Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Adobe To Open Real-Time Messaging Protocol

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the after-jabber dept.

Communications 108

synodinos writes "Adobe has announced plans to publish the Real-Time Messaging Protocol specification, which is designed for high-performance transmission of audio, video, and data between Adobe Flash Platform technologies. This move that has followed the opening of the AMF spec has been received with varying degrees of enthusiasm from the RIA community."

cancel ×

108 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Who are... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26563605)

..."Abobe"?!

Re:Who are... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26563677)

No idea but I'm gonna start a company named Eboda to compete with them before they become too big.

Re:Who are... (5, Funny)

athakur999 (44340) | more than 5 years ago | (#26563691)

You've never heard of th Abobe Abrocat?

Re:Who are... (2, Insightful)

Lennie (16154) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564021)

I looked it up, I use Evince for that. ;-)

Re:Who are... (1)

Kushieda Minorin (1453751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26565913)

Abobe Abrocat? Is that like A Patchy Tomcat?

Re:Who are... (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26566071)

More like a derivative of abrogate [merriam-webster.com] , as in the course of action they took to abolish the effectiveness of one Dmitry Sklyarov [wikipedia.org] for pointing out how silly their "encryption" was at a security conference.

Re:Who are... (2, Interesting)

casals (885017) | more than 5 years ago | (#26563703)

a, bob-e

Re:Who are... (4, Funny)

psnyder (1326089) | more than 5 years ago | (#26563823)

..."Abobe"?!

It's not a misspelling. They're publishing the protocol for their warez versions. Hopefully it will be compatible with my Abobe Fotoshop and Akrobat.

Re:Who are... (5, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 5 years ago | (#26563945)

Second cousin do President Odama.

Re:Who are... (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26563997)

You've been watching too much TV. Lee Odama is fictional.

Re:Who are... (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564315)

You've been watching too much TV. Lee Odama is fictional.

Lee Adama is President? Aparently I haven't been watching enough TV.

Re:Who are... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26564507)

He was for a couple days.

Re:Who are... (4, Funny)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564413)

HOW did the /. moderators get a backwards 'd'?!!

Re:Who are... (3, Funny)

navygeek (1044768) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564645)

Oh come on... the ./ mods never reverse things. ;-)

Re:Who are... (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#26569085)

Nah, the mods shoot you in the kneecaps due to your bedt.

Re:Who are... (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26565849)

maybe the \. moderators were using windows.

Ignore this post... (1)

Benanov (583592) | more than 5 years ago | (#26566029)

(Posting to remove moderation.)

Re:Who are... (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26566107)

maybe the \. moderators were using windows.

With command line syntax line that, it's a sure bet.

Re:Who are... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26566375)

HOW did the /. moderators get a backwards 'd'?!!

too much 4chan, hell I've never been to that site and I know this joke :(

Re:Who are... (1)

Thalaric (197339) | more than 5 years ago | (#26569721)

The parent is probably referring to this: http://bash.org/?330261

Re:Who are... (1)

pineappleclock (1447325) | more than 5 years ago | (#26566379)

..."Abobe"?!

They are the makers of Proboshop and Illurator, I bought some of their software in chinatown last week

enthusiasm (1)

jack2000 (1178961) | more than 5 years ago | (#26563635)

I wonder if the RIAA will be as enthusiastic too..

Abobe? (1)

BrianRaker (633638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26563639)

Please? Can someone fix the topic?

Bad Timothy!

Re:Abobe? (4, Funny)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26563681)

Seems that someone confused their b with their d. It happens a lot with kids in preschool and kindergarten.

I knew that the Slashdot readership was getting younger, but I didn't realize HOW young!

Re:Abobe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26563763)

Seems that someone confused their b with their d. It happens a lot with kids in preschool and kindergarten.

Stupidity. [photobucket.com]

Re:Abobe? (4, Funny)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 5 years ago | (#26565443)

I'm dyslexic you intense clog!

Re:Abobe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26567925)

Surely you meant "clob".

Re:Abobe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26572101)

no i think he ment "bolc!"

Re:Abobe? (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26566255)

speaking of confusing... most of the adverts on this slashdot page I'm viewing are for al-jazeera and their logo looks a lot like that of theonion.com

are they perhaps related ?

Re:Abobe? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26563825)

Please? Can someone fix the topic?

Bad Timothy!


Give the guy a break, he was using speech recognition software and eating a slice of pizza and drinking a large Pepsi at the time. At first what he uttered was recognized as: "A booby too open feel them massaging pro thug all."

BTW, Flash. Must. Die.

haXe (2, Insightful)

plams (744927) | more than 5 years ago | (#26563719)

This is good news for the haXe community [haxe.org] .

Re:haXe (1)

ianare (1132971) | more than 5 years ago | (#26571185)

why?

Not good enough... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26563735)

Nice try Adobe, but it didn't work. You know we're really waiting for you to open up Flash itself. Stop beating around the bush with these lesser technologies.

Re:Not good enough... (1, Informative)

KasperMeerts (1305097) | more than 5 years ago | (#26563897)

Flash is open. There is no open source viewer yet, but the specifications themselves have been there long enough.

Re:Not good enough... (4, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564057)

Not really.

First, it's got the same problem as any other proprietary application which opens specs -- there's only one implementation, and that implementation is proprietary. Most specs at least include a reference implementation.

More importantly, how long have the specs been open? Last I checked, they were only open for developing anything but a client/viewer.

Re:Not good enough... (2, Informative)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564423)

May 2008 was when Adobe relicensed it to permit development of viewers.

The big parts not in that spec are Spark (the video codec, which I don't think Adobe CAN open up, I'm not sure it's all theirs) and RTMP. Now it's just Spark.

The AC original poster is a moron.

Re:Not good enough... (2, Informative)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 5 years ago | (#26565593)

Spark is just another name for H.263; you can get the spec from ITU. The undocumented proprietary codec is VP6, but ffmpeg has a reverse-engineered decoder.

Re:Not good enough... (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26566315)

Ah. Good news, then.

Even so, it's still got the same problem Silverlight does: The open source project has to catch up from the beginning (8 months of the spec being open vs 13 years of Flash), while the proprietary version marches ahead.

Not that it won't happen, but it will take time.

Re:Not good enough... (2, Interesting)

zobier (585066) | more than 5 years ago | (#26567617)

And Nellymoser, one of the audio codecs.

It's good that they're opening up RTMP but they just released RTMFP/Stratus which looks like it's going to be very interesting. I want to create a system based on top of RTMFP but I don't want that system to be at the mercy of Adobe. Hopefully someone (like the guys behind Red5) will reverse engineer the Stratus interface.

Re:Not good enough... (3, Interesting)

againjj (1132651) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564601)

Search on google for: gnash clean room

What you will find is that Adobe made it difficult to legally work on an open source viewer, and that the specs that exist are either (1) leaked, and therefore it is questionable whether you can legally use them, or (2) from a clean room reverse engineering.

From: http://lwn.net/Articles/270056/ [lwn.net]

Gnash development has been done using a Clean room reverse engineering technique. By agreeing to the license for the Adobe (formerly Shockwave) Flash player, a developer gives up the right to develop a competing product.

From: http://www.gnashdev.org/?q=node/30 [gnashdev.org]

Rob: The Adobe EULA for Flash forbids anyone who has installed their Flash tools or plugin from working on Flash technologies. This has had a chilling effect on the development of free Flash players, since a developer must either choose to decide that Adobe won't sue them over this, or to do what Gnash does, which is a slow and inefficient, clean room, reverse engineering project.

Adobe has declined to comment on this issue, since the confusion benefits their lockin of the market. Although Adobe has said they support Open Source projects, and donated Tamarin to Mozilla, we'd love to see a public statement that Gnash developers won't be subject to a lawsuit. It's very difficult to find developers that have never installed the Adobe software ever, which is what we've been doing to maintain our clean room approach.

From: http://www.openmedianow.org/?q=node/21 [openmedianow.org]

Savoye suggests that, "Most of this documentation, if we really wanted it, has already leaked out on the Internet years ago."

Adobe (1)

PolishPimpin (999262) | more than 5 years ago | (#26563855)

when have they developed anything with peformance in mind ??? I wish I could stab PDFs in thier proprietry format face!

Re:Adobe (2, Insightful)

CookieOfFortune (955407) | more than 5 years ago | (#26563911)

PDF isn't a proprietary format. It's ISO 19005-1:2005

Re:Adobe (4, Interesting)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564027)

Which proves two things:

GP doesn't know WTF they're talking about... ...but they're right. PDF is an open standard, implemented by other vendors in a way that sucks, yet Acrobat still sucks.

In fact, Adobe has never really been known for performance. For another fun test, take a Flash video, download the FLV, and play it in any other player. Compare CPU usage.

Last I tried this, in Flash, it was over 50% of a core. In VLC, or mplayer, or pretty much anything else -- despite the fact that this is FLV, which is presumably designed for Flash -- and it's less than 1%.

Re:Adobe (1)

Arterion (941661) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564509)

Actually, there is a PDF format that is an ISO standard, but there are other PDF formats that Acrobat uses that aren't based on the ISO standard. I just opened Acrobat 9 to check, and the PDF that complies to the ISO standard isn't even the default.

If you click PDF/A, for example, from the drop down list, you are then presented with a dialog to supply some options. Certainly the ISO standards are well-supported, but they're not user friendly, and I highly doubt most people will go through the hoops to use the ISO format unless they have a specific business need to use it.

So in reality, the PDF you're going to encounter 99% of the time is not exactly the one described in the ISO standard. That's not to say they hide the format, like it used to be with BIFF, but to herald Acrobat as example of open formats is not exactly true either.

Re:Adobe (2, Interesting)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564669)

Amen to this. This issue is the only reason I rip Hulu videos instead of just viewing them directly. The ads aren't that intrusive and ripping is less convenient than putting up with a few ads.

The problem is that on my HTPC (An older machine, Athlon XP 2800+), the Flash-based player is unable to play back video at full speed. mplayer, on the other hand, plays back ripped Hulu videos with plenty of CPU to spare.

Re:Adobe (1)

Elbows (208758) | more than 5 years ago | (#26565179)

Out of curiosity, what do you use for ripping Hulu videos? I've tried a couple of the Firefox extensions for downloading FLVs, but never had much luck.
My home system is on the old side, and although it can play DVDs, etc just fine with MPlayer, it often chokes on low-res flash videos.

Re:Adobe (3, Informative)

daveime (1253762) | more than 5 years ago | (#26565361)

HTTPHeaders can be as useful as anything else.

It will list the full URL of every html, image, css, js, and flv requested from the server for the current page.

Simply copy the flv URL and paste stright back into the browser ... instant save-as prompt and your done :-)

Re:Adobe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26567299)

Simply copy the flv URL and paste stright back into the browser

That'd work if Hulu used http-served FLV files (which they don't.)
They're using RTMP (from TFA.)

Your method would work on Youtube and most other flash video sites, just not Hulu.

Re:Adobe (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26567683)

s/hulu/iplayer for me.

Re:Adobe (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26570763)

Yeah.
I've a system with the same CPU. Hulu's fullscreen videos are horribly slow. The same video "regular size" is okay most of the time.

This video is impossible to watch in HD on the Athlon XP system:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 [youtube.com]
Though it's just fine on my laptop. (Core Duo L2400 @ 1.66GHz) Straaange.

Re:Adobe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26572177)

omfg that video was hilarious, thank you for that good sir.

Re:Adobe (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26565117)

Last I tried this, in Flash, it was over 50% of a core. In VLC, or mplayer, or pretty much anything else -- despite the fact that this is FLV, which is presumably designed for Flash -- and it's less than 1%

I think FLV may be a container format, not codec. I think it uses VP6 for the actual video data, which was not designed for Flash.

Re:Adobe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26565521)

This "experiment" is how I normally play flash video. Press play and immediately press pause before the flash player loads my AMD Phenom to 100% and starts dropping 90% of the frames. Then play the file form /tmp/ using mplayer.
Adobe on 64-bit Linux sucks.

Re:Adobe (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26566263)

It's not just 64-bit Linux.

Flash 10 at least made it watchable, and fixed fullscreen, and quite a few other issues.

But try VLC vs Flash on any platform, you'll probably get the same results.

Re:Adobe (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26567825)

i still cant use proprietary ATI drivers (on kubuntu 8.04) and flash. I find it varies incredibly by player too.
youtube -> no problem
iplayer -> drops frames after about 30mins
other flash players (warez, etc) imediatly drop most of the frames.

but on the whole 64bit flash 10 has made things more bearable.

Re:Adobe (1)

Futil3 (931900) | more than 5 years ago | (#26566481)

VLC can do hardware acceleration. The Flash Player can not. (with some exceptions [kaourantin.net] )

Re:Adobe (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26570021)

VLC can do hardware acceleration. The Flash Player can not.

The Flash Player certainly could do hardware acceleration, if it didn't suck. That was my point.

And, while I can understand that pixel-precision in the context of video as part of a larger application -- though I still would think that GPU-accelerated polygons would be better than pure-software vector graphics, for non-video elements -- what about the case where you're using Flash purely to play video?

My argument would be, that is a gross mis-use of Flash, or anything like it. Embed the video directly with that object tag, or use HTML5. Even so, you'd think Adobe would've reacted to things like YouTube by making the video playback not suck.

And by the way: The DirectX 9 requirement is a cop-out. For years before that, games have run faster and looked better than Flash content, and for as long as YouTube and ffmpeg's flv support have existed, video playback has been slower and looked worse in Flash than in any other application. If everyone else could make it work, why not Flash, at least when fullscreen?

Why not just use DirectX or OpenGL from the beginning? Or, once it became clear the hardware was available, why not take advantage of it when it is?

Re:Adobe (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26570799)

Embed the video directly with that object tag

THIS! (For everything but cellphones, I guess.)

Re:Adobe (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26571657)

Or just HTML5 video tag. Even if the iPhone doesn't already support it, Safari does (using QuickTime), so it doesn't seem wholly unlikely that iPhone Safari (using iPhone QucikTime) would support it.

That gets you Safari and Firefox, and it seems likely other browsers (Chrome, Konqueror, etc) will follow.

If that fails -- and it should be possible to gracefully detect that failure, which I think is not necessarily true with an object tag -- fall back to Flash and/or object tags.

Re:Adobe (1)

eigenstates (1364441) | more than 5 years ago | (#26566559)

Well- if one creates their own player in AS3 and do not use the overwhelmingly awful FLVPlayback component, it gets better- but still not great.

My big question here is that Apple open sourced Darwin Streaming Server a while ago and clearly their handling of different *standard* vid formats is FAR superior to Flash. They have both RTSP and a secure(SSL) version. Why the hell don't people use that?

Re:Adobe (1)

thatbox (868467) | more than 5 years ago | (#26570095)

New versions of Flash support hardware acceleration, so if both your Flash player and the Flash application can do it, performance is more betterer. May as well check to make sure you're using an up to date plugin, although there's obviously nothing you can do if the Flash object wasn't compiled with hardware acceleration support.

Re:Adobe (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26564045)

GP just got fucking pwned! And as if Flash is slow... if you want slow, look to Java.

Re:Adobe (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26564313)

Yeah! And if you want buggy, look at C and C++!

Otherwise you should be good if you write everything in assembly.

Re:Adobe (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26564089)

WTF is your problem with PDF. Flash is a pain in the ass, and a lot of their new software stinks, but to be honest, Adobe has done a lot of things right over the years. Illustrator (prior to the CS crap), Photoshop and Acrobat are great, they work, they work well.

Re:Adobe (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564169)

There's not really anything that inherently makes PDF slow, either. Adobe Acrobat and Acrobat Reader happen to be pretty boated, but the format can be rendered fairly quickly.

Re:Adobe (2, Insightful)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564729)

True. The recent improvements to Okular and Evince have made viewing pdfs on Linux really nice (for me anyways, and I have a ton of pdfs). Pages load fast, display nicely, and don't seriously tax my cpu, even on my slower, older, single core laptop. Some of these are the same pdfs that tax my faster (and with 3 times the memory) Windows XP desktop running Acrobat Reader.

Re:Adobe (3, Informative)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564975)

On windows, try Foxit Reader. If you must stick with acrobat reader, disable all the plug-ins you don't need. They massively increase the loading time.

Re:Adobe (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26565037)

Oh, thanks. That looks pretty nice.

Re:Adobe (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 5 years ago | (#26566073)

Even with Foxit Reader viewing PDFs on Windows sucks compared to doing so on Linux or (especially!) Mac OS. You'd think by now that somebody would have come out with a Free-as-in-GPL viewing program that at least rivals Apple's Preview, but no...

(That reminds me, I need to see if Okular is stable and usable on KDE for Windows yet.)

Re:Adobe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26566789)

Seen Sumatra PDF? [kowalczyk.info]

Re:Adobe (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564869)

Exactly.

Preview.app on OS X, or Foxit Software's Foxit Reader [foxitsoftware.com] for Windows are both examples of lightweight PDF viewers that render pretty darn quick.

I'm sure there must be one for Linux, but hey, we all use the CLI there right? ;)

Re:Adobe (1)

PolishPimpin (999262) | more than 5 years ago | (#26565067)

Actually your right its not proprietary its been open... but has been for less than a year under ISO 32000... had to look it up since I avoid PDF... what you are talking about is PDF/A which is a watered down version...

Security (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 5 years ago | (#26565761)

How about "when have they developed something with security in mind"? Maybe I'm just bitter, but it seems like every week there's another handful of flash and acrobat exploits.

Re:Adobe (1)

GenP (686381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26563979)

At least PDFs are guaranteed to render in finite time.

Re:Adobe (3, Informative)

pclminion (145572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26566347)

I've written code that deals with PDF, both in terms of parsing and rendering it, as well as generating it. PDF is a great format. It certainly doesn't have the difficulties associated with, for instance, PostScript. Adobe's products might have poor performance but this is not due to the file format, which is NOT proprietary but actually quite well-documented.

I have no idea what sorts of crazy things happen inside Adobe's code. Suffice it to say, none of that is mandated by the PDF format.

What I really want to know is.... (-1, Redundant)

michael path (94586) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564069)

how they made that backwards 'D' in Abobe.

Abobe? (-1, Redundant)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564079)

You put Abobe. In the title bar? Really? Are you fucking kidding me?

Wasn't NIH after all (1)

wolfie123 (1331071) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564131)

Whew... By reading the topic alone, I thought someone "great! someone just reinvented IRC..."

Oh great.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26564167)

Do we really need another piece of Adobe-sponsored bloatware that's just an excuse to load down PCs with plugins that want to update every 30 goddamn seconds? Do we really need more hype about "OMG the A/V revolution!", with a piece of $700 SW to boot?

Posting AC because I'm @ work.

Re:Oh great.... (1)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564295)

Hey, look, everyone, an Adobe employee shares his thoughts!

Re:Oh great.... (1)

supernova_hq (1014429) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564591)

Hey, look, everyone, an Adobe employee has thoughts!

There, fixed that for you

Spelling error (1)

asleep06 (1229418) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564181)

Abobe To Open Real-Time Massaging Protocol

/fixed

Better late than never (2, Interesting)

RobTerrell (139316) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564297)

I'm not sure there's any point to this, since the Red5 guys have already documented and implemented the protocol. And Wowza has a fantastic implementation, even though it's not open source. If nothing else, I'd like to see "Abobe" explains the fucked-up connection handshaking. "Send me any ol' 1500 bytes! Ok great, you're connected!"

Re:Better late than never (1)

eigenstates (1364441) | more than 5 years ago | (#26566623)

Seriously, right? And get this- I did ask their techs directly if their RTMPE format was a truly encrypted stream of data and not just the handshake- yes yes they assured me. Nice.

Remember RIA is a term THEY made up so bullshit artists could speak bullshit to one another.

Re:Better late than never (2, Informative)

bwb (6483) | more than 5 years ago | (#26567551)

The block of garbage at the beginning of the handshake is, as far as I can figure out, a bandwidth test. The pattern is intended to be resistant to compression, so as to more accurately measure the real throughput of the client's connection.

Good news, but... (2, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 5 years ago | (#26564341)

I think it's good that some companies, like Adobe, are realizing it makes good business sense to open up these protocols. However let's also be aware that Adobe is perfectly willing to tighten the screws further in other areas when they feel like THAT makes business sense. Anyone who (like me) uses any of their CS3 or CS4 products has dealt with this.

Actually, I should say the first install of CS3 or CS4 goes pretty well, and activation is painless. But if you've got it at home and at work - which is perfectly acceptable according to their EULA - then have a computer suddenly die, prepare to invest a lot of time in trying to get the licensing sorted out just so you can do your work.

So my (long-winded) point is: Good for Adobe, but let's not give them too much credit for this.

Re:Good news, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26564745)

Adobe only "open sources" stuff when they are basically forced to due to free or FLOSS players entering their airspace. They do it begrudgingly, and it's "fake" open source because they don't run any of this stuff like a true open source project.

