Eero Ahonen wrote:
> 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.

	Well, a site like Hulu has a business model relying on making it as
hard as possible to download. Nevertheless, I'll grant that an
application probably does exist or will.

>> 	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.

	Well, perhaps the reason is that these aren't problems for most people.
I wasn't even aware of them till you brought them up. I don't have
memory leak issues with my browser or with Flash. But that's perhaps
because I use NoScript and only run a Flash app when I want to. Crashes?
Can't remember the last time Flash resulted in a crash for me.

	As an end user on Linux, Flash sucked for a while. It's been just fine
for a few years now, though. I won't criticize anyone for making it
better, but yes: Of course people will use software that happens not to
give problems to them.

>> 	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).

	Perhaps Java has improved in recent years. I rarely come across an
applet these days, so I can't tell. However, it was overtaken by Flash
simply because Flash provided a much better experience. Java had an
irritating load up time (which in those days hung the browser - another
problem...). Its interface was crappy. Getting it installed was a
Herculean effort compared to Flash. No real contest. It doesn't really
impress most people that Java may be 10 times faster, and is/was a cool
technology.

-- 
DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG (UNDER PENALTY OF LAW)


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message