Well today it looks like my pain may be resolved. Adobe has let loose a 64-bit “alpha” version of Flash Player 10. I will be installing this promptly and report back, but in the meantime, you can get it yourself over here. You can read more about what’s new, etc at Adobe’s announcement page here.

Furthering Adobe’s commitment to the Linux community and as part of ongoing efforts to ensure the cross-platform compatibility of Flash Player, an alpha version of 64-bit Adobe Flash Player 10 for Linux operating systems was released on 11/17/2008 and is available for download. This offers easier, native installation on 64-bit Linux distributions and removes the need for 32-bit emulation. Learn more by reading the 64-bit Flash Player 10 FAQ.

Release versions of Flash Player 10 for Windows, Macintosh, and Linux are now available from the Flash Player Download Center.

Adobe, yes Adobe, is now proposing an open platform (built on a mobile version of Air) that would run applications from any carrier’s platform (albeit all those, closed). Now I’m intrigued. Will we finally see a shift from closed, single carrier channels to open if carriers adopt this strategy? And will Adobe of all companies actually lead the way?

Note, this does not mean the applications themselves or the governance of the channels by the carriers would be open, but at least the platform they run applications on could be. This would be a major change in an industry thus far plagued by closed, private and a thousand “one-off” generation implementations. Heck, even Linux mobile adoptions have been “one offs”.

I suspect the challenge here will come in testing these applications across an amazing number of devices and revisions, but if Adobe can replicate its strong Flash success on mobile platforms, perhaps we won’t be stuck in a Silverlight world ;-)

Meanwhile, Adobe is set to follow rival Apple into the mobile apps game, but is seeking to provide a common platform that will be supported across stores from many operators and vendors, rather than creating its own portal. The Flash maker, whose dominance of mobile video streaming is dented by Apple’s refusal to support the technology on the iPhone, will launch a mobile version of its Air product next year.

This will allow the same application to run across many cellphones, unlike its current mobile product, Flash Lite, which varies in implementation between different platforms. Kevin Lynch, Adobe’s CTO, said at Web 2.0: “Of all the technologies on mobile phones, none of them has more than a 50 per cent reach. As a developer, you have to implement your content about 400 times right now. That is a complete mess.”

Another point of interest is Adobe’s royalty free proposal. Adobe … will incent implementers to redistribute their implementations back? Adobe has seriously evolved its attitude… for the better.

For companies that agree to keep their implementations of Air open, so apps can be used from any online site, not just designated store, Adobe will eliminate royalties.

http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/15/200226

http://www.adobe.com/openscreenproject/

Just notice Cote covered the action: http://www.redmonk.com/cote/2008/05/01/adobes-open-screen-project-a-plan-lower-barriers-to-using-flash-checking-up-on-the-ria-wars/

So I would agree this report is fantastic – it provides a view into what’s going on beyond what we “think” happens. The Linux kernel community is a great success story in what Amanda calls “mass community collaboration” – even more ironic because there are many competitors, vendors, academics, hobbyists, customers and other random experts collaborating in one place.

Read the report (it’s “free as in beer”) and find out everything you wanted to know about Linux kernel development (including perhaps that IBM is the #3 contributor to the kernel). The story this report tells is a truly unique feature of the Linux community. You won’t see it anywhere in the communities or practices of other OSs, no matter how “open” they proclaim to have become.

The report is interesting in how it also debunks some myths that somehow get spread around. For instance, some have said “kernel development will slow down as the features catch up to UNIX/Windows”. Not true.

Some have said “Linux is just IBM” or “Linux is just Red Hat” trying to position Linux as dominated or caused by one entity that they’re not fond of. Again, not true (see the section of the report on Contributors).

Finally, take a look at how some end user companies are participating and reaping the benefits of a true collaborative development community. Did you know your next VW will be powered by Linux? Did you ever think the same features that make an auto’s systems “crash-proof” could also help on a server or mobile phone? The VW bullet is a pure example of innovation being applied to adjacent spaces – it would never happen in Windows, AIX or Solaris.

Companies like Sony, Nokia, and Samsung ship Linux as a component of products like video cameras, television sets, and mobile telephones. Working with the development process helps these companies ensure that Linux will continue to be a solid base for their products in the future.

Companies which are not in the information technology business can still find working with Linux beneficial. The 2.6.25 kernel will include an implementation of the PF_CAN network protocol which was contributed by Volkswagen. PF_CAN allows for reliable communications between components in an interference-prone environment – such as that found in an automobile. Linux gave Volkswagen a platform upon which it could build its networking code; the company then found it worthwhile to contribute the code back so that it could be maintained with the rest of the kernel. http://lwn.net/Articles/253425/ for more information on this work.

So with that I will end my praises and simply point you to the source over at the LF website here.

“Adobe’s decision to join the LF is a natural extension of its commitment to open standards and open source, which demonstrates its leadership and foresight in the software industry,” said Jim Zemlin, executive director at The Linux Foundation. “Adobe’s membership will contribute to our goal of increasing even more application development on Linux with a specific emphasis on Web 2.0 applications.”

“Adobe delivers key RIA technologies for Linux users, such as Adobe® Flash® Player and now Adobe AIR™, to deploy RIAs in the browser and on the desktop,” said David McAllister, director of standards and open source at Adobe. “The Linux Foundation is a valuable resource, providing a forum where we can work with the community to ensure Adobe RIA technologies are compatible across the Linux software platform.”

This makes perfect strategic sense for Adobe. I can’t wait to see more Adobe desktop apps running on Linux. Adobe will be at the LF Summit and I believe are participating in DAM.

Press release here: http://linux-foundation.org/weblogs/press/2008/03/30/adobe-joins-linux-foundation-with-focus-on-linux-for-web-20-applications/ 

It’s not my place to determine whether any of the current buzz words today that mingle corporate led open code projects under various licensing and governance constructs are “right” or “wrong”, but I do have a strong opinion that the independent open source projects often have a leg up in building communities, participation, and multi-vendor investment (and often that’s their goal). I also think it’s foolish to expect any single company, commercially led project should behave in any manner other than a commercial business driven by stockholders would. I’m not defending or accusing Sun or any of the OpenDS developers; I’m focusing instead on what fundamental misunderstandings of “open source” may have led to all the hype that’s ensued.

I’ll start by saying I believe the “open” in “open source” projects is not well defined consistently and so confusion abounds when people compare “open source” X project to “open source” Y project. The compare is flawed in that each project may have a completely different reason for existence. Commercially run open source projects are inherently different from non-corporate, multi-vendor, open collaboration projects. That does not mean one is more “evil”, “good” or “bad” but rather that they’re apples and oranges. However, for whatever reason, the ability to view code has led to people lumping them together in the same classification called “open source”.

Linux and OpenSolaris are so different, I cringe whenever I hear people compare them (and yet I get dragged into doing comparisons myself to prove it’s not proper). It’s not that any one approach is by definition right or wrong – they have different reasons for existence. I do believe strongly that “Linux” is a great approach for its community’s goals – but Linux starts with a community, not a vendor’s goals. And so it becomes an issue when you compare a commercially driven project to a community led project – the reason for their existence is entirely different. There are different situations and goals that warrant a different project governance, control, license, and decision making construct for these projects.

Look at Eclipse. For full disclosure, I work at IBM. I’ve also only been at IBM since 2005 so Eclipse “happened” before my time. While Eclipse’ roots trace back to IBM, I don’t believe IBM had a single product that used Eclipse when it was “open sourced”. Some intelligent visionaries at IBM saw that the world needed an extensible IDE and platform for building out the next generation of desktop applications. Eventually Eclipse added Eclipse RCP and today IBM has Lotus Notes, Symphony, Rational, WebSphere and probably other Tivoli and IM tools and products built on Eclipse. Adobe, BEA, Borland, Oracle, SAP (competitors) are all “Strategic Members” of Eclipse and all have products that use Eclipse code (as do many other commercial software vendors). Did IBM intend to make money on Eclipse itself or intend to help its software competitors with code?

What was IBM’s goal then? Could it have been to disrupt the status quo, to change the landscape, foster open standards, build an ecosystem of investors, and ultimately move the industry forward? (something even a vendor as large as IBM could not do alone) I think we all know the answer to that. Just look at the results: a huge membership of Eclipse.org – look at how many of these for profit companies are using Eclipse in their own products. Could Eclipse’ structure be anything other that what it is to have the same impact? I don’t believe so.

Very few Eclipse “members” actually make money on selling the Eclipse code itself – they generate revenue using Eclipse in their products and extensions of the code. These members also reduce cost through collaborative, community based shared development. There are economic drivers and business value moving Eclipse forward. The revenue has moved from selling the IDE or RCP code to selling ancillary products/services leveraging and extending the code. What part of Eclipse Foundation does IBM own and control at Eclipse.org? Answer: None. How many times does “IBM” appear in the Eclipse Foundation Governance Bylaws? Answer: 0. With this independence, the Eclipse community has chosen Eclipse’ future, moving towards the needs of member users, towards innovative new developments, and ultimately has created a very malleable, extensible codebase upon with hundreds (maybe thousands) of products rely – whether IBM liked it or not.

It amuses me to see the OpenSolaris community now in a riff over Sun naming the Project Indiana OpenSolaris distro… well… OpenSolaris (second time’s a charm?). As a corporate company can decide, Sun has chosen to own and control all of the copyright and trademark IP, the Solaris architecture decisions, governance appears to “report” to Sun, Even the OpenSolaris community’s “Constitution” mentions Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is marked with a Sun copyright at the bottom. Sun employees hold 6 out of the 7 Governance Board seats, and all of the opensolaris.org infrastructure is owned and managed by Sun. Anyone who does contribute code must first sign over copyright to Sun, the company. This is not “like Linux” at all and it irks me when people compare them as if they’re similar products that should be compared.

So what standing does any “community member” have to tell Sun not to name Project Indiana what Sun wants to name it? This is not a “Foundation” or independent not for profit project. Sun is ultimately in this to make money on the productization of Solaris (why… after two years are there no competing commercial *Solaris distros as we see with Red Hat, Novell, Oracle, Ubuntu, etc?). The only group with standing to tell Sun what to do is Sun’s stockholders. It could only have been delusion or sheer blindness that led some community members to overlook that OpenSolaris has a different reason for existence and hence differing goals and mission as something like Linux. You cannot and should not compare them and you absolutely should not assume one “should be” like the other.

Look at the results. Start with how many people have contributed code to OpenSolaris (and look at what they’re contributing if you have time). OpenSolaris is Sun’s own project – I can confidently state there is no outside development of any significant substance directing the architecture of Solaris / OpenSolaris different from what Sun the company would have done anyway. Two “community developers” (Juergen Keil and Richard Lowe) account for nearly 40% of all accepted contributions – just two developers. Only 84 developers have contributed anything at all – ever (including small typos fixes, accepted or not). Outside contributors must have a Sun employee review, approve and integrate their code. And after two years, it seems some are starting to just realize, this Sun controlled model may not be the best approach. Those who do suddenly “wake up” have been relying on a false assumption. They assume OpenSolaris exists for them or should be like Linux or some other “open source” project they know about – and the reality is, it never was. It’s all about Sun’s stockholders.

What about Linux? There are approximately 2,000 Linux kernel contributors to each release alone (this does not include the massive work going on above the kernel). Looking at the commercial contributors to Linux, you will find a “who’s who” of IT and electronics vendors (also take a look at the LF membership). With Linux, copyright of the Linux kernel code is retained solely by the authors, there are many non-profit foundations supporting the components of a Linux distribution, and because decision making is merit based by community members, no one company controls (or stops) what goes in. Step back to the start of Linux and it’s obvious the intent for this project’s existence was very different than Sun had for OpenSolaris.

So returning to the subject of the post, I have come to the conclusion that much of the “open source” hype and “hurt feelings” are rooted in fundamental confusion about what “open source” means especially in single-vendor led and controlled projects. The only reason anyone should be surprised by anything Sun does with OpenSolaris, OpenDS, or any of the other Sun open source projects it controls, is because that person has fundamentally created an expectation that access to source code meant more than just that – and that is a flawed assumption.

Commercially led projects are created for commercial reasons. “Community members” should not force their own expectations on these projects or they’re likely to see disappointment, frustrations, and unnecessary hype when the company does something counter to what is expected. The same holds true for other companies as well, including IBM. Consider this Q&A about commercial project expectations from Stephen O’Grady back in June:

Q: Do you think that this Open Commercial Development represents an ideal hybrid of open source and commercial development philosophies?
A: It all depends on your expectations. If the idea is that some of the benefits of open source – be they community QA and bug reporting, feature suggestions, and so on – will be realized via this model, then yes. If the intent, however, is to build a vibrant, open source style community, a la Eclipse, then the answer is no, it isn’t.

It all starts with having the right expectation. Is Sun at fault on anything with OpenDS or OpenSolaris? Hey, no one’s perfect, but who can know for sure? Some may point to poor communication of its intent and goals for the projects (and improper comparisons to Linux). Too often I see Sun executives trying to position OpenSolaris as “like Linux”, but those who do research and homework, will likely understand the reality the hype-driving-community often ignores. Is this the “holy grail”, “silver bullet” answer to squash the hype? Absolutely not; communities will speculate forever. However, it’s easier to stay out of the hype if your message is consistent and clear.

