[tex-live] movie15 and media9

Reinhard Kotucha reinhard.kotucha at web.de
Tue Mar 20 01:16:53 CET 2012

On 2012-03-19 at 09:11:38 +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:

 > Hi Simon,
 > as I wrote in the email answering Reinhard, *please*read* the
 > emails and try to understand them before answering.
 > I answered on Phil's assertion that
 >    "There is no possible reason for them not to do so [install acro*] 
 > other than prejudice or dogma."
 > which I rejected simply by giving reasons not based on prejudice or
 > dogma, but simply on privacy and security.
 > If you or anyone accepts this treat, or has set up a save
 > environment that this does not happen, I don't mind if you use
 > acro*, I just made clear that there are *valid* reasons not to use
 > it.

Hi Norbert, let me clarify two things:  You said

 > * horrible security history
 > * "phoning home" javascript
 > * what else do you want ???
 > Using acro* is simply wrong, and energy should be invested in
 > improving open source viewers, not preaching for a horrible
 > dangerous and privacy ignoring product.

At a first glance one gets the impression that Adobe deliberately
created a trojan horse in order to "phone home" (to Adobe).  That
would be unacceptable, of course.

The guys who wrote the article you cited [1] complained about the
inclusion of JavaScript in general and provided an example where this
feature had been abused (not by Adobe).  It was certainly Adobe's
fault to execute JS code without notification, but they didn't create
a trojan horse deliberately, at least.  

Adding a scripting language is always critical in respect of
security.  But hyperlinks are dangerous too, they simply postpone the
problem to the web browser, which probably executes JS code...

Secondly, I *read* your mails, but maybe my point of view is a little
bit different than yours.  I understand yours, but what's most
important to me is that I can use free software at work, in particular
Linux and (Lua)TeX.  But I have to use non-free software too.
Fortunately, one of the most important programs is available on Linux,
the other one runs fine under Wine.  I'm in luck ATM for two reasons:
I don't need many non-free programs and my boss is familiar with Linux
and TeX too.  But in many other companies free software is not
welcomed, in almost every bigger company it's even disallowed.

The reason is certainly because those who make decisions (Martin calls
them "Schlipsträger") believe that Linux and free software is only
good for geeks and for serious work Windows is needed.

It would definitely be helpful if more companies port their (non-free)
software to Linux.  In order to achieve this, the least thing we can
do is _not_ to regard everything non-free as an evil.

Please note that I'm not talking about TeX Live policies but about our
slightly different points of view.  You are promoting free software,
which is definitely fine.  I prefer free software too.  But I'm also
interested to pull vendors of commercial software into the boat.  On
the other hand, if we regard everything which is not free in the FSF
sense and not open source, as an evil, I believe that Linux will be
regarded as a playground for geeks forever.

[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/129729/


Reinhard Kotucha                                      Phone: +49-511-3373112
Marschnerstr. 25
D-30167 Hannover                              mailto:reinhard.kotucha at web.de
Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO.

More information about the tex-live mailing list