Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Saturday April 21 2018, @02:34AM   Printer-friendly
from the made-with-macromedia dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

Only 4.9 percent of today's websites utilize Flash code, a number that has plummeted from a 28.5 percent market share recorded at the start of 2011.

The number, courtesy of web technology survey site W3Techs, confirms Flash's decline, and a reason why Adobe has decided to retire the technology at the end of 2020.

[...] On the client side, browser makers are expected to remove Flash support from their products altogether by the end of 2020 —Flash's end-of-life date.

2020 can't come soon enough.

Source: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/flash-used-on-5-percent-of-all-websites-down-from-285-percent-seven-years-ago/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
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: 2) by Pino P on Sunday April 22 2018, @05:36PM (2 children)

    by Pino P (4721) on Sunday April 22 2018, @05:36PM (#670409) Journal

    So everything is now a part of the browser. Including using the camera and microphone through javascript.

    If not through Flash, and not through WebRTC (which uses JavaScript), then through what technology should the developer of a video communication application make it available to users of Windows 7, users of Windows 10 UWP, users of macOS, users of iOS, users of X11/Linux, and users of Android? Or is everyone supposed to buy and carry three devices?

    • A MacBook with a Windows license to run applications for Windows 10, macOS, and X11/Linux
    • An iPhone or iPad to run applications for iOS
    • An Android phone or Android tablet to run applications for Android
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday April 23 2018, @03:26AM (1 child)

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday April 23 2018, @03:26AM (#670594) Journal

    Using a native cross-platform development kit.

    Applications don't belong in the browser. Applications belong directly under the operating system where they can be properly isolated and secured.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday April 24 2018, @12:19AM

      by Pino P (4721) on Tuesday April 24 2018, @12:19AM (#670949) Journal

      Using a native cross-platform development kit.

      And do what to recover the recurring fee for releasing native binaries for Windows UWP and iOS? This amount is greater than the cost of a domain and hosting because unlike TLS certificates for websites, code signing certificates for native applications have no such thing as a "domain-validated certificate." Would you find it fair to charge users of the native applications to cover the cost of maintaining these certificates?

      Applications don't belong in the browser. Applications belong directly under the operating system where they can be properly isolated and secured.

      Would it be accEptabLe to delivEr, along with each Copy of an applicaTion, a copy of Google ChRome hardcOded to view oNe website? The user would install it the same way as any other native application.