what happened to linuxflashplugin?

[Erik Osterholm]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 04:34:21PM -0500, Gerard wrote:
> Interestingly enough, I just did a quick perusal of the URLs I frequent,
> and virtually all of them, in one form or another, asked for 'Flash'.
> Even 'sourceforge.net' greeted me with this friendly message:
> 
> You need to install the Macromedia Flash Player plug-in to view all
> content on this page. Do you want to download this plug-in now?
> 
> IMHO, for an individual to state that Flash is not a relevant issue
> simply because they choose not to employ it, is similar to patient
> claiming that cancer research is a waste of time simply because they
> are not afflicted with the condition.

Bad analogies are like a leaky screwdriver.

All throughout this thread, there have been people mixing up issues.
It's true that Flash is used on many, many websites, but one of the
earliest "complaints" I saw regarded Flash-only sites--sites which
require Flash in order to navigate.  These sites seem fairly rare.  It
is manipulative and misleading to argue that because so many sites
/make use of Flash/, then /Flash has become an integral part of the
web/.  I browse with Flash disabled all of the time, only enabling it
specifically when I need it to use the web site.  It certainly
happens--but it's not a constant thing.  I'm aware that Flash content
exists on the pages I view, but most of the time it's supplemental,
and the page degrades quite nicely without it.

All of this is largely irrelevant, however.  If you want Flash on
FreeBSD, you have a few options:
- Petition Adobe to release an official version and/or reduce the
  phantom restrictions[1] on the binaries so that they can run under
  emulation.
- Contribute to the Gnash project.
- Modify the appropriate files under /usr/ports and install it, as
  others have pointed out is possible.

If you want to use FreeBSD but you don't care about Flash, you have
two options:
- Complain to companies when their web site uses Flash poorly.
- Don't go to those websites.

It doesn't do any good to go around complaining on this list, as the
people on this list aren't really in any position to do anything[2].

Erik

[1] Others have pointed out that this restriction doesn't seem to
actually exist anymore.

[2] Except remove the restriction from the ports tree, assuming the
license is acceptable, and /possibly/ make it easier to install, since
so many users seem to have trouble with it.