Slashdot Mirror


After Twenty Years of Flash, Adobe Kills the Name (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: From January 2016, Adobe Flash will be renamed to 'Adobe Animate CC', killing one of the most unfortunate names in web security as the company pushes the product further and further to HTML5 output. Adobe's release about the update, which will form part of the annual Creative Cloud upgrade, states that a third of all material output from the program is now HTML5. The transitional HTML5 Adobe animation program Edge Animate will be replaced by the renamed Flash product.

125 comments

  1. A rose by any other name... by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A Rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

    Adobe Flash by any other name still reeks of shit.

    1. Re:A rose by any other name... by ourlovecanlastforeve · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, they're learning from the CIA and NSA:

      Tell everyone you're going to stop, but just rename the process and keep doing the same old thing.

    2. Re:A rose by any other name... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      As long as I can turn it off, I don't give a crap what they call it.

      Flash has pretty much had at least one gaping security hole for every month of that 20 years.

      And in the 19.5 years I've been disabling/uninstalling/blocking it, I've never felt like I was missing anything. The sooner Flash finally dies and goes away the better.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:A rose by any other name... by slashkitty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm guessing you're not turning off HTML 5.

      --
      -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    4. Re:A rose by any other name... by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Can't they change the name to Malware at least it will be accurate then.

      --

      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.

    5. Re:A rose by any other name... by Crowd+Computing · · Score: 1

      The curse of the Flash brand name is that it rhymes with a common computer problem, crash, not to mention trash. Maybe Adobe was thinking a longer name would be more difficult for critics to pun. Adobe Obliterate or Defecate, doesn't have the punch of Adobe Crash.

    6. Re:A rose by any other name... by gstoddart · · Score: 0

      I would love to know how ... in no way shape or form do I have any interest in anything bloody animated ever appearing on my screen.

      It's annoying as hell, distracting, and I'm not interested.

      So, yeah, if someone gives me a plugin to disable any form of animation bullshit in HTML 5, I will gladly use it.

      If HTML 5 is just a way to force me to see ads and animations, then HTML 5 is broken by design.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re: A rose by any other name... by jd2112 · · Score: 2

      Adobe Crash.
      It even rhymes with Flash.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    8. Re:A rose by any other name... by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

      Flash was originally created as an artist's tool - to allow streaming animation which didn't take up as much bandwidth by only transmitting backgrounds and sprites once and animating them on the client, rather than streaming raw video. For that purpose it's a fantastic tool, with several TV shows and animated movies still being created with it.

      Flash didn't ask to become the de facto scripting language for the web. It only became that because the HTML standard lacked scripting and programming capability which Flash provided. It was a security disaster because it was only ever intended to be an artist's tool and little thought went into making it secure. If you want to blame someone, blame the folks in charge of the HTML standard. They dragged their feet for over a decade, and didn't update HTML to provide many of the capabilities Flash provided until HTML5. HTML 4.01 was standardized in Dec 1999. HTML 5 was standardized in Oct 2014. It should have been made standard in 2001-2003.

    9. Re:A rose by any other name... by jandrese · · Score: 1

      It's not a perfect solution, but you can install noscript and only allow Javascript on the base page. You'll still get HTML5 animations from the page, but not from ads. You can also leave javascript blocked if it is not crucial to the operation of the particular webpage.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    10. Re:A rose by any other name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people think of ads when they hear the word "Flash", but that's not all there was. I developed very complex applications on top of Flash using the Flex framework. It was object oriented, fast, and worked exactly the same in every browser. Last I heard the company I worked for is still trying to replace the flash version with a HTML 5/ JS version, and can't get anywhere near the same rendering performance (we're talking 10-15 layers with transparency, tiling JPEG images etc.). I don't do anymore Flex/Actionscript development, but I wish Javascript was more like Actionscript. TypeScript looks promising.

    11. Re:A rose by any other name... by ilsaloving · · Score: 2

      No, Flash didn't ask to be the de facto scripting language. But it become so, all the same. And Adobe ran with it, making it more and more featureful, while giving not giving security any thought at all.

      Saying that they didn't ask for it is a cop out. HTML's lack of progress was an opportunity for Adobe, and Adobe pushed Flash as hard as they possibly could, doing everything they could to make Flash utterly ubiquitous. Adobe is *absolutely* to blame for the shitpile that is Flash. They've had more than enough time and opportunity to clean things up. The fact of the matter is that they *chose* not to fix it.

    12. Re:A rose by any other name... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Complain Complain....
      Before flash we had Java Applets, or Active X, after that and before HTML 5 there was an attempt to make silverlight useful.

      Flash had all the GUI elements we wanted, easy to code, and loaded relatively quickly and used a lot less bandwidth than other methods. Adobe went out of its way to make sure it ran on major OS's and browsers.

      Until HTML 5 HTML didn't have too many way to handle Vector graphics, or animations. Not blaming early versions of HTML because with average speed being a 9600bps modem. Its early design were good for document delivery. However by the late 1990's HTML became an Application Interface protocol, you can complain about that, but it happened and it won't go back. Flash was the only decent choice for richer set of data.

      Now there were cases where Flash was used where it shouldn't be. A lot of stuff you can do in HTML 4 was done in flash. But that doesn't make flash a bad product it was the best tool for the time.

      Today not so much, and it should be time to sunset it. But to say it stunk is giving it a gross disservice.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    13. Re:A rose by any other name... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      After looking through the movies and TV shows in both lists... I can safely say the world would have been better of had Flash never existed.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    14. Re:A rose by any other name... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      I can't remember if it's my ad blocker or NoScript but one of them lets you block all and tags. That shuts down all HTML5 video and audio. Of course, that blocks everything so sites like youtube don't work. But if you're fine with that, it's a viable option.

    15. Re:A rose by any other name... by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      And I clicked submit before I really proofread that message. It should read "one of them lets you block all and tags."

    16. Re: A rose by any other name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My exact experience with it. It crashes SO MANY TIMES, and the worst part is, often while I am trying to read something, or play a game (unfortunately sometimes the game itself is written in Flash...stop using it people!,) I get the message on my screen that Adobe Flash has crashed. There's usually a reload button, but I'll try it at times, and I usually soon, if not immediately get another crash!

    17. Re:A rose by any other name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trying to say Flash wasn't already shit by the time Adobe got around to acquiring Macromedia?

    18. Re:A rose by any other name... by Bogtha · · Score: 2

      Flash didn't ask to become the de facto scripting language for the web. It only became that because

      Flash has never been the de facto scripting language for the web. That has always been JavaScript.

      the HTML standard lacked scripting and programming capability which Flash provided.

      No, the HTML standard didn't lack scripting capability, it offered hooks for scripting languages, and they were in use since before Flash existed.

      blame the folks in charge of the HTML standard. They dragged their feet for over a decade, and didn't update HTML to provide many of the capabilities Flash provided until HTML5. HTML 4.01 was standardized in Dec 1999. HTML 5 was standardized in Oct 2014. It should have been made standard in 2001-2003.

      Wow, that's a total misrepresentation of what happened. Client-side scripting was not part of HTML. HTML provided hooks, scripting languages used those hooks to integrate into a page. This is an entirely sensible separation of concerns between content and behaviour. At some point, client-side scripting got glommed onto the HTML 5 specification. But in-between those two points, there were huge amounts of progress with client-side scripting.

      You make it sound as though non-Flash client-side scripting arrived when HTML 5 brought it forth. It was always there, and always making progress, since before Flash existed. HTML 5 was merely the point at which they decided to define some things in the HTML specification rather than separate specifications.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    19. Re:A rose by any other name... by sudon't · · Score: 1

      "Cloud" is already a bad name in my book. I want nothing to do with it.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    20. Re:A rose by any other name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Adobe was thinking a longer name would be more difficult for critics to pun. Adobe Obliterate or Defecate, doesn't have the punch of Adobe Crash.

      Here's 30 seconds of thought:
      Adobe Anihate
            Hateimate
            Hacktivate
            Hackimate
      Yeah, Adobe Hackimate, which you get off torrents and run hacktivate on. /Done

    21. Re:A rose by any other name... by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      It was a security disaster because it was only ever intended to be an artist's tool and little thought went into making it secure.

      And also because it crashed a lot.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    22. Re:A rose by any other name... by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      At this point I can't remember the specific events in history, but I would argue that it really doesn't matter. Both Macromedia, and later Adobe, had more than enough time to clean things up. They didn't.

    23. Re:A rose by any other name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually flash (then owned by macromedia), was really more intended for custom interactive learning and teaching software than just for art. As were the other offerings like authorware from macromedia.

    24. Re:A rose by any other name... by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Not entirely accurate. As the OP said, the program is increasingly shifting over to HTML5 output. The most problematic part of Flash has been the Flash Player plugin, which is not needed for HTML5 pages.

      Whether Animate CC will produce good HTML5 output is another matter. So is the question of whether browsers will turn out to have serious security flaws in their implementations of HTML5. But at the very least it will be a different set of problems.

    25. Re:A rose by any other name... by PingSpike · · Score: 1

      Flash Control for Firefox seems to block HTML5 video from load for me...even though its called Flash Control.

  2. A rose by any other name by sjbe · · Score: 0

    They can call it whatever they want but it will still be a piece of shit. Of course many website and software vendors are complicit in keeping this piece of shit software alive and kicking.

    1. Re:A rose by any other name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can call it whatever they want but it will still be a piece of shit. Of course many website and software vendors are complicit in keeping this piece of shit software alive and kicking.

      The training materials offered by Skillsoft remain a cesspool of Adobe Flash. Any employer requiring to use Skillsoft's training courses can bite my ass.

  3. A Rose by Any Other Name Would Smell as Sweet.. by CaptainOfSpray · · Score: 0, Redundant

    or not, as the case may be...in other words, they can change the name, but they can't change the stink of decay that surrounds Flash

    --
    "Cock Up Your Beaver" does not mean what you think. This sig is intended to clog filters and annoy do-gooders
  4. Ah, yes, a standard security technique. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think I remember that from one of my computer-security classes. Sanitize all your inputs, do length checks to avoid buffer overflows, and if those don't work, change your product's name.

    1. Re:Ah, yes, a standard security technique. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Unfortunately, they left in the "Adobe" part.

    2. Re:Ah, yes, a standard security technique. by Dracos · · Score: 2

      And added the CC part.

    3. Re:Ah, yes, a standard security technique. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...if those don't work, change your product's name.

      Don't knock it. It worked for Internet Explorer and Blackwater.

    4. Re:Ah, yes, a standard security technique. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not unique to the technology business. In the 80's Chrysler made a transmission called the Ultramatic. It would drop parts out of it usually between 30-50K miles. I called it the "All-Traumatic". They tried to beef it up over the years with limited success. So, they eventually solved the problem - by renaming it.

    5. Re: Ah, yes, a standard security technique. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, 'cc' is Adobe's version of 'keep paying us money all the time instead of when you want to upgrade'. It's a disease that needs to be wiped out.

      We have cord cutters who are sick of cable subscriptions. Hopefully we'll get the same thing with software subscriptions.

  5. ...would smell as shitty as any browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The problem that everyone forgets though is that it's 2015 and browsers STILL haven't effectively sandboxed javascript.

    Yeah, Flash has a lot of holes in it.

    But if you want to look at the primary vector for malware today it's not Flash anymore. It's javascript.

    And yes, if you block ads, you close that one gateway.

    But of course, we all visit countless websites over the course of a year -- some in the web's bad neighborhoods. AdBlock ain't gonna help.

    And yeah, there's NoScript... but that tends to limit the web's basic functionality.

    Time to start hollering about better browser security IMHO.

    It has now become absurd that Chrome/Netscape and IE still have glaring holes and allow XSS.

    1. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute. It is extremely rare to infected through JavaScript. If you believe otherwise, then please show me a realistic scenario of infecting a user via a modern browser by using JavaScript.

    2. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      Well, maybe enough folks are still pissed off about having to *rent* their software with that fscking Creative Cloud monthly rental model....and that will help kill Flash off for good?

      One can only hope.

      I just still at this point, refuse to RENT my fucking creative software. For now, my CS6 Suite of Adobe tools will work...and now, with things like Fusion from Blackmagic..... Davinci Resolve from black magic design that is not only one of the ultimate color grading apps, it is also now turning into a world class NLE to compete with Adobe Premier.

      I'm also playing with Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer , which so far look to compete pretty nicely with Photoshop and Illustrator respectively. All without the damned RENTAL Model...you buy a standalone license and be done with it.

      Also Davinici Resolve...has a FREE lite version that really has about 99% of the functionality of the paid version....The affinity tools, are mac only for now, but they are working on releasing Windows versions soon.

      The sooner the better...I really want to give the Adobe CC rental model some real competition with teeth and kill this thing off that is not in the consumer's best interest.

      Oh dear, I seem to have gotten on a soapbox again....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And yeah, there's NoScript... but that tends to limit the web's basic functionality.

      NoScript is a HUGE improvement, in my experience. However, it's also a big pain in the ass to use, so I wouldn't foist it on my wife's computer for instance. What works well is to set the selection to whitelist scripts coming from the site's own domain, but after that you have to get good at manually enabling other domains, usually ones with "cdn" in them since most big sites deliver videos and such from affiliated CDN domains. If that doesn't work, however, then you're resorting to guessing; there's been a few times I've just started up an alternate browser that doesn't have NoScript installed just to look at one site, but this is rare. For the most part, NoScript is really helpful and speeds things up a lot, but it's really not that easy to use because the situation with JavaScript is such an utter mess, with dozens of scripts on every page it seems.

    4. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not use "temporarily allow all this page" instead of an alternate browser?

    5. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The FBI attacked Tor users this way last year; that attack is only known to the public because it was revealed in court proceedings. I don't know about you, but I'm going to assume there are still other JS exploits out there being used (by good and bad guys) that haven't yet become public.

    6. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by evilviper · · Score: 1

      NoScript is a HUGE improvement, in my experience. However, it's also a big pain in the ass to use, so I wouldn't foist it on my wife's computer for instance.

      I think you're just doing it wrong... NoScript can easily be configured to allow everything by default. Then you just tell your wife it's a big "toggle" button she can click on when a site does things she doesn't like... (e.g. pop-ups/pop-unders, autoplay, and other annoyances)

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    7. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the Resolve link. Unfortunately, Affinity isn't Photoshop and likely would not be. Although I'm kinda annoyed at the 'Rental' model, in point of fact, pretty much all modern software is 'rented' - that is, unsupported in perpetuity. Sure, you can run CS6 on Mac - until Apple pulls another Apple and does something to make the older program fail on the newer OS. Windows is perhaps a bit better, but not by much.

