Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Shumway: Mozilla Does An Open-Source SWF Runtime

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,824

    Default Shumway: Mozilla Does An Open-Source SWF Runtime

    Phoronix: Shumway: Mozilla Does An Open-Source SWF Runtime

    Mozilla announced Shumway this week, a new research project that seeks to create an open SWF (Adobe Flash) run-time environment to make Flash more open and for exposing SWF capabilities to platforms where the Adobe file-format wasn't backed by an official Flash Player...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTIyODY

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,679

    Default

    WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

    I mean yes flash is a technology still used mainly in pornography websites and websites designed by idiots but it goes away. Mozilla (and google/youtube + porn sites) should start pushing open web formats aggressively (ie not use webm as a fallback and disable it for monetized videos on youtube). Also we should get rid of h264 and shit like that from the web.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    58

    Default

    @89c51

    you are aware of the fact that swf is not a video codec?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

    I mean yes flash is a technology still used mainly in pornography websites and websites designed by idiots but it goes away. Mozilla (and google/youtube + porn sites) should start pushing open web formats aggressively (ie not use webm as a fallback and disable it for monetized videos on youtube). Also we should get rid of h264 and shit like that from the web.
    Good question, why. If it was like 2005-2010 It'd make sense. Now it's too late, in 3-5 years when/if Shumway is good and up to date HTML5 (webgl, native video, canvas, svg, geolocation, local database api etc) will probably be solid and spread enough for production use.
    Last edited by mark45; 11-14-2012 at 05:51 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dstaubsauger View Post
    @89c51

    you are aware of the fact that swf is not a video codec?
    Yes the rant was about flash in general. We've seen games in html5 and other funky stuff -even thought i find the "works with chrome" thing utterly stupid.

    We need an open web -yes i know the flash spec was opened and anyone can implement it- thats all.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    Good question, why. If it was like 2005-2010 It'd make sense. Now it's too late, in 3-5 years when/if Shumway is good and up to date HTML5 (webgl, native video, canvas, svg, geolocation, local database api etc) will probably be solid and spread enough for production use.
    Because back then everyone was holding on to the dream that Adobe would pull its head out and implement Flash for something other than x86+Windows. It was only recently that Adobe finally had the decency to make it clear that they aren't going to do that. It was so hard for their developers to do anything cross platform that they're now running, tail tucked, mumbling something about HTML5 (a developing standard--not an established tech like Flash) whooping their ass.

    It's mostly about all the content that is still out there alive and strong that can't be viewed on an ARM devices due to Adobe's ball dropping. It's not that the ball was worth carrying around but the truth is that we're stuck with it and will be for some time. Having mobile browsers that don't support Flash won't make it go away any faster. It just makes the mobile browser suck. And given that Adobe's Flash is the #1 Firefox crasher... yeah it's about time someone took the ball form Adobe.

    And before someone genius comes out and says some nonsense about "desktop is dieing" I'd like to point out that nearly every time someone types it, it's going to be read on a desktop computer. Every major web market share statistic source says desktop browsers are around 90% while mobile browsers are around 10%. The mobile browser share is not growing anywhere close to the rate that phones are being sold. I'll leave it to the reader to figure out what people are actually using phones for, why people are replacing their phones 2 to 3 times a year more often than their desktop, and how it's probably not the desktop extinction event everybody is bent on finding.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,052

    Default Porno

    Is it porno-compatible?

    My only use for Flash is porno.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    ฿ 16LDJ6Hrd1oN3nCoFL7BypHSEYL84ca1JR
    Posts
    1,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dstaubsauger View Post
    you are aware of the fact that swf is not a video codec?
    I'd estimate 99% of my flash usage is watching videos.

    The sad thing is, that adobe themselves did say that the flash plugin is not for solving the problem of playing videos.
    https://blogs.adobe.com/penguinswf/2..._problems.html

    They still don't seem to realize that (my estimation 95% of users only ever want to watch flash videos with it. They should have made a "flashplugin light" that was only capable of video playback and solving that problem efficiently.
    That would have the advantage of making the flash advertisement garbage go away. Without ads this phoronix article makes chromium consume about 0% CPU on my 3632qm, with flash ads, chromium consumes accumulated about 10 to 20% CPU (of one core). I wonder how much energy humanity could have saved not having flash ads. I mean, not even not clogging the bandwidth with ads, just the client pcs not displaying them.
    Not only do the ads waste energy and bandwidth compared to text ads, they also most often destroy or compromise the layout and are just plain ugly.

    I mean, what the fuck.


    So I would like a flash player that only is capable of playing flash content.

    Maybe the approach of Shumway is modular enough so that you can restrict the code loading to that code that plays videos.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,791

    Default

    I hope you guys know that pr0n is responsible for killing several formats, right? If something's not compatible with porn, it's not going to succeed, even if it's 10 times better than a porn-compatible format. Good examples are Beta vs VHS and HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    We've seen games in html5 and other funky stuff -even thought i find the "works with chrome" thing utterly stupid.
    Make the other browsers besides Chrome actually be able to run games properly, and that'd go away. We ported some of our HTML5 games work last year, and the speed on Firefox and Safari was just pathetic. It's doubly funny because at the time Firefox was leading the JS performance benchmarks. Problem is, games (and real apps in general) aren't micro-benchmarks, and Chrome devs put a lot of work into optimizing Google's real-world large-scale apps.

    It was doubly confusing since Chrome's <canvas> implementation at the time was pure software, and Firefox had some low-end hardware accel. Either their hardware accel was the usual Open Source 2D rendering quality (e.g., slower than software, because they don't understand GPUs or how to use them for 2D rendering) or V8 really was just that much faster for game code than the competition. Those fun-looking image/audio DSP kernels that Mozilla used to advertise their JS speed ("faster than C!") really have nothing to do with real-world use cases, alas.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •