Re: Solaris Compat?
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:04:33 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar wrote: > They don't just dumps out potential readers that don't use "the only > right" OS and browser. > > They too - dumps out all disabled people, most importantly blind. > > It's not a problem for a blind to read plain text on computers (there are > LOTS of solutions for this), but navigating in graphics-only manus etc. is > impossible. The HTML standard offers means to accomplish even this: The img tag has the parameters alt= and longdesc= that can be set so the text mode browser shows this text instead of the image. Of couse, it's up to the web developer to use descriptive text, such as the equivalent of the image menu selection in alt= or a description of what you see on an image in longdesc=, but this seems to be too much "old school" for our today's script kiddies who impersonate professional web designers. :-) Following the W3C's standards is always good. They even provide checking software for web pages (HTML and CSS), but "It works for me", said by the web developer, seems to make these excellent tools useless... -- Polytropon >From Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Solaris Compat?
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:23:31 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar wrote: > what i personally found is that webpage that can't be viewed at all > without flash most often doesn't have any usable information. There are web pages that, without "Flash", won't even let you know if you're on the correct page - the HTML source of the index page doesn't contain anything than one "Flash" reference. It's with "Flash" loaden pages as with orthography (in Germany at least): If you have something OF VALUE to tell, content and form go hand in hand. Professional web projects always honor this point of view, containing valid (!) HTML and, if "Flash" is included, there's always a means to bypass it, because it's an ADDITION, and not required. Even more important: If you're disabled through a disease of your eyes (read: you're blind), youre happy about every page that can be displayed with lynx (or any text mode browser). That's a sign of quality, especially if img includes alt= and longdesc= for the visually impaired. > for pages that have some flash extras like adverts etc.. it's even > adventage not having this. Opera simply displays an empty box, not asking be to download a plugin that doesn't even exist. :-) > Once again - every company can limit it's userbase just becasue it wants. > Flash as a standard isn't bad, but because of this, it's not really a > standard. "Flash" isn't a standard. If it's integrated in every major browser on any OS (such as viewing JPG images is, for example), then I'd be glad to review my standpoint. :-) -- Polytropon >From Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Solaris Compat?
do stupid things I really, really dislike the notion that any company, in the selfishly sheer pursuit of profits, should be able to dictate to anyone what that person should be able to do, giving that it's within the limits of the law. Not allowing one to view many sites ISN'T within the moral control of any company. Those who disallow you to view many sites are the sites authors!! Nothing else. Properly designed page is viewable in ANY browser. It's not bad to use flash for some "flashing" adverts, as long as you can browse the site without this. The REAL information doesn't need any extras, and should be always readable with simplest text-based browser. They don't just dumps out potential readers that don't use "the only right" OS and browser. They too - dumps out all disabled people, most importantly blind. It's not a problem for a blind to read plain text on computers (there are LOTS of solutions for this), but navigating in graphics-only manus etc. is impossible. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Solaris Compat?
stupid things I do share this point of view, but sadly, an open system like the Web has been polluted and made unusable (or at least has the tendency to be this way) for those who cannot access this propretary product / format. Don't get me wrong, I've played a bit with "Flash" on FreeBSD, found it useless and am living happily now without it, without what i personally found is that webpage that can't be viewed at all without flash most often doesn't have any usable information. for pages that have some flash extras like adverts etc.. it's even adventage not having this. Once again - every company can limit it's userbase just becasue it wants. Flash as a standard isn't bad, but because of this, it's not really a standard. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Solaris Compat?
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 12:45 -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Wojciech Puchar wrote: > >> I don't want to raise an argument here (on multiple levels, no less...), > >> but what would the compatibility be between FreeBSD (release) and > >> Solaris? > >> > >> Why I ask is Adobe have released a version of flash for Solaris, and I'm > >> wondering if this might work better than the linux_compat types. I tried > > > > it's nonsense to FreeBSD developers to do workaround just because adobe > > don't want to make FreeBSD binary. > > > > If they don't want to make, then they DONT WANT US to use their product. > > They DO HAVE RIGHT to do so, and please respect their rights! > > > > PS. Of course it's nonsense what they do, but again it's their right to > > do stupid things > > I really, really dislike the notion that any company, in the selfishly sheer > pursuit of profits, should be able to dictate to anyone what that person > should > be able to do, giving that it's within the limits of the law. Not allowing > one > to view many sites ISN'T within the moral control of any company, as long as > you > don't violate laws in doing it. Telling me that I should respect some idiot > being able to tell me what I should or should not do with my own personal > equipment (again, as long as you stay legal) is is the worst sort of moral > cowardice. > > If you look at what Adobe is doing, they're making it obviously clear that > they > don't care about you using their tools, they only don't want you to use the > operating system of your choice. And you want me to respect that, right? > Sheesh! Why is it you use FreeBSD? Isn't it obviously clear that MicroSoft > doesn't want you to? > > As long as you stay within the letter of the law, don't be so pusillanimous as > to allow *any* company to dictate your free speech. As long as you stay > within > the law, then Free Speech is precisely what this all comes down to, and my > rights to use whatever operating system I care to. Same as it's Adobe's right > to refuse to support such a choice, which I agree with. But they can't tell > me > what I can do on my own. > > If I misunderstood you, above, then I apologize, but if I correctly read your > meaning, then I'm sure my personal rights are important enough to me, to stay > the course here. As I said before, I didn't want to start an argument, and Adobe now don't care what system you use: just that they will only support those systems designated. If you can get linux flashplayer working on FreeBSD then thats cool- just don't go whinging to them about how to do it or fix it if it doesn't work. My interest here is that they HAVE supported Solaris (Sun's influence has finally swayed them) which, unless I'm very much mistaken, is a closer relative of FreeBSD than linux. Any further thoughts on this front? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Solaris Compat?
pursuit of profits, should be able to dictate to anyone what that person should They DO NOT DICTATE ANYTHING. It's quite free market here, you can use they product or not. I don't use, mostly because it doesn't run on an OS that i use. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Solaris Compat?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> I don't want to raise an argument here (on multiple levels, no less...), >> but what would the compatibility be between FreeBSD (release) and >> Solaris? >> >> Why I ask is Adobe have released a version of flash for Solaris, and I'm >> wondering if this might work better than the linux_compat types. I tried > > it's nonsense to FreeBSD developers to do workaround just because adobe > don't want to make FreeBSD binary. > > If they don't want to make, then they DONT WANT US to use their product. > They DO HAVE RIGHT to do so, and please respect their rights! > > PS. Of course it's nonsense what they do, but again it's their right to > do stupid things I really, really dislike the notion that any company, in the selfishly sheer pursuit of profits, should be able to dictate to anyone what that person should be able to do, giving that it's within the limits of the law. Not allowing one to view many sites ISN'T within the moral control of any company, as long as you don't violate laws in doing it. Telling me that I should respect some idiot being able to tell me what I should or should not do with my own personal equipment (again, as long as you stay legal) is is the worst sort of moral cowardice. If you look at what Adobe is doing, they're making it obviously clear that they don't care about you using their tools, they only don't want you to use the operating system of your choice. And you want me to respect that, right? Sheesh! Why is it you use FreeBSD? Isn't it obviously clear that MicroSoft doesn't want you to? As long as you stay within the letter of the law, don't be so pusillanimous as to allow *any* company to dictate your free speech. As long as you stay within the law, then Free Speech is precisely what this all comes down to, and my rights to use whatever operating system I care to. Same as it's Adobe's right to refuse to support such a choice, which I agree with. But they can't tell me what I can do on my own. If I misunderstood you, above, then I apologize, but if I correctly read your meaning, then I'm sure my personal rights are important enough to me, to stay the course here. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkl99qEACgkQz62J6PPcoOkO4wCfZjUdhbszESNHXKrdM8JvxbSS we0An2zAvnI/0cNM4cxTMrH8Zh/qxkUz =Unze -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Solaris Compat?
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:04:13 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar wrote: > it's nonsense to FreeBSD developers to do workaround just because adobe > don't want to make FreeBSD binary. > > If they don't want to make, then they DONT WANT US to use their product. > They DO HAVE RIGHT to do so, and please respect their rights! > > PS. Of course it's nonsense what they do, but again it's their right to do > stupid things I do share this point of view, but sadly, an open system like the Web has been polluted and made unusable (or at least has the tendency to be this way) for those who cannot access this propretary product / format. Don't get me wrong, I've played a bit with "Flash" on FreeBSD, found it useless and am living happily now without it, without getting bothered to install strange "Plugins" or "Extensions" all day long. The day "Flash" will be an open standard and will be integrated into browsers (such as graphic formats are, or even other media), then I'll think about it again, for sure. But as long as something that unimportant hooks so deeply into the system that it's hard work to create workarounds to use it (swfdecoder, linux-flash, gnash etc.), it simply isn't worth thinking about. Or could you imagine that a company would release some software that makes it possible to view PNG images within a webpage, but your OS isn't intended to have support for this, because it would require the modification of the OS kernel? :-) -- Polytropon >From Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Solaris Compat?
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 13:12 +0100, Andreas Xanke wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:04:13 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar > wrote: > > it's nonsense to FreeBSD developers to do workaround just because adobe > > don't want to make FreeBSD binary. > > > > If they don't want to make, then they DONT WANT US to use their product. > > They DO HAVE RIGHT to do so, and please respect their rights! > > > > PS. Of course it's nonsense what they do, but again it's their right to do > > stupid things > > I do share this point of view, but sadly, an open system like > the Web has been polluted and made unusable (or at least has the > tendency to be this way) for those who cannot access this > propretary product / format. > > Don't get me wrong, I've played a bit with "Flash" on FreeBSD, > found it useless and am living happily now without it, without > getting bothered to install strange "Plugins" or "Extensions" > all day long. The day "Flash" will be an open standard and will > be integrated into browsers (such as graphic formats are, or > even other media), then I'll think about it again, for sure. > But as long as something that unimportant hooks so deeply into > the system that it's hard work to create workarounds to use > it (swfdecoder, linux-flash, gnash etc.), it simply isn't > worth thinking about. > > Or could you imagine that a company would release some software > that makes it possible to view PNG images within a webpage, but > your OS isn't intended to have support for this, because it would > require the modification of the OS kernel? :-) Understandable. Try clipsal.com , or try freeview.com.au - and this is just a few of the sites and organisations I deal with that don't offer workarounds (and I have said words to them regarding accessibility). Unfortunately, some organisations don't believe flash is that unaccessible. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Solaris Compat?
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:04:13 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar wrote: > it's nonsense to FreeBSD developers to do workaround just because adobe > don't want to make FreeBSD binary. > > If they don't want to make, then they DONT WANT US to use their product. > They DO HAVE RIGHT to do so, and please respect their rights! > > PS. Of course it's nonsense what they do, but again it's their right to do > stupid things I do share this point of view, but sadly, an open system like the Web has been polluted and made unusable (or at least has the tendency to be this way) for those who cannot access this propretary product / format. Don't get me wrong, I've played a bit with "Flash" on FreeBSD, found it useless and am living happily now without it, without getting bothered to install strange "Plugins" or "Extensions" all day long. The day "Flash" will be an open standard and will be integrated into browsers (such as graphic formats are, or even other media), then I'll think about it again, for sure. But as long as something that unimportant hooks so deeply into the system that it's hard work to create workarounds to use it (swfdecoder, linux-flash, gnash etc.), it simply isn't worth thinking about. Or could you imagine that a company would release some software that makes it possible to view PNG images within a webpage, but your OS isn't intended to have support for this, because it would require the modification of the OS kernel? :-) -- "Die Rechtschreibreform ist völlig in Ordnung, wenn man weder lesen noch schreiben kann." (Loriot) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Solaris Compat?
I don't want to raise an argument here (on multiple levels, no less...), but what would the compatibility be between FreeBSD (release) and Solaris? Why I ask is Adobe have released a version of flash for Solaris, and I'm wondering if this might work better than the linux_compat types. I tried it's nonsense to FreeBSD developers to do workaround just because adobe don't want to make FreeBSD binary. If they don't want to make, then they DONT WANT US to use their product. They DO HAVE RIGHT to do so, and please respect their rights! PS. Of course it's nonsense what they do, but again it's their right to do stupid things ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Solaris Compat?
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:46:17 +1000 Da Rock wrote: > Why I ask is Adobe have released a version of flash for Solaris, and > I'm wondering if this might work better than the linux_compat types. > I tried running it straight out, but I'm getting errors of a missing > libsocket.so library. Presumably you would need a minimal version of Solaris, that's equivalent to the linux-base packages. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
