What can I use this information for? This information is especially useful when looking for a way to open a specific file. If you already have iSwiff installed on your computer, you can check which file extensions it supports and look for the data you need in this specific format (or to what format you should convert the data so that you can open them in the iSwiff). I do not have a program iSwiff yet. Where should I get it? By far the most secure option is to download a program iSwiff directly from the manufacturer’s site.
Iswiff Websites Like Craigslist
Find the best programs like iSwiff for Mac. More than 4 alternatives to choose: SWF & FLV Player, Spotify, Flashblock and more. Popular Alternatives to iSwiff for Windows, Mac, Linux, Web, iPhone and more. Explore 4 apps like. Discontinued Website/app no longer accessible. I have recently downloaded iswiff, and I would like to know how to download iswiff compatible game files, because I have tried downloading them, but I want the ones on miniclip (game website), and they are all for windows, and when I download them, they are named exe., how do I download them so they can be compatible with iswiff, and quicktime?:confused.
If you are going to download the application iSwiff from a website that offers a database of downloadable software, you have to reckon with the fact that when you install it on your computer, you will also install the unwanted extras. Please, pay special attention to this.
No no no no NO. It's time to get rid of Flash.
Open-sourcing will make it live forever. Flash has very little to offer that is not at this point duplicated (or improved upon) by others. It's also woefully insecure. 'Many eyes make all bugs shallow' will only work for the most trivial bugs in the most common code paths.
Plenty of vulnerabilities will remain. In open source, they'll be even easier for attackers to find and exploit. If you want something open-source and (mostly) Flash compatible, follow nkkollaw's suggestion: support one of the already-open-source alternatives.
Do you think Flash is insecure in principle, or in implementation? I think it is very much a problem of the implementation. I don't know if Adobe/Macromedia could have done better, or if the backwards compatibility requirements make it impossible to maintain, but I'd like to see for myself. Anyway, you have no reason to be afraid. All mayor browsers are dropping support for plugins anyway.
An open source flash player will most likely be used standalone, and not in a browser. (I can't help but wonder if we are making a huge historical mistake here by the way.
Because the Flash implementation was so bad, we were led to believe that plugins are bad per se. But at least in theory, it seems to me that the best architecture would be a minimal browser (just a layout engine), and everything as a plugin. Current browser are horrible monolithic giants, that only mega-corporations (and Mozilla;-)) can maintain. That they are relatively secure is only due to the massive amounts of human-years that went into polishing and bug fixing in the recent decade.). I don't have strong feelings on browser plugins vs no browser plugins, but I can say that I can now watch streaming video from the major services and play browser games on Linux now, and that wasn't possible a couple of years (or maybe a little more) ago. I welcome the end of Silverlight, Flash, Java applets, because it means I can use any modern browser to do anything I want on any platform I want (kinda, but it keeps getting more true over time).
Plugins aren't inherently Linux-incompatible it's just that for most of them Linux support was an afterthought or actively avoided for competitive reasons (in the case of Silverlight, I would guess). I don't miss fighting to make Flash work in a 64-bit browser, or having to set my user agent to claim I'm on Windows, to make something work (and have it break periodically for whatever reason). Speaking as a clueless user; closed source plugins, sooner or later, go away. Which is pretty painful.
In the interim, the big grief-causers are usually closed source plugins that crash the host. Open source plugins cause a lot less grief.
Typically they don't have a feature I want. Often for legal reasons and not technical, or because a proprietary vendor is fighting back (eg; video patents the first case, Skype protocol the second). The linux kernel is an example how an open-source-only plugin system works technical wonders.
A very interesting case study was graphics drivers circa 2005. The closed source drivers (essentially plugins) tethered the linux community to the technically obsolete X server; and would have crippled the kernel in a similar way if the kernel devs had accepted closed source plugins.
Apple did wonders driving open standards on the web with the explicit acknowledgement that popular closed source plugins were too dangerous for their platform to implement 1. The issue here is the one Stallman has been harping on since the dawn of time - closed source is unmaintainable in an extremely profound way.
You could also argue in the opposite direction: Without a plugin architecture, you are at the mercy of the browser developers to implement a certain functionality. If you need some native feature, browser vendors can force you to use a native app and thus go through their app store (think Safari on iOS).
There is a large category of apps that you cannot make in HTML, for example anything truly P2P (not WebRTC, but based on real sockets). You can't make an IMAP client. You can't make a friend-to-friend file sharing tool, without a central server, that uses your Facebook and Google contacts to find peers (I've tried). You can't make the browser window partially-transparent or use native looking widgets.
Iswiff Websites To Watch
You can't burn a DVD. And if someone invents free-floating holograms, you can't add them to your page. Granted, these examples are silly. The web is now a very capable platform. But vendors have always been steering what you can and cannot do based on business and other interests. It would be great to be able to break out of that, by having a kind of 'C foreign function' interface for the web. Plugin has advantages though, consider I don't need the built in pdf in browser, if the pdf reader was a third party plugin I could decide to not install or remove it, less code that I do not use is better.
Also we could have a few prf reader plugins choices instead of having the one Google/Mozilla chose. Anyway the people wanting Flash to be preserved do not intend to built Flash apps but conserve the existing ones, most of them could be run in the standalone player(I think a few try to hook into the browser to get the url or similar,so those would fail as standalone). I have no idea, but I know the standalone Windows version was working fine under Wine for some games I was playing), this only means that the features those games were using worked fine. Reimplementing Windows is hard, I was playing some old RPG games, Fallout3 and Skyrim works fine in Wine(with mods and such), Fallout New Vegas and Oblivion had issues for me(works for others) I got stutters under wine, Oblivion under Windows10 I get a black screen that I could not find a soluton that worked. So old games don't always work latest Windows, I am not sure if a VM would help since 3d and VMS is slow. What if, rather than just play the Flash content, I want to write a tool to convert it to a different format?
Or what if I want to port the player to a new platform, or compile it to WASM so I can run it in a browser? There are a lot of things open sourcing Flash would enable that just running it in a VM would not. And also, why do you care if some people do want to continue developing Flash? It's going to get removed from browsers either way. The mere existence of a Flash player on somebody's desktop somewhere is not a security liability for you.
And also, why do you care if some people do want to continue developing Flash? The argument presented was that open sourcing would allow that little bit of internet history to be preserved. My point is that you don't need source code for that. IMHO we don't want anyone to continue developing flash. Even it's creator has declared EOL for it.
I understand there are people who want to mess around with it and do things that are potentially interesting, I object to disguising those desires as a preservation activity. Tens of thousands of books are written each year. Tens of thousands of songs are recorded each year.
This is an absurd line of reasoning. People get permission to build Commodore 64 clones, for retro computing preservation, and Hacker News says that's great. Someone requests similar permission for Flash, and now we're upset about the notion of a proprietary codebase being open sourced? Because Steve Jobs said it wasn't cool?
Because you're seriously afraid that it would make a comeback, and dethrone HTML5 on the mainstream web? Guys, someone started a petition to ask a company to donate a propriety codebase after EOL. This is just idle chat, because nothing in Adobe's history suggests that they would actually consider this. Regardless, if you would rather NOT see a historically signficant codebase open sourced, then simply don't sign the petition. And take all the low-quality jokes and guffaws back to Reddit, please. Well, its pretty simple.
Why should people be against open-sourcing it? I think 90% of those who are against it, are against it, because they want to forget flash and never see it again. So somehow, they must have made so bad experiences with flash, that they do not want to get it for free or even someone else to get it. So you next question is probably: What could have been such a bad experience? Probably not a just one. From my own memory: Good experiences with flash: - youtube, etc.: Flash was overcoming the codec problem we had in the past.
By providing a minimal set of supported codecs it was setting a defacto standard for video streaming. But that problem is solved today. Bad experinces with flash: - Flash menus (please install that macromedia plugin before you can actually use this website) - Flash menus (please wait until this uber cool animation finishes to render before you can click on that link) - Complete 'websites' in flash (Please install that plugin before you can see if this website is of any use at all) - Header logos with large file sizes, as they are animated like hell - a laggy computer just because some website embeded a flash animation which uses all of your CPU power - Contact forms which disallowed copy and paste.
Websites which you could not find again because the search engine could not find them. decisions about being vulnerable vs.
Actually seeing flash content at all - tracking cookies beyond normal cookies - extra applets which are there just to make sure you are a real browser. So I think nobody has a real problem with those gift cards or the games. But given the history of flash we would better not receive a gift, just to make sure we will never have to experience those moments again. You won't have to use Flash. Browsers are dropping support for Flash.
Its for the sake of archiving and learning about its code base. Just because its open sourced doesnt mean the web is going to return to 2001.
Think about it this way: as a linux user, wouldnt it be a great thing for humanity if Windows XP was open sourced? You wouldnt have to use it. No one would have to use it. But that knowledge and history would be unlocked instead of hidden away. Someone in the future would be able to learn from it or modify it to get a really old obscure program to run. The possibilities are endless. Preservation and reduction of bit rot is a great reason to open source Flash It's a reason, and a good point, but it's not a good reason.
Improving the already-open-source players would be a better alternative. Adobe could even help facilitate that, by documenting the interfaces and enough of the internals so that other developers can achieve better compatibility. A canonical sandboxed version would also achieve the goal of preservation, without the security woes. Open-sourcing Flash is would just ensure its continued use as it is today, crowding out either of those efforts. Yes, that would also work in the sense of improving compatibility, but it would still leave the other players competing with Adobe's own. Eventually they might prevail, due to being less security-bug-ridden, but in the interim we'd still be worse off.
Also, this whole discussion is moot because open-sourcing Flash ain't gonna happen. I can practically guarantee that it's too entangled with other companies' IP for that to happen.
Maybe the people who are arguing that we should treat open source as an alternative to the trash can (which is pretty damn insulting to those of us who actually produce open-source software) could spend just a little bit of their obviously-copious free time lobbying to change that IP regime. but it would still leave the other players competing with Adobe's own. You have that backwards. The effort going into open source projects emulating a closed source product are wasted if that closed source project can be open sourced. That's a win for everybody, after that the effort can be directed to something more important because perfection is now attainable.
The only reason these open source projects exist in the first place is because the reference implementation isn't open sourced. I'm pretty sure the maintainers of those projects will welcome such a move by Adobe, there is no innate right to some kind of 'protected space' for open source projects that purposefully aim to provide an open implementation of a closed source product. Obviously one of the risks of embarking on such a project is that the original may one day be open sourced. The effort going into open source projects emulating a closed source product are wasted if that closed source project can be open sourced. Yeah, that Linux thing just died when Solaris was open-sourced. Even more relevantly, IE and Chrome. perfection is now attainable.
As somebody who has actually produced software for thirty years (but without ever hitching my wagon to Flash like some here) I'm a bit more skeptical about the likelihood of taking a gigantic long-lived ball of mud and making it perfect. In particular, security is hard to bolt on after the fact. I certainly wouldn't assume that the maintainers of other implementations would be overjoyed by the prospect. Just look at how many reimplementations there are of things that were already open source. I'd say it's unlikely that a significant number of people will work on Flash without being paid to do so.
Yeah, that Linux thing just died when Solaris was open-sourced. I fail to see the relevance. Linux never tried to be an 'open source Solaris clone' and of course it didn't die off, in fact, it flourished, which sort of undermines your argument. Even more relevantly, IE and Chrome. What of them?
I could see Mozilla vs IE. As somebody who has actually produced software for thirty years Appeal to authority;) but without ever hitching my wagon to Flash like some here Join the club. I absolutely hated Flash and for many years resisted using it to deliver video. I'm a bit more skeptical about the likelihood of taking a gigantic long-lived ball of mud and making it perfect. Perfect as in 'perfect emulation', not perfect as in perfect all across the board.
Having the Flash source would allow the open source implementations to look at how things were done so they can emulate all behavior up to and including the bugs. If Adobe would open source it then they would not have to avoid looking at even disassemblies of the Flash code. In particular, security is hard to bolt on after the fact. This is not about future developments in Flash, it is about digital archeology.
If you start seeing it through that lens then maybe you will be a bit more relaxed about it. Nobody is suggesting that Flash be given eternal life or that we will have another round of Flash content if Flash is open sourced. The sooner it is gone from the web the better. But that old stuff still remains and maybe one day someone wants to review it. That is what this is about.
CF people using C64 Roms or Nintendo stuff 3 decades old. Sealed new sid meier's civilization v gods kings for mac. I certainly wouldn't assume that the maintainers of other implementations would be overjoyed by the prospect.
Did you ask them? Just look at how many reimplementations there are of things that were already open source. Fragmentation is the very power of open source at work. I'd say it's unlikely that a significant number of people will work on Flash without being paid to do so.
So that is - again - why open sourcing the old Flash player is a good thing. Open sourcing it won't help preserve content - that's far more effectively achieved via VMs and using the archived players which Adobe provide (and will hopefully continue to provide or allow preservation of on abandoware or other sites). Maintaining the build systems, compatibility layers and so forth won't be easy (Adobe often couldn't manage it), and bug fixing in the code is a risky prospect for preservation as it could render older content unplayable or differently playable. The swf file format is almost open - it would be nice if Adobe updated the published specification to the latest format. Again that would go some way towards ensuring the content remained available in some way.
Edit: genuinely interested in the downvotes here - am I missing something fundamental about content preservation? It seems logical to me that the file spec being available + original players is far more valuable than the source, as the source will then bitrot without continuous maintenance.
In comparison the players will always run in the VMs. I've had the misfortune to work with Flex - I really didn't enjoy it.
It was also incredibly difficult to make Flex apps accessible in a meaningful way. AIR did hold promise, but ultimately suffered from being terribly cumbersome to extend when you wanted to access native features or platform standard libraries (I've created several AIR native extensions over the years). However, one of the big problems with using Flex or AIR after Adobe have end-of-lifed Flash is that you're going to lose access to the content creation tools. There are some alternatives (FlashDevelop and FDT for coding, I forget the name of the attempt at an open source Flash timeline editor), but nothing is close to being as good as Adobes own tools when you want to.
If you want to leverage knowledge of ActionScript, people may be better off looking at something like Haxe for cross platform gui app dev. I would not start a new project in Flex/AIR but I am stil bug fixing existing projects. You can extend over window bounds, what I meant is the dropdown should open up or give you a property to allow you this option, also Flex dropdowns had the property you can set how many items are visible at a time. I learned Adobe AIR because my employer liked it better then Qt at that time and he also trusted Adobe products, moving from c/Qt (and previous C# Winforms and WPF) to AIR was a downgrade in some aspects but after you learn it you can do your job and implement most of the things fast. What do you use for creating native apps for Windows, I do not know what is the prefered thing this days? Is there still a standalone Flash player? (or at least, will the debug version work?) Haven't messed with Flash stuff in over a decade but I remember having a standalone player to play downloaded SWF files back in the day.
No idea if there's anything roughly equivalent out there in its current incarnation. A sandboxed player application would go a long way toward the uses mentioned in this thread, no? I wonder when we'll start seeing Flash emulators being developed to play back all that old content.
universally-supported I thought we're talking about Flash here? You know, the thing that only works on a subset of browsers on the three major desktop OSes and has absolutely zero modern mobile support. Almost everything that has been done with Flash falls in to one of two categories: 1.
Wasn't this basically what people said about Netscape pre-Firefox? That worked out, and ushered in a new age of Internet.
Flash has an immense amount of value built in which cannot be replaced by any of the alternatives. Maintaining and fixing old code isn't as sexy as jumping on the latest competing standard, but it's far more valuable. Even if we don't continue to develop new features for Flash, it's important to keep it alive so we don't lose the ability to run the wide variety of flash programs which at this point make up a significant portion of Internet culture and history.