Chrome 69 is Coming: Not Just a New Look But Flash's Life is About To Get Even Harder (zdnet.com) 108
Google's curvy tab Material Design update for Chrome will arrive in version 69 of the browser due out in September. From a report: Google flags the upcoming changes in its Enterprise release notes for Chrome 69, which gives a brief mention under browser interface changes to a "new design across all operating systems." Chrome 69, penciled in for stable release on September 4, will also get native Windows 10 notifications, which have been rolling out to users over the past month. Chrome 69 will also progress the long-running project to deprecate Flash Player, which Adobe has announced will reach end of life in 2020. Microsoft, Mozilla, and Apple have similar deprecation timelines for Flash on their desktop browsers. Once ubiquitous, Flash content is now hardly used at all by Chrome users, though Google won't fully remove support until Chrome 87 in 2020. At present, if a user enables Flash for a particular site, they don't need to approve it if they visit the site again. However, in Chrome 69, every time users restart Chrome, they'll need to give permission for sites to use Flash.
Re: (Score:1)
Fine, do it. Just don't sixty-nine them.
Good for its time (Score:3)
Re:Good for its time (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the 1990's and early 2000's HTML didn't have too many (popular) vector graphics options, the options that were available were trenched in the Browser Wars between Netscape and Internet Explorer. Flash worked for different browsers, across different platforms including Windows, Macs and a young Linux. Later iterations played nice with DRM which extended its usefulness beyond Home Star Runner. It really took HTML5 standard to start to take down Flash. With early Apple iPhone Safari browser being an early adopter of HTML5, and Firefox and Chrome browsers getting a lot of interests as well. Especially with all the delays in getting windows 7 out and IE 6 staying the standard for way too long.
Flash itself wasn't bad, just it wasn't a standard, and for the web we should follow standards.
Re:Good for its time (Score:5, Insightful)
Flash became ubiquitous because web designers were begging the W3C to add scripting and multimedia capability to HTML. But the W3C dragged its feet. Initially, too many members had the idealistic notion that the WWW should remain "pure" for the exchange of scientific papers and personal websites like Berners-Lee originally envisioned, not become a place for glitzy marketing copies. So they refused to add audio and video support to HTML. Later it got sidetracked pushing everything in "the next version", which got delayed as more things got pushed into it. There was a 15 year gap between HTML 4.01 and HTML 5. Web developers started using Flash to accomplish what the W3C failed to implement in the HTML standard.
And if you really want to cry about following standards on the web, you should try reading the history of PHP [wikipedia.org]. It's probably the most organic successful project out there - kludges built upon kludges, patches upon patches. As someone who came from structured languages with well thought-out error checking, I was absolutely horrified when I learned PHP.
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to remain "pure" translate to not wanted to learn new stuff.
For scientific papers, Vector graphics and animation is a useful aid in expressing and showing off data.
People tend to favor a particular sense for learning.
Some people are audio and when they hear it they under stand it better.
Other are visual, and some are tactile. I am sure some people may be olfactory and taste based learning, but those would make structured learning difficult and often unpleasant.
But HTML as term as a paper with links
Re: (Score:2)
Flash became ubiquitous because web designers were begging the W3C to add scripting and multimedia capability to HTML. But the W3C dragged its feet.
While you are not wrong, there is more to it than this. Specifically, "designers" wanted pixel perfect renders of their vision rather than allowing the web browser decide how to do layout. It is one of the things that turned me off of designing web sites for those morons.
No (Score:1)
Flash was good for its time, but its time was long ago.
The only thing flash was good for were sites like Joe Cartoon. Otherwise it was abused from day one by marketing assholes and flash only sites.
The best selling point about the original iPhone was that it didn't support flash, unfortunately it was AT&T only.
Re: (Score:2)
No, sorry, you're wrong, Flash was never good at any time, it was always a blight on the internet. Remember Flash menus?
Re: (Score:2)
Flash was great. Never had to worry about autoplaying video or audio back then because it was so easy to make flash be click-to-play. Web pages ran so much faster because the unnecessary decorations were separated into the flash part which we could decide whether or not to load. These days with all of flash's former job being done in javascript we have to disable javascript entirely if we want to be safe, we can't choose particular elements to then enable, and a lot of the internet doesn't work without java
Re: (Score:1)
Flash was good for its time, but its time was long ago.
It is still used by the BBC (England). I have issues with watching their videos.
Chrome 69 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, very nice that at work I'll have to reauthorize flash on over 2,000 "sites" which are management interfaces for assorted servers and appliances.
No, the vendors haven't dumped flash yet. No, we can't change vendors. So guess what I'll be changing? The browser.
Apparently, Goog is so full of itself and thinks it is so all-powerful that merely deprecating Flash support in their browser will make it go away.
Just one more reason to say Fuck Google.
Re: (Score:2)
That stuff shouldn't be internet facing to begin with.
Re: (Score:1)
There are PLENTY of examples of stuff not being internet facing getting p0wned to hell.
Install both a web browser and a Flash browser (Score:2)
So guess what I'll be changing? The browser.
Ideally, you'll be using one frozen version of one browser to view the few sites that use Flash Player and a different browser to view the vast majority of sites that use HTML. Would this be an acceptable use paradigm for most people who need to work regularly with legacy Flash sites?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Chrome 69 (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Chrome 69 is going to suck twice as much.
68 (Score:2)
Nice (Score:1)
Native Windows 10 notifications (Score:2)
Native Windows 10 notifications is a plague and another way to spam the user. Worse than pop-ups.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice changes, Great losing Flash, here's what else (Score:2)
Nice new look and probably the right time to make Flash usage more difficult.
Here are the technical updates in M69: https://blog.chromium.org/ [chromium.org]
- New CSS features
- Some new APIs including a new Keyboard API that looks like it will be useful for games
- Improvements to service workers
- And more
Looks like a good update.
As much as we hate flash and java (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Corporations who adopted Flash can fuck themselves.
Re:Fuck passive aggressive software! (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit, accessing the management interface for my VMWare cluster isn't introducing a virus vector. Yes, VMWare introduced an HTML5 management interface, but it sucks, it's slower, buggier, and lacks features found in the Flash interface. Do I like flash, no I do not but decisions made long ago and way above my pay grade mean that I need to use it to do my job, making it more annoying accomplishes NOTHING other than pissing me off for no good reason.
Re:Fuck passive aggressive software! (Score:4, Insightful)
The fat client doesn't work with 6.5.
Re: (Score:2)
And also me, a person "who's computer isn't filled with viruses".
Re: (Score:2)
If you find Chrome too patronizing, the good thing you have Firefox. Generally a better browser anyway, for example Chrome just isn't usable with a lot of tabs. So many small things, like you can delete a cached url from the popup list in Firefox, not in Chrome. And Chrome popup url suggestions are horrible at finding text in the middle of the URL string. Such warts are really grating if you have something to compare to that does it better.
Re: (Score:2)
No good with a lot of tabs?
The Chrome UI with lots of tabs open is crap.
Re: (Score:2)
That'll fix 'em.
There is a line (Score:1, Insightful)
There is a line between keeping users safe and essentially singling out a technology for destruction.
However, in Chrome 69, every time users restart Chrome, they'll need to give permission for sites to use Flash.
Google is more or less deciding that anyone delivering anything with flash will not be permitted to give their users a good experience. Some would argue singling out the flash and java plugins for special treatment at all crossed this line; though I would argue gross negligence on the part of Adobe and Sun/Oracle kinda forced that.
I really doubt flash would have been killed off so soon if Apple had not st
Re: (Score:1)
they should not be "goodie-goodies" deciding to be obstructionists and making things the browser can do to be difficult.
someone needs to bring the hammer down on this mentality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not their technology, so they can't control it. Banning plugins has never been about safety -- it's about power.
Even W3C recommendations are just recommendations, and Google doesn't have to follow the rules if they choose, and can implement proprietary extensions if they want. But, Flash and Java are beyond their power. They hate that.
Re: (Score:2)
your point is invalid since the browser still runs it
Re: (Score:2)
The attack started the moment Adobe made the Mac version of Flash a slow pile of crap.
Re: There is a line (Score:3)
Re: There is a line (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
"The hardware is inferior" is an interesting justification for making buggy, slow software that burns through battery power on mobile devices.
Re: There is a line (Score:5, Informative)
You make it out like Flash was a paragon of computing before Apple while twirling its moustache decided to kill it off for all computer users everywhere. Flash was terrible. It crashed often. It consumes lots of computing power. It had so many security holes that it seemed like I was patching daily.
Flash however was one of the few cross platform things you could use back in the day. When it worked, it would work roughly the same whether on Windows or Mac. However the death knell wasnâ(TM)t just Apple. Better cross platform technologies like HTML5 is making Flash less relevant.
Re: (Score:3)
The quality of flash isn't the point. My point is flash is basically gone not because others delivered superior solutions that people preferred; but because a few gate keeps decided to sabotage the environment it runs in.
Re: There is a line (Score:1)
No. Flash is gone because it sucked.
Flash killed itself. It has nobody to blame but itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Flash died because internet consumption moved from desktop to mobile, where Adobe was never able to deliver reasonable battery life and performance and soon gave up.
Re: There is a line (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
HTML5 animation had far worse performance than Flash when Apple started their mission to kill it. With the whole HTML5/JavaScript mess, we can no longer easily block annoying shit like we could when it had to use embed/object tags. WebAssembly is just like Java all over again, except there are multiple implementations in the browsers themselves rather than a plugin to run the bytecode.
Re: (Score:1)
Apple while twirling its moustache
Oh. So that's why the hipsters love mustaches so much now!
Re: (Score:1)
Never forget that Chrome's design decisions prioritize Google revenue, not user needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Adobe officially decided to kill flash over a year ago, and unofficially decided years earlier. At this point, the only responsible thing to do is make it progressively more inconvenient so that people won't be using an abandoned bundle of security holes.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, and I find it interesting that a huge majority of people who support "Free as in Freedom" have been begging major vendors to ban Flash.
I don't love Flash, but I do want the choice to keep using it. I get creeped out when people tell me I shouldn't be able to use a particular technology for my own good.
They should fix the spelling correction on Macs (Score:2, Informative)
First Chrome, now also Skype, realizes that I type in english, underlines what is wrong, but does not use the english dictionary fro spelling correction ...
Every Mac application, uses the build in text input system, which automatically realizes which language I use and offers spelling correction with the appropriated dictionary, but Chrome must roll its own inferior version, and Skype is even worth.
He was always taking it easy (Score:2)
But Flash's Life is About To Get Even Harder
Superman is back to being able to run as fast as him now.
Nice (Score:1)
Nice
Damnit (Score:2)
Look, if I want to enable Flash content on some sites (usually internal) why are you fighting me and making my life harder? I already said to allow it. If you don't allow me to add a permanent exception, you're a dick.
Nothing suggestive about this title . . . (Score:1)
Seriously? There's no way this title wasn't thought out. LOL! :D
Chrome 69 Codename: (Score:1)
Chrome 69 (Score:1)
It's like the article was excited about the name/number and wanted to say Chrome 69 as many times as possible.
Chrome 69.