The sooner the better.
Developers of the Mozilla's Firefox Web Browser have indicated that version 55, due in August 2017, will be openly hostile to Adobe's Flash plugin. “As part of the ongoing NPAPI plug-in deprecation in Firefox, Flash content is now defaulted to click-to-activate in Firefox Nightly,” the developers write, adding that . “The …
The problem are some software management tools like Oracle and VMWare that uses Flash. And upgrading them may be very expensive. Browsers developers should stop to think that browsers are only used to update facebook pages and watch youtube. Just like software should stop to use browsers for management interfaces, they are under marketing control, they are not a stable platform.
what kind of software developer would *EVAR* design a 'web admin' tool that makes use of FLASH???
I can't think of enough pejoratives to describe THAT person. Put *THAT* on a resume, and it'll be circular-filed immediately.
At least it doesn't use ActiveX... or does it?
FEDEX (and DHL), have that $5 covered by the spurious "Duty" charges they send out to people.
When FEDEX suddenly started adding a £3.50 "Duty" charge to a regular parcel delivery I get, I queried it, as the parcels declared value was 50p UNDER the threshold; when they got back to me the charge was £84.
DHL started doing the same less than a year later; I bet they dont do this to corporate customers.
Better than that is when they guess the value of the package, while ignoring the value on the customs declaration form. When I queried them about it, they told me it was because sometimes people don't put the correct value on the form. I told them that was a matter for Customs and Excise to pursue, not them. Strangely enough the extra charges were dropped once I got a case number back from Customs...
you may have noticed a few changes to our website. While we will indeed soon be getting rid of Flash, we will also be introducing some creepy web-DRM and forcing you to log on. We will also be sharing your data with the TV licensing authority and selected partners…
IOW: be careful what you wish for.
"[...] we will also be introducing some creepy web-DRM and forcing you to log on."
It appears that the BBC are being a bit naughty with their mandatory login to iPlayer.
The login persists across their other pages too - and they appear to intend to use it to automatically "personalise" news and tv programme pages unless you untick a lot of boxes. Shades of Facebook.
I am now using Chrome for iPlayer only - and "no login" Firefox for any other BBC pages.
"It appears that the BBC are being a bit naughty with their mandatory login to iPlayer. The login persists across their other pages too - and they appear to intend to use it to automatically "personalise" news and tv programme pages unless you untick a lot of boxes. Shades of Facebook."
Their web pages (anything on bbc.co.uk domain) suddenly started demanding location info about a month or so ago. I've blocked it (Desktop Firefox) but I'm sure most won't because they've "got nothing to hide" and "ooh, it means I get my local news and weather and all that".
"[...] it means I get my local news and weather and all that".
You can give them a local news and weather "location" without logging in. The weather forecast and map are sufficiently broad that you can pinpoint a town at least 20 miles away.
I am thinking of going over to StartPage to look at BBC news/information pages. You can run Linux Mint Mate in an Oracle VirtualBox under W7 - or possibly under W8. Add dnsmasq to only allow startpage.com and ixquick-proxy.com and ixquick.com. That means you can view the BBC pages' content through the ixquick https proxy. Anything else is blocked - unless an html uri uses an explicit IP address instead of a domain name.
they scrape your IP anyway. I once tried, in vain, to get them to respond to HOW they can locate me. After several attempts to send a message through their proper channels, the message (automated) I got, boiled down to basically: "f... off!"
OK, to be precise, it was an auto-response, something to the effect that "we don't have to respond to all the queries".
but on the log in note, the development on the iplayer worries me, because this is a blatant attempt to grab as much data, as possible (your gender, your age, your POSTCODE... all to "better offer personalized viewing experience" and "we take the matters of privacy with utmost care, blah blah blah".
So, it's back to torrents for me.
"At the moment whois shows bbci.co.uk as registered to the BBC."
As I recall, bbci is short for "BBC Interactive" and represents the BBC's earlier forays into combining television and internet to create interactive programming. It's a legitimate domain that the BBC has had for about a decade or so.
uBlockOrigin provides a good alternative to NoScript for Chrome. You have to enable its Advanced Mode, which gives you access to some nice fine grained script filtering.
I've bobbed a screenie of it action on the The Register here:
Apart from deregulating markets for corporate buddies, they'd regulate IoT and heavily fine corps like FedEx. C'mon this is like taking a wrecking ball to the net, just so that FedEx don't have to fix out-of-date tech (they probably fired the staff long ago)! ... But oh no, that would be like Communism or something!
Politicians will not regulate against the market, whilst people are willing to install the rubbish then they are accepting the implications of the install even if unknowingly.
If politicians did regulate against unsafe software then most of the US software market would be unable to comply given that the hardware is similarly unsafe.
Whilst people continue to believe that software cannot be written without errors/vulnerabilities remaining in the "finished" product then the best they can do is attempt to blacklist the worse offenders.
If you want the politicians to do something wholistic to fix this once and for all then making the software/hardware houses responsible for any losses due to the failure of their designs would be the way to go. However this would require the world to sign up and would quickly put all the big names in IT out of business overnight, the US is not going to give up their control of IT just because it doesnt work.
For anyone who travels a lot with work etc. The sheer number of government, bank, travel, and public transport sites etc, that insist on Flash is amazing! You can't pick your flight seat on Lan / Latam w/o Flash etc! Latin-America and many parts of Asia here's looking at you, didn't you get the memo???
many sites won't do a thing.
I'm already not using a number of sites that insist on Flash. Yes, I'm voting with my feet and not spending money with them. Perhaps a diminishing value of online sales might get an FD or two to get things done but somehow I doubt it.
Die Flash Die and your execution won't be a day too soon.
How are you suggesting they go after the publishers? and which publishers are you thinking about oracle/adobe or the website devs?
Whilst people are willing to install X to load website Y then nothing will change, however if all the users become aware of the implications of installing X they may decide not to use Y and use Z instead. Z being a company who do not force X on their customers.
Thus users can either accept the implications of X and not bitch when they get pwned or they can vote with their feet and help make X an unsellable option in web design.
But what if Z doesn't exist? It's like with medical equipment manufacturers still using outdated operating systems to stay legally-compliant. If EVERY site that has the W you need REQUIRES the use of Flash, then you're stuck with a Hobson's Choice (as in Take It Or Leave It). Some people may be willing to walk away, but for some it can result in collateral damage, such as not being able to use a piece of computer equipment for a job which means it'll have to be replaced (a more-expensive proposition).
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020