Polytropon wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:55:20 -0400, Jerry <ges...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:25:53 +0100 >> Polytropon Polytropon <free...@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. >
HEY, GUYS.... I think you're forgetting one very important aspect of all this crap... the fault lies with ADOBE.... just look at the greedy sobs - they produce overpriced products (that, incidentally, they sell to the kChinese at ludicrous prices or repates and tolerate their illegal copying) which are notoriously buggy - they bloat the OSs and never really fix their errors.... they are the ones who should provide some semblance of stability in their products rather than comi;ng out with really unnecessary updates and changes every few months - it is these changes that cause all the problems... SO THERE... let's end this discussion about such trivial and nonessential things as a buggy program. _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"