File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Porn)
[_] Anon 3469532 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3469535 it was the other way tho
>> [_] Anon 3469547 >># If you believe that, you deserve a beating as well. Only the most brainless of NPCs think that HTML5 has any real advantage over flash, apart from playing a video on a site.
>> [_] Anon 3469566 >># flash could stream external H.264 video just fine tho. a little later in the timeline most browsers could play H.264 video on their own just fine without "HTML5" or well, to be honest i'm a bit at a loss over exactly what "HTML5" means. This can play a video encoded with H.264 and contained in a mp4: <video width="1337"> <source src="filename.mp4" type="video/mp4"> </video> Is that just "html"? Or is it "html55555 (wow)"? Firefox 3.5 started supporting the video tag in June 2009.
>> [_] Anon 3469568 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5 >It is the fifth and last major HTML version that is a World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) recommendation. >The current specification is known as the HTML Living Standard. >It is maintained by the Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG), a consortium of the major browser vendors (Apple, Google, Mozilla, and Microsoft). >The W3C ceded authority over the HTML and DOM standards to WHATWG on 28 May 2019, as it considered that having two standards is harmful. >The HTML Living Standard is now authoritative. However, W3C will still participate in the development process of HTML. Fuck, I had not realized that the big corporations had literally taken over the web standard. I just thought they had too much influence.
>> [_] Anon 3469574 >># >># >># >overdosing on copium lmao literally no one uses flash anymore apart from this board lol
>> [_] Anon 3469577 >># yes we're coping with stupid people, such as yourself. your point being?
>> [_] Anon 3469582 >># https://imgur.com/gallery/jWr67J8
>> [_] Anon 3469636 >># >Mooom, they are being mean to me on the internet again! >Darling, just post a non-embedded link of a simple reaction image to an external image host on a board that doesn't allow image reactions. That will show 'em!

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3459995 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3460065 >># It turned out the other way around.
>> [_] Anon 3460071 >># flash is still better but sometimes the good guys don't win

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3451066
>> [_] Anon 3451087 >># Boomers coomed to this
>> [_] Anon 3451094 \o7

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3439456 Good news everyone, Firefox can view flash files on /f/ again! I guess 4chan fixed their faulty server messages. Could this mean that someone in the staff actually gives a shit about /f/ after all? Or was it fixed just because it was something broken.
>> [_] Anon 3439465 >># oh good, that's one less extension I need running
>> [_] Anon 3439467 >># nvm, it's still broken for me
>> [_] Anon 3439471 >># Really? Maybe then it's Firefox that has changed something. Maybe they changed back to how it was before... /f/ works for me in Firefox 80.0.1. [Embed] does not work for me but opening the swf in a new tab works. It even works better than it did before, I've been having some serious performance issues with flash in Firefox, especially rendering where the screen even turned blank, but right now they work great.
>> [_] Anon 3439472 >># never had a problem viewing flashes in firefox. I would occasionally have to reload the page for them to work but all you need to do is clear the browser cache to fix that.
>> [_] Anon 3439475 >># Oh, that's what I did was try embed.
>> [_] Anon 3439476 >># wonder why embed doesn't work but opening in a new tab works. embed works on swfchan (just like it worked in the last version of firefox as well) so maybe it is Firefox that has changed something after all. and here i was hoping that the staff had noticed something was wrong with /f/ and fixed it.
>> [_] rant 3439489 What I fucking hate about this newer Firefox versions that it converts files other than what it actually is, from a single fucking PNG getting converted into .webp file for no fucking reason And what's the reply of the devs you ask? They were blaming it's the server side of the one holding the PNG file whereas the older version of firefox gets the PNG normally as it is. Fucking "Improvements" my ass
>> [_] Anon 3439495 >># you realize website can read the browser version and load a different image based on it? it's not firefox's fault. the website is brute-forcing doing basic html5 stuff.
>> [_] Anon 3439510 >># It's the server doing it. It spots that your browser is new enough that it should be able to read webp and sends that version instead to save bandwidth. I agree that it's annoying because you can't really do anything with webp images. So I just convert them to PNG... 4chan should support webp. They adopted webm and made it popular, should do the same with webp. I mean with all of hiroshimoot's whining about bandwidth you'd think he would jump right on board with the much smaller webp format. It really is an amazing format. He should of course still support PNG/JPG/GIF. webp can also be animated images just like gif ones btw, just smaller and with better quality. though those are rare and websites usually convert gif to mp4, which pisses me off. seems like thanks to twitter people call any short moving visual a gif, even if it is a movie format (maybe even if it has sound too)
>> [_] Anon 3439511 >># >usually convert gif to mp4, which pisses me off it pisses me off because it always wreck the quality. meanwhile in animated webp you'll see each pixel just like you would in a gif (none of those messy video formats). but browser and program support for animated webp is much lower than static webp files, don't know if that has changed much in later years
>> [_] Anon 3439529 >># wasn't webm itself supposed to be the gif killer already?
>> [_] Anon 3439541 >># webm is a movie format, with keyframes and non-keyframes and support for audio. it's good for showing stuff suitable for a video but it isn't an image format. say you have a pixel animation for example, you won't be able to show it with 100% sharp edges on the pixels if you use webm. with a gif, animated png or animated webp you can.
>> [_] Anon 3439545 >># Firefox has always worked on /f/, to this day and Firefox 80. Dumb tech illiterates.
>> [_] Anon 3439546 >># "works on my machine"
>> [_] Anon 3439571 if it's a white screen, I refresh and all remaining flash files work

