This was slightly touched on in the iPad topic, but I feel like ranting, and not drawing away from that conversation, but I am really starting to get fed up with Flash.
By saying "fed up with Flash," I don't mean I'm sick of it's functionality, or what it has brought to the Web 2.0 world, but rather, the douchebags running it. This is mostly fed by me being an open source advocate, and seeing all the complications that spur from trying to install proprietary software on Linux. I recently posted a benchmark test of the different Ubuntu Linux installs (32-bit/64-bit), and it encouraged me to re-install Ubuntu on my laptop using the 64-bit installation. I was rudely reminded of why I have a distaste for 64-bit, and it isn't even anything to do with Ubuntu or Linux at all. It's the software providers that have screwed it up. Two perfect examples are Flash and ATI. Both are idiots when it comes to taking the ever-growing Linux population into consideration. For example: YouTube. Obviously a bustling service that relies on flash in order to display its videos. This idea is great, and has truly revolutionized the web into what we know as the modern internet, yet when a single source provider can't get their feces together into one pile and fix bugs, we have a problem. What I am talking about is Adobe's lack of support for 64-bit Linux (not just Ubuntu). The problem is that when you try to view videos (HD especially) on Youtube, Flash has a huge problem with overhead when processing the video. I've looked at the System Monitor in Ubuntu, and my browser is at a raging 100% CPU usage (and something in the upwards of 120+% wha?). YouTube is not the only problem, in fact, just about any video that involves flash (and quite often, not even 720p+ quality) will shoot the CPU usage of the browser through the roof. I try to set the priority as high as I can, and it's still crap. I even go as far as to increase the governors threshold to use more CPU, and still nothing.
Sure enough, I check the adobe bug tracker, and there just so happens to be a bug report submitted to them about the tremendous issues all 64-bit Linux users are encountering with this, and Adobe has done nothing (I think some have mentioned that in Adobe's blog, developers say "We don't care" or something to that effect). This is the exact kind of shit that makes me curse a company who is the single source provider for applications that rely on their technology (even though the application itself may not be endorsed or maintained by the company, i.e. YouTube).
One good thing did come out of seeing all the comments in the bug report, YouTube actually offers an HTML 5 beta of their site. They are still working out quite a few things such as getting ads to work (feel free to leave that out YouTube, please!), full screen display, etc... But none the less, it is interesting, and well worth people's time to check out, as it requires absolutely no flash whatsoever: http://www.youtube.com/html5 It is well worth checking out, as it fights the man (being Adobe) and I'm all for showing discontent towards them right now!
So to this, I say: &%#@ you Adobe, I hope HTML 5 kills you, and kills you soon you lazy sons o' &^$@!?#
I'm curious. Why is IE not supported unless you have Google Chrome Frame installed? Is it that IE does not support HTML5?
In general I would say that using an OS like Linux comes with it's downsides such as not being supported by all software... but for something as widely used as Flash I would think Adobe would throw some money at getting it to work. Especially since Linux is much more widely used now. But, remember, you're talking about business people here. They only care about how much money they can make. If supporting Linux goes against that somehow, then they won't do it.
Quote from: Lingus on February 10, 2010, 06:02:52 PM
I'm curious. Why is IE not supported unless you have Google Chrome Frame installed? Is it that IE does not support HTML5?
yeah. it does not support all thats needed.
edit:
also i agree flash does great stuff but its resources and compatibility hinders that value down. I hope html 5 gets built up and takes over.
Now if we lived in a world of inf computer power i would have a different story.
I guess that's one upside to Apple's iProducts. In a way, they're helping push the industry forward by ditching Flash.
Personally I think that it is pretty pathetic that they still don't have support for 64-bit Flash yet. The only OS that has anything for it is 64 bit Linux, and even then it's in beta/alpha (which it has been in for a long time). They should have come out with this shit years ago.
Quote from: Jake on February 10, 2010, 06:36:18 PM
I guess that's one upside to Apple's iProducts. In a way, they're helping push the industry forward by ditching Flash.
Well yeah. Why do you think they are doing it?..... Well that's an over statement. Its not there because Steave Jobs does not want it, but still! His collateral damage is a good thing in this case.
Quote from: Lingus on February 10, 2010, 06:02:52 PM
I'm curious. Why is IE not supported unless you have Google Chrome Frame installed? Is it that IE does not support HTML5?
Short Answer: Yes.
Long Answer: They are lazy. I got bored several months back and actually did some research as to why IE procrastinates on updating their web browsers to comply with what the W3C has laid down as the standards for everything web development. The W3C lays down the law on how the web is to be developed, and has pushed to have a uniform set of standards (much similar to the push to have automobile parts standardized way back when, as an example). M$'s excuse is that they will not support the most modern and widely accepted standards because they are all in "beta" still. They don't want to afford the effort necessary to keep things up to date, make bug fixes, etc... They are lazy. Which is funny, because (almost) all the other browsers have little to no problem keeping up to date with the modern standards. If there were ever a "bug" or complication, it is fixed in no time at all. Partly in due to a lot of browsers being open source, therefor a broader community is able to contribute and make fixes a lot quicker, and even Google will get off their ass and update their browser. It aggravates me that M$ is that lazy, especially as a developer. Even the W3C has made it known that IE can expect to comply with HTML 5 WELL after it goes public in the next decade (they estimate 2022 if I remember correctly). Heck, IE isn't even up to speed with CSS, and have completely different interpretations of development models. They've gone and interpreted all the CSS definitions different from everyone else. Ask any web developer what their biggest pain is with development. I guarantee any developer worth his weight will say that the most time consuming process is getting a web application to be compliant with every different browser. I seriously wish there was just one browser for all uses, on all operating systems. Even if it's IE, I just wish there was one.
off topic: scotty what web browser do you use?
on topic: The only think still holding this thing back is video codacs (cant spell it). We need one thats standard and is not closed.
Quote from: ARTgames on February 10, 2010, 08:17:40 PM
off topic: scotty what web browser do you use?
I bounce around between Google Chrome and Firefox. I never touch IE unless I ABSOLUTELY have to. Example of that would be applications that are developed exclusively for Internet Explorer. I think it's a cop out and an excuse to show your rear in development to exclude all the other browsers, but what am I gonna do as the end user.
Quote from: ARTgames on February 10, 2010, 08:17:40 PM
on topic: The only think still holding this thing back is video codacs (cant spell it). We need one thats standard and is not closed.
This is something that will never be achieved. Would it be great? Abso-friggin'-lutely, but not everyone is willing to share their work. I can even understand when security comes into play, that others wouldn't want to share their work for fear of security (Stick Online is a good example). Things that hold sensitive data, and could compromise personal information, etc..., but Flash does not fall under that category. That is the downfall of Flash. They don't open up their work, yet they are the sole provider of all flash applications today. When they don't want to work, users are screwed, there's no alternative solution.
As far as I know, the SWF format is an open format. I just looked, and it is indeed an open format. http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/pdf/swf_file_format_spec_v9.pdf (http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/pdf/swf_file_format_spec_v9.pdf) This means that anyone *can* create a Flash player that works on 64-bit systems, but I find it ridiculous that it's not officially supported by Adobe.
Quote from: Scotty on February 10, 2010, 08:36:15 PM
This is something that will never be achieved. Would it be great? Abso-friggin'-lutely, but not everyone is willing to share their work. I can even understand when security comes into play, that others wouldn't want to share their work for fear of security (Stick Online is a good example). Things that hold sensitive data, and could compromise personal information, etc..., but Flash does not fall under that category. That is the downfall of Flash. They don't open up their work, yet they are the sole provider of all flash applications today. When they don't want to work, users are screwed, there's no alternative solution.
0_o. im talking about if we loos flash and go to html5 what video codac(s) do you think should be on top. You tube does .flv (flash) and and mp4 rapper coded in h.264. fire fox will not takes those out of the box for easy to see reasons. But i guess that can be fixed easly.
Quote from: Assassininja on February 10, 2010, 09:04:11 PM
As far as I know, the SWF format is an open format. I just looked, and it is indeed an open format. http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/pdf/swf_file_format_spec_v9.pdf (http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/pdf/swf_file_format_spec_v9.pdf) This means that anyone *can* create a Flash player that works on 64-bit systems, but I find it ridiculous that it's not officially supported by Adobe.
I apologize, but I can't be bothered to read through 284 pages to find where it is you claim to have found that swf is "open format". If you could please inform me as to where, or just quote it here for viewing, it would be much appreciated. As for what I DO know, and this is where the confusion comes into play, swf is not open source. Adobe has released partial specifications of SWF, but have not released enough to fully implement it. That is the killer of it all. They've held a tight grip onto it, and aren't letting it go.
Quote from: ARTgames on February 10, 2010, 10:40:54 PM
0_o. im talking about if we loos flash and go to html5 what video codac(s) do you think should be on top. You tube does .flv (flash) and and mp4 rapper coded in h.264. fire fox will not takes those out of the box for easy to see reasons. But i guess that can be fixed easly.
FFMPEG has an excellent selection of codecs. Be it MPEG-1/2/4 (part 4), FFV1, you name it. It's all open source, and they also have a selection of Audio codecs as well, although their AAC format is probably going to be best. If people feel squirrely, they can try LAME or FLAC if they want a great sound codec, and both are open source.
Quote from: Scotty on February 10, 2010, 11:28:05 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on February 10, 2010, 10:40:54 PM
0_o. im talking about if we loos flash and go to html5 what video codac(s) do you think should be on top. You tube does .flv (flash) and and mp4 rapper coded in h.264. fire fox will not takes those out of the box for easy to see reasons. But i guess that can be fixed easly.
FFMPEG has an excellent selection of codecs. Be it MPEG-1/2/4 (part 4), FFV1, you name it. It's all open source, and they also have a selection of Audio codecs as well, although their AAC format is probably going to be best. If people feel squirrely, they can try LAME or FLAC if they want a great sound codec, and both are open source.
i agree. I just hope other people will also.
