Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: Miguel's Ambitious Plans For Mono, Moonlight

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Province of Québec, Canada
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cl333r View Post
    Die Mono, die!
    I wish for it !

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    Well I doubt that the Moonlight devs are to blame for this as I assume there needs to be a binary DRM blob in order for netflix to operate on Linux. This binary blob would have to come from Microsoft since they have developed the DRM in Silverlight, but I seriously doubt they will do so unless Netflix really urges them on, which they're obviously not.

    I wonder if Google's recent purchase of a DRM technology company indicates that they will be offering Microsoft competition as a DRM provider for video streaming? Atleast they are more interested in cross platform support than Microsoft is (which is perhaps not saying much) which might make them offer a DRM blob for Linux.
    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.

    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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    684

    Default

    Can't stand all of these willfully ignorant mono-haters that spout stupid bullshit about every mono app. Get a grip.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    257

    Default

    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!

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    Something very interesting about Mono here...

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopas View Post
    Something very interesting about Mono here...
    Care to summarize?

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    Just read the verification if you don't have time, but it's important to read whole the rest.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    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?

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    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?

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopas View Post
    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.

    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •