Slashdot Mirror

Actually, ActiveX does run just fine on the Mac, and has for a long time. I used it in 1996 to develop a plug-in system for a visual programming language called Bounce, and Mac Common Lisp). Metrowerks actually modified their C++ compiler to support it (adding a _comobject magic class that you can inherit from to get the vtable pointers formatted in the right place so multiple inheritance and QueryInterface worked together properly). Microsoft used it to port IE to the Mac, and paid Metrowerks to make the modifications to support it.

ActiveX/COM is actually quite a cool and useful technology, which is why Firefox uses XPCOM on all platforms, a clone of ActiveX/COM. Mozilla's XPCOM isn't the only clone of COM: before Mozilla developed XPCOM, Macromedia developed their own ActiveX clone called MOA on all platforms. mTropolis mFactory also had its own COM clone called MOM. There are actually lots of COM clones, many of which are incompatible with the real thing and require their own special tool chains to develop plug-ins (which is ironic since the goal of COM was cross language binary compatibility).

And yes, MacIE is a horrible wretched piece of crap, and open sourcing it would be a pointless waste of time. The JavaScript interpreter is uselessly sub-standard, and the DHTML implementation is missing many important features.

Microsoft hired a bunch of excellent Mac programmers to develop it, and they wrote much of their own code base from scratch (using the Metrowerks Powerplant gui toolkit, totally different than the new Aqua [old NeXT Step] libraries), but Microsoft pulled the rug out from under them before they could fix any of the bugs, and wouldn't let them support it, instead diverting them to other projects like WebTV. So it's languished for many years, and even if it were open sourced, it would be an enormous amount of work to bring it up to being compatible with modern web browsers.

-Don

Freehand's been taken...

I'll probably be flamed for suggesting a non-free, Flash-oriented solution on Slashdot, but...

Check out Macromedia Flex 2 (errr, I guess now it's "Adobe Flex 2"), currently available as a free alpha release

It's based around the (free) Eclipse IDE, and satisfies your requirements:

-- great look & feel
-- well-suited to pulling info from the web (think weather & news)
-- usable on the Linux and perhaps Mac OS X platforms as well as Windows (basically, anywhere Flash Player runs)
-- standards-based to some extent, believe it or not: ActionScript 3 is essentially identical to EcmaScript 4

Considering they're at version 8.0 right now of their player, I can't imagine how hard it would be to interface with a browser's status window and at least tell me something.

Actually, Flash does have support for representational state transfer through URLs: FlashStates. The basic premise is that anchors are placed after the URL to denote the proper Flash frame (or other state) to begin displaying. Here is a simple example. Another great example is the Yahoo! Maps Beta, which is all done in Flash. Yahoo! Maps Beta updates the URL to always represent the current map coordinates and zoom magnitude, so that you can easily copy the URL and paste it to your friends with AIM, a blog, email, etc etc.

Of course, not many Flash applications currently take advantage of FlashStates. But it's not an inherent shortcoming of Flash.

Flash(swf) is an open format. Go here for the specs: http://www.macromedia.com/licensing/developer/

And yes, you can create flash movies(swfs) without a license from macromedia. You just need to know how :-)

Check http://osflash.org/open_source_flash_projects for details about Open Source Flash projects.

Or maybe the FlashPlayer 8 Plugin for Linux. I check this job opening regularly, I figure as long as it's there the player is still far off.

Actually I can live with lack of a 64bit plugin. It means I have to use a precompiled 32bit Firefox-bin, but it's OK. Lack of 8 really bugs me, though. For my own stuff ant launches the windos standalone player under wine, but running Firefox under wine for normal web surfing just in case I come across an 8 website is too much.
In half a year or so the next player (8.5) will be released, with a new VM (JIT compiling etc). That's about when it'll become difficult to bear not to have it, because the alpha really looks good.

But yeah, a 64bit version would be nice, too.

Or maybe the FlashPlayer 8 Plugin for Linux. I check this job opening regularly, I figure as long as it's there the player is still far off.

Actually I can live with lack of a 64bit plugin. It means I have to use a precompiled 32bit Firefox-bin, but it's OK. Lack of 8 really bugs me, though. For my own stuff ant launches the windos standalone player under wine, but running Firefox under wine for normal web surfing just in case I come across an 8 website is too much.
In half a year or so the next player (8.5) will be released, with a new VM (JIT compiling etc). That's about when it'll become difficult to bear not to have it, because the alpha really looks good.

But yeah, a 64bit version would be nice, too.

• The main movie simply sends requests to the inline frame passing the current "page" in the Flash file via the querystring each time the user goes to a new section.
  
  
• When then inline frame SWF loads, it sends a local connection request to "goto this page" based on what it recieves on the querystring.
  
  
• The main movie intercepts the request and handles accordingly if it's a different page than the user is currently on.

• It requires Javascript so that you can add the querystring to the SWF embedding code of the hidden inline frame
  
  
• If Javascript isn't available on the client, it will have no impact on the site (assuming you don't use JS to embed the main SWF). The inline frame will be loaded each page switch, but since it won't have the querystring data, clicking back/forward won't do anything to the main SWF
  
  
• It's a good idea to use Javascript to generate unique local connection ids for each browser window and pass it to both SWFs, otherwise, if the user opens multiple copies of the same site in different windows, moving around in one will cause the other windows to also move around magically :D
  
  
• It makes it much easier if you build your app so that a single function call is responsible for moving between sections of the site.
  
  
• While you're at it, you can also make your Flash file allow deep linking by looking for querystring requests to specific pages (again, passed to the SWF via Javascript) and using your section switch function accordingly ;)

• The main movie simply sends requests to the inline frame passing the current "page" in the Flash file via the querystring each time the user goes to a new section.
  
  
• When then inline frame SWF loads, it sends a local connection request to "goto this page" based on what it recieves on the querystring.
  
  
• The main movie intercepts the request and handles accordingly if it's a different page than the user is currently on.

• It requires Javascript so that you can add the querystring to the SWF embedding code of the hidden inline frame
  
  
• If Javascript isn't available on the client, it will have no impact on the site (assuming you don't use JS to embed the main SWF). The inline frame will be loaded each page switch, but since it won't have the querystring data, clicking back/forward won't do anything to the main SWF
  
  
• It's a good idea to use Javascript to generate unique local connection ids for each browser window and pass it to both SWFs, otherwise, if the user opens multiple copies of the same site in different windows, moving around in one will cause the other windows to also move around magically :D
  
  
• It makes it much easier if you build your app so that a single function call is responsible for moving between sections of the site.
  
  
• While you're at it, you can also make your Flash file allow deep linking by looking for querystring requests to specific pages (again, passed to the SWF via Javascript) and using your section switch function accordingly ;)

Macromedia should school Adobe on help files?

Have you seen Macromedia LiveDocs? I remember they sent out a survey about what users wanted for an online help system - and LiveDocs is somehow what they came up with. Why are docs javascript driven? Why do they take 45 seconds to load? Why do all the pages have stupid urls like http://livedocs.macromedia.com/flash/mx2004/main_7 _2/wwhelp/wwhimpl/js/html/wwhelp.htm?href=Part_ASL R.html? Where is the single list of all classes? Also, the amount of typos and error in the Flash documentation has been astounding.

Just because something is innovative, it doesn't necessarily follow that it is in fact progressive. It's as sad as getting a black-and-white plasma TV and thinking you've got game.

AJAX is just a collection of workarounds in a fancy box. Sure, it might be good for tiny apps where you want to spare your users a few page refreshes, but unless your company name ends in *oogle or *ahoo, you'll be hard pressed finding the resources to design/develop/cross-browser-debug/maintain anything complex. It has no dedicated IDE, no modern component set, no state management (iframes == workaround), no rich media tools, no cross-browser compatibility...and that's just off the top of my head.

But hey, I love that AJAX exists, and I think everybody should use AJAX!

After all, the more anachronistic web developers who use AJAX, the fewer who will use Flex, meaning there will be that many fewer *truely* bleeding edge web applications to compete with.

All I can say is 'fight the power, you anti-proprietary, anti-flash /.ers' and leave the RIA work to us misdirected Flex developers!

--------

Cynicism is just arrogance wrapped in distain.

go to http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en /flashplayer/help/settings_manager05.html
then tell it not to check for updates.

Yes I do find it annoying that I have to use a website to change flash's settings, but its better than not being able to change the settings.

the abovel ink works fine for me (shrug) Flash 8 fixes a critical security bug in flash in all prior versions...Microsoft even posted an advisory about it... heres macro medias' http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/security/security _zone/mpsb05-07.html

Adding an additional 2 hops for database content won't make much sense for web applications.

There wouldn't be an extra two hops if you're fetching the data from the client-side with AJAX or Macromedia Flex. In fact, Google Base's servers might be faster than your own hosting. Of course, I don't think it makes business sense to store user data solely with Google, but the performance penalties can be factored out.

There are several screen capture to SWF generators:

1) Captivate.
2) Viewletbuilder.
3) Wink.

Right, because CDs never have anything related to DRM...

(Just to list a few)

In fact, you can try it out yourself: a public alpha of the player with the new VM, along with an alpha of the new Eclipse-based authoring tool ("Flex 2.0"), is available *free* (as in beer, not in speech) at http://labs.macromedia.com/ ...

There's more than just a new VM; it also provides an ECMAScript-4 compliant language ("ActionScript 3" in Macromedia-speak), which seems *much* more suitable for real coding work.

(Disclaimer: I work for Macromedia, so I'm not unbiased, but even so, it's pretty cool :-)

Let me lead the pack by saying Ajax is not the future, just the past's last gasp. Ajax might seem like a dream combination of souped-up Javascript and souped-up HTML but really its old technology in a fancy wrapper. With all the cross-browser, cross-platform issues, lack of stateful sessions (I dare you to say 'cookie'), no decent IDE, and at the heart of it is just a hack. Elegant, yes, but a hack. This isn't web 2.0, this is web 1.1.

Now to really bring out the hate.

First, I hate crappy Flash banners, obtuse flash navigation systems, and pointless flash splash screens as much as everybody else, but what Macromedia Flex is bringing to the table almost makes up for it.

Visit http://labs.macromedia.com/ and you'll see the new version of Macromedia Flex, (which will be priced under $1000.00 for the IDE and compiler come the next version), and you can truly experience Web 2.0. This thing is a dream, builds fast, clean apps with professional components and containers on top of a powerful framework. This isn't Avalon bloatware, or lazlo OSS 'almost-ware', and it certainly isn't Ajax hack-ware, this is where the future of rich online applications are headed.

Try it (free to download the 120+ day Alpha) and then disagree. Or stay old-school, and play catch-up later on.

A laptop would hardly do, now that /. knows about it. Just go with what you all ready have.

I hear that you can also stream video with Flash, that could be a very good solution, too.
http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/flash/articles/fl v_download_04.html
It wouldn't require an investment anything more than Windows Server (required for streaming video to Windows Media Player).

How to uninstall macromedia flash:

http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/in dex.cfm?id=tn_14157

I had the same feeling, until I saw the video previews of the applications built on the Avalon/Windows Presentation Foundation/Whatever graphics engine. I was blown away. Applications on a whole new level, with wild potential in creativity and possibility, really achieving massive productivity increases.

I'm very far from a Microsoft fan, I'm much more leaning towards Macromedia's Flash platform push with Flex. But overall, I'm very excited about what will happen with applications in the future, enabled by the Vista release.

I've tried to find the videos again on Google, but no luck yet.

I'm not sure about Sun and Java, but Macromedia gives out licenses to redistribute their player plugins. There's an application process, so they probably don't hand them out to anyone that asks, but it can't be too difficult to get one if you can do it on the Web.

Sigh.. the only way to watch it is via MOV?? And they're 50-80Mb!!? People please be kind and give options.. I'd prefer a format like this 5 minutes to build an app that retrieves images from Flickr(presentation from web 2.0 conference in Flash8) or better yet one of these Which is a tiny file.. or even a WMV file..

I really need to watch the videos referenced in this article, but I have to install software on my system to do it and would rather not have Qucktime on my system.

It needs some plugin (http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs /director/sw.cab#version=8,5,1,0) that I don't seem to have. I've got flash installed. Anyone know what this is?

Indeed. It looks like there is no formal specification. So you are fucked. That's what's good about specifications; either the program is bad or the spec is bad, but at least you know where to point.

It seems they provide a syntax checker -- this is a program that supposedly tells if your program is kosher or not.

But then again, given that there isn't a spec, what do you do when there are differences between what the checker accepts and what the interpreter accepts? Hmmmmm. I guess you rip your hair out.

When you use a program like this to define what is allowed, you essentially say, "whatever is good is whatever this program accepts. It is what it is. Have a nice day, biatch!" It is the road to hell.

Here's the checker: http://livedocs.macromedia.com/coldfusion/5.0/Deve loping_ColdFusion_Applications/debugError3.htm

Good luck!

SWF an open format? WTF since when?

I don't know when they started publishing the format, it's been some time. Note that the keyword here is "open", used in the same way as fifteen years ago, when it only meant you could look inside the machine and were limited in what you could make with the information. It is very remote from open source or free software, or even standards.

You have to agree to a licence to get the Flash specification. You notably have to agree to use the information only to generate Flash files, and not play them. That's all you can get for free. I don't know if you can pay to get a licence to create Flash players, or if Macromedia reserves that right for themselves exclusively.

Here's Macromedia licencing page: http://www.macromedia.com/licensing/developer/

Macrovision and Macromedia are two separate, very different companies. Macrovision is in the copy prevention business, and has been for decades. Macrovision's products include SafeDisc (popular game copy prevention for CDs), CDS (audio CD copy prevention), and Macrovision (analog video copy prevention).

See here:

ile size: 926 K
Download Time Estimate: 2 minutes @ 56K modem
Version: 8,0,22,0
Browser: Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox, Opera, and CompuServe
Date Posted: 9/12/2005
Language: English

I haven't used it. I did hear it is a lot faster for Safari according to MacOSXHints.

"... you are granted a nonexclusive license to use the Specification for the sole purposes of developing Products that output SWF.

Of course flash is a closed standard. Macromedia has published a closed document detailing their closed file format:

http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flash/flash_fil e_format_specification.pdf

Check out MTASC, the open source flash compiler, or GPLFlash, the open source flash player. Amazing what they can do with such a closed and secretive format.

Modded down by what, a coward avoiding the truth? Come on, dude, grow a backbone! Or is /. just a dumping ground for disgruntled nerds who can't accept that the general population doesn't bow to their terrific marketing tactics('commercial software sucks, dude...you suck if you use it, dude' is about as sophisticated as I've seen...only missing the 'just hire a guy like me to make it work' truth bit that you usually only see in big evil corps.).

Flash is very good at what it does. MTASC (OSS) is a much better compiler (faster, stricter) than the Flash compiler. FDT is a fantastic IDE (build for Eclipse...my God Commercial software using OSS as a base...my head's gonna explode!) and much better than Dreamweaver/Flash for development and probably better than Zorn (Macromedia's new Eclipse IDE).

Just stop pissing in the wind and let people on the other side of the argument have a voice, or you just start looking like the rest of American (well, fine, World) news and media.

------

Reality only affects those who participate.

Of course flash is a closed standard. Macromedia has published a closed document detailing their closed file format:

http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flash/flash_fil e_format_specification.pdf

Check out MTASC, the open source flash compiler, or GPLFlash, the open source flash player. Amazing what they can do with such a closed and secretive format.

Works perfectly fine for me. I'm using Shockwave Flash 8.0 r15.

You can get it here: http://www.macromedia.com/software/flashplayer/pub lic_beta/

I need all sorts of pointless geeky wizzy crap that need the latest version of the latest browser and a broadband internet connection to even get started with!

I like websites with obscene amounts of Flash too!

The problem isn't lack of interest, but lack of manpower.

See this blog entry by one of the Flash Player engineers discussing the problems in porting to Linux and AMD64... and note that and the end he comments:

"If you bothered to read to this point it means that Macromedia wants you really bad. Really, really bad. :-) We've been looking for Linux gurus for a while (well, it has been for more than a year now without anyone being even close to what we need, I guess they all go to Google...) and for best results they would have to be in house. Collaboration with the team here on a daily basis as a long term full time employee will be key to get the best results. So apply right now for this job. Not only will you be able to do exciting work on Linux, you'll even be paid for it!"

Why do we go through this every time Flash is mentioned? Flash is an open standard.

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).

The format is only made available to those who agree to a restrcitive licence. That's not open.

I recently attended one of their "Macromedia Studio 8 Launch" seminars that showed Studio 8, as well as Flash Player 8. The reasoning behind this, is that they now have a SEPERATE Flash player for cell phones (comes on certain Nokia, Seimens, and one more that I can't remember...and they are working on partnering up with more phone companies). You will be asked NOT to install Flash Player on those, and then you will be asked NOT to install Flash Player Mobile on a desktop. IMO...not a big deal.

From MM http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/in dex.cfm?id=tn_14157

To manually uninstall the Macromedia Flash Player plug-in on Windows, Linux, or Solaris:

1. Quit the browser.
(Netscape, CompuServe, or Opera)

I use mozilla, mmm trying to quit non existant browser.

Now what is wrong with an uninstall script ???

There's this belief that if someone owns a standard, it can't be open.

A standard is open if anyone is allowed to use it without owing the standards owner anything at all.

In fact, even the W3C standards are owned by someone, they're copyright the W3C consortium.

The W3C requires nothing in return for use of their standards. They put no restrictions on implementation or use of the standards. This was made clear a couple of years ago when they were debating including some technology that was owned by a particular company. When it became clear that 'net developers in general would not agree to "fair, non-discriminatory" licensing that excluded the GPL, W3C modified the standard.

The opposite of open is not proprietary, it is secret.

No; the opposite of open is use-controlled. If someone puts a price on the *use* of knowledge, they are putting in place an artificial barrier to progress. The intent is blatantly to lock out certain groups; otherwise, what is the point of the barrier in the first place?

An open standard is available for anyone to implement, with or without approval of the copyright owner of the specification. "Open" means "unencumbered," not "available for people to read, but not implement."

The Flash specification is not secret, if it was there wouldn't be Open Source Flash authoring tools.

Unfortunately, just like the SMB "standard," the Flash(tm) specification cannot be used to implement an open viewer*. Flash(tm) must be reverse-engineered, because of the afore-mentioned artificial barriers that keep Flash(tm) from being an open standard.

* Specifically, the license page states that "This license does not permit the usage of the specification to create software which supports SWF file playback."

Here's their email support form. Not for any childish flames, of course, but if you don't like something a company is doing you should let them know.

I actually used that form not too long ago to request VOLUME CONTROL via the plugin, and got either a very well written form letter, or a response from a human being. I was impressed. I'll be even more impressed if it gets implemented.

"Pursuant to the terms and conditions of this License, you are granted a nonexclusive license to use the Specification for the sole purposes of developing Products that output SWF."

MM tells you that their spec publication must not be used to create a decoder. So, from the license terms to the specs, gplflash may be illegal.

gplflash could be on the save side if they have a clean-room reverse engineering of the specs, or if they are in a country where MM's license terms are not valid. But it's interesting that gplflash's Web site doesn't mention the licensing problematic at all. So, it maybe very well that they're not in the clean legally.

Cheers, Joachim
(posting anonymously, since I don't want to throw away my mods that I just did)

Fourth, it's proprietary, because MM wants to stay in control, but the specs are readily available, as is the source code of the player.
There is nothing to stop you from making your own Flash content generator or player. Have a look at OSFlash.org for a list of Flash-related Open Source projects.

You cannot legally use the flash specs to create your own player.

Is why they would want to restrict what you can use it for at all? You'd think that more popular = better image = better? I could understand restricting the dev kits but why wouldn't they want people to be able to play flash on non-PC devices?

I can only assume it's the same basic rule of thumb....

An individual can download the product (so long as it's not over a network) and use it for non-profit use.

A company who wishes to use it for a display, kiosk, or wants to employ a specalized version of their software on a dediated device rather than a general purpose PC must contact the copyright holder for a license. This would include cable company provided surfing boxes.

A mobile phone, a PDA, or any other device that the end user has no ability to install software onto requires a different license... after all the end user isn't agreeing it's the vender who's giving it to them.

It's easy enough to understand, if you make a buck using their product they might want a piece of the pie, either money or advertising time, either way you must reach an agreement with them. If you plan to distribute it eithin your intranet you must agree to a different license. This makes sense as an average employee may not have the authority to agree to the terms of a license.

While it all might seem anal-retentive, it's their product and they do have every right to choose to distribute it how they please. You have the right to choose to use it per the agreement offered, not to use it, or ask for different terms which, "Macromedia offers the License Agreement as-is and enters into custom agreements on an extremely limited basis".

Now why they can't work out their license agreement into something easy to understand yet legaly sound is beyond me.

Here's their email support form. Not for any childish flames, of course, but if you don't like something a company is doing you should let them know.

Instructions are already there. (Found by about 15 seconds of googling...)

http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/knowledgebase/in dex.cfm?id=tn_14157

My friend's Windows XP Tablet edition is specifically listed as a platform that's in violation of the agreement

They've appeared to have changed the license:

  Microsoft Windows operating systems (including desktop and standard-laptop PC versions of Windows 95, 98, 2000, NT, ME, XP Home, XP Professional, and XP Tablet PC Edition, but specifically excluding Windows XP Embedded and successor products thereto),

Why are they so nuts about banning "embedded editions" (they have this clause for Linux too)?

I don't mean to interrupt or anything, but you can download the PocketPC version of the flash player from Macromedia at the following URL: http://www.macromedia.com/software/devices/product s/pocketpc/downloads/ That would suggest to me that they'll let you put it on PDAs, mobile devices, yatta yatta.

License conflict of the day... If you get a distribution license for your company or intranet which is free, the license terms are here. http://www.macromedia.com/licensing/distribution/l icense That allows tablet pc's and what not, but not embedded devices. Someone there needs to get their licenses straight.

Please verify your facts before spreadin FUD. Read the second sentence, second paragraph here. It quite clearly states that FSOs are only available to the domain that originally set them. In other words, it has exactly the same restrictions that cookies and JavaScript have wrt cross domain access.

right here from our "friends" at Omniture

so a visiting a page that you can adjust your privacy settings will actually compromise your privacy,
now you can see why the privacy GUI is on Macromedia's site and not built into the player, but thats not suprising

seems Flash is slowly becoming spyware, shame