Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Bug Security Software Technology

Six Months Without Adobe Flash, and I Feel Fine 393

Reader hessian six months ago de-installed the Adobe Flash player on all of his browsers, probably a prudent move in light of various recent vulnerabilities. "This provoked some shock and incredulity from others. After all, Flash has been an essential content interpreter for over a decade. It filled the gap between an underdeveloped JavaScript and the need for media content like animation, video and so on." But it turns out that life sans Flash can still be worth living. Are there things you rely on that make Flash hard to give up?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Six Months Without Adobe Flash, and I Feel Fine

Comments Filter:
  • Kids (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MightyYar ( 622222 ) on Sunday February 10, 2013 @12:31PM (#42850467)

    Kids sites, educational or otherwise. All seem to use flash. IIRC, Khan Academy as well. If you have kids, you "need" Flash.

  • HTML5 on YouTube? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 10, 2013 @12:33PM (#42850477)

    I don't have any direct experience, but I think YouTube will serve up HTML5 instead of Flash. Any details?

  • by eksith ( 2776419 ) on Sunday February 10, 2013 @12:57PM (#42850675) Homepage

    All new videos, I think, get encoded into HTML5 friendly formats. Older videos may still not be.

    HTML5 A/V could be a fantastic alternative, if only people would settle on a universal codec. Google is still firmly on WebM, while Opera and Firefox is all over Theora/Vorbis and Ogg and, of course, IE 9+ still natively supports MP4 only in H.264, I think. And Safari does QuickTime too.

    Right now, the only way anyone publishing video will get away with only an HTML5 video option is if they encode to different formats, different resolutions and still provide a Flash fallback for older/incompatible browsers. Quite a mess.

  • Re:bitch (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 10, 2013 @01:06PM (#42850755)


  • Re:Kids (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Paul Carver ( 4555 ) on Sunday February 10, 2013 @01:30PM (#42850899)

    Saving a shitload of money wasn't enough of a reason?

    No, certainly not. What's the point of a shitload of money if all you do is save it? Are you going to swim in it like Scrooge McDuck?

    There's no point in earning or saving money if you aren't going to do something with it. Spending money on children (and grandchildren) is something that a lot of people (though obviously not 100% of all people) get a lot of enjoyment out of.

    Feel free to spend your money on whatever you like if you dislike children, but you're just ignorant if you think that raising children isn't an excellent way to make use of hard earned cash for the vast majority of the human race who like children.

    Saving money so that you have lots of funds for spoiling grandchildren is also highly popular and a worthwhile way to spend money for many people, but it's a bit more difficult to have grandchildren if you don't have children (though not impossible obviously.)

  • by greg1104 ( 461138 ) <gsmith@gregsmith.com> on Sunday February 10, 2013 @02:31PM (#42851379) Homepage

    Question: What's the only thing worse than Flash?

    You mean besides Java applets, right?

  • Re:Kids (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rs79 ( 71822 ) <hostmaster@open-rsc.org> on Sunday February 10, 2013 @03:00PM (#42851585) Homepage

    The older you get the more you appreciate your children. What makes sense in your 20s may not make as much sense in your 70s and 80s.

  • Re:Kids (Score:4, Insightful)

    by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Sunday February 10, 2013 @03:46PM (#42851991)

    But we have social security now.

    No, the old people have social security now because young people like you work and some of the GDP they generate is redirected towards the way of the needy. When you become old or disabled and there are no young people to fill in the void, what do you think you're going to get from the social system?

  • Re:Kids (Score:5, Insightful)

    by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Sunday February 10, 2013 @03:48PM (#42852011)

    If you did not have kids your life would be radically different.

    If his parents didn't have kids, his life would be even more radically different!

  • by tqk ( 413719 ) <s.keeling@mail.com> on Sunday February 10, 2013 @06:28PM (#42853399)

    I like how the barely literate whine about minor typos rather than contributing something to society.

    I can live with the odd typo, and even ignorance of the correct use of apostrophes, contractions, possesives & etc. However, outright laziness (not bothering to proofread) is just insulting. If you care enough to write it, care enough for me to want to read it. Don't go just puking out anybody's dog's breakfast and expect me to thank you for it.

  • Re:Kids (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tehcyder ( 746570 ) on Monday February 11, 2013 @07:16AM (#42857211) Journal

    If you did not have kids your life would be radically different. You would have things you DO NOT have now.

    Things do not make you happy. People do.

    You do not need to have children to be happy, but you need something other than more material possessions.

Matter cannot be created or destroyed, nor can it be returned without a receipt.