Apparently, though unproven, at 13:12 on Friday 03 June 2011, Indi did opine
thusly:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 09:20:01AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Compare how Google goes about doing things with how Adobe does it.
> >
> > The Google Chromium team appears to take security seriously and are open
> > and up-front about what they do.
> >
> > Adobe likes to stonewall on issues and create an aura of how sekrit stuff
> > is.
> >
> > Which one inspires confidence in fellow geeks?
>
> Neither. Adobe is utterly incompetent and apathetic, google is evil
> and wants to sell ad space for h3rb41 v14gr4 in your brain.
>
> Flash is a necessary evil for a lot of us, chrome(ium) is not.
I think of it more a case of there being no viable alternative to Flash[1]
whereas Chrom{e,ium} is just one more browser amongst many.
I use Flash myself even though I hate the way it performs.
[1] There are flash alternatives, but by and large only support out of date
features, so they are not really "viable".
--
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
