Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
48 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

Jim Razmus
* Marco Peereboom <[hidden email]> [080715 15:08]:

> I disagree.
>
> We should have both versions available in packages; preferably both
> would work on the same system too.
>
> I have been playing with FF3 and I'd have to say that minus the speedup
> overall the browser took a step backwards.  What particularly ticked me
> off was:
> * outlook like popup in the right-hand corner to notify that a
>   download completed (now there is some information one *has* to see)
>   Not only is that beyond irritating there is no obvious way to turn
>   off.  I had to turn it off in about:config which brings me to the
>   second irritant.
>
>   I'd like to therefore set
>   browser.download.manager.showAlertOnComplete = false
>
> * When one enter about:config a warning shows up that says: "if you
>   click here you can void your warranty.  What warranty???  When I
>   launched the browser the first time I already had to accept a license
>   that explicitly says "no warranty"; wtf?
>
>   To fix that we can set these by default:
>   general.warnOnAboutConfig = false
>   browser.EULA.3.accepted = true
>
> * While trying to make FF3 a better browser for OpenBSD we might as well
>   set plugin.default_plugin_disabled = false to remove the annoying
>   message that scrolls down your screen at snails pace asking if you
>   want to install a friggin non-existing plug-in.
>

I would like it to automatically ping Adobe looking for the Flash player
that is not available.  When I'm particularly irritated with some site
that demands Flash, I follow the link to Adobe's site where they "don't
have a plugin for my platform" and refresh 10-20 times to sprinkle some
love in their web server logs.  FF automating that for me would be
great!

Jim

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

Ingo Schwarze
Jim Razmus wrote on Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 04:58:18PM -0400:

> I follow the link to Adobe's site where they "don't have a plugin
> for my platform" and refresh 10-20 times to sprinkle some
> love in their web server logs.

Adobe will certainly get that exactly right:
You clearly want foobar binary plugins!                  :-/

Scratching my head,
  Ingo

P.S.  << __ME_TOO_SCNR__
Certainly, you will all listen to Marco.  He is advocating small doses
of sanity, difficult as that may seem with respect to firefox...
__ME_TOO_SCNR__

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

Ed Ahlsen-Girard
In reply to this post by Jim Razmus
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Razmus [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:58 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

>
>I would like it to automatically ping Adobe looking for the Flash
player
>that is not available.  When I'm particularly irritated with some site
>that demands Flash, I follow the link to Adobe's site where they "don't
>have a plugin for my platform" and refresh 10-20 times to sprinkle some
>love in their web server logs.  FF automating that for me would be
>great!
>
>Jim

Oh, you think that anyone who reads their logs is allowed to talk to a
developer there?

I think that Adobe is making enough money doing what they're doing that
they do not want an open plug in for Flash.  Period.  They think that
protecting their source optimizes their revenue.
--

Ed Ahlsen-Girard

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

Marco Peereboom
I for one am glad there is no plugin for that infectious disease called
flash.

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:21:33AM -0500, Ed Ahlsen-Girard (TYBRIN Corp.) wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Razmus [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:58 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
>
> >
> >I would like it to automatically ping Adobe looking for the Flash
> player
> >that is not available.  When I'm particularly irritated with some site
> >that demands Flash, I follow the link to Adobe's site where they "don't
> >have a plugin for my platform" and refresh 10-20 times to sprinkle some
> >love in their web server logs.  FF automating that for me would be
> >great!
> >
> >Jim
>
> Oh, you think that anyone who reads their logs is allowed to talk to a
> developer there?
>
> I think that Adobe is making enough money doing what they're doing that
> they do not want an open plug in for Flash.  Period.  They think that
> protecting their source optimizes their revenue.
> --
>
> Ed Ahlsen-Girard

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

Mark Pecaut-2
On 7/16/08, Marco Peereboom <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I for one am glad there is no plugin for that infectious disease called
>  flash.

But then how will I watch "Ow!  My balls!" videos online?  What will I do?

-Mark

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

Daniel Barowy-3
In reply to this post by Marco Peereboom
Marco Peereboom wrote:
> I for one am glad there is no plugin for that infectious disease called
> flash.
>

On the other hand, web developers think this thing is hot shit.  I
certainly share your sentiment, but having just come from a web
development class where the instructor essentially proselytized
Flash/Flex(/maybe-Silverlight) for 3 hours as the solution to
cross-browser-AJAX compatibility headaches, I think most of the world
doesn't care about what's right or best-- they just want what's easy.
This is something that gives web developers consistent sites across >90%
of existing browsers, because there's ONE runtime, and that's worth the
price tag for the development tools.

This guy's day job is at a bank, and they're really into it-- it
"solves" a number of problems for them.  So if this is the kind of thing
that developers are going to pick up en masse, then it's something that
will need to be addressed, else people who won't or can't run Flash will
be increasingly marginalized.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

Marco Peereboom
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 06:23:26PM -0400, Daniel W Barowy wrote:

> Marco Peereboom wrote:
>> I for one am glad there is no plugin for that infectious disease called
>> flash.
>>
>
> On the other hand, web developers think this thing is hot shit.  I
> certainly share your sentiment, but having just come from a web development
> class where the instructor essentially proselytized
> Flash/Flex(/maybe-Silverlight) for 3 hours as the solution to
> cross-browser-AJAX compatibility headaches, I think most of the world
> doesn't care about what's right or best-- they just want what's easy. This
> is something that gives web developers consistent sites across >90% of
> existing browsers, because there's ONE runtime, and that's worth the price
> tag for the development tools.

Somehow the word Java comes to mind...

Tell me again how that one runtime meme worked for them again.

>
> This guy's day job is at a bank, and they're really into it-- it "solves" a
> number of problems for them.  So if this is the kind of thing that
> developers are going to pick up en masse, then it's something that will
> need to be addressed, else people who won't or can't run Flash will be
> increasingly marginalized.

Flash is only good for a few things such as "naked ladies performing
anatomic tricks", "dude getting punched in the ding-dong" & "Trogodor
the burninator".  Nothing makes me happier than visiting a website and
having some ad puking its irrelevant content on me.

What's perplexing to me is that most people sit idle watching the
internet as we know it disintegrate in front of their eyes.  Allowing
themselves to be bombarded with ads.  Removing the actual reason for why
html exists which is indexing content so that it can be retrieved and
used by many.  Those people are all ok with being shat on as long as
they can watch youtube or $whatever_infantile_site_here.  The 14 year
old demographic is apparently the dominating one on teh intartubez
these days.

I for one can't wait to be marginalized.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

Jason LaRiviere-2
In reply to this post by Daniel Barowy-3
On 16-Jul-08, at 3:23 PM, Daniel W Barowy wrote:
>
> On the other hand, web developers think this thing is hot shit.

I'd just be a little more comfortable if you qualified that a little.  
Perhaps with something like `wrong-thinking web developers think...'

The current breed of standards-based web developers - which in my  
estimation form the bulk of all web developers currently doing  
anything anyone is seeing, and of which I am fairly representative,  
would think nothing of the sort.

Truly well-versed web developers find cross-browser issues bothersome,  
but far from insurmountable; certainly not worthy of abandoning xhtml,  
css and javascript for something with funny names and registered  
trademarks.

Flash has a place on the web, just like any other rich media format.  
It should be used responsibly, as semantically as possible, and  
degrade nicely for those who care not to use it. I make every effort  
to use it within these guidelines, and present them as gospel to my  
clients. Many (most?) modern web developers do too, except for the  
ones at a Flex conference who still think drawing entire websites in  
Flash is a good idea. Shame on them, but they are a dying breed.

At a bank? Yeesh...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

scar-2
In reply to this post by Marco Peereboom
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Marco Peereboom @ 2008/07/16 23:00:
> Flash is only good for a few things such as "naked ladies performing
> anatomic tricks", "dude getting punched in the ding-dong" & "Trogodor
> the burninator".  Nothing makes me happier than visiting a website and
> having some ad puking its irrelevant content on me.

there are a lot of informative and useful videos and documentaries on
youtube, and a lot of news or otherwise "public service" websites
utilize youtube for their own video content, as well.


> What's perplexing to me is that most people sit idle watching the
> internet as we know it disintegrate in front of their eyes.  Allowing
> themselves to be bombarded with ads.  

noscript and adblock-plus take care of this wonderfully.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFIfsQtXhfCJNu98qARCPfyAJ4wi7uQhUrMEJHDujH/Tg264BG0lgCghZbo
whFk1k2nmaHzuut1KFe1sZc=
=htkV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

Jason Beaudoin
In reply to this post by Marco Peereboom
<snip>


>>
>> This guy's day job is at a bank, and they're really into it-- it "solves" a
>> number of problems for them.  So if this is the kind of thing that
>> developers are going to pick up en masse, then it's something that will
>> need to be addressed, else people who won't or can't run Flash will be
>> increasingly marginalized.
>
> Flash is only good for a few things such as "naked ladies performing
> anatomic tricks", "dude getting punched in the ding-dong" & "Trogodor
> the burninator".  Nothing makes me happier than visiting a website and
> having some ad puking its irrelevant content on me.
>
> What's perplexing to me is that most people sit idle watching the
> internet as we know it disintegrate in front of their eyes.  Allowing
> themselves to be bombarded with ads.  Removing the actual reason for why
> html exists which is indexing content so that it can be retrieved and
> used by many.  Those people are all ok with being shat on as long as
> they can watch youtube or $whatever_infantile_site_here.  The 14 year
> old demographic is apparently the dominating one on teh intartubez
> these days.
>
> I for one can't wait to be marginalized.
>

While I agree with you in many respects, I will also acknowledge that
there are plenty of legitimate cases where viewing flash content is
necessary. This is particularly true in artistic communities (and
increasingly so, for the reasons Daniel pointed out).

Flash sure is shit, I'll agree.. and philosophically, I believe its
use continues its proliferation by adobe.. but regardless, casting it
all off isn't a viable solution. For example, if a site has
information I absolutely need to access (maybe you're researching a
particular artist or company that uses flash on their site, etc..)
your options are to either not view that content, attempt opera or
gnash or some other broken open alternative, or boot up windows.

Not viewing the content doesn't help you.
opera and/or gnash are close options, sometimes
booting windows is not an option I feel good about even considering,
and as soon as I give away this extra laptop I have, there won't be
any windows here.

so protest if you must, but I hope you can acknowledge a user's
legitimate use, as opposed to adobe's horrific domination, or
spammer's obsession with inducing seizures.


regards,
~Jason
--
401.837.8417
[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

fuzzyping
In reply to this post by Jason LaRiviere-2
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 06:59:44PM -0700, Jason LaRiviere wrote:
>
> Flash has a place on the web, just like any other rich media format. It
> should be used responsibly, as semantically as possible, and degrade
> nicely for those who care not to use it. I make every effort to use it
> within these guidelines, and present them as gospel to my clients. Many
> (most?) modern web developers do too, except for the ones at a Flex
> conference who still think drawing entire websites in Flash is a good
> idea. Shame on them, but they are a dying breed.

Flash has one huge technical benefit.  There are a number of sites that
generate large amounts of dynamic images.  Doing this in a fast and
efficient manner requires an enormous amount of computing resources.
Using flash pushes that work out to the client where it can be rendered
on their own system.

