[aur-general] "pepper-flash" naming?

[Ralf Mardorf]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 13:45:42 -0600, WebDawg via aur-general wrote:
>IMO people still need flash to do stuff so I do not know why you would
>remove it.  While most of us still may hate flash they have decided to
>support it again:
>http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2016/09/adobe-announced-will-restart-support-flash-linux

Hi,

I'm not serious about removing it from repositories, but I'm serious
against Adobe. If people want to install it from a repository, they
should get it from a repo and install it. If I pay for a book, I don't
want to get some meta data, sign up some Adobe crap, before I get the
book I already pay. Ok, this Adobe issue is not related to flashplayer.
In regards to falshplayer, it causes issues for users of many platforms
and quasi everything provided by flashplayer could be provided without
flashplayer. So even if a user should love Adobe, there's no sane
argument pro flashplayer. Unfortunately flashplayer is a living dead.
If users would leave it alone, it wouldn't be continued. Flashplayer is
against everything from libre to security, at least FLOSS users expect
from software. Sometimes FLOSS users might be willing to go without
libre and/or security, if software provides something really useful,
more or less unsubstitutable. Flashplayer is neither useful, nor
unsubstitutable. Who cares if Adobe supports it today? Flashplayer is
crap and even if it would be something good, they despotic could decide
that they will drop support tomorrow. Since years I read at least one
request regarding flashplayer a month on a Linux mailing list.
"Something absolutely essential for the office work requires the latest
Adobe flashplayer", just nobody ever provided more information about
this top secret essential for the office work, such as a link.

Regards,
Ralf