Linux.com

Who the heck is going to agree to terms like those, besides another idiot? I especially appreciated the little bit about you agreeing to let them audit you at any time. F___ off. Flash is mainly used for ads anyway.

#

All those who agree with MS Windows EULAs which contains the same kind of "restrictions". They had to revise it as financial corporations refuse it.

#

Our Microsoft license has the same clause. Lots of people are already subject to such terms.

#

It was allowed that another idiot might agree to such terms.

#

I guess I won't be using the Flash player.

#

I haven't used this flash shit for a couple of years now, and it made no difference to me.

#

Hi, I work with Macromedia, but I'm not a lawyer, and tend to cringe at the thought of translating legal documents like that, but I think I may have some context which could be useful... forgive me if I make up some of the questions here and correct me if I guessed the wrong ones, okay?

(Q) Why can't I distribute the Macromedia Flash Player from my own site?
(A) If someone's name, their reputation, is attached to a package, then there's a vested interest in making sure that what's distributed is actually what the creator made. Since 1995 there has been a single point of distribution with known partners, rather than peer-to-peer distribution.

      The Macromedia Flash Player is licensed to several Linux vendors for redistribution, and a non-internet intranet can license it for internal redistribution, but this web technology is definitely oriented towards web installation from the creator's own site.

        (If Warren has a different Linux distribution and he'd like to improve access for his audience to this Player, then please do contact the Macromedia Flash Player team... it's in everyone's interest to get things universal and easy.)

(Q) What's up with that "we can audit" clause?
(A) I can't say with assurance ('cause I don't have a lawyerly license!) but when I've questioned similar types of things in the past these have usually been protection clauses, so there's some way to stop someone who does something truly hideous and bad. Unfortunately, the final words often end up scaring people who aren't hideous and bad. In this case I'd suspect it lays a groundwork to protect against a type of "i'm running your bits in a weird way but you can't check it, hah!" situation, but I wasn't in that meeting, I don't have full details, sorry.

(Q) What's with that "multiple machines" clause?
(A) Again, I'm a mere mortal rather than credentialed rule-interpreter, but in the past this type of phrase has been used to protect against someone trying to install on hundreds of machines rather than just their own machines.

If you need anything more solid than this then I'd definitely recommend a typed-out letter to Macromedia General Counsel, 600 Townsend St, SF CA 94103, because they can be definitive in ways that I cannot. The above is my general understanding of why legal language is the way it often is, though, if that material is of any help.

Regards,
John Dowdell
Macromedia Support

#

from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html:

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:


        * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

        * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

        * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).

        * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms.
=======

compare this with the 'corporate freedom' Macromedia offers us.

Thanks, but no thanks!

#

John, while I do understand the concerns raised by the authors in this article, I would just like to say thanks for replying to it as clearly as you could under the circumstances. It's much appreciated that Macromedia seems to be willing to enter into an intelligent discussion about this.

#

First Answer:
The desire to control where it comes from is understandable. I don't like it and think it is completely unneeded, but I can understand it. I mean, if I download it from "Joe's Downloads Site" it saves Macromedia's bandwidth, right?

Second and Third Answer:
Your explanations are practically true. By that I mean, for all normal situations Macromedia will not be auditing anyone nor worrying about the number of computers Flash is installed on.

HOWEVER, your explanation is *not* what the document says. In accepting the agreement I am not agreeing to avoid doing "something truly hideous and bad" with the software. I am agreeing to give Macromedia the power to audit my equipment on their whim. (With prior notice. How nice.)

It bothers me when someone says that a legal document "doesn't really mean" what it means. If it doesn't really mean that, why does it say that? Answer: Because it does really mean that! You may want to "sugar coat" the meaning but in a legal proceeding, the sugar melts away.

And what's up with the restriction on the number of computers? Isn't the goal to make Flash ubiquitous? I have three user computers at home but I can only install it on one of them? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Why does Macromedia care that I run around installing Flash on every computer I can? I can't reconcile that one with my understanding of the Flash business model.

"Here! License our Flash development tools! The client software is restricted to only one computer per person, but we know they will always be at that one computer or will be willing to relocate to that one computer to see your compelling content!"

#

You see, their business model relies on gratuitously wasting their own bandwidth over and over. And on making it as big a pain as possible (both physically and contractually) for people to use their stuff, which they're not getting paid for anyway.

#

"HOWEVER, your explanation is *not* what the document says. "

Understood... if you want a compleat lawyerly gloss, then I'd recommend getting it in writing from the lawyers directly, as previously advised. I'm more of an online guy with online realities, and can't reconcile terms to the degree of satisfaction requisite for the task....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

(If you're not happy with the contract, then you're welcome to not take advantage of it, for sure. If you'd prefer to negotiate on the proferred contract then I'd recommend talking with lawyers rather than an online discussion board for the most direct results.)

Regards,
John Dowdell
Macromedia Support

#

John,

Nothing against you dude, but your company sucks. They have yet to do anything but pay lip service to Linux. They make half hearted attempts to produce software for Linux. I wonder if there isn't something going on between your board of directors and that certain company up in Redmond.

By the time you guys get out from under that companies thumb and learn to stand on your own two feet it will be too late. Linux will have the tools that it needs to produce outstanding multi-media content (hint:it already does, it just isn't easy). Macromedia won't be needed on Linux by then. Can't say I'd be upset over that.

Remember, you can be replaced.

Pat

#

This might be unfortunate for you: Your answer sucks even if mixed in pure stupidity.

Companies like Macromedia aren't really pay attention to EULA-s for free software they produce. This kind of software is more annoyance than productive in their eyes.

Almost every company makes this mistake for the first time. Linux grounds are different and so are things regarding license. I never new anyone that would read it on Windows. Linux is just a bit more tricky *PARTNER* in this matter and companies like Macromedia aren't used to that fact. But always these matters are RESOLVED and they are resolved AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE. If they wouldn't get resolved, well company would only suffer and not gain anything. *Free* Flash player is just *THE* only reason why to take on Macromedia Flash (commercial version for development). And less there are people with Flash installed, less there is reason to take on these tools.

For example:
Borland made the same mistake with Kylix Open Edition. It was resolved in two weeks. Kylix didn't suffer anything. These matters always get resolved in a week or two (but only) as soon as someone points them out.

btw. Well, Kylix suffered a lot but the reason wasn't license. Product was buggy, poorly maintained and outdated. Version 1 that had license problems actualy was succesfull. Ver.3, well to put it blindly: IT SUCKED, someone would hope that ver.3 IDE would be native, but IDE was still built on Wine, crashy and still using qt2 (while the rest of the world used wt3 for a long time then).

#

"This might be unfortunate for you: Your answer sucks even if mixed in pure stupidity. Companies like Macromedia aren't really pay attention to EULA-s for free software they produce."

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand that. I'm not sure about what you'd like from me with the "kylix" reference, either...?

Regards,
John Dowdell
Macromedia Support

#

And what exactly have you contributed to the world of technology, besides making demands on how others should get their acts together to meet your specifications, "Pat"?

I'm tired of this lame s**t.

#

"Nothing against you dude, but your company sucks. They have yet to do anything but pay lip service to Linux. They make half hearted attempts to produce software for Linux."

I dunno... if I go back and advise other staffers that porting and testing the Macromedia Flash Player for various Linux distributions was not worth the effort, and that the server versions don't matter either, then it seems even harder to make a sound economic argument for authoring tools too, true...?

"Remember, you can be replaced."

Understood... for me, 9/11 was a big wake-up call for the greater meaning of things, for instance.... 8(

Regards,
John Dowdell
Macromedia Support

#

I'm just saying what a lot of people want to say, but won't. Software makers need to hear that there are people who don't want Microsoft based sofware and are willing to pay for it. But...

We don't want half-arsed software. Take for example Borland Kylix. Good idea, bad product. If your authoring tools suck has much has Kylix 3 then well you might has well not even spend the time. If it is wine based it will fail. Don't waste your time on a half-arsed solution.

I will pay for good software. I won't pay for junk. If I wanted junk software I would be running Windows.

Oh, thanks for porting the flash player to Linux. Now, please port shockwave. I'd buy shockwave if it was native.

Pat

#

Sorry, but shockwave on Linux won't happen due to prior agreements with Microsoft.

Anonymous Macromedia Employee Who Wants to Keep His Job

#

"Sorry, but shockwave on Linux won't happen due to prior agreements with Microsoft. -- Anonymous Macromedia Employee Who Wants to Keep His Job"

uhh, not only have I never heard anything of that myself (and I've been working with Shockwave since before it was first announced), I can't even imagine a situation where that would make any sense or having any bearing to reality at all.

Rather than "anonymous macromedia employee", I suspect you're actually just "anonymous recreational online typist" who's out for a bit of fun... how am I doing here, am I close...?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)

(If you *are* indeed a Macromedia employee, and are either mistaken or have some secret information hidden from me for nine years and which would rock my world, then ya gotta sign your posts... if you've got an affiliation you need to reveal it, and reputation-backed posts are key online.)

Like I said up above, the Macromedia Shockwave Player takes explicit advantage of system-level abilities, and so doesn't port as readily as the Macromedia Flash Player does. It's not impossible to make happen, just much more difficult.

Regards,
John Dowdell
Macromedia Support

#

Mr. Dowdell.
First off: thank you for commenting
on the matter. I think I speak for
others when I say that we appreciate
someone from Macromedia commenting
in a (timely no less!) manner that
seems honest to us.

Now onto my concerns:
1)distributing the flash
player from some website other than
Micromedia's:

Why not do what the linux distros do:
Put an MD5sum with the package signed
with Macromedia's key to guarantee it's
an authentic hash? I mean, it's not as if
the technology has never been heard of before,
or never been used either.

How hard can it be?
Advantages:
a) Save on Macromedia bandwidth (always a
good thing for a free download)
b) The customer is guaranteed he is getting
what he thinks he's getting
c) No offended community railing agaisnt
Macromedia and launching a jihad/boycott
against Macromedia.

2) What's up with the "we can audit" clause.

Ok, there is no freaking way that I (and
a lot of Linux, BSD, andfreedom-loving people
are going to permit that to happen.
You have to understand how offensive that is
to anyone who values their personal freedom
and right to privacy. Please ask your
managers to consider Real, Inc. as a
poster child of what happens when you
piss off your customers with spyware and
other things like that which invade and
try to "control" customers. I say customer
and not consumer, because I and others like
me are not mindless drones to be fleeced at
the earliest possible time.

Stupidity at the management level tends to
really piss off customers more so than
individual stupidity, because nominally
management is supposed to be responsible
for corporate actions.

3. What's with the "multiple machines" clause?
That's a really silly (no offense intended
towards you sir, but to your management)
STUPID,STUPID,STUPID!!!!! clause.

Are you going to tell me that in my
home local network I can only install
one copy of flash player?
STUPID, STUPID!!!

4. Since player is free, why doesn't Macromedia
GPL it, so folks can compile it not just for
Linux on x86 hardware, but also on x64, Itanium,
PPC, Sparc, and for the BSD's as well?

It's a free product. What does Macromedia
have to lose? It's honorable name? Then
make it a requirement that the only plugin that
can be called MACROMEDIA flash player
is the one that Macromedia itself compiles
and makes available. Everyone else's has to be
called something other than Macromedia's.

BEGIN tin foil hat mode
5) What is up with the time between releases
of the flash player for Linux vs. Mac's and Windows?

Does Billy pay Macromedia to delay the release of the plugin for Linux?

6) Why is there still no shockwave director
for Linux? I know I'm not the only one
over a year ago who made the request for the plugin.

How hard can it be? If it's a question of
manpower, why not release the source code
under GPL, and let the Linux community do
the grunt work for Macromedia?

The director player is free, what does
Macromedia have to lose? Does having more
users of the director plugin hurt Macromedia?
Huh?

END tin foil hat mode

#

> [Why doesn't Macromedia open-source the Player code?]

I know that the word "open-source" stirs definitional debates, so forgive me if I define some of the possible uses of the term instead:

-- For "tweak my own code like Apache" that doesn't quite work as well when the code is running on someone else's machine... one of the advantages of a known consumer capability is that you can design against it with less testing. (The case of the various VRML engines was very instructive, and we all know what happened to DHTML and "standards-compliant browsers"... having a known capability "out there in the world" is a bit different than being able to inspect the code that runs on your own machine.)

-- For "why not publish the Player source?" then Macromedia did do that for the first few versions, and Oliver Debon and friends did some good work porting, but there wasn't the action hoped for overall. Right now the Player itself can be licensed to hardware manufacturers to help pay for that development. The biggest reason overall, though, is likely the inclusion in recent versions of external technology... Fraunhoffer MP3, Nelly-Moser voice, Sorenson video, I think these are some of the outgoing fees for technology. It's up to someone else to publish that and remove their revenue streams for the work they've done.

Regards,
John Dowdell
Macromedia Support

#

Linux is about choice, and the more people who join the party, the better. I welcome Macromedia's effort to join Linux and I plan to use Flash there as I do in Windows.

And for all you nay-sayers out there, you have the choice to NOT use it. There is little point in bitching about Macromedia's efforts if all you can do is bitch. Please offer helpful and constructive opinions if you have to say anything at all. All else will be regarded as trolls only trying to hurt relations with Linux and Macromedia.

Speaking of which, John, I suggest you to pass on some of the feedback presented here. I have 3 computers, 2 desktops and a laptop I want to install Flash on, but the problem is, as a potential comstumer who wants to use your software legally I can't do so cause there is unreasonable restrictions on the usage. Please go to your staff and ask them to address the issues of redistribution and installation in the EULA so the clauses are more friendly to those that wish to use your software without stepping on your toes.

Thanks...

#

And for all you nay-sayers out there, you have the choice to NOT use it. There is little point in bitching about Macromedia's efforts if all you can do is bitch. Please offer helpful and constructive opinions if you have to say anything at all.

Ok.

Dear Macromedia,

Why are you attempting to make Flash player as difficult to use in Linux as you possibly can make it, short of refusing to release a Flash player at all?

Surely by this point you should know that slipping in a "we reserve the right to audit your installations of our software" is not going to sit well with people who Free Source fans?

Actually, I find the latter to be HIGHLY OFFENSIVE. You don't trust me? ok, that's your choice. I choose not to use your software. I have to consider the possiblity this EULA will require me to remove Flash player from the computers I admin at work.

And don't read that as a threat, it isn't. I want to keep my installations legal. If the EULA forbids me, then I can't do it. I have no power to change that, only abide by it.

Have a nice day.

#

(Q) What's with that "multiple machines" clause?
(A) Again, I'm a mere mortal rather than credentialed rule-interpreter, but in the past this type of phrase has been used to protect against someone trying to install on hundreds of machines rather than just their own machines.

Ah, so I should go back and remove any Flash I've installed on machines we've gotten at work? Technically, they're not my machines. And this last go-round, instead of using the preinstalled windows, I went back and restored from the restoration CD to a "known good state" (minus all the trialware, AOL/MSN/Earthlink stuff, and all the other assorted crap).

If I'm not permitted to install under those conditions, then I won't.

#

Speaking of lisences, I think that that lisence is a ctualy stricter than the lisence for Windows! I think that the windows one might have said that you can install it on 3 pcs. Or was that office? The point is that the flash lisence is stricter.

#

Let's see, your spell checker is broken and you can't get your facts straight. Why did you even post?

Thank goodness for anonymity.

#

I can't speak for everyone, but I absolutely hate the web sites that require Flash to use their sites, and avoid them where possible. Since the only other use of Flash seems to be in ads, I block the use of Flash altogether using the Firefox plugin to turn the ad (or whatever) into a "click to play" button.

Given this, I question the business sense in putting so many legal roadblocks in the way of using this product. It can't help market penetration, can it?

I don't care how "seldom" Macromedia will insist that it audit my computer, if it's stated in the license, then I will not accept that license, or the product. Given my opinion of the product, though, I don't think there's much chance in my installing it in the first place.

The Flash player is not for the benefit of the consumer. It exists solely for the benefit of commercial interests who want total control over the browser experience. To act like we should be thankful for this is an outrage.

#

Flashblock is the program that Prototerm is talking about.
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
--
Freyr

#

It's like having a popup blocker for flash ads.

#

that the site has no real content whatsoever, and
is just more marketing noise, albeit more entertaining than the spam that hammers my filters, but none-the-less, just more hype and garbage.

Yes, flash is very cool technology. I grant that.
It's a shame they have to take such a draconian
stance. But that's how they like it.

Wonder how long it will be before their technology is rolled into the redmonian giant. Like all the others who thought they could work and play well
with the tyrants.

#

No, it's not a music, nor I'm beginning a fairy tale...

But I was once told webpeople were fond od flash because it made easier to use a single source for pages to be exhibited in several browsers.

Now, well, I work at a multi-thousand PCs institution (actually a government department, some 10 thousand desktops) -- and I've been told not to use flash.

"Why?", I asked. "Because you can't assume for sure it will be available in every desktop."

This discussion took place as I wanted to distribute a presentation. At first I thought about a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ppt file, they told me not to count on it: some PCs don't have Powerpoint.

Then I suggested Flash, with the above answer; then PDF, same response, "not available in weaker PCs" (and many non-technical folks simply won't have it installed, fearing it could be spyware). Though not the same, I assume they fear exactly such things as the audits the EULA allows.

Well,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc was universal, but I was against the idea, me being the champion of Free-as-in-speech Software over here and all.

So<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.html was chosen (though never used, because the presentation still awaits distribution). But I've used it in internal e-mails with great success -- the minor restriction being it won't open automatically in all e-mail clients.

As people around me use to say, if you're really careful and avoid all risks (e.g., by following good lawyer advice), you may end up locked up at home.

Also, regarding lawful aspects, what is any of the 10.000 PC in my department? Can I install Flash on it for personal use? How can it be for personal use, when the PC is a tool for work, owned by the government?

Flash dudes should really consider whether they really want to have their offspring available for wider use...

Now, on a personal note, I use only linux at home and Shockwave hasn't been available since ever. I simply can't see some online games because of this.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(

#

> So<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.html was chosen....

Hey, great... if HTML can do the job the client wants, then why not use it...?

> "Because you can't assume for sure it will be available in every desktop."

It should be, assuming the IT department did a complete install from system discs onto those captive machines. Of course, considering how slowly operating systems change they probably have older browsers, security patches and applications on there, so they'd likely want to do periodic updates of their captive machines as well.

> what is any of the 10.000 PC in my department?

You can license the Macromedia Flash Player for intranet distribution. It doesn't cost anything, but we need to track who has the legit bits, which is why you need to fill out the form before getting the distribution kit. Search the Macromedia site with terms like "player licensing" for full info.

> I use only linux at home and Shockwave hasn't been available...

Yes, sorry, that's true. While the Macromedia Flash Player is designed for quick download, low system-specificity, and ubiquity across environments, the Macromedia Shockwave Player takes deeper advantage of system-specific resources (hardware acceleration, speech-synthesis routines, native-code extensibility, more). If it helps, think of it as more of a Mozilla plugin, because it helps take deeper advantage of a specific environment.

Regards,
John Dowdell
Macromedia Support

#

Whenever I install a new version of Mozilla, the first thing I do is to disable the flash plugins. Any site that requires flash to view properly belongs to the no-visit list.

#

There have been occasions when for professional reasons I've had to screw things up with Flash/Shockwave to view information. NVidia's site used to be that way, and there are several gaming sites (Nintendo for example) that don't want people using their images so they lock them up in flash.

My solution is to have a pair of scripts linked to icons on the desktop which allow me to rename the mozilla plugins folder within my ~/.mozilla filespace. I just click the appropriate button and restart the browser to either enable or disable any of the plugins, like flash, that I've installed for myself.

With things like the license for flash or shockwave players they just don't want people selling/bundling their players without some kind of deal. Typical businessness stuff. Besides, unless you can feed their judicial champions, Macromedia doesn't want to play court with you anyway.

#

"Under the terms of Macromedia's end user license agreement (EULA), you may install the player on only a single computer. If your family has multiple computers, I guess you're out of luck."

It means that if my family consists of 3 persons, we may have 3 single computers with Flash installed on it. One per person.

"The EULA specifically precludes installation on anything but Windows, Mac, Linux or Solaris desktop machines. If you're thinking of installing it on a laptop, forget it -- it's not allowed, nor are any other kinds of mobile computing devices."

I see a laptop with GUI as a desktop. I'm bellow the above limit. Are they gonna sue me now? LOL.

Don't get cocky.

#

> It means that if my family consists of 3 persons, we may have 3 single computers with Flash installed on it.

No crap charlie. What else are you going to install it on, double computers? The moral of what you quoted was that you have to download the same crap three separate times if you have three computers, including any that may not have a (fast) internet connection, which might be all three.

> I see a laptop with GUI as a desktop.

What you see is irrelevant. What is relevant are the legal fees involved in trying to get others to see things your way.

> Are they gonna sue me now?

Don't know. Whether they sue you and whether they have grounds to sue you are different questions, however.

#

My laptop is a huge Toshiba P25 with 17 inch screen and 9.5 lb weight. I never put it on my lap - it is always sitting on my desk. Does it qualify as a desktop then? I would like to do everything legally, you know...

#

...watch their back side more carefully. SVG can do everything that flash can, and is a completely open spec. What Macromedia has that SVG doesn't right now is a complete and functioning implementation of the spec. Both editors and browsers that display SVG are currently under heavy development, so that opening for Macromedia will go away if they don't watch what they do. The only other benifit that Macromedia can claim is that their format is binary and SVG is XML which consumes more bytes. The only problem I find with that argument is that dynamic data compression of the http data stream seams to be more common as time goes by, and the XML data stream compresses very nicely to between 1/3 and 1/10 of the raw data size depending on the compression method used. on the other hand, binary formats usually don't compress much, which should make the actual data transfer size about equal.

#

What rock do you guys live under--what is it like 1993 and you're afraid of "scary" technology which improves user experiences with the Web?

SVG?? SVG ought to figure out how to return from the "been marginalized" world it was sent to. Besides, what's the install base on it? Last I checked it was a significantly larger install than the Flash plugin (this alone is a significant drawback to widespread adoption). Where's the IDE which allows both designers and coders to play to their strengths? How many RIA's have been developed for the SVG player? How about the delivery of video? Hmmm haven't seen too many component / controls built for the SVG player floating around. Wow what's the developer base for SVG.....looks like there's not much to this argument after all

If you're into xml - check out FLEX which allows you to create files for a format which has a 90%+ install base entirely in XML.

I'm a bit perplexed by the "don't use Flash" scenario's described above. I've done Flash based projects for the US military and have been told it is their preferred platform for delivery. Institutional resistance to deploying any plugin or piece of software does exist--but this is not unique to Flash. Furthermore, the install base of Flash is such that it has actually been easier to convince IT departments, in the corporations I've worked for, to roll out updates and installations.

Just thought the drivel being doled out here deserved to be responded to on its merit.

#

WTF.

SVG ought... SVG larger install base than... IDE which allows designers and coders to play to their strengths... RIA's... create files for a format which has a 90%+ install base entirely in XML... Flash based projects...preferred platform for delivery? Nothing you say makes sense.

BTW, how are things at Macromedia? Having fun trolling a Linux site?

#

" I've done Flash based projects for the US military and have been told it is their preferred platform for delivery. Institutional resistance to deploying any plugin or piece of software does exist--but this is not unique to Flash"

Wow, I wasn't aware that the US Military was that much into advertising! All I've ever seen it used for is for ads and most of them lately are Microsoft. But, Hey Bill, thanks for your perspective.

#

Ah man,

I love it when people argue Flash's relevance and talk about from the perspective of being a computer/software expert, but are totally wrong in all of their facts showing they have no idea what they are talking about.

Flash and SVG are far from the same thing. They are nothing alike at all other than they both involve vector graphics.

The Flash Player is a Virtual Machine that renders Vector Graphics and gives you a full runtime allowing it to do all the things that the Actionscript language does. SWF files are the files that are playedback inside the Flash Player.

SVG is a way to describe vector graphics using XML. Browsers use plug-ins just like the Flash Player to render these graphics. In order to create interactivity with SVG you still have to rely on Javascript or Java or whatever runtime the browser can use to actually script the stuff.

So SVG is like a SWF file that is xml format with no specific runtime. This means that using SVG on the web is a nightmare. Same as DHTML way back in the day. Who has support for SVG in thier browsers. IE won't be getting SVG built-in because there is not going to be any more IE's being realeased. So instead you have the Adobe plug-in that is like 10x larger to download compared to the Flash player and provides less functionality.

One final thought:

The Flash Player CAN consume and manipulate XML. SVG is XML. Many Flash developers have already been able to parse and render SVG no problem.

So if that develops over the next year or so which is likely due to the fact that Macromedia's Flex product can utilze SVG, then it could be likely that the thing that will make SVG a success on the net is the Flash Player.

SVG will never wipe Flash out. They are 2 different things totally. Flash & SVG will have a complimentary relationship as the future progresses.

#

The only expert on this thread said:
"SVG will never wipe Flash out. They are 2 different things totally. Flash & SVG will have a complimentary relationship as the future progresses"

And Linux will never wipe out Microsoft - right Bill?

#

I used to have the client installed but all I ever saw it used for was advertisements and silliness. Pages where it is used for business purposes that don't have an alternate way to read the same data lose me as a customer.

Especially stupid are those sites (the Van Andel Museum in Grand Rapids is one such) that require SWF to buy tickets. If you can't see the swf, you can't give them money to walk through their building. I guess they don't need no stinking Linux users money.

I installed a Windows machine to buy tickets to see the Dead Sea Scrolls. But never again.

#

Try shockwave.com for starters (there are *many*, many others)

#

Amazing how many of us have replied to this thread with "I've only seen it used on advertising (or silly stuff)" And then there are many, many others - all of which are silly stuff. If it weren't used for advertising so heavily then most folks wouldn't mind having it on their machine (only one to stay legal I guess). But watching the Microsoft ads flashing away while I'm trying to read the article its next to is just to damned frustrating to put up with and I don't - and it seems that there are many, many others<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Do us all a favor and stop using it.

#

flash sucks - all it is used for is adds anyway -
just think how much bandwidth it is taking away from the internet and keeping people from getting their work done.

stop using it.

#

That's pretty much how I feel about television.

#