Six Months Without Adobe Flash, and I Feel Fine

Reader hessian six months ago de-installed the Adobe Flash player on all of his browsers, probably a prudent move in light of various recent vulnerabilities. "This provoked some shock and incredulity from others. After all, Flash has been an essential content interpreter for over a decade. It filled the gap between an underdeveloped JavaScript and the need for media content like animation, video and so on." But it turns out that life sans Flash can still be worth living. Are there things you rely on that make Flash hard to give up?

Comments

i'd like to see that

[Anonymous Coward]

"probably a prudent movie"

where is this movie you speak of, i'd like to watch it on my flash player

Re:i'd like to see that

[50000BTU_barbecue]

Is that a Harold Lloyd movie?

Re:i'd like to see that

[LMariachi]

You're thinking of a prurient movie.

Re:i'd like to see that

[orangesquid]

{Well, *I* was thinking of a *prurulent* movie... 2Girls1Cut[OozingPus] ftw! --- Captcha: exotic ---
Okay, that was completely inappropriate.}
On-topic, now: I've found that, thanks to the ubiquitousness of NoScript/NotScript now, many sites are at least mostly usable without JS and Flash---they don't want to turn first-time visitors away by having a site that has zero functionality without scripting, I'm guessing. It's really nice to be able to do almost all my surfing in dillo/links/lynx.

Re:i'd like to see that

[tqk]

I like how the barely literate whine about minor typos rather than contributing something to society.

I can live with the odd typo, and even ignorance of the correct use of apostrophes, contractions, possesives & etc. However, outright laziness (not bothering to proofread) is just insulting. If you care enough to write it, care enough for me to want to read it. Don't go just puking out anybody's dog's breakfast and expect me to thank you for it.

Re:i'd like to see that

[hairyfeet]

Dude its Slashdot. The catch phrase should be "Slashdot: news for nerds who can put up with bad TFAs because they probably won't read 'em anyway".

As for TFA, I'm sorry but he is full of shit. why is he full of shit? Simple because every Flash replacement we have is broken that is why. the ONLY replacement I've seen heralded is HTML V5 which is a pile of ass and fail, you pick any size and I'll show you HTML V5 using at LEAST 40% more resources than flash, in fact i have several machines like my nettop and netbook that play SD flash just fine, even low res HTML V5 is a slideshow. Again name the browser, it'll suck balls compared to Flash.

Then you have the fact that its pretty much useless for anything other than video, so Flash games and animation aren't even covered by this "Flash replacement" and you have a giant pile of fail and suck. i mean sure the OEMs like Apple want you using it, not only does it give them the lucrative casual gaming market but its resource sucking means it'll sell more hardware. it would be like "Canyonero by Shell, gets 2 MPG but does so in STYLE" would you buy that? Then why are you buying a Flash replacement from companies like fricking Apple that have serious conflicts of interest?

Show me a format that is 100% patent and copyright unencumbered that does the same jobs Flash does in the same footprint? I will climb to the tallest tower and sing its praises. But what we are doing now is just fucking retarded, we are letting one of the most closed control freak companies on the planet dictate what format the web is gonna run on...you HONESTLY think they ain't gonna tilt things in their favor? Who was it that blocked drac and Theora from being the HTML V5 video format? why I believe that was Apple and MSFT...gee, i wonder why?

Wake the fuck up people and stop drinking the iKoolaid. yes Adobe hasn't got even a good much less great security track record but one thing that have an EXCELLENT record on is letting you run it anywhere. want to put it in your distro? Go right ahead. H.26x? Cut us a check bitch. You want to make a FOSS version of Flash called Gnash? help thyself. try that with H.264 and see how quick your ass ends up in court.

We are taking an okay format and trading it for golden handcuffs folks, its fucking stupid and needs to be stopped. Want to kill Flash? Great then give us something that can do the same jobs that isn't controlled by Apple and MSFT, two companies with frankly appalling track records when it comes to fucking people over. Don't let yourself end up in worse shape than you were before just because something is buggy. Bugs can be fixed or we can go a new way but just handing the web to two douchey companies is anything but smart, hell both Apple and MSFT are the 2 most sue happy companies around and have a stake in MPEG-LA, you think they want an open anything?

Re:i'd like to see that

[fast turtle]

and this is why I'm quite happy with noscript. It does a damn good job of blocking flash/silverlight and crap I don't want while not totally destroying the functionality of the web.

There are very few sites that I need flash on and I'm quite happy about not needing it to surf the web on general principals. Funny thing is, I tend to use IE9-64 in high security mode and don't have flash installed in it. I do have it in Palemoon (firefox port) with Noscript and only allow flash from one site. Otherwise Flash/Silverlight and others are all blocked by default in noscript. Now if I could get the same functionality in IE, I'd be a very happy camper instead of needing to have 5 stinking browsers for the net.

Re:i'd like to see that

[tqk]

Er, I was doing an off-topic mini-rant (grammar Nazi stuff) clarification about:

... the odd typo, and even ignorance of the correct use of apostrophes, contractions, possesives & etc.

... so your reply was obviously intended for someone else (not a problem). I've often wondered what all of you see in web development. That's the last kind of work I'd want to get into. I've never seen any html code that looked beautiful.

Great rant, though, and I pretty much agree with you.

Re:i'd like to see that

[davydagger]

html5 is a load of ass and fail? what the fuck are you smoking?

html5 fixes all the fucking problems of flash being slow and one giant security hole.

Its also the new buzzword. every app developer is going to html5 because it runs on everything and they don't have to get involved with platform wars.

html5 + hardware acceleration(firefox, linux with intel cpu and gpu), and my tiny little netbook plays youtube a fuckton faster.

"Show me a format that is 100% patent and copyright unencumbered that does the same jobs Flash does in the same footprint? I will climb to the tallest tower and sing its praises."
Flash is copyright encumbered.

http://www.webmproject.org/

http://www.webmproject.org/license/software/
terms of using webm.

Start climbing.

Re:i'd like to see that

[Anonymous Coward]

the ONLY replacement I've seen heralded is HTML V5 which is a pile of ass and fail, you pick any size and I'll show you HTML V5 using at LEAST 40% more resources than flash, in fact i have several machines like my nettop and netbook that play SD flash just fine, even low res HTML V5 is a slideshow.

Stop lying, hairyasshat. HTMLv5 video is typically encoded in H.264, which has widespread hardware acceleration support. And on my machine, which is no mere netbook, Flash video uses at least 10x more resources than HTML5 because Adobe gives next to no fucks about properly supporting acceleration on anything but Windows.

We are taking an okay format and trading it for golden handcuffs folks, its fucking stupid and needs to be stopped. Want to kill Flash? Great then give us something that can do the same jobs that isn't controlled by Apple and MSFT, two companies with frankly appalling track records when it comes to fucking people over.

So Apple and MSFT rule W3C with an iron fist, eh? Must be news to Google.

Don't let yourself end up in worse shape than you were before just because something is buggy. Bugs can be fixed or we can go a new way but just handing the web to two douchey companies is anything but smart, hell both Apple and MSFT are the 2 most sue happy companies around and have a stake in MPEG-LA, you think they want an open anything?

Hey shittyfeet, guess what? Virtually all flash video already is H.264. Flash files are programs which can also contain embedded media files. Rather than invent their own codecs (expensive, not much money in it), Macromedia/Adobe chose to adopt standard codecs. Historically, other codecs were important in Flash, but in recent times, the dominant Flash video codec has been H.264. (Due to its superior technical performance and widespread HW acceleration support.) If you watch a Flash video on the web today and it was uploaded in the past 5 years or so, there's probably a 99% chance it's actually H.264 inside the Flash wrapper.

So, your entire rant is clueless, stupid, and pointless. If your ranting about handing the future to Apple and MSFT because OMG H264 HOLY SHITBALLS has any merit, by arguing for Flash instead you're arguing in favor of H.264. Holy fuck you are dumb.

p.s.

Who was it that blocked drac and Theora from being the HTML V5 video format? why I believe that was Apple and MSFT...gee, i wonder why?

Had you really not noticed that WebM is an official HTML5 video codec alongside H.264? In fact, Google's love for it is usually what's responsible for people like you shitting themselves over how resource intensive HTML5 video is, since WebM hardware acceleration is so fucking rare. (Friends don't let friends use WebM capable browsers on YouTube.)

Re:i'd like to see that

[4way]

yes Adobe hasn't got even a good much less great security track record but one thing that have an EXCELLENT record on is letting you run it anywhere

Apart from Linux platforms based on these processors:
* Intel Pentium III Coppermine
* Intel Pentium III Tualatin
* Intel Celeron Mendocino
* Intel Celeron Coppermine-128
* Intel Celeron Tualatin-256
* Intel Pentium M
* AMD Athlon XP

Source: https://bugbase.adobe.com/index.cfm?event=bug&id=3161034

Re:i'd like to see that

[g253]

He has a point. My computer is a bit old, and while can still watch any flash video smoothly, html5 video is unwatchable, even at the lowest possible resolution. I'm not on one side or the other in the debate, it's just a fact that I don't own a computer that can play html5 video, but I have several that can play flash video just fine.

Re:i'd like to see that

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is true, it's an embarrassment for your browser's implementation of html5 video, which is probably not using your hardware video acceleration. It's hard to imagine anything slower than Flash.

Re:i'd like to see that

[hairyfeet]

Well if you'll show me HTML V5 running on ANY of those under Linux I'll be happy to agree. But you are trying to claim that because Adobe doesn't support FOURTEEN YEAR OLD chips that this makes HTML in some way a better choice? How EXACTLY when I've found you name the browser, FF, Chrome, Safari,IE, Opera, doesn't matter which HTML V5 video is a slideshow on anything less than a dual core with GPU acceleration.

Re:i'd like to see that

[hairyfeet]

Does WebM support games? animation? Nope, sorry you fail. Also again you name the browser i'll put the same video in flash and WebM and we'll take screencaps of CPU and RAM usage and I can tell you WebM will suck MORE juice than Flash at the same res.

So try again, the world isn't all C2Ds with GPU acceleration, there are a ton of low power devices and on those HTML V5 and WebM are made of suck and fail.

Re:i'd like to see that

[4way]

You were claiming that "[Adobe] have an EXCELLENT record on is letting you run it anywhere". This source and it's linked bugs show that this is not true for many people. That is what I claim, don't twist my words.

Re:i'd like to see that

[hairyfeet]

Have you tried Gnash? Adobe hasn't stopped or impeded Gnash development in any way, so you DO have options. try that with H.264 and find out how fast they'll hit you with a cease and desist.

Hell if you are on Linux you should be SUPPORTING Flash, as they don't charge anything to allow you to bundle flash with ANY distro whereas mozilla tried to bundle H.26x support with Firefox and got a "pay your $699 license fee you cocksmoking tea baggers!" for their trouble.

At the end of the day too damned many are supporting a format that is IN EVERY SINGLE METRIC WORSE than Flash and the ONLY reason they are all tripping over themselves to support it is St Steve from Cupertino supported it. Well no shit, it kills the casual gaming market and makes the appstore more money! Duh! if Apple didn't like the way that Adobe was running flash they COULD have put money into gnash, they COULD have put money into Theora or Drac, but they didn't FOR A REASON, because H.26x makes a nice barrier to entry and makes it harder for anybody without corporate backing to compete.

If you don't support flash fine, support Theora, Drac, WebM, there is three choices right there that aren't a patent minefield for the web. but don't help those that want to turn the net into the Home Shopping Club succeed please.

Re:i'd like to see that

[davydagger]

"Does WebM support games? animation? Nope, sorry you fail"
http://html5games.com/

but the rest of html5 does, and its included by default wihtout a plugin. flash is a binary blob maintained by one company, full of security holes, fail, its opaque inner workers are a security hazard as much as they suck.

once again, hairyfeet fails to google before running his mouth, and fails hard, again.....

as for videos, I doubt you ran any tests.

Kids

[MightyYar]

Kids sites, educational or otherwise. All seem to use flash. IIRC, Khan Academy as well. If you have kids, you "need" Flash.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

One more reason not to have kids.

Re:Kids

[lennier1]

Saving a shitload of money wasn't enough of a reason?

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

but with kids, we could pass on some of our maths to their schedulers, and get results faster from this parralel computing! I hoe to have 5 child processes someday.

Doom3 just got a little brighter!

Re:Kids

[Paul Carver]

Saving a shitload of money wasn't enough of a reason?

No, certainly not. What's the point of a shitload of money if all you do is save it? Are you going to swim in it like Scrooge McDuck?

There's no point in earning or saving money if you aren't going to do something with it. Spending money on children (and grandchildren) is something that a lot of people (though obviously not 100% of all people) get a lot of enjoyment out of.

Feel free to spend your money on whatever you like if you dislike children, but you're just ignorant if you think that raising children isn't an excellent way to make use of hard earned cash for the vast majority of the human race who like children.

Saving money so that you have lots of funds for spoiling grandchildren is also highly popular and a worthwhile way to spend money for many people, but it's a bit more difficult to have grandchildren if you don't have children (though not impossible obviously.)

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

For miljons of years having kids has been the primary meaning of life. Did this change recently?

Re:Kids

[lennier1]

Take that stick out of your ass and get yourself a sense of humor.

Re:Kids

[lennier1]

Now, now, we don't even know if he's from New Jersey.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Fuck you and your hellspawns.

Erm.. Isn't the fucking what leads to those hellspawns? Make up your mind!

Re:Kids

[Runaway1956]

Not to mention that having children is the only proven route to immortality. With a lot of kids, your DNA is almost guaranteed to survive. With no kids, your DNA goes into the grave with you. It's unlikely that some woman in the distant future will be so desperate for DNA that she'll dig your bones up to try extracting the necessary ingredients with which to fertilize her eggs.

I know, zombie apocalypse fans will probably argue my assertions. Personally, I found getting the wife pregnant to be far more enjoyable than the prospect of lying in a cemetery waiting for nature to take it's course.

Re:Kids

[antdude]

Not even baby goats?

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

OT, but... There are in fact really good reasons not to procreate. I have a lot of respect for those who choose not to despite the severe social prejudices.

It is informative in that he stated a fact: you will save a shit load of money by not having kids. Weather that's a "good" reason for not having kids is a matter of opinion. I don't think it's wrong to choose not to have kids even if it's a poor reason. What would you have them do accept the social norm and bring a child into the world just to be unloved or poorly unattended to?

Re:Kids

[ninetyninebottles]

Okay, I'll bite. This reply is really modded up as informative? Really? As opposed to funny? Because, as a parent, I can see funny. But reasonable? Really?

I'm torn. I'd like to think everyone knows that not having children will save you a shitload of money and that people are not obligated to have children. Thus "informative" would be a ridiculous mod. On the other hand, many of the people in our society do seem to feel they are obligated to have children and it is just what society expects of them. The idea that it is a huge expense they may not be able to afford and that people who have children tend to be less happy, isn't something they've ever thought about. So maybe I can't argue with the informative mod too much.

Re:Kids

[SuricouRaven]

Economically, today, children are a terrible idea. It made sense once, when children were a retirement plan - the only means of support when you get too old to work. But we have social security now.

However, the decision to breed* isn't economic. It's emotional. People choose to have children because they have a psychological need, and sometimes a pet just doesn't quite fill the niche fully.

*When it actually is a decision at all, and are are a lot of accidential children.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

No, certainly not. What's the point of a shitload of money if all you do is save it? Are you going to swim in it like Scrooge McDuck?

spend it on something worthwhile, like a vacation home.

Re:Kids

[SuricouRaven]

Immortality for your genes isn't worth very much. It gives you a legacy, but you don't get to see it.

I'm young enough that I've a chance, if only a very slim one, that immortality-tech will become available within my lifetime. Body transplant, cryonics that actually works, maybe even the holy grail of mind uploading. It's a long shot, but it's the only chance I see. If not, well... not much I can do about it.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

That's easy to say if you're not the one with the sick in your ass.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that having children is the only proven route to immortality. With a lot of kids, your DNA is almost guaranteed to survive. With no kids, your DNA goes into the grave with you.

and then humanity dies off, the sun explodes, or the universe ends, and it's completely irrelevant whether or not a descendent carried on with a tiny portion of your DNA. yes, it's the point of life, until a lifeform gets smart enough to realize it's pointless.

if you want kids because you'd genuinely enjoy raising a child, adopt one of the millions of abandoned kids already out there.. if you just want someone to carry on your genetic line, you're wasting your time.

Re:Kids

[rastos1]

Khan academy videos are on youtube and work fine if you join HTML5 trial on Youtube.

Gnash sometimes works, sometimes not.

Google Streetview, yeah it would be nice if that worked without Flash. There is no reason why it could not. It's just a matter of Google investing money/time/effort to get that working.

I personally don't use Flash. For years. It certainly is possible to live without it. The smaller amount of ads alone makes that worth.

Re:Kids

[Rick Zeman]

Immortality for your genes isn't worth very much. It gives you a legacy, but you don't get to see it.

I'm young enough that I've a chance, if only a very slim one, that immortality-tech will become available within my lifetime. Body transplant, cryonics that actually works, maybe even the holy grail of mind uploading. It's a long shot, but it's the only chance I see. If not, well... not much I can do about it.

Sheldon Cooper, is that you?

Re:Kids

[bossk538]

Just don't got to any of the kids sites, and problem solved. Mine (pre-K and K aged) spend no time whatsoever interacting with a computer, and are the better for it IMHO.

Re:Kids

[halofan_sd]

having kids is the worst thing you can do to our environment

Re:Kids

[Runaway1956]

Nihilism is alive and well, I see.

Re:Kids

[TheMMaster]

They already have, you can enable an experimental webgl version of streetview that seems to work just fine for me.

I've been flash-less for the better part of 5 years now :) Never regret!

Re:Kids

[asc99c]

People with kids are less happy? I find that hard to believe - definitely citation needed. My kids make me far happier than anything else in my life and most parents I know feel the same.

Re:Kids

[Plammox]

Summary: Some people have what it takes to be parents. Some people have what it takes not to become parents. Please don't mock each others' choices.

Re:Kids

[DigiShaman]

From the viewpoint of the Chinese, and one that I agree with; who's going to take care of you when you grow old and die? I really hope you don't mind some faceless organization dealing with your bouts of dementia and incontinence. More over, do these non-family members you pay for really care about you? No. They just fake it as it's just part of the job would be my guess.

Is having a few kids selfish. No. Is having a brooding of children you can't afford a bad situation for the entire family? Yes. Do yourself a favor. Find the right mate, have a child or two with a full commitment to love and care for them, and replenish your rank. Soon your life on Earth will expire. Same goes for us all. It's all part of the cycle of life my friend.

BTW. If you can't have children. Adopt.

Re:Kids

[AJWM]

maybe even the holy grail of mind uploading

See, the problem with that is that it isn't you, it's only a copy that thinks it's you. Of course, nobody else will know the difference.

Ob. HHGTTG quote:
  "But I'll know the difference!"
  "No you won't, you'll be programmed not to."

Re:Kids

[rs79]

The older you get the more you appreciate your children. What makes sense in your 20s may not make as much sense in your 70s and 80s.

Re:Kids

[__aaqvdr516]

My son's Pre-K and K classes that he does at home require flash *and* Java. I don't expect that they will rewrite any of their websites any time soon.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

People with kids are less happy? I find that hard to believe - definitely citation needed. My kids make me far happier than anything else in my life and most parents I know feel the same.

Here's one.

From my own experience, I can say that children primarily make your life full of worry. They prevent you from fulfilling your own goals and shatter the relationship between the parents.

But of course, I would never say that aloud.

Re:Kids

[robot5x]

1. Social security? If you live in a country where your retirement is entirely paid for by government, please let me know where it is - I'd like to move there.

2. Believe it or not, 'social security' is not a magical rainbow fairy whirlpool where money just appears. It needs ... money. Money which is usually generated through general taxation or some kind of contribution scheme. Where does this money come from? People who work.

Even in your utopia, the ability of your government to support you and your 'social security' in retirement is directly correlated with the number of people working in the economy and paying taxes. When you're old, those people will be - guess what? - other people's children.

Please make sure you thank them for indulging in their emotional/psychological need so you can retire in comfort.

Re:Kids

[MaskedSlacker]

False comparison--you are confusing the fact that your kids make you happier than anything else you DO HAVE with the nonfact that you are happier than you would be without them.

If you did not have kids your life would be radically different. You would have things you DO NOT have now. That your kids make you happier than anything else you have now DOES NOT imply that you would not be happier without them. IIRC there are studies that have shown people without children are in fact happier than those with children.

Re:Kids

[Belial6]

I just wish more people would be self aware enough to know which category they belong to.

Re:Kids

[Belial6]

From what I have seen, those studies never divide the groups into those who want kids vs. those who do not want kids. Just like polling how happy people are with being jammed with a needle tens of thousands of times, you will find that those who want tattoos are much happier being jammed with a needle tens of thousands of times than those who do not want tattoos.

The studies are totally invalid if you don't make at least 4 categories:
Want Children + Have Children
Don't Want Children + Don't Have Children
Don't Want Children + Have Children
Want Children + Don't Have Children

It might also be necessary to look at the age of the parent/non-parent and the ages of the children.

Re:Kids

[Belial6]

Says the guy that has been completely replace but doesn't realize it isn't really him because it was done slowly over the course many years.

Re:Kids

[node 3]

Just get them an iPad then. Problem solved (and a few other problems get solved as well, such as the one where they are constantly asking for an iPad).

Re:Kids

[Marxdot]

So not wanting offspring due to the Life Ruination they cause is unreasonable according to you? Perhaps becoming a parent induces a sort of mild mental illness.

Re:Kids

[K. S. Kyosuke]

But we have social security now.

No, the old people have social security now because young people like you work and some of the GDP they generate is redirected towards the way of the needy. When you become old or disabled and there are no young people to fill in the void, what do you think you're going to get from the social system?

Re:Kids

[Belial6]

You can do without any computer at all. It isn't a matter of whether you CAN do without it. It is only a matter of whether it is worth it. Just like any other form of security. For you, as you say, it is worth it. For others it is not.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in geriatric care. Your kids only care for a while, then once a week, then every month, then once a year.

Once you start calling them the names of favorite fruits, or wondering who they are - your kids stop caring about you entirely.

Your children will never change your diaper for as long as you changed theirs. You grow old and get forgotten, like Chinese food at the back of the fridge. Whether you have children or not.

Pick a good home, make friends there - with staff and tenants alike. You'll be much happier if you forget your kids, as they will forget you.

We pick compassionate people and we run excellent accommodations. Usually much better arrangements than if your kids were taking care of things while trying to maximize their inheritance.

Me, I'm never having kids. Put that money into an awesome retirement home where my wife and I can go senile surrounded with awesome young people who give enough of a shit to seek it as a career.

Re:Kids

[K. S. Kyosuke]

If you did not have kids your life would be radically different.

If his parents didn't have kids, his life would be even more radically different!

Re:Kids

[cupantae]

Should be scored 5, Informative.

It's sad how many people here seem to genuinely think that "saving money" is a good reason not to have children. What exactly are you saving money for? Buying your next gadget? There are much more important things in life. And I quite frankly don't see the sense in not leaving a legacy.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

See, the problem with that is that it isn't you, it's only a copy that thinks it's you.

obviously copying your mind into a computer a la the matrix leaves you the pesky problem dealing with or disposing of your body, which really reinforces the idea that it's not you that's in the computer, just a facsimile.

but at what point would it cease being a copy of you and just continue being you?

when you can physically transplant a cpu and memory into your brain?

when you can replace your neurons with individual nano tech cells that function identically?

what if you replace them slowly over the course of 25 years? at what point does your consiousness cease being you, if ever?

Re:Kids

[ninetyninebottles]

People with kids are less happy? I find that hard to believe - definitely citation needed. My kids make me far happier than anything else in my life and most parents I know feel the same.

We're talking about statistics here, not individual experience or anecdotes, but here's a NY Times Post about the topic with numerous citations. Studies of happiness are fairly similar in this regard, although I did see at least one that ended up concluding men are slightly happier if they have children while women are much less happy. You'd think this would be taught in school as it is one of the most basic choices we all make.

Re:Kids

[spire3661]

Then those programs wouldnt be allowed on my computer. Choice, its great.

Re:Kids

[SuricouRaven]

You're confusing individual benefit with collective. If I have children, they will increase the money available in the collective pool to support me in old age... by an insignificant amount. It's the classic tragedy of the commons: The economic incentive for each individual is to take all they can without contributing in return. If humans always made the financially optimal decision, there'd be far fewer of them around.

Re:Kids

[alihm]

Games, most online games are flash.

Re:Kids

[Teun]

A European government?

Re:Kids

[Teun]

You seem to be ill informed, utopia is not needed.

In countries with a functional system of social security it's based on savings, not taxation like in, say France or Italy.

And it doesn't just require a working younger generation to generate the necessary income and interest , it needs an efficient and productive workforce, not slaves or drones.

Re:Kids

[DarwinSurvivor]

WTF, kindergarten has homework now?

Re:Kids

[bug1]

"I really hope you don't mind some faceless organization dealing with your bouts of dementia and incontinence."

People spend much of their life planning and working so they can have a happy and graceful death, they dont try to have a happy life.

Re:Kids

[Teun]

Hmm, where I am from people have since pre-historic times been an integral part of this environment.

Re:Kids

[pollarda]

Economically, today, children are a terrible idea. It made sense once, when children were a retirement plan - the only means of support when you get too old to work. But we have social security now.

Ummm.... You do realize that Social Security only works by taking from the younger workers and using that to pay for the older (retired) workers. If there are not enough younger workers then that leads to collapse which is where Social Security is at now. Of course, there is an easy fix which is to simply say you don't get SS until you are a member of the oldest N% (say 5%) of the population so there are an adequate number of workers to support the older retirees. (When SS started, there were 19 workers for every person collecting benefits.)

If you view having children simply as an aspect of social engineering (which it isn't as I believe families are far more than that), then there will surely be repercussions when the only people having large families are the poor and uneducated while the educated "sit it out" so that they have a little extra money to go on vacation with.

Re:Kids

[geminidomino]

And the vast majority seem to be outside the union of those two sets.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

I think die will take care of grow old.

Re:Kids

[tautog]

Wil Wheaton, is that you?

Re:Kids

[twistedcubic]

If I understand what you're saying, people should stop procreating altogether. The human race should end because existing isn't "economical"?

Re:Kids

[twistedcubic]

Actually, in my experience, the latest Gnash ALWAYS works on Youtube.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a few generations back, more than 50% of the potential workforce did not work (i.e. the women before they were accepted in the workplace), and yet the world did not end. The relative decline in the workforce caused by population decline will be much smaller than that, and is nothing society won't be able to handle.

Unless you thought he was actually suggesting that everybody should stop having children.

Re:Kids

[fahrbot-bot]

Obligatory: Family Decals

My wife and I couldn't and didn't have children, so we were the couple on the right. She died in Jan 2006, after 20.5 years together, so now I'm alone, but I don't regret one second of our life together - just the two of us. We kissed, hugged and said "I love you" every day, held hands wherever we went and did almost everything together. She even died in my arms. I still wear my wedding ring every day.

Re:Kids

[MightyYar]

I'm too cheap for that. They get occasional access to a Kindle and that's it :)

Re:Kids

[MightyYar]

Yeah, different world. Of course, my six-year-old is reading books that I read 3 years later, so I can't really complain.

In my daughter's school, the "real" homework doesn't start until 1st grade.

Re:Kids

[Nefarious Wheel]

WWWWW?
(What would Will Wheaton want?)

Re:Kids

[MightyYar]

Well, I disagree. My daughter can look up anything she wants about space or animals on National Geographic. Sure, she can also watch crap - but when she does it too much, I tell her "no more videos" and she listens. I can log her in to Khan Academy and let her explore math that is beyond what they are teaching in school. I'm right there in case she needs help, but it gives me more one on one time with my younger son. He's at the age where he constantly wants to be read to. Both son and daughter are doing extremely well in school - though my son is quite young to make that sort of statement. I would have to buy a set of encyclopedias to get just a fraction of the usefulness of the computer, and I doubt it would be as fun for the kids.

Re:Kids

[MightyYar]

Only the videos work for Khan Academy, not the exercises.

Adblock+ kills Flash ads, so they aren't an issue at all.

Re:Kids

[Nefarious Wheel]

(1) Social Security is paid for. It is not leading to collapse.
(2) Social Security was paid for by the old people who paid into it all their working lives.
(3) Young people are just starting to pay for their share, it's just being deferred.

Discuss.

Re:Kids

[Nefarious Wheel]

So not wanting offspring due to the Life Ruination they cause is unreasonable according to you? Perhaps becoming a parent induces a sort of mild mental illness.

Having kids costs you all of your money, all of your time, and most of your sleep.
Thing is, I was happy to pay that. My kids are worth it.

I wouldn't say it's a mental illness, just elevated levels of serotonin and oxytocin.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

The older you get the more you appreciate your children.

I don't like this absolute. Mostly because it's not necessarily true.

Re:Kids

[pollarda]

Yea. That's what they like to tell you. That is except for the fact that the Feds have already spent all the Social Security money.

Fyi: There is no such thing as a "lock box". The Supreme Court has ruled that it is illegal for the Federal Government to set aside funds. Everything goes into the general fund for our politicians to spend on their pet projects.

Re:Kids

[cheekyjohnson]

There are much more important things in life.

Such as... having children when you don't want them? What is and is not important is subjective to begin with.

And I quite frankly don't see the sense in not leaving a legacy.

You're dead and you don't even get to see it. I guess it can sound interesting while you're alive, but I personally don't see the point.

Re:Kids

[hairyfish]

I don't think you understand how government spending works.

Re:Kids

[tqk]

It's sad how many people here seem to genuinely think that "saving money" is a good reason not to have children. What exactly are you saving money for? Buying your next gadget? There are much more important things in life. And I quite frankly don't see the sense in not leaving a legacy.

Yeah, saving money is a dumb reason not to have kids. I can think of lots of better ones. Two (five?) years of toilet training each and a small fortune in diapers in landfills, still being tied to your ex-wife by child support long after the divorce, finding out your kid just pulled a Columbine (or murdered you and did a Newtown).

There are much better ways to leave a legacy. Do you know the names of Einstein's children? Q.E.D.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Youtube's HTML5 test has been major disappointment. I read that Google has a system of rewards enticing you to enable advertisements. I visite youtube for videogame walkthroughs. Something as simple as having an icon on one of those user IDs I visit requires advertisements. Ads FORCE flash on all those videos. It is a losing battle.

The funny thing is that if you watch these same videos on android, there are no ads at all. That must be because there is no Flashless ubiquitous platform to deliver those same ads. I thought it was just because videos are delivered through flash-less containers, but when I visit those sites on a desktop with the HTML trial mode, there's no effect. I forget if I've tried on Safari.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

++parent

excellent one sentence explanation of the pyramid scheme called social security (or indeed any government "fund" that isn't actually funded ;-).

ironically many social security advocates are also "think of the children" types, unknowingly selling their children into slavery to pay for their excesses. liberal democracy is a lovely system of freedom, isn't it?

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody
endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frederic Bastiat

Re:Kids

[EGSonikku]

Well, you can always use Khan Academy on your tablet or phone - no flash needed.

Re:Kids

[UnanimousCoward]

I am. Or at least I was :-)

Re:Kids

[MightyYar]

The tablet app is pretty much useless on our Kindle Fire HD. Maybe it's better on an iPad, but I don't have one to test it out.

Re:Kids

[Eskarel]

It doesn't help that whenever the government tries to throw parents a bone and help out with things like education, the childless get outraged that money is being spent that doesn't benefit them. The fact that without a next generation to do the actual work even people like Mitt Romney will have a pretty crappy retirement(money can't buy what isn't there) and most of us won't be able to retire at all, but we parents are just a bunch of freeloaders who didn't think to use a condom.

Re:Kids

[ChrisMaple]

Not that I think the system is good, but if you are healthy, live in a low cost of living area, own your own home, aren't a spendthrift, and have accumulated a lifetime's work worth of "Social Security", you can live off it, easily. If you live long enough you're effectively living off the money stolen from other people instead of the money stolen from you, but that's an issue for ethics and the nation's finance, not personal finance.

Re:Kids

[Eskarel]

A more apt point is that the non family members you pay for are someone else's children, which is to say that if you don't want to die alone in a ditch no matter how much money you may have, someone needs to have kids, or build much better robots.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

And he'd be none the wiser. "Happy" or "not happy" wouldn't even apply at that point.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Well sure, on an individual level you can never really know what your life would be like had you "taken another fork in the road" (have kids, pick a particular college, get married, take a certain job...). All one can do is engage in "what if..." games. We can look at the aggregate (studies), but you have to ask how well you are represented by any particular population in the study. For example, in this case, do the studies include accidental parents? parents who thought having kids would fix their broken relationships? parents who had kids because "that is what you are supposed to do"? parents of two year olds? parents of teenagers? parents with adult children?

That said, I feel like I can actually make an intelligent judgement. I had my kid late, so I had time to establish a baseline and stability. So, while my life would certainly be different, I know it wouldn't really be radically different because relatively little else has changed about my life since before he arrived. I know exactly what I am missing out on, and while I miss some of it quite keenly some days, a hug, a "dada" or the thrill of watching him figure out a word and how to use it wipes most wistfulness away. I would rarely describe myself as "happy", but my son certainly does much to contribute to my happiness quotient. [now ask me again in a few years when he is a rebellious teen...]

Re:Kids

[Lotana]

Thank you for sharing this. So many people around me are adamant that happiness in life is impossible without having a child. Perhaps they are so set on it to justify in their minds the decision they made.

It is refreshing to hear another opinion on life from someone that has been through it.

Re:Kids

[Old Wolf]

That your kids make you happier than anything else you have now DOES NOT imply that you would not be happier without them. IIRC there are studies that have shown people without children are in fact happier than those with children.

You don't know what true happiness is until you have children.

Re:Kids

[fahrbot-bot]

Thank you for sharing this. So many people around me are adamant that happiness in life is impossible without having a child. Perhaps they are so set on it to justify in their minds the decision they made.

You're welcome. I've heard many opinions over the years. My wife and I were an unusual couple. We met in 1985 when I was 22 and she was 41 (and twice divorced). She never could get pregnant, and certainly not when I met her, and I promised her that I was fine with that. When people asked if we had children, I usually started with a simple "no", but people would then ask "when would we", to which I would reply that we couldn't and that it was okay - really okay - then many, many people would immediately responded that we could adopt - yada, yada, yada - sigh.

My only regret was that we didn't get more time together. Sure 20 years seems like a long time, but not with the right person. The day before Thanksgiving 2005 she was diagnosed with a brain tumor and died seven weeks later in Jan 2006 - just like that, or so it seemed.

Remember Sue...

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

you can enable an experimental webgl version of streetview that seems to work just fine for me.

" We detected that your computer does not meet the system performance requirements for MapsGL"

Thanks, Google, for being micro-controlling dicks AGAIN.

Re:Kids

[MaskedSlacker]

The plural of platitude is not data.

Re:Kids

[drsquare]

There's a reason they secretly enroll you into the HTML5 trial on Youtube without telling you: it's because it's awful. I had weeks of terrible playback before I worked out what was going on and reverted to flash.

I wonder how many other people are wondering why Youtube keeps stuttering and don't know anything about it.

Re:Kids

[tehcyder]

Saving a shitload of money wasn't enough of a reason?

If you judge your life purely on financial considerations, you will die an unhappy, friendless old man. Misers are among the most miserable of human beings.

Re:Kids

[tehcyder]

people who have children tend to be less happy

Who says?

Re:Kids

[tehcyder]

Economically, today, children are a terrible idea.

If you run your whole life like a fucking bank account, I truly feel sorry for you.

Re:Kids

[tehcyder]

The older you get the more you appreciate your children.

I don't like this absolute. Mostly because it's not necessarily true.

Yes it is. Children are far more interesting once they've grown up, unless you're an infantile baby hugger, in which case you might just as well keep buying kittens, as they're far cuter and better value than human babies.

Re:Kids

[tehcyder]

If you did not have kids your life would be radically different. You would have things you DO NOT have now.

Things do not make you happy. People do.

You do not need to have children to be happy, but you need something other than more material possessions.

Re:Kids

[tehcyder]

So not wanting offspring due to the Life Ruination they cause is unreasonable according to you? Perhaps becoming a parent induces a sort of mild mental illness.

I think slashdot should follow facebook's example and have a minimum age limit. It gets pretty tedious reading twelve year olds' inane posturings.

Re:Kids

[tehcyder]

Immortality for your genes isn't worth very much. It gives you a legacy, but you don't get to see it.

I'm young enough that I've a chance, if only a very slim one, that immortality-tech will become available within my lifetime. Body transplant, cryonics that actually works, maybe even the holy grail of mind uploading. It's a long shot, but it's the only chance I see. If not, well... not much I can do about it.

No offence, but you're a fucking retard who's swallowed the Kurzweilian Koolaid.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, next time, you could leave some sort of indicator that you were attempting something resembling humor?

If not, then just quietly accept responsibility for looking like the humorless, self-centered dick you appear to be.

Re:Kids

[tehcyder]

Speak for yourself. Where I live, people look after their parents.

Re:Kids

[tehcyder]

Thank you for sharing this. So many people around me are adamant that happiness in life is impossible without having a child. Perhaps they are so set on it to justify in their minds the decision they made.

It is refreshing to hear another opinion on life from someone that has been through it.

Happiness is quite possible without having a child, but the trouble on slashdot is people making it a dichotomy between children and money. Having a loving wife and no kids is a lot different than being a lonely misanthropic miser with a lot of money in the bank but no love.

Re:Kids

[tehcyder]

still being tied to your ex-wife by child support long after the divorce

Not everyone gets divorced. And why precisely shouldn't you pay child support?

Re:Kids

[ByOhTek]

I haven't had flash for six of the past seven years. I've not missed it terribly. But then again, I've not got kids, as you say.

About a year ago I got a computer with good virtualization extension on the CPU. Woo-hoo! Youtube!
And they come out with H.264 stuff, so I only sometimes need it to watch a video :-)

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Khan academy videos are on youtube and work fine if you join HTML5 trial on Youtube.

Gnash sometimes works, sometimes not.

Google Streetview, yeah it would be nice if that worked without Flash. There is no reason why it could not. It's just a matter of Google investing money/time/effort to get that working.

I personally don't use Flash. For years. It certainly is possible to live without it. The smaller amount of ads alone makes that worth.

Thanks, Youtube has been broken for me for weeks since Flash quit working on Chrome under Linux for me. One would think Google's video service would just work in their own browser.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a bunch of nonsense. You can sit here and play all the "what if" games you want, but it'll never amount to anything but hot air.

As for those studies, [citation needed]. I'm not aware of any that have been done scientifically - it looks like mostly they were done from the hip without a proper separation of what a couple wanted and what they ended up with, etc.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

I can tell you're young and inexperienced. Don't worry, one day you'll grow up and start to see that there is indeed more than one way to view the world.

For now, enjoy the simplicity of never being wrong and absolutely knowing all the answers - it's not a feeling you get to keep for long.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Zing. And I couldn't agree more, though there are a lot of "adults" that seem to be experts in impersonating 12 y/os.

Re:Kids

[g253]

So, become a sperm donor. No investment, and you can even make a few bucks.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be fine with that.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you cannot simply uninstall kids, I am all for raising the abortion deadline to the 30th post-natal year.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Ricky Bobby! Figure you should make it to 230 - 250 easy?

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone values money more than friends, why would they care whether they have friends or not when they die?

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

the ability of your government to support you and your 'social security' in retirement is directly correlated with the number of people working in the economy and paying taxes.

That's true only if the system is designed incorrectly (as it is in the USA).

The correct design is for people's contributions to be saved in an account and invested for decades, allowing the awesome power of compound growth to do its magic. The account also needs strict legal protections to prevent corrupt politicians from raiding it and spending it to get re-elected.

Albert Einstein supposedly said that compound interest is the most powerful force in the universe. Even if that's just a legend, compounding is still the only thing powerful enough to allow people to fund their own retirement without having to sacrifice much during their working years.

Unfortunately, many countries use a vastly inferior system, in which the government takes money from the young and immediately gives it to the old -- eliminating the benefit of compounded growth. Also, this kind of system can't provide the confidence that comes with knowing that a legally-protected account has been established exclusively for your benefit in retirement. Instead, it causes people to worry about whether future changes in politics or population distribution will end up hurting their retirement finances.

Re:Kids

[rastos1]

Doing without Flash is like doing without a flu. Good riddance.

Re:Kids

[rastos1]

Actually I find myself un-enrolled from the trial after several weeks. And I join it again. You know why? Because the video downloads full length rather than downloading a few minutes buffer ahead and hoping that I don't seek forward too much. Also with Flash it often happens that once the download stops because that small forward-buffer is full, it then fails to start again and it can only be restarted by full reload of the page and starting from the beginning. PITA.

Re:Kids

[defaria]

WTF man! What can you do with a shitload of money? You can spend it to do things and explore the world. You can give to those in need. You can do a ton of stuff. The only thing the guy was saying to not spend it on was kids. Everything fucking other thing is open for you to spend it on. When then do you pull the bullshit of being a Scrooge?!? Are you really that dumb of a fuck? Some people don't want to be parents you nimrod and there's nothing wrong with that!

Re:Kids

[volmtech]

I think they mean "saving" as not having to spend a lot of money raising children, not banking that money. I am sure that if I had not had four children I still would not have any savings. I also would not have a son with a law degree and a nice house to take me in if I need a place to stay.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Guys, You have to be able to get women before you need to worry about either of the above.

Re:Kids

[randyleepublic]

You are leaving out one that is further advanced than all those: eliminating aging through telomerase activation.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the thought experiment for this idea:
Think about this idea and apply it to your life: "Money is the excrement of work."
(so, if you like to hold on to money, or work a job just for the money, or play with your money, or, well, you get the idea)

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

So is Catholicism. I believe children are a gift from God. I state this in this way as it is MY belief, which you are obviously have a right to disagree. Every child that my wife and I have been given has changes our lives so much for the better, that I can't imagine what my life would be like without my children, we have 6. It is true that we aren't wealthy materially, but life is about so much more than stuff. Being completely honest if you are reasonable about what children really NEED, the $265,000 a year or whatever ridiculous figure is tossed out as a means to deter people from having children is absurd.

PS as I am posting this with the handle of an anonymous coward (I don't even have a login for /.), I have to say I don't believe posting it under any other anonymous handle is anymore courageous.

Re:Kids

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel sorry for you people who "need" to have kids. I will tell you its not a logical or considered need, it is taught by a church eager for new recruits..

There's plenty to do with your money sans kids. Such as investing in a better planet with fewer people.

Re:Kids

[countach]

"why precisely shouldn't you pay child support?"

Maybe because he didn't want the kids, and now they are nothing but financial drain. QED the original subjective opinion of wanting kids.

HTML5 on YouTube?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have any direct experience, but I think YouTube will serve up HTML5 instead of Flash. Any details?

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[MightyYar]

Yes, this is the case. It took me a while to realize that Apple no longer ships Flash with Macs, and so I was using YouTube sans Flash for about a month. It works on some videos, but not on others.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all videos can be played with the HTML5, unless they figured out how to properly serve ads since I last checked.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[eksith]

All new videos, I think, get encoded into HTML5 friendly formats. Older videos may still not be.

HTML5 A/V could be a fantastic alternative, if only people would settle on a universal codec. Google is still firmly on WebM, while Opera and Firefox is all over Theora/Vorbis and Ogg and, of course, IE 9+ still natively supports MP4 only in H.264, I think. And Safari does QuickTime too.

Right now, the only way anyone publishing video will get away with only an HTML5 video option is if they encode to different formats, different resolutions and still provide a Flash fallback for older/incompatible browsers. Quite a mess.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[jader3rd]

I don't have any direct experience, but I think YouTube will serve up HTML5 instead of Flash. Any details?

Yes, mostly. I haven't signed up for HTML5 experience, but I do run with Flash enabled on a site per site basis. I don't have it enabled for YouTube. I've ran into a few videos that didn't play without Flash, but the vast majority of them do.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[macs4all]

Yes, this is the case. It took me a while to realize that Apple no longer ships Flash with Macs, and so I was using YouTube sans Flash for about a month. It works on some videos, but not on others.

Yeah, in my experience, the ratio of "works" to "doesn't work" is about 10,000:1. I figure that Google probably doesn't constantly churn through their entire collection from A-Z, searching for, and converting, all of their old videos to HTML 5; but has some algorithm for deciding what priority to put on converting old videos (new ones are ALWAYS available in HTML 5), and so that accounts for the occasional "doesn't work". Nothing else explains inconsistency, considering that ALL they deliver are videos.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[Anonymous Coward]

All videos, however, can be downloaded from youtube as a .mp4, a .flv, whatever, then played in a normal movie player anyway. I haven't used flash in three years, and I've never run across anything on youtube I couldn't watch, unless it was "blocked in my region due to copyright concerns" or something. For a while at the beginning the tools were subpar, and you had to keep an array of them around, but these days something like Minitube will just work and leave your CPU unpegged.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[watermark]

Being part of the HTML5 trial isn't enough. You have to spoof your user-agent to a mobile device and use the mobile version of the site. I really wish they would hurry up and stop forcing flash on the desktop.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[tepples]

Google is still firmly on WebM, while Opera and Firefox is all over Theora/Vorbis and Ogg

Opera and Firefox support WebM (VP8+Vorbis in a subset of the Matroska container).

IE 9+ still natively supports MP4 only in H.264, I think. And Safari does QuickTime too.

IE 9 supports WebM through a plug-in.

and still provide a Flash fallback for older/incompatible browsers

For IE 8 users, what benefit is there to using the Adobe Flash Player plug-in over the Google Chrome Frame plug-in?

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[tepples]

Has YouTube yet fixed the inconsistency where only Flash is allowed to deliver videos that have ads of any sort?

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[jones_supa]

Minitube is actually really nice, it's just a shame that it does not really support all the functionality of YouTube. It's best suited for watching random stuff.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[remi2402]

Quite a mess.

Not quite.

You can support almost all browsers out there with only two codecs: H.264 + your choice of ogg/theora or webm/vp8. And the H.264 will of course still work with Flash. This URL http://caniuse.com/#feat=webm is very handy if you want to see for yourself.

At least that's the situation for static streaming / VOD. Live broadcast is where the mess is with Apple's HLS, Microsoft's HSS, Adobe's RTMP, MPEG's DASH along with IETF-standard RTSP (15 years old but still somewhat alive) and various less-known protocols. AFAICT, none of the recent protocols (that support adaptive bandwidth and work over HTTP) support open audio/video codecs. If Google/Mozilla/etc want patent-free codecs to get traction, they should work on a version of DASH that works with theora/VP8.

My 0.02€ as a former employee of a large video-streaming-oriented CDN.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[morcego]

It seems it will use Flash if it is available, otherwise it will switch to HTML5 automatically.

I know that, right after I uninstalled Flash, youtube gave me a "plugin missing" sign for 1 second, then did a partial reload and went into HTML5 mode.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[Anonymous Coward]

For IE 8 users, what benefit is there to using the Adobe Flash Player plug-in over the Google Chrome Frame plug-in?

The flash plugin is installed on most computers. Chrome frame is not.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently not. I massively greatly prefer the HTML5 player only because it has the option to play the videos at double speed; but, I rarely get to enjoy that option since most videos have ads and it falls back to the Flash player. (If the Flash player supported double speed playback, I could not care less about Flash vs HTML5 as far as YouTube is concerned.)

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what happens when all the vulnerabilities start showing up on HTML5? And when ads are all converted to HTML5?

I'm not saying HTML5 isn't useful, but it isn't a silver bullet to solve all problems either.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe it is which videos have adverts

The videos that show ads inside the window before playing the actual video play it in flash, meanwhile the rest play it via html5

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they would just let the computer decide the decoder, that'd be perfectly fine. I'd love to put FFDShow Tryouts to work in my browser, especially since the filter setup I use takes care of poor recording quality on most of the crap that goes up on youtube.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[node 3]

Has YouTube yet fixed the inconsistency where only Flash is allowed to deliver videos that have ads of any sort?

Yes. Ad-enabled videos work on the iPad. Though you end up with the issue of not being able to play videos that disallow mobile device playback.

Both of these restrictions are enabled by the video uploader, and both cause (IMO) more harm than good. Any uploader that disables mobile viewing is an uploader I'm far less likely to subscribe to or otherwise watch future videos from.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[spire3661]

I wish they would hurry up and stop differentiating what I have access to by what type of computer im currently using.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[loufoque]

I have the opposite experience.
I am using Google Chrome, and yet I have yet to find a HTML5 video that works properly.

That might be because I'm using Linux, or because I have a very bad and unreliable internet connection. But Flash works (it doesn't work well, there are obvious problems with seeking and buffering, but it works well enough), HTML5 doesn't.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube?

[EGSonikku]

On a Jailbroken iOS device you can also install "ProTube" which will play any video regardless of the uploader disallowing mobile playback (complete with a humorous "The content author has disallowed mobile playback. Click here to play anyway" message). It also allows for downloading of videos, or even just the audio.

I tried it

[ArchieBunker]

Some videos played just fine but other videos played back at 1.5x speed while the audio was normal. Opted out of the trial after that.

Re:I tried it

[NotBorg]

I haven't seen that happen. My experience is more binary. It either worked for a given video or it didn't there was no half way. Ironically, some older videos about openness and free standards were some of the ones that didn't work. This was some time ago.

I'd like to take a moment to extend my middle finger to any site that uses Flash for non DRM video. DRM is the only reason you should use Flash at all and it's not even a good reason at that. Fuck you Google. Set YouTube Free. You were going to do it at one point then just stopped and have been sitting on your dick ever since.

Re:I tried it

[Runaway1956]

"sitting on your dick"

That would be an odd experience, I imagine. I've had OTHER people to sit on my dick. It's rather similar to having someone sit on your lap, but a bit more intimate. If you figure out how to sit on your own lap, let us all know, alright? Remember, though: Pics, or it didn't happen!!

Re:I tried it

[ColdWetDog]

No, no. He meant sitting on your duck. His post almost makes sense when you read it that way.

Re:I tried it

[node 3]

Some videos played just fine but other videos played back at 1.5x speed while the audio was normal. Opted out of the trial after that.

Was the audio Yakkity Sax? Because I think I know what your problem was...

zero punctuation

[AvitarX]

Cannot live without

Re:zero punctuation

[TheMMaster]

The escapist has html5 video support (webm and h.264) if you subscribe to their 'publisher's club' it's 20 dollars a year. I use that, for the single purpose of not having to deal with Flash.

Re:zero punctuation

[bcmm]

This seems completely weird to me. It's like having a free website, optimised for IE6 at 1024x768, and charging people for modern, standards-compliant HTML.

Re:zero punctuation

[TheMMaster]

I don't think it's quite that nefarious. You get the ability to download the movies basically, something that is ostensibly 'impossible' with the flash player. You also get higher resolutions and they take out all the ads. I don't consider it a bad deal for an copy-edited gaming magazine without ads for a year. :)

I did say that's why *I* pay for it, not that it's the only thing you get :)

Vigilance

[baresi]

As long as you don't create a false sense of security for yourself. Flash (and Java) get all the headlines and sometimes deservedly so but the web is unsafe unless the user is vigilant. Vigilance is more than just disabling stuff, well unless you are talking about 'disabling' everything living totally offline.

Re:Vigilance

[node 3]

Only if you treat a subjective word like "safe" as an objective absolute. Nothing, anywhere, is absolutely safe. Putting the burden on the user and giving them the impossible task of being "vigilant" is not helpful.

However, if you treat safety as the subjective word it is, you may realize that removing Flash and Java will increase your safety on the web by an enormous amount. Most people aren't technologically savvy enough to use vigilance as a safety mechanism. Just avoid Flash and Java, run antivirus software (if you're on Windows), keep up with software updates (on all platforms), and only enter in personal and financial info into sites you trust, and you're about as safe as can be reasonably expected.

Even with all that, there's still a risk, but it's a reasonable risk. The sort of risks we deal with in every other aspect of our lives without fear. Why should we treat the risk and safety aspects of computers any different?

What? And, what?

[wonkey_monkey]

This provoked some shock and incredulity from others.

Er, did it? I think some of you have your surprise bar set a little low, if one guy uninstalling Flash is enough to make you apoplectic.

probably a prudent movie

What about the imprudent movies? How are we supposed to watch those now?

Gnash

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not, for the hell of it, live with Gnash, the GNU Flash alternative, for six months? Maybe no Flash at all is better than dealing with a crashing Gnash, but who knows, you might be surprised!

Re:Gnash

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with Flash alternatives is that they don't work for a very significant use case: DRM video. If you have just one use for Adobe's Flash, you're fucking stuck with it. Wake me when DCMA goes away and these alternatives are free to actually be viable alternatives. As it is it's illegal to reverse engineer the DRM even for the sake of compatibility. Even if that DRM is nothing but ineffective weak sauce like what Adobe has.

It's time we took the DVD key approach and offered alternatives that are hosted in other countries. Unfortunately, unlike DVDs, Flash is a moving target. An arms race will be necessary.

Re:Gnash

[jones_supa]

Not everything has to be free. I understand the need of broadcasters to protect their content.

Two Month without adobe pdf and I feel ..

[burni2]

.. fine, because now I use SumatraPDF, small fast no nagware no nagdates .. I feel great!

Re:Two Month without adobe pdf and I feel ..

[Ceriel Nosforit]

Try MuPDF for size.

Press 'I' to invert colors, Shift-W to scale to width. Indispensable for when you have a headache.

Re:Two Month without adobe pdf and I feel ..

[OzPeter]

.. fine, because now I use SumatraPDF, small fast no nagware no nagdates .. I feel great!

I use a Mac and I have been smugly without Adobe PDF software every since I got it 5 years ago.

Re:Two Month without adobe pdf and I feel ..

[jones_supa]

.. fine, because now I use SumatraPDF, small fast no nagware no nagdates .. I feel great!

Windows 8 comes also with a nice Reader app for PDFs.

Re:Two Month without adobe pdf and I feel ..

[Anonymous Coward]

I love this. Thanks for bringing it to my attention =)

Re:Two Month without adobe pdf and I feel ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides Preview.app, I also recommend Skim.app.

Re:Two Month without adobe pdf and I feel ..

[node 3]

Well, a "nice" tablet UI-based Reader app for PDFs.

Re:Two Month without adobe pdf and I feel ..

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been enjoying using both PDF.js and Evince for my needs. (Both on Windows and Linux.)

I wonder how the other ones posted here compare, those already seem pretty small and fast.

Re:Two Month without adobe pdf and I feel ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Zathura is another good alternative. Very lightweight and fast, and very good keybindings, making it very easy to jump to an arbitrary page, zoom, search, or follow a link, etc. all without needing to use the mouse.

Re:Two Month without adobe pdf and I feel ..

[Anonymous Coward]

wow. that MS bunch is quite the innovative crowd. Now if only I could have a second file opened next to the pdf; well, at least it leaves room for improvement. Lots of room...

Re:Two Month without adobe pdf and I feel ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Big fan of PDF X-Change Viewer [http://www.tracker-software.com/product/pdf-xchange-viewer].

Videos?

[watermark]

In chrome, type "about:plugins" in the url and disable flash. Go to Hulu or Youtube and ask the question again.

Flash is dying, but it's far from dead. Google has incentive to offer all of their videos in html5 and they can't or won't do it.

Re:Videos?

[node 3]

That's dead enough for me.

Sure

[Anonymous Coward]

I can also live without computers, running water and electricity. That is the state that the whole human race has lived in until not so long ago and the state too many humans still live in. But why would I want to?

I need my daily dose of animated bicycle gore.

[maeka]

Happy Wheels requires Flash.

http://www.totaljerkface.com/happy_wheels.php

Re:Flashblock

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Just run the Flash you trust and need for normal functionality. Done and done.

The mere presence of Flash on the system allows it to be craftily run in more areas than you might expect(as with the 'flash exploit embedded in an Office document' story seen here just recently, along with PDFs in Acrobat and a bunch of other abominations). Even if you can find the correct toggles to shut that off, Flash's updater can't really be trusted not to merrily reinstall things whenever the next update comes out; but running a version of Flash that isn't the newest is just asking for trouble...

If it were only confined to a browser(and a browser that didn't trust it in the slightest), it wouldn't be so bad.

So did I, about four months ago.

[magic maverick]

I'd got rid of Adobe Flash ages ago, at least a year ago. I noticed that Gnash wasn't cutting it though for the few things I was trying to use it for (basically Youtube and the occasional stupid game). So, about four months ago I got rid of Gnash as well. No problem at all. OK, so the occasional Youtube video won't work in HTML 5 mode. I can cope. I really can! (The slow Internet speed which means it takes twenty minutes to download a three minute video helps as well.)

And I can't think of anything else that requires Flash. Videos and games and that's it.

And the article poster seems to have a similar experience. Nothing's missed.

Re:So did I, about four months ago.

[Ceriel Nosforit]

I noticed that Gnash wasn't cutting it though for the few things I was trying to use it for (basically Youtube and the occasional stupid game).

That WAS ages ago... as you said. I see Gnash is a little CPU-hungry, but playback has been smooth for me. I don't miss Adobe Flash one bit.

There's experimental GPU acceleration in the works too.

youtube-dl

is nice too, if you don't mind the lack of streaming. I'm not actually sure why playback doesn't work on partially downloaded files.

Re:So did I, about four months ago.

[jones_supa]

Gotta add that VLC can play YouTube videos too. In XFCE I was able to create a launcher for VLC and drag'n'drop URLs to the icon.

Re:So did I, about four months ago.

[JThundley]

Playback does work on partially downloaded files with youtube-dl. You have to wait a couple seconds before playing the partially downloaded file and skipping might not work, but I just reconfirmed that it works with mplayer. Try it!

Re:So did I, about four months ago.

[CODiNE]

I'm not actually sure why playback doesn't work on partially downloaded files.

That seems to be a problem related to the video not the app. I've seen this in several different file containers, from what I can tell MPEG4 has some kind of built in index at the front of the file that gets checked for consistency before it plays. Unless the file is intended for streaming in which case it's set up a bit differently. Quicktime won't play many cut off videos but VLC will play them often after an error message. If it's an AVI with MPEG4 video it'll offer to repair the file.

Re:So did I, about four months ago.

[Anonymous Coward]

So far, playback has worked for me for any files whatsoever with youtube -dl. However, I've patched it to only download the formats the ancient mplayer I'm using actually supports (the patch is somewhere in the github tracker). If I want to watch anything in HD, I have to transfer those files to my tvix media player. That thing crashes for some files (~ 2%), but this can always be fixed by repackaging the file as a mkv, e.g. with mkvmerge or vlc (no transcoding necessary).

Re:So did I, about four months ago.

[TeknoHog]

Well, you can basically get streaming with

youtube-dl -o - $URL | mplayer -

The only difference to actually streaming is that you cannot jump into the middle of a video straight away. But after caching for a while, you can move back and forth with MPlayer's usual keys.

Re:So did I, about four months ago.

[Ceriel Nosforit]

I just tried it. It's beautiful, and I learned how to use - for std I/O. Thanks!

Re:Live without Java

[simoncpu was here]

In an ideal world, I could live a life without Java, but I love my Android phone...

pr0n

[Anonymous Coward]

I have uninstalled flash for technical reasons on GNU/Linux, the maintained version of the player simply uses a processor instruction not supported by my CPU. I would like to note the obvious: free adult entertainment, meaning porn videos, were long relying on Flash ever since it replaced downloadable mpegs/avi/wmv, and for many (free) sites, the quality of which wasn't good to begin with, this meant loss of content. However after some searching I found that xhamster and others have alternative players that serve mp4, which plays fine in the browser or when downloaded, which I prefer.

Given that standardized video formats now exists, and the implementation of player controls is no longer exclusive to Adobe Flash, I see the web clearly going into the direction of no longer using flash, adult content and mainstream news alike. I will no longer be a users (or customer, where applicable) of those that refuse to change in this manner. And with competition being as feirce as it is, that should create enough pressue on the content market.

Hulu, etc.

[IANAAC]

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view of cable/sat companies), I rely on Hulu for most of my entertainment, since I don't have cable - and actually can't get, due to remoteness. No way around the site without flash.

But also: MSNBC (TRMS, occasionally Morning Joe). Pretty much any decent video site still uses flash.

Re:Hulu, etc.

[jader3rd]

But also: MSNBC

For MSNBC change your user agent string to the IPad's user agent string and they'll server up Flash free video.

Re:Hulu, etc.

[Mousit]

I second you on that any decent video site. Not just news websites and Hulu, but I found that even YouTube can't live without it yet. Much has been touted about the site itself using HTML5 in place of Flash, and yeah that works fine. However, embedded videos? All still Flash. Unless you go to YouTube.com directly and view, you still need Flash. Doubly annoying because embedded videos don't appear at all, just the usual "broken plugin" placeholder, so you can't even get the link out of it to be able to go view the video directly.

Re:Hulu, etc.

[ericcc65]

An Amazon Instant Video...flash only currently.

Re:Hulu, etc.

[macs4all]

An Amazon Instant Video...flash only currently.

Inexcusable.

Re:Hulu, etc.

[tepples]

I rely on Hulu for most of my entertainment, since I don't have cable - and actually can't get, due to remoteness.

Without cable, how do you get broadband Internet? If satellite, then how do you avoid getting your service terminated for going over the typical cap of 10 GB/mo (source: exede.com)? And if satellite, why can't you get satellite TV?

Re:Hulu, etc.

[Anubis IV]

Chrome has a version of Flash baked in. If you're using Firefox or something else, you can have the security of not running Flash, then can simply switch to Chrome for Hulu and the few other sites that don't support alternative offerings. I'm actually in the same boat as you, and I'm trying to manage things this way after uninstalling Flash in light of the most recent security risks.

Re:Hulu, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, not really.

Re:Hulu, etc.

[IANAAC]

I rely on Hulu for most of my entertainment, since I don't have cable - and actually can't get, due to remoteness.

Without cable, how do you get broadband Internet? If satellite, then how do you avoid getting your service terminated for going over the typical cap of 10 GB/mo (source: exede.com)? And if satellite, why can't you get satellite TV?

I'm in an area that gets DSL, albeit only 2M down, through Century Link (they suck) but still fast enough to stream video as long as I'm not doing anything else on the connection.

As for satellite caps, I could get Sky Blue, which has much higher caps, but the price is also much higher. I do have a huge antenna on the roof that can pull in the major network stations from the nearest city, about 100 miles away, but I almost never watch live TV, unless it's the local news.

Re:Hulu, etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't there a plugin for XMBC that supports Hulu without Flash?

Not Flash, but Silverlight

[Gaygirlie]

Netflix uses Silverlight, something that sucks quite a bit. They do offer a dedicated app if you use Windows 8, but the app is surprisingly poorly designed, plus I don't really want Windows 8 on my desktop.

Re:Not Flash, but Silverlight

[green1]

I can't believe how many sites use silverlight. Even Microsoft backed away from Silverlight ages ago, but some sites are even just now starting to implement Silverlight. As a Linux user this is EXTREMELY frustrating, and as a user of mobile devices it isn't any better. Silverlight has never worked properly on linux, and nobody has ever made a plugin for it for Android, there was a Linux Firefox plugin ages ago called "moonlight" that seemed to work on about 10% of Silverlight sites, but that stopped development ages ago too, and isnt' compatible with any of the latest browsers.

Re:Not Flash, but Silverlight

[macs4all]

Netflix uses Silverlight, something that sucks quite a bit. They do offer a dedicated app if you use Windows 8, but the app is surprisingly poorly designed, plus I don't really want Windows 8 on my desktop.

Question: What's the only thing worse than Flash?

Answer: Microsoft's attempt to copy it.

Seriously; even Microsoft has given up on Silverlight.

Re:Not Flash, but Silverlight

[gmuslera]

And if Flash, actively maintained by Adobe and with a far bigger test base have so many security flaws, odds don't look so good for Silverlight If security concerns makes you walk away from Flash, then would be wise to run away from Silverlight.

Re:Not Flash, but Silverlight

[greg1104]

Question: What's the only thing worse than Flash?

You mean besides Java applets, right?

Re:Not Flash, but Silverlight

[macs4all]

Question: What's the only thing worse than Flash?

You mean besides Java applets, right?

I'll at least concede they are a tie for uselessness...

Re:Not Flash, but Silverlight

[Branka96]

Compared to Flash, Silverlight has an excellent security history. Yes, I know that doesn't say much.

Re:Not Flash, but Silverlight

[Pieroxy]

Huh? What are you implying by "excellent security history"? That there wasn't many holes discovered?

Hint: If someone was looking for them, there may have been holes discovered.

Re:Not Flash, but Silverlight

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, they use Silverlight? No wonder the damn company is shaky at best.

Even Microsoft dropped Silverlight.

This is why you never implement anything from Microsoft, they always drop them.
Same with Google. Screw the both of them. Always killing things because a brazillion people aren't using them an they aren't gaining 50 gigadollars a second.
Google are considerably worse in this aspect since they are an ADVERTISING COMPANY. How can they NOT advertise their own stuff good?
No wonder half the damn services they used to have are dead. I never even heard of a fifth of them and I used Google Labs quite frequently.
And worse, they are killing iGoogle citing "no way to monetize it", are they STUPID? They have a huge damn sidebar on the left they can stick an ad in.
There is the same thing that is in Gmail, the little ad snippet bar, that can easily be put on iGoogle. Step it up Google, you are embarrassing. Microsoft aren't even that stupid. (but nobody likes to advertise with them anyway because Microsoft)
Now Microsoft are killing XNA and will almost certainly kill C# in the future, along with Google likely killing Dart and Go because said brazillion people aren't using them every nanosecond of their existence.

Long story short, fuck proprietary.
Always have an open source solution before a proprietary solution. Or something that is already too big to fail.
Never use anything new. Ever. Let everyone else do that before you or make a fallback.

Re:Not Flash, but Silverlight

[ArcadeMan]

Someone forgot about Silverlight.

Re:Not Flash, but Silverlight

[ArcadeMan]

And someone should stop reading threads backward.

Re:Not Flash, but Silverlight

[Anonymous Coward]

As a linux user, you're in such a far minority, you don't count.

Re:Not Flash, but Silverlight

[green1]

How about apple users? cell phone users? tablet users? are all of those groups also completely irrelevant?

Silverlight runs on full windows installations only. Microsoft themselves have given up on it and have encouraged companies to move away from it, meanwhile companies are still implementing new websites that work only on silverlight!

I find it abhorent that any website cares what hardware or software I'm using their site on. make it standards compatible, and let ANY browser use it. period. end of story. I don't want a special page for mobile devices, I don't want plugins that only work on a couple of versions of one particular company's web browser. I want standard webpages that work on every browser out there. And the best part is, it's not that hard to do. most sites use plugins that serve no purpose whatsoever on their site. you don't need flash, or silverlight to render a menu of options! we've had standard methods for embeded video for years, and standard methods of downloading those files, or streaming them, for far longer. So many sites spend extra money and effort to make their pages harder to use and compatible with fewer devices.

Bad web design hurts your business more than it helps. Locking out even one person when there's no need to do so hurts your reputation. sure you can be happy that many others are using your site, but wouldn't you be even happier if even more people did?

Re:Not Flash, but Silverlight

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/opensource/how-to-get-netflix-streaming-on-ubuntu-1210/4019
the netflix-desktop app installs nicely in both ubuntu and mint

porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Xxx stuff

Re:porn

[macs4all]

Xxx stuff

I don't think I've seen ANY porn site that REQUIRES Flash for quite some time.

Re:porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Chaturbate.

Re:porn

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think I've seen ANY porn site that REQUIRES Flash for quite some time.

You must be spending most of your time on gay bestiality sites. I've heard they were early adopters of HTML5. :-)

Seriously, I don't think "requires flash" is the appropriate test. I'm not interested in some half-assed cut down version of the site intended for tablet lusers. I will consider flash a requirement until the non-flash version is equal or better than the flash version. Most porn sites are a long way from meeting that standard.

Re:porn

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

(I think pretty much all of the "cam" sites require Flash)

Re:Porn

[Anonymous Coward]

any site with streaming audio/video really - chatroulette too

twitch.tv

[s0nicfreak]

twitch.tv

Re:twitch.tv

[Anonymous Coward]

Justin.tv and twitch.tv are really the same thing, right? I've been using this to watch JTV with no flash. It could probably be adapted if the usher url was changed.

Skritter

[Anonymous Coward]

I use skritter because it's a study aid for my japanese classes. However, since my android tablet can't use flash anymore, I can't use Skritter.

Re:Skritter

[green1]

Or you could install flash on your tablet... just saying...

That's the great part about Android, unlike the iOS devices that don't have flash, we can view the vast majority of the web on our devices.

Re:Skritter

[macs4all]

Or you could install flash on your tablet... just saying...

That's the great part about Android, unlike the iOS devices that don't have flash, we can view the vast majority of the web on our devices.

Yeah, that's JUST what the average Android user needs: ANOTHER vector for exploits...

At the very most, I run into about one or two sites per month on my iPad that won't work due to lazy/cheap site developers. I can certainly live with that.

So, your "vast majority of the web" that "iOS devices cannot view" ACTUALLY turns out to be more like .005% (and falling every day) of sites that actually REQUIRE Flash.

Re:Skritter

[Anonymous Coward]

Nag them for Android version, then.

If they're flash based, they can just switch to Adobe AIR with minimal effort (after all, it's basically standalone Flash runtime).

what he's not saying

[Anonymous Coward]

he switched to chrome.

Streetview

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Streetview on Google Maps needs flash. I would miss that quite a bit.

Re:Streetview

[Anonymous Coward]

If you enable WebGL on Google Maps, I'm almost certain that the streetview is WebGL too, not flash.

Re:Streetview

[Anonymous Coward]

Much better on Google Earth anyway.

Re:Streetview

[quacking duck]

If you enable WebGL on Google Maps, I'm almost certain that the streetview is WebGL too, not flash.

You are correct; just enabled WebGL on my Flash-less Safari, and was pleasantly surprised. No need to switch to Chrome for Street View anymore!

Re:Streetview

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If you enable WebGL on Google Maps, I'm almost certain that the streetview is WebGL too, not flash.

I can't find that setting. Do I have to create a google account and sign in to get that option?

Re:Streetview

[Anonymous Coward]

WebGL on Windows is only not available on XP for all practical intents and purposs.
It was a Chrome feature, and Google decided to start blacklisting videocards, and eventually just stopped recognizing even the few were things were working OK
http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/Uw_ZJwQseKw
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=75298
Eventually Firefox added support for it, and I can enjoy gems such as the 3D Anatomy lessons available via http://zygotebody.com . Google Streetview isn't JUST WebGL --last I checked it requires some sneaky closed-source plugin install, which for all I know is system wide, and gives me a yucky rootkit feeling that I get for every Google product I install.

I try this every now and then...

[gQuigs]

It is getting easier. I eventually reinstalled it because I got tired of not being able to play some youtube videos and wanted to edit a map on OpenStreetMap.

I normally use Click to play on everything (in Firefox), and it does have some pain points. Namely sites that can usually fallback to not using flash, still ask for flash and block it. YouTube does this sometimes even though it is going to work without flash. So does http://gs.statcounter.com/.
Google actually asks for Flash the most out of sites that I use: Google Finance Stocks, Google Voice (download as MP3 instead), Gmail (not useful anyway)...

Many average sites just use Flash for Ads or "Intro Banners" in which case it really is no great loss.

Went without until I needed it for online meetings

[GlobalEcho]

I bought an OSX laptop and successfully avoided Flash for a few months while I was using it to prepare the class I now teach. A good proportion of YouTube videos wouldn't play so I was glad at times to have another computer in the house to watch them, but mostly I didn't miss it at all.

Ultimately, though, it turned out that in order to hold online office hours at our university, I had to install Adobe Connect. That software is Flash from stem to stern. I installed Flash, and it took me a few days to get used to the surprise of animated (and noisy) ads again.

Conclusion: access to Flash is nice at times, but one generally does better without it.

Don't really miss Flash

[macs4all]

I have been using ClickToFlash on Safari for about 3 years now. Eliminating Flash from my browser's normal processing made Safari much more stable (it only crashes about four times a year, instead of four times per week), and sped up page-loads by an incredible amount.

I consider ClickToFlash to be the best of both worlds. Flash that doesn't get to execute is essentially "not there", and unless I don't understand all the attack-vectors (which is likely), I think that, for now, this strikes a good balance. Because, before I click that little "Flash Placeholder", it makes me stop and think about whether I really need to see what's "behind the curtain".

However, on my iPad, which is Flash-Free, I think I run into a Flash-only site only about once or twice a month. Even porn seems to be being delivered in HTML 5 from almost everywhere.

Bottom line: The only thing keeping Flash alive is lazy developers and/or cheapskate PHBs.

Counter experiment

[Anonymous Coward]

And six month ago i didn't uninstall Adobe Flash, since then all the flash contents have played in my browsers. I felt just fine about having it around. So you tell me what your experiment gives?

Google Street View

[Megane]

I have a PC in the living room for playing videos and games. I specifically avoid using a web browser on it.

The other day my mom came to visit and I wanted to show her maps and street view for how to get out of town without getting lost, so I decided the big TV would be great instead of having to position a laptop for two people to see. I tried to start street view and got the puzzle piece icon instead because I had never installed Flash.

Anyhow, what really bugs me is how some flash web ads are able to bypass Ad Block Plus's "Block..." tab. I right click, and sure enough, there's the Flash menu, so I have to bring up the blockable items list to figure out what I need to block.

Haven't used Flash for years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a copyfree zealot, I haven't used Macromedia / Adobe Flash in years. I'm missing out on many Web annoyances, and on very little good. I still get access to all the videos I want via youtube-dl (or my own buggy little equivalent thereof) or BitTorrent - either of which can be used to download Khan Academy videos (an example mentioned above).

Hoping HTML5+ video and something like NaCl will dominate.

--libman

So?

[zmooc]

There's absolutely nothing newsworthy in this post. Apart from the poster calling Overly Attached Girlfriend Overly Obsessed Girlfriend while getting the abbreviation right...

Re:Went without until I needed it for online meeti

[Gaygirlie]

I installed Flash, and it took me a few days to get used to the surprise of animated (and noisy) ads again.

Luckily, those are easy to circumvent if you just use a suitable browser. On Firefox the Adblock Plus - plugin generally manages to hide all ads and the likes, something that also includes most Flash - content, or you can use the Flashblock - plugin to disable Flash altogether on some sites or make it so that you must click on the item in question first before Flash gets loaded.

I have to add, though, that from the security perspective you should not run around without using Flashblock, there are still too many Flash - based attacks roaming the Internet and you never know when they land on your machine. An antivirus may help, but why let the virus/malware package on your machine in the first place?

Re:bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

*you're

Actually, he didn't get rid of flash completely

[Anonymous Coward]

He still used Google Chrome. Guess what is built into chrome? That's right, Adobe Flash. The truth is you can't get rid of flash and keep Chrome. Don't believe me? Take a look yourself.
http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/flash-player-google-chrome.html

Re:Actually, he didn't get rid of flash completely

[flimflammer]

You realize you can disable that extension, right? Without it enabled in chrome, it won't work anywhere, in or out of chrome. Fairly certain if you wanted to "uninstall" it completely, you can delete the file the flash extension is stored in.

Re:Live without Java

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

In an ideal world, I could live a life without Java, but I love my Android phone...

Stop, stop, you are making Larry Ellison's lawyers cry.

Wait, actually, that's probably a feature. Carry on.

my life without flash

[larry bagina]

I ran a flash-block script for a while, then removed flash completely a year or two ago. Ok -- I'm not completely flash-free: if something depends on it (hulu and south park studios primarily), I use Chrome, which has a built-in flash. HTML 5 video is fine in Safari. (Firefox is more hit or miss). Occasionally, I'll hit a site with a flash video player or flash audio player, etc. 99% of the time, I don't care enough to waste 2 seconds running it in chrome, so nothing lost.

Some VMware products depend on it

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't manage VMware View without flash. It's terrible, but there we have it :-/

So - he bought an ipad?

[dlingman]

Seriously, millions of people get by just fine without flash support while wandering the web. Why is this news?

Education

[Anonymous Coward]

One of my college proffesors requires flash for his class.

Sucks to be me.

Not hard since the iPad

[The123king]

Since the iPad came out, many websites hve justed their sites so flash isn't needed. Indeed, with Flashblock on my mac, i find the times i actually need flash are few and far between. I could probably live without flash or java even for browsing nowadays.

Use it or dont - if you do learn more security

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to be paranoid, safe, ahead of the curve, compromise what you can do, then remove flash. If you want the internet the way it is then you'll still need flash. Seems like knowing what the vulnerabilities are is half the battle, the other half is protecting yourself from them. Home users need an easy firewall that can help them mitigate the risks, but firewalls are typical only understood by network techs - and don't totally eliminate the problem.

It amazes me how may ports are open in Windows. Gopher protocol...yeah I need that still?!? Guess the burden of having to know stuff is more than ranting about how much we miss flash...and computers should be perfect...

Seems like the ISPs could get better about blocking malicious content, but that's time and money they probably don't want to spend, plus tons of hassle from their customers. A slippery slope indeed.

I've started segmenting what I do on what computers. Anything personal that I'd worry about getting hacked goes on the secure computer. Emails, Facebook, banking sites etc. It's a VM so it's never on too long, and I don't have the VM set to share unnecessary resources with the host, and it's locked down by the old windows firewall - which is an oxymoron i guess.

Just have a computer that can get hacked and rebuilt without worrying about it being compromised.

Re:Use it or dont - if you do learn more security

[jones_supa]

If you want to be paranoid, safe, ahead of the curve, compromise what you can do, then remove flash. If you want the internet the way it is then you'll still need flash.

Yeh. For pragmatists, just having Flash running is the way to go. For select websites only, of course.

life worth living

[UnanimousCoward]

I think, but I can't say from experience, that life sans computers is worth living too...

Re:Flashblock

[tibit]

On Windows, it's quite easy, actually. The non-IE browser plugin and the ActiveX controls are separate installs. Without the latter, you don't have issues outside the browser. The browser plugin flash is invisible to anything but the browsers. I don't recall if recent IE uses the browser plugin or ActiveX variant, I recall that older ones needed the ActiveX version.

ING banking site

[JamesTRexx]

Some time ago ING moved the site that handles the stocks to Flash. And I didn't see any reason feature wise on why they did that.

Other than that site I haven't needed Flash for years. Any website that had no html home page lost my interest immediately.

PORN

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that I have your attention... no, pretty much just porn, and I can't believe I'm among the first to say it. The pornography industry drive media technology more than anyone wants to admit; if you could get the boilerplate engines that drive thousands of porn site to support HTML5 video, you'd be within striking distance of the death of Flash. (Flash games are still a problem.. but Flash games are by-and-large idiotic.)

ps. TRWTF is that the previous post on the OP's blog got no /. mention.. this is actually interesting stuff: using relativity to encrypt data

Rosetta Stone & video streaming

[Anonymous Coward]

As other posters have said, Hulu and other video sites rely on Flash. Also, many corporations a few years ago made a big investment in Flash and are loathe to give it up now. The site I rely on the most that uses Flash is Rosetta Stone. Both the client-side and the website use Flash as the delivery medium. So, as much as I dislike Flash, it has to stay for now. I did make one consideration; I loaded it only on IE. I disabled it on Chrome and Firefox.

BBC iPlayer

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure the BBC iPlayer catch-up TV-on-demand service does not function without Adobe Flash Player. If it did, I would probably give uninstalling Flash another go.

So, basically, with regards to using Flash, "The BBC made me do it."

However, as I run Firefox with NoScript installed, I have it set to block all flash objects by default unless I click on them, so I get to pick and choose. I always find it really weird and annoying when I use YouTube in a browser that doesn't block Flash. I like to open several video pages in tabs, like a sort of queue or playlist, and then I work through the tabs, maybe adding more tabs as I see links to interesting videos. When Flash isn't blocked, this really doesn't work. Videos start playing in other tabs and I have to figure out which tabs are making a noise and go through and stop them all. :(

Re:BBC iPlayer

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you can set your user agent to a mobile device (iOS/Android) and avoid flash on iPlayer.

Shucks! Not Yet!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just when I started to learn to program in Flash so I can make some cheesy movies about my daughter's imaginary friend, Benjamin. (and not using Adobe in the process).

i need flash

[Anonymous Coward]

i need Macromedia flash to watch TV shows on Hulu and Amazon video. Also, some websites use flash for menus / navigation. These websites don't offer text or graphic buttons (gif, jpg or png). I tried to browse some websites with my ipod touch, but the websites display a message saying that i need to install flash to view the website.

Re:Went without until I needed it for online meeti

[macs4all]

I bought an OSX laptop and successfully avoided Flash for a few months while I was using it to prepare the class I now teach. A good proportion of YouTube videos wouldn't play so I was glad at times to have another computer in the house to watch them, but mostly I didn't miss it at all.

Ultimately, though, it turned out that in order to hold online office hours at our university, I had to install Adobe Connect. That software is Flash from stem to stern. I installed Flash, and it took me a few days to get used to the surprise of animated (and noisy) ads again.

Conclusion: access to Flash is nice at times, but one generally does better without it.

Install the FREE ClickToFlash (now called "ClickToPlugin") on Safari. You can whitelist your university site, and still not have to put up with incessant (and dangerous) Flash. You can also tell YouTube that you prefer HTML 5, and it will play ALL (or almost all) videos that way.

Porn

[Anonymous Coward]

myfreecams.com for example.

Or any site with unique content that you can't avoid.

I dumped flash years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Loving life without it.

sandbox/VM

[wirelesslayers]

I am using QUBES OS. So all the flash and java stuff runs inside a vm-app. For my clients I am using free sandbox solutions for windows.

Youtube without Flash

[gibbo2]

Safari users on OS X should get the ClickToPlugin extension - http://hoyois.github.com/safariextensions/clicktoplugin/

It includes an HTML 5 video player, and will play most Youtube videos (say 95%+) without even loading Flash. It will just request the same H.264 video that gets served to iPads etc and uses the native hardware decoder.

Means you can watch Youtube with about 1% CPU usage instead of your fans spinning up because Flash is doing it in software.

Anytime you really do need to use Flash, just click the placeholder to load the plugin.

Re:Youtube without Flash

[synapse7]

By my surfing I have found youtubes html5 support to be great. Does YouTube have content that requires flash?

Re:Youtube without Flash

[gibbo2]

Yes some videos won't play unless they can load the ads (ie Flash required). These ones won't play on the iPad/iPhone either.

W3C maintains a document standard worse than PDF.

[Anonymous Coward]

How many years have gone by and we still use that shitty standard, and now they are tryinhg to be JUST LIKE that Adobe Flash in being multimedia capable? Flash could practicallly run the internet experience all on it's own and do better than a webbrowser, and with javascript detatched and java independence then I could actually see Flash becoming The content delivery mechanism. There are two projects implementing independent competing Flash engines, but there is a dozen active popular webbrowsers giving lip service to HTML standards of W3C and you all see how bad that has adhered these past 30 years. HGTML is mismanaged, and that's why all the plugins and extensions. Come on, remember that free internet service competition back in the 90's that always used the webbrowsers you didn't want, and pages never displayed the same because of ftheir selective alignment to W3C? With all the infrastructure of Flash and development by websites, it would make more sense to continue in Flash and even make a webbrowser in Flash like would as a default command shell. It's dummy terminal material independent of architecture, and is modern in the sense that nothing has been written in stone like how all the other standards have floundered.

Imagine turning on your shitty phone/pda and you are locked-out of installing anything on it; it has a calculator, a scheduler, a webbrowser (likely NetFront), but you must buy everything instead of buildc and compile yourself: so, your webbrowser has it's own implementation of Flash, and that right there is your gateway to the homebrew world. That's Adobe's Flash in a nutshell: why take it away now that W3C wants to mismanage HTML with A/V presentation it never did right -- ever. Even Adobe PDF would be an interesting method of viewing webpages instead of HTML.

Tried it....

[Anonymous Coward]

I dumped Flash ..... for a while.

On FF: It was sporadic support video support after that. Some Youtube videos worked, others didn't. HTML5 I'm guessing... Some Vimeo videos worked others didn't. Those that did, I suspect worked because vlc/plugins was installed properly. Random site videos that weren't either of those, were hit or miss like everything else. Online 'Flash apps' obviously didn't work. Loads of sidebar ads didn't work, THANKFULLY, so there is that upside. All in all, it's a mixed bag of support, and you never really know whether the content your wanting to see, will play.

At it's best, it kills Flash-based sidebar ads, and you don't have the security blackbox that IS Flash.
At worst, online video and app. content behavior is inconsistent and frustrating.

Really, it depends on what you want your browsing experience to be. Well supported w/ risk, or content uncertain.

p.s. I did not bother w/ Chrome or Chromium

The irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Having children IS correlated to economics... By and large First World birthrates are falling (and have an impact on your comment that"we have social security") and Third World birthrates are too high, keeping them poor.

Give Birth for the Economy!

[ScottCooperDotNet]

Personally economic, perhaps not. But nationally economic, children are essential, as we need a certain level of birthrate.

Re:Give Birth for the Economy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, don't want it going to low. Have lots of kids to keep the top cruft of society happy, despite the odds that will be working against your children as they compete for diminishing resources and likely make them worse off than you are. Otherwise the government(s) will start having to do things like leaning heavily on immigration to saturate the labor market in order to keep wages for the lower and middle classes down.

Oh wait!... Already happening in developed (Western) countries, isn't it?

Go Libre

[ikhider]

Great, if you use a Libre version of GNU/Linux, such as Trisquel, Blag, Ututo, or Dragora, you don't get flash support anyway (unless you use Gnash http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ ). Your 'net experience becomes more focussed. It is not a good idea to give any one company like Adobe and those who use its products so much power over your 'net experience. Go Libre. www.gnu.org/doc/fsfs-ii-2.pdf

Re:Go Libre

[Anonymous Coward]

You used the word "experience" more times than the word "the". Please kill yourself.

Please go hardcore

[houghi]

and drop the whole Internet thing. You will notice that you are still fine.

As long as you made the choice yourself, you will be fine. Now tell, no, force others to do the same. Block all Flash at your router and see if the people you live with are also fine with it. Don't tell them anything. Just observe.

That would be interesting to see. Also do the same at your job and see if you are still fine.

Re:Please go hardcore

[Anonymous Coward]

"drop the whole internet thing"!?
Welcome, token Luddite!

Live sports

[synapse7]

Flash is required to watch the redwings and the kings game. http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45340521/

Re:Live sports

[Branka96]

No it is not. The game plays just fine using Silverlight.

Download Flash how?

[tepples]

Or you could install flash on your tablet

I thought Adobe had stopped offering downloads of Flash Player through Google Play Store to devices that didn't already have Flash Player, and I thought Android 4.1 couldn't download Flash Player through Google Play Store in the first place.

Re:Download Flash how?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Adobe had stopped offering downloads of Flash Player through Google Play Store to devices that didn't already have Flash Player, and I thought Android 4.1 couldn't download Flash Player through Google Play Store in the first place.

This is true, and they deactivate flash on all devices when they update themselves to 4.0. It's been extremely annoying, but not that disastrous overall. A lot of misc sites still use flash for menus, splash pages and such. These become unusable but it is easy to wait till you get home and go to them on your desktop system.

Re:Download Flash how?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to think Android devices are locked to the Google Play Store. I assure you, sir, this is not the case.

Adobe still offers Android Flash player through their own website. They are not actively developing for it any more, but as of right now, my Galaxy Nexus on 4.2.1 still runs Flash content perfectly fine.

Re:Download Flash how?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true, and they deactivate flash on all devices when they update themselves to 4.0.

I guess you meant 4.1, but that's still not true (unless it's a special quirk of certain devices or something). Android itself doesn't respect the maxSdkVersion attribute, it's just a filter used by Google Play, so when you have Flash already installed and upgrade from ICS to JB, it'll merrily ignore Adobe's silly irrational restrictions.

Re:Flashblock

[Xtifr]

Despite what some people may believe, neither MS-Office nor Acrobat is required on Windows. There are viable alternatives to both. Acrobat, in particular, should be an easy app to abandon. Office may be a little trickier if you're used to/depend on some of its specific features (something I understand, since I'm just the opposite--Office is missing features I depend on in my office suite).

It's really a trade-off, though. If you absolutely want to keep flash around, and have something like flashblock to keep it under control, it's possible to do so with a reasonable degree of safety. And heck, it's not like those other two apps haven't had their own fair share of exploits over the years. :)

Three Flash-only sites in one day

[tepples]

However, on my iPad, which is Flash-Free, I think I run into a Flash-only site only about once or twice a month

Let me break that record: Albino Blacksheep, Newgrounds, and Kongregate. That makes three.

How about a kiosk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Set up a kiosk running Windows for the kids?

My kids already have laptops. I've been thinking about how to force them to use Linux. Establishing a kiosk workstation may be a solution.

The kiosk can double as an access point for other services, such as scanning, printing, and archiving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiosk_software

Re:How about a kiosk?

[Belial6]

I got my son to use Linux by formatting his hard drive a week after his second birthday. I followed that up by handing him an Ubuntu 5.10 disk and telling him to reinstall his computer himself. No, he couldn't read. No, he had no problems installing it anyway. I did help him install gCompris.

That experiment is why I have since said that anyone claiming "Linux is too hard to install." is too stupid to be part of the conversation.

Re:How about a kiosk?

[MightyYar]

I just gave them my old (2004) Mac G5 with parental controls and a very restrictive whitelist for internet. When it dies, maybe I'll do what you suggest.

French Erotic Yatta

[tepples]

How do you recommend to convert vector animated short films, such as those seen on Albino Blacksheep, into HTML5 without rendering to .mp4 and thereby bloating the download size by a factor of ten?

Re:French Erotic Yatta

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people don't give a shit about vector animated short films.

Re:French Erotic Yatta

[melikamp]

Whatever. At least they will be playable by free software.

Re:French Erotic Yatta

[Anonymous Coward]

JavaScript

Re:French Erotic Yatta

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't recommend it. Too slow. Not enough features. Maybe in a few years but I'm not holding my breath.

If you want to convert that kind of work from Flash right now I would recommend SDL. If you have to be in-browser Flash is still the best option.

Re:French Erotic Yatta

[tepples]

So how should Flash be converted to JavaScript, or how should new animations be authored using a timeline in JavaScript? And how should JavaScript animations be played on IE <= 8, which doesn't support audio, canvas, or SVG?

HTML site that lists Flash animations

[tepples]

Other than that site I haven't needed Flash for years. Any website that had no html home page lost my interest immediately.

So what do you do when you encounter a site with an HTML home page that contains a list of Flash animations (not wrappers around flv/mp4 videos, but actual vector animations)? Albino Blacksheep and Newgrounds are examples.

Re:HTML site that lists Flash animations

[JamesTRexx]

So what do you do

Not see them?

Shock and incredulity?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

This provoked some shock and incredulity from others

Mostly, it seemed to provoke yawns and "meh" and "oh yeah, me too". Why is this news here?

To answer the original question... i.e. reasons...

[Anonymous Coward]

Three words: popcap dot com

Unplugged is usually no big deal

[MangoCats]

I unplugged from Cable TV 22 years ago, dropped the antenna 12 years ago, no ill effects. Similarly, cut the land-line phone about 5 years back.

Some people drop electricity, it's all a lifestyle choice, none of these things are truly necessities - your Great-great-great-grandparents and all of their ancestors for the 10,000 years before them didn't have any of these things, and yet they still managed to procreate.

-------

What if the hoky-poky really is what it's all about?

Real safegaurds a better alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather than removing a useful plugin or program why not lock down your system instead? I've been running as a Limited/Standard User with SRP/AppLocker, ACL's and SuRun for years. I no longer fret over the latest vulnerabilities. When I'm absolutely paranoid I add Sandboxie to the mix.

Don't wanna get pwned then don't run as an Admin.

In other places

[SuperKendall]

An Amazon Instant Video...flash only currently.

You can use that on AppleTV, the PS3 and all iOS devices - all without flash.

Re:Went without until I needed it for online meeti

[Gaygirlie]

So, it seems that FireFox is no more "suitable" without a Flash-Blocker plugin that Safari, eh?

Did I say so? I never even mentioned Safari in the first place. I only said "a suitable browser," something that does not imply any specific one, and used Firefox as an example. You are the one who apparently has a need to twist things.

Use an alternate device

[SuperKendall]

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view of cable/sat companies), I rely on Hulu for most of my entertainment, since I don't have cable - and actually can't get, due to remoteness. No way around the site without flash.

AppleTV, the PS3, iOS devices all support Hulu without needing Flash.

But also: MSNBC (TRMS, occasionally Morning Joe). Pretty much any decent video site still uses flash.

Not if you have an iPad. 99.9% of video sites support iOS just fine. You can then mirror the display to something like AppleTV or an AIrPlay server.

Re:Use an alternate device

[flimflammer]

AppleTV, the PS3, iOS devices all support Hulu without needing Flash.

So, in order to escape Flash, people should pay hundreds of dollars? I don't think that's really a step up.

Re:Use an alternate device

[Teun]

And having to install iTunes, oh horror.

Re:Use an alternate device

[Jim Hall]

We don't have cable TV where we live, but do have really fast Internet service. We watch shows on HuluPlus, Amazon Instant Video, Netflix, etc using a Roku box. It's well below $100 and I highly recommend it.

Re:Use an alternate device

[SuperKendall]

So, in order to escape Flash, people should pay hundreds of dollars?

An AppleTV, or a Roku box as the other poster mentioned are both quite cheap (~100). They are easier to hook up to a TV and they simply work.

They are expensive only if your time is worth nothing.

Re:Use an alternate device

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So, in order to escape Flash, people should pay hundreds of dollars? I don't think that's really a step up.

Piracy is clearly the way to go here.

Equivalence

[SuperKendall]

Albino Blacksheep, Newgrounds, and Kongregate

It's pretty obvious flash specific sites will use flash. I mean, DUH.

However none of those offer anything you can't get on an iPad, and in greater numbers with better quality.

Re:Went without until I needed it for online meeti

[macs4all]

So, it seems that FireFox is no more "suitable" without a Flash-Blocker plugin that Safari, eh?

Did I say so? I never even mentioned Safari in the first place. I only said "a suitable browser," something that does not imply any specific one, and used Firefox as an example. You are the one who apparently has a need to twist things.

No, I can read. Maybe you can't WRITE.

Gimme a break. The GGP was talking about OS X, which pretty much implies Safari, and then you DON'T come back with "Well, if you are using Safari, use THIS (like I did)", or "If you use FireFox, you might want to check into...". No, instead you made a snarky, side-swipe at Safari, and got called-out on it.

Show how the progression of this sub-thread proves me wrong.

Six months without my buggy whip and I feel fine

[Anonymous Coward]

I needed Flash for one thing in the last year and then I wiped the system.

I know some people still require Flash but the sooner we can get away from that (and Java and cats and brussel sprouts, etc.) the better. I really like that Macs come without all this installed.

J

Been running without Flash for quite a while now

[Anonymous Coward]

I use FreeBSD as my laptop OS. I'm an old UNIX guy, so I use it with olvwm(1).

I'm not dead yet - I also use Eterm(1).

I've got quite a few browsers installed. Firefox, Opera, Seamonkey, Chromium, etc.

So I guess you could say I have begun to acquire a certain amount of expertise in the area of plugins.

See, most of the plugins you take for granted are not available under FreeBSD.

Many of the file formats are handled, by many of the browsers, by handing the URL off to other, more specialized clients, like gnash(1), or vlc(1).

Functionality is spotty. Some of the more pedantic sites insist on a certain minimum version of Flash - not sure if they require additional functionality or are trying to drive people away from older, more vulnerable versions of the software.

It would help the open source community greatly if the world either standardized on a version of Flash or abandoned it altogether and invested everyone's time in HTML5.

In the meantime, I live without Flash quite nicely.

One might even argue that the lack of Flash on a workstation limits the sorts of objectionable sites and material one can access. My kids can use Starfall.com without any problems at all.

but no one will give steve jobs credit...

[Anonymous Coward]

for banning that abomination off the iphone and therefor contributing to its demise. iphone users have been flash free and happy since day one, meanwhile linux wannabes keep installing it despite being "non-free" and blah blah blah.

I'll drop flash in a heartbeat....

[mark-t]

... when people can convince TV stations to not rely on it for the streaming of their shows via their website.

I don't watch enough TV to justify paying for cable, but I still like a handful of shows that I really still want to watch each week. The networks put them up on their website for free streaming only one day after they air normally, and leave them up for a week or two, and I can watch all of my favorite shows at my leisure. Of course, all of these network websites utilize flash for delivering the video content. And okay, so I have to still sit through a minute or two of commercials every 10 minutes or so... that's no different than it would be if I were to actually watch it on television when it airs. The only real alternative to this would be finding pirated copies of my shows on P2P networks (which would probably be pretty easy, as the shows I like are fairly popular), but to be frank, my resorting to such measures would bother me personally far more than the fact that I have to use flash.

But back onto the matter of the websites requiring flash, it really seems to me like they just don't care about any potential audience that doesn't want to have flash installed, because they are a sufficiently small enough minority that the networks can dictate that you either have flash to watch their shows... or... well... tough.

streaming audio/video

[Cyko_01]

google chrome can do it with webrtc from what I understand, and it is coming soon in firefox, but support for it in other browsers is lacking and a long ways off. Many android users are still screwed as far as in-browser video and will be for a long time. More importantly, there are no sites that I am aware of that actually make use of it. Even google hangouts does not use webrtc.

Re:Live without Java

[node 3]

This, among all the reasons people complain about it being programmed in Java, is the biggest complaint I have of Minecraft. It's the only reason I have Java installed at all.

Re:Live without Java

[spire3661]

Agree 1000%. They should port the code to something else.

funny,

[SuperDre]

as when I try to open a youtube movie on my android tablet in chrome, it says it requires the latest flash player to be installed... hmmmm.. not so great without flash then.....

Heck, I've NEVER had flash installed

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, various video downloaders (like youtube-dl) are my friend. There are a few (ooyala) I haven't figured out yet, but I can handle most of them.

E.g. for blip.tv, you just need to edit the URL to go to the RSS stream, which includes direct links.

One thing to note is that many video download browser plugins work by running the flash player and snooping the web traffic. Thus, they're of no use to me. E.g. Video DownloadHelper only works on youtube, because it uses a different technique there.

Re:Went without until I needed it for online meeti

[Anonymous Coward]

Still don't get it. Those surprise animated ads in Flash is suppose to be a negative for Flash?

Once the code is integrated into the HTML5, it's going to be difficult to disable AND it's going to be noisy.

I don't need Flash, either

[koinu]

Also, there is no (native) Flash for FreeBSD and I don't like to clutter my system with any Linux compatibility layers.

I think that browser plugins are deprecated technology from the 90s. I cannot remember if I ever had Flash installed. Maybe I had it once because it was (pre)installed automatically on some systems. But I can live without it since... ehm... the first time I've had access to internet(sometime in the 90s?).

Re:Flashblock

[Anonymous Coward]

The mere presence of HTML5 on the system allows it to be craftily run in more areas than you might expect(as with the 'HTML5 exploit embedded in an Office document' story that will be seen here in a few years, along with HTML5 abomination). Even if you can find the correct toggles to shut that off, your browser's updater can't really be trusted not to merrily reinstall things whenever the next update comes out (remember how a certain was a "critical update' on a completely unrelated piece of software with a computer that never had that browser installed?); but running a version of HTML5 that isn't the newest is just asking for trouble...

See what I did there?

Missing out on the whole indie game genre

[loufoque]

A lot of indie games are released as Flash, they're free, and they're much more interesting than big productions.
By not having flash, you're missing them.

Having to turn on Unknown sources

[tepples]

You seem to think Android devices are locked to the Google Play Store.

They're not. But every time Slashdot posts a story about Android malware, someone posts a comment claiming that it would be best practice to stick to Google Play Store: "If you'd just leave Unknown sources turned off, you'd be fine. But in practice, people end up not leaving Unknown sources turned off, and they end up trojaned."

Adobe still offers Android Flash player through their own website

I wasn't aware of this. So essentially, you need to turn on Unknown sources, go to this page, download the Flash Player version that matches your Android version, and then somehow find a browser that supports plug-ins (the Chrome browser included with the Nexus 7 doesn't, but Firefox does).

So what's their counterpart

[tepples]

It's pretty obvious flash specific sites will use flash. I mean, DUH.

So what sites offering HTML5 games and HTML5 vector animations should people visit instead of sites offering Flash games and Flash vector animations? Or are you talking about native applications that are platform-specific and censorable by Apple?

However none of those offer anything you can't get on an iPad

Where is, for example, Streemerz: Super Strength Emergency Squad Zeta for iPad? I don't see it on iTunes.

Re:So what's their counterpart

[SuperKendall]

So what sites offering HTML5 games and HTML5 vector animations should people visit instead of sites offering Flash games and Flash vector animations?

People wanting games can just try any of the hundreds of thousands of games targeting the iPad, many free.

You need to think in terms of solving a problem, and take off your technical blinders of only accepting one solution because that s what you are used to.

Where is, for example, Streemerz: Super Strength Emergency Squad Zeta

That's because your limited mind could not comprehend running an NES emulator on the iPad to run that game through... and that's only if you needed that ONE game which is hardly likely.

I didn't see Infinity Blade on the web so I guess you're even more screwed.

I'll let you have the last response as the conversation has no point. There are a zillion games for the iPad, deal with it.

Flash Free

[Anonymous Coward]

I've not run Flash on my computers since about 2006. It just made websites load faster, cut down on weird interactive content auto loading, and I didn't really miss it.

If a website was all-flash, well. Just goes to show that no one should have been designing their sites that way in the first place.

My friends all looked at me like I was nutters, but I haven't missed out.

What do you consider a computer?

[tepples]

The flash plugin is installed on most computers. Chrome frame is not.

That depends on what you consider a "computer", and we just had a heated discussion about that a couple days ago. It isn't installed on any iPads or any new Android tablets. Instead, these come with a web browser roughly equivalent in capability to Chrome Frame. Computers don't ship with IE 8 anymore; they ship with IE 10, which reportedly supports enough HTML5 to play SVG animations and canvas animations.

It's not that hard... every iOS device...

[WoTG]

This isn't a huge surprise to me. iOS is a real fraction of all web browsing now, Flash dependent web sites are a bad idea (now).

It's not always the uploader's fault though

[tepples]

Any uploader that disables mobile viewing is an uploader I'm far less likely to subscribe to or otherwise watch future videos from.

It's not always the uploader's fault though. Consider this scenario: Alice makes a video. Bob uploads a video that is a commentary on Alice's video, incorporating excerpts from Alice's video. YouTube's Content ID bot recognizes these excerpts from Alice's video in Bob's video and gives Alice control over whether Bob's video can be shown on mobile devices.

What was

[Anonymous Coward]

Adobe Flash, formerly Macromedia Flash, was originally a revolution because, albeit a small plugin, it allowed vector graphics and animation to be displayed in the browser, on virtually every platform. But Adobe became greedy and wanted Flash to be the one and only (bitmap) video format in the world. The world became tired of the Adobe monopoly, the never ending Flash security issues, and the size of the plugin. So they killed it. As virtually nobody uses Flash for vector graphics anymore I think the world is better off without Adobe Flash. Now only if all browsers were fully SVG compliant...

Re:Went without until I needed it for online meeti

[Gaygirlie]

Gimme a break. The GGP was talking about OS X, which pretty much implies Safari, and then you DON'T come back with "Well, if you are using Safari, use THIS (like I did)", or "If you use FireFox, you might want to check into...".

No, I deliberately used the wording "a suitable browser" so that it would NOT rule out any specific one. I do not know about Safari's capabilities because I do not own any Apple device and I have no interest to start Googling about a browser I don't use, so that's why I chose to use such a wording.

No, instead you made a snarky, side-swipe at Safari, and got called-out on it.

You wish I did, but just look through my comment history and point me to where I had done such previously; I have no need to bash OSX or Safari or whatever, I don't care what people use, I just wanted to make a point about how to avoid some of the vulnerabilities of Flash. The fact that you attack me like a rabid troglodyte, however, says a lot about you.

Flash games!

[Kurast]

My life is not possible without Kongregate and Newsgrounds.

Why iTunes?

[SuperKendall]

iTunes is needed for zero of those listed solutions (or the Roku)

Using Debian 6.0.6 AMD64 with ATI HD3450

[Anonymous Coward]

Using the fglrx non free .deb package drivers for the video card.

Flash works flawlessly at 1080p. Using HTML 5 and setting Chromes User Agent ID to iPad, Android, (anything that's HTML5) I notice vertical sync problems so the video tears in weird ways. It seems kind of sluggish at any resolution. 720 has the same feel to it as the lower resolutions (and they all screen tear).

Downloading and installing Chrome for Debian from the Google website was pretty simple and they seem to have a more updated version of flash than the now dead Adobe offering. Works for me.

I just noticed that!

[dohzer]

I forgot to install Flash the last time I formatted (around 3 months ago), and I just noticed that I've barely noticed.
The only reason I realised was when I clicked a game ad on Steam and it said I needed to install Flash.
I said, "No I don't!", and closed the window.

HTML5 on Safari

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also an excellent HTML5 extension for Safari.

Info page:
http://www.verticalforest.com/youtube5-extension/

Download link to extension:
http://www.verticalforest.com/youtube5/YouTube5.safariextz

Re:Went without until I needed it for online meeti

[GlobalEcho]

Somebody please mod this post up, AC is completely correct, and I fear that day.

Firefox/GStreamer on Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

I have Flash disabled in Firefox, but still occasionally open Flash content in Chromium. 99.9% of that is for videos on YouTube and Vimeo. For YouTube it's roughly 75% flash-only videos and 25% H.264-only videos. More like 90%/10% on Vimeo.

They don't ship H.264 support on Desktop due to licensing costs. There is work and plans for Firefox to support GStreamer for codecs they don't ship, but it's not here yet. See bug 794282 and its dependencies for details.

Re:Went without until I needed it for online meeti

[GlobalEcho]

Yes, I do use Flashblock and ClickToFlash on quite a few machines. This laptop is less often used for the casual surfing that makes them so nice, so I have not bothered.

As the AC points out below, what's really going to suck is when all those ads go HTML5.

HTML5 no panacea

[Anonymous Coward]

HTML5 still has a long way to go in replacing flash for embedded video & animation.

Cat got flash?

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot hates flash. If you don't hate Flash too you are not allowed to post here and [BANNED BY ADMIN]

Re:Live without Java

[EGSonikku]

Sad part is they already have. No way Minecraft on Xbox 360 or iPhone/iPad is using Java.

The title should be...

[Anonymous Coward]

"6 months without porn"

Purist here

[Anonymous Coward]

I've not had Flash (or any FOSS equivalent) on any of my systems for over 5 years now. The limitations that still affect me are:
1) Online video, my primary browser does not have html5 support so getting video from the web means Bittorrent or searching for the same video on a popular platform like Youtube and using a Javascript based downloader to grab an mp4. Wikipedia is the only site I've found that shows videos right in my browser. This naturally limits me to videos I really want to see.
2) One of my banks has a purely Flash driven online banking system but I figure it's probably better I go without this anyway :p.
3) Various sites dedicated to allowing people to play games either fully require Flash or, annoyingly, handle everything with Javascript but rely on Flash for something like sound. For the latter, I've often contacted the site admin, offering a Bitcoin bounty for a non-Flash sound solution.
4) Browser-based internet bandwidth testing (but I have native software for that).

For the pragmatist, I DO NOT recommend uninstalling Flash. If you are worried about security and want to do something about it, simply use a Flash blocking extension that allows you to whitelist sites and build a small collection of trusted sites as you go.

For the idealist that would like to see Flash become non-essential it might be fun to experiment doing away with Flash but I recommend doing this with a html5-complaint browser and I would keep another browser around that could handle Flash for emergencies. I myself have a second browser which is able to handle html5.

Sorry, but what about /^Homest.*/ ?

[Frater 219]

A few years back, I considered uninstalling Flash, but there was Homestar Runner. Now, I'd consider uninstalling it, but there's the animated segments of Homestuck.

If I uninstall Flash, won't I just miss out on the next awesome cartoon whose name matches the regex /^Homest.*/ ?

Re:Kids - Theory vs. Practice

[Anonymous Coward]

Some like children. Some don't. Some are too young to know. Kids themselves.

Children can be a great joy in your life. You don't even have to pop 'em out yourself! Some wonderful kids I know share no DNA with me. Some do. It's really immaterial.

We were all kids once. Some of the adults around me cared enough to show me music, electronics, ham radio, theater, art. A few were just awesome enough to appreciate me for myself, regardless of my faults, inexperience, and emotional immaturity.

Perhaps you could now, or one day, be one of those incredible people that someone will look back on and say, "Wow, they made all the difference. I'll never forget that selflessness, love, kindness and nurturance."

No video/animation codec will ever warm your heart in the way that simple human interaction can.

Antivirus

[walkerreuben]

Wow, big deal. I lived for 4 months without any antivirus installed, installing something once a month just to do a single full scan. Never picked up anything. Only stopped because Valve released the Steam for Linux Beta and I ran out of reasons to use Windows.

Re:Live without Java

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I always blame Java for my hatred of my Android phone despite being a long-time Linux person. They've managed to reproduce all that's bad about mobile platforms on top of a nice free kernel. Way to go Google-people-who-weren't-good-enough-to-work-on-search.

Flash? What's that :-) ?

[jandersen]

I suspect I never started using flash - I have used Linux exclusively for at least 10 years, and I have always removed all plugins from the browser. It's only 2 years ago the I started having even a Java plugin. I have recently installed flash, but I keep it deactivated with NoScript and only use it for the very few occasions when it is essential, and that number seems to be falling.

I have no animations, no flash, no JavaScript for most of the time, and it is great. I can only recommend it, although it does require you to think a tiny bit more when you find websites that don't work.

Etherpad

[Anonymous Coward]

We (a German organisation of more than 30,000 folks) use a version of Etherpad on our servers for parts of our coordination and communication. That is the only reason I use a PC instead of iPad-only; the Photon Flash browser for the iPad is too clunky.

Flash isn't just YouTube y'know

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people seem to think that just because YouTube supports HTML AV that Flash is useless, but Flash is much much more than just a video playback plugin.

Its original use was interactive vector animation and there are still huge amounts of things out there that use it for this purpose.

HTML5 can do a lot of that in theory but in practice it's much slower and far more difficult, plus the current fragmented state of HTML5 means you end up having to use specific browsers for specific sites (Seriously, it's like being back in the 1980's now except "Requires Netscape or IE" has been replaced with "Requires Chrome or Firefox" (Disclosure: I am a rabid Opera user, even tho' the 12-series sucks donkey balls))

It's also proven to be a good introduction into programming concepts to younger students as it's much more visual than a 'normal' language and that instant feedback really helps the pennies drop with the initial understanding.

Only a couple things...

[nikolardo]

But they matter a lot.
Amazon Prime Video,
and
MSPaintAdventures, which, granted, doesn't use flash all the time, but when it does, you want to have it.

Gentlemen's Fine Erotic Art Collectors

[tehcyder]

Most free porn sites require Flash to watch videos.

Apparently.

Re:Flashblock

[AlabamaCajun]

This is the part of the answer in the business world if they can't do completely without it. On my workstation I have not missed it and saved huge $ in bandwidth. Now does anyone know how to convince the network administrators to create an opt out policy on the other PCs that I see running flash movies on various websites! Their solution is just to buy more bandwidth. Better, can you live with Goo*le for a month?

at work not an option

[Anonymous Coward]

At work it's not an option. Too many healthcare websites use flash.

6 montsh? That's it?

[smooth wombat]

I haven't had Flash installed on my home system in years. Never missed it.

People who make a big deal about how long they've gone without technology have bigger issues. If you can't go a day without having to text someone, get the jitters if you don't check your phone every 30 seconds or have withdrawal symptoms if you're not staring at a screen, you need to seek medical help.

Apple Adobe?

[h8sg8s]

IOS devices are the leading cause of a deprecated Flash. As apple did to client-side Java, it's doing to Flash. Never underestimate the power of millions of Apple fanbois. It's just the way things are..

Flash killed my Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

It gives me great comfort. It's been two years since I threw flash away from my life when it burned graphics card of my Mac.

Been without Linux for 12 years

[PortHaven]

And haven't really noticed...

Honestly, I really tried Linux about half a dozen times. Always ran into issues. Though I really wanted to be able to use it.

Usually always some key incompatible device (once was processor, once was my RivaTNT card, and one was my wife's wifi card.)

Haven't really tried since...probably will once i can afford a second machine again. Probably sometime after the Great Recession is over.

You Can Thank Apple for Your Bliss

[Petersko]

Ever since iOS devices started to become popular, companies have slowly retooled their sites to avoid Flash.

Do not miss it at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

I removed it from my laptop about a year ago, and it runs better and gets way better use out its battery. Haven't missed it at all. I dont use silverlight either, just HTML5+javascript, etc do just fine with almost anything I can possibly care about. Flash seems mostly relegated to advertising rather than content. But, one must also consider that I spend about 90% of my time on the internet in ssh (and most of the other 10 percent on wikipedia), so maybe I am not a very representative case.

Amazon Instant Video and Last.fm

[unimind]

I'm sure it has something to do with DRM, but I really wish they'd both move to html 5.

Next - JAVA!

[Anonymous Coward]

GREAT! Now if we can also do away with those damned pesky (daily, it seems) Java updates!!! Perhaps it's time for a revolution - and give those 800 pound gorillas a kick in the head.

hi I'm an iPhone

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't fuck with Flash.