poor analysis, Freudian projection
Jun 08, 2007
7:23 AM EST
|"I suspect that much of my video problems stem from the Flash player in Windows being a better-written app than the one in Linux."
No, it's that Linux does a better job of separating (and protecting!) the browser and the Flash player from each other. That's true of pretty much all Windows apps vs. Linux apps: Windows apps share too much context among one another, up to and including the GDI, with way too little privilege protection. The Linux apps may run slower, but the Unix philosophy, even with its lumps and holes, keeps rogue apps in line much better.
I suppose one could say Unix offers Discretionary Access Control, while Windows offers Indiscreet Access Control.
"Linux -- and the choice to use (or not to use) Linux -- is political. There's no denying it or getting around it."
My choice to use Linux stems from the want and need to have a system free of Trojan horses and boot-sector viruses. I lost my entire dual-boot system when my Windows 95 fell to the Chernobyl virus in 1998. I "cast off the bowlines" that tied me to Windows and went 100% Linux. Between the raft of new viruses and security holes that have appeared in Windows since then (even as M$ declared "security is our #1 priority now!") and the outrageous sums charged for the latest and greatest security-hole packages...
How can I ever trust Microsoft again? I'll stay with Linux, thankyouverymuch.
Jun 08, 2007
7:33 AM EST
|>I suspect that much of my video problems stem from the Flash player in Windows being a better-written app than the one in Linux. All the more reason for Flash to be opened up to the community -- there's got to be a better player out there to be written.
So what about that bothers you so much, or were you to busy jerking knees to consider what he was saying?
His suspicion seems more reasonable than your certainty, especially considering that you haven't seen the code to know.
More to the point, why get so exorcised? He is saying that flash would be better if it were made into free software. Surely that can't bother you.
Jun 08, 2007
3:14 PM EST
|I've been doing a LOT of testing of OSes on different platforms, and I'm very much aware of the risks inherent in running Windows -- especially unprotected versions. And I also know that a fresh Windows install runs a lot better than one that's a few years old. I've seen more than one non-techie person have a problem with XP and figure, "Oh well, this computer's a couple of years old and running like crap, I guess I'll buy a new one." Not knowing that a fresh install of Windows (or, heaven forbid, of Linux) could bring back their "old" box.
I'm not in much of a position to comment on how separate the Flash program is from the apps and the OS in Windows as opposed to Linux, but I remain convinced that Adobe's Flash player for Linux isn't that great. I've read about a project to reverse-engineer a FOSS Flash player, and I applaud whoever is working on that project.
If you talk to people at the newspaper where I work (the Los Angeles Daily News), all they talk about is how they want EVERYTHING to be done in Flash. For those with fairly new hardware, it's a lot more seamless than having to run video with external players, and with the rise of things like YouTube, today's generation is heavily enmeshed in Flash video. I believe it's not right to have such a large portion of Web content be in a format that's not free and open, and I'd really like to see an alternative.
Here's another "inconvenient truth" I missed in my original post:
The Windows Media Player for Mac OS is pretty crappy, but not as crappy as the QuickTime player for Windows, which is about as big a piece of total shit as I've seen come out of Apple, ever. It ran like a dying dog on my 3 GHz box, and then it was hell getting rid of it.
Jun 08, 2007
6:17 PM EST
|> but not as crappy as the QuickTime player for Windows, which is about as big a piece of total shit as I've seen come out of Apple, ever.
Ain't that the truth. Take a look for something called Quicktime Alternative. I've never tried it, but it's supposed to be better.
Jun 08, 2007
6:28 PM EST
|>>I also know that a fresh Windows install runs a lot better than one that's a few years old.
Back in the Windows days (for me, 2003 was total Linux commitment) I'd always set up my user data on a separate partition, never configure Windows more than installing drivers and absolutely critical apps, and clean re-install it the first time it looked at me funny.
About every 3 months or so.
This was a depressing life with the computer; Windows had totally ruined my hobby. Then Linux came along...
I used to tell customers that Windows installer was designed for TV: Come back and check on it at every commercial break.
Jun 09, 2007
7:07 AM EST
|You too, huh? I used to re-install at least 2 or 3 times a year. O.k., with Win3.1 it was more like every other month. But then came the timebomb-ware. I didn't want to do the DOS/Win3.1 --> Win98 upgrade run every time I needed to revamp. So a friend at Microsoft donated me a copy of WinXP Pro. The timebomb-ware reared its ugly head when I tried to re-install the CD burner software. Good thing I used that software to make a back-up of Win98. With no way to burn CDs in XP, I simply reverted to my backup. One good deed deserves another, right?
Eventually, I discovered I could use X-CDRoast to burn CDs fairly easily (I think I was using Mandrake 8.0 then). Anyway, that was one of the key issues that led me to use GNU/Linux more and more. It also weighed heavily in my mind as I read through the GNU Project FAQs. Thanks to HP and their CD burner software partner at the time - in conjunction with Reboot Bill - I'm a huge Free Software Fan.
Note: Reboot Bill is not to be confused with Bootstrap Bill, who is likely a more heroic character than the former.
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!