PDA

View Full Version : Can somebody explain why Adobe flash is bad?



JDShu
October 28th, 2009, 06:52 PM
I've been on these forums for a couple of months and every now and then somebody proclaims their desire for flash to be wiped off the face of the earth.

Poor Linux support aside, I don't see what is so bad about it. It seems to run major sites like Youtube and it gives people the opportunity to make animated videos easily. When I google "why is flash bad" I get reasons like people abuse it for the websites, making everything move when they don't need to. To me this is more a webpage design issue, and people who think about their webpage design could probably avoid these mistakes. So my question is, is there any technical reason why flash is such a bad thing?

Sorry if this is a recurring discussion, I haven't found a similar thread yet.

schauerlich
October 28th, 2009, 06:56 PM
I mostly dislike it because it's very CPU intensive. Watching a YouTube video makes my laptop's fans go on full blast.

Tipped OuT
October 28th, 2009, 06:56 PM
Flash on Linux takes up ALOT of CPU usage, and have you ever tried running a YouTube video in full screen? It's ridiculous.

EDIT: EDavidBurg said it before me. -.-

coldReactive
October 28th, 2009, 06:56 PM
1. many people have issues with it and full screen flashes.
2. it has the "white box of death (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ubuntu+flash+white+box)" problem.
3. it doesn't integrate with sound very well on some older versions of ubuntu.

etc.

RiceMonster
October 28th, 2009, 06:57 PM
Flash on Linux takes up ALOT of CPU usage, and have you ever tried running a YouTube video in full screen? It's ridiculous.

Yep. it's especially bad on an Intel card.

Tibuda
October 28th, 2009, 06:58 PM
I think Flash is good for some uses like movies etc, but not for the whole website.

JDShu
October 28th, 2009, 07:03 PM
Flash on Linux takes up ALOT of CPU usage, and have you ever tried running a YouTube video in full screen? It's ridiculous.

EDIT: EDavidBurg said it before me. -.-

So that would go with poor Linux support right? Or is it bad on a Windows machine as well?

coldReactive
October 28th, 2009, 07:05 PM
So that would go with poor Linux support right? Or is it bad on a Windows machine as well?

Windows can't see the flash player (browser plugin) in the process list like linux does.

schauerlich
October 28th, 2009, 07:07 PM
So that would go with poor Linux support right? Or is it bad on a Windows machine as well?

It's bad on OS X. Not sure about Windows, but I would assume so.

Tipped OuT
October 28th, 2009, 07:09 PM
So that would go with poor Linux support right? Or is it bad on a Windows machine as well?

Nope, works perfect on Windows. I'm watching an HD YouTube video, while browsing a flash website and my CPU isn't even spiking.

coldReactive
October 28th, 2009, 07:10 PM
So that would go with poor Linux support right? Or is it bad on a Windows machine as well?

I just did a test with flash 9 standalone for windows, and during some scenes of sbemail 205 (videography)... it goes up to 20% CPU or more.

Windows XP Pro x64.

SunnyRabbiera
October 28th, 2009, 07:10 PM
Well lack of 64bit support is the biggest complaint against flash, also its linux support isnt as good as its Windows support.
Also flash is very sluggish for many.
Still personally I favor flash anyday over that piece of crap silverlight.

DoktorSeven
October 28th, 2009, 07:12 PM
Yeah, it runs well on Windows, but that's not because of the difference in Windows and Linux themselves, it's because the Linux version of Flash is just not that good, period.

I'm trying to work around using it myself. I'd rather just use youtube-dl or something to grab and watch videos rather than having to fight the Flash player.

Simian Man
October 28th, 2009, 07:15 PM
Flash has always run fine for me on Windows and Linux (including fullscreen). I'm apparently very lucky because I have never even had to think about it.

I think the biggest problem with it is that it's not an open standard making it hard for anybody to support it other than Adobe. Also it's way overused :).

benj1
October 28th, 2009, 07:17 PM
hopefully soon we will have html video tags with ogg as the standard, and so wont be held to ransom by adobe

RiceMonster
October 28th, 2009, 07:17 PM
Well lack of 64bit support is the biggest complaint against flash, also its linux support isnt as good as its Windows support.
Also flash is very sluggish for many.
Still personally I favor flash anyday over that piece of crap silverlight.

Flash 10 has 64 bit available.

vexorian
October 28th, 2009, 07:21 PM
It got very poor Linux support.
It is not an open standard meaning that it gives Adobe control of the web.
It is proprietary which means we can't improve its Linux support ourselves.
It promotes a less accessible way to use the web while also making it popular to disregard web standards.
It is a security flaw thanks to flash-cookies and makes your browser able to crash in less predictable situations.
It generally succeeds at making the web a more annoying place for all.

The web is not really meant for these things, though I guess that if you like it use it... And of course, right now it is a necessary evil.

They didn't think 64 bits flash 10 for Linux was necessary until MS started trying to replace it with moonlight. In many ways its biggest flaw is Adobe's bad will...

I have it blocked by noscript and use downloadhelper to download youtube videos.

Luke has no name
October 28th, 2009, 07:22 PM
Flash 10 has 64 bit available.

It would be really nice to have Ubuntu include Flash 10 64bit in the repos.

SunnyRabbiera
October 28th, 2009, 07:23 PM
Flash 10 has 64 bit available.

Its still beta though...
I wont consider it official until it becomes final.

Tipped OuT
October 28th, 2009, 07:25 PM
Flash has always run fine for me on Windows and Linux (including fullscreen). I'm apparently very lucky because I have never even had to think about it.

I think the biggest problem with it is that it's not an open standard making it hard for anybody to support it other than Adobe. Also it's way overused :).

You must have a multi core CPU?

Tibuda
October 28th, 2009, 07:25 PM
Its still beta though...
I wont consider it official until it becomes final.

alpha

Tibuda
October 28th, 2009, 07:28 PM
It got very poor Linux support.
It is not an open standard meaning that it gives Adobe control of the web.
It is proprietary which means we can't improve its Linux support ourselves.
It promotes a less accessible way to use the web while also making it popular to disregard web standards.
It is a security flaw thanks to flash-cookies and makes your browser able to crash in less predictable situations.
It generally succeeds at making the web a more annoying place for all.
Good list. I would add this:
No accessibility and no support for text-only browsers.

Tipped OuT
October 28th, 2009, 07:28 PM
alpha

It's beta alpha beta. ;)

bonfire89
October 28th, 2009, 07:29 PM
my uneducated rant/thoughts/ramblings follow:

I agree it is more of an issue of poor design/usage. Flash can be good if used well... "well" should mean non flash alternatives too IMO.

Flash can be particularly bad for users who are blind.
Flash can be bad for search engines.

but again... those issues are not unavoidable if you do things right.

Often I don't like flash because it is too confusing.
and there is nothing worse then finding out that your speakers were turned way up late at night when unwanted music starts playing.


But most important of all.. God dam is the performance terrible. This should receive more priority. Flash performance in Ubuntu if not other Linux distributions is terrible.

RiceMonster
October 28th, 2009, 07:29 PM
Good list. I would add this:
No accessibility and no support for text-only browsers.

Why should they care about support for text-only browsers?

Tibuda
October 28th, 2009, 07:31 PM
Lol why should they care about support for text-only browsers.

not adobe, but some websites. I'm happy with flash for youtube (http://youtube.com) and charges (http://charges.com.br), but there are some rare sites using Flash to display text content, but with a fancy Flash menu that could use JavaScript instead. It would not be possible to browse such websites without Flash. I have not seen a site like that for some long time, tough.

Simian Man
October 28th, 2009, 07:35 PM
You must have a multi core CPU?
Yeah, but it still never goes beyond 10% CPU usage or so.


not adobe, but some websites. I'm happy with flash for youtube (http://youtube.com) and charges (http://charges.com.br), but there are some rare sites using Flash to display text content, but with a fancy Flash menu that could use JavaScript instead. It would not be possible to browse such websites without Flash. I have not seen a site like that for some long time, tough.

True, but that's an issue of those websites being poorly designed. Adobe shouldn't make Flash work viewable text-only browsers (which would be downright impossible) just for that!

zekopeko
October 28th, 2009, 07:35 PM
They didn't think 64 bits flash 10 for Linux was necessary until MS started trying to replace it with moonlight. In many ways its biggest flaw is Adobe's bad will...

Just a correction. MS's variant is Silverlight not Moonlight. Moonlight is a FLOSS implementation of Silverlight with the backing from MS.

forrestcupp
October 28th, 2009, 07:37 PM
People are just pissed because it is not FOSS. It's immoral for something to be used so much on the internet if it's not FOSS. So instead of being thankful that Adobe gives a rats behind about making a Linux version, let's all be mad and boycott it and dream for a FOSS alternative that the entire world will joyfully spend a lot of time, effort, and money into porting their pre-existing material to.

Tibuda
October 28th, 2009, 07:37 PM
True, but that's an issue of those websites being poorly designed. Adobe shouldn't make Flash work viewable text-only browsers (which would be downright impossible) just for that!

yeah, I know, that's exactly what I meant by "not adobe, but some websites". I didn't knew how to write that in english.

xuCGC002
October 28th, 2009, 07:38 PM
You must have a multi core CPU?

He must, using a single-core for anything is unbearable. :p

I don't think Flash is that bad, even in Fullscreen it runs pretty good. Although I do have a nVIDIA card as well as a dual-core processor, so... Yeah.

earthpigg
October 28th, 2009, 07:51 PM
hopefully soon we will have html video tags with ogg as the standard, and so wont be held to ransom by adobe

+5,000.

http://www.fsf.org/resources/formats/playogg/

anyone feel like comparing CPU usage of this .ogg video (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/File:Wikimania_2008_-_Brianna_Laugher_-_Segment_of_State_of_Commons.ogg) to any video on youtube?

the difference for me was bouncing from 6% to 16% for .ogg, and bouncing from 30% to 60% for youtube flash. and that's on an i7 with similarly sexy hardware all around!

other folks like me that get smooth videos and full screen support for both due to ridiculously powerful hardware should think of people not as fortunate before saying that "flash performance overall is fine."

even if you don't give a damn about Free-as-in-Speech, we should all desire more efficient standards that don't sacrifice functionality... right?

(firefox already supports .ogg out of the box, so nothing to install to run this test... play the vid, watch firefox on htop or top... then play something on youtube and watch htop/top.)

pantone186
October 28th, 2009, 07:52 PM
Its proprietary (albeit free to use), forcing a lock-in type of situation as the alternatives are not so good.

Plus most of the web designers that use it over do it imo and make nice looking but less functional sites.

dragos240
October 28th, 2009, 07:53 PM
Also. Another issue besides performance is the fact that it is proprietary software. We can't edit the source and make improvements. It would be much better by now if it was open.

bonfire89
October 28th, 2009, 07:57 PM
is there a youtube/vimeo/whatever equivalent that uses ogg instead of flash?

dragos240
October 28th, 2009, 08:01 PM
is there a youtube/vimeo/whatever equivalent that uses ogg instead of flash?

There's minitube, which Links to youtube, and does not use flash. No interruptions, very fast, no skipping. It's a native client. It's available in the karmic repo.

benj1
October 28th, 2009, 08:03 PM
People are just pissed because it is not FOSS. It's immoral for something to be used so much on the internet if it's not FOSS. So instead of being thankful that Adobe gives a rats behind about making a Linux version, let's all be mad and boycott it and dream for a FOSS alternative that the entire world will joyfully spend a lot of time, effort, and money into porting their pre-existing material to.

i think most people are annoyed because its not a standard (ie an openly implementable one, not a defacto one).

would be web be a better place if html was owned by adobe also?

Regenweald
October 28th, 2009, 08:08 PM
Well lack of 64bit support is the biggest complaint against flash, also its linux support isnt as good as its Windows support.
Also flash is very sluggish for many.
Still personally I favor flash anyday over that piece of crap silverlight.

Silverlight is a technically sound implementation that adheres to standards. I assume you hate it because it's from redmond rather than because of its performance.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to html5 as i find flash is ridiculously overused and too resource intensive, hence my installation of flashblock yesterday. Flash has simply become the standard because Adobe provided moving pictures for the web when no one else could provide something good enough. Any way you look at it it is a crippled implementation with too much overhead. HTML5 is on the home stretch now and is actually a proper international standard. As i said, I look forward to it.

earthpigg
October 28th, 2009, 08:16 PM
Silverlight is a technically sound implementation that adheres to standards. I assume you hate it because it's from redmond rather than because of its performance.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to html5 as i find flash is ridiculously overused and too resource intensive, hence my installation of flashblock yesterday. Flash has simply become the standard because Adobe provided moving pictures for the web when no one else could provide something good enough. Any way you look at it it is a crippled implementation with too much overhead. HTML5 is on the home stretch now and is actually a proper international standard. As i said, I look forward to it.

wasn't there some fuss about Apple refusing to sign on with .ogg as the default for the <video> tag, and it thus being dropped, or some such nonsense? or have i remembered incorrectly?

edit:

here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg_controversy) it is. with this end result:


User agents should support Ogg Theora video and Ogg Vorbis audio, as well as the Ogg container format. <!-- (it's not a MUST because some vendors may have legal reasons why they can't or won't support it, and there's no point making them non-conforming when they have no choice in the matter) -->


It would be helpful for interoperability if all browsers could support the same codecs. However, there are no known codecs that satisfy all the current players: we need a codec that is known to not require per-unit or per-distributor licensing, that is compatible with the open source development model, that is of sufficient quality as to be usable, and that is not an additional submarine patent risk for large companies. This is an ongoing issue and this section will be updated once more information is available.


my prediction, that i can not back up or substantiate:

Safari will not be on board - or, if it is, it will wrap .ogg support inside their own quicktime or whatever it is called.

IE will be on board with some ridiculous middle step required -- possibly requiring the end user to visit the microsoft website and do that silly DRM verification process. no worries though, this is not something Ubuntu/WINE users need fear, as we all know (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=475709). :lolflag:

Nokia's web browser will not be on board at first, but then will fire some incompetents and eventually join the party. (Nokia apparently made the ridiculous assertion that the .ogg technology is proprietary... BSD license and all.).

chrome, ff, and opera will be on board.

cdwillis
October 28th, 2009, 08:35 PM
People are just pissed because it is not FOSS. It's immoral for something to be used so much on the internet if it's not FOSS. So instead of being thankful that Adobe gives a rats behind about making a Linux version, let's all be mad and boycott it and dream for a FOSS alternative that the entire world will joyfully spend a lot of time, effort, and money into porting their pre-existing material to.

I'd rather Flash be open source, but if it worked worth a damn I wouldn't be complaining. I don't think Adobe really cares about the Linux version, if they did it might work half as well as it does on Windows.

I understand using Flash for an in-browser game; that's understandable, but using it to play video sucks because of the performance. I hope sites start adopting HTML5's video tag instead of the clunky flash video player, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

gnomeuser
October 28th, 2009, 08:38 PM
Come to my house, experience even a simple task like playing a YouTube video on my laptop, then compare it to the downloaded version of the very same video played in totem.. then you will truly understand how bad flash is (free implementation or otherwise). Honestly it horrible, the former brings the entire system (a fairly standard core 2 duo machine with 2 gigs of ram) to it's knees, fails to play in real time, fails to play without being choppy, often fails to even have sound. The latter plays perfectly.. and yet they are the very same source - clearly flash is doing something very very wrong.

Regenweald
October 28th, 2009, 08:39 PM
@Earthpigg
guess that's just apple doing what they do ;) matters to me not, Chromium in Ubuntu and Opera/Chrome in windows. So the good browsers are covered :)
Google is pushing HTML5 really hard, so if apple is not on board, it will only affect their closed ecosystem anyway.

earthpigg
October 28th, 2009, 08:46 PM
@Earthpigg
guess that's just apple doing what they do ;) matters to me not, Chromium in Ubuntu and Opera/Chrome in windows. So the good browsers are covered :)
Google is pushing HTML5 really hard, so if apple is not on board, it will only affect their closed ecosystem anyway.

pretty much.

except that what Apple and Microsoft do regarding web standards does affect us. IE still has a majority market share, and iirc Safari is up there on that list too.

barthel
October 28th, 2009, 08:56 PM
It got very poor Linux support.
It is not an open standard meaning that it gives Adobe control of the web.
It is proprietary which means we can't improve its Linux support ourselves.
It promotes a less accessible way to use the web while also making it popular to disregard web standards.
It is a security flaw thanks to flash-cookies and makes your browser able to crash in less predictable situations.
It generally succeeds at making the web a more annoying place for all.


+1. My amplification/rant follows.

Historically, the problem is that flash was designed to wedge "flashy" graphics into a text-based protocol. (People seem to forget that the web was developed for text, as in Hyper Text Transfer Protocol.) A flash-based website breaks the ability of the browser to display content in a format that's comfortable or convenient for the user.

Flash was one of the first salvos in changing the paradigm of the web from "pull" to "push". I object to it because it presumes to take over my system resources without permission or checking that my system can handle the load. It's bad enough when websites have content encoded in flash (or worse, multiple flash objects on the same page, each invoking a new instance)--but the intrusive flash ads that steal my resources are the most annoying to me personally.

Flash provides security by obscurity for commercial interests on the web. The web content and design is protected by the proprietary encapsulation into a flash object.

