Re: FLASH: RE: OLD players

[unique]

>John Dowdell wrote:

>

>>Tech support has been pushing for such a historical online repository for a

>>long time, but -- when you stop to think about versions and sub-versions

>>and installers and all -- there are significant implementation problems to

>>overcome.

>

>Ken Sherwood wrote:

>

>>Could you please note the problems? I just don't get it.

>

>The situation that JD is referencing concerns the problems with 

>getting *old* files up and live. Frankly speaking, the idea of 

>making old files available can cause a lot of problems.


I STILL don't get it. WHAT are the "PROBLEMS" that you guys keep 

referring to? Just make two zip files: one with all the Mac plugins 

in it, and one with all the PC plugins in it.


Simple. Straightforward. WHERE'S the problem?


>When you think

>about it, most software companies DO NOT provide old versions of 

>their products.


It *ain't* about "companies". It's about "companies who provide 

successive generations of browsers or plugins, many older versions of 

which ARE *STILL IN USE* by many surfers. To the best of my 

knowledge, Netscape and Microsoft provide *former* versions of their 

browsers. In my imagination, one of their primary purposes in doing 

this is a *desire to accomodate* the needs of their *developers* ... 

a desire that MM apparently lacks.


>Once a new version is out, the old ones are history.


NOT SO! Your statement implies that they suddenly disappear from 

surfers' Plugins folders. How ridiculous. If Macromedia had set up an 

"automatic update" procedure for the Flash plugin, as they *have* 

with the Shockwave plugin, this silliness that we're bantering about 

here would be unnecessary. But you DON'T. WHY NOT?


>Please note that I said "most" companies. I'm sure you can think of 

>exceptions.


Just the two major companies who provide browser software! I'd hoped 

(naively, it seems) that MM would take a similar, more benign public 

stand toward their developers' *clearly stated* needs regarding this 

matter.


>Our company's goal is to give everyone


Everyone? Then why no automatic updates?


>the newest and latest Flash Player.


Yet statistics promoted by your people in other current threads here 

tell us that about how *half* of all surfers DON'T EVEN have ANY 

Flash 4 plugin. Such info DESTROYS your contention that "the old ones 

*become history*" (emphasis mine).


>An exception


An exception to WHAT? MM's unwillingness to *really* "open source"?


>was made so that developers can test their work easier

                                                  ^^^^^^

Well, geez, thanks for cutting us a break.


>without having to track the files down on their own.


Yet you only have given us a small handful of ALL OF the plugins.


>This runs contrary to our internal mechanisms.


Well then, your mysterious "internal mechanisms" certainly aren't 

oriented toward supporting your developers, right? We *need* them. 

Has MM not yet heard this?


You say that our need runs counter to your company's typical policy. 

How do you expect us to react to your statement of such an adamant 

position, taken on the part of your company?


>  A considerable amount of work was done internally - much of the 

>legwork by yours truly, for this TechNote - and it was purely as a 

>gift to all of you developers. Seriously.


For which I've already publicly expressed gratitude -- or, at least, 

benign silence.


But, again, how much trouble would it be to make two zip files and 

post them? If I'd been diligent and anal retentive from the 

beginning, I'd have in my possession all of the necessary files, and 

I could do it myself, WITH *NO* so-called "PROBLEMS"*.


WHAT, EXACTLY, is the source of the so-called "problems" that you 

guys seem to be having with this concern of ours? You keep saying 

"problems" BUT you never make it clear as to *what* these "problems" 

really are.


I suspect PROBLEMS on your end, getting through to Management that 

Developers MATTER. PLEASE, prove me wrong.


>We don't normally offer this sort of service,


I suppose that this statement from you is meant to assure that all of 

us will feel PROPER GRATITUDE for what you seem to be trying to 

describe as some sort of heroic effort. My relatively meaningless 

personal opinion is, too little, too late.


Now you really have me curious about the distinction between those 

services that you DO offer normally, and those that your company has 

decided to DENY to their developers, as a matter of corporate policy.


I'm also curious about who, exactly, sets these ultra-conservative 

policies which appear to disfavor the interests of developers, in 

favor of Macromedia's Need for Control of Everything. You've made all 

of these plugins available, over time ... why not all of them, NOW? I 

still don't get it, and I'm rarely daft.


>and it took several departments working together to make these files 

>available.


~~:-| Matt, are you serious? Find 25-or-so files, put them in a 

folder, zip the folder, put it on the server. WHY IS THIS A "PROBLEM"?


>As JD pointed out, no amount of exclamation points


I never use more than one in a row, best to my knowledge.


>(or swearing)


Gosh. Did I say "Hell" or "damn"? Sorry if I did; I get perturbed at 

the apparent ETERNAL communication breakdown. You guys keep saying 

"problem". I keep saying "no apparent problem".


Who's correct?


>is going to make people pay attention. I personally do this because 

>it's satisfying


Look Mark. I'm not attacking you. You and JD serve as "symbols" and 

as points of focus for discussion, that's all. Sometimes when I type 

"you", I mean "you," Mark W. And sometimes when I say "you" I mean 

MM. It all sorta blends anyway.


>and I enjoy doing what I can for people.


I see that, admire that, and believe that *that* is the only way to 

survive the workplace.


>(I get paid, as well.)


Just MM's way of suggesting that they might actually care about your 

personal financial concerns! :-)


Sorry to hang a hook on that, but: we Flash developers have 

*concerns* too, and I'll bet that we'd universally appreciate greater 

support from MM regarding this matter!


>However, it certainly makes you question this when people still have the nerve


... kind of a "nervy" thing to say, from an MM rep to MM's customers!


>to complain, even after you have done for them things that you were 

>not mandated to do.


DONE WHAT? A small smattering of plugins? That IS NOT what we have 

been asking for!


Hopefully, by now, what we ARE asking for is clear. If not please let me know.


I never have wanted to appear unappreciative of MM's efforts on our 

(Flash developers') behalf. If I have, I attribute it to excessive 

vehemence about this particular current concern, and I sincerely 

apologize for any miscommunication regarding my intent.


And, Mark, what is this talk about "mandate"? WHO has the power to 

issue such a mandate? Certainly not us developers. We issue 

"requests" and "wishes" (per MM's avenues of communication).


>I would suggest that we stop asking "why" and start asking "how".


GLADLY ... my MAIN POINT.


*HOW* is it possible that MM thinks it can pull the wool over its 

Flash developers' eyes and expect us to believe that wrapping 25 

Flash plugins into a zip file constitutes a "PROBLEM"?


Hopefully you will answer this *ONE* question for me.


TIA,


Ken Sherwood


p.s. BTW, some feedback:


MM's technotes search engine has been buggy for several days. Can't 

sort search results by column.


p.p.s. John Dowdell wrote in this thread:


>  What, specifically, would you like beyond that set of sixteen 

>antique players?


My reply: John, 'love ya, but please count again. NOT 16. 14. Plugins 

Flash 2, and Flash 3, for Win 3.1 vs. Win '95+, are the same.


A paltry subset of the *univeral* set.


And, hasn't it been obvious, all along, that what we're asking for is 

a *complete set* of historic plugins? Around 50 of them?


Is it really so hard for MM to imagine WHY we might be wanting these?


--


                               ATTENTION MACROMEDIA:


                                 Historic plugins.

                                   We want them.

                                   We need them.

                                 May we have them?

                                 If not, why not?


flasher is generously supported by...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     flashforward2000 and The Flash Film Festival

  "The World�s Premier Flash Solutions Conference and Expo"

 March 27-29, Nob Hill Masonic Center, San Francisco, California


-Register before Feb 25 and save $200!!-- www.flashforward2000.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to

http://www.chinwag.com/flasher or email

helpchinwag [dot] com