Apple Auto-Disables Old Flash Players In Mac OS X 10.7.4 155
wiredmikey writes "Just released, and coming in at 370 MB in size, the Mac OS X 10.7.4 update includes general OS fixes, and addresses more than 30 security vulnerabilities. But aside from typical security fixes, Apple has made an interesting move in an effort to protect users. Through this latest software update, Safari 5.1.7 will now automatically disable older — and typically more vulnerable — versions of the Adobe Flash player. While many software vendors would prefer OS makers to keep their hands off their software, the move appears to be welcomed by Adobe, which has constantly battled vulnerabilities in its widely installed Flash Player."
Imagine (Score:1, Insightful)
Imagine if MS had done this, the bitching here would be enormous. Just like how Palladium was decried by everyone when it was proposed by MS to secure PCs, but when Apple did it with iOS with extreme lockdown DRM, it was the best thing ever and there was not a peep from the same commentators that blasted MS.
Flash installer deletes itself, too (Score:4, Insightful)
The Adobe Flash installer deletes itself, too, after installation. They really don't want the old, buggy stuff laying around.
Re:Imagine (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally wouldn't have bitched one bit if MS took a stand against Flash. In fact, I would applaud them.
Re:Imagine (Score:5, Insightful)
New user, first comment, excessively praising one tech company.
Jesus H Christ, do I have to come downstairs and TEACH you guys how to do your jobs properly???
Re:Imagine (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Imagine (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally wouldn't have bitched one bit if MS took a stand against Flash. In fact, I would applaud them.
Apple releases an update that disables third party software, less than a month after their inability to put a dent into bd.Flashback.
And yet you still shovel on the praise and manage to spin it in your own mind, that rather than it being the heavy-handed tactics of a company that has no idea how to play well with others, they are simply taking a brave stand against flash!
Man, Kudos to Apple, and kudos to yourself for being so brave too!
The reality distortion field is strong with this one.
Re:Imagine (Score:5, Insightful)
The task(s) should always define the tool needed. If it's a Mac that's needed to run the software to do the task so be it.
Re:Big Apple like Big Government! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why *should* they leave your computer alone? If you are either too stupid or unwilling to take proper care of it, and the repercussions of that fact affect everyone around you, then don't start complaining when others take the job out of your hands.
There are all sorts of regulations regarding cars. You need licenses, tests to prove you can drive safely, legally mandated regular checkups, etc. If you don't follow through, then the gov't will decide you can't drive it anymore.
It's inevitable that the same will happen to computers, for pretty much the exact same reasons.
TL;DR version: If you want people to treat you like an adult, then ACT like one.
Re:Imagine (Score:4, Insightful)
I would have exactly zero problems with Microsoft doing something like this (their biggest problem: getting people to actually install the update).
When I read the headline and started the summary my reaction was along the lines of "whaaaaaat!". Then I saw that they were only disabling "older" versions of Flash, not Flash entirely, and thought about what it would be like for the end user. They visit a website that uses Flash, they see a message that Flash is not enabled or installed with a link to install it, they go through the process, et voila, you've gotten your users to update to the latest Flash player.
I have zero issues with an OS update automatically disabling old vulnerable software versions (especially Java and Acrobat reader), provided there is a way for the user to re-enable them if there's some reason that they require a specific old version.
I also generally hate every stance that Apple takes regarding control over their products, but this decision does make sense if they're trying to protect their users who wouldn't otherwise protect themselves. Microsoft should do the same.
Re:Imagine (Score:4, Insightful)
That's pretty much exactly what it says. ;)