5 ms·

I'd argue that they are good enough at building browser runtimes that theirs has 90%+ market saturation, and is an industry standard. Now open is another issue

I'd argue that they are good enough at building browser runtimes that theirs has 90%+ market saturation, and is an industry standard. Now open is another issue...

radley 17y ago
Seriously? Did Adobe beat you guys up and take away your computer? Did they say "no no no mine?" Where is the "not open" you guys claim? Flex SDK + Eclipse == free Flash development. I swear HTML5 fanatics just make stuff up these days. You'll use Windows, Flickr, Google, and Hacker News - all privately owned systems. But god forbid Flash is bad because... why?
- stevenwei 17y ago
  Open != free. Lack of openness: a browser plugin that is less stable and slower on Mac and Linux that noone else can fix except Adobe...and only if they choose to do so. Lack of openness: a browser plugin that doesn't properly utilize cookies on non-IE browsers that noone else can fix except Adobe...and only if they choose to do so. Lack of openness: a browser plugin that doesn't properly return HTTP status codes on OS X that noone else can fix except Adobe...and only if they choose to do so.
  - batterseapower 17y ago
    I think your comments here are off base. The SWF standards (and associated standards like RTMP) are available for free on the Adobe website. You are permitted to construct alternative implementations based on this specification. I think it meets the definition of an open standard. Would HTML not be an open standard if the only browser we had was IE, and it was horribly buggy? No - the quality of the available implementations is irrelevant to a standards "openness".
- chmola 17y ago
  You're assuming everyone posting replies and that the author of the post are all HTML5 fanatics. Have you considered that many of us might have worked heavily in Flash/Flex for years designing website and applications, and that possibly the uprising against Flash mentioned here involves Linux Flash plugins seg faulting with no error messages, crazy Flex binding memory usage, general CPU overload and a horrible debug log policy due to sandboxing? I'd be interested to hear why you think Flash is good. Incidentally, who's using Windows? :)
  - radley 17y ago
    Sounds funny, but my only supporting fact is I wouldn't be here without Flash. I basically loath programming but I'm willing to do it because of Flash. Sure there's CPU problems and there will always be more-optimized forms of code. But Flash has a timeline, which is something few here will understand or appreciate. Plus it really is ubiquitous, unlike anything else. I'll take a small performance hit if it means I don't have to learn/write/test multiple languages and systems. I'm not in this for the code. I'm in it for the UX.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

I'd argue that they are good enough at building browser runtimes that theirs has 90%+ market saturation, and is an industry standard. Now open is another issue...

radley 17y ago

Seriously? Did Adobe beat you guys up and take away your computer? Did they say "no no no mine?" Where is the "not open" you guys claim? Flex SDK + Eclipse == free Flash development. I swear HTML5 fanatics just make stuff up these days. You'll use Windows, Flickr, Google, and Hacker News - all privately owned systems. But god forbid Flash is bad because... why?

stevenwei 17y ago
Open != free. Lack of openness: a browser plugin that is less stable and slower on Mac and Linux that noone else can fix except Adobe...and only if they choose to do so. Lack of openness: a browser plugin that doesn't properly utilize cookies on non-IE browsers that noone else can fix except Adobe...and only if they choose to do so. Lack of openness: a browser plugin that doesn't properly return HTTP status codes on OS X that noone else can fix except Adobe...and only if they choose to do so.
- batterseapower 17y ago
  I think your comments here are off base. The SWF standards (and associated standards like RTMP) are available for free on the Adobe website. You are permitted to construct alternative implementations based on this specification. I think it meets the definition of an open standard. Would HTML not be an open standard if the only browser we had was IE, and it was horribly buggy? No - the quality of the available implementations is irrelevant to a standards "openness".
chmola 17y ago
You're assuming everyone posting replies and that the author of the post are all HTML5 fanatics. Have you considered that many of us might have worked heavily in Flash/Flex for years designing website and applications, and that possibly the uprising against Flash mentioned here involves Linux Flash plugins seg faulting with no error messages, crazy Flex binding memory usage, general CPU overload and a horrible debug log policy due to sandboxing? I'd be interested to hear why you think Flash is good. Incidentally, who's using Windows? :)
- radley 17y ago
  Sounds funny, but my only supporting fact is I wouldn't be here without Flash. I basically loath programming but I'm willing to do it because of Flash. Sure there's CPU problems and there will always be more-optimized forms of code. But Flash has a timeline, which is something few here will understand or appreciate. Plus it really is ubiquitous, unlike anything else. I'll take a small performance hit if it means I don't have to learn/write/test multiple languages and systems. I'm not in this for the code. I'm in it for the UX.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]