Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Why is so difficult for Adobe to make something like this?

Expand Messages
  • sminrana
    @enridp Neither Apple and Adobe is my dad farm. Flash is not slow, showing some data on DataGrid on Flex doesn t mean you have done or become Flex Devleoper,
    Message 1 of 25 , Oct 1, 2010
      @enridp

      Neither Apple and Adobe is my dad farm.

      Flash is not slow, showing some data on DataGrid on Flex doesn't mean you have done or become Flex Devleoper, we have been developing Flex with Java, most of the time in Enterprise level, We dont see flash player or swf is a issue, yeah we have to do some extra work for security, but end of the day i see 2 Boss Platform, Flash and Java for collaborating great client-server application, If you can work with them it is good.

      I suggest you do not use Flash Player, this is not for you, Tell Apple to bring something for you (You can order custom runtime to Apple, directly to Steve Jobs) or tell me what you need we can bring to you though i don't know C++ but Java will work i think.

      Cheers!!
    • Haykel BEN JEMIA
      I really can t hear this anymore, people saying that Adobe is lazy. Adobe is doing a great job, they have a team of a couple of hundred people working on great
      Message 2 of 25 , Oct 1, 2010
        I really can't hear this anymore, people saying that Adobe is lazy. Adobe is doing a great job, they have a team of a couple of hundred people working on great products and projects. They have deadlines and bills to pay and it's normal that they manage the projects to maximize revenue.

        If you don't like something then don't use it or at least make some effort to say it to the right person. You need a concrete functionality? Add a feature request. You found a bug? Add a bug report. You find a bug important? Vote for it!! Adobe is listening to the community, just ask clearly for something concrete!

        Haykel Ben Jemia

        Allmas
        Web & RIA Development
        http://www.allmas-tn.com




        On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:53 AM, enridp <enridp@...> wrote:
         

        Unity3D is an example of another member, I didn't use it (and I won't), neither Roozz.
        My question is about Flash, I'm not trying to crumble Flash, is just that I can't understand why is so difficult to make something that really works.
        Is the size (KB) of the plugin the problem? because Shockwave runs faster, but is heavier.

        Anyway, Adobe is lazy, and I'm with Steve in that. I was reading the Flash Player bug list, and there are a lot of bugs really simple to solve, and many of them are really old.
        Only in TextField, I have a list of 20 problems that could break my application.

        I don't know, maybe the solution is to make Flash open source.

        (and about capitalisation... I'm using capital words to simulate "bold")

        --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Gregor Kiddie" <gregor.kiddie@...> wrote:
        >
        > Are you really complaining that a generalised runtime like the Flash
        > Player doesn't perform as well as a highly specialised runtime like
        > Unity?
        >
        >
        >
        > Really?
        >
        >
        >
        > I assume you are going onto Unity lists and complaining that Unity
        > doesn't support forms, and how is the Enterprise community going to pick
        > it up when they don't even have a working Date Validator!!!
        >
        >
        >
        > Because that's basically what you are doing here...
        >
        >
        >
        > The Flash Player is a generalised runtime, it does lots of things
        > *quite* well.
        >
        > Unity is a specialised runtime, it does one thing (doing 3D) *very*
        > well.
        >
        >
        >
        > You need to pick the right tool for the job at hand. If you want to do
        > 3D games, choose Unity. If you want to do 2D games or a RIA, Flash is a
        > good choice. If you want to write a website, HTML is unbeatable.
        >
        >
        >
        > Laziness has nothing to do with what you are complaining about, the
        > Flash Player has a massive amount of penetration due to the fact it's a
        > generalised runtime and can do lots of things. Unity will never have the
        > same level of exposure generally.
        >
        >
        >
        > (And now for the snarky bit)
        >
        >
        >
        > I suggest you stop Trolling this list trying to get a rise out of people
        > and go back to which ever forum you got kicked from for random
        > capitalisation of words.
        >
        >
        >
        > Gk.
        >


      • Robert VanCuren Jr
        Seems to me that the real problem is lazy developers. You should be choosing the correct platform for what you are developing. People seem to think that flash
        Message 3 of 25 , Oct 1, 2010
          Seems to me that the real problem is lazy developers. You should be choosing the correct platform for what you are developing. People seem to think that flash should do everything, and do it better than any other platform. That is just ridiculous.

          If your goal is to build a full screen 3D game, or some other really intense application C++, C#, or D might be a better choice. Yes, you might have to crack open a book and do some learning. Thats life.

          There are also several browser plugins that do 3D pretty well. Although keep in mind any plugin will not be able to do what native languages do.

          Now let me talk about flash specifically. Does flash have some opportunities for improvement? Yes of course. That being said for the most part Flash player does quite well.

          I would to now tell a tail of the lazy developer:

          We inherited an application from a third party. This application was written in Flex 3 to run full screen in the browser. It would allow users to load photos, add text, bla bla bla. When the application was first delivered the memory usage would often sit around 500 meg, and even spike upwards of a gig!!! The CPU usage was also quite high 50% (dual core 2.8) while the app was essentially idle. Add to that lots of memory leaks and this would often crash browsers. Of course this poor performance was blamed on Flash player and the Flex frame work. There was not much that could be done about it. Flash was just not suited for the task.