You might be wondering what kicked off this massive post today? The answer is odd, but it was a quote from Bruce Perens in an El Reg article. In case any of the above post left my position to question, I agree with Bruce and this quote seems a great place to end.

“In general open source is only going to work if you let it be a community led project. Sun has had a hard time learning this, and some of their open source projects have had a hard time getting outside contributors, because Sun has insisted on owning the whole thing,” Perens said.

If you use Linux on a desktop, client, or other device, take the annual desktop survey. I know one area of intense interest is what are the devices that you have that lack Linux drivers or you have issues with. Greg KH has be working hard to plug a ton of gaps, but we still hear about ‘this or that’ device, so let the LF know what needs work.

I’m also very interested in the Applications that people want to see on their Linux desktop. I noticed in some of the early stats I saw, Adobe Photoshop was high on the list… I agree.

Anyway, take the survey now. It’s short and easy to complete and you’re helping yourself and the community by providing input.

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flex/flexbuilder_linux/

This is the first release of Flex Builder to support Desktop Linux. This version is based on several features from Flex Builder 3 (codenamed “Moxie”). It includes project creation, code coloring, code hints, compilation, the Ajax Bridge, Find All References, and debugging. Not all Flex Builder 3 features are supported, so be sure to check out the release notes for a list of unsupported features.

I look at Bob Sutor’s list of applications he requires. Sure, you can say “well Bob, you could probably use XYZ instead …” but that’s not the point. The point is Mac has been strumming along now for how long, with a minuscule market share, a small group of (paying) loyal users. Mac offers something that can fulfill Bob’s requirements; it has a market with an ecosystem.

I firmly believe Ubuntu has more users than Apple, but Ubuntu doesn’t have a market the size of Apple. There’s no reason Ubuntu can’t create such a market beachhead the size of the Mac base (I have no doubt it will grow from there). Apple has about 3-5% market share. That’s all it takes. Go into a CompUSA, Best Buy, or Cirtcuit City. You will find printers, webcams, and software with “Mac Ready” logos on them. 3-5% market share. No company could put “L-ready” logos out there – what Logo? The penguin? Which L? Ecosystems need a brand to rally around: hence the iPod has done so well.

To create a market Ubuntu needs to align/coordinate its users and community to establish a defined market with value. What’s tough is measuring “downloads” and “estimating” how many “might” buy XYZ app if you make it available on ‘L-world’ I’ve tried making those business cases; start with a large number at the top and it’ll work, but it’s not reality nor is it credible to most business executives.

This is why Dell is so important – Ubuntu can create a market. (dell.com/ubuntu). And no, Dell’s first attempt in 2000 was not a market attempt – it was foolish. As was Sun’s attempt in 2002. Unfortunately those failed attempts in the past leave business managers and marketers with a ‘bad taste from the last time they tried’ – get over it. The new word is Ubuntu.

Part of the problem has also been a highly fragmented ‘L-word’ user base – the ‘which distro do I pick issue’ – but Ubuntu has done miracles in terms of coalescing users around a single distribution. Dell’s market research clearly showed that with over 80% choosing Ubuntu – that’s never happened before – remember, 3-5%.

So will Dell selling Ubuntu suddenly create a market and put a third desktop OS on the map? No, unfortunately not. It’s a great start, but I think even Mark would agree Ubuntu needs more. (Notice I haven’t said “the L-word” once; I keep referring to Ubuntu). Ubuntu is a brand, one that has to be managed. Part of responsibility for that brand is to create the ecosystem to support your brand.

I put forth that Ubuntu doesn’t need ‘another app’, more drivers, etc. right now. It’s ready. What Ubuntu needs is 1) a few key ISV apps (Apple, Intuit, WoW, Adobe) and a few key hardware/peripheral suppliers (printers, webcams, etc). Here’s where the Dell deal opens up brilliant possibilities. The best part, is Mark ‘gets his users’ – he’s so close to them, he knows we don’t want the “e-value” notebook, we want the one with XMB video card, the top of the line screen. I expect the Dell/Ubuntu choices will not be bargain basement models. The ecosystem also needs a channel to reach the users, the consumers. Where do I go to find my “Ubuntu ready” peripherals, systems, or software? Apple is easy – I know where to go for at least one supplier. Where is my Ubuntu branded webcam? Or at least the partner that supplies a webcam that works with Ubuntu/Dell?

ISVs and hardware peripheral vendors want one thing: sell more. If you can show them how, you can get them to support you. Here’s also an interesting chance for every VC, startup, or other small peripheral vendor out there: leverage the brand, rally around it, and grow a market. Look at blade.org – opened a specification for a bladecenter and over $1B poured into the ecosystem. Publish the “Ubuntu specs” for peripheral makers, make it easy for them to support Ubuntu (not the “L-word”). Make it easy for ISVs with the toolkits, test suites, APIs, and documentation they need to write good applications for Ubuntu. Use e-channels to make it easy for users to acquire, purchase, and update those applications (leverage partners – Linspire…).

You say “sure, great idea, but how” and it’s really not that hard. You pick your battles, carefully. Start with a goal of being the next Mac, not world domination. And don’t talk about the ‘L-word’. Use the brand. Ubuntu, Ubuntu, Ubuntu.

Adobe is making huge changes b/c of Microsoft attacking every corner of their business. That’s what Microsoft does, and Microsoft won’t stop until any potential lock Adobe has on a shred of the market is gone. Adobe needs another brand to attach itself to. Apple is one option. Ubuntu is another option. Ubuntu needs to show the vision of what this new market can become. Ubuntu won’t build it on its own and its users certainly won’t have the clout to do it either. Ubuntu needs partners, needs movers to help it create the market. Ubuntu doesn’t need every peripheral maker, just one. Get Logitech or some small provider who now competes with Microsoft keyboards/mice/webcams/etc. Offer them something of value: access to your brand, a new market. HP already support ‘L-word’ drivers for 90% of their printers. (and the next printer I buy WILL be an HP)

I annoys me everytime I see this:

You know where I found that? HP’s website. They invest how much to create/maintain drivers for over 1,000 printers – and yet they don’t have a ‘brand’ to associate compatibility with…. sad. That particular printer I linked to has drivers for ‘L-word’ Yes, ‘L-word’ – sure they work for all the distributions, but they for sure work on Ubuntu. Brand it. The default should be “it’s Ubuntu compatible” and yes, it most likely works with other L-brands too. I think it’s time for this:

Support. Everyone likes to say “yeah but what about support?” Support is relative (literally). How many of us ‘support’ our family’s IT infrastructure (and likely the DVD/Tivo/etc too). Consumers don’t care where they get help – they just want help. Forums are fantastic places for that. So are Geek Squads. I’ll bet more users could get better help in Ubuntu forums than calling a Microsoft helpline for $85/hr.

3-5%. Ubuntu is sooo close… so close. Leverage the brand, structure everything you do to measure and demonstrate market creation, and start picking a few, motivated, partners. I nearly cried when after talking to Mark about making an effort to get IDC’s Al Gillen to put a number in for Ubuntu…. the report came out and Ubuntu wasn’t even mentioned… don’t worry, Greg and I hammered on his #2 for IDC looking dumb for missing the largest ‘L-word’ user base. Market creation: demonstrably show the market. It’s the only way to the next level.

Dell is a major coupe; leverage the Dell brand, leverage the Ubuntu brand, leverage the bully in the market – show those in the ecosystem a better market. Your users will support you. And if you need help, use a VC, they have a purpose. Most important: become a strategic partner/brand for others, and create a measurable market.

It will be interesting to see Adobe leverage open source as a means to win this game – but, if they did not use an open source tactic here, I’d say the writing was on the wall for Microsoft to take share (I say tactic, b/c they don’t have a full strategy here .. yet at least… please insert Flash/Apollo… ).

Good move by Adobe. The score is Adobe 3, Microsoft 1 by my count. 

Now if I can attempt to script Microsoft’s next move I’ll bet we see Silverlight take an OOXML-like path with some sort of “open” adjective but nothing really open in the sense that “we” would want. Let’s face it Microsoft (and Sun) absolutely cannot stand the thought of Linux growing even more – and so Silverlight will be a half baked attempt to keep Windows users on Microsoft technology with a potential twist to try and speak to sufficient “openness” for 60% of the “community” and customers who prefer open source on Windows anyway. That’s my pure, 100% speculative guesstimate at this time. Microsoft may also chose to do nothing at all…. after all, Microsoft owns native Windows GUI/presentation development. Flash is but a spec of the native user apps that run on Windows. (which could also lead to Microsoft embedding a lightweight CLR into Silverlight as Miguel has speculated)

What would be great is if Microsoft and Adobe could work together on a standard and have a common open source project that could bridge both camps. BUT, I think both companies are still tepid in terms of truly finding ways to move up the stack and compete at new levels instead of at the implementation standard. Adobe is definitely much further ahead though – and if Google or even Eclipse down the road join in, this could get ugly for Microsoft. However, Microsoft seems near intent to prove on their own that they still don’t get it ;-).

All I know is the fun has just begun.