[Olpc-open] Nortel LearniT animations (Seth Woodworth)

Charles Merriam charles.merriam at gmail.com
Tue Mar 25 01:38:02 EDT 2008

Hi All,

I think I added all the substance from this thread into the wiki
(http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Gnash).  It's late, so I would apprecate
Rob et al doing a quick read.   Also, can someone add more information
about the specific gnash version/codecs being installed on which XOs
and confirm that the primary issue in developing Flash for Gnash is
picking open codecs?

Have a great day!  or evening!

Charles Merriam

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Rob Savoye <rob at welcomehome.org> wrote:
> Steve Holton wrote:
>  > Gnash will *never* be fully compatible with Flash because the closer
>  > Gnash gets to being a viable free Flash replacement, the more
>  > incentive there is for Adobe to change the Flash specification in a
>  > way to break compatibility.
>   They've already changed the format in a big, hence all our hard work
>  to reverse engineer SWF v9. ActionScript 3 is finally ECMAScript
>  compatible, same as JavaScript, so I doubt that'll change much in the
>  future. Also all the changes in SWF v9 were performance oriented, and
>  that required a new VM. Gnash now does support the SWF v9 format
>  changes, that was easy. It's implementing the ActionScript class
>  libraries that's much of the work left. SWF has evolved very slowly, so
>  I don't feel we'll be chasing Adobe for long.
>  > Two decades in the Microsoft format wars should have taught that
>  > lesson to everyone by now. Look how long (and how much) it's taken ODF
>  > to get where it's at.
>   Yes, but as far as I can tell, OpenOffice works well enough with M$
>  Office, compatibility wise, that I haven't had to use M$ Office for many
>  years. Not everything converts in OO 100% all the time, but what doesn't
>  work I can easily live with.
>  > OTOH, the XO offers us an opportunity to create a new standard among
>  > an audience which has no investment in the old.  But this is a limited
>  > opportunity.
>   New standards still don't solve the problem of playing existing
>  content (often proprietary), which is what I though we were discussing.
>  Also playing SWF files in the future is not something we worry about,
>  since that will only effect new content, which doesn't exist yet. :-)
>   My point is that we want people to work with us. Most of the time all
>  I hear is "Gnash sucks, it's not 100% compatible yet". We know that
>  already... What we want to do is identify what "sucks", produce test
>  cases, and then fix the problems. Bitching about the problem and dumping
>  Gnash does not solve the problem, it merely ignores it. It's the easy
>  way out.
>   Yes, it can take some time for an end user with a problem to work with
>  us till we identify what is wrong. As none of us can use the Adobe
>  player due to clean room problems, it's our end users that help us work
>  on testing compatibility. Many people have helped contribute to the
>  development of Gnash merely by helping answer questions about what's
>  wrong, and trying patches, and most of them were not professional engineers.
>   All we are asking for is help beyond just griping, and patience as our
>  small team pushes forward.
>         - rob -
>  _______________________________________________
>  Devel mailing list
>  Devel at lists.laptop.org
>  http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

More information about the Olpc-open mailing list