Should Adobe Have Their Linux Foundation Membership Revoked?

[winh8r]

Just a general question here:

Should Adobe have their membership of the Linux Foundation revoked as a result of dumping support for Flash Player for Linux?

[lovinglinux]

They have dumped support for Flash, Adobe Air and Adobe Reader. I wonder if there is anything else from Adobe that works on Linux natively?

I don't know the details of the membership, but I find at least weird to see a member of Linux Foundation giving no support at all for Linux users.

[sffvba[e0rt]

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/join/corporate

Seems you buy membership, you don't get it...


404

[forrestcupp]

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/join/corporate

Seems you buy membership, you don't get it...


404

I guess their money went toward furthering Linux development. So even though it's weird, how can you really take it away?

I kind of wonder if they even care about their membership anymore.

[winh8r]

http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/join/corporate

Seems you buy membership, you don't get it...


404
From the constitution of the Linux Foundation~


ARTICLE II
 Purposes

Section 2.1 Purposes. This corporation is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation, organized and operated to engage in any lawful activity permitted by Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The purposes of this corporation include promoting, protecting, and standardizing Linux and open source software.


Further~


Section 3.6 Termination of Membership. The membership of any member shall terminate upon the occurrence of any one or more of the following:

(a) Resignation. Any member may resign from this corporation in a writing delivered to the Secretary of this corporation. The resignation of a member shall not relieve the member from any obligations the member may have to this corporation as a result of obligations incurred or commitments made prior to resignation, including without limitation, any membership dues, fees or assessments that are due and owing prior to the resignation. A resigning member shall not be entitled to receive any refund, pro rata or otherwise, of any membership dues, fees or assessments for the balance of the calendar year in which the resignation is effective.
(b) Expulsion, Termination or Suspension. Membership may be terminated by a majority of the Directors then in office after giving the member at least 15 days’ written notice by first class or certified mail of the termination and the reasons for the termination, and (except in the case of termination for non-payment of membership dues, fees or assessments in timely fashion) an opportunity for the member to be heard by the Board, orally or in writing, no less than five days before the effective date of the termination. The decision of the Board shall be final and shall not be reviewed by any court.

[sffvba[e0rt]

From the constitution of the Linux Foundation~
Further~

ARTICLE II
 Purposes

Section 2.1 Purposes. This corporation is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation, organized and operated to engage in any lawful activity permitted by Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The purposes of this corporation include promoting, protecting, and standardizing Linux and open source software.

I suspect this is in regards to the Linux Foundation themselves... as most of the members of the foundation are not nonprofit mutual benefit corporation


404

[synaptix]

They have dumped support for Flash

Only for Firefox. They are continuing support for Flash in Linux through Google Chrome only.

[lovinglinux]

Only for Firefox. They are continuing support for Flash in Linux through Google Chrome only.

Not only Firefox, but all the other browsers.

Adobe will not be involved in further development of Flash for Linux. Google will be responsible for proving new versions, bug fixes and user support. Meanwhile, we are stuck with a semi-functional plugin and no direct support from Adobe, since they are ignoring all bug reports.

[synaptix]

Not only Firefox, but all the other browsers.

Adobe will not be involved in further development of Flash for Linux. Google will be responsible for proving new versions, bug fixes and user support. Meanwhile, we are stuck with a semi-functional plugin and no direct support from Adobe, since they are ignoring all bug reports.

http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2012/02/adobe-and-google-partnering-for-flash-player-on-linux.html

[winh8r]

ARTICLE II
 Purposes

Section 2.1 Purposes. This corporation is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation, organized and operated to engage in any lawful activity permitted by Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The purposes of this corporation include promoting, protecting, and standardizing Linux and open source software.

I suspect this is in regards to the Linux Foundation themselves... as most of the members of the foundation are not nonprofit mutual benefit corporation


404

Yes, the first bit is about the Linux Foundations status and not their members, but surely in order to be a member , either paid, elected or unpaid you would be required to adhere to the aims and puposes of the constitutuion?

[madjr]

Not only Firefox, but all the other browsers.

Adobe will not be involved in further development of Flash for Linux. Google will be responsible for proving new versions, bug fixes and user support. Meanwhile, we are stuck with a semi-functional plugin and no direct support from Adobe, since they are ignoring all bug reports.

browsers that want new flash versions must use the new ”Pepper” plugin APIs, like chrome/mium.

[synaptix]

browsers that want new flash versions must use the new ”Pepper” plugin APIs, like chrome/mium.

Which stinks, because it seems Mozilla doesn't want to go forward (at this time) with the Pepper API in FFLinux. :(

[leecheroflife]

Which stinks, because it seems Mozilla doesn't want to go forward (at this time) with the Pepper API in FFLinux. :(

They may be forced to think seriously about integrating it now though as a result of this wouldn't they?

[synaptix]

They may be forced to think seriously about integrating it now though as a result of this wouldn't they?

Indeed, but it seems as of current Mozilla really has no stance on it. They may end up eventually implementing it, or they may not..who knows.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/25/mozilla_on_npapi_pepper/

At least Adobe has the courtesy to provide security updates though.

[madjr]

Which stinks, because it seems Mozilla doesn't want to go forward (at this time) with the Pepper API in FFLinux. :(

i recently switched from ff to chrome/mium because mozilla doesnt want to either support NaCl , nor pepper.... both open source... and then they ask themselves why are behind and chrome is gaining so much marketshare.

if they keep that close mind and unwillingness to cooperate with others, i think even Ubuntu will be switching to another default browser in the near future...

[leecheroflife]

i recently switched from ff to chrome/mium because mozilla doesnt want to either support NaCl , nor pepper.... both open source... and then they ask themselves why are behind and chrome is gaining so much marketshare.

if they keep that close mind and unwillingness to cooperate with others, i think even Ubuntu will be switching to another default browser in the near future...

It does sound like FF is being a bit backwards with all this new technology, but it does seem aswell that all these new techs are very google centric, you can't blame them for being a bit behind, its not their tech.

I must admit, if it wasn't for downthemall I would use chrome/mium

[SemiExpert]

Which stinks, because it seems Mozilla doesn't want to go forward (at this time) with the Pepper API in FFLinux. :(

Mozilla made that decision back in 2010.

[leecheroflife]

Mozilla made that decision back in 2010.

They may ahve made that decision then, but it's apparant now that it would be beneficial to move forward instead of hanging back

[KiwiNZ]

The Linux Foundation needs Adobe , Adobe does not need the Linux Foundation, to answer the question....NO.

[winh8r]

The Linux Foundation needs Adobe , Adobe does not need the Linux Foundation, to answer the question....NO.


This response leads me to question why the Linux Foundation is jeopardising

what it stands for, by in effect "turning a blind eye" to Adobe rejecting

Linux in terms of support and development?

[KiwiNZ]

This response leads me to question why the Linux Foundation is jeopardising

what it stands for, by in effect "turning a blind eye" to Adobe rejecting

Linux in terms of support and development?

Rejecting the Adobe donation will affect the Foundations fiscal resources, the foundation being the only loser, then why should Adobe even care further about Linux? After ceasing any and all Linux development would have only positive fiscal results for them by removing these development costs from a non profit making stream.

For the Foundation to terminate the Adobe membership it would be a "cut off ones nose to spite ones face"

[winh8r]

Rejecting the Adobe donation will affect the Foundations fiscal resources, the foundation being the only loser, then why should Adobe even care further about Linux? After ceasing any and all Linux development would have only positive fiscal results for them by removing these development costs from a non profit making stream.

For the Foundation to terminate the Adobe membership it would be a "cut off ones nose to spite ones face"

Yes, exactly.

So what happens in two months time when another couple of "big players"

decide they want to try "removing these development costs from a non

profit making stream" and they pull their R+D and support?

Is this move by Adobe the beginning of the end for Linux?

[madjr]

Is this move by Adobe the beginning of the end for Linux?

lol hell nope.

is more like the beginning of the end for flash thanks to html5.

[forrestcupp]

This response leads me to question why the Linux Foundation is jeopardising

what it stands for, by in effect "turning a blind eye" to Adobe rejecting

Linux in terms of support and development?What are they going to do? Tell Adobe to stop giving them money?



Is this move by Adobe the beginning of the end for Linux?
I doubt if the existence of Linux is very dependent on Adobe.

[winh8r]

What are they going to do? Tell Adobe to stop giving them money?


I doubt if the existence of Linux is very dependent on Adobe.

I wasn't referring "only" to Adobe, but look at the precedent that is being

set here, "Hey guys look, it's OK to stop supporting Linux, no -one really

cares, all you have to do is throw a little money at this foundation and

you can do what you want"

It is the future repercussions that are important here for Linux.

[forrestcupp]

I wasn't referring "only" to Adobe, but look at the precedent that is being

set here, "Hey guys look, it's OK to stop supporting Linux, no -one really

cares, all you have to do is throw a little money at this foundation and

you can do what you want"

It is the future repercussions that are important here for Linux.

Well, like I said earlier, I'll bet that Adobe doesn't even care much about their membership anymore. If you revoke their membership, they probably wouldn't even care, and it would help anything.

I'd say it would do more harm than good. Right now, we can point to the Linux Foundation Membership and say that Adobe thinks we're relevant. If we remove them from the list, that's one less big company that we can point to as considering us viable, even if they're not actively developing for us anymore.

[Primefalcon]

Oh noes, Linux is doomed, lets all jump back to Windows!!!! Like Hell!!!!

[winh8r]

Well, like I said earlier, I'll bet that Adobe doesn't even care much about their membership anymore. If you revoke their membership, they probably wouldn't even care, and it would help anything.

I'd say it would do more harm than good. Right now, we can point to the Linux Foundation Membership and say that Adobe thinks we're relevant. If we remove them from the list, that's one less big company that we can point to as considering us viable, even if they're not actively developing for us anymore.

It was more a matter of principles and integrity. What we seem to have

concluded here is that the Linux Foundation is pretty toothless when it

comes to adherence to its philosophy by its members. Oh well , we will

just have to sit back and wait for Google to take over the entire

industry and we will be safe after all. Happy days.

[KiwiNZ]

Yes, exactly.

So what happens in two months time when another couple of "big players"

decide they want to try "removing these development costs from a non

profit making stream" and they pull their R+D and support?

Is this move by Adobe the beginning of the end for Linux?

It will the beginning of the end of desktop Linux if the inherent hatred of all things corporate and proprietary is not removed from the Linux ethos.

As for Adobe I hope, really hope it marks the end of Flash on all platforms.

[lovinglinux]

browsers that want new flash versions must use the new ”Pepper” plugin APIs, like chrome/mium.

Is not that simple. Is not clear if Google will make it available to other browsers. Besides, implementing Pepper means supporting a technology that is not standard, not well documented and that introduces security and compatibility concerns.


Which stinks, because it seems Mozilla doesn't want to go forward (at this time) with the Pepper API in FFLinux. :(


They may be forced to think seriously about integrating it now though as a result of this wouldn't they?


Indeed, but it seems as of current Mozilla really has no stance on it. They may end up eventually implementing it, or they may not..who knows.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/25/mozilla_on_npapi_pepper/

At least Adobe has the courtesy to provide security updates though.


Mozilla made that decision back in 2010.


They may ahve made that decision then, but it's apparant now that it would be beneficial to move forward instead of hanging back


Mozilla already made clear they won't implement Pepper, short after the announce of the end of Flash for Linux. This has been discussed already on other threads. Pepper is not going to be implemented.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/NPAPI:Pepper
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=729481#c43



i recently switched from ff to chrome/mium because mozilla doesnt want to either support NaCl , nor pepper.... both open source... and then they ask themselves why are behind and chrome is gaining so much marketshare.

if they keep that close mind and unwillingness to cooperate with others, i think even Ubuntu will be switching to another default browser in the near future...

Seriously? Close mind and unwillingness to cooperate with others? You don't know Mozilla at all.

Although it sucks that Firefox will not be able to play Flash and this will affect me directly, the real source of the problem are Adobe and Google. The first being responsible for a buggy piece of proprietary software that has more security holes than a swiss cheese and terrible performance, which unfortunately dominates the web. The second one is probably making a move to force other browsers to adopt a technology, that introduces more compatibility and security issues than benefits.

You should thank Mozilla, even if you don't use Firefox, because unlike Google, Mozilla is trying to build a better web for us.


It does sound like FF is being a bit backwards with all this new technology, but it does seem aswell that all these new techs are very google centric, you can't blame them for being a bit behind, its not their tech.

I must admit, if it wasn't for downthemall I would use chrome/mium

Let's all move to Chrome, so they can dominate the web and do whatever they want with it.


lol hell nope.

is more like the beginning of the end for flash thanks to html5.

Let's hope this process doesn't take 20 years, because currently I depend on it for many tasks.

[Primefalcon]

It will the beginning of the end of desktop Linux if the inherent hatred of all things corporate and proprietary is not removed from the Linux ethos.

As for Adobe I hope, really hope it marks the end of Flash on all platforms.
Your categorizing all linux distro's under the ethos of say GnuSense, a lot of distro's like Ubuntu Mint don't dont have that inherent hatred about propietary software.... so not really an issue anyhow.....

As for flash it wont.... HTML5 while great is not a flash killer.... and it wont be until one video standard (or at least multiples are supported widely). I evelop weeb sites and having to encode just even Audio under mp3 ogg and whatrever else just for something that already works as just mp3 under flash is ridiculous.

Whil4e I prefer an open standard, I wont use html5 until at least I can choose 1 that is universially supported... These format wars are akin to the damnd brosed wars of a decade or 2 ago I don't see why I should use multiple formats when mp3 under flash works right now...

[Lucradia]

Google Chrome doesn't ship with flash on Linux by default >_> Unless they finally changed that for Ubuntu.

[KiwiNZ]

Your categorizing all linux distro's under the ethos of say GnuSense, a lot of distro's like Ubuntu Mint don't dont have that inherent hatred about propietary software.... so not really an issue anyhow.....

One or two Distros does not a sector make.

[lovinglinux]

Google Chrome doesn't ship with flash on Linux by default >_> Unless they finally changed that for Ubuntu.

I think you meant Chromium, because Chrome 32bit does ship with Flash.

[Primefalcon]

One or two Distros does not a sector make.
Exactly andit's only one or 2 distro's that will not touch propietary software, far more use what works best!

[Lucradia]

I think you meant Chromium, because Chrome 32bit does ship with Flash.

Oh, I used a 64-bit Ubuntu (which means I got 64-bit Chrome if I recall) :V

[lovinglinux]

Oh, I used a 64-bit Ubuntu (which means I got 64-bit Chrome if I recall) :V

Me too. Only 32bit Chrome has the plugin. I am not sure if the 64bit has flash on Windows, but it doesn't have on Linux.

[Primefalcon]

Oh, I used a 64-bit Ubuntu (which means I got 64-bit Chrome if I recall) :V
chrome ships if a bunch of propietary stuff installed by dfault like pdf reader and such, where as chromium doesn't.... not a lot else different between them....

Reason I like chromium myself over chrome is simply because it uses the ffmpeg library instead of its own.

[winh8r]

It will the beginning of the end of desktop Linux if the inherent hatred of all things corporate and proprietary is not removed from the Linux ethos.

As for Adobe I hope, really hope it marks the end of Flash on all platforms.


I had always believed that the ethos of desktop Linux revolved around FLOSS

and was what made it what it is. different, free and not constrained by

corporate shackles and proprietary jails. I have for many years seen that

as the preserve of the "market leader". In fact the very reason I moved to

Linux exclusively. How sadly deluded I am.

[LowSky]

chrome ships if a bunch of propietary stuff installed by dfault like pdf reader and such, where as chromium doesn't.... not a lot else different between them....

Reason I like chromium myself over chrome is simply because it uses the ffmpeg library instead of its own.

funny mine was all turned off. no joke I had to go into the hidden plugin page to turn on those "included" features.

[wolfen69]

Which stinks, because it seems Mozilla doesn't want to go forward (at this time) with the Pepper API in FFLinux. :(

Mozilla will need to rethink their position, or flounder in the linux segment. I will simply use chrome/ium if I need flash. I'm not married to any one browser.

[Primefalcon]

heh I havebeen using firefox as much as chromium of late myself.

[MisterGaribaldi]

Ok, so here's my question, folks...

Linux is already widely acclaimed to have "lost the desktop war".

Linux is also widely acclaimed to be winning the server-, embedded-, and smartphone war.

And we're worried about our relevance if the LF cancels Adobe's membership? Are you kidding me?

Linux is already dead in the water if we can't get companies to write their apps for it. Talking about Adobe in particular here, show me one graphics, multimedia, or creative pro who takes Linux seriously just because Adobe is contributing to the "General Fund" for Linux. That's like saying tax accountants around the world are going to suddenly take Linux seriously because Peach Tree has decided to kick in a few bucks.

Either software companies contribute to the Linux ecosystem, or they're not doing a d**n thing for our credibility. Period. End of story.

So please, folks, enough with this nonsense. If we can't get companies like Adobe, Quark, Peach Tree, Great Plains, Corel, Apple and others to big-time contribute to Linux-on-the-desktop, then we really might as well fold up our tents and go home.

Or, conversely, take this as a challenge and equally-well take it upon ourselves to start writing REAL competitors to every single major and desirable commercial app out there, and do it better than those big-time companies.

In short: Either put up or shut up, folks.

[leecheroflife]

Let's all move to Chrome, so they can dominate the web and do whatever they want with it.

You seem to misunderstand me by using my words then writing that, I have already USED Chrome, I like it, but it doesn't support integrated DM's well so I went BACK to firefox and have no intention of leaving it unless Chrome/mium got it's own version of Downthemall, But TBH, I might even stick with firefox on the grounds I've been using it for years.

The only reason people migrate to Chrome, and google dominate the web with it, is because it's a GOOD browser, it's fast, it's simple. 90% of the general computer buying public will want that, hell, even my work has moved from firefox to chrome.

[wolfen69]

Linux is already widely acclaimed to have "lost the desktop war".
OK


Linux is also widely acclaimed to be winning the server-, embedded-, and smartphone war.

No doubt. And btw, those 3 things are some of the most important components of the tech ecosystem.

Or, conversely, take this as a challenge and equally-well take it upon ourselves to start writing REAL competitors to every single major and desirable commercial app out there, and do it better than those big-time companies.
Who's going to do it? Does it matter? Linux already has it's place. And I'm happy with it. Linux will always have a place on the desktop. So what if it's not number #1? The sun will rise tomorrow, life will go on, and global warming will continue. People act like if linux isn't #1 on the desktop, that it's a failure. Are you kidding me? Linux is already in more devices than any other OS ever. People think that just because Joe Six Pack sitting at his desktop pc using windows, is the ultimate judge of an OS.


In short: Either put up or shut up, folks.
Who are you talking to? Talk like that doesn't mean much around here.


Do you have a personal stake in linux's popularity?
No, I don't. And I'm getting tired of this whole popularity thing. I use linux because it works great for me. Nothing more.*snip*there are more important things in life to worry about.

My mother is having serious issues, friends I know are dying. I don't know, but my "lust" for debating has decreased, because real life has set in. And it doesn't matter that my mom uses a Mac, or my boss uses windows, or I use linux. We all just try to get through life in one piece. Btw, my mom is not doing good. It makes my take on things here different.

[Lucradia]

Mozilla will need to rethink their position, or flounder in the linux segment. I will simply use chrome/ium if I need flash. I'm not married to any one browser.

chromium doesn't have flash. (Chrome does, but only for 32-bit. For 64-bit you need to install it manually on linux.)

[wolfen69]

chromium doesn't have flash. (Chrome does, but only for 32-bit. For 64-bit you need to install it manually on linux.)
I have flash with chromium. Hmmmmmmm.

[Lucradia]

I have flash with chromium. Hmmmmmmm.

Did you install it via adobe's website or via apt-get previously at all ever? Or via 32-bit chrome? (Not chromium?)

Flash is independent of other browsers, and is its own installation.

[wolfen69]

Did you install it via adobe's website or via apt-get previously at all ever? Or via 32-bit chrome? (Not chromium?)

Flash is independent of other browsers, and is its own installation.

I didn't think it was a big deal. Sorry, don't remember.

[Primefalcon]

I didn't think it was a big deal. Sorry, don't remember.
I have flash on chromium, I install via repo's... can search for adobe flas or I beleive it gets added via restricted extra's too..

if you tick the box on install to install propietary codecs you'll automatically get flash, mp3 and so on.... I beleive most users using ubuntu would probally just tick this box

[forrestcupp]

Although it sucks that Firefox will not be able to play Flash and this will affect me directly, the real source of the problem are Adobe and Google.You know a lot more about Flash in Linux than most people on here. But why do you say this? It's not like Adobe is going to hack into our computers and uninstall the versions of Flash that we have, or wipe away all of the Flash packages that are currently out there. They are ending Linux support with 11.2, which will supposedly still have security patches. And I've heard that most web sites out there don't require later than version 9. So I'm wondering why you're saying that "Firefox will not be able to play Flash."


My mother is having serious issues, friends I know are dying. I don't know, but my "lust" for debating has decreased, because real life has set in. And it doesn't matter that my mom uses a Mac, or my boss uses windows, or I use linux. We all just try to get through life in one piece. Btw, my mom is not doing good. It makes my take on things here different.I'm sorry about the hard time you're going through. Things like these kind of put into perspective how important the Free Software Philosophy really is on the priority list.

[winh8r]

Firstly, to Wolfen69, I hope things improve for your mother and for

those around you it's a tough time and as you say, it makes you see things

differently.


Second, and ultimately less importantly, the overarching issue here is that

Adobe have withdrawn their support for Linux as a whole. With reference to

the often heard phrase on this forum "use what works best for you" we find

ourselves in a position where that is not an option anymore. The fact of

the matter is that Linux users are now being forced to use a Google

product if they want to access Flash content on the internet, whilst

retaining any semblance of functionality AND security. In most if not all

other aspects of Linux there is choice, freedom to use what works for

you, be it desktop environment, OS , office software etc.

I will make no secret of the fact that I do not like the "finger in every

pie" way that Google operates, and the incessant collation and mining of

user data , in order to "provide me with a better experience". However it

seems that we have reached a point where, as a result of Adobe handing

over control of Flash for Linux to Google ,that Linux users are now in

a position where there is no "choice" other than "take it" or "leave".

This is not good for Linux and in particular this is not good for Ubuntu.

Ubuntu will have enough of a battle trying to reach its target number of

users within this decade, even without taking into account the fact that

some people will not use Google, and will not move to an operating system

where the only stable . secure option to view flash content is by using a

Google product.

What Adobe has done may be a financially sound move for them, but it has

some very deep implications for the rest of us.

[Warpnow]

I have flash on chromium, I install via repo's... can search for adobe flas or I beleive it gets added via restricted extra's too..

if you tick the box on install to install propietary codecs you'll automatically get flash, mp3 and so on.... I beleive most users using ubuntu would probally just tick this box

The source for that check box is adobe's releases. They will no longer be updated. Only the one built into Chrome will be updated for Linux.

Chrome has flash even if you don't have flash installed on your system. Its built into the browser. Adobe is dumping Linux flash support and google will continue it, but only inside of chrome. Essentially, right now, it looks like Chrome is the only way Linux users will be able to use flash (or at least an up to date version) soon.

[lovinglinux]

You know a lot more about Flash in Linux than most people on here. But why do you say this? It's not like Adobe is going to hack into our computers and uninstall the versions of Flash that we have, or wipe away all of the Flash packages that are currently out there. They are ending Linux support with 11.2, which will supposedly still have security patches. And I've heard that most web sites out there don't require later than version 9. So I'm wondering why you're saying that "Firefox will not be able to play Flash."

Well, the amount of threads complaining about flash issues always has been significant in these forums. From time to time, flash stops working for various reasons. Can you imagine what is going to happen now that Adobe is no longer supporting it? They will indeed provide security patches, but what about bugs and regressions like the SMURF effect? They won't fix any of them. I don't doubt Flash 11.2 will still remain compatible with a huge number of sites in a few years, but without being able to fix bugs, there is a big chance that it could stop working entirely or present a bug, like the SMURF effect, that renders it virtually unusable. Many users are already downgrading to a probably insecure version of flash to continue watching YouTube.

If flash stops working, then, thanks to Adobe and Google deal, we won't be able to use the web browser we want. Like winh8r said above, is "take it or leave". This is bad, really, really bad. Of course the other browsers vendors could implement Pepper, since it is open source, but they won't because of principle.

Is well known that Mozilla and Opera won't adopt Pepper and NativeClient since 2010, so why is Google doing this deal with Adobe? Why is Google partnering with Adobe to develop Flash instead of trying to replace it with HTML5 and WebM? They released VP8 and WebM 2 years ago, but YouTube is still highly dependent on flash. People argue that flash will be dead in 5 years. If that is true, why the owner of the major video streaming web site on the web, one of the leaders in the browser market and leader of mobile OS market is helping to develop flash?

While searching articles about H.264 removal from Chrome, I just found this one from a year ago:

http://www.imore.com/2011/01/14/dear-google-removing-h264-support-chrome-totally-evil/

After reading that article, I have the impression they were planing PepperFlash for a long time. I am not a Google hater. In fact I use many Google services, but this deal really bugs me. The whole thing smells fishy to me. While Mozilla is trying to make the web a better place using HTML, CSS and Javascript, Google is trying to push their own agenda with Pepper and NativeClient. The result can't be good.

I am not against proprietary software. However, I never liked Chrome for many reasons. I prefer Firefox and Opera, by a long distance. Nevertheless, Chrome has been installed on my machines for a long time and I use it eventually, for testing mostly. Until today, because now I am considering banning it forever.

[Primefalcon]

The source for that check box is adobe's releases. They will no longer be updated. Only the one built into Chrome will be updated for Linux.

Chrome has flash even if you don't have flash installed on your system. Its built into the browser. Adobe is dumping Linux flash support and google will continue it, but only inside of chrome. Essentially, right now, it looks like Chrome is the only way Linux users will be able to use flash (or at least an up to date version) soon.
I know.... I was responding to the person that said they didn't have flash installed now.... The thing is flash will be supported for a few years yet, hopefully by that time something will be sorted.... frankly as I said earlier I'd like to see flash dead.... but as of now, html5 support just doesn't cut it to replace flash

[sffvba[e0rt]

What Adobe has done may be a financially sound move for them, but it has some very deep implications for the rest of us.

Why should Adobe care about Linux? What has Linux done for Adobe (look at it from the perspective of a company wanting to make a profit as you mention)?

So the little good they still do, by giving to the Linux Foundation should also now be scoffed at... as has been mentioned in this thread earlier, Adobe will not be the worst for ware not giving out money for free (I am sure they can find other causes for tax write-off's etc.)

But this debate is just circling... ):P


404

[Merk42]

...the matter is that Linux users are now being forced to use a Google product if they want to access Flash content on the internet...
You could swap out Google for Adobe in there. So how is this any different?

How is having Adobe be the only choice of Flash ok, but having Google be the only choice for Flash not ok?

If anyone wants to mention something like Gnash, how is that not still an option?

[KiwiNZ]

Firstly, to Wolfen69, I hope things improve for your mother and

those around you, it's a tough time and as you say, it makes you see things

differently.


Second, and ultimately less importantly, the overarching issue here is that

Adobe have withdrawn their support for Linux as a whole. With reference to

the often heard phrase on this forum "use what works best for you" we find

ourselves in a position where that is not an option anymore. The fact of

the matter is that Linux users are now being forced to use a Google

product if they want to access Flash content on the internet, whilst

retaining any semblance of functionality AND security. In most if not all

other aspects of Linux there is choice, freedom to use what works for

you, be it desktop environment, OS , office software etc.

I will make no secret of the fact that I do not like the "finger in every

pie" way that Google operates, and the incessant collation and mining of

user data , in order to "provide me with a better experience". However it

seems that we have reached a point where, as a result of Adobe handing

over control of Flash for Linux to Google ,that Linux users are now in

a position where there is no "choice" other than "take it" or "leave".

This is not good for Linux and in particular this is not good for Ubuntu.

Ubuntu will have enough of a battle trying to reach its target number of

users within this decade, even without taking into account the fact that

some people will not use Google, and will not move to an operating system

where the only stable . secure option to view flash content is by using a

Google product.

What Adobe has done may be a financially sound move for them, but it has

some very deep implications for the rest of us.

Adobe is not a charity, they will care about Linux and or Ubuntu when proven fiscal viability exists.

[winh8r]

Why should Adobe care about Linux? What has Linux done for Adobe (look at it from the perspective of a company wanting to make a profit as you mention)?

So the little good they still do, by giving to the Linux Foundation should also now be scoffed at... as has been mentioned in this thread earlier, Adobe will not be the worst for ware not giving out money for free (I am sure they can find other causes for tax write-off's etc.)

But this debate is just circling... ):P


404


The Linux Foundation promotes, protects and advances Linux by marshaling the resources of its members and the open source development community to ensure Linux remains free and technically advanced.

I am not suggesting that any money that is used to achieve the above is "scoffed at".

What I am suggesting is that the Foundation seems to be happy to ignore decisions made by its members which in effect go against achieving the above aims, namely the "technically advanced" part.

Adobe have withdrawn their support before there is a workable alternative choice in place for users. (note the word choice).

Apologies if you think this debate is circling.

You have the power to close it if you see fit.

[KiwiNZ]

I am not suggesting that any money that is used to achieve the above is "scoffed at".

What I am suggesting is that the Foundation seems to be happy to ignore decisions made by its members which in effect go against achieving the above aims, namely the "technically advanced" part.

Adobe have withdrawn their support before there is a workable alternative choice in place for users. (note the word choice).

Apologies if you think this debate is circling.

You have the power to close it if you see fit.

You seem to forget the Foundation needs the likes of Adobe to be financially sound Adobe does not need the Foundation.

[SemiExpert]

Why should Adobe care about Linux? What has Linux done for Adobe (look at it from the perspective of a company wanting to make a profit as you mention)?

So the little good they still do, by giving to the Linux Foundation should also now be scoffed at... as has been mentioned in this thread earlier, Adobe will not be the worst for ware not giving out money for free (I am sure they can find other causes for tax write-off's etc.)

But this debate is just circling... ):P


404

I'm sure that Adobe probably has a stake in the future of Linux - Adobe most likely has servers running Linux. I don't have a problem with Adobe announcing the end of Flash support for Linux, especially since they've pledged 5 years of security updates. Linux isn't being singled out, as Adobe abandoned Flash development for mobile platforms back in November of 2011 - and we all know that the mobile space is a huge growth sector.

[winh8r]

You seem to forget the Foundation needs the likes of Adobe to be financially sound Adobe does not need the Foundation.


So it is acceptable from a financial point of view ?

What about ethically?

To publicly acknowledge some cause and support it "on paper", but in reality

reject it and turn your back on it.

[lovinglinux]

You could swap out Google for Adobe in there. So how is this any different?

How is having Adobe be the only choice of Flash ok, but having Google be the only choice for Flash not ok?

Flash is just a plugin, that works the same on all browsers. You might not like to use it, but at least you still have a choice of browser.


If anyone wants to mention something like Gnash, how is that not still an option?

Install Gnash and browse 3 web sites you usually visit that depends on flash. I just did that and none of them worked. As far as I know, Gnash only works on YouTube. So, unfortunately, is not an option.

[MisterGaribaldi]

Well, see, comments like those made by winh8r harken back to Linux's relevance on the desktop. So, we have to stop and actually address this.

Linux is not "going anywhere" vis à vis desktop marketshare. Maybe -- just maybe -- third-world countries like China, India, Pakistan, various African nations, some middle-eastern ones, various European nations will largely adopt Linux, and therefore the percentage of total users will increase.

However, even if that becomes the case, I doubt it'll make much difference because their core markets are in first-world nations, such as the U.S., Japan, Hong Kong, the U.K., France, Germany, etc. Those are the countries with populations who have the money to buy PeachTree, or Acrobat Pro, or MS Office, or Pro Tools, or QuarkXPress, and so forth.

