Adobe Issues Final Linux Flash Player Release

[not.sure]

People also complain about Flash ads. But well, HTML5 is not going to solve that problem. You will eventually see equally annoying HTML5 ads using fancy CSS3 effects and what-not written using poorly performing code.

uh, good point. It will be much harder to block those compared to today's flash crap (flashblock).

[asdx]

uh, good point. It will be much harder to block those compared to today's flash crap (flashblock).

Why it would be hard? Can't we just use Adblock Plus filters?

e.g. match a parent <div> (by its ID) that contains the <video> and block it. I've already been blocking some annoying Wikipedia ads this way.

[smitty3268]

Well, I am not sure why Linux users are celebrating the death of the Linux flash plugin (outside of Chrome). HTML5 is hardly a solution to lot of problems. For one, I think most sites that do switch to HTML5 video will be using h264. Most of the browsers going forward are going to support h264 videos (IE9/10, Chrome, future Firefox on Windows/Android, Safari, mobile Safari). h264 video will likely not be supported by Firefox under Linux. They are only able to do so on systems where the OS provides the licensed decoder.

So if flash dies, you will simply be unable to view videos on most sites under Firefox on Linux. Not sure how that is a good thing?

People also complain about Flash ads. But well, HTML5 is not going to solve that problem. You will eventually see equally annoying HTML5 ads using fancy CSS3 effects and what-not written using poorly performing code.

Linux doesn't play mp3 files unless you buy a licensed decoder or grab one illegally. I don't think that stops most people. Same deal with h264 and browser support now.

Also, the existing Flash version will probably be fine for years to come before sites start requiring a newer version.

[ChrisXY]

h264 video will likely not be supported by Firefox under Linux. They are only able to do so on systems where the OS provides the licensed decoder.

You may have missed that they are working on using gstreamer for <video>: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bu...id=422540#c257
That still implies you should have legal h.264 support in gstreamer, but doesn't require....

[Gusar]

I didn't want to have a social network site associated with my (ex) Google Account (In this point, I'm more like Stallman ), so I ceased using Chrome/having a Google Account before the change of ToS...

You're mixing two things here - the browser, and the google account. If you dropped your account, it doesn't matter which browser you use, Google won't be tracking you (well, they still will to the extent they can without you having an account). If you kept the account, you'd be tracked no matter which browser you use. So what sense did changing browsers have? None, really. It's all about the account.

c) Maybe you should look at the SRWare Iron vs Chromium comparison

All "privacy invading" features are marked there as "depending on configuration"? So just go to Chrome's options and turn that stuff off, and voila, privacy issues solved, no separate browser needed. And if you're worried about the installation-id, use Chromium instead of Chrome. The only benefit of Iron then, is the built in ad-blocker. Which you can add to Chrome/Chromium with an extension.

So really, this "Chrome attacks my privacy" thing is nonsense. All the options that really do send personally identifiable stuff to google can be quickly turned off. And, funny thing, Firefox by default sends stuff to Google too if you use the search bar! You have to right-click the bar and un-tick "Show Suggestions" if you don't want that. But somehow there aren't people proclaiming "Firefox is attacking my privacy". Also, about Iron, this is quite an interesting read.


Now, to actually address the topic of this thread... It's nice to see there are people who realize Flash won't go away any time soon, as it's used for a lot more than just youtube/other videos. Yeah it's cool proclaiming the death of it, or saying "who needs it" and "nothing of value was lost" and such. But those are idealistic views that aren't aligned with reality. Just one example, when do you think Facebook will replace all their flash games with html5 variants? Now you may not be on Facebook, I'm not either, but millions of people are, and they're playing those games.

Flash is eeeeeevil. There's not one Linux version that would work completely ok, every single version has at least one issue or another. But it's still quite entrenched in the web, so for now, it's a necessary evil. Proclamations of it's death are very, very premature.

[yotambien]

this is the same stupid issue of people fearing their governments watching their every move - sure ethically they have no right to do that but if you aren't doing anything wrong, if you don't have anyone who is "after you", and if you've got nothing to hide then why do you care? if you're paranoid and a criminal in some way (whether you've been arrested or not) or have something to be ashamed of then maybe you should have thought about your actions before doing them in the first place.

I've got nothing to hide, schmidtbag!

[evolution]

@Gusar:

[OFFTOPIC] Well, if you don't believe Google tracks you even if you've ceased with them, you should look at this... I can confirm (you can also try it too, if you don't have a Google account) after doing some searches about certain theme(s) they put in first place what you hit most... But no, Google is not "evil", it simply generates revenue selling to advertisers what you search... Even if you don't have an account...

About Chrome, well, I'm geek enough to change the options to track me the less they can, but I still believe Google tracks Chrome users... and on each release, they make things harder to disable certain "privacy" options...

For me Chromium gives lot of bugs and doesn't allow me to watch online videos in various sites. Furthermore, consumes more memory than Firefox/Opera.

About the fact "I've nothing to hide", sorry, but yotambien already said it all... [/OFFTOPIC]

Well, I'll stop talk in this thread... I'm threadjacking it and not saying anything useful here... I already gave my point of view...

Cheers

[gordboy]

Anyone who thought flash would ever thrive on linux was surely deluded.

Adobe, like everyone else, do what MS say. End of story.

Linux was *always* their main enemy. Always and forever, because it utterly destroys their business model of having people tied and dependent like crack whores, paying through the nose for each new "advance".

Expect skype to follow suit very shortly.

[Temar]

Anyone who thought flash would ever thrive on linux was surely deluded.

Flash didn't need to thrive on Linux, the status quo we had was sufficient.

Adobe, like everyone else, do what MS say. End of story.

You have a very simple view of the world.

Linux was *always* their main enemy. Always and forever, because it utterly destroys their business model of having people tied and dependent like crack whores, paying through the nose for each new "advance".

Linux is not Adobe's enemy and certainly not their main enemy. Neither the free Flash implementations nor Gimp are a real threat to Adobe products. When I read statements such as yours, I wonder if you ever had to pay your own rent or even had a real job. Adobe is just a company which tries to make money. Selling their products is the only way to make money, because support-based business models just don't work with the products Adobe offers. Noone would buy support for their creative suite.

[Gusar]

Well, if you don't believe Google tracks you even if you've ceased with them

Emm, read my post again, I directly acknowledged Google still tracks you even without an account.

but I still believe Google tracks Chrome users...

And now you've entered crazyville. You believe this... based on what?

and on each release, they make things harder to disable certain "privacy" options...

Provide specific examples, please. Because if anything, over time they've been adding more fine-grained site-specific controls.

For me Chromium gives lot of bugs and doesn't allow me to watch online videos in various sites.

You mean bugs Chrome doesn't have? That's not possible, Chrome *is* Chromium basically, the few additional things Chrome has don't affect the browser engine. As for videos, if you mean h264 in html5, just compile Chromium properly. If you mean anything else, I don't see how Chrome vs. Chromium makes a difference.

PS. I don't even use Chrome, so this isn't about me trying to defend my favorite browser or something. I check it out every now and then, but my main browser remains Firefox. It's just that I'm trying to get to the bottom of this "Chrome is invading your privacy" meme. And what do I get? A person saying they believe it is so based on... umm...