They open sourced BlazeDS because WebORB and some other players were gaining when customers saw the $20K/CPU cost of LiveCycle. Now they're doing it with AMF. Whoopee--it's basically nothing more than a lame attempt to gain some of the PR buzz around open source while trying to harpoon the free/FLOSS alternatives.

Now they can crash my system in realtime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26564765)

I, for one, welcome many more opportunities to have Adobe products hang my system.

And I can't get updates fast enough. Once a day is not enough for me.

Hmm.. not sure if want. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26564773)

Sounds like the Flash spec is being pulled a bunch of directions. As long as the proper security measures in place, these new features should be okay. It seems Adobe is throwing a bunch of new ideas at Flash, hoping something will stick.

Which is kinda cool, because it could lead to new technologies. On the other hand, I'm not sure I want a "new experience" abruptly interfering with my web browsing sessions.

I just hope it's not completely random and there is some supreme oversight to these new directions. Queue pictures of masonic images like the Eye of Providence, etc.

Flash is good for videos. It is used for advertisements. Not sure I want to open up a dialog channel between me and marketdroids.

Oh, cool. Now we can... (2, Interesting)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 5 years ago | (#26565079)

...embed a chat room in a PDF and talk to anyone who has a copy of the same PDF open.

Re:Oh, cool. Now we can... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26565627)

You laugh, but actually it's pretty cool.

Check out:

http://www.acrobat.com

If you need something more than google docs, this is pretty sweet.

Re:Oh, cool. Now we can... (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26566505)

Its pretty moronic.

The chatroom should be in IRC or some other CHAT program that has been audited for security around CHATTING and any linkage should be done externally so that perhaps the PDF would load #pdfopen-word2008docs on irc.adobe.com in your IRC software, but embedding chat in a PDF is just silly.

This is exactly what we need... (-1, Offtopic)

DrBuzzo (913503) | more than 5 years ago | (#26565323)

Because, you know, it's not enough to have SIP, H.323, Jabber/XXMP, IRC, Bonjour, Lotus Sametime, Microsoft Exchange, Novell Groupwise Messenger, NTALK and all the centrally hosted systems capable of chat such as AIM, Yahoo Messenger, Yahoo, Skype, QQ, Crossfire, Live Messenger, Gadu-Gadu, Google Talk (which is Jabber), eBudy, ICQ... Then the mobile ones like MMS, SMS, E-SMS and so on

and lets not forget the old standbys of Morse Code, Baudot teletype, semaphore

Yes, clearly none of these will do so we need a completely new messaging protocol.

Re:This is exactly what we need... (4, Informative)

againjj (1132651) | more than 5 years ago | (#26566215)

Um, RTMP is not a chat protocol. It is a protocol for stateful connections with multiplexed streams for downloading large amounts of media with real-time responses and quality of service requirements. It is what the Flash Player uses to download audio and video from servers. See Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] . Next time, look up the topic before spouting off.

Re:This is exactly what we need... (1)

eigenstates (1364441) | more than 5 years ago | (#26566721)

And didn't they just steal and seal from RTSP?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rtsp [wikipedia.org]

If "Abobe" wants to do something good, they should allow their terrible payware FMS to serve up RTSP.

Re:This is exactly what we need... (1)

imbaczek (690596) | more than 5 years ago | (#26566853)

still, RTP+SIP or H.323 should do everything this does, unless it's got some uber-feature that at least one of those two doesn't have. which i doubt.

Adobe - Kinda Like a Zenith (1)

twmcneil (942300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26565569)

The bloat goes in before the name goes on.

XMPP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26566491)

Don't forget that 18 months ago Adobe purchase Antepo, which is (was) a Java based XMPP solutions for large scale enterprises.

Aspects of Anetpo's technology have been finding their way into various Adobe products, and facilitating collaboration.

Hopefully Adobe will add command-and-control to XMPP for audio and video streaming.

Note that Google Talk (which is also XMPP based) has alread added (and standardized some of) their related XMPP extensions.

RTMP (1)

manoj91 (1007629) | more than 5 years ago | (#26571877)

I hate megavideo with their IP recording. I hate the ones that use RTMP and don't let me download the flv file. So now I need the freeware developers to update their firefox addons and freeware apps Greasemonkey scripts to support Adobe's or Abobe's (hahah) open specs on the RTMP. I know orbit says it supports RTMP, but megavideo is impossible without getting your IP add changed.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?