Advanced

Silverlight for Linux hits with Microsoft punch

Posted by Scott_Ruecker on · 24 comments
The Register; By Gavin Clarke
Mail this story
Print this story

An open-source version of Silverlight has been released with Microsoft's support, as Flash rival Adobe began crowing about the new media player's death. Moonlight 1.0 from the Novell-backed Mono team was posted Wednesday, having passed all of Microsoft's regression tests. Moonlight plugs into Firefox and is available for all major Linux distributions including openSUSE, SUSE Linux Enterprise, Fedora, Red Hat, and Ubuntu.

Full Story

  Nav
» Read more about: Story Type: News Story; Groups: Linux, Microsoft

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

  Related stories
» More like this

Comments (24)

4 earlier comments in the full thread.

Why not do a clean room implementation of moonlight without any ms cruft something we will all know is clear of ms fud and while we are at it write it so we dont need mono..... Im sure the community would support it beofre it does the trojan that is moonlight/mono id have no problem throwing $50-$100 at such a project...

Oh and where is google adobe or anyone elses answer to silverlight for hd content??
And when Microsoft gets enough share, they will let the other platform versions of it wither and die as they add Windows only features. You should try OpenLaszlo if you want an open source solution that is not dependent on any one client.
Quoting:The message this sends to me is that it is useful for everyone, including Microsoft, to fight for market share among Linux users. Less than 1% of the market? Yeah, right. This wouldn't be happening for less than 1% of the market.


Bingo Azer!! I have never never NEVER bought that line of bull. If we only have 1% of the market then why do this? 1% is ignorable at worst. But Linux and FOSS in general are most certainly not. "We" are a lot more than 1%, how much more I do not know, but its not 1%. I guarantee it.

Quoting:Why not do a clean room implementation of moonlight without any ms cruft something we will all know is clear of ms fud and while we are at it write it so we dont need mono


For us end users that'd be nice. However, it consolidates the Silverlight-platform, therefore creating a platform lock-in even amongst Linux users.

Now, a lot of Linux-users value their freedom and would rather not be dependent on a Microsoft (or Adobe for that part) platform. One simple reason is because any reverse engineered version will always lag behind the versions of Microsoft (or Adobe); and therefore Silverlight-support on Windows will always be better. That would be the reason that people continue to use Windows, and that's the only reason Microsoft did its best for Linux: To create a platform-lockin. This is done so developers only develop for that platform and don't have time and don't take the effort to learn another platform, and because that platform only works well on Windows eventually everyone still needs Windows. I'm afraid a reverse-engineered version only helps Microsoft here and makes all of us more platform-dependent, just like MONO did.

Appart from it, if Flash or Silverlight use any kind of encryption, cleanroom reverse engineering is at least against US law DMC and it might be against some European laws to (EUCD), I'm not sure for other parts of the world.

So it would be nice, but it would consolidate Microsoft's market share of both Windows and its platforms.

By the way, Moonlight can never be fully GPL'ed because if it contains the Windows codec-packs, those can _never_ be 'fully GPL'ed' because Microsoft doesn't have copyright on them and doesn't own the patents on these codecs. Providing licenses on those codecs for free for Linux-users sure is a sign how they (and especially: Some other big companies) are afraid of open standards, and only by creating a platform lockin parallel to the vendor lockin of Windows they are able to make sure people will stay dependent on those patent-minefield codecs.
>Why not do a clean room implementation

To what extent is Moonlight NOT a clean room implementation?

Mono, on which it depends, is a clean-room re-implentation of .Net.

Has Microsoft contributed any code to Moonlight, or merely provided specs and test suites? If it's just specs and test suites (and, perhaps some consultation and guidance), then Moonlight IS a clean room implementation.
hkwin... what would you suggest as an alternative that developers ,consumer,and corps will use

Im not a developer just an enduser and i always look to open source. And have supported projects with basic feedback forum administration basic graphic design and as much monetary support that i can give. That being said what i would like to do is find a project that would thwart this m$ lock in attempt but i havent found "the one"
um Scott, you quoted bigg and bingo'd me, from the tone of your comment it sounds a bit like you were agreeing with bigg too.

Personally I'm wondering how many people who I would usually expect to post to a thread like this wont. I'll take that as a clear sign that they wont even take the chance of a MS patent on air, and are currently quietly turning blue or have already passed out.
Quoting:Why not do a clean room implementation of moonlight without any ms cruft something we will all know is clear of ms fud and while we are at it write it so we dont need mono.....


