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
do stupid things
I really, really dislike the notion that any company, in the selfishly sheer
pursuit of profits, should be able to dictate to anyone what that person should
be able to do, giving that it's within the limits of the law. Not allowing one
to view many sites ISN'T within the moral
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:23:31 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
what i personally found is that webpage that can't be viewed at all
without flash most often doesn't have any usable information.
There are web pages that, without Flash, won't even let you know
if
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:04:33 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
They don't just dumps out potential readers that don't use the only
right OS and browser.
They too - dumps out all disabled people, most importantly blind.
It's not a problem for a blind to
I don't want to raise an argument here (on multiple levels, no less...),
but what would the compatibility be between FreeBSD (release) and
Solaris?
Why I ask is Adobe have released a version of flash for Solaris, and I'm
wondering if this might work better than the linux_compat types. I tried
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:04:13 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar
woj...@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
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 13:12 +0100, Andreas Xanke wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:04:13 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar
woj...@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
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 13:04:13 +0100 (CET), Wojciech Puchar
woj...@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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
I don't want to raise an argument here (on multiple levels, no less...),
but what would the compatibility be between FreeBSD (release) and
Solaris?
Why I ask is Adobe have released a version of flash for Solaris, and I'm
pursuit of profits, should be able to dictate to anyone what that person should
They DO NOT DICTATE ANYTHING. It's quite free market here, you can use
they product or not. I don't use, mostly because it doesn't run on an OS
that i use.
___
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 12:45 -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
I don't want to raise an argument here (on multiple levels, no less...),
but what would the compatibility be between FreeBSD (release) and
Solaris?
Why I ask is
I don't want to raise an argument here (on multiple levels, no less...),
but what would the compatibility be between FreeBSD (release) and
Solaris?
Why I ask is Adobe have released a version of flash for Solaris, and I'm
wondering if this might work better than the linux_compat types. I tried
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:46:17 +1000
Da Rock rock_on_the_...@comcen.com.au wrote:
Why I ask is Adobe have released a version of flash for Solaris, and
I'm wondering if this might work better than the linux_compat types.
I tried running it straight out, but I'm getting errors of a missing
13 matches
Mail list logo
