From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 6 03:49:19 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C24BE106566B for ; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 03:49:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mx01.qsc.de (mx01.qsc.de [213.148.129.14]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 812A28FC15 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 03:49:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from r55.edvax.de (port-92-195-7-176.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.7.176]) by mx01.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BDA33D0E3; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 04:49:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from r55.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r55.edvax.de (8.14.2/8.14.2) with SMTP id o263nHtW002182; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 04:49:17 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 04:49:16 +0100 From: Polytropon To: admin@cpcnw.co.uk Message-Id: <20100306044916.ce02523e.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: References: <20100305120021.52F79106566B@hub.freebsd.org> Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.7 (GTK+ 2.12.1; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Flash viewer for FBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Polytropon List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 03:49:19 -0000 On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 23:02:36 -0000, "Graham Bentley" wrote: > > > It looks very bad for browsing web without flash viewer. > > I think it looks great - no ads !!! Hurray !!! I may politely add that exactly this is the reason I removed a working "Flash" support from my system. I rather like to see empty "plug-in content" boxes instead of being annoyed by "Flash" stuff that is mainly used for advertising. Have you noticed that "Flash" has taken the place of animated GIFs, adding sound and providing nothing that couldn't be done using existing standards? I'm sure you have. A growing part of today's "web designers" seem to have accepted "Flash" as a replacement for valid HTML, and even for invalid HTML. Have you ever heared of a modern web browser that forces you to install, let's say, a plugin for viewing JPG images, and this plugin is only available for an arbitrary chosen subset of operating systems, and loaded with patents and other cripple-stuff? And it forces you to have an up-to-date computer, of course, with an expensive OS (free OSes are out of scope already). And all the clever "web designers" now replace their working sites with JPG - even the text is given as a JPG image. And it is assumed that you have the plugin installed. And of course, there's a new version of the plugin every year. All this just to view a JPG image. Could you imagine such a stupid situation? It's so idiotic, but it's the reality. That's the situation with "Flash". And as I have experienced it, I can honestly say that I'm fine without "Flash". I may review my opinion, if given some reason to do so. But as it has already been mentioned, that's a very individual decision, based upon likes and dislikes. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...