,----[ Quote ] | Scott Guthrie, a general manager in Microsoft's developer division, blogged | ahead of Adobe's AIR and Flex news that Silverlight 2 would feature a | cross-platform version of its .NET Framework and let developers program | Silverlight content using any .NET language. `----
It's *not* cross-platform. They keep lying about it. They attack HTML, Flash, LAMP, and Ajax. The US and EU regulators are already after them for Silverlight abuses.
Related:
Microsoft's Silverlight Promises to Disrupt Linux Web Users
,----[ Quote ] | 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 | wrench in the works. Because of sites like Google Video and | Youtube, Flash video has become a common means of streaming | multimedia over the Internet. `----
,----[ Quote ] | An industry coalition that has represented competitors of Microsoft | in European markets before the European Commission stepped up its | public relations offensive this morning, this time accusing | Microsoft of scheming to upset HTML's place in the fabric of | the Internet with XAML, an XML-based layout lexicon for | network applications. `----
,----[ Quote ] | Microsoft has put up an invitation to share the love, but not with Linux | (just bear with me, it will make sense in the end). With Valentine's Day just | a few weeks away, the teams over at Windows Live and Microsoft Silverlight | have joined their forces to enable users to spread and share their love. `----
Discussion subject changed to "Microsoft's Scott Guthrie Lies About/Twists "Cross-platform" to Hijack Web (was: [News] Microsoft's Scott Guthrie Lies About/Twists "Cross-platform" to Hijack Web)" by Erik Funkenbusch
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:46:28 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote: > Microsoft and Adobe jockey on rich applications
> ,----[ Quote ] >| Scott Guthrie, a general manager in Microsoft's developer division, blogged >| ahead of Adobe's AIR and Flex news that Silverlight 2 would feature a >| cross-platform version of its .NET Framework and let developers program >| Silverlight content using any .NET language. > `----
> It's *not* cross-platform. They keep lying about it. They attack HTML, Flash, > LAMP, and Ajax. The US and EU regulators are already after them for > Silverlight abuses.
Roy, you are flat out lying on this. Microsoft itself makes Silverlight available on both the PC and Mac. That makes it cross platform. That doesn't even include Moonlight.
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:46:28 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Microsoft and Adobe jockey on rich applications
>> ,----[ Quote ] >>| Scott Guthrie, a general manager in Microsoft's developer division, blogged >>| ahead of Adobe's AIR and Flex news that Silverlight 2 would feature a >>| cross-platform version of its .NET Framework and let developers program >>| Silverlight content using any .NET language. >> `----
>> It's *not* cross-platform. They keep lying about it. They attack HTML, Flash, >> LAMP, and Ajax. The US and EU regulators are already after them for >> Silverlight abuses.
> Roy, you are flat out lying on this. Microsoft itself makes Silverlight > available on both the PC and Mac. That makes it cross platform. That > doesn't even include Moonlight.
> Why do you lie like this?
Erik does have a point, though we do have a problem as well. Silverlight is available on at least two platforms, the aforementioned MacOSX as well as Windows. That it is not available for Linux doesn't make it non-multiplatform, though I for one am very annoyed at the lack of support for what is an increasingly popular OS. (Presumably, the FreeBSD crowd will be annoyed as well, in their newsgroup.)
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch > <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> > wrote > on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:05:56 -0500 > <616pr0bnwabh....@funkenbusch.com>: >> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:46:28 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> Microsoft and Adobe jockey on rich applications
>>> ,----[ Quote ] >>>| Scott Guthrie, a general manager in Microsoft's developer division, >>>| blogged ahead of Adobe's AIR and Flex news that Silverlight 2 would >>>| feature a cross-platform version of its .NET Framework and let developers >>>| program Silverlight content using any .NET language. >>> `----
>>> It's *not* cross-platform. They keep lying about it. They attack HTML, >>> Flash, LAMP, and Ajax. The US and EU regulators are already after them for >>> Silverlight abuses.
>> Roy, you are flat out lying on this. Microsoft itself makes Silverlight >> available on both the PC and Mac. That makes it cross platform. That >> doesn't even include Moonlight.
>> Why do you lie like this?
> Erik does have a point, though we do have a problem as > well. Silverlight is available on at least two platforms, > the aforementioned MacOSX as well as Windows. That it is not > available for Linux doesn't make it non-multiplatform, > though I for one am very annoyed at the lack of support > for what is an increasingly popular OS. (Presumably, the > FreeBSD crowd will be annoyed as well, in their newsgroup.)
"The danger is that Microsoft is using strategic monopolistic pricing in the education market, with the government’s assistance, to turn our state university systems into private workforce training programs for Microsoft." --Nathan Newman http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E 19:00:02 up 33 days, 4:54, 3 users, load average: 0.17, 0.69, 1.01 http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:05:56 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote: > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:46:28 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Microsoft and Adobe jockey on rich applications
>> ,----[ Quote ] >>| Scott Guthrie, a general manager in Microsoft's developer division, blogged >>| ahead of Adobe's AIR and Flex news that Silverlight 2 would feature a >>| cross-platform version of its .NET Framework and let developers program >>| Silverlight content using any .NET language. >> `----
>> It's *not* cross-platform. They keep lying about it. They attack HTML, Flash, >> LAMP, and Ajax. The US and EU regulators are already after them for >> Silverlight abuses.
> Roy, you are flat out lying on this. Microsoft itself makes Silverlight > available on both the PC and Mac. That makes it cross platform. That > doesn't even include Moonlight.
> Why do you lie like this?
Quantity. Seeding Google. Spamming his own websites, which he convienintly managed to do in his reply to you. etc...
The list is endless, but Linux advocacy isn't on the list. That's for certain.
-- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Discussion subject changed to "Microsoft's Scott Guthrie Lies About/Twists "Cross-platform" to Hijack Web (was: [News] Microsoft's Scott Guthrie Lies About/Twists "Cross-platform" to Hijack Web)" by The Ghost In The Machine
> ____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Tuesday 26 February 2008 18:12 : \____
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch >> <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> >> wrote >> on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:05:56 -0500 >> <616pr0bnwabh....@funkenbusch.com>: >>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:46:28 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> Microsoft and Adobe jockey on rich applications
>>>> ,----[ Quote ] >>>>| Scott Guthrie, a general manager in Microsoft's developer division, >>>>| blogged ahead of Adobe's AIR and Flex news that Silverlight 2 would >>>>| feature a cross-platform version of its .NET Framework and let developers >>>>| program Silverlight content using any .NET language. >>>> `----
>>>> It's *not* cross-platform. They keep lying about it. They attack HTML, >>>> Flash, LAMP, and Ajax. The US and EU regulators are already after them for >>>> Silverlight abuses.
>>> Roy, you are flat out lying on this. Microsoft itself makes Silverlight >>> available on both the PC and Mac. That makes it cross platform. That >>> doesn't even include Moonlight.
>>> Why do you lie like this?
>> Erik does have a point, though we do have a problem as >> well. Silverlight is available on at least two platforms, >> the aforementioned MacOSX as well as Windows. That it is not >> available for Linux doesn't make it non-multiplatform, >> though I for one am very annoyed at the lack of support >> for what is an increasingly popular OS. (Presumably, the >> FreeBSD crowd will be annoyed as well, in their newsgroup.)
Hmm....well, it's still dual-platform, anyway. Of course ideally it would be open-sourced, compileable, and alterable as well, with some variant of the GPL or LGPL. ;)
-- #191, ewi...@earthlink.net Useless C++ Programming Idea #110309238: item * f(item *p) { if(p = NULL) return new item; else return p; }
"cross-platform software, hardware A term that describes a language, software application or hardware device that works on more than one system platform (e.g. Unix, Microsoft Windows, Macintosh). E.g. Netscape Navigator, Java."
"Cross-platform, or multi-platform, is a term which can refer to computer programs, operating systems, computer languages, programming languages, or other computer software and their implementations which can be made to work on multiple computer platforms. For example, a cross-platform application may run on Microsoft Windows on the x86 architecture, Linux on the x86 architecture and Mac OS X on either the PowerPC based Apple Macintosh or the x86 based Apple Macintosh systems. A cross-platform application could run on all common platforms, *OR SIMPLY MORE THAN ONE*"
" ´Cross-platform¡ and ´multi-platform¡ both refer to the idea that a given piece of computer software is able to be run on more than one computer platform."
So please, Roy, spare us the "redefinition" bullshit. By all credible sources (ie, not you) "cross platform" means "more than one", not "all" or "if it doesn't run on Linux it's not cross platform".
> "cross-platform software, hardware > A term that describes a language, software application or hardware device > that works on more than one system platform (e.g. Unix, Microsoft Windows, > Macintosh). E.g. Netscape Navigator, Java."
> "Cross-platform, or multi-platform, is a term which can refer to computer > programs, operating systems, computer languages, programming languages, or > other computer software and their implementations which can be made to work > on multiple computer platforms. For example, a cross-platform application > may run on Microsoft Windows on the x86 architecture, Linux on the x86 > architecture and Mac OS X on either the PowerPC based Apple Macintosh or > the x86 based Apple Macintosh systems. A cross-platform application could > run on all common platforms, *OR SIMPLY MORE THAN ONE*"
> " ´Cross-platform¡ and ´multi-platform¡ both refer to the idea that a given > piece of computer software is able to be run on more than one computer > platform."
> So please, Roy, spare us the "redefinition" bullshit. By all credible > sources (ie, not you) "cross platform" means "more than one", not "all" or > "if it doesn't run on Linux it's not cross platform".
And once again Roy Schestowitz attempts to debate and ends up gong down in flames.
No wonder he prefers to crap flood.
-- Moshe Goldfarb Collector of soaps from around the globe. Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb <brick.n.st...@gmail.com> wrote on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:39:12 -0500 <xnc4qjtp00am.cs5ynqyy2v7y$....@40tude.net>:
>> "cross-platform software, hardware >> A term that describes a language, software application or hardware device >> that works on more than one system platform (e.g. Unix, Microsoft Windows, >> Macintosh). E.g. Netscape Navigator, Java."
>> "Cross-platform, or multi-platform, is a term which can refer to computer >> programs, operating systems, computer languages, programming languages, or >> other computer software and their implementations which can be made to work >> on multiple computer platforms. For example, a cross-platform application >> may run on Microsoft Windows on the x86 architecture, Linux on the x86 >> architecture and Mac OS X on either the PowerPC based Apple Macintosh or >> the x86 based Apple Macintosh systems. A cross-platform application could >> run on all common platforms, *OR SIMPLY MORE THAN ONE*"
>> " ´Cross-platform¡ and ´multi-platform¡ both refer to the idea that a given >> piece of computer software is able to be run on more than one computer >> platform."
>> So please, Roy, spare us the "redefinition" bullshit. By all credible >> sources (ie, not you) "cross platform" means "more than one", not "all" or >> "if it doesn't run on Linux it's not cross platform".
> And once again Roy Schestowitz attempts to debate and ends up gong down in > flames.
> No wonder he prefers to crap flood.
We have proven that Silverlight is multi-platform (for multi=2, anyway) and that it is not open-source. Half the battle, I guess.
-- #191, ewi...@earthlink.net Q: "Why is my computer doing that?" A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."
> No, Roy. You lied. Silverlight is cross platform. Microsoft has not > re-defined the meaning.
> Cross platform does not mean "runs on all platforms", it means "runs on > more than one platform".
So Microsoft Office is cross-platform, then?
> You are the one trying to redefine it.
-- I laid out memory so the bottom 640K was general purpose RAM and the upper 384 I reserved for video and ROM, and things like that. That is why they talk about the 640K limit. It is actually a limit, not of the software, in any way, shape, or form, it is the limit of the microprocessor. That thing generates addresses, 20-bits addresses, that only can address a megabyte of memory. And, therefore, all the applications are tied to that limit. It was ten times what we had before. But to my surprise, we ran out of that address base for applications within... oh five or six years people were complaining. -- Bill Gates, Smithsonian Institution interview (1993)
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:28:26 -0500 <1aq9xvt8oz43k$....@funkenbusch.com>:
>>> No, Roy. You lied. Silverlight is cross platform. Microsoft has not >>> re-defined the meaning.
