<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FUD about open source Flash</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tadhg.com/wp/2007/03/07/fud-about-open-source-flash/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tadhg.com/wp/2007/03/07/fud-about-open-source-flash/</link>
	<description>Wherein some things Tadhg are discussed</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:51:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Niall O'Higgins</title>
		<link>http://tadhg.com/wp/2007/03/07/fud-about-open-source-flash/comment-page-1/#comment-1802</link>
		<dc:creator>Niall O'Higgins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:35:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tadhg.com/wp/2007/03/07/fud-about-open-source-flash/#comment-1802</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Niall: PHP is good, but in terms of development it appears to be a huge, disorganised mess, partly due to it being so open. And knowing what features are supported by any given serverâ€¦ Ahhk. I taste bile just by thinking about it.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I&#039;d go much further and say PHP is complete crap.  However, not because there are all these different forked versions of it.  The different features problem it suffers from is the same thing as a particular Java application server lacking a particular image library, or using some other database API, or whatever.  Every modern language has this problem, not just PHP.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;There are not 3 different forks of PHP, only a number of different versions.  Agreed, PHP is very poorly managed, but its managed by a single group.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Niall: PHP is good, but in terms of development it appears to be a huge, disorganised mess, partly due to it being so open. And knowing what features are supported by any given serverâ€¦ Ahhk. I taste bile just by thinking about it.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d go much further and say PHP is complete crap.  However, not because there are all these different forked versions of it.  The different features problem it suffers from is the same thing as a particular Java application server lacking a particular image library, or using some other database API, or whatever.  Every modern language has this problem, not just PHP.</p>
<p>There are not 3 different forks of PHP, only a number of different versions.  Agreed, PHP is very poorly managed, but its managed by a single group.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tadhg</title>
		<link>http://tadhg.com/wp/2007/03/07/fud-about-open-source-flash/comment-page-1/#comment-1793</link>
		<dc:creator>Tadhg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 18:28:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tadhg.com/wp/2007/03/07/fud-about-open-source-flash/#comment-1793</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Kev: are you actually making an argument here? I ask because it doesn&#039;t look like it. Your comments imply that maybe you think it might be better if Adobe kept Flash closed, but you never come out and say so.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Predictability and solidity are not really related to closed or open source. There are predictable and solid open source applications/frameworks, and there are unpredictable and flaky closed-source equivalents. This should be pretty clear, but what&#039;s not clear is whether you&#039;re claiming there is a negative correlation there or not, or merely that you may suspect there possibly could be as you go about not defending the original article but implicitly supporting its conclusions.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Flash&#039;s penetration is in part due to its branding, but it&#039;s also due from the fact that it did well a lot of stuff that people wanted to do. There&#039;s actually no evidence that being closed has served it well as a technology, because we don&#039;t have anything to compare it to.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;As for open competitors to Flash, they&#039;re of course hamstrung by the fact that Adobe can blow them away by all kinds of tricks using their market dominance and control of the underlying technology. If Flash were an open &lt;em&gt;standard&lt;/em&gt;, that would at least be some protection. But why would Adobe want that? They don&#039;t, which is fine for them.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the developer community &lt;em&gt;should&lt;/em&gt; want it, because it would create competition (which appears to push techologies along) and brings all the advantages of openness. Some of them do want that, clearly. And if some think it&#039;s not worth Adobe spending energy on instead of developing new features, that&#039;s fine... but to claim (or not claim but persistently imply) that it would be an overall bad thing for everyone is pretty ridiculous.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kev: are you actually making an argument here? I ask because it doesn&#8217;t look like it. Your comments imply that maybe you think it might be better if Adobe kept Flash closed, but you never come out and say so.</p>
<p>Predictability and solidity are not really related to closed or open source. There are predictable and solid open source applications/frameworks, and there are unpredictable and flaky closed-source equivalents. This should be pretty clear, but what&#8217;s not clear is whether you&#8217;re claiming there is a negative correlation there or not, or merely that you may suspect there possibly could be as you go about not defending the original article but implicitly supporting its conclusions.</p>
<p>Flash&#8217;s penetration is in part due to its branding, but it&#8217;s also due from the fact that it did well a lot of stuff that people wanted to do. There&#8217;s actually no evidence that being closed has served it well as a technology, because we don&#8217;t have anything to compare it to.</p>
<p>As for open competitors to Flash, they&#8217;re of course hamstrung by the fact that Adobe can blow them away by all kinds of tricks using their market dominance and control of the underlying technology. If Flash were an open <em>standard</em>, that would at least be some protection. But why would Adobe want that? They don&#8217;t, which is fine for them.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the developer community <em>should</em> want it, because it would create competition (which appears to push techologies along) and brings all the advantages of openness. Some of them do want that, clearly. And if some think it&#8217;s not worth Adobe spending energy on instead of developing new features, that&#8217;s fine&#8230; but to claim (or not claim but persistently imply) that it would be an overall bad thing for everyone is pretty ridiculous.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kevintel</title>
		<link>http://tadhg.com/wp/2007/03/07/fud-about-open-source-flash/comment-page-1/#comment-1765</link>
		<dc:creator>kevintel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:12:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tadhg.com/wp/2007/03/07/fud-about-open-source-flash/#comment-1765</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I&#039;m not going to defend that article, which may have been ill-informed or badly written. But what&#039;s the fuss about Open-Sourcing Flash? One of the reasons developers took up Flash is because it was (and still is) a well maintained, commercial piece of software, with a single well-known client. It&#039;s predictable and solid, and certainly when I worked with it, Macromedia had a very close connection to the developer community. Being closed has served it well as a technology (Let us not forget that Flash&#039;s penetration has in part been due to strong branding managed by a commercial single entity. It is Flash or it is not, which has always had a strong appeal.).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;How about Open Lazlo, or maybe even an Open-Source competitor to Flash?&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Niall: PHP is good, but in terms of development it appears to be a huge, disorganised mess, partly due to it being so open. And knowing what features are supported by any given server... Ahhk. I taste bile just by thinking about it.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not going to defend that article, which may have been ill-informed or badly written. But what&#8217;s the fuss about Open-Sourcing Flash? One of the reasons developers took up Flash is because it was (and still is) a well maintained, commercial piece of software, with a single well-known client. It&#8217;s predictable and solid, and certainly when I worked with it, Macromedia had a very close connection to the developer community. Being closed has served it well as a technology (Let us not forget that Flash&#8217;s penetration has in part been due to strong branding managed by a commercial single entity. It is Flash or it is not, which has always had a strong appeal.).</p>
<p>How about Open Lazlo, or maybe even an Open-Source competitor to Flash?</p>
<p>Niall: PHP is good, but in terms of development it appears to be a huge, disorganised mess, partly due to it being so open. And knowing what features are supported by any given server&#8230; Ahhk. I taste bile just by thinking about it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Niall O'Higgins</title>
		<link>http://tadhg.com/wp/2007/03/07/fud-about-open-source-flash/comment-page-1/#comment-1744</link>
		<dc:creator>Niall O'Higgins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:04:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tadhg.com/wp/2007/03/07/fud-about-open-source-flash/#comment-1744</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Related are the long-standing arguments used by Sun and their various apologists as to why Java should not be open sourced.  Of course, this ignores the many very successful existing Open Source programming languages such as Perl, Python, Ruby and PHP to name just a few.  Have any of these languages suffered from forking?  No.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;And now Sun are (supposedly, at least) making Java open source.  So much for that argument.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Related are the long-standing arguments used by Sun and their various apologists as to why Java should not be open sourced.  Of course, this ignores the many very successful existing Open Source programming languages such as Perl, Python, Ruby and PHP to name just a few.  Have any of these languages suffered from forking?  No.</p>
<p>And now Sun are (supposedly, at least) making Java open source.  So much for that argument.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
