Posted by David on 01/16/07 00:42

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:58:45 +0100, "J.O. Aho" <user@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Check out my undefeatable list:
>>>
>>> 1. support of 32 bit JPEGs
>>>
>>> 2. fully cross operating system compatible
>
>> Quite many (most) operating systems that don't have flash support, yes, you
>> have gplflash and gnash, but not usable.
>>
>> Even if GNU/Linux x86 has a flash plugin, it do not have the same features as
>> the one written for microsoft, so many flash based sites just don't work well
>> and many times don't work at all.
>
> Sorry, Deficient, but yer about 5 months the fuck out of date:
> http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer9.html
>
> Adobe/Macromedia released a beta


There is the key word "BETA" and it DOES NOT work on every site or with
all browsers. I know it does NOT work on my FireFox2.0 on the linux
system I am using There are many sites that it works fine on, but there
are those that it just closes out the browser!

version of Flash 9 for Linux back in
> November I believe and so far it hasn't choked on anything I've thrown
> at it

So you have tested the BETA version of Flash on all the different linux
versions huh? I didn't think so.

so unless you can provide ACTUAL PROOF that there are SPECIFIC
> things which won't work on the beta release...well, mayhaps you should
> shut yourself the fuck up until you manage to formulate a coherent
> counter argument. Fu
>
>> With other words, flash suxx for web design if you want people to be able to
>> use the site.
>
> WRONG!
>
> Flash, even the latest versions work on anything, Mac, Windows, Linux
> with ALL the mainstream browsers including IE, Netscape, Firefox,
> Opera, Konqueror, Safari, etc.

Perhaps you have better check again before spewing such bullshit. IT
DOES NOT work on all linux distros.

About the only thing it doesn't work
> on is Linx...

And in you above statement you specifically said that it worked with
Linux. Which is it? It either does or it doesn't? Perhaps that is why
it is called a BETA version.

and that's half the reason you include a plain text fall
> back version of the site (the other half is for the few remaining
> deficient search engines that can't spider the text content of Flash
> files).

Oh FWIW your site http://www.backwater-productions.net causes my FireFox
2.0 to crash when trying to load. And yes I have the Flash Beta version
for linux loaded.


>
> ...of course, I haven't ACTUALLY checked out Linx in some time, so for
> all I know they can now display the text content of Flash files, or
> even if Linx can't I wouldn't be surprised if there was another text
> based browser that could. I'm not a blind person or a wannabe blind
> person (the Amish of the Internet) so I don't really know, which is
> why I still take the bother to throw in a plain text fall back version
> of the site.
>
>> Server side scripting that generates w3c valid output is the only that is
>> really cross operatingsystem/browser compatible.
>
> Except that W3C compliancy in NO WAY equates to cross browser and
> cross operating system compatibility because NO BROWSER actually pays
> any attention AT ALL to the W3Cs line of idiocy and NO BROWSER comes
> anywhere the fuck even remotely CLOSE to adhering to their
> RECOMMENDATIONS. Unless all the browser makers magically decide to
> actually meet all of the W3Cs recommendations then THERE IS NO WAY for
> W3C compliant code to be cross browser and cross operating system
> compatible.
>

<snip useless drivel>


--
MicroSoft's NEW Motto: "Good enough." When you're on top, that's the
only standard that matters.

[Back to original message]