Silverlight vs. Flash Battle to Heat Up Next Year
It's been a while since I last blogged about Silverlight, Microsoft's newest (?) "me, too" application. So long, I had to search for the post in my blog dashboard (it's no longer on the first page of results for the tag "Microsoft"). But the news media is covering it again, this time as part of New Year's stuff (predictions for 2008, duh).
PC World's article from a couple hours ago suggests, using mostly quotes and its tagline, that the battle between Adobe and Microsoft will get hotter next year, as Silverlight battles Flash, Flex, and AIR for supremacy in the rich Internet application (RIA) arena.
Microsoft's biggest challenge so far has been to just get people to download the plugin. As the article's author, Chris Kanaracus, wrote, "Every good general knows that even the biggest army is useless if you can't get it on the battlefield." Silverlight won't do Microsoft any good if it stays on the download servers and doesn't get installed on client PCs.
My take is, I really don't want Microsoft to succeed. Adding another application to the mix just means we consumers have to install yet another program to be able to use the Web without any missing content. Needing Flash, QuickTime, Java, and Shockwave is bad enough; add AIR, Flex, and Silverlight, and we'll start to spend all of our time on the Internet installing plugins. Even just one is pushing it, in my opinion.
The best way to go, I think, would be to simply expand existing offerings, perhaps adding one more plugin to do offline (read: out-of-browser) stuff. Silverlight isn't that one plugin; it still focuses on Web- and browser-based content. AIR is OK; I'll probably end up getting it eventually as more application developers start to use it. (So far, all I've seen using AIR is a Twitter client, which I don't need thanks to IM and Firefox integrations.)
Actually, we already have out-of-browser applications, based on Java. We don't need AIR, even. Why can't we just build on existing frameworks, instead of introducing additional platforms? Sometimes, I think the software world has gone mad... I guess I should just be thankful that Silverlight is available for Internet Explorer (Windows), Firefox (Windows/Macintosh), and Safari (Mac). But what about Linux? Honestly, nobody seems to care about releasing plugins for browsers on the operating system that basically runs the Internet (a majority of servers run some variety of Linux). Harrumph. And I want to switch at some point, too.
Update (12/31): Given i80and's comment below, I should clarify something. I say that nobody really supports Linux because the existing solutions either are horrible and pathetic (Linux Flash) or rely on external libraries/applications (Mono, WINE, etc.). It's not that things aren't available for Linux; it's just that there's very little native support, that I can see.
Apple Discontinuing Boot Camp
If you use Apple Mac OS X Tiger (10.4) with or without Boot Camp, be warned. Apple will be discontinuing support, updates, and new downloads of the dual-boot software on December 31. The installation software will no longer function, though existing users will continue to be able to use their Windows partitions.
Apple made the announcement yesterday, saying that they "hope you've enjoyed the opportunity to preview an exciting new feature of Mac OS X Leopard." The announcement comes as an apparent marketing move to push users to the OS X 10.5 upgrade, which offers built-in Boot Camp.
I call foul on this one. Not supporting previous generations of its products is a major factor in my dad's dislike for Apple, and I agree with him. Discontinuing support for an older operating system mere months after releasing the upgrade is, to me, reprehensible. Look at Microsoft's Windows life-cycle. Users have years to update when a new version is produced. Sure, take the old version off of sales floors, but continue supporting it, please. Is it too much to ask for companies to be customer-friendly? I'm no Microsoft fan, but I have to say they've covered older product versions a lot better than Apple.
Leopard Mail Another Security Risk
A Mail bug patched in Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) has been rediscovered in Leopard's Mail program. The bug allows malicious code to be executed when opening certain types of email attachments, and was thought to be fixed until now.
The problem arises from improper handling of additional file-handling instructions included with file types such as JPEG. Malicious code can be inserted into the information slot, and will be executed when the file is opened. Fortunately, not all file types are affected, and the researchers at Heise Security had difficulties consistently reproducing the problem.
Does this mean the end of Macs-are-better-because-they-can't-be-attacked fights?
Apple’s OS X Leopard Wi-Fi Problems
Some users who upgraded their Mac OS X Tiger to Leopard (including users of all three upgrade options [upgrade, archive and install, wipe and install]) are reporting that their Wi-Fi connections degrade through use. One example given details the following chain of events: the connection starts at speed 54, then it falls through 11, 3, 1, and finally it drops out. Other users have suggested things ranging from installing a post-Leopard update that fixes some unidentified issues relating to IEEE 802.11 networks, deleting a configuration file, and toggling IPv6 support.
It is interesting that Apple's latest operating system upgrade has incompatibilities, just like Windows Vista did (and still does). If Apple can get this problem fixed before Microsoft fixes the compatibility issues in Vista, they might gain some credibility in the world of OSes. I look forward to another story detailing the fix Apple comes up with for this problem.
Apple’s Spotted Firewall: Tsk Tsk
Apple has been selling the new Leopard OS X upgrade on its improved security, but it's not as secure as you might think. By default, the firewall is set to off, the opposite of Windows Vista. (Why don't people talk about XP anymore?) Even with the firewall enabled, incoming connections targeted at certain system services can still succeed; researchers were able to access the NetBIOS Naming Service over a LAN with full blocking enabled. Not the most ideal setup. UDP can't even be turned off from within the OS controls.
Apple also doesn't include the latest versions of bundled open-source software. The Samba networking client, which provides interoperability with Windows networks, is a couple releases behind, and the latest version is known to contain bugfixes for security issues.
Perhaps the worst problem is the fact that (going back to the firewall) the Leopard installer will disable the firewall even if it was enabled under Tiger. Talk about a bad idea. Almost as bad as Microsoft's tampering with Automatic Updates settings with OneCare.
I'm getting my information from a CNET news story; I have no personal experience with Leopard as of yet. Just thought I'd mention that so nobody tries to get Mac tech support from me...
Leopard: 2,000,000 Copies Served
Just in the time since October 26, when Apple's Leopard OS X upgrade was released, over two million (yes, 2,000,000) copies have been sold, according to Apple. This number would put Tiger, the previous version, in second place when it comes to first-weekend sales. Steve Jobs says that the new upgrade is getting good reviews, and the innovative features are making more people than ever think about switching to the Mac.
Personally, I'm not too much of a Mac fan -- I find them pricey, and the interface is a little weird to me, a Windows user -- but the iTunes interface, at least, is nice, and I was running a Mac theme in Firefox for a while. I will probably stop by an Apple store and play with the new OS sometime. It's always good to get experience with various systems. Then I can go find a PC store and mess with Vista. I should write a comparison later this year... Ooh, post idea!
Firefox 3 Visual Refresh
Apparently the Mozilla developers working on the next major Firefox release, version 3, are planning big integration changes. Operating system-wise, that is. Firefox will have Windows XP, Vista, and Mac OS X themes, each carefully matched to the existing native applications and interface style. Alex Faaborg, part of Mozilla's user experience design team, has more details on his blog.
I won't get into too many details. However, I do hope the new 'Fox will support switching between OS themes if the user wants. I might like to try out a Mac or Linux theme on my XP computer.
Ooh, Macintosh UI…
I found a new theme for Firefox 2 yesterday: macfox II. It skins most of the UI (there are some things it misses) with the OS X theme from the Apple. It looks cool. Much as I hate Macs, I've been using it for only 24 hours and already I'm in love with the theme.






