Flash instructions updated

[Antonio Olivares]

--- On Fri, 5/22/09, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:

> From: Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: Flash instructions updated
> To: "For testers of Fedora Core development releases" <fedora-test-list at redhat.com>
> Date: Friday, May 22, 2009, 3:42 PM
> On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 15:30 -0700,
> Antonio Olivares wrote:
> 
> > Exactly.  If the thing does not work, then you
> have to use the tool
> > that works.  I tried the gnash and it did not do
> the job.  You have to
> > use the tools that work for you.  
> > 
> > That it does not match the goals of the Fedora
> project, yes I have to
> > agree with Adam.  But on the other hand, but one
> has to use the tools
> > that work for our systems and those include the nvidia
> drivers and the
> > flash plugin from Adobe.  
> 
> That was never the point here; no-one's trying to tell
> anyone what to do
> on his or her own personal system. Heck, I use the Adobe
> Flash plugin,
> and the NVIDIA proprietary driver. But what we were talking
> about is a
> page on the Fedora Wiki - which should be written with the
> Fedora
> philosophy in mind. That's all.
> 
> I think most people who run Fedora would either be free
> software
> purists, or would say "use free software first, but if you
> can't find
> any that works for the job in hand, non-free is okay". The
> change to the
> page that Paul wrote simply states the second - if you care
> about free
> software, a non-free piece of software is clearly the last
> resort, i.e.,
> you use it if nothing free does the job. It probably helps
> if you think
> about the alternative: if you *don't* care about free
> software, then
> there's no reason Adobe Flash would be the last resort,
> because you
> wouldn't give a fig if it were free or not. It would be the
> first
> resort, probably, because it's the plugin from the author
> of Flash, and
> it's what most people use. So you'd pick it *first*, and go
> to a
> third-party alternative only if it didn't work for you.
> That's the only
> distinction being drawn.
> -- 


Okay, this argument is reasonable.  It is for the wiki, then the points stated are legitimate and thank you for sharing the points.  Sorry if I came too hard :(

Regards,

Antonio