Gizmos Freeware Reviews  

Go Back   Gizmo's Freeware Forum > Debating Chamber > Internet, Web Apps and Networking

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 14. Sep 2015, 12:50 AM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 195
Default Is this true?

I've red this some where! is this true or hard-wash?

Chrome works better than Firefox because it has a native Flash client. It doesn't need to be installed or updated separately, so it integrates into the browser better.
Ivtec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14. Sep 2015, 04:22 AM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,741
Default

Yes, Chrome has Flash built-in but that is no advantage unless you want it. Personally, I do without Flash in both Chrome and Firefox ... and any other web browser.

It is true that once you have Flash installed for Firefox you have to update it manually because Firefox does not update plug-ins automatically. This is a security and stability feature which is a positive advantage when Flash has a history of problems. Flash updates have historically been far more likely to break your system than they are to improve your user experience. Personally, there is no advantage in having unsafe or buggy software updated automatically. But if you wanted Flash to update automatically in only Chrome then it would be a good feature.

Remember that Adobe Flash can be set to update automatically so all your applications that use it can receive the same update at the same time. Personally, I prefer this approach because different applications aren't using different versions of the Flash player. That makes troubleshooting easier.
__________________
Better to light a candle ... than to curse the darkness.
Remah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14. Sep 2015, 04:36 AM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,741
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivtec View Post
Chrome works better than Firefox because it has a native Flash client. It doesn't need to be installed or updated separately, so it integrates into the browser better.
I forget to address the question of whether integration is better than a plug-in

I wouldn't call it "a native Flash client" because the integrated version is no more native than the plug-in version. If you read this Adobe FAQ it provides more details.

A related issue is that from 1 September 2015 Chrome no longer allows NPAPI plug-ins. It has been superseded by the Pepper API (PPAPI) which is more restrictive in allowing modification of Chrome itself. Many plug-ins including Flash, Silverlight and Jave used to use the old NPAPI. Now they are they are being replaced with Pepper versions which is what you can also see in the above Adobe FAQ.

New Web technologies provide the means to accomplish some, maybe most, of the features that have been cut by discontinuing NPAPI. Firefox has also announced a similar path to restrict plug-ins from directly modifying the browser.
__________________
Better to light a candle ... than to curse the darkness.
Remah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14. Sep 2015, 07:08 AM   #4 (permalink)
J_L
Co-Author, Best Free Security List
 
J_L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,003
Default

It does have better security, but Flash is still the Achilles' heel as demonstrated by recent "The Hacking Team" revelations.
J_L is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.