Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> And my point is that it's irrelevant and superfluous.
>> Well, unless you want to use youtube or google chat.
>>
> 
> Youtube can be used via downloaders. It's not as practical, but possible.
> 
> Flash, in the form it exists right now, should be banned from this
> world. It's a nice idea, but pretty much screwed up as a system.
> 

I would almost agree, but I've seen more of what Flash is capable of. 
I'll stick to just banning it from simple menus, and repeating movie 
clips for advertisements. For 2.5D, and 3D, interactive spaces it's 
actually pretty useful.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> And my point is that it's irrelevant and superfluous.
> 
> Well, unless you want to use youtube or google chat.
> 

google chat? Since when that uses Flash?

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
>
> Youtube can be used via downloaders. It's not as practical, but possible.
>

.... which is the "live in a mud hut, wipe with a leaf" option. And again, how
many distros (I know many won't play MPEG-I's off the bat) will play whatever
you have bothered to download?

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Youtube can be used via downloaders. It's not as practical, but possible.

	Many other sites that deliver video can't. Ever tried Hulu?

> Flash, in the form it exists right now, should be banned from this
> world. It's a nice idea, but pretty much screwed up as a system.

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

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

-- 
Maths and alcohol don't mix. Don't drink and derive.


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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> And my point is that it's irrelevant and superfluous.
> 
> Well, unless you want to use youtube or google chat.
> 
Its also used by "several" free internet TV systems, which is a pain in 
the ass, because Second Life doesn't support either embedded mms, (Uses 
MediaPlayer), or the latest version of Flash. Wish it did. I would love 
to set of a theater that actually "showed" shows, instead of looking 
like it did, even if it was ancient ones. lol

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> google chat? Since when that uses Flash?

I don't know, but my laptop has two accounts, one of which flas works 
and one where flash doesn't. The account where flash doesn't work won't 
do the gtalk web thingie either.  It might not be related to flash, tho.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> MS *does* tend to improve what they copy. :-)  I'd expect Silverlight to
> be better in many ways than Flash, just because MS got to see all the
> things Flash did wrong.
> 

Yep, they actually stand a chance. But we'll see what Silverlight will be.

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

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   I think you are letting your aversion take over rational judgement
> because you can't concede even one single positive thing about Flash
> (ie. that it makes services like YouTube really practical).

But then again, you don't read me like an open book. As I said, it's a
good idea (ie. that it makes services like YouTube really practical).

>   Well, if you don't want to use Flash, that's your loss.

I don't consider it as loss. The extra work using youtube-dl makes is
nothing compared to hanged browser processes, memory leaks etc.

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

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> 
> .... which is the "live in a mud hut, wipe with a leaf" option. And again, how
> many distros (I know many won't play MPEG-I's off the bat) will play whatever
> you have bothered to download?
> 

I have no idea, since I haven't tried all distros.

Will Windows play whatever you have bothered to download out-of-the-box?

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

Post a reply to this message

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