Posted by Neredbojias on 07/30/07 10:01

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 05:39:09
GMT Onideus Mad Hatter scribed:

>>Uh huh, my feelings are very similar to yours. I do think the
>>situation might have been currently different if html were the crisp,
>>adept, non- buggy interface it's supposed to be, however. But reality
>>is different, and as I implied before, pagemakers will use whatever
>>best satisfies _their_ needs to create the kind of page they want to
>>communicate with _their_ audience. It's a bit like the difference
>>between .wma and .mp3 files. To digital music fans, the former is a
>>joke, -created by MS to control the interests of themselves and their
>>proprietary clients. Well, I don't care about those interests; I care
>>about my own. Mp3s are much less invasive or restrictive. So saying,
>>the main trouble I have with Flash is that it's still proprietary. If
>>Abode were smart, they'd open-source it. -Now, before something free
>>[and more "accessible" :)] takes it place.
>
> Um...why would you want it open sourced? If they did that, it would
> instantly plagued with the same problems as HTML...and that'd sure
> suck eight ways to last week. Beside which, even if the language is
> proprietary that doesn't mean third party development tools can't be
> created. I don't even use Adobe/Macromedia's Flash builder, I use
> SwishMax, which has a VASTLY superior interface. Although in a sense
> it *IS* kind of open source, for example in SwishMax there are many
> things coding wise that are different from the way you would code in
> Adobe/Macromedia's Flash builder. The core functions of the language
> can't be changed, but the syntax and code building methodology can
> certainly be made custom as far the precompiled developer front end is
> concerned.

Hmm... Hmm... To be honest, I have to think about what you said. The
reason I made my statement in the first place was I was considering the
MS-to-Moz relationship as an analogy. MS came out with proprietary crap
like Active-X and .wma which had nothing to do with my best interests,
only theirs and the entrepreneurs they supply. Moz came out with
something that everybody has access to (-meaning the source code and
development.) I suppose it's a stretch to generalize that, and open
source isn't necessarily good in and of itself, however. I guess I can
express my feelings best by saying that I hate it when someone puts
something on _my_ computer which I have no access to and which in the
long run is inimical to the benefits for which I purchased the computer
in the first place. MS wants a "pay-per-view" environment; open-
sorcerers (yuk) want a free, accessible environment. I can count the
number of times on one hand that I ever spent money on cable pay-per-view
and I won't start any similarly repugnant habits in another venue now. I
don't mind paying for software initially (-if it works), but ongoing
costs aggravate the crap outta me. Btw, these current-day anti-virus
"subscriptions" are nothing but a big scam, too.

> So in summary, Flash is basically proprietary open source. It has all
> the advantages of open source development with all the advantages of a
> proprietary system (being universally cross compatible) and none of
> their downsides.

I wouldn't mind trying my hand at making some kind of "Flashish"
presentation or other. Do you know of any freeware with the
capabilities?

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

[Back to original message]