PDA

View Full Version : Would you donate money to Adobe for them to improve the Linux Flash plugin?



steveneddy
July 10th, 2008, 04:33 AM
EDIT: The poll is about the Flash plugin

Would you pay for the Flash plugin if it were offered to you?

What if it helped the Linux version of Flash stay in development and updates happened faster?

Would you if it was open sourced?

What about closed source, but it still worked well?

And really, how much would you give for a lifetime membership to Adobe Flash downloads?

I would give $10 American Dollars just for the cause.

I mean, I buy t-shirts from Ubuntu store and pay $30 American to get them shipped here. So why not pay a little for a
piece of software that I really to use? Even if it is proprietary?

RMS flames, here they come.... *wincing

NxZDr
July 10th, 2008, 04:47 AM
I don't really mind closed source development for Linux, especially if it's just a cross-platform project. I know this is contrary to the whole freedom of code philosophy.

However, I don't see why it would need to be open sourced, Adobe has made their standards and subversions and forks would mean Windows and Mac users would need these changes in their client versions. Perhaps in-house is best imo.

Jim!
July 10th, 2008, 04:58 AM
For linux users to want software from other companies to be open source all the time is just plain greedy, we already have a free, open OS. Windows and Mac users get the product closed source why should we (linux users) be given the same product but as open source - It doesnt make any sense at all. This is probably a contributing factor to why linux doesnt get much 'mainstream' software like Flash and 3DS Max, Greed. When they do finally publish something everyone just seems to pirate it. Linux users are, after all...............freeloaders?:D

EDIT: Yes I would pay for Flash on linux - CS3 Suite on Ubuntu would be great!

madjr
July 10th, 2008, 05:05 AM
nah i would not pay adobe for their flash "player" (you should state it's the player not the creation suite)

that's why i open a thread on it to mobilize people at their website to rant and vote on the bugs (and seems to be working as flash 10 beta 2 is a good improvement thanks to us)

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=769906

i would pay thou for flash MX (creator suite thingy) to be ported to linux and their other big programs which linux has no real substitute.

zmjjmz
July 10th, 2008, 05:07 AM
Pay?
No.
Other methods of getting it?
Probably.

I already have Flash 5 running in WINE, and it's good enough for my usage.

dracule
July 10th, 2008, 05:10 AM
those choices are ridiculous.

I want to choose no but I use Flash.

There are adobe alternatives that i would rather donate to.

aysiu
July 10th, 2008, 05:16 AM
I wouldn't pay for Flash for Linux. Windows and Mac users don't pay for it. Why should we? It's not a pay-for product. It's a plugin. Adobe makes their money from selling Flash (development) licenses to developers, not selling plugins to end users.

acelin
July 10th, 2008, 05:42 AM
That and it works for me in Ubuntu better than it does for the Window users I know.

zmjjmz
July 10th, 2008, 05:44 AM
I think the poll is about the development suite, not the plugin.

Lord Xeb
July 10th, 2008, 05:49 AM
I don't really mind closed source development for Linux, especially if it's just a cross-platform project. I know this is contrary to the whole freedom of code philosophy.

This ^^^

madjr
July 10th, 2008, 10:40 AM
I think the poll is about the development suite, not the plugin.

no, it's about the plugin/player not the suite.

he says he would pitch in with 10 bucks

the suite costs hundreds

anyway maybe a mod could fix the thread and poll options..

Jim!
July 10th, 2008, 10:44 AM
Oh, so he was just talking about the flash player plugin then? No I definitely would not pay for that, I see no reason why I should have to when Mac and Windows users get the 'same' software free.

ssam
July 10th, 2008, 10:52 AM
why not donate it to the gnash or swfdec projects. If they keep getting better they may soon be the default flash on linux distros.

Midwest-Linux
July 10th, 2008, 10:53 AM
I might pay for flash for Linux Power PC support, lack of flash support for the Linux Power PC stinks. The only option seems to be OSX for flash on a Power PC. Some say gnash could possibly solve the problem...but I could never get it to work. I uninstalled 7.04 on one G3 iMac and installed OSX Tiger so I could view videos on flash player sites.

Of course regular PC support is no problem, and in Firefox all one needs to do is to go to a site that uses the flash player like YouTube or a local TV station video site with embedded video. Firefox will prompt you to download flash. Click install and its done.

keiichidono
July 10th, 2008, 01:49 PM
I didn't vote on the poll because no, i wouldn't pay (i would probably just switch over to Windows) but i use Flash, that would **** me off beyond belief if they tried making us pay...

Inferied
July 10th, 2008, 04:11 PM
The poll lacks option:"No, I would steal it."

Masoris
July 10th, 2008, 04:18 PM
The poll lacks option:"No, I would steal it."

:shock: <-- Do you think this icon means shocked? No. it's means someone's watching you. :shock:

deNoobius
July 10th, 2008, 04:20 PM
Oh, so he was just talking about the flash player plugin then? No I definitely would not pay for that, I see no reason why I should have to when Mac and Windows users get the 'same' software free.

Exactly. I don't understand this poll--why would anyone pay for Flash for Linux when no one pays for it for Mac OS or Windows?

Did he mean the Flash development package, maybe?

steveneddy
July 10th, 2008, 04:38 PM
Maybe I should rephrase the question to:

Would you donate money to Adobe if you knew it would help the flash issue in Linux?

Not actually paying for Flash plugin, but donating to the "cause", as it were, to get "better" and faster development on Linux Flash?

I may be beating a dead horse here.

keiichidono
July 10th, 2008, 04:39 PM
The poll lacks option:"No, I would steal it."
That's a good idea! I'm not a fan of pirated software though...

pofigster
July 10th, 2008, 04:47 PM
Why should I pay for something that's made available for free to everybody else? Adobe makes the player free so that they can sell the Flash software to developers. If I start paying for it than Adobe is just as bad as cable providers - charging both ends of the pipe.

I'm a huge fan of the free market and whatnot, but, I won't pay for something that pays for itself.

keiichidono
July 10th, 2008, 04:52 PM
Maybe I should rephrase the question to:

Would you donate money to Adobe if you knew it would help the flash issue in Linux?

Not actually paying for Flash plugin, but donating to the "cause", as it were, to get "better" and faster development on Linux Flash?

I may be beating a dead horse here.
That's much better, in that case, maybe. I shouldn't have to donate so I'm more on the side of no still.

fatality_uk
July 10th, 2008, 05:02 PM
Maybe I should rephrase the question to:

Would you donate money to Adobe if you knew it would help the flash issue in Linux?

Not actually paying for Flash plugin, but donating to the "cause", as it were, to get "better" and faster development on Linux Flash?

I may be beating a dead horse here.

Why? Gnash is coming fast around the corner. Adobe are rolling out, albeit slowly, a 1/2 decent player. Why should Linux users subsidize Adobe as opposed to Windows users. Like I say, if Adobe don't want to, Gnash will take up the slack soon im sure.

aysiu
July 10th, 2008, 05:13 PM
Even with the rephrasing, I don't think I'd pay Adobe (or donate to them). Again, this is not something that is asked of Windows or Mac users.

Think of a project like FileZilla, for example. It is an open source, cross-platform project that relies on donations. It is free for Mac, Windows, and Linux users, but they all have the option to donate to FileZilla. As far as I can tell, it's run by volunteers.

Adobe's Flash plugin is the total opposite of that. It's closed source and only theoretically cross-platform, completely funded by a major corporation that has lots of money to pay its developers. Paying Adobe to bring its Linux port up to basic standards it freely bestows upon its Windows and Mac versions of Flash is essentially blackmail. "We won't free up the specifications so you can create a functional open source plugin, and we'll cripple our version of the plugin. But maybe if you pay us money, we'll uncripple our version."

Forget it.

aysiu
July 10th, 2008, 05:16 PM
Since there were some flaws in the previous poll (see attached), I've created a new one.

Arthur Archnix
July 10th, 2008, 05:16 PM
I wouldn't pay for anything from Adobe.

Any company that comes up with a product like Adobe Reader has serious problems with coders, management and common-sense. Anything you buy will be overpriced and under-perform at best. At worst, you're exposing yourself to all kinds of new vulnerabilities. If you want to read documents, why does adobe install 300 MB's of code? That's 299MB's of unnecessary code that it is possible to exploit.

But someone else made the point above. If they charged for their plugin, their flash development business would die a rapid death and people switched to java or some new open standard.

Prefix100
July 10th, 2008, 05:16 PM
i Didn't Vote On The Poll Because No, I Wouldn't Pay (i Would Probably Just Switch Over To Windows) But I Use Flash, That Would **** Me Off Beyond Belief If They Tried Making Us Pay...

+1

y6FgBn)~v
July 10th, 2008, 05:59 PM
Would you pay for Flash for Linux?

No

geoken
July 10th, 2008, 06:15 PM
I have payed for every version of the Flash IDE and Flex for the past several years.

@Arthur Archnix

If you have problems with the size of Adobe Reader then you obviously a)are un-aware of any of it's features besides PDF rendering and b)aren't counting the PDF reading libraries and are mearly measuring the size of the evince compiled binary file.

Adobe reader is able to interactively view 3d CAD models as well as video and audio. You more than likely don't ever get your architect/engineer sending you a CAD file that you need to quickly view, but there are people who do. Just because you don't understand what an app does, doesn't mean it's bloated. If the only tool you knew how to use in blender was the text tool and you didn't even know how to rotate the viewport would you say blender is bloated because the much smaller inkscape can do the exact same thing?

Same goes for the flash plugin. Flash's internal vector renderer is so much faster than inkscapes it's not even funny. If I have 3+ shapes on stage and I try to apply a blur greater than 2 to all of them, moving any of the shapes causes inkscape to use 100% of one of my CPU cores and refreshes it's window at about 2fps. Same thing if I'm trying to work on a project with a tiled bitmap background. I then export this artwork to FlexBuilder and incorporate it into my flash project. The same thing that ran at 2fps in inkscape runs at it's capped 30fps in the flash player with about 4% cpu usage. As if that wasn't bad enough, the flash file is also simultaneously playing music, loading and reading external XML files and loading external images.

madjr
July 10th, 2008, 06:16 PM
i would donate, but only if it's a one time donation to "speed" bug fixing.

like temporarily moving the windows workforce into the linux side.

other than that i would prefer donating to gnash or swfdec and mobilize people to rant 24/7 at their bug reporting sites

bruce89
July 10th, 2008, 06:19 PM
other than that i would prefer donating to gnash or swfdec

swfdec is the only plugin which gets transparency right. For instance, the BBC website's clock is on a nice coloured background.

LordDelta
July 10th, 2008, 06:23 PM
For linux users to want software from other companies to be open source all the time is just plain greedy, we already have a free, open OS. Windows and Mac users get the product closed source why should we (linux users) be given the same product but as open source - It doesnt make any sense at all. This is probably a contributing factor to why linux doesnt get much 'mainstream' software like Flash and 3DS Max, Greed. When they do finally publish something everyone just seems to pirate it. Linux users are, after all...............freeloaders?:D

EDIT: Yes I would pay for Flash on linux - CS3 Suite on Ubuntu would be great!

I wouldn't say we are freeloaders. We don't go out and rob the store for a computer, and many of use pay for and use Windows, msinceuch as we don't like it. Personally, I'm writing from Ubuntu on a Triple Boot Macbook. Not exactly freeloading, I just like everything open and working....Mac and Windows are restrictive (but necessary for some things).

But...I don't think we should pay for a plugin...and Adobe would only make more if they sold the Flash Suite for Linux, and made support better. We shouldn't have to pay them to be productive.

As it stands, I'd rather see Adobe die a death similar to what all Linux users would like to see Windows die...but only because their products are so rediculously expensive. I got my CS2 (thank god) for the incredibly reduced price of 200$ (through a University deal), which I think is a much more reasonable price for a piece of software. Its not quite like they are selling incredibly complex algorythms either, I don't see how it can be worth several thousand.

Arthur Archnix
July 10th, 2008, 06:59 PM
I have payed for every version of the Flash IDE and Flex for the past several years.

@Arthur Archnix

If you have problems with the size of Adobe Reader then you obviously a)are un-aware of any of it's features besides PDF rendering and b)aren't counting the PDF reading libraries and are mearly measuring the size of the evince compiled binary file.

Adobe reader is able to interactively view 3d CAD models as well as video and audio. You more than likely don't ever get your architect/engineer sending you a CAD file that you need to quickly view, but there are people who do. Just because you don't understand what an app does, doesn't mean it's bloated. If the only tool you knew how to use in blender was the text tool and you didn't even know how to rotate the viewport would you say blender is bloated because the much smaller inkscape can do the exact same thing?

I'm well aware that it has oodles of other features. Adobe Reader might be able to clean my room and fix my car, but I stand by my point. If you want to read pdf's you have to be mentally challenged to install adobe reader.

I suppose if you want to interactively view 3D CAD models of the globe while daft-punk's around the world plays in the background and you annotate the final report of "where are they now?" It's the perfect app. Should I be glad that adobe designs a product so well rounded that it pleases such a small percentage of its user base, while putting 95% of its user base at risk of exploits, bad coding, and just plain bad performance?

keiichidono
July 10th, 2008, 07:15 PM
Thanks for the poll fix aysiu, i voted "No, since Windows and Mac users get stability for free from Adobe".

geoken
July 10th, 2008, 08:19 PM
I suppose if you want to interactively view 3D CAD models of the globe while daft-punk's around the world plays in the background and you annotate the final report of "where are they now?" It's the perfect app. Should I be glad that adobe designs a product so well rounded that it pleases such a small percentage of its user base, while putting 95% of its user base at risk of exploits, bad coding, and just plain bad performance?

You already have evince, I'm not sure why you're complaining or where you're getting this 95% from?

Should you be glad that Adobe makes a product that caters to 100% of pdf users rather than 95% of them? Probably. Seeing as how our OS puts us in a small .9% minority, I'm happy when I see a company try and appease everyone (within reason) rather than just going for the lowest common denominator.

Your claims of bad coding are not only wrong, but insulting to hard working developers who are task with building an app to carry out a task and have done so with success. Adobe Reader v.8 has had 4 security updates since it was released in Oct. '07. Do you consider that out of the ordinary?

As for performance, YMMV. It loads slower than evince (they both load in fractions of a second on my system so the difference is irrelevant to me) but it renders faster. Evince seems to do a poor job at pre-caching pages (if it does so at all) while reader allows me to seamlessly scroll through my documents. It seems like evince only starts to render the page when you select it. It also allows me to view the work I exported from inkscape/krita exactly as it appeared in inkscape/krita, while evince usually shows graphical inconsistencies (especially when I use blurs and overlapping opaque shapes of different colors).

bruce89
July 10th, 2008, 08:29 PM
As for performance, YMMV. It loads slower than evince (they both load in fractions of a second on my system so the difference is irrelevant to me) but it renders faster. Evince seems to do a poor job at pre-caching pages (if it does so at all) while reader allows me to seamlessly scroll through my documents. It seems like evince only starts to render the page when you select it. It also allows me to view the work I exported from inkscape/krita exactly as it appeared in inkscape/krita, while evince usually shows graphical inconsistencies (especially when I use blurs and overlapping opaque shapes of different colors).

You can hardly blame poppler (it does the rendering) for not getting the layout of a largely proprietary format quite right. Also, these people don't (AFAIK) get paid for their work on poppler and Evince.

cardinals_fan
July 10th, 2008, 09:41 PM
No, because Flash works fine for me.

Arthur Archnix
July 10th, 2008, 10:02 PM
You already have evince, I'm not sure why you're complaining or where you're getting this 95% from?

This is getting hilarious. I'm voting in a poll about whether I'd ever pay for an adobe plugin, and justifying it with my belief that Adobe employs seriously flawed design principles. It's not just that they're closed source, but they seem to try to have one app do everything.

The 95% was a guess. My guess is that every computer sold today with Windows comes with Adobe reader. My guess is that most of those computers are not being used to view documents created by their owners architects and engineers. Do you think this needs to be proved? Are you saying, "if you can prove to me that 95% of adobe users don't do anything with reader but read pdf's then I'll agree that it's a crappy product." Because your later comments suggest the percentages don't matter.

All of which is completely besides the point, that I raised these issues in a poll about buying an adobe plugin. It wasn't a complaint, it was an explanation for a belief.


Should you be glad that Adobe makes a product that caters to 100% of pdf users rather than 95% of them? Probably. Seeing as how our OS puts us in a small .9% minority, I'm happy when I see a company try and appease everyone (within reason) rather than just going for the lowest common denominator.Great. I hope you voted yes, because then all of this would make sense. Otherwise, it's just a really strange defense of Adobe for no clear reason at all. Does it bother you that some people don't like Adobe? Let me share another interesting fact, I don't like Konquerer for the same reason, it tries to do everything. Do I need to someone prove that it's bad? I believe it. It's a personal preference. I realize other people like it. It doesn't bother me that we disagree, and I don't spend time trying to convince people who like it that they're wrong to do so.


Your claims of bad coding are not only wrong, but insulting to hard working developers who are task with building an app to carry out a task and have done so with success. Adobe Reader v.8 has had 4 security updates since it was released in Oct. '07. Do you consider that out of the ordinary?Now you're accusing me of being impolite? Well, that one I will admit. It's true I don't care about the feelings of Adobe programmers. It's also true I don't really care how hard they work or how hard their job is. I'll say the same about Microsoft. I think they've got a crappy product that tries to do too much, and is pretty much flawed from the ground up. I'm sure there are a lot of very talented programmers at both Adobe and Microsoft spending a lot of talented hours making really crappy programs and operating systems.

Here is what symantec has said about versions of adobe prior to 8 "If a user is enticed to a hostile Web site (who knows which ones are hostile these days) using the browser of their choice, it is reasonably likely that their computer will become infected provided that they have Acrobat installed on their computer."

8 Closed those holes. Then new ones were found. 9 closed those holes, but it's about 100MB bigger, so who knows what new ones they introduced. We'll soon see. If I'm right though and 95% of people only use it to read pdf's, there was no need to every be exposed to those vulnerabilities. I mean, at a bare, bare minimum everything it can do above and beyond reading pdf's should be disabled by default and enabled if required. At a minimum. Last time i used it (version 8 ) you had to go into the installation folders and remove plugins manually. That's how you disabled features. You couldn't even do it via preferences. Say what you want, you'll never convince me that that is smart. It's not.


As for performance, YMMV. It loads slower than evince (they both load in fractions of a second on my system so the difference is irrelevant to me) but it renders faster. Evince seems to do a poor job at pre-caching pages (if it does so at all) while reader allows me to seamlessly scroll through my documents. It seems like evince only starts to render the page when you select it. It also allows me to view the work I exported from inkscape/krita exactly as it appeared in inkscape/krita, while evince usually shows graphical inconsistencies (especially when I use blurs and overlapping opaque shapes of different colors).First, I don't know what YMMV means. Second, I'm glad you've found a program you like so much. I'd never try to convince you not to use it. In fact, given what you use it for it sounds like the perfectly designed app for you. Super. Just hang on a second while I fire up my Cray supercomputer to print up a "Congratulations Certificate" in Writer.

silkstone
July 10th, 2008, 10:19 PM
I'm not sure what this has to do with Flash, but I have installed Adobe Reader for one good reason. If you want to copy and paste multi-column text from a PDF file into another document, Evince doesn't recognise the columns so you can only select a block across the full width of the page. In other words, the text in the different columns gets mixed up. Adobe Reader does recognise the columns, so you can select text in just one column.

Back on topic, I'm not an Adobe fan and they overcharge for Photoshop and most other things. I'd rather contribute to an open source alternative to the Flash plugin, and I certainly wouldn't expect to pay for a plugin that others get for free.

mrgnash
July 10th, 2008, 10:30 PM
No way. I would sooner donate to Swfdec or Gnash (the project, not myself :P )

karellen
July 10th, 2008, 10:43 PM
pay money to a multimillionaire corporation just to implement something they should have long ago implemented? no

bruce89
July 10th, 2008, 10:56 PM
By the way, the reason why there is no "official" 64 bit version is because Flash's code is really bad.

geoken
July 10th, 2008, 11:04 PM
You can hardly blame poppler (it does the rendering) for not getting the layout of a largely proprietary format quite right. Also, these people don't (AFAIK) get paid for their work on poppler and Evince.

I'm not blaming anyone and I'm not trying to diminish anyones work. I'm just opposing the notion that Reader is a horribly coded app.

geoken
July 10th, 2008, 11:15 PM
The 95% was a guess. My guess is that every computer sold today with Windows comes with Adobe reader. My guess is that most of those computers are not being used to view documents created by their owners architects and engineers. Do you think this needs to be proved? Are you saying, "if you can prove to me that 95% of adobe users don't do anything with reader but read pdf's then I'll agree that it's a crappy product." Because your later comments suggest the percentages don't matter.


If we subscribe to current OS stats, about 8% of computers are sold with OS X which doesn't have a PDF viewer.






Now you're accusing me of being impolite? Well, that one I will admit. It's true I don't care about the feelings of Adobe programmers. It's also true I don't really care how hard they work or how hard their job is. I'll say the same about Microsoft. I think they've got a crappy product that tries to do too much, and is pretty much flawed from the ground up. I'm sure there are a lot of very talented programmers at both Adobe and Microsoft spending a lot of talented hours making really crappy programs and operating systems.

Here is what symantec has said about versions of adobe prior to 8 "If a user is enticed to a hostile Web site (who knows which ones are hostile these days) using the browser of their choice, it is reasonably likely that their computer will become infected provided that they have Acrobat installed on their computer."

8 Closed those holes. Then new ones were found. 9 closed those holes, but it's about 100MB bigger, so who knows what new ones they introduced. We'll soon see. If I'm right though and 95% of people only use it to read pdf's, there was no need to every be exposed to those vulnerabilities. I mean, at a bare, bare minimum everything it can do above and beyond reading pdf's should be disabled by default and enabled if required. At a minimum. Last time i used it (version 8 ) you had to go into the installation folders and remove plugins manually. That's how you disabled features. You couldn't even do it via preferences. Say what you want, you'll never convince me that that is smart. It's not.

First, I don't know what YMMV means. Second, I'm glad you've found a program you like so much. I'd never try to convince you not to use it. In fact, given what you use it for it sounds like the perfectly designed app for you. Super. Just hang on a second while I fire up my Cray supercomputer to print up a "Congratulations Certificate" in Writer.

I don't think 4 patched security bugs is abnormal.

YMMV stands for 'your mileage may vary'. Basically it means we have different experiences due to slight differences in usage.

bruce89
July 10th, 2008, 11:18 PM
I'm just opposing the notion that Reader is a horribly coded app.

It might be, we can't see it to judge it. Going by the quality of Flash, it'll be bad.

Flash on 64 bit OSes is not possible because the code's so bad.

jnw222
July 11th, 2008, 01:09 AM
only is it was os

Foster Grant
July 11th, 2008, 01:10 AM
I'm trying to be nice here, but none of the words that came to mind when I saw the thread title were nice. This isn't some little shareware company run by one guy in a garage.

Why would I donate money to Adobe, a company which has a $21 billion market capacity, earns $1.50 per share and had net income of almost $215 million in the third quarter of fiscal year 2008 (just completed), not to mention over $723 million in net income for FY 2007? That's just asinine.

Flash works right on Windows. Flash works right on Mac OS X. Adobe's failure to get Flash working right on X can be traced back to one factor: lousy quality control. They can certainly afford to do QC correctly without a "donation" from me.

Foster Grant
July 11th, 2008, 01:21 AM
If we subscribe to current OS stats, about 8% of computers are sold with OS X which doesn't have a PDF viewer.


Oh really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preview_(software)

From the article:


Preview is Mac OS X's application for displaying images and Portable Document Format (PDF) documents. Like Mac OS X itself, it comes from NeXT's OPENSTEP operating system.

Preview employs Apple's implementation of Adobe's PDF specification, and makes significant use of Apple's Cocoa graphical user interface, Quartz graphics layer, and QuickTime image codec. Preview can open the following file types:

* AI - Adobe Illustrator Artwork files
* BMP Windows Bitmap files
* DNG Digital Negative files
* EPS Encapsulated PostScript files
* FAX faxes
* FPX FlashPix files
* GIF Graphics Interchange Format files
* HDR High Dynamic Range Image files
* ICNS Apple Icon Image files
* ICO Windows icon files
* JPEG 2000 JPEG 2000 files
* JPEG Joint Photographic Experts Group files
* OpenEXR OpenEXR files
* PS Adobe PostScript files (after an automatic conversion to PDF)
* PSD Adobe Photoshop files
* PICT QuickDraw image files
* PDF Portable Document Format files
* PNG Portable Network Graphics files
* PNTG MacPaint Bitmap Graphic files
* QTIF QuickTime image files
* RAD Radience Scene Description files
* RAW Raw image files
* SGI Silicon Graphics Image files
* TGA TARGA image files
* TIF, TIFF Tagged Image File Format files
* XBM X BitMap files

This gives users the ability to open a wide variety of popular and rarer image files straight out of the box. Preview offers basic image correction tools, cropping and rotation tools and annotation tools for PDF and TIFF documents. In addition, it offers keyword tools for image and PDF files. Preview can also convert between image formats; it can export to BMP, JP2, JPEG, PDF, PICT, PNG, SGI, TGA, and TIFF.

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html#preview

Mac OS X is based on PDF just as NextStep was based on Display Postscript.

steveneddy
July 11th, 2008, 06:37 AM
I guess the poll change is OK.

The whole crux of the argument was to determine if anyone would even consider donating to Adobe, much like open sourced projects, to have a better Linux plugin.

I would still donate up to $10 to the cause if I knew that it was available.

But I have used gnash in the past, I just wish that it would move a little faster.

Guess I need to throw that $10 at gnash first.