Re: Flash is open?
On Sat, 15 May 2010 00:27:32 +0200, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2010-05-14 19:06:06, hacktest Du folgendes herunter:
(...)
>> So the reality is that anyone wanting to view a flash based site has to
>> have Adobe Flash player installed as is the only one able to fully
>> support all the features listed in their "open" specs.
>
> THE SPECS ARE OPEN and if the Open Source Community is not able or even
> willing to implement it, it is NOT THE FAULT of Adobe.
No need to SHOUT. I read all the messages in the same manner.
"The specs are open"... o.k., now so it seems. Since 2008, just 2 years
ago, which is good, but Adobe, since the adquisition of Macromedia on
2005, was holding all the rights on Flash format.
"(not having a good FLOSS Flash player) Not the fault of Adobe...". Of
course not! The fault of Adobe, and this is my personal POW, is
developing a very bad quality flash player, for all the users (windows,
linux, Solaris).
Heck, how in the hell can a company provide such players if they are the
developers of the product the players are handling (.swf)? I cannot
understand that, and "that" precisely makes me doubt about the quality of
the format they are trying to populate and rise.
That said, even they (they=Adobe)now "open the specs" for Flash I will
avoid either using it or promoting as much as I can.
<flashback mode on>
In the times I worked as webmaster and web designer (now sysadmin),
people (clients, partners and my company) "urged" me to adopt flash
technology, just because "looked nice" and, "(sic) hey, anyone has the
Flash Player installed so it was also kinda cross-platform".
Yes, Flash Player was (is) available for many systems but the fact is
that that did not change my perception about the suitability of using it.
There is nothing you couldn't do with standard html technologies
(javascript, css, dom...) that Flash can, so why bother about spending
time and money in acquiring a license for Adobe products that were (in
those times) the only powerful ones that allowed the development of "rich
sites" ("rich site" → Adobe "dixit")?
Why bother if there was only a unique Flash player out there and was
pretty bad quality? Why forcing my users to have to use such player if
there were alternatives in a very good shape that were open and
compatible?
My perception is that web developers wrongly refugiated into flash to
escape from the incompatibilities of the web browers, any of them
applying different renderings of the elements of the page layout and not
following the W3C standards. Yes, Firefox and Opera had also their own
glicthes and of course, Internet Explorer.
So web developers, instead trying to compatibilize "the
incompatibilities" of the browsers by making a more fine-grained code,
they took the "easy path" and just fall into the arms of Flash format:
format was bad but hey, at least it renedered the site in the same manner
in all the browsers >:-)
And then it came html5, promoting open standard ways to handle video and
audio... ooops, Adobe must thought their Flash format will be forgotten
and lost in the Helm's Deep if html5 will succeed, so the decided to open
Flash to be more user-friendly and calm down the accusations about
monopolistic tactics, being their flash player installed in more than 95%
of the computers >:-)
Adn here we are now, with Adobe developing, promoting and enforcing DRM
technologies in their products and, OTOH providing an "open spec" for
flash... quite contradictory :-)
That is my personal opinion, of course.
<flashback mode off/>
>> And the same situation goes for Adobe Reader for Linux. I dunno what is
>> going on with Adobe but true is that I dislike the path is taking that
>> company :-/
>
> I am using Debian GNU/Linux since over 11 years and I have more then 20
> commercial progras like Eagle, FAB3000 and VariCAD with a total value of
> more then 80.000 Euro installed, because there are NO Open Source
> equivalents available.
I have nothing against good quality programs, even they are closed source
or commercial. But Acrobat products does not fall into that category :-)
> ...and no, gEda is NO OPTION du to the incompatible Gerber outputs and
> it can not handel Layots with BGA 421 and bigger plus correct handling
> of more then 4 Signal layers (I need at least 8). Auto-Router? Oh Hell!
I now that. I'm working for a engineering company, and I'm "forced" (is
market demand, we need a 110% compatibilty with our partners and they use
AutoCAD...) to use such products.
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: