Re: Sniffing/Testing - Fix it or forget about SeaMonkey - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Re: Sniffing/Testing - Fix it or forget about SeaMonkey - Mozilla ; RE: I have also noted that more and more sites that used to use activeX to display video are dropping ActiveX for cross platform technologies. Do you mean flash? I'm not sure that's any better. >> Better pray that they ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Re: Sniffing/Testing - Fix it or forget about SeaMonkey

  1. Re: Sniffing/Testing - Fix it or forget about SeaMonkey

    RE: << > I have also noted that more and more sites that used to use activeX to display video are dropping ActiveX for cross platform technologies.

    Do you mean flash? I'm not sure that's any better. >>


    Better pray that they are not dropping Flash.

    Without such a world standard staying in place or "being allowed", the major mass of the Internet goes away quickly -- period.

  2. Re: Sniffing/Testing - Fix it or forget about SeaMonkey

    > Better pray that they are not dropping Flash.

    Frankly, I wish =everyone= would drop flash.

    1: There's no "off switch" and there never will be. (add-on programs do not count).

    2: Most flash is advertising. This is why #1 is true.

    3: Flash presentations take too long to download, seem to always require "upgrading" the flash reader (presumably to a more intrusive version), and rarely contain content that isn't better served by plain old text and jpegs.

    4: Flash is insidiously intrusive (it keeps it's =own= track of where you go and what you do, and doesn't play nicely with portable programs).

    5: There's much more, but this is not the place to rant about flash.

    > Without such a world standard staying in place or "being allowed", the major mass of the Internet goes away quickly -- period.


    There =is= such a standard. It's called Microsoft. Isn't SeaMonkey itself flying in the face of that?

    Jose

  3. Re: Sniffing/Testing - Fix it or forget about SeaMonkey

    On 03/05/2008 07:11 PM, Jose wrote:
    >
    > Frankly, I wish =everyone= would drop flash.
    >
    > 1: There's no "off switch" and there never will be. (add-on programs do not count).
    >


    Sure there is. Just don't install it if you don't wish to run it. Simple
    as that.

  4. Re: Sniffing/Testing - Fix it or forget about SeaMonkey

    > Sure there is. Just don't install it if you don't wish to run it. Simple
    > as that.


    No, not as simple as that. It's not that =I= don't want to run flash. That's drop dead simple - I just don't run it. But the point is (and this is what happens with Microsoft setting the standards too) that if everybody else runs flash because they can't turn it off, then everybody else starts to code for flash. YouTube, for example, is all flash, when it doesn't have to be. The videos could be left in their original form.

    There are countless web sites that have flash as their navigation system, let alone their front page. So, we are left with an inferior web.

    I thought this was the whole point of SM and Mozilla and Linux and all that stuff.

    Jose

  5. Re: Sniffing/Testing - Fix it or forget about SeaMonkey

    NoOp wrote:
    > On 03/05/2008 07:11 PM, Jose wrote:
    >> Frankly, I wish =everyone= would drop flash.
    >>
    >> 1: There's no "off switch" and there never will be. (add-on programs do not count).
    >>

    >
    > Sure there is. Just don't install it if you don't wish to run it. Simple
    > as that.


    It's not quite that simple. Incorrect user agent sniffing causes a
    fraction of the problems you'll run into if you don't have Flash: I
    rarely run into web sites which won't work with Seamonkey using it's own
    user agent, but quite often run into sites which simply do nothing at
    all if you don't have Flash (I use Flashblock to selectively obstruct
    Flash).

    Flash has become such an intrusive pita now Adobe's got it that I'm
    actually wondering whether Silverlight might be better (or maybe less
    awful). Adobe seem hell bent on making their products as invasive and
    intrusive as possible, and I no longer use Adobe Reader for that reason.
    IMHO, Adobe are handing MS a huge opportunity here.

    Sorry, end of rant!

    Graham.

  6. Re: Sniffing/Testing - Fix it or forget about SeaMonkey

    Graham wrote:
    > Flash has become such an intrusive pita now Adobe's got it that I'm
    > actually wondering whether Silverlight might be better (or maybe less
    > awful). Adobe seem hell bent on making their products as invasive and
    > intrusive as possible, and I no longer use Adobe Reader for that reason.
    > IMHO, Adobe are handing MS a huge opportunity here.


    I think you've got it wrong. Its not adobe thats "making
    their products as invasive and intrusive as possible." Its
    webmasters that insist on using it for their sites. Adobe is
    just supplying the product and the ingredients. Its
    webmasters that are using the product and ingredients that
    are making it invasive and intrusive.

    Besides, I for one don't have a problem with sites that use
    flash. I kinda like it. Or I just ignore it and move on.

    --
    *IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
    help!!!! Emails to me may become public

    Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
    Laws, which applies everywhere, except for some strange
    reason, not to the mozilla.org servers, where you may get
    banned.

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

  7. Re: Sniffing/Testing - Fix it or forget about SeaMonkey

    Graham wrote:
    >>Flash has become such an intrusive pita now[...]
    >>I'm actually wondering whether Silverlight might be better
    >>(or maybe less awful).
    >>

    **shutter**
    H.264 and/or SVG seem more apt.
    I don't need *executable* **** in **content** files.

    ....and this kind of crap makes me angry:
    http://www.google.com/search?q=site:...lverLight+Cory

    >>Adobe seem hell bent on making their products
    >>as invasive and intrusive as possible
    >>

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    >I think you've got it wrong. Its not adobe thats "making
    >their products as invasive and intrusive as possible."
    >

    Actually, putting in junk (e.g. ActionScript) that resembles ActiveX
    *is* in that vein.
    "Flash authoring tools create Flash files
    that contain cross-site scripting vulnerabilities"
    http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/249337

    >Adobe is just supplying the product and the ingredients.
    >

    You breezed by the word **just** a mite quickly.

    >It[']s webmasters that insist on using it for their sites.
    >It[']s webmasters that are using the product and ingredients
    >that are making it invasive and intrusive.
    >

    Well, that's the *other* piece of the puzzle.

    >Besides, I for one don't have a problem with sites that use flash.
    >

    *Using* Flash is quite different from
    *requiring* Flash to even get into a site.
    You should be able to see what a site is using LYNX.

    >I kinda like it.
    >

    *Requiring* Flash goes completely against the grain
    of what the Web was supposed to be:
    **a homogeneous network with a heterogeneous infrastructure**

    >Or I just ignore it and move on.
    >

    Yup. That's the plan.
    When a site I used got a new whiz-bang developer
    who decided to completely change the site
    and force Macromedia on everyone, I sent them a note
    saying I wouldn't be bothering with their site any more and why.

    I suspect they saw their numbers plummet
    because a couple weeks later they put up this:
    http://www.charlierose.com/noFlash

  8. Re: Sniffing/Testing - Fix it or forget about SeaMonkey

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
    > I think you've got it wrong. Its not adobe thats "making their products
    > as invasive and intrusive as possible." Its webmasters that insist on
    > using it for their sites. Adobe is just supplying the product and the
    > ingredients. Its webmasters that are using the product and ingredients
    > that are making it invasive and intrusive.


    Pray tell how a webmaster can have any effect on how Adobe's products
    install on your system, how they insist on taking over file
    associations, find it necessary to "repair" themselves to how you don't
    want them when you change options or update them due to their security
    holes, and a whole host of other non-web influenced behaviours?

    Graham.

  9. Re: Sniffing/Testing - Fix it or forget about SeaMonkey

    Graham wrote:
    > Pray tell how a webmaster can have any effect on how Adobe's products
    > install on your system,


    easy! If you want to view their website in the way they want
    you to, then you have to install flash.

    --
    *IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
    help!!!! Emails to me may become public

    Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
    Laws, which applies everywhere, except for some strange
    reason, not to the mozilla.org servers, where you may get
    banned.

    Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
    http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm

+ Reply to Thread