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3436043 hiroshimoot have added /vmg/ and /vrpg/ in i believe less than two weeks, he's flooding 4chan with boards that overlap in subjects (mobile and rpg stuff is still allowed on /v/ and /vg/ + you can post about mobile rpgs on both /vrpg/ and /vmg/). if he deletes /f/ --the single most unique board on the site-- i've lost all respect for him. there would be no reason because just like you can download exe files to run offline you can do the same with swf files. Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3436044 /f/ is basically the arbiters of original memes. the board culture is rich and ancient. if /f/ dies the 00s dies with it.
>> [_] Anon 3436045 I don't think hiro or the mods have any interest in deleting a legacy board like /f/. they hate 4chan but they can't hate it that much.
>> [_] Anon 3436047 There's slower boards, and this board got noticed at covid Watanuki so i think they know that we are alive.
>> [_] Anon 3436082 >># don't be so sure! there is literally no reason for adobe to purge flash off the internet with the intensity that they do who knows! maybe they get pressured into it by adobe themselves or by a mob of stupid OMG VIRUS people complaining directly to them and threatening to do god knows what our only chance is to be literally forgotten by everyone, I hope we stay the way we are right now so, don't even talk to the moderation about it until they actually delete this!
>> [_] Anon 3436088 Source?
>> [_] Anon 3436090 >># Hubnester Rising
>> [_] Anon 3436102 You still have respect for him? Also im 99% he does absolutely no decision making and its just his 'trusted' mods that tell him to do a thing otherwise it would require him to care enough about the site to go on more than once a year
>> [_] Anon 3436104 >># Adobe is on the hook for maintaining flash. Any time there's a security flaw, people blame them for it. Flash costs money to maintain and barely anyone uses it anymore. It is definitely in their interest to purge flash from the internet as much as possible. That being said, I sincerely doubt adobe gives a shit what 4chan does.
>> [_] Anon 3436115 >># You still hold any respect for Hiro? Honestly you're wasting your time.
>> [_] Anon 3436118 >># Call to arms again, please will someone who is planning on suiciding make yourself a martyr, kidnap adobe CEO family, threaten to mail back in pieces unless flash player source code is released.
>> [_] Anon 3436121 >># I feel like I should mention that there's a SMW collaboration hack going on in /v/ right now that's got some of the old memes in it
>> [_] Anon 3436122 if /f/ gets deleted where will we go?
>> [_] Anon 3436126 >># come to think of it, does he even read English well enough to want to visit 4chan? >># you said it yourself, barely anyone uses it anymore. if mainstream browsers drop support there's no reason to put 1000 hrs into "hacking flash" or whatever people think anyone can even do with flash at this point after 5 years of nothing but security patches and no new features. if barely anyone uses flash there's no gain in making a "security exploit" that sets a tracking cookie or whatever could be possible. and if there is you'd maybe get a few guys infected that knew the risks in still using flash in off-brand browsers. i think the kill switch was a step over the line for adobe. sadly the big corporations have successfully force-phased out flash for the last three years that nobody even cares outside our little bubble.
>> [_] Anon 3436128 What will happen to this board when flash finally dies this year?
>> [_] Anon 3436130 >># he can read and write English just fine. He went to school in Arkansas of all places. he just pretends to be retarded so that he doesn't have to take as much responsibility as moot did.
>> [_] Anon 3436131 >># i've yet to see proof of that meme being true
>> [_] Anon 3436135 >># i mean... there's always 7's /fl/
>> [_] Anon 3436136 >># and swfchan. it does have a forum after all. it's not just an archive.
>> [_] Anon 3436139 >># I assumed that the editor-in-chief of Variety Japan would have at least some basic English comprehension (like an ability to write complete sentences) since his predecessor did. But looking into it more, the company which owns the English Variety just partnered with a company Hiro has some control over and that's how he got the position. Even his Linkedin page claims limited English ability (his French by comparison is "elementary").
>> [_] Anon 3436165 >># thanks for investigating, it would have been pretty weird if he just pretended to be bad at English

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3431508 Happy Midsummer You do celebrate it, right?

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Flash shall remain King Anon 3423474
>> [_] Anon 3423492 you bet

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3409510 z0r.de is back up
>> [_] Anon 3409513 can't find any announcement what happened admin was last seen 6 hours ago on the z0r forums https://board.z0r.de/member.php?action=p rofile&uid=1 but his last post was in March 2019 https://board.z0r.de/showthread.php?tid= 3892&pid=18573#pid18573
>> [_] Anon 3409621 >># tl;dr server crashed and the notification mail system crashed with it, so we had to contact him. He said he just checked the forums to clean something up.

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3398456 not over until we all say it is Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3398526 It's over, son.
>> [_] Anon 3398528 >># This. The show was over a long time ago.
>> [_] Anon 3398541 >># >># i say it's not over
>> [_] Anon 3398580 god dam it, why does it have to be over? i cant live like this.

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3384831
>> [_] Anon 3384840 go into the night and i will /f/ollow
>> [_] Anon 3384880 and my axe!

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3376829 Not dead yet.
>> [_] Anon 3376864 keep telling yourself that
>> [_] Anon 3376865 >># where's your website that archives thousands of html5 games? yeah. i thought so.
>> [_] Anon 3376867 >># Well there is http://fpgaminer.github.io/vip-html5-pla yer/
>> [_] Anon 3376868 >># >asks for site that archives thousands of HTML5 games >your brains connects the question to a replacement of a flash player that loaded external mp3 files pathetic
>> [_] Anon 3376869 >># Doesn't even work without external Javascript. Also how do I conveniently save the entire page and all its contents in a single file without special software so I can use it offline?
>> [_] Anon 3376876 >># Any site focused on rpgmaker games, for instance. Actually, these days any indie-friendly digital distributor probably carries thousands of HTML5 titlesin their catalog. Steam, DLsite, itch.io, you name it. It's not 2012 anymore. The thing is, HTML5 games aren't really comparable to flash games. The majority of flash games have always been amateur webshits whereas more professional standalone flash games were the exception. HTML5 game frameworks/engines are better suited for more serious game projects, not unlike other similar frameworks in other languages. In short, HTML5 does not compete with flash. It's on a different category. Nothing will replace the lovely piece of shit that flash is. ;_;
>> [_] Anon 3376877 >># >Any site focused on rpgmaker games, for instance. >and look at all these example URLs I have
>> [_] Anon 3376878 >># >how do I conveniently save [MUSIC STREAMING APP] so I can use it offline? Good god you retards and your mental gymnastics. vip.swf never worked offline.
>> [_] Anon 3376879 >># >># Out of curiosity I compared the performance of this with the original. Metrics recorded as soon as the app visually loaded and before first song file downloaded. These values are averages over 10 retries. I discarded two results from vip.swf because one of them never loaded and another took 14 seconds. Firefox 64.0, cache disabled. >http://fpgaminer.github.io/vip-html5-pl ayer/ >672.16 KB / 430.86 KB transferred >DOMContentLoaded: 335 ms >load: 450 ms >Finish: 2.42 s >https://vip.aersia.net/vip.swf >291.21 KB / 292.13 KB transferred >DOMContentLoaded: 726 ms >load: 1.39 s >Finish: 3.77 s And with cache enabled (normal operation): >http://fpgaminer.github.io/vip-html5-pl ayer/ >608.25 KB / 0 B transferred >DOMContentLoaded: 339 ms >load: 417 ms >Finish: 914 ms >https://vip.aersia.net/vip.swf >291.21 KB / 245.20 KB transferred >DOMContentLoaded: 565 ms >load: 1.29 s >Finish: 3.61 s Kinda surprising that the JS version is significantly faster even when it has to download all the common external libraries that are normally cached in browser. Also interesting that the DOMContentLoaded event fires much later in swf, despite there being no actual DOM - only a minimal placeholder to display the embedded swf object.
>> [_] Anon 3376880 >># firefox sandboxes the shit out of flash these days, i'd be very surprised if it was faster
>> [_] Anon 3376884 >># Yeah, it was a given that the JS version would be faster. I was just wondering how much faster. And all of this isn't even taking into account the fact that the single JS page can play all of aersia's playlists (vip, mellow, source, exiled, wap, cpp) simply by parsing another xml roster. Simple functionality like this really makes you realize how retardedly primitive the swf is. But it's really weird that DOMContentLoaded is slower on the swf. The entire browser-supplied DOM is literally one tag deep with zero CSS. How in the fuck is that loading slower than the full playlist as HTML?
>> [_] Anon 3376885 >># just for the record a vip swf could have been made to parse different xml files as well
>> [_] Anon 3376888 >># >mental gymnastics If you had employed the abilities of an average human brain you'd have realized that the general case was meant, not this specific one. Fuck off, autist.
>> [_] Anon 3376893 this flash is so gay lol
>> [_] Anon 3376899 >># Now compare with WASM in plant C.;P

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3372450 /f/orward, /f/riends
>> [_] Anon 3372571 This is a good flash and that's appreciated

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3372242 >># Get fucked.

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] View local .SWF Anon 3369847 I have few hundreds of swf and since last major Chrome update I was unable to view them localy. Until now! I present you SWF list for f/ags - simple local swf browsing. https://paste2.org/m1NUnLL2 1. Place close/next to/inside your swf collection. 2. Generate swfs.js - list of relative paths to your swfs and place it alogside of this file. 3. ??? 4. Profit Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3369870 why didnt you just download a free flashplayer?
>> [_] Anon 3369874 >># Really cool. Although I have CS6 installed which has a standalone flash player.
>> [_] Anon 3369885 >># how about just having .html where you select the file you want to view?
>> [_] Anon 3369886 >># yeah hold on let me just make all of those files and make them every time I save a flash
>> [_] Anon 3369887 >># this why complicate?
>> [_] Anon 3369905 >># that's what this is and it's automatic - just one click, no need to search for the file >># is there a free standalone flash player? but why install anything if it takes one line of html to show a swf? you guys just don't realise how convenient this is
>> [_] Anon 3369916 >># actually I put the file in my flash folder there's no real convenient way to play flash on linux this is the easiest option I've found so far thanks OP
>> [_] Anon 3369918 >># >># because CHROME. OP said he wants to run it in-browser, hello. It has its advantages (plebs don't need advantages though).
>> [_] Anon 3369919 >># but all you do is set up an open with (on windows), choose the flashplayer and itll set it as the default program, I have flashplayer standalone versions from as far back as 2004 for this shit. download, click, it runs! how fucking hard is that
>> [_] Anon 3369920 >># >on windows >the explanation has a bash command gee I wonder why OP didn't do this instead of going through the trouble of writing this
>> [_] Anon 3369926 >># https://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/fl ashplayer/updaters/31/flash_player_sa_lin ux.x86_64.tar.gz
>> [_] Anon 3369927 >># This seems 100% safe and completely legitimate and you should trust OPs program without looking at it or questioning his benevelence.
>> [_] Anon 3369954 Hello newfags, Go to your platform section and select 'Download the Flash Player Projector'. https://www.adobe.com/support/flashplaye r/debug_downloads.html
>> [_] Anon 3369960 ITT: a bunch of fucknuts that can't understand OP wants to run a flash in Chrome, and NOT the fucking standalone Flash Projector. This is why the Human race is doomed.
>> [_] Anon 3369962 >># >I was unable to view them localy. >I was unable to view them localy. >I was unable to view them localy. >I was unable to view them localy.
>> [_] Anon 3369963 >># OP's intentions aside, I suppose it's neat if you're a chrome user since I remember around 2 years ago they released an update that prevented Chrome from opening local flashes. So if you want to use Chrome's flash engine this is one way to do that.
>> [_] Anon 3369965 >># >PPAPI
>> [_] Anon 3369966 >># i never wrote that in my post, quit misquoting.
>> [_] Anon 3369970 >># >2 years ago they released an update that prevented Chrome from opening local flashes. they've been fucking with flash plugins since 2011
>> [_] Anon 3369971 >># You do know you can just go to Chrome://flags and disable "Enable Ephemeral Flash Permissions" right? I view my SWF files via chrome on the latest version for Windows 10.
>> [_] Anon 3369972 Can someone write that pathfile generator for cmd/powershell so I don't have to install bash to run a single script
>> [_] Anon 3369973 >># just get it over with and install gentoo
>> [_] Anon 3369974 >># >># ITT OP likes sucking dick but a bunch of fucknuts keep trying to get OP to stop. Literally why are you trying to live your life through a shitty browser when you can just open up your swf folder and run locally?
>> [_] Anon 3369981 >># >why because shitty browsers are sandboxed differently than the Projctor, some network functions will then work as intended. Far be it from a wizard like yourself to know that though.
>> [_] Anon 3369991 why do you trust some guy more than the same fucking program you use either way? >># the complete idiots are ruining the main issue I have with OP's crafty, albeit overly complex solution. you specifically can follow >># and be done, until the great flash culling in 2020 you should be fine by just doing that (or just get the FUCKING PROJECTOR) >># ok, there are debug versions for that, but maybe there are very specific flash programs that need a browser to run, but why does it have to be chrome, the sandbox is objectively worse from a user perspective. I even keep backups of סlder projectors, despite the glaring security flaws, due to files like aria.swf (literally just a fucking image and music) that won't even load the image until halfway through undine on any browser or modern projector, while the Macromedia 4 player from 19 years ago can run it fine. >># >># >but why install anything if it takes one line of html to show a swf? >you guys just don't realise[sic] how convenient this is >this is the easiest option I've found so far You literally just download the projector, any time you update flash the same thing is happening, except the browser needs to call a specific version for the sandbox and at least for windows, you have to install the browser and all the plugin updates, the projectors form 19 years ago still work to this day. no installation fucking required. click swf > run as > done forever the only way this cycle ends is if you fuck with it by resetting association (also happens with browsers) or antivirus joins the anti-flash train (which would also affect your plugins) this sandboxing bullcrap is the only valid point you might have, unless using the file explorer is too hard
>> [_] Hiro's breakfast 3369994 >># this looks promising, from what page can get to this link for future versions? >># with this >># chrome loads swf just fine but not local ones - only prompts for download back on windows (xp, 7) constant flash player updates were one of the most annoying things
>> [_] Anon 3369995 >># https://www.adobe.com/support/flashplaye r/debug_downloads.html
>> [_] Anon 3370000 >># >ton of reasons one reason also reading >># shows the LCU program that does exactly that
>> [_] Anon 3370001 >># >you specifically can follow >># and be done Doesn't solve the problem. Also relies on older flags that are now gone. >this sandboxing bullcrap is the only valid point you might have and is the point you are missing. There's a ton of reasons a user might want to run a local flash in-browser the way it *used to* when it all "just worked"; just because you don't share any of those reasons is no reason to piss in the punchbowl. Fucking wizards. s m h
>> [_] Anon 3370003 >># >>>3370000 here you go, there are no reasons to use your fucking code "In this enhanced Flash Player 8 local security model, local SWFs (of any version) may either read from local resources, or communicate with the Internet" all you do is change a flag to allow internet. so. fucking. hard.
>> [_] Anon 3370005 >># >citation needed
>> [_] Anon 3370006 >># >>>3370000 >also reading >># shows the LCU program that does exactly that https://www.adobe.com/support/flashplaye r/debug_downloads.html https://www.adobe.com/support/flashplaye r/debug_downloads.html https://www.adobe.com/support/flashplaye r/debug_downloads.html
>> [_] Anon 3370011 >just download flash lmao I would much rather trust Google's version of Flash in Chrome's sandbox than I would trust Adobe's shitty standalone. Plus, I already have Chrome installed, why would I need ANOTHER version of Flash to do something which the stuff I have can already do?
>> [_] Anon 3370018 https://xkcd.com/619/
>> [_] Anon 3370020 >># >I would much rather trust Google trust google? lol you don't know shit about what google is up to do you?
>> [_] Anon 3370022 >># its not worth it, the sandbox he wants is also on firefox but we get to choose weather its enabled, nor does he understand that offline files cant access the internet unless enabled and therefore don't need a sandbox. google fucked up plugin support and now he gets to trust google when it is actively trying to remove the features he wants, its stockholm syndrome
>> [_] Anon 3370024 >># also the >shitty standalone comment is what gets me hard, a program that prevents you from running code you dont want, gives you the ability to disable those settings, works in a fucking apocalypse of flash destruction, AND can run without having chrome installed is somehow less trustworthy than a program exclusively for a company that makes money off your data in order to isolate you from other ecosystems so they can remove features, break compatibility, and force the user base (and therefore the developers) to their advantage.

