3 ms·

Thought: Proprietary isn't bad. Open isn't great. Proprietary vs. open is bad. Proprietary + open is great. Proprietary implementations are a (sometimes) ne

by tomlin 16y ago

Thought: Proprietary isn't bad. Open isn't great. Proprietary vs. open is bad. Proprietary + open is great. Proprietary implementations are a (sometimes) necessary interstitial step towards great open implementations. Save the "VS." narrative for Street Fighter II.

potatolicious 16y ago
> "Proprietary implementations are a (sometimes) necessary interstitial step towards great open implementations." True, but Flash is a closed standard with a closed implementation. Adobe likes to claim it is open - but the fact remains that not only is it impossible to write an open implementation of their incomplete spec, but Adobe has actively sought to keep core components proprietary even in spec and prevent competing implementations. That's the part that irks me about Adobe's role in this issue - they're playing themselves and Flash off as this open savior of the web when they've actively been evil in that regard. If you're closed, great, do your thing; if you're open, then actually open your spec - don't open part of it and then go after the other half with lawyers.
- tomlin 16y ago
  So Adobe gets tossed aside in favor of HTML5/canvas. Or an open version of the SWF format with no licensing issues emerges. I am fine with that. If Adobe wants to be stupid, they are more than welcome to. Apple is calling the kettle black with the proprietary argument. We can drill down to specific layers but the effects are the same to the developer coding on that layer.
telemachos 16y ago
I'm not flaming, trolling or baiting, but I am curious: under what circumstances do you think proprietary implementations are necessary?
- gaius 16y ago
  If your implementation relies on technology that you have licensed from a third party.
- tomlin 16y ago
  OS has contributed to advancements in design, but proprietary initiatives employ a fleet of people to research, design and case study a technology. They do it all day and not as a side project after work. Again, it isn't a case of one vs. another. I wish we didn't need to take a side and finally come to a conclusion that both are good in their own ways. Evolution is key.
  - pyre 16y ago
    There are plenty of people that are employed full-time to work on Open Source software. Don't perpetuate the myth that all Open Source software is created by people 'in their free time.'
    - tomlin 16y ago
      Most aren't. That is why the myth exists. Plenty < Majority.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
iron_ball 16y ago
To be fair... Zangief vs. Sagat is an abomination, but Zangief PLUS Sagat would cure world hunger.

by tomlin 16y ago

potatolicious 16y ago

> "Proprietary implementations are a (sometimes) necessary interstitial step towards great open implementations." True, but Flash is a closed standard with a closed implementation. Adobe likes to claim it is open - but the fact remains that not only is it impossible to write an open implementation of their incomplete spec, but Adobe has actively sought to keep core components proprietary even in spec and prevent competing implementations. That's the part that irks me about Adobe's role in this issue - they're playing themselves and Flash off as this open savior of the web when they've actively been evil in that regard. If you're closed, great, do your thing; if you're open, then actually open your spec - don't open part of it and then go after the other half with lawyers.

tomlin 16y ago
So Adobe gets tossed aside in favor of HTML5/canvas. Or an open version of the SWF format with no licensing issues emerges. I am fine with that. If Adobe wants to be stupid, they are more than welcome to. Apple is calling the kettle black with the proprietary argument. We can drill down to specific layers but the effects are the same to the developer coding on that layer.

telemachos 16y ago

I'm not flaming, trolling or baiting, but I am curious: under what circumstances do you think proprietary implementations are necessary?

gaius 16y ago
If your implementation relies on technology that you have licensed from a third party.
tomlin 16y ago
OS has contributed to advancements in design, but proprietary initiatives employ a fleet of people to research, design and case study a technology. They do it all day and not as a side project after work. Again, it isn't a case of one vs. another. I wish we didn't need to take a side and finally come to a conclusion that both are good in their own ways. Evolution is key.
- pyre 16y ago
  There are plenty of people that are employed full-time to work on Open Source software. Don't perpetuate the myth that all Open Source software is created by people 'in their free time.'
  - tomlin 16y ago
    Most aren't. That is why the myth exists. Plenty < Majority.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]

iron_ball 16y ago

To be fair... Zangief vs. Sagat is an abomination, but Zangief PLUS Sagat would cure world hunger.