Why is Pale Moon continuing to support Flash Player?

[daemonspudguy]

I really think we should just let Flash Player die. It's full of security holes and won't be updated ever again. It's time to let it die, in my opinion.

[Moonchild]

It's full of security holes

Really? Please point out where they are.

It's time to let it die, in my opinion.

Your opinion has been noted but not shared.
Just because Adobe made an arbitrary decision to make a fuss about it and even sabotage their own plugin doesn't mean it's anything more than just that: an arbitrary decision.

[Pentium4User]

PM still supports NPAPI that is also being used by Adobe Flash, but also from other plugins.
Why should it be removed?

Adobe Flash isn't supported anymore, but some users still need it to run old applications and games.
It is a security risk, but not a problem of NPAPI.

[daemonspudguy]

It's full of security holes

Really? Please point out where they are.

https://helpx.adobe.com/security/securi ... lashplayer

Your opinion has been noted but not shared.

Fair enough. I will still support you and your stuff, even if we disagree.

[Moonchild]

https://helpx.adobe.com/security/securi ... lashplayer

That doesn't point out any holes. All it does is list updates of things that are indeed fixed already. There are no details and there was a grand total of only 3 of them in the whole year of 2020.
Aside from that though, it's always the user's responsibility to know what add-ons they install and in what way it potentially impacts their security or privacy. As it is, plugins can easily be set to only allow user-initiaterd activation and only on specific websites, so even if the plugin would be risky, the user is in control (another major advantage of plugins over having internal Web APIs for everything that are always-on)

[daemonspudguy]

Aside from that though, it's always the user's responsibility to know what add-ons they install and in what way it potentially impacts their security or privacy. As it is, plugins can easily be set to only allow user-initiaterd activation and only on specific websites, so even if the plugin would be risky, the user is in control (another major advantage of plugins over having internal Web APIs for everything that are always-on)

That makes sense. Shame that the public at large is so technologically illiterate.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

In this case, it would be much more of a burdon to remove npapi from the codebase than just leave it alone. You can ask Mozilla about it cause it is afterall a foundational Netscape technology.

Sure they are at the point of doing it but getting there has been way more work than they ever expected for little benefit outside arbitrary destruction.

Most you will see from us is maybe the decision to flip the pref globally to disable the whole thing by default and let the users who use it flip it back on again.

Let me also clarify, we don't support any plugin we support the Netscape Plugin Application Programming Interface. The technology not any one example of it.. Unless we were to create one of course.

[WiseWolf]

I do think flash is a security risk, but its better to have it off by default and to be able to enable it if you want,

then to rip out completely... but I also think reverse engineering flash is a better way still...

That being said, when a proprietary format for something like flash appears, it is better to open source it when people are done with it than to kill it off...

To be quite honest, adobe developers are a bunch of dicks... they decide to get rid of flash when they could just open source it completely. I consider it very selfish to say, no we won't let anyone update it after this point... say goodbye forever... Smh man...

Greed man... its not a good idea, but it happens frequently.

That's my view on that. That being said, there are people currently working on reverse engineering flash despite adobe's bs.

If adobe open sourced it, it could have been fixed properly and made to be way more secure...

But as it is, nope.

Anything that is electronic, people should be able to modify it once support for it is completely dropped by original vendors, otherwise its just plain predatory.

As long as it has been abandoned for a sufficient amount of time of course.

[Lurker_01]

If adobe open sourced it, it could have been fixed properly and made to be way more secure...

This would hurt Adobe Air, that is still supported, more secure and still allows ActionScript content, AFAIK.

[daemonspudguy]

This would hurt Adobe Air, that is still supported, more secure and still allows ActionScript content, AFAIK.

How? If anything, it would help them with development because outside parties could act when Adobe is focusing on something else.

[Moonraker]

I do not share the sentiment that flash should be unsupported in palemoon.Just disable it and forget about it if users do not want flash.

Also this could have a big upside for palemoon as there are still a hell of a lot of flash users out there who would still like to use it in their browser and i am one of them.

Security holes..?..nah i have never been exploited on the chosen flash sites i use.Look at the constant battle microsoft has with patching it's very own operating system but millions use it.

Flash users were never consulted or asked when adobe pulled the plug on the player.They should of open sourced it and gifted it to the open source community and then maybe it would of been a bit more secure.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

This is an entirely moot discussion as we will support plugin technology forever. It doesn't matter if any mainstream plugins survive.

Also, as I said, we don't support any specific plugin merely the technology of having plugins and it is the platform that has NPAPI not any one application.

Stop getting these things wrong people and stop questioning why we are going to retain plugins as a feature.

As for the question of proprietary software should be given to open source babybitches.. That isn't always possible even if they wanted to. Here is why: There is no reason to expect open source from a profit making company especially when it comes to long standing technology like Flash. When companies create shit it is almost never completely in-house.. There may be components and portions of a proprietary product licensed by agreements from other companies and patent agreements. This can get very tricky when such agreements were under specific terms with a company that is aquired by another like Macromedia was.

That profit making company would have to seek out and get new agreements and make significant investments to be able to release and that could be a lot of dollars and not everyone would play ball which means that critical tidbit may have to be left out leaving an incomplete source or be rewritten and replaced which would mean more dollars. Basically they can't even think about it without spending even more time and money on legal and research just to find out who owns what and then there is the potental for said redevelopment of any tidbits they can't just throw under an open source license. There is also the potental for that technology to be used by someone else to profit from a product consigned to the digital dustbin.

