Comments on: Open at Adobe – Dave McAllister http://www.peterelst.com/blog/2009/07/25/open-at-adobe-dave-mcallister/ Flash Platform Geek Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:31:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Five principal cash saving tips for your funds | Credit Card News http://www.peterelst.com/blog/2009/07/25/open-at-adobe-dave-mcallister/comment-page-1/#comment-22321 Five principal cash saving tips for your funds | Credit Card News Sun, 02 Aug 2009 10:14:13 +0000 http://www.peterelst.com/blog/?p=2325#comment-22321 [...] Open at Adobe – Dave McAllister | Peter Elst [...] [...] Open at Adobe – Dave McAllister | Peter Elst [...]

]]> By: Adobe Open Source- ppalmeida http://www.peterelst.com/blog/2009/07/25/open-at-adobe-dave-mcallister/comment-page-1/#comment-22303 Adobe Open Source- ppalmeida Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:28:16 +0000 http://www.peterelst.com/blog/?p=2325#comment-22303 [...] (via Peter Elst(link externo)) [...] [...] (via Peter Elst(link externo)) [...]

]]> By: Josh Tynjala http://www.peterelst.com/blog/2009/07/25/open-at-adobe-dave-mcallister/comment-page-1/#comment-22260 Josh Tynjala Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:10:57 +0000 http://www.peterelst.com/blog/?p=2325#comment-22260 "nobody can change/add tags or other data structures" If someone creates a decent competing implementation of Flash Player, and the community finds it generally stable and usable, I say go ahead and experiment with new features that aren't in the official player. If the community starts playing with these non-standard features, getting excited, and blogging with experiments and enthusiasm, I don't doubt that Adobe will take notice. With strong community support, they would be stupid not to see value in implementing cool stuff that comes out of these sorts of guerrilla efforts. If the community isn't interested, then maybe those new features aren't as useful as you think. In the browser world, experimental proprietary CSS is created all the time. Often, if it's good, this stuff makes it into the standard and then gets implemented in other browsers. Until then, it doesn't get used in real world projects, but the proof of concept shows feasibility and can inspire adoption. Why can't an alternative Flash Player do the same? “nobody can change/add tags or other data structures”

If someone creates a decent competing implementation of Flash Player, and the community finds it generally stable and usable, I say go ahead and experiment with new features that aren’t in the official player. If the community starts playing with these non-standard features, getting excited, and blogging with experiments and enthusiasm, I don’t doubt that Adobe will take notice. With strong community support, they would be stupid not to see value in implementing cool stuff that comes out of these sorts of guerrilla efforts. If the community isn’t interested, then maybe those new features aren’t as useful as you think.

In the browser world, experimental proprietary CSS is created all the time. Often, if it’s good, this stuff makes it into the standard and then gets implemented in other browsers. Until then, it doesn’t get used in real world projects, but the proof of concept shows feasibility and can inspire adoption. Why can’t an alternative Flash Player do the same?

]]> By: Peter http://www.peterelst.com/blog/2009/07/25/open-at-adobe-dave-mcallister/comment-page-1/#comment-22232 Peter Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:38:46 +0000 http://www.peterelst.com/blog/?p=2325#comment-22232 Thanks for your thoughts Emanuele -- I see your point with regards to contributing back to these open initiatives. Adobe governs the different projects and there doesn't seem to be a clear path on how you can get your changes considered for inclusion. Adobe's open initiatives in a lot of cases are more than "documentation" though, its not just open specs (FLV, AMF, RTMP etc.) but frameworks and things like the code for the AVM as donated to Mozilla. Thanks for your thoughts Emanuele — I see your point with regards to contributing back to these open initiatives. Adobe governs the different projects and there doesn’t seem to be a clear path on how you can get your changes considered for inclusion.

Adobe’s open initiatives in a lot of cases are more than “documentation” though, its not just open specs (FLV, AMF, RTMP etc.) but frameworks and things like the code for the AVM as donated to Mozilla.

]]> By: Emanuele Cipolloni http://www.peterelst.com/blog/2009/07/25/open-at-adobe-dave-mcallister/comment-page-1/#comment-22231 Emanuele Cipolloni Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:22:35 +0000 http://www.peterelst.com/blog/?p=2325#comment-22231 While I'm not one of those advocates that believes open sourcing Flash or other Adobe software would produce any substantial benefit to the community, I believe the word "open" is being misrepresented in this context and only add to the misconception. For years "open" in the software world has been associated to the word "source", when you are "open" you allow others dig your code, modify it, derive other works and so on. If you keep the code for yourself, it stays closed. If you tell others how they can produce data files to be used with your technology, you are "documenting" it, maybe you're "opening the spec", but software still stays very well closed. While by having the data file spec "open" is a good thing for interoperability, nobody can change/add tags or other data structures, so even in this regard the spec stays "closed". The only one that can modify the data file spec is the originator of the technology (in the Flash case, Adobe obviously). When used in this context, "open" sounds more an attempt to catch the meaning of it without actually being open at all. Probably replacing "open" with "documented" would solve the misconception you're talking about. Cheers While I’m not one of those advocates that believes open sourcing Flash or other Adobe software would produce any substantial benefit to the community, I believe the word “open” is being misrepresented in this context and only add to the misconception.

For years “open” in the software world has been associated to the word “source”, when you are “open” you allow others dig your code, modify it, derive other works and so on. If you keep the code for yourself, it stays closed.

If you tell others how they can produce data files to be used with your technology, you are “documenting” it, maybe you’re “opening the spec”, but software still stays very well closed. While by having the data file spec “open” is a good thing for interoperability, nobody can change/add tags or other data structures, so even in this regard the spec stays “closed”. The only one that can modify the data file spec is the originator of the technology (in the Flash case, Adobe obviously).

When used in this context, “open” sounds more an attempt to catch the meaning of it without actually being open at all.

Probably replacing “open” with “documented” would solve the misconception you’re talking about.

Cheers

]]>