3 ms·
One of the things Mozilla could do is to make Flash run better. My wife prefers Chrome to Firefox purely because Flash tends to stutter more on Firefox, and sh
by AndrewDucker 11y ago
One of the things Mozilla could do is to make Flash run better.
My wife prefers Chrome to Firefox purely because Flash tends to stutter more on Firefox, and she plays a lot of Facebook games.
- pervycreeper 11y agoThe whole point is to replace Flash with a better alternative.
- anon1385 11y agoOr to put it another way: they want to turn normal web pages into Flash sites.
- leohutson 11y agoThe only reason flash is blockable is because other web technologies, primarily open ones, have limited the need for it. If no attempt was made to match the feature sets of closed, single vendor plugins like flash, realplayer, QuickTime, ActiveX etc, then the majority of the webapps and media sites would be made using those tools. I think the same is true for games now. Do you really want every game engine developer to have their own plugin, with all the security vulnerabilities that will entail?
- pjmlp 11y agoNo, because we already have native and the browser should be left alone for interactive documents.
- pervycreeper 11y agoI think that's a separate problem. We've already crossed the rubicon on having "active" content on the web. A valid concern, nonetheless.
- cousin_it 11y agoI wish that alternative was confined to a plugin running in a rectangle on the page. Otherwise game theory incentives make every site add a megabyte of JavaScript to every article, and stop you from reading unless you load the whole megabyte.
- fbender 11y agoThat's happening today (just check the "big" news sites) just as it happened before with Flash-based sites. But that is just bad habit of programmers, not the issue with the technology per se.
- SquareWheel 11y agoNon-essential Javascript is usually added to the bottom of the page, or set to async to prevent it from blocking page loading.
- devloper 11y agoThe only thing they forgot is consulting Flash developers. Most of them despise HTML5 as inferior. Developer experience is as important as user experience.
- rockdoe 11y agoOne of the things Mozilla could do is to make Flash run better. One of the few things Mozilla CANNOT do is to make Flash run better. Flash is closed source, proprietary software, owned by Adobe. Google did their own implementation (of at least the browser interface + sandbox), I supposed after signing plenty of NDA and handing money over. That's not something Mozilla can (or should) do as an open source project. Whatever plans you will go looking for at Mozilla, you'll never find "improve Flash" in one of them, even as an option. It just isn't possible. It's like asking Mozilla to make Office run better. They've offered Shumway as an interdependent re-implementation, but I'm guessing it has tons of compatibility issues as Flash isn't a standard. You're probably better off just uninstalling Flash in Firefox, to be honest.
- AndrewDucker 11y agoFlash runs better in Chrome than it does in Firefox. Therefore, either the Flash people are deliberately detecting that it's being run in Firefox and slowing it down, or Firefox is doing _something_ which has made it stutter intermittently on every PC that my wife plays Facebook games on. Would you care to hazard a guess as to what might be going on?
- pcwalton 11y agoGoogle is essentially maintaining Flash for Chrome at this point, with the PPAPI port.
- Mikeb85 11y agoChrome maintains their own build of Flash (presumably after an agreement with Adobe). Firefox doesn't. It also doesn't update flash for you, you need to do that. That's the difference.
- cpeterso 11y agoChrome's Flash plugin uses Google's Pepper plugin API (PPAPI) instead of NPAPI. So Google can more tightly integrate Flash and Chrome. I've heard from someone familiar with the code that Google's Flash "uses 110% of the documented Pepper API", meaning there is lots of undocumented or underspecified details.