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!

Six Months Without Adobe Flash, and I Feel Fine

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the alternatives-emerge-in-a-wait-no dept.

Bug 393

Reader hessian six months ago de-installed the Adobe Flash player on all of his browsers, probably a prudent move in light of various recent vulnerabilities. "This provoked some shock and incredulity from others. After all, Flash has been an essential content interpreter for over a decade. It filled the gap between an underdeveloped JavaScript and the need for media content like animation, video and so on." But it turns out that life sans Flash can still be worth living. Are there things you rely on that make Flash hard to give up?

cancel ×

393 comments

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

bitch (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850457)

your not normal

Re:bitch (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850755)

*you're

i'd like to see that (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850461)

"probably a prudent movie"

where is this movie you speak of, i'd like to watch it on my flash player

Re:i'd like to see that (-1, Troll)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850515)

I like how the barely literate whine about minor typos rather than contributing something to society. Keeps them from fucking up things for the rest of us.

OTOH, perhaps getting medication for that obsession would be a good idea, I'd hate to think that I'd run into one of these grammar nutjobs someday.

Re:i'd like to see that (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850555)

Today, while habitually wandering around in the street looking for pussy in a way that is similar to how a zombie searches for food, I came across a woman. As soon as I came across her, I swarmed all over her like a fly to feces, but she rejected my advances. I simply couldn't believe that there exist women who don't want to have sexual intercourse with random creepy men who walk up to them while they're walking down the street. My first thought was, "How can such a slutty woman possibly exist? It isn't possible to be so slutty!"

Truth is stranger than fiction...

Re:i'd like to see that (1)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850575)

Is that a Harold Lloyd movie?

Kids (5, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850467)

Kids sites, educational or otherwise. All seem to use flash. IIRC, Khan Academy as well. If you have kids, you "need" Flash.

Re:Kids (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850583)

One more reason not to have kids.

Re:Kids (4, Funny)

lennier1 (264730) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850615)

Saving a shitload of money wasn't enough of a reason?

Re:Kids (-1)

UnanimousCoward (9841) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850809)

Okay, I'll bite. This reply is really modded up as informative? Really? As opposed to funny? Because, as a parent, I can see funny. But reasonable? Really?

Re:Kids (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850901)

Yes. Fuck you and your hellspawns.

Re:Kids (4, Funny)

lennier1 (264730) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850961)

Now, now, we don't even know if he's from New Jersey.

Re:Kids (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850967)

Yes. Fuck you and your hellspawns.

Erm.. Isn't the fucking what leads to those hellspawns? Make up your mind!

Re:Kids (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42851013)

OT, but... There are in fact really good reasons not to procreate. I have a lot of respect for those who choose not to despite the severe social prejudices.

It is informative in that he stated a fact: you will save a shit load of money by not having kids. Weather that's a "good" reason for not having kids is a matter of opinion. I don't think it's wrong to choose not to have kids even if it's a poor reason. What would you have them do accept the social norm and bring a child into the world just to be unloved or poorly unattended to?

Re:Kids (2)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | about a year and a half ago | (#42851017)

Okay, I'll bite. This reply is really modded up as informative? Really? As opposed to funny? Because, as a parent, I can see funny. But reasonable? Really?

I'm torn. I'd like to think everyone knows that not having children will save you a shitload of money and that people are not obligated to have children. Thus "informative" would be a ridiculous mod. On the other hand, many of the people in our society do seem to feel they are obligated to have children and it is just what society expects of them. The idea that it is a huge expense they may not be able to afford and that people who have children tend to be less happy, isn't something they've ever thought about. So maybe I can't argue with the informative mod too much.

Re:Kids (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42851049)

Economically, today, children are a terrible idea. It made sense once, when children were a retirement plan - the only means of support when you get too old to work. But we have social security now.

However, the decision to breed* isn't economic. It's emotional. People choose to have children because they have a psychological need, and sometimes a pet just doesn't quite fill the niche fully.

*When it actually is a decision at all, and are are a lot of accidential children.

Re:Kids (3, Insightful)

Paul Carver (4555) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850899)

Saving a shitload of money wasn't enough of a reason?

No, certainly not. What's the point of a shitload of money if all you do is save it? Are you going to swim in it like Scrooge McDuck?

There's no point in earning or saving money if you aren't going to do something with it. Spending money on children (and grandchildren) is something that a lot of people (though obviously not 100% of all people) get a lot of enjoyment out of.

Feel free to spend your money on whatever you like if you dislike children, but you're just ignorant if you think that raising children isn't an excellent way to make use of hard earned cash for the vast majority of the human race who like children.

Saving money so that you have lots of funds for spoiling grandchildren is also highly popular and a worthwhile way to spend money for many people, but it's a bit more difficult to have grandchildren if you don't have children (though not impossible obviously.)

Re:Kids (0)

lennier1 (264730) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850945)

Take that stick out of your ass and get yourself a sense of humor.

Re:Kids (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850985)

Not to mention that having children is the only proven route to immortality. With a lot of kids, your DNA is almost guaranteed to survive. With no kids, your DNA goes into the grave with you. It's unlikely that some woman in the distant future will be so desperate for DNA that she'll dig your bones up to try extracting the necessary ingredients with which to fertilize her eggs.

I know, zombie apocalypse fans will probably argue my assertions. Personally, I found getting the wife pregnant to be far more enjoyable than the prospect of lying in a cemetery waiting for nature to take it's course.

Re:Kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850889)

but with kids, we could pass on some of our maths to their schedulers, and get results faster from this parralel computing! I hoe to have 5 child processes someday.

Doom3 just got a little brighter!

Re:Kids (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850905)

For miljons of years having kids has been the primary meaning of life. Did this change recently?

Re:Kids (1)

antdude (79039) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850997)

Not even baby goats?

Flashblock (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850469)

Just run the Flash you trust and need for normal functionality. Done and done.

Re:Flashblock (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850553)

Just run the Flash you trust and need for normal functionality. Done and done.

The mere presence of Flash on the system allows it to be craftily run in more areas than you might expect(as with the 'flash exploit embedded in an Office document' story seen here just recently, along with PDFs in Acrobat and a bunch of other abominations). Even if you can find the correct toggles to shut that off, Flash's updater can't really be trusted not to merrily reinstall things whenever the next update comes out; but running a version of Flash that isn't the newest is just asking for trouble...

If it were only confined to a browser(and a browser that didn't trust it in the slightest), it wouldn't be so bad.

Re:Flashblock (4, Informative)

tibit (1762298) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850827)

On Windows, it's quite easy, actually. The non-IE browser plugin and the ActiveX controls are separate installs. Without the latter, you don't have issues outside the browser. The browser plugin flash is invisible to anything but the browsers. I don't recall if recent IE uses the browser plugin or ActiveX variant, I recall that older ones needed the ActiveX version.

HTML5 on YouTube? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850477)

I don't have any direct experience, but I think YouTube will serve up HTML5 instead of Flash. Any details?

I tried it (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850495)

Some videos played just fine but other videos played back at 1.5x speed while the audio was normal. Opted out of the trial after that.

Re:I tried it (1)

NotBorg (829820) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850703)

I haven't seen that happen. My experience is more binary. It either worked for a given video or it didn't there was no half way. Ironically, some older videos about openness and free standards were some of the ones that didn't work. This was some time ago.

I'd like to take a moment to extend my middle finger to any site that uses Flash for non DRM video. DRM is the only reason you should use Flash at all and it's not even a good reason at that. Fuck you Google. Set YouTube Free. You were going to do it at one point then just stopped and have been sitting on your dick ever since.

Re:I tried it (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42851037)

"sitting on your dick"

That would be an odd experience, I imagine. I've had OTHER people to sit on my dick. It's rather similar to having someone sit on your lap, but a bit more intimate. If you figure out how to sit on your own lap, let us all know, alright? Remember, though: Pics, or it didn't happen!!

Re:HTML5 on YouTube? (3, Informative)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850533)

Yes, this is the case. It took me a while to realize that Apple no longer ships Flash with Macs, and so I was using YouTube sans Flash for about a month. It works on some videos, but not on others.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube? (4, Insightful)

eksith (2776419) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850675)

All new videos, I think, get encoded into HTML5 friendly formats. Older videos may still not be.

HTML5 A/V could be a fantastic alternative, if only people would settle on a universal codec. Google is still firmly on WebM, while Opera and Firefox is all over Theora/Vorbis and Ogg and, of course, IE 9+ still natively supports MP4 only in H.264, I think. And Safari does QuickTime too.

Right now, the only way anyone publishing video will get away with only an HTML5 video option is if they encode to different formats, different resolutions and still provide a Flash fallback for older/incompatible browsers. Quite a mess.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube? (3, Informative)

macs4all (973270) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850737)

Yes, this is the case. It took me a while to realize that Apple no longer ships Flash with Macs, and so I was using YouTube sans Flash for about a month. It works on some videos, but not on others.

Yeah, in my experience, the ratio of "works" to "doesn't work" is about 10,000:1. I figure that Google probably doesn't constantly churn through their entire collection from A-Z, searching for, and converting, all of their old videos to HTML 5; but has some algorithm for deciding what priority to put on converting old videos (new ones are ALWAYS available in HTML 5), and so that accounts for the occasional "doesn't work". Nothing else explains inconsistency, considering that ALL they deliver are videos.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850547)

Not all videos can be played with the HTML5, unless they figured out how to properly serve ads since I last checked.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850797)

All videos, however, can be downloaded from youtube as a .mp4, a .flv, whatever, then played in a normal movie player anyway. I haven't used flash in three years, and I've never run across anything on youtube I couldn't watch, unless it was "blocked in my region due to copyright concerns" or something. For a while at the beginning the tools were subpar, and you had to keep an array of them around, but these days something like Minitube will just work and leave your CPU unpegged.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube? (1)

jader3rd (2222716) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850723)

I don't have any direct experience, but I think YouTube will serve up HTML5 instead of Flash. Any details?

Yes, mostly. I haven't signed up for HTML5 experience, but I do run with Flash enabled on a site per site basis. I don't have it enabled for YouTube. I've ran into a few videos that didn't play without Flash, but the vast majority of them do.

Re:HTML5 on YouTube? (2)

watermark (913726) | about a year and a half ago | (#42851019)

Being part of the HTML5 trial isn't enough. You have to spoof your user-agent to a mobile device and use the mobile version of the site. I really wish they would hurry up and stop forcing flash on the desktop.

Live without Java (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850485)

I've felt the same way about a far worse application: Java.

Many years ago my network was infected by a virus... which was spread through Java by an infected machine. After that, I realized Java is nothing more than a virus delivery system, and have never allowed it on my networks.

I had to use Java for a class, so it was running on a non-networked machine.

Re:Live without Java (2)

simoncpu was here (1601629) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850567)

In an ideal world, I could live a life without Java, but I love my Android phone...

Re:Live without Java (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850765)

In an ideal world, I could live a life without Java, but I love my Android phone...

Stop, stop, you are making Larry Ellison's lawyers cry [wikipedia.org] .

Wait, actually, that's probably a feature. Carry on.

zero punctuation (3, Informative)

AvitarX (172628) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850499)

Cannot live without

Vigilance (1)

baresi (950718) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850507)

As long as you don't create a false sense of security for yourself. Flash (and Java) get all the headlines and sometimes deservedly so but the web is unsafe unless the user is vigilant. Vigilance is more than just disabling stuff, well unless you are talking about 'disabling' everything living totally offline.

What? And, what? (3, Interesting)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850519)

This provoked some shock and incredulity from others.

Er, did it? I think some of you have your surprise bar set a little low, if one guy uninstalling Flash is enough to make you apoplectic.

probably a prudent movie

What about the imprudent movies? How are we supposed to watch those now?

Gnash (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850523)

Why not, for the hell of it, live with Gnash, the GNU Flash alternative, for six months? Maybe no Flash at all is better than dealing with a crashing Gnash, but who knows, you might be surprised!

Re:Gnash (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850841)

The problem with Flash alternatives is that they don't work for a very significant use case: DRM video. If you have just one use for Adobe's Flash, you're fucking stuck with it. Wake me when DCMA goes away and these alternatives are free to actually be viable alternatives. As it is it's illegal to reverse engineer the DRM even for the sake of compatibility. Even if that DRM is nothing but ineffective weak sauce like what Adobe has.

It's time we took the DVD key approach and offered alternatives that are hosted in other countries. Unfortunately, unlike DVDs, Flash is a moving target. An arms race will be necessary.

Two Month without adobe pdf and I feel .. (5, Informative)

burni2 (1643061) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850525)

.. fine, because now I use SumatraPDF, small fast no nagware no nagdates .. I feel great!

Re:Two Month without adobe pdf and I feel .. (1)

Ceriel Nosforit (682174) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850725)

Try MuPDF for size.

Press 'I' to invert colors, Shift-W to scale to width. Indispensable for when you have a headache.

Re:Two Month without adobe pdf and I feel .. (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about a year and a half ago | (#42851021)

.. fine, because now I use SumatraPDF, small fast no nagware no nagdates .. I feel great!

I use a Mac and I have been smugly without Adobe PDF software every since I got it 5 years ago.

Videos? (0)

watermark (913726) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850529)

In chrome, type "about:plugins" in the url and disable flash. Go to Hulu or Youtube and ask the question again.

Flash is dying, but it's far from dead. Google has incentive to offer all of their videos in html5 and they can't or won't do it.

Sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850537)

I can also live without computers, running water and electricity. That is the state that the whole human race has lived in until not so long ago and the state too many humans still live in. But why would I want to?

So did I, about four months ago. (1)

magic maverick (2615475) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850561)

I'd got rid of Adobe Flash ages ago, at least a year ago. I noticed that Gnash wasn't cutting it though for the few things I was trying to use it for (basically Youtube and the occasional stupid game). So, about four months ago I got rid of Gnash as well. No problem at all. OK, so the occasional Youtube video won't work in HTML 5 mode. I can cope. I really can! (The slow Internet speed which means it takes twenty minutes to download a three minute video helps as well.)

And I can't think of anything else that requires Flash. Videos and games and that's it.

And the article poster seems to have a similar experience. Nothing's missed.

Re:So did I, about four months ago. (4, Informative)

Ceriel Nosforit (682174) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850695)

I noticed that Gnash wasn't cutting it though for the few things I was trying to use it for (basically Youtube and the occasional stupid game).

That WAS ages ago... as you said. I see Gnash is a little CPU-hungry, but playback has been smooth for me. I don't miss Adobe Flash one bit.

There's experimental GPU acceleration in the works too.

youtube-dl [github.com]

is nice too, if you don't mind the lack of streaming. I'm not actually sure why playback doesn't work on partially downloaded files.

pr0n (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850571)

I have uninstalled flash for technical reasons on GNU/Linux, the maintained version of the player simply uses a processor instruction not supported by my CPU. I would like to note the obvious: free adult entertainment, meaning porn videos, were long relying on Flash ever since it replaced downloadable mpegs/avi/wmv, and for many (free) sites, the quality of which wasn't good to begin with, this meant loss of content. However after some searching I found that xhamster and others have alternative players that serve mp4, which plays fine in the browser or when downloaded, which I prefer.

Given that standardized video formats now exists, and the implementation of player controls is no longer exclusive to Adobe Flash, I see the web clearly going into the direction of no longer using flash, adult content and mainstream news alike. I will no longer be a users (or customer, where applicable) of those that refuse to change in this manner. And with competition being as feirce as it is, that should create enough pressue on the content market.

Hulu, etc. (4, Informative)

IANAAC (692242) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850579)

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view of cable/sat companies), I rely on Hulu for most of my entertainment, since I don't have cable - and actually can't get, due to remoteness. No way around the site without flash.

But also: MSNBC (TRMS, occasionally Morning Joe). Pretty much any decent video site still uses flash.

Re:Hulu, etc. (4, Informative)

jader3rd (2222716) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850741)

But also: MSNBC

For MSNBC change your user agent string to the IPad's user agent string and they'll server up Flash free video.

Re:Hulu, etc. (1)

Mousit (646085) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850749)

I second you on that any decent video site. Not just news websites and Hulu, but I found that even YouTube can't live without it yet. Much has been touted about the site itself using HTML5 in place of Flash, and yeah that works fine. However, embedded videos? All still Flash. Unless you go to YouTube.com directly and view, you still need Flash. Doubly annoying because embedded videos don't appear at all, just the usual "broken plugin" placeholder, so you can't even get the link out of it to be able to go view the video directly.

Re:Hulu, etc. (2)

ericcc65 (2663835) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850759)

An Amazon Instant Video...flash only currently.

Re:Hulu, etc. (2)

macs4all (973270) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850813)

An Amazon Instant Video...flash only currently.

Inexcusable.

Not Flash, but Silverlight (4, Informative)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850589)

Netflix uses Silverlight, something that sucks quite a bit. They do offer a dedicated app if you use Windows 8, but the app is surprisingly poorly designed, plus I don't really want Windows 8 on my desktop.

Re:Not Flash, but Silverlight (3, Interesting)

green1 (322787) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850689)

I can't believe how many sites use silverlight. Even Microsoft backed away from Silverlight ages ago, but some sites are even just now starting to implement Silverlight. As a Linux user this is EXTREMELY frustrating, and as a user of mobile devices it isn't any better. Silverlight has never worked properly on linux, and nobody has ever made a plugin for it for Android, there was a Linux Firefox plugin ages ago called "moonlight" that seemed to work on about 10% of Silverlight sites, but that stopped development ages ago too, and isnt' compatible with any of the latest browsers.

Re:Not Flash, but Silverlight (1)

macs4all (973270) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850837)

Netflix uses Silverlight, something that sucks quite a bit. They do offer a dedicated app if you use Windows 8, but the app is surprisingly poorly designed, plus I don't really want Windows 8 on my desktop.

Question: What's the only thing worse than Flash?

Answer: Microsoft's attempt to copy it.

Seriously; even Microsoft has given up on Silverlight.

porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850593)

Xxx stuff

Re:porn (1)

macs4all (973270) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850847)

Xxx stuff

I don't think I've seen ANY porn site that REQUIRES Flash for quite some time.

twitch.tv (1)

s0nicfreak (615390) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850617)

twitch.tv

Skritter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850625)

I use skritter because it's a study aid for my japanese classes. However, since my android tablet can't use flash anymore, I can't use Skritter.

Re:Skritter (1)

green1 (322787) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850699)

Or you could install flash on your tablet... just saying...

That's the great part about Android, unlike the iOS devices that don't have flash, we can view the vast majority of the web on our devices.

Re:Skritter (0)

macs4all (973270) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850877)

Or you could install flash on your tablet... just saying...

That's the great part about Android, unlike the iOS devices that don't have flash, we can view the vast majority of the web on our devices.

Yeah, that's JUST what the average Android user needs: ANOTHER vector for exploits...

At the very most, I run into about one or two sites per month on my iPad that won't work due to lazy/cheap site developers. I can certainly live with that.

So, your "vast majority of the web" that "iOS devices cannot view" ACTUALLY turns out to be more like .005% (and falling every day) of sites that actually REQUIRE Flash.

Re:Skritter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850897)

Nag them for Android version, then.

If they're flash based, they can just switch to Adobe AIR with minimal effort (after all, it's basically standalone Flash runtime).

what he's not saying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850641)

he switched to chrome.

Streetview (3, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850645)

Streetview on Google Maps needs flash. I would miss that quite a bit.

Re:Streetview (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850795)

If you enable WebGL on Google Maps, I'm almost certain that the streetview is WebGL too, not flash.

Re:Streetview (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850865)

Much better on Google Earth anyway.

I try this every now and then... (1)

gQuigs (913879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850649)

It is getting easier. I eventually reinstalled it because I got tired of not being able to play some youtube videos and wanted to edit a map on OpenStreetMap.

I normally use Click to play on everything (in Firefox), and it does have some pain points. Namely sites that can usually fallback to not using flash, still ask for flash and block it. YouTube does this sometimes even though it is going to work without flash. So does http://gs.statcounter.com/ [statcounter.com] .
Google actually asks for Flash the most out of sites that I use: Google Finance Stocks, Google Voice (download as MP3 instead), Gmail (not useful anyway)...

Many average sites just use Flash for Ads or "Intro Banners" in which case it really is no great loss.

Went without until I needed it for online meetings (2)

GlobalEcho (26240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850655)

I bought an OSX laptop and successfully avoided Flash for a few months while I was using it to prepare the class I now teach. A good proportion of YouTube videos wouldn't play so I was glad at times to have another computer in the house to watch them, but mostly I didn't miss it at all.

Ultimately, though, it turned out that in order to hold online office hours at our university, I had to install Adobe Connect. That software is Flash from stem to stern. I installed Flash, and it took me a few days to get used to the surprise of animated (and noisy) ads again.

Conclusion: access to Flash is nice at times, but one generally does better without it.

Re:Went without until I needed it for online meeti (3, Interesting)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850743)

I installed Flash, and it took me a few days to get used to the surprise of animated (and noisy) ads again.

Luckily, those are easy to circumvent if you just use a suitable browser. On Firefox the Adblock Plus - plugin generally manages to hide all ads and the likes, something that also includes most Flash - content, or you can use the Flashblock - plugin to disable Flash altogether on some sites or make it so that you must click on the item in question first before Flash gets loaded.

I have to add, though, that from the security perspective you should not run around without using Flashblock, there are still too many Flash - based attacks roaming the Internet and you never know when they land on your machine. An antivirus may help, but why let the virus/malware package on your machine in the first place?

Re:Went without until I needed it for online meeti (-1)

macs4all (973270) | about a year and a half ago | (#42851003)

Luckily, those are easy to circumvent if you just use a suitable browser.

Careful: Your ignorance is showing...

On Safari, you can install "ClickToPlugin [github.com] " f/k/a "ClickToFlash" and achieve the same result as with FlashBlock on FF.

So, it seems that FireFox is no more "suitable" without a Flash-Blocker plugin that Safari, eh?

Re:Went without until I needed it for online meeti (1)

macs4all (973270) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850957)

I bought an OSX laptop and successfully avoided Flash for a few months while I was using it to prepare the class I now teach. A good proportion of YouTube videos wouldn't play so I was glad at times to have another computer in the house to watch them, but mostly I didn't miss it at all.

Ultimately, though, it turned out that in order to hold online office hours at our university, I had to install Adobe Connect. That software is Flash from stem to stern. I installed Flash, and it took me a few days to get used to the surprise of animated (and noisy) ads again.

Conclusion: access to Flash is nice at times, but one generally does better without it.

Install the FREE ClickToFlash (now called "ClickToPlugin [github.com] ") on Safari. You can whitelist your university site, and still not have to put up with incessant (and dangerous) Flash. You can also tell YouTube that you prefer HTML 5 [youtube.com] , and it will play ALL (or almost all) videos that way.

Don't really miss Flash (4, Interesting)

macs4all (973270) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850677)

I have been using ClickToFlash on Safari for about 3 years now. Eliminating Flash from my browser's normal processing made Safari much more stable (it only crashes about four times a year, instead of four times per week), and sped up page-loads by an incredible amount.

I consider ClickToFlash to be the best of both worlds. Flash that doesn't get to execute is essentially "not there", and unless I don't understand all the attack-vectors (which is likely), I think that, for now, this strikes a good balance. Because, before I click that little "Flash Placeholder", it makes me stop and think about whether I really need to see what's "behind the curtain".

However, on my iPad, which is Flash-Free, I think I run into a Flash-only site only about once or twice a month. Even porn seems to be being delivered in HTML 5 from almost everywhere.

Bottom line: The only thing keeping Flash alive is lazy developers and/or cheapskate PHBs.

Counter experiment (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850683)

And six month ago i didn't uninstall Adobe Flash, since then all the flash contents have played in my browsers. I felt just fine about having it around. So you tell me what your experiment gives?

Google Street View (1)

Megane (129182) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850701)

I have a PC in the living room for playing videos and games. I specifically avoid using a web browser on it.

The other day my mom came to visit and I wanted to show her maps and street view for how to get out of town without getting lost, so I decided the big TV would be great instead of having to position a laptop for two people to see. I tried to start street view and got the puzzle piece icon instead because I had never installed Flash.

Anyhow, what really bugs me is how some flash web ads are able to bypass Ad Block Plus's "Block..." tab. I right click, and sure enough, there's the Flash menu, so I have to bring up the blockable items list to figure out what I need to block.

Haven't used Flash for years. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850707)

Being a copyfree [copyfree.org] zealot, I haven't used Macromedia / Adobe Flash in years. I'm missing out on many Web annoyances, and on very little good. I still get access to all the videos I want via youtube-dl [freshports.org] (or my own buggy little equivalent thereof) or BitTorrent - either [thepiratebay.se] of which [youtube.com] can be used to download Khan Academy videos (an example mentioned above [slashdot.org] ).

Hoping HTML5+ video [wikipedia.org] and something like NaCl [wikipedia.org] will dominate.

--libman

So? (1)

zmooc (33175) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850709)

There's absolutely nothing newsworthy in this post. Apart from the poster calling Overly Attached Girlfriend Overly Obsessed Girlfriend while getting the abbreviation right...

Actually, he didn't get rid of flash completely (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850761)

He still used Google Chrome. Guess what is built into chrome? That's right, Adobe Flash. The truth is you can't get rid of flash and keep Chrome. Don't believe me? Take a look yourself.
http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/flash-player-google-chrome.html

my life without flash (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850767)

I ran a flash-block script for a while, then removed flash completely a year or two ago. Ok -- I'm not completely flash-free: if something depends on it (hulu and south park studios primarily), I use Chrome, which has a built-in flash. HTML 5 video is fine in Safari. (Firefox is more hit or miss). Occasionally, I'll hit a site with a flash video player or flash audio player, etc. 99% of the time, I don't care enough to waste 2 seconds running it in chrome, so nothing lost.

Some VMware products depend on it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850771)

Can't manage VMware View without flash. It's terrible, but there we have it :-/

So - he bought an ipad? (1)

dlingman (1757250) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850773)

Seriously, millions of people get by just fine without flash support while wandering the web. Why is this news?

Education (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850781)

One of my college proffesors requires flash for his class.

Sucks to be me.

Not hard since the iPad (2)

The123king (2395060) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850785)

Since the iPad came out, many websites hve justed their sites so flash isn't needed. Indeed, with Flashblock on my mac, i find the times i actually need flash are few and far between. I could probably live without flash or java even for browsing nowadays.

Use it or dont - if you do learn more security (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850803)

If you want to be paranoid, safe, ahead of the curve, compromise what you can do, then remove flash. If you want the internet the way it is then you'll still need flash. Seems like knowing what the vulnerabilities are is half the battle, the other half is protecting yourself from them. Home users need an easy firewall that can help them mitigate the risks, but firewalls are typical only understood by network techs - and don't totally eliminate the problem.

It amazes me how may ports are open in Windows. Gopher protocol...yeah I need that still?!? Guess the burden of having to know stuff is more than ranting about how much we miss flash...and computers should be perfect...

Seems like the ISPs could get better about blocking malicious content, but that's time and money they probably don't want to spend, plus tons of hassle from their customers. A slippery slope indeed.

I've started segmenting what I do on what computers. Anything personal that I'd worry about getting hacked goes on the secure computer. Emails, Facebook, banking sites etc. It's a VM so it's never on too long, and I don't have the VM set to share unnecessary resources with the host, and it's locked down by the old windows firewall - which is an oxymoron i guess.

Just have a computer that can get hacked and rebuilt without worrying about it being compromised.

life worth living (1)

UnanimousCoward (9841) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850823)

I think, but I can't say from experience, that life sans computers is worth living too...

ING banking site (1)

JamesTRexx (675890) | about a year and a half ago | (#42850833)

Some time ago ING moved the site that handles the stocks to Flash. And I didn't see any reason feature wise on why they did that.

Other than that site I haven't needed Flash for years. Any website that had no html home page lost my interest immediately.

PORN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850835)

Now that I have your attention... no, pretty much just porn, and I can't believe I'm among the first to say it. The pornography industry drive media technology more than anyone wants to admit; if you could get the boilerplate engines that drive thousands of porn site to support HTML5 video, you'd be within striking distance of the death of Flash. (Flash games are still a problem.. but Flash games are by-and-large idiotic.)

ps. TRWTF is that the previous post on the OP's blog got no /. mention.. this is actually interesting stuff: using relativity to encrypt data [hou2600.org]

Rosetta Stone & video streaming (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850885)

As other posters have said, Hulu and other video sites rely on Flash. Also, many corporations a few years ago made a big investment in Flash and are loathe to give it up now. The site I rely on the most that uses Flash is Rosetta Stone. Both the client-side and the website use Flash as the delivery medium. So, as much as I dislike Flash, it has to stay for now. I did make one consideration; I loaded it only on IE. I disabled it on Chrome and Firefox.

BBC iPlayer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850891)

I'm pretty sure the BBC iPlayer catch-up TV-on-demand service does not function without Adobe Flash Player. If it did, I would probably give uninstalling Flash another go.

So, basically, with regards to using Flash, "The BBC made me do it."

However, as I run Firefox with NoScript installed, I have it set to block all flash objects by default unless I click on them, so I get to pick and choose. I always find it really weird and annoying when I use YouTube in a browser that doesn't block Flash. I like to open several video pages in tabs, like a sort of queue or playlist, and then I work through the tabs, maybe adding more tabs as I see links to interesting videos. When Flash isn't blocked, this really doesn't work. Videos start playing in other tabs and I have to figure out which tabs are making a noise and go through and stop them all. :(

Shucks! Not Yet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850927)

Just when I started to learn to program in Flash so I can make some cheesy movies about my daughter's imaginary friend, Benjamin. (and not using Adobe in the process).

i need flash (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850939)

i need Macromedia flash to watch TV shows on Hulu and Amazon video. Also, some websites use flash for menus / navigation. These websites don't offer text or graphic buttons (gif, jpg or png). I tried to browse some websites with my ipod touch, but the websites display a message saying that i need to install flash to view the website.

Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850959)

myfreecams.com for example.

Or any site with unique content that you can't avoid.

I dumped flash years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42850989)

Loving life without it.

sandbox/VM (2)

wirelesslayers (2014486) | about a year and a half ago | (#42851011)

I am using QUBES OS. So all the flash and java stuff runs inside a vm-app. For my clients I am using free sandbox solutions for windows.

Youtube without Flash (1)

gibbo2 (58897) | about a year and a half ago | (#42851043)

Safari users on OS X should get the ClickToPlugin extension - http://hoyois.github.com/safariextensions/clicktoplugin/ [github.com]

It includes an HTML 5 video player, and will play most Youtube videos (say 95%+) without even loading Flash. It will just request the same H.264 video that gets served to iPads etc and uses the native hardware decoder.

Means you can watch Youtube with about 1% CPU usage instead of your fans spinning up because Flash is doing it in software.

Anytime you really do need to use Flash, just click the placeholder to load the plugin.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>