| 1 |
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 10:20:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> Apparently, though unproven, at 18:22 on Friday 03 June 2011, Indi did opine |
| 3 |
> thusly: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > > > Neither. Adobe is utterly incompetent and apathetic, google is evil |
| 6 |
> > > > and wants to sell ad space for h3rb41 v14gr4 in your brain. |
| 7 |
> > > > |
| 8 |
> > > > |
| 9 |
> > > > |
| 10 |
> > > > Flash is a necessary evil for a lot of us, chrome(ium) is not. |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > I think of it more a case of there being no viable alternative to |
| 15 |
> > > Flash[1] whereas Chrom{e,ium} is just one more browser amongst many. |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > > |
| 18 |
> > > |
| 19 |
> > > I use Flash myself even though I hate the way it performs. |
| 20 |
> > > |
| 21 |
> > > |
| 22 |
> > > |
| 23 |
> > > [1] There are flash alternatives, but by and large only support out of |
| 24 |
> > > date features, so they are not really "viable". |
| 25 |
> > > |
| 26 |
> > > |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > Agreed. I do wish we'd get something open and reasonably well coded to |
| 29 |
> > replace flash, but I think perhaps the biggest reason for the success of |
| 30 |
> > flash is its sneakiness in tracking users and ability to enforce DRM. Big |
| 31 |
> > Business just loves that sort of thing. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Compare skype. Someone just reverse-engineered critical bits of v1.4, I'll bet |
| 34 |
> money that Skype's (now MS) response will be to tweak the app so that any |
| 35 |
> open-source implementation gets no response from Skype infrastructure when |
| 36 |
> used. Same possibility of sneaky shit going on under the surface. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Just about everythng Microsoft touches goes bad. |
| 40 |
R.I.P Skype. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
caveat utilitor |
| 44 |
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ |
Archives