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."
So in other words it's a wrapper for existing technologies? It could be useful I suppose, but I'm thinking it's being hyped up already by Adobe. Abstraction of the underlying technolgies is good in some cases, but I can just see the horrid things people will do with this. Flash alone is bad enough as it is the way it's often implemented.
Hmm, why did I instantly think of cross-platform viruses/worms being early uses of this technology? Self-propagating flash-based avertising?
Surely an architecture like this can't function without duct tape.
Anyone who has ever had to make a cross platform GUI application that works identically on Linux, Mac, and Windows, can tell you what a nightmare it is. Even if you use a good cross platform toolkit like Qt or wxWidgets, the apps are still not *identical*. And you have to build them and test them for every platform. And you have to account for the myrid of possible library combinations the users my have installed. Etc etc.
This is why so many companies are embracing web applications - but web applications can't do it all. Some things you just *need* to do client side. This Apollo thing could be a really great way to do it.
And what may make it even more killer, would be the fact that you could perhapse share GUI code between your web applications and your client applications - so a user could run his UI over the web *OR* locally. Excellent.
I will definitely be taking a close look at this.
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.'"
From the site:
RIAs? So basically, you want me to not only have a wrapper agent on my system but also a network and system app layer that will have direct access to other remote like objects? Hmmm, gee, has anyone told Citrix this?
So this won't fly in an Corporate Enterprise environment and for home use...well, does anyone want mySpace resource hogging your whole system and not just your browser's use of your resources? Uhm, no thanks.
"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
isn't the same thing? i remember playing with a thingie called XULPlayer, i loved it.
...and 64-bit support will be available shortly after Duke Nukem Forever is released.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Why would we need another java or flash?
To sell books and support to developers, of course. It doesn't even really matter how few people end up using it, it's just another way to segment the computer world even further. If they get a few big companies to use it, it will sort of build and build. There was a time when nobody was using Flash, remember? Now it's pretty much everywhere. Just because Macromedia kept plugging away bit by bit, slow and steady...
they want java back.
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
Oh, wait, it's not.
Nevermind.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
From the description it seems like an alternative Mozilla's XUL except that it ties in Flash and probably opens up a way for a BSA audit (see my other post).
"The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
End The FED. -
Now you're going to say: "Of course, it's because Adobe is the inventor of the stupid portable document format, so no wonder they know all the tricks." You know what? You're right. In fact, Adobe even changes the definitions of pdf with every new release of the reader. I don't care. PDFs are the only format for documents besides Microsofts moronic
Because those products are ancient. They've been on the market for literally years, about a decade (!!!) each. How can you possibly make money selling a software brand that old? Adobe and Flash are the Chia Pet and Hula Hoop of the industry. Blah.
You would clearly make a terrible manager.
They want Smalltalk back.
The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
I could get by with GIMP I just don't like it. Getting by doesn't mean a whole lot and its a down right horrible phrase to use if you want to convince someone to use a product. I use a few titles (Photoshop, Fireworks etc)to do tasks that could probably all be done with Photoshop, but that doesn't mean it could be done better, more efficiently or to my preferences. I could name a lot of titles that I prefer that aren't available on Linux. PSPad is an example. Sure there is something else I can use, but since I have a choice, I choose my own preferences over yours. I see no reason to use software I don't prefer just because it works when the software I am using works. Just because something is an alternative doesn't mean its an alternative that the user will like. A large portion of users don't want to settle for software titles that fit their specifications but not their preferences. Inregards to Linux, instead of trying to force your ideals on non-Linux users and dictate their needs, you should also address their preferences and if you can't satisfy them then they have a valid reason for going elsewhere. But you are correct that Photoshop is not going to sell Linux to these people. It would take a lot more than that.
They want Smalltalk back.
And they're welcome to it. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Dont we have enough of these things already? How about lets all work on making one better, then just adding another to the pile?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It's kind of pointless if there's no Linux build. I wonder if it'll work in Wine.
At least they're not using Microsoft's definition of cross-platform: It runs on Vista _and_ XP.
If you would have bothered to check their Website you would have found this on the FAQ page:
o perfaq#Does_Apollo_support_Linux
http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Apollo:devel
Does Apollo support Linux
Apollo 1.0 will not be available on Linux. We plan to release Linux support shortly after the 1.0. release.
While we had originally planned to support Linux in the 1.0 timeframe, we have had to wait on the core Flash Player's support for Linux to be finalized.
I might give it a try for my Computer Store Work Order Tracking program.
Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.