Only in COLA : support closed source proprietary rubbish. - Linux

This is a discussion on Only in COLA : support closed source proprietary rubbish. - Linux ; One has to laugh. Most of COLA pimping PDF over Word the other day. Wonderful. Adobe - the king of closed source. A REAL advocate had this to say here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...php?p=14330362 ,---- | Again, I think one motivation (beyond web ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Only in COLA : support closed source proprietary rubbish.

  1. Only in COLA : support closed source proprietary rubbish.


    One has to laugh. Most of COLA pimping PDF over Word the other
    day. Wonderful. Adobe - the king of closed source. A REAL advocate had
    this to say here:


    http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...php?p=14330362

    ,----
    | Again, I think one motivation (beyond web video monopolization) is the
    | obfuscation that Flash provides, making it harder for people to retain
    | control over their computers- harder to download and time/place shift
    | the video embedded in complicated Flash apps and media players.
    |
    | It's sad that one tech from one company- Flash from Adobe- has the power
    | to render an OS useless or unwanted if it doesn't perform on parity with
    | the duopoly of OSX and Win.
    |
    | After having Linux achieve so much towards OS independence, providing an
    | outstanding desktop and general purpose home computing OS and FOSS apps
    | after years of hard work, it would be a shame for one keystone
    | capability like Flash on the web to cause Linux adoption to halt in its
    | tracks, as average people who watch web video won't tolerate the poor
    | performance.
    `----

    Flash is one of the biggest reasons for people turning their back on
    Linux. It does not "just work". It is unreliable. The performance sucks
    on dual screens. All in a all a nightmare.

    --
    "His asshole is so reamed out he has room for an oxygen
    tank, too."
    -- Tattoo Vampire loooking for new accomodation in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  2. Re: Only in COLA : support closed source proprietary rubbish.

    Hardon Quick tooks a quick glance at the browser usage stats at
    bcc.co.uk and promptly blew his wad, leaving this mess all over cola:
    > One has to laugh. Most of COLA pimping PDF over Word the other
    > day. Wonderful. Adobe - the king of closed source. A REAL advocate had
    > this to say here:


    From wikipedia's PDF page:
    "PDF is an open standard that has been officially published on July 1,
    2008 by the ISO as ISO 32000-1:2008."
    and
    "Adobe holds patents to PDF, but licenses them for royalty-free use in
    developing software complying with its PDF specification."

    From wikipedia's OOXML page:
    "While making patent rights available on a RAND basis is considered a
    common minimum patent condition for a standard, international
    standardization has a clear preference for royalty-free patent
    licensing. That is why Microsoft, a main contributor to the standard,
    provided a Covenant Not to Sue[25] for its patent licensing. The
    covenant *received a mixed reception*, with some (like the Groklaw blog)
    identifying problems[26] and others (such as Lawrence Rosen, an attorney
    and lecturer at Stanford Law School) endorsing it"


    Spot the difference. One is freely available to use however you like as
    long as you're in-spec. The other is subject to RAND licensing of a
    nature that people are arguing over.

    Personally I don't care for either format but there is a clear
    difference for those that do get hardons over file formats.

  3. Re: Only in COLA : support closed source proprietary rubbish.

    On 2008-08-07, Hadron wrote:
    >
    > One has to laugh. Most of COLA pimping PDF over Word the other
    > day. Wonderful. Adobe - the king of closed source. A REAL advocate had
    > this to say here:


    PDF? That would be the widely re-implemented vendor standard that
    is a decenant of an earlier widely re-implemented vendor standard?

    Versus what?

    A sole vendor standard?

    Who are you trying to kid?

    The relevant Unix tools for dealing with PDFs are probably older than YOU are.

    [deletia]
    > Flash is one of the biggest reasons for people turning their back on
    > Linux. It does not "just work". It is unreliable. The performance sucks
    > on dual screens. All in a all a nightmare.


    Dual screens eh?

    Lot's of people concerned about dual screen web browser performance.

    Yeah...

    --
    On the subject of kilobyte being "redefined" to mean 1000 bytes...

    When I was a wee lad, I was taught that SI units were |||
    meant to be computationally convenient rather than just / | \
    arbitrarily assigned.

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  4. Re: Only in COLA : support closed source proprietary rubbish.

    Hadron wrote:
    > One has to [snip the usual troll ****e].
    >
    > Flash is one of the biggest reasons for people turning their
    > back on Linux. It does not "just work". It is unreliable. The
    > performance sucks on dual screens. All in a all a nightmare.


    Absolute rubbish. It works fine on both my Debian and Ubuntu
    systems, and on Open SuSE when I was using it.

    Linux is well suited for the business world. Most people in the
    business world either have no or limited usage for flash.

    So even if there were purported problems (which there are not),
    the purpose of work is to work, not play. Ernie Ball found early
    on that Linux is so flexible, that each workstation can be
    customised to the level of software required. If a web browser
    was not a requirement, it could be eliminated or not installed,
    whereas with Microsoft Windows, it is a requirement.

    Using Linux is like taking out the trash and tidying up. It is a
    good way to clean up the workplace from distractions.

    --
    HPT

  5. Re: Only in COLA : support closed source proprietary rubbish.

    In article <2mDmk.6017$Ep1.5365@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
    Linonut wrote:

    > * Hadron peremptorily fired off this memo:
    > > Flash is one of the biggest reasons for people turning their back on
    > > Linux. It does not "just work". It is unreliable. The performance sucks
    > > on dual screens. All in a all a nightmare.

    >
    > For you, maybe. You know, the guy who can't get tuxguitar to work.


    Some people with a fair degree of Linux competency have run into
    problems getting Flash videos to work on occasion:



    :-)

    --
    --Tim Smith

  6. Re: Only in COLA : support closed source proprietary rubbish.

    In article ,
    Hadron wrote:

    > One has to laugh. Most of COLA pimping PDF over Word the other
    > day. Wonderful. Adobe - the king of closed source. A REAL advocate had


    PDF is not closed. It's an ISO standard (ISO 32000), and the patents
    covering it are licensed royalty-free:

    >


    <http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/
    support/topic_legal_notices.html>


    --
    --Tim Smith

  7. Re: Only in COLA : support closed source proprietary rubbish.

    On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:41:14 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

    > In article <2mDmk.6017$Ep1.5365@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> * Hadron peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>> Flash is one of the biggest reasons for people turning their back on
    >>> Linux. It does not "just work". It is unreliable. The performance sucks
    >>> on dual screens. All in a all a nightmare.

    >>
    >> For you, maybe. You know, the guy who can't get tuxguitar to work.

    >
    > Some people with a fair degree of Linux competency have run into
    > problems getting Flash videos to work on occasion:
    >
    >
    >
    > :-)


    As usual, the Linux loons are LIEing for LIEnix again.
    They will deny problems exist with Linux to the bitter end.

    Totally amazing.

    P.S. I would Say Linus Torvalds has a reasonable amount of experience with
    Linux!


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  8. Re: Only in COLA : support closed source proprietary rubbish.

    In article ,
    "Phil Da Lick!" wrote:
    > From wikipedia's OOXML page:
    > "While making patent rights available on a RAND basis is considered a
    > common minimum patent condition for a standard, international
    > standardization has a clear preference for royalty-free patent
    > licensing. That is why Microsoft, a main contributor to the standard,
    > provided a Covenant Not to Sue[25] for its patent licensing. The
    > covenant *received a mixed reception*, with some (like the Groklaw blog)
    > identifying problems[26] and others (such as Lawrence Rosen, an attorney
    > and lecturer at Stanford Law School) endorsing it"
    >
    >
    > Spot the difference. One is freely available to use however you like as
    > long as you're in-spec. The other is subject to RAND licensing of a
    > nature that people are arguing over.


    (1) The PDF license is a RAND, too. You appear to be a bit confused
    over what RAND means. A license is a RAND if it is available under
    "reasonable" and "non-discriminatory" terms. The GPL, for example, is a
    RAND.

    (2) Groklaw changed its mind about Microsoft's OSP, after Microsoft
    updated its FAQ to say Microsoft doesn't prohibit using it with GPL code.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  9. Re: Only in COLA : support closed source proprietary rubbish.

    On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:49:33 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:

    > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:41:14 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> In article <2mDmk.6017$Ep1.5365@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >>> * Hadron peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>> Flash is one of the biggest reasons for people turning their back on
    >>>> Linux. It does not "just work". It is unreliable. The performance
    >>>> sucks on dual screens. All in a all a nightmare.
    >>>
    >>> For you, maybe. You know, the guy who can't get tuxguitar to work.

    >>
    >> Some people with a fair degree of Linux competency have run into
    >> problems getting Flash videos to work on occasion:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> :-)

    >
    > As usual, the Linux loons are LIEing for LIEnix again. They will deny
    > problems exist with Linux to the bitter end.
    >
    > Totally amazing.
    >
    > P.S. I would Say Linus Torvalds has a reasonable amount of experience with
    > Linux!


    You should read the link before posting. That's swfdec, not Adobe Flash.
    I have Adobe Flash working on 64-bit Mandriva 2008.1. It just worked upon
    install - Mandriva 2008.1 comes with Flash and nspluginwrapper on the
    DVD and installs by default.

    How is 64-bit Vista support for Flash coming along??

    Bug



  10. Re: Only in COLA : support closed source proprietary rubbish.

    On 2008-08-07, Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article <2mDmk.6017$Ep1.5365@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >
    >> * Hadron peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >> > Flash is one of the biggest reasons for people turning their back on
    >> > Linux. It does not "just work". It is unreliable. The performance sucks
    >> > on dual screens. All in a all a nightmare.

    >>
    >> For you, maybe. You know, the guy who can't get tuxguitar to work.

    >
    > Some people with a fair degree of Linux competency have run into
    > problems getting Flash videos to work on occasion:


    That's a claim that you could probably make about any platform.

    Flash is an unecessary layer of complexity that doesn't really get
    the user anything while imparting a false sense of control and
    "niftiness" upon the content owner.

    Especially galling is when someone like PBS does it.

    >
    >
    >
    >:-)
    >



    --

    Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire,
    is genuinely new: culture, like science and |||
    technology grows by accretion, each new creator / | \
    building on the works of those that came before.

    Judge Alex Kozinski
    US Court of Appeals
    9th Circuit


    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  11. Re: Only in COLA : support closed source proprietary rubbish.

    On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:07:47 -0400, bugbuster wrote:

    > On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:49:33 -0400, Moshe Goldfarb. wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:41:14 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article <2mDmk.6017$Ep1.5365@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
    >>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> * Hadron peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>>> Flash is one of the biggest reasons for people turning their back on
    >>>>> Linux. It does not "just work". It is unreliable. The performance
    >>>>> sucks on dual screens. All in a all a nightmare.
    >>>>
    >>>> For you, maybe. You know, the guy who can't get tuxguitar to work.
    >>>
    >>> Some people with a fair degree of Linux competency have run into
    >>> problems getting Flash videos to work on occasion:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> :-)

    >>
    >> As usual, the Linux loons are LIEing for LIEnix again. They will deny
    >> problems exist with Linux to the bitter end.
    >>
    >> Totally amazing.
    >>
    >> P.S. I would Say Linus Torvalds has a reasonable amount of experience
    >> with Linux!

    >
    > You should read the link before posting. That's swfdec, not Adobe Flash.
    > I have Adobe Flash working on 64-bit Mandriva 2008.1. It just worked upon
    > install - Mandriva 2008.1 comes with Flash and nspluginwrapper on the DVD
    > and installs by default.


    Yayy, another 64-bit Mandriva 2008.1 user! I've had Flash working in the
    OS since I installed it on my machines. I also have Mandriva One (32-bit)
    on another machine, & that runs Flash without any problems.

    > How is 64-bit Vista support for Flash coming along??
    >
    > Bug


    --
    Is a M$ "Certificate of Authenticity"
    for Vista, a junk bond?

  12. Re: Only in COLA : support closed source proprietary rubbish.

    Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article ,
    > "Phil Da Lick!" wrote:
    >> From wikipedia's OOXML page:
    >> "While making patent rights available on a RAND basis is considered a
    >> common minimum patent condition for a standard, international
    >> standardization has a clear preference for royalty-free patent
    >> licensing. That is why Microsoft, a main contributor to the standard,
    >> provided a Covenant Not to Sue[25] for its patent licensing. The
    >> covenant *received a mixed reception*, with some (like the Groklaw blog)
    >> identifying problems[26] and others (such as Lawrence Rosen, an attorney
    >> and lecturer at Stanford Law School) endorsing it"
    >>
    >>
    >> Spot the difference. One is freely available to use however you like as
    >> long as you're in-spec. The other is subject to RAND licensing of a
    >> nature that people are arguing over.

    >
    > (1) The PDF license is a RAND, too. You appear to be a bit confused
    > over what RAND means. A license is a RAND if it is available under
    > "reasonable" and "non-discriminatory" terms. The GPL, for example, is a
    > RAND.


    The PDF license is free use. RAND usually means nominal fee.


    > (2) Groklaw changed its mind about Microsoft's OSP, after Microsoft
    > updated its FAQ to say Microsoft doesn't prohibit using it with GPL code.


    Well, there's still lost of debate about it. And like I said, I'm not
    overly fond of either.

+ Reply to Thread