Adobe Joins Linux Foundation, Develops AIR For Linux

2muchcoffeeman writes "Adobe announced Monday that it is joining the Linux Foundation and alpha-released a Linux version of its new Adobe Internet Runtime environment, which allows Internet-enabled applications to run on Windows and Mac OS desktops, for Linux. According to Adobe, the alpha version lacks some key features that will be available in the final product and only runs with Sun Java, not GNU Java. Adobe also released an alpha of Flex Builder for Linux Monday."

What is AIR

[WPIDalamar]

For those of you who don't drink the Adobe kool-aid, a quick explanation.

AIR is a desktop runtime environment. You can run either Html/Javascript or Flash based applications inside it. AIR provides a few interesting features beyond HTML/Flash including:

1) File I/O
2) SQLLite Support
3) An integrated web browser (based on WebKit) that you can use inside applications.
4) A fairly good distribution mechanism
5) Desktop integration (OSX Dock icons, Win32 systray support, etc.)

It's a great technology if you're using Adobe products to make web applications and you want to branch into making desktop apps.

It's a great technology if you want to make a desktop app that may later become a web app and you want to share most of the code.

It's a horrible technology if you're a desktop developer who's looking for a different technology.

It's way more write-once run-anywhere than Java ever was.

It does not pick up the system's native UI widgets.

Re:How is AIR different from, say java?

[l-ascorbic]

Not totally objective (see my sig), but I'll try. AIR makes it a lot easier for web developers to create apps on the desktop. You can write apps in either Flash, Flex (now open source [adobe.com]) or HTML and Javascript. While it's damn near impossible to create a UI in Java that doesn't look like a PoS (yeah, gross generalisation, but that's my experience), AIR makes it very easy. While stuff like Java Web Start never seemed to work smoothly, AIR integrates really well with web pages (you can do stuff like launch and install apps from the browser). I realise that much of these are benefits for the develop rather than the end user, but this obviously means that it will bring benefits to users in terms of the kind of apps developed.

Adobe Loses to SWF

[Doc Ruby]

AIR doesn't come preinstalled, so it's just another piece of software people can choose to use, not an existing platform to target with content.

Meanwhile, the GNU implementation of SWF is GNASH [gnashdev.org], which just released a new version. GNASH is also not preinstalled, but it's in some ways superior to Adobe's Flash, while remaining compatible (with practically all features found in the wild, and adding the rest) - and free, including not adding DRM you don't want. And GNASH was announced to be part of the new KDE, so it will in fact be preinstalled on lots of Linux machines.

Re:What is AIR

[l-ascorbic]

It's not a browser plugin. They are desktop apps, so it's not massively different from any other apps you download - i.e. only install them from sites that you trust. They all have to be signed by the developer (not by adobe, it's ok. you can use your own cert), so there's a bit more piece of mind than you'd get with many apps you may download. At least you know the real world identity of the developers.

Re:How is AIR different from, say java?

[pembo13]

That's more than a generalization, that's just incorrect. Java makes use of GUI Toolkits just like many other languages. Just this morning I was taking a look at Jambi [trolltech.com].

dont get too excited..

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who in the last 6 weeks has been currently developing a flex app for both AIR and the web... dont get too excited.
I am finding the Flex3 framework to be buggy as hell.

* I have been having constant crashes from Flex Builder (It is built on eclipse)
* The ui components are coded like dogshit. (i ended up coding custom elements in flash which are the tenth of the size, and work as intended)
* Some documented features dont work.
* I have spent alot of time figuring out work arounds/undocumented features.

sorry for the rant.. but the claim that it is easy to develop flex apps is bullshit.
I have been using flash since it was called FutureSplash, so after over 10 years of day in day out
developing and making bread with this tech, I think I can speak with some authority.

It seems to me that Adobe is glorifying their steps into open source.
I just have a funny feeling that it is not as good willed, as intended,
but just as a way to get their shit coded/fixed for free,then reimplemented
in their closed source upscale/addon technologies.

Which I might add, allows adobe to compete directly against the very developers
that buy into their software.

Re:How is AIR different from, say java?

[SwedishPenguin]

Looks like you didn't even bother to check out Jambi. I've never heard of it before but it appears to be an implementation of QT for Java.
Only Java is required and it's completely platform independent, no separate installers for different operating systems as you claimed. Check out the demo: http://dist.trolltech.com/developer/download/webstart/index.html [trolltech.com].

Re:also

[nschubach]

AIR does use Webkit: http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Apollo:developerfaq#Why_did_Adobe_choose_WebKit.3F [adobe.com]

Re:How is AIR different from, say java?

[l-ascorbic]

It's the MPL [adobe.com].

Re:also

[drspliff]

The IcedTea (OpenJDK 7.0 + GnuClasspath) JRE/JDK is mostly complete, I've been running Eclipse on it for the past month without any issues.

Mistakes and security flaw

[neofpo]

Hello there,

I've just posted a review and a comment at my site [efeitodoppler.org] (translation [google.com]) where I point that Adobe makes an amateur mistake, by installing all AIR files as the user who launched the installer, despite the fact that it asks for root access via gksu (a graphic sudo replacement). This makes the user owner of the files "AIR root", letting him able to compromise AIR Apps to all users of the system (either voluntarily or by a virus for example). This goes against all security policies I've ever seen. System wide programs must be read only to every one, except for root, which is a user that "is just meant not to be used".

I also pointed at my site to at least two packaging mistakes: broken dependencies and garbage after uninstall.

I wonder: why in hell they have to make that annoying Windows-like installer, more vulnerable to this sort of error, than simply give a package and a software repository? Or at least give direct access to a "traditional" RPM or Debian package... Doesn't they know the KISS rule?

Hope this sort of stuff does not happen when it comes to be final.