9 ms·

FedEx will give you $5 to reinstall Flash

103 points by malmaud 10y ago

Pxl_Buzzard 10y ago
Why would FedEx require users to enable Flash as "run always?" Is there really not a better solution available to simply whitelist their site or be given a pop-up in Chrome asking to enable it temporarily?
- eridius 10y ago
  If FedEx relies on opening a .swf file directly in a new window, you need to select Run Always, because Google apparently doesn't give a shit about doing things right and made it so no amount of whitelisting will allow it to run .swf files directly (instead it just downloads the .swf).
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    Doing things "right"... I would rather know where flash beings and ends and have to jump through hoops. Actually I would prefer it never run at all ever. Flash not run is "right". There have been too many security flaws where Flash would allow remote execution of arbitrary code, and that eventually means viruses. If my family gets a virus, then I am on the hook for it.
    - eridius 10y ago
      Yes, this is precisely why Chrome's current behavior is awful. It's forcing me to set Flash to "Run Always", which is a security and privacy problem, simply because one site I use opens .swf files in new windows instead of embedding them in HTML pages.
  - dkersten 10y ago
    Where flash is concerned, for me, doing things right is exactly what Google are doing here.
    - eridius 10y ago
      No, they really aren't. If a site opens a .swf file in a new window, Chrome should behave exactly as though it opened an HTML page that embedded the SWF, i.e. letting me approve it, and playing it if I've whitelisted the domain. Instead it will always download the SWF if you have your Flash content settings set to anything else besides Run Always. It's really stupid and it means I have to keep Flash enabled globally (which I really don't want to do) simply because Google doesn't care enough to handle edge cases properly.
- nightski 10y ago
  Who knows, but my best guess is that it was the easiest set of instructions to give. The more complicated you get, the less likely anyone is to actually do it. It actually irks me a bit about Chrome/Firefox. I understand they want to kill these addons. But I still unfortunately am forced to use sites that require Java and/or Flash. I'm just grateful MS still has the older version of IE available in Win10 so I can get these important things done.
  - coding123 10y ago
    I get Flash, but Java, you use sites that have Java Applets on them? I can't even imagine which ones are actually left.
    - RazZziel 10y ago
      Lots of government websites in Spain, for instance.
    - FreeFull 10y ago
      There is the older stuff on http://dan-ball.jp/en/ http://dan-ball.jp/en/ but most of everything there has been ported over to javascript
    - __jal 10y ago
      Don't know about the original poster, but there are still a ton of crappy managed switches/APs/other embedded devices that use Java applets for configuration in operation. In a past life, I had to keep two different browser installs, each with a different JVM version in obsolete browsers, aside from my "real" browser to deal with crap like that.
    - suneilp 10y ago
      Those are probably ancient corporate tools, either made in-house or by some 3rd party that won't update to newer technology without enough of a monetary incentive.
    - severino 10y ago
      I guess digital signature, mostly. Signing documents without your private key leaving the computer. It's not something you can do easily cross-browser.
detaro 10y ago
previously:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13949044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13949044
- captn3m0 10y ago
  Just from 4 hours ago.
  - ilugaslifg 10y ago
    Judging by the upvotes and timestamp on that story (90 points, 4 hours ago), and not being able to find it on at least the first 3 pages of HN (for comparison, there's a story on page 3 with 33 points, 22 hours ago)... That was one of those threads which just gets opaquely disappeared off the front page. Which is something I've been noticing happening a lot lately. Really big turnoff from participating in this site.
    - tobltobs 10y ago
      > for comparison, there's a story on page 3 with 33 points, 22 hours ago)... The ranking algo might be a bit more sophisticated.
      - ilugaslifg 10y ago
        Sure, but that's not all. Or maybe it is -- who knows. Certainly not you or I, because the only information that is public is the score and the date. The problem is the opaqueness of it Which leaves a lot of room for the appearance of capriciousness, and sometimes even (though not so much in this case, this is not nearly that consequential a story) malice. http://sangaline.com/post/the-stories-that-hacker-news-removes-from-the-front-page/ http://sangaline.com/post/the-stories-that-hacker-news-remov...
    - chc 10y ago
      You can't just compare points because flags don't affect points while they do affect ranking.
canada_dry 10y ago
They obviously did the math... Cost to migrate internal apps to HTML5 = $$$$$$ Cost to bribe users to use an outdated, security nightmare = $$$ Come on fedex... this is next level stupidity!
- swalsh 10y ago
  I'm imaging a few people around a table looking over a cost estimate, when one makes the joke "We could give every user $5, and it would still be cheaper"... when one person pipes up "well.... what if we did..."
  - csours 10y ago
    OK people we need to brainstorm; remember no idea is too stupid.
- stanmancan 10y ago
  They'd be crazy if they haven't already begun re-writing it. My guess is they're in the process of re-writing, they know it's a ways out, so this is a way to buy them some time.
  - news_to_me 10y ago
    > this is a way to buy them some time. Literally ;)
- RunawayGalaxy 10y ago
  How do you know for sure it's not a stop gap?
- mtgx 10y ago
  I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and think they had an "Oh shit, Chrome and Safari are blocking Flash now!" moment. And after that they immediately started working on a full HTLM5 version. That said, whoever is in charge of development and I suppose FedEx bosses, too, should've seen this coming a mile away. They don't really have an excuse for not using HTML5 now.
hermitdev 10y ago
$5 is not anywhere near enough to bribe me into turning on Flash. UPS will be getting my shipping business for the foreseeable future. I refuse to use USPS for anything critical after someone sending me a package made a typo of using "St" instead of "Dr" for the street I live on and it ended up in an overnight package destined for Illinois being sent to Florida.
- hinfaits 10y ago
  I thought mail was firstly directed to a center dependent only on zip, and it's then further sorted. If the zip is correct, but a parcel ends up on the wrong side of the country, the mistake isn't due to a typo but probably physical mishandling of mail.
  - hermitdev 10y ago
    That was my understanding, too (and the ZIP + 4 were correct). I'm just recalling the excuse they used when my package went to the wrong state and arrived 3 days late.
- LeifCarrotson 10y ago
  Individually, for the one care package I sent to my sister last month (which was the only thing I have shipped personally in a long time), I'll happily install Flash for a $5 credit. The real customers, though, are the businesses that ship hundreds of products. $5 is irrelevant.
Arizhel 10y ago
I'm fairly sure I don't need Flash to print FedEx labels, however I don't use "FedEx Office", I have an actual FedEx shipping account.
AngeloAnolin 10y ago
This is such a band-aid fix when what they have is a gaping wound caused by a chainsaw. I reckon, can they be held liable if for example, someone installed Flash and the machine got hacked or infected? It was their recommendation in the first place?
wmeredith 10y ago
This is a spun headline. FedEx knows its site's reliance on Flash is awful and they're working on a fix, but it isn't ready. They feel bad so they're offering a $5 coupon to those who have to reactivate it to use their site. They aren't paying people to prop up Flash.
- Dinius 10y ago
  If that was truly the case, they ought to have moved away from flash "a long time ago".
kosei 10y ago
This headline should really say $5 off coupon or $5 discount as it is a very different thing from giving people $5 in cash.

103 points by malmaud 10y ago

Why would FedEx require users to enable Flash as "run always?" Is there really not a better solution available to simply whitelist their site or be given a pop-up in Chrome asking to enable it temporarily?

eridius 10y ago
If FedEx relies on opening a .swf file directly in a new window, you need to select Run Always, because Google apparently doesn't give a shit about doing things right and made it so no amount of whitelisting will allow it to run .swf files directly (instead it just downloads the .swf).
- sqeaky 10y ago
  Doing things "right"... I would rather know where flash beings and ends and have to jump through hoops. Actually I would prefer it never run at all ever. Flash not run is "right". There have been too many security flaws where Flash would allow remote execution of arbitrary code, and that eventually means viruses. If my family gets a virus, then I am on the hook for it.
  - eridius 10y ago
    Yes, this is precisely why Chrome's current behavior is awful. It's forcing me to set Flash to "Run Always", which is a security and privacy problem, simply because one site I use opens .swf files in new windows instead of embedding them in HTML pages.
- dkersten 10y ago
  Where flash is concerned, for me, doing things right is exactly what Google are doing here.
  - eridius 10y ago
    No, they really aren't. If a site opens a .swf file in a new window, Chrome should behave exactly as though it opened an HTML page that embedded the SWF, i.e. letting me approve it, and playing it if I've whitelisted the domain. Instead it will always download the SWF if you have your Flash content settings set to anything else besides Run Always. It's really stupid and it means I have to keep Flash enabled globally (which I really don't want to do) simply because Google doesn't care enough to handle edge cases properly.
nightski 10y ago
Who knows, but my best guess is that it was the easiest set of instructions to give. The more complicated you get, the less likely anyone is to actually do it. It actually irks me a bit about Chrome/Firefox. I understand they want to kill these addons. But I still unfortunately am forced to use sites that require Java and/or Flash. I'm just grateful MS still has the older version of IE available in Win10 so I can get these important things done.
- coding123 10y ago
  I get Flash, but Java, you use sites that have Java Applets on them? I can't even imagine which ones are actually left.
  - RazZziel 10y ago
    Lots of government websites in Spain, for instance.
  - FreeFull 10y ago
    There is the older stuff on http://dan-ball.jp/en/ http://dan-ball.jp/en/ but most of everything there has been ported over to javascript
  - __jal 10y ago
    Don't know about the original poster, but there are still a ton of crappy managed switches/APs/other embedded devices that use Java applets for configuration in operation. In a past life, I had to keep two different browser installs, each with a different JVM version in obsolete browsers, aside from my "real" browser to deal with crap like that.
  - suneilp 10y ago
    Those are probably ancient corporate tools, either made in-house or by some 3rd party that won't update to newer technology without enough of a monetary incentive.
  - severino 10y ago
    I guess digital signature, mostly. Signing documents without your private key leaving the computer. It's not something you can do easily cross-browser.

detaro 10y ago

previously:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13949044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13949044

captn3m0 10y ago
Just from 4 hours ago.
- ilugaslifg 10y ago
  Judging by the upvotes and timestamp on that story (90 points, 4 hours ago), and not being able to find it on at least the first 3 pages of HN (for comparison, there's a story on page 3 with 33 points, 22 hours ago)... That was one of those threads which just gets opaquely disappeared off the front page. Which is something I've been noticing happening a lot lately. Really big turnoff from participating in this site.
  - tobltobs 10y ago
    > for comparison, there's a story on page 3 with 33 points, 22 hours ago)... The ranking algo might be a bit more sophisticated.
    - ilugaslifg 10y ago
      Sure, but that's not all. Or maybe it is -- who knows. Certainly not you or I, because the only information that is public is the score and the date. The problem is the opaqueness of it Which leaves a lot of room for the appearance of capriciousness, and sometimes even (though not so much in this case, this is not nearly that consequential a story) malice. http://sangaline.com/post/the-stories-that-hacker-news-removes-from-the-front-page/ http://sangaline.com/post/the-stories-that-hacker-news-remov...
  - chc 10y ago
    You can't just compare points because flags don't affect points while they do affect ranking.

canada_dry 10y ago

They obviously did the math... Cost to migrate internal apps to HTML5 = $$$$$$ Cost to bribe users to use an outdated, security nightmare = $$$ Come on fedex... this is next level stupidity!

swalsh 10y ago
I'm imaging a few people around a table looking over a cost estimate, when one makes the joke "We could give every user $5, and it would still be cheaper"... when one person pipes up "well.... what if we did..."
- csours 10y ago
  OK people we need to brainstorm; remember no idea is too stupid.
stanmancan 10y ago
They'd be crazy if they haven't already begun re-writing it. My guess is they're in the process of re-writing, they know it's a ways out, so this is a way to buy them some time.
- news_to_me 10y ago
  > this is a way to buy them some time. Literally ;)
RunawayGalaxy 10y ago
How do you know for sure it's not a stop gap?
mtgx 10y ago
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and think they had an "Oh shit, Chrome and Safari are blocking Flash now!" moment. And after that they immediately started working on a full HTLM5 version. That said, whoever is in charge of development and I suppose FedEx bosses, too, should've seen this coming a mile away. They don't really have an excuse for not using HTML5 now.

hermitdev 10y ago

$5 is not anywhere near enough to bribe me into turning on Flash. UPS will be getting my shipping business for the foreseeable future. I refuse to use USPS for anything critical after someone sending me a package made a typo of using "St" instead of "Dr" for the street I live on and it ended up in an overnight package destined for Illinois being sent to Florida.

hinfaits 10y ago
I thought mail was firstly directed to a center dependent only on zip, and it's then further sorted. If the zip is correct, but a parcel ends up on the wrong side of the country, the mistake isn't due to a typo but probably physical mishandling of mail.
- hermitdev 10y ago
  That was my understanding, too (and the ZIP + 4 were correct). I'm just recalling the excuse they used when my package went to the wrong state and arrived 3 days late.
LeifCarrotson 10y ago
Individually, for the one care package I sent to my sister last month (which was the only thing I have shipped personally in a long time), I'll happily install Flash for a $5 credit. The real customers, though, are the businesses that ship hundreds of products. $5 is irrelevant.

Arizhel 10y ago

I'm fairly sure I don't need Flash to print FedEx labels, however I don't use "FedEx Office", I have an actual FedEx shipping account.

AngeloAnolin 10y ago

This is such a band-aid fix when what they have is a gaping wound caused by a chainsaw. I reckon, can they be held liable if for example, someone installed Flash and the machine got hacked or infected? It was their recommendation in the first place?

wmeredith 10y ago

This is a spun headline. FedEx knows its site's reliance on Flash is awful and they're working on a fix, but it isn't ready. They feel bad so they're offering a $5 coupon to those who have to reactivate it to use their site. They aren't paying people to prop up Flash.

Dinius 10y ago
If that was truly the case, they ought to have moved away from flash "a long time ago".

kosei 10y ago

This headline should really say $5 off coupon or $5 discount as it is a very different thing from giving people $5 in cash.