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!

Apple Auto-Disables Old Flash Players In Mac OS X 10.7.4

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the for-your-own-good dept.

Security 155

wiredmikey writes "Just released, and coming in at 370 MB in size, the Mac OS X 10.7.4 update includes general OS fixes, and addresses more than 30 security vulnerabilities. But aside from typical security fixes, Apple has made an interesting move in an effort to protect users. Through this latest software update, Safari 5.1.7 will now automatically disable older — and typically more vulnerable — versions of the Adobe Flash player. While many software vendors would prefer OS makers to keep their hands off their software, the move appears to be welcomed by Adobe, which has constantly battled vulnerabilities in its widely installed Flash Player."

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

370 MB? (1)

aaron44126 (2631375) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956415)

More like 730 MB.

Re:370 MB? (1)

halfEvilTech (1171369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956509)

it comes in at 370 MB for my Mac Pro

Re:370 MB? (2)

aaron44126 (2631375) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956531)

Apple Software Update reports 729.6 MB for me (MacBook Pro). (Not combo update, either — updating from 10.7.3.)

Re:370 MB? (4, Informative)

tonywong (96839) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956695)

Delta updates are sent via Apple Software Update which, in theory, is customized to patch a specific system model (Mac Pro or iMac or MacBook Air etc.). This means they can vary in size.

However, I've found that delta updates can be more problematic and not patch everything that needs to be updated, which can lead to odd crashes and other funky behaviour.

In my experience, I skip the software updates for delta releases and download the combo updater which has the kitchen sink mentality of updating.

Link here (1.4GB) for standard install 10.7.4:
http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1524

1.5GB for Mac OS X Server 10.7.4:
http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1529

Re:370 MB? (4, Funny)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957063)

A mere 20 hours over dialup. :-o

Re:370 MB? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39957093)

Get what you pay for.

Re:370 MB? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957663)

Yeah..... remember when OS updates over your dialup line only took a few minutes? And fifteen and ten years ago the average webpage was a mere 40KB and 90KB respectively. But now it's balloned to 800KB.

I upgraded to DSL for that reason. Of course a 370MB update still requires almost an hour and a half. Couldn't they at least *try* to keep software small? I like Microsoft's new philosophy of keeping Windows8 equal to Windows7 in size (only 1/2GB RAM needed).

Re:370 MB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39958331)

So you should have it tomorrow? Seems reasonable.

Imagine (1, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956423)

Imagine if MS had done this, the bitching here would be enormous. Just like how Palladium was decried by everyone when it was proposed by MS to secure PCs, but when Apple did it with iOS with extreme lockdown DRM, it was the best thing ever and there was not a peep from the same commentators that blasted MS.

Re:Imagine (5, Insightful)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956459)

I personally wouldn't have bitched one bit if MS took a stand against Flash. In fact, I would applaud them.

Re:Imagine (3, Insightful)

XiaoMing (1574363) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956721)

I personally wouldn't have bitched one bit if MS took a stand against Flash. In fact, I would applaud them.

Apple releases an update that disables third party software, less than a month after their inability to put a dent into bd.Flashback.
And yet you still shovel on the praise and manage to spin it in your own mind, that rather than it being the heavy-handed tactics of a company that has no idea how to play well with others, they are simply taking a brave stand against flash!

Man, Kudos to Apple, and kudos to yourself for being so brave too!

The reality distortion field is strong with this one.

Re:Imagine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39956979)

I personally wouldn't have bitched one bit if MS took a stand against Flash. In fact, I would applaud them.

Apple releases an update that disables third party software, less than a month after their inability to put a dent into bd.Flashback.
And yet you still shovel on the praise and manage to spin it in your own mind, that rather than it being the heavy-handed tactics of a company that has no idea how to play well with others, they are simply taking a brave stand against flash!

Man, Kudos to Apple, and kudos to yourself for being so brave too!

The reality distortion field is strong with this one.

Idiot

Re:Imagine (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956981)

Apple releases an update that disables third party software, less than a month after their inability to put a dent into bd.Flashback.

They disabled Flash in Safari only. If they take drastic actions they are vilified, but if they don't do anything they are vilified as well. The new Flash updater on Windows will perform automatic & silent updates. They don't offer this as an option for OS X.

Re:Imagine (2)

Cinder6 (894572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957871)

I go through a reasonable amount of effort to ensure my software was up to date. I've gotten so used to Flash updating automatically on Windows that it didn't even occur to me it wasn't doing that on my Mac. After I updated to 10.7.4, it told me Flash was out of date. So I'm going to have to say this is a good move. I'd imagine most Mac users have outdated Flash versions.

Re:Imagine (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 2 years ago | (#39958131)

Apple releases an update that disables third party software, less than a month after their inability to put a dent into bd.Flashback.

They disabled Flash in Safari only. If they take drastic actions they are vilified, but if they don't do anything they are vilified as well. The new Flash updater on Windows will perform automatic & silent updates. They don't offer this as an option for OS X.

You are going to trust that the adobe updater will only update from adobe and the updater itself not be compromised at some point? If you do you trust adobe more then me. I set it to bug me when there is an update. Then I go to adobe directly and get it. More of a pain, but safer.

Re:Imagine (-1, Flamebait)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957583)

You are an unmitigated moron. It's a good thing that you don't own any Apple products, as not even Apple could design a UI usable by someone with your lack of intelligence.

Re:Imagine (2, Informative)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957645)

Apple releases an update that disables outdated and vulnerable third party software...

FTFY.

The reality distortion field is strong with this one.

Yep, you're standing on the wrong side of it.

Re:Imagine (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956795)

I think a notification/warning would be nice prior to purging it from the system. Maybe it does, I don't know. But at least let the owner of the computer know that...

A: This version of flash will be uninstalled because yadda yadda yadda.

and

B: Accept or Decline, BTW here's a link to obtain the latest version after this Apple update has been completed.

Re:Imagine (5, Informative)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957017)

I think a notification/warning would be nice prior to purging it from the system. Maybe it does, I don't know. But at least let the owner of the computer know that...

A: This version of flash will be uninstalled because yadda yadda yadda.

and

B: Accept or Decline, BTW here's a link to obtain the latest version after this Apple update has been completed.

It disables Flash. It doesn't uninstall or delete it.

Re:Imagine (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 2 years ago | (#39958163)

And to the average computer user disabling it or it being removed is the same thing. Their flash doesn't work. They only care about it working.

Re:Imagine (5, Informative)

Yaztromo (655250) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957241)

I think a notification/warning would be nice prior to purging it from the system. Maybe it does, I don't know.

On both of the systems I applied it to yesterday, it popped up a dialog warning me that it was going to disable the out-of-date flash player, and inviting me to visit Adobe's website to download the latest copy. The two buttons on the dialog were along the lines of one to go to the download page, and one to simply continue disabling the out-of-date plug-in.

And now you know.

Yaz

Re:Imagine (-1, Offtopic)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957331)

>>>I think a notification/warning would be nice prior to purging it from the system.

You have no more right to be notified when Old Flash is being purgred from your computer then to not be vaccinated from disease. This is a proactive measure from the state (or the megacorp acting for the state) to protect the internet from bad programs. It is the preeminent truth of our time that you cannot fight the state.

So just keep quiet and submit to CISPA.

Re:Imagine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39957561)

Nice try at equating this to forced immunization. Too bad the analogy fails, since no one is saying that people should be vaccinated without their knowledge. "Forced" to if they want to interact with society at large maybe, but that is still with their knowledge.

Re:Imagine (1)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957619)

I think a notification/warning would be nice prior to purging it from the system. Maybe it does, I don't know. But at least let the owner of the computer know that...

Agreed. Nothing is more annoying than a piece of software turned off because "we know better". Follows what sort of dialog I would myself craft.. ;)

"MacOS has detected an old version of Adobe Flash running on your computer. To help protect your security, this software has been temporarily disabled. You can choose to continue running current version (not recommended) or update Flash."

[Update] [Continue using current] [Leave current disabled]

Re:Imagine (3, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39958341)

That's pretty much exactly what it says. ;)

Re:Imagine (1)

CheerfulMacFanboy (1900788) | more than 2 years ago | (#39958347)

I think a notification/warning would be nice prior to purging it from the system. Maybe it does, I don't know. But at least let the owner of the computer know that...

It doesn't - purge that is: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5271?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US [apple.com]

If Safari 5.1.7 detects an out-of-date version of Flash Player on your system, you will see a dialog informing you that Flash Player has been disabled. The dialog provides the option to go directly to Adobe's website, where you can download and install an updated version of Flash Player. Additional Information If you need to re-enable an out-of-date version of Flash Player, you can do the following:
Navigate to the /Library/Internet Plug-Ins (Disabled) folder.
Drag "Flash Player.plugin" into /Library/Internet Plug-Ins.
If the browser is running, quit and restart it.

Re:Imagine (2)

ifrag (984323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956839)

A perfect candidate for Microsoft's "malicious software removal tool" program.

It is disappointing that none of the updates to this tool have even tried to stop such a widespread infection. If anything, the enormous flash install base demonstrates that Microsoft's tool is completely ineffective against serious a malware infection.

Re:Imagine (0)

Renderer of Evil (604742) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956479)

Imagine you taking your meds this morning.

Re:Imagine (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39956679)

He has a valid point. Apple regularly gets away with stuff that would never be accepted if Microsoft (or any Linux vendor, or IBM, or Sony, or anyone else) did it.

Re:Imagine (4, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956741)

He has no valid point. This something that Adobe wanted them to do to help fight Flash player exploits. And you can always reenable your vulnerable Flash player if you want.

Re:Imagine (-1, Offtopic)

Cheeseburgers (2636407) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956481)

I must admit that I thought the Apple fanboys were just being fanboys, but after I got Macbook Air to use I must say I'm very impressed with everything Apple does. Everything, and I mean everything, just works so easily and quickly. Not only that, but there is actually also UNIX system underneath OS X. I've had nothing but good impressions about App Store and iTunes and the whole OS. This decision lines well with that thinking. Now I actually think that people accusing Apple of inflated prices just think in terms of hardware, which I guess is typical to geeks and Win/Linux users. Apple products are much more than that.

Yours in Los Angeles,
Cheeseburgers

Re:Imagine (4, Insightful)

RMingin (985478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956529)

New user, first comment, excessively praising one tech company.

Jesus H Christ, do I have to come downstairs and TEACH you guys how to do your jobs properly???

Re:Imagine (1)

NoSleepDemon (1521253) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957739)

You and the other mods who voted this up didn't stop to think that Cheeseburger's disguise was made intentionally weak?

Re:Imagine (1)

RMingin (985478) | more than 2 years ago | (#39958175)

Do you often hear a noise you can't place, sounds like "woooosh"?

I'm sorry I didn't reply sooner, I was downstairs giving Cheese and the other new hire shills the monologue from Glengarry Glenross. I'm sure the quality of their 'posts' will rise soon.

Re:Imagine (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39956567)

Yeah, every new Mac user thinks that.

Then they start doing real work and realise that it neither has the abundance of software of Windows nor the openness and pure developer-friendliness of Linux.

At this point, the geek does one of two things: he either goes back to his old setup, or turns mercenary and realises that it's quite easy to make money from the kind of people who stick with Apple tech.

Re:Imagine (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39956711)

Nonsense. Owned macs ever since the Intel switch. GP is right. And if I need Linux or Windows I have VMware. I don't need an abundance of software just some well written stuff that does the jobs.

You post is pure nonsense.

Re:Imagine (-1, Offtopic)

postmortem (906676) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956921)

what, you mac is great because it can run Windows?
Then Windows PC is as good if it can run OSX.

But it is actually better. I don't need OSX for anything, and you just admitted that you need Windows or Linux.

Eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39957671)

The Poster stated that if he needs Windows or Linux then he can fire them up using VMWare.
So what is so fundamentally wrong with that?
Use the best tool for the job regardless of platform.

I use Windows & Linux in my day job. At home, I use OSX. IT certainly does not get in the way all the time like Windows and is far better at WiFi than Linux.
I also prefer using MS Office on OSX than that stupid ribbon on Windows. I've really tried with OpenOffice but have had great problems with numbered lists inside tables.

I also write short stories and have not found anything to touch Scrivenor for that.

Re:Imagine (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956713)

Or they realize they can run Linux and windows in VMs in OSX or they can install it on the mac bare metal.

Re:Imagine (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39957021)

From a small business standpoint Mac is simply not an option in many cases. Most medical transcription software, dental software, Sage/ Planning/construction software requires Windows and often times a back-end Windows server machine. On top of that things like Google Apps sync is only for the PC, not mac, preventing Mac users from using the paid Google Apps services. If you just fart around and browse the web and send emails the built in Mac software works fine, but for those that run businesses it's a different story and you find yourself running a Windows virtual machine ALL of the time, why not just buy a Windows machine at that point.

There are patches for VMware to allow OSX in Windows so I run OSX and Linux in Vmware on my Windows 7 machine. Although running a virtual machine has some drawbacks, such as performance issues especially with html5/flash video playback.

Re:Imagine (4, Insightful)

tonywong (96839) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956759)

I like how you say that Macs can't do 'real work,' like the work you're doing is somehow better than someone who has picked up a Mac.

The task(s) should always define the tool needed. If it's a Mac that's needed to run the software to do the task so be it.

Re:Imagine (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39957139)

I've had a Macbook Pro for almost two years now, and I've yet to run into a problem with lacking software variety or developer-friendliness. Most Windows software has either a straight Mac port or comparable Mac software. And under the bells and whistles and shiny paint, OS X is a Unix-based OS just like Linux is. Dig down deep enough, and you'll find that their innards are remarkably similar.

And the only big difference involving software variety is the fact that there's a whole lot less shovelware for OS X than there is for Linux or Windows.

I even do coding on my Mac, which is the one thing that is always brought up when bashing Macs.

Re:Imagine (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956861)

Everything, and I mean everything, just works so easily and quickly.

Everything except Flash websites, apparently...

Re:Imagine (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957873)

I must admit that I thought the Apple fanboys were just being fanboys, but after I got Macbook Air to use I must say I'm very impressed with everything Apple does. Everything, and I mean everything, just works so easily and quickly. Not only that, but there is actually also UNIX system underneath OS X. I've had nothing but good impressions about App Store and iTunes and the whole OS. This decision lines well with that thinking. Now I actually think that people accusing Apple of inflated prices just think in terms of hardware, which I guess is typical to geeks and Win/Linux users. Apple products are much more than that.

I threw up a bit. Is this supposed to be "subtle marketing" or "subliminal messaging"?

Re:Imagine (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39958371)

No, it's clearly trolling. I imagine it's the same guy who has made an anti-Google one that started showing up yesterday. My thought is it's either someone just trolling for fun or someone creating obviously shill-like accounts to bolster their pet theory that every second person on /. is a shill paid to astroturf. Probably best to just ignore it.

Re:Imagine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39956579)

was the best thing ever and there was not a peep from the same commentators that blasted MS.

Wait, are you talking about the same Slashdot as I've been reading? Because for the past half-decade I've heard nothing but whining here about iOS's app lockdown.

Re:Imagine (1)

XiaoMing (1574363) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957171)

was the best thing ever and there was not a peep from the same commentators that blasted MS.

Wait, are you talking about the same Slashdot as I've been reading? Because for the past half-decade I've heard nothing but whining here about iOS's app lockdown.

From developers. The were off in a sepia colored la-la land referred to as Instagram.

Re:Imagine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39956599)

I didn't even know that Apple did this. Though it somehow doesn't surprise me. Also, I'm guessing all the people bitching about MS using Palladium actually use Windows, and not Apple (I'm refraining from obscenities right here). All those complaints you didn't here are because Apple-users tend to be happy with the iKoolaid.

Re:Imagine (4, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956655)

For the last time, Apple is not microsoft and is not a convicted monopolist. Your comparison is retarded. When Apple holds ~85% share of all computers EVERYWHERE, then you can start making valid comparisons between the two.

Re:Imagine (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39956851)

For the last time, Apple is not microsoft and is not a convicted monopolist. Your comparison is retarded. When Apple holds ~85% share of all computers EVERYWHERE, then you can start making valid comparisons between the two.

Bad behavior is bad behavior, regardless of past actions.

Re:Imagine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39956995)

For the last time, Apple is not microsoft and is not a convicted monopolist. Your comparison is retarded.

"Yes, we know Steve was going around vandalizing shops in the downtown area last night, but, you know, Billy WAS convicted of murder a thousand miles away at one point, so we'll obviously let Steve off, give him back the rocks he was throwing, publicly apologize for it, and point out the shops he missed along with which of them don't have security cameras that can monitor the street. I'm sure you'll agree it's the only logical thing to do."

Re:Imagine (0)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957023)

For the last time, Apple is not microsoft and is not a convicted monopolist. Your comparison is retarded. When Apple holds ~85% share of all computers EVERYWHERE, then you can start making valid comparisons between the two.

DOJ oversight ended recently http://www.neowin.net/news/doj-oversight-of-microsoft-ends [neowin.net]

The iPad holds about 60 to 90% of the installed base of tablets and it doesn't bans Netscape(Firefox) from even running, forget about getting trouble for just bundling Safari by default like MS did.

Re:Imagine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39957519)

If they're using dominant position in mobile OS market (which they don't have) to pry into browser market (that's what MS was accused of, s/mobile/desktop OS/), they're doing rather shitty job of it. iOS Safari is tied with Opera and Android Browser, and desktop Safari share is in single digits. They won't make a dent into browser stats as all mobile browsing combined is still somewhere around 5%.

If you'd try to build a case around accessories and AppStore practices, you might have had something there. With this you're just a bitter MS apologist.

Re:Imagine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39958385)

Netscape(Firefox)

Excuse me, in what year do you think we are?

Re:Imagine (1)

XiaoMing (1574363) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957099)

For the last time, Apple is not microsoft and is not a convicted monopolist. Your comparison is retarded. When Apple holds ~85% share of all computers EVERYWHERE, then you can start making valid comparisons between the two.

You're right, they're only a tiny helpless corporation with more spare cash (not even something intangible like nonliquid assetsmoney, but real money) than any other company in existence right now. Stop picking on them! they obviously don't have the capability to do anything beyond what they currently are able to manage, poor guys :C

Re:Imagine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39957347)

Well, you're not going to be convicted monopolist if you're not there. That doesn't mean you get to use similar practices to get there, or does it?

Re:Imagine (1)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#39958013)

So this is your argument.

Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, because they bundled their web browser with their operating system. Therefore, if they distribute a patch or an upgrade which as part of its functionality disables a product which:

  • is from a third party vendor; and
  • is out dated and superceded; and
  • is known to be particularly vulnerable

and the third party vendor expresses their support for that action;

then they are scum and you disapprove. But only because they were convicted of bundling IE with Windows 13 years ago to the detriment of third party vendors.

If they hadn't been convicted in 1999 of monopoly leverage of their own products, then you'd applaud them taking this action, of which the third party vendor approves, to enhance security.

Re:Imagine (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956809)

Imagine if MS had done this, the bitching here would be enormous.

I don't think that's true. Mainly because I think you're vastly underestimating the blood-soaked hatred most people here have for the Flash player.

I also think most people here are probably fine with the masses getting their shit updated automatically, as long as those of us who develop for and/or have to support old versions have the option of keeping older versions around when necessary.

Re:Imagine (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956853)

Because phones and computers are two different things?

Re:Imagine (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957049)

What about tablets? We hear so much about a post-PC word and lots of common folks replacing desktops, laptops and netbooks with the iPad.

Re:Imagine (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957263)

I sort of want a Galaxy Note. It's the happy middle ground between a tablet and a phone, but oddly I don't really see myself holding something with 5.3" screen up to my ear...

"I CAN'T TALK, I'M AT THE THEATRE! NO, IT'S RUBBISH!"

Re:Imagine (0)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957613)

If you're more worried about how it looks than how it fits your requirements, you may want to stick to iDevices, although I think they're either going to bump up the size of their phone or come out with a smaller tablet as well.

Re:Imagine (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957643)

These people who replaced desktop/laptops/netbooks with the iPad never really wanted a PC in the first place. The only reason they had one originally was because it was pretty much the only way to go on the internet. Most people don't want a general-purpose computer as it is just too complex to understand. They have no desire to program it, futz with the settings, or even change hardware components. I'm convinced that Apple doesn't include an SD card in their iPads because A, the slot looks ugly, and B, having removable media is too complicated for a sizable portion of the target demographic. If you think I'm joking, consider this, my mother was confused when she couldn't load the pictures from her camera to her computer, not understanding that once you take the SD card out, the pictures are no longer in the camera. By getting rid of the mouse, and keyboard, and going touch input, they get rid of a couple of loose cables that could also cause problems. The iPad is exactly what the general population needs. General purpose computers are way too much for them to handle.

Re:Imagine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39957133)

According to the Patent Office of the good ol' United States of America, they sure are!

Re:Imagine (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957165)

Just to add a data point, I and many other bitched widely when Apple updates would automatically reinstall and activate Flash. There was no way to get away from flash. Apple depending on it for it's advertising, so that was all there was to it. Of course such comments are moderated down as such comments are meaningful, as opposed to comments that just randomly complain how unfair the world is.

Now Apple, and the rest of the world, is not so dependent so much on Flash, due partly to the iPad, so they can disable it. Flash is mostly for p0rn and ads, so people who want will reenable it, people who don't can enjoy a less brutal online experience. I think it is a wonderful turnaround. It might make Safari useful again

As far as this being an Apple thing, I think not. Microsoft tried to compete with Flash, but Silverlight is really a one trick pony. Flash is useful in so many other ways, but the way it is normally used is as an evil trojan pony. So I see even MS moving to more open standards based internet experience as seen in MS IE9. Flash is seen as security risk. Flash is seen as a impediment to productivity. Flash is seen as inefficient. The result is the presence in the marketplace is going to be reduced.

Re:Imagine (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957655)

Exactly when did Apple ever install and activate Flash automatically?

Re:Imagine (3, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957191)

I would have exactly zero problems with Microsoft doing something like this (their biggest problem: getting people to actually install the update).

When I read the headline and started the summary my reaction was along the lines of "whaaaaaat!". Then I saw that they were only disabling "older" versions of Flash, not Flash entirely, and thought about what it would be like for the end user. They visit a website that uses Flash, they see a message that Flash is not enabled or installed with a link to install it, they go through the process, et voila, you've gotten your users to update to the latest Flash player.

I have zero issues with an OS update automatically disabling old vulnerable software versions (especially Java and Acrobat reader), provided there is a way for the user to re-enable them if there's some reason that they require a specific old version.

I also generally hate every stance that Apple takes regarding control over their products, but this decision does make sense if they're trying to protect their users who wouldn't otherwise protect themselves. Microsoft should do the same.

Re:Imagine (1)

DdJ (10790) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957277)

When I read the headline and started the summary my reaction was along the lines of "whaaaaaat!". Then I saw that they were only disabling "older" versions of Flash, not Flash entirely, and thought about what it would be like for the end user.

Right. Disabling Flash entirely is what Microsoft is doing, in the "Metro" flavor of "Windows 8" (where no browser plugins work at all).

(Though if you flip back into "Desktop" mode, you can still get them. The "Desktop" flavor of the web browser is dumbed down over current IE, but not nearly as much as the "Metro" flavor is.)

Why imagine, they've already done it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39957503)

They added their plugin to Firefox without asking in a Windows update. Of course that had nothing to do with security, just profit.

Flash installer deletes itself, too (3, Insightful)

kriston (7886) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956455)

The Adobe Flash installer deletes itself, too, after installation. They really don't want the old, buggy stuff laying around.

Re:Flash installer deletes itself, too (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39957199)

If they really didn't want buggy stuff laying around, the Adobe Flash installer would delete itself before installation. ;-)

What about Acrobat? (1)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956477)

Last time I had an issue with a virus intrusion attempt, t was acrobat, not flash, that was the vector.

Re:What about Acrobat? (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39956603)

I never install the Acrobat Reader on OS X, because the Preview application bundled with the OS does everything I need with PDFs.

Sure, there are some who will need esoteric features of the full Reader client but it cuts out the vector for a huge majority of users.

Re:What about Acrobat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39956621)

Acrobat is useless. Everything it does can be done with free software.

Re:What about Acrobat? (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957207)

If that's the truth, why won't the free software play the videos that are embedded in PDFs?

Re:What about Acrobat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39957639)

Anyone embedding a video in PDF is completely clueless and so their video won't be worth the time it takes to watch.

Re:What about Acrobat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39957905)

If that's the truth, why won't the free software play the videos that are embedded in PDFs?

Because that's not a feature, that's just ridiculous.

Re:What about Acrobat? (2)

Reapman (740286) | more than 2 years ago | (#39958353)

You can put Videos inside a PDF document now?!?! Please tell me your kidding.

That's like when I get those annoying "joke" emails that are in Powerpoint with loud music and walls of text. Or an Inventory system that uses a workbook in Excel.

If I was the Hulk, this is the kind of stuff that would turn me green.

Big Apple like Big Government! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39956559)

Leave MY computer alone Apple!

Re:Big Apple like Big Government! (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956595)

You can reenable it...

Re:Big Apple like Big Government! (5, Insightful)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956883)

Why *should* they leave your computer alone? If you are either too stupid or unwilling to take proper care of it, and the repercussions of that fact affect everyone around you, then don't start complaining when others take the job out of your hands.

There are all sorts of regulations regarding cars. You need licenses, tests to prove you can drive safely, legally mandated regular checkups, etc. If you don't follow through, then the gov't will decide you can't drive it anymore.

It's inevitable that the same will happen to computers, for pretty much the exact same reasons.

TL;DR version: If you want people to treat you like an adult, then ACT like one.

Re:Big Apple like Big Government! (2)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957311)

I've always viewed Apple hardware as the toaster oven of computers. In that, I don't *care* what's going on under the hood, I just want the bloody thing to work - which it does, barring spouses leaving it switched on and resting on a feather pillow (ouch time!). When I want something to tinker with, I crank up my Linux box and if I really have a few hours to kill, on goes the Wintendo.

Re:Big Apple like Big Government! (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957183)

Leave MY computer alone Apple!

Is Apple preventing you from running, say, Firefox on your Mac? Firefox, as far as I know, isn't doing the Flash player check that Safari is doing.

Re:Big Apple like Big Government! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39957249)

I don't see them in the Mac App store - give it a year and you'll only be able to run what Steve Jobs 'brain in a jar' says.

Re:Big Apple like Big Government! (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957741)

I don't see them in the Mac App store - give it a year and you'll only be able to run what Steve Jobs 'brain in a jar' says.

And my prediction is "give it a year and you'll still be able to run stuff not from the App Store". We'll see who's right in a year.

This proves, (2)

BanHammor (2587175) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956571)

That Adobe makes such software that it welcomes other people disabling it.

A correction... (1)

courcoul (801052) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956777)

Safari 5.1.7 is installed AFTER upgrading the OS to 10.7.4. The ~400MB delta or ~1.3GB combo updates applied thru Software Update (700MB delta / 1.55GB combo if downloaded as standalone updaters) bring Safari to 5.1.6 and patch a slew of other pending issues. Then you can run Software Update again and install the ~35MB Safari 5.1.7 update.

As for the disabling of vulnerable versions of third-party software, worth noting that a couple of weeks back during the FlashBack Trojan affaire, after installing the security updates that brought the problem to a halt, the Java browser plugin was disabled by default, the user would need to manually enable it when needed, and it would auto-disable itself again after a few days of inactivity.

Yay, security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39956803)

Glad to see that Apple is taking all the necessary steps to maintain "no viruses on Apple".

it's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39956829)

good practice to force people to fucking update! i'm done with helping people with trojan pc's.

Re:it's (1)

Deekin_Scalesinger (755062) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957731)

I wish you didn't post as AC so you could receive a well deserved mod bump.

I hate Adobe's crap (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39956831)

I work in IT. I hate everything about Adobe products.

Adobe Update Schedule (2)

rullywowr (1831632) | more than 2 years ago | (#39956961)

This is probably good as Adobe seems to "patch" or provide "updates" to their product every 2hours or so.

Updates delivery issue (2)

Corson (746347) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957111)

This is an issue that all non-OS applications have: how to get and install updates in a timely manner? Firefox checks for updates upon launch; drawback: annoyance for user as this results in an apparent slow launch. Google installs an update service; drawback: many users will disable this service due to the perception that it could slow down the entire system. Adobe Flash Player is a "system plugin" with its own update tool that runs at boot time; drawback: it requires user interaction, thus it is annoying. RealPlayer creates update tasks in the TaskManager; drawback: some users will disable them as they could increase boot/login time and/or are perceived as intrusive/spyware. The only acceptable solution is a system-wide update system, the way it works on Linux but without any user interaction; or updates delivered for all installed applications via Windows Update on Windows (which Microsoft is unlikely to accept).

Re:Updates delivery issue (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957437)

The only acceptable solution is a system-wide update system, the way it works on Linux but without any user interaction; or updates delivered for all installed applications via Windows Update on Windows (which Microsoft is unlikely to accept).

As long as it is optional. I see no reason to force user to upgrade anything on their system. Also, the OS could simply have a tool that programs can register with at install. That one tool would then regularly check for all registered programs. It doesn't have to be a single repository of software just a single communication standard.

Re:Updates delivery issue (1)

Corson (746347) | more than 2 years ago | (#39958277)

Now this is a great idea!

Optional (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957341)

I understand not offering support or having a important sounding warning but why make it mandatory? I tend to keep my software updated but what if I didn't want to update my software? Why should Apple or any company be able to come in and make changes to my system without me first either giving them permission or setting the computer/software to auto-update?

Re:Optional (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39958391)

It's not mandatory. It disables it but you can reenable it if you really want.

Adobe products -- unsecure by design (1)

neo-mkrey (948389) | more than 2 years ago | (#39957381)

Seriously, the gaping security holes in their products make me think they have to be consciously designing them that way.

Re:Adobe products -- unsecure by design (1)

wiegeabo (2575169) | more than 2 years ago | (#39958357)

Flash has become a bloated, security hole riddled piece of software. And over all these years, Adobe seems to be so concerned with handling backwards compatibility by just tacking on more features to an old product.

What Adobe needs to do is completely overhaul Flash. And by overhaul, I mean throw it away and create a brand new Flash player from scratch that fulfills the specifications. And if the specifications lead to security holes, then change the specifications. But Adobe is either unable to do this, or too scared to do it.

If a more secure Flash player requires sacrificing backward compatibility, causing programmers to update their work. then so be it. Because, at this rate, Flash will be dead soon, and they'll have to recode for its replacement anyway. And if they don't want to update their work, then their work isn't important enough to worry about anyway.

At this point, Adobe either needs to hire an entirely new project team, or open source Flash in someway and let the FOSS community make the improvements.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?