Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:18:50 +0100 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: flashplugin Message-ID: <20091028231850.2054c7d3.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20091028175520.5822fcb3@scorpio.seibercom.net> References: <4AE3944A.4090602@videotron.ca> <20091025062322.GA985@sandcat> <4AE63986.6090106@videotron.ca> <20091027051352.417ce684@scorpio.seibercom.net> <1256674827.6414.8.camel@lenzinote.wrinfo> <4AE7696F.1030601@videotron.ca> <20091028125318.44ee6593@elena.home> <20091028141025.248563e3.freebsd@edvax.de> <4AE8435E.7030202@videotron.ca> <20091028210542.4bde5c3a.freebsd@edvax.de> <4AE89F54.7000901@videotron.ca> <20091028222553.224ba333.freebsd@edvax.de> <20091028175520.5822fcb3@scorpio.seibercom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:55:20 -0400, Jerry <gesbbb@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:25:53 +0100
> Polytropon Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> replied:
>
> [snip]
>
> >That's not FreeBSD's fault. If "professional web designers"
> >need to "optimize" their content in order to prevent you from
> >properly accessing it, it's their fault. I would complain to
> >them, or just ignore them. Content that its creator doesn't
> >want me to see is not worth seeing.
>
> You don't really believe that do you.
> Web creators attempt to make their
> sites accessible to the largest possible audience.
Let's say, they *should*. I've seen (or not seen) web pages...
for example one that doesn't even tell you which page you
are on without "Flash". Very useful for blind persons.
> It is probably cost
> prohibited, if even reasonably possible to make a site 100% viewable in
> every browsers (don't forget lynxs) available.
In most cases where "Flash" is used, it is used to annoy
users with animated advertisement (where previously animated
GIFs had been used) or to implement something that simple
as a list of further links (which can be done in HTML, in
JavaScript, but shouldn't require a proprietary plugin).
If a web page is viewable in lynx, it's high quality. The
term "quality" does not refer to the amount of different
media embedded, nor does it refer to the amount of different
fonts, font sizes, colors and images used. It refers to what
you said: "largest possible audience". This includes all
the "exceptions", such as blind users who need a readout
on a braille line, or a synthesized speech output.
You can, however, achieve this with "Flash", if you embed
it correctly and maybe offer an alternative ("No 'Flash'
version") of the content. The same is for using the alt=
and longdesc= attributes in HTML for images.
Okay, I will be honest: Nobody does this today anymore.
Well... I do... but I'm completely mad.
> Any intelligent business
> plan would dictate that they therefore concentrate on the largest
> possible audience.
Let's say, the largest subset of the possible audience, that
would be more correct. Web developers, as well as cretors
of viruses and malware, rely on what the majority of PC users
do use: "Windows" and "Flash". If this is present, fine. If
not... "NO CONTENT FOR YOU! NEXT ONE!" :-)
> This problem, like the nVidea 64 bit drivers, rests with FreeBSD.
FreeBSD develops nVidia's GPUs and their drivers? I don't think
so. For FreeBSD users there are two options on the side of
nVidia:
a) open up the devices and the drivers so the
community can develop quality drivers
b) develop quality drivers in-house and offer
binary packages
And of course, for the users:
c) If it doesn't run on my OS, I don't buy it.
FreeBSD's and X's sources are free, so it's easy to implement
the drivers. Vice versa, it's not easy to develop drivers for
a GPU that (FreeBSD's and X's) developers don't know enough
about.
According to "Flash", why would you think it's okay to require
a proprietary plugin that is developed in a closed way and
hooks SO DEEPLY into the system that it's that hard to implement?
And when you think about the benefits of having such a plugin...
sometimes you are glad that you can easily TURN IT OFF.
Again the analogy for images: Sometimes, their use makes a
web page ugly as sin and unreadable. Then I just switch the
images off in Opera. I don't need a plugin from an arbitrary
company to see PNG images, and know that this company does
not offer such a plugin for my platform, and that the plugin
for viewing PNG images hooks deeply into the system's kernel
so there is no 100% usable free alternative of it.
The day that "Flash" is an open standard and can be used the
same way as PNG images in a web page (and through the means
of a web browser), I will be glad to review my attitude.
> You
> simply cannot expect any software developer to develop and maintain a
> product for what is in reality a niche OS.
Well, I don't expect the software development company to do so.
They have the change to make "Flash" a standard (by opening it).
If they don't, it's okay, it is their right to do so. But then,
a web developer can't expect me to buy an expensive PC with
some "Windows" and a prone-to-abuse plugin of "Flash" just to
see some advertisement or something else that every half-skilled
web developer could easily implement with HTML, CSS and maybe
JavaScript.
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091028231850.2054c7d3.freebsd>