Can't wait for Flash to die!

[zridling]

And I'm not alone in the feeling. Apple hates it (which makes me think I should reconsider), Ubuntu will no longer default to installing Flash, Google (and Apple) have long been pushing HTML5.* Now IE9 does HTML5 with ease. When you look at the resource hog that Flash has become (in the browser), it's a real shame, and doesn't transfer well with mobile computing and I'm wanting more of those YouTube videos converted!

[rgdot]

+1, can't wait either.

May be in 5 years browsers won't even support Flash

Spoiler

Not going to happen but one can hope

[40hz]

I'm always leary of throwing out a known PITA for an unknown new one.
  
From my experience, there's a bad tendency for one awkward, proprietary technology to be replaced by an even more awkward, bloated, and proprietary one. It's also interesting to note Apple is a stakeholder in the tech they want to replace Flash with. So I'm taking about 2/3 of Apple's arguments with a grain of salt.  Anything Apple doesn't own and control it tries to ridicule or litigate out of existence.

 

[Stoic Joker]

And I'm not alone in the feeling. Apple hates it (which makes me think I should reconsider),

-zridling (March 27, 2011, 03:20 PM)

Hm...

Anything Apple doesn't own and control it tries to ridicule or litigate out of existence.

-40hz (March 27, 2011, 05:40 PM)

Shit. Now I can't hate Flash even though it really annoys me... (Er...) ...Sometimes.

[Renegade]

I'm always leary of throwing out a known PITA for an unknown new one.
 
From my experience, there's a bad tendency for one awkward, proprietary technology to be replaced by an even more awkward, bloated, and proprietary one. It's also interesting to note Apple is a stakeholder in the tech they want to replace Flash with. So I'm taking about 2/3 of Apple's arguments with a grain of salt.  Anything Apple doesn't own and control it tries to ridicule or litigate out of existence.

 

-40hz (March 27, 2011, 05:40 PM)

+1

I'm a bit scared that if Apple has anything to do with things, the web will get locked down with patents and DRM and restrictions and just plain hellish non-sense.

[40hz]

^Such is the way of the world. Or so it seems lately.

Many times, your choice comes down to which alternative represents the lesser of two evils.

But if you study history, you soon realize it's always been like that. And somehow, we always muddle through.
 

[Carol Haynes]

I'd rather have Flash than anything Apple comes up with - look at the hell and bloat iTunes causes on Windows boxes!!!

Apple only produce stuff for Apple and seem to go out of their way to make sure that on any other platform it works badly, crashes, doesn't follow style and design guidelines and is basically a total PITA. Add to that all the DRM they will throw into it and ...

Flash needs to go but personally I think an open source HTML based solution is the answer and if HTML 5 can do all that is required why bother adding more crap to browsers?

The biggest problem is that it will take 50+ years to make all the Flash based websites compliant with new browsers and the only way to ensure it happens is to make new browsers incompatible with silly pointless add-ins.

[Renegade]

Flash would be better if Flash programmers would be a bit more conservative. "Oh, it works fine on my 666-core 2343242 GHz 423423 Peta bytes of RAM cluster of super computers... I don't know why it doesn't work for you..." It's not just Flash -- it's the people developing with it too. It seems like many developers seem to think that you only have 1 browser running with 1 tab and that they have your undivided attention all the time.

I've been having issues with Facebook and Flash lately. Sigh... 

[f0dder]

I'm no big fan of flash, but that's mostly because I don't think flash adds anything that should be done on the web, except for some special cases (which mostly boils down to games). It's somewhat of a CPU hog, but that's - as far as I can tell - mostly because of a badly coded MessageLoop... the flash itself tends to run OK, doesn't use that much memory, and the runtime isn't über-big.

HTML5 is great and all, but is it going to be any more efficient than flash if used to produce the same kind of driveling crap, instead of content that's appropriate for the web?

[zridling]

HTML5 is great and all, but is it going to be any more efficient than flash if used to produce the same kind of driveling crap, instead of content that's appropriate for the web?

-f0dder (March 28, 2011, 11:04 AM)

You'd have to think so, since the browser wouldn't need [external] plugins to run it. Anything can be attacked, but the consistent insecurity of flash over the years has also grown tired.

[40hz]

^I think as long as you're going to allow interactivity, you're going to have security issues no matter what gets used.

[f0dder]

zridling: I was talking about efficiency, not security... but on the subject of security, while a lot of holes have been in java, flash, and the acrobat reader plugin, it's not like browsers themselves have been immune.

On performance, we'll have to wait and see. There's a lot of work going on wrt. optimizing JavaScript JITers, with a fair amount of competition between Chrome, FireFox and IE. But seeing how sluggish Panorama is in FF4 on lower-end machines, I'm not convinced "HTML5" is going to e better performing than flash any time soon...

[zridling]

For those using an HTML5-supported browser, go here and click to join the HTML5 trial for YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/html5

It will convert about 35-40% of the Flash videos on YouTube.

[Stoic Joker]

For those using an HTML5-supported browser, go here and click to join the HTML5 trial for YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/html5

It will convert about 35-40% of the Flash videos on YouTube.

-zridling (May 17, 2011, 07:15 PM)

Cool, I'll give it a shot.