The answer is appoint a dev to replace Ballmer. David, are you keen on applying? (I can't believe I did that)
Mike On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Katherine Moss <[email protected]>wrote: > 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]> > 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]] *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]> > wrote:**** > > Yep. Supports flash but not Silverlight.**** > > On 28 Aug 2013 11:40, "Bill McCarthy" <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > I thought it does support flash > > |-----Original Message----- > |From: [email protected] [mailto:ozdotnet- > |[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]> 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 > |**** > > **** > > ** ** > -- Meski http://courteous.ly/aAOZcv "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills
