Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Programming Software Linux IT Technology

Macromedia to Port Flash MX to Linux? 702

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the possible-plans-of-action dept.
LnxAddct writes "An article on CNet reports that Macromedia will start taking Linux more seriously. It will start this new initiative by making it's suite of tools run easily under WINE, then depending on the response it gets, it will port it's tools natively to Linux! Their Chief Software Architect, Kevin Lynch, stated, 'What we've been investigating is, When will it be time to bring our tools to Linux? I think it might be happening now.' Maybe 2004 will be the year of Linux."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Macromedia to Port Flash MX to Linux?

Comments Filter:
  • Sweet. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hookedup (630460) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @10:55PM (#8471716)
    This is half the reason I dont use linux on the desktop. Now, get me a stable version of Photoshop CS, and I'm in.
    • Re:Sweet. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I can't even think about linux on the desktop untill adobe ports photoshop. this is the show stopper at are company.

      if adobe is reading this...come on...get on the ball you don't need microsoft, your software on windows is half assed anyways (Pagemaker). also photoshop et al. have been ported to MacOS X so it can't be that hard to port and support a *nix env., if i remember correctly you had a unix port at one time. so come on allready.
      • by abandonment (739466) <mike...wuetherick@@@gmail...com> on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:51PM (#8472165) Homepage
        instead of increasing the number of platforms that their products work on, adobe has been reducing it... premiere no longer works on mac (once considered THE platform for premiere) because of heavy reliance on the windows media format in the latest premiere version (can use wmv as a 'native' format for editing)... i doubt that adobe will clue into linux, we'll have to rely on hoping that the gimp folks will figure out how to make an interface that is comprehensible and we can get rid of photoshop once and for all
      • Re:Sweet. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by AstroDrabb (534369) * on Friday March 05, 2004 @01:09AM (#8472628)
        Disney paid to have it work very well under wine [eweek.com]. I used it under CrossOver Office [codeweavers.com] with no problems. It seems like it is working well for Walt Disney Co.'s feature animation unit. Though to be honest, I am a programmer and not a graphic artist and Gimp meets all my humble needs : )
    • Re:Sweet. (Score:4, Funny)

      by SageMusings (463344) on Friday March 05, 2004 @12:54AM (#8472525) Journal
      I'm certain Macromedia's offshore programmers will be pleased to have a new project. Meanwhile, nothing significantly changes at home.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, 2004 @10:55PM (#8471720)
    Thank god, because the only thing the world needs more is more adoption of Flash.
    • Re:Thank god ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Associate (317603) on Friday March 05, 2004 @01:05AM (#8472600) Homepage
      Right on!
      Friends don't let friends use flash.
  • Screw that! (Score:5, Funny)

    by i_am_syco (694486) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @10:55PM (#8471722)
    I'm still waiting for Microsoft to port Office to Linux! Then I'll switch over.
    • by AndroidonPPC (737311) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:01PM (#8471784) Journal
      And open office isn't good enough? besides, what's wrong with just using vi for word processing? Simple, reliable. if you are liike me and can spel prefect, vi will due everything you could evar want.
    • Re:Screw that! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Saven Marek (739395) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:50PM (#8472150)
      You may have been marked funny, and perhaps even writing in jest or indeed poking fun at us! But I think when it comes down to it that's one of the big obstacles to converting people to Linux and I am one of the people who's all for converting more people to Linux. market share = application writer attention = better for all of us.

      I think a port of MS Office to Linux is likely one of the later ports that will happen, but applications like Flash and other general productivity ones will keep up the interest of all other software houses. There are dozens of big name applications I'd like to see released for Linux. They don't necessarily have to be open source themselves either. Imagine if Linux had a 50% market share just because Macromedia, Adobe, Microsoft and others released big name apps? that would be twenty times the user base we have now, twenty times the coders and twenty times the gamers and twenty times the bug reports.

      How much better could Linux get if it were that popular? Unstoppably so

      The uncrackable mac [67.160.223.119]
      • Re:Screw that! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jpop32 (596022) on Friday March 05, 2004 @07:39AM (#8473865)
        How much better could Linux get if it were that popular?

        Seems like you don't realise that the only real edge Linux has over Windows is the fact that it's not popular, Joe Average OS.

        When Linux get as popular as Windows, you'll also get all the bugs, all the bloatware, all the spyware, all the idiots, all the exploits and all the garbage you get with Windows. Getting Flash ported is an obvious step in that direction...

        Be careful what you wish for, you probably won't like it when you get it.
  • by pcmanjon (735165) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @10:57PM (#8471731)
    All them emails I sent them finally paid off!!
  • Flash plug-in? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fancia (710007) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @10:57PM (#8471738)
    Hopefully, this means that they'll take non-x86 platforms semi-seriously. ;b I'd like a PPC Flash plug-in, that's for certain.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, 2004 @10:57PM (#8471741)
    They might as well just come out and say they will not support Linux. My experiences with WINE have been, shall I say, bitter. I've managed to get a few games running with it, but never without significant hassle or loss of resources (sound, fullscreen, etc.).

    The roadmap to desktop acceptance for Linux cannot go through WINE.
    • by damiam (409504) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:18PM (#8471928)
      That's their point. They are going to work to get Flash working well in WINE, hopefully on the same level that Office works with Crossover (which is really WINE). WINE can work damn well, it just usually doesn't, unless it's been tuned for a specific app, or the app's been tuned to it.
    • by kfg (145172) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:34PM (#8472044)
      On the whole I agree with you, however; I feel the need to add a couple of caveats:

      WINE does not, as a general rule, work well with games, since it does not impliment DirectX, so your experience with games cannot be directly translated to non DirectX applications.

      In the case of said games it was you trying to get them to run. In this case it is the orginal code author trying to get it to run. That difference may prove significant.

      That said, a proper native port would be preferable.

      KFG
    • by jhoger (519683) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:59PM (#8472222) Homepage
      Wine is probably the most ambitious OSS project around... cloning the Win32 API is no small feat. I know where your bitterness comes from, but that was then. WINE really is about there... Crossover Office is just a few steps ahead of Wine at any given time, and it runs Office flawlessly, and other apps too.

      I use the Crossover version of WINE every day and I don't have any complaints. It does what I need it to do. And considering it just as a porting library to speed up porting efforts to Linux is an entirely reasonable thing to do.

      Long term WINE is going to be an important part of moving people off of Windows.
  • Not a lot of work (Score:3, Informative)

    by r00zky (622648) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @10:58PM (#8471747)
    IIRC previous version of Flash (5?) was running almost properly under WINE.

    Dunno if much changed in MX, but i guess it's not a lot of work for Macromedia.
  • by oldosadmin (759103) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @10:58PM (#8471749) Homepage
    There are some software titles that just -need- to be ported to linux, do to lack of OSS alternatives. The Macromedia MX line of tools is -definately- one of those.

    AFAIK, there is no alternative to Flash MX on Linux -- yes, Openoffice.org Impress will save to Flash, but to some designers, that's simply not powerful enough.

    And Dreamweaver MX is the -only- wysiwyg editor that I will allow to touch my code. It works cleanly and with compatibility, something no other wysiwyg editor, even oss ones, can claim. (disclaimer: I code in gedit ;D).

    On a side note -- didn't I read something a few months back about Adobe doing something similar with Photoshop?
    • Disney (Score:3, Informative)

      by CoolMoDee (683437)
      I'm not sure if it was so much Adobe as it was Disney and 2 other unnamed companys paying codeweavers lots of money to get Photoshop 7 (was current at the time) running in Crossover Office/Wine.
    • by AMystery (725537) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:11PM (#8471872) Homepage Journal
      I feel the same way. The lack of Dreamweaver was one thing that kept me on windows for longer than I wanted. Ever since I finally made the move I have been searching freshmeat, hoping that somewhere there was that miracle program that would do what I needed, but no such luck. Dreamweaver is by far the best WYSIWYG HTML editor, and for those who claim notepad (emacs), I can only assume you have never used dreamweaver. Its great how you can work with the code while also having the full power of a visual editor that just works. (Its like using a Mac:)

      I would prefer to have a native port, as my experiences with WINE have been less than stellar, but I will take whatever I can get.

      On a related note, I used Frontpage to make a site lately, mainly because I needed something simple, cheap and fast and it just happened to be on the system with MS Office. What happened to it? It used to be just a horrid WYSIWYG editor, but it has gone down hill! 2003 couldn't even upload the site and when I did finally get it up, it was broken, because it couldn't transfer its own _derived directory which for some strange reason contained most of the images. Admittedly I had low expectations, but it managed to underwhelm even those.

      Long live dreamweaver! Gimp is great for graphics, and while I miss Photoshop since it is what I learned, i am happy with the replacement. Give me dreamweaver and I will be happy.

      David, Frustrated Web Artist Extraordinaire.
    • by l810c (551591) * on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:11PM (#8471873)
      Dreamweaver MX is one of a very few intuitive, powerful, fun to use apps that exist.

      Many of it's features were integrated from Homesite, which I was using to program Cold Fusion web pages back in 1996. They took the 'coder's editor'(Homesite) and integrated it with he 'designers editor'(Dreamweaver) and created one Really Powerfull web desing app.

      My only problem with it is that the latest version 2004MX is kinda slow on my computer. My computer is an Athlon 1900+/512MG. Most programs are pretty snappy on my system. I'm holding off upgrading until I get the final HL2/Doom3 specs :)

    • On a side note -- didn't I read something a few months back about Adobe doing something similar with Photoshop?

      I think that was last summer, and not Adobe, but three major movie studios cooperating to work together to make some Adobe products work under WINE.
    • by capz loc (752940) <capzloc.gmail@com> on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:48PM (#8472133)
      A few months back I had the opportunity to talk with a representative from Adobe who said that they have no plans to release any of their products for Linux until there is a larger customer base.

      Unfortunately, this has become the chicken-and-egg scenario, where vendors won't make software for Linux until there are more people using it, while there will never be people migrating to Linux until there is more software that will run on it.

      As much as I hate it, I feel that WINE is a good intermediate step in this situation, because it gives Macromedia a low-commitment opportunity to feel out the Linux market without fully porting the software.
    • by Ogerman (136333) on Friday March 05, 2004 @12:13AM (#8472293)
      There are some software titles that just -need- to be ported to linux, do to lack of OSS alternatives.

      Wrong. We don't "just need" any proprietary software to be ported to Linux. We do need to get behind the projects that are developing OSS alternatives and support them both community-style and financially. We also need to gather support of the business community, focusing on software that will save them money. ex.) "You spend $10,000/year on Macromedia tools? Support our project and you can drop that expense within 2 years."

      I personally would gladly donate $100 to a professionally run project implementing SVG solutions so we can ditch Flash once and for all. I would donate more if it would give me a vote in future feature development. If we can buy Blender in a few month's time, we can surely pool enough resources to do this.
  • by rsmith-mac (639075) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @10:59PM (#8471757)
    While I applaud any efforts to get more software running natively on Linux, I have to ask: why Flash? I mean as far as most of us are concerned, it's the scourge of the internet, responsible for a slew of poorly designed sites, bad flash movies, and anoying advertisements. If Macromedia wants to go after the Linux crowd, wouldn't a more appreciable tool like Dreamweaver be a better choice?
    • by jimbosworldorg (615112) <slashdot.jimbosworld@org> on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:03PM (#8471804) Homepage
      Because, whether you think it's generally a horrid abomination or not, more and more sites use Flash for essential navigation tools, and up until now, it's worked... inconsistently... at best under any platform but Win32.

      Native Flash rendering under *nix could be a very very big step forward towards getting mainstream acceptance for *nix as a mainstream desktop platform.

      • Native Flash rendering under *nix could be a very very big step forward towards getting mainstream acceptance for *nix as a mainstream desktop platform.

        Huh ?

        The typical desktop user wouldn't go to Linux because of not having flash running on it ?

        I agree it would be a good step for professional Web developers, using extensively the capabilities of Flash (there is OO for basic works), but for the desktop ?

        IMHO, no. What we need for the desktop is GUI interoperability and more device drivers.

        Regards

    • by Saven Marek (739395) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:04PM (#8471812)
      Maybe referring to "The Linux Crowd" isn't the right way to go about it.

      Perhaps the current "Linux Crowd" may not want flash, but there may be other reasons they want to go to linux, like the same reasons many other companies are. It's an open, extensible and stable platform with no licensing issues like Windows.

      If flash, word, excel, dreamweaver and photoshop came to Linux, the "Linux Crowd" would be a whole lot larger, market share would of course be improved, and developers worldwide would have a much nicer platform to code on than the existing majority player.

      Mac OSX tips, desktops and scripts [67.160.223.119]
    • by Xzzy (111297)
      > responsible for a slew of poorly designed sites,

      That's precisely why you do it. This software is popular. You want as much popular software on linux as you can get, so when jimbob gets pissed off at windows someday and someone suggests he try linux, the inevitable argument of "well can it do this and this like windows" holds no merit.

      You gotta take the good with the bad.
    • by Suhas (232056)
      I would disagree. There are a lot of Business applications out there which do some pretty advanced data modelling off of Spreadsheet/OLAP Data stores using Flash as the underlying technology. I have seen quite a few being used by some Financial Analysts. Check this out [infommersion.com]. The only way thing the average joe cares about is whether or not his stuff will work on Linux. And people who are users/consumers of such Flash-based applications/products/end-results are, more often than not, decision makers.
    • by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:24PM (#8471972)
      Why HTML? I mean as far as most of us are concerned, it's the scourge of the internet, responsible for a slew of poorly designed sites, bad GIF movies, and annoying advertisements. If Macromedia wants to go after the Linux crowd, wouldn't a more appreciable tool like Gopher be a better choice?

      ---

      Look, you can use any tool improperly. That doesn't mean the fault is with the TOOL. As with frames in HTML, so with Flash. A bad designer is going to do things badly, no matter the tool or technology.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        I think you miss the point. The problem with Flash is that it attempts to replace the open, page-browsing format with its own proprietary, plugin-dependent model. The internet becomes just another form of television - passive and purely image-driven.

        I would rather Linux had nothing to do with Flash. Why they didn't go for Dreamweaver I can't imagine.
    • by ObligatoryUserName (126027) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:58PM (#8472210) Journal
      Much to the dismay of many of my designer friends, the last few development cycles for Flash have been focused on Flash as an application platform. Just take a look at their recent initiatives, Flex, Central - they're targeting the developer community.

      Sad to say, lately their efforts haven't been going so well. Most of the people who are Flash programmers right now don't need new interfaces for creating Flash content because they're already acclimated to the old interface, and many programmers who aren't already in the Flash community aren't getting turned on by these changes to the tools because they already have strong opinions that they aren't open to changing. ("Flash is good for Strongbad, but why should I care?")

      So, how do they attract more developers? By going where the developers want to go, to Linux. It might seem obvious here on Slashdot, but this is real leadership in the market in which they operate - let's hope it starts a cascade that turns into a flood.
  • by sydres (656690) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:00PM (#8471760)
    down with linux... uh I mean windows...um no.. uh...hmm!...down with cp/m cause everyone knows flash mx for cp/m sucked
  • Response to SVG? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Stile 65 (722451) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:00PM (#8471764) Homepage Journal
    Are they doing this as a response to SVG? Especially since Microsoft is "embracing and extending" SVG into WVG? It'd definitely be easier, without a Flash MX that runs on Linux, for Linux users to develop SVG than Flash. Many of the people that create interactive content that's as advanced as Flash are geeky enough to love or at least know how to get around in Linux.
  • by bc90021 (43730) * <bc90021@bc9[ ]1.net ['002' in gap]> on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:00PM (#8471768) Homepage
    Not that I am in any way disparaging The GIMP [gimp.org], which is awesome, but the PHBs and CXOs only know Illustrator [adobe.com] and PhotoShop [adobe.com]...
  • Selective porting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SuperBanana (662181) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:00PM (#8471773)
    t will start this new initiative by making it's suite of tools run easily under WINE, then depending on the response it gets, it will port it's tools natively to Linux!

    Can we keep the tools, but not get the plugin? Please? PLEASE?

    Isn't it sad when you prefer the platform where a quarter of the "web" content DOESN'T work, and that's perfectly OK? No full motion ads, no ads that start talking to you when you mouse-over them...

  • by Baddsectorr (709324) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:01PM (#8471777) Homepage
    about time they figured out that people actually use Linux. they have Unix ports of their stuff like Coldfusion so why not make everything cross-platform. this is something Adobe should start doing.
  • by illuminata (668963) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:01PM (#8471780) Journal
    Oh Macromedia, please please please/b> bring DREAMWEAVER. I"m having a hell of a time with posting comments to Slashdot. It would make my life easier if I wouldn't have to do my own HMTL.
  • by stonebeat.org (562495) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:01PM (#8471786) Homepage
    One thing I like about Macromedia apps is that they fully support WebDAV [webdav.org]. And I dont know of any good Linux based Web Development app that supports WebDAV natively. So this move by Macromedia will be very welcomed. WebDAV is IETF stardard for WebBased Document Authoring and Versioning, and is very useful in WebDevelopment. Support for WebDAV in Windows based WebDevelopement apps is what forces me to use windows. If Macromedia ports its apps, I will be able to switch to Linux completely.
  • A leg up on Adobe (Score:5, Insightful)

    by overbyj (696078) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:02PM (#8471796)
    This move by Macromedia could be a big one because it would give a serious leg up on Adobe. For whatever reason, Adobe has steadfastly refused to acknowledge the Linux market. Where is Photoshop? Gimp is no Photoshop. It is good but no Photoshop. Photoshop on Linux alone would be monstrous, but why don't they do it? Who knows.

    Anyway, if Macromedia really wanted to scoop Adobe, this is the one way to do it.
  • The more I delve into my job search here in Japan, I've come to realize how much Linux is growing on the minds of companies. Almost every company I've interviewed with has asked the "what experience do you have with Linux" question. I'm glad I installed Debian Woody last year and have been running that on a separate spare box here at home.

    Until now, most multimedia production platforms have either been Windows or Mac based. But as the tools of Linux become better, especially with the recent improvements in KDE, Linux is seen and being used more and more as a desktop production platform. Because of this, software vendors are feeling their ears perk up in the direction of Linux.

    While it may never take the lead in the Desktop wars, Linux will find a nice niche somewhere between Windows and Mac. Software vendors who do not take Linux seriously may find themselves and their competitive positions usurped by some other up and comer, if not someone else who wants to write a free version of the software.
  • by death00 (551487) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:04PM (#8471813)
    I'm not sure I agree with the porting strategem. Getting MX to work on Wine is all fine and dandy, but basing the full port to Linux on the acceptance of the Wine port seems silly. Yes, I know it saves money doing it this way, but that's kind of like changing the tires on your 15-year-old car and expecting people to buy it for full price; not very likely. I have used Linux frequently, both as a software developer and an end-user, and I have rarely had any call to use Wine (though it is a great tool). As a developer, though, I would be really leery of using this kind of potentially unstable platform for my bread-and-butter work. The bottom line is that MX works on Windows, so I run it on Windows. If it gets ported fully to Linux with the same support and the Windows version, then great, I'd consider using it on Windows (especially if the same box came with both versions!) I'm not about to fiddle around getting it running on Linux, and I doubt many other developers will either. (Why are you so afraid of Linux, Macromedia??)
  • by motown (178312) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:05PM (#8471823)
    This could be an excellent move for Macromedia, since the Linux-platform is currently (still) being ignored by its archrival Adobe.

    I'm an optimist, so I am sure that Adobe will eventually be convinced by the increased marketshare of Linux to port their applications over as well. But the sooner Macromedia gets a foothold in Linux in the meantime, the more of an advantage it will have when the time comes for Adobe to follow suit.

    Since we're talking about Macromedia and Flash anyway: does anyone here know why the open-source Flash plugin hasn't been developed further by anyone? Macromedia's binary-only plugin lacks performance (and often stability) as well as platform-support, is currently still at version 6. Besides, the Flash 7 specs are publicly available anyway, so we wouldn't even have to reverse engineer the format to reimplement the plugin, right?

    Perhaps such an open-source plugin could eventually even be integrated in the Mozilla directly? Or would that somehow be an undesirable idea?
  • by melted (227442) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:09PM (#8471848) Homepage
    slashdot crowd also expects them to:
    1. Release the source under GPL
    2. Give the product away for free
    3. Hate Microsoft

    Neither of which they do. So I predict this will be a complete failure.
  • How about... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BHearsum (325814) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:10PM (#8471861) Homepage
    They fix the Flash player first? I mean, jesus. Yeti Baseball shouldn't be using my entire CPU.
  • Puhleeeasse NO! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by wiresquire (457486) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:17PM (#8471918) Journal
    IMHO, there can never be too little Flash.

    BTW for those who want to turn it off by default, all you need to do is rename the plugin, eg
    mv /usr/local/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so /usr/local/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so.temp

    And if you REALLY need it, like those horrific sites that don't actually use HTML (car manufacturer sites are the worst offenders I come across) you can rename it back
  • by FullCircle (643323) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:24PM (#8471967)
    Why not port a native Dreamweaver? There is NO decent WYSIWYG HTML editor on Linux. Flash is an accessory to Dreamweaver. People who want Flash can't work without a decent HTML editor. They definately won't edit their HTML in vi, so they won't buy Flash for Linux.

    WINE is a pain when it comes to drive letters.

    First, it has a totally different view of the filesystem than every native app. It has a fake drive letter (Z: for instance) that leads to /, then you get to dig for the home directory.

    Or, if you set up the home directory as H: or whatever, the user ends up looking for their H: drive from a native app.

    WINE is unstable, even using the Crossover Office I bought to try to get my wife, the last holdout in my house, off of Windows.

    PLEASE, Macromedia, don't use WINE to hack this together and please port the main application FIRST!!
    • by Enrico Pulatzo (536675) on Friday March 05, 2004 @02:18AM (#8472950)
      It's called "Testing The Waters". If Linux is gonna be a worthwhile platform for Macromedia to adopt, they need to do a little recon first. If Flash gets picked up on Linux under Wine, you can bet the next rewrite will be offered natively on Linux.

      Personally, I'm rooting for a Fireworks MX via Wine to hit the market, cuz Macromedia could corner the for-pay Linux market there before Adobe ever thinks of porting Photoshop.
  • by nicklaszlo (720488) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:24PM (#8471971) Homepage Journal
    The F4L project (at sourceforge [sourceforge.net]) is already working on an open source alternative to Macromedia's monopoly. The GUI is already in place in version .01, and there are already libraries in the wild for editing .SWF files (based on information released by Macromedia), so it is only a matter of developer time before it is finished. I run the F4L Documentation Project. [cesdep.org] You can chat about F4L at irc.freenode.net and #F4L
  • by Newtonian_p (412461) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:31PM (#8472020) Homepage
    There is already a GPLed GTK2/GNOME2 based flash application applications for Linux: Spalah [sourceforge.net].

    It can also generate SVG animation.

  • by wfberg (24378) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:35PM (#8472048)
    As much of a "win" as this is for Linux, I really wonder what's in it for Macromedia. It's not as if flashy website developers won't have any windows and mac boxes around (if only to test what your sites look like on the platforms that determine the majority of your users' experiences); the people who are really into using these tools aren't likely to be the same people who are into compiling kernels and tweaking their mod_perl.. As some one else here noted; there's no photoshop for linux.

    Of course, getting the MX tools working with Wine is a great step, and gives them instant cross-platormability, but I have a hunch things will stay at that level for a while..
  • Macromedia. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 13Echo (209846) on Thursday March 04, 2004 @11:44PM (#8472097) Homepage Journal
    Great, Macromedia. Glad you are taking the cheap way out with WINE.

    By the way. Where is Flash Player 7? Your last Linux release, 6.0 r79, is 12 months old now, and several sites now *require* Flash 7.

    If they don't take Linux more seriously, they'll eventually see some SVG browser plugins pop up with similar (better) features, and better native Linux support.
    • Re:Macromedia. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968)

      Yeah, and I'm STILL hoping they eventually get around to fixing the sound synchronization problems on their Linux player...

      Wonder if they've got a "beta" player hidden somewhere, as they had for a while with version 6?...

  • Sweet (Score:3, Funny)

    by Kremit (632241) <kremit@wrpn. n e t> on Friday March 05, 2004 @12:10AM (#8472277) Homepage
    Wow, Flash MX on Linux, natively? I might actually have to buy software!
  • by Sean Clifford (322444) on Friday March 05, 2004 @12:11AM (#8472283) Journal
    Now if we could only get a port of FrontPage... :)
  • I want my CPU back (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Midnight Thunder (17205) on Friday March 05, 2004 @01:10AM (#8472636) Homepage Journal
    Flash is smooth, it allows you to do a lot of fancy stuff, like annoying ads and badly designed web sites, but say sweet good bye to your CPU. What I mean by that is anytime I visit a page with flash I see a 10-20% increase in CPU usage per embeded flash. In some cases I have had my CPU usage at 80% until I closed all web page with flash in it. For this reason I ask Macromedia to please be considerate with my CPU. Maybe we need an option to be able to do a 'nice' on plug-ins?

    If it makes a difference, my browser is Mozilla. If you want an example of CPU usage and Flash visit http://movies.yahoo.com/oscars/
  • by Qbertino (265505) on Friday March 05, 2004 @04:53AM (#8473431)
    Something like three years it was absolutely clear with *everyone* in the professional IT field that Linux/OSS would take off and soar. It went just as generally predicted, only did I lose a bet that Macromedia would have ported at least one app from the dreamteam to Linux within 2 years.
    And here is why they're to late for me to collect my dinner out:
    During the dot-bomb Flash was everybodys darling. There was no way you could design a solid site with predictable Layout behaviour without using flash. CSS was so crappy everyone just plain ignored it after playing with it for 2 hours. If you wanted a webdoc that was more than just a string of characters you had to use flash.
    Then came the bomb, the web grew up within 6 months flat, Flash was to crappy for solid client side apps and the remaining pros switched to functional sites, also ditching Dreamweavers template engine for the bazillion OSS CMSes popping up left right and center. In the mean time IE and Netscape 6.1/Mozilla finally fullfilled the promise CSS had been making for 5 years. That all together weighed in on MM. Flash lost big chunks of it's significance on a monthly basis.
    Nowadays Sites are cool and don't need no flash whatsoever.
    But here's a really interessting thing: I happend to work on a Rich Media Framework in Flash MX 2004 Pro. After 2.5 years ignoring it I was in pretty fast again. (Sidenote: Customer and Partners agreed to GPL it once the bills are payed!) I actually had to install Windows to do it. While the IDE still has the typical super-crappy anoying macromedia glitches and quirks in it, ActionScript 2 has become a full range PL. ECMA compliance, error handling, a stack of oreilly books for it and all. Rolling an XML controlled industry leading E-Learn-Player and Webpresentation framework was a piece of cake and took me and a guy I work with no more than 8 weeks. On top of that, Macromedia is getting a drift before anybody else in the app vendor field: Their newest product 'breeze', doesn't come in a box anymore. They sell it as a service!
    I presume that they saw income going down after the bomb and hushed and listend to the experts. I think there is a strong developers team with them that is seriously fed up with the crappy underlyings in their products (just like many of the professional customers) and that they have gotten a chance to call the shots. Not only is MM doing some very smart moves as a corp. right now, but a Flash MX 2k5 Pro for Linux would bring me right back onto their list. MM has had a steady revenue stream through nice packaging. Now that that doesn't work anymore, they're doing the next step. If I were to bet a fistfull of stockshares on a closed source software vendor, they'd be my first choice.
    Linux/OSS is rolling and there ain't no stopping it. And now that MM isn't everybody darling anymore they have to shape up and comply.
    All good news indeed.
  • by ThogScully (589935) <neilsd@neilschelly.com> on Friday March 05, 2004 @07:19AM (#8473811) Homepage
    I used to use ColdFusion back when there was a good Linux server for it. I also used to code with HomeSite and/or ColdFusion Studio through WINE when I was coding for ColdFusion. When Macromedia bought Allaire, that all went to hell. Their next Linux server was for ColdFusion MX and it was a horrible product. Completely unreliable and completely rewritten to be a Java plugin to a plugin to Apache, rather than the native Apache module as it had been. Further, the CF community wouldn't hear from Macromedia for months at a time while they promised patches and updates galore.

    Meanwhile, we returned our copy of ColdFusion MX Server, which wasn't that hard since the support staff was used to taking those calls. We stuck with the older CF server and are almost done porting to PHP. Further, eventually, I discovered Quanta and so no longer care about using HomeSite/CF Studio under WINE.

    Obviously, our new setup doesn't take well to Flash, but that's for designers more than developers like us, so I don't feel a loss. We've found the free software world's equivalent and we've found it's better, cheaper, and far more reliable.

    From the sound of it, they're going to do like Corel did and make WINE-compatible programs, but as I recall Corel actually had to package an entire WINE distribution with their software to make it work reliably - not exactly efficient. We'll see, but it's going to be awhile before I trust Macromedia to do anything good with Linux for a bit.
    -N

FORTRAN is a good example of a language which is easier to parse using ad hoc techniques. -- D. Gries [What's good about it? Ed.]

Working...