Robert Millan wrote: > My understanding is that both gnash and swfdec are currently robust pieces > of software. I'd be glad to see either being part of our default desktop.
I'd generally agree, although I think we'll need to do a good job of documenting that the nonfree flash is not included by default, and how users can install it. > That said, I'd like to point out that gnash seems much more popular (when > compared to its swfdec equivalents in sid): > > 3600 gnash 1730 641 618 470 1 (Miriam > Ruiz) > 6792 libswfdec-0.5-5 477 1 11 22 443 (Santiago > Garcia Mantinan) > 10380 libswfdec-0.6-90 208 76 0 119 13 (Santiago > Garcia Mantinan) Looking at just the browser plugins: http://people.debian.org/~igloo/popcon-graphs/index.php?packages=swfdec-mozilla+mozilla-plugin-gnash&show_installed=on&want_legend=on&want_ticks=on&from_date=&to_date=&hlght_date=&date_fmt=%25Y-%25m&beenhere=1 So they're both being adopted at the same rate by users, and gnash has a year's head start. And the adoption and rate of adoption of both is still quite small. Compare with mplayer's 19 thousand reported installs in the same time period. http://people.debian.org/~igloo/popcon-graphs/index.php?packages=swfdec-mozilla+mozilla-plugin-gnash++mplayer&show_installed=on&want_legend=on&want_ticks=on&from_date=&to_date=&hlght_date=&date_fmt=%25Y-%25m&beenhere=1 -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
