Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Mar 2010 13:00 UTC
Google It's no secret that the relationship between Apple and Adobe isn't particularly healthy at this point, and despite the nicely staged coffee moment, nor is the relationship between Apple and Google. It seems like this is bringing together Google and Adobe: rumour has it that Flash will be bundled with the Chrome web browser and/or the upcoming Chrome operating system. Update: It's official: "When users download Chrome, they will also receive the latest version of Adobe Flash Player. There will be no need to install Flash Player separately. Users will automatically receive updates related to Flash Player using Google Chrome's auto-update mechanism."
Order by: Score:
I'm a little surprised by this
by Laurence on Tue 30th Mar 2010 13:20 UTC
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

If anything, I'd have thought Google have more to gain from decommissioning Flash as HTML is much easier to scan and build search engine results and targeted adverts against than Flash (let's not forget that adverts are Google's bread-and-butter business)

Also Google have always (publicly at least) been advocates of open technology. So while Flash is undeniably a web standard, it's not an open standard.

Edited 2010-03-30 13:21 UTC

Reply Score: 5

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Just because Adobe uses the word "open" on their webpages and gives out tools for free means nothing.

In order for a format to be truly open it needs to:

* Have a standardized spec whose change is not subject to the whim of a single entity.

* The tools needed to implement the spec need to be FOSS, not simply open sourced. Take a look at the FLEX SDK license (which, BTW, they say it's an EULA!) and then we'll talk:
http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/

So no, Flash is not open. Adobe controls both the spec and the SDK exclusively. And they haven't even made a statement to the effect of promising the public they won't break spec, or pull the SDK, or come after you with patent claims etc.

Reply Score: 6

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

An open spec is a public specification, plain and simple. I have no clue where you got the requirement that all tools that implement the spec must be GPLd from...

Reply Score: 8

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Based on Gnash still needing to reverse engineer parts of flash functionality; I'd say the details that have been provided openly by Adobe are not a complete and open file format spec.

I'm not sure where the previous poster got the idea that tools have to be GPLd either. They obviously believe FOSS (Libre and Open Source Software) is only that which is licensed under a GPL version rather than licensed under any Open Source license.

FOSS does not mean GPL'd software only and Flash is far from an open and documented standard.

Reply Score: 4

wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

I just want to mention a comment by an x264 developer about the gnash guys that has probably much more weight than my humble opinion:

The lack of a good free software Flash client is not really Adobe’s fault; it has become clear that the Gnash folks are completely incompetent and nobody else seems interested.

Reply Score: 4

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Gnash or not, Flash is not open. It might be partially documented, but huge parts are missing and require reverse-engineering.

By the way, the x264 people have a history of spreading blatant lies.

Reply Score: 1

hornett Member since:
2005-09-19

By the way, the x264 people have a history of spreading blatant lies.


Such as?

Reply Score: 1

ElCabri2 Member since:
2009-03-11

Enough BS. Anything that allows third-party intervention without prior consent is enough to be defined as "opened". The OP was asserting that Flash content couldn't be scanned and indexed because it's encoded in a way that's not quite as plain as HTML, and the answer was that the format was documented by Adobe, so it can be done, period.

Reply Score: 3

Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

Many Flash applications do not adhere to the standard and the Flash player allows this. One could even claim that the Flash player itself does not adhere to the standard.

There also exist obfuscators for Flash, and their use is very common. Most of those also produce non-standard swf.

This is all known and being researched on. If you're interested, see
http://events.ccc.de/congress/2009/Fahrplan/events/3494.en.html


Open specifications are good, but sometimes, if there is only one full implementation on the market, they can become worthless. Another example for this is the OpenDocument format.

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

you have gnash which is a junk compared to flash.

You're quite ignorant, aren't you? Adobe hasn't released API documentation for Flash so Gnash developers have to reverse-engineer everything and OBVIOUSLY that takes time, effort and will contain bugs.

And still, give Flash and Gnash something to run that both can run without issues you'll notice how much faster Gnash is.

If Adobe released the API specs Gnash could take giant leaps forward and would probably suck a whole lot less.

Reply Score: 8

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Sweet.. where can I go download the source for Adobe Flash Player? I'd like to stop using the non-free provided patent encumbered and closed source 64bit Adobe Flash Player package.

(not such an open file format when it's limited to only being read fully by Adobe's own player plugin which has historically delivered updates late to non-32bit and non-windows platforms)

Reply Score: 2

Boldie Member since:
2007-03-26

Rob Savoye, Gnash dev, seems pretty intelligent.

If you haven't listened to the FLOSS weekly show about Gnash you should. I remember it as entertaining:

http://twit.tv/floss94

Reply Score: 2

mnem0 Member since:
2006-03-23

Flash has an open spec and ALL the codecs used by flash are available as open source. Look at the Moonlight, the open source implementation of Silverlight. That's a competent implementation.


H.264 is used by Flash and there is no open source implementation of H.264 which can be legal distributed to users.

Linux video codecs in Moonlight are provided via a binary-only package from Microsoft.

Reply Score: 1

twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


H.264 is used by Flash and there is no open source implementation of H.264 which can be legal distributed to users.


x264 it's a open source encoder compatible with H.264 and you have an open source decoder in libavcodec.

Reply Score: 1

Does bundling really matter?
by FunkyELF on Tue 30th Mar 2010 13:54 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

Does bundling really matter?
You only need flash for websites and you can't get on websites without an internet connection and the first time you visit YouTube.com you will be prompted to install it. It is effortless and I don't think you even need to restart chrome.

Seriously... who cares?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Does bundling really matter?
by wirespot on Tue 30th Mar 2010 14:01 UTC in reply to "Does bundling really matter?"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

If the history of Microsoft and IE has shown us anything is that yeah, bundling means a lot towards adopting and keeping a product used by lots of people...

Reply Score: 8

FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

If the history of Microsoft and IE has shown us anything is that yeah, bundling means a lot towards adopting and keeping a product used by lots of people...


There is a difference.

To visit wikipedia, ebay, online banking, etc you only use 50 different browsers.

To play FarmTown on facebook you only have one choice... Adobe Flash.

It will be installed the first time a user goes to a site where the content they want is flash based.

Should browsers be bundled with animated GIF support, or should you wait for them to visit a site uses them before downloading and providing support? How about PNG or SVG images?

Reply Score: 4

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I actually didn't realize that animaged gifs where not supported by some modern browsers. Support for PNG and other open image formats; sure.. no cost to include, well documented specs - go for it.

Flash is a product of a single controlling company who is legally obligated to deliver profits to the shareholders long before considering end user details. Bundling a flash pligin is not like including application level support for well known image formats.

But, I'm also of the opinion that the video tab needs to be ratified and used rather than continuing to rely on a third party plugin just to display webpage content.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Does bundling really - updates
by jabbotts on Tue 30th Mar 2010 18:29 UTC in reply to "Does bundling really matter?"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I think the real benefit here is ongoing updates. You'll get Flash with Chrome which is handy for new computer setups choosing Chrome.

Think ongoing use though; how many users are going to go update there Flash plugin regularly? If Chrome says "say, there's an update plugin available. Should I install for you now?" there is a higher chance of regular users keeping current.

Reply Score: 2

Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...it would make sense. On the other hand it is a rumor.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Tue 30th Mar 2010 14:19 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

GOOD.

You want to know why?

1. Go to Adobe.com
2. Click on Get Flash Player
3. Click "Agree and Install Now"
4. Accept prompt to install Firefox extension or download Adobe Download Manager
5. Install said unwanted extra, restart browser and download begins
6. Find out that McAfee security scan has been installed as well

Avoiding installing the download manage is difficult as you have to click the "troubleshoot" link, scroll to the very bottom of the page and click the download here link, which gives you the IE version of Flash, not the Firefox and others version.

Adobe utterly, utterly abuse their position when it comes to downloading and updating Flash. I can’t count the number of users who have come unstuck just trying to install Flash into Firefox. It’s not uncommon to see four copies of Flash_installer.exe because the user didn’t know they had to close the download window to close Firefox.exe itself.

If the user can have Flash on ChromeOS without having to go through Adobe’s abusive site, then I’m all for that.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Laurence on Tue 30th Mar 2010 14:43 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

GOOD.

You want to know why?

1. Go to Adobe.com
2. Click on Get Flash Player
3. Click "Agree and Install Now"
4. Accept prompt to install Firefox extension or download Adobe Download Manager
5. Install said unwanted extra, restart browser and download begins
6. Find out that McAfee security scan has been installed as well

Avoiding installing the download manage is difficult as you have to click the "troubleshoot" link, scroll to the very bottom of the page and click the download here link, which gives you the IE version of Flash, not the Firefox and others version.

Adobe utterly, utterly abuse their position when it comes to downloading and updating Flash. I can’t count the number of users who have come unstuck just trying to install Flash into Firefox. It’s not uncommon to see four copies of Flash_installer.exe because the user didn’t know they had to close the download window to close Firefox.exe itself.

If the user can have Flash on ChromeOS without having to go through Adobe’s abusive site, then I’m all for that.



A few problems with your post:

1/ ChromeOS is not Windows. So you wouldn't have Firefox.exe (or indeed any copy of Firefox is unlikely), let alone any of the other crapware you described.

2/ even on a Windows platform, Firefox can download the Flash plug in for you automatically. So why would you even bother downloading it manually?

3/ Why are you even talking about Firefox when this topic is about Chrome and ChromeOS?


[instant update]
re point 2: sorry, you're point was that users find ways to fsck up installs, not that it had to be downloaded. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Edited 2010-03-30 14:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Tue 30th Mar 2010 15:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I understand that ChromeOS is not Firefox and vice-versa. My point is, that given enough inbound traffic from users, Adobe _will_ abuse said users in whatever way is necessary.

They may force people to install a Chrome extension, or ask people for their e-mail address. But know this, the Adobe flash install page is a massive monetisation target for Adobe.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 30th Mar 2010 14:44 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Uh... Why do you install Flash in such a roundabout way? Here's my instructions for installing Flash on a machine that doesn't have it yet:

1) Go to YouTube video.
2) Click the "Install plugin..." button (or whatever it's called in Firefox or Chrome)
3) Get yourself a cookie, you earned it.

Or, the Linux method:

1) Launch terminal
2) sudo apt-get install flashplayer-nonfree
3) Get yourself a cookie, you earned it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Tue 30th Mar 2010 15:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Try method 1 again, notice how it doesn’t work, and hasn’t worked in a long time. The plugin finder service on Firefox can no longer install Flash automatically and you are forced through their website.

Method 2: Beneficial to 1% of people, and not one single customer of mine in four years.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 30th Mar 2010 15:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Try method 1 again, notice how it doesn’t work, and hasn’t worked in a long time. The plugin finder service on Firefox can no longer install Flash automatically and you are forced through their website.


Might be broken on Firefox, but works fine in Chrome. Firefox' fault.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Kroc
by robojerk on Tue 30th Mar 2010 17:08 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

Same thing is true for Apple.

Try to install iTunes and and see if Apple doesn't try to sneak Safari and other crap in with it. WTF do I need Bonjour for on a Windows system????

Same of also true for a slew of other programs out there.

I have to make sure I get the slim version of CCleaner to avoid getting the Yahoo! toolbar. I have also seen lots of installer try to push Ask.com, McaFee, etc that have nothing to do with Adobe.

The point is that we should be frowning on all companies that do these Trojan Horse installs and not just Adobe, but Kroc is so anti Flash/Adobe lately I read his comments with a strong critical eye if any of the players are involved.

Edited 2010-03-30 17:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Tue 30th Mar 2010 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

And ChromeOS, and the iPad will hopefully put a stop to this bundling and generally disrespectful behaviour to users; for a while.

The difference between Adobe doing this, and Apple or CCleaner, is that CCleaner or iTunes are not positioning themselves as absolutely necessary, core components of the web that all users need in order to participate.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 30th Mar 2010 17:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Well, at least Adobe is upfront about its intentions: it intends to keep Flash relevant. While I disagree with that, I at least respect their honesty.

The same cannot be said for Apple. While they deride Flash and tout their openness and web-friendliness to the Apple faithful (who even fall for that charade), accessing Apple's very own website still results in bullshit like this:

http://twitpic.com/1bsjqh

It's all relative. Just like so many others, Apple is only for an open web where they can profit from it. Same for Adobe and Microsoft. They are no better than one another.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Tue 30th Mar 2010 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

I didn’t deny that was the case. You are putting words into my mouth in that context. I fix computers for a living and the Flash installation procedure is a mountain that stands in the way of users installing and adopting Firefox on their own. Fact.

Google are now seeking to rectify that problem: http://blog.chromium.org/2010/03/bringing-improved-support-for-adob...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Kroc - FF and noscript
by jabbotts on Tue 30th Mar 2010 18:41 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Firefox and NoScript.

On Adobe's site, I select the "choose other system" or "choose other browser" option since I need to grab both the IE and Firefox/Chrome plugins and without the bundled extras.

On Sun's site, it complains because NoScript blocks Javascript. I select the "manually download" option.

None of those download helper or direct installs for me and my user network.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Kroc
by moondevil on Wed 31st Mar 2010 07:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08


5. Install said unwanted extra, restart browser and download begins
6. Find out that McAfee security scan has been installed as well


Just remember to uncheck the boxes that say you want to download that as well.

I never had any issues.

Edited 2010-03-31 07:57 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Wed 31st Mar 2010 12:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

It’s not about you not having any issues. I’m talking about the majority of computer users, who largely do not notice the tick box.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by twitterfire on Wed 31st Mar 2010 13:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Majority of computer users download a cookie and install Flash automatically, by visiting youtube or another flash enabled website.

By the way, after installing Flash 10.1 which use hardware acceleration, my CPU use is near 0 when playing flash.

Reply Score: 2

F$%&ck Apple
by ChrisA on Tue 30th Mar 2010 14:31 UTC
ChrisA
Member since:
2006-05-06

I got the perfect remedy for the Adobe and Apple issue, Adobe has the upper hand here. Quit making Photoshop for Mac. Guaranteed that would shut Apple up and Flash would come to the iPhone and iPad.

Reply Score: 2

RE: F$%&ck Apple
by Kroc on Tue 30th Mar 2010 14:34 UTC in reply to "F$%&ck Apple"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Apple would buy Adobe. In cash. And then drop the Windows versions.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: F$%&ck Apple
by Laurence on Tue 30th Mar 2010 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE: F$%&ck Apple"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Apple would buy Adobe. In cash. And then drop the Windows versions.


It's all very well saying that, but are Apple actually big enough to do it in practice?

They've bought out a number of other companies (eg the makers of the ex-PC studio kit: 'Logic') and done what you've described. So given how important a partner Adobe are for Apple's dominance in the creative industries, I'd have though Apple would have bought Adobe out before now if they could have.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: F$%&ck Apple
by Kroc on Tue 30th Mar 2010 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: F$%&ck Apple"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

It was kind of a joke. But the Mac represents a massive chunk of Adobe’s sales. They would have to be absolutely mad to drop Mac support.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: F$%&ck Apple
by twitterfire on Tue 30th Mar 2010 18:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: F$%&ck Apple"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

It was kind of a joke. But the Mac represents a massive chunk of Adobe’s sales. They would have to be absolutely mad to drop Mac support.


Not at all. Many people depend on Adobe products, not on operating system. If Adobe drops Apple, they will be happy Windows users. ;)

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

"Not at all. Many people depend on Adobe products, not on operating system. If Adobe drops Apple, they will be Windows users. ;) "

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: F$%&ck Apple
by testman on Wed 31st Mar 2010 01:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: F$%&ck Apple"
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

It'd be far cheaper to simply keep their current hardware and use an older version of Creative Studio.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: F$%&ck Apple
by twitterfire on Wed 31st Mar 2010 13:04 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: F$%&ck Apple"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

It'd be far cheaper to simply keep their current hardware and use an older version of Creative Studio.


Mac is just a PC, so they can keep their current hardware and install Windows 7.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: F$%&ck Apple
by testman on Wed 31st Mar 2010 23:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: F$%&ck Apple"
testman Member since:
2007-10-15

You don't run a business, do you? You can't just drop a new OS onto everyone's workstations and expect things to go tickety-boo.

As well as the cost of a new license for Creative Studio, you'll need new software (workflow management, timelogging, asset management), you'll need to train the staff in the new systems (we are talking ordinary people here, not geeks), you'll have to actually transition an office full of machines over to new systems, and most importantly, the transition itself takes time (networking, drivers, updates, virus checkers, etc.) and little or no real work is done costing the business money.

I've seen ill-advised mass migrations like this kill businesses before.

Reply Score: 2

RE: F$%&ck Apple
by twitterfire on Tue 30th Mar 2010 17:58 UTC in reply to "F$%&ck Apple"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

That's a good idea and I don't know why people at Adobe don't catch it. Adobe can hurt Apple bad if they cease to develop their products for Mac. Many Apple users are designers and web programmers. I they can't use Dreamweaver or Photoshop or ColdFusion or Illustrator on Mac, they will have to move to Windows.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: F$%&ck Apple
by Kroc on Tue 30th Mar 2010 19:47 UTC in reply to "RE: F$%&ck Apple"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

"I[f] they can't use Dreamweaver or Photoshop or ColdFusion or Illustrator on Mac, they will have to move to Windows."


Or dump that and learn how to web develop properly.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: F$%&ck Apple
by Laurence on Wed 31st Mar 2010 07:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: F$%&ck Apple"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

""I[f] they can't use Dreamweaver or Photoshop or ColdFusion or Illustrator on Mac, they will have to move to Windows."


Or dump that and learn how to web develop properly.
"



hehe - I would have +1 funny you if I hadn't already posted

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: F$%&ck Apple
by twitterfire on Wed 31st Mar 2010 13:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: F$%&ck Apple"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

"[q]"I[f] they can't use Dreamweaver or Photoshop or ColdFusion or Illustrator on Mac, they will have to move to Windows."


Or dump that and learn how to web develop properly.
"



hehe - I would have +1 funny you if I hadn't already posted [/q]

Don't laugh, please. What Kroc wanted to say by "learn proper development" is installing and learning to use Visual Studio and Visual Web Developer.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by abstraction
by abstraction on Tue 30th Mar 2010 14:56 UTC
abstraction
Member since:
2008-11-27

<Here is where I usually write unrelated cosmetic stuff to shield myself them who most likely will start bashing what I am about to say next>

Dear OSNews staff - stop obsessing about Flash. I thing it gets way to much publicity here. There are probably a few who are interested and that is all fine but I've seen about a hundred (this is a so called exageration) news items about Flash here on OSNews lately. There are so many other wonderful things happening in the world besides Flash that you usually pick up and write about.

I don't care if I get voted down or whatever - it is my god damn honest oppinion.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by abstraction
by Laurence on Tue 30th Mar 2010 15:31 UTC in reply to "Comment by abstraction"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Dear OSNews staff - stop obsessing about Flash. I thing it gets way to much publicity here. There are probably a few who are interested and that is all fine but I've seen about a hundred (this is a so called exageration) news items about Flash here on OSNews lately. There are so many other wonderful things happening in the world besides Flash that you usually pick up and write about.

So write an article and submit it to OS News.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by abstraction
by abstraction on Tue 30th Mar 2010 15:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by abstraction"
abstraction Member since:
2008-11-27

I know. If I don't like something I can do something about it - like writing articles that would interest me. Somehow ranting here seemed like the easiest path to take but most likely a futile one. I might actually take your advice.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by abstraction
by strcpy on Tue 30th Mar 2010 16:44 UTC in reply to "Comment by abstraction"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20


Dear OSNews staff - stop obsessing about Flash. I thing it gets way to much publicity here.


Great suggestion.

Flash and Browsers. Always about Flash and Browsers.

... here at BrowserNews.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by abstraction
by Kroc on Tue 30th Mar 2010 16:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by abstraction"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

We’re barely getting any written article submissions on other topics. I try to keep my radar tuned to alternative OSes, but not much is going on right now that I’ve seen. If people submit just links and not written articles, then it overfills Pg.2 and we have to throw things away.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by abstraction
by abstraction on Wed 31st Mar 2010 04:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by abstraction"
abstraction Member since:
2008-11-27

If there is a lack of articles and not enough room on page 2 - would it be possible to have something like a "twitter-feed" where the staff can post what they think is worth presenting from the submissions they've recieved. It would make it easier for smaller (but still interesting) news to get published compared to the situation we have now when they have to make way for the news targeted at the wider audience. The feed does not even have to be on the front page.

