Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Google Chrome to Finally Beat Flash to Death With a Shovel: Why... Won't... You... Just... Die!

posted by cmn32480 on Friday August 12 2016, @09:31AM   Printer-friendly
from the take-it-out-back-and-shoot-it dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

By the end of the year, Google Chrome will block virtually all Flash content and make whatever's left click-to-play by default.

In September, Chrome 53 will kill off all background Flash content, which is about 90 per cent of Flash on the web, according to Google.

Then in December, Chrome 55 will use HTML5 for video, animations, games and similar stuff. If there is no HTML5 available and instead just Flash, you'll be asked to explicitly enable the Adobe plugin to view it.

This will pile immense pressure on web developers to use HTML5 and ditch Flash, because Chrome will deliberately stall the plugin's user experience.

It's effectively throwing Flash out into the cold winter's night. There is no more room at the inn. Google says it prefers HTML5 because it's faster to load than Flash and easier on handhelds' batteries. But the elephant in the room is Flash's dreadful security record: it is a screen door that lets the sewage of the internet seep in and infect computers.

Any Soylentils still have Flash installed on their systems? What keeps you from removing it?

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Google Chrome to Finally Beat Flash to Death With a Shovel: Why... Won't... You... Just... Die! | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 63 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @03:53PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @03:53PM (#387063)

    You are a fucking idiot. Chromium is open source. Try researching things before commenting in the future, dick.

    From Wikipedia:
    "BSD license, MIT License, LGPL, MS-PL and MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-licensed code, plus unlicensed files"

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   1  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @06:00PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @06:00PM (#387103)

    Chromium might be, but Chrome is proprietary.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @06:56PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @06:56PM (#387126)

    You stupid asshole, what part of _unlicensed files_ do you not understand? Get some brains moran!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_convention [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 1) by toddestan on Friday August 12 2016, @11:32PM

      by toddestan (4982) on Friday August 12 2016, @11:32PM (#387247)

      Hmm... so if Chromium has unlicensed, presumably copyrighted files in it, that means legally you couldn't use it. This potentially also applies to Chrome, and other browsers based on Chromium (Opera, etc.)

      On the other hand, Chromium is in the official Ubuntu and Debian repositories, and they tend to be sticklers about that kind of thing. So ditto.