Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 03:51:40 -0600 From: Programmer in Training <pit@joseph-a-nagy-jr.us> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: concerning flash under freebsd Message-ID: <20100617035140.x8bpf02348g4o8ok@mail.joseph-a-nagy-jr.us> In-Reply-To: <20100617081156.8441dc67.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <AANLkTikVilkrvnNMTQ_wvB8AzX31_sUvpcykcv07E3Wf@mail.gmail.com> <20100615211740.GA50967@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> <20100615154956.cfz6ip454w8gcco4@mail.joseph-a-nagy-jr.us> <20100617081156.8441dc67.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>: > As much as I am now a no-user of "Flash", allow me the > following comments. > > On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:49:56 -0600, Programmer in Training =20 > <pit@joseph-a-nagy-jr.us> wrote: >> Almost all Internet video >> has moved to flash as well (such as all the sermons on sermons.net >> which my church uses). > > That's all within transition. Currently, big video portals are > moving to HTML5, often including the wish to also use free and > open standards for their videos so they can access a bigger That's a no-go, I have it on good authority that h.264 was chosen over =20 Theora. That along with mpeg-la having put out a press release saying =20 it won't charge royalties for "free" uses of some of it's patents =20 several months ago[0], while I would love for Theora to have won out =20 as the standard, once again corporate interest (this time a big push =20 from Apple, from what I understand) has won out. > audience. Keeping things in "Flash" is a no-go. A main problem > of "Flash" is that is isn't compatible with the upcoming trend > to move to portable devices. Only HTML5 and compliant browsers > will be present on those platforms, and those who keep their > sites in "Flash" will be out of scope soon. I've only seen some examples of HTML5 sites. My own reluctance to =20 start coding with it is the fact that it's still open to tons of change. > HTML5 will be the future; "Flash" already is the past. Soon, > it won't be important anymore. Conforming to standards will > be the key to all those new platforms that customers are > interested in. You mean the ones who don't mind being told what's best for them (think iPad= )? >> Flash is buggy, I'll give you that, but "Don't >> install it." is not an option for a lot of people. > > I had been using "Flash" in the past (on FreeBSD). It was so > annoying that I finally completely removed it. It has become > *the* choice of "professional web developers" to make their > sites unusable and finally unaccessible, as well as a big > annoyance of users, primarily due to its sheer overuse for > advertising purposes. I never use flash where I'm able to avoid it. I have one client =20 wanting to use it for a simple transition (with affects) on one spot =20 in the front page. I personally won't use the stuff for website =20 development and disallow those sorts of ads. Until HTML5 support is =20 universal in all browser ports (there was mention of that not being =20 the case) talk of HTML5 video verges on the pointless. Yes, Flash is old news and has been for a while. Yes, Flash is not =20 portable because Adobe is a jerk and many mobile/portable device =20 makers won't support it. But that's all irregardless to the OPs =20 question of bugginess on FreeBSD. If the Linux emulation isn't enough =20 and there is no option but to switch to an entirely different =20 platform, why even provide such an option? Linux emulation takes up a =20 lot of resources (space wise on the drive). --=20 Yours in Christ, PIT All original content (C) under the OWL http://owl.apotheon.org Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. Please do not CC me. If I'm posting to a list it is because I am subscribed.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100617035140.x8bpf02348g4o8ok>