There is probably not much general interest in an operating system with say less than 50 users. Still, I would find it very intriguing to read about the progress beeing done and how they implement stuff et.c. Sadly those news never reaches me because no one think they are worth publishing. But they are.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by abstraction
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 30th Mar 2010 16:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by abstraction"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Blah blah and when we have a few Ubuntu stories in a row, we're UbuntuNews. When we have a few iPhone stories in a row, we're iPhoneNews. Seen all the nonsense.

We have a submit button. You're free to use it.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by abstraction
by twitterfire on Tue 30th Mar 2010 18:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by abstraction"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

We're all moving to the cloud so Windows vs Linux vs Mac is not so interesting anymore. ;) We will run apps from the cloud so we are more interested in IE, FF, Chrome, HTML5, H.264, Theora, Flash and so on.....

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by abstraction
by PresentIt on Tue 30th Mar 2010 21:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by abstraction"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

If you don't like the news they are posting, why don't you just go elsewhere?

Edited 2010-03-30 21:15 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by abstraction
by fatjoe on Wed 31st Mar 2010 09:49 UTC in reply to "Comment by abstraction"
fatjoe Member since:
2010-01-12

As others mentioned before, you can always submit your own news. In any case, I personally enjoy most OSnews articles for their lack of biased. While you accuse Osnews for bias, I can testify that most others sites are are far more biased. If you don't believe me, hear this story:

I used to have an account at engadget.com. One day, I read this story [1] about N900 getting new firmware with support for Ovi Store, but the Engadget crew somehow almost turned that into something negative for Nokia (!!). I posted a few comments about the obvious Engadget bias. I pointed out that when the same functionality became available for iPhone/iPod, the Engadget crew published miles and miles of articles with extremely positive tone. It turns out that many, many more were upset about the Apple-bias at Engadget and the obvious Nokia hate.

So how did the Engadget crew tackle this? Did they have a review of their internal reviewing and publishing policy? No, they turned off the comment system for a few days to cool down the revolution [3]. They also, without any prior notice, removed or disabled the accounts that criticized the Engadget bias, and removed all their comments. If you search for my comments, you will see that my comments are gone while some replies are still there but point to wrong OP [1, 4]. Obviously, Engadget was in such hurry to remove the critical comments that they didn't fix this, which resulted in broken threads in many posts.

So nowadays, I am a happy OSnews costumer and enjoy the high quality articles and unbiased stories that report from both sides.

[1] http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/14/nokia-n900-gets-its-second-firmw...
[3] http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/02/were-turning-comments-off-for-a-...
[4] http://www.google.com/search?q=fatjoe+site%3Aengadget.com

PS. If anyone is interested in this story, I can provide more information and data.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by abstraction
by PresentIt on Wed 31st Mar 2010 15:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by abstraction"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Geez. Take your internet warfare elsewhere.

BTW, I'm guessing that you broke the rules, and now you are mad because they bothered to deal with it.

Reply Score: 0

Wait, what about YouTube...
by runjorel on Tue 30th Mar 2010 15:51 UTC
runjorel
Member since:
2009-02-09

Wasn't YouTube going to start implementing HTML 5 for video? I thought Google was a big supporter of HTML 5 (including the video spec) and this just seems like a conflict of interest.

I hope they have a valid reason and not just playing some political card here.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wait, what about YouTube...
by twitterfire on Tue 30th Mar 2010 18:07 UTC in reply to "Wait, what about YouTube..."
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

Maybe Google will drop HTML5 to further hurt Apple. It'll be a nice move.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wait, what about YouTube...
by sakeniwefu on Tue 30th Mar 2010 22:03 UTC in reply to "Wait, what about YouTube..."
sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

Today, when I updated the Chromium on my Linux machine I noticed a weird package was being pulled. Google supports now Theora with OS codecs(I think) at least on Linux. I think supporting HTML5 doesn't detract from their objective to make money with their stupid netbooks, and having Flash will give them an upper hand over Apple for Web browsing.
Better Flash than Silverlight I guess.

Reply Score: 2

Nice one!
by twitterfire on Tue 30th Mar 2010 17:48 UTC
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

Ha, ha! Die Apple, die! You deserve that kick in the big fat ass.

Reply Score: 0

jabbotts
Member since:
2007-09-06

After all, isn't Blink an important and integrated part of the internet?

Actually, I'm more curious about Chrome/Flash. Will this be just for Windows/Chrome/Flash or will they be providing Chrome/Flash in the *nix system install package? Will they provide 64bit versions of each. How will this conflict with my existing but seporate Chrome and Flash debian packages?

Also, downloads have enough crap bundled in them. If it's not the program I want plus Yahoo Browser Bar, it's Google Browser Bar telling me I can't live without it infecting my system. Bundling Flash into the Chrome install package does not make it more attractive for business use either; we tend to like to track those versions and installs.

Both of these questions will be answered soon enough in testing.

Reply Score: 2

Hope they include a flash blocker!
by MacMan on Tue 30th Mar 2010 19:36 UTC
MacMan
Member since:
2006-11-19

Possibly the best piece of software I've installed in the last 5 years is ClickToFlash, this has made the web usable again. With flash blocked, you can go to a site and not have 300 popups, spinning, animated, flashing CRAP buzzing around, and you don't have perpetual browser crashes. With flash enabled, both Safari and Firefox would crash several times a day, now, zero. And better yet, I don't hear the fan kick in everytime some BS flash advertisement displays.

Reply Score: 2

Makes sense
by Moochman on Tue 30th Mar 2010 19:45 UTC
Moochman
Member since:
2005-07-06

Adobe is a big licensee of the now-Google-owned VP6 codec. My guess is that Google has now struck some kind of cross-licensing deal which will possibly mean Adobe adopting VP8 in the future. The other thing Google may be getting out of it is a renewed promise from Adobe to invest in Flash on Android.

Now Google just needs to open-source VP8 and make it a standard, and I will be a happy geek.

Reply Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming
Member since:
2005-11-09

People will install flash anyway, might as well have their update tool be responsible for pulling the latest version of flash than relying on the users.

Reply Score: 2

Well no ***.
by deathshadow on Wed 31st Mar 2010 02:34 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Given the total lack of security/copy protection on the HTML5 tag, I found the very notion of youtube; a company that has always used endless javascript trickery, RTMP streaming and other techniques to PREVENT people from copying video off their site, would be the LAST group to embrace HTML5 where it's view>source, CTRL-C, CTRL-V, hey, I'm downloading.

... and it seems like their current parent company might just recognize the reality of this.

Endless codec bullshit arguements aside, the large COMPANIES that distribute videos online (or redistribute user submitteds) have ZERO interest in open formats, never have. Developers of those sites go to extreme measures from watermarking, to non-standard protocols, to wrapping video playback in a flash based player that streams it over an encrypted (kind-of) channel...

In other words, another thing flash is better at than HTML5 Video ever will be. It's TOO open for the BUSINESSES who run sites like youtube, dailymotion, etc to seriously be considering.

I was in serious "whiskey tango foxtrot" territory over YT's "HTML 5" preview - of course that their idea of an HTML 5 test was slapping ONE HTML 5 tag into the middle of a XHTML 1.0 Tranny document pretty much said it all.

Edited 2010-03-31 02:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Good and Bad news
by nt_jerkface on Wed 31st Mar 2010 06:10 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

The good news: No need for adobeupdater.exe, just install Chrome and Foxit. Integration could bring optimization improvements.

The bad news: Even more confirmation that Google likes Flash and plans on keeping it around.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Good and Bad news
by twitterfire on Wed 31st Mar 2010 13:08 UTC in reply to "Good and Bad news"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11


The bad news: Even more confirmation that Google likes Flash and plans on keeping it around.


That's not bad news, that's good news. I hope they will cease to use H.264 for HTML5 and use VP8 instead. I'll like to see Jobs's face then.

Reply Score: 2