GPL'd Flash Library

[Tim Schmidt]

MY point is, lets get a package in Universe so we can check it out.

--tim


On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 18:35:02 -0400, Tim Schmidt <timschmidt at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, I'll help you out with your own treatment:
> 
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 23:19:42 +0100, Martin Alderson
> <martinalderson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 1) 700KB is tiny. Sorry, but even for a 56k modem its less than a
> > couple of minutes.
> 
> Between dialing-out, finding a page with flash so Firefox will prompt
> me to install flash, and waiting for the download, rinse and repeat
> for every user, I can see 10 or 20 minutes being used up easily.  It's
> something that should just be handled by the distribution, and since
> Ubuntu's philosophy doesn't allow for the re-distribution of flash
> (not to mention what Macromedia would have to say about it), the only
> solution is something like the GPL'd flash library.
> 
> > 2) I don't think useless is the right word. It takes me 20 seconds to
> > download and install, so that's fine by me.
> 
> Onto a read-only CD?  I'd like to see you accomplish that.  The LiveCD
> comes with what Ubuntu can freely re-distribute and that's it.
> Period.  Here it's partial flash support or none and those are the
> only choices you have.  Clearly partial is better.
> 
> > 3) No it's not! This is what kills Linux. Half working stuff _is not
> > good enough_. Especially when the user thinks it's fully working!!!
> > The average user will have absolutley no idea what is wrong. This is
> > like me installing something that looks exactly like the Linux kernel,
> > when infact it's something completely different that only works 10% of
> > the time.
> 
> Hmmm...  supporting more formats in the default install is bad?  New
> to me.  Perhaps we should remove OpenOffice because it's not 100%
> compatible with Microsoft's formats.  Mozilla because it does not
> render pages exactly like IE?  You can't walk both paths at the same
> time my friend.
> 
> > 4) ppc + solaris is probably, what? 2% of the total installed base.
> > Maybe a little more. Certainly not worth bothering the 98%.
> 
> Ok, Linux (and Ubuntu by extension) should just drop support for the
> 20 some arch's that aren't x86 because they're not important.  Great
> reasoning.
> 
> > 5) This is just getting stupid. 700kb is 'wasted space'? No it's not.
> > It also lets some user install flash, some not - for security, content
> > restriction - whatever. Make bloody sym-links if you care that much
> > about 700 KB.
> 
> It's not just space, it's centralised configuration, automated
> installation, etc.  Think of a School install with a thousand kids.
> 700k * 1000 = 700Mb wasted space in home directories.  Multiply that
> by automated backups and you're buying extra hard drives for Flash.
> Sure an admin CAN fix this problem, and of course should fix it, but I
> don't think they should have to when the distribution can do it for
> them.
> 
> > 6) Most users really don't care about philosophy past "it's free and I
> > can get the source". Most people would prefer flash that _works_.
> 
> Maybe most users don't care, but Ubuntu clearly does.
> 
> > Unless you have an idea on how we alert users that they are using a
> > crippled version of flash that doesn't work enough to get more than
> > 10% of pages working, without being annoying, then please go ahead.
> 
> Can you back up that 10% figure?  I thought not.
> 
> --tim
>