Adobe Releases Cross-Operating System Runtime

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."

Translation...

[davidbrit2]

"The software relies on HTML, JavaScript, Flash, and Adobe Flex."

Translation:

"It's slow."

java?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this supposed to replace Java or similiar technologies?

Write once, spam everywhere?

[KE1LR]

Hmm, why did I instantly think of cross-platform viruses/worms being early uses of this technology? Self-propagating flash-based avertising?

Could be very useful

[brunes69]

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. Even if you use a good cross platform toolkit like Qt or wxWidgets, the apps are still not *identical*. And you have to build them and test them for every platform. And you have to account for the myrid of possible library combinations the users my have installed. Etc etc.

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.

Re:Wrapper

[jlowe]

It is not exactly a "wrapper" for existing technologies. What the Apollo software will allow is people accustomed to writing rich web-based applications, using various technologies such as AJAX, flash, and plain ole HTML to port those applications to the desktop. No need for internet connectivity, no need to have a web server or internet browser. All the user will need is the runtime environment. I believe this will open up the applications that are available for users across windows, linux, and osx.

Re:Translation...

[jamshid]

Hope that unlike the HTML/Javascript/CSS soup we have now, this technology is designed from the ground up with security in mind.

I guess Flash/Flex/ActionScript/whatever the heck this stuff is turning out to be, is the Next Big Language? http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/02/next-big-l anguage.html [blogspot.com]

I just hope it works on mobile phones, it has to be a better solution than Sun's J2ME/JavaME mess. Is OpenLaszlo going anywhere?

Mozilla's XUL + JS

[ccozan]

isn't the same thing? i remember playing with a thingie called XULPlayer, i loved it.

Re:Translation...

[drinkypoo]

Sorry, as per the license, you are not permitted to install the software on embedded devices [slashdot.org]. They explicitly talk about PDAs. They don't specify which part of the software that applies to, so it must be assumed that it applies to both ends.

Re:Wrapper

[CastrTroy]

People are just looking for an excuse not to use Linux, so they say Photoshop. Most home users don't need photoshop, probably haven't paid for it, and could do just as well with GIMP. 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. I don't think that having Photoshop on Linux would do anything to increase the number of people using linux. People who say they need photoshop are just looking for something to complain about.

Re:Translation...

[Rob T Firefly]

"The software relies on HTML,

Okay..

JavaScript,

'Kay...

Flash,

Ugh. Screw that noise.

Re:Two good reasons to stay far away

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, it's your opinion that Adobe ruins their products....I'd argue Photoshop and Illustrator, you'd argue Acrobat.

As far as the licensing agreement goes, it scared me as an Adobe user. But then I remembered that this Apollo release is an early developer's preview and an alpha. It is most definitely not finished, and nobody should be relying or distributing any content for public consumption yet. This agreement is probably just to protect them from liability for people who distribute applications, or alter the exe in some way to run on a device that Adobe hasn't released an official runtime for. Apollo is just the code name, so the Runtime Licensing Agreement will most likely be completely different - and if not, there's sure to be some fallout.

Re:Translation...

[Frymaster]

Could be worse. 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.

Re:Developers developers etc.

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Why would we need another java or flash?

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:Ria....gulp...a?

[Skuld-Chan]

Would Citrix work for any user who downloads your applet off your website? No not really because with Citrix you'll need the client app, client access license (paid for annually) and a connection to a live presentation server.

For a custom solution Apollo would eliminate all the cost/infrastructure surrounding Citrix.

Modern day delphi

[Anonymous Coward]

XULRunner [mozilla.org] = HTML, js, canvas and SVG.

Java is under the GPL and other stuff like HaXe is also free.

Where does that leave this proprietary crud? I have a love/hate relationship with Adobe, mostly hate since they acquired Macromedia.

Re:Translation...

[CastrTroy]

Hope that unlike the HTML/Javascript/CSS soup we have now, this technology is designed from the ground up with security in mind.

I find that most of the time, the security problems don't come from anything to do with HTML/CSS/Javascript, but have more to do with web programmers who don't understand the implications of putting a database driven application online for anybody in the world to use, when contrasted with an application that runs on your local computer. Take a simple application that stores a list of movies you own. If the user is running it locally on their own machine, there's much less to worry about in terms of security. The worst that could happen is the user may delete their own data. When you take this application and put in online, then there's a lot more stuff to worry about. Ensuring that a user's movie list remains private, Making sure there are no SQL injection attacks, and lots of other security related issues. Applications on the internet are less secure because there's a lot more to consider as far as security goes, and most people who program these web applications don't take the proper precautions.

I beg to differ

[DancesWithBlowTorch]

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.

Actually, I quite like the Adobe Creative Suite. Did you ever try the real Acrobat, i.e. the full version, not the reader? It's an amazing tool: You can do reviews of texts among a group of people, including mere mortals. They will intuitively know how to use it, it does what they want, and it works. Illustrator is even cooler. You can actually open a pdf and do with it whatever you like. Move text, change single letters, add stuff, copy elements, whatever. InDesign is the perfect print preprocessing tool. (I'm not in the printing business, but I've written a few large documents in (pdf)LaTeX (with lots of (pdf) figures) and the odd fancy one-page flyer). I'm managing my webpage in GoLive, although I will readily admit that this particular piece of the suite has its quirks. I got hooked up to the Creative Suite when I worked at an institution that had a licence. A few months ago, I actually purchased it for myself. I don't know of any other software package for document-handling out there that's this well-documented, easy to use yet powerful.

