Mailing-List: contact flex-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of carlos.rovira@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.213.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: carlos.rovira@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <2D70692C-5FBE-4FAD-8FB8-2032FE3D08B2@chiwestern.com>
References: 
 <CAJ16SzA3p6jBkBJsocXDm2BUw+G=wmJ_yyRzLmi2e7YT=Lwcug@mail.gmail.com>
	<CB55DDEA.31ECC%g.natili@gnstudio.com>
	<1745CD479C379E46867E272E7FD9A29C525FC699@dalmbx04.ad.syniverse.com>
	<CALorpXcwOQw_4tNC4pCDQ9fgFRmeCcn5yJBwJewgnNGLOwFueQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<2D70692C-5FBE-4FAD-8FB8-2032FE3D08B2@chiwestern.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:07:15 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAMFKFRhcsuz9+aaH1DQCPfKuNPc1KtTFpqr93Eex7Bnya6exAg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Apache Flex suggestion - dumping SWF support in favor of HTML5 -
 don't listen to Steve!
From: Carlos Rovira <carlos.rovira@codeoscopic.com>
To: flex-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300fb45304701e04b8d4ceec

--20cf300fb45304701e04b8d4ceec
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'm switching this days from Flash Builder to Intellij IDEA testing the
environment to see if it fit our needs...

I only can say that my first thoughts are very positive and seems more
featured, stable than eclipse + Fb combo.

The main problem with eclipse is that the platform seems very unstable
mainly due to m2e plugin and the relationship between all the plugins and
the platform itself that causes the platform breaks from time to time
making us to install from scratch, and in eclipse this is very prohibitive
since several hours has to be invested in the task.

Hope Intellij IDEA could be the IDE we was searching for all this time. In
the meanwhile, is very promising :)


2012/2/13 Conrad Winchester <conrad@chiwestern.com>

> You want a decent IDE for flex on linux? How about one that's a million
> times better than Flash Builder, and cheaper :-)
>
> Intellij Idea
>
> Haven't used Flash Builder for about two years now.
>
> Conrad WInchester
>
> On 11 Feb 2012, at 15:52, Nicholas Kwiatkowski wrote:
>
> > To say there is no technical reason why those products take so long to =
be
> > produced on the Linux platform, that is a bit short-sighted.
> >
> > First off, while Linux users account for 60% of the tech news I read,
> they
> > only really account for 2% of the desktop/laptop market-share.  1996 -
> 2011
> > was always supposed to be the year of the "linux desktop", but it never
> > happened.. This, to begin with is a show-stopper for most companies
> trying
> > to make money.
> >
> > The other major problem is the instability of anything graphics within
> > Linux.  Do we make binaries that target X11?  XFree86?  The next thing =
on
> > the block?  Gnome?  KDE?   Oh?  None of those give us access to the GPU
> > through some common API or driver stack?   Oh, half of the graphics
> drivers
> > don't even expose the GPU?   When they do they are broken?   What? the
> OSS
> > kids decided to make the API different because they wanted it to be
> > different than the closed-source version the vendor provided?   At leas=
t
> > other platforms like BSD / Solaris / etc are not nearly as bad as this.
> >
> > If you build your tools on a platform like Eclipse, you leverage a LOT =
of
> > work that others have already done -- but there are still some major
> > differences between the Mac/Win/Linux versions of Eclipse.  Again, if y=
ou
> > don't care about graphics, it is not a big deal, but if you want to do
> > something as simple as the Design view, it becomes much harder.
> >
> > Adobe at one time stated that they didn't push forward with a Linux
> version
> > of Flash Builder because they would have needed to write a new licensin=
g
> > engine.  They did the math, and decided that if they would have to char=
ge
> > for the product, most people won't pay for it (who pays for Linux
> software?
> > really?).  Heck, people won't install close-source software when it is
> > free, because that isn't the Linux way!   Just look at how much guff
> Adobe
> > for for their Flash Player they published (and wouldn't OS it).
> >
> > I personally would like to see a descent Flex IDE that works under Linu=
x,
> > but I'm not holding my breath for somebody else to create it for me.
>  Heck,
> > just getting a Linux compiler back would be a huge step forward.  But I
> > also know it would be on the OSS community and us to do it -- and I dou=
bt
> > we will see that anytime soon.
> >
> > -Nick
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Timothy Jones
> > <Timothy.Jones@syniverse.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Just my two cents...
> >>
> >> As a Linux user and developer, I have always hated how the Linux Flash
> >> runtime is always seems to be a few releases behind Adobe's Windows an=
d
> Mac
> >> versions, how Adobe's content creation tools (Photoshop, Dreamweaver,
> CS3,
> >> and even Flex Builder) aren't available on Linux AT ALL.   It took Ado=
be
> >> FOREVER to produce a decent 64-bit Linux build of Flash.  Seeing as ho=
w
> Mac
> >> OS is both Darwin/BSD AND Intel 64-bit-based, there is no technical
> reason
> >> it should have taken so long.
> >>
> >> I joined this list because my team at work already has a significant
> >> investment in Flex, and finally Flex has an opportunity to realize its
> true
> >> potential as a fully open-source technology under Apache's guidance.  =
I
> >> will be very happy to see any progress Flex makes away from Flash.  If
> that
> >> means moving towards HTML5/js, that's even better.  And it's not becau=
se
> >> Steve Jobs said so.
> >>
> >> The end goal I want to see is to see a complete Flex development
> >> environment that runs on any FreeBSD/Linux distro, produces content th=
at
> >> runs in Chrome/Firefox/any-other-modern-browser, (yes, also on Linux)
> and
> >> requires not a single executable byte from adobe.com. I'll be happy to
> >> help test Apache Flex on many variants of that configuration for you.
> :-)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> tlj
> >>
>
>


--=20
Carlos Rovira
Director de Tecnolog=EDa
M: +34 607 22 60 05
F:  +34 912 35 57 77

CODEOSCOPIC S.A. <http://www.codeoscopic.com>
Avd. del General Per=F3n, 32
Planta 10, Puertas P-Q
28020 Madrid

--20cf300fb45304701e04b8d4ceec--