SWFdec vs Gnash (also gcjwebplugin)

[Francis Earl]

On Thu, 2008-05-15 at 01:49 +0300, Pavel Shevchuk wrote:
> swfdec depends on less gnome-libs, and at least for me it works much
> better than gnash. It also has very nice "click to enable" feature

How did you get it to even work? For me, with gstreamer -good -bad -ugly
and -ffmpeg, doesn't work at all. With the same setup, gnash at least
works in some cases (youtube for instance).

I'd rather just use Adblock/NoScripts to block such content on sites I
don't want to display. This way, it also collapses the given flash
object.

Further, swfdec-mozilla depends swfdec-gtk, whereas I don't see any
Gnome related deps for gnash...

> On 5/15/08, Francis Earl <francis.earl at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Are there any technical reasons as to why Fedora seems to prefer SWFdec
> >  over Gnash?
> >
> >  I understand that to be part of the Gnome Developer Platform, your
> >  project must be LGPL, which Gnash is not, but Gnash actually works today
> >  for the more popular use cases (YouTube and friends) and seems to be
> >  implemented in a far better way (OpenGL etc) ...
> >
> >  Also, wrt to gcjwebplugin, is there any way to make games like
> >  games.yahoo.com/pl work? I am sort of addicted to that game, but I'd
> >  rather not install the proprietary plugin.
> >
> >  Thank you for any assistance, or feedback :)
> >
> > --
> >  fedora-devel-list mailing list
> >  fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> >  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> http://scwlab.com
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080514/859c3ff8/attachment.sig>