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

Is Flash Dead Yet? - 2010

isflashdeadyet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–56 of 56 posts

Re: Is Flash Dead Yet? - 2010

#51

Post by girvo »

userbinator wrote: post #16
Jack000 wrote: post #11

I feel like some kind of web luddite for saying this, but does anyone else actually like flash? yes, people abused it and most flash apps were crap, but now I'm seeing more and more of the same done in css animations/javascript. It's worse too, since most people just do something like jQuery.animate and update the dom every frame. I personally liked the actionscript 3 graphics api a lot more than javascript + canvas.…

It's also easy to block Flash (I have it disabled by default), but not so easy to block JS or CSS animations selectively. Having done some decompilation/deobfuscation stuff I've worked with the Flash file format directly at the byte level, and it's really quite nice and efficient for its purpose - although you wouldn't see that from the direction Adobe's plugins have taken. IMHO it was good when it was still called M…

Oh god. You've just reminded me of hacking the Nitto 1320 drag racing game: it was a "desktop" app that was actually a Flash exe. Decompiling it was a lot of fun, seeing Jeff build a completely hacked client and doing it myself...

Fun times. I had a lot of time on my hands as a kid.

Re: Is Flash Dead Yet? - 2010

#52

Post by [deleted] »

gbl08ma wrote: post #18
kijin wrote: post #2

Four years after YouTube started "experimenting" with HTML5, it still uses Flash by default to show me videos on the latest versions of Firefox and IE. If Flash is not installed, YouTube resorts to HTML5 , which seems to play just fine, but still displays a big red warning about the missing Flash. Why can't they use HTML5 by default and resort to Flash if and only if the browser doesn't support HTML5? Why do they hav…

HTML5 YouTube plays just fine on my newish (2 years old) laptop, which has a discreet Nvidia GPU, with Chrome (no matter if I'm on Windows or Linux). However, the temperature of the GPU increases noticeably while watching videos (i.e. it is doing more work) and the speed of the fan increases, too. It's like this with every element I put to play. With Flash, any increase in resource consumption is unnoticeable. Some d…

[deleted]

Re: Is Flash Dead Yet? - 2010

#53

Post by gkoberger »

clarry wrote: post #32
gkoberger wrote: post #7

Man I hate Flash. But for all the shit it gets, I can't help but be grateful for it. Because of Flash, we've had easy to use video on the Internet for a decade. It's 2014, and browsers still can't do video as well as Flash. Yes, it's time for Flash to die. But it really stepped in and moved the web forward when the browsers and W3C were too slow. It deserves an honorable discharge.

For me "easy to use video on the Internet" always was a direct link to a file that I can download just like any file, and play in my media player of choice just like any other video file. Flash never worked so well; it only ever caused grief for its crashes, slowness, security problems, nonportability, compatibility issues, etc. So far HTML5 hasn't worked much better. I don't see how flash moved the web forward, it c…

There's two kinds of video on the web.

If I'm going to watch a movie, would I prefer to use VLC? Sure.

But do I want to download 10 second YouTube clips? God no.

Re: Is Flash Dead Yet? - 2010

#54

Post by kripy »

You have to remember that Flash is driving a $100+ billion industry in online advertising aka ad banners (although you're all using ad blockers right)? And this goes from banner creation all the way to ad serving technology. I just can't see this going away any time soon.

Re: Is Flash Dead Yet? - 2010

#55

Post by kijin »

hdctambien wrote: post #40
okasaki wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harm doesn't have to be inevitable for something to be morally bad. E.g. drunk driving, unprotected sex, and so on.

Unprotected sex is morally bad?

If you know that there is a risk of harm -- STD or an unwanted pregnancy -- and fail to take reasonable steps to reduce that risk, I suppose that counts as "bad".

Example of unprotected sex that is probably OK: (both partners are STD-free) && (they are using a different method of birth control || they actually want a baby || it is impossible for a pregnancy to occur because they're same-sex or one of them is sterile)

Re: Is Flash Dead Yet? - 2010

#56

Post by clarry »

gkoberger wrote: post #53
clarry wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me "easy to use video on the Internet" always was a direct link to a file that I can download just like any file, and play in my media player of choice just like any other video file. Flash never worked so well; it only ever caused grief for its crashes, slowness, security problems, nonportability, compatibility issues, etc. So far HTML5 hasn't worked much better. I don't see how flash moved the web forward, it c…

There's two kinds of video on the web. If I'm going to watch a movie, would I prefer to use VLC? Sure. But do I want to download 10 second YouTube clips? God no.

Given a direct link to a file, you're free to deal with it however you like. You don't actually have to wget it to your ~/Downloads/ if you don't like.

Regardless of what the user interface is going to look like on your end, you're still getting the same bytes and playing them the same way. There are two types of video: video you play back and video you play back. For both, you need to download (or "stream" if you're hip) these bytes.

Post reply on HN