Adobe Flash 10.1 + AIR 2.0 on the XO

[Martin Langhoff]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:42 PM, Carlos Nazareno <object404 at gmail.com> wrote:
> There is now an open-source SDK (Flex SDK (there's 2 versions, the

You don't say open source in the OSI sense right?

> Martin's previous arguments about the quality of educational content
> is not a problem with a platform like flash, it is a problem about the
> the content that is being deployed.

It _is_ a problem. A *cultural* problem with developers. The quality
is shockingly bad, even of my own software done with those tools.

I've never seen a localizable Flash or Shockwave project (except for a
few where _I_ did led the technical work). Never seen any project
caring really about accesibility.

> 2) You have hundreds of Flash multimedia/game developers that
> outnumber Python game/multimedia developers. Why add an extra layer of
> hassle for them to create content for the XO?

Let Adobe do it, or let Flash developers do it (there are so many of
them, and they have a financial incentive!). As I've said, the "work
to do" is not that hard!

> There's a new flame war going on, HTML5  vs Flash and it's the new
> Macs vs PC, but you won't see Flash dying anytime soon.

... and link that to...

> 3) Honestly, I find the reasoning that everything has to be open
> source in order for it to be good for kids. I mean do you have to be a
> mechanic to be able to drive a car?

I got started hacking at 9 (Basic and ASM64 soon after) and we have a
few kernel devs volunteering for OLPC that started _with the linux
kernel_ at around the same age. But feel free to put that aside for a
moment.

It needs to be hackable _so that other deployers can hack on it too,
to localize it_. The *engine* has to be hackable so that there is a
chance to fix bugs.

> I think this is a case of open source fundamentalism trumping educational goals.

You'll never meet me and fundamentalism. I am a deeply pragmatic guy.

> There are hundreds of multimedia authors out there who can create
> content for the XO, but IMHO sugarization & python + python only is a
> gateway that is hampering the availability of content for the XO.

There is no "only" here. The "technical problem" you are imagining
does not exist, there a few easy things to solve.


> Why is allowing additional tools & a new pool of content creators bad for OLPC?

We _allow_! You are drowning in a teardrop. We won't do Adobe's work
for them, we won't do what is _your job_.

> "if you don't like the way the world is running,
> then change it instead of just complaining."

Bert nailed it on your sig ;-)

cheers,


m
-- 
 martin.langhoff at gmail.com
 martin at laptop.org -- School Server Architect
 - ask interesting questions
 - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
 - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff