Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 
> 	Many other sites that deliver video can't. 

I'll have to assume that's because no-one has done such downloaders. In
other words it's not impossible, it's just not done.

And yes, there are sites that have been developed so they can't be used
without flash. As I've said before, I don't consider them as websites,
but as flash-applications. They are not for me.

> Ever tried Hulu?

Nope.

> 	Flash may have its negative points, but you provide no alternative, nor
> make a case that alternatives are not needed.

That's one reason there's so much pure shit in this world. Because
there's no program that's just the same, we can forget quality and just
hook up *something*. Then that something becomes practical standard,
develops to version 9 and still hangs up, has memory leaks, won't
compile to 64-bit etc. And no, they don't call it beta.

I actually hope MS will make Silverlight properly and open enough to
actually compile to more widely than Flash - because it would be good
for the internet.

> 	As it stands, it's much better than its predecessor (Java applets).

For the part that it's used instead of Java applets, possibly. OTOH,
also Java has developed forward and I haven't had hangs or memory leaks
on Java programs nor applets for years now. Java also compiles on 64-bit
architectures ie. it seems to has more quality than Flash, at least on
my sight (meaning that someone else might see/have such things, which
would mean Java also sucks, but even that doesn't make Flash to be
non-sucking).

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

Post a reply to this message