Very interesting you're comparing Silverlight 2.0 to Flash. Flash is an old-school video player. And based on Ozzie's talk today at MIX 08, it looks like pretty pictures in automated advertising is where Microsoft is going to apply Silverlight.

Why didn't Ozzie talk about building software? Because something like Singularity (an agent-based modular operating platform constructor) does what something like AIR's later generations are going to be able to do. And Microsoft gave it away.

Very interesting. It's almost like Microsoft is forgetting how to build software... on purpose.

Nicely written article Joe. Silverlight is the flash killer, if it gets massive lockin, which it will. As you said in earlier articles, MS is changing over from flash to silverlight on their sites now. And now we know why MS want Yahoo, because that market share will be required to install silverlight, as Yahoo will also be converted to Silverlight.

MS cannot just install Silverlight on Windows users computers though auto updates, patches, service packs, or new version of Internet Explorer like it would in the old days. The reason is that government oversite (mostly the EU) will hammer MS if it trys that method. So buying Yahoo makes more sense now for MS as a lockin tools for Silverlight.

And you also pointed out the problems both Adobe and Google will have to complete with the new Silverlight and MS adservers, that both companies are deficient by themselves in some way at this point. MS will be able to offer websites a combination package of Silverlight, adservers, and google type ads, and a package deal thereby undercutting both companies.

Perhaps Adobe and Google should join forces at this point, and perhaps even consider a merger, in order to perserve market share, or even beat MS at its own game. If nothing else, Google needs to create its own flash type service quickly to compete.

Again, nicely written article Joe.

Also very interesting Intel is pushing small processors for low cost desktops. What's Intel saying here?

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9887157-7.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=NewsBlog

The future is smaller processors with broadband internet over which the desktop and all applications will be piped.

Intel is telling us the Vista monoliths are over. Intel realized it long before all of us when Microsoft told them Vista wasn't going to be as all-fired fancy as it was played up to be. Things sort of "happened" and capabilities some how "got cut". What could Intel do about it?

Hmmmm. Good question.

So, not only did Microsoft do something because Intel wanted it done, now Intel is putting it to the old MSFT fat girl and Ballmer is reacting predictably by putting the future of the company on advertising... while the more serious software advances whither on the vine.

Thus Silverlight's focus isn't web automation and franchise. It's advertising where graphics and video and the ability to automate that kind of presentation and interaction. Building software is too risky and Microsoft has had enough by showing the industry they just can't compete by production.

Thus the whole reason for the delay in the business productivity projects. What good will they do but for an opportunity to bring commercials into the workspace.

Those non-advertising projects will most likely die on the vine (or live on as zombies as management wants to say "we build serious software" with a straight face.) as businesses realize the lock-in they have in Sharepoint is no longer justified when Shareware becomes as good or better.

Interesting way of looking at things, thanks.

From what I see inside Adobe, the emphasis is clearly on providing publishing capability, and connecting to existing ad networks as appropriate. Yahoo ads in PDF, Adobe Media Player for video, the DART Motif system with DoubleClick -- I've seen Adobe work with existing ad networks, rather than try to duplicate and own that functionality.

Different core motivations, true.

jd/adobe

Well, that Adobe does publishing and graphics is a perfect reason to consider advertising, but, Adobe is not going that route. Adobe is building software with a client-runtime that will be extended in the languages and frameworks it can work with.

As it stands, Silverlight is said to be at least 10 years behind AIR.

In other words, Silverlight, after all the R&D and billions spent, is a degraded product already and it will only suit publishing aka advertising on the internet and that inside the confines of a browser only.

AIR extends to the desktop does so on top of the operating system. AIR is cross-platform, Silverlight is not.

So Adobe can advertise as well as anyone. Just that Adobe will be selling tools to those who want to advertise.

Microsoft will be selling server space to host Silverlight... and very far away from its core business.

Now, after all these years of work, why just this anemic version of what Silverlight should be?

portuno:

Boy did you drink the Adobe koolaid. Here are a few problems with your post:

1. 'Adobe is building software...' - Um.. that perfectly describes Silverlight, except with Silverlight you can you any .Net languare from C++ to Python. With Air you get Actionscrip & Javascript.

2. '...Silverlight... will only suit publishing ... on tehe internet...' - You did not watch any of the WPF presentations did you? Silverlight is the fully mobile subset of WPF. Write it for Silverlight and it will run on Widnows, OS X, Many mobile phones, and even Linux. And we are talking full function applcations, not Ads.

3. 'Microsoft will be selling server space to host Silverlight....' - You missed the point. That is just to allow anyone and every one to create Silverlight content even if you do not have a web sited today. Silverlight content can be served by ANY webserver.

Another point you missed. Silverlight 2.0 B1 is less than a 5MB download. AIR is over 12 and requires AIR applications to have full user access to disk for local storage. Silverlight gives every application plenty of spece in the browser cache for static data and 1MB of writeable persistant storage without opening up the localmachin to malware.

No, the name is SilverBLIGHT. That is because this is nothing more than a garish, annoying jumping vehicle for banner ads. (Like Flash, except even more annoying)

Computer journalists with -real independence- would cite it for what it really is.

I don't want Silverlight. I want a switch to turn it OFF!

Joe: I think a predominance of talk about Silverlight 2.0 at MIX08 is not at all surprising, as MIX is Microsoft vehicle for engaging the Designer/Developer community.

mgo: No one is making you use Silverlight as an end-user or a developer. You don't need a switch to turn it off, just dont install it!

Silverlight can either be an ad delivery platform or an application platform. If Microsoft tries to make it both then the product will be torn between different factions within Microsoft. The result will be a platform that is bloated, unfocused, and slow in development.

This appears to be playing out already. The amount of progress made in the .Net portion of Silverlight (as compared to the Media Player portion) is disappointing. The alpha was out ten months ago. The current beta should be much further along by now. It is more an alpha with components than a beta.

Phil, Silverlight is trapped in the browser. It should not be. Silverlight depends on .Net's stable of traditional programming languages and methods. It should not be. You yourself noted "Silverlight can either be an ad delivery platform or an application platform." It should be. But it's not.

The fact Microsoft has to choose one or the other direction for Silverlight is precisely what I've been pointing out about Microsoft's technology deficit. I've said all along they know the technology... they just don't ahve enough laywers to cover all the directions it can go.

I prefer to let articles do the talking for me. When you see magazine articles humming your tune, post one, ok? Then we'll know you read something more than Microsoft pamphlets and brochures.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9066838
Little demand yet for Silverlight programmers
Indirect comparisons with Flash skills market bear evidence of long adoption slog ahead
By Eric Lai
March 6, 2008 (Computerworld) Microsoft Corp.'s Silverlight rich Internet application platform has yet to gain traction among companies or programmers, according to two indirect measures of popularity.

Officially released just half a year ago, Silverlight is being downloaded and installed an average of 1.5 million times a day, Microsoft said during its Mix08 Web development conference in Las Vegas on Wednesday.

Microsoft is aiming for 200 million Silverlight downloads by the middle of this year.

But Adobe Systems Inc.'s incumbent Flash platform remains far more popular, at least judging by the number of job ads demanding either skill and sales of programming instructional books.

All told, averaging ratios from the nine sites found programming jobs requiring Flash skills to be 41 times more plentiful than ones asking for Silverlight.

(more at URL)

Very astute analysis, Joe. I really appreciated this take.

In my view, I don't think that Silverlight can be only an ad platform as some have suggested above. Where's the motivation then? Do users really want to download a plug-in in order to just view ads? Microsoft needs compelling applications first, and I think they're putting the cart before the horse otherwise. If Yahoo became a Silverlight operation, problem solved.

Each platform has a problem. Microsoft has a committed developer following but a much smaller design community using the Expression products. Adobe has a committed designer following but a much smaller development community developing for the Flash platform. Whichever company is able to parlay one into the other will be the platform which ultimately succeeds. The only reason why this may not be true is if Flash becomes a consortium.

In terms of the ads race, then there's Google. I think the DoubleClick comments reveal that Google may be trying to play this down the middle. If the platforms reach a détente, the perfect place to be may be playing it down the middle.

Joe says that "Microsoft had a message to send customers, developers and even investors today: Silverlight will live up to its "Flash killer" nickname. It's the only sense I can make out of a keynote that spent so much time on Silverlight, with emphasis on flashy demos, many from partners."

Almost, but not quite. Sliverlight is a Linux killer, NOT a Flash killer.

Pay no attention to their words, but rather look at their actions.

Silverlight targets Windows and OS/X, making it multiplatform in the message. But the absence of Linux is glaring. Wonder why....

If Microsoft sites deliver Microsoft content to the end user, why would Microsoft care if that content delivery included Flash? Because Flash allows end users to run Linux?

Why would Microsoft kill a free Flash player by spending a vast sum of money on their own free Silverlight player? Because they can better control the clients that can see the content? Do you think???

Microsoft's continued growth depends on how well they preserve their Windows+Office monopoly. They don't care about Flash itself. They only are trying to kill Flash because Flash lets the barbarians in the gate.

The real goal of Silverlight is to preserve the monopoly. Not kill Flash, but kill Linux.

.... Then they fight you ....

portuno said, "All told, averaging ratios from the nine sites found programming jobs requiring Flash skills to be 41 times more plentiful than ones asking for Silverlight."

Um. This is like the early days of .Net, bro! Check back in a couple of years, when M$ has completed the Yahoo acquisition and has Silverlight running all over yahoo.com which WILL become the MS Internet brand. Not to mention the tons of other web sites that will start using this technology because of its breadth of advertising support.

Did you read a few weeks ago about the WSJ signing an major advertising deal with M$ and their ad platform? Look for Silverlight to start showing up on WSJ's web sites within the next 6 months.

philosopher; If that were true, Silverlight would be more than just a video/graphics automation platform. The limitations Silverlight is showing prevent any serious robust applications being built unless the developers have some way of building bulletproof transactioning into the runtime to make each runtime instance self-aware of its place in the application framework.

As it is, that's not there that I can see as an integral part of Silverlight functionality. If anyone has that information please make it available, but, so far, Silverlight expects the developer to do all the heavy lifting and brings little more than a basic application infrastructure to the SL 1.0 video/graphic UI platform.

OK. Fine. SL 1.0 is WPF which is what Vista's UI was built on. SL 2.0 allows .Net programs to run in browsers. OK. So, where does it go from there?

You would expect all the money and time that's been thrown into Silverlight 2.0 would result in something a bit more advanced and sophisticated than what is shown now.

Those who know Flash will work with AIR which has already demonstrated, even in its primitive infancy, it is capable of robust applications.

Silverlight is here to entice Microsoft developers to work RIA - and that enticement is coming very late in the RIA web-party and with weak punch and stale chips.

It's obvious Intel knows with Atom the days of the fat PC are over. They're going after thin and fit clients from this point on... and Vista is what cured them of their headlong crash to build consumer supercomputers on a chip.

The supercomputer can be at the other end of a OLPC network connection as long as the UI on the local client is robust enough to control the supercomputer apps and present the supercomputer app outputs and do it all with minimal latency and with true determinism.

AJAX is now toast. Silverlight is only now starting. And AIR has had two years in public hands to mature.

So, the AJAX developers go where? Adobe goes after applications which will be applied to all sorts of fields including advertising, and Microsoft goes... where? Advertising.

Now, please explain how not getting slick advertising automation on your computer is going to kill Linux.

Great, well-written article Joe.

Jay... bro;
"Check back in a couple of years..." ????

Isn't that what Microsoft always says?

Silverlight has an opportunity to be a great opportunity in the future... under certain conditions. But, under the present conditions, you're certainly hoping for a whole lot.

Microsoft may not get Yahoo. What happens to your adoption path then? Push it through with grit? Microsoft has a very poor track record in coming to the party late, trying to wow the crowd with glitz and falling safely behind in third or fourth place in the final tally.

Silverlight 2.0 is what .Net has. That should be remembered.

Given the ability to imbed file access on the local client into the Silverlight ad, and given Microsoft's shoddy history on security, how long before somebody turns some company's innocent Silverlight-based ad campaign into an army of zombies mining J.Q.Publick's hard drives for phish food?

I don't know, guy. It sure looks like a whole lot of hope and a whole lot more waiting since the real Silverlight 2.0 won't be out until later this year. Or did you think this version of SL 2.0 is the real deal? Hopefully, for your career, it isn't.

Wait six months, right? OK. Microsoft watchers have been waiting for years for Microsoft to show they understand the internet. So far, not so good.

I don't think there is the potential to undermine the web with all its open standards. It's too late, everyone likes the open community sponsered web. Regular DHTML/Javascript/AJAX applications are now good enough and can run in any browser on any platform with support for all the other web standards for internationalization/accessibility. Silverlight and Flash are really just attempts to lock the web under the control of a single company. I just don't see that happening. Web developers are just too aware of this and don't want to see things controled by a single monopoly. The web is free now and will remain so.

Especially with the proliferation of web accessing devices, no non-standard runtime that requires a special execution environment can run on every cell phone (like iphone, android, etc). Both Silverlight/Flash are designed for a single hardware architecture (wintel). But this is a dying segment. Small mobile diverse devises are the future.

go Microsoft!

"During his opening remarks, Ray Ozzie, Microsoft's chief software architect, emphasized the importance of "things that we do to deeply embrace advertising, which is the economic engine that powers the Web ... In terms of advertising, it's innovation in the experiences on the Web that provide the fuel for our ad-based economic engine."

LOL - I guess that's why most browsers have an option to block pop-ups and kill/disable annoying margin ads. Ozzie needs to put away the web2.0 bullsh_t generator, retire, and let someone take over that might have a clue. People use the web in spite of advertising, not because of it.

When Microsoft lost the nacent pieces of Ajax when Mark Lucovsky left MSFT for Google and Google came out with the Ajax web tool, Microsoft never said a word.

Well, that's not entirely true. Ballmer said a whole bunch of words and threw a chair.

But, the reality of the entire history is Ajax was never going to cut the mustard and Microsoft managment knew about that all the way back in 2004.

Ajax is going to diminish in use simply because it is a shoot from the hip solution to solving a very hairy problem attempting to correlate the processes between client operations and server operations.

Here's where Ozzie gave his hand away all the way back in May 1, 2007. Ozzie knows something like Ajax needs a deterministic transaction to play with the big boys... and Ajax doesn't make it.

In fact, Silverlight doesn't make it either, apparently, since Silverlight 2.0 has lately been announced for nothing more than video and graphics automation. No real transactional processing beyond the user pushing buttons and the Silverlight automation doing something less than robust.

So, when you look at Microsoft's slink off into the advertising world and leaving all you "web developers" wondering why business won't give you a real shot at building real web applications, ask Ozzie what he knows. I doubt he'll tell you. He's adopted the same behaviour as his owner Steve.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Ozzie_Silverlight_Supports_AJAXTo_a_Point/1178033460
Ozzie: Silverlight Supports AJAX...To a Point
By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews
May 1, 2007, 11:31 AM

The question of how much support Microsoft intends to give JavaScript as a Web development language became murkier yesterday, perhaps inadvertently, when a statement made by the company's chief software architect, Ray Ozzie, was cited out of context by press sources. The citation by itself made it appear that Silverlight, Microsoft's new cross-platform runtime environment for Web applications, would at some point be competing with AJAX as though that technology were exclusively Google's.

The comment in question is as follows: "We're announcing today that we're bringing .NET technology together with Silverlight, and that Silverlight is being transformed into an amazingly powerful cross-platform extension to our entire .NET development and design environment, specifically factored to run in a browser. The Web over the last years has been mostly about AJAX, about increasing the richness of the user experience through the magic of DHTML, and clever browser hackery. But AJAX development has its limitations, and certainly there are better languages than JavaScript to use for many of the sophisticated apps that developers want to build. In this respect, Silverlight changes the game by giving you a new choice for developing incredibly sophisticated, rich Internet applications in the language of your choice."

(more at URL)
-------
Now, of course, it would be possible to implant a transactional processing method in Ajax... and wouldn't that outfit Google against Microsoft just fine?

@portuno:
I never claimed Silverlight was good. Only that it was Microsoft's attempt to create something that was perceived as good enough for most people as Flash and could be used to disrupt the growth of the Linux community around the world.

So no, I cannot explain how not getting slick advertising automation on your computer is going to kill Linux. Flash isn't just about slick advertising automation. Sure, I don't miss the Flash-based ads on systems that don't have a Flash player plug-in installed. But that's only a small part of how Flash is used.

Flash is about an alternatively slick (not necessary, IMHO, but slick nonetheless) navigation. And even those it may or may not be strictly necessary. But serious sites such as those for Learjet and the Falcon Jet use Flash extensively. Like it or not (and I don't), they use it.

Flash is about ubiquitous video distribution on YouTube, Military.com, and many others. I'd prefer WMV or OGG or MPEG2/4 or something like that. But Flash has settled nicely and firmly into the role of on-line video streaming. Like it or not (and I am not overly fond of it), they use it.

And do I think that Microsoft will be able to displace Flash with Silverlight to the point where compelling and serious sites (such as those I mentioned above) use Silverlight? Now I'm getting into opinions related to the prediction of future events. And I can only offer an opinion. And that opinion is that Microsoft will try to displace Flash with Silverlight on any site anywhere that people find necessary and compelling.

Do I think they will succeed? I cannot offer a guess. But I have observed that a cornered wolverine will fight with a surprisingly effective viscousness. And when that cornered wolverine has a market cap of 250 billion dollars, then it will be able to fight with even more effective viscousness.

I hope that cornered wolverine with dripping fangs, razor-sharp claws, and a market cap of 250 billion dollars doesn't succeed. But I won't be surprised if it does succeed anyway. That 250 billion dollars will buy a lot of political and legal clout that nicely complements that wolverine's nasty disposition and desperate position.

@puppet:
I agree wholeheartedly! And the farther away and faster they go, the better!

Microsoft makes a lot of noise about Silverlight. But, before long developers will realize Silverlight is a lot of noise.

http://ajax.sys-con.com/read/514448.htm
When Microsoft talks about Silverlight it’s all about RIAs and it parrots what Adobe says about AIR, the user experience, monetization and branding. It’s the natural thing to say about RIAs, but Silverlight’s cross-platform/cross-device functionality comes by way of the browser and it still has no offline capabilities.

So, if a developer wants to build a rich Internet-enabled desktop application that runs the same way across platforms and devices, does useful work offline, doesn’t use a browser, and directly enables interactive content, it seems that AIR is the only option.

----------

So, what are all you "developers" going to do? Swallow Ray Ozzie's burnt biskits? Or do a little study about the next generation of real application construction?

If you don't learn, your career will be left behind. Pure and simple.

And for those of you who need a picture:

Here ya go.
http://ajax.sys-con.com/read/514448.htm

Google Gears:
RIA - No
Off-Line - Yes
Desktop - No
Runtime - Browser

Mozilla Prism:
RIA - No
Off-Line - No
Desktop - Yes
Runtime - Mozilla

Sun JavaFX:
RIA - Yes
Off-Line - No
Desktop - Yes
Runtime - Java

Microsoft Silverlight:
RIA - Yes
Off-Line - No
Desktop - No
Runtime - Browsers

Adobe AIR:
RIA - Yes
Off-Line - Yes
Desktop - Yes
Runtime - Self

@portuno:
Thanks for the link. By following it and then visiting the Adobe site, I found the following tidbits from their AIR FAQ (at http://www.adobe.com/products/air/faq/):

1. "Adobe Flash Player is a browser plug-in that provides advantages for users and content creators in the browser, including the ability to deliver RIAs in the browser. Adobe AIR incorporates technologies originally developed in Flash Player and enables rich Internet applications on the desktop. Adobe AIR and Flash Player provide complementary deployment methods for the RIAs."

2. "Adobe AIR for Linux is actively being developed and will be released the second half of 2008. Adobe will release a public alpha on our Labs website in early 2008 in order to collect feedback from Linux developers."

Re 1: The shared heritage is interesting. Flash is a lot more than advertisements, and building on proven technology is quite often less risky and produces better results than wiping the slate clean and starting anew.

Re 2: This is a LOT more encouraging than the response from Steve Ballmer about a port of Silverlight to Linux.

But don't confuse superior technology and market dominance. Microsoft has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a product's quality and that product's market share are completely unrelated to each other.

However, neither do I underestimate the ability of Apple to hang in there. Things should get interesting, to say the least.

Funny, isn't it? Microsoft, with all their money, with all their capabilities in research and engineering... couldn't produce a version of Silverlight that does anything more than compete with Flash.

They're holding the capabilities of Silverlight back on purpose. That's plain to see. And holding back technological superiority does nothing to ensure market dominance.

Remember, phil, Microsoft has ZERO percent penetration in the kind of areas Flash already occupies as ubiquitous.

"Microsoft has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a product's quality and that product's market share are completely unrelated to each other."

What you're pointing at as an argument for Microsoft's predestined dominance in this kind of market is a faulty premise. Their dominance using shoddy quality comes from their position as a monopoly. That monopoly died last year when they couldn't prod enough performance out of Vista to make their developers happy.

Microsoft depends on a significant existing presence in an existing area. They usually buy that position because they've shown they make too many mistakes when they build.

Their attempts at starting from zero and dominating a field are dismal, so your contention they will dominate has a whole bunch of holes.

@portuno:
1. I never said that money can buy brains. I only said it can buy politicians.

2. I don't have any inside information on what is and what isn't in Silverlight that is being held back. You do?

3. I never said that Microsoft's dominance is predestined. Their current monopoly certainly helps their dominance, but do remember that in the very beginning they had no monopoly and still had shoddy products but they did have Bill Gates' brilliant financial mind and his vision of a wealthy monopoly to guide them.

4. Their monopoly has NOT died. It may be dying, though that is hotly debated and I cannot offer any insight of my own. Vista is a black eye, and it seems to me to have been a real boost to Apple and to Linux on the desktop, but those desktop competitors are but a blip on the chart. (I don't like it, but them's the facts.)

5. Their attempts at starting from zero and dominating a field are highly successful. Excel displaced Lotus's once-dominant spreadsheet. Word displaced the once-dominant (and superior) WordPerfect. For GUI desktops, Windows displaced the once-dominant Apple Mac and helped sign the death warrent for the Silicon Graphics Indigo. (A bit of trivia: Adobe Photoshop, always and still the defacto standard bitmap editor in its class, ran on Apple and on Unix (Irix, on the Silicon Graphics Indigo) long before it ran on Windows.) Exchange has displaced the once-dominant Lotus Notes. In all of these cases, including the supplied bit of trivia, Microsoft clearly started from zero, both market-wise and technology-wise, and ended up dominating the field.

6. I NEVER contended that they will continue to dominate. What brainless idiot told you that I did? I do contend that continued dominance is neither certain nor impossible. I only claim that they have done it before (they have, contrary to your own statements) and that their monopoly position and great wealth are not to be discounted. But I guess you are right on your last point: My lack of clairvoyant vision into the future can indeed be thought of (somewhat poetically, I must admit) as a whole bunch of holes.

A point I would like to clear up here. Silverlight is available for Linux in the Novel Suse team port. Supposedly Novel had an agreement with MS as part of the cash payment to Novel, to work on an unofficial port. That way MS can say they don't support Linux versions. Its called Mono (Moonlight) and did come preinstalled on Suse, and at least some versions of Ubuntu.

Checking in Synaptic Package Manager (Debian repo's) I find its available, but thank God, its not installed in the Distro I use. And it will never be on my computers.

My point has been, MS wanted a Linux port of Silverlight, without doing any work or having to say they supported it in Linux. The reason is possibly there is a bigger base of Linux users than Netstat and a few of the others site tell us. Or just Market share is what MS is looking for, including us Linux users.

@chips:
Thanks for the reminders. I agree with your desire to avoid Mono and Moonlight, and I've seen Mono many times in Ubuntu's Synaptic Package Manager list, but have not succumbed to the temptation to try it out.

A good friend who works in the guts of Linux during ports to various processors+architectures has tried to keep up with fixes to Mono as needed by the teams he supports. Mono is still a mixed bag, as is Wine.

I'm still not sure that MS really wants a Linux port of Silverlight. Perhaps they just want ONLY a Suse Linux port and can't figure out how to shut out all of the Linux distros that they haven't been able to bully.

Or perhaps they are planning to ensure that Mono and Moonlight are just good enough to be tantalizing and used by lots of Linux users, but fall short enough to help spread the fear that only Windows can properly use Silverlight-enabled sites. Kind of like, if you distribute vanilla and can't stop people from eating chocolate by marketing campaigns such as "Get the Facts", and you can't get them to think chocolate is illegal (by way of funding baseless lawsuits like SCOG's), then another way is to corner the supply of chocolate, lace it with rodent dung, and hope that people soon view chocolate as unpleasant and very risky. Bob's your uncle, they may just end up avoiding chocolate, and you can continue to get richer with your vanilla monopoly.

Just some guesses...

@chips,
Oh, and I do think that there is a much bigger base of Linux server and desktop users than is reported through Netstat and other monitoring sites. And I think Ballmer knows it too. Monopolies, like brutal dictators, are always looking over their shoulders in fear... at least the ones that survive.

Going back to my previous analogy, a cornered wolverine isn't dangerous because he thinks he is invincible. He is dangerous because he thinks he is NOT invincible; more precisely, because he thinks he is is in mortal danger. When that fear is combined with his fierce will to survive and formidable strength, claws, and teeth, that's when he is most dangerous.

Lose the scrolling favicon, it's very distracting and annoying, not to mention ugly and amateurish.

@portuno -

A couple things flash wipes the floor with MS over:

[1] installed base
[2] tools for designers

What does Silverlight 2 do better? -

[1] Deep Zoom. Seen the "flash already does this" posts elsewhere. With a ton of effort, Flash can do similar things to the SeaDragon stuff, but it's a slideshow in comparison.

[2] Timelines in flash are primative.

[3] Ruby, Python, C#, VB, of Javascript all under the VM. You get actionscript and javascript with adobe (and only AS3 is under the VM)

@chips:

I've seen for year that a large subset of linux users hate Flash with a passion. As a programmer, I have too, since I can't edit the code or see how it works, without installing an expensive package.

That feeling isn't going to change for any another RIA engine, even if it was blessed by Linus.

Is this an extension of the "I don't need a gui" feeling?

Jesus portuno, you claim SilverLight 2 is "nothing more than video and graphics automation"?? Get your fact straight, dude. SL2 is an end to end solution with CLR and C# (or any other .Net languages) through and through, which is why SL2 is very capable of building serious Web Apps or in your words "building software". You are completely ignorant about what's behind SL2 technologies. I suggest you stop talking about SL2 b/c you have been really making yourself a fool each time you did.