On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Timothy Jones <timothy.jo...@syniverse.com>wrote:
> "Standards-based" is criteria #0 of the open internet. No matter how > slick, non-standards-based technologies are not open, and __that_alone__ > makes them inferior. Open-sourcing Flex under Apache was a great move, and > that's why I monitor this mailing list. I'm quite encouraged by the events > here since Adobe's donation of Flex to Apache 18 months ago. > > But as long as Flex requires the proprietary Flash Player to run, the > end-to-end result still falls short of this most basic requirement. > Someday, Shumway or FalconJS will solve that! As a developer who prefers > to work with Linux, the state of Flash Player on Linux has been quite > disappointing over the years. By contrast, almost everything in the HTML5 > world is driven by the W3C, Firefox and Chrome, and because those > communities value all users, new features appear on Linux versions of those > browsers at the same time as everywhere else. And this is the way it > should be. > > It's odd to me how you question the profit-making motivations of the HTML5 > community, when they are the ones donating their time on W3C committees, > building open source HTML5 libraries, and giving it away, while not > criticizing Adobe's profit-only decisions that do not strive to treat all > users equally well. The "drive the web forward" initiative is quite real, > and among open-source developers, it is a far more powerful incentive than > profit ever could be. You have *them* to thank for most of the things you > enjoy on the internet today. Without forward-thinkers like them, we would > still all be on CompuServe. > > There, my $0.02¢.. > (....now get off my lawn ... :-) ) > > I am sorry but the term "standards" has been misused and subverted by the big companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc. so much so that it has lost its meaning. Where is the version of Javascript based on ECMAScript 4? (Adobe was the only company that actually implemented this 'standard') Why is StageWebView on iOS so much crippled? Why do we need to encode videos in multiple formats if we want to target 'HTML5'? Why do we have to use browser based CSS hacks to make sure that the content looks the same on all browsers? We are in still in this cross-browser mess because of the companies with big dollars strive to control features while at the same time appearing to be standards-friendly. And guess who has the loudest voices on these standards committees? Thats right, the browser manufacturers with big dollars. There are so many examples of big companies willfully sabotaging 'standards' for their own profit. And standard organizations let it happen because they are powerless in reality. All the power lies with the browser manufacturers. The reality with open standards and especially with HTML5 is that we have to first look at a compatibility chart like this [1] to use any feature. Some developers can chose to be masochistic and deal with it. Whereas others (like me) chose to target the Flash Player (till it dies, that is) and not worry about 'standards' aka cross-browser nightmares. </rant> [1] http://caniuse.com/ > > tlj > > -----Original Message----- > From: mike_l_mcconn...@lamd.uscourts.gov [mailto: > mike_l_mcconn...@lamd.uscourts.gov] > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:11 AM > To: users@flex.apache.org > Subject: Re: future of flash (yes, that old chestnut again) > > I worry less about the message than I do the motivation behind the push > towards HTML5. It still makes no sense to me from a developer's > perspective, though I've tried very hard to understand it. "Standards > based" or not, HTML5 is inferior technology when compared to what can be > delivered with Flash and AIR (and the ease with which it can be done using > development environments like Flex). Users don't know or care about the > runtime environment in which their applications run, nor should they. This > isn't really about users, though. It's not about the web. It's not about > getting behind a "standard". What it's about is creating demand for > products that make the difficult task of developing in HTML/CSS/JavaScript > a bit more palatable. And where there's demand, there's profit > (theoretically, anyway). I don't believe for a minute that this is some > noble "drive the web forward" initiative. That's only the veneer. The > true goal, in my not so humble opinion, is what it always is and always > will be: enhancing the bottom line. There's certainly nothing wrong with a > company making money....it's why they exist, after all. But to tout what > is clearly a less suitable solution (for RIAs) as the next great frontier > is, at best, disingenuous. These are my opinions...your mileage may vary. > > M. McConnell > > > > > From: Lee Burrows <subscripti...@leeburrows.com> > To: users@flex.apache.org > Date: 05/15/2013 06:15 AM > Subject: Re: future of flash (yes, that old chestnut again) > > > > Thanks Alex. > > I appreciate your comments - with the 5 year commitment from Adobe, and > FlexJS on the horizon, i can relax (a bit). > > I just worry about your employers sometimes. At Max 2011, the message was > "use HTML5 for RIAs", and shortly afterwards mobile Flash Player was > dropped. At Max 2013, the message was "use HTML5 for games" - which made me > wonder what bombshell Adobe may drop this time. > > -- > Lee Burrows > ActionScripter > > > > On 14/05/2013 20:29, Alex Harui wrote: > > The relevant documents are: > > [1] http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplatform/whitepapers/roadmap.html > > [2] http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flex/whitepapers/roadmap.html > > > > It is [2] that mentions "five years". > > > > But realize that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no code that > > will cause Flash to stop working after some day about 4 years from > > now. To do > so > > would "break the web" and neither Adobe nor the major desktop/laptop > > OS vendors are interested in doing that. It is just that Adobe is not > > committing to new versions or taking support calls after that date. > Also, > > IMO, if something happens that gives Adobe a reason to extend that > > date, they probably would, but I don't really know what that would be. > > > > Meanwhile, Apache Flex is doing the best it can to make sure that Flex > has > > fewer bugs, supports more locales, etc. And some of us are even > > looking into a next generation of Flex that will let you use MXML and > ActionScript > > to create apps that run in a browser or on mobile devices without > Flash/AIR > > so you don't have be quite so concerned about this "five year" > commitment. > > > > On 5/14/13 11:12 AM, "Lee Burrows" <subscripti...@leeburrows.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi All, > >> > >> I seem to remember that Adobe committed to supporting Flash Player > >> and AIR for 5 years - during, or shortly after, the Flex Community > >> Summit (of Dec 11). > >> > >> Is that right, or did i imagine it? - i cant find any reference to it > >> on adobe.com > > > > >