          Well I set out to prove everybody wrong I have done a lot of performance testing and game development and knew that the PROBLEM WAS NOT FLASH. So after a couple weeks of doing normal "application" development things like caching, resource pooling, ect. Coupled with rewriting many of the custom components that where just implemented horribly wrong. Sprinkle on top of that a bit of profiling we had the app running like a well oiled machine. Memory usage was now down to 60-100 megs, and does not really have spikes. Of course memory usage depends on how many photos the user is adding ect. Also CPU usage is way down. The app even runs well on my 10 year old computer what has a 1.5ghz cpu and less than a gig of ram.

          Flash / Flex is great out of the box if you are building a simple to medium complexity application. Often times it even works great on large scale apps, if built correctly. Just keep in mind that at some point to get the performance you want you will have to write some of your own code.  Adobe can't build a platform that is optimized of every single type of application out there. Instead they have covered the basics and after that you will have to pick up the slack. 

          On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Haykel BEN JEMIA <haykelbj@...> wrote:
           

          I really can't hear this anymore, people saying that Adobe is lazy. Adobe is doing a great job, they have a team of a couple of hundred people working on great products and projects. They have deadlines and bills to pay and it's normal that they manage the projects to maximize revenue.

          If you don't like something then don't use it or at least make some effort to say it to the right person. You need a concrete functionality? Add a feature request. You found a bug? Add a bug report. You find a bug important? Vote for it!! Adobe is listening to the community, just ask clearly for something concrete!


          Haykel Ben Jemia

          Allmas
          Web & RIA Development
          http://www.allmas-tn.com




          On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:53 AM, enridp <enridp@...> wrote:
           

          Unity3D is an example of another member, I didn't use it (and I won't), neither Roozz.
          My question is about Flash, I'm not trying to crumble Flash, is just that I can't understand why is so difficult to make something that really works.
          Is the size (KB) of the plugin the problem? because Shockwave runs faster, but is heavier.

          Anyway, Adobe is lazy, and I'm with Steve in that. I was reading the Flash Player bug list, and there are a lot of bugs really simple to solve, and many of them are really old.
          Only in TextField, I have a list of 20 problems that could break my application.

          I don't know, maybe the solution is to make Flash open source.

          (and about capitalisation... I'm using capital words to simulate "bold")

          --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Gregor Kiddie" <gregor.kiddie@...> wrote:
          >
          > Are you really complaining that a generalised runtime like the Flash
          > Player doesn't perform as well as a highly specialised runtime like
          > Unity?
          >
          >
          >
          > Really?
          >
          >
          >
          > I assume you are going onto Unity lists and complaining that Unity
          > doesn't support forms, and how is the Enterprise community going to pick
          > it up when they don't even have a working Date Validator!!!
          >
          >
          >
          > Because that's basically what you are doing here...
          >
          >
          >
          > The Flash Player is a generalised runtime, it does lots of things
          > *quite* well.
          >
          > Unity is a specialised runtime, it does one thing (doing 3D) *very*
          > well.
          >
          >
          >
          > You need to pick the right tool for the job at hand. If you want to do
          > 3D games, choose Unity. If you want to do 2D games or a RIA, Flash is a
          > good choice. If you want to write a website, HTML is unbeatable.
          >
          >
          >
          > Laziness has nothing to do with what you are complaining about, the
          > Flash Player has a massive amount of penetration due to the fact it's a
          > generalised runtime and can do lots of things. Unity will never have the
          > same level of exposure generally.
          >
          >
          >
          > (And now for the snarky bit)
          >
          >
          >
          > I suggest you stop Trolling this list trying to get a rise out of people
          > and go back to which ever forum you got kicked from for random
          > capitalisation of words.
          >
          >
          >
          > Gk.
          >



        • enridp
          I agree with you Robert, many(!) Flash applications are slow and crashes because developers, not Adobe. Before, I think I must to clarify something, because my
          Message 4 of 25 , Oct 1, 2010
            I agree with you Robert, many(!) Flash applications are slow and crashes because developers, not Adobe.

            Before, I think I must to clarify something, because my english is not good and I don't know how is heard from the other side.
            I like Flash and I want to make my project in AS3.
            And my question was a real question, not an attack to Adobe.
            I mean, Shockwave runs faster, why? what's the problem with Flash Player? why we can't have a plugin capable to use the REAL power of our computer? is the size of the plugin the problem (I mean, Adobe can make a very fast Flash Player but it will be very heavy?), are the browser's the problem? (maybe they are limiting the CPU, memory, etc.)
            It was just curiosity.
            Because I can't understand the huge difference between a desktop application and a Flash one.

            And about Adobe and laziness, I must be fair and give the reason to Steve. Take a look at the bug list, there are a lot of bugs reported and confirmed and there they are... just waiting, and many of them are really simple to solve. I really hate that.
            Because if my app runs slow because I'm doing all wrong, I can change that, but when the errors are in Flash... which has the fanaticism of declaring private and final almost any classes (look at the new FTE!), and the bug list looks like that, just a list... then is really difficult to solve the problems, and that's a pity.

            Then, after this discussion, I'm thinking... will not be better to have an Open Source solution for RIA? that way it will be accepted and included in all browsers and cellphones. And we could fix the problems quickly.
            Why do you think there's not any open source alternative yet? I'm thinking in that now for first time, and maybe the answer is related with my first question: "why is so difficult to make a really fast Player".
          • dorkie dork from dorktown
            These are valid question. And there are many valid reasons Flash Player is not as fast as dedicated plugins. I m not familiar with the specifics of Shockwave
            Message 5 of 25 , Oct 1, 2010
              These are valid question. And there are many valid reasons Flash Player is not as fast as dedicated plugins.

              I'm not familiar with the specifics of Shockwave and how that runs faster. I'd like to see some examples.

              One reason the Flash Player appears to be sluggish at times is because it is single threaded. In that time slice of CPU Flash does code execution or rendering of the frame. If the code execution is taking too long, for example you are using a while loop, then the rendering is delayed and the animation appears to "hang". I should say it is not completely single threaded as of 10 (or 9?) and it has access to Pixel Bender that is on another thread. Code in this thread can keep working. But it's not meant to be used for your own project code. It was made for graphic effects. So it can do somethings but it's tricky to use.

              I have a suspicion that as of 10.1 there is multithreading in the flash player or something like it. I guess this because when I'm debugging in Flash Builder and I have music playing in Pandora's radio it used to stop playing. Now the music keeps playing while I'm debugging!!! Very nice! It may also be a result of using Flash Builder 4 instead of Flex Builder 3. Both FB4 and FP10.1 were released at the same time so I don't know which it is or have had the chance to look into it.

              Another reason Flash Player is not as fast as things like Unity is because it has to compose and overlay multiple layers of graphics and text. Other solutions use direct hardware acceleration to render. Flash has some hardware support but its not always available so it uses software to render the picture. In this case, for example, playing YouTube video with buttons and text over the video, Flash gets the video, resizes it if needs to be, adds text, adds button images, calculates transparency, calculates effects like drop shadow and when its done then passes it on to the video display.

              Another reason is the mxmlc compiler does not take into account all the optimizations it could be. It could be faster with a different compiler. There are tools like Apparat that find places that could be optimized and makes those changes.

              Remember Flash Player 10.1 is much faster than 10. So use that in your comparisons. Also, Flash Player Squared is allegedly showing significant speed improvements.

              as far as your other questions I don't know. I think to fix those issues that linger you have to fix other bugs first. There were many problems that TextField had in it's architecture. It was not built for things like right to left text. So those bugs lingered. But all the while they were indirectly working on it through FTE. Now FTE exists. It solves tons of issues and is very powerful. Give it time.

              For your consolation:
              - AEC - worked on now
              - Global Error catcher
              - Access to raw Audio Sample Data
              - Filters
              - Screen sharing
              - P2P
              - Access local files without uploading
              - ...

              Someone should make a list. Adobe is not lazy!


              On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 12:01 PM, enridp <enridp@...> wrote:
               

              I agree with you Robert, many(!) Flash applications are slow and crashes because developers, not Adobe.

              Before, I think I must to clarify something, because my english is not good and I don't know how is heard from the other side.
              I like Flash and I want to make my project in AS3.
              And my question was a real question, not an attack to Adobe.
              I mean, Shockwave runs faster, why? what's the problem with Flash Player? why we can't have a plugin capable to use the REAL power of our computer? is the size of the plugin the problem (I mean, Adobe can make a very fast Flash Player but it will be very heavy?), are the browser's the problem? (maybe they are limiting the CPU, memory, etc.)
              It was just curiosity.
              Because I can't understand the huge difference between a desktop application and a Flash one.

              And about Adobe and laziness, I must be fair and give the reason to Steve. Take a look at the bug list, there are a lot of bugs reported and confirmed and there they are... just waiting, and many of them are really simple to solve. I really hate that.
              Because if my app runs slow because I'm doing all wrong, I can change that, but when the errors are in Flash... which has the fanaticism of declaring private and final almost any classes (look at the new FTE!), and the bug list looks like that, just a list... then is really difficult to solve the problems, and that's a pity.

              Then, after this discussion, I'm thinking... will not be better to have an Open Source solution for RIA? that way it will be accepted and included in all browsers and cellphones. And we could fix the problems quickly.
              Why do you think there's not any open source alternative yet? I'm thinking in that now for first time, and maybe the answer is related with my first question: "why is so difficult to make a really fast Player".


            • enridp
              Well, if the problem with speed is the single thread, why Adobe didn t released a multi-thread version? if they can make PixelBender why not all the player?
              Message 6 of 25 , Oct 1, 2010
                Well, if the problem with "speed" is the single thread, why Adobe didn't released a multi-thread version? if they can make PixelBender why not all the player?
                My problem understanding this is due to the huge(!) difference in performance between a desktop application and Flash, Flash can make a lot of things, yes, but if we compare it with a desktop application it's like comparing NES with Playstation3.

                And the reason why I feel Adobe is lazy is because Silverlight for example has almost any feature included in Flash, many of them works faster, and they are new compared to Flash.
                And I hate Silverlight, I hate iphone and ipad too.
                That's why I'm so disappointed with Adobe.

                My problem with TextField is not right-left text or asian, etc, I want to use just like a normal TextField, but if you look in the bug list you will see a lot of problems, and is a really basic class, we always need text in our application.
                And TextField is just an example, there are a lot of problems in a lot of classes. Many of them related with leak memory. For example in NetConnections, these classes are critical and we are depending on Adobe's desire to fix them.
                And I must say this: I HATE Garbage Collection! :(
                Maybe for Java Developers that is a good thing, but I like my "delete" in C++.
                I see the Garbage Collection like a nightmare. Maybe Adobe should implement another technique, similar to C++, because GC is the core of many of the problems in Flash.

                Also, I think we need an Open Source and Standard alternative for RIA. And I think Adobe could win even more if they open Flash.
                After all, Flash Player is free, why it's not open source? so we could help to fix the problems.
                Also, if Flash is Open Source Steve will include it in the iPhone and iPad, and Silverlight will have serious problems.



                --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, dorkie dork from dorktown <dorkiedorkfromdorktown@...> wrote:
                >
                > These are valid question. And there are many valid reasons Flash Player is
                > not as fast as dedicated plugins.
                >
                > I'm not familiar with the specifics of Shockwave and how that runs faster.
                > I'd like to see some examples.
                > ....
                >
              • enridp
                Flash is too slow for mobile devices? :( http://flashflex.com/just-how-bad-is-flash-on-android/ I m not so sure if Adobe is lazy, but if it isn t, then they
                Message 7 of 25 , Oct 4, 2010
                  Flash is too slow for mobile devices? :(
                  http://flashflex.com/just-how-bad-is-flash-on-android/

                  I'm not so sure if Adobe is lazy, but if it isn't, then they are needing help, because their development is too slow fot these times.
                  Why Flash is not Open Source?
                  I really think that open FP will put Flash (and Adobe) in the top of RIA forever.
                  I don't know much about market, but I think Adobe won't lose anything, and will gain a lot. Flash will be Adobe foerever, like Flex (which is open source). And Flash Player is free after all.
                  Why Flash Player is not Open Source? :(
                • Nick Collins
                  One big reason I can think of for not open sourcing the player is fragmentation. If the player were open sourced, I predict we would see a number of different
                  Message 8 of 25 , Oct 4, 2010
                    One big reason I can think of for not open sourcing the player is fragmentation. If the player were open sourced, I predict we would see a number of different Flash Players out there, and it would be nearly impossible to ensure that content would execute the same on every player. You can already see this to a degree with the Android OS. It's great that it is open source, and anyone can customize it, but then you run into issues where different widgets, utilities, etc. only run on certain devices and/or "distros". To allow that to happen with the Flash runtime would undercut one of the biggest advantages that the runtime offers, ubiquity and consistency.

                    On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:07 PM, enridp <enridp@...> wrote:
                     

                    Flash is too slow for mobile devices? :(
                    http://flashflex.com/just-how-bad-is-flash-on-android/

                    I'm not so sure if Adobe is lazy, but if it isn't, then they are needing help, because their development is too slow fot these times.
                    Why Flash is not Open Source?
                    I really think that open FP will put Flash (and Adobe) in the top of RIA forever.
                    I don't know much about market, but I think Adobe won't lose anything, and will gain a lot. Flash will be Adobe foerever, like Flex (which is open source). And Flash Player is free after all.
                    Why Flash Player is not Open Source? :(


                  • enridp
                    Well, but that problem could be solved very easily. To open the source doesn t mean that we could compile and distribute the Flash Player, just to help to
                    Message 9 of 25 , Oct 4, 2010
                      Well, but that problem could be solved very easily.
                      To open the source doesn't mean that we could compile and distribute the Flash Player, just to help to solve problems in the code, and maybe develop new features.
                      Adobe will be the only one who can distribute the player.
                      We help with code, adobe selects the best, compiles and distribute it.

                      I'm not expert in this, is just an idea, and I can't see why Adobe doesn't open Flash. I think they had a good expierence with their open source projects.
                      What do you think? why flash is not open source?


                      --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Nick Collins <ndcollins@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > One big reason I can think of for not open sourcing the player is
                      > fragmentation. If the player were open sourced, I predict we would see a
                      > number of different Flash Players out there, and it would be nearly
                      > impossible to ensure that content would execute the same on every player.
                      > You can already see this to a degree with the Android OS. It's great that it
                      > is open source, and anyone can customize it, but then you run into issues
                      > where different widgets, utilities, etc. only run on certain devices and/or
                      > "distros". To allow that to happen with the Flash runtime would undercut one
                      > of the biggest advantages that the runtime offers, ubiquity and consistency.
                      >
                    • Jeffry Houser
                      What is the point of having the source if we weren t allowed to create and distribute our own player? If we wanted to right now, we could create and
                      Message 10 of 25 , Oct 4, 2010

                         What is the point of having the source if we weren't allowed to create and distribute our own player?  If we wanted to right now, we could create and distribute our own player.  There are a few alternate players out there, just none of them are up to snuff.  ( Gnash is one). 

                         They have already provided some source, such as the Tamarin project which I understood to be the underpinnings of the ActionScript engine. 

                         There are also plenty of closed source items in the Flash Player, such as the H.264 codec, which [I suspect] will never be available via open source. 
                         

                        On 10/4/2010 1:30 PM, enridp wrote:
                         

                        Well, but that problem could be solved very easily.
                        To open the source doesn't mean that we could compile and distribute the Flash Player, just to help to solve problems in the code, and maybe develop new features.
                        Adobe will be the only one who can distribute the player.
                        We help with code, adobe selects the best, compiles and distribute it.

                        I'm not expert in this, is just an idea, and I can't see why Adobe doesn't open Flash. I think they had a good expierence with their open source projects.
                        What do you think? why flash is not open source?

                        --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Nick Collins <ndcollins@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > One big reason I can think of for not open sourcing the player is
                        > fragmentation. If the player were open sourced, I predict we would see a
                        > number of different Flash Players out there, and it would be nearly
                        > impossible to ensure that content would execute the same on every player.
                        > You can already see this to a degree with the Android OS. It's great that it
                        > is open source, and anyone can customize it, but then you run into issues
                        > where different widgets, utilities, etc. only run on certain devices and/or
                        > "distros". To allow that to happen with the Flash runtime would undercut one
                        > of the biggest advantages that the runtime offers, ubiquity and consistency.
                        >



                        -- 
                        Jeffry Houser, Technical Entrepreneur
                        Adobe Community Professional: http://tinyurl.com/27h53fl
                        Phone: 203-379-0773
                        --
                        UI Flex Components: Tested! Supported! Ready!
                        http://www.flextras.com?c=104
                        --
                        http://www.twitter.com/reboog711
                        http://www.twitter.com/flextras
                        http://www.twitter.com/theflexshow
                        --
                        http://www.theflexshow.com
                        http://www.jeffryhouser.com
                        http://www.asktheflexpert.com
                        --
                        Part of the DotComIt Brain Trust
                      • enridp
                        The point of having source code is helping Adobe, why? because we win too. We need a good player. A real Open Source (like Gnash, which I didn t know) will be
                        Message 11 of 25 , Oct 4, 2010
                          The point of having source code is helping Adobe, why? because we win too. We need a good player.
                          A real Open Source (like Gnash, which I didn't know) will be better, but I think is too utopian.
                          There are a lot of bugs and improvements that the Flash/Flex community could contribute with Flash open...
                          Also we could see the details in FP and understand better how to code efficiently.
                          About H.264 and any other closed source, that could remains closed.
                          Also, Google is developing an open source alternative for H.264: WebM with VP8.
                          And I want to emphasize that because Google is a good example of how Open Source can make you earn even more than closed source. They are developing open and free alternatives because they need more traffic.
                          With Flash open, I'm sure it will gain a lot of traffic, and the player will be better.

                          I don't know, I don't think any problem with open Flash, and many advantages.
                          But I could be wrong, if you don't think like me, that's great too and I will be glad to read your opinion.



                          --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Jeffry Houser <jeffry@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > What is the point of having the source if we weren't allowed to create
                          > and distribute our own player? If we wanted to right now, we could
                          > create and distribute our own player. There are a few alternate players
                          > out there, just none of them are up to snuff. ( Gnash is one).
                          >
                          > They have already provided some source, such as the Tamarin project
                          > which I understood to be the underpinnings of the ActionScript engine.
                          >
                          > There are also plenty of closed source items in the Flash Player, such
                          > as the H.264 codec, which [I suspect] will never be available via open
                          > source.
                          >
                          >
                        • Carlos Rovira
                          We can see what sun madre with Java. They open source it, but there is a Java community procesa (JCP) that driles innovation. Many companies contribuye to that
                          Message 12 of 25 , Oct 4, 2010
                            We can see what sun madre with Java. They open source it, but there is
                            a Java community procesa (JCP) that driles innovation. Many companies
                            contribuye to that procees and we ave only once distribution... For me
                            that would be the bes option foro all

                            2010/10/4, enridp <enridp@...>:
                            > The point of having source code is helping Adobe, why? because we win too.
                            > We need a good player.
                            > A real Open Source (like Gnash, which I didn't know) will be better, but I
                            > think is too utopian.
                            > There are a lot of bugs and improvements that the Flash/Flex community could
                            > contribute with Flash open...
                            > Also we could see the details in FP and understand better how to code
                            > efficiently.
                            > About H.264 and any other closed source, that could remains closed.
                            > Also, Google is developing an open source alternative for H.264: WebM with
                            > VP8.
                            > And I want to emphasize that because Google is a good example of how Open
                            > Source can make you earn even more than closed source. They are developing
                            > open and free alternatives because they need more traffic.
                            > With Flash open, I'm sure it will gain a lot of traffic, and the player will
                            > be better.
                            >
                            > I don't know, I don't think any problem with open Flash, and many
                            > advantages.
                            > But I could be wrong, if you don't think like me, that's great too and I
                            > will be glad to read your opinion.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Jeffry Houser <jeffry@...> wrote:
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> What is the point of having the source if we weren't allowed to create
                            >> and distribute our own player? If we wanted to right now, we could
                            >> create and distribute our own player. There are a few alternate players
                            >> out there, just none of them are up to snuff. ( Gnash is one).
                            >>
                            >> They have already provided some source, such as the Tamarin project
                            >> which I understood to be the underpinnings of the ActionScript engine.
                            >>
                            >> There are also plenty of closed source items in the Flash Player, such
                            >> as the H.264 codec, which [I suspect] will never be available via open
                            >> source.
                            >>
                            >>
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          • Jeffry Houser
                            We all have the source to Flex. How many of us are contributing back patches? How many people have suggested ways to improve the Flex compiler? I m not
                            Message 13 of 25 , Oct 4, 2010

                               We all have the source to Flex.  How many of us are contributing back patches?  How many people have suggested ways to improve the Flex compiler? 

                               I'm not convinced that open sourcing the Flash Player would bring a slew of new / improved code to Adobe.  Most open source projects have only a few contributors.  And even if it did; I'm not sure Adobe would know how to handle it.  ( See Flex patches ).

                               Google and Adobe have significantly different business models.  I'm not sure that "what Google does" will also apply equally to Adobe. 

                              On 10/4/2010 3:05 PM, enridp wrote:
                               

                              The point of having source code is helping Adobe, why? because we win too. We need a good player.
                              A real Open Source (like Gnash, which I didn't know) will be better, but I think is too utopian.
                              There are a lot of bugs and improvements that the Flash/Flex community could contribute with Flash open...

                              Also we could see the details in FP and understand better how to code efficiently.
                              About H.264 and any other closed source, that could remains closed.
                              Also, Google is developing an open source alternative for H.264: WebM with VP8.
                              And I want to emphasize that because Google is a good example of how Open Source can make you earn even more than closed source. They are developing open and free alternatives because they need more traffic.
                              With Flash open, I'm sure it will gain a lot of traffic, and the player will be better.

                              I don't know, I don't think any problem with open Flash, and many advantages.
                              But I could be wrong, if you don't think like me, that's great too and I will be glad to read your opinion.

                              --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Jeffry Houser <jeffry@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              > What is the point of having the source if we weren't allowed to create
                              > and distribute our own player? If we wanted to right now, we could
                              > create and distribute our own player. There are a few alternate players
                              > out there, just none of them are up to snuff. ( Gnash is one).
                              >
                              > They have already provided some source, such as the Tamarin project
                              > which I understood to be the underpinnings of the ActionScript engine.
                              >
                              > There are also plenty of closed source items in the Flash Player, such
                              > as the H.264 codec, which [I suspect] will never be available via open
                              > source.
                              >
                              >



                              -- 
                              Jeffry Houser, Technical Entrepreneur
                              Adobe Community Professional: http://tinyurl.com/27h53fl
                              Phone: 203-379-0773
                              --
                              UI Flex Components: Tested! Supported! Ready!
                              http://www.flextras.com?c=104
                              --
                              http://www.twitter.com/reboog711
                              http://www.twitter.com/flextras
                              http://www.twitter.com/theflexshow
                              --
                              http://www.theflexshow.com
                              http://www.jeffryhouser.com
                              http://www.asktheflexpert.com
                              --
                              Part of the DotComIt Brain Trust
                            • enridp
                              Well, Flex and Flash is not the same... Flex is just a library, how many alternatives to flex do you know? I know a lot, there are a lot of frameworks wich
                              Message 14 of 25 , Oct 4, 2010
                                Well, Flex and Flash is not the same... Flex is just a library, how many "alternatives" to flex do you know? I know a lot, there are a lot of frameworks wich are after all the same thing that Flex, that's a lot of contribution!
                                And Flash is the core of everything, Flex, those little and big frameworks, every single (simple and complex) project, AS3 itself, all is based in Flash, to open Flash is not equal to open Flex.
                                And maybe you are right about the number of contributors, because there isn't so many people with enough knowledge to help (at least with really big and useful changes). But it's a start after all!
                                It's a pity that Adobe didn't see it in that way.

                                A lot of projects are proof that open source works! look at Linux, look at Wikipedia, I'm sure you know that, then, why do you think will be a bad idea to open Flash?




                                --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Jeffry Houser <jeffry@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > We all have the source to Flex. How many of us are contributing back
                                > patches? How many people have suggested ways to improve the Flex compiler?
                                >
                                > I'm not convinced that open sourcing the Flash Player would bring a
                                > slew of new / improved code to Adobe. Most open source projects have
                                > only a few contributors. And even if it did; I'm not sure Adobe would
                                > know how to handle it. ( See Flex patches ).
                                >
                                > Google and Adobe have significantly different business models. I'm
                                > not sure that "what Google does" will also apply equally to Adobe.
                                >
                              • dorkie dork from dorktown
                                People have been down this road before. Search online for open Flash Player and you ll see this discussion many times already. Find out what the Adobe Make
                                Message 15 of 25 , Oct 4, 2010
                                  People have been down this road before. Search online for open Flash Player and you'll see this discussion many times already. Find out what the "Adobe Make some noise campaign", the global error handler, the audio echo cancellation feature and screen sharing feature have in common.

                                  On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:08 PM, enridp <enridp@...> wrote:
                                   

                                  Well, Flex and Flash is not the same... Flex is just a library, how many "alternatives" to flex do you know? I know a lot, there are a lot of frameworks wich are after all the same thing that Flex, that's a lot of contribution!
                                  And Flash is the core of everything, Flex, those little and big frameworks, every single (simple and complex) project, AS3 itself, all is based in Flash, to open Flash is not equal to open Flex.
                                  And maybe you are right about the number of contributors, because there isn't so many people with enough knowledge to help (at least with really big and useful changes). But it's a start after all!
                                  It's a pity that Adobe didn't see it in that way.

                                  A lot of projects are proof that open source works! look at Linux, look at Wikipedia, I'm sure you know that, then, why do you think will be a bad idea to open Flash?