Quote from: Scotty on February 10, 2010, 11:28:05 PMQuote from: ARTgames on February 10, 2010, 10:40:54 PM
0_o. im talking about if we loos flash and go to html5 what video codac(s) do you think should be on top. You tube does .flv (flash) and and mp4 rapper coded in h.264. fire fox will not takes those out of the box for easy to see reasons. But i guess that can be fixed easly.
FFMPEG has an excellent selection of codecs. Be it MPEG-1/2/4 (part 4), FFV1, you name it. It's all open source, and they also have a selection of Audio codecs as well, although their AAC format is probably going to be best. If people feel squirrely, they can try LAME or FLAC if they want a great sound codec, and both are open source.
I can see the problem Art is talking about. If I'm understanding correctly. So basically instead of having one standard format for videos on the web (flash) we'd be using codecs which would be required for the user to install on their machine? If that's the case, count me out. I've dealt with having to install codecs and I know there are codec packs that seem to work pretty well, but you'll always find that there are some videos you can't play. Sure, you'd be able to view a majority of the video on the web, but there'll be the sites that use a different codec than what you have.
Of course, if I'm not understanding this correctly feel free to tell me I'm a moron...
Quote from: Scotty on February 10, 2010, 11:28:05 PM
Quote from: Assassininja on February 10, 2010, 09:04:11 PM
As far as I know, the SWF format is an open format. I just looked, and it is indeed an open format. http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/pdf/swf_file_format_spec_v9.pdf (http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/pdf/swf_file_format_spec_v9.pdf) This means that anyone *can* create a Flash player that works on 64-bit systems, but I find it ridiculous that it's not officially supported by Adobe.
I apologize, but I can't be bothered to read through 284 pages to find where it is you claim to have found that swf is "open format". If you could please inform me as to where, or just quote it here for viewing, it would be much appreciated. As for what I DO know, and this is where the confusion comes into play, swf is not open source. Adobe has released partial specifications of SWF, but have not released enough to fully implement it. That is the killer of it all. They've held a tight grip onto it, and aren't letting it go.
My apologies, you are correct. It is not a fully open format.
Quote from: Lingus on February 11, 2010, 04:28:39 PM
Quote from: Scotty on February 10, 2010, 11:28:05 PMQuote from: ARTgames on February 10, 2010, 10:40:54 PM
0_o. im talking about if we loos flash and go to html5 what video codac(s) do you think should be on top. You tube does .flv (flash) and and mp4 rapper coded in h.264. fire fox will not takes those out of the box for easy to see reasons. But i guess that can be fixed easly.
FFMPEG has an excellent selection of codecs. Be it MPEG-1/2/4 (part 4), FFV1, you name it. It's all open source, and they also have a selection of Audio codecs as well, although their AAC format is probably going to be best. If people feel squirrely, they can try LAME or FLAC if they want a great sound codec, and both are open source.
I can see the problem Art is talking about. If I'm understanding correctly. So basically instead of having one standard format for videos on the web (flash) we'd be using codecs which would be required for the user to install on their machine? If that's the case, count me out. I've dealt with having to install codecs and I know there are codec packs that seem to work pretty well, but you'll always find that there are some videos you can't play. Sure, you'd be able to view a majority of the video on the web, but there'll be the sites that use a different codec than what you have.
Of course, if I'm not understanding this correctly feel free to tell me I'm a moron...
The thing is, FFMPEG is a single source for codecs. So instead of installing flash, you'd install FFMPEG, and you'd be all good, there is no doubling of different codecs. If everyone adapted to a single open source codec, we'd all be good, as we are almost guaranteed to never see that go under, without someone else picking it up and running with it.
Well, if that's what I'm thinking of, like a codec pack, then I've used something similar before and I found that I was still unable to view some videos. Inevitably, there will be someone who is using some codec that is not included in the pack.
I'm just saying. It's probably a better solution than everyone using a single product such as flash. If the standard is set up to use any codec out of the FFMPEG pack, then great. At least there is no single point of failure since not everyone will use exactly the same codecs. What I'm against is there being no standard. If everyone just used whatever codecs they wanted, then it may or may not be included in the codec pack you have. I want to be able to look at a site, and if the video doesn't load I can say, "Oh, well they aren't within standards so screw them." versus, "Oh, I don't have this sites codec, I guess I have to go hunt for it and make sure it works after I install it... etc etc"
@anyone
We want an mp3 for videos. There is other codecs than mp3's but we all know people can play a mp3. (I'm basically saying what Lingus just said. :P)
Quote from: ARTgames on February 11, 2010, 09:41:15 PM
@anyone
We want an mp3 for videos. There is other codecs than mp3's but we all know people can play a mp3. (I'm basically saying what Lingus just said. :P)
The problem is that mp3 is a patented digital audio encoding format. The format for its encoding is not open source, hence why support for mp3 does not come stock with any Linux build, and you have to go and find the external packages that allow for you to use them (so long as it is legal for you).
Yup, that is true. That's why fire fox does not work with you tubes HTML5 player because you tube videos are made in flash and h.264 which is closed like the mp3. That's why i want the next standard to be open when it comes to video. But it looks like h.264 will take over.