Flash accelerates the obsolescence cycle by demanding faster CPUs and more memory just to browse the web. Would anybody dream of surfing the web with a 486 today? While it may help the economy to have people buying new systems every 2 years, it generates hazardous waste and denies information access to the economically disadvantaged.

Flash forces upgrades unnecessarily by requiring the latest and greatest version--even if there are no functional changes. For Linux users, these upgrades were particularly annoying, since Macromedia, then Adobe, never released new Linux versions simultaneously with the MS-Windows versions. Overnight, websites that were accessible were blocked because of a version number.

Finally, in response to the "that's a web-design issue" comment made by the OP, my response is that flash is a poorly-designed tool that encourages poor website design. Who is the greater criminal: the one who does evil or the one who teaches others to do evil?

vexorian
October 28th, 2009, 08:58 PM
People are just pissed because it is not FOSS. It's immoral for something to be used so much on the internet if it's not FOSS. So instead of being thankful that Adobe gives a rats behind about making a Linux version, let's all be mad and boycott it and dream for a FOSS alternative that the entire world will joyfully spend a lot of time, effort, and money into porting their pre-existing material to.
They already shown to be proficient at spenting time and effort when they decided to go with flash instead of going with the accessible, portable, open web standards.

Adobe gives no rats *** about Linux support, really they don't. There is a reason 64 bit took soooo much time to come. It also loves to crash and have performance issues. If it worked fine in Linux I wouldn't mind that much (ok, pages using it would still be annoying as heck and thus I'd still make noscript block it)

earthpigg
October 28th, 2009, 08:59 PM
barthel, based on that post:

if you wrote a book about nerd stuff, i would purchase it.

edit: and you are an azimov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimov) fan.

you write well, you have solid ethics (at least as far as technology is concerned), and you know good sci fi.

start writing, slacker.

Tipped OuT
October 28th, 2009, 09:00 PM
barthel, based on that post:

if you wrote a book about nerd stuff, i would purchase it.

I wouldn't, I can't understand half of the things he's saying. :p

The Toxic Mite
October 28th, 2009, 09:07 PM
Flash works for me, no problem at all ;D

JDShu
October 28th, 2009, 09:18 PM
+1. My amplification/rant follows.

Historically, the problem is that flash was designed to wedge "flashy" graphics into a text-based protocol. (People seem to forget that the web was developed for text, as in Hyper Text Transfer Protocol.) A flash-based website breaks the ability of the browser to display content in a format that's comfortable or convenient for the user.

Flash was one of the first salvos in changing the paradigm of the web from "pull" to "push". I object to it because it presumes to take over my system resources without permission or checking that my system can handle the load. It's bad enough when websites have content encoded in flash (or worse, multiple flash objects on the same page, each invoking a new instance)--but the intrusive flash ads that steal my resources are the most annoying to me personally.

Flash provides security by obscurity for commercial interests on the web. The web content and design is protected by the proprietary encapsulation into a flash object.

Flash accelerates the obsolescence cycle by demanding faster CPUs and more memory just to browse the web. Would anybody dream of surfing the web with a 486 today? While it may help the economy to have people buying new systems every 2 years, it generates hazardous waste and denies information access to the economically disadvantaged.

Flash forces upgrades unnecessarily by requiring the latest and greatest version--even if there are no functional changes. For Linux users, these upgrades were particularly annoying, since Macromedia, then Adobe, never released new Linux versions simultaneously with the MS-Windows versions. Overnight, websites that were accessible were blocked because of a version number.

Finally, in response to the "that's a web-design issue" comment made by the OP, my response is that flash is a poorly-designed tool that encourages poor website design. Who is the greater criminal: the one who does evil or the one who teaches others to do evil?

Wow, very informative! So do you mean that newer versions of flash require more system resources, making people need better computers every time? Also, I don't quite understand what you mean by security for commercial interests on the web.

23meg
October 28th, 2009, 09:30 PM
People are just pissed because it is not FOSS. It's immoral for something to be used so much on the internet if it's not FOSS. So instead of being thankful that Adobe gives a rats behind about making a Linux version, let's all be mad and boycott it and dream for a FOSS alternative that the entire world will joyfully spend a lot of time, effort, and money into porting their pre-existing material to.

I'm not going to be thankful to any single company attempting to shut the web into a proprietary rectangle that they and only they control.

If you are, good for you; be happy with what you've got. But be so kind as to refrain from attacking me for caring, just because you don't care. I'm not attacking you for not caring.

t0p
October 28th, 2009, 09:35 PM
.
The web is not really meant for these things


Nonsense. Of course Berners-Lee didn't have streaming video in mind when he first came up with the idea of the web, but that's irrelevant. The web is for whatever we want to use it for, and whatever we can make it do.

But you're right about flash cookies. Most (all?) web browsers give us the option to do what we want about http cookies; but the only way to deal with flash cookies is to hunt them down. A bloody pain if you consider the things an invasion of your privacy.


People are just pissed because it is not FOSS. It's immoral for something to be used so much on the internet if it's not FOSS. So instead of being thankful that Adobe gives a rats behind about making a Linux version, let's all be mad and boycott it and dream for a FOSS alternative that the entire world will joyfully spend a lot of time, effort, and money into porting their pre-existing material to.

Sorry, no. I prefer Free and open to non-Free and closed, but I'm no rms. Flash can be very nice. For instance, ITVPlayer and 4od used to use something else (silverlight perhaps) and I couldn't get the damn things to work with Ubuntu; but now they've moved to flash and I can watch streamed TV content if I like. You just need to be aware of the potential privacy and security issues.

pantone186
October 28th, 2009, 09:44 PM
++++ for web standards

aysiu
October 28th, 2009, 09:46 PM
I like Flash for certain things (previewing songs at the Amazon MP3 store, watching YouTube videos).

But a site that I go to primarily for information (text, static images) I want to see no Flash on. Flash on such a site breaks up the natural flow of browsing (keyboard shortcuts, back-forward buttons) and delays my getting to the actual content I want.

HappyFeet
October 28th, 2009, 10:01 PM
Well lack of 64bit support is the biggest complaint against flash

Since when does adobe NOT support 64 bit flash? I am using the 64 bit flash plugin right now, and works as well as the 32bit version, and maybe even better.

If you don't believe me it exists, here (http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html) is the link.

ssam
October 28th, 2009, 10:04 PM
because it will only work on the small number of operating systems and platforms that adobe make it for.

lots of people could never use linux on powerpc because there was no flash. there are lots of other systems held back for the same reason, even windows and linux on x86-64.

every obscure graphical operating system has a html viewer, because anyone can write one.

sdowney717
October 28th, 2009, 10:04 PM
i have no trouble full screening a you tube video with adobe flash now running a core2 duo and pcie-e 16x card. works just like it should.

but with my older p4 2.4ghz single core it was not the best. the controls would not respond once you full screened etc...

barthel
October 29th, 2009, 12:00 AM
I wouldn't, I can't understand half of the things he's saying. :p

:D Thanks for keeping my head from swelling too far out of shape!

Johnsie
October 29th, 2009, 12:08 AM
Flash is not bad. Like anything else on the web it can be used badly though. Sure it's not open source, but not everything running on a web server should be open source. It's ok to protect your precious code every once in a while.

benj1
October 29th, 2009, 01:17 AM
Flash is not bad. Like anything else on the web it can be used badly though. Sure it's not open source, but not everything running on a web server should be open source. It's ok to protect your precious code every once in a while.

let them protect the code all they want, just release the implementation so that we can implement our own implementations that actually work.

barthel
October 29th, 2009, 01:29 AM
Wow, very informative! So do you mean that newer versions of flash require more system resources, making people need better computers every time?

I didn't mean to suggest that each version, in and of itself, required a new system upgrade. It's not quite as drastic as upgrading MS-Windows, for example. Check out the official requirements at http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/systemreqs/. Minimum for MS-Windows is a Pentium II 450MHz, 128 MB RAM, 128 MB VRAM. Sounds reasonable? Then check out the recommended configuration for the lowest resolution video: Pentium 4 4.3GHz. Also, notice that the Linux version requires 4x the RAM.

Too bad we can't easily find the requirements for the older versions on the web, but the fact that version 1 was released in 1996 should be sufficient illustration that the requirements have grown. (cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash)


Also, I don't quite understand what you mean by security for commercial interests on the web.

One of the issues for commercial websites is protecting their intellectual property and trademarks. If you put your logo out in a standard image format, anyone can use it, even if legally they should not. But, if you take that same logo and embed it in a flash object, it is now far more difficult for the average user to appropriate. They have to be able to deconstruct the flash object and reassemble it.

This type of security through obscurity model is extremely common-place in the business world, for example the "trade secret" formula for Coca-Cola. The formula can't be completely hidden because the product is available for sale and the list of major ingredients must be included on the packaging by law. A detailed chemical analysis might give you an educated guess for reverse-engineering the formula and process, but that's beyond the means and abilities of the average consumer.

Unfortunately, security through obscurity has become the predominant model in the digital age as well. From the dongles of the early 8-bit age to Microsoft's denials of security holes, to DVD encryption and Blu-Ray watermarking--all are attempts to limit what you can do with what you've purchases by hiding the product within layers. Finally, adding injury to the insult, the DMCA makes it illegal to bypass these feeble attempts--even to use the product as intended.

Which is a whole other rant... ;)

barthel
October 29th, 2009, 01:36 AM
Since when does adobe NOT support 64 bit flash? I am using the 64 bit flash plugin right now, and works as well as the 32bit version, and maybe even better.

If you don't believe me it exists, here (http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html) is the link.

But IIRC, the 64-bit version has only been available for a little over a year. I first migrated to 64-bit with Hardy 8.04 and had to use 32-bit Firefox if I wanted to do anything involving Flash or Java. I believe it was last November/December that both Flash and Java were finally released for 64-bit Linux.

tom66
October 29th, 2009, 01:43 AM
Windows XP: Watching a 720p video.
Adobe Flash: 100% CPU, video slowing down (skipping frames), CPU hits 52 C
VLC: 10-30% CPU, no slowdown, CPU hits 40 C

(normally CPU idles at 3-5% / 29-33 C, this is my media PC which is a cheap Celeron 3.06 GHz chip)

Additionally... it's a closed platform. I'd prefer Silverlight, if Moonlight had better v2 support. But on the other hand, I don't want Microsoft to gain control over the market, because they could use it in their favour, whereas Adobe has little or no interest in doing this.

Once HTML5 gets better support in web browsers (maybe another 5 years at IE's pace) I hope Flash will be obsolete. HTML 5 can do almost anything Flash can do, but in 10% of the resources, and open source, and on any platform you can compile WebKit or Gecko for.

Johnsie
October 29th, 2009, 01:54 AM
Why do they keep changing html? I like <center> and <font> and they are getting rid of those. Yeah css is useful for things that affect multiple changes in a site, but for one off things it's just as easy to do it in the html.

forrestcupp
October 29th, 2009, 02:08 AM
I'm not going to be thankful to any single company attempting to shut the web into a proprietary rectangle that they and only they control.

If you are, good for you; be happy with what you've got. But be so kind as to refrain from attacking me for caring, just because you don't care. I'm not attacking you for not caring.

Fair enough.

I just remember back when they didn't give us a Flash 8 at all, so we had to wait around for version 9. I needed an updated Flash to do some things that wouldn't work with the older version. It was with the version 9 release that they started acting like they cared at all about Linux and they began to really work on the Linux version. When they released it, I was grateful because I needed it.

If you don't need it, that's great for you.

benj1
October 29th, 2009, 02:56 AM
One of the issues for commercial websites is protecting their intellectual property and trademarks. If you put your logo out in a standard image format, anyone can use it, even if legally they should not. But, if you take that same logo and embed it in a flash object, it is now far more difficult for the average user to appropriate. They have to be able to deconstruct the flash object and reassemble it.

or just take a screen shot


@johnsie
theyre trying to make it so all presentation decisions go in a css which i suppose is fair enough, but i do agree its annoying, i wish they would standardise some sort of wiki format to do more documenty things tho

JDShu
October 29th, 2009, 03:05 AM
@barthel

Very very interesting insight, and the Adobe link was enlightening.

Luke has no name
October 29th, 2009, 03:51 AM
Its still beta though...
I wont consider it official until it becomes final.

You don't use Linux applications much, do you?

phrostbyte
October 29th, 2009, 03:59 AM
Why do they keep changing html? I like <center> and <font> and they are getting rid of those. Yeah css is useful for things that affect multiple changes in a site, but for one off things it's just as easy to do it in the html.

Because of separation of concerns:
HTML to describe semantic information
CSS to describe design
JavaScript to implement (any desired) logic

It's all part of the grand plan of the "Semantic Web"(tm).

:D

Frak
October 29th, 2009, 04:03 AM
No accessibility

Well there's a false statement. http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/products/flash/tutorial/

EDIT
Also, I like flash for various things. Biggest thing is, not all browsers render Javascript correctly, but Flash always comes out consistently.

afeasfaerw23231233
October 29th, 2009, 09:58 AM
Flash in full screen occupies too much CPU resources on my laptop, and yet the bad quality is nothing near 720p. It's only a CPU hog.

hachel
October 29th, 2009, 10:42 AM
it's time google released a free alternative that stores information about every flash-video we watch but wipes the floor with adobes player and provides features that we before haven't even dreamed of.

tom66
October 29th, 2009, 10:44 AM
Or you could use swfdump, or many other proprietary tools, which can extract resources from flash files easily.

23meg
October 29th, 2009, 12:23 PM
If you don't need it, that's great for you.

I do. That I need it and use it doesn't mean I have to be grateful to Adobe, or that I can't work on and advocate alternatives to it.

I also have environmental concerns, yet I also happen to breathe, and pollute the air with carbondioxide. The thing is: I can't do environmental activism without breathing. It's a trade-off, and a good one.

Similarly, I can't work on making the web a better and more open place on the ten-year scale without unhappily using the Flash player. If I could, I would, but it's not my choice; it's what the rest of the world dictates.

chris200x9
October 29th, 2009, 04:06 PM
But IIRC, the 64-bit version has only been available for a little over a year. I first migrated to 64-bit with Hardy 8.04 and had to use 32-bit Firefox if I wanted to do anything involving Flash or Java. I believe it was last November/December that both Flash and Java were finally released for 64-bit Linux.

64 bit is a linux only thing so far AFAIK

Mr. Picklesworth
October 29th, 2009, 05:30 PM
I've been on these forums for a couple of months and every now and then somebody proclaims their desire for flash to be wiped off the face of the earth.

Poor Linux support aside, I don't see what is so bad about it. It seems to run major sites like Youtube and it gives people the opportunity to make animated videos easily. When I google "why is flash bad" I get reasons like people abuse it for the websites, making everything move when they don't need to. To me this is more a webpage design issue, and people who think about their webpage design could probably avoid these mistakes. So my question is, is there any technical reason why flash is such a bad thing?

Sorry if this is a recurring discussion, I haven't found a similar thread yet.

It is a proprietary technology controlled by a single profit-focused company. With Flash running so much web content, Adobe has an unhealthy amount of control over how people can access the web. Imagine if HTML was actually a compiled language where the binaries only ran on Windows. Or if Microsoft's evil scheme with Internet Explorer came to fruition and there ended up being two webs: one for Internet Explorer users (used by 98% of people) and one for everyone else.
That's what Adobe Flash could create.

While there are some bits and pieces out there that do some of it, the only real way to make Flash content is with an insanely expensive piece of software (Adobe Flash CS), again breaking the openness of the web.

In addition, Flash is never used properly. An amazing number of web sites use it for stupid things like animated menus, leaving no fallback for people who need accessibility or faster load times. This naturally leads in to the land of accessibility: Flash can break screen readers, doesn't listen to your system's or your browser's font settings and breaks the natural flow of text. It duplicates a ton of functionality from the browser, (eg: an HTML renderer) generally poorly (ESPECIALLY the HTML renderer).

the fix it man
October 29th, 2009, 05:50 PM
It's bad on OS X. Not sure about Windows, but I would assume so.

Yes is does bad on OSX.

Funnily enough I tried a friends MS windows machine last weekend

and flash runs like a charm so smooth and instant.

Megrimn
October 29th, 2009, 06:02 PM
Funnily enough I tried a friends MS windows machine last weekend

and flash runs like a charm so smooth and instant.

I found the biggest problem was before ff3.5 came out and adobe had upgraded flash to 10.xxxxxrc, and it was completely incompatible with ff3.0 on ubuntu and I had major problems with it in windows.

Lately, especially in windows, it makes my computer run hotter than running a virus scan. It taxes my GPU so much. The vents do need a shot of compressed air, though.

forrestcupp
October 29th, 2009, 06:39 PM
I do. That I need it and use it doesn't mean I have to be grateful to Adobe, or that I can't work on and advocate alternatives to it.

I also have environmental concerns, yet I also happen to breathe, and pollute the air with carbondioxide. The thing is: I can't do environmental activism without breathing. It's a trade-off, and a good one.

Similarly, I can't work on making the web a better and more open place on the ten-year scale without unhappily using the Flash player. If I could, I would, but it's not my choice; it's what the rest of the world dictates.
Well, I can definitely go along with that.