On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 02:03:48PM +0200, Wilko Bulte wrote: > Quoting Julian Stacey, who wrote on Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 01:58:12PM +0200 .. > > > From: John Kozubik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I'm not trying to discount thier efforts, but Adobe makes an honest to god > > > release version of flash for Linux, and FreeBSD runs linux binaries very > > > > "honest to god" != Binary Crap ! > > No flash on my machines without public source, checkable for security. > > (Unless maybe run in a jail/chroot) > > That is your view, others could very well be more pragmatic. I would rather > have the choice to have a *full working* binary-only Flash than what we > have now.
While I completely sympathize with the desire for open source Flash support, and the desire to avoid binary-only Flash players, I also understand that sometimes the need for consistent, reliable Flash support must regrettably eclipse the desire for open source security vetting. Most people don't really *need* Flash support -- but once in a while, someone really *does* need that support to be able to achieve his or her business needs (for instance). > > I appreciate that we would strongly prefer public source access, but I doubt > that will ever happen for Flash. I guess you also have not inspected the > full source of (say) OO for security flaws ;-) That's a spurious argument at best. One doesn't have to personally inspect all the source code of something to enjoy the security benefits of the open source development model. Either you're intentionally playing dumb to ridicule someone's desire for greater security benefits in his software choices, or you need to educate yourself: http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-10877-6064734.html -- Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ] Dennis Miller: "Bill Gates is a monocle and a Persian Cat away from being the villain in a James Bond movie."
Description: PGP signature