Slashdot Mirror
Plugin Availability For Non-x86 Browsers?
Foredecker writes: "Many, many Internet appliances are being built with non-x86 processors such as Mips, ARM and PowerPC. Supposedly, one of the barriers to using such processors in Internet appliances is the notion that x86 has, by far, the advantage that many popular browser plug-ins are only available for x86. If they are available for non-x86 systems, then they are either available late (x86 first) or their are inferior to their x86 brethren. Is this a problem? Is it true? If it is true, is this going to make it harder for non-x86 based Internet appliances to win acceptance in the market?" Earlier this year, we talked about how the Web is now flooded with non-HTML content. Now I don't mind enhancing one's Web experience, but it would be nice if the folks who make these plug-ins realize that the Web is not only for those folks running Wintel or Macintosh systems. When will plug-in makers realize that there is a larger market out there who may also be interested in their product?
Eventually, cheap, pre-configured boxes that have a built-in screen or sit on top of the TV will become the established platform of choice for those who just want to surf the net. If you doubt this, take a look at all of those AOL users who went for the easy, underpowered solution. Once a good piece of cheap hardware becomes available, consumers will start buying, and plug-ins will really start to break.
Hiya, There's a company called Insignia Solutions plc(Nasdaq: INSGY) who do write an optimized embedded VM (and plug-in) for strange processor platforms. I believe a Linux/ARM port will be ready for release around Christmas. It will also do WinCE/MIPS, VXWorks, etc...
It's a nice solution, but web developers will have to wait a few years before they can really use it. How many people on slow modem connections are really going to download the latest several-megabyte version of a browser just to get SVG? Many are still using version 3 or lower of the top two browsers.
Last time I checked some statistics, the various variants of Windows ran 95% of the browsers, Mac 4% and "Others" one single percent. Thats Linux, Solaris, BSD etc combined!
This means that unless you are specifically targeting the slashdot crowd, you have no reason to care wether your pages work outside the Windows/Mac world.
Most clueful webfolks stay away from the plugins anyway, since they add more maintenance cost to your site then they are worth. Nobody cares wether that single percent can view the site or not. If they can, its a bonus, if not: their problem.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
This reminds me of a Boston Globe review of the iBook where Simson Garfinkel (who is knowledgeable and not a zealot) loved its design but was extremely pessimistic about using MacOS. He noted that the stability has improved to the point that it's barely an issue for desktop users, but said he found himself locked out of all his favorite sites.
What am I missing here? I haven't touched Windows in months. I do all my browsing on PPC, either using IE or Mozilla for MacOS, and Konqueror in LinuxPPC. I haven't even bothered to install any of the available plugins besides Flash and Shockwave. And the only site I have trouble with is mynetscape.com which blocks IE connections. Am I just reading ancient, lame sites? Or has it been so long since I've used Windows that I don't realize every site now has holographic VRML that I'm just not seeing? Could someone point me to a site that will show me what I'm missing?
5% isn't a "tiny" market share. Neither is 1%.
If your marketing department doesn't get this, replace "1%" with "one MIIIIIIIILLLION affluent Internet users with the combined purchasing power of fifty BIIIIIILLION dollars". Preferably within earshot of the CEO.
Any technology which is distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced.
Businesses are not altruistic. That's not the nature of business. Businesses do things to make money. That's the goal of business. Software companies will only write code if it helps their bottom line in some way. If a plug-in vendor knows that the non-Wintel and non-Mac part of their customer base represents a prohibitively small percentage, it may not be worth the money for them to write other versions. But, if the market demands other versions (ie: a large percentage of users are using other non-Wintel or non-Mac devices), rest assured that the plug-in providers will come out with appropriate versions to support those customers.
I've been toying with this idea, and I might as well try it out here.
The free software answer to this question is, distribute source (typically in C). This works pretty well for us; although it is easy to include assumptions about the target architecture into the code, a port or two usually shakes them out. The Java answer is, distribute Java bytecode. However, most acknowledge that this in not a panacea either, as dependencies on particular implementations frequently arise.
Fundamentally, what is the difference between bytecode and C source code? Very little, except that most companies resist distributing the latter. Usually, this is jutstified as protecting company secrets.
But bytecode can be decompiled, and source can be obfuscated, with some degrees of success. In fact, early Java compilers produced code that could be easily decompiled with great results. I imagine that compilers are better now (due to more complicated techniques), but Java bytecode still retains a lot of information. How well do decompilers work today? Is it plausible that you could get more information out of bytecode than obfuscated C?
Imagine a GCC backend that, after parsing and machine-independent optimization, output C. Since this process is not substantially different from what a Java compiler does, I would expect both processes to result in similarly comprehensible output.
If this were true, it would be possible to hide "secrets", while gaining the benefits of C code, eg wide availability of compilers, interoperability with most API's (like plug-in API's), and native code speed.
Are there technical reasons this couldn't work? I know that at least one company has been accused of distributing obfuscated hardware drivers and passing them off as free software. Political issues aside, people seemed to think this effectively reduced the usefulness of the source. I believe this case was "remedied" in short time; but has any company successfully used this strategy to achieve portability without exposing "secrets"?
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
You have far too much time on your hands. :)
With more and more platforms having some sort of a web-browser, it is likely that a plugin is not available for the particular platform.
An important 'feature' of a plugin is its security hazard. Running native on the client system may be nice for performance, but also means that it has full access to all resources AND to the internet. This means that we have to scrutinize the quality/honesty for every plugin installed. I'd rather have just one thing to worry about: the browser.
And especially for embedded platforms (I'm working on an In-Flight Entertainment System) it is often not desirable or possible to run plugins. It's unlikely that third-party code will be executed, without some sort of _very_ rigorous verification.
I don't quite understand it either. You _can_ do quite a bit with a Java applet, or even with JavaScript. I know the sound/image synchronization of Macromedia is nice, but look what it's used for: marketing.
And I says: fsck marketing. The Web was designed to provide information on demand, not to watch advertisements (which is what most Flash content really is). It pisses me of when I have to sit through a frigging commercial before I get to see what I want.
In my opinion it's better to extend the capabilities of the browser, if new features are desired. This way it will be a more standardized solution (read NOT proprietary) and it's possible for _everyone_ to implement it in their browser.
Breace.
Most plugins are unnecessary gaudy crap glued onto the browser to create a market where none really exists. There are a handful of plugins which have "real" value. Depending on your point of view, it includes Flash, Shockwave, Real, and Acrobat. Most plugins aren't created to fill a need, they're created to make their authors money.
When you're trying to sell gaudy crap to someone, being multiplatform, stable, or well designed is irrelevant. The important thing is that it looks shiny on the computer of your end sucker... erm... customer. Joe Clueless Webmaster doesn't really know what Linux is, if the shiny crap looks good on his Windows 98 / MacOS 9 box, it must be good. Jane Clueful Webmistress does worry about Linux, WebTV, the Dreamcast, and other alternative web browsers, but Jane also realizes that good web sites are actually harmed by gaudy plugins.
Supporting another platform costs a great deal of money. You need developer time to support the new platform, an variety of hardware to test on and QA time to make sure it works well. It's a lot of money to try and sell product to a hostile audience.
So quoth Cliff:
Simply put, if you're selling snake oil, don't worry about convincing the real doctors, just talk fast enough to fool the marks. There is no "larger market."
For this same reason, open sourcing the plugin doesn't help. The open source and free software communities have no sympathy for unnecessary junk.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Something I've thought of doing (but I'd be quite happy if someone else beat me to it) is to produce a generic plugin, which when installed for an unsupported data format (e.g. quicktime) e-mails webmaster@site a polite complaint that you can't access this page properly because it requires a plugin which isn't available for the operating system/browser/machine architecture you use. Maybe it should send a copy to support@quicktime.com or whatever as well. If people get gently nagged every time one of us hits one of these useless pages, they'll rapidly become aware of the problem!
The same process that caused you to drop Lynx for Netscape caused me to drop Cyberdog for Netscape, some years ago- several sites I commonly use (most notably Spamcop but to a lesser extent Thresh's Firing Squad)) make sensible use of Javascript.
It seems as if Javascript is of most utility on the Web, Java turns up occasionally in fancy banner ads, and Shockwave sites seem to focus so heavily on it that (like Camp Chaos) there's absolutely no point in going there unless you're setting out specifically to watch Shockwave movies and things- ideally Macromedia should accept this and continue to make heavier emphasis on standalone viewers, and sites should assume that some people will be content to download .swf and view it separately rather than assuming everyone wants to view it in a browser. Camp Chaos, I think, is a good example of what really happens in practice- loads of people have viewed Napster Bad etc. but that is not a navigation system, or webcandy- it's essentially a scripted cartoon, obviously standalone content. The standalone aspect is much more interesting than the 'interactive' aspects of the special edition, and in general the cartoons in the format are creative and entertaining (and very low bandwidth) and the games are just stupid :)
you mean i won't be able to view flash animations on my toaster???? oh no!!!!!
Exactly. I use Netscape 6.0 for most of my browsing and the worst problems I encounter are visual quirks and problems with sniffers. These should disappear with time. Usually though it makes absolutely no difference what browser you're using.
I've used Netscape (pronounced Mozilla) since the initial release, and I don't EVER remember them charging people for personal use. They charged companies, but not the "downloading public". The reason people moved away from NS is the fact that IE surpassed it in technical merit.
If you'd like to know the true history of the Personal Computer, rather than relying on information you heard from a friend, or a friend of a friend, pick up a copy of Fire in the Valley
You state that Microsoft's grass is greener. Microsoft didn't grow greener grass; they torched all of the other sheep rancher's fields.
The flash spec is open. Use your open source magic, and make it happen on the platform you want. http://www.openswf.org The point of open source is being able to do stuff yourself, right?
We all know Microsoft struck pure gold with DOS.
All their successful software follows a distinct pattern. First sell it at a loss or bundle it with another product so you get a lot of users. Then sell it at a price no commercial software shop can match without the MS user base. Monopolic? You bet! The catch is that every *single* user gains from using MS software, while users as a *collective* would benefit from choise.
As for Netscape, I must admit that I worked for a compny that provded me with payed-for Netscape at that time. I do recall that the free version lacked some features, but alas I never compared them.
Fire in the Valley is definitely on my reading list.
It really doesn't matter to a sheep if Microsoft has greener grass because they grow it well or because they torch their neighbors fields.
What *does* matter to the sheep is that the other sheep are in the MS field. Sheep like company. Wolves like lonely sheep.
Luckily we are not all sheep.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
AmigaDE is a completely different beast. With AmigaDE Amiga does all the hard work for you, they build a bunch of libraries and a runtime interpreter for different architectures under a single API. You then write apps for DE which get compiled to a P-code sort of state, they will not run without the Amiga runtime. You can load up the runtime from any OS and then run your Amiga apps natively on Linux or Win32 or MIPS-64 or PPC or any other microprocessor.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
There is truth in this, but the employer has a narrow view of what a web experience is. I've been to some dreadful sites with lovely flash animations/interactions that looked very "flash" and expensive but did not add anything to the site ot make it stand out from the rest... Using standards "should" (I know browser manus have much to answer for) add value because more people can view it using different platforms/devices. To me a great site provides info I need using my workstation and a subset of that info on my mobile phone.
"Ceilean Súil an ní ná feiceann..."
Never.
The type of mentality that we're dealign with here, isn't interested in finding new markets. New markets are unsafe and unpredictable. Better to prey on the herd, following it and thereby becoming part of it.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
It makes (business) sense to release plug-ins, or any software for that matter, on system platform(s) which taylor to a majority of your user base.
As an example: Why did Id Software release a Linux version of Q3A after the Windows version had been out for quite some time? A majority of their targeted user base were Windows users.
This behavior is common for all cross platform software which depends on a revenue stream.
--
but you can rearrange the letters in "internet appliance" to spell "panic entire planet" - these things are obviously plots to create widespread civil unrest and must be stopped NOW!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Is there a standard API for Java browser plugins in 1.3? Is called a Pluglet?
Just as soon as there is a larger market out there, I'll bet.
Oh, sorry, was that supposed to be thought-provoking commentary?
--
Liberty uber alles.
Many many companies Y have done X when it most certainly was *not* economically advantageous. Many went bankrupt, others recovered.
Hmm, yeah, if the latest Java VM is ported to that platform. This is not always the case. For instance, it seems that Java 1.1 will be the only version supported by EPOC.
you mean this?
One wonders why companies such as Sun and HP don't go and talk to plugin providers such as Macromedia to talk them into porting their stuff. One almost gets the impression that Sun and Co. don't really believe they can hold on to their desktop share anyway. Sort of a self-fullfilling prophecy, if you ask me. How do these guys expect long time (power) users like me to convince management into not switching to NT if all that flashy stuff that PHBs like so much doesn't run on our good old Unix? (OK, OK, I actually want us to switch to Linux, but if I can't have that (yet)...)
--
Linux user since early January 1992.
Not sure about the actual hardware, but the developer version (available free at the WebTV developer site) just leaves stuff like Flash Movies empty or more specificaly, a gray box. Oh and a caviat, it doesn't like Pop-up windows or many of the other *features* of the web.
AF-Design, web development.
I've noticed that i can get a lot of those weird netscape plugins for IRIX on an old SGI O2 machine that i've been using as an X terminal/browser at work lately. I've got acrobat reader, shockwave, flash, and a few others. No quicktime though, but i hate quicktime anyhow. That whole phantom menace thing PISSED ME OFF! They basicly paid off (in hosting services, but that means $$$) lucasfilms to only release the phantom menace trailers in quicktime, and in the LATEST version which was an 11 meg download. THen you install it, and it's EVIL NAGWARE and on some systems wiht less common video cards, it then proceeds to eat your video drivers. Fucking nazis, i'll kick the stupid bastards in the brains if i ever get the chance. WHew... morning rant...
---
Play Six Pack Man. I
You mean that when i click on the "Non-flash version of this page" link i'm loosing out on my web experience???
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
I just went to mynetscape.com, and it works fine for me with ie..
Lowmag.net
I'm an linux/alpha person too, and allow me to point out to all those lintel people out there that Netscape has only been available on our platform for less than a year. My alpha's about three years old, so to browse I would have to make do with lynx, or send netscape to my X display from a lintel box. Even up to a few months ago the netscape (which Compaq ported for us) we had was extremely unstable and randomly crashed every 20 minutes or so (with java* disabled).
Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
No, you're not missing out on much. If you're into web surfing for written information, you're never going to miss x86. Now, if you're looking for entertainment (however much entertainment can be shoved down even a DSL line is up to debate in another thread), you'll feel left out not using Windows.
I think Apple have really made a miscalculation with their refusal to port QuickTime to *nix. I do have a bias - Im a QTVR developer, but they must surely see the opportunity open to them here. It would be a major boost to their battle with WMP etc. :) and help give M$WMP's market share a kicking.
I think that just looking at the market share of each platform is too simplistic . It must be considered that the people making the initial decisions on what format a particular project will use - the developers - are far more likely to be using *nix than the population as a whole, and will therefore prefer to choose a format that supports their platform.
So, Jobs, fight the good fight and port to Linux and BSD (or even darwin
validator.w3.org
-- My comment is above.
Linux has had full ASF support for a few months now... x86 at least, possibly others.
Go look up "Xtheater" or "libavifile" on freshmeat.
-----
There's audio content that I listen to religiously that's only accessible using Windows Media Player.
Slashdot carried a story a while back which said that Real Networks had licensed the Microsoft codec.
I'd just like to have Windows Audio on Linux for Intel!
Thankfully, you're doing your part in making the web a better place at your page by using valid transitional HTML 4 and CSS. Of course, it would be better if you used strict HTML and more contrasting colors (gray on black is pretty hard to read), but overall, okay on the accessibility.
In exchange for your left foot (payment up front) I will write you Quicktime and ASF for Linux.
Apache guy, Open Source enthusiast, runner
I think a auotnag default plugin is an exemplary idea!
> to: DufusMcWebmaster@stupidplugin.com
> from: joeboblinux@2600.org
> Dear Dufus,
> Your website requires that I download a plugin for my browser.
> I run Netscape under Linux/*BSD/BeOs/QNX on a x86/PPC/ARM platform.
> Could you please port your "flashy plugin" to that environment?
>
> TIA,
> janeyBSD@flyingbuttmonkeys.com
I've seen far to many websites where java script or graphics were critical (forcing me to abandon lynx for netscape)
The latest development version of lynx does support javascript. I'm compiling it now to see how well it works (I hope it doesn't support pop-up windows ;) It also supports images by opening them in an external program (xv is default IIRC), and I have used this for quite some time (not only the development version). There's more there than meets the eyes.
Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
because it's not a 'larger' market. The target market is the home consumer, which think Linux plays a piano.
The Game Guy
Indeed. Here at home I have an x86 platform with Windows 95 running. I also have a linux machine on an x86 platform. Now plugins are available for both of these machines most of the time. However, when you have browsers running on these i-openers and what not, that run who knows what... the question really is.... what do you do when you want to view content? I don't personally own a WebTV, but perhaps someone here who has one could comment. What happens when you want to view content with WebTV that requires a plugin? Are you just left out? Or can you do it. This could seriously hurt web appliances, especially with the fast growth of the web, and plugin use.
...for enhanced web content that would really be a success. What's more, we need an open implementation.
Hell. Non-x86 must be a giant problem. I have problems finding the darn plugins in need for Non Windows / mac platforms. Even if they are x86 based. I would give my left foot for Quicktime or ASF working nicely under Linux. What needs to be done is a standard plugin format which does not depend on Machine Code. *cough* bytecode *cough* cough* Java. Im just bitter
--------========+++Dont Feed The Lab Techs+++========--------
A quantitative determination of the answer for any question of the pattern ``when will x be done by y company'' is now possible after many centuries of theoretical thought regarding the flow of resources in human society. The answer is: exactly when doing X is economically advantageous to company Y. No sooner, but maybe later if the company is run by idiots...
:-)
On the topic of plugins, well, the appliance writers should either partner with plugin companies in order to port the plugins needed or write ones of their own if the file format is an open standard. This solves the ``now'' problem but it probably precludes any $29.95 devices any time soon...
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Java is the solution for internet appliances. Projects like Mozilla will bridge the platform gap, and special plugins and browser extensions could be written in java. Java's UI has come a long way with JDK 1.3.
Someone you trust is one of us.
"the web is now flooded with non-HTML content"
This is a web designers choice, i.e. he/she may or may not use plugins. Most non x86 devices don't support newer web standards anyway, so it is still a must for some designers to create different versions of a web site no matter how undesriable. The fact that plugins are not supported is irrelevant as there are still bigger issues to be addressed....
"Ceilean Súil an ní ná feiceann..."
Heh, having a blown motherboard and having to use my Dreamcast as my only means of net access for the past week, I've quickly learned the web basicly sucks if you're not using the latest version of IE on the latest version of Windows.
You should tell this to the people who develop web pages. It is their fault if they only program for _one_ "platform" "plugin" "browser" or whatever. There always should be an alternative view. I can see it often for flash pages...where you can choose the "non-flash" version. This should be the case for every non-html content. It is the fault of the developers.
Last time I checked, over 95% of people were using Windows or Mac to access the web.
I'm not sure that the corps care about the tiny market share increase enough to have a site that doesn't look as nice.
Sure, it's nice to have a 'flash/non-flash' option on the first screen, but that means doing two websites. How many corps want to pay for that?
_____
My Journal
This is exactly the kind of problem that Java was created to solve. Unfortunately, Java as we know it tends to be buggy as all hell, and runs with the speed and stability of a 3-legged cow.
Lots of embedded devices run on things like ARM processors or other chips that aren't found on the desktop market at all, so we're not just talking about resource optimization. Since many embedded devices also use alternative operating systems, the APIs are different, so we're talking about more than just a recompile there.
The only way to get around inconsistent APIs and processor calls that I can see having long-term portability is to standardize to the Java Virtual Machine. Just-in-time compilers and other sorts of wonderfulness are still in their infancy, and I've been told that Apple's Java VM runs bytecodes as fast as native compiled C code.
I know the whole system is kinda bloated at the moment, but the write-once-run-anywhere method does fall into line with the "worse is better" mantra of Unix programming, which has been incredibly successful over the years. Unfortunately, we are still it the point where worse is still worse, and have yet to see the really good benefits that portability and standardization promise.
I think Sun should be applauded for their vision. Let's face it, they've done wonders for the web, and Java is going to take it a lot further. Sure the tech is buggy at the moment, and they have been a little more reluctant to opening the standards than most here would like, but I think we should give credit where credit is due, and then kindly ask them if they'd turn their toy into a tool.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
The plugin argument has a lot of merit, but I think the problem that needs to be solved before anything else is simply that the browsers are not consistent (try Netscape or IE across different platforms) let alone the plugin availability.
--
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
True, but, most people using the older browsers aren't interested in the latest gee-whiz web enhancements anyway. The far greater problem is getting the browser developers to comply with standards. At least one browser developer(Do I really need to mention who) has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, i.e., Windows only solutions.
Leaving aside Java for the moment, I see plugins and applications for Sparc and Intel Linux that handle:
- All the ms file formats
- Adobe Portable Document Format
- Postscript
- Frame maker
- ULAW Audio
- MIDI Audio
- AIFF Audio
- RealAudio
- MPEG Video
- Soundtracker audio
- Microsoft wave files
- Commodore 64 audio
- PNG image
- Sun raster image
- TIFF image
- IFF animation
- DL animation
- FLI animation
- MPEG Animation
- AVI animation
- Quicktime animation
- SGI animation
I haven't looked for flash, so I suspect it's the popular missing link this week(;-))I collected that list this summer, as part of the research to see if writing a book (with this as one chapter) was worthwhile. Then I got hit by lightening...
Ok, folks, should I write a book on this? (I was the second author on O'Reilly's "Using Samba"). If so, send me mail!
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
The problem with this 'larger' market, is that it doesn't really exist. The number of people surfing the net and using linux/bsd on the desktop is miniscule, even compared to the Macintosh, let alone wintell.
Java applets show some promise, but write-once, debug everywhere is still a problem.
--
From a business standpoint, it's wonderful to have flashy content (and I don't mean only Macromedia's stuff)
But it's also a bad thing to leave a large portion of users behind.
Internet Appliances along with mobile phones and other devices now getting on the internet are lumped under the heading of *PERVASIVE DEVICES*, or pervasive computing.
There are currently two options available to address these devices.
Option one is to follow the model of Phone.Com. Sell the browser to the device companies and collect a license fee for each device sold. Then sell the access point for those devices a proxy software that converts html to code for their browser.
Option two is to use IBM technology. WebSphere Transcoding Publisher (ok, I'm biased, I know people on this team) runs on an LDAP, proxy, or reverse-proxy model, and checks to see what device-type is accessing a page. If it has a device type profile for the device making the http request, it translates the code (transcodes) the html into code suitable for the device, along with altering the images to meet the device's needs.
If a transcoder device type profile were written for the various internet appliances and other non-Wintel/Mac browsers then non-html content requiring plug-ins would no longer be an issue.
Of course, this is kind of a dodge- No phone that I know of attempts to be a desktop computer browser (yet), and while we might expect that an internet appliance that hopes to be the desktop browser should play flash and shockwave content, it's not a desktop computer, and we shouldn't expect it to be one.
Yes, I like my alternative opsys' browsers to be supported, but no one writes flash plugins for NetPositive, and my Netscape Communicator on OS/2 relies on flash plug-ins for win3.1.
I don't think the fault for this situation lies with the makers of plug-ins, it lies with the page designers for not providing a stripped down version that doesn't require plug-ins, and with the internet appliance marketeers for inspiring false expectations.
A host is a host from coast to coast, but no one uses a host that's close
That is the problem. Ask any x86 Linux user who couldn't view a particular page because of required plugins available only for Windows.
As someone who used to be involved with producing a plugin for a particular alternate image file format, I can honestly say there are several issues associated with trying to produce and maintain plugins for multiple platforms -- not the least of which is maintainability and keeping them all current. Add to that the hardware costs of releasing a binary for linux-libc6-strongARM and every other os/hardware combination you can come up with, and you wind up with exactly the same cost-benefit analysis situation you do when producing any other proprietary software. We were among the best in terms of cross-platform support at our peak (fall '96), with:
- Win 3.1
- Win 95/NT
- Mac 68k
- Mac PPC
- Sparc Solaris 2.4
- Digital Unix 3.2
all as supported platforms, but invariably there'd either be somebody grumbling about the fact that the "latest" version wasn't out for Solaris yet (hey, at least we had one), or "can you make one for Irix?" or whatever; the fact remains, most plugins are made by small companies who are doing the best they can with the resources they have to support the most people.Don't chime in about open-sourcing the codec either: compression codecs are exactly one of the r&d-intensive products for which retaining closed-source is the only viable revenue model that ESR talks about in "The Magic Cauldron." If the only thing you have of value is your algorithm, you really can't distribute source that everyone can implement.
The point is, there is no good solution: if you are building a site that contains essential content, don't use non-standard technologies (I'd argue this includes Java applets). Conversely, if you're not using the same technology as 80% of the people out there, and I too am in that outer 20%, prepare to fall victim to the 80-20 rule when vendors of everything, including browser plugins, do cost-benefit analysis.
MOO;IANAL.
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
I've yet to encounter one that was at all useful
or that enhanced the browsing experience much at all
Here are Macromedia's stats on supported platforms. Which include Linux, Solaris, BeOS, IRIX, and Palm.
Also Here is someone who is making it work on CE
Pity those of us who want to create innovative content using a "specialized plug-in" such as Chime. (Chime allows 3d molecular display in a web page. Yes, there are Java applets that do this. When one of them can do 1/10th of what Chime can at better than 1/10th the speed I might look into it again.)
Chime lets me write pages like these: Atomic orbitals and Crystal unit cells Very useful in my line of work (Chemical education) But as soon as I do this I lock out all "alternative OSs"
Chime's actually more cross platform than most: Windows, Mac and an older IRIX version. It even is anti-MS: it runs like crap in MSIE on both Mac and Windows. (The Mozilla team fixed the compatibility problems when I sent the bug in.) But I can't do this stuff and make it truly cross-platform.
This is a problem for me: in fact, it's one of the main reasons I don't use Linux on the desktop.
"Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
Just looking at the latest server logs from the site I manage explains the lack of plugins for alternate OS's. Out of 1.7 million requests, only around 3500 came from the various Unix variants. Even Slashdot has said that Windows browsers make up a majority of their traffic, and this is a Unix stronghold. It doesn't take a braindead marketroid to figure out the numbers here...
Sure, bochs, Plex86, etc. are solutions, but they aren't transparent, as you're basically running a X86 machine in a sandboxed environment.
It's not the more ideal solution from a purist's standpoint, but this would greatly increase the value of Linux (or BSD, etc.) on X85 platforms as a whole.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
on the website so people can download the player to see your 3D models
The new Scalable vector Graphics will help as it provides a way to develop interactive web pages, ala Flash, in a standard way. The real answer is for the W3C to define more such standards covering all the current extensions that now require plugins.
Never.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Netscape 4.71 on IRIX (so that includes all 64-bit MIPS processors and the 32-bit ones who think they're 64... anything from R4K on up) runs exactly like it does on a PC with Win or Linux. I can run flash, realaudio, and most other major plugin content.
:)
Yes, that also means that Netscape is bloated and crashes arbitrarily every 30 minutes or so, but you gotta take the lumps with the bad.
If only MSIE were ported to every platform... sigh.
-Chris
...More Powerful than Otto Preminger...
IMO - those doing the plugins must have some fucking [1] clues about the target systems. Way too often boody M$ programmers are porting [2] idjiot code to say - Unix - with lots of repercussions [3].
Sadly good unix programmers are rare - and good windows programmers are close to non-existant.
Besides - I miss those days when you could do a whole lot of things just with a terminal and lynx. Why the hell do we need Flash, Java, even damn graphics?
[1] In the reproduction sense - able to multiply
[2] For some values of "porting"
[3] Need I remind you of *coughsputter*flashplugin*cough*?
--
Would it be possiable to write browser plugs in Java?
Shockwave releases "java flash", you install the
I don't know if this would work or not. Probably not.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
I have used Alpha-Linux for many years now and have constantly had problems getting software. It has gotten far worse lately as more and more binary only software is coming out for Linux. Not only are vendors who claim to support Linux only supporting Linux/i386 but an awfull lot of code out there is sloppily i386 or at least 32 bit specific.
It is not a big deal to provide binaries for simple things like plug-ins for multiple platforms under Linux so I don't understand why the vendors don't. At the very least, if they don't intend to provide anything but Lintel software than they should not say they have Linux support but Linux/i386 support.
I think unless a push is made to force vendors to support the major alternative Linux platforms (Alpha,Sparc,Mips,Arm,PowerPC) then there soon will be little to no support for them. Remember what happened with Mips and Alpha Windows NT!
This is one of Crusoe's big selling points. The fact that it's X86-compatible (yet low power etc. for internet appliances) means that standard browser plugins work with it.
Gerv
"ActiveX" is just another name for "plug in" in Windows. It's also called "COM+", "COM", "OLE", "DDE", and now, it seems, ".NET". What you call it just depends on when you got into Windows development and started seeing Microsoft's buzzwords. Sure, there are slight differences, but the name just changes when MS decides to add something new.
If I can't visit a site without having to load a plug-in or activating Javascript then I will tend to steer clear. I know of one site that requires you to install shockwave to view their site and you can't see the html because there isn't any, even worse the company's market is Unix based, predominently AIX and there isn't even a plug-in for that platform - this is a serious problem. Before adding plugins to a website the following question should be asked:
- Can your audience run the plug-in?
- Do they have the authority to install it?
- Is their connection fast enough to download the plug-in?
- Why should the user go through the hassle just to see your site?
- Does your audience have the knowledge to install a plug-in?
- Why can't you make do with standard HTML?
- Is your connection really that fast? - go and try seeing your website from elsewhere
Yep, I am anti-plug-in and with good reason, though I will allow for a movie player that plays either MPEG, AVI or Quicktime - partly because movies are a missing element in the standard web file formats.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I think when it comes to plugins (and, come to think of it, Quicktime) the designers are in love with what's possible, and the suits are unaware of the compatibility issues. Face it: a designer shows a net-illiterate suit two designs, one with Flash animation, and one without, and he'll choose the best looking one, even if it only really works on the designer's G3 (the suit doesn't know otherwise).
Let's assume 5% of browsers can't handle (some) plugins...
No store owner would be satisfied if 5% of all customers were turned away at the door; likewise I'm sure no e-commerce website owner would be satisfied that 5% of visitors were being turned away. I'm sure banner-advertisers would be disappointed to discover how many potential impressions they may be losing because a site is unviewable to a (growing, with the advent of set top boxes etc) proportion of the target audience.
Make the guys with the purse-strings aware of this problem, and it'll go away. 5% more turnover is the kind of figure these people like to hear about.
--
Make the plug-ins portable between platforms. Use Java for the Plug-Ins. That way they can be ported between platforms. Make the code in the browser to load the Plug-In as native code or Java code.
So is this a good idea or not? Let me know.
I am working with a company that is facing this problem. Right now, we are just too small to develop for more than one platform. Our plug-in is built only for the Wintel systems, and we will write it for others once we have the resources. The reason, of course, is that most of our target customers are using PC's with Windows.
We looked at Java and Javascript as a possible cross-platform solution, but it just couldn't handle the primary function of our product. We were forced to use ActiveX and restrict our development to Windows. Yes, ActiveX is supported on the Mac, but we don't have the manpower to develop for both.
Our company is still aiming for the set-top box, wireless device, and non-PC markets, so a cross-platform solution eventually will be mandatory for our business. This is on the "back burner" until we get our Wintel solution established well enough to divert resources elswhere.
yeah, I can see it pretty easily really. The Java2D classes in JDK 1.2.x and 1.3 are nice. Think the GIMP and PostScript having a love child, with a dab of Illustrator. Since the .swf file format is an open one, you could write a Java-based parser class (ByteInputStream anyone?) and use it's output to feed a Java2D-based ``rendering engine''...
That would actually be pretty sweet. If I were more of a Java God I might do it... :-)
WRT doing it on an ARM or other embedded processor, why not? StrongARMs are, what, 200-odd MHz? That's faster than the machine I'm using to type this (p166), and this guy handles Flash and JDK 1.3 applets pretty well. Now what if that internet app is using a Crusoe, eh?
This is not to say that your company's product doesn't sound nifty, it does...
WRT to VRML, I think that standard is bloated enough already irregardless of the plugin playing it... ;-).
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
I don't have any plug-ins installed on my system, and I've never had a problem - the only one I'd consider is one for PDF, as that is accually used. I've only seen a couple web sites that even have any other plug-in requested (shockwave or flash - or are thsoe the same?) and every one allows easy bypass. I might miss some fancy animation once in a while, but I've never found a web site where that was critical. I've seen far to many websites where java script or graphics were critical (forcing me to abandon lynx for netscape), something I mind when I'm after information that shouldn't require either, but don't mind when it is accually useful. Case in point: My bank requires javascript, but I once figgured out how to bypass that check and I couldn't find a thing that didn't work.
When netscape asks if I want to download a plug-in I hit no. I don't trust random binaries on my system, I'm uncomfortable enough with pre-compiled netscape (someday I'll compile mozilla and solve this), and I compile everything else.