Re: gnash vs. flash

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 00:58:28 +0200 Dotan Cohen wrote: > I understand that English is the only language in which two > negatively-oriented words do not make a positive I don't not understand that; they can. ;-} > , but two > positively-oriented words do make a negative. Cybe R. Wizard -- Re

Re: gnash vs. flash

> No. > > zeal: positive connotations. > zealot: negative connotations. > Thanks. I needed that confirmation. > English is tricky that way. > I understand that English is the only language in which two negatively-oriented words do not make a positive, but two positively-oriented words do make a

Re: gnash vs. flash

On 2010-03-21 14:01, Dotan Cohen wrote: [snip] Is "zeal" a negative word as well? Googling it I see only positive connotations. No. zeal: positive connotations. zealot: negative connotations. English is tricky that way. -- Obsession with "preserving cultural heritage" is a racist impedimen

Re: gnash vs. flash

>> Is Debian not openly resisting the legal yet anti-civilian wrath of >> those who would rule us, our software, and our rights to use our >> hardware as we see fit? > > Who is "Debian"?  Some developers are just trying to create the best > possible operating system.  Not everyone is out to change

Re: gnash vs. flash

Dotan writes: > Is Debian not openly resisting the legal yet anti-civilian wrath of > those who would rule us, our software, and our rights to use our > hardware as we see fit? Who is "Debian"? Some developers are just trying to create the best possible operating system. Not everyone is out to c

Re: gnash vs. flash

>> I now understand that there are negative connotations with the word >> "zealot". I did not mean it in a negative way at all. Mockery is >> flattery, and it gives stage to the idea. I wouldn't want Debian to >> change it's stance on the issue at all. >> > > There are negative connotations for a g

Re: gnash vs. flash

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:15:58 +0200 Dotan Cohen wrote: > > > > The Firefox naming thing is entirely due to Mozilla's zealotry > > about their trademark. > > > > Correct. > > > > Go hang around the FSF for a while if you want to see some _real_ > >

Re: gnash vs. flash

>> The Firefox naming thing is entirely due to Mozilla's zealotry about >> their trademark. > > Could they be a bit sensitive, remembering the Debian ssl "patch"? Or was > that in the wrong time span? > I'm pretty sure the Iceweasel thing was before the SSL patch incident became known. >> Go han

Re: gnash vs. flash

> IIUC Debian changed the name upon explicit request from the Mozilla > foundation, so while it's silly, it doesn't seem to be because of > Debian's zeal. > It's both: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceweasel Therefore, I mock them both. -- Dotan Cohen http://bido.com http://what-is-what.com Pl

Re: gnash vs. flash

On 21 March 2010 17:00, John Hasler wrote: > Dotan writes: >> Extreme devotion to the principals of FOSS... > > Debian is not extreme.  "IP" law is. > IP (why is there no property tax on that, by the way) law is extreme, I agree. Debian is one of the few entities treating it with the same extreme

Re: gnash vs. flash

> There is a quote, which I can't find now, which approximately says, > "Excess in defense of liberty is not excess." Said by a Republican... "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Said by Barry Goldwat

Re: gnash vs. flash

On 2010-03-21 10:00, John Hasler wrote: Dotan writes: Extreme devotion to the principals of FOSS... Debian is not extreme. "IP" law is. ...and the willingness to sacrifice usability (confuse users with application naming, for one) to achieve that goal. The Firefox naming thing is entirely

Re: gnash vs. flash

> How about Puddlerodent? Would that be an appropriate form of mockery > of the situation? I mock both Debian (zealotry) and primarily Mozilla > (love-hate relationship with FOSS and control freaks) with that one. IIUC Debian changed the name upon explicit request from the Mozilla foundation, so w

Re: gnash vs. flash

Dotan writes: > Extreme devotion to the principals of FOSS... Debian is not extreme. "IP" law is. > ...and the willingness to sacrifice usability (confuse users with >application naming, for one) to achieve that goal. The Firefox naming thing is entirely due to Mozilla's zealotry about their tr

Re: gnash vs. flash

On 21 March 2010 14:42, John Hasler wrote: > Dotan writes: >> How about Puddlerodent? Would that be an appropriate form of mockery >> of the situation? I mock both Debian (zealotry) > > What "zealotry"? > Extreme devotion to the principals of FOSS, and the willingness to sacrifice usability (conf

Re: gnash vs. flash

Dotan writes: > How about Puddlerodent? Would that be an appropriate form of mockery > of the situation? I mock both Debian (zealotry) What "zealotry"? -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@

[OT] iceweasel vs. Firefox (was gnash vs. flash)

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:57:20 -0400 (EDT), Dotan Cohen wrote: > Stefan Monnier wrote: >> Ah, good catch, thank you.  You can say "Firefox" even if >> Debian has to say "Iceweasel". > > How about Puddlerodent? Would that be an appropriate form of mockery > of the situation? I mock both Debian (zealo

Re: (OT) LaTeX vs Word vs OOo (was: (OT) gnash vs. flash)

On 2010-03-18 17:21:26 +0200, Micha Feigin wrote: > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:24:12 +0100 > Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > This is fine as long as you don't publish articles via commercial > > publishers. The IEEE Computer Society now uses Microsoft Word, and > > the files they produce are not correctly

Re: gnash vs. flash

> Ah, good catch, thank you.  You can say "Firefox" even if > Debian has to say "Iceweasel". > How about Puddlerodent? Would that be an appropriate form of mockery of the situation? I mock both Debian (zealotry) and primarily Mozilla (love-hate relationship with FOSS and control freaks) with that

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:55:02PM +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote: > > And yet me getting-old laptop is still snappy.  I think it's more that MSO > > is written in absurdly-tuned C & assembler, whereas OOo is portable C++ & > > Java. > > > > Actually, MSO is written in a high-level language. I forget wh

[Semi-OT] Difficulties in moving to Linux (was Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash ...)

On 2010-03-18 03:41, Andrei Popescu wrote: On Thu,18.Mar.10, 03:28:40, Ron Johnson wrote: The main problem is all the 3rd party applications written specifically for Word and Excel which have no analog in the OOo world. Interesting, I didn't come across such things in my company A

Re: (OT) LaTeX vs Word vs OOo (was: (OT) gnash vs. flash)

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:24:12 +0100 Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2010-03-18 10:19:07 +0200, Micha wrote: > > Personally though I use lyx for anything I can get away with. > > Luckily in university mathematics no one knows word. Almost everyone > > apart for a few students that haven't converted yet

Re: gnash vs. flash

> [...] >> >> At worst it may require some changes to Firefox. >> > A bug report against IW? >> What's "IW"? > iceweasel? Ah, good catch, thank you. You can say "Firefox" even if Debian has to say "Iceweasel". Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org w

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On 2010-03-18 19:04, Kelly Clowers wrote: [snip] MSO (all versions) is almost entirely C++, like most MS programs and Win32 itself. Most of the very low-level stuff (including the NT Kernel) is in C. C++ had barely been invented when Word, Excel & Access were written, and the compilers and l

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 20:55, Dotan Cohen wrote: >> And yet me getting-old laptop is still snappy.  I think it's more that MSO >> is written in absurdly-tuned C & assembler, whereas OOo is portable C++ & >> Java. >> > > Actually, MSO is written in a high-level language. I forget which, but > it's

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On 2010-03-18 15:55, Dotan Cohen wrote: And yet me getting-old laptop is still snappy. I think it's more that MSO is written in absurdly-tuned C & assembler, whereas OOo is portable C++ & Java. Actually, MSO is written in a high-level language. I forget which, but it's not .NET. They do that

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On 3/18/2010 3:44 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: On 2010-03-18 11:47, Sjoerd Hiemstra wrote: Andrei Popescu: Ron Johnson: Lastly, Excel, Word, IE & Lookout just launch faster than Calc, Write, FF & Tbird. That's too bad. The comparison is not quite fair, since the former are being preloaded in Wind

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

> And yet me getting-old laptop is still snappy.  I think it's more that MSO > is written in absurdly-tuned C & assembler, whereas OOo is portable C++ & > Java. > Actually, MSO is written in a high-level language. I forget which, but it's not .NET. They do that because there are a lot of bugs, and

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On 2010-03-18 11:47, Sjoerd Hiemstra wrote: Andrei Popescu: Ron Johnson: Lastly, Excel, Word, IE & Lookout just launch faster than Calc, Write, FF & Tbird. That's too bad. The comparison is not quite fair, since the former are being preloaded in Windows. And yet me getting-old laptop is s

Re: gnash vs. flash

On 2010-03-18 10:55, Stephen Powell wrote: On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:36:11 -0400 (EDT), Stefan Monnier wrote: What's "IW"? I think that means iceweasel. Yes, thanks. -- Obsession with "preserving cultural heritage" is a racist impediment to moral, physical and intellectual progress. -- To U

RE: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

> -Original Message- > From: Andrei Popescu [mailto:andreimpope...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, 18 March, 2010 00:42 > To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > Subject: Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does > installing gnome ...) > > On Thu,18.Mar.10, 03:

Re: gnash vs. flash

On 18 March 2010 17:50, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2010-03-18 11:36:11 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > [...] >> >> At worst it may require some changes to Firefox. >> >> > A bug report against IW? >> >> What's "IW"? > > iceweasel? > The Debian branding of Firefox. -- Dotan Cohen http://bido.co

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

>> > Lastly, Excel, Word, IE & Lookout just launch faster than Calc, >> > Write, FF & Tbird. >> >> That's too bad. > > The comparison is not quite fair, since the former are being preloaded > in Windows. > For one thing, you can preload in Linux as well. For users with 2GB RAM or more, I enable th

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

Andrei Popescu: > Ron Johnson: > > Lastly, Excel, Word, IE & Lookout just launch faster than Calc, > > Write, FF & Tbird. > > That's too bad. The comparison is not quite fair, since the former are being preloaded in Windows. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org wit

Re: gnash vs. flash

On 2010-03-18 11:36:11 -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: [...] > >> At worst it may require some changes to Firefox. > > > A bug report against IW? > > What's "IW"? iceweasel? -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog:

Re: gnash vs. flash

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:36:11 -0400 (EDT), Stefan Monnier wrote: > What's "IW"? I think that means iceweasel. -- .''`. Stephen Powell : :' : `. `'` `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@

Re: gnash vs. flash

>> I'm not at all convinced the problem is packaging (there doesn't seem to >> be any conflict there). Last time I had a system with both Gnash and >> adobe's flash, the problem was that Firefox just seemed to insist on >> using Gnash even when I instructed it to disable the Gnash plugin. >> So, a

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash

Celejar writes: > So apparently the stuff could actually be included in the official > archive, without violating the social contract? Dotan writes: > No, there is a difference between checking all software for possible > patent infringement and including known offenders. But the line is > grey, t

(OT) LaTeX vs Word vs OOo (was: (OT) gnash vs. flash)

On 2010-03-18 10:19:07 +0200, Micha wrote: > Personally though I use lyx for anything I can get away with. > Luckily in university mathematics no one knows word. Almost everyone > apart for a few students that haven't converted yet use latex. This is fine as long as you don't publish articles via

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:10:55 +0200 Dotan Cohen wrote: > > So apparently the stuff could actually be included in the official > > archive, without violating the social contract? > > > > No, there is a difference between checking all software for possible > patent infringement and including known

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:18:13 +0200 Dotan Cohen wrote: ... > Thanks, Celejar. I also gave up on Lyx for Hebrew, but I may start > filing issues on the Lyx 2.0 branch so that they could fix it in time > for release. There does seem to be effort in that regard. > > It would be great if you could w

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

> Hm, I've had sort of the opposite experience.  Hebrew stuff usually > works fine for me with OO, but I've reluctantly had to give up LyX for > mixed Hebrew / English document creation, due to its brokenness: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=516017 > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:19:07 +0200 Micha wrote: ... > The problem is collaboration. There are quite a few word documents that don't > open properly in open office (hebrew usually typesets wrong, math doesn't > work > at all ...) > > Powerpoint files are also a complete mess in openoffice. >

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

> So apparently the stuff could actually be included in the official > archive, without violating the social contract? > No, there is a difference between checking all software for possible patent infringement and including known offenders. But the line is grey, to be sure. -- Dotan Cohen http

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:28:49 +0200 Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Wed,17.Mar.10, 16:44:17, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > > Enough DDs are sufficiently practical for there to be a non-free > > tree, and Christian Marillat does yeoman's work with > > http://www.debian-multimedia.org/. > > Most of the stuf

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:43 PM, John Hasler wrote: > Neal writes: >> to use Adobe software without paying for it is stealing . . . money . >> .. . no? > > No.  It may be copyright infringement if you do so without Adobe's > permission, but copyright infringement is not theft according to the US >

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

>>> >>> But can a "purist" accept such support and be a true linux user? >>> >>> "Linux" is not synonymous with "free".  "Debian" is not synonymous with >>> "Stallman".  Please keep these facts in mind. >>> >>> >> >> Sure . . . I was just curious to get some particular responses from users. >>

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On 3/18/2010 6:35 AM, Neal Hogan wrote: On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:28 AM, Mark Allums wrote: On 3/17/2010 9:03 PM, Neal Hogan wrote: Most (if not all) software has some sort of license, like "use as you'd like but make sure you tell the next person the same" (BSD . . .as I understand it). Howe

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:28 AM, Mark Allums wrote: > On 3/17/2010 9:03 PM, Neal Hogan wrote: > >> Most (if not all) software has some sort of license, like "use as >> you'd like but make sure you tell the next person the same" (BSD . . >> .as I understand it). However, Flash is not just a set of

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On 3/17/2010 9:23 PM, Stephen Powell wrote: 1 But I'm just pragmatic enough that I want it to work. If there was a reliable, stable, free flash plugin, I'd use it. But there's just too many flash sequences that the free stuff can't handle properly. At least not yet. If web sites didn't use thi

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On 3/17/2010 9:03 PM, Neal Hogan wrote: Most (if not all) software has some sort of license, like "use as you'd like but make sure you tell the next person the same" (BSD . . .as I understand it). However, Flash is not just a set of words . . . to use Adobe software without paying for it is stea

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

2010/3/18 Micha : > There are quite a few word documents that > don't open properly in open office (hebrew usually typesets wrong, math > doesn't work at all ...) > Please comment on this issue: http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=105270 -- Dotan Cohen http://bido.com http://what-is

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On 2010-03-18 03:41, Andrei Popescu wrote: On Thu,18.Mar.10, 03:28:40, Ron Johnson wrote: The main problem is all the 3rd party applications written specifically for Word and Excel which have no analog in the OOo world. Interesting, I didn't come across such things in my company A

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On Thu,18.Mar.10, 03:28:40, Ron Johnson wrote: > The main problem is all the 3rd party applications written > specifically for Word and Excel which have no analog in the OOo > world. Interesting, I didn't come across such things in my company > Also is the tight integration w/ other MS

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On 2010-03-18 02:41, Andrei Popescu wrote: On Thu,18.Mar.10, 03:07:12, Dotan Cohen wrote: Therefore, I have no problem with proprietary Flash, even though I understand the problems that it causes. I wish that more proprietary software, such as Solidworks and MS Office, were available for Debia

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On 18/03/2010 09:41, Andrei Popescu wrote: On Thu,18.Mar.10, 03:07:12, Dotan Cohen wrote: Therefore, I have no problem with proprietary Flash, even though I understand the problems that it causes. I wish that more proprietary software, such as Solidworks and MS Office, were available for Debian

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On Wed,17.Mar.10, 22:23:24, Stephen Powell wrote: > I can only speak for myself. I am a Linux user and system administrator. > I am not a Debian package maintainer or Debian developer. I *STRONGLY* > prefer free (as in freedom and as in price) software over non-free > software. But I'm just pr

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On Thu,18.Mar.10, 03:07:12, Dotan Cohen wrote: > Therefore, I have no problem with proprietary Flash, even though I > understand the problems that it causes. I wish that more proprietary > software, such as Solidworks and MS Office, were available for Debian > or Linux in general. Is there any r

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On Wed,17.Mar.10, 16:44:17, Ron Johnson wrote: > > Enough DDs are sufficiently practical for there to be a non-free > tree, and Christian Marillat does yeoman's work with > http://www.debian-multimedia.org/. Most of the stuff there is DFSG-free, but infringes some patents. Regards, Andrei -- Of

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:33:08 -0500 Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] > Silly man, it's the opposite of a *false* Linux user :P > Someone using XP with an Ubuntu theme ? :P -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas.

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash

On 2010-03-17 21:43, John Hasler wrote: Neal writes: to use Adobe software without paying for it is stealing . . . money . .. . no? No. It may be copyright infringement if you do so without Adobe's permission, but copyright infringement is not theft according to the US Federal Courts. But s

Re: gnash vs. flash

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:03:39 -0400 Stefan Monnier wrote: ... > I'm not at all convinced the problem is packaging (there doesn't seem to > be any conflict there). Last time I had a system with both Gnash and > adobe's flash, the problem was that Firefox just seemed to insist on > using Gnash eve

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash

Neal writes: > to use Adobe software without paying for it is stealing . . . money . > .. . no? No. It may be copyright infringement if you do so without Adobe's permission, but copyright infringement is not theft according to the US Federal Courts. > Is it the case that the flash support offere

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On 2010-03-17 21:03, Neal Hogan wrote: [snip] Most (if not all) software has some sort of license, like "use as you'd like but make sure you tell the next person the same" (BSD . . .as I understand it). However, Flash is not just a set of words . . . to use Adobe software without paying for it i

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Neal Hogan wrote: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: >> >> Enough DDs are sufficiently practical for there to be a non-free tree, and >> Christian Marillat does yeoman's work with >> http://www.debian-multimedia.org/. >> > > "non-free?" I know

Re:(OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:35:25 -0400 (EDT), Neal Hogan wrote: > I highly suspect a flame-war here, but isn't against the > "Stallmanian-principle" for a linux machines to play with those > proprietary kids AT ALL. That is, debian (or any other linux) should > not even consider talking with that kind

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: > > Enough DDs are sufficiently practical for there to be a non-free tree, and > Christian Marillat does yeoman's work with > http://www.debian-multimedia.org/. > "non-free?" I know that's what it's called, but I wonder how descriptive it is. B

Re: gnash vs. flash

> ? No one's calling for a 'Depends'; Indeed. > what is requested is merely that Gnash be packaged in such a way that > it not interfere with a certain non-free package. Is that really > a problem? I'm not at all convinced the problem is packaging (there doesn't seem to be any conflict there).

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Andrew Reid wrote: > On Wednesday 17 March 2010 20:15:51 Neal Hogan wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: > >> > Enough DDs are sufficiently practical for there to be a non-free tree, >> > and Christian Marillat does yeoman's work with >> >

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On Wednesday 17 March 2010 20:15:51 Neal Hogan wrote: > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: > > Enough DDs are sufficiently practical for there to be a non-free tree, > > and Christian Marillat does yeoman's work with > > http://www.debian-multimedia.org/. > > > > Ok . . . that's

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

> I highly suspect a flame-war here, but isn't against the > "Stallmanian-principle" for a linux machines to play with those > proprietary kids AT ALL. That is, debian (or any other linux) should > not even consider talking with that kind of software. I'm just curious > how many linux users/devs/et

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

> The rub is that Debian doesn't officially know that Flash exists. Even if it did, too many DDs are morally opposed to closed-source to want to Depend on it. >>> >>> I highly suspect a flame-war here, but isn't against the >>> "Stallmanian-principle" for a linux machin

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 2010-03-17 16:35, Neal Hogan wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Ron Johnson >> wrote: >>> >>> On 2010-03-17 10:40, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > Installing Gnash screws up Flash. That is the core of the problem that

Re: (OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On 2010-03-17 16:35, Neal Hogan wrote: On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: On 2010-03-17 10:40, Stefan Monnier wrote: Installing Gnash screws up Flash. That is the core of the problem that needs to be fixed. There's no reason the two shouldn't be able to coexist peacefully so

Re:(OT) gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 2010-03-17 10:40, Stefan Monnier wrote: >>> >>> Installing Gnash screws up Flash. >> >> That is the core of the problem that needs to be fixed. >> There's no reason the two shouldn't be able to coexist peacefully so >> that each user on the

Re: gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:19:35 -0400 (EDT), Ron Johnson wrote: > On 2010-03-17 10:40, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> >> That is the core of the problem that needs to be fixed. >> There's no reason the two shouldn't be able to coexist peacefully so >> that each user on the machine can choose which flash pl

Re: gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:19:35 -0500 Ron Johnson wrote: > On 2010-03-17 10:40, Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> Installing Gnash screws up Flash. > > > > That is the core of the problem that needs to be fixed. > > There's no reason the two shouldn't be able to coexist peacefully so > > that each user on

gnash vs. flash (was Re: Why does installing gnome ...)

On 2010-03-17 10:40, Stefan Monnier wrote: Installing Gnash screws up Flash. That is the core of the problem that needs to be fixed. There's no reason the two shouldn't be able to coexist peacefully so that each user on the machine can choose which flash player she wants to use. The rub is t