As I expected, this whole discussion has turned into a bashing session. Each responder is touting their favorite and bashing the others, and nobody is addressing the original poster's question. Like it or not, Fanboyism is alive and well. While I find myself on the open-source Linux side of things (my primary desktop machine is Fedora 8), I would have preferred if the open-source folk here address things objectively, as it would have still shown open-source as the winner without having to resort to mudslinging.
The question is: Why is Adobe Flash on Linux such a horrible product?
The bottom line is this: Adobe is a commercial company. They make their living on proprietary offerings. Running an open-source project requires resources and a dedication to the project for the project's sake. Unfortunately, there is no profit in it, other than brand recognition. And since Linux is such a small market share, and since Linux is generally used by mostly computer-savvy folks who have already heard of Adobe and Flash, Adobe does not put too much value on generating new brand recognition in that sector.
So you see, Flash on Linux sucks simply because Adobe doesn't care. And it doesn't care because there's no money in it. And as long as there is no money in it (directly or indirectly), things are not going to change.
This is nothing more than rampant paranoia fostered by fear mongering from the government. Its about time that the American sheeple started thinking for themselves and get their head out of Bush's ass.
"I'll show you the movie, but if your review is bad, we won't let you tell anybody."
Why would any film critic agree with this? This is basically the studios telling critics "you will be our propaganda machine". If I was a critic, I would make it clear that if the studio is not prepared to get its movie ripped to shreds, don't screen it to me.
Next time, make a move that doesn't suck.
The issue here is that all his hobbies tend to turn out to be new Wii products. So it is conceivable that anything he mentions about his free time could turn into the next smash hit, and they don't want competitors getting wind of it. I think they should have made him a partner in this rather than an adversary. They should have asked him to generate "disinformation", and let him talk about "fake" hobbies so they would send their competitors on a wild goose chase. Such as: "I like watching fireplaces." Then let Sony make a "start a fire in the fireplace" game, while Nintendo works on the next smash hit.
I agree that we may not need yet another distro, but Freespire/Linspire did have a couple of nice feaures, such as Click 'n Run. Take that feature and strip the prices off the downloadable apps, and you have an easier alternative for yum. That could be helpful for mass audience users that are simply looking to switch from Windows.
There's value in everything. You just have to look for it. And anything that gives users more choices has merit.
Slashdot Mirror
As I expected, this whole discussion has turned into a bashing session. Each responder is touting their favorite and bashing the others, and nobody is addressing the original poster's question. Like it or not, Fanboyism is alive and well. While I find myself on the open-source Linux side of things (my primary desktop machine is Fedora 8), I would have preferred if the open-source folk here address things objectively, as it would have still shown open-source as the winner without having to resort to mudslinging. The question is: Why is Adobe Flash on Linux such a horrible product? The bottom line is this: Adobe is a commercial company. They make their living on proprietary offerings. Running an open-source project requires resources and a dedication to the project for the project's sake. Unfortunately, there is no profit in it, other than brand recognition. And since Linux is such a small market share, and since Linux is generally used by mostly computer-savvy folks who have already heard of Adobe and Flash, Adobe does not put too much value on generating new brand recognition in that sector. So you see, Flash on Linux sucks simply because Adobe doesn't care. And it doesn't care because there's no money in it. And as long as there is no money in it (directly or indirectly), things are not going to change.
This is nothing more than rampant paranoia fostered by fear mongering from the government. Its about time that the American sheeple started thinking for themselves and get their head out of Bush's ass.
"I'll show you the movie, but if your review is bad, we won't let you tell anybody." Why would any film critic agree with this? This is basically the studios telling critics "you will be our propaganda machine". If I was a critic, I would make it clear that if the studio is not prepared to get its movie ripped to shreds, don't screen it to me. Next time, make a move that doesn't suck.
The issue here is that all his hobbies tend to turn out to be new Wii products. So it is conceivable that anything he mentions about his free time could turn into the next smash hit, and they don't want competitors getting wind of it. I think they should have made him a partner in this rather than an adversary. They should have asked him to generate "disinformation", and let him talk about "fake" hobbies so they would send their competitors on a wild goose chase. Such as: "I like watching fireplaces." Then let Sony make a "start a fire in the fireplace" game, while Nintendo works on the next smash hit.
I agree that we may not need yet another distro, but Freespire/Linspire did have a couple of nice feaures, such as Click 'n Run. Take that feature and strip the prices off the downloadable apps, and you have an easier alternative for yum. That could be helpful for mass audience users that are simply looking to switch from Windows. There's value in everything. You just have to look for it. And anything that gives users more choices has merit.
Yeah, baby!!!