I agree w/ Josh's fear of security problems coming from Flash.
I wonder if a different sandboxing model for plugins would prevent
security issues?
However, beyond that I'd encourage the effort. I think it's a neat
idea that sounds like a big challenge and wish you best of luck with that.
On 8/14/2017 11:14 AM, Josh Tynjala wrote:
It's best to assume that Adobe is no longer going to provide security
updates for Flash Player in 2020. Do not fork any web browsers to try to
continue supporting Flash Player or other plugins. You will put the
security of your users at great risk. It's not worth it.
The age of browser plugins, and Flash Player on the web, is coming to an
end. It's time to move on. You can migrate your apps to AIR. You can
contribute to FlexJS. The folks working on the spriteflexjs library are
trying to recreate the display list and other flash.* APIs in the browser.
Contribute to those efforts, and you'll be able to keep writing the same
code for the web.
- Josh
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 7:41 AM, flex capacitor <flexcapaci...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Microsoft, Google and Firefox have all explicitly disabled FP in the
browser and then faced backlash from users and then they reenabled it.
Remember Microsoft's exclusion list? We read tech blogs and have heard the
news but the average user isn't paying attention or they'll be distracted
around 2020 (by elections).
My opinion is businesses won't move over unless they have to and many of
them don't want to spend the money to. And some companies don't have the
money to.
What if we fork a version of Firefox that continues to support plugins. Get
announcements out to the major tech blogs. Clear up the misconceptions at
the same time. Unity would be down for that and they have major investors.
They were thrown under the bus too.
I had written a paragraph about Googles web team here but to keep it short
they are bias and are trying to make decisions for everyone. Firefox is
following their lead so they somehow don't lose users. When the browsers
makers decide (for everyone) to disable plugins there will be a huge
audience looking for a browser that continues to support them.
At the same time maybe we can put some part of Flex into it like client
side MXML rendering or compiling. I think Alex said the compiler could be
stripped down to 29MB. Almost everyone uses IE to download Chrome or
Firefox. Download size is not a big an issue as it used to be.
HTML, CSS, JS need an upgrade. HTML can be upgraded to MXML (Flex or
FlexJS), CSS in Flex has always been fine for me but it could be upgraded
to SCSS or post CSS (I'm sure there are others). JS is being upgraded to
ES5, 6 slowly but even ES6 still feels less than ES4. That might generate
interest from developers. My 2 cents.
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 9:10 AM, Jeffry Houser <jef...@dot-com-it.com>
wrote:
For legacy applications or archival purposes, you'll probably want to
keep an installer for the Flash Player and/or older browsers. So they
can
be reset up on an old machine, or in a VM. Browsers, for the most part,
have already shut down their plugin APIs.
On 8/14/2017 8:26 AM, Clint M wrote:
I remember reading that browsers won't be supporting after that.
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:19 AM, Deepak MS <megharajdee...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Let's say Adobe releases final version of flash player version 35 for
instance, by end of 2019, without further maintenance or development of
the
plugin. Will this version continue to stay forever, whether or not
users
want to use it or is it that flash player will be blocked by browsers
themselves? It isn't clear in the article. Or did I miss it?
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 1:32 AM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski <
nicholaskwiatkow...@gmail.com> wrote:
Looks like we have a date :
https://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2017/07/adobe-flash-update.html
-Nick
--
Jeffry Houser
Technical Entrepreneur
http://www.dot-com-it.com
http://www.jeffryhouser.com
203-379-0773
--
Jeffry Houser
Technical Entrepreneur
http://www.dot-com-it.com
http://www.jeffryhouser.com
203-379-0773
