On 4/26/07, Angus Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The podcasts contain some pretty interesting info. Namely Adobe and "trusted > committers" will be responsible for the main source. I suppose this will be > for the core branch... with forks for more focused audiences. >
Cool, not sure how this translates or whom can make the grade to be on this list, but yeah I saw that as well. > The expanded client market will drive more server sales. Red5 and co will > benefit. Same principal as more CF server revenue. Yup, Red5 is quite mature solution so far, I mean Mark Piller (CEO) of WebORB has taken it quite he distance. > How does it invalidate Silverlight? I don't get the romantic connection.... > hey I forgot valentines day too :) Validate, not in-validate. I mentioned "Flash is Open Source" to a few friends, their first response was "ooooo desperate move, I guess Silverlight spooked them". Which told me two things. 1) Flash Killer Press got more momentum then I realised. 2) It's not a big leap of faith to the non-Adobe community as well as the Adobe Community. I mean think about it, Silverlight gets announced, it's getting close to MIX07, talk of the town has been Silverlight and then just before MIX07 Adobe announces "We are opensourcing FLEX" (You don't have to be a genius to catch onto what the PR spin for this is intended to do - that or it could purely be a coincidence). 3) I don't care either way to be honest hehehe. > I agree there is an entry barrier. "Flashlight" has the same problem no? > Yeah, and It sounds negative but if the code does fork, it could get confusing (The key to this success is to keep the forking contained which I'm sure they have a strategy around - well I hope anyway). > Scott, I don't get why you say "can't sustain both Web & Enterprise market > with FLEX". What do you mean? Up untl now, Flex SDK has been free, so in reality for the average punter, this announcement means swfa as they still are paying for the Flex Builder 2.0.1 license and they are still scratching their head on how to make Flex talk to remoting servers - or - finding hosting providers that will let them use concepts like Flex Data Services / Flash Media Server. I think personally this move is to expand their development arm buy using the community to get more bandwidth on moving FLEX forward. As David Mendels for example indicated on Flexcoders that they have a focused vision on building Enterprise solutions, so given Flex is now Open Source it does relive the pressure somewhat to push FLEX 3.0, FLEX 4.0 etc out the door. As you may find in future the slogan "But we gave it to the community so if you think we are moving slow, you do it!" - much like their response when you ask about why .NET + FDS aren't supported "But we gave you the SDK and AMF, you make .NET remoting work again".. I'm being synical but nothing is ever free :) Make no mistake, Enterprise is now their main focus, keep the cashcow moving forward (CS3 Solutions) and look at ways of leveraging Flash + PDF in corporate firewals to make some serious bankroll. This isn't a bad thing either, it's a ballsy move on Adobe's part, so they appear to be putting Flex on the table and letting it ride. Time will tell if the gamble pays off though and transparency isn't always a good thing. > How many kittens could we save if you nudge Microsoft along the open source > path??? > We do already :)... here's your homework, go find out where ;) -- Regards, Scott Barnes http://www.mossyblog.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