                                  --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Jeffry Houser <jeffry@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > We all have the source to Flex. How many of us are contributing back
                                  > patches? How many people have suggested ways to improve the Flex compiler?
                                  >
                                  > I'm not convinced that open sourcing the Flash Player would bring a
                                  > slew of new / improved code to Adobe. Most open source projects have
                                  > only a few contributors. And even if it did; I'm not sure Adobe would
                                  > know how to handle it. ( See Flex patches ).
                                  >
                                  > Google and Adobe have significantly different business models. I'm
                                  > not sure that "what Google does" will also apply equally to Adobe.
                                  >


                                • Julian Tenney
                                  I run an open source project, and get very little contribution from the people that wanted it opening up in the first place. The only people that realistically
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Oct 4, 2010
                                    I run an open source project, and get very little contribution from the people that wanted it opening up in the first place. The only people that realistically have the time to make meaningful contributions are paid to.
                                     

                                    From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeffry Houser [jeffry@...]
                                    Sent: 04 October 2010 20:21
                                    To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
                                    Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Why is so difficult for Adobe to make something like this?

                                     


                                     We all have the source to Flex.  How many of us are contributing back patches?  How many people have suggested ways to improve the Flex compiler? 

                                     I'm not convinced that open sourcing the Flash Player would bring a slew of new / improved code to Adobe.  Most open source projects have only a few contributors.  And even if it did; I'm not sure Adobe would know how to handle it.  ( See Flex patches ).

                                     Google and Adobe have significantly different business models.  I'm not sure that "what Google does" will also apply equally to Adobe. 

                                    On 10/4/2010 3:05 PM, enridp wrote:

                                     

                                    The point of having source code is helping Adobe, why? because we win too. We need a good player.
                                    A real Open Source (like Gnash, which I didn't know) will be better, but I think is too utopian.
                                    There are a lot of bugs and improvements that the Flash/Flex community could contribute with Flash open...

                                    Also we could see the details in FP and understand better how to code efficiently.
                                    About H.264 and any other closed source, that could remains closed.
                                    Also, Google is developing an open source alternative for H.264: WebM with VP8.
                                    And I want to emphasize that because Google is a good example of how Open Source can make you earn even more than closed source. They are developing open and free alternatives because they need more traffic.
                                    With Flash open, I'm sure it will gain a lot of traffic, and the player will be better.

                                    I don't know, I don't think any problem with open Flash, and many advantages.
                                    But I could be wrong, if you don't think like me, that's great too and I will be glad to read your opinion.

                                    --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Jeffry Houser <jeffry@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > What is the point of having the source if we weren't allowed to create
                                    > and distribute our own player? If we wanted to right now, we could
                                    > create and distribute our own player. There are a few alternate players
                                    > out there, just none of them are up to snuff. ( Gnash is one).
                                    >
                                    > They have already provided some source, such as the Tamarin project
                                    > which I understood to be the underpinnings of the ActionScript engine.
                                    >
                                    > There are also plenty of closed source items in the Flash Player, such
                                    > as the H.264 codec, which [I suspect] will never be available via open
                                    > source.
                                    >
                                    >



                                    -- 
                                    Jeffry Houser, Technical Entrepreneur
                                    Adobe Community Professional: http://tinyurl.com/27h53fl
                                    Phone: 203-379-0773
                                    --
                                    UI Flex Components: Tested! Supported! Ready!
                                    http://www.flextras.com?c=104
                                    --
                                    http://www.twitter.com/reboog711
                                    http://www.twitter.com/flextras
                                    http://www.twitter.com/theflexshow
                                    --
                                    http://www.theflexshow.com
                                    http://www.jeffryhouser.com
                                    http://www.asktheflexpert.com
                                    --
                                    Part of the DotComIt Brain Trust


                                    This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.

                                    This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.

                                  • Julian Tenney
                                    You mean allow your dodgy open source flash player to take control of the experience of playing my swfs?No thanks.________________________________ From:
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Oct 4, 2010
                                      You mean allow your dodgy open source flash player to take control of the experience of playing my swfs?
                                       
                                      No thanks.
                                       

                                      From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [flexcoders@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeffry Houser [jeffry@...]
                                      Sent: 04 October 2010 19:32
                                      To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: Re: [flexcoders] Re: Why is so difficult for Adobe to make something like this?

                                       


                                       What is the point of having the source if we weren't allowed to create and distribute our own player?  If we wanted to right now, we could create and distribute our own player.  There are a few alternate players out there, just none of them are up to snuff.  ( Gnash is one). 

                                       They have already provided some source, such as the Tamarin project which I understood to be the underpinnings of the ActionScript engine. 

                                       There are also plenty of closed source items in the Flash Player, such as the H.264 codec, which [I suspect] will never be available via open source. 
                                       

                                      On 10/4/2010 1:30 PM, enridp wrote:

                                       

                                      Well, but that problem could be solved very easily.
                                      To open the source doesn't mean that we could compile and distribute the Flash Player, just to help to solve problems in the code, and maybe develop new features.
                                      Adobe will be the only one who can distribute the player.
                                      We help with code, adobe selects the best, compiles and distribute it.

                                      I'm not expert in this, is just an idea, and I can't see why Adobe doesn't open Flash. I think they had a good expierence with their open source projects.
                                      What do you think? why flash is not open source?

