On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:28:08PM +0100, Alexander Sack wrote: > > The negative thing about installing gnash by default is that normal > users won't really notice what they are running and might perceive > debian in general as "being-broken" if they visit a site that has > not-support flash content.
You mean, as opposed to the site being broken? :-) I think this is a gray area. If they install the non-free plugin, and the plugin crashes, they blame it on the browser (I've seen this happen a gazillon of times). Etc.. Let's face it: Adobe will keep adding features, and we'll always be behind them. This needs to stop at some point. And it stops the same way we stopped IE dominance with its ActiveX crap. We build and deploy an alternative. When enough users have removed their dependancy on non-free flash, Adobe will lose its ability to force new features down our throat. Would youtube dare to break gnash compatibility if a significant part of its userbase were using Gnash? I think not. That's the enduring solution to our problem. > Further, there is no way to tell users > easily that there might be a bad, but working solution (nonfree). > Afterall, this the main reason why we still don't ship gnash > preinstalled in ubuntu. ... and I think Ubuntu could have helped a lot if it had thrown its weight on free flash. OLPC did, and it worked; so why not do it ourselves? > However, instead of doing nothing we setup a plugin database which is > useful for other content types as well. If you think this would be a > viable thing to do for debian, we could include the debian plugins in > our database or setup a new one running on people.debian.org or > somewhere else. Now that we're *so* close, I think this effort could be much better spent in the right direction. -- Robert Millan <GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call! <DRM> What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
