Previous  |  Next

Wed

09.05.07

Tim O'Reilly

Tim O'Reilly

Moonlight: Silverlight for Linux

Miguel de Icaza writes:

Today we are formalizing a collaboration between Microsoft and Novell with the explicit purpose of bringing Silverlight to Linux and do this in a fully supported way. The highlights of this collaboration include: ...
  • Microsoft will give Novell access to the test suites for Silverlight to ensure that we have a compatible specification. The same test suite that Microsoft uses for Silverlight.
  • Microsoft will give us access to the Silverlight specifications: details that might be necessary to implement 1.0, beyond what is currently published on the web; and specifications on the 1.1 version of Silverlight as it is updated.
  • Microsoft will make the codecs for video and audio available to users of Moonlight from their web site. The codecs will be binary codecs, and they will only be licensed for use with Moonlight on a web browser (sorry, those are the rules for the Media codecs [details and workarounds on Miguel's blog, as linked above]).
  • Novell will implement Silverlight 1.0 and 1.1 and will distribute it for the major Linux distributions at the time of the shipment. We will offer some kind of one-click install for Linux users (no "Open a terminal and type su followed by your password..." as well as RPM and DEB packages for the major distros and operating systems. This is an historical collaboration between an open source project and Microsoft. They have collaborated with other folks on the server space (Xen and PHP) but this is their first direct contribution to the open source desktop.
  • As I've argued previously, I see Microsoft moving increasingly towards supporting open source, especially in cases where they are the competitive underdog. They recognize that open source is a great way to displace an incumbent (in this case Adobe), and aren't afraid to use the right tools for the job. As the competition with Google heats up, I expect to see a lot more open source from Microsoft in the Web 2.0 arena as well.

    Just to forestall all the angry comments telling me how I'm missing the wolf in sheep's clothing, let me be clear that this doesn't mean that Microsoft is a "friend" to open source, contributing for the greater good. Just like other companies that make significant contributions to open source, like IBM, Sun, HP, and Novell, or even open source companies like Red Hat or MySQL, it's part of a competitive business strategy. And to the extent that Microsoft's business is still threatened by open source in ways that IBM's, say, is not, the support will be more measured and selective. But you can still expect more of it than you have in the past, and, over time, significant changes in Microsoft rhetoric about open source.

    More details on Microsoft's silverlight here, and on Novell's moonlight here.

    tags:   | comments: 12   | Sphere It
    submit:

     

    0 TrackBacks

    TrackBack URL for this entry: http://orm3.managed.sonic.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2372

    Comments: 12

    Matt Asay   [09.05.07 10:31 AM]

    Right on, Tim. I mentioned recently that Microsoft was likely to get "open source religion" in one of its secondary products (like the XBox) - a market where it needs to catch up, rather than one where it needs to defend. I'm not sure how well open source serves as a defensive mechanism (still thinking about that), but it's definitely a great way to infiltrate an incumbent's territory.

    Even Microsoft is an also-ran in some markets. Ergo, even Microsoft needs open source. This is just one indication that Microsoft is opening up to open source, albeit slowly, begrudgingly, and in a limited fashion. My thoughts here.

    Robert   [09.05.07 10:58 AM]

    Scott Guthrie also has a very good write up about Silverlight release and Moonlight here: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/09/04/silverlight-1-0-released-and-silverlight-for-linux-announced.aspx

    rufo guerreschi   [09.05.07 10:59 AM]

    Supporting attempts to establish another, and more powerfull, proprietary format for rich multimedia in web browsers is shameful. This way MS will be providing increasing inconveniences to those that want to keep their machine free of proprietary software and still enjoy multimedia.

    Come on, you are doing this for the money and the power!
    You should be ashamed of yourself.

    r

    TaQ   [09.05.07 11:08 AM]

    Let me think here ...

    If this "friendly help" of the Mono project (with the "friendly help" of Microsoft also) turns Silverlight on another kind of Microsoft "standard" (as we already know) on a lot of platforms and the dreams of turning the web into a world of RIA applications becomes true, with Silverlight defeating Adobe Flash, this means that we'll need to install all the Mono framework on GNU/Linux to run Moonlight to visit the websites that implement this technology? Seems that one technology is helping the other here to become those kind of "you-must-use-this" standards.

    I'm wondering about the "IE only" websites we still have around nowadays. They are few, but a pain on the ass. Try to imagine a lot of "Silverlight only" websites. It's a terrible idea! Oh, ok, just install Mono and Moonlight and you're on the way. I (and a lot of other people I know) don't even like to install small plugins on the browser, what can i say about that? Fill my GNU/Linux box with a lot of .NET things? Gimme a break.

    Just to make clear, I like the web the way it is. Ok, we need some improvements on HTML, but there is some - slow - moves about that. The idea to turn a lot of websites into binary things monsters don't look good to me. Even if the binary thing comes from a GPLed-open-source project with no Microsoft involvement, I would not think it's a good idea. Without the "IE only" thing the web is a huge world where we can breath. Binary things inside of it seems like small black boxes where you can move just some fingers. The idea of helping turning the web to this using a Microsoft "standard" looks scary.

    Tomek   [09.05.07 02:50 PM]

    TaQ: it isn't that hard to imagine "Silverlight only" websites - we already have a lot of "Flash only" or at least "Flash required" pages (youtube.com ??). Somehow we could live with that - so I'm sure we will be able to "handle" Silverlight (and/or JavaFX) too.

    For me it's good as Adobe and their Flash definately needs a competition on that market.

    AIR, Tamarine and the fact that they actually do some work on Flash for Linux shows that it already pays off.

    And yeah, I wish that something like Silverlight would come from open source community, but it didn't happen (wasn't really possible to be honest) so we must live with what we've got. But as I understand Moonlight and also JavaFX will actually be open source so that's already better than Flash.

    Roland   [09.05.07 05:15 PM]

    On the one hand, it's interesting to see MS having to think and deal with Linux. On the other hand, this looks like a .NET vector to me. I mean, look at this from the Scott Guthrie blog:

    "Silverlight enables you to create rich UI and animations, and blend vector graphics with HTML to create compelling content experiences."

    SVG anyone? But..oh! yeah, that wasn't invited by MS so we need a better one that is built on top of .NET

    Next thing we will be seeing is a new, cross-platform MS browser...choice is good, but you can keep your browser wars this time.

    Rob Myers   [09.06.07 12:15 AM]

    Moonlight will be released GPL 2 only and include binary only software that is licensed just for Moonlight.

    This is Microsoft doing what they have to in order to convince people to support them against the interests of Open Source.

    Just to forestall any angry responses, I'm not saying that you don't know this, just that given that you do it is disappointing that you are waving the flag quite so hard.

    But then again I'm sure Microsoft will need manuals and conferences to support this latest attack, so I can see why you might be enthusiastic.

    Matt Lee   [09.06.07 12:42 AM]

    Tim,

    When are you going to start thinking about software freedom instead of `open source'? When you think about this in terms of software freedom, it's very easy to see why this is problematic.

    Binary only software, with narrow licensing terms is not conductive to users rights and doesn't provide any kind of basis for building a free society.

    matt

    TaQ   [09.06.07 06:06 AM]

    Tomek, the big difference is that the Adobe Flash plugin is just a no-intrusive 7Mb file (kind of huge, uhn?) here on my ~/.mozilla/plugins directory. What about all the stuff that is needed to run Silverlight? Install a lot of things that will be around on my system just to see some animations as the most part of the Flash sites nowadays don't look good to me. Specially if it comes from some Microsoft "standard" based things.

    Ok, you can tell me that all the .Net/Mono things can be used to run some other kind of apps, but I don't care about them, I'm satisfied with all I have here without this kind of "complication" and really don't need them. I'm sure handle Silverlight technically is possible, specially with all the effort and support of the Novell guys, but the really question is if we need and want do do that.

    Don't know about you, but the "Flash only" sites are really boring to me. "Get the latest version bla bla bla". So are the Internet Explorer websites. And so - I hope not - the Silverlight only sites. The web is a really cool world to live with all those limitations.

    I agree with you: it's good to have some competition. Firefox is the reason of IE7. But the power of some competitors are dangerous because they can mess very fast with work of years trying to escape from them and make a good job on the web.

    Some efforts, IMHO, would be better on some more concrete open source projects. As you said, didn't happen to have some kind of iniciative as Silverlight from there, but I'm wondering if Silverlight is a solution for a problem created to sell it.

    Roland, the SVG thing is the same thing as OOXML/ODF. They don't want to help or improve another standard, they want to create a new one their way.

    Matt, that's the point! Seems that the software freedom is more and more forgotten these days ...

    Anjan Bacchu   [09.06.07 05:17 PM]

    hi there,

    I have to take exception to YOUR
    "Just like other companies that make significant contributions to open source, like IBM, Sun, HP, and Novell, or even open source companies like Red Hat or MySQL, it's part of a competitive business strategy".

    HP as a major open source contributing company. I can understand IBM, SUN and Novell. In what (major) way has HP contributed to open source ?

    BR,
    ~A

    steve   [09.06.07 06:24 PM]

    TaQ; the thing about open source is that Microsoft have given away their monopoly. Trying to bait and switch just means that people switch to the open source version.

    The significant difference here is that Microsoft have recognised that open source is like the tide or a natural environment. They are now using it to wipe out commercial competition, like Adobe.

    So it's not the embrace and extend method that is being used here. It's the "open source what they've got, then take over other stuff" strategy.

    Without Flash, Adobe lose half their software suite. Microsoft can offer a Silverlight development environment. Adobe shrinks to half its size or goes out of business. Microsoft then have a free run at the market areas that Adobe previously dominated.

    So this doesn't mean that Microsoft are now nice people. It means they've stopped thinking of open source as a business competitor.

    Tim O'Reilly   [09.06.07 07:51 PM]

    Anjan,

    I didn't make any comment about the size of the open source commitment of any of the companies I mentioned, just that they used open source strategically. So, for example, HP has open sourced all of its printer drivers -- helping to extend their dominance of the printer market, where they make money mainly on consumables.

    HP does lots of other things with open source too -- see http://opensource.hp.com/ for details. It certainly isn't as major a part of their strategy as it is for some of the others, but there's no question that open source is part of their strategic toolbox.

    And that's the point of this post: open source has gone from being enemy #1 for Microsoft to being a part of the competitive landscape. Sometimes it's an enemy, sometimes it's an ally, sometimes it's a strategy for Microsoft itself to use.


    Post A Comment:

     (please be patient, comments may take awhile to post)




    Remember Me?


    Subscribe to this Site

    Radar RSS feed

    BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE

    CURRENT CONFERENCES