@JoshRoss: That's a disturbing image.
@fanbaby: open, proprietary... it's a blurred concept without any bearing on the job. Let me try a little thought experiment here, that I'll try to keep germane to the title of this thread.
Imagine there were a little Visual Studio add-on that takes a Silverlight project and generates the corresponding HTML+ES. To the developer, that would still be SL, as that's what he or she wrote. Yet... is that project still "proprietary" or did it magically get "open"? More importantly, would our hypothetical add-on mean that SL is now dead, or would it mean that it broke its mold and is now able to run on any modern browser without a plug in?
The real game changer was not just HTML5. If Microsoft had been dragged unwillingly into HTML5, they wouldn't have pushed the envelope so hard with hardware acceleration, forcing everybody else to follow.
True: canvas, SVG and a competitive ES engine were all prerequisites to this, but it's hardware acceleration that makes HTML a viable platform to displace SL (and more importantly Flash) on their turf, namely rich UI/UX and games.
The whole point of the article (to me) is that the tools available for HTML5 still are not on par with those for SL, and that the team is willing to change that. (What Ian says is a great dream... I'll keep my fingers crossed).
First encounter was with MS-DOS 2.0... or at least its manual. A particularly vocal freshman at my Univesity was constantly complaining about how complicated DCL was, so I and a friend borrowed an MS-DOS manual and threw together enough scripts and aliases to emulate the look and feel of COMMAND.COM (on a VAX).
It was intended as a quick joke, but it backfired as one of the professors found out about it and thought we should maintain it. Still don't know who had the worst sense of humor.
@cbae: I wish there were a rule stating that April Fool's jokes have to be funny... Anyway, I don't have definitive proof that it was indeed a joke: it's just that considering how unusual such a release schedule would be, it would seem advisable to wait and see if that rumor gets picked up on a less suspicious date. But that's just me, of course.
The procedure didn't work here. Too bad, I don't care enough about copy & paste to try anything fancier.
I do wonder, though, why the update process was set up the way it was: I understand the "testing" part, but I cannot really understand why they decided to deliver the bits in batches: the number of devices out there cannot be even remotely close to Windows or other products that get updated regularly without all this fuss.
Now, if I were a conspiration theorist, I would suspect they wanted to have a chance to monitor the update process and be able to pull the plug should anything go horribly wrong...
Meh. There is a simple test, though: the "Virgin Mary grilled cheese sandwich" went for 28K on eBay, to someone with more faith (and money) than common sense. Let's see if someone buys that house for some equally ludicrous amount (and please, oh please, someone keep an eye on the buyer).
Ok, I'm not a lawyer, but that is not what I read (in the actual bill, not the commentary above it).
Just browsing, it appears that:
1) End users are exempt. The company would have to be reselling iPads to be even just considered. Let's just assume this is the case, and proceed...
2) The stolen property must be worth no less than 20K USD. Quite a few pirate licenses, I'd say.
3) Microsoft must prove it had an unfair competitive damage from that.
4) A court must already have ruled against Foxxconn.
5) The fictional company must have a contractual relationship with Foxxconn.
Also, what I think is the key to read the whole bill, the company cannot be sued as long as it can prove that it conducted its business with Foxxconn in reliance of some code of conduct pertaining stolen IP, or at least made reasonable efforts to implement such a code.