>>> Cross platform does not mean "runs on all platforms", it means "runs on >>> more than one platform".
>> So Microsoft Office is cross-platform, then?
> Yes and no. Office for Mac and Office for Windows are not really the same > programs running under a different OS. Silverlight apps are.
I for one would assume the higher-level code is nearly identical; the differences would be in the Win32 implementation. Of course without the source how would we know? ;-)
-- #191, ewi...@earthlink.net "640K ought to be enough for anybody." - allegedly said by Bill Gates, 1981, but somebody had to make this up!
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:58:29 -0800, Tim Smith wrote: > In article <1fe4u8jh214jr....@funkenbusch.com>, > Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote: >> No, Roy. You lied. Silverlight is cross platform. Microsoft has not >> re-defined the meaning.
>> Cross platform does not mean "runs on all platforms", it means "runs on >> more than one platform". You are the one trying to redefine it.
> Besides, it does run on Linux. To get it down to just Windows and Mac, > Roy had to arbitrarily exclude Moonlight.
Technically, Moonlight hasn't been released yet, so I'll grant that..
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:48:44 -0500 <16vlu64yf1z9r....@funkenbusch.com>:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:58:29 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
>> In article <1fe4u8jh214jr....@funkenbusch.com>, >> Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote: >>> No, Roy. You lied. Silverlight is cross platform. Microsoft has not >>> re-defined the meaning.
>>> Cross platform does not mean "runs on all platforms", it means "runs on >>> more than one platform". You are the one trying to redefine it.
>> Besides, it does run on Linux. To get it down to just Windows and Mac, >> Roy had to arbitrarily exclude Moonlight.
> Technically, Moonlight hasn't been released yet, so I'll grant that..
We'll see come June or thereabouts.
-- #191, ewi...@earthlink.net Insert random misquote here.
Discussion subject changed to "Microsoft's Scott Guthrie Lies About/Twists "Cross-platform" to Hijack Web (was: [News] Microsoft's Scott Guthrie Lies About/Twists "Cross-platform" to Hijack Web)" by Roy Schestowitz
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz > <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> > wrote > on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:04:50 +0000 > <7543748.PRXqIsF...@schestowitz.com>: >> ____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Tuesday 26 February 2008 18:12 : \____
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch >>> <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> >>> wrote >>> on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:05:56 -0500 >>> <616pr0bnwabh....@funkenbusch.com>: >>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:46:28 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>> Microsoft and Adobe jockey on rich applications
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ] >>>>>| Scott Guthrie, a general manager in Microsoft's developer division, >>>>>| blogged ahead of Adobe's AIR and Flex news that Silverlight 2 would >>>>>| feature a cross-platform version of its .NET Framework and let >>>>>| developers program Silverlight content using any .NET language. >>>>> `----
>>>>> It's *not* cross-platform. They keep lying about it. They attack HTML, >>>>> Flash, LAMP, and Ajax. The US and EU regulators are already after them >>>>> for Silverlight abuses.
>>>> Roy, you are flat out lying on this. Microsoft itself makes Silverlight >>>> available on both the PC and Mac. That makes it cross platform. That >>>> doesn't even include Moonlight.
>>>> Why do you lie like this?
>>> Erik does have a point, though we do have a problem as >>> well. Silverlight is available on at least two platforms, >>> the aforementioned MacOSX as well as Windows. That it is not >>> available for Linux doesn't make it non-multiplatform, >>> though I for one am very annoyed at the lack of support >>> for what is an increasingly popular OS. (Presumably, the >>> FreeBSD crowd will be annoyed as well, in their newsgroup.)
> Hmm....well, it's still dual-platform, anyway. Of course ideally it > would be open-sourced, compileable, and alterable as well, with some > variant of the GPL or LGPL. ;)
"Dual" and "multi" would be okay. A bit like Shared Source, which ignorant journalism at times called "Open Source" (which it's not).
Microsoft is deceiving developers here to give them the illusion that Silverlight sites will work for everyone. They won't. In fact, they exclude Microsoft's #1 risk.
-- ~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Linux: mint and self-contained 'out of the box' http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
>> No, Roy. You lied. Silverlight is cross platform. Microsoft has not >> re-defined the meaning.
>> Cross platform does not mean "runs on all platforms", it means "runs on >> more than one platform".
> So Microsoft Office is cross-platform, then?
It's not.
Microsoft tries to take a term that is typically used in one context (very consistently in fact) and transform it to suit selfish agenda. Microsoft is now doing this to FOSS/OSS as well. It's hijacking words, twists them and shakes them to kill their meaning.
And again: Moonlight //IS NOT// Silverlight.
>> You are the one trying to redefine it.
-- ~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Linux: mint and self-contained 'out of the box' http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb ><brick.n.st...@gmail.com> > wrote > on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:39:12 -0500 ><xnc4qjtp00am.cs5ynqyy2v7y$....@40tude.net>: >> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:34:10 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:04:50 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> "cross-platform software, hardware >>> A term that describes a language, software application or hardware device >>> that works on more than one system platform (e.g. Unix, Microsoft Windows, >>> Macintosh). E.g. Netscape Navigator, Java."
>>> "Cross-platform, or multi-platform, is a term which can refer to computer >>> programs, operating systems, computer languages, programming languages, or >>> other computer software and their implementations which can be made to work >>> on multiple computer platforms. For example, a cross-platform application >>> may run on Microsoft Windows on the x86 architecture, Linux on the x86 >>> architecture and Mac OS X on either the PowerPC based Apple Macintosh or >>> the x86 based Apple Macintosh systems. A cross-platform application could >>> run on all common platforms, *OR SIMPLY MORE THAN ONE*"
>>> " ´Cross-platform¡ and ´multi-platform¡ both refer to the idea that a given >>> piece of computer software is able to be run on more than one computer >>> platform."
>>> So please, Roy, spare us the "redefinition" bullshit. By all credible >>> sources (ie, not you) "cross platform" means "more than one", not "all" or >>> "if it doesn't run on Linux it's not cross platform".
>> And once again Roy Schestowitz attempts to debate and ends up gong down in >> flames.
>> No wonder he prefers to crap flood.
> We have proven that Silverlight is multi-platform (for multi=2, anyway) > and that it is not open-source. Half the battle, I guess.
But, Moonlight will be - and MS is helping Novell with the implementation. Then it will run on any platform mono runs on - including Linux...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch ><e...@despam-funkenbusch.com> > wrote > on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:28:26 -0500 ><1aq9xvt8oz43k$....@funkenbusch.com>: >> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:37:36 -0500, Linonut wrote:
>>> * Erik Funkenbusch peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:04:50 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> No, Roy. You lied. Silverlight is cross platform. Microsoft has not >>>> re-defined the meaning.
>>>> Cross platform does not mean "runs on all platforms", it means "runs on >>>> more than one platform".
>>> So Microsoft Office is cross-platform, then?
>> Yes and no. Office for Mac and Office for Windows are not really the same >> programs running under a different OS. Silverlight apps are.
> I for one would assume the higher-level code is nearly > identical; the differences would be in the Win32 > implementation. Of course without the source how would > we know? ;-)
I have heard, and I could be wrong, that the Windows and Mac source are completely separate code bases...
> On 2008-02-27, The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> > wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Moshe Goldfarb >><brick.n.st...@gmail.com> >> wrote >> on Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:39:12 -0500 >><xnc4qjtp00am.cs5ynqyy2v7y$....@40tude.net>: >>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:34:10 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:04:50 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> "cross-platform software, hardware >>>> A term that describes a language, software application or hardware device >>>> that works on more than one system platform (e.g. Unix, Microsoft Windows, >>>> Macintosh). E.g. Netscape Navigator, Java."
