4 ms·

I've always been under the impression that the reason Flash is embedded in Chrome was for security reasons (faster time to patch+auto patch) and not ideology on

I've always been under the impression that the reason Flash is embedded in Chrome was for security reasons (faster time to patch+auto patch) and not ideology ones. All the outcry over this I've read is basically a complaint that you can't ship one codec for HTML5 video, which you've never been able to do. That's what the whole argument over the video tag has always been about. The only difference this makes is that this cements the split instead of everybody expecting Firefox and Opera to give up and adopt H.264. If you were willing to ship just H.264 and flash fallback for Firefox/Opera, why wouldn't you be willing to ship H.264 and flash fallback for Chrome?

jasonlotito 16y ago
> why wouldn't you be willing to ship H.264 and flash fallback for Chrome? The same people with a problem with this have a problem with Flash, I imagine. I also imagine a large number of people complaining are Chrome users who think they know a thing or two about videos online. Most of the arguments against Google doing this are smug, illogical, and stupid. Gruber asked a bunch of stupid questions, and a bunch of lemmings followed along asking about Flash. I'll go so far as to say if you're one of these people asking about Flash in Chrome, you are ignorant and wrong.
- GHFigs 16y ago
  I'm horrified to have upvoted this by mistake. Your comment is the kind that makes me glad I've been avoiding HN for the past few weeks.
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    If your horrified by comments, you should stop coming here and seek help. > Your comment is the kind that makes me glad I've been avoiding HN for the past few weeks. Coincidentally, your comment is the kind that makes me glad you've been avoiding HN for the past few weeks. Rather than simply posting insulting comments, you could attempt to contribute. It takes a bit more work and a bit of intelligence, but I'm sure you can manage. The net result is a better HN.
    - GHFigs 16y ago
      I didn't say I was horrified by the comment, I said I was horrified to have upvoted it by mistake. I was trying to downvote, and that's all I would have done. The intent of my comment was not to insult you (it really wasn't) but to get you to consider your own remarks, which I (perhaps naively) think that downvoting generally does. Do you think that calling people "a bunch of lemmings" makes for a better HN? I've insulted plenty of people here in the past, maybe even you. For that I'm sorry. But I'm trying to be better than that, and although I don't think it's in evidence here, I'd like to believe that you are, too.
      - jasonlotito 16y ago
        > I didn't say I was horrified by the comment, I said I was horrified to have upvoted it by mistake. Sorry I wasn't specific enough. I actually realized this error after commenting, and considered editing, but honestly, I felt that it really wasn't that important, especially since my corrected statement would still make the same exact point. > The intent of my comment was not to insult you (it really wasn't) but to get you to consider your own remarks, which I (perhaps naively) think that downvoting generally does. No. Down voting isn't for getting people to think. It's for saying "No, this comment doesn't add anything to the conversation." Disagreeing with the sentiment is not good for down voting. A comment that you believe doesn't provide value, however, is. If your goal is to get someone to think, it's better to communicate that in a comment. > Do you think that calling people "a bunch of lemmings" makes for a better HN? Yes, I do think calling lemmings lemmings is useful: that's what they are. You might disagree, but they are merely asking the same illogical and thoughtless questions. I feel my description was accurate and precise. Even the "stupid" remark, I feel, was justified. I actually wondered if a better word could be found, because I don't like using "stupid," but it's accurate. Gruber's questions to Google concerning Chrome's H.264 decision are stupid. This is especially true when you consider Gruber's history of defending Apple's decisions regarding it's support of Adobe. > I've insulted plenty of people here in the past, maybe even you. For that I'm sorry. But I'm trying to be better than that, and although I don't think it's in evidence here, I'd like to believe that you are, too. It's fairly easy: unless it's obviously not contributing to the discussion, assume the person is contributing. Even if you disagree. The language might be direct (or even harsh to some, as I admit "stupid" is), but for the type of people that visit HN, this is probably just our way of being as clear as possible. Even you had to comment on the specificity of whether you were horrified by my comment or the up voting of my comment. A point that is meaningless when you consider the point of the original comment. This is, I fear, obvious to others when we place ourselves in social situations. Wife:"Do you want to take the trash out for me?" HN Husband: "No." Wife:"Take out the trash, NOW." HN Husband: "Yes, dear." I'd much prefer someone clearly state how they feel then use weasel words constantly. Consider for a moment my comment prior to this one, where I called out your "I meant to downvote your comment." Yes, it was harsh, but only because yours was equally (in my mine) harsh. However, the net result is now a discussion of the merits of downvoting, language, and the overall improvement of HN. Alone, both our comments could be considered the worst of the worst of HN commentary. Off-topic and insulting. However, the result of this commentary is, I believe, a worthwhile discussion on comments. Basically, could I have used something besides "a bunch of lemmings"? Sure, I suppose I could have. However, it made my point easily enough, and expressed my thoughts accurately.
GHFigs 16y ago
If you were willing to ship just H.264 and flash fallback for Firefox/Opera, why wouldn't you be willing to ship H.264 and flash fallback for Chrome? Because it means I'll have to recommend that people use Internet Explorer.

jasonlotito 16y ago

> why wouldn't you be willing to ship H.264 and flash fallback for Chrome? The same people with a problem with this have a problem with Flash, I imagine. I also imagine a large number of people complaining are Chrome users who think they know a thing or two about videos online. Most of the arguments against Google doing this are smug, illogical, and stupid. Gruber asked a bunch of stupid questions, and a bunch of lemmings followed along asking about Flash. I'll go so far as to say if you're one of these people asking about Flash in Chrome, you are ignorant and wrong.

GHFigs 16y ago
I'm horrified to have upvoted this by mistake. Your comment is the kind that makes me glad I've been avoiding HN for the past few weeks.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  If your horrified by comments, you should stop coming here and seek help. > Your comment is the kind that makes me glad I've been avoiding HN for the past few weeks. Coincidentally, your comment is the kind that makes me glad you've been avoiding HN for the past few weeks. Rather than simply posting insulting comments, you could attempt to contribute. It takes a bit more work and a bit of intelligence, but I'm sure you can manage. The net result is a better HN.
  - GHFigs 16y ago
    I didn't say I was horrified by the comment, I said I was horrified to have upvoted it by mistake. I was trying to downvote, and that's all I would have done. The intent of my comment was not to insult you (it really wasn't) but to get you to consider your own remarks, which I (perhaps naively) think that downvoting generally does. Do you think that calling people "a bunch of lemmings" makes for a better HN? I've insulted plenty of people here in the past, maybe even you. For that I'm sorry. But I'm trying to be better than that, and although I don't think it's in evidence here, I'd like to believe that you are, too.
    - jasonlotito 16y ago
      > I didn't say I was horrified by the comment, I said I was horrified to have upvoted it by mistake. Sorry I wasn't specific enough. I actually realized this error after commenting, and considered editing, but honestly, I felt that it really wasn't that important, especially since my corrected statement would still make the same exact point. > The intent of my comment was not to insult you (it really wasn't) but to get you to consider your own remarks, which I (perhaps naively) think that downvoting generally does. No. Down voting isn't for getting people to think. It's for saying "No, this comment doesn't add anything to the conversation." Disagreeing with the sentiment is not good for down voting. A comment that you believe doesn't provide value, however, is. If your goal is to get someone to think, it's better to communicate that in a comment. > Do you think that calling people "a bunch of lemmings" makes for a better HN? Yes, I do think calling lemmings lemmings is useful: that's what they are. You might disagree, but they are merely asking the same illogical and thoughtless questions. I feel my description was accurate and precise. Even the "stupid" remark, I feel, was justified. I actually wondered if a better word could be found, because I don't like using "stupid," but it's accurate. Gruber's questions to Google concerning Chrome's H.264 decision are stupid. This is especially true when you consider Gruber's history of defending Apple's decisions regarding it's support of Adobe. > I've insulted plenty of people here in the past, maybe even you. For that I'm sorry. But I'm trying to be better than that, and although I don't think it's in evidence here, I'd like to believe that you are, too. It's fairly easy: unless it's obviously not contributing to the discussion, assume the person is contributing. Even if you disagree. The language might be direct (or even harsh to some, as I admit "stupid" is), but for the type of people that visit HN, this is probably just our way of being as clear as possible. Even you had to comment on the specificity of whether you were horrified by my comment or the up voting of my comment. A point that is meaningless when you consider the point of the original comment. This is, I fear, obvious to others when we place ourselves in social situations. Wife:"Do you want to take the trash out for me?" HN Husband: "No." Wife:"Take out the trash, NOW." HN Husband: "Yes, dear." I'd much prefer someone clearly state how they feel then use weasel words constantly. Consider for a moment my comment prior to this one, where I called out your "I meant to downvote your comment." Yes, it was harsh, but only because yours was equally (in my mine) harsh. However, the net result is now a discussion of the merits of downvoting, language, and the overall improvement of HN. Alone, both our comments could be considered the worst of the worst of HN commentary. Off-topic and insulting. However, the result of this commentary is, I believe, a worthwhile discussion on comments. Basically, could I have used something besides "a bunch of lemmings"? Sure, I suppose I could have. However, it made my point easily enough, and expressed my thoughts accurately.

GHFigs 16y ago

If you were willing to ship just H.264 and flash fallback for Firefox/Opera, why wouldn't you be willing to ship H.264 and flash fallback for Chrome? Because it means I'll have to recommend that people use Internet Explorer.