Robert Fraser wrote:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
>> The only way Flash will die if if at least the following happen: ...
> 
> 5. Silverlight replaces it (and then we're all doomed).

Then we'd just be exchanging one problem for another (arguably) worse one.

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.lists@gmail.com> wrote in message news:gv6ddk$1kon$1@digitalmars.com...
>> 
>> Possessing a burning hatred of Flash isn't going to get everyone else to stop using it.  If that worked, we'd have killed off IE6 years ago.
>>
>> Either build a better system and get it installed on >90% of the world's PCs or learn to live with it.  :P
> 
> Ok, so there's a lot retarded lemmings running around believing youtube isn't an absolute abomination to the web. And people like us who ARE capable of knowing better have a responsibility do whatever we can (even if it's nothing more than complain) to NOT help encourage such F%^& stupidity. Bottom line is, Flash (ok, at least most uses of it, not all), and especially flash-embedded video, needs to die. Throwing our hands into the air and exclaiming "Gee, it's too hard to make that happen!" and blindly joining the masses of lemmings has got to be the absolute stupidest most self-defeating and downright irresponsible response to such a situation I've ever seen.
> 
> "Enron/MS/Apple/whatever is screwing us over! Let's just shut up and learn to live with it!"

And your response is one of the most over-reactionary I've seen.

There's a difference between doing nothing and not doing anything useful.

I advocate, where I can, not using Flash.  I try to let people know that having a site depend on JavaScript is stupid.  I tell people to develop sites in vanilla HTML and then add JS and Flash if they want to optionally enhance the site, not to make it require them.

I also upload stuff to the likes of Google Video and Youtube when I want to share video because I don't stick my head in the sand and pretend the real world doesn't exist.

When there is a viable alternative, I'll use that.  But there isn't. You want to change that?  Grab the Mozilla source and start making patches to improve the HTML5 video support.  Write a plugin for IE that adds support for the video element.  Create an easy to use GUI that transcodes from any format into Theora and then helps you upload it.

Do anything other than just yell at people for using the best option available to them and offer nothing in return.

Daniel Keep Wrote:
> Robert Fraser wrote:
>> Daniel Keep wrote:
>>> The only way Flash will die if if at least the following happen: ...
>> 
>> 5. Silverlight replaces it (and then we're all doomed).
> 
> Then we'd just be exchanging one problem for another (arguably) worse one.

What about JavaFX?

"Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.lists@gmail.com> wrote in message news:gv890t$1rji$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> Do anything other than just yell at people for using the best option available to them and offer nothing in return.

That's just it, it's far from the best option, particularly among a group of programmers.

"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:gv8go0$28ke$1@digitalmars.com...
> "Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.lists@gmail.com> wrote in message news:gv890t$1rji$1@digitalmars.com...
>>
>> Do anything other than just yell at people for using the best option available to them and offer nothing in return.
>
> That's just it, it's far from the best option, particularly among a group of programmers.

Plus, supporting a shit-but-widespead option severly hinders the chances of something better from getting started or getting widely adopted.

Yeah, people will continue using that crap because it works reasonably well. Doesn't mean I have to like it. And I fear that all replacements for Flash will suck at least as much as Flash itself does.

The real problem is that web sites are turning into programs. A web site used to be just formatted text, but now many sites are completely unusable with Java Script disabled. Many even require Flash and work only with major browsers. I guess that's what they call "evolution" (yay Web 2.0). And of course, there will be lots of people who'll disagree with me that it's a bad thing.

Even the video tag you mentioned is not attractive for the typical web site designer, because they won't want to give up control over certain aspects of the video player GUI.

I don't think the "web sites are programs" idea will go away. Maybe it will get slightly less obnoxious as technology advances (lol advance they call this!), but it won't go away.

Now the "grumpy old man" attitude won't bring me anywhere. That leaves me as a user who doesn't have the Flash plugin installed (OH NO!), and I'll just keep asking people asking to provide a useable alternative, when they post such AJAX'ed and Flash'ed links .

(Until some time ago, I could barely play YouTube videos in the Flash player, because it was too slow. My media player could play the same video even at fullscreen, and it didn't even use all of my CPU. That's why I finally uninstalled Flash.)

>> In fact, hiding the link to the actual video file seems to be some kind
>> of "soft DRM". Like all almost kinds of DRM, it's breakable, but it
>> requires an effort > 0. I don't want to support this.

PS: if circumventing DRM is illegal in your country, you're fucked.

> Maybe for ad revenue?  At least, I *think* YouTube has ads.  I have
> AdBlock installed, so it's hard to tell...

I don't know either...

Isn't YouTube one of these Web 2.0 sites, where nobody actually knows yet, whether you can make money with it?

Anyway, YouTube _does_ _not_ want users to download videos. It's probably only a question of time, until downloader tools stop working, because it requires too much effort circumventing the soft DRM.

> adds support for the video element.  Create an easy to use GUI that
> transcodes from any format into Theora and then helps you upload it.

Theora sucks. Technologically, it's at least 10 years to late. Its only advantage is to be "free as in freedom". That's because it tries not to make use of any patented algorithms. But who cares about software patents? GPL h.264 encoders and decoders exist anyway: there's x264 and ffmpeg.

naryl wrote:
> Daniel Keep Wrote:
>> Robert Fraser wrote:
>>> Daniel Keep wrote:
>>>> The only way Flash will die if if at least the following happen: ...
>>> 5. Silverlight replaces it (and then we're all doomed).
>> Then we'd just be exchanging one problem for another (arguably) worse one.
> 
> What about JavaFX?

Yeah, I doubt that's going to go anywhere.  They're basically Java Applets 2.0, with all the same problems.

Namely Flash still has better tools.  Hell, Silverlight has better tools.

That and the fact that although I know that JavaFX exists, I can't recall ever seeing it used.  Or promoted.  Or, really advertised in any way whatsoever apart from the infrequent Ars or Slashdot post about how it's competing with AIR and Silverlight.

Oddly, I think JavaFX is the only one of the current set of "zomg web on tha desktawp!" runtimes that doesn't work on Linux.  Rather perplexing when you think back to Sun's "write once, run anywhere" rhetoric...

Hello Nick,

> Plus, supporting a shit-but-widespead option severly hinders the
> chances of something better from getting started or getting widely
> adopted.
>

chicken and egg. Until something better comes along, people who *need* to run video in a web page right now will use youtube and flash because it works. Yeah, it might suck, but what else /can/ they do?

"BCS" <none@anon.com> wrote in message news:a6268ff63ac8cba9af2cc64950@news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello Nick,
>
>> Plus, supporting a shit-but-widespead option severly hinders the chances of something better from getting started or getting widely adopted.
>>
>
> chicken and egg. Until something better comes along, people who *need* to run video in a web page right now will use youtube and flash because it works. Yeah, it might suck, but what else /can/ they do?
>

It's difficult to imagine that that's something that anyone would actually *need*, but what they can do is additionally provide a non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really f^&*^&* easy since they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in the first place.