6. Submitted by Justin, Tuesday 3rd October 2006

I agree with everything you say, except I believe Flash is more important for linux support, then say, something like Google Earth.

The reason is, you see it more and more in everyday browsing. There are also lots of sites that have only Flash versions (for their fancy headers). Sure this is wrong (should be an HTML option in this case), but it's a trend in interactive web design.

Cheersw

7. Submitted by Anonymous, Tuesday 3rd October 2006

"Certainly, we should try and promote FOSS where possible, but sometimes that isn't really feasible."

Actually, it is always "feasible" to "try and promote" FOSS "where possible". In fact, that is the very least we can do. Perhaps you meant to say something about keeping our expectations of the results of such promotion in check.

8. Submitted by Mike, free-bees.co.uk, Tuesday 3rd October 2006

In response to #7:

Perhaps not the best well-written sentence in the article - you seem to have found the words better than I!

9. Submitted by Anonymous, Tuesday 3rd October 2006

Great to see (http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/) after so many years that finally we have an standard and modern GUI library for Linux/Unix:

On http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/ we can read flash9 will run over (amongst others):
- libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
- libgobject-2.0.so.0
- libglib-2.0.so.0

It's nice to see that Gtk is beeing choosen by Java 6, Eclipse, Flash, Yahoo Messenger, Lotus Notes, Acrobat and many other "big ones" in the commercial software arena, as well as the most important OOS projects (Firefox, the Gimp, Evolution, ...).

GTK is boosting a really mature OOS, vendor neutral, alternative to Microsoft parasitic libraries.

10. Submitted by Sid Boyce, Wednesday 4th October 2006

Going way back in Linux history, Adobe was heavily lobbied to port photoshop to Linux, such pleading proved fruitless despite being told that photoshop ran on the Mac emulator (Executor) on Linux. They never issued a statement explaining why they would not port to Linux, just that they didn't support Linux. Much later Disney, no less, requested a Linux port, again Adobe refused, so Disney had to turn to Codeweavers to get photoshop running under Crossover Office.
I would have thought that the stiff competition from Microsoft would have nudge Adobe into considering broadening the range to include Linux which arguably has a wider user base than the Mac.
Surely if they port to Mac OSX, a Linux port would be simple, but as you say, they are a Company together with fixed ideas and fixed prejudices perhaps.