On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 10:20:02PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Apparently, though unproven, at 18:22 on Friday 03 June 2011, Indi did opine
> thusly:
>
> > > > 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.
>
> Compare skype. Someone just reverse-engineered critical bits of v1.4, I'll
> bet
> money that Skype's (now MS) response will be to tweak the app so that any
> open-source implementation gets no response from Skype infrastructure when
> used. Same possibility of sneaky shit going on under the surface.
>
Just about everythng Microsoft touches goes bad.
R.I.P Skype.
--
caveat utilitor
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤
