Jim Charter wrote:
> Eero Ahonen wrote:
> 
>> Well, if you want to say it that way. But my guess is that seeing a 
>> white screen does not comply with seeing Bui's page.
>>
> 
> Okay, just so that I am clear,  if you were running 32-bit Linux would 
> you be able to have Flash support?

Yes.

>>
>> Could be true. Is the presentation dependant of flash? 
> 
> 
> I am not technical enough to answer that.  Primarily his presentation is 

I still haven't seen the flash -version, but now when I've seen the site 
without flash-support, I'd say it's really nice without flash. If the 
flash-version is better, it has to be reeeally nice.

> Would it suffer
> 
>> considerably loss without it? 
> 
> 
> One answer is with a question:  how considerable is "considerable?" That 

The loss is considerable if Bui thinks so; it's totally up to him. It 
seems that the loss is not considerable, 'cause now he does have a 
non-flash version. If the flash was only used to choose language, which 
Slime's post did say (or at least I read it so), the lost most propably 
ain't considerable.

> 
> If it is/if it would, using flash is at
> 
>> least reasonable. But I still don't consider a flashclip as a web 
>> site, no matter how cool or nice it is.
>>
> 
> "Web site" seems like a serviceable enough term to me.

Have to say I don't get the "serviceable" here. Might be the slow mind 
of mine right now, but I just don't understand this. Meaning you 
understand my opinion, or that you disagree with my opinion? Or 
something else?

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message