| riastats is broken |
[22 Aug 2009|08:16am] |
The riastats.com site - which provided useful information about plugin adoption - is broken. The last two "daily" data points it displays on its line graph are for July 22 and August 10. If the August 10 values are to be believed they show:
67% Silverlight not detected.
25% Java not detected
3% Flash not detected
If the the numbers are roughly correct Silverlight adoption has slowed down significantly despite the release of Silverlight 3. More interesting is the evidence it provides that Silverlight's automatic update feature is working. Silverlight calls home if a month has passed since the last time the plugin was loaded. Silverlight 3 was released in late June/early July. So a little more than a month later Silverlight 2 dropped from 31% to 8% while SIlverlight 3 is already at 24%. Microsoft's auto-update feature is working. From a security and usability perspective that's good news.
But it's hard to believe the August 10 numbers on their own. riastats is broken. I hope they fix it. It is a great antidote to the propaganda coming out of Micrsoft and Sun about the availability of their plugins. I wish we had more tools like riastats and better information about what Microsoft, Sun, and Oracle are really doing. For example, the NFL announced they will start using Silverlight. Did Microsoft pay them to do it? I'd like to know what Microsoft is doing with all the wintax money it collects from my employer. According to "davisfreeberg" they paid a billion dollars:
http://www.contentinople.com/author.asp?section_id=603&doc_id=180761
But its just a, possibly anonymous, and likely inaccurate, comment. (Another commenter refes to 1 millioin) So, who knows? It would be newsworthy if they paid either price. If they did it should dispel any hopes Adobe and others have that Microsoft will lose interest in Silverlight. It is clearly a strategic iniative for them. It is designed to further the reach of .Net (including Windows Media) and therefore of Windows Servers and Services, as well as the Windows OS. If they paid that kind of money it is also a very nasty example of how a monopoly can destroy the normal functioning of the market place. And if they did pay a huge sum to the NFL, It would have been better for the rest of the industry if Microsoft paid its shareholders instead.
Update: The riastats site is down. Here's the site owner's message:
RIAStats has been disabled, due to the popularity of the service and lack of funds for the required computing resources. If you'd like to contribute to RIAStats, please contact me.
Regards,
Travis Collins
Update 2: Looks like riastats has funding now and is back. The mid August data is gone though and the data does not seem to line up with the data from July.
|
|
| Google and On2 - Another reason for Microsoft to focus on Google |
[07 Aug 2009|07:47am] |
For years now, Microsoft sales and marketing staff have been told they will get extra points if they can sell something/anything against Google. Google has too much money and that makes Microsoft nervous. A classic example of Microsoft's problem with Google is Google's purchase of On2. As Dan Rayburn points out, no one knows what Google will do with On2 yet. But you can still see the problem Microsoft has with Google. On2 is a relatively small company with a modest income from selling video enocding/decoding software. Today, using high quality video codecs requires paying significant funds to patent holders. If Google decides the Web needs a free and high-quality codec (and their aquistion of On2 goes through) they may be able to simply change the online video game. Companies like On2 couldn't do that on their own. They had to license their codecs to stay in business. If Google wants to, they can just give them away for the betterment of the Web. Imagine you are a patent holder who hopes to receive significant funds from the use of h.264 on the Web. If Google gives away On2's technology to everyone, then suddenly your patents aren't worth as much.
Of course Google hasn't said what they will do with On2. And, if they open up On2's codecs they will be reviewed very closely by patent holders hoping to find infringements on their patents. But Google has the money, unlike On2, to get On2's technology into everyone's hands if they really want to.
Much of the commentary I've read from people focused on other video technology like h.264 is that nothing will change very quickly. But five years from now, things may look very different and Google may not be the only company to benefit. Imagine for example, if everyone, including Intel, Adobe and Mozilla, started building VP7 or VP8 encoding into all their products. Imagine those codecs showing up in every Linux distribution and most Web clients. For Microsoft that's pretty disruptive.
|
|
| Flash not detected - Why Adobe should worry... |
[13 Jul 2009|08:14pm] |
If you visit riastats.com and check out the line graphs you'll see an interesting trend buried at the bottom of the page. Three months ago less than three percent of visitors didn't seem to have Flash installed at all. Today the number is about 4%. There may be any number of reasons for this very small 1% change. But one of them may be that Vista, unlike XP, ships without Flash and a small number of people are not getting around to installing it. Another reason may be more iPhone/iTouch visitors or browser add ins like "no script."
I doubt there's much Adobe can do about this other than hope their open screen project goes well. In the near term HTML 5 will have no real impact and if someone takes the trouble to install Silverlight they probably have even more reason to install Flash. if the trend continues for a long time the gap between Silverlight adoptions and Flash may not seem so big. At some point the "Flash is everywhere" argument may just go away.
|
|
| Microsoft to Adobe: We are going to Kill You! |
[11 Jul 2009|12:12pm] |
The competitive posturing coming out of Microsoft is as smooth and subtle as always:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10284362-56.html
Some nice quotes about Adobe's ability to offer a general-purpose Web platform via Flash/Flex:
"I don't believe they have the assets or the organizational structure," he said. "That's what we do for a living at Microsoft." Abu-Hadba said Adobe would be better off picking a specialty and sticking to it. "I don't think they will exist in 10 years in the form they are today," he said. It's a bold statement, he agreed, but added how unthinkable it would have been to predict in 2000 that Sun Microsystems would go away.
Microsoft evangelists talking about Sun going away reminds me of the Republicans boasting about defeating Communism when the Soviet Union fell apart. But I don't think Java has really gone away...
It's too bad there isn't an immediately obvious financial penalty for arrogance.
|
|
| What will Google bundle into their OS? |
[10 Jul 2009|07:50am] |
|
The iPod works with iTunes and the iPhone with the app store. That's part of how Apple makes money. Their devices ship ready to work with the services they need. So what will Google bundle into their Google Chrome OS. (Since they have no desktop monopoly they can legally bundle anything and everything they want.) My guess is that out-of-the-box you will get fully synchronized off-line/on-line work with all of Google's online applications including Wave. Google has a year to make their Chrome browser as good as having Microsoft office installed locally. Can they succeed at that? Maybe. The intersting part is that Adobe is a partner and Adobe has their own online services... Stay tuned...
|
|
| Adobe is Half Open or Half Closed? |
[17 Jun 2009|07:19am] |
Sometimes you just have to laugh:
http://www.contentinople.com/author.asp?section_id=450&doc_id=178083
Adobe has published and licensed for use their RTMP streaming audio, video, and data protocol. But reading Ryan Lawler's account you have to ask if they are really serious. First, the protocol was already reverse engineered. Second, features like adaptive bit-rate streaming are not published, and third, the secure and Peer-to-Peer versions of RTMP remain proprietary: rtmpe and rtmfp.
I'm sure the good folks at Adobe think they have accomplished something by publishing RTMP. But to anyone outside Adobe the specifications for streaming in/out of the Flash player are still mostly closed.
It's too bad for Adobe that their internal vision doesn't match reality outside the company.
|
|
| Microsoft to the Open Web: Use Silverlight! |
[19 May 2009|08:57pm] |
Tact and diplomacy are not strategies the marketing people at Microsoft deploy very often. Why should they? They work for the winning team and are paid to be competitive. So Microsoft's announcement that Silverlight is installed on more machines than Firefox, Safari, and Chrome combined was a nasty little slap upside the head for people committed to the open web. http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/18/microsoft-says-silverlight-installed-more-than-firefox-safari-and-chrome-combined/
Here's why it burns so badly: After defeating Netscape, Microsoft took its best people off their IE and CSS/scripting work and put them on WPF (Avalon) – the new presentation layer for Vista. Eventually that work led to the Silverlight browser plugin (or mini-WPF). Why did they move everyone to WPF? One reason is that they needed their best people for Avalon. And, Microsoft says HTML/CSS was not the way to build the next generation presentation layer for Windows. (It's hard to argue with that!) But that doesn't explain why IE 6 was left to rot for so many years. For that I think you have to look at what happened with VB script and ActiveX. First, VB script in the browser was not a success. Second, ActiveX backfired. Instead of tying the browser more closely to the Windows operating system, it just made the browser more capable. For example Microsoft added an Active X component to make XML over HTTP requests without reloading the Web page. They did that to support Outlook Web access in 2000. In 2002 Mozilla incorporated XMLHttpRequest() and later Google wrote code so that you could use the same XMLHttpRequest() API within IE. Not only did this lay the foundation for AJAX but it helped propel the belief among other browser developers that progress in providing new, standard, cross browser features could still be made despite Microsoft's lack of interest. (Another example is the Canvas tag and Google's ExplorerCanvas library that uses IE features so you can use the canvas API in IE.) For Microsoft it must have underlined that new features in the browser could be wrapped up in other people's APIs making any linkage with Windows irrelevant.
I think once Microsoft realized there was little value for Windows in extending the browser they completely lost interest in adding new Web application features. Today they say WPF provides a much better model of how to develop applications with rich user interfaces and that browsers should remain more document centric. For the other browser developers this is infuriating. Both Google and Mozilla have shown that JavaScript performance can be dramatically improved but are to some degree powerless to move new Web standards forward without Microsoft. Just how powerless can be seen by what happened around JavaScript 2 at ECMA.
So browser developers are in an almost no-win situation. They want to move forward without Microsoft but must have some cooperation from Microsoft to implement new standards. At some level that means they are forced to co-operate with Microsoft – regardless of how indifferent Microsoft is to new proposals. Look at Brendan Eich's language before the ECMA showdown and afterwards (Harmony) and you know what I mean.
Now along comes Microsoft with its mini WPF plugin that is literally a slice of .Net. It has its own .Net APIs and .Net display technology. Google, Safari, and Mozilla's ambitions of the browser as Web application platform just took an ice cold shower. Microsoft isn't going to move very fast with IE. But they are going to push hard to get their mini WPF plugin into every browser so .Net developers can extend .Net's proprietary reach into the Web.
I can only imagine two reactions from the people who are deeply committed to the open web. One is that they turn their ire on Microsoft. The other is that they try to maintain some sort of détente with Microsoft and turn their ire on Adobe. Of course Flash wouldn't be such a big part of the Web application space if Microsoft had kept moving forward in the browser market. But that won't stop the Flash bashing.
Either way Microsoft is saying it's .Net vision, and all the rich features it built into it rather than IE, are winning against the Open Web. It must really burn.
|
|
| Defeat and then what? |
[18 May 2009|10:15am] |
|
Reading about the Tamil surrender makes me wonder about two things. What lessons will the Israelis and Palestinians take away from the bloody defeat and what will happen to the Tamil population? Will Israel be emboldened by the Tamil surrender despite American pressure? Will the Palestinians reappraise the value of launching rockets into civilian areas after seeing the response to the worst Tamil tactics? If only surrender meant that the suffering was over. I'm not sure it does.
|
|
| riastats trends... |
[12 May 2009|07:05am] |
I thought it might be interesting to return to the riastats page. I visited it a little over a month ago. The numbers then:
- Silverlight Not Detected: 76%
- Java Not Detected: 26%
- Flash Not Detected: 3%
Today's numbers:
- Silverlight Not Detected: 71%
- Java Not Detected: 28%
- Flash Not Detected: 3%
The stats are only from 56 sites and Adobe and Microsoft claim higher numbers of installs, but the over-all trend is not surprising. Most new PCs come with Internet Explorer as the default browser without Java and there is little to drive users to install it. Will Oracle care about that enough to spend money on it? It's hard to imagine.
Of course Microsoft is willing to spend and spend and spend:
http://www.contentinople.com/author.asp?section_id=450&doc_id=170168
According to Ryan Lawler they will pay Dell to include Silverlight along with the Windows Live Messenger beta on new Dell PCs. I wonder what the EU will think of this. Is it simply bundling by other means? Is it OK to pay monopoly money to bundle software on new machines but not OK to bundle for free? It will be interesting to see if the EU cares about this deal or not.
On the other hand, I imagine Adobe is doing everything it can to help organizations like the BBC, NYTimes, MLB, and ABC to use their technology - so far with some success.
I guess if you like cock fights this must be fun to watch. For the rest of us, not so much.
|
|
| Where is Adobe's NanoJIT now? |
[03 May 2009|09:06am] |
Back in September 08 Brendan Eich wrote:
"TraceMonkey is only a few months old, excluding the Tamarin Tracing Nanojit contributed by Adobe (thanks again, Ed and co.!), which we've built on and enhanced with x86-64 support and other fixes."
So I guess that means that once harmony struck, Adobe and Mozilla's partnership was effectively eliminated and Adobe had to proceed on alone with their own JIT? If that is what happened you really have to give Microsoft and friends at ECMA credit for destroying an effective industry partnership between Mozilla, Adobe, and the academics working on tracing.
But it also begs another question: what is Adobe doing with their NanoJIT? Will tracing come to Flash? Of course I have no idea, but I think Adobe has an opportunity here. They can combine optional typing and the other unique features of AS 3 along with dynamic language optimizations like tracing in order to get close to Java or C# level performance. If they can do that, and it is a big IF, then their ActionScript 3 language might be able to offer something new and exciting: the advantages of both static and dynamic languages in a single language.
If they can do that - and I have to admit I've never thought of Adobe as a compiler company - then server-side AS3 is the next logical step. Imagine writing complete applications in Flex and you get the idea.
There is only one problem. Tamarin is written in C++. In the Java application server world ActionScript 3 should run in the JVM. Can Adobe do both? I doubt it somehow...
Adobe has been promising a better performing Flash player for mobile devices for a while. They are supposed to announce something this summer. Mobile devices don't have the memory and cycles available to easily make dynamic languages like JavaScript perform well. So I think the mobile announcements Adobe makes this summer will be a kind of acid test. If a NanoJIT for their mobile player appears and provides Java or C# like performance then we can start to think about Adobe as a successful compiler company. If they don't then we can think of them as being more like Macromedia when AS 2 turned out to be syntactic sugar on top of AS1. Macromedia's problem back then: lack of resources.
|
|
| What Oracle said... |
[26 Apr 2009|06:51pm] |
Why don't people believe what CEOs say? When Adobe acquired Macromedia they said they wanted Flash. So some people blogged that it was really all about Dreamweaver or something else and that Adobe should shut down Flash. Why? Years later it's obvious that aside from making the Creative Suite into a bigger revenue source, it was indeed about Flash. Now Oracle is going to buy Sun. What did Oracle say the aquisition was about?
"Oracle will be the only company that can engineer an integrated system, applications to disk, where all the pieces fit and work together so customers do not have to do it themselves."
And its true. That's largely what it is about. Where things get interesting is when you ask how Oracle is going to do that. What investments in Java, Sun's hardware line, even MySQL are they going to make in order to have that one seamless offering?
Now consider who the competition is for that one seamless offering. Sure IBM and SAP are competitors. But Microsoft is the elephant in the room and Microsoft's Windows server is winning. And Windows/.Net is winning on cost and depth of the software/.Net stack that you get for that low initial server OS cost. What is Oracle going to do to fend off that challenge? We'll see, but I think it's a lot more interesting to imagine what Oracle might be able to get right than to imagine they will jettison everything and then do everything wrong with what's left.
Don't believe me? Have a look at how their BPEL process manager and ODI came out. They work well and integrate brilliantly with Oracle's enterprise offerings.
|
|
| Silverlight not detected - Why Adobe should still worry |
[04 Apr 2009|08:13am] |
|
If you work at Adobe you might take some solace in this site: http://www.riastats.com/. When you first visit the site you see three pie charts that show the percentage of browsers that already had Flash, Silverlight, or Java installed when they visited some sites. If you look at the "not detected" slice of each pie today you'd see this: - Silverlight Not Detected: 76%
- Java Not Detected: 26%
- Flash Not Detected: 3%
If you work for Adobe this is good news, right? Unfortunately, it really isn't. If Silverlight was produced by any company other than Microsoft you could easily speculate that it could never catch up with Flash. Developers and designers who are aware of these numbers would decide to use Flash and that would be that. But Microsoft is a massive monopoly and so can spend enormous funds on subsidizing the adoption of Silverlight. To understand what that means all you have to do is press a button on the riastats page. Instead of looking at the pie charts which show an average over the last 30 days, click on the "Line" button at the top right of the page. As I write this it shows Silverlight was at 86% undetected three months ago and has steadily fallen at a very linear rate down to 73% undetected today. Of course there is no reason Silverlight has to show a 14% drop in the undetected catagory every three months. But with enough media outlets using Silverlight my guess is that the downward trend has more legs than anything Move Networks could have accomplished on their own. Microsft is unique in that it can lose money in a market place for years while slowly grinding down the competition. It is the only company with a software monopoly and that makes it unique.
When you look at the numbers in riastats you quickly realise that Silverlight may achieve the same level of adoption as Java or better by the end of 2009. That should truly frighten Adobe.
And, as for Java? Java's undetected rate is actually increasing. If the stats are accurate, fewer people have Java today than had it three months ago.
|
|
| Disturbing News |
[21 Mar 2009|11:06am] |
In science fiction movies and TV show episodes big things often happen light years away that can't be fully explained but are essential to telling the story quickly. So characters tell us there is "a disturbance in the force" or are shocked when an unseen starship full of Vulcans is destroyed off stage by a big amoeba.
For those of us who seem to still have secure employment, watching the news is a little like watching the opening scene in a bad science fiction episode. We know something big is happening but we really don't get to see what it means. And, unlike TV episodes that end in an hour, the sci-tech and economic news looks a lot more like a multi-year sci-fi epic. But it isn't. The writers of this story are politicians, CEOs, shareholders, and above all economics. And the story we are being told is one of ongoing concentration of power in the hardware and software industry. Cisco continues to succeed while other vendors like Nortel fail. Someone – perhaps IBM – needs to buy Sun before it falls in on itself. Microsoft continues to use monopoly revenue to erode most of the software markets it enters. Dreams of an open source rebellion are just silly. Microsoft's lock on big chunks of the enterprise server market is only increasing and even if IE falls to 50% of the market that means open Web technologies aren't going anywhere quickly.
Despite all the ideologically driven nonsense in the traditional advertising driven media and on the Web, the only thing that can reverse the current trend and preserve a reasonable level of competition in the market place is government interference in two areas: concentration and intellectual property. After so many years of advertising driven media and Republican governments in the U.S., I just don't see how it will happen.
The Web set big companies with expensive and proprietary ambitions back on their heels. Back Office died and it took Microsoft years to resuscitate it under different names. Everyone had to mostly conform to the simple standards of the Web. Today, the opposite is happening. The Web is being set back on its heels as proprietary technologies like .Net are aggressively pushed via plugins into the browser.
Before things get a lot worse we need a correction. We need it soon before a difficult economy forces more concentration and increasing market monopolization. But we aren't going to get it. More likely we are going to watch five years of increasing concentration of control and commercialization of the Web. I'm not looking forward to it.
|
|
| Anyone but Microsoft |
[05 Sep 2008|12:26pm] |
Is there any serious Web company out there that wants to work with Microsoft? Sure, if you’re a start up, then being purchased by Microsoft is a nice exit. Working for Microsoft or using some of their technology is one thing, but can anyone seriously entertain really working WITH them on the Web?
If you use Internet Explorer today to visit yahoo.com you’ll get this banner message: Yahoo! Recommends upgrading to the NEW safer, faster Firefox 3 - FREE. If you click on the banner you end up here:
http://downloads.yahoo.com/firefox/
Of course Yahoo is not too happy with Microsoft these days. If Microsoft ever buys Yahoo the use Firefox message will change. But today, Yahoo’s stock may be way down but their portal – courtesy of agreements with numerous ISPs – is the starting point for services like E-mail and instant messaging for millions of people. Microsoft’s hostile run at Yahoo hasn’t made Microsoft any friends outside of Wall Street.
Microsoft has worked with NBC for a long time. NBC used Microsoft’s Silverlight plugin as part of their streaming solution for the 2008 Olympics. So you’d think that when NBC was ready to start streaming regular sports events like the NFL’s Sunday Night Football, they would continue to work with their close partner. They chose to work with Adobe instead: Instead the NFL chose to work with Adobe:
http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/9/nfl-nbc-tap-adobe-s-flash-for-live-football
Adobe has also been in Microsoft’s sights. Microsoft’s, Silverlight, their sort-of-WPF plugin, is designed to fend off Flash as a Web platform and promote using the .Net stack more widely on the Web. Microsoft is also taking a run at Adobe’s PDF with XPS.
Given Microsoft’s behavior, Adobe can never really work with them. Instead, Adobe is investing their Creative Suite profits in developing Flash as a platform and staying out ahead of Microsoft’s sort-of-WPF plugin. Adobe keeps adding value to Flash video and is getting traction with Flex and AIR. Meanwhile, most .Net developers haven’t had much reason to do anything with Microsoft’s plugin yet. Most .Net developers continue to focus on other ways to deliver applications using ASP, SharePoint’s APIs, and Visual Basic.
Microsoft sat on IE 6 for so many years that Web developers are pretty much fed up with them. So improvements in JavaScript performance from Mozilla and Google are causing a lot of excitement and IE 8 is causing a lot of yawns. Firefox 3.1 will have something new – a tracing JIT. You can read about how that will make JavaScript run two or three times faster in Firefox here:
http://andreasgal.com/
For some tasks JavaScript may run more than ten times faster than in IE 7 and five times faster than IE 8.
