RE: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jonathan McKeown Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:19 PM To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin? On Thursday 14 February 2008 00:14, Erik Osterholm wrote: IMHO, for an individual to state that Flash is not a relevant issue simply because they choose not to employ it, is similar to patient claiming that cancer research is a waste of time simply because they are not afflicted with the condition. Bad analogies are like a leaky screwdriver. All throughout this thread, there have been people mixing up issues. It's true that Flash is used on many, many websites, but one of the earliest complaints I saw regarded Flash-only sites--sites which require Flash in order to navigate. These sites seem fairly rare. It is manipulative and misleading to argue that because so many sites /make use of Flash/, then /Flash has become an integral part of the web/. I browse with Flash disabled all of the time, only enabling it specifically when I need it to use the web site. It certainly happens--but it's not a constant thing. I'm aware that Flash content exists on the pages I view, but most of the time it's supplemental, and the page degrades quite nicely without it. This is the best summary of the issues I've seen in this thread. One last time, because we're going round in circles: I don't have a problem with people putting in the effort to get Flash working: I'd be even happier if Adobe would do it themselves; but there's not much that Flash is essential for, and to claim that ``half the entire Web'' is unusable without Flash, seems somewhat overstated. There are many sites which degrade, more or less gracefully, in the absence of Flash, but, like Erik, I don't come across many that are completely unusable. I agree. My experience is that most of the advertising sites use Flash. My guess is with the sourceforge thing that what is requiring it is not Sourceforge itself, but rather some 3rd party advertising site that their page is liked to. I see this quite a lot on cnn.com and so on. Not being able to see those sites is no loss, in my opinion. I don't, however, put any credibility into the conspiracy theories that Flash has code to disable it on BSD. MacOS X runs flash just fine and MacOS X is just as BSD as FreeBSD is. The thing is that you can easily run Remote Desktop on your FreeBSD system and remote-term into a headless Windows XP system you have kicked under your desk, so I don't see that even if Flash was Windows-Only it would be a great problem. Or, you can SSH into a convenient MacOS X system and run Firefox as a client on the MacOS X system and display it's output on your FreeBSD desktop. So please explain to me how exactly FreeBSD not being able to run Flash is a huge problem? I still haven't seen any comeback on the accessibility issue: is it really the case that banks in the USA (for example) have websites that are not accessible to a section of the population, and that this isn't covered by the ADA? (I'm not trying to score points here: I'm genuinely interested). There is a court case right now that's wending it's way though the US courts that addresses this. If you google around for it you can come up with it. As I recall some blind person sued a public website because of this. My guess however is that it won't pan out. In the US the law allows for alternative access for disabled. For example, if you build a building with a big impressive staircase leading up to the front entrance for architectural asthetic reasons, you don't have to make it wheelchair accessible if you have a ramp to a door around the side that leads to the same interior entrance. The fact is in building construction, most of what disabled people want (lack of stairs, wide doors, etc.) actually reduce your liability with normal people from tripping and such, which is why with new construction it's usually stupid to not design it ADA-compliant, aside from the building code requirements which require it anyway. With websites, if an organization's only portal to the public is the web, I think they probably are going to have to make their site readable by blind people. Which means flash isn't going to be compatible. But an organization could sidestep this by publishing an 800 number going to some call center in India, and most banks have pretty extensive telephone banking whereby you call the bank's 800 number and use a touch-tone phone to key in your account number and such to do your banking. As a matter of fact I routinely use the 800 number voice response unit of my bank to check bank balances rather than logging into the website - it's faster. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Jonathan McKeown writes:
Your comment about third world countries is one of the most
narrow-minded, ignorant and arrogant statements I've heard in
many years of listening to petty bigots - quite apart from the
fact that you're extending what I stated was a personal opinion
to an entire country and continent based on your personal
prejudice.
It's been my experience some of the worst offenders in the
overuse of multimedia division are, in fact, in/from third world
countries. Any goober can buy (or pirate) the necessary software,
and too many that do mistake {F,f}lashy and interactive for good.
Robert Huff
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Let me be the one to point out the (next) controversial thing: here's a perfect example why using linux binaries for stuff like this is a dead end. And don't even start about the PC-BSD folks who want to make flash9 work via WINE. We need a native flash or a replacement for the animation side, and where flash is merely used as a video container, we have not option but to use youitube-dl, miro, and the like. But there too, some native solution is needed, otherwise it will continue to work like crap if at all. Personally, I tried both gnash and swfdec. It was several months ago. They worked just fine on some sites, silently didn't work on other sites. But the problem was that sometimes I saw another behaviour: after opening a webpage I couldn't interact with the computer at all. Mouse was moving on the screen, but nothing could be done either by mouse or keyboard. Actually, the only button working on the computer was power off on the front panel of the computer, next to reset... So, I felt browsing the internet just like a miner game: if you catch the wrong site, you need to reboot. I can't afford that, so I removed them and installed back the linux flash player. I'm not sure what exactly caused the problem - flash itself, or something between flash and KDE; I would be able to live with that if native flash didn't hang the computer, if it just didn't work silently. Have you tried native solutions recently? Andriy ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Hah! Good luck... I never got it work either, There are wrappers all other barriers to stop you. And even then it may only work intermittently. Correct me if I'm wrong guys I hear you. I have used both Firefox and Opera and have never gotten flash to work as easily and consistently as it does under Windows. When the added burden of having to use wrappers, etc, it is just not worth the hassle. I have seen references to system linking files to make flash work; however, I have better things to do than invest huge amounts of time attempting to get something to work when it is already technologically possible to do so without all that individual intervention. It does seem rather ironic that we claim that FreeBSD is a superior OS to Microsoft's Windows; however, we are unable to get even a common web add-on like flash to work reliably, consistently. Finger pointing does not alleviate the situation. About a month ago I installed it from ports along with firefox, and it was nothing more than described in the handbook. The only thing - I used nspluginwrapper instead of linuxpluginwrapper. Andriy ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jonathan McKeown wrote: On Tuesday 12 February 2008 21:50, Chuck Robey wrote: Jonathan McKeown wrote: [snip] There are a few sites which don't work without Flash. Having checked on a number of occasions, I've found (and I stress this is a personal opinion) that heavy use of Flash is a fairly reliable marker of a site I wouldn't be interested in whatever publishing techniques were used. It's rather like the old saying in the British advertising industry: only sing in an ad if you have nothing to say. How does Flash fit in with accessibility guidelines? In many countries, a commercial site which doesn't degrade gracefully when viewed with (eg) Lynx may fall foul of legislation protecting people with disabilities such as visual impairment. You know, there are some folks out there who are still using their old M32 TTY's, and they can't understand why any folks would need mouses. Those of us who have successfully made the move to the 21st century can tell them, but honestly, most of us are very tired of hearing the same hoary old excuses why things aren't necessary. The majority of folks doing browsing today aren't impressed that maybe some 3rd world country is unhappy with flash sites, they just want their flash sites to work, and ours don't. Why don't they? Because everytime someone comes up with a workable plan, all the real cave-men out there trot out there war-stories, and bore us all to death with their memoirs, and endlessly recursive arguments. Everytime they get proven wrong on one item, they just move the clock back a few months, grab the previous self-justification, and start the argument all back up again. You can't out-last them. I don't think there's any need for gratuitous rudeness. I did stress that this is a personal opinion. Just to reiterate: I **personally** have not found any site that I /need/ to visit which /requires/ Flash to operate, and I suspect that may well be because, under legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar laws in other countries, this would amount to discrimination and is officially frowned upon. I still maintain that your claim that ``half the entire Web'' requires Flash is hugely overstated. Well, anyone being on the Web 5 whole minutes in a browser that can't see flash sites is perfectly well aware if I'm telling the truth or not, I'm quite willing to let folks judge the truth of that one by themselves, they don't need me or you to give them their reality. Your comment about third world countries is one of the most narrow-minded, ignorant and arrogant statements I've heard in many years of listening to petty bigots - quite apart from the fact that you're extending what I stated was a personal opinion to an entire country and continent based on your personal prejudice. (Not that it's important, by the way, but I wasn't born here: I chose to move to Africa from Europe, and I didn't like Flash much before I got here. I still don't, and I have better - though more expensive - bandwidth available to me here than I would in many rural parts of the US). And finally: ``The majority of folks doing browsing today aren't impressed that maybe some 3rd world country is unhappy with flash sites, they just want their flash sites to work''. Stop press: since 90% of the world is using Microsoft operating systems and just want their .exes to work, the FreeBSD project is closing down - it's all been a huge mistake and we're just cavemen standing in the way of progress. FreeBSD has nearly every feature that any M$ abortion has, and in nearly every base, our implementations are better than theirs are, most especially in terms of reliability, but in almost every other case. I was saying that a Huge proportion of the web sites out there make use of flash, it's the next thing to ubiquitous, and the users here, by a large fraction, want to be able to view the sites, not listen to reasons why we should wait until the rest of the web improves to your standards. Yes, things aren't perfect, but users don'[t care, they want to see it anyhow. Anybody who believes your shot at me, making it seem like I like M$, I guess that's the big lie sort of thing, I won't defend it, it's too ridiculous. I don't run any M$ sw here, and never will, but I do like to view the web, not sit and complain. We are all very well aware that M$ has been trying to hijack the HTML protocol ever since it was first put out there, and trying to ignore things isn't the way to win, it's to be better than they are, and that's something which FreeBSD has always been spectacular at. The right way has always been to make your tool work even better than the folks who are trying to hijack, and NOT to fight their incredibly powerful marketing department. Maybe in 6-12 months, the Gnash project will make all this blow over, but until then, it's still quite true.
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Interestingly enough, I just did a quick perusal of the URLs I frequent, and virtually all of them, in one form or another, asked for 'Flash'. Even 'sourceforge.net' greeted me with this friendly message: You need to install the Macromedia Flash Player plug-in to view all content on this page. Do you want to download this plug-in now? IMHO, for an individual to state that Flash is not a relevant issue simply because they choose not to employ it, is similar to patient claiming that cancer research is a waste of time simply because they are not afflicted with the condition. -- Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] One of the pleasures of reading old letters is the knowledge that they need no answer. George Gordon, Lord Byron signature.asc Description: PGP signature
RE: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:34:21 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin? Interestingly enough, I just did a quick perusal of the URLs I frequent, and virtually all of them, in one form or another, asked for 'Flash'. Even 'sourceforge.net' greeted me with this friendly message: You need to install the Macromedia Flash Player plug-in to view all content on this page. Do you want to download this plug-in now? IMHO, for an individual to state that Flash is not a relevant issue simply because they choose not to employ it, is similar to patient claiming that cancer research is a waste of time simply because they are not afflicted with the condition. -- Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] One of the pleasures of reading old letters is the knowledge that they need no answer. George Gordon, Lord Byron I consider it rather funny that a site for the promotion of OSS is using a product that is distinctly the opposite of that! :) _ It's simple! Sell your car for just $30 at CarPoint.com.au http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fsecure%2Dau%2Eimrworldwide%2Ecom%2Fcgi%2Dbin%2Fa%2Fci%5F450304%2Fet%5F2%2Fcg%5F801459%2Fpi%5F1004813%2Fai%5F859641_t=762955845_r=tig_OCT07_m=EXT___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:25:05AM -0800, Andriy Babiy wrote: Hah! Good luck... I never got it work either, There are wrappers all other barriers to stop you. And even then it may only work intermittently. Correct me if I'm wrong guys I hear you. I have used both Firefox and Opera and have never gotten flash to work as easily and consistently as it does under Windows. When the added burden of having to use wrappers, etc, it is just not worth the hassle. I have seen references to system linking files to make flash work; however, I have better things to do than invest huge amounts of time attempting to get something to work when it is already technologically possible to do so without all that individual intervention. It does seem rather ironic that we claim that FreeBSD is a superior OS to Microsoft's Windows; however, we are unable to get even a common web add-on like flash to work reliably, consistently. Finger pointing does not alleviate the situation. Finger pointing is somewhat relevant. It is not a specifically technical problem, but one of politics - the unwillingness of the flash owners to release information or allow it to be built for FreeBSD. People can do some examination and create a working alternative, but it will always be based on a guess and not be able to be up-to-date without the real specs from the owner. jerry Andriy ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 04:34:21PM -0500, Gerard wrote: Interestingly enough, I just did a quick perusal of the URLs I frequent, and virtually all of them, in one form or another, asked for 'Flash'. Even 'sourceforge.net' greeted me with this friendly message: You need to install the Macromedia Flash Player plug-in to view all content on this page. Do you want to download this plug-in now? IMHO, for an individual to state that Flash is not a relevant issue simply because they choose not to employ it, is similar to patient claiming that cancer research is a waste of time simply because they are not afflicted with the condition. Bad analogies are like a leaky screwdriver. All throughout this thread, there have been people mixing up issues. It's true that Flash is used on many, many websites, but one of the earliest complaints I saw regarded Flash-only sites--sites which require Flash in order to navigate. These sites seem fairly rare. It is manipulative and misleading to argue that because so many sites /make use of Flash/, then /Flash has become an integral part of the web/. I browse with Flash disabled all of the time, only enabling it specifically when I need it to use the web site. It certainly happens--but it's not a constant thing. I'm aware that Flash content exists on the pages I view, but most of the time it's supplemental, and the page degrades quite nicely without it. All of this is largely irrelevant, however. If you want Flash on FreeBSD, you have a few options: - Petition Adobe to release an official version and/or reduce the phantom restrictions[1] on the binaries so that they can run under emulation. - Contribute to the Gnash project. - Modify the appropriate files under /usr/ports and install it, as others have pointed out is possible. If you want to use FreeBSD but you don't care about Flash, you have two options: - Complain to companies when their web site uses Flash poorly. - Don't go to those websites. It doesn't do any good to go around complaining on this list, as the people on this list aren't really in any position to do anything[2]. Erik [1] Others have pointed out that this restriction doesn't seem to actually exist anymore. [2] Except remove the restriction from the ports tree, assuming the license is acceptable, and /possibly/ make it easier to install, since so many users seem to have trouble with it. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
I said: Maybe Qt's ActiveQt (wrapper for windows' activex) might be of some value to implement active x support to some extend and use the windows targetted controls rather than NSplugin. I reckon it possible but it probably won't be very easy, all the real heavy lifting would have to be done by the developer in question. I'm not volunteering though! ;-) Come to think of it, I was harsh about PC-BSD intenting to use wine, but that just may be (at least partly) the logical conclusion of the above. Shame on me there. Dan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
On Wednesday 13 February 2008 20:17:03 you wrote: Let me be the one to point out the (next) controversial thing: here's a perfect example why using linux binaries for stuff like this is a dead end. And don't even start about the PC-BSD folks who want to make flash9 work via WINE. We need a native flash or a replacement for the animation side, and where flash is merely used as a video container, we have not option but to use youitube-dl, miro, and the like. But there too, some native solution is needed, otherwise it will continue to work like crap if at all. Personally, I tried both gnash and swfdec. It was several months ago. They worked just fine on some sites, silently didn't work on other sites. But the problem was that sometimes I saw another behaviour: after opening a webpage I couldn't interact with the computer at all. Mouse was moving on the screen, but nothing could be done either by mouse or keyboard. Actually, the only button working on the computer was power off on the front panel of the computer, next to reset... So, I felt I think this is problems with the various XEmbed implementations (IIRC its API itself has been a moving target too). browsing the internet just like a miner game: if you catch the wrong site, you need to reboot. I can't afford that, so I removed them and installed back the linux flash player. I'm not sure what exactly caused the problem - flash itself, or something between flash and KDE; On konqueror, (kde3), I can confirm that the newer style xembed as used in the linux flash 9 has not yet been (completely?) put into its nsplugin code. For me, flash7 works, flash9 almost never. It likely depends on which (missing) xembed thingies are used. Then there's the general bugginess of the flash9 plugin. Whenever konqi seems to choke up my box, I killall -9 nspluginviewer. Add to that, last time I looked at it, it looked that (konqueror) the way nspluginviewer invokes the actual npviewer.bin out-of-process and its killing (if needed) seems errant. There's some RedHat patches that can make this a little better. I would be able to live with that if native flash didn't hang the computer, if it just didn't work silently. Have you tried native solutions recently? See above. I sometimes use linux-firefox if I really need to. And for youtube etc I made an add-on to kmplayer (which port I maintain) called tubestuff, that can bypass kmplayer's normal url handling and instead download and play the video via dcop. It's not extremely robust but works fairly well for me (I don't mind the download time which is typically half of the video playtime). It's not in ports yet, sorry (and it needs to be updated to use the new youtube-dl, and I noticed today that my liveleak-dl script doesn't seem to work anymore). Maybe Qt's ActiveQt (wrapper for windows' activex) might be of some value to implement active x support to some extend and use the windows targetted controls rather than NSplugin. I reckon it possible but it probably won't be very easy, all the real heavy lifting would have to be done by the developer in question. I'm not volunteering though! ;-) What does OSX use? ActiveX, npapi, or something entirely different. Does anyone know? Andriy Dan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Erik Osterholm writes: - Petition Adobe to release an official version and/or reduce the phantom restrictions[1] on the binaries so that they can run under emulation. I don't have the link at hand, but Adobe is supposedly working woth open source folks so the next generation of Flash will have an open interface specification. Robert Huff ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
On Thursday 14 February 2008 00:14, Erik Osterholm wrote: IMHO, for an individual to state that Flash is not a relevant issue simply because they choose not to employ it, is similar to patient claiming that cancer research is a waste of time simply because they are not afflicted with the condition. Bad analogies are like a leaky screwdriver. All throughout this thread, there have been people mixing up issues. It's true that Flash is used on many, many websites, but one of the earliest complaints I saw regarded Flash-only sites--sites which require Flash in order to navigate. These sites seem fairly rare. It is manipulative and misleading to argue that because so many sites /make use of Flash/, then /Flash has become an integral part of the web/. I browse with Flash disabled all of the time, only enabling it specifically when I need it to use the web site. It certainly happens--but it's not a constant thing. I'm aware that Flash content exists on the pages I view, but most of the time it's supplemental, and the page degrades quite nicely without it. This is the best summary of the issues I've seen in this thread. One last time, because we're going round in circles: I don't have a problem with people putting in the effort to get Flash working: I'd be even happier if Adobe would do it themselves; but there's not much that Flash is essential for, and to claim that ``half the entire Web'' is unusable without Flash, seems somewhat overstated. There are many sites which degrade, more or less gracefully, in the absence of Flash, but, like Erik, I don't come across many that are completely unusable. In fact, browsing with Konqueror, I have more problem with Java, faulty Javascript and AJAX than with Flash. I still haven't seen any comeback on the accessibility issue: is it really the case that banks in the USA (for example) have websites that are not accessible to a section of the population, and that this isn't covered by the ADA? (I'm not trying to score points here: I'm genuinely interested). Jonathan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:39:41 +0100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin? just send them an e-mail telling them that you are so sorry about the quality of their website that you have to buy somewhere else. Do not send this to the webmaster, send it to the sales department. Those people fight for the clients and give a shit on technology. exactly. they simply don't know the problem exist. i think it could be done more politely by asking them of sending their product data as text based e-mail (+possible images), because their webpage is unusable. they will have to respond, and more people doing this will give them a lot of work :) and will motivate them to think This of course doesn't help them if their web designer can't fix the design issue, which is why it would be an issue in the first place. Or the designer will say its ok- show statistics which are becoming rapidly outdated and say its only a minority. Reality can be very sad. _ What are you waiting for? Join Lavalife FREE http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Flavalife9%2Eninemsn%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fclickthru%2Fclickthru%2Eact%3Fid%3Dninemsn%26context%3Dan99%26locale%3Den%5FAU%26a%3D30288_t=764581033_r=email_taglines_Join_free_OCT07_m=EXT___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
is unusable. they will have to respond, and more people doing this will give them a lot of work :) and will motivate them to think it does not amtter how you do it as long as you address the sales department. exactly what i say - ask sales department to send product data by e-mail, because webpage can't be read. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Heiko Wundram (Beenic) skrev: Am Montag, 11. Februar 2008 15:32:26 schrieb Erich Dollansky: Read this (in the license agreement): ... For the avoidance of doubt, no embedded or device versions of the above operating systems, or any other operating systems, are included as Authorized Operating Systems. ... 2.1You may install and use the Software on a single desktop or laptop computer that runs an Authorized Operating System. A license for the Software may not be shared, installed or used concurrently on different computers. ...where Authorized Operating Systems is only Windows, Linux, Solaris and Mac OS as defined before the initial sentence, and as such, there's no clause that allows you to use the software on BSDs, and finally, that makes it forbidden to use on BSDs. This is another reason why Flash is bad, bad, bad. Am I repeating myself? Just because something is written in a license does not make it so. I do not belive that it holds for a legal challenge. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
This of course doesn't help them if their web designer can't fix the design issue, which is why it would be an issue in the first place. Or the designer will say its ok- show statistics which are becoming rapidly outdated and say its only a minority. they could simply pay other web designer, good are often more cheap not expensive ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
On Wednesday 13 February 2008 00:27:53 Da Rock wrote: Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:50:40 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin? -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jonathan McKeown wrote: On Monday 11 February 2008 22:26, Chuck Robey wrote: All you folks who are focussing on YouTube are (purposefully? I don't know) the fact that with just about half of the entire Web using flash in one way or antoehr, not using Flash is a huge problem, as anyone who browses without a flashplayer knows. Just to provide a counterpoint to this sweeping generalisation, I browse without a Flash player and it's never caused me any problem at all. There are a few sites which don't work without Flash. Having checked on a number of occasions, I've found (and I stress this is a personal opinion) that heavy use of Flash is a fairly reliable marker of a site I wouldn't be interested in whatever publishing techniques were used. It's rather like the old saying in the British advertising industry: only sing in an ad if you have nothing to say. How does Flash fit in with accessibility guidelines? In many countries, a commercial site which doesn't degrade gracefully when viewed with (eg) Lynx may fall foul of legislation protecting people with disabilities such as visual impairment. You know, there are some folks out there who are still using their old M32 TTY's, and they can't understand why any folks would need mouses. Those of us who have successfully made the move to the 21st century can tell them, but honestly, most of us are very tired of hearing the same hoary old excuses why things aren't necessary. The majority of folks doing browsing today aren't impressed that maybe some 3rd world country is unhappy with flash sites, they just want their flash sites to work, and ours don't. Why don't they? Because everytime someone comes up with a workable plan, all the real cave-men out there trot out there war-stories, and bore us all to death with their memoirs, and endlessly recursive arguments. Everytime they get proven wrong on one item, they just move the clock back a few months, grab the previous self-justification, and start the argument all back up again. You can't out-last them. I personally tried to fix things, got soundly beaten to death over it (and I WILL NOT try that one again, under pain of death, sorry!). MY flash works here and that's all I will worry about. I can't predict when things will finally improve, maybe when enough folks realize they don't have to put up with this. In short, I think ``half of the entire Web using Flash'' may be a bit of an overstatement even if you count Flash ad banners (which frankly I can do without), and the small number of Flash-only sites I encounter hasn't caused me temporary inconvenience, never mind ``a huge problem''. Jonathan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHsfiQz62J6PPcoOkRAu6/AKCArtXTPwLGKD0xN+r6MG8fk+wEUwCglafp Al9ztYns1ZHDV7IQ8foSU7o= =1fY6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] That was a right pretty speech there, and I agree with the sentiments of moving forward with technology. However, I disagree that this is merely a case backward compatibility. Are you aware that the w3 consortium has web accessibility drafting committee? Consider also the facts that I have brought forward that Adobe has singled out OS's that are not allowed to run Flash Player. Consider also the fact that most designers simply use flash because they can't design properly and use other more accessible methods to achieve the same thing. I agree that a fix needs to be found, but this is not a cave man mentality, and we're not bringing up old war stories. The fact that this has not been all that successful given the larger number of sites now designed with flash player 9 which has been the number one problem here. If you have a fix I am sure we would all welcome the knowledge and use it- I certainly would. I merely point out (hopefully reaching some web designers and other flash fans) that flash is not the only way to go, and is certainly not preferable. Let me be the one to point out the (next) controversial thing: here's a perfect example why using linux binaries for stuff like this is a dead end
RE: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:50:40 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin? -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jonathan McKeown wrote: On Monday 11 February 2008 22:26, Chuck Robey wrote: All you folks who are focussing on YouTube are (purposefully? I don't know) the fact that with just about half of the entire Web using flash in one way or antoehr, not using Flash is a huge problem, as anyone who browses without a flashplayer knows. Just to provide a counterpoint to this sweeping generalisation, I browse without a Flash player and it's never caused me any problem at all. There are a few sites which don't work without Flash. Having checked on a number of occasions, I've found (and I stress this is a personal opinion) that heavy use of Flash is a fairly reliable marker of a site I wouldn't be interested in whatever publishing techniques were used. It's rather like the old saying in the British advertising industry: only sing in an ad if you have nothing to say. How does Flash fit in with accessibility guidelines? In many countries, a commercial site which doesn't degrade gracefully when viewed with (eg) Lynx may fall foul of legislation protecting people with disabilities such as visual impairment. You know, there are some folks out there who are still using their old M32 TTY's, and they can't understand why any folks would need mouses. Those of us who have successfully made the move to the 21st century can tell them, but honestly, most of us are very tired of hearing the same hoary old excuses why things aren't necessary. The majority of folks doing browsing today aren't impressed that maybe some 3rd world country is unhappy with flash sites, they just want their flash sites to work, and ours don't. Why don't they? Because everytime someone comes up with a workable plan, all the real cave-men out there trot out there war-stories, and bore us all to death with their memoirs, and endlessly recursive arguments. Everytime they get proven wrong on one item, they just move the clock back a few months, grab the previous self-justification, and start the argument all back up again. You can't out-last them. I personally tried to fix things, got soundly beaten to death over it (and I WILL NOT try that one again, under pain of death, sorry!). MY flash works here and that's all I will worry about. I can't predict when things will finally improve, maybe when enough folks realize they don't have to put up with this. In short, I think ``half of the entire Web using Flash'' may be a bit of an overstatement even if you count Flash ad banners (which frankly I can do without), and the small number of Flash-only sites I encounter hasn't caused me temporary inconvenience, never mind ``a huge problem''. Jonathan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHsfiQz62J6PPcoOkRAu6/AKCArtXTPwLGKD0xN+r6MG8fk+wEUwCglafp Al9ztYns1ZHDV7IQ8foSU7o= =1fY6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] That was a right pretty speech there, and I agree with the sentiments of moving forward with technology. However, I disagree that this is merely a case backward compatibility. Are you aware that the w3 consortium has web accessibility drafting committee? Consider also the facts that I have brought forward that Adobe has singled out OS's that are not allowed to run Flash Player. Consider also the fact that most designers simply use flash because they can't design properly and use other more accessible methods to achieve the same thing. I agree that a fix needs to be found, but this is not a cave man mentality, and we're not bringing up old war stories. The fact that this has not been all that successful given the larger number of sites now designed with flash player 9 which has been the number one problem here. If you have a fix I am sure we would all welcome the knowledge and use it- I certainly would. I merely point out (hopefully reaching some web designers and other flash fans) that flash is not the only way to go, and is certainly not preferable. _ It's simple! Sell your car for just $30 at CarPoint.com.au http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fsecure%2Dau%2Eimrworldwide%2Ecom%2Fcgi%2Dbin%2Fa%2Fci%5F450304%2Fet%5F2%2Fcg%5F801459%2Fpi
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
TTY's, and they can't understand why any folks would need mouses. Those of while not using this TTYs, i can't understand too. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jonathan McKeown wrote: On Monday 11 February 2008 22:26, Chuck Robey wrote: All you folks who are focussing on YouTube are (purposefully? I don't know) the fact that with just about half of the entire Web using flash in one way or antoehr, not using Flash is a huge problem, as anyone who browses without a flashplayer knows. Just to provide a counterpoint to this sweeping generalisation, I browse without a Flash player and it's never caused me any problem at all. There are a few sites which don't work without Flash. Having checked on a number of occasions, I've found (and I stress this is a personal opinion) that heavy use of Flash is a fairly reliable marker of a site I wouldn't be interested in whatever publishing techniques were used. It's rather like the old saying in the British advertising industry: only sing in an ad if you have nothing to say. How does Flash fit in with accessibility guidelines? In many countries, a commercial site which doesn't degrade gracefully when viewed with (eg) Lynx may fall foul of legislation protecting people with disabilities such as visual impairment. You know, there are some folks out there who are still using their old M32 TTY's, and they can't understand why any folks would need mouses. Those of us who have successfully made the move to the 21st century can tell them, but honestly, most of us are very tired of hearing the same hoary old excuses why things aren't necessary. The majority of folks doing browsing today aren't impressed that maybe some 3rd world country is unhappy with flash sites, they just want their flash sites to work, and ours don't. Why don't they? Because everytime someone comes up with a workable plan, all the real cave-men out there trot out there war-stories, and bore us all to death with their memoirs, and endlessly recursive arguments. Everytime they get proven wrong on one item, they just move the clock back a few months, grab the previous self-justification, and start the argument all back up again. You can't out-last them. I personally tried to fix things, got soundly beaten to death over it (and I WILL NOT try that one again, under pain of death, sorry!). MY flash works here and that's all I will worry about. I can't predict when things will finally improve, maybe when enough folks realize they don't have to put up with this. In short, I think ``half of the entire Web using Flash'' may be a bit of an overstatement even if you count Flash ad banners (which frankly I can do without), and the small number of Flash-only sites I encounter hasn't caused me temporary inconvenience, never mind ``a huge problem''. Jonathan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHsfiQz62J6PPcoOkRAu6/AKCArtXTPwLGKD0xN+r6MG8fk+wEUwCglafp Al9ztYns1ZHDV7IQ8foSU7o= =1fY6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:16:56 +0100 Subject: Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin? On Wednesday 13 February 2008 00:27:53 Da Rock wrote: Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:50:40 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin? -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jonathan McKeown wrote: On Monday 11 February 2008 22:26, Chuck Robey wrote: All you folks who are focussing on YouTube are (purposefully? I don't know) the fact that with just about half of the entire Web using flash in one way or antoehr, not using Flash is a huge problem, as anyone who browses without a flashplayer knows. Just to provide a counterpoint to this sweeping generalisation, I browse without a Flash player and it's never caused me any problem at all. There are a few sites which don't work without Flash. Having checked on a number of occasions, I've found (and I stress this is a personal opinion) that heavy use of Flash is a fairly reliable marker of a site I wouldn't be interested in whatever publishing techniques were used. It's rather like the old saying in the British advertising industry: only sing in an ad if you have nothing to say. How does Flash fit in with accessibility guidelines? In many countries, a commercial site which doesn't degrade gracefully when viewed with (eg) Lynx may fall foul of legislation protecting people with disabilities such as visual impairment. You know, there are some folks out there who are still using their old M32 TTY's, and they can't understand why any folks would need mouses. Those of us who have successfully made the move to the 21st century can tell them, but honestly, most of us are very tired of hearing the same hoary old excuses why things aren't necessary. The majority of folks doing browsing today aren't impressed that maybe some 3rd world country is unhappy with flash sites, they just want their flash sites to work, and ours don't. Why don't they? Because everytime someone comes up with a workable plan, all the real cave-men out there trot out there war-stories, and bore us all to death with their memoirs, and endlessly recursive arguments. Everytime they get proven wrong on one item, they just move the clock back a few months, grab the previous self-justification, and start the argument all back up again. You can't out-last them. I personally tried to fix things, got soundly beaten to death over it (and I WILL NOT try that one again, under pain of death, sorry!). MY flash works here and that's all I will worry about. I can't predict when things will finally improve, maybe when enough folks realize they don't have to put up with this. In short, I think ``half of the entire Web using Flash'' may be a bit of an overstatement even if you count Flash ad banners (which frankly I can do without), and the small number of Flash-only sites I encounter hasn't caused me temporary inconvenience, never mind ``a huge problem''. Jonathan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHsfiQz62J6PPcoOkRAu6/AKCArtXTPwLGKD0xN+r6MG8fk+wEUwCglafp Al9ztYns1ZHDV7IQ8foSU7o= =1fY6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] That was a right pretty speech there, and I agree with the sentiments of moving forward with technology. However, I disagree that this is merely a case backward compatibility. Are you aware that the w3 consortium has web accessibility drafting committee? Consider also the facts that I have brought forward that Adobe has singled out OS's that are not allowed to run Flash Player. Consider also the fact that most designers simply use flash because they can't design properly and use other more accessible methods to achieve the same thing. I agree that a fix needs to be found, but this is not a cave man mentality, and we're not bringing up old war stories. The fact that this has not been all that successful given the larger number of sites now designed with flash player 9 which has been the number one problem here. If you have a fix I am sure we would all welcome the knowledge and use it- I certainly would. I merely point out (hopefully reaching some web designers and other flash fans) that flash is not the only way to go, and is certainly not preferable. Let me be the one to point out
RE: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:16:31 -0500 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin? On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:55:45 + Da Rock wrote: Hah! Good luck... I never got it work either, There are wrappers all other barriers to stop you. And even then it may only work intermittently. Correct me if I'm wrong guys I hear you. I have used both Firefox and Opera and have never gotten flash to work as easily and consistently as it does under Windows. When the added burden of having to use wrappers, etc, it is just not worth the hassle. I have seen references to system linking files to make flash work; however, I have better things to do than invest huge amounts of time attempting to get something to work when it is already technologically possible to do so without all that individual intervention. It does seem rather ironic that we claim that FreeBSD is a superior OS to Microsoft's Windows; however, we are unable to get even a common web add-on like flash to work reliably, consistently. Finger pointing does not alleviate the situation. -- Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. Ronald Reagan I would suggest that since adobe have specifically stated that is not licensed to run on bsd then there could be code to actively sabotage its running. Microsoft have done the same with ASP - can't run ASP and PHP on IIS together and ASP is not meant to run anywhere else (I know apache has something, but a lot of direct support has been outlawed it seems) so there is active warfare on OSS. _ Overpaid or Underpaid? Check our comprehensive Salary Centre http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent%2Emycareer%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fsalary%2Dcentre%3Fs%5Fcid%3D595810_t=766724125_r=Hotmail_Email_Tagline_MyCareer_Oct07_m=EXT___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 11:55:45 + Da Rock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hah! Good luck... I never got it work either, There are wrappers all other barriers to stop you. And even then it may only work intermittently. Correct me if I'm wrong guys I hear you. I have used both Firefox and Opera and have never gotten flash to work as easily and consistently as it does under Windows. When the added burden of having to use wrappers, etc, it is just not worth the hassle. I have seen references to system linking files to make flash work; however, I have better things to do than invest huge amounts of time attempting to get something to work when it is already technologically possible to do so without all that individual intervention. It does seem rather ironic that we claim that FreeBSD is a superior OS to Microsoft's Windows; however, we are unable to get even a common web add-on like flash to work reliably, consistently. Finger pointing does not alleviate the situation. -- Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. Ronald Reagan signature.asc Description: PGP signature
RE: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:11:04 +0200 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FreeBSD-questions@freebsd.org CC: Subject: Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin? Dear all, all this is very exciting, but as BSD user I was never able to make the thing work anyway. So after all is said and done, would it be possible to have a guide describing how to make the thing work? Thanks, All the best Takis 2008/2/11, Reid Linnemann : Written by James on 02/10/08 21:59 I just tried a portupgrade out and it failed on linux flashplugin. Apparently, none of the file exist in the ftp repositories anymore. Any idea what happened there? James from /usr/ports/UPDATING: 2006-04-08 Affects: users of www/linux-flashplugin* Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reason: These ports have been removed because the End User License Agreement explicitly forbids to run the Flash Player on FreeBSD. For more details, see http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/license/desktop/. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hah! Good luck... I never got it work either, There are wrappers all other barriers to stop you. And even then it may only work intermittently. Correct me if I'm wrong guys _ It's simple! Sell your car for just $30 at CarPoint.com.au http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fsecure%2Dau%2Eimrworldwide%2Ecom%2Fcgi%2Dbin%2Fa%2Fci%5F450304%2Fet%5F2%2Fcg%5F801459%2Fpi%5F1004813%2Fai%5F859641_t=762955845_r=tig_OCT07_m=EXT___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Dear all, all this is very exciting, but as BSD user I was never able to make the thing work anyway. So after all is said and done, would it be possible to have a guide describing how to make the thing work? Thanks, All the best Takis 2008/2/11, Reid Linnemann [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Written by James on 02/10/08 21:59 I just tried a portupgrade out and it failed on linux flashplugin. Apparently, none of the file exist in the ftp repositories anymore. Any idea what happened there? James from /usr/ports/UPDATING: 2006-04-08 Affects: users of www/linux-flashplugin* Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reason: These ports have been removed because the End User License Agreement explicitly forbids to run the Flash Player on FreeBSD. For more details, see http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/license/desktop/. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Hah! Good luck... I never got it work either, There are wrappers all other barriers to stop you. And even then it may only work intermittently. Correct me if I'm wrong guys as i remember (once i did this) you have to install all from linux-* names like linux-opera, linux-flashplugin ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
On Tuesday 12 February 2008 21:50, Chuck Robey wrote: Jonathan McKeown wrote: [snip] There are a few sites which don't work without Flash. Having checked on a number of occasions, I've found (and I stress this is a personal opinion) that heavy use of Flash is a fairly reliable marker of a site I wouldn't be interested in whatever publishing techniques were used. It's rather like the old saying in the British advertising industry: only sing in an ad if you have nothing to say. How does Flash fit in with accessibility guidelines? In many countries, a commercial site which doesn't degrade gracefully when viewed with (eg) Lynx may fall foul of legislation protecting people with disabilities such as visual impairment. You know, there are some folks out there who are still using their old M32 TTY's, and they can't understand why any folks would need mouses. Those of us who have successfully made the move to the 21st century can tell them, but honestly, most of us are very tired of hearing the same hoary old excuses why things aren't necessary. The majority of folks doing browsing today aren't impressed that maybe some 3rd world country is unhappy with flash sites, they just want their flash sites to work, and ours don't. Why don't they? Because everytime someone comes up with a workable plan, all the real cave-men out there trot out there war-stories, and bore us all to death with their memoirs, and endlessly recursive arguments. Everytime they get proven wrong on one item, they just move the clock back a few months, grab the previous self-justification, and start the argument all back up again. You can't out-last them. I don't think there's any need for gratuitous rudeness. I did stress that this is a personal opinion. Just to reiterate: I **personally** have not found any site that I /need/ to visit which /requires/ Flash to operate, and I suspect that may well be because, under legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar laws in other countries, this would amount to discrimination and is officially frowned upon. I still maintain that your claim that ``half the entire Web'' requires Flash is hugely overstated. Your comment about third world countries is one of the most narrow-minded, ignorant and arrogant statements I've heard in many years of listening to petty bigots - quite apart from the fact that you're extending what I stated was a personal opinion to an entire country and continent based on your personal prejudice. (Not that it's important, by the way, but I wasn't born here: I chose to move to Africa from Europe, and I didn't like Flash much before I got here. I still don't, and I have better - though more expensive - bandwidth available to me here than I would in many rural parts of the US). And finally: ``The majority of folks doing browsing today aren't impressed that maybe some 3rd world country is unhappy with flash sites, they just want their flash sites to work''. Stop press: since 90% of the world is using Microsoft operating systems and just want their .exes to work, the FreeBSD project is closing down - it's all been a huge mistake and we're just cavemen standing in the way of progress. Clown. Jonathan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Agree here, but open-source friendly companies that promote the use of flash are much worse. As it seems to be, the reason why people want to use flash on FreeBSD is youtube in most of cases. you don't need flash to view youtobe movies. simply get URL from there, use youtube-dl from ports to download and play with mplayer possibly (my connection is to slow now to try realtime) you may do mplayer `youtube-dl -g URL` by the way you'll get better control of what's going on, and save bandwidth by not downloading the movie every time, just once ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Reid Linnemann wrote: Written by Heiko Wundram (Beenic) on 02/11/08 08:40 Am Montag, 11. Februar 2008 15:32:26 schrieb Erich Dollansky: Hi, Reid Linnemann wrote: Written by James on 02/10/08 21:59 I just tried a portupgrade out and it failed on linux flashplugin. Apparently, none of the file exist in the ftp repositories anymore. Any idea what happened there? James from /usr/ports/UPDATING: 2006-04-08 Affects: users of www/linux-flashplugin* Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reason: These ports have been removed because the End User License Agreement explicitly forbids to run the Flash Player on FreeBSD. For more details, see http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/license/desktop/. I could not find the word FreeBSD in the license agreement. BSD also does not appear there. Read this (in the license agreement): ... For the avoidance of doubt, no embedded or device versions of the above operating systems, or any other operating systems, are included as Authorized Operating Systems. ... 2.1You may install and use the Software on a single desktop or laptop computer that runs an Authorized Operating System. A license for the Software may not be shared, installed or used concurrently on different computers. ...where Authorized Operating Systems is only Windows, Linux, Solaris and Mac OS as defined before the initial sentence, and as such, there's no clause that allows you to use the software on BSDs, and finally, that makes it forbidden to use on BSDs. This is another reason why Flash is bad, bad, bad. Am I repeating myself? There appears to be an echo in this room FWIW, should you accidentally comment out the RESTRICTED declaration in the port Makefile, and the plugin tarball mysteriously materialize in /usr/ports/distfiles, you could perhaps accidentally install the port and put yourself in violation of the license (you naughty boy you). I couldn't find the flashplugin-7 tarball anywhere, but the flashplugin-9 tarball is at http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/install_flash_player_9_linux.tar.gz (so you can download it for your linux machines, duh ;) ) Also people saying that FreeBSD has no licence to use flash should read /usr/ports/www/linux-flashplugin9/pkg-descr or /usr/ports/www/linux-flashplugin7/pkg-descr Where the 2006 UPDATING entrry is addressed. personally http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/installers/archive/fp7_archive.zip will download fine for me. [~](15:20:39) [EMAIL PROTECTED] /usr/ports/distfiles/flashplugin/fp7_archive.zip [~](15:21:07) [EMAIL PROTECTED] -f www/linux-flashplugin7 [Gathering depends for www/linux-flashplugin7 . done] --- Reinstalling 'linux-flashplugin-7.0r73' (www/linux-flashplugin7) --- Building '/usr/ports/www/linux-flashplugin7' === Cleaning for linux-flashplugin-7.0r73 === Found saved configuration for linux-flashplugin-7.0r70 = fp7_archive.zip doesn't seem to exist in /usr/ports/distfiles/flashplugin. = Attempting to fetch from http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/installers/archive/. fp7_archive.zip39% of 37 MB 203 kBps 01m56s Vince ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Written by Jonathan McKeown on 02/11/08 12:36 On Monday 11 February 2008 16:40, Heiko Wundram (Beenic) wrote: Am Montag, 11. Februar 2008 15:32:26 schrieb Erich Dollansky: Hi, Reid Linnemann wrote: These ports have been removed because the End User License Agreement explicitly forbids to run the Flash Player on FreeBSD. For more details, see http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/license/desktop/. I could not find the word FreeBSD in the license agreement. BSD also does not appear there. Read this (in the license agreement): ... For the avoidance of doubt, no embedded or device versions of the above operating systems, or any other operating systems, are included as Authorized Operating Systems. ... 2.1You may install and use the Software on a single desktop or laptop computer that runs an Authorized Operating System. A license for the Software may not be shared, installed or used concurrently on different computers. OK, I followed the link above and was redirected to http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/players. I followed the link to Flash and found: 2.1 General Use. You may install and Use a copy of the Software on your compatible Computer, up to the Permitted Number of computers. The Software may not be shared, installed or used concurrently on different computers. See Section 3 for important restrictions on the Use of Adobe Reader and Web Players. and the restriction under section 3: 3.1 Web Player Prohibited Devices. You may not Use any Web Player on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. I didn't wade through every word of the agreement, but as far as I can see, the licence everyone is talking about appears not to exist - and this, apparently the replacement, seems to be dated 20060607. Are we sure the licence still bans FreeBSD? Jonathan The information I posted appears to be irrelevant now; from http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/96374 the license issue appears to be resolved, but FreeBSD is still not permitted to distribute linux-flashplugin, that right being reserved by authorized operating systems and thus requiring the restricted flag. But they don't prohibit individual user from grabbing flash for FreeBSD on their own. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
On Monday 11 February 2008 20:36, Jonathan McKeown wrote: Are we sure the licence still bans FreeBSD? And it turns out that everyone else is looking at the Macromedia Shockwave Player licence, and I'm looking at the Adobe Flash player licence. FWIW, Shockwave (which claims to include the Macromedia Flash Player) still has the restriction preventing the use of FreeBSD; the Adobe Flash player licence doesn't. I have no idea what the difference is or why. Jonathan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Written by Wojciech Puchar on 02/11/08 13:02 Jonathan The information I posted appears to be irrelevant now; from http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/96374 the license issue appears to be resolved, but FreeBSD is still not permitted to distribute linux-flashplugin, that right being reserved by authorized operating systems and thus requiring the restricted flag. But they don't prohibit individual user from grabbing flash for FreeBSD on their own. this is excellent licence. this will make users smart enough to use ports subsystem - able to use it, while others (who installed FreeBSD because they heard it's better than linux vista or whatever) - will not ;) heh - a darwinian user filter, yes? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Chuck Robey wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wojciech Puchar wrote: YouTube? Isn't the right spelling YouPorn? No, it isn't. If you find nothing worth watching on *You*Tube, it doesn't mean that others can't find interesting things. For example, I find there a lot of good and difficult-to-find material from some fields of art. get this interestinf stuff down to your disk with youtube-dl, then watch with mplayer. at least you will have it on your disk, not download each time as youtube does everything to prevent caching the stuff. as it's exactly agains efficiency, they have a reason to do this. any explanations why? i think because then they are able to keep control on the stuff, being able to remove anything at will, with no copy on users computers. All you folks who are focussing on YouTube are (purposefully? I don't know) the fact that with just about half of the entire Web using flash in one way or antoehr, not using Flash is a huge problem, as anyone who browses without a flashplayer knows. I dunno which license folks have been reading, This thread has gone on so long, I can't keep track anymore, but I do know that the link I saw from Adobe's site, referring to Flashplayer, doesn't mention (at all, even in passing) either Linux OR FreeBSD. They do ask you know to modify it (decompile, whatever) but there is an explicit loophole left, in order for folks to be able to adapt it to run on their platform. As far as the complaint about distributing it, we have LOTS of software in the same category, which seems to be possible for us to deal with, such as, well, anyone ever heard of Sun's Java? If we can do Java, we can do the flashplugin just the same. Someone has their dander up over licensing agreements (that's possible, I get that way) and are purposely interpreting the license as evilly as they can, but they are the one's who are preventing it from working on FreeBSD, not Adobe. Yes, those licenses are a poor joke, but if you ask me, so is Linux's. Jeeze, can't you find something more important to get upset about, like the high price of beer? I'm with you there. Of course, getting a decent beer in the US is a chore, too. I can't actually see the issue; the makefiles grab the files from wherever they're told to. If the only place listed to wget the flashplugin file from is adobe's site, then FreeBSD isn't a redistributor and we're within the terms of the license. James ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wojciech Puchar wrote: YouTube? Isn't the right spelling YouPorn? No, it isn't. If you find nothing worth watching on *You*Tube, it doesn't mean that others can't find interesting things. For example, I find there a lot of good and difficult-to-find material from some fields of art. get this interestinf stuff down to your disk with youtube-dl, then watch with mplayer. at least you will have it on your disk, not download each time as youtube does everything to prevent caching the stuff. as it's exactly agains efficiency, they have a reason to do this. any explanations why? i think because then they are able to keep control on the stuff, being able to remove anything at will, with no copy on users computers. All you folks who are focussing on YouTube are (purposefully? I don't know) the fact that with just about half of the entire Web using flash in one way or antoehr, not using Flash is a huge problem, as anyone who browses without a flashplayer knows. I dunno which license folks have been reading, This thread has gone on so long, I can't keep track anymore, but I do know that the link I saw from Adobe's site, referring to Flashplayer, doesn't mention (at all, even in passing) either Linux OR FreeBSD. They do ask you know to modify it (decompile, whatever) but there is an explicit loophole left, in order for folks to be able to adapt it to run on their platform. As far as the complaint about distributing it, we have LOTS of software in the same category, which seems to be possible for us to deal with, such as, well, anyone ever heard of Sun's Java? If we can do Java, we can do the flashplugin just the same. Someone has their dander up over licensing agreements (that's possible, I get that way) and are purposely interpreting the license as evilly as they can, but they are the one's who are preventing it from working on FreeBSD, not Adobe. Yes, those licenses are a poor joke, but if you ask me, so is Linux's. Jeeze, can't you find something more important to get upset about, like the high price of beer? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHsK9zz62J6PPcoOkRAmj0AJ9eJTgzTizOSP/tAuUt5zbvs2jH5ACeLXC9 liGXhNZMKtSDMqABttmeKFY= =mJtA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
this is just example of crap-design, I agree. Although I don't think everybody will. i don't care what others think. and i simply don't view them.. I'm afraid it's not that simple. Counterexample: When I was shopping for a new parachute rig, one of the manufacturers I was interested in turned out to have a Flash-only website. I could of course have decided not to buy there because their website sucks, but when it comes to equipment that's supposed to be going to save my life hundreds of times I'd much rather base the decision on the quality of the product than on the technical soundness of a website, thank you :-) in case of things that has very few producers you are unfortunately true. in every other, narrowing the offer to half won't be disastrous, and those who made flash-only website will lose few% of potential clients. with well designed website (i don't mean it can't have flash, but it must be usable without) everybody will read. and making all-compatible site isn't difficult. it's very easy ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Wojciech Puchar cut a corner: but there are sites that you can't do anything without flash, as even navigation requires this. True. this is just example of crap-design, I agree. Although I don't think everybody will. and i simply don't view them.. I'm afraid it's not that simple. Counterexample: When I was shopping for a new parachute rig, one of the manufacturers I was interested in turned out to have a Flash-only website. I could of course have decided not to buy there because their website sucks, but when it comes to equipment that's supposed to be going to save my life hundreds of times I'd much rather base the decision on the quality of the product than on the technical soundness of a website, thank you :-) I don't mean to ridicule your principles, I merely mean to point out that in my opinion it's not always as black and white as you make it seem. Alphons -- All right, that does it Bill [Donahue]. I'm pretty sure that killing Jesus is not very Christian. -- pope Benedict XVI, South Park episode #158 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 11:04:09PM +0200, Jonathan McKeown wrote: On Monday 11 February 2008 22:26, Chuck Robey wrote: All you folks who are focussing on YouTube are (purposefully? I don't know) the fact that with just about half of the entire Web using flash in one way or antoehr, not using Flash is a huge problem, as anyone who browses without a flashplayer knows. Just to provide a counterpoint to this sweeping generalisation, I browse without a Flash player and it's never caused me any problem at all. Usually I browse with NoScript, which blocks both Javascript and plugins. There are a few sites which don't work without Flash. Having checked on a number of occasions, I've found (and I stress this is a personal opinion) that heavy use of Flash is a fairly reliable marker of a site I wouldn't be interested in whatever publishing techniques were used. Flash is almost the de facto standard for video in the browser, because most desktop users have it, it doesn't require much in the way of configuration, and you don't have to worry about codecs. Nine times out of ten, if a site I wish to use requires Flash, it's to stream video. The rest of the time, I usually do just fine without it. In short, I think ``half of the entire Web using Flash'' may be a bit of an overstatement even if you count Flash ad banners (which frankly I can do without), and the small number of Flash-only sites I encounter hasn't caused me temporary inconvenience, never mind ``a huge problem''. Lots of sites use Flash, but most don't /require/ it. Jonathan Erik ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
On Monday 11 February 2008 22:26, Chuck Robey wrote: All you folks who are focussing on YouTube are (purposefully? I don't know) the fact that with just about half of the entire Web using flash in one way or antoehr, not using Flash is a huge problem, as anyone who browses without a flashplayer knows. Just to provide a counterpoint to this sweeping generalisation, I browse without a Flash player and it's never caused me any problem at all. There are a few sites which don't work without Flash. Having checked on a number of occasions, I've found (and I stress this is a personal opinion) that heavy use of Flash is a fairly reliable marker of a site I wouldn't be interested in whatever publishing techniques were used. It's rather like the old saying in the British advertising industry: only sing in an ad if you have nothing to say. How does Flash fit in with accessibility guidelines? In many countries, a commercial site which doesn't degrade gracefully when viewed with (eg) Lynx may fall foul of legislation protecting people with disabilities such as visual impairment. In short, I think ``half of the entire Web using Flash'' may be a bit of an overstatement even if you count Flash ad banners (which frankly I can do without), and the small number of Flash-only sites I encounter hasn't caused me temporary inconvenience, never mind ``a huge problem''. Jonathan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
On Monday 11 February 2008 16:40, Heiko Wundram (Beenic) wrote: Am Montag, 11. Februar 2008 15:32:26 schrieb Erich Dollansky: Hi, Reid Linnemann wrote: These ports have been removed because the End User License Agreement explicitly forbids to run the Flash Player on FreeBSD. For more details, see http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/license/desktop/. I could not find the word FreeBSD in the license agreement. BSD also does not appear there. Read this (in the license agreement): ... For the avoidance of doubt, no embedded or device versions of the above operating systems, or any other operating systems, are included as Authorized Operating Systems. ... 2.1You may install and use the Software on a single desktop or laptop computer that runs an Authorized Operating System. A license for the Software may not be shared, installed or used concurrently on different computers. OK, I followed the link above and was redirected to http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/players. I followed the link to Flash and found: 2.1 General Use. You may install and Use a copy of the Software on your compatible Computer, up to the Permitted Number of computers. The Software may not be shared, installed or used concurrently on different computers. See Section 3 for important restrictions on the Use of Adobe Reader and Web Players. and the restriction under section 3: 3.1 Web Player Prohibited Devices. You may not Use any Web Player on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. I didn't wade through every word of the agreement, but as far as I can see, the licence everyone is talking about appears not to exist - and this, apparently the replacement, seems to be dated 20060607. Are we sure the licence still bans FreeBSD? Jonathan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
possibly (my connection is to slow now to try realtime) you may do mplayer `youtube-dl -g URL` gnash and swfdec-plugin (both in ports) will also play youtube movies if you need them in your browser for some reason :) 2 more reasons to not use proprietary non-portable software with strange licencing. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:40:34 +0100 Heiko Wundram (Beenic) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read this (in the license agreement): ... For the avoidance of doubt, no embedded or device versions of the above operating systems, or any other operating systems, are included as Authorized Operating Systems. ... 2.1You may install and use the Software on a single desktop or laptop computer that runs an Authorized Operating System. A license for the Software may not be shared, installed or used concurrently on different computers. Actually, flash used to run on FreeBSD's Linux compatibility layer; does that count as embedded or device version of Linux? If yes, does the same go for Wine on FreeBSD? If yes again, what about Wine on Linux? Even on Linux, win32-firefox with win32-flash (within Wine) run much better than Linux-flash itself. This is another reason why Flash is bad, bad, bad. Am I repeating myself? Agree here, but open-source friendly companies that promote the use of flash are much worse. As it seems to be, the reason why people want to use flash on FreeBSD is youtube in most of cases. Best regards - -- Nikola Lečić = Никола Лечић fingerprint : FEF3 66AF C90E EDC3 D878 7CDC 956D F4AB A377 1C9B -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iQCVAwUBR7BmnPzDP9K2CKGYAQNTvwQA08QlX32hlymb/p9L41STWZyh+c5e6f53 64RrvfB8ir7bu7WKHwFxTS8JNAkgTCD3GFw2fk4Gz1f/KcBAe2MT3bcLyiL8wVOw +nmMaHzusM/z6HR3WIcA4W1cwIpS4yXypBQiy6E+RLPOZBQHqMPddcBfcdEa2lpj 77VQrzBriJE= =Fnra -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Am Montag, 11. Februar 2008 15:32:26 schrieb Erich Dollansky: Hi, Reid Linnemann wrote: Written by James on 02/10/08 21:59 I just tried a portupgrade out and it failed on linux flashplugin. Apparently, none of the file exist in the ftp repositories anymore. Any idea what happened there? James from /usr/ports/UPDATING: 2006-04-08 Affects: users of www/linux-flashplugin* Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reason: These ports have been removed because the End User License Agreement explicitly forbids to run the Flash Player on FreeBSD. For more details, see http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/license/desktop/. I could not find the word FreeBSD in the license agreement. BSD also does not appear there. Read this (in the license agreement): ... For the avoidance of doubt, no embedded or device versions of the above operating systems, or any other operating systems, are included as Authorized Operating Systems. ... 2.1You may install and use the Software on a single desktop or laptop computer that runs an Authorized Operating System. A license for the Software may not be shared, installed or used concurrently on different computers. ...where Authorized Operating Systems is only Windows, Linux, Solaris and Mac OS as defined before the initial sentence, and as such, there's no clause that allows you to use the software on BSDs, and finally, that makes it forbidden to use on BSDs. This is another reason why Flash is bad, bad, bad. Am I repeating myself? -- Heiko Wundram Product Application Development ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Hi, Reid Linnemann wrote: Written by James on 02/10/08 21:59 I just tried a portupgrade out and it failed on linux flashplugin. Apparently, none of the file exist in the ftp repositories anymore. Any idea what happened there? James from /usr/ports/UPDATING: 2006-04-08 Affects: users of www/linux-flashplugin* Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reason: These ports have been removed because the End User License Agreement explicitly forbids to run the Flash Player on FreeBSD. For more details, see http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/license/desktop/. I could not find the word FreeBSD in the license agreement. BSD also does not appear there. Erich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
without), and the small number of Flash-only sites I encounter hasn't caused me temporary inconvenience, never mind ``a huge problem''. Lots of sites use Flash, but most don't /require/ it. exactly. but there are sites that you can't do anything without flash, as even navigation requires this. this is just example of crap-design, and i simply don't view them.. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
this is excellent licence. this will make users smart enough to use ports subsystem - able to use it, while others (who installed FreeBSD because they heard it's better than linux vista or whatever) - will not ;) heh - a darwinian user filter, yes? good description. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:31:05 +0800 Erich Dollansky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nikola Lečić wrote: [...] Agree here, but open-source friendly companies that promote the use of flash are much worse. As it seems to be, the reason why people want to use flash on FreeBSD is youtube in most of cases. YouTube? Isn't the right spelling YouPorn? No, it isn't. If you find nothing worth watching on *You*Tube, it doesn't mean that others can't find interesting things. For example, I find there a lot of good and difficult-to-find material from some fields of art. (Can anybody comment on my questions regarding Wine and Linux compatibility layer...?) - -- Nikola Lečić = Никола Лечић fingerprint : FEF3 66AF C90E EDC3 D878 7CDC 956D F4AB A377 1C9B -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iQCVAwUBR7CrUPzDP9K2CKGYAQPcigP/eQxtAKsCPdoQxnNxbj7ho5XZFbpzgkcJ B0jov5NBs7EPzaxWA7W5qM60MM7K6uPTkil1TbRnkaanH5JTiir04RbwaqNo1NBl 8ZtVaKp50UgBzDhKctYk5PRhDAP4+CTtGzCyzQ7z5H3R2dHVzh3ZiC/vTFGvL6w1 qq4yzpqbAe8= =OitZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Jonathan The information I posted appears to be irrelevant now; from http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/96374 the license issue appears to be resolved, but FreeBSD is still not permitted to distribute linux-flashplugin, that right being reserved by authorized operating systems and thus requiring the restricted flag. But they don't prohibit individual user from grabbing flash for FreeBSD on their own. this is excellent licence. this will make users smart enough to use ports subsystem - able to use it, while others (who installed FreeBSD because they heard it's better than linux vista or whatever) - will not ;) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Wojciech Puchar wrote: possibly (my connection is to slow now to try realtime) you may do mplayer `youtube-dl -g URL` gnash and swfdec-plugin (both in ports) will also play youtube movies if you need them in your browser for some reason :) 2 more reasons to not use proprietary non-portable software with strange licencing. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Does anyone know of a free software replacement for flash plugin that is BSD licensed? gnash seems to be furthest along, but I'd prefer something BSD. James ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
I have often felt that someone who cares so little or needs such ego massaging as to make a difficult-to-use commercial website is or simply - he paid a webdesigner, because his webpages looked good. most people don't understand that are many browsers, many systems, many different computers. but - if we (and others) WILL think as you - they would have to understand :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Hi, Nikola Lečić wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:40:34 +0100 Heiko Wundram (Beenic) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is another reason why Flash is bad, bad, bad. Am I repeating myself? this is known. I mean, it is known that Flash is bad. Agree here, but open-source friendly companies that promote the use of flash are much worse. As it seems to be, the reason why people want to use flash on FreeBSD is youtube in most of cases. YouTube? Isn't the right spelling YouPorn? Erich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Wojciech Puchar wrote: Agree here, but open-source friendly companies that promote the use of flash are much worse. As it seems to be, the reason why people want to use flash on FreeBSD is youtube in most of cases. you don't need flash to view youtobe movies. simply get URL from there, use youtube-dl from ports to download and play with mplayer possibly (my connection is to slow now to try realtime) you may do mplayer `youtube-dl -g URL` gnash and swfdec-plugin (both in ports) will also play youtube movies if you need them in your browser for some reason :) by the way you'll get better control of what's going on, and save bandwidth by not downloading the movie every time, just once ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Written by Heiko Wundram (Beenic) on 02/11/08 08:40 Am Montag, 11. Februar 2008 15:32:26 schrieb Erich Dollansky: Hi, Reid Linnemann wrote: Written by James on 02/10/08 21:59 I just tried a portupgrade out and it failed on linux flashplugin. Apparently, none of the file exist in the ftp repositories anymore. Any idea what happened there? James from /usr/ports/UPDATING: 2006-04-08 Affects: users of www/linux-flashplugin* Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reason: These ports have been removed because the End User License Agreement explicitly forbids to run the Flash Player on FreeBSD. For more details, see http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/license/desktop/. I could not find the word FreeBSD in the license agreement. BSD also does not appear there. Read this (in the license agreement): ... For the avoidance of doubt, no embedded or device versions of the above operating systems, or any other operating systems, are included as Authorized Operating Systems. ... 2.1You may install and use the Software on a single desktop or laptop computer that runs an Authorized Operating System. A license for the Software may not be shared, installed or used concurrently on different computers. ...where Authorized Operating Systems is only Windows, Linux, Solaris and Mac OS as defined before the initial sentence, and as such, there's no clause that allows you to use the software on BSDs, and finally, that makes it forbidden to use on BSDs. This is another reason why Flash is bad, bad, bad. Am I repeating myself? There appears to be an echo in this room FWIW, should you accidentally comment out the RESTRICTED declaration in the port Makefile, and the plugin tarball mysteriously materialize in /usr/ports/distfiles, you could perhaps accidentally install the port and put yourself in violation of the license (you naughty boy you). I couldn't find the flashplugin-7 tarball anywhere, but the flashplugin-9 tarball is at http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/install_flash_player_9_linux.tar.gz (so you can download it for your linux machines, duh ;) ) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
...where Authorized Operating Systems is only Windows, Linux, Solaris and Mac OS as defined before the initial sentence, and as such, there's no clause that allows you to use the software on BSDs, and finally, that makes it forbidden to use on BSDs. This is another reason why Flash is bad, bad, bad. Am I repeating myself? i will repeat what i repeated for a long time everywhere, including this list. If Macromedia (or anyone else) DO NOT want us to use their product, simply accept their will. If webpage owner don't like us to view their page for any reason, simply don't view it, because this is what they want. DO NOT force anyone to anything. for few years flash is popular, i'm sure i lost no valuable webpages, while not watching lots of useless, but brainwashing pages. Flash, like lots of other things, are used in attempt to guide the reader and try to control brain - so he/she will watch that site the way author wanted, not he/she wants. Other pages are made the way that you HAVE to use (often nonexisting or hidden) site maps to get to actual information. I - personally - have no flash, java off, javascript off, and all is OK. rarely i turn on javascript. Good sites, having lots of real information, works best without all these craps. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 00:37:23 +0100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: what happened to linuxflashplugin? And I agree wholeheartedly with both sentiments here. I design sites which I hope will reach 98% of the web, including disability access, and will be at least readable to browser that might not display content correctly. I think its a sham how a lot of web design companies- particularly here in Australia- who take the easy way out and design poorly based on statistics and familiar tools. i don't think australia is any different than any other place. Thats very possible. the problem is not how popular IE is, but how to make pages readable to everybody. that's what HTML was invented for. Unfortunately, web designers and some clients don't think that way- meanwhile they miss out on valuable clientele (Like ME!). include link to www.anybrowser.org on your pages :) Mind you I'm building clients sites this way, as well as my own. The link looks good, but is there a way for me to get as many browsers and platforms to check my pages for errors? I have access to windows (maybe not for much longer, although I may use vmware to solve that) and linux and BSD. I need to check safari and mac, plus others. Any ideas? Anybody with a platform that can check it out for me maybe? _ Overpaid or Underpaid? Check our comprehensive Salary Centre http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent%2Emycareer%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fsalary%2Dcentre%3Fs%5Fcid%3D595810_t=766724125_r=Hotmail_Email_Tagline_MyCareer_Oct07_m=EXT___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
And I agree wholeheartedly with both sentiments here. I design sites which I hope will reach 98% of the web, including disability access, and will be at least readable to browser that might not display content correctly. I think its a sham how a lot of web design companies- particularly here in Australia- who take the easy way out and design poorly based on statistics and familiar tools. i don't think australia is any different than any other place. the problem is not how popular IE is, but how to make pages readable to everybody. that's what HTML was invented for. include link to www.anybrowser.org on your pages :) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:52:26 +0100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin? this is just example of crap-design, I agree. Although I don't think everybody will. i don't care what others think. and i simply don't view them.. I'm afraid it's not that simple. Counterexample: When I was shopping for a new parachute rig, one of the manufacturers I was interested in turned out to have a Flash-only website. I could of course have decided not to buy there because their website sucks, but when it comes to equipment that's supposed to be going to save my life hundreds of times I'd much rather base the decision on the quality of the product than on the technical soundness of a website, thank you :-) in case of things that has very few producers you are unfortunately true. in every other, narrowing the offer to half won't be disastrous, and those who made flash-only website will lose few% of potential clients. with well designed website (i don't mean it can't have flash, but it must be usable without) everybody will read. and making all-compatible site isn't difficult. it's very easy And I agree wholeheartedly with both sentiments here. I design sites which I hope will reach 98% of the web, including disability access, and will be at least readable to browser that might not display content correctly. I think its a sham how a lot of web design companies- particularly here in Australia- who take the easy way out and design poorly based on statistics and familiar tools. For reference any web designers out there: IE is not the number one browser these days, and is losing ground because IE7 sucks (numerous bugs, including problems with interoperability with MSN Messenger!). Firefox is growing as is OSS. So start changing guys! Adobe would do well to take note too What also can't understand is why web designers can't make better use of the tools available on the servers themselves- they seem to be stuck on simple LAMP or whatever, and can't get around to using the other cool modules offered by apache to reduce load on the server and speed up response. It is a complete system after all. Apologies for my rant, but trying to convince a customer on this is hard as well :) _ Overpaid or Underpaid? Check our comprehensive Salary Centre http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent%2Emycareer%2Ecom%2Eau%2Fsalary%2Dcentre%3Fs%5Fcid%3D595810_t=766724125_r=Hotmail_Email_Tagline_MyCareer_Oct07_m=EXT___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 12:00:27AM +, Da Rock wrote: include link to www.anybrowser.org on your pages :) Mind you I'm building clients sites this way, as well as my own. The link looks good, but is there a way for me to get as many browsers and platforms to check my pages for errors? I have access to windows (maybe not for much longer, although I may use vmware to solve that) and linux and BSD. I need to check safari and mac, plus others. Any ideas? Anybody with a platform that can check it out for me maybe? You can get Safari for Windows: http://www.apple.com/safari/download/ I use it to check my pages. I also use IE7 on XP and you can install IE6 at the same time on XP. I don't bother with checking for bugs with IE6: it's fubarred and my site is non-commercial. As for flash, I avoid it like the plague. Example, I was looking into buying a titanium bike frame. This guy had a good reputation: http://www.crisptitanium.com/ But the site is a fsckin disaster of un-navigable flash that hence doesn't show up in a Google search. The site suggests to me technical incompetence, which I don't want if I'm hurtling down a hill on one of his frames. Hence, I'm going with an Enigma or Litespeed (when I've the money ;) -- Frank Contact info: http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/misc/contact.html ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Hi, just send them an e-mail telling them that you are so sorry about the quality of their website that you have to buy somewhere else. Do not send this to the webmaster, send it to the sales department. Those people fight for the clients and give a shit on technology. Erich Alphons Fonz van Werven wrote: Wojciech Puchar cut a corner: but there are sites that you can't do anything without flash, as even navigation requires this. True. this is just example of crap-design, I agree. Although I don't think everybody will. and i simply don't view them.. I'm afraid it's not that simple. Counterexample: When I was shopping for a new parachute rig, one of the manufacturers I was interested in turned out to have a Flash-only website. I could of course have decided not to buy there because their website sucks, but when it comes to equipment that's supposed to be going to save my life hundreds of times I'd much rather base the decision on the quality of the product than on the technical soundness of a website, thank you :-) I don't mean to ridicule your principles, I merely mean to point out that in my opinion it's not always as black and white as you make it seem. Alphons ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
YouTube? Isn't the right spelling YouPorn? No, it isn't. If you find nothing worth watching on *You*Tube, it doesn't mean that others can't find interesting things. For example, I find there a lot of good and difficult-to-find material from some fields of art. get this interestinf stuff down to your disk with youtube-dl, then watch with mplayer. at least you will have it on your disk, not download each time as youtube does everything to prevent caching the stuff. as it's exactly agains efficiency, they have a reason to do this. any explanations why? i think because then they are able to keep control on the stuff, being able to remove anything at will, with no copy on users computers. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
just send them an e-mail telling them that you are so sorry about the quality of their website that you have to buy somewhere else. Do not send this to the webmaster, send it to the sales department. Those people fight for the clients and give a shit on technology. exactly. they simply don't know the problem exist. i think it could be done more politely by asking them of sending their product data as text based e-mail (+possible images), because their webpage is unusable. they will have to respond, and more people doing this will give them a lot of work :) and will motivate them to think ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Jonathan McKeown wrote: On Monday 11 February 2008 16:40, Heiko Wundram (Beenic) wrote: Am Montag, 11. Februar 2008 15:32:26 schrieb Erich Dollansky: Hi, Reid Linnemann wrote: These ports have been removed because the End User License Agreement explicitly forbids to run the Flash Player on FreeBSD. For more details, see http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/license/desktop/. I could not find the word FreeBSD in the license agreement. BSD also does not appear there. Read this (in the license agreement): ... For the avoidance of doubt, no embedded or device versions of the above operating systems, or any other operating systems, are included as Authorized Operating Systems. ... 2.1You may install and use the Software on a single desktop or laptop computer that runs an Authorized Operating System. A license for the Software may not be shared, installed or used concurrently on different computers. OK, I followed the link above and was redirected to http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/players. I followed the link to Flash and found: 2.1 General Use. You may install and Use a copy of the Software on your compatible Computer, up to the Permitted Number of computers. The Software may not be shared, installed or used concurrently on different computers. See Section 3 for important restrictions on the Use of Adobe Reader and Web Players. and the restriction under section 3: 3.1 Web Player Prohibited Devices. You may not Use any Web Player on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. I didn't wade through every word of the agreement, but as far as I can see, the licence everyone is talking about appears not to exist - and this, apparently the replacement, seems to be dated 20060607. Are we sure the licence still bans FreeBSD? Jonathan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I read the license and noted the same thing, which is why I went ahead and installed the linux flash plugin with a clear licensual conscience, though feeling a small pang of guilt as my inner RMS yelled at me. Maybe we should ask the maintainer to reevaluate the license? James ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:35:13PM +, Alphons Fonz van Werven wrote: Wojciech Puchar cut a corner: I'm afraid it's not that simple. Counterexample: When I was shopping for a new parachute rig, one of the manufacturers I was interested in turned out to have a Flash-only website. I could of course have decided not to buy there because their website sucks, but when it comes to equipment that's supposed to be going to save my life hundreds of times I'd much rather base the decision on the quality of the product than on the technical soundness of a website, thank you :-) I don't mean to ridicule your principles, I merely mean to point out that in my opinion it's not always as black and white as you make it seem. Tell the vendor. I wanted to shop at a web site (wickers.com), but it was useless without Flash. I sent an email saying I wanted to place an order, but I could not view their site. It was fixed enough to be functional the next day, and I placed an order. They re-launched the site several weeks later. It still recommends, but does not demand, Flash. I do not know if the changes were a response to complaints, but I think complaining was worthwhile. Cheers, Gordon ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Written by James on 02/10/08 21:59 I just tried a portupgrade out and it failed on linux flashplugin. Apparently, none of the file exist in the ftp repositories anymore. Any idea what happened there? James from /usr/ports/UPDATING: 2006-04-08 Affects: users of www/linux-flashplugin* Author: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reason: These ports have been removed because the End User License Agreement explicitly forbids to run the Flash Player on FreeBSD. For more details, see http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/license/desktop/. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:35:13PM +, Alphons Fonz van Werven wrote: Wojciech Puchar cut a corner: but there are sites that you can't do anything without flash, as even navigation requires this. True. this is just example of crap-design, I agree. Although I don't think everybody will. and i simply don't view them.. I'm afraid it's not that simple. Counterexample: When I was shopping for a new parachute rig, one of the manufacturers I was interested in turned out to have a Flash-only website. I could of course have decided not to buy there because their website sucks, but when it comes to equipment that's supposed to be going to save my life hundreds of times I'd much rather base the decision on the quality of the product than on the technical soundness of a website, thank you :-) But, the attentiveness to potential customer's needs may well be represented by their attention to the quality of their website. I have often felt that someone who cares so little or needs such ego massaging as to make a difficult-to-use commercial website is probably demonstrating the care they would put in to their product or service.Anyway, it would make me ask more questions - including why do you dis your customers in your web site. jerry I don't mean to ridicule your principles, I merely mean to point out that in my opinion it's not always as black and white as you make it seem. Alphons -- All right, that does it Bill [Donahue]. I'm pretty sure that killing Jesus is not very Christian. -- pope Benedict XVI, South Park episode #158 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: what happened to linuxflashplugin?
Hi, Wojciech Puchar wrote: just send them an e-mail telling them that you are so sorry about the quality of their website that you have to buy somewhere else. Do not send this to the webmaster, send it to the sales department. Those people fight for the clients and give a shit on technology. exactly. they simply don't know the problem exist. i think it could be done more politely by asking them of sending their product data as text based e-mail (+possible images), because their webpage is unusable. they will have to respond, and more people doing this will give them a lot of work :) and will motivate them to think it does not amtter how you do it as long as you address the sales department. The web master gives a shit for the clients. They are just a disturbing piece of shit for him but they are heaven sent for the sales people. Erich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
what happened to linuxflashplugin?
I just tried a portupgrade out and it failed on linux flashplugin. Apparently, none of the file exist in the ftp repositories anymore. Any idea what happened there? James ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
