Jump to content

Macromedia to take Linux more seriously.


SoulSe
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hmmm

OK, Ill try not to flame Flash ....

Just let me get it outa my system...

90% of flash on the internet is misused.

 

Ahhhh....

Now I can continue.... (for the 10% of sites where flash is cool)

 

Two things strike me....

 

1) is not just the absence of flash as stated above, its the whole genre of progs that are missing or inadequate. The only problem with GIMP is lack of competition :D In other words Flash combines images, sound, movies etc. BUT the tools to manipulate these are thin on the ground in linux.

 

The tools here are simply not in the same league as the tools for the Mac.

GIMP is great BUT its not Photoshop. Its good for me and you but I cant see a professional print beuro converting becuase of the 10% of stuff that GIMP doesnt do.

 

In order to effectively use flash in Linux then the movie editing and image trools need to be available and interusable.

It would be similar to trying to replace MS office with OOWriter. OO and SO are only really viable becuase they also do xls and ppt.

 

2) File formats ..

Basically, how will the 'source' swf files be stored ? In linux we are used to simple 'source' trees , even for say Qt or Gtk stuff the 'project file' is basically in text ...

This is good, for instance you might use one HTML editor for the major part of a site but choose to use another specific one for certain pages.

This is all easy becuase its just html[/] ...

If you take Dreamweaver it creates lots of little directories and thumbnails etc. in a way that only makes sense under the Dreamweaver way of working.

For instance in Linux you might decide to create a <docroot>/library directory or /images etc. for reusable stuff.

Dreamweaver sorta takes over and does this for you.

 

Its not GOOD or BAD, but it does kinda tie you into using dreamweaver for everything. Including getting the Macromedia stuff into the web pages ...

ColdFusion etc. is all supported but its all using 'non source' type objects whereas linux uses more open stuff.

 

Its hard to explain, but in practice it seems easier to add a ColdFusion or SWF into dreamweaver than build in some java or javascript.

 

Same goes for Frames etc. playing with frames in Dreamweaver ends up looking like you made a site in dreamweaver ... somehow the 'look and feel' persists.

Whereas if I made it in Quanta or Bluefish it looks original ....

 

The Macromedia corporate look is itself a product of the plug-in stuff its meant to support. It tends tpo produce those horrid fixed width and height pages - so you can drop in a swf. etc ..

 

Personally I found using dreamweaver a pain .... Its beats Wordpad :D but I prefer more open editors. (I am biased since I only have it in French and thats a bit of a pain... especially since JustifyLeft etc. is translated into French but obviously the HTML is in English.... so I know what I want in the HTML buit end up trying to find it in French for it to insert in English....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only Macromedia products I really find good are Flash and Freehand (I'm not very good with design, so it impresses me).

 

But I still maintain that the point is simply that a big software producer is taking Linux seriously - forget whether or not you like their software and focus on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is is that a good thing!

Personally I dont want to see Linux as a set of closed source closed structure programs.

 

Basically if you want that then get a Mac ....

 

There are 2 points though....

Firstly, flash by itself is not really useful. It needs some support progas for graphics and publishing.

 

Secondly the MS way of OLE/DDE and .com crap isnt relevant to Linux.

What Im trying to point out is that the way linux works is more modular NOT monolithic.

 

lets forget web content..... and look at say CD creation.

OK, so we have X Cd recorder apps, all using cdrecord/mkisofs etc. but looking different. Some can rip audio and some can even rip movies etc.

Then the DVD ripping and the CD ripping are again using common tools.

 

Windows apps don't work that way.

In fact they work entirely the opposite.

A windows CD/DVD ripping prog will actually need to write the drivers etc. before it can do anything. Then it needs a iso creating prog writing and finally a cd recording part.

Any MP3 stuff also needs adding.

 

In windows its either built into the program OR its a seperate prog.

 

In linux everything blurs into one. Its just linux.....

 

So I have nothing against dreamweaver BUT its designed in the windows way, not the linux way. Im not sure i want that sort of thing in linux.

 

The statement a big manufacturer .... taking linux seriously...

What do you call oracle who has been crying it out for ages as its primary platform ?? that's REAL software not some toy animation builder thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said that Macromedia was the first!

 

But you sound slightly aggresive, so I'll turn and run. Had enough flaming for one year and no time to retaliate.

Perhaps slightly agressive : sorry

Really Im just questioning if its REALLY a good thing ....

 

 

IMVHO: Flash is not really standalone.... its part of the Macromedia suite and so the whole thing really needs porting.

 

By itself its a toy ... you can make pretty animations etc. but basically it needs support to turn this into a web site.

 

Im just not sure that the monolithic model is the way i wanna see linux utility SW going. I have a whole load of that sorta stuff already available in windows and being trapped by it is was one my primary motivations to use Linux in the first place.

 

What I found over the years is flexibility and choice don't seem to balance with ease of use and stuff. Im not saying easy to use SW is BAD ... Im just saying it often comes at the expense of flexibility and open-ness.

 

So I wonder if this is what we really want .... if we wanted to give up open source and modular programs and trade it for easy to use then why not just buy a Mac!!!

 

Isnt it becuase we dont like something about the Mac way ???

 

OK so it only has one mouse button but I dont think thats it ..... ???

ITs something deeper, perhaps harder to put your finger on ... but ???

Edited by Gowator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said that Macromedia was the first!

 

But you sound slightly aggresive, so I'll turn and run. Had enough flaming for one year and no time to retaliate.

Perhaps slightly agressive : sorry

Really Im just questioning if its REALLY a good thing ....

 

 

IMVHO: Flash is not really standalone.... its part of the Macromedia suite and so the whole thing really needs porting.

 

By itself its a toy ... you can make pretty animations etc. but basically it needs support to turn this into a web site.

 

Im just not sure that the monolithic model is the way i wanna see linux utility SW going. I have a whole load of that sorta stuff already available in windows and being trapped by it is was one my primary motivations to use Linux in the first place.

 

What I found over the years is flexibility and choice don't seem to balance with ease of use and stuff. Im not saying easy to use SW is BAD ... Im just saying it often comes at the expense of flexibility and open-ness.

 

So I wonder if this is what we really want .... if we wanted to give up open source and modular programs and trade it for easy to use then why not just buy a Mac!!!

 

Isnt it becuase we dont like something about the Mac way ???

 

OK so it only has one mouse button but I dont think thats it ..... ???

ITs something deeper, perhaps harder to put your finger on ... but ???

:cheeky:

 

Good points.

 

I like to think that the open source community will always stay the same, no matter how many pieces of non-open software become available for Linux.

 

Just because you have the option of buying commercial software for Linux, doesn't mean that all the open-source developers are going to pack up and leave. In fact, it might even inspire them to do more.

 

Flash is VERY standalone and DOES NOT just create animations. Having used it extensively, I agree with you that it is miss-used all over the web. But it is a powerful tool nonetheless. The interactivity it can provide a website with can be invaluable if used correctly. It does not rely on ANY of the other Macromedia products.

 

Think about a jpeg: you make it in the gimp and then include in your website using your html/text editor right? Does this make the Gimp inferior? Does it mean that the Gimp cannot stand on its own two feet or that it relies on a suite?

 

Same with Flash. You use the Flash editor to make your .swf files (THEY ARE NOT MERELY ANIMATIONS, UNLESS YOU WANT THEM TO BE) and then you include them on your webpage with whatever you like.

 

Perhaps that argument holds for Dreamweaver, I've never used it so I cannot pass comment... but I have used Flash and it, like the Gimp, like Bluefish, like most software is not just "part of suite".

 

The same analogy could be made with Openoffice Writer or MS Word. They are optimised to integrate effeciently with the other programs in the suite, but do not rely on them.

 

As for Flash being a toy... dude, PLEASE download the demo and actually use it (or try to) and you'll see that this could not be further from the truth.

 

I am tired of Linux users dissing Flash when they have a) Never used it / figured out how to use it. or B) think it is for animating or c) judge it on some idiot who can't use it properly's work.

 

That's why I wanted this discussion to steer away from the ups and downs of the software itself, I guess I was being overly optimistic. :furious3:

:o :lol: :jester: :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soulse,

I have to admit that my view of flash is coloured by not being able to use it.

Its pretty simple really I just dont use sites which have flash...

Instead I use the only button on the internet more frequently used than skip-flash-intro... the back button.

 

I just can't be bothered, I know I probably miss some cool sites BUT life's too short! Non of my browsers actually have a flash plugin installed anyway....

I tried once and it came up with some windows file so I left it alone.

The other reason is I am BOMBARDED by it at work. Its REALLY horrid and badly misused. (you know what my work intranet is like from other posts) .. its a set of crap HTML, docs and ppt stuff all strung together with macromedia stuff.

 

The main thing is for me I look for INFORMATION on the internet. (well perhaps 90% of the time) and I can't search the text hidden away in a flash .swx

 

Having said all that then possibly the REASON im so against it IS it WASN'T available under linux :D

I might be getting old and stuffy !!!!

 

As far as Im concerned ANY web technology that runs on or needs MS is TRASH.

I have had a LOT of bad experiences with MS technology.....

 

 

So Macromedia taking the linux side seriously might actually change my concept.....

BUT your right, I haven't ACTUALY USED FLASH!!!

I was judging it by the other Macromedia SW.

 

Ill take your word, actually Ill check out your site while Im at work and I have flash!

 

(off to your site NOW)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VERY good points, SoulSe. Some people (not you, Gowator) simply see Flash as an animated GIF replacement tool. Our company mainly use it for user interfaces, but also wrote complete media streaming applications and eLearning tools, all in Flash. Why Flash? Because, by now, client side runs on almost any device / OS, and it's an inexpensive development environment. Application serving is also cheap--add an app server (say, php), a web server (apache), and a db (mysql), you're set. We haven't encountered anything that would require a MM com-server, yet, so why bother?

 

That's why I'm really, really looking forward to having Macromedia tools run on my linux box. It just plain sucks to have to switch PCs or to dualboot just because you need to do a small change to a media player's logic. Also, this furthers my hopes to finally have a Flash 7 plugin/player for *nix. Is about bloody time, too. B)

 

93,

-Sascha.rb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VERY good points, SoulSe. Some people (not you, Gowator) simply see Flash as an animated GIF replacement tool. Our company mainly use it for user interfaces, but also wrote complete media streaming applications and eLearning tools, all in Flash. Why Flash? Because, by now, client side runs on almost any device / OS, and it's an inexpensive development environment. Application serving is also cheap--add an app server (say, php), a web server (apache), and a db (mysql), you're set. We haven't encountered anything that would require a MM com-server, yet, so why bother?

 

That's why I'm really, really looking forward to having Macromedia tools run on my linux box. It just plain sucks to have to switch PCs or to dualboot just because you need to do a small change to a media player's logic. Also, this furthers my hopes to finally have a Flash 7 plugin/player for *nix. Is about bloody time, too.  B)

 

93,

-Sascha.rb

Erm ... thanks BUT include me.....

Soulse put me right but I was in that category!!!

 

Ill try an persist when I have some time .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey All

 

As someone  who  loves there dreamweaver more than life itself,  It will be good to see it ported to Linux,

 

I miss using it to do my Web design work,  quanta is nice,  but it is nothing on dreamweaver,  and also freehand is great

 

Enjoy !!

I would have high expectations for a web design program that makes uses of correct syntax and a combination of (X)html/Css, wich also gives 'amateurs' the ability to do their design in a Live Preview window.

 

Think of a cross between Nvu crossed with WestCiv's Stylemaster and Layout master. Now these last two programs are Windows&MacOSX only, so some of you probably do not know them. But they are excellent examples of how tools can be built that produce the most excellent quality of code on sites, while still being able to concentrate on the design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although it's late, but it looks like FlashPlayer 7 for Linux Beta is coming:

 

http://www.markme.com/mesh/archives/004504.cfm

 

Also, a new Flash plugin version 6.0.81 is released, which is supposed to solve the dependency of libstdc++ (gcc 2.96) problem:

 

http://videl.ics.hawaii.edu/pipermail/linu...rch/000106.html

 

You can download the update package here:

http://sluglug.ucsc.edu/macromedia/site_ucsc.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speeding up Flash animation for GTK-2.x+ build (and 2.x+ build only) of Mozilla or Firefox:

 

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=219625

 

Just export this environment before starting Mozilla / Firefox:

 

$ export FLASH_GTK_LIBRARY=libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0

 

You can add this line (without the '$' prompt) to the execute script such as "firefox.sh", so it will be exported by default.

Edited by zero0w
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...