What is Digg?127 Comments
- Diggtatorship, on 10/12/2007, -9/+64Yawn... Wake me up when they open-source Flash.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+61so simply by making something open source it becomes to de facto standard..
-_-' - diggapleaze, on 10/12/2007, -8/+55"What no mention of Photoshop costing $1000's yet.. where have all the Adobe haters gone?"
"Yawn... Wake me up when they open-source Flash."
"too bad it sucks"
"I'd rather see Appollo become open source."
You ungrateful bastards! This is ***** amazing when a company like Adobe sees the light and open-sources a huge technology like this. I get really sick of you glass-half-empty fools. - drzeus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Official press release: http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200704/042607Flex.html
FAQ and stuff on Adobe Labs: http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Flex:Open_Source - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18It's compatible with GPL/LGPL, but also allows them to restrict commercial use. A /very/ good choice of licence IMO.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18It probably will today yes. Most modern endeavours will look at open standards and open source as education levels on the subject increase. MS isn't involved so aren't going to attack this outright so yeah it will probably become standard.
It's worth remembering with the tubes that most developers want everyone to be able to access their content. - wattz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@kmedlin
First off, Amazon's Webservices do not use Ruby On Rails, they are java based webservices. They offer libraries for languages like Rails to use their service though.
Second off, Flex going the route of Javascript makes it really hard to compare it, as a client side technology, with frameworks that are server based.
but meh..... thats my $.02 :-) - boxc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Reading those links and the emphasis on cross platform client and dev support makes this open source announcement interesting response to MS's Silverlight. Flex is interesting and needs some momentum (which this will help) + AS3 is great.. I think the competition between the two (MS+Adobe) will be great.
- robsta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Last time I checked all the Source Code to the Flex components were floating around in the freely downloadable SDK. Did they just change the licensing and get everyone excited? Adobe should open-source or make Flex Builder free as well.
- Uruviel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Under Mozilla Public Licence, interesting choice ...
- coredump0x01, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I could probably see that happening if Adobe Flash becomes too threatened by MS Silverlight. As MS becomes more competitive against Adobe's products, Adobe will likely try to strike at MS's solar plex, which is currently Open Source. Interesting times....
- wbrendel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@tamrix: Making it open source will go a long way towards making it the standard. From the conversations I've had on- and off-line with other people, the fear of getting locked into a proprietary technology was a huge concern for developers. With this announcement, I think a lot of that fear will go away, paving the way for more developers to embrace Flex.
- pintong, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Hope you enjoy your nap.
- lilzaphod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@lava
Flex got rid of the server based need in Flex 2. The data services portion is server based, but is not required for standard SOA style apps using webservices, etc. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Look at this way - wider platform support (and as wide as you're willing to contribute the code for) = a better de facto standard than Microsoft could ever come up with. Adobe have done this to nip Siverlight in the bud. The web2.0 startups will leap on Flex as the hip OSS technology to use (like Ruby et al), leaving Silverlight to 100%-Microsoft shops and know-nothing college students.
- Alisic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Just because something is open source, doesn't mean it's automagically one billion times better. Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong proponent of the whole open source idea (and 50% of my worktime is spent on Adobe apps, love some of them), but there's a lot more to this than just Flex being open source. Like a previous poster said, there's still no guarantee about it being free of patents. At Flex's core is Flash technology, which is as closed source as you can get. So it's best to take these kinds of statements with a pinch of salt.
- scabbers, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12I didn't appreciate the opinion/prediction in the description either.
- ciphergoth, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Not really open source - the key component, Flash, is still proprietary. So you can't deliver a Flex application based entirely on open source technology.
- Bamborzled, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Isn't Apollo just a combination of Flash, Flex, HTML and JavaScript that allows them to run on the desktop?
- macewan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tamarin/
- benlindelof, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Here's my 2 cents, coming from both angles of development:
.NET has more power for development on the server-side, where Flex has more power on the client side.
In .NET I have never linked a User Interface animation to a form control. If the form control is animated, it's because the OS has been set to 'Fade' or 'Slide'. I have done some great graphical readouts, but Flash seems more client-oriented.
For instance, a Kiosk at a mall might be developed with Adobe, but the server-side application that monitors all Kiosks at all malls might be a .NET solution.
It's fun for developers when they Open Source, because that means everyone can use it. - Nachoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7So functionality is no longer enough to lock people into your proprietary technologies, Adobe?
- lava, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I'm a bit confused. One has been able to use the SDK for free via adobe labs. Open sourcing, in terms of paying for development, doesn't change anything. What about deployment? It's the one thing that stopped my company from using it... we didn't want to pay for a server license.
- UberNick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@kmedlin
You're remarks are based on some poor assumptions. First, Flex was meant to replace Flash as an application development platform. Historically, Flash was developed for graphics and movies. Its developer tool is based on a "movie" paradigm that makes application development difficult. Along with the powerful features of ActionScript and cross-platform, cross-browser compatibility, many people began using Flash for application development. Macromedia (later Adobe) decided to build Flex to fill this role.
In regards to RoR, its scaffolding ability allows complex RIAs to be built quickly and from the ground up. But if you already have some enterprise architecture in place, interface development isn't any easier with Ruby than most Ajax tools like GWT. There's not even a WYSIWYG designer tool.
Flex, especially with the help of LCDS, will plug into most architectures really well. It's intuitive and quick, has some great tools, and a strong platform to build on. It fulfills a lot of needs that other tools don't touch. It's not a direct competitor with Flash, RoR, or Silverlight. - gutfeeling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4no, you dont need FDS. You can easily consume data from a webservice. Theres a few examples on the Adobe site, including an integrating PHP and Flex2 tutorial.
- dkuntze, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Hmmm... does that mean that OpenLaszlo is unseated as "the standard", since it was already open source? I think not. OpenLaszlo adds functionality that Adobe is releasing undler the MPL either... data components, etc...
- pauleric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Not only Flex Builder, they should open-source photoshop and CS3. But first they need to get those dancing girls to serve me beer on my private island. That should be a software company's first priority.
- caper88, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I don't get it: If you want to get data to that cool app, you still need Flex Data Services, which is 20k per server. Also, they are not even opening the full Flex SDK; the Eclipse component is remaining closed and $. Not sure why this is such a big deal. Don't get me wrong, it's a feather in the cap for Open Source, but in the scheme of things, it doesn't seem to matter for the average company.
- hartist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Flash is the player, when most people are talking about Flash in this thread they are referring to the player. The Flash application is used for illustration and animation. Flex is used primarily for programming and application development. When the Flash application started veering towards rich Internet apps, they decided to branch it into Flex rather than try to make the Flash application do everything. Both use the flash player as the output format. So you can use Flex to produce Flash movies, among other Flex specific stuff.
What's cool about this is that they are releasing the compiler for Flex which means programmers can now build a better compiler if they want, or improve on the current one. The compiler produces the flash movies. - azazel00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Not necessarily.
I've been doing some reading in the past couple of hours. It appears you can integrate Flex with pretty much anything that will format your data into XML. - geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@UberNick
"There's not even a WYSIWYG designer tool."
There is for GWT, flash demos: http://www.instantiations.com/gwtdesigner/demos.html
I am going to have to give flex a try now that it is open source. In many ways GWT is limited in that it works on the existing HTML+javascript platform to 'hack' together a rich UI. Flex has a great platform to work with - flash. In that way I see flex being more lightweight and extensible. Even with relying on google's GWT team to figure out browser differences, JS wasn't designed for rich applications, so rich JS + Ajax gui apps never quite hit the mark. Flex, based on flash, looks perfect. And it works with linux, microsoft's XAML does not. That is important since many sites gets 3-5% of users with linux, on par with mac.
Looking at this demo confirms my suspicions - GWT and other ajax apps could never approach this:
http://examples.adobe.com/flex2/consulting/styleexplorer/Flex2StyleExplorer.html
Look like I will start using this! Very cool. - sinatosk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3well it does says Adobe Flex is open source... not Adobe Flash
Adobe Flex is a framework amongst other utilities like debugger etc etc and at the end... you compile it into Flash format - drzeus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This will include the Java-based ActionScript compilers too. That's the most exciting part. Additionally, the component source code falls under a much more open license than it was before.
- polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3ok, can someone clear something up?
The newer Actionscript 3.0 is used in Flash and Flex. I have seen the new format for AS and it looks as if you can code out just about everything you can do with Flash. Would this, in a sense, being open sourcing flash, also? or am I way off the mark here. I am a lowly 3d modeler, so take it easy on me. - whiledo, on 03/25/2009, -0/+3@caper88
In addition to what gutfeeling said, you also get one free FDS-enabled application per server. It's when you want to serve up more than one app that they charge you. - rharris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What they should do is open source the Flash Player and release the FLA and SWF file formats (I think SWF already is to an extent). That way anyone who takes the time to understand how a SWF file would be rendered can write an FOSS application to build SWF files and read the original FLA files.
Adobe gets to keep their lead in having the premiere Flash authoring tool, but they would soon have competition from an up and coming open source tool to make sure they kept innovating to keep their lead. Consumers could then choose to go with the non-free "professional" tool from Adobe or with the free open source tool based on budget and which fit their needs better. - ElectricGrandpa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"the Eclipse component is remaining closed and $. "
That's just a development IDE... It's a tool, and tools are how Adobe has always made their money. The key is: you don't have to use Flex Builder to create Flex apps. - geoken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"What they should do is open source the Flash Player and release the FLA and SWF file formats (I think SWF already is to an extent). That way anyone who takes the time to understand how a SWF file would be rendered can write an FOSS application to build SWF files and read the original FLA files."
They already did that. Anyone can go to adobe's website and see the swf spec after they sign a EULA agreeing not to create a swf player. Once you sign the eula the swf specifications will (almost imidiately) be emailed to you. Once you have the spec you're free to create an FOSS swf authoring tool (ie. Open Laszlo). - njs50, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2as far as I can see, the only reason you'd want to have flash data services is to be able to push data from the webserver to clients. for example to make a web based chat client that doesn't have to poll the server every second to see if it has new messages waiting...
While flex requires flash player 9 to be installed, the install base is pretty big and i'm not aware of any other common browser component that allows you to maintain a connection between the server and browser.
As for the flexbuilder IDE, saying that you need to have that is like saying you need dreamweaver to be able to write html... It's definitely a good place to start, but it is by no means required. the 30 day trial should be enough for you to get the feel of the language and after that you could start hacking away in notepad if you felt the need. - bcswartz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There's no pleasing some people. It seems every time a new Adobe announcement comes out, there's always a shrill band of detractors waiting to pounce on it, and "open source" is almost always their rallying cry.
To those folks: good luck on griping about this one. :)
I don't think they did it because of Silverlight: Silverlight's barely out the door, while Flex is already out there, powering some rather amazing sites like Picnik.com and Scrapblog. They did it because apparently that's what they've always wanted to do. And it makes perfect sense: they'll increase the developer and resource base for the technology, while still making money off the sale of tools like Flex Builder and the enterprise server technologies like Flex Data Services for doing advanced Flex development. - C00001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Flex is not necessarily meant to replace RoR, etc. It actually plays well with Ruby, PHP, ASP, etc, for server-side scripting, and also with JavaScript on the client side. They've even released a "Flex-AJAX Bridge", that makes pretty much everything available to you in ActionScript also available to JavaScript (without using the ExternalInterface class).
http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/Flex_Framework:FABridge - JamesWilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@macewan (#6357243)
"By working on an open source implementation of ES4 with the community, Adobe and Mozilla hope to accelerate the adoption of a standard language for creating engaging Web applications."
Adobe givin back, woot woot! - senfo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@benlindelof
When you say that Flex is better for the client side than .NET, are you talking about an ASP.NET web form or Silverlight?
If you're talking about a rich internet application, I'd have to agree that Flex is better at designing a UI than ASP.NET. However, Flash still has some inherit design flaws. For example, it is difficult to build something to index a Flash-based website. Silverlight, on the other hand, Microsoft claims will be easier to index.
I'm not going to pass judgment on Silverlight until I see the final product. I honestly believe it has potential. Flex also looks to be extremely powerful. I've seen some pretty amazing work done in some of their sample sites. I just wish it weren't so expensive to get their builder. - raynevandunem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's one, but I'm more or less thinking about Wikipedia being well and able to use embedded Flash videos without having to worry about restrictive software or playback licenses.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Embed_Media
Instead of having to resort to using, well, ogg-playing Java applets.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Video_Wikinews/2.0
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/commonsJOrbisPlayer.php?path=WikiNewsVideo-DF1024.ogg (careful, it's an applet!)
http://videowikinews.spaces.live.com/
Opening Flash would be a highly useful solution for Wikipedia's free video archives, that's all I'm saying.
PS: It would also be particularly useful for other wiki projects:
http://en.wikiversity.org - locnguyen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Look into Granite Data Services as an alternative to Flex Data Services. It's open source.
- UberNick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@andyd273
Use the trial software for a month. If you install the Apollo plugin later, it'll extend the initial trial period. Once you get a feel for the language, you can keep using the Eclipse IDE without Apollo/Flex. With some research, you can also set up Eclipse to build using their free mxmlc compiler tools. - drzeus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Regardless of the openness of the whole Flash runtime, it's still another great step for Adobe. First, the ActionScript virtual machine (part of Flash Player), now the Flex SDK.
- jsebrech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@andyd273
If you're dedicated to learning flex, you can learn it from the documentation accompanying the flex sdk (which you can go download right now). They do a pretty good job of explaining the basics. I picked it up this way. I create flex apps in a plain text editor and compile them using the flex sdk. Not a penny changed hands. - geoken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"At Flex's core is Flash technology, which is as closed source as you can get."
Flash isn't totally open, but it isn't as 'closed as you can get'. You can go to Adobe's website right now and after agreeing that you wont make a swf player have the entire swf spec emailed to you. - jebudas, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@azazel00
You're right, Flex + XML is mighty powerful! I'm not even sure why the FDS is necessary... anyone? -
Show 51 - 100 of 143 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is