Re: Slashdot Article - Why Won't Macromedia Release 64-bit Flash?
On 10/19/05, lordSauron <lordsauronthegreat@gmail.com> wrote:
> couldn't you apt-build an i386 version of it? Or is the source not
> public? In any case, wouldn't it be possible to re-label the i386
> version amd64, since the processor will run it natively anyway? I say
> that because in my experience the only way to change the distro's
> architecture identification is to reinstall - not a good idea if you
> still want to use amd64 stuff.
The source is not public, and the file format is also proprietary. It
has been the topic of much duress in various threads on this and other
lists - re-labelling does not work, because a 64-bit browser would
attempt to run it as a 64-bit plugin. If it ran as a separate process,
it probably would work. But process-independent plugins are just a
pipe dream.
> of great interest. I've been denied lots of web content b/c flash
> won't install, so I've had to resort to my laptop.
I don't have an alternate, so anything with Flash waits until work the
next day. Usually by then I lose interest. I'm not so much campaigning
for goals of my own convenience, but rather making those that may be
interested aware that their website may be failing to provide for an
important demographic.
> The way I read you, you're campaigning to remove all flash content
> from every web site - not going to happen in a million years. You'd
> be better off campaigning for a amd64 version. Plus Flash adds too
> much content to the web to safely dispose of - many sites would be
> rendered much less interesting... though just think of all the
> bandwidth we'd save....
I'm not campaigning for removal all Flash content. I'm campaigning for
the availability of the content in a format other than Flash. This is
akin to the goals of OpenDocument, except everyone has been using the
already existing HTML-related open source formats for over a decade.
For some odd reason, people willingly choose to abandon those
completely. Instead, for many sites, the inverse of what you suggest
is true - they are attempting to remove all non-Flash content. That is
not only inaccessible to those people using a platform not supported
by Macromedia, but it also inaccessible to those people who rely on
screen readers or text enlargers to use their computer.
> Nay, I think what we need to do is find a way to use the existing i386
> version on our amd64 machines, since all amd64 arch chips can run i386
> with no penalty (no wonder why I'm borderline on blind loyalty to AMD
> - whenever I buy AMD, I always get far more than my money's worth!)
>
> I don't know if it's possible, but it's something to think about.
Correct, it is possible, but as I already said in order to use the
i386 binary plugin I need to run a i386 browser. I consider it the
prerogative of the webmasters to provide me the means by which to view
their content. I do not consider Flash a necessary component of a
website, much like I do not consider images to be a necessary
component. Granted, certain websites would be completely pointless
without using images (i.e., Flickr), but many websites would also be
completely useless without using plain text (i.e, Slashdot).
Conversely, a given website should not be useless without Flash. Even
if a website revolves around Flash (i.e., Shockwave.com), it should
still provide me with some sort of basic text information. I have
encountered a few websites since my switch to 64-bit that I am simply
unable to use because of their dependency on Flash (i.e., fncb.com).
I have seen many useful implementations of Flash as augmenting
content, such as product demonstrations (i.e., adagio.com). As an
alternative means of displaying information, it works very well. But
the key word there is /alternative/. When websites use Flash to
/replace/ their content, and offer no alternative, that is where
inconveniences begin.
An excellent example of using Flash as an alternative is
SallieMae.com. It attempts to load a Flash plugin for a menu in the
center of the page. When it notices that no Flash is installed, it
redirects to an alternate page which uses Javascript to provide an
onmouseover effect instead. Even in a browser without Javascript,
their website is still navigable.
Just don't misinterpret my goals with this - I do not intend to wipe
Flash from existence. It is a useful tool, and quite powerful when it
comes to providing animated content in a small package, but it should
not be necessary for viewing simple text and images as many websites
demand.
Reply to: