Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Adobe Flash Player 10 For Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, guys.

    I for one appreciate:
    1. the presence of somebody from Adobe here
    2. that the Linux version was released promptly

    I'd like to thank everybody at Adobe for the above.

    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    I really truly hope silverlight becomes the new web standard. At least it's open and truly crossplatform and already supports 64-bit.
    Yeah right. Many developers have only ever worked in a predominantly Microsoft environment and check their code by bouncing it off Microsoft's implementation. If Moonlight (the Linux implementation) differs in even the slightest way from Silverlight (even if it's just a little stricter about the standard) it will be alien to such developers and will face the same uphill battle that Firefox did in getting web devs to write portable standards compliant code.

    Now contrast that with the way Adobe and Sun are so careful to make sure Flash Player and Java are as identical as possible between operating systems. It's more foolproof for developers who don't know or care about other platforms and portability. And therefore better for Linux and Mac users.

    Since 9 was released, all the Flash I've encountered on the internet has worked perfectly on Linux. Given Microsoft's history and the imperfect level of compatibility between .Net and Mono, I don't think it's realistic to expect the same with Silverlight.
    Last edited by StringCheesian; 05-17-2008, 02:14 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by StringCheesian View Post
      Now contrast that with the way Adobe and Sun are so careful to make sure Flash Player and Java are as identical as possible between operating systems. It's more foolproof for developers who don't know or care about other platforms and portability. And therefore better for Linux and Mac users.
      How the heck can you say that Adobe and Sun are careful to make sure that they are compatible across OS's? Do you see 64-bit plug-ins from either one? Limiting usage to 1 specific architecture is NOT portability. When flash and java plugins work flawlessly in native architecture then and only then can you say they are more foolproof. They haven't even been testing it against Webkit which is being utilized by every next gen browser (FF4, Epiphany, Konq, Safari and more). If adobe truely wanted to help out they would be better off helping out the swfdec project which can run natively without ugly wrappers.

      As far " will face the same uphill battle that Firefox did in getting web devs to write portable standards compliant code.", sorry dude your wrong on that part. FF did not try to get webdevs to follow standards compliant code as their own browser did not follow W3C compliance. FF is still trying to achieve that compliance in their browser and finally decided that it was easier to drop their own implementations in the gecko engine and join the WebKit movement which does offer that.
      Last edited by deanjo; 05-17-2008, 02:55 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by deanjo View Post
        How the heck can you say that Adobe and Sun are careful to make sure that they are compatible across OS's? Do you see 64-bit plug-ins from either one?
        So what if Flash limits you to 32 bit? It's still better than being limited to Windows.

        Originally posted by deanjo View Post
        As far " will face the same uphill battle that Firefox did in getting web devs to write portable standards compliant code.", sorry dude your wrong on that part. FF did not try to get webdevs to follow standards compliant code as their own browser did not follow W3C compliance.
        I refer to breaking web devs away from IE 6's nonstandard box model, the way more web devs had to start testing their code against multiple browsers instead of just IE before Firefox could make serious inroads - stuff like that. There are going to be similar problems with Silverlight.
        Last edited by StringCheesian; 05-17-2008, 04:07 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Does gnash and that that other free player have this issue? I always thought it was a problem with the way Firefox handles plugins.

          Originally posted by jlward4th
          Also, in case you are wondering about the lack of 64bit support, you can help make it happen! Check out my blog for details:
          http://www.jamesward.org/wordpress/2...-flash-player/
          Is Adobe waiting for the Mozilla guys to finish before they start, or will everything work once the Mozilla guys get their shit sorted out?

          Anyway, it seems that progress is being made. Anyone have an idea on the ETA for 64-bit flash on linux? It's been several years already so I'm not holding my breath.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by StringCheesian View Post
            So what if Flash limits you to 32 bit? It's still better than being limited to Windows..
            Where is the problem with that? Well for one it means I have to install it on a 32/64 bit hybrid system which adds more bloat and forget about even trying to get it to run on other hardware such as Sparc and PPC systems.

            If I had a dime for every time a browser/sound system/desktop update broke flash......
            Last edited by deanjo; 05-17-2008, 05:15 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              ]To be honest I'm fine not having flash on my install aside from youtube most flash sites/ads just annoy the hell out of me. I don't want a website using 10% of my CPU, especially when I'm on a laptop running of the batteries. The sooner flash & silverlight die the better in my opinion.

              Anyway, it seems that progress is being made. Anyone have an idea on the ETA for 64-bit flash on linux? It's been several years already so I'm not holding my breath.
              by the time it's released gnash will probably have become a much better implementation. They are currently waiting on an open source project to be port to x86_64 apparently. Why they don't get one of the developers they having working on the project to port it I don't know.
              Last edited by Aradreth; 05-17-2008, 07:35 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                I'll have to agree, I like YouTube, but other than that I hate Flash and hope HTML5 will replace it. Stage 6, as a video portal, was really nice and was working well with VLC, but now that it's closed, there's only Google Video and YouTube left.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Once upon a time videos used to be embedded directly, allowing different software to be used with their own plugins (VLC, mplayers, etc...). I assume people started using Flash on their websites because it would be "simpler" for most people. Well, for me, it's made things only worse.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I am using Flash 10 At the moment with the latest ATI Drivers in ubuntu, and all videos play full screen perfectly now, whereas with version 9 it is like a slideshow. I also have compiz on with all effects turned on. It flickers like mad, if it is showing a video in part screen, put full screen i have no complaints. If i turn Compiz off, then it is perfect full screen and windowed mode. Much better than version 9. BBC Iplayer is now perfect!!!!.

                    Socket 939 AMD Motherboard
                    AMD 4200+ Dual core Processor
                    2GB Ram
                    1600Pro ATI AGP Graphics Card.
                    Latest ATI Drivers
                    Firefox 3.0b5

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by etymxris View Post
                      I'd be interested in seeing what the proportion of x86 to x86_64 users are. I'd imagine that more linux users are on 64-bit versions by now. If that's the case, then only releasing a 32-bit client makes no sense.

                      Also, maybe I'm missing something, but if an app like flash is difficult to port to 64-bit, they're doing something wrong.
                      Well if downloads of a distro breakdown could be used as a rough estimate, opensuse 10.3 / 11.0 breaks down to about 50% 32-bit 45% 64-bit 5% PPC

                      Maybe Michael can give us some browser stats breakdown taken from this site to get a bit more of a global perspective.
                      Last edited by deanjo; 05-18-2008, 09:23 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        A bit off topic, but if anybody wants to try the 64-bit build of Opera, here is the link. It's not listed on opera's download page. Took me a while to find it.

                        ftp://ftp.opera.com/pub/opera/linux/...nal/en/x86_64/
                        and for freebsd
                        ftp://ftp.opera.com/pub/opera/unix/f...inal/en/amd64/

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Wow, I always thought Opera was 32-bit only.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            The latest stable Opera is 32-bit only (9.27). Opera 9.5 will have 64-bit builds, too.

                            deanjo's build is the Beta 2 which is not the latest build. This one is the latest:

                            http://snapshot.opera.com/unix/snaps.../x86_64-linux/

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by d2kx View Post
                              The latest stable Opera is 32-bit only (9.27). Opera 9.5 will have 64-bit builds, too.

                              deanjo's build is the Beta 2 which is not the latest build. This one is the latest:

                              http://snapshot.opera.com/unix/snaps.../x86_64-linux/
                              Dammit, now I have to uninstall the previous rpm. Thanks for making more work for me on a Sunday.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Odd, it links to Qt3, not Qt4…

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X