As you may already know, Phoenix is developing an alternative computing environment based on top of its BIOS, called HyperSpace. According to its designers it should run "a collection of commonly-used browser-enabled applications designed to make the Internet browsing experience simple, fast and secure".
Although Phoenix has declared in its FAQ that you will not be able to install/run your own applications on top of the HyperSpace, in a recent interview on MIT's Technology Review said that they are planning to open in June an iTunes-styled store to sell applications.
I'm guessing they are probably up to Apple's business model of providing secure applications via a centralized service thus sooner or later a developer toolkit shall arrive.
Since Qt has an impressive record of cross-platform capabilities, do you believe that Nokia should make an alliance with Phoenix to port the Qt toolkit to the coming HyperSpace application developers? If it's not Qt what should the ideal developing platform for HyperSpace be?
It looks to me that this is basically a dual boot machine.
one boot goes to a version of windows that QT supports (or will presumably support).
one goes to a web browser and will only run web applications or widgets.
If your asking whether QT should allow you to target the second environment, then it all depends on whether that is even remotely compatible with the QT technological choice of including a Webkit engine.
There could also be a licensing issue.
I am not convinced the Hyperspace product is aimed at desktop developers the way QT is. I think it's aimed at web applications developers.
Edit: What you seem to wonder is whether Nokia sees a commercial interest in supporting Hyperspace and whether they have the resources to do it. Unfortunately, I suspect only the head of QT development at Nokia can truly answer that.
"I am not convinced the Hyperspace product is aimed at desktop developers the way QT is"
Qt is aimed at embedded mobile phone apps, they are now owned by Nokia, if Qt happens to run on desktops that is just a nice bonus for Nokia.
Given it's, small size, no external dependencies and 'easy to port'-ness I would have thought Qt was a good start for a bios-os desktop.
Related
I have to develop an application which requires Bluetooth and profile change functionality for Symbian phones. After spending sometime I found that following options:
Java: but java does not allow to change profile
Symbian C++: I read basics for Symbian C++ and created some basic stuffs. Symbian extended APIs provide simple APIs for Profile and Bluetooth (I haven't tested yet). But its required lot of efforts to grab these. Specially certificate singing problem. I want to test my application on different devices and wish to give my friends whom having different cellphones. But couldn't due to signing problem.
QT: I am still confused on this. Whether this platform capable to fulfill my requirement or not. Secondly which phone supports QT or not...
Honestly, I am bit frustrated while writing this. I am looking someone, experience in these matter, to guide me in this situation.
You can combine native C++ with Qt. Though you'll lose some of the cross-platform nature of Qt by mixing native C++ with it.
See the XQProfile example on Forum Nokia Wiki for mixing Qt and native Symbian C++ for profile changing.
Qt can be installed to practically all devices from S60 3rd Edition FP1 (S60 3.1) onwards. Newer device models ship with Qt preinstalled. Forum Nokia has device specifications that you can filter based on Qt availability.
QT (+ QML) is the language of choice going forward. I believe it is currently on the following phones: N8,C7,C6,E7. i version 4.6.1 with version 4.7 which has the QML support due shortly.
However if you need to target current and older devices then your only choice is Symbian C++.
I'm pretty familiar with using Adobe Flex & AS3, and compared with writing apps in JS/HTML I think it's very cool. However, since AIR is essentially a non-browser version of Flex with benefits like local storage, it seems to be competing as a cross-platform desktop application platform... and in that space it's much less mature than more established desktop technologies.
So what's the advantage of creating a desktop application using AIR compared to something like Java (or C++ using a cross-platform GUI library like wxWidgets)? Java's equally capable of communicating with the server for instance, I'm not quite sure what AIR adds when competing head-to-head in the desktop development world?
In my opinion the biggest advantage is productivity (if you are interested only on desktop)- it's much more faster to build a nice UI using Flex compared with Java Swing for example (try to build a transition in Swing). Also the new components from Flex4 allows to do component skinning much easier.
However (as written by Groky) you should take into account also the disadvantages. It would help if you write down what are the main features of your planned app and check how they are handled by various platforms. For example if multithreading is needed AIR is a bad choice.
AIR takes the goodness of Flash Platform cross-platform and as of 10.1 across many cutting edge mobile platforms as well not to mention that Google is actively working with Adobe on the mobile AIR for Android. That's the key perspective here and I think you don't doubt the fact that Google's open-source platform will be big. Android devices make the fastest growing chunk of mobile platforms already. Also, think of the upcoming Chrome OS. Is AIR going to have a role there? I bet it will.
