Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
n0g0013 wrote: i'm sure SUN was/is hoping that someone will develop a java based animation toolkit to compete with flash but that's yet to happen. I think this is what JavaFX is aiming to be - unfortunately, it's probably missed the boat, what with Flash having been around for years and Microsoft having released Silverlight. One of the reasons Flash on Windows is so fast is that it is JIT-compiled to native code, plus it probably takes advantage of accelerated graphics rendering where it can. Neither of these seem to happen with the Linux flash plugin from Adobe (or if they do, it doesn't help - it's still dog slow). I think that was one of the things holding Adobe back from releasing an amd64 version of Flash (even for Windows!) - they didn't seem to be capable of porting their JIT compiler! The bug reference for that is here: https://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/FP-37 Looks like the JIT was released under the MPL/GPL/LGPL in 2006: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/tamarin/ -- Russell Howe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:01 AM, scar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Marco Peereboom @ 2008/07/16 23:00: Flash is only good for a few things such as naked ladies performing anatomic tricks, dude getting punched in the ding-dong Trogodor the burninator. Nothing makes me happier than visiting a website and having some ad puking its irrelevant content on me. there are a lot of informative and useful videos and documentaries on youtube, and a lot of news or otherwise public service websites utilize youtube for their own video content, as well. *cough* XviD + Vorbis *cough* And no, Flash does not help with content protection (read DRM).
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
I have done just fine without flash for years. For me it is very simple; if your site has flash it means: 1. I suddenly don't care 2. I will not purchase anything from you 3. I'll find alternatives who make my experience better 4. I'll save some time by not watching some retarded video It wouldn't be the first business/site I abandon. It wouldn't be the first site at work that I simply reply to originators saying: sorry can't view the content. Making excuses for flash isn't helping. You can't say: I agree but I use it anyway because I want teh nekid ladies. On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:40:43AM -0400, Jason Beaudoin wrote: snip This guy's day job is at a bank, and they're really into it-- it solves a number of problems for them. So if this is the kind of thing that developers are going to pick up en masse, then it's something that will need to be addressed, else people who won't or can't run Flash will be increasingly marginalized. Flash is only good for a few things such as naked ladies performing anatomic tricks, dude getting punched in the ding-dong Trogodor the burninator. Nothing makes me happier than visiting a website and having some ad puking its irrelevant content on me. What's perplexing to me is that most people sit idle watching the internet as we know it disintegrate in front of their eyes. Allowing themselves to be bombarded with ads. Removing the actual reason for why html exists which is indexing content so that it can be retrieved and used by many. Those people are all ok with being shat on as long as they can watch youtube or $whatever_infantile_site_here. The 14 year old demographic is apparently the dominating one on teh intartubez these days. I for one can't wait to be marginalized. While I agree with you in many respects, I will also acknowledge that there are plenty of legitimate cases where viewing flash content is necessary. This is particularly true in artistic communities (and increasingly so, for the reasons Daniel pointed out). Flash sure is shit, I'll agree.. and philosophically, I believe its use continues its proliferation by adobe.. but regardless, casting it all off isn't a viable solution. For example, if a site has information I absolutely need to access (maybe you're researching a particular artist or company that uses flash on their site, etc..) your options are to either not view that content, attempt opera or gnash or some other broken open alternative, or boot up windows. Not viewing the content doesn't help you. opera and/or gnash are close options, sometimes booting windows is not an option I feel good about even considering, and as soon as I give away this extra laptop I have, there won't be any windows here. so protest if you must, but I hope you can acknowledge a user's legitimate use, as opposed to adobe's horrific domination, or spammer's obsession with inducing seizures. regards, ~Jason -- 401.837.8417 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have done just fine without flash for years. For me it is very simple; if your site has flash it means: 1. I suddenly don't care 2. I will not purchase anything from you 3. I'll find alternatives who make my experience better 4. I'll save some time by not watching some retarded video It wouldn't be the first business/site I abandon. It wouldn't be the first site at work that I simply reply to originators saying: sorry can't view the content. Making excuses for flash isn't helping. You can't say: I agree but I use it anyway because I want teh nekid ladies. On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:40:43AM -0400, Jason Beaudoin wrote: snip This guy's day job is at a bank, and they're really into it-- it solves a number of problems for them. So if this is the kind of thing that developers are going to pick up en masse, then it's something that will need to be addressed, else people who won't or can't run Flash will be increasingly marginalized. Flash is only good for a few things such as naked ladies performing anatomic tricks, dude getting punched in the ding-dong Trogodor the burninator. Nothing makes me happier than visiting a website and having some ad puking its irrelevant content on me. What's perplexing to me is that most people sit idle watching the internet as we know it disintegrate in front of their eyes. Allowing themselves to be bombarded with ads. Removing the actual reason for why html exists which is indexing content so that it can be retrieved and used by many. Those people are all ok with being shat on as long as they can watch youtube or $whatever_infantile_site_here. The 14 year old demographic is apparently the dominating one on teh intartubez these days. I for one can't wait to be marginalized. While I agree with you in many respects, I will also acknowledge that there are plenty of legitimate cases where viewing flash content is necessary. This is particularly true in artistic communities (and increasingly so, for the reasons Daniel pointed out). Flash sure is shit, I'll agree.. and philosophically, I believe its use continues its proliferation by adobe.. but regardless, casting it all off isn't a viable solution. For example, if a site has information I absolutely need to access (maybe you're researching a particular artist or company that uses flash on their site, etc..) your options are to either not view that content, attempt opera or gnash or some other broken open alternative, or boot up windows. Not viewing the content doesn't help you. opera and/or gnash are close options, sometimes booting windows is not an option I feel good about even considering, and as soon as I give away this extra laptop I have, there won't be any windows here. so protest if you must, but I hope you can acknowledge a user's legitimate use, as opposed to adobe's horrific domination, or spammer's obsession with inducing seizures. regards, ~Jason -- 401.837.8417 [EMAIL PROTECTED] I agree, a flash site means you don't want my business for me. It's annoying.
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
2008/7/17 Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Making excuses for flash isn't helping. You can't say: I agree but I use it anyway because I want teh nekid ladies. No, no, take it from an old Masturbating Monkey, most of the pr0n videos out there on teh Intartubes do not in fact require aBLOBe Flush. (There, now I've blown my chances of future employment with any company competent enough to use teh Google. But I did it for the lulz.) --ropers
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have done just fine without flash for years. For me it is very simple; if your site has flash it means: 1. I suddenly don't care 2. I will not purchase anything from you 3. I'll find alternatives who make my experience better 4. I'll save some time by not watching some retarded video It wouldn't be the first business/site I abandon. It wouldn't be the first site at work that I simply reply to originators saying: sorry can't view the content. and I agree. my point is that there are many times, particularly in artistic communitities, where this simply does not apply. and no, I could not care less about the flash ladies. Regards, ~Jason
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
Hi! On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:54:15AM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 06:59:44PM -0700, Jason LaRiviere wrote: Flash has a place on the web, just like any other rich media format. It should be used responsibly, as semantically as possible, and degrade nicely for those who care not to use it. I make every effort to use it within these guidelines, and present them as gospel to my clients. Many (most?) modern web developers do too, except for the ones at a Flex conference who still think drawing entire websites in Flash is a good idea. Shame on them, but they are a dying breed. Flash has one huge technical benefit. There are a number of sites that generate large amounts of dynamic images. Doing this in a fast and efficient manner requires an enormous amount of computing resources. Using flash pushes that work out to the client where it can be rendered on their own system. What about four letters: Java? One advantage: No blob required. And at least a *bit* more portable. And will eventually be quite open source. Kind regards, Hannah.
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
Hi! On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 03:38:35PM -0600, Mark Pecaut wrote: On 7/16/08, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I for one am glad there is no plugin for that infectious disease called flash. But then how will I watch Ow! My balls! videos online? What will I do? There's plenty of add-ons for firefox/... to download them. E.g. DownloadHelper (which knows how to download the stuff from much more than youtube/google video). Kind regards, Hannah.
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Marco Peereboom wrote: Somehow the word Java comes to mind... Tell me again how that one runtime meme worked for them again. Are you saying that Java is not being used widely? All of the fundamental courses in my CS department are taught using Java, and I don't think my department is an exception. Seems like a home run to me-- I'm sure that Sun considers Java a great success. Flash is only good for a few things such as naked ladies performing anatomic tricks, dude getting punched in the ding-dong Trogodor the burninator. Nothing makes me happier than visiting a website and having some ad puking its irrelevant content on me. That's not what the instructor was pushing for-- he's suggesting that people build an entire site using Flash. That's the whole point of Flex. I don't think that banking websites fall into the category you mention. His argument was this: Flash is available for Windows, Mac, Linux-- that gives you pretty much everybody-- and anybody else has marginalized themselves. Now, I strongly disagree with him. For my employer, Flash is not an option-- our applications need to be able to run on anything, even cellphones, and they need to be accessible. The application has to run on many different backends as well. But if you don't have those requirements, or have had the experience of being locked in to a single-vendor solution, Flash probably looks pretty good to you. I for one can't wait to be marginalized. I doubt that you really feel that way.
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
Marco Peereboom wrote: For me it is very simple; if your site has flash it means: [snip] 2. I will not purchase anything from you In my opinion it's not always that simple. Take skydiving equipment for example. This is a small and highly specialized market in which often few alternatives are available. When it comes to gear that my life is going to depend on, I'd much rather base my choice on the quality of the product itself than on the quality of the manufacturer's website, thank you. I refuse to say: I'll buy that other parachute because even though I trust it less, at least the manufacturer doesn't have Flash on his website. Don't get me wrong, I hate the use of Flash when it has nothing substantial to add and I do try to point out to offending manufacturers that their websites basically just suck ass, but I for one can't afford the you use Flash so I won't buy your stuff attitude. I value my life a little bit too much for that. When buying cars, CDs or other everyday goods there are so many alternatives that you can safely avoid Flash and simply buy your stuff elsewhere, but with more specialized goods there often simply aren't enough (viable) alternatives to do so. Just my two cents, Alphons -- If riding in an airplane is flying, then riding in a boat is swimming. If you want to experience the element, get out of the vehicle.
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 02:36:11PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote: Hi! On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:54:15AM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 06:59:44PM -0700, Jason LaRiviere wrote: Flash has a place on the web, just like any other rich media format. It should be used responsibly, as semantically as possible, and degrade nicely for those who care not to use it. I make every effort to use it within these guidelines, and present them as gospel to my clients. Many (most?) modern web developers do too, except for the ones at a Flex conference who still think drawing entire websites in Flash is a good idea. Shame on them, but they are a dying breed. Flash has one huge technical benefit. There are a number of sites that generate large amounts of dynamic images. Doing this in a fast and efficient manner requires an enormous amount of computing resources. Using flash pushes that work out to the client where it can be rendered on their own system. What about four letters: Java? One advantage: No blob required. And at least a *bit* more portable. And will eventually be quite open source. I don't have any customers that use Java for client-side image rendering, so I can't speak as to how it would compare. I suspect that Java wouldn't be as efficient as flash for passing instructions to the client, but that's just a hunch. -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net/
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 02:16:15PM +, Alphons Fonz van Werven wrote: Marco Peereboom wrote: For me it is very simple; if your site has flash it means: [snip] 2. I will not purchase anything from you In my opinion it's not always that simple. Take skydiving equipment for example. This is a small and highly specialized market in which often few alternatives are available. When it comes to gear that my life is going to depend on, I'd much rather base my choice on the quality of the product itself than on the quality of the manufacturer's website, thank you. I refuse to say: I'll buy that other parachute because even though I trust it less, at least the manufacturer doesn't have Flash on his website. Don't get me wrong, I hate the use of Flash when it has nothing substantial to add and I do try to point out to offending manufacturers that their websites basically just suck ass, but I for one can't afford the you use Flash so I won't buy your stuff attitude. I value my life a little bit too much for that. When buying cars, CDs or other everyday goods there are so many alternatives that you can safely avoid Flash and simply buy your stuff elsewhere, but with more specialized goods there often simply aren't enough (viable) alternatives to do so. Just my two cents, I know that if I had to buy something which had a direct impact on me being dead or alive, I'd probably move my ass to the store, and probably a few stores even, rather than just buying it on internet Anyway, your comment seemed like most people spend their time buying vital items, I assume they are not and most people are buying items and using services which are available from various sites. I understand marco and I have adopted the same attitude of not giving money to companies which ... make it hard for me to give them my money. If they don't want it, it's fine I'll buy from a competitor which isn't an annoyance. I've had to change bank recently because they turned their authentication into a flash interface that forced me into keeping a dual boot and rebooting whenever I wanted to check my account. There are competitors, they offer similar services, more or less, why cope with the annoyance ? Gilles -- Gilles Chehade http://www.poolp.org/~gilles/ Please, contribute to my happiness ;) http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/wishlist/2O09ACKR1A8HD/
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
You are the one jumping out of a perfectly good working airplane... Lame example but don't worry most people who give these types of examples think that the recipient is an idiot and could not have come up with it themselves. I appreciate you treating me like a 3 year old. On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 02:16:15PM +, Alphons Fonz van Werven wrote: Marco Peereboom wrote: For me it is very simple; if your site has flash it means: [snip] 2. I will not purchase anything from you In my opinion it's not always that simple. Take skydiving equipment for example. This is a small and highly specialized market in which often few alternatives are available. When it comes to gear that my life is going to depend on, I'd much rather base my choice on the quality of the product itself than on the quality of the manufacturer's website, thank you. I refuse to say: I'll buy that other parachute because even though I trust it less, at least the manufacturer doesn't have Flash on his website. Don't get me wrong, I hate the use of Flash when it has nothing substantial to add and I do try to point out to offending manufacturers that their websites basically just suck ass, but I for one can't afford the you use Flash so I won't buy your stuff attitude. I value my life a little bit too much for that. When buying cars, CDs or other everyday goods there are so many alternatives that you can safely avoid Flash and simply buy your stuff elsewhere, but with more specialized goods there often simply aren't enough (viable) alternatives to do so. Just my two cents, Alphons -- If riding in an airplane is flying, then riding in a boat is swimming. If you want to experience the element, get out of the vehicle.
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 09:47:31AM -0400, Daniel Barowy wrote: On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Marco Peereboom wrote: Somehow the word Java comes to mind... Tell me again how that one runtime meme worked for them again. Are you saying that Java is not being used widely? All of the fundamental courses in my CS department are taught using Java, and I don't think my department is an exception. Seems like a home run to me-- I'm sure that Sun considers Java a great success. I am saying that each java app requires its own java runtime because the previous/next version is incompatible. Nothing new here. Flash is only good for a few things such as naked ladies performing anatomic tricks, dude getting punched in the ding-dong Trogodor the burninator. Nothing makes me happier than visiting a website and having some ad puking its irrelevant content on me. That's not what the instructor was pushing for-- he's suggesting that people build an entire site using Flash. That's the whole point of Flex. I don't think that banking websites fall into the category you mention. His argument was this: Flash is available for Windows, Mac, Linux-- that gives you pretty much everybody-- and anybody else has marginalized themselves. Your instructor is making money using flash. I am sure he had sound advice. My bank uses html; the day they change is the day I'll cancel all my accounts. Now, I strongly disagree with him. For my employer, Flash is not an option-- our applications need to be able to run on anything, even cellphones, and they need to be accessible. The application has to run on many different backends as well. But if you don't have those requirements, or have had the experience of being locked in to a single-vendor solution, Flash probably looks pretty good to you. I can't begin to imagine why I would agree or work in such an environment. I for one can't wait to be marginalized. I doubt that you really feel that way. I am glad you are an internet psychologist that knows me well enough to tell me what is good for me.
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
Gilles Chehade wrote: I know that if I had to buy something which had a direct impact on me being dead or alive, I'd probably move my ass to the store, and probably a few stores even, rather than just buying it on internet Very true of course. However, not every store sells every make. In fact, many stores specialize in just one or two. So, skydivers need to do a lot of research before strolling into a shop. Or even before choosing which shop to go to. The Internet is a valuable tool for getting your bearings and finding out what's available out there. Anyway, your comment seemed like most people spend their time buying vital items, I assume they are not and most people are buying items and using services which are available from various sites. I did mention that the situation is different when buying common goods available from many sources. However, I felt the need to point out that in my opinion it's *not always* as simple as Marco makes it seem. Alphons -- If riding in an airplane is flying, then riding in a boat is swimming. If you want to experience the element, get out of the vehicle.
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Marco Peereboom wrote: On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 09:47:31AM -0400, Daniel Barowy wrote: On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Marco Peereboom wrote: Somehow the word Java comes to mind... Tell me again how that one runtime meme worked for them again. Are you saying that Java is not being used widely? All of the fundamental courses in my CS department are taught using Java, and I don't think my department is an exception. Seems like a home run to me-- I'm sure that Sun considers Java a great success. I am saying that each java app requires its own java runtime because the previous/next version is incompatible. Nothing new here. Interesting! In my (admittedly limited) experience, software built with an older version of Java nearly always runs just fine with a later version of the Java runtime. The only exceptions I'm aware of involve one of the rare and well publicized API changes in the class libraries or Microsoft's pseudo-Java, which was deliberately incompatible (in violation of the Java licence) as a marketing move. Dave -- Dave Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
Marco Peereboom wrote: You are the one jumping out of a perfectly good working airplane... You obviously haven't seen the airplane... most people who give these types of examples think that the recipient is an idiot [snip] I appreciate you treating me like a 3 year old. Last time I checked, my name wasn't Most People. I don't remember calling you an idiot or other such name. For a 3-year old you display pretty impressive thought capabilities and linguistic skills. On a slightly more mature note: If I posted such bold black and white statements I wouldn't be surprised (let alone offended) if others pointed out that they agree with the general concept but find them inaccurate or unpractical in certain situations. Perhaps there's a masturbating monkey sitting on your shoulder ;-) Alphons -- If riding in an airplane is flying, then riding in a boat is swimming. If you want to experience the element, get out of the vehicle.
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On 17.07-10:26, Jason Dixon wrote: [ ... ] I don't have any customers that use Java for client-side image rendering, so I can't speak as to how it would compare. I suspect that Java wouldn't be as efficient as flash for passing instructions to the client, but that's just a hunch. performance of image rendering ? ? ? passing instructions ??? that's as meaningful as the banana flavoured lube. ;-) java is a language, flash is a solution. many would like to see an open alternative to flash but since flash is not microsoft i think it's below most radars. it's also, as many here have noted, 99.9% meaningless junk; and i'm 100% confident that any flash application could be re-implemented in Java, should needs, must. personally, i avoid flash as a retard filter; remove it and lots of sh1t suddenly disappears. p.s: java's image rendering is perfectly performant (assuming you accept java as an overhead in the first place ... of course, flashplayer is just as bad)
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On 17.07-10:13, Marco Peereboom wrote: [ ... ] I am saying that each java app requires its own java runtime because the previous/next version is incompatible. Nothing new here. this is wrong. java versions are largely compatible and most requirements are library problems, not runtime compatibility (although i believe distribution rights to core components would often restrict packaging for forward compatibility). -- t t w
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On 17.07-12:13, Jason Dixon wrote: You don't have to be a dick. [ ... ] eh ... ok. i wasn't trying to be; i was trying to be funny but apparently my linguistic skills are on a par with your own. apologies. [ ... ] I don't know anything about Java client-side rendering capabilities, and I expressed as such. I'm not sure why the phrases image rendering or passing instructions throw you off. I'm not a flash or java developer, nor do I pretend to be. But I know that flash is very effective at pushing image rendinering resource requirements out to the client, rather than relying on enormous amounts of server-side CPU power. ... but i was also making the point that if you don't know anything about Java client-side rendering and are not a flash or java developer perhaps you should refrain from spouting technical jargonese on the subject. i know what you're getting but i don't think it's representative of java or flash. the primary reason for flash performing better is that it has better development tools (and a more mature/focused API) for these things. everything you'd need is also available in java. as i said, java is a language, flash is a solution. one could build the same solutions in java, should they choose to engage that, and make them just as performant (qualified, of course, by the platform requirements); it would just take a lot more work. [ ... ] If you dismiss my comments as fancy, you simply have no experience in this arena. No reason to be hostile about it. apologies again, it was meant as a lighthearted jibe. p.s: i have some experience in both platforms but would not claim to be an expert in either p.p.s: i expect the server side demands you are experiencing are from a jvm on the server not the actual application demands that you are correlating them to (although i do understand the overlap) -- t t w
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 07:09:19AM -0400, Jason Beaudoin wrote: On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have done just fine without flash for years. For me it is very simple; if your site has flash it means: 1. I suddenly don't care 2. I will not purchase anything from you 3. I'll find alternatives who make my experience better 4. I'll save some time by not watching some retarded video It wouldn't be the first business/site I abandon. It wouldn't be the first site at work that I simply reply to originators saying: sorry can't view the content. and I agree. my point is that there are many times, particularly in artistic communitities, where this simply does not apply. There are also many educational sites that use flash. These are highly interactive (and dare I say, fun) learning experiences. I see a lot of value in that. I look forward to the day that my daughter can use http://www.starfall.com/ on OpenBSD. -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net/
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:07 PM, n0g0013 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17.07-10:13, Marco Peereboom wrote: [ ... ] I am saying that each java app requires its own java runtime because the previous/next version is incompatible. Nothing new here. this is wrong. java versions are largely compatible and most requirements are library problems, not runtime compatibility (although i believe distribution rights to core components would often restrict packaging for forward compatibility). If you get java awt rendering animations half as decently as the official flash plugin, I would be suprised! -- Best Regards Edd http://students.dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/ebarrett
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
I love your optimism. Integration efforts I worked on for a large company always required to drop 1 run time environment per app. I promise we tried really really hard to make that one. This meant that when a loaded box went out the door there were as many as 8 java runtimes installed on your box. Spare me the but my app is totally 1337 and doesn't need that; it simply doesn't apply to many scenarios. On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 06:07:05PM +, n0g0013 wrote: On 17.07-10:13, Marco Peereboom wrote: [ ... ] I am saying that each java app requires its own java runtime because the previous/next version is incompatible. Nothing new here. this is wrong. java versions are largely compatible and most requirements are library problems, not runtime compatibility (although i believe distribution rights to core components would often restrict packaging for forward compatibility). -- t t w
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Edd Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you get java awt rendering animations half as decently as the official flash plugin, I would be suprised! Actually, http://solarcollector.ca/create.php doesn't look too bad. It still feels crufty to me though, on Windows Java pops up going oh look i'm java and it's kind of slow. Flash is definitely faster. Java was not originally meant for the web and it's always been a hack in there. I too am rooting for gnash to be finished some day. I hate all-flash sites as much as anyone, but it's sticking your head in the sand to avoid it. -Nick
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On 17.07-14:16, Jason Dixon wrote: [ ... ] ... but i was also making the point that if you don't know anything about Java client-side rendering and are not a flash or java developer perhaps you should refrain from spouting technical jargonese on the subject. i know what you're getting but i don't think it's representative of java or flash. I don't have to be a Java or Flash developer to engineer scalable web architectures (which is what I do). My original statement was that there _is_ a valid purpose for flash, particularly in client-side graphics generation. I've seen the good and bad of graphics generation, particularly with stubborn clients who insist on bad technology (GD, ImageMagick) for server-side rendering. This is where I'm coming from, hopefully you understand better the point I was making. Nowhere was I claiming that Java would be a bad tool (yes, I know it's a language) because I simply don't know what classes are available for it for performing client-side rendering. I *will* go out on a limb and suggest that it's highly unlikely there are any native classes for Java that optimize client-side graphics rendering like Flash. Prove me wrong, perhaps I can recommend it in a future project. ;) jogl? but that is actually for client side rendering and not the image manipulation that you appear to be talking about. there are plenty of functions in the core java library that could also do the image manipulaton. as i am sure you are well aware the trade-off between transmitting the full image data to the client for manipulation or transmitting a thumbnail and performing manipulations server-side are application specific, not client specific. of course, we are now almost completely lost because we have mixed the client side (which was the initial discussion) with the server side and integration issues of the two. suffice to say, there is no real reason that a flash client couldn't be implemented in java. [ ... ] p.p.s: i expect the server side demands you are experiencing are from a jvm on the server not the actual application demands that you are correlating them to (although i do understand the overlap) This has nothing to do with Java or JVMs. Graphics rendering always requires high amounts of CPU, regardless of the language/solution/platform. ... and now i'm even more confused as this appears to contradict your previous assertion that flash was more performant. my point was that flash is compiled code and thus does these things faster than inside a jvm. i don't believe your server performance issues relate, in anyway, to the client side software. unless, of course, your point was that flash makes it easier to move the image processing (NOT rendering) off to the client. having implemented this a couple of times in java client i'd have to personally disagree whilst appreciating that common opinion may vary (i.e. flash has more focused development kit for this stuff). -- t t w
