Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft To Acquire Macromedia?

perly-king-69 writes "The Register is reporting that 'industry sources' say that Microsoft have Macromedia in their sights. Whilst it could just be holiday gossip, if they do pull it off it could have a significant impact on the cross-browser compatibility of Flash applications."

368 of 496 comments (clear)

  1. Not the end of the world by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Too bad for Microsoft that Macromedia documented and made the SWF format open a long time ago now. Even if they pulled the flash player from any platform except IE on Windows, we still have libflash.

    1. Re:Not the end of the world by martingunnarsson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't worry, Microsoft will change the format completely for the next version.

      --
      Martin
    2. Re:Not the end of the world by Nosher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's true enough for existing versions of Flash. It would not be true of any Microsoft-based version of future releases. I guess they'd sooner turn it into some ActiveX-only control and re-write the language, which would completely stuff up any future cross-browser compatibility. As far as plugins go (speaking as a webmaster), I've never minded Flash too much: it can be neat, compact and you can *reasonably* guarantee that your target audience can play it. That would be blown away the second Micro$oft got their anti-Java mitts on it - it's clear from the article that they would want it to support .NET and Windows platforms exclusively.

      --
      It's too late for me to die young
    3. Re:Not the end of the world by sql*kitten · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Too bad for Microsoft that Macromedia documented and made the SWF format open a long time ago now. Even if they pulled the flash player from any platform except IE on Windows, we still have libflash

      What do you mean "too bad"? Anything that quickens the demise of Flash is to be welcomed. It fills a useless middle ground between animated GIFs and Java applets, and is only used for particularly irritating ads, and by particularly irritating self-proclaimed "creatives". I can only hope that Bill Gates was surfing the web one day, saw a Flash banner and decided to kill this annoying "technology" once and for all.

    4. Re:Not the end of the world by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 2
      ... we still have libflash.

      Unfortunately. I can not begin to describe the immense hatred I have for Flash, but it is on par with pop-ups and pop-unders. Fortunately, Mozilla is quite nice and has allowed me to disable Flash mostly (woohoo!) and thus allows get away from all the horrible sites who abuse Flash. Flash as a concept might be recovered though, as soon as people realize that Flash is made for ANIMATIONS, not entire goddamned websites. It is impossible to link to a document embedded in Flash, it is impossible to bookmark in-site thing for the same reason. Is is impossible to turn of the Flash music that get enforced through my speakers and I am not even going to mention printing information in a Flash file. And most Flash sites just are a disaster to use because the book "Flash for Idiots" doesn't handle basic GUI design (apparently).

      So right now, I hope that Flash dies a slow horrible death along with Quicktime and Realmedia Player.

    5. Re:Not the end of the world by Christianfreak · · Score: 2

      I can understand why this opinion is moderated "Insightful", too bad this opinion is so far from reality. Reality is that Bill doesn't want to kill anything from Macromedia, he wants to control it and make it windows only. Make flash work only in IE, boom, all the less tech-saavy people use IE because "Netscape is broken it doesn't do flash".

      And its not just flash, there is another Macromedia product that I'm far more worried about Microsoft getting their hands on: Dreamweaver. Dreamweaver has quickly become the standard HTML editor. Can you imagine what's going to happen if it starts making code like Frontpage does now?

      My bet is that Bill and Friends have their eyes on Dreamweaver more than Macromedia.

    6. Re:Not the end of the world by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2

      I think they want Dreamweaver because they can't sell Frontpage, since everyone knows it generates shit HTML. Controlling Flash is a side benefit.

    7. Re:Not the end of the world by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      Stop living like it's 1993. A website can be anything the owner wants it to be. If it were left up to computer geeks like you, there would be no graphics innovations, because a CLI is "good enough," right?

      Not at all; note that I mentioned animated GIF and Java applets.

    8. Re:Not the end of the world by GlassUser · · Score: 2

      Working with the internet is not about making a "reasonably guarantee" that someone can see something. It's about using standards to absolutely guarantee that anyone can see anything.

    9. Re:Not the end of the world by Beatbyte · · Score: 1

      You seem to underestimate the open source community.

      If Microsoft turns it into a hunkajunk, I'm sure there will be an open version of a clone in the works very quickly.

    10. Re:Not the end of the world by Enzondio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Riiiiight. I'll be sure to let my clients know that next time they're asking for DHTML and Flash content.

    11. Re:Not the end of the world by kisrael · · Score: 2

      It fills a useless middle ground between animated GIFs and Java applets
      Why do you put Flash below Java applets? Just because applets are based on a language that's great for many, many (usually server side) things doesn't mean its better; I've seen many more slicker and more usable interfaces with Flash than with Java applets.

      Some great games w/ Flash as well.

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    12. Re:Not the end of the world by override11 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh god, They will want to get rid of Coldfusion and replace it with ASP, NOOOOOOO!!!!!!

      --
      No I didnt spell check this post...
    13. Re:Not the end of the world by GlassUser · · Score: 1

      You should. If you provide those services with them under the impression that you're guaranteeing a "consistent viewing experience", then you may be liable for fraud. I had a client sue his web designer when I demonstrated that his "perfect" page did not render the same in all browsers. I didn't even have to break out Lynx for that one.

    14. Re:Not the end of the world by arkanes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Absolutely. Despise flash all you want, but it's better than java for at least 90% of the things you'd want an applet for.

    15. Re:Not the end of the world by martingunnarsson · · Score: 1

      Amen.

      --
      Martin
    16. Re:Not the end of the world by yerricde · · Score: 1

      If you provide those services with them under the impression that you're guaranteeing a "consistent viewing experience"

      So what if a client demands both a "consistent viewing experience" and Flash animation on the same web page? Have you lost a client to your fraudulent competition?

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
    17. Re:Not the end of the world by Genom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Someone with mod points mod the parent up.

      Dreamweaver is what MS has their sights set one -- not Flash. Think about it. MS pretty much controls the browser end of things through IE. What they don't control is the creation of webpages. Most of the industry that I've been in contact with have a very low opinion of Frontpage, but a very high opinion of Dreamweaver (when it comes to GUI HTML editors). Acquiring Macromedia will allow them to either integrate Dreamweaver into Frontpage, or kill it altogether. Either way, the acquisition gives them a major hold on the webpage creation industry.

      It would also give them a chance to crush Cold Fusion once-and-for-all...replacing it with ASP.NET, of course... (not that I see many CF sites anymore - most are either ASP, JSP, or PHP nowadays)

      Flash would just be frosting.

    18. Re:Not the end of the world by sg_oneill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You beautiful soul! I wish it was that clean.
      Unfortunately I have three letters that indicate that this is not the case. Here they are ;- G! I! F!... Yup, GIF. At present, if you use GIF files, you are tresspassing on Unisys territory.

      But there is a more important reason to get REAL WORRIED by this tech.
      Dreamweaver has become an equaliser of tech for serverside stuff.
      Dreamweaver does coldfusion brilliantly;- No shit... It's macromedia tech. But it's the fact that Dreamweaver MX is probably the ONLY true PHP+MySQL aware+compliant wysiwig editor. This is not because of a minority share for said platform, but because adobe & MICROSOFT have other agendas.

      If we lose dreamweaver, we lose the fact that a HUGE amount of mid-range content will not work with mozilla, and will not work with apache. If we lose dreamweaver, we lose yet another independant platform to microsoft.

      And if we lose dreamweaver, we lose yet one more way that the average dumb-joe can escape microsoft.

      Think about it, and then post ideas on how we can block this.

      Anti-competition laws suggest that we can. It's up to US to figure HOW.

      Let's do it.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    19. Re:Not the end of the world by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      Ah...... I stand by my sentiment, but I mustn't post drunk... Short spiel=== Save macromedia.

      Over and out. (Mod parent post down if necesarry)

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    20. Re:Not the end of the world by KyleCordes · · Score: 2

      It seems to me that it would take a rather foolish web designer / programmer / etc. to make sure a guarantee.

    21. Re:Not the end of the world by GlassUser · · Score: 1

      Hmm, yes, I think I would completely agree. But I suppose you can take this as me saying something about a vast majority of web "designers".

    22. Re:Not the end of the world by Kool+Moe · · Score: 1

      Shortsighted. Flash is not just for annoying web intros. We do lots of computer and web-based training. Flash is an important part of our skillset as it allows us to creative interactive training on a large range of products and procedures - in a much smaller package for web delivery than any other product offers. Until everyone has fiber, small net-delivered packets are still crucial, especially for on-demand training applications.
      KM

      --
      Kinda like Moe, but just a little more Kool
    23. Re:Not the end of the world by ryochiji · · Score: 2

      It's not the end of the world, but it could be the end of the web as we know it (and for some people, that's the same as the end of the world).

      Let me put it this way. Microsoft owns the browsert market (unfortunately), and a sizable chunk of the server market (not a huge chunk, but big enough). Macromedia owns the content development market. If Microsoft manages to buy Macromedia, they'll own the entire process, from your browser to the server. It's called "vertical integration" if I recall correctly, and it's a very bad thing for consumers.

      And somebody tell me. Why the hell did our incompetent courts not shut down that monster when they had the chance? Oh, right, they're incompetent. Forgot about that....

    24. Re:Not the end of the world by BWJones · · Score: 2

      It fills a useless middle ground between animated GIFs and Java applets, and is only used for particularly irritating ads, and by particularly irritating self-proclaimed "creatives".

      Actually, we have been using Flash animation for the cross platform display of scientific data and for the posting of data from scientific presentations to our website for those that could not make it to the meetings for some time now and Flash is the fastest and least problematic solution for some of this.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    25. Re:Not the end of the world by Enzondio · · Score: 2

      I've never even heard of anyone making such rash guarantees (prior to this exchange, of course). Do you have any examples of this?

    26. Re:Not the end of the world by GlassUser · · Score: 1

      Not specifically. I was not involved with the web designer in question. I'll see if I can get a name or something, but I dunno if they'll be forthcoming. The issue was basically that an exec (of a 15-employee company, admittedly) was concerned about his "corporate image" and wanted to make everyone see his logo and layout exactly as he approved. The "IT manager" (AKA local guy who can install windows programs) about shat his pants when I showed him what it looked like on my laptop with a user stylesheet enabled.

    27. Re:Not the end of the world by FyRE666 · · Score: 2

      Working with the internet is not about making a "reasonably guarantee" that someone can see something. It's about using standards to absolutely guarantee that anyone can see anything.

      You can never "guarantee" that anyone can see anything on the web. I could write a browser that only supported a 10x10pixel screen mobile device - could I still see your site?

      If you stick with basic bread'n'butter html/CSS only sites, then you have a reasonable chance of being accessable to the vast majority of people, but once you break out of that mold, there are compromises. There are some *great* DHTML/Flash sites around which just would not work; even slightly; using html. This is not a bad thing, it depends on the audience the designer was aiming for. One size does NOT fit all.

    28. Re:Not the end of the world by GlassUser · · Score: 1

      If you don't mind scrolling down letter by letter and using your brain to buffer before you get a full word, then yes, you can.

    29. Re:Not the end of the world by dryeo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is is impossible to turn of the Flash music that get enforced through my speakers

      I don't knnow about your system but here (mozilla on OS/2) I can goto about:plugins, scroll down to the shockwave flash and click settings. This opens up a settings notebook where amongst other things I can disable audio, adjust the volume and pick out which audio device that flash uses.
      Dave

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    30. Re:Not the end of the world by thx2001r · · Score: 1

      I've found FrontPage lets people make pretty sophisticated web site / database interaction without having to know much about the underpinnings. This is good for beginners or people that just don't have any time to devote to the technology of their web site and would rather focus on their products.

      On the other hand, Dreamweaver is much more in tune for people that work with a wider range of platforms. It's not as easy to use per say. Of course, for the people that hate GUI web site design / editting, it won't satisfy them anyhow. It seems to be one of the more popular products with more experienced developers who don't have time to hand code.

      I donno, now it gives more people an excuse to hate Macromedia! That sucks, they already get a bad enough rap from people these days.

      --

      -Joe
      If we're all god's children, what's so special about Jesus? - Jimmy Carr

    31. Re:Not the end of the world by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Macromedia owns the content development market

      Macromedia doesn't ever remotely own the content development market. They are a contender, yes, but own it? Pshhhhhhhaw...

      Why the hell did our incompetent courts not shut down that monster when they had the chance? Oh, right, they're incompetent. Forgot about that....

      Yes because a fictional acquisition dreamed out of someone's imagination is all the proof that we need that they need to be reigned in, right? Note that on the markets today Macromedia gained marginally on 1/2 the share volume as normal: Clearly the market has laughed this off, but not the believe-anything-to-slam-Microsoft Slashdot community.

    32. Re:Not the end of the world by mjpolanco · · Score: 1

      Flash is *extremely* important were this deal to come off. How many ways are there for alternative technologies to reach the desktop: MM Flash, Adobe Acrobat, and perhaps RealPlayer are the only non-MS ways to get on the desktop (that is, before the Java injuction). So acquiring the most developer-centric of the vehicles, Flash, consolidates MSFT's desktop control. Additionally, I have begun recommending CFMX as the easiest way to get on the Java platform, which has become notorious for its complexity. With CFMX in their hands, there is no longer a 'first step' on the Java ladder, at least not for now. Perhaps save www.japple.com.

  2. uh oh by Ender+Ryan · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Does anyone else think that if this happened it would be the absolute worst thing that ever happened to the web?

    As it is now, flash is a relatively open format, there's just no good OS flash players. But if Microsoft were to acquire them, I think flash would remain an open format for about 30 seconds. Then only Mac OS and Windows users would be able to browse a very significant portion of the web.

    --
    Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
    1. Re:uh oh by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      If MS buys them, the open source players will develop like never before.

      It's the same reason RMS doesn't allow any closed source software at all at gnu.org. If you have an (especially $free) closed source alternative, you will be a lot less motivated to write a free software version. It works both ways.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:uh oh by russellh · · Score: 1

      Yes. Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Director, etc. The Mac versions will be on the chopping block.

      --
      must... stay... awake...
    3. Re:uh oh by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2
      Does anyone else think that if this happened it would be the absolute worst thing that ever happened to the web?

      Not if Microsoft was really successful in killing flash completely.

      I want someone to write a dummy flash plug in that does absolutely nothing, apart from stop the stupid 'do you want to download the latest Meglomedia Flash crud plug in and have adverts that take over your entire computer screen just because they can, oh and if you say no we will ask again in 30 seconds or less' dialog box.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    4. Re:uh oh by plazman30 · · Score: 1

      And what makes you think that the MacOS would be able to play Flash files? I can see them discontinue their whole like of MacOS apps and stop releasing Flash player for Mac REAL FAST.

      The last piece of cross platform software that Microsoft bought was FrontPage. After version 1.0, we NEVER saw another Mac version.

    5. Re:uh oh by WPIDalamar · · Score: 2

      I thought THE flash player was open source. I know you can get the source for the player from Macromedia ... but I'm not sure if their license is OS compatible.

      Macromedia's faq:
      http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/ope n/faq/ #3_5

      And their license page:
      http://www.macromedia.com/software/flashpla yer/lic ensing/sourcecode/

      Also... the specification is open
      http://www.openswf.org/

    6. Re:uh oh by lvdrproject · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sir, Macromedia has little to do with those faggot advertisements you've been seeing recently. Those advertisements are a relatively new thing (as in, maybe a year or so old); Flash has been just super with everybody until those came along.

      Truly, the ironic thing is that you like to visit the sites with those Flash advertisements on them. Is it Macromedia's fault? Are there just some malicious random people sneaking Flash advertisements into good, humble folk's Web sites?

      NO! THE WEBSITES YOU ARE VISITING ARE TO BLAME. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE ADVERTISEMENTS, DON'T BLAME MACROMEDIA. BLAME THE PANSY-ASS FUCKING WEBSITE THAT YOU INSIST ON VISITING AND THEN SAYING "OH GEE GOLLY GOSH I HATE THIS DARNEDED FLASH CONTRAPTION, WHY MUST IT TAKE OVER THIS LOVELY INNOCENT WEBSITE???".

    7. Re:uh oh by rknop · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does anyone else think that if this happened it would be the absolute worst thing that ever happened to the web?

      No. A bunch of worse possibilities immediately leap to mind:

      • The September that never ended
      • Graphical mail clients with proportional fonts
      • HTML E-mail
      • the "blink" tag
      • Web-based forums overtaking NNTP
      • "WYSIWYG" (a complete misunderstanding of the web) page makers which write awful, awful, bloated code
      • Telecom monopolies on the "last mile"

      ...but most of all....

      • The introduction of Flash in the first place!

      -Rob

    8. Re:uh oh by N3WBI3 · · Score: 2

      Because you can get IE to easily work on the mac..

      --
    9. Re:uh oh by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1
      You mean only one browser would play Flash? No others? Using other browsers would mean you couldn't see Flash?

      • *beat*

      Where can I download Opera, again?

      --
      -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
    10. Re:uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      the player code is not open source, although it is avaliable for licensing.

      the file format is open and avaliable. the specification for the latest version (6) is avaliable here:

      you can find more info on both at:

      http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/open/li ce nsing/

      mike chambers

      mesh@macromedia.com

    11. Re:uh oh by windex · · Score: 1

      Two words: Anger Management.

    12. Re:uh oh by theMightyE · · Score: 2
      In other words: flash doesn't annoy people, people annoy people.

    13. Re:uh oh by CondeZer0 · · Score: 2

      Try adding this to your user CSS(eg., chrome/userContent.css in Mozilla):

      embed[type="application/x-shockwave-flash"] { display: none !important; }

      Seems to work fine, but if IIRC there were other ways to embed Flash(with "object" IIRC), so I used for a long time an even more radical approach:

      object, embed { display: none ! important; }

      To hit the "object" tag so hard is a bit rough, but that seems to work fine, and I can't think of anyone using it for anything good anyway.

      More on topic: I'm the only one who saw this coming? Macromedia has become more and more like MS, well, Flash is a good example of how they can be even worst than MS.

      I think I even told someone months ago that MS would end up buying Macromedia, it just makes sense, gives them more power on the client side with Flash and can integrate all the other Macromedia server side crap with .Net, it's a perfect way to strength their control on the browser market(how long before thy kill the NS plugin version of the Flash player leaving only the ActiveX one, not that I would care though) and improve their attack on the server side at the same time. /me prays for Flash to die

      I know you have more authority to have an opinion on this than me ;), but if you ask me, IMHO Flash is the worst that has happen to the Web. As I understand it, it represents everything the Web wasn't supposed to be(eg., binary non standard format, designed for marketing instead of for content and information, an accessibility nightmare, not really crossplatform, and I could go on for ages...), the Web is about *open* access to *information*, the Web is *not* TV!

      I would say that Flash is even worst than popup-adds, at least sites with popup-adds work in standard compliant browsers without extra crap(ie. Mozilla), and even if you disable them(eg. with mozilla "popup-killer") you still can see the site content just fine.

      There is nothing that pisses me off more than to go to a site that *assumes* that I have flash installed, or that if I don't have it, can install it(there is *no* Flash plugin for FreeBSD, not that I would ever use it if there was one, but I if I hate to be told to do something, I hate it even more when I'm told to do something I can't do it even in the case I would want to!)

      Oh, well, and I that was hopping for MS to stop bundling Flash with IE so Flash would die... or Macromedia to go bankrupt *sigh*

      The worst place in hell is reserved for web designers that use Flash, you have been warned!

      \\Uriel

      P.S.: I would like to take this opportunity to ask you what is your personal opinion about Flash and other similar crap(eg. applets), and what you think that can be done to fight it? Thanks :)

      --
      "When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
    14. Re:uh oh by Cinematique · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ok, you've made it obvious that you hate everything the web has become since 1998. You're over 40, aren't you?

      HTML e-mail isn't a bad thing. HTML's implementation in general is. The second that everyone understands this, the better off we'd all be. It royally pisses me off that HTML looks different on competing browswers, or even the same branded browser on different platforms. My biggest peeve is that fonts shouldn't have to be installed on the client's computer in order for a website to look as the creator intended. Automatic font downloading would save a HUGE amount of bandwidth... no more JPGs of text. Anyone who wrongly believes that (clean) HTML is just oh-so-wonderful needs to get their head out of their ass. Please. No really...

      By default... WYSIWYG != bad design.

      If you use a shitty product such as Microsoft FrontPage, then yes, what-you-see-is-what-you-get ends up resulting in poorly coded HTML. But, as I previously stated, HTML is a piss-poor format.

      As for the blink tag~ it's much less annoying than the pop-up and pop-under ads harassing people such as myself. I never see the blink tag used anymore, and when I do, I'm pretty cool calm and collected about it.

      NNTP > Web-Based forums ~ Are you for real? Slashdot is what... oh yeah, a web-based forum. And I happen to like things around here.

      Finally, and more to the point, we have Flash. Honestly, Flash is one of the very few web standards that actually does what it's supposed to do across Windows/Macintosh. It looks the same across the two. I have absolutely *zero* experience with the Linux side of thing, so maybe I'm a bit myopic, but Flash > HTML when it comes to a modern and artistic website. Although... both require (much) different degrees of comprehension to achieve beautiful results.

      I've said it before and I'll say it again, Flash doesn't suck any more than HTML does... and Flash is better in several respects. It really boils down to the designer and application above all else. Furthermore, just because you like your view of the world wide web in 12-point black Courier doesn't mean we all should see things that (boring) way. Seems to be like you're shunning Flash just because you like all things text ( you probably use Lynx, don't you? )

    15. Re:uh oh by thrillseeker · · Score: 1
      MS is interested in making money. They make money on thier Mac units. Why would they take a product that is making money and destroy it?

      You had the beginning of an answer to your own question. What product has Ballmer acknowledged as his greatest threat? Since actually buying Linux and other open source is not possible, and actually outlawing it is difficult, even while discouraging its use with policy makers, then the way to protect his revenue stream is to bring under Microsoft control those packages that are not presently open source yet are widely deployed. Macromedia's products are a good start - Adobe's would be a reasonable next step - there's probably a handful of other "outside the OS" products that others can also think of.

      Once owned it can be "extended" for incompatibility - perhaps making ActiveX an integral part of it while announcing the "rich multimedia capabilities now offered" as an example. Imagine the marketing effort that could be put behind "read your PDF documents with embedded WMV and Flash".

      Look at the amount of effort it's taken for the Samba team to build and try to stay up with the continuous undocumented changes to the SMB protocol that Microsoft put out constantly. Such a tremendous effort is not trivial, and "costs" the open source community by tying up resources. Well placed money, such as in India, or outright purchase, in areas that are slightly removed from the Windows OS but are used by most of its customers will pay off for Microsoft. Do you think they developed and give away IE for the fun of it? Do they give away the necessary information to make it easy to use something other than Windows Media Viewer? Office? Exchange? Any place they can spend a relatively small amount of money to encourage staying with their own core platform, and to make it harder for the competition to operate, they will. They have to - as open source products gain more market share the risk disproportionally increases for Microsoft - losing entire organizations to open source products means there is an ever growing threat to their revenue stream.

    16. Re:uh oh by Ilgaz · · Score: 2

      Like that erm, what was the name? Oh, SVG?

      Where is svg used for gods sake?

      Wake up from the utopia you live my friend.

    17. Re:uh oh by josephgrossberg · · Score: 1

      Bah. Blink tag is nothing.

      Does anyone else remember the MARQUEE tag (scrolling text)?

      It was worse than BLINK and IE-only!

    18. Re:uh oh by edbarrett · · Score: 1
      I want someone to write a dummy flash plug in that does absolutely nothing, apart from stop the stupid 'do you want to download the latest Meglomedia Flash

      Do you plan on installing any more plugins? If not, remove libnullplugin.so/npnul32.dll from your mozilla/phoenix/netscape plugin folder. You'll get one more message that the plugin installer isn't available and then you'll never be prompted to install another plugin.

    19. Re:uh oh by OneEyedApe · · Score: 1
      I have seen flash and applets used in a reasonable and sometimes entertaining fashion in a small handful of web sites. Most web sites, however, most web sites with Flash use it in a very annoying manner.

      What would make sense to me is to design a scripting language, perhaps based on Tcl/Tk or Python, that would be found in the html much like JavaScript is, and then have the browser internally "compile" the script into a binary code for faster execution after the initial parsing.

      Of course, this scripting language should be an open standard

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
      --Thomas J. Kopp
    20. Re:uh oh by Draigon · · Score: 1

      "Sir, Macromedia has little to do with those faggot advertisements you've been seeing recently"

      Gotta love it when "Sir" is shortly followed by "faggot" :)
      I don't like ads and I'll still blame Macromedia. Why? Because of control. I can control image display, even GIF loops. If I want to have Flash installed, but disable portions of it and/or disable it for specific sites there is no built-in functionality for that.

      So, sir, blow it out your ass. It's been around for years and still sucks.

      --
      -Rabbit
    21. Re:uh oh by ClipDude · · Score: 1

      I'm glad MARQUEE is IE-only. It means I don't have to look at it!

      --

      The DMCA--for corporations, the best copyright law money can buy.
    22. Re:uh oh by josephgrossberg · · Score: 1

      Nooooo!

      Apparently their rational was its popularity in China: bugzilla comment, despite some initial qualms with the idea.

    23. Re:uh oh by Tim+Macinta · · Score: 1
      Try adding this to your user CSS(eg., chrome/userContent.css in Mozilla):
      embed[type="application/x-shockwave-flash"] { display: none !important; }
      Very nice! Thanks. Instead of making all the Flash on the page totally disappear, is there anyway to use userContent.css to replace each flash occurrence with, say a big yellow rectangle, so I know that the page has been altered? I'm thinking that replacing the "none" in what you gave above with something else might do the trick, but I don't know what to put there. I'll gladly RTFM, just point me at the right FM (I didn't find a relevant one on Google).
  3. If Microsoft makes Flash proprietary... by altgrr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...what effect would this have? It could go either way - the Mac/Linux/Mozilla users, who are in the minority, would be disgruntled by this, and would either give in, or just not visit sites that choose to use a proprietary format.

    IMHO, any proprietary format on the Internet is bad. Flash is all very well for doing supplementary things (games etc) but not for features essential to the operation of a website. Common sense would tell you not to use Flash for content provision, but people seem to think otherwise.

    It is most likely, however, that either this deal will not go ahead, or that MS will keep the standard fairly open. Remember, MS are moving towards semi-open standards - .NET is usable by anyone, but MS gets to declare what the standards are. Perhaps MS are actually becoming a little more honest, on the face of things?

    --


    Like car accidents, most hardware problems are due to driver error.
    1. Re:If Microsoft makes Flash proprietary... by Ilgaz · · Score: 2

      Add Opera too... Uses NSCP plugin arch. They hate Opera more than they hate Mozilla u know.

    2. Re:If Microsoft makes Flash proprietary... by Cinematique · · Score: 1

      Mozilla and Flash play nicely together on every website I've seen. There are more problems with Java across platforms than Flash, for sure.

    3. Re:If Microsoft makes Flash proprietary... by ManxStef · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Then perhaps people would switch away from Flash, to a fully open, free, W3C-supported standard like Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG)? (See a comparison of SWF and SVG functionality and a description of how Flash animation maps to SVG - both fairly old articles BTW.)

      I wish, but MS will use their browser market dominance to make sure that IE doesn't support it. Or if they do decide to incorporate it they'll use their tried-and-trusted tactic of "embrace(alter) and extend", so any W3C standards that are supported suddenly only seems to work properly in IE, thanks to a few subtly different things (not that they've done that before, cough - document.all, element.innerHTML - cough!). And as they'll have also aquired Dreamweaver (the most popular web development tool) they will therefore control the output format of 90% of the code produced; I dread to think how this'll affect the web as a whole.

      Wouldn't surprise me if they just stuck their middle finger up at the W3C and took control for themselves... or am I being overly paranoid?

      Damn I sure do hope this is just a rumour...

    4. Re:If Microsoft makes Flash proprietary... by nizo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh God please let this happen, if for no reason than to make Flash sites disappear.

    5. Re:If Microsoft makes Flash proprietary... by *xpenguin* · · Score: 2

      Flash has its uses:

      Windows RG
      Monkey lander

    6. Re:If Microsoft makes Flash proprietary... by feldsteins · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      MS will keep the standard fairly open. Remember, MS are moving towards semi-open standards - .NET is usable by anyone, but MS gets to declare what the standards are.

      "...usable by anyone, but MS gets to declare what the standards are..." will eventually play out like this:

      1. Microsoft keeps Flash "fairly open," leading to even further adoption of the technology.

      2. Flash becomes even more ubiquitous than it is today, basically becoming a fundamental building block of the internet. Since it is found everywhere and is supported by all browsers and ships on every computer with every platform...developers feel they can use it willy-nilly. And they do.

      3. Competing technologies all but fade away. With a ubiquitous, well supprted and free solution...who needs them?

      4. Things start becoming a little less open. "In order to accomodate their customers" (heh), Microsoft starts with the proprietary hooks. Functionality that only works in Windows (or IE or - insert microsoft product name here -). Or at least it works in their stuff first and or best because of what they are changing.

      5. Suddenly other browsers and platforms are using the internet only with permission from Redmond. (Apple: "You'll give us access to last years internet content if we bundle Windows Media Player instead of Quicktime? Sure thing, boss! Whatever you say!" Linux community: "If only the stupid sheep of the world would download, compile, configure and use -insert name of open source scalable vector graphics widget with % 0.00145 marketshare here - instead of that proprietary shit! Then our open source browser would have a chance. By the way, anyone get MSFlash plugin 7.2 to work in Mozilla yet? Yes I know the current version is 9.6. Shut up already!"

      5. Somewhere Steve Balmer pets a hairless cat and grins because he knows he now has one more big lever to lean on in order to keep Windows and Microsoft on top.

      Or on the other hand, it could be that Microsoft is, as you say, actually "becoming a little more honest". But I think the smart money would be on my scenario.

      --
      You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
    7. Re:If Microsoft makes Flash proprietary... by Cinematique · · Score: 2

      OVERRATED? Try INSIGHTFUL. Java isn't as wonderful as some believe. Try playing a game over at Yahoo! on anything other than a Windows computer. It won't work. In fact, there are many instances I can think of that Java does not work on anything other than Windows.

      But that's Microsoft's fault, for bastardizing Java... right?

      BAH.

    8. Re:If Microsoft makes Flash proprietary... by n3m6 · · Score: 2

      and Flash sites cannot be indexed and therefore cannot be searched through a medium like google. Makes Flash a bad thing for web.

  4. The Flash angle is interesting ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... and disturbing, since Flash is finally becoming an interesting and useful way to deliver content over the Web instead of an annoying tool to do things that could better be done in plain HTML and maybe JavaScript.

    But I don't think it's the whole story. If Microsoft acquires Macromedia, they also get their graphics tools, which, while much less widely used than Adobe's, are generally well-regarded. Ggraphic artists have been talking for years about how nice it is to work in an area not dominated by Microsoft (and yes, Adobe can be just as evil -- but let's be practical here; they just don't have the raw power Microsoft does.) This could be Microsoft's bid to swallow up the last major area of the desktop market they don't yet dominate.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    1. Re:The Flash angle is interesting ... by Kajakske · · Score: 1

      First of all, the windows platform is not highly valued by graphics power users. Try mac for that.
      Second of all, if you have to use PC, use and Adobe product, not a macromedia one ...

    2. Re:The Flash angle is interesting ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

      Re your first point: Macromedia's products are available for both Mac and PC. Microsoft might just keep it that way (remember, they already have a big Mac presence via Office and IE -- in fact, it's said that the M$MBU is the biggest Mac programming shop outside Apple itself) or they might kill off the Mac Macromedia line and start pushing it aggressively on PC. The graphic artists will kick and scream, but if the suits say, "You will do your work on a PC," a lot of them won't have a choice. It's happened to developers, to tech writers, to regular ol' office drones; it can happen to artists too.

      Re your second point: see "start pushing it aggressively on PC," above. Right now, Adobe dominates on both platforms. Er, remember WordPerfect Corp.? Microsoft is incredibly patient, and they have the resources to challenge the market leader in just about any market segment.

      I'm not saying I want this to happen, by any means. But it could.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:The Flash angle is interesting ... by Kajakske · · Score: 1

      It could indeed.

      But then again, if some Big Shot at microsoft gets the idea to buy out (or challenge) for example Ferrari in Formula1 race, that's possible too. And, they would probably put enough money on the table to get there logo on the Ferrari cars, ...
      That's the problem with big companies, they don't always have the best product, but the (better) competition just doesn't satnd a chance :(

      To get back to Adobe, let's just hope Adobe stays Adobe :)

  5. Let's look back at history for a sec by inteller · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For those of you born yesterday here is a recap: Microsoft bought Liquid Motion back in the late 90s. It was actually a contender for about 3 months but Flash quickly surpassed it. Microsoft quietly concedes this battle. Then around 2000 Microsoft acquires Visio. Again, pushing the visualization theme here. About this time they also come out with a very capable Photodraw application that even uses Adobe Photoshop plug-ins. Clearly Microsoft hungers for visualization software in it's portfolio. And Dreamweaver is kicking FrontPage's ass. It should be no surprise to anyone that Microsoft wants Macromedia. With this piece of the puzzle they could finally off Adobe and their pesky little PDF format.

    1. Re:Let's look back at history for a sec by Kajakske · · Score: 1

      Adobe is not only superiour for there PDF format.

      As you mentioned, the graphical tools MS created use Photoshop plugins, as this is the current standard. Still, the original Adobe Photoshop is better than any other graphics tool ...

    2. Re:Let's look back at history for a sec by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      With this piece of the puzzle they could finally off Adobe and their pesky little PDF format.

      Why on earth would millions of businesses, governments, and individuals want to go to all the trouble of migrating billions of documents from PDF (designed for forms and printed documents) to a 'standard' that's best known for making web sites more annoying and slower to load--and is available on fewer platforms?

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    3. Re:Let's look back at history for a sec by Asprin · · Score: 2

      Nice point. The question you stirred up in *my* head is "what alternatives to PDF are there?"

      --
      "Lawyers are for sucks."
      - Doug McKenzie
    4. Re:Let's look back at history for a sec by constantnormal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why on earth would millions of businesses, governments, and individuals want to go to all the trouble of migrating billions of documents from PDF (designed for forms and printed documents) to a 'standard' that's best known for making web sites more annoying and slower to load--and is available on fewer platforms?

      I believe the answer to this is tied up with the same reasons why millions of people use other Microsoft products. One could ask why people would prefer a bugridden claptrap OS from Redmond over OS/2, which was far and away the better product for many years.

      Why don't people look for the best solution to their needs, and instead look to what others are doing?

      People don't want multiple platforms -- they want the rest of the world to conform to their own way of doing things. This replays in politics, religion, culture, etc. We're basically herd animals. All that Microsoft has to do is gain a marketplace majority, and the world will bleat a path to their doorstep.

      Macintosh and Linux users are basically aberrations, which is why they will always be a minority, no matter how much better their respective systems are.

      So if Microsoft can make it less convenient to use PDFs, and more convenient to use MDFs (Microsoft Document Format), and even offer a one-way compatibility to allow PDF users to migrate to MDF without converting, the game is won.

      Powerpoint is the Document format of the Future. (puking noises)

    5. Re:Let's look back at history for a sec by Sleepy · · Score: 2

      >Nice point. The question you stirred up in *my* head is "what alternatives to PDF are there?"

      How about binary Word .doc format?
      I get most of my documents this way (wish as I might that they were PDF).

    6. Re:Let's look back at history for a sec by blitziod · · Score: 1

      PDF is a royal pain in the ass. It can be ok for downloading long manuals I guess. But it is often used to view pages and this is like the worst.

      --
      The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
    7. Re:Let's look back at history for a sec by beaverfever · · Score: 1
      Why? Let's have a look at the reasons:

      most people don't know a PDF from their asses - compatability issues? Wot dat?

      Windows and MSOffice will include whatever new standard MS wants to push.

      MS software, browsers, etcetera, could suddenly have 'issues' with PDFs, and we all know how MS compatibility is read by the common person: it's not MS' fault nor the browser, it's the stupid website.

      All that needs to happen is for the above to start happening in offices, and specifically happen in some stuffed suit's office and suddenly MegaCorpCo is switching to a 'standard' known for making websites more annoying and slower to load and is available on fewer platforms.

      Geeks everywhere should climb off the pedestals once in a while and talk to the regular office people - many of them love MS Office, PowerPoint, all that bullshit. They can make presentations! They can make web pages! They LOVE that shit and don't care what you have to say about it. Even the ones who are annoyed with crashing or whatever bugs them (heh - pun), they won't try anything else because it's too much of a hassle (hence Apple's 'switch' campaign trying to illustrate that trying something new ain't so bad) That is how the standard can/may change.

    8. Re:Let's look back at history for a sec by Asprin · · Score: 2

      Not the same?

      Does .DOC support a "Read-Only" mode? Furthermore, .DOC does a horrible job with page layout (AFAIK, the rules it uses to flow text around embedded images and objects are documented only as lies) **and** you can only distribute, well, Word docs in that format, whereas anything that can be printed can be PDF'd.

      I rather think of Acrobat PDF as being closer to the "Crystal Reports" end of the spectrum.

      Yeah, I know, preaching to the choir -- just thinking out loud, I guess.

      --
      "Lawyers are for sucks."
      - Doug McKenzie
    9. Re:Let's look back at history for a sec by sheldon · · Score: 2

      "And Dreamweaver is kicking FrontPage's ass."

      Please define "kicking ass".

      My guess is Frontpage outsells Dreamweaver by at least 4 to 1.

    10. Re:Let's look back at history for a sec by SteveDude · · Score: 1

      Hmm..interesting. Like some companies i.e,the company that created Blender, Gobe (maybe) and others such as Sun. They released or are thinking about releasing their OS/programs under open source probably because of competitive products. Look at NVIDIA who now, in highly competitive practices with ATI, adds Linux to their driver arch. Maybe if Adobe does start to get killed by this Adobe will think twice about photoshop and others for Linux? Their PDF reader is already for Linux..hmm

      --
      Steve
    11. Re:Let's look back at history for a sec by cpeterso · · Score: 3, Insightful


      a 'standard' that's best known for making web sites more annoying and slower to load

      you're talking about PDF, right?

    12. Re:Let's look back at history for a sec by benjamindees · · Score: 2
      Chevy Ford
      Coke Pepsi
      Left Right

      People will do just fine with a choice of products/ideas, as long as they are fundamentally similar. No one has "bleat(ed) a path" to Coke's doorstep yet.

      We just have to make sure that we have a (version of) Linux that looks and functions close enough to Windows that people really don't care one way or another.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    13. Re:Let's look back at history for a sec by hackstraw · · Score: 2
      People don't want multiple platforms -- they want the rest of the world to conform to their own way of doing things. This replays in politics, religion, culture, etc. We're basically herd animals. All that Microsoft has to do is gain a marketplace majority, and the world will bleat a path to their doorstep.

      Yeah, right, like people all strive to drive the same car, dress the same, and have one chanel of television that shows the same show.

      But people do want and expect standards. That enables all of the different cars to use the same kinds of fuel and drive within reasonable speeds with each other. People want a size 10 shoe to fit a "size 10" foot, and have multiple channels of TV that work with their television.

      Regarding MS's aquisition of Macromedia, I could care less about flash. To me, it doesn't exist. I don't enable the plugin because I cannot stop the animations (unlike gifs), and it is a distraction when I am trying to read the content of the website. I mean that is why I am on the page, isn't it? Now MS's control over Dreamweaver is a problem. That means that they will pretty much have a verticle monopoly of the web, which is what they are trying to do. Think about it, Dreameweaver in the creation, IIS and ASP at the server front end, .NET at the server backend, and IE at the user level. Doesn't leave much else now does it?

      My question for Macromedia is this. Do you believe in your company and your products? What is your desire to loose what you have worked for? Is a little cash (or alot) now really worth it? MS can only aquire Macromedia if Macromedia allows them to do so. I see no long term gain for them to sell out.

    14. Re:Let's look back at history for a sec by inteller · · Score: 1

      um well, you shouldn't be viewing the web on other computers besides a PC. Geez,everyone knows that the Intarnet is best viewed on a PC, sheesh.

    15. Re:Let's look back at history for a sec by inteller · · Score: 1

      oh yeah, quit being competitive where the money is and go throw all your resources behind an obscure OS.....better yet, one where most of the software is free and the users don't like to pay for anything.....mmm YEAH....that's gonna make a lot of money. :rolleyes:

    16. Re:Let's look back at history for a sec by inteller · · Score: 1

      yeah, well Microsoft buying Sun would be like Micheal Jackson buying the Elephant Man skeleton. It's something neat to show your friends that you have, but it really just takes up space, collects dust, and generally doesn't do anything. Getting Macromedia is more like getting a ho in need of a pimp.

    17. Re:Let's look back at history for a sec by beaverfever · · Score: 1
      comparing peoples' inevitable desire for differing OSs, apps and platforms to the desire to have different cars, shoes, etc., is comparing apples to oranges.

      If half the populace drove cars only, and the other half insisted on motorcycles only, then you're a bit closer to the issues involved here: Similar functions with many base-level similarities, but both having distinctive needs, many of which do not apply to the other.

  6. Good by maddskillz · · Score: 1

    I can only hope that try try and charge way too much for it, and get rid of it. Or maybe companies won't want to risk losing a little business from the people who still don't use Explorer. Either way, if I can see less flash on the web, I will be happy. It takes too long to download, and I really don't like flashy looking webpages, when I am just trying to find some information.

  7. Oh god. Help us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    What ever will we do without flash? I mean, it works so well with Linux as it is, how could we possibly live without it?

  8. I'm all for it as an MX user by Brento · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My first web development platform was Drumbeat, which became Dreamweaver Ultradev, which became Dreamweaver MX. Everyone I know who uses both MX and Visual Studio .NET still prefers MX for the majority of their database-driven web development. I'd love to have MX's ease of use and powerful design support built into Visual Studio.

    --
    What's your damage, Heather?
    1. Re:I'm all for it as an MX user by terraformer · · Score: 1

      Sure, just as Access was replaced by FoxPro or any of the other better packages from competitors MS bought out over the years. Keep dreaming.

      --
      Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
    2. Re:I'm all for it as an MX user by Kajakske · · Score: 1

      I use textpad, their site.
      I'd have to agree that Dreamweaver (MX or not, doesn't really matter) is the best WYSIWYG editor available, but still, give me an editor with linenumbers and I'm happy (I used notepad for a while, btu was missing the linenumbers :-))

  9. Flash for .NET by paschimghat · · Score: 1

    This might spell boon for the lacklustre .NET initiative???

  10. cross-brower isn't going away by sirshannon · · Score: 1

    MS would benefit from cross-browser compatibility because that would give more reason to use the MX line for development. The SERVER technology is where they would benefit, by making Flash remoting work natively with .NET, requiring windows for Coldfusion MX, etc.

    Flash is the epitomy of cross browser and would be an extremely power tool in getting more windows machines in the server room.

  11. Re:MacroMedia, Borland, Rational by Lobo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes they are innovative! They created the web browser...er...they created that really neat program Visio...er...they created the office suite...er...they created the GUI...er...

    --

    -------
    Bite Me Fanboy!!
  12. Re:MacroMedia, Borland, Rational by jez_f · · Score: 1

    M$, innovation through acquisition.

    I am not sure what effect this will have on the web. Coldfusion is a direct competitor to ASP. I would think this would raise issues with the monopolies watchers.

    The biggest selling point of flash (well if you listen to Macromedia) is its cross browser/cross platform capability. M$ would surly cut down on this. Which would make flash less attractive.

    I thought that Macromedia were trying to push flash on PDAs and Smartphones, this would probably restrict it to M$ powered PDAs/Smartphones.

    So this could lead to a upsurge in flash as IE would become integrated with it. Which would make the web unusable for non M$ browsers, or it could diminish the use of flash as it becomes a M$ only technology.

  13. There's worse by TitusC3v5 · · Score: 1

    Microsoft acquiring Flash would be bad enough, but having them get ahold of Dreamweaver would be even worse. It's a far superior product to Frontpage, but if good ol' Bill were to get his hands on it, I'm sure it would either be disregarded or simplified/downgraded to the point where it's nothing more than a Frontpage clone. This is bad. Very. bad.

    --
    And the masses cried out, "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0!"
    1. Re:There's worse by crowke · · Score: 1

      I've made some backup copies of my Macromedia Homesite 5, since MX Studio is overkill for simple PHP development and Macromedia won't release anymore new versions of Homesite, it would be terrible to lose my version.

      I think you'll have to do the same with Dreamweaver if it gets bought by MS.

    2. Re:There's worse by GiMP · · Score: 2

      Uh.. you can still use VIM

    3. Re:There's worse by Kajakske · · Score: 1

      Try out TextPad. About the same as your homesite, only better :-)
      It can offer you the same 'insert some html tag here' functionality. Or you can just use it as a texteditor with replace function &nd line numbers, which is the best use, I think.

    4. Re:There's worse by OneEyedApe · · Score: 1
      Or emacs.

      Sorry, couldn't resist

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
      --Thomas J. Kopp
    5. Re:There's worse by clontzman · · Score: 2

      Studio MX includes HomeSite+ (which has all the functionality of ColdFusion Studio and Homesite 5) as a toss-in, though they're definitely trying to get people to use Dreamweaver as a code editor.

      Don't worry, though... it's still in the package. I think they know that there are a lot of us that don't use wysiwyg editors for code editing.

    6. Re:There's worse by Evil+Grinn · · Score: 1

      I've made some backup copies of my Macromedia Homesite 5, since MX Studio is overkill for simple PHP development and Macromedia won't release anymore new versions of Homesite, it would be terrible to lose my version.


      Have you looked at 1stPage (http://www.evrsoft.com/)? Its free (as in beer), and the GUI is similar to HomeSite.


  14. Are they willing to sell? by QaBOjk · · Score: 1

    nobody said Macromedia would be willing to be bought out..

    1. Re:Are they willing to sell? by inteller · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it's called hostile takeover and it's done all the time.

    2. Re:Are they willing to sell? by Kajakske · · Score: 1

      Still, the share holders have to sell, even with hostile takeovers. If there are enough share holders who don't want to, then MS can stand upside down for all they care.
      However, I have no idea wheter or not the founders of Macromedia still own enough shares of there companie to have majority of the votes (if MS would buy all the rest of them) ...

    3. Re:Are they willing to sell? by terraformer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The fact that they (Macromedia) are not talking to the media is one indication and if you had read the story they are hurting financially (due to their own greed and mismanagement IMHO) and are ripe for a takeover. One that the shareholders would benefit from immensely.

      --
      Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
    4. Re:Are they willing to sell? by acb · · Score: 2

      Most shareholders are financial management portfolios guided solely by profit maximisation, and not interested in making sacrifices to fight against Darth Gates' empire. The profits they could reap from a MS buyout would convince them (especially next to the losses that MS could inflict by cutting off the oxygen supply of a defiant Macromedia). Even if the remainder were sworn Penguinhead Jedi, MS could buy Macromedia if they wanted.

    5. Re:Are they willing to sell? by Kajakske · · Score: 1

      In that case, yes, that's to bad.

      But in case of a hostile takeover (where this is possible) the original owners decided to sell out more than 50% of there shares to others long before the takeover, so that's there own problem.

      In this case, it's our ptoblem too :(

    6. Re:Are they willing to sell? by AndroidCat · · Score: 2
      After the dot.bombing of their portfolios, most of the shareholders will probably sell their grannies for the right price.

      The fonders don't need a majority, just a big enough lump to make it hard to swallow. However, I'll bet that they don't if Microsoft can make a sweet enough offer to the VCaps and institutional investors. As I said, with the general slashing of tech stocks, a lot of them could really use the money.

      Do not underestimate the power of large amounts of crisp cash.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  15. Kill Flash! by Flamesplash · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe this will be one of those technologies MS buys just so it won't go anywhere in usage or development. I would not be saddened by such a thing. Am I the only ones who is sick of flash splash pages to websites? Just give me my content damnit. :)

    --
    "Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
    1. Re:Kill Flash! by haggar · · Score: 3, Troll

      You're kidding? To have an idea of what is Microsoft's attitude towards this issue, just check msnbc website. No, I don't think MS would just kill Flash, I think they would include it into every aspect of your web experience, possibly driving some of us nuts.

      Like MS wants to do something that would preserve sanity :o)

      --
      Sigged!
    2. Re:Kill Flash! by jone1941 · · Score: 1

      Just wait, I was at SpeechTek this year, and Microsoft is about to release SALT. The "open-standard" used to create "Mulit-modal" websites, and put speech rec and text to speech in just about every application you use. If you think flash is annoying, just wait until the the people developing with flash try to make speech recognition and text to speech enabled websites....ugh

      --
      Fear trumps hope and ignorance trumps both
    3. Re:Kill Flash! by The+G · · Score: 2

      As a former employee of a member of the SALT coalition, let me promise you: It will never go anywhere.

      SALT make great demoware, particularly because any half-clever programmer can make a "multimodal" telephony demo from existing technologies and say, "look! That's how cool SALT will be!" But the companies that have to implement and demploy it hate each other, the big players all have their own proprietary sytems that they might retrofit buggy-ass SALT implementations into if you happen to catch them in a good mood, and half of the potential customers have gone bankrupt since the initiative started.

      And for those designers who absolutely must put speech-this-and-that into your web apps: write an XSL transform to generate VoiceXML, which crappy though it is is at least something like a standard. Or, better yet, have yourself lobotomized; it will save the rest of us from interface hell.
      --G

    4. Re:Kill Flash! by Reziac · · Score: 2

      In fact, my first thought was much as yours: the web as designed by M$ would be ActiveX and Flash, no HTML allowed (because ordinary HTML is too friendly to people who DON'T want to use proprietary implementations). It would be one big visual assault, not to mention slow as hell, unsearchable, and in short, much like M$'s site was for a while when they first discovered frames (totally unusuable due to nested-frame hell).

      Frontpage only improved and stopped doing horrible things to the docsource (it's now pretty clean, amazingly enough) because M$ got tired of being the laughing stock of the industry. If there's no one left to laugh, M$ can do whatever asinine things come into their heads. Which in their present mindset, means totally locking down whatever they can.

      If they had it all their way, could well be we'd be making micropayments for every page we view.

      BTW, anyone else think Macromedia overpriced their new MX line out of their own market??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:Kill Flash! by infinitey · · Score: 1

      I also hope fewer sites use Flash; those Flash ads are especially unnerving. Well, they were unnerving until I discovered that there are several ways to remove the Flash integration from your browser (Windows and Mac).

      http://www.macromedia.com/support/flash/ts/documen ts/playerfaq.htm#remove

      Personally I would go with the manual uninstall. Who knows what else that uninstall program does. Doing it nitty gritty makes you feel more confident that it's out of your system for good. Also, they don't include how to avoid the Flash Install pop-ups on their web site. Just go to your HOSTS file and add:

      0.0.0.0 active.macromedia.com
      0.0.0.0 download.macromedia.com

      Now live you life Flash-free! :)

    6. Re:Kill Flash! by Wiseleo · · Score: 1

      Overpriced?

      Not really. It's a professional toolset for those who don't want to use Frontpage.

      Dreamweaver MX is now combined with UltraDev.

      I think the price is well worth it.

      Leonid

      --
      Leonid S. Knyshov
      Find me on Quora :)
  16. YES!! by privacyt · · Score: 1

    This is GOOD NEWS! I hate flash. If it weren't for flash, I wouldn't have to view so many damn ads in my Mozilla browser. I've done everything I can to uninstall flash, including deleting every nwswf.dll (or whatever it's called, I forget) file on my computer, deleting the Windows/Macromedia directory, etc. But I still get those damn flash ads. Please, Micro$oft, remove the cross-browser capability of flash. Then I can surf in peace with Mozilla. (The .001% of the time that I want to view a flash display, I'll use IE for that.)

    1. Re:YES!! by IridiumD · · Score: 1

      So many here are focusing on Flash and how losing it to the behemoth would be a good thing. Flash just a part of Macromedia. Many use the Dreamweaver/Fireworks combination for their day-to-day web development. Losing that would be a painful thing.

  17. Crap... by tswinzig · · Score: 2

    I was kind of hoping those annoying Flash advertisements would be banished from Mozilla.

    --

    "And like that ... he's gone."
    1. Re:Crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      dont install the plugin then

    2. Re:Crap... by OneEyedApe · · Score: 1

      It would make more sense to write an extension or other add-on for Mozilla that would let you block flash ads while allowing you to view the content you came for. And I am well aware this is far easier said than done.

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
      --Thomas J. Kopp
  18. Re:If I were Macromedia by inteller · · Score: 1

    when someone buys you, you don't have a lot of say over shit....especially if it's a hostile takeover.

  19. Who do you want to own today? by curtisk · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Flash would give Microsoft access to tools for building rich interfaces on both desktops and mobile devices, furthering .NET.
    furthering .NET? Has .NET even left the starting gate in all seriousness? Other than the msn portal.
    It would be sad to see another innovator get gobbled up, I've been impressed with macromedia since the ol' Director days, it just seems shitty when a big guy buys up a brand or name then tries to pawn it off as their own.

    The saddest example of late is Infogrames trying to ride the name recognition of Atari of all things! WTF? LOL

    --

    Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!

    1. Re:Who do you want to own today? by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      furthering .NET? Has .NET even left the starting gate in all seriousness?

      Sure, you can start developing Web Services(tm) in C# today if you want to.

    2. Re:Who do you want to own today? by Pope · · Score: 5, Informative
      it just seems shitty when a big guy buys up a brand or name then tries to pawn it off as their own.

      The way Macromind became Macromedia after they and Adobe split the Aldus software portfolio?

      The way Macromedia bought Flash from Futuresplash?

      Ask yourself whatever happened to Extreme 3D, SoundEdit and Xres...

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    3. Re:Who do you want to own today? by htrn · · Score: 1

      The deal would have to get approval from not only the US, but also the EU who have stated that they aren't too keen on approving any deal that would give any company more than 50 percent of the market share in a particular area. That is why they claim to have blocked the merger of GE and Honeywell. Wouldn't this deal give MS more than 50% market share in certain Internet software?

    4. Re:Who do you want to own today? by Reziac · · Score: 2

      I actually own some Aldus software. I feel old.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:Who do you want to own today? by RabidOverYou · · Score: 1

      > I feel old.

      You look worse.

    6. Re:Who do you want to own today? by curtisk · · Score: 2

      good point! I'm not saying that past Macromedia buy-outs are any less "wrong" per se, or any for that matter....but the current issue is the MS buying Macromedia, so I'm addressing that.
      What sucks is that its so hard for tech developers to maintain financial security, thus leading them into situations where buy-outs become necessary for the survival of the product

      --

      Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!

    7. Re:Who do you want to own today? by curtisk · · Score: 2

      Yes, theres alot to do with .NET
      But whats been seen so far?
      Yes, its new tech, but devs have had betas and pre-releases for a long while before official release. By stating it will "further" .NET .......further from what?
      There is no real perception as to where .NET stands today! Once the .NET server is ok for release and implemented that may change significantly....

      --

      Sehr geehrter Toilettenbenutzer!

    8. Re:Who do you want to own today? by sheldon · · Score: 2

      "furthering .NET? Has .NET even left the starting gate in all seriousness? Other than the msn portal."

      MSN portal? What the hell does the msn portal have to do with .NET?

    9. Re:Who do you want to own today? by SoftwareJuggler · · Score: 1

      What sucks is that its so hard for tech developers to maintain financial security, thus leading them into situations where buy-outs become necessary for the survival of the product

      Which would have nothing to do with the people here whining that "$400 is too much to spend on Dreamweaver" or "$1200 is too much to spend on Director, so I'll just w4r3z it and they aren't losing a sale anyway."

      --
      Enjoy -jim
    10. Re:Who do you want to own today? by Evil+Grinn · · Score: 1

      The way Macromind became Macromedia after they and Adobe split the Aldus software portfolio?


      The way Macromedia bought Flash from Futuresplash?


      Keep going! The way that Macromedia bought Allaire (makers of ColdFusion). Or the way that Allaire themselves bought LiveSoftware (makers of Jrun). Remember that Jrun is where all of Macromedia's J2EE involvement came from in the first place.

    11. Re:Who do you want to own today? by TheRIAAMustDie · · Score: 1

      I own Aldus Freehand. :)

      Still runs great on my old macs, along with Illustrator 88, Dark Castle, and a plethora of other great titles which will never be equalled in terms of simplicity and their adherence to the mac interface.

      Peace

      --

      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. it's the only thing that ever has.
    12. Re:Who do you want to own today? by Pope · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I forgot about Allarie, that was pretty recent, too!

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    13. Re:Who do you want to own today? by Reziac · · Score: 2

      [inspects self] Damn, you're right! :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    14. Re:Who do you want to own today? by Reziac · · Score: 2

      [creaks rocker, taps cane] In my weird collexion I have Aldus Pagemaker 2.0 for Mac. Why I can't imagine since I don't do Macs, but it's around here somewhere!

      Also have PM4.0 for PC, which sucked. PM5 was much better. I have 6.0 in a box but never used it.

      BTW, love your nym :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  20. Adobe would not be happy by HakuMage · · Score: 1

    don't forget than macromedia is also in front line with adobe for imaging so Adobe will see this kind of acquisition has very hostile ...

    More, if Ms does it (which i don't think; more christmas gossips), they could wipe all Macromedia software from Mac as extra from wiping java from their softs.

  21. As a CF Programmer, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'll kill myself if this takes place. If I'm not mistaken, they'd have to make some serious mods to ColdFusion or sell it because MS cannot distribute any Java based tech. without consulting with Sun first due to the lawsuit. There goes the tight Flash integration.

    On a bright side, I'm glad CF's power is finally recognized:

    "The ColdFusion web application server is regarded as superior to Microsoft's Active Server Pages (ASPs) and even Santa Clara, California-based Sun's Java Server Pages (JSPs) because of its simplicity, power and completeness. ColdFusion MX, meanwhile, uses ColdFusion Mark-up Language (CFML) tags that compile to Java."

    1. Re:As a CF Programmer, by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      On a bright side, I'm glad CF's power is finally recognized

      Recognized in a weak story where the writer was looking for anything and everything to try to support a ridiculous idea. With all due respect, the only houses that I've seen that use CF use it as a "ASP or JSP for dummies". In any case, Microsoft has .NET, a tremendously wide and actually very full featured server language, and they certainly don't need CF to show them how it's done.

    2. Re:As a CF Programmer, by EatHam · · Score: 1

      As another CF programmer, I can definitavely tell you that it not A|J SP for dummies. It is quite a bit more powerful, scalable, faster to develop in, not to mention that yes, Virginia, it *does* run on Linux. Here's an interesting quote from DevCon...

      At DevCon in October I discussed Web services in detail, and had the opportunity to demonstrate ColdFusion Web services being consumed by .NET (using C#) as well as .NET Web services being consumed by ColdFusion MX. One of the most blatantly obvious differences was the amount of code it took to consume a Web service - .NET is built around Web services technologies, and ColdFusion puts it to shame with something as simple as consuming a Web service (a .NET Web service at that) - one tag compared to pages of code. biased reference.

      Of course, the people posting this are CF developers also, but true is true.

  22. Borland, Rational , .... by Koos+Baster · · Score: 1

    First Borland, then Rational and now MacroMedia.

    What's next? SUN, CNN-TimeWarner-AOL, W3C, OSDN, GNU, Linus?

    ...Better check who I've been sold to...

    --
    The world is run by idiots because they're more efficient than hamsters

  23. This would be very bad... by jtharpla · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As someone who works in a Cold Fusion shop, I can say this wouldn't be a good thing, despite all the "yay, kill Flash!" posts.

    Cold Fusion is much, much easier to develop and deploy web apps for than ASP or JSP.

    Microsoft should be happy with just being the number one software company...why do they need to rule the world too?

  24. Re:YES!! YES!! YES!! by Tangential · · Score: 1

    I agree. Flash is like a pervasive virus. If I could find a way to disable it in Galeon for good, it would be gone.

    --
    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
  25. Well, must get past DoJ by os2fan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Remember, the DOJ blocked the Microsoft attempt to acquire Intuit. Maybe they could block this attempt.

    Suppose that some "public interest" suggestion could be put to bear on MS acquiring companies in related fields....

    --
    OS/2 - because choice is a terrible thing to waste.
    1. Re:Well, must get past DoJ by Stephen+VanDahm · · Score: 3, Flamebait

      "Remember, the DOJ blocked the Microsoft attempt to acquire Intuit. Maybe they could block this attempt."

      Microsoft has given a lot of money to the Republican party, so it's safe to assume that Ashcroft won't block this acquisition....

      Steve

    2. Re:Well, must get past DoJ by rdean400 · · Score: 1

      They gave a lot of money to the Clinton administration, too. FWIW, the FTC and DOJ have moved to stop some mergers/acquisitions that have had the spectre of antitrust issues around them.

    3. Re:Well, must get past DoJ by tweek · · Score: 2

      And in other news, Microsoft has also given alot of money to Democrats. Don't make this a political issue when it isn't:

      http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.asp?ID=D00 0000115&Name=Microsoft+Corp

      --
      "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
    4. Re:Well, must get past DoJ by Stephen+VanDahm · · Score: 2

      Anything involving government is inherently political. The DOJ is controlled by the Attorney General who is appointed by the President. Whenver it has the freedom to do so, the DOJ will act according to the interests of the party to which the President belongs. This is the way it's alway been.

      I know that Microsoft has given money to both parties, but Microsoft has much more influence over the Bush Administration than they did Clinton Administration. I'm not implying that the Republicans are more corrupt or anything like that. The Republicans are more naturally sympathetic to issues that Microsoft cares about.

      The Bush Administration doesn't seem to be terribly concerned about antitrust issues. The DOJ had already won the case against Microsoft, but the Bush Administration basically abandoned the case as quickly as possible. The Bush administration also decided that the phone companies don't have to resell DSL access to other DSL providers, in spite of the potential for monopoly abuse.

      Anyway, I firmly believe that, should the merger rumor prove to be true, the DOJ will make no effort to block it.

    5. Re:Well, must get past DoJ by Arcturax · · Score: 2

      All that means is the democrats won't try to stop it either.

      --

      --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
    6. Re:Well, must get past DoJ by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      I think you missed the point. Yes, they gave money to that other party too, so if they were in power, things would be the same. But that payment isn't really what's relevant, because it turned out to just be speculative, on the contingency that they would win. Didn't happen.

      The point is that the necessary payment (to the Republican party) has been made. Microsoft's account is in good order, so they can expect Microsoft Justice (TM).

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    7. Re:Well, must get past DoJ by krygny · · Score: 1


      Not just the DOJ. The FTC may also have something to say about it.

      --
      "How perfectly Goddam delightful it all is, to be sure." - Robert Crumb

      --
      Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
    8. Re:Well, must get past DoJ by benzapp · · Score: 2

      That is absolutely ridiculous. Look at the programs the Gates foundation supports. Their #1 concern is population growth. That right there should tell you the gates support corporate fascism, the essence of modern day liberalism.

      The reality is today, large companies support both parties. This is why the Green party exists.

      Since public records exist on corporate controbutions, please provide some kind of source to this claim.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
  26. Re:MacroMedia, Borland, Rational by SmlFreshwaterBuffalo · · Score: 1

    Respect and admiration? ...for Microsoft?

    You're new here, aren't you...

  27. Where extremely annoying ads are concerned.. by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Funny
    significant impact on the cross-browser compatibility of Flash applications.

    This would not be a bad thing. Now to get rid of animated gifs, who do they need to buy up and lock only into IE to spare us from those?

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Where extremely annoying ads are concerned.. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

      I think Unisys holds the patents to those. Or at least the compression algo. But while we're at it, do you think we could unload MIDI on them... I mean, if we are cleaning out all the dumb web ideas, let's get rid of all of them.

    2. Re:Where extremely annoying ads are concerned.. by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      do you think we could unload MIDI on them... I mean, if we are cleaning out all the dumb web ideas, let's get rid of all of them.

      Oh how I hate ebay listings with MIDI. What ARE these dipsh!ts thinking... I agree 100%

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  28. And there goes flash, down the drain by justsomebody · · Score: 2

    If that would happen', what is the posibility for flash to surive?

    It's just one step less if you wanna force down .NET.

    --
    Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
  29. Folks this is a rumor by ces · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And a rumor posted on The Register at that. I'll believe this when I see it confirmed somewhere that doesn't appear to be cribbing from the Reg or Slashdot.

    This also assumes Macromedia wants to be bought by Microsoft, even if MS is attempting a hostile bid Macromedia may go looking for a white knight.

    I could see IBM, Adobe, or Sun ending up with Macromedia in the end.

    --
    Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
    1. Re:Folks this is a rumor by didlybom · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cringely wrote about it a week ago, in his InfoWorld column. Still a rumor though.

    2. Re:Folks this is a rumor by ShavenYak · · Score: 2

      I could see IBM, Adobe, or Sun ending up with Macromedia in the end.

      Adobe would probably be the best fit. Imagine the product portfolio they'd have if they acquired Macromedia: Photoshop, Pagemaker, Dreamweaver, Flash, and Acrobat. An impressive yet focused lineup.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    3. Re:Folks this is a rumor by joebp · · Score: 1
      Macromedia Photoshop and Macromedia Acrobat?

      Shurely not!

    4. Re:Folks this is a rumor by strongface · · Score: 1

      Even if this is a rumor, how is macromedia doing so bad on the books. They put out great products which are used in almost every kind of technology development - from e-training, to internet games to .net to java - they do an good job of covering a lot. I hope this is not true because this could kill the market that remain for us small vendors.

    5. Re:Folks this is a rumor by yomahz · · Score: 2

      And a rumor posted on The Register at that. I'll believe this when I see it confirmed somewhere that doesn't appear to be cribbing from the Reg or Slashdot.

      This was a rumor over a year ago. I did a Macromedia seminar on flash/coldfusion/jrun remoting about a year ago and they confirmed it was a rumor then. That's probably still the case.

      --
      "A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
    6. Re:Folks this is a rumor by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Tho considering that last week M$ was rumoured to be eyeing Borland and Rational (ooops, too late), it sounds more like M$ is casting about for new major acquisitions in general, not necessarily in any specific field.

      Anyone remember where is that site that lists all of M$'s previous buying sprees??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    7. Re:Folks this is a rumor by ces · · Score: 2

      Well there might be something to it then. Cringely is a bit more reliable source of rumors than The Reg.

      If Macromedia is for sale I would still rather see Sun, IBM, or Adobe end up with them.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
    8. Re:Folks this is a rumor by djcatnip · · Score: 1

      I could see IBM, Adobe, or Sun ending up with Macromedia in the end.

      I think the "spite" factor of IBM or Sun buying MM out from under M$ is as bad a fate as M$ actually getting them. IBM and Sun don't produce prosumer shrink wrap software on the same field as MM does. It's not their market, they'd end up dropping it and breaking it like a nice piece of stemware.

      Adobe would run into serious problems with antitrust regs because they're the only competition, only _real_ competition in the eyes of content creators, with Macromedia. Corel is the only company that makes anything like high grade content creation tools for consumers. (that's being generous) I could see them being clear of problems from the DOJ for acquiring MM, but that's just crazy talk.

      the whole thing is silly, really. Most every creative agency based content creator I've ever known have been on a mac, and therefore are adverse to M$. M$ acquiring MM would be further driving more people away from M$, and more towards Adobe and the SVG alliance. Flash would be crippled, SVG would become more prominent, and M$ would be yet again feeling frustrated at their lack of ability to rule the world.

      Next year they'll float a rumor of thinking of acquiring Lockheed Martin, KFC, and Kiwi Shoe polish.

      --
      I make these: http://beatseqr.com
    9. Re:Folks this is a rumor by ces · · Score: 2

      They might have some anti-trust problems with the FTC. Macromedia bought Freehand off of Adobe when Adobe bought Aldus. Seems the Feds didn't like Adobe having both Illustrator and Freehand.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
    10. Re:Folks this is a rumor by ces · · Score: 2

      Next year they'll float a rumor of thinking of acquiring Lockheed Martin, KFC, and Kiwi Shoe polish.

      Now there's an idea, perhaps Microsoft should buy up bankrupt airlines, phone companies, or energy traders.

      Lord knows they've got the cash and the companies in question could use the help. For a few billion Microsoft could be an airline or telecommunications monopoly as well.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
    11. Re:Folks this is a rumor by multimed · · Score: 2
      Here is one that lists acquisitions 1995 through July 2002. Not sure how thorough.

      This one lists 1994-1996.

      And for good measure, here is a cached NY Times article listing major MS products their main competition and how they got the product. It's a little dated (from Oct. 1998) for example, it lists Visio as a PowerPoint competitor.

      I'd love to spend some time doing a more thorough review of all their past acquisitions and what happened to the technology they bought but I suspect I won't have the time so if this is a starting point for some one else to do so, great. Anecdotally I'm afraid a fair number of their acquisitions were to eliminate the competition and kill the technology rather than actually acquire the technology to improve their products and I would love to see a factual assessment of their acquisitions.

      --
      Vote Quimby.
    12. Re:Folks this is a rumor by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Good start, anyway. I know there's a page out there that's about 3 screens long of recentish acquisitions.. yeah, I'm sure more are to squash competition than to actually acquire technology; the number of instant deaths on the list I'm thinking of certainly indicated that. I'm sure every large company does that to some degree, but M$ has made it a fine art. :(

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  30. too bad by RyLaN · · Score: 1

    they judge wasn't harsher on them..oh well, they'll soon have adobe filing an anti-competition case. should i start up the web-petition now?

    --
    At least the war on the environment is going well
  31. No, that is not a fact by EvilAlien · · Score: 4, Insightful
    That is a fear, a suspicion, certainly not a fact. It may be a fact that you worry about this coming to pass, but what is the credibility of an AC? Heh.

    Anyways, I'd be more worried about cross-platform compatibility for anything with a Mac OS preference or that Apple is the vendor for. Quicktime, anyone? I'd sure love it is Apple would release Quicktime for Linux. Microsoft has a stronger record of cross-platform compatible products that some. They have to, by law. There are bigger and better things for them to crush (Java lawsuits with Sun being a good example), which is why they do paradoxical things like hand Apple a barrel of cash to stay afloat.

    --
    perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
    1. Re:No, that is not a fact by DrunkenPenguin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Didn't you know that you can have Quicktime in Linux? ..Windows media too. It's called MPlayer and it can be reached here!
      ----

    2. Re:No, that is not a fact by rmadmin · · Score: 1

      Mplayer rocks my pants! Just never use the RPM's. Always build by hand, and take the 5 hours to build all the libraries for it. It will play ANYTHING. But the people making RPMS for it just don't take the time to get all that support in there. That was depressing as hell! (Plus I just love watching stuffs compile)

    3. Re:No, that is not a fact by ptr2void · · Score: 1

      Can you spell DEBIAN?

    4. Re:No, that is not a fact by rspress · · Score: 1

      Well, we already have websites out there that ONLY work with Microsoft windows and IE. So it is not hard to believe that if Microsoft did crush...um er...buy Macromedia that it would PC only, they have done it before. You also mention the Sun java lawsuit, and why are they being sued? You just shot your own point in the foot.

    5. Re:No, that is not a fact by Refrag · · Score: 2
      There are bigger and better things for them to crush (Java lawsuits with Sun being a good example), which is why they do paradoxical things like hand Apple a barrel of cash to stay afloat.

      The measly $150 Million that Microsoft invested in non-voting shares of Apple was the result of a lawsuit settlement. All of the shares have since been sold.
      --
      I have a website. It's about Macs.
    6. Re:No, that is not a fact by EvilAlien · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about an Apple-provided Linux native version of Quicktime. Compatibility hacks such as mplayer or Codeweavers aside, Apple shows Linux no love.

      --
      perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
    7. Re:No, that is not a fact by joe_bruin · · Score: 2

      which is why they do paradoxical things like hand Apple a barrel of cash to stay afloat.

      actually, it was bill gates (out of his private investment portfolio), not the microsoft corporation, that made the investment in apple. he has since sold all shares. microsoft made a 5 year product support deal with apple, in which they promised to continue making office and ie for macos. those 5 years have now also passed, and microsoft has already started playing some tricks (try getting ms office for macosx that supports right-to-left written languages, for example).

  32. Dreamweaver, Microsoft, standards by galaga79 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate to think what Microsoft acquiring Macromedia would mean for webstandards. Dreamweaver by Macromedia is certainly one of the most popular WYSIWYG HTML editors around, and because of that there has been groups such as the WaSP have been work with Macromedia making sure it is complies with the web standards out there. Who knows what Microsoft would do with Dreamweaver seeing that is in direct competition with Frontpage.

    1. Re:Dreamweaver, Microsoft, standards by bheerssen · · Score: 1

      If MS does acquire Macromedia - and that's a big if - it would more likely be FrontPage on the chopping block, not Dreamweaver. Most likely both would remain, FP being pitched to amatuers and Dreamweaver being aimed more at the Pro's.

      Much like it is now. Hmmm....

      Microsoft isn't stupid, they wouldn't kill a perfectly good revenue stream. The more interesting question is the CFMX / .NET situation. Either they would somehow be merged, or one of them would have to go - or possibly be gutted to the point of uselessness for anyone but amatuers, thereby creating a non-competing revenue stream for both.

      Useless speculation at this point. I feel an acquisition is highly unlikely. At least, I certainly hope it is.

      --
      (Score: -1, Stupid)
    2. Re:Dreamweaver, Microsoft, standards by nhavar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think that Dreamweaver and Frontpage actually directly compete. Dreamweaver is a much more professional tool than Frontpage. Frontpage is geared more towards tasks, project management, and overall site maintenance. Dreamweaver to me has always been about modular development - building individual pages quickly and easily. Frontpage can be standards compliant and is easily extensible but it's really geared toward novice use - i.e. you might give it to a documentation team. Dreamweaver is geared toward "designers" with homesite as a good support application for straight "coders".

      We use Frontpage, Dreamweaver, and Homesite. Our Communications team uses Frontpage with an IIS webserver to keep Daily Bulletins and some reference material maintained (these people have NO HTML knowledge). Our external site maintainers use Dreamweaver with Vignette and IPlanet servers for more dynamic content. Our more technical intranet sites are maintained using Homesite and Websphere, giving significant control over the code. I think eventually we'll be moving everything into Websphere/Eclipse development.

      --
      "Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
    3. Re:Dreamweaver, Microsoft, standards by Reziac · · Score: 2

      I went to the Frontpage initial rollout seminar, back when. FP was indeed touted primarily as a site *management* tool, not as an HTML editor. And I think functionally, FP remains more of a site management tool, and as you say, DW is more of a design tool. Whereas I think I would have to kill someone if I had to use Dreamweaver for site management. :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  33. Re:MOZILLA is DEAD by justsomebody · · Score: 2

    Wrong, there is one way to use flash as one hell of a software.

    In cold times you could use it to burn processors at maximum and keep computer warm.

    --
    Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
  34. Huh? by Hard_Code · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Flash is a powerful and rich development environment, which - through Macromedia's changes this year - took a step closer to J2EE."

    Huh? Excuse me? Flash is anywhere *near* J2EE? Last I looked, Flash is entirely orthogonol to J2EE. It is just a media/presentation layer. That's like saying HTML or SMIL just took a step closer to J2EE. Nonsense.

    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    1. Re:Huh? by Allen+Varney · · Score: 2

      Flash is anywhere *near* J2EE? Last I looked, Flash is entirely orthogonol to J2EE. It is just a media/presentation layer. That's like saying HTML or SMIL just took a step closer to J2EE. Nonsense.

      Sounds like you haven't looked at Flash MX. Lots of data-handling, XML support, and talking to application layers. It works transparently with ColdFusion MX as backend through the Flash Remoting technology. There are Rich Text Editors, calendar plug-ins, FTP clients, etc. for Flash MX. Macromedia calls the new Flash stuff "rich Internet applications."

    2. Re:Huh? by Kajakske · · Score: 1

      And how do you read data from a database again ?
      Huh ? Via an ASP/JSP/PHP/I don't care/ page that Flash loads ? Hmmm, nice ...

    3. Re:Huh? by devleopard · · Score: 1

      It's not based on J2EE, but both ColdFusion and JRun (both driven by J2EE) have native connectors to talk to Flash via Web Services. For platforms like .NET, it's a $1000 add-on (more than the price of CF MX Pro!)

      --
      The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
  35. More fuel for the Anti-Trust Holdouts? by -cman- · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if (this report is in fact true) this will add fuel to the WV and MA appeal to the settlement? Can those states use post-judgement behavior to show that the settlement is ineffective and that M$ is not changing its Monopolistic ways?

    --
    "Being Irish, he possessed an abiding sense of tragedy which sustained him through brief episodes of joy." -W. B.
  36. In Other News. . . by snitty · · Score: 5, Funny

    . . . Microsoft plans to aquire the DOJ.

    --
    Modular Redundancy--Because 4 out of 5 Nodes agree
  37. Mozilla vs Flash by axxackall · · Score: 3, Informative
    Mozilla is the worst browser to run Flash plugins: it's crashing, it has problem wth sound, rendering and so on. Comparing to opera and MS IE. Besides, Flash works mostly on MS Windows and Mac OS. It's very crashy on Linux/x86. And you can forget about Linux on non-x86 platforms.

    However, Mozilla has much better (potentially in some future) vector presentation technology: SVG. It's better integrated to HTML/Javascript code around it. And it's really platform independent.

    I think that the day Microsoft buys Macromedia, Flash will dye for Mozilla and many Mozilla developers will switch to SVG. Which is much better than Flash.

    --

    Less is more !
    1. Re:Mozilla vs Flash by WPIDalamar · · Score: 2

      Flash works just fine for me under linux... no crashes.. no sound problems ... of course the latest builds of mozilla have had some problems, but running flash in galleon is all happy-happy for me.

  38. Yay! by sp00nz · · Score: 1

    Thank god anything to get rid of those annoying flash intros on EVERY WEBSITE ugh!

  39. cross-browser compatibility? by K. · · Score: 2

    Does that mean they've fixed the sound-related bug that makes the latest versions of the players essentially useless on Linux?

    --
    -- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
    1. Re:cross-browser compatibility? by JimDabell · · Score: 2

      Yes, their latest beta (needed for the latest mozilla, iirc) fixes this.

    2. Re:cross-browser compatibility? by Unregistered · · Score: 1

      I think so. I've been getting sound-spam again.

  40. Don't only focus on the negative!! by grammar+nazi · · Score: 2
    Everyone seems to be focused on the negative. There would a somewhat positive gain out of such a merger.

    The positive gain? MS Frontpage might just go away. Even if Frontpage wasn't replaced by Dreamweaver, I'm sure that the Dreamweaver influence would be good for Frontpage.

    --

    Keeping /. free of grammatical errors for ~5 years.
    1. Re:Don't only focus on the negative!! by mark_lybarger · · Score: 2

      Frontpage? Dreamweaver? both produce CRAP html code. sure, they're nice for some business analyst type person to mock up a web page, but then they give the code to a developer who has to spend 1/2 a day fixing up the code in there to get it to work at all.

    2. Re:Don't only focus on the negative!! by Enzondio · · Score: 2

      Frontpage? Dreamweaver? both produce CRAP html code. sure, they're nice for some business analyst type person to mock up a web page, but then they give the code to a developer who has to spend 1/2 a day fixing up the code in there to get it to work at all.

      I don't find this to be the case at all with Dreamweaver. I have been very happy with the HTML that it produces, no extra crap and it encourages you to follow proper coding standards.

      I suppose it could be in how you use it but I've never had any problems. Frontpage on the other hand is in my opinion, unusable.

    3. Re:Don't only focus on the negative!! by mark_lybarger · · Score: 1

      sorry, i'll have to retract my dreamweaver bash. i do recall web designers providing dreamweaver pages that were really clean and useable.

      now, microsoft's "save as html" feature in word, excel, etc definately produces some cryptic, overly bloated, and nearly unusable html..

    4. Re:Don't only focus on the negative!! by b_pretender · · Score: 5, Funny
      now, microsoft's "save as html" feature in word, excel, etc definately produces some cryptic, overly bloated, and nearly unusable html..
      </i><img src="pix.gif" width="1" height="1"></p style="messy">


      <content type="MSWord" created="Microsft" data="useless"><include stylesheet="useless_bloated.css">What are you talking about? MS Word's save is <h1><'/h1>HTML is how I learned to write webpages. </p style="mozilla_noncompliant">

    5. Re:Don't only focus on the negative!! by Lucidwray · · Score: 1

      Evidently you have never used Dreamweaver for any length of time. Dreamweavers strong suit is site management. If you have ever built a web site with more than 50-60 pages you know how much of a nightmare site management can be. Dreamweaver's ability to handle large sites with ease is what makes is so great. The ability to sync with a server and check in/check out pages is vital when you have 4-5 people working on a large site at one time.

      Once you get to know all of Dreamweavers little features you'll realize how nice it is.

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
  41. Who Cares? by kperrier · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is a reason that I don't have flash installed on any machine that I frequently use. 98% of the sites that use flash use it for ads. Not installing flash is one of the best ways to avoid the most annoying ads.

    Kent

    1. Re:Who Cares? by psyphrechrist · · Score: 1

      No... Installing Opera is the best way for getting rids of annoying ads.

      Psyphre

    2. Re:Who Cares? by Ilgaz · · Score: 2

      for us, normal web surfers, it does matter.

      Now stfu

  42. Re:MOZILLA is DEAD by Kajakske · · Score: 1

    Mozilla won't die this easy.

    Besides, what stops mozilla from still supporting flash when it's woned by MS ?

  43. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  44. MS didnt "help out" apple by Zelet · · Score: 2

    I know from a friend in Apple that the deal was reached because of some out of court settlements. MS doesn't give charity to the competition.

    --
    ...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
  45. Re:So? by lvdrproject · · Score: 1

    Well said, well said!

  46. Re:MacroMedia, Borland, Rational by Draoi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I would think this would raise issues with the monopolies watchers

    The monopolies watchers are asleep at the switch. Hadn't you noticed ... ?

    --
    Alison

    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein

  47. MS needs staff by tbonium · · Score: 1

    Take a look at this. MS is trying to buy web programmers that understand XML/SGML/HTML so Ballmer can brainwash them. He will do the monkey dance until they fall into submission.

  48. Flash animations are ANNOYING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I can't stand animated crap when I'm browsing the web.
    If you delete libnullplugin.so then you no longer
    get those windows asking you to install plugin xyz
    either. The only thing that sucks is for stupid
    sites that have splash pages that are flash and
    no clear "skip flash intro" link so you can't actually
    see any of the *CONTENT* of the site.

  49. The big days of Flash are over. by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Despite the utter rubish some of the typical no-clue-on-design anti-flash zealots on /. kept crapping out in recent years, flash had a clear and distinct position in WWW content.
    Until less then a year ago there was no way you could get CSS working the way it was intended on spec-release about 7 years ago. Flash was the *only* way to get a consistent visual apperance across Browsers with solid fonts and stuff that went beyond table-slicing (tables not being intended for pushing pics around anyway).
    Flash was *the* tool to actually achieve what CSS promised for so long. With nearly every browser finally fully CSS 2 compliant, this is now a non-issue and put's flash in the extra gadget area so many slashdotters allways suspected it in. With SVG - a format that's substancially easyer to handle in the dynamic content serving dept. - and open architecture web 3D poppingup left right and center and the mighty Java Media Framework finally out, asskick competition for flash is closing in.
    Considering this and the fact that the Uber-Web Tool Dreamweaver had it's days when it's templates where the next best thing to the then expensive and unwieldy dynamic content servers this is might actually be the wrong time for M$ to purchase Macromedia. Macromedia never got the curve to professional level tools, Dreamweaver aside. Flash MX coding is as crappy as ever, Director 8.5 still tops the hitlist as the most bizare software joke under the sun, PHP kicks Cold Fusion up and down the street and no f*ckin' way is Kava or JRun gonna stand against Suns free libs and the ever-growing Netbeans popularity combined with the bazillion and one Java/Apache OSS projects.

    Bottom Line: I kinda hope that M$ buys Macromedia and drives it against the wall at full speed. Hideously bloated with ColdFusion-ASP-MX.NET intergration or whatever they think might be a cool name for a dead-end product strategy.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:The big days of Flash are over. by GlassUser · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Newsflash: The web in general and HTML and CSS specifically were not ever intended to allow an author to enforce a certain visual style. That's what MPEG is for. Simply put, you do not know what I will be viewing your web page on, and you don't need to be making assumptions that my television can display 4pt font, or my PDA feels like displaying 800x600 "content". The internet is not an electronic magazine. Get with the century.

    2. Re:The big days of Flash are over. by Ilgaz · · Score: 2

      Oh I am a heavy websurfer. I surf web a lot... Come on... Don't spread false information.

    3. Re:The big days of Flash are over. by Qbertino · · Score: 2

      4pt is an absolute size (4 72th of an inch) which is never properly interpreted by browsers to this very day. Especially with users unable to calibrate their browsers and screens properly.
      And Vectorgrafics is the only thing that will display adequately on PDAs and Workstations alike if used the right way. So it actually is a solution for wireless applications.
      What you are saying basically strengthens my opinion about what slashdotters usually know about webdesign which is next to zilch (no offense).

      --
      We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    4. Re:The big days of Flash are over. by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2

      See, the points is the Web was NEVER designed to provide a 'consistent visual apperance across Browsers'. The problem was that bad designers were (and still are) applying print design principles to new media -- and Flash was the tool that enabled them to continue their misguided behavior.

      And even now, nearly ZERO browsers are FULLY CSS 2.0 compliant. Many that are still in wide use don't even support CSS 1.0 reliably.

      Flash does have valid uses -- highly interactive tools using lots of client-side processing come to mind -- but the reason why many geeks don't like Flash is because bad designers use it in ways that are not justifiable and don't make sense.

    5. Re:The big days of Flash are over. by GlassUser · · Score: 1

      I know plenty about web design. The problem is college marketing majors that think they have good reason to whine when they try to use a tool (html) for something it was never intended (flashy content and absolute layout). You say I know zilch about web design? I was involved with creating the specification for HTML4.0. I don't see how it can get much closer to it. Perhaps you should look at the fingers pointing back at you.

    6. Re:The big days of Flash are over. by PCM2 · · Score: 2
      Director 8.5 still tops the hitlist as the most bizare software joke under the sun
      Actually, Macromedia just released Director MX. So maybe not.
      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    7. Re:The big days of Flash are over. by owlstead · · Score: 1

      It may be that they were not intended for that purpose, but it is certainly used that way. People want to view web pages in a way that is pleasing to the eye.

      Unfortunately the new CSS and (x)HTML standards have their drawbacks. It will remain difficult to let a web-page be viewable in an enjoyable way on any device. The support that has been build in the latest standards (e.g. accessability and device support) is not taken up widely, see the 'print this page' links on many web pages).

      As long as dynamic html remains error prone and difficult for positioning you will continue to see supplementing technologies like flash/mpeg.

      As for the last remark, a lot of people (with microsoft browsers) do see the internet as a very large electronic magazine. The time of HTML purists has long been over (unfortunately I am one). Get with this century!

      Maarten
  50. 2 for one? by bobalu · · Score: 1

    By owning Macromedia they could kill Cold Fusion too, no?

    --
    The revolution will NOT be televised.
    1. Re:2 for one? by dtdns · · Score: 1

      Yes, they COULD kill off ColdFusion, but I doubt they would do that. IIRC there is something with Sun where M$ can't release anything related to Java without their permission or something. The current version of ColdFusion MX is built on a Java platform, so that could be a problem for them. Maybe they would sell it off to someone else and just keep Flash, etc. IMHO, I don't think Macromedia would sell out to Microsoft anyway, but I could be wrong.

  51. Spelling by MisterBad · · Score: 1

    "sites", not "sights".

    --
    Evan Prodromou | evan@prodromou.name | http://evan.prodromou.name/
  52. Wish that also worked for TV. by Quazion · · Score: 2

    But i agree, i have no need for flash..

  53. Linux by UnknownQ · · Score: 1

    Nooooo! Not my linux flash plugin!

    --
    Wherever you go, there you are!
  54. I don't flash by gr8_phk · · Score: 1
    I always leave the box empty and opt not to get the plugin. I'm still using dialup, and I don't need to waste bandwidth on fancier ads. Never saw a page that really required it for my benefit.

    On another note, aren't all M&A's anticompetetive to some extent? Either you're buying a competitor, or you're buying something to keep it from your competitors. There is another possibility - you're failing and need to pick up a viable product to stay in business - it's not anticompetetive, but it doesn't add any value either.

    Hypothesis: No merger or acquisition is in the public interest. I do see some positive points, but it's hard to weigh them against the bad.

    Paul

  55. Would it pass antitrust scrutiny? by rdean400 · · Score: 1

    If Microsoft acquires Flash and Dreamweaver, it will substantially increase its influence in the web authoring market. Given the antitrust troubles Microsoft's been in, and the fed's recent aversion to approving deals that might create antitrust headaches that Microsoft (if it were sane) wouldn't want to deal with.

  56. Re:Could it be a good twist in the story for SVG? by octover · · Score: 2

    > Would adobe finally make photoshop cross platform, invest more in making their own SVG Editor (flash level) & viewer if that would happen?
    Last time I checked it is. IIRC Adobe makes their products for Mac OS and Windows, that would make it cross-platform. I wouldn't hold my breath for a Linux port.

  57. Might be good for prototyping, but that's about it by oneiros27 · · Score: 2

    Coldfusion is great for rapid prototyping, however, from the system administration side (ie, production support), it crashes just a little too often for my tastes. Yes, many times, it'll bring itself back up, so there will just be a 2-3 minute service interuption...

    Now take into consideration that this is happening NIGHTLY. And it doesn't always come back up on its own. Due to the poor model that we have (ie, no one watches the systems save for 7am-7pm weekdays), this has resulted in multi-day outages on the weekends. Luckily, I'm not the one getting the 2am phone calls anymore, but when I hear that they want to put more and more things over on Coldfusion, I'd prefer it they had a stable system first.

    Oh -- and I don't like their security model...I heard it's not so server-centric in MX, but well, before that, if someone with access to one directory knew the datasource name used by someone else on that system, they could muck with someone else's data. I'd prefer to see some sort of chrooting for the CFFILE commands, and access restrictions by directory, not for the system as a whole.

    [And a daemon that doesn't keep crashing... but well, I'm off on another project, so someone else has had to be the one talking to Macromedia support on a regular basis.]

    Supposedly, ColdFusion doesn't have these problems under windows [we're using Solaris], but then I've got to deal with Windows crashing, too.

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  58. Re:MOZILLA is DEAD by jaymz666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And those flash advertisements are why I uninstalled Flash. When you need a 1Ghz or better computer just to go to Yahoo's phone book due to the flash ads that kill your CPU if you run anything less, there's a big problem.

  59. Macromedia and Microsoft would make a good match by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2

    Macromedia and Microsoft would make a good match. They both publish insecure software.
    -russ

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  60. Pre-emptive lawsuit. by bluephone · · Score: 1
    I'm loathe to suggest it, but if MS does acquire Macromedia, I'm certainly going to start pushing for a pre-emptive class-action lawsuit to force MS to keep supporting non-MS platforms for Flash and Shockwave, as a requisite of their settlement with the DOJ, and the remaining 7 states.

    That's part of the problem with monopolies; they're no longer subject to market pressure, as they ARE teh market. So the law is the last resort.

    --
    jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
  61. Re:Might be good for prototyping, but that's about by Kajakske · · Score: 1

    I'd have to agree to you.
    We have been developing in ASP, PHP, JSP and ColdFusion now, and to be honest, ColdFusion gave us the most problems. Second in place was JSP, for the interested people :-)

  62. I already can't browse those sites. by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2

    I already can't browse those sites. I won't run flash because it's proven to be insecure. And y'know what? The most significant site I had trouble with was http://www.dubyadubyadubya.com.
    Do you call that a "very significant portion of the web."? I don't.
    -russ

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  63. Macromedia want to *replace* HTML by badzilla · · Score: 1
    Typical quote from their marketing material: "Imagine replacing a cumbersome HTML/DHTML/Javascript interface with a simple and elegant cross-platform solution." (Yeah, one that just happened to be owned by us.)

    Macromedia got large amounts of press coverage for its recent Studio MX release and most of it is written to suggest that junior HTML has up till now done a fine job for kickstarting the web into existence, but now it's time to let a real man take over the boy's job!

    Not that I am entirely anti-Macromedia, don't know much about the rest of the Studio products but Dreamweaver MX is great in actual use. I just want the web to remain based upon HTML as an open standard.

    --
    "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
    1. Re:Macromedia want to *replace* HTML by jilles · · Score: 2

      Well they have a point that the combination HTML/javascript is cumbersome. At least they bother to address the issue whereas the rest of the world still struggles to acknowledge the issue.

      I use dreamweaver occasionally and despite some annoying bugs this is a very nice development environment. People dismissing it as just another text editor are really not doing this product justice. I've spent quite a bit of time evaluating open source alternatives to dreamweaver but nothing I've seen so far even comes close. The key feature of dreamweave that I absolutely depend on is nested templates (define site layout/menus/etc. separately from the pages on the site). If anyone knows of an easy to use, oss alternative for that I'd be grateful.

      --

      Jilles
  64. Wacky by tweek · · Score: 1

    It's kind of funny. I met a guy on the train from the airport yesterday who worked on the MX dev team. Really nice guy. We talked about the extension architecture that MX has which makes things like native php support available for it. Also talked about running under Wine, which he said he had played around with a bit.

    All in all a tame conversation, mostly technically oriented. Wish I had known about this sooner, I might have brought it up.

    --
    "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
  65. EU Competition Commission by l-ascorbic · · Score: 3, Informative

    If this does turn out to be more than the regular rumour-mongering, it's worth remembering that even if a merger isn't blocked by US authorities, the European Union Competition Commission has shown itself more than willing to block deals like this that are so obviously anti-competitive. And yes, they do have jurisidiction over the deal, because both companies do business and have subsidiaries in Europe.

  66. Code by Andy+Social · · Score: 2

    Interesting that web designers that get paid to produce large numbers of clean, cross-platform, HTML-standard pages use Dreamweaver then. How interesting indeed, if Dreamweaver produces "crap html code" that the normal output of a Dreamweaver MX coding session can pass the HTML 4.01 strict tests with nary a blink.

    Perhaps you just enjoy the masochism inherent in hand-coding.

    --
    Illegitimi non carborundum
  67. Flash masquerading by Tim+Macinta · · Score: 2
    I want someone to write a dummy flash plug in that does absolutely nothing, apart from stop the stupid 'do you want to download the latest Meglomedia Flash crud plug in...
    I actually started on this one weekend and got to the point that you describe (my plug-in registered itself for the right mime types and then just didn't do anything when called). My original plan was to take it one step further and parse the Flash file on the web page, pull out all URLs, and display a list of URLs within the file so that I could easily get into those sites that annoyingly insist on having a Flash-only intro that require you to click on the intro to continue and which serve no purpose other than to look pretty. I haven't added this yet, though.

    The reason that I stopped work on this when I did was because I ran into a dilema that I haven't thought of a good solution to. The problem is, there are many different types of sites that use flash:

    • Sites that use it only as a decoration but assume that you must have it (hence the the download prompt you describe).
    • Sites that use it only as a decoration and recognize this fact, gracefuly degrading when you view their page without flash.
    • Sites that "require" flash and won't let you in unless you have it regardless of how necessary it actually is.
    • Sites that have separate HTML and Flash versions where you are redirected to the appropriate section based upon whether you have Flash installed.
    A plugin that masquerades as Flash would be great for all cases but the last one. I don't want to be automatically shuffled off to the Flash-only site when there is a nice HTML alternative that would work much better for me. Unfortunately, these sites are the ones where the webmasters use Flash responsibly, since they have alternatives available, so I don't really want to penalize them by breaking their site when it should work.

    I think the solution might be to modify the nullplugin that comes with Mozilla. This is the default plugin, and I believe this is the piece of code responsible for the "do you want to download" messages. When it asks you if you want to download a plugin of a certain type, it should have a checkbox that says "don't ask me again" and then it should remember that mime type (come to think of it, I'd be happy if it never prompted me for any mime types, so maybe I should just disable the prompt globally). It would be nice if it also picked the URLs out of the file on the web page so that you could bypass annoying intros as well.

    1. Re:Flash masquerading by thrillseeker · · Score: 1
      I think the solution might be to modify the nullplugin that comes with Mozilla.

      What I believe would work well is to build a wrapper for the plugin. This wrapper would add several non-blaockable right-click options to the animation. One option would be to not load this specific animation again. The other option would be to not load animations from a particular domain again (perhaps a third option restricting it to a particular machine at a domain is needed too). The result would be that on initial visits to annoying, but frequented for other valuable reasons, sites, a little right-click work would need to be done.

      Hmm, fourth and fifth options could be to not download any animations from third parties, and to not download any flash animations at all when visiting a particular website.

  68. And it makes sense by oblom · · Score: 1

    It'd be a good move for MS. Their game is on a client side -- be it desktop, game console or cell phone. This is the market they want. To reduce development and maintenance cost they need common programming environment (.NET) and UI libraries. Vector graphics provided by Macromedia are ideal -- attractive, small in file size and accepted by users and developers.

    It's a bit scary though....

  69. Forget Flash - think Dreamweaver and Fireworks by Andy+Social · · Score: 2

    Fireworks is, by far, the predominant web-designer tool for making small cross-platform compatible animations (rollovers, animated GIFs, etc).

    Dreamweaver is preferred by all but the most masochistic of web-designers for making clean HTML-compatible code and for linking to a variety of database back-ends or scripting languages (support for PHP, CFM, etc).

    Picture, if you will, the usual MS code-bloat and flash-over-usability on those programs. Gone will be the simple blank-page on startup, replaced with an annoying Wizard you can't get rid of for love or money. Gone will be cross-platform compatibility, in favor of Windows-only nonsense. And, the help agents! I don't think I could stand Dreamweaver MX-XP 2004 with some dumb paperclip or puppy telling me how to code an SQL connection.

    --
    Illegitimi non carborundum
  70. Yes, Dreamweaver does bad things to HTML. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2

    We've had major problems with the latest version of Dreamweaver making a mess of our HTML.

    1. Re:Yes, Dreamweaver does bad things to HTML. by xingix · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if you import your current pages into Dreamweaver, you may run into problems. If you create your pages from scratch with the tool, the HTML output is just amazing. None of that extra crap Frontpage throws in. Just clean, HTML. I still prefer handcoding with UltraEdit but that's just me.

      --

      Confucious says: Man who runs behind car gets exhausted.

      // jeku.com

  71. Clean Up ... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 2

    So if Microsoft buys Macromedia, what will happen to the sharply named "Clean Up Word HTML" command in Dreamweaver? Would it change to...

    "Remove Word HTML Enhancements"
    "Downgrade From Word HTML"
    "Reduce This Page's Functionality"

    are a few that come to mind...although if I had it my way, it'd say

    "You have Dreamweaver; what the hell are you doing making webpages in Microsoft Word??? Shame on you!!!"

  72. Slashdot Doesn't Care by Ageless · · Score: 2

    Why should Slashdot care about this news? Every time someone posts a site to Slashdot that uses Flash everyone just goes on about how it doesn't work with Lynx, wget, vi or emacs and it should be posted again when it uses "standard" HTML ...

    [under breath]
    Lord, I know I shouldn't troll, but did you read this? Man...

    1. Re:Slashdot Doesn't Care by OneEyedApe · · Score: 1

      It is probably because a rather vocal group of people fail to understand that Flash is meant for a GUI environment, and that Lynx and company are meant for a text environment. And from what I have seen, "standard" HTML (4.01 specification) allows for an arbitrary object to be included. A web page with a Flash object is standard compliant.

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
      --Thomas J. Kopp
  73. Dreamweaver The New Frontpage by orrinrule · · Score: 1

    The only good I could see coming from this would be if MS trashed Frontpage and just used Dreamweaver.

  74. Re:Oh god. Help us. by bushboy · · Score: 1

    I develop CDROMS for clients in flash.

    I don't do any browser based flash work.

    Forget the browser aspect, it works well as a multi-media tool.

    --
    A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
  75. Microsoft to aquire the world by bushboy · · Score: 1

    In a recent press brief by Microsoft Inc. it was announced that Microsoft Inc. had acquired the world.

    A penguin was quoted as saying

    "Bwaqa Bwarrrffff Bawark Guarfff Blark"

    --
    A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !
  76. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  77. Another reason to have Flash disabled! by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 1
    I've already got Flash disabled in my browsers, even going to the point of associating Flash's file extensions and MIME type to a text editor... Why would it also a bad thing that Microsoft controls Flash?!?

    The main "feature" of Flash is that people have decided they don't need content if they've got Flash on their site!

  78. Well... by superdan2k · · Score: 2

    ...if it happens, I guess I can write-off the possibility of Fontographer 5.0, which the team at Macromedia has been promising since 1997.

    Honestly, it would be in Apple's best interests to snatch up Macromedia before Microsoft can. Apple is primarily a media creation platform, and if Microsoft holds the keys to the kingdom, then Jobs and Co. are fucked.

    --
    blog |
  79. Lack of understanding. by rob_from_ca · · Score: 2

    This pretty much sums up why enterprise osftware is so bad.

    The J2EE community sorely lacks a programming environment that can make Java more accessible to mainstream developers. San Jose, California-based BEA Systems Inc has come close with WebLogic Workshop but this is more for Java-based web services.

    Make J2EE programming "more accessible" to main stream developers? Exactly how does a user interface technology make enterprise application development more accessible to "mainstream" developers. If Java were better integrated with Flash, would developers suddly have an easy time churning out competently designed persistent objects and messaging services? Enterprise application development is complicated; deal. If you can't figure out how to write a J2EE from the wealth of resources available, the documentation and specifications, and the free or low cost development tools available (JBoss, Enhydra, Tomcat, etc...), perhaps you have no business building large enterprise applications, since understand JMS/JMX/EJB'S/JNDI/Servlets/JSP's etc. is just the tiniest part of what you should know.

  80. Re:YES!! YES!! YES!! by privacyt · · Score: 1

    Lucky me, it comes pre-installed in Mozilla and IE. Other than that, great point!

  81. Re:YES!! YES!! YES!! by killbill · · Score: 2

    You said galeon, so you must be on Linux. Just rename /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so and /usr/lib/netscape/plugins/libflashplayer.so (this is a red hat 8 system, your files may be elsewhere but will probably have the same name). Keep them around, in case you need them later, but give them some nonsense extension (like .backup).

    I just threw together a quick perl script called "toggleflash" that turns flash on or off. It is left off nearly all the time, and makes the whole web experience far nicer. I only leave it in case some idiot web site depends on it for navigation and I HAVE to use their services.

    --
    Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
  82. This is such crap! by Codex+The+Sloth · · Score: 2

    Last week they were going to buy Rational and Borland. This week they're going to buy Macromedia. Maybe next week they will buy IBM and Adobe. If people spent half as much effort fighting the things microsoft actually does as what they say they will do, we would all be a little better off. Microsoft acquisitions are actually pretty rare -- they can usually get you to do what they want without buying you so why sould they.

    --
    I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you ... oh wait, I'm #93427. Ha ha! In your face #93428!
  83. Macromedia is more than Flash by octover · · Score: 2

    Last time I checked there was a lot more to Macromedia than Flash. Most notably are ColdFusion, and Dreamweaver. Fireworks and Freehand aren't all that great, but they have their niche. The question is does your hate for flash equal or exceed what it will mean if Microsoft really does acquire Macromedia?

    1. Re:Macromedia is more than Flash by Reziac · · Score: 2

      Myself, I think if M$ acquires Macromedia, we'll find ourselves wishing for the good ol' days when flash was a trivial and occasional annoyance, rather than the unavoidable norm. Imagine if your browser would display ONLY flash. Yiiiy!!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Macromedia is more than Flash by OneEyedApe · · Score: 1
      Then there is a chance that the Internet would fork.

      Someday's, I think that might be a good thing

      Then again, there is OpenNIC and Freenet, so this may be already be happening in a minor way.

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
      --Thomas J. Kopp
    3. Re:Macromedia is more than Flash by Reziac · · Score: 2

      I think you're right in that the net might fork, but the end result may well be that the non-M$/MX users would wind up in a sort of information ghetto.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  84. Microsoft is a Monopoly by Erore · · Score: 1

    I think the solution to the anti-trust case should have been that Microsoft is only allowed to expand into new markets, or buy new companies, using profits from its non-monopoly businesses.

    Since all divisions of Microsoft lose money except for the monopoly divisions of Office and Windows, Microsoft would have no money to invest in other companies or to extend into new markets.

    Just a thought.

  85. don't want flash ads? by smartfart · · Score: 2
    Junkbuster is your friend.

    In fact, here's my blockfile.

  86. please do, please do by g4dget · · Score: 2
    To me, Flash is one of the most annoying web technologies around. It is distracting and hard to get rid of. Anything that makes it more proprietary and less cross-platform is good, as far as I'm concerned. If Microsoft acquires Macromedia, Flash may degenerate into something akin to ActiveX--used by die-hard Microsoft fanatics on their web pages but largely ignored by the mainstream.

    There is a need for vector graphics on the web, but it is being filled by SVG. SVG is more standards-based, easier to generate, integrates better with the rest of the browser, and is easier to build tools for. And, hopefully, one can disable the "dynamic" bits of SVG.

    1. Re:please do, please do by Madmanz123 · · Score: 1

      SVG is currently very limited, poorly implimented on the plugin side, and slow as fuck. No where near ready to take on Flash. Someday maybe.

    2. Re:please do, please do by g4dget · · Score: 2
      SVG is currently very limited [...] and slow as fuck. No where near ready to take on Flash. Someday maybe.

      Those are good attributes, as far as I'm concerned. I don't want "animation", I want vector graphics and simple interaction.

    3. Re:please do, please do by Madmanz123 · · Score: 1

      That's nice for you but it doesn't fit real world requirements for many applications. Both entertainment and interaction based.

  87. Re:MOZILLA is DEAD by Clover_Kicker · · Score: 2

    >Has anyone ever done anything useful with flash?
    >I'd hate to think I'm missing something.

    Yes, this site is useful.

    Highly offensive, but useful.

  88. CFML, PHP, ASP, JSP and Flash by theolein · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While we're all busy bashing MS and Flash, perhaps we shouldn't forget that Webdesigners, the professional ones nearly all use Dreamweaver and/or Flash. Golive doesn't come close to being an industry standard tool although it has improved greatly in version 6. The reason those people use Dreamweaver is because it makes webpage creation faster, not specifically easier. It also has pretty good intergation with the above mentioned server side languages.

    What this will mean for DW and Flash is that MS will slowly, in one or two versions, phase out PHP and JSP intergration (they'll claim that the "customers" don't want it) and they'll add MSSQL, IIS, Frontpage and Office integration, by default, thereby making most webpages not work in other browsers or on other server platforms. They'll start adding "extras" into Flash (.NET automatic webservices and scan-your-drive-for-pirated-music stuff for free). They'll probably make a crippled version of the Flash plugin for the Mac in order to avoid the anti-trust complaints and kill the Linux one. They will almost certainly kill off the Mac versions of the MX suite ("because the sales there are so small" they'll say).

    However, this will probably backfire nicely in MS's face. Coldfusion, in spite of it's ease (I've used it and it is easy), has become a major deadweight in the company, due to the advances in PHP. There is no real reason today to go for ColdFusion, given that it is expensive and the tags are proprietry. Flash already has a pretty good competitor for animated vector stuff with Livemotion2.0 from Adobe and *new* Flash only sites have all but died out because the ergonomics of the web dictate that you have to design for compatibility and therefore almost every Flash site has to have a HTML version accompanying it and that pushes up development costs and companies don't have money today for luxuries as they did in the dotcom days. This generally restricts Flash to be used as a tool for making animations.

    Adobe could counter a buy out like this quite nicely in that they release their own version of the Flash plugin, thereby becoming the "standard" in web graphics that they have been running after for so long. In the resulting confusion and chaos in Webplugins, which "standard" do you think would win? MS tried this with DHTML, and even though they 95% of the browser market they don't have a monopoly on authoring, as almost all sites code for standards these days.

    Mainly this would lose Adobe another competitor, because MS would certainly botch any attempt to gain designers with an MS version of Freehand. just as they have botched almost every attempt to make a competitor to Photoshop.

  89. Really? by iosphere · · Score: 1

    When I read the headline the first thing that I thought of was the story, "Nintendo Playstation Settlement Bombshell". This looks just slightly more credible.

    Slashdot: Gossip for Nerds, Shit that Matters to Taco and Hemos.

  90. Company Growth by rbolkey · · Score: 1

    Honestly, this is probably not even an issue for a company like Microsoft, but whenever acquisitions like this get mentioned I start wondering.

    Part of the whole Enron mess was that their growth was mainly due to acquisitions and mergers, not real internal growth. With problems like declining PC sales, are software/hardware companies going to have to resort to similar measures to boost their stock value?

  91. From a MX Developer's point of view by detect · · Score: 1

    As a Macromedia developer I have to say that it would come as no surprise if this story turns out to be true. Perhaps it would explain the friendly reception of Microsoft .NET people at Macromedia Devcon this year sporting their .NET t-shirts at a conference of what I thought was a direct competitor to Cold Fusion.

    I can see why it would sense to both Microsoft and Macromedia. Not only would it spark a revival for .NET by integrating the benefits of each suite but it could also help bolster IE over true contenders Mozilla. Imagine providing intergration and greater (perhaps only perceived) compatibility with Flash, Dreamweaver and Cold Fusion? Cold Fusion MX now allows for direct integration of JSPs and from my understanding the CFMX code is actually compiled into Java code. This seems like Microsoft's backdoor to the Java community. Being able to create web apps with all the benefits of Java with the simplicity of the Cold Fusion Markup Language sounds like a perfect product for them, all while being defacto-compatible with the huge number of *nix servers out there. So while on the surface it may seem like it's just a Flash/IE thing I think the story is much deeper.

    Whether or not this will be a step up for easy development and delivery of web apps will remain to be seen. There seems potential for great things but an equal potential for some huge mistakes.

    --
    // The fastest Alt-Tab in the West
  92. Ahh.... SoundEdit by ArcSecond · · Score: 2

    I was always kinda amused that they got away with the blatant rip-off of the RCA "listening to his master's voice" dog logo for SoundEdit. I still have SE16 kicking around on some zip somewhere, haven't used it in years.

    RE: MS buying up Macromedia would REALLY SUCK. I have always liked Macromedia products, especially compared to Adobe and OTHER software companies. I even *gasp* like Flash (Homestarrunner, people? HELLO?!?) and am sick of all the whining geeks do about Flash intros, as if that was the worst abuse of Web technology out there. Losing Flash to The Dark Side(TM) would be a real step backward for everyone.

    --

    I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.

    1. Re:Ahh.... SoundEdit by TheRIAAMustDie · · Score: 1

      When I boot into Mac OS 9, I still occasionally use SoundEdit 16.. love that app..

      I first got the program when it was made by Farallon, and bundled with the MacRecorder (audio input hardware), which provided me with countless hours of entertainment for sampling and rearranging on my old Macs.. IIci, IIsi, SE/30

      Man, I had a ball cutting up Janet Jackson and Midnight Oil and mixing them with Public Enemy and Pop Will Eat Itself.

      Although this is just a rumour, it scares me to the depths of my being. If I lose the one app I live for (outside of Reason, of course ;)) I'll be pretty pissed.. I have been waiting for Director MX for what seems like an eternity, and now that I have it, I could not live without it again.

      I could care less about Flash, and although the majority of my former classmates in the Multimedia program at Humber College are deep into it, touting its crappy-ass feature set as the be-all and end-all of interactive site development, I know that any and all of its features were in Director/Shockwave first.

      Example: Flash can only handle 2 minutes of video, and it has to be run through the sorenson compressor.

      Director, on the other hand, can handle unlimited amounts of video, using quicktime or real, with any compression scheme.

      Flash's 3D features? None.. but you can use third-party apps like swift 3d to create/convert 3D from other programs.

      Director has an insane amount of control available for 3D, with many behaviours (reusable sets of code) in its built-in library, and powerful scripting control.

      Flash's multiuser ability is getting there, but Director has it soundly beat once again, having had the multiuser toolkit for a number of years now.

      Plus, Director MX can kick out runtime apps for OS 9, X and win platforms with many options and abilities. Flash can only do so much to begin with, so it falls behind in this department as well.

      Now don't get me wrong, the last thing I want is for Microsoft to get their slimy hands on more useful apps, ready to bleed them dry and destroy them until they are a living shell of their former selves.. Any time MS buys a company, an angel dies.

      Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all on Slashdot.

      Peace

      --

      Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. it's the only thing that ever has.
  93. Re:MOZILLA is DEAD by Bohnanza · · Score: 1

    Hopefully it would mean FLASH is DEAD instead...I do so hate waiting for those things to load.

    --

    -----

    Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.

  94. What else can I say, Sh!t..... by mavericknet · · Score: 1

    Macromedia Dreamweaver and maybe fireworks are the only two things that I wish were portable to Linux, then I'd take this W!ndows 2000 pack it up and sell it on ebay and go nothing but penquin. I'm just not happy with any web design tools (WYSIWYG) on linux. GIMP gets the job done, but I like the way fireworks gets it done. I could switch most everyting else if I could get dreamweaver on Linux... and that most definatly WON'T happen if it becomes Microsoft Dreamweaver... BLEGH!!!!!

  95. This could be a Mobile move by Jan+Venema · · Score: 1

    Flash could be a vehicle in Microsofts' attempt to dominate the mobile world. With Flash they instantly have access to a large developer community that can make games for MS Phone shit.

  96. Oh good by march · · Score: 1

    This way, I can stop struggling with getting flash to work every time I upgrade my broswer. Now, it will never work.

  97. There's always CodeWeavers by DuckWing · · Score: 1

    There's always CodeWeavers X-Over plugIn. But I'm not a big fan of Flash sites anyway as most don't really accomplish anything and are very poorly implemented.

    --
    -- DuckWing
  98. The worst thing that could happen to the web by hugerobot · · Score: 1

    Not only would M$ happily make Flash an "IE only" component, they would also ensure that Linux never gets a Shockwave browser plugin too! (Why is there no Shockwave plugin!?)

    And then they would wreck Dreamweaver, probably removing it's JSP support, and then what?

    I really hope Macromedia tells them to go pound sand.

  99. not just Flash! by josephgrossberg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Macromedia also has Dreamweaver and Director, but perhaps you forgot these:

    * Fireworks and Freehand -- software for creating graphics. Maybe MS wants to take on Adobe (Photoshop, Illustrator)?

    * Contribute -- a content-management system that lets you publish to the web without knowing HTML. As someone who has worked on many clients' websites, I can tell you this is going to be *big*.

    and, since the Macromedia bought Allaire, they could get these too:

    * ColdFusion -- a widely-used, tag-based web application server and language (and the easiest to learn, at that). Unlike ASP, it comes with things like administrating through a web interface, sending email, uploading files, verity searches, etc.

    * JRun -- a popular J2EE Server.

    * Homesite -- a great text editor that isn't as bulky as VS .NET, but is oriented toward code, unlike Notepad and Wordpad.

  100. On the first day... by AndroidCat · · Score: 2
    On the first day of Christmas Microsoft bought a company...

    Borland, Rational, Macromedia, they might not get them all, but they sure want something under the tree for Bill.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  101. Re:Oh god. Help us. by demachina · · Score: 1

    Maybe you should try the Flash 6 Linux player. It was released a week or so ago and fixes all of the bugs that have been filed in the Mozilla bug database against the Flash5 Linux player.

    --
    @de_machina
  102. Re:Hypocrite by bumby · · Score: 1

    >I want someone to write a dummy flash plug in that
    >does absolutely nothing...

    Remove libnullplugin (if you're using mozilla, of course)

    --
    Hey! That's my sig you're smoking there!
  103. I agree by multiOSfreak · · Score: 1

    ColdFusion is much easier to learn for beginner and non-programming types like myself. I cranked out some decent web apps in a relatively short amount of time. The same apps would have taken much longer with ASP and would have been impossible for ME to do with JSP (due to a lack of understanding of the langauge). Even PHP would've taken a good bit longer, although I think it's the next quickest server-side language to develop.

    Without CFML, I think a lot of beginners and non-programmers will be left in the dark. I used it to get my foot in the door to the world of web app programming, and I think it's a great way to get data-driven web content out the door. It's not perfect for high-level enterprise use, but its ease of use makes up for most of its shortcomings.

  104. Dreamweaver is the prize! by MonTemplar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And its not just flash, there is another Macromedia product that I'm far more worried about Microsoft getting their hands on: Dreamweaver. Dreamweaver has quickly become the standard HTML editor. Can you imagine what's going to happen if it starts making code like Frontpage does now?

    My bet is that Bill and Friends have their eyes on Dreamweaver more than Macromedia.


    Don't know about the US press, but the reviews I've read over here in the UK regarding UltraDev (and subquently of Dreamweaver MX) are of the opinion that they are the tool for web development, and leave FrontPage in the dust.

    In fact, one commentator over here, John Honeyball, writing in PC Pro, went as far as to say that Macromedia, with their MX products, put Microsoft's Visual Studio.NET to shame when it came to doing web development with IIS/ASP and .NET !

    Of course, being in a position to 'persaude' ColdFusion shops to move to .NET would help, but Dreamweaver, if they could get their hands on it, would be a major coup for Microsoft...

    --
    -MT.
    1. Re:Dreamweaver is the prize! by GlassUser · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't understand what you're talking about. In my experience, Microsoft makes the best HTML editor hands down.

      This page proudly created with NOTEPAD.EXE

    2. Re:Dreamweaver is the prize! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      dude, if you're going to make a macho point about using only a plain text editor, you should at least use a real text editor such as editplus or textpad, or even metapad.

  105. Re:Not the end of the world -huh? by wobblie · · Score: 1

    Uh, look a t Microsoft's history. The flash format will live about 1 minute after they buy it, after which it will be killed in favor of whatever equivalent MS is developing, which will be about the same, but won'y play on anything but windowze and Mac.

  106. Tough Question... by mjtiernan · · Score: 1

    Does this increase or decrease the possibility that Homesite will be made available for Macs?

    I don't think it looks good either way.

  107. Makes good sence to microsoft but bad for us by rainbird · · Score: 1


    Look at it this way:
    Frontpage(dead) replace with Dreamweaver .Net(Weak) will be stronger when CF phased out
    Liquid(dead) replace with Flash

    Adobe is a strong company now but MS already has come out with a rolled in MS version of PDF. If they market Macromedia's graphical tools well they should be able to buy adobe in a couple more years.

    I think this is pretty bad news for Cold Fusion programmers. I bet the $25k I spent on Cold Fusion Linux servers won't have any more upgrades.

    I suppose hoping for any sort of anti-trust to block this is beyond hope?

    1. Re:Makes good sence to microsoft but bad for us by DoohanOK · · Score: 1

      This "rumour" has been around for years (I first heard it way back in 95). That's all it is - a rumour!

  108. With QuickTime DLLs by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Didn't you know that you can have Quicktime in Linux? ... MPlayer

    Sure, it will play Radius Cinepak video and older Sorenson video natively, but last time I checked, it needed the Windows QuickTime DLLs to play the newer version of Sorenson video used by default in QuickTime 5 and 6 or to play QDesign audio. However, Windows QuickTime DLLs work only on x86 architecture, and the user needs a copy of Microsoft Windows ($150 for OEM single copy) to extract them from the installer.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  109. It's about killing Apple by hatless · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As only one person in this whole thread seems to have noted, this isn't about Flash plugins or Cold Fusion MX. It's about cutting off Apple's air supply. Just as Apple has been buying up a few pro video and music tool companies and discontinuing the Windows versions, this would be a means for discontinuing Mac versions of some of the killer apps that are run heavily on Macs. If you can't get Flash and Dreamweaver (and to a lesser extent, Fireworks, Director, Freehand and Fontographer) for the Mac, the Mac suddenly loses at least a third of its pro user base. Lose the web designers, and you also lose the people and companies that use Macs for that and other purposes. Once they have to move web people to PCs, they'll move the Photoshop/Illustrator people to PCs, too. Then the Quark people. Poof. Within two years, the only professional uses for Macs will be video production and some music.

    Game over.

  110. It won't be political if they don't block this. by LenE · · Score: 2
    Microsoft has given a lot of money to the Republican party, so it's safe to assume that Ashcroft won't block this acquisition....

    Supposing first that this rumored acquisition is true, it won't be political ties that permit it. Microsoft has given generously to both parties, almost equally.

    No. If this deal is allowed, it will be because it wouldn't give Microsoft a monopoly, as Adobe still exists. With the Intuit case, MS Money and Quicken were two products that had a combined lock on 98% of the personal finance products on the market. While Flash is almost pervasive, Adobe exists with SVG and competitors to almost every other product that Macromedia offers.

    -- Len

  111. Re:MOZILLA is DEAD by chadm1967 · · Score: 1

    Same here. I hate sites that require it. If the site requires it, then I never visit the site again.

    Mozilla certainly will not die if this happens.....

  112. It all goes back to MS QDOS by yerricde · · Score: 1

    er...

    The only reason Microsoft ever got a foothold in the proprietary software industry is that the company published (not developed, published) the operating system that came packed in with a personal computer sold by what was at the time the best-known computer company.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  113. Re:MOZILLA is DEAD by Slashdot+Junky · · Score: 1

    I wish I could disable Flash without uninstalling it. Based on my experience, with out it, IE at least prompts for the plugin each time a page requires it. I would like to have it there when I want to use it. I haven't really look very far for a hack, so share if you know of one!

    Even if this is possible with Mozilla and I am sure it is, I use IE.

    -Slashdot Junky

    --
    .
    Landfill Mining Co.
    Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
  114. FLASH, and those who have no idea about it! by PortHaven · · Score: 2, Informative

    FLASH, is probably one of the best 10 web technologies out there.

    Problem, is most people don't KNOW what FLASH is.

    You all are downing FLASH, but that's because all you understand about FLASH is that it's an vector animation and presentation tool.

    It is now, much, much more. It is now a dynamic data conveyance tool. It is a graphical object model that can potentially rival and replace HTML.

    I could understand such comments when FLASH was naught but a simple "ooh/ahh animation" and "this is taking too bloody long to download".

    But it's now advanced a far beyond that point. And is advancing further. I've observed examples of Flash tied to ColdFusion and SQL apps in which schedule changes were made simply by dragging and dropping the event on a different location. NO page refresh. The FLASH app went out contacted a ColdFusion component, passed relevant arguments, processed said actions, requested information, received it and displayed the updated information to the user.

    All the user saw was himself clicking the event, dragging it to another day, and releasing it. Now that, is potential power potent enough to alter the web.

    Yes, good utilization of FLASH is "rare". But if you see an application that uses FLASH to it's full extent, it will blow your mind. It blew me away. My jaw dropped.

    In fact, a lot of people see the potential for FLASH to replace HTML on J2EE applications as the interface of choice. Further added improvement being the scalability of a vector based interface which can scale from desktop, to Palm unit, to billboard.

    1. Re:FLASH, and those who have no idea about it! by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

      I agree. I've seen well-done Flash apps as well and was simply amazed. I thought it was limited solely to The Mystery of Britnet Spears Breasts

      --
      Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
      http://www.workorspoon.com
    2. Re:FLASH, and those who have no idea about it! by xchino · · Score: 2

      Disagreed. Macromedia's Flash, not FLASH, has too much overhead, and it to resource intensive to truly be considered a viable interface for advanced applications. Yes, it is neat and does look cool, but is still not a programming language, nor does it have any tie-in to a programming language. ActionScripting is great, but it can't handle the functions required to create a commercial application, apart from CBT type educational programs, and even then Director is preferred over Flash. Flash can NOT replace html, because flash is not an open standard. You can not write flash with vi. Flash is a commercial and proprietary product. It can neither rival nor replace HTML. It is assinine to beleive that it could. IF you're looking for "Potential power potent enough to alter the web" you need to look into XML. Flash holds nothing for the power of the web. Flash is in no way original, several other similar technologies exist, and require a plugin (wildtangent, etc).

      --
      Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
    3. Re:FLASH, and those who have no idea about it! by boinx · · Score: 1

      FLASH, it's a dessert topping AND a floor wax!

  115. That sound you hear... by adso · · Score: 1

    ...is thousand of Mac-based web designers saying "Oh shit."

  116. I must once again point out... by mraymer · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ...how corporate America is starting to resemble a nation wide game of Pac-Man. ;)

    OK, I gotta give some credit for that one.

    --

    "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

    1. Re:I must once again point out... by shnarez · · Score: 1

      LOL, but I must insist: you should've been modded as 'funny', not 'insightful'...

  117. Re:Dreamweaver The New Frontpage by ThreeDeeEmKay · · Score: 1

    This is the one thing that scares me the most. I love Dreamweaver, MS will most likely ruin it by adding their own "stuff". DWUD works fine with MS stuff as it is now, but that wouldn't be good enough for MS, they would, as usual, complicate things and bloat it so that the lowest level of user could use it...:X

  118. Flash for the office? by beaverfever · · Score: 1

    Look for Flash to become the new PowerPoint.

    Just imagine the horrible, ugly, stupid and brainless presentations cranked out by the thousands and millions with the new, easy-to-use MS FlashOffice. I can see the clip art now...

  119. **FLASH**Flash is not just for browsers by Mootster · · Score: 1

    NOTE: Flash is not just for browsers. Flash is actually a darn good alternative to VisualBasic but it has a lot more capability. We use a licensed version of Flash for GUI development to our C++ framework. Flash offers us a ready made IDE to offer our customers.

    Note also, that Flash is being used in a lot more embedded devices (cell phones, PDAs, etc). This would be a crippling blow to a great product.

    BTW, Flash libraries for Linux are anemic -- granted. But this is the normal case for almost every technology that is Windoze focused.

    MS has heard the rumors of the upcoming versions of Flash that add a lot more programmability to the platform. I would suspect this is a move to kill the competition to VB, C## and the rest of MS products.

    BTW, I cannot believe all the whining in the replies over how Linux browsers do not support Flash and people are sick of Flash based web sites. Get with it! Not everything needs to be plain text with GIF images. This is very good x-platform technology and the Linux community should embrace it and not slam it. With SWF open sourced - that places MM in a very select crowd of major MS platform players.

    Moot

  120. Time to push SVG! by zero0w · · Score: 1

    I was wondering how we can be prepared for this, interestingly I stumbled over an SVG Vector drawing program named sodipodi a while ago:

    Sodipodi
    Sodipodi screenshots on Linux with GTK Geramik theme

    It is a nice open source vector drawing program. And it got me interested in looking into the SVG format, which also supports (web) animation :-) . This article explains it a bit more:

    SWF Is Not Flash (and Other Vectored Thoughts)

    Anyway I think SVG will have a bright future and even can replace Flash (SWF) in certain extent, more info on SVG can be found at W3C.org here:

    Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) 1.0 Specification
    Mozilla SVG Project

  121. Today is a good day to buy! by AndroidCat · · Score: 2
    I guess after the dot.bombing, we should have expected the companies with high cash reserves to go on a buying spree -- It'll never be cheaper to buy up key companies. Low stock prices combined with investors with high tech profolios that have tanked mean that it's bargains galore.

    The good companies whose stock got dragged down with the dot.com trash are now perhaps undervalued and a good deal.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  122. Homesite/Cold Fusion Studio by clmensch · · Score: 1
    Homesite/CF Studio makes Interdev look like a circa 1997 web development tool. It might be OK for VB (puke), but it's god-awful for web development. It's typical MS fare...awful interface paired with a trying-to-do-too-much mentality. I fear the day I might have to use Interdev to develop for our Cold Fusion site...of course if this goes through CF will probably be squashed into the ground.

    Unlike some other posts I've read, many web developers do NOT use Dreamweaver because they can't stand "visual" development. I'm perfectly capable of writing my own code thankyouverymuch. However, it is much to Macromedia's credit that they own the best tools around...for both visual and textual web development. They were smart to buy Allaire.

    --
    There is no gravity...the earth just sucks.
  123. You need a remedial math class by LenE · · Score: 2
    The link you presented says that Microsoft has given 70% more money to Republicans than to Democrats. Don't say this isn't a political issue when it is one.

    I don't know what you've been smoking, but 70% more is quite a stretch.

    Since you obviously didn't follow his link, I'll fill in the blank for you.

    Since 1990, 43% of Microsoft-related donations went to the Democrats, and 57% went to the republicans. The 2000 cycle, which is when Bush was elected had the split 46% Dems. and 53% Reps.

    Since your figure is "70% more money" is a comparison of the larger to the smaller amount, the actual figure is 34%. This is distorted by the relatively recent interest that Microsoft developed in politics.

    Anyway, this site is "News for Nerds", so if simple multiplication and division are too tough for you, you should hang out somewhere else where you can put your Liberal Arts degree to better use.

    -- Len

  124. Re:Might be good for prototyping, but that's about by jtharpla · · Score: 1

    We've had issues with Cold Fusion but nothing like that. Course we run it almost entirely on Windows machines. There's another group in the company who run it on Solaris/iPlanet boxes, but I don't know what their success with it has been. Also, depends on the version...4.5, 5.0, MX? We're mostly 4.5, some 5.0, and just have one or two production sites on MX. My experiences with MX is it requires a much beefier box, and don't rely on the built-in mailserver for sending mail. Instead, I install IIS's SMTP service, then have CF send to that and let IIS relay the mail to our main mailservers. Of course YMMV. For us, I'd say the after the initial adjustment period for getting used to CF MX, it's been very stable.

  125. Article is an obvious fake by JVert · · Score: 1

    The ColdFusion web application server is regarded as superior to Microsoft's Active Server Pages (ASPs) and even Santa Clara, California-based Sun's Java Server Pages (JSPs) because of its simplicity, power and completeness. ColdFusion MX, meanwhile, uses ColdFusion Mark-up Language (CFML) tags that compile to Java.

    Good one guys, you had me till I got to this part!
    But I think we all know cold fusion has worse syntax then html itself. Anyone who defends cold fusion hasn't made any mid level applications with it or only used it to launch servlets or COM components (getting as much code as possible out of cold fusion).

    1. Re:Article is an obvious fake by dtdns · · Score: 1

      Actually, once you get used to some of the contradictions in the attributes of various tags, it's easier to use than any other web-based language I've dealt with, and much faster to develop under. ColdFusion scripting is also a wonderful thing if you know how to use it properly.

  126. Digging deeper at the problems with SWF by yerricde · · Score: 1

    use flash for fancy and slow site navigation

    Slow? SWF can be much smaller than a PNG image in some cases because while PNG is a raster format (essentially gzipped .bmp), SWF is a vector format. Sure, there's SVG, but more people have SWF viewers than SVG viewers, and silent SWF doesn't seem to have significant patent problems.

    use flash for displaying beautiful unreadable anti-aliased text

    Actually, it's unreadable not because it's anti-aliased but because 1. it's anti-aliased without moving the control points to pixel boundaries (either automatically or via hints in the font), because 2. it's often displayed on top of a busy background, but most importantly because 3. the text is too dang SMALL. Most web pages that specify a text style specify glyphs somewhere between 12 and 16 pixels tall; designers who care little about usability often size SWF text that's a paragraph or longer at about 9 pixels or so.

    other than those downsides flash can be used for good and not evil

    WE DRINK RITALIN!

    but only in moderation

    Interesting.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  127. .NET jobs? Pretty .GROSS by AndroidCat · · Score: 2
    Has .NET even left the starting gate in all seriousness?

    Maybe, maybe not, but all the headhunter/HR buzzword flacks seem to want 2 years experience and a completed project in it. (Waste of time explaining to them that it's only been out of beta for a year.)

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  128. Mozilla would benefit by Rick+the+Red · · Score: 2

    If anything, Mozilla would improve -- since Flash wouldn't work in Mozilla anymore, the developers might come to their senses and re-write it to igore Flash altogether. I mean, really, how many times do I have to say "NO!" when it asks if I want to load the plug-in before Mozilla/Phoenix/whatever realize that I don't want it and stop asking? And when are they going to block downloads from Flash servers the way they let us block downloads from ad servers?

    --
    If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
  129. Screw flash, what about Freehand? by 1u3hr · · Score: 2

    People seem fixated on Flash. Macromedia has some other major products, including Freehand, an extremely powerful and useful graphic/layout app that, like most (all?) Macromedia apps runs well on Mac or Windows. If MS gets this it would be the start of it taking over DTP -- a field where MS products (Publisher, Word) are held in derision. Macromedia also has a somewhat dormant font editor, Fontographer. Adobe could be the next in the crosshairs.

  130. FWIW by alernon · · Score: 1

    I have a friend who works at Microsoft Business Solutions and he first told me about this move over year ago. Nothing confirmed just gossip around the office. So if this is true, they've been looking in Macromedia's direction for a long time.

  131. what about Mac authors? by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 2

    wow... this is scary. I hope microsoft doesn't buy macromedia and then drop, or lower the quality of, support for Mac users within a few years. The day that microsoft forces me to use Windows for multimedia development I'm going to go nuts.

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  132. *snrk* by lothie · · Score: 1

    I can but laugh. Oy.

  133. .......mmm by onebaldman · · Score: 1

    First of all I'm just tired of the tyraid that is always against flash, it just gets old...
    Lets break it down and see what you're really griping at, .. Tired of waiting for the flash pages to load? Sure, they *can* be a pain at times, but that is no where near flash's fault, it's the actual developer, .the part of the equation that always seems to be dropped out. What about two-three years ago when all you seen was gifs blinking everywhere? It's still out there, though not nearly as bad, it's still a problem. Splash screens can be a pain as well, this I'll admit,.. but I couldn't begin to tell you the many many sites I've seen that a non flash page carries over 150k in weight, or the pages that developers don't optimize thier images as they should. Back again to the web developer. I'm all for standards, I'm a acting member of WaSP, and I don't think that flash is the replacement of html, well xhtml/xml. But I think it's a very viable enhancement, there are search engines now that can parse through flash for indexing, the swf format is open, So, the comment about the ide sucks, or about how there isn't one for linux, . why whine? Build one. Why not complain about how long streaming media takes?, .. and though its not perfect but the S. codec in flash 6 is by far faster than any of the other big boys in the streaming media front. And the actionscript is based of the ECMA standard, . so I can't see any complaints there. And now that web services, remoting, and database driven flash applications are possible it allows for a better ease of coding, . IF the webdevelopers try and utilize them. There was a comment about having to code for two platforms, flash and non flash, with db driven, it's not a worry, . build the guis, and let the db do the talking.

    You *can* have your back button back, hot keys enabled, searchable text, and there are a couple of screen readers that can read through flash, so it's all back to the developer, and not the product itself.

    And I know php, and cold fusion, tell me something I CAN'T do with cold fusion that I can do with php? in the web scripting world I don't see it. To some it's ugly, and thats fine, tag based languages can only appeal a certain amount of people,. considering that xml is tag based, I can't see it as a viable arguement, but to no end I'm sure there will be several here. The database seperation layer?, where was that first? Can php run ontop of a j2ee platform? just curious, I couldn't find anything but enhydra, . and I'm not going to touch that. but I'll assume it can, . and cold fusion is right there can run anywhere as well. In the open source forum I'm sure it won't be appreciated as my comments are thrown, and thats fine, . but all in all I STILL say it's back to the developers who code and what they CHOOSE to code with, .. as ms struts around we'll see a ms world,. and the hell that may come with it.

    anyways....

  134. Flash by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would have to think that this is mostly about Flash. Flash MX is a pretty amazing product now that it includes Flash Remoting.

    Flash Remoting is what Java applets should have been - a thick client techonology that works. Using Flash Remoting it is possible to make calls to serverside software components directly over HTTP. It's quite extrodinary to be able to invoke a method on an a server object from inside a client side script and get back a cached result set from a database. Right now Flash Remoting supporte both .Net and J2EE.

    It's obvious that integration of this with .Net (and exclusion of Java) whould be a big win for .Net. Clearly Microsoft wants this for it's own, and wants to cut out Java.

    Hopefully the FTC will put the deep six on this - it's an extremely anti-competitive merger.

  135. YOU DO NOT HAVE FLASH INSTALLED by sulli · · Score: 2

    please click here to install it before proceeding to the courthouse. thank you.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  136. Use Opera! by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 2

    In Opera, to disable flash:
    1) Hit F12
    2) type p
    3) Done.

    Flash is off (yeah!) and sites will not nag you to the crap.

    I recommend that you check out Opera - it has many USEFUL features and was developed by thinking people rather than brain-dead drones. It may not be perfect, but it's miles ahead of the Borg's browser.

    --
    Sigs are bad for your health.
  137. Non x86? by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Everybody knows that you can get the DLLs anywhere.

    On any architecture other than i586, the Windows QuickTime DLLs run way too slow to play a movie in real time.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  138. GPL all Macromedia Code by klosskorban · · Score: 1
    Microsoft would never want to own a company with a GPL business model, If for no other reason then to just save face. I know your thinking that M$ could do its hostile takeover then un-GPL further versions "ala Tux Racer". But not if Macromedia started a non-profit group independent of macromedia that managed the "core" of all their GPL applications,( A Mozilla, Netscape relationship with more legal separation).

    Perhaps a GPL is to unrestrictive. I'm sure one or two small changes would make it fit into an OpenSource Business Model that Macromedia could Profit from.

    Macromedias code could be further held close to its chest by the fact that its likely difficult to compile and not a simple ./configure && make && make install, similar to Cinelerra, and OpenOffice and how its just easier to download the binary.
    Rant Done ... good by.

    --
    Need help finding the flow? http://www.myspace.com/naturalismandbalance
  139. Re:Dreamweaver The New Frontpage by dtdns · · Score: 1

    Fine by me, as long as they don't touch HomeSite+ I'm just fine..

  140. Better headline: by Snork+Asaurus · · Score: 2

    Effluent To Acquire Another Bad Smell?

    --
    Sigs are bad for your health.
  141. Re:MOZILLA is DEAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Tech people don't need Flash on their browsers, but a lot of businesses depend on Flash. If Flash would not be available in Mozilla, businesess could not use Mozilla.

    Businesses that depend on Flash deserve what they get. The rule of thumb has always been and should always remain, use Flash for eye candy but don't require it for the site to function. For example, I definitely turn it off because it's annoying to have space ships flying across my screen advertising Yahoo DSL or scrolling flashing throbbing full page banner ads that would make an epileptic go into a seizure presented to you. Flash is the technological equivalent of hopping up on someone's desk and laying a nice steamy turd on their monitor. It adds color and definitely gets people talking around the water cooler, but nobody really ever wants to see it.

  142. Re:Not the end of the world -huh? by Hater's+Leaving,+The · · Score: 1

    Maybe, but I think they have another weapon that they can use, and have used in the past - the old "embrace and extend".

    I think they'll deliberately add new features, distribute a new development environment that always choses the newest way of doing things, thus forcing all new animations/games/etc. to be non-viewable on older kit.

    I think that it was ony good for mini-putt games anyway, so I won't really miss it. Apart from mini-putt, that is.

    THL.

    --
    Keeping /. cynic density high since the fscking Kwhores/trolls arrived.
  143. Noooooooooo!! by veddermatic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Today:

    Developers use Dreamweaver to wrie cross platform code taht integrates with ColdFusion (which can be installed on a variety of platfors, and can connect to a variety of DB servers) and can include Flash components which run on almost all browsers, and can get data form a HUGE variety of platform indepenant sources.

    Tomorrow:
    The Mac versions lag behind the windows versions. The Windows versions get "extended" functionality... but only if CF is running on WinXP, and the DB it connects to is MS SQL Server. You can *still* use other things, but it's a huge pain in the ass.

    Next Week:
    No more Mac versions. Flash plugin is Active-X only, and can get data only from .NET apps and CF runs only on XP, and ONLY connects to M$ SQL server.

    I can only hope Macromedia looks beyond quick cash flow and actally gives a shit about the Web. Then again, given the sad state of "profit trumps all other decisions" corporate action the US is going through... *sigh*

    PLEASE DON'T SELL YOUR SOUL TO THE DEVIL MACORMEDIA!!!

    --
    Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
  144. Flash sucks should be OT by multimed · · Score: 2
    I hope they buy out Adobe too so they can kill Photoshop because that's what most of the non flash banner ads use to make animated gifs. Oh and I hope they manage to completely kill off C++ too--because I was playing a game the other day and it was done in C++ and I didn't really like it, so it must be the language.

    Seriously why is it that so many Slashdotters are reasonable when it comes to the right tool for the job attitude on most things, but because a lot of ads and annoying skip intros are done in Flash, they villify the tool. Fact of the matter is Flash is the right tool for some jobs, and despite all the abuse by "me-to" splash screen creators, there are a lot of things Flash does really well. And do you honestly think that if Flash vanished off the face of the planet tomorrow, there'd suddenly be less ads or ads would be less obnoxious?

    I was hoping for some interesting commentary and speculation on the Microsoft buying Macromedia rumors and instead found an anti-Flash flame war. Sorry for the soapbox, but it's just disappointing.

    --
    Vote Quimby.
  145. Re:As if by ergo98 · · Score: 1

    Adobe has pretty much dropped SVG development, and nobody else is picking it up. That train is not going anywhere soon.

    I find this humorous because people, so use to products so incomplete and full of bugs that there are constant iterations, visit Adobe's SVG viewer to find that the last update was November of 2001. The problem in their thought process, though, is that that iteration is extremely good and very comprehensive. It may not support the latest version of Mozilla, but on the most popular platform (IE on the Wintel platform) it works absolutely stunningly. During the same time SVG has been added to virtually every vector graphics package as a native or export graphics format.

    Recently, within the past two months, the W3C formalized SVG 1.1 and mobile SVG 1.1.

    The only reason SVG isn't front and foremost right now is because of the tech downturn at the same time that the technology became mature. It should be noted that during the same time Flash has been marginalized to basically animated advertisements (the only other common use of Flash that I see are misguided intro animations, themselves a bad relic of 1998. The sites that keep out patrons by using Macromedia at the GUI are few and far between, and generally are "Web design firms desperate for business".

    DOM is a part of browsers, as is XML, as is ECMAScript/JavaScript. A standard vector graphics package that interacts with these native elements is such an obvious eventual destination that it's screaming out. It wouldn't suprize me at all if the next version of Internet Explorer had native SVG support (perhaps provided by Adobe) which would basically ring the death knell for Flash.

  146. Re:MS is really innovative? by Draigon · · Score: 1

    " I don't think that MS is any more innovative than the average goldfish."

    You haven't seen my goldfish. He's a fuckin genius!

    --
    -Rabbit
  147. Flash will compete with Visual Basic! by mcrbids · · Score: 2

    Take a look at this article on ZDnet I read recently about Flash MX.

    It seems that in some cases, Flash can be used to build REAL APPLICATIONS like this one here that are:

    1) Easy to use.

    2) Cross platform (windows, mac, unix, palm, etc)

    3) Easy to build

    In this regard, this puts pressure on VB and/or .NET. This review shows it's not quite there yet, but it's certainly a step in this direction.

    What does MS do whenever it runs into something that outperforms their own products?

    Buy the company, of course.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  148. Flash Video Angle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I think the most interesting angle on this speculative buy-out is video. Flash does video now. Flash is undoubtedly installed on more computers than any of the the big 3 video players: QT, Real, MS. (Flash video isn't very useful for users downloading stand-alone movies, but it's an excellent alternative to presenting embedded video - and there's no multiple player issues.)

    For context, Mpeg4 is based on QT in some way; MS isn't playing along with the Mpeg4 standard (and seem to have their own proprietary version of Mpeg4 - you can now buy cameras with Mpeg4 stamped on them but the videos can only be played with WMP - nice standard). And the new Real player claims to play anything (Mpeg4, WMP, QT, Real) - except Flash. QT plays Flash (but not Flash video yet).

    So Flash would look like a good sized stick for MS to beat QT, Mpeg4, and Real with.
    (To say nothing of the database/server angle.)

  149. Grain of salt. by geekoid · · Score: 2

    Hmm, a rumor of a small company being bought by a much larger company, and at the end of the year.
    Sound 100% to me... ;)

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  150. Re:MOZILLA is DEAD by korgull · · Score: 1

    right, same for me.
    It just crashes all the time and that I certainly won't miss.

  151. Flash, CF, etc.. by FinalCut · · Score: 1

    I think some of you guys don't really have a clue to the power of flash. There really is alot more that can be done with it than just "splash screens" And to whomever said PHP would kick CFs ass is truly on acid. Both have their strengths and weaknesses but CF is by no means a pile of shit compared to PHP. Considering CFs simple language structure it is incredibly powerful - and provides for extremely fast web development. Something PHP does not do. I like both - but when it comes down to cranking something out that is both fast and powerful CF is nearly always my choice. If I have the time to build - I am still just as likely to go with CF as PHP. Flash allows developers to provide end users with a really nice UI that you still can not achieve using CSS and HTML. Allowing for a far more compact and efficient website. Unfortunatly nobody uses it for that - instead 99% of all flash is a waste as people just try to be artsy with it. I do agree with most of the negative sentiments about Director though - i really don't have any use for it and wouldn't mind it going away anyway. There have been some decent web-based shockwave games in the past though :O) like King Putt (a miniature golf game). I think it would suck if MS bought Macromedia. Hopefully it doesn't happen. Even if you don't like CF I think you can agree that to have one less competitor to ASP wouldn't be a good thing. Unless your just so blinded by PHP and opensource love that you want opensource to be the only alternative - kind of like MS wants to be the only one... In my opinion both are equally bad alternatives.

    1. Re:Flash, CF, etc.. by babylon93 · · Score: 1

      NEWSFLASH:
      PHP is not the only opensource language for the web.
      Have you ever written a custom CF tag?
      Compare that with the simplicity of writing a perl module or a PHP class.

    2. Re:Flash, CF, etc.. by FinalCut · · Score: 1

      Yes I have written custom CF tags - and if you think its hard your basically, a moron. how tough is it? You can write CFX tags in either C++ or Java .. not too tricky. Or you can create a CF_ custom tag using cold fusion .. again not real hard. whats your point? I think I mentioned the whole opensource bit in my post. This site isn't the Open Source Love den. Its the "News for Nerds" site. Believe it or not OpenSource != Always Good. I like PHP and I like CF. Both are good at what they do. My point was, and continues to be, that if MS buys Macromedia it will take one more choice out of the marketplace for developers as MS will undoubtedly want to keep ASP and remove CF since they (MS) already have so much invested in their ASP technology. Personally, I like having as many choices as possible to present to my customers.

  152. F'n Flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The flash plugin is becoming about as necessary as the Comet Cursor plugin. It's about as useful these days, considering it's amazing capability to render transparent animations all over the boring content on the page. I swear, they will find me one day dead in front of my computer because of an aneurism caused by the extreme frustration and annoyance caused by Flash advertisements. In fact, the "Comment" edit box stops receiving text input every time the f'n flash Speakeasy ad at the top of the page rotates. GOD DAMNN!!! AAAArrrr POP ....

  153. Best thing that could happen by Hafer · · Score: 1

    because the world could and should concentrate on the flash-replacement SVG.

  154. Please... by FreshFunk510 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You're the only person to notice this because this is not the reality of things.

    If Microsoft wanted Apple dead they would've been dead several years ago. Don't you recall when Microsoft invested in Apple to keep ti alive? This was right around when the anti-trust lawsuits began. Basically Microsoft wanted to keep them around so that they (Microsoft) could claim that Apple was indeed a viable competitors and that they (Microsoft) were not a monopoly.

    Taking a look at Apple now they are basically dead. They still have some dedicated designers but they're basically losing the educational sector. If anything this is a move against Java.

    --


    "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
    1. Re:Please... by toddhisattva · · Score: 1
      Don't you recall when Microsoft invested in Apple to keep ti alive?

      He didn't remember that because that never happened. The investment was a measly $150M. Apple had just paid $400M for Next.

      What the investment did was convince a lot of idiots that Microsoft saved Apple!

  155. Flash is the killer app and you dont even know it by pigsie · · Score: 1

    Flash is the killer app and half of you wont realise it till its too late.

    Sure it can take long to download but how many people in 6 years will have broadband?

    How many web applications are used internally where this isn't a problem such as intranets?

    How many commercial or decent sites still have large animated gifs. The Animated gifs period in internet history is where flash is at now, but what about the future? How many applications can you write which look the same and act the same on all platforms and even pdas without a change.

    Why should the internet not mimic conventional desktop apps that many are used to?

    Once flash accesibility is improved and search engines can index flash contentent html is as good as dead.

    Look at xml it's really not more than glorified text files which have to be parsed, not very efficient yet people use it today.

    In recent articles in java magazines, authors have accepted that flash is what applets and *swing* shoudl have been!

    Once people start to use it right and we see some good uses we'll see rapid adoption. The problem is marketing, if more leading sites utilised flash correctly a lot more of people would realise this.

  156. Flash is not the ultimate solution by TheRIAAMustDie · · Score: 1



    Although this is just a rumour, it scares me to the depths of my being. If I lose the one app I live for (outside of Reason, of course ;)) I'll be pretty pissed.. I have been waiting for Director MX for what seems like an eternity, and now that I have it, I could not live without it again.

    I could care less about Flash, and although the majority of my former classmates in the Multimedia program at Humber College are deep into it, touting its crappy-ass feature set as the be-all and end-all of interactive site development, I know that any and all of its features were in Director/Shockwave first.

    Example: Flash can only handle 2 minutes of video, and it has to be run through the sorenson compressor.

    Director, on the other hand, can handle unlimited amounts of video, using quicktime or real, with any compression scheme.

    Flash's 3D features? None.. but you can use third-party apps like swift 3d to create/convert 3D from other programs.

    Director has an insane amount of control available for 3D, with many behaviours (reusable sets of code) in its built-in library, and powerful scripting control.

    Flash's multiuser ability is getting there, but Director has it soundly beat once again, having had the multiuser toolkit for a number of years now.

    Plus, Director MX can kick out runtime apps for OS 9, X and win platforms with many options and abilities. Flash can only do so much to begin with, so it falls behind in this department as well.

    Now don't get me wrong, the last thing I want is for Microsoft to get their slimy hands on more useful apps, ready to bleed them dry and destroy them until they are a living shell of their former selves.. Any time MS buys a company, an angel dies.

    Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all on Slashdot.

    Peace

    --

    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. it's the only thing that ever has.
  157. Good and Bad by c0d3fu · · Score: 1

    Face it everyone, M$ is here to stay. There are legally untouchable, Windows is the standard for operating systems, and .NET Passports are everywhere (not to mention indelibly added to XP). I wouldn't be shocked at all if they replace social security numbers with them. Of course, with all the standardization, they will eventually be forced to release the source for windows and IE.

    Overall, any merger is scary, and I hope it never happens. The guys at Macromedia are really sharp and they make superior software. It's not all bad if it happens though (excluding the fact that Microsoft just became even more unstoppable).

    Good: * flash comes installed with windows
    * microsoft integrates macromedia into it's software
    * possible optimization of flash software
    * possible creation of a graphics suite capable of tackling Adobe (not to trash Photoshop or anything, but the birth of anything to rival it would be amazing)
    * almost for-sure improvement in the API of flash developers who want to make actual flash applications, could show java and perl the door if they combined it with PHP directly

    Bad: * closed source, attempt to trap flash technology in the land of internet explorer
    * new, more sophisticated flash ads and banners
    * probably, and amazingingly, security issues with flash programs (can you imagine flash virii? - lol)
    * the ruination of the clean interface of Dreamweaver and Flash development suites
    * the addition of tons of bs into the clean code that dreamweaver cranks out (has anyone here looked at Word HTML? omg, nasty!)

    --

    [c0d3fu]: jwjb62@umr.edu || james@macrohub.com
  158. Not about web pages by Error27 · · Score: 1

    I've never used flash so I may be completely wrong.

    If you think about flash as a programming language instead of web animations, it opens a number of possibilities. For example, themes could be written in flash. You could animate all kinds of things in the desktop. Flash could be integrated with VB.

  159. Glimmer/Avalon by MrBlack · · Score: 2

    I heard very strictly "off the record" from someone who interned at M$, and via another source who works there about a projects code-named Glimmer and Avalon. Avalon was apparently an attempt to build a rich-client-in-the-browser similar to flashMX, that might replace windows forms in .NET (that sounded pretty un-likely to me, but you never know...). Glimmer was apparently a sub-set of that. The only URL which details any of this is this fluff piece from InfoWeek. If M$ are working on something like this then a possible purchase of Macromedia would be very interesting.....

  160. Re:As if by ergo98 · · Score: 1

    That and the fact that Flash has 99% market penetration and SVG has 0.01% and no active development.

    Complete and absolute BS. Flash has probably 1% penetration in places where dynamic vector graphics could be used. There are countless places where neither Flash or SVG are in use because people either don't want to exclude users for marginal gain. Saying that SVG has "no active development" is absolute Flash-enabled fantasy as well: I don't know if you noticed, but SVG 1.1 was big news. SVG 1.2 will be even bigger news, and there is native support in virtually all graphics packages and a growing developer base. Flash just keeps on in the margins, shunned by the overwhelming majority of those in the know.

    DHTML makes for not fully-functional GUIs and excludes NS4, Java crapplets collapsed under browser incompability, and VBish client-server stuff is too hard to deploy.

    If one is willing to say "Well Netscape 4 is Flash enabled when you install the Flash plug-in", then I'll turn that around and say "Netscape 4 is Flash enabled when you install IE 6/Mozilla. If one has the option to install Flash, then a newer browser is certainly in the works. One will have probably an equal number of users who don't have Flash installed as those who have a browser ill suited for modern DHTML.

    As far as SVG having an "unmaintained plugin" that's just a riot. Have you used the Adobe SVG Viewer? It is tremendous. Corel is actively developing a plugin. There is a version of Mozilla with SVG native support. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention (of have been hiding hoping that the web switches to Flash), but virtually every graphics company but Macromedia is involved and participating in the SVG standard. Take a look at the signators at the bottom of the spec...the only big company missing is Macromedia. Tell me again how Flash is the new world order...

  161. Not gonna happen by Voltronalpha · · Score: 1

    Years ago, when few of you knew of Macromedia...
    Microsoft tried to acquire them then and failed, why would now that they are very successful would they accept such an offer? Bah that's ridiculous.

    Karma (Microsoft still gets none)

    --
    There is evidence to prove both Democrats and Republicans are lying cocksuckers. Vote independently.
  162. It won't be the first time . . . by Vinnie_333 · · Score: 1

    . . . that Microsoft bought a piece of software (DOS, Excel, etc, etc).

    --

    "We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
  163. Microsoft the "flash-master"? by atheken · · Score: 1

    If Microsoft becomes the owner of Macromedia and subsquently, flash - that makes flash evil by association, right? This should help all the anti-flashers in their arguments... Look! here come the trolls.

  164. Flash and embedded systems by unsung · · Score: 1

    Well, the thing that pops into my mind is that Flash is getting some embedded systems interface use. In reality this is probably a much smaller consideration in the overall scheme, but think of Moxi digital and their STB UI- its Flash based.

    Microsoft, I think, is having some trouble in the embedded market. XP embedded is simply too expensive. CE .net is a good option for certain devices but embedded Linux looks awfully juicy next to it. Flash as a solution for developers
    to create fancy UI's for their embedded devices ensures that Microsoft will have a play in this area no matter who's OS gets used.

  165. the end of flash! by johnnnyboy · · Score: 1

    We will soon see the end of Flash and the end of Cold Fusion.

    --
    "If a show of teeth is not enough, bite ... but bite hard!"
  166. enforcing certain style by pyrrho · · Score: 1


    why do you think the desire to have absolute style control comes from?

    --

    -pyrrho

  167. HTML e-mail by pyrrho · · Score: 1

    I don't get the problem with HTML email... why is this such a problem?

    --

    -pyrrho

  168. It did too keep Apple alive by multimed · · Score: 2
    While the money wasn't critical, the agreement to keep releasing Office for the Mac was. Had Microsoft killed Office for the Mac then or now, Apple certainly wouldn't be around or some one would have bought them out. Now in all likeliness this would have caused major antitrust issues--lets face it, MS wasn't acting out of the goodness of their heart, and it would be a very easy case to prove because MS makes buckets of money from Mac Office (probably more profitable than Windows) but as evident from the last antitrust case, trials take time. If Microsoft wanted Apple gone, they would be gone.

    The idea that a purchase of Macromedia would be to put Apple out of business is absolutely laughable. Such an acquisition could be about any or all of:

    • getting the Flash codebase
    • getting the Flash developers
    • getting Freehand
    • getting or squashing Coldfusion as a competitor to ASP
    • killing Java with Flash/Coldfusion or
    • getting Dreamweaver to control & guide web development.
    --
    Vote Quimby.
  169. Re:MOZILLA is DEAD (I Hate Flash & PDF!!!) by cyberlawyer · · Score: 1


    There is nothing more agravating than going to a site that looks interesting and having a giant flash splash page slow down my browser (or even crash it!)

    PDF is even worse. There may be a few rare occasions where complex diagrams are better rendered in PDF than say GIF but they are few and far between. I hate it when I go to google, do a search, find a relevant document and... arghhh a PDF file opens and slows everything to a crawl. This happens with bus and train schedules. Does anyone remember what the table tag is for?! Even worse sometimes a PDF document will be used for a plain text document without any special fonts etc!!!

    In short M$ should buy both Adobe and Macromedia because both of these company's products are perfect bloatware that go well with M$ Office. Maybe then the rest of us can go back to using HTML, XML, GIFs and JPEGs all generated by the likes of GIMP etc.

    --
    *** Please visit my homepage for news and info. about trademark law, domain-name disputes and other e-commerce issues
  170. news flash by infinite+jester · · Score: 1
    ((( Yes, it is neat and does look cool, but is still not a programming language, nor does it have any tie-in to a programming language. )))

    it is a programming language, and a robust one at that -- in fact, i'm hard-pressed to think of a task that actionscript can't handle: it can parse xml, dynamically load and play mp3 files, create accessible content, play video, access databases, control other flash movies, create user-editable vector shapes... it's got editable interface components like scroll bars and radio button clusters, it handles unicode and rich text fields, it can converse with director and javascript, it can integrate with application servers to create dynamic content, and it has chat functionality

    ((( ActionScripting is great, but it can't handle the functions required to create a commercial application, apart from CBT type educational programs, and even then Director is preferred over Flash. )))

    having programmed in both director and flash, i can tell you that there is very little that director can do that flash can't, short of controlling video hardware or manipulating 3d content; flash, on the other hand, by virtue of its capacity for multiple timelines, can do quite a few things, simply and elegantly, that are impossible to replicate in director

    ((( Flash can NOT replace html, because flash is not an open standard. You can not write flash with vi. Flash is a commercial and proprietary product.)))

    flash isn't "open," but it is publicly viewable, and the actionscript spec is open as well... you probably wouldn't want to write flash with vi, because your actionscripts are always attached to a flash object or frame, but there are plenty of third-party programs that edit and generate .swf files, and adobe even sells a competing program (livemotion) that uses actionscript (or perhaps a clone) as its scripting language

    ((( IF you're looking for "Potential power potent enough to alter the web" you need to look into XML. )))

    among its many, many other talents, flash can parse and generate xml

    ((( Flash holds nothing for the power of the web. )))

    spoken like someone who's never programmed in flash

    --
    i thought, therefore i was...
  171. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    Now she speaks rapidly. "Do you know *why* you want to program?"
    He shakes his head. He hasn't the faintest idea.
    "For the sheer *joy* of programming!" she cries triumphantly.
    "The joy of the parent, the artist, the craftsman. "You take a program,
    born weak and impotent as a dimly-realized solution. You nurture the
    program and guide it down the right path, building, watching it grow ever
    stronger. Sometimes you paint with tiny strokes, a keystroke added here,
    a keystroke changed there." She sweeps her arm in a wide arc. "And other
    times you savage whole *blocks* of code, ripping out the program's very
    *essence*, then beginning anew. But always building, creating, filling the
    program with your own personal stamp, your own quirks and nuances. Watching
    the program grow stronger, patching it when it crashes, until finally it can
    stand alone -- proud, powerful, and perfect. This is the programmer's finest
    hour!" Softly at first, then louder, he hears the strains of a Sousa march.
    "This ... this is your canvas! your clay! Go forth and create a masterwork!"

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...