8 ms·

<rant> Getting really frustrated with all the things chrome is starting to change. We are starting to become a bunch of sheep, if google wants something, they

<rant> Getting really frustrated with all the things chrome is starting to change. We are starting to become a bunch of sheep, if google wants something, they announce it, and implement it, we developers, users have to fall in line and start doing everything they want. What the hell is going on, why are we not pissed off about this. Look I hate Flash as much as the other guy, but blocking an extention just because a company doesn't like it. How long before we see adblockers, anti piracy trackers and basically anything that a company like google will see as a threat get blocked. Don't give me that "Oh flash has security holes so we are blocking it." Yeh when our governments use this same excuse we are all up in arms, but when a company does this many are okay with it. The sad sad truth is majority of users are going to fall in line whenever a company decides what's best for them. </rant> And to all the fan-boys/girls down-voting me. Have the decency to leave a comment as to why you are downvoting.

snsr 10y ago
But Flash is garbage, and has been for a long time.
- oolongCat 10y ago
  Flash is garbage, yes! I agree, I am talking about these blocking changes as a whole. Flash while it is indeed a piece of garbage, has done a lot for the internet, there are many places of the internet that are flash dependent. Some companies are still using flash in their internal systems, how do you justify breaking something that works for so many people?
  - SXX 10y ago
    > Some companies are still using flash in their internal systems, how do you justify breaking something that works for so many people? Now think of IE6 deprecation.
  - sp332 10y ago
    They're not breaking it. It's click-to-play, same as in Firefox by default.
  - zeroxfe 10y ago
    At some point the costs outweigh the benefits and the bandaid just needs to be ripped off. Flash has been a security nightmare for very long time.
  - ajharrison 10y ago
    > Some companies are still using flash in their internal systems, how do you justify breaking something that works for so many people? This is necessary because its the only way to progress forward.
  - fixermark 10y ago
    The existence of alternative browsers. If your company is relying on Flash, Chrome just put itself out of the running for being your enterprise's solution. By all means, use the browsers you need to get your work done. The fact this is a price Chrome is willing to pay indicates just how dead Flash is, and how much browser vendors are willing to kill it.
    - oolongCat 10y ago
      You seem to live in the bubble where everything in the world is written using the latest technology at your disposal. The sad reality is, there are are many companies that depend on flash for their corporate software. We all hear horror stories where IE6 has to be supported. While I whole heartedly agree flash is something I would avoid like the plague it is not the reality for many companies. Think about it, at one point we all though flash was the cool new thing, but now almost everyone we know hates it. But if you force thousands of companies to replace their software just becuase another company does not want to support an ancient technology, it should ring alarm bells for us all. It would cost billions of dollars in upgrades if we consider all the companies that would be effected. Google has to be put on the spotlight when they make changes such as these that would effect many people they have to give a good reason other-than, "oh its old, has many security bugs." Google has to stop forcing everyone to conform to what they think is a best practice. They need to go through the proper channels, they need to get people like the etf, w3c and take these actions in a democratic way. Google is slowly moving away from what made many of us love them, "Don't be evil" google was our hero in a time we had to put up with companies like Microsoft. It makes me incredibly mad to see a company I loved turn in to the companies they replaced.
      - fixermark 10y ago
        I do hear horror stories where IE6 has to be supported. The solution to those in the aggregate is not "Maintain IE6 backwards-compatibility forever." The challenge associated with that is why they're horror stories. But that's the opposite of what you're describing here; IE6 being supported ad-nauseum was necessary because MS had a bunch of non-compatible proprietary features in IE6 that didn't match to web standards. Google is trying to move out of supporting a non-web-standards architecture. I'm confused about what aspect of minimizing the attack vector on a standard user's computer fails to meet "Don't be evil" as a motto. Is it the part where minimizing the attack vector for people who don't have a need for Flash collides badly with the needs of people who do have a need for Flash? People who still have a need for Flash have alternate user agents available to them; they don't need Chrome. I'm sorry this change means you're going to have to account for your enterprise's reliance on Flash. I have friends who had to maintain code backwards-compatibility to pre-generics versions of Java. Enterprises gonna enterprise; we should neither hang the cutting edge nor the common person use-case on the relative lethargy of large companies.
liveoneggs 10y ago
because "don't be evil" is great marketing
stephenr 10y ago
I'll see your rant and raise you an exasperated sigh. > We are starting to become a bunch of sheep You might be, but not all of us are. > why are we not pissed off about this About them blocking (but still bundling) flash in 2016? I'd honestly be more questioning why they ever bundled it in the first place. I use Safari and have not installed Flash in.. years. But if you mean pissed off about Google using it's position of power to arbitrarily decide what technology "wins" and "loses" - people are pissed off. Unfortunately, there is seemingly an entire generation of developers who are somehow perpetually convinced Google is the second coming of jesus, and that anything they do must be a good thing. I've seen developers who will argue that they use emacs/vim over a full IDE "because now I'm not reliant, I can work on a server if i need to" and then use Google for fucking everything. So the lesson is, you can't become dependent on something you actually have control over, like a laptop, but it's fine to become dependent on a mega-corporation that has a history of just abandoning shit because nothing ever lives up to the ridiculous amounts of profits made by being a creepy personal data collecting tracker of fucking everything. Regardless of your thoughts about flash, this is the perfect opportunity to explore the world outside google. Other browsers exist. Other search engines exist. Other ad networks (and less fucking creepy ones) exist. Go forth. Be adventurous. Be free. Seriously. Anyone who thinks Google's level of control on the web (search engine, browser, data centres, home internet connections, mobile phones) isn't a massive risk is kidding themselves. Edit: for clarity, I'm not arguing that the situation isn't fucked, just saying, don't lie down and accept it. Also, have an up vote, because, you know, the voting system here is fucked.
- spydum 10y ago
  > But if you mean pissed off about Google using it's position of power to arbitrarily decide what technology "wins" and "loses" - people are pissed off. I think categorizing it as winners and losers is wrong. As much ribbing as google gets, I think very often, they are using their position of power to make the internet more secure and functional. They won't get it right every time, but I'm happy to see them try.
  - stephenr 10y ago
    Every tyrant claims to be doing things "for the greater good".
macspoofing 10y ago
>Look I hate Flash as much as the other guy, but blocking an extention just because a company doesn't like it. It's their browser, they can do what they like.
- frozenport 10y ago
  It's their monopoly, they can do what they like.
  - yoz-y 10y ago
    Except they do not have a monopoly.
    - MrZongle2 10y ago
      That is true. But they are in a position of incredible power. They have control over a lot of what people see online, by virtue of controlling what people find when they search. They're so ingrained in society that they're a verb. Their staff have had remarkable access to the White House and other government institutions. No, not a monopoly...but they're not far from potentially becoming one.
      - frozenport 10y ago
        On search they are a monopoly, what if they said Google Search will only run on Chrome?
        yoz-y 10y ago
        At minimum European Union would fine them an absurd sum that they would probably refuse to pay. Then the US government would do the same.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- scrollaway 10y ago
sparewalking 10y ago
> How long before we see adblockers [...] and basically anything that a company like google will see as a threat get blocked. They're already blocked on Android Chrome browser.
- zackp30 10y ago
  What do you mean by “blocked”? Chrome on Android has never supported any sort of extension, I wouldn’t say that they’re blocking ad-blockers, more there’s just no support for ad-blockers, or extensions for that matter.
- DarkLinkXXXX 10y ago
  Eh? I thought the android version of chrome didn't have any extension functionality.
ep103 10y ago
And this is why I use firefox
- xufi 10y ago
  I use Chrome for my flash garbage. Its much better than taking my current browsers resources and bogging it down
  - zanny 10y ago
    Exactly this! I use Firefox for everything but Flash websites, and Chrome only for those because the frozen Linux Flash player is a broken POS.
    - xufi 10y ago
      Yep, They always freeze for me. "DIE DIE DIE" is what goes in my head when I have to visit one
    - thomnottom 10y ago
      Main reason I have Chrome on my boxes. I am not installing whatever zombie build of Flash still exists in the repos.
krschultz 10y ago
You're arguing for the tyranny of the statuo quo. It doesn't make sense for Flash to even exist, it's only around for historical reasons. If we all had browsers without Flash and someone came along and suggested adding it, what would your argument be? I don't see why our default should be not changing things when everyone knows the better technical answer is changing it.
serge2k 10y ago
> blocking an extention just because a company doesn't like it. It's also proven so many times over to be a mass of security vulnerabilities.
ajharrison 10y ago
You don't decide what a company can or can't do if you're not paying for the privilege of using their products.
- fixermark 10y ago
  Functionally, Chrome is "paid for" by userbase. Google has plenty of signal to figure out if this change is going to turn people off from using it. Looks like they also have signal to suggest it's a gamble worth taking.
  - ajharrison 10y ago
    Are you going to stop using Chrome?
    - fixermark 10y ago
      Personally? No. I don't find Flash apps to be useful these days; they're more often a problem than a solution when I encounter them.
      - ajharrison 10y ago
        I rest my case.
- stephenr 10y ago
  Chrome isn't googles product. The people using their services are. Didn't you get the memo?
bobajeff 10y ago
Flash has other problems besides security exploits. * It's a single-vendor/proprietary runtime. * It's not even available for mobile. Most of the content that uses it is made for desktops. * It's a black box. * It doesn't work great on platforms Adobe doesn't prioritize (if it's even available). * We have to wait for Adobe to fix bugs and vulnerabilities. All Chrome is doing here is phasing out the Flash Player runtime. Even when support is dropped entirely you can still use something like OpenFL and/or Haxe and target the web with it if you still want to use your Flash skills.
fixermark 10y ago
In a world where we're ranting about Flash (a non-standard, closed-source web plug-in with a few ad-hoc, reverse-engineered, quite-possibly-illegal alternative implementations) being buried and replaced by a web standard---even a web standard primarily driven by a handful of web development incumbents, but a standard nonetheless---we are truly through the looking glass.
dang 10y ago
> And to all the fan-boys/girls down-voting me. Have the decency to leave a comment as to why you are downvoting. Going on about getting downvoted breaks the HN guidelines, as does name-calling. Please (re-)read them and don't do this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

snsr 10y ago

But Flash is garbage, and has been for a long time.

oolongCat 10y ago
Flash is garbage, yes! I agree, I am talking about these blocking changes as a whole. Flash while it is indeed a piece of garbage, has done a lot for the internet, there are many places of the internet that are flash dependent. Some companies are still using flash in their internal systems, how do you justify breaking something that works for so many people?
- SXX 10y ago
  > Some companies are still using flash in their internal systems, how do you justify breaking something that works for so many people? Now think of IE6 deprecation.
- sp332 10y ago
  They're not breaking it. It's click-to-play, same as in Firefox by default.
- zeroxfe 10y ago
  At some point the costs outweigh the benefits and the bandaid just needs to be ripped off. Flash has been a security nightmare for very long time.
- ajharrison 10y ago
  > Some companies are still using flash in their internal systems, how do you justify breaking something that works for so many people? This is necessary because its the only way to progress forward.
- fixermark 10y ago
  The existence of alternative browsers. If your company is relying on Flash, Chrome just put itself out of the running for being your enterprise's solution. By all means, use the browsers you need to get your work done. The fact this is a price Chrome is willing to pay indicates just how dead Flash is, and how much browser vendors are willing to kill it.
  - oolongCat 10y ago
    You seem to live in the bubble where everything in the world is written using the latest technology at your disposal. The sad reality is, there are are many companies that depend on flash for their corporate software. We all hear horror stories where IE6 has to be supported. While I whole heartedly agree flash is something I would avoid like the plague it is not the reality for many companies. Think about it, at one point we all though flash was the cool new thing, but now almost everyone we know hates it. But if you force thousands of companies to replace their software just becuase another company does not want to support an ancient technology, it should ring alarm bells for us all. It would cost billions of dollars in upgrades if we consider all the companies that would be effected. Google has to be put on the spotlight when they make changes such as these that would effect many people they have to give a good reason other-than, "oh its old, has many security bugs." Google has to stop forcing everyone to conform to what they think is a best practice. They need to go through the proper channels, they need to get people like the etf, w3c and take these actions in a democratic way. Google is slowly moving away from what made many of us love them, "Don't be evil" google was our hero in a time we had to put up with companies like Microsoft. It makes me incredibly mad to see a company I loved turn in to the companies they replaced.
    - fixermark 10y ago
      I do hear horror stories where IE6 has to be supported. The solution to those in the aggregate is not "Maintain IE6 backwards-compatibility forever." The challenge associated with that is why they're horror stories. But that's the opposite of what you're describing here; IE6 being supported ad-nauseum was necessary because MS had a bunch of non-compatible proprietary features in IE6 that didn't match to web standards. Google is trying to move out of supporting a non-web-standards architecture. I'm confused about what aspect of minimizing the attack vector on a standard user's computer fails to meet "Don't be evil" as a motto. Is it the part where minimizing the attack vector for people who don't have a need for Flash collides badly with the needs of people who do have a need for Flash? People who still have a need for Flash have alternate user agents available to them; they don't need Chrome. I'm sorry this change means you're going to have to account for your enterprise's reliance on Flash. I have friends who had to maintain code backwards-compatibility to pre-generics versions of Java. Enterprises gonna enterprise; we should neither hang the cutting edge nor the common person use-case on the relative lethargy of large companies.

liveoneggs 10y ago

because "don't be evil" is great marketing

stephenr 10y ago

I'll see your rant and raise you an exasperated sigh. > We are starting to become a bunch of sheep You might be, but not all of us are. > why are we not pissed off about this About them blocking (but still bundling) flash in 2016? I'd honestly be more questioning why they ever bundled it in the first place. I use Safari and have not installed Flash in.. years. But if you mean pissed off about Google using it's position of power to arbitrarily decide what technology "wins" and "loses" - people are pissed off. Unfortunately, there is seemingly an entire generation of developers who are somehow perpetually convinced Google is the second coming of jesus, and that anything they do must be a good thing. I've seen developers who will argue that they use emacs/vim over a full IDE "because now I'm not reliant, I can work on a server if i need to" and then use Google for fucking everything. So the lesson is, you can't become dependent on something you actually have control over, like a laptop, but it's fine to become dependent on a mega-corporation that has a history of just abandoning shit because nothing ever lives up to the ridiculous amounts of profits made by being a creepy personal data collecting tracker of fucking everything. Regardless of your thoughts about flash, this is the perfect opportunity to explore the world outside google. Other browsers exist. Other search engines exist. Other ad networks (and less fucking creepy ones) exist. Go forth. Be adventurous. Be free. Seriously. Anyone who thinks Google's level of control on the web (search engine, browser, data centres, home internet connections, mobile phones) isn't a massive risk is kidding themselves. Edit: for clarity, I'm not arguing that the situation isn't fucked, just saying, don't lie down and accept it. Also, have an up vote, because, you know, the voting system here is fucked.

spydum 10y ago
> But if you mean pissed off about Google using it's position of power to arbitrarily decide what technology "wins" and "loses" - people are pissed off. I think categorizing it as winners and losers is wrong. As much ribbing as google gets, I think very often, they are using their position of power to make the internet more secure and functional. They won't get it right every time, but I'm happy to see them try.
- stephenr 10y ago
  Every tyrant claims to be doing things "for the greater good".

macspoofing 10y ago

>Look I hate Flash as much as the other guy, but blocking an extention just because a company doesn't like it. It's their browser, they can do what they like.

frozenport 10y ago
It's their monopoly, they can do what they like.
- yoz-y 10y ago
  Except they do not have a monopoly.
  - MrZongle2 10y ago
    That is true. But they are in a position of incredible power. They have control over a lot of what people see online, by virtue of controlling what people find when they search. They're so ingrained in society that they're a verb. Their staff have had remarkable access to the White House and other government institutions. No, not a monopoly...but they're not far from potentially becoming one.
    - frozenport 10y ago
      On search they are a monopoly, what if they said Google Search will only run on Chrome?
      - yoz-y 10y ago
        At minimum European Union would fine them an absurd sum that they would probably refuse to pay. Then the US government would do the same.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
scrollaway 10y ago

sparewalking 10y ago

> How long before we see adblockers [...] and basically anything that a company like google will see as a threat get blocked. They're already blocked on Android Chrome browser.

zackp30 10y ago
What do you mean by “blocked”? Chrome on Android has never supported any sort of extension, I wouldn’t say that they’re blocking ad-blockers, more there’s just no support for ad-blockers, or extensions for that matter.
DarkLinkXXXX 10y ago
Eh? I thought the android version of chrome didn't have any extension functionality.

ep103 10y ago

And this is why I use firefox

xufi 10y ago
I use Chrome for my flash garbage. Its much better than taking my current browsers resources and bogging it down
- zanny 10y ago
  Exactly this! I use Firefox for everything but Flash websites, and Chrome only for those because the frozen Linux Flash player is a broken POS.
  - xufi 10y ago
    Yep, They always freeze for me. "DIE DIE DIE" is what goes in my head when I have to visit one
  - thomnottom 10y ago
    Main reason I have Chrome on my boxes. I am not installing whatever zombie build of Flash still exists in the repos.

krschultz 10y ago

You're arguing for the tyranny of the statuo quo. It doesn't make sense for Flash to even exist, it's only around for historical reasons. If we all had browsers without Flash and someone came along and suggested adding it, what would your argument be? I don't see why our default should be not changing things when everyone knows the better technical answer is changing it.

serge2k 10y ago

> blocking an extention just because a company doesn't like it. It's also proven so many times over to be a mass of security vulnerabilities.

ajharrison 10y ago

You don't decide what a company can or can't do if you're not paying for the privilege of using their products.

fixermark 10y ago
Functionally, Chrome is "paid for" by userbase. Google has plenty of signal to figure out if this change is going to turn people off from using it. Looks like they also have signal to suggest it's a gamble worth taking.
- ajharrison 10y ago
  Are you going to stop using Chrome?
  - fixermark 10y ago
    Personally? No. I don't find Flash apps to be useful these days; they're more often a problem than a solution when I encounter them.
    - ajharrison 10y ago
      I rest my case.
stephenr 10y ago
Chrome isn't googles product. The people using their services are. Didn't you get the memo?

bobajeff 10y ago

Flash has other problems besides security exploits. * It's a single-vendor/proprietary runtime. * It's not even available for mobile. Most of the content that uses it is made for desktops. * It's a black box. * It doesn't work great on platforms Adobe doesn't prioritize (if it's even available). * We have to wait for Adobe to fix bugs and vulnerabilities. All Chrome is doing here is phasing out the Flash Player runtime. Even when support is dropped entirely you can still use something like OpenFL and/or Haxe and target the web with it if you still want to use your Flash skills.

fixermark 10y ago

In a world where we're ranting about Flash (a non-standard, closed-source web plug-in with a few ad-hoc, reverse-engineered, quite-possibly-illegal alternative implementations) being buried and replaced by a web standard---even a web standard primarily driven by a handful of web development incumbents, but a standard nonetheless---we are truly through the looking glass.

dang 10y ago

> And to all the fan-boys/girls down-voting me. Have the decency to leave a comment as to why you are downvoting. Going on about getting downvoted breaks the HN guidelines, as does name-calling. Please (re-)read them and don't do this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html