File: KILL HTML5.swf-(159 KB, 720x480, Other)
[_] Screw HTML5 Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)00:56:54 No.3272928
my first attempt at flash
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)01:52:40 No.3272934
there is nothing wrong with html5
>> [_] fuck the new internet 08/16/17(Wed)01:53:12 No.3272935
and then unpause it. The animations gets FUCKED ecause apple is retarded and cant code. Also fuck
steve jobs. That fucking liar. Making up shit about flash, because flash made it easy to make fun
programs, cutting out from the shit appstore from shit apple. At least he is no more...
>> [_] fuck the new internet 08/16/17(Wed)01:56:47 No.3272936
says someone who never had to use html5
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)02:21:07 No.3272940
what's wrong with html5?
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)02:45:17 No.3272947
the internet will change for better or for worse that is a fact. I hate the new internet just as
much as you, but there is no point in getting upset over it. Media conveyor was a thing some time
ago and it died because people stopped using it and flash took over and so now here we are now
media conveyor is unheard of and most of thos who know that media conveyor was know thanks to
this https://archive.org/details/SouthParkHalloweenSpecialNeverSeenBefore if adobe would not pull
the plug it would just rot away like media conveyor did. we are seeing what happened to media
conveyor happen to flash and one day security vulnerabilities will come out about html5 and html5
will go the way of flash. don't get upset just grab a bag of popcorn and see what happens
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)02:47:11 No.3272948
html5 has a big learning curve but that doesn't mean it is bad
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:20:58 No.3272955
THIS, A THOUSAND TIMES THIS!
This is what I keep telling you sheeple, but nobody seems to get it.
Feels bad man
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:25:28 No.3272956
HTML5 is crap, HTML4.1 was crap, HTTP 2.0 is unrepentant shit. Properly done flash is far more
transparent than properly done modern HTML, it's generally more portable, and absolutely more
IEEE and W3C bandwaggoning on google's shitty in-house spec only makes browsers and the standard
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:27:58 No.3272958
But Flash is so incredibly insecure (according to Google), even though you could remotely disable
it without any issue, unlike with that bloated piece of shit html5!
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:34:32 No.3272960
>(according to Google)
There's your bias.
True it is insecure, but so is everything else under the sun. Adobe is just knuckling under the
pressure and using "muh standards" as an excuse to finally drop the piece of shit they made out
of flash... which ironically is STILL the best option.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:38:52 No.3272965
Couldn't the Flash format be continued open source, even without any real updates? There are
plenty of software that replaces Flash Studio already.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:42:08 No.3272967
>>(according to Google)
>There's your bias.
Mozilla and Google are upset about Flash vulnerabilities is because Flash really is incredibly
insecure. Due to Flash Player's black-box nature it's virtually impossible to make a safe browser
that can play Flash content.
>Couldn't the Flash format be continued open source, even without any real updates?
From what I understand, it's the lack of open interpreters that's the major issue, not the spec
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:45:58 No.3272968
Except nobody in the entire universe except for browser developers gives a single fuck about
vulnerability related to flash. And there is the simplest solution in the entire world to any
security issue that might arise from Flash: Just keep it on a fucking strict play only if allowed
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:50:02 No.3272969
wow so flash is even better than html5 in the effort needed in learning it?
something tells me that in 2040 someone who has never even heard of flash before discovers it and
makes a reddit thread (or whatever people are using by then) titled "great technology abandoned
during early days of internet"
it will be full of people saying stuff like "wtf, it was so much better, why did people give up
on it?" and "eh, why did they take a step backwards?"
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:53:39 No.3272970
>Except nobody in the entire universe except for browser developers gives a single fuck about
vulnerability related to flash.
Well yeah. Adobe ought to care, but they clearly don't and never will. Users don't know or care
about who's software is broken, they just see that browsing porn sites gives them viruses and
blame their browser.
That leaves the job of trying to limit the amount of damage Flash can do to the browser
developers, who have almost no control of the situation. Maybe if we lived in some alternate
reality, where Flash became a widely-implemented open standard for online content then moving
from Flash to JS would be daft. But we don't.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:56:12 No.3272972
The thing you need to understand about internet megacorps is that they all try to mold the
internet in their own image. This is why all the major browsers, major OS's, and major
stakeholders like Google all have a vested interest in killing off whatever doesn't fit their
>Due to Flash Player's black-box nature it's virtually impossible to make a safe browser that can
play Flash content
Not the browser-maker's problem. It's the plugin-maker's problem and the consumer's risk. All a
browser has to do is provide access to one of two plugins that work universally well (NPAPI or
PPAPI) This already exists, and because of the selfish, globalist view of these providers, it is
being taken away to make space for some other utopian ideal.
>Couldn't the Flash format be continued open source, even without any real updates? There are
plenty of software that replaces Flash Studio already.
LET ME REPEAT YET AGAIN...
Flash is not going away, Adobe is still maintaining Flash core and Actionscript, implemented
through AIR, Builder, and Animate.
What's going away is the ability to view flash natively in major browsers, as they are
deprecating the plugin architecture, by agreement with all the Powers That Be.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)03:56:23 No.3272973
It's just Adobe's handling of it that fucked them straight out of the industry. What a bunch of
Guess they don't care about Flash now that Toon Boom and similar are around and that they still
get mad jewbux from Photoshop.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:01:47 No.3272976
cookies are incredibly insecure as well, according to many sources. we keep going over and over
on this but people don't listen.
i mean some people even think a simple redirect from a flash file to a download with virus means
that the flash itself is a vulnerability.
>flash makes a popup and derpy browser 1.01 download a virus
>gah evil flash (when in reality it was the browser that was bad)
it's just like the staff over at newgrounds said:
>2. Flash as a security threat was kind of a meme. Yes, Flash had vulnerabilities that needed to
be patched and it was a bummer that it was a closed system. However your OS and your web browser
also have vulnerabilities that get patched, as does all software. It became a popular thing to
complain about but the reality is most people were getting their viruses and malware somewhere
other than through an SWF file.
i also liked the point about flash ads...
>1. Flash was never the reason for bad advertising on the web, bad ad companies were. Most ads
are now using HTML5 and the irony is they are larger files and often consume more resources than
Flash did. We also have new problems, for example Flash-based ads were never able to steal focus
from your browser and force the page to scroll back to the ad. HTML5 ads that do that have been
cropping up on NG this past year and we have to chase them down. We’re also seeing more ads that
do forced page redirects.
there were more security vulnerabilities discovered in both MacOS and Windows than in flash any
i think the real reason google wanted flash gone was because they didnt own it themselves and the
reason adobe want it gone now is because they failed to make it profitable.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:04:11 No.3272977
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:06:43 No.3272978
Like I said. Flash had a separate process or some kind of wrapper on every browser. If some
horrible flash ad was bothering you, all you had to do was just disable it.
You can't disable HTML5. At all. It is inherently less secure than flash, and much worse to
contain to boot.
And yeah, HTML5 basically belongs to Google. It's the same reason why Apple keeps trying to force
retarded standards on their own industry - because they can get royalties, or at least have
complete control over their own standard. And Google wants to have control over fucking
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:07:28 No.3272980
Because it's part of the spec that google doesn't control, the W3C and IETF have just taken
google's browser specific bullshit and made it the standard despite them being fucking backwards
trash, anything that google doesn't control is considered harmful to their core despite usually
being better designed and more powerful and more extensible.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:09:38 No.3272981
I was never a big fan of Newgrounds, but they really hit the nail on the head with those comments.
>cookies are incredibly insecure as well, according to many sources. we keep going over and over
on this but people don't listen.
Does anybody even know about Flash cookies (LSOs or 'supercookies')? Look it up. Then get Better
Privacy plugin to manage them.THEN GET BUTTHURT, because browsers are methodically removing
We have bigger monsters to worry about than simply the loss of native Flash support.
Browsers will soon become the biggest failware in all of internet history.
We're making negative progress here.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:13:18 No.3272985
>You can't disable HTML5. At all. It is inherently less secure than flash, and much worse to
contain to boot.
