Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Releases Sandboxed Flash Player For Firefox

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the finally-housebroken dept.

Firefox 104

Trailrunner7 writes "Adobe has released a new version of their Flash player that now gives Firefox users the additional security of a sandbox and also includes a background update mechanism for Mac users. Flash has run in a sandbox on Google Chrome and Internet Explorer for some time already. The big security news in Flash player 11.3 is the addition of the protected mode sandbox for Firefox on Windows. That's a major change for Adobe, which has been adding sandbox to its main product lines for a couple of years now. Adobe Reader X has run in protected mode — which is what Adobe calls its sandbox — since its release, and the company also added a sandbox to Flash on Google Chrome. The sandbox is designed to prevent attackers from using vulnerabilities in Flash to break out of the application and move to other apps or the OS itself."

cancel ×

104 comments

How about they release a new 64bit version for Lin (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40261349)

How about they release a new 64bit version for Linux? The colour in YT videos is totally messed up on my Ubuntu box

Re:How about they release a new 64bit version for (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40261387)

adobe hates linux.

Re:How about they release a new 64bit version for (2, Informative)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261497)

I guess someone will have to get Gnash to work. Or something.

Re:How about they release a new 64bit version for (5, Informative)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261411)

I'm not sure if you recall, but Flash for linux is discontinued unless you're using the bundled Chrome version (http://www.osnews.com/story/25639). In light of that I've given up on the idea of them fixing any major bugs for that platform.

Re:How about they release a new 64bit version for (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40261999)

*Technically* it's discontinued until Firefox and the other browser writers support the Pepper API.

Only Chrome, not even other Pepper implementations (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262163)

I was under the impression that it wouldn't even be available for Chromium Browser, which implements the same Pepper API as Google Chrome. According to Adobe's blog [adobe.com] , not only will Flash Player "only be available via the 'Pepper' API", but the Pepper version will be distributed "as part of the Google Chrome browser distribution and will no longer be available as a direct download from Adobe". So even if you have another browser that implements Pepper, it still won't be able to run Flash Player for Pepper because Flash Player for Pepper is exclusive to Google Chrome.

Re:Only Chrome, not even other Pepper implementati (2)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#40263847)

One wonders if Adobe will revisit that decision if Mozilla changes their minds. Bet you they would.

Re:How about they release a new 64bit version for (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 2 years ago | (#40264321)

They did release a small build update for v11.2, but that's it. I guess non-Chrome users are screwed like me. :(

Re:How about they release a new 64bit version for (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261755)

Just use dwhelper [downloadhelper.net] and mplayer.

Flash vector animations and Flash games (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262195)

Just use dwhelper and mplayer.

There are uses of Flash Player other than to stream video. How well does this combination that you recommend work for Flash vector animations and Flash games?

Re:Flash vector animations and Flash games (3, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262661)

I recommend their authors port their work to a non-proprietary format, or resign their proprietary crap to the dustbins of history where it belongs.

How to port? (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262813)

I recommend their authors port their work to a non-proprietary format

I agree with you in principle. However:

I thought since Adobe changed its SWF spec licensing policy years ago as part of the Open Screen Project, SWF was a non-proprietary format. And even if not, what solution do you recommend for an author to convert something like Homestar Runner or Weebl and Bob to a non-proprietary format? And what techniques should I use to convince authors to do so?

Re:How to port? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40263547)

Honestly, I couldn't really give a shit. The authors are the ones who should care about their work disappearing from history. If there's anything actually worthwhile locked up in flash, someone will reverse engineer it and create a flash emulator just like they've done for so many consoles.

Smokescreen (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40263677)

Adobe changed its SWF spec licensing policy years ago as part of the Open Screen Project

If there's anything actually worthwhile locked up in flash, someone will reverse engineer it and create a flash emulator

And the Open Screen Project makes it that much easier to make a Flash Player emulator like Smokescreen, which we discussed two years ago [slashdot.org] .

Re:How about they release a new 64bit version for (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40261969)

At first I was going to come here to ask who still uses Firefox but this one takes the cake... who still uses Linux?

Re:I do (1)

rduke15 (721841) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262741)

who still uses Linux?

I do.

I want a small lightweight laptop, with a full keyboard (dedicated delete / backspace / pg up/ pg dn / home / end / INSert / PrtScreen / etc. keys!). So I have had Thinkpads X... machines for the last 10 years or so. (X31, X200s).

And I also want access to a Real Terminal with a Real Shell. So I install Linux on that Thinkpad, and a couple of WinXP virtual machines for a few special apps that only run on Windows.

Re:How about they release a new 64bit version for (2)

opus_magnum (1688810) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262025)

They won't. And I assume you're using the nvidia binary driver. In that case, the only known solution is installing a patched version of libvdpau or disabling the hardware accelerated rendering.

Re:How about they release a new 64bit version for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40262717)

Just in case anyone is interested, the best patch I've seen is http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/vdpau/2012-May/000022.html

You need to apply it to the current git head for libvdpau, not just version 0.4.1, which is behind one commit... http://cgit.freedesktop.org/~aplattner/libvdpau/diff/?id=4262513e67c3572ed19bd796ec6180cdde7ccb7e&id2=c4a2273edb161c2e3c7847a91db4aa514c073fe3

Finally make sure the cfg file the patch makes is put in /etc/vdpau_wrapper.cfg

Re:How about they release a new 64bit version for (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40262095)

Disable hardware acceleration (I had that problem with an Arch Linux box, x86-64, using the nvidia propietary drivers)

Re:How about they release a new 64bit version for (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40262345)

Ditto, 'cept I was using Windows. Adobe can't do hardware acceleration right.

Re:How about they release a new 64bit version for (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262721)

I was hoping that a'duebe would compile a 64 bit debug version for Linux. I guess it's hard, for them, to do. But maybe it's because they're getting so much love from Apple?

Re:How about they release a new 64bit version for (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40263069)

Let me guess, anything red is turned into a blue-ish color?

I think a downgrade is in your future

Re:How about they release a new 64bit version for (2)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 2 years ago | (#40263321)

Load a youtube video, right click, select "Settings", go to the leftmost tab, de-select "Enable Hardware Acceleration". Voila, colours are back to normal.

Re:How about they release a new 64bit version for (1)

Spoke (6112) | more than 2 years ago | (#40263573)

They just released an update today. flash-plugin-11.2.202.236-release.x86_64 is available to download from their website.

Re:How about they release a new 64bit version for (2)

mark_osmd (812581) | more than 2 years ago | (#40263767)

Do you mean faces look blue? Try going into the flash settings and disable the hardware acceleration. But I saw there was a release of flash 11.2.202.236 recently so maybe that's fixed now.

Re:How about they release a new 64bit version for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40266969)

They had an exceptionally poor developer on linux, so it's unlikely you'll see anything more on that front.

Huh (4, Interesting)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261397)

I thought adobe was abandoning flash.

Re:Huh (5, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261433)

The captain never leaves a sinking ship!

Unless he's Italian.

Re:Huh (4, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261559)

Vada A Bordo, Cazzo!

Re:Huh (5, Funny)

greenfruitsalad (2008354) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262233)

Dear Adobe,

I really hope you do not give up on Flash. I want Flash to live and I want it to be used everywhere. I love it, I love the idea of it, I love everything about it. I want as little web content to be written in html5 as possible.

I dread the day when I start my web browser and all that colourful flashing cpu hogging vomit that I avoid by NOT having installed flashplugin will have been converted to html5. It'll be like going back to 1996 when web was full of GIFs. Please do NOT do this to me; do not abandon Flash.

Sincerely yours, world's biggest Flash fan

Re:Huh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40264595)

PS. Please give us the flash and it's DRM system as an open source package, so that commercial exploitation of viewers on the platform N.N. becomes possible.

