What's the motivation for Adobe to provide current versions of Flash for every single possible OS/version?
If they cover 98% of the market with Windows and OSX, nothing forces them to burn the money to try and get the last 2% of users.
I agree that web designers should be cautious when designing a site - using Silverlight exclusively will limit users, and using Flash, while being installed on most computers, can still be slow to load and cumbersome when programmed incorrectly.
Adobe shouldn't "open source Flash". It's their software to do with as they please. I'm getting really tired of these open-source guys demanding everything be opened up.
The web isn't free or open, in any sense, no matter how much they want it to be. You pay to get on it, pay to get hosted, pay for design, pay for space, pay for bandwidth, etc. If you have to install Flash or Silverlight to view a website, that's your choice, you 'pay' by installing the software. You can choose not to.
If you design sites, you're using dreamweaver or other design products, probably with various Macromedia products or their equivalents, plus databases, middleware, etc. All cost money, though some have 'open' alternatives, most of which are less robust.
The internet is a delivery medium, not an inherent human right.
And unless HTML5 covers interactive graphical web sites, not just video and audio, there will be a continued demand for Flash and Silverlight.
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
