Weekly Edition
Return to the Development page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight
On his blog, Miguel de Icaza writes about Moonlight's future. As it approaches the 2.0 release (which has feature parity with Silverlight 2.0 along with some 3.0 features), he has ideas on areas that could be explored using Moonlight. "I think of the Moonlight relationship to Silverlight as the Firefox relationship to IE four years ago. It is a chance to try out new ideas in the Silverlight-o-sphere, we can try those ideas out, and if the ideas have merit, they could become part of the official Silverlight."
(Log in to post comments)
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 16, 2009 16:19 UTC (Mon) by faassen (subscriber, #1676) [Link]
I'm being snarky and snapping at the obvious here, but I can't resist... by this analogy in 2005, Internet Explorer was busy adopting those ideas that Firefox had explored that had merit. The rest didn't have merit. :)
Instead, in 2005, IE hadn't seen a new major release since 2001. Only in late 2006 was IE 7.0 released which does have features inspired by Firefox. I suppose work on that had started in 2005.
Anyway, this analogy seems pretty broken to me - Firefox to my knowledge never was trying to clone IE, though certainly they did take features from it. I don't think that the Firefox developers ever saw themselves as an exploratory playground for the benefit of improvements to IE, though. :)
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 16, 2009 16:50 UTC (Mon) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]
It has been said that one of the main purposes of Firefox is to 'restore competition to the browser sphere', that is, to kick Microsoft off their backside and make them do some development on IE. Like most products that have a near-monopoly market share, IE had stagnated, and it was holding back the Web. Recent versions such as IE 8 are not nearly as bad as what came before.
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 16, 2009 17:00 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (guest, #216) [Link]
It seems to me the Mozilla folks were simply trying to create a good Free browser, based on established standards. Whether or not it affected IE's development didn't seem to be an item on their radar. And that is, IMHO, how it should be.
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 17, 2009 1:39 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
> It seems to me the Mozilla folks were simply trying to create a good Free
> browser, based on established standards.
Definitely true.
> Whether or not it affected IE's development didn't seem to be an item on
I think it was, implicitly; we wanted competition in the browser market so that all browsers would improve, including Microsoft's. We're very pleased that we forced Microsoft to improve their browser.
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 21, 2009 21:20 UTC (Sat) by gerv (subscriber, #3376) [Link]
It was definitely an item on our radar. I think it's Asa Dotzler who calls IE 7 "the most impressive thing Mozilla has achieved", or words to that effect.
What's important is choice and innovation on an open web. Everyone using IE because they have to is bad. IE being standards-compliant and some people choosing to use it is fine in my book. And maybe one day we'll get there :-)
Gerv
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 16, 2009 17:08 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
I don't think that it's Firefox's goal is to make Microsoft improve
Internet Explorer. I think that most people in Mozilla would be quite happy if Microsoft decided to stop all development on IE and told people to start using Firefox.
Saying that Firefox is to IE is as Moonlight to Silverlight is disingenuous
The WWW itself started as a open source project with a open source browser
Moonlight is attempting to create a work-alike of a proprietary product
I don't know how they are comparable.
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 16, 2009 17:31 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]
Mosaic was never open source (and since Microsoft wound up buying what was the original Mosaic code, IE probably still has some of those bits in it). If you wanted an open source browser before the first free Mozilla release you had to settle either for a text-mode browser or a buggy, limited, experimental one like Arena or Amaya.
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 16, 2009 19:23 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Yeah, your right.
Apparently Mosaic supplied source code to users for the X version,
Spyglass licensed the Mosaic stuff for their own browser. Microsoft licensed
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 17, 2009 0:45 UTC (Tue) by qg6te2 (guest, #52587) [Link] Dear Drag,You're a frequent contributor to the discussions on LWN and many readers enjoy your comments. However, your spelling can be atrocious.
The mangled "Yeah, your right" begs the question what exactly is JoeBuck's right. His right hand ?
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 17, 2009 1:02 UTC (Tue) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]
Despite rampant misuse accross the interwebs, "suggests the question", or similar, is not a
recognized meaning of the phrase "begs the question" in standard English.
--------
To take for granted without basis or justification: a statement that begs the very point we're
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 17, 2009 3:55 UTC (Tue) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
Dear qg6te2,
One of the strengths of the English language is its adaptability. Spelling and meaning of many words and phrases have changed over the years from influence by those who do not have what Andrew Jackson described best: "It is a damn poor mind indeed which can't think of at least two ways to spell any word."
When I was a youngun, people used "lit", as in a well-lit room; now "lighted" seems universal. I do not complain of this loss of poetic English; it means the language is alive and well, with the side benefit of being easier for others to understand. One less imperfect verb to memorize! The brain power freed is better used for thinking than rememberance of obtuse verb forms. I look forward to "your" becoming the only way to write all similar sounds regardless of meaning. Speaking of which, since you saw fit to correct his spelling but not his meaning, you did understand him, he did get his message across, and that is the primary purpose of language where the rubber hits the road (oops -- that expression didn't exist a hundred years ago, did it?).
"Cool" meant something different and had actually dropped from usage; now it is back with a new meaning.
Please do not drag slashdot mentalties into a good place like LWN.
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 17, 2009 5:22 UTC (Tue) by jordanb (subscriber, #45668) [Link]
1) I've never heard anyone say "well-lighted." Well, maybe I have. But if I did, I don't remember it. It's something that would sound very wrong to my ears so I think I would.
2) By posting the inevitable Prescription vs. Description followup to someone's grammar correction, you're engaging in the same tired ritual that you criticize.
The reality behind PvD is that it's a false dichotomy. Either approach may be appropriate depending on the situation. If I repeatedly made an embarrassing grammatical gaffe, I'd like someone to point it out.
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 17, 2009 14:15 UTC (Tue) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
You understood him well enough to be pedantic for no other reason than to be pedantic. That's the bottom line. Everything else is lipstick on a pig.
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 17, 2009 14:38 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
You're wrong, offensively so. That's the bottom line.
See how insulting that feels? Stop making it hard to assume good faith.
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 17, 2009 14:54 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
I'll expand on this so you realise I'm not simply trolling.
I find it easier to read text which can be parsed on the first try without having to backtrack. When the wrong words are used, it can take a lot longer to read. I personally don't bother to point out people's mistakes - for one thing since usually they are just one-off errors, but also because people can take it personally.
I am somewhat grateful, however, to those who do. For you to assume bad intentions on the part of such a person, particularly when phrased the way you did, is something I find offensive.
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 19, 2009 6:22 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]
Ah, the wonders of watching geeks squabble over trivia. It's like watching a joust fought with Q-tips.
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 17, 2009 14:39 UTC (Tue) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] <offtopic>To be honest, it's quite annoying to have to read simple sentences twice because the first pass didn't parse properly. I think that's all the OP wanted to make clear. That comments on style are necessarily inline, and therefore interfering with the more important business of bashing Moonlight, does not mean they're pedantic, especially if you try to put it nicely rather than bringing in Andrew Jackson to prove your right. </offtopic>
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 21, 2009 21:24 UTC (Sat) by gerv (subscriber, #3376) [Link]
"To be honest, it's quite annoying to have to read simple sentences twice because the first pass didn't parse properly. I think that's all the OP wanted to make clear."
<applause>
Those who argue for laxity in spelling need to remember that the purpose of language is to communicate meaning as clearly as possible. If your misspelling makes your text communicate meaning worse, it's a bad idea.
Gerv
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 22, 2009 7:31 UTC (Sun) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
That's silly. The correction was a nitpick and showed that the meaning came thru loud and clear in spite of using the wrong word. The grammar error did not lead to confusion and misunderstanding. When the meaning is well understood, the grammar correction's only purpose is self-gratification.
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 17, 2009 11:41 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>I look forward to "your" becoming the only way to write all similar sounds regardless of meaning
Eye h8 itt wenn peepl intenshnly mayk thingz haaadr two reed n undrstand leik thatt.
English is hard enough to parse already; why make it worse?
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 17, 2009 14:43 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (guest, #56877) [Link]
At least it lexes easily. ;)
Mosaic Posted Nov 17, 2009 13:46 UTC (Tue) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] It's all a long time ago, but IIRC, NCSA Mosaic and Spyglass Mosaic were the same source code - Spyglass was NCSA's "marketing" spinoff, so for commercial licenses, it was Spyglass' task. The intention of Spyglass "general" license was that buyers could insert their logo and change the name of the program, but Microsoft's lawyers found out that they could do all kinds of changes - and so they did.
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 16, 2009 19:23 UTC (Mon) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] There is no chance in hell that they will ever be able to improve anything beyond what Microsoft implements firstActually, there is an example in that very blog post: ports to the Wii and PS3.
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 16, 2009 20:08 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Well you might as well as add 'Ports to Linux' if you want to go that route.
(of course it's worth noting that Moonlight on PS3 or Wii do not actually exist yet)
But I was talking about actual improvements to the 'standard' as in make
In browsers and www these things are like 'CSS', 'video html tag', or 'png
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 19, 2009 11:00 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] But I was talking about actual improvements to the 'standard' as in make useful features that Microsoft does not implement first.I think Miguel is planning some things like that, as mentioned in the blog post; the first example is video camera and audio support. Whether this will take off, it's hard to say. In the Mono project there are several examples of features that Mono has but Microsoft's implementation doesn't. For example 'eval' support and the C# shell.
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 17, 2009 1:48 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]
> I think that most people in Mozilla would be quite happy if Microsoft
> decided to stop all development on IE and told people to start > using Firefox.
I don't think that's true. There are some people that Microsoft can more easily reach than we can (e.g., intranet users), and they deserve better browsers too.
Also, we wouldn't want a (near) monopoly even if Microsoft was prepared to hand it to us. Even a free software monopoly could be bad.
> Saying that Firefox is to IE is as Moonlight to Silverlight is
This is definitely true. Moonlight is doomed to follow Microsoft wherever MS leads (or to be crippled when it can't, e.g. Netflix DRM). Mozilla is focused on Web standards, that are implementable royalty-free in free software, and will remain so.
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 16, 2009 19:56 UTC (Mon) by jhardin (guest, #3297) [Link] Anyway, this analogy seems pretty broken to meOf course it's broken. The major thing that analogy ignores is the fact that HTML is a defined standard controlled by a standards body, and Silverlight is "whatever MSFT says it is". And implementing Moonlight on Wii and PS3 is hardly "improving" Silverlight. Granted those are platforms MSFT won't support and it increases availability of Moonlight compared to Silverlight, but what new capabilities does that add? I think de Icaza is being willfully blind about the problems inherent in Moonlight (and Mono), and doesn't care that the community may suffer greatly because of them.
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 16, 2009 21:46 UTC (Mon) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] Silverlight support on Wii and PS3 makes things worse, not better.One could say having SL support on Linux allows Linux to be deployed in places that already depend on SL, but that don't depend on SL 3, nor on any proprietary feature not specified, such as most of Windows. Of course there aren't really any such places. So, what does it really enable, instead? It enables SL application deployment in environments that already have Linux, where SL developers can be restricted to using the portable subset. The result is not increased Linux deployment, the result is increased proprietary-environment deployment. Miguel is a mole -- a pure negative for Free Software. There's no point in pretending any more. It would be hard to say who's worse for Free Software at this point, Miguel or ESR. Probably each is worse than the other.
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 17, 2009 13:17 UTC (Tue) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]
FWIW I'm glad about Moonlight and Mono as well. I would use neither
voluntarily, but I'm going to start studying and apparently there will be some .NET and Silverlight stuff I'll have to do. If I can do that without having to install Windows on any machine, I already profited.
Evanescent whims of tech Posted Nov 18, 2009 5:14 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
In other words, you're going to make yourself part of the problem too.
Why not pick up skills, instead, that will not wash away with the next rainstorm?
Evanescent whims of tech Posted Nov 18, 2009 7:53 UTC (Wed) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]
Well maybe because I cannot dictate the university what they should teach?
Evanescent whims of tech Posted Nov 19, 2009 3:17 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
Maybe you should pick a better university.
Evanescent whims of tech Posted Nov 19, 2009 10:33 UTC (Thu) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]
Well, if you can tell me another university near my home town of Linz
where I can get my Bachelor's degree in software engineering extra- source work as this, I'd gladly consider it.
If not, then I'll be just as glad to have software that allows me to get
Between us: I even did some stuff in VBA once and despite that I still
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 16, 2009 20:06 UTC (Mon) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link]
So the free software community becomes a R&D resource for Microsoft?<Br>
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 16, 2009 21:42 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
Yup. I'm pretty surprised he's said this publicly.
Limited interest Posted Nov 16, 2009 21:52 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Is there a particular reason why we should be interested in Moonlight (or Silverlight for that matter)? Does it solve any problems that Flash doesn't? As we know it, Flash is mostly used for:
Limited interest Posted Nov 16, 2009 22:33 UTC (Mon) by AlexHudson (guest, #41828) [Link]
Flash is a hugely important format. As one example, vast amounts of learning modules are written for Flash (anything interactive beyond the limits of SCORM, for example).
Silverlight does similar things, but is much easier to produce and integrate into other systems. It's an awful lot like SVG, but the issue with SVG is that it's just not a viable format: the plugins for playback are ok, but the content creation applications are crap.
It strikes me that many of those most vocally anti-Silverlight have pretty much no interest or clue about that segment of the market, and don't really understand why people might be interested in it. They also don't get Flash. As a whole, the free software community doesn't really grok it, and this is why Moonlight may well succeed: the free community has nothing better to offer.
Limited interest Posted Nov 16, 2009 22:43 UTC (Mon) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link]
Free software does not need to have something better than Silverlight; if Adobe aligns itself with free software, or if the existing "free Flash" projects succeed, Flash can remain the domainant player.
Maybe Adobe vs. Microsoft can be a repeat of, Netscape=>Mozilla vs. Microsoft...
Limited interest Posted Nov 16, 2009 22:47 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] One thing to keep in mind is that while Adobe and Microsoft are no friends of Free software, both formats are reasonably open and well documented AFAIK. Of course HTML was also well documented back then.
Limited interest Posted Nov 17, 2009 1:26 UTC (Tue) by Kit (guest, #55925) [Link]
Unless things have changed, I believe the (official) documentation for the Flash format forbid using it to implement a third party player... which I believe would put Flash as being the *less* open of the two.
Flash documentation is freely licensed, now Posted Nov 17, 2009 5:38 UTC (Tue) by JesseW (guest, #41816) [Link] As of last April, there are no legal barriers to using the official Flash documentation to make third-party products. See http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2008/04/licensefree_spec.html for details.
Limited interest Posted Nov 17, 2009 9:23 UTC (Tue) by AlexHudson (guest, #41828) [Link]
Not only is Flash the "less open" format - as others have pointed out - Adobe have been very clear about wanting to own the content creation tools.
Having a free Flash player simply isn't good enough. If tools like Monodevelop allow people to develop Silverlight using totally free tools, that's a huge win over Flash.
Limited interest Posted Nov 18, 2009 5:47 UTC (Wed) by njs (guest, #40338) [Link]
> the free community has nothing better to offer.
I don't know enough to judge that accuracy/importance of the other things you point out, but the free community's (arguably) better alternative is, well, HTML -- as it is or will soon be. That's what all the effort going into HTML5/fast Javascript/video tag/canvas tag/etc. etc. are all about.
Limited interest Posted Nov 16, 2009 22:54 UTC (Mon) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
> And there are even free replacements that also seem to work.
No, there aren't. The Free flash implementations *barely* work. Essentially the only thing that seems
ISTM that going from Flash to Moonlight *could* at least be an improvement as far as being able to
Limited interest Posted Nov 17, 2009 9:40 UTC (Tue) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> No, there aren't. The Free flash implementations *barely* work.
It would be nice if, when Gnash (this probably also all applies to swfdec too) running in the browser plugin met a file that it couldn't handle, it would automatically provide clear information about why it couldn't handle it in a form that could be sent back to the site owner. That might help to ensure that more websites using Flash could be used with Gnash, which in turn would increase use of it and development effort.
Yes, I know that people using Gnash are still a small market, but I think that if they make themselves heard, site owners/content providers would take notice. A vocal group often seems to be bigger than it is :) (The same way that tech support people think that the products they support are hopelessly buggy, as they only ever hear what goes wrong with them...)
Limited interest Posted Nov 17, 2009 13:06 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
And that is supposed to help?
There is a small server called The [Asterisk] Flash Operator Panel: http://www.asternic.org/ . It includes a perl daemon and a page with a flash applet to provide an operator panel for an Asterisk PBX. It works well with Adobe flash and is completely broken with both gnash and swfdec.
The applet in question is provided with complete sources (using ming). The Debian package, when built, rebuilds the applet:
I asked on the IRC channels of both gnash and swfdec if there's anything to be done to make it work. Given that sources are available and maintainers would accept patches, it should be worth the effort. In both case sthe reply I got was that it will probably not work and that I shouldn't bother.
Limited interest Posted Nov 17, 2009 14:26 UTC (Tue) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
Hm, I was under the impression that when something didn't work with Gnash, it was mainly due to unimplemented opcodes. I'm not very knowledgeable about Flash though, so that may be completely out.
Limited interest Posted Nov 16, 2009 22:56 UTC (Mon) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]
The sole reason I'm interested in Silverlight is that Netflix has chosen it
for their streaming service. And Miguel admits that Moonlight can't handle that due to DRM issues (which would also affect anything else Netflix might consider for the same task).
I think that means Moonlight has zero interest for me.
De Icaza: The future of Moonlight Posted Nov 20, 2009 13:31 UTC (Fri) by sturmflut (guest, #38256) [Link]
At which point exactly did Icaza go insane?
He is working on projects that are barely able to keep up with what Microsoft released years ago, distributions are trying to get rid of Mono applications, most .NET applications will not run on Mono and yet he stands there, smiling, and talks about Moonlight extensions that may one day become part of Silverlight. As if the Mono/Moonlight community got time for this.
AFAICS Microsoft does not even recognize his efforts. They are just using Mono as an excuse for non-existant multi-platform .NET Binaries and if they actually do something good - like release the .NET Micro Framework - it is not synchronized with Novell/Mono and they even build their own community around it.
IMO Icaza did more harm to the FOSS world than most other people.
|
|
||||||||||||