On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 06:10:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 13:12 on Friday 03 June 2011, Indi did opine
> thusly:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 09:20:01AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > Compare how Google goes about doing things with how Adobe does it.
> > >
> > > The Google Chromium team appears to take security seriously and are open
> > > and up-front about what they do.
> > >
> > > Adobe likes to stonewall on issues and create an aura of how sekrit stuff
> > > is.
> > >
> > > Which one inspires confidence in fellow geeks?
> >
> > Neither. Adobe is utterly incompetent and apathetic, google is evil
> > and wants to sell ad space for h3rb41 v14gr4 in your brain.
> >
> > Flash is a necessary evil for a lot of us, chrome(ium) is not.
>
> I think of it more a case of there being no viable alternative to Flash[1]
> whereas Chrom{e,ium} is just one more browser amongst many.
>
> I use Flash myself even though I hate the way it performs.
>
> [1] There are flash alternatives, but by and large only support out of date
> features, so they are not really "viable".
>
Agreed. I do wish we'd get something open and reasonably well coded to replace
flash, but I think perhaps the biggest reason for the success of flash
is its sneakiness in tracking users and ability to enforce DRM. Big Business
just loves that sort of thing.
--
caveat utilitor
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤
