Chrome To Block Most Flash Content By Default By End Of 2016

Status
Not open for further replies.

braneman

Distinguished
Nov 6, 2009
204
0
18,680
0
GOOD, let it DIE. Right now the only reason I still have it installed is because Twitch uses it, once that stops using it I actually won't have a use for flash anymore.
 
Isn't blocking something unilaterally akin to a form of "censorship"?

I know the reasons for it and share them somewhat, but Flash is just as bad as badly coded Javascript when Browsers allow vulnerabilities AND server side code injection (CSRF, for example) as well. Browsers have vulnerabilities (hello IE, old FF), just like Flash has had them, but I never saw Microsoft nor Apple nor any Linux flavor group saying "yeah, we won't allow you to Install IE nor FF in your machines; they have issues with security".

I don't like nanny systems telling me what to do or not, so I really wouldn't like Google, Microsoft, Mozilla or Apple (yeah, I don't use Apple products) to do this.

Flash has to go, yes, but this is NOT the way of doing it.

Cheers!
 

pasow

Distinguished
Nov 15, 2012
474
0
19,160
122
This isn't letting it die, this is using your market share to force a product to die. granted, while killing flash advertising was painful at my day job, i'm rather happy they did it. using a plugin to deliver advertising is/was silly.
 

beckerp86

Reputable
Jan 15, 2015
8
0
4,510
0
Lucian, please fact check this text in the first paragraph: "Browser users will still be able to manually play Flash inside Chrome for a while longer." Where in the source did you see a date that Chrome would stop shipping with Flash support if users decided to enable content?
 

ikaz

Distinguished
Dec 27, 2005
2,194
0
20,460
232
I wouldn't call it Censorship they don't want any flash based programs at all due to known security issues and the fact that Adobe who created/supports flash is telling people to stop using it as well I think is a good thing. Plus you can still override it and choose to use another browser if it really bothers you.
 

sam1275tom

Reputable
Oct 13, 2014
462
0
4,860
26
Normally I hate a when a product force user to do something, but this time I totally support chrome.
Flash is such a stupid thing that: need a separate install, use too much resources, have tons of bugs(yes just play a video and try to navigate using keyboard, or using a pentium III to find that the video and audio is totally out-of-sync)... I don't even have flash installed on my own computer, yes, let it die, HTML5 can do things way better.
 


This is a far-fetched example, and it might not be 100% 1:1, but... Imagine the Government decides to tell you driving is bad because it kills people when a few people doesn't drive properly. So now you have to walk or take the bus only, because regular citizens are now banned/prohibited from driving.

Would you like that?

Google should add all the warnings and light shows around the pages saying "this page contains Flash, are you sure you want to continue?" kind of thing, but disabling arbitrarily is wrong.

Cheers!
 

turkey3_scratch

Polypheme
Ambassador


You can unblock it, you know?
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator


I am absolutely all for the death of Flash, although I loved the idea behind it when it first came out but has been nothing but a massive hole since Adobe bought it.

However I think it should be up to the person not Google/Chrome. Edge has the option to turn Flash on or off which is what it should be. If someone wants to use Flash let them.

They have to also consider the government agencies, which most use IE still due to ActiveX being a widely used plugin for their software.

If Chrome doesn't support it they wont gain that market.
 

IndignantSkeptic

Distinguished
Apr 19, 2011
507
0
18,980
0
This is a far-fetched example, and it might not be 100% 1:1, but... Imagine the Government decides to tell you driving is bad because it kills people when a few people doesn't drive properly. So now you have to walk or take the bus only, because regular citizens are now banned/prohibited from driving.

Would you like that?
Actually, driving is going to be banned soon, incidentally also thanks to Google. Actually, lots of jobs will be banned for humans.
 


Yes, I did read about it. My problem here is the message being sent out: "stop using Flash or else...". I've always hated the bully attitude.

Capitalism is about competition killing stuff, not companies in dominant positions deciding to kill stuff. Specially when it's technology with a track record of being useful (even with vulnerabilities).

Now, Google is in their own right to stop supporting Flash the way they are doing now, but *disabling it* is a whole different matter. Flash, like it or not, is still being used for new content around the web. It's way more flexible than HTML5 and it's controlled by 1 single entity, making it's "advancement" a bit better. The problem lies with how most web developers make bad use of it (just like Javascript) and how much negative publicity it receives when they find a security vulnerability. I am not defending Flash because I like it, but because this is not the way to "make it go away". The W3 is moving at a snail pace to update the HTML spec and all it's surrounding technologies, so Flash's practicality is still (for better or worse) unmatched. Microsoft tried with Silverlight, but failed miserably and HTML5 does not make a dent in how you can use Flash. WebGL, which was supposed to help a lot, is not being used... Like, anywhere. And I could continue mentioning how at every single turn there hasn't been any product or technology that hasn't been able to dethrone Flash since the late 90s.

My take on this is just a desperate attempt from Google to promote a half baked HTML5+CSS3+JS combination that does not cover 100% of what you can do with Flash.

I know it's borderline semantics, but like I said, I just hate the bully attitude.

And sorry about the long rant :p

Cheers!
 

xyriin

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2010
137
1
18,685
0
Isn't blocking something unilaterally akin to a form of "censorship"?

I know the reasons for it and share them somewhat, but Flash is just as bad as badly coded Javascript when Browsers allow vulnerabilities AND server side code injection (CSRF, for example) as well. Browsers have vulnerabilities (hello IE, old FF), just like Flash has had them, but I never saw Microsoft nor Apple nor any Linux flavor group saying "yeah, we won't allow you to Install IE nor FF in your machines; they have issues with security".

I don't like nanny systems telling me what to do or not, so I really wouldn't like Google, Microsoft, Mozilla or Apple (yeah, I don't use Apple products) to do this.

Flash has to go, yes, but this is NOT the way of doing it.

Cheers!
Chrome will continue to support Flash for an indeterminate period of time, so users can still activate it on sites on which it is blocked by default if they deem it necessary. The sites that require Flash to run will prompt visitors with a choice to allow Flash or keep it disabled.

No, this is the way to do it. It's not stopping you from playing Flash, it's simply stopping you from auto-running an infection vector.
 

AdviserKulikov

Honorable
Jan 13, 2015
1,099
0
11,960
263
As long as they leave the option to use flash as a legacy feature, I'm fine with blocking flash by default (I already do, and just whitelist sites). However; many older web games, movies and other features of the internet rely upon flash. Removing all support of the flash plugin would be as bad as Windows going out of their way to disable DOSBox.
 

rougler

Commendable
May 18, 2016
5
0
1,510
0
While I'm all in for discontinuing Flash on Firefox and Chrome that can't be said about IE11 and MS Edge, because they still have a lot of issues with HTML5 implementation.

Another thing is tools, right now a designer can open Adobe Flash CC and create whole design from scratch (including animations) and hand it over to developers.

With HTML5 usually the developer ends up with a mock-up, which he has to implement and then start coding other functionality.
While there are some tools up and coming, none of them produce a desirable result and also it takes time to re-train the designers to use them.
 

ikaz

Distinguished
Dec 27, 2005
2,194
0
20,460
232
Also the problem with supporting it, is well supporting it it probably Google doesn't want to spend the time and money to make sure new releases of chrome work correctly with flash not to mention make an effort to not allow flash to access things out side of the sandbox. There are still lots of sites that still use flash probably because those sites paid some one to create it but pay little attention or budget to actually maintain the website to make sure it update to date with the latest trends and security updates.
 

Lucian Armasu

Contributing Writer
Sep 10, 2014
1,181
3
5,285
0
Lucian, please fact check this text in the first paragraph: "Browser users will still be able to manually play Flash inside Chrome for a while longer." Where in the source did you see a date that Chrome would stop shipping with Flash support if users decided to enable content?
I'm not sure I understand your question. I didn't say Chrome would stop supporting Flash. I said Google would continue to support Flash even after this policy of blocking Flash by default goes into effect. But once the policy goes into effect, it's easy to imagine it will only be a matter of time until Flash is completely removed from browsers, but we don't know after how many more years that will happen. It could be two or it could be seven.
 

rougler

Commendable
May 18, 2016
5
0
1,510
0
While I am all fine and good to discontinue flash for firefox and chrome, since HTML5 elements work properly. A lot of stuff (animation, svg, canvas re-rendering, zoom) is broken on IE11 and MS Edge and there Flash is still needed to provide good user experience.
 

phxrider

Honorable
Oct 10, 2013
9
0
10,520
1
Cool. This is how I have mine set anyway, not to run plugins without asking me. I did this because of the zillion Flash ads on every web page.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY