3 ms·

I don't know why you would say it's nonsense, just compare to how mozilla talked of flash back in 2008[1], instead of "bringing greatness and innovation to the

I don't know why you would say it's nonsense, just compare to how mozilla talked of flash back in 2008[1], instead of "bringing greatness and innovation to the web" it was all "dangers of the proprietary web", "They're not here for the glory; they're here for the money", " Adobe's long-standing refusal to provide a recent version of Flash for Linux users" , "If you consider proprietary technologies, think hard; are you really trading convenience in the short term with independence in the long term?" and "proprietary solutions running on top of the web are trying to take over". But the guy who championed this stance has since left mozilla in 2015 after 17 years to pursue his objective of changing the world with Open Source and Free Software and the Web. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20081227145942/http://news.zdnet.com/2424-3515_22-199508.html https://web.archive.org/web/20081227145942/http://news.zdnet...

EpicEng 9y ago
Again, you're talking about one side of things here. I'm sure I don't disagree with you on most if not all of the technical issues. You can't just look at this from that angle alone though, you have to also appreciate what it enabled for people who weren't overly technical and had zero usable tools with which to build things. You also have to appreciate that things changed a bit after Adobe bought Macromedia. As far as them being int it "for the money"... whatever, I have no problem with that. If there were better, more open tools available no one would have used Flash. There weren't, and I don't expect companies to always be altruistic in their endeavors.
- bigbugbag 9y ago
  I disagree with you and reality tends to confirm that having open tools available does not prevent closed tools usage. And there are a few reasons: as you mentioned non technical people may not care about open/closed or at least do not have this high on their priorities, then open tools often are worse than closed equivalent. I don't mind companies being in it for making a profit, what I mind is the building of a closed web vs an open web. The closed version is doomed to fail and takes away power from the people while the open one is empowering people and gives us a chance at democracy and freedom. Sadly this is a fight that we lost and I tend to agree with Peter Sunde, now it is a matter of damage control.

EpicEng 9y ago

Again, you're talking about one side of things here. I'm sure I don't disagree with you on most if not all of the technical issues. You can't just look at this from that angle alone though, you have to also appreciate what it enabled for people who weren't overly technical and had zero usable tools with which to build things. You also have to appreciate that things changed a bit after Adobe bought Macromedia. As far as them being int it "for the money"... whatever, I have no problem with that. If there were better, more open tools available no one would have used Flash. There weren't, and I don't expect companies to always be altruistic in their endeavors.

bigbugbag 9y ago
I disagree with you and reality tends to confirm that having open tools available does not prevent closed tools usage. And there are a few reasons: as you mentioned non technical people may not care about open/closed or at least do not have this high on their priorities, then open tools often are worse than closed equivalent. I don't mind companies being in it for making a profit, what I mind is the building of a closed web vs an open web. The closed version is doomed to fail and takes away power from the people while the open one is empowering people and gives us a chance at democracy and freedom. Sadly this is a fight that we lost and I tend to agree with Peter Sunde, now it is a matter of damage control.