IMHO AIR makes it a lot easier to deploy rich applications across platforms. Rich Applications as in terms of Flash Platform.
See what Wired has done with Adobe on ePublishing. That should answer this question well.
In my experience there is only one advantage:
Cross-platform
However there are a number of disadvantages:
No communication with native platform except by installing a separate server!
Native window handling is very primitive (no modal dialogs!)
Less mature (i.e. buggy)
Fair Question. Well to begin with AIR is not "a non-browser version of Flex" or "a non-browser version of Flash" ADOBE AIR is a run-time that hosts applications created in a variety of protocols including: HTML, JavaScript, AS3. If one is so inclined tools like ADOBE Alchemy will let users who prefer C++/ JAVA to compile code into SWCs and SWFs.
From a designer's perspective ADOBE FLASH, DREAM WEAVER, and FLASHBUILDER provide seamless desktop application development. While from a developers stand point the same code used for web based content becomes available creating desktop application with little to no recoding. This is all without mentioning the ability to leverage existing E-commerce and web based marketing APIs and SDKs; creating a dynamic intelligent experience for the end user on the desktop.
For me and my company, the main advantage is that it's the same code on our website as in our AIR app. This could be a Flex app or HTML/JS app, but you keep the same single codebase.
AIR 2.0 will address Groky's issues, with access to native applications, better window handling, and much less memory intensive, which led to lots of bugs in 1.0/1.5.
If you don't have a web app already, and you're not locked into AS/JS, then there's no real reason to go with AIR over Java/.Net/PxWidgets... unless you like the look of the latest Flex 4 components, which is quite nice.
I think it's because:
Cross platform
Very easy to develop - learning AS/JS/HTML is much easier than learning C++/Java/MFC. Most of the requirements are not that strict. I developed many tools with AIR/Flash for myself to save me hours of work. If I do that in C++, I will surely waste more.
This is not a pure technical question, but I believe answers will help the RIA community.
We are a software development company working on development of a stock trading product. We chose to use Adobe Flex (in mid of 2008) due to its browser penetration and its maturity relative to Silverlight. We already developed the system, and we are quite happy with it.
Now we are planning to launch the second version of our product, and it will feature a much more advanced user interface -- basically a framework of dockable windows and panes as in Visual Studio 2005 and onward, etc. We searched on the internet and found that the market of 3rd party components for Adobe Flex is still very small, but for Microsoft's Silverlight there are many advanced 3rd party components available e.g. data grids, docking frameworks, etc.
When can we expect the same type of components in Adobe Flex? What do experts think if we develop to the new version of Silverlight (Expertise in Adobe Flex vs. Silverlight is not an issue at the moment, assuming we have to develop everything from scratch).
The launch of next version is expected to be in mid 2010. Any feedback regarding this is highly appreciated.
I can tell you from direct experience that Flex is a more productive platform. I work for a large RIA consultancy that builds a large number of apps with both Flex and Silverlight and we see that equivalent functionality in SL takes about 10-20% longer to develop than in Flex. Data binding support in Flex is significantly easier to use than in SL. I can also tell you that a suitably-experienced Flex developer could easily build a MDI toolkit in Flex with a couple of weeks of development time. So I would advise you to consider hiring experienced Flex developers rather than shelling out money for SL components.
SL does have a big advantage in that C# can be used on both the client and server and business logic can be reused in both tiers. This is significant and should not be discounted. ActionScript doesn't have a server-side counterpart and lacks this ability, although Flex does play nicely with a number of different backend technologies, especially Java using BlazeDS. Silverlight services integration has a variety of options on the .NET side (see Bart's comment below) while Flex can use very performant AMF in both RPC and data push (messaging). BlazeDS is free and open source.
I also think basing your decision for a development platform solely off the availability of 3rd party components is not a great idea. Putting that aside, MS platforms have always had a huge number of component development shops and a wide variety of components to choose from. It's likely even with a smaller market share that SL will have a bigger selection of 3rd party components than Flex moving forward.
Finally, I don't think MS is going to be giving up on Silverlight anytime soon. They are aggressively developing new features for SL4 and the Blend tool offers some innovations for designer/developer interactions that even Adobe is struggling to match with their new Catalyst tool.
If you have to make the decision today, I'd say go with Flex, especially for a public-facing application where you don't want to lose users because they can't or won't install the SL plugin. In 12-18 months I'm confident that SL will give Flex a much bigger run for its money but I don't think it's there, yet.
Although I cannot give you the desired answer, I hope I can give you a couple of good questions and ideas that maybe help you in the process:
City Coder: Flex 3 versus Silverlight 3 in Enterprise development
Microsoft Silverlight vs. Adobe AIR/Flex Debate
I personally think, that Adobe Flash is going to lose a noticeable user base in the near future duo to new features in the upcoming html 5.0 standard. Furthermore I prefer the tools (Visual Studio), addons and languages (C#) over the Adobe equivalents and I would consider these superior. However I have to emphasis that this is only from my perspective.. :)
A few people in this thread assume that you can't develop Flex or Flash-based projects with Visual Studio. From 30th August, 2010 that is no longer true. You may want to look at Amethyst which is a VS visual (drag+drop) Flash Platform IDE with a multi-process debugger, IntelliSense and refactoring: http://www.sapphiresteel.com
best wishes
Huw
actually i am also thorn between the 2. in fact, i still considered Flash, but sort of struck that off because thats more for animations rather than RIAs. with Flex, theres AIR to enable deployment in both desktop and web, tho i havent tried it and dunno how easy isit to use. and i also am not sure if Silverlight can be used as a desktop app anyone?
comparing Flex and Silverlight, i dont think we shld just base our judgment on what is more widely used now. Silverlight maybe something good!
just starting exploring the 2 and find Silverlight's XAML markup more intuitive than Flex mxml. further more Silverlight will integrate with C# which is getting better with LINQ and all. so data binding, an important part of any RIA is better. for Flex, one can probably link up with something like PHP with AMF but seems abit harder from what i saw. that said i am not really familiar with both.
UPDATE: and Flex is open source now while Silverlight closed right? so Flex can be said to be cheaper to use.
One thing to consider is Microsoft's dedication to Silverlight. Silverlight is not taking off. How long are they going to stick with it? If the next version of Silverlight doesn't get significant market penetration, is Microsoft going to continue supporting it?
Even if they do stick with it, and even if it does take off, are they going to do like they did with Internet Explorer: develop it into the most awesome browser available at the time with IE6, and then coast for 5+ years and become a major thorn in developers' hides?
Silverlight doesn't have a lot to do with Windows. People using Silverlight does not make Microsoft much money. There's not an especially compelling business case for MS to push Silverlight.
Silverlight doesn't offer anything to the users that Flash doesn't. It's the users that are going to drive Silverlight adoption, and until there's a compelling case for me to install it on my computer (which it's not, incidentally), it's staying off.
Flex is a natural companion to Flash, which is one of Adobe's flagship products. Adobe's not going to drop Flex. Even if they did, it's entirely open-source, and Flex development could quite definitely proceed even if Adobe fell into the ocean tomorrow. (Flash runtime is not open source, unfortunately, but it's a quite good multiplatform implementation of a mostly open SWF standard, with open source implementations progressing)
I work in a .NET/Flash shop. We use Flex to talk to a .NET back-end. It can be a pain in the ass to get them to interoperate (although not impossible). I like .NET. It would be great to be able to develop our front-end in C#. I would love it. But we're not willing to bet the farm on Silverlight, given MS's technology parade.
One of the most important thing in our decision on our future RIA technology is RTL support (specifically Arabic). I am very disappointed to hear that Arabic(RTL) is still not supported in Silverlight 3.0, on the other hand it is now supported on Adobe Flex 4. and I don't want to apply all non-standard tricks again that we used in our existing version of application (which is based on Flex 3). so Now One problem is solved in Flex but still remains in Silverlight... and still no docking framework in Flex, so it is going to be stalemate I guess.. :).
I will keep you updated regarding any new findings of our research...
One word (or two) --> "Open-source"
The world is going open source. Think android vs apple
How will you run applications for clients on Linux platform with any amount of confidence.
Right now I am not a netflix customer because no "Moonlight" support.
I have three computers at home all running Linux (Cannot shellout money to buy Windoze license) !
Think target market (and where it will be in the next few yrs)
Flex is more compatible with browsers, as it runs on top of Flash. Silverlight, however, needs to be downloaded, which might be a problem for users behind a proxy or network (in a workplace, for example, you can't install things). Flex also has a better framework than Silverlight, so you can customize a component in a few clicks and keystrokes.
I agree with you that VS and C# are more mature than their Flex counterparts (FB3 and ActionScript, respectively), but you'll get used to it quickly.
Then again, I am a Flex developer, and not a Silverlight developer, so my opinion can be somewhat biased. However, I did choose Flex over Silverlight because I thought that it was more compatible (nearly everyone has Flash Player) and has better support than Silverlight, and I don't regret my decision thus far.
If it is a stock trading product, does it stream the stock price in real-time? If it does, the cost of streaming the data will make some difference.
Both of them support some kind of data push (RTMP vs. Socket) and smart polling (RTMPT/RTMPS vs. HttpDuplexPollingChannel).
Infrastructural cost: Flex uses LCDS/BlazeDS while Silverlight uses IIS.
Development cost: RTMP/RTMPT/RTMPS is already defined (and cannot be changed) while you need to define your own protocol for socket (you need to handle security and compression yourself)
From programming perspective, Silverlight should be better since XAML is drawing the interface and C# updates the state of XAML components. There are plenty of C# developers and Expression Studio to create the XAML components.
MXML is relative simple and you need Flash to draw the fancy UI. You can wait for Flex 4 (in beta) with FXG support, however. Then, it might get better support for third-party components.
If you have expertise on both products is hard to say, from my side having an IDE like Visual Studio is a plus (I'm a .net developer), and using the same language on server (services) and client side it's something that makes me feel quite comfortable.
I would say... go for a Proof of Concept, take a week, make two teams (same level approx.), and check in a week (without any formal testing, or formal designing) to progress in Flex and SL (for the third parties they can take advante of all the trial versions). After that week check how far the have gone and their findings.
A waste of time one week? Try to focus as a live wireframe for your final app.
Good luck
Braulio
I don't think I could speculate on when or if Flex will have a similar number of 3rd party components. Many of the Silverlight components developed by companies like Telerik and DevExpress are ports or updates of existing .NET components. You might want to do a survey of companies that develop components for other Adobe products and ask on their forums if they plan to release a Flex product. Aside from that all I have to go on is what's available today and it sounds like you've already done the research on existing technologies. Good luck!
I have worked a bit with Flex but being more .Net oriented I can't say Flex can get any close to Silverlight in terms of developing business apps. Specially with RIA Services V2 and all the suit of .Net framework and visual studio everything is so integrated and professional.
The only reason I would consider not using Silverlight is if the product has public audience and you are going to loose customers due to low penetration of silverlight.
Ther is flex dock : http://code.google.com/p/flexdock/
And there is dock able flex : http://code.google.com/p/dockableflex/
What's all this business about Flash, Flex, Adobe Air, Java FX and Silverlight? Why would I choose one over the other? and what happened to Java Applets and ActiveX controls?
Oh, and where does AJAX fit in to all this? and is Laszlo relevant?
Afteredit (in response to some "d'uh" type answers): the question is a bit tongue-in-cheek. I know about the various RIA technologies. I am, however, interested in the StackOverflow community's opinion about each - particularly why you would use one over the other
Big topic and it would take pages to provide a full answer so here is the "short" version...
Adobe Flex/AIR is by far the most mature RIA platform out there and it runs in FlashPlayer. You write apps using ActionScript (similar to Javascript) and MXML (markup used primarily for layout/view code). You can also deploy Flex applications easily to the desktop if the user has the AIR runtime installed.
Silverlight is Microsoft's offering which is still quite a bit behind Flex but is rapidly gaining ground. The SL runtime is new and slowly gaining a larger install base. You can use C#, VB.NET or other languages supported by the .NET runtime. It runs on Windows and Mac but doesn't run on the desktop.
JavaFX is a platform, API and scripting language for building RIA on the Java platform. It's the newest entry and just recently had its 1.0 release. It can run in the browser or the desktop and can leverage any and all Java code. Given how much open source Java code exists this can be pretty compelling.
AJAX / DHTML is primarily an alternative to these technologies, although since FP, SL and Java all have two-way Javascript APIs, you can write applications that use both and allow them to interoperate.
