Hmm. Not the points I would make.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Kagehi May 30, 2009 6:01 PM EDT |
Mine are a) not every machine/client that needs it "can use it". Unlike codecs, and installed players, and this is partly due to it not being open, you can't just have it work, you have to have the plugin, and if you can't install the plugin, you are hosed. Like, trying to play "any" free content from old TV/Movies, or the like, or just viewing "some" pages, in Second Life, where being able to "get" such feeds is how you deliver video content to the fracking world in the first place. Adding a plugin would, unfortunately, even if possible, probably crash the clients on half the people that go there, since their machines are already marginal. b) You can't disable sound, turn down sound, *easily* disable the flash, while still having some idea what it "is" so you know if you want it enabled for that site or not, etc. Unlike most HTML content/etc., its a black box, where you only know if its going to bite your head off (or get you fired, or the like), *if* you let it run. And, you can't stop it playing, and have it "remember" that you stopped it, the next time you load the page. I could care less what Adobe might do in the future, its already obnoxious, useless in some environments, and frustrating to deal with, when you can't/don't want to/strongly preffer, not to have to deal with it. |
| caitlyn May 30, 2009 9:14 PM EDT |
While I agree with your points and also some the author makes, the fact is that Flash is all but ubiquitous on the web. Adobe did a great job of marketing to web designers. The fact is that if you want to view websites designed with Flash you pretty much need the Adobe plugin. Yes, it causes issues in Firefox but it mostly works. I can't say that for gnash yet and I certainly can't say that for swfdec. Like you I'm not so worried about the future and what Adobe may or may not try to charge so long as projects like gnash exist and continue to improve. Hopefully, eventually, I'll feel like I can just use the open source reverse engineered tools. The trick is to get web designers to stop using Flash. Until that happens in a meaningful way we probably have to live with it. |
| Steven_Rosenber May 30, 2009 11:13 PM EDT |
I realize that Linux users are a small number, but when it comes to i386/x86_64, Adobe takes care of them. But for PowerPC, they even have a Mac OS 9 client in addition to the OS X. No PowerPC for Linux, though. And nothing for any BSD on any architecture. Of course if there was an open-source client, it could work just about anywhere. At this point, I guess that client is Gnash. I hope it works well eventually, but thus far it really can't handle Flash 9 content. Last time I installed it, it basically ate CPU until I killed all the processes and removed it. |
| caitlyn May 30, 2009 11:55 PM EDT |
When I did my article on MIPS-based Linux netbooks I went through the Alpha 400 forums pretty thoroughly (lots there -- very active and large community) as well as whatever I could find on the Lemote Yeelong. Gnash and swfdec are all there is for Linux on MIPS. |
| tracyanne May 31, 2009 4:07 AM EDT |
Quoting:Devoted individuals have begun developing alternatives through reverse engineering, such as “Gnash” and “swfdec”, but those are still unable to be completed due to the lack of cooperation by Adobe. Huh? Microsoft needed no cooperation from Adobe to create Silverlight. How come FOSS developers need cooperation fro Adobe so they can build a Multimedia system for the web? |
| alisonken1 May 31, 2009 10:16 AM EDT |
@tracyanne: Maybe because FOSS developers are trying to be compatible with flash, where MS is trying to create something that _they_ control to _replace_ flash? I'm tempted to call troll, but it just may be misinformation. |
| gus3 May 31, 2009 11:10 AM EDT |
Or exhaustion. |
| azerthoth May 31, 2009 11:49 AM EDT |
Its a valid question, there are enough examples of reimplementation with out cooperation. Samba and Wine as examples. So the question remains, why the cry for needing cooperation from adobe to do it at all? |
| tracyanne May 31, 2009 5:04 PM EDT |
Thanks az. Not only did Microsoft manage to create Silverlight, which is after all is aid and done merely a reimplementation of Flash, with some new and innovative features, like heavy integration into the Microsoft Development platform (Visual Studio), but they did it with out help from Adobe. Microsoft have even managed to claim that their reimplementation is so novel that they have applied for pattents for aspects of it. So my question is "how come FOSS developers cannot do the same thing, but must rely on a proprietary software developer to feed them information." Why at this stage of the game must we merely copy? |
| caitlyn May 31, 2009 5:37 PM EDT |
Perhaps because we don't have the nearly unlimited financial resources Microsoft has. They can hire as many developers as they need and get it done. The Linux community has professional developers scattered across dozens of companies each of which have their own agenda plus a community of volunteers. The very large community and large number of companies involved has allowed for rapid and varied development, but it also has often resulted in competing and redundant development. Getting the F/OSS community behind a given project like this is kind of like herding cats. Also, Microsoft rarely innovates. They buy what they need and who they need. The F/OSS community has to genuinely develop what it needs. |
