Inauguration on Moonlight
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| KernelShepard Jan 20, 2009 6:43 PM EDT |
This morning, I got wind that Moonlight 1.0 was released and that some Microsoft and Novell developers added a Linux (Silverlight 1.0) player to http://www.pic2009.org, so I grabbed the Firefox xpi installer from the Moonlight download page, reloaded my browser, and sure enough it worked. Miguel de Icaza blogged about it this morning: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Jan-20.html |
| herzeleid Jan 20, 2009 7:08 PM EDT |
Too bad it wasn't made available using more standard technology, say flash. I'm uncomfortable depending, for basic service, on the whims of microsoft, who BTW feel quite threatened by linux and want very badly to be able contain and manage it. Even if I were interested in drinking the microsoft cool aid, isn't it only available for the officially microsoft approved linux distro from Novell? |
| KernelShepard Jan 20, 2009 7:14 PM EDT |
No, it's available for all Linux distros. You just have to get the codecs from Microsoft if you want to be covered for the MPEG-LA patents, which Moonlight does magically for you (if you hit OK when it prompts you). You also have the choice of using the ffmpeg codecs instead, but you'll either have to build it yourself or get packages someone else made to do that (e.g. the Debian packages). |
| techiem2 Jan 20, 2009 7:51 PM EDT |
Apparently it is/was available on the BBC somewhere in flash according to a friend of mine. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 20, 2009 7:59 PM EDT |
I go to the BBC News website all the time and their video player I have always gotten to work for me. Its one of the few that work consistently without having to reload my browser over and over or turn off all my protections.. |
| Bob_Robertson Jan 20, 2009 8:36 PM EDT |
I would have just turned on the TV, if I'd had any interest. |
| jdixon Jan 20, 2009 8:48 PM EDT |
> I would have just turned on the TV, if I'd had any interest. Some folks have that as an option. :( However, I'm sure it's was up on youtube within minutes, so I doubt there would have been a problem watching it if I were so inclined. |
| tracyanne Jan 20, 2009 8:58 PM EDT |
I didn't watch it, didn't even bother. |
| KernelShepard Jan 20, 2009 10:26 PM EDT |
Considering my entire office was out for the day, I figured I might as well watch it at the office (and get paid to do so!) ;) |
| tuxchick Jan 20, 2009 11:52 PM EDT |
Here's a radical notion. We're still decades away from having a Free Flash implementation, as Gnash seems to be on the same timetable as the Hurd. Moonlight at least is GPL, and has a lot better chance at being actually usable. Would that be so awful? A Free moonlight over a closed, proprietary Flash, which BTW is effing annoying in that their Linux efforts are pitiful, buggy, and slow, while their schedule of releases seems to be accelerating. A pox on beastly web sites that whine "You need Flash Eleventy-Nine to view our precious content!" Poor ole innovative Adobe, it took them years to deliver a Linux port at all, and their 64-bit version will get here sometime after the Hurd and Gnash are production-ready. **edit** fixed typos. So much confusion, so little time. |
| herzeleid Jan 20, 2009 11:58 PM EDT |
> Moonlight at least is GPL, and has a lot better chance at being actually usable. Until microsoft decides to pull the rug out. IMHO it's a really bad idea to depend on the whims of microsoft for linux functionality. They have way too much motive to try and throw a monkey wrench into the linux world, and their track record shows they will do it without hesitation, precisely when they think it will do the most damage. |
| tracyanne Jan 21, 2009 12:21 AM EDT |
Quoting:Until microsoft decides to pull the rug out. It will always be GPL, Microsoft have choice in the matter. Quoting:it's a really bad idea to depend on the whims of microsoft for linux functionality. It's not up to Microsoft, Moonlight is GPL, anyone can use it and or modify it. Quoting:and their track record shows they will do it without hesitation, precisely when they think it will do the most damage. Extremely difficult given that the code is out there and can be modified by anyone. And given the EUs current track record, throwing monkey wrenches could be a dangerous proposition. |
| herzeleid Jan 21, 2009 12:49 AM EDT |
@tracyanne - Perhaps you've succumbed to a false sense of security since "the code is out there". What you're missing is that microsoft can simply update the silverlight format at any time and then all that gpl code is obsolete. Microsoft:: "We've just rolled out the new improved silverlight!" Linux users: "Hey, you broke the format! moonlight doesn't work anymore!" Microsoft: "Oopsie! Aw, did we do that? Well hang in there, maybe those mono guys will get it fixed eventually (hehehe) Say, in the meantime, you could switch to microsoft windows, and then all your troubles are over." "Tell you what, we'll even give you a discount, if you stop using linux, and agree to be featured in a new "I switched from linux to windows" piece we're doing. " "Is there anything else we can do to sweeten this offer for you?" |
| gus3 Jan 21, 2009 1:01 AM EDT |
@herzeleid: A data stream format change is not enough to invalidate the GPL. |
| jdixon Jan 21, 2009 1:20 AM EDT |
> A data stream format change is not enough to invalidate the GPL. He didn't say it was. He said the GPL'ed code would be obsolete. As in, not work any more. And that IS within Microsoft's power. Both with Moonlight and Mono. To think otherwise is foolish. The question will always be "will hurting Linux be worth the pain it will cause our Windows users?" |
| herzeleid Jan 21, 2009 2:21 AM EDT |
@gus3 - What jdixon said. |
| tracyanne Jan 21, 2009 2:33 AM EDT |
Silverlight's file format is XML |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 21, 2009 3:31 AM EDT |
@tracyanne: Doesn't matter. XML is not magic pixie dust. It's just as easy to make backwards incompatible changes to an XML format as it is to a plain text or binary format. I agree with herzeleid and jdixon. |
| herzeleid Jan 21, 2009 3:49 AM EDT |
@ tracyanne - xml? That's just a handy, buzzword-compliant container for whatever encoded data format they want to use. |
| tracyanne Jan 21, 2009 4:41 AM EDT |
:: shrug :: |
| bigg Jan 21, 2009 7:26 AM EDT |
Out of curiosity, do you think Flash will die if even all Linux users use Moonlight? I have a hard time understanding what could be the problem with using a technology today just because Microsoft can stop letting you use it in the future. Is it like cocaine? Are Linux users going to have withdrawal symptoms if they don't get their Moonlight? As for why it was done in Silverlight, according to this article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28695378/ Gates and Ballmer both contributed $50,000 for the inauguration. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 21, 2009 8:15 AM EDT |
Quoting:Out of curiosity, do you think Flash will die if even all Linux users use Moonlight? No, but if Microsoft should make an incompatible change to Silverlight then the older version would be replaced with never versions pretty quickly, thanks to Microsoft's automatic Windows updates. It's easier to replace one version of Silverlight with another than it is to replace Flash with Silverlight. For me it's easy. I trust Adobe more than I do Microsoft. If I have to choose between the two I choose Adobe/Flash. |
| bigg Jan 21, 2009 8:28 AM EDT |
But the point is that after Microsoft leaves Linux users out in the cold, you'll be in the same place as if you don't use it by choice. Using the technology today makes you no worse off in the future independent of what Microsoft chooses to do. Not that I currently have any interest in Moonlight, mind you, I'm just not seeing how there's any benefit to choosing not to use it. |
| dinotrac Jan 21, 2009 8:56 AM EDT |
Quoting:Poor ole innovative Adobe, it took them years to deliver a Linux port at all, and their 64-bit version will get here sometime after the Hurd and Gnash are production-ready. The alpha for 64 bit flash can be found here: http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html It is available for Linux only. |
| KernelShepard Jan 21, 2009 8:57 AM EDT |
I agree with Bigg, he makes an excellent point. I think it's also likely that even if Microsoft were to change the format (I doubt it, since it'd hurt developers developing for Silverlight as well as existing sites that didn't immediately convert to the new format), the free software community would still be able to reverse engineer the new format (just like the Gnash devs had to do for years before Adobe finally released the specs a year or so ago), and they'd have a major advantage because they'd already have a known working rendering engine - they'd just have to update the parser, big deal. My guess is that the parser is the most trivial part, implementing a performant rendering engine that does events in the same order as Silverlight, I'd expect, to be the most difficult and time consuming part. |
| gus3 Jan 21, 2009 9:55 AM EDT |
What KS and tracyanne said. If the data stream format changes, then the Moonlight developers can change their code (still under the GPL!) accordingly, and Microsoft can't stop them. Yes, it may take some reverse-engineering work, but the license is on the code, not on the data stream. Microsoft may make it difficult, but they cannot make it impossible or illegal. There is no revocation clause in the GPL. |
| r_a_trip Jan 21, 2009 10:13 AM EDT |
But the point is that after Microsoft leaves Linux users out in the cold, you'll be in the same place as if you don't use it by choice. Are you sure? MS will pull out the rug (if they can) when it does the most dammage. So they will wait until Silverlight has a sizable chunk of the web content delivery business. When say 60 to 70% of websites with "flashy" content use Silverlight, do you want to deal with the situation when MS cuts off unlicensed Silverlight players such as Moonlight? Don't say they can't, because there is more than one way to skin a cat. They could use patents to render the GPL Moonlight implementation indistributable. If they have any enforceable ones. They'd love that, because we put the patent poison pill in the license ourselves. Remember, MS doesn't distribute Moonlight, third party Novell does. They could extend future versions of Silverlight with obscure, hard to clone features only available to official players and content creators. Eventually, only older Silverlight content would work under Moonlight. They could even drop Silverlight once they kill Adobe's Flash market. If there is no competition anymore, MS can foist anything on the web designers. Web designers would have to use whatever new tool MS places in the market. (We still don't have a flash like tool in FOSS). Using the technology today makes you no worse off in the future independent of what Microsoft chooses to do. Yes, it does. Using Moonlight now, will help cement Silverlights position as a "legitimate" way of delivering web content at the detriment of Adobe Flash. Flash at least has a company behind it with an interest in supporting alternative OSes. The prime goal of MS seems to be to get their wares on everything with an x86 processor in it. They dream of a complete Wintel only world and we don't fit in those ambitions. Not that I currently have any interest in Moonlight, mind you, I'm just not seeing how there's any benefit to choosing not to use it. It slows the entrenchment of this predatory MS technology. Reason enough to shun Silver/Moonlight. |
| KernelShepard Jan 21, 2009 10:32 AM EDT |
r_a_trip: Actually, Microsoft /does/ distribute Moonlight. So you'd be wrong. Novell are implementing it, but both Microsoft and Novell are distributing it. Microsoft has a "Download Moonlight" link on their Silverlight downloads page. Unfortunately I have Moonlight installed right now so it doesn't offer me the "Download Silverlight now!" icon anymore, or I'd get you the URL. |
| bigg Jan 21, 2009 10:44 AM EDT |
@r_a_trip As asked in my first post: Do you really think Flash will disappear because a few Linux users decided to install Moonlight? Your logic relies on the choice of Linux users to install Moonlight as the primary factor in website deciding whether to use Flash or Silverlight. At the very most, it would eliminate a reason for websites to not use Silverlight. More realistically, the decision to move to Silverlight will have little to do with the choice of Linux users to install Moonlight. I just can't imagine a technology executive saying, "We should stick with Flash because some Linux users don't want to install Moonlight because they think Microsoft is a bad company." |
| dinotrac Jan 21, 2009 11:38 AM EDT |
bigg - Amen. As it stands, using Moonlight will give me more choices if Sliverlight catches on with any noticable part of the web, AND Moonlight is freer than Flash. To all the tin-foil hats, I have little to say but "So what?" If Linux users don't use Moonlight, that will have a negligible effect on Silverlight uptake, which will be driven by hordes of Windows and Mac users, not by dribbles of Linux. Besides, if you're a content provider, you ask a couple of questions: 1. Do they want my content? 2. Can they get my content? If the answers to 1 and 2 are yes, you're good to do. Heck -- People are willing to dual boot or set up virtual machines in order to get content, a few Moonlight whiners won't even make the radar. |
| r_a_trip Jan 21, 2009 11:43 AM EDT |
At the very most, it would eliminate a reason for websites to not use Silverlight. Exactly. So why should we make things easier for a company hell bent on destroying what we are using? A few inches of water may make the difference between drowning and staying alive... So why are we putting drops in the bucket? |
| tuxchick Jan 21, 2009 11:52 AM EDT |
Quoting: Besides, if you're a content provider, you ask a couple of questions: I don't believe so. Some do, but the majority obviously don't visit their own sites, or they wouldn't suck so badly. Tiny unreadable fonts, light gray fonts on white backgrounds, annoying mobile or patterned backgrounds, nasty color schemes, Flash-only, copy-and-pasting the same defective CSS with overlapping page elements, fat lardy scripts that bog down dual-core CPUs.....etc. Since so few practice any sort of their own QA, the only alternative is whining, and lots of it. Or ignoring them entirely, but that makes no impression and is ineffective as an agent of change. |
| dinotrac Jan 21, 2009 12:46 PM EDT |
I'm talking about content providers, not web developers. Doesn't much change your point -- but a content provider wants income, and that depends on people coming to the site. The conversation with such a person WRT Silverlight/flash/etc is mostly "I don't care" -- will it work and will it cause people grief, ie, sufficient to chase them away if they drop by. Multi-platform support is certainly a benefit for flash over, say, wma. |
| jdixon Jan 21, 2009 2:01 PM EDT |
> I trust Adobe more than I do Microsoft. I don't trust either of them as far as I could throw their main office buildings. > Using the technology today makes you no worse off in the future independent of what Microsoft chooses to do. True. > Not that I currently have any interest in Moonlight, mind you, I'm just not seeing how there's any benefit to choosing not to use it. If you have a need for it, there's nothing wrong with using it. That's entirely a matter of personal choice. > ...it may take some reverse-engineering work, but the license is on the code, not on the data stream. It's unwise to underestimate Microsoft's ability to throw a spanner into the works. They could probably make it extremely difficult, perhaps impossible to reverse engineer their changes. If not with technology then with legal tools (DRM, patents, trade secrets, non-compatible license changes, et. al.). At the moment, I have no use for the technology, but then I have little use for Flash. We'll see what the future holds. As I said, whether to use it or not is a personal choice for each person. Outside of the potential risks which are always present when Microsoft is involved, there's no real reason not to. But it's always a good idea to keep in mind what type of company we're dealing with and what they're capable of doing. |
| tracyanne Jan 21, 2009 4:27 PM EDT |
The other thing is that Moonlight is out there, the methodology is now well understood by at least a few Free software developers, so there is now nothing stopping Free software developers from building a Moonlight streaming Server, so if Microsoft were to do something to make Silverlight incompatable with Moolight, itdies would be almost trivial to create a 3rd media server/media client, and this time a Free one. So instead of making life more difficult for Linux users, and we're talking about the Aunty Flos and Uncle Eddies, not your typical Linux Tech head, the market would be opened up even further. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 21, 2009 4:37 PM EDT |
Quoting:As asked in my first post: Do you really think Flash will disappear because a few Linux users decided to install Moonlight? Do you really think Internet Explorer market share will shift just because a few geeks use this new-fangled Phoenix browser? Fast-forward a couple of years and Firefox is starting to eat IE alive, and the effect on web development as a whole has been tremendous. No serious developer is making IE-only sites anymore and things like "interoperability", "accessibility" and open web standards have become the norm. Why? Because a couple of geeks decided to build a better browser, a couple other geeks decided to install it and a third set of geeks decided that their websites had to work in it as well. Lets do the same thing for interactive web content. |
| dinotrac Jan 21, 2009 4:48 PM EDT |
Sander -- Lots of technologies would enjoy being eaten alive if eaten alive means 80% market share. Not sure the comparison to IE is apt, though. Adobe is continuing to maintain and upgrade Flash, which is a cash cow for everything but the player, and free players feed the cow. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 21, 2009 5:24 PM EDT |
@dino: That's a question of half-full or half-empty glasses. Not many technologies would like to lose 20% of the total market in a few short years. Most technologies don't even have 20% to begin with. |
| dinotrac Jan 21, 2009 7:51 PM EDT |
Sander - Microsoft neglected IE, non cash-cow that it is, and let it grow moldy. Adobe is developing flash with gusto. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 21, 2009 8:13 PM EDT |
Tuxchick wrote:Quoting:A Free moonlight over a closed, proprietary Flash, which BTW is effing annoying in that their Linux efforts are pitiful, buggy, and slow, while their schedule of releases seems to be accelerating. I was just about to ask her this very question. If Moonlight has open code available, does that mean it will run in Linux on non-Intel hardware? If this runs in PowerPC (and maybe even Sparc ... and maybe even as Linux in OpenBSD for i386), I'd pitch Flash over the wall right now. I couldn't be sicker of Flash and, just like tuxchick says, all those damn messages about not having the right version (I get these in Mac OS as well as Linux and OpenBSD) as well as my entire industry (read: the dying so-called profession of journalism) falling all over itself to do everything in Flash ... I'm pretty fed up with it. My boss came by last night and said, "Do you have Silverlight installed?" due to the Obama video. Guess I'll have to take a look. For however non-evil Adobe could be in comparison to Microsoft, a streaming video technology that doesn't tie me to certain processors and certain operating systems is something I could really get behind. |
| dinotrac Jan 21, 2009 8:51 PM EDT |
[quote]If Moonlight has open code available, does that mean it will run in Linux on non-Intel hardware?[]quote] Good question. Mono itself will run on all of that good stuff, but Moonlight uses some MS codecs. It's conceivable to me that it could use them in a way that worked across platforms, but...somehow...I would bet not. |
| TxtEdMacs Jan 22, 2009 10:07 AM EDT |
Quoting: ... but...somehow...I would bet not. But I think it is sure money that dino does NOT use the Preview button (often?*). YBT * hedging the bet, now a wild, know nothing Wall Street type. |
| KernelShepard Jan 22, 2009 10:17 AM EDT |
You can, however, build Moonlight against ffmpeg if you had to view content on a system where the Microsoft codecs were unavailable. |
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!