| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 18:22 on Friday 03 June 2011, Indi did opine |
| 2 |
thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > > Neither. Adobe is utterly incompetent and apathetic, google is evil |
| 5 |
> > > and wants to sell ad space for h3rb41 v14gr4 in your brain. |
| 6 |
> > > |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > Flash is a necessary evil for a lot of us, chrome(ium) is not. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > I think of it more a case of there being no viable alternative to |
| 14 |
> > Flash[1] whereas Chrom{e,ium} is just one more browser amongst many. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > I use Flash myself even though I hate the way it performs. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > [1] There are flash alternatives, but by and large only support out of |
| 23 |
> > date features, so they are not really "viable". |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Agreed. I do wish we'd get something open and reasonably well coded to |
| 28 |
> replace flash, but I think perhaps the biggest reason for the success of |
| 29 |
> flash is its sneakiness in tracking users and ability to enforce DRM. Big |
| 30 |
> Business just loves that sort of thing. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Compare skype. Someone just reverse-engineered critical bits of v1.4, I'll bet |
| 33 |
money that Skype's (now MS) response will be to tweak the app so that any |
| 34 |
open-source implementation gets no response from Skype infrastructure when |
| 35 |
used. Same possibility of sneaky shit going on under the surface. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives