As the following image (from the Mozilla Labs Prism page) illustrates, the idea is that Prism splits apart the light coming from the cloud into separate apps. (I know, light doesn’t really come from clouds, but you get the point):

In essence, what Prism does is simply to create a single-url loading instance of firefox without all the browser chrome – so that the application gets an icon of its own, has an entry in the Start menu, is accessible via alt-tab application switching, and the like.

Its an interesting direction for WebRunner, and a good step forward for some specific use cases along the desktop application / web application continuum. Take an app which has offline sync via GoogleGears, run it inside Prism, and you’ve got a desktop application which syncs to the cloud but can also be accessed from other non-prism browsers when you are away from your machine.

(For more info on Prism, see Read/Write Web, Geeks are Sexy, Alex Faaborg’s discussion of its UI, feature suggestions on Prism Brainstorming, Mark Finkle’s discussion of changes from the existing WebRunner, and the forums at Mozilla Labs).

In the process of explaining what Mozilla Labs is up to, the (anonymous?) Mozilla Labs blog entry author said:

Unlike Adobe AIR and Microsoft Silverlight, we’re not building a proprietary platform to replace the web. We think the web is a powerful and open platform for this sort of innovation, so our goal is to identify and facilitate the development of enhancements that bring the advantages of desktop apps to the web platform.

This got the attention of Adobe’s Mike Chambers, who first posted in the comments on the Mozilla announcement, taking issue with the idea that Prism is fundamentally different from AIR. After all, he noted, AIR also runs applications developed on web standards and runs them in a desktop container with some additional desktop-like features:

So, is the main difference between something like Prism and Adobe AIR, that Adobe AIR is being primarily developed by a company (Adobe), and that Prism is being developed by Mozilla?

Later, he expanded on this issue in a blog post: “Mozilla Prism and the Disingenuous Web,” repeating the notion that AIR and Prism seem quite similar in goal and usage, and complaining:

Come on Mozilla, the web development community deserves better than that. Adobe has been an active supporter of the web development community, of open source, of web standards and of Mozilla (donating the ActionScript virtual machine from the Flash Player (Tamarin)). Adobe AIR leverages a number of open source technologies (including Tamarin, SQLite and WebKit) and we actively participate in both of those development communities, and we have been open with our development process for some time.

So what does differentiate Prism from AIR? (See also “AIR, and a Prism” at Technological Musings for another comparison)

Mozilla Prism, for now, is Windows only; Adobe AIR, for now, is Windows and Mac OS only. Both have promised Linux support in the near future.

As several readers pointed out in comments threads on both Mike Chambers post and the one at Mozilla labs, the Mozilla foundation has a better track record at porting applications to Linux than Adobe does. (Flash Player 9 notwithstanding).

(Note that Linux and MacOS X installers are already listed in the Mozilla Labs Wiki – I’m trying one out in Linux now, and it seems to work just fine).

Adobe AIR is based on WebKit (also used in Safari, originally from the Konqueror browser in KDE) for rendering HTML; Mozilla Prism is based on Firefox. AIR can handle flash content, pdf content, or Ajax (HTML/JavaScript) content; Mozilla Prism can as well, though it relies on the same plugins the Firefox browser does to support these other content types.

One significant difference is that Adobe AIR applications are created by developers, who do some “extra work” to create and package their application as an AIR application, whereas Mozilla Prism applications are created by end users, who take an existing web application and tell Prism to run it.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, while AIR “leverages a number of open source technologies (including Tamarin, SQLite and WebKit) and [Adobe] actively participate in both of those development communities, and [Adobe] have been open with our development process for some time” (quotes from Mike Chambers’ blog post), Mozilla Prism is itself an Open Source project (Mozilla Public License).

What this means it that if the development community is unhappy with the directions in which Prism is going, they can fork, and take the existing code base in different directions.

Or, working in collaboration with the existing project, they can extend that code base, taking it to other platforms or contexts.

In other words, I’d say the difference isn’t, to answer Mike Chamber’s question, that one is developed by a company (Adobe) while the other is developed by a foundation (Mozilla), but that one consumes and participates in open source (Adobe AIR), while the other is itself fully open source (Mozilla Prism).

That’s not to say Adobe has not been a good open source citizen or contributed appropriately to WebKit, SQLite, and others – I believe they have contributed substantially to a number of projects. It’s just that an implementation which is fully open is preferable, for many folks, to one which is mostly open except for where it isn’t.

I’m surprised that is still so hard to understand.

Not sure how valuable the slides will be in the absence of my commentary on them, but here they are:

• Two Steps Forward, One Step Back (4.3MB, in ODP format for OpenOffice)
• Two Steps Forward, One Step Back (3.3MB, in PDF format)

Thanks to those who attended and feel free to contact me with any questions.

• Put users into plug-in hell.
• Create Web ghettos.
• Don’t provide accessibility.
• Make search a pain.

It’s a great beginning to a real debate about the place of technologies like Silverlight that many others have been fawning over.

He doesn’t mention one that I would add:

• Require users to accept closed, proprietary software. You can have a completely Free/Libre experience of using the web, until you hit Flash / Silverlight content, which cannot be accessed in a pure open stack, and may never be ported to Linux (Flash Player has finally been ported to Linux – no word on Silverlight).

My only nit to pick is that Apollo’s really not the target here so much as Flash itself is – Apollo’s really about extending web apps (which can be in Flash or Ajax) to the desktop. (The media loves an opportunity to put Adobe up against Microsoft – and painting Silverlight as going up against Flash would require acknowledging how long Flash has been in use).

That said, similar criticisms can be extended, since Apollo only deepens the distinction between those who have it and those who don’t, and extends the life of Flash as a web-delivery mechanism.

Today Joyent announced the public release of Slingshot, a framework for (their words) obliterating the distinction between the web and the desktop.

Slingshot lets developers take Ruby-on-Rails applications and deploy them to desktops (Windows, Mac OS X).

Is it just me, or does the red rock in the slingshot graphic look a bit like the Adobe Apollo logo? Ok, so maybe not a direct version of the logo, but certain the Adobe Apollo red.

Is this a cheaper faster way to get to sent to the moon and back, or just another David vs. Goliath myth?

More on Slingshot, including a quick tour.

Although I am certainly happy to see Adobe moving in the direction of open source, it is good to more closely at the overall picture: what is being open sourced and what is not, which is exactly what Burnette does.

I guess it’s really just a question of “getting it” relative to others. The Flash player is still a closed platform, but at least it is available for Linux, unlike Silverlight.

</update>
—
Adobe seems increasingly to “get it” when it comes to enabling the modern web application environment, leveraging the strengths of the Flash player on all those dekstops, and allowing enough openness for creativity to flourish.

The latest example of which is the announcement this morning that they have open sourced the Flex SDK – compiler, libraries, and all. (Everything but the Eclipse-based IDE, which remains under a commercial license).

In the following video from the PodTech network, Ely Greenfield and David Wadhwani discuss the announcement with Robert Scoble:

Related links:

• Adobe to Open Source Flex (Adobe Labs)
• Adobe to Open Source Flex (press release at Yahoo! Finance)
• Adobe to Open Source Flex (at John Newton’s Content Log)

or ?

Adobe wants you to believe that the name Apollo is a reference to the Apollo project, the series of NASA missions aimed at landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth, a goal set by JFK that’s the point of the Apollo icon, with it’s orbital circle.

But I’ve decided the codename “Apollo” (Kevin Lynch has said that there will be a real release name which is different) is a disguised swipe at Ajax.

Ajax, in Greek mythology, was not a god, but a human hero and King. Interestingly, in the Illiad, he is the only major warrior who receives no assistance from the gods, suggesting “the virtues of hard work and perseverance.”

Microsoft called their Ajax platform (now more prosaicly known as ASP.NET AJAX) Atlas – a Titan and brother to Prometheus who held heaven and earth on his shoulders as a punishment from Zeus for leading the Titans in a revolt against the gods.

(Side note: This is the same Atlas who retrieved the Golden Apples of the Hesperides for Hercules, who tricked Atlas into taking back up the burden of the world on his shoulders).

So why does Adobe choose Apollo? Well, the god Apollo unites art and reason, and is the god of beauty, the sun, music, light, truth – the ideal of beauty. Perhaps Apollo plays in both senses here – rather than holding up the earth (like Atlas) Adobe’s Apollo is taking us to the moon and back, and providing beauty. Ajax was merely human, Apollo divine. Atlas tried to usurp the gods and was punished; Apollo brought order, music, and poetry.

Perhaps it’s time for an open source web/desktop framework named after Dionysus? (See Apollonian and Dionysian)

p.s. The Microsoft codename for what is now called Windows Presentation Foundation was Avalon. Why does Avalon sound familiar? It’s a mythic island associated with King Arthur – where Excalibur was forged, and where Arthur’s body rests. It’s also, though, famous for its beautiful apples. Microsoft admitting to the inspiration for their focus on improved graphics capability?