af.gourmet at videotron.ca
Wed Oct 28 22:46:01 UTC 2009
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:55:20 -0400, Jerry <gesbbb at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:25:53 +0100
>> Polytropon Polytropon <freebsd at edvax.de> replied:
>>> That's not FreeBSD's fault. If "professional web designers"
>>> need to "optimize" their content in order to prevent you from
>>> properly accessing it, it's their fault. I would complain to
>>> them, or just ignore them. Content that its creator doesn't
>>> want me to see is not worth seeing.
>> You don't really believe that do you.
>> Web creators attempt to make their
>> sites accessible to the largest possible audience.
> Let's say, they *should*. I've seen (or not seen) web pages...
> for example one that doesn't even tell you which page you
> are on without "Flash". Very useful for blind persons.
>> It is probably cost
>> prohibited, if even reasonably possible to make a site 100% viewable in
>> every browsers (don't forget lynxs) available.
> In most cases where "Flash" is used, it is used to annoy
> users with animated advertisement (where previously animated
> GIFs had been used) or to implement something that simple
> as a list of further links (which can be done in HTML, in
> If a web page is viewable in lynx, it's high quality. The
> term "quality" does not refer to the amount of different
> media embedded, nor does it refer to the amount of different
> fonts, font sizes, colors and images used. It refers to what
> you said: "largest possible audience". This includes all
> the "exceptions", such as blind users who need a readout
> on a braille line, or a synthesized speech output.
> You can, however, achieve this with "Flash", if you embed
> it correctly and maybe offer an alternative ("No 'Flash'
> version") of the content. The same is for using the alt=
> and longdesc= attributes in HTML for images.
> Okay, I will be honest: Nobody does this today anymore.
> Well... I do... but I'm completely mad.
>> Any intelligent business
>> plan would dictate that they therefore concentrate on the largest
>> possible audience.
> Let's say, the largest subset of the possible audience, that
> would be more correct. Web developers, as well as cretors
> of viruses and malware, rely on what the majority of PC users
> do use: "Windows" and "Flash". If this is present, fine. If
> not... "NO CONTENT FOR YOU! NEXT ONE!" :-)
>> This problem, like the nVidea 64 bit drivers, rests with FreeBSD.
> FreeBSD develops nVidia's GPUs and their drivers? I don't think
> so. For FreeBSD users there are two options on the side of
> a) open up the devices and the drivers so the
> community can develop quality drivers
> b) develop quality drivers in-house and offer
> binary packages
> And of course, for the users:
> c) If it doesn't run on my OS, I don't buy it.
> FreeBSD's and X's sources are free, so it's easy to implement
> the drivers. Vice versa, it's not easy to develop drivers for
> a GPU that (FreeBSD's and X's) developers don't know enough
> According to "Flash", why would you think it's okay to require
> a proprietary plugin that is developed in a closed way and
> hooks SO DEEPLY into the system that it's that hard to implement?
> And when you think about the benefits of having such a plugin...
> sometimes you are glad that you can easily TURN IT OFF.
> Again the analogy for images: Sometimes, their use makes a
> web page ugly as sin and unreadable. Then I just switch the
> images off in Opera. I don't need a plugin from an arbitrary
> company to see PNG images, and know that this company does
> not offer such a plugin for my platform, and that the plugin
> for viewing PNG images hooks deeply into the system's kernel
> so there is no 100% usable free alternative of it.
> The day that "Flash" is an open standard and can be used the
> same way as PNG images in a web page (and through the means
> of a web browser), I will be glad to review my attitude.
>> simply cannot expect any software developer to develop and maintain a
>> product for what is in reality a niche OS.
> Well, I don't expect the software development company to do so.
> They have the change to make "Flash" a standard (by opening it).
> If they don't, it's okay, it is their right to do so. But then,
> a web developer can't expect me to buy an expensive PC with
> some "Windows" and a prone-to-abuse plugin of "Flash" just to
> see some advertisement or something else that every half-skilled
> web developer could easily implement with HTML, CSS and maybe
I think you're forgetting one very important aspect of all this crap...
the fault lies with ADOBE.... just look at the greedy sobs - they
produce overpriced products (that, incidentally, they sell to the
kChinese at ludicrous prices or repates and tolerate their illegal
copying) which are notoriously buggy - they bloat the OSs and never
really fix their errors.... they are the ones who should provide some
semblance of stability in their products rather than comi;ng out with
really unnecessary updates and changes every few months - it is these
changes that cause all the problems...
SO THERE... let's end this discussion about such trivial and
nonessential things as a buggy program.
More information about the freebsd-questions