> Why would Microsoft want Macromedia? Lets run through Macromedia's product line for a second:
> * ColdFusion, Flex, Breeze, etc. - Server side scripting and application servers. Microsoft has IIS and their.NET platform, why would they need these?
There are a fair number of CF developers out there. Migrate them all to ASP.
> * Flash and related client-side technologies - Microsoft is bringing out Avalon, a graphical engine for developing Internet applications without needing a web browser, so they don't need this.
You're joking, right? There are more users of the Flash 6 plugin than there are IE. Furthermore, Avalon has the fatal flaw of only working on WinXP and Longhorn, which will keep developers using Flash in order to reach the small, but significant Mac community.
> * Dreamweaver and other editors - Microsoft focuses its development platform solely behind Visual Studio.NET, why on earth would it need yet more?
Because Frontpage is an abomination. Microsoft courted Macromedia earlier and Dreamweaver was the sole reason.
> So, to put it simply, Microsoft had no reason to buy Macromedia.
Uh, you couldn't be more wrong. Buying Macromedia would finally give Microsoft access to the design community, something they've been totally incapable of acheiving on their own.
I predict Microsoft will come in and make a hostile bid for Macromedia. It's too cheap a deal for them not to.
That's such bullsh*t and the fact that you're an AC and made no mention of your "largest" company leads me to believe you're just trolling.
We're a small company and Macromedia does an incredible job responding to us. In fact, I've never worked with a company that is more responsive to their customers. With every product, they have large customer advisory boards who are involved for the entire length of the product cycle. I've personally watched them add feedback from this board into feature lists and have seen them generate fixes off of bug reports.
In typical Slashdot reader's hysteria and zealotry, you're completely missing the boat. Flash is the one chance all you Linux users have to see a non-Microsoft dominated world in the browser UI. Has anyone noticed that Macromedia regularly ports Flash to Linux and that it's BIT FOR BIT COMPATIBLE between Mac, PC and Linux? Tired of "Optimized for IE" pages? Here's your chance.
More importantly, have any of you bothered to check out Flash MX's feature list? Macromedia is trying to use Flash to create an rich application platform and from where I sit, they've hit it right on the market. All the nifty potential of dHTML that Netscape and Microsoft screwed up on have been implemented exceptionally well in Flash. Standardized UI components, full Unicode support, accessibility hooks for non-sighted users, fast XML parsing, direct loading of JPEG and MP3, not to mention direct socket connections so you can write stateful apps. Oh, and did I mention you have BIT FOR BIT COMPATIBILITY between all platforms? (Yes, the MX plugin hasn't been released on Linux yet, but give them a few months. It'll be out soon.) All this and it's bloody fast because you just download tiny vector-based files.
I've been running Linux for years and I'm continually stunned at how short-sided and antagonistic this group is. Macromedia has actually published the SWF spec, and you're still complaining. Can you ever imagine Microsoft publishing the specs to Office? Here you have a chance to see web applications created for you that work as well as they do on Mac and PCs and you're complaining about Macromedia like they're a Microsoft. Open your eyes, read something from other than Slashdot and see that there is life beyond the command-line.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes! I just tried loading up a link from Slashdot to How Stuff Works on my Linux box and the images weren't coming in. Slashdotted!
Curious about this very question, I tried the same link on a PC box with the accelerator and it came up instantly.
-MB
> Why would Microsoft want Macromedia? Lets run through Macromedia's product line for a second:
.NET platform, why would they need these?
.NET, why on earth would it need yet more?
> * ColdFusion, Flex, Breeze, etc. - Server side scripting and application servers. Microsoft has IIS and their
There are a fair number of CF developers out there. Migrate them all to ASP.
> * Flash and related client-side technologies - Microsoft is bringing out Avalon, a graphical engine for developing Internet applications without needing a web browser, so they don't need this.
You're joking, right? There are more users of the Flash 6 plugin than there are IE. Furthermore, Avalon has the fatal flaw of only working on WinXP and Longhorn, which will keep developers using Flash in order to reach the small, but significant Mac community.
> * Dreamweaver and other editors - Microsoft focuses its development platform solely behind Visual Studio
Because Frontpage is an abomination. Microsoft courted Macromedia earlier and Dreamweaver was the sole reason.
> So, to put it simply, Microsoft had no reason to buy Macromedia.
Uh, you couldn't be more wrong. Buying Macromedia would finally give Microsoft access to the design community, something they've been totally incapable of acheiving on their own.
I predict Microsoft will come in and make a hostile bid for Macromedia. It's too cheap a deal for them not to.
That's such bullsh*t and the fact that you're an AC and made no mention of your "largest" company leads me to believe you're just trolling.
We're a small company and Macromedia does an incredible job responding to us. In fact, I've never worked with a company that is more responsive to their customers. With every product, they have large customer advisory boards who are involved for the entire length of the product cycle. I've personally watched them add feedback from this board into feature lists and have seen them generate fixes off of bug reports.
In typical Slashdot reader's hysteria and zealotry, you're completely missing the boat. Flash is the one chance all you Linux users have to see a non-Microsoft dominated world in the browser UI. Has anyone noticed that Macromedia regularly ports Flash to Linux and that it's BIT FOR BIT COMPATIBLE between Mac, PC and Linux? Tired of "Optimized for IE" pages? Here's your chance.
More importantly, have any of you bothered to check out Flash MX's feature list? Macromedia is trying to use Flash to create an rich application platform and from where I sit, they've hit it right on the market. All the nifty potential of dHTML that Netscape and Microsoft screwed up on have been implemented exceptionally well in Flash. Standardized UI components, full Unicode support, accessibility hooks for non-sighted users, fast XML parsing, direct loading of JPEG and MP3, not to mention direct socket connections so you can write stateful apps. Oh, and did I mention you have BIT FOR BIT COMPATIBILITY between all platforms? (Yes, the MX plugin hasn't been released on Linux yet, but give them a few months. It'll be out soon.) All this and it's bloody fast because you just download tiny vector-based files.
I've been running Linux for years and I'm continually stunned at how short-sided and antagonistic this group is. Macromedia has actually published the SWF spec, and you're still complaining. Can you ever imagine Microsoft publishing the specs to Office? Here you have a chance to see web applications created for you that work as well as they do on Mac and PCs and you're complaining about Macromedia like they're a Microsoft. Open your eyes, read something from other than Slashdot and see that there is life beyond the command-line.