That's probably true but what I'm wondering though is does this actually help right? So if Mozilla is then maintaining the code then it's dependent on them to fix any security flaws in terms of their own release cycle for fixes. Plus the ability of the implementation is again dependent on whatever capabilities exist in the browser as the runtime like you mentioned.
So what is occurring to me is that most likely media like that outlet just don't like the idea of a "proprietary" runtime that's supported and maintained by a company in general, so it's sort of cool to promote an implementation by another company that's not deemed to be as proprietary like Mozilla. It's sort of an ideological argument I think that's really at the root of all this stuff. I think there have been a bunch of swf players out there for years right? But if this could allow all of that content to be played on iPads or etc then I'm sure it would help out. No one seems to care about all the other proprietary runtimes out there, or Apple's closed environment, or Android or anything else being closed in varying forms, or that whole Mozilla DRM plugin or etc. David -----Original Message----- From: Tom Chiverton <t...@extravision.com> To: dev@flex.apache.org Sent: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 9:23 AM Subject: Re: "The Player", a case for an independent Flash Player I think The Register's angle is the Adobe implementation of the Flash runtime is bad and full of security issues. In theory Shumay runs in the JavaScript sandbox, so inherits all the protections and 'many eyes' of previous work on securing it. When was the last time there was a off-by-one arbitrary code execution issue in a major JavaScript implementation ? Tom