| hkwint May 31, 2009 9:16 PM EDT |
Quoting:Perhaps because we don't have the nearly unlimited financial resources Microsoft has. It's not lack of funds that's the main issue; probably that one comes second. I don't believe Futurewave spent a lot of money. If your first thought here is 'Future... who? - like I thought when reading - it proves the point. It's the lack of a framework / channels to distribute software to people whether they want it or not. Any FOSS flash-alternative could only reach a critical mass if it was preinstalled on OEM computers (but even OpenOffice isn't preinstalled on OEM computers; so for some reason that seems to be hard?), if it was preinstalled on (rack)servers, and if it was a forced update in both Windows (could be done via Firefox as Microsoft doesn't want to help) and Linux. |
| herzeleid May 31, 2009 9:23 PM EDT |
Much as I'd love to say that flash is evil and whatnot, I honestly have to say that flash has been very well behaved for me as a web application compared to java. The flash apps I know of "just work" - for instance the speakeasy speed test at http://www.speakeasy.net/speedtest In contrast, a java app, even a simple one like the photo uploader on facebook, renders the browser catatonic for some minutes while it loads itself, and if it's a good day, it may work. But it won't work more than once; if I want to use it again, I have to shut down the browser completely and start over. Could all these java apps just be really badly written? |
| helios Jun 01, 2009 8:33 AM EDT |
Much as I'd love to say that flash is evil and whatnot,... Then why are we raising such a fuss over Microsoft? The same could be said for Windows couldn't it? It obviously "just works" for millions. I think Max has a point. It's not how well it works but their mass control over a single market. I am the farthest thing from a lawyer, but in thinking about it, I can't see why someone hasn't leveled anti-trust allegations against Adobe. Surely the same arguments can be made in their case that was made in Microsoft's |
| jacog Jun 01, 2009 9:13 AM EDT |
Actually... there's a heck of a lot of Flash-like things that can really easily be done in a browser just using standard HTML/CSS/JS. If you plopped an IDE into the mix that let you easily achieve these things, and allowed barely-computer-literate graphic designers do it too, then you're well on your way to having an open alternative. The trick there is getting people to user standards-compliant browsers. |
| tracyanne Jun 01, 2009 9:21 AM EDT |
Quoting:Any FOSS flash-alternative could only reach a critical mass if it was preinstalled on OEM computers (but even OpenOffice isn't preinstalled on OEM computers; so for some reason that seems to be hard?), if it was preinstalled on (rack)servers, and if it was a forced update in both Windows (could be done via Firefox as Microsoft doesn't want to help) and Linux. All Microsoft have done is make Silverlight really really easy for developers to create Silverlight media and applications, that is their big innovation, the same one they have made with everything else. That's all FOSS developers need to do to get a godd FOSS multimedia application out there, make it trivial for anyone to build the stuff. |
| gus3 Jun 01, 2009 12:39 PM EDT |
Quoting:All Microsoft have done is make Silverlight really really easy for developers to create Silverlight media and applicationsBut are they good applications? After seeing apps from several different developers and dev houses, does it become obvious which ones were "developed" using some brain-dead drag-and-drop with no understanding of how it actually works? Visual Basic programs still suffer from the same malady; I doubt M$ have transcended it with an IDE for Silverlight. |
| caitlyn Jun 01, 2009 12:49 PM EDT |
I think helios/Ken makes an excellent point here. Of course, if Silverlight is successful then Adobe has a real competitor for Flash and the anti-trust argument goes out the window. In the case of both Adobe and Microsoft this is all about one company trying to control as much of the web as possible for their own profit. Neither is any good for the health of the market or consumer choice. |
| herzeleid Jun 01, 2009 1:42 PM EDT |
Quoting: Then why are we raising such a fuss over Microsoft? The same could be said for Windows couldn't it? It obviously "just works" for millions.Because I don't want to use ms windows. I use linux, and flash respects my choice of platform. With moonlight, microsoft gets a free ride. They throw some scraps our way, and we fawn over them and marvel how wonderful it is that microsoft is "opening up" - not realizing that they will pull the plug the moment it makes sense for them to do so. I'm sorry to have to break it to some here, but the aim of microsoft here is not to ensure that linux users have a place at the table, but to kill flash - and when the useful tools in the linux community have helped microsoft kill flash and establish silverlight as a de facto standard, what do you suppose happens to microsoft's support for silverlight on linux? Anyone who has observed their behavior knows the answer to that. |
| bigg Jun 01, 2009 1:45 PM EDT |
> but to kill flash The way they killed Google, the iPod, and countless other technologies? |
| herzeleid Jun 01, 2009 1:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:The way they killed Google, the iPod, and countless other technologies?That makes little sense since, as you know, microsoft has not been able to kill the particular technologies you mentioned. But surely it can not have escaped your notice that they have succeeded in killing many others? If we work hard to hand microsoft control over de facto standards, the competition stands a very good chance of going the way of dr-dos. What do you suppose will happen to flash if we succeed in steering a majority away from flash, to silverlight/moonlight? |
| bigg Jun 01, 2009 2:07 PM EDT |
> But surely it can not have escaped your notice that they have succeeded in killing many others? As big as Flash? From as strong a company as Adobe? They killed Netscape because Netscape was charging for something that Microsoft was including in the OS for free. Since the antitrust trial, how many large competitors have they killed off? > What do you suppose will happen to flash if we succeed in steering a majority away from flash, to silverlight/moonlight? You seem to believe you have strong powers. |
| herzeleid Jun 01, 2009 2:33 PM EDT |
Quoting:As big as Flash? From as strong a company as Adobe?You seem to believe that adobe has strong powers. Quoting:You seem to believe you have strong powers.How so? Were you assuming that my use of "we, the linux community" meant me personally? inquiring minds want to know. |
| tracyanne Jun 01, 2009 5:08 PM EDT |
Quoting:But are they good applications? After seeing apps from several different developers and dev houses, does it become obvious which ones were "developed" using some brain-dead drag-and-drop with no understanding of how it actually works? And the blindingly obvious is again ignored. So what if most of the stuff that is build is not good. The stuff is used by lots and lots of people, that's the blindingly obvious point you some how must have closed your eyes for... maybe it was just too blindingly obvious. It's elitist thinking that keeps good FOSS tools from the sort of uptake that would make the services and CODECS from becoming ubiquitous, not the quality of the toolsets. The attitude that one shouldn't make the tools Drag and Drop dead simple so that the hoipoloi won't/can't use them is what holds back far too many FOSS toolsets from major acceptance. Microsoft make it brain dead simple for anyone to use their stuff, that is their secret innovation to software. |
| caitlyn Jun 01, 2009 5:11 PM EDT |
Well... I agree with the "brain dead" point in Tracyanne's post. |
| hkwint Jun 01, 2009 5:12 PM EDT |
Quoting:I can't see why someone hasn't leveled anti-trust allegations against Adobe. When it comes to Flash that's easy: -Because the people who have Flash on their PC chose to install it themselves (AFAIK), -Because it's not tied to another product in a market where the producer of the tied product has a dominant position; -Because the one complaining should suffer from the abuse of a dominant position of the one accused. Normally, only companies or foundations are able to file a complaint, because doing so requires rather a bit of effort and probably some costs as well. As a single end-consumer it's hard to proof you are suffering from Flash; though not impossible. The FSF doesn't have an alternative which is suffering from Flash. Even worse, they recreated it showing they don't see Flash as a problem, but as a good platform which they have to emulate. Actually only Microsoft would suffer from Flash because they are the only ones providing an alternative at this time I believe. So the only one entitled to such a complaint - at this time as far as I could tell - would be Microsoft. They are not going to sue Adobe for anti-competitive behaviour, because it will hit them back like a boomerang some other day. If you don't agree, go ahead, be my guest, and file your complaint (or ask a company or foundation to do so): http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/others/formc.html http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm#document * (or whatever it may be if you live 'somewhere else'). We can only benefit if the EC/USDOJ decides you're right, I'm wrong and 'end consumers suffer from Flash'. *However, when it comes to anti-trust don't expect them to actually do anything except admitting "there's an infringement". |
| gus3 Jun 01, 2009 5:42 PM EDT |
Quoting:And the blindingly obvious is again ignored.Yes, I did, deliberately so. Quoting:The attitude that one shouldn't make the tools Drag and Drop dead simple so that the hoipoloi won't/can't use them is what holds back far too many FOSS toolsets from major acceptance.I actually agree with you on that. The problem is that, when you make a tool any moron can use, only a moron will use it. An IDE made by anyone, Microsoft Visual Studio, Java NetBeans, GPL-licensed, or something else, can go only so far before its assumptions for your code become hindrances. At some point, you must get into the text editor and type. This is true for any non-trivial task; an accomplishment that doesn't involve manual code entry is, almost by definition, trivial. |
| azerthoth Jun 01, 2009 5:54 PM EDT |
No offense meant gus but that sounds suspiciously like elitism, or at best "The way grandpa did it is good enough from me and no new fangled gizmo is needed." I see no reason to place an artificial bar to entry. |
| gus3 Jun 01, 2009 8:03 PM EDT |
Okay, keeping with the civil tone, I'll propose a reductio ad absurdum: If we want to make it as easy as possible, then the Holy Grail should be that someone who knows no programming language, can create a computer-aided design program. And if anyone could design a system to do that, it would be either Microsoft or IBM. I won't go so far as to say it will never happen. But I don't see it as being within our reach, yet. |
| jdixon Jun 01, 2009 8:21 PM EDT |
> ...then the Holy Grail should be... The Holy Grail in that case is a self programming computer. You tell it what you want in English (or whatever your native language is) and it writes the program for you. |
| gus3 Jun 01, 2009 8:51 PM EDT |
Or you draw it some pretty pictures. APL, anyone? Oh, wait, that's a programming language whose time was gone before it came... |
| jdixon Jun 01, 2009 9:34 PM EDT |
> Or you draw it some pretty pictures. APL, anyone? I thought that was Logo. :) |
| gus3 Jun 01, 2009 9:40 PM EDT |
With Logo, the pretty pictures are the output. With APL, the pretty pictures are the program. ..... Then could Logo be an APL pre-processor? *head explodes* |
| caitlyn Jun 01, 2009 10:01 PM EDT |
gus3: Do you teach classes in PL/1 as well? How about B? |
| tracyanne Jun 01, 2009 10:30 PM EDT |
Quoting:An IDE made by anyone, Microsoft Visual Studio, Java NetBeans, GPL-licensed, or something else, can go only so far before its assumptions for your code become hindrances. At some point, you must get into the text editor and type. This is true for any non-trivial task; an accomplishment that doesn't involve manual code entry is, almost by definition, trivial. Yes there are times (many) where Visual Studio's assumptions get in the way, so if you know what you are doing you turn them off. The point is anyone who can afford Visual Studio (and there is a no cost entry level version) can create a GUI application or a web page. The point is that any can, and because of that lots of people do. The point is not that it's good code but that there are lots of people making microsoft's way of doing thing ubiquitous. Same applioes ti media, and media formats. make it drag and drop dead simple to create the stuff and they will come and they will use it and they will make your product, your way, your CODECs ubiquitous. |
| Sander_Marechal Jun 02, 2009 3:09 AM EDT |
Quoting:If we want to make it as easy as possible, then the Holy Grail should be that someone who knows no programming language, can create a computer-aided design program. Reductio ad absurdum? People ask for it all the time. Just see this bug report against my gnome-hearts game: http://bugzilla.jejik.com/show_bug.cgi?id=42 |
| krisum Jun 02, 2009 10:12 AM EDT |
@gus3Quoting: I actually agree with you on that. The problem is that, when you make a tool any moron can use, only a moron will use it.Excuse me, but this has to be one of more senseless points made in these forums. By your logic those using GUI designers like glade/qtdesigner or even vim/emacs with all IDE like features are morons. The point of IDEs is to make programming easier for all including those who you think are morons, but particularly for programmers. There is no reason for programmers to hunt around in files to find some type or call hierarchy or write code to create and place GUI elements, for example, when an IDE can do it perfectly in a few keystrokes/clicks. The point of programming languages themselves is to be tools to make things easier else we better use machine language. The importance is only of design, algorithms and not of the programming language itself. So far no one (in my knowledge) has found a turing-complete way to express the same in a simple point and click fashion else I would say that approach would be more desirable if it is decidedly quicker. In my opinion, it is quite unnecessary for people like scientists etc. to become programming experts or hire some, to be able to effectively use the power of computers in their fields and it will be wonderful if someone could come up with a simple point and click approach for the same. |
| gus3 Jun 02, 2009 12:51 PM EDT |
@krisum: I had a somewhat erudite response typed up, agreeing in large part with your comment, and then I began the following assertion: Quoting:When I see a CAD/CAM system that's obviously built on Visual StudioWhich made me think I'd better check for it myself. I found the following: http://primeedge.com/Asbuilt_news/Autodesk_Visual_Studio.htm http://through-the-interface.typepad.com/through_the_interfa... So it appears likely that Autodesk used Visual Studio to build AutoCAD. I feel very Emily Littella-ish right now. "Never mind!" |
| hkwint Jun 02, 2009 1:43 PM EDT |
I don't know if anyone ever read about OpenCASCADE. It's not (only) development tools stopping Linux CAD from advancing, when it comes to OpenCASCADE it's the license that's the problem right now. This may change in near future, and projects like FreeCAD who use OpenCASCADE may benefit. However, I tried to look into how I - a non-programmer - can help FreeCAD, and it's indeed really hard given the heavy use of the C-language; but thank god there some Python. However, sadly I cannot become really involved as I'm way to busy typing comments at LXer. That's right, responding to news / comments instead of creating them. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!