Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Adobe Flash Now Officially a Part of Google Chrome

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the flash-in-the-pan dept.

Google 168

MacGene noted that Google has announced plans to include Flash with Chrome. This step will make Chrome easier for Mom & Pop to use, but comes with a host of issues that have been discussed here before. I expect them to announce Silverlight Thursday.

cancel ×

168 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's a great idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31678150)

I like it and they should do it

I'm ok with it. (4, Insightful)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678160)

The inclusion of Flash doesn't generate any issues that every other browser doesn't have. Since 99% of people end up installing Flash, it's probably just as well to include it. Those people who don't want it are all computer savvy enough to turn it off; for the rest, it's a service to have it included.

Re:I'm ok with it. (5, Informative)

IrrepressibleMonkey (1045046) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678268)

I'm not sure that's true...

When I go to this link...

http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings_manager07.html [macromedia.com]

...and check out my Website Storage Settings, I see a whole bunch of sites that I've never even visited.

(Or at least I don't want to admit too...)

When I go to that link... (4, Funny)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678620)

...I see "This site requires Flash".

Re:When I go to that link... (2, Funny)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678776)

don't worry, there's an upgrade coming...

Re:I'm ok with it. (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678388)

Does this mean that ports of Chrome to other platforms will automatically be ports of Flash to those platforms? I'm still kinda disappointed the Nintendo DS version of Opera doesn't support Flash, even though I have serious doubts that the DS has enough memory to run most Flash apps anyway.

The problem is that it promotes the use of Flash. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31678630)

Flash should not be promoted, especially by a company like Google. Flash is not an example of a beneficial technology. It is nothing but a horrible bandage over the crippled client-side web "platform".

Technologies like Flash, Silverlight, and Java applets need to die out. They should not be used, and companies like Google, who have lots of intelligent engineering talent, should not be pressing for its use.

I would rather have seen Google embed Python in their browser, and let us have a real scripting environment. It'd be much better for large-scale software development than JavaScript, and would promote the development of higher-quality web apps that aren't restricted to the small number of platforms that Flash supports.

Re:The problem is that it promotes the use of Flas (1, Insightful)

masshuu (1260516) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678778)

What are you talking about. Flash, silverlight and java have there place.
The issue is when people abuse the technology and overuse it or use it where its not needed.
There great for complex things like games and complicated applications, but simple things like menus and page content is were i draw the line. There is no reason to make half your site flash based.

Re:The problem is that it promotes the use of Flas (2, Interesting)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#31679022)

I kind of agree; flash, java applets, silverlight, can be real nuisances, and it's not really their fault; it's due to a flawed browser paradigm. The client (the web-browser) was designed poorly to handle scripting back in the 90's, and it's been constant headaches ever since. The way the client was designed is innately flawed.

I don't think switching to Python would make anything better. Actionscript, which is basically just modern Javascript, is a decent language... its only real problem is how it's integrated into the browser. If Python had been used in its place, all the cool kids would despise Python.

Re:The problem is that it promotes the use of Flas (4, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#31679238)

The problems with client-side scripting have nothing to do with the language. Embedding another scripting language like Python would be unnecessarily confusing and would just add complexity where none is needed. What Flash provides that JavaScript does not are:

  • Possibly more powerful/flexible layout of text and images with greater control than the HTML DOM provides (but I'm not certain of this).
  • Animation, transition, and transform features that are compatible with the most popular browser (Internet Explorer).
  • A truckload of design tools for building up the content visually with a minimum of programming required.

Notice that none of these have anything to do with deficiencies in the programming language. Indeed, the language used in Flash, ActionScript, is based on ECMAScript, which is the same fundamental foundation as JavaScript. So for all practical purposes, from a language feature perspective, there is already close parity. I won't go so far as to say they are the same language, but... they're so close that all you have to do is squint a little.

Adding Python to a browser is just a recipe for magnifying the existing compatibility problems by splintering development into multiple camps. That's precisely the way to guarantee that Flash never goes away. Now, instead of focusing on tools for one language, you have to focus tools on two---one for Python in FireFox and maybe a couple of other browsers, and one to deal with JavaScript for all the browsers that won't ever support something like that (IE). To describe this as a terrible idea is insulting to terrible ideas.

Re:The problem is that it promotes the use of Flas (0)

rxan (1424721) | more than 4 years ago | (#31679554)

Flash should not be promoted, especially by a company like Google. Flash is not an example of a beneficial technology.

Why should Flash be demoted by a company like Apple? Promoting a successful (and free to the consumer) propriety technology is no worse than disabling it for your own selfish business purposes.

Technologies like Flash, Silverlight, and Java applets need to die out. They should not be used, and companies like Google, who have lots of intelligent engineering talent, should not be pressing for its use.

Why? If it weren't for applets and Flash, innovation on the Internet would be stale. The state of the Internet would be 15 years behind. There would be no Penny Arcade, no Youtube, no Hulu, no Facebook apps. The only reason open technologies are approaching (barely) what Flash can do now is because Flash paved the way.

Don't you know how this usually works? Companies see a chance for profit, develop a proprietary technology and are successful for many years. Then over the years open source copy feature after feature until they reach parity, upon which the open source version might be successful. In fact, it's a miracle that the web as we know it was developed upon open source technologies like HTML, CSS, and the like.

Re:I'm ok with it. (1)

bynary (827120) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678632)

Since 99% of people end up installing Flash...

Yes, according to Adobe [adobe.com] . Somehow methinks that number is a bit skewed in Adobe's favor.

Re:I'm ok with it. (1)

akboss (823334) | more than 4 years ago | (#31679018)

A lot of those that download it also use flashblock or some other flash disabling program. I have to have flash for a couple of University classes and I use flash block to only allow the universities stuff. I have set up a couple hundred computers the same way. Load flash and then block it.

Re:I'm ok with it. (2, Informative)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678636)

Apple includes Flash in OS X Safari updates. I always have to remove it after updating Safari (last one was the upgrade to 4.0.5). I had to remove it again last night after applying the 10.6.3 update.

I don't know if they include it in updates to Safari for Windows, but I know I'm sick of them including it in the OS X versions.

Re:I'm ok with it. (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678684)

The inclusion of Flash doesn't generate any issues that every other browser doesn't have.

At this point the most significant security hole in web browsing is Flash, so yes, it does add problems every other browser doesn't have.

Re:I'm ok with it. (1)

naz404 (1282810) | more than 4 years ago | (#31679200)

No, the most significant security hole in web browsing is people. PEBKAC.

Re:I'm ok with it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31679544)

Considering drive by clicking doesn't take much user interaction, then that isn't quite true when you consider the malware sponge that is 'Flash'.

Re:I'm ok with it. (0)

grcumb (781340) | more than 4 years ago | (#31680458)

No, the most significant security hole in web browsing is people. PEBKAC.

No, you're confusing vectors with vulnerabilities.

To see what I mean, consider the fact that Windows and Mac users are equally stupid, naive and prone to being taken advantage of. So what's the distinguishing factor between them when it comes to computer security? The fact that one group uses a platform with more exploitable vulnerabilities than the other does.

The fact that a large number of said exploits rely on stupid users is just a reflection of the unfortunate truth that gullible humans are a reliable vector of attack. But when you interpret that to mean that there's no point in taking steps to secure your computing environment, you're just wrong. Plainly, a few simple steps (like taking care when escalating privileges), effectively protect a significant proportion of the computer-using population who are just as stupid as the rest.

... Heh, calling out both Windows and Mac fanbois at the same time. Either my desktop is about to collapse into a smoldering mass, or I'm going to Karma heaven!

Re:I'm ok with it. (1)

zero0ne (1309517) | more than 4 years ago | (#31680384)

Maybe that is why they included it within the browser? So they can correctly sandbox it?

Re:I'm ok with it. (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678724)

And having it in the Browser means a more controlled update path, for the unlucky of us whoc work under OS without a decent package manager.

Re:I'm ok with it. (0, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678756)

"99% of people"

I love made-up, exaggerated statistics.

