Slashdot Log In
Adobe Releases Cross-Operating System Runtime
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Mar 19, 2007 02:50 PM
from the playing-nice-with-everyone dept.
from the playing-nice-with-everyone dept.
An anonymous reader writes to mention that Adobe released the first public version of their new cross-operating system runtime today nicknamed 'Apollo'. "The software relies on HTML, JavaScript, Flash, and Adobe Flex. The alpha version, which presently works on Windows and Macintosh, can be downloaded for free at http://www.adobe.com/go/apollo. Once the Apollo apps are created, users can launch them from their desktops, without using their browser or connecting online. An Apollo application can connect automatically to online data or services when an Internet connection is detected, with new components automatically downloaded and integrated. The user needs the Apollo runtime to run the apps, just as a Flash player is needed to run Flash animations."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Translation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Translation... (Score:5, Funny)
Could be Java.
Parent
Re:Translation... (Score:4, Funny)
Could be
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
actually, it sounds suspiciously like xul (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xul/) with some flash thrown in. mind you, i've not read the article or played with any of the apps so i'm just guessing wildly.
Re:Translation... (Score:5, Funny)
Could be Java.
actually, it sounds suspiciously like xul (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xul/) with some flash thrown in. mind you, i've not read the article or played with any of the apps so i'm just guessing wildly.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Translation... (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's add the security concerns of javascript running natively (without proper sandboxing, as Adobe doesn't like the concept, see Acrobat Reader for details). Anybody doubting this point, just remember that any bugs/weaknesses/flaws in this implementation of javascript will be limited to Appolo and similarly, those discovered to be fairly universal will also require Adobe to fix their own implementation (read: Adobe known for slow response time). For completeness, let's not forget that this will support Flash, adding yet another round of stumbling security concerns.
Also to consider, this is basically a browser app that only runs web standards AND Flash, but happily disregards anything written by anybody else. This means, in Adobe's typical approach to evil, if anybody wants anything done/improved/added, Adobe is the central source of everything. Just like Acrobat, it's a completely closed "standard".
No Linux support, who are they kidding? Grow a pair and learn to program...Do they even realize they released a runtime that just rehashes existing technology, and it doesn't even run on as many platforms as it could already be used on? Carlos Mencia said it best, Deet Dee Dee!
Finally, why even re-invent the wheel? When Mozilla did it, it was in preparation to compete with IE, which makes sense. And Mozilla aimed at building a nice, large, open development platform that could continue to grow. Adobe does it, and their entire goal is to build something that will never grow very large? Anybody who can call this a good idea and hold a straight face while they do it...well, they've also got a bridge to sell ya'
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You must speak from a complete lack of knowledge of working in Flash, which is strongly sandboxed.
only runs web standards AND Flash, but happily disregards anything written by anybody else
And what other "anything" are you currently using for web apps?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Translation... (Score:4, Informative)
* Ie, the BSA which Adobe is a member of [wikipedia.org].
This is one of the reasons I despise Flash. Hopefully someday Gnash will be a good replacement for it.
Parent
Re:Translation... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://developer.mozilla.org/es4/ [mozilla.org]
(Basically, imagine ActionScript 3 + JavaScript 1.7 + lots of other goodies.)
Wrapper (Score:3, Interesting)
Could be very useful (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why so many companies are embracing web applications - but web applications can't do it all. Some things you just *need* to do client side. This Apollo thing could be a really great way to do it.
And what may make it even more killer, would be the fact that you could perhapse share GUI code between your web applications and your client applications - so a user could run his UI over the web *OR* locally. Excellent.
I will definitely be taking a close look at this.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone who has ever had to make a cross platform GUI application that works identically on Linux, Mac, and Windows, can tell you what a nightmare it is.
Then they can tell Adobe, because Apollo doesn't run on Linux.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yesterday: wondering if the software will run on our platform
Tomorrow: wondering if the browser/plugins requried by the software will run on our platform
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Macintosh users will not thank you for making their applications identical to their MS Windows counterparts. Identical functionality - yes - but identical UI - no way.
I'm sure the same argument applies in the opposite direction. Windows applications that don't attach their menu to the top of each window are just plain annoying (the GIMP excepting of course).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wrapper (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"During a press and anlalyst briefing Wednesday, Adobe's senior vice president and chief software architect Kevin Lynch said Adobe will build its future products using Apollo."
Re:Wrapper (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Wrapper (Score:4, Insightful)
People don't like change. I know women who stay in semi-abusive relationships because they are afraid of changing it (the most certaintly can). I remeber when working at resaurants as a kid, they would change the menue or recipies or even just how things were made (IE from scratch to seasining packet) every 3 or 4 years. Almost everyone in the kitchen fought it. After the change, they eventualy embrace it and fight against the next change using much of the same arguments as how good the current way is.
So yea, I would say your right. But bringing Photoshop over and having it look the same, work the same, or yahoo games look the same, or whatever, will remove some elements of this change. I think it would remove some of the barriers to change. I think more people qould be likely to change to linux.
A short note. A friend's computer blew the mainboard and she didn't have the money to replace it. I have/had (it is still mine but she has it now) a computer running mandrake that i wasn't using and it was about the same speed. I offered it to her until she got another one. Of course I have updated it to take advantage of new features and had to come over and fix things that didn't work that way she expected. But after about a year and a half, she got a new computer (actualy her dad bought it because he couldn't figure out how to make a few changes when he came over). Now, she tells me how much she hates using the other computer which is XP and faster. She cannot point out exactly what she doesn't like but tells me she ends up unpluging it and hooking the linux back up when she does what she cannot do in linux(some active X thing with school).
This isn't a testement on how much better linux is, It is a testement to how people dislike change. I belive the majority of people are this way.
Parent
Re:Wrapper (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Wrapper (Score:4, Insightful)
Home users have other choices than the GIMP.
Paint Shop Pro has been around since 1992. Street price $60.
Older versions, retail boxed, with a thick printed manual, can be found almost anywhere -- and are arguably the less painful choice than learning the GIMP UI.
The user isn't always as addicted to piracy as the Geek choses to believe, nor is all commercial software priced like Photoshop at retail list.
Parent
Re:Wrapper (Score:5, Insightful)
"For professional graphic artists, I guess can see a need for Photoshop, but those are the extreme minority of users. Even some professionals could probably get by with only using GIMP"
Is like saying, "For professional cycle racers, I guess can see a need for sports bikes, but those are the extreme minority of bikers. Even some professionals could probably get by with only using a kid's BMX."
Currently, nothing holds a candle to PS.
Now, using it as an excuse to get away from Linux? Well with virtualization software as it is and Wine's ever increasing compatibility with it, I don't see PS as being a major reason(if I remember correctly, the movie Sinbad was done entirely with Linux stations running Wine for compatibility with PS).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, the inclusion of Flash would make for a much, errm, flashier widgeteering system, but other than that, it sounds like essentially the same thing Konfabulator, Apple, and Microsoft have already shipped.
Write once, spam everywhere? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Write once, spam everywhere? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
What? No Duct Tape? (Score:5, Funny)
Two good reasons to stay far away (Score:3, Informative)
The first reason, and the less sure one and more petty one, is that I feel that Adobe ruins all software over time. If you think carefully about this, and if you have sufficient experience with Adobe software, you will agree with me. The only project Adobe has not completely destroyed is Photoshop, and that is only because they move most cautiously with that product. If they screwed up Photoshop they would cease to exist yesterday.
The other reason, however, and the one that I expect more support on, is the Apollo Runtime Licensing Agreement [adobe.com]. It contains such gems as "2.2 Distribution. You may not sublicense or distribute the Software.", "2.3 Backup Copy. You may make one backup copy of the Software, provided your backup copy is not installed or used on any computer. You may not transfer the rights to a backup copy unless you transfer all rights in the Software as provided under Section 4." And then there's "2.4 No Modification. You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works based upon the Software.". Here's another fun one: "3.1 Prohibited Devices and Systems. You may not install or use the Software on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. For the avoidance of doubt, and by example only, you may not install or use the Software on any (a) mobile devices, set top boxes (STB), handhelds, phones, web pads, tablets and Tablet PCs that are not running Windows XP or Vista Tablet PC Edition, game consoles, TVs, DVD players, media centers (excluding Windows XP Media Center Edition and its successors), electronic billboards or other digital signage, internet appliances or other internet-connected devices, PDAs, medical devices, ATMs, telematic devices, gaming machines, home automation systems, kiosks, remote control devices, or any other consumer electronics device, (b) operator-based mobile, cable, satellite, or television systems or (c) other closed system devices."
Now consider Apollo in the context of actually using it; the only place you can install it is on a web server. The license does not even permit installation on a web server appliance! I am not making this up; you are prohibited from installing it on "internet appliances or other internet-connected devices". You cannot install the software on a PDA used as a webserver. You cannot use the software as the interface for a set-top box. You cannot, in fact, use the software anywhere other than a webserver (but not an appliance!) or pretty much anything running Windows XP (tablet PCs and media centers NOT running Windows XP are explicitly prohibited.)
Avoid this software at all costs! It's just an attempt by Adobe to create lock-in. Use ANY alternative.
Re:Two good reasons to stay far away (Score:5, Informative)
"Software" doesn't mean products that you've created using Apollo, this EULA is explicitly referring to the Windows runtime of Apollo.
This is the standard sort of CYA EULA put out by just about any company that releases a platform-specific runtime. Not saying that Adobe won't attempt to restrict creative use of the Apollo framework, just saying that this EULA does not mean what you think it means.
Caveat: IANAL.
Parent
I beg to differ (Score:5, Insightful)
Now you're going to say: "Of course, it's because Adobe is the inventor of the stupid portable document format, so no wonder they know all the tricks." You know what? You're right. In fact, Adobe even changes the definitions of pdf with every new release of the reader. I don't care. PDFs are the only format for documents besides Microsofts moronic
Parent
Re:I beg to differ (Score:5, Interesting)
The interesting thing is that there is basically no backwards compatibility of anything beyond basic document display. For example, we have a fill-in form created in Acrobat 8 Pro. If you open it and fill it out in an earlier version, it seems to be filled in fine. You can close it, reopen it, and view its contents. But then I mailed that file (yes, I'm sure it was the right one) to the purchasing department and when they opened it in Acrobat 8 Pro, it was not filled in.
Incidentally, I have Adobe CS2 on a powermac to my right and it has been filled with the least reliable software I've had come out of Adobe yet. Illustrator and Indesign regularly crash. Photoshop is just slower than ever before.
They've also broken many elements of usability. For example in illustrator, things snap to the point from which you drag, not from other edges. As such I am forced to do a lot of things in InDesign just to have them come out in a reasonable period of time; but now I have to jump back and forth between illustrator tweaking graphics, and indesign to put them in a document, instead of just doing it all in illustrator.
Not to mention general stupidity - I had to buy a $75 plugin for InDesign just to be able to define my own text boxes on master pages and have text flow through them, as opposed to one big master text frame for the whole layout. What? This is such an obvious feature. This is the only efficient way to autonumber tickets, for example; In my case I use it to make numbered backstage passes, and to make numbered coupons for in-house use (cheaper to just laser print than to have them printed.)
Yes and no. You can't copy graphical elements out of the PDF; you need Illustrator for that. But Illustrator doesn't work with embedded fonts, so you have to load a PDF, print it with all fonts converted to outlines, and then import THAT. Why won't the PDF import in illustrator just use Acrobat to do the import if it's installed, so you can have full PDF display/import capability? Oh yeah, because Adobe is lame.
Also, a lot of the time I find that Acrobat has turned a line of text into several disjointed lines of text which happen to have the same vertical level on the page. Sometimes this happens in the middle of a word, sometimes between words, but it happens an awful lot. I think it will do it any time you change a font, but it happens randomly as well. This text is simply not reasonably editable in acrobat.
InDesign does not have autonumbering of elements, such as figures. You must get a plugin for this. InDesign does not autoflow through multiple master text frames; you can't in fact have multiples. You need a plugin for this. InDesign is missing more obvious functionality than I can even describe in one comment.
No, what I'm going to say is that it's particularly pathetic that even Adobe can't get PDF right, since they invented it. Although to be fair, it's actually a bastardization of PostScript, which they also invented. And for which they charge exorbitant licensing fees, or used to.
Parent
Ria....gulp...a? (Score:3, Interesting)
From the site:
RIAs? So basically, you want me to not only have a wrapper agent on my system but also a network and system app layer that will have direct access to other remote like objects? Hmmm, gee, has anyone told Citrix this?
So this won't fly in an Corporate Enterprise environment and for home use...well, does anyone want mySpace resource hogging your whole system and not just your browser's use of your resources? Uhm, no thanks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For a custom solution Apollo would eliminate all the cost/infrastructure surrounding Citrix.
Mozilla's XUL + JS (Score:3, Insightful)
The 1990's called... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The 1970's called... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The 1970's called... (Score:4, Funny)
And they're welcome to it. B-)
Parent
Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Cross platform? (Score:4, Funny)
At least they're not using Microsoft's definition of cross-platform: It runs on Vista _and_ XP.
Re:Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
http://myblah-blah-tech.blogspot.com/2007/01/15-t
Parent
Re:Linux? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
It's "cross platform" you insensitive clod. (Score:3, Funny)
Nevermind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To sell books and support to developers, of course. It doesn't even really matter how few people end up using it, it's just another way to segment the computer world even further. If they get a few big companies to use it, it will sort of build and build. There was a time when nobody was using Flash, remember? Now it's pretty much everywhere. Just because Macromedia kept plugging away bit by bit, slow and steady...
Re:Developers developers etc. (Score:5, Funny)
Because those products are ancient. They've been on the market for literally years, about a decade (!!!) each. How can you possibly make money selling a software brand that old? Adobe and Flash are the Chia Pet and Hula Hoop of the industry. Blah.
You would clearly make a terrible manager.
Parent
Re:java? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent