Silverlight 2.0 Seriously Rocks

Will we ever be able to host Silverlight content on DreamHost? w/mono?

I'm just back from the MIX08 conference and was very impressed (see the posted videos). Silverlight is very solid and clearly has an extremely bright future.

Microsoft fanboy in da house!

Silverlight looks cool, but only if Microsoft fully supports Moonlight.

-- si-blog --

It's cross platform and the latest and greatest!!!

wait... why can't I install this .exe on my Linux box?

Guess they'll never learn.

- Greg
- DreamHost Technical Support

Silverlight on Linux? Yes.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1020Edited by dgennetten on 03/14/08 04:37 PM (server time).

In reply to:
Silverlight on Linux? Yes.

No, it's not ... anymore than Mono is .NET on linux. I feel another holy war coming on! wink

These are *implementations* of Micro$oft driven technologies on Linux, and I'm not yet ready to accept that Micro$oft will not, at some point in the game, relegate these "clones" to second-class citizen status, or worse, when their technologies have achieved critical mass.

Yeah, I know: They say they won't do that .... .... and they made a "deal" with Novell ........ and, Micro$oft really *does* "get it" and they really *do* want to play in the Open Source pond. Right.

Can you say "Office Open XML"? Yeah, I know - "Covenant Not to sue" (with qualifiers of course, and lawyers to interpret those qualifications) - from a corporation with Micro$oft's ethical history and all the money in the world (well, maybe not all, but certainly enough to litigate any of us into the dark ages) - I'm not drinking that Kool-aid, and I think the SFLC's position that the promise is not to be relied upon is correct.

We'll probably never know just when, or how badly, we will be bitten for embracing these technologies until some point in the future.

Linux does not need, and should not embrace, proprietary codecs.

It' a Trojan Horse that can be used to "sink a hook" into free software (that's "free as in freedom").

Meh ... as long a Micro$oft controls the technology, I just think of Mono and Moonlight as "emulators" and will always strive to implement "open" technologies when and where I can instead of joining some corporation's party. wink

Okay, here we go .. shields up - check, asbestos suit zipped to the neck - check , and all hunkered down in my bunker - check, so I'm ready for the .NET minions to let 'er rip! smile

--rlparker

In reply to:
I feel another holy war coming on!

: Cut to cavemen from recent Bud Light commercial crushing PC with a large rock.
: Caveman bellows incomprehensible caveman babble.
: Caption reads "Silverlight SUCK!"

DreamHost prides itself on being a company that utilizes open source technologies. Silverlight is just another leviathan chunk of proprietary crap from Microsoft, and Moonlight is just an attempt to make sure DoJ watchdogs don't raise an eyebrow. Besides, browser plugins are NOT the way to go. Native browser technologies like SVG should replace proprietary rubbish like Silverlight (and Flash, for that matter).

-- si-blog --

Actually, hosting Silverlight content only requires the appropriate MIME types be set up. Can we get someone to do that on Dreamhost?

http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2008/03/18/configuring-a-web-server-to-host-silverlight-content.aspx

If it's just as simple as chainging a MIME setting, that doesn't even require Dreamhost assistance. You should be able to do this yourself with a .htaccess file and the AddType directive.

I'll confess that I don't know the first thing about Starlight, but reading this thread I got the impression that it was a server-side scripting technology like PHP, perl, RorR, and so forth. If that's the case, simply adding a MIME type won't magically make it work, since the server itself would need to then do something with it, which Dreamhost's servers wouldn't be able to do.

But uh, about ten seconds in Google, though, suggests that this is might actually a browser plugin, in which case this MIME thing likely would work just fine. I'll readily confess being too lazy to do more research of my own -- I never plan to use this technology. Would someone maybe answer if this is meant to be server- or client-side?

Yes, I forgot about .htaccess:

AddType application/xaml+xml .xaml
AddType application/x-silverlight-app .xap

AddType application/x-bloated-hax0r .wtf

-- si-blog --

Being a .NET weenie I'll probably give this a shot soon. As far as the holy wars go I tend to keep it simple: I don't care if Mono is an emulation of a Microsoft offering or if it's a PHP/Perl/Java/Ruby wannabe - the point is that it's open source software that runs on open source platforms. I want to use Mono as a deployment stack on my DH space just like other people want to use Java or PHP - and I know other Mono users would get services here if it were available. If it's resource intensive or a security problem then DH has legitimate concern for prohibiting its use on these servers. If it sucks then let it die on the vine. Outside of that I don't see why political/religious views constantly get in the way of me being able to get the business software I want to use on this shared host.

In reply to:
I don't care if Mono is an emulation of a Microsoft offering or if it's a PHP/Perl/Java/Ruby wannabe - the point is that it's open source software that runs on open source platforms.

Hey, that's certainly fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but others may see "the point" differently than you do and that's *also* "fair enough".

In reply to:
Outside of that I don't see why political/religious views constantly get in the way of me being able to get the business software I want to use on this shared host.

I don't think they (political/religious views) do, though I can't speak for DreamHost and I have no idea what the determining factor for them may be. What seems to be "in the way" of you "being able to get the business software" you want to use "on this shared host" is that you want something "this shared host" doesn't offer. Make a suggestion that they do, and then make your hosting decision based on the results. wink

Being frustrated that some others don't feel the same way you do about it is a little pointless, IMHO. I think it would be *great* if every web hosting service provided everything everybody ever wanted for $2.00 a month - but I don't think that's likely to happen, so I find the hosting service that offers what *I* want, for the amount of money *I* want to pay. wink

--rlparker

RL - I understand the rhetoric but in this post you were unusually non-productive in your responses. Just for the record, please understand I'm really taking a contrarian view here. While I happen to like .NET and am interested in Mono the fact is that these technologies are not supported here. Oh well. If I do want them seriously enough I know I can go elsewhere. I'm just injecting a view that seems to be under-represented and happily running around with my own flame jacket on. I'm certainly not whining about not having my way, and I've got lots of ways to run the code I want without trying to impose an agenda on others. :)

Of course we have different points and opinions. I stated mine but what specific objection does anyone have to Mono running on DH servers? (You did say you don't know but I'm hoping someone else does.) I don't have an opinion about other people using Ruby or PHP4 or Gallery2 or whatever, so why should other people's opinions determine whether I should be using Mono? Sure I can petition DH to support Mono but I get the feeling that they are as biased as you guys. But what purpose does bias serve here? DH is in business to make money, not to espouse political agendas for or against technologies. So if DH can get new customers by supporting Mono, why don't they? I'm really looking for solid information about why Mono won't be supported here.

I'm no more pleased with Microsoft business practices than anyone else but despite the popularity of FLOSS they provide a viable stack and business solutions that companies continue to invest in. This is all about business, not religion. And Mono is not Microsoft so why does this keep entering the conversation?!

There are some related positive aspects of the continuing browser wars. Microsoft wants to compete against Flex and other thin client technologies, so we're going to see more cooperation from them for cross-platform Silverlight / Moonlight. They've published a lot of the .NET Framework itself, so that will help Mono and other OSS initiatives. They are working with Novell (despite simultaneous legal battles) to help ensure that Mono gets more current, so that we can get a single compatible platform for development and deployment across Windows, *nix, and Mac.

Let's assume that it will all go away in a couple years. That's the problem of people like myself who invest in the technology. It's not for others to determine what risks I or others take. I don't criticize people for investing time in dead or dying sourceforge projects, including some libraries that people use here - that's just not my affair. What I'm saying here is that DH should not add Mono because "I" want it, but that they should not avoid adding Mono either because "you" don't want it.

Thanks for a healthy discussion in this thread.

In reply to:
Sure I can petition DH to support Mono but I get the feeling that they are as biased as you guys.

Who's biased?

Have you actually asked DH about it yet?

In reply to:
RL - I understand the rhetoric but in this post you were unusually non-productive in your responses.

Well, I certainly apologize for *that* ... but what is there to be "productive" about, and how is such a thing even quantified? My brevity was only intended to restrain myself from a re-hash of our previous discussion(s)> shocked

In reply to:
I don't have an opinion about other people using Ruby or PHP4 or Gallery2 or whatever, so why should other people's opinions determine whether I should be using Mono?

I don't think they should, and I can't imagine what I've said that would make you think I believe that they should. I think it's worth noting, however, that what you choose to use was not what I perceived the thread to be about - I thought you were talking about DreamHost adding Mono support. And I think it *is* relevant what *DreamHost* thinks about what they want to support, as it is "their house". They may, or may not, be biased one way or the other but I think it is their right to be biased if they so choose, because it is their business and their prerogative to choose their business model.

In reply to:
DH is in business to make money, not to espouse political agendas for or against technologies. So if DH can get new customers by supporting Mono, why don't they? I'm really looking for solid information about why Mono won't be supported here.

While I am sure that DreamHost' primary purpose is to "make money", I wouldn't presume that the young men who founded DreamHost as a privately held company have no other motivations that are important to them.

As I said before, I do not *know*, and cannot and will not attempt to speak for them, but I *have* talked with many of them and I get the distinct feeling that they are committed to "open" software. Clearly, the platform they have chosen to use, and the tools they provide their customers, tend to evidence the possibility that this is the case. Maybe there are things that are more important to them, at some level, and at some point, than getting new customers.

In reply to:
I'm no more pleased with Microsoft business practices than anyone else but despite the popularity of FLOSS they provide a viable stack and business solutions that companies continue to invest in. This is all about business, not religion. And Mono is not Microsoft so why does this keep entering the conversation?!

IIRC we've covered that territory before, you know how I feel about it, and I've tried to explain why I feel that way. That said, is it really "productive" to be, or is there really anything to be gained by, going over that again? The only other comment I have to *add* is that, to some of us, software "freedom" is *not* "all about business", or at least some don't feel that it *should* be.

You asked what "specific objection does anyone have to Mono running on DreamHost servers", which to me re-phrases the question slightly. To that question, I would answer that I have no objection to it, but to the original question of "should DreamHost offer support for Mono", my opinion was, and still is, an emphatic, "No!". Trying to avoid repeating myself in this thread while remaining response to your post (and trying, really, to be "productive" in my answer):

1) I don't think it is needed (there are plenty of other platforms for that kind of thing)

2) It's not, at present, part of DreamHost's core competency (and I don't want to see 15 minutes of their time invested in it becoming one, because I think their time is better spent on other things)

3) I think OOXML/ODF, Silverlight/Mono, and similar instances of Micro$oft trying to play in both the free software world and the evil monopoly world, have a better chance of backfiring on free software than they do of "opening" Micro$soft. (I know we disagree on this)

In reply to:
There are some related positive aspects of the continuing browser wars. Microsoft wants to compete .... we're going to see more cooperation from them ... They've published a lot of the .NET Framework itself, so that will help Mono and other OSS initiatives. They are working with Novell ... so that we can get a single compatible platform for development and deployment across Windows, *nix, and Mac.

Nah ... I'm not buying that. The only "single compatible platform for development and deployment across Windows, *nix, and Mac." that Micro$oft is interested in is one that they can control and that puts money Micro$oft's pocket, and they are only interested in that at all to the degree they can't eliminate *nix and MAC from the picture altogether (so they'll settle for a "piece" of that pie since they might not be able to eat the whole thing). wink

In reply to:
Let's assume that it will all go away in a couple years. That's the problem of people like myself who invest in the technology. It's not for others to determine what risks I or others take. I don't criticize people for investing time in dead or dying sourceforge projects, including some libraries that people use here - that's just not my affair.

While I'm not at all sure what you mean when you say "it will all go away in a couple years", I agree that you should evaluate your own risks and make your own decisions. As for the being criticized for your choices, I wouldn't worry about that so much (I don't worry about it at all as it pertains to my decisions). I don't see anybody tracking you down here and bashing you for wanting DreamHost to support Mono; you initiated the discussion, people told you how they felt about it, and some of them disagreed with you. Given the polarization of the Micro$oft world with the "free" software world, and the venue here, that probably is to be expected, and I don't see that as an unhealthy thing.

In reply to:
What I'm saying here is that DH should not add Mono because "I" want it, but that they should not avoid adding Mono either because "you" don't want it.

Well of course not ... They should do what they want to do! That said, it is naive to believe that they might not consider what each of us has to say about it, evaluate it within their own context, and possibly reconsider their position (or not) - which is why you are likely to find some counter-response to your suggestion that they implement Mono support from those that disagree with you (for whatever reasons). wink

I think a healthy discussion is great, and I'll try to be less "non-productive" if this thread can evolve past becoming a rehashing or restating of our previously shared opinions. smile

--rlparker

Silverlight 2.0 Seriously Rocks