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 .doc Word format that normal people know of. I can't send dvi's or postscripts to publishers, not even to non-techie friends. Adobe has not only developed a nice toolbox, the also deliver the userbase with it, right to my door. It might be that their software uses quite a lot of memory and processing power, but it also actually does what I want it to do. That's more to me. I've got the CPU cycles to burn.

Re:Wrapper

[sumdumass]

A lot of the time it is just the extream minority of users telling the rest of the people what to use. It looks different because it cascades into other areas and eventualy looks as if every one is doing it for different reasons.

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.

Re:Wrapper

[BandwidthHog]

Okay, so how is this something other than Yet Another Widget Platform?

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.

Re:The 1970's called...

[mykdavies]

They want Smalltalk back.

Re:Translation...

[Speed Pour]

Yes, slow....and....

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'

Re:Could be very useful

[Brandybuck]

This is why so many companies are embracing web applications

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:Could be very useful

[iangoldby]

Even if you use a good cross platform toolkit like Qt or wxWidgets, the apps are still not *identical*.

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).

Settle for what works, not for what you want.

[MMInterface]

I could get by with GIMP I just don't like it. Getting by doesn't mean a whole lot and its a down right horrible phrase to use if you want to convince someone to use a product. I use a few titles (Photoshop, Fireworks etc)to do tasks that could probably all be done with Photoshop, but that doesn't mean it could be done better, more efficiently or to my preferences. I could name a lot of titles that I prefer that aren't available on Linux. PSPad is an example. Sure there is something else I can use, but since I have a choice, I choose my own preferences over yours. I see no reason to use software I don't prefer just because it works when the software I am using works. Just because something is an alternative doesn't mean its an alternative that the user will like. A large portion of users don't want to settle for software titles that fit their specifications but not their preferences. Inregards to Linux, instead of trying to force your ideals on non-Linux users and dictate their needs, you should also address their preferences and if you can't satisfy them then they have a valid reason for going elsewhere. But you are correct that Photoshop is not going to sell Linux to these people. It would take a lot more than that.

Re:Translation...

[h2g2bob]

I agree, Flash + HTML + Javascript sounds very much like a web browser.

Re:Wrapper

[westlake]

People are just looking for an excuse not to use Linux, so they say Photoshop. Most home users don't need photoshop, probably haven't paid for it, and could do just as well with GIMP.

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.

Re:Wrapper

[sabernet]

I must call shenanigans on this one. Photoshop's tools, especially the use of vector masks and blending effects, are damned handy in the graphics biz and is thought first thing in many graphics design courses. I used them myself quite often. I tried the Gimp. It ain't there yet. It's damned awesome for a free app. But:

"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).

Re:Translation...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because all those interpreted pieces will be slower than languages that can compile to intermediate or (optionally) native code.

Bytecode in VMs is slow to compile and start, fast to run, and can be quick to do both if you allow it to compile and remain on the drive compiled after the first run. HTML, JavaScript, Flash, and (I'd wager) this Flex stuff are slow to compile, run, and generally do anything useful. Always.

Yeah, I know the remarks are intended to be teh funnays, but the cynicism about managed languages running on a VM really has gotten both old and annoying in its ignorance.

Re:Wrapper

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, that tutorial looks like something you would see on The Onion [theonion.com]!

My favorite line:

The invention called the typewriter introduced the Shift Key. You generally have 2 of them on your keyboard. They look something like the picture on the left. They are located on the left and right sides of your keyboard. The other invention, called the Mouse, was invented by Douglas C. Engelbart in 1970. These come in different varieties, but always have at least one button located on them. They are located on your desk, or sometimes on a mouse pad.

Look, I like OSS, but the sarcasm here reeks of the worst negative stereotypes of open source.

Re:Wrapper

[MeNeXT]

I don't know what distro you're using but what you described sounds like windows to me.

How do you stop one user from deleting shortcuts from another users start menu on Home edition? Why can't I print out some popup windows? Why does the system slow down as time goes on until I reinstall it? Why doesn't software uninstall when running the uninstall command? How do I copy from a PDF?

These are all questions that regular Windows users ask me to help them with. It's just that some things you come to take for granted. The windows interface is not as consistent as some make it out to be. If you don't believe me give a Windows system to a Mac user and watch them try to figure it out. I seen Windows users reinstall MS Office because they no longer see it in their start menu. Did they delete it? No they moved it.

For hardware and drivers you should stick to those who give good support to more than one OS because you are sure that they have the resources to take care of you, the client.

Re:Write once, spam everywhere?

[beakerMeep]

You're assuming that web aps can somehow control the apollo aps. I think you're worry is in the right place but a bit alarmist. Adobe certainly has this in mind. In fact Macromedia and the flash devlopment team has always been big on security. The difference here is, these aps will function like desktop apps but in no way is adobe going to create any type of "fly by" web based intaller for the framework, or ever in a million years let the web flash apps connect to the desktop one. They already prevent this with their XSS security sandbox model in flash.

Re:Could be very useful

[MaggieL]

It was originally scheduled to be in the first release, but Flash Player 9 for Linux ended up delayed, which forced the Apollo team to change their plans. You can definitely expect Linux parity in the long run.

You'd think that by the time something got to version 9, we'd already be at "the long run".