Just a note: even if MS has released the source for most of the .NET ecosystem, they are not accepting contributions for a lot (all?) of the projects.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Angelo Anolin <angelo.ano...@gmail.com> wrote: > With most enterprise (MS on .NET, Google on Angular, Facebook on React), I > think it should just follow that Adobe perhaps start the process of having > Flash open sourced so that all possible enhancements and security patches > it needs can be performed by a community that believes in its capabilities > - in media and enterprise. > > Funny as a moment ago, I was just watching some video about Facebook's > React framework and their mantra was - "Learn Once, Write Anywhere". Wasn't > this already the option offered by Flex/AS3 even before the boom of > fragmented devices/OS? The only thing that separates with this native > frameworks is that Flex/AS3 requires a closed Adobe plugin, whilst the JS > frameworks are open, but still dependent on what the browser could offer in > terms of compatibility and implementation. > > Nonetheless, I still believe and this will hold true that Flex is the best > platform to build enterprise, business-level application. 95% of businesses > won't care what technology stack an application was build, nor the platform > it is being delivered. If it performs the functionality desired and solves > real world business problems, then they are more likely to approve of that > project. > > I hope this project pushes through - to bring a new breathe of life for > Flex app development. The functionality offered by Flex out of the box is > simply too good to be left out for consideration in the realms of > enterprise software development. > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Carlos Velasco < > carlos.velasco.bla...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think the flex framework and universe needs to pass a rebranding > process > > to separate itself from the Adobe products past and future destiny. I > mean, > > it is no more an Adobe product, but a new one with its own lifecycle... > So, > > moving to a new brand would throw away every Adobe's bad inheritances > from > > the past. > > > > The product, in my opinion, should focus on covering what it was made for > > (and Adobe always failed to get the world to fully understand); what is: > > Heavy Enterprise Rich Internet Applications. > > > > I mean. JS is for web development and so it should be, but it becomes a > > nightmare when used in complex applications. That is where FLEX is the > best > > technology, and so it should take its market. > > > > I also think that if the community is to be taken in a serious way, it > > should refactor some other things: > > > > - Create an open source virtual machine maintained by the community. > > (Please run away from the Player word at the name, it is not a serious > > name), but depending on Adobe is the tomb way in the near future. > > > > - Expand the AS language to get improvements and a roadmap. > > > > - Forget about basic web features and be centered in the big companies > > world. > > > > - Encourage web developers to adopt JS or others as their platform. Focus > > on enterprise developments where a big team is required to get the goal. > > > > - Clean the Framework API and extend it. > > > > > > Flex was sold as the Web Technology for every project, so it got many > > enemies in the way, but Adobe failed defending the product. Now the new > > Apache product has to find its place in the market, needs a lot of > > reliability from big companies, and having the Adobe's past so present is > > resting so much to the technology's future. > > > > Do you agree? > > > > > > > > 2015-02-23 17:04 GMT-03:00 Stephane Beladaci < > adobeflexengin...@gmail.com > > >: > > > > > David, your suggested approach is actually being attempted by a client > > > of mine, assuming I understand it correctly. I would be interested in > > > getting involved and have a look at what you did so far. At this point > > > I think the discussion is going to have to lead to a few labs > > > experiments, I am setting up some infrastructure for source code > > > management, code review, and community management. Maybe your approach > > > is a good candidate for one of those labs. Feel free to contact me > > > directly for details, we will then circle back to the mailing list > > > with relevant info or topic open to discussion, that way we don't > > > saturate the conversation. > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:37 PM, <f...@dfguy.us> wrote: > > > > I really think Stephane makes some great points. It's a good idea > > though > > > to keep things constructive and on topic in regards to Flex too as Erik > > > mentioned. > > > > > > > > While work on a different player seems to have been something > actively > > > tried a few times, what I've been pondering is possibly trying to cross > > > compile one of the browser sources to as3. That way we could leverage > all > > > of the good things about the web standards within a flex or air app. > Some > > > of the built in HTML views have a lot of limitations so this might > allow > > > for reusing a lit of the existing code out there, or combining project > > > assets into a single codebase. > > > > > > > > I've done some initial work on it but don't have anything completed > as > > > of yet. > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Stephane Beladaci <adobeflexengin...@gmail.com> > > > > To: dev <dev@flex.apache.org> > > > > Sent: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 1:24 PM > > > > Subject: Re: "The Player", a case for an independent Flash Player > > > > > > > > I understand the possible distraction from the objective of the > > > > mailing list, however it is concentrated on a single message thread > > > > that anyone can easily ignore. It is also important to identify the > > > > concerns and criticism from the community in order to define the > right > > > > path for an alternative player in an attempt to bridge the gap > between > > > > what Adobe seems incapable of accomplishing, what the browser war > > > > render nearly impossible to accomplish, what the Jobs' Apple tries to > > > > kill, and what the new Apple makes possible. > > > > > > > > You simply cannot consider the work, and future of Flex developers > > > > without to have a holistic approach, analysis and understanding of > the > > > > business, corporate and technological of the developer communities, > > > > browsers landscape, and app marketplaces. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Erik de Bruin <e...@ixsoftware.nl> > > > wrote: > > > >> This discussion was intended to start the development of a Flash > > > >> Player alternative, and as such got a preliminary pass on being OT > for > > > >> this list. > > > >> > > > >> I think it has ended up being just a "bash the Player, Adobe, Apple > > > >> and all let's include all browser vendors for good measure" thread, > so > > > >> I, again, respectfully ask that it is continued on another forum. > > > >> > > > >> This list is the dev list for the Apache Flex project, all > discussion > > > >> on it should at least be tangentially related to that topic. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> > > > >> EdB > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:32 PM, Stephane Beladaci > > > >> <adobeflexengin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> The "proprietary" tiny bit of the player, which is a fraction of > the > > > >>> whole Flash ecosystem mostly open source, is precisely what made > it a > > > >>> success and what made JS a failure. JS implementation is left to > the > > > >>> browser, and you can be sure they will use that last word to screw > > > >>> each other, block each other, and make sure the browser never > compete > > > >>> with their app store. We have seen it over and over, bugs marked by > > > >>> Apple "no to be fixed" by executive order to refrain Facebook from > > > >>> building its HTML5 game platform codename "spartan"; H264 yanked by > > > >>> Google to block Apple and MS. Safari on iOS 7 called by HTML5 > expert > > > >>> "the buggiest mobile Safari ever". > > > >>> > > > >>> Meanwhile Adobe keep adding features and move forward with no > block, > > > >>> no endless discussions and no matter the constant complaining from > > the > > > >>> developers community never happy with what we got, the player and > AIR > > > >>> are still half to full decade ahead of any <whatever>.JS technology > > > >>> with decent browser penetration. > > > >>> > > > >>> It is because of the proprietary piece of the Flash player that the > > > >>> same hypocrite browser vendors cannot mess with it, and Apple had > to > > > >>> ban it entirely to avoid having the Flash Platform take over its > > > >>> AppStore with Flash 9, AS3, Flex and AIR. Good news is, that ban > > > >>> exposed Apple much more than merely messing with JS implementation, > > > >>> and I believe there is an antitrust class action lawsuit that can > be > > > >>> pushed by the Flash developer community. If I successfully lead > this > > > >>> to court, the discovery process might expose the whole nasty > Silicon > > > >>> Valley browser war. > > > >>> > > > >>> As far as security is concerned, my guess is that it is all a > > question > > > >>> of popularity, when every page on the web will contain HTML5 ads > with > > > >>> JS pushed to the limit as replacement for Flash, you will see JS > > > >>> security risk rise to the sky. It already started, most security > > > >>> reports warn of the HTML5 security risk. > > > >>> > > > >>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:49 PM, <f...@dfguy.us> wrote: > > > >>>> That's probably true but what I'm wondering though is does this > > > actually help right? So if Mozilla is then maintaining the code then > it's > > > dependent on them to fix any security flaws in terms of their own > release > > > cycle for fixes. Plus the ability of the implementation is again > > dependent > > > on whatever capabilities exist in the browser as the runtime like you > > > mentioned. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> So what is occurring to me is that most likely media like that > > outlet > > > just don't like the idea of a "proprietary" runtime that's supported > and > > > maintained by a company in general, so it's sort of cool to promote an > > > implementation by another company that's not deemed to be as > proprietary > > > like Mozilla. It's sort of an ideological argument I think that's > really > > at > > > the root of all this stuff. I think there have been a bunch of swf > > players > > > out there for years right? But if this could allow all of that content > to > > > be played on iPads or etc then I'm sure it would help out. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> No one seems to care about all the other proprietary runtimes out > > > there, or Apple's closed environment, or Android or anything else being > > > closed in varying forms, or that whole Mozilla DRM plugin or etc. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> David > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>> From: Tom Chiverton <t...@extravision.com> > > > >>>> To: dev@flex.apache.org > > > >>>> Sent: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 9:23 AM > > > >>>> Subject: Re: "The Player", a case for an independent Flash Player > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I think The Register's angle is the Adobe implementation of the > > Flash > > > >>>> runtime is bad and full of security issues. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> In theory Shumay runs in the JavaScript sandbox, so inherits all > the > > > >>>> protections and 'many eyes' of previous work on securing it. > > > >>>> When was the last time there was a off-by-one arbitrary code > > execution > > > >>>> issue in a major JavaScript implementation ? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Tom > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Ix Multimedia Software > > > >> > > > >> Jan Luykenstraat 27 > > > >> 3521 VB Utrecht > > > >> > > > >> T. 06-51952295 > > > >> I. www.ixsoftware.nl > > > > > > > > > >
