4 ms·
Doesn't concern me. Flash has been on an EOL track for a long time now, and I'm actually pretty happy they're being this aggressive about killing it, as otherw
by CarelessExpert 6y ago
Doesn't concern me. Flash has been on an EOL track for a long time now, and I'm actually pretty happy they're being this aggressive about killing it, as otherwise it could linger on indefinitely, causing security bugs across the web.
Why do you find it disturbing?
- bityard 6y agoPlenty of legacy enterprise software which is costly to upgrade still relies on Flash for UI.
- est31 6y agoYou can always start a VM with flash inside.
- CarelessExpert 6y agoWhich is exactly why I'm glad Adobe is being so aggressive. The death of Flash isn't news. If enterprises haven't reacted to that, frankly, they never will short of killing it as is being done here. Letting is linger on just ensures it's a source of ongoing security breaches, and I think we've all seen how dangerous those can be (thanks Experian!) That being said, there's always Ruffle: https://ruffle.rs/ https://ruffle.rs/
- rlkf 6y agoNot GP, but I think what they find disturbing is that Adobe could block a plugin running on their computer, either by the plugin being timebombed, or by it checking in with a mothership.
- CarelessExpert 6y agoWelcome to the world of proprietary software. Flash was always a closed source product controlled by Adobe. I don't find that disturbing because it's incredibly common in the closed source world. Hell, this is precisely what Gatekeeper does on macos, in that it reaches out to the cloud to decide if you should be allowed to run software on your machine. It's even justified on the same basis: enhancing security.