Solaris Compat?

[Da Rock]

On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 13:12 +0100, Andreas Xanke wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:04:13 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar <wojtek at wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> wrote:
> > it's nonsense to FreeBSD developers to do workaround just because adobe 
> > don't want to make FreeBSD binary.
> > 
> > If they don't want to make, then they DONT WANT US to use their product.
> > They DO HAVE RIGHT to do so, and please respect their rights!
> > 
> > PS. Of course it's nonsense what they do, but again it's their right to do 
> > stupid things
> 
> I do share this point of view, but sadly, an open system like
> the Web has been polluted and made unusable (or at least has the
> tendency to be this way) for those who cannot access this
> propretary product / format.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I've played a bit with "Flash" on FreeBSD,
> found it useless and am living happily now without it, without
> getting bothered to install strange "Plugins" or "Extensions"
> all day long. The day "Flash" will be an open standard and will
> be integrated into browsers (such as graphic formats are, or
> even other media), then I'll think about it again, for sure.
> But as long as something that unimportant hooks so deeply into
> the system that it's hard work to create workarounds to use
> it (swfdecoder, linux-flash, gnash etc.), it simply isn't
> worth thinking about.
> 
> Or could you imagine that a company would release some software
> that makes it possible to view PNG images within a webpage, but
> your OS isn't intended to have support for this, because it would
> require the modification of the OS kernel? :-)

Understandable. Try clipsal.com , or try freeview.com.au - and this is
just a few of the sites and organisations I deal with that don't offer
workarounds (and I have said words to them regarding accessibility).

Unfortunately, some organisations don't believe flash is that
unaccessible.