Use Flash or Not?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by DemoDisk, Jan 15, 2008.

  1. DemoDisk

    DemoDisk Guest

    I'm trying to keep a secure machine, but I've lost track of which
    Windows add-ons are dangerous and which are OK. (DivX, RealPlayer, etc.)

    I just visited Bloomberg.com and got a message; "The new Bloomberg Chart
    Builder requires Flash 8.0 or newer. Click here to download Flash." I
    didn't.

    Would you recommend Flash, and is there a site that catalogs the
    baddies?

    Thanks,
    JPM
     
    DemoDisk, Jan 15, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. DemoDisk

    Rôgêr Guest

    DemoDisk wrote:
    > I'm trying to keep a secure machine, but I've lost track of which
    > Windows add-ons are dangerous and which are OK. (DivX, RealPlayer, etc.)
    >
    > I just visited Bloomberg.com and got a message; "The new Bloomberg Chart
    > Builder requires Flash 8.0 or newer. Click here to download Flash." I
    > didn't.
    >
    > Would you recommend Flash, and is there a site that catalogs the
    > baddies?


    I use Flashblock and Adblock. Turn them on when required.
     
    Rôgêr, Jan 15, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. DemoDisk

    why? Guest

    On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 02:42:51 -0600, DemoDisk wrote:

    >
    >I'm trying to keep a secure machine, but I've lost track of which
    >Windows add-ons are dangerous and which are OK. (DivX, RealPlayer, etc.)


    Why worry about add-ons, start at Windows.

    >I just visited Bloomberg.com and got a message; "The new Bloomberg Chart
    >Builder requires Flash 8.0 or newer. Click here to download Flash." I
    >didn't.
    >
    >Would you recommend Flash, and is there a site that catalogs the


    Don't know of a single site, usually a few news amd vendor product
    sites.

    Yes, if you want to see the chart, that's why you went to bloomberg
    wasn't it?

    >baddies?


    Any of the AV sites with current alerts, SANS http://www.sans.org/ it's
    the Global Incident link you want http://isc.sans.org/

    http://www.microsoft.com/security/default.mspx


    I have these sites open in my browser by default, for news as well
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/
    http://www.theinquirer.net/

    I use Outpost Firewall with block active content by default and add
    sites as needed not even allowing all active content.

    Often the exe is blocked for internet access as not trusted anyway.

    Oddly enough
    http://www.adobe.com/downloads/updates/?ogn=EN_US-gntray_supp_updates


    Me
     
    why?, Jan 15, 2008
    #3
  4. DemoDisk

    VanguardLH Guest

    "DemoDisk" wrote in message news:...
    >
    > I'm trying to keep a secure machine, but I've lost track of which
    > Windows add-ons are dangerous and which are OK. (DivX, RealPlayer,
    > etc.)
    >
    > I just visited Bloomberg.com and got a message; "The new Bloomberg
    > Chart
    > Builder requires Flash 8.0 or newer. Click here to download Flash."
    > I
    > didn't.
    >
    > Would you recommend Flash, and is there a site that catalogs the
    > baddies?



    Flash is another ActiveX control. How do you know what the site
    offers as Adobe's Flash Player is actually from Adobe? When you get
    the prompt for them to install a well-known AX control, that should
    prompt you to head off to the actual vendor of that AX control and get
    it from there. The same applies for any hardware update presented at
    Microsoft's Windows Update site: if it says there is a newer driver,
    you go get it from the hardware maker's site, not from Microsoft -
    presuming that you even have to bother with the newer version.

    Go to www.adobe.com and get THEIR Flash player AX control. It is at
    version 9 so the site was going to give you an older version. If you
    visit sites that you have some means of knowing to whom they belong,
    that doesn't mean you really want to see 3rd party Flash content. Get
    a popup or Flash blocker that lets you, at least, block 3rd party
    Flash content and shows only 1st party Flash content. If the site
    wants you to see their advertiser's content or from some other domain,
    it should be routed through their own domain; i.e., if they want to
    show it on their web page, they should be responsible for its content.
    Imagine going to some religious or children's site and some 3rd party
    content is porn. If they want the content on their site, they should
    be in control of it and it should originate from their site. Sure,
    they can disclaim any responsibility for 3rd party content that they
    present in THEIR web page. Sure, I can decide not to see any of that
    3rd party content.

    You could block all Flash content, including 1st party content, but
    many sites use Flash to prevent theft of their content. They don't
    want web crawlers stealing their web page. So blocking all Flash
    could mean that you visit sites that won't work although YOU chose to
    visit that site. Also, Flash blockers do not always initialize a page
    correctly if you block the Flash content and then try to allow (run)
    it. You could end up blocking the Flash content, decide you want to
    see it, have the Flash blocker try to play it, but it doesn't work
    because of interdependencies were broke when blocked. Sometimes
    unblocking and refreshing works. Sometimes you'll have to whitelist
    the site so you can revisit it so the blocking is never performed in
    the first place.
     
    VanguardLH, Jan 15, 2008
    #4
  5. DemoDisk

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2008-01-15, VanguardLH <> wrote:
    > "DemoDisk" wrote in message news:...


    [...]

    > Flash is another ActiveX control.


    Is it? Odd that Flash should work so well with Linux then, as ActiveX
    exists only on Windows systems (and is a security nightmare if permitted
    to function).

    > How do you know what the site
    > offers as Adobe's Flash Player is actually from Adobe? When you get
    > the prompt for them to install a well-known AX control, that should
    > prompt you to head off to the actual vendor of that AX control and get
    > it from there. The same applies for any hardware update presented at
    > Microsoft's Windows Update site: if it says there is a newer driver,
    > you go get it from the hardware maker's site, not from Microsoft -
    > presuming that you even have to bother with the newer version.


    [...]

    That's generally good advice - although in my experience the 'link' for a
    plugin a web site wants you to install is usually straight to the
    'downloads' pages of the plugin's maker anyway.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Jan 15, 2008
    #5
  6. DemoDisk

    DemoDisk Guest

    "DemoDisk" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > I'm trying to keep a secure machine, but I've lost track of which
    > Windows add-ons are dangerous and which are OK. (DivX, RealPlayer,

    etc.)


    Whiskers, Roger, why?, & Vanguard -- Thanks for the help.
     
    DemoDisk, Jan 16, 2008
    #6
  7. DemoDisk

    why? Guest

    On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 18:28:41 +0000, Whiskers wrote:

    >On 2008-01-15, VanguardLH <> wrote:
    >> "DemoDisk" wrote in message news:...

    >
    >[...]
    >
    >> Flash is another ActiveX control.

    >
    >Is it? Odd that Flash should work so well with Linux then, as ActiveX
    >exists only on Windows systems (and is a security nightmare if permitted
    >to function).


    That's the problem on a Win box, the flash is wrapped up in a ActiveX
    control, often for no good reason..

    <snip>

    Me
     
    why?, Jan 16, 2008
    #7
  8. DemoDisk

    VanguardLH Guest

    "Whiskers" wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > VanguardLH wrote:
    >>
    >> "DemoDisk" wrote ...

    >
    >> Flash is another ActiveX control.

    >
    > Is it? Odd that Flash should work so well with Linux then, as
    > ActiveX
    > exists only on Windows systems (and is a security nightmare if
    > permitted
    > to function).


    Why do you believe that similar functionality on completely different
    OS platforms must use the same software technology?

    "More recent versions include ActionScript, an implementation of the
    ECMAScript ..."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash#Programming_language

    That does not stipulated the interface used by an application or
    add-on. So, are you saying that you do not have a Flash9*.ocx
    (ActiveX container) under the following path (after installing version
    9)?

    C:\WINDOWS\system32\Macromed\Flash

    ..ocx is the file extension for OLE Control eXtension (OCX) used for
    ActiveX. In IE7, go into Internet Options -> Programs -> Manage
    Add-ons. Scroll to find "Shockwave Flash Object". And what type of
    object does IE say is that linked control? Mine says ActiveX. I
    don't have a Linux around at home to go check so I don't know what
    software technology is used by Flash when installed on Linux. Why
    would they even bother to query your OS or prompt you for it if the
    same exact software technology were used across all operating systems?
    Hmmmm?

    Before trying to claim profiency in Windows software technologies when
    you are obviously oriented to Linux, you could just Google to find
    out.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=+flash +"activeX"

    The OP said they wanted to know about Windows add-ons. Linux wasn't
    mentioned. I can guess that they use ActiveX in Windows because that
    interface is defined within Internet Explorer and that's why Adobe
    used it. OLE is still heavily used within Windows and applications
    that run on that platform, and OCX is just an extension of OLE.

    I don't know what software technology is used on Linux for linking and
    integrating data structures between applications. According to
    http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/alternates/, Flash installs as
    an add-on to Firefox to provide the player. I don't know if Flash is
    then available via a similar linking technology to OLE to other
    applications under Linux. Maybe Linux doesn't have an equivalent of
    the wide encompassing tentacles of OLE. Apparently Flash has not been
    available from Adobe until 15 months ago
    (http://weblogs.macromedia.com/emmy/archives/2006/10/beta_refresh_on.cfm)
    and Linux users were stuck with trying to use open-source solutions
    that emulated the player's functionality - which makes me suspect that
    you don't know Linux at all and might not even use it except as an
    intermittent neophyte. A Linux newsgroup could probably answer how
    Flash works (or doesn't) on Linux. I'm not claiming any expertise
    regarding Flash on Linux (all my work in UNIX platforms is at the
    command line and rarely ever with the GUI).

    OCX is an extension to OLE which falls under [D]COM. OLE and COM
    introduced a programming model based on reusable design. As of OLE
    2.0, Microsoft renamed it to ActiveX. Have a read at:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCX
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActiveX_Control

    This also answers why?'s post claiming that ActiveX is unnecessarily
    used to "wrap" the script. No, there is no wrapping. It is an OLE
    (now called ActiveX) object. Even the Windows Clipboard is OLE
    enabled. If OLE wasn't available in Windows, copy-n-paste and
    drag-n-drop would require some interface defined separately within
    every application that wanted to support this function. There would
    be no consistency between how applications implemented their own
    copy-n-paste and drag-n-drop functions (if they even bothered to
    implement them). That's why Microsoft made it part of the OS.
    Copy-n-paste can be implement using either the Clipboard API or OLE.
    Drag-n-drop is implemented via OLE. OLE showed up in Windows 3.10
    (see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q32905/) so you're probably not
    old enough to remember using the prior versions of Windows. It was
    Microsoft copying Apple's publish & subscribe feature. OCX was
    Microsoft *partially* copying Apple's OpenDOC standard by delineating
    components (see http://www.mackido.com/History/History_OLE.html).

    Yeah, Microsoft could eliminate OLE (and OCX or AX) but it would make
    Windows a real bitch to use when trying to integrate applications or
    to message between them. If you don't want OLE in your system, go
    back to DOS or Windows pre-3.10. Or you could go to Linux. Maybe
    they use OpenDOC (a Linux/UNIX newsgroup would probably know).

    >> How do you know what the site
    >> offers as Adobe's Flash Player is actually from Adobe? When you
    >> get
    >> the prompt for them to install a well-known AX control, that should
    >> prompt you to head off to the actual vendor of that AX control and
    >> get
    >> it from there.

    >
    > That's generally good advice - although in my experience the 'link'
    > for a
    > plugin a web site wants you to install is usually straight to the
    > 'downloads' pages of the plugin's maker anyway.


    That is one enhancement that I wished were added to IE. It says that
    the add-on is requested and that supposedly it comes from Microsoft -
    but I don't know if that it is the site telling me where are the
    add-on comes from or if IE is reading the authenticode within the
    program file to determine the certification path. Only after you
    install it can you find out the CRL path; for example and for Flash,
    right-click on the "Shockwave Flash Object" item listed in Windows
    Explorer (which shows the description rather than filenames because
    this is a "special" folder) and look at Properties where you can see
    the CodeBase path of where the object supposedly came from. At the
    time when you are prompted to install it, that path is not shown. I
    see nothing that would preclude the add-on coming from the site that
    wants you to install it rather than from the add-on author's site.
     
    VanguardLH, Jan 16, 2008
    #8
  9. DemoDisk

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2008-01-16, VanguardLH <> wrote:
    > "Whiskers" wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> VanguardLH wrote:
    >>> "DemoDisk" wrote ...

    >>
    >>> Flash is another ActiveX control.

    >>
    >> Is it? Odd that Flash should work so well with Linux then, as
    >> ActiveX
    >> exists only on Windows systems (and is a security nightmare if
    >> permitted
    >> to function).

    >
    > Why do you believe that similar functionality on completely different
    > OS platforms must use the same software technology?


    What makes you think that I would believe any such thing?

    Flash works on Linux; Linux has nothing like Windows ActiveX; therefore,
    Flash does not require ActiveX. If the Windows version of Flash /does/
    require ActiveX then Windows users should be putting pressure on Adobe to
    provide them with a version of Flash for Windows that is no less secure
    than the versions of Flash available for other OSs.

    > "More recent versions include ActionScript, an implementation of the
    > ECMAScript ..."
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash#Programming_language


    ECMAscript is just another name for 'javascript'; nothing to do with
    ActiveX (or Java).

    > That does not stipulated the interface used by an application or
    > add-on. So, are you saying that you do not have a Flash9*.ocx
    > (ActiveX container) under the following path (after installing version
    > 9)?
    >
    > C:\WINDOWS\system32\Macromed\Flash


    I haven't got a copy of Windows in use. None of the Flash files on my
    system have a name ending in .ocx (and ActiveX does not exist here at
    all).

    [...]

    > Before trying to claim profiency in Windows software technologies when
    > you are obviously oriented to Linux, you could just Google to find
    > out.


    I was making no such claim. Just saying that Flash works on Linux without
    needing ActiveX and /asking/ if it was true that it did need ActiveX on
    Windows. You seem to be replying along the lines that indeed it does,
    repeating at huge length your own statement which prompted my perfectly
    reasonable queston, but you've got your knickers in such a twist about the
    merest mention of some other operating system that you can't seem to
    restrain your fury.

    [...]

    > Maybe Linux doesn't have an equivalent of
    > the wide encompassing tentacles of OLE. Apparently Flash has not been
    > available from Adobe until 15 months ago
    > (http://weblogs.macromedia.com/emmy/archives/2006/10/beta_refresh_on.cfm)
    > and Linux users were stuck with trying to use open-source solutions
    > that emulated the player's functionality - which makes me suspect that
    > you don't know Linux at all and might not even use it except as an
    > intermittent neophyte.


    The fact that no official 'Flash player' or plugin was provided for Linux
    until fairly recently, has no connection at all with my experience or
    expertise in using Linux. But I'll mention for the record that I haven't
    used any OS but Linux for a few years now - nor needed to. The only gripe
    I have with Flsh is that there's far too much of it around, serving no
    useful purpose but making some web sites very difficult to use for some
    visitors. But that's the fault of idiot web-site designers, not a defect
    of Flash itself.

    > A Linux newsgroup could probably answer how
    > Flash works (or doesn't) on Linux. I'm not claiming any expertise
    > regarding Flash on Linux (all my work in UNIX platforms is at the
    > command line and rarely ever with the GUI).


    As Flash is closed-source proprietary software, only the owners of the
    company can tell anyone how it works. It does work on Linux, quite well
    enough for the very few sites I've 'enabled' it for.

    [...]

    I don't know why you felt it necessary to attempt an explanation of some
    aspect of Windows 'technology' allowing it to emulate what other OSs had
    been doing for years before Microsoft got around to it.

    >>> How do you know what the site
    >>> offers as Adobe's Flash Player is actually from Adobe? When you
    >>> get
    >>> the prompt for them to install a well-known AX control, that should
    >>> prompt you to head off to the actual vendor of that AX control and
    >>> get
    >>> it from there.

    >>
    >> That's generally good advice - although in my experience the 'link'
    >> for a
    >> plugin a web site wants you to install is usually straight to the
    >> 'downloads' pages of the plugin's maker anyway.

    >
    > That is one enhancement that I wished were added to IE. It says that
    > the add-on is requested and that supposedly it comes from Microsoft -
    > but I don't know if that it is the site telling me where are the
    > add-on comes from or if IE is reading the authenticode within the
    > program file to determine the certification path. Only after you
    > install it can you find out the CRL path; for example and for Flash,
    > right-click on the "Shockwave Flash Object" item listed in Windows
    > Explorer (which shows the description rather than filenames because
    > this is a "special" folder) and look at Properties where you can see
    > the CodeBase path of where the object supposedly came from. At the
    > time when you are prompted to install it, that path is not shown. I
    > see nothing that would preclude the add-on coming from the site that
    > wants you to install it rather than from the add-on author's site.


    Can't you see the actual URL a 'link' is for? Last time I used Internet
    Explorer (version 5, I think, which was the latest version at the time), IE
    could do that just fine.

    If you would prefer an OS that puts the user in control rather than tries
    to control the user, you know what you need to do ...

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Jan 16, 2008
    #9
  10. DemoDisk

    VanguardLH Guest

    "Whiskers" wrote in message
    news:...

    OP's question: "... which Windows add-ons are dangerous ... Flash ..."

    My statement: "Flash is another ActiveX control.".

    Your statement: "Odd that Flash should work so well with Linux then,
    as ActiveX exists only on Windows systems."

    This despite the context of the OP's question which placed the
    question of the use of Flash solely under Windows. Your statement
    implies that Flash couldn't possibly use ActiveX on Windows because
    ActiveX is not available in Linux. My response was pretty much "So
    what?" (and then a lot of explanation in case you really had no clue
    what was ActiveX and where it came from and also to disprove your
    claim).

    > Flash works on Linux; Linux has nothing like Windows ActiveX;
    > therefore,
    > Flash does not require ActiveX. If the Windows version of Flash
    > /does/
    > require ActiveX then Windows users should be putting pressure on
    > Adobe to
    > provide them with a version of Flash for Windows that is no less
    > secure
    > than the versions of Flash available for other OSs.


    So why would you imply that Flash doesn't use ActiveX on Windows
    simply because ActiveX isn't available on Linux?

    > ECMAscript is just another name for 'javascript'; nothing to do with
    > ActiveX (or Java).


    The point was that Flash is just another scripting language, not that
    ActiveX is some wrapper around the script as was indicated by "why?".
    With Linux, you should be used to lots of different scripting
    languages, some having better applicability for some tasks than
    others.

    > I haven't got a copy of Windows in use. None of the Flash files on
    > my
    > system have a name ending in .ocx (and ActiveX does not exist here
    > at
    > all).


    Yep, some proof that Flash on Linux doesn't use ActiveX which is a
    purely Microsoft thing and Microsoft doesn't do UNIX (well, they're
    not much into UNIX). So you proved your point that ActiveX isn't used
    on Linux (for anything) but you also disqualified your statement of:

    "Odd that Flash should work so well with Linux then, as ActiveX exists
    only on Windows systems"

    as though how Flash is implemented on Windows would have anything to
    do with how it is implemented on UNIX, or visa versa.

    > The fact that no official 'Flash player' or plugin was provided for
    > Linux
    > until fairly recently, has no connection at all with my experience
    > or
    > expertise in using Linux. But I'll mention for the record that I
    > haven't
    > used any OS but Linux for a few years now - nor needed to. The only
    > gripe
    > I have with Flsh is that there's far too much of it around, serving
    > no
    > useful purpose but making some web sites very difficult to use for
    > some
    > visitors.


    Wrong again. As I mentioned, Flash is often used to hide the source
    to create the the content of a web page. Capturing the Flash display
    won't get you the code that compiled the content delivered to your
    browser. You just get the end result. This makes it difficult for
    someone to merely web crawl across your site to steal it and possibly
    make a mirror copy for phishing or other negative use.

    Of course, let's totally dismiss that Flash can control how your media
    content gets handled or to enhance its use at the client end. It's
    just another scripting language. With Perl, Python, Ruby, Korn/C/bash
    scripting, and so on, I wouldn't think a pro-Linux user would resist
    yet another scripting language designed for a more specialized
    purpose.

    > As Flash is closed-source proprietary software, only the owners of
    > the
    > company can tell anyone how it works. It does work on Linux, quite
    > well
    > enough for the very few sites I've 'enabled' it for.


    Hmm, I thought there were open-source emulators for Flash. So those
    authors must had a clue as to how to get Flash working on Linux before
    Adobe eventually came up with their closed proprietary solution. MING
    (http://freshmeat.net/projects/ming/) wasn't written by Adobe. The
    Free Software Foundation's GNU Gnash player wasn't written by Adobe,
    nor was SWFDEC, another open-source Flash decoder/renderer. As long
    as the multimedia types were understood and since the scripts used to
    code SWF files is published, the code needed to implement their
    support doesn't have to be duplicated from however Macromedia happened
    to code them.

    > I don't know why you felt it necessary to attempt an explanation of
    > some
    > aspect of Windows 'technology' allowing it to emulate what other OSs
    > had
    > been doing for years before Microsoft got around to it.


    Because, for some odd reason, you seemed to think Flash had to use
    ActiveX technology on Linux for it to use ActiveX on Windows. "Odd
    that Flash should work so well with Linux then, as ActiveX exists only
    on Windows systems". Yeah, so what? When I first encountered REXX,
    another scripting language, it was only available on IBM systems, and
    quite handy for paralleling the execution of processes much like
    threading, so if a program that used REXX on S-360 had a version of
    that program that ran on HP then something *other* than REXX would've
    been needed for the HPUX version. (There are now open source
    interpreters for REXX so that situation has changed but in the
    beginning we would've needed to use C or some other language to
    provide a different platform version the same scripted program.) Same
    results, different routes to get there.

    The OP asked about Flash on Windows. I never said ActiveX (OCX) is
    used on Linux and actually inferred that Flash could not use ActiveX
    on Linux. I said how FLash uses ActiveX *ON WINDOWS* which was the
    platform on which the OP was interested. How Flash is implemented on
    Linux is irrelevant to the OP. I didn't bring up Linux. You did, as
    though Flash could not be implemented using ActiveX on Windows simply
    because ActiveX isn't available on Linux. My first reaction to your
    reply was "Yeah, so what? What's Linux got to do with the Windows
    implementation?"
     
    VanguardLH, Jan 17, 2008
    #10
  11. DemoDisk

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2008-01-17, VanguardLH <> wrote:
    > "Whiskers" wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    > OP's question: "... which Windows add-ons are dangerous ... Flash ..."
    >
    > My statement: "Flash is another ActiveX control.".
    >
    > Your statement: "Odd that Flash should work so well with Linux then,
    > as ActiveX exists only on Windows systems."


    You seem to have missed the first part of my response to your comment,
    which is a simple question - "Is it?".

    > This despite the context of the OP's question which placed the
    > question of the use of Flash solely under Windows.


    My question was in response to your mention of ActiveX. Learn to read!

    > Your statement
    > implies that Flash couldn't possibly use ActiveX on Windows because
    > ActiveX is not available in Linux.


    Nothing of the sort. Look again.

    > My response was pretty much "So
    > what?" (and then a lot of explanation in case you really had no clue
    > what was ActiveX and where it came from and also to disprove your
    > claim).


    You flipped. You have flipped again. Calm down.

    >> Flash works on Linux; Linux has nothing like Windows ActiveX;
    >> therefore,
    >> Flash does not require ActiveX. If the Windows version of Flash
    >> /does/
    >> require ActiveX then Windows users should be putting pressure on
    >> Adobe to
    >> provide them with a version of Flash for Windows that is no less
    >> secure
    >> than the versions of Flash available for other OSs.

    >
    > So why would you imply that Flash doesn't use ActiveX on Windows
    > simply because ActiveX isn't available on Linux?


    I didn't. You've gone haring off after a wild goose that exists only in
    your fevered imagination. Now get into that mare's nest and take a rest,
    OK?

    >> ECMAscript is just another name for 'javascript'; nothing to do with
    >> ActiveX (or Java).

    >
    > The point was that Flash is just another scripting language,


    No it is not. It is a programming language and 'environment' - which
    includes it's own scripting language, but is a lot more than that.
    <http://www.adobe.com/products/flash/?ogn=EN_US-gntray_prod_flash_home>.

    [...]


    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Jan 17, 2008
    #11
  12. DemoDisk

    VanguardLH Guest

    "Whiskers" wrote ...
    > You seem to have missed the first part of my response to your
    > comment,
    > which is a simple question - "Is it?".



    How does "Is it?" alter your second sentence? It only adds emphasis
    that you disbelieved that Flash uses ActiveX on WINDOWS because of
    some unrelated fact about Linux.

    "Flash is another ActiveX control."
    "Is it? Odd that Flash should work so well with Linux then, as
    ActiveX
    exists only on Windows systems (and is a security nightmare if
    permitted
    to function)."

    So what was the intended meaning of your reply? That:

    - Flash does not use ActiveX on WINDOWS because ActiveX is not
    available on LINUX?

    Or that,

    - Flash must use ActiveX on Windows because of unrelated information
    that ActiveX is not available on Linux?

    Please clarify by answering:

    - Does Flash use ActiveX on *W-I-N-D-O-W-S*?
    - What does Linux have to do with how Flash runs on *W-I-N-D-O-W-S*?
     
    VanguardLH, Jan 17, 2008
    #12
  13. DemoDisk

    Whiskers Guest

    On 2008-01-17, VanguardLH <> wrote:
    > "Whiskers" wrote ...
    >> You seem to have missed the first part of my response to your
    >> comment,
    >> which is a simple question - "Is it?".

    >
    >
    > How does "Is it?" alter your second sentence? It only adds emphasis
    > that you disbelieved that Flash uses ActiveX on WINDOWS because of
    > some unrelated fact about Linux.
    >
    > "Flash is another ActiveX control."
    > "Is it? Odd that Flash should work so well with Linux then, as
    > ActiveX
    > exists only on Windows systems (and is a security nightmare if
    > permitted
    > to function)."
    >
    > So what was the intended meaning of your reply? That:
    >
    > - Flash does not use ActiveX on WINDOWS because ActiveX is not
    > available on LINUX?
    >
    > Or that,
    >
    > - Flash must use ActiveX on Windows because of unrelated information
    > that ActiveX is not available on Linux?
    >
    > Please clarify by answering:
    >
    > - Does Flash use ActiveX on *W-I-N-D-O-W-S*?
    > - What does Linux have to do with how Flash runs on *W-I-N-D-O-W-S*?


    Sheesh. Either you're the buffoon who invented ActiveX, or you're just a
    buffoon with a serious reading comprehension deficiency.

    --
    -- ^^^^^^^^^^
    -- Whiskers
    -- ~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Whiskers, Jan 17, 2008
    #13
  14. DemoDisk

    VanguardLH Guest

    "Whiskers" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 2008-01-17, VanguardLH <> wrote:
    >> "Whiskers" wrote ...
    >>> You seem to have missed the first part of my response to your
    >>> comment,
    >>> which is a simple question - "Is it?".

    >>
    >>
    >> How does "Is it?" alter your second sentence? It only adds
    >> emphasis
    >> that you disbelieved that Flash uses ActiveX on WINDOWS because of
    >> some unrelated fact about Linux.
    >>
    >> "Flash is another ActiveX control."
    >> "Is it? Odd that Flash should work so well with Linux then, as
    >> ActiveX
    >> exists only on Windows systems (and is a security nightmare if
    >> permitted
    >> to function)."
    >>
    >> So what was the intended meaning of your reply? That:
    >>
    >> - Flash does not use ActiveX on WINDOWS because ActiveX is not
    >> available on LINUX?
    >>
    >> Or that,
    >>
    >> - Flash must use ActiveX on Windows because of unrelated
    >> information
    >> that ActiveX is not available on Linux?
    >>
    >> Please clarify by answering:
    >>
    >> - Does Flash use ActiveX on *W-I-N-D-O-W-S*?
    >> - What does Linux have to do with how Flash runs on
    >> *W-I-N-D-O-W-S*?

    >
    > Sheesh. Either you're the buffoon who invented ActiveX, or you're
    > just a
    > buffoon with a serious reading comprehension deficiency.



    Okay, we'll leave it as that you don't want to say what you really
    meant by your first reply.
     
    VanguardLH, Jan 18, 2008
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,774
    GlassCutter
    Jul 4, 2004
  2. Shaw Goh \(NetPlus Micro Computers\)

    Why not a Flash -> flash device?

    Shaw Goh \(NetPlus Micro Computers\), Jul 16, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    387
    Shaw Goh \(NetPlus Micro Computers\)
    Jul 16, 2003
  3. D O'Reilly

    To Flash or not to Flash ???

    D O'Reilly, Jun 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    407
    Gisle Hannemyr
    Jun 9, 2004
  4. Dean Reno
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    851
    Dean Reno
    Jul 30, 2004
  5. thing
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    636
    Dave - Dave.net.nz
    Jun 29, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page