On 10/19/05, lordSauron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > couldn't you apt-build an i386 version of it? Or is the source not > public? In any case, wouldn't it be possible to re-label the i386 > version amd64, since the processor will run it natively anyway? I say > that because in my experience the only way to change the distro's > architecture identification is to reinstall - not a good idea if you > still want to use amd64 stuff.
The source is not public, and the file format is also proprietary. It has been the topic of much duress in various threads on this and other lists - re-labelling does not work, because a 64-bit browser would attempt to run it as a 64-bit plugin. If it ran as a separate process, it probably would work. But process-independent plugins are just a pipe dream. > of great interest. I've been denied lots of web content b/c flash > won't install, so I've had to resort to my laptop. I don't have an alternate, so anything with Flash waits until work the next day. Usually by then I lose interest. I'm not so much campaigning for goals of my own convenience, but rather making those that may be interested aware that their website may be failing to provide for an important demographic. > The way I read you, you're campaigning to remove all flash content > from every web site - not going to happen in a million years. You'd > be better off campaigning for a amd64 version. Plus Flash adds too > much content to the web to safely dispose of - many sites would be > rendered much less interesting... though just think of all the > bandwidth we'd save.... I'm not campaigning for removal all Flash content. I'm campaigning for the availability of the content in a format other than Flash. This is akin to the goals of OpenDocument, except everyone has been using the already existing HTML-related open source formats for over a decade. For some odd reason, people willingly choose to abandon those completely. Instead, for many sites, the inverse of what you suggest is true - they are attempting to remove all non-Flash content. That is not only inaccessible to those people using a platform not supported by Macromedia, but it also inaccessible to those people who rely on screen readers or text enlargers to use their computer. > Nay, I think what we need to do is find a way to use the existing i386 > version on our amd64 machines, since all amd64 arch chips can run i386 > with no penalty (no wonder why I'm borderline on blind loyalty to AMD > - whenever I buy AMD, I always get far more than my money's worth!) > > I don't know if it's possible, but it's something to think about. Correct, it is possible, but as I already said in order to use the i386 binary plugin I need to run a i386 browser. I consider it the prerogative of the webmasters to provide me the means by which to view their content. I do not consider Flash a necessary component of a website, much like I do not consider images to be a necessary component. Granted, certain websites would be completely pointless without using images (i.e., Flickr), but many websites would also be completely useless without using plain text (i.e, Slashdot). Conversely, a given website should not be useless without Flash. Even if a website revolves around Flash (i.e., Shockwave.com), it should still provide me with some sort of basic text information. I have encountered a few websites since my switch to 64-bit that I am simply unable to use because of their dependency on Flash (i.e., fncb.com). I have seen many useful implementations of Flash as augmenting content, such as product demonstrations (i.e., adagio.com). As an alternative means of displaying information, it works very well. But the key word there is /alternative/. When websites use Flash to /replace/ their content, and offer no alternative, that is where inconveniences begin. An excellent example of using Flash as an alternative is SallieMae.com. It attempts to load a Flash plugin for a menu in the center of the page. When it notices that no Flash is installed, it redirects to an alternate page which uses Javascript to provide an onmouseover effect instead. Even in a browser without Javascript, their website is still navigable. Just don't misinterpret my goals with this - I do not intend to wipe Flash from existence. It is a useful tool, and quite powerful when it comes to providing animated content in a small package, but it should not be necessary for viewing simple text and images as many websites demand.
