Slashdot Log In
MS Silverlight a Step Back For Linux Users
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Apr 18, 2007 07:55 AM
from the no-media-for-penguins dept.
from the no-media-for-penguins dept.
mattb0611 writes "Just as it seemed that Linux users (especially 64-bit users) would finally be able to enjoy streaming content with a minimum of hassle, Microsoft's new Silverlight software promises to throw a monkey wrench in the works — as they have yet to suggest any sort of Linux platform support."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Aw, come on (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Aw, come on (Score:5, Insightful)
1) IE for the mac
2) WMP for the mac
3) Degraded MS Office functionality in Office 12 (scripting support for the mac).
They did announce that there might be support for Linux. If there is it won't last.
Step 1: Create cross platform product
Step 2: Get everyone to use cross platform product
Step 3: Drop support for every product that doesn't run Windows
Step 4: Profit (get customers to switch back to Windows)
Parent
Re:Aw, come on (Score:5, Funny)
Shouldn't that be BOTH platforms: Vista and XP?
Parent
Re:Aw, come on (Score:5, Informative)
Very, very hard. Forget the smaller scale than WINE - you're going to need large parts of the MacOS video infrastructure (CoreVideo, Quartz, likely QuickTime). If the mac client is not written in Cocoa, you'll need large parts of Carbon. (If it is in Cocoa, you could use GNUstep as a basis and avoid some work). You'ld be better off trying your luck with running the Windows version of Silverlight using WINE.
MacOS's BSD-like basis (and X11 support) means it is usually fairly simple to port Unix applications to MacOS (often just a recompile); the other direction is a lot more difficult.
Parent
Whatever - Flamebait Story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were a media manager, considering the current penetration of Flash, I might think about targeting a platform with a 60% share in addition to Flash, 10% would be extremely unlikely. So, a new OSS rich media format wouldn't work not because of the player but because of the content producers.
Parent
Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like using an existing monopoly to leverage your way into another market to me. Can't wait to see what the EU does with this one.
Parent
Re:Whatever - Flamebait Story (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, there is none so deaf as he who will not hear.
What about all these fine standards made available by the W3C [w3.org] ? SMIL [w3.org] maybe ?
Wait, nobody uses it because MSIE, used by 80% of people, doesn't implement it. Who's at fault ?
From the Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], implementation have been made mainly for handheld and mobile devices... where MSIE doesn't rule.
Parent
Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is one of the main goals behind Silverlight, to take control of the active media web content delivery mechanisms, so that Microsoft can provide support only for "friendly" operating systems.
Do you really think that Microsoft would do anything to promote the Linux platform on the desktop?
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Mac is Microsoft's antitrust insurance card. It only costs them ~5% lower market share to keep the government mostly off their backs. That's why MS bailed out Apple with a big cash transfusion and commitments for Mac versions of Office about 10 years ago.
Microsoft knows that with Apple's hardware lockin business model, there's little chance of their computer market share ever increasing by a significant amount, so this is a safe move for MS. Linux, OTOH, is a more dangerous unknown quantity. With an alien business model and dozens of companies involved with it, the ultimate impact on Microsoft's market share is unpredictable.
Parent
Of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
.NET (Score:5, Interesting)
This is actually better for Linux users than MS's traditional behavior.
The solution (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that many people will complain about this sort of tech, then use it anyway.
Re:The solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Amen. It's going to be a new DRM infested attempt to get a monopoly in the media distribution market anyway - why the heck are you people outraged that it probably won't come to your platform? I'd be happy if it came to as few as possible.
Parent
Why would MS support Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an honest question: Why would Microsoft release software to enhance Linux?
Linux users do not pay for software; that's the nature of the beast. I've been running Linux full-time since the early 1.x versions, and I've never purchased a single piece of software for it. So I don't see what the incentive is for Microsoft to support Linux.
Much as I love Linux and free software, it is self-defeating and unrealistic to demand that Microsoft (and other companies) support Linux. Perhaps the much-vaunted free software community should produce its own solutions that are better then the closed-source competition? Instead of complaining about what other people do, take responsibility for your own needs and write the software you want.
Isn't free software up to the challenge?
Re:Why would MS support Linux? (Score:4, Insightful)
Please, tell me how much the Flash plug-in for Internet Explorer costs. I forget.
I don't see what the incentive is for Microsoft to support Linux.
Another view is that they should support their paying customers who develop Silverlight content for their websites who may not give a hoot about Microsoft v. Linux and simply want the people viewing the sites they create to see all of their content no matter the OS platform they are using.
Of course, this could backfire on Microsoft too -- without all of the pertinent platforms supported, I won't migrate from Creative Studio to Microsoft products because I am not going to go to my customers and say that my preferred development platform is going to reduce their potential viewers.
Parent
Sure it's cross platform compatable (Score:4, Funny)
It supports both XP and Vista!
Catch up (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, I expect patents are a major barrier to the community developing its own standards independently of those with an interest in restricting technologies. Perhaps the best hope is the public sector, e.g. the BBC's Dirac codec.
In other news.. (Score:4, Insightful)
"DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run!" (Score:5, Insightful)
For inexplicable reasons, people persistantly think of MSFT as a benevolent technically-oriented company which is profitable because it serves the market and gives people what they want.
It is not and has never been. MSFT is a commercial marketing enterprise with considerable talents both as marketers and in contractual/legal arrangements. Their technical talents are very meagre. Most software they have bought from others or essentially contracted (even if inhouse).
They are also an adjudged monopolist (only the remedies were thrown out on appeal, _not_ the findings!) who have been entirely predatory "red-in-tooth-and-claw" and unfairly successful.
Anything that isn't MPEG-4 is a step backward (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with Silverlight is if it only plays on a personal computer it is already obsolete. Even if it played on Windows, Mac and Linux personal computers, still no good. There are too many phones and iPods and various other devices that have the ability to play audio and video (not to mention TV's), and these devices all have H.264/AAC decoders in them. There is no room for multiple codecs and no general purpose CPU to decode them. These are DVD players which are data-storage agnostic.
People say why doesn't AppleTV let you watch YouTube in addition to streaming movie trailers from Apple.com? Because the AppleTV decodes H.264 video in its GPU and YouTube is not H.264. The CPU in the AppleTV is under clocked to stay cool, it would have to run all the time to decode YouTube and it would have to be 2-3x the speed also. YouTube is not iPod-ready, not handheld-ready, not living room -ready by any stretch. It's very PC-oriented.
If MS can't sell WMA then how can they sell Silverlight? It is foolish. Even if every iPod user didn't already have QuickTime on their Mac or PC it would be a really hard sell to content creators to be bothered with multimedia content that is personal computer only. There are two billion phones that all need to be replaced in the next two years and the iPhone is kicking off the true handheld Web by reading actual Web pages plus MPEG-4 audio video. It is way too late for you if you are talking about what format audio and video is going to be stored and streamed in. It is also way too late for MS to get a fair chance with content creators when their greatest contribution so far has been to fuck with QuickTime at every chance they get.
Re:Surprise, surprise! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent