Comments on: Official Novell/Microsoft Web Site (MoreInterop) Calls Moonlight “Microsoft Moonlight”

By: JohnD

JohnD — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:54:27 +0000

I don’t have proof, but my gut tells me that the Moonlight code has bears more than a passing resemblance to the Silverlight code. Assuming the codecs are included in Moonlight – one could consider that using original source code. I don’t know how codecs are written, but knowing M$ – I doubt they work on Linux without some kind of modification.
You’ve heard both side of the port issue so you can make your own decision about Moonlight’s true nature.
I will tell you that I use SLED 11 and Moonlight and I like them both. They give me the ability to do 90% of my day to day things without using Windows. Right now I have a couple XP VMs to help me with Netware access and Lotus Notes Development.
Should the day come that M$ tries to hose everyone via Suse – I’ll move to another distro and install VMWare and soldier on.

By: JohnD

JohnD — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:45:51 +0000

@Shane,
I don’t care what ads you post, if you can make a buck showing an M$ ad – more power to ya. I, for one, don’t think you’ve turned to the dark side because of it.
I simply saw humor in an M$ ad on an anti M$ site. Made even more humorous given some someone’s penchant for drawing links between posters and M$ for things like that.
Providing an honest service in exchange for money is the heart of capitalism and I’m all for it.

By: JohnD

JohnD — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 00:21:00 +0000

What started it way my statement that Moonlight was “basically a port of Silverlight”
At the end of the day Moonlight does one thing – lets Firefox on SLED view pages with Silverlight content. If it does something else in addition to Silverlight, then I’d say it’s something new/different. I consider it a port because the set out to duplicate a particular product – not create something similar with additional features/functions. My point of view is this:
1. It came out of the Interop lab.
2. I believe I heard that the dev team consulted with M$ on it and given the deal they could very well have had access to Silverlight code.
3. It does nothing other than Silverlight
I’m hard pressed to believe it’s something truly new and unique. Given this site’s purpose I’m surprised that anyone on here would consider it anything other than a port. Actually viewing Moonlight as a port would add more fuel to the fire.
I’m also mildly amused at how Roy in particular is focused on the “exact” definition of port when he was rather liberal in his definition of “New” with regard to this story.
Honestly. While it may be new to you because this is the first time you heard of it, that doesn’t make it new in the grand scheme of things. The document is 6 months old and in that time I’ve never seen anyone refer to it as M$ Moonlight – not even on the Mono/Moonlight page. Anyone truly interested in the facts would contact Novell or the Interop page and raise the question.
All that being said – I grow weary of this “discussion” . I’ve stated my opinion – all are free to agree or disagree as they wish.

By: Shane Coyle

Shane Coyle — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:35:35 +0000

nah, like I said, we do just about exactly right. there was a time a while ago where the funds went thin, but we’re cool at this point. if the new frontpage really eases the load on the host, we should be fine for the foreseeable future.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:13:55 +0000

Shane, if hosting costs more than the ads pay, let me know and I’ll mail a cheque.

By: Shane Coyle

Shane Coyle — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:09:31 +0000

Jose, thanks but, we revisit this every once in a while, and the ads don’t bother me cuz I use Adblocking in Konqueror and Firefox. Just like I abhor censoring comments, I feel likewise about the ads I suppose.

Remember, there are quite a few pro-Novell and pro-Microsoft visitors, some of whom may genuinely be interested in whatever they’re saying/selling, even if you’re not.

Maybe we should have a static spot where it collects my regular responses to these questions, But, JohnD, No – Roy gets none of the Ad revenue for this site, despite my offering a few times early on for him to ‘monetize’ his postings.

The ads are mine, I use them to offset the costs of hosting (the same account that also hosts edu-nix.org, so I suppose it could be said that BN also ‘pays’ for that these days, with me not nearly as often having to make deposits).

Of course, we’re seemingly always an inch away from getting kicked off the net, and who knows what a bigger host will cost, but right now we break just about even but sometimes underfund due to Google’s waiting to pay after you clear $100.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:24:09 +0000

Yes, that’s my understanding of “port”.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:23:12 +0000

From the list:

Flight Simulator Purchased from the Bruce Artwick Organisation

And already taken to the cleaners. "Usually Microsoft doesn't develop products, we buy products."

--Arno Edelmann, Microsoft's European business security product manager

By: Myfraudsoft

Myfraudsoft — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:20:43 +0000

quote: ‘If anyone as a list of software that MS “acquired”…’
Here, two partial lists: http://www.dwheeler.com/innovation/microsoft.html
http://www.computing.net/answers/windows-xp/microsoft-hall-of-innovation/24145.html

By: Brian Assaf

Brian Assaf — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:45:43 +0000

Odd discussion.

A port: Modifying code to run on another platform

A clone: Making a software that does the same thing (looks similar etc.) as another piece of software.

This matters due to things like reverse-engineering and clean room implementation.

If you’ve taken code without permission you’ve got a derivative work.

If you’ve done it all by yourself with a unique implementation, you’ve got a clean room implementation.

Saying things are a port, would really spread confusion for no reason.

Calling all word processors ports of each other, or spread sheets, etc. Would be utterly false.

However, looking at GPL’d programs, i.e. videolan, and see how many platforms it can run on. Ditto for GNU/Linux distributions that run on x86, arm, sparc, etc. ALL the software that runs on multiple platforms in that case is ported.

If you want to continue the word port, there is an implication that source code of the “parent” application is used. So I’d say stop it, but surely there will be a discussion about it as occurred here.

Lastly, about the IE 8 advert. Take the money from MS while you can. They’ve certainly taken mine with the “bundling” of its OS.

P.S. Internet Explorer is a port of Spyglass Mosaic, for those interested. If anyone as a list of software that MS “acquired” it would be a neat article. Apart from QDOS, what else?

By: Jose_X

Jose_X — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 22:42:36 +0000

Top banner right now is “Linux by Novell” and displays “Novell.com/NovellLinux”

Shane, do you want help filtering out these things? I can try to write up a regular expression or something.

By: JohnD

JohnD — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:57:48 +0000

@Roy
I never said render either.
FLAC and MP3 both work with sound files, one is not a “port” of the other. If I create and ActiveX program it won’t run in Firefox and if I write a Firefox plugin it won’t work in IE – so there are fundamental differences in the applications – even though they provide the same functionality to the end user. Now if I wanted to create a web browser that supports Active X I’d have to support all the APIs etc in order to do that. If I do that, how much different would the browsers be? The point I was trying to make initially was simply this – in order for Moonlight to work with Silverlight pages it has to implement APIs or whatever the content requires to function correctly – so how different can Moonlight be from Silverlight? Sure you could go and create 5 routines to replace one or create one to replace 5, but do those changes fundamentally change the application?

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:46:49 +0000

If two applications that render something similarly are “ports”, then Firefox is a port of IE, which is a port of Netscape, etc.

By: JohnD

JohnD — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:43:54 +0000

@Roy
Nowhere in the posts for this topic did I ever state that Moonlight and/or Silverlight is a good thing. In fact, given my definition of port, Moonlight are essentially the same thing. So if one of them is evil so is the other and vise versa.
Talk about coming up with your own definition! Hello Pot? This is the kettle…

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:13:02 +0000

Yes, Jose explained this point very eloquently:

By: Myfraudsoft

Myfraudsoft — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:07:20 +0000

Roy Schestowitz: “Moonlight is not taking Silverlight code.”
OK, but what abut Microsoft’s patents? Such as patented codecs. Without them it’s not really compatible with Silverlight.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:05:23 +0000

Oops. That last reply was to John.

@Myfraudsoft: yes, and don’t forget the codecs.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:02:11 +0000

Yes –

Whose meaning you conveniently warped to make Moonlight sound like a decent thing.

By: Myfraudsoft

Myfraudsoft — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:02:06 +0000

JohnD,
well, I’m nitpicking again, but for me the term ‘port’ also has legal and ownership implications (in addition to technical). Such as, porting is usually done by original owner of code (or, at least with owner’s consent), whereas an alternative implementation is done by a rival or an independent provider. So, in light of that, calling Moonlight a port of Silverlight, to me at least, implies that some of Microsoft’s code (or at least some patented stuff) is being used. The really sad thing about it, is that’s likely the case here, making Moonlight actually a (partial) port of Silverlight and exposing non-Novell distros and their users to potential Microsoft lawsuits.

By: JohnD

JohnD — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:55:04 +0000

You’ve just proven my point – all of this started around a discussion of the word port.