On 2009-04-30, GreyCloud <cumulus@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:00:25 -0500, Sinister Midget wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-04-30, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> claimed:
>>>> On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:06:48 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> | This is Linux port of Microsoft sliverlight apparently designed to compete
>>>>> | with adobe flash. Silver light doesn't offer anything new that's not already
>>>>> | offered by adobe flash.
>>>> Spoken like a true ignoramus.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a hint: Scalable video. It's amazing.
>>> Here's another hint: monopoly lockin. It's horrendous.
>>
>> Even if true, it doesn't support the claim that Silverligh doesn't offer
>> anything new that's not already in flash.
>
> There was a demo day for a couple of free viewings using Adobe Flash.
> I tried out the TV version and also the HD version. Both weren't that good
> as compared to regular TV. Too pixelated.
It's the content, not the format.
Most flash content is produced with the expectation that it will
specifically NOT be viewed on a TV (thus the whole Hulu debacle).
Flash's problem is poor performance for that content which is
not essentially intened for use on a 20 year old Amiga.
--
Negligence will never equal intent, no matter how you
attempt to distort reality to do so. This is what separates |||
the real butchers from average Joes (or Fritzes) caught up in / | \
events not in their control.
|
|
