Slashdot Mirror

Maybe you should read this:

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Apollo:Develo perFAQ#Does_Apollo_support_Linux

While it's not "ready" they clearly seem to have plans to have it running on linux.

It probably still won't run on Linux/PPC or ARM or even Windows2000 (funny that), but I guess it's as close to "cross platform" as I see any commercial company get.

Sounds abit like Adobe Apollo http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Apollo

and they're not mentioning anything about the security model

Ah, yes, those dastardly Adobe people have hidden details about Apollo security under this seemingly innocuous link:

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Apollo:Docume ntation:Understanding_Apollo_security

depending on the implementation this feature may violate a patent

You've got to be kidding, right? What patent? In Apollo, you attach a listener to a networkChange event, set a boolean when you get the notification that the network is down, and through the beauty of if-then-else you decide what to do (like maybe, oh, how about, don't go out to the internets?). If your friend has a patent on a boolean variable, he must be a fucking genius!

Maybe not at the moment, but it looks to be coming also.

BS, the Readme.txt in the installer.tgz:

"Adobe Systems Incorporated
Flash Player 9 for Linux
Version 9.0.31.0
January 2007

[...]

Your use of this player is governed by the Adobe End User License Agreement
found at http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/players/flash/ ."

Player and SDK are free:

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Apollo:Develo perFAQ#Is_Apollo_free_.28as_in_beer.29.3F

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Apollo:Develo perFAQ#Is_the_Apollo_SDK_free_.28as_in_beer.29.3F

mike chambers

mesh@adobe.com

Player and SDK are free:

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Apollo:Develo perFAQ#Is_Apollo_free_.28as_in_beer.29.3F

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Apollo:Develo perFAQ#Is_the_Apollo_SDK_free_.28as_in_beer.29.3F

mike chambers

mesh@adobe.com

13. Compliance with Licenses. If you are a business or organization, you agree that upon request from Adobe or Adobe's authorized representative*, you will within thirty (30) days fully document and certify that use of any and all Software at the time of the request is in conformity with your valid licenses from Adobe.

http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/players/flash/

There is a video in the article showing you how ebay plans to use it...

http://www.adobe.com/devnet/videos/apollo_demo07/i ndex.html

Looks very Apple OS X-esque with the interface., but to be fair they are running OS X in the video.

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Apollo

Apollo is targeted at allowing web developers to build and deploy web applications to the desktop.

Linux?
Apollo 1.0 will not be available on Linux. We plan to release Linux support shortly after the 1.0. release.

Which means, like maybe when a big-fish pays us for the port.

Then there's very-non-free License terms:
You may make a limited and reasonable number of copies of the SDK Components

The structure, organization and code of the SDK Components provided to you in compiled or object code form are the valuable trade secrets and confidential information of Adobe Systems Incorporated and its suppliers.

may be expressly permitted to decompile...it is essential to do so in order to achieve interoperability with another software program, and you have first requested that Adobe provide the information necessary to achieve such interoperability and Adobe has not made such information available. Adobe has the right to impose reasonable conditions and to request a reasonable fee before providing such information.

What about the malware factory you are creating?
You shall not use the SDK Components to create, develop or use any program, software or service that (a) contains any viruses, Trojan horses, worms, time bombs, cancelbots or other computer programming routines

That'll stop em.

The Apollo SDK EULA is considerably less draconian.

The first reason, and the less sure one and more petty one, is that I feel that Adobe ruins all software over time. If you think carefully about this, and if you have sufficient experience with Adobe software, you will agree with me. The only project Adobe has not completely destroyed is Photoshop, and that is only because they move most cautiously with that product. If they screwed up Photoshop they would cease to exist yesterday.

The other reason, however, and the one that I expect more support on, is the Apollo Runtime Licensing Agreement. It contains such gems as "2.2 Distribution. You may not sublicense or distribute the Software.", "2.3 Backup Copy. You may make one backup copy of the Software, provided your backup copy is not installed or used on any computer. You may not transfer the rights to a backup copy unless you transfer all rights in the Software as provided under Section 4." And then there's "2.4 No Modification. You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works based upon the Software.". Here's another fun one: "3.1 Prohibited Devices and Systems. You may not install or use the Software on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. For the avoidance of doubt, and by example only, you may not install or use the Software on any (a) mobile devices, set top boxes (STB), handhelds, phones, web pads, tablets and Tablet PCs that are not running Windows XP or Vista Tablet PC Edition, game consoles, TVs, DVD players, media centers (excluding Windows XP Media Center Edition and its successors), electronic billboards or other digital signage, internet appliances or other internet-connected devices, PDAs, medical devices, ATMs, telematic devices, gaming machines, home automation systems, kiosks, remote control devices, or any other consumer electronics device, (b) operator-based mobile, cable, satellite, or television systems or (c) other closed system devices."

Now consider Apollo in the context of actually using it; the only place you can install it is on a web server. The license does not even permit installation on a web server appliance! I am not making this up; you are prohibited from installing it on "internet appliances or other internet-connected devices". You cannot install the software on a PDA used as a webserver. You cannot use the software as the interface for a set-top box. You cannot, in fact, use the software anywhere other than a webserver (but not an appliance!) or pretty much anything running Windows XP (tablet PCs and media centers NOT running Windows XP are explicitly prohibited.)

Avoid this software at all costs! It's just an attempt by Adobe to create lock-in. Use ANY alternative.

Sun will sell you a 900 dollar workstation with unix installed. Solaris of course. However, they will support that machine
AND the os if you put a supported version of linux or Windows on it. Why can't dell do this? Because dell s.... and
sells to people that enjoy commercials that use the word 'dude'.

ozgur uksal http://www.adobe.com/

It will probably be written in Adobe Flex (which essentially is flash). I used Adobe Flex on my last two projects and it is awesome for RIA's. Its fast, small (a large app was only 500k), and has a lot of similarities to .NET. This would be my guess as to what Adobe plans to use as a platform.

As for processing power, Flex is quite fast and can handle large data sets. It also communicates very good with Web Services. Adobe can go either way on which side of the application they want to handle the image processing. My vote would be client-side.

Flex - http://www.adobe.com/products/flex/

-Ryan C

Umm, maybe I missed something but why are you talking abou Flash redistribution and linking to Adobe Reader 7.0s system requirements? What you're looking for is this. Oh yes and it's not on the approved operating systems list here either, so it also violates the main section of the license:
"2. Grant of Rights, Restrictions, New Versions, Modifications, Transfer.
2.1 License. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, Adobe grants Licensee a non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, royalty-free license to reproduce and distribute the Software, in all cases solely for the use on the Authorized Operating Systems, as set forth below."

Umm, maybe I missed something but why are you talking abou Flash redistribution and linking to Adobe Reader 7.0s system requirements? What you're looking for is this. Oh yes and it's not on the approved operating systems list here either, so it also violates the main section of the license:
"2. Grant of Rights, Restrictions, New Versions, Modifications, Transfer.
2.1 License. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, Adobe grants Licensee a non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, royalty-free license to reproduce and distribute the Software, in all cases solely for the use on the Authorized Operating Systems, as set forth below."

Except, of course, that the inclusion of flash redistribution in Ubuntu breaks the ridiculously specific OS requirements of Adobe's Player Distribution License.

Still, as long as some people are happy to sell their Freedom for the shiny I guess Ubuntu will thrive.

"Adobe Flex is not available on Mac."

Bzzzt. Yes it is:

http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressrel eases/200701/010907Flex.html

Here you can get a free evaluation copy of Photoshop CS3 beta, which is an Universal Binary. Photoshop is one of the most intuitive and complete image editing softwares out there. If it was such a crap I couldn't explain why basically every single professional photographer who goes through the digital stage at some point uses it.

Or....horror of horrors, download the exact same file legally from Adobe. (registration required but the download is faster than a torrent with 0 seeds and 2 leechers)
You even get a working serial key. All you have to do is send Adobe US $199
If you don't like Adobe and their 30 day trial, try Apple's

The images are not "photoshopped" they are enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® software.
http://www.adobe.com/misc/trade.html#photoshop

</bitching>

And I use Linux, and I did download the free SDK, and it did compile all the example apps without a problem.
And you need a recent Java runtime to use it :-)

He says a lot of misleading things in the article.

Now, however, you can download the free command-line Flex compiler to create static SWFs, and you can deliver these from your web site without paying any fees. The compiler, framework, and debugger are all free, so there's no reason to avoid using Flex.
Well, no, I can't download the free Flex compiler, because I run Linux, and it's not available on Linux. I actually spent some time on Adobe's web site just now trying to find out what was actually available. I couldn't find any link from http://www.adobe.com/products/flex/ to any "free command-line Flex compiler" at all, just links to a demo version, and a version that costs money. Maybe he's referring to the demo version? That's pretty pathetic, if he's telling people the cost of the compiler is no barrier because a crippled demo version is available. I couldn't find any information on the web site about what operating systems the demo version would run on, so I went through the registration process, and when I finally was ready to download, the only options were Windows and Mac. Last I heard, the Mac version was a beta.

However, with Flash 9 and beyond, all the players will be released within weeks of each other, and this policy should hold for future versions of Flash. So now you don't have to worry about complaints from anyone. Build your UI with Flex, and it will "just work."
Uh, I've got a complaint. I installed Flash 9 on my Ubuntu box, and it didn't "just work." It crashed my browser. I had to deinstall it and reinstall Flash 8.

I spent a bunch of time about a month ago looking into the idea of using Flash as a platform for writing OSS. At the end, I concluded that it just wasn't a viable choice.

1. A full, usable Flex development environment from Adobe costs bucks.
2. There are OSS compilers: MTASC and haxe. MTASC only supports AS2, and although haxe can generate AS3 code, haxe is not the same language as AS3. So in other words, there are severe problems with source-level compatibility if you want to do AS3 using OSS compilers.
3. The version 2 component library (for programming GUIs) comes with a license that prevents you from using it unless you own the Flash IDE. There are alternative OSS GUI libraries for flash, but then you don't have source-code compatibility with any code that was written for Flex.
4. The only supported audio codec is mp3, which is under patent in the U.S. That's why, for example, mp3 codecs are not included in Debian, and if you live in the U.S., you have to download the codecs from overseas servers.
5. The only supported video codec is proprietary, although you really can't blame Adobe for this, since there is no usable, patent-free video codec at the present time. (Theora is not practical to use yet.)

So basically Flash is a totally proprietary platform from A to Z. You buy a flash book and try to compile any of the nontrivial programs in it without paying money to Adobe, and it won't work. I got "hello world" to work with MTASC, and beyond that, it just wasn't possible; there's just not enough source-level compatibility.

Why in the world would anyone want to hitch their wagon to YAPPL (Yet Another Proprietary Programming Language)???

Many might not remember that Flash was once FutureWave Splash by the same guy who did that great oldie game Dark Castle and Beyond Castle for the Mac.

FutureWave Animator sorta competed against Shockwave well that Macromedia bought them and renamed it Flash, and it's been "siblings" with Shockwave ever since.

Eckel wrote Thinking in Java which he allows you to download for free in its entirety.

However, his recent book, Thinking in Java, Fourth Edition, is no longer available in a free, electronic form.

But for much of the same reason that web users balked at Flash and Plugins

The numbers disagree.

The system requirements pages for Adobe Premiere and Intuit's Quicken Deluxe don't mention Vista. If either application doesn't work quite right under Vista, dag gummit, it must be a plot to RUIN MICROSOFT!... and not just the ordinary course of development for supporting new OS releases.

If you don't allow PDF into your network, you might try an online converter. I haven't tried it, but I see that Adobe has one.

uh son macromedia has current versios of both standalone and plugin clients that work great in linux.... (many other os's for that matter too)

http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/alternates /

please stop being a dumbass and use google before you post ._.

There are open actionscript compilers out there, but even so
Try using MTASC to compile any nontrivial AS2 app that was written for Adobe's tools, and you'll find out you can't, because the version 2 components aren't legally available without buying Flex. If you're willing to pay for Flex, they'll give you a license to let you use the version 2 components, but you'll have to patch them extensively to make them work with MTASC. Try using an open-source compiler to compile AS3 code that was written for Flex, and you'll find out you can't, because haxe is a different language.

The Flex 2 SDK (including the MXML compiler and the component library) is "free" (the Eclipse based IDE and Charting isn't)
Free as in beer, and totally loaded with nasty proprietary licensing conditions.

The license of the flash spec http://www.adobe.com/licensing/developer/fileforma t/license/ , says "3)a. You may not use the Specification in any way to create or develop a runtime, client, player, executable or other program that reads or renders .swf files."

The eula for the flash player, http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/players/flash/ , says you can't modify it or reverse-engineer it, can't run it on a portable device.

There are open actionscript compilers out there, but even so
Try using MTASC to compile any nontrivial AS2 app that was written for Adobe's tools, and you'll find out you can't, because the version 2 components aren't legally available without buying Flex. If you're willing to pay for Flex, they'll give you a license to let you use the version 2 components, but you'll have to patch them extensively to make them work with MTASC. Try using an open-source compiler to compile AS3 code that was written for Flex, and you'll find out you can't, because haxe is a different language.

The Flex 2 SDK (including the MXML compiler and the component library) is "free" (the Eclipse based IDE and Charting isn't)
Free as in beer, and totally loaded with nasty proprietary licensing conditions.

The license of the flash spec http://www.adobe.com/licensing/developer/fileforma t/license/ , says "3)a. You may not use the Specification in any way to create or develop a runtime, client, player, executable or other program that reads or renders .swf files."

The eula for the flash player, http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/players/flash/ , says you can't modify it or reverse-engineer it, can't run it on a portable device.

I've already mentioned this in another comment, but Adobe Flex is here today and lets you build Rich Internet Applications that compile down to SWF files that run on Flash Player 9. Unlike all the other technologies you've mentioned, Flash Player 9 will work on the majority of systems and browsers out there today.

Adobe has submitted and got accepted previous PDF specs as ISO standards. (PDF/X-1a = ISO 15930-1;PDF/X-3 = ISO 15930-3; PDF/A = ISO 19005-1.)

And regarding the XML hoopla, see Adobe's project Mars and Adobe Mars wiki.

Adobe has submitted and got accepted previous PDF specs as ISO standards. (PDF/X-1a = ISO 15930-1;PDF/X-3 = ISO 15930-3; PDF/A = ISO 19005-1.)

And regarding the XML hoopla, see Adobe's project Mars and Adobe Mars wiki.

• The eula for the flash player says you can't modify it or reverse-engineer it, can't run it on a portable device.
• The license of the Version 2 GUI components prevents you from using them unless you own the Flash IDE.

While caution is still warranted, it looks like Adobe indeed intends to foster open development. From the current PDF Reference section 1.4:

Adobe Systems Incorporated and its subsidiaries own a number of patents covering technology disclosed in the PDF Reference. [...] Nonetheless, Adobe desires to encourage implementation of the PDF computer file format on a wide variety of devices and platforms, and for this reason offers certain royalty-free patent licenses to PDF implementors worldwide. To review those licenses, please visit http://www.adobe.com/go/developer_legalnotices.

Of course a question remains of what other possibly relevant patents Adobe holds but is not licensing under those terms...

While caution is still warranted, it looks like Adobe indeed intends to foster open development. From the current PDF Reference section 1.4:

Adobe Systems Incorporated and its subsidiaries own a number of patents covering technology disclosed in the PDF Reference. [...] Nonetheless, Adobe desires to encourage implementation of the PDF computer file format on a wide variety of devices and platforms, and for this reason offers certain royalty-free patent licenses to PDF implementors worldwide. To review those licenses, please visit http://www.adobe.com/go/developer_legalnotices.

Of course a question remains of what other possibly relevant patents Adobe holds but is not licensing under those terms...

Does this mean we'll see free tools to do things like create PDFs which unlock the hidden ability of Acrobat Reader to save filled-in form data?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_LiveCycle_Reade r_Extensions
http://www.adobe.com/products/server/readerextensi ons/

Adobe reserves that right to sue anyone that uses PDF.

They used legal threats to force Microsoft to remove PDF support from Office 2007

Adobe's concern is that Microsoft will fragment and possibly degrade existing and established standards, including PDF, while using its monopoly power to introduce Microsoft-controlled alternatives - such as XPS. The long-term impact of this kind of behavior is that consumers are ultimately left with fewer choices.

And that was wrt the current ISO PDF standard (PDF 1.4 I think), so simply being an ISO standard doesn't mean that Adobe won't sue anyone that uses it at their whim, for whatever reason they see fit.

S has covenant not to sue anyone that uses XPS (covenant not to sue is standard MS practice for the standards they release to ISO, ECMA, etc).

Your licensing page[1] for the Flash and Flash Video file formats
states that the license "does not permit the usage of the
specification to create software which supports SWF file playback."

Why does your license prohibit the creation of playback software?

The reason I'm asking is that in April of 2002, in an article written
by David Becker[2], it seemed clear that Macromedia was committed to
making the Flash file formats be open file formats. In the article,
"Kevin Lynch, chief software architect for Macromedia," stated that
the Flash file format was open for all developers:
  "The file format has been open for years now, so people can build
whatever software they like around it," Lynch said. "We feel it really
needs to be open and to promote an ecosystem where people can build
software on top of it...We believe that's the best way to keep the
player successful and still provide access to developers."

[1] http://www.adobe.com/licensing/developer/
[2] http://www.zdnetindia.com/techzone/trends/stories/ 9,53742.html

the short answer is: no, you still can't make playback software using
our file format specifications. by making the file format open, our
intent is to allow 3rd parties to make applications that output SWF and
FLV. however, for optimal support and experience, SWFs and FLVs should
play in adobe's flash player. we have no plans to open-source flash
player itself. we rather like making it ourselves. :)

Metro is now called XPS The right comparison with XPS is Adobe's Mars Project.

TFA doesn't seem to be reachable. Here is the original Adobe press release.

http://www.adobe.com/licensing/developer/fileforma t/faq/#item-1-8:

Can I use the File Format Specification to create a SWF interpreter or player?

No, the File Format Specification is provided for the specific purpose of enabling software applications to export to the Macromedia Flash File Format (SWF).

Perhaps it is not as open as you want... but it is a standards based technology... http://www.adobe.com/licensing/developer/ It is a freely available format that anyone can develop in. And I have grapsed the impotence of the open standards-based technology that you speak of. I've been in the business 12 years, and using the internet for 15 years. Using flash is no different than using a c compiler. I happen to like the fact that I can develop a flash/flex app that will look and act the same on all platforms that support it. Trying to develop for any other open standard is like trying to take pee out of the pool. I used to spend more time than was acceptable in any other profession to develop simple cross platform and cross browser websites. Frankly I'm sick of the lack of standards support and the strange interpretation of the standards. The standards would be so much better is they were not only standard in design but also in implementation. You can go on living in your Utopia of broken standards, I'm moving on because I can't wait for things to catch up. You 21st century ludites can have your Zork and Lynx.... Wait am I a troll?

Google for Flex Examples. Flex and ActionScript 3 aren't quite synonymous as the grandparent suggested. Flex is explicitly designed around creating desktop style applications which are portable to be usable from the web, CD or download, and which run on every major platform including Linux. They create a very positive user experience and are especially good for data mining applications, daily dashboards, and other reporting features.

Flex is up to version 2, but here are some 1.5 sample apps.

"It does not require client side compiles (eg java byte code) and runs faster than cross platform java can dream of."

You sure know what you are talking about:
http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/search/index.cfm?loc= en_us&term=AVM2+JIT

To summarize. The JVM is slow because of bytecode since it has to be compiled to native code on the client. AVM2 is fast because by using bytecode it can compile to the most effecitive native code possible.

yes.

It's somewhere between 96% and 98%. Persons who don't know enough to install plugins most likely bought a PC with said plugins pre-installed. Pretty much the only persons who don't have Flash installed are the neo-Luddites who hang out here.

It's somewhere between 96% and 98%. Persons who don't know enough to install plugins most likely bought a PC with said plugins pre-installed. Pretty much the only persons who don't have Flash installed are the neo-Luddites who hang out here.