This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new Linux.com!

Linux.com

Feature

Why Flash 9 for Linux is taking so long

By Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier on November 30, 2006 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

Adobe skipped a version of Flash for Linux and released stable versions of the Flash 9 player for Windows and Mac OS X long before the beta of Flash 9 to Linux users. Paul Betlem, senior director of engineering for Adobe, explained why the process is taking so long.

Betlem says that several factors have contributed to the tardiness of Flash on Linux. The primary problem, says Betlem, is the complexity of porting the Flash player to Linux due to differing libraries used for sound, video, and type on different Linux distributions.

"Some distributions have different versions [of libraries], and in a goal to provide compatibility across as many distributions and configurations as possible, we have to sort of reconcile all those differences and present a consistent cross-platform runtime, so that was probably our biggest challenge."

Betlem says that the Linux Standard Base (LSB) has not solved the problems that Adobe faces. For one thing, many of the libraries that Adobe depends on, such as Freetype and the Secure Sockets Library, are not part of the LSB. But he says that LSB is "moving forward, and the group is very receptive to our input.... I think it has great potential to create a more homogeneous environment."

Browser support is also a problem. According to Betlem, the Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows builds of Firefox are different, and Adobe has to factor those differences in when trying to port the Flash plugin to Linux.

Finally, there's testing. "The sheer magnitude of testing all those configurations and options is a big endeavor."

Betlem says that Adobe approaches Flash as a cross-platform technology, so porting the player code wasn't that difficult, except for the optimizations that are platform-specific. He says that the optimizations required some "special work" to get SSE1 and SSE2 optimizations right, and Adobe had "challenges getting GCC to invoke the behavior we needed."

However, the work seems to be paying off. Betlem says that there are some areas where the Flash team is seeing "performance significantly better than Windows," and that they are working to optimize areas where Flash 9 on Linux does not perform on par with Windows.

Many users have wondered if Adobe would support users on 64-bit Linux platforms. It's possible to run the 32-bit player on 64-bit systems, but only when using a 32-bit browser, which is less than optimal for users who run Ubuntu and other distros that ship with a 64-bit Firefox. Betlem says that Adobe is "committed" to creating a 64-bit native port of Flash 9, but "it's very early" to comment on when the 64-bit version might ship.

Since Adobe is hard-pressed to support x86 and AMD64 Linux, we asked Betlem if Adobe has given any thought to supporting efforts like Gnash to produce a free software version of the Flash player and plugin for all platforms that Linux runs on. After all, Adobe doesn't make much money on the Flash player and plugin. Betlem says that "we definitely respect and appreciate open source initiatives" but the company doesn't get involved with projects specific to Flash to avoid a conflict of interest and "to ensure we can expose a consistent, predictable runtime environment." He also notes that, due to hardware optimizations, supporting PowerPC and other Linux hardware platforms is not as simple as recompiling Flash.

The good news is that, going forward, Linux shouldn't be out of sync with other platforms again. Betlem says that Adobe is planning to "simultaneously deliver Windows, Mac, Linux in unison. It's not our intention to have a delta between ship dates" for Flash 10. Adobe doesn't have a formal schedule for Flash 10 at this point, but it's good to know that Adobe is planning to treat Linux as an equal to Windows and Mac for future releases.

The final release of Flash 9 for Linux is expected sometime in the first quarter of 2007. Betlem says Adobe hopes to be "in the earlier side of the quarter."

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Why Flash 9 for Linux is taking so long

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

A case study of why closed standards suck

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 30, 2006 06:23 PM
This is a perfect example of why closed standards suck. If flash were open, then there would be a lot more opportunities for porting - especially since "linux" is not just a single architecture or distro.


But instead, becase Flash is closed, and because people are suckers enough to tolerate it, we are stuck waiting for the point in time when or if Adobe feels like releasing a version for "linux".

#

Re:A case study of why closed standards suck

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 30, 2006 06:52 PM
Based on that reasoning, the Free alternative would kick the Flash plugin's ass. Care to compare the 2?

I can't comment as I've only tried the Flash 9 plugin. It works beautifully.

#

A case study of why closed eyes suck

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 30, 2006 09:34 PM
"Based on that reasoning, the Free alternative would kick the Flash plugin's ass. Care to compare the 2?"

Agreed. Flash does have a published standard just like PDF. The whining about "open standards" is a red herring to cover up for the communities failure to live up to the supposed promise of their model. e.g. thousand eyes and all that BS.

#

Re:A case study of why closed eyes suck

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 01, 2006 01:38 AM
Is PDF and Flash a completely open and documented standard? Does adobe provide complete access to the API for both?

I gotta tell ya, it's hard to believe that there isn't a compairible FOSS alternative if both of these format standards have been completely documented and released to the public.

And if they are documented and open, why was Adobe so upset when Microsoft included native PDF writting in Office2003 (and soon after, had to remove it)?

But you do have one point.. there's a wide veriety of projects all tackling the same problems and often in similar but slightly different ways.

#

Re:A case study of why closed eyes suck

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 01, 2006 04:01 AM

So where do I find a "published standard" which I can use to implement a Free alternative?

From the <a href="http://www.adobe.com/licensing/developer/fileformat/faq/" title="adobe.com">FAQ</a adobe.com>:


Can I use the File Format Specification to create a SWF interpreter or player?

No, the File Format Specification is provided for the specific purpose of enabling software applications to export to the Macromedia Flash File Format (SWF).




Doesn't sound very open, does it?

#

I'm happy it is taking so long.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 02, 2006 05:07 AM
I hate flash. I hope it takes forever. I hope every website that uses it is broken. I hope that every developer that creates a flash only website burns in web hell.

I'd say more but I need to wipe the spit off my monitor.

#

Oh

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 30, 2006 05:51 PM
Well at least it is coming and I guess that is good for many Linux users. I hope it comes soon.

Just too bad that it is proprietary software.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(

I probably wouldn't use it, because;
1) It's proprietary software.
2) 99% of all flash content is advertisement.

Is the Flash file format specification open or is it closed?
How come Gnash (or others) haven't been more successful than they are?

Some time ago, I heard about an implementation of Flash in OpenGL that was crazy blazing fast...

#

Re:Oh

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 30, 2006 06:03 PM
The format is closed and that's the reason Gnash & co. haven't been more successful.

Also, I can't believe how people don't see how the internet and web become and continue to be possible because formats and protocols are open. Flash goes against this.

The reasons not to open the format or open source the player are bullshit. It's proven that open source model is able to deliver stable, good products on all desired platforms. Adobe just has hidden agenda or they plain fear<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. something.

#

Re:Oh

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 30, 2006 10:01 PM
"The format is closed and that's the reason Gnash & co. haven't been more successful."


While the format is not fully open, it is just not accurate to call it simply "closed". Have you even looked at Adobe's File Format Specification FAQ for Flash or did you just jump to conclusions?

#

Re:Oh

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 30, 2006 11:15 PM
I'd speculate that there concern is a compeletely open format means competitors can pick it up and write there own apps.

While open source competition is through service not the application used for that service; proprietary seeks profit in any and all possible facets including the patent portfolio.

Example; Mac applications can write<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pdf files but when Microsoft decided to include the function in Office natively, Adobe exploded all over them. If they free their formats completely then they become another "feature" in the next Windows version instead of a third party provider.

That's my guess anyhow and I don't claim that it's a fully educated guess.

#

Re:Oh

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 07, 2006 03:58 AM
there concern
there own apps

"their".

service; proprietary

",".

Example; Mac

":".

Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 5.7).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 5.7).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 5.7).Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 5.7).

#

Editors

Posted by: Administrator on November 30, 2006 11:49 PM
With Flash in particular they may be more worried about competitors developing software to create Flash files, which is probably a much more complicated application than most unfunded open source projects would be able to compete with.

If it was, someone would just make an open source Flash competitor, not a clone. Think open source Editor+Plugin for all the major OSes. Plugins are easy to deploy, especially on Windows where you can easily have a website install all kinds of crazy crap without the user having any idea what's going on......

Actually, why doesn't someone do that? That's a good idea. Just an OSS software for making vector cartoons.

#

Re:Oh

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 30, 2006 06:04 PM
Agree. We don't need no steenking Adobe(r) Flash(r)(tm).
I hope that Gnash will do fine for cartoons or games or demonstrations.

#

Re:Oh

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 01, 2006 12:54 AM
99% are ads? Then, what's YouTube, Google Video, etc.?

#

1% (nt)

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 01, 2006 01:11 AM
nt

#

Flash Player Wish List

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 30, 2006 10:00 PM
I just wish that Flash would have some built-in way to *prevent* it from playing at all until and unless the user tells it to. Flash is the most annoying feature of any web page, since it is predominently used for advertising, and other silly annoyances that sing, dance, and bounce around the screen.

#

Re:Flash Player Wish List

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on November 30, 2006 11:30 PM
I have not yet had the chance to check out gnash, the FSF's free flash player (currently at 0.7.2) yet, but IIRC it is supposed to have the ability you desire. I agree with you; lack of this ability is one reason I have never installed flash. The other is the egregious EULA they used to have (and maybe still do).

#

Re:Flash Player Wish List

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 01, 2006 12:53 AM
Gnash is coming along surprisingly nicely. It's definitely NOT there yet, but CVS pulls produce a plugin that can manage many of the user interfaces built with flash, play many animations for Flash 7 and some of Flash 8. It does MOST of the Flash7 things right (though there ARE some behaviors in at least the 64-bit compiled version that are disruptive and wrong instead of what needs to be done (Just go visit Movies.com with the plugin in place...)) and they're finishing the version 7 support and fleshing out the version 8/9 support.

No, it probably won't do video conferencing- it probably won't do all the things the Flashplayer will. I don't want an all-encompassing, lightweight, more proprietary and closed version of Java that Flash appears to be getting morphed into.

#

Re:Flash Player Wish List

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 02, 2006 09:18 AM
Actually, they are planning on supporting flash video through gst-ffmpeg as ffmpeg already has support for the VP6 (flv) codec.

#

Use FlashBlock plugin

Posted by: Administrator on November 30, 2006 10:22 PM
<a href="http://flashblock.mozdev.org/" title="mozdev.org">http://flashblock.mozdev.org/</a mozdev.org>

#

You can't fool me you can't rule me

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 01, 2006 02:05 AM
Remember, Linux users:

When you use closed source, you're gambling with the devil. All it takes is one backdoor or remote exploit and you're fucked. It doesn't matter if the rest of your system is open source, all it takes is one closed source app "oops" to fuck you over. User beware.

#

Re:You can't fool me you can't rule me

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 01, 2006 02:22 AM

Remember, unless you do a full code audit before you compile and execute somebody else's application, you're taking a chance with the devil, or at least somebody who might not know what they're doing. One unchecked input and its all over, look at the history of telnet and sendmail both open, both had numerous remote root exploits.

#

Re:You can't fool me you can't rule me

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 01, 2006 08:48 AM
You're quite right. That's why the OpenBSD team does just that--a full code audit of the system. And since all F/OSS is by definition open source, it's likely that someone is looking over that code anyway. So, the chances of dancing with that devil become slim to none.

The fact that you actually *have* the source, and can do said code audit yourself, is a natural deterrent to back doors. And, if you find holes, like you mention in sendmail, guess what? *You* can fix them, because you have the Freedom to do so.

#

Re:You can't fool me you can't rule me

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 01, 2006 06:39 AM
You can always run the app as another user with reduced privileges, or run it in a chroot environment or a virtual machine or something similar.

#

Yes... Flash is both Good &amp; Evil

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 01, 2006 03:20 AM
Flash provides a decent interface for media-based sites and for running demos of certain types of software. However, I do think there is an over-importance of Flash placed on the web.


It was stated earlier that "Flash is primary used for ads". Well, the sad thing is, that's completely true. There is VERY VERY VERY little Flash usage in non-ads. And, as stated earlier as well, it is the most annoying feature of any web page.


Personally, I try to completely avoid sites that use Flash. They are large, needlessly graphical/animated and typically constructed extremely poorly. However, there are instances on websites where it is utilized very well.


I do not like Flash, but not because of Flash itself... because of the people using it.


It's like religion... you can't blame a religion for the people that believe in it.


If you notice, though, Flash usage is slowing shrinking throughout the web. Suddenly, everyone jumped on the Flash bandwagon, and now about half of them are jumping off. The only people using Flash regularly are video game makers and bands. Neither of which utilize many of the new features available in flash.


I think Flash is slowly finding its place: as a media streamer. I think YouTube and many of the other sites like it that use Flash are what its future is. I think all the other uses will just fade away some day.


Love,
RevOf11

#

Re:Yes... Flash is both Good &amp; Evil

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 01, 2006 05:59 AM
In fact the only place where I had to surrender to the closed source flash 9 was in the computer of my children (7 and 5 years old), that like to play online games and were asking "why you can do in Windows, while we can't with Linux?", "didn't you tell us that GNU/Linux is much better? so?". I had to install it to show them that "Linux works as well, and even better".
Now they are happy again, but in in my soul has been a sad day.
Btw, the problem rises out often when they find demos or games to download and install... Wine has never been a solution so far, and I had to promise them to buy a PS3 "that also runs GNU/Linux", I told, to console myself

#

Re:Yes... Flash is both Good &amp; Evil

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 02, 2006 12:43 AM
Good example.

"It's like religion... you can't blame a religion for the people that believe in it."

I have no problem with God but his fanclub scares the hell out of me. (not to focus on the pun)

#

Surely no worse than Windows.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 01, 2006 04:19 AM
At work we have Windows with Saser, Windows with Doom, Windows with Anna that all behave differently with different applications; as well as the odd XP-sp1, ME, Vista Beta with hacks to not expire, etc.

The *EASIER* part about Linux support is that the community is pretty understanding to software dependencies; so if Adobe would simply say things like "you require this sounds system; this kernel; this browser" we'd be OK with it; and install those components (probably in a VM) so we could use it. Not unlike how Skype sometimes required OSS sound and sometimes ALSA sound - and even with those, only the default ALSA device --- yeah, it's not perfect - but it works well enough to be useful.

#

just wish they'd make it not so slow

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 01, 2006 04:35 AM
man the new beta is so slow that it brings my firefox to its knees. i can't be productive. it seems that multiple flash objects playing at once is the main problem.

#

It IS maddeningly slow! Even in one-object pages!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 01, 2006 09:01 PM
Tried to go to www.simpsons.com, took forever to load, only saw the small intro with Bart "fishing" Homer with a donut, it never went beyond that.

Reverted to the 7.x version and everything was well.

#

we have open video formats and SVG

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 01, 2006 04:38 AM
so who needs Flash?

#

Re:we have open video formats and SVG

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 05, 2006 01:15 AM
MCSE's and Dreamweaver addicts, of course.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

Seriously, though, that's why I don't go to YouTube or any other similar site. I run GNU/Linux. Flash is proprietary. No, I don't do<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.wmv's either.

#

Re:Flash is not supported on AMD64!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 01, 2006 06:57 AM
It's called x86-64 or x86_64, AMD64/EM64T/x64 are just stupid marketing names from AMD/Intel/M$ respectively. Saying that however, you're right, there is no 64-bit version of Flash.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(

#

My pet peeves about Flash.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 01, 2006 09:23 AM
1. There's no way (that I know) to set a global flash switch to "low quality" on an old computer. And low computers exist where I work (they're not allowed to buy new ones at will, they cannot dump old ones at will and there's a scarcity of computer equipment). I'm stuck with something so primitive you wouldn't believe.

2. Open and closed are totally worn out. It is not even worth mentioning, it's like M$ talking about being innovative: instant sleepness. There are things open that you cannot see (because of NDAs), those you can see but cannot tell, those you can see and use, but not compete. Open is closed. War is peace and peace is war. The point is: do I depend on Adobe to view flash animations? Yes, if that don't-make-another-viewer clause is valid. So, flash sucks because of this. No, keeping anything which has widespread use as IP won't work. "The people" won't allow this.

3. Sklyarov. They started it, saw it was a blunder, backed off, but it was too late. They guy is possibly stupid to get in the lion's mouth, but what was Adobe thinking?

4. Ads. I personally have nothing against ads. I think they're even good, 1 out of some 500 impressions I get an ad I want to click for a product I really need. If I don't buy online, that could still make me buy the product at a shop (which already has happened). But Adobe sells to retailers, not to me. So I have to swallow all the ads. Again, no problem, they must make a living and ads keep good things free. BUT: some ads simply won't disappear, maybe they work well just under IE, some others cover the text I want to read and disappear, failing to restore the overlaid article, others simply don't work, so I can't even click to see them, others are misleading like having a [x] close box which in reality will capture your click and make your life miserable.

5. I'm losing some content (films and games) because they tell me to upgrade my flash player. I can't do that, there's nothing to upgrade to and worst, they even provide me a link to Adobe so that I get the same version I already have!?!

OTOH, flash is a good tool for making sites more cross-platform accessible (if they use version 7), so I thank them for that·

#

Adobe still dragging its heels...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 01, 2006 09:25 AM
To be honest, Adobe don't really care about the Linux platform if their actions in the last couple of years mean anything:

* They left Flash Player 7 (which is *still* the official stable release of the Player on Linux remember?) to rot for a long time with some hideous bugs, including massively noticeable audio sync issues. Just fixing that huge problem would have given them some kudos, but nope they couldn't even be bothered doing that, so yes the official Linux Flash player (7.0.68) has next-to-useless audio support.

* They have *never* fully committed to doing a 64-bit release for Linux, citing all sorts of lame reasons like porting assembly code etc. Well give us a C-built version and do the assembly port later on then - duh!

* They refuse to Open Source the Flash Player, but fail to give any reasons whatsoever (e.g. third party patent/licensing/IP issues) why this remains a closed source product. They give the Player away to free, so why not release the source code?

* By the time they finally got around to deciding to do something about the walking disaster that is Linux Flash Player 7, Flash Player 8 final was *already out* for Windows and Mac OS/X! So what did they do? Well, they sat on their backsides for many more months and eventually decided they couldn't be bothered porting Flash 8 to Linux either.

* You'd think after all this procrastination, they'd get into producing Flash Player 9 for Linux as fast as humanly possible? You've guessed it - they're dragging their feet again by seemingly not involving many of the existing Flash Player team in the Linux release (and from the blog, it looks like maybe only one or two people are actively involved in developing it).

* So now we're on the Flash Player 9 treadmill and the same thing has happened *again* - Flash Player 9 final is already out for Windows and Mac OS/X, yet we're stuck in beta closed-source 32-bit-only development hell as usual on the Linux platform. Adobe, you are an utter disgrace when it comes to Linux and the Flash Player - get it Open Sourced and become a model cross-platform showcase like, say, the Mozilla Foundation.

#

Re:Adobe still dragging its heels...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 01, 2006 10:32 AM
A few things...

Why would you have them develop completely new C code before they write the assembly code when they can go straight to assembly? Both would require time for testing, and it would probably make releases even SLOWER! Not to mention that it would completely ruin the Flash experience and cause you to complain even more.

Adobe has stated many times that the Flash Player cannot be open sourced because it contains third-party video codecs. They wouldn't want to open source a mostly-working player (without those codecs) because it would degrade the experience. The Mozilla/Adobe Tamarin project is a good first step in this department, though.

Flash Player 9 is going fast. You're being impatient. The guy from the Penguin.SWF blog has stated that many developers are working on the project (not just two). Since only two are active bloggers, it may seem like Adobe is half-assing it, but they're not.

Did you RTFA? Once Flash 9 is officially out for Linux, it will be simultaneously released with Windows and Mac in the future. They just need to get the codebase up to speed (and things like those nasty sound bugs fixed), and they'll be golden. It's also funny that you mention the Mozilla Foundation because, as I mentioned above, Adobe released the Flash Player VM, JIT, and GC as an open source project called Tamarin through the Mozilla Foundation! That's going to be huge for Javascript projects (since Actionscript is based on the same ECMAScript Standard), and everyone will be able to submit patches and make Flash and all those projects better.

Adobe is certainly NOT an utter disgrace. They may have been that in the past, but they're making incredible strides!

#

Re:Adobe still dragging its heels...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 01, 2006 06:23 PM
> Why would you have them develop completely new C code...

Er, ever heard of cross-platform compatibility? The other reason is that they may find that the C code is actually fast enough for their needs and ditch the assembly code anyway! In the long term, it could turn out that C is actually *saves* them time releasing future versions (and removes the excuse that porting to Linux takes time, plus would provide a quicker route to the 64-bit version that they refuse to commit to fully).

> Not to mention that it would completely ruin the Flash experience and cause you to complain even more.

Which is just wild speculation on your part - good optimising C compilers (e.g. Intel's on the x86 platform) can produce some impressive results and don't forget that as each month passes (and in Adobe's Linux Flash Player world, that's *many* months), the average speed of machines goes up slightly anyway!

You state that third-party codecs can't be open sourced and yet we have this much-lauded Tamarin project plus the Gnash project (which I assume is reverse-engineering the codecs with zero help from Adobe - another black mark in Adobe's books!), both of which are open source...

Flash Player 9 is "going fast"?! In the world of slow-motion calendars perhaps. I can't see how a player still stuck in beta months after other platforms have had the final version can be said to be being quickly developed. Can you blame me for being "impatient" when officially the Linux player is still at version 7, which is now *two* major versions out from other platforms?

And "getting the codebase up to speed" should have done ages ago - like when Flash 8 was being developed for Windows/Mac OS X. Hardly the "incredible strides" you claim when we've been waiting for a major update for 2 years now. Do you work for Adobe's PR department by any chance and, yes, Adobe are a disgrace for stalling this long (they showed the same lethargy with their PDF viewer, which was utterly appalling on Linux for a long time, until version 7 finally came out way after the other platforms [spot the pattern here? Adobe don't care about Linux!]).

#

Re:Adobe still dragging its heels...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 02, 2006 01:35 AM
"
don't forget that as each month passes (and in Adobe's Linux Flash Player world, that's *many* months), the average speed of machines goes up slightly anyway
"

I don't know that I'd justify a better software experience based on the hardware base it runs over. Saying the program runs better because the hardware is now faster is the Microsoft way, not the better way. Code should be efficient for the justification of it's own art and efficiency not because the supporting hardware has evolved underneath it.

#

Re:Adobe still dragging its heels...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 05, 2006 12:43 AM
You didn't address the speed issue and C. He's right; decent C code, especially in today's day of optimizing compilers, is virtually as fast as assembly *and* is much, much easier to debug.

#

PPC Linux!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 02, 2006 02:11 PM
Please, PPC Linux flash.

#

Re:PPC Linux!

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 05, 2006 12:45 AM
Gnash will solve this problem. Jump in and help!

#

Re:Editors

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 03, 2006 02:38 AM
The editor is indeed the key missing component. The file format for a completely "Free" competitor to Flash is available (and has been for over 6 years) in the form of the SVG specification from the W3C. The player is already built-in for Firefox and some others, and plugins are available for other browsers. What's been missing is an editing suite that can begin to compete with Adobe's Flash tools.

If the F/LOSS community can put the required effort behind tools like Inkscape to add really first-class editing and, more significantly, first-class declarative and scripted animation support, then Flash would begin to loose it's death-grip on the field of interactive animation for the web. That would leave only the psuedo-DRM of YouTube for the proprietary Flash (something that's likely to go away as soon as they can figure out how to do the same thing without Flash).

#

Re:Editors

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 07, 2006 06:15 AM
Flash would begin to loose it's death-grip

"lose its".

#

Re:Editors

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 07, 2006 05:36 AM
they may be more worried about competitors developing software to create Flash files

Except that the agreement to which one must agree in order to get a copy of the spec states that the spec is publicly available (which is not the same as "open") in order that apps may create SWF files; their only restriction is that you cannot create apps that play or interpret SWF files.
The restriction on players makes no sense to me because their player has always been free.
However, the restriction on apps that can interpret SWF files makes more sense, because such apps could convert SWF files into SVG/<a href="http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/" title="w3.org">SMIL</a w3.org>/etc. (which are superior to SWF in most ways (except maybe for size)), and once SVG/SMIL/etc. become common, SWF would no longer be necessary.
(SVG is already pretty common, although SMIL is <a href="http://ambulantplayer.org/" title="ambulantplayer.org">not</a ambulantplayer.org>.)

#

Flash is not supported on AMD64!

Posted by: Administrator on December 01, 2006 04:26 AM
FLASH is not supported on AMD65. I'm using Ubuntu 6.10

Thank you for correcting me if I'm wrong.

#

Flash for something other than ads

Posted by: Administrator on December 01, 2006 04:58 AM
Look no further than <a href="http://getindi.com/" title="getindi.com">indi</a getindi.com>. We use Flash (and Ruby) to produce a nice desktop application user interface. More info is on <a href="http://richkilmer.blogs.com/ether/ruby/index.html" title="blogs.com">Rich Kilmer's blog</a blogs.com>... good times.

#

hmm

Posted by: Administrator on December 01, 2006 01:44 AM
I would have to agree with some of the other comments and on top of that firefox and flash already dont get along grrr!

#

Runtime API for Flash?

Posted by: Administrator on December 01, 2006 05:51 PM

If Flash player had a public API of essential functionality that it requires (SSL, audio, graphics etc.) and left the implementation to Linux vendors, they wouldn't need to support n^m different Linux configurations and Flash would work much better on those that have a working Flash-2-systemlibs wrappers. Basically the vendors would just compile some open-source application (perhaps by Adobe?) and link with the static Flash library to make a good executable binary on their platform. Providing a simple wrapper to most common FLOSS/GNU libraries that would compile 9 times out of 10 on any generic Linux platform would solve most of the integration and ABI incompatibility problems.

I hadn't thought about this before: instead of applications relying on existing APIs, the application itself _is_ an API that just needs implemented.

#

Whiners

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 199.67.131.215] on January 23, 2008 07:49 AM

Short Answer: because humans are lazy.

Adobe doesn't care about whether Linux users have their plugin. Linux users don't pay money for Adobe products because they typically prefer FOSS. Therefore, yes, Linux is treated second rate to Windows and Mac by companies because companies are required to maximize profit, not make you feel fuzzy inside.

As a user if you opt to use FOSS you are choosing to prefer the help of developers who help out of their own goodwill or profit, over companies that do whatever takes your money. This arrangement has numerous benefits, but ultimately since the software's free the support isn't guaranteed to be. If you don't like how it is, cope.

Regards,
Dan

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya