6 ms·

> no, you couldn't just email someone an SWF. That never worked. C'mon I never emailed people SWF's, seriously. We uploaded them to flash portals and sent link

> no, you couldn't just email someone an SWF. That never worked. C'mon I never emailed people SWF's, seriously. We uploaded them to flash portals and sent links to our friends. The single-file aspect was important because it made it easy to share (for both you and the flash portal). Also crucially it made it easy for competing flash portals to "steal" your game and spread it even further. > as someone who uses Linux today I get what you're saying and I love Linux and go out of my way to support it, but I don't think the Linux audience in 1999-2008 was exactly who most of us were targeting, nor did it have particularly much market share among desktop computers then or now.

danShumway 6y ago
> but I don't think the Linux audience in 1999-2008 was exactly who most of us were targeting Well, but... yeah. I know people weren't targeting Linux in the early 2000's, that was the problem. That's what I'm saying. One of the biggest advantages of dumping Flash was that it got replaced with a runtime that worked on every OS even if people weren't deliberately targeting it. I'm saying that's a big enough advantage that it's worth the tradeoff. The Linux market share on desktop computers was tiny back then, but it was big enough that the community deserved to have a web in its entirety that worked for them. Not just a couple websites, they deserved to have full access to the platform that claimed to be a democratizing environment, and they were never going to be a part of that platform as long as Flash existed. I disagree that Linux compatibility back then was a non-issue. It was not. It was a serious problem that held Linux back as a platform and as a daily driver and we all hated it, and it feels very dismissive to say that it was just a tiny side effect or that it's irrelevant to the broader point. Flash was never cross-platform and it held back the entire web from being a universally accessible platform. And it only got fixed because developers were forced to use a runtime that supported Linux. That is the only reason that Linux browsers are usable today. ---- I am kind of skeptical that distributing SWFs is actually that much easier than distributing zip files. Even downloading/stealing and re-hosting JS code is not that hard. This is coming from someone who agrees with many of your points about the overall accessibility that Flash brought. But I do not believe it's harder to distribute content on the web today than it was back then. I uploaded SWF files to those portals, I put them on flash drives. My process today for distribution is pretty much the same. And once this stuff is on the web, the web is vastly better at distribution than the Flash Player plugin was.
- larsiusprime 6y ago
  I understand your point better now. I think we were talking past each other.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  The same audience still doesn't matter today, because most just use GPUs with drivers that get black listed by browsers, making WebGL useless.
  - ksec 6y ago
    Last time I was downvoted to oblivion for stating that. Not a popular view on HN for some strange reason. ( Along with no one use SSB on Desktop as with the Firefox thread. )
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      As you can see by my comment history, I stand by my point of view and never care for votes, regardless in what direction they go.
      - bavell 6y ago
        Definitely the right approach, don't censor yourself over some imaginary internet points.
  - dTal 6y ago
    First I've heard of it - WebGL works perfectly for me, on every one of my diverse Linux desktops. Intel, AMD, nVidia, never had an issue. I've got a Google Earth tab open right now.
- throwaways885 6y ago
  > I disagree that Linux compatibility back then was a non-issue. It was not. It was a serious problem that held Linux back as a platform and as a daily driver and we all hated it, and it feels very dismissive to say that it was just a tiny side effect or that it's irrelevant to the broader point. Flash was never cross-platform and it held back the entire web from being a universally accessible platform. And it only got fixed because developers were forced to use a runtime that supported Linux. That is the only reason that Linux browsers are usable today. More succinctly, it's unhealthy for any company to 'own' the web. The standards process we have today is far better.
selfhoster11 6y ago
I did just that, emailed SWFs mostly to myself, and a couple of times to my more savvy classmates who knew how to use them. I also recall having a stash of standalone SWF gamęs on my shared network drive at school, because all EXEs were restricted and SWF files could be opened by drag-and-drop on the Internet Explorer window.
marcus_holmes 6y ago
this is a vicious spiral, though - because the type of people who are interested in Flash can't use it on Linux, they don't run Linux and therefore there's no people who are into Flash and run Linux and so there's no need to support Linux. The same is still true of a lot of other "niche" application areas.

danShumway 6y ago

> but I don't think the Linux audience in 1999-2008 was exactly who most of us were targeting Well, but... yeah. I know people weren't targeting Linux in the early 2000's, that was the problem. That's what I'm saying. One of the biggest advantages of dumping Flash was that it got replaced with a runtime that worked on every OS even if people weren't deliberately targeting it. I'm saying that's a big enough advantage that it's worth the tradeoff. The Linux market share on desktop computers was tiny back then, but it was big enough that the community deserved to have a web in its entirety that worked for them. Not just a couple websites, they deserved to have full access to the platform that claimed to be a democratizing environment, and they were never going to be a part of that platform as long as Flash existed. I disagree that Linux compatibility back then was a non-issue. It was not. It was a serious problem that held Linux back as a platform and as a daily driver and we all hated it, and it feels very dismissive to say that it was just a tiny side effect or that it's irrelevant to the broader point. Flash was never cross-platform and it held back the entire web from being a universally accessible platform. And it only got fixed because developers were forced to use a runtime that supported Linux. That is the only reason that Linux browsers are usable today. ---- I am kind of skeptical that distributing SWFs is actually that much easier than distributing zip files. Even downloading/stealing and re-hosting JS code is not that hard. This is coming from someone who agrees with many of your points about the overall accessibility that Flash brought. But I do not believe it's harder to distribute content on the web today than it was back then. I uploaded SWF files to those portals, I put them on flash drives. My process today for distribution is pretty much the same. And once this stuff is on the web, the web is vastly better at distribution than the Flash Player plugin was.

larsiusprime 6y ago
I understand your point better now. I think we were talking past each other.
pjmlp 6y ago
The same audience still doesn't matter today, because most just use GPUs with drivers that get black listed by browsers, making WebGL useless.
- ksec 6y ago
  Last time I was downvoted to oblivion for stating that. Not a popular view on HN for some strange reason. ( Along with no one use SSB on Desktop as with the Firefox thread. )
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    As you can see by my comment history, I stand by my point of view and never care for votes, regardless in what direction they go.
    - bavell 6y ago
      Definitely the right approach, don't censor yourself over some imaginary internet points.
- dTal 6y ago
  First I've heard of it - WebGL works perfectly for me, on every one of my diverse Linux desktops. Intel, AMD, nVidia, never had an issue. I've got a Google Earth tab open right now.
throwaways885 6y ago
> I disagree that Linux compatibility back then was a non-issue. It was not. It was a serious problem that held Linux back as a platform and as a daily driver and we all hated it, and it feels very dismissive to say that it was just a tiny side effect or that it's irrelevant to the broader point. Flash was never cross-platform and it held back the entire web from being a universally accessible platform. And it only got fixed because developers were forced to use a runtime that supported Linux. That is the only reason that Linux browsers are usable today. More succinctly, it's unhealthy for any company to 'own' the web. The standards process we have today is far better.

selfhoster11 6y ago

I did just that, emailed SWFs mostly to myself, and a couple of times to my more savvy classmates who knew how to use them. I also recall having a stash of standalone SWF gamęs on my shared network drive at school, because all EXEs were restricted and SWF files could be opened by drag-and-drop on the Internet Explorer window.

marcus_holmes 6y ago

this is a vicious spiral, though - because the type of people who are interested in Flash can't use it on Linux, they don't run Linux and therefore there's no people who are into Flash and run Linux and so there's no need to support Linux. The same is still true of a lot of other "niche" application areas.