OT: Flash and Javascript (Was: Taunting)

Ary Borenszweig ary at esperanto.org.ar
Sat May 23 14:26:59 PDT 2009


Charles Hixson escribió:
> 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.

Wow! Someone reads EULAs. :-P


More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce mailing list