OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/25988/_Flash_integrated_into_Internet_Explorer_10_for_Windows_8_ Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Sat, 18 May 2013 15:00:20 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Pathetic http://www.osnews.com/thread?519187 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519187 Great, so IE will now crash twice as much now that Flash is integrated into it.

This is like integrating feces into diarrhea.

What a pathetic and desperate move from Microsoft/Adobe.Edited 2012-05-23 22:06 UTC Wed, 23 May 2012 21:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tuma324) Comments Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519189 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519189 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 Wed, 23 May 2012 22:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ssokolow) Comments ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519194 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519194 How about releasing the source code for everyone?

Ain't that better? Wed, 23 May 2012 22:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Hiev) Comments RE: Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519198 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519198 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. Wed, 23 May 2012 23:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (jessesmith) Comments RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519202 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519202
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.


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? Wed, 23 May 2012 23:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lemur2) Comments RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519211 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519211 Source code NOT EQUALS plugin

Looks like Microsoft actually read all the flame comments they got when announced Win8 will be flash-less a month or two ago. Thu, 24 May 2012 00:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (darkcoder) Comments Not a bad one? http://www.osnews.com/thread?519212 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519212 'Not a bad one'?

Seriously...?
Like windows could use some additional attack vectors for malware. Or some additional instabilities.

They are so digging their own grave.
Well, good riddance. Windows has been around too long anyway. Thu, 24 May 2012 00:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (bram) Comments RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519214 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519214

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. Thu, 24 May 2012 00:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (WorknMan) Comments RE[4]: Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519215 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519215
"
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. Thu, 24 May 2012 01:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (0brad0) Comments RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519217 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519217
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.


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.). Thu, 24 May 2012 01:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (0brad0) Comments but it won't be available for all websites http://www.osnews.com/thread?519218 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519218 The Flash run time will not be available for all web sites using Flash as mentioned in the article..

"Flash is supported for only those popular but legacy web sites that need it. This feature is not broadly available for all sites." Thu, 24 May 2012 01:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (0brad0) Comments But flash is the major conduit for malware http://www.osnews.com/thread?519223 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519223 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). Thu, 24 May 2012 03:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (MollyC) Comments RE: ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519226 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519226 All geeks claim they don't want Flash anyhow so why start whining now? Thu, 24 May 2012 04:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (aliquis) Comments RE: But flash is the major conduit for malware http://www.osnews.com/thread?519228 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519228
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).


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. Thu, 24 May 2012 05:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (n4cer) Comments RE[2]: ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519230 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519230 To fix it, of course, Thu, 24 May 2012 05:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Hiev) Comments RE[2]: ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519231 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519231
All geeks claim they don't want Flash anyhow so why start whining now?


Because we worry about popular platforms keeping Flash around while our preferred browsers lose access to our favourite sites and services. Thu, 24 May 2012 05:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ssokolow) Comments RE[2]: Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519232 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519232
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.


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 Thu, 24 May 2012 05:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ssokolow) Comments RE[3]: ... http://www.osnews.com/thread?519235 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519235
To fix it, of course,


We don't need to improve Flash, we need to improve HTML5. Thu, 24 May 2012 06:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tuma324) Comments RE: But flash is the major conduit for malware http://www.osnews.com/thread?519239 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519239 Third-party metro apps are sandboxed, but IE is probably not. Thu, 24 May 2012 06:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Neolander) Comments Platforms ? http://www.osnews.com/thread?519242 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519242 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. Thu, 24 May 2012 08:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dvhh) Comments RE[2]: But flash is the major conduit for malware http://www.osnews.com/thread?519244 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519244 ie9 is already sandboxed on windows 7 Thu, 24 May 2012 09:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Verunks) Comments RE: Pathetic http://www.osnews.com/thread?519245 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519245 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 Thu, 24 May 2012 09:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus) Comments RE[5]: Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519246 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519246 Most of the problems have now been resolved on Linux thanks to the Pepper API.

Pity Mozilla have no interest in implementing it. Thu, 24 May 2012 09:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus) Comments RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519247 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519247 No the NPAPI version, Pepper API is going to be supported by Google (via Chrome) on Linux. Thu, 24 May 2012 09:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus) Comments RE: Not a bad one? http://www.osnews.com/thread?519248 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519248 http://www.osnews.com/permalink?519244 Thu, 24 May 2012 09:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus) Comments RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519251 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519251 Because they sell tools such as Adobe Flash Creator, if they open sourced it they would have incompatible forks and any content made with Flash Creator wouldn't work correctly.

This would most likely piss off many of their existing customers.Edited 2012-05-24 09:53 UTC Thu, 24 May 2012 09:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus) Comments RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519254 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519254
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?


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.) Thu, 24 May 2012 10:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (henderson101) Comments RE: Pathetic http://www.osnews.com/thread?519263 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519263
Great, so IE will now crash twice as much now that Flash is integrated into it.
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. Thu, 24 May 2012 11:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Brunis) Comments RE[3]: But flash is the major conduit for malware http://www.osnews.com/thread?519270 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519270 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 Thu, 24 May 2012 12:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Neolander) Comments RE[3]: But flash is the major conduit for malware http://www.osnews.com/thread?519274 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519274 Fat lot of good it does, too.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2012/04/10/ie-9-0-6-available-vi...

The most severe vulnerabilities could allow remote code execution if a user visits a specially crafted Web page using Internet Explorer. An attacker who successfully exploited any of these vulnerabilities could gain the same user rights as the local user.


IE was, is, and will remain a security nightmare. Thu, 24 May 2012 12:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (einr) Comments RE[2]: Pathetic http://www.osnews.com/thread?519279 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519279
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.


Sounds to me like you have about 100 problems. Thu, 24 May 2012 13:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (FunkyELF) Comments RE[3]: Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519286 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519286
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."


How dare Google actually solve the problem, rather than just campaigning for the end of Flash. Thu, 24 May 2012 14:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus) Comments RE: But flash is the major conduit for malware http://www.osnews.com/thread?519288 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519288 Actually, Acrobat and Java are worse than Flash. But it definitely is in the top 3. Thu, 24 May 2012 15:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Lennie) Comments RE[6]: Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519300 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519300 Mozilla is right. Better to focus on pure HTML solutions, instead of supporting an obsolete technology like Flash. Thu, 24 May 2012 17:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (shmerl) Comments RE[3]: Pathetic http://www.osnews.com/thread?519304 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519304 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. Thu, 24 May 2012 18:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus) Comments RE[2]: Pathetic http://www.osnews.com/thread?519305 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519305 The Microsoft JVM was discontinued in 2003?

Because the current version of Windows is Windows XP RTM. Thu, 24 May 2012 18:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus) Comments RE[4]: Pathetic http://www.osnews.com/thread?519331 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519331
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.

Fuck off douchebag. Thu, 24 May 2012 23:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tuma324) Comments RE[2]: Pathetic http://www.osnews.com/thread?519335 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519335

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.


That's nice for you. The reality is that Flash and Acrobat Reader are the two top causes of browsers crashing. Fri, 25 May 2012 00:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (0brad0) Comments RE[4]: Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519336 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519336

How dare Google actually solve the problem, rather than just campaigning for the end of Flash.


Except they did not "solve" anything. The only thing that would solve the problem is Flash going away. Fri, 25 May 2012 00:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (0brad0) Comments RE[4]: Pathetic http://www.osnews.com/thread?519337 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519337
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.


Except you're the one trolling. Fri, 25 May 2012 00:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (0brad0) Comments RE[5]: Pathetic http://www.osnews.com/thread?519366 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519366 How is that .. I presented facts rather than off the cuff comments.

If I am trolling by presenting facts (such as my XML namespace comments) you got problems.Edited 2012-05-25 07:25 UTC Fri, 25 May 2012 07:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus) Comments RE[3]: Pathetic http://www.osnews.com/thread?519368 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519368
That's nice for you. The reality is that Flash and Acrobat Reader are the two top causes of browsers crashing.


Yes because the year is still 2009. Fri, 25 May 2012 07:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus) Comments RE[5]: Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519369 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519369 At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with Flash when it is used correctly.

Unfortunately the Zealots roll in and everyone jumps on the HTML5 bandwagon. Fri, 25 May 2012 07:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus) Comments RE[7]: Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519373 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519373 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 Fri, 25 May 2012 08:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus) Comments RE[8]: Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519405 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519405

Like it or not Flash works fine.


Only a crack smoking idiot would say that. Fri, 25 May 2012 12:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (0brad0) Comments RE[9]: Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519427 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519427 What a well reasoned argument. Fri, 25 May 2012 15:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus) Comments RE[8]: Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519448 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519448 Answer to what? WebGL is good for what it's good. For really heavy games you don't need a browser - you need real OpenGL anyway. Fri, 25 May 2012 17:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (shmerl) Comments RE[9]: Comment by ssokolow http://www.osnews.com/thread?519619 http://www.osnews.com/thread?519619 Did you read the links. WebGL is simply insecure and can never be secured. Sun, 27 May 2012 15:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lucas_maximus) Comments