×

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!

Introducing JITB — a Flash Player Built On the JVM

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the stay-as-long-as-you-like dept.

Java 126

MBCook writes "Joa Ebert has started working on a new program called JITB. Announced in a talk at FITC San Fran, it's a Flash player written to use the Java JVM to run ActionScript, and in a simple graphics test case (making 1 million calls to flash.geom.Point) was 30x faster than Adobe's Flash player. There is an impressive demo video on YouTube showing the point test."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

126 comments

Ironically... (1, Interesting)

e065c8515d206cb0e190 (1785896) | more than 3 years ago | (#33314774)

... viewing that video requires Flash. If the purpose is to avoid Adobe Flash (as I do) the least they could have done is post it as WebM.

Re:Ironically... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33314860)

It's even more ironic that something called Flash is the slowest of its kind. Seriously, is there anything comparable that's actually slower than Flash?

Re:Ironically... (-1, Troll)

zombieChan51 (1862028) | more than 3 years ago | (#33314882)

Silverlight & Moonlight

Re:Ironically... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33314974)

Javascript

Re:Ironically... (3, Funny)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315140)

An African Swallow... or a European one, I don't remember which one is slower... WHAAAAAAH (thrown into cliff).

Re:Ironically... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33316488)

Silverlight should be very fast since it runs JITed CIL; and C# doesn't incur much overhead (after CLR optimizations). Perhaps certain Silverlight framework additions (UI libraries) or even WPF could be slow. I can only speculate; I don't have experience with SL.

Re:Ironically... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33316518)

Are you just making stuff up? In my experience Silverlight is much faster than Flash.

Re:Ironically... (4, Interesting)

microbee (682094) | more than 3 years ago | (#33314950)

Yes, HTML5.

Try to watch Youtube on a laptop with a really slow wireless connection. Then switch to an iPad.

Re:Ironically... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33315158)

You're almost certainly going to get modded into oblivion for question His Holiness Steve Job's HTML5, but it's worth pointing out that you're absolutely correct, and it's because Flash allows for bandwidth-sensitive downloads and HTML5... doesn't.

Basically, a Flash app can start streaming a movie and see how fast it's connecting at. If it's connecting too slowly, it can switch in mid-stream to a lower bandwidth stream and continue playing as if nothing happened.

HTML5 can't do that.

Strangely enough, QuickTime can do this automatically. But QuickTime isn't HTML5, and so if you're serving up an MP4 file so that it plays in both Chrome and Safari, well, you won't get that feature. You have to create the special QuickTime specific index MOV file, and that can only be done using QuickTime Pro.

Which, incidentally, is what you're "supposed" to do when serving content for the iPad and iPhone.

Re:Ironically... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33315506)

Why are you so sure HTML5 can't do that? Sounds like it's easily implementable in javascript however I'm sure that it DOES do this is provided with more then one video fall back stream.

Re:Ironically... (1)

JackAxe (689361) | more than 3 years ago | (#33317256)

If it were easy, it would have been done already. Last I checked, JavaScript DOESN'T have a NetStream class like Flash for handling audio/video streams. If it did, then there would have been JavaScript based video/aduio players prior to HTML 5.

Implementation dependant (2, Interesting)

DrYak (748999) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315886)

HTML5 can't do that.

HTML5 only specifies the source URL where to get the media from. Doesn't specify how to play it nor exactly how to download it.

Of course you could just implement it in a dumb straight forward way : like download the whole damn file and just play it.

But some data containers, like the OGG container with is pushed forward by OSS at least for Vorbis and Theora (and could be used for VP8 too) are designed in such a way that different chunks can contain different level of details (think like a progressive JPEG). A more advanced software could download the metadata and then only selectively download parts of the file that contain the chunks that it can play within the bandwidth limit. (Think : only downloading the first part of a progressive JPEG which contain the lower resolution data).

I don't know if Matroska (the preferred container for VP8 codec as part of Google/On2's WebM) can do it too.

Re:Implementation dependant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33316958)

Please, OGG sucks in that as well. matroska can work as well or better even in this scenario.

Re:Implementation dependant (1)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | more than 3 years ago | (#33317680)

But some data containers, like the OGG container with is pushed forward by OSS at least for Vorbis and Theora (and could be used for VP8 too) are designed in such a way that different chunks can contain different level of details (think like a progressive JPEG). A more advanced software could download the metadata and then only selectively download parts of the file that contain the chunks that it can play within the bandwidth limit. (Think : only downloading the first part of a progressive JPEG which contain the lower resolution data).

I'd love to see this idea implemented in bittorrent. Not only would it allow for people to post one encoded HD video while allowing others to effectively pull out SD videos at much reduced bandwidth costs, it could be coupled with the idea of streaming video through bittorrent. That'd seem to be the main, elusive hindrance to (mostly) decentralized broadcasting of video. Perhaps they could even include the feature optionally into HTML5 (so websites don't get slashdotted just because they have a popular video)? :)

Re:Ironically... (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315692)

Then again, Flash doesn't improve with faster connections. At least not on non-Windows OSes.

I'm really hoping that at one point someone releases a runtime that a) can compete with Adobe's and b) has decent video performance on all OSes.

Re:Ironically... (1, Informative)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315794)

I am not sure why flash is considered so slow for many of you.

I am using a laptop from 2006 and I never had any real speed issues, that is unless I have a bad connection nor have I noticed it justs sucking up my CPU usually a spike then it resolves itself.

Could it be that.
1. Some places write bad code for flash.
2. Your bandwith is sub optimal
3. You using a computer from the Clinton Administration

I found that flash runs just as well as any other interpreded languge in terms of speed and perfomance. No it is not like it is imbedded into your OS. But it has been getting the job done.

Re:Ironically... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33316292)

Try Flash on anything but Windows.

Flash is FUCKING SLOW because Adobe can't be bothered to use the OS APIs. Imagine Flash on Windows without DirectDraw or whatever the hell it's called.

Yep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33316166)

Any random government worker.

Re:Ironically... (2, Informative)

The Salamander (56587) | more than 3 years ago | (#33314906)

Also available via html5/h.264:

Enable html5 playback @ http://youtube.com/html5 [youtube.com]

Re:Ironically... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33315064)

I'm enabled, yet when going to that video page it still requires flash. Am I missing something?

Re:Ironically... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33315100)

The purpose of a Flash Player is not to avoid Flash... duh...

Maybe that's why OP said "Adobe" Flash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33315280)

*duh*

Now developers can create even crappier flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33314800)

So basically, flash was slow because programming was tacked onto an animation suite and instead of fixing flash, let's just make the crap go faster!

Re:Now developers can create even crappier flash (1)

tenco (773732) | more than 3 years ago | (#33314910)

let's just make the crap go faster!

You mean, like, throwing it at a fan? I'm all for it!

Don't botther (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33314832)

The video is really crappy anyway. My 5 year old kid could hold the camera (pointed at the lap-top screen) more steadily.

Just what the world needs (2, Funny)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 3 years ago | (#33314840)

A tool that Oracle and Adobe can take for a legal Menage a trois

Re:Just what the world needs (2, Interesting)

MouseR (3264) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315060)

Er. Why would Oracle team up with Adobe`s Flash, given their JavaFX?

Disclaimer: I work for Oracle.

Re:Just what the world needs (1)

Seth Kriticos (1227934) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315164)

How about money?

Thinking that JavaFX takes the role of Flash is delusional. But for Adobe it might be a good financial interest to keep Flash floating for a while longer (not that there would be a big threat to it so far, but they are still careful).

Disclaimer 1: nothing against Adobe personally, I just hate Flash. I also see that Adobe is going in standards direction (somewhat) with CS5, so the issue is really only getting more time (and maybe a bit of DRM, some folks still don't got the memo that it's dead).

Disclaimer 2: I personally shun Flash and don't like either party.

Re:Just what the world needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33317000)

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Larry HATES Steve

Re:Just what the world needs (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33317672)

Why would Oracle team up with Adobe`s Flash, given their JavaFX?

Because Flash isn't intended solely for rich Internet applications. How would one make, say, Homestar Runner using no Adobe products? Is Oracle getting ready to come out with a vector animation authoring tool?

Screen capture software (4, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 3 years ago | (#33314848)

Does anybody know of screen capture software that reproduces the "I'm recording video of my monitor using my shitty cell phone" effect?

Re:Screen capture software (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33314952)

Yes, unfortunately it only ships with shitty cell phones...

Re:Screen capture software (1)

psbrogna (611644) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315524)

Go down some sketch back alley, find a guy in tattered clothing and ask him to film stuff for you. This technology is readily available under what I like to call the Night Train Agreement.

30X faster? (5, Informative)

strokerace (912726) | more than 3 years ago | (#33314868)

Let's put this into perspective. Even the author of the software is calling for a reality check that's missing from the summary.

From his site:

Update: Please do not think that this implementation is 30x faster than the Flash Player developed by Adobe. One(!) microbenchmark is never a number you should count on. I would like to make clear that I never said this.

Re:30X faster? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33315424)

3X or even 30X faster, it still wouldn't surprise me. Flash has been an overgrown slow piece of shit for a long time. The sooner it gets put out to pasture, the better.

Re:30X faster? (3, Funny)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 3 years ago | (#33316312)

The problem here is not that the claim of a 30x performance increase was fallaciously generalized based on one particular piece of code as compared with Adobe's player, but that anyone familiar with Flash would find this claim to seem quite plausible.

If someone claimed that they made a compiler that, say, generated code that was 30x faster than what Microsoft's compiler or gcc could do, no one would believe it for a minute.

Pointless (no pun intended) (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33314878)

So an implementation of a language that only implements 1% of the functionality is less bloated and faster than the full implementation when running one very specific test? No fucking shit. I'm one of the first to bash Flash at any opportunity, but I'll wait and see how well this performs once it actually has some functionality before I start laughing at Adobe.

BSD (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33314948)

If this really works, then we will finally get Flash to work on BSD and 64 bit version of Linux.

Re:BSD (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315198)

assuming you have a jvm for your platform.

Re:BSD (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33315446)

Which BSD and 64-bit Linux do.

Re:BSD (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | more than 3 years ago | (#33316132)

Good question. Which BSD and 64-bit Linux do? One or two of the ports?

Re:BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33317556)

Personally I've never attempted to run a JVM on 64-bit Linux, but I've definitely run a JVM on OpenBSD. It's in the ports tree, using Sun's code no less. You have to click through a bunch of legalese to get it working though.

Re:BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33315798)

Great, the 3 BSD users and the 64-bit Linux user will be able to watch flash videos!

Re:BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33316290)

Uh, personally I've been using running 64-bit Linux since before Vista even came out. We were way ahead of Windows users in this regard.

Re:BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33316836)

Way ahead? Linux was 2 years ahead of Windows for 64-bit support, and yet as of today 64-bit support for Linux is shit while Windows 7's support is perfect. The Ubuntu page warns you not to use 64-bit. Says a lot.

Re:BSD (1)

Anssi55 (729722) | more than 3 years ago | (#33317588)

I don't understand, could you explain how is 64-bit support in Linux shit?

All drivers are available in both 32-bit and 64-bit, and one can run both 32-bit and 64-bit applications as in Windows.

Also, Ubuntu is not the same as Linux. The 64-bit support (especially 32bit-on-64bit support) depends a lot on how the distribution handles it. I started using a 64-bit installation (with some 32-bit stuff like Wine for win32 apps) of Mandriva Linux since 2005 and it always had the support of using 32-bit applications/packages directly as well.

If you instead meant some 64-bit specific problems not related to 32-bit support.. well, I really don't see those.

Re:BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33316256)

If this really works, then we will finally get Flash to work on BSD and 64 bit version of Linux.

Which internet requires a browser to address over 4 gigs of RAM?

My point is that Linux x86-64 supports 32bit binaries just fine. People have been crying for 64bit browsers, and there is no need in the foreseeable future.

Re:BSD (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33317798)

Actually if you try the 64bit Windows version of Firefox it is actually much faster. If you would like some benchmarks [favbrowser.com] here you go. Lower on the page is Ubuntu benchmarks which are also pretty much faster across the board. Now I'm not a browser designer so I can't tell you why, but running the same plugins FF uses slightly less memory and performs roughly 30% (IMHO) faster running native x64 VS x86. The only thing holding me back from dropping x86 Firefox is lack of flash.

Adobe has one (5, Informative)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 3 years ago | (#33314954)

Adobe (back then Macromedia) used to ship Flash in two version: native binary and Java version in the days when Java applets were popular. They stopped developing it around the time Flash 4 was out, because the tables have turned: Java applets were going down, while Flash was going up.

The article never mentions any reason as to why this player was developed, and I'm struggling to come up with a reason myself, as it's easier to port the native runtime to any platform, than maintain an independent copy in a constant "catch up" mode.

Re:Adobe has one (3, Insightful)

kick6 (1081615) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315078)

I'm struggling to come up with a reason myself, as it's easier to port the native runtime to any platform, than maintain an independent copy in a constant "catch up" mode.

Semi-closed platforms like the iphone/ipod where the proprieters have turned their back on flash?

Re:Adobe has one (3, Insightful)

norminator (784674) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315166)

Apple isn't any more interested in allowing Java than Flash on the iPhone, so this won't help there.

Re:Adobe has one (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#33317370)

...but you can take this code and put it on your jailbroken iPhone/iPad yourself, which you can't do with their binary nearly as easily.

Re:Adobe has one (1)

Gazzonyx (982402) | more than 3 years ago | (#33317498)

If you jailbreak, you can get a lightweight JVM/JIT package from Cydia. Haven't tried it, but it installs, FWIW. I don't know how complete the libs are, but there isn't any reason you can't cross compile the Sun JVM to ARM (although memory might be a problem on 4th Gen hardware).

Re:Adobe has one (2, Insightful)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315170)

Semi-closed platforms like the iphone/ipod where the proprieters have turned their back on flash?

The introduction of yet another semi-functional Flash alternative is doing nothing to change this position, as it's a practical position, not one of open source ideology. Having it in Java makes this even less interesting to Apple.

Steve Jobs, like any other mobile maker, can have full access to the actual Flash player source code, if he only wanted it. Maintaining an independent port is not cheaper than simply fixing the one Adobe provides.

Re:Adobe has one (4, Insightful)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315202)

Semi-closed platforms

Semi?

Re:Adobe has one (1)

mrogers (85392) | more than 3 years ago | (#33316660)

Semi?

Apple users consider the platform semi-open because you can look through the glass at the front and see your apps.

Re:Adobe has one (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33317756)

Semi-closed platforms

Semi?

Yes, semi. Wii is an example of a fully closed platform: access to the devkit is by invitation only, and the rules [warioworld.com] state that you need a dedicated office and "experience" (that is, a prior commercial video game on another platform) even to be considered. But with Xbox 360 or iPod touch, anyone with $1000 for the hardware and the first year of a developer certificate can start coding.

Re:Adobe has one (0, Troll)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315204)

It's just another case of existing technologies being re-implemented for Java. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Adobe has one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33315312)

No shit. Just last week, I ported the flash runtime to MIPS. No wait, I couldn't because it's closed source. How many years has adobe spent working on their ARM or x64 runtime? How many browsers now isolate it because Adobe's cr^flash runtime is a piece of shit?

JVM optimisations (3, Informative)

DrYak (748999) | more than 3 years ago | (#33316310)

The article never mentions any reason as to why this player was developed, and I'm struggling to come up with a reason myself

I would think that the JVM itself is the main reason.
Flash uses Actionscript, a variant of ECMAScript, just like Javascript.
To run it fast enough, an implementation needs a fast and nice actionscript engine.
One possibility would be to get a Javascript engine like Google's V8, Mozilla's Trace- / Jaegger-Monkey, Adobe's own opensourced Tamarin, etc.
The other possibility is to use a well known and well optimised VM like Java and compile the Javascript into Java bytecode. This makes the process more complex, but leverages the years of JVM development.

Also the second advantage is that lots of hardware contain already a functionning JVM : Lots of phone have Java EE, Android has the Java-like Dalvik (which can run java byte code after a transcoding), etc.

as it's easier to port the native runtime to any platform

Saddly, the main reference implementation of Flash is closed source (except for the Tamarin engine).
So for a port you have 3 possibilities :
- wait for Adobe to port the latest official player. Saddly they aren't doing it for lots of different architecture
- port yourself one of the open source implementation (Gnash, LightSpark, Swfdec)
- use a multi-platform player (Java)

Re:JVM optimisations (1)

TheBig1 (966884) | more than 3 years ago | (#33316988)

Lots of phone have Java EE

Probably just a typo, but to my knowledge no phones support Java EE; you probably meant Java ME. I can't comment on the rest of your post, as I have no idea if it is possible or even feasible to compile Javascript into Java bytecode...

Re:JVM optimisations (2, Informative)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 3 years ago | (#33317232)

"The JavaScript compiler translates JavaScript source into Java class files. The resulting Java class files can then be loaded and executed at another time, providing a convenient method for transfering JavaScript, and for avoiding translation cost."

http://www.mozilla.org/rhino/jsc.html [mozilla.org]

Hrm@!! (1)

scribblej (195445) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315160)

This sounds like a neat project... even without the speed improvements it would be nice to have a flash player that was portable and Free.

That said, I can't wait to see the security holes of a Flash client combined with the security holes of a Java JVM! This is going to be AWESOME.

Re:Hrm@!! (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315224)

Somehow, I don't think there will be a lot of security holes in a Flash player written in Java, compared to a Flash player written in C or C++.

Don't talk till you hit full compatibility. (4, Insightful)

spinkham (56603) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315226)

This means very little. Anyone can make a subset of a language faster then a full implementation.

The Ruby world has been through this recently: Someone comes out with a fantastic runtime that supports 1/8 of the ruby language, and it's 10x faster then everything else!

There's lots of hype, but as development continues the other runtimes get 2x faster, and the new magic runtime gets 5x slower by actually supporting the whole language, and the new magic runtime is now the same speed as the rest of the field, with less compatibility and more memory usage.

So color me skeptical, until this runtime supports the whole language, including transparent overlays and all the stuff that the Adobe guys claim makes Flash slow.

Even the author of this article will tell you this. He recently added:

Update: Please do not think that this implementation is 30x faster than the Flash Player developed by Adobe. One(!) microbenchmark is never a number you should count on. I would like to make clear that I never said this.

That being said, If we're stuck with Flash for at least the near term, I'd like to see projects like this, Gordon [github.com] , and Smokescreen [smokescreen.us] take off and perhaps improve our choices in runtimes. I just don't expect magic.

Gnash effort wasted. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33315276)

It's unfortunate how much good work went into the Gnash project, only to hit a wall. It's not really the developers' fault. They made a good pitch to some people who might have been able to get them over the brick wall of things like hardware codec, AVM2, and ActionScript 3 support. The amount of investigation, clean-room reverse engineering, and testing involved in those areas is staggering. I think they made a good pitch (I know way more than I'm saying right now) but it fell flat on the floor.

This corroborates what we all know... (2, Insightful)

malraid (592373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315308)

... java is slow and a memory hog. (for the sarcasm impaired, yes, I'm joking).

Re:This corroborates what we all know... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33315714)

I wish I had mod points so I could brand you as the troll you are.

Re:This corroborates what we all know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33315996)

Sheesh, nobody on /. seam to have a clue about this. The pretentious Java demo is using OpenGL (the heavy lifting of fast rendering) while the native Adobe Flash is using the slow Windows GDI to render the stuff (normal non-accelerated Flash is much slower then any GL enhanced app), so no wonder the OpenGL version is "faster" here. In fact that non-accelerated Flash is almost as fast as this accelerated Java-OpenGL crap demo means, that the Java-demo must do something terribly wrong to be this slow! And of course the reinterpreted AS through Java is much slower then native AS in Flash, come on, the render-heavy applications and demos like this spend like 90% time rendering and 10% or less in the main loop, the script performance is nearly irrelevant.

Re:This corroborates what we all know... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33316336)

Flash IS OpenGL accelerated (on windows).

Sun's Java has been known to be the king of VM performance for quite a while. Nothing really comes close in terms of optimization. Flash is known to be one of the slower of the pack.

30x faster probably isn't far fetched.

Re:This corroborates what we all know... (3, Funny)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315998)

It just proves that if there is anything that executes slower than java, it is flash!

will it run on android? (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315338)

android support or it's pointless.

Re:will it run on android? (1)

ma3382 (1095011) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315550)

What, you don't like the Java implementation of Youtube app as it is so you need to load a Java applet from the web?

Re:will it run on android? (1)

JackAxe (689361) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315592)

If you have Froyo 2.2 like ME and a Nexus One like ME, Flash Player 10.1 'final' is already available -- which makes ME happy. :)

patent lawsuit in the making (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315536)

Cue Oracle patent lawsuit in 3....2.....1....

Re:patent lawsuit in the making (1)

danieltdp (1287734) | more than 3 years ago | (#33316036)

Acconding to the Java licence, they can't sue you for creating a program (Flash's substitute) that uses a full blown JVM. Otherwise, we all would the fucked.

Even so, regarding JVM implementations, if you make a JVM that implements Java to the fullest, you are safe too. Only partial implementations (like java mobile) are target for lawsuits

Distributing work-in-progress versions (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33317820)

if you make a JVM that implements Java to the fullest, you are safe too. Only partial implementations (like java mobile) are target for lawsuits

Then how can a free software project develop a JVM if nobody on the team is legally allowed to distribute parts of it until the whole thing is feature-complete? It would have to be done inside a corporation, such that distribution of work-in-progress source code from one member of the team to another is not legally "distribution".

Java in the Box? (1)

Joffy (905928) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315642)

I wonder if Joa Ebert realizes I'll never be able to not call it Jack in the Box if it takes off.

Suck on it Steve... (1)

jasonq (244142) | more than 3 years ago | (#33315764)

Cool! Now I can run Flash sites on my iPhone by simply using the JVM. Oh, wait...

Learn to use a camera (1)

gbrandt (113294) | more than 3 years ago | (#33316072)

Man, those types of videos give me a headache. Use a tripod, pop the camera again something. JUST STOP THE SHAKING! Please?

Re:Learn to use a camera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33316578)

This video brought to you by British Nanny Productions

Someone remembers Lightspark? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33316106)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightspark

I have high hopes on it...

fast... but not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33316888)

there are some things that have not been considered for this, specifically, the flash elements on the flash video. an example is the comments that popup on top of the video. the linux flash guy explains this issue well: http://blogs.adobe.com/penguinswf/2010/01/solving_different_problems.html

impetus to improve? (1)

Sprouticus (1503545) | more than 3 years ago | (#33317088)

Seems to me that if this plays out and is better at higher levels of compatability, that this might encourage Adobe to make a better flash player.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...