Slashdot Mirror
Adobe To Donate Flex SDK To Open Source Community
New submitter ProbablyJoe writes "InfoQ reports that Adobe is to donate its web application SDK, Flex, to an 'an established open source foundation' — suspected to either be the Open Spoon Foundation (who have been working on an open source fork of Flex), or the more established Apache Foundation. Adobe has stated on its blog that they consider HTML5 to be a better technology for the future than its own Flex platform, causing frustration among developers who have used the platform for enterprise applications. Is this a generous contribution to the open source community, or just Adobe offloading another failing technology?"
This is the technological equivalent of donating AIDS infected blood.
Seems to be the trend as of late.
Can't get your paid employees to fix it for you? Give it out to the internet hoping someone will fix it for free.
Microsoft dumps stuff in favor of HTML5.
Adobe dumps stuff in favor of HTML5.
Can somebody check the temperature in hell, please?
Right, so when a company end of lines a product they're criticised for not open sourcing it.
Now when a company open sources an end of lined product, they're "offloading another failing technology".
This is why companies don't give a fuck what the FOSS community thinks, because with the FOSS community you can never do anything right. See all the whinging about Android's open source initiatives for another fine example.
Will this include player components? As it stands, the span of usefulness for the SDK is going to be limited if there isn't a player to run the output.
Is this a generous contribution to the open source community, or just Adobe offloading another failing technology?"
Both, obviously!
WebM is free, H.264 costs money on both the encoding and decoding end. Standards should never require payment to use.
Based on what I've read elsewhere, it's called Adobe Edge, and it's supposed to be an authoring tool for animations to be played back using JavaScript and HTML5's 2D canvas. Tim Langdell will be pissed.
I've used the Flex SDK and FlexBuilder IDE. While the underlying Flash runtime is notoriously bad, the declarative XML structure, ActionScript language and matching IDE are actually quite pleasant to work with. I'd love to see someone replace the dreadful Flash runtime with a native HTML5 runtime but keep the decent bits.
Anybody know what this means for Adobe's AIR platform?
Please reply and like because I will need to buy some food.
Go look for some tasty open source recipes...
So what's next? Adobe Coldfusion seems a likely candidate. New Atlanta - the other supplier of Coldfusion server (Blue Dragon) has already open sourced much of it's product, can Adobe be far behind?
You're a Unity user, arentcha.
This signature has Super Cow Powers
H.264 only costs money if you ship more than 50000 units a year. Also it is royalty-free for non-commercial use.
Even Internet Explorer supports H.264
Windows Internet Explorer on PCs also supports WebM as long as the proper codec pack is installed.
WebM sucks!
Could you please tone it down and say why you feel WebM is inferior? Otherwise, your post is just as much misinformation as the ones you criticize. Does your skin dry out on sunny days to where it feels like rock?
Who want it ? Everybody goes for HTML5 :)
Giving a dead horse is not a gift.
You do realize HTML5 is far far more than just a video player right? Even so "HTML5 Video" doesn't inherently mean WebM nor H.264 as the format isn't part of the standard.
You trust the MPEG LA to not introduce fees at some point for their patent pool?
Yes. Doing so would only drive people away from it which is the opposite of what they want.
Mod down. Link is a goatse.cx picture.
I was going to ask what the above article had to do with video, since this is likely going to be a precursor to Adobes Canvas editor, rather than any kind of Video focused tool. For that they have Premiere.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
While I agree that HTML5 is better than Flash, it is pretty surprising that they are going down without a fight, and doing so early in the process. I would think they would drum it up as long as possible so they could sell off their stocks. After all plenty of businesses use Flex, and they aren't going to re-factor anytime soon. Likewise, old browsers with bad HTML5 support are not going away soon?
Do they perhaps think that Flash/Flex can out compete HTML5 if they open source it? Do they think Flex development will be a good gateway to AIR development? I guess I just don't get the strategy.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
I am waiting with baited breath for them to off-load ColdFusion to the open source world.
Now with HTML5 becoming the the preferred nuisance apparatus, can we create something to block them browser side?
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Its worse that that: the submitter didn't even say what is being attributed to the whole community. TFS ends with the question -- an invitation to comment in the attached comment thread -- "Is this a generous contribution to the open source community, or just Adobe offloading another failing technology?"
Some people have interpreted this as if it were a statement that "Adobe [is just] offloading another failing technology", but that's not what it says. It poses a question.
And the answer to the question of "is it A or B?" is that it is A and also B. Look, Adobe clearly sees Flex as, from its business perspective, a failing technology. The developers that are upset about it being abandoned in favor of HTML5 clearly see it as valuable. One of the benefits of open source is that it allows technologies to continue to be used and developed by others even when they no longer serve as a profit center for the original developer.
So, yeah, Adobe is offloading what it sees as a failing technology. On the other hand, it could just as easily kill it dead rather than handing it off to an open source foundation. By doing the latter, it is generously providing a way for someone else to maintain what has been an Adobe proprietary technology so that developers can keep using it.
No, companies don't care what the "FOSS Community" says. They're donating it. That means that they say that this incredible thingy is worth $100 billion, and write it off as a charitable donation. It's a smart way to end a software product. Sure, maybe they're glad they get a bit of "geek cred", but that isn't worth nearly the amount that they can write off of their books because of their "donation". Also, they get to dump all of the ongoing support costs for the software much quicker than if they were to let it wind down slowly on it's own. It's purely a financial decision, and probably a smart one at that.
I don't respond to AC's.
Does your skin dry out on sunny days to where it feels like rock?
You have been trolled.
Is there such thing as a double whoosh?
Yeah, right. And web devs can stop supporting IE too, right?
Once the market is locked-in, driving away from the standard is almost impossible, because you have to receive or send files to other people who haven't.
Dilbert RSS feed
That problem exists regardless of how your codec's source is published or its patents are licensed. Lock in is created by what the broser vendors agree to support, not by how something is licensed.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Flex was getting recognized as a way to deliver enterprise level solutions across businesses that were unable/unwilling to change, particularly financial institutions (where IE 7 can be the defacto standard). Technologies like this need a corporate sponsor to get buy in and when the Adobe makes this type of statement: "In the long-term, we believe HTML5 will be the best technology for enterprise application development." you really really really have to get very concerned. The whole reason people used Flex is because offered a platform agnostic solution that was not dependent upon the current version of your browser and provided a good feature set.
Flex will carry on, but without the corporate sponsor, it's not going to continue as a 'enterprise solution'.
They'll be dropping AIR next.
That's the point: we shouldn't choose technologies which are controlled by single entities, so that we won't be at their mercy when it's too entrenched to simply walk away from it.
Dilbert RSS feed
...and with the flash player available on just about every desktop browser out there, do you ever feel just a little bit like the group in that famous movie, the group that sit around and hurl abuse at the judeanï peoples front...? Well sorry for this, but Html5 is not the messiah, it's a very naughty hack.
people asking for websites are already getting sick of devs using html5 and then having to make a flash fallback. why should they waste the time - why not just use flash?
for them, no amount of hype is going to get HTML5 off the ground if they need video or animation. for text and pictures yes, and maybe even gmail. anything more is a costly jib.
"Flex" is a disk operating system for 6800 microprocessors. Flex09 is Flex for the 6809 microprocessor, but was also generally just referred to as "Flex." Both were produced by Technical Systems Consultants (logo: TSC.) Flex initially ran on the SWTPC, GIMIX, SSB and similar SS-50 bus boxes; later versions ran on Radio Shack's "Color Computer", which was based on the 6809 processor. Aside from this, Flex (both versions) was also made available by TSC in a "driverless" version that let you write your own I/O routines, essentially making it wholly fit for just about any configuration imaginable.
Flex, along with CP/m, constituted one of the two original disk operating systems we had to choose from in those early days. We're not talking about a minor issue or a bit player; there were magazines dedicated to the subject, many clubs and companies involved... this is our history.
Adobe really screwed up here. There was absolutely no need to go trampling on the memories and touchstones of our craft.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Now that everybody seems to be targeting HTML5 and javascript in the back-end, perhaps finally W3C will make HTML and js more developer friendly.
Right now, the HTML and js combo seems to be targeted at novice users, who don't use it anyway, in any direct form.
With a more developer-friendly environment, we could start making our own scripting languages and run them on the web. Heck, we could even write our own rendering systems and send them along with our code. Doing something like that with the current W3C specs seems just plain silly.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
it's Johnny-come-lately
As was Google Search in a market dominated by AltaVista and Yahoo!. As was the iPhone in a market dominated by Windows Mobile 6 phones. As were Android phones in a market dominated by the iPhone. As was MySpace in a market dominated by Friendster. As was Facebook in a market dominated by MySpace.
[WebM] exists only because Google is trying to play 11-dimensional chess with MPEG-LA pool members.
Then let the chess match begin. Sometimes a little tic-tac-toe is needed to prevent global thermonuclear patent war.
If you want to send people a video in WebM you have to get them to install software.
Windows XP is still very common and still doesn't include an AVC decoder. Nor does Windows Vista Home Basic, Windows Vista Business, or Windows 7 Starter. If you want to send people a video in AVC you have to get them to install Adobe Flash Player, install QuickTime, install VLC media player (illegal in several countries), or buy a copy of Windows 7.
And web devs can stop supporting IE too, right?
What's the difference between requiring IE users to use Adobe Flash Player and requiring IE users to use either Google Chrome Frame or the codec pack for IE 9?
If you ship free software as defined by the FSF or by the Debian project, or you ship open source software as defined by Open Source Initiative, then do you "ship" only the copies you make, or do you also "ship" the copies people make from those copies?
-Open Source Community Donates Flex SDK to Goodwill
-Goodwill Donates Flex SDK to Salvation Army
-Salvation Army Donates Flex SDK to Jerry's Kids
-Jerry's Kids Donates Flex SDK to Haiti
-Haiti Donates Flex SDK to Somalia
-Somalian Pirates Use Flex SDK to Attack Passing Ships
I8-D
Enough said...
Apart from the charting API, it's already open source, and has been for a long time: http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/flexsdk/Flex+SDK. I think they are simply transferring ownership from Adobe to a different organization.
So I am a Flex developer, and I posted this comment on the Adobe Blog. Seems like they approved more negative comments than mine, but I begin to wonder what I wrote that they did not like??
Here is the comment:
"I don’t think Adobe is putting out confusing information. They’ve very clearly said, “You are less than 10% of our revenue, so screw you”. They are also in effect saying “Stop using Flex for new projects”. They want us to go for HTML 5, and I would presume are hoping we’d use their tools with HTML 5. Good luck with that Adobe.
I also think that the good people like Andrew and Deepa have no blame. They simply walked into the office one morning and the suit who signs their paycheck asked them to get up and dance. This explains how suddenly their opinion changed from August blog post to this one. It also explains the “donation of the sdk” to an opensource project no one heard about.
The guys behind openspoon are smart, respectable individuals, but keep in mind, with open source, no one is paying anyone for bug fixes, maintenance, enhancements and improvement. So these things rot and die. Look at FlexLib. (No new components, last release in Mar 2010). I also question how much dedication these volunteers are going to have towards a technology that has been declared obsolete by its creators. Open source works out well for REALLY large projects with hundreds of developers and corporate backing (think Hibernate, Spring). or really small ones with a few dedicated developers (think Mate, Swiz).
Bottom line is this : Adobe is a Design shop. They make their money from Photoshop and Acrobat, and Enterprise RIA being 10% of their revenue simply is not making money for them, so they're pulling out. If they had a functional management, they'd figure out a way to be profitable in Enterprise RIA, because guess what adobe, Enterprises have money to spend. You just have to give them what they need, and more importantly, don't screw them when they are adopting your technology for large scale initiatives."
Could Adobe have mismanaged these announcements better. I guess these PR screw-ups don’t makes any sense unless there is a conscious desire from Adobe management to kill Flex & Flash, even if that was indeed the case silence would have served better than bastardization of the entire Flex Eco-system as well. As a developer with diversified skill set i am not worried about Flash getting deprecated, i just can’t see HTML5 replacing high performance enterprise rich internet applications delivered via web browsers lets remember we need to support our end client browser which still includes IE 6/7. I think ActionScript is still a much better tool to program on than Javascript (the mess it is) , the community has to come up with improvisations on tools like haXe & cross compilers, as we can’t trust Adobe for sure now.
You can effectively block HTML5 by using a sufficiently outdated browser.
Wow, really, so I'm antisemitic for pointing out that H.264 isn't free and that effectively excludes a lot of projects from being able to use it.
I guess the crew in India making Flex can't/won't figure out the iOS problem, not their fault. Adobe's optimizing themselves into oblivion is yet another business that listened to Wall Street, not Main Street. Adobe's radical change with Flex plainly states what the future is for folks and it's iOS/Android. If one looks at Flex coding, one will notice that *.ps, and *.ai files cannot be embedded, maybe this was an omen that no one saw? With Firebug, Eclipse, GIMP, and InkScape fully capable; I need Adobe for what?
if Flash was built-in like H.264 support is, both into the browser/OS
H.264 is not built-in on Windows XP, Windows Vista Home Basic, Windows Vista Business, Windows 7 Starter, or any GNU/Linux distribution I can think of.
Try including iOS
Let me know when canvas animation on Safari for iOS is anywhere near competitive even with Flash vector animation of half a decade ago to the point where one can watch Strong Bad emails.
or the upcoming Metro style IE, which is touted as "plugin free"
Video and audio codecs like WebM install themselves to a separate part of the operating system from ActiveX plug-ins.
Good luck making something like Gmail without JavaScript because without JavaScript, the server will need to reload the entire page every time the user clicks a control.
Block Javascript
And turn every click into a page load. Good luck trying to use an online drawing program where each click on the image means a full reload of the image and of the page it's on.
or install an ad-blocker
If you install an extension specifically to block web sites' revenue source, watch web sites depending on advertisements block you. Web sites have tolerated Flashblock for two reasons: it's "content neutral", not caring whether each SWF object is the requested information or an advertisement on the side, and web sites already have to fall back to JPEG ads for devices not supporting SWF.
So if a user purposely blocks ads, there's nothing that can be done.
The server can notice that an advertisement was not downloaded and forbid the user from downloading any further pages.
Would you prefer to create crappy wrong box model driven IE 6 code instead with flash to hide its inadequacies instead?
I'd prefer to require users of old Internet Explorer to install Google Chrome Frame.
Having Microsoft and Adobe switch to open standards is a GODSEND for any serious webmaster.
Except Microsoft ties support of open standards to paid Windows upgrades: IE 9 doesn't run on Windows XP, IE 10 won't run on Windows Vista, etc.
Still the best document creation package I've found.
Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
H.264, like Weebl is already doing*?
The difference between vector animation and H.264 video is like the difference between sending a text file and sending a JPEG of the text. In my tests, conversion of vector animation to video bloats the file size by roughly a factor of ten, which hurts especially if your device's data plan is capped.
Native apps have decent frameworks that can be used and that fully take advantage of the machine
Native apps also require approval from the device manufacturer and a $99 per year fee.