Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-8081-120121-

Adobe is lazy

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-07 8:05

Proof that Adobe programmers are lazy as fuck.

http://flashcrash.dempsky.org/

Name: sage 2010-02-07 8:40

Go back to /digg/ or /reddit/,please.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-07 8:43

>>2
Also I fucking hate when people say, "Go back to /digg/ or /reddit/,please." so kindly shut up.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-07 9:07

>>3
Hey! Listen here, jerkface! If you don't like it, maybe you could get out of the Internet!

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-07 10:23

Shut up!
No, you shut up!
No, you shut up!
No, you shut up!
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-07 10:27

>>5
welcome to /b/, enjoy your stay

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-07 13:14

That doesn't surprise me at all. I know how to crash that piece of shit using YouTube's player; a certain combination of clicks involving switching video qualities will crash it 90% of the time effortlessly.

Also, don't tell anybody I told you, but a certain acquaintance which happens to work at Adobe once told that about 15% of the source code were #ifdefs.

With that I don't mean 15% of the code was under conditional compilation, I mean 15% of the lines of code are conditional preprocessor directives.

TRUE ENTERPRISE QUALITY

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-07 13:30

ADOBE HACKED MY ANUS

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-07 17:18

>>3
I fucking hate when people say, "Also I fucking hate when people say, 'Go back to /digg/ or /reddit/,please.' so kindly shut up." so kindly shut up.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-07 17:21

#define RUN_SLOW_ON_LINUX 1

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-07 18:00

I don't think they're lazy. Just incompetent. I mean, if you, purely hypothetically, were a competent programmer, and someone told you "we're thinking of putting you on the Flash team," wouldn't you get the hell out of there?

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-07 19:51

#ifdef LINUX
    usleep(50)
#endif

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-07 20:03

>>10,12
If you think the Linux version is slow you obviously haven't seen the Mac one.

THE DIFFICULTY OF BLITTING A BITMAP TO THE SCREEN

Also the API involves calling the plugin 1000 times per second or so. Firefox reduced CPU usage 30fold for background tabs by increasing the delay to 33ms in that case.

Whenever somebody complains about high CPU usage in plugins they just increase the delay in the loop. The plugin authors respond by moving everything to another thread.

Chrome attempted to run it at low priority but that didn't work very well because plugins use native widgets onto the main browser window, so if they starve for CPU the whole browser freezes.

EXPERT SOFTWARE INTERFACES

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 0:09

>>13
Adobe gave up and is now using CoreAnimation.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 1:01

>>14
Please elaborate. I know they are doing something big for the next version, but not exactly what.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 1:07

http://flashcrash.dempsky.org/ crashed my brother!
Damn you, >>1, I hope you get banned.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 1:19

Crashes are nothing. Most client-side vulns being abused in the wild right now are due to Adobe.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 1:44

>>16
If a plugin crash brings down your browser, then your browser is an enormous piece of shit, and you are an irresponsible Internet citizen for allowing non-sandboxed plugins to run without explicit authorization.

tl;dr: your not just the crashes but the spam too fagget

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 3:23

>>18
But Flash can crash anything! Some years ago, visiting flash using sites could even lock up my graphics driver with some regularity. It's so amazingly badly written, you can use it as a fuzzer.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 3:36

Flash is written in SEPPLES after all.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 3:41

>>18
spam and faggots, sounds like a good breakfast to me!

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 3:41

Why did we want flash again?
Was it because we wanted stupid flash games we could play between 4 and 5 PM because the boss wasn't watching at that time?
Or was it just a marketing thing for Adobe?

I don't remember, but all I know this: Interactive webpages suck ass.
Bring me back the pure HTML web, I don't want no fucking jewtube or Farmville.

I'm going into shock, give me an hour or so.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 3:46

>>20
So is your precious Firefox, you talentless hack
And every other browser as well, including Chrome

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 6:10

>>1
Fuck you faggot, I had a lot of porn open in my browser and now all the pages have to reload again!

