Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th May 2016 21:39 UTC
Internet & Networking

Later this year we plan to change how Chromium hints to websites about the presence of Flash Player, by changing the default response of Navigator.plugins and Navigator.mimeTypes. If a site offers an HTML5 experience, this change will make that the primary experience. We will continue to ship Flash Player with Chrome, and if a site truly requires Flash, a prompt will appear at the top of the page when the user first visits that site, giving them the option of allowing it to run for that site

And so the slow march of death of Flash continues, ever onward, never looking back, into the abyss, a neverending blackness, cold and deep, nevermore to return.

Order by: Score:
Not quite
by nhubbard on Mon 16th May 2016 21:57 UTC
nhubbard
Member since:
2006-10-03

I run into sites that still require flash almost every day. I suppose this may not be true for everyone, but unfortunately it is still widely used from what I can tell.

Also, the title "Chrome to sart blocking Flash later this year" is missing a 't'.

Reply Score: 1

I'll sart blocking it too!
by uridium on Mon 16th May 2016 22:22 UTC
uridium
Member since:
2009-08-20

Take a stand! Install "Flash block" and sart using it today!

Reply Score: 4

RE: I'll sart blocking it too!
by grat on Tue 17th May 2016 01:27 UTC in reply to "I'll sart blocking it too!"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

Yeah, 'cuz what I really need is to make the VSphere web console EVEN MORE DIFFICULT to use.

It's all well and good to kill java and flash on websites, but there are a number of commercial products out there that still require you to use either, or both, to manage your insfrastructure.

And for those saying "well, switch to something else", A) it's not my call and B) What would you switch from VMWare to, and C) It's hundreds of thousands of dollars involved.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: I'll sart blocking it too!
by Sidux on Tue 17th May 2016 09:53 UTC in reply to "RE: I'll sart blocking it too!"
Sidux Member since:
2015-03-10

VSphere for iOS does not use Flash and so do many business platforms that are already migrated towards tablet and phone devices.
Apple did not give up on flash because of security reasons alone. They clearly stated that Flash was never build for touch devices and Adobe is the slowest partner that adapts to the technologies that they are promoting.
It's pure marketing (since Adobe focuses more on offering multiplatform solutions, not like Apple does) and for the same reason Apple hates Java.

Reply Score: 2

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

It's pure marketing (since Adobe focuses more on offering multiplatform solutions

I hope Adobe's marketing department paid you well for that. Multi platform? In name only. Where's Flash for Android? For Linux? Oh right, they killed both of those. How's the performance of Flash on OS X? Oh yeah... they don't bother testing it and that's why it drains my battery at a ridiculous rate. Flash on Windows is that thing that performs well but lets in damn near every security risk you can think of, and Adobe are slow as hell to bother with patches. Multi platform perhaps, in only the strictest definition meaning that it works on OS X and Windows, but the spirit of your claim of multi platform is long dead from Adobe, if they ever even had it.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: I'll sart blocking it too!
by grat on Tue 17th May 2016 13:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I'll sart blocking it too!"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

iOS? Really?

I'm sorry, but I use a real operating system for my day job(system administration / development), with a real keyboard, and a real mouse.

I'll grant there are people who can be as productive on their laptops as I am on a dual-screen desktop, but there's no way on this earth I'm going to believe a tablet (or phone!) is a good interface for managing virtual machines, running virtual test boxes, or doing development work in general.

I mean, first off, how the heck do you mount an ISO?

Further, the VSphere for iOS gets pretty harsh reviews (and curiously, is rated for 17 years and older)-- it doesn't have anywhere near the functionality of the web client on Windows / Linux.

Reply Score: 2

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

What's it matter to you what someone else uses? If it works for them, that should be good enough for you unless you have to work with the person and something's actively getting in the way. I don't understand your type: determined to put down what others use if it's not what you use.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: I'll sart blocking it too!
by grat on Tue 17th May 2016 19:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I'll sart blocking it too!"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

I don't understand your type: determined to put down what others use if it's not what you use.


What? No, this (part of the) thread has always been about what I use. As part of my job, I have to use VSphere Web interface (I have the thick client, but it's getting increasingly, well, thick, and doesn't support all the new features. Also, it only runs under windows, which is why I have to have a 50gb VBox Win 8.x image).

VSphere web interface requires Flash. Chrome, which is my only option currently under Linux (Firefox's npapi flash isn't new enough, so I have to run pepper flash), is soon to start making it harder to use Flash on websites that aren't white-listed by google (or did you not read the article?), thus making my job more difficult.

Someone pointed out that VSphere for iOS doesn't require flash-- which is true, but it also doesn't work very well, and isn't a valid option for my job.

The only third party slam in my post was to pre-empt someone suggesting I use a tablet for system administration, so I'm not sure why you think I'm "determined to put down what others use"-- because really, I don't care what you, or anyone else uses.

To make it obvious: I care that Google is making a change which will make my job more difficult.

Reply Score: 2

Hmm
by FlyingJester on Mon 16th May 2016 22:45 UTC
FlyingJester
Member since:
2016-05-11

Of course, Youtube and other popular sites will be exempt.

I have not had Flash installed on my main computer for quite some time, and I hardly miss it. I still have flash on one machine to watch Twitch on, but once Twitch leaves Flash (like the keep saying they will do someday), there will simply be no reason to keep using Flash at all for me.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hmm
by Calipso on Mon 16th May 2016 23:27 UTC in reply to "Hmm"
Calipso Member since:
2007-03-13

Why would YouTube be exempt? They've been using HTML5 for quite a while now.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Hmm
by jessesmith on Mon 16th May 2016 23:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm"
jessesmith Member since:
2010-03-11

They use HTML5 for some videos, but not all. A month ago I removed Flash from all my computers to see how it would go. The only site I ever visit now that requires Flash is YouTube. About one in every three videos demands that I install Flash or it won't play. (I confirmed HTML5 preference is enabled in my YouTube settings.)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Hmm
by Calipso on Tue 17th May 2016 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hmm"
Calipso Member since:
2007-03-13

wow seriously? one in three? that's some crappy luck. Either that or I've had amazing luck the last year or so. Based on my experience I figured they converted everything already. Haven't needed flash at all and I watch lots of youtube.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Hmm
by FlyingJester on Mon 16th May 2016 23:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Hmm"
FlyingJester Member since:
2016-05-11

Youtube is exempt because it is one of the top ten sites using Flash.

Makes sense. Kill Flash, except for the biggest users. And by 'makes sense', I mean it makes no sense.

All they are doing is making it so that if a site explicitly asks if the browser has Flash, and it's not on the top 10 sites that uses Flash, the browser will answer 'no' regardless of if Flash works. Otherwise, it's business as usual.

Reply Score: 1

Does being anti-flash still make sense?
by malxau on Mon 16th May 2016 23:56 UTC
malxau
Member since:
2005-12-04

Five years ago I loathed flash. It embodied the worst of the web: loud, in-your-face content that the viewer typically didn't want to see. Fortunately, as a plugin, it was relatively easy to block; or never install in the first place.

In the last five years, that obnoxious content has moved over to HTML5, sometimes including video. In theory, this plain-text obnoxious content would be fairly simple to filter; but what's happened is that it's a) enabled by default and b) users need to download extensions to control it. So we've moved from needing extensions to enable content to needing extensions to suppress it.

These extensions end up causing issues for users and headaches for web developers - like AV scanners, they're looking for patterns and are invariably imperfect. Since there are many, the test matrix for websites explodes - many browsers with many filters.

If the goal was to have a clean, reliable, well tested browsing experience by eliminating flash, I can't help but feel we missed the real goal by fixating on past problems, not future ones.

Reply Score: 7

grat Member since:
2006-02-02

What, do you don't like corner-to-corner scrolling background images with pop up, pop down, side-scrolling video content?

Who knew the people behind Max Headroom were optimists?

Reply Score: 4

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

If the goal was to have a clean, reliable, well tested browsing experience by eliminating flash, I can't help but feel we missed the real goal by fixating on past problems, not future ones.


Well, Flash is just a symptom of a bigger problem, and that is that you have a bunch of sociopath web devs who don't care how much they make life miserable for the end user, as long as they get what they want.

At least with HTML5, browser vendors can't blame crashes and shit on some plugin, so I guess that's sort of an improvement ...

Reply Score: 5

CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

You think web devs are the problem? HA!

You should talk to clients. ;-)

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

CaptainN-,

You think web devs are the problem? HA!

You should talk to clients. ;-)


Haha, yea I think that's implied ;)
Anyone who has been in this line of work knows it!

Reply Score: 2

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

You think web devs are the problem? HA!


Yes, in fact I do. It's like with telemarketers - don't give me this 'I'm just trying to make a living' bullshit. If you're the one writing the code/interrupting my dinner, I'm holding YOU responsible.

Edited 2016-05-18 20:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

Yes, in fact I do. It's like with telemarketers - don't give me this 'I'm just trying to make a living' bullshit. If you're the one writing the code/interrupting my dinner, I'm holding YOU responsible.


There's quite a moral difference though, telemarketers are breaking the law and we have no control over their repeated interruptions. As annoying as a website may be, a website is elective and we can leave at any time.


I probably do deserve scolding over my current project though, the client decided to use DRM. BAH$!?*$# As much as I have philosophical leanings towards open source, it's hard to reconcile that with my income coming from proprietary work. I'm a damned hypocrite.

Reply Score: 2

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

As annoying as a website may be, a website is elective and we can leave at any time.


The web as a whole is not elective if you want to compete in today's economy. And when 1 out of every 3-5 websites are nagging users with popups (or worse, trying to infect them with drive-by malware), clearly things have gotten out of control. And if you're a part of that, you're only contributing to the problem.

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

The web as a whole is not elective if you want to compete in today's economy.


Nobody is saying you need to abandon the web as a whole just because you dislike parts of it.

And when 1 out of every 3-5 websites are nagging users with popups (or worse, trying to infect them with drive-by malware), clearly things have gotten out of control. And if you're a part of that, you're only contributing to the problem.


Well sure, I seriously hate popups and nagware too. Adblocking helps! And for the worse offenders you can (and should) stop visiting their websites entirely. You can go ahead and criticize the code monkeys, but more often than not we're not really the ones calling the shots, for that you have to go further up the chain (except in the smallest of companies). Blaming us is sort of like treating medical symptoms rather than the actual cause. It might make you feel better, but the problem is not going away.

Edit: Actually the best way to get a message to management is if the users / customers explicitly make complaints to the company before leaving. Otherwise if users just stop visiting without explanation, they won't really know why.

Edited 2016-05-20 03:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Finally
by icicle on Tue 17th May 2016 03:05 UTC
icicle
Member since:
2013-12-07

Flash must go. Good riddance. Adobe has become ridiculous and redundant.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Finally
by grat on Tue 17th May 2016 19:09 UTC in reply to "Finally"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

Flash must go. Good riddance. Adobe has become ridiculous and redundant.


Well, yeah, good quality fired bricks pretty much did in adobe as a building material....

.... wait, what?

Reply Score: 4

moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

Because is where all Flahs content has moved to and while blocking Flash meant not having to install it, blocking HTML 5 canvas and videos ads requires active ad blocking efforts.

Reply Score: 2

yerverluvinunclebert
Member since:
2014-05-03

Flash may have been bad for end users... but the replacement technologies offer far less than flash provided. The web is such a primitive place compared to the desktop and the tools/technologies we have to use to build content need to develop to be somewhat like flash in order to make truly dynamic content. Flash had an IDE, the ability to control the movement and placement of content to the minutest degree. Flash sites if done well were works of art that could not have been accomplished in any other web-based medium. Don't knock Flash until you've tried the replacements.

Reply Score: 1

RobG Member since:
2012-10-17

And all with the ability to run code remotely on other users computers. Hopefully the replacements will not be trying to offer that "service".

No matter how good a technology, if its security model is based on a sieve, it is not fit for purpose.

Reply Score: 3

charlieg Member since:
2005-07-25

Flash was great for end users. It's not Flash that was bad, but the websites that misused it.

How many billions (trillions?) of hours of games, communications, and content creation and delivery have been delivered by flash?

Flash was never bad. Any decent tool can be subverted. People can speed on the road, drink drive, and generally do bad things that result in death, injury, and all kinds of awful consequences. Are cars bad? Are roads bad? (Well depending on your perspective maybe they are.)

Flash made the web come to life in a time when browsers were unstable, lacked features, and had poor performance. Flash content was rich and detailed in an era of computing that wouldn't even have the power or capacity to boot a modern operating system let alone run one of today's browsers.

Flash was great for its time. Any pretense otherwise is false. Now its time is coming to an end because finally the rest of the web has caught up but that it took over a decade tells you more about the "design" of browser tech than it does about Flash.

Reply Score: 2

abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

Flash sites if done well were works of art that could not have been accomplished in any other web-based medium. Don't knock Flash until you've tried the replacements.


First of all I don't visit websites because they are "works of art". That is the BIGGEST problem with flash. I can't stand graphic designers who design websites like a novelty business card. Websites are meant to convey information not look pretty. Good design on the web can still look nice but if it gets in the way of the information it's a net negative. Flash pretty much always hinders the user experience. Scrollbars and text are still problems on flash websites nevermind not being compatible with most mobile devices. Flash is trash and cannot die soon enough.

Reply Score: 5

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

abraxas,

First of all I don't visit websites because they are "works of art". That is the BIGGEST problem with flash. I can't stand graphic designers who design websites like a novelty business card. Websites are meant to convey information not look pretty. Good design on the web can still look nice but if it gets in the way of the information it's a net negative. Flash pretty much always hinders the user experience. Scrollbars and text are still problems on flash websites nevermind not being compatible with most mobile devices. Flash is trash and cannot die soon enough.


This opinion is quite common, yet I'm not sure if it's occurred to everyone that these design elements that were once exclusive to flash (and were therefor very easy to block) are moving to HTML5. The death of flash will accelerate the use of pure HTML5 to build these interfaces where it could become much more difficult to block.

Reply Score: 2

abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

This opinion is quite common, yet I'm not sure if it's occurred to everyone that these design elements that were once exclusive to flash (and were therefor very easy to block) are moving to HTML5. The death of flash will accelerate the use of pure HTML5 to build these interfaces where it could become much more difficult to block.


That's no excuse to run a security Swiss cheese plugin to poorly render web elements.

Reply Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

abraxas,

That's no excuse to run a security Swiss cheese plugin to poorly render web elements.


Ostensibly I agree, but as the pwn2own contests have shown every year, even without plugins zero-day exploits are alive and well. I would argue that even if a plugin were more secure than the rest of the browser, you and I would still oppose the plugins for other completely different principled reasons.


Insecure systems are more common than any of us likes to admit, and it takes some cognitive dissonance to judge the security of others while overlooking the vulnerabilities that are closer to home. For example, the security cat and mouse game is the entire basis for jail-breaking phones. If manufacturers like apple didn't occasionally fail at security, then jailbreaking devices would be impossible.

As an industry, we need to assess the root causes of this insecurity that keeps happening. Most of us can agree that the use of C/C++ has caused a lot of security havoc over the years, but even managed languages like PHP serving HTML/JS over HTTP have been notoriously vulnerable to different kinds of attacks. So here's my open question: Is there some way we can learn from all of this and change the industry for good, or are we bound to these problems forever?

Reply Score: 2

Flash is not dead
by DavidCollins on Tue 17th May 2016 10:36 UTC
DavidCollins
Member since:
2010-03-22

Years ago when Flash dropped support for Linux, I heard a lot of people say that Flash was never really used anymore. Of course, it was wishful thinking.

Flash clings on. It's still used in streaming sites and initiatives like this are an effort to stamp it out, forcefully end its existence.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Flash is not dead
by darknexus on Tue 17th May 2016 14:21 UTC in reply to "Flash is not dead"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

No one's saying it's dead, just that it's dying. It's a slow, lingering death, but an inevitable death none the less. iOS doesn't support Flash. Adobe themselves killed Flash for Android. A great many people, especially the type who like to watch streaming video and play games, have moved mostly or exclusively to their mobile devices.
Only the Linux zealots claimed that the end of Flash for Linux meant it would die. This, however, is a far more gradual and much more inexorable shift on how people are browsing the web. Flash will die slowly, but die it will because Adobe don't care enough to keep it alive.

Reply Score: 2

Saddest of this saga...
by dionicio on Tue 17th May 2016 14:23 UTC
dionicio
Member since:
2006-07-12

Beyond Corporative and Work loses, is all this the most precious MIND INVESTMENT, on Internet architecture which was flawed from conception itself.

How much of actual Status Quo at the Net of Nets also share this 'flawed by design' attribute?

Reply Score: 2

Developers
by fretinator on Tue 17th May 2016 17:43 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

The one group I feel sorry for is developers. For the record, I am one. First, we had Java Applets. I found it a very productive way to make interactive content for a website. It was easy to create reusable components (beans) for sharing code between projects. It had sandboxing. Then one day someone decided, All Applets Are Bad, and that was all she wrote. I never used Flash, but I imagine it was a similar story, though I am not aware of the sandboxing features of Flash. So now we have HTML5. The bar keeps moving, although in this instance, at least we are moving away from proprietary plugins, which is a good thing.

Still....Java applets so simplified the creation of interactive content. You could literally use notepad and make a functioning, graphical, interactive web control without great piles of HTML and JavaScript. I miss it.

Reply Score: 4

Another show off how google use chrome
by soviet9922 on Wed 18th May 2016 19:51 UTC
soviet9922
Member since:
2015-02-18

This show how google use chrome to push the corporate agenda why flash need to be block ?.

Reply Score: 1