Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 66

Thread: Adobe Drops Linux Desktop Support For AIR

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    772

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    That will be difficult. They are made using Google Specific APIs that are not designed for desktop operating systems and they are not designed for larger screen resolutions. Getting them to run would be cool, but there are technical issues that would likely require support from Google in the form of increasing the burden on developers already dealing with Android fragmentation.
    Google is already working to make Android more resolution/size/input-independent for tablets and Google TV. Aren't standard Android GUIs specified in XML rather than drawn by app code anyway? I think the harder bit to support would be apps that use native ARM code (not impossible, just a lot of work). As for technical support from Google, I don't see why Google would need to support such a project any more than Microsoft supports Wine or ReactOS.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
    Google is already working to make Android more resolution/size/input-independent for tablets and Google TV. Aren't standard Android GUIs specified in XML rather than drawn by app code anyway? I think the harder bit to support would be apps that use native ARM code (not impossible, just a lot of work). As for technical support from Google, I don't see why Google would need to support such a project any more than Microsoft supports Wine or ReactOS.
    the last project i used that involved running code for one arch-type on top of another architecture was Darwine (PPC mac running wine with x86 emulation). it was slow and didn't work very well. development was difficult from what i remember talking with one of the contributors, and there were lots of limitations...

    i see running Android apps on a non-arm architecture pretty much the same. - whether Google would help out or not. it seems very unlikely to pan out. so, while not impossible - i think you under-estimate the work involved - and there is still the BIG problem of emulation - which never runs like native code...

    i don't see how we could get around that, unless every app developer also worked on x86/x86_64 versions as well.... or maybe if we had some magical compiler that could instantly convert Arm code into x86 code - automagically!

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Dhaka,Bangladesh
    Posts
    102

    Default Adobe AIR on ubuntu partner repository

    Adobe air is in Ubuntu partner repository. I install that from there some time ago. Did they have that statistics? Recently after a reinstall I don't install that because 1st I don't see much(if any) app which I needed using Air and 2nd It was depending libhal. I wanted a completely hal free desktop. May be it could be a cause that hal is deprecated from Modern linuxes and AIR is depending on HAL. Changing the code would take some effort and may be they don't think that is financially reasonable. Anyway loosing a option is always bad but we could hope soft developer would focus on standardized things like HTML5 and web rather then proprietary platform.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Over there somewhere
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    .... or maybe if we had some magical compiler that could instantly convert Arm code into x86 code - automagically!
    http://buildroot.uclibc.org/

    These guys seem to have a semi-working solution, but I've not dug into it very deeply yet. What do the real code wizards here think? At the very least they seem to have solved the translation of codebases between x86 and ARM.

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    That will be difficult. They are made using Google Specific APIs that are not designed for desktop operating systems and they are not designed for larger screen resolutions. Getting them to run would be cool, but there are technical issues that would likely require support from Google in the form of increasing the burden on developers already dealing with Android fragmentation.
    Android is already running on screens from 320x240 to 1024x600, and several devices support outputting 1080p signals. Android X86 runs on commodity hardware, and YouWave is essentially running Android on Windows (via some VirtualBox emulation running Android X86).

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,946

    Default

    Only flash player provided, with major bugs and ignoring x64 platform for HUGE time. Check.
    Flash EDITOR not ported. Check.
    ANY productive tool ported? No. Check.
    Their AIR required outdated technology and was not updated. Check.

    Adobe, its not linux fail, its YOUR fail. You just IGNORED linux letting it be no more than a display kiosk and put high hopes in it. But you "plan" to support android which IS linux in essence. You're just pervert rednecks yelling about absence of own brains.

    Keep up nice support!

  7. #57
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,440

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    i don't see how we could get around that, unless every app developer also worked on x86/x86_64 versions as well.... or maybe if we had some magical compiler that could instantly convert Arm code into x86 code - automagically!
    Wasn't that the original purpose of Java -- to deliver platform independence?

    I'd actually like to see the reverse myself: x86 apps ported to ARM. ARM represents the best opportunity to break free from the Wintel monopoly, both on the desktop and the server. But the mass of already-existing x86 applications pretty much extinguishes that opportunity. The pessimist in me sees Intel developing their Atom processor to the point of crushing ARM-style chips, and then in turn, with Microsoft, crushing Android.

    The lack of platform independence in software is what keeps the consumer stuck with the establishment.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crazycheese View Post
    Only flash player provided, with major bugs and ignoring x64 platform for HUGE time. Check.
    I really wish the OCD "bit purity" crowd would explain why they need access to greater than 4G of RAM to watch video.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yogi_berra View Post
    I really wish the OCD "bit purity" crowd would explain why they need access to greater than 4G of RAM to watch video.
    , because everyone knows that Flash is only used for video.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Remco View Post
    , because everyone knows that Flash is only used for video.
    It's the only thing I use it for. In fact, my Flash plugin is so heavily wrapped in Apparmor that I doubt it can do much other than play video.

    If I go to a website and I just see a big box saying NoScript has blocked a flash script then I say 'ugh, they built their entire website in Flash?' and go elsewhere.

Posting Permissions

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