Is LightSpark a workable substitute for Adobe Flash?

pastywhitegurl · May 12, 2014, 07:51:45 PM

http://www.gavick.com/magazine/alternative-to-the-flash-player-lightspark-now-also-on-windows.html

QuoteLightspark is one of the most promising open-source projects aiming to provide better Flash support on Linux and other operating systems (like Windows now). It's based entirely on OpenGL, so you can quickly view video, geometric shapes, etc. The player supports AVM2 virtual machine, and most of the new format developed by Adobe.

Lightspark for Windows consists of the player and plug-in for Firefox.

Windows installer on this page: https://launchpad.net/lightspark/+download

This article: http://www.transitionblog.com/4-most-amazing-alternatives-to-adobe-flash-player/
mentions a couple others:
Unity Web Player, GNU Gnash, and Silverlight

LilBambi · May 12, 2014, 08:16:42 PM

Maybe soon...

Will have to see how fast they are at fixing security issues over time.

:mitch:

pastywhitegurl · May 12, 2014, 08:59:13 PM

So are you saying that LightSpark is no more secure than Adobe Flash?

LilBambi · May 12, 2014, 09:32:36 PM

Every software has bugs. Here's the bugs list for Lightspark.

And here's the summary oif the listing:

32 New bugs
225 Open bugs
1 In-progress bug
0 Critical bugs
1 High importance bug

I am just not sure if it's ready for prime time is all.

Corrine · May 12, 2014, 09:52:59 PM

Lightspark 0.5.3-git is identified by AdwareCleaner as AdWare.Win32.iBryte.jcs. That doesn't mean that it might be a f/p although there is apparently adware that results in popups showing, "Install Lightspark Player Pro to Continue".

pastywhitegurl · May 12, 2014, 11:02:36 PM

Sounds like I should just go ahead and install Flash.

Corrine · May 12, 2014, 11:07:05 PM

Probably a good idea for now. There was no mention of a Flash Player update tomorrow (Patch Tuesday) but they do generally occur the same day. If you have Adobe Reader installed, expect an update for that tomorrow.

LilBambi · May 13, 2014, 02:12:37 PM

Quote from: Corrine on May 12, 2014, 09:52:59 PM
Lightspark 0.5.3-git is identified by AdwareCleaner as AdWare.Win32.iBryte.jcs. That doesn't mean that it might be a f/p although there is apparently adware that results in popups showing, "Install Lightspark Player Pro to Continue".

Likely due to it's being on Sourceforge. I steer clear of Sourceforge these days since they are allowing developers regardless of type of software it is to include that crapware to make money. Really ticks me off.

Some of them if you get the zip file, it doesn't have the crapware, just in the executables.

Digerati · May 13, 2014, 02:22:57 PM

Is Lightspark even still in development? For one, typically (but not always) a version number that starts with a zero or decimal point is still in beta. The latest version is 0.7.2 and more importantly (to my question), this last update was released in March of last year! So to me, development of this alternative seems to have stalled.

Also, while W8 has not dominated the market as MS would like, it does have a good foothold which is expanding. Flash is integrated into W8 (and most likely future version of Windows). This is significant because Flash is updated via Windows Update which gives Flash a good (the best?) opportunity to stay current - essential since it is security nightmare. With the integration into Windows appearing to work (that is, limiting Flash security vulnerabilities by keeping Windows and Flash current), I wonder if the impetus for a Flash alternative has waned?

LilBambi · May 14, 2014, 01:17:02 AM

New Adobe updates today. Be sure to get all the updates to your installs.

Hey Bill. No idea on whether it's still in development.

Flash is also integrated in Google Chrome and you can get Adblock Plus and WOT on that as well. I prefer Google Chrome over IE personally.

Digerati · May 14, 2014, 02:40:35 PM

QuoteFlash is also integrated in Google Chrome and you can get Adblock Plus and WOT on that as well. I prefer Google Chrome over IE personally.

You can get ABP and WOT for IE too - probably all the major browsers. I use ABP, but the phishing filter (SmartScreen) in IE11 is excellent, so I have found I don't need WOT.

I like IE11 best, then Chrome. Over the last several years (a trend that just keeps on going! :() FF just has had too many newly discovered vulnerabilities for my liking. I do like how quickly FF vulnerabilities are patched, however.

Pale Moon is gaining ground for me.

Nevertheless - if you keep Windows fully updated, use a current anti-malware solution and avoid risky behavior on the wrong side of the tracks, it really does not matter which browser you use.

I forgot that Flash was integrated into Chrome. I wonder how Flash is handled when running Chrome with the Flash add-on enabled on Windows 8 with integrated Flash? I don't see Flash running twice in TM.

LilBambi · May 14, 2014, 04:58:23 PM

Yes, definitely can get ABP and WOT for IE. I install them both for my clients/friends/family whether they use IE religiously or not.

But FYI: ABP for IE is not the same as it is in Chrome/Firefox.

I too enable SmartScreen for all clients/friends/family.

:Hammys pint:

Digerati · May 14, 2014, 06:44:42 PM

QuoteBut FYI: ABP for IE is not the same as it is in Chrome/Firefox.

Oh? I know there are several ad blockers for IE out there, some with very similar names, but pretty sure ABP for the 3 browsers are pretty much the same.

https://adblockplus.org/en/internet-explorer
https://adblockplus.org/en/chrome
https://adblockplus.org/en/firefox

LilBambi · May 14, 2014, 08:44:39 PM

Quote from: Digerati on May 14, 2014, 06:44:42 PM
QuoteBut FYI: ABP for IE is not the same as it is in Chrome/Firefox.
Oh? I know there are several ad blockers for IE out there, some with very similar names, but pretty sure ABP for the 3 browsers are pretty much the same.

https://adblockplus.org/en/internet-explorer
https://adblockplus.org/en/chrome
https://adblockplus.org/en/firefox

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that. It is the same developer for all three browsers, but the extension is not exactly the same for IE as it is for Chrome and Firefox. And you don't have as much manual control.

Digerati · May 15, 2014, 03:01:59 PM

Ah! I see what you mean. And you are right, though in that respect, all 3 have widely different "manual control" abilities. But for sure, IE has fewer. Both the Chrome and FF version support EasyList for example, but only the Chrome version has a "Whitelisted domains" feature. In fact, the Chrome version appears to be much more flexible than the FF version, which I think a bit strange since one of FF's key "selling points" is add-on support.

But frankly, I don't feel the extras matter for the vast majority of users. All they (and I) care about is effective ad blocking. And I feel ABP does that well, regardless the browser.