OT: Flash and Javascript (Was: Taunting)

[Charles Hixson]

Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> BCS escribió:
>> Hello Nick,
>>
>>> what they can do is additionally provide a
>>> non-youtube/flash version. Which should be really [censored] easy since
>>> they had to have already had one in order to upload it to craptube in
>>> the first place.
>>
>> If they can, yes, but they might not have access to general file 
>> hosting or if they do, the bandwidth to steam video.
> 
> Note: this is a general response to this thread, not to anyone in 
> particular.
> 
> I upload it to youtube because it works. It's permanent. People can 
> comment it. People can rate it. I can see how many people see it. And I 
> can add a title and a description to it, plus it's linked with my 
> profile and my other videos.
> 
> And I don't think YouTube sucks. I don't have problems with Flash or 
> Javascript either.
> 
> Come on, it's not 1990 anymore. "web pages were designed to show texts 
> and links".
> 
> "No one can be bothered with installing Flash and having a JavaScript 
> enabled browser". Why not? It takes less than a minute to install Flash. 
>  It takes *not unchecking* a checkbox to get Javascript working in most 
> browsers. What's the big deal everyone have with Javascript?
> 
> (I recall someone said, about Javascript, that people use 
> "javascript:openWindow" instead of a link. I think that's bad in some 
> cases. But what else is bad with Javascript?)

FWIW:
The last time I found a version of flash that would work with my 
browser, it came with an EULA that I found unacceptable.  So I didn't 
install it, and stopped looking.  I don't really like JavaScript, 
because I consider sites that require it to be less secure than sites 
that don't require it.  (I also don't run HTML on my e-mail except when 
I can both a) verify that it's needed and b) trust the sender.  Which 
includes some way of verifying that the e-mail is from whom it purports 
to be from.)

I acknowledge that mine is a minority position, but it's MY position, 
and it's not likely to change.  If somebody (anonymous) sends me a 
postcard, I junk it without checking further.  Ditto for an e-postcard. 
  My general belief is that if something is only available in flash, it 
probably isn't worth looking at, and it almost certainly isn't worth the 
added vulnerability that having flash installed would create.

Receiving text messages from anonymous strangers only risks wasting my 
time, not corrupting my system.  Javascript starts to get a bit iffy. 
Flash is beyond the pale.  (It's not *THAT* dangerous from a system 
point of view.  I could run it as an unprivileged user from a separate 
account, with flash only being installed in that account, but that 
wouldn't solve the legal vulnerabilities created by the EULA, and it 
would be a real pain to bother using it.)

Perhaps the recent EULAs have changed.  But I have sufficient doubts 
that I haven't bothered checking.