      Just depends. If you can afford to freeze your system in time, 'owning' your software may be the cheapest. Otherwise it's a tossup. I'm more annoyed with Adobe being Adobe - putting out crappy programs that are as unstable as an origami in a windstorm.

      (No, don't talk about Open Source and recompiling the program to suite your needs. That's fine if you roll that way. I have other things to do.)

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the Resolve link. Unfortunately, Affinity isn't Photoshop and likely would not be.

      Well, I will say I'm very early in my learning of Affinity and comparing it to PS. One thing I DO like, is that with Affinity, they aren't having to keep a bunch of old stuff like PS does....they didn't have to keep old legacy stuff that virtually no one seems to use any more (I mean, why do the old Hue/Sat..and have it make permanent changes vs a Hue/Sat adjustment layer which you can go back and fine tune, etc? Things like that.

      So far, in Affinity, I find the content aware tools are just about as effective, the basic tools used the most like clone stamp tool, etc...all work as expected, and I like how Affinity seems to integrate the RAW tools within the same work window area, rather than having to drop out to ACR and back with PS.

      Again, I'm still working through it all, but from what I've seen so far, ESPECIALLY, considering Affinity is so new, it does so very much that I use PS for, and it seems faster at times...and I think with a couple years, they might indeed give PS a run for its money. So far, I'm seeing most all the same functionality....and hey, doing some frequency separation between PS and Affinity for some touchup work isn't gonna be any different between the two....the stuff most folks would use so far, seems like Affinity and PS are interchangeable for the most part.

      On a different note....I'm wanting to soon carve out some time and try Blackmagic Design's Fusion tool...which is a rival for After Effects. It seems powerful....but would have to learn the node based methodology for it. I've got nodes down for Color grading....but still have to wrap my mind around it for special effects....and I'm still quite the novice at AE....

      But hey, learning is half the fun!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      If you allow everything by default, you're not going to get any benefit from it whatsoever. You might as well just use uBlock Origin so you avoid all the ads, but it also allows a lot of other BS (tracking scripts and such) which NoScript blocks.

      It'd be nice to see something more like uBlock, or maybe have uBlock extended to do this, where it also blocks all the tracking crap, autoplaying videos, etc., using a curated blacklist. There are some things out there like Ghostery, but they're not trustworthy since they're run or funded by the ad companies.

    10. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by fsagx · · Score: 1

      If you can afford to freeze your system in time,

      That is what I have done. I run CS in a virtualbox container. Works great for my uses. I like being able to move my whole environment from desktop to laptop and back.

    11. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I've found the point of noscript to be a bit less than compelling these days, for two reasons:

      * Most modern exploits are in plugins or other vectors like advertising, rather than Javascript exploits
      * Most sites simply don't work with scripting disable these days - sometimes even if partially disabled

      I recently replaced noscript with ublock-origin, and have found it to be a significantly better web experience. It's something I could easily recommend to less technical users, where I don't think I could

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    12. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I've had a few cases where I tried that, and it still didn't work. I tried disabling uBlock Origin as well, and it still didn't work. So I had to switch to Chromium.

    13. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      Only Adobe tool I ever used was Photoshop 7. That being said when I bought a new computer I skipped MS Office and Adobe stuff. Went with Gimp instead. Never looked back.

    14. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could just use GIMP, ImageMagick, and FFMpeg.Then you just batch process all your stuff, and save a bunch of time.

    15. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by PRMan · · Score: 1

      I find Privacy Badger to be almost as effective as NoScript, but completely automated for putting on other people's computers. I just show them how to turn it off and then tell them if the site's not working and it's a big name site that you trust, then you can turn it off.

      It's worked pretty well.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    16. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by PRMan · · Score: 2

      Privacy Badger is the closest that I have found to what you are asking. And it's curated by the EFF.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    17. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      You could just use GIMP, ImageMagick, and FFMpeg.Then you just batch process all your stuff, and save a bunch of time.

      Well, not to get into it about deficiencies, of GIMP vs PS/Affinity type tools....but I find very little of my photography lends itself to just a set batch processing. I'm tuning each image for refining WB, coloration, retouching, etc....lots of clonestamping and compositing of images, HDR, etc....that I like to do.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    18. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by evilviper · · Score: 1

      If you allow everything by default, you're not going to get any benefit from it whatsoever.

      Sure you will. "Default" is just where you start from. You say whitelisting is too much work, so try it from a blacklisting perspective, instead.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    19. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some sites will also require cookies to be placed in addition to the scripts running. That's usually the cause when enabling domains with noscript piece by piece fail to deliver results. Additionally you may need to reload the entire page after that.

    20. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by sudon't · · Score: 1

      I'm with you. Once CS6 stops working, if Adobe still hasn't come to its senses, I'll have to find an alternative. Once you turn over your data to someone else, there's no telling what they'll do with it. Then there's this whole notion that people don't own what they payed for. Uh, uh.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    21. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pwned and identified are distinct, with some intersect.

    22. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      That is what I have done. I run CS in a virtualbox container. Works great for my uses. I like being able to move my whole environment from desktop to laptop and back.

      I tried that originally. I had the Windows version of CS6 Production premium suite on my macbook pro, running Fusion VMWare. Trouble was, that Premier and especially After Effects just were slow as mud, and it didn't really work well, due to not being able, apparently to hit the GPU and other hardware directly. So, I sent back the Win version and have the Mac version.

      Now...if I could figure how to "freeze" a version of OS X, and be able to run that in a VM, maybe it would work to keep it indefinitely, but I"m not sure how to do that with OS X....?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    23. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      What do you mean freezing your system in time? Windows 10 tracks your system and stores that info on its servers. It also has numerous other problems too long to be mentioned. My mistake was giving away my 64 bit version of windows 7. Thats it. I plan on keeping it until Chome OS is ready. Microsoft can no longer be trusted, apple never could and Linux is still linux, the red headed step child of OSes People are slowly making stuff for ten but only by lack of choice. Adobe can be bypassed by either keygen or smart software use. Unless you need all the functions photoshop offers (now 3d people building!) you don't need it.

    24. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by KGIII · · Score: 1

      To be fair, you've not paid for it - you've paid for a license to use it. With online services, you're just paying for (it seems to me) a more limited license to use it but getting some benefits (like portability, universal access, etc). Do they keep your data or just process it? Is it stored, without exception? In other words, if you like the product, you might as well keep using it *if* you're able to retain reasonable control of your property.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    25. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did that attack accomplish? Were they able to download, alter or destroy files on users' computers purely with JavaScript? Or was there a social engineering aspect to it?

    26. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by phorm · · Score: 1

      Why not just "temporarily enable all this page" instead of using a different browser?

    27. Re:...would smell as shitty as any browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you end up having to hit that button/menu item 10 times because every script has to load 12 more scripts from other places. Its even more annoying for all those XYZ123ABC456.cloudfront.com crap that you can't be sure is anything since its all dynamic.

  6. Kill the whole product instead by HnT · · Score: 1

    There was hardly ever a time when Flash nor Shockwave were actually really useful and if there ever was, that time is definitely LONG gone - kill the product instead and move aside for html5! You have enough other, actual cash cows, adobe.

    --
    "Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Kill the whole product instead by dos1 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Adobe Flash is still very useful. Quite a lot of TV cartoons are animated with it.

      Of course you're correct on browser plugin part, but that's not everything Flash (well, now Animate) is.

  7. headline and summary wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    they are not killing the flash name; the new version of their *creation* package is renamed to Animate from Flash Professional since it outputs HTML5 in addition to SWF; this is not related to the client side SWF ecosystem

    1. Re: headline and summary wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^^ Mod this up.

    2. Re: headline and summary wrong by joelharrison · · Score: 1

      Mod this up

    3. Re:headline and summary wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bit about Edge Animate being phased out is also wrong. It isn't mentioned in any of the articles except the main one from The Stack, but even then it was pure conjecture from the author

    4. Re:headline and summary wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From http://blogs.adobe.com/creativ...
      "In order to focus our efforts and resources on implementing this feedback, Edge Reflow (preview), Edge Inspect and Edge Animate are no longer being actively developed"

  8. It's DEAD by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

    Can all the rabid Flash fanboys that's left finally let it go?

  9. Re:Soylent flash is for Cows by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Still don't get this cow reference.

  10. So pointless... by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1, Funny

    20 years is a long time in our world. Many readers here had just gotten their first jobs, and many weren't even born yet (or so behavior hints to me). Windows 95 had just come out, 9.5 times better than what we have today. Emacs vs VIM was all the rage, and a year later came out a fledgling desktop environment known as KDE. Java was something you drank, your printer probably made this awful, "SCRRRRRRRRRRR" sound as it punched your pages with ink ribbons, and your CIA/BND/M15/whatever were still cool guys in suits (nowadays they're just guys in suits).

    Adobe's held this name for a really long time, and it's a huge shame they're going to dump the name on its deathbed. We all know what "Animate CC" still is, and it's not a C compiler. Least they could have done would have been to let Flash die with dignity...

    --
    "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    1. Re: So pointless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many readers here had just got their first long pants.

    2. Re:So pointless... by imatter · · Score: 1

      Adobe acquired the name when they absorbed Macromedia, remember.

    3. Re:So pointless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Java was something you drank, your printer probably made this awful, "SCRRRRRRRRRRR" sound as it punched your pages with ink ribbons

      Uh, you're thinking of 30 years ago. LaserJet and inkjet printers had largely replaced dot matrix printers before the Internet was even public.

    4. Re:So pointless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Macromedia Flash was actually good stuff. Back then, FutureSplash Animator/Flash was the lean way to get Video and Animations on CD-Roms and Kiosks, and eventually the Web.
      And then some Suits figured out that Flash was just the thing for Advertising, shitty Games, awful Porn, and delivering Malware.
      The thing is, Vector based Animation and Video is _still_ the Future. It's just that Vector based Cameras and Monitors are exceedingly uncommon. (Not unknown, but pretty much confined to Nuclear and Particle Physics for now.)

    5. Re: So pointless... by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      Pants are optional, but recommended for you.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    6. Re:So pointless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "...before the Internet was even public."
      I assume that you mean before Microsoft belatedly discovered the Internet, ~15 years _after_ the Internet was made public.
      Before Dot Matrix there were Line Printers; they were actually pretty fast, but one was restricted to one Font, and they were noisy as hell.
      The Big Daddy was the Bright Page Printer. Think of it as a Line Printer on Steroids; there were as many Lines printed as the formfeed paper could handle all at once, and it was super fast- production was rated in Pages Per _Second_.
      Ours had its own room; soundproofed, and it was water cooled. It, and our Line Printers, were on the Internet very early on, and the Unix commands "lp" and "lpr" were derived from the Code that we developed for them. (We were the "B" in "BSD".)

  11. This Is The Authoring Tool, Not The Plugin by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Informative

    They're renaming the authoring tool, which is currently known as Flash Professional CC. It appears that the Flash Player will remain just that.

    This makes perfect sense, as Flash Professional CC is increasingly being used to generate media that targets HTML5, not Flash, as output. Renaming Flash Professional CC to Animate CC eliminates the whole need to do the song and dance of "we're talking about Flash the authoring environment, not Flash the plugin" to non-technical audiences.

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    1. Re:This Is The Authoring Tool, Not The Plugin by all204 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, mis-modded you... Meant to mod you insightful. Undoing negative mod.

    2. Re:This Is The Authoring Tool, Not The Plugin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many of us here are unaware that flash has a HUGE application outside of shitty rich web content with lots of security vulns.

      It's pretty much the most popular professional animation tool in use today. Most cartoons you see on TV today are actually made with flash.

      Flash on the web is dying fast. It only makes sense to re-brand it as a professional animation suite. (That can also target web with HTML5 based animation)

    3. Re:This Is The Authoring Tool, Not The Plugin by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      It's also got an incredibly nice interface, which is a joy to use for animation and vector graphics.

      Seriously, nothing else touches it. The way that it uses 2D constructive geometry, so that if you want to cut a hole in a square, you just draw a circle over the top and then delete it, is far and away the best model for vector graphics. Add layers, and the concept of "movie clips" (which is a bit of a misnomer I suppose), and the way in which they can have their own separate animation timelines controllable independently from the main timeline, and you've got a truly top-of-the-line tool.

      Actionscript is a nice language, although the way in which its object model interacted with the object model of items on the stage was always a little uncomfortable. And the debugger was (is still?) spectacularly hideous.

  12. Re:Soylent flash is for Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's some weird ass herd mentality reference. Not sure though, he could just be a troll.

  13. Phew by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    For a brief moment I was worried they might have killed Flash. Then I noticed they only retired the name 'cause it was already pretty much synonymous of "malware installer".

    For a moment I was worried about my job security. Please, Adobe, don't scare us IT security guys like that!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  14. Javascript... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is the source of most vulnerabilities. Just because the cabal that have taken over the W3C want to dumb down the PC platform so they can turn it into an advertising platform (Google) or get people buying iDevices instead (Apple) doesn't mean that there aren't good reasons for something better than Javascript+HTML+CSS.

    1. Re:Javascript... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      the fact is, Steve Jobs killed flash. People freaked out when the first iPhone didn't support flash, then freaked out further when SJ explained why. it's only been downhill since then.

    2. Re:Javascript... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I'm not dead yet!

      I feel happy!

      I think I'll go for a walk.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Javascript... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      what does this mean.

    4. Re:Javascript... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
      Its interesting that your # is 3,621,429 vs the parent poster with 752,185. (Almost 3 million users later).
      I'm realizing I can start to determine a good guess of age range based on the /. # assigned. :)

    5. Re:Javascript... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but flash is still here, just about to get a new name

      where is Jobs?

      did Flash kill Steve Jobs?

      it certainly seems to have outlasted him pretty easily

  15. So Excited! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got so excited as I was reading the title; then I got to the last word and was really disappointed.

  16. Adobe, you can shove Flash... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [comment omitted for excessive profanity]

  17. What really? by roc97007 · · Score: 2

    What I'm reading from this is that Edge Animate, Adobe's HTML 5 tool, will be renamed Adobe Animate CC, and will gain some (probably funky) backwards compatibility to Flash.

    But it's not as sexy when you put it that way.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:What really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, the opposite: Adobe is killing off those products and renaming Flash Professional.
      http://blogs.adobe.com/creativ...

  18. VMware vSphere Web Client need to go HTML5 by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    VMware vSphere Web Client need to go HTML5 and dump the flash as well.

    1. Re:VMware vSphere Web Client need to go HTML5 by anlag · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Arguably off-topic but that won't keep me from breaking out in a heartfelt "god yes!"

    2. Re:VMware vSphere Web Client need to go HTML5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Word. Even the shitty old client application is better than the shittier flash version.

    3. Re:VMware vSphere Web Client need to go HTML5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that client still needs a lot of work... unless it's better then the 5.5 web based interface.

  19. Linux support, PLEASE by pz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't care what they name it, within reason. It's a product / tool / whatever. Does it work? Good.

    In particular, will they PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE update the Reader application under Linux to support some kind of contemporary animation that's supported on other platforms as well? I don't care if it's Flash, HTML5, AVI, MOV ... I just don't care. It doesn't matter. What matters is that I can display animations within a PDF, and be certain that they will play for others on Windows or iOS as well. Right now, as a Linux user, I don't have that ability, really.

    --

    Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    1. Re:Linux support, PLEASE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why on Earth would you want to see animated garbage in a .pdf document?

    2. Re:Linux support, PLEASE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why on Earth would you want to see animated garbage in a .pdf document?

      This guy gets it. I bounce between gv and xpdf depending on my mood, and I send pdfs pretty much exclusively for final printing.

      $ lpr $(pdf2ps doc.pdf && ls doc.ps)

    3. Re:Linux support, PLEASE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How will that animation look on paper? Not so wonderful unless you are Hairy frikkin Potter.

      (And if it is for viewing on an iToy, then PDF is simply the wrong medium)

    4. Re:Linux support, PLEASE by pz · · Score: 1

      Because I need to make presentations with some regularity, and often don't have control of what machine is used to drive the projector. Let's examine the options for creating a presentation file.

      1. TeX to PDF with embedded animations. Open Source, tools that I'm familiar with, and, with the exception of Linux, near-universal viewability.

      2. Microsoft PowerPoint. Hate it. Horrible UI. Despite reasonably good fluency with the tool out of necessity, my productivity is about 50% of Option 1, and the slides end up looking like crap unless I'm willing to accept a productivity rate of 25% compared to Option 1. Universal viewability, however.

      3. OpenOffice Impress. Nearly same problems with UI as PP. Hate it about as much. Not so universal viewability, even when creating PPT files.

      For me, the answer is pretty clear, Option 1 wins, except that there isn't a good Reader implementation under Linux.

      Now, regarding the non-presentation PDFs that I view (created by other people), I'd guess that I print only about 5% of them. Those respondants who suggest that animations can't be printed don't understand contemporary usage of PDFs. Many of the documents I'm required to submit to various foundations and agencies must be in PDF, including when they have embedded animations.

      So, PLEASE, Adobe, give us a modern Reader that runs under Linux!

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
  20. Re:Soylent flash is for Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well whether it's a reference to herd mentality or not, he's definitely *at least* a troll.

  21. Adobe Edge Animate being discontinued makes me sad by timmerk · · Score: 1

    I really liked the fresh and modern take it had on HTML5 canvas timeline based animation. It was built from the ground up and very lean. I hope Adobe incorporates all of Edge Animate's features into their new Animate/Flash CC app.

  22. Re:Soylent flash is for Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One Cow Two Cow
    Red Cow Moo Cow.
    The Cow Says Moo.
    My Cow Is Blue.

    Anglo-Irish in origin, it is one of several rhymed heroic couplets about farm animals. All but forgotten now, except for the Fisher-Price "See 'N Say" toy introduced in 1965 where "The Cow Says Moo". The "My Cow Is Blue" refers to the Belgian Blue breed introduced to Ireland just before the Great Hunger; while the population starved, all Belgian Blue beef went for Export to England. To "Have A Blue Cow" went from being an indication of Wealth to being a description of someone Wealthy having a snit fit.
    Modern Belgian Blues are quite different from those of two centuries back; they have been so bred for size that most births are now done by Caesarean section.
    It's a pity that the idiot forcing this "Meme" hasn't a clue as to what it actually means.
    And don't tell him about the Chicken one- "A Gug, A Gug..."

  23. AACC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pronounced "Ack!!!".

  24. Why, was 0-Day Virus Toolkit already taken? N/T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I said, No Text!

  25. News Flash! by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    News Flash! Flash is old news!

    To be renamed Professor Zoom!

  26. Because your shirt is too short by tepples · · Score: 1

    If your shirt is long enough, who needs pants anyway?

  27. One web app vs. a dozen native apps by tepples · · Score: 1

    In practice, what's better than JavaScript+HTML+CSS, other than duplicating the effort 14 times by writing native apps for 14 different platforms?

  28. Whacky Version Names by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    In general, Adobe's product version naming has been very odd and confusing. Numeric version numbers are not "sexy" enough I guess, so they give their versions names seemingly stolen from sports shoes or Honda's Department of Hipster Marketing.

    Damn whippersnappers, get off my LXWN!

    1. Re:Whacky Version Names by Voyager529 · · Score: 2

      Well, let's see. They used to have simple version numbers (Photoshop 5, Premiere 6.1, etc.). This got them into a bit of trouble because, for example, the upgrade from Premiere 6.1 to Premiere 6.5 was a paid upgrade, but since it wasn't a major change in the actual back end code, that was a bit messy. Additionally, Adobe wanted to focus more on the program bundles rather than the individual applications, and thus the "Creative Suite" moniker was born. Incidentally, this also helped deal with the psychological "high version numbers" issue (anyone want WinZip version 20?).
      Now, Adobe is betting the farm on everyone being okay with renting their software. Resultantly, they're trumpeting "All teh Updates!!!111", which they're hoping will make version numbers irrelevant - it's just "the most recent build we've rolled out the door". This ends up being a bit of a challenge because they also like doing Apple style keynotes, where they show all the CC subscribers how it's now possible to start editing videos on one's iPad and then continue on the editing bay. So, they thus distinguish the new feature sets that get introduced at the keynotes by the year of release of those features.
      Finally, Adobe's core applications aren't going anywhere - Photoshop, Indesign, Illustrator, Premiere, After Effects - none of them are going anywhere. In trying to make Adobe products more accessible to folks who don't have formal training in graphic/media design, things like Muse come into play...and since they're new products that don't have the long history, it makes sense to pick a name and branding that aligns with current trends. I'm sure that given the option, Adobe would rather have a list of edge case applications like Muse than to end up becoming known as a company like Oracle that continues to exist because support contracts. Adobe's also starting to see a handful of up-and-coming applications start to gain a certain amount of popularity. I don't care how much people like seeing the Photoshop splash screen, when Affinity Photo has 95% of the sophisticated functions of Photoshop, a similar UI, reads PSDs, and costs $50 one time, Adobe is going to take notice.

      Besides, software naming has seldom followed a true convention.

  29. Re:Soylent flash is for Cows by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish

  30. with any luck by akahige · · Score: 1

    Maybe they'll use the name change as an opportunity to generate some further goodwill and kill off the browser plugin.

    Flash does have uses outside the browser, and the new name reflects that. It's a completely dippy name for a browser plugin, though.

    Adobe has ever been accused of forward thinking, but we can always hope.

  31. Real Reason by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    Screen Door was already copyrighted.

  32. Re:This was expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flash is pretty much dead, or at the very least on it's to a forced suicide. When I stopped working with flash for web applications, and transitioned to HTML5; it was the single most intelligent programming transition decision I had ever made. Now is a time for web developers to transition out Flash all together, and focus on developing for HTML5 facsimiles.

  33. thanks for the information by swschrad · · Score: 1

    if that crapbucket shows up, I will disable it, too.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  34. the wheel turns... submit your cards for processin by swschrad · · Score: 1

    same old 1960s thing, only now you use your own SVGA terminal to the cloud. white-coated sysadmins still own everything. read the fine print.

    might as well mail card decks back and forth.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  35. Let an old geezer splain some stuff by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

    I used to work for Macromedia - from 1995 - 1998. I was there when they bought Flash (It was called "FutureSplash") and yes, it was originally supposed to simply do vector based animation, because bandwidth back in the mid 90s sucked balls. Fairly quickly it became painfully obvious that Macromedia's flagship product, Director was doomed. Director did pixel based animations and a lot of other things thanks to its programming language, Lingo. A HUGE portion of the development cost for Director went into Lingo. Now with Director made (mostly) redundant by Flash they had to figure out what to do with the people. So, what better way to fuck it up than to shoehorn some crazy language into it and give it superpowers like Director? Enter ActionScript.

    There was no reason to think about security - it was a tool to make stupid games and animations on the interweb thingie. And, like Director it became increasingly bloated and complex and pointless. Flash was dead long before the security gremlins appeared. Then Adobe bought the whole mess, hook, line, and sinker. Suckers. Between the headache that was Flash and the eye watering bilge that was ColdFusion, Macromedia got even with Adobe by serving them a hot buttered plate full of digital poo. The only thing, IMHO, that was worth a right flying fuck from Macromedia that Adobe got was FreeHand, and, Adobe, in it's infinite wisdom, killed FreeHand, even though it was a demonstrably better product.

    Macromedia was poorly run by a bunch of wolverines. They got bought by the Borg. And now there's basically nothing left of value except Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere, and inDesign. And I'm not that certain about Premiere....

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  36. Oh boy, name change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Xe, Altria, AirTran, MCI ....

  37. Kill Adobe by lonecrow · · Score: 1

    How many years does PDF have to be a primary attack vector before we strip Adobe of the business license?

  38. HTML5 by philmarcracken · · Score: 1

    is not a container for any video codec... it's not 'output to' anything. To date, all you can output on adobe products without 3rd party plugins is h.264, 75 patents owned by microsoft alone, among others like apple in the group MPEG-LA.

    I didn't read a single line mentioning webm, vp8/9 or vorbis and opus. You know, the actual open source ones. HTML5 is fast becoming another marketing buzzword equally irritating as cloud.