Related
I'm starting some research on skype programming. Is there one technologie for skype plugins or are there multiple frameworks or apis?
I'd like to make a plugin where user from my database can communicate with each other (video, audio, chat) over skype without seeing each others' real skype id's - is it possible? (I guess yes, I tried skycandy a couple years ago and it was actually the same)
any hints for realization?
primary platform would be windows, but maybe android/ios as well (are mobile versions plugin enabled?)
Is skype a good choice for the requirements or is there a better solution for a small project without budget?
Skype offers an API for its Desktop clients, Desktop API and an SDK for you build your own client.
The Desktop API is in maintenance mode and doesn't support newer features in the client and has a number of known bugs.
SkypeKit is fully supported but doesn't currently support Multi Part Video, at the time of writing.
Neither of these technologies can be used on mobile devices, in the case of SkypeKit its specifically prohibited in the licence terms, and you may never obscure the sending or receiving parties Skype name as this is prohibited.
For additional info please see http://developer.Skype.com
Allen Smith
Community Manager
Skype Developer
Since the mobile detection solution for ASP.NET 51degrees.mobi became commercial (the lite version isn't really useful anymore), I'm looking for an alternative solution.
Are there any other OpenSource or free projects, that enhance the detection of mobile devices with ASP.NET?
There is a free version of DeviceAtlas available for web developers who need an easy and reliable way to distinguish between mobile, tablet, desktop, TV etc. Also identifies OS and browser. It's available to your web application as a web service built on the DeviceAtlas Cloud infrastructure -
Completely free to use and available in Java .NET PHP Python Ruby
https://deviceatlas.com/blog/announcing-deviceatlas-cloud-free-version
Developers, hobbyists and micro-companies may find the free WURFL OnSite or Cloud offering sufficient for their needs.
WURFL Cloud: http://scientiamobile.com/wurflCloud/gettingStarted
WURFL OnSite: http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/dotnet_index.php
In free edition they allow any 2 free properties/capabilities which you can select like-
ux_full_desktop
is_wireless_device
is_tablet
brand_name
model_name
device_os
device_os_version
and many more...
This would help in getting just and much more required requesting device info. Hope this helps somebody in need.
Check out Apache DeviceMap for .NET: http://devicemap.apache.org
The best (and probably only) Open Source alternative that exists in that area.
After Apache showed too little interest in Mobile projects (there are only 2 active projects in this category, essentially all dominated by client-side Phonegap) especially on the server side, we put DeviceMap to rest in January 2017.
You can find the only true Open Source alternative in this field, free to use both for non-profit and commercial sites at OpenDDR.
WURFL should handle your needs: http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/
I am working on a commercial web application that has a separate mobile browser version intended for the more capable devices (BlackBerry, iPhone, Android, etc). I don't want to do simple User Agent contains style logic and was looking at the various detection libraries. It seems like WURFL and Mobile Device Browser File are my best options.
The Mobile Device Browser File (MDBF) project at CodePlex exposes information through the Request.Browser property. Also, it has a Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL). Mobile Browser Detection in ASP.NET mentions "data for MDBF comes from WURFL" and Mix: Mobile Web Sites with ASP.NET MVC and the Mobile Browser Definition File confirms MBDF is "created from a database from many sources, including the popular WURFL mobile device capabilities database."
51degrees has a .NET Mobile API that uses the WURFL data files and also populates Request.Browser. It is licensed under the Mozilla Public License Version 1.1. and claims:
With the .NET Mobile API installed and
WURFL providing mobile device data,
these calls will return extremely
accurate data when compared to the
standard browser information provided
by Microsoft
Since the official WURLF .NET API is distributed with a GPL License, so it is a non-starter for my project.
WURFL ASP.NET Implementations compares ASP.NET implementations of WURFL, but this is over a year old (2009-01-16 - Article submitted) and doesn't mention the 51degrees API or MDBF.
Can I get any feedback on which library to use.
How often are these data files updated?
Is it better to use feature detection that user agent parsing?
Is an online service (e.g. Handset Detection) easier that update data files?
Any other useful input.
Regarding Mobile Device Browser File:
Quote: "Due to the organizational restructuring of the team that developed and supported the Mobile Device Browser file, we will no longer have the resources to support and update this CodePlex project. The team will be providing two more releases – one on the 27th July 2010 and the final release on the 24th August 2010."
So that I am not just the bearer of bad news...
We are planning on using:
Mobile Device Detection and Redirection
by 51 Degrees
Which has a really good example of:
How to Add the .NET Mobile API to an
Existing Web Site
Hope this helps.
The MDBF was updated fairly recently. If what you need is basic information it's probably better as it integrates nicely with your .NET framework.
Marg.Wurfl is definitely a good choice and integrates with .NET framework as well.
Both have an approach that is good for the old .NET style, not the MVC. In MVC you will have to do your own legwork.
You might also want to consider DeviceAtlas that has an API for .NET and has very good performance in .NET.
Specifically to your questions, WURFL is updated almost once a month, while AFAIK there are no planned updates for MDBF, they will release an update if and when they feel like it (yes, not very exciting).
You might use Javascript to detect features in modern browsers such as iPhone, Android and recent Nokias, but for all the rest, the User-Agent string is still the only real option, so I'd say it depends on your target market. You might want to create a super-simple version that works for all and an advanced version where you do feature detection.
I don't like the idea of online services, if you plan to have a high volume site. Once-a-month updates are OK, with commercial products like DeviceAtlas or Mobile Phone Wizards you can get more frequent updates.
DISCLAIMER: I used to work for dotMobi that created DeviceAtlas
The WURFL official .NET API has been released recently by ScientiaMobile--the WURFL people's newco. You can access it here: http://www.scientiamobile.com/site/page/view/downloads. However, it is subject to the AGPL license, which basically means you need to buy a commercial license to use the API in a commercial app, including a Web site. Raw data remains free.
A whitepaper showing how to integrate it with ASP.NET is: http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/dotNet.
I think WURFL has more capabilities and more active community, and it has more frecuently release than mdbf. But i have to say that microsoft is doing good work. You could look Marg.Wurfl, too.
And remember you can use GPL software in SaaS.
You can look Marg.Wurfl too,
As Dino mentioned, the WURFL API is distributed under AGPL, but also available under commercial licensing terms (this is called dual licensing, or also offering a GPL exception in FSF's parlance).
The wurfl.xml file is not longer considered raw data, though. Because of the creative work of keeping the data organized and groups, ScientiaMobile claims the copyright on the wurfl.xml file starting with version 2.2 and distributes it under certain conditions (notably, that the wurfl.xml file can only be used in connection with one of the standard APIs):
http://wurfl.sourceforge.net/licence.php
Acquiring a commercial license also delivers certain extra rights on the wurfl.xml file itself.
I'm currently using a linux server, we run a couple of web sites of it, PHP apps with MySQL, the usual. Since the server is privately owned by some friends and myself (we do have it hosted at a professional datacenter though), from time to time we also use it to host our smallish counter-strike source and call of duty 4 matches by running the released dedicated game server packages.
I've recently subscribed to DevExpress' excellent WinForms and ASP.Net component suite, and is contemplating moving to Windows to make use of those ASP.Net components. I'm currently trying to decide between the Web and Standard editions of Windows Server, since there is a difference of nearly a thousand bucks (where I come from)
For Windows Web Server 2008, Microsoft has softened the database server restrictions and made it clear there is no need for CALs. But would one be able to run the above mentioned web servers? I've been googling and searching through forums to no avail.
Need some help before I plunk in the cash.
Thanks.
Before I give any opinion, I'll start by answering your core questions:
Yes, you can run dedicated game servers on Windows Server Web ed.
The differences between web and standard:
Web only supports 2 gigs of ram. Standard in 64bit mode can support 32gigs (and more?).
Standard comes with more things that are better suited to local server environments (eg: active directory). If you want LDAP controlled Exchange email, you'll need Standard. Most web server don't need these.
Web (apparently) won't support full-on SQL server versions. Express should run though.
Opinion time.
Dedicated and virtual dedicated monetary overheads on Windows servers are a lot... To the degree where you're paying more for the software than the hardware costs, at least for the first year.
Renting the software (as part of a managed dedicated server or VPS) is initially a lot cheaper, but over the course of a couple of years, will cost you about the same and if you run it longer, it'll eventually cost you more.
Shared Windows hosts can be good. I've been with a company called Hostek (Florida-based) and they've bent over backwards to make hosting a fairly busy site (around 6000 uniques a day) very cheap for me. It can also be atrocious. I've had bad hosting companies too. Shop around.
About a year ago, I dropped Windows at home in favour of Linux. I'm not going to enumerate the many benefits and drawbacks; I'll just tell you that that's when I stopped doing .NET in favour of more open Frameworks. I'm not using Django (a Python-based web framework). While you might not like it (or other frameworks - eg Ruby on Rails), I plead that you do check out what's happening in the open-source world before you plonk for anything Windows related since you already have the infrastructure available for hosting Django/Rails/et al.
If you wanted your own Linux server, VPSs start from around $20pcm. As I said before, severely cheaper than Windows counterparts. I now use Linode to host everything new I make. Highly affordable and they'll easily run dedicated games like your current set-up does.
Mono isn't an option for you. Not yet anyway. It does go some length to help people migrate their applications but it's still pretty sketchy on the ASPNET front. And as a comment says on another answer: the controls you want to use are strictly Windows-only for the moment.
Linux will consume fewer baseline resources than Windows will. On an old server (Windows 2000, IIRC) I had to administer, the core of Windows would consume anywhere from 100-200 megs of RAM. My current Ubuntu server eats 40megs. I'm not sure how much RAM you have to play with on your server but if it's a lower amount, you're going to fit a lot more on a Linux host. (Remember that if you have more than 2gigs, you don't have the choice of the Web Server edition)
It's clear from this that I'm a complete Linux super-enthusiast, but I know my needs differ from yours. ASP.NET is a great platform but it costs a lot of money even if you're splitting it between friends. You could opt for Windows... Or you could go Linux, donate a bit to the projects you use and buy a new plasma or something shiny for the lady.
SPLA? Isn't that for service providers? My friends and I use the hosted services for ourselves (games, email and web), though of course our web sites are publicly viewable by all; but I think that hardly qualifies as "providing a service"?
Unfortunately, staying with Linux would make it such that I would not be able to use my DevExpress components, which is my reason for considering Windows Server in the first place. .NET may be partially supported by Mono, but not fully, and DevExpress makes use of certain features of .NET that aren't (at least as yet) supported by Mono.
We also already own our own dedicated server, so are only looking for a suitable OS.
Still, your reply is appreciated.
Silverlight v2.0 is getting closer and closer to RTM but I have yet to hear any stats as to how many browsers are running Silverlight. If I ask Adobe (by googling "Flash install base") they're only too happy to tell me that 97.7% of browsers are running Flash player 9 or better.
Not that I believe everything I read, but where are these statistics from Microsoft or some other vendor about Silverlight? I'm going to be making a technology choice soon and a little bit of empirical evidence would be an asset at this point...
All you Silverlight developers out there, show me your stats!
Quick Answer: www.riastats.com
This site compares the different RIA plugins using graphical charts and graphs.
It gets its data from small snippets of javascripts running on sites accross the web (approx 400,000 last time I looked)
At the time of this post, Silverlight 2 was sitting at close to 11%.
I would not take this as the end-all, be-all in RIA stats, but it's the best site I've found so far.
If you are developing something for a general audience, I would highly recommend against Silverlight as you immediately cut out Linux users.
I went to watch videos for the Olympics (and I run exclusively Linux), and I couldn't watch the video on their site because they were in Silverlight. On top of that, they actively removed all videos from YouTube, so I had no alternative but to try and scrounge up a Windows boot. This only served to give me a very negative opinion of NBC, and consider them quite amateurish to pick such a restricting technology for something that should be available for everyone.
While Flash has it's problems, it works fine in Linux, so I would say (at this point), it is a much superior technology choice.
If you KNOW your audience is entirely on Windows (maybe Mac).... then you can consider Silverlight with knowing you won't be cutting out part of your audience.
if you're that concerned about locking out potential users, you should be building a low-bandwidth HTML only version of your site anyways...regardless of whether you use Flash or Silverlight.
I struggled with this for a while. Ultimately, I chose to develop my site using Silverlight for the major components. I did a good bit of research, and I reached the following bottom-line conclusion:
If Silverlight fails, it will not
be for lack of installed base. There
are simply too many levers for MS to
pull (windows update, embedding it in
IE8, or even paying highly trafficed
sites to use it.
I will add this from Alexa - microsoft.com has pretty impressive daily reach and it uses SL on the main page. I would also not be surprised at all if Outlook Web Access is moved to Silverlight - thereby turning every single office outlook user who wants to access email from home/other into a roaming SL installer.
Alexa Link comparing microsoft.com/ebay.com/amazon.com
I will add this from ScottGu's blog entry:
In addition to powering the Olympics
experience in the US, Silverlight was
also used in France (by FranceTV), the
Netherlands (by NOS), Russia (by
Sportbox.ru) and Italy (by RAI). In
addition to video quality, a big
reason behind these broadcasters
decision to use Silverlight was the
TCO and streaming cost difference
Silverlight provided. In the August
2008 edition of Web Designer Magazine
(a Dutch publication) a NOS
representative reported that they were
able to serve 100,000 concurrent users
using Silverlight and 40 Windows Media
Servers, whereas it would have
required 270 servers if they had used
Flash Media Servers.
Over the last month we've seen several
major new deployments of Silverlight
for media scenarios. For example: CBS
College Sports is now using
Silverlight to stream NCAA events from
its 170 partner colleges and
university. Blockbuster is replacing
Flash with Silverlight for its
MovieLink application. And Netflix two
weeks ago rolled out its new Instant
Watch service using Silverlight.
At the 2009 Microsoft Professional Developers Conference, Scott Guthrie said that Silverlight was installed on "45% of the world's Internet-connected devices"
http://www.betanews.com/article/PDC-2009-Live-from-the-Day-2-keynote/1258561992 (quote taken from "9:28am PT") entry
This was the weekly poll over on CP a few weeks back. Out of the 1463 developers responding, aprox. 62% had Silverlight installed on at least one system.
So... if you're making a site targeted at Windows developers... and don't mind locking out a third of your potential market...
I haven't been able to get stats. I'd assume they might release some at PDC in late October. If you're building a site which needs to target a non-developer audience who won't want to install another plugin, you might want to wait for Silverlight.
I have done a good amount of testing with Moonlight on Linux, and it works well for sites which use either use Silverlight 1.0 functionality (pretty much 100% supported) or which happen to use the Silverlight 2.0 bits which Moonlight currently supports. The caveat is that some websites explicitly check the user agent and won't offer content if you're not on a "supported" platform. That's poor website coding, not a fault of the Silverlight plugin.
During the keynote # ReMIX UK when ScottGu gave the figure of 1.5 million installs/day I was sat next to Andrew Shorten, one of the Adobe platform evangelists (and also a good chum). He was telling me Adobe have independant evidence of an AVERAGE of 12 million installs a day, with over 40 million downloads.
It would appear 1.5 million is a tiny amount of what it could be.
Well 6 million watched the Olympics on NBC, which used a silverlight player. So at least 6 million. I've never seen exact stats, but you can be pretty certain that it is pretty small still.
Also, there is an implementation of silverlight for linux called moonlight.
I think an interesting stat comes from this site itself. Have a look at how many silverlight questions there are! And how many responses - it's not the most active topic!
I think you'll see a dramatic increase in the Silverlight install base after Silverlight 2.0 officially comes out. Right now it's still in beta. Silverlight 1.0 is out and runs quite well from what I've seen in Moonlight on Linux, but it's much harder to create full-scale applications for than version 2.0. According to Microsoft, Moonlight will be "100% compatible" at release time. See Scott Guthrie's blog (note: 2.0 was called 1.1 at the time).
Nick R, as for the fact that there isn't much Silverlight activity on these forums, I think the biggest reason for that is the very active community on the silverlight.net forums.
Scott Guthrie said (at Remix UK Sept 18 2008) that Silverlight is currently downloaded 1.5 million times per day. Over 115 million downloads since the version 1 release.
The Version 1 installed base will automatically update to version 2 when it is out of beta.
Wow! Scott said the same thing at Mix in February 08 about run rate - 1.5m. So it seems that a daily run rate of 1.5m per day for 6 months would add 270m installs to the installed base. So their numbers are not exactly clear in their meaning.
If one assumes the 115m installed base is correct, then it implies a run rate around 700k per day in the six months since SL2. Of course, many users are upgrading versions B1 to B2 as an example.
Either way, it is gaining some steady installs. It would be nice to see the run rate improve. By 2nd quarter of next year, it should be dramatically higher due to v2 shipment, application/web site adoption, pre-installation on various computers (like HP) and any unannounced distribution mechanisms.
While in general I support the idea of developing a site using silverlight and feel that that, depending on your audience, you should not have too much trouble getting users to download the plug in I would caution you against assuming that Microsoft will release the plugin built into IE or as a part of windows update.
I have had two separate Microsoft Technology Evangelists tell me that the company is reluctant to do that due to Anti-Trust reasons.
This was over a year ago and their strategy has probably evolved since then, but it enough to make me not count on that as an option for greater market penetration.
Don't forget that the Silverlight 2 install base will never include PPC Mac users. It doesn't look like the Moonlight people are targetting them at all, despite the heroic effort to add PIC streaming for Silverlight 1.0 users for the Obama inauguration.
The larger question is how many users will your site lose if implemented in Silverlight. And, it very much depends on your audience.
If you're running a site about the joys of Linux kernel hacking or the virtues of Internet security, you'll probably lose a significant chunk of your audience. If you're running a more mainstream site, my experience is that, sadly, people will download anything they're told to most of the time. That's why spyware and malware work. And, as the NBC/Olympics deal shows, Microsoft will aggressively push its partners to use Silverlight until it's fairly ubiquitous.
I won't be using Silverlight until it's more mature because I do cater to a fair number of Linux users, but I might for a less technically-oriented site.