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Other)
[_] Anon 3356045 Never gonna die Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3356062 keep telling yourself that...
>> [_] Anon 3356075 >># >># I think we need fix it by adding bi/pansexual WASM who will fuck them both.
>> [_] Anon 3356077 >># why are you on /f/ if you're going to talk shit?
>> [_] Anon 3356090 this flash should die
>> [_] Anon 3356139 >># it's 4chan i'll talk shit all I want
>> [_] Anon 3356141 atleast you used a fucking awesome song, to make the gayest flash

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3351105

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3343042
>> [_] Anon 3343122 I understand the flashcarrier, but is the other one HTML5 ?
>> [_] Anon 3343123 >># yes

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3337775

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3323104 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3323147 >># yeah fuck HTML 5
>> [_] Anon 3323173 >># desu javascript is a lot more coherent than as3. It's almost as if flash was only meant for smaller web animations. Plus the less things that adobe gets its grubby hands in the better. Web plugins were just something that existed to fill a need until we could standardize it.
>> [_] Anon 3323199 We're currently in the Anger stage, so we're progressing quite quickly. Hopefully we'll all have accepted Flash's death by 2020.

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3321312
>> [_] Sammy 3321352 >># >flash fucking HTML5 Call me a layman, but isn't it the other way round?
>> [_] Anon 3321368 >># Yes. The author probably still prefers .gifs and .bmp, as well.
>> [_] Anon 3321369 >># no it's not, layman >># those are irrelevant
>> [_] Anon 3321382 >># hi a layman, i'm nigger
>> [_] Anon 3321385 >># It is. The problem with that is that there are no flash-like HTML5 authoring tools for dumbfucks, so most of the low-tier flash creator community dies with flash. >video swf was never intended to be video container format. HTML5 video can do webm and literally anything else. >scripts Anything you can do in as3 you can do faster with modern js engines. >graphics There's no direct replacement for flash-like vector animations, but HTML5 canvas can do performant webgl (read: opengl) graphics unlike shitty software rendered flash.
>> [_] !Wulf.Eb.mY 3321398 >># >so most of the low-tier flash creator community dies with flash That's not even true, they export into MP4 which degrades the quality of the flash for increased file size and becoming "modern". >HTML5 video can do webm and literally anything else Except later rebuked with your own statement of: >There's no direct replacement for flash-like vector animations >HTML5 canvas can do performant webgl (read: opengl) graphics Except as stated earlier: >no flash-like HTML5 authoring tools No one will touch it because even Google won't create user-friendly tools for the shit they're shoveling. You're also missing these points: 1. SWF is an archived animation, so it's all transferred easily between peers in a single file and requires no effort to host. VS Canvas (the direct competitor to flash) is an html file with a separate folder containing any assets you used (songs, images, etc.) which is more tedious to share and host. 2. SWFs are sandboxed but still has a couple security risks. VS JS is not sandboxed and is now the most commonly used method to abuse users and with security risks up the ass.
>> [_] Anon 3321403 >># public opinion is that "html 5 is better" but nah, flash really fucks the shit out of html 5. but this is the future the powers that be have chosen.
>> [_] Anon 3321408 >># >That's not even true, they export into MP4 You can't export interactive content into video. Anyone producing "flash" content that befits a video format is dead to me. The visual style adobe/macromedia established with their vector animation stuff is distinct, but flash is nothing without interactivity. >Except later rebuked with your own statement of Don't take things out of context if you want to be taken seriously, tripfag. Vector animations have jack shit to do with video format capabilities. That said, SVG also offers some interesting possibilities for vector animations but browser support is still sketchy. I reckon any "flash replacement" would be a js library for canvas stuff - and gui editor to get the flash babbies back on the train. Counter-points: 1. It's possible to embed any kind of file into a single HTML file, with either base64 data uris or js blobs. Trivvial to do so programmatically, adding such a feature into any "flash replacement" software would be minimal work. And while this is not directly related to the "muh container" argument, many SWFs also load external content, so nothing new there. 2. What? Running JS inside your browser is far safer than shitty swf plugins ever were. Literally the entire internet runs on the same technology, it's uncountable orders of magnitude more mature than a niche platform like flash was. If there was will, the flash community could already have established promising projects for html5 flash-like authoring tools. Big flash portals could have already done the groundwork for hosting relatively freeform html5 replacements. But there is no will. Most flash creators are incompetents using whatever babbymode tool they can wrap their head around, so they're now jumping ship into unity (fucking lol) and flash portals are just encouraging that, if not encouraging exporting their shit animations to straight to video and forgoing any interactivity.
>> [_] Anon 3321420 Also. The way I see this, the impending death of flash will divide the userbases into two very distinct groups. 1. The majority of flash creators: The kids and amateurs who just want to make funny animations, garbage-tier porn games or whatever using with whichever simple tool is at hand. They will move onto unity webgl or videos or whatever the big flash portals push for. They might carry the "spirit" of flash style with them. At least the ease of creation / accessibility and subsequent shovelware quality will follow this group. 2. The minority of professionals (be it web designer, indie game programmer, js code monkey or whatever) with a side interest on the quirky little thing that is swf. They will continue to share cool HTML5+JS snippets on sites like jsdo.it and shadertoy. The macromedia/adobe style is dead to them. Neither is a proper replacement for flash. I'm worried about what will become of /f/ and swfchan once mainstream browsers finally drop swf plugin support.

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3315860
>> [_] Anon 3315926 >># if only, anon if only

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3311935 Just updated Firefox to version 58.0.1 and now when I open a flash it just says "Run Adobe Flash" instead of the previous message that suggested that flash might be dangerous. This is a good thing! I didn't expect this from today's browsers that are hell-bent on tearing down flash for no reason other than because they have decided to do it. Could it be that they are listening to the pleads of people that love flash?? Unfortunately I can't remember exactly what the old message said, if you haven't upgraded Firefox yet please post the old message here. Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3311938 >This plugin has security vulnerabilities. >Activate Adobe Flash. Hm, was this it? Or is this what it said when you were using an old version of flash?
>> [_] Anon 3311939 >This site uses a plugin that may slow Firefox. >Activate Adobe Flash. This is the one! It's not as bad as >># but a simple "Run Adobe Flash" is a million times better.
>> [_] Anon 3311952 >># >># >># cool but it's only changing phrases for the same block function nothing changed and will change and people will try to demonize flash until it's demise personally I was most upset about "This site uses a plugin that may slow Firefox." I picture dumb people opening a cancerous ad site and then going DERP Y DA COMPUTAH SO SLOOW fuck, when I open a single swf file fullscreen I know damn well how fast my pc will be (as fast as before actually) that's the biggest concern people have? that it MIGHT slow down their toaster pc browser by opening 100 tabs with cpu intense swf files? not the security vulnerability or unability to know which swf files a random site runs automatically... FLASH MAKE DA COMPUTAH GO SLOWER, OH NOEZ fuck humanity
>> [_] Anon 3311959 >># >personally I was most upset about "This site uses a plugin that may slow Firefox." That's why I'm happy it only says "Run Adobe Flash" now. I don't really have a problem with flash no longer auto-loading in browsers, as long as it is possible to activate it with a simple click or two. Removing any kind of scary, and frankly, bullshit message like it will "slow down your browser" is good. A video will also slow down your browser. As will many images. Or a HTML5 game. Or JavaScript. All of those will still auto-load just fine in Firefox without any scary messages. I'm still hopeful flash plugin will remain even after 2020. Not optimistic, just hoping for it.
>> [_] Anon 3311965 Hope you are ready for 2020 Win7 end of life and flash is dead
>> [_] Anon 3311968 >># adobe should opensource that shit so flash can live on
>> [_] Anon 3311970 >># and here i am on windows 7, enjoying flash. damn it all.
>> [_] Anon 3312016 >># wait thats a great idea
>> [_] Anon 3312056
>> 3312055

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3308436 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3308439 you know it's the other way around. or will be in 2 years anyway
>> [_] Anon 3308443 >># only if html 5 could emulate flash otherwise it's gonna be like this forever
>> [_] Anon 3308450 >># except no browser will support it anymore and you'll be raped by russianrabies
>> [_] Anon 3308463 >># except that browsers will need to continue support for shit to keep working because people arent going to stop using flash when it stops being supported >wut iz windows xp
>> [_] Anon 3308467 What's their baby going to be? Htmlwave 5? Flashtml?
>> [_] Anon 3308469 >># a bastard child that nobody wants
>> [_] Anon 3308473 >># the browser vendors couldn't be happier over the removal of flash. it's a piece of bloated proprietary shit that's both inefficient and deemed a security hazard. now that adobe themselves are stopping support for it, there's no way that browsers are going to continue instead. there'll still be external legacy players that can run flash but any developer who hasn't been living under a rock would stay away from it.
>> [_] Anon 3308477 >># >it's a piece of bloated proprietary shit that's both inefficient and deemed a security hazard. The funny thing is that there isn't anything open source that does what flash (the player and creation software) does to the same quality. The supposed html5 replacement is also a security hazard, with cryptocoin miners, browser alert boxes and various malicious scripts to the point that many people use a browser extension to block javascript from running by default; similar to how most browsers blocked flash for their users in the past few years.
>> [_] Anon 3308482 >># >zomg I clicked on a flash and it wants to print something I don't want to !!1 no amount of security will save your dumb ass if you really want to be safe just cut the ethernet cable right now
>> [_] Anon 3308484 >># >there isn't anything open source that does what flash (the player and creation software) does to the same quality yes there is? in most use cases, html5 can do the same exact thing as flash does while using less resources to do it. as for the creation software, nobody gives a fuck about its importance besides the faggots who also suck steve jobs's necrophiliac cock daily. >security hazard none of what you mentioned actually is a security risk. yeah they're as malicious as what flash is capable of but any private info being compromised is usually the fault of the programmer rather than the software itself, unlike flash which has vulnerabilities being discovered nearly daily.
>> [_] Anon 3308486 >># >it's a piece of bloated proprietary shit that's both inefficient and deemed a security hazard ahahahaha this nigga tryin to talk shit like this about flash when javascript exists and is only getting worse
>> [_] Anon 3308487 >># https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability -list/vendor_id-53/product_id-6761/Adobe- Flash-Player.html you're one of those morons that has been living under a rock this whole time. there's a reason no one uses flash for anything of high-critical importance.
>> [_] Anon 3308488 >># >open-source >getting worse you've never heard of github have you? proof that you're just a dumb retard that has no further knowledge than a layman
>> [_] Anon 3308497 >># gib examples also the creation software is important because because without a good html5 creation software, less people will make html5 stuff. in addition there isn't an html5 standard similar to flash where everything is in a single file oh and if those don't count as security risks for whatever reason, then give your definition of a security risk
>> [_] Anon 3308499 >># webm is one example that's even being used by 4chan right now. better encoding, less bloat. there's plenty of game creation software like unity or godot that can export to html easily, or rpgmaker that can use js natively to export to other platforms. flash having a good creation tool is merely an overstatement.
>> [_] Anon 3308502 >># as for security risks, read the post above. if you want even more, just google it. flash has too many exploits to count that are constantly being found and patched over.
>> [_] Anon 3308506 >># >there isn't an html5 standard similar to flash where everything is in a single file there are tools that can do this. look at rollup or webpack which bundle all your code automatically.
>> [_] Anon 3308510 >># >># >Total number of vulnerabilities : 1044 That's quite a misleading statement. I looked through many of them and the vulnerabilities are usually stated as "for adobe flash player version x.x.x.x.x or lower" and start at some version of adobe flash player 9. The most recent version is flash player 27 and that site only lists 7 vulnerabilities for that version.
>> [_] Anon 3308511 >># >security risks no I asked for YOUR definition, since what I consider a security risk isn't good enough for you
>> [_] Anon 3308512 >># MY definition is the LITERAL definition and it's NOT your DUMBFUCK HEADCANON, okay? >># >still trying to defend flash's biggest weakness why do you even still bother to justify yourself?
>> [_] Anon 3308518 >># >LITERAL definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk#Secur ity >A security risk is any event that could result in the compromise of organizational assets i.e. the unauthorized use, loss, damage, disclosure or modification of organizational assets for the profit, personal interest or political interests of individuals, groups or other entities constitutes a compromise of the asset, and includes the risk of harm to people. >unauthorized use so how is cryptocoin mining not a security risk via your own definition? >why do you even still bother to justify yourself? because 7 vulnerabilities that will be patched don't seem like a big deal.
>> [_] Anon 3308525 >># >browser alert boxes and how are browser alert boxes a security hazard to you? cryptocoin mining is at least borderline in the same sense that any game that uses resources and logs the data within the process could be considered "cryptocoin mining" if that data were just as valuable. also you should reread that definition in the full context of "unauthorized use [that could result in the compromise of organizational assets]". just as i thought, you and your DUMBFUCK HEADCANON. >7 vulnerabilities they're only vulnerabilities that were discovered. there could be far more that aren't exposed to the public. don't kid yourself, the list will only continue to grow while adobe themselves is literally not going to touch it anymore.
>> [_] Anon 3308531 >># >and how are browser alert boxes a security hazard to you? The javascript alert function forces the browser to switch to the tab that generated the box and won't let the user interact with the browser until the box is closed. An attack that I've seen, before installing noscript, is to open an alert box as soon as the previous one is closed which forces a user to close the window which that tab is open in. >you and your DUMBFUCK HEADCANON. I just used the definition of security risk that wikipedia quoted. Why have you not stated your definition by now? Please do. >they're only vulnerabilities that were discovered. there could be far more that aren't exposed to the public. The same goes for any application. There's malicious exploits in javascript web frameworks, not to mention cross site scripting. The W3C statement on javascript security says enough for me to not trust most sites: "We cannot stress this enough. JavaScript is a wonderful language and can help you to build highly responsive and beautifully interactive web sites and applications, but where it falls down terribly is security. In short, there is no security model in JavaScript and you should not protect, encrypt, secure or store anything vital or secret with it" (https://www.iad.gov/iad/customcf/openAt tachment.cfm?FilePath=/iad/library/report s/assets/public/upload/JavaScript-Securit y-Risks.pdf&WpKes=aF6woL7fQp3dJiegGJ5E5te Tgrb3CdeJCMGnLB) >don't kid yourself, the list will only continue to grow while adobe themselves is literally not going to touch it anymore. That may be true after 2020, but adobe is still going to release security updates until that time.
>> [_] Anon 3308534 >># reread the definition. now read your example of it. checkmate. it's not even up for argument at this point and doing so at this point just makes you a clown. also i can see you're just parroting general terms since you used the term cross site scripting without knowing the full meaning behind it. it's not the fault of javascript itself, it's the usage of malicious third party libraries that have access to the same domain as you since you're using them. there's a HUGE difference in security risks due between the programmer's incompetence and the language itself, ie flash. you're just a moronic layman that likes to hear himself argue. open your eyes, flash is shit and everyone acknowledges it except for retards like you.
>> [_] !Wulf.Eb.mY 3308535 >># Don't waste your time. He's baiting and not even trying to come up with an argument. He's wrong and is probably acutely aware of it and just playing it up further because it's fun to act like a retard.
>> [_] Anon 3308536 >># just like how retards samefag while thinking it gives themselves credibility. i don't believe that there could be multiple people that share the same thought process as a retard. and if you are really just as retarded as the previous guy well, it's not my problem.
>> [_] Anon 3308537 >># >reread the definition. now read your example of it. checkmate. hold it! where is your definition of a security risk? I'm still waiting on that since arguing whether something is or isn't a security risk is pointless if we don't agree on what a security risk is.
>> [_] Anon 3308539 >># https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk#Secur ity >A security risk is any event that could result in the compromise of organizational assets i.e. the unauthorized use, loss, damage, disclosure or modification of organizational assets for the profit, personal interest or political interests of individuals, groups or other entities constitutes a compromise of the asset, and includes the risk of harm to people. >A security risk is any event that could result in the compromise of organizational assets neither a browser alert nor cryptocoin mining result in the compromise of organizational assets. i win, you lose.
>> [_] !Wulf.Eb.mY 3308544 >># Computational load is considered an asset. If you're accessing something that forcibly increases computational load on any of your hardware with malicious or intent unknown to the user, then it is a security risk that damages your assets. If computational load wasn't an asset then the measuring the value of different cpu/gpu architectures would be impossible, therefore selling them would never attain profit, yatta yatta blah blah blah semantics make the world go round and someone here doesn't study business or computer science and it isn't me or >>#.
>> [_] Anon 3308545 >># Oh so you accept that definition whereas in >># you called it my "DUMBFUCK HEADCANNON"? Nice backpedaling. And to extrapolate on that point, if someone can force people to use cpus for cryptocoin mining, which is a heavy computational load, it stands to reason that there's potential for javascripts which overheat and damage the cpu,
>> [_] Anon 3308547 Both browsers and flash player are insecure as fuck. Running random code sent to you from strangers is a security nightmare.
>> [_] Anon 3308550 >># >Running random code sent to you from strangers sounds hot, any source on that?
>> [_] Anon 3308551 >># Especially when the code can execute from pdf files, which most people think should be as secure as a text file. You can even do an SQL injection from your browser's useragent if the website you're visiting is insecure enough.
>> [_] Anon 3308552 >># At least borderline? I don't want ANY program using a single byte of resources on my machine unless I say so. That's just like saying people who use your comp as a torrent repeater is borderline. Have fun with latency and less resources. Yeah that's just borderline LOL.
>> [_] Anon 3308553 >># What do you mean? Any time run javascript or actionscript that's someone else's code.
>> [_] Anon 3308555 >># I think he means code that is ran on your PC - without you even doing anything or allowing it. Is it cool if I install and run programs on your PC without your consent? If so cool I'll send a few .exe's your way - I need to increase my botnet.
>> [_] Anon 3308580 >># I'm mainly concerned about loops. WebM has to have everything line up perfectly in order to loop properly, Flash doesn't. Can HTML5 emulate that? Genuine question, not trying to put you down by the way.
>> [_] Anon 3308582 >># >Can HTML5 emulate that? I'm not that guy, but it absolutely can. https://mozilla.github.io/shumway/ Here's an example of some simple HTML5 flash loops. This pages literally runs .swfs in javascript. Unfortunately the project was abandoned. The problem with html5 is with tooling. There are no good animation tools for creating original html5 animations afaik. And if you were an animator WHY would you want to export to javascript when you can render a video? And even if you did create something, how would you distribute it? An .html page? There's really no good way to share "javascript animations" (ew)

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3300141
>> [_] Anon 3300162 I want to be fucked by a hot ginger bara

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3293724 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3293874 song is nice, sauce
>> [_] Anon 3293889 >># Hubnester Rising, Machinae Supremacy

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3286912
>> [_] Anon 3286916 >># Flash will never die!

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3283092 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3283242 song source?

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3280270

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3279141

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3277968
>> [_] Anon 3277970 flash assraping html good
>> [_] Anon 3278032 hot :F
>> [_] Anon 3278046 until 2020 and flash gets killed off what if /f/ dies?
>> [_] Anon 3278072 >># /f/ only die if we leave

File: flashcarrier.swf-(2.42 MB, 768x612, Loop)
[_] Anon 3277428 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3277444 This pleases me. Wave that flag.
>> [_] Anon 3277500 Hold on, is this Machinae Supremacy?
>> [_] Anon 3277502 >># Flag Carrier
>> [_] Anon 3277506 i didnt know /f/ was this hot for html5
>> [_] Anon 3277515 mods need to change /f/ - Flash to /f/ - HTML5
>> [_] Anon 3277541 >># >># kys
>> [_] Anon 3277547 If Flash is so great why is /f/ getting deleted?
>> [_] Anon 3277548 >># >># Hubnester Rising