Slashdot Mirror
Adobe Releases Cross-Operating System Runtime
An anonymous reader writes to mention that Adobe released the first public version of their new cross-operating system runtime today nicknamed 'Apollo'. "The software relies on HTML, JavaScript, Flash, and Adobe Flex. The alpha version, which presently works on Windows and Macintosh, can be downloaded for free at http://www.adobe.com/go/apollo. Once the Apollo apps are created, users can launch them from their desktops, without using their browser or connecting online. An Apollo application can connect automatically to online data or services when an Internet connection is detected, with new components automatically downloaded and integrated. The user needs the Apollo runtime to run the apps, just as a Flash player is needed to run Flash animations."
The first reason, and the less sure one and more petty one, is that I feel that Adobe ruins all software over time. If you think carefully about this, and if you have sufficient experience with Adobe software, you will agree with me. The only project Adobe has not completely destroyed is Photoshop, and that is only because they move most cautiously with that product. If they screwed up Photoshop they would cease to exist yesterday.
The other reason, however, and the one that I expect more support on, is the Apollo Runtime Licensing Agreement. It contains such gems as "2.2 Distribution. You may not sublicense or distribute the Software.", "2.3 Backup Copy. You may make one backup copy of the Software, provided your backup copy is not installed or used on any computer. You may not transfer the rights to a backup copy unless you transfer all rights in the Software as provided under Section 4." And then there's "2.4 No Modification. You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works based upon the Software.". Here's another fun one: "3.1 Prohibited Devices and Systems. You may not install or use the Software on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. For the avoidance of doubt, and by example only, you may not install or use the Software on any (a) mobile devices, set top boxes (STB), handhelds, phones, web pads, tablets and Tablet PCs that are not running Windows XP or Vista Tablet PC Edition, game consoles, TVs, DVD players, media centers (excluding Windows XP Media Center Edition and its successors), electronic billboards or other digital signage, internet appliances or other internet-connected devices, PDAs, medical devices, ATMs, telematic devices, gaming machines, home automation systems, kiosks, remote control devices, or any other consumer electronics device, (b) operator-based mobile, cable, satellite, or television systems or (c) other closed system devices."
Now consider Apollo in the context of actually using it; the only place you can install it is on a web server. The license does not even permit installation on a web server appliance! I am not making this up; you are prohibited from installing it on "internet appliances or other internet-connected devices". You cannot install the software on a PDA used as a webserver. You cannot use the software as the interface for a set-top box. You cannot, in fact, use the software anywhere other than a webserver (but not an appliance!) or pretty much anything running Windows XP (tablet PCs and media centers NOT running Windows XP are explicitly prohibited.)
Avoid this software at all costs! It's just an attempt by Adobe to create lock-in. Use ANY alternative.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You're either an alarmist or a realist. Only time will tell.
That's one of the first reactions to any new technology on Slashdot it seems, however - "What evil can it be used for?"
Well, that and "Can it run Linux?"
The land shall stone them with the bread of his son.
"Apollo will work on Mac and Windows to begin with, Linux support to follow."
h ings-about-adobe-apollo.html
http://myblah-blah-tech.blogspot.com/2007/01/15-t
From here: http://news.com.com/Adobe+ponies+up+for+Apollo/210 0-1012_3-6129403.html
"During a press and anlalyst briefing Wednesday, Adobe's senior vice president and chief software architect Kevin Lynch said Adobe will build its future products using Apollo."
* Ie, the BSA which Adobe is a member of.
This is one of the reasons I despise Flash. Hopefully someday Gnash will be a good replacement for it.
"The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
End The FED. -
Apollo is basically "Flex" outside of a browser. Flex is basically a user interface UI using Flash...basically it allows Flash-like graphics using an API more geared towards a UI. It's an alternative to things like MFC/wxWidgets/qt, etc., except with a cross platform runtime.
The cake is a pie
BS, the Readme.txt in the installer.tgz:
/ ."
"Adobe Systems Incorporated
Flash Player 9 for Linux
Version 9.0.31.0
January 2007
[...]
Your use of this player is governed by the Adobe End User License Agreement
found at http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/players/flash
Maybe not at the moment, but it looks to be coming also.
~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
Read over the EcmaScript 4 work-in-progress proposal and see what you think:
http://developer.mozilla.org/es4/
(Basically, imagine ActionScript 3 + JavaScript 1.7 + lots of other goodies.)
without proper sandboxing, as Adobe doesn't like the concept
You must speak from a complete lack of knowledge of working in Flash, which is strongly sandboxed.
only runs web standards AND Flash, but happily disregards anything written by anybody else
And what other "anything" are you currently using for web apps?
A Linux version is absolutely going to happen. It was originally scheduled to be in the first release, but Flash Player 9 for Linux ended up delayed, which forced the Apollo team to change their plans. You can definitely expect Linux parity in the long run.
No linux no go. There are probably 2-3 times as many linux users are macintosh. No linux, no go.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
GIMP is great until you need to, say, draw a straight line.
Or a rounded rectangle. There are highly evolved plugins developed for GIMP for this purpose, where you can feed it scientific information and it'll draw an ugly aliased rounded rectangle for you. The Joy!
GIMP shouldn't be used as an example for Photoshop replacement at all. Even something as basic as the grid, doesn't work properly. I'd rather use MS Paint than GIMP. And I don't speak just like that: I have GIMP installed here, as there are some useful plugins for it (like texture resynthesis: they are painfully slow, like most GIMP plugins and crash a lot, but free).
All attempts so far to do actual design work in it failed though. It lacks basics.
The funny thing is, you can draw lines exactly the same way in Photoshop. All their paint tools support shift-clicking to draw lines, just like the Gimp. But Photoshop still provides a separate line tool, while Gimp does not. Why? I'm guessing a Gimp developer decided it was redundant with shift-clicking, so he left it out. But the line tool replacement isn't obvious, so every Gimp user must be explicitly taught to shift-click, as the tone of the article shows. It's one of several things the Gimp does that seems smart and logical but is a usability disaster.
And Photoshop's line tool isn't even redundant with shift-clicking; there isn't another easy way to draw flat-capped lines.