                                      --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Nick Collins <ndcollins@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > One big reason I can think of for not open sourcing the player is
                                      > fragmentation. If the player were open sourced, I predict we would see a
                                      > number of different Flash Players out there, and it would be nearly
                                      > impossible to ensure that content would execute the same on every player.
                                      > You can already see this to a degree with the Android OS. It's great that it
                                      > is open source, and anyone can customize it, but then you run into issues
                                      > where different widgets, utilities, etc. only run on certain devices and/or
                                      > "distros". To allow that to happen with the Flash runtime would undercut one
                                      > of the biggest advantages that the runtime offers, ubiquity and consistency.
                                      >



                                      -- 
                                      Jeffry Houser, Technical Entrepreneur
                                      Adobe Community Professional: http://tinyurl.com/27h53fl
                                      Phone: 203-379-0773
                                      --
                                      UI Flex Components: Tested! Supported! Ready!
                                      http://www.flextras.com?c=104
                                      --
                                      http://www.twitter.com/reboog711
                                      http://www.twitter.com/flextras
                                      http://www.twitter.com/theflexshow
                                      --
                                      http://www.theflexshow.com
                                      http://www.jeffryhouser.com
                                      http://www.asktheflexpert.com
                                      --
                                      Part of the DotComIt Brain Trust


                                      This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee and may contain confidential information. If you have received this message in error, please send it back to me, and immediately delete it. Please do not use, copy or disclose the information contained in this message or in any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham.

                                      This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses which could damage your computer system: you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.

                                    • enridp
                                      Flash player is different, it s the core! There are a lot of companies living from Flash Player, and a lot of great developers. Many, if not all, of them must
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Oct 5, 2010
                                        Flash player is different, it's the core!
                                        There are a lot of companies living from Flash Player, and a lot of great developers.
                                        Many, if not all, of them must work a lot to fix problems in Flash Player, and time is money too.
                                        If you open Flash, those developers and companies will help not because they are open source lovers, because they need a better player for his company and his projects.

                                        But there's something crucial here:
                                        Adobe must listen (really!) and manage efficiently(!) the community. That's the reason because Adobe Bugs is not as great as it could I think.


                                        --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Julian Tenney <Julian.Tenney@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > I run an open source project, and get very little contribution from the people that wanted it opening up in the first place. The only people that realistically have the time to make meaningful contributions are paid to.
                                        >
                                      • enridp
                                        You are right, I ve searched and I found this: http://www.bit-101.com/blog/?p=822 At the end of the article: Maybe the solution is for Adobe to just open
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Oct 5, 2010
                                          You are right, I've searched and I found this:

                                          http://www.bit-101.com/blog/?p=822

                                          At the end of the article:
                                          "Maybe the solution is for Adobe to just open source their own player. That keeps the OS crowd happy and it stays the standard. I'm sure there are all sorts of legal and corporate implications that they have to consider about such a move, but I don't see how it would be ultimately harmful to the company."


                                          And a selection of comments that I think are interesting:
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Adobe doesn't have to make the flash player code open source. They could create a cvs file that can be used by programmers outside of Adobe that sign a free license stating that all code stays with Adobe within the provided cvs. Then programmers can make branches, work on the code which would help out Adobe programmers and the linux platform. Adobe then just would need to check out the various codes summitted and use what works for the final release. I'm sure there are plenty of hackers out there that would love to help out in this area and would understand Adobe's position of keeping things closed sourced.
                                          Adobe could even setup a seperate forum area for all linux programmers so they can work together on code. This would even work for making the shockwave player available for linux as well.
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                          "The FSF is all about putting control in the hands of the users of the software"
                                          I don't buy that. How many "users" are actually going to contribute to the OS Flash player? None. Just a handful of developers, same as Adobe. And Macromedia/Adobe has proven to be extremely responsive to the users and community.
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                          First of all, the point is not that they would, but that they could: that's what gives you control, even if you don't do anything with it. Secondly, users probably will be contributing – this is what happened to all the other open source projects you have heard about.
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                          But more importantly- with the advances of WebGL and great improvements in javascript performance and browser compatibility, understand this:
                                          **Plugins Are Going Away**
                                          The only way Flash will be around in 5 years (and I hope it is) is for Flash Player to go OS and be included directly in browsers. When the player needs an upgrade, it will come in the standard package of upgrades to your browser. And no more swfobject.
                                          ----------------------------------------------------------------



                                          And the best:

                                          http://www.openplayer.net/

                                          Arguments to open flash: (summary)
                                          Silverlight, Javascript, HTML5, mobile market, we need change the way Flash and HTML work together by giving HTML more control over Flash from within the HTML page

                                          Flash is often accused of consuming more CPU power than it really needs (big problem in mobiles). A better integration into browsers, preferably as a native plugin, would help a lot.

                                          Also, if Flash was open-sourced, ... Steve Jobs should include it in their products.

                                          Silverlight's sources are closed (and will be). An open sourced Flash Player would also be a great argument for web publishers hesitating between those two technologies.


                                          Here are more comments about the idea (some of them replied for Adobe)
                                          http://www.openplayer.net/blog/react/



                                          --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, dorkie dork from dorktown <dorkiedorkfromdorktown@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > People have been down this road before. Search online for open Flash Player
                                          > and you'll see this discussion many times already. Find out what the "Adobe
                                          > Make some noise campaign", the global error handler, the audio echo
                                          > cancellation feature and screen sharing feature have in common.
                                          >
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.