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 6:14

>>23
I'm not saying I have anything against browsers being full of vulnerabilities. It's easy enough to isolate them from the rest of the world.

Name: >>23 2010-02-08 6:50

Oh, and I never said I was using FireFox, but I'm pretty sure my browser is written in SEPPLES too.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 7:31

>>24
Blame yourself for installing Flash and Adobe for their shoddy software.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 8:15

>>24
Oh sorry to keep you from your'e hentai.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 8:38

>>28
I fucking hate when people say, "your'e hentai" so kindly shut up.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 8:44

>>29
I fucking hate when people say "I fucking hate when people say, "your'e hentai" so kindly shut up" so kindly shut up.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 9:42

Error line 30 quote-within-quote failure
Did you mean I fucking hate whe npeople say 'I fucking hate when people say, "Your'e hentai" so kindly shut up.'

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 10:25

But I am a hentai!

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 10:54

>>30
I fucking hate when people say “I fucking hate when people say "I fucking hate when people say, "your'e hentai" so kindly shut up" so kindly shut up.” so kindly shut up.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 14:48

>>33
Listen here, jerkface.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 16:15

>>34
Listen here, jerkface, I hate it when people say "listen here, jerkface" so...

Fuck I hate me for making this post.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 16:37

This came in super-handy to test the multi-process plugin support in Firefox trunk:

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/4673/adobeshit.png

I don't like they they pop up a window though (at least it's not modal). IMO they should optimize for the case the plugin is crashing continuously and just display an info bar like the Glorious Chrome browser.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 17:04

>>36
Does not work with 64bit builds yet.

Also, why is Flash's video quality so shitty? The chroma upsampling looks disgusting.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-08 17:12

>>37
If the chroma upsampling is your biggest bother with Flash video, you're a very lucky person.

Considering it wastes precious CPU cycles I'd consider it a reasonable tardeoff. I'm not an expert on the matter but interpolating it would cost an additional sum and shift per every destination pixel.

That said I have never noticed it. Not that I looked very closely, but still, I noticed it easily on the Sony PSP, and that was without zooming the video to 16 times its size.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-09 1:55

I give this thread starts

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-09 2:28

Semi-related:

http://blitzableiter.recurity.com/

This is a fairly interesting project. It essentially decompiles, validates and reassembles flash files to prevent exploits like this.

I recommend reading the talk slides as the rest of the site isn't really verbose about it. (Also might want to see http://events.ccc.de/congress/2009/Fahrplan/events/3494.en.html )

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-09 10:09

http://mugtug.com/sketchpad/

Behold!

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-09 11:00

>>41
That's some impressive use of Javascript.

Name: Anonymous 2010-02-09 11:15

http://jilion.com/sublime/video

Behold again, (I cant get it to work on my 3 browsers!)!

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-16 7:01

still not fixed

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-16 8:37

Flash seriously needs to die. Hurry up with HTML 5 adoption, god damn it!

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-16 8:47

>>45
HTML 5 is an enemy of your freedom

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-16 8:59

>>46
Your freedom is the enemy of HTML 5

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-16 9:10

>>47
Your enemy is the freedom of HTML 5

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-16 9:23

>>48

Your HTML 5 is the freedom of enemy

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-16 9:48

>>46
How so? It's a fucking open standard!

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-16 10:12

>>50
Theora is not being used

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-16 10:57

>>51
Really? That's fucked up. Why don't I hear RMS trolling the W3C about this?

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-16 11:15

>>51,52
Actually, W3C is not recommending anything specific for video anything because there is no consensus amongst the major browser implementations. It's up to the browser to figure out how to display the video tag.

>>52
RMS has already written a couple of essays about this. I could be arsed to find them now.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-16 11:31

>>49
it cant be worse then flash can it?

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-16 12:32

>>51
Too bad Theora is not that good technically, and most people that use it use it only so they don't have to pay patent royaltees to MPEG.
I expect the video tag to support H264 and AAC audio in MP4 as a minimum. I would rather not have it support flash video though. MKV, Vorbis and AC3 support would also be nice, but I have my doubts they'll include it. Couldn't care less about AVI or MP3, but MP3 has been supported in a lot of browsers anyway.
This is a bit offtopic, but you guys know that technically IE has supported all these formats before they even existed? by allowing ActiveX controls, and they had one for DirectShow players, and for dshow, the user could have any numbers of filters/splitters/decoders installed, which would play the content seamlessly. Of course, this is all terribly insecure, but not that much more than having a browser support a few dozen video/audio/container formats - one is bound to have some vulnerabilities anyway.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-16 19:22

>>55
This is a bit offtopic, but you guys know that technically IE has supported all these formats before they even existed?
Yeah, well Netscape supported the <embed> tag before HTML even existed!

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-17 1:58

>>55 "vulnerabilities"
just keep running your executables as root

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-17 2:45

>>55
only so they don't have to pay patent royaltees to MPEG
Can you blame them? The license costs five million dollars.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-17 3:28

If a free software uses a license that costs 5million its not free for me.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-17 3:39

>>59
Except nobody gives a fuck about software patents. H.264 patents are being broken daily by millions of people, however if you're for example, a game developer in the US, Theora is an alternative to cut costs, however serious game developers would have the money to pay the roytaltees anyway (some 2500$ or so).

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-17 5:31

I guess if FF went with theora there'd just be an addon for H.264.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-17 8:26

>>58
I don't think it's that expensive. I think Mozilla made up this number. It's really only a couple thousand. 0/10 kill yourself

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-17 8:56

>>62
The amount that gets charged varies depends on intended use and audience size, it's not inconceivable that they could charge Mozilla in the millions.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-17 9:21

>>60
Nobody except for high profile AND upstanding members of society such as Mozilla and Opera. Only people who live hidden lives disregard issues such as these patents. Our fight is for the upstanding members of society that want to be free.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-17 9:53

>Except nobody gives a fuck about software patents
people outside your basement.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-17 10:04

>>64,65
This.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-17 12:33

I'll just stick with Dirac. It'll be on par with H.246 some day. Possibly, maybe. Maybe even some years before the patents run out, or software patents are scrapped for good.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-17 12:44

>>60
If they go after the companies who write patent-infringing software and not the users, there's nothing stopping someone from writing some implementation and releasing it anonymously.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-17 16:16

>>68
That doesn't stop the fact that they can still go after companies that use patent-infringing software if they catch someone.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-17 16:44

>>66
IHBT

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-18 2:51

>>68
There's no need to release it anonymously. FFMPEG(and derived software) and x264 contain GPLed software decoders and encoders for H.264. Nobody sued them as there is no commercial interest there. Another thing worth mentioning is that some broadcasters and VOD guys actually use their software, but they pay royaltees.

>>64-66
Most people using mplayer, Media Player Classic and many other media players which support H.264 and are open sourced don't pay any royaltees, and most of them don't necessarily live in a basement. These concerns are for companies which will actually make a profit with their product and plan on distributing their products in the US(or are US-based).

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-18 16:50

OPEN SOURCE DEVELOPMENT IS THE BEST WAY TO ENCOURAGE PROGRESS AND INNOVATION, OH BY THE WAY YOU SHOULD USE AN UNPOPULAR CODEC THAT IS TECHNOLOGICALLY INFERIOR IN EVERY WAY IMAGINABLE TO THE GOLD STANDARD BECAUSE IT MAKES STALLMAN CRY
Is this about right?

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-18 16:52

>>72
>BECAUSE IT MAKES STALLMAN CRY
>Is this about right?
Just like buying Windows copies.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-18 16:53

NoScript saves the day again.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-18 17:40

>>72
In fact Richard Maththew Stallman has never said that using Free™ software is the best way to encourage progress and innovation, and even if it were, that that would be the most important reason to choose it. Free™ software is about Freedom™, not progress. However, Free™ software and other Free™ things usually (but not necessarily always) encourage progress among other things.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-18 17:47

I feel sorry for the Theora and Vorbis guys (and gals). If people wasted all their time complaining about the quality of Linux,Gnome ,etc to the extent they complain about Ogg well they do, we wouldn't have fully free OSes today. Give it time and have some faith.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-18 17:53

>>76
As far as I know, just "giving it time" wouldn't help, Theora as it is requires more or less complete redesign, it simply can't be gradually improved. Of course, Theora bros and hoes can do such a thing, in theory, given enough time.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-18 18:04

>>77
In the midst of all this trolling, someone just released some Theora BDRips of some anime at a very low bitrate, ruining the quality of the BD.

>>76
On a serious note, Vorbis is superior to AAC(which is superior to Mp3) for 2 channel encoding. It kind of sucks for 5.1 and higher. When I say superior, I mean that it requires less bitrate for equivalent quality.

Theora requires about 2-3 times more bitrate to achieve equivalent quality to H.264, that makes it undesirable for those that just want good compression or quality. Instead of needing 20GB for a BD, you need 40GB now. Now that is a difference!

Ogg is a container, mostly used for packing Vorbis audio these days, but a hacked version of it was used to allow multitrack encodes in the past(dual/triple/.. audio, subs, ...), however it was a hack on top of MS' VfW and not a particularily good one at that. MKV has almost fully replaced it for most things except audio, in which case you tend to see things like Vorbis in Ogg in MKV or FLAC in Ogg in MKV.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-18 19:20

>>77
Theora was designed not to compete with H.264 but to be ready within the near future. The near future had already come to pass, Theora is now ready and the Theora standard will never be improved in the future. What we need is a different codec intended to compete with H.264. I'm banking my hope in Dirac would be a suitable replacement.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-18 20:06

>>78
Vorbis is superior to AAC
Not at all bitrates, but it's certainly on the same league.
It kind of sucks for 5.1 and higher
They're working on it right now: http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/surround/demo2.html A little too late as usual though ;_;

Also, I can't help but laugh at all the people complaining about patents. Is the compression efficiency ratio difference is close to two, as it is right now, it sure is a much better business proposition to shell out the cash for those patents. In the case of Firefox, Google would gladly pay for it, as moving YouTube to Theora would be much more expensive.

Also, GIF and MP3 had (have) the same problem and they didn't kill anybody.

And finally, there's a lot of patented stuff that all these complainers use without even realizing it. Heck, I'm sure most of these people think Apple is cool.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-18 22:38

It's true, Vorbis was pretty cool. Why can't Theora be cool too? ;_;

>>80
The GIF extortions was a huge pain in the ass for everyone involved. It's peanuts to what H.264 could turn into some years from now, though.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-19 8:47

Why can't Theora be cool too? ;_;
See >>79

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-19 8:57

[highlight]The contents of my other address register are the contents of the decrement register.[/highlight]

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-19 23:12

http://f.ig.gl/
no flash required. and this was reported as a bug back when firefox was still called phoenix.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-19 23:27

>>84
and apparently chrome is the only major browser that doesn't completely grind to a halt after a few seconds on that page.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 1:15

>>85
the only major browser that doesn't completely grind to a halt after a few seconds on that page
Neither does lynx.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 1:19

>>86
I think >>85 was only counting browsers with at least 0.25% market share.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 5:31

>>86,87
Neither did IE6, nor any other browser when scripting is disabled.

You put a Touring-complete language in a browser, you should expect shit like that to happen.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 6:16

>>88
>>86-87

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 7:04

>>88
You put a Touring-complete language in a browser, you should expect shit like that to happen.
No, you put a Touring-complete language in a browser, I expect since it's interpreted and all, it'll be interruptible and not block. Of course due to retro-compatibility (and the fact that Web developers wouldn't get it right in any case), everything has to block because execution is expected to be fully synchronous.

Chrome gets it right by accident, the tab process will hang until you terminate it or close all the tabs that belong to it. It might give you the wrong illusion because it keeps a backing store of the last shown page, but it still hangs.

Did you know that until recently there was a way to do a blocking network request via JavaScript? It'd block the entire browser until completion. If the network died without explicit error, the browser would be locked up forever.

Also: have you noticed pages that freeze the browser for one second or so when you click a link? These are pinging back home to see which link you followed. To give the ping time to travel across the network (it'd be cancelled upon leaving the page), they spinlock in JS for one second. They might have started to do this in response of the "bug" in the previous paragraph being "fixed". Remember this the next time one of these faggots cry about adblocking. This kind of people needs to die.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 7:28

>>88
Touring?

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 8:00

>>91
back to /g/

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 8:23

>>88
the funny thing is, if you take out the bit that sticks a random number on the end of the url, all the major browsers handle it just fine because they have code to detect stuff like that and halt it.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 10:07

>>93
Oh, that's awesome. Why fix the problem when you can blacklist a special case?

Good to know a site with an iframe pointing to itself won't hang the browser, that's a huge accomplishment if I've ever seen one.

Next thing you know, the browser won't crash when you feed it a hundred 4000x4000 images. (Proposed fix: further reduce the arbitrary image resolution limit)

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 11:18

>>85
I don't know what you were doing, but it sure as hell killed Chrome for me. Even after closing the tab it still consumed 100% CPU and kept allocating memory. I had to force-kill it.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-20 14:06

>>91
*grabs duck*

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 14:25

>>95
just kill the process for that tab, then reload any other tabs that show that "oops" message.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 18:23

>>94
kinda like one proposed solution to plugins crashing browsers... "let's just blacklist plugins that crash and refuse to run them!"

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 18:58

>>90
Also: have you noticed pages that freeze the browser for one second or so when you click a link? These are pinging back home to see which link you followed. To give the ping time to travel across the network (it'd be cancelled upon leaving the page), they spinlock in JS for one second.
Could you elaborate on this?

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 21:09

>>97
Good luck identifying which process corresponds to the tab when the entire browser is deadlocked.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 22:26

>>99
Sorry, I can't find the original post (Goddamn, Internet search is so shitty and it's getting shittier by the day). But you can read http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=7823 if you feel like it, comment #46 and some others are examples of this obnoxious behavior (fix: block third party advertisement/tracking networks, or in general just do aggressive adblocking as you should already)

>>100
The entire browser does not deadlock (talking about Chrome here, right?), but even if it did, it's trivial to find which process is at fault: it'll be consuming 100% CPU (of one core).

I've only seen it deadlock with plugins, that's to be expected because the communication mechanism in plugins isn't designed to be block-resistant (actually it's only designed to suck).

Even if this happens, killing the plugin process will solve the deadlock. The plugin process can be a bit more difficult to find if it's not spinlocking, but it can be done since unlike the renderer processes it is not sandboxed and therefore has different privileges.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 22:55

>>101
Yes, the entire browser locked up, it took roughly a minute to load the task manager and kill it, and doing so closed the entire browser.

But now, when I try again, I can't repeat it. Fucking weird.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 23:31

>>101
Makes it all the more annoying to have 16 cores. One core at 100% corresponds to 6% CPU usage.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-21 23:36

>>103
Makes it all the more annoying to have 16 cocks.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 1:00

>>103
16-cores? what system are you using?

Name: oiwaejroijwroijwoir 2010-03-22 1:54

oijoijoi

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 3:11

>>105
Two X7560s.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 6:54

I'm sorry to interrupt but process in deadlock does not consume any cpu time. It has requested a lock on mutex and OS has stopped it until the mutex is unlocked.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 14:46

>>108
I lol'd

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 17:11

I didn't

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 17:22

I lol'd in my pants.

Name: scruffy 2010-03-22 17:36

>>110
2nd

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 18:01

>>108
H[sup]ahahahaha[/sup]

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 18:08

>>113
anal failure

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-22 21:44

>>114
anal bum cover

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-23 1:33

oOh abode

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-23 6:01

Please, come into my humble adobe.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-23 6:34

PLEASE TO BE COMING IN MY RECTUM

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-23 13:13

PLEASE MY ANUS

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 3:21

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-04 16:04

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-17 20:26

that's cool and all, but check my doubles over there
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode -