Slashdot Mirror


Facebook's New Chief Security Officer Wants To Set a Date To Kill Flash

An anonymous reader writes: Facebook's new chief security officer, Alex Stamos, has stated publicly that he wants to see Adobe end Flash. This weekend Stamos tweeted: "It is time for Adobe to announce the end-of-life date for Flash and to ask the browsers to set killbits on the same day. Even if 18 months from now, one set date is the only way to disentangle the dependencies and upgrade the whole ecosystem at once."

185 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by Fwipp · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why on earth would Adobe want to kill flash?

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      So they can stop getting mentioned every time a security vulnerability is exposed?

    2. Re:Why? by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Flash is a diseased animal in pain, it needs to be put out of its misery. It is going to die on its own, Adobe may as well save a little face and do Flash and the world a kindness by euthanizing it.

    3. Re:Why? by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Adobe is a strong believer in "There's no such thing as bad publicity."

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Why? by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      Obviously, for the same reasons Facebook new chief security officer wants to kill Facebook's anti-privacy defaults: None whatsoever.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its use is down drastically as most all it can do can be done in HTML 5 -- even Adobe is avoiding flash mostly these days. Even given that, it still has a super high % install rate and makes a very attractive attack vector. Adobe's has a horrible track record of securing flash or developing it any any kind of secure way, it would be a huge boon for internet security to kill it.

        I would go farther and say if they don't kill it a bunch of the largest use sites should just set a date and:

      If flash installed
                Print "We want a more secure internet, to use this site disable or uninstall flash"

    6. Re:Why? by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but what will you use then to play happy wheels?

      look, all this talk about "bad corporations do intentional obsoleting of software to sell new software" and then *bam* start asking for them to make tens of thousands of games unplayable.

      nice, real nice.

      yes kill date implies that you wouldn't be able to _use_ it at all after the date, which would actually work as an incentive to not update to any such version that has a kill date. kill date would also mean no further security fixes.

      putting a date on it would be stupid for everyone involved. adobe can just(and pretty much has) quit developing new features for it, thus driving people to other things.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    7. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So they can stop getting mentioned every time a security vulnerability is exposed?

      Then shouldn't Oracle end Java?

    8. Re:Why? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      I use Firefox on Linux, and I've no trouble obtaining or using Flash for it.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    9. Re:Why? by camg188 · · Score: 1

      You can play flash games with media player classic. You just need to download the flash file.

    10. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you mean, "I've no trouble obtaining a very outdated version of Flash for it" then you're correct.

      For now.

    11. Re:Why? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Because he only has 14 hours to save the Earth!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    12. Re:Why? by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      That's why the initiative to kill it should come from corporate users, not Adobe. By stopping using it.

      Google using HTML5 for Youtube videos, so you don't need Flash for that anymore, was a good start. Next I'd like to see is Spiegel.de, the online branch of the German News magazine. Last time I checked, they still used Flash for their video clips. A few more of those jumping ship and I won't really notice Flash missing from my computer...

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    13. Re:Why? by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      actually your definition of kill date is different to mine. A Kill date is a date at which time if you are running upto date browsers and software it will stop working by default. It doesn't mean you can't turn it back on for yourself (albeit unsupported) or that you can't use legacy versions. It simply means only those that absolutely need it enabled for legacy reasons will have it. by being off by default instead of a slow tail off of use over many MANY years it will be a steep drop.

    14. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Spotted the flash 'developer'

    15. Re: Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We should set a date to end Facebook. Even if 18 months from now, one set date is the only way to disentangle the dependencies and upgrade the whole social networking ecosystem at once.

    16. Re:Why? by amias · · Score: 1

      flash has a a ubiquity that is not related to its quality, its related to marketing

      It captured the market and its ubquity prevented other platforms from growing enough to replace it

      Its ubiquity has now become its downfall as its low grade security and sketchy updates availablity is making it continual source of exploits.

      As predicted by many its security issues have now eclipsed its utility and other better solutions are coming , like web assembly and webGL

      Its time to kill it off , although if mr facebook security wants to do that he should be making facebook lead the charge instead of asking adobe to kill their demon offspring

      --
      [site]
    17. Re:Why? by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      General Kala, Flash Object approaching.

      What do you mean Flash Object approaching, open fire, all weapons. Send out HTML5 with AJAX to bring back its body.

    18. Re:Why? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      But Flash!!! We only have 8 minutes to save the Earth!!!!!

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    19. Re:Why? by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      Flash is a diseased animal in pain, it needs to be put out of its misery. It is going to die on its own, Adobe may as well save a little face and do Flash and the world a kindness by euthanizing it.

      That's just the cover story; it's actually an effective deployment platform for the NSA.

      You really think it's just decades-long incompetence that just as one hole is patched, another brand-new one is quickly discovered? They're issuing hole exchanges, not patches.

    20. Re:Why? by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe if HTML V5 didn't suck donkey balls Flash would be easier to kill.

      HTML V5 is a classic case of "We need to replace X with something" without ever bothering to find out if that something is BETTER than what its replacing! HTML V5, despite being in development for how many years now? Still can't do even half of what Flash can, no animations so all your flash games are right out, its a GIANT resource hog, if you don't believe me just turn off hardware acceleration (which they use to cover how much of a pig it really is) and see how badly it slurps up RAM and CPU. With Flash a 2004 Sempron has no trouble playing 720P at 30FPS, with HTML V5 without a GPU cooking in the background to cover for it anything less than a C2Q is gonna feel like a slideshow and if your mobile doesn't have hardware acceleration? Forget it, its unusable. And this is ignoring the rotting elephant in the room, that Apple and MSFT have loaded the spec with DRM and H.264, the most patent encumbered video format in history...and we want THIS to be a web "standard"? Well I hope you Linux users didn't actually want to be able to watch video in the future.

      Does Flash need replacing? Absolutely as I really don't see Adobe managing to fix the numerous issues with the format, but we need to replace it with something better in every way than Flash and so far HTML V5 seems more like a love letter to hardware OEMs and DRM loving corps than it does an actual replacement. When comparing features and performance its not even a side grade its really a downgrade as it can't do as much as the previous format, sucks more resources than the previous format, and has serious patent issues...and this is an "improvement"?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    21. Re: Why? by weilawei · · Score: 1

      If you really had the breadth of experience to code in "just about anything", you'd surely have picked up an assembly language or three in all those decades. Maybe you don't remember the specific mnemonics, but you should be able to do it with the reference manual at hand. I learned assembler and C right after Pascal.

    22. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      HTML5 is a step forward for proper web site design. It has semantic markup tags to keep things in a logical order within each page. It has the canvas element to allow for a drawing surface. And it has Javascript to allow it all to be manipulated on-the-fly. The implementation varies from browser to browser, but they all basically do the same things.

      How does that compare to Flash? Well, Flash has objects, a drawing surface, and scripting. The implementation doesn't vary much, except between platforms, due to the single-vendor nature of Flash.

      Feature-for-feature, HTML5 is a replacement for Flash right now. If you want to bitch about performance, direct your complaints to the browser vendors. Or better yet, pitch in with one of the open source ones and make it better. Or do you just expect things to be handed to you on a silver platter?

    23. Re:Why? by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Adobe already more or less killed flash.
      The killed Flash for Android years ago and the Linux plug-in is not in good shape. Their web authoring tools now focus on HTML5.

    24. Re:Why? by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      HTML5 does not have the abysmal history of exploits that Flash has. I would not mind Flash if Adobe was making decent software ;-)

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    25. Re:Why? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Ahh so we should live with this blight on computing forever because it was successful in a time where there weren't any alternatives for doing what it does?

      There are alternatives now. Much better, much more efficient, standardized alternatives that aren't owned by a single [abusive] company. The time of Flash is over - adapt or die.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    26. Re:Why? by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      no animations

      Of course HTML5 can do animations. What do you think transitions are? Obviously it lacks a polished industry-standard timeline tool like Flash had, but give the tools some time to mature.

      all your flash games are right out

      There are mountains of HTML5 games already.

      and if your mobile doesn't have hardware acceleration? Forget it, its unusable

      ...as opposed to Flash and its ultra-smooth battery-sipping mobile performance?

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    27. Re:Why? by popo · · Score: 2

      Yes, give the tools some time to mature. It's been over a decade now. Perhaps another 10 years then?

      I heart HTML5, but seriously, the "give it time" argument was long in the tooth many years ago.

      --
      ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    28. Re:Why? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      That's why the initiative to kill it should come from corporate users, not Adobe. By stopping using it.

      Google using HTML5 for Youtube videos, so you don't need Flash for that anymore, was a good start. Next I'd like to see is Spiegel.de, the online branch of the German News magazine. Last time I checked, they still used Flash for their video clips. A few more of those jumping ship and I won't really notice Flash missing from my computer...

      My 2013 MacBook Pro came without Flash installed, and there have only been a couple of times in the intervening two years when I was tempted to install it. But then I think to myself "Fuck this website/retailier if they can't get with the program", and move on with my life.

      What really frosts me is when I can browse to a website with my iPad (which of course doesn't have the slightest idea what Flash is), and whatever refused to play on my MacBook "Because it requires Flash" happily plays away in HTML5 (or whatever) on the iPad. That's just inexcusably lazy programming, IMHO, and those sites are then usually forever awarded with my non-patronage.

    29. Re:Why? by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with Flash is really that people try using it for stuff that it really shouldn't be used for - like web design. It's actually nice software for animating things, in fact a lot of cartoons on TV these days are drawn in Flash. What it's not nice for is web design. Similarly, HTML5 is not nice for animation. But you don't need animation on a web site. It's about using the right tool for the job. Expecting HTML5 to have feature parity with Flash is like expecting a TV set to have feature parity with a GPS navigation system.

    30. Re: Why? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      What a load of rubbish

      Yes, Flash is all of that. And less.

    31. Re:Why? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      They're issuing hole exchanges

      Goatse?

    32. Re:Why? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I'd rather Flash (which is at least partially open-sourced and at least theoretically sandboxed) be used by Hulu then a proprietary binary that does who knows what on my system.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    33. Re: Why? by __aabppq7737 · · Score: 1

      you're missing out

    34. Re:Why? by genner · · Score: 1

      Ahh so we should live with this blight on computing forever because it was successful in a time where there weren't any alternatives for doing what it does?

      There are alternatives now. Much better, much more efficient, standardized alternatives that aren't owned by a single [abusive] company. The time of Flash is over - adapt or die.

      Alternatives such as?

    35. Re:Why? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Then don't turn it off, but DO measure how much your GPU is sucking when you run an HTML V5 video and then compare it to a Flash video...go on, I'll wait.....what's that? Its sucking a good 2 to 3 times what Flash does on the exact.same.video? Ding ding ding, we have a winnar! Or in this case LOSER.

      Do you think that GPU cycles grow on trees? That HTML V5 magically avoids the second law of thermodynamics? News Flash TANSTAAFL and all hardware acceleration is doing is covering how much power HTML V5 is pissing down a rathole to do less than what Flash did before it. in an increasingly mobile world that means shitastic battery life, increased failures from heat cycling, and for what? What does the consumer actually gain? Not a damned thing because it wasn't written by or for the consumer, it was written for Apple who was pissed that they couldn't control flash gaming on the iStuff!

      I'm sorry but once Apple and MSFT jumped in they shat all over the spec and now its ruined, it COULD have been great, with multiple FOSS codecs as a baseline and then adding any patented video crap you wanted on top, but instead what we got was a format that is worse in every way than what came before...is it better on resources? NO. Can it do everything the previous format could? NO. Can you make a 100% unencumbered version**, as Adobe allowed with Gnash? NOT A CHANCE IN HELL. So I'm sorry but its crap, its the corps ramming through a wish list and sadly too many devs worship the iCrap too much to even speak up and say shit and it WILL bite us all in the ass if allowed to become the standard!

      **.-For those that are shocked the "token Windows guy" would actually care about open web standards? You really shouldn't be as this old greybeard is old enough to remember what a shitfest the web was when they tried to lock everything behind paywalls with RMV/RMA and WMV/WMA. Kiddies here may not remember but there was a time when even watching a simple video was a serious crapshoot because you may not be running the "correct version" of whatever proprietary codec AND browser the site expected, why? Our good old friend Mr DRM, that is why. And the "correct version" could be several versions of both the codec and browser behind (because the site hadn't updated) and of course you couldn't have multiple versions, why you might be a pirate trying to get around our lovely DRM! So even watching a simple video or listening to an audio clip became a tapdance through a minefield of shit. Now I don't know about the rest of you but I REALLY don't want to go back to a DRM clusterfuck of a WWW, but you know damned well that APPL,GOOG, and MSFT would sure as hell like that, as it lets them split the pie three ways and makes a hella expensive barrier to entry.

      So any way you slice it? HTML V5 sucks. It sucks on resources, it sucks when comparing feature for feature, and it sucks big hairy balls when it comes to patents and DRM. If you wanna replace Flash? Fine then do it with something BETTER, not with something worse.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    36. Re:Why? by gustygolf · · Score: 1

      With Flash a 2004 Sempron has no trouble playing 720P at 30FPS

      Really? My experience is that it takes 4-10 times the cpu power to play a video with flash than with a stand-alone (optimised) video player. (No GPU decoding or anything, just 'xv' video acceleration.)

      The new HTML5 video playback that's been pushed to web browsers is far from optimised (read: rubbish) as well, but it's roughly on par with Flash, give or take 50 %.

      --
      "Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 58 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" -- slashdot, driving users away.
    37. Re:Why? by gustygolf · · Score: 1

      'Over a decade'? Come on, the cutting-edge of WWW in 2002-2005 was about this newfangled CSS that could replace table-based layouts. CSS Zen Garden, A List Apart etc. Those kinds of sites.

      HTML5 has been around maybe four or five years at most? (Okay, I double-checked. 2008-2009 seems to be the correct year when browsers started implementing it.)

      --
      "Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 58 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment" -- slashdot, driving users away.
    38. Re:Why? by rhyous · · Score: 1

      Wait, when did CSS start actually solving layout issues? That is news to me.

      From my experience, (including recent html5 experience) layout is still unsolved (at least by Html and css), unless you use tables. I can usually make CSS mimic a simple table layout, but it usually takes twice the markup.

      Where are my layout controls. Neither HTML or CSS has layout controls. Where is my Grid layout? My Flow layout? The entire layout of html and css is so broken and we are just dealing with it and have been for two decades.

    39. Re: Why? by fuzzy2k · · Score: 1

      are your pants on fire?

      --
      --- Say something clever. Pretend it was me. Thanks.
    40. Re:Why? by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

      That didn't stop Microsoft from making Windows. Or any other software vendor from releasing anything. Software ships with bugs and at times with significant security vulnerabilities. Flash may or may not have a larger number of flaws than other comparable applications, but Adobe has been more than responsive to bugs found. Aside from that, what do the Flash bashers suggest we replace Flash and ActionScript with? HTML5 and JS which gets rendered differently in every browser or often not at all? What other technology is there that is cross-browser, cross-platform delivering the exact same experience of RIA? There is absolutely nothing else and therefore Flash needs to stick around unless someone comes up with an equally suitable replacement. Microsoft mildly tried it with Silverlight, but that was a total flopping fiasco and dead on arrival.

  2. Can we set it for 2006? by cfalcon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can you set an EOL date in the past? Maybe by a decade, give or take a bit? If causality doesn't currently permit that, we should look into patching this functionality into reality as a special case.

    1. Re:Can we set it for 2006? by NoZart · · Score: 1

      and release securty updates every two days for it

  3. Flash, Flex won't die... by t0qer · · Score: 1

    I worked for http://www.boardvantage.com/ this company for a spell. It was a shit company, and a really shit product. Somehow the CTO has convinced Board rooms around the world that the flex client is the most secure thing ever, and every time some flash vulnerability was announced, he could always dance his way around it.

    Point being that as long as those in positions of power can be convinced it's a needed evil, it will be a used evil.

  4. Same date to Kill Facebook too? by krelvin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Use the same date to turn off Facebook too?

    1. Re:Same date to Kill Facebook too? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't miss it.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Same date to Kill Facebook too? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I'd miss MyBrute.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  5. Facebook or Google decides by CaroKann · · Score: 4, Funny

    So Facebook wants to decide what will work on the Internet now? I thought that was Googles job.

  6. Re:How about 2015 July 15 0000UTC? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems as good a time as any.

    It is not going to happen. Way too many companies rely on Flash and Flex applications, written by programmers that are long gone. If the browser vendors try to force this, people will just stick with the old browsers that still work, and it will be just like IE6 all over again.

  7. HTML5 is more broken than Flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    HTML5 doesn't even work half the time because the browser implementation is off by one.

  8. Take his own advice by bug1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about facebook just stop using flash and switch to html5 like youtube has.
    Or do i need to put my tinfoil hat on and speculate why certain influential groups might want a large proportion of the internet dependent on a binary only browser plugin.
    (yes yes in theory there is open source flash plugins, but nobody uses it because its mostly broken).

    1. Re:Take his own advice by cen1 · · Score: 2

      Indeed. Facebook had HTML5 video enabled on mobile for some time but until recently, the desktop page was still using Flash.

    2. Re:Take his own advice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tinfoil hat wearers are the only one these days that could believe there AREN'T vested interests in creating systematic security flaws in all mainstream systems.

      Also I can't help but notice with glee that as I try to post this, chrome is informing me "Adobe Flash Player was blocked." Funny how the page works just fine anyway.

    3. Re:Take his own advice by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Facebook had HTML5 video enabled on mobile for some time but until recently, the desktop page was still using Flash.

      Well, a certain mobile platform pretty much ensured mobile platforms won't have flash. And that certain platform is also somewhat of a target for facebook as well.

      Though, on the topic of flash killing... why is it YouTube has no problem serving up HTML5 video to Firefox, but Chrome (on the same machine) insists that YouTube must use Flash? Yes, the machine is old, but Firefox can play HTML5 video from YouTube and Chrome cannot?

  9. People go to museums to see dinosaurs by tepples · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you're not using HTML5 by now, you're a fucking dinosaur.

    Just as people go to museums to see fossils of dinosaurs, people go to Newgrounds, Albino Blacksheep, Dagobah, Homestar Runner, Weebl's Stuff, and the like to view vector animations in SWF format. What would you suggest to convert existing SWF vector animations to HTML5 format or to create new vector animations in HTML5 format?

    1. Re:People go to museums to see dinosaurs by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      A lot of the content (like Homestar Runner and Weebl's Stuff) is also available via their official YouTube channels. You lose all the interactivity, though.

      After that, javascript SWF renderers become the only option. Mozilla reported that homestar runner's content mostly sort of worked in 2013, perhaps it's better now.

    2. Re:People go to museums to see dinosaurs by ihtoit · · Score: 2

      Adobe and Google both (to name two of possibly many) offer free html5 conversion.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    3. Re:People go to museums to see dinosaurs by peppepz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It would be nice if Mozilla completed their project of a javascript-based interpreter for flash. It would be the same thing that they’ve done for PDF. The overlap between flash and javascript + HTML5 is complete so it should be viable, and as a bonus SWFs would run under the same security sandbox as javascript.

    4. Re:People go to museums to see dinosaurs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > The overlap between flash and javascript + HTML5 is complete

      No. Chrome still fails to handle multiple mouse buttons correctly while flash works. Just hold down two mouse buttons, drag your mouse off the browser window, release both buttons and see how you only get one button up event.

      Also there are many other little things like this that make javascript + HTML5 unfit for many applications and especially games. As much as I would like to use it, it's just not there yet.

    5. Re:People go to museums to see dinosaurs by KGIII · · Score: 1

      The Cheat... Where you going to? What you think you're gonna do? The Cheat...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  10. Re: How about 2015 July 15 0000UTC? by afidel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hell, VMware just released vsphere 6 a few months ago and it requires flash, it will be under support until 2020/2022 .

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  11. Compatibility mode by tepples · · Score: 1

    Windows 7 and 8 include "compatibility mode" for running applications designed for Windows XP. Heck, Windows 7 Pro even included a coupon for a copy of XP in a virtual machine at no additional charge. What would be the counterpart to compatibility mode for running SWF objects?

    1. Re:Compatibility mode by chefmonkey · · Score: 2

      Windows 7 and 8 include "compatibility mode" for running applications designed for Windows XP. Heck, Windows 7 Pro even included a coupon for a copy of XP in a virtual machine at no additional charge. What would be the counterpart to compatibility mode for running SWF objects?

      Shumway: https://developer.mozilla.org/...

  12. Re:How about 2015 July 15 0000UTC? by Jack9 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > If you're not using HTML5 by now, you're a fucking dinosaur.

    Using HTML5 is not the same as killing flash. The entire multi-billion dollar programmatic advertising industry uses (predominantly) flash for waterfalling/timeouts/buffering and RTB interactions. See the IAB (which still mentions silverlight alongside javascript) which sets standards, about killing flash, then you might see change.

    --

    Often wrong but never in doubt.
    I am Jack9.
    Everyone knows me.
  13. Flash is like IE 6 by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So many processes have dependancies that are so ingrained in corporate apps it will be impossible to get rid of. We still use IE 6 at work and even xp eol couldn't kill it due to 2 must have apps which are impossible to ever replace. Our training only works with ancient insecure flash 11 at work due to a 10 year old version of premier which created our slides. Lock the browser out of flash and we will stick with obsolete version

    1. Re:Flash is like IE 6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well maybe your job should look into hiring someone to remake the old code into newer one. Saying it's "impossible to ever replace" is the problem, stop thinking that way and start thinking "what can be done to replace this dinosaur"

    2. Re:Flash is like IE 6 by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Wow, and until now I always thought your sig was sarcastic.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Flash is like IE 6 by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Just making click-to-play the default would greatly hasten the death of Flash. As well as mildly annoying users who couldn't figure out how to whitelist, it would kill all Flash ads and drive-by malware.

      Microsoft had success with this method when Vista came out. At first every app produced multiple UAC prompts constantly, but within months all the popular ones had been updated to avoid doing that and by the time Windows 7 came out most were well behaved.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Flash is like IE 6 by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      So your corporate training programme itself hasn't been updated as well? It's just weird to think that 10 year old slides are still useful for training. As if time has stood still in other parts of the company as well. Doesn't sound good to me.

    5. Re:Flash is like IE 6 by operagost · · Score: 1

      2 must have apps which are impossible to ever replace

      Those must-have apps must be worth a lot of money, because paying Microsoft for special post-EOL support is quite pricey. And if you aren't paying Microsoft for security support, then that is likely to be even pricier.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:Flash is like IE 6 by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      Many slashdotters who never worked in non IT or .com companies are flabbergasted at posts like mine :-)

      For the rest of us it's business as usual in a focus on sales and cutting IT costs by not changing what has always worked

    7. Re:Flash is like IE 6 by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      It's not about the technology, it's about the content of the sheets. That usually also needs updates now and then. New products, new (hopefully improved) sales procedures, etc.

    8. Re:Flash is like IE 6 by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Well maybe your job should look into hiring someone to remake the old code into newer one. Saying it's "impossible to ever replace" is the problem, stop thinking that way and start thinking "what can be done to replace this dinosaur"

      You're going to pay to hire a PM and replace an app which still works just fine that is the life and blood of the company with an untested one where users have to be retrained and may not work as good .... and why?? Oh because some geek thinks IE 6 and flash are uncool? HA

      I am in Houston and the energy crash created many unemployed IT guys who would be thrilled to have my job if I can't handle legacy and work with the cost accountants.

      Look just put a heavily DMZ vlan in a vm container with no Web Access in a citrix box and call it a day?

    9. Re:Flash is like IE 6 by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      We still use IE 6 at work and even xp eol couldn't kill it due to 2 must have apps which are impossible to ever replace.

      Help me understand. If a piece of software was written once, why couldn't a piece of software that has the same functionality be written in a different language? Was there some sort of resource expended in creating the original software which no longer exists? Or are you using a different meaning of the word "impossible?"

      Our training only works with ancient insecure flash 11 at work due to a 10 year old version of premier which created our slides.

      And your solution is to keep using IE 6 and Flash 11? This is the best that the brightest minds at your company have come up with? The company I work for makes training all day, every day, using modern standards, so what exactly is stopping your company from updating your materials? We get update contracts all the time, why is your company special? Is it because you have shit management and no plan for the future?

      Lock the browser out of flash and we will stick with obsolete version

      I hate to point this out, but you already are sticking with an obsolete version, even though newer things are available now. You have made the decision that you are going to stick with old outdated things, even though you have newer options. Your decision did not have anything to do with browsers not running Flash, so if Flash is locked out you will still be doing the same thing you always have. Apparently you guys haven't figured out that updating your materials is the only realistic long-term strategy, instead you've decided to hang on to the obsolete until your position is completely untenable, and then rush around replacing everything at great expense. That's some pretty impressive decision-making you guys have going on over there. But, please, stop trying to pull everyone else down with you. We're moving on from Flash. We don't care if you will or not, we're going to do it anyway. You guys can either figure out that your solution is the worst of all possible solutions, or you can keep holding on to your ancient technology and rock yourself to sleep with the cold comfort that things will never, ever, ever, change.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    10. Re:Flash is like IE 6 by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      The CFO decides what is a priority for IT like most non tech companies. She doesn't want to spend $400 on buying a new version of Premier and HR has more important things to anyway than to redo it and will raise a stink to high heaven to the CFO why it's a bad idea. No IT will tell them what to do. We all should be thankful we have a job etc.

      We use IE 8 and keep IE 6 in Citrix.

      Wait you don't use flash or old java at work? Wow, no cisco or vsphere at all. :-) They all rely on security exploits like self signed certificates to work so you need old to get job done. Welcome to life

      Remember the goal of business is to raise the share price. Best way is to raise revenue and cutting expenses. Hiring more sales guys and commercials will win everytime

    11. Re:Flash is like IE 6 by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      She doesn't want to spend $400 on buying a new version of Premier and HR has more important things to anyway than to redo it

      Are you kidding me? Your company is crippled with old software because you guys want to avoid a $400 expense? Holy hell.

      Remember the goal of business is to raise the share price.

      Yeah, and nothing causes share prices to skyrocket like saying we don't want to spend $400 to get rid of old, outdated, depricated, insecure, buggy, vulnerable, easily-exploitable software.

      Wait you don't use flash or old java at work? Wow, no cisco or vsphere at all.

      We dumped Cisco years ago, good riddance. We're only 2 servers away from cutting ties with Microsoft as well, and we only build training using Flash if the customer specifically requires it, otherwise it's done in HTML 5. And, no, we do not use Java for anything. I've instructed people to make sure Java is off their machine.

      You know what else we don't use? IE8, IE6, or Flash 11. We don't even test on IE8 any more, we have language in our contracts which say that if customers find bugs in their training which are only present in IE8, and they want those bugs fixed, they need to pay to have them fixed. We no longer provide free support for IE8, and no one cares. Our customers know they need to upgrade, instead of paying to fix bugs that only affect them they find it a better use of their time and money to update their software and other materials. Most companies find that to be a necessary and useful expense, in fact.

      I notice that you didn't address the "impossible" nature of replacing your software. It's obviously possible, modernizing your company is clearly possible and one day will be necessary, you just have no desire to actually do it. Don't make it sound like you have no choice, you guys are just lazy. This is what happens when you have a CFO determining IT policy instead of a CTO, but I'm guessing you don't want to pay a CTO either. Those shareholders each need their additional penny that a competent CTO would cost the company, right?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    12. Re:Flash is like IE 6 by rail2rail · · Score: 1

      That "lifeblood of the company" could very well be a ticking time bomb waiting to detonate in your faces.

  14. NPAPI vs. PPAPI by tepples · · Score: 2

    Adobe did not kill Flash Player for Linux. It killed Flash Player for Linux NPAPI due to limits of NPAPI. Flash Player for PPAPI was alive and well in Google Chrome for Linux last time I checked.

    1. Re:NPAPI vs. PPAPI by peppepz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But flash Player for NPAPI is alive and well on Windows.

    2. Re:NPAPI vs. PPAPI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      so basically you're saying kill flash for everything but chrome.

    3. Re:NPAPI vs. PPAPI by jones_supa · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yep. Chrome is the only way to get modern Flash under Linux. The old NPAPI plugin is stuck at version 11.2 and only gets security updates. The PPAPI plugin is already at version 18.0.

    4. Re:NPAPI vs. PPAPI by rseuhs · · Score: 1

      18 is a higher number than 11! It must be superior!

    5. Re:NPAPI vs. PPAPI by jones_supa · · Score: 2

      The hardware acceleration of 11.2 is pretty crusty.

    6. Re:NPAPI vs. PPAPI by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Opera and Chrome both use Pepper.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  15. Re:How about 2015 July 15 0000UTC? by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    See the IAB (which still mentions silverlight alongside javascript) which sets standards, about killing flash, then you might see change.

    "I just browse the site on my tablet; it's almost like using Adblock." Would that get the IAB's attention?

  16. Do your part nerds! by trawg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Uninstall Flash. Just stop using it. Encourage your friends to do the same.

    I uninstalled it a couple months ago. I no longer have to worry about updating it or being exposed to the vast amount of vulnerabilities - it should be clear to everyone by now that it is a /major/ vector for infection.

    Only a few times have I hit content that still requires Flash - usually sites that have an old Flash video player. Most big sites or sites using modern players happily support HTML5 video. Those that don't I can live without. (Bonus: far less irritating animated ads. For now.)

    But make sure you provide feedback to sites that still have Flash - let them know you can't use the site properly. Fortunately - largely thanks to Apple's refusal to allow Flash in iOS - there are fewer and fewer of these today.

    1. Re:Do your part nerds! by tepples · · Score: 2

      Most big sites or sites using modern players happily support HTML5 video.

      Last time I checked, Albino Blacksheep, Dagobah, Weebl's Stuff, Homestar Runner, Newgrounds, and Kongregate were all Flash. When did this change?

    2. Re:Do your part nerds! by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Uninstall Flash. Just stop using it. Encourage your friends to do the same.

      I would, but I listen to Pandora Radio on my desktop while at work. Pandora needs flash.

      I don't know if it is something that I am doing, but in the last month or two, flash seems to crash far, far more often. Several times per day (and often several times per hour). I have installed a flash-block plugin and will see if things improve.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:Do your part nerds! by Kkloe · · Score: 1

      nah I rather keep it for the porn and illegal video streaming sites, oohhh and dont forget all the fury porn flash "games"

    4. Re:Do your part nerds! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      HomestarRunner already has you covered.

      (Requires Flash. Bite me.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re:Do your part nerds! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      I don’t hit many problems other than the BBC insist on using Flash to serve video and increasingly serve articles as video only (sigh)

      Makes it easier to hide the increasing number of spelling and grammatical errors seen in BBC articles.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    6. Re:Do your part nerds! by jones_supa · · Score: 2

      Uninstall Flash. Just stop using it. Encourage your friends to do the same.

      I would, but I listen to Pandora Radio on my desktop while at work. Pandora needs flash.

      Facepalm. Dude, it's called a boycott. It's part of the idea that you have to make compromises for it.

    7. Re:Do your part nerds! by phsdv · · Score: 1

      I did uninstall Flash a few months ago. The only issue I have is that I cannot watch the slashdots videos. Oh well, won;t miss much there I guess ;-)

    8. Re:Do your part nerds! by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Facepalm. Dude, it's called a boycott. It's part of the idea that you have to make compromises for it.

      So you think that Pandora will change their ways if a small fraction of one percent of their userbase stops using it?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Do your part nerds! by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      No, I don't. I am not behind this boycott.

    10. Re:Do your part nerds! by trawg · · Score: 1

      I have it on good authority that youporn happily supports HTML5 video. Switch to their mobile site. It works perfectly.

    11. Re:Do your part nerds! by trawg · · Score: 1

      The writing is on the wall for Flash. Everyone knows it. It has been ever since Apple gave them the epic finger.

      The only question is how quickly people abandon it. If you're a nerd - the precise person that I was addressing in my comment and the precise person I expect to be reading comments on Slashdot - I feel you have a /duty/ to lead the charge.

      Uninstall Flash. Tell Pandora why you can no longer use their service. Find a competing service that offers HTML5 or some other mechanism.

      I've never used Pandora; I stream radio for my music discovery (via a good ole fashioned mp3 stream that I can play in a wide variety of software). Certainly I don't get people that are married to Pandora that hard - but if you're an actual nerd - you have options.

    12. Re:Do your part nerds! by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dude, you can't just mention "furry porn flash games" and not link to any. That's just rude.

    13. Re:Do your part nerds! by sbrown7792 · · Score: 1

      Regarding Pandora, check out 'pianobar'. It doesn't ship with a GUI, but it is a desktop Pandora application that doesn't require flash. Also, unlimited skips and no ads, even if you're not a Pandora One subscriber. Been using it for the past 2 years now.

    14. Re:Do your part nerds! by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      That's where the FlashBlock extension comes in handy. No flash, unless you explicitly allow it to run.

    15. Re:Do your part nerds! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I feel you have a /duty/ to lead the charge. Uninstall Flash.

      I rarely need flash. I have noscript set to block it by default. The problem is solved as far as I'm concerned — I only see SWFs when I want to. Firefox is going to "do the right thing" straight into the grave. Sites I am going to use are using flash and/or weak crypto and I am going to keep using them. Warning me that I am engaging in unsafe behavior is one thing; preventing me from visiting a site will just have me opening it in another browser, one in which I have less tools to protect my privacy. By trying to save me from myself, Firefox is making my web browsing experience less secure — and giving me more and more reason to customize Chrome. If I get Chrome to the point where using it is almost as nice as using Firefox, I will drop-kick Firefox straight through the goalposts of "But I had your best interests in mind" and right into "up yours" territory.

      TL;DR: I feel you're a frothing zealot.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Do your part nerds! by trawg · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what Firefox or Chrome have to do with the discussion (or why you feel the need to be abusive towards me). Perhaps you are thinking of the other Slashdot thread that popped up a few hours later about Firefox blocking Flash?

      Technically competent users are at less risk of Flash exploits, of course. But they are not the problem. Non-technical people take their cues from what their technical friends do and say; my point is that without us continuing to do the work that Apple started it's just going to take forever to get rid of it.

      It's clear that as long as Flash exists it will continue to be a major vector for security-related problems. Entirely the point of the Facebook bloke that started this entire thread, of course. I am merely saying that we should do what we can to hasten its demise and encourage others to do the same. But I guess I'm not so helplessly dependent on a handful of sites that continue to use Flash as some people might be.

    17. Re:Do your part nerds! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what Firefox or Chrome have to do with the discussion (or why you feel the need to be abusive towards me).

      You're telling me that I have a duty to stop using flash. But it's not a problem for me. Why not advocate flashblock? That's what I do.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:Do your part nerds! by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Uninstall Flash. Just stop using it. Encourage your friends to do the same.

      I uninstalled it a couple months ago. I no longer have to worry about updating it or being exposed to the vast amount of vulnerabilities - it should be clear to everyone by now that it is a /major/ vector for infection.

      Only a few months ago? At least you removed it... I removed flash from all of my computers back in 2009. I was responsible for vulnerability analysis and noticed that every month, there was at least one vulnerability for flash and another for java. I removed both.

      I bought a laptop in 2013 that had Windows 8 on it. The very first thing I did was start patching it and downloading updates. It did not matter, I got a virus less than 4 hours after starting the patching process. How? Through a flash plugin that was not installed in such a way that I could even see that it existed.

      I formatted the drive with a vengeance and installed Arch Linux on it... which it is still running to this day. Flash can burn in hell as can Windows 8.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  17. Ad formats by tepples · · Score: 1

    Google and Facebook have the right to dictate what ad formats they will deliver. Google further has the right to dictate what file formats Googlebot will index. Historically, it has indexed SWF, but if Google wants to bury SWF, it'll index sites as if Flash Player is not installed.

    1. Re:Ad formats by fred911 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Even if flash is "officially" killed, Google will still index it. Pages dependent upon Flash for their main content will take a quality hit (actually they already are), hence a rank loss

        Android doesn't support it, and if you cant render content for that platform, well you just lose the ability to meet the needs of the user (or a major percentage of them).

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:Ad formats by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Eh? My Android tablet supports Flash.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:Ad formats by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Flash for Android is unsupported and hilariously out of date. Running it isn't so much like wearing a sign that says "kick me" as it is a fluorescent bulls-eye on your chest and back.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  18. Not going to happen any time soon... by David_Hart · · Score: 4, Informative

    Too many internet pages rely on Flash for video and advertisements... and,as much as we hate them, advertisements means money...

    I'm not saying that progress isn't being made. Youtube dropped Flash this year and is now using HTML5 as the default for video, but that doesn't fix legacy videos.
    http://www.theverge.com/2015/1...

    My thought is that Flash will be around for another 3 to 5 years. The quoted "18 months" is just wishful thinking....

    1. Re:Not going to happen any time soon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yup. Won't somebody think of the porn!

      Now if some of the bug porn sites would switch to HTML5...

    2. Re:Not going to happen any time soon... by tepples · · Score: 1

      bug porn

      Oh, hi.

  19. Would Today Be Soon? by EzInKy · · Score: 1

    I've never seen a Flash update that protects end users from Adobe, not one!! I may get get rich off off blocking companies looking to profit from me. Or I might not. But in the end what is mine is mine, and fuck you for trying to suck it out of me.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  20. The Anti-Monitor Couldn't Even Do This by Guy+From+V · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is Professor Zoom the Facebook CSO now? I can't keep up with all the retcons.

    1. Re:The Anti-Monitor Couldn't Even Do This by genner · · Score: 1

      Is Professor Zoom the Facebook CSO now? I can't keep up with all the retcons.

      It was MEEEEEE, Barry! It was me all along!

  21. Shumway is more like Wine by tepples · · Score: 1

    In this analogy, Shumway (an independent reimplementation of SWF named after the creature from ALF) would be like switching from Windows to X11/Linux and using Wine (an independent reimplementation of Win32 named after an age-restricted beverage). This isn't the same thing as compatibility mode in Windows, which I'm told uses actual copies of the previous version's DLLs. Is there a counterpart to Wine AppDB for Shumway, to give someone a good impression of how well it will handle the majority of things on Newgrounds and Albino Blacksheep? What can be done when bug reports filed against Shumway for particular URLs remain unfixed for months or years?

    1. Re:Shumway is more like Wine by kimvette · · Score: 1

      Windows 7 Pro's/Ultimate's/Enterprise's Windows XP Compatibility Mode actually uses a FULL installation of Windows XP inside a hypervisor... exactly the same as Virtual PC (it's host is Virtual PC) or VirtualBox. It is absolutely 100% Windows XP compatible because it is a full install of Windows XP; you just won't get hardware video acceleration on many systems.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  22. I have a better idea. by epyT-R · · Score: 3, Funny

    Despite flash being a scourge, it would be better for the internet to pick a day to kill off facebook.

    1. Re:I have a better idea. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Why, because you don't like a service that 1.4 billion people around the world use?

    2. Re:I have a better idea. by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      No, it's not simple like or dislike. Online social dynamics were better when they were more anonymous. Sites like facebook trashed these old rules by forcing people to use real identities and linking them to other real life details online. This way they could fuel adolescent-like narcissism and insecurity in users as they interacted with each other, keeping them psychologically and socially dependent on the service. The company uses this fermented mentality to continually extract information on its user base to sell to advertisers and anyone else willing to pay. Net culture would be a lot better off if it and other sites like it died. Hell, real life interactions might also improve.

    3. Re:I have a better idea. by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      The exact same argument can be applied to Flash, at least a few years ago when it was used by vast majority of users on the internet.

    4. Re:I have a better idea. by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Online social dynamics were better when they were more anonymous

      Yep like 4chan became the bastion of online social dynamics. I would just call you a retard now to further disprove your point because I am hiding behind a pseudonym but I'll educate you instead. There's no difference in social dynamics now than before. There are still places for anonymous online venting, and if that' your idea of what it a social interchange requires then by all means continue to do so, Facebook does nothing to stop you.

      On the flip side Facebook is about a circle of people you know, so right of the bat your idea that only social dynamics require anonymity falls flat on its face. The point is not that you're looking at people's real information, the point is you contact people you know.

      As for social dependence, people use Facebook because it provides something of value. Kind of like any service. It's not a drug, it's a service and people would happily move away from it if they find something "better" (the word "better" having quotes around it because I'm talking about their idea of "better" not what you think would be "better"). A site doesn't have 1.4bn users because people like being sold advertising.

      The only thing truly pure about net culture is that it can be all things to all people. The only thing toxic to net culture is the idea that any part of it should be removed because of anyone's opinion. Are you by any chance a member of congress?

    5. Re:I have a better idea. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      There's no argument there. You are 100% right. Facebook is transient but it won't die because a single person doesn't like it, just like Flash didn't die because a single person didn't like it.

      These things die when they are replaced with something of equal or greater value to the end users, or if the value proposition ends. Flash's value started eroding a long time ago, before HTML5. Now please go and create something amazing to replace Facebook, because it's not going to simply get switched off due to random Slashdot hate.

    6. Re:I have a better idea. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Can't it be both?

    7. Re:I have a better idea. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      This relatively new expectation of infinite 'social justice' just drives what people really think underground, and it comes out as passive aggressive behavior that makes things worse, not better. In the last few years, there's been a real push to make net culture conform to crazy levels of political correctness, labeling ever growing percentage of critical opinion (and contradictory fact) as 'hate speech' or bigotry. So while there are still places to go, they are dwindling, and that does not change the fact that a lot of mainstream sites used to allow it and now don't. Apparently, net culture can't be all things to all people, at least according to those who think they should police the speech of others with compulsion and blackmail of those running the stages.

      4chan used to be a bastion of free speech, but poole sold out in case you haven't heard. I was actually surprised. Considering the history of the site, I didn't expect him to fold so easily to feminists.

      Facebook is about selling your personal info to advertisers and anyone else willing to pay in return for 'free' access to interactive services easily found elsewhere. The user is the product being sold. Personal info includes, your stats, your likes/dislikes, your social relations, any chats, your behavior, and anything else they can eek from your browser habits on the many sites that run facebook javascript. Records are kept of all transactions. As I hope you're aware, it's a lot riskier to have your info and social interactions broadcast online in a permanent record than within your real life circle. What's innocent banter today, is 'problematic' tomorrow. It doesn't take much for a little off color commentary between college buddies to blow up (or as online SJWs put it, 'signal boost') into a shit storm that destroys careers and lives. Facebook's EULA coupled with probable government collusion are hardly consolations either.

      Since you read slashdot, I'm puzzled why I have to explain why it's bad to air your social interactions online tied to a massive online dossier. Calling people names doesn't make much of a case, either.

    8. Re:I have a better idea. by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      That's where it starts. Then some people start trying to enforce their idea of 'civil terms' on everyone else...

  23. Porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the (in my opinion) major aspects should not be forgotten: As long as porn sites like youporn rely on flash, flash will not die.

    1. Re:Porn by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      That's not true. When Flash dies porn sites will either adapt or die also.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  24. Re: How about 2015 July 15 0000UTC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Tells you a lot about VMWare though.

  25. cap by tepples · · Score: 4, Informative

    A lot of the content (like Homestar Runner and Weebl's Stuff) is also available via their official YouTube channels. You lose all the interactivity, though.

    Rendering the video to pixels and compressing it with H.264 or VP8 bloats files by a factor of ten in my tests. The era of dial-up is mostly over, but the era of monthly quotas and pay-per-bit last miles is still very much with us.

    1. Re: cap by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Mummy still pays your Internet bill? How nice for you.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:cap by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wouldn't be surprised if Flash were still around twenty years from now, because at the moment it is still the platform of choice for development by a lot of people.

      For comparison, think that Java applets haven't been a popular method of development for nearly 15 years, and they're still with us.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  26. Re: How about 2015 July 15 0000UTC? by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That is a pretty sad indictment on the state of vsphere.

  27. just installed Watch with MPV & works great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/watch-with-mpv/

    I need bbc news video clip support though as bbc news web developer basically suck at there jobs. They push HTML5 video for iPads which don't support Adobe Flash, but output a message telling everybody else who doesn't have Adobe Flash installed to install it. I DON'T want to f'ing install it you idiots. I like the Gardian better, but they've got fewer articles. The Gardian does appear to do HTML5 by default too.

  28. Crashes are the developer's fault. Period. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A software crash is NEVER the fault of the user. Ever. Any developer that blames the user is an idiot. Period.

  29. Re:How about 2015 July 15 0000UTC? by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

    There are still enterprise applications out there that depends on the Microsoft Java plugin.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  30. He will need to get in line behind Professor Zoom by BusyDuckman · · Score: 1

    Didn't see "Alex Stamos - Facebook CSO" on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Flash_enemies Perhaps the article needs updating?

  31. How about an "old folks home"? by GoonDuIO · · Score: 1

    Is it possible for major browser vendors to implement a sandbox for obsolete technology? When a tech becomes too outdated, put them in and restrict their functionality, hence reducing the different ways of attack and slowly let them fade away gracefully, giving other people time to update their stuff.

    1. Re:How about an "old folks home"? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Just whitelist Flash in your browser. Problem solved.

    2. Re:How about an "old folks home"? by GoonDuIO · · Score: 1

      Does a whitelist actually block certain functionality from browser plugins? What I was thinking is to prevent the plugin that are put into the sandbox from accessing certain resources or executing certain routines. Any plugin that does that will be blocked while other plugins that do not block such resources will just be displayed as normal. This will give a more gradual migration of technology.

    3. Re:How about an "old folks home"? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Well, that's a larger discussion.

  32. Re:As a Flash hobbyist... by chefmonkey · · Score: 1

    ,,,is there an equivalent development program for HTML5? Like, would I really have to code absolutely everything including the x,y positions of literally every shape to grace the screen, or is there something with a drag/drop transform interface to modify shapes directly on the canvas?

    I think the program you're looking for is called "Adobe Flash Pro CC": http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2...

  33. Obligatory Devil's Advocate by Waccoon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Replace the word "Flash" with any other plugin or technology that geeks don't like. Will it still be okay if we go out of our way to kill it and make sure nobody can use it? Replace "Adobe" with "Free Software Foundation". Is that better? How about we talk about the Unity3D plugin? That's a plugin, too, just like Adobe PDF and Java, so that means it's bad. It's easy to pick on Flash and I can't say I really like the plugin, but when organizations with a large amount of industry influence start talking about killbits, that makes me really nervous.

    I'd have no problem with Facebook urging other web sites to stop using Flash, especially if they're willing to support development of an alternative. When they talk about actively killing things for the good of the community, that's going too far. This starts leaning to the direction that it's okay to execute prisoners because nobody likes them.

    Sometimes I'm really disturbed by the will of the community. I'm already pissed enough that I can't run certain Java applets anymore because the great Oracle says I'd hurt myself if I tried. Heaven forbid they give me a warning and I make up my own mind. As for grandma's computer, I could just configure the web browser to not use Java or install any other plugin.

    1. Re:Obligatory Devil's Advocate by sribe · · Score: 1

      Replace the word "Flash" with any other plugin or technology that geeks don't like.

      That argument does not hold, because Flash has been proven over time to be uniquely bad, and Adobe uniquely unable to fix it.

    2. Re:Obligatory Devil's Advocate by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Hear hear

      I love Flash. It isolates all the annoyingness. Why I would want that to be part of some open standard instead is a mystery to me. I mean, is there an HTML5 compliant browser that only lets whitelisted stuff through? I have similar issues with javascript being an all-or-nothing (at least on a domain-by-domain level) experience.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  34. Ironic by Forever+Wondering · · Score: 1

    The TFA page cited in the post has an embedded video. It is the "SoundCloud" video player, which my Ghostery plugin blocked.

    --
    Like a good neighbor, fsck is there ...
  35. Re: How about 2015 July 15 0000UTC? by qubezz · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's better than VMWare 5.5, which required it's own NPAPI plugin, which barely worked with an old version of Chrome on Linux, and doesn't work with any distro you can just spin up. As a cross-platform management solution, it was dead before it was born.

    Worse is Chinese no-name security DVRs that are still being deployed, that require an activex plugin.

  36. Re:How about 2015 July 15 0000UTC? by dryeo · · Score: 1

    Dinosaurs are one of the more successful types of animals on Earth, even now I can here one hooting out in the forest and probably hunting my cat, so what's the problem of being a dinosaur?

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  37. Re:How about 2015 July 15 0000UTC? by ReeceTarbert · · Score: 1

    If you're not using HTML5 by now, you're a fucking dinosaur.

    Fair enough, but where are the authoring tools then? Coding everything by hand might be fun for a "look ma, no Flash!" demo, but a full blown application? Not so much. And don't get me started about Google, Apple, etc. pushing their slightly different flavour of HTML5...

    RT.

  38. Re: How about 2015 July 15 0000UTC? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Is ActiveX still required for any online banking in South Korea?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  39. Re:How about 2015 July 15 0000UTC? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Interactive Advertising Bureau. Who'd've thought there could be such a thing?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  40. Thats odd.. by jaygridley · · Score: 1

    considering the fact that if I log in to Facebook from my PC it loads Flash.

  41. Lets just kill... by Henning+Rogge · · Score: 1

    Java Applets at the same time. Or maybe mandate a domain whitelisting for applets.

  42. Re:As a Flash hobbyist... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    Formerly known as Jasc Trajectory Pro--a product I once held high hopes for, until Adobe assimilated it.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  43. Facebook uses flash by ZeroSerenity · · Score: 1

    for its videos. Please start by fixing that first.

    --
    For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
  44. The chinese would say: by Unnamed+Chickenheart · · Score: 1

    The best time to kill flash was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

    --
    urd
  45. Ton of legacy by Zarhan · · Score: 2

    There's plenty of legacy stuff in intranets that require flash that is *not* easily upgradeable, or at least up to the user.

    Case example on where I run every now and then in work, Cisco IMC controllers (server management cards).

    http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/t...

    Their UI is based on Flash (and Java), for remote console, status data, and so on. If I point a browser to a CIMC server, the first thing I see is "Install flash player" if it's not already installed. Even if Cisco would release an upgrade *today*, how often are people interested in rebooting their servers for firmware upgrades as long as it's running ok?

    1. Re:Ton of legacy by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Case example on where I run every now and then in work, Cisco IMC controllers (server management cards).

      Yes, that is almost as dumb as HP printers requiring Java to do shit you could have done with Javascript, even then. Same story. All that means is you should avoid Cisco in the future. They have proven themselves to be dumbfucks. From the first router to a backdoor for every router, so classic.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  46. Re:How about 2015 July 15 0000UTC? by Xesenix · · Score: 1

    Seems as good a time as any.

    If you're not using HTML5 by now, you're a fucking dinosaur.

    Did you test flash vs html5?

    flash still a lot better choice for making games...

  47. Re: How about 2015 July 15 0000UTC? by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 1

    I will never understand why they wrote the web vSphere client to use Flash. I do believe HTML5 was coming into the limelight a year or two before it came out. Now we're stuck with a turd since they won't put new features into the fat client. The new GUI is shit anyway. It took me quite a while to figure out which disks attached to a guest were RDMs.

  48. I hate flash, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I suggest all of you bitching about it uninstall it and then try a porn site. HTML5 has a *LONG* way to go yet.

  49. F wars by MLBs · · Score: 1

    What did the blue background f say to the red background f? F you.

  50. Re: How about 2015 July 15 0000UTC? by swb · · Score: 1

    I kind of get why they want to make vSphere management less Windows dependent, but the Flash dependency is crazy. And IMHO, they are kind of shooting themselves in the foot by not adding new features to the fat client, even if it goes against their desire to be less Windows dependent as it makes most places less aware of engaged with new feature that require the web client because they all want to use the fat client (not to mention the clusterfuckery catch-22 of new features on standalone hosts without a vCenter instance).

  51. A Lost Cause... by MagickalMyst · · Score: 2

    Getting rid of flash won't improve Facebook. You can't fix stupid.

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
  52. Update by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

    I just deinstalled Flash and tried Spiegel.de again. It still works.One more problem solved :-)

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
    1. Re:Update by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      Did you use Chrome, which has a built-in version of flash separate from the system-wide version (last time I checked)?

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    2. Re:Update by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      Nope, Firefox all the way.

      I have some reservations about the privacy policy of Google, and by extension about their products.
      Adobe appear to be incompetents, but I don't trust Google to be not evil.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
  53. Great, now can we do the same for GIF please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Maybe it'll force all browsers and devices to properly support webm so we don't get crying idiots anymore anytime it's used. GIF belongs in 1995. I can't believe that in 2015, everyone is totally ok wasting shittons of bandwidth on making animations that are color reduced to hell and run at about 5 fps yet weigh in at incredible filesizes, because they're trying to cram shit into it that the format was never designed for. It's like people on horses trying to travel the fucking freeway.

    It may not have the security issues Flash does, but it's a problem nonetheless.

  54. Good Riddance! Just like we killed off GIF /SARC by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm so glad there's a move afoot to kill Flash, in which a few well-connected standards goonies who are not satisfied with the rollout for HTML5 think that no campaign to capture hearts and minds is complete without some form of digital strip mining, in which major portions of the Internet heritage are blocked by "newer, better" software and rendered dark, obsolete and broken overnight. It's just like a seat belt law,right? It's all about protecting Joe Sixpack from driving drunk on the web. And the big important players like Facebook have naught but our precious safety as a motive. /SARC

    I hated Flash for its abuses and excesses at first, but I have grown fond of the things it has become useful for, and does well. Here is a low level instruction set of instruction and vector graphic primitives that has been used to accomplish amazing feats. Even self-contained and offline feats. Things that will never make it to HTML5 without a serious ride in the newer is better and bigger and much slower (though our processors are faster and memory is bigger so we pretend that it's faster and smaller) bloat-mobile. /NOTSARC

    Remember when the Whole Damned World was ready for a GIF-killer? And PNG was one little tiny step away from doing so? The png image format was so ready to dominate the world, and we were maybe a few open source developer weekends away from having a GIFlike format with comparable non-encumbered LZW compression, and (as promised) simple animation too. To be able to animate in full RGB without shoving palettes down our collective throats. Well, some people on the Standards Committee, some <BLINK>anti-blink tag hipsters</BLINK> who were Running With Scissors cut out that promise and proceeded to punt the animate part of the bargain into the Next MNG generation, which would be a video-killer too and would happen Real Soon Now. The upshot was that the PNG rocket sled hit a big pile of jello, While MNG was languishing, a whole generation of web-folk faced difficult times with GIF in which open source tools generated bloaty files unless you compiled them yourself (because they did not to fork money or paperwork to license the LZW) and the world was treated to... more of GIF! It is today's GIF! And do we have those <BLINK>anti-blink tag hipsters</BLINK> to thank? No, that is not really fair, they just wanted to build a better world. But bad decisions in retrospect do happen. /NOTSARC

    But Flash is different! Never mind how useful it has become, it must be killed. Because in this silly Collectivist world of planned obsolescence it is not enough to succeed. Something old must be declared evil, be systematically dismantled and ultimately fail not on its own lack of merit, but because some all seeing Standards Committee wishes to keep Joe Sixpack safe while driving drunk on the web. The insurance companies have already factored in the liability for HTML5 vulnerability coverage so we're good there. /SARC

    From this day forward, any zero day vulnerabilities in HTML5 code will be tolerated in the civilized manner, and any emerging Flash exploits will be blamed on the Iranians and North Koreans, and those who continue to use and support Flash will have their hip-credentials revoked. /NOTSARC And we're ready to destroy all those vinyl LP phonograph records too, all the music that matters has been reissued, yeah, fuck that old music. /SARC

    Because, God Forbid, the whole human race could never just gather to re-write a popular primitive procedural language without creating a shitload of new exploitable errors. It just cannot be done. /SARC

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  55. I doubt it will happen, but I hope it does by f00zbll · · Score: 1

    it seems like the stupid ads on slashdot from flash ads cause firefox to crash atleast 2 times a day. So yeah, screw flash.

  56. Re:How about 2015 July 15 0000UTC? by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

    even now I can here one hooting out in the forest and probably hunting my cat

    More likely it's the other way around.

  57. vmware vsphere is still on flash by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    that needs to go HTML5 soon and make it a free upgrade as well.

  58. Did Oracle Buy FB? by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

    This is exactly how Oracle operates. 'We know what is best for you and shall disable XYZ'. Really FB, just go fuck yourself. Whether Flash is good/bad or something else, FB has no right to collude to deny computer users the right to use any program/plugin/interface outside of their own site.

  59. I prefer Flash video to HTML5 video. by damnbunni · · Score: 2

    Why? Because with Flash video I just get a big blank box I can click to play it, and shit never autoplays.

    Autoplaying video needs to die.

  60. Facebook execs are so cute sometimes... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    They are so full of themselves, they think they control the world.

  61. Edge Animate by tepples · · Score: 1

    Also, are there tools on par with Flash (the editor!) for animating HTML (CSS or Canvas)?

    I'm not aware of any tools you can buy, but I've heard of one you can rent: Edge Animate.

  62. Provided its author is still contactable by tepples · · Score: 1

    Converting an existing Flash project is pretty easy.

    Provided its author is still contactable and still has the .fla files. Good luck contacting authors of the majority of works on Newgrounds to follow through with this conversion.

  63. If it requires possession of the .fla source by tepples · · Score: 1

    Adobe's flash can export most any fla to html 5

    Do sites that allow users to upload Flash files require the user to also upload the .fla, or only the .swf?

  64. TODAY!! by Lisias · · Score: 1

    Nuff said.

    --
    Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
  65. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  66. Re:How about 2015 July 15 0000UTC? by dryeo · · Score: 1

    It's a Barred Owl, now and again it comes around and sits in a tree eyeballing the cat. Luckily the cat is very furry and looks large enough that the owl decides the cat is too big to tackle. Still the wife tries to keep the cat inside at dusk but the cat likes being outside, especially in the heat.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  67. Re:How about 2015 July 15 0000UTC? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    Large corporations are still using browsers that do not support HTML5, due to long cycles between updates. For that very reason, a client recently asked that our project be coded in Flash as opposed to HTML5.

    Also, as a concept, I'd much rather all the code be captured in a couple of components that can fail without bringing down the whole page to a site that literally cannot render anything unless I allow it to run arbitrary (hopefully sandboxed) code on my computer.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  68. Re: How about 2015 July 15 0000UTC? by sound+vision · · Score: 1

    I had honestly forgot ActiveX existed. I don't know where it went, but I'm glad it's not here anymore.

  69. Re:How about 2015 July 15 0000UTC? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    See the IAB (which still mentions silverlight alongside javascript) which sets standards, about killing flash, then you might see change.

    I think you've got that backwards. Some advertising board doesn't get to dictate what technologies we use. We figure that part out, and the advertisers can either adapt or stop advertising. If Flash adoption goes down to 10%, do you think the advertisers are still going to be pumping out Flash ads?

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  70. Re:Good Riddance! Just like we killed off GIF /SAR by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    But until you actually, and openly, do something about these problems, you are equally guilty. Because you are lazy.

    Through the /SARC when it comes down to it you are right of course. Please +mod Parent as an amazingly and thought provoking response, a fine rant response. I must admit that over the years I have been part of the problem. Despite time put in to learn the mechanics of computer language, network, protocol and presentation, applying many an operations-oriented shim or patch or fix.. I have NOT delved deep into any single open-source project, taken the reins, become part of a team, or even one of those prolific lone wolf coders. I have no curriculum vitae in open source. Now that I look back on it that's kind of shameful, especially as I present myself as a critic of the times. I'll try to do better with the next half of my life.

    Who are those bad actors and what is bad acting? Leaving aside the potential for cross site scripting, malformed instructions, rooting and malware for a moment. There was a time when smooth continuous motion on the borders of a web page, however clever the item, was considered distracting by static purists, who even objected to looping animation. I was never one of those, though I did see they clearly disliked the intrusive and unexpected. Then came the sounds, loud and lots. In a platform where a mute button or volume control must be explicitly coded few did and if your volume control was up you'd be blasted out of your seat muttering "What were they thinking?" But all that is past and gone. There are no aesthetic elements made possible by Flash that are not not do-able from HTML or JS.

    And because migration is now possible some feel migration is necessary. The Register is cheekier than I, spicing urgent reminders with lambasting criticism. Clearly from Adobe's position proactive measures are necessary and a ground-up audit/rewrite is necessary using a compiler framework that (with performance penalty of course) mitigates the silly things like use-after-free. And in Open Source there have been reverse engineering projects and attempts to replicate Flash, lately even shims...

    But what has been missing is an publicly audited open source Flash initiative that had begun years ago, begun right as Flash was introduced. Some would call such a thing intellectual property theft. I'd bring up OpenSSL as a shining example except for... certain things that have happened. Are they worse than the things that might have happened if some corporate actor, RSA for example, imposed bin-only blobs on everyone, Windows Linux and Apple? Who can say.

    But you won't, and there is one telling phrase why not:
    "Because in this silly Collectivist world of planned obsolescence..."
    You have a mindset that can't be reasoned with.

    What you really mean is, You reach down and you flip Flash over on its back. Flash lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.

    Point taken.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  71. Deer Failbook: by DiEx-15 · · Score: 1

    Sure. Go ahead and set a date to kill Flash and Java.

    I'd mention how much of a fail idea it is and try to convince you to stop. However, like Napoleon Bonaparte once said: If your enemy is making a mistake, don't stop them.