I wish for it !
Originally Posted by cl333r
Between GoogleTV and Youtube, you can bet on it. That said, I think client-side DRM will be handled by Flash for the foreseeable future.
Originally Posted by XorEaxEax
Do note that Microsoft no longer tries to go against Flash with Silverlight/Moonlight. They finally understood this is a losing - and pointless - battle and have repurposed their stack for LOB applications, where it actually makes sense (which is why it recently gained p/invoke support). Their web approach is now based on (a slightly crippled version of) HTML5.
Yes, Microsoft is schizophrenic, but at least they are heading to the right direction with this. Now, they need to add WebGL and pull the plug on IE6/7 and the web will become a better place for all.
Can't stand all of these willfully ignorant mono-haters that spout stupid bullshit about every mono app. Get a grip.
Well, it's nice to have some .NET support in Linux, so I agree it would be good to have "Mono" (what such a bad name!) as a development platform for Linux. (It also can help *a bit* some co-operation with Windows .NET software).
By another side, I hope Moonlight dies (as much as I want Adobe Flash to die too)...
They're just 2 useless plugins. With an open standard such as HTML5 (which already supports 3D gaming by GTK3, WebGL or video rendering using with H264, OGM and AVI codecs), I think internet plugins will be obsolete in a near future... (for the sake of the internet...)
My 2c, cheers!
Something very interesting about Mono here...
Care to summarize?
Originally Posted by Apopas
Just read the verification if you don't have time, but it's important to read whole the rest.
I skimmed the text and it seemed to indicate that Debian splits Mono packages on dependencies, not the patent promise. I'm not sure what the point is... or did I miss something?
As it seems it is difficult to build separate packages with ECMA-only packages and unfree ones, because something like that needs "deep surgery" according to the artice. This has the consequence the distributions to not be able to ship Mono with ECMA-only packages.
And now this makes me wonder, me as Apopas. When the casual user chooses to install his new Ubuntu system he gets the option to use Free packages only or to install patented ones like codecs, flash etc. Lets say he selects the first option. When he logs in in his new system he finds tomboy, gbrainy and from 11.04 and so on he will have to use Banshee as well. As long as these packages require unfree parts of Mono to work, then the user is in a lose lose situation...
Where am I wrong?
These parts are not "unfree"; they are free (as in speech) but potentially patent-encumbered. This is a very important distinction.
Originally Posted by Apopas
If you restricted yourselves to only unpatented software... well, better throw your PC out the window and start working that abacus. Although that's probably patented, too.
In any case, this is not the user's problem. If someone decides to enforce a patent, they will attack Novell, Canonical, Red Hat - and things look ok so far.
Tags for this Thread