1 |
On Friday 03 Jun 2011 21:07:36 Alan McKinnon wrote: |
2 |
> Apparently, though unproven, at 18:22 on Friday 03 June 2011, Indi did |
3 |
> opine |
4 |
> |
5 |
> thusly: |
6 |
> > > > Neither. Adobe is utterly incompetent and apathetic, google is evil |
7 |
> > > > and wants to sell ad space for h3rb41 v14gr4 in your brain. |
8 |
> > > > |
9 |
> > > > |
10 |
> > > > |
11 |
> > > > Flash is a necessary evil for a lot of us, chrome(ium) is not. |
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 |
> > Agreed. I do wish we'd get something open and reasonably well coded to |
26 |
> > replace flash, |
27 |
|
28 |
I do hope that html5 will do away with it altogether. |
29 |
|
30 |
|
31 |
> > but I think perhaps the biggest reason for the success of |
32 |
> > flash is its sneakiness in tracking users and ability to enforce DRM. Big |
33 |
> > Business just loves that sort of thing. |
34 |
|
35 |
Thankfully, rtmpdump and friends do away with such issues. |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
> Compare skype. Someone just reverse-engineered critical bits of v1.4, I'll |
39 |
> bet money that Skype's (now MS) response will be to tweak the app so that |
40 |
> any open-source implementation gets no response from Skype infrastructure |
41 |
> when used. Same possibility of sneaky shit going on under the surface. |
42 |
|
43 |
I'm looking forward to using it - especially if it will allow me to stop Skype |
44 |
using my machine (and bandwidth) as a proxy node. |
45 |
-- |
46 |
Regards, |
47 |
Mick |