[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 20/08/10 21:22, tom wrote: > On 20/08/10 18:10, Julian Hall wrote: >> On 20/08/2010 17:53, Simon Waters wrote: >>> Julian Hall wrote: >>>> >>>> Adobe are dragging their feet over producing a 64bit Flash Player. >>> >>> 4+ years - hey I've not updated software for that long, although if I >>> had an umpteen billion pound software company paying me it might have >>> been quicker. >>> >>>> Anyone know of a third party alternative browser addon? I'd prefer >>>> not to have to keep swapping between a 32bit and 64bit browser just >>>> because they can't get their act together. >>> >>> Gnash - sure it sucks in places. Get the very latest and contribute >>> back bug reports if you have to. >>> >>> Try not to use flash, something like NoScript will mean you only runs >>> the bits of flash you want to, so less chance of the bugs annoying you. >>> >>> YMMV >>> >>> Simon >>> >> I would try not to use it, but too many sites these days are Flash >> heavy or even worse - Flash only - unfortunately sometime simply >> boycotting them is not an option. >> >> Julian >> > 1) there is some work on a Java flashplayer > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/20/flash_in_java/ > > 2) in answer to Julian > I often turn of flashblock to run flash to .... get contact info ..and > almost never any more - another Adobe roadblock on the information highway > > Tom te tom te tom > Surely flash is irrelevant with the conception of HTML5? -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq