Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HTML5 Flash Player (Shumway) lands in Mozilla

gemal.dk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 181 posts

Re: HTML5 Flash Player (Shumway) lands in Mozilla

#21

Post by Wintamute »

spongle wrote: post #3

Great effort but I really don't want this. I've lived without Flash for a year now and all is good. We just need to break the crack addiction!

There's no real conceptual difference between a element, a element, a WebGL experience, a NaCl app or a Flash on your webpage. They're all somewhat non-semantic, hard to search, rich media black boxes. So what's your particular beef with Flash, especially when rendered via HTML5? Or do you just hate all tools that enable creativity beyond a plain text website equally? Or did you just drink the Flash-should-die KoolAid without really thinking about it?

Re: HTML5 Flash Player (Shumway) lands in Mozilla

#22

Post by devx »

spongle wrote: post #3

Great effort but I really don't want this. I've lived without Flash for a year now and all is good. We just need to break the crack addiction!

This will actually make Flash go away faster, since now more devices and browsers can start ignoring supporting Flash.

Re: HTML5 Flash Player (Shumway) lands in Mozilla

#23

Post by mohawk »

Wintamute wrote: post #21
spongle wrote: post #3

Great effort but I really don't want this. I've lived without Flash for a year now and all is good. We just need to break the crack addiction!

There's no real conceptual difference between a element, a element, a WebGL experience, a NaCl app or a Flash on your webpage. They're all somewhat non-semantic, hard to search, rich media black boxes. So what's your particular beef with Flash, especially when rendered via HTML5? Or do you just hate all tools that enable creativity beyond a plain text website equally? Or did you just drink the Flash-should-die KoolAi…

I can tell you what my problem is with flash: the reference implementation by Adobe stinks.

Re: HTML5 Flash Player (Shumway) lands in Mozilla

#24

Post by gpvos »

spongle wrote: post #3

Great effort but I really don't want this. I've lived without Flash for a year now and all is good. We just need to break the crack addiction!

The main problem for me was that it was a proprietary, terribly buggy and insecure piece of code. In principle, Shumway should fix that.

The other problem is autoplaying audio and video, which is annoying in the extreme. So I hope there will remain a click-to-activate option for this.

Re: HTML5 Flash Player (Shumway) lands in Mozilla

#25

Post by spongle »

Wintamute wrote: post #21
spongle wrote: post #3

Great effort but I really don't want this. I've lived without Flash for a year now and all is good. We just need to break the crack addiction!

There's no real conceptual difference between a element, a element, a WebGL experience, a NaCl app or a Flash on your webpage. They're all somewhat non-semantic, hard to search, rich media black boxes. So what's your particular beef with Flash, especially when rendered via HTML5? Or do you just hate all tools that enable creativity beyond a plain text website equally? Or did you just drink the Flash-should-die KoolAi…

Yes there is.

You misunderstand.

My beef is with NaCl, objects, Applets and ActiveX etc as well, mainly because they run outside of the browser's engine, sandbox, security model and conceptual model. you also have to ship them externally to the browser.

Canvas, video, webgl fine.

Re: HTML5 Flash Player (Shumway) lands in Mozilla

#26

Post by Grue3 »

hcopr wrote: post #16

Nothing beats the ease with which the regular flash player can be blocked, and then occasionally loaded by mouse click as it works with flash block and the like. The danger of it becoming an extension is that it's now more difficult to have that block/override workflow. And there's always the dreadful prospect of people embedding it directly into their site, potentially leading to a new wave of blanket JavaScript blo…

The current reliance of sites on Javascript is worse than Flash ever was. Flash elements can be blocked, but if you block javascript, this disables the entire site, so you have to live with CPU chugging mess of a website.

Re: HTML5 Flash Player (Shumway) lands in Mozilla

#29

Post by biot »

spongle wrote: post #25
Wintamute wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no real conceptual difference between a element, a element, a WebGL experience, a NaCl app or a Flash on your webpage. They're all somewhat non-semantic, hard to search, rich media black boxes. So what's your particular beef with Flash, especially when rendered via HTML5? Or do you just hate all tools that enable creativity beyond a plain text website equally? Or did you just drink the Flash-should-die KoolAi…

Yes there is. You misunderstand. My beef is with NaCl, objects, Applets and ActiveX etc as well, mainly because they run outside of the browser's engine, sandbox, security model and conceptual model. you also have to ship them externally to the browser. Canvas, video, webgl fine.

From the fine article:

  "Shumway is an HTML5 technology experiment that explores
   building a faithful and efficient renderer for the SWF file
   format without native code assistance."
By your criteria, you should be fine with this.

Re: HTML5 Flash Player (Shumway) lands in Mozilla

#30

Post by Bjoern »

Wintamute wrote: post #21
spongle wrote: post #3

Great effort but I really don't want this. I've lived without Flash for a year now and all is good. We just need to break the crack addiction!

There's no real conceptual difference between a element, a element, a WebGL experience, a NaCl app or a Flash on your webpage. They're all somewhat non-semantic, hard to search, rich media black boxes. So what's your particular beef with Flash, especially when rendered via HTML5? Or do you just hate all tools that enable creativity beyond a plain text website equally? Or did you just drink the Flash-should-die KoolAi…

Draining excessively my CPU and Memory for no good reason, being insecure, etc.
Post reply on HN