OSNews

Huh? MS doesn't have a presence under Linux, either, so how is porting flash apps to Linux going to help?

Because it's something MS cannot do, if adobe flash was killed by MS "killer" app then Adobe would have the Linux market. Xara/Corel ring any bells?

Adobe would have the Linux market

Adobe doesn't want or need a market comprising less than 2% of all desktop PCs.

Adobe doesn't want or need a market comprising less than 2% of all desktop PCs.

...and yet they want the Apple market?

Gee, I guess Adobe really doesn't care about Linux, which is why they updated their Acrobat Reader, and why they'll be releasing Flash 9 for Linux at the same time as Windows...

...and yet they want the Apple market?

I should have been more clear in my previous posts. Adobe is driven primarily by the platform demographics of customers who buy its tools. It's in the odd position of having its content consumed primarily on Windows platforms but having a significant percentage of its developer community use Macs to produce it; thus, Adobe has made significant investments in the Mac to support its tools business. But Linux simply doesn't contribute a meaningful amount of business to Adobe at present and, as such, Adobe's investments in Linux are minimal.

Yeah, and the 0.4% of Linux market will help Adobe, get real.

Where is this .4% nonsense coming from? The last numbers I saw had linux somewhere between 3 and 5%.

Where is this .4% nonsense coming from? The last numbers I saw had linux somewhere between 3 and 5%.

.37% - http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2

.36% - http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox46-operating-systems-ma...

0% (probably .3% rounded down) - http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2006/November/os.php

.4% - http://www.webhits.de/webhits/browser.htm

http://www.webhits.de/webhits/browser.htm

0.4% - Windows Server 2003?

That should give you an idea about usage total accuracy. ;-)

Not many Windows Server systems visit these pages. Must be the same for Linux systems. Aye?

That should give you an idea about usage total accuracy. ;-)

Not many Windows Server systems visit these pages. Must be the same for Linux systems. Aye?

I browse the web with Windows 2003 Server when I'm at work. I use it as my primary OS.

Lots of people with MSDN subscriptions or Technet get it to use and use it for development and testing.

I browse the web with Windows 2003 Server when I'm at work. I use it as my primary OS.

Oh so thats what your company pays you to do. ;-)

But seriously, that doesn't explain why Windows Server would score 0.4%. My guess is that these ranking sites are based on page hits.

I doubt many server admins visit these pointless pages. Similarly, I seriously doubt most GNU/Linux users visit such pages, only to see such a hideous usage ranking.

Lots of people with MSDN subscriptions or Technet get it to use and use it for development and testing

Yes, I talk to some Microsoft MVPs and evangelists on Microsoft developer forums.

I suppose MSDN subscriptions are useful for those who want immediate access to Microsoft's latest product offerings.

But seriously, that doesn't explain why Windows Server would score 0.4%.

I've seen it as high as .5% on other stat pages. MSDN and Technet are very common. That what Microsoft does well ... it gets developer tools and their OS in the hands of developers.

I'm not sure if Expression will be a "Flash Killer", but developers seem to like it because it integrates with Visual Studio really well.

My guess is that these ranking sites are based on page hits.

Hitslink uses cookies: http://www.hitslink.com/whitepapers/web-log-analyzer-vs-real-time-s...

I doubt many server admins visit these pointless pages.

As I've said, many people use Windows 2003 Server as their main desktop. Its a great OS.

I suppose MSDN subscriptions are useful for those who want immediate access to Microsoft's latest product offerings.

Yes indeed. "Developers, developers, developers".

Edited 2006-12-05 07:47

Again with the off-topic crap, NotParker?

Repeat after me: web stats are not an accurate measure of market share.

To everyone else: NotParker keeps spamming OSNews with these web stats, claiming they represent an accurate measure of OS market share. He's been presented counter-arguments but has refused to address them.

He has a history of misrepresenting stats in order to further his exclusively pro-MS agenda. I suggest that you ignore him, as well as mod down his off-topic spamming.

I've tried reasoning with him, but he knows only two modes of debate when Linux is concern: insults/personal attacks, and misrepresentation/obfuscation. Logical debate with him appears almost impossible.

/cue personal attacks on me in 3...2...1...

To everyone else: NotParker keeps spamming OSNews with these web stats, claiming they represent an accurate measure of OS market share.

Someone asked where the .4% figure came from. I answered with 4 good references.

They do give people a good idea what people are browsing the web with.

I think its sad you are misrepresenting the type of discussions we've had. I always go out of my way to add references.

You are always free to post your own references. But you'd rather attack me without any justification.

So sad.

I've had my share of problems with Not "you are pathetic cultists" Parker. But I think .4% is probably a fairly good starting point for usage, at least in the US. Probably Europe is higher than that. I don't know about you, but I don't know anyone who uses Linux except other techies like me, and we are not a huge group compared to everyone else. Counting hits on a website isn't a great technique, but it is at least a starting point. Maybe archisteel can enlighten me as to why he thinks there must be a lot more Linux users - I'd guess around 1% myself.

I also use 2003 on my workstation at work.

Notwithstanding the fact that NotParker very likely cherry-picked the webstat sites to only show the lowest scores for Linux (after all, he's done that with the Server Growth figures from Gartner), there are many reasons that make webstats an inaccurate tool for establishing market share:

a) Actual web site contents: this one is obvious. Certain web sites will appeal more to certain demographics, where OS distribution may be skewed. Language and local can also skew the results dramatically. In the case of the examples given by NotParker, these certainly overrepresent English-speaking countries.

b) The results are not independently verified and can easily be falsified or even fabricated. "Page hit" counters can also be easily rigged with a few simple scripts.

c) Most Linux users I know use User Agents to masquerade their browser as something else; in the case of Konqueror, the masqueraded browser most often does not mention Linux at all, but rather Windows or some other OS.

d) I think we can all agree that "page hit" counters are *completely* useless to figure out market share, and that the only real way to make web stats more accurate is to use cookies (which not everyone accepts) or record IP addresses. The problem with IP addresses is that they over-represent narrowband (i.e. dial-up) users, because these users routinely obtain a new IP address everytime they login, whereas broadband users usually keep the same IP for long periods of time. Therefore, narrowband users are more likely to be counted more than once, and therefore will be over-represented. This wouldn't be an issue if narrowband users were evenly distributed among Linux and Windows users, but in fact very few Linux users use modems (for two reasons: they are usually more tech-savvy, and winmodems are notoriously hard to run under Linux).

I do agree that Linux usage is higher in Europe and Asia than it is in the US, however. But that's besides the point. The point is that, for all the reasons outlined above, it is *clear* that webstats cannot give an accurate figure, and therefore using them to further an anti-Linux (or even a pro-Linux) agenda is nothing more than propaganda.

That's only part of the problem, of course. The other part is that NotParker brings this up *every* chance he gets, no matter how off-topic it may be (what the heck does Linux market share have to do in an article about Microsoft's "Flash killer"?)

I can confirm these very precise figures. In France, I am the only one using Linux. But, I am happy with it.

So hang on ... if folk don't like your references, you get modded down?

Bizarre. ... :-|

No, in this particular instance he got modded down because it's off-topic (so is this, btw - feel free to mod it down as well).

Usually he gets modded down because he calls those who disagree with him "cultists."

No, in this particular instance he got modded down because it's off-topic (so is this, btw - feel free to mod it down as well).

Usually he gets modded down because he calls those who disagree with him "cultists."

Do you have two accounts? One to mod me down, and one to mod your posts up?

Surely a rude person like you who pretends to be the OSNews police isn't that popular?

Surely stalking me and modding down all my posts (as well referenced as they are) is rude?

I don't have two accounts, but it does seem as if someone is modding my posts up as soon as they are posted. Maybe there's a glitch in the system or something.

I really don't care, though, what my score is, as long as it's above 1.00.

As for your posts, well, the fact that they are nearly all off-topic is the reason they get modded down.

They also misrepresent the references they point to, but that in itself is not sufficient reason to mod them down. Being dishonest, in and of itself, is allowed. Being off-topic isn't.

I note that you didn't try to deny that you routinely insult those you disagree with by calling them cultists...

Surely stalking me and modding down all my posts (as well referenced as they are) is rude?

Is it more rude or less rude than routinely insulting those who disagree with you, as you do?

It can't save the life of the Flash. The linux market is very little, IMHO if the designers can create better content with WPF/E then with Flash nobody will care with the ~5% of users who are uses linux. And if more web pages will use WPF/E then Flash this 5% will decrease.
I can see only two way (if MS don't create linux port of FPF/E, but it is not too probable):
1. Better flash then FPW/E with wery cheap development environment.
2. Open source WPF/E clone, based on mono.

IMHO the 1. way is not too lucky: the MS can spend more money to WPF/E then the Adobe to the Flash. And the second way also not sound too good: several patent problems, continuous compatibility problems. But IMHO the second way is the only hope to the desktop linux to survive.

Edited 2006-12-05 06:44

As soon as Adobe ports Photoshop to Linux, the Free Software fanboys will start bitching about it's license, and half the distros won't distribute it.

no official flash. there are, however, two options for x86-64 users: nspluginwrapper, which will allow you to use the official flash linux plugin, or gnash, an open source project.

"no official flash. there are, however, two options for x86-64 users: nspluginwrapper, which will allow you to use the official flash linux plugin, or gnash, an open source project."

I downloaded Firefox 2 32bits directly from mozilla site and then flash. I installed both into /usr/local and with lib32* worked fine. But still use Konqueror without flash. Don't need it really.

"no official flash. there are, however, two options for x86-64 users: nspluginwrapper, which will allow you to use the official flash linux plugin, or gnash, an open source project."

I downloaded Firefox 2 32bits directly from mozilla site and then flash. I installed both into /usr/local and with lib32* worked fine. But still use Konqueror without flash. Don't need it really.

Konq 64-bit will work with 32-bit plugins, since the kde plugin wrapper and browser are exclusive and communicate through dcop. I imagine nsplugwrapper uses a similar method for 64-bit ff.

Flash 9 works perfectly with Konq in Suse 10.2 x86_64, no tweaking or special setup required.

Quit lookin' at youtube until they start posting mp3's.

Using the VideoDownloader plugin for Firefox together with Mplayer you can convert .flv videos from YouTube and Myspace to MPEG. Solve your problem ?

I have an nice MPEG copy of the <plug>fabulous Long Blondes latest video "Another Weekend Without Makeup" on Myspace</plug> obtained that way. But I admit I am to lazy to keep on converting the .flv's I download as Mplayer plays them fine.

Quoting from the link I refer to below, "This first CTP runs on both Windows and Macintosh systems (both x86 and PowerPC), and supports IE, FireFox and Safari browsers."

See this link for lots of info:
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2006/12/04/announcing-the-re...


And, quoting a post by I.P. Nichols to the borland.public.delphi.non-technical newsgroup:
"Dec 4, 2006:
Today Scott Gurthre's blog posting announces the availability of the first
CTP of WPF/E along with some details plus links to run four samples.
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/

This is the Microsoft download site and lists versions for both Windows and
Macintosh along with a Sample pak and a development SDK.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/asp.net/bb187358.aspx

From Scott's blog posting you can click on one of the sample links and if
you don't have the CTP installed, it will prompt you to install.

I did the installation by choosing the Run File option rather than the Save
File option and the install proceeded smoothly and afterward ran the four
samples on Scott's blog by clicking on them. "

(I've not done anything with this myself. I'm actually more interested in the upcoming version of WPF/E in 2007 that will include a mini-.NET runtime (supposedly 2MB in size) that'll allow C#, VB and other .NET code to run in a browser like Java applets.)

There is a subset of features that is supposed to be cross-platform, (WPF-E I think) but some parts of WPF will require windows only features like DirectX.

It will require a plugin for browsers, but it is also going to be used for desktop apps. In that case it is more like a subset of the .NET runtime.

You forgot the iPod killer.

Development tools is something that MS does very well, they have kept Java at bay, crushed Borland and annoyed us all with vbscript in IE. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually make a go of this

""which, to tell the truth, has been quite 'adobized' lately""

beats dealing with Quark....Corel..... Publisher....

i am totally fine with the current state of the "Design Market"! granted.... competition is important... put it is obvious that the so called compitition in the graphic design software market simply was no match for adobe!

I've yet to visit a flash site I actually liked that used flash for anything more than fancy mouse-overs, and its best uses are for wrapping movies and having novelty games to play and/or nice web-based chat clients. I also love flashblock.

I'd be happy to see flash go. While there are times when flash has its uses, I have it blocked most of the time, along with ads displayed with non-flash technology. I'm even able to block those underlined links that popup ads when you mouseover them.

If advertising on the web were less in-your-face, then I wouldn't have to resort to blocking it. But since it is so in-your-face, I have no choice but to block it.

I don't like flash either, but www.sterkinekor.com is my favourite such site. Much better than Macromedia's terrible old site.

>Flash is pretty much standard on most websites today.
DOS was a pertty much standard on most machines in 1985.

>Besides this doesn't prevent Adobe from further
>improving their Flash products to compete
>with Expression Studio.

But MS have more money. They can give Expression Studio for free if it can grow the acceptance of WPE/E, because the most of their income come from Windows and Office and WPE/E can kill the desktop linux, but if Adobe give the flash development tools for free they can't realize any income from this product.

But MS have more money. They can give Expression Studio for free if it can grow the acceptance of WPE/E, because the most of their income come from Windows and Office and WPE/E can kill the desktop linux, but if Adobe give the flash development tools for free they can't realize any income from this product.

You can be sure Expression will not be given away for free. Maybe in the future they will add to or create new Express-styled tools specifically for light WPF/E development, but for now, pricing is below (from the press release):

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/dec06/12-04MSExpressi...

Microsoft also unveiled final product pricing and availability for the complete Expression product family. Expression Web is available for an estimated retail price (ERP) of $299 (U.S.), and qualifying users of FrontPage® can upgrade to Expression Web for $99 ERP. Shipping in the second quarter of 2007, Expression Blend will be available for $499 ERP, Expression Media for $299 ERP, and the full Expression Studio for $599 ERP. When it ships, Expression Studio will also be available as a $349 ERP upgrade to users who have purchased Expression Web and other qualifying Microsoft products. Full product pricing and availability information is available on the http://www.microsoft.com/expression. All Expression products for English-speaking markets will include getting-started video training courtesy of Total Training Inc. Comprehensive video training will be available for purchase separately at http://www.totaltraining.com/expression.

Edited 2006-12-05 09:03

I wasn't speak that they will give it for free, but they can give it, if the spread of WPF/E is not fast enought. In this case they can put money to this development from Vista or any other resource, because the income from the Expression is a lot less then the income from Windows, and the WPF/E will provide the long term dominance of the microsoft platforms. Let see the Visual Studio Express editations...

Microsoft feels indeed very threatened now (only paranoid survive said somebody) and launches an overall effort to squeeze any other company with multi-platform tools.

Microsoft is competing in the market place. They have an obligation to their shareholders.

Expression Studio is a logical addition to their development tools.

Clearly Adobe is a choice target: pdf, flash are such tools.
DirectX 10, readable on Vista only is an extreme try to get rid of OpenGL increasing capabilities.

I for one am tired of the 100MB + bloat of Adobe Reader and look forward to an alternative. I hope XPS is that alternative.

DirectX 10 is designed to interest game developers to keep using Windows as a platform for great games. Isn't that what they should be doing?

Edited 2006-12-05 08:00

I for one am tired of the 100MB + bloat of Adobe Reader and look forward to an alternative. I hope XPS is that alternative.

And another brilliant remark from NotParker.

1. Adobe Reader is 37MB (Linux version, I don't care about Windows so I wouldn't know)
2. He hopes that non-portable format (that is how MS would want it) controlled by MS will replace something that can already be read in all OSes. XPS will be present on which OSes? With that imagine that crossplatform means every god damn OS.

Now my take on PDF reader:) I don't have Adobe reader and I read them just fine. Cairo, poppler and evince do job well for me (face it, most of the users don't need advanced PDF functions). That is less than 2MB and already included in every distro. Same goes on OSX. OSX replaced PS drawing system from previous OS with PDF drawing system. Again 1-2 MB.

Why doesn't MS incorporate small PDF reader in their OS like others do? Wouldn't that make you happy just as much?

XPS will be present on which OSes? With that imagine that crossplatform means every god damn OS.

Well, since anyone is free to implement an XPS reader (the spec is openly published and royalty-free), then that really depends on the god damn platform programmers I guess.

My first hard disc was 10MB, and it was enought for DOS, Clipper, Turbo C++ and 3-4 small game. IMHO 37MB is a little bit big for a simple document reader.

It's 110MB for Windows Acrobat Reader 7.0

I just checked the Acrobat 7.0 dir in my Windows partition and Konq tells me it's 126.5MB. And I imagine there is a bit more in Common Files, system32 etc.

Is this really too big in today's environment? The answer will be very personal, TBH. It'll be 0.1% or less on most disks sold today, even on laptops, but okay, there are still plenty of space-challenged folks around.

Load-time can be brought down hugely by using one of the free speedup progs floating around (that disable the splash screen, advert/Yahoo sh*t, and various plugins you'll never need).

Adobe could easily reduce the installed size of the Reader, I think. From using the PDF-speedup app I've already seen that it copes quite gracefully with missing plugins (politely informs you that "I can't do that Dave" and just does what it can), so they could simply give you the choice at install-time. They already have the wacky download-manager component in the installer, why not do a pre-download checklist of what plugins you actually *want*, and only download those? Sure would make the dialup folks' lives a lot easier...

yes Adobe Reader has become bloated, it takes ages to load on windows, eats memory for a glorified advertisement for Adobe Acrobat.

I agree that it would be nice if Microsoft were to do what apple has done an implement a quick little PDF API, with quick viewers and creators.

However Microsoft already tried to do this, they tried to implement PDF into Office 2007 but they were refused and monopoly was mentioned again. Im sure if Microsoft was allowed to do it with office they would have done it with Windows.

Although i would hope that the controls over PDF in Windows and office would be tight, as i wouldn't want another sun/microsoft java VM PITA to happen.

As for XPS, im glad to see someone else have a crack at the market, competition is good, perhaps it will give Adobe a kick up the behind and get them innovating.

However Microsoft already tried to do this, they tried to implement PDF into Office 2007 but they were refused and monopoly was mentioned again. Im sure if Microsoft was allowed to do it with office they would have done it with Windows.

Problem was writing, not reading.

another brilliant remark from NotParker.

1. Adobe Reader is 37MB (Linux version, I don't care about Windows so I wouldn't know)

No. You don't know.

Right click on the Adobe folder in a Windows XP install:

96.8 MB (101,556,479 bytes) on disk.

Acrobat Reader is bloatware.

2. He hopes that non-portable format (that is how MS would want it) controlled by MS will replace something that can already be read in all OSes. XPS will be present on which OSes? With that imagine that crossplatform means every god damn OS.

No need to be rude.

I hope XPS is better and more lightweight than the 100MB Adobe Acrobat. Just because you hate Microsoft doesn't mean I can't wish for an advance.

I hope XPS is better and more lightweight than the 100MB Adobe Acrobat

???

How could graphic format be more lightweight than piece of software. Or better, how can you compare. I guess, printing the spec book of XPS, printing source of Acrobat and measuring which has more pages?

As I said, there is zillion PDF readers, some very lightweight, just pick your poison.

Just because you hate Microsoft doesn't mean I can't wish for an advance.

I don't hate MS, I just don't support their way. Read my comments. There is a lot of difference between me and you. I'm not biased, and whenever I am, I specify that without any shame on my soul. You on the other hand are more or less zealoting against linux only.

Now second question, how could you advance by replacing PORTABLE Document Format with smething not portable (license is not porting friendly)? As soon as you would try to replace it, you'd cross against the only reason why PDF is important the way it is, portability.

I don't say XPS is not better than PDF (maybe yes, maybe not. I don't know enough about XPS. But please don't send me link for MS video about it. It was full of enormous mistakes like their bad printing quality of PS demonstration, anyone with basic PS knowledge can simulate it in 2 seconds), it just isn't portable yet (nd not possible to be either). So, yes. Basing that you use Windows only, you might even advance with XPS (or not), but in the end of the day your ass is not horizon.

The XPS tools for generating and reading XPS documents are built into Vista. For Xp I'm not sure how big the .NET 3.0 framework + XPS tools is. Probably less than the 100+ MB for Acrobat

Try Evince. ~4 MB installed size.

It will work on 85-90% of PC's right now.

Completely unacceptable. It must run on at least 99.9999% (give or take) of computers used today.

The XPS tools for generating and reading XPS documents are built into Vista. For Xp I'm not sure how big the .NET 3.0 framework + XPS tools is. Probably less than the 100+ MB for Acrobat Reader.

Microsoft .NET Framework 3.0 Redistributable Package = 50.33MB

Other you might need I don't know.

But even if they are the same, that does include document generation capabilities.

PDFCreator = 12.3MB (that is including ghostscript, without is even smaller)
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=57796&package...

Free eXpert PDF reader = 7.38MB (includes tagging and simple editing)
http://www.visagesoft.com/products/pdfreader/

You can find even more lightweight readers

If you don't like Adobe Reader, pick another poison. Google is your friend.

It will work on 85-90% of PC's right now.

And others? PDF works everywhere and works now. You probably just say screw them. I can't, even though I use Linux only my software has to run everywhere (btw. This is not conditioned with my business, my Windows revenue would account for less than 10% and even that is not from my software. It is my wishful thinking, that software is supposed to run anywhere).

Edited 2006-12-06 02:00