Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Reflecting on WPF/E
> http://richardleggett.co.uk/blog/index.php/2006/12/21/reflecting_on_wpfe
> Related:
>
> Microsoft's 'Everywhere' Excludes Linux
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Microsoft's Windows Presentation Foundation is aimed at making it
> | easier for developers to create modern user interfaces for
> | interactive applications whether they are Windows native or
> | delivered through web browsers.
Does this pretty much boil down to further dependency on ActiveX
controls?
In effect, wrapping Microsoft executable code into an HTTP envelope?
There was a posting last week on Microsoft's attempt to patent the
ability to embed similar code into RSS, and of course, there is
OpenXML.
Microsoft seems determined to defy all attempts to establish platform
independent standards.
It also looks like they are still rabidy defiant in their compliance
with the antitrust rulings that require them to disclose their
protocols.
Meanwhile, Multiplatform technology including AJAX and W2 have placed
the emphasis on multiplatform solutions.
> The problem with browser-based
> | interfaces is that not everyone uses Internet Explorer,
This is becoming a bigger issue. Firefox and Opera are becoming more
and more popular, and even when IE is used, more and more corporations
are disabling ActiveX controls and other "IE Only" capabilities. Even
when ActiveX is allowed, there are often restrictions on what controls
are permitted. For example, flash and acrobat reader might be
acceptable, but some random controller, a Word Viewer, or other 3rd
party control might be verboten.
The problem for Microsoft is that people just don't trust Microsoft's
"back doors" anymore.
Malware did over $60 billion in direct damages and nearly $600 billion
in indirect damages in 2006. With that much Liability running around
loose, and Microsoft assuming none of it, there is a lot more interest
in getting some control over the software, control which OSS does
provide to IT departments and their consultants.
> | let alone Windows itself.
Many IT managers were holding back on making any plans to migrate away
from Windows until they knew what Vista would actually offer. Even so,
Mac and Linux has begun to take larger and larger market share. At
current rates, Mac user base is doubling every 18 months, and Linux
user base is doubling every 8-12 months.
If Microsoft pushes the market too hard, and delivers too little, it
could trigger a massive defection to Macs, which would trigger a
substantial defection of the OEMs to Linux. There has already been an
informal defection, including public announcements of Linux
compatibility, even if offers to preinstall Linux were withdrawn - in
2006.
Based on the reports of the pundits, Vista isn't really living up to
the promises that really matter. Corporate customers aren't all that
concerned about real-time 3D animations at this point, but they do care
about security, stability, and compatibility with legacy software and
services. If Microsoft messes with too many 3rd party products,
requires too many upgrades, and doesn't deliver security that is
comparable with Linux, and continues to leave the back doors open,
Linux and OS/X will become much more attractive.
Both Linux and OS/X have established strategies to support hybrid
combination with Windows, which means that end-users don't have to give
up Windows entirely to migrate to a *nix based system. And Linux has
migration strategies for progressively small and smaller dependency on
Microsoft licenses, such as Crossover and Win4Lin.
> | To this end, Microsoft has released
> | 'Community Technology Previews' of a future product code-named
> | WPF/E (Windows Presentation Foundation Everywhere). This
> | browser add-on enables rendering of WPF content, but
> | "Everywhere" doesn't include Linux.
> `----
> http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/7794/53/
You'd think that after the .NET fiasco, that Microsoft would be ready
to realize that Microsoft MUST come to terms with standards.
WPF is yet another "Standard du jur" subject to the whims of Microsoft,
documented nowhere,
With AJAX, full Java 1.5 or 1.6, Web 2.0 and Linux servers rapidly
pushing the adoption of multiplatform client solutions, WPF is turning
into a long walk off a short pier.
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20061204/tc_zd/195468
> Microsoft does not want us to use IE
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Why else would the company release a new version of the browser with so
> | many glaring and obvious incompatibilities with other browsers?
Microsoft has been able to get away with their own "standards" for many
years now. Ballmer put it very simply "we have over 100 million PCs -
we ARE the standard". This was many years ago, and since then
Microsoft has continued to grow that number to nearly 1 billion PCs.
But things have changed.
When Ballmer made that statement, PCs were usually "free standing", the
"network" was called "sneaker net", which meant you would write a file
to a floppy and drop it in someone's mail slot in the mail room, or
just drop it on their desk chair and hope they didn't sit on it.
Today, PCs spend nearly all of their time interacting with Linux and
Unix servers. In addition, corporations are tired of eating the risks
and costs of malware. IT managers are getting much more interested in
the standards and less and less willing to take the vendor's word for
it.
This is one of the reasons why FireFox and OpenOffice have been
downloaded to over 200 million users, and possibly duplicated to
another 100 million users. It's one of the reasons why Eclipse and
Gaim are becoming as popular as proprietary equivalents. Java is
dominating the application server market, and has become a big player
in the client application market - because it offers a multiplatform
solution.
> | Why else make it virtually impossible to visit any web site, without running
> | against multiple warnings and blocks?
Microsoft is hoping you'll get fed up and disable the "security
features" yourself? Absolving them of liability?
> | Why else make it so difficult to
> | test existing and new versions of the browser, that you have to run a
> | completely new OS image?
This is one of the little problems with sticking nearly every class,
method, and library function into one big library and using IE to force
that one library into memory. The big problem is that it can play hell
with backward compatibility, especially 3rd party products. Not
exactly the best way to prove your loyalty and reliability to
customers. Of course, Microsoft's solution is to tell the customer to
get rid of those 3rd party products, especially those which compete
with Microsoft eqivalents.
Blame the victim.
|
|
