Adobe To Donate Flex SDK To Open Source Community 158
New submitter ProbablyJoe writes "InfoQ reports that Adobe is to donate its web application SDK, Flex, to an 'an established open source foundation' — suspected to either be the Open Spoon Foundation (who have been working on an open source fork of Flex), or the more established Apache Foundation. Adobe has stated on its blog that they consider HTML5 to be a better technology for the future than its own Flex platform, causing frustration among developers who have used the platform for enterprise applications. Is this a generous contribution to the open source community, or just Adobe offloading another failing technology?"
Thanks? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
This is the technological equivalent of donating AIDS infected blood.
Funny. But very, very sick.
Just FYI (Score:2)
"Flex [wikipedia.org]" is a disk operating system for 6800 microprocessors. Flex09 is Flex for the 6809 microprocessor, but was also generally just referred to as "Flex." Both were produced by Technical Systems Consultants (logo: TSC.) Flex initially ran on the SWTPC, GIMIX, SSB and similar SS-50 bus boxes; later versions ran on Radio Shack's "Color Computer", which was based on the 6809 processor. Aside from this, Flex (both versions) was also made available by TSC in a "driverless" version that let you write your own I/O
Headlines over next few months... (Score:3)
-Open Source Community Donates Flex SDK to Goodwill
-Goodwill Donates Flex SDK to Salvation Army
-Salvation Army Donates Flex SDK to Jerry's Kids
-Jerry's Kids Donates Flex SDK to Haiti
-Haiti Donates Flex SDK to Somalia
-Somalian Pirates Use Flex SDK to Attack Passing Ships
Did hell just freeze over or something? (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft dumps stuff in favor of HTML5.
Adobe dumps stuff in favor of HTML5.
Can somebody check the temperature in hell, please?
Re: (Score:3)
Adobe Edge (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget that currently Edge outputs code that's only supported on WebKit browsers (so no Firefox or IE). Some of it might look right, but a lot of it probably won't. If I remember right, I wasn't able to get anything to show up in IE9.
Re:Did hell just freeze over or something? (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty icy. They also discontinued flash mobile, same week. I think we're going to see a new class of development tool from adobe here in the next few months. All of this is a leadup to that, I think.
Not necessarily. I think it's quite feasible for them to repurpose their authoring tools so they crap out HTML 5 instead of flash content, at least in those cases where there is analogous functionality.
Re:Did hell just freeze over or something? (Score:4, Funny)
Need FlashBlock for HTML5 (Score:5, Funny)
Now with HTML5 becoming the the preferred nuisance apparatus, can we create something to block them browser side?
Re:Need FlashBlock for HTML5 (Score:4, Funny)
Sure. It's called "disable javascript" and it's already built-in all browsers worth using.
Re: (Score:2)
If a website requires javascript for the content, navigation or layout, it's not coded properly. There should be built-in fallbacks to regular, non-scripted HTML.
Re: (Score:2)
Reload the entire page (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The AC referred to menus, interaction and layout, not to refresh-less or selective content loading.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot is not a good example of how a website should be coded.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Sure, go ahead. Or do you mean "can someone else create it for me"?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Block Javascript, or install an ad-blocker. Both of which are very well established technologies in the plugin world of most browsers today.
Unlike Flash, a browser is not obligated to display or render everything. So if a user purposely blocks ads, there's nothing that can be done. Flash can bypass most plugins, and display ads (e.g., the popup ones on YouTube, or the ones that play before t
You block ads? Server blocks YOU. (Score:3)
Block Javascript
And turn every click into a page load. Good luck trying to use an online drawing program [wikipedia.org] where each click on the image means a full reload of the image and of the page it's on.
or install an ad-blocker
If you install an extension specifically to block web sites' revenue source, watch web sites depending on advertisements block you. Web sites have tolerated Flashblock for two reasons: it's "content neutral", not caring whether each SWF object is the requested information or an advertisement on the side, and web sites already have to
HTML5 blocking (Score:2)
You can effectively block HTML5 by using a sufficiently outdated browser.
Old Windows left out of open standards (Score:2)
Would you prefer to create crappy wrong box model driven IE 6 code instead with flash to hide its inadequacies instead?
I'd prefer to require users of old Internet Explorer to install Google Chrome Frame.
Having Microsoft and Adobe switch to open standards is a GODSEND for any serious webmaster.
Except Microsoft ties support of open standards to paid Windows upgrades: IE 9 doesn't run on Windows XP, IE 10 won't run on Windows Vista, etc.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure there's an app for that.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I think it has something to do with Android/Apple dominating the smartphone/tablet market, better for MS and Adobe to push for a HTML5 standard than letting the Android/iOS SDK become the new standard and they left out in the cold. Don't they've had a change of heart or anything.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
FOSS attitude fail. (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, so when a company end of lines a product they're criticised for not open sourcing it.
Now when a company open sources an end of lined product, they're "offloading another failing technology".
This is why companies don't give a fuck what the FOSS community thinks, because with the FOSS community you can never do anything right. See all the whinging about Android's open source initiatives for another fine example.
Re:FOSS attitude fail. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree it's not the view of the whole community but it's also not a lone comment on the topic, I see that sort of setiment expressed all the time from the FOSS community and it makes them their own worst enemy.
You see it in other areas as well, more than once I've seen people bitch in one thread about Linux not being taken up on the desktop because companies are "dumb" and that sort of sentiment, then in another thread go on to show a complete lack of understanding as to why end users need a decent user in
Re: (Score:3)
They change here is that project leadership will now be shared between Adobe and an Open Source foundation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you post something as-is, expect people to associate you with whatever it is that you posted.
Questions vs. Statements, and value of open source (Score:3)
Its worse that that: the submitter didn't even say what is being attributed to the whole community. TFS ends with the question -- an invitation to comment in the attached comment thread -- "Is this a generous contribution to the open source community, or just Adobe offloading another failing technology?"
Some people have interpreted this as if it were a statement that "Adobe [is just] offloading another failing technology",
Tax write off (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Open Source doesn't need more code, it needs more coders and users. If they were going to run the thing, champion it and market it, sell support for it and guide its development, that'd be one thing. When Google bought Android they went to the trouble of setting up the OHA, starting a business, doing big deals and making sure the project would actually work for real-world users and developers. They continue to shepherd its development and its now probably the most widely-installed open-source OS on earth
Ad
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it of academic interest? Flash still exists on the desktop, there is a need for an SDK for it. Flex is the best SDK around. It has been open source since 2008, so nothing really has changed but Flex is not a bad project.
Re: (Score:3)
"Open Source doesn't need more code, it needs more coders and users."
Right, and we all know the best way to get them is to insult people who aren't yet sold on the FOSS philosophy and attack firms who believe they're doing the right thing when they hand source to the FOSS community, then mod people troll or flamebait if they dare point out how counter-productive this is?
The problem is the community is full of introverts with the social competence of a rock, but not only that, they're the worst kind of those
Re:FOSS attitude fail. (Score:5, Informative)
Flex was already open source.. They are just pushing the responsibility of maintaining it to the community. Now if they were open sourcing the Flash Player, I would commend them for that as it could ease the pain a little of those stuck relying on this legacy technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Right, so when a company end of lines a product they're criticised for not open sourcing it.
Now when a company open sources an end of lined product, they're "offloading another failing technology".
This is why companies don't give a fuck what the FOSS community thinks, because with the FOSS community you can never do anything right. See all the whinging about Android's open source initiatives for another fine example.
right. what, the ones where, just like trolltech and oracle doing qt4 and mysql doing a one-way push where you cannot truly contribute except as a paid-up slave^H^H^H^H^Hemployee, the product cannot truly be considered to be either "Open" or "Free"? have you actually looked at the number of lines of code involved? do you even understand that "Libre" is not just about the "Releasing Of Some Code" it is about developing and fostering an open, exciting and above-all *inclusive* community attitude?
do you und
Re: (Score:3)
Time to die? Adobe sells just over $4b a year and does well over a $1b profit on that. Cut the losses, shut up shop?
I think Adobe has made some mistakes and is letting their products decay but lets get a grip about where they actually stand.
Player? (Score:5, Interesting)
Will this include player components? As it stands, the span of usefulness for the SDK is going to be limited if there isn't a player to run the output.
Rhetorical question? (Score:2)
Is this a generous contribution to the open source community, or just Adobe offloading another failing technology?"
Both, obviously!
Trash The Flash, Keep The Flex (Score:5, Interesting)
I've used the Flex SDK and FlexBuilder IDE. While the underlying Flash runtime is notoriously bad, the declarative XML structure, ActionScript language and matching IDE are actually quite pleasant to work with. I'd love to see someone replace the dreadful Flash runtime with a native HTML5 runtime but keep the decent bits.
Anybody know what this means for Adobe's AIR platform?
Re:Trash The Flash, Keep The Flex (Score:4, Informative)
Agreed. Flex really isn't bad.
I did a real business app in it. It was not my choice, but once the choice was made, Flex turned out to be not terrible.
Not a bad language. Not too bad a development environment. But it needed some growing up, needed some changes to the event model, needed a little more coherency. But it worked, and it was pleasant to write in.
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody know what this means for Adobe's AIR platform?
Adobe says AIR will continue to be supported, both on the desktop and mobile platforms. AIR apps on smartphones really aren't that bad; it was Flash in mobile browsers that always sucked. The question is whether it's really worth doing cross-platform development in Flash vs. either porting a native app or going with something else (such as Unity).
Suprising (Score:3)
While I agree that HTML5 is better than Flash, it is pretty surprising that they are going down without a fight, and doing so early in the process. I would think they would drum it up as long as possible so they could sell off their stocks. After all plenty of businesses use Flex, and they aren't going to re-factor anytime soon. Likewise, old browsers with bad HTML5 support are not going away soon?
Do they perhaps think that Flash/Flex can out compete HTML5 if they open source it? Do they think Flex development will be a good gateway to AIR development? I guess I just don't get the strategy.
Re: (Score:3)
Here is the strategy:
1) Flash-lite which centered on video playback for mobile is being killed by video in hardware.
2) Flash as a cross platform standard for mobile is failing. Both Apple and Microsoft aren't including it.
3) Mobile Flash costs a fortune to develop since to get it to work they have to deal with every (GPU / OS / Hardware) combination.
Conclusion: Flash is not going to be successful in the next 3 years on mobile.
Thus Adobe developers need to be doing something else for cross platform and
Re: (Score:3)
If you have to develop in HTML5 for the mobile platforms and HTML5 is also supported on the desktop, why would you waste time making something in Flash?
Re: (Score:2)
You've got it backwards.
If you've already got something developed in Flash, why would you waste time developing a mobile version regardless of the technology. That's the real problem. The choice of technology is no so much the big barrier.
The desktop version isn't going to work well on a mobile device regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got it backwards.
As a fellow ipad user, I resent the suggestion that we wouldn't be able to hold one the right way around (screen towards.) I can only speak for myself, but it took less than half an hour to work that one out, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
You mean holding it in portrait (vertical) instead of landscape (horizontal)?
Corporate Sponsor (Score:2)
Flex was getting recognized as a way to deliver enterprise level solutions across businesses that were unable/unwilling to change, particularly financial institutions (where IE 7 can be the defacto standard). Technologies like this need a corporate sponsor to get buy in and when the Adobe makes this type of statement: "In the long-term, we believe HTML5 will be the best technology for enterprise application development." [adobe.com] you really really really have to get very concerned. The whole reason people used Flex
What's ahead? (Score:2)
Now that everybody seems to be targeting HTML5 and javascript in the back-end, perhaps finally W3C will make HTML and js more developer friendly.
Right now, the HTML and js combo seems to be targeted at novice users, who don't use it anyway, in any direct form.
With a more developer-friendly environment, we could start making our own scripting languages and run them on the web. Heck, we could even write our own rendering systems and send them along with our code. Doing something like that with the current W3C
Re: (Score:2)
we could even write our own rendering systems and send them along with our code.
I think to do that they would either have to have an API for communicating with the browser (which we already have, it's called HTML5/css), or the browser would have to trust code coming from a potentially unknown server that tells it how to draw. That opens the possibility of malicious rendering code. Same deal with our own scripting languages (though technically you can ALREADY do this, just write a daemon that runs port 80 and can read your specific code, or loads as an apache module) Personally I find H
This is Not the First Time (Score:2)
Re:Just another offload. (Score:5, Insightful)
and why shouldn't they? If they already decided that they wouldn't support the product anymore, then it makes sense to donate it to the community. Maybe some enterprising people can make it work for them. Just look at what it did for web-browser technology when Netscape opensourced their - at that time 'almost end-of-line' - product to the opensource community...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, let's look at that. AOL didn't just dump the netscape source code and walk away, they created the Mozilla Foundation and provided $2 million of initial financing. MF hit a jackpot with search bar royalties and while it's open source, virtually all development is from paid Mozilla employees.
This is a slightly different situation. First of all, they probably will be offering some form of hand-off beyond "here's the latest source code on a thumb drive." It might not be $2 million dollars, but it should be something. Second, they are handing it off to an existing foundation, that doesn't need to bootstrap itself. Third, this is a developer tool, not a browser. The target audience has a higher percentage of potential contributors.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe some enterprising people can make it work for them.
If it outputs to HTML5 and the input can be generated by multiple programs, it might be worth using.
I went to a demo in Boston when Flex was just released and I have to admit it looked very cool. Then I learned it was soup-to-nuts proprietary and went on to the other sessions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:NO NO NO (Score:4, Interesting)
WebM is free, H.264 costs money on both the encoding and decoding end. Standards should never require payment to use.
Re: (Score:3)
H.264 only costs money if you ship more than 50000 units a year. Also it is royalty-free for non-commercial use.
Re: (Score:2)
You trust the MPEG LA to not introduce fees at some point for their patent pool?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Doing so would only drive people away from it which is the opposite of what they want.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, right. And web devs can stop supporting IE too, right?
Once the market is locked-in, driving away from the standard is almost impossible, because you have to receive or send files to other people who haven't.
Re: (Score:2)
That problem exists regardless of how your codec's source is published or its patents are licensed. Lock in is created by what the broser vendors agree to support, not by how something is licensed.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point: we shouldn't choose technologies which are controlled by single entities, so that we won't be at their mercy when it's too entrenched to simply walk away from it.
Flash Player vs. Chrome Frame (Score:2)
And web devs can stop supporting IE too, right?
What's the difference between requiring IE users to use Adobe Flash Player and requiring IE users to use either Google Chrome Frame or the codec pack for IE 9?
Re: (Score:2)
That would only be a valid analogy if Flash was built-in like H.264 support is, both into the browser/OS and in the hardware with dedicated decoding chips.
Your error is thinking only about the desktop, were installing codecs is possible. Try including iOS or the upcoming Metro style IE, which is touted as "plugin free".
H.264 is not built-in on any of these OSes (Score:2)
if Flash was built-in like H.264 support is, both into the browser/OS
H.264 is not built-in on Windows XP, Windows Vista Home Basic, Windows Vista Business, Windows 7 Starter, or any GNU/Linux distribution I can think of.
Try including iOS
Let me know when canvas animation on Safari for iOS is anywhere near competitive even with Flash vector animation of half a decade ago to the point where one can watch Strong Bad emails.
or the upcoming Metro style IE, which is touted as "plugin free"
Video and audio codecs like WebM install themselves to a separate part of the operating system from ActiveX plug-ins.
Re: (Score:2)
H.264 is not built-in on Windows XP, Windows Vista Home Basic, Windows Vista Business, Windows 7 Starter, or any GNU/Linux distribution I can think of.
No, but those support both, while most of the ones you left out - and the versions yet to be released, like Windows 8 - do include it, and none includes WebM by default.
Besides, hardware is even more important, regardless of the actual OS. Even if I can install the codec, if it eats 30% more battery life, I won't be visiting that website often.
Let me know when canvas animation on Safari for iOS is anywhere near competitive even with Flash vector animation of half a decade ago to the point where one can watch Strong Bad emails.
Considering you can't use Flash at all on iOS, I'd say it's infinitely more competitive.
Not to mention that Adobe as already announce they'll be abandoning their mobi
Re: (Score:2)
But tell me again why are we talking about Flash, when the discussion is about H.264 vs WebM?
Adobe To Donate Flex SDK To Open Source Community
Considering you can't use Flash at all on iOS, I'd say it's infinitely more competitive.
If you were the author of something like Homestar Runner or Weebl and Bob, what would you use to deliver your work to iOS users?
Not to mention that Adobe as already announce they'll be abandoning their mobile player
I understood it to mean Adobe is abandoning Flash-in-web-browsers in favor of AIR (that is, Flash-as-separate-application).
Re: (Score:2)
Adobe To Donate Flex SDK To Open Source Community
Yes, but this particular thread was still about H.264.
If you were the author of something like Homestar Runner or Weebl and Bob, what would you use to deliver your work to iOS users?
H.264, like Weebl is already doing*?
*Well, they're using Youtube, but that's basically the same on iOS, since YT uses HTML5 video support.
I understood it to mean Adobe is abandoning Flash-in-web-browsers in favor of AIR (that is, Flash-as-separate-application).
Possibly, but I was talking about websites, or the Canvas vs Flash wouldn't make much sense. Native apps have decent frameworks that can be used and that fully take advantage of the machine, unlike Flash.
Factor of ten bloat (Score:2)
H.264, like Weebl is already doing*?
The difference between vector animation and H.264 video is like the difference between sending a text file and sending a JPEG of the text. In my tests, conversion of vector animation to video bloats the file size by roughly a factor of ten, which hurts especially if your device's data plan is capped.
Native apps have decent frameworks that can be used and that fully take advantage of the machine
Native apps also require approval from the device manufacturer and a $99 per year fee.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between vector animation and H.264 video is like the difference between sending a text file and sending a JPEG of the text. In my tests, conversion of vector animation to video bloats the file size by roughly a factor of ten, which hurts especially if your device's data plan is capped.
And yet that's exactly what Weebl is doing with their latest animations.
Native apps also require approval from the device manufacturer and a $99 per year fee.
So does Flash, so what's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
And yet that's exactly what Weebl is doing with their latest animations.
Would you prefer that Slashdot be presented as JPEGs because your favorite browsing device can't handle a specific JavaScript construct that Slashdot uses? Would you still prefer it even if you had to pay per bit for Internet like mobile users do?
Native apps also require approval from the device manufacturer and a $99 per year fee.
So does Flash, so what's your point?
Flex SDK will be made open source.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you prefer that Slashdot be presented as JPEGs because your favorite browsing device can't handle a specific JavaScript construct that Slashdot uses?
The comparison is nonsensical, because there's a huge usability difference between HTML and JPEG that doesn't exists between Flash and H.264.
Would you still prefer it even if you had to pay per bit for Internet like mobile users do?
I wouldn't care. I'd watch it on Wifi anyway.
Native apps also require approval from the device manufacturer and a $99 per year fee.
So does Flash, so what's your point?
Flex SDK will be made open source.
And the iOS browser still won't have a Flash/Flex player, and so you'll still need to publish an app and be subject to mandatory approval and the $99 annual payment.
Again, what's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Again, what's your point?
By this time, my point is that I do not prefer iOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Now define "ship" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, really, so I'm antisemitic for pointing out that H.264 isn't free and that effectively excludes a lot of projects from being able to use it.
Re: (Score:1)
Please reply and like because I will need to buy some food.
Go look for some tasty open source recipes...
Re: (Score:2)
IE on PCs also supports WebM (Score:3)
Even Internet Explorer supports H.264
Windows Internet Explorer on PCs also supports WebM as long as the proper codec pack [google.com] is installed.
WebM sucks!
Could you please tone it down and say why you feel WebM is inferior? Otherwise, your post is just as much misinformation as the ones you criticize. Does your skin dry out on sunny days to where it feels like rock?
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh.
You have been trolled.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you please tone it down and say why you feel WebM is inferior?
It's redundant? It's no better than H.264, it's Johnny-come-lately, and exists only because Google is trying to play 11-dimensional chess with MPEG-LA pool members.
If you want to send people a video in WebM you have to get them to install software. That alone is pretty fatal. Even if it did have a higher picture quality, picture quality isn't as important a factor for a codec as availability.
Let the chess match begin (Score:2)
it's Johnny-come-lately
As was Google Search in a market dominated by AltaVista and Yahoo!. As was the iPhone in a market dominated by Windows Mobile 6 phones. As were Android phones in a market dominated by the iPhone. As was MySpace in a market dominated by Friendster. As was Facebook in a market dominated by MySpace.
[WebM] exists only because Google is trying to play 11-dimensional chess with MPEG-LA pool members.
Then let the chess match begin. Sometimes a little tic-tac-toe [wikipedia.org] is needed to prevent global thermonuclear patent war.
If you want to send people a video in WebM you have to get them to install software.
Windows XP is still very common and still doesn't include an AVC decoder. Nor does Windows Vista Ho
Re: (Score:2)
a generic codec pack will introduce support of WebM into IE.
Is there such a codec pack for IE for Windows Phone 7.5, or just IE for PCs?
Re:NO NO NO (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to ask what the above article had to do with video, since this is likely going to be a precursor to Adobes Canvas editor, rather than any kind of Video focused tool. For that they have Premiere.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody maintaining old flex apps may want to keep their old stuff viable until they can justify the effort to port to HTML5. For some organizations, this might be really expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you using for bait? Herring? Garlic? Garlic infused herring?
Oh, you meant bated breath. Never mind.
Re: (Score:2)
That won't happen. It is specifically a cash cow for them. It's only used by web developers who don't know better. It is on the same tier as FrontPage (or perhaps even lower).
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you. HTML5 is nowhere near ready to replace Flash. The problem is Flash player is expensive for Adobe on mobile because they have to do a version for every GPU / OS / Hardware. There are good solution for video (as long as you don't care about DRM) but what about vector art? This is going to take the web back to the 1990s where it was low functioning websites or platform specific applications.
If you think tactically it makes sense. Long term it is incredibly damaging to Adobe.