This is interesting news. According to WinUnleaked.tk, and given credence by Rafael Rivera and Paul Thurrot, Adobe has given Microsoft the source code to Flash, so that Microsoft could fully integrate it into Internet Explorer 10 for Windows 8. Interesting move, and probably not a bad one considering just how popular Flash still is, especially for games.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2010-04-09
Member since:2009-08-18
I use IE8 & 9 pretty much everyday, and crashes are rare.
Flash has not crashed on me in ages, the last time I had a crash was because my work PC (an ageing P4) had bad memory.
I appreciate that flash sucks on non-Windows Systems. I site in a room with 100 Windows PCs all running IE, we don't have many problems.
Edited 2012-05-24 09:12 UTC
Member since:2006-07-26
Member since:2009-08-18
As I said we don't have any problems with IE, nice attempt at trolling. On OSNews everyone loves the "lol MS is the suckers" comments.
No I appreciate that IE doesn't have the best security record, but it is getting better.
Mozilla Firefox does not have an official MSI, so we have people running very old (and unsupported versions of Firefox, with known security flaws). However everyone is running a fully patched version of IE8 or IE9 thanks to Group Policy.
Also many can scoff, rendering wise there is a lot of things IE8 & 9 do right that other browsers do wrong.
For example third party XML such as Facebook Markup Language won't be rendered on a site unless the correct XML Namespace is supplied in the HTML root node when serving XHTML. It is invalid XHTML yet all the other browsers will quite happily render it given the correct FB.js file.
There are other examples where IE actually conforms to the specification and other browsers don't.
Juvenile comments like yours are just tiresome, and does nothing to improve the situation.
However you got upvoted ... so it might improve your e-penis.
Member since:2010-04-09
No I appreciate that IE doesn't have the best security record, but it is getting better.
Mozilla Firefox does not have an official MSI, so we have people running very old (and unsupported versions of Firefox, with known security flaws). However everyone is running a fully patched version of IE8 or IE9 thanks to Group Policy.
Also many can scoff, rendering wise there is a lot of things IE8 & 9 do right that other browsers do wrong.
For example third party XML such as Facebook Markup Language won't be rendered on a site unless the correct XML Namespace is supplied in the HTML root node when serving XHTML. It is invalid XHTML yet all the other browsers will quite happily render it given the correct FB.js file.
There are other examples where IE actually conforms to the specification and other browsers don't.
Juvenile comments like yours are just tiresome, and does nothing to improve the situation.
However you got upvoted ... so it might improve your e-penis.
Fuck off douchebag.
Member since:2007-05-05
Member since:2009-08-18
Member since:2007-05-05
Member since:2009-08-18
Member since:2005-11-01
This is like integrating feces into diarrhea.
What a pathetic and desperate move from Microsoft/Adobe.
Now all they need is integrating Java aswell, then it'll be the unsafest browser on th.. oh wait, they already were!
I do think this might give them a competitive speed advantage on flash games though.
Member since:2009-08-18
Member since:
2010-01-21
With Internet Explorer doing this and closed-source Chrome doing something similar (and becoming the only modern Flash on Linux since Adobe is dropping NPAPI support), it'll be interesting to see if anyone noteworthy starts trying to cause Adobe trouble for advantaging certain browsers over others.
Edited 2012-05-23 22:13 UTC
Member since:2010-03-11
Adobe is not favouring Chrome over other browsers. They are making Flash available for anyone who adopts that plug-in standard. Any browser teams willing to implement the feature will be able to run future versions of Flash on Linux. Chrome just happens to be the first to do so.
Member since:2007-02-17
So why doesn't Adobe hand over the source code to Flash to Mozilla, Opera and Apple? Why doesn't Adobe simply release it under an OSI-approved license?
Member since:2005-11-13
So why doesn't Adobe hand over the source code to Flash to Mozilla, Opera and Apple? Why doesn't Adobe simply release it under an OSI-approved license?
As long as there was one, and only one version of Flash, tweaked only when absolutely necessary to make it cross-platform, and not 30 different forks of it.
Member since:2007-05-05
So why doesn't Adobe hand over the source code to Flash to Mozilla, Opera and Apple? Why doesn't Adobe simply release it under an OSI-approved license?
As long as there was one, and only one version of Flash, tweaked only when absolutely necessary to make it cross-platform, and not 30 different forks of it. "
Adobe failed at doing that even under their own control.
Member since:2009-08-18
Member since:2010-06-08
Member since:2009-08-18
How is it obsolete? ... I love it how people throw these words about.
When the Unreal 3 Engine runs in HTML5 ... give us a call.
And No WebGL is not the answer ...
http://www.contextis.com/resources/blog/webgl/
http://www.contextis.com/resources/blog/webgl2/
Like it or not Flash works fine. Mozilla's market share is tanking because they are embracing Idealism over Pragmatism.
Edited 2012-05-25 08:24 UTC
Member since:2009-08-18
Member since:2006-05-30
Opensourcing isn't a magic bullet. It will undermine Adobe's business model (and if you license the code from them, they have always allowed external companies to use the Flash engine.) You may not like or agree with Adobe creating closed source software and platforms, but you need to appreciate that changing the model for a specific product line is not done on a whim.
I'm guessing all of the companies you list could also license the source from Adobe. I also assume they don't because Adobe provide a free plugin for the majority of the world's consumer platforms. Of those excluded, many specifically do not support Flash by choice (iOS) or have some kind of support (Linux via Chrome.)
Member since:2006-07-14
Member since:2007-05-05
Kinda hard when the plugin does not exist. You must be living under a rock. Adobe will no longer support Flash on Linux, mobile devices (phones / tablets, etc.) or embedded devices (media players, etc.).
Member since:2009-08-18
Member since:2010-01-21
More like the only one, at present. Last I heard, Mozilla decided that they weren't going to implement Pepper because Google did as they do with Android, unilaterally designed it, and said "Here it is, Take it or leave it."
Edited 2012-05-24 05:38 UTC
Member since:2009-08-18
How dare Google actually solve the problem, rather than just campaigning for the end of Flash.
Member since:2007-05-05
Member since:2009-08-18
Member since:
2005-09-27
Member since:2005-07-23
Member since:2005-09-27
Member since:2010-04-09
Member since:2010-01-21
Member since:
2009-04-03
Member since:2009-08-18
Member since:
2007-05-05
Member since:
2006-07-04
these days. 
Oh, well. Maybe it won't be that bad since Metro apps are sandboxed.
I wonder if Microsoft will also support Silverlight, as there are some cool sites that use and/or require it, such as WorldWideTelescope.org, Photosynth.net, Netflix.com. Hmmm, for Netflix, I imagine there will be a dedicated metro app, so it doesn't matter if the netflix site itself supports silverlight streaming on metro. Maybe there will be dedicated Photosynth and WorldWide Telescope apps too; or maybe Microsoft will convert them to HTML5 (though I don't know if HTML5 is up to the task).
Member since:2005-07-06
Oh, well. Maybe it won't be that bad since Metro apps are sandboxed. I wonder if Microsoft will also support Silverlight, as there are some cool sites that use and/or require it, such as WorldWideTelescope.org, Photosynth.net, Netflix.com. Hmmm, for Netflix, I imagine there will be a dedicated metro app, so it doesn't matter if the netflix site itself supports silverlight streaming on metro. Maybe there will be dedicated Photosynth and WorldWide Telescope apps too; or maybe Microsoft will convert them to HTML5 (though I don't know if HTML5 is up to the task).
I suspect those sites will give way to apps and/or HTML5 versions. Silverlight support would be nice for existing LOB app support though, but it is still accessible from Desktop IE. If I were doing the integration, Flash would be implemented using Silverlight (video playback could just be a managed codec). This would provide better security overall, with code that's been completely SDLC-vetted (and optimized for Windows' power management and sandboxing features), but the current solution does provide quicker time to market, with fewer compatibility worries, and likely still means a more secure Flash for Windows.
Member since:2010-03-08
Member since:2007-04-02
Member since:2010-03-08
It is true that since IE 7, Internet Explorer itself is supposed to have very little file access permissions, provided that its "Protected mode" functionality is enabled at least. However, its Trident engine is entrenched so deeply in Windows, managing parts of such critical functionality as system dialogs, the file explorer or the control panel, that it can almost certainly give orders to higher-privileged components of Windows, which partially voids the usefulness of this sandbox functionality.
Edited 2012-05-24 12:33 UTC
Member since:2012-02-15
Fat lot of good it does, too.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2012/04/10/ie-9-0-6-available-vi...
IE was, is, and will remain a security nightmare.
Member since:2007-09-22
Member since:
2006-03-20
I am guessing that it only concerns x86,x64 versions of windows 8. Let's hope that microsoft will integrate it into its "windows update" mechanism, rather that having a third party update system or going to a separate download website.
Considering how the ARM version would be closed, and on how "secure" they want to get the platform, I would be surprise if this version get the flash treat.