Then along comes Google with a beta of their new browser. Its JavaScript engine is also much faster than IE 8. It’s designed from the ground up to run Web applications – both online, offline, and safely.
Microsoft has always tried to work closely with hardware vendors. Today, when I start up IE on my new Dell I go to the Dell/Google home page. Government action - especially in the EU - has made it impossible for Microsoft to do anything about it. But at least it is still IE, right?
When Google Chrome gets out of beta, I’d guess Google will ask Dell to make Chrome, and Google’s services, the default browser and default home page on every Dell that ships. With total annual revenue above last year’s 16 Billion, Google can afford it. Imagine every new user of a Dell computer never seeing Internet Explorer. After all these years we’ve grown accustomed to the idea that what Microsoft wants to ship with their OS is what everyone will use. But it may not be true much longer. Microsoft cannot ship Silverlight with their OS without inviting a nasty and very expensive court battle and they can’t do anything about Google paying Dell to ship Google Chrome. Things have started to change.
At some point, no matter how big you are, if you make it impossible for anyone to work with you, then they will find a way to hurt you. It may take years. But Microsoft, a company convicted of illegal business practices on two continents and under a lot of careful scrutiny, is about to face competition of a type they haven’t seen in a long time. Too bad for them there are so many people out there who hope that competition bites them hard.
|
|
| Unsound for the Web? |
[22 Aug 2008|06:52am] |
|
Brendan Eich writes> "Some ES4 proposals have been deemed unsound for the Web, and are off the table for good: packages, namespaces and early binding. This conclusion is key to Harmony."
See:
https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2008-August/003400.html
Unsound for the Web? Off the table for good??
I understand there are real challenges with intrinsic and with dynamic code loading, but "unsound for the web"? That's a big leap. Maybe he could have written "too difficult for the next generation of browsers" and "off the table for now and possibly forever" or something more modest. But "unsound" for the web? I don't think so. Something good happened in Oslo. There was agreement to make modest progress. But, something bad seems to have happened as well. It's as though all the edge cases are all that matters. For example, pointing to the fact that optional typing in ActionScript 3 does not always produce enhanced performance is true but not that significant. In practice typing provides dramatically improved performance. Along with other improvements in Flash player 9, performance is way ahead of Flash Player 8 often by a factor of 4 or 5.
Not worried about improving performance with optional typing because of some tracing jit benchmarks? That's a big bet to make.
It is possible for committees to come to a consensus without losing the independence of the voices on it. When I read "unsound for the Web" I started to wonder if maybe the committee agreed to speak with one voice as well and, I must say, I'm not enjoying the sound it is making.
Update: Some comments by Brendan Eich:
http://www.itwriting.com/blog/833-ecmascript-4-deemed-unsound-for-the-web.html#comment-105527
Update: Here's a post describing trace-based JIT compilers:
http://andreasgal.com/2008/08/22/tracing-the-web/
|
|
| Time to Retire ColdFusion |
[11 Jun 2008|05:19pm] |
I've been reading a few blogs recently about what new features should be included in ColdFusion. Stepping back from the small details and looking at Adobe's offerings it seems like now would be a good time to retire ColdFusion entirely.
Well, at least the name.
At best cold fusion (two words) is a theory that low-energy nuclear reactions are possible. For two decades of funded research no one has done anything useful with the theory. At worst cold fusion is bunk. For two decades now ColdFusion has been a single word name for an application server from Allaire, Macromedia, and now Adobe. For me, its name conjures up the excitement and ultimate disappointment with the idea of low-energy nuclear reactions. ColdFusion and Adobe's application server strategy need a makeover.
What should Adobe call the next release of ColdFusion? That's Adobe's problem. For now I'll just call it RealFusion. What should RealFusion look like? It should include a fully licensed version of LiveCycle Data Services, an XMPP server, Flash Media Interactive Server, a fully integrated ECMAScript 4 engine, and whatever else Adobe wants to dump in there. RealFusion should not only fuse Adobe's servers together in one cost-effective package it should also make it possible to build and scale powerful http/rtmp applications using one application server. It means Adobe evangelists can post articles with demonstration applications that don't have to be created to run across multiple servers with multiple languages. It would represent a real bit of innovation around JavaScript and it would protect JavaScript and ActionScript from what Microsoft is about to do to the Web via WPF/E.
Adobe, its time for some real fusion.
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
notboss's journal