Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chrome 69 is Coming: Not Just a New Look But Flash's Life is About To Get Even Harder (zdnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the flash-needs-to-die dept.

Google's curvy tab Material Design update for Chrome will arrive in version 69 of the browser due out in September. From a report: Google flags the upcoming changes in its Enterprise release notes for Chrome 69, which gives a brief mention under browser interface changes to a "new design across all operating systems." Chrome 69, penciled in for stable release on September 4, will also get native Windows 10 notifications, which have been rolling out to users over the past month. Chrome 69 will also progress the long-running project to deprecate Flash Player, which Adobe has announced will reach end of life in 2020. Microsoft, Mozilla, and Apple have similar deprecation timelines for Flash on their desktop browsers. Once ubiquitous, Flash content is now hardly used at all by Chrome users, though Google won't fully remove support until Chrome 87 in 2020. At present, if a user enables Flash for a particular site, they don't need to approve it if they visit the site again. However, in Chrome 69, every time users restart Chrome, they'll need to give permission for sites to use Flash.

55 of 108 comments (clear)

  1. Good for its time by XXongo · · Score: 2

    Flash was good for its time, but its time was long ago.

    1. Re:Good for its time by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Back in the 1990's and early 2000's HTML didn't have too many (popular) vector graphics options, the options that were available were trenched in the Browser Wars between Netscape and Internet Explorer. Flash worked for different browsers, across different platforms including Windows, Macs and a young Linux. Later iterations played nice with DRM which extended its usefulness beyond Home Star Runner. It really took HTML5 standard to start to take down Flash. With early Apple iPhone Safari browser being an early adopter of HTML5, and Firefox and Chrome browsers getting a lot of interests as well. Especially with all the delays in getting windows 7 out and IE 6 staying the standard for way too long.

      Flash itself wasn't bad, just it wasn't a standard, and for the web we should follow standards.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Good for its time by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Flash itself wasn't bad, just it wasn't a standard, and for the web we should follow standards.

      Flash became ubiquitous because web designers were begging the W3C to add scripting and multimedia capability to HTML. But the W3C dragged its feet. Initially, too many members had the idealistic notion that the WWW should remain "pure" for the exchange of scientific papers and personal websites like Berners-Lee originally envisioned, not become a place for glitzy marketing copies. So they refused to add audio and video support to HTML. Later it got sidetracked pushing everything in "the next version", which got delayed as more things got pushed into it. There was a 15 year gap between HTML 4.01 and HTML 5. Web developers started using Flash to accomplish what the W3C failed to implement in the HTML standard.

      And if you really want to cry about following standards on the web, you should try reading the history of PHP. It's probably the most organic successful project out there - kludges built upon kludges, patches upon patches. As someone who came from structured languages with well thought-out error checking, I was absolutely horrified when I learned PHP.

    3. Re:Good for its time by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Trying to remain "pure" translate to not wanted to learn new stuff.

      For scientific papers, Vector graphics and animation is a useful aid in expressing and showing off data.
      People tend to favor a particular sense for learning.
      Some people are audio and when they hear it they under stand it better.
      Other are visual, and some are tactile. I am sure some people may be olfactory and taste based learning, but those would make structured learning difficult and often unpleasant.

      But HTML as term as a paper with links to resources while the original intention, was never expected to stay there, as Modems baselines at 14.4k became common fast enough to download a bitmap image, svga displays that can show them, and CPU fast enough to render somewhat advanced vector graphics.
      This would be like someone releasing a text editor and say it is a word processor.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Good for its time by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      No, sorry, you're wrong, Flash was never good at any time, it was always a blight on the internet. Remember Flash menus?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    5. Re:Good for its time by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Flash was great. Never had to worry about autoplaying video or audio back then because it was so easy to make flash be click-to-play. Web pages ran so much faster because the unnecessary decorations were separated into the flash part which we could decide whether or not to load. These days with all of flash's former job being done in javascript we have to disable javascript entirely if we want to be safe, we can't choose particular elements to then enable, and a lot of the internet doesn't work without javascript.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    6. Re:Good for its time by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Flash became ubiquitous because web designers were begging the W3C to add scripting and multimedia capability to HTML. But the W3C dragged its feet.

      While you are not wrong, there is more to it than this. Specifically, "designers" wanted pixel perfect renders of their vision rather than allowing the web browser decide how to do layout. It is one of the things that turned me off of designing web sites for those morons.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  2. Chrome 69 by Merk42 · · Score: 1

    Nice

    1. Re: Chrome 69 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, very nice that at work I'll have to reauthorize flash on over 2,000 "sites" which are management interfaces for assorted servers and appliances.
      No, the vendors haven't dumped flash yet. No, we can't change vendors. So guess what I'll be changing? The browser.

      Apparently, Goog is so full of itself and thinks it is so all-powerful that merely deprecating Flash support in their browser will make it go away.

      Just one more reason to say Fuck Google.

    2. Re: Chrome 69 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You know that all the browsers are doing this, right? They all have a similar roadmap of phase out. Microsoft, Google, and Mozilla all agreed on timelines and shared similar roadmaps - all on the same day for once.

    3. Re: Chrome 69 by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      That stuff shouldn't be internet facing to begin with.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    4. Re: Chrome 69 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are PLENTY of examples of stuff not being internet facing getting p0wned to hell.

    5. Re:Chrome 69 by Only+Time+Will+Tell · · Score: 1

      Chrome 69 sounds like a freaky adult site for seniors.

    6. Re:Chrome 69 by StormReaver · · Score: 2

      Chrome 69 is going to suck twice as much.

    7. Re: Chrome 69 by unrealmp3 · · Score: 1

      The nice thing in the end is that most vendors will eventually face pressure from their customers because they're dragging their feet. Flash needs to be eliminated, and dropping support is the only way to achieve that. It's like removing a band-aid, the slower you do it, the more painful it will be.

  3. Native Windows 10 notifications by sinij · · Score: 1

    Native Windows 10 notifications is a plague and another way to spam the user. Worse than pop-ups.

    1. Re:Native Windows 10 notifications by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      It's currently just non-native, so not any bigger spam avenue.

  4. Nice changes, Great losing Flash, here's what else by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    Nice new look and probably the right time to make Flash usage more difficult.

    Here are the technical updates in M69: https://blog.chromium.org/
    - New CSS features
    - Some new APIs including a new Keyboard API that looks like it will be useful for games
    - Improvements to service workers
    - And more

    Looks like a good update.

    --
    Mimetics Inc. Twitter
  5. As much as we hate flash and java by mevanchik1695 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There has to be a mode that can be globally to whitelist domains in an easy fashion for corporate users. As for the end users. Here lies the problem. They cannot rely on just a pop up to "allow". At minimum, the user will have to always allow once. o wait thats what the article says. Im smart. Anyway, this should also apply to Java.

  6. Re:Allow me to say: by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

    Fine, do it. Just don't sixty-nine them.

  7. Re:Fuck passive aggressive software! by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bullshit, accessing the management interface for my VMWare cluster isn't introducing a virus vector. Yes, VMWare introduced an HTML5 management interface, but it sucks, it's slower, buggier, and lacks features found in the Flash interface. Do I like flash, no I do not but decisions made long ago and way above my pay grade mean that I need to use it to do my job, making it more annoying accomplishes NOTHING other than pissing me off for no good reason.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  8. There is a line by DarkOx · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There is a line between keeping users safe and essentially singling out a technology for destruction.

    However, in Chrome 69, every time users restart Chrome, they'll need to give permission for sites to use Flash.

    Google is more or less deciding that anyone delivering anything with flash will not be permitted to give their users a good experience. Some would argue singling out the flash and java plugins for special treatment at all crossed this line; though I would argue gross negligence on the part of Adobe and Sun/Oracle kinda forced that.

    I really doubt flash would have been killed off so soon if Apple had not started an outright attack on it and Google and Mozilla having not decided to pile on.

    Chrome is malware - there are no two ways about it and Google is abusive. Consumers would do well to not reward them for abuse. Don't run Chrome - period. Its evil.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:There is a line by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      The attack started the moment Adobe made the Mac version of Flash a slow pile of crap.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re: There is a line by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      I would say it was crappier on the Mac platform but it was crappy on any platform including Windows. What drove Apple to move away from it was Adobe not addressing two major issues that Jobs had with it on mobile: stability and battery performance. Apple always said that they would have put Flash on the iPhone if Adobe addressed them but Adobe never did.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re: There is a line by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Informative

      You make it out like Flash was a paragon of computing before Apple while twirling its moustache decided to kill it off for all computer users everywhere. Flash was terrible. It crashed often. It consumes lots of computing power. It had so many security holes that it seemed like I was patching daily.

      Flash however was one of the few cross platform things you could use back in the day. When it worked, it would work roughly the same whether on Windows or Mac. However the death knell wasnâ(TM)t just Apple. Better cross platform technologies like HTML5 is making Flash less relevant.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re: There is a line by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      Apple never had Flash on mobile. On the Mac it was terrible; it was just more terrible than the PC version. Flash was never great on any platform. It was tolerated because it was one of the few cross platform technologies at the time. The constant security flaws, the CPU performance was what did it in on all platforms not just Mac.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re: There is a line by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      The quality of flash isn't the point. My point is flash is basically gone not because others delivered superior solutions that people preferred; but because a few gate keeps decided to sabotage the environment it runs in.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    6. Re:There is a line by jythie · · Score: 1

      They are not being 'goodie goodies', they are being pragmatically capitalist. Flash and Java are bad for their bottom line. The good of the users has nothing to do with this.

    7. Re:There is a line by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      How does Flash cut into their advertising revenue?

    8. Re: There is a line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. Flash is gone because it sucked.

      Flash killed itself. It has nobody to blame but itself.

    9. Re: There is a line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "The hardware is inferior" is an interesting justification for making buggy, slow software that burns through battery power on mobile devices.

    10. Re:There is a line by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      Adobe officially decided to kill flash over a year ago, and unofficially decided years earlier. At this point, the only responsible thing to do is make it progressively more inconvenient so that people won't be using an abandoned bundle of security holes.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    11. Re: There is a line by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      Flash died because internet consumption moved from desktop to mobile, where Adobe was never able to deliver reasonable battery life and performance and soon gave up.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    12. Re:There is a line by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      your point is invalid since the browser still runs it

    13. Re: There is a line by _merlin · · Score: 2

      However the death knell wasn't just Apple. Better cross platform technologies like HTML5 is making Flash less relevant.

      HTML5 animation had far worse performance than Flash when Apple started their mission to kill it. With the whole HTML5/JavaScript mess, we can no longer easily block annoying shit like we could when it had to use embed/object tags. WebAssembly is just like Java all over again, except there are multiple implementations in the browsers themselves rather than a plugin to run the bytecode.

    14. Re:There is a line by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      I agree, and I find it interesting that a huge majority of people who support "Free as in Freedom" have been begging major vendors to ban Flash.

      I don't love Flash, but I do want the choice to keep using it. I get creeped out when people tell me I shouldn't be able to use a particular technology for my own good.

    15. Re:There is a line by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      It's not their technology, so they can't control it. Banning plugins has never been about safety -- it's about power.

      Even W3C recommendations are just recommendations, and Google doesn't have to follow the rules if they choose, and can implement proprietary extensions if they want. But, Flash and Java are beyond their power. They hate that.

    16. Re: There is a line by Daralantan · · Score: 1

      Apple while twirling its moustache

      Oh. So that's why the hipsters love mustaches so much now!

    17. Re: There is a line by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Are you seriously arguing that Flashâ(TM)s decreased usage over the years had nothing to do with its performance? That it was avoided not because of the constant security holes? Instead youâ(TM)re arguing that Apple did it in with its less than 5% on the computing platform and its minority share on the smartphone market? Thatâ(TM)s laughable at best.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  9. They should fix the spelling correction on Macs by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1, Informative

    First Chrome, now also Skype, realizes that I type in english, underlines what is wrong, but does not use the english dictionary fro spelling correction ...

    Every Mac application, uses the build in text input system, which automatically realizes which language I use and offers spelling correction with the appropriated dictionary, but Chrome must roll its own inferior version, and Skype is even worth.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  10. Re:Fuck passive aggressive software! by afidel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The fat client doesn't work with 6.5.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  11. Install both a web browser and a Flash browser by tepples · · Score: 1

    So guess what I'll be changing? The browser.

    Ideally, you'll be using one frozen version of one browser to view the few sites that use Flash Player and a different browser to view the vast majority of sites that use HTML. Would this be an acceptable use paradigm for most people who need to work regularly with legacy Flash sites?

  12. Re:Fuck passive aggressive software! by Megol · · Score: 1

    And also me, a person "who's computer isn't filled with viruses".

  13. He was always taking it easy by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    But Flash's Life is About To Get Even Harder

    Superman is back to being able to run as fast as him now.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  14. Nice by vipvop · · Score: 1

    Nice

  15. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Flash was good for its time, but its time was long ago.

    The only thing flash was good for were sites like Joe Cartoon. Otherwise it was abused from day one by marketing assholes and flash only sites.

    The best selling point about the original iPhone was that it didn't support flash, unfortunately it was AT&T only.

  16. Damnit by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    Look, if I want to enable Flash content on some sites (usually internal) why are you fighting me and making my life harder? I already said to allow it. If you don't allow me to add a permanent exception, you're a dick.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  17. 68 by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

    I'm a fan of the "68". You do me and I owe you one.

  18. Re:Fuck passive aggressive software! by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    If you find Chrome too patronizing, the good thing you have Firefox. Generally a better browser anyway, for example Chrome just isn't usable with a lot of tabs. So many small things, like you can delete a cached url from the popup list in Firefox, not in Chrome. And Chrome popup url suggestions are horrible at finding text in the middle of the URL string. Such warts are really grating if you have something to compare to that does it better.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  19. Re:No affordance for persistence? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    That'll fix 'em.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  20. Nothing suggestive about this title . . . by SSonnentag · · Score: 1

    Seriously? There's no way this title wasn't thought out. LOL! :D

  21. Re:Fuck passive aggressive software! by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    No good with a lot of tabs?

    The Chrome UI with lots of tabs open is crap.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  22. Chrome 69 Codename: by Ze+Wah · · Score: 1

    Dinner for Two!

  23. Chrome 69 by Daralantan · · Score: 1

    It's like the article was excited about the name/number and wanted to say Chrome 69 as many times as possible.

    Chrome 69.

  24. Nice by p0larity · · Score: 1

    noice