The biggest difference between OpenSource and what's going on with Silverlight is that there is a lot more, possibly even complete transparency with the OpensSo

The biggest difference between OpenSource and what's going on with Silverlight is that there is a lot more, possibly even complete transparency with the OpensSource and you have options. I think if you do just a minimal amount of investigation you can get a good idea if a project is healthy or not. Likewise, you ultimately do have the source, you can look at it, understand it and decide if you can maintain it on your own or not. There isn't even a straight answer with Silverlight. With Silverlight, they're going to suffer the same fate IBM did with OS/2. First they don't know what they want to do, it was a "me to" product because they thought Adobe was getting too powerful or worried about DOA JavaFX, it might live, it might die, they don't know. Second, they don't know what to tell develoeprs that have invested in it, these people don't retarget to your other technologies, many of them leave after getting burned like that. Mixed messages come out, "they're completely committed" but their actions might not suggest that. The third step, they will retarget it and say something like 'Silverlight is really for x,y,z applications' maybe throw in a little 'we never really intended for it to replace the web or flash.' Ultimately, they pull the plug, any other company might attempt to sell the technology to a 3rd party to try and breath life into it or to make maintenance money from the few true believers that are left, I've not known MS to do that and even if they did, the damage is done once the uncertainty starts. Just that fact that people are asking if Silverlight is dead pretty much dooms it. MS has 2 options, let it die or show some kind of overwhelming support and double down. Anybody know how many companies have really bought in to it?