Re:Plugin Reviews (Score 1)

Perhaps my anticorporate paranoia is running away with me here, but doesn't it seem like major news outlets like CNN, NASA, foxnews, etc. are driving the need for plugins?

For instance, why do I need a shockwave plugin when the sorts of lame graphics we see could have easily been done with an animated GIF? Why would someone produce a video clip that could ONLY be viewed with the latest shockwave or quicktime when it is clear that the same video clip could be viewed in a format readable by all shockwave or quicktime plugins? Why are some sites giving you a "slideshow", which is nothing more than a few pictures displayed sequentially, using javascript and special plugins? Couldn't this more easily be done using a standard link to a page with a few .jpg files?

I personally believe there are two reasons:
1) Incentives offered by the plugin companies to use their "latest".
2) Stupid pointy haired bosses (PHBs) who demand the "latest" software.

If this is really going on as I believe, it's wasting bandwidth and complicating the development of the web by making things inconvenient for the casual user with a slow connection.

Shouldn't there be some sort of guidelines for web sites and producers of plugins on backward compatability with previous versions of plugins? At least that way once you get a Linux plugin to work, programmers who are donating their time for a Linux port wouldn't have to hit such a moving target.