That already exists. It's called DotGNU.
Sorry Az, Sorry Bigg.

got a little exited I guess..;-)
Quoting:Why not do a clean room implementation of moonlight ..


It already exists, it's called Moonlight, and Mono.
Quoting:By the way, Moonlight can never be fully GPL'ed because if it contains the Windows codec-packs, those can _never_ be 'fully GPL'ed' because Microsoft doesn't have copyright on them and doesn't own the patents on these codecs.


Actually, Moonlight *can* be fully GPL'd because it doesn't link with the Microsoft codecs, it simply dynamically loads them if they are there afaict. It also allows the user to download the MS codecs if he/she chooses, but can also use FFmpeg codecs (but I think this option requires you to compile yourself).

However, just an FYI, Moonlight isn't GPL, it's LGPL according to the LICENSE file.
Quoting:Moonlight can never be fully GPL'ed because if it contains the Windows codec-packs...


No it doesn't. They are not included in Moonlight. They are optional extensions. You can if you choose link to the Free implementations of those codecs.
Quoting:However, just an FYI, Moonlight isn't GPL, it's LGPL according to the LICENSE file.


And the difference between GPL and LGPL is?
It's easier to tack on other, proprietary (or at least non-GPL) code.
Quoting:t's easier to tack on other, proprietary (or at least non-GPL) code.


No. The LGPLed code can be used as a component in Proprietary applications with out the requirement to release the proprietary source code.
@bigg

Quoting:The message this sends to me is that it is useful for everyone, including Microsoft, to fight for market share among Linux users.


There is that too.
I'm guessing they released as LGPL since that's what the rest of Gtk, etc are released under.
Quoting:that being said what i would like to do is find a project that would thwart this m$ lock in attempt but i havent found "the one"


The lack of an alternative is born also because of - surprise - the existing network effects and platform lockin. Everybody wants Flash and Silverlight, so therefore using/developing Moonlight/Gnash is probably the logical thing to do.

However, it requires far less efforts to write something from scratch than to reverse-engineer something and let another team write something limited by the docs of the reverse engineers.

Basically, there's no good alternative I'm afraid. I'm complaining with empty hands; nothing to give. People don't listen to those with empty hands, that's for sure, and I can't blame them because they're right. What makes me sad however is to see lots of efforts are spend to consolidate the MS / Adobe platform lockin, because for the end users who are wanting a free platform that time could have been spent better. So, coming back to the question:

Quoting:what would you suggest as an alternative that developers, consumer,and corps will use


Probably, at this moment there isn't an alternative they can use, they'd have to develop an alternative. I'm painfully aware this is rather utpopian and may not bee that realistic. However, quite the same problem was true for streaming media formats: The BBC couldn't choose an alternative, and therefore decided to develop their own, which became Dirac. In our country, the NOS (You could say: Dutch BBC, except for that it's not) uses Silverlight. It would be a good thing if they - together with other public broadcasting companies could make a free alternative.

At this moment, it doesn't bring you an alternative solution however, so it's nothing that brings you any further at this moment, for which I'm sorry. It's only an idealistic view of how the world should be, and reaching that is at this moment done via political ways: Telling aunt Neelie that the Dutch public broadcasting company is helping to consolidate a MS-platform lockin (not much see can do about it, but just making sure she knows), telling Dutch politicians about how NOS is contributing to this, and so on.
@hkwint:

I disagree with your assumption that designing a whole new system is less work than reverse engineering software. The amount of resources (research, time, and money) required to design and then implement a new technology is by far more than what is needed to reverse engineer existing software in order to create a competing product - even if the original product isn't documented very well. Obviously, the better documented it is, the easier it is to reverse engineer - and both .NET and Silverlight are fairly decently documented from what I can tell.

And then, of course, you have the problem of marketing your brand new solution as something people would want over what was already available on the market. This is the problem Microsoft is facing now with Silverlight adoption against Flash.

Unlike Microsoft, the FLOSS community does not have the finances to support either undertaking.

Miguel et all seem to be having a degree of success in getting Microsoft to release some of their Silverlight code as Free Software (yes, MS-PL is a Free Software license). I hope Miguel keeps pushing and we continue to see Microsoft release more and more under the MS-PL (or other FOSS licenses) and possibly get Silverlight completely open.

Luckily, even if Miguel fails, we are very likely to see Adobe buckle under the pressure and fully open their player.
yes adobe opening the flash player would be a great result.

Post a comment

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post