So where the h*ll is the fire here, folks? All I see is a lot of griping over LF and Adobe, but I've yet to hear a compelling argument as to why any of this really matters.

It's YOU folks who are all consigned to Linux's future being the mostly-exclusive province of servers, smartphones, and embedded devices. But in so doing, you're absolutely giving the impression that you're giving up on the desktop, yet you keep harping on about desktop issues. And some of you have the gaul to actually say "Well, the desktop space doesn't matter because as long as it takes care of my needs, who cares about anyone else?" It is precisely this sort of arrogant, self-centered, and highly myopic view that's aiding in desktop Linux's demise. You're not saving it.

[KiwiNZ]

Well, see, comments like those made by winh8r harken back to Linux's relevance on the desktop. So, we have to stop and actually address this.

Linux is not "going anywhere" vis à vis desktop marketshare. Maybe -- just maybe -- third-world countries like China, India, Pakistan, various African nations, some middle-eastern ones, various European nations will largely adopt Linux, and therefore the percentage of total users will increase.

However, even if that becomes the case, I doubt it'll make much difference because their core markets are in first-world nations, such as the U.S., Japan, Hong Kong, the U.K., France, Germany, etc. Those are the countries with populations who have the money to buy PeachTree, or Acrobat Pro, or MS Office, or Pro Tools, or QuarkXPress, and so forth.

So where the h*ll is the fire here, folks? All I see is a lot of griping over LF and Adobe, but I've yet to hear a compelling argument as to why any of this really matters.

It's YOU folks who are all consigned to Linux's future being the mostly-exclusive province of servers, smartphones, and embedded devices. But in so doing, you're absolutely giving the impression that you're giving up on the desktop, yet you keep harping on about desktop issues. And some of you have the gaul to actually say "Well, the desktop space doesn't matter because as long as it takes care of my needs, who cares about anyone else?" It is precisely this sort of arrogant, self-centered, and highly myopic view that's aiding in desktop Linux's demise. You're not saving it.

Not sure I would describe China as a Third World country, they have one of the strongest economies in the World and growth rates in infrastructure, finance Technology etc in excess of than any other economy.

[KiwiNZ]

So it is acceptable from a financial point of view ?

What about ethically?

To publicly acknowledge some cause and support it "on paper", but in reality

reject it and turn your back on it.

Adobe has not withdrawn it's support for the Foundation. All they are doing is withdrawing a fiscally non viable product.

[winh8r]

I'm sure that Adobe probably has a stake in the future of Linux - Adobe most likely has servers running Linux. I don't have a problem with Adobe announcing the end of Flash support for Linux, especially since they've pledged 5 years of security updates. Linux isn't being singled out, as Adobe abandoned Flash development for mobile platforms back in November of 2011 - and we all know that the mobile space is a huge growth sector.

From http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/




Because of this work, Adobe has been able to partner with Google in providing a “Pepper” implementation of Flash Player for all x86/64 platforms supported by the Google Chrome browser. Google will begin distributing this new Pepper-based Flash Player as part of Chrome on all platforms, including Linux, later this year.

For Flash Player releases after 11.2, the Flash Player browser plugin for Linux will only be available via the “Pepper” API as part of the Google Chrome browser distribution and will no longer be available as a direct download from Adobe. Adobe will continue to provide security updates to non-Pepper distributions of Flash Player 11.2 on Linux for five years from its release.

Flash Player will continue to support browsers using non-”Pepper” plugin APIs on platforms other than Linux.

That looks like singling out from where I am standing.



****EDIT**** You are correct with regard to servers http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=adobe.com

[KiwiNZ]

From http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/





That looks like singling out from where I am standing.

I as I and others have said they are still supporting just finding a way that is is not a fiscal drag. It makes complete sense.

[winh8r]

I as I and others have said they are still supporting just finding a way that is is not a fiscal drag. It makes complete sense.


I have accepted your stand on the financial side of things. Money is money.


One question to you directly, if I may, do you personally have a problem

with being told which browser you must use in order to

view particular content on the internet?

(I am asking in terms of being a Linux user rather than a dual-booter etc.)

[Primefalcon]

3, 2, 1 until adobe withdraw linux support for reader, I dont think they support anything else on linux atm

[KiwiNZ]

I have accepted your stand on the financial side of things. Money is money.


One question to you directly, if I may, do you personally have a problem

with being told which browser you must use in order to

view particular content on the internet?

(I am asking in terms of being a Linux user rather than a dual-booter etc.)

A browser is such a small consideration I really do not care.

[Herpythebrony]

Adobe is like the dead beat father I guess.

[winh8r]

A browser is such a small consideration I really do not care.

Interesting answer.

Thank you.

[forrestcupp]

One question to you directly, if I may, do you personally have a problem

with being told which browser you must use in order to

view particular content on the internet?

I realize that this question wasn't directed at me, but I just don't think this is the case. We are in a transition stage where people will be transitioning to html5. We will always have Flash version 11.2 that works in any browser, and I just don't see a push by web developers to require versions beyond that. A lot of web devs have requirements for older versions, still. So I'm thinking that 11.2 will get us through the transition to html5, and we won't have to worry about it at all.

It seems like there's evidence that Adobe is even embracing the change away from Flash development. If they are doing that themselves, why should they keep pushing newer versions on Linux?

[Primefalcon]

A browser is such a small consideration I really do not care.
to get to the meat of the matter an OS isn't big of a deal really either it can all easily be changed at the press of a few buttons

[KiwiNZ]

to get to the meat of the matter an OS isn't big of a deal really either it can all easily be changed at the press of a few buttons

An OS does many tasks a browser essentially does one.

[Primefalcon]

An OS does many tasks a browser essentially does one.
it's just as easy to change/switch though...... no real big deal

[lovinglinux]

An OS does many tasks a browser essentially does one.

Well, I have to disagree. You can even make coffee with a browser.

http://gizmodo.com/5098413/touchscreen-computer+controlled-coffee-machine-provides-spit+free-drinks

[Lucradia]

Well, I have to disagree. You can even make coffee with a browser.

http://gizmodo.com/5098413/touchscreen-computer+controlled-coffee-machine-provides-spit+free-drinks

The article only states you can view the coffee machine via browser. The tablet shown on the video doesn't show if it's a browser or not.

Either way, the coffee itself is not spit via a browser, the browser queues the receiving end device (A tablet?) Which queues up the HAL, and then the HAL tells the hardware what to do. HAL is part of the OS, not the browser.

That said, Google OS is not a browser-only OS, it sits atop linux too.

[synaptix]

An OS does many tasks a browser essentially does one.

Browse the web.
Check/respond to email
Do banking
Play games
Chat
IRC
FTP
Watch TV/Movies
Download Ubuntu
Play music
Make you money
Keep in touch with family long distances
and many more...






(50 cookies to whoever can spot the special task)

[Lucradia]

Flash, by the way is not part of the browser, it's a plug-in / add-on that uses a linking interface to the browser API so that the plug-in can be rendered in-page at a specific point where the HTML calls for it.

Flash interactions with devices are interactions via flash, not the browser. (That's why when you click on a flash object, you can no longer control the browser via the keyboard.) Flash is handed control of the keyboard by the browser, which in-turn, got control from the OS, which was handed the listener from the HAL.

[lovinglinux]

The article only states you can view the coffee machine via browser. The tablet shown on the video doesn't show if it's a browser or not.

Either way, the coffee itself is not spit via a browser, the browser queues the receiving end device (A tablet?) Which queues up the HAL, and then the HAL tells the hardware what to do. HAL is part of the OS, not the browser.

That said, Google OS is not a browser-only OS, it sits atop linux too.

It was meant to be funny. :-)

[KiwiNZ]

Well, I have to disagree. You can even make coffee with a browser.

http://gizmodo.com/5098413/touchscreen-computer+controlled-coffee-machine-provides-spit+free-drinks

If you use Java

[lovinglinux]

Howard: Gentlemen, I am now about to send a signal from this laptop through our local ISP, racing down fiber optic cable at the speed of light to San Francisco, bouncing off a satellite in geosynchronous orbit to Lisbon, Portugal, where the data packets will be handed off to submerged transatlantic cables terminating in Halifax, Nova-Scotia, and transferred across the continent via microwave relays back to our ISP and the X10 receiver attached to this ... (he clicks the mouse and watches as the lamp lights up) ... lamp.

http://www.sheldonfan.com/transcript-s01-e09-Cooper-Hofstadter-Polarization-Scene-1.html

[KiwiNZ]

http://www.sheldonfan.com/transcript-s01-e09-Cooper-Hofstadter-Polarization-Scene-1.html

Because we can

[forrestcupp]

The article only states you can view the coffee machine via browser. The tablet shown on the video doesn't show if it's a browser or not.Yeah, but this article (http://www.bornrich.com/entry/computer-controlled-coffee-maker-with-a-touchscreen/) says that you can actually order the coffee from your browser. So it actually can be controlled to make coffee from your browser. ;)


Flash, by the way is not part of the browser, it's a plug-in / add-on that uses a linking interface to the browser API so that the plug-in can be rendered in-page at a specific point where the HTML calls for it.The whole reason the browser thing came up is because people were saying that we will be forced into using one certain browser if we want continued support. The argument was about how important is your browser because of this fact.

[MisterGaribaldi]

Adobe is like the dead beat father I guess.

And that makes LF the single mom then, if I take your meaning correctly.

[forrestcupp]

And that makes LF the single mom then, if I take your meaning correctly.

Linux is the hot single mom that nobody wants because of all of the baggage and perceived incompatibility issues. :)

[spynappels]

Could you imagine Richard Stallman as a (step)father-in-law? Yes you can marry her if the cake has no proprietary ingredients and nobody talks to me directly when I'm thinking...

[SemiExpert]

I'm seeing a lot of negativity towards Adobe, despite the fact they've made a 5 year commitment for Flash security updates. But where is the support for GNU Gnash in this entire debate?

[winh8r]

I'm seeing a lot of negativity towards Adobe, despite the fact they've made a 5 year commitment for Flash security updates. But where is the support for GNU Gnash in this entire debate?


It would appear from a lot of the responses in this thread that :

a) Nobody minds losing Mozilla Firefox as an option for web browsing.

b) Nobody minds basically having Chrome/chromium as the only viable option for viewing Flash content on the internet.

c) The majority wholeheartedly support Adobe in their decison to drop Flash from active development.

d) The Linux Foundation effectively does not care, just so long as the money keeps coming in.

We shall have to await the arrival of Google TV , sorry, Ubuntu TV to see if it makes a difference.

[forrestcupp]

You left out the option of people who think that it won't make any difference, and that we will still be able to continue using Firefox like we always have.

[BigSilly]

Personally, I don't intend dropping my usage of Firefox for this. It's annoying, but it's made me reconsider my use of Flash altogether and I'll definitely be looking to not install it in the future. I hope, certainly as far as video playback on the net is concerned, that HTML5 will gather pace in the not too distant future. As for Flash ads and whatnot, well I won't miss those. If those companies don't think anyone using a Linux based system in 2012 is worth advertising to, then that's their loss, not mine.

[Primefalcon]

Well a lot may stay using firefox, a lot may switch to chrome, and a lot of people may also say f linux and sitch back to windows....

lack of this kind of support will hurt LInux I think for new adopters... I can hear the cries now... what I cant even watch flash video's on firefox in Linux WTF....

Hopefully flash will die very quick or... some serious support will really get thrown behind gnash....

Sure we all do hate flash but it is very widely used....

[alexcckll]

One massive dealbreaker this side of the pond will be the case of BBC iPlayer, ITV NetPlayer, 4OD and Demand5. All of which use Adobe Flash - and instst on the Adobe product.

Even *I'm* thinking "will I have to replace kit and just use Windows?"

[MisterGaribaldi]

It would appear from a lot of the responses in this thread that :

a) Nobody minds losing Mozilla Firefox as an option for web browsing.

I already don't use it on either of the OSs I use on desktop systems, and I also don't use it at all on the my college's computers.


b) Nobody minds basically having Chrome/chromium as the only viable option for viewing Flash content on the internet.

Which is due to the fact that I'm using Chrome on all of them already.


c) The majority wholeheartedly support Adobe in their decison to drop Flash from active development.

Trying to gauge "support" in the Linux world is like trying to herd cats, but without as much benefit.


d) The Linux Foundation effectively does not care, just so long as the money keeps coming in.

LF is quite obviously no different than any other organization. What was it that they used to say in Dune? Ah yes, "The spice MUST flow."



e) people who think that it won't make any difference, and that we will still be able to continue using Firefox like we always have.

Fixed that for you.



Personally, I don't intend dropping my usage of Firefox for this. It's annoying, but it's made me reconsider my use of Flash altogether and I'll definitely be looking to not install it in the future. I hope, certainly as far as video playback on the net is concerned, that HTML5 will gather pace in the not too distant future. As for Flash ads and whatnot, well I won't miss those. If those companies don't think anyone using a Linux based system in 2012 is worth advertising to, then that's their loss, not mine.

I'm sorry, but this is still the kind of attitude that is retarding Linux-on-the-desktop's potential progress. "As long as I get what I want / Linux supports my needs, then I don't give a f*** about anyone else." That's a really nice attitude, BigSilly.

[BigSilly]

I'm sorry, but this is still the kind of attitude that is retarding Linux-on-the-desktop's potential progress. "As long as I get what I want / Linux supports my needs, then I don't give a f*** about anyone else." That's a really nice attitude, BigSilly.

OK, but what is getting upset and angry about it going to do? I'm only speaking for myself. If I can't have Flash, then that's that. I've got to look at the alternatives. I'm not trying to colour anyone's opinion, only expressing my own, and unfortunately I'm painted into a corner.

I'm not saying F you to anyone. I'm simply saying OK, this is what we have to deal with, I don't like it but I'm stuck with it, what can I do next? Get rid of my Linux installs? I don't really want to do that. Move back to Windows only? I can do that but for Flash only it seems silly.

Very disappointed that you reacted so aggressively to my post. I'm as keen as anyone to see Linux and Ubuntu thrive, but with this I fear we're stuck with acceptance of the fact only. Unless there's another plan I don't know of...

[forrestcupp]

what I cant even watch flash video's on firefox in Linux WTF....

YouTube still only requires Flash version 10.0.22 (http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=78358), even today.

Hulu requires Flash Player version 10.1.53.64 (http://www.hulu.com/support/article/166380).

BBC iPlayer app only requires Flash Player 10.1 (http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/tablets/app_requirements).

Flash Player 10.1 has been out for 2 years, and Flash Player 10.0 has been out for 3.5 years, so it's not like they're really jumping at making us stay with the latest version.

We have the official Flash Player 11.2 that works in Firefox or any other browser in Linux. I'll say it again; they're not going to hack into everyone's computers and uninstall Flash 11.2 and obliterate every instance of its packages on the web. They've committed to keep rolling out security updates for the Linux version 11.2 for years to come.

I also checked addictinggames.com. They require Flash Player 8.0.

There's nothing to freak out about, people.

[winh8r]

YouTube still only requires Flash version 10.0.22 (http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=78358), even today.

Hulu requires Flash Player version 10.1.53.64 (http://www.hulu.com/support/article/166380).

BBC iPlayer app only requires Flash Player 10.1 (http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/tablets/app_requirements).

Flash Player 10.1 has been out for 2 years, and Flash Player 10.0 has been out for 3.5 years, so it's not like they're really jumping at making us stay with the latest version.

We have the official Flash Player 11.2 that works in Firefox or any other browser in Linux. I'll say it again; they're not going to hack into everyone's computers and uninstall Flash 11.2 and obliterate every instance of its packages on the web. They've committed to keep rolling out security updates for the Linux version 11.2 for years to come.

I also checked addictinggames.com. They require Flash Player 8.0.

There's nothing to freak out about, people.


I see what you are saying here, but these requirements are the minimum requirements in order to function. All previous versions of Flash have been replaced for a variety of reasons, the most important being gaping vulnerabilities in browser security when running Flash content, like any software as the patches increase it becomes necessary to release a newer version which addresses all the known vulnerabilities and so on , right up to where we are now , version 11 which as we know has some pretty major faults , particularly the "smurf" effect and constant crashing and performance issues with Nvidia graphics cards in many cases, Adobe are not going to address this. It is not a security issue it is a performance issue and they no longer support the development of Flash Player on Linux. End Of.

There is little point in having the empty promise of five years of security fixes for a product that doesn't even function properly, a month after development stops.


And those who keep saying that html5 will save us all, if you can give us a date when this will happen then you are one step ahead of the developers of html5. It is undoubtedly in development but there is no concrete date for widespread implementation or availability. Also bear in mind please that as Linux users we are a minority group on the internet, and when companies decide to stop supporting platforms that we require, it does little to hurt them as they have lucrative tie-ins with the "market leaders".

[lovinglinux]

I see what you are saying here, but these requirements are the minimum requirements in order to function. All previous versions of Flash have been replaced for a variety of reasons, the most important being gaping vulnerabilities in browser security when running Flash content, like any software as the patches increase it becomes necessary to release a newer version which addresses all the known vulnerabilities and so on , right up to where we are now , version 11 which as we know has some pretty major faults , particularly the "smurf" effect and constant crashing and performance issues with Nvidia graphics cards in many cases, Adobe are not going to address this. It is not a security issue it is a performance issue and they no longer support the development of Flash Player on Linux. End Of.

There is little point in having the empty promise of five years of security fixes for a product that doesn't even function properly, a month after development stops.

Flash support threads has increased substantially since the official release of the final version. Although most complains are from users experiencing SMURF effect, there are also reports from users that can't use flash at all or suffering from stability issues. I wonder how things will be an year from now.


And those who keep saying that html5 will save us all, if you can give us a date when this will happen then you are one step ahead of the developers of html5. It is undoubtedly in development but there is no concrete date for widespread implementation or availability. Also bear in mind please that as Linux users we are a minority group on the internet, and when companies decide to stop supporting platforms that we require, it does little to hurt them as they have lucrative tie-ins with the "market leaders".

It has been 2 years since Google started to test HTML5 on YouTube, announced WebM and opensourced VP8 :

http://mashable.com/2010/05/19/google-webm-html5/

However, YouTube is still highly dependent on Flash. HTML5 support is still a trial, lacks functionality and widespread adoption, even on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/html5

The most interesting part of that page is this one:


Videos with ads are not supported (they will play in the Flash player)

If Google, which develops WebM, has not migrated YouTube completely after 2 years, how long it will take for Flash to disappear from sites that use DRM?

Not to mention the fact that Google announced the removal of h.264 support from Chrome a year ago.

http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html


We expect even more rapid innovation in the web media platform in the coming year and are focusing our investments in those technologies that are developed and licensed based on open web principles. To that end, we are changing Chrome's HTML5 <video> support to make it consistent with the codecs already supported by the open Chromium project. Specifically, we are supporting the WebM (VP8 and Theora video codecs, and will consider adding support for other high-quality open codecs in the future. Though H.264 plays an important role in video, as our goal is to enable open innovation, support for the codec will be removed and our resources directed towards completely open codec technologies.

Well, Chrome still supports the proprietary h.264 codec and now they will develop PepperFlash. :shock:

If Google loves open web so much, why is it investing in the development of a proprietary technology that is supposedly doomed, using an self-developed API that nobody wants?