Adobe Flash (1996-2015? 2016? SOON?)
July 13, 2015 10:08 PM Subscribe
Have you kept up with your Flash patches (TWO more major vulnerabilities found in the last week), or is is time to disable it in your browsers or just uninstall it completely? (Uninstall in Windows | Uninstall in Mac) A few hours ago, Mozilla started blocking Flash by default in Firefox. Facebook's new chief security officer wants to set a date to kill Flash. And YouTube gave up on it ages ago, so you don't need Flash to see cute videos.
I'd find it easier to take Stamos's stance seriously if Facebook didn't require Flash to view videos.
posted by primethyme at 10:22 PM on July 13, 2015 [18 favorites]
posted by primethyme at 10:22 PM on July 13, 2015 [18 favorites]
Tag:stevejobswasright ... about this. The whole running a wage suppression racket thing? Not so much.
That said, I wholeheartedly support putting a bullet in Flash.
posted by Mrs. Davros at 10:28 PM on July 13, 2015 [4 favorites]
That said, I wholeheartedly support putting a bullet in Flash.
posted by Mrs. Davros at 10:28 PM on July 13, 2015 [4 favorites]
It'd probably help a lot if we held software publishers financially liable for damages caused by their products.
posted by xedrik at 10:32 PM on July 13, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by xedrik at 10:32 PM on July 13, 2015 [6 favorites]
Thoughts on Flash
Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:32 PM on July 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:32 PM on July 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'd find it easier to take Stamos's stance seriously if Facebook didn't require Flash to view videos.
That might be changing. I've had Flash disabled in Chrome for months now, and just today a friend posted a video and it played for me! Hopefully not just a fluke...
posted by sbutler at 10:36 PM on July 13, 2015
That might be changing. I've had Flash disabled in Chrome for months now, and just today a friend posted a video and it played for me! Hopefully not just a fluke...
posted by sbutler at 10:36 PM on July 13, 2015
Browser plugins let any page on the internet run programs that are not part of your browser. Each additional program a webpage can run is a whole new "attack surface" that might have bugs that can be exploited to take over your computer. You want to limit that surface to be as small as possible, ideally just the browser itself.
Flash is terrible, and it has been terrible for some time. Uninstall it entirely. Chrome has it built-in, so install Chrome if you don't already have it. Set Chrome to require click-to-play for all plugins, including its built-in Flash, so nothing can load it without your permission. Then use whatever browser you normally use. If you ever run across a site that absolutely requires Flash, load that one site in Chrome if you don't normally use Chrome, and enable Flash for that one page.
And uninstall Java. Same reasons. If you do need Java for something, though, you don't need it in your browser, so disable the Java plugin in your browser. If you do need the Java plugin in your browser for something, though... dear god... I'm sorry.
And disable any PDF reader plugin in your browser. Same reasons. Firefox and Chrome have built-in PDF viewers.
And really, uninstall or disable every single browser plugin you can find unless you absolutely know you need it. You can always re-enable it if you find you need it later. And then, you can set it as click-to-enable / "Ask to activate" so it still only loads when you want it to.
If any of this sounds too much like "only access the internet as plain-text with individual web pages loaded on your Handspring Visor for viewing"-type advice, well, you should at least give it a try for a bit to see if it works for you and if not, you'll know which specific parts you're willing to leave in place with clear reasons for doing so.
posted by whatnotever at 10:37 PM on July 13, 2015 [53 favorites]
Flash is terrible, and it has been terrible for some time. Uninstall it entirely. Chrome has it built-in, so install Chrome if you don't already have it. Set Chrome to require click-to-play for all plugins, including its built-in Flash, so nothing can load it without your permission. Then use whatever browser you normally use. If you ever run across a site that absolutely requires Flash, load that one site in Chrome if you don't normally use Chrome, and enable Flash for that one page.
And uninstall Java. Same reasons. If you do need Java for something, though, you don't need it in your browser, so disable the Java plugin in your browser. If you do need the Java plugin in your browser for something, though... dear god... I'm sorry.
And disable any PDF reader plugin in your browser. Same reasons. Firefox and Chrome have built-in PDF viewers.
And really, uninstall or disable every single browser plugin you can find unless you absolutely know you need it. You can always re-enable it if you find you need it later. And then, you can set it as click-to-enable / "Ask to activate" so it still only loads when you want it to.
If any of this sounds too much like "only access the internet as plain-text with individual web pages loaded on your Handspring Visor for viewing"-type advice, well, you should at least give it a try for a bit to see if it works for you and if not, you'll know which specific parts you're willing to leave in place with clear reasons for doing so.
posted by whatnotever at 10:37 PM on July 13, 2015 [53 favorites]
Awww. Now I need to go find my old Handspring Visor.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:57 PM on July 13, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by mr_roboto at 10:57 PM on July 13, 2015 [7 favorites]
Don't a lot of my kids' games use both Flash and/or Java? Roblox?
posted by Brocktoon at 11:01 PM on July 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Brocktoon at 11:01 PM on July 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
whatnotever: "Firefox and Chrome have built-in PDF viewers. "
Are those any better than the plugins? Apart from (at least the one in Firefox) being kind of slow and broken for non-trivial PDF documents?
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:04 PM on July 13, 2015 [5 favorites]
Are those any better than the plugins? Apart from (at least the one in Firefox) being kind of slow and broken for non-trivial PDF documents?
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:04 PM on July 13, 2015 [5 favorites]
Chrome has it built-in, so install Chrome if you don't already have it.
Eh, Chrome is malware too. It's just that the only attackers it exposes you to are Google and its affiliates.
posted by invitapriore at 11:08 PM on July 13, 2015 [42 favorites]
Eh, Chrome is malware too. It's just that the only attackers it exposes you to are Google and its affiliates.
posted by invitapriore at 11:08 PM on July 13, 2015 [42 favorites]
My beloved room escape games tho. Is gnash even halfway working, or an alternative yet?
posted by Tad Naff at 11:11 PM on July 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Tad Naff at 11:11 PM on July 13, 2015 [2 favorites]
Joakim Ziegler: Are those any better than the plugins? Apart from (at least the one in Firefox) being kind of slow and broken for non-trivial PDF documents?
I'd say that the fact that they're "kind of ... broken for non-trivial PDF documents" means that they will be better than the plugins, or at least better than Adobe's plugins. The fact that Adobe Acrobat will do crazy things like run Javascript and render 3D scenes inside a PDF mean that it has a ton of code in it. More code = more bugs. The PDF viewer inside Firefox or Chrome will have fewer features, yes, but that means it will be simpler, less-complex, better-tested code. For general PDF viewing, they work fine. For a complex document, download it and open it in a more full-featured viewer. And if you need to view complex documents in your browser a lot, then again, set it to only activate when you explicitly allow it, and have some sense of the mild risk you're taking on for the convenience.
posted by whatnotever at 11:12 PM on July 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'd say that the fact that they're "kind of ... broken for non-trivial PDF documents" means that they will be better than the plugins, or at least better than Adobe's plugins. The fact that Adobe Acrobat will do crazy things like run Javascript and render 3D scenes inside a PDF mean that it has a ton of code in it. More code = more bugs. The PDF viewer inside Firefox or Chrome will have fewer features, yes, but that means it will be simpler, less-complex, better-tested code. For general PDF viewing, they work fine. For a complex document, download it and open it in a more full-featured viewer. And if you need to view complex documents in your browser a lot, then again, set it to only activate when you explicitly allow it, and have some sense of the mild risk you're taking on for the convenience.
posted by whatnotever at 11:12 PM on July 13, 2015 [3 favorites]
It'd probably help a lot if we held software publishers financially liable for damages caused by their products
hmmm...people don't want secure software, built by engineers with training and professional standards. They want *free* shit. Voila...
to blur my stodgy engr backround with some undergrad econ - I think if there were a market for secure browsers (and plugins), we'd have one.
posted by j_curiouser at 11:13 PM on July 13, 2015 [13 favorites]
hmmm...people don't want secure software, built by engineers with training and professional standards. They want *free* shit. Voila...
to blur my stodgy engr backround with some undergrad econ - I think if there were a market for secure browsers (and plugins), we'd have one.
posted by j_curiouser at 11:13 PM on July 13, 2015 [13 favorites]
Is there any Adobe software that doesn't suck ass ?
Seriously. Their software sucks.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:18 PM on July 13, 2015 [14 favorites]
Seriously. Their software sucks.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 11:18 PM on July 13, 2015 [14 favorites]
Browser plugins let any page on the internet run programs that are not part of your browser.
Every page that runs JavaScript is a new program that's not your browser. Let's not cloud the issue. Truthier, every plug-in is a 'new execution environment' that is not the JavaScript interpreter. It's these bits that smell funny.
posted by j_curiouser at 11:20 PM on July 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
Every page that runs JavaScript is a new program that's not your browser. Let's not cloud the issue. Truthier, every plug-in is a 'new execution environment' that is not the JavaScript interpreter. It's these bits that smell funny.
posted by j_curiouser at 11:20 PM on July 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
whatnotever: "I'd say that the fact that they're "kind of ... broken for non-trivial PDF documents" means that they will be better than the plugins, or at least better than Adobe's plugins."
I've had plenty of problems with the built-in viewers with PDF documents that are not interactive or have JavaScript or anything, they just seem to slow down horribly or break when the documents get big. A typical example I remember were motherboard manuals from the SuperMicro site. They don't do anything fancy, but they have a bunch of illustrations and whatnot. I ended up just saving them and viewing them with Preview on MacOS, but it's convenient to just view that kind of stuff in the browser.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:23 PM on July 13, 2015
I've had plenty of problems with the built-in viewers with PDF documents that are not interactive or have JavaScript or anything, they just seem to slow down horribly or break when the documents get big. A typical example I remember were motherboard manuals from the SuperMicro site. They don't do anything fancy, but they have a bunch of illustrations and whatnot. I ended up just saving them and viewing them with Preview on MacOS, but it's convenient to just view that kind of stuff in the browser.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:23 PM on July 13, 2015
Pogo_Fuzzybutt: "Is there any Adobe software that doesn't suck ass ?
Seriously. Their software sucks."
Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign are pretty slick and solid. AfterEffects, eh, not quite so much, but it does the job.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:24 PM on July 13, 2015 [10 favorites]
Seriously. Their software sucks."
Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign are pretty slick and solid. AfterEffects, eh, not quite so much, but it does the job.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 11:24 PM on July 13, 2015 [10 favorites]
Friends, lurkers, vistors.
I come to bury Flash, not to praise it…
posted by mazola at 11:39 PM on July 13, 2015 [4 favorites]
I come to bury Flash, not to praise it…
posted by mazola at 11:39 PM on July 13, 2015 [4 favorites]
I have been sans-flash for about 18 months now, as a Chromium user who never bothered to install it. I've not felt hampered at all - 85% of videos play without it, and the ones that don't, don't really matter.
The exception for some will be twitch.tv; I'm surprised such a popular site still relies on flash...
There are also some games that 14-year-old me wishes he could still play.
posted by benoliver999 at 11:57 PM on July 13, 2015
The exception for some will be twitch.tv; I'm surprised such a popular site still relies on flash...
There are also some games that 14-year-old me wishes he could still play.
posted by benoliver999 at 11:57 PM on July 13, 2015
The BBC iPlayer uses it which is a big deal around these here parts.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 12:07 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by GallonOfAlan at 12:07 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Too bad my computer is too elderly to run html5 (actually had to disable it to force running flash). Problem with Flash , I dunno, the bloat? 55Mb for the last one I downloaded. Kitchen sink mentality?
and what @invitapriore said, in spades. Chrome/google is the epitome of arrogant programming/programmers.
posted by Sintram at 12:10 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
and what @invitapriore said, in spades. Chrome/google is the epitome of arrogant programming/programmers.
posted by Sintram at 12:10 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
primethyme: "I'd find it easier to take Stamos's stance seriously if Facebook didn't require Flash to view videos."
I dunno if you're referring to specific videos, but I don't have Flash installed, and in Firefox I can see videos on Facebook just fine.
posted by Bugbread at 12:10 AM on July 14, 2015
I dunno if you're referring to specific videos, but I don't have Flash installed, and in Firefox I can see videos on Facebook just fine.
posted by Bugbread at 12:10 AM on July 14, 2015
If you do need the Java plugin in your browser for something, though... dear god... I'm sorry.
My workplace's VPN requires a Java applet. As in, the thing I must use to securely access my work computer from home. The irony is not lost on me.
posted by en forme de poire at 12:19 AM on July 14, 2015 [28 favorites]
My workplace's VPN requires a Java applet. As in, the thing I must use to securely access my work computer from home. The irony is not lost on me.
posted by en forme de poire at 12:19 AM on July 14, 2015 [28 favorites]
My workplace's VPN requires a Java applet.
I've seen that VPN applet. The horror.
posted by zippy at 12:43 AM on July 14, 2015 [8 favorites]
I've seen that VPN applet. The horror.
posted by zippy at 12:43 AM on July 14, 2015 [8 favorites]
I suspect the reason you can see FB videos is that it will fall back to an HTML5 player, and that player will eventually replace Flash just as happened with YouTube.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 12:55 AM on July 14, 2015
posted by GallonOfAlan at 12:55 AM on July 14, 2015
That sounds a lot less like "require Flash to view videos" and more like "supports Flash", though.
posted by Bugbread at 1:03 AM on July 14, 2015
posted by Bugbread at 1:03 AM on July 14, 2015
I'm using Firefox on MacOS, I just uninstalled Flash, and I can't see FB videos anymore. Not sure what's up with that.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 1:03 AM on July 14, 2015
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 1:03 AM on July 14, 2015
My workplace's VPN requires a Java applet. As in, the thing I must use to securely access my work computer from home. The irony is not lost on me.
My bank uses a Java applet for online banking authentication. I imagine that a lot of managers took the idea that Java the language is more secure than C++ because it doesn't have things like pointers to mean that you should use Java for security, ignoring all the insecurity that a browser plugin can bring.
posted by maskd at 1:29 AM on July 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
My bank uses a Java applet for online banking authentication. I imagine that a lot of managers took the idea that Java the language is more secure than C++ because it doesn't have things like pointers to mean that you should use Java for security, ignoring all the insecurity that a browser plugin can bring.
posted by maskd at 1:29 AM on July 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
It is interesting to follow Adobe's slow transition to the dark side. Products such as Photoshop, Illustrator and many it acquired from Macromedia were absolutely ground breaking in their day. And that attracted a quality of developer who would obsess over their quality.
But .pdf and Flash have been mature technologies for over a decade - and the company has been eschewing flatting curves of their profitability in favour of hawking data about end users. That leaves little room for quality software development. The fact that Flash and Acrobat - in many ways the company's flagship products - have continued to be so terrible for so long is a testimony to that.
posted by rongorongo at 1:37 AM on July 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
But .pdf and Flash have been mature technologies for over a decade - and the company has been eschewing flatting curves of their profitability in favour of hawking data about end users. That leaves little room for quality software development. The fact that Flash and Acrobat - in many ways the company's flagship products - have continued to be so terrible for so long is a testimony to that.
posted by rongorongo at 1:37 AM on July 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
Not being able to see FB videos is a feature, not a bug, surely?
posted by Jimbob at 2:22 AM on July 14, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Jimbob at 2:22 AM on July 14, 2015 [7 favorites]
Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign are pretty slick and solid. AfterEffects, eh, not quite so much, but it does the job.
Eh, nah. It's a standard everyone accepts, but it's not very good. It's all laggy system-sucking BS that only runs smoothly on gonzo hardware. There's also cheesy stuff like the fact that until CS5, none of the creative suite was actually a native OSX application. OSX was ten years old at that point, and had been The Real Mac OS for at least 7 years. And even if you're like lol fuck macs, apple machines are the core bread and butter market of CS products. I could also go in to how awful they were at updating CS6 to actually support 4x/HiDPI displays on windows and OSX but ugh.
Adobe is a shovel more coal on the fire legacy bloatware creator in a way that microsoft, even microsoft of the early-mid 2000s, can only dream of.
I have two really really fast computers, and i use several Pretty Heavy apps(logic, ableton, gigantic files in lightroom/aperture(which dammit i'm going to use sometimes until i cant)) and none of them run as crappily as photoshop or premiere. Hell, ableton runs great on 8 year old hardware if you have enough ram. Photoshop is just like burrrpppp more and somehow never quite runs smoothly.
And everyone just puts up with it, because adobe software is like that one salesman who's always reeking of booze and drunk, but closes, and pulls in a ton of revenue for the company. A necessary evil that no one really talks about.
I can't think of a single thing they make that isn't either a laggy bloated mess or glitchy. I just scrolled by a post by one of my friends that was like "you know when you somehow make a CS app break in some way you can never quite figure out what you did, but you just have to quit it and reload?" and there were like 15 "yup, ugh" responses.
Utterly nothing has changed since Mr. Jobs called them out(RIP). Everything in that post is still 100% on point. They're a huge, lumbering, semi directionless company that pushes out mediocre garbageware that's somehow The Standard. Why? Because fuck us, we'll buy it anyways.
posted by emptythought at 2:58 AM on July 14, 2015 [32 favorites]
Eh, nah. It's a standard everyone accepts, but it's not very good. It's all laggy system-sucking BS that only runs smoothly on gonzo hardware. There's also cheesy stuff like the fact that until CS5, none of the creative suite was actually a native OSX application. OSX was ten years old at that point, and had been The Real Mac OS for at least 7 years. And even if you're like lol fuck macs, apple machines are the core bread and butter market of CS products. I could also go in to how awful they were at updating CS6 to actually support 4x/HiDPI displays on windows and OSX but ugh.
Adobe is a shovel more coal on the fire legacy bloatware creator in a way that microsoft, even microsoft of the early-mid 2000s, can only dream of.
I have two really really fast computers, and i use several Pretty Heavy apps(logic, ableton, gigantic files in lightroom/aperture(which dammit i'm going to use sometimes until i cant)) and none of them run as crappily as photoshop or premiere. Hell, ableton runs great on 8 year old hardware if you have enough ram. Photoshop is just like burrrpppp more and somehow never quite runs smoothly.
And everyone just puts up with it, because adobe software is like that one salesman who's always reeking of booze and drunk, but closes, and pulls in a ton of revenue for the company. A necessary evil that no one really talks about.
I can't think of a single thing they make that isn't either a laggy bloated mess or glitchy. I just scrolled by a post by one of my friends that was like "you know when you somehow make a CS app break in some way you can never quite figure out what you did, but you just have to quit it and reload?" and there were like 15 "yup, ugh" responses.
Utterly nothing has changed since Mr. Jobs called them out(RIP). Everything in that post is still 100% on point. They're a huge, lumbering, semi directionless company that pushes out mediocre garbageware that's somehow The Standard. Why? Because fuck us, we'll buy it anyways.
posted by emptythought at 2:58 AM on July 14, 2015 [32 favorites]
My wife uses the CS stuff because she's in publishing. It's fucking dreadful and overpriced yet somehow the standard, I suspect because historically it was there on the Mac first, and Mac users have always paid over the odds for old software rope.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 3:26 AM on July 14, 2015
posted by GallonOfAlan at 3:26 AM on July 14, 2015
whatnotever: " If you do need the Java plugin in your browser for something, though... dear god... I'm sorry."The country of Denmark's digital infrastucture (online banks, all government self-service solutions) uses NemID for authentication, which requires a Java applet.
posted by brokkr at 3:27 AM on July 14, 2015
My beloved room escape games tho.
Online games (especially room escapes) are the only reasons I keep Flash around. It's still required in a lot of other places, too. NASA, for instance, still uses Flash for NASA TV broadcasts.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:13 AM on July 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Online games (especially room escapes) are the only reasons I keep Flash around. It's still required in a lot of other places, too. NASA, for instance, still uses Flash for NASA TV broadcasts.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:13 AM on July 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
If iPlayer is the only thing holding you back from getting rid of flash, then get-iplayer may be of interest. It’s a perl script, which works on OSX & Linux without fuss & there’s a windows installer too.
You’ll have to use it alongside the website in order to feed it the correct URLs IIRC.
posted by pharm at 5:13 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
You’ll have to use it alongside the website in order to feed it the correct URLs IIRC.
posted by pharm at 5:13 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
I've never looked back since dumping Acrobat Reader for FoxIt Reader.
posted by Too-Ticky at 5:42 AM on July 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Too-Ticky at 5:42 AM on July 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
Flash's dumb cousin Silverlight will be around for a while. Silverlight, what were they thinking.
posted by mattoxic at 5:50 AM on July 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by mattoxic at 5:50 AM on July 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
It'd probably help a lot if we held software publishers financially liable for damages caused by their products
Yes, that would be a good way to destroy the software industry.
posted by smackfu at 5:52 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yes, that would be a good way to destroy the software industry.
posted by smackfu at 5:52 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Silverlight, what were they thinking.
Money.
When you find yourself wondering about a company, "What were they thinking?" the answer is almost always "Money."
posted by aught at 5:58 AM on July 14, 2015 [12 favorites]
Money.
When you find yourself wondering about a company, "What were they thinking?" the answer is almost always "Money."
posted by aught at 5:58 AM on July 14, 2015 [12 favorites]
If being responsible for damages caused by their products would put the software industry out of business, then the software industry is causing more harm then good, and should be put out of business.
posted by fitnr at 6:00 AM on July 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by fitnr at 6:00 AM on July 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
Is there a way to disable Flash via GPO in a Win2008 environ?
posted by bellastarr at 6:01 AM on July 14, 2015
posted by bellastarr at 6:01 AM on July 14, 2015
Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign are pretty slick and solid.
Eh not so much. There are some fairly significant bugs that the corporate we reported in Illustrator CS4 that are still lurking in CC 2015. The "corporate we" has a a few thousand seats of CS6 and CC worldwide.
And everyone just puts up with it, because adobe software is like that one salesman who's always reeking of booze and drunk, but closes, and pulls in a ton of revenue for the company. A necessary evil that no one really talks about.
Oh jesus yes this. And the salesman is the boss's cousin.
posted by nathan_teske at 6:06 AM on July 14, 2015 [7 favorites]
Eh not so much. There are some fairly significant bugs that the corporate we reported in Illustrator CS4 that are still lurking in CC 2015. The "corporate we" has a a few thousand seats of CS6 and CC worldwide.
And everyone just puts up with it, because adobe software is like that one salesman who's always reeking of booze and drunk, but closes, and pulls in a ton of revenue for the company. A necessary evil that no one really talks about.
Oh jesus yes this. And the salesman is the boss's cousin.
posted by nathan_teske at 6:06 AM on July 14, 2015 [7 favorites]
Silverlight, what were they thinking
Adobe has a terrible, buggy, security-issue-plagued multi-media plugin, we need one too.
posted by octothorpe at 6:07 AM on July 14, 2015 [8 favorites]
Adobe has a terrible, buggy, security-issue-plagued multi-media plugin, we need one too.
posted by octothorpe at 6:07 AM on July 14, 2015 [8 favorites]
Flash will outlive us all.
Even cockroaches can't handle a drought like Flash.
posted by clvrmnky at 6:13 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Even cockroaches can't handle a drought like Flash.
posted by clvrmnky at 6:13 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
At the recommendation of an article on a Gawker site, I tried setting flash to manually opt-in. Among other things, this promptly broke Gawker sites.
posted by Foosnark at 6:19 AM on July 14, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by Foosnark at 6:19 AM on July 14, 2015 [10 favorites]
If being responsible for damages caused by their products would put the software industry out of business, then the software industry is causing more harm then good, and should be put out of business.
How does one follow from the other? Buggy software may still be better than no software, even if the company making it cannot afford to carry millions of dollars in insurance and have an army of dual class coder/lawyers on hand.
posted by Dr Dracator at 6:20 AM on July 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
How does one follow from the other? Buggy software may still be better than no software, even if the company making it cannot afford to carry millions of dollars in insurance and have an army of dual class coder/lawyers on hand.
posted by Dr Dracator at 6:20 AM on July 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Our computers would be so awesome, wouldn't they, if only they didn't have all this fucking software, amirite?
In seriousness, though, the only thing that will ever kill bad products is a feature-complete competitor. Apple failed to kill Flash, despite their efforts; HTML5 video is the thing that actually beat it, and it did in Silverlight at the same time, too. (Well, it still has to finish the job, but it's getting there fast.)
But what real competition is there to fully-featured, versatile Adobe apps like Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign? The GIMP is ... alright; most other Photoshop alternatives are good at what they do, but much more domain-specific. And let's not forget that before InDesign, the standard was Quark, fucking Quark.
I don't love Adobe's software, but I'll love what it does until something else does it better.
Lastly, if you're thinking about uninstalling Java, that just means you aren't playing enough Minecraft.
posted by WCWedin at 6:23 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
In seriousness, though, the only thing that will ever kill bad products is a feature-complete competitor. Apple failed to kill Flash, despite their efforts; HTML5 video is the thing that actually beat it, and it did in Silverlight at the same time, too. (Well, it still has to finish the job, but it's getting there fast.)
But what real competition is there to fully-featured, versatile Adobe apps like Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign? The GIMP is ... alright; most other Photoshop alternatives are good at what they do, but much more domain-specific. And let's not forget that before InDesign, the standard was Quark, fucking Quark.
I don't love Adobe's software, but I'll love what it does until something else does it better.
Lastly, if you're thinking about uninstalling Java, that just means you aren't playing enough Minecraft.
posted by WCWedin at 6:23 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
My seven year old son loves to play a variety of games which have been programmed for Flash and are available for free. Where can he find similar games to replace them? What search terms should I use?
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:26 AM on July 14, 2015
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:26 AM on July 14, 2015
More advertising than you think is Flash-based, even in 2015. I work in publishing and regularly have to explain to our ad sales team that, no, we cannot include Flash ad banners in an email newsletter. Not now, not ever.
posted by SansPoint at 6:31 AM on July 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 6:31 AM on July 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Eh, Chrome is malware too. It's just that the only attackers it exposes you to are Google and its affiliates.
and what @invitapriore said, in spades. Chrome/google is the epitome of arrogant programming/programmers.
You're welcome to download Chromium, which is Chrome without the Google integration. If you find Chromium snitching on you to Google, report it as a vulnerability.
And, yes. Google contribute to this version of Chrome that adds absolutely no value to their business. Labeling Google/Chrome as malware is seriously disingenuous.
Coincidentally, Chrome also found a way to run Flash inside of a fairly restrictive sandbox, which has made it possible to run Flash, while keeping users (more) insulated from Flash's many vulnerabilities.
posted by schmod at 6:35 AM on July 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
and what @invitapriore said, in spades. Chrome/google is the epitome of arrogant programming/programmers.
You're welcome to download Chromium, which is Chrome without the Google integration. If you find Chromium snitching on you to Google, report it as a vulnerability.
And, yes. Google contribute to this version of Chrome that adds absolutely no value to their business. Labeling Google/Chrome as malware is seriously disingenuous.
Coincidentally, Chrome also found a way to run Flash inside of a fairly restrictive sandbox, which has made it possible to run Flash, while keeping users (more) insulated from Flash's many vulnerabilities.
posted by schmod at 6:35 AM on July 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
Flash's dumb cousin Silverlight will be around for a while. Silverlight, what were they thinking.
Not that long, apparently.
posted by yerfatma at 6:36 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Not that long, apparently.
posted by yerfatma at 6:36 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Do we really want people suing Chrome because they got phished by following a link to paypa1.com?
posted by smackfu at 6:38 AM on July 14, 2015
posted by smackfu at 6:38 AM on July 14, 2015
But what real competition is there to fully-featured, versatile Adobe apps like Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign? The GIMP is ... alright; most other Photoshop alternatives are good at what they do, but much more domain-specific. And let's not forget that before InDesign, the standard was Quark, fucking Quark.
Yeah, I can get by with GIMP when I have to, but I haven't met an Illustrator alternative that doesn't just endlessly frustrate me. It's probably Adobe's best product, imo. I mean, yes, it's absolutely still a bloated mess, but the actual tools it gives me are indispensable and nobody else comes close.
Photoshop's biggest problem is trying to be all things to all people, to the point that it made that whole "What do you mean, vector version? I made this logo in Photoshop. I never liked learning Illustrator and you can do the same thing in Photoshop..." thing infuriatingly commonplace.
posted by jason_steakums at 6:39 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I can get by with GIMP when I have to, but I haven't met an Illustrator alternative that doesn't just endlessly frustrate me. It's probably Adobe's best product, imo. I mean, yes, it's absolutely still a bloated mess, but the actual tools it gives me are indispensable and nobody else comes close.
Photoshop's biggest problem is trying to be all things to all people, to the point that it made that whole "What do you mean, vector version? I made this logo in Photoshop. I never liked learning Illustrator and you can do the same thing in Photoshop..." thing infuriatingly commonplace.
posted by jason_steakums at 6:39 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Thanks everyone (seriously) for the corrections on Facebook requiring flash for videos. It certainly did quite recently. I'm glad to see that they've finally fixed that, because it has seemed like an odd situation for a long time (especially since they HAD to support non-flash video on iOS, they just wouldn't let you see it on the desktop).
FWIW I will stand by my belief that most of the CS apps are pretty good. I hate the rental business model, but the apps themselves are far better than any of the alternatives, and I've tried them all multiple times.
posted by primethyme at 6:50 AM on July 14, 2015
FWIW I will stand by my belief that most of the CS apps are pretty good. I hate the rental business model, but the apps themselves are far better than any of the alternatives, and I've tried them all multiple times.
posted by primethyme at 6:50 AM on July 14, 2015
hmmm...people don't want secure software, built by engineers with training and professional standards. They want *free* shit. Voila...Is there any evidence that Adobe doesn't already employ engineers with such training and professional standards? Is there evidence that such "professionals" have a better track record?
posted by Poldo at 7:02 AM on July 14, 2015 [5 favorites]
There's a lot of talk here on video, ads, and other entertainment-ish uses for Flash, which I'm sure there's a suitable HTML5 replacement in the works or already out.
My concern is big data visualization. For relatively simple plots, there's certainly Dygraphs, and other HTML5 time-series plotters with similar visual results. Then there's D3, which while incredibly flexible, requires a lot out of a high-level programmer, and may not be useful. You might be able to develop functions that would enable high-level programmatic plotting, but I'm guessing you'd have to make some deep, possibly invalid assumptions.
Currently, a (now old, but still active) project of mine has like 4 Flash variants, and an HTML5 version, running on Dygraphs, which attempts to reconcile the differences between 3 of them. My biggest issue with making the transition is that the Adobe/Apache Flex framework made plotting really simple, so long as your data processing was done correctly. Time-series could basically be layered on, whether they be lines, dots, grounded or floating bars, area series, etc. The flash version allows for easy changes to the plot visualization style, including color and opacity (both in terms of stroke and fill). The dygraphs Beta version I've thrown together requires a lot of pre-processing that I just did not have to do in Flex (plus I still have to get IE to talk to it, which I have a solution for, I just need get around to doing it).
TL;DR - if a developer knows how to get around the shortcomings of HTML5 plotting, that is if project specs are rather interesting, then yeah, HTML5 development should be great. But, in the world of big data, your developers are probably not fighting in the dirt over platform security. They're looking for a package that requires minimal to moderate programming to display data (in the aggregate or raw). Flex does a fine job of that, and is enhanced by pre-processing if you have the resources to do it. Here's a few examples of some recent Flex big data apps: 1, 2, 3.
Big data is going to be a big deal going forward, and we want the shortest possible learning curve possible to making visualizations of numbers happen.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 7:11 AM on July 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
My concern is big data visualization. For relatively simple plots, there's certainly Dygraphs, and other HTML5 time-series plotters with similar visual results. Then there's D3, which while incredibly flexible, requires a lot out of a high-level programmer, and may not be useful. You might be able to develop functions that would enable high-level programmatic plotting, but I'm guessing you'd have to make some deep, possibly invalid assumptions.
Currently, a (now old, but still active) project of mine has like 4 Flash variants, and an HTML5 version, running on Dygraphs, which attempts to reconcile the differences between 3 of them. My biggest issue with making the transition is that the Adobe/Apache Flex framework made plotting really simple, so long as your data processing was done correctly. Time-series could basically be layered on, whether they be lines, dots, grounded or floating bars, area series, etc. The flash version allows for easy changes to the plot visualization style, including color and opacity (both in terms of stroke and fill). The dygraphs Beta version I've thrown together requires a lot of pre-processing that I just did not have to do in Flex (plus I still have to get IE to talk to it, which I have a solution for, I just need get around to doing it).
TL;DR - if a developer knows how to get around the shortcomings of HTML5 plotting, that is if project specs are rather interesting, then yeah, HTML5 development should be great. But, in the world of big data, your developers are probably not fighting in the dirt over platform security. They're looking for a package that requires minimal to moderate programming to display data (in the aggregate or raw). Flex does a fine job of that, and is enhanced by pre-processing if you have the resources to do it. Here's a few examples of some recent Flex big data apps: 1, 2, 3.
Big data is going to be a big deal going forward, and we want the shortest possible learning curve possible to making visualizations of numbers happen.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 7:11 AM on July 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Apple failed to kill Flash, despite their efforts; HTML5 video is the thing that actually beat it
Huh? Apple's efforts to kill Flash were HTML5 video and other HTML5 technologies.
posted by zsazsa at 7:23 AM on July 14, 2015 [8 favorites]
Huh? Apple's efforts to kill Flash were HTML5 video and other HTML5 technologies.
posted by zsazsa at 7:23 AM on July 14, 2015 [8 favorites]
they took adobe flash out behind the barn to shoot it
but it just blew up the barn instead
now i can see the moon!
posted by mcgurkster at 7:25 AM on July 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
but it just blew up the barn instead
now i can see the moon!
posted by mcgurkster at 7:25 AM on July 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
We haven't used Flash in years on any of the sites we develop not because of iOS or Steve Jobs but because of Google. In 2010 most of our clients didn't give a shit about iOS, mobile friendly sites, or what Apple was saying about Flash but they did care that the content that they thought they wanted presented in Flash would not be indexed fully by search engines (which to most clients means Google, the others are irrelevant). So no Flash it was, but rather straightforward HTML, for the most part semantically correct and fully index-able. Unfortunately, the other side of this is that many clients seem to believe that their business would just boom with the presence of a site that could be found by Google. One in particular, who didn't want to spend any money of course, was outraged that his business didn't magically grow the moment he had a web site because, hey, it's on Google!
But we have found Flash in the oddest places, like small little upload widgets in eCommerce system back ends, but I suspect that these were developed because at the time, HTML 5 solutions were poor or not yet developed. YouTube converting their videos to multiple formats that show appropriately has also been a great help in reducing Flash use.
Sadly, many clients seemingly don't give a shit about security and I expect they'll be upset about Firefox doing what it has done over the last day or so. Particularly, of course, if they're using a CMS or eCMS or any other web based app that has bits of Flash in it.
posted by juiceCake at 7:37 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
But we have found Flash in the oddest places, like small little upload widgets in eCommerce system back ends, but I suspect that these were developed because at the time, HTML 5 solutions were poor or not yet developed. YouTube converting their videos to multiple formats that show appropriately has also been a great help in reducing Flash use.
Sadly, many clients seemingly don't give a shit about security and I expect they'll be upset about Firefox doing what it has done over the last day or so. Particularly, of course, if they're using a CMS or eCMS or any other web based app that has bits of Flash in it.
posted by juiceCake at 7:37 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Thanks everyone (seriously) for the corrections on Facebook requiring flash for videos. It certainly did quite recently.
I disabled Flash today in Chrome on Windows, and Facebook videos still want Flash. "Flash Upgrade Required." So, like many things with Facebook, experience may vary.
posted by smackfu at 7:44 AM on July 14, 2015
I disabled Flash today in Chrome on Windows, and Facebook videos still want Flash. "Flash Upgrade Required." So, like many things with Facebook, experience may vary.
posted by smackfu at 7:44 AM on July 14, 2015
I just use multiple browsers. FF with no plugins, Chrome with click-to-Flash plugin.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:46 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:46 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
If you upload a GIF to Facebook, they will transcode it to an MP4 and (on some browser combinations) play it back to you via Flash.
Welcome to Web 4.0 (Millenium Edition!)
posted by schmod at 7:51 AM on July 14, 2015 [11 favorites]
Welcome to Web 4.0 (Millenium Edition!)
posted by schmod at 7:51 AM on July 14, 2015 [11 favorites]
dances_with_sneetches: My seven year old son loves to play a variety of games which have been programmed for Flash and are available for free. Where can he find similar games to replace them? What search terms should I use?
The primary replacement for Flash is "HTML5," which is essentially the name given to the amalgamation of a variety of functionality added to modern web browsers and accessed via HTML/CSS/Javascript. Most newer browsers support most of these features without any external plugins, so web applications and games can be programmed to run on those features instead of Flash. Searching for "HTML5" followed by some keywords for or description of each game you want to replace may find a good alternative. However, for any given game, it is likely there will be no alternative. Setting Flash to be activated only manually ("click to play" / "ask to activate") will let you continue to use it for those games while preventing any random page from running it automatically.
Semi-related: In the one case in which a computer I was using became infected with malware [that I am aware of], I was loading a Flash game. The attack vector actually wasn't Flash, though; it was an ad on the page, possibly served by a compromised ad-server, that autoloaded a PDF that exploited a bug in the Adobe Acrobat plugin. I just wanted to direct some monkeys to pop some balloons, but instead I had to spend hours disinfecting my computer. And the fully-updated corporate-licensed /-managed antivirus running on that computer didn't do much to help—I think it got updates to detect that particular malware a day or two later—so don't rely on that.
posted by whatnotever at 7:53 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
The primary replacement for Flash is "HTML5," which is essentially the name given to the amalgamation of a variety of functionality added to modern web browsers and accessed via HTML/CSS/Javascript. Most newer browsers support most of these features without any external plugins, so web applications and games can be programmed to run on those features instead of Flash. Searching for "HTML5" followed by some keywords for or description of each game you want to replace may find a good alternative. However, for any given game, it is likely there will be no alternative. Setting Flash to be activated only manually ("click to play" / "ask to activate") will let you continue to use it for those games while preventing any random page from running it automatically.
Semi-related: In the one case in which a computer I was using became infected with malware [that I am aware of], I was loading a Flash game. The attack vector actually wasn't Flash, though; it was an ad on the page, possibly served by a compromised ad-server, that autoloaded a PDF that exploited a bug in the Adobe Acrobat plugin. I just wanted to direct some monkeys to pop some balloons, but instead I had to spend hours disinfecting my computer. And the fully-updated corporate-licensed /-managed antivirus running on that computer didn't do much to help—I think it got updates to detect that particular malware a day or two later—so don't rely on that.
posted by whatnotever at 7:53 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
I did security work for a public library for two years, which included running monthly scans, updating plugins, and cleaning the drive. I'm sad to say that I've since gotten lax in my own security practices.
However, in doing that job, it made me appreciate just what a patchwork of vulnerabilities the web browsing experience truly is. And even being 100 percent at the top of your game, a zero day exploit in an ad network can destroy all of your hard work. Truly the only way to be sure is to disable absolutely everything, and even then I'd have doubts about absolute security.
posted by codacorolla at 7:57 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
However, in doing that job, it made me appreciate just what a patchwork of vulnerabilities the web browsing experience truly is. And even being 100 percent at the top of your game, a zero day exploit in an ad network can destroy all of your hard work. Truly the only way to be sure is to disable absolutely everything, and even then I'd have doubts about absolute security.
posted by codacorolla at 7:57 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Having worked with digital video before the rise of Flash for video, I can say with absolute certainty that Flash was never, ever necessary for video. It was only used because people were too lazy to support it properly at the OS/browser level, and then it became a problem far worse than the solution it was supposedly solving. All Flash did was wrap the already-encoded video in a terrible container that degraded performance on the computer you were using.
It was incredibly frustrating to have zero problems with digital video on the mac - even with various websites - to discovering that now everything used FLASH and now the videos performed like crap because of some lowest common denominator BS.
Original Flash use for games was fine. But then they started using it for everything else, like navigating websites, and serving video, and it was a crime against software.
Then I got to the corporate world later, and I was bewildered to discover that people hated PDFs. Why would people hate PDFs? I never had a problem with them.
Then I realized it was because I was apparently spoiled by Apple's Preview application, which was lightweight and opened PDFs near-instantly with no problems at all. Everybody else was used to Adobe Reader, which runs like shit, and Acrobat has the same problems.
There's something very wrong when Apple makes an application that handles PDFs better than the company that invented the PDF. Since "everything is going to mobile" these days, or so people keep saying, I'm even more baffled that Flash still has traction. Why are we subjecting ourselves to this, still?
Regarding Photoshop et al., while it's true that Photoshop itself offers some features that no other competitor does, it seems apparent at this point that Acorn, Pixelmator, and a few others have bested it as a far lower-cost, resource-efficient, convenient alternative.
Like myself, many people will have stopped buying upgrades after CS6, because nobody really wants to RENT software - especially when the proprietor has a history of servers screwing up and thus losing their access to said rented software, despite assurances otherwise.
We never needed Flash to see videos. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
posted by Strudel at 8:08 AM on July 14, 2015 [13 favorites]
It was incredibly frustrating to have zero problems with digital video on the mac - even with various websites - to discovering that now everything used FLASH and now the videos performed like crap because of some lowest common denominator BS.
Original Flash use for games was fine. But then they started using it for everything else, like navigating websites, and serving video, and it was a crime against software.
Then I got to the corporate world later, and I was bewildered to discover that people hated PDFs. Why would people hate PDFs? I never had a problem with them.
Then I realized it was because I was apparently spoiled by Apple's Preview application, which was lightweight and opened PDFs near-instantly with no problems at all. Everybody else was used to Adobe Reader, which runs like shit, and Acrobat has the same problems.
There's something very wrong when Apple makes an application that handles PDFs better than the company that invented the PDF. Since "everything is going to mobile" these days, or so people keep saying, I'm even more baffled that Flash still has traction. Why are we subjecting ourselves to this, still?
Regarding Photoshop et al., while it's true that Photoshop itself offers some features that no other competitor does, it seems apparent at this point that Acorn, Pixelmator, and a few others have bested it as a far lower-cost, resource-efficient, convenient alternative.
Like myself, many people will have stopped buying upgrades after CS6, because nobody really wants to RENT software - especially when the proprietor has a history of servers screwing up and thus losing their access to said rented software, despite assurances otherwise.
We never needed Flash to see videos. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
posted by Strudel at 8:08 AM on July 14, 2015 [13 favorites]
Yeah, I can get by with GIMP when I have to, but I haven't met an Illustrator alternative that doesn't just endlessly frustrate me.
For Mac users, Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo are full-featured professional alternatives to Illustrator and Photoshop. The company has an InDesign replacement in the works, too. They're doing fantastic things.
posted by oulipian at 8:11 AM on July 14, 2015 [11 favorites]
For Mac users, Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo are full-featured professional alternatives to Illustrator and Photoshop. The company has an InDesign replacement in the works, too. They're doing fantastic things.
posted by oulipian at 8:11 AM on July 14, 2015 [11 favorites]
Is there any Adobe software that doesn't suck ass ?
Lightroom.
Also, uploading multiple photos to Facebook on the mac seems to require flash.
posted by snofoam at 8:35 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Lightroom.
Also, uploading multiple photos to Facebook on the mac seems to require flash.
posted by snofoam at 8:35 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Part of my work is infosec consulting... So my biggest client needs to meet PCI standards. Their bank really wants us to use a particular vendor for vulnerability scanning, because it integrates well with their systems. This vendor is one of the biggest and most reputable names in infosec.
The entire interface for this vulnerability scanner is written in flash, and requires you to accept about four different pop ups asking if you really want to run it because it could make you vulnerable. I run this from a sandboxed VM that reverts to its initial state if you reboot it - not everyone goes to this extreme.
What's disturbing is that this sort of outdated interface is incredibly common in the infosec and systems realms. If there's a web interface that a business absolutely HAS to use for some reason, then it's pretty much a guarantee that it will require outdated java or flash - more so if it's related to "security."
It gets better, there's no end in sight to this - For example, most of the virtual console interfaces for servers (for remote console, virtual disks, power control, and other remote management features) are written by the same company, and universally require an older version of java LOADED with security vulnerabilities. They may be nice and provide a tool that embeds the locked version of java you need, but that doesn't exactly fix the problem.
There are so many powerful administration and security tools that are tied to ridiculously vulnerable platforms - where not only is the platform unsafe, but just accessing it as a client is unsafe as well. It's appalling. It's almost as if someone was trying to mandate or engineer access vectors for intelligence agencies in critical applications.... and by the nature of these tools, it makes those who access protected or privileged data the most vulnerable targets, and the easiest to exploit due to the multitude of methods available.
Flash can't die soon enough. Java needs to go next - Both of them are practically malware as it is, as they always install some thing you absolutely don't need (McAfee Security Assistant or whatever the hell it is, I'm looking at you) or try to install a bunch of browser bars and set a new default search engine. Seriously, they both do this -- They behave like the worst malware out there, so I see no reason to treat them otherwise.
I could also go on and on about Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is actually much worse than the others - nobody should ever run that if they care about security. Good thing that lots of "protected PDFs" used for confidential or other privileged data require it!
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:42 AM on July 14, 2015 [13 favorites]
The entire interface for this vulnerability scanner is written in flash, and requires you to accept about four different pop ups asking if you really want to run it because it could make you vulnerable. I run this from a sandboxed VM that reverts to its initial state if you reboot it - not everyone goes to this extreme.
What's disturbing is that this sort of outdated interface is incredibly common in the infosec and systems realms. If there's a web interface that a business absolutely HAS to use for some reason, then it's pretty much a guarantee that it will require outdated java or flash - more so if it's related to "security."
It gets better, there's no end in sight to this - For example, most of the virtual console interfaces for servers (for remote console, virtual disks, power control, and other remote management features) are written by the same company, and universally require an older version of java LOADED with security vulnerabilities. They may be nice and provide a tool that embeds the locked version of java you need, but that doesn't exactly fix the problem.
There are so many powerful administration and security tools that are tied to ridiculously vulnerable platforms - where not only is the platform unsafe, but just accessing it as a client is unsafe as well. It's appalling. It's almost as if someone was trying to mandate or engineer access vectors for intelligence agencies in critical applications.... and by the nature of these tools, it makes those who access protected or privileged data the most vulnerable targets, and the easiest to exploit due to the multitude of methods available.
Flash can't die soon enough. Java needs to go next - Both of them are practically malware as it is, as they always install some thing you absolutely don't need (McAfee Security Assistant or whatever the hell it is, I'm looking at you) or try to install a bunch of browser bars and set a new default search engine. Seriously, they both do this -- They behave like the worst malware out there, so I see no reason to treat them otherwise.
I could also go on and on about Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is actually much worse than the others - nobody should ever run that if they care about security. Good thing that lots of "protected PDFs" used for confidential or other privileged data require it!
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:42 AM on July 14, 2015 [13 favorites]
people don't want secure software, built by engineers with training and professional standards
Or it's possible that we should stop thinking of software systems as dams or jet engines, and start thinking of them as military fighting units where the reward for turncoats is much greater than for loyalists. These exploits aren't "found", they're actively developed for profit, and the USG is one of the biggest customers.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:56 AM on July 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
Or it's possible that we should stop thinking of software systems as dams or jet engines, and start thinking of them as military fighting units where the reward for turncoats is much greater than for loyalists. These exploits aren't "found", they're actively developed for profit, and the USG is one of the biggest customers.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:56 AM on July 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
> Lightroom.
I want to hate Lightroom on principle, but damn it, it's actually very good. Part of that my be lack of good competition, although Capture One has caught my eye recently.
It interesting to look at the gaping chasm between some of Adobes professional software and the "free" client-side applications like flash and Acrobat Reader. The professional applications aren't perfect -- no professional app ever is -- but they are generally SIGNIFICANTLY better than the competition. I've done some professional catalog design over the past couple of years... I originally learned on the Adobe suite, but I didn't want to shell out for CC. I've been trying some of the lower cost alternatives in an attempt to go adobe free. You don't realize how great the Adobe stuff is until you have to use something else.
I'd say for the majority of personal usage, you can get by with things like Pixelmator (which is SO good for what it is) and Swift Publisher - Most people won't even know what they are lacking, using those two. The game changes considerably when you work with professional printers and the like. I tried using those two apps for everything for a while, and I ended up losing a TON of time - I would have more than made up the difference if I just stuck with the Adobe suite.
I can't help but notice that the commercial software that is provided at no cost tends to be the most problematic - seems easy enough to think that someone looks at them from a business perspective and thinks that because there isn't direct revenue tied to the application itself, they should spend as little time as posssible on them - all while totally overlooking that there need to be ways to consume media produced by the professional versions.
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:56 AM on July 14, 2015
I want to hate Lightroom on principle, but damn it, it's actually very good. Part of that my be lack of good competition, although Capture One has caught my eye recently.
It interesting to look at the gaping chasm between some of Adobes professional software and the "free" client-side applications like flash and Acrobat Reader. The professional applications aren't perfect -- no professional app ever is -- but they are generally SIGNIFICANTLY better than the competition. I've done some professional catalog design over the past couple of years... I originally learned on the Adobe suite, but I didn't want to shell out for CC. I've been trying some of the lower cost alternatives in an attempt to go adobe free. You don't realize how great the Adobe stuff is until you have to use something else.
I'd say for the majority of personal usage, you can get by with things like Pixelmator (which is SO good for what it is) and Swift Publisher - Most people won't even know what they are lacking, using those two. The game changes considerably when you work with professional printers and the like. I tried using those two apps for everything for a while, and I ended up losing a TON of time - I would have more than made up the difference if I just stuck with the Adobe suite.
I can't help but notice that the commercial software that is provided at no cost tends to be the most problematic - seems easy enough to think that someone looks at them from a business perspective and thinks that because there isn't direct revenue tied to the application itself, they should spend as little time as posssible on them - all while totally overlooking that there need to be ways to consume media produced by the professional versions.
posted by MysticMCJ at 8:56 AM on July 14, 2015
Flash now uninstalled. Thanks. Any recommendations for Acrobat Reader replacements?
posted by Dashy at 8:56 AM on July 14, 2015
posted by Dashy at 8:56 AM on July 14, 2015
Apple failed to kill Flash, despite their efforts
Steve Jobs didn't kill Flash — it's still here today — but the writing was on the wall after he wrote his fateful letter, and Adobe never helped their case with demos like these:
Here’s what happened: On his Mac, [Ryan Stewart, a Flash Platform evangelist at Adobe] pulled up a site called Eco Zoo. It is, seemingly, a pretty intense example of Flash development — full of 3D rendering, rich interactions, and cute little characters. Then, he pulled up the same thing on his Nexus One. The site’s progress bar filled in and the 3D world appeared for a few seconds before the browser crashed. Ryan said (paraphrasing), “Whoops! Well, it’s beta, and this is an intense example — let’s try it again.” He tried it again and got the same result. So he said to the audience, “Well, this one isn’t going to work, but does anyone have a Flash site they’d like to see running?” Someone shouted out “Hulu.” Ryan said, “Hulu doesn’t work,” and then wrapped up his demo, telling people if they wanted to try more sites they could find him later and he’d let them play with his Nexus One.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 8:58 AM on July 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
Steve Jobs didn't kill Flash — it's still here today — but the writing was on the wall after he wrote his fateful letter, and Adobe never helped their case with demos like these:
Here’s what happened: On his Mac, [Ryan Stewart, a Flash Platform evangelist at Adobe] pulled up a site called Eco Zoo. It is, seemingly, a pretty intense example of Flash development — full of 3D rendering, rich interactions, and cute little characters. Then, he pulled up the same thing on his Nexus One. The site’s progress bar filled in and the 3D world appeared for a few seconds before the browser crashed. Ryan said (paraphrasing), “Whoops! Well, it’s beta, and this is an intense example — let’s try it again.” He tried it again and got the same result. So he said to the audience, “Well, this one isn’t going to work, but does anyone have a Flash site they’d like to see running?” Someone shouted out “Hulu.” Ryan said, “Hulu doesn’t work,” and then wrapped up his demo, telling people if they wanted to try more sites they could find him later and he’d let them play with his Nexus One.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 8:58 AM on July 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
I want to hate Lightroom on principle, but damn it, it's actually very good.
Try Darktable.
posted by eclectist at 9:02 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Try Darktable.
posted by eclectist at 9:02 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Mrs. Davros: "Tag:stevejobswasright ... about this. The whole running a wage suppression racket thing? Not so much.
That said, I wholeheartedly support putting a bullet in Flash."
Me too. But he's so damn fast.
posted by Splunge at 9:02 AM on July 14, 2015 [6 favorites]
That said, I wholeheartedly support putting a bullet in Flash."
Me too. But he's so damn fast.
posted by Splunge at 9:02 AM on July 14, 2015 [6 favorites]
And even if you're like lol fuck macs, apple machines are the core bread and butter market of CS products.
I suspect you've got that backwards: Creative Suite is the killer app for of Apple users. I doubt Adobe releases it, but now I'm curious what their balance of platforms is. At the very least, their inattention to your complaints supports my theory just a tad.
Personally I just use Inkscape. I don't do a lot of graphic design though; mostly just diagrams for internal documentation, or for the occasional JessyInk presentation. But occasionally I'm asked to help open a file someone else made -- apparently CreativeSuite can't open up files made by Creative Cloud? Not sure, I just know that Inkscape opened it fine, exported to SVG, and pretty much everything can import SVG. Sadly, AFAIK nobody's jumped Inkscape over the native Quartz app hurdle.
posted by pwnguin at 9:09 AM on July 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
I suspect you've got that backwards: Creative Suite is the killer app for of Apple users. I doubt Adobe releases it, but now I'm curious what their balance of platforms is. At the very least, their inattention to your complaints supports my theory just a tad.
Personally I just use Inkscape. I don't do a lot of graphic design though; mostly just diagrams for internal documentation, or for the occasional JessyInk presentation. But occasionally I'm asked to help open a file someone else made -- apparently CreativeSuite can't open up files made by Creative Cloud? Not sure, I just know that Inkscape opened it fine, exported to SVG, and pretty much everything can import SVG. Sadly, AFAIK nobody's jumped Inkscape over the native Quartz app hurdle.
posted by pwnguin at 9:09 AM on July 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
I mean, Flash is obviously still going to be around, just not as a major web application system. It's still one of the more widely-used programs for 2-D animation, and in turn is part of the Adobe Video suite which has a huge market saturation.
One major reason that Flash and Silverlight are still used by companies like Netflix and Amazon is DRM. Until HTML5 clients can more broadly support protecting content with DRM, streaming video content licensees will likely continue to use Flash and Silverlight for some years to come. It is a lowest-common denominator option that still works reasonably well, security issues aside.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:20 AM on July 14, 2015
One major reason that Flash and Silverlight are still used by companies like Netflix and Amazon is DRM. Until HTML5 clients can more broadly support protecting content with DRM, streaming video content licensees will likely continue to use Flash and Silverlight for some years to come. It is a lowest-common denominator option that still works reasonably well, security issues aside.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 9:20 AM on July 14, 2015
These exploits aren't "found", they're actively developed for profit, and the USG is one of the biggest customers.
Uf, you're violating Hanlon's Razor in a big way. Here's the really short-hand version of it: even if Adobe employed experienced and well-vetted coders, some subset of them are going to be crap. Even if Adobe compensates for that with all kinds of automated testing and checking, they're not going to catch everything. I come in no way to praise Adobe (I'd be happy to see them buried) but the idea this is a nefarious plot when what it is a side effect of A Really Hard Problem and a zillion iterations of user machines is silly.
The problem with infosec is that it's very easy to write bugs, hard/ impossible to catch them automatically (depending on the language and level of effort) and that security is asymmetric: your code can be written by the 10 best coders in the world, but there are only 10 of them and they have a limited amount of time whereas the world is constantly churning out script kiddies with nothing to do and all day to do it in.
My cutesy way of explaining the problem is this: ever been electrocuted? Not finger-in-a-light-socket, but actually grab a live wire? I had the chance once* and it was fascinating (it didn't hurt): instead of my hand being controlled by small, discrete, intentional pulses of electricity from my brain, it started getting an open tap of electricity from the wire. We write code in discrete, intentional chunks, but users don't always comply with the intent. There are lots of pathways coders don't intentionally lay down, but they're there for anyone who wants to flood the system to sound out the paths.
*New house and my dad shut off every breaker but the one he should have on that floor.
posted by yerfatma at 9:21 AM on July 14, 2015 [6 favorites]
Uf, you're violating Hanlon's Razor in a big way. Here's the really short-hand version of it: even if Adobe employed experienced and well-vetted coders, some subset of them are going to be crap. Even if Adobe compensates for that with all kinds of automated testing and checking, they're not going to catch everything. I come in no way to praise Adobe (I'd be happy to see them buried) but the idea this is a nefarious plot when what it is a side effect of A Really Hard Problem and a zillion iterations of user machines is silly.
The problem with infosec is that it's very easy to write bugs, hard/ impossible to catch them automatically (depending on the language and level of effort) and that security is asymmetric: your code can be written by the 10 best coders in the world, but there are only 10 of them and they have a limited amount of time whereas the world is constantly churning out script kiddies with nothing to do and all day to do it in.
My cutesy way of explaining the problem is this: ever been electrocuted? Not finger-in-a-light-socket, but actually grab a live wire? I had the chance once* and it was fascinating (it didn't hurt): instead of my hand being controlled by small, discrete, intentional pulses of electricity from my brain, it started getting an open tap of electricity from the wire. We write code in discrete, intentional chunks, but users don't always comply with the intent. There are lots of pathways coders don't intentionally lay down, but they're there for anyone who wants to flood the system to sound out the paths.
*New house and my dad shut off every breaker but the one he should have on that floor.
posted by yerfatma at 9:21 AM on July 14, 2015 [6 favorites]
It is interesting to follow Adobe's slow transition to the dark side. Products such as Photoshop, Illustrator and many it acquired from Macromedia were absolutely ground breaking in their day.
The assertion that Photoshop was purchased from Macromedia is wrong. The original software was developed by Thomas and John Knoll (brothers) who in 1988 sold the license to distribute to Adobe. Both brothers continued to work on Photoshop post-launch.
To further deflate that earlier bit of Macromedia puffery, Flash came directly from Macromedia and was even named "Flash" when Macromedia was a going concern.
Illustrator is a fine program and was called Freehand when Macromedia owned it.
So, yeah, Adobe has its problems, especially regarding Flash. However, Photoshop is about as dyed-in-the-wool an Adobe product as any and it continues to this day to be unparalleled in its features and affordances.
While jeers deservedly go to Adobe for (the later development of) Flash, practically all credit for Photoshop goes to Adobe. Macromedia doesn't even figure.
posted by mistersquid at 9:24 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
The assertion that Photoshop was purchased from Macromedia is wrong. The original software was developed by Thomas and John Knoll (brothers) who in 1988 sold the license to distribute to Adobe. Both brothers continued to work on Photoshop post-launch.
To further deflate that earlier bit of Macromedia puffery, Flash came directly from Macromedia and was even named "Flash" when Macromedia was a going concern.
Illustrator is a fine program and was called Freehand when Macromedia owned it.
So, yeah, Adobe has its problems, especially regarding Flash. However, Photoshop is about as dyed-in-the-wool an Adobe product as any and it continues to this day to be unparalleled in its features and affordances.
While jeers deservedly go to Adobe for (the later development of) Flash, practically all credit for Photoshop goes to Adobe. Macromedia doesn't even figure.
posted by mistersquid at 9:24 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
They're a huge, lumbering, semi directionless company that pushes out mediocre garbageware that's somehow The Standard. Why? Because fuck us, we'll buy it anyways.
This is a bit of an exaggeration. Are you saying the industry standard for typesetting is InDesign for the above reason? So, then, what's better? Quark? LaTex? Scribus? I don't think any of those quite match up. Though Adobe Creative software is a bit on the bloated side, its features are not beaten by other programs, though some might be equaled. And I sense a bit of an Apple bias in your post when you mention Logic and Aperture. As far as DAWs go, Logic is pretty mediocre itself compared to ProTools or Cubase. I don't know much about photography so can't comment on Aperture.
posted by ChuckRamone at 9:27 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
This is a bit of an exaggeration. Are you saying the industry standard for typesetting is InDesign for the above reason? So, then, what's better? Quark? LaTex? Scribus? I don't think any of those quite match up. Though Adobe Creative software is a bit on the bloated side, its features are not beaten by other programs, though some might be equaled. And I sense a bit of an Apple bias in your post when you mention Logic and Aperture. As far as DAWs go, Logic is pretty mediocre itself compared to ProTools or Cubase. I don't know much about photography so can't comment on Aperture.
posted by ChuckRamone at 9:27 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
I continue to wonder (as a GIS/IT/Security guy) what the end-of-life plans are for DoD mission systems that are deeply invested in Flash. It's not as if you could just turn them off this afternoon. I mean, you could...
Navy Georeadiness Explorer (GRX) (pdf! - describes app)
Arlington National Cemetary Explorer (Flash)
It's not as if the (ongoing and consistent) security holes were unknown when the vendors won these. Really third rate.
posted by j_curiouser at 9:28 AM on July 14, 2015
Navy Georeadiness Explorer (GRX) (pdf! - describes app)
Arlington National Cemetary Explorer (Flash)
It's not as if the (ongoing and consistent) security holes were unknown when the vendors won these. Really third rate.
posted by j_curiouser at 9:28 AM on July 14, 2015
> the idea this is a nefarious plot when what it is a side effect of A Really Hard Problem and a zillion iterations of user machines is silly.
I don't think it's as likely as it just being shitty software, but there's valid reason to believe that some bugs and exploits could be paid for by the USA, or developed under pressure from the USA -- With the NSA reveals, as well as the amount of pressure that the intelligence agencies have been placing on vendors to actively have back doors into products and master keys to encryption, I don't think it's beyond the realm of reasonable belief. Having exploits tied into manufacturers software would certainly provide plausible deniability.
No, a company wont capture everything, but there's really no excuse for their track record specifically involving vulnerabilities that will allow someone to execute arbitrary remote code, including spawning a remote shell and installing arbitrary software -- from a fucking DOCUMENT READER. As a bonus, many versions managed to do this on the Windows, Mac, and Linux versions - Cross platform arbitrary execution is, well, I hesitate to say impressive...
Read their history of security advisories for some perspective. They have a history of remote execution flaws on a regular basis documented for the past 7 years -- and that's only the published advisories on their site. This isn't just a few bad blocks of code or a few bad coders, it's fundamentally poor overall design.
In fairness, I think they still can't keep up with OpenSSL in terms of frequency of critical vulnerabilities...
posted by MysticMCJ at 9:53 AM on July 14, 2015
I don't think it's as likely as it just being shitty software, but there's valid reason to believe that some bugs and exploits could be paid for by the USA, or developed under pressure from the USA -- With the NSA reveals, as well as the amount of pressure that the intelligence agencies have been placing on vendors to actively have back doors into products and master keys to encryption, I don't think it's beyond the realm of reasonable belief. Having exploits tied into manufacturers software would certainly provide plausible deniability.
No, a company wont capture everything, but there's really no excuse for their track record specifically involving vulnerabilities that will allow someone to execute arbitrary remote code, including spawning a remote shell and installing arbitrary software -- from a fucking DOCUMENT READER. As a bonus, many versions managed to do this on the Windows, Mac, and Linux versions - Cross platform arbitrary execution is, well, I hesitate to say impressive...
Read their history of security advisories for some perspective. They have a history of remote execution flaws on a regular basis documented for the past 7 years -- and that's only the published advisories on their site. This isn't just a few bad blocks of code or a few bad coders, it's fundamentally poor overall design.
In fairness, I think they still can't keep up with OpenSSL in terms of frequency of critical vulnerabilities...
posted by MysticMCJ at 9:53 AM on July 14, 2015
The assertion that Photoshop was purchased from Macromedia is wrong. The original software was developed by Thomas and John Knoll (brothers) who in 1988 sold the license to distribute to Adobe. Both brothers continued to work on Photoshop post-launch.
Where was that assertion made? This statement: It is interesting to follow Adobe's slow transition to the dark side. Products such as Photoshop, Illustrator and many it acquired from Macromedia were absolutely ground breaking in their day.
Says "and many it acquired from Macromedia..." which means in addition to Photoshop and Illustrator, not that those products were from Macromedia.
Illustrator is a fine program and was called Freehand when Macromedia owned it.
Really? This is news to me. I remember when I had both Illustrator from Adobe and Freehand from Macromedia on my production box (as well as Corel Draw for some situations). When Adobe acquired Macromedia I thought they killed it and perhaps took a couple of features but I've never heard of Freehand outright replacing Illustrator's code base. Where is this information? I remember Freehand users not being at all pleased that they'd have to move to Illustrator.
So, yeah, Adobe has its problems, especially regarding Flash. However, Photoshop is about as dyed-in-the-wool an Adobe product as any and it continues to this day to be unparalleled in its features and affordances.
Indeed. I don't see anyone claiming otherwise, in terms of Photoshop coming from Macromedia. I haven't even seen the Photoshop came from ILM statement. Thankfully, if it's true that the initial version of Photoshop was shown to both Adobe and Apple, but Adobe bought it, then that is a great thing. It would have been horrible if Apple bought it.
posted by juiceCake at 10:00 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Where was that assertion made? This statement: It is interesting to follow Adobe's slow transition to the dark side. Products such as Photoshop, Illustrator and many it acquired from Macromedia were absolutely ground breaking in their day.
Says "and many it acquired from Macromedia..." which means in addition to Photoshop and Illustrator, not that those products were from Macromedia.
Illustrator is a fine program and was called Freehand when Macromedia owned it.
Really? This is news to me. I remember when I had both Illustrator from Adobe and Freehand from Macromedia on my production box (as well as Corel Draw for some situations). When Adobe acquired Macromedia I thought they killed it and perhaps took a couple of features but I've never heard of Freehand outright replacing Illustrator's code base. Where is this information? I remember Freehand users not being at all pleased that they'd have to move to Illustrator.
So, yeah, Adobe has its problems, especially regarding Flash. However, Photoshop is about as dyed-in-the-wool an Adobe product as any and it continues to this day to be unparalleled in its features and affordances.
Indeed. I don't see anyone claiming otherwise, in terms of Photoshop coming from Macromedia. I haven't even seen the Photoshop came from ILM statement. Thankfully, if it's true that the initial version of Photoshop was shown to both Adobe and Apple, but Adobe bought it, then that is a great thing. It would have been horrible if Apple bought it.
posted by juiceCake at 10:00 AM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
juiceCake, looks like I misread rongorongo's sentence, and thanks for reminding that Adobe Illustrator and Macromedia Freehand once existed as competitors.
I plumb forgot.
posted by mistersquid at 10:09 AM on July 14, 2015
I plumb forgot.
posted by mistersquid at 10:09 AM on July 14, 2015
Any recommendations for Acrobat Reader replacements?
Sumatra PDF is fast and lightweight. It won't handle advanced Acrobat features, though, if you need those. Foxit is sometimes recommended, but it has its own problems. PDF-XChange Viewer is decent and fairly full-featured.
posted by whatnotever at 10:17 AM on July 14, 2015 [6 favorites]
Sumatra PDF is fast and lightweight. It won't handle advanced Acrobat features, though, if you need those. Foxit is sometimes recommended, but it has its own problems. PDF-XChange Viewer is decent and fairly full-featured.
posted by whatnotever at 10:17 AM on July 14, 2015 [6 favorites]
One major reason that Flash and Silverlight are still used by companies like Netflix and Amazon is DRM. Until HTML5 clients can more broadly support protecting content with DRM, streaming video content licensees will likely continue to use Flash and Silverlight for some years to come.
Or until right now! I was just watching something on a computer with neither Flash nor Silverlight installed. Netflix in Google Chrome or in Internet Explorer (on recent versions of Windows) or Safari (in recent versions of OS X) plays video with HTML 5 video and Encrypted Media Extensions for DRM.
posted by JiBB at 10:26 AM on July 14, 2015
Or until right now! I was just watching something on a computer with neither Flash nor Silverlight installed. Netflix in Google Chrome or in Internet Explorer (on recent versions of Windows) or Safari (in recent versions of OS X) plays video with HTML 5 video and Encrypted Media Extensions for DRM.
posted by JiBB at 10:26 AM on July 14, 2015
Huh? Apple's efforts to kill Flash were HTML5 video and other HTML5 technologies.
Apple is merely a member of WHATWG.
posted by WCWedin at 10:47 AM on July 14, 2015
Apple is merely a member of WHATWG.
posted by WCWedin at 10:47 AM on July 14, 2015
Apple is merely a member of WHATWG.
I didn't mean to say they did it alone. Though they contributed a hell of a lot of code to WebKit to make it actually happen.
posted by zsazsa at 10:49 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
I didn't mean to say they did it alone. Though they contributed a hell of a lot of code to WebKit to make it actually happen.
posted by zsazsa at 10:49 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Is there a free alternative to Photoshop? Asking for a friend.
posted by Ber at 10:54 AM on July 14, 2015
posted by Ber at 10:54 AM on July 14, 2015
Flash video would certainly explain why I can't ever get a FB video to go for more than 30 seconds without stuttering. I've gotten to the point that if I actually want to see a video from some site that one of my friends have posted to FB, I'd rather look it up on youtube because it's faster and I'll see it in one go instead of the constant jerking back 10 seconds I get with FB videos.
posted by immlass at 11:05 AM on July 14, 2015
posted by immlass at 11:05 AM on July 14, 2015
It was incredibly frustrating to have zero problems with digital video on the mac - even with various websites - to discovering that now everything used FLASH and now the videos performed like crap because of some lowest common denominator BS.
What is your theory for why companies like YouTube used Flash instead of Quicktime, if Quicktime was so much better? YouTube didn't have any incentive to use a less optimal solution, right?
posted by smackfu at 11:07 AM on July 14, 2015
What is your theory for why companies like YouTube used Flash instead of Quicktime, if Quicktime was so much better? YouTube didn't have any incentive to use a less optimal solution, right?
posted by smackfu at 11:07 AM on July 14, 2015
As far as DAWs go, Logic is pretty mediocre itself compared to ProTools or Cubase.
Depends on what you're working on (and personal preference) I think. I'm sure ProTools is still tops for a recording studio but not so much for, say, an electronic musician. Which would be my guess what he's doing if he's also using Live.
posted by atoxyl at 11:16 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Depends on what you're working on (and personal preference) I think. I'm sure ProTools is still tops for a recording studio but not so much for, say, an electronic musician. Which would be my guess what he's doing if he's also using Live.
posted by atoxyl at 11:16 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
Well a lot of people do use Cubase for that - I think on the Mac you need a wrapper for AU plugins though.
posted by atoxyl at 11:20 AM on July 14, 2015
posted by atoxyl at 11:20 AM on July 14, 2015
Chrome today just started telling me my Flash was out of date but their provided method for updating isn't registering any updates. Anyone else? Seems likely a direct result of these issues.
posted by wemayfreeze at 11:22 AM on July 14, 2015
posted by wemayfreeze at 11:22 AM on July 14, 2015
Dashy: Any recommendations for Acrobat Reader replacements?
As mentioned above: I'm happy with FoxIt Reader.
posted by Too-Ticky at 11:29 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
As mentioned above: I'm happy with FoxIt Reader.
posted by Too-Ticky at 11:29 AM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
No more flash? This is going to be terrible news for that guy who designs all those restaurant websites!!!
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 11:33 AM on July 14, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by cobra_high_tigers at 11:33 AM on July 14, 2015 [11 favorites]
I don't think the bugs were introduced intentionally, I was just responding to the idea that software security failures are a result of undertraining and lack of accreditation/wrong processes.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:37 PM on July 14, 2015
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 12:37 PM on July 14, 2015
> This is going to be terrible news for that guy who designs all those restaurant websites!!!
And all those OMG Ew Ew Ew flash-based artist galleries.
posted by jfuller at 12:42 PM on July 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
And all those OMG Ew Ew Ew flash-based artist galleries.
posted by jfuller at 12:42 PM on July 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
Netflix in Google Chrome or in Internet Explorer (on recent versions of Windows) or Safari (in recent versions of OS X) plays video with HTML 5 video and Encrypted Media Extensions for DRM.
There are definitely ways to play DRM-protected media in the cutting edge of HTML5, but supporting it is a shitshow of technical hassles for developers who have to make all the vendors' various extensions work on multiple devices, browsers, and platforms. And until consumers all manage to upgrade to Windows 8.1 or Mac OS X 10.10 or greater, it will instead be the lowest common denominator options that already work — Flash and Silverlight — that get companies like Netflix and Amazon the most eyeballs and the most profit.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:51 PM on July 14, 2015
There are definitely ways to play DRM-protected media in the cutting edge of HTML5, but supporting it is a shitshow of technical hassles for developers who have to make all the vendors' various extensions work on multiple devices, browsers, and platforms. And until consumers all manage to upgrade to Windows 8.1 or Mac OS X 10.10 or greater, it will instead be the lowest common denominator options that already work — Flash and Silverlight — that get companies like Netflix and Amazon the most eyeballs and the most profit.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:51 PM on July 14, 2015
FWIW I will stand by my belief that most of the CS apps are pretty good. I hate the rental business model, but the apps themselves are far better than any of the alternatives, and I've tried them all multiple times.
"Better than the other crap out there" != good. Just because they drowned the market for real competitors to PS/IL/LR doesn't mean those are good. There just isn't anything better because there's no oxygen left in the room.
This is a bit of an exaggeration. Are you saying the industry standard for typesetting is InDesign for the above reason? So, then, what's better? Quark? LaTex? Scribus? I don't think any of those quite match up. Though Adobe Creative software is a bit on the bloated side, its features are not beaten by other programs, though some might be equaled. And I sense a bit of an Apple bias in your post when you mention Logic and Aperture. As far as DAWs go, Logic is pretty mediocre itself compared to ProTools or Cubase. I don't know much about photography so can't comment on Aperture.
I'm saying it's the best out there because no one has the resources to compete. They've suffocated the market, and have basically just sat down and stopped doing much of anything. They add features, but they're basically pulling an intel. Look at intels roadmap, and then look at the past 4 years. Instructions per clock has gone up what, 10%? And it's projected to not do much of anything until 2018.
Basically what i said above already. Just because it's the best thing available doesn't mean it's actually good, relatively bug free, runs well, or that it's a joy to use.
And i only brought up logic because it's resource intensive but runs smoothly even on mediocre hardware. I'm familiar with protools, ableton, and even some of the avid suite stuff. And similarly, there are more expensive competitors to premiere(...like avid) that run a lot more smoothly.
"It's got more features" and "it's what everyone uses" are all anyone can really say. It doesn't, honestly, work very well. There isn't a single content creation type app i regularly use that's as buggy or slow as photoshop.
What's disturbing is that this sort of outdated interface is incredibly common in the infosec and systems realms. If there's a web interface that a business absolutely HAS to use for some reason, then it's pretty much a guarantee that it will require outdated java or flash - more so if it's related to "security."
Oh god. Part of my job description is POS engineer, and so i'm familiar with the whole PCI compliance thing. But it's amazing how much stuff is dumb as hell like this. You buy a state of the art enterprise grade AP system with mesh capability... and the ONLY interface to the admin console requires that you run a java-based "server" app that of course requires some super outdated version of java. Then they update it, and it ends up requiring TWO versions of java to run. Both of which aren't current, and you're afraid to update the newer one any time you do(or worse, someone else does)
The VM thing fall under "ok i guess but still cringey" as a solution, but i've had to go as far as keeping an old system running XP on a shelf just to run specific old versions of software that require hardware to be directly plugged in. And yea, sometimes that stuff has java involved too. Ugh.
The worst is when they require 32 bit versions of some ancient outdated java(like, 3+ versions ago) and you're on a 64 bit system. You look it up and this software was patched a couple months ago, and yet that version came out during Vista or even XP and you just go "fucking REALLY guys?!?!"
Actually no, i take that back, the worst one was a "control center" type java app i had to run to change some access keys that would hang and do fuck all until you disabled windows firewall. Giving it an exception wasn't enough. Giving related stuff exceptions didn't do it either. Looked it up online, yep, common issue. Really wanted to mail that company a turd after that, and i really wish i had known i'd be there before i ever recommended my company buy any of their shit.
posted by emptythought at 1:56 PM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
"Better than the other crap out there" != good. Just because they drowned the market for real competitors to PS/IL/LR doesn't mean those are good. There just isn't anything better because there's no oxygen left in the room.
This is a bit of an exaggeration. Are you saying the industry standard for typesetting is InDesign for the above reason? So, then, what's better? Quark? LaTex? Scribus? I don't think any of those quite match up. Though Adobe Creative software is a bit on the bloated side, its features are not beaten by other programs, though some might be equaled. And I sense a bit of an Apple bias in your post when you mention Logic and Aperture. As far as DAWs go, Logic is pretty mediocre itself compared to ProTools or Cubase. I don't know much about photography so can't comment on Aperture.
I'm saying it's the best out there because no one has the resources to compete. They've suffocated the market, and have basically just sat down and stopped doing much of anything. They add features, but they're basically pulling an intel. Look at intels roadmap, and then look at the past 4 years. Instructions per clock has gone up what, 10%? And it's projected to not do much of anything until 2018.
Basically what i said above already. Just because it's the best thing available doesn't mean it's actually good, relatively bug free, runs well, or that it's a joy to use.
And i only brought up logic because it's resource intensive but runs smoothly even on mediocre hardware. I'm familiar with protools, ableton, and even some of the avid suite stuff. And similarly, there are more expensive competitors to premiere(...like avid) that run a lot more smoothly.
"It's got more features" and "it's what everyone uses" are all anyone can really say. It doesn't, honestly, work very well. There isn't a single content creation type app i regularly use that's as buggy or slow as photoshop.
What's disturbing is that this sort of outdated interface is incredibly common in the infosec and systems realms. If there's a web interface that a business absolutely HAS to use for some reason, then it's pretty much a guarantee that it will require outdated java or flash - more so if it's related to "security."
Oh god. Part of my job description is POS engineer, and so i'm familiar with the whole PCI compliance thing. But it's amazing how much stuff is dumb as hell like this. You buy a state of the art enterprise grade AP system with mesh capability... and the ONLY interface to the admin console requires that you run a java-based "server" app that of course requires some super outdated version of java. Then they update it, and it ends up requiring TWO versions of java to run. Both of which aren't current, and you're afraid to update the newer one any time you do(or worse, someone else does)
The VM thing fall under "ok i guess but still cringey" as a solution, but i've had to go as far as keeping an old system running XP on a shelf just to run specific old versions of software that require hardware to be directly plugged in. And yea, sometimes that stuff has java involved too. Ugh.
The worst is when they require 32 bit versions of some ancient outdated java(like, 3+ versions ago) and you're on a 64 bit system. You look it up and this software was patched a couple months ago, and yet that version came out during Vista or even XP and you just go "fucking REALLY guys?!?!"
Actually no, i take that back, the worst one was a "control center" type java app i had to run to change some access keys that would hang and do fuck all until you disabled windows firewall. Giving it an exception wasn't enough. Giving related stuff exceptions didn't do it either. Looked it up online, yep, common issue. Really wanted to mail that company a turd after that, and i really wish i had known i'd be there before i ever recommended my company buy any of their shit.
posted by emptythought at 1:56 PM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Is there a free alternative to Photoshop? Asking for a friend.
Well, there is, of course, GIMP. But, if your friend does any actual image work for professional print, they can forget GIMP. It doesn't do CMYK.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:01 PM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well, there is, of course, GIMP. But, if your friend does any actual image work for professional print, they can forget GIMP. It doesn't do CMYK.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:01 PM on July 14, 2015 [2 favorites]
> Eh, nah. It's a standard everyone accepts, but it's not very good. It's all laggy
> system-sucking BS that only runs smoothly on gonzo hardware.
Slight derail, but if you mean PS and AI and then what on earth are you doing to the poor things?
Here's a clip of the most nearly finished part of a WIP (fan art for Dorothy Gale of Kansas, it is.) It's of course shrunk way down to get it under imgur's size limit, but the full uncropped original is 14,000 x 18,200 px x 24bit, fully layered, and CS3 is running on my elderly craigslist laptop (32bit Win7, dual core only @2.25 gHz, 4GB RAM--3.25GB usable) with typically also fifteen or so Firefox tabs open and often with AI and Inkscape and three or four instances of xnview and some other odds and ends open as well, and it does not lag or go belly up. I dislike Adobe as much as anyone (mainly because of the effort it takes to keep it from finding ways to phone home) but I often think OMG PS does memory management like a boss.
My copy does, anyway, YMMV.
(N.b. if there's anybody in the thread ready with artistic advice I'd be hugely grateful for some about Dorothy's eye. The blue you see is my original pencil. The instant I try to overdraw this with any hard black strokes she starts to look like either anime or Cruella deVille. If that seems too derail-y for this thread please memail me. Thankyouthankyouthhankyou!)
posted by jfuller at 2:09 PM on July 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
> system-sucking BS that only runs smoothly on gonzo hardware.
Slight derail, but if you mean PS and AI and then what on earth are you doing to the poor things?
Here's a clip of the most nearly finished part of a WIP (fan art for Dorothy Gale of Kansas, it is.) It's of course shrunk way down to get it under imgur's size limit, but the full uncropped original is 14,000 x 18,200 px x 24bit, fully layered, and CS3 is running on my elderly craigslist laptop (32bit Win7, dual core only @2.25 gHz, 4GB RAM--3.25GB usable) with typically also fifteen or so Firefox tabs open and often with AI and Inkscape and three or four instances of xnview and some other odds and ends open as well, and it does not lag or go belly up. I dislike Adobe as much as anyone (mainly because of the effort it takes to keep it from finding ways to phone home) but I often think OMG PS does memory management like a boss.
My copy does, anyway, YMMV.
(N.b. if there's anybody in the thread ready with artistic advice I'd be hugely grateful for some about Dorothy's eye. The blue you see is my original pencil. The instant I try to overdraw this with any hard black strokes she starts to look like either anime or Cruella deVille. If that seems too derail-y for this thread please memail me. Thankyouthankyouthhankyou!)
posted by jfuller at 2:09 PM on July 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
I plumb forgot.
I was under the impression for years that Adobe had killed FrameMaker (I know they killed it for the Mac) only to discover after saying so during a meeting that it's still going, which will come in handy if I ever get back into technical writing, though I haven't used it in years. Loved it for long documents.
posted by juiceCake at 2:10 PM on July 14, 2015
I was under the impression for years that Adobe had killed FrameMaker (I know they killed it for the Mac) only to discover after saying so during a meeting that it's still going, which will come in handy if I ever get back into technical writing, though I haven't used it in years. Loved it for long documents.
posted by juiceCake at 2:10 PM on July 14, 2015
I wouldn't conflate Adobe's slower rate of software improvement with Intel's slowed pace of chip development.
In both cases, I believe most of the low-hanging fruit has been plucked, as far as new features are concerned. I'm also not really sure exactly what new things you're looking for in Photoshop? Now that they've added Dehaze, maybe 1% of photographers want new features from Photoshop that they can't already get with other tools or add-ons?
With respect to PS's performance, once they finally made it 64-bit and Cocoa native on OS X, I generally found its performance adequate, even on 36 megapixel images, at least until lots of filters and effects got stacked. My computer, which, granted, was powerful at the time, was released in 2008 and I applied some upgrades, but it's still fast enough in most cases.
It's just that they have the classic "software market responds better to new features than to better performance" problem - it's hard to sell an upgrade as "We just made it faster and less buggy!" rather than, "We added these new features you'll want to have!"
I think what most users want out of Photoshop at this point is more speed and more stability. From a programmer's perspective, this may actually be considerably more difficult than throwing new features on to appease the masses. At this point, though, at least on OS X, there are a bunch of cheaper Photoshop competitors now around, as people have alluded. Lightroom has less serious competition but there still is some.
Regarding Intel, I have no doubt that they slowed down their rate of improvement in part because AMD isn't able to push them as hard. That having been said, both companies are now at the point where eking out dramatic performance gains from x86 chips just isn't easy any more. They're testing what, the 14nm process node in R&D now? We're at a point with the x86 chip where further development is into diminishing returns. So yes, Intel slowed down - because advancement is so hard that they no longer have to worry that AMD will blindside them. It's now damn expensive and difficult to make a drastically better CPU. Given that they're running into hard physics problems at this point, I think the problem is a very big difference in kind from Adobe's failure to make their code run faster and be less bloated. Flash is the worst of all worlds on that score, since it's now largely considered obsolete by the forward thinking tech types, and investing resources into making it run faster is something of a long-term waste. People already want to give up on it, for good reason.
posted by Strudel at 2:20 PM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
In both cases, I believe most of the low-hanging fruit has been plucked, as far as new features are concerned. I'm also not really sure exactly what new things you're looking for in Photoshop? Now that they've added Dehaze, maybe 1% of photographers want new features from Photoshop that they can't already get with other tools or add-ons?
With respect to PS's performance, once they finally made it 64-bit and Cocoa native on OS X, I generally found its performance adequate, even on 36 megapixel images, at least until lots of filters and effects got stacked. My computer, which, granted, was powerful at the time, was released in 2008 and I applied some upgrades, but it's still fast enough in most cases.
It's just that they have the classic "software market responds better to new features than to better performance" problem - it's hard to sell an upgrade as "We just made it faster and less buggy!" rather than, "We added these new features you'll want to have!"
I think what most users want out of Photoshop at this point is more speed and more stability. From a programmer's perspective, this may actually be considerably more difficult than throwing new features on to appease the masses. At this point, though, at least on OS X, there are a bunch of cheaper Photoshop competitors now around, as people have alluded. Lightroom has less serious competition but there still is some.
Regarding Intel, I have no doubt that they slowed down their rate of improvement in part because AMD isn't able to push them as hard. That having been said, both companies are now at the point where eking out dramatic performance gains from x86 chips just isn't easy any more. They're testing what, the 14nm process node in R&D now? We're at a point with the x86 chip where further development is into diminishing returns. So yes, Intel slowed down - because advancement is so hard that they no longer have to worry that AMD will blindside them. It's now damn expensive and difficult to make a drastically better CPU. Given that they're running into hard physics problems at this point, I think the problem is a very big difference in kind from Adobe's failure to make their code run faster and be less bloated. Flash is the worst of all worlds on that score, since it's now largely considered obsolete by the forward thinking tech types, and investing resources into making it run faster is something of a long-term waste. People already want to give up on it, for good reason.
posted by Strudel at 2:20 PM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
emptythought: "There's also cheesy stuff like the fact that until CS5, none of the creative suite was actually a native OSX application. OSX was ten years old at that point, and had been The Real Mac OS for at least 7 years. And even if you're like lol fuck macs, apple machines are the core bread and butter market of CS products. I could also go in to how awful they were at updating CS6 to actually support 4x/HiDPI displays on windows and OSX but ugh."
All of this is true, but CS5 came out in 2010, so I'm not sure how relevant it is to complain about that now. HiDPI is a more relevant complaint, but it was also fixed last year, and now works really well.
I don't feel like PS, AI, and ID are slow, and I'm on a laptop (ok, a high-end laptop, but still). AE is kind of slow, but it does a lot, and AE 2015 feels a lot snappier, and definitely renders a lot faster than previous versions. Most of my AE comps are 4k, and I can work with them just fine on this laptop. So I'm not complaining too much. It's not like stuff like, say, Nuke or Fusion run 4k comps any faster on this hardware.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:29 PM on July 14, 2015
All of this is true, but CS5 came out in 2010, so I'm not sure how relevant it is to complain about that now. HiDPI is a more relevant complaint, but it was also fixed last year, and now works really well.
I don't feel like PS, AI, and ID are slow, and I'm on a laptop (ok, a high-end laptop, but still). AE is kind of slow, but it does a lot, and AE 2015 feels a lot snappier, and definitely renders a lot faster than previous versions. Most of my AE comps are 4k, and I can work with them just fine on this laptop. So I'm not complaining too much. It's not like stuff like, say, Nuke or Fusion run 4k comps any faster on this hardware.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:29 PM on July 14, 2015
FWIW, Adobe has now released a new version of Flash, 18.0.0.209, and Firefox doesn’t block it by default. I'm on the fence about whether to download it. I'm tired of all these notices on every single site saying that Firefox is blocking Flash, but on the other hand it seems like it will be mere hours before Flash gets blocked again amidst reports of more vulnerabilities.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 2:31 PM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Ursula Hitler at 2:31 PM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
And chalk me up for actually liking the rental model, both for me personally and for my company. It used to be the full Adobe Creative Suite 6 bundle (Master Collection) cost 2600 dollars, and upgrading it from CS5.5 cost 525 dollars, while upgrading from CS5 to CS6 cost over 1000 dollars. You could buy individual apps, but the big ones cost 500-600 dollars each. The upgrade cycle was 1-2 years.
Now, Adobe Creative Cloud costs 19 dollars per month for a single app, or 49 dollars per month for all of them, and you get upgrades as they come out. This has basically turned it from a kind of big upfront investment to a minor running cost for us, and we've been able to totally stop using pirated versions. I do wish Adobe would make the business licenses (which cost 69 dollars per user, mostly because they include more space on their cloud thing, which we don't use) floating, though. That would make it really useful for those occasional "I need to open this file real quick on this computer" scenarios.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:39 PM on July 14, 2015
Now, Adobe Creative Cloud costs 19 dollars per month for a single app, or 49 dollars per month for all of them, and you get upgrades as they come out. This has basically turned it from a kind of big upfront investment to a minor running cost for us, and we've been able to totally stop using pirated versions. I do wish Adobe would make the business licenses (which cost 69 dollars per user, mostly because they include more space on their cloud thing, which we don't use) floating, though. That would make it really useful for those occasional "I need to open this file real quick on this computer" scenarios.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 2:39 PM on July 14, 2015
I use CC, but the actual CC app itself is kind of laughable: Whenever it updates its own apps, it loses all file associations for those apps.
I run a fairly decent machine here, but PS, Illustrator and InDesign all really kill it when the file sizes rise.
posted by maxwelton at 3:07 PM on July 14, 2015
I run a fairly decent machine here, but PS, Illustrator and InDesign all really kill it when the file sizes rise.
posted by maxwelton at 3:07 PM on July 14, 2015
FWIW, Adobe has now released a new version of Flash, 18.0.0.209, and Firefox doesn’t block it by default. I'm on the fence about whether to download it.
I need at least one browser running Flash for work because so much e-learning is still in Flash: the options are basically aaaaalmost there HTML5 output in a couple of tools and pay-us-with-your-unborn-grandchildren-to-get-bog-standard-HTML-output Lectora. I'm keeping Flash disabled on Firefox, never launch IE, and am keeping Flash enabled on Chrome. But I have to talk my clients into some alternatives soon.
If you don't really need Flash, try deliberately going without it for a month. You may lose your craving, or get all zen-accepting about the site nags.
posted by maudlin at 3:36 PM on July 14, 2015
I need at least one browser running Flash for work because so much e-learning is still in Flash: the options are basically aaaaalmost there HTML5 output in a couple of tools and pay-us-with-your-unborn-grandchildren-to-get-bog-standard-HTML-output Lectora. I'm keeping Flash disabled on Firefox, never launch IE, and am keeping Flash enabled on Chrome. But I have to talk my clients into some alternatives soon.
If you don't really need Flash, try deliberately going without it for a month. You may lose your craving, or get all zen-accepting about the site nags.
posted by maudlin at 3:36 PM on July 14, 2015
The lineage of Creative Cloud as I remember it:
In the beginning, Adobe made Photoshop and Illustrator; Aldus made Pagemaker and After Effects and licensed FreeHand from a company called Altsys, who also made Fontographer; Macromedia made Flash, Fireworks and Dreamweaver. And ColdFusion, without which we wouldn't have a Metafilter.*
All of these companies also made other software that's now long forgotten. Supercard, anyone?
Adobe bought Aldus (getting Pagemaker and After Effects and a bunch of other things, most of which are no longer with us) and Macromedia bought Altsys (getting FreeHand and Fontographer). In 2005, Adobe bought Macromedia, acquiring and effectively killing Illustrator competitor FreeHand and (eventually) Photoshop competitor Fireworks, and making Dreamweaver and Flash the centrepiece of their web strategy. Fontographer was bought by its main competitor FontLab. Which is a whole nother story.
It's basically a very, very boring soap opera. I'm sure I've forgotten someone and it's even more complicated than that.
*Obvs I'm just saying this for effect. In reality, without ColdFusion, Matt would just have used PHP and possibly had a more straightforward life.
posted by Grangousier at 3:50 PM on July 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
In the beginning, Adobe made Photoshop and Illustrator; Aldus made Pagemaker and After Effects and licensed FreeHand from a company called Altsys, who also made Fontographer; Macromedia made Flash, Fireworks and Dreamweaver. And ColdFusion, without which we wouldn't have a Metafilter.*
All of these companies also made other software that's now long forgotten. Supercard, anyone?
Adobe bought Aldus (getting Pagemaker and After Effects and a bunch of other things, most of which are no longer with us) and Macromedia bought Altsys (getting FreeHand and Fontographer). In 2005, Adobe bought Macromedia, acquiring and effectively killing Illustrator competitor FreeHand and (eventually) Photoshop competitor Fireworks, and making Dreamweaver and Flash the centrepiece of their web strategy. Fontographer was bought by its main competitor FontLab. Which is a whole nother story.
It's basically a very, very boring soap opera. I'm sure I've forgotten someone and it's even more complicated than that.
*Obvs I'm just saying this for effect. In reality, without ColdFusion, Matt would just have used PHP and possibly had a more straightforward life.
posted by Grangousier at 3:50 PM on July 14, 2015 [4 favorites]
A couple months ago I found myself wondering if there was anything new going on with Homestar Runner, so I tried the site and all I got was a black screen. Oh, no, what happened to Homestar? It took me a minute to realize, since I was browsing on my phone, that it Steve Job's doing.
posted by peeedro at 4:35 PM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by peeedro at 4:35 PM on July 14, 2015 [1 favorite]
people don't want secure software, built by engineers with training and professional standards. They want *free* shit
Actually, it's about the managers at various companies, and their decisions about what's important. There's a reason plugins like Flash and Java have a bad reputation, while Firefox and Chrome themselves don't.
Managers at Adobe and Oracle have decided that actually focusing on security - being proactive and hiring security experts - would cut into their profit margins, so they have decided to only fix things once they become a problem.
posted by ymgve at 5:17 PM on July 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
Actually, it's about the managers at various companies, and their decisions about what's important. There's a reason plugins like Flash and Java have a bad reputation, while Firefox and Chrome themselves don't.
Managers at Adobe and Oracle have decided that actually focusing on security - being proactive and hiring security experts - would cut into their profit margins, so they have decided to only fix things once they become a problem.
posted by ymgve at 5:17 PM on July 14, 2015 [3 favorites]
I might be mistaken about this but I was under the impression that one of the main reasons that there aren't really any viable alternatives to illustrator and Photoshop is that adobe owns the patents to some pretty fundamental technologies that would be needed for a pro quality graphics program.
posted by Television Name at 8:28 PM on July 14, 2015
posted by Television Name at 8:28 PM on July 14, 2015
What gets me about Youtube's HTML5 player is that it doesn't seem to buffer the same way. I don't want the entire video to load at once, I do want it to load in segments that don't buffer straight to the end. Because I might not watch the entire video.
And it doesn't play 144p when it's available. Call me crazy, but I happen to prefer 144p. Then again, "previewing" Youtube videos and downloading them in higher quality with the likes of keepvid or youtube-dl later is...sigh, not exactly normal procedure.
posted by aroweofshale at 8:36 PM on July 14, 2015
And it doesn't play 144p when it's available. Call me crazy, but I happen to prefer 144p. Then again, "previewing" Youtube videos and downloading them in higher quality with the likes of keepvid or youtube-dl later is...sigh, not exactly normal procedure.
posted by aroweofshale at 8:36 PM on July 14, 2015
Television Name: "I might be mistaken about this but I was under the impression that one of the main reasons that there aren't really any viable alternatives to illustrator and Photoshop is that adobe owns the patents to some pretty fundamental technologies that would be needed for a pro quality graphics program"
I doubt that. Photoshop is from 1988. Illustrator is from 1987. Patents from back then lasted 17 years (20 years for patents from after 1995). Basically, anything that was in Illustrator and Photoshop in 1995 is out of patent now, and while they've certainly been improved since then, most of the basic, innovative and patentable stuff was in place by then. Layers, for instance, were introduced in Photoshop 3.0, in 1994.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 10:16 PM on July 14, 2015
I doubt that. Photoshop is from 1988. Illustrator is from 1987. Patents from back then lasted 17 years (20 years for patents from after 1995). Basically, anything that was in Illustrator and Photoshop in 1995 is out of patent now, and while they've certainly been improved since then, most of the basic, innovative and patentable stuff was in place by then. Layers, for instance, were introduced in Photoshop 3.0, in 1994.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 10:16 PM on July 14, 2015
"For Mac users, Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo are full-featured professional alternatives to Illustrator and Photoshop. The company has an InDesign replacement in the works, too. "
Anybody using these that can give a quick review?
I will say that the relative usefulness of Photoshop depends a lot on what you have to do with it — almost all of my use is for photography, and while I miss some of the cool features of the CC now that I don't have a job that pays for it, I'm fine back on cs5.1, the last one I bought legit. There are much better tools for a lot of the features pshop has — basically zero animators I know use the animation workflow; likewise 3d. I actually wonder if — now that they've gone to subscription — they might be better off splitting up a bunch of those programs to cut the bloat. Let files be mutually intelligible, but it might be better to run five discrete programs for just what you need rather than one massive one that you're not using most of at any given time.
posted by klangklangston at 10:35 PM on July 14, 2015
Anybody using these that can give a quick review?
I will say that the relative usefulness of Photoshop depends a lot on what you have to do with it — almost all of my use is for photography, and while I miss some of the cool features of the CC now that I don't have a job that pays for it, I'm fine back on cs5.1, the last one I bought legit. There are much better tools for a lot of the features pshop has — basically zero animators I know use the animation workflow; likewise 3d. I actually wonder if — now that they've gone to subscription — they might be better off splitting up a bunch of those programs to cut the bloat. Let files be mutually intelligible, but it might be better to run five discrete programs for just what you need rather than one massive one that you're not using most of at any given time.
posted by klangklangston at 10:35 PM on July 14, 2015
aroweofshale: Opposite thing for me: I've lived in a lot of places with shoddy net connections, and downloading the whole thing when it has good net, so I can keep watching 5 minutes later when it blips without noticing is nice, rather then having to reload and try and find my place again. Also, it has removed some desync problems I had in videos longer then an hour or so.
posted by Canageek at 10:56 PM on July 14, 2015
posted by Canageek at 10:56 PM on July 14, 2015
Hey, does anyone else remember Shockwave? I vaguely remember it being a thing in the 90s, but then it seemed to do the exact same thing as flash, so I'm not shocked it is gone now.
Also: You could *easily* do online video without flash, as anyone who was a teenager in the 90s knows. You just had a page with links to *.mov, *.wmv or similar files which then opened with Windows Media Player, Quicktime or RealPlayer (Or these days, VLC or Mplayer or Media Player Classic). The real reason people switched to flash (and, as asked upthread, why YouTube didn't use it) was that you could very easily save such files to your hard drive and rewatch them any time you wanted without generating additional ad revenue for the site. So no, I don't think it was ever that flash worked better (In the early days it didn't), but it was to work as a sort of DRM to add hurdles to you downloading the video.
For those that want to watch twitch without flash, some people told me about Livestreamer which grabs twitch streams and send them to a media player of your choice (VLC by default).
posted by Canageek at 11:03 PM on July 14, 2015
Also: You could *easily* do online video without flash, as anyone who was a teenager in the 90s knows. You just had a page with links to *.mov, *.wmv or similar files which then opened with Windows Media Player, Quicktime or RealPlayer (Or these days, VLC or Mplayer or Media Player Classic). The real reason people switched to flash (and, as asked upthread, why YouTube didn't use it) was that you could very easily save such files to your hard drive and rewatch them any time you wanted without generating additional ad revenue for the site. So no, I don't think it was ever that flash worked better (In the early days it didn't), but it was to work as a sort of DRM to add hurdles to you downloading the video.
For those that want to watch twitch without flash, some people told me about Livestreamer which grabs twitch streams and send them to a media player of your choice (VLC by default).
posted by Canageek at 11:03 PM on July 14, 2015
All the UI designers at work are talking up Sketch like it's effectively the next Photoshop replacement for graphic design work, but I don't know how much that's just their local bubble versus actual industry-wide trend.
posted by invitapriore at 11:13 PM on July 14, 2015
posted by invitapriore at 11:13 PM on July 14, 2015
I might be mistaken about this but I was under the impression that one of the main reasons that there aren't really any viable alternatives to illustrator and Photoshop
It's because everybody learning to do graphics work pirates Photoshop and learns to use it. Then when they get Real Jobs they use Photoshop and the cycle continues. There's a reason Adobe only really goes after professional shops using pirated copies rather than the bajizillion individuals doing it.
posted by Justinian at 3:00 AM on July 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's because everybody learning to do graphics work pirates Photoshop and learns to use it. Then when they get Real Jobs they use Photoshop and the cycle continues. There's a reason Adobe only really goes after professional shops using pirated copies rather than the bajizillion individuals doing it.
posted by Justinian at 3:00 AM on July 15, 2015 [3 favorites]
At least that's how it used to work. I have no idea what's going on with that Adobe Cloud or license nonsense I heard about.
posted by Justinian at 3:01 AM on July 15, 2015
posted by Justinian at 3:01 AM on July 15, 2015
If iPlayer is the only thing holding you back from getting rid of flash, then get-iplayer may be of interest. It’s a perl script, which works on OSX & Linux without fuss & there’s a windows installer too.
get_iplayer is brill if you need a full-blown BBC video and audio PVR, but it's arguably overkill for folk who just like to watch the odd bit of telly in their browser.
I just twiddle with my browser's user agent so the iPlayer thinks I'm using an iPad. (E.g., on Safari for OS X, click Develop > User Agent > Safari iOS 8.1 — iPad; switching user agent is a bit of a faff in Chrome, but you can install an extension that makes it easier.)
posted by jack_mo at 3:32 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
get_iplayer is brill if you need a full-blown BBC video and audio PVR, but it's arguably overkill for folk who just like to watch the odd bit of telly in their browser.
I just twiddle with my browser's user agent so the iPlayer thinks I'm using an iPad. (E.g., on Safari for OS X, click Develop > User Agent > Safari iOS 8.1 — iPad; switching user agent is a bit of a faff in Chrome, but you can install an extension that makes it easier.)
posted by jack_mo at 3:32 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
There are much better tools for a lot of the features pshop has — basically zero animators I know use the animation workflow; likewise 3d.
Manga Studio beats the absolute pants off of Photoshop for linework. And Photoshop used to be at the top of that particular game.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:00 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Manga Studio beats the absolute pants off of Photoshop for linework. And Photoshop used to be at the top of that particular game.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:00 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Hey, does anyone else remember Shockwave? I vaguely remember it being a thing in the 90s, but then it seemed to do the exact same thing as flash, so I'm not shocked it is gone now.
The Shockwave plugin was originally a Macromedia product - going all the way back to 1995. Way back then it would typically be used to get content produced in Macromedia Director (the de-facto tool for "multi-media" production in those days) onto the web. Early versions of Shockwave delivered various raster and vector graphic work which could be scripted with Director's "Lingo" - functionality was considerably less than could be achieved with Director on the desktop - but the audience was a whole lot bigger than for CD-Roms and kiosks - and it would work pretty equally on both Macs and PCs.
Flash got going a short while later. For a time, in the early 2000s, Shockwave was the plugin of choice if one was developing more sophisticated games - for example those using 3d. Adobe seemed to have made the decision not to try to combine the Flash and Shockwave plugins (and their development tools) together - and to neglect promotion and development of the latter.
posted by rongorongo at 7:39 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Shockwave plugin was originally a Macromedia product - going all the way back to 1995. Way back then it would typically be used to get content produced in Macromedia Director (the de-facto tool for "multi-media" production in those days) onto the web. Early versions of Shockwave delivered various raster and vector graphic work which could be scripted with Director's "Lingo" - functionality was considerably less than could be achieved with Director on the desktop - but the audience was a whole lot bigger than for CD-Roms and kiosks - and it would work pretty equally on both Macs and PCs.
Flash got going a short while later. For a time, in the early 2000s, Shockwave was the plugin of choice if one was developing more sophisticated games - for example those using 3d. Adobe seemed to have made the decision not to try to combine the Flash and Shockwave plugins (and their development tools) together - and to neglect promotion and development of the latter.
posted by rongorongo at 7:39 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
"Manga Studio beats the absolute pants off of Photoshop for linework. And Photoshop used to be at the top of that particular game."
Huh. A designer I used to work with does crazy gorgeous poster art with vector line drawings in photoshop. I wonder if he might be better served by Manga Studio.
posted by klangklangston at 10:37 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
Huh. A designer I used to work with does crazy gorgeous poster art with vector line drawings in photoshop. I wonder if he might be better served by Manga Studio.
posted by klangklangston at 10:37 AM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
He might be! You can do raster or vector layers in Manga Studio and nothing else has inking brushes that look and feel as good (imo!) when working with a tablet.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:31 PM on July 15, 2015
posted by jason_steakums at 12:31 PM on July 15, 2015
Hey, does anyone else remember Shockwave? I vaguely remember it being a thing in the 90s, but then it seemed to do the exact same thing as flash, so I'm not shocked it is gone now.
I do, and i've occasionally encountered a really old website that used it on which a lot of the content is not completely inaccessible.
Which made me wonder, what happens to old non-updated essentially abandonware sites that used flash, or used a lot of flash now if flash gets killed off? How do we access them? How are they archived?
"Tough shit lol" isn't really an answer. Throughout the 2000s i remember quite a few interesting sites that either indexed lots of silly flash things, or worse used flash as a major component of the entire site.
I'm starting to think we need some kind of retrobrowser that supports old flash, shockwave, etc. Maybe some modified early mozilla?
posted by emptythought at 11:34 PM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
I do, and i've occasionally encountered a really old website that used it on which a lot of the content is not completely inaccessible.
Which made me wonder, what happens to old non-updated essentially abandonware sites that used flash, or used a lot of flash now if flash gets killed off? How do we access them? How are they archived?
"Tough shit lol" isn't really an answer. Throughout the 2000s i remember quite a few interesting sites that either indexed lots of silly flash things, or worse used flash as a major component of the entire site.
I'm starting to think we need some kind of retrobrowser that supports old flash, shockwave, etc. Maybe some modified early mozilla?
posted by emptythought at 11:34 PM on July 15, 2015 [1 favorite]
klangklangston: "Huh. A designer I used to work with does crazy gorgeous poster art with vector line drawings in photoshop. I wonder if he might be better served by Manga Studio."
If the art on that page is typical, he might actually be better of with just Illustrator.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 3:11 AM on July 16, 2015
If the art on that page is typical, he might actually be better of with just Illustrator.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 3:11 AM on July 16, 2015
Okay, I tried to watch some pron, and it was all blocked by FF as it used flash, and I kept having to allow it, so I was wondering what will happen now to all the porn tubes? How is that going to work, does anybody know? Sorry to ask a light and diverting question in such a tech heavy thread!
posted by marienbad at 9:04 AM on July 16, 2015
posted by marienbad at 9:04 AM on July 16, 2015
Hey, does anyone else remember Shockwave?
I discovered recently poking around adobe.com that Adobe still sells Director. It's hard to imagine that will continue much longer, though I guess people can always make stand alone executables with it.
posted by aught at 7:45 AM on July 17, 2015
I discovered recently poking around adobe.com that Adobe still sells Director. It's hard to imagine that will continue much longer, though I guess people can always make stand alone executables with it.
posted by aught at 7:45 AM on July 17, 2015
marienbad: "How is that going to work, does anybody know? "
They should be able to move to HTML5 video without too much problem.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 7:13 PM on July 17, 2015
They should be able to move to HTML5 video without too much problem.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 7:13 PM on July 17, 2015
« Older Do Not Mess With Eugene Mirman | When you speak—and when you are heard—you are... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by maudlin at 10:20 PM on July 13, 2015 [1 favorite]