>>>> "Cross-platform, or multi-platform, is a term which can refer to computer >>>> programs, operating systems, computer languages, programming languages, or >>>> other computer software and their implementations which can be made to >>>> work on multiple computer platforms. For example, a cross-platform >>>> application may run on Microsoft Windows on the x86 architecture, Linux on >>>> the x86 architecture and Mac OS X on either the PowerPC based Apple >>>> Macintosh or the x86 based Apple Macintosh systems. A cross-platform >>>> application could run on all common platforms, *OR SIMPLY MORE THAN ONE*"
>>>> " ´Cross-platform¡ and ´multi-platform¡ both refer to the idea that a >>>> given piece of computer software is able to be run on more than one >>>> computer platform."
>>>> So please, Roy, spare us the "redefinition" bullshit. By all credible >>>> sources (ie, not you) "cross platform" means "more than one", not "all" or >>>> "if it doesn't run on Linux it's not cross platform".
>>> And once again Roy Schestowitz attempts to debate and ends up gong down in >>> flames.
>>> No wonder he prefers to crap flood.
>> We have proven that Silverlight is multi-platform (for multi=2, anyway) >> and that it is not open-source. Half the battle, I guess.
> But, Moonlight will be - and MS is helping Novell with the > implementation. Then it will run on any platform mono runs on - > including Linux...
Moonlight is not Silverlight (and will never be). No need for spin here. Not to mention the horrid Monopendency...
-- ~~ Best of wishes
"The collaborative, massively distributed development process behind the Internet and Open Source projects is not your enemy. It is your friend, the source of basic research that you can turn into your next generation of products." --Tim O’Reilly
In article <1868322.pbRBV3e...@schestowitz.com>, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> > But, Moonlight will be - and MS is helping Novell with the > > implementation. Then it will run on any platform mono runs on - > > including Linux...
> Moonlight is not Silverlight (and will never be). No need for spin here. Not > to > mention the horrid Monopendency...
Moonlight is an open source implementation of the Silverlight runtime. Silverlight content will work on Windows, Mac, and Linux.
> In article <1868322.pbRBV3e...@schestowitz.com>, > Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote: >> > But, Moonlight will be - and MS is helping Novell with the >> > implementation. Then it will run on any platform mono runs on - >> > including Linux...
>> Moonlight is not Silverlight (and will never be). No need for spin here. Not >> to mention the horrid Monopendency...
> Moonlight is an open source implementation of the Silverlight runtime.
In the same way Mono is an open source implementation of (all of) .NET?
> Silverlight content will work on Windows, Mac, and Linux.
For some definition of "work", I'm sure.
-- Microsoft has had clear competitors in the past. It's a good thing we have museums to document that. -- Bill Gates, Speech at the Computer History Museum, as quoted in InfoWorld magazine (October 2001)
>> In article <1868322.pbRBV3e...@schestowitz.com>, >> Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote: >>> > But, Moonlight will be - and MS is helping Novell with the >>> > implementation. Then it will run on any platform mono runs on - >>> > including Linux...
>>> Moonlight is not Silverlight (and will never be). No need for spin here. >>> Not >>> to mention the horrid Monopendency...
>> Moonlight is an open source implementation of the Silverlight runtime.
> In the same way Mono is an open source implementation of (all of) .NET?
>> Silverlight content will work on Windows, Mac, and Linux.
> For some definition of "work", I'm sure.
For the commonly accepted definition of "work", I'm sure.
____/ Linonut on Thursday 28 February 2008 12:40 : \____
> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
>> In article <1868322.pbRBV3e...@schestowitz.com>, >> Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@schestowitz.com> wrote: >>> > But, Moonlight will be - and MS is helping Novell with the >>> > implementation. Then it will run on any platform mono runs on - >>> > including Linux...
>>> Moonlight is not Silverlight (and will never be). No need for spin here. >>> Not to mention the horrid Monopendency...
>> Moonlight is an open source implementation of the Silverlight runtime.
> In the same way Mono is an open source implementation of (all of) .NET?
It's not. Like I told Tom, "No need for spin here."
>> Silverlight content will work on Windows, Mac, and Linux.
> For some definition of "work", I'm sure.
-- ~~ Best of wishes
Beware the Windows box spewage (more commonly known as "spam") http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E Load average (/proc/loadavg): 0.34 0.46 1.03 3/146 7575 http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
|
