| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Microsoft delivers Silverlight 1.0, extends support to LinuxMicrosoft delivers Silverlight 1.0, extends support to LinuxPosted Sep 6, 2007 22:28 UTC (Thu) by niner (subscriber, #26151)In reply to: Microsoft delivers Silverlight 1.0, extends support to Linux by The_Pirate Parent article: Microsoft delivers Silverlight 1.0, extends support to Linux
Well yes. Just the same as Macromedia (now Adobe) did with Flash. But with the difference that Microsoft is even more open this time as the Linux implementation will be fully GPLed. Meaning for example x86_64 support within our life time...
(Log in to post comments)
what about windows media support? Posted Sep 7, 2007 0:13 UTC (Fri) by undefined (guest, #40876) [Link] if silverlight "provides enhanced Web audio and video streaming and playback using industry-leading Windows Media(R) Technologies", and moonlight is the implementation of silverlight for linux, then i'm really interested in seeing how moonlight, like silverlight, uses windows media technologies.
i doubt microsoft is going to open source and/or give a patent grant for windows media. is moonlight going to allow for codec plugins, but only provide plugins for "open" media formats (wav, vorbis, theora, speex), which won't be used by commercial websites? yes, it would be nice to have an open-source, vector-based, animated, interactive technology (the original use of flash), but what about its current use (media streaming: youtube, pandora, etc)?
this will be interesting to watch unfold.
what about windows media support? Posted Sep 7, 2007 3:02 UTC (Fri) by tetromino (subscriber, #33846) [Link] IIRC, Microsoft promised to provide downloadable binary codec plugins (x86 and x86_64 only). The rest of the framework will be done by Novell and under the GPL.
what about windows media support? Posted Sep 7, 2007 3:22 UTC (Fri) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link] This may be an interesting one to watch, in those few moments one allots to Redmond watching.If MS has their Silverlight codebase, and allows GPL releases via a Novell proxy, one wonders how this would work. Contributions made to the GPL flavor can't be reflected back into another copy of the tree under an odious license, unless they have some additional magic clause (IANAL). I predict either a) shrill cries from all corners, or b) the whole project pulls a Bob. Kinda hope the latter. The market seems to finally be growing some sack in the light of OOXML.
what about windows media support? Posted Sep 7, 2007 14:13 UTC (Fri) by salimma (subscriber, #34460) [Link] Simple: Novell, like other corporate sponsors, would likely require copyright assignment to your contribution (or merely joint-copyright, which does the trick as well).
As part of the deal that lets them access the required Microsoft info, they are probably required to share improvements back as well.
I guess the picture could have been worse. The product is likely still quite far off, in the meantime, we have a club to prod Adobe with. x86_64 support, and stop stifling third-party reimplementations!
what about windows media support? Posted Sep 7, 2007 14:47 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Microsoft in this case is, indeed, doing better then Adobe.
Adobe's client is closed source. They are not helping with open source alternatives.
Meanwhile Microsoft is helping out with open source alternatives.. ie acknowledging and assisting them in whatever way.
Both things are dependant on closed source and otherwise patented codecs for media...
So unless Adobe plans to help out with Gnash anytime soon I'd have to say that Microsoft Silverlight is better then Adobe Flash already.
Not that I expect Silverlight to go anywere.
what about windows media support? Posted Sep 7, 2007 6:05 UTC (Fri) by kripkenstein (subscriber, #43281) [Link] Yes, Microsoft is providing binary downloadable codecs. Their license will, according to Novell, be something along the lines of "must be used inside a web browser". Redistribution rights are not clear as of yet.
Not the best arrangement, but about the same as Flash I guess.
what about windows media support? Posted Sep 7, 2007 8:32 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] Well it's a crapload better then flash.
Still depends on Microsoft's proprietary codecs, but oh well. At least playing videos won't lock my browser every 3rd video.
I hope those wonderfull folks down at the FFMPEG project won't have to difficult of a time extending existing WMV support to the new stuff.
Maybe if we get lucky this will inspire Adobe to open up their own stuff so that people can start doing more interesting and usefull stuff with flash that extends beyond advertisements, 'artistic' splash screens for websites, and playing low-fi homemade videos.
what about windows media support? Posted Sep 7, 2007 9:25 UTC (Fri) by zdzichu (guest, #17118) [Link] Well, Moonlight was done with ffmpeg, so it already works. It not commercialy distributable (in USA at least), hence the binary deal with MS.
|
|
||||||||||||