Petition Asks Adobe To Open-Source Flash To Preserve Internet History (bleepingcomputer.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Petition Asks Adobe To Open-Source Flash To Preserve Internet History (bleepingcomputer.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday July 30, 2017 @08:30AM from the extra-Flashy dept.

An anonymous reader quotes BleepingComputer: A petition is asking Adobe to release Flash into the hands of the open-source community. Finnish developer Juha Lindstedt started the petition a day after Adobe announced plans to end Flash support by the end of 2020. "Flash is an important piece of Internet history and killing Flash means future generations can't access the past," Lindstedt explains in the petition's opening paragraph. "Games, experiments and websites would be forgotten." The developer wants Adobe to open-source Flash or parts of its technology so the open-source community could take on the job of supporting a minimal version of the Flash plugin or at least create a tool to accurately convert old SWF and FLA files to modern HTML5, canvas data, or WebAssembly code... Lindstedt is asking users to sign the petition by starring the project on GitHub. At the time of writing, the petition has garnered over 3,000 stars.
A reporter at ZDNet counters that "the only way to really secure Flash is to get rid of it... If Flash lives, people will continue to use it, and without security support, it will be even more insecure than ever." He points out there's already several programs that convert Flash into other formats -- and that Adobe already open sourced its Flex framework for building Flash applications back in 2008 (now supported by the Apache Software Foundation as Apache Flex). "In other words, we don't need the Flash source code to convert or create Flash files. Just let Flash go already...!

"Usually, I'm favor with open-sourcing everything and anything. Not this time. Flash has proven to be a net of endless security holes. It's time to let it go for once and for all.

167 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

That reporter is a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 08:33 · Score: 1, Insightful

History is history. Deleting it to chase some mythical "security" unicorn deletes a part of the internet's history.
(Let's leave aside how top-down the Flash eradication campaign has been. The users still want it, and telling them they can't have it because you want to play with your shiny new HTML5 toys is a non-starter.)
1. Re:That reporter is a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 08:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Lets smash all forms of analog storage mediums too! I mean look at all of those vinyl records that have ZERO copy protection! I mean how can we let this be! Destroy it all! Fuck preservation of history!
2. Re:That reporter is a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  The ZDNet article is misinformed. The petitioner clearly states that Flash won't be continued as is. It's mainly to open-source, grab the tech, and find a way to convert SWF/FLA to other formats. It's not a project to continue Flash in its current form.
3. Re:That reporter is a moron by modmans2ndcoming · 2017-07-30 10:02 · Score: 2
  
  Fuck that...it needs to die and the ground it is on needs to be salted in 10 feet of salt.
4. Re:That reporter is a moron by theweatherelectric · 2017-07-30 10:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The users still want it
  Users don't know what they want. Users fundamentally don't care if their dancing pigs animation is implemented in Flash or something else.
5. Re: That reporter is a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 10:44 · Score: 0
  
  Kill it with the fire of a thousand suns
6. Re:That reporter is a moron by flopsquad · 2017-07-30 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  Don't even need to read the ZD article to know it's wrong, and also dumb. No one is saying "Let's open source the code and include it in every browser!" Like, what, are people going to be giddy at the prospect of open source Flash and start rolling it into lynx or systemd**?
  
  Come 2020, regardless of whether Flash is open sourced or not, no one is going to be developing new jank for a dead platform that's not available in any modern browser. Because only a vanishingly small percentage of people will even be able to see the jank.
  
  I hate Flash as much as the next sane internet-using human, but burning it, salting it, and then pissing on the salt as some misguided paean to security simultaneously hamstrings archivists while managing to do fuck all about actual security.
  
  **I'm really, really sorry for suggesting this and please no one do this.
  
  --
  Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
7. Re:That reporter is a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 16:11 · Score: 0
  
  The existence of the entire modern Windows ecosystem pretty clearly screams that users want backwards compatibility. They know that much, and have for decades.
8. Re: That reporter is a moron by sg_oneill · 2017-07-30 17:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'm kind of in both camps. Flash can not die soon enough. However I do have a collection of youthful stupidity that I made many moons ago that I'd love to be able to show to my grandkids one day. Maybe what's really needed is proper spec docs so a html5 converter project doesn't get bogged down in hellish reverse engineering
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
9. Re:That reporter is a moron by gl4ss · 2017-07-30 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  well there's this thing that you can actually vmware emulation run the stuff to forever already.
  the animations you can convert to .. well, mp4.
  but as an interesting sidenote, how aware people are of that flash almost became (essentially) what is android now? they had a semi-decent implementation running on mobile phones of flash lite that was less limited than j2me and more easy to program for than symbian (this was around 2004 or so, the time when symbian ruled the 100 to 700 dollar smartphone segment).
  developers were itching for it (if you have done some multimedia s60 programming you can know why). it had all the pieces to make regular apps.
  BUT macromedia/adobe wanted to SELL it to END USERS for 10 dollars per user! needless to say absofuckinglutely nobody of the end users bought it so making stuff for it was a non starter.
  all they would have needed to do at that point in time would have been an online store and give the player vm for free and they would have snapped the multi-manufacturer mobile apps segment in mere months and made android not so wanted(android had a huge market just waiting for it, in users and developers and manufacturers, due to some dubious strategy choices by nokia when it came to security and preferential treatment of "partners").
  but had macromedia/adobe played the game just a little bit more smart they would have been raking in billions.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
10. Re:That reporter is a moron by Pseudonym · 2017-07-30 18:53 · Score: 1
  
  You really want the glory that is Lobster Magnet to be unviewable?
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
11. Re:That reporter is a moron by infolation · 2017-07-30 19:29 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Flash needs to be treated like the smallpox virus. Once it's eradicated from the world, the source code needs to be preserved in an air-gapped laboratory that authorised members of the scientific community have access to in case of another outbreak.
12. Re:That reporter is a moron by Wootery · 2017-07-30 20:58 · Score: 1
  
  I agree it's a shame to lose access to old Flash content, but really, some mythical "security" unicorn? Are you denying that we improve security by banning Flash, or are you just being snarky?
13. Re:That reporter is a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 22:40 · Score: 0
  
  Users want to block the javascript/html ads and tracking shitware while still accessing the dancing pig content.
14. Re:That reporter is a moron by fche · 2017-07-31 00:09 · Score: 1
  
  Thank goodness SJVN has no power to enforce the conclusions of his goofy logic.
15. Re:That reporter is a moron by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-07-31 01:38 · Score: 2
  
  I agree it's a shame to lose access to old Flash content, but really, some mythical "security" unicorn?
  He's not wrong, you know. Flash is but one security flaw in an ecosystem of security flaws. Eliminating it will make very little difference, as the problem just moves to a new neighborhood.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
16. Re:That reporter is a moron by The+Grim+Reefer · 2017-07-31 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  Users want to block the javascript/html ads and tracking shitware while still accessing the dancing pig content.
  Most don't even know/care about the tracking. If they did, do you think they'd use Windows 10?
17. Re:That reporter is a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-31 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  Your grammar is the worst. Kill yourself.
18. Re:That reporter is a moron by Cinnamon+Beige · 2017-07-31 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  That's a false dichotomy.
  Banning Flash is not contradictory to having it made open source so as to enable web preservation. From a security perspective, it might actually be quite desirable--you enable smooth conversion into modern formats now, without the problems and security risks of using back-engineered tools that may let the security flaws of the original slide through, and later use of Flash as an instructional tool. You can show it to students, and let them see for themselves the trainwreck, instead of having them know it only through legends which they might not believe.
  You are certainly in the mythical "security" unicorn region if you believe that further gains in security can be somehow made by burning it and salting the ground, so to speak.
19. Re:That reporter is a moron by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-31 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  Yes because Linux is a shitball in comparison.
20. Re:That reporter is a moron by Wootery · 2017-07-31 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  Disagree. Flash was a pile of crap, far less secure than, say, Chrome. Eliminating that easy attack surface makes things harder for the bad guys.
  It also enabled cross-OS, cross-browser exploits.
21. Re:That reporter is a moron by Wootery · 2017-07-31 21:44 · Score: 1
  
  I feel you're avoiding my point. Making Flash unavailable in ordinary browsers does improve security. There are no unicorns involved.
22. Re:That reporter is a moron by Cinnamon+Beige · 2017-08-01 03:28 · Score: 1
  
  My point is that making it unavailable in ordinary browsers is a realistic measure, but you are indulging in magical thinking if you believe further in security will be had by losing its source code.
Let it die. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 08:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't open source it. Don't share or preserve it. Shoot it and bury the remains. It needs to go away. That's the point of EOLing it.
1. Re:Let it die. by KiloByte · 2017-07-30 09:11 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  EOL crap like Java or .NET first. Flash is nowhere as insecure or bloated as these two. It at least tries to contain bad code, even if it does an imperfect job. So be wary of Flash programs, don't give them Internet access and provide additional containment when running ones from a dodgy source -- but a Flash game from Newsgrounds is safer than a regular .exe from a random website. And unlike AAA games, it's not certain to include malware.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
2. Re:Let it die. by KiloByte · 2017-07-30 09:23 · Score: 2
  
  Also, Flash being moribund is kind of a blessing here -- a game from 2010 or 2005 is pretty unlikely to use an exploit announced in 2017.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
3. Re:Let it die. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  I knew someone would ask for Java to die, not realizing that, for years and years, Java is being used on the server, not in the browser. Nobody uses applets anymore, and they are **already** being EOLed.
  Asking to EOL Java because applets have security issues is as relevant as asking to EOL C++ or PHP. Nobody uses any of those to execute code in the browser. If you still think they are, then you're still living in 1999.
4. Re:Let it die. by Gondola · 2017-07-30 09:48 · Score: 2
  
  Adobe will never open source it in a million years. It's the most insecure piece of trash and is being EOL'd because new vulnerabilities keep showing up and Adobe isn't making enough money off of it anymore to warrant the team of coders to try to keep up with all the security issues.
5. Re:Let it die. by KiloByte · 2017-07-30 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Java is being used on the server, not in the browser. Nobody uses applets anymore, and they are **already** being EOLed.
  Yeah, we're only 1/3 of the way here. Applets are gone, but Dalvik/ART and Java-on-server still need to be purged off the face of the Earth.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
6. Re:Let it die. by serviscope_minor · 2017-07-30 09:55 · Score: 2
  
  as relevant as asking to EOL C++ or PHP. Nobody uses any of those to execute code in the browser.
  Sorry, buddy, I;ve got news for you...
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  And with that you can run C++ in the browser. It sounds like a gimmick but it's not. I know people using it in production for serious stuff. Because C++ is rather parsimonious and ASM.js actually maps well enough to the hardware (it's essentially to within some not outrageously huge constant factor of actual native code) stuff written in C++ runs faster than any reasonable thing it's possible to run by-hand in JS.
  Writing in C++ means you can deploy the same core to mobile devices and browsers and have it about as efficient as it's possible to get in any of them. If you're actually deploying a program via the browser instead of a web page, then really matters.
  Plus having to only maintain one codebase is a real boon.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
7. Re:Let it die. by modmans2ndcoming · 2017-07-30 10:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  lol...EOL C#? why not EOL C and C++ while you are at it.
8. Re:Let it die. by fisted · 2017-07-30 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe because C and C++ are well-established and mature languages that have nothing to do with that Microsoft product you're so fond of.
  
  --
  CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
9. Re: Let it die. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  Yes but it does not execute the C++ code as native x86 so is not voulnerable to buffer overflows.
10. Re:Let it die. by LesFerg · 2017-07-30 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  It takes LLVM bitcode - which can be generated from C/C++, using llvm-gcc (DragonEgg) or clang, or any other language that can be converted into LLVM - and compiles that into JavaScript
  Not really running C++ then is it?
  
  --
  If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
11. Re:Let it die. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  C++ is not a fucking mature language. It's a ridiculous mess of haphazardly implemented features.
12. Re:Let it die. by Billly+Gates · 2017-07-30 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  Also, Flash being moribund is kind of a blessing here -- a game from 2010 or 2005 is pretty unlikely to use an exploit announced in 2017.
  No but the runtime will. Also cheap developers in 3rd world outsourced countries maybe more familiar with flash and will keep using it rather than learn HTML 5 for clients in the 1st world. Only when marketshare declines will they learn and use something different.
  Hell if corporations had their way we all would still be using XP, VBScript, and IE 6 as everyone had it at one time and everyone know how to do it ... well debatable with IE 6 rendering bugs :-)
  
  --
  http://saveie6.com/
13. Re:Let it die. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 13:04 · Score: 0
  
  Basically this (except for the "ban Java" bit). Flash gets all the shit it gets not because it's exceptionally insecure compared to other things, but because some of its use cases make it a prime target for baddies to try and exploit. I'd feel safer downloading a hundred flash games or animations from (reputable) sites than letting any single webpage load without an adblocker.
  When Flash is gone something else will replace it, and the replacement will most likely turn out to be every bit as exploitable as Flash was.
  
  And unlike AAA games, it's not certain to include malware.
  Dunno if I'd call SFV a "AAA" game.
14. Re:Let it die. by Khyber · 2017-07-30 13:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Do open source it so we can look at the hackjob shitpile that is Adobe code and learn from their utter fuckups, and get a laugh at the same time!
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
15. Re:Let it die. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 15:28 · Score: 0
  
  EOL crap like Java or .NET first. Flash is nowhere as insecure or bloated as these two..
  Flash is directly responsible for a lot of vulnerabilities. Still, I have nothing against open sourcing it. That is never a bad thing. If the result isn't reasonably secure then it shouldn't be used on mainstream systems though.
  Java and .NET are both good programming languages that you can get lots of real work done in. Heck, I don't see that much difference in the two save for C# (okay .NET is more than C#, but take C# for now), is more flexible with more features.
  Right now If I was forced to limit my bag of tricks and didn't mind windows only, I'd take C# and pure C plus shared memory and such for low level interop. Sure you shouldn't mix the two if you don't really need to, but if you need to, you can get the heavy lifting done in C# and do the low level work in C.
  Either way I never really though of flash as a programming language, but I suppose it is in some way. I'd personally rather see it gone from normal use. For one thing you shouldn't even need it for video anymore.
16. Re:Let it die. by theArtificial · 2017-07-30 17:23 · Score: 2
  
  And with that you can run C++ in the browser. It sounds like a gimmick but it's not. I know people using it in production for serious stuff
  The argument that JavaScript is actually close to the hardware really made my evening. We are living in the future!
  
  --
  Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
17. Re:Let it die. by sjames · 2017-07-30 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  If so, then nothing ever runs C++ or C for that matter.
18. Re:Let it die. by Wootery · 2017-07-30 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  Dalvik/ART and Java-on-server still need to be purged off the face of the Earth.
  Well, let's have it then. Why?
19. Re: Let it die. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 21:25 · Score: 0
  
  Open source the rendering player so we can get an vector animation-only player without the video player and action script and a lot of the problems go away.
20. Re:Let it die. by coofercat · 2017-07-31 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  F'ing something completely sounds like a job Adobe is perfectly qualified for!
21. Re:Let it die. by serviscope_minor · 2017-07-31 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  JavaScript in general is very far from the hardware. ASM.js on the other hand is a very restricted subset of JavaScript that is. That means it can be efficiently jitted to machine code without suffering from the usual problems, namely the dynamic typing if the main bit of JS.
  The entire point is to have a subset that can be efficiently compiled. By app accounts it works. You won't get native C++ performance, but you'll get within a factor of 5 and it'll be predictable.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
22. Re:Let it die. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-31 02:36 · Score: 0
  
  The former because he's clearly an iPhone user and the latter because, as an iPhone user, he thinks like an iPhone user.
23. Re:Let it die. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-31 03:19 · Score: 0
  
  Also cheap developers in 3rd world outsourced countries
  Cheap developer is your mother, you fuckwit.
24. Re:Let it die. by Trogre · 2017-08-01 13:37 · Score: 1
  
  Although some of us seem content to live in the past.
  
  --
  "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Kinda shortsighted counter.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 08:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

To the guy who countered that flash should just be forgotten rather than open-sourced, his excuse for doing so is stupid.
Yes, Flash in it's current closed-source state is riddled with security holes and vulnerabilities. However if it got open-sourced then one of the first things people would be able to do for the first time ever is pour over the source - find all those security holes - and fucking FIX them.
And so long as that's the only thing people do with flash once it's open sourced (no more feature creep added by Adobe) then it should be just fine.
1. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 08:58 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  How does making something "open source" magically make it bug-free and highly secure? Perhaps Flash is just so old, large and convoluted that there really isn't any way to completely fix it. It could be a hopeless cause and not some product of an "evil corporation" that seeks profit over security,
  Make something to convert AWAY from Flash but please don't keep Flash alive.
  PS: how long before Firefox becomes a completely bug-free and highly secure version of Netscape Navigator?
2. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  "How does making something "open source" magically make it bug-free and highly secure? Perhaps Flash is just so old, large and convoluted that there really isn't any way to completely fix it."
  There's nothing magic about it. As I said, you just get the chance to fix the holes for the first time ever. Why give up without even trying? If it really is a tangled mess THEN people would be able to leave it (or rebuild it from scratch)
  But unless it's open-sourced we'll never know if it's fixable or not. And the difference between what Flash could become compared to existing active open source projects like Firefox, is that Firefox is always adding new bloat complete with brand new bugs as a result. With Flash, as I said, so long as the focus is only only fixing bugs and making it more secure, that won't be a problem. (If idiots just keep adding new features afterwards, then that defeats the purpose.)
  Mind you, I'm mainly taking this stance for the purpose of preservation. If people make use of the opened-source change to make better, easier-to-use, and more secure conversion programs to take flash programs and convert them into something else, I'll be fine with that too so long as it's a 100% compatible output.
3. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by TeknoHog · 2017-07-30 10:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Flash should be kept alive for the same reason we have museums of Nazism -- to remember history and learn from it.
  
  --
  Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
4. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 10:55 · Score: 0
  
  How does making something "open source" magically make it bug-free and highly secure?
  In what way is this strawman claim at all relevant to the discussion?
5. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by Bing+Tsher+E · 2017-07-30 11:14 · Score: 1
  
  PS: how long before Firefox becomes a completely bug-free and highly secure version of Netscape Navigator?
  It becomes more so bug-free with every new release. That's kind of the point of turning it into Open Source. It can be 'kept alive' by anybody who wants to stay involved.
6. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  What would they pour over the source?
7. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 11:32 · Score: 0
  
  one of the first things people would be able to do for the first time ever is pour over the source
  Pour what over the source? Pour sauce over the source? Where would they source the sauce to pour over the source? I will have to pore over my sauce recipes to find one suitable for pouring over source.
8. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by LesFerg · 2017-07-30 11:34 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  How does making something "open source" magically make it bug-free and highly secure?
  Didn't you know open source has magical properties? Masses of people will suddenly give a shit about the state of the code and want to fix it. After all, when did an open source project ever stagnate and die from lack of interested developers? ... oh right...
  
  --
  If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
9. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by shess · 2017-07-30 11:35 · Score: 2
  
  And so long as that's the only thing people do with flash once it's open sourced (no more feature creep added by Adobe) then it should be just fine.
  I suggest you do a review of open-source software. For every case like Linux where there's a core pushing things in the right direction, there's a case like GNOME where rather than actually fix things, every so often they just give up on the old version and tell everyone to convert to the new incompatible version. Whether a project is open-source or closed isn't really relevant.
  https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.h...
10. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 11:37 · Score: 0
  
  with how much hate there seems to be towards flash among those who call themselves "developers", who is going to do the "fixing"?
11. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  Open Sauce, of course.
12. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 13:00 · Score: 0
  
  Let's systemd team secure Flash
13. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 13:59 · Score: 0
  
  *pore* over the source.
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pore
14. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by Skuld-Chan · 2017-07-30 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  Adobe hasn't been adding new features. They fix dozens of security issues every month. You can read about these fixes on their security response blog.
  I do think its delusional to think just because something is open source means people are going to arrive and fix bugs. More than likely people will pour over the source to find new exploits to target users who's clients never got the kill command from their browser to stop loading Flash.
15. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 19:28 · Score: 0
  
  Or they could get some BSD Auditors to clean it up - before they release it. Then work on PDF
  Really sad to see that if they think dumping it will untarnish their brand.
  I really don't know why they have such inept in-house programmers protected from 3rd party audits.
16. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by tlhIngan · 2017-07-30 19:48 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, Flash in it's current closed-source state is riddled with security holes and vulnerabilities. However if it got open-sourced then one of the first things people would be able to do for the first time ever is pour over the source - find all those security holes - and fucking FIX them
  That's probably why it won't be open-sourced. Adobe is simply too embarrassed about the code.
  You see, Flash Player was free. It was never a revenue generating product (their producer software was the product they were selling). They just wanted to write a run time to make it possible so users of the producer can have others play with the output.
  The whole "security flaw" thing ate into the plans - because it means Flash Player requires active development, and dedicating people to work on a product that generates no direct revenue, so it really costs them money.
  I wouldn't be surprised if it was the most shoddy piece of code ever because it was developed on the cheap since it was a "free" product. And they're not willing to admit it, and open-sourcing would require someone to actually fix up the code state from "this thing actually can be compiled?!" to "OK, it's not the best code in the world, but it won't reflect horribly on us".
17. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by thegarbz · 2017-07-30 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  find all those security holes - and fucking FIX them.
  Security is just a very small reason for letting that depreciated proprietary plugin dependent junk die.
18. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by schleimkeim · 2017-07-30 21:52 · Score: 1
  
  No one learns from history. Elections world wide prove that again and again and again.
19. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by drinkypoo · 2017-07-30 23:54 · Score: 1
  
  However if it got open-sourced then one of the first things people would be able to do for the first time ever is pour over the source
  What are they going to pour over it? Gravy?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
20. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 23:55 · Score: 0
  
  How does making something "open source" magically make it bug-free and highly secure?
  Didn't you know open source has magical properties? Masses of people will suddenly give a shit about the state of the code and want to fix it. After all, when did an open source project ever stagnate and die from lack of interested developers? ... oh right...
  Many corporations use it for their own applications, stuff morons like you never get to see. Most OSS developers are not kids in bedrooms, they're professionals in the field who are paid by corps.
21. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by drinkypoo · 2017-07-30 23:56 · Score: 2
  
  It's true though, the first thing that happens if Adobe open-sources flash is that black hats scrutinize it to find vulnerabilities they can use against the people who are still running flash. And then they'll develop exploits, and then eventually we'll know there was a hole after a bunch of people get owned.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
22. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-31 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  This is a hilariously naive position to take.
  I guarantee that you would only need 10-15 minutes of staring at that trainwreck of a source tree before you came to the exact same conclusion: "Kill it with fire."
23. Re:Kinda shortsighted counter.. by BronsCon · 2017-07-31 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Laser-etch it onto some linguini, then pour some alfredo over it. Or, if you're feeling especially punny, use spaghetti.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Wait a second... by Gravis+Zero · 2017-07-30 08:43 · Score: 2

Is there a petition I can sign for Adobe to delete the source code to Flash? I know it's almost dead but why wait? ;)

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1. Re:Wait a second... by DontBeAMoran · 2017-07-30 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Let's start an anti-petition petition!
  (seriously, I'll sign it)
  If 5000 so-called artists want to save Flash and 500000 programmers want to kill it, Adobe will have to go with the higher number.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
2. Re:Wait a second... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 09:35 · Score: 0
  
  Why not just pull a Manning or Snowden on Adobe? Get paid by them to do it too!
3. Re:Wait a second... by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-07-30 12:00 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Is there a petition I can sign for Adobe to delete the source code to Flash? I know it's almost dead but why wait? ;)
  NO. I have a bar bet regarding how many times the comment "# For the love of God, fix this before next release!!!" appears in the source.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
4. Re:Wait a second... by arth1 · 2017-07-30 16:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If 5000 so-called artists want to save Flash and 500000 programmers want to kill it, Adobe will have to go with the higher number.
  Few things have caused as much damage as old religious texts and their users, but I don't want them destroyed. They should be kept so we can remember history and not be doomed to repeat it.
  A majority, no matter how big, should not be allowed to erase part of history, whether it's burning books or wiping code. This is especially true for bad history.
Fsck no! Keep it closed! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 08:43 · Score: 0

Keep it closed source, and let it die without dignity!
OMG NO!!!!!! by iCEBaLM · 2017-07-30 08:45 · Score: 1

Do NOT open source flash!@!##! Some crazy bunch will turn it into a project and keep it alive. Let the monstrosity die already!
1. Re: OMG NO!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 08:55 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Systemd.flash
2. Re: OMG NO!!!!!! by DontBeAMoran · 2017-07-30 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Great, now you gave them the idea. It's all your fault now, you know: The Internet Collapse of 2019, The Great Supernet Disruption of 2023 and the Meganet Crash of 2025.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
3. Re:OMG NO!!!!!! by i286NiNJA · 2017-07-30 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  server side flash servlets
4. Re: OMG NO!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  You joke, but... (captcha - transmit)
Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 08:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wait until it's completely dead, buried, and gone, even from grandma's old Windows XP machine, THEN open-source it for the sake of history, when there's no risk anyone is ever going to start using it again.
1. Re:Here's an idea by Tenebrousedge · 2017-07-30 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  Mod parent up.
  
  --
  Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
2. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 09:56 · Score: 0
  
  That is a great idea. Put the source code in custody of some well known group (EFF Maybe?) put them under contract to keep it sealed away for say a decade to make sure it is good and dead. Then on a date 10 years from now it can be released for those who might need it to access historical content.
  It would be funny just for the lolz to see it released, just to see how bad it really is. lol
3. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 11:15 · Score: 0
  
  There is also the fact that say 30 years in the future, binary copies of windows (Windows 2000 would probably be best since it doesnt req activation) and binary copies of flash will still be available. I would also expect there to be a glut of todays hardware on sites like ebay considering how much of it there is now. This should be fine for historical/research purposes, you would hopefully keep such a machine isolated from the internet world to deal with the security aspects
  It is not too hard today to come across 8086/88 hardware on ebay and copies of MS-DOS v1 and Windows v1. The availability this older hardware/software today supplies the retro computing/gaming hobby. So i doubt it will be hard to come across today's hardware in 30 years considering how much more of it has been produced. Even if the hardware were hard to come by, there are VMs which i doubt is going to go away anytime soon.
4. Re:Here's an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 22:44 · Score: 0
  
  Mod parent -1 Useless.
And nothing of value was lost (nt) by Brannon · 2017-07-30 08:47 · Score: 1

nt
Good luck by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 08:53 · Score: 1

I'm not saying there's nothing of value in joe-shmoe's ancient server full of flash junk, but maybe we can work on this after we get the mainstream game industry to stop shutting down DRM servers without releasing an end-of-life patch first.
Ya know, so you can still play the game- that you payed money for.
huuuuuge can of worms there by v1 · 2017-07-30 08:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Oh, you think Flash is a security problem now? Publish the source code to it. The malware writers will go over that with a fine toothed comb, and the rate of zero-days will go up by a factor of 10 until they finally exhaust it.
That, and everyone and their mom will be forking it to try to patch the holes they find. It'll be complete chaos.
Though... now that I think about it.... that will make flash SOOO much more of a security hazard that even most of the morons that are refusing to migrate their old crap will be forced to action. Maybe that'll be a net good? "Difficult to say... always in motion the future is."

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
1. Re:huuuuuge can of worms there by DontBeAMoran · 2017-07-30 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, it would make those idiots go with this solution: "This website requires OSSFlash fork 42 rev 54 to run properly".
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
2. Re:huuuuuge can of worms there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 09:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  SO.. what you're saying is security through obscurity actually does work?
3. Re:huuuuuge can of worms there by Tenebrousedge · 2017-07-30 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Of course it does. What doesn't work is when that's your only line of defense. Keeping sensitive stuff secret is obviously part of good security.
  
  --
  Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
4. Re:huuuuuge can of worms there by SCVonSteroids · 2017-07-30 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  My mom doesn't know how to code, so I think we're safe.
  
  --
  I tend to rant.
5. Re:huuuuuge can of worms there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 10:07 · Score: 0
  
  You're missing the point - this is not about fixing it. This is about preserving it. With all security holes.
  Your argument is flawed further by assuming that malware wrinter don't go over the code with a fine-toothed comb only when the source is open, but that's again missing the point.
6. Re: huuuuuge can of worms there by F.Ultra · 2017-07-30 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Well with the current state of flash I would say that that IS it's only line of defence.
7. Re:huuuuuge can of worms there by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2017-07-30 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  My mom doesn't know how to code, so I think we're safe.
  
  As opposed to the average, run-of-the-mill Flash "programmer"?
8. Re:huuuuuge can of worms there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 14:33 · Score: 0
  
  Nope, it would make those idiots go with this solution: "This website requires OSSFlash fork 42 rev 54 to run properly".
  So, basically, you are saying it would turn Flash into Java?
9. Re:huuuuuge can of worms there by sad_ · 2017-07-30 23:21 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, you think Flash is a security problem now? Publish the source code to it. The malware writers will go over that with a fine toothed comb, and the rate of zero-days will go up by a factor of 10 until they finally exhaust it.
  great, then it will be so vile and dangerous nobody in their right mind will use it. just stopping support will not finish off flash (just look at the amount of people still using win-xp).
  
  --
  On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
10. Re:huuuuuge can of worms there by SCVonSteroids · 2017-07-30 23:51 · Score: 1
  
  Shit. My hat off to you sir.
  
  --
  I tend to rant.
11. Re:huuuuuge can of worms there by BadDreamer · 2017-07-31 04:05 · Score: 2
  
  Security through obscurity works as long as the obscurity is there.
  In this case, any bug in the code can be found from painstakingly trying out various combinations of input to Flash. It's a slow method of poking through the obscurity, but it will eventually find all security holes.
  Publishing the source code is simply a quicker way to remove the obscurity.
  In either case, yes, it works as long as the obscurity remains, as is always the case with security through obscurity.
Abandonware? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 08:56 · Score: 0

It's much money to lose in the Macromedia Flash products,
I'd rather forget. by thadtheman · 2017-07-30 08:57 · Score: 1

Enough saiid.
I don't even understand the premise here by HBI · 2017-07-30 09:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Someone is going to recreate Flash, Adobe lacks the power to kill it.
Moreover, whatever people use in preference to Flash in the future will be just as riddled with security issues because, news flash (ha ha ha), the security problems aren't because of Flash itself, they are endemic to remotely delivered applications with untrusted servers. Couple that with an almost entirely useless PKI infrastructure, and we're going to be blaming something other than Flash for the same security issues for years to come. Perhaps forever, unless we go to walled gardens such as Apple's IOS infrastructure or Microsoft's putative Windows Store.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
1. Re:I don't even understand the premise here by thegarbz · 2017-07-30 21:19 · Score: 1
  
  Someone is going to recreate Flash, Adobe lacks the power to kill it.
  Nope. Flash is dying and doing so very rapidly. We're at a stage now where you can happily browse the internet without it. It's basically going the way of ActiveX without the caveat that ActiveX was implemented by a lot of the finance world.
  The world migrated away from it one site at a time. Even without it being killed, there's already very little reason to have it as a plugin browser.
2. Re:I don't even understand the premise here by HBI · 2017-07-31 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  You can say that, but someone will reimplement Flash because they need it and don't want to recreate the content and/or mode of delivery. The probability of this grows closer to 1 the closer to 2020 we get.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
3. Re:I don't even understand the premise here by thegarbz · 2017-08-01 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  You missed the point. I can build a steam engine at home, that doesn't mean the steam engine is effectively dead.
  Adobe doesn't lack the power to kill Flash, it lacks the power to keep it alive. It's terminal and lying on its death bed.
4. Re:I don't even understand the premise here by HBI · 2017-08-01 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  And my point was that regardless of whether Flash lives or dies, whatever successor technology is chosen is going to be no better. So there we are, at an impasse.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
5. Re:I don't even understand the premise here by thegarbz · 2017-08-01 17:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure how you can qualify that statement given that Flash is dying because a successor has already taken over (direct support in HTML + modern browser capabilities) and none of that has come close to being the security disaster that is Flash.
Please God, No! by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2017-07-30 09:02 · Score: 0

Kill it with fire and pour acid on the ashes. It's only use in history is as a horrible cautionary tale.

--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
1. Re:Please God, No! by DontBeAMoran · 2017-07-30 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  That's not enough. I say we ask for presidential orders – signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
2. Re:Please God, No! by omnichad · 2017-07-30 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  Pouring acid on ashes will only neutralize the lye produced when the ashes react with water.
Flash games stored locally by innocent_white_lamb · 2017-07-30 09:05 · Score: 2

I have three or four little flash games that I have downloaded over the course of time, keep on my computer, and play occasionally. I could live without them, I suppose; they aren't anything super-spectacular. But I like them.
It would be nice to some kind of a local flash execution tool for that sort of thing. Right now I load them into Firefox to play them.

--
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
1. Re:Flash games stored locally by Rhapsody+Scarlet · 2017-07-30 09:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Gnash. It's perfectly happy to load locally-stored SWF files and if they're old enough to work on Flash Player 7 (which was released in 2003) then they'll probably work on Gnash.
2. Re:Flash games stored locally by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 11:04 · Score: 0
  
  Native players already exist, for Windows and Linux; good luck navigating Adobe's site to find a download, though. A search for 'flashplayer' or 'flashplayerdebugger' might be useful.
3. Re:Flash games stored locally by luther349 · 2017-07-30 20:18 · Score: 1
  
  i think there up to v9 these days.
4. Re:Flash games stored locally by Cinnamon+Beige · 2017-07-31 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  For those of you with Windows: Media Player Classic runs Flash stored locally.
Flash doesn't have to run in a browser by Hentes · 2017-07-30 09:05 · Score: 1

Just download the program and run it on the Flash player on your machine.
NO by DontBeAMoran · 2017-07-30 09:05 · Score: 1

Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

--
#DeleteFacebook
1. Re:NO by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 11:05 · Score: 0
  
  the same goes for javascript, worst shit since flash
Don't open source it, but release the source code by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 09:06 · Score: 1

Publish the code, but under a restrictive license, so it can't be used until after the copyright expires (or until some predetermined date, since copyright may continue to be extended indefinitely). That way, flash dies, but it's still possible for future generations to look at material archived from the early internet. Why they'd want to is another question...
My solution: Add Flash to Creative Cloud by Applehu+Akbar · 2017-07-30 09:11 · Score: 1

We'r talking about Adobe here, and herein lies the solution. Add Flash to the array of popular Adobe products that are now eyedroppered out to users on a monthly rental basis only under its Creative Cloud. Make Flash CC cost $10 a month, and everyone will finally stop using it.
It'll never happen by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 09:13 · Score: 0

They'll have to rewrite the code first so no one sees just how diabolical they really are.
Flash Wars of the 2020s by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 09:20 · Score: 0

Flash will pit friend against neighbor in a brutal, bloody dispute between letting it die or preserving the past. This in turn will lead to World War 3 which will last until the late 2050s.
A present for Putin by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 09:20 · Score: 0

Hello, Vlad.
Meanwhile, in the real world by RightwingNutjob · 2017-07-30 09:30 · Score: 1

A ton of not-so-obscure companies (cough SAP cough cough) have been releasing front ends to their products that run in a browser with...FLASH! So EOLing it is just going to cost everyone else more money to work around it.
1. Re:Meanwhile, in the real world by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  This is like the payroll time keeping shit that Charter uses. I am not sure if it comes from a vendor or written in house. The 1st time i had to use it after they bought us out i shook my head in shame when i was unable to access it until i installed flash on my work machine.
2. Re:Meanwhile, in the real world by RightwingNutjob · 2017-07-31 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Billing, general utilities that at one point had to be done in flash or java because there was no other good way to do them in a remote accessible manor. Spread across industry, government, academia. Not just games and animations you made in high school in the 90s. "Killing" it would cost billions.
Adobe, while you're at it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 09:32 · Score: 0

please release the source code of killed off SGI/IRIX versions of Photoshop and Premiere, these are truly a part of computing history, and without these available, noone will ever know how Pixar created them computer animated cartoons.
FLASH will be RE-BRANDED by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 09:40 · Score: 0

and re-sold. Flash is no less secure than the rest of the software out there. Thus Flash doesn't make a difference, and neither does anything else. Learn to live without "their" security, and cover "your" ass, or collect the Darwin award.
Please keep Flash, it serves the same good as fentanyl.
Adobe selling vulnerabilities a reasonable theory? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 09:41 · Score: 0

Adobe has been updating Flash almost every month for at least 7 years. Each time Adobe has reported many, many vulnerabilities. That gave me the impression that Adobe managers, or other people at Adobe, were selling vulnerabilities to secret government agencies. Is that a reasonable theory?
Don't save it, don't open source it... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 09:45 · Score: 1

Once again, idiots designed a bunch of shit in a proprietary closed-source application...you deserve to lose everything.
Try an open standard next time.
Delayed Open Source by John+Allsup · 2017-07-30 09:51 · Score: 1

The complaint is that if Flash is available, people will not migrate away. What needs to happen is for the source to be prepped for open sourcing, but held in escrow for a time until migration away from flash is largely complete. It is critical that an open source Flash does not compete with migration away from it. So migration away must be a prerequisite.

--
John_Chalisque
Has no one heard of Handbrake? by GerryGilmore · 2017-07-30 09:52 · Score: 0

What's the big deal? I recently converted a bunch of flash videos to mp4 using Handbrake while converting a friend's website. If there are any flash vids that you want to preserve, convert them. If you want the ability to play them anytime in the future, keep a current PC and NEVER update it. Problem solved. :-)
1. Re:Has no one heard of Handbrake? by Pathwalker · 2017-07-30 10:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  The "big deal" is things beyond simple video content.
  * Vector animations, that would lose quality if they were rasterized and compressed.
  * Interactive presentations; where rendering to a normal video and compressing it would strip out the interactive aspects.
  * Old games; it was easy for people who were learning how to create games to get started with flash, and there is a huge corpus of games out there which represent an interesting segment of indie game development history.
  Hopefully things like Shumway will provide a path forward for viewing old content in the future.
2. Re:Has no one heard of Handbrake? by theweatherelectric · 2017-07-30 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  Hopefully
  I think that sums up the basic problem with Flash. You're put in a position where you have to petition and hope. The Shumway git repository hasn't seen much activity for a couple of years.
History through emulation. Let it DIE by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 09:54 · Score: 0

This is one technology we do NOT want to keep alive on modern systems. Archive whatever FLA files you want, then run those ancient HomestarRunner episodes in a VM. Better they stay caged forever rather than give that dangerous platform new life.
Re:Adobe selling vulnerabilities a reasonable theo by HBI · 2017-07-30 09:57 · Score: 1

Not in my opinion - the juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze for Adobe. However, one of their developers? That is a thought, certainly. Not enough for an accusation, of course, but it's a possible theory.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Adobe will not OpenSource Falsh by williamyf · 2017-07-30 10:34 · Score: 4, Interesting

Two reasons:
1.) Opensourcing Flash would probably open Adobe to a lot of possible legal liabilities. It may incorporate technology licensed from 3rd parties, and expurging those from the source takes resources (engineers and lawyers). And even if they did a 100% perfect job removing every single thing non adobe controlled, that does not mean that anyone would disagree with them and take tham to court. That could be a honest disagreement, or some patent troll of sorts seeing what can be extorted...
2.) Adobe already makes programming tools which allows you to take a FLA or SFW file and convert it to todays HTML5/CCS3/ECMAScript standards. And as time passes, those will get better, and rake adobe lots of £€¥$ .
The best bet to preserve the parts of the web heavy on flash, is to develop a prupose built minimal browser, only for those sites, where the 2020 version of the plugin resides "as is" with no other plugins or ad-ons, and which can ONLY browse Whitelisted sites... Even better if you develop an addon for 2020 browsers that says "Open in flash" (analogous to the current "Open in IE"Plugins nowadays) and invoke that minimal browser for that site and that alone...

--
*** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
1. Re:Adobe will not OpenSource Falsh by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 12:17 · Score: 0
  
  3) The proprietary codecs needed to actually view the historical videos etc. will not be released, even if core flash is open sourced.
  Even if they do release some source, it'll be like Silverlight: useless for any real applications.
2. Re:Adobe will not OpenSource Falsh by bad-badtz-maru · 2017-08-03 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Adobe won't open source the Flash player because most of the code is used in the Air runtime. Flash as a browser plugin is going away, that's all.
Modern user experience ... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 10:49 · Score: 0

... would not exist as it does without Flash's influence. YouTube? No. Viral media? No. Responsive design? No.
Adobe nÃ©e Macromedia ought to just give everyone the middle finger.
Never heard of... by sproketboy · 2017-07-30 11:41 · Score: 1

Penis face never heard of change.org?
Coming soon: AI reverse engineering by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 12:54 · Score: 0

Within 10 years it should be possible to do a very nice analysis and decompilation aided by AI. Whether Adobe plays nice now or not will not matter in the long run.
Source code for posterity only by guruevi · 2017-07-30 12:58 · Score: 1

They should release the source code just to make sure that everyone sees how NOT to create an abomination like that again, also, if you do, hopefully an ultra-intelligent AI will pick up on it, try to make it work and we'll save the human race.
Also, that bro-ski from ZDNet doesn't know what it's talking about. Flex is not Flash, Flex is a developer tool to make Flash applications. It requires Flash (the closed source plugin) to run the things that come out of Flex.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Interesting... by VeryFluffyBunny · 2017-07-30 13:15 · Score: 1

...that opinions about Adobe Flash are emotional, polarised, and poorly informed. PR is the art of encouraging people to hold irrational, poorly-informed beliefs for an ulterior motive. When something gets to this state in public opinion, then it's time to start looking for which PR campaign(s) are responsible. My guess is that Apple Inc. and Google don't like software that can run in web browsers that can compete with apps. In addition, it's far riskier to install an app on your operating system than to run Flash in your browser.

--
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
Re:FFS - Kinda shortsighted counter.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 14:01 · Score: 0

Or someone goes through the source looking for vulnerabilities and EXPLOITS them. Clearly you don't know how the world actually works - there will be companies who will hang onto the old stuff because they can't afford to upgrade (or just can't be bothered). People will pick apart the source and work out how to identify sites with the 'old' Flash' and then mass-exploit them.
Open-sourcing Flash is the stupidest idea ever, and all it does is provide a method of identifying people who are just dumb.
All software is awful by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 15:40 · Score: 0

And all VM based products are worse, For example: .NET has its own giant chunk of vulnerabilities:
https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-26/product_id-2002/Microsoft-.net-Framework.html
Something to view:
https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2016-0145/
https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2004-0200/
https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2002-0369/
Anbd .NET number of affected applications is bigger than JAVA, because is more popular and used in small tools and helpers.
1. Re:All software is awful by MoarSauce123 · 2017-07-31 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, but it is a fashion to bash Flash and ignore the craptastic junk others put out. I'd be fine with Flash going away for good if those who demand its demise the loudest can provide a clear alternative that matches Flash's capabilities 1:1....and no, HTML5/JS is not it, looks and works different in every browser and so far not a single browser fully supports the standard.
Reporter is an ignoramus by Solandri · 2017-07-30 16:07 · Score: 1

A reporter at ZDNet counters that "the only way to really secure Flash is to get rid of it... If Flash lives, people will continue to use it, and without security support, it will be even more insecure than ever."
Flash was not intended to be the de facto scripting language for the web. Repeat: Flash was never intended to bring scripting to websites.

Flash was designed to do one simple thing: Allowing animators to transmit animated movies over low-bandwidth dial-up connections. (YouTube version if you don't have Flash). Instead of transmitting compressed video, it would transmit a background, sprites, and instructions for moving, rotating, zooming, and animating the sprites against the background according to a timed script. It's still used for this purpose today.

