Personally I use Linux and I fail to see why funding an application that isn't multiplatform. I choose to use linux as scripting/data manipulation is easier than windows.
I will not install adobe air as it's discontinued on linux since 2011(security bugs anyone?). Development and bug fixes on AIR have come to a crawl on other platforms, if you can't seen it's impending death with Web2.0 as well as web assembly, clearly you cannot read the market. On Sun., Aug. 2, 2020, 9:53 a.m. john whelan, <jwhelan0...@gmail.com> wrote: > If Air is proprietary and an Adobe product I strongly suggest avoiding it > purely from a security point of view. Adobe does not have a good > reputation in the security world. Comments certainly have been made about > Flash. > > I don't think we should be encouraging the installation of software that > could cause problems for our mappers. > > I accept that for many who know potlatch well there is a cost of learning > something new and many are experienced editors who we'd like to see > continue but there are tradeoffs and I think security of the software we > are asking people to install should be taken into account. > > Cheerio John > > On Sun, Aug 2, 2020, 08:54 pangoSE <pang...@riseup.net> wrote: > >> Is this the platform you are targeting? >> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_AIR >> >> Its proprietary which makes it prone to the same fate as Flash Player. >> Why even consider such a move? >> >> I never use nonfree software like flash so I never tried P2. What is so >> special about it? Is there something hindering adding that specialness (as >> a plugin perhaps) to JOSM? >> >> The JOSM devs seem very helpful, supporting and have a friendly culture. >> >> I suggest letting this code die as it lures people to install nonfree and >> therefore dangerous software. Alternatively that you team up with your 20 >> mio edits-peers and port the code to something that does not require >> proprietary software. >> >> You did not present a single usecase that is not covered already by one >> of the other free software editors so I'm guessing you will have a hard >> time convincing your peers to team up around yet another editor, but I >> might be wrong. >> >> I don't care about your ROI arguments because they are based on the not >> outspoken premise that economics of software development is more important >> when making decisions than freedom, which is false IMO. >> If you had compared 2 free software projects like iD and JOSM that run >> without any proprietary code, then it might have been relevant. >> >> I suggest declining support of any software project that is or requires >> proprietary software to run. >> >> Cheers >> pangoSE >> PS I use 4 different editors to edit in the database: JOSM, OsmAnd, >> StreetComplete and rarely iD. >> >> >> Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> skrev: (2 augusti 2020 10:28:22 >> CEST) >>> >>> Skyler Hawthorne wrote: >>> > Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I think using any funds at all to >>> > continue support for a tool that 1% of editors use would be wasteful. >>> > Flash is, for all intents and purposes, a dead technology. This >>> > money is better spent on other uses. >>> >>> The entire point is to move away from a dead technology (Flash Player) >>> to a supported one (AIR). >>> >>> On the percentage stat, it's worth bearing in mind that the P2 project >>> is by a long chalk the smallest sum (€2500) of the three that OSMF is >>> proposing here. As a point of comparison, iD was initially developed with a >>> $575,000 grant from the Knight Foundation in 2012, so roughly $646,000 now. >>> Very conservatively estimating the cost of employing 1-2 developers to code >>> on iD since then, you get a development cost of roughly €0.004 per (2020) >>> changeset for iD vs $0.0002 for P2, which is kind of fun. >>> >>> (I'm actually pleasantly surprised that P2 still has so many changesets >>> - 20 million last year, and I'm guessing high teens this year - given how >>> difficult it is to get Flash Player running in most browsers these days. >>> That suggests that P2's users are using it because they want to do so, not >>> because they are magically unaware of the existence of other editors. I >>> suspect if you could find another way of getting 20 million edits for €2500 >>> then we would snap your hand off.) >>> >>> Looking forward, and continuing the theme of ROI, the other benefit of >>> the project is that it enables development work to continue on P2. The >>> reason I have bid for funding for this, for the first time in 14 years of >>> developing editors for OpenStreetMap, is that it will take a solid chunk of >>> sustained work to do the AIR conversion and a bunch of other stuff I >>> believe will make P2 more sustainable into the future, and there is a hard >>> deadline for that sustained work (i.e. Flash Player switch-off at the end >>> of the year). It's not a project that can just be done in evenings here and >>> there. That enables further, unfunded developments in the future, and in >>> turn I hope the tradition of other editors taking inspiration from P2 can >>> continue - it's not for nothing that JOSM has a Potlatch 2 style and a >>> "Potlatch mode" for editing. >>> >>> But you are, of course, welcome to develop and put forward a project to >>> OSMF which you believe will have more bang for the buck. "Other uses" is >>> easy to type but doesn't actually mean anything until you identify what >>> those uses are, and crucially, find someone who is prepared to do them. >>> >>> Richard >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk