Too many sites holding onto old tech
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| kingttx Feb 23, 2012 3:52 PM EDT |
There are far too many flashy sites right now, many of whom would probably surprise you. I'd hope that five years would be enough for those sites to replace flash with new tech; I'm sure others would hope no one was using IE6 at this moment, and we know that isn't true. Five years. Is that long enough for stubborn site creators to overcome inertia? |
| Jeff91 Feb 23, 2012 4:48 PM EDT |
So what? Even if they are holding onto *old* flash versions that means flash 11.2 - which will still work 5 years from just won't get any more updates - will still work with this old code. ~Jeff |
| gus3 Feb 23, 2012 5:39 PM EDT |
Unless the underlying API changes. |
| Jeff91 Feb 23, 2012 5:42 PM EDT |
Based on the fact my N900 with flash 9.4 still working almost everywhere that the API doesn't change terribly quickly if at all. ~Jeff |
| JaseP Feb 23, 2012 11:51 PM EDT |
Jeff, But do you have the N900 app that spoofs the version number so that flash powered sites think you're on a more modern version??? |
| Jeff91 Feb 24, 2012 1:12 AM EDT |
Yep and if need be I am sure a similar technology will appear for the desktop and once it does some nerd out there will automate it's installation and configuration. ~Jeff |
| kingttx Feb 24, 2012 4:18 PM EDT |
@Jeff
Well, a few years ago, there was a big issue over Flash videos (I think on YouTube or Google Videos) had to be viewed in a newer version of Flash than was available to Linux. I don't think the simple fact that "11.2 will get five years of support" will prevent newer versions from requiring a minimum that is unreachable by Linux users without Chrome. So, that's "so what." :) |
| jdixon Feb 24, 2012 5:31 PM EDT |
I'd think the most likely fix to this problem would be a Google Chrome to Firefox API shim, much the way ndiswrapper works with Windows network drivers. |
| tracyanne Feb 24, 2012 5:47 PM EDT |
So while everyone is in a lather about this, I'm running Flash 10, and it works just fine with the latest flash movies, thank you very much |
| Jeff91 Feb 24, 2012 6:03 PM EDT |
kingttx I will say for the 3rd time now - a simple version number spoof works now - odds are it will still work then. ~Jeff |
| tracyanne Feb 24, 2012 6:25 PM EDT |
I don't even spoof version numbers |
| BernardSwiss Feb 24, 2012 8:07 PM EDT |
what kingttx said. We've been there before, and this time there's no incentive to do any better. In fact there's less incentive to even do as well. Sure, sometimes, especially in "early days" stuff will continue to work anyways (just like last time around) and sometimes it won't (just like last time around). Perhaps Jeff is right, and hacks will fill the gap, but it's not a sure thing. And potential new Linux users, will see it as a strike against Linux, another reason to go back to Windows and tell other "Linux just isn't suitable/ready for the desktop/ordinary user" Worse, even some already using Linux will decide that the arbitrary irritations outweigh the benefits. The sky's not falling, but it's not clear and blue either. Definite chance of rain, possibly hail. And maybe Gnash will finally catch up, and no one will care. In the meantime, this is another small lesson on the dangers and inherent abusiveness of closed proprietary software |
| kingttx Feb 27, 2012 12:38 PM EDT |
Thank you, Bernard. And, Jeff, you can't promise that. Unless some site sticks with an older version (is that safe? does it allow accessibility?), how will we know we can simply spoof the version number and still be able to get all the features necessary to access media or even text on the site? And you are beginning to sound rather abrasive about this like you have some stake in the matter. I simply wish for the world to move on with the HTML5 standard so we aren't beholding to a company that appears to slowly be dropping support for desktop Linux. |
| JaseP Feb 27, 2012 3:08 PM EDT |
The sky's not falling... There will be hack/workarounds and there will be Chrome/Chromium. Everyone (at least anyone who iS someone,... jk-ing) is switching to Chrome anyway, ... so I don't see the problem as more than a nuisance. I note that Chromium has a better time rendering troublesome websites, anyway. I'm replacing Firefox with Chromium just about every chance I get. |
| Jeff91 Feb 28, 2012 2:04 AM EDT |
"Jeff, you can't promise that" You are correct - I cannot promise that. I can however make a judgement call based off of past experiences - which indicate that spoofing a version number will be an easy fix to this issue everyone is making out to be so huge (which again is ONLY an issue if you don't want to use Chromium AND no one else picks up Pepper). In other words there are a whole lot of "ifs" and not a lot of facts and people are jumping to all sorts of conclusions - thus making mountains out of mole hills. ~Jeff |
| kingttx Feb 28, 2012 2:49 PM EDT |
So, the best answer, in light of all of this uncertainty (can't be sure spoofing versions will work correctly, sites hanging onto officially supported Flash not updating with security fixes, etc.) is to double pressure moving ahead with HTML5 and away from a single vendor's solution; this was my first point. Isn't that what FOSS encompasses anyway? |
| Jeff91 Feb 28, 2012 4:23 PM EDT |
Yea - in a perfect world everything would be html5, but this isn't a perfect world and in reality odds are we will still be dealing with people using flash a decade from now even (ack). ~Jeff |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!