If .NET dies, then I'm leaving. See you over at Novell HQ. LOL From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott Barnes Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:36 AM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: Silverlight on Windows 8
Did someone say "Microsoft pile on" :D Notes so far: * Silverlight strategy shifted away from breadth to depth (Windows 8 only). Thus discontinued. * Blend discontinued and strategy shifted back to depth developer ONLY engagement models. Assume any designer integration for future lifecycle development will happen in the same workflow / process as HTML5 solution delivery happens today (me designer hand you developer design, you developer screw up me designer work, me designer compromise, we all happy .. the end). * Rename the entire .NET UX namespace(s) to ensure that no backwards compatibility outside the Portable Class Library will exist going forward thus adding a forcing function on developers to write new code and not bring old into the new. Some XAML code may be brought forward but with conditions applied. * Release a brand new SDK for Windows 8 developers but ensure anyone on Windows 7 cannot write or deploy code that makes use of this said codebase. Ensure that by doing this a forcing function around Windows 8 adoption not only occurs at the consumer level but also developer(s) as well (given how great developer relations have been to date, this will work out brilliantly). * Create uncertainty in the market around what developers should and shouldn't be doing with their future bets, do not spend energy or time reminding developers that so long as Windows XP, Windows 7 and Windows 8 exist so will WPF and Silverlight. Encourage HTML5/JS or C++/XAML adoption but offer no up-skilling or transition program(s) for pre-existing user base to move across other than Evangelists doing PowerPoint demos on "Look i made a game using Windows 8's & Internet Explorer" * After 20yrs stop giving MSDN subscribers access to Windows RTM's and instead make them wait months after RTM for access outside of buying the said product or hitting thepiratebay torrent sites for access. Thus giving only real benefit or analysing actual adoption number(s) which in turn would reduce future ubiquity metric inflation .. honest.. but.... developers won't get to see as many "8.1" deployments as they need to thus the psychology of ubiquity plays out much in the way Silverlight on the web did when it first existed "I'll write code another time, maybe when everyone has a bigger install base" * Hold back on Deploying Silverlight through Windows Update as needed item despite the Consent Decree expiration which in turn lifts the only argument the company faced around doing this. Thus reducing any chance of a ~90% or more ubiquity success in Windows marketshare and also creating a developer relations bridge between "Goodwill, keep adopting XAML/C#" and "Go jump in the HTML5 pool despite all the kids that have constantly pee'd in before you're initial jump" * Highlight yet again how Scott Guthrie's influence over a complex problem such as Windows Azure has made a lot of gains despite the odds being stacked against them. Ensure all marketing talent that have to react to said technical work do everything they can to deter adoption from occurring. :D Yeah its a bit of "kick the sick puppy" moment but I look back on the last 2-3 years and I shake my head... technically nothing really is a problem persay in that people aren't shaking their fists and arguing over what technically is offer they are merely arguing over two sets of problems - "Why are you not letting this piece of technical work over here work with that over there" and "why do i feel alone in my adoption choices more and more..." Australia once had the highest SAT levels for .NET adoption.. i'd be curious to see what that data looks like today :D --- Regards, Scott Barnes http://www.riagenic.com On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:16 PM, David Kean <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: At release, only certain sites were allowed to use flash. They backed down on that and opened it up to all sites based on telemetry. From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Stephen Price Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 8:10 PM To: ozDotNet Subject: Re: Silverlight on Windows 8 Seriously? What happened to the "No Plug ins" ??? Wow. Microsoft, you really know how to do a number on your tech. You want something gone, you don't mess about. The smoking gun is still in your hand! On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Joseph Cooney <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Yep. Supports flash but not Silverlight. On 28 Aug 2013 11:40, "Bill McCarthy" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I thought it does support flash |-----Original Message----- |From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:ozdotnet-<mailto:ozdotnet-> |[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Stephen Price |Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2013 11:31 AM |To: ozDotNet |Subject: Re: Silverlight on Windows 8 | |Greg, |Windows 8 IE browser (the full screen metro one) does not support plugins. So no |Silverlight, no Flash etc. | |It's more commonly known as a Silverlight Coup de grâce. | |Enjoy. | | |On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Greg Keogh <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: | | | Folks, I'm getting a weird conflict running Silverlight 5 apps on Windows |8. In the Metro shell's browser it knows I don't have SL5 installed on the first visit |and asks me to install a file (with x64 in the name). It then flips over to the old |shell and installs the file okay. Now SL5 is working in IE10 in the old shell, but the |Metro browser keeps asking me to install Silverlight over and over, and if you do |it says "another version is already installed". | | So there is a catch-22 dead-end. Some web searches hint that SL5 is not |supported in the Windows 8 Metro browser. I could not believe this would be |true. Is it, or am I missing some trick? | | | Greg |