Re:I'm ok with it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31679112)

I love made-up, exaggerated statistics.

13.37% of slashdoters love them too.

Re:I'm ok with it. (2, Insightful)

spazdor (902907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31679460)

It's definitely made-up, but I am not at all convinced it's an exaggeration. Flash is damn-near ubiquitous for any web user who isn't an engineer. Just how many MySpace users do you think exist for each slashdot user?

Re:I'm ok with it. (1)

orasio (188021) | more than 4 years ago | (#31679996)

The iphone and other non-flash devices, added to free software zealots, plus corporations with a non-flash policy, plus fresh installs of windows probably account for more than 1%

(plus, where I live, myspace is probably more popular than slashdot, but that's only due to myspace not being that international)

Re:I'm ok with it. (1)

spazdor (902907) | more than 4 years ago | (#31680566)

Since the original assertion was "99% of people end up installing Flash", the fresh Windows installs don't really count here, unless they're going to remain fresh forever.

And since the assertion also applied specifically to people using web browsers with a plugin architecture (of which Chrome is one), the iPhone and other embedded apps don't really belong in this percentage either.

So that leaves FOSS zealots and a small subset of corporate workstations. I think we're getting close to 1%.

Re:I'm ok with it. (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 4 years ago | (#31679710)

I love made-up, exaggerated statistics.

Wow, if you feel that strongly about made up statistics, you must really blow a load when you see real statistics [adobe.com] then. And before you shoot the messenger (Adobe) as the source for information about their own products, note that Shockwave is listed at 52%.

Look, I know there are people who don't install Flash -- both of them are quite vocal here on Slashdot -- but for everyone else it's one of the first Add-Ons downloaded. As the above poster stated, those who care can and will figure out how to disable it. Although frankly, since there's no Flash for Lynx, I'm surprised they even care at all.

hopefully.. (3, Informative)

Archon-X (264195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678168)

Now, with a bit of luck, Chrome won't become unresponsive when it stumbles across flash applets.

I love Chrome, but its poor flash handling (and stalling when downloading) drives me bonkers.

Re:hopefully.. (1, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678298)

For me, I find its interface still wanting and wish they (Google folks) adopted the "search within a page" functionality found in Firefox where I can simply start typing my search term or start the search process with a "/" - configurable by the way!

Re:hopefully.. (3, Informative)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678468)

ctrl+f does more or less the same thing. I agree, I wish the whole process was a bit more configurable, but it is all there.

Re:hopefully.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31679286)

You can try starring this bug [crbug.com] , but so far it's been marked as WontFix.

Re:hopefully.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31679318)

Unresponsive? I didn't notice that at first. Nor do I notice download stalling -- maybe it's your connection. But I did install FlashBlock [google.com] fairly quickly, so maybe I missed the Flash issue.

Re:hopefully.. (1)

Archon-X (264195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31680440)

Might be my machine, definitely not my connection. Downloading via wget maxes out my connection - downloading via chrome maxes out my CPU.

Re:hopefully.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31680560)

This is unusual. I just downloaded the FreeBSD [freebsd.org] ISO from Chrome on Windows 7, Athlon 2400+ (don't ask). Result: 500kB/s, avg CPU time for process: 2-3%.

I haven't noticed this on my 64bit Windows 7 PC either, and my BSD machine uses Firefox, so I can't test it there. Maybe you can start a bug report?

Re:hopefully.. (1)

Archon-X (264195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31680782)

I might have to - running Win 7 here, decent spec'd system.
I've trawled the bug report forums and haven't seen anything similar, so just assumed that it was something particular to me, or to chrome.
Either way, I figure a future update or a future format will do the trick..

Re:hopefully.. (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31680184)

Just a thought; It would be kind of nice if GO could be handled like an applet.

Is it removable? (1)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678188)

Is there a way to remove the pre-installed version of Flash from Chrome?

Re:Is it removable? (1)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678538)

The core of Chrome is Chromium, and is open source (but Google developed). Chrome is really just a packaged distribution of Chromium. Even if you can't remove Flash from Chrome there are a number of third-party distributions, like SRWare Iron, which probably won't come with Flash.

Re:Is it removable? (2, Informative)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#31679110)

Download Chromium, the pure open source version.

Re:Is it removable? (1)

pjbgravely (751384) | more than 4 years ago | (#31680090)

More importantly is it going to remove 64 bit Flash and replace it with the release 32 bit version on my next update?

If so then moving back to Chromium is the only hope I think.

GREAT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31678190)

lol Exactly what we wanted.
More flash...

Bring back Java Applets while you are at it.

Silverlight? (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678218)

Do you really expect them to announce including Silverlight too? Why?

Re:Silverlight? (3, Informative)

3vi1 (544505) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678266)

Do you really expect them to announce including Silverlight too? Why?

Think about it: What day would Thursday be?

April Fool's Day (3, Insightful)

bynary (827120) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678672)

For those of you who, like me, took a little bit to figure this out, Thursday is April 1; it's April Fool's Day.

Re:Silverlight? (4, Funny)

tarun713 (782737) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678302)

Joke

Head

Re:Silverlight? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31679146)

Right arm.....

Silverlight? (1)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678222)

Who cares about silverlight? I don't install it on any browser I use, and so shouldn't anyone else.

Re:Silverlight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31678312)

Why not, at least Silverlight does video streaming much better than Flash.

And thankfully, there's no ads made with Silverlight that will suddenly expand and block half of my browser.... yet.

I have flash blocked, but silverlight's so far so good.

Re:Silverlight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31679570)

the retarded cousin moonlight from novell doesn't work with all silverlight content and doesn't have DRM so it can't be used on netflix

Re:Silverlight? (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678440)

Why not? Why shouldn't I install Silverlight?

Re:Silverlight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31680890)

Because it only works on Windows and extends Microsoft's monopoly. Duh.

Re:Silverlight? (4, Informative)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678476)

Netflix.

I have no particular desire to use Silverlight, but it's required for instant netflix streaming. And, honestly, it seems to handle it better than Flash. That's the only place I've ever needed it, but it's a pretty big reason to get it.

Re:Silverlight? (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678712)

And, honestly, it seems to handle it better than Flash.

Video streaming doesn't work at all on this box through Silverlight, so I don't really see that. If Microsoft was supporting multiple platforms, their code would be just as bad as Adobe's.

Re:Silverlight? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31678934)

OS x is fully supported by ms

Re:Silverlight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31679046)

Basically what you are saying is since Adobe took on a job they can't handle, it's ok to be totally crap.

If Adobe is a real human being, he would be fired for being incompetent.

Re:Silverlight? (2)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31680848)

I didn't say Flash was a good platform, it's just better than Silverlight, because it has stable APIs and near universal support.

Re:Silverlight? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31680902)

I thought he was saying that Microsoft is as incompetent as Adobe, but has an easier job, so it doesn't show as much.

Re:Silverlight? (1)

Jenming (37265) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678634)

Silverlights video streaming is rather better than flash. I was impressed with both the olympic and march madness (HQ) streaming. You can hate on microsoft if you want, but it doesn't make silverlight any worse.

Re:Silverlight? (1)

Zerimar (1124785) | more than 4 years ago | (#31679514)

+1 to this - Silverlight is much better than Flash for video. In my experience, it runs with better quality and less CPU usage than flash on all of my systems (Core i7 all way down to Core Duo). Of course, my only experience with Silverlight is with Netflix and March Madness, so YMMV.

Re:Silverlight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31678666)

Use what you want and I'll use what you want.

Keep you holier-than-thou "so shouldn't anyone else" bullshit to yourself."

CmdrTaco is en fuego (5, Interesting)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678276)

Hey, not that it has anything to do with anything, but Rob is ripping the one-liners attached to article summaries today.

This article:
I expect them to announce Silverlight Thursday.

The Novell/SCO article:
No doubt this is the last we will ever hear of any of this.

The NASA/Toyota article:
We're really in trouble when NASA has no choice but to call Bruce Willis.

The slow-people-down-with-obstacles-article:
All of that is gonna work a lot better than my strategy of placing car-sized holes covered with twigs and branches randomly every half mile or so down the interstates.

Is CmdrTaco giddy with anticipation of some giant prank for Thursday? If he on the gigglejuice? Is he just happy spring is here?

Who knows... but it's nice to see some light-hearted editorialization for a change.

And, now, rightfully so, please mod this post into oblivion.

Re:CmdrTaco is en fuego (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678450)

Is CmdrTaco giddy with anticipation of some giant prank for Thursday? Yes. I'm expecting perhaps OMG Ponies II: When Ponies Attack! [cinematical.com] But they might have some other brilliant plan.

Re:CmdrTaco is en fuego (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31679040)

Is CmdrTaco giddy with anticipation of some giant prank for Thursday? If he on the gigglejuice? Is he just happy spring is here?

I want gigglejuice...

auto update? (1)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678288)

FTFA:

Users will automatically receive updates related to Flash Player using Google Chrome’s auto-update mechanism. This eliminates the need to manually download separate updates and reduces the security risk of using outdated versions.

How about a prompt? Anything that employs automatic updates makes me uneasy.

Ah Ha! (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678296)

"What are we going to do tonight, Brain?"

"Same thing we every night, Flashy. Try and take over the world!"

---

"Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Flashy?"

"I think so. But how do you sneak tracking cookies past Porn Mode on Firefox?"

Re:Ah Ha! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31678448)

Lame.

sigh.... (1)

Michael Kristopeit (1751814) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678306)

and the bloat begins...

nooo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31678308)

i did not install it on purpose, guess thats more annoying ads for me

Stupid Media Spin To This Story (5, Insightful)

WiseWeasel (92224) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678352)

So here's the story; Google releases a new Chromium build [chromium.org] that does three things:
1) A copy of the Flash plugin gets installed when Chrome/Chromium is installed, regardless of whether you already have it.
2) Chrome/Chromium now runs its copy of the Flash plugin in a sandbox, so that malicious Flash content can't access your computer.
3) Chrome/Chromium will now auto-scan for updates to the Flash plugin and install them in an automated fashion upon launch.

So basically, the real story is that this is a security update for Chromium, mitigating many of the vulnerabilities with the current setup of having the Flash runtime be run with user privileges from a central location for all browsers, and managed by no one at all.

There's also an announcement of a partnership between Google, Mozilla and Adobe to work on a new API for browser plugins, presumably involving browsers taking a more active role in managing their plugins, and allowing certain features like sandboxing and implementation of some type of common interface standards.

What we get instead is reporting of Google thwarting Apple's putative war on Flash, somehow breathing new life into the beleaguered standard, where Apple would surely do the opposite of whatever Google is doing. I'd not be surprised to see Safari adopt some very similar features in the near future, as they all make pretty good sense, at least for their desktop browser. If only these "journalists" knew enough about what they were reporting to recognize their need to eat crow at that point.

Re:Stupid Media Spin To This Story (4, Informative)

WiseWeasel (92224) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678508)

Let me get this straight... (1)

Dragoniz3r (992309) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678562)

So, you're actually suggesting that journalists:
a) Are blithering idiots
b) Like to breathe false drama and conflict into stories that really don't have any?

What a revolutionary idea!

Re:Stupid Media Spin To This Story (0)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678580)

I don't know if it is a non story. It means Chrome is becoming a real browser. I suppose we now have Flash on the mac.

Now, if chrome does not have a flash blocker it will not be my browser. On the mac we have a browser with flash blocking built in.

I have been looking at chrome for one set of computers I run. The fact that it did not run reliably, i.e. Flash and Java were a big issue, meant that I can not move away from IE.

There are some things that Flash is good for. If Google had not made a big deal about Flash, then it may have been a situation in which Flash would have been a further push to move away from flash. OTOH, google does seem to like those little flash bugs that I see popping up all over my browser window. If I click them nothing happens, so I suppose they are the new incarnation of the 1X1 pixel picture bug. In that case, we suppose that google cannot live without Flash.

Sandbox (1)

MtHuurne (602934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678922)

From TFA:

With Adobe's help, we plan to further protect users by extending Chrome's “sandbox” to web pages with Flash content.

That means they haven't sandboxed it yet. But it is good to know that they are taking steps to sandbox it in the future.

Currently I am using Konqueror's whitelist feature to only allow specific sites to use plug-ins. In addition to reducing the risk of Flash being exploited, it avoids a lot of annoying animated ads, without disabling ads altogether and denying sites their revenue stream.

goddammit google! (2, Funny)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678362)

what part of "don't be evil" do you not understand?!!!

Re:goddammit google! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31678616)

didn't you get the memo?
It's not evil when google does it.

WTF Google? Think of the little guy. (1, Flamebait)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678412)

Don't get me wrong, Google has done a lot to push good open web standards, but this decision is one to cater to the masses instead of leading them. Flash needs to die. I love the web, but I also love obscure BeOS based OSS operating systems- which while Chrome doesn't support, its marketshare certainly influences the web sites we ALL visit. If Google starts bundling Flash, then it becomes even more "required" than it already is. I know I'm not alone here especially with the influx of new mobiles and mobile OS's that struggle with the same problems us alternative OS people do.

Re:WTF Google? Think of the little guy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31680078)

so you want the masses to be lead on this issue do you. well now there's a thing.

sounds like you and your obscure technologies really do deserve to fade quietly away. with the odd shrill outburst on this here website.

either that or you can actually get off your arse and do something. instead of carping from the sidelines and using fake ideology to hide your laziness.

Processes per page? (3, Interesting)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678516)

Presumably this integration will allow multiple flash apps on a page all running in a single flash process. This could have dramatic performance benefits in page loads and memory utilization.

Re:Processes per page? (1)

acidrainx (806006) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678888)

That's quite a leap. The browser having multi-process capabilities has nothing to do with Flash being able to render multiple movies in the same process. This might get Adobe to start thinking in those terms though; which would be nice.

Chrome users like flash more than others it seems (1)

caffeinejolt (584827) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678644)

Comparing this report (which shows flash plugin usage within chrome users) [statowl.com] to this report (which shows general flash plugin usage) - it seems only 2% of chrome users have no flash plugin compared to 3.9% across all browsers. [statowl.com]

Depending on how you look at it, this is either a sign chrome users don't need additional help getting flash installed or that google is simply catering to their users who have a special affinity for the flash plugin - you decide.

My guess would be this is some special strategic bond between Adobe and Google to further push flash since silverlight is by far the fastest growing plugin technology [statowl.com] - but that growth is partially tied to the growth of Windows 7 which comes with silverlight.

Re:Chrome users like flash more than others it see (1)

mrblondetm (1505367) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678762)

Even if there is some strategic partnership between Adobe and Google, I am fine with this so long as it will not prevent the advancement of SVG which I see as playing a much larger role on the web once IE9 is released.

Re:Chrome users like flash more than others it see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31680076)

yeah, this year will be the year of svg, it's been waiting to happen hasn't it? what about vrml, its gonna take off soon i'm tellin ya!

get a grip and get a computer that can run flash. if not then stop moaning - just don't use the web.

Re:Chrome users like flash more than others it see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31679548)

Depending on how you look at it, this is either a sign chrome users don't need additional help getting flash installed or that google is simply catering to their users who have a special affinity for the flash plugin - you decide.

I go with, "making the browsing experience as painless as possible." Google loves to do this with everything, including one-click installing video/voicechat plugins for GMail.

Initially Google did not support Flash -- you had to manually install the Flash executable and hope that Chrome picked it up. So I'd also say, the Chrome users are more technically apt than others.

Pre-emptive move against HTML5? (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678656)

If HTML5 is a potential competitor to Adobe Flash, and it will be widely supported out of the box in browsers, it would make sense for Adobe to move towards inclusion in browsers. This is an [anti-]competitive move to ensure continued use of flash.

Silverlight may follow suit for this reason also. However for this reason, I imagine Internet Explorer would be the last browser to have flash built-in.

Re:Pre-emptive move against HTML5? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31679638)

Google, moving against their own child, HTML5? Ahaha.

Slashdot never ceases to be entertaining.

Slap in Apple's Face? (1)

bynary (827120) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678728)

I wonder if this is a slighting technique on Google's part.

The true color of Google (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31678730)

Google tries to do one thing well, and do everything else on the cheap to draw attention to the only thing it does well. The result, it floods the world with numerous free yet stupid solutions. I call on the talented programmers not working on search to leave Google and starting doing something on its own merit.

Re:The true color of Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31679896)

wow, a real clarion call from a true hero, starring into the distance as he... talks shit

The sound of blood vessels bursting (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31678800)

Flash haters aneuryze!

Just how not evil is this?

Similar to my verbing.

That video codec thing...H264 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31678908)

Gonna get interesting now...

Would prefer Java (1)

physburn (1095481) | more than 4 years ago | (#31678964)

I'd prefer Java to be packaged with Chrome. In the late 1995s we assumed that Java applets would be the future of the web. Its still a good technology make fast by the evolution of computing. Its just getting java packaged with browsers, was the shortfall.

---

Java Programming [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]

Re:Would prefer Java (4, Informative)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31679098)

Java startup time is too big a hurdle. Even with the modern JVMs the startup time is far longer than the time needed to download the page content on a broadband connection. Flash won that war largely because it didn't lag nearly as badly (and tended to be less of a memory hog). Java may win on execution speed after startup, and it may be more OSS friendly, and it may be more flexible and better documented, but if your user experience is that it takes too long to start and it eats all their memory, the rest doesn't matter. They'll click away from the page and never visit again.

But for what reason? (2)

rxan (1424721) | more than 4 years ago | (#31679316)

I don't see this as a bad thing. But honestly, why is Google doing this? I mean it takes less than 30 seconds to download, install Flash, and reboot the browser after initial Chrome install.

I personally think it may be a response to Apple not allowing Flash on the iPad and iPhone. Google has stakes in Flash, such as their charts on Google Finance. Google also may have done this in response to Apple's new plans for advertising [arstechnica.com] . And lets not forget that much of advertising on the web is Flash content. If Apple were able to make Flash obsolete and boost up its advertising strengths in the process, Google may loose one of its huge cash cows. In the end, Google doesn't want Apple to have complete control of Internet technologies.

bring it on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31679324)

seems like battle lines are being drawn when it comes to this flash vs apple thing. well its loads of plastic tat sold to a few idiots vs the reality of almost total market penetration and a vast community of innovative developers.

tbh nothing would surprise me when it comes to jobs and his loyal band of followers. pathetic is not the word.

fuck apple - hopefully their need to control things will put the appstore model onto all their computers and the assorted swine who support them will just rot in their own walled garden. good riddance.

photoshop runs better on pc now, and thats about the only thing apple computers were good for! no wonder they're pissed at adobe!

Google should be financing an OSS alternative (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 4 years ago | (#31679354)

I can understand that users need Flash functionality, however I kind of wonder how problematic this will be for Google. Google may want to port their browser to other platforms which Flash may not support, say for Android, or whatever. Imagine someone wants to use ChromeOS on MIPS, or some yet to develop processor architecture. Then there are all the security issues typical of a closed source product. Google will be publicly distributing code which they do not control, can debug, patch or maintain. People should be funding Gnash or whatever. Perhaps even work some more on one of those fancy Actionscript on Javascript interpreters.

Re:Google should be financing an OSS alternative (1)

TrancePhreak (576593) | more than 4 years ago | (#31679960)

Flash is supposed to show up on Android before July. It was demoed at CES.

If the headline was true (1)

HishamMuhammad (553916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31679386)

...it would mean "Google Chrome Now Officially Not Free Software".

Fortunately, it isn't.

Re:If the headline was true (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31680468)

It already isn't. For one, it includes H.264 codecs.

Chromium is FOSS. Chrome is not.

You guys are a couple of days early... (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31679584)

April fools day is April 1st, not March 30th.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>