| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 13:12 on Friday 03 June 2011, Indi did opine |
| 2 |
thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 09:20:01AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Compare how Google goes about doing things with how Adobe does it. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > The Google Chromium team appears to take security seriously and are open |
| 8 |
> > and up-front about what they do. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Adobe likes to stonewall on issues and create an aura of how sekrit stuff |
| 11 |
> > is. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Which one inspires confidence in fellow geeks? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Neither. Adobe is utterly incompetent and apathetic, google is evil |
| 16 |
> and wants to sell ad space for h3rb41 v14gr4 in your brain. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Flash is a necessary evil for a lot of us, chrome(ium) is not. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I think of it more a case of there being no viable alternative to Flash[1] |
| 21 |
whereas Chrom{e,ium} is just one more browser amongst many. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I use Flash myself even though I hate the way it performs. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
[1] There are flash alternatives, but by and large only support out of date |
| 26 |
features, so they are not really "viable". |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives