Weekly Edition
Return to the Front page
| |||||||||||
Flash players for Linux
One of the places where the Linux desktop tends to fall short of the
proprietary alternatives is its support for the Shockwave Flash media
format. The world is full of deprived Linux users who are unable to enjoy
the full benefits of singing, dancing advertisements on web pages. These
users are also deprived of cheesy games, delightful product demos, and
more. Clearly Linux will never be ready for the desktop as long as this
situation persists.
The truth of the matter is that the ability to deal with Flash is occasionally useful. There is a place in the world for cheesy games. So a free Flash player would be a nice addition to the Linux desktop. That player may have just gotten a bit closer with the Free Software Foundation's announcement of Gnash, a GPL-licensed Flash player. According to the announcement:
Gnash is a project to build a SWF version 7 compliant flash player
with high-quality imaging. It is the most advanced free flash
player that currently exists, and an important addition to the GNU
project. The release of Gnash represents the achievement of one of
the free software movement's high priority projects.
It was quickly pointed out, however, that the FSF may have gotten a little ahead of itself with this announcement. Gnash, as it stands now, is prone to frequent crashes, does not work on 64-bit systems, and is generally not ready for prime time. It is, however, at a point where it could benefit from contributions from a wider group of developers, and attracting those contributions is certainly what the FSF is really trying to do at this point. Others pointed out that Gnash is not the only free Flash player out there, and that it might not even be the "most advanced" one. In particular, swfdec has been releasing for some time now, with version 0.3.6 hitting the net on January 10. Swfdec comes with a mozilla plugin (as does Gnash), and GStreamer integration as well. One important difference between these two projects was pointed out by Christian Schaller: Gnash is licensed under the GPL, while swfdec uses the LGPL. This difference could matter to a significant subset of potential users. Much of what is found in Flash files, including MP3 audio and various video formats, is covered by patents in some parts of the world. The LGPL allows swfdec to be distributed alongside patent-encumbered code; such distribution, instead, is not possible with Gnash. This restriction will not matter to people who aren't interested in running code with patent issues. But people who are less fussy about such issues, and who want a Flash player that actually plays the Flash files they encounter on the net, may care quite a bit. Choice is a good thing, and the free software community may well benefit from having multiple Flash players out there. But it is also probably true that there is not a surplus of developers with time to contribute to this sort of project. So it might benefit the community to have a discussion about the relative importance of GPL licensing and the ability to distribute non-free decoders. It is a choice with unfortunate consequences either way. (Log in to post comments)
Gnash isn't original Posted Jan 12, 2006 4:01 UTC (Thu) by elanthis (subscriber, #6227) [Link] If I understand some of the complains on various blogs (planet.freedesktop.org, for example) Gnash isn't even new code. It's just a relicensed package from the public domain.
If true, the FSF should be ashamed to be doing nothing more than taking credit for someone else's work and doing nothing other than slapping their name on it. Even though it may be legal, it's still under-handed.
Gnash isn't original Posted Jan 12, 2006 9:30 UTC (Thu) by duck (subscriber, #4444) [Link] Can somebody confirm that? It it really true the FSF just relicensedPublic Domain Code and announced this as a new project? Without mentioning the origin of the code? If this is true, this would be _heavy_ blow to the reputation of the FSF, at least for me. It is not the question whether this is legal (which it probably is), but claiming responsibility for other people's work is it is like spitting on your own ideals... How much deeper can you sink....
Wait wait wait - what happened here? Posted Jan 12, 2006 9:43 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (subscriber, #7544) [Link] I can confirm it: yes, Gnash is relicensed public domain code. I know this because FSF publicly say so. It's the very first sentence of the Gnash homepage on www.gnu.org. No, FSF are not claiming responsibility for other people's work. And, FSF have stated that they will put code that would be re-usable by the GameSWF project into the public domain. What FSF has done is to fork a project which was not making a browser plug-in flash player, and used the code to launch a project that will make a browser plug-in flash player. To do this they will use the license which they think is most likely to bring them to this goal: The GNU GPL.
Wait wait wait - what happened here? Posted Jan 12, 2006 10:18 UTC (Thu) by duck (subscriber, #4444) [Link] I am sorry, I was a bit to fast and did not check the facts.> I can confirm it: yes, Gnash is relicensed public domain code. > I know this because FSF publicly say so. It's the very first sentence of > the Gnash homepage on www.gnu.org. The homepage indeed starts with saying that gnash is based on GamesSWF, but I still would have appreciated something like "it is based on the public domain software GamesSWF (link)". Maybe it is just me, but reading something like "based on XYZ" on a GNU page, I assume that GamesSWF is another, older FSF project. > No, FSF are not claiming responsibility for other people's work I apologize for suggesting otherwise, but a "Credits section" on the homepage would have been appropriate and avoid confusion. I found the information in the HTML manual ("Authors"). > FSF have stated that they will put code that would be re-usable by the > GameSWF project into the public domain. This statement I could not find on the homepage, but I welcome this statement. It would be nice to find it on the gnash homepage. I am sorry for being sloppy while checking the facts and getting them wrong.
Wait wait wait - what happened here? Posted Jan 12, 2006 10:36 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (subscriber, #7544) [Link] Everyone makes mistakes. Some of the info I got was from the announcement email (which pre-dates the press release) at: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnash/2005-12/msg00000.html where John Gilmore says "Gnash is based on the excellent work done on the public domain program 'GameSWF' ... New code for Gnash will be licensed under the GPL (version 2 or better). I'm sure we can contribute public domain bug fixes back to GameSWF, though our major development will be GPL licensed." There is also some info in the Wikipeida article about Gnash.
Wait wait wait - what happened here? Posted Jan 12, 2006 10:53 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (subscriber, #7544) [Link] To that first sentence, I should have noted "especially at this time of the morning" :-)
Flash is more than toys Posted Jan 12, 2006 4:49 UTC (Thu) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] Well actually beyond the silly ads and such, I found that our workplace has moved to putting training material, training movies, and other things in flash because it is the most cross-platform. This seems to be a trend in organizations with mixed IT formats.
Posted Jan 12, 2006 8:25 UTC (Thu) by tajyrink (subscriber, #2750) [Link] Yeah, though no-one really sane person will start to extensively use a non-open non-standard format, which has only one company's player that can be used to play the content (and that one company actively tries to prevent the development of eg. free software counterparts by denying the use of specs to develop players etc.)
Most companies limit the use of Flash to advertising and product informations, and many companies even understand that is often stupid to do even that with Flash - for pure advertising it might be okay, but product pages are basically always harder to use, harder to find (google) if they are done in Flash.
competency vs insanity Posted Jan 13, 2006 16:49 UTC (Fri) by elanthis (subscriber, #6227) [Link] "though no-one really sane person will start to extensively use a non-open non-standard format"
The majority of IT people do just that every single day, and there's no question of their sanity. Quite the opposite, I'd argue that only an insane person would avoid the use of a very powerful tool simply out of unfounded fears of the tool suddenly ceasing to work anytime during the lifetime of the material in question.
Openness is useful, *very* useful, but it is still just one point out of many to look at when evaluating a technology. In many circumstances the efficiency of some proprietary tool is going to be worth a lot more to a particular project than openness. Part of being a competent (and sane) IT worker is being able to make those sorts of objective evaluations and coming up with the best solution, not just the most open solution.
Flash is more than toys Posted Jan 12, 2006 14:41 UTC (Thu) by jquinn (subscriber, #605) [Link] Flash is more than just animation and graphics and sound too. I don't see much mention in any of these comments about Flash Remoting.
I use Flash Remoting extensively at work. I don't use animations much. Rather I create forms and communicate with a back end, in my case a J2EE server. Flash can use Java objects (POJO or EJBs), Web Services, or .Net/C# objects.
In this area, it's a lot like AJAX. Flash has two advantages over AJAX: ubiquity and robustness. It has one major disadvantage: freedom.
The ubiquity can be attested to by the fact that there are so many ads that use it, and by the fact that the Open Source world sees it as an itch that needs scratching. Arguably though, Flash is more WORA than Javascript. (This is mainly due to a certain browser manufacturer's inability to comply with standards). Robustness involvesd the animation/audio/video apabilites. The main disadvantage, freedom, the ability to create content on free platforms, is being addressed by Flash4Linux, but slowly.
Freedom requires an open spec Posted Jan 13, 2006 23:29 UTC (Fri) by nealmcb (subscriber, #20740) [Link] "The main disadvantage, freedom, the ability to create content on free platforms, is being addressed by Flash4Linux, but slowly. "
But the spec is still controlled by a proprietary company, right?
Flash players for Linux Posted Jan 12, 2006 6:55 UTC (Thu) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] Could someone compare Gnash vs. swfdec?
Last time I tried swfdec it was a very poor flash player: supported no ActiveScripts or links. It never claimed to suport much beyond basic Flash, whereas Gnash seems to aim to Flash 7. (which does not really mean it actually gets there).
The homepage ( http://www.schleef.org/swfdec/ ) does not yet show version 0.3.6, though it's in the download directory, and it is much larger than 0.3.5. Any major advancements?
Flash players for Linux Posted Jan 12, 2006 9:19 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] I can't speak about Gnash, but the only thing I ever got from swfdec was dancing web ads. Anything I actually wanted to see resulted only in a blank screen, or infinite-loop (and, once killed, zombied) subprocesses attached to my browser.I have not been tempted to download Macromedia's proprietary code since about 2000 or so, so I can't say how the experience compares. I do relish missing out on the dancing web ads, though.
David Schleef had an update in a very recent blog Posted Jan 12, 2006 9:23 UTC (Thu) by Uraeus (subscriber, #33755) [Link] David Schleef's blog gives a summary of the current status of swfdec, including information about ActionScript.
Flash players for GNU/Linux Posted Jan 12, 2006 9:45 UTC (Thu) by coriordan (subscriber, #7544) [Link] I can't offer a technical comparison, but I can point out that Gnash is a new project, so no one should expect it to be good for end-users from month #1.
Flash players for Linux Posted Jan 12, 2006 8:57 UTC (Thu) by PhilHannent (guest, #1241) [Link] So much for SVG + JavaScript killing off Flash.
Flash players for Linux Posted Jan 12, 2006 14:08 UTC (Thu) by bk (guest, #25617) [Link] As this excellent blog entry argues, the base technologies don't matter so much provided they get the job more or less done (in that respect SVG/ECMAScript is just as good as SWF).The key is a powerful, slick and easy to use creation tool. Flash has such popularity because Macromedia's creation suite is so good, not because SWF is an inherently better format. If our community came up with a compelling, comprehensive SVG/$scripting_language creation package we might see some real competition forming, rather than constantly playing catch-up to proprietary formats.
Flash players for Linux Posted Jan 19, 2006 18:38 UTC (Thu) by obi (guest, #5784) [Link] I think you haven't really worked with Flash then. I not only hate their IDE, I abhor it. It's heavy, buggy, unreliable and bloated. Anything could make it crash, and make you lose work (in some cases, the files even disappear when it crashes). The widgets/toolkit are completely out of place and don't work with the OS facilities (mousewheel, two screens, look and feel, behaviour, etc) and the FLA source files are non-portable even between supported platforms (even though files made on Windows open on the mac, there's no guarantee you'll end up with the same file).
Yes, it's that bad.
The swf player/plugin on the other hand does pretty much everything as advertised, for the simple reason that swf (contrary to .fla's for instance) are well-defined. I have little problems with the flash player platform, except that it's not available under a very liberal license. MIT or LGPL would be nice - for communicating with/embedding in other apps for instance; but even GPL would be very helpful already - it would make swf work on my Linux/PPC machines.
I'd really like decent SVG to be ubiquitous (and almost pixel-perfect across different renderers), but it's just not going to happen any time soon. Flash is currently the next best thing.
Flash players for Linux Posted Jan 20, 2006 11:31 UTC (Fri) by quintesse (subscriber, #14569) [Link] I find the "problem" mentioned with the license a strange one, we have a lot of GPL software and we seem to be doing quite fine.
The fact that you can't distribute it alongside patent-encumbered software like MP3 is the problem of those packages not Gnash.
Either you care about that and you don't have MP3 support for your system and therefore could not use an MP3-enabled LGPL Gnash either.
Or you don't care about that, have MP3 support installed on your system and Gnash will happily play it.
Am I missing something here?
|
|||||||||||