In article <o5dd8c$mj2$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> | adobe spyware. adobe is begging to become irrelevant.
> |
>
> I'd say that's wishful thinking. They're begging to
> become more relevant. This has always been their
> strategy. They made Flash a standard for a long time
> by making it ubiquitous. Flash is by far the worst risk
> online, yet most people have it installed and don't
> even know it.

flash is dead, officially last year but had been on life support for
many years before that.

> Only the limited resources of cellphones, coupled
> with extreme use of javascript, have put a dent in the
> Flash empire.

cellphones helped its demise (not javascript), but it would have
eventually gone away on its own.

> It wasn't so long ago that many webpages
> were nothing more than a Flash software program,
> with virtually no HTML.

fortunately, those days are long gone.

> They've done the same with
> PDF, spreading Acrobat Reader everywhere they can
> and also spreading the plugin, so that people will come
> to see PDFs as a type of webpage, while nearly every
> real webpage that deals in PDF at all links to AR as
> though it were the only PDF software.

nope. pdfs were never intended to be a type of web page, a concept that
does not even make any sense.

> That's two semi-successful attempts to convert the
> Internet to Adobe format -- PDF and Flash. Then there's
> also Adobe AIR, which fortunately failed in the face of
> javascript "libraries". Like Silverlight, it was an attempt
> to force a proprietary software API on the Internet, with
> the promise of enhanced functionality for services.

pdf is not proprietary. it's an iso standard and widely supported.

> The Chrome extension trick is just standard Adobe
> marketing. It's just one of many ways to push
> standardization of PDF for webpages and AR for PDF.

it's not a trick. the chrome extension is to make it easier for users
to read pdfs. making things easier for users is a good thing.

> And it works. AR is grotesquely bloated and unsafe. No
> one should use it. Yet it's probably hooked into the vast
> majority of web browsers. That's not irrelevance. That's
> successful marketing, Silicon Valley style. Adobe have
> infected nearly all browsers with two of the worst online
> vulnerabilties, yet no one notices or complains.

ar or air? they're two very, very different things. ar is not something
adobe is doing.

> And how can anyone really complain about a Chrome
> extension? Chrome itself is spyware from the spyware
> king. Anyone who willingly installs Chrome could have
> little regard for their privacy.

there are browsers based on the chrome engine, without the google
spyware bits.

On 1/7/2022 3:52 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <o5dd8c$mj2$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
> <mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>> | adobe spyware. adobe is begging to become irrelevant.
>> |
>>
>> I'd say that's wishful thinking. They're begging to
>> become more relevant. This has always been their
>> strategy. They made Flash a standard for a long time
>> by making it ubiquitous. Flash is by far the worst risk
>> online, yet most people have it installed and don't
>> even know it.
>
> flash is dead, officially last year but had been on life support for
> many years before that.
>
>> Only the limited resources of cellphones, coupled
>> with extreme use of javascript, have put a dent in the
>> Flash empire.
>
> cellphones helped its demise (not javascript), but it would have
> eventually gone away on its own.
>
>> It wasn't so long ago that many webpages
>> were nothing more than a Flash software program,
>> with virtually no HTML.
>
> fortunately, those days are long gone.
>
>> They've done the same with
>> PDF, spreading Acrobat Reader everywhere they can
>> and also spreading the plugin, so that people will come
>> to see PDFs as a type of webpage, while nearly every
>> real webpage that deals in PDF at all links to AR as
>> though it were the only PDF software.
>
> nope. pdfs were never intended to be a type of web page, a concept that
> does not even make any sense.
>
>> That's two semi-successful attempts to convert the
>> Internet to Adobe format -- PDF and Flash. Then there's
>> also Adobe AIR, which fortunately failed in the face of
>> javascript "libraries". Like Silverlight, it was an attempt
>> to force a proprietary software API on the Internet, with
>> the promise of enhanced functionality for services.
>
> pdf is not proprietary. it's an iso standard and widely supported.
>
>> The Chrome extension trick is just standard Adobe
>> marketing. It's just one of many ways to push
>> standardization of PDF for webpages and AR for PDF.
>
> it's not a trick. the chrome extension is to make it easier for users
> to read pdfs. making things easier for users is a good thing.
>
>> And it works. AR is grotesquely bloated and unsafe. No
>> one should use it. Yet it's probably hooked into the vast
>> majority of web browsers. That's not irrelevance. That's
>> successful marketing, Silicon Valley style. Adobe have
>> infected nearly all browsers with two of the worst online
>> vulnerabilties, yet no one notices or complains.
>
> ar or air? they're two very, very different things. ar is not something
> adobe is doing.
>
>> And how can anyone really complain about a Chrome
>> extension? Chrome itself is spyware from the spyware
>> king. Anyone who willingly installs Chrome could have
>> little regard for their privacy.
>
> there are browsers based on the chrome engine, without the google
> spyware bits.

this thread is 5 years or so old

see eternal-september.support

stuff is showing up in other places too

--
Mystery? -> https://www.dalekelly.org/