64 bit Linux, flash, and firefox ETA?
levi at cold.org
Mon Apr 21 16:39:39 MDT 2008
Wade Preston Shearer <lists at wadeshearer.com> writes:
> I replied with the cow/duck comment because I couldn't believe you
> thought (or at least implied that you thought) that I was referring to
> corporations as closed or open-source instead of their products and/or
> attitudes towards software licensing.
OK, perhaps I should have been more clear. I did not, of course,
really think you meant what you wrote. I pointed out that it was
nonsensical, and then I provided a counterexample to what I assumed
that you meant to say. I think one would have to do a fairly detailed
analysis to see which corporation has produced more open standards and
more open source code. That's really a moot point, though, because
we're discussing multimedia frameworks, not software in general.
The fact remains that the core technologies involved in Flash are far
more proprietary than those involved in Silverlight. The track
records of the two corporations in this regard are clear: Microsoft
has standardized both the Common Language Infrastructure and the C#
language, has released source code under the Microsoft Permissive
License for the Dynamic Language Runtime as well as Iron Python, and
has cooperated with the Mono open source team to help them get a
Silverlight clone going. Adobe, on the other hand, has kept their
Flash runtime closed and undocumented, has kept their ActionScript
language closed, and has not cooperated with the gnash team to help
them create an open source Flash player clone. They have, however,
created a binary-only Linux Flash player.
> In regards to Silverlight, I do not have any evidence for or against
> besides Microsoft's track record. I trust Adobe much more than I trust
> Microsoft and Novell.
You never observe what you refuse to look at, and your 'track record'
seems a bit out of date.
More information about the PLUG