Slashdot Mirror


Flash 7 for Linux Released

molarmass192 writes "Looks like Macromedia has finally made good on their word and provided Linux with a current version of Flash player. Improvements over Flash 6 include a speed boost and support for SOAP. Here's the requisite download link. I took a few seconds to get it set up and the response is noticeably snappier than version 6. In particular, the audio/video sync problems in version 6 seems to have been taken care of. Now, I wonder where they hid that Shockwave player for Linux?"

471 comments

  1. Finally! by mrbarkeeper · · Score: 5, Funny

    Looks like those Linux users finally get all the fun.

    1. Re:Finally! by gerbick · · Score: 1

      What I don't get is why they're making a big deal out of the SOAP availability. It was present in Flash Player 6.0... at least on the Windows/Mac side.

      --
      Noli nothis permittere te terere.
    2. Re:Finally! by jobsagoodun · · Score: 1

      Maybe they've made it work this time. We abandoned a project in flash 6/MX/SOAP because it was too hard to get it to work reliably. The visual tools were very nice, but it became deeply confused very quickly - especially if you changed an interface. Maybe they've sorted that out.

    3. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More that "Intros" I hate flash ads with sound even moreso. I uninstalled flash entirely out of frustration when my click-to-play mozilla plugin was having some difficulty running with the new Galeon.

  2. Now if only... by Atrax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... they'd release the authoring tool in a Linux version?

    --
    Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
    1. Re:Now if only... by cujo_1111 · · Score: 3, Funny

      It works under WINE :)

      But seriously, is there enough of a market to justify the cost of a code port to Linux?

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
    2. Re:Now if only... by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ".. they'd release the authoring tool in a Linux version?"

      Hate to sound like I'm trolling here, but in order to get Macromedia to make authoring tools for Linux, you guys gotta prove you're willing to buy it. All this free-software movement probably puts the taste in a lot of people's mouthes that nobody wants to spend money on software.

    3. Re:Now if only... by Majix · · Score: 4, Informative

      They're working on a Flash authoring tool called Flex that runs on Linux. The plan is to run it with Wine though, but I guess it's better than nothing. Now we just need Adobe to get with the program.

    4. Re:Now if only... by Atrax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, but I think Flash designers/developers are in a Catch-22 there. Many would switch if Flash were available for Linux, I'm fairly convinced.

      --
      Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
    5. Re:Now if only... by Atrax · · Score: 1

      I was about to mention the photoshop issue, but I kinda drifted off the subject a little.

      the companies are not going to port unless there's a likelyhood that thaey'll shift units, and of course they can't shift units while flash coders and photoshop users are locked in to win/mac

      --
      Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
    6. Re:Now if only... by gerbick · · Score: 3, Informative

      Flex is a $12k server based Flash tool, not the more friendly $500.00+ utility like the Macromedia Flash IDE. 'tis not the same thing. It's a start though.

      --
      Noli nothis permittere te terere.
    7. Re:Now if only... by nametaken · · Score: 3, Informative

      I do author in Linux. Just, using PHP + Ming SWF Output library. Sure, it's nothing near a real authoring environment... and DEFINATELY has it's drawbacks... but it gets me by. http://ming.sourceforge.net/

    8. Re:Now if only... by Vengeful+weenie · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I'm more than happy to pay, if I get my money's worth. Plunking down large bucks on enviroments that turn out to be limiting, for poor support? That's just dumb.

      Look, the difference is that with most open enviroments, your have many ways to get the job done. On most closed systems, there's one way, the way one group of programmers decided.

      The expectations are higher & the code needs to be better, more flexible and more reusable. I want to generate flash from all sorts of files and data. I want to have filters that can be piped into, and out from. I want command line and GUI options, so I can use cron and X. That's software value.

    9. Re:Now if only... by spektr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hate to sound like I'm trolling here, but in order to get Macromedia to make authoring tools for Linux, you guys gotta prove you're willing to buy it.

      Maybe they should ask Oracle whether anybody buys high quality software for Linux if they don't know. Some years ago this would have been a pretty good troll, but nowadays...?

    10. Re:Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oh yeah, no copyright respecting Linux user would ever pay for software. As opposed to those pirating Windows users, who only paid for the OS that came with the machine, not even the one they're running.

      I remember using Windows. Needing a program? Ask a friend, and get a copy of something he got a copy of, registered to a name even he had never heard of.

      Since I switched to Linux, I see the advantage of copyright law (if just everyone would use software they could pay for, we would have way more Linux users), and I pay for my software. I have bought about half the titles Loki released (the rest didn't really interest me), and even Windows games for running under Wine. Actually, I bought more Windows games for running under Wine, than I ever bought when running Windows.

      I am not the only one. Linux users on average have much more respect for copyright than Windows users.

    11. Re:Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I want to generate flash from all sorts of files and data. I want to have filters that can be piped into, and out from. I want command line and GUI options, so I can use cron and X.

      Mr Weenie -- despite all the ideology about the "Unix Philosophy", Unix desktop apps have never worked that way. Can you meaningfully use OpenOffice with pipes and cron? No.

      BUT, read up the chain a little -- Macromedia is giving you exactly what you want! "A set of server software and other tools that will allow developers familiar with text-based environments--particularly Java--to create Flash applications." Only problem is that it costs $12K.

      That's software value

    12. Re:Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flex is free lex, a scanner. Nothing to do with Macromedia and I'm sure that since they are creative types finding a new name for their garbage media types will not proove too difficult.

    13. Re:Now if only... by black+mariah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. If there was, they'd have done one already.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    14. Re:Now if only... by black+mariah · · Score: 0

      Try saying that with a straight face in any thread regarding P2P apps.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    15. Re:Now if only... by justsomebody · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actualy, Macromedia sent letters to customers in form of:

      Would you migrate???
      Would you buy...???

      I guess they got enough positive response to start making authoring tools. You can read press releases for your self on Macromedia

      First version will be Wine based, probably Crossover, second is the native version.

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    16. Re:Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they should ask Oracle whether anybody buys high quality software for Linux if they don't know

      Better still, let's ask them if they know whether anybody who buys high quality *desktop* software for Linux, rather than just server stuff.

    17. Re:Now if only... by MooCows · · Score: 1

      Now we just need Adobe to get with the program.

      Photoshop runs perfectly with Wine (so I have been told by a friend)

      --
      The path I walk alone is endlessly long.
      30 minutes by bike, 15 by bus.
    18. Re:Now if only... by veriy · · Score: 0

      I believe what you mean is Brady, not Flex. Macromedia Flex is a platform designed by macromedia to deliver rich content internet application with the connectivity to Server-side somputing power.

      --
      -- V not F.
    19. Re:Now if only... by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      Now, be fair and be square.

      1. Yes, Linux users understand Copyright law better. (at least bigger percentage)
      2. Linux was always independant in this matter. You get far more (legal FREE software) basic computer interactions covered from distro than you get out of Windows.
      3. Even though there's free alternative tipical Windows user will rather use pirated one that he's more familiar with.
      4. Linux users can't be related to problems 2 and 3
      5. When tipical copy'n'install user switches to Linux, his mind doesn't change. He won't start buying products, except in case that he changed his mind (like you say, that you did)
      6. Problems will start when copy'n'install users switch
      7. There's got to be something wrong with this world. Stealing (no matter how little the material thing is) is condemed by general society, while pirating software is just a daily routine (no matter how expensive software is)

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    20. Re:Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hardly anyone buys software for Linux desktop use, which is really what the thread is about. There is almost zero commerce for Linux and without a single desktop, commercial support and no moving targets, that is hardly ever likely to happen.
      Obviously for server use it's a different story where vendors just treat Linux and a cheap UNIX and porting is easy.

      I use Linux everyday and have for years, but I see no software market at all for desktop apps until things change. Compare this with almost an uncountable number of apps for Windows and Mac.

    21. Re:Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an open source project making one: Flash for Linux

    22. Re:Now if only... by hdparm · · Score: 1

      I must agree with Mr Weenie. He got it right. You don't seem to understand the difference between the value and the price.

    23. Re:Now if only... by hdparm · · Score: 1

      Versions 6 and 7 are officially supported on cxoffice 3 pro.

    24. Re:Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      free software is not the same as gratis software.

      i've bought more software after switching to linux and donated alot of money to GPLd software. maby i've been sucked in to some sort of cult or maby i care about other peoples work.

      i agree that the market is not as big as windows' and that it can justify not to port the authoring tool, but not that linux people is a bunch of hippies who hate business.

      in my opinion they better hurry before a good GPL alternative shows up.

    25. Re:Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Show me some and I'll buy it.

      I have two Loki Games titles (purchased).

      I have three versions of SuSE (purchased).

      Can I get Anything else I need on Linux that isn't already handled by a "good enough" solution? If not, then it is not the fault of buyers not being available, but that there are no products to buy...

    26. Re:Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get it. Even if every desktop Linux user committed to buying commerical apps, it still wouldn't be worth it for say, Adobe to port Photoshop. Linux has to grow it's share of the desktop first. Just throwing software out there for the 3% of home users who are on a Linux box doesn't make any sense.

    27. Re:Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes. As we announced at a couple of recent Flash Conferences (FlashInTheCan and FlashForward), we are looking into making some of our tools, including Flash available on Linux.

      Here is an article about the Flash Forward conference where we showed Flash MX running on Linux:

      http://news.com.com/Macromedia+to+test+Linux+sup po rt/2100-7344_3-5170061.html

      Note, if we do move our tools to linux, it will probably be via some emulation layer (such as wine or code weaver's cross office plugin)

      http://www.codeweavers.com/

      mike chambers

      mesh@macromedia.com

    28. Re:Now if only... by QBasicer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      About #2,

      Linux has a LOT of free software, like Windows used to have, but recently, A LOT of Windows freeware, IMO, is pretty much crap or bad, except for the stuff that's on Linux that's been ported to Windows.

      Don't get me wrong, WinAmp and other software is great, but there's a lot of crap too...

      Ok, I feel like I've run myself in a corner...

      --
      x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
    29. Re:Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, just give me an eLisp major mode.

    30. Re:Now if only... by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hardly anyone buys software for Linux desktop use, which is really what the thread is about.

      In the interview a few weeks back, it seemed like codeweavers was doing fairly well selling crossover to desktop as opposed to corporate users.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    31. Re:Now if only... by tzanger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can you meaningfully use OpenOffice with pipes and cron? No.

      Actually you can (cron, but not so much pipes) -- OO supports quite a few command line switches and it also has remote control protocols and macros which make things like converting between formats, searching for text and other goodies easily done from the CLI or from remote.

    32. Re:Now if only... by Cereal+Box · · Score: 1

      Does it really matter though? Windows has the ability to run most free Linux software, so it's arguable that Windows, not Linux, has the broader base of high-quality free software.

    33. Re:Now if only... by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      About 2.

      Based on basic OS. Office, etc already exists on Linux when you install it. Why another?

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    34. Re:Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about, something like... Flex? Who needs authoring tools to build flash apps? You can use MXML and ActionScript from VI or Emacs for all macromedia cares... the catch is that you would need to buy the Flex server to host the apps on public servers (development edition is free btw).

    35. Re:Now if only... by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      Nope, wouldn't agree.

      Most of the software isn't ported. And Windows mostly has shareware. Quantity of freeware is very low, and as original poster said, mostly very bad quality.

      Freeware software on Windows is either ported from Linux, made mutiplatform or bad.

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    36. Re:Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmm...enough of a market to justify the cost of porting to an environment where people want to use it at no cost...interesting question :)

    37. Re:Now if only... by Cereal+Box · · Score: 1

      Most of the software isn't ported.

      Not sure where you're getting this from, though I don't think it's hard to tell (your ass). Anything not heavily system dependent can easily be compiled on Windows using GCC/Cygwin or Mingw or what have you. Are you going to tell me that the majority of free software is tied down to Unix? Gee, whatever happened to that fabled OSS platform independence? I thought it was only Windows programmers who tied software down to one particular platform.

      Freeware software on Windows is either ported from Linux, made mutiplatform or bad.

      Generalize much? Winamp is bad? ZoomPlayer is bad? Girder is bad? PuTTY is bad? Google toolbar is bad?

      And so on and so forth...

      I really tend to side with the fact that the opinion that Windows freeware is inherently "garbage" (as if Linux freeware is a shining beacon of software excellence) is a myth. There's plenty of good free Windows software out there, but I wouldn't expect you to know much about that, seeing as how you've summarized everything you know about Windows freeware in one sweeping generalization.

    38. Re:Now if only... by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

      "I am not the only one. Linux users on average have much more respect for copyright than Windows users."

      What the fuck does this have to do with copyright or piracy? In any event, lots of companies make money by selling Windows software. More so than they could, today, with Linux. Why your dumb comment is modded above mine is beyond me.

    39. Re:Now if only... by ShawnX · · Score: 1

      One problem, the flex name is already used in the lex parser.

      at http://sourceforge.net/projects/flex/

      I dont know if this will confuse people but flex has been around a lot longer :-)

      --
      Everyone wants a Tux in their life.
    40. Re:Now if only... by revividus · · Score: 1
      I would buy Flash for linux. I won't buy it for windows, because I don't use windows.

      I've bought games for linux; ironically, they are almost the only apps you can purchase for linux. Other than Star Office, but most Linux Distros include OpenOffice, so who will buy that?

      I can't even think of software that I could buy for Linux that isn't game related. Is there any?

      This isn't to disagree with the parent post; I guess I'm more or less echoing what he/she said, but I think that people would buy software for Linux, if it was better than the free versions already available. For instance, I don't know how many use GnuCash, but I bet that Quicken for Linux, or TurboTax, would have a market.

    41. Re:Now if only... by ShawnX · · Score: 1

      er, not parser but analyser

      --
      Everyone wants a Tux in their life.
    42. Re:Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhh... most P2P apps are targeted at Windows users.

    43. Re:Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I thought when I read the article title and just about had a heart attack. Then when I read the article and it was just the player I was very let down.

    44. Re:Now if only... by sydb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course. Markets never change. Demand is always static, supply is never short. Trend lines are always all horizontal.

      New products never catch on. Old products never die out. Advances in science and technology never bear real fruit.

      People are all the same.

      The past is identical to the future.

      It's not happpened so it never well.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    45. Re:Now if only... by jrockway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And why would we want it? Because Windows people use it?

      The future is SVG + ECMAScript. And that's an open format. Let's keep the closed, proprietary shiny objects away from Linux, eh?

      --
      My other car is first.
    46. Re:Now if only... by jrockway · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > "Mr Weenie -- despite all the ideology about the "Unix Philosophy", Unix desktop apps have never worked that way. Can you meaningfully use OpenOffice with pipes and cron? No."

      Wrong. You can pipe in word documents and get a PDF (or something else) out. So yes, OO.org fits into the Unix philosophy. It also fits into the "big app that does lots" philosophy. Amazing how something can be in two groups, eh.

      --
      My other car is first.
    47. Re:Now if only... by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      Have you used cygwin? For command line stuff it is great. It is a major PITA to get an X app working. A shining example of this is Lyx for Windows. Setting up cygwin is more difficult than installing Linux. Setting up X on cygwin is magnatudes of order more difficult than installing Linux.

      If to get a Free Software app running on Windows means first setting up a Unix-like environment, I would not call that porting. That is a recompile. Use of cygwin means that you are still tied down to a Unix environment.

      And if you want to get technical about it, there are versions of WinAMP that were made for Linux and MacOS, Putty is a SSH terminal so that can be considered a port, it is unclear how much code came from the OpenSSH. It also runs on Linux so...

      You list a few pieces of software, two of which I have no familiarty, but the other three performed well. Now want to go through the list of crap on Tucows and download.com?

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    48. Re:Now if only... by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      Not sure where you're getting this from, though I don't think it's hard to tell (your ass). Anything not heavily system dependent can easily be compiled on Windows using GCC/Cygwin or Mingw or what have you.

      1. Out of the world. My bussiness allows me to see a lot of different machines.

      2. My ass doesn't talk back so it would be hard to confirm understanding. I agree

      3. Most of UI based software is based on KDE and Gnome. Except on Cygwin, I don't imagine being ported. Cygwin on another matter is just licking icecream trough the glass (like Wine).

      4. Secondary ported applications never feel *AT HOME* on Windows. WM is just too different. Gimp for example plain sucks on Windows. And Gimp is my favorite pic_editor. Difference in WM is the one that makes it unusable (Not that port is bad).

      Winamp is bad?

      After 2.x, yes. Nullsoft sucks lately

      ZoomPlayer is bad?

      Comparing to mplayer it basically SUCKS. Like all video players on Windows. *Yeah, I know! Where do I get this from? All of my friends have installed movie players. And all have one Linux partition to watch movies in a decent manner. They all tryed BS,Zoom,Media... Players. And none was satisfactory enough. They all rather sacrificed 4GB for Linux and reboot for watching. Even though almost none of them doesn't use Linux

      Girder is bad?

      Girder screws when you have another remote. TV tuner, which forces him self to be *usable*. Drivers with tv tuners sometimes do that, you know.

      PuTTY is bad?

      Lack of support for X11 (on Windows), different codepages screw your terminal. Yeah, and Linux version I don't need. I already have terminal

      Google toolbar is bad?

      Yeah, definitly

      There's plenty of good free Windows software out there

      I agree but, you THE *expert* didn't point not even one that could be called good.

      Hell, even I know better free software for Windows than those you named. At least more professional and usable.

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    49. Re:Now if only... by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1
      Hardly anyone buys software for Linux desktop use

      A good portion of the things Windows users buy either come free with most distros (OO.org, DVD players, compilers, eye candy, tons of assorted apps) or aren't necessary (antivirus, registry cleaners). But if you sell something that is necessary, isn't otherwise available, and runs in Linux (Oracle, lagre games, Crossover office), we'll buy it. Flash development tools are a perfect example of this.

      One reason the market is slow to pick up on this is that it's currently hard to tell who's using the Linux ports. I've bought several games whiich I wouldn't have if they didn't run in Linux, but aside from filling out the registration card, how do they know? If I buy Photoshop or Shockwave with the intention of running it in Wine, how do they know? And if there's something I would buy if there were a linux port, how do they know? I try to contact them sometimes, but most people don't.

    50. Re:Now if only... by tverbeek · · Score: 1
      And why would we want it? Because Windows people use it? The future is SVG + ECMAScript.

      Maybe. But the present and the immediate future is Flash. Pardon me for being pragmatics, but I want Flash on Linux because it'd mean I could stop using Windows as a development environment and stick to just using it as a test environment. Fortunately I can also do Flash development work on the Mac, but I've only got one of those and it's busy sometimes.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    51. Re:Now if only... by Captain+Segfault · · Score: 1

      I can't even think of software that I could buy for Linux that isn't game related. Is there any?

      Mathematica and Matlab both come to mind.

    52. Re:Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said "I can't even think of software that I could buy for Linux that isn't game related. Is there any?"

      There is actually software for Linux that you can buy. One example is the LinuxCAD drafting program:

      http://linuxcad.com/

      Another is the TextMaker wordprocessor that is made by SoftMaker. TextMaker is an extremely fast full featured word processor that loads up in only about a second (unlike OOo). They also will soon have ther Planmaker spreadsheet available for Linux for sale. The beta version is free now.

      http://www.softmaker.de/tm_en.htm
      http://www.so ftmaker.de/pml_en.htm

      There is also the Linux version of VMware. It is commercial software which allows someone with Linux to create a virtual machine through emulation and run Windows at the same time that they are running Linux. I don't have the link handy but I sometimes use it on my home computer. I use the Linux version of Vmware not the Windows version.

      CrossOver Office is another example. It is a user friendly front end for an ehanced version of WINE. It can be used to run some versions of MS Office, Adobe Photoshop 7.0 or Lotus Notes. It also enables Linux users to to run many of the Windows Browser plugins.

      http://www.codeweavers.com/

      There are other examples however, I agree that commercial software for Linux is not as common. That is probably because in many catagories we have such good free alternatives.

    53. Re:Now if only... by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      And what's your point? Mine is that currently there is not enough demand for Flash on Linux. If there was, Macromedia would have already ported it.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    54. Re:Now if only... by AstroDrabb · · Score: 1
      If you read the article you would see that they are also going to offer authoring tools by making coding changes for them to work well in Wine. If there is a lot of interest from there, then they would do a native port.
      Macromedia's Flash format, Chief Software Architect Kevin Lynch said the company would begin soon by offering optimizations to allow Flash MX, its main set of tools for creating Flash content, to work smoothly with Wine, an emulation program that allows Windows programs to run on a Linux PC. Depending on developer interest, the next step would be to produce Linux-native versions of Flash MX and other applications
      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    55. Re:Now if only... by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      That's fucking stupid. Again, go read some Slashdot threads regarding P2P apps, or the RIAA. Linux users only respect copyright as long as it helps them.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    56. Re:Now if only... by jrockway · · Score: 1

      This is exactly the problem with proprietary software. You're at their mercy if you want to use the software. You use what platforms they tell you to, and you'll like it. Don't want to pay $1337 for the version 1.0.0.0.1 upgrade? Too bad; you don't have a choice.

      Free Software carries that name because you have the Freedom to choose what you want to do with the software. Run it where you want, add features, get work done comfortably. And hey, if you break it, you get to keep both pieces :)

      --
      My other car is first.
    57. Re:Now if only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, according to ESR, object interfaces are NOT the "Unix Philosophy" -- more like the Windows Philosophy (COM etc). Glad to hear that soffice has some pipe functionality, BTW.

    58. Re:Now if only... by cubic6 · · Score: 1
      I can't even think of software that I could buy for Linux that isn't game related. Is there any?
      Mathematica and Matlab both come to mind.
      Add Maya and VMware too.
      --
      Karma: Contrapositive
    59. Re:Now if only... by sydb · · Score: 1

      Your claim is that present conditions dictate past actions. In other words, that today is the day before yesterday.

      My point is you're wrong.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    60. Re:Now if only... by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      No, you're wrong. What I'm saying is that if there was a substantial enough reason for Macromedia to give a fuck about porting Flash, they'd do it. That is, present conditions dictate FUTURE actions. Moron.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    61. Re:Now if only... by sydb · · Score: 1

      That's right, when there's no room for logical manoeuver, resort to abuse. I've seen your other posts. They're all like this.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    62. Re:Now if only... by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      No, I resort to abuse when I'm fucking bored of dealing with imbeciles that can't grasp simple supply and demand.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    63. Re:Now if only... by sydb · · Score: 1

      I grasp it fine. I grasp that supply generally follows demand. So if there is a demand today, it will be met tomorrow.

      You posted that there is no supply today, therefore there is no demand today. You are the imbecile.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    64. Re:Now if only... by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      "But seriously, is there enough of a market to justify the cost of a code port to Linux?"
      "No. If there was, they'd have done one already."

      Since your brain obviously doesn't function correctly, I'll hold your hand and walk you through this. He asked if there was enough of a market, meaning enough of a demand, to make porting Flash to Linux a good idea. My statement was that no, there is not enough of a demand for Macromedia to give a shit about porting Flash. What part of this extremely simple concept do you not get? I would advise shutting the fuck up, all you are doing is making yourself look like more of a moron with every post.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    65. Re:Now if only... by sydb · · Score: 1

      they'd have done one already

      This. This is the part of the concept I don't get.

      Go on, explain how they could have done it already, i.e. in the past, based on present demand.

      Please.

      Then i will shut the fuck up.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    66. Re:Now if only... by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      Sweet zombie Jesus this is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read. How fucking long do you think it takes to port something in a company the size of Macromedia? Six months? A year? Has the demand for Flash on Linux grown that much in the past year? Fuck no. If there was any indication it would be worth Macromedia's money to port it, they would have already. Currently, there is absolutely no reason for them to port it. Past and present conditions indicate that THERE IS NO FUCKING REASON TO PORT IT. Please, tell me you're not this fucking stupid. Or, at the very least, tell me that you can see into the future and predict that the demand for Flash will increase substantially enough to make porting it to Linux a viable option. You can't, neither can Macromedia, nor can anyone else. Shut the fuck up.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    67. Re:Now if only... by sydb · · Score: 1

      Thanks, you've confirmed that you are indeed an uncivilised moron.

      I will now shut the fuck up, not because you have won the argument, but because I see you are incapable of admitting you made a mistake. I generously put this down to the frustrated high testosterone levels of the 15 year old you probably are.

      Cheerio!

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    68. Re:Now if only... by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're a fucking idiot. Just admit it. Companies make decisions based on past and current trends along with an analysis of possible future trends. If any of those pointed to Flash on Linux being a good seller, MACROMEDIA WOULD ALREADY HAVE PORTED IT OR BE PORTING IT NOW. Since you can apparently see into the future, and know for certain that it will be a success, you might want to get Macromedia to hire you as a consultant.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    69. Re:Now if only... by revividus · · Score: 1
      Those are all good examples; if I hadn't already posted to this thread I'd be modding them informative.

      There are a few others, of course. I guess Oracle runs on linux (?) and Macromedia's Coldfusion server has a linux version (probably to compete with PHP, I'm guessing). Another poster mentioned Codeweavers, another good example.

      The only problem is trying to project how a give product would sell for Linux based on examples like these. I can't really see macromedia looking at the sales figures for say, Matlab for Linux, and deciding that this means people will buy Flash. Not necessarily the same target market...

    70. Re:Now if only... by CyberdogOSX · · Score: 0

      they could port it to Linux without making it OSS compliant.

      if they were successful at that, more developers would do it. that's the secret to making people port to linux. if they have to release the source code to their crown jewels, forget it. they'll never do it and who would blame them?

      linux users should welcome proprietary software that runs on linux. let developers make money on linux without spawning a hundred competitor projects because they released their source.

      you want linux to be open? welcome all comers then, and let OSS and proprietary software compete on the same platform, just like OSS software is doing now on the windows and mac platforms.

      no fair porting GIMP to mac and other platforms to compete with Photoshop and proprietary image editors and then whining when Adobe makes a proprietary Linux port of Photoshop to compete with GIMP.

  3. Hmmm by FannyMinstrel · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now, I wonder where they hid that Shockwave player for Linux?

    /dev/null

    1. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the filename for write, it's /dev/random for read.

    2. Re:Hmmm by B2382F29 · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's the filename for write, it's /dev/random for read.

      Actually that would be the place where windows longhorn is stored, for Shockwave, check /dev/zero

      --
      Move Sig. For great justice.
    3. Re:Hmmm by FannyMinstrel · · Score: 0

      I implied that they put the linux version of the player.

    4. Re:Hmmm by sploo22 · · Score: 3, Funny
      It's not working for me...
      $ chmod +x /dev/null
      $ /dev/null
      It just hangs. These Macromedia people write really buggy software.
      --
      Karma: Segmentation fault (tried to dereference a null post)
    5. Re:Hmmm by Liquid+Len · · Score: 1

      Rather: /dev/random

      Well, if you wait long enough...

    6. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 3D part of Shockwave, which was done by Intel, was never even close to supporting Linux. Intel has since disbanded that development group.

      That group was working on a new engine with Linux support. Linux was what some of the engineers used as a primary development platform. This new engine was also the engine targeted as the reference player for the 3D-web and CAD standard thing, but after the group got disbanded Linux support was dropped.

    7. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who needs a Shockwave player, when you can read a Slashdot prayer for free?

    8. Re:Hmmm by swv3752 · · Score: 1

      /dev/random worked once for me though. :)

      --
      Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
    9. Re:Hmmm by crush · · Score: 1
      Yeah, you need to either edit your $PATH enivornment variable to include /dev/null or else use:
      $ ./dev/null
      .
  4. Hopefully others will follow suit... by BodyCount07 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    One can only hope that other companies realize the benefits of releasing products for the Linux platform.

    1. Re:Hopefully others will follow suit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah man, I've been waiting for a Solaris version that runs on lunix for quite a while now...

  5. Flash + Wine is on its way, they claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Apparently they are working to make future versions of Flash Wine-compatible. It may not be a Linux version, but it's not a Windows version, either. It's a Wine API version. That's pretty cool. Of course we would all prefer native binaries, but having something certified as Wine-compatible is in some ways even better in the short term, because it validates that as an option for all the other Windows software companies. Making something Wine compatible is usually fairly simple.

    ----------
    mobile porn

    1. Re:Flash + Wine is on its way, they claim by dadragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is a good idea. But I'd really like to see them make a version with source available, so I can build it on FreeBSD, or any other unixy operating system. If that happens to be a winelib compatible version, I'd still be happy.

      --
      God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
    2. Re:Flash + Wine is on its way, they claim by schmidt · · Score: 1

      What does it take to make a Windows program Wine-compatible?

    3. Re:Flash + Wine is on its way, they claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Wine API " - is that the APIs that that other MS-windows keeps copying?

    4. Re:Flash + Wine is on its way, they claim by etnoy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      IMHO it would be better if they started contributing to the Wine project instead of making a Wine API version.
      Not only would it make the Wine project better, but it would also make most of their own programs Wine-compatible. Most of the things that make Wine incompatible with Flash right now are probably the same as the other Macromedia programs, and that would be a lot cheaper in development costs.

      --
      Quantum hacker.
    5. Re:Flash + Wine is on its way, they claim by alex_tibbles · · Score: 2, Informative

      currently: the ability to build it with minGW (see yesterday's story for more info) and only using those parts of the Win32 API implemented in Wine.

    6. Re:Flash + Wine is on its way, they claim by Drasil · · Score: 1

      ...and that will be the day I stop using flash. While Wine is very nice I refuse to have any windows software on any of my machines. Making the 'Linux' version of flash a tweaked windows binary is a huge step backwards, let's hope it doesn't happen.

    7. Re:Flash + Wine is on its way, they claim by SanGrail · · Score: 1

      There are two types of people in this world...

      More to the point, they're talking about FLASH not 'Flash Player' - which the browser plugin that you can run however you want.

      Flash is the authoring tool that makes Flash animations, that are viewed with Flash Player. It's the difference between Adobe Acrobat & Acrobat Reader/Adobe Reader.

      --
      ---- I've fallen, and I can't get up.
    8. Re:Flash + Wine is on its way, they claim by szo · · Score: 1

      Actually, wine(lib) can be used to compile the software to any unix platform. Maybe we'll see non-x86 and non-linux versions as well.

      Szo

      --
      Red Leader Standing By!
    9. Re:Flash + Wine is on its way, they claim by jrockway · · Score: 1

      > It's the difference between Adobe Acrobat & Acrobat Reader/Adobe Reader.

      Hence ps2pdf. Which is about 34 times better than Adobe Distiller or whatever it's called. And it's free!

      --
      My other car is first.
    10. Re:Flash + Wine is on its way, they claim by ceswiedler · · Score: 1

      This is when the Wine project wins: when people start to develop applications which can run on multiple platforms. It's not hard to do (with a tool such as Wine), it just requires some thought and extra testing.

      The end result will be that the Win32 GUI API (like it or hate it) will become the de-facto standard for desktop applications, much in the same way that the Unix API became a 'standard'. When that happens, the creator of the API becomes irrelevant.

  6. Also available as package by G�tz · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's also available as packages for all major distributions from here..

    1. Re:Also available as package by Eivind · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Is the installer otherwise similarily brainless ?

      I used the rpm for Mandrake 10.0, and the EULA came with a new, and previously atleast for me unseen level of stupidity:

      It had a freaking timer in the lower-rigth corner counting down from 15 seconds and being labeled: "Time left until auto-decline"

      Offcourse it can easily be proven in a court of law that it is not humanly possible to read, understand and click accept on the eula in such a short time. Thus it's no longer the case, as is typically the case that the user agreed to an eula, *choosing* not to read it.

      No, it's *enforced*, to install the program you *have* to accept an eula without being given any possibility of reading it.

      It's probably not a stretch that idiocy like this will further weaken the already more than questionable legal force of terms stated in eulas.

    2. Re:Also available as package by Yokaze · · Score: 3, Informative

      Every time you scroll the license, the counter is resetted to 240 seconds.

      Still, the counter is somewhat questionable, as it puts the user under pressure, without haveing a positive effect I can think of.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    3. Re:Also available as package by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not a completely terrible idea. I sometimes like to install packages to all boxen on the network at once. The last line of rc.local, or winlogin.bat for the doze call scripts on the file server most of the time they just echo done to the screen but all I have to do is add some lines to install a packages or set a policy or whatever and then they get deployed the next time the machines get rebooted. If the package required user intervention to install it I would have to eith tell my clueless Lusers what to do or vist each box, at the very least with SSH. Its bad enough I usally have to VNC into the windoze boxen pretty much every time I don't need to man handle the Linux and sun boxen as well.

  7. Read the EULA? by jcuervo · · Score: 5, Interesting
    1. You may not make or distribute copies of the Software, or electronically transfer the Software from one computer to another or over a network.
    Just DOWNLOADING it violates the EULA.
    --
    Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
    1. Re:Read the EULA? by Hello+this+is+Linus · · Score: 0

      ..but you still downloaded it, didn't you?

      --
      Hello, this is Linus Torvalds, and I pronounce Linux as Linux!
    2. Re:Read the EULA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why did this get a troll? It's a good example of how stupid terms get thrown into EULA's all the time.

      Another good example is NVIDIA's driver EULA. Apparently, you can only have one copy of the NVIDIA drivers installed, even if you have more than one NVIDIA vidio chipset.

    3. Re:Read the EULA? by iCEBaLM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, uploading it does, as the EULA states that YOU can't distribute it, doesn't mean they can't.

    4. Re:Read the EULA? by -noefordeg- · · Score: 1

      Isn't 'uploading' the act of activly uploading something (put data) to someone, while downloading is when you actively download something (get data) from someone.
      So someone uploads something to one server so others can download it, at their leasure.

      Because, if not, the first thing I would say if RIAA knocked on my door would be: Hey! They uploaded those movies to me! I didn't do anything.

    5. Re:Read the EULA? by Talthane · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. An EULA is a licence for you, the end user, which tells you what you can do once you've got the software. It doesn't place restrictions on whether or not you can acquire the software; in fact, it can't, because you haven't yet agreed to the EULA in the first place.

      --
      "This is why men never share their feelings; because women always remember." -Just Shoot Me.
    6. Re:Read the EULA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      From US Code, Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 117: (btw, IANAL)

      (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -

      Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

      (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner...

      The law works around stupid terms like this one.

    7. Re:Read the EULA? by fireklar · · Score: 4, Informative
      1. You may not make or distribute copies of the Software, or electronically transfer the Software from one computer to another or over a network.
      Downloading it from their servers would be an "electronic transfer" of the Software over a network. Therefore, both uploading and downloading violate the EULA.
    8. Re:Read the EULA? by Joel+Carr · · Score: 3, Informative

      Reminds me of GriSoft's AVG Free Edition virus scanner license agreement, which has the following clause:

      3. You may not use the Software on a network or more than one PC.
      - emphasis mine.

      Although these days the intent is somewhat clearer from reading the rest of the agreement, there was a time when it wasn't.

      I was helping a strapped for cash organisation legitimise their software, and we decided to see if we could find a free virus scanner before forking out cash for one. So I shot off an email asking them to clarify what they meant by 'a network', pointing out that the internet is a network, and one assumes you can have an internet network connection since the software has an email scanner... After a week they sent an email back repeating the the above clause with the word 'network' capitalised.... Sigh, I don't think they got the point....

      We ended up paying for a virus scanner, but didn't end up buying it from them.

      ---

      --
      Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves. -- AE
    9. Re:Read the EULA? by mce · · Score: 1
      But what in case I use one computer to download it and then want to install the software on a network file server? Or what if I use my computer to download the file to my network file server (imagine that /tmp is filled up or something) and then want to install it on the very same computer that I used to do the downloading? Even the latter involves me electronically moving the program to a "different" computer.

      Or suppose that I'm a sysadmin preparing an OS image for distribution across the company and want to include this thing? I can't. Yet I can reimage every machine under my control and then walk over to each and every one and download the player manually (assuming that simply downloading it is allowed after all).

      This is a typical example of what happens when lawyers define laws or contracts that involve that magical thing called real life: they have no clue and it shows..

    10. Re:Read the EULA? by black+mariah · · Score: 4, Funny

      Morons. I would have sent it back reading

      3. You may not use the Software on a FUCKING LAN YOU GODDAMNED PEDANTIC GEEK-ASS DICKWEED or more than one PC.

      But, that's just me.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    11. Re:Read the EULA? by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. An EULA is a licence for you, the end user, which tells you what you can do once you've got the software.

      So remember- if you own multiple computers, download to ALL of them before you install it on ANY of them- because once you agree to the EULA, you're no longer allow to transfer it!

    12. Re:Read the EULA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The difference between uploading and downloading isn't simple give or take.

      It has to do with a server/client relationship and where the data is normally stored for users or devices to have access to it.

      That's why you download files to a handheld device, and upload pictures from a camera.

    13. Re:Read the EULA? by jcuervo · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      ..but you still downloaded it, didn't you?
      Actually, no. I didn't like the terms.
      --
      Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
    14. Re:Read the EULA? by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      An EULA is a licence for you, the end user, which tells you what you can do once you've got the software.


      Well in this case you're asked to agree to the EULA before you're allowed to download it.
    15. Re:Read the EULA? by Joel+Carr · · Score: 1

      LOL, that's the sort of answer I was actually expecting, except with a slightly more 'professional' touch! :)

      ---

      --
      Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves. -- AE
    16. Re:Read the EULA? by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      Mod this guy up. This is brilliant.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    17. Re:Read the EULA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The law works around stupid terms like this one.
      Actually, the whole point of the license is to limit what is allowed under copyright law.
    18. Re:Read the EULA? by mo · · Score: 1

      Granted, being this anal in regular conversations is being a "GODDAMNED PEDANTIC GEEK-ASS DICKWEED" as you say. Geeks do have a tendancy to be annoying in this way.

      However, lawyers are even worse, and legal-speak is supposed to be pedantic and specific. The legal system wouldn't work very well if eulas just said: "don't do bad stuff dickweed". The fact that they're specific makes them easy to enforce.

    19. Re:Read the EULA? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Given that one driver covers everything from the geforce 256 onward, that doesn't seem like it would present much of a problem. It is kind of dumb, though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Now if only they'd fix the bloody menus. by JessLeah · · Score: 1, Informative

    The context-sensitive menus in the Flash plug-in on ALL platforms seem to have some major issues. You right-click over a Flash animation in a Web page, and sometimes you get the ability to change the quality... sometimes you don't. Sometimes, all you get is a useless "options" screen that lets you change things like microphone volume and camera (!!!???) settings, but not things like, oh, speaker volume or video quality. I've seen this problem in Mozilla for Linux and in IE for Windows. WTF up with that?

    1. Re:Now if only they'd fix the bloody menus. by ntrktv · · Score: 2, Informative

      its not the flash player, its the website designers that disable zooming in/quality control etc, so stupid users wont messup the site by zooming it in or messing up the quality.

    2. Re:Now if only they'd fix the bloody menus. by canon006 · · Score: 1

      When the author "publishes" the flash movie, they can check off a bunch of features to enable or disable, most likely that's the cause of the discrepancy. That's just my guess though.

    3. Re:Now if only they'd fix the bloody menus. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The menus can be programatically controlled by the Flash designer.

      Some designers opt to not have the menu show up in their Flash, and set this in the containing page's source code.

      So if you a menu doesn't pop up on right click, it isn't Macromedia's fault, its how the web designer wants it to be.

    4. Re:Now if only they'd fix the bloody menus. by JessLeah · · Score: 1

      I don't care. It's MY computer and MY speakers, and I (not some snot-nosed punk with a copy of FrontPage and a warezed copy of Macromedia Director) have the right to change MY settings.

    5. Re:Now if only they'd fix the bloody menus. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a serious annoyance on a slow machine. Sometimes 'low' quality is better than 1 frame per minute, and anyone changing the setting knows it won't be as purty.

    6. Re:Now if only they'd fix the bloody menus. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      jesus mcfuck -- I've used some lowend winboxes and I've never had any peformance issues with Flash -- this thing must be a beast on Linux.

    7. Re:Now if only they'd fix the bloody menus. by It'sYerMam · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, it's a feature, as the siblings explained.
      However, if the flash isn't inline, as it were - I.E. the page is a flash animation (a la H*R) then you can navigate to the .swf file, and grab back the juicy menus.

      I agree, the lack of a "pause" feature is incredibly annoying.

      --
      im in ur .sig, writin ur memes.
    8. Re:Now if only they'd fix the bloody menus. by JessLeah · · Score: 1

      The fastest CPU I presently own is a Pentium II 400.

    9. Re:Now if only they'd fix the bloody menus. by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      Fucking whiny jerkoff. "Well, it's MY stuff and they're touching it. WAAAAAAH! Mommy!" Jesus fucking Jones this is the stupidest fucking shit I've read in a long time. They're not changing YOUR settings, retard, they're disabling the options to change THEIR settings for THEIR content. Fucking idiot.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    10. Re:Now if only they'd fix the bloody menus. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, feel free to not look at THEIR stuff.

    11. Re:Now if only they'd fix the bloody menus. by QBasicer · · Score: 1

      I have...On Windows...

      My PC was 200MHz with 32MB ram and a 1MB Videocard running Windows 98SE, and it ran SLLOOOWWWWW!!!

      The "Maid of the Mist" site is one that was terrible, i can remember...

      --
      x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
    12. Re:Now if only they'd fix the bloody menus. by GlassUser · · Score: 1

      That's why you should stick with standards and not use this dying flash crap. I can't wait till it finishes going away.

    13. Re:Now if only they'd fix the bloody menus. by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1

      That's the same attitude that got us popups. Clients that obey external commands over the user's commands are stupid, plain and simple.

  9. SuSE Works by managementboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Tried the install package on SuSe 9.0 and works like a charm. The only drawback is that the user needs to know where their mozilla/firefox is installed. Works noticably faster than before (I also have the feeling that it eats much less CPU time). Next improvement: no flash at all! ;-)

    1. Re:SuSE Works by G�tz · · Score: 1

      Try the rpm package from this site. I haven't tried SuSE, but on Mandrakelinux, the rpm post install script detected the right directories to install to.

    2. Re:SuSE Works by riggwelter · · Score: 1

      All the details of where to stick the bits are in my blog, and can also be read at Planet SuSE

      --
      Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
    3. Re:SuSE Works by DF5JT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's really incredible. Copy two files into a standard directory correctly and people start praising it.

      My system-wide corporate deployment tool can do this, too. It's called cp and tar.

  10. Some games to try it out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Here are some cool flash games with our favorite bird:
    http://yeti.e-medien.com/e_playonline.php#

    Have fun

  11. Needs more work, still by etymxris · · Score: 5, Interesting

    By chance I downloaded the newest version as I was reinstalling everything else too. But it still has "jerks" whenever I play a flash game. My slower windows box doesn't have this problem. The problem is reproducible on all three of my linux machines, no matter the processor speed. It makes it especially difficult to play a game like this since there are unexpected jerks in movement.

    1. Re:Needs more work, still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works for me fine on a PIII 800Mhz (pluss .oggs in the background of course). I'm using kernel 2.6.5 though, that may be making a difference.

    2. Re:Needs more work, still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, it plays flawless for me. Running kernel 2.6.x.

    3. Re:Needs more work, still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, talk about one gigantic dissappointment. I spent about 20 minutes wrestling with debian installer so I didn't have to create all the links myself (would have ended up being faster, but after 5 minutes I just wanted to get that crappy script to work.) After all that work, I fired up one little game, and absolutely no noticeable difference. What'd they do just change the version numbers?

    4. Re:Needs more work, still by etymxris · · Score: 1

      My system:
      Linux linux1 2.6.3-7mdk-i686-up-4GB #1 Wed Mar 17 15:17:23 CET 2004 i686 unknown unknown GNU/Linux

      It only happens after I play a few rounds of Pingu, but then it happens without fail. I'm not even close to maximizing the CPU, so that's definitely not it. I'm running MDK 10.0, but I had trouble on 9.x as well.

      What's your system?

    5. Re:Needs more work, still by Kaali · · Score: 1

      For me it's the browser that makes all the difference. I haven't updated my flash. But it works full speed on Mozilla/Firefox, but for example with Epiphany it is slow as hell.

    6. Re:Needs more work, still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are you using an accelerated X driver?

      if not, a whole lot of shit is gonna be jerky...perhaps you don't notice it before till now.

      once you use a properly setup nvidia driver under linux, you can never go back.

      the 3d is fast, as to be expected.

      but the 2d is several orders of magnitude faster.

    7. Re:Needs more work, still by etymxris · · Score: 1

      I am using 3d accelerated Nvidia on two of my computers. GeForce5900SE (both), so I don't think that that's it.

    8. Re:Needs more work, still by Malc · · Score: 1

      Flash is some sort of CPU hog. We have some stuff we've written in Flash, and some of the most basic stuff it does uses huge amounts of CPU. Even basic stuff runs the risk of being almost usable at times under Windows on my P3-850.

    9. Re:Needs more work, still by Vokbain · · Score: 1

      All games have jerks. Tried playing Starcraft lately? ;-)

    10. Re:Needs more work, still by Doug+Neal · · Score: 1

      I don't think the Debian package is out yet. I've just updated and there's no change to it, so yes there won't be any difference because you've not upgraded yet :) Give it a couple of days for someone to upload a new package.

    11. Re:Needs more work, still by Fooby · · Score: 1

      Running kernel 2.6.5-gentoo-r1, experience the same this. Pauses for a fraction of a second at a random point on each pingu-fall, every time. Happens with Mozilla and Epiphany.

      But I do have a crappy S3 card so that may be the problem.

      -Nathan

    12. Re:Needs more work, still by Fooby · · Score: 1

      By the way it DOES seem to make synchronization MUCH better, judging from the homestarrunner.com material.

    13. Re:Needs more work, still by Nutria · · Score: 0
      Geez, I just downloaded the installer, cp'ed the 2 files to /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins, and Flash 7 worked. A Debian user who can't do that should go to Lindows.

      And yes, I noticed a definite decrease in CPU usage over Flash 6.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    14. Re:Needs more work, still by Mr+Smidge · · Score: 1

      That's interesting..

      I remember playing that game and never being to reach a distance further than 315m or so.

      Now, with Flash 7, it's so much smoother and I just hit 576m... crazy.

      Using Mozilla Firefox 0.8 and vanilla 2.6.4.

    15. Re:Needs more work, still by gid · · Score: 1

      I still get the jerks on that game as well. AMD Athlon 1.33ghz/768 megs ram, GF2 GTS w/latest nvidia drivers, Debian/sid, XFree86 version 4.3.0.dfsg.1-1, 2.6.5 kernel with preemption, Alsa ymfpci (YMF744) sound drivers. I'm betting it's probably a sound driver thing, I'll have to try it on my other machine with a different sound card when I get a chance.

    16. Re:Needs more work, still by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, on the forum version the farest you could get was something like 3125 or something.. was quite funny, 20 scores of it from people trying to pass each other..

      /dalinkz

    17. Re:Needs more work, still by xthor · · Score: 1

      *GASP* This is a GAME about SMACKING A PENGUIN AROUND WITH A BAT!! Doesn't ANYONE see the analogy here??? I'm betting the hairy Yeti is Bill Gates... this is another attempt to keep Linux down! Wait, my tinfoil hat fell off...

    18. Re:Needs more work, still by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1

      I don't know how well this would be received, Flash being proprietary and all, but you might want to ask about this on LKML. It could be some strange interaction with the 2.6 scheduler.

    19. Re:Needs more work, still by etymxris · · Score: 1

      I disabled sound on my machine and the game ran flawlessly. So I think your suspicion is right. In case you figure anything out, here are the sound modules I have loaded in normal operation:

      snd-seq-oss
      snd-seq-midi-event
      snd-seq
      snd-pc m-oss
      snd-mixer-oss
      snd-via82xx
      snd-pcm
      snd-ti mer
      snd-ac97-codec
      gameport
      snd-page-alloc
      snd -mpu401-uart
      snd-rawmidi
      snd-seq-device
      snd
      so undcore

  12. Misnomer title by diwadm · · Score: 5, Informative

    Flash 7 for Linux Released I almost jumped in joy thinking that Flash will be released natively for Linux. Flash is the application itself, Flash player is the standalone player and web browser plugin. Oh well.

  13. Sweet!!! by ErichTheWebGuy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Now that is a great first step. Now once we get Dreamweaver, I can deploy Linux to all of our developers. Let's face it guys, Dreamweaver pays for itself (depending on usage, and in my case) after about 3 weeks. Mozilla composer and Quanta pretty much suck. Composer can't support frames, and Quanta, well, do I really need to go there??

    I guess, in summary, HURRY UP with Dreamweaver!!!

    --
    bash: rtfm: command not found
    1. Re:Sweet!!! by dangerz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dreamweaver? What kind of programmer uses Dreamweaver?

      I dunno. I'm not even that old; I'm 21. I've been programming since I was 9, and compared to a lot of people that's still nothing to how long they have been. Either way, I absolutely cannot stand that damn program.

      How does it pay for itself?? I can understand the color coding helps, but you can get a much less bloated program to do color coding.

      WYSIWYG editors for true website design are a waste.

      I stand by my theory that you put up your best Dreamweaver man, and your best hand coder, and ask them to fix a problem and then see who pays for themselves.

      --
      The greatest experience we can have is the mysterious.
      - Albert Einstein
    2. Re:Sweet!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I can deploy Linux to all of our developers. Let's face it guys, Dreamweaver pays for itself (depending on usage, and in my case) after about 3 weeks.

      IMHO it pays for itself even faster than that! The main way DreamWeaver pays for itself is you may be able to replace some of your developers (kinda expensive) with secretaries (less expensive)!

    3. Re:Sweet!!! by ptlis · · Score: 1

      I second that statement, a text editor should be all you ever need.

      --
      There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.
    4. Re:Sweet!!! by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I have never used Dreamweaver, but every time I've seen others use it, the code produced is horrid.

      I don't see a reason to use it- if you have enough skill with (X)HTML/CSS, you should be able to create a webpage that takes up half the bandwidth and works on all browsers. Sure, it may take a little longer but I'd rather take the 2min to make an efficient page instead of building a hacked up one in 1min.

    5. Re:Sweet!!! by black+mariah · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That's nice. You can verbally suck your own cock. Lovely. Meanwhile, the people that design websites that aren't based on byzantine concepts such as "NO IMAGES! EVER! AND FLASH SUCKS!" prefer to have immediate visual feedback on what they're developing.

      But don't ask me about it. I just use Nedit for everything. Still, I guarantee you someone using DW could probably do everything I do in about a quarter the time and I don't work slow.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    6. Re:Sweet!!! by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      YOU don't see a reason for it. There are people out there that see no reason for a GUI on a computer, but are you going to give a shit what they say? I mean, you can do stuff just as fast on the command line! Faster, even!

      I'm making a point I hope you'll get.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    7. Re:Sweet!!! by doom · · Score: 1
      Now that is a great first step. Now once we get Dreamweaver, I can deploy Linux to all of our developers. Let's face it guys, Dreamweaver pays for itself (depending on usage, and in my case) after about 3 weeks. Mozilla composer and Quanta pretty much suck. Composer can't support frames, and Quanta, well, do I really need to go there??
      Wow. Someone who still thinks that frames are a good idea.

      (Meanwhile, over in engineering they call it "Nightmareweaver".)

    8. Re:Sweet!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only posers use dreamweaver.

      cripes only posers that write crappy HTML use any "IDE" or wuzziwig.

      Nice to see you hire incompetent posers. :-) please let us know what company so we can avoid you.

    9. Re:Sweet!!! by Paul+d'Aoust · · Score: 2, Insightful

      in my opinion, the value of Dreamweaver is not necessarily in its WYSIWYG whatever crap, but in its project management and its streamlining of the design process. You can write the same code in a number of different programs, but when you're dealing with anything over than twenty dynamic webpages (with their associated template and include files) it sure is handy to have something like Dreamweaver or GoLive to help you make sense of your mishmash of files... if you're a bit scatterbrained like me, that is.

      --
      Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
    10. Re:Sweet!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and you're violating a basic web tenant: engineers suck at webdesign.

      Designers use designer tools.

    11. Re:Sweet!!! by Tin+Foil+Hat · · Score: 1

      The problem is that very few people are competent coders and designers. Dreamweaver is for designers. Code editors are for, well, coders. Many development shops will have designers who use WYSIWYG tools to create a design which is then passed to the coders who will actually make it work.

      There's not a thing wrong with that. The right tool for the right job and all that jazz.

      --
      No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
  14. What about PPC flash player? by strider_starslayer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Where is my PPC flash player? Where oh where is it!?!

    Does it finally exist? I do so hope....

    --
    -Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
    1. Re:What about PPC flash player? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:What about PPC flash player? by Sunnan · · Score: 1
      There are two approaches:
      • Use QEMU and emulate the linux/x68 version.
      • Use MOL and emulate the mac/ppc version.

    3. Re:What about PPC flash player? by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      here?

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
  15. wow, its great to see linux updates! by dcstimm · · Score: 1

    now only if others would follow their footsteps, come on AOL, please release a real version of AIM, not that gtk1 POS, and come on Apple release iTunes for linux! Oh well thank god for wine..

    1. Re:wow, its great to see linux updates! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gaim.sourceforge.net

      why not use that?

    2. Re:wow, its great to see linux updates! by Khazunga · · Score: 1

      Gaim is much much better than the original AIM. I use gaim on windows and I prefer it over AIM.

      --
      If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
  16. No PPC version again I fear by tuxzone · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No PPC version again I fear. At least I couldn't find it.

    Bummer!

  17. Please can we GNU/Linux on PPC peeps have one too by niks42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've had many emails passed back and forth with Macromedia tech support .. there are versions for most Unix implementations, and MacOS 9 and X .. but not for Linux/PPC *sigh* .. it wouldn't be that difficult to run just one more compile, would it ?

  18. Re:Now You Can Look At My Site! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ..and boy is it ugly! ;)

  19. Whoa... by bersl2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    props to Macromedia on this one.

    It's made it through (currently) six repetitions of Badgers with excellent synchronization (as opposed to version 6 not even making one). Hell, everything's so crisp and fluid... it's beyond further words.

    1. Re:Whoa... by FryGuy1013 · · Score: 2, Funny

      badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger MUSHROOM MUSHROOM!...

      --
      bananas like monkeys.
    2. Re:Whoa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what's Badgers?

    3. Re:Whoa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    4. Re:Whoa... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    5. Re:Whoa... by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1
      It's made it through (currently) six repetitions of Badgers with excellent synchronization...

      Badgers? We don't need no stinking Badgers!

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    6. Re:Whoa... by samhalliday · · Score: 1

      Whoa... its a snaaaake, its a snake....

  20. A Speedup Trick... by ajayrockrock · · Score: 5, Informative

    Has anyone tried this speedup trick in other distro's? I doubt that it's Gentoo specific:

    http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=176167

    The gist of it is setting an environment var:

    export FLASH_GTK_LIBRARY=libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0

    People in the Gentoo forum are claming massive speed increases when viewing flash. I'm about to go try it now...

    --Ajay

    1. Re:A Speedup Trick... by bersl2 · · Score: 0, Troll

      I tried it. I think my performance regresses.

    2. Re:A Speedup Trick... by a24061 · · Score: 1

      The best speedup trick is to install the Flash-Click-to-play extension so you don't download Flash objects unless you need to use them (shoddy sites that require Flash for navigation) or want to (Viking kittens).

    3. Re:A Speedup Trick... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's not necessary for Flash 7.

    4. Re:A Speedup Trick... by Mr.Ned · · Score: 1

      I saw that a few days ago and tried it out in Debian sarge; crashes and slowdowns have disappeared. Highly suggested.

    5. Re:A Speedup Trick... by bruthasj · · Score: 1

      massive speed increases It's called fast forward.

    6. Re:A Speedup Trick... by Saeger · · Score: 1
      I ran across that tip a little while ago when searching for just such a fix, and it definitely sped up Flash on my SuSE 9.1 desktop.

      However, I only put that export in my /usr/bin/firefox startup script, and not syswide, since firefox is the only browser I use for flash & java. Opera for everything else 99% of the time.

      Flash shouldn't have been dog-slow out-of-the-box in the first place.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    7. Re:A Speedup Trick... by Tiro · · Score: 1

      Parent is modded as a troll, but I had the same experience.

  21. Can't use it :( by Per+Wigren · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's nice to see companies supporting Linux, but unfortunately I can't use it until they make a amd64-version since 64-bit browsers can't use 32-bit plugins..

    The Linux kernel can run 32-bit code but can't link to 64-bit code so to have a 32-bit browser I'd have to also have 32-bit versions of all the libraries it depends on, and their dependancies, all the way down to glibc and ld.so.. Not worth it.

    Is it possible to run isolated 32-bit code inside a 64-bit program? Something like an exec32() libc-function or something? To make 64-bit Mozilla run Flash and make 64-bit MPlayer load win32-codecs.. I'm sure you'll have to make some kind of wrapper-code to convert int-sizes etc when sending/getting data from/to the library, but would it be possible at all?

    --
    My other account has a 3-digit UID.
    1. Re:Can't use it :( by Too+Much+Noise · · Score: 1

      Is it possible to run isolated 32-bit code inside a 64-bit program?

      no. It has to be launched as a 32bit binary, so that the kernel puts the process into virtual 32bit mode.

      The only option you have is to install in parallel a 32bit version of Mozilla/MPlayer/etc that will be able to load the plugins.

    2. Re:Can't use it :( by mairas · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be fairly trivial to run the Flash stuff in its own process? You could either use Macromedia's own standalone player or make your own standalone Flash player program using the Flash player plugin. This program could then be embedded in your browser of choice. That way you could run 32-bit browser plugins in x86-64.

      Actually, I would prefer having browser plugins in their on processes even on pure 32-bit environments, so that you couldn't crash the browser with ill-behaved plugins.

    3. Re:Can't use it :( by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      Face it, apps are already here. God damn distro and every god damn compilable software. For 98% of linux users that means complete software up to the last one.

      I've got AMD64, and everything is 64-bit.

      It's just Windows and OSX lacking that support (I mean apps) and invalidating 64-bit options.

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    4. Re:Can't use it :( by TravisWatkins · · Score: 1

      Statically compile Firefox in a chroot with 32-bit libs and such. Then run it from your 64-bit system and smile.

      --

      "But I'm still right here, giving blood and keeping faith. And I'm still right here."
    5. Re:Can't use it :( by Frequanaut · · Score: 1

      I believe that the mplayer plugin does just that.
      Doesn't solve my (and the posters) problem tho.

  22. mod parent up by ErichTheWebGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The parent poster has an excellent point. If these developers write quality code, and I have no reason to suspect that they do not, why not drop a few hundred bucks on a single PPC box that you can start a GCC make on, and let it run for a week if need be?

    At the very least, you would have an excellent testbed. AND, IIRC, the US Navy is moving to PPC/Linux. Imagine the wargames... Flash/Shockwave Battleship!!!

    Macromedia Sales: Would that not make it WAY easier to land a HUGE contract with the Defense Dept?

    --
    bash: rtfm: command not found
    1. Re:mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it that you never heard of a cross compiler?

    2. Re:mod parent up by ivlad · · Score: 0

      why not drop a few hundred bucks on a single PPC box that you can start a GCC make on, and let it run for a week if need be?

      Hey! It was released yesterday! Give them a week! It is sill compiling! ;)

    3. Re:mod parent up by tenco · · Score: 1
      The parent poster has an excellent point. If these developers write quality code, and I have no reason to suspect that they do not, why not drop a few hundred bucks on a single PPC box that you can start a GCC make on, and let it run for a week if need be?

      Why not just release the source code?

    4. Re:mod parent up by Sunnan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah. Actually, it doesn't really make sense that the flash player isn't available as full GPL. Isn't in their interest to get the client out to as many people as possible?

    5. Re:mod parent up by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 3, Informative

      AND, IIRC, the US Navy is moving to PPC/Linux.

      But you recall wrong. The Navy is moving to Microsoft Windows. The NMCI is all Microsoft.

    6. Re:mod parent up by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Isn't in their interest to get the client out to as many people as possible?

      Apparently not- or, as a greedy company, they would've done so.

      This could mean one of several things:
      (1) Macromedia plans for Flash players to become a profit-center in the future, maybe by licensing players to mobile-phone companies or something

      (2) Macromedia profits from selling Flash-authoring tools, but those tools would be easily replaced by Open Source versions if there was a good Open Source flash player to work from.

      (3) Macromedia is afraid that an Open Source flashplayer would lead to someone distributing a modified version, effectively forking the file-format and confusing web-browsers who can no longer view all flash-based content the same way.

    7. Re:mod parent up by jcrosby · · Score: 1

      ...why not drop a few hundred bucks on a single PPC box that you can start a GCC make on, and let it run for a week if need be?

      Because it doesn't work that way in a business. Perhaps if you're coding something with friends at home, you might be able to compile for a different platform (although I have reservations about any code "just compiling" on another platform), but in a business, the story is different. Businesses operate according to business plans and those plans include goals such as "produce software that exceeds market expectations for quality, speed, and documentation" and so on and so forth. If a business decides to release for a platform, they normally have to get tech support staff trained to support it, write documentation, update marketing materials, etc. These things all cost money and they must look at the ROI to see if the benefits exceed the cost. Maybe in your opinion they do in this case, but it is normally more complex than "simply compiling" for a different platform.

      In addition, most development organizations of any significant size have standards and if GCC isn't the standard (and I doubt it is for Macromedia) then they must see if their current tools support the required action in order to extract the highest ROI from the original tool purchase. If those tools do not meet those needs, then they must get some staff members to evaluate new options which normally includes examining open source software in addition to visiting with sales people from proprietary vendors. If they decide they like the OSS tool, then the legal department normally needs to approve the license for that particular software to make sure that it doesn't negatively impact the business goals associated with that product. And the list goes on...

    8. Re:mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's not forget the HUGE QA effort involved in testing the Flash player on a new platform. The dev cost might be low but certainly not the QA cost. Macromedia has thousands of test cases to verify for each release. Some are automated but a lot are not and require hands on testing.

    9. Re:mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, they wouldn't neccisarily need a Linux/PPC box to compile on, just a cross-compiler, not too hard to build. I've made a Linux/x86-Linux/MIPS cross toolchain before, and will again at some point. PPC should be trivial. At that point, it's just another configure with the proper options (or quick edit to the makefiles) and compile.

      To test it though, a Linux/PPC box might be good. *chuckles*

    10. Re:mod parent up by sirshannon · · Score: 1

      or maybe the audio and video codecs included in the player are not GPL compatible.

    11. Re:mod parent up by lordDallan · · Score: 1
    12. Re:mod parent up by Sunnan · · Score: 1

      Or:
      (4) "Never attribute to business-savviness what could be attributed to ignorance."

  23. What about never ? by theefer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And the Linux/Arm one ? And the Linux/alpha one ? etc.

    This is the proprietary magic : you just don't have the control or the possibility to see them come unless Macromedia themselves choose to release one.

    A simple and good reason not to use neither encourage or support this kind of proprietary, non-standard format.

    --
    theefer
    1. Re:What about never ? by strider_starslayer · · Score: 1

      I agree, yet I do not agree.

      Some companies by nature of needing to make a profit will want to keep the 'family jewels' locked up- to my knoledge flash dose not use any copyright encumbered compression schemes or patented techniques to do what it dose- if they made the source open some other company would snatch up there product and release there own version, possibly forkig what is currently a very fixed and ordered standard

      That said- multi-platform languages like Java were MADE for this sort of scenario- you just write your code in Java/python/ruby/perl whatever, and the local execution program will make it run on whatever arcetecture/OS the person has- so I guess what I'm really saying is- Hey macromedia, make a Java/pthon/ruby version of flash so tht we can ALL be happy!

      --
      -Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
    2. Re:What about never ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "make a Java/pthon/ruby version of flash so tht we can ALL be happy!"

      *shudders at the mere thought of the incredible speed that could be possible*

    3. Re:What about never ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess what -- there's exactly 0 people who use Linux/Arm or Linux/Alpha full time.

      If your primary box is some smelly old Alpha running Linux, please show yourself so that we can mock you.

    4. Re:What about never ? by strider_starslayer · · Score: 1

      can't be worse then my existing setup of running bochs with a windows install on my PPC/linux machine which then runs windows version of flash, and I can do most flash things with it, most, some, ok- very few, but it works, and it usually renders homestarrunner ok... sometimes... the short ones...

      Once again, my point is- anything would be better, and making a Java version would make it faster then the ridiculusness of a virtual emulated system with a different OS and then installing flash for that while still preserving macromedias 'family jewels'

      --
      -Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post
    5. Re:What about never ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Will it match the blazing speed at which Neverwinter Nights ran on my previous box? (1 frame every 5 seconds)

    6. Re:What about never ? by pommaq · · Score: 1

      Normally I'd agree with you, but you know what? The swf format is open. If you had a lot of spare time on your hands and really wanted to, you could write your own flash player - or authoring tool, for that matter. Macromedia are actually rather nice to developers, and I'm sure that if enough people pestered them about a linux version of Flash (hey, they already have an OSX version of both Flash and Director, so it can't be _that_ far off) they'd deliver. I'd love that. But the market probably isn't big enough yet.

  24. Flashblock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will this break my Flashblock extention for Firefox, if I install it?

  25. Still not syncs completely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This could of course just be me but it seems that the sync of video/audio is still not exactly right. I tested it by running this clip http://www.cybermoonstudios.com/8bitDandD.html but alas it didn't work. perhaps I should remove the v.6 plugin first. Oh well.

    1. Re:Still not syncs completely by bcmm · · Score: 1

      I've noticed this in windows.

      Blame the SWF file...

      (I'm not sure, but doesn't it just start playing a sound when it's told too and keep playing it till it finishes, so that any animation delay causes it to get out of synch? I'm sure I've seen things get out of synch the first time and play alright the 2nd when they are actaully in the cache.)

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    2. Re:Still not syncs completely by Ambrose · · Score: 1

      I was excited that I'd finally be able to enjoy Homestarrunner. I still haven't been able to see the Strong Bad jail cartoon.

      It got farther along this time, but still no dice. Before it was out of sych badly by the time Homestar was doing his siren routine. Now it made it to the mugshot interlude before I noticed a significant sync problem. It was annoying enough that I couldn't get through Strong Sad's letter.

      I want my Homestar, damn it! *sigh*

  26. Um, Dude by ErichTheWebGuy · · Score: 1

    It's not the player, the authors intentionally disable that functionality. Hence, getting rid of the ability to do so would be alienating their developer customer base.

    Engaging in such practices usually mandates a buyout by Microsoft beforehand.

    --
    bash: rtfm: command not found
    1. Re:Um, Dude by JessLeah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not the developers' computer. It's MY computer, and a lot of my hardware is "old" and CANNOT HANDLE anything higher than "Low Quality"! And not giving me a freaking VOLUME KNOB is absolutely ridiculous.

    2. Re:Um, Dude by Drakon · · Score: 2, Informative

      First of all, relax.
      Second of all, you're full of shit, it's not your computer, it's their content, in some cases artwork, and they can decide how they want it viewed/experianced.
      You can choose to not view it or view it as the artist intended.

      As for a volume knob, it seems that windows programs stopped having them a while ago (or if they did they simply controlled the system volume) and AFAIK, most linux programs never did (the onese that exist simply control the system mixer)

    3. Re:Um, Dude by doom · · Score: 1
      First of all, relax.
      Second of all, you're full of shit, it's not your computer, it's their content, in some cases artwork, and they can decide how they want it viewed/experianced.
      I think you speak more wisely than you know. When it is their content, it is no longer your computer.

      Just say no to proprietary data formats.

      And whatever you do, don't relax.

    4. Re:Um, Dude by black+mariah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have a hardware volume knob. It's right there on the front of my speakers. I don't know of any computer speakers, ever, that haven't included a bigass knob right on the front. Maybe I'm missing something?

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    5. Re:Um, Dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess you've never listened to music on your PC and stumbled upon a site that uses pr0n flash banner ads that use audio. "Push 'P' for pr0n!"
      That wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that they disabled the ability to mute flash files from the players years ago. Now it's mute everything or you're forced to listen to it.

      Honestly, you shouldn't have to mute your whole computer to avoid sounds coming from your web browser. That's like shutting power to a whole apartment complex because someone in one of the apartments was using it excessively.

    6. Re:Um, Dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IBM didn't on a least one computer and it pisses me off.

    7. Re:Um, Dude by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 0, Troll
      First of all, relax.
      Second of all, you're full of shit, it's not your computer, it's their content, in some cases artwork, and they can decide how they want it viewed/experianced.
      You can choose to not view it or view it as the artist intended.
      And whyfor should they be allowed to prevent people from viewing it in other ways? Especially if "other ways" is the *only* way they're able to view it (like using, say, ancient hardware that "CANNOT HANDLE anything higher than "Low Quality"!")?

      Besides which, what if some people like it better when viewed in other ways? Artist does not always know best...

      Tim

    8. Re:Um, Dude by BillyBlaze · · Score: 2, Insightful
      it's their content, in some cases artwork, and they can decide how they want it viewed/experianced.

      No. Copyright gives them the ability to control reproduction, preparation of derivative works, distribution of copies, public performance and public display of their work. Period. If I have legally obtained a copy, I can view and experience it however, whenever, with whatever, and at whichever volume and quality I want. They can build technical barriers, but DMCA notwithstanding, those barriers are neither legally nor, in my opinion, morally binding.

    9. Re:Um, Dude by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So now that we have established that you don't give a fuck about the opinion of the creator of the content, please explain to us why they should give one tenth of one shit about yours?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  27. Nothing to wonder ... by turnin · · Score: 1

    Nothing to wonder even if they(Macromedia) starts to work with FireFox floks for doing something beyond the plugin stff. The technology landscape is changing!

    1. Re:Nothing to wonder ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      huh? they're working with firefox people? infos?
      or did you just mean you wouldn't be suprised if they did, and got me exited for nothing?

      but i agree, changes are ahead. i think they have to try to become a standart for web based applications before longhorns avalon hits the masses...

  28. Re: With version 7, this trick is no longer needed by zero0w · · Score: 4, Informative

    This trick is no longer needed after upgrading to version 7. The plugin will work fine with both gtk1 and gtk2 version of Mozilla / Firefox.

  29. No, Seriously. . . by Farley+Mullet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why would you want it?

    Flash is internet pollution. (X)HTML is lighter-weight and thus faster, more accessible for people with disabilities, and just generally less crap. Plus, Google can tell you about the content of (X)HTML pages, but nothing, from Google to grep, can parse the content of a Flash movie. Flash has a nice little niche for silly animations and games, but it has become a cancer on the web as a navigation and content-presentation interface. An increase in its reach isn't something to celebrate.

    1. Re:No, Seriously. . . by dangerz · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You sound like a disgruntled old man who hates change.

      "Lousy kids think they're great because they have animations! Why when I was your age, I had nothing but black text on a white screen! No, even worse, orange text on a red screen and it took me 4 hours to download each page!"

      The internet evolves. Deal with it.

      --
      The greatest experience we can have is the mysterious.
      - Albert Einstein
    2. Re:No, Seriously. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose you liked when they introduced blink-tags too? That was a *great* addition to html, don't you think? All new stuff is good stuff....yeah right

    3. Re:No, Seriously. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flash is pollution. Deal with it.

    4. Re:No, Seriously. . . by le_jfs · · Score: 3, Informative

      but nothing, from Google to grep, can parse the content of a Flash movie.

      Troll. Just have a look at this: google for hello world in flash
      And this: swfstrings

      Still, I think you're right about the fact that Flash is an annoying Internet pollution and should not be over-used in menus or content. But saying one cannot google or grep it is a lie.

      --
      main(char O){O++&&(((O-291)*O+27788)*O-868020?1:putchar(O++) )&&main(O);}
    5. Re:No, Seriously. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SVG is a better example.
      It has all the ani-"goodness" of flash, and all the scalability of XHTML.

      But is owned by w3c so no one will use it, and people how do support it will all "support" it differently. :>(

    6. Re:No, Seriously. . . by doom · · Score: 0, Troll
      You sound like a disgruntled old man who hates change.
      And you sound like a silly little kid without a clue as to what really matters.
      The internet evolves. Deal with it.
      Actually, the internet just might stop evolving, if it "evolves" away from open standards. As it stands, I do try and "deal with it"... at the moment I do this by sending email to flash sites explaining why I refuse to install flash, and hence will not be looking at their site.

    7. Re:No, Seriously. . . by debian4life · · Score: 1

      I happen to agree here. Having the choice to play flash games if you want is fine. The problem I have is that when I go to certain pages with Mozilla that use Flash, the browser locks up and I have to kill it.

      If this new version fixes all that, that is cool. But as of right now, I just don't use it. And if I go to a page that uses it, I just do without that Flash content. My browser is much more stable that way.

    8. Re:No, Seriously. . . by doom · · Score: 1
      Interesting... I wonder what made this one post qualify as a troll compared to the half dozen other angry anti-flash rants I posted last night.

      Maybe it's because this one actually suggests a course of action:

      ... at the moment I do this by sending email to flash sites explaining why I refuse to install flash, and hence will not be looking at their site.
    9. Re:No, Seriously. . . by claus68 · · Score: 1

      fyi, there is software available, making the Flash Player (6) render latest W3C XML Applications like XForms or SVG: check out DENG

  30. i'm so happy! by lingqi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Now, you know, I can finally view tomshardware.com in its full glory.

    Now seems a good time to introduce flashblock. Very ironic, isn't it?

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.

    1. Re:i'm so happy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have flash installed, how do I stop firefox prompting me to install it? Remap the mime type? Or will flashblock work without macromedia garbage installed?

    2. Re:i'm so happy! by doom · · Score: 1
      I don't have flash installed, how do I stop firefox prompting me to install it? Remap the mime type?
      It's simpler than that if you're using mozilla: just delete the null plug-in.

      This works on my linux box: rm /usr/local/mozilla/plugins/libnullplugin.so

    3. Re:i'm so happy! by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1

      I really wish that dialog would tell me the URL of what it can't play, so I can try it in MPlayer.

    4. Re:i'm so happy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why dont you compile one that does? I have, along with a button that says 'play in mplayer'.

  31. oh, gee, i don't know why you'd want it by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 1

    oh wait, there's a fucking shit ton of sites that use it.

    other than that, i don't know why you'd want flash.

    --

    --
    the strongest word is still the word "free"
    1. Re:oh, gee, i don't know why you'd want it by BJH · · Score: 1

      If that were a valid argument, we'd all be using Windows.

    2. Re:oh, gee, i don't know why you'd want it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a valid argument, and it is exactly why Windows will have a 95% marketshare for the foreseeable future.

      Anyone who dismisses compatibility should get the fuck out of IT.

  32. IRIX version? Open Source? by green+pizza · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is one of the few times you'll hear me honestly ask "is it open source?" I ask because I would love to see an IRIX version of this for my Silicon Graphics Octane workstation, and I know it's not going to happen otherwise. The IRIX world is stick at version 5 with few alternatives.

    Yeah, yeah, I know, flash sucks. But sometimes you need to have it to visit certain sites. Sure beats having to fire up my PC just o look at the newest movie site.

    And yes, SGIs are oldschool. But Octanes are pretty cheap on eBay and are becoming common with we hardware collectors (if you're not that type, you probably know one... house full of computers with at least one working Amiga and probably a NeXT cube too). And it makes for a great main workstation!

    1. Re:IRIX version? Open Source? by PhilK · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly the problem that the *BSD world has too.

      Sure we can run the Linux flash plugin via emulation, but I want it native damnit!

    2. Re:IRIX version? Open Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And where is the Solaris version (: last time they lagged a year or so to get 6 out.

      Why don't they make a proper build environment so they can push things out properly.

      Look at Real now via Helix, they do it perfectly you should push for having IRIX as Helix build aswell !

    3. Re:IRIX version? Open Source? by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      You could try making a donation to this guy. Either of money or time, I'm sure he'd appreciate either.

      I point this out because if there was a useful open-source alternative, we wouldn't be complaining about Macromedia's plugin like we are now.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
  33. It is for x86 GNU/Linux, remember that. by latroM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Looks like Macromedia has finally made good on their word and provided Linux"

    GNU/Linux works on various platforms although the x86 port is the most common. I don't see x86 anywhere in the announcement, do you? If we had the source we had the freedom to compile it on any arch and OS we wanted to. A proprietary software package isn't a contribution to us if our goal is freedom.

    1. Re:It is for x86 GNU/Linux, remember that. by latroM · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is not about money, it is abot freedom. I would gladly pay something for a good flash software if it was free. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html .

  34. Re:Please can we GNU/Linux on PPC peeps have one t by latroM · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is the problem with non-free software.

  35. How lovely by Tuvai · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Flash is a lead lined cudgel with which talentless unfunny people can flesh out their poorly designed and impossible-to-navigate websites. (or, if they're really talentless, they just ship them off to sites like newgrounds.com) I have personally lost count of the number of times I've had my browsing experience ruined by an annoying as hell flash banner ad spawning in the middle of my screen, or a homepage so slowed and crippled by flash that I left and never returned.
    Of course this isn't the only problem, trolls such as the GNAA are known to use this in their browser crashing Shock Sites. Which force users of MSIE to end the entire process to stop the endlessly respawning windows. And this is just the tip of an iceberg of security issues.
    As a result of this (and this "last measure" especially) I decided to abandon windows altogether and become another convert to *nix. So I think you can forgive me for not celebrating the porting of this pesterware to Linux, nor will I be letting it anywhere near my linux box. Regular banner ads are annoying enough thank you.

    1. Re:How lovely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      nice, you could have just got Mozilla and the flash click to load plugin.. or used a proxy.. or probably several other things that are much easier.

    2. Re:How lovely by Barto · · Score: 2

      Don't like it? Don't install it or use it. You are not being forced to use flash so how on earth does this impact you?

      The fact is not all uses of flash are bad - as an animation technology used by people who aren't idiots (eg Homestar Runner) it is quite good. So having continued support for Flash on Linux is a good thing - if you personally hate all flash then just don't use it! That simple!

      Barto

    3. Re:How lovely by Random_Goblin · · Score: 1
      I can't believe this got modded up as interesting( ...no wait yes I can sorry forgot where I was for a second)

      I think you'll find that talentless unfunny people can make poorly designed and impossible to navigate websites using plain HTML. That's part of what makes them talentless and unfunny.

      To damn a Tool because some people use it ineptly is like banning pencils because the guy across the street draws bad stick figure cartoons.

      I would imagine you've never used flash in a developers capacity, or indeed have any comprehension the the world wide web is alot of things to a hell of a lot of people, and suprisingly they might have different needs to you.

      As for "tip of an iceberg of security issues" please! An explosion of pop-ups is hardly a security issue (annoying as hell, but not a security problem) and guess what? The abilty to open a new window is a useful tool for developers, that's why it's implemented in a whole bunch of languages.

      As for other security issues, flash is a hell of a lot more secure than java for example. Or would you have us all using lynx?

      That's the thing with useful tools they can be used for lots of purposes some good some bad. And as web tools go flash is one of the best and most widely supported out there.

    4. Re:How lovely by doom · · Score: 2, Informative
      As a result of this (and this "last measure" especially) I decided to abandon windows altogether and become another convert to *nix. So I think you can forgive me for not celebrating the porting of this pesterware to Linux, nor will I be letting it anywhere near my linux box. Regular banner ads are annoying enough thank you.
      Yup. That's about the size of it.

      A tip for my fellow Flash haters: delete mozilla's null plugin. Then it'll stop bugging you about downloading Flash.

      (Damn, I guess I won't get to see the latest movie sites. Fortunately I don't care about them. Or the latest movies either.)

    5. Re:How lovely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You are not being forced to use flash so how on earth does this impact you?

      You are on some sites, even if the purpose of your visit is to find specific text based information. So it does impact me, despite the fact that flash/applets and other crud have no place on the web! This isn't fucking hollywood, if people want to make films or animations then why don't they do just that and leave us in peace?

    6. Re:How lovely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the mozilla tip, I've been looking for that. If I had mod points...

    7. Re:How lovely by black+mariah · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Then you know what? DON'T GO TO THOSE FUCKING SITES, MORON. Who the FUCK do you think you are to determine what does and does not belong on the web? Fucking hypocritical idiot. Do you want the internet to be an open and all encompassing forum, or do you want it to be a bunch of socially retarded geeks sitting in their parent basement jerking off to ASCIIpr0n. Make up your fucking mind. You have it one way or the other. Not both.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    8. Re:How lovely by doom · · Score: 1
      Then you know what? DON'T GO TO THOSE FUCKING SITES, MORON.
      At the *moment* I have a choice about not going to those sites, because only exceedingly stupidly run sites think it's a good idea to make Flash a key component. If we stop bitching about it, there's a danger that knuckle-dragging "designers" will lock up the web behind a pretty, whizzy, layer of Flash.

      Who the FUCK do you think you are to determine what does and does not belong on the web?
      No, *I* don't determine what belongs on the web, the w3.org does.

      There's a reason why open standards are an important issue. But it has to do with funny little things abstractions like "freedom" that you understand so much more deeply than we do.

    9. Re:How lovely by doom · · Score: 1
      To damn a Tool because some people use it ineptly is like banning pencils because the guy across the street draws bad stick figure cartoons.
      One more time: Technology is not neutral. All real world technologies have biases that you need to be aware of, if you're going to try and use them.

      If a tool is consistently mis-used, it's at least worth considering that this may be a problem with the tool; there maybe traps built-in to trying to use it.

      But all of this is only part of the story. On top of this is the problem that Flash is a non-standard, proprietary data format.

      This is *completely* contrary to every principle behind the design of the internet. Get a clue and just say "no" to vendor lock-in.

    10. Re:How lovely by Barto · · Score: 1

      It's not flash that is the problem then, simply the MISUSE of it. This is slashdot, and even most of the "copyright is fun and tastes yummy" brigade wouldn't want P2P nets shutdown just because most use is illegal.

      Same with flash: if you don't like how it is being used then complain about that, complain to the people who misuse it but DON'T complain about the technology itself.

      Barto

    11. Re:How lovely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here here!

    12. Re:How lovely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sound logic and convincing argument there...

      I think instead I will change my sites and remove the code to send wrong xhtml mime type to internet explorer or maybe put a link to mozilla.org for non-gecko browsers. If Internet Explorer users don't like it then THE MORONS SHOULD STOP COMMING TO MY FUCKING SITES.

      I'm not familiar with "jerking off to ASCIIpr0n", that you are doubtlessly explains a lot.

      Thanks

    13. Re:How lovely by GlassUser · · Score: 1

      You can easily fix that problem (and a few others). Since flash has a gaping back door, I found it easy to include in the bug fixes in my IE-hardening fix. http://www.jordanmills.com/prune.vbs (always the latest version) will mae life easier.

      oh, and flash != site. It's a proprietary animation format.

    14. Re:How lovely by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      Any similar tips if I don't have root? I'm using Moz 1.0.2 on IRIX, and I hate having "you need a plugin" boxes popping up all over the place.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    15. Re:How lovely by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      W3.org doesn't determine a fucking thing except HTML and other web standards. They don't sit there spewing shit like "FLASH IS TEH SUX0RZ!" In fact, I'm pretty sure they don't care about Flash. While I agree it's stupid to use Flash and ONLY Flash for your site, I'm not going to bitch about it. I don't give a fuck about software freedom, open standards, or any of this other geek-ass bullshit. I'm done with it, and stupid fucking arguments like this are the reason why. I know for a fucking FACT that if Flash were an open standard you and every other Flash-hating moron would be spooging your pants in anticipation of putting in everyplace you could.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    16. Re:How lovely by doom · · Score: 1
      Any similar tips if I don't have root? I'm using Moz 1.0.2 on IRIX, and I hate having "you need a plugin" boxes popping up all over the place.
      That's a good question, but I don't really know the answer. It could be that there's some way for you to set up a dummy "libnullplugin.so" and get your mozilla to find it rather than the "real" one. I dunno.

      You might be better off just asking the sysadmin about it. There might be some beauracratic reason they can't delete it for you, but they'll probably be impressed with how super-cool you are and invite you out for a beer.

    17. Re:How lovely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sir, your .sig is doubleplus ungood. Please report to Miniluv immediately.

  36. Where's the source? by beeblebrox87 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Why must we download this sort of proprietary crud just to view webpages? What benefit does Macromedia gain from hiding the source to Flash from its users? How would we view flash pages if Macromedia went bankrupt tomorrow and you couldn't download the player anymore? (The EULA states that only Macromedia and their partners can distribute the player.) Why to we tolerate this sort of closed-source code, with who knows how many security vulnerabilities, running (I believe their installer runs as root?) on our Linux systems?

    I flat out refuse to download Flash until Macromedia releases the source code. Any site that relies on such proprietary software is not a site I want to do business with or use as a source of reliable information. If you care about Free software, I urge you to do the same, and refuse to install Flash until the source code is released.

    1. Re:Where's the source? by Herrieman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please disconnect from the internet immediately.

      It's impossible that your connection to Slashdot or whatever is only accomplished through "Free" software.

      --
      http://blog.astyran.sg
    2. Re:Where's the source? by tyrione · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suppose you never look at Macromedia's 10-Q filings and don't have stock in this company?

      If you did you'd note that the concern about bankruptcy is not one listed.

      At any rate, the close source of their tool which is becoming ubiquitous within the Web Communities gives Macromedia a business advantage. Why the hell would they open source this? This makes as much sense as Apple open sourcing Quartz/Quartz Extreme or QuickTime.

      You don't base your company around a non-open-source model and then when you are strong give away your crown jewels of technology, just to satisfy the ideology of the open-source community.

      Perhaps if they redesigned flash to leave a necessary portion open-sourced and then made money off of custom tools than we might see a change of business.

    3. Re:Where's the source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .swf is a binary format so even if they open sourced the player, it would never be installed on any box I'm responsable for.

    4. Re:Where's the source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since FlashPlayer/QuickTimePlayer is free (as in beer), money is made elsewhere (authoring tool maybe?). Giving the source code of a *player* hardly gives away anything about the money making crown jewels which are the authoring tools or encoder.

      Therefore the only reason the FlashPlayer/QuickTimePlayer source code isn't available is because the company is planning to someday milk money from the *player* (directly, or indirectly through ads).

      So we're back to the grand-parent argument: there is no guarantee we'll be able to see flash pages for free in the future. Creating content in a locked format that requires a key that you don't own is dangerous in the long run.

    5. Re:Where's the source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rubbish. If you're going to post crap like that, prove it.

    6. Re:Where's the source? by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1
      Well Open-Source doesn't necessarily mean giving all the rights to the software away. If they publish it e.g. under GPL, they'd still be the only company which owns the code - other companies could not make use of it to develop proprietary apps. As an example: Trolltech seems to have had no problems with this model.

      Still it might be possible that giving away the code would teach competitors how to implement players, so that would have to be carefully evaluated. I suspect the really valuable IP is in the media creation tools, however.

      The situation for Apple is somewhat different, since they profit from the fact that these tools don't run on all platforms. This doesn't really apply for Macromedia - for them the opposite is beneficial.

    7. Re:Where's the source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's "proof".

      The net runs largely on Cicso hardware running proprietary Cisco software.

      Please disconnect now!

      NOW!!!!!

    8. Re:Where's the source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DNS is a Free standard using Free software. IP is a Free standard, with Free stacks. IP routing is done in hardware for the most part, and many ISPs use Free software, and with a (real) hardware modem or a DSL connection through a network card, it is very likely that packets from the grandparent's computer pass through a mixture of only Free software and admittedly closed hardware before reaching slashdot's Free software servers. The most likely piece of non-free software is whatever crap the local telco uses to hook modems or DSL lines to the rest of the Internet.

  37. stupid installer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh dear, this is really stupid. This is the typical idiocy of free as in herpes software.

  38. I could'nt find any chage by santhu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mozilla with flash player 7.0 opens the flash animations, in the same way as it used to do with flash player 6.0. I could'nt find any difference with the new plugin. If somebody could tell me a way to find the difference, it would be great.

    1. Re:I could'nt find any chage by sploo22 · · Score: 1

      The animation should be smoother, and the audio synchronization should be better. Come on people, at least read the top of the page, you don't even have to look at the article.

      --
      Karma: Segmentation fault (tried to dereference a null post)
    2. Re:I could'nt find any chage by Christianfreak · · Score: 1

      It's far far faster, at least on my machine

    3. Re:I could'nt find any chage by ShecoDu · · Score: 1

      Compatibility issues with swf files using flash 7 features?

  39. Not just SuSE by janiz · · Score: 0

    Previously my flash experience on every distro was in a form of a slide show. Now that everything works like it is supposed to, I can only say that v.7 is worthy upgrade.

  40. How does it compare to Flash 5 and 6? by green+pizza · · Score: 1

    Cool tip, thanks!

    BTW, how does Flash 7 compare to Flash 5 and 6 in terms of performance on older hardware?

  41. RPM for Flash 7 are here: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://macromedia.rediris.es/site_ri.html

    1. Re:RPM for Flash 7 are here: by forevermore · · Score: 1

      Why does no one mod the parent up? This site claims to be the official package-download site, and personally I'd much rather install an rpm than leave "loose" files on my system.

      --
      Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
    2. Re:RPM for Flash 7 are here: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would some unknown user's files at the Spanish National Research Network site in Spain be the official distributer of Macromedia programs?
      It could be anything. A truckload of rootkits for that matter.

    3. Re:RPM for Flash 7 are here: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should have visited the site and looked at the mirror URL's, or looked at the packages themselves?

  42. Works great with Konqueror! by Vertex+Operator · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just toss those two files into /usr/lib/browser-plugins and away you go.

    Works fine with Mozilla, Firefox, also.

    Didn't test it with Epiphany etc.

    --
    San Diego Padres, 100 Park Blvd, San Diego CA 92101

    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by
    1. Re:Works great with Konqueror! by tyrione · · Score: 1

      This is what I was hoping to hear. The current flash delays Konq as Firefox to a lesser degree.

  43. Downloading from a windows box? by incuso · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Is there any way to download the linux version (debian) from a windows box?

    Thanks
    M.

    1. Re:Downloading from a windows box? by alex_tibbles · · Score: 2, Informative

      the flashplugin-nonfree package might be updated to use this version. the maintainer is listed here. You could email him/her/them or file a wish-list bug. Or you could hack it up yourself and do a NMU... Or just wait.

    2. Re:Downloading from a windows box? by alex_tibbles · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Downloading from a windows box? by MoogMan · · Score: 1

      Direct link to linux version:

      http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/shockwave/f la sh/english/linux/7.0r25/install_flash_player_7_lin ux.tar.gz

      Installation Instructions

      1. Click the "Download Now" button. A dialog box will appear asking you where to save the Installer.

      2. Save the Installer to your desktop and wait for the file to download completely.

      3. Unpackage the file. A directory called install_flash_player_7_linux will be created.

      4. Navigate to this directory and from the command line type ./flashplayer-installer to run the installer (Note: this can only be run from the command line). The installer will instruct you to shut down your browser(s).

      5. Once the installation is complete, the plug-in will be installed in your Mozilla browser. To verify, launch Mozilla and choose Help > About Plug-ins from the browser menu.

  44. 64bit Version by �nertia · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ARG... Still no 64bit release... this is really anoying.. If I want to use 64bit native browser I can't have flash... grrr...

    --

    AEnertia
    Witty, tag line goes here

  45. Damnit! by yem · · Score: 1

    Hell still crashes firefox.

    $ firefox
    firefox exited with non-zero status (11)

    *sigh* I was hoping 7.x would fix that.

    --
    No, I did not read the f***ing article!
    1. Re:Damnit! by dangerz · · Score: 1

      Works for me.

      --
      The greatest experience we can have is the mysterious.
      - Albert Einstein
    2. Re:Damnit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works fine in Konqueror 3.2.2 w/ flash 6.0.81 on kernel 2.6.5 in kde. I don't live in NZ but looks like a cool site. Try it in Konqueror.

    3. Re:Damnit! by jelle · · Score: 1

      I think I used to have a similar problem. It's gone know, but I think it was either automatically fixed once at a 'apt-get dist-upgrade', or it was fixed after I cleaned up my home directory once.

      Try making a fresh new user account and see if it works if you log in as that user. If it works fine for the new user, then it's something in the local settings: That is: ~/.phoenix ~/.mozilla-firebird ~/.mozilla ~/.mozilla-firefox

      The problem may also be in a bad symlink in /usr/lib/mozilla-*/plugins/* (except libnullplugin.so).

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
  46. Re:BSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bit to the left and about 6 feet down. Yes, by that tall rock with the writing on it.

  47. You, sir (madam?) are a buffoon... by MaestroSartori · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In your haste to rant about how much you hate everyone else on then Intarweb, you've missed or ignored a pretty major point: Flash is just a tool. How about this:

    HTML is a lead lined cudgel with which talentless unfunny people can create their poorly designed and impossible-to-navigate websites. (or, if they're really talentless, they just ship them off to sites like geocities.com) I have personally lost count of the number of times I've had my browsing experience ruined by an annoying as hell animated gif banner ad spawning in the middle of my screen, or a homepage so slowed and crippled by dynamic HTML that I left and never returned.

    I suspect most of us would agree with that to an extent, but we don't vow never to look at a webpage again.

    Some Flash is very good. Deal with it, move on, use the appropriate browser/plugin to make Flash content optional.

    1. Re:You, sir (madam?) are a buffoon... by doom · · Score: 1
      In your haste to rant about how much you hate everyone else on then Intarweb, you've missed or ignored a pretty major point: Flash is just a tool.
      As usual when someone trots out the "just a tool" line, you've completely missed the actual point. In general: technology is never neutral. All real technologies have biases that you need to be aware of.

      Now, in specific: proprietary, non-standard data formats are a tool for *vendor lock-in*. They have no place on the goddamn *internet*, which was built on top of open standards and could not possibly exist without them. Buying in to a proprietary format just because you wanna see the pretty pictures is incredibly, astoundingly short-sighted.

      What's really amazing is that I need to say this on goddamn slashdot. It's not like you've ever never heard this shit before, you just seem to be incapable of applying it to a real world case.

    2. Re:You, sir (madam?) are a buffoon... by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      *yawn* Whatever, dude. YOU are the one missing the point. You have a choice. Use it or don't. Proprietary or not, YOU HAVE A FUCKING CHOICE. Make it and shut the fuck up.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    3. Re:You, sir (madam?) are a buffoon... by MaestroSartori · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Flash file format is open. I don't understand your point. Just because something is proprietary doesn't make it not open, or bad for that matter. There are tools out there which output Flash and are not made by Macromedia themselves. There are even open source Flash production mechanisms. Yes, Macromedia could at some point change the file format to obfuscate it, yes they could make it non-backwards-compatible, they could even decide to abandon Flash completely. That doesn't put the genie back in the bottle, and its still not making Flash a bad thing in and of itself.

    4. Re:You, sir (madam?) are a buffoon... by mangu · · Score: 1
      I remember when the web started, I had been using the internet for email and ftp at the time. At first it was just a curiosity, there weren't that many sites to visit and html was just eye-candy.


      In the same way, flash today is mostly eye-candy, there may be a few pages where it serves a useful purpose, but the vast majority of sites using flash could be done much better without it.


      Well, of course, you cannot judge the quality of a tool based on the [in]competence of the people who use it. But I fear that flash is a pretty bad tool, even in the hands of a master programmer. This is because it uses the wrong protocol. HTTP stands for Hyper Text Transfer Protocol. HTML stands for Hyper Text Mark-up Language. It's a fact of life, the web is designed for *text*. They do so much stuff like flash and java as browser plug-ins because people have browsers installed in their computers, but plug-ins are an ugly kludge.


      What we really need is a new protocol. An MMTP (Multimedia Transfer Protocol), for instance. A protocol that supports sessions, for a start. A protocol designed from the start to save bandwidth, using a choice of bitmaps and scalable vector graphics. A protocol designed with security in mind.


      Some of these specs are what Microsoft is trying to do with .net, but it also should be an open standard, available to all and allowing no poprietary extensions.

    5. Re:You, sir (madam?) are a buffoon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unfortunately, openswf.org isn't up to date. they still have the release of swf format as top news, and the specification for 7 has been released more than half a year ago...

    6. Re:You, sir (madam?) are a buffoon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it's not Macromedia's fault that the rest of the world is lazy...

      In fact why hasn't SVG caught on?

      Because there is not large commercial force driving it maybe?

      Maybe?

      Maybe commercial companies actually do make some progress in the world, who'd a thunk it?

    7. Re:You, sir (madam?) are a buffoon... by doom · · Score: 1
      In fact why hasn't SVG caught on?

      Because there is not large commercial force driving it maybe?

      Maybe?

      Maybe commercial companies actually do make some progress in the world, who'd a thunk it?
      I don't doubt that commerce *does* contribute to progress, but Flash is a pretty poor example of "progress".
  48. command line player? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
    This is great for those running Mozilla, but what about people running less popular browsers? Is there a command line flash player out there I could use in my .mailcap file? What about a command line wrapper to the flash plugin?

    Sometimes I just want to wget a swf file and view it at a later time.

    1. Re:command line player? by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      Dude, this is either the funniest damn thing I've read all day... or the dumbest... possibly both, actually. ;)

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    2. Re:command line player? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word: gflashplayer.

      http://macromedia.mplug.org/

  49. I have an idea... how about open standards! by doom · · Score: 1
    Here's a thought: why doesn't Macromedia turn "flash" into a w3.org standard? Then they wouldn't *have* to port their player to different platforms, there would be an open source player that you could port to whatever platform you were interested in.

    Of course, it could be I'm missing the point here, and that Flash needs to be a proprietary format for it's business model to work.

    (Pretend for a minute that Flash was the bright idea of some other company that begins with an "M"... how would you feel about it?)

    1. Re:I have an idea... how about open standards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or everyone you use the open standards that already exist.
      Like EMCAScript and SVG.

    2. Re:I have an idea... how about open standards! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      SWF is an open standard. How do you think ming SWF for php etc came about?

    3. Re:I have an idea... how about open standards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SWF is not "open", just published. It's proprietary to Macromedia, not defined by a standards body.

    4. Re:I have an idea... how about open standards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i know this is not your point, but anyway:
      inside flash (the ide), you have two scripting options for swf development, 'actionscript' one, ECMA262, and two, ECMA262v4 (class based, strong typing)

    5. Re:I have an idea... how about open standards! by Tin+Foil+Hat · · Score: 1

      The flash player is offered at no cost to the public to allow Macromedia to sell it's flash authoring tool. That's where they make their money. Releasing the flash player source would allow other companies to create flash authoring tools that could compete with Macromedia, something they obviously would not want.

      --
      No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
    6. Re:I have an idea... how about open standards! by joeljkp · · Score: 1
      There are other flash authoring tools:
      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
    7. Re:I have an idea... how about open standards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean they might have to actually compete? Unthinkable! Except they probably could compete. Macromedia is no Microsoft. Their products work. There would be little incentive to create a competing authoring tool, and if anybody did, I doubt Macromedia would be in danger of losing.

      There is demand for competing players though, and in some cases that demand means people don't or can't use flash when they otherwise would. Seems to me that causes Macromedia to lose customers. They should encourage third party players. Heck, they could open source their player, or at least start an open source player, and eventually stop releasing their own. If they've got the authoring tools locked down, they only stand to lose by locking down the player too.

  50. I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree, flash like java and javascript is just another BIG security hole waiting to be exploited.
    You people will not stop being stupid, so don't complain when the internet is brought down because you were STUPID!

    1. Re:I agree by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      And so is DNS, and BIND, and EVERYTHING ELSE, YOU MORON. Being open does NOT preclude something from having security holes. Get off your high horse and shut the fuck up.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  51. It warrants repeating. by Associate · · Score: 1, Insightful
    --
    Someone hates these cans.
  52. I wonder where I can try that out by rauhest · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder where I can try that out... It seems that in the past few months I have adblock'ed all flashes on the sites I usually visit :)

    1. Re:I wonder where I can try that out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  53. Skip Intro? No, Skip Site by mulesex · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I flat out refuse to download Flash until Macromedia releases the source code

    Having the source code available would not suddenly make Flash a useful technology.

    Flash is anti-useful.

    It is an excuse for web developers to use eye-candy instead of content (as if they needed one) on their sites. And so continues the gradual and complete dilution of useful content on the internet. The bonus is that it is an effective way of marking a site 'useless' during long and painful web searches.

    Future Wine support is a monstrous idea. Releasing a version for Linux makes business sense, but are people seriously considering running Wine just to browse the internet?

    I allow for exceptions, but I have seen very few sites which actually use Flash to present useful content in a sensible way. This would, unfortunately, force me to use it. I have seen none recently, because I don't use the plug-in. I flat out refuse.

    1. Re:Skip Intro? No, Skip Site by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      How to feel like a tit:
      1. Go to Geocities.
      2. Count the number of pages that use no Flash, but still have no content.
      3. Realize that you're a complete tit for thinking Flash has a fucking thing to do with a lack of content, and that it's the vapid crap the user spews that is responsible for said lack of anything interesting.
      4. Shut the fuck up.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    2. Re:Skip Intro? No, Skip Site by mulesex · · Score: 1

      How to feel like a tit: Note that 'Flash implies no content' is not the same as 'No content implies Flash'. So really, 4. Shut the fuck up. I am asssured that you enjoyed the process.

    3. Re:Skip Intro? No, Skip Site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh*
      uhm... i think what he/she was trying to explain to you was that the amount of content is independent of the tool. just as knowing links to plato is independent from being ignorant.

    4. Re:Skip Intro? No, Skip Site by mulesex · · Score: 1

      He/she was not trying to explain anything, he/she was trying to be clever and rude, based on an incorrect assumption. Similar as I imagine your *sigh*ing is. I googled the link, the point was obvious, and would have been painful (and off-topic) to explain.

      And actually, now that you raise the point, content is exactly not independent of the tool. Just as incorrect logical derivations are exactly not independent of stupidity. Now make me a cake, here are the ingredients, and here is the kettle you are going to use.

    5. Re:Skip Intro? No, Skip Site by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      I'm a he, first of all.

      Actually, I was explaining something and did so quite well. You're too anti-Flash biased to understand it with your puny human brain. Content is COMPLETELY independent of the tool. That was my entire fucking point. Again, when was the last time you went to Geocities? A few million plain HTML pages of vapid horseshit. Still, no matter how valid and correct my point is you're not going to go for it because, as we all know, "FLASH IS TEH SUx0RZ!"

      Whatever.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
    6. Re:Skip Intro? No, Skip Site by mulesex · · Score: 1

      If you want to say something useful, but the only tool you have available in your cranium is a mushroom, your content will be poor.

      Yes "vapid" rubbish exists in geocities, yes I am biased against silly proprietary protocols that detract from my browsing experience. But in no way is content completely independent of the tool used to create it, and if you doubt it, re-read the first paragraph of this post.

  54. Re:Please can we GNU/Linux on PPC peeps have one t by byolinux · · Score: 1

    Is there a free software SWF player for Firefox that will play fairly modern stuff? ie. Can I watch H*R whilst retaining my freedom?

  55. In defense of Flash. by novakreo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why would you want it?

    Because I happen to enjoy silly animations and games.

    You say that as if there is something wrong with enjoying 'silly animations and games'. I do. So do many other people.
    It may also be inaccessible, but every day people enjoy things that aren't globally accessible, from various forms of media and art to sports and recreation. How do you make animation accessible to those with vision difficulties?

    One could write a story instead, but then you have something totally different. Hypertext has been around for decades, and text itself for millennia, and they serve their purpose. Animation serves another.

    There will always be people who choose a poor method of presenting their content on the web. Even without Flash, it's still possible to have poorly-navigable sites with too many fonts, and garish colours, et cetera.

    The way to solve it is not to discourage the use of Flash, as if it were inherently wrong, but to encourage and show examples of good design and presentation when Flash is not called for.

    This may be a niche, but I for one am quite happy that such a niche exists, and is available to Linux users. I'd like to think that one day SVG will be a better alternative and we can all switch to that, but for now there's Flash.

    If you don't like it, don't install it. But don't expect others to do the same.

    --
    O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
    1. Re:In defense of Flash. by LordK3nn3th · · Score: 1


      Mod parent up more, please.

      --

      ---
      Never criticize religion on Slashdot. You will be modded down for "Troll" no matter how factual it is.
  56. Clause 3.g of the EULA by polished+look+2 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    You shall not use the Software to develop any software or other technology having the same primary function as the Software, including but not limited to using the Software in any development or test procedure that seeks to develop like software or other technology, or to determine if such software or other technology performs in a similar manner as the Software.
  57. Binary danger? by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 1
    I got it. And it simply works.

    Actually, I installed the plug (plague?) just because those silly anoying dialogs from latest mozilla for nonexistent plugin, which cannot be suppressed. Imagine viewing a news page with 4-5 flashes on it is a real pain clicking [cancel].

    Yes, I know real geeks will turn away in disgust just as with any other binary pollution. But I need an equivalent of Infernet Exploder with flash on linux just because my bank does not support anything other.

    So I bear no geek pride and no geek prejudices. Now, I will disassemble that libflashplayer.so. I wonder what kind of surprise may lurk down in the code. And no, I will not share THAT knowledge with you, sorry. I'll keep it for myself. Let me begin
    hexdump flashplayer.xpt -C | less
    yes it's mozilla plugin interface, so
    objdump -d libflashplayer.so > beast

    Better to make some coffee...
    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
    1. Re:Binary danger? by The+MESMERIC · · Score: 0

      Real cool stuff - hey thanks!
      Love Linux - learn something new every minute :)

    2. Re:Binary danger? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, I installed the plug (plague?) just because those silly anoying dialogs from latest mozilla for nonexistent plugin, which cannot be suppressed. Imagine viewing a news page with 4-5 flashes on it is a real pain clicking [cancel].
      rm /usr/local/lib/mozilla-1.8a1/plugins/libnullplugin .so
  58. homestar runner by chocolatetrumpet · · Score: 1

    If there was ever a reason to have flash, it would be Homestar Runner.

    Also, some people such as composer Eric Whitacre use it to give the site a "mood" of sorts, and navigation is still decent (my mouse wheel works, and copy/paste have been implemented). Yes, I'd rather be romping about with my tabs but, I'll live.

    --
    Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
  59. No reason not to open-source the PLAYER by motown · · Score: 1

    The parent is at least partly right:

    I see absolutely no reason for Macromedia not to open-source their plugin.

    It would solve numerous problems relating to performance, stability and platform support.

    It's not like Macromedia is making any money on the player. As a matter of fact, they need to invest in the development en distribution of a free player in order to sell their content creation tools!

    And even if Macromedia would still not open-source their player, I still can't understand why nobody is working on an open-source Flash 7 compatible alternative.

    The specifications are available, right?

    --
    "Oooh, does that mean we get to kick some puffy white mad zionist butt?"
    1. Re:No reason not to open-source the PLAYER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The specifications are available, right?

      well, maybe you have to make up an email address to get it, but it's available.

  60. Two more things by mangu · · Score: 1
    1) set the name of the directory where you put the files in the list where konqueror will search, the list is in the settings plugin page. Actually, it doesn't need to be the directory you mention, it can be any directory in the list.

    2) restart kde


    It seems to be a little slower than in Mozilla, but due to all the convenience in browsing with konqueror, I'll stick with it. Now, if only Java worked (consistently) in konqueror...

  61. Well... by Nailer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because vector graphics authoring tools that use motion SVG are, at their beta stage of development, quite poor?

    Because HTML/XML can't play movie trailers, whereas Flash's Sorenson codec, native on Linux, can?

    Because unlike Java, Flash UI is responsive. unlike DHTML its actually designed for forms, and unlike ActiveX, its cross platform.

  62. Re: Point 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You seem to contradict yourself. Either that or you have subliminally realised that copyright infringement is not theft, therefore not stealing. You just haven't realised it consciously yet.

  63. Immediate visual feedback by mangu · · Score: 1

    I use a text editor and a browser window. Hit Alt-Tab and refresh the browser. Yes, of course, it *could* me more immediate than that, but at least you are sure that the page will work in your browser, not just in Dreamweaver

    1. Re:Immediate visual feedback by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      I've still never seen anyting done by someone that knew how to used Dreamweaver properly that didn't work just as well as a hand coded HTML page. I've seen a ton of shitty HTML pages though. It's not the tool, it's the tool using the tool.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  64. Macromedia showing lack of Linux commitment by rklrkl · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Over 8 months to port the Flash 7 plug-in isn't impressive in anyone's books (Windows official release date of the Flash 7 plug-in was 10th September 2003), no Shockwave Player at all for Linux as the original posting said and a half-baked announcement that they'll try to get their apps working under Linux WINE (er, is that with or without a Windows partition and all its native DLLs?).

    Macromedia still don't care about Linux in any meaningful fashion - wake me up when Flash 8 comes out simultaneously on Windows and Linux (Mozilla can do it with a Web browser that's 1,000 times more complex, so why not a browser plug-in?), when Shockwave Player finally appears on Linux and when Macromedia's entire Windows product range is available natively on Linux. Only then can you finally say Macromedia is taking Linux seriously - Oracle switched (albeit from Solaris)...c'mon Macromedia, make the same move...

    1. Re:Macromedia showing lack of Linux commitment by MeNeXT · · Score: 2, Informative

      Like all other for profit co's, the'll port it when a free version comes out which is better than the original and then they will ask why nobody is willing to pay for their sh1t product....

      --
      DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
  65. Also... by Nailer · · Score: 1

    You can check out cool art.

  66. What good is a 64-bit browser? by mangu · · Score: 1

    64-bit machines are mainly servers. The real advantage in going to 64 bits is when you have large databases, where you must address more than 2Gb of data at a time. For desktop applications, I fail to see an advantage in 64 bits. Even if you do graphics editing, where files may be very large, the overhead isn't that big, because editing is done more or less sequentially. 64 bits shine when you have many users, each accessing different parts of a very large data set at the same time.

    1. Re:What good is a 64-bit browser? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or yout just might need native 64bit longs for that fast OGG encoding. There are alot of uses for 64bit besides memory adressing.

    2. Re:What good is a 64-bit browser? by rootus-rootus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gee, the extra registers might come in handy....

      --
      The moral of the story is: "Always remember to mount a scratch monkey."
    3. Re:What good is a 64-bit browser? by IdleTime · · Score: 1

      My AMD64 3200+ is not a server but a desktop PC running Win XP, Win XP 64-bit beta and Gentoo 64-bit and whether you see an advantage or not is really, really, really unimportant to me and to a large number of other users.

      Just because you fail to see the need for more than 640K of memory doesn't mean I do!

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
  67. The secret is to bang the rocks together guys by Random_Goblin · · Score: 1
    Er... just repeating something over and over doen't make it true.

    Technology IS neutral is has no biases to be bloody anything. At its most fundamental, are you suggesting that rocks are evil because people can get hit over the head with them? I point out we can also build houses and grind corn with them...both offically Good TM. Doesn't this make rocks neutral? See that's why we say tools are neutral...

    "Flash is a non-standard, proprietary data format" er no it isn't, flash SWF is an open STANDARD data format. Flash player is a free proprietary player for this open standard. Flash MX 2004 is a Proprietary piece of software that produces SWF files.

    "*completely* contrary to every principle behind the design of the internet"

    You really have no clue about this whole internet business at all do you? Who exactly do you think designed it, and for what purpose?... (I'll give you a clue, if you can fit it in a post your model is too simplistic.)

    1. Re:The secret is to bang the rocks together guys by doom · · Score: 1
      Random_Goblin wrote:

      Technology IS neutral is has no biases to be bloody anything. At its most fundamental, are you suggesting that rocks are evil because people can get hit over the head with them?

      What I'm suggesting is that this is a grossly over-simplified view of technology.

      To take guns as an example, the introduction of guns has a number of interesting effects. A particular individual might be interested in owning a gun because of their "equalizing" effect, they tend to neutralize physical strength as deciding factor in a fight. But on the other hand, they also make it really easy to do a lot of damage by accident, they exaggerate the effects of a momentary impulse. This is not to say that you should never choose to own a gun, the point is that you had *better* understand this effect and think about how you're going to compensate for it.

      If technology in general were merely "neutral", there would be no reason to have any interest in it. The hope behind any new technical development is that it will be biased toward freedom and prosperity.

      I point out we can also build houses and grind corn with them...both offically Good TM. Doesn't this make rocks neutral? See that's why we say tools are neutral...

      I'm of the opinion that you like the "tools are neutral" doctrine, because it makes it simple to think about things, even though it doesn't hold up under closer examination.

      But consider:

      • Distilled alcohol
      • Slot machines
      • Television
      • Cell phones

      The attitude "Awww, you just need to use 'em right! You can't blame the tool if people are weak, lazy, or stupid!" is nutty. People genuinely *are* flawed creatures, and some technologies play into those flaws.

      A case in point: proprietary data formats that implement some whizzy, pretty feature -- this plays on human short-sightedness.

      "Flash is a non-standard, proprietary data format" er no it isn't, flash SWF is an open [openswf.org] STANDARD data format.

      There's room for argument here. My take is that if it's not endorsed by the w3.org, you shouldn't be using the protocol on the web. It's nice that they published the specs -- at one point -- but it doesn't make it a "STANDARD" technology. One company is still in control of it. Compare "source code under glass" licenses to real open source. (Just using the word "open" doesn't make it an open standard.)

      Flash player is a free proprietary player for this open standard. Flash MX 2004 is a Proprietary piece of software that produces SWF files.

      And these pieces of proprietary software implement the *real* standard, don't they? If Macromedia, shall we say, drifts away from what they published in 1998, someone making a competing player isn't going to be able to say "Hey, that ain't what it says on openswf!" and expect that to fly are they?

      I submit that this is much closer to the state of affairs with Microsoft Word, than it is with, for example, with Microsoft Internet Explorer. (Gee, what's the *difference* between those two cases... why couldn't Microsoft pull a job like Word on the web? Hm...)

      "*completely* contrary to every principle behind the design of the internet"

      You really have no clue about this whole internet business at all do you? Who exactly do you think designed it, and for what purpose?... (I'll give you a clue, if you can fit it in a post your model is too simplistic.)

      Briefly: DARPA/Academic collaborations in the early 70s, with NSF funding kicking in a little later. Then there was lots of wrangling between DARPA trying to maintain control and groups at places like SRI trying to play a bigger role. The RFC process started informally, and gradually took on weight. TCP/IP and later DNS weren't adopted by Arpa until the early 80s, and it took some work to get ISO to adopt

    2. Re:The secret is to bang the rocks together guys by Random_Goblin · · Score: 1
      I'm of the opinion that you like the "tools are neutral" doctrine, because it makes it simple to think about things

      well yes that's kind of the point of models. I'll happily concede that it's a simplification, but it's a useful one as your bias model leaves us with the problem that we have no way of calculating what all those biases are.

      I think we are also having conflict over the interchangabilty of technology and tools.

      considering for example your list

      • distilled alcohol- solvent for wide range of chemical processes, antiseptic, rocket fuel, fundamental component of a good martini.

      that's without seriously thinking about it, already that is a list that to me suggests there is a valid reason for simplifying it and assuming the thing itself is neutral. To take your bias approach, means we need to work out every possible use and then conduct statistical analysis to find some sort of GOOD/BAD score. I suggest that is more likely to give us an indication of our own bias, than that of the tool.

      • slotmachines- I wouldn't really class them as tools, they are more like the product of tools, the same tools that give us clocks, ATM machines etc.

      I think this is perhaps the key disagrement between us, you seem to be suggesting that because a tool can be used to create "bad" content that is a function of the tool, and my position is that that is a function of the user of the tool. I appreciate that in many cases that can seem like a pointless semantic argument, but I think it is an key distinction. For example it leads to the conclusion that you don't solve the problem by changing the tool, you solve the problem by changing the user.

      I accept your argument that macromedia is in control of the standard, but that doesn't stop it from being a standard none the less. Part of the problem with standards bodies like the w3.org is that by their very nature they are slow and bureaucratic. I don't know if you recall the whole browser wars experience firsthand (obviously I mean the first browser wars here IE vs Netscape, not any of the current peacekeeping actions), but part of the problem was that the w3.org took forever defining the next standard and so microsoft and netscape took the matter into their own dirty hands. For more failings of the slowness of standards bodies have a look at the take up of SVG format, and compare and contrast with betamax VHS.

      The reason microsoft and netscape were able to have this battle in the first place, is because the net was taking a quantum leap, it stopped being purely an academic tool and started becoming "something else" the ideas of what that "something else" could be fueled the whole dot.com boom. I still don't think we have worked out what that "something else" really is yet, but I think it is, to quote 2001 "something wonderful".

      Part of what has fueled the development and investment in this new thing is capitalism, and while you feel perhaps that that is not one of the principles that designed the net, I'd beg to differ, and further to say that this is not inherently evil either.

      One of the things that I think has been missed in all of this argument is that flash player is a damn good product that runs the same on over 90% of web-browsing machines (even allowing for macromedia's marketing hype, I think this IS a credible figure). This is despite breaking one of the design principles of which you speak with such reverence, separating content from style.

      I'd say this suggests that the internet is already more things, and has more requirements that its original military design, of a network capable of surviving a nuclear strike. Which bring me back to the whole bias thing, you can't effectively interpolate a tools bias until all possible uses have been explored, otherwise your just expressing your preconceived preferences.

      oh and yes I "get it yet"... we both have far to much time on our hands that we waste in slashdot :)

    3. Re:The secret is to bang the rocks together guys by doom · · Score: 1

      I think this is perhaps the key disagrement between us, you seem to be suggesting that because a tool can be used to create "bad" content that is a function of the tool, and my position is that that is a function of the user of the tool.

      You're just restating the disagreement. Yeah, that's right that's pretty much what it is.

      Issues like this come up *every* time someone comes up with a glitzy "innovation" in computers. Great, all of a sudden you can easily use all sorts of fonts in a document, and then you get the people who can't resist playing with the toy even though they don't have anything like a feel for what they're doing and often they forget about the original purpose of the document they were working on.

      For that matter, you can go back before computers. The "A/V" revolution was supposed to be the great hope of education, but in practice it turns out you need a genius of the medium (e.g. Frank Capra, "Hemo the Great", "The Strange Case of the Cosmic Ray") to produce a short educational film that actually educates and doesn't just bore to death. My take: "Hm... maybe the geezer-with-blackboard method has some advantages"; your take: "We need more visual geniuses!"

      For example it leads to the conclusion that you don't solve the problem by changing the tool, you solve the problem by changing the user.

      The point that I'm trying to make is that to a large extent you've got to regard human nature as fixed. The tools you can change, the human beings you're stuck with (in the short term):

      • "Boy alot of our customers keep slicing their legs open with our circluar saw product. Huh, you want to add a mechanical safety interlock to shield the blade? What a waste! Those idiots just need to wake up."
      • "Gee, lots of people have accidents while driving when drunk. I guess they need better training at how to drive while drunk. That kind of thing would never happen to me, I'm a *great* drunk driver."

      I accept your argument that macromedia is in control of the standard, but that doesn't stop it from being a standard none the less.

      You have a funny notion of what consitutes a standard.

      Part of the problem with standards bodies like the w3.org is that by their very nature they are slow and bureaucratic.

      That's a point.

      I don't know if you recall the whole browser wars experience firsthand (obviously I mean the first browser wars here IE vs Netscape, not any of the current peacekeeping actions), but part of the problem was that the w3.org took forever defining the next standard

      Feh. I would deny that that was *anything* like the real problem. The problem is when things are moving that fast no one has a clue about what the right thing to do is. Netscape and Microsoft would go crazy on this or that "feature" on the theory that it might help them compete, but mostly that was all wasted energy -- and we're lucky they didn't destroy the web as a byproduct of their crazy in-fighting.

      For more failings of the slowness of standards bodies have a look at the take up of SVG format, and compare and contrast with betamax VHS.

      I would be very interested in a knowledgeable take on what was going on with SVG. Whizzy graphics features are not exactly an area of interest of mine, and I will admit to not being up on what went down with that.

      (Why do you guys incessantly bring up Betamax? Who really cares? Okay, it was better than VHS, but only marginally. A better question would be why people bought Microsoft instead of, say, Borland.)

      ... the net was taking a quantum leap, it stopped being purely an academic tool

      Well, it was never a purely academic tool, it was however largely only used by people with some sort of academic connection.

  68. none so blind by Random_Goblin · · Score: 1
    "I allow for exceptions, but I have seen very few sites which actually use Flash to present useful content in a sensible way. This would, unfortunately, force me to use it. I have seen none recently, because I don't use the plug-in. I flat out refuse."

    I have my eyes closed, until you show me a picture I think is good enough, I'll keep them closed.

    How's that whole blind thing working out for ya?

    I presume of course you only use lynx to browse?

  69. That, and #3b and 2b by whovian · · Score: 2, Informative

    3b. You may not alter, merge, modify, adapt or translate the Software, or decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or otherwise reduce the Software to a human-perceivable form.

    Clause 3g reads "don't compete with us", clause 3b read "don't even think about it".

    2b. You agree that Macromedia may audit your use of the Software for compliance with these terms at any time, upon reasonable notice. [snip]

    Reads: Here's your notice if case we wish to track you or your usage of the software.
    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
  70. What I want by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    ...a nice little menu option in mozilla saying "block flash from this server".

    1. Re:What I want by Galaxie · · Score: 1

      Try Adblock, it'll at least allow you to get rid off (or at least hide) flash/image/iframe ads if you want it too.

      --
      <end/>
  71. Finally I can watch "Hey, Hey 16K!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  72. A little short on the badger side by Ghoser777 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are clearly 11 badgers before the two mushrooms.

    So to clarify:

    badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger Mushroom! MUSHROOM!

    Matt Fahrenbacher

    --
    James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
    1. Re:A little short on the badger side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There are clearly 11 badgers before the two mushrooms.
      Actually, it's 12.
    2. Re:A little short on the badger side by Ghoser777 · · Score: 1

      It seems that the flash animation isn't consistent - sometimes there are 12 badgers, sometimes there are 11. It seems to depend on whether the guy "singing" starts saying badger on the beat or off the beat. (I don't mean to imply running the animation twice can generate different results, although it might; instead, I'm saying that the flash animation is set up so that the first chorus of "badger" is shorter or longer than the second chorus, etc).

      Wow...

      Matt Fahrenbacher

      --
      James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
  73. Not Desktop USERS by soloport · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, this thread is about desktop developers... Uh... Oh...

    developers
    Developers
    deVelpers
    deVELOPERS
    DEVELOPERS
    DEVELOPERS
    DEVELOPERS!
    DEVELOPERS!!
    DEVELOPERS!!!

    Crap! He's got me doing it!

    1. Re:Not Desktop USERS by trompete · · Score: 1

      It took me a minute to get the Steve Balmer monkey-man reference.

    2. Re:Not Desktop USERS by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      If it took you that long, you obviously need to watch the video again.
      Click here to visit your nearest indoctri^H^H^H^H^H^H^Htraining center.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
  74. In other news... by miketang16 · · Score: 1

    The Flash 8 player was released for Windows today.

    --
    -------
    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
    -- George Orwell
  75. zealot@freebeer:~$ telnet www.slashdot.org 80 by mulesex · · Score: 1

    I presume of course you only use lynx to browse?

    Occasionally, but not exclusively. My browsing needs are met by a number of applications and programming libraries depending on what is needed. There is no best browser. Certainly, I believe that images (lacking in lynx) are massively useful in portraying certain types of web content.

    The blind analogy is false, and you have missed the point. A better description would be 'I shall open my eyes when I need to. I shan't get run over by a train, because I shall hear it coming'.

  76. [ot] picking nits by X_Bones · · Score: 1

    for what it's worth, "the US Navy" isn't a homogeneous environment when it comes to computer platforms. Our product has to support RHEL and Win2k, and I've heard of XP and HP-UX boxes, Macs, and even IIRC some QNX machines at various places.

  77. Oracle is a great server but has poor client tools by blorg · · Score: 1

    We're talking about desktop development tools here, not server products.

    Oracle is a great database server with some fantastic features not found, for example, in MS SQL Server. However the Oracle (9) client tools are worse than SQL Server's from a usability standpoint.

    Oracle's client tools run in Linux and Windows because they are Java (I'm thinking the Enterprise Manager Console and SQL Plus Worksheet here.) This is great for them working cross-platform but is not great for usability because they do not use standard UI interface features from the host OS. This has knock-on effects - for example, a scroll mouse doesn't work.

    We might also note that Macromedia's server products such as ColdFusion and JRun all run on Linux. (And have run on other UNIXes such as Solaris for a lot longer.) There just isn't the market there for a desktop port of Flash; if there was, they would port it. Or you could use CrossOver Office.

    In any case, the Flash specification is open, so you are free to write your own authoring tools for Linux. (Certainly there are third party tools on Windows.)

  78. it makes you go blind by Random_Goblin · · Score: 1
    "Certainly, I believe that images (lacking in lynx) are massively useful in portraying certain types of web content."

    Ah! I understand now. You're just upset there isn't enough Flash Pr0n.

  79. Best way to turn it off and on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is the best way to turn it off and on?

    Sometimes it is useful, though most of the time it
    is pollution and needs to be shut off.

    And what is the best way to shut shockwave off and on?

  80. Someone's got to say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Badgers? We don't NEED no stinking badgers!

  81. Useful flash sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  82. Shockwave player for Linux by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You want the Shockwave player for Linux? This is where the Slashdot Effect can actually help.

    Go to the Macromedia 'wish form' and tell them you want Shockwave Player for Linux! Development over there seems to be demand-driven, so fill out the form. If they get enough requests, they might just do it.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    1. Re:Shockwave player for Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those who don't feel like giving away a name/email address, x works as a name, and " @ . " (ie, space-at-space-dot-space) works as an email.

    2. Re:Shockwave player for Linux by Seehund · · Score: 1

      While you're at it, ask them to compile their Flash player for Linux on PowerPC. In addition to filling out their "wish form", you can add your name to this petition (there used to be one here as well...).

      --
      Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
    3. Re:Shockwave player for Linux by Cereal+Box · · Score: 1

      Sure, do that, but at the same time don't just pay lip service and get thousands of people to say "yeah, I'll buy that if you port it to Linux!" and then leave the developer high and dry when it comes time to drop some money.

    4. Re:Shockwave player for Linux by Cereal+Box · · Score: 1

      Sorry -- just noticed you were talking about the free player. Either way, the principle stands... don't petition for commercial software unless you're going to pay for it.

    5. Re:Shockwave player for Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I submited my request. I hope all the other /. people did too.

    6. Re:Shockwave player for Linux by kleinux · · Score: 1

      Filling out that wish form won't help. This is /. so even though they might get thousands of requests, they won't believe them when they see the referring browser is MSIE!

  83. I have a debian release of Flash 7.0.25.0 by Lobo_Louie · · Score: 0

    ... but Mozilla-Firefox forgets the installation each time I boot up (that's once a month for you windoze users). Any ideas what's wrong with it? I've installed from both root and user accounts. Thanks.

  84. It's only useful... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    to someone who only cares about the way the site looks and isn't a strong enough coder to use PHP to help themselves out.

    IE a graphic artist. Who has a windows or mac box already.

    I mean, WTF? Dreamweaver is the last media creation application I want someone to spend time porting to non-OSX Unix.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
    1. Re:It's only useful... by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's not extend the appeal of Linux to a group of people who had no previous reason to even look twice at it. That would be stupid.

      Oh, wait... no it wouldn't.

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  85. "pirating software" by orasio · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Again, you are wrong. Stealing is stealing, whether they are material things or not. On the other hand, copyright infringement is not theft, and thus cannot be compared to "pirating", which means robbing, killing, raping (that would be harsher than "stealing", and we are aware that this is not the case). Unauthorized copying/distributing/using would be a better way to describe it, now you imply that you are doing something you are not allowed to, but if you are harming someone, at least it is not a direct harm.

    1. Re:"pirating software" by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      Where the fuck did I mention copyright infringement (or you ment copying without permission, in that case, MY BAD)? That wasn't the case.

      Agree with better terms. English is my fourth language so, yes thase are terms I had in mind.

      p.s. So that's why most home Windows users preffer illegal M$Office instead of free OO.org? Because they don't directly harm anyone. I see your logic, yep, it prevails all other. This logic is so very dilbert.com

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    2. Re:"pirating software" by orasio · · Score: 1

      You said "pirating software", that is what I would say if I meant something in the line of attacking a ship, and killing the tripulation in order to get the software on the ship.

      Anyway, most people say "pirating software", when they mean "copying copyrighted software without authorization", which is best described as "copyright infringement". That means that you are infringing the copyright law, that says that you need to get authorization from an author to reproduce his written works (or something like that).
      He could sue you, but in most countries ou wouldn't go to jail, and in many real cases, your "unauthorized copying" does not harm the author. On the other hand, if he had a ship, and you, by force, took control of it, in order to get the stuff it was carrying, the owner would probably be harmed, and you could probably be jailed (or institutionalized), and that would constitute "piracy".

  86. Re:Now You Can Look At My Site! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There seems to be something wrong with your site. WWW clients appear to need a "plug in" to present your information. Please delete your site from the Internet until you can comply to existing standards. Maybe you could publish it on an internal network, where you can choose what type of clients and systems that are connected and control what software is installed on these systems?

  87. First site(s) to visit? by SirPrize · · Score: 2

    So now that we finally DO get all the fun, what were the first few sites you went to to actually experience our newly acquired proper flash abilities on Linux? First two sites that I hit were Ninjai and The Rasterbator.

    1. Re:First site(s) to visit? by mrbarkeeper · · Score: 1
      Well, I was just about to post "D00d! Check out All-your-base-are-belong-to-us!" :-)

      But the Litte Ninjai is nice, as is Broken Saints and even Homestar Runner (which you probably already know).

      If you are more into design oriented websites (like me), check out the news section on Kaliber 10000, Linkdup and many more.

      Regarding that All-your-base comment: Once you Linux people get proper video playback, I will show you a video of Steve Ballmer dancing like crazy. You won't believe it! :-))
      (Yes, this is meant as a joke.)

  88. an "open" specification by sammy+baby · · Score: 2, Informative

    Most likely they think they retain some type of advantage by restricting the most efficient version of the player. However, Macromedia's player isn't the only one available. Apple's Quicktime has had the ability to play back Flash since version 4.

    A snippet from the press release: "Because the Flash format is vector-based, Flash content is bandwidth efficient and scales automatically to display as designed in any Web browser. The Flash file format (.swf) is an open standard: any software vendor can output Flash files by writing to the specification published on Macromedia's Web site at www.flash.com/open."

    (note - if you want the spec, you should really be here instead. But again, when you download it, you agree not to transmit the spec to anyone else, and there's a rule in the license which basically amounts to "the player you design should actually work before you release it.")

  89. Re: Point 7 by justsomebody · · Score: 1

    Nope, not contradicting.

    Maybe I just put it wrong. I always buy software just as music. Problem is only that people (in their minds) consider stealing a needle more problematic than to make illegal copy of some software.

    --
    Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
  90. FLASH SUCKS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Help STOP Web POLLUTION! Delete the plugin!

  91. I'm still having problems too... by Paul+d'Aoust · · Score: 1

    I don't get any jerks, but I still get the out-of-sync problem I used to. (The true test of a new installation libflashplayer.so is, of course, to direct your web browser to Homestar Runner ^_^) And here's a bizarre twist: my old libflashplayer.so (version 6) one day just stopped having the latency problems altogether... and now they're back. Call me crazy, and maybe I'm imagining things, but I'm pretty sure that's what happened!

    --
    Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
  92. What about Shockwave for Mozilla? by RoloDMonkey · · Score: 1

    One of the biggest drawbacks of Mozilla / Firebird is that I can't see Shockwave. I have tried installing the Netscape plugin several times, and it hasn't worked. This is a problem because I am much more familiar with development in Director Lingo, rather than Flash ASP. Does anyone else have this problem?

    --
    Long live the Speaker Bracelet
    Rolo D. Monkey
  93. Illustrator by bsd4me · · Score: 1

    Do you know if Illustrator works well under Wine? I would bet that most Flash developers care more about Illustrator support that Photoshop support.

    --

    (S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))

  94. I am very happy by tSade · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One of my major problems with the flash 6 for linux was how it handled the fade ins and outs that you find in a lot of things on newgrounds. It took 5 to 10 times longer to actually do it compared to the Windows version. Some games also had a problem with the same timing. For a long time, I used crossover office just for the flash plugin but I got frustrated with it crashed constantly and having to reload or cleanup just to download a new flash. Thankfully, the new version actually does a fade in and out properly and one of my favorite music videos in flash, There she is! is almost perfect on my box.

    --
    --- My novel, The Mummy's Girl is now for sa
    1. Re:I am very happy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at first,im like WTF?!?!then it get really sad when she when in luv w/ him,but then at the end,unholy luv is every where...

  95. Re: Point 7 by Ulven · · Score: 1

    It comes back to the point that by stealing the needle, you are depriving someone else the legitimate use of that needle. If, however, I could make a copy of that needle, the bar to doing the wrong thing drops dramatically.

  96. [offtop] Re:Read the EULA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We ended up paying for a virus scanner, but didn't end up buying it from them.
    Open source virus scanning. Works good.
  97. and flash 8 in for win in... by atheken · · Score: 1

    5......4.....3......2.....1..... Just in time to make 7 obsolete.

  98. SuSE 9.1 howto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    extract the file noted in this article, tell the installer your mozilla path is "/opt/mozilla/lib", then install. Subsequently, "cp /opt/mozilla/lib/plugins/*flash*so /usr/lib/browser-plugins". This second step will allow flash to work in Konqueror & Firefox.

    guitfit

  99. bitch bitch whine whine by phorm · · Score: 1

    Flash has a nice little niche for silly animations and games

    Maybe because I happen to *like* playing some of those "silly games" or those "silly animations" which are often quite decent little animated movies or even quality cartoons

    Do I see you not using email because a bunch of idiots use it to send viagara spam? No...? didn't think so.

    Blame those that misuse the tool to create crap, not those that make it, and certainly not those that use it to view content.

  100. it worked in Fedora Core 1 (x86_64) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    My first experience with 64 bit linux was with Fedora Core 1 on an Athlon 64. I wanted to look at a web site with flash. So, I just grabbed the i386 flashplayer and installed it. (you have to either install by hand or slightly hack the install script)


    Anyhow, it just worked -- video, at least. FC1 had not correctly configured the soundcard so I didn't test the sound in flash.


    After upgrading to FC2 it no longer works. Flash isn't improtant enough to me to spend the time figuring out why, but maybe it's just a matter of figuring out how/where to install?

    1. Re:it worked in Fedora Core 1 (x86_64) by cobar · · Score: 1

      Fedora Core 1 (x86_64) shipped with a 32-bit version of Mozilla presumably because Mozilla wouldn't build for x86_64 at the time (there were patches but not in the official release). In Core 2, it's now 64-bit, so the same plugin no longer works.

  101. A/V sync still broken by bperkins · · Score: 1

    Tried the new plugin on FC2 using firefox, and RH9 under mozilla 1.6 and it still seems broken to me.

    The flash plugin under crossover plugin works fine, but the A/V sync in the new plugin is still messed up.

    E.g.
    http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail104.h tml

  102. Does it have an off switch yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's all I ask.

  103. apt-get already installed it for me last night by sloanster · · Score: 1

    I woke up this morning and discovered I had the flash v7 web plugin on my fedora system, courtesy of the nightly apt-get cron job - coolness, it seems to be working fine.

    1. Re:apt-get already installed it for me last night by kevin7kal · · Score: 1

      I mean this in a non-flaim way, but apt-get through a cron job is a great way for you to wake up and find your system broken. You really should only run that manually and be aware of what packages are being installed. This is just a tip, use it the way you wish.

    2. Re:apt-get already installed it for me last night by sloanster · · Score: 1

      I mean this in a non-flaim way, but apt-get through a cron job is a great way for you to wake up and find your system broken. You really should only run that manually and be aware of what packages are being installed. This is just a tip, use it the way you wish.

      I guess it's all the the sources you point to - if you're pointing to flaky repositories, expect suprises now and then. But to suggest that the principle of automated updates is flawed, seems a bit over the top - OTOH, I suppose there's risk in anything, even leaving your house in the morning.

    3. Re:apt-get already installed it for me last night by kevin7kal · · Score: 1

      I don't believe I said the principle of automatic updates is flawed. I, infact, think that it would bring a Eutopian sense of being for SysAdmins everywhere.

      No sane or seasoned sysadmin anywhere will run automatic updates and expect to find working systems 100% of the time. The matter is fact, package maintainers make mistakes, and systems are never without flaws.

  104. Making the case for Studio on Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A sizeable number of the developers at Macromedia are running Macs. The developers want to move Studio (Dreamweaver, Flash and Fireworks) to Linux.

    The problem is with the suits. They're looking for proof that the sales will justify the expense.

    To be fair they've let the developers optimize Studio for Wine. If people want Studio on Linux then they need to hear from you. The wish list page on Macromedia.com is the place to voice your feelings.

    The only thing preventing my company from going 100% Linux is the Studio port. It can be speeded up if the suits become convinced that it will pay.

  105. Hope this version is better... by NeoGeo64 · · Score: 1

    Because the two past Flash players for Linux have been horribly laggy with both video and sound, as well as poor image quality. Is this version as fast as the Windows/Mac version?

  106. I have stopped using flash a year ago by guacamole · · Score: 1

    .. because of all the ads that use it. It seems like a highly effective way for blocking ads.

    1. Re:I have stopped using flash a year ago by kevin7kal · · Score: 1

      Mozilla firefox with the ad-block plugin is a great way to stop adds too.

  107. Re:Please can we GNU/Linux on PPC peeps have one t by joeljkp · · Score: 1

    Yes

    --
    WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
  108. Re:Oracle is a great server but has poor client to by 0racle · · Score: 1

    I think you'll find that Oracle doesn't care that the Admin tools don't look the same as Mozilla or don't use the GTK, and it doesn't hurt usability just because they don't look as pretty as your desktop. Java was chosen for one reason, because it made the tools look and act exactly the same no matter what OS you decided to run. That makes them far more usable then having them look one way on Windows, another on Linux and a completely different way on Solaris.

    If you don't like it don't use them, there's a whole host of tools for interacting with the Oracle Server.

    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
  109. Should read "Flash 7 for Linux x86" by handