www-plugins/chrome-binary-plugins no FLASH ?

kernelOfTruth

Hi guys,

did I miss something or why is there no flash plugin included anymore in www-plugins/chrome-binary-plugins ?

As far as I know

www-plugins/chrome-binary-plugins-53.0.2767.4_alpha

or

www-plugins/chrome-binary-plugins-54.0.2816.0_alpha

were the last versions that let chromium display the Adobe flash Plugin in about:plugins :?:

Thanks

edit:

For those advocating HTML5 Video

well, great

with Adobe Flash the GPU and CPU load is significantly lower and equals power and energy savings == less heat,

also video output is smoother

seems like no one thought about environmental friendliness while pushing for a successor to Adobe Flash

_________________
https://github.com/kernelOfTruth/ZFS-for-SystemRescueCD/tree/ZFS-for-SysRescCD-4.9.0
https://github.com/kernelOfTruth/pulseaudio-equalizer-ladspa

Hardcore Gentoo Linux user since 2004

jburns · Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 4:25 am Post subject:

The flash player is now provided by www-plugins/adobe-flash:22

The Doctor · Moderator Joined: 27 Jul 2010 Posts: 2678

This is odd. I can confirm adobe-flash is required to play flash content in chromium. I seem to recall Google was maintaining their own.

So much for my plans to completely ditch adobe flash. Oh well, at least Hulu doesn't need to have fake-hal anymore.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.

keet · Guru Joined: 09 Sep 2008 Posts: 568

Based on this Google web-log, Google is deprecating flash in Chrome in favour of H.T.M.L. 5.

According to the Adobe knowledge base, Chrome includes a flash player, but to use flash in Chromium, one must install it from Adobe's site.

Adobe's web-log says that they will be releasing both Netscape and Pepper flash player for Linux and keeping the major versions synchronized.

Thus, it sounds like the releases of Adobe's flash player for Linux might be a bit different from now on.

Zucca · Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2016 1:10 pm Post subject:

HTML5 advocating following:
I've lived without flash or any replacements for at least two years now. At first it was a bit hard. Especially when the HTML video playback was terribly optimized and caused huge overhead. But now the video playback (at least on youtube) without flash does not cause much more overhead than if I was playing the video using native video player. So if you still have the overhead issues vith videos, I'd check that the harware accelerations are on.

Of course this isn't possible with some sites that do need flash (maybe for other purposes than just displaying video). But for the general video sites I've been very happy with the current development of html video.

Featherfoot · Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 9:59 pm Post subject:

Are you suggesting that Firefox doesn't need Flash?

Zucca · Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2016 10:41 pm Post subject:

The Doctor · Moderator Joined: 27 Jul 2010 Posts: 2678

If you use flash adding a flash blocker is a good idea. Most web sites shouldn't be allowed to run flash or javascript as they can be used to do nasty things.

<script>window.alert("This is why");</script>

As you can see, the forum was made by professionals. My lame example of a javascript program is properly escaped.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.

Chiitoo · Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2016 7:57 am Post subject: ><)))°€

The original question seems to have been answered, but I do want to make a sidey-note on this:

Astronome · Tux's lil' helper Joined: 02 Jan 2016 Posts: 148