Linked by V. Deseinture on Fri 29th Jul 2011 20:50 UTC
Mandriva, Mandrake, Lycoris Unlike Apple and Microsoft, and despite numerous demands from their users, Linux distributions have been traditionally unable to directly ship the popular Adobe Flash Player with their packages, due to the closed source nature of the software and the restrictive license chosen by Adobe. While it does seems shorter than a regular EULA made by Microsoft with all the legalese that goes with it, it does still restrict redistribution in most cases, and the FAQ seemed to be clear about that point.
Permalink for comment 482865
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: ...
by anda_skoa on Sat 30th Jul 2011 13:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
Member since:

Flash/Java/Silverlight (pick your poison) are needed for highly interactive content. Arguably many users prefer that the websites they visit every day are not highly interactive, but never the less sometimes high interactivity is desired.

Agreed. I didn't mean to imply that there was no use case for such technologies, there definitely are.
I was just opposing the assertion that a large part of web based offerings (which are even only one specific use case of the Internet) would not be available without.

I'd wager that it is actually only a small fraction of "the Internet" that requires this.

For apple, the battle against evil flash was a diversion (highly successful one I might add). You see apple's intent was to release a tablet where users are tethered to their walled garden. Flash posed a significant threat to their business model; particularly for games and other interactive content. Apple knew users would be happy to download interactive content from the web instead of from the istore, they also knew that developers would be keen to avoid the apple store police and high fees if they could still reach users. So apple banned all emulators and sideloading. They blamed technical problems with flash as the reason users would be banned from highly interactive web apps on their devices. They then promoted HTML5 to fill the gap, fully knowing that HTML5 is not able to deliver the same functionality as the applications in their store.

The conclusion here is just that apple banned flash on the basis of a threat to their business model, not on the basis that it has no utility to users.

I am quoting you in full on this because this is so very true.

However, I did not mean to imply that Flash was not necessary or important because Apple not supporting it on their iDevices.
What I meant was that I would not buy into the "much of the Internet(sic) would not work without it at all" argument because shutting out iDevice users is not something that is done lightly.

I have encountered quite some sites that had been using Flash for stuff that didn't require it and have now changed to something more appropriate in order to also support customers with iDevices.

Reply Parent Score: 3