Miguel de Icaza admits that the Mono project has abandoned Moonlight.

[GreyGeek]

http://www.i-programmer.info/news/89...lverlight.html

"Silverlight has not gained much adoption on the web, so it did not become the must-have technology that I thought would have to become. And Microsoft added artificial restrictions to Silverlight that made it useless for desktop programming.

These days we no longer believe that Silverlight is a suitable platform for write-once-run-anywhere technology, there are just too many limitations for it to be useful. These days we believe that in the C# world the best option is to split the code along the lines of the presentation layer. The user would reuse a core part of their application across all platforms, and write a new UI specifically for each platform they target: iOS with MonoTouch, Android with MonoDroid, Mac with MonoMac, Windows with WPF or Winforms or Mac, Web with ASP.NET and Windows and Linux with Gtk

It is not write-once-run-everywhere, but the result are applications that can exploit the native facilities and create native experiences on each platform."

Not "write-once-run-everywhere"? That's a giant leap ... backwards!

I was using Visual FoxPro 6 when Microsoft announced on "The UniversalThread" VFP forum that it was going to cease development and support of VFP and move to C#/.NET as their primary dev tool. The uproar on TUT was immediate and loud. Almost 1/3rd of a million developers were enraged. I decided that the handwriting on the wall dictated that I move away from MS supported dev tools and that eventually led me to C++/Qt, after first trying Java and Python tools. Microsoft used its "MVP" folks to assuage the masses and they began offering classes on TUT to convert the Foxheads to .NET. Microsoft made "consessions" to the VFP developers by not canceling it like they initially announced, but they put it so far back on the back burner it was cold to the touch. All ads for it ceased. No additional VFP MVPs were created. And, subsequent releases, even though they were given higher version numbers, were really just bug fixes and cosmetic changes to make it look "newer". There were no changes or additions of substance after VFP 6.0. For all practical purposes it was and is dead.

For all practical purposes SilverLight died two years ago when it was announced that MS would feature HTML5 and Javascript as its primary dev tools. The outrage in the .NET community was instantaneous and loud. Like it did with VFP, MS made "concessions". But, as the last two years have shown, they are following the same pattern with SilverLight (and .NET) that they did with VFP. Bob Muglia lied when he said “Silverlight is our development platform for Windows Phone...”. If that were true then Michael de Icaza would not be making the announcement that he was abandoning MoonLight in Mono. What happened? Apple and Google destroyed Microsoft in the mobile web space.

It took de Icaza a year to recognize what was announced two years ago and obvious last year. And, he apparently refused to admit that more than SilverLight is dead. .NET is dead as well. It died when the London Stock Exchange experienced its second crash and stayed down for an entire day, costing the LSE a BILLION dollars in lost income. Microsoft's EULA protected it from the finanical repercussions of that blunder but the EULA could not protect it from the opinion of the world that .NET was not a "mission critical" world class dev tool. The trading application built by the creator of .NET, with all its insider knowledge of undocumented .NET APIs, could not deliver on its own hype. It was NOT "Highly Reliable".

Microsoft has moved away from .NET. HTML5 and Javascript are the real players in the client-side software as a service space. Java continues to play a role as well. de Icaza's admission means that .NET is also dead in the Windows mobile phone space.

IMO, Microsoft attempted to "embrace, extend and extinguish" the Linux desktop via the .NET clone, Mono, which is a blatant patent trap. In the end, .NET only extinguished Microsoft's chances in the smartphone market space.

[Frank616]

Thanks for the insight on that. I knew Silverlight was as dead as Flash, but not why. Now, if Netflix will just come to that realization, then maybe we can get a Linux client.

Frank.

[heinkel_111]

Interesting reading, never heard of the London stock exchange problem - but is SIlverlight really dead? I find it hard to match that map to the terrain Iḿ living in: All TV channels except the state owned one here in Norway are putting up web-tv services based on silverlight, and some of those are quite new (like a few months). And I dont get any of them on my linux machine

[SteveRiley]

is SIlverlight really dead?

Yes.

[perspectoff]

Interesting reading, never heard of the London stock exchange problem - but is SIlverlight really dead? I find it hard to match that map to the terrain Iḿ living in: All TV channels except the state owned one here in Norway are putting up web-tv services based on silverlight, and some of those are quite new (like a few months). And I dont get any of them on my linux machine

I met a web developer in the San Jose area recently that was Microsoft-centric. She was a "specialist" in user interfaces, and programmed in Java/Javascripts/Ajax/jQuery. She had no idea what was available in Linux and when I showed her it blew her away. The same thing happened to another friend who ran a web company that distributed niche-profession training videos. She ran Mac software, but came against some roadblocks that I easily solved for her using Linux-based tools.

The problem is usually inertia -- those TV developers in Norway may be installing old technology merely because that's all they know. People do what they learned in school someplace (no matter how long ago they learned it), especially in stodgy business environments, where less-than-knowledgeable business leaders are very much led by hype and marketing.

The problem is DRM -- the lawyers have taken over and the software engineers are taking a back seat. It doesn't matter if Silverlight is better or worse technology -- if it is bundled with DRM then that is what content providers will use.

I think it is absolutely imperative that someone in the Linux world develops (non-hardware based) DRM modules that can compete -- until that happens, content providers will not be willing to make content accessible on Linux. I personally don't know what Google uses (that convinced Netflix to allow the google Android platform to stream it) -- that is the key to the matter, though.

[Frank616]

Perspectoff:

I think it is absolutely imperative that someone in the Linux world develops (non-hardware based) DRM modules that can compete -- until that happens, content providers will not be willing to make content accessible on Linux.

That may be the only short-term solution. However, as time goes on, it is hoped that the content owners are going to see that if the content is priced right, then no one is going to bother pirating. They should be able to make it on volume.

I personally don't know what Google uses (that convinced Netflix to allow the google Android platform to stream it) -- that is the key to the matter, though.

IIUC, Netflix writes their own Android client, and they use Silverlight. No, I don't know how.

Frank.