Slashdot Mirror

Isn't this just a low budget version of the Macromedia site?

I miss the old color scheme. Yeah it looked kind of pissy/crappy but at least Mozilla owned pissy/crappy. And square too.

While I am adding my utterly worthless 2 cents (since thats what this submission is mostly about), I also would like a bigger draggon (god/mozilla, whatever...). I think a lot of people get excited about Mozilla because of the draggon...seriously. Now its all just cool bubbled internet blue. Why didn't they add a Swoosh too?

Let me be the first to suggest FileMaker Pro Migrator by .com Solutions. I mucked about with the trial version of the program and it does look like it accomplishes quite a bit. And I guess that once you've got the data moved over, you could use a program like Dreamweaver to tweak the web-based interface.

Man, they didn't even change the color scheme.

We test using the following on web apps:

• Target browsers for intranet apps (even though we use standards as much as practically possible)
• W3C validators for HTML, CSS, and Links
• Validators within WebSphere Studio (Java, JSP, HTML), HomeSite (HTML) and TopStyle (CSS)
• JavaScript Console and Debugger in Mozilla/Firefox
• JUnit
• Cactus
• People. The users. The project owners. Us. Other web developers on e-mail lists.

• We aren't currently using an automated tool to test the front-end flow, because we haven't found any good, easy-to-use, and cheap tools that support a modern version of DOM/JavaScript usage. If you know of something that you like and works, I'd love to know about it. I've tried httpUnit, but had trouble setting it up and it didn't support all the DOM methods we were using at the time.

The SWF-specs are freely available at http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/open/lice nsing/fileformat/.

Flash is an open SPECIFICATION, meaning Macromedia will tell you how to read and write them. IT IS NOT AN OPEN FORMAT.

If only. Then it would be no worse than PDF. Have you ever read the license terms associated with the published specification? They specifically restrict you to generation and disallow playback implementations. So, no open source flash player. That's not even an open specification, that's just the same sad old we-must-control-things mindset that open source has been fighting since the beginning.

Some of the open source work that's been done has been based on reverse-engineering, but really, just use SVG. It's a real pity too. Flash (the technology, not what it's usually used for) is quite useful and well implemented to boot. Just another case of routing around the damage.

You can generate Word documents from OO.o, what the hell's your point?

My point is that Macromedia PUBLISHED information on the SWF format and supports to community using open-souce tools. It's not "open source", but it is less restrictive like Java. Saying that Macromedia is like Microsoft is incorrect in using proptiary formats and tools is incorrect. To quote, you said "They are desperately trying to be Microsoft by locking people into their file formats".

That would mean 1996 was your start, which means you STARTED after Myst was completed with QuickTime and HyperCard on a Quadra, at the same time Flash was crashing everyone's browser left and right.

No, I started using Director when Netscape was still in beta (actually, a little more then eight years ago). You just said, "Everything Director does can be done in QuickTime and was done in QuickTime BEFORE Director " --

First of all, Director is much older than Quicktime:

Dec 1991, Apple Computer releases QuickTime version 1.0

In 1988, 'VideoWorks Interactive Pro' becomes Director 1.0

So Director was doing things many years before Quicktime. Sure, if you use quicktime with another authoring tool you can get the same results but if you say "quicktime better than director" you are comparing to very different things.

PS Animated GIFs are better than photoshop.

lately I've been hearing alot about this horrible upcoming MS thing called XAML - and (quoting a nameless slashdotter) how it's akin to VB crack for its power and ease of use.

I could be wrong, but I think many people have overlooked that the kind of pervasive scary crap is already here, and it has been here for awhile now.
While I love Java and use it heavily, I admit that Flash is more ubiquitious it runs on almost every major OS and browser. Delivers more on the write once run anywhere.
-Flash is extremely fast and easy to install. it's literally point and click. I don't even think the player is even a 1mb...
-Flash is extremely easy to learn and use: my female, graphic designer cousin who hates anything "technical and dorky" makes flash apps all the time; hell most of flash dev is visual drag and drop
-Flash is getting more powerful by the minute: http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/flashpro/ development/
http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/flashpro/ video/
http://www.macromedia.com/software/central/

lately I've been hearing alot about this horrible upcoming MS thing called XAML - and (quoting a nameless slashdotter) how it's akin to VB crack for its power and ease of use.

I could be wrong, but I think many people have overlooked that the kind of pervasive scary crap is already here, and it has been here for awhile now.
While I love Java and use it heavily, I admit that Flash is more ubiquitious it runs on almost every major OS and browser. Delivers more on the write once run anywhere.
-Flash is extremely fast and easy to install. it's literally point and click. I don't even think the player is even a 1mb...
-Flash is extremely easy to learn and use: my female, graphic designer cousin who hates anything "technical and dorky" makes flash apps all the time; hell most of flash dev is visual drag and drop
-Flash is getting more powerful by the minute: http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/flashpro/ development/
http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/flashpro/ video/
http://www.macromedia.com/software/central/

lately I've been hearing alot about this horrible upcoming MS thing called XAML - and (quoting a nameless slashdotter) how it's akin to VB crack for its power and ease of use.

I could be wrong, but I think many people have overlooked that the kind of pervasive scary crap is already here, and it has been here for awhile now.
While I love Java and use it heavily, I admit that Flash is more ubiquitious it runs on almost every major OS and browser. Delivers more on the write once run anywhere.
-Flash is extremely fast and easy to install. it's literally point and click. I don't even think the player is even a 1mb...
-Flash is extremely easy to learn and use: my female, graphic designer cousin who hates anything "technical and dorky" makes flash apps all the time; hell most of flash dev is visual drag and drop
-Flash is getting more powerful by the minute: http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/flashpro/ development/
http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/flashpro/ video/
http://www.macromedia.com/software/central/

Oops. I should clarify this a bit. The SWF standard is available from Macromedia. I think this is the proper link. The FLA file format is proprietary.

swf is open enough for me.

http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/flashpro/ development/

http://www.macromedia.com/software/central/

Am I wrong?

I love and use Java like hell, even though applets are now usable - but so far only Flash can really claim write once, run anywhere ubiquity. I don't even think XAML stands up to it and Flash is already pretty much in every browser from Win, Mac, to Linux....

http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/flashpro/ development/

http://www.macromedia.com/software/central/

Am I wrong?

I love and use Java like hell, even though applets are now usable - but so far only Flash can really claim write once, run anywhere ubiquity. I don't even think XAML stands up to it and Flash is already pretty much in every browser from Win, Mac, to Linux....

I think your argument is correct. Who could possibly think there's other companies or organizations that build influential software that people use all the time?

No, truly, Microsoft is the only place to create influential software...

flash, hmm

you might want to read this

http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/alter nates/

Macromedia Central is an application that can be installed through a web browser without having to download a package, restart the OS or the browser even, or get any OS authentication from the user. It even installs itself on OS X without asking for the administrator password the way everything else normally installs on OS X. I'm sure it can be used to install another browser, because it is pretty much a Flash browser independent of a web browser. I'm actually not to keen on the way it installs. It seems like a really big security hole just waiting to be exploited.

macromedia's page about it

Mostly, flash started out closer to an image format than a 'rich client' and shockwave was supposed to be the rich client, but then flash got way popular and gained features, taking a big chunk of shockwave's market. Also, Flash-->flash, Director-->shockwave. Sort of anyway.

Maybe they're trying to get publicity for it, and will apply it later down the line to more than just web browsers. Active X works for other things too like databases, which is really useful. If Linux and Mac OS had a similar standard, it could be applied in other programs on both platforms. That kind of functionality is missing on both platforms at the moment, I think. Apple, IBM, and Lotus tried to establish OpenDoc ages ago but it didn't catch.

Macromedia must also be getting into this because Microsoft sees Flash as a threat to their control of the interface and plans to push their own standard, "Sparkle". Flash seems to have accomplished what Java applets were supposed to do on the web, providing a cross-platform programming language that actually works without interference from Microsoft, and can be used for more than just animation. Macromedia Central was supposed to allow Flash to be used for making applications that can work independently of a web browser, seamlessly across different platforms, but I don't know why that hasn't caught on either.

Why does everything from Sun look so Über-ugly? Take Java for instance. Did you see the JMF demos? The whole setup was so dull. No wonder nobody noticed it. Same with the Java Desktop which is even crappier than some really haphazard themes I've seen on freshmeat.
And now this. This looky extremely crappy by even the most modest standards in design and aestetics.
It also work the other way, of course: How come everything from Macromedia looks cool, but has the operatability of some cheapo shareware app?
Weird.

Just because it's Java doesn't mean it will run on everything. It will run on a lot of things, I'll give you that, but I personally find the Linux x86 version of Java to have many errors with it's forms that aren't present in the Win32 version. My bank's online banking system was a great example of this, then they started using HTML to do everything (probably after people complaining).

Flash is a slightly better option, as the specs are published such that you can make your own player/interpreter. Though it won't work on old hardware. Using scripts on the server end and allowing access via a web browser would be best, and possibly have the option of wether or not you wish to use Flash for the more techincal bits that HTML can't do.

They could have written it in <insert open scripting language here>, using <insert favourite widget toolkit>. That would have done the trick, provided it's well supported across most platforms and isn't difficult or huge to install.

I'll leave you with a quote which is fairly relevant to your comment :P

While these are not open-source, free solutions, most of them offer a free try-out and a very cost-effective fee for their use. Please consider:

1) Marratech This is a fully secure collaboration space that supports both VoIP and videoconferencing. You may want to try immediately by using one of the several available test rooms. Kolabora.com Direct access from here or here (Win, Mac, Linux)

2) Flash Communication Server -FCS offers full web-based VoIP and videoconferencing across mulitiple platforms. To see how easy it is to use go ahead and test it from any major OS on anyone of these online services:
2a. Uvault Demo Rooms
2b. Megameeting
2c. E-boardroom

3) iVisit - This is a very cost-effective audio/video application which integrates the ability to create private spaces. (Win & Mac only)

4) Convoq ASAP - This is a web conferencing and live presentation solution. While the presenter needs to be on a PC, attendees can join from any major OS. Convoq integrates VoIP and videoconferencing using FCS.

After installing this patch, I found that several of my existing programs ceased working, not that I need them for anything important - see the list below

• Adobe Creative Suite

  Macromedia Studio MX 2004

  Mozilla Firefox 0.9

  Symantec Antivirus Coprorate Edition

  Windiows Media Player 9

  Microsoft Excel 2003

  and most perplexing - Windows XP

See Flex. ... a familiar, standards-based programming framework and powerful set of components for creating a rich, responsive presentation tier ... Presentation and demo, sample apps, white papers. This could be the future of interactive web-based apps.

See Flex. ... a familiar, standards-based programming framework and powerful set of components for creating a rich, responsive presentation tier ... Presentation and demo, sample apps, white papers. This could be the future of interactive web-based apps.

See Flex. ... a familiar, standards-based programming framework and powerful set of components for creating a rich, responsive presentation tier ... Presentation and demo, sample apps, white papers. This could be the future of interactive web-based apps.

See Flex. ... a familiar, standards-based programming framework and powerful set of components for creating a rich, responsive presentation tier ... Presentation and demo, sample apps, white papers. This could be the future of interactive web-based apps.

A bunch of replies to this thread have mentioned Flash as a potential solution. "Real" developers don't like Flash though, because the IDE sucks. (I use it every day, it does.) Macromedia has an answer for that too, and it's Flex, which doesn't require any specific IDE. (However, they're working on one, and it looks pretty hot so far.)

Why has nobody managed (or tried) to take the last step?

The first problem is that anyone trying to do a web app has to support Internet Explorer if they want to reach a reasonable number of users. Macromedia is trying to do the rich web client thing with flex. I basically compiles the UI to Flash but still communicates with the server. There is a good demo and presentation on that site. However be prepared to fall off your chair laughing when you find out how much it costs.

Contrary to Microsoft's, UNIX and POSIX APIs have been very stable

That isn't exactly true. Posix only has about a 1000 apis. It doesn't cover things like a GUI, rich access control and security, printing (not job submission but actual page composition), databases. There have been random UNIX centric APIs that have covered all those such as Xlib, XT, Motif, Gtk, Qt, KDE, Kerberos, DCE etc. However they too have evolved over time just like Microsoft APIs have.

I will certainly agree that UNIX centric APIs are usually (but not always) better designed.

I think you're bang on the money regarding Microsoft and open standards.

My prophecy is that Microsoft have their eye on the next web battle over standards - XAML vs. XUL vs. Flex.

> Is it also hard to control your fingers typing it out?

Sometimes.

> Give me a single example that makes sense. A single example of misuse.

For more information on that, go here.

This is being done outside of the W3C, with the hope of getting a viable alternative to Longhorn's XAML available soon

Okay, Microsoft are trying to develop some standards. If history says anything about how the web has evolved its that the users define the standard. If it works, we use it. XML works. Macromedias Flash app is a defacto standard, created outside the W3C. If it works, we use it. Suns Java is pretty popular too. A lot of stuff is created outside the W3C, it all works, if its good we install it. simple really.

* Which is what you should be doing anyway, especially if dealing with third parties that may not have your font.
** From the replies it seems a lot of people just need "simple" solutions for image and vector editing. For basic tasks, GIMP is fine (changing sizes, cropping). I have no qualms there.

Microsoft product is called infopath In the market for web based forms thier are a bunch of products however the big 3, in name, would be microsoft's infopath, Macromedia's Flex, and adobe report products. With the most wide spread being abode, mainly because they purchased formflow which has wide use.

This "bash Flash" thread is partially earned and partially geek FUD. In specific response to ".com B4 .storm"s comments...

• You can't bookmark a specific page in Flash unless the DEVELOPER has prepared a way for you to do so. Most don't bother. Ditto with frame-based sites, or sites that use extensive DHTML/JavaScript for UI adjustment. Heck, some form-based sites can't even be bookmarked.
• Again, a drawback with the DEVELOPER, not the TECHNOLOGY. It's ridiculously easy to make a block of text selectable in a Flash movie.
• Accessibility has been a sore spot for Flash, agreed. The most recent versions of Flash provide support for MSAA (Microsoft Access Accessibility) tags for browser readers -- think of it as ALT tags for Flash objects. Of course, it only works in IE on Windows, but it's a start.
• Macromedia has published the specifications for SWF. This O'Reilly's article that points out Flash is closed but SWF is open. That's why Adobe made LiveMotion (now discontinued because it couldn't compete with Flash), or Electric Rain can make Swift3D... the SWF format is available. (I see you conveniently ignored GIF, even though it is far more widely used than PNG... but, alas, it is not an open standard.) Are PostScript and PDF bad because they are not open source? Omigod, what happens if Adobe goes out of business tomorrow? Uh... if you are seriously worried about things like that, you have a very weak grasp of the economy; companies with highly succesful products used by millions of people rarely "go under" without years of forewarning, and even then they are generally bought by others so the successful products can march on. (Flash was originally called FutureSplash, before being bought by Macromedia... Freehand was published by Aldus before Adobe bought the company for PageMaker and sold Freehand to Macromedia... hmmm...) As for the threat of royalties, neither Macromedia or Adobe are that stupid, and you know it.

Finally, of course Flash is not a replacement for HTML, XML and CSS. But those things are not replacements for Flash. None of the open standards you mentioned are even remotely capable of doing the things SWF does. You are not making a useful, level comparison. Next you'll say that DVDs are not as good as CDs because they can't be used to play music in your home stereo.

How do you "bookmark" a section of a Flash movie? If I find something interesting in a Flash-based web site, and I want to come back to it later, I have to remember all the cutesy menus I had to go through just to get back there.

I could badly design a site using a single HTML file and a bit of CSS that's completely unbookmarkable beyond what you see when you first load the page. I'd be an idiot to do so, as would anyone presenting Flash content that isn't divided such that it can be bookmarked at reasonable points during site navigation. Don't blame the tools, blame those that go out of their way to abuse them.

Most Flash pages do not allow copying of text. So, not only can I not easily bookmark the information I want, I can't copy it either unless I whip out a text editor and re-type everything myself.

Again, I could make a site that's an extreme hassle to copy text from using HTML and a bit of CSS. Again, don't blame the tools.

Accessibility! Perhaps Macromedia or someone else has a solution for this, but I've yet to hear of such a thing. How accessible are Flash sites to, say, blind people? If your computer can't access the information as text, how can it read it to you or present it in Braille?

Mind you, I'm not blind, but Macromedia's been promoting Accessibility for a while now. Further, how many existing HTML/CSS-based web sites comply with AAA/508 accessibility guidelines? Provide proper aural stylesheets? How many developers know the capabilities and limitations, or even the names of popular accessibility software? Or even know what the AAA and 508 guidelines are?

Time for a geeky one: it's a closed standard. Unlike HTML, and JPEG, and PNG, and XML, and CSS, etc. Flash is not really an open standard. You have to use Macromedia's tools if you want to do anything serious with the format. If Macromedia goes out of business tomorrow, and you can't get Flash for Windows Longhorn or Mac OS X Tiger, oh well you're screwed. And what happens if they decide they want royalties for every .swf you put on your web site?

Valid complaint, but there are both open and commercial alternatives to the Flash application, and documentation of the format is available. If Macromedia disappeared tomorrow, these open alternatives and documentation wouldn't suddenly cease to exist. If Sun were to disappear tomorrow, would all Java developers and products become dead weight?

According to Macromedia "more than 98 percent of Internet-connected desktops" can view Flash. They're not shutting out that many people. And note that the point of that press release is that Flash 7 is out for Linux, so even people without Windows or a Mac can see it. It's surprising, but Flash is almost universal.

On the other hand, sometimes it is nice not to be at the mercy of a Flash movie for site navigation...

Other platforms download link:
http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/alter nates/

Linux x86 Flash Player 7 for Mozilla 1.2
http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index .cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash&P2_Platform=Li nux&P3_Browser_Version=Netscape4



Older version not supported by MacroMedia

Linux x86 (1) (2) Flash Player 6 for Mozilla 1.1
http://macromedia.mplug.org/

(1) Not officially supported by Macromedia.

(2) These Linux packages (RPM, DEB, ebuild) are available for manual download, apt-get, urpmi, or emerge for these supported operating systems: RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE, Conectiva, Debian, Gentoo, Generic.



Server Slashdotting starts in 3...2...1... =]

Other platforms download link:
http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/alter nates/

Linux x86 Flash Player 7 for Mozilla 1.2
http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index .cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash&P2_Platform=Li nux&P3_Browser_Version=Netscape4



Older version not supported by MacroMedia

Linux x86 (1) (2) Flash Player 6 for Mozilla 1.1
http://macromedia.mplug.org/

(1) Not officially supported by Macromedia.

(2) These Linux packages (RPM, DEB, ebuild) are available for manual download, apt-get, urpmi, or emerge for these supported operating systems: RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE, Conectiva, Debian, Gentoo, Generic.



Server Slashdotting starts in 3...2...1... =]

Normally I'd agree with you, but you know what? The swf format is open. If you had a lot of spare time on your hands and really wanted to, you could write your own flash player - or authoring tool, for that matter. Macromedia are actually rather nice to developers, and I'm sure that if enough people pestered them about a linux version of Flash (hey, they already have an OSX version of both Flash and Director, so it can't be _that_ far off) they'd deliver. I'd love that. But the market probably isn't big enough yet.

well, maybe you have to make up an email address to get it, but it's available.

Most likely they think they retain some type of advantage by restricting the most efficient version of the player. However, Macromedia's player isn't the only one available. Apple's Quicktime has had the ability to play back Flash since version 4.

A snippet from the press release: "Because the Flash format is vector-based, Flash content is bandwidth efficient and scales automatically to display as designed in any Web browser. The Flash file format (.swf) is an open standard: any software vendor can output Flash files by writing to the specification published on Macromedia's Web site at www.flash.com/open."

(note - if you want the spec, you should really be here instead. But again, when you download it, you agree not to transmit the spec to anyone else, and there's a rule in the license which basically amounts to "the player you design should actually work before you release it.")

Most likely they think they retain some type of advantage by restricting the most efficient version of the player. However, Macromedia's player isn't the only one available. Apple's Quicktime has had the ability to play back Flash since version 4.

A snippet from the press release: "Because the Flash format is vector-based, Flash content is bandwidth efficient and scales automatically to display as designed in any Web browser. The Flash file format (.swf) is an open standard: any software vendor can output Flash files by writing to the specification published on Macromedia's Web site at www.flash.com/open."

(note - if you want the spec, you should really be here instead. But again, when you download it, you agree not to transmit the spec to anyone else, and there's a rule in the license which basically amounts to "the player you design should actually work before you release it.")

You want the Shockwave player for Linux? This is where the Slashdot Effect can actually help.

Go to the Macromedia 'wish form' and tell them you want Shockwave Player for Linux! Development over there seems to be demand-driven, so fill out the form. If they get enough requests, they might just do it.

We're talking about desktop development tools here, not server products.

Oracle is a great database server with some fantastic features not found, for example, in MS SQL Server. However the Oracle (9) client tools are worse than SQL Server's from a usability standpoint.

Oracle's client tools run in Linux and Windows because they are Java (I'm thinking the Enterprise Manager Console and SQL Plus Worksheet here.) This is great for them working cross-platform but is not great for usability because they do not use standard UI interface features from the host OS. This has knock-on effects - for example, a scroll mouse doesn't work.

We might also note that Macromedia's server products such as ColdFusion and JRun all run on Linux. (And have run on other UNIXes such as Solaris for a lot longer.) There just isn't the market there for a desktop port of Flash; if there was, they would port it. Or you could use CrossOver Office.

In any case, the Flash specification is open, so you are free to write your own authoring tools for Linux. (Certainly there are third party tools on Windows.)

I believe what you mean is Brady, not Flex. Macromedia Flex is a platform designed by macromedia to deliver rich content internet application with the connectivity to Server-side somputing power.

Did you miss the little bit under the animations??
Both Flash and Real are available for Linux, if you don't want to use them, don't complain because the option is there

*Linux versions of these players are available. Get the free Linux plug-ins for Macromedia Flash and RealPlayer.

that slashdotters would prefer that each and every website be redisgned. Further, they would like to espouse their desire to have the entire WEB be redisigned (starting with Slashdot) with what many /.'ers feel is the ultimate Web Developer Tool

His rant sounds like the cry of the luddite. "I don't want to use these fancy schmancy typewriters."

Well even everyone's fav from way back is trying. I've been looking at RIA's from Macromedia's FLEX to Laszlo's PLS and everything inbetween[1]. Things are a changing and Mr Luddite better change with it, or his job will be going to an Indian who isn't afraid of the new fangled technology.

[1] Some of my hardware's a bit behind, but some of the RIA's could be speeded up.

I've posted elsewere about this, but RIA's is what it's about. Macromedia's FLEX is one implimentation. There are others. Even Adobe is putting in their two cents. Interoperability is the one capability RIA's need. The ability for Excel and Word to communicate is important. Will these RIA's talk to each other, or be islands into themselves?