Flash/Flex, JavaFX, and Silverlight are tools for developing rich internet applications (RIA). You're probably very familiar with Flash applications, which are frequently full of animation and other effects. JavaFX and Silverlight let you develop similar applications. Laszlo fits into the same picture.
Silverlight is Microsoft's entry, and it is designed to work in the .NET stack. JavaFX is Sun's new offering, and it is designed to work with the Java Virtual Machine. To oversimplify Adobe AIR, it is an attempt to get RIA content to run seamlessly on the desktop (JavaFX provides this as well).
Applets haven't gone away, they just suffered from a bad implementation of the JVM in web browsers. JavaFX is the new heir to applets.
AJAX is very different; AJAX is a way to use a browser's existing capabilities, without plugins, to provide seemingly rich and interactive webpages. It uses JavaScript and XML. While some AJAX applications are undeniably cool, it is not as easy or as natural to develop Flash-style RIAs.
I know nothing about flex and air, but Flash, Java FX and Silverlight are all web technologies that essentially do the same thing vying for market share because none of these companies (Adobe, Sun, and Microsoft, respectively) wants to give the other an edge and/or not control the major content delivery platform on the web. That's it in a nutshell. Market speak would probably include something like "rich internet applications" or something like that.
ActiveX was, unless I am mistake, a huge festering security hole, that is largely abandoned even by Microsoft and Java applets never took off in the way sun wanted them to. I am not quite sure why, but I think they lacked the simplicity that attracted people to flash.
Ajax has nothing to do with all this. Ajax is just a way to keep an entire page from refreshing by dividing it up into subsections that refresh independently. Again, this is me trying to explain this all as non-technically as possible.
EDIT: It seems I approached this answer the wrong way. To get alittle more technical; Flash is the most mature of the bunch. Silverlight and JavaFX are essentially babies, and while both Microsoft and Sun are trying to woo developers from their existing base (.net and java), I don't know if anyone can say anything definitive about either technology. It is going to take alittle while to see what technologies take off.
Sounds like you need to fire up Google and do a little research and reading. Start with "rich Internet application" or "RIA", or simply enter those terms and enjoy.
Consider the first three to be synonyms; JavaFX is the Sun offering; Silverlight is Microsoft's entry.
Nothing "happened" to applets or ActiveX controls, they're both still with us. They're a bit dated and fallen out of favor. Applets had their heyday when teapots first danced on the Web; ActiveX controls have some security issues.
Laszlo appears to be the inspiration for Flex, according to this.
I have been building enterprise software for the last 10 years. In this time we have seen enterprise applications move from client server to thin clients. We have also seen the move to hosted solutions, albeit under a few names (asp, SaaS, cloud computing). With all these changes the impetuous has been mainly from driven from the IT department not the end user. In the first rounds of these revolutions the user experience was reduced in the name of single point of management and reduced desktop footprint.
During this time there have been many attempts to give the user a rich experience while still satisfying the crotchety IT department. The first was by the industry leader Microsoft in the form of the ActiveX control. The guys from Sun then followed suit with the applet and then more recently java webstart. All of these solutions seemed to scratch the itch but never gained wide expectance by the more stringent IT departments.
Then flex came on the scene from Macromedia. What did they do differently? Is it sustainable? Does Microsoft’s emulation with Silverlight prove they have changed the rules of the game? Will Web programming be changed forever?
Adobe have succeeded because almost all users of the main browsers on the main platforms already have installed the only runtime component required for Flex; which is the Flash player. The Flash player has already demonstrated that it isn't a vector for Bad Stuff; it runs in its own sandbox in the browser, isolated from the hardware and the OS. So no new (and potentially dangerous) software is installed.
There exists a substantial developer community for Flash technology, and the addition of some new controls in Flash, and maturity in ActionScript for writing software, has tipped it over the threshold for being fully useful as a RUI.
(Activex is Windows-0nly; Anything in java is perceived as destabilizing and too heavy; and java hasn't managed to wangle its way into ubiquity, nor will it probably ever do so. So both generally get installed by edict, rather than user choice. This in spite of the fact that Adobe is probably the most disruptive source of unrequested "update-checkers" and other near-malware we deal with in our ecosystem.)
Microsoft started out with Silverlight pretty aggressively, requiring only the installation of the equivalent of the Flash runtime; but it's not ubiquitous even on Windows machines yet; penetration to other platforms is quite a way in the future; and MS hasn't proven to have the political smarts to appear harmless yet. But don't count it out. I think they've moved a step back by switching to .NET languages (with a limited CLR) for development; this seems to me to be the same strategy that has deoxygenated their WinCE strategy; but again we'll see. But at least they have made an obvious move away from language agnosticism to appearing to want to coerce developers into .NETland.
Web programming is changing forever one way or another; users will demand a better, more fine-grained UI; there's no perfect answer in sight yet, but at least there is competition for hearts and minds. I think the most encouraging signs come from Microsoft's strong move into platform-neutral stuff like MVC, Iron Stuff, and increasingly unpolluted code streams to the browser.
My take on Flex's success:
1- Adobe made the right move in opensourcing not only AIR, but Flex, the Flash VM, and the PDF standard now as well.
2- Flex's rich Flash heritage (it runs on any Flash enabled browser) means that the vast majority of browsers already support it and do not need to download a large plugin to access it.
3- Adobe embraced all the major server-side technologies and provided support for them so that a PHP. MS, or Java shop would all feel comfortable using Adobe's client side technology.
Previously, Flex was closed-source, expensive, and even relied on a server-side installation, which negated it's reach even though the Flash client was so widely available.
YouTube and the general ubiquity of
Flash video entrenched the Flash
player into over 95% of the browsers
that are accessing the public
Internet.
Incorporating Flex GUI for form
design with widgets and an extremely
well designed GUI SDK was a major
turning point for the Flash player.
Flex 2 and Flashplayer 9 were the
tipping points of when this
technology really jelled. Enterprise
developers began to quickly realize
that this technology was just the
right approach for doing their
applications. (At JavaOne in 2006,
Adobe Flex 2 was the most impressive
and pivatol technology that I saw
there.)
The Flash runtime has just enough
stuff to run RIA GUI well in a web
browser sandbox setting - Java
applets required the full JRE (about
16 MB). The Flash runtime was a much
leaner and smarter design for its
intended purpose. (Sun has only now
begun to remedy this for Java via
their JavaFX and redesigned JRE that
can download a few MB as sufficient
to run a web applet. They don't have
anything like YouTube Flash video to
drive their installations, though.)
Writing Flex RIA applications is a
very leveraged experience compared
to writing old-school web
HTML/JavaScript AJAX apps. Can
achieve a great deal more and have
less effort to accomplish such.
Adobe bolstered Flex with other
important pieces, such as BlazeDS
(and now they're cooperating with
SpringSource to make BlazeDS and
Spring-Framework a smoother
integration).
The single-thread GUI in combination
to async service calls (or
messaging), and ActionScript3
closures is great programming model:
Flex Async I/O vs Java and C#
Explicit Threading
Likewise, Adobe Flex has a great
implementation of properties,
events, and databinding.
A declarative language, ala MXML, is
indeed a better approach to
describing a form (what is
essentially the view in the MVC
pattern). It is more concise than
equivalent imperative ActionScript
code that would accomplish the same
thing, and thus clearer. The
hierarchical structure of MXML
script tends to naturally match well
to the panel/widget construction of
views as well.
With Flex RIA approach, the MVC
pattern can be implemented
completely on the client tier. Web
frameworks that implemented MVC in
the middle-tier - with the
presentation layer executing in the
remote client-tier, was a
fundamentally flawed approach to
MVC. MVC should be done right at the
tier that is directly user-facing.
(Once again, Adobe Flex does things
right architecturally.)
Despite that HTML/DOM/JavaScript is
considered the pervasive standard of
the Internet web, the Adobe Flash
player is actually a more ubiquitous
and consistent standard - spanning
different browsers and operating
system platforms. The
HTML/DOM/JavaScript standard is in
actuality a fragmented mess that
grows more fragmented everyday as
Google and Microsoft drive different
directions on things regarding the
web browser. Adobe Flash player ends
up being a wonderful end-run around
this dilemma. It's a great
programming experience for the
coders and has sufficient ubiquity
for the business suits.
Adobe is smartly well supporting the
major platforms of Windows, Mac OS
X, and Linux. They pay special
attention to the Linux platform.
This will pay off in the long term
as developers are already settling
on Linux to do their development
from, and it's used extensively for
servers hosting their middle-tier.
Adobe's recent 64-bit Flash player
for Linux is just a marvel. They
already have AIR 1.5 available on
Linux. They are doing a decent job
there of supporting the platform
that the developers care about.