That's nice, and of course such an EULA exist, and that you need to have attended law-school to make any sense of it is well known by the average person, so NO normal person reads it, they just click on the "yes I agree" button to make "the problem go away". We all know that, in fact, you have to agree to an EULA to install and use the player. But that fact isn't the problem at all. the problem is that a normal user expects that he can get YouTube to work without wringing himself to all kinds of technical hoops. YouTube (the flash player) should "just work", even if he has to agree to a Eula before it works. If that is not the case its just "an epic fail", in most users eyes.
It's not a problem for -me-, I'm not complaining because its an insurmountable problem for -me-, but it will be for most first Linux users who are hoping to escape from Windows. Its also such a letdown, because after the fiasco with the press lamenting gOS for just this same problem, I supposed that Good OS had learned from their mistake, because -all- (publicly available) later versions of gOS had Flash pre-installed. If there are legal problems with pre-installing flash, then just make it so that gOS automatically installs it, including conforming the EULA. You would think that the YouTube launcher on the Wbar would be an ideal launch-board for such an installer. On 28 sep, 02:31, Kevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FYI, here are the Adobe EULAs > > http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gOS Linux" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/goslinux?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
