[GRLUG] Adobe, RealNetworks back Linux on MIDs

[John Harig]

>>  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.

--> Yes, I personally use linux for many of those same
reasons, but I was trying to address the movement as a
whole, not my personal reasons for running linux. We
all have disagreements over our favorite app, favorite
distro, and favorite tools. But that's what is good
about choice with an OS like linux . . . even the
choice between closed and open software. 

Let's say that Adobe Flash is the worst piece of ****
ever, the Microsoft Bob of linux.  As long as there is
one person out there that wants to run that particular
application, isn't it a good thing that he/she can
choose to run or not run it rather than not having the
choice at all?

Because something isn't the best possible scenario it
doesn't mean it is automatically the worst case or
even a bad case.

Would it be a "better" thing for end users if Adobe
made flash open source? Most likely yes.  Does that
automatically make it "bad" thing that it isn't?  I
don't think it necessarily does. . . it probably just
means that it isn't as good as it could be.  Seeing as
how so many people use it, it seems like a good thing
that closed source flash has come about, but it would
be even better if it opened up at some point.

But I was specifically trying to address whether the
corporate sponsorship of linux products who have
closed sources linux apps is a good thing for the
linux movement as a whole, and I think it could argued
yes -- increasing the user base and generating
corporate interest in linux IS on the whole a good
thing for the movement, as long as it doesn't infringe
on your ability to make the modifications you desire.

I think there are many potential Linux users out there
who might be swayed by a company like Adobe even if I
will continue to use Linux for my own needs
regardless.
 
> 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  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.

--> I disagree that the very existence of closed
source software encourages a "good enough" mentality,
especially on linux. The moment a new closed source
app is written, somebody somewhere is looking into
developing open source alternative.  But even in the
context of closed sourced software, you have to
continually update and improve your product to stay
competitive with other closed source alternatives. 
"Good enough" is really only an issue when something 
becomes a monopoly, which is a different issue from
open vs closed source apps.  The evolution might be
slower, but I have never seen a leader stop at "good
enough".
 
> 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.

--> OK so I think this actually demonstrates much of
what I said.  Again, having the option of having the
functionality of the non-free flash is better than not
having it at all . . . 

. . . And would Gnash even exist without the closed
source version?  Many great open source projects start
off as closed source ideas, like that whole AT&T UNIX
thing for example. 

Also, by stating tasks that "Gnash can't accomplish
yet", it sounds like you are also optimistic that it
will find a way even if adobe flash remains closed. 
If closed programs set a goal, open source usually
goes well beyond it.   Yes, opening Adobe Flash might
speed up development in the short run with Adobe
created solutions intitally to start from, but in the
long run, open source is completely capable of
developing its own solutions independently.  
 
A poor quality closed source port with poor
documentation is better than none at all, and is also
inspiration for open source programmers to do
something better and with better results. 

>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.

--> I agree with all of that, I think we differ only
at the point where closed source Adobe Flash for linux
and Adobe supporting a Linux MID is a bad thing rather
than saying it is a good thing, but just not as good
as it could be if it were open source.

>> 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.

No, I don't see that. A precondition of my statement
would be "no dependency conflicts".  A level playing
field would only be a description of a possible
condition, not a pre-condition. Running MS Word and
OpenOffice Writer on the same computer does not
necessitate a level playing field as a precondition.

But let's say there is a computer only with MS Word on
it.  MS Word can't do something OO Writer can, so I
just need to download Writer, install it and run it
with the help of all its good open source
documentation. 

But what if I have a computer with only OpenOffice and
I need some MS Word functionality not yet available?
Shell out the $$$$ consult the awful documentation.

So now take these two conditions: one where Adobe
supports linux and one where it does not.

In both cases I can use whatever open source
implementation I desire.  In the first case, however,
I can choose to run the Adobe closed sourced program
if I choose to and/or the open source implementation. 
More choice is a plus in that case.

> If Flash were documented - at all - I'd be perfectly
willing to let the implementations stand on their
merits.

--> Flash is documented:

http://www.adobe.com/support/documentation/en/flash/

But of course that is probably not in the way you mean
or at least as detailed as a developer would like . .
. and definitely not as well as an open source project
. due to the legality of closed source code.

>> 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.

--> In cases such as Software patents it is clearly
bad -- the entire programs isn't patented, but the
algorithms and techniques used are . . . 

. . . but the existence of a closed source app
shouldn't hinder development for task it performs, it
should only hinder your ability to copy the closed
source solution or solve it in the same way.

If a closed source app finds a way to Detroit via
skateboard, that shouldn't hinder me from developing
an open source Ferrari to drive me there . . . or take
me  someplace better or further away like New York.  

(And the fact that my open source car has wheels as
the closed source skateboard has wheels shouldn't be
seen as infringement.  Circles, after all, are found
everywhere in nature.)

Did AMD say that Intel hindered it's chip design by
not sharing its proprietary designs?  AMD went right
ahead and reverse engineered its own.


>>  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.

--> I think the key there is "acquired".  You don't
fully merge two companies together even after 2.5
years.  

Sprint acquired Nextel about the same time, and  last
month I had to inquire about an old Nextel account so
I called Sprint Accounts.  I ended up calling a
different number because the records hadn't been
merged yet.  

I think for adobe to have released its first version
of flash in that time while buggy is pretty good
considering.  I would expect them to want to get at
least a couple of closed source releases in for such a
a multi-million dollar acquisition.


> >  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?

GIMP wasn't designed to replace photoshop and will
probably never support the complete functionality of 
Photoshop, especially for things like Pantone numbers
for spot colors due to legal issues.  GIMP developers
have a different agenda than photoshop developers even
if more subtly different at times.  

However, 90% of the stuff I need to do I can use the
GIMP, but it would be nice to have the choice of a
photoshop for linux for that other 10%.  Until then
there will be VMs.

> FOSS software empowers YOU to fix problems, make
improvements, influence others to do the same. 
Squandering that gift is insulting.

That's a leap in logic I cannot make . . . accepting
that FOSS software empowering users to fix problems
doesn't mean that I've squandered the gift by running
closed source apps/ports for linux.


> 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.

--> Agreed!  Thank goodness for that originally closed
source Adobe project combined the power of open source
development to create implementation solutions over
the years. It has now become an ISO standard and an
open format.  Perhaps the same thing will happen with
flash in a few more years as the code matures . . .