Microsoft / Adobe Competition Heating Up

MicroAdobe writes "Microsoft has noticed that some of the coolest sites on the Web, YouTube and MySpace included, get much of their flash from Flash and other design programs sold by Adobe. But as Microsoft gets ready to ship its own line of tools for designers and Web developers, the company is finding it must also defend against Adobe on its home turf, the desktop. At the same time, the line between Internet and desktop programs is blurring, and both companies see an opportunity to capture new business." The article focuses on the competition and doesn't even mention that Adobe's CEO called Microsoft a $50 billion monopolist.

Comments

The Epic Battle begins!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone else picture the trailer for 300, but Adobe vs Microsoft instead?!
Maybe it's just me.

Re:The Epic Battle begins!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just you.

Re:The Epic Battle begins!

[$RANDOMLUSER]

More like Wolf-359.

Re:The Epic Battle begins!

[Anonymous Coward]

Tonight, we BSOD in hell!

Re:The Epic Battle begins!

[f8l_0e]

Not exactly. At least the Battle at Wolf-359 was good versus evil. This is more like the Borg versus species 8472.

Re:The Epic Battle begins!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmm, a battle best viewed from a Whitestar. I wonder if the Minbaris have anything resembling popcorn?

Web developer speaking here

[unity100]

Id rather set up shop for doing development business for 386DX33 webservers than jump ship on any web related stuff microsoft puts out.

so many times we are having to bail out refugee clients running away from microsoft stuff on the web that its not funny anymore. (i wont mention names)

i wouldnt want to imagine a beowulf cluster of what microsoft would put out. and i dont want to be in an "in a microsoft internet microsoft DEVELOPS YOU !" situation.

so count me any many devs out.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[Richard_at_work]

Im also a web developer, and I *always* wait to experience a product, any product, by any developer, regardless of their prior history before I form any opinion on the product - sometimes its best to put the rhetoric away and join the adult world, especially when it comes to earning money.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[drinkypoo]

sometimes its best to put the rhetoric away and join the adult world

And sometimes you have to realize that you either have principles or you don't.

Microsoft continually makes the computing world a nastier place. Choosing to reward them by purchasing and using their products, assisting them in extension of the monopoly which they have repeatedly been convicted of abusing, only makes you a contributor to the Microsoft problem.

I don't mind your attitude as long as you NEVER EVER complain about the results of Microsoft's embrace and extend behavior. Otherwise you are a hypocrite. But I don't really know what your stance is on that situation, so I'm not ready to start calling you names :)

"Put the rhetoric away" seems like code for "compromise your principles" to me.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[hpavc]

There is no need to determine if Hitler was potentially a valuable artist, while knowing he is an abhorant monster. Likewise there is no need to 'wonder' if Microsoft isn't going to folly their way into the document market with their format. You could host a slash dot with all the flawed by design implementations of products and standards.

Yes, pushing the monopolist's swill can be profitable. Your attachment to reaping the rewards of what is more and more like illegal activities is not so admirable.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[jeffgtr]

I just don't see this working out for Microsoft. Most everyone in the creative field uses Photoshop and Illustrator. Now they are integrated into Flash. On top of that "Silverlight" will inevitably lean way towards Xp and vista. It will wind up crippled on linux and mac. When I use dreamweaver (prefer textmate most of the time), I can develop in php or coldfusion (sadly ruby is mia in dreamweaver). The microsoft products will most likely lean towards asp.net.

I'm sticking with Adobe for now.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[Sciros]

I've been using Photoshop since 1997, and I'm glad there's a possibility that a new graphics tool will push Adobe to improve their product further rather than just add marginally useful functionality every couple of years. Competition can be a good thing.

It will take an awful lot to get designers to leave Adobe in favor of Microsoft. Hardly any will, as they don't personally have to pay for it and if they can state a business case to their employers to keep paying for Adobe (which will be easy) then the price difference won't matter.

Though, if I'm wrong, all it means is Adobe might lower their prices a bit. :-)

Plus, and this is a different topic, Adobe doesn't get on kids' cases about having pirated copies of their software, since it's only affordable by industry (who pays for it) anyway. I expect Microsoft to go the other route, as they have with Windows (and all of their software). Which is in my opinion a mistake.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[Red Flayer]

Of course, the flip side to that is that no product stands alone -- part of your assessment of a product has to include the nature of the producer.

In the short-term, your client's need may be best fulfilled by a Microsoft product. In the long-term, you may be hampering your client by supporting a company that destroys competitive processes.

The question is, do you (and your clients) consider the long-term non-obvious implications of choosing to use a Microsoft solution? The most common example I can think of is vendor lock-in.

At any rate, I'll agree that it's important to give products a shot before decrying them as terrible. But I lend some credence to consensus opinions of others, and also try to factor long-term, more conceptual, cost factors into implementation decisions.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[lawpoop]

"sometimes its best to put the rhetoric away and join the adult world, especially when it comes to earning money."

Your adult world sounds somewhat naive to me.

My time is valuable. If someone has a bad track record, I will wait for other people to try out their stuff, and let word get back to me, before I waste my time on someone who has burned me in the past. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[Richard_at_work]

"Put the rhetoric away" means precisely that - take a step back, and look at everything objectively.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of slashdotters cannot do that, which is why my comment about how I refuse to *automatically* ditch a product I know nothing about, havent yet seen or had a chance to assess, has provoked a number of replies all of which are quick to deride both myself and Microsoft - that seems to be the slashdot way unfortunately.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[ErikInterlude]

Print designer here (mostly). The company I currently work for may actually be locked away from Microsoft's products. And that's a real irony considering I'm the only Mac user in the entire company.

Even though this place is a Microsoft shop through and through, we work with an outside ad agency that's Mac all the way. As the company's graphic designer, my software choices are based on whatever the ad agency is using at a given time. If the agency uses QuarkXpress, so that's what I use (I prefer InDesign). If the agency upgrades an application or the operating system, so do I. If they don't, I don't. As a matter of fact, I just got upgraded to Tiger last week because we found out the agency had moved to Stuffit v11, whereas we were on Stuffit v9 (we didn't know about the upgrade until problems starting coming up). Since Stuffit 11 required Tiger, I got the OS upgrade on top of the application upgrade.

I don't know how many other companies operate like this, but I can't imagine we're the only ones.

(on the other hand... I used to work for a direct mail company that would probably embrace MS design tools with open arms just because it's MS...)

Re:Web developer speaking here

[drinkypoo]

"Put the rhetoric away" means precisely that - take a step back, and look at everything objectively.

An objective look at the situation leads me to believe that supporting Microsoft is supporting not just bad but illegal behavior on a daily basis - and what's more, it's behavior that's illegal for a good reason - not some kind of victimless crime shit. When Microsoft breaks a law, you can be sure that there is at least one victim.

The point is that even if the product has merit from a technical standpoint, it can only be a mistake to support it. As it gains market share, the quality of the mac and linux versions will drop off, until they are effectively unusable -- unless, of course, the Mac or Linux versions are handled by a different team than the windows version. Then they will simply be cancelled even though they work fine.

There are reasons other than technical merit upon which any solution should be evaluated. To ignore that fact is to childishly hide from reality.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[Tatsh]

Plus, and this is a different topic, Adobe doesn't get on kids' cases about having pirated copies of their software, since it's only affordable by industry (who pays for it) anyway. Yes, they do. Photoshop starting with CS had product activation, which is cracked by the release groups, but it's much more than before where it didn't verify at all whether a serial number was real.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[EggyToast]

While I agree that some Photoshop competition will be good, Microsoft will have to do more than what they usually do with software. As in, they'll have to release it for Mac OS X as well.

Which is what really makes me wonder about Microsoft's track record, considering they've been quite happy with discontinuing past products of theirs such as Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer, two apps that are the basis for most of Microsoft's format lock-in on the web. I don't think Adobe has much to worry about if they still receive a boatload of money from Apple users while fending off Microsoft on the Windows market (where they're extremely entrenched, and Microsoft loses its advantage of "coming with windows," which is the only reason most of their software reaches popularity anyway.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[nine-times]

I'm a general IT guy who's occasionally had to do some web work-- does that count?

Anyway, I always like to keep an open mind and evaluate each product without prejudice. However, when it comes to making a business decision, I absolutely do look at the business practices of the developers.

Before I start investing in any kind of format or platform, I ask myself questions like:

• Do I think this [format|platform] will exist in 2 years?
• Will it be stable enough during those two years that my early work will translate to new versions and continue to be usable?
• How do these developers usually treat their users/customers?
• What are the chances that I'll get screwed here?
• What are the chances my investment would be wasted?

The software itself isn't the only thing to consider, and the developers behind the software are not inconsequential.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[Richard_at_work]

Im not ignoring any fact here, all Im saying is that nothing gets dismissed out of hand - and Im sorry if my personal feelings regarding MS do not influence my purchasing decisions as much as they seem to yours, but thats the way it is.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[Sciros]

Ah, that may be. I haven't seen the latest pirated stuff and I pay zero attention to most installs haha... but in any case I don't see folks getting too *bothered* by Adobe over pirated products. Perhaps the luxury of a monopoly kept them only mildly interested in the whole affair... I am curious to see if their policies become more anti-piracy now.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[aztracker1]

I feel the same way.. as much as I absolutely hate the crap that MS is doing politically (re ODF, and Vista), but bust say a lot of their web development tools are really nice. The MS Expression Web Developer, or whatever it is called, is IMHO nicer, and easier to use than Dreamweaver is... though, to be honest, I don't use either, but when making recommendations lately, I usually suggest that people try both out, and decide for themselves.

I am really hopeful that within the next year, someone creates a Linux based server install that is as easy to use/deploy as Windows Server Web Edition... with mono, mod_mono, jsp/jakarta, ruby+rails, etc, as simple checkbox/wizard options... I know some people hate simplicity, let alone GUI interfaces, but hey, even a webmin-style setup extended to include a few more options would be nice, with an out of the box deployment. As to the desktop, eliminating software patents would go a *LONG* way to improving what is offered as a default in most linux distros... but that won't happen.

Sorry to veer off topic, but I honestly think there are some things MS has released that are better.. and others that are dramatically worse.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[drinkypoo]

and Im sorry if my personal feelings regarding MS do not influence my purchasing decisions as much as they seem to yours, but thats the way it is.

I don't presume to make your decisions for you, but I do take offense at your continuing to label this a personal feeling. It's a professional decision. Look around you, and you can see a hundred examples of Microsoft fucking over customers and partners. At some point you have to ask yourself whether you want to be another casualty.

You don't even need to bring personal feelings into it. Just look at Microsoft's legal record.

Of course, I am not schizophrenic, and so I do not believe that my personal and professional life are entirely different things.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[aplusjimages]

I have to say I'm scared to use Microsofts web tools after seeing what Frontpage did to web building, but at the same time, the article mentions that Microsofts new tools will meet industry standards and not try to throw in their own codes.

I'm also intrigued to see if they can keep up with Adobe in the web world. Adobe's got such a brand name that people call photo editing "photoshopping".

Re:Web developer speaking here

[morcego]

regardless of their prior history before I form any opinion on the product

Does the phrase Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" mean anything to you ?

Re:Web developer speaking here

[mstahl]

Now hold it down just a minute over there. Join the adult world? Calm down.

I'm a web designer, photographer and illustrator/graphic artist, and I've been using Macromedia and/or Adobe products of various types since I was in high school ten years ago. They're intuitive, effective, and more importantly than either of those I know how to use them. The key combinations in Adobe Illustrator are the same as in Adobe Photoshop are the same as the ones in Macromedia Fireworks, and I can do them all in my sleep.

Now, my little pro-Adobe plug there aside, I'll bet that most other designer/photographer/artists out there feel pretty similarly. At this point, so late in the game, Microsoft would have to provide something FAR superiour to these existing products AND at a reduced price. I don't know if that's gonna be easy for them.

Now, I'm willing to wait and see, of course, being an adult as I am. All I'm saying, and it seems a common notion, is that Microsoft's got a long road ahead of them here. 'Course they've got enough money they can wast^H^H^H^Hspend it any way they so desire.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[Angostura]

You had an interesting point until you hit the hyperbole ceiling. Office on the Mac is arguably better than on Windows.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[unity100]

wow.

i re-read your post, and it now seems more like "i like to live the life carpe diem, in fullest experiencing new things and excitements".

this is a business issue. you cant go "carpe diem" or "experience new stuff" in that matter, because this is not an "experience" - clients' cash and future is involved in it.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does the quality of Mac or Linux software have to decrease just because Microsoft has a high market share in a particular area? If the product is inferior than they will lose their grip as soon as a better product comes out. I for one am always looking for the best solution and I strongly believe that the only reason a product will gain market share when it is in some way superior. Believe it or not, Microsoft has dominance in the OS market because people have found their product the easiest to use at the right price, not because of the global conspiracy to bring down Linux and OSS. Perhaps the tide is turning, as people are becoming frustrated with Vista it seems. I chose to use a propduct where I see it as being the best choice for the task at hand, not because of my preconceptions about it.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[nevali]

So it's easier to use. So what? When you're producing output on behalf of a client, you have a wider responsibility: to ensure that the output is actually worthwhile. The tools you use to do that are immaterial. Past history's shown that Microsoft's development tools group 'gets' web standards about as much as Bill Gates himself appears to (Adobe have known to be almost as bad, in absolute fairness).

Just because the tools are easy to use isn't justification for making use of them. Now, I don't know what Microsoft's new stuff is going to spit out. It could do effortless drag-and-drop creation of semantically-correct accessible content-rich, yet multimedia-capable and fluid web applications. It could, but nothing they've produced to date suggests that (despite the rhetoric) they're remotely capable of it. For that matter, nobody is.

The bottom line is: these are tools for web developers to make life easier, but you need to be a good enough web developer to know which of the 'helpful' features to work around, which to ignore, and which are just plain hazardous, before you can think about going near them. Dreamweaver in days of old was terrible, but Microsoft's track record (even fairly recently) is worse.

The problem with all the tools like this is that when you're skilled enough to use them properly, 90% of the features aren't actually worth jack to you. If you're not skilled enough, you probably shouldn't be allowed near them until you fully understand the implications to your clients' customers and potential customers of using them.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[Paulrothrock]

If this were some startup, or a company with a history of good products, I'd hold my judgement. But it's Microsoft. Show me one product that Microsoft's made that's been anything more than a hassle for anyone involved.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[aztracker1]

So it's easier to use. So what? When you're producing output on behalf of a client, you have a wider responsibility: to ensure that the output is actually worthwhile. The tools you use to do that are immaterial. Past history's shown that Microsoft's development tools group 'gets' web standards about as much as Bill Gates himself appears to (Adobe have known to be almost as bad, in absolute fairness).

Hmm.. that must be why Visual Studio 2005, and the Expression Web Designer tool default to XHTML compliance as a default. That and EWD will separate your style definitions out... You probably didn't know that.

As to the rest.. I wholeheartedly agree... Frontpage was terrible.. And Office's output to HTML produced absolute crap... However, EWD and Visual Studio are pretty nice... ASP.Net is awesome... As to the implications, well perhaps you can expand on this... If the output is standards compliant XHTML + CSS, then I don't see the real issue here...

Re:Web developer speaking here

[nevali]

We must have looked at a different ASP.NET, then.

Just because it's XHTML doesn't make it any good (and just because it's not XHTML doesn't make it bad, either, though for generated code XHTML makes a lot of sense by nature).

I've not looked at EWD, but I did play with VWD and VS2005, for a while, though it has been a while. No site I've seen that was built with Microsoft tools has ever come close to being done well, accessibility and standards-wise without having a serious amount of manual tweaking. I'm not saying that other products don't require you to do lots of manual tweaking, too, but the whole marketing pitch for these is that everything (well, all the 'dirty' work) gets done for you, and many (mostly novice to intermediate) web developers get suckered in by that.

I suppose in many way it's similar to the utter abominations of user interfaces found in VB-produced shareware apps in the 1990s. Only this time the potential audience is larger by a factor of a few million...

Re:Web developer speaking here

[tb3]

I'm sure there's a good reason for it defaulting to XHTML compliance, and I'm just as sure it has nothing to do with adherence to standards. Check this article on XHTML note the IE 7 doesn't even render XHTML properly, and ask yourself why they're outputting XHTML by default. It smacks of vendor lock-in to me.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[shut_up_man]

Good points, although I suspect the biggest thing Microsoft needs to do to make inroads into the designer/photographer/artists market is make their new software run on OS X. No holy platform wars, that's just where the designer/photographer/artist market lives.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[Anonymous Coward]

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

No, thats "Fool me once... shame on... shame on you... get fooled, won't get fooled again."

Re:Web developer speaking here

[Dakuma]

Very well put, I use all the latest Adobe products, but when it comes to .net dev I rely on Visual Studio. I'm getting tired of people, developers or not, that talk down a product based on anything but the tool itself.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[aztracker1]

I think a lot of the quality aspect comes down to who does the developing... I like how my hobby site works at this point, though there is still a lot I want to get done with it (url above)... I like ASP.Net a lot... Though, I don't use the internal authentication system in 2005 (based on SQL Express by default), I also don't use the ASP.Net AJAX that MS has released.. I like other tools a bit better... Beyond this, I do a lot of custom control building, and probably more javascript than most... IMHO it works very well, and I like the system for ASP.Net much better than PHP, and JSP.. I think Ruby+Rails is about equal, with some things better, and some things not so much...

As to VB Produced shareware apps, VB attracted a lot of less skilled people without much background in programming. I don't blame a tool for someone not knowing how to use it well.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[aztracker1]

No, it's more because those wanting a standards compliant output were the squeaky wheel in this case... I've talked to a few people on the VS.Net 2005 development team, and that is what they said... those who insisted on XHTML compliance were a very vocal group... Despite what some may think, MS does indeed listen to developers, they really can't afford not to. The applications developed for windows, usually with MS tools are what keeps people tied to windows.

If the quality of tools/toolkits/libraries available didn't make sense, then developers would leave in droves, and other platforms would gain a larger footing. A large number of F/OSS developers have a bit of a bias towards lower level languages (C/C++ etc), or higher level languages that don't have a good RAD environment for development (Perl, Python, etc). I really don't count Java/Eclipse as much in here, because it really isn't so easy to get it working properly in a lot of Linux distributions.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[cortana]

Haha, now try to serve that XHTML with the correct content-type header.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[hey!]

Microsoft is not interested in you.

They are probably not all that interested in high level professional developers. Not in the short term. They'll get you in the end.

Microsoft's tagline "where do you want to go today" really sums up their strategy: they're going after the vast majority of development organizations that are far, far removed from being able to develop the kinds of applications they want to. A product like VB is very potent.

The products don't have to be good, they have to enable the average person to do things that look impressive. They don't have to be maintainable. They don't have to offer anything to the advanced developer.

Re:Web developer speaking here

[unity100]

thats an interesting approach.

Ack!

[Penguinisto]

Great... just great. Now there's TWO variants of flashing crap that I have to filter out of my browser.

On the plus side, if the MSFT version is Windows-only, I suspect we'll all have a brand new reason to persuade folks to abandon the OS for Linux/OSX/(and yes)*BSD after this little battle gets done...

/P

Re:Ack!

[CastrTroy]

No, it gives whiners another reason to say, Linux can't do X, so I'm not switching. It can be added to the list with Photoshop,Games, and a thousand other things. There will be some funny cartoon, or some video website that uses this, so they can say that it's a deficiency in Linux, not an advantage.

Re:Ack!

[the linux geek]

It is actually cross-platform. WPF/E or Silverlight, as it is now called, supports both Linux and Mac OS systems.

Re:Ack!

[WhyDoYouWantToKnow]

Yeah, until some geek in some university decides he wants to see the cartoon on his Linux box and decides to port it to Linux and release if as a SourceForge project. There problem solved. The people who weren't going to switch from Windows will continue to not switch from Windows and continue to think that Linux is deficient. The rest of the world will go on.

Re:Ack!

[kripkenstein]

The runtime is (supposedly, I'll believe it when I see it) cross-platform. The development kit is Windows-only.

Re:Ack!

[drinkypoo]

It is actually cross-platform. WPF/E or Silverlight, as it is now called, supports both Linux and Mac OS systems.

Go take a look at the Silverlight Downloads and tell us where the Linux download is. Mmkay?

Re:Ack!

[the linux geek]

To the other commenters, the Mac download exists. The Linux hasn't been released yet, but it IS under development.

Re:Ack!

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, yeah, that's the way it's been happening for what? a decade now? Great job Linux! Lead the way!

oh wait...

I guess it's still a problem in comprehension going on with the Linux crowd. Just what I want to do with my spare time; go crawling over the mess called SourceForge looking for plug-ins and such.

Isn't this part of what makes Vista drivers suck according to you penguins? You're all lined up in a row saying how bad Vista blows because someone by some random chance has to hunt down a driver. You all nod like a bunch of stodgy bobbleheads and out of the other side of your face proclaim that Linux is a valid solution even if you do have to scrape around 14 websites that are ripe with Linux snobbery to find some obscure, unsupported "solution".

Fantastic. Tell me why I'm not running Linux again?

Re:Ack!

[TheNetAvenger]

Great... just great. Now there's TWO variants of flashing crap that I have to filter out of my browser.

Here's a cool trick, don't install it...

(Didn't this use to be a site for knowledgable nerds?)

Re:Ack!

[ebingo]

Those whiners will be all wrong since Linux does X pretty well!

Re:Ack!

[Stupidfat]

People are too cynical about Flash/Silverlight/other technologies that make the web more entertaining. I've been frustrated with the web for a long time--it's boring. It's boring because the fun and cool-looking stuff is too difficult and time-consuming to place in your web pages, and once it's in the page you find out it's not widely supported and your users skip your site. We're limited by bandwidth too. But the crazy thing is we've had a couple dozen years to make it more interesting and yet I'm still coding pages with boring HTML and limited CSS to make sure everyone can view the site.

Look at the interfaces for gaming consoles like the PS3 and Wii--much more fun and interesting and audience-grabbing! Or look at TV advertisements and the NFL-style animations and statistics reporting graphics. People are getting this fun and engaging interface in their living rooms, and then they come to the web and it's a bunch of text and they get some limited animations and typically no sound effects. It's not fun.

We need to embrace these types of products that are trying to improve the fun of the web and try to make the web more exciting.

Re:Ack!

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me why I'm not running Linux again?

Hmm. Going to have to go with "Because you're a Windows fanboy" on this one.

Re:Ack!

[a 2 Bathtub Larva]

Maybe I'm just weird but I use the web mostly for information. Entertainment is exactly what I don't want in every web page, Ill settle for a site map and a search function and be happy.

Re:Ack!

[Torsoboy]

While you'll probably get flamed by a majority of folks, I think you bring up some good points.

Re:Ack!

[WhyDoYouWantToKnow]

Vista drivers suck because of Microsoft and the hardware manufactures. The biggest complaint is with Vista and graphics drivers, although there are many other pieces of hardware that don't work right. The fault is squarely on the shoulders of Microsoft and the hardware manufactures. It does no good to hunt down a driver if the driver doesn't work. Of course, drivers aren't the only thing that don't work in Vista. There are a number of commercial software packages that don't work either. Quicken is one in particular that comes to mind.

But that's not really the issue is it. The issue is why you aren't running Linux. Well, as I said in the prior post, the people who are going to switch are going to and those who aren't going to switch aren't going to. I made the switch to using kubuntu as my primary OS for work. I also switched my grandmother and mother. Neither of them have had any problems with Linux. They haven't had to scourer 14 websites searching for unsupported solutions. And they haven't had any issues with viruses or spyware either. They are both happy with Linux and I am happy they are happy with Linux now that I don't have to fix their Windows boxes anymore.

Of course, now you'll come back with the argument that the only reason they haven't had any problems with viruses and spyware is because Linux is only secure through obscurity and as soon as it becomes mainstream they'll encounter those problems and I'll be right back were I was fixing their computers every week.

Re:Ack!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooh, I like it when you get sarcastic, Marty, it turns me on!!

Re:Ack!

[Delkster]

You all nod like a bunch of stodgy bobbleheads and out of the other side of your face proclaim that Linux is a valid solution even if you do have to scrape around 14 websites that are ripe with Linux snobbery to find some obscure, unsupported "solution".

Funny, I see modern Linux distros (often totalling gigabytes in size in software provided by the distributor, albeit not necessarily in the default install) as much more centralized than Windows where you actually need to go find all kinds of random software to fill your needs because the OS doesn't provide for them. I'm not necessarily suggesting that it should, but it still doesn't sound very fair to claim that a Linux distro that offers a gazillion software titles -- yes, even a lot of that reverse-engineered stuff -- via the more or less official channels of the distro so you don't have to go through obscure websites to find an unsupported solution.

Re:Ack!

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is why you aren't running Linux. Well, as I said in the prior post, the people who are going to switch are going to and those who aren't going to switch aren't going to.
 
did you come up with that yourself or did you need to read that out of some fancy book?
 
  I made the switch to using kubuntu as my primary OS for work. I also switched my grandmother and mother. Neither of them have had any problems with Linux. They haven't had to scourer 14 websites searching for unsupported solutions. And they haven't had any issues with viruses or spyware either. They are both happy with Linux and I am happy they are happy with Linux now that I don't have to fix their Windows boxes anymore.
 
odd, i have my parents on a windows box for years now and i've never had to fix theirs either. maybe it has more to do with common sense computing and not putting every bonzi buddy and weatherbug app on a machine. i've never seen a spyware problem on a modern (2000, xp) windows box without someone asking for it.
 
  Of course, now you'll come back with the argument that the only reason they haven't had any problems with viruses and spyware is because Linux is only secure through obscurity and as soon as it becomes mainstream they'll encounter those problems and I'll be right back were I was fixing their computers every week.
 
nice way to make an ass of yourself there. it's common out of the penguin heads thinking that they're the only ones who can get away with running a system for years without having problems... but in someways you're right, if it's ever shown that joe sixpack is a majority user of linux there will be a draw towards it. why wouldn't there be? while spyware certainly can be spread behind the scenes most people infect themselves by putting questionable software on their system. that's a fact, like it or not.
 
and it's not that i haven't tried linux (even recently) but there is enough of having to jump through hoops to get things to work that i can do just as easily, if not easier, on a windows box and the vast majority of the time i know it's going to be supported and not simply abandoned as so many pet projects become over time.

Re:Ack!

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who understands how to properly secure a Linux box, and takes the time to understand Windows (it's not that hard) will find they can apply the same principles to properly secure a Windows machine, without the need for commercial solutions.

Windows is insecure because the average Windows user knows nothing about their computer. This is not a fault of the OS.

Re:Ack!

[Penguinisto]

...real cool trick there, slick: Then I'd get a barrage of yellow banners claiming I need a plugin (could be a new JRE version, could be this MS thingy, could be...?) At least as it stands now, flash can installed, used when needed (on certain sites, but not on others), thus filtered at whim, yet I still get notification of relevant plugins, etc etc.

So, you were saying something about "knowledgable"... ? ;)

/P

Re:Ack!

[Penguinisto]

...and before anyone pipes up and says "how do you do that!?"... here's how. (yes, it uses regex, which makes it damned useful).

/P

Re:Ack!

[Penguinisto]

stupid URL-parsing... here: http://adblock.mozdev.org/

Re:Ack!

[random0xff]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no Linux support:

http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/downloads.asp x

Re:Ack!

[TheNetAvenger]

Then I'd get a barrage of yellow banners claiming I need a plugin (could be a new JRE version, could be this MS thingy, could be...?)

Could be... or maybe you turn them off, or tell it to ignore them and stop displaying them? Na, that would be too simple for a brainiac like yourself.

Wow, love your wealth of knowledge.

Compatability

[digitalunity]

Adobe's CEO brought up what should be the single most important point everyone who is considering a switch to MS products - Microsoft doesn't maintain anything cross-platform.


They may start out cross-platform, but eventually the mac version will fall behind on patches and then get EOL'd.<br><br>

For any broadcaster that relies on compatibility and reaching the widest market possible, MS would be a bad choice.

Re:Compatability

[LWATCDR]

Adobe is better than Microsoft but can you say SVG? If Adobe really means that it is going to provide cross platform support how about Photoshop for Linux?
The are doing better with Flash now so I can not flame them too much.

Re:Compatability

[CastrTroy]

Oh how true. I also suspect that it will be the same not only for Mac, but also the Firefox version that will fall behind. With the increasing number of people on Firefox, how many people will want to use Microsoft's solution. However, I don't think that a lot of people using flash realize that not everyone is seeing their content. I've heard estimates that as many as 1/3 of users don't have flash installed. Once MS comes out with it's release, I can see them putting it out as a critical update, ensuring that all windows/IE users have it installed. So, what would you rather have? 2/3 of all users, or 100% of windows/IE users? Kind of a tough call. Myself, I use FlashBlock, because 99% of the time I don't need to see flash. For the times I do need it, it's not that much trouble to hit the play button. I hope a similar extension gets made for MS's offering.

Re:Compatability

[fyngyrz]

I've heard estimates that as many as 1/3 of users don't have flash installed.

And of those of us who do have it installed, some have it disabled 99% of the time. Flash (and most uses of every other active page technology, frankly) = really, really annoying.

The good news is that the really high quality browsers - like OmniWeb - allow you to globally filter out all such crapola, making exceptions on a per-site basis as you feel appropriate, or vice-versa. So you never have to be stuck looking at some menu-infested, roll-over ridden, animated advertising nightmare.

And as for scripting - I'll be the one who determines if a website is allowed to use my CPU.

Re:Compatability

[drinkypoo]

The good news is that the really high quality browsers - like OmniWeb - allow you to globally filter out all such crapola, making exceptions on a per-site basis as you feel appropriate, or vice-versa.

As does the Flashblock extension for Firefox.

Re:Compatability

[Beau6183]

Adobe is hardly cross platform immediately. Look at their support for flash player for Linux: It's terribly buggy and severely behind where its Windows/Mac counterparts are in regard to feature set. Also, Adobe doesn't develop tools for Linux (flex builder, etc.), as they regard it to not be a mainstream platform. Granted, they do a hellofa lot better than Microsoft does.

Re:Compatability

[thsths]

> Microsoft doesn't maintain anything cross-platform.

True, but Adobe does not exactly have a perfect record either. Flash 8 and 9 where not available for Linux, and even Flash 9 Update has no plugin for a pure64 system. Way to go, Adobe.

Re:Compatability

[jabuzz]

Well the reports that I have read put Flash penetration at between 90% and 96% of all internet connected computers depending on region.

Re:Compatability

[LordNimon]

Photoshop for Linux would not sell well. The reason is that people who use Photoshop aren't just Photoshop users. They use many applications and Photoshop is just one of them. No one would switch to Linux to run Photoshop if all the other apps weren't there as well. I know someone who's a graphic designer and uses a Mac. She regularly uses Word, Excel, Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign, and Dreamworks.

Re:Compatability

[vought]

About Microsoft: They may start out cross-platform, but eventually the mac version will fall behind on patches and then get EOL'd.

Oh, just like Framemaker.

And Premier. ...and lots of other apps Adobe used to develop for the Mac.

And look at where Photoshop is going...an interface mess that's more Windows-on-MacOS than a Mac application.

Adobe has steadily been losing my respect for years. Perhaps it's because they seem bent on becoming the Microsoft of creativity-based visual communications software.

Re:Compatability

[notaprguy]

Ummmm....how about Mac Office...the single most successful Mac application ever? In many ways it is better than Office for Windows. But really that's beside the point. Adobe is smart enough to know that for WPF/e/Silverlight to be successful that it MUST be good on platforms other than Windows or nobody will use it. I mean, the whole poing of what they're trying to do is provide an alternative to Flash video (short-term) and Flash "apps" (medium-term). The only way they can do that is to be cross-platform.

Re:Compatability

[kjart]

The good news is that the really high quality browsers - like OmniWeb - allow you to globally filter out all such crapola, making exceptions on a per-site basis as you feel appropriate, or vice-versa. So you never have to be stuck looking at some menu-infested, roll-over ridden, animated advertising nightmare.

You paid for a browser? What is this, 1996? o_O

Re:Compatability

[dabraun]

True, but Adobe does not exactly have a perfect record either. Flash 8 and 9 where not available for Linux, and even Flash 9 Update has no plugin for a pure64 system. Way to go, Adobe.

There isn't even a 64-bit version of Flash for Windows ...

Re:Compatability

[cyphercell]

She regularly uses Word, Excel, Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign, and Dreamworks.

(sarcasm) While we're at it let's discontinue jockstraps and viagra cause she doesn't need those. (/sarcasm)

Re:Compatability

[EggyToast]

Not saying that Adobe is saintly, but they are bringing back Premiere for OS X this year, actually.

Adobe's problem in the past few years, in my opinion, is that they have changed their model of a company that creates a few graphics and publishing apps to a company that creates the Adobe Suite. While that means there's more interoperability between those applications, it also means that updates are drastically delayed and features are pushed off until the next big release. Even bugfixes are pushed off. It also means that they essentially code "one application," and that application is what they sell. So they target Windows and OS X but have no desire to release one app for Linux -- they would have to sell the entire suite for their model to work, and that's most likely a coding nightmare for Adobe (who likely do not use relatively open code for each operating system).

But even with their problems, I don't think real competition is going to come from Microsoft, who arguably has all of Adobe's problems with a few more tacked on.

Re:Compatability

[Anonymous Coward]

How well does it need to sell, really? Just dust off the old Photoshop for X11 and sell it online as Photoshop Lite for Linux. If it doesn't sell, no big loss.

Re:Compatability

[mini me]

No one would switch to Linux to run Photoshop

That's especially true of large design firms, such as Disney. Oh wait...

Re:Compatability

[rishistar]

Those crazy Mac users will pay for anything! Just because they can!

Re:Compatability

[fyngyrz]

You paid for a browser?

Sure. I have absolutely no resistance to paying for software (especially $15 software) that offers me something I will actually use. I like Firefox, and Safari is OK if a bit dull, but frankly, OmniWeb has a far superior tab model for the way I work and think, as well as other built-in capabilities I don't have to go and hunt down. It just works, and better yet, it just works the way I like it to work.

I have OmniOutliner too — truly great software. Worth every penny.

Re:Compatability

[Anonymous Coward]

I have absolutely no resistance to paying for software (especially $15 software) that offers me something I will actually use. I like Firefox, and Safari is OK if a bit dull, but frankly, OmniWeb has a far superior tab model for the way I work and think, as well as other built-in capabilities I don't have to go and hunt down. It just works, and better yet, it just works the way I like it to work. OmniWeb is cool, but not cross-platform (like me). I'm an Opera man myself Some people love the Opera, some people don't get it. I cannot stand IE7 or Safari after using Opera's tabs and sessions (like Workspaces, but perhaps not as great).

Re:Compatability

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Premiere was killed on both platforms. Premiere Pro was a rewrite that started out as Windows-only because the Mac market became too crowded with Avid's and Apple's product lines. It wasn't until Tiger's introduction did Apple's market share was worth supporting, Apple's market share was bleeding for many years there. I suspect that they might have to back out again because Final Cut Pro is very established now.

Premiere Pro CS3 is now Intel Mac compatible.

Re:Compatability

[MidnightBrewer]

I assume you're referring to internet content producers when you say broadcasters? Traditionally two different things, since broadcasters worry more about NTSC vs. PAL, SD vs. HD, etc. Windows doesn't really figure into it.

As for reaching the widest market, you're still best off relying on Windows, because of that pesky 96% market share. I'm a Mac guy, but I still have to worry about my target audience, 9 out of 10 of which are on Windows, being able to properly see my content in the blight on humanity that is IE 6 (and a good content provider usually worries about maintaining compatibility back to even earlier, crappier versions, to a greater or lesser degree.)

I'm hoping that MS' efforts force Adobe to start lowering their prices; their monopolistic price-gouging and half-baked anti-piracy measures are starting to get on my nerves.

Re:Compatability

[suv4x4]

Oh, just like Framemaker. And Premier. ...and lots of other apps Adobe used to develop for the Mac.

Framemaker is no longer maintained on either OS. Premier has a new MacIntel version. And what are all those "other" apps?

Adobe's got a new strategy where cross platform is crucial. While no huge corporation can be expected to be 100% consistent in every single thing they do, they've shown far, FAR more commitment to supporting crossplatform products that Microsoft.

Even take this: Adobe has Mac version of their authoring tools, Microsoft offers only Windows version, despite the player is crossplatform (for now).

And look at where Photoshop is going...an interface mess that's more Windows-on-MacOS than a Mac application.

The interface of most new Adobe apps isn't native on Windows either. Actually it's a cross-OS GUI platform that allows them to more easily create applications that act consistently for all OS they target.

You'll do yourself a favor to see the new applications by Apple itself. They don't look OSX native either. Dark black matte and gray controls, almost nothing is shared with the OSX look. We're past the point where every app looks the same.

Re:Compatability

[fyngyrz]

I test my web pages for correct display in Opera, Firefox, IE, Safari, Camino, Mozilla, and OmniWeb. I usually work with my Macbook Pro laptop, upon which I run OSX, Linux, and XP (these last two virtualized under Parallels — Bootcamp is useless to me because it only allows running one OS at a time.) I keep Firefox on the XP and Linux operating systems and it does a very good job there, giving me something serious to use under Linux if need be, and saving XP from its innate vulnerability to malware.

Most of my browsing is done under OSX / OmniWeb though, for the simple reason that I spend most of my time there.

Since this thread began, I've been thinking about what really draws me to OmniWeb and I think its pretty safe to say that of all the features, the scalable, always-there visuals that the tabs provide are reason #1, and the site-by-site preferences #2. The built-in spelling checker for CGI text fields (conspicuously missing from the OSX Firefox builds I've looked at in the past), an easily implemented OSX feature, lands at #3. I'm a lot more prone to typos than I am actual spelling errors, but the end result is the same, a poorer presentation of what I'm trying to say... so a high powered and convenient as-you-type spelling checker will always count for a lot with me.

Spreading thin

[Shnyzx]

I don't know about this move for M$. They are spreading themselves thin trying to conquer every electronic related market (zune, 360, computers, etc..). Flash is a well established format that many people are accustomed to using and familiar with. Unless M$ has an awesome solution at hand already I believe that they should consolidate their efforts and try to make some headway one their other fronts instead of moving focus from failing efforts.

Re:Spreading thin

[danpsmith]

I don't know about this move for M$. They are spreading themselves thin trying to conquer every electronic related market (zune, 360, computers, etc..). Flash is a well established format that many people are accustomed to using and familiar with. Unless M$ has an awesome solution at hand already I believe that they should consolidate their efforts and try to make some headway one their other fronts instead of moving focus from failing efforts.

Who cares, I say yeah it's bad in terms of a business move for the company, but hey, who cares. I hope they continue to try to be this gargantuan monster that doesn't focus on making any product well but just tries to conquer every market. It makes it that much easier for the whole thing to fall apart. The less they focus on the products that are actually pushing units, the less of those products they sell and the less money they'll have to invade other sections of the market. Losing all this money in every division will eventually catch up. They'll become another unspecialized POS company with more product lines than sales and find themselves in the same garbage bing all other companies that once made a popular product find themselves in. I just hope Vista is scary enough for some people to start looking somewhere else.

Re:Spreading thin

[Anonymous Coward]

The only market they're not doing well in is the Zune market, and they're just getting their foot in the door right now. Look at the original Xbox. Horrid, but #2 rocks.

Re:Spreading thin

[Shnyzx]

Last time I checked they were still losing money on the 360 (as great of a machine as it is and the same could be said about the zune). That and they still have to overcome the losses of the original xbox. PS You also made me think of the whole playforsure fiasco.

Re:Spreading thin

[MemoryDragon]

That was their tactics from day one, this is a mentality most software companies in the mid eighties had, Borland also was this example they were strong in the tools market and tried to cover the office market, and later also the corporate market. Most of those we spread as much as possible companies had to consolidate, but Microsoft never had the need for changing the course, they just noawdays see everything computer related as their market which they want to monopolize nut just software anymore. They they always hated the web as being too crossplatform is a known fact, hence the stop of supporting more than really needed html standards, and even those supported are on the edge of being forked due to bugs and features. The entire Xaml etc... issue is the same game, they took SVG and altered it to their needs (changing a few tags etc...) and put a little bit into it and make it windows only or windows and mac only for now (and later windows only) and voila you have a html and flash killer which should tie people into the Windows platform and also should kill the web. We can pray to god, and be glad, that Firefox nowadays has such a significant marketshare that this plan is bound to fail, a Web in the hands of Microsoft would be some of the worst things which could happen to humanity and knowledge spreading in general!

So what is .net?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

"Microsoft can afford to think in a 10-year timeframe," said Rob Helm, research director at Directions on Microsoft, an independent research group. "When you've got a business like Windows that has 80 percent margins and 90-plus percent market share, even a 10-year threat to shave 10 percent off the business is enough to do something about now."

Did not MSFT claim that it is going to make web app building the main thing? Its MS Visual Studio was morphed into something called MS .NET framework or something? C# and managed C, and ASP server working seamlessly with IE to deliver web applications or some such claim was made?

How many Web Enabling technologies MSFT has peddled so far? DotNetFramework? ActiveX? some dhtml thingie? The new one is going to replace them? Complement them?

Re:So what is .net?

[Mongoose Disciple]

Basically, this is over in a completely different space. Apples and oranges. Although, technically WPF is part of .NET 3.0.

If C#/.NET is Microsoft's answer to Java, this is their answer to stuff like Flash.

I mean, sure, you could use Flash to essentially build web forms or basic UI. We've all seen that done, and in that sense you could say WPF/Silverlight/etc. overlaps with the kind of UI you could build with C# web controls or Java Swing or whatever, but it's not what Flash is really for. This is MS trying to compete with Adobe in areas where people should actually be using Flash on purpose.

(Oh, and since you ask, Visual Studio is the IDE that one would typically use to create .NET framework applications. Related but not really one becoming the other.)

Re:So what is .net?

[StrawberryFrog]

Did not MSFT claim that it is going to make web app building the main thing?

I don't recall them doing that. Does a company that large have a single "main thing"?

Its MS Visual Studio was morphed into something called MS .NET framework or something? C# and managed C

Yes, but so what? .net is for all kinds of apps, web and otherwise.

and ASP server working seamlessly with IE

Actually the new stuff (MS Ajax toolkit) works in the big four browsers: IE, Firefox, Safari, opera.

How many Web Enabling technologies MSFT has peddled so far? DotNetFramework? ActiveX? some dhtml thingie? The new one is going to replace them? Complement them?

DotNetFramework: Compliment, since it is clientside, and ASP.net is server side.
ActiveX: replace, in as much as ActiveX is still alive
some dhtml thingie: Some action thingy. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Monopolist, that's rich

[dedazo]

Coming from the guy who destroyed the graphics design market first by gobbling up Aldus and all the rest, and then bottled up the active content delivery space with Macromedia and proceeded to kill of his "complimentary product lines", that's rich.

He might be a smaller "monopolist" than Microsoft, but he still has his own little monopoly and all the great things that come from that.

core competences...

[cosmocain]

...there was an OS.
then there was an office-packet.
eh, it's great to have a server-os, so let's build on. it's really handy with all those nice folks already using our desktop-os.
uuuuh, some guys are makin' big bucks with a search engine, let's have one.
hey, gaming. GAMING is the next BIGBIGBIG issue. what about a gaming console?
see those fruity mediaplayer-guys? they are making big bucks! let's build a rip-off.
ha, those adobe-guys seem to live from their software. why not try that one, too?

i think there's a pattern there, but i can't fully grasp it. duh...

Interested...

[Drew McKinney]

Great, it's $600 cheaper, but nobody will buy it if it doesn't bring anything new to the table.

As someone who has worked with Flash since version 4 (in both a graphical and RIA capacity), the biggest stumbling blocks for Flash were/are:
1- Adobe Photoshop integration [*check!*]

2- Usefulness as a RIA application [remember the disaster that was Flash Googlemaps?]
3- Horribly broken scripting language [still an issue]


If Microsoft can compete on those points and bring something radically new to the table (say, easy 3D graphical development, quality OO scripting, etc) then they'll have an adoptable product. Otherwise, developers used to using Adobe & Flash products will look the other way.

Re:Interested...

[cyphercell]

What about your "almost a decade" experience. I know you wouldn't be starting from scratch, but you've had a couple years to get into MX and that came with some background, right?

Re:Interested...

[$RANDOMLUSER]

3- Horribly broken scripting language [still an issue]

Didja ever notice how much it looks like a Goa'uld???

Re:Interested...

[geoff lane]

Plus Adobe can just release a free, open source flash generation package. Why waste time and money competing against MS when they can dominate the market for free? Of course Adobe doesn't make a lot by giving away the s/w, but there is always a market for support and enhanced versions. Once open flash is established, Adobe can then concentrate on something new.

Re:Interested...

[OptimusPaul]

>> 2- Usefulness as a RIA application [remember the disaster that was Flash Googlemaps?] Have you used Flex?? >>3- Horribly broken scripting language [still an issue] AS3 rocks, and even AS2 is far better than javascript. I don't think scripting is broken at all. Perhaps you just aren't keeping up with the technology.

Re:Interested...

[witekr]

All 3 problems you mention have already been taken care of in the latest Flash Player 9 (& AS3) and the upcoming Flash development software (cs3 is it?).

Re:Interested...

[CrackedButter]

Ace find. So are you saying this stuff fucks with your mind? Or am I reading to much into it?

Re:Interested...

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin... :D

Glad somebody appreciated it.

Dreamweaver getting as bad as Expression

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been doing a little work in Expression, and it really got a lot closer dreamweaver like. Looks like it will be a good product if ASP.Net 2.0 is your target backend.

Dreamweaver supports asp, cf, php, and jsp backend and makes a decent dev platform with a 3rd-party like InterAKT's tools. Adobe aqquired InterAKT and some wonder if they just did it to shitcan them. In many ways, Dreamweaver has been treading water. They have added new support for web standards like css, etc, but most of the improvements have come in flash, contribute, and cold fusion. Now we hear the next Dreamweaver will add support for their new spry Ajax platform (proprietary?) and photoshop. Who knows what will happen with all that InterAKT open goodness.

From my perspective, both of these "open" products seem designed to drive you preferentially towards each companies proprietary products. Dreamweaver is clearly more open, but I don't think adobe wants me using php or asp, any more than MS wants me using cf.

Re:Dreamweaver getting as bad as Expression

[Paulrothrock]

I used to think Dreamweaver was good for writing apps in PHP, but then I used a REAL text editor and discovered that it's actually only good to make designers think they can write apps.

Slashhdot....

[Anonymous Coward]

trying to be funny...."get much of their flash from Flash"....

Re: Monopolists

[Yobgod Ababua]

Even so, I don't believe Adobe has been convicted of (or charged with) illegally abusing their monopoly.
Microsoft has.

BTW

[frakir]

Microsoft announced yesterday its "Silverlight", previously named WPF/E:
http://blogs.msdn.com/tims/archive/2007/04/15/intr oducing-microsoft-silverlight.aspx.
They call it "cross platform, cross browser plug-in" and it is basically a replacement for flash with wmv lock-in. Oh, and no linux (cross platform means XP+Vista+OSX, I guess)
One nice feature being HD streaming, I have to give it to them.

I'll still stay away...

This is an important new battleground

[Serveert]

Microsoft views new rich web apps as a threat to Microsoft dominance. Imagine a world where you use a functional web application that doesn't lock you down to Microsoft's .NET / windows OS. Right now people must use a win32 executable for a decent GUI experience, but with these new technologies, you need only to click a link.

Microsoft wants to lock this up and make this a .NET / non-linux world, adobe is more interested in truly cross-platform work, so MS is acting quickly to make sure we use their XAML, vs the XUL and the open standard SVG. Adobe, too, isn't thrilled about open standards.

I think the closest thing we have to a great dev environment+rich web app is Google's GWT. It makes GUI and server integration easy. This makes Microsoft scared. I would love to see more open standards in this respect.. Make XUL a standard, create a library, add it to all browsers, all platforms, same with SVG.

Re:This is an important new battleground

[nine-times]

The fight between Adobe and Microsoft is, in and of itself, an important battle. Adobe has a lot of control over an entire sector of applications that Microsoft has not been able to control: media software. When it comes to digital print design, Adobe is king. When it comes to Web, Adobe and Macromedia were fighting it out until Adobe bought Macromedia-- now Adobe is the undisputed champion. In video editing, it's pretty much all Adobe, Apple, or Avid.

Microsoft hasn't really been able to break into any of these markets. Microsoft's tools (eg Frontpage) have long been the butt of jokes. Still, Microsoft keeps trying.

And so Microsoft is one of the biggest threats to Adobe. They keep trying to make software that will compete. They're trying to make a Photoshop alternative, competitors to Flash and PDF, their own version of Dreamweaver, etc.

On the other hand, Adobe is a very dangerous player for Microsoft as well. If Microsoft could get Adobe to stop supporting OSX, it would mean a lot of trouble for Apple. On the other hand, if Adobe stopped supporting Windows or started supporting Linux, it could mean *serious* trouble for Microsoft. I know plenty of people who would drop Windows immediately and starting using OSX if they couldn't have photoshop on Windows. Also, while the Linux desktop is advancing in many areas, one of the things that has kept it from many of the areas that I've supported has been the lack of Adobe products. I don't want to get into a whole thing here, but lets just say my Photoshop users weren't content with the GIMP. They didn't much care about the OS-- all they needed was web browsing, e-mail, and a word processor-- but they absolutely needed Adobe applications.

There are things I like about Adobe and things I don't like, but one thing is certain: they're one of the few software developers left who are still in a position to hurt Microsoft. That's probably why Microsoft is fighting this fight to begin with.

Re:This is an important new battleground

[Timbotronic]

I agree but isn't it sad how MS had to get involved before anyone on Slashdot could see the value in RIAs? Just look at the general reaction when Apollo was released. Most Slashdotters thought it was just Java being reinvented or banged on ad-nauseum about hating Flash. Now they're moaning about SVG again. Sigh.

People rightly criticize MS for copying others but at least they know a good idea when they see it.

Re:This is an important new battleground

[Serveert]

Yeah I guess I should have given MS more credit - they are onto something. Google is sleeping on this issue and it surprises me - here they are giving us GWT, which hacks together javascript to make it seem like a rich GUI app, when what they should be doing is working on something like XAML, XUL, SVG, etc. and doing things right vs using javascript+html hacks.

SilverLight, the same old story

[paulxnuke]

One of MS's talking points was that there's nothing binary or proprietary: it's all plain text XML. That might be slightly easier to work with than binary flash files -- but it also makes work easier for visitors to "borrow." Decompiling even protected flash files isn't hard either, but it's enough to slow down casual moochers and stop most corporate ones.

Of course, it's kind of silly to brag about openness when the whole thing is based on a closed source plugin. My big problem with the whole thing is that I fully expect support for "unfavored" platforms and browsers to start slipping as soon as there's some market share. I don't want to become a MS henchman, and pay for the privilege too.

Maybe that's not what MS has in mind this time, but with their record the burden of proof is on them. Not to mention that it's common sense to tread carefully with first releases of any new technology, even from companies with a track record (unlike MS) of producing quality products.

Re:SilverLight, the same old story

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

it's all plain text XML

How is this different from SVG?
Why won't SVG go anywhere? Seriously? Is there some glaring problem with it?

Re:SilverLight, the same old story

[Ambidisastrous]

SVG has an overly complicated spec due to some of Adobe's own chicanery on the standardization committee once upon a time. Then a "core" subset of the specification was defined, and I believe that's what we're supposed to implement if we don't have the patience/money to support the whole gnarly thing. Quite a few apps have support for at least some of the standard, including Mozilla, Inkscape, and even Microsoft Visio (Visio's support is a little odd; I assume the original developers snuck it in before Microsoft bought them).

It would take off if the standard had full support from the major players, particularly Microsoft. Unfortunately, the standard has instead been more of a target for sabotage by uncooperative corporations.

Takes one to know one

[SuperKendall]

Rich? On the contrary, that seems like the best expert we have on the subject of who is really a monopolist...

Re: Monopolists

[dedazo]

I'm sure that's a great relief to users of software gobbled up by Adobe and then promptly "discontinued" due to "overlap".

Re: Monopolists

[owlnation]

Even so, I don't believe Adobe has been convicted of (or charged with) illegally abusing their monopoly.

While that's true... Ask an Adobe customer whether they feel they be charged for Adobe abusing their monopoly and you'll get an affirmative answer.

It's about to get worse with CS3 too, it's split into Vista style packages so now you have to really pay a lot of money to get the programs you need to do business as a professional in the creative industry.

Probably the only exception to this is Premiere, cos few - if any - professionals use that. Otherwise, there's absolutely no alternative to Adobe products. (Yes, technically GIMP etc exists, but they aren't industry standard so professionals have no chance of using them.)

80% of my work is done on Adobe products and I really would like to change that.

Already over

[Ollabelle]

And if M$'s new products are anything like Photo Editor or the other kludgy graphics offerings they've put out over the years, this competition is already over.

Re:Already over

[jawtheshark]

I actually liked Photo Editor. Why? Because in my NT4.0 and 2000 days, it was one of the fastest loading viewers... The viewer that comes with XP is better, but before that it was the best choice. Just imagine Photoshop or The GIMP loads whenever you doubleclick a jpg.

Over before it started

[dave562]

Situations like this point out how stupid Microsoft can be. Adobe already has the web development market locked down. There isn't any room for Microsoft to wiggle in there. Microsoft expecting web developers to adopt their products is naive on the level of OO.o supporters expecting people to dump Office.

Re:Over before it started

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you suggesting that HTML has been deprecated in favor of Flash?

Re:Over before it started

[Anonymous Coward]

Circa 1996: "Netscape already has the web client / server market locked down. There isn't any room for Microsoft to wiggle in there."

Or, better yet, circa 2005:

"Microsoft already has the web client market locked down. There isn't any room for Firefox to wiggle in there."

Competition is good.

[MaWeiTao]

I find it funny that Adobe's CEO has the gall to call Microsoft monopolistic considering that Adobe essentially has a complete monopoly over the design industry. Microsoft's control over the PC market pales in comparison to Adobe's control of the design industry, the obvious distinction being that Microsoft's market is much larger.

I welcome the competition and although I'm not optimistic I would like to see Microsoft become a serious competitor in this market. I'd prefer it were someone else entering this market, I can't say I'm looking forward to bloated applications with cumbersome interfaces. Nevertheless it's been long overdo that something take Adobe down a few notches.

I'm sure Adobe's CEO is only upset that Adobe's purchase of Macromedia didn't ensure a complete lack of competition for a longer period of time.

Re:Competition is good.

[a 2 Bathtub Larva]

Adobe may have a stanglehold on the 2D industry, but just take a look at Autodesk for the real monopoly. Adobe software is pocket change compared to 3D software, and there is no bigger company than Autodesk for that. (Think Studio Max, Maya, Autocad) Granted a 3D package without photoshop or illustrator isn't going to do what you want most likely, but still the numbers are staggering.

Is it just me...

[iPaul]

Or did they "borrow" the flat black look from Apple's Pro tools suites? Hmmmm...

Re:Is it just me...

[juiceCake]

Or did they "borrow" the flat black look from Apple's Pro tools suites? Hmmmm...

And Apple, who, by this logic, borrowed it from Discreet. Hmmm... Whatever.

Re:Is it just me...

[Anonymous Coward]

When did Apple buy Digidesign?, did I sleep for too long?

Scary Image

[Anonymous Coward]

Picturing 300 geeks without shirts for no apparent reason and contrary to all sensible precautions during warfare.

Adobesoft

[Mockylock]

Being one who came from Newspaper and Photography roots, I'd have to say that Adobe hasn't got a lot of room to talk when it comes to Monopolies. Granted, Microsoft is the big winner in that field.. but Adobe is set as a standard for basically every Graphics and Photo editing establishment on the planet. Not only that, they charge an ignorant amount for their software as well.

The only way that Microsoft can compete in this, would be to offer something with the same features and do it for a fraction of the cost. But, I've used most of the new Microsoft Graphic toys, and Adobe has nothing to worry about. They're very basic, and will get the job done for those who want an alternative. The web design pieces will be substantially cheaper than anything adobe has to offer, but I'm sure there are open-sauce versions that will have the same functionality.

Those who wish to check some of them out can visit http://connect.microsoft.com/ to see what I'm talking about.

Re:Adobesoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if Microsoft can sell to independent and low end developers such as hobbyists they will not take a huge bite out of Adobe but will make quite a lot of profit. There is a huge market that want to use products that Adobe makes, but can't afford the price tag.

Re:Adobesoft

[OldeTimeGeek]

Not only that, they charge an ignorant amount for their software as well.

Ignorant in what way? Obviously enough people are willing to pay the "ignorant amount" for their products to permit Adobe to keep the price where it is. Yes, this means that a lot of people won't be able to buy them who otherwise would if Adobe would lower their price (I admit that I had to think about it a while before I got a copy of Photoshop), but there's enough people who are willing to pay that it's profitable to keep making them. There is still the "Elements" line for people who don't need or can't afford the some of the full products.

Now if someone could prove that they're paying design studios to use it exclusively in order to keep other players out of the market, that'd be something completely different.

Re:Adobesoft

[Mockylock]

I understand your point about keeping it within reach of the people who really need it. I just came from a newspaper that had a support contract through them that was well in the 6 digits. Unfortunately, when I wanted to start doing my own graphics work rather than grunt design for crap pay, I ended up having to buy a couple copies. At the time, I'm quite sure the price was actually even more than what it is now. It hurt my financial situation quite a bit when starting out, but, it's the standard and you basically have to use it to get the job done right and quick.

I also have to say that the suite is probably among the top pirated software bundles in existance. There isn't a person I know that doesn't have it... and I can guarantee I'm the only one that is actually licensed. Granted, they're not making money from using it and don't have as much to lose.

Considering that it's more than just an Elite or small amount of people that use it, you would think that dropping the price substantially would increase in sales dramatically. But, I honestly don't think they work that way. There ARE millions that use it illegally, but I'm sure quite a few of them would actually buy the software if it were reasonable (and elements blows, it's not even a consideration.). I just DON'T think that Adobe is hurting that bad, especially considering the latest Macromedia buyout, that they need to charge that much. That's just my opinion.

This is no flame on you by any means. I truely do understand what you're saying and respect your opinion as well. I just think that Adobe has grown enough to ease up a bit more on the price, compared to when they were starting out.... because they basically OWN the graphics industry now.

Yet another reason why Microsoft would probably be able to compete if they came out with a product a bit more useable than elements at a comparable price.

On another front

[backbyter]

http://www.openlaszlo.org/

Uses XML/Javascript to drive either Flash or DHTML.

Some of their examples are pretty good, while other examples could have used a QA person.

Re: Monopolists

[cyphercell]

Maybe we will get to watch a monopolist sue a monopolist, might not be such a bad thing.

exactly

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Except the price for the ms products isn't zero. MS has to provide a compelling reason to switch, selling a product thats a couple hundred less won't do it. You're still risking a couple hundred dollars on an unproven technology that won't be compatible with anything for a couple years, and might not be supported long term. Now if it was free, and open source, those concerns wouldn't be there.

Re:exactly

[cyber-vandal]

an unproven technology that won't be compatible with anything for a couple years, and might not be supported long term

Any free and/or open source product would still have to get past that rather more significant stumbling block - else Microsoft would now be in deep shit instead of still fabulously successful.

They both have PITA product activation

[peipas]

Adobe has upgrade paths that require you to call them. For instance, upgrading from earlier than Photoshop 5.5. I am not an Adobe fan. So I buy an Adobe product and have to make a phone call before I can use the software. That is messed up.

Adobe may have some decent products but philosophically Microsoft may be the lesser evil.

Microsoft is making a what now?

[markbt73]

They're seriously thick-headed enough to go after Creative Suite?

They get points for sheer balls, but trying to get Adobe users to even consider anything besides their beloved Illustrator or Photoshop is like talking to a particularly condescending brick wall. Take it from a Corel Draw user.

Re:Microsoft is making a what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear that. Graphic designers are generally fucktards. I hope this will allow us programmers to have a smooth VS-like experience with the graphic world, though.

SVG

[jpkunst]

As some of you may have noticed, Adobe has discontinued its SVG Viewer, and they suggest using Flash as its replacement for web authoring. The Adobe viewer is the only way to show SVG content in Internet Explorer (that I'm aware of). If IE can't show SVG content, then SVG is effectively dead as a useable format on the web. And that would be a sad state of affairs.

So what I'm hoping is that Microsoft will see fit to support SVG natively in IE. That would be a good thing, even if the reason they do it is just to compete with Adobe's Flash format.

JP

Re: SVG

[drinkypoo]

The Adobe viewer is the only way to show SVG content in Internet Explorer (that I'm aware of).

A quick google for "SVG plugin internet explorer -adobe" turned up MozzIE (hackish) and Renesis Player which is cross-platform for "Windows, Windows CE, Linux, Mac and more".

You haven't tried very hard to find an alternative, have you?

Re: SVG

[Biff Stu]

So what I'm hoping is that Microsoft will see fit to support SVG natively in IE. I strongly suspect that pigs will fly out of my ass before MS supports SVG in anything. The lack of any vector graphics standards other than EMF in MS products is a key to their vendor lock-in strategy. As an example, the company that I work for needs to supply reports and documents to the federal government for various contracts. Our customers expect Word and PowerPoint documents. Much of our data is best represented in vector graphic format. The only choice is EMF.

Oh, and one more thing...there is no "one more thing" if you need to put EMF files in Word and PowerPoint documents. While you can get MS Office for the Mac, the support for EMF graphics sucks so badly that it might as well not exist. So, if you want to prepare technical documents with vector graphics for clients who insist on MS Office compatibility, you're stuck with a Windows box. Now, do you think that there is any chance that this is not intentional?

Fucking monopolists.

Re: SVG

[jpkunst]

You haven't tried very hard to find an alternative, have you?

No, I figured that someone would correct me. So, thank you.

The solutions you mentioned don't look really mature yet, but let's hope that the discontinuation of the Adobe Viewer will give them a lift.

JP

The real question is...

[Eric Damron]

How does Microsoft leverage their monopolies to take control of the situation? Should they incorporate it directly into their operating system and browser or as a free addon to their office product?

Maybe they could tweak IIS so that it slows Flash down while optimizing the speed of their products?

So many dirty tricks and so little time...

Re:The real question is...

[mandelbr0t]

"IIS ain't done until Java (and now Flash) won't run"?

Re:The real question is...

[Timbotronic]

Maybe they could tweak IIS so that it slows Flash down while optimizing the speed of their products?

Given that Flash runs on the browser rather than the server this would be pointless. It'd just make IIS look slow(er) compared to Apache.

MS could possibly do something in IE to slow Flash down but then they'd look bad against Firefox, Safari, Opera etc.

No. Looks like they'll just do what they've always done and bundle extra features into the OS as well as make the development tools cheaper. Expect to see an equivalent to Flash Media Server built in to various Windows server products. They've already started down this path with streaming media. Just ask Real.

Cant take risks here

[unity100]

Unfortunately.

this is a matter of business.

setting up a client in a framework/infrastructure means this client will be doing all his/her/their business on that framework/infrastructure, building and expanding on that, adapting to that, basically living on that.

and when the company that provides that platform pulls the plug or pulls a crap with that platform's users, client and his business is in trouble. this had happened before with many "new experiences and products", and many people had gone through arduous restructuring and readaptation in order to go on with their business on a new platform.

And apologies, but microsoft is not some company that has a great reliability record.

ill set up as many clients as i can on open/free platforms as i did before. because this is their BUSINESS, they are making a living on that, and that cant be risked.

Re:Cant take risks here

[Richard_at_work]

Yes, this most certainly is a matter of business, and if the Microsoft product does it better after I personally assess it to my clients criteria then Im going to use that to earn my money - Im not going to pass up on the chance to earn money because I dont like the company.

All business is risk, every moment of it for both you and your client, regardless of the product you use to construct their solution. To automatically dismiss a product on any grounds is stupid, but to dismiss a product after you have done your assessment is good business, and every product gets to the assessment stage with me, regardless.

Re:Cant take risks here

[spamking]

Fortunately or unfortunately I think most folks use past experiences with people and products to determine their stance on one side or the other. Some folks probably immediately think of Frontpage when they hear Microsoft and web development in the same conversation.

Coolest sites on the web?

[antonymous]

Myspace and Youtube? Puhleeze! Everyone knows that web portals are the wave of the future, not this flashy user-generated videospace nonsense. If you don't know what I'm talking about, type webcrawler.com into Mosaic and dogpile it!

My Flash is bigger than your Silverlight!

[notaprguy]

I think it's odd that Adobe is responding they way they are to Microsoft's announcements. Wouldn't the leader in the category be better off keeping quiet, ignoring the guy who is barely in the game if at all? I blogged on this more at http://notaprguy.wordpress.com/2007/04/17/my-flash -is-bigger-than-your-silverlight-or-my-acronym-is- better-than-your-acronym/

Re:My Flash is bigger than your Silverlight!

[drinkypoo]

Wouldn't the leader in the category be better off keeping quiet, ignoring the guy who is barely in the game if at all?

Adobe and Microsoft are now in a battle for the very small brains of PHBs everywhere. Microsoft has instant credibility with these people because they are stupid and the argument "if it wasn't the best, people wouldn't be using it!" makes sense to them. Adobe needs to discredit Microsoft now to kill the buzz before it starts if they want to really nip this thing in the bud.

Re:My Flash is bigger than your Silverlight!

[notaprguy]

Sorry, PHBs? Pin-headed... Adobe is not going to "nip this ting in the bud" no matter what they do. MSFT rarely gives up. They'll keep trying and trying and trying.Ignoring them now will slow their growth. Talking about them doesn't.

Re:My Flash is bigger than your Silverlight!

[CrackedButter]

Different PHB's, different market, Adobe has the credibility, not MS.

Re:My Flash is bigger than your Silverlight!

[drinkypoo]

Different PHB's, different market, Adobe has the credibility, not MS.

I disagree. Adobe fears the PHBs at the top, who can tell the PHBs in charge of selecting technology what to do.

Microsoft has more credibility among PHBs overall than Adobe, because they are even more the "big swinging dick".

Re:My Flash is bigger than your Silverlight!

[CrackedButter]

I still disagree, those markets that Adobe have are the design markets, who makes the decision for designers, the designers of course! The professional markets know what they want and have been wanting and using it for over 20 years.

Linux support must be getting too good

[also-rr]

I remain convinced that part of the reason that Microsoft is attempting to push it's own alternative to Flash is because Linux support is finally decent.

Not only is there the binary client but some of the free alternatives can now handle YouTube. Development was getting a little closer to cross platform content and entertainment that the internet promised rather than the platform locking that was looking likely at one point.

Anyway I installed swfdec today on a PPC machine and documented the steps. The results are very good for an application in such an early stage of development. While you might think the internet *with* Flash is annoying, you try living without it for a while and see how much the Firefox "you need more plugins to view this page" bar bugs you.

Not For Me

[dracphelan]

I started out in the web field working for Microsoft supporting FrontPage, Vizact 2000 (their attempt to counter Flash at the time) and their photo editing program. I am now (7+ years later) a web designer. I will not be switching from the Adobe products to MS. As others have said, they will most likely drop (or not keep up on) cross platform support. This should be important for every web professional.

SMIL?

[cxreg]

What ever happend to SMIL? Seems like the best possible solution in this space, I can't understand why the ball has been dropped.

Re:SMIL?

[cortana]

It can be freely implemented by anyone; therefor both Adobe and MICROS~1 will do everything in their power to prevent it from becoming a viable platform.

But does he really mean it?

[Nom du Keyboard]

The article focuses on the competition and doesn't even mention that Adobe's CEO called Microsoft a $50 billion monopolist.

But does he really mean it? After all, one of the stupidest business models ever is to go up against an entrenched monopolist on their own turf.

Mod parent funny!

[mandelbr0t]

The scary thing is that I've gotten really good at writing drivel like this. It's nice to see that some people can still correctly translate it.

whoa whoa slow there

[unity100]

we are not talking about "one needs to take risks in business" situation, which is kinda like going ipo and investing.

this is a matter of reliability. especially businesses thriving on the web have their lifeline in their web presence. risking that is a no-enterpreneurship situation.

and to clarify - we are not dismissing a product - we are dismissing a company, based on their prior record.

would you go buy from the same department store if the department store continually screwed you over ?

Re:whoa whoa slow there

[Richard_at_work]

Absolutely nothing triggers an out of hand dismissal.

Its as simple as that - every single option is kept open. If you dont like it, then thats your perogative, but all it means is Im less handicapped than you are in choosing a solution.

OK

[segedunum]

The article focuses on the competition and doesn't even mention that Adobe's CEO called Microsoft a $50 billion monopolist.

So why does your company steadfastly refuse to develop a lot of software for platforms other than Windows, and refuse to get involved in their development?

Re:OK

[norkakn]

They are pretty good about supporting OSX. By pretty good I mean that their products are just as shitty here, but they bought all of the competition, so we deal.

Re:there is an explanation!

[Anonymous Coward]

Adobe: i'm seeing the many users are using PC with M$ OS.
Adobe: I will ship Apollo ActionScript3 (AS3) + Flex + AJAX + Flash + .. to these people.
uSoft: you are the trap, ehhhh?
Adobe: yes, it's my business, not your.
uSoft: i've to play too! you're tricky!
Adobe: am i liar? you're lying!
uSoft: i will ship Silverlight completely released before than you.
Adobe: it's not important for me, stupid.
uSoft: bye, hasta la Vista. Don't touch my Vista.
Adobe: bye, your Vista is useless. I'm using Mac OS.
Linux: they want a war.
FrBSD: yes! i see.
NeBSD: i still am programming Java.
Linux: there are not ActionScript3 for Linux, no forever!.
FrBSD: don't use AS3, use Java or PHP5 or Python or Ruby on Rail or Perl.
NeBSD: bye good friends.

Re: Monopolists

[juiceCake]

While that's true... Ask an Adobe customer whether they feel they be charged for Adobe abusing their monopoly and you'll get an affirmative answer.

Not me. Though I'd prefer that Adobe and MM have been kept separate the price of the new bundle for me (which is perfect for my needs) is an amazing bargain. Basically $150 per app. Amazing value.

It's about to get worse with CS3 too, it's split into Vista style packages so now you have to really pay a lot of money to get the programs you need to do business as a professional in the creative industry.

Some do no doubt, but not me. The Design Premium package is perfect for me.

80% of my work is done on Adobe products and I really would like to change that.

Me too. I really wish Linux would get a decent font system and Adobe ported their apps to Linux.

FRONTPAGE IS NOT DEAD!

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been repurposed as Sharepoint Designer 2007 and does occasionally want to eat your brain.

why just $50 billion?

[phildog]

>The article focuses on the competition and doesn't even mention that Adobe's CEO called Microsoft a $50 billion monopolist.

Adobe's CEO got it wrong. Looks like MSFT's current market cap is over 282 billion so aren't they a $282 billion monopolist?

nay

[unity100]

its about living life to the fullest, you can take risks and "try out new things".

you cant throw small businesses or heck, even million dollar enterprises at risk for "trying out new stuff" "just not to be prejudice-driven".

still you are talking as if this is not microsoft but some other company. microsoft is famous for screwing up whoever it works with, be it partner or communities. remember novell deal, remember linux ? see how microsoft forces (from their point of view) gamer crowd to upgrade to vista by making it able to run dx10 and xp not ? should i count more examples ?

Re:nay

[jericsmith]

I've read this thread, and it is obvious to me that unity is simply on an anti-MS rant. MS has the most attacked platform/products on the market because they are easy to hate. A monkey could realize what that means in terms of perceived reliability. The fact remains Microsoft has great products and well documented support compared to most other alternatives. MS certainly doesn't hold the monopoly on bad business ethics. Please, stop following your open source idols and go make some money.

Re:nay

[cyphercell]

You guys are funny, here's my analogy.

If someone pays me to build them a house out of shit, then sure for the right price yea I'll do it.

But, once I have my new found shitbuilder skills I'm not really going to go advertising it in the paper, unless shithouses (ignore the pun) are popular. For that matter I'm not going to invest in shitbuilder tools unless I specifically get a job working with shit.

Re:nay

[unity100]

i divide my position against microsoft to 2 in these matters.

in general, desktop, mail etc and popular-wise, i see microsoft with contempt, because their sony-ish behaviour and cutthroat/dirty competition logic that is so reminiscent of 80es.

web development-wise, professionally, i stay away from microsoft based on one single fact - their reliability record is crap.

web development clients rarely need to get support for using their stuff. websites are built to serve their needs by simple user-side procedures and interfaces. it is not like a local enterprise office solution, or a desktop in a networking environment that many possibilities and complexities occur.

and many of those sites will be either on a dedicated server, very probably tended by the datacenter they are housed in, or on a shared web host, supported by the web hosting provider, so microsoft will never go into equation.

but, microsoft will go into equation totally when they decide to pull a trick to grab more market share or oust some competitor or any of the similar tricks they pulled in the past. all users of that infrastructure will be in trouble then.

its so absurd. after the novell incident i should not need to tell all these to anybody. its bright as day. novell people were aghast at the results of what they did, and how microsoft twisted their little trust exchange into some self serving deviation of legal maneuvering.

Re:nay

[jericsmith]

...with the most market share. That's not just marketing. That's products that work. Please, it's so easy to bash Microsoft, yet there they are. I know I'm making 6 figures on their coattails. There's no argument against that :).

Re:nay

[tb3]

Hey, the concentration camp guards had products that worked, too. I guess you'd have no argument against making six figures on their coattails, either.
(Yeah, yeah, I know. Goodwin's Law.)

Re:nay

[jericsmith]

whoa, I'm going to back off now. Ya got me a bit worried.

My web devleopment toolkit...

[Anonymous Coward]

Consists of vim, inkscape, GIMP and an assortment of cli tools, m4 templates and shell scripts. It's not as minimal as I'd like but it's fast. I refuse to install the flash plugin so the prospect of Microsoft entering the field is worrying. Especially having seen Microsoft shops display a complete ignorance of graceful degradation when they adopt stupidity such as Viewstate and it's inaccessible __doPostBack() method.

Here's a bonus design tip for all you weenies - use CSS to set the background and text colors on the html element. That way when a user has their desktop theme or userContent.css set to white on black they can read the document text without highlighting. Yes ibtimes - that means you!

I love Linux. I hate M$.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Apollo FAQ (ActionScript3)
2. Apollo Introduction
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamarin_(JIT)
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActionScript
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flex
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash

I'm linuxbie and i want to use ActionScript3 from Adobe because i can't use M$'s Silverlight in my platform.

Re:I love Linux. I hate M$.

[welsh git]

And many of us who use other opensource operating systems can't use ActionScript/Flash from Adobe *either* because they have a very limited platform portfolio.

Just because they happen to do a Linux version, it doesn't make them any less evil trying to push a 'standard' that is closed and proprietry.

I'm not a 'everything open source' zealot - I happily run the Nvidia Binary driver blob for my video card on FreeBSD, but media formats -- ESPECIALLY WEB FORMATS -- SHOULD BE OPEN!

Re: Monopolists

[aztracker1]

Hmm.. no alternatives? I guess you are correct, nothing compares to say Photoshop, or even InDesign ... I mean, not even anyone to compete with Premiere. (sigh) If only there were somewhere to find some options to compete with all these Adobe monopoly products...

Re: Monopolists

[aztracker1]

Sorry, was thinking of Illustrator, not InDesign... my bad.

Cue the "Silverfish" nickname in 3... 2... 1....

[mad.frog]

Cue the "Silverfish" nickname in 3... 2... 1....

So youre not a Mac fan?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Im also a web developer, and I *always* wait to experience a product, any product, by any developer, >regardless of their prior history before I form any opinion on the product - sometimes its best to
>put the rhetoric away and join the adult world, especially when it comes to earning money.

If every Apple fan thought like you....

Re: Monopolists

[CrackedButter]

Don't worry, we can use iWork instead of indesign! For Illustrator, you also forgot Lineform btw.

Re:Web developer disregarding history!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I always evaluate plucky little Microsoft at face value.

Let's see, Monday they Rochambeaued me. Tuesday they shat on me.
Um, Wednesday, what was Wednesday? Oh, they locked me out. Then,
yeah, that's right Thursday was the day they gave me a "Roman
Shower." Hmmm, so today's Friday. What's it going to be?

new market

[wizzahd]

This might open up a whole new market for AV software..

"NEW Norton Antivirus now protects you from malicious Silverlight plugins! Only $199.99!!"

On a more serious note (or is it?) I don't know how I feel about this yet. Not only because Adobe is entrenched in this market already, but MS hasn't exactly got a great track record with internet technologies.

My thoughts

[corychristison]

As a fairly well established web developer [nearing on 8 years of commercial development] I just have one quick thought: I can see Microsoft gaining some market share here *IF* they can be able to export to the Flash Player format [.swf]. Although this is incredibly unlikely, it would indeed be a change for once. Microsoft choosing compatibility over flashy-ness.

Re: Monopolists

[mudshark]

80% of my work is done on Adobe products and I really would like to change that.

I swore never to purchase Adobe products during the Sklyarov debacle. Not too long after that, they had the temerity to buy my favorite PC audio software company, Syntrillium. I kept using my version of Cool Edit Pro as long as I could, but when I finally upgraded A/D/A hardware I had to abandon it because I won't buy Audition. Hello Cakewalk.

Adobe pushes DRM-laden solutions and proprietary pseudo-standards. They are no better than Microsoft in these regards. Can't say I back either dog in this fight....

what is the FLOSS alternative?

[swanriversean]

Is there an open source alternative to Microsoft and Adobe?
Or is Flash an open standard, and we're just waiting for a good open source implementaion.

I would rather not wait 10 years until Microsoft has undermined Flash so that Adobe "open sources" it before we have an open source choice.

Re:what is the FLOSS alternative?

[MemoryDragon]

there are some java ajax frameworks, openlazlo (also renders against dhtml) svg...

Linux Support

[Anonymous Coward]

How many other vendors have fallen once MS sets its sights on them ?

If Adobe's CEO was interested in long term survival, now might be a good time to think about native Linux support. Once Microsoft's competing product is in full swing, all kind of wierd bugs might suddenly affect Adobe on Windows. It wouldn't be the first time.

Not wanting to piss off MS is no longer a valid reason to avoid supporting Linux as the wolf is at the door.

Re:Linux Support

[Falladir]

Since MS has a new OS out, they are better-equipped than usual to abuse their position in this way.

Chizen is 110% on the money

[toby]

Microsoft has only one business strategy: LOCK-IN.

It's the motive behind everything they do. It's the raison d'être for every one of their products, and this latest ploy is no different.

And Chizen ought to know, since Adobe is not afraid to exercise monopoly muscle in the markets it dominates.

Re: Monopolists

[Anonymous Coward]

You can do more

The source code is there for GIMP so go do it yourself

Adobe can not possible be a monopolist like ms

[walterbyrd]

If somebody came out with a product that competes with an adobe product, users could just switch.

The situation with the OS is very different. If I switch my OS, I may have also have to change my applications, and my hardware. And compatible applications may not even exist.

Re: Monopolists

[multimed]

Otherwise, there's absolutely no alternative to Adobe products. (Yes, technically GIMP etc exists, but they aren't industry standard so professionals have no chance of using them.)

We'll let see...for Illustrator, there's Freehand. Oh wait...For Image Ready (& kind of Photoshop) there's Fireworks. Guess not. We'll at least there's Dreamweaver to compete with GoLive (ok that's kind of backwards but still).

My point is that for many areas, there were two relatively decent commercial products that competed against each other - and the Adobe - Macromedia merger effectively killed that. Why that merger was approved - especially without any strings - I just don't get. At the very least, they should have required them to pick one product and either sell or open source the other. This is something with precedent - years back, when Adobe bought out Aldus, because they wanted Pagemaker, they had to sell Freehand to Macromedia and that worked well.

another case for TPB

[plasmacutter]

It's about to get worse with CS3 too, it's split into Vista style packages so now you have to really pay a lot of money

another case for the almighty alternative solution ... theyre always competitively priced too! : )

Silverlight not for Linux (yet)

[Anonymous Coward]

What's your source for saying Microsoft is working/planning to release a binary plugin for browsers on Linux systems? Please remember that "support for Firefox" doesn't necessary imply Linux. It's available for Windows too, you know.

Oh, shutup and INSALL the silverfish plugin!

[aqk]

We're tired of you nerdy /. cockroaches always going on about
the evil Bill Gates and his Micro$oft empire. (dollar sign not mine).

I for one, welcome our new MS flashy overlords, and let's face it-
in Soviet Redmond, Silverfish will plug YOU in!

From the MS website:
MS Firefox Plugin

MS notes that:
If you use the Firefox browser:
Save "insall.msi" to disk. Once the downloads completes click 'Open'.Installation will start.

Perhaps THIS will shut up some of you tiresome insallent MS bashers! Most of you appear to be in your /dotage anyhow.

Outlook done right in Flash

[marsaro]

Hi;

if you think it is just the player, you are wrong. Take a peak at the upcoming Flash based Email and VoIP client called Pronto! http://www.communigate.com/demoFlash/demo_10.html The linchpin is Office, and core to that is Outlook. Keep in mind MS wants to attack PDF too. I remember the Novell/MS wars, and how they missed out by focusing only on the server. Adobe has a much better chance at putting a dent in MS because of their desktop control and distribution via the player. You can put any sort of application out there and it will work on Windows, OSX, and Linux....It is just starting to get interesting!

Pigs Fly: News at Eleven!

[LuYu]

From the article:

This time around, Microsoft said Expression Web will generate HTML and other code that complies with industry standards.

Hahahahaha!!!! Yeah, and then, I suppose, MS will stop opposing ODF and give its assets to fund the development of Free Software, as well!

Thank you Jessica Mintz for giving me a month's worth of abdominal exercise! The International Business Times really employs some intelligent people.

er...e.

[imkow]

a big dog fights with a snake. after all they are two monsters.

Re: Monopolists

[Anonymous Coward]

For photoshop there is no open source alternative that is a 100% replacement, but work is being done. You may want to check out Krita a KDE (actually Koffice) program. It knows about color profiles has floating point colors (and higher than 8bit per channel colors), they are working on LAB, HDR bracketing, paint simulation etc. They are making good progress and they are porting to QT4 which means the program will be available on Mac OSX, windows and KDE4 soon. I also read that the GIMP developers are at last seriously working on GEGL (the core for some future GIMP that does more than 8 bit per channel color etc.).

Scribus is a dtp program that is a pretty serious effort. Inkscape and xara extreme[1] are efforts to create a vector graphics program (the latter being an open sourced commercial program). Let's not forget Blender for 3d modelling.

But you're right they are no complete replacements as of yet.

[1] http://www.xaraxtreme.org/

Re: Monopolists

[Awel]

If GIMP ran faster and supported CMYK (out of the box; I know there's a plugin for it), it might be in with a chance. As it is, it's unsuited to print work. This is the problem with GIMP, not that it's not an 'industry standard'.

adobe wins...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but can it run on linux?

even if there is no photoshop for linux, it runs on wine, plus a version for linux is in the works... i cant see MS doing that, nor can i see the product being anymore stable than office.(if they are lucky, because besides notepad.exe they dont have much going for the stability section)

Why do we still need plugins for RIAs?

[dgym]

RIAs are a very simple concept - an application that works just like any other desktop
application only it lives on a server and should be cross browser and thus cross platform.

To write these applications we (developers) only need the things we need to write any GUI
apps - a Turing complete programming language that runs on the client and can draw to the
screen and receive input events (mouse, keyboard, timers and incoming network traffic).

These are such simple, fundamental and obvious requirements it amazes me that there isn't
a standard for them. Javascript does provide the programmability, but browsers still need
to expose a socket programming interface for it. The canvas tag does allow 2D drawing,
but the lack of support in IE and the missing text drawing functions make it useless for
now. So we are still left relying on plugins that we know aren't always going to be
enabled or installed or even available.

It doesn't have to be any harder than this, and it shouldn't be any harder than this,
RIAs should be a solved problem by now.