Re:Huh (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262309)

Even if they wanted to it would be stupid to give up on it now. There is no perfect alternative and there are a lot of people happy with flash so why would they give up that revenue?

Excellent News! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40261443)

This really solidifies Flash as the web container of choice and knocks HTML 5 for six!

Gotta be a sad day if you're an IOS user.

Re:Excellent News! (2)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261661)

Yes, this extra layer of software is sure to make it as responsive as a native video decoder.

Re:Excellent News! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40262005)

I'll take safe over responsive in web browsing any day. A fast browser doesn't help me if it gets my PC owned by some crappy website.

Re:Excellent News! (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262165)

I agree that is a good tradeoff, and I was not commenting on that aspect. I was commenting on Flash being a very heavy chunk of code to load if all you want to do is play videos, and this new layer will only bloat it further.

No Windows Crash then? (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261487)

So, now i could use my little pity Firefox without crashing my little Windows 7 x64 bit??? We will see.....

Re:No Windows Crash then? (0)

billstewart (78916) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261553)

Wow - maybe I am better off with 32-bit Win7? Firefox crashes on me very frequently, probably because Win7 won't let me use swap space to get past the 4GB RAM limit, and FF+Flash is a bit of a memory hog (though not as bad as Chrome.)

And here I'd just been going to rant about "Does this mean Firefox won't crash as often?"!

Re:No Windows Crash then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40262631)

> Win7 won't let me use swap space to get past the 4GB RAM limit,

Are you an idiot, or is this a joke?

Re:No Windows Crash then? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40263195)

I have to ask? How many tabs do you have open? The most I have ever seen a browser use is maybe 2.5 gigs with 30+ tabs.

At 30+ tabs it is unmanageable as you spend more time tab cycling trying to figure out which one is where etc. WHen you start Office you do not open all +100 files at once do you? That would be insane and this is why the browser is going crazy trying to run 100 web applets at the same time in your browser. FF 12 is the lightest browser I have seen so far and I think it is counter intuitive to open 200 tabs which I assume you are doing to get that 4 gig limit.

The 4 gig limit is because the browser is only 32 bit. Go IE 9 64 bit if you do not mind the shitty javascript interpreter in that version if you want all the tabs in glory.

Re:No Windows Crash then? (2)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40263403)

30+ tabs is perfectly manageable. 80+ is too if you use tab groups.

You need to consider different use cases. For example, just reading through my RSS feed in the morning, I regularly open 30+ tabs with the stuff I want to read; then, when reading each one, I might open a few more (for example, pages linked from the article).

That said, I use Firefox too on a system with 2GB total and no swap and it runs fine.

Re:No Windows Crash then? (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 2 years ago | (#40271293)

At 30+ tabs it is unmanageable as you spend more time tab cycling trying to figure out which one is where etc.

That's a matter of using the right interface -- I use Vimperator [vimperator.org] , and (with its keyboardable, search-centric interface) don't have trouble juggling 150+ tabs. The "where" of them -- in terms of ordering the list -- is completely irrelevant; if I want a page about foo, I type bFoo<tab> and get a compact list of which pages regarding Foo I have open, and can select them by typing the number for the appropriate one, further narrowing my search terms and pressing tab again (as with shell filename completion), etc.

Re:No Windows Crash then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40261557)

Hmm, this seems to happen already with flash 10.2 x64 and palemoon 12 x64 (riced out version of firefox). I've had flash crash a couple times (coming out of hibernation with a youtube video playing, usually) and palemoon doesn't crash, it simply shows a box saying "flash plugin has crashed, reload the page" (or something along those lines) where the youtube video was supposed to be.

Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261503)

I upgraded from the old Flash when youtube stopped supporting it, and the new Flash runs very poorly on my 1/2 gigabyte PC. It slowsdown Firefox 10 LTS and makes the non-google Chromium randomly freeze for 1-2 minutes (until a popup asks if I want to kill flash).

Re:Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (4, Funny)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261527)

My phone has more RAM than that.
I suggest you spend $10 and buy more RAM.

Heck I might even mail you some if you ask nicely.

Re:Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261861)

I had a similiar conversation with him to upgrade a few months ago. Now is an excellent time to upgrade before Windows 8 is out if you dual boot. XP is on the way out and its easy to migrate with the easy transfer wizard and there is an XP mode if you upgrade to the pro version.

The web is a platform that constantly upgrades just like an OS. No one is feeding the same IE 6 code that used 40 megs of ram when he bought hos computer 10 years ago. JQuery and jit optimization and high rez graphics take hundreds of megs per tab. As html 5 comes the problem becomes much worse as everything is cached unlike Flash.

You can get a great workstation for $600.

Re:Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (0)

fisted (2295862) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261915)

sucks to be you

Re:Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262231)

Why would it suck to have an awesome phone?

Re:Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261939)

>>>My phone has more RAM than that.

Doubtful. It might have more Flash or ROM storage, but not more than 512 MB RAM. For example the iPhone 3 had half of that. Anyway, I thought about adding more RAM to my desktop but I honestly thought it would die 2-3 years ago (and then I'd have wasted money). But it just keeps ticking.

Re:Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261959)

My Galaxy Nexus has 1GB of RAM. The Galaxy S3 has 2GB of RAM.

It has 32GB of flash. Which is not read only.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_Nexus [wikipedia.org]
Welcome to 2012.

Re:Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262087)

My HTC Evo 3D has 808mb. For some reason.

Still more than cpu6502 has...

Re:Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262211)

Where are you getting that number?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Evo_3D [wikipedia.org]
1GB in that phone. If you are looking at apps running/cached you are only seeing apps that can be stopped and not the RAM the OS itself is using.

Re:Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262443)

I bet his GPU shares RAM with the CPU.

Re:Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262515)

That is how all these SOCs work, I do believe.

I bet our friend with the outdated computer does not have another 512MB of ram on his GPU.

Re:Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262881)

From the root terminal:

$ su
# free -m
total used free shared buffers
mem: 808 784 22 0 34
-/+ buffers: 751 57
Swap: 0 0 0
#

Re:Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40263821)

I have an old laptop like that. Even though it has 256 megabytes stock, it only shows 224 MB under the computer information. The other "missing" RAM is being used for graphics. (Strangely my laptop runs okay like that. Maybe because it's still using the original XP.)

Re:Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (1)

tirerim (1108567) | more than 2 years ago | (#40266251)

Give him a break: it's impressive enough that he managed to cram in 512 MB, given that the 6502 can only address 64 kB of memory. And he even got Flash to run on it! Quite astounding for a 30-year-old CPU.

Re:Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40262131)

I'm all for living within ones means and not running up a credit line, but what exactly do you do with all that income [slashdot.org] that you apparently can't afford* to upgrade your computer?

*I don't mean afford in the "I have enough cash" sense, but rather the "to incur, stand, or bear without serious detriment" sense.

Re:Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (1)

drkstr1 (2072368) | more than 2 years ago | (#40264073)

Lol. Busted!

Re:Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40263109)

The idea is to replace it before it dies as you may not get all your data and programs transferred. It really is not that much of a hassle and the situation is only going to get worse as more AJAX uses bloated api's and HTML 5 will cache all the hundreds of megs of images and video per tab. Flash at least downloads it and does not keep all of it in ram at once.

Your machine, but I have not touched a system with that much ram in probably 6 or 7 years at least. I service computers for a living too and I at least see 768 megs. Actually take it back I did use one machine back in 2010 with 512 and that was only to be used as a wifi router on an old recycled machine. Your box is a clunker similar to that Honda you see down the street that is 10 years old that the neighbor just wont throw away yet and is always fixing something breaking on it.

Re:Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40263333)

>>>My phone has more RAM than that.

Doubtful. It might have more Flash or ROM storage, but not more than 512 MB RAM. For example the iPhone 3 had half of that. Anyway, I thought about adding more RAM to my desktop but I honestly thought it would die 2-3 years ago (and then I'd have wasted money). But it just keeps ticking.

Time is money. Is your time waiting for flash to load and single tasking or working litely on your old system worth less than a new system for $599? If so then nevermind. If you are worth more at your job and you use your PC for work or training yourself new technology then you are wasting time/money by not upgrading on the old one as you can be more productive.

I am cheap too and was forced to buy a new system a year and a half ago. Let me tell you it is nice having a cheap machine that supports Virtualization. I can run many versions of Linux together with Windows. I can do things like have the postgresql database on the image and the client with MS Access the host OS. I can setup Windows 2012 server RC on an image and authenticate XP/Win 7 to it to try it out etc.Turnkey Linux is a cool site with premade images and you can use VirtualBox for free and just fire up a stack and go!

You can get 8 gigs of ram for $79! With 4 gigs for the host OS and 1 gig for each guest on a hexcore iCore 5, or PhenomII you can do cool things. Trust me cpu6502 it is an investment and not an expense if you work in I.T. and can do all these things as you can test and run multiple programs at once without a slowdown staring at the hourglass.

Re:Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#40263407)

My HTC Desire, which I picked up cheaply because it's two years old, has 576 MB of RAM, so no, it isn't doubtful, it's very plausible. Welcome to 2010.

Re:Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (3, Informative)

terbeaux (2579575) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261647)

Aside from getting more memory I would recommend that you update one of "the most targeted pieces of software" more often then just when YT stops working. There have been so many exploits released for Flash and Adobe released a lot of security updates to address them. http://www.gfi.com/blog/the-most-vulnerable-operating-systems-and-applications-in-2011/ [gfi.com]

Re:Would be nice if it wasn't a memory hog (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40261775)

WOW ! I never would have guessed that you would be one to run out of date garbage !

Best sandbox ever ... (4, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261513)

I've personally found the best way to sandbox Flash is to not install it.

I honestly can't name a single site that I care about that uses it -- possibly because Flash makes me immediately not care about a web site. I know some people really like it, and it does things they really think is cool, but to me it's been something I've avoided for a long time now.

But, who knows, maybe next week I'll discover something I can't live without that uses it.

Re:Best sandbox ever ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40261561)

I honestly can't name a single site that I care about that uses it

YouTube? I know a few people visit that site.

Re:Best sandbox ever ... (3, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261593)

They have an HTML5 version for many things.

Re:Best sandbox ever ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40261649)

Yes, but when you google an artist or a song (let's say, Bob Welch [youtube.com] , who just committed suicide because of failing health), chances are you'll need Flash.

Re:Best sandbox ever ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40263621)

Flashvideoreplacer (a Firefox extension) works nicely for YouTube videos even if Youtube doesn't have a HTML version of the video, it is supposed to work on other sites too, but I haven't had much luck with that. There is also another Firefox extension BYTubeD which is good for downloading YouTube videos from links.

Re:Best sandbox ever ... (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262489)

They have html5 for like two things. Everything I try to watch on YouTube tells me the video is unavailable when I have flash turned off.

Re:Best sandbox ever ... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40261619)

YouTube? I know a few people visit that site.

YouTube [github.com] can be watched with a Python script.

Re:Best sandbox ever ... (2)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261683)

YouTube? I know a few people visit that site.

But not me ... I usually use a prominent "You need to install Flash" as a cue to hit the back button.

I have no doubt that there are sites that loads of people use that are heavy on Flash. I'm aware of the technology, and I'm not saying that others don't use it or that they shouldn't be allowed to.

I'm saying I, personally, do not install it on any machine I control, and generally think it's a nuisance. If I hit a site which requires Flash, I leave. I've yet to find a compelling enough reason to make me want to install Flash, but I've found plenty of compelling reasons to uninstall it or block flash on web pages.

It's also something I've treated as a giant security hole for the last decade. The fact that they're sandboxing it tells me nothing has changed.

Re:Best sandbox ever ... (3, Informative)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261717)

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/94609 [userscripts.org]

This forces HTML5 forever, and it seems to work with just about any video.

Greasemonkey required though.

Re:Best sandbox ever ... (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262127)

*Plenty* of videos on YouTube don't work with HTML 5, sadly.

HTML5 for videos with ads? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262263)

This forces HTML5 forever, and it seems to work with just about any video.

Does it work even with videos that have advertisements? This includes videos posted by Partners and videos that comment on a particular piece of commercial recorded music.

Death to Flash! (2)

bandy (99800) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261531)

Re:Death to Flash! (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 2 years ago | (#40261929)

And if YouTube keeps showing you "Cannot display video", change your user agent string for the iPad one. Works 99% of the time.

Re:Death to Flash! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40262205)

UAControl lets you set the User agent for particular websites.

Re:Death to Flash! (3, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262281)

And if YouTube keeps showing you "Cannot display video", change your user agent string for the iPad one.

At which point you get "This video cannot be displayed on mobile devices."

funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40261681)

It's funny that there are virturally no comments for this article as Adobe
has long been replaced by much safer, reliable ways of viewing content.

CAPTCHA = corridor

Re:funny (1)

drkstr1 (2072368) | more than 2 years ago | (#40264291)

Interacting with content, however, is an entirely different matter. HTML5 is great for structured documents, but it blows chode for interactivity. Yes, I know, it's still possible to do it in HTML5, it is just really really needlessly painful. Seriously, to anyone who has done _real_ flash development (EG. if you are using the Flash IDE then you are just a glorified designer... sorry, it's true), HTML5 is a total joke.

I admit, there are many problems with the "Flash" eco system. But the solution to those problems is not HTML5!! It is not an improvement! Please drop this fad hard and fast so we can all get back to doing real work... pretty pretty please?

Sincerely,

~A Disgruntled Software Engineer

Too bad the rest of the browser is not sand boxed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40261727)

FF has vastly improved since the bloayed 4 release but I still wont touch it until the whole thing is sand boxed. Even IE is sandboxed with aslr and other enhancements. Flash scares me and until FF catches up to IE and Chrome I wont use it. Ajax or any code executing without any sandboxing is a nightmare.

Re:Too bad the rest of the browser is not sand box (1)

tibman (623933) | more than 2 years ago | (#40263419)

If you want whole applications sandboxed, give sandboxie a shot.

Re:Too bad the rest of the browser is not sand box (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 2 years ago | (#40266963)

Why wouldn't you properly sandbox your browsers to begin with. Aren't you a geek?

Glad I don't work for Adobe (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40261891)

I can only imagine how tough it would be to be a developer on the Flash team. Would you even want that on your resume? I'm not sure I would want to be associated with one of the most hated, least trusted applications out there. I'm guessing that when people find out you work on Flash, you would be constantly forced to defend Adobe and the Flash team or admit that you were part of a huge failure.

Re:Glad I don't work for Adobe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40263009)

Most of the good Flash engineers, especially the guys from the early years, were canned or have left. Adobe is systematically replacing most positions with Indian nationals with work visas. Macromedia should've never sold out.

Most hated, though? I think you must live in an echo chamber.

Re:Glad I don't work for Adobe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40265551)

One of the most hated. I stand by that assertion simply because I think it ranks up there (down there) with IE6 and Real Player. It's getting easier to be online without it though, so perhaps the hatred is fading.

Is Adobe outsourcing Photoshop development too? It seems to me that PS generally has an excellent reputation.

Re:Glad I don't work for Adobe (1)

petsounds (593538) | more than 2 years ago | (#40266361)

The thing is, now we're back to 1998 with sites being created for specific browsers. That's way more onerous than Flash ever was! It's becoming a moot point though; multimedia and interactive content will be primarily viewed through apps, not the web. HTML5 is sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Photoshop is Adobe's bread and butter; I think they've still got good people working on that team. And they probably have fairly free reign to do blue-sky feature development. They have good people still on Flash also, especially on the 3D side, but far fewer than they did. Effectively Adobe has stopped evolving the Actionscript language though, and it seems their gameplan is just to add more APIs as necessary to enable content creation on target platforms. The problem for Adobe is, Unity is already way beyond Flash at the task of multi-platform games -- where most people would want to use Flash in this context -- than the Flash IDE is. The new version of Flash does very little to overcome its shortcomings in this area, especially in the realm of 3D games.

Adobe's whole foray into Flex as an attempt to take on Java in the corporate world was basically a huge distraction, monetarily, talent-wise, and in vision. It was a huge failure. IMO, that's the Indian "Java is king" corporate philosophy taking hold of Adobe which parent-parent spoke of. Adobe was a company that used to be about enabling creativity, not enabling executive dashboards. Between that and Adobe's laziness to improve their codebase in lieu of new features (mostly determined by Adobe's hunger for quarterly profits), Flash was an easy target for Apple.

Having said all that, Flash is still a great platform for interactive multimedia. The SWF format is open-sourced, the Actionscript language is still leagues beyond Javascript in development efficiency and feature-set, and Flash's renderer still surpasses HTML5 in composited animations, 3D rendering, and audio processing. It's just a shame that such a shitty company controls it.

What about a sandbox for Mac & Linux users? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40261901)

I still need Flash because one or two sites I visit use it as a major vehicle for content (e.g. Homestuck).
So, where's a nice, safer sandbox for the platforms I use?

flash download page appears to be broken (1)

Forever Wondering (2506940) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262001)

At https://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/ [adobe.com] (which tells you what flash version you have and what are the latest), it says that the latest for linux is 11.3.300.257. However the "player download center" link on this page goes to http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/ [adobe.com] and that the latest version is 11.2.202.236 (and that 11.2 will be the last for linux). I'm running 64 bit fedora 17, so that might be the wrinkle.

Re:flash download page appears to be broken (1)

Forever Wondering (2506940) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262133)

Oops. My bad. Nevermind. The linux player only got a .235 to .236 bump (In my eagerness to get this, I misread the about page)

Flash does not need sandboxing. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40262519)

Adobe on the other hand...

User Account Control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40262625)

Does User Account Control have to be enabled for the low integrity process stuff to work?

Note: not for XP (4, Informative)

PatPending (953482) | more than 2 years ago | (#40262979)

From Adobe's news release: [adobe.com]

[Emphasis added]

The restrictions we apply to this sandboxed process come from the Windows OS. Windows Vista and Windows 7 provide the tools necessary to properly sandbox a process. For the Adobe Reader and Acrobat sandbox implementation introduced in 2010, Adobe spent significant engineering effort trying to approximate those same controls on Windows XP. Today, with Windows 8 just around the corner and Windows XP usage rapidly decreasing, it did not make sense for the Flash Player team to make that same engineering investment for Windows XP. Therefore, we've focused on making Protected Mode for Firefox available on Windows Vista and later.

How does this affect Firefox Add-Ons? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40265465)

You have Flashblock, Better Privacy, and downloaders that are all tied to Flash. Does this new version bypass any of those add-ons?

I've been running a sandboxed version for years (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#40265641)

It's called FlashBlock.

did not autoupdate (1)

today (27810) | more than 2 years ago | (#40266247)

I thought a new feature for 11.2 was autoupdate in the background. Did not work for 11.3.

Great .. if it would work. (1)

Toad-san (64810) | more than 2 years ago | (#40268459)

It took a while, but I finally located the Sandbox Flash for Firefox and updated my Firefox.

Now I have no flash on Wired, I have no flash on Youtube, I have no flash on my forums.

Thanks a lot, Adobe, you useless shits.

Sandboxed sandbox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40269657)

So i'm running sandboxed flash inside a sandboxie'd firefox? Sounds good to me.

Now i just need to run sandboxie inside a different sandbox and i'll be set.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...