Ok. Now that I've that off my chest. It is not so much that Silverlight is bad at a base level. It is more that it really offers nothing over flash and should never have been started in the first place. Plus, by the time Mono project's Moonlight player in Silverlight 2.0 compatible, all the sites will move to 3.0, then making the open source alternative to Silverlight (which MS even backs) relatively useless.
I always love this "it should have never been started" argument.
We need to get the DOJ after MS (sorry, M$) because we need choice in operating systems. We need to create FF, Opera, Safari, because we need choice in web browsers. We need to create SageTV, BeyondTV, etc because we need choice in media center applications. We need iTunes because we need a choice in media players. We need Open Office because we need choice in office programs. We need MySQL because we need choice in databases. We need Blu-Ray because HD DVD is M$' attempt to own the physical disk format.
M$ was foolish for creating .NET, we already had Java. What was M$ thinking, we don't need Zune, we have iPods. Sony and Nintendo were doing just fine, then M$ had to force their way into a video game console market. Silverlight really offers nothing over flash and should never have been started in the first place.
@nohone I honestly do not understand your argument. You seem to be supporting Microsoft's right to produce a product that competes with Adobe's flash. Which I agree, they have every right to do. I take issue with the implementation. But you support your argument by mocking other products and the people who support them that complete with Microsoft. So are you for competition, or against it? You can't have it both ways.
Also, are you trying to attribute all of that anti-Microsoft sentiment to me? Because I never said any of those things. I use MS products on 3 of my 4 systems. I have a number of issues with their implementation of Silverlight, which frankly I just don't want to re-type since my first attempt at this post somehow got lost. But to put it succinctly, Netflix was better before they switched to Silverlight.
(Reposting because of Engadget's broken reply system)
I am not mocking any of those non-Microsoft products. I am mocking the philosophy that many people have where we need fierce competition against any and all products MS makes (I agree, we do need competition), but then when Microsoft makes a product that competes, immediately it is shot down because we already have similar functionality.
I don't care how many MS products you use. You specifically said MS was wrong for wanting to try to compete with Flash ("should never have been started in the first place"), and therefore you are completely and utterly wrong.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
glenn s @ Apr 20th 2009 2:28PM
NOOOOOOOOOOoooooooOOOOOOoooooo!!!!!!!
Silverlight BAD!
glenn s @ Apr 20th 2009 2:31PM
Ok. Now that I've that off my chest. It is not so much that Silverlight is bad at a base level. It is more that it really offers nothing over flash and should never have been started in the first place. Plus, by the time Mono project's Moonlight player in Silverlight 2.0 compatible, all the sites will move to 3.0, then making the open source alternative to Silverlight (which MS even backs) relatively useless.
Nohone @ Apr 20th 2009 2:55PM
I always love this "it should have never been started" argument.
We need to get the DOJ after MS (sorry, M$) because we need choice in operating systems.
We need to create FF, Opera, Safari, because we need choice in web browsers.
We need to create SageTV, BeyondTV, etc because we need choice in media center applications.
We need iTunes because we need a choice in media players.
We need Open Office because we need choice in office programs.
We need MySQL because we need choice in databases.
We need Blu-Ray because HD DVD is M$' attempt to own the physical disk format.
M$ was foolish for creating .NET, we already had Java.
What was M$ thinking, we don't need Zune, we have iPods.
Sony and Nintendo were doing just fine, then M$ had to force their way into a video game console market.
Silverlight really offers nothing over flash and should never have been started in the first place.
glenn s @ Apr 20th 2009 4:27PM
@nohone
I honestly do not understand your argument. You seem to be supporting Microsoft's right to produce a product that competes with Adobe's flash. Which I agree, they have every right to do. I take issue with the implementation. But you support your argument by mocking other products and the people who support them that complete with Microsoft. So are you for competition, or against it? You can't have it both ways.
Also, are you trying to attribute all of that anti-Microsoft sentiment to me? Because I never said any of those things. I use MS products on 3 of my 4 systems. I have a number of issues with their implementation of Silverlight, which frankly I just don't want to re-type since my first attempt at this post somehow got lost. But to put it succinctly, Netflix was better before they switched to Silverlight.
Nohone @ Apr 20th 2009 5:11PM
(Reposting because of Engadget's broken reply system)
I am not mocking any of those non-Microsoft products. I am mocking the philosophy that many people have where we need fierce competition against any and all products MS makes (I agree, we do need competition), but then when Microsoft makes a product that competes, immediately it is shot down because we already have similar functionality.
I don't care how many MS products you use. You specifically said MS was wrong for wanting to try to compete with Flash ("should never have been started in the first place"), and therefore you are completely and utterly wrong.