Slashdot Mirror
The Return of GPLFlash
ValourX writes "Remember GPLFlash, the free software project that was supposed to replace the proprietary Macromedia Flash plugin? Well it's back in active development according to this NewsForge article. GPLFlash is half of the proprietary duo that the Free Software Foundation is rallying to replace with free equivalents. The alpha release isn't far away, but the development team could use some programming help, if you're available."
Worst... Logo... Ever.
-Jeff Albertson
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
To further your point, wouldn't it be better to endorse the use of SVG instead?
Java uses a virtual machine that runs at the speed of my old Pentium 2.
Blah blah that's grown very tiresome. Newer AWT and Swing applications run quite nicely thinks. I use Zend PHP studio and it feels as good as a good as any win32 or gtk app. The theme engine might not translate over from Gnome to Java, but that's not the end of the world.
Another thing, Java and Flash are interpreted languages
AFAIK you've been able to compile Java for a long time now IIRC. Isn't that what gcc-java is for?
You had me until that point. Comparing Java to Flash is like comparing c to animated gif. Different tools for different problems.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I'll support it!
If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
I wonder what their motivations are for working on this instead of helping out the gstreamer guys on swfdec. swfdec is licensed under the GPL and largely already works, including its Mozilla plugin. Even on non-x86 platforms.
http://www.schleef.org/swfdec/
"Why should Macromedia care that someone is using a 3rd party renderer as a replacement to their free renderer"
.. the will jsut start saying "Flash? It doesn't always work" not caring that its their "player" made of string and bubble gum that is the problem.
Compatability.
One reason Flash is so popular is that for complex interactions it is much, much easier to be sure your Flash app will "just work" across any OS with a MM flash player, regardless of browser.
If a number of players hit there will inevitably be bugs and flaws, meanign that now you cannot be sure your Flash app will behave the way it is supposed to. The usefulness of the format will drop.
And people don't usually know WHY there is a problem
The thing is, the Flahs player is FREE. So the only reason to write this one is political, not technical.
--> Fight tyranny and repression.... read
Players control how flash is seen, not the creators.
Allowing alternative players (assuming they actually have a problem with it and it's not just a CYA laywer insert) means that you can no longer 'promise' objects created in Flash will appear the same everywhere.
Remove that promise, and the draw to use Flash, as opposed to any of the other alternatives out there, is less.
Plus, if the alternative is better than the official version then Macromedia loses control of the language if people should choose to 'embrace and extend' the protocol. Then Macromedia is forced to play catch-up.
Think what MS would do if they were free to release their own Flash player.
The thing is, the Flahs player is FREE. So the only reason to write this one is political, not technical
That's where you're wrong. If you have a 64-bit system, you can't use Flash. Well, maybe if you have 32-bit x86 binary compatibilit you can use it... if you have a 32-bit binary browser. You cannot use 32-bit libraries and plugins with a 64-bit application. So if your uname says AMD64, PPC, SPARC, Alpha, or MIPS, the smug reply from Macromedia is "sorry 'bout your bad luck! Use Windows, buy an x86 machine!"
There are a lot of people who find this unacceptable. Therefore we have GPLFlash.
-JemLet's see,
- the colors do not contrast
- the colors aren't strong colors, like primary or tertiary colors, not do they evoke warmth (purples, reds) or a feeling of modernity (greys, blues, metal), rather they remind us of biological substances we'd rather avoid (urine, vomit)
- colors that don't translate well to black/white, spot color or halftone
- busy background
- illegible font (also, not hinted, the letters aren't just anti-aliassed, it's as if they've been painted with water based paint on blotter paper. smudgy.)
- unnecessary change of color for the lines
- the lines themselves add nothing to the logo (especially with the busy background)
- as an aside; the logo is actually more legible if you run it through a color-blindness simulator, which suggests the designer might be colorblind
- tiny
- not a scalable vector (it's a logo for a flash clone!!! well, like, duh!)
- the name gplflash itself isn't ideal; only geeks have any notion of what the GPL is, other people won't remember the name. FreeFlash would be better, though a tonguetwister (say it out loud 10 times).
- no personality. It's just a wacky font, 2 lines and a busy background. I bet the font wasn't designed by the logo 'designer' either.
Take a look at some BigAssCompany's websites.. IBM, Microsoft, BMW, McDonalds, Motorola, Exxon, etc. etc. Notice how their logos are legible? Don't have icky colors? Don't have busy backgrounds? Are vector-scaleable? Also work in monochrome?
Ok, Oracle uses a wacky font, I'll give you that. But at least they use a primary color. It burns away your eyes, but at least it stands out.
Now, there might be worse logos. I can think of one just like that.. "Goatse Retirement Homes".
But it's still a pretty darn bad logo. If you'd
hand it in a class, you should get 0%.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Of course, if you must have it, there's a happy little firefox plugin that only plays the flash when you click on the image.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
> not enough people that see the flash engine as
> such a travesty to be closed source when it is
> given out for free, anyway. Same goes for Java.
Yea. Unless you have an Athlon64, PPC, ARM, MIPS, Sparc, M68K, etc, etc. Unless you have seen a different download site than I have.
Even if Macromedia had distributed something for users on a variety of OSes (not just GNU/Linux systems) on non-Intel-like hardware (such as Mac PPC), this would be a great development for everyone because it gives us something Macromedia isn't giving us: software freedom. The freedom to share and modify should be valued in its own right, not just because it is less expensive or can be recompiled for less popular combinations of hardware and operating system.
Digital Citizen
I would hate to cause a rupture in your reality distortion field, but I would say it is an extremely safe bet that more than 60% of /. users are (gasp!) using MSIE on Win32.
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h