I'm not concerned about the purity of the solution. I'm coming at this from the point of view that the 3D web browser needs to be able to integrate legacy 2D web content. I want to create spaces where I can view content (e.g. courseware) that might have been developed in some special format that needs a proprietary browser plug- in or codec. The 2D world is full of good content that employs codecs or plug-ins that started out or continue to be closed. I can't get too excited about a 3D world that doesn't allow me to view that content for some ideological reason when I can view the same content in IE, Firefox, Safari, etc. For example, Photosynth support was just released for Mac OS. Just because it's closed doesn't mean that we shouldn't support a browser plug-in. Microsoft's SeaDragon phto viewer is now available for the iPhone. This is another great zoomable photo viewer that shouldn't be excoriated on the grounds that Microsoft has get some ROI for developing it.
-- Peter On Dec 14, 12:22 am, Mark Malewski <[email protected]> wrote: > Peter, > > I do use Microsoft platforms, but at the same time... I hate anything > that is Microsoft (proprietary). Microsoft and "open source" really > contradict one another. > > I'm not saying that it wouldn't be good to include the feature, but we > may want to use something more along the lines of Moonlight. > > Moonlight is completely Open-Source, and is also available as a > Mozilla plugin. I believe it uses Cairo for rendering, and I don't > recall that exact status of the project (I know they are currently > working on Silverlight 2.0 support). I believe Silverlight 1.0 is > complete, and I think they are expected to have Sliverlight 2.0 > support finished by March of 2009. (or at least an Alpha version). > > I believe the codecs are still downloaded directly from Microsoft > (licensing issues), but at least we could still use the technology and > stick with Open Source software. > > I believe Silverlight (under the Microsoft Open Specification Promise) > suggests that Moonlight should be safe to redistribute and modify (and > use) minus the Microsoft's binary codecs. > > Of course none of this stuff really matters (outside the United > States), but still I would probably stick with something open source > like Moonlight. > > http://www.mono-project.com/MoonlightSupportedPlatforms > > The reason I don't care for Microsoft's Silverlight, is because it's > not a true "cross platform" technology. Try viewing a Silverlight > page on an Apple iPhone, or Android G1 (or even a Blackberry). See > how well that works out for you. > > > on a prim, we shouldn't lose sight of SilverLight and Flash. > > I agree, we may not want to "lose sight", but we also want to make > sure that the technology is "cross platform" and that the Open Source > community has time to develop cross-platform plugins/technologies that > will allow the Silverlight pages to be viewed on various platforms. > > Microsoft has never been known to "play nice" with others. Especially > not with Unix/Linux/OS X/embedded operating system platforms. So > anything with the word "Microsoft" in it, is a struggle. Try getting > "silverlight" to work on an iPhone, or a Blackberry, or a G-1 Android > based phone. Good luck with that. ;-) > > Maybe you can purchase a nice Microsoft SDK, and get some expensive > licensing fees wedged up your backside, as Microsoft shoves more and > more proprietary technologies down people's throats. Have you tried > developing for the XBOX 360? I personally try to avoid it, and stay > away from it. Stick with basic cross platform technologies (and > hopefully open-source technologies), and it never hurts to keep an eye > on Silverlight, but I just don't know that I would use it as a > standard development platform yet, at least not until it's completely > "cross platform" and that may be at least another year or two (before > the Open Source community develops plugins that are complete cross > platform). Keep on eye on Mono/Moonlight, and see how they progress > with the open source version. > > The codecs will still remain a part of Microsoft, which again causes > some issues/problems with developers (at least here in America), but > in another year or two I think it could possibly be a feasable cross- > platform standard. Only time will tell how well Microsoft will "play > nice" with the Open Source community, but with their past history... I > seriously doubt that will ever happen. Look at IE 7, sure it has come > a long way, but can anyone say that IE 7 is TRUELY a compliant > browser? It has taken Microsoft years and years and years to even > adopt and make their browser a "truely compliant" browser. I can only > imagine what Microsoft will do with Silverlight. It's hard to say, > only time will tell. I'm NOT ready to "drink the cool aid" just yet. > > When the Moonlight crew finish up their Open Source implementations > (for Linux/SUSE/Ubuntu/OpenSuse), then maybe I'll begin to rethink it, > but at this point I'm just watching from a distance. I still haven't > installed Silverlight yet, or even used it. As the Moonlight crew > finishes up their work, then maybe I'll give Silverlight another look. > > It is still worth thinking about though. For the future? Sure, > maybe. It could be a really great technology (if Microsoft would only > learn to "play nice" with others in the community). Go bang on > Microsoft's door, and see what they have to say. If users can stick > with FireFox 3, and get a moonlight plugin, then maybe the community > can move forward with "Silverlight" technology. Only time will tell, > but for now I'm still going to remain a bit skeptical until I see > Microsoft begin to work hand-in-hand with the open source community. > > I'm not saying that Silverlight is a bad technology, I'm just saying > that Microsoft needs to learn to "Play Nice" with the community. > > Give the Moonlight guys some time, they're working on it. > > Mark > > http://www.mono-project.com/MoonlightSupportedPlatforms > > On Aug 19, 2:39 pm, Peter_Quirk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I wasn't specific about the Silverlight revision. I was thinking as > > much about video (e.g. NBC Olympics) as flashy UIs. As we tackle the > > problem of interacting with buttons, links, forms and hotspots in HTML > > on a prim, we shouldn't lose sight of SilverLight and Flash. > > > On Aug 19, 11:58 am, terry <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > An alternative approach is Adam Frisby's Xenki: > > > >http://www.adamfrisby.com/blog/2008/08/what-is-xenki/ > > > > This is based on putting WPF-like functionality in a browser. I > > > haven't tried it, but I assume it needs the full .NET runtime at a 3.x > > > level rathern than the stripped-down DLR functionality Silverlight > > > will need. And I assume you're talking about SIlverlight 2? > > > > On Aug 17, 1:19 pm, Peter_Quirk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Is there a way to install Silverlight support into the SL/rex browser, > > > > given that Mozilla supports the plug-in?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ this list: http://groups.google.com/group/realxtend realXtend home page: http://www.realxtend.org/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