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On 17.07-13:21, Marco Peereboom wrote: On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 06:07:05PM +, n0g0013 wrote: On 17.07-10:13, Marco Peereboom wrote: [ ... ] I am saying that each java app requires its own java runtime because the previous/next version is incompatible. Nothing new here. this is wrong. java versions are largely compatible and most requirements are library problems, not runtime compatibility (although i believe distribution rights to core components would often restrict packaging for forward compatibility). I love your optimism. Integration efforts I worked on for a large company always required to drop 1 run time environment per app. I promise we tried really really hard to make that one. This meant that when a loaded box went out the door there were as many as 8 java runtimes installed on your box. Spare me the but my app is totally 1337 and doesn't need that; it simply doesn't apply to many scenarios. you are the first person in a long time to accuse me of optimism, i suppose i should thank you for that, but the statement was made from experience. whatever your personal experiences i still maintain that your orginal statement was wrong, or at the very least, an extremely harsh assessment. -- t t w
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On 17.07-19:33, Edd Barrett wrote: [ ... ] If you get java awt rendering animations half as decently as the official flash plugin, I would be suprised! i apologise if i'm becoming overly terse but it's becoming clear that any attempt at discourse here deteriorates, at best, to pissing contest and i'm finding it difficult to dissern between that behaviour and genuine enquiry. the short answer is, it is perfectly possible. -- t t w
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On 17.07-15:35, Nick Guenther wrote: On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Edd Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you get java awt rendering animations half as decently as the official flash plugin, I would be suprised! [ ... ] Flash is definitely faster. [ ... ] i agree with the faster point but the key issue with java is not getting it to render stuff well, it is with the amount of effort required to actually develop the application. flash has cool tools for animating 2D objects, and performing interactions with them; java requires you to write a shit load of code for the same effect. i'm sure SUN was/is hoping that someone will develop a java based animation toolkit to compete with flash but that's yet to happen. in short, flash is a good tool. we'll all look forward to the day that the formats, behaviours and protocols are opened so that we can implement a native, opensource viewer. -- t t w
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
n0g0013 writes: any attempt at discourse here deteriorates, at best, to pissing contest This is what should go on the t-shirt.
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 dermiste @ 2008/07/17 07:47: On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:01 AM, scar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Marco Peereboom @ 2008/07/16 23:00: Flash is only good for a few things such as naked ladies performing anatomic tricks, dude getting punched in the ding-dong Trogodor the burninator. Nothing makes me happier than visiting a website and having some ad puking its irrelevant content on me. there are a lot of informative and useful videos and documentaries on youtube, and a lot of news or otherwise public service websites utilize youtube for their own video content, as well. *cough* XviD + Vorbis *cough* And no, Flash does not help with content protection (read DRM). i'm not quite sure what you're saying, but i'll give interpretation a try. i'm not advocating flash over a fantastic alternative like xvid+vorbis. the point is the masses use flash now. i don't know or care why it has become popular as a medium, but it is. it is valuable in that it is not just used for stupid videos mentioned above, which many people might think, but is used for informative and other public service needs, like is mentioned elsewhere in this thread about skydiving equipment. if i had to guess i would compare it to your friendly government website requiring internet explorer. they don't have the skilled staff to write a web page based on standards since they have sold out to microsoft, so they continue on the easy route and use some microsoft website builder which breaks countless standards but is easy for them to implement. now they are serving 90% of internet users with a public service which was otherwise unavailable. meanwhile, the other 10% of people like us are bitter. overall, though, a great benefit has been bestowed upon society as a whole. blah blah viruses, blah blah security holes.. it obviuosly doesn't matter if it is easy and serves a large majority. and i'm not sure where content protection came into this or what it has to do with anything. i hate content protection though, i'll say that much. who are we to deny a user their right to the content on the internet? i think we should stop arguing on moral grounds and put effort towards a viable and secure solution to those without a microsoft operating system. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFIf8ZtXhfCJNu98qARCM8IAJ9XtBurknekhsa391d7c1UecrJ3tACgt6Zv V4CMykPr3qLMNnaXLKy54OA= =G8uy -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
So I can't call a spade a spade? Sorry buddy I don't do politics well. If something sucks it is perfectly ok to call that out. I haven't even begun being harsh towards java and/or flash. On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 08:42:01PM +, n0g0013 wrote: On 17.07-13:21, Marco Peereboom wrote: On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 06:07:05PM +, n0g0013 wrote: On 17.07-10:13, Marco Peereboom wrote: [ ... ] I am saying that each java app requires its own java runtime because the previous/next version is incompatible. Nothing new here. this is wrong. java versions are largely compatible and most requirements are library problems, not runtime compatibility (although i believe distribution rights to core components would often restrict packaging for forward compatibility). I love your optimism. Integration efforts I worked on for a large company always required to drop 1 run time environment per app. I promise we tried really really hard to make that one. This meant that when a loaded box went out the door there were as many as 8 java runtimes installed on your box. Spare me the but my app is totally 1337 and doesn't need that; it simply doesn't apply to many scenarios. you are the first person in a long time to accuse me of optimism, i suppose i should thank you for that, but the statement was made from experience. whatever your personal experiences i still maintain that your orginal statement was wrong, or at the very least, an extremely harsh assessment. -- t t w
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
Jason LaRiviere wrote: The current breed of standards-based web developers - which in my estimation form the bulk of all web developers currently doing anything anyone is seeing, and of which I am fairly representative, would think nothing of the sort. Truly well-versed web developers find cross-browser issues bothersome, but far from insurmountable; certainly not worthy of abandoning xhtml, css and javascript for something with funny names and registered trademarks. [...] At a bank? Yeesh... Even javascript is completely unnecessary in many cases. I've yet to see an online banking system that's usable via /usr/bin/lynx, even though the browser supports both SSL and cookies. And we're talking about a site you log into specifically to shift numbers around... There need not be any images, videos, scripts, or other bloat... -- Stephen Takacs [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://perlguru.net/ 4149 FD56 D078 C988 9027 1EB4 04CC F80F 72CB 09DA
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:03 PM, n0g0013 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: in short, flash is a good tool. we'll all look forward to the day that the formats, behaviours and protocols are opened so that we can implement a native, opensource viewer. Like, this month? Google: openscreen. Flash protocol is open source. -- Best Regards Edd http://students.dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/ebarrett
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 09:03:14PM +, n0g0013 wrote: --- remove drivel --- in short, flash is a good tool. we'll all look forward to the day that the formats, behaviours and protocols are opened so that we can implement a native, opensource viewer. No it is not. I sucks and is retarded. It breaks the internet as we know it and not for the better. Your we does not include me and many others.
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
And I type like a retard too... On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 06:49:28PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 09:03:14PM +, n0g0013 wrote: --- remove drivel --- in short, flash is a good tool. we'll all look forward to the day that the formats, behaviours and protocols are opened so that we can implement a native, opensource viewer. No it is not. I sucks and is retarded. It breaks the internet as we know it and not for the better. Your we does not include me and many others.
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
--- On Thu, 7/17/08, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I haven't even begun being harsh towards java and/or flash. The problem with flash is that you just cannot get away from it on the web these days. A lot of sites use it. gnash is an okay solution, but I still cannot view a lot of content. And I'm not happy that netflix went with a ms solution for their instant viewing content, which is worse. The whole flash situation just sucks. Brian
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
-Original Message- From: Jim Razmus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:58 PM To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0 I would like it to automatically ping Adobe looking for the Flash player that is not available. When I'm particularly irritated with some site that demands Flash, I follow the link to Adobe's site where they don't have a plugin for my platform and refresh 10-20 times to sprinkle some love in their web server logs. FF automating that for me would be great! Jim Oh, you think that anyone who reads their logs is allowed to talk to a developer there? I think that Adobe is making enough money doing what they're doing that they do not want an open plug in for Flash. Period. They think that protecting their source optimizes their revenue. -- Ed Ahlsen-Girard
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
I for one am glad there is no plugin for that infectious disease called flash. On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:21:33AM -0500, Ed Ahlsen-Girard (TYBRIN Corp.) wrote: -Original Message- From: Jim Razmus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 3:58 PM To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0 I would like it to automatically ping Adobe looking for the Flash player that is not available. When I'm particularly irritated with some site that demands Flash, I follow the link to Adobe's site where they don't have a plugin for my platform and refresh 10-20 times to sprinkle some love in their web server logs. FF automating that for me would be great! Jim Oh, you think that anyone who reads their logs is allowed to talk to a developer there? I think that Adobe is making enough money doing what they're doing that they do not want an open plug in for Flash. Period. They think that protecting their source optimizes their revenue. -- Ed Ahlsen-Girard
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On 7/16/08, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I for one am glad there is no plugin for that infectious disease called flash. But then how will I watch Ow! My balls! videos online? What will I do? -Mark
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
Marco Peereboom wrote: I for one am glad there is no plugin for that infectious disease called flash. On the other hand, web developers think this thing is hot shit. I certainly share your sentiment, but having just come from a web development class where the instructor essentially proselytized Flash/Flex(/maybe-Silverlight) for 3 hours as the solution to cross-browser-AJAX compatibility headaches, I think most of the world doesn't care about what's right or best-- they just want what's easy. This is something that gives web developers consistent sites across 90% of existing browsers, because there's ONE runtime, and that's worth the price tag for the development tools. This guy's day job is at a bank, and they're really into it-- it solves a number of problems for them. So if this is the kind of thing that developers are going to pick up en masse, then it's something that will need to be addressed, else people who won't or can't run Flash will be increasingly marginalized.
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 06:23:26PM -0400, Daniel W Barowy wrote: Marco Peereboom wrote: I for one am glad there is no plugin for that infectious disease called flash. On the other hand, web developers think this thing is hot shit. I certainly share your sentiment, but having just come from a web development class where the instructor essentially proselytized Flash/Flex(/maybe-Silverlight) for 3 hours as the solution to cross-browser-AJAX compatibility headaches, I think most of the world doesn't care about what's right or best-- they just want what's easy. This is something that gives web developers consistent sites across 90% of existing browsers, because there's ONE runtime, and that's worth the price tag for the development tools. Somehow the word Java comes to mind... Tell me again how that one runtime meme worked for them again. This guy's day job is at a bank, and they're really into it-- it solves a number of problems for them. So if this is the kind of thing that developers are going to pick up en masse, then it's something that will need to be addressed, else people who won't or can't run Flash will be increasingly marginalized. Flash is only good for a few things such as naked ladies performing anatomic tricks, dude getting punched in the ding-dong Trogodor the burninator. Nothing makes me happier than visiting a website and having some ad puking its irrelevant content on me. What's perplexing to me is that most people sit idle watching the internet as we know it disintegrate in front of their eyes. Allowing themselves to be bombarded with ads. Removing the actual reason for why html exists which is indexing content so that it can be retrieved and used by many. Those people are all ok with being shat on as long as they can watch youtube or $whatever_infantile_site_here. The 14 year old demographic is apparently the dominating one on teh intartubez these days. I for one can't wait to be marginalized.
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On 16-Jul-08, at 3:23 PM, Daniel W Barowy wrote: On the other hand, web developers think this thing is hot shit. I'd just be a little more comfortable if you qualified that a little. Perhaps with something like `wrong-thinking web developers think...' The current breed of standards-based web developers - which in my estimation form the bulk of all web developers currently doing anything anyone is seeing, and of which I am fairly representative, would think nothing of the sort. Truly well-versed web developers find cross-browser issues bothersome, but far from insurmountable; certainly not worthy of abandoning xhtml, css and javascript for something with funny names and registered trademarks. Flash has a place on the web, just like any other rich media format. It should be used responsibly, as semantically as possible, and degrade nicely for those who care not to use it. I make every effort to use it within these guidelines, and present them as gospel to my clients. Many (most?) modern web developers do too, except for the ones at a Flex conference who still think drawing entire websites in Flash is a good idea. Shame on them, but they are a dying breed. At a bank? Yeesh...
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Marco Peereboom @ 2008/07/16 23:00: Flash is only good for a few things such as naked ladies performing anatomic tricks, dude getting punched in the ding-dong Trogodor the burninator. Nothing makes me happier than visiting a website and having some ad puking its irrelevant content on me. there are a lot of informative and useful videos and documentaries on youtube, and a lot of news or otherwise public service websites utilize youtube for their own video content, as well. What's perplexing to me is that most people sit idle watching the internet as we know it disintegrate in front of their eyes. Allowing themselves to be bombarded with ads. noscript and adblock-plus take care of this wonderfully. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iD8DBQFIfsQtXhfCJNu98qARCPfyAJ4wi7uQhUrMEJHDujH/Tg264BG0lgCghZbo whFk1k2nmaHzuut1KFe1sZc= =htkV -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
snip This guy's day job is at a bank, and they're really into it-- it solves a number of problems for them. So if this is the kind of thing that developers are going to pick up en masse, then it's something that will need to be addressed, else people who won't or can't run Flash will be increasingly marginalized. Flash is only good for a few things such as naked ladies performing anatomic tricks, dude getting punched in the ding-dong Trogodor the burninator. Nothing makes me happier than visiting a website and having some ad puking its irrelevant content on me. What's perplexing to me is that most people sit idle watching the internet as we know it disintegrate in front of their eyes. Allowing themselves to be bombarded with ads. Removing the actual reason for why html exists which is indexing content so that it can be retrieved and used by many. Those people are all ok with being shat on as long as they can watch youtube or $whatever_infantile_site_here. The 14 year old demographic is apparently the dominating one on teh intartubez these days. I for one can't wait to be marginalized. While I agree with you in many respects, I will also acknowledge that there are plenty of legitimate cases where viewing flash content is necessary. This is particularly true in artistic communities (and increasingly so, for the reasons Daniel pointed out). Flash sure is shit, I'll agree.. and philosophically, I believe its use continues its proliferation by adobe.. but regardless, casting it all off isn't a viable solution. For example, if a site has information I absolutely need to access (maybe you're researching a particular artist or company that uses flash on their site, etc..) your options are to either not view that content, attempt opera or gnash or some other broken open alternative, or boot up windows. Not viewing the content doesn't help you. opera and/or gnash are close options, sometimes booting windows is not an option I feel good about even considering, and as soon as I give away this extra laptop I have, there won't be any windows here. so protest if you must, but I hope you can acknowledge a user's legitimate use, as opposed to adobe's horrific domination, or spammer's obsession with inducing seizures. regards, ~Jason -- 401.837.8417 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 06:59:44PM -0700, Jason LaRiviere wrote: Flash has a place on the web, just like any other rich media format. It should be used responsibly, as semantically as possible, and degrade nicely for those who care not to use it. I make every effort to use it within these guidelines, and present them as gospel to my clients. Many (most?) modern web developers do too, except for the ones at a Flex conference who still think drawing entire websites in Flash is a good idea. Shame on them, but they are a dying breed. Flash has one huge technical benefit. There are a number of sites that generate large amounts of dynamic images. Doing this in a fast and efficient manner requires an enormous amount of computing resources. Using flash pushes that work out to the client where it can be rendered on their own system. -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net/
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
* Jason Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-07-17 00:54:15]: On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 06:59:44PM -0700, Jason LaRiviere wrote: Flash has a place on the web, just like any other rich media format. It should be used responsibly, as semantically as possible, and degrade nicely for those who care not to use it. I make every effort to use it within these guidelines, and present them as gospel to my clients. Many (most?) modern web developers do too, except for the ones at a Flex conference who still think drawing entire websites in Flash is a good idea. Shame on them, but they are a dying breed. Flash has one huge technical benefit. There are a number of sites that generate large amounts of dynamic images. Doing this in a fast and efficient manner requires an enormous amount of computing resources. Using flash pushes that work out to the client where it can be rendered on their own system. -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net/ What sort of websites are those? no wonder I have not seen them--no flash! Even if you could deliver something meaningful with flash, the bandwidth and CPU time wasted when plain HTML would do is nothing short of a crime in my book. My friends keep sending me youtube videos but I tired of their inanity (mostly the videos) and don't watch them anymore. I can't remember the last time that flash improved my computing experience. Finally, I hate to rattle the paranoia sabre... but flash is just another way into a box on an increasingly hostile web. -- Travers Buda
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
* Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080715 15:08]: I disagree. We should have both versions available in packages; preferably both would work on the same system too. I have been playing with FF3 and I'd have to say that minus the speedup overall the browser took a step backwards. What particularly ticked me off was: * outlook like popup in the right-hand corner to notify that a download completed (now there is some information one *has* to see) Not only is that beyond irritating there is no obvious way to turn off. I had to turn it off in about:config which brings me to the second irritant. I'd like to therefore set browser.download.manager.showAlertOnComplete = false * When one enter about:config a warning shows up that says: if you click here you can void your warranty. What warranty??? When I launched the browser the first time I already had to accept a license that explicitly says no warranty; wtf? To fix that we can set these by default: general.warnOnAboutConfig = false browser.EULA.3.accepted = true * While trying to make FF3 a better browser for OpenBSD we might as well set plugin.default_plugin_disabled = false to remove the annoying message that scrolls down your screen at snails pace asking if you want to install a friggin non-existing plug-in. I would like it to automatically ping Adobe looking for the Flash player that is not available. When I'm particularly irritated with some site that demands Flash, I follow the link to Adobe's site where they don't have a plugin for my platform and refresh 10-20 times to sprinkle some love in their web server logs. FF automating that for me would be great! Jim
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
Jim Razmus wrote on Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 04:58:18PM -0400: I follow the link to Adobe's site where they don't have a plugin for my platform and refresh 10-20 times to sprinkle some love in their web server logs. Adobe will certainly get that exactly right: You clearly want foobar binary plugins! :-/ Scratching my head, Ingo P.S. __ME_TOO_SCNR__ Certainly, you will all listen to Marco. He is advocating small doses of sanity, difficult as that may seem with respect to firefox... __ME_TOO_SCNR__
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
I did not see original message on the list. Did Firefox 3 get ported successfully? -- Ed Ahlsen-Girard -Original Message- From: dermiste [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 2:32 AM To: misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0 Martynas Venckus wrote: nspr-4.7.1 As kili and ian pointed out, it doesn't apply because patch-mozilla_nsprpub_pr_include_private_primpl_h has been removed. ---%snip Compiles and runs just fine on my i386 laptop. Nice job here mate ! Cheers, Vincent
Re: UPDATE: mozilla-firefox-3.0
Martynas Venckus wrote:
nspr-4.7.1
As kili and ian pointed out, it doesn't apply because
patch-mozilla_nsprpub_pr_include_private_primpl_h has been removed.
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/devel/nspr/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -u -r1.24 Makefile
--- Makefile12 Feb 2008 23:21:38 - 1.24
+++ Makefile13 Jun 2008 18:31:38 -
@@ -6,14 +6,14 @@
COMMENT-main= Netscape Portable Runtime
COMMENT-docs= HTML Documentation for NSPR
-VER= 4.6.8
+VER= 4.7.1
DISTNAME= nspr-${VER}
PKGNAME-main= ${DISTNAME}
PKGNAME-docs= nspr-docs-${VER}
DISTFILES= ${DISTNAME}${EXTRACT_SUFX} \
nspr-reference${EXTRACT_SUFX}:0
-SO_VERSION= 19.0
+SO_VERSION=20.0
.for _lib in nspr4 plc4 plds4
SHARED_LIBS+= ${_lib} ${SO_VERSION}
.endfor
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@
${MAKE_PROGRAM} -C ${WRKSRC}/pr/tests
${MAKE_PROGRAM} -C ${WRKSRC}/lib/tests
@cd ${WRKSRC}/pr/tests ulimit -Sn 192 env TZ=gmt \
- LD_LIBRARY_PATH=${WRKSRC}/dist/lib /bin/ksh runtests.ksh
+ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=${WRKSRC}/dist/lib /bin/ksh runtests.sh
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=${WRKSRC}/dist/lib ${WRKSRC}/lib/tests/string
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=${WRKSRC}/dist/lib ${WRKSRC}/lib/tests/base64t
Index: distinfo
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/devel/nspr/distinfo,v
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -r1.9 distinfo
--- distinfo12 Feb 2008 23:21:38 - 1.9
+++ distinfo13 Jun 2008 18:31:38 -
@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
-MD5 (nspr-4.6.8.tar.gz) = bL9oH4tzEs1U8Et9vqOBvA==
+MD5 (nspr-4.7.1.tar.gz) = fG51oIZ84rnsYuOZqQi1rA==
MD5 (nspr-reference.tar.gz) = jZRQOnk+OzIiUnYci0jz4A==
-RMD160 (nspr-4.6.8.tar.gz) = 2ot3w7OGrbgkZ2E+C8299faDaeo=
+RMD160 (nspr-4.7.1.tar.gz) = ILCUX6gVlMb545RqybcJAGjP4Mw=
RMD160 (nspr-reference.tar.gz) = 4eQ4pZI64spNagflIfhYo+D3wcY=
-SHA1 (nspr-4.6.8.tar.gz) = yg16lA4c9s9r1jaA/t8JAZXQtGA=
+SHA1 (nspr-4.7.1.tar.gz) = 3xT+PpNNpLRVWSnXQeQQedMriiQ=
SHA1 (nspr-reference.tar.gz) = mihC1ynB3kmPoYRmevtjk5qdcec=
-SHA256 (nspr-4.6.8.tar.gz) = R3UOapniVw+iEZ8h1dIBF0KCZ5NSN5pWXj5agEU+SLE=
+SHA256 (nspr-4.7.1.tar.gz) = WHgrEUIzWfKiR/Aheqtv4EHzKYSqwfQR2m1DvTTP0Ns=
SHA256 (nspr-reference.tar.gz) = zhhZrKNh2VTVMaJ+qR7AzZwW8lssI0mT1E5+d1gHiwo=
-SIZE (nspr-4.6.8.tar.gz) = 1313108
+SIZE (nspr-4.7.1.tar.gz) = 1261636
SIZE (nspr-reference.tar.gz) = 195121
Index: patches/patch-mozilla_nsprpub_configure_in
===
RCS file: /cvs/ports/devel/nspr/patches/patch-mozilla_nsprpub_configure_in,v
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -r1.6 patch-mozilla_nsprpub_configure_in
--- patches/patch-mozilla_nsprpub_configure_in 12 Feb 2008 23:21:38 -
1.6
+++ patches/patch-mozilla_nsprpub_configure_in 13 Jun 2008 18:31:38 -
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
$OpenBSD: patch-mozilla_nsprpub_configure_in,v 1.6 2008/02/12 23:21:38
martynas Exp $
mozilla/nsprpub/configure.in.orig Wed Oct 31 20:07:38 2007
-+++ mozilla/nsprpub/configure.in Tue Feb 12 23:37:03 2008
-@@ -1728,12 +1728,15 @@ mips-sony-newsos*)
+--- mozilla/nsprpub/configure.in.orig Tue Apr 29 02:21:11 2008
mozilla/nsprpub/configure.in Fri Jun 13 21:58:15 2008
+@@ -1802,9 +1802,11 @@ mips-sony-newsos*)
AC_DEFINE(OPENBSD)
AC_DEFINE(HAVE_BSD_FLOCK)
AC_DEFINE(HAVE_SOCKLEN_T)
@@ -14,11 +14,7 @@
DSO_CFLAGS=-fPIC
MDCPUCFG_H=_openbsd.cfg
PR_MD_CSRCS=openbsd.c
-+OS_LIBS=-lc
- if test -z $USE_NSPR_THREADS; then
- USE_PTHREADS=1
- fi
-@@ -2781,6 +2784,7 @@ config/autoconf.mk
+@@ -2857,6 +2859,7 @@ config/autoconf.mk
config/nsprincl.mk
config/nsprincl.sh
config/nspr-config
Index: patches/patch-mozilla_nsprpub_lib_tests_Makefile_in
===
RCS file:
/cvs/ports/devel/nspr/patches/patch-mozilla_nsprpub_lib_tests_Makefile_in,v
retrieving revision 1.1
diff -u -r1.1 patch-mozilla_nsprpub_lib_tests_Makefile_in
--- patches/patch-mozilla_nsprpub_lib_tests_Makefile_in 7 Nov 2006 16:22:06
- 1.1
+++ patches/patch-mozilla_nsprpub_lib_tests_Makefile_in 13 Jun 2008 18:31:38
-
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
$OpenBSD: patch-mozilla_nsprpub_lib_tests_Makefile_in,v 1.1 2006/11/07
16:22:06 ajacoutot Exp $
mozilla/nsprpub/lib/tests/Makefile.in.orig Mon Nov 8 03:52:55 2004
-+++ mozilla/nsprpub/lib/tests/Makefile.in Tue Nov 7 09:54:30 2006
-@@ -131,6 +131,12 @@ ifeq ($(OS_ARCH), Linux)
+--- mozilla/nsprpub/lib/tests/Makefile.in.orig Sat Nov 17 18:00:44 2007
mozilla/nsprpub/lib/tests/Makefile.in Sat Nov 17 18:09:23 2007
+@@ -134,6 +134,12 @@ ifeq (,$(filter-out OpenBSD,$(OS_ARCH)))
endif
endif
Index: patches/patch-mozilla_nsprpub_pr_include_md__openbsd_cfg
