5 ms·

But isn't ActionScript completely open? And the flash framework is open too. You don't need Flash CS4 to use flash. You can also program it with a third party I

But isn't ActionScript completely open? And the flash framework is open too. You don't need Flash CS4 to use flash. You can also program it with a third party IDE and then use the free compiler. This would be quite comparable.

ippisl 17y ago
what parts of flash are not open? When flash opened those parts you mentioned? do their knowledge and control of the closed parts of flash enables them to build better tools? how big a lead did they have for their tools when they opened those parts of flash ? Are they still today the leader in flash tools so maybe it's not worthwhile for a competitor to enter? I really don't know flash in depth , but my guess is that they today have a big advantage in flash tools and moving to html5 would seriously reduce their advantage.
- jerf 17y ago
  "what parts of flash are not open?" The source code of the Adobe Flash plugin, if nothing else. Incidentally, that does bring to mind one possible Hail Mary that could work: Open source the Flash player(s). Whether the open source community could fix performance issues on Linux and OSX depends on a lot of things, but they could certainly fix some things that would make it less aggravating. (Since it's probably impossible to open source as-is due to licensing agreements it still might not work; depends on how much of the plugin is still left after you've removed those bits.)
  - radley 17y ago
    If they open-sourced it, it would be difficult to standardize. With a major release every 12-18 months, it's already difficult to drive adoption (takes about 12 months to get > 90% user base per version). I will agree - they might want to consider open sourcing the Linux version. I know nothing about Linux so I'm guessing it's related to trying to support the "anything-goes moving-target many-flavors-of Linux" issue. OSX is another matter (blocked OSX APIs).
  - jdowdell 17y ago
    Source: http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/site/Home http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/site/Home Flash's ActionScript engine, for instance, was donated to opensource and subsequently used to make Firefox faster. (Adobe Flash Player includes licensed codecs from Fraunhoffer, On2 VPx series, H.264, more... Adobe can distribute them, but cannot license them for redistribution by others.)
allenbrunson 17y ago
last i checked, adobe's "free" flash compiler isn't all that hot. it won't allow you to create applets that use gui controls, for example.
- radley 17y ago
  Ever hear of Flex? It's whole purpose is GUI components. And it's free, as in free beer. Where exactly did you check? Really. Show us this "free" flash compiler that isn't so hot.
  - allenbrunson 17y ago
    mxmlc, the free compiler from adobe, does not allow you to use the standard gui controls that their paid compiler does. yes, you can use flex, but there is certainly some kind of reason that adobe added that limitation to mxmlc. man, why do you people have to turn everything into a pissing match?
    - radley 17y ago
      My team is using Flex SDK + Eclipse right now. What "standard GUI controls" are missing?

ippisl 17y ago

what parts of flash are not open? When flash opened those parts you mentioned? do their knowledge and control of the closed parts of flash enables them to build better tools? how big a lead did they have for their tools when they opened those parts of flash ? Are they still today the leader in flash tools so maybe it's not worthwhile for a competitor to enter? I really don't know flash in depth , but my guess is that they today have a big advantage in flash tools and moving to html5 would seriously reduce their advantage.

jerf 17y ago
"what parts of flash are not open?" The source code of the Adobe Flash plugin, if nothing else. Incidentally, that does bring to mind one possible Hail Mary that could work: Open source the Flash player(s). Whether the open source community could fix performance issues on Linux and OSX depends on a lot of things, but they could certainly fix some things that would make it less aggravating. (Since it's probably impossible to open source as-is due to licensing agreements it still might not work; depends on how much of the plugin is still left after you've removed those bits.)
- radley 17y ago
  If they open-sourced it, it would be difficult to standardize. With a major release every 12-18 months, it's already difficult to drive adoption (takes about 12 months to get > 90% user base per version). I will agree - they might want to consider open sourcing the Linux version. I know nothing about Linux so I'm guessing it's related to trying to support the "anything-goes moving-target many-flavors-of Linux" issue. OSX is another matter (blocked OSX APIs).
- jdowdell 17y ago
  Source: http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/site/Home http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/site/Home Flash's ActionScript engine, for instance, was donated to opensource and subsequently used to make Firefox faster. (Adobe Flash Player includes licensed codecs from Fraunhoffer, On2 VPx series, H.264, more... Adobe can distribute them, but cannot license them for redistribution by others.)

allenbrunson 17y ago

last i checked, adobe's "free" flash compiler isn't all that hot. it won't allow you to create applets that use gui controls, for example.

radley 17y ago
Ever hear of Flex? It's whole purpose is GUI components. And it's free, as in free beer. Where exactly did you check? Really. Show us this "free" flash compiler that isn't so hot.
- allenbrunson 17y ago
  mxmlc, the free compiler from adobe, does not allow you to use the standard gui controls that their paid compiler does. yes, you can use flex, but there is certainly some kind of reason that adobe added that limitation to mxmlc. man, why do you people have to turn everything into a pissing match?
  - radley 17y ago
    My team is using Flex SDK + Eclipse right now. What "standard GUI controls" are missing?