Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 1st Dec 2010 22:59 UTC
Google Finally! After pioneering sandboxing of Javascript and tabs in the browser, Chrome is now finally busy moving Flash into a sandbox. Windows users of the dev channel have been fed the new release with Flash sandboxing already.
Thread beginning with comment 451870
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Sandboxing is nice...
by Lunitik on Thu 2nd Dec 2010 01:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Sandboxing is nice..."
Lunitik
Member since:
2005-08-07

Simply false, in fact, the very site you mention here can be used almost exclusively without Flash at all via http://www.youtube.com/html5

Reply Parent Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

That's for general video that doesn't require DRM.

Have a look at what their video rental service uses:
http://www.youtube.com/store

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Sandboxing is nice...
by lemur2 on Thu 2nd Dec 2010 04:31 in reply to "RE[3]: Sandboxing is nice..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

That's for general video that doesn't require DRM.


Video doesn't require DRM. By far the most use of video on the web is for small ads and personal videos.

Have a look at what their video rental service uses: http://www.youtube.com/store


Ahhhhh ... you are on about something else entirely ... video rentals. You are saying that content providers say that they require DRM (certainly I can't see any content consumers saying they required DRM). Maybe so, but that is an entirely different thing to claiming that "video requires DRM".

Video rental is a tiny market indeed, a very small sub-division of "Internet video".

Solution: use a different, dedicated application to deliver DRM-encumbered on-demand video. Problem solved. Forget browsers, which are after all userland programs designed to render a wide range of material that is freely offered over the Internet for users to view. There should be no anti-user DRM requirement there.

Edited 2010-12-02 04:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Sandboxing is nice...
by Googol on Thu 2nd Dec 2010 11:15 in reply to "RE[2]: Sandboxing is nice..."
Googol Member since:
2006-11-24

This has been discussed a million times over. Flash, and the display of flash video entails heaps of things more than the simple display of a video file and html5 is NOT a replacement for Flash -- which is not the same as claiming that it cannot display videos.

Stop the nagging, there is no alternative to Flash. Again, that is not the same as saying there is no alternative to watching videos.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Sandboxing is nice...
by lemur2 on Thu 2nd Dec 2010 12:15 in reply to "RE[3]: Sandboxing is nice..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

This has been discussed a million times over. Flash, and the display of flash video entails heaps of things more than the simple display of a video file and html5 is NOT a replacement for Flash -- which is not the same as claiming that it cannot display videos.

Stop the nagging, there is no alternative to Flash. Again, that is not the same as saying there is no alternative to watching videos.


HTML5 is not a replacement for Flash.

HTML5 is not the entirity of web satndards, either. Web standards include HTML5, and also CSS3, SVG, ECMAscript, DOM and a range of others:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web_Consortium#Standards

Those combined, working together, as they are meant to, are an alternative to Flash. Actually, they are a significant superset.

There are also emerging protocols, not yet standards, that go beyond even these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_element
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebGL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Open_Font_Format
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Workers

Flash can't compete with all of this.

Reply Parent Score: 2