To understand why Flash took over the web, you have to go back to the mid-90s. The web had just become mainstream, and the new population of web designers were pushing the envelope of HTML's capabilities. They sorely wanted to be able to add animation (other than the ridiculous blink tag), audio, and scripting so visitors could do things other than just view static content. The W3C (organization setting HTML standards) refused. So web designers looked elsewhere, and lo and behold they found Flash. It did most everything they wanted. But because it was only designed to play animations, not run scripted websites, security was never considered in the design. But with the W3C refusing to add these capabilities to HTML (they wouldn't for over 15 years), web designers all began using Flash on their websites. It soon became a de facto web standard, and everything went downhill from there.

I don't give a whit about Flash websites. I hated them when they first appeared, I still hate them now. Nothing would make me happier than if they all disappeared forever. But there's a huge amount of artistic and programming content out there written for Flash (I have a folder full of a few Flash movies, early zombie games, and old arcade game clones). It would be incredibly short-sighted to consign these locally run Flash animations and games to the dust bin because I hated Flash websites.
I warned you about those Flash pages bro! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 16:57 · Score: 0

Ok, Flash may be dying a just death, but there is plenty of internet content that depends on it that I would rather see revived and semi-immortalized somehow rather than left to await its fate as a memory swirling into a black hole.
Digital Smallpox ??? by it_prole · 2017-07-30 17:42 · Score: 2

Reminds me of the debate about whether we should keep or destroy the last remaining sample of Smallpox.
No need to open source just for preserving by thp4 · 2017-07-30 19:23 · Score: 1

If Flash is open sourced then either nobody will touch the code (so not needed for "preserving", only for educational purposes), or it will be adapted and ported. For preservation, just keeping copies of the (offline) Flash installer and the natural habitat/environment (Windows XP, ...) around and some kind of VM software (VirtualBox) would be better in my opinion. Just like we can preserve NES games by just keeping the ROM files, the games are not gone because there's no access to source code. And if there's really big demand for it, people can always reverse engineer it (as has been done with some NES games). Old games that have their source available will get other contributions (e.g. EDuke32 and the high resolution pack changes Duke Nukem 3D to higher fidelity, but it's not preserving the original way the game was back in the day).

So preserving (in its pristine form) is one thing, open sourcing and trying to evolve it is another. In my opinion, Flash shouldn't be evolved. But Flash should be preserved in its pristine form, so we can watch Homestar Runner cartoons even a few years down the road in a Windows XP VirtualBox (or whatever virtualization software happens to be the thing of the day then).
1. Re:No need to open source just for preserving by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-31 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  someone needs to do a flashbox, just like DOS-box.
  So we can run flash-based content in modern systems, without messing around with illegal code (downloading and installing windows xp in a vm without a license? no, no, no).
  i wonder if we know enough about the swf format to do something like that.
2. Re:No need to open source just for preserving by Cinnamon+Beige · 2017-07-31 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  You...do know that most of the emulators used for playing ROM files are backwards-engineered, some laboriously so, because the inner workings are kept secret? There's some reason to doubt that some of the game system manufacturers themselves know anymore what the inner workings of the hardware were, given that some ports look to be 'ROM+emu' packages.
  The knowledge on the inner workings of the player enable a faster, smoother development of an emulator. But, really, I would expect the source for Flash to be educational...and help ensure Adobe never lives it down.
  Do we really want Adobe to get to live Flash down?
3. Re: No need to open source just for preserving by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-31 09:21 · Score: 0
  
  The NES was hardware, Flash is software. With VirtualBox, a Windows XP ISO and the offline Flash Player Installer you have everything preserved to play back Flash movies like it's 2002.
hears the thing by luther349 · 2017-07-30 20:17 · Score: 1

flash has been dying for the last 10 years yet it keep's on trucking. they even started updating linux flash again after they killed it. i bet 2020 will come around and they will make some excuse to keep it going.
Meh by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-30 21:14 · Score: 0

People don't want to keep using the "flash plugin" , but the flash animation tool, format, and player (stand alone) need to be kept open source to allow reverse engineering existing SWF files and FLA files so that they can be run at HD, 4K and beyond. Right now the flash player basically hits a wall at 1080p
Most of the animations can be converted to MP4 but that does nothing for animations that are interactive, or change with every play (eg "troubled windows") likewise, nearly every pre-AS3 SWF can not be converted to HTML5 unless it has no script. If it has AS3 it can be converted but you lose some of the script. Current tools can only convert audio-less animations. This is mostly due to the fact that the audio codecs used by flash do not exist in web browsers.
No Flash replacement by MoarSauce123 · 2017-07-31 02:41 · Score: 2

The great advantage of Flash is that you can create a RIA once and it looks and behaves about the same no matter which browser or OS it is run on. HTML5 with JS is FAR FAR FAR away from that. There is no reasonable replacement for what Flash can deliver. With Flash going away the web loses a great tool. And yes, I understand the security issues...then again, cars are inherently dangerous and we still drive every day.
Intrusive Animated Ads by AnalogDiehard · 2017-07-31 02:50 · Score: 1

"Games, experiments, intrusive animated ads and websites would be forgotten."

Corrected with emphasis. Marketers had so badly exploited Flash with intrusive animated ads that I HATED the Flash plugin. Other than YouTube in its early days, Flash has served little purpose for me.

I would not shed any tears if Flash were left to be forgotten along with Clippy, Photophucket, and Microsoft Bob.

--
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
In this case I'm not quite sure by Mrakodrap · 2017-07-31 03:05 · Score: 1

If it's worth preserving such "internet history" as I can only recollect seeing or using lousy web games, advertising banners, and artsy websites which would never fully load or open due to load bandwidth and CPU/memory constrains.
They Can't by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-31 06:12 · Score: 0

If they opened it up then we'd be able to see all the back doors they installed, it's not going to happen.
But... by jcbarlow · 2017-07-31 06:15 · Score: 1

what about "Homestar Runner"?
Chumby by SteveR · 2017-07-31 10:32 · Score: 1

Open source it. I want to create new widgets for my Chumby, which runs an old version of Flash.
Yet another lesson ... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-08-01 15:19 · Score: 0

... about the value of open source. Information should live beyond the financial equation that supported the development and support of the tools used to create, view and manage that information.
An interesting thought experiment, which I may have first heard here but can't properly reference: what would it be like if companies were forced to release the designs for any products for which they no longer sell?