tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post7913525944400703668..comments2024-02-21T09:18:08.330-08:00Comments on Technoracle (soon to be Canadian Cybertech): How truly open is Flash? Do we need "Open Flash"?Duane Nickullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08767498160563891543noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-63637722244787236542012-06-29T05:21:56.677-07:002012-06-29T05:21:56.677-07:00You truly make it appear so simple together with y...You truly make it appear so simple together with your presentation but I locate this topic to be truly something which I assume I would by no means understand. It seems too complex and extremely broad for me. I am looking forward for your subsequent post.Ocular Conceptshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01826248819176175458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-58001131300519392882007-02-26T04:35:00.000-08:002007-02-26T04:35:00.000-08:00Open Source isn't what's important. The Flash play...Open Source isn't what's important. The Flash player and the Flash development environment can be as closed source as it wants. Just as Microsoft Office is. Nobody wants an Open Source Microsoft Office (perhaps some do, but that's beside the point). What we want is a certainty that the stuff we produce with our tools will be open, not just now, but forever.<BR/><BR/>The only way to ensure that is to open up the specification and create an open standard. Just like PDF. Flash should be taken to ISO so that the specification(s) surrounding it can be ratified in an international standard. Seeing how important Flash has become and how much it's used, it would be devastating for Flash users if the technology should suddenly become closed or not maintained any further because Adobe shifts focus for whatever reason (mergers, sales, etc.).<BR/><BR/>If the specification is not open, it can't be developed upon once the original author and maintainer stops maintaining it. Also, Flash is so stable now that it should be possible for other entities than Adobe to give input to its future development.asbjornuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11117147483795790759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-1534620369457562482007-01-29T16:00:00.000-08:002007-01-29T16:00:00.000-08:00Flash is open when I can install a Free (libre) so...Flash is open when I can install a Free (libre) software player that is 100% compatible. Gnash may be what will make Flash open, but its developers will need access to the spec to be compatible. You should give it to them fast, because soon Gnash will be the default player on a lot of systems, and unless it is compatible by then you will have a incompatibility nightmare. A nice way to ensure compatibility would be to follow Sun's example and let compatible implementations use your trademark.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-72579009341148405242007-01-29T11:00:00.000-08:002007-01-29T11:00:00.000-08:00Reading through existing comments, most of my issu...Reading through existing comments, most of my issues are already listed. I am a linux user, and I always struggle with binary-only software. Will it work with my system? If I upgrade my glibc will it still work?<br />One issue I did not see commented on yet is DRM. Because of the closed nature of the flash player, I am not in control of my computing experience. The author of the flash movie I'm watching has complete control, which is not always what I want. Many of the little details that made the firefox browser more desirable than IE were related to putting the user back in the drivers seat. If the flash spec was truly open, and even more so if the flash player was open, I could expect a similarly user-configurable experience. This document talks about forks as though they are very bad, but I have to disagree. Forks in the spec are bad. Forks in the player are not. If the specification is truly open, only those who take the M$ approach of 'embrace, extend' would be interested in forking the spec. For the player, many different implementations could exist to serve different needs... but all could conform to the specification. As for the dev tools... I do not believe Adobe should provide them, either gratis or libre. It is through those tools that Adobe can make its money. With a fully open spec, other free and/or non-free dev suites may be created for those who are unable or unwilling to pay... but Adobe will have a good head start.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13817178163574934498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-78450194028661517462007-01-12T10:28:00.000-08:002007-01-12T10:28:00.000-08:00Any technology can be used for annoying purposes. ...Any technology can be used for annoying purposes. One of my favorite statistics I once saw (cannot remember the source) stated that over 90% of all website visitors hit the "skip intro" button. LOL. Makes you wonder why someone even adds this button.<br /><br />Nevertheless, don't shoot the messenger. While the technology is great, the content is only as good as the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-75924296980879365412007-01-08T22:20:00.000-08:002007-01-08T22:20:00.000-08:00Let me sum up website usage of Flash in one word: ...Let me sum up website usage of Flash in one word: Irriating!<br /><br />Any company that creates their entire web page in flash is just doing things wrong. Flash takes longer to load, takes more resources to run, and makes web pages slow. That's why I have flashblockerinstalled in Firefox. Don't even get me started on the lack of an official flash 8/9 for Linux. I finally got the beta of Flash 9 to work, and then promptly blocked everything. <br /><br />Too many ads! Too many ads are flash based. Ads create revenue for websites, but they are annoying and some ads are over board irriating. I'm more likely to click on a text link I can totally read and understand than any Flash link.<br /><br />Finally, This Thinkpad has a P-III 500Mhz chip in it running Linux. It can play XviD and X264 movies with no problems with great visual quality, but it stutters when running flash. WTF! Let's get real here. Make we pages standards compliant(and IE IS NOT a standard) like Firfox and make them faster to load and easier to read and navigate. Not everyone has a Core2 or Athlon64. And most don't need one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-68897422458051136522007-01-08T21:35:00.000-08:002007-01-08T21:35:00.000-08:00As so many others have pointed out, the similarity...As so many others have pointed out, the similarity of the 'arguments' that Flash is 'free enough' to the same bull poop that recently stopped coming from Sun is remarkable. Free is Free, Open is Open and Flash is neither. Period full stop.<br /><br />If Flash wants to be Open it needs to be possible to have a whole chain from content creation to playback using all Free/Open software. This isn't currently possible as a practical matter, although great efforts have been and are being made to solve the problem.<br /><br />The great question is will Adobe Free Flash before or after it matters. Sun cut it very close, another year and nobody would have noticed their code dump because GCJ and Classpath would have been good enough. Once Gnash hits 1.0 it won't matter nearly as much whether Adobe opens the Flash Player.<br /><br />Seriously. Would a distro toss a 1.0 Gnash for the crufty glop (Corporate codebases tend to be crap compared to public efforts) Adobe would spew forth with no bugtracker, mailing lists and proven support system and probably with important features needing to be reimplemented to cover holes left by licensed 3rd party software? Not likely.<br /><br />Even worse, once a free flash player exists the clock starts ticking as to when Firefox bundles it. Or worse, what if MSFT did it. Yes they hate Free Software but Adobe is also a competitor. Gnash could become the defacto reference implementation.<br /><br />Then the content development side needs to be blown open. Yes professionals might consider the cost of the official kit worth it, much like professional photographers don't balk at paying for Photoshop. Others find Gimp good enough and would likewise find a capable Free package good enough for creating useful content.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-39856096063615429392007-01-08T17:01:00.000-08:002007-01-08T17:01:00.000-08:00"working on AMD64"
Flash 9 works fine on 64bit Li..."working on AMD64"<br /><a href="http://www.jamesward.org/wordpress/2006/12/06/flash-9-on-64bit-linux-in-2-commands/"><br />Flash 9 works fine on 64bit Linux</a>James Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09257503842695972154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-38687757024444548522007-01-08T13:09:00.000-08:002007-01-08T13:09:00.000-08:00For me the most common occurrence of the Flash Pla...For me the most common occurrence of the Flash Player are the nagware banners which you cannot turn off unless you have a mozilla ad-block plug in.<br /><br />When I have too many pages open, my PC comes to a screeching halt. This is a nuisance.<br /><br />It would be a great advancement if it were possible to turn it off in any browser without plug-ins.<br /><br />Martin JasnyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-83945915138549586962007-01-08T10:28:00.000-08:002007-01-08T10:28:00.000-08:00Hello Duane, i also agree with you. However there ...Hello Duane, i also agree with you. However there is one important limitation of the player which would go away if Adobe would opensource it. I am talking about the context menu. I am very dissappointed that regardless of many requests, to let to fully manipulate the context menu they still didn't change their way. I am a flex developer and i find it annoying that i am not able to hide the default items and that the context menu is not skinnable, which stands out from the rest of the application design.<br />If this problem would be solved, i really don't see any reason to opensource the player.<br /><br />Best regards, Zoltan.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-42150669634411168672007-01-08T09:39:00.000-08:002007-01-08T09:39:00.000-08:00Open flash to me means:
1. being part of any linu...Open flash to me means:<br /><br />1. being part of any linux distro I install.<br />2. working on AMD64, Power, Sparc and anything else firefox or any arch that gui browsers work on, for Linux, BSD, Solaris etc.<br />3. having new versions the Linux, Windows and Mac versions released on the same day<br />4. Having the list of known bugs published and being able to comment on them.<br />5. Having the security peer reviewed by experts in computer security who contribute fixes or write about it.<br />6. Being able to report bugs in flash to Ubuntu, Redhat or whoever and have them sort it out.<br />7. Not being worried that you will have to some day pay for the flash client either though money or adverts, adware etc.Richard Cunninghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07532879263867139716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-51014767072588641552007-01-08T06:33:00.000-08:002007-01-08T06:33:00.000-08:00Hi Duane,
I guess the answer to this depends on w...Hi Duane,<br /><br />I guess the answer to this depends on what you mean by flash.<br /><br />Flash the specification: The specification not only needs to be free to access, but free to implement in any manner. Any limitation of how people can use information devalues that information - in the case of limitations on the flash specifications that limitation is so severe that if I read it my value as a developer would be reduced. It places a question mark over the legality of code I write in future if I do read those specifications. IMO Flash should also be using open standards for audio etc (such as ogg). By all means license the mp3 codec for use within your publishing/server software (this can be a point of difference - more of this later), but the actual specification should only include other specifications which also meet the standard of free (libre).<br /><br />Flash the player: The player needs to be open source for a couple of reasons - the first is cross-platform support is only truly available with source code. I don't want to have to worry myself about ABI breakages, 64bit etc support. Providing the source means that it is guaranteed to be able to work with my system. By able I mean not that it necessarily will with your source, but the option is there to provide the necessary patches to enable support (whether that be taking care of 64bit issue or other). It is in Adobe's interest for a flash player to be as widely available as possible. It is not a commercially differentiating factor - it is an enabler for your technologies. If people can run flash applications on their choice of platform it makes flash more appealing and enlarges your prospective audience. So by opening it you increase your marketplace for your development and server software. I can understand your concern regarding the purity of the specification - as long as it is available freely people will work to it for widely distributed products. It is in their interest to do so because as soon as they start deviating from your established standard they run the risk of their product not being widely accessible - defeating the purpose of using the specification at all.<br /><br />Flash the development (and server) tool: This in my opinion does not need to be free (libre). This is the point where Adobe differentiates itself. Your standard is available freely and widely through multiple platforms - so you're providing a development space with a broad target. Your goal here is to provide a superior development tool - the differences in this tool from the alternatives are what will make flash (generally) profitable for you. Making the workflow simpler, more efficient and other advertising spiel adjectives is what the development tool should be all about. It is in this space you can do things such as provide support for mp3s (which are published in an open format when the movie is exported). Same deal for the server side. Your product can provide interoperability between proprietary and free technology which in itself is a huge benefit. Coupled with the enriched developer experience you'll keep your market share. <br /><br />If your concern is about a competitor making such a product then specify that any application which implements your free (libre) specification must also be free - this limitation is far less onerous (and will almost certainly be accepted by the free software community) than the current one.<br /><br />Just some suggestions, but the thrust of this is that we don't need "Open Flash" we need "Free Flash" (the specification - as once the specification is free whether Adobe produces a free player or not becomes almost irrelevant - though you'd gain a large amount of goodwill by also doing so with the player. Once the specification is free there's little benefit for Adobe to not free the player).<br /><br />If you'd like to discuss this more feel free to jabber me at this email address. (I assume you can access it).<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Alan.Alan Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304074759199533605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-61051143789256497482007-01-08T03:27:00.000-08:002007-01-08T03:27:00.000-08:00Both your reasons are really invalid:
i) compatibi...Both your reasons are really invalid:<br />i) compatibility: AFAIK, that was the reason why Sun maintained control over the Java specification for so long. History has proven this is a misplaced concern and Sun have moved over to GPL - which inherently protects against incompatibility.<br />ii) proprietary bits like MP3 - these are really not required for enabling sound. There are many proven, stable and high quality open implementations like WavPack, FLAC, Ogg etc. All of these have plugins/players for all OS platforms in current use on client machines.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-2226813121482290952007-01-08T02:02:00.000-08:002007-01-08T02:02:00.000-08:00For me it is pretty simple:
- There is an FOSS pla...For me it is pretty simple:<br />- There is an FOSS player which allows me to play content (preferable integrated in a FOSS browser);<br />- There is a viable and usable FOSS IDE to create content;<br />- No patent issues (like Mono has);<br />- Well documented.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, everything else is proprietary. As a FOSS developer, I want to code (and document), I've got no time to concern myself with the nitty gritty legal baggage. Please note the Java-trap: Open Software that depends on a non-open tool (until recently).<br /><br />If you want to be open, be open. If you want to make money out of software sales, do so, but don't whine you're not considered open. BTW, ECMA is a *BAD* example (Micro$oft dog).<br /><br />Hans BezemerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-70720170702625629912007-01-08T01:16:00.000-08:002007-01-08T01:16:00.000-08:00An open flash player should allow me to view flash...An open flash player should allow me to view flash content on my Power PC debian powered ibook and should have allowed me to see flash 9 content on my X86 ubuntu powered notebook & desktop last year before the availabilty of a beta non libre free of charge flash player. So the need for a open source player is needed not for religious or political purposes but just to access content for non proprietary OS users (Is it practical reasons or not?). Go for it Gnash! Free us from the "Not available for you bloody bastard Linux/BSD users" frustration syndrom.JHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10821782404936065602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-35924157159080154262007-01-07T23:18:00.000-08:002007-01-07T23:18:00.000-08:002 years I have been waiting for amd 64 on linux. H...2 years I have been waiting for amd 64 on linux. Had the flash player been open source it would have long ago been ported. <br /><br />This is the sort of thing that affirms my hatred for proprietary software such as flash. Hopefully the <br />gnash project reaches maturity shortly here so we no longer have to deal with this problem again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-74432024714966625292007-01-07T16:09:00.000-08:002007-01-07T16:09:00.000-08:00I really think flash is a great technology. And, i...I really think flash is a great technology. And, it seems to be moving in the 'open' direction. <br />But... Just like Sun was reluctant to open-source Java a while ago, Adobe still feels it has to have control over the Player/VM to protect it's cross-platform compatibility. A spec that you may not use simply is like a mirage to open source developers and will make it difficult for them to implement anything that comes close to the real Flash-player from Adobe. <br /><br />This may be seen as an advantage, but people forget about what they are missing. For example: as soon as the entire Sun JVM will be available under the GPL Licence (which it probably will), it will become the JVM of choice for most of the Linux-distributions and other open projects. I expect a lot of effort that would otherwise go into making an open alternative to the Sun JVM available to go into the actual Sun JVM. This will guarantee that the Sun JVM will stay the most complete 'reference' implementation. There is no need to even create a slightly incompatible implementation. More architectures will become supported, which for Flash and Linux-AMD64 would have saved me a lot of frustration.<br /><br />I think Adobe should do the same to the flash player. I can see it being in every product on the market, even the open ones (could come as a standard plug-in for firefox, maybe, that's a licence-type issue, i guess). This would even create more oppertunity for Adobe to sell it's fine software for creating flash animations and would make more and more solutions depend on their player. The difference will be that Adobe will no longer have the Flash-users locked in. But as long as Adobe will be doing what it should do (being best at creating flash-based solutions), i can see no need for forking the player or the risk of a different product being better at creating flash content. As i see it, it would be a win-win situation for Adobe and the opensource community.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-20788876385893578242007-01-07T16:00:00.000-08:002007-01-07T16:00:00.000-08:00As other people have mentioned, running flash on x...As other people have mentioned, running flash on x86_86, or PPC, or any random free OS/processor combo. With a closed product you are at the mercy of the vendor to assign priority to the port (if they do it at all). With an open source approach if enough people have that itch they can get it working regardless of if it meets the corporate mission. That the true power of open source.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-71767460790843496672007-01-07T14:16:00.000-08:002007-01-07T14:16:00.000-08:00keith peters: How many people are going to go in a...keith peters: How many people are going to go in and customize and compile their own OS, or office package, or SQL database? So what's all the fuss about Linux, OpenOffice, MySQL, all the free software? Following this logic, they are complete nonsense, good only for a couple of religious geeks...<br /><br />BTW, should we happily mistake "free as in free beer" for "free as in free speech"? If yes, this article is OK. But if no, then sorry - Flash Player is NOT free.<br /><br />Practical reasons: aseigo pointed them better than I could. Thanks!<br /><br />In short: Duane, thank you for convincing me that we really need badly Open Flash.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-5311782100749259302007-01-07T09:45:00.000-08:002007-01-07T09:45:00.000-08:00Good article, and kudos to Adobe for embracing ope...Good article, and kudos to Adobe for embracing open standards and trying to explore new models. That being said, a couple points:<br /><br />On the lockin tip, it's not just about the cream, it's about sole stewardship and dependency. While Adobe is a fine company by most standards, there's no guarantee they won't become a bad actor at some future date from some perspective.<br /><br />"Lock in" is ultimately about being locked-in, not just paying money. Just because you give me bread and circus doesn't mean I like your dictatorship, so to speak.<br /><br />Also, the freedom to fork (what you "protect against" in terms of bifrucation) is an important aspect of open source projects. While it's often an ugly process, it's necessary to admit as a possibility if you want to allow truly decentralized innovation.<br /><br />Lastly, as flash gets to be more and more popular/powerful and integrate with/replace more traditional "desktop" tasks (a possible, if by no means guaranteed outcome), the whole question of security and trust becomes much more germane.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-19622142360362206792007-01-07T09:20:00.000-08:002007-01-07T09:20:00.000-08:00I am also a web developer who has looked at the op...I am also a web developer who has looked at the option of Ajax vs. Flash. Clearly flash, as a technology, offers a much more mature and feature-rich platform to write rich client front ends. We ended up choosing Ajax for similar reasons to Henry. Ajax looks to become a _real_ threat to the flash eco-system, and I think this is exactly because it is based on open technologies that are subsequently covered by all modern browsers.<br /><br />It has often occurred to me that an "open" flash that could be supported out-of-the-box by browsers would instantly trample the threat of Ajax. Moves like opening Tamarain are a good step in that direction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-51248937988295929842007-01-07T08:18:00.000-08:002007-01-07T08:18:00.000-08:00This probably has more to do with how Flash is imp...This probably has more to do with how Flash is implemented and delivered than the base technology, but Flash based content-sites have been consistently the most likely to crash my web browser, regardless of which browser I'm using. This has been the case for about the past five years across multiple hardware platforms and operating systems. If Flash was truly open, perhaps I could find an implementation that really worked. As it is, I only install Flash on my recreational computer, because the loss of stability is unacceptable for my work. When I'm trying to find information I need to complete a task, having my browser crash because of a buggy Flash advertisement on the page I need makes me very frustrated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-68108785379270098012007-01-07T06:19:00.000-08:002007-01-07T06:19:00.000-08:00Linux on AMD64. Nuff said.Linux on AMD64. Nuff said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-53422021260832719272007-01-07T00:11:00.000-08:002007-01-07T00:11:00.000-08:00I'm a Linux user, but for practical reasons not fo...I'm a Linux user, but for practical reasons not for religions reasons. I work for a company that mostly does Web Applications hosted on Linux+Postgres. I did some early experimentation with Flash, but in the end my company and I have only used DHTML, CSS, and Ajax for creating responsive applications. We have had cusotmers on occassion ask about doing the same work on flash.<br /><br />However, one reason I can't go with flash is because I have no way of knowing if the user has flash. Maybe it is easy to install on Windows and Mac, but with DHTML, CSS, and Ajax, I *know* that it works on all platforms out of the box (atleast with IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari and Konqueror).<br /><br />As a web application developer who does not want to create applications with a "Requirents" section, I'd have to say that my requirements of "openness" would be such that that browsers could include and run flash out-of-the-box, just like PNG, CSS and Javascript. I think if you really think about it, that is what everyone needs and wants. Can you imagine if you had to install a CSS plugin before you could enter a website? It would be alot less popular.Henry S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18035280641394080528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17460203.post-78043034548913884712007-01-06T21:31:00.000-08:002007-01-06T21:31:00.000-08:00I would have no problem if flash was
open in the s...I would have no problem if flash was<br />open in the sense of PDF. This is <br />clearly not the case currently and<br />this is also why I don't really have a fully functionnal flash player on <br />linux ppc. Linux is more than x86 you<br />know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com