Not to mention that Flash the software that creates the swf files is still alive and well as a commercial product in the animation business and various technologies shared with other Adobe products and former Macromedia products would potentually be out of their control.

So no Moonraker, it is not reasonable for them to just hand it over to the world.

[The Squash]

As for the question of proprietary software should be given to open source babybitches.. That isn't always possible even if they wanted to [...]

I totally understood everything that you said, but didn't Netscape open-source their software? Or was that one of the special cases you mentioned where that could work? (Though open-sourcing couldn't have been easy because an old Netscape legal issues file says there was a lot of potential for lawsuits in the early days. But again I suppose Adobe's licensing issues could be even bigger than Netscape's...)

[New Tobin Paradigm]

Netscape did indeed rip a number of things out in 1998 but it also did write much of it in-house because our Netscape forefathers were trailblazers. Basically inventing most of what they had in a time where there simply wasn't anything suitable out there or if it was it either wasn't afforable or available to license.

Microsoft, on the other hand, licensed SpyGlass and/or Mosiac technology for Internet Explorer. Indeed huge swaths of Microsoft products started out as licensed products or components from other companies.

Even Chrome's Blink engine isn't entirely Google's as it was a fork of WebKit which in turn is a fork of khtml. Of course open source from the start is a different story but you get the point.

[WiseWolf]

If adobe open sourced it, it could have been fixed properly and made to be way more secure...

This would hurt Adobe Air, that is still supported, more secure and still allows ActionScript content, AFAIK.

Hmm, didn't know that adobe had the same code from flash in adobe air.

That must be why...

Still, kind of surprised they don't open source some parts of it... like 1/4 or more

Google does that with a lot of their stuff. And they are a friggin billion dollar company.

Seems to work for them.

EDIT:

Maybe I was being foolish with this post...

I should've read tobin's post first. heh.

[WiseWolf]

This is an entirely moot discussion as we will support plugin technology forever. It doesn't matter if any mainstream plugins survive.

Also, as I said, we don't support any specific plugin merely the technology of having plugins and it is the platform that has NPAPI not any one application.

Stop getting these things wrong people and stop questioning why we are going to retain plugins as a feature.

As for the question of proprietary software should be given to open source babybitches.. That isn't always possible even if they wanted to. Here is why: There is no reason to expect open source from a profit making company especially when it comes to long standing technology like Flash. When companies create shit it is almost never completely in-house.. There may be components and portions of a proprietary product licensed by agreements from other companies and patent agreements. This can get very tricky when such agreements were under specific terms with a company that is aquired by another like Macromedia was.

That profit making company would have to seek out and get new agreements and make significant investments to be able to release and that could be a lot of dollars and not everyone would play ball which means that critical tidbit may have to be left out leaving an incomplete source or be rewritten and replaced which would mean more dollars. Basically they can't even think about it without spending even more time and money on legal and research just to find out who owns what and then there is the potental for said redevelopment of any tidbits they can't just throw under an open source license. There is also the potental for that technology to be used by someone else to profit from a product consigned to the digital dustbin.

Not to mention that Flash the software that creates the swf files is still alive and well as a commercial product in the animation business and various technologies shared with other Adobe products and former Macromedia products would potentually be out of their control.

Hmm, I disagree with some of that, but legally speaking, you are 100% correct. I forgot that sometimes they have NDAs with other companies and other issues and hurdles...

And yes, profit can be lost, by open sourcing the whole thing. I guess though, why not open source some parts of it, that are not in use in other software.

You are crass as ever, but your honest about what you think and that I respect.

I suppose technology and NDAs are a much more complex situation than I realized.

Side note though, open source is almost always more secure than proprietary.

Unless the people making the open source software have no intention of using their heads to make good quality software.

Not sure how often that happens though.

[New Tobin Paradigm]

First off, don't quote entire posts if they are longer than a few lines. Quote only those parts you are responding to. Second, unlike your post which is opinion and speculation on opinion my post is simple fact with relevant conceptual example and explaination NOT just what I THINK. Don't confuse reality with preference. Third, I don't need your validation nor comment on how I present my information.

Your ignorance and opinions based on that ignorance is disterbing. Until you resolve that you should know you have attracted my attention.

[WiseWolf]

First off, don't quote entire posts if they are longer than a few lines. Quote only those parts you are responding to. Second, unlike your post which is opinion and speculation on opinion my post is simple fact with relevant conceptual example and explaination NOT just what I THINK. Don't confuse reality with preference. Third, I don't need your validation nor comment on how I present my information.

Your ignorance and opinions based on that ignorance is disterbing. Until you resolve that you should know you have attracted my attention.

Yeah... I didn't really know which parts I should quote and which parts I shouldn't. Sorry if I annoyed you, wasn't my intention. Also, I was only saying I appreciate your honesty. There are people out there who are scummy and give you a false impression of who they are.

Perhaps my ignorance is kind of disturbing. I will see my way out... I probably need to shut up for a while...

I have no other words to say, I don't want to further annoy anyone, as it seems I may have done that the last time I was online.

Unwittingly

[van p]

Off-topic:
daemonspudguy: "Multiverse" -- Can you prove this part?

[daemonspudguy]

Off-topic:

Off-topic:
daemonspudguy: "Multiverse" -- Can you prove this part?

It's just something stupid I put in my location section on forum profiles.