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