Would you be able to survive one full day without using the X server? Linux offers us a wide assortment of CLI based tools which use curses and/or framebuffer for functional user interfaces. There is no reason why you shouldn't be able look up stuff online, read your email, look at pictures, watch movies and listen to music as you are trying to configure X.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-10-08
"Are all the various video formats standard?"
No, not all of them. There are standardized, free and open video standards that support streaming. Their documentation is open, so everyone skilled can write encoders, decoders, players and plugins for it, they could even be implemented as standard parts of a web browser. The same is correct for audio streaming.
"(Please understand that I'm playing the devil's advocate. In an ideal world, Flash would be an unnecessary burden for video playback. But the world isn't ideal, and there are reasons why sites like Youtube chose to build their own player - I expect the codec hassles to play a major role here.)"
Worst solution wins, busines as usual. :-)
I'd like to see "Flash" being a free and open standard. Such as browsers can render text, display images and process Javascript, they should be able to play "Flash" stuff by theirselves if "Flash" really is that important. But I'm sure I won't see this happening as long as I live. Instead, "Flash" will obsolete HTML and raise barriers all over the web. But finally, the Internet does not consist of the WWW only.
Member since:2005-12-31
> Worst solution wins, busines as usual. :-)
The point I'm making is that Flash *isn't* the worst solution in practice, although it is a bad one in theory. In practice, it actually works pretty well. If you are able to create a video streaming site that works on more computers than youtube does, then maybe you can teach them a lesson. (We'll leave popularity out of the equation, as it would be nearly impossible to beat youtube there. Just try to make it work on more machines than youtube does.)
> I'd like to see "Flash" being a free and open standard.
Me too...
But then we'll probably never see such a thing. Just look at MS's silverlight (name?) and the reactions to it: First, nobody saw the need for a competitor to flash, and then everybody screamed hell how bad it will be in pure envy for the fact that it was MS who had the idea.
Member since:
2005-12-31
> It's not standard.
Are all the various video formats standard?
> It doesn't work if you don't have a flash plugin.
Video doesn't work if you don't have a player either. Even if you have a player, you may lack the necessary codecs. On the other hand, nobody I know ever had problems with the codecs when playing flash videos.
> It uses a generic plugin to load a code (that can be potentially
> malicious) to ask the plugin to display the video, which is utterly
> complicated for something that should be as simple as <embed
> src="..."/>.
This is only an issue if the relevant plugin has security issues. But the same applies to a video player. Exploits have been found in JPEG viewers before (!) so "passive" formats do not entirely protect from malware. In the end, code is passive too.
(Please understand that I'm playing the devil's advocate. In an ideal world, Flash would be an unnecessary burden for video playback. But the world isn't ideal, and there are reasons why sites like Youtube chose to build their own player - I expect the codec hassles to play a major role here.)