely to do the trick.Those facts you are referring to are nothing but status quo, status quo can be changed for the better. I am not forcing anyone to take my views and believe there are many others who share them already, I also happen to believe that they are the best way to deal with MS shenanigans and be safe from its domination and treachery. |
| dinotrac Sep 12, 2007 6:55 AM EDT |
>Those facts you are referring to are nothing but status quo, status quo can be changed for the better. Gosh, I guess we can all live better lives if we free ourselves from the facts. Hey look, everybody! I'm thin again! And I can fly! And Angelina Jolie just left Brad Pitt for me! Hey look! Britney Spears can sing! |
| hchaudh1 Sep 12, 2007 9:14 AM EDT |
Hey I just read Microsoft's "Get the facts" site. Goshdurnit...how could I have been so wrong. I think I need to start believing everything that's in print now. |
| jdixon Sep 12, 2007 9:20 AM EDT |
> Britney Spears can sing! Well, yes. She can. Whether she can sing well is another matter entirely. However, people who live in glass houses, etc., so I'll stay silent on the matter. |
| Abe Sep 12, 2007 9:34 AM EDT |
@Dino,Quoting:Gosh, I guess we can all live better lives if we free ourselves from the facts.You seem to enjoy your moonwalk, Don't let me disturb you. |
| tracyanne Sep 12, 2007 2:05 PM EDT |
Quoting:Others can't or don't want to, and that is why FOSS has the OGGs and trying hard to over come the domination of MS in the market And "FOSS" can keep right doing so with OGG in Moonlight.... oh look another venue for pushing OGG. Quoting:What kind of agreement these users have to agree to? Do you have any idea what are the terms? What are the terms now? You get to use the Codecs for personal use, on one computer. Or perhaps you are referring to the coda that states you promise to stop using Linux after 6 months and buy a Windows Vista computer. Quoting:I have no idea if mono played any role in making the deal. Neither do you. Lots of things a re possible, I'm more interested in what's probable. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!