Who uses chrome on os x? It's power hungry which alone is a good reason to not use it. I don't use it on my windows laptop, my Macbook and only use it on my phone since apparently it is the only browser on ios that let's me use cuny first which is a website for the college I'm going to.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe Releases Flash Player Update for 'Critical' Security Vulnerability on Mac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Who uses chrome on os x? It's power hungry which alone is a good reason to not use it. I don't use it on my windows laptop, my Macbook and only use it on my phone since apparently it is the only browser on ios that let's me use cuny first which is a website for the college I'm going to.
Maybe just try uninstalling it. If stuff breaks, put it back or else do without! Definately the best way to tell if you need flash!
Any company with an online presence that hasn't embraced mobile by 2016 is just biding their time until they go out of business. Seriously. I'm a webdev. There is no excuse as there are tons of open source resources and frameworks out there to get up and running quickly. I can't even remember the last time I saw an entirely flash-based website. It is simply not worth the security risk to enable the plugin, full stop. By refusing to sunset their plugin, Adobe enables these lazy companies to keep trudging along with shoddy, performance-robbing, battery-hungry interfaces that are unstable at best and incredibly insecure at worst.
Like I said, they'll get there. The link you provided is for a single managed host. Kinda worthless when you have 100 ESX hosts and are running vSphere.
Also, it's a bit preposterous to assert that flash is so bad, but then offer a beta application to run on production, revenue generating, ESX hosts.
People act like Flash is the only thing to ever have security issues. Linux just recently had a severe glibc vulnerability that required us to patch almost every server we have in our environment. Doesn't mean we're going to get rid of Linux.
Sites that demand Flash are not worth the traffic. Uninstall Flash and let them die.
Which excuse? I'm definitely not trying to "excuse" anyone or anything: the reason Flash is not dead yet is because some sites still either require it or the HTML5 option is not yet on par with Flash. This is a statement about the reality of the situation, not an "excuse".
Ok, and? Of course the world would be better if all content providers were responsible and all sites had a high quality feature-full HTML5 replacement. Reality is that many sites still don't provide that and as end user the options are basically to complain, avoid the content or put up with Flash.
Please, that is offensive to real programmers. People that today willingly use Flash are monsters.
Using bad technology is just like voting for the wrong candidate. As long as there are users Flash will never go away. IMO there is never a reason to to use flash. Might you miss a video? Sure! But in the overall scheme of things is missing a video really all that important? Nope, or at least it should not be!
The ignorance and self centered attitude here astounds me. It's easy for you say that I shouldn't be using it and shouldn't patronize sites that use it. Well thank you for telling me how to run my business, life, etc. There are some critical sites that unfortunately still use it and therefore I must also. The arrogance shown here by so many just contributes to the progessive uselessness of this forum.
Or it's the other way around. I just had problems playing a video on the CNN website. The Flash menu wouldn't go away no matter where I clicked. Uninstalled it and not only does it work now, I also gained AirPlay and Fullscreen functionality.
Last edited:
Flash happened to be born and develop its feature set in a rather dark time for security, the mid-90s. In this time period, it was considered a good idea by marketing to include a fully-featured general application environment in everything - web browsers, video player formats (Quicktime, WMF), plugins (Flash, Java applets), documents (VB for Applications), etc. For the most part, a large number of these have reconsidered those ill-considered plans (browsers, Quicktime and WMF) either by neutering the languages they had embedded or properly instituting a solid sandbox around them (Javascript is the poster child of successful sandboxing); others have faded away to disuse (Java applets are still supported but rarely ever used, even though Java the language is still going quite strong outside the consumer/browser space).
That leaves the bete noires of the security world, the deemed-critical-by-some technologies from that unfortunate era which just refuse to die. Flash has a sandbox of sorts, just not a very good one. It has bugs, but the remarkable thing about it is that those bugs tend to not just cause the app to crash or do something unexpected, but to open up the entire machine for remote takeover without any user interaction whatsoever. VBA is in worse shape - Microsoft hasn't even ever thought about instituting any kind of a sandbox there or putting the more dangerous features behind an optional install, etc, and so we see MS "word macro" viruses still popping up twenty years later.
But back to Flash, how is this different from glibc etc? glibc bugs are scary, but they are tempered by the fact that there is no other way to do what glibc does, while there are healthy alternatives to almost every single use of Flash and VBA which do not require a full-featured general-use tool with full system-level access. Yeah it sucks having to rebuild and reinstall apps because a common library was found to have a vulnerability. But at least you have specifically chosen those apps for the thing that they do (and, to be clear, the only apps you really needed to recompile with the glibc bug were those which resolved internet addresses using domain name lookups; other apps were updated with the latest glibc but just to keep current not as any kind of an emergency update job). Flash might be chosen by users - and almost always remains on systems simply because of this - to play video, but along with that Flash includes massive amounts of features which allow a bug in any of that code to start a system takeover.
Why the hate for Flash? Because if someone has been bit by a security vulnerability, chances are it came from Flash. Because that is the one piece of software that we keep around for one or two web sites which haven't stepped into the 2010's yet and moved to single-purpose safer alternatives, which is constantly needing emergency updates.
You seem to mis-understand. I HATE Flash. It's slow, buggy, battery and CPU killing software. But the fact of the matter is that, as an END USER, there are far too many systems that require it to function and so I appreciate the notices about updates being released for it (yet another problem with flash is that it doesn't seem to recognize new patches immediately, so these notices help me manually patch). These helpful community updates just tend to get filled with people congratulating themselves for uninstalling it years ago and denigrating people that still use it.
I agree, this isn't very helpful.
Instead of uninstalling Flash altogether, a very good alternative is the Click to Plugin Safari extension. This will display a gray box where Flash video or other content would be on all websites; you click the gray box to play the Flash. Importantly, you can also tell Click to Plugin to automatically allow Flash on sites that you trust to not get compromised and which require Flash.
In the preferences you can tell it to only skip Flash (not other plugins), although you have to remember to go back there to enable plugins if you install new ones (or whitelist sites).
There is really nothing ignorant or self centered about that member's post. Flash is just not a good rich internet application. You can continue to use it with your business if you want, just know that people won't be happy. HTML5 has been proven to be more efficient, easier to use, compatible with more devices, less power hungry, and more.
If you want to address the arrogance of the people on these forums, start with the people who use words such as 'Steve Jobs, Snow Leopard, doomed, battery, etc.'
Totally unfair. (I am on Apple's side in the iPhone case). The FBI isn't "toxic." They do good work and its agents mean well in trying to keep us safe. That is their mission. It's our public duty as citizens, as well as the Courts' Constitutional duty, to let the executive branch know when it's crossed the line.
Flash OTOH isn't subject to a constitution or a government of checks and balances. It can steal and search without a warrant or any type of transparency at all and its script writers typically suffer zero negative consequences at all.
Is it really that bad? It's at least progressively developed. Maybe the issue you've experienced had been resolved?
And yet Adobe Flash is still round and not HTML5 and not all sites work without Flash but popular sites like Facebook, Google Maps and YouTube got rid of use of Flash but webcam chats still use the disgusting Flash and Java.
Someone really needs to let this website developers Adobe Flash is the 90's time to move to HTML5.
[doublepost=1457721989][/doublepost]
Yes Netflix went full HTML5 if I remember 2 years ago and I don't understand the point of Microsoft Silverlight which was a useless plug-in for streaming protection.
[doublepost=1457722225][/doublepost]
Really? Chrome actually has a nicer look compared to Safari but I never ran into where Chrome uses up power or my CPU on Mac but Windows that is a different story and depends which website. Many reason can a site using Flash they are a bitch.
Someone really needs to let this website developers Adobe Flash is the 90's time to move to HTML5.
[doublepost=1457721989][/doublepost]
Yes Netflix went full HTML5 if I remember 2 years ago and I don't understand the point of Microsoft Silverlight which was a useless plug-in for streaming protection.
[doublepost=1457722225][/doublepost]
Really? Chrome actually has a nicer look compared to Safari but I never ran into where Chrome uses up power or my CPU on Mac but Windows that is a different story and depends which website. Many reason can a site using Flash they are a bitch.