--
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

Travers Buda-2
* Jason Dixon <[hidden email]> [2008-07-17 00:54:15]:

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 06:59:44PM -0700, Jason LaRiviere wrote:
> >
> > Flash has a place on the web, just like any other rich media format. It
> > should be used responsibly, as semantically as possible, and degrade
> > nicely for those who care not to use it. I make every effort to use it
> > within these guidelines, and present them as gospel to my clients. Many
> > (most?) modern web developers do too, except for the ones at a Flex
> > conference who still think drawing entire websites in Flash is a good
> > idea. Shame on them, but they are a dying breed.
>
> Flash has one huge technical benefit.  There are a number of sites that
> generate large amounts of dynamic images.  Doing this in a fast and
> efficient manner requires an enormous amount of computing resources.
> Using flash pushes that work out to the client where it can be rendered
> on their own system.
>
> --
> Jason Dixon
> DixonGroup Consulting
> http://www.dixongroup.net/
>

What sort of websites are those?  no wonder I have not seen them--no
flash!

Even if you could deliver something meaningful with flash, the
bandwidth and CPU time wasted when plain HTML would do is nothing
short of a crime in my book.

My friends keep sending me youtube videos but I tired of their
inanity (mostly the videos) and don't watch them anymore.  I can't
remember the last time that flash improved my computing experience.

Finally, I hate to rattle the paranoia sabre...  but flash is just
another way into a box on an increasingly hostile web.

--
Travers Buda

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

Vincent Gross-2
In reply to this post by scar-2
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:01 AM, scar <[hidden email]> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Marco Peereboom @ 2008/07/16 23:00:
>> Flash is only good for a few things such as "naked ladies performing
>> anatomic tricks", "dude getting punched in the ding-dong" & "Trogodor
>> the burninator".  Nothing makes me happier than visiting a website and
>> having some ad puking its irrelevant content on me.
>
> there are a lot of informative and useful videos and documentaries on
> youtube, and a lot of news or otherwise "public service" websites
> utilize youtube for their own video content, as well.
>

*cough* XviD + Vorbis *cough*

And no, Flash does not help with content protection (read DRM).

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

Marco Peereboom
In reply to this post by Jason Beaudoin
I have done just fine without flash for years.  For me it is very
simple; if your site has flash it means:
1. I suddenly don't care
2. I will not purchase anything from you
3. I'll find alternatives who make my experience better
4. I'll save some time by not watching some retarded video

It wouldn't be the first business/site I abandon.  It wouldn't be the
first site at work that I simply reply to originators saying: "sorry
can't view the content".

Making excuses for flash isn't helping.  You can't say: "I agree but I
use it anyway because I want teh nekid ladies".

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:40:43AM -0400, Jason Beaudoin wrote:

> <snip>
>
>
> >>
> >> This guy's day job is at a bank, and they're really into it-- it "solves" a
> >> number of problems for them.  So if this is the kind of thing that
> >> developers are going to pick up en masse, then it's something that will
> >> need to be addressed, else people who won't or can't run Flash will be
> >> increasingly marginalized.
> >
> > Flash is only good for a few things such as "naked ladies performing
> > anatomic tricks", "dude getting punched in the ding-dong" & "Trogodor
> > the burninator".  Nothing makes me happier than visiting a website and
> > having some ad puking its irrelevant content on me.
> >
> > What's perplexing to me is that most people sit idle watching the
> > internet as we know it disintegrate in front of their eyes.  Allowing
> > themselves to be bombarded with ads.  Removing the actual reason for why
> > html exists which is indexing content so that it can be retrieved and
> > used by many.  Those people are all ok with being shat on as long as
> > they can watch youtube or $whatever_infantile_site_here.  The 14 year
> > old demographic is apparently the dominating one on teh intartubez
> > these days.
> >
> > I for one can't wait to be marginalized.
> >
>
> While I agree with you in many respects, I will also acknowledge that
> there are plenty of legitimate cases where viewing flash content is
> necessary. This is particularly true in artistic communities (and
> increasingly so, for the reasons Daniel pointed out).
>
> Flash sure is shit, I'll agree.. and philosophically, I believe its
> use continues its proliferation by adobe.. but regardless, casting it
> all off isn't a viable solution. For example, if a site has
> information I absolutely need to access (maybe you're researching a
> particular artist or company that uses flash on their site, etc..)
> your options are to either not view that content, attempt opera or
> gnash or some other broken open alternative, or boot up windows.
>
> Not viewing the content doesn't help you.
> opera and/or gnash are close options, sometimes
> booting windows is not an option I feel good about even considering,
> and as soon as I give away this extra laptop I have, there won't be
> any windows here.
>
> so protest if you must, but I hope you can acknowledge a user's
> legitimate use, as opposed to adobe's horrific domination, or
> spammer's obsession with inducing seizures.
>
>
> regards,
> ~Jason
> --
> 401.837.8417
> [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

Karl Sjodahl - dunceor-2
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Marco Peereboom <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I have done just fine without flash for years.  For me it is very
> simple; if your site has flash it means:
> 1. I suddenly don't care
> 2. I will not purchase anything from you
> 3. I'll find alternatives who make my experience better
> 4. I'll save some time by not watching some retarded video
>
> It wouldn't be the first business/site I abandon.  It wouldn't be the
> first site at work that I simply reply to originators saying: "sorry
> can't view the content".
>
> Making excuses for flash isn't helping.  You can't say: "I agree but I
> use it anyway because I want teh nekid ladies".
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:40:43AM -0400, Jason Beaudoin wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> This guy's day job is at a bank, and they're really into it-- it "solves" a
>> >> number of problems for them.  So if this is the kind of thing that
>> >> developers are going to pick up en masse, then it's something that will
>> >> need to be addressed, else people who won't or can't run Flash will be
>> >> increasingly marginalized.
>> >
>> > Flash is only good for a few things such as "naked ladies performing
>> > anatomic tricks", "dude getting punched in the ding-dong" & "Trogodor
>> > the burninator".  Nothing makes me happier than visiting a website and
>> > having some ad puking its irrelevant content on me.
>> >
>> > What's perplexing to me is that most people sit idle watching the
>> > internet as we know it disintegrate in front of their eyes.  Allowing
>> > themselves to be bombarded with ads.  Removing the actual reason for why
>> > html exists which is indexing content so that it can be retrieved and
>> > used by many.  Those people are all ok with being shat on as long as
>> > they can watch youtube or $whatever_infantile_site_here.  The 14 year
>> > old demographic is apparently the dominating one on teh intartubez
>> > these days.
>> >
>> > I for one can't wait to be marginalized.
>> >
>>
>> While I agree with you in many respects, I will also acknowledge that
>> there are plenty of legitimate cases where viewing flash content is
>> necessary. This is particularly true in artistic communities (and
>> increasingly so, for the reasons Daniel pointed out).
>>
>> Flash sure is shit, I'll agree.. and philosophically, I believe its
>> use continues its proliferation by adobe.. but regardless, casting it
>> all off isn't a viable solution. For example, if a site has
>> information I absolutely need to access (maybe you're researching a
>> particular artist or company that uses flash on their site, etc..)
>> your options are to either not view that content, attempt opera or
>> gnash or some other broken open alternative, or boot up windows.
>>
>> Not viewing the content doesn't help you.
>> opera and/or gnash are close options, sometimes
>> booting windows is not an option I feel good about even considering,
>> and as soon as I give away this extra laptop I have, there won't be
>> any windows here.
>>
>> so protest if you must, but I hope you can acknowledge a user's
>> legitimate use, as opposed to adobe's horrific domination, or
>> spammer's obsession with inducing seizures.
>>
>>
>> regards,
>> ~Jason
>> --
>> 401.837.8417
>> [hidden email]
>
>

I agree, a flash site means "you don't want my business" for me. It's annoying.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

ropers
In reply to this post by Marco Peereboom
2008/7/17 Marco Peereboom <[hidden email]>:
> Making excuses for flash isn't helping.  You can't say: "I agree but I
> use it anyway because I want teh nekid ladies".

No, no, take it from an old Masturbating Monkey, most of the pr0n
videos out there on teh Intartubes do not in fact require aBLOBe
Flush.

(There, now I've blown my chances of future employment with any
company competent enough to use teh Google. But I did it for the
lulz.)

--ropers

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

Jason Beaudoin
In reply to this post by Marco Peereboom
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Marco Peereboom <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I have done just fine without flash for years.  For me it is very
> simple; if your site has flash it means:
> 1. I suddenly don't care
> 2. I will not purchase anything from you
> 3. I'll find alternatives who make my experience better
> 4. I'll save some time by not watching some retarded video
>
> It wouldn't be the first business/site I abandon.  It wouldn't be the
> first site at work that I simply reply to originators saying: "sorry
> can't view the content".

and I agree.

my point is that there are many times, particularly in artistic
communitities, where this simply does not apply.

and no, I could not care less about the flash ladies.


Regards,
~Jason

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

Hannah Schroeter
In reply to this post by fuzzyping
Hi!

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:54:15AM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 06:59:44PM -0700, Jason LaRiviere wrote:

>> Flash has a place on the web, just like any other rich media format. It
>> should be used responsibly, as semantically as possible, and degrade
>> nicely for those who care not to use it. I make every effort to use it
>> within these guidelines, and present them as gospel to my clients. Many
>> (most?) modern web developers do too, except for the ones at a Flex
>> conference who still think drawing entire websites in Flash is a good
>> idea. Shame on them, but they are a dying breed.

>Flash has one huge technical benefit.  There are a number of sites that
>generate large amounts of dynamic images.  Doing this in a fast and
>efficient manner requires an enormous amount of computing resources.
>Using flash pushes that work out to the client where it can be rendered
>on their own system.

What about four letters: Java? One advantage: No blob required. And at
least a *bit* more portable. And will eventually be quite open source.

Kind regards,

Hannah.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

Hannah Schroeter
In reply to this post by Mark Pecaut-2
Hi!

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 03:38:35PM -0600, Mark Pecaut wrote:
>On 7/16/08, Marco Peereboom <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I for one am glad there is no plugin for that infectious disease called
>>  flash.

>But then how will I watch "Ow!  My balls!" videos online?  What will I do?

There's plenty of add-ons for firefox/... to download them. E.g.
DownloadHelper (which knows how to download the stuff from much more
than youtube/google video).

Kind regards,

Hannah.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0

Daniel Barowy-3
In reply to this post by Marco Peereboom
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> Somehow the word Java comes to mind...
>
> Tell me again how that one runtime meme worked for them again.

Are you saying that Java is not being used widely?  All of the fundamental
courses in my CS department are taught using Java, and I don't think my
department is an exception.  Seems like a home run to me-- I'm sure that
Sun considers Java a great success.

> Flash is only good for a few things such as "naked ladies performing
> anatomic tricks", "dude getting punched in the ding-dong" & "Trogodor
> the burninator".  Nothing makes me happier than visiting a website and
> having some ad puking its irrelevant content on me.

That's not what the instructor was pushing for-- he's suggesting that
people build an entire site using Flash.  That's the whole point of Flex.
I don't think that banking websites fall into the category you mention.
His argument was this: Flash is available for Windows, Mac, Linux-- that
gives you pretty much everybody-- and anybody else has marginalized
themselves.

Now, I strongly disagree with him.  For my employer, Flash is not an
option-- our applications need to be able to run on anything, even
cellphones, and they need to be accessible.  The application has to run on
many different backends as well.  But if you don't have those
requirements, or have had the experience of being locked in to a
single-vendor solution, Flash probably looks pretty good to you.

> I for one can't wait to be marginalized.

I doubt that you really feel that way.

123