| 1 |
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 06:10:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> Apparently, though unproven, at 13:12 on Friday 03 June 2011, Indi did opine |
| 3 |
> thusly: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 09:20:01AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > Compare how Google goes about doing things with how Adobe does it. |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > The Google Chromium team appears to take security seriously and are open |
| 9 |
> > > and up-front about what they do. |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > Adobe likes to stonewall on issues and create an aura of how sekrit stuff |
| 12 |
> > > is. |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > Which one inspires confidence in fellow geeks? |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > Neither. Adobe is utterly incompetent and apathetic, google is evil |
| 17 |
> > and wants to sell ad space for h3rb41 v14gr4 in your brain. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > Flash is a necessary evil for a lot of us, chrome(ium) is not. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I think of it more a case of there being no viable alternative to Flash[1] |
| 22 |
> whereas Chrom{e,ium} is just one more browser amongst many. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I use Flash myself even though I hate the way it performs. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> [1] There are flash alternatives, but by and large only support out of date |
| 27 |
> features, so they are not really "viable". |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Agreed. I do wish we'd get something open and reasonably well coded to replace |
| 31 |
flash, but I think perhaps the biggest reason for the success of flash |
| 32 |
is its sneakiness in tracking users and ability to enforce DRM. Big Business |
| 33 |
just loves that sort of thing. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
caveat utilitor |
| 37 |
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ |
Archives