Slashdot Mirror

Shockwave has never been released. If you mean Flash player then yes. See the this page for more info.

Maybe you could convince one of those responsible for that page to help ?

As for separating design/content, I'd use CSS. It downloads quickly, doesn't require much server recources, and in my expirience it renders much faster than table-formating (./ is hopless here ...) It also degrades gracefully.

Now with mozilla/Netscape 6 soon to be released, css will be pretty much uniformely supported, including layers++. It works with lynx(degrades gracefully), emacs, iexplorer and soon netscape (already works for simply formatting pages, but the fancy stuff is a nightmare in current netscape... and you thought microsoft didn't adhere to standards...)

I'd write a "try-out" page, for making the design, looking something like:

inclue your style-sheet(s) in the header
<h1 class="banner">Welcome to bar-page</h1>
<p class="normal">
One little paragraph right here...
</p>
(...)

And then use a "wysiwyg"-stylesheet editor for formatting it, and the go back, and replace the content through php, or something similar (I guess the choice of a true database vs. just text-files depends on size of the web-site, and who/how it will be updated). I have used dreamveawer(from macromedia - win/mac only) a bit - it is very good, and at least the previous version pretty much preserved whatever type of indenting/formating you used on you stylesheets/html-source, and that is something few wysiwyg tools do, in my not-so-far-reaching experience.

And just to repeat the important stuff: CSS rul3z!
You really have to try the speed-thing to see it for yourself: Make one page with table-formatting and a ton of font-tags, and one that just embeds a style-sheet. Download-size drops, and rendering go relative (as in approaching speed-o-light :). And it's cutting-edge too! AND your page will be much easier to genereate/manipulate with scripts/php/whatever, once you do that. Better searching/easier to implement searching, easier to maintain, cooler, faster, improves your sex-life, saves disk-space, ... oh I'm rambeling, sorry...

I use the Linux version of the flash player all the time because my job requires me to view Flash animations.

I don't know if they plan on making a Linux version of the Flash creator, or any other apps, but we may see something like that in the future.

Well I submitted this as a story the other day, but apparently no one cared about it:

http://www.macr omedia.com/software/flash/open/licensing/sourcecod e/

For as much as Linux (sorry, Mac user here---I need Quark) users kvetch about the lack of Flash any time web browsers come up, I thought it would get posted. Oh well.

> According to the scoring guide, your slashdot experience level is: JonKatz Wannabe

Is that better or worse than a "First Post"? &nbsp Heeheehee.

Okay. Forget this test. I can't *imagine* a worse insult to a slashdot poster. :)

Nah...&nbsp you're right.

By the way, linophiles can get Flash here to see that SIM-WILLIAM SHATNER. &nbsp It's kinda lame and the voice is lamer but at least the animation's close to on target...

You may download Real G2 here. And Flash player can be found here (if the link works, else search the macromedia webpage).

Huh? you can get Macromedia for Linux here and Real Player for Linux here.

The thing that keeps me using IE is the fact that can go to a page that has a Flash object on it and IE will say "You don't have Flash, do you want it installed?" and it automagically does so if I say yes. And while Linux has Flash, there's no Shockwave for linux (according to macromedia). While plug-ins are the main force behind web surfin, a lack of plug-ins still makes web surfing on linux second rate.

This is clearly an attempt by Macromedia to kill truly free implementations of the Flash format. Should another implementation of the Flash format become the de-facto standard, Macromedia would lose a lot of their strength and control of this market.

I suspect, in particular, that this may be related to the next release of Netscape this year: it will almost certainly need to include some kind of Flash player, and if they didn't make some kind of source code available, it would be the free implementation, giving an alternative implementation of the Flash format an instant big market share.

I think Macromedia's meddling and their implementation are best disregarded. If vector graphics is to become a web standard, we need truly free implementations, not the proprietary "free source" mess that Macromedia is offering.

Normally I would agree with you. But this situation is a little different. Macromedia has been trying to push Flash for some time now. The fact that they are opening up the Flash file format is not new news either.

from http:// www.macromedia.com/macromedia/proom/pr/2000/index_ flash4_print.fhtml:
"Macromedia published its Flash file format as an open Web standard in 1998, allowing other companies to both export the Flash file format or playback Flash content within their applications. Macromedia also makes the Flash Player source code available at zero cost to platform and device developers, further extending Flash's broad reach."


or if you want to read the press release from 1998 go here:
http://www.ma cromedia.com/macromedia/proom/pr/1998/flashstandar d.html

Also this was not presented as fact, but as a rumor. Thats why words like "appears" and "purported" are used. There is also no reason why Slashdot should contact Macromedia. They themselves are not a news organization nor are they the source of this information.

I think the fact that this was a rumor was adequately explained. If you are not interested in reading industry rumors then don't. I'm also tired of anybody who complains about the articles being posted getting an automatic mark up from the moderators.

Normally I would agree with you. But this situation is a little different. Macromedia has been trying to push Flash for some time now. The fact that they are opening up the Flash file format is not new news either.

from http:// www.macromedia.com/macromedia/proom/pr/2000/index_ flash4_print.fhtml:
"Macromedia published its Flash file format as an open Web standard in 1998, allowing other companies to both export the Flash file format or playback Flash content within their applications. Macromedia also makes the Flash Player source code available at zero cost to platform and device developers, further extending Flash's broad reach."


or if you want to read the press release from 1998 go here:
http://www.ma cromedia.com/macromedia/proom/pr/1998/flashstandar d.html

Also this was not presented as fact, but as a rumor. Thats why words like "appears" and "purported" are used. There is also no reason why Slashdot should contact Macromedia. They themselves are not a news organization nor are they the source of this information.

I think the fact that this was a rumor was adequately explained. If you are not interested in reading industry rumors then don't. I'm also tired of anybody who complains about the articles being posted getting an automatic mark up from the moderators.

Macromedia makes their money off the tools, not the viewers/players. The more people that have the viewers, the more viable Macromedia's products are.

Basically, with the open source for the viewers, Macromedia now will get to either a) put mor emoney into development of the tools or b) make more money, or most likely (because they're cool) c) both.

Macromedia makes their money off the tools, not the viewers/players. The more people that have the viewers, the more viable Macromedia's products are.

Basically, with the open source for the viewers, Macromedia now will get to either a) put mor emoney into development of the tools or b) make more money, or most likely (because they're cool) c) both.

Ok, Macromedia actually has FAQs on their websites about this. For those that are interested:
Macromedia FAQs

Here is a link on macromedia's web site to the flash file format - which is already open.

http://www.macromedia.com/softw are/flash/open/spec/

Since you mentioned it, I checked to see if it would be possible to do anything with flash to make it work better. It turns out that you can get the source code, and the file format spec, for flash. I am very impressed by the fact that they realize exactly what they are doing. check out their FAQ. They realize that what they're doing isn't open source, and say so. They are calling it "free source", which means that they own it, they maintain it, but you can look at it. Cool. also check out this page for more info.

I respect macromedia a lot more than I did before I read that, since they obviously have people who can think checking on what they are saying on their web site.
#define X(x,y) x##y

Since you mentioned it, I checked to see if it would be possible to do anything with flash to make it work better. It turns out that you can get the source code, and the file format spec, for flash. I am very impressed by the fact that they realize exactly what they are doing. check out their FAQ. They realize that what they're doing isn't open source, and say so. They are calling it "free source", which means that they own it, they maintain it, but you can look at it. Cool. also check out this page for more info.

I respect macromedia a lot more than I did before I read that, since they obviously have people who can think checking on what they are saying on their web site.
#define X(x,y) x##y

I don't know, why don't you download it, follow the installation instructions, and try again.

I've been using the G2 player for months. Sure, they call it "alpha", but it is better then the Windows port, almost. Download and install.

From the Macromedia website at http://www.macromedia.com/support/ shockwave/svt/ when you try to install Shockwave (i.e. Director, NOT Flash)....

You chose "Other" platform because you are not on Windows or Macintosh.

Currently, Macromedia has not made any announcements regarding versions of Shockwave Player for OS/2 or other platforms. Please stay tuned to this site for updated information about other platforms.

Please see Guide to Shockwave Player browser and platform compatibility for more information about which browsers and platforms are supported.

If you would like to log your request that Shockwave Player support platforms other than Windows and Macintosh, then please send us your feedback.

Well - go to it /. !!! P.S. be nice, no flames, etc.

#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak

From the Macromedia website at http://www.macromedia.com/support/ shockwave/svt/ when you try to install Shockwave (i.e. Director, NOT Flash)....

You chose "Other" platform because you are not on Windows or Macintosh.

Currently, Macromedia has not made any announcements regarding versions of Shockwave Player for OS/2 or other platforms. Please stay tuned to this site for updated information about other platforms.

Please see Guide to Shockwave Player browser and platform compatibility for more information about which browsers and platforms are supported.

If you would like to log your request that Shockwave Player support platforms other than Windows and Macintosh, then please send us your feedback.

Well - go to it /. !!! P.S. be nice, no flames, etc.

#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak

From the Macromedia website at http://www.macromedia.com/support/ shockwave/svt/ when you try to install Shockwave (i.e. Director, NOT Flash)....

You chose "Other" platform because you are not on Windows or Macintosh.

Currently, Macromedia has not made any announcements regarding versions of Shockwave Player for OS/2 or other platforms. Please stay tuned to this site for updated information about other platforms.

Please see Guide to Shockwave Player browser and platform compatibility for more information about which browsers and platforms are supported.

If you would like to log your request that Shockwave Player support platforms other than Windows and Macintosh, then please send us your feedback.

Well - go to it /. !!! P.S. be nice, no flames, etc.

#include "disclaim.h"
"All the best people in life seem to like LINUX." - Steve Wozniak

In the majority of cases, if not all, the use of frames can be replaced by nested tables. And there is an increasing trend to do this.

Using tables instead of frames will increase the number of potential users who can make sense of your website. If you have a frames based website, you should also provide a non-frames version out of consideration for people using a browser that doesn't support frames.

Anyone authoring a website with Frontpage (ugggh) will invariably have a frame based website when they don't need to. This means that a lot of mom and pop websites, as well as small commercial websites have frames.

Larger commercial sites are tending to not use frames unless they have a really good reason. Look at the source code for sites such as Oracle TechNet, Wired, and About.com for examples of sites that use tables over frames. Interestingly, Oracle Technet has only recently made the change and Oracle still uses frames.

Many commercial software packages for website design favour tables over frames. Macromedia Dreamweaver will do this I think, although their site uses frames.

Webmonkey has a good guide to how to construct frames, but the article does say
ask yourself: Do I really need frames at all? Most of the time, the answer is no. In my opinion, frames are only appropriate when you have a complex navigation structure going on - especially one that involves retaining a search query while reloading the search results (as in Cocktail or Net Surf Central).

At the end of the day the person you've hired has been asked to provide functionality into your existing web site, and while they shouldn't be stopped from making suggestions on how to improve your site, they do have a job to do. I'd be surprised if having frames actually prevents functionality being added.

I just loaded it under Opera 3.60 on Win98 with no problems. It did point out that I'm missing RealPlayer G2 and Macromedia Flash Player though.

Loading under IE5 on Win95 (I have to VNC for the Opera machine) it installed VB Scripting and still provided the same message. The only difference I could see between the two was the extra colours because I was VNCing in 8bit mode.

Now linux: VNC in 8 bit mode again (Netscape 4.51/Export). I certainly see what you mean, it tells me this.

I especially love the button on the bottom of that page ("Return to fox.com - just bounces you back again!)

Tried changing the User Agent string (using junkbuster) to Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98) without success. Looked at the code and noticed that it's all done with Javascript. Turned off javascript - now the document "contains no data".

Decided I don't really want to see fox.comanyway!

Oh - lynx version 2.8.1rel.2 just gives [EMBED] for / and blank for /frameset.html.

We covered this a few weeks back on slashdot.

1) It IS an open standard.
2) People CAN write and HAVE written their own implementations of it.
3) You do need a license, but it costs US$0.

At Macromedia's Flash section:

Flash Homepage
Free Flash Player source code
Open Flash file format FAQ
File format specification

To further Flash as a Web standard, Macromedia has undertaken many initiatives, including opening the Flash file format, releasing the Flash Player code for free licensing, and allowing redistribution of the Flash Player.

So there. It's not Open Source in and of itself, but it exposes the standard for Open Source to be created around it.

1) It IS an open standard.
2) People CAN write and HAVE written their own implementations of it.
3) You do need a license, but it costs US$0.

At Macromedia's Flash section:

Flash Homepage
Free Flash Player source code
Open Flash file format FAQ
File format specification

To further Flash as a Web standard, Macromedia has undertaken many initiatives, including opening the Flash file format, releasing the Flash Player code for free licensing, and allowing redistribution of the Flash Player.

So there. It's not Open Source in and of itself, but it exposes the standard for Open Source to be created around it.

1) It IS an open standard.
2) People CAN write and HAVE written their own implementations of it.
3) You do need a license, but it costs US$0.

At Macromedia's Flash section:

Flash Homepage
Free Flash Player source code
Open Flash file format FAQ
File format specification

To further Flash as a Web standard, Macromedia has undertaken many initiatives, including opening the Flash file format, releasing the Flash Player code for free licensing, and allowing redistribution of the Flash Player.

So there. It's not Open Source in and of itself, but it exposes the standard for Open Source to be created around it.

1) It IS an open standard.
2) People CAN write and HAVE written their own implementations of it.
3) You do need a license, but it costs US$0.

At Macromedia's Flash section:

Flash Homepage
Free Flash Player source code
Open Flash file format FAQ
File format specification

To further Flash as a Web standard, Macromedia has undertaken many initiatives, including opening the Flash file format, releasing the Flash Player code for free licensing, and allowing redistribution of the Flash Player.

So there. It's not Open Source in and of itself, but it exposes the standard for Open Source to be created around it.

Your company must not be able to read.

Be enlightened here.

My only guess is that they are officially moving out of beta to a general release. Flash player has been available for Linux and Solaris since November of last year.

They also mention a source liscense, so I guess they are releasing some sort of source now, not sure if this too is already available.

Now we just need a Shockwave player.

• Allaire ColdFusion
• Pervasive Software's Tango (soon to support Linux)
• Macromedia Generator, which one could argue is a very specialized type of application server. (And one I'd like to see for Linux/BSD)

I am a web developer for a company in Fredericksburg. I would highly recommend Dreamweaver. Go Live is really only marginally better and costs a little more than Macromedia. Plus when paired with Macromedia Fireworks, DW is a very powerful tool.

One reason it is so good is that it is true WYSIWYG. I have rarely seen any browser show a page any differently than it is shown in the workspace. Als, you can customize Dreamweaver. All your object bars can be changed to add actions you use regularly. DW will also write standard simple java scripts for things like rollovers and whatnot. Fireworks (The Macromedia vector graphics tool) will also export rollovers and regular images to DW.

I would also recommend looking into Allair's Net Objects Fusion. You get a very comparable (though not as feature rich) HTML editor and you get the ability to program cold fusion apps which is a sweet deal. If you don't need CF capabilities, check out Home Site which is allaire's editor stand alone. Considerably cheaper than both the products you were asking about.

You can d/l demos of dreamweaver, Net Objects Fusion , and Home Site from each company's homesite which I have listed below. You can also check out Fireworks.

If you already use Illustrator for vector graphics. Let me sing you the web praises of Fireworks. It has the best image export utility out there, handles vector graphics as well as Illustrator, and you can get a Dreamweaver/Fireworks package for a sweet price. Not to mention, FW is very geared to WEB graphics whereas Illustrator runs the gammut and is somewhat lacking in creating web graphics with exporting images. Fireworks can strip images down to such a small size it is incredible.

Also, while Amaya has allot of potential, it is still pretty spartan compared to what DW and Fusion are capable of. I have played with fusion a bit and it is certainly powerful, however most of what it can do, DW does as well. Plus, I like the interface of DW better than any of them, very intuative and user friendly.

Hope that helped.

Macromedia
Allaire