4 ms·

It generally boils down to one or more of: - closed and proprietary - has vulnerabilities - could be resource intensive Here's an article (from 2015) which

by grzm 9y ago

It generally boils down to one or more of: - closed and proprietary - has vulnerabilities - could be resource intensive Here's an article (from 2015) which discusses it more. https://www.wired.com/2015/07/adobe-flash-player-die/ https://www.wired.com/2015/07/adobe-flash-player-die/

oldcynic 9y ago
Now we have web assembly and EME for closed and proprietary blobs, and JS for hogging resource. Flash was a mess, but the sunlit uplands after Flash aren't looking especially sunny!
koolba 9y ago
That second one needs to be in all caps, bold, and repeated about a dozen times.
- taeric 9y ago
  I'm curious that we couldn't harden flash runtimes.
  - y4mi 9y ago
    because it was > - closed and proprietary
    - taeric 9y ago
      Pretty sure the format was more open than this statement makes it sound. More, I doubt it would have been too expensive (compared to the alternative costs, it isn't like the other formats have been free), to make open. And, there were certainly some features that were insecure by design. I cannot defend all of it. Nor am I intending to really defend any of it. However, there are more than a few warts in in HTML/JavaScript that were insecure-ish by design.
- exodust 9y ago
  right because vulnerabilities don't exist anywhere else, only Flash. funny how people jump up and down about how vulnerable Flash was, but when you try to find one single person you know whose computer was actually compromised via Flash, you get nothing.
GuB-42 9y ago
I agree with the first two but for the third one (performance), I suppose that was quite a few years ago, when websites were reasonable. Now that all the crap that was previously made in Flash has shifted to the modern web technologies, things are terrible again. When it comes to size, Flash files are usually in the hundreds of kB, compare to today's web pages which routinely take several MB. And because Flash typically use vector graphics, it often looks better in modern very high resolution displays. Of course, modern web technologies can be light and efficient too, but it shows that the problem isn't the technology itself but how it is used.
qplex 9y ago
- poor integration with the web browsers Flash would effectively steal keyboard focus and render all the browser keyboard shortcuts unusable until you clicked away with your mouse. I dunno if this is still the case: I've not used Flash since YouTube made their HTML5 player available (about 8 years ago).

by grzm 9y ago

oldcynic 9y ago

Now we have web assembly and EME for closed and proprietary blobs, and JS for hogging resource. Flash was a mess, but the sunlit uplands after Flash aren't looking especially sunny!

koolba 9y ago

That second one needs to be in all caps, bold, and repeated about a dozen times.

taeric 9y ago
I'm curious that we couldn't harden flash runtimes.
- y4mi 9y ago
  because it was > - closed and proprietary
  - taeric 9y ago
    Pretty sure the format was more open than this statement makes it sound. More, I doubt it would have been too expensive (compared to the alternative costs, it isn't like the other formats have been free), to make open. And, there were certainly some features that were insecure by design. I cannot defend all of it. Nor am I intending to really defend any of it. However, there are more than a few warts in in HTML/JavaScript that were insecure-ish by design.
exodust 9y ago
right because vulnerabilities don't exist anywhere else, only Flash. funny how people jump up and down about how vulnerable Flash was, but when you try to find one single person you know whose computer was actually compromised via Flash, you get nothing.

GuB-42 9y ago

I agree with the first two but for the third one (performance), I suppose that was quite a few years ago, when websites were reasonable. Now that all the crap that was previously made in Flash has shifted to the modern web technologies, things are terrible again. When it comes to size, Flash files are usually in the hundreds of kB, compare to today's web pages which routinely take several MB. And because Flash typically use vector graphics, it often looks better in modern very high resolution displays. Of course, modern web technologies can be light and efficient too, but it shows that the problem isn't the technology itself but how it is used.

qplex 9y ago

- poor integration with the web browsers Flash would effectively steal keyboard focus and render all the browser keyboard shortcuts unusable until you clicked away with your mouse. I dunno if this is still the case: I've not used Flash since YouTube made their HTML5 player available (about 8 years ago).