@Kotler

Quote:

Kotler wrote: @Metalheart Well, the situation probably isn't going to improve. I suggest you start using MacOS, there everything works out of the box. No need to tinker with things.

what! no tinkering? heck that's half the fun of messing with my classic and NG miggies man

_________________
____________________________
c64-2sids, A1000, A1200T-060@50(finally working!),A4000-CSMKIII
! My Master Miggies- Amiga 1000 & AmigaOne X1000 !
mancave-ramblings
X1000 I BELIEVE

@opi

You're right about flash not being something to ignore at the moment, but it cost money to support those formats. Somebody gotta develop a browser capable of showing it perfectly, and to hire a coder to do it would be very expensive. So I understand hyperion not wanting to use money for it.

_________________
On Planet Boing Trevor is God

@Hyperionmp

The fact that flash is not supported by Apple doens't mean that Flash is not a good product, whatever design choice was done by apple.

_________________
retired

@AmigaBlitter

Quote:

The fact that flash is not supported by Apple doens't mean that Flash is not a good product, whatever design choice was done by apple.

Sure Flash is good technology but its main problem is its proprietary nature. HTML 5 is a standard.. You know that Adobe was somewhat scared when Apple announced this as they took out a full page ad in newspapers saying Apple we'll miss you or something stupid like that..I forgot.

@stefcep

Quote:

But I bet in many cases only one or two at most programs actually use some of these libraries. A solution to this nonsense is for software writers (1) to just include the functionality in the executable, or if thats not possible (2) include the damned library with the software archive, and have the installer install it.

There are some nice side effects to them

1) this way, executables would get oversize in no time, and would need more space to store themselves and more time to download, then they would occupy more RAM and, on classic artchitectures, this would bring less space for other applications. Moreover, program should be updated by the coder every time a faster and more optimized version of the library gets released. Maintenance would be a nightmare. It can be done for little libraries, not for huge ones.

2) in a operating system which doesn't have a central management for libraries, but has a central place for them (Libs:), this would bring the "dependancy hell" Windows and Linux users (and also Amiga users some time) already know very well: program A from 2011 installs the X version of the L library, but then you decide to install also program B from 1999 that needs the older T version of the same L library, and overwrites it. Program A stops working. In the meanwhile, coders of the L library decided that some functions (used by program B) were obsolete, and removed them. You re-install version X of the library because you need program A, but B can't work anymore.

Windows 6.0 introduced the always-growing WinSxS directory, and people often ask why it consumes so many gigabytes. The answer is that it includes all the libraries programs pretend to install and overwrite on the system, so Windows always knows what library need any program you run. I bet you wouldn't really like a similar solution on AmigaOS.

I guess the real solution to this is just keeping newer version of libraries always retro-compatible and, anyway, installers should never overwrite a newer version with a older one.

@realize

Quote:

Sure Flash is good technology but its main problem is its proprietary nature. HTML 5 is a standard..

OTOH Flash is - in practice - de facto standard being available on almost everything, while HTML has never been a standard except on paper, because since early versions any vendor added some proprietary flavored extensions. It's already happening with v5 (every big company including Apple and Google is doing it).
Also don't forget that Flash isn't only some casual technology to view clips and play games, it's an entire echosystem of technologies (including tools to build and deliver, which HTML5 sorely lacks), it won't suddenly die.

_________________
Proud Amigan since 1987
Owner of various Commodore and a SAM440ep\OS4.1FE
See them on http://retro.furinkan.org/

@Nibunnoichi
Quote:

Nibunnoichi wrote: OTOH Flash is - in practice - de facto standard being available on almost everything, while HTML has never been a standard except on paper, because since early versions any vendor added some proprietary flavored extensions. It's already happening with v5 (every big company including Apple and Google is doing it).

What a load of pish. Whilst it's true that some browsers support features that others do not, this does not affect the HTML standard. For instance back in the day IE had a tag called marquee for scrolling text. It wasn't standard HTML, and was referred to as a non-standard element. Developers had the choice to use it, but they'd know that it wasn't supported everywhere, so its usage was discouraged.

HTML5 is a standard that's not fully implemented yet, but it still will be universal, just like HTML4 is. Every modern browser supports HTML4.01, including the doctypes that determine how strictly the HTML should be interpreted (and what features are enabled). If you want to understand more, read this:
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/

Last edited by HenryCase on 06-Sep-2011 at 07:50 AM.

@HenryCase

Quote:

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401

Already know it, thank you. That doesn't change the existence of proprietary extensions AND companies trying to push them into the standard. This is what i'm saying: it's standard on paper, in practice not so much.


Edited again, grammar is not my friend this morning

Last edited by Nibunnoichi on 06-Sep-2011 at 09:17 AM.
Last edited by Nibunnoichi on 06-Sep-2011 at 08:56 AM.
Last edited by Nibunnoichi on 06-Sep-2011 at 08:53 AM.
Last edited by Nibunnoichi on 06-Sep-2011 at 08:52 AM.

_________________
Proud Amigan since 1987
Owner of various Commodore and a SAM440ep\OS4.1FE
See them on http://retro.furinkan.org/

@Hypex

Quote:

First it will look for foo.library on the resident list.

In other words, bundling foo.library with your program and loading it from PROGDIR:libs/foo.library is a really bad idea!

If that ever were to become a popular way of doing things, users would end up with lots of (potentially incompatible) versions of foo.library in the various programs' installation directories... only one of which will ever actually get loaded and added to the library list. And which one will depend on what foo.library-using program gets run first --- making it a nightmare to troubleshoot!

(Edit: Doobrey beat me to it :)

Last edited by umisef on 06-Sep-2011 at 10:33 AM.

@Doobrey

Quote:

needs) foo v2.0. Start app1, and foo.library v1.0 is added to exec's liblist. Now start app2, it tries to open foo.library v2 , but fails because it OpenLibrary() finds v1 in the liblist.

Why can't people read Amiga related web forums and also follow other any Amiga related things to find out how AmigaOS has evolved and what can its latest version do !

The latest version of AmigaOS, AmigaOS Release 4.1 Update 3, searches dirs in certain order to find libs, classes and locales. Also if program-A opens foo.library V1 and then program-B opens V2 then after that all other apps will get that V2 from the memory automaticly. When the last app using the V1 closes it then V1 will be expunged and removed from the memory. (Both versions in the memory at the same time and Exec handling everything automaticly without any problems, I may underline.) And this is not any kind of problem because libs and classes have been both backwards and forwards compatible on Amiga usually. Only difference is if an author of a ported library don't have time or is too lazy and doesn't bother to do the port properly more in Amiga style but only recompiles and releases it as is and doesn't verify both backwards and forwards compatibilty. Then I don't know how that affects but that's the cause of a lazy programmer or a programmer with too little free time.

When I said leave that kind of stuff which is not shared between many apps into the PROGDIR: of an app. For example there were that MUI based TubeViewer/TubeXX (?) (I don't remember its correct name) which required many obsoleted MUI classes to be installed and many 3rd party unrelated tools. It generated quite mess when mixed with the rest of the system installed in sys:. So leave this kind of stuff into its own PROGDIR: so it won't mess with anything else than itself.

But for example if the latest YAM says there's new MUI classes and then updating them all other MUI apps like IBrowse will benefit from that also. Then put them all into sys:. There's no need for a CustomSys: or anything like that. Or if you fear all apps won't work with the latest classes then don't install those classes before all related apps are updated by their authors as well.

Last edited by Tomppeli on 06-Sep-2011 at 01:29 PM.

_________________
Rock lobster bit me. My Workbench has always preferences. X1000 + AmigaOS4.1 FE
"Anyone can build a fast CPU. The trick is to build a fast system." -Seymour Cray

It might be that Flash won't disappear from all web sites in some time. But if some Amigan started to write a Flash 10 compatible library (or whatever) now from scratch (or from Flash 4 level stuff or whatever) without any direct help from Adobe. I bet Flash would be replaced by HTML 5 already on all websites whenever that poor guy would have finished his Amiga Flash 10 library.

_________________
Rock lobster bit me. My Workbench has always preferences. X1000 + AmigaOS4.1 FE
"Anyone can build a fast CPU. The trick is to build a fast system." -Seymour Cray

@klx300r

Quote:

what! no tinkering? heck that's half the fun of messing with my classic and NG miggies man

And all that tinkering around is the very major reason of existence for these fora. It would be rather quiet here if there were no tinkering to be done. Are there any Mac fora other then of the Oh-'n'-Ah! type? And what do they then discuss? The colour of their backdrop?

Give me an Amiga anytime.

OldFart

_________________
More then three levels of indigestion and you're scroomed!

@opi

You missed the point. I'm not expressing any views on the quality, merits, license restrictions etc. of Flash, all I am saying is that in a consumer market which is increasingly dominated by Apple with the run-away success of their iPad and iPhone productlines WHICH EXPLICITLY AND BY DESIGN DO NOT SUPPORT FLASH, content providers will have no choice but to offer content in at least one format that this massive consumer base can view. The alternative is that the content provider locks out the Apple crowd and that would be fairly stupid in the current market.

So claiming that Flash is the lowest common denominator is wrong. Apple and its hordes of customers now dictate what that denominator is and since Flash is out for them, it clearly is not Flash that is the lowest common denominator.

Incidentally, I do not see any Android based devices resisting an open "patent free" standard in favor of a proprietary Flash solution from Adobe.

Sure, Flash might hang on for a few more years but it is doomed.

_________________

@Hyperionmp

maybe sooner than later

http://www.techspot.com/news/44896-adobe-releases-flash-like-html5-design-tool-adobe-edge.html

looks like adobe is hedging their bets.

_________________
Win•dows: n. A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen-bit patch to an eight-bit operating system originally coded for a four-bit microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.

@AmigaBlitter

Quote:

The fact that flash is not supported by Apple doens't mean that Flash is not a good product, whatever design choice was done by apple.

That fact alone does not mean it's not a good product, but actually using it on other platforms too proves that it is not. Flash is buggy, bloated, slow and a relic of the late 90s, it deserves to go the way of RealPlayer and other bloatware of its era. It's too resource hungry, and has no place in the mobile-ready webspace of 2011 onwards, it's had its time.

HTML5 is a much better solution.

Last edited by danwood on 06-Sep-2011 at 05:43 PM.

@danwood

From an Amiga POV.

Adobe does not support Amiga. I do not support nor promote adobe.

HTML5 is/will be a standard...until Apple and M$ corrupt it without
authority to do it nor penalty for having done so.

I'm waiting for HTML13 and a 9.7G network before buying a iM$ anything.

@Nibunnoichi

Quote:

Nibunnoichi wrote: Quote: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401 Already know it, thank you. That doesn't change the existence of proprietary extensions AND companies trying to push them into the standard. This is what i'm saying: it's standard on paper, in practice not so much.

Except that it is a standard. The vast majority of web coders stick to the HTML4.01 standard and do not use non-standard elements. The only web coders that do otherwise are those who develop web apps for businesses (where they can dictate which browser is used) and web coders making showcases of specific web technologies (e.g. Native Client).

In other words, the people who use non-standard code are in the minority, the majority stick to the HTML standards. If most people use the standard, why isn't it a standard (in your eyes)?

Last edited by HenryCase on 06-Sep-2011 at 11:26 PM.

@HenryCase

Quote:

In other words, the people who use non-standard code are in the minority, the majority stick to the HTML standards. If most people use the standard, why isn't it a standard (in your eyes)?

I'm not saying it isn't a standard, i'm drawing a line between the definition and the real world.

_________________
Proud Amigan since 1987
Owner of various Commodore and a SAM440ep\OS4.1FE
See them on http://retro.furinkan.org/

@danwood

Exactly, as a Mac user I agree with 100% of what you just said. From personal experience I can tell you Adobe's support for the Mac is very poor, Flash brings Safari to its knees - who needs that s##t? As for the other Adobe products it took them years and years to even adopt the Apple 'feel' of gadgets, windows and toolbars. Adobe only care about one market, Windows. That'll have to change if they want to survive.

Having said all that will HTML5 be able to offer everything that Flash can? Probably not.

Last edited by djrikki on 07-Sep-2011 at 01:47 PM.

_________________

@Nibunnoichi
Quote:

Nibunnoichi wrote: I'm not saying it isn't a standard, i'm drawing a line between the definition and the real world.

Yes, but in the real world most web developers use the standard, so there's not much worth noting is there.