<delurk><br><br>Didn't Realnetworks release the helix player as OSS?<br><br></delurk><br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:08 AM, John Harig <<a href="mailto:radiodurans@yahoo.com">radiodurans@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Presentations? Maybe we could have a debate about the<br>
benefits of closed sourced software supporting linux?<br>
;)<br>
<br>
I don't see anything inherently bad in it. At least it<br>
shows interest in linux and helps to make linux<br>
products more competitive in the market as well as<br>
generating more corporate interest.<br>
<br>
As long as consumers can choose which programs to<br>
install and uninstall, closed and open source should<br>
be able to co-exist (as long as you know the security<br>
risks and bug risks). The problem comes if you "have"<br>
to run it and have no other alternative.<br>
<br>
Yes, Adobe Flash is by no means perfect and it allowed<br>
hackers to win the Pwn to Own challenge:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20080331/bs_nf/59043" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20080331/bs_nf/59043</a><br>
<br>
I am told that Ubuntu was just as vulnerable by people<br>
who say they know a lot about security. But Microsoft,<br>
for one reason or another, is a popular target for<br>
hackers ;).<br>
<br>
The ideal end of any project is to become "open<br>
source" (and many if not most projects should start<br>
that way from the beginning), closed source isn't<br>
necessarily a bad thing for development:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://discovermagazine.com/2007/dec/long-live-closed-source-software/" target="_blank">http://discovermagazine.com/2007/dec/long-live-closed-source-software/</a><br>
<br>
I think specifically using Adobe Flash as a negative<br>
is a bit unfair since Flash is a relatively recent<br>
acquisition of Adobe (they have had only one major<br>
boxed release of it I think?).<br>
<br>
Most of the people who work at Adobe are all about<br>
open source, but they feel they need to develop things<br>
more at their company and of course "the suits" need<br>
to make money. The main reason given why they never<br>
wrote Photoshop for Linux is that they never felt they<br>
could make money off of it, which may be one reason<br>
why they are going with the web Photoshop project.<br>
<br>
I think a better Adobe counterexample is pdf, which<br>
they developed and has been a format used for almost<br>
forever in the linux community, and Adobe has turned<br>
it over to make an ISO standard.<br>
<a href="http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS7542722606.html" target="_blank">http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS7542722606.html</a><br>
<br>
Even before it was submitted to be an ISO standard<br>
there were a great deal of 3rd party apps that you<br>
could use for pdfs:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.cogniview.com/convert-pdf-to-excel/post/pdf-editing-creation-50-open-sourcefree-alternatives-to-adobe-acrobat/" target="_blank">http://www.cogniview.com/convert-pdf-to-excel/post/pdf-editing-creation-50-open-sourcefree-alternatives-to-adobe-acrobat/</a><br>
<br>
As for RealMedia . . . yeah . . . at least it is a<br>
voice of support for linux, albeit one I don't really<br>
care for. They don't offer anything usefully<br>
innovative but always becomes a default standard<br>
because they have been around for awhile. When it<br>
started out it was pretty cool (for a closed-source<br>
product) but then it started getting bloated with ads<br>
and killed itself. I would definitely be happier with<br>
a <a href="http://xiph.org" target="_blank">xiph.org</a> alternative codec (theora).<br>
<br>
Even if RealMedia is an impending failure, at least it<br>
promotes more work on linux, and failures can always<br>
teach lessons.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
--- Tim Schmidt <<a href="mailto:timschmidt@gmail.com">timschmidt@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Rich Nagel<br>
> <<a href="mailto:networkman@triton.net">networkman@triton.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> > Huh? Why? I'd think that backing from Adobe &<br>
> RealNetworks would be a GOOD<br>
> > thing. :/<br>
> ><br>
> > Please explain.<br>
><br>
> Flash and Real's video codec are two of the very few<br>
> pieces of closed<br>
> source software many people still use regularly.<br>
> Seeing them spread<br>
> is not a good thing.<br>
><br>
> A Good ThingTM would be Adobe contributing<br>
> programmer time,<br>
> documentation, or money toward Gnash or swfdec to<br>
> encourage<br>
> interoperability and standards. I, for one, am not<br>
> excited to see<br>
> closed, buggy, impossible to fix software spread<br>
> onto platforms I have<br>
> a chance of using.<br>
><br>
> --tim<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> grlug mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:grlug@grlug.org">grlug@grlug.org</a><br>
><br>
<a href="http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug" target="_blank">http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug</a><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
grlug mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:grlug@grlug.org">grlug@grlug.org</a><br>
<a href="http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug" target="_blank">http://shinobu.grlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/grlug</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Tom Warren<br>meijer ITS Enterprise Storage <br>Red Hat Certified Engineer (RHCE)<br><a href="mailto:tomewarren@gmail.com">tomewarren@gmail.com</a>