[GRLUG] Adobe, RealNetworks back Linux on MIDs

[Tim Schmidt]

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:08 AM, John Harig <radiodurans at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  I don't see anything inherently bad in it. At least it
>  shows interest in linux and helps to make linux
>  products more competitive in the market as well as
>  generating more corporate interest.

I don't use Linux because it's 'competitive in the market'.  I use
linux because the fundamental nature of FOSS software has and will
continue to encourage faster / better / more stable / standards
compliant / interoperable / innovative / secure / usable / flexible
tools that empower me to do what I want, when I want, how I want.

The very existence of Adobe's (previously Macromedia's) closed,
binary-only port of Flash for Linux encourages a 'good enough'
mentality.  Instead of encouraging others to contribute toward a
solution for everyone, you encourage others to thank Adobe for it's
blob of 32bit x86-only (soon to be DRM-laden) 'gift'.  PPC, x86-64,
MIPS, ARM, and Sparc users be damned.  Embedded users (read the flash
EULA lately?), non-X users, users with V4L2 devices, users without
ALSA (heard of Jack?), users who care about security; the existence of
a non-free flash that most people find 'good enough' discourages a
large portion (the majority?) of the community from focusing on flash
as a problem that needs fixing.  This harms all minority FOSS users.
And since I think we can all agree here that, as software grows to
support more varied operating conditions, it's code quality and
robustness generally improve, we are all losing.

Now, I occasionally use Adobe's non-free flash.  There are several
things I do on a semi-regular basis that Gnash can't accomplish yet.
But I don't see Adobe's choice to give us a poor quality port in
preference to rudimentary documentation as a good thing.  And I'm
certainly not content with the situation as is.  I encourage you all
to install Gnash, and evaluate it for your current workload.  File a
bug report if you find one, talk to the developers on IRC, join the
mailing list, perhaps send an email to Adobe, politely asking for
documentation (I think I will today), but most importantly, don't
forget why you use the software you do.

>  As long as consumers can choose which programs to
>  install and uninstall, closed and open source should
>  be able to  co-exist (as long as you know the security
>  risks and bug risks).  The problem comes if you "have"
>  to run it and have no other alternative.

Your supposition requires the precondition of a level playing field.
If Flash were documented - at all - I'd be perfectly willing to let
the implementations stand on their merits.

> [FUD snip]

>  The ideal end of any project is to become "open
>  source" (and many if not most projects should start
>  that way from the beginning), closed source isn't
>  necessarily a bad thing for development:

It's bad for my ability to develop, and yours.  And that is bad for all of us.

>  I think specifically using Adobe Flash as a negative
>  is a bit unfair since Flash is a relatively recent
>  acquisition of Adobe (they have had only one major
>  boxed release of it I think?).

Adobe acquired Macromedia on Dec 3 2005.  In 2.5 years they've not
released one page of format documentation, let alone code.  It's not
going to happen any time soon.

>  Most of the people who work at Adobe are all about
>  open source, but they feel they need to develop things
>  more at their company and of course "the suits" need
>  to make money.  The main reason given why they never
>  wrote Photoshop for Linux is that they never felt they
>  could make money off of it, which may be one reason
>  why they are going with the web Photoshop project.

Right.  That's why Photoshop is one of the primary Windows
applications Codeweavers makes a living supporting on Linux.  And
again, who wants a crippled port when we could be improving GIMP?
FOSS software empowers YOU to fix problems, make improvements,
influence others to do the same.  Squandering that gift is insulting.

> [PDF snip]

I don't really have anything bad to say about PDFs.  There seems to be
adequate documentation, and we have highly-featured FOSS
implementations.  Good stuff.

>  Even if RealMedia is an impending failure, at least it
>  promotes more work on linux, and failures can always
>  teach lessons.

With friends like that...

--tim