Hi All, I think I added all the substance from this thread into the wiki (http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Gnash). It's late, so I would apprecate Rob et al doing a quick read. Also, can someone add more information about the specific gnash version/codecs being installed on which XOs and confirm that the primary issue in developing Flash for Gnash is picking open codecs?
Have a great day! or evening! Charles Merriam On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Rob Savoye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve Holton wrote: > > > Gnash will *never* be fully compatible with Flash because the closer > > Gnash gets to being a viable free Flash replacement, the more > > incentive there is for Adobe to change the Flash specification in a > > way to break compatibility. > > They've already changed the format in a big, hence all our hard work > to reverse engineer SWF v9. ActionScript 3 is finally ECMAScript > compatible, same as JavaScript, so I doubt that'll change much in the > future. Also all the changes in SWF v9 were performance oriented, and > that required a new VM. Gnash now does support the SWF v9 format > changes, that was easy. It's implementing the ActionScript class > libraries that's much of the work left. SWF has evolved very slowly, so > I don't feel we'll be chasing Adobe for long. > > > > Two decades in the Microsoft format wars should have taught that > > lesson to everyone by now. Look how long (and how much) it's taken ODF > > to get where it's at. > > Yes, but as far as I can tell, OpenOffice works well enough with M$ > Office, compatibility wise, that I haven't had to use M$ Office for many > years. Not everything converts in OO 100% all the time, but what doesn't > work I can easily live with. > > > > OTOH, the XO offers us an opportunity to create a new standard among > > an audience which has no investment in the old. But this is a limited > > opportunity. > > New standards still don't solve the problem of playing existing > content (often proprietary), which is what I though we were discussing. > Also playing SWF files in the future is not something we worry about, > since that will only effect new content, which doesn't exist yet. :-) > > My point is that we want people to work with us. Most of the time all > I hear is "Gnash sucks, it's not 100% compatible yet". We know that > already... What we want to do is identify what "sucks", produce test > cases, and then fix the problems. Bitching about the problem and dumping > Gnash does not solve the problem, it merely ignores it. It's the easy > way out. > > Yes, it can take some time for an end user with a problem to work with > us till we identify what is wrong. As none of us can use the Adobe > player due to clean room problems, it's our end users that help us work > on testing compatibility. Many people have helped contribute to the > development of Gnash merely by helping answer questions about what's > wrong, and trying patches, and most of them were not professional engineers. > > All we are asking for is help beyond just griping, and patience as our > small team pushes forward. > > - rob - > > > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > _______________________________________________ Olpc-open mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/olpc-open