You just cracked another part of the megacorp code.
Now advertisers can just get in your face with no hope of you using a blocker.
Also, ever notice you simply cannot right-click to grab an image, or if you can, on say... a GIF-
all you get is one frame, not the whole thing?
It's all about control, all about molding the internet to what THEY want.
"Open Standards" are only an illusion of plebian control, but teh implementation nightmare they
introduce only serves the Masters.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:14:31 No.3272986
Those old encrypted SOL object cookies?
What's worse is that they had a chance to remove cookies entirely, but the money for the IETF
comes from those advertising and tracking companies, we could have a standard without these
security risks that are built in intentionally to harm users but google and friends don't
actually want that.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:19:41 No.3272988
>Those old encrypted SOL object cookies?
>but the money for the IETF
If you ever want to know the reason for something happening,
ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:20:50 No.3272989
>And Google wants to have control over fucking everything.
I remember when I decided to try out Google Chrome one day. Hit CTRL+Shift+DEL to clear my
browsing history and what do I see?
"Some settings that may reflect browsing habits will not be cleared."
Google admits it right there plain as day that they spy on you. More than usual I mean, that the
browser is doing something you do not know about in the background.
I really don't understand how Chrome can be the most used browser today, it isn't a good idea to
feed the giant more when they are already a giant.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:24:10 No.3272990
>What's worse is that they had a chance to remove cookies entirely
to be clear im not against cookies. they are a really important part of browsing. im just saying
that they aren't a threat at all (they are not incredibly insecure).
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:29:31 No.3272992
There's the thing, they're not really important, for years there have been calls to replace
cookies with sessions using a proper socket architecture in the HTTP standard, the kind of object
they are now is very much insecure and easy to use for tracking and malicious purposes and is
less useful for what is supposedly the legitimate use for cookies of login sessions and
short-term local storage. The way things are is a great security and privacy risk and the people
responsible are on the take from the people abusing it.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:37:48 No.3272995
It goes line in line with the modern philosophy of web design. They are all incredibly
anti-consumer and anti-browser. Just take Twitter for example. You need a third party fucking
application to download anything, or dig deep enough to grab some live HTTP headers in order to
just download a single fucking video. Pre-loaders and buffers, the whole thing stems from the
modern browser's complete fucking inability to optimize anything or design anything well, so the
sites have to force their own backwards bullshit on top.
I'm pretty sure I've managed to disable HTML5 and the works on my old version of Firefox, as well
as a slurry of supporting plugins that guts and removes all the bullshit from every modern
website. I can't even use youtube in a browser, it's so broken and infested with HTML5 that I
can't stand it - I just manually download every video or stream it to a normal, native video
player - which, by the way, outclass HTML5 in performance on every mark.
There are no alternatives. To the normal, you either use Firefox or Chrome or neither and just go
with Microsoft Fucking Edge because you don't know anything. Maybe Safari if you're a macfag. A
normal does not know or give a shit about Palemoon or whatever, they just take whatever they get,
and Chrome is what'll they get until the end of time or until Google fucks up enough to render it
completely inoperable. Google needs to die.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:38:08 No.3272996
they are important. you can keep a bunch of stuff client-side without having to save it on the
server requests/resources down.
you seem to focus on session cookies, which are useful too, but not the main thing about cookies.
letting the user keeping track of which color template to use is much better than my server
looking up his IPs preferred setting, especially since many people change IPs or share IPs with
many other people (could be 1 router, 100 browsers)
that thing about security/privacy risks are just untrue, you cant access cookies from other
domains so privacy isn't an issue (except for google of course) and i dont know how a string of
text could be insecure.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:41:00 No.3272998
Well the problem is that the web goes the same way TV and Radio is now. And it's doing that
quick. Some split between corporate and free web would be great. Wouldnt mind to have to plug two
different cables for that into my PC. Or maybe I need to move to russia for more freedom.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:41:35 No.3273000
>There are no alternatives.
You just listed a good alternative though, why wouldn't Firefox be an alternative to Chrome?
Also daily general reminder to people that Google's name is Alphabet Inc. now (they created a new
daughter company named Google). Proof is Alphabet's stock listing.
Also they changed their old motto from "Don't be evil" to "Do the right thing".
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:44:02 No.3273001
Because modern Firefox is basically just Chrome. It's as much of an alternative as a kick to the
right bollock is to a kick to both.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:48:25 No.3273004
>Not the browser-maker's problem.
It IS the browser-makers problem, because all the public pressure is on them, and Adobe will
never do shit about security. They might not have started the fire, but it's their house that's
>cookies are incredibly insecure as well, according to many sources
I'm not sure what your point is.
>Yes, Flash had vulnerabilities that needed to be patched and it was a bummer that it was a
>However your OS and your web browser also have vulnerabilities that get patched, as does all
That's basically my main point: Flash has exploits that need to be patched. Browsers have
exploits that get patched.
So long as Adobe is neither willing to do the job themselves, nor let other people step in, Flash
is not a good platform.
>i think the real reason google wanted flash gone was because they didnt own it themselves
They don't own JS either.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:48:33 No.3273005
Whenever 9front's i browser becomes feature complete there will be no reason to ever again
mention firefox or chrome.
>You just listed a good alternative though
Palemoon still has a lot of the problems that firefox has, the gecko engine is overburdened with
bullshit and is hacked together in much the same way that Windows is being an unholy amalgamation
of 32bit base and tacked on barely thought out 64bit extension. They don't have the recent bad
decisions of extension signing or EME but it would still need to be rebuilt from the ground up to
fix it. Most "alternative" web browsers are literally just libwebkit, geko, or whatever it is
that safari and microsoft are built on frontends that have all the same issues as they have the
same compliance rate to the standards which are still shit.
It just takes people who care to maintain an alternative spec, create something better than
HTTP/2.0 and HTML5, something simpler and more transparent, something like werc but more
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:51:34 No.3273007
>They don't own JS either.
They developed HTML5 and HTTP2.0 and Node.js, as well as a large number of the whole groundswell
of JS dependencies and libraries that are part of every web 3.0 bullshit site that since no one
bothers to read would require you to rebuild an ALU in the code to make sure they haven't
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:53:16 No.3273008
Chrome without the spying part sounds good in my book.
>>Palemoon still has a lot of the problems that firefox has, the gecko engine is[...]
Dude I've been using Firefox for 7 years now and while all of what you just said might be true
none of that has ever affected me in any way. Surfing is smooth as ever and not once have I
thought to myself "gee what a superior experience" when I see a friend using Google Chrome. When
there's no real, actual difference in surfing with the things I would just pick the one that
doesn't openly admit that they are spying on you and the one that doesn't further advance the
position of the biggest player on Internet.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:56:55 No.3273009
>chrome without the spying part
That's just Chromium.
Except that's only the beginning.
The spying part is divided into user telemetry, usage telemetry and Google's integration
bullshit. There is a lot of it. Then there's plugin support and Google's bullshit "authorized
plugins" that prevents you from using anything that isn't personally approved by (((them)))
unless you do some digging. Then there's the whole problem of differing plugin support and
retarded live plugin features that came in recently.
Oh, and the page-less history tab is a crock of shit. I fucking hate that design. Who the fuck
decided that having to scroll down for several minutes just to get to an older date was a better
idea than just jumping to it with a fucking page hyperlink? Now it's fucking everywhere.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)04:58:47 No.3273011
>Browsers have exploits that get patched.
Browsers have plenty of exploits that don't get patched or can't get patched, the codebase for
firefox and chrome is so many levels of magnitude larger than flashplayer it is completely
irrelevant to compare the two in terms of vendor response. If for every two lines of code in
flash there was a security bug that will never get patched there would be ten times as many
security bugs in firefox as it really is. Not to mention that the EME sandbox is apparently made
of magic and can keep a separate running application from gaining any information about the
surrounding system while giving it a key that is unique to the system, because apparently there's
a way to reliably generate the same unique key on the same system without giving away information
about the system.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)05:09:11 No.3273013
>Oh, and the page-less history tab is a crock of shit.
I dislike these "endless scrolling" pages as well. It's especially annoying on YouTube for me if
I want to watch a whole channel and I accidentally left-click and have to then go back and scroll
down again and try to find my place.
I assume they don't want you to look at old videos because their algorithms are more focused on
newer videos and can therefore bring you more relevant ads. Endless scrolling is not only a
time-consuming feature but it prevents you from instantly jumping to old videos, making you get
the feeling of going back in time to "outdated" videos when scrolling down. Which further helps
Google in keeping you watching newer videos.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)05:35:27 No.3273016
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)06:45:58 No.3273032
>that thing about security/privacy risks are just untrue, you cant access cookies from other
domains so privacy isn't an issue (except for google of course) and i dont know how a string of
text could be insecure.
WHOA BABBY, you need to do your homework...
and these are just a taste of the volumes of data out there, more than you could digest in years
tl;dr- cookies are shit. Don't rely on them for "a better browsing experience" if these holes
>Flash is not a good platform.
and yet it's still better than the shit being offered in its place. Ironic, huh?
>Google's bullshit "authorized plugins" that prevents you from using anything that isn't
personally approved by (((them))) unless you do some digging.
Even that is being crippled every version, the switches that you used to be able to flip to your
liking are being removed every time. Same with Firefux. There's no winning with them, it's like
trying to drain the ocean with a sieve.
>the page-less history tab is a crock of shit
HAHA! You reminded me of Chrome's rollout- the very first version advertised itself as "One box
for everything" with that infuriatingly sparse and useless UI. One box for everything is like
having a kitchen with no cabinets... all your cookware and ingredients in one big pile on the
floor. Be grateful you have a stove, but WAIT! WE'RE REPLACING IT WITH A MICROWAVE! YAY!
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)06:51:03 No.3273033
>are being removed every time.
Which is why I've decided I won't ever update anything again. Firefox, Windows, even fucking
NVidia packs in telemetry instead of any fixes or features in their updates now. No Windows
update past WinXP has ever fixed any of my problems, or any of anyone's problems ever, and
Firefox has only managed to introduce more buggy shit that's leaking memory all over the place no
matter what you do. At least it fucking works.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)07:03:50 No.3273036
i'm gonna be there and will tell them the tales.
i now have a life goal, thanks anon
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)07:49:39 No.3273040
whoa babby, i bet all those things are browser related and dont have anything to do with the
actual concept of cookies that we're talking about here
"yeah in my days we could have a 30 minute long animation in 16K at less than 5 MiB, and most of
that was audio! randomness? sure son, we could do whatever we want in our animations, even
include clickable links to our own homepages or let the viewer select which way the story goes."
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)08:02:05 No.3273041
lulz at those urls. the one from 2009 of course say that "Many browsers have a flaw...", meaning
it's browser-related. being that it's been 8 years of patches the problems should be gone.
the 2015 article states that all browsers affected have fixed the issue. don't even get me
started on how irrelevant the last link is - it's from 1998!
cookies are great, just as much as flash is great. you cant point at cookies and say that there
could be a problem in this thing, therefore it is bad and must be removed. that's the same
argument they used for removing flash. "it could be exploited, maybe, in the future before we
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)10:49:29 No.3273064
you can use tor,i2p or freenet to get away from the corporate side of the internet. the problem
is normal people don't think like us they care more about convenience than freedom, are ignorant
of now bad it is or just say there is nothing we can do about it
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)10:50:01 No.3273065
The point is they are not bulletproof, and will, just like everything else, always be insecure.
If it can be built, it can be un-built. This is the hacker's first Law.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)16:46:49 No.3273119
So which is better?
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)16:49:33 No.3273121
Give up and just use IRC and play videogames.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)16:55:14 No.3273124
Screw this, I'm going back to Usenet.
NNTP fo' life, yo.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/16/17(Wed)17:20:17 No.3273136
it is like the question which is better pc or mac because it's the exact same answer, neither