Change in how Chrome handles Flash

[M0DHP]

Can any other Google Chrome users confirm some new behaviour in the latest version?

I've found that Chrome no longer remembers that I've enabled Flash for the BATC Streamer. If I close down Chrome and restart it, I have to go through the procedure again to click on site settings and choose "Allow".

Tested this on Linux and Windows (Version 69.0.3497.81).

If this is confirmed as a change (and not a user problem), I'll update the wiki accordingly.

[G4EWJ]

I get the same as you.

If you go to chrome://flags there's a setting ENABLE EPHEMERAL FLASH PERMISSIONS. If this is changed to DISABLED, it then remembers if you allowed Flash on a previous session.

I'm not a Windows expert, so it would be worth hearing a more informed opinion before changing it, in case it affects anything else. It does say Experimental Feature in Chrome.

Brian

[M0DHP]

Thanks for finding the workaround, Brian. I've tried it on Linux and it works there too. But I take your point about the health warning at the top of the flags page!

I've updated the wiki and included a link to this thread.

[G8GKQ]

The latest update to Chrome on Windows 10 64 bit (Version 71.0.3578.98 (Official Build) (64-bit)) seems to have disabled this fix. Has anyone found out how to permanently enable flash from a selected site (such as https://batc.org.uk/live/)?

Dave, G8GKQ

[g0mjw]

The latest update to Chrome on Windows 10 64 bit (Version 71.0.3578.98 (Official Build) (64-bit)) seems to have disabled this fix. Has anyone found out how to permanently enable flash from a selected site (such as https://batc.org.uk/live/)?

Dave, G8GKQ

It would be a lot better if we didn't still use Flash. Is there no prospect of the streamer moving on to HTML5?

[G8GKQ]

The streamer already does HTML5 - the stream owner just has to select the other radio button on the Account page.

The problem is that nobody likes it for repeaters because it gives a 20 second delay. That is part of the HTML5 standard, not something that we can improve on.

So, it's up to the users.....

Dave

[G4EWJ]

This seems to work. It probably enables more than Flash, so user beware.

Look for "Yoda Jedi Master said" on 8 Dec. Run REGEDIT as Administrator.

Brian


https://productforums.google.com/forum/ ... BgK90LUk7g
.

flash3.png (61.27 KiB) Viewed 6693 times

[g0mjw]

The streamer already does HTML5 - the stream owner just has to select the other radio button on the Account page.

The problem is that nobody likes it for repeaters because it gives a 20 second delay. That is part of the HTML5 standard, not something that we can improve on.

So, it's up to the users.....

Dave

Hi Dave,

Not wishing to be critical but I think it is pretty clear we need an alternative. Flash is getting harder to use by the day across multiple OS and browsers, and for good reason. It's bordering on irresponsible to promote the use of registry hacks to get around this gven most users are probably not all that aware of the risks in doing that. Perhaps we should stop giving the users the choice of flash, it will be unpopular with those who don't like change, but its going to have to be done at some point. A latency of 20s on HTML5 is unacceptable I agree, (MPEG-DASH?, WebRTC?) so perhaps embedding a widely available app like Videolan that plays network streams, even RTMP and cut out the middle man. VLC has a browser plugin, I think it even works in Chrome now but regrettably not Android.

Something that has been bothering me for some time is that programmes like Skype and Facetime manage to use much less bandwidth and low latency and encode on fairly slow PCs. They use videoconferencing standards, which is in effect what we are doing. Maybe there is a solution there in one of the open source tools. https://blog.capterra.com/4-open-source ... usinesses/

Mike

Mike

[G8GKQ]

Mike

Perhaps you could enlighten me (off-list if required) on the exact risks of enabling Flash for one specific https site that we have control of.

The problem with all the alternative streaming technologies that we have looked at is that none of them meet all of our requirements:

• Zero (viewing) Client Cost
• Zero (stream source) server cost
• Affordable (central, distribution) server cost
• Linux-hosted central distribution
• Capable of being run with minimal administration overhead
• Easy access control integration with the membership database
• Low delay
• Multi-platform viewing client
• Scalable to 1000 streams and > 1000 viewers

If you or anyone else could highlight a solution that meets these requirements, and identify the resources that we can use to build and manage the capability, then we could then consider implementing an alternative.

Dave

[G8DGR]

Youtube live stream link
G8DGR