Open source vs proprietary... ?
I am curious about something I know very little about, and was hoping someone wouldn't mind explaining it to me. Is this issue with Flash v html 5 an issue of Flash being proprietary, and html 5 being open source, or is html 5 simply controlled by someone Apple prefers to deal with?
I remember reading an article on digg about the XBox, and the reason for using OpenGL (I think that's what it was called). Is this a similar situation? If it's not too much trouble, could someone list a few other instances where one could choose to create, or program, using open source vs proprietary?
Please pardon me if I am way off. If it's not obvious, I really don't know what I am talking about.
I remember reading an article on digg about the XBox, and the reason for using OpenGL (I think that's what it was called). Is this a similar situation? If it's not too much trouble, could someone list a few other instances where one could choose to create, or program, using open source vs proprietary?
Please pardon me if I am way off. If it's not obvious, I really don't know what I am talking about.
Comments
Is this issue with Flash v html 5 an issue of Flash being proprietary, and html 5 being open source, or is html 5 simply controlled by someone Apple prefers to deal with?
HTML 5 is an open specification for published web content and developers are free to build engines that render content that complies with that specification. The implementation of the engine doesn't have to be open source but the one that Apple uses and created (Webkit) is open source.
Flash is proprietary but Adobe open sourced some parts of it. Adobe still controls the project entirely though and manufacturers have to wait for them to build plugins to run Flash content whereas Apple was able to get HTML 5 support right away on devices like the iPad and they can hardware-accelerate parts if they want and integrate it with touch controls.
Here is Flash on the Nexus One:
http://www.redmondpie.com/farmville-...d-2.1-9140472/
It's slow, unresponsive, will be draining that battery like nothing else and doesn't look hardware-accelerated - on most devices it's not. But Google can't do anything about it, it's Adobe that controls the software. On the other hand, Google can make their Webkit engine as fast as they are able to.
I remember reading an article on digg about the XBox, and the reason for using OpenGL (I think that's what it was called). Is this a similar situation?
Yeah the XBox uses Direct X (Microsoft's proprietary graphics APIs) whereas the PS3 uses OpenGL.
This is one area where proprietary works better because open standards are slower to be pushed forward. Once they get to the point where GPUs are running the same code as the CPU, the whole issue disappears.
Proprietary solutions are often stopgaps that only exist because open solutions just aren't good enough and it takes too long to approve the needed changes. Look how long Flash has been around allowing cross-platform online video and we're only just getting HTML 5 video up and running.
IIf it's not too much trouble, could someone list a few other instances where one could choose to create, or program, using open source vs proprietary?
In website hosting. If you go with proprietary Microsoft .Net, you are restricted to using Windows servers if you use certain APIs. Going with open source PHP, MySQL, Apache, you can choose any hardware you want, even an iPhone:
http://idude.org/2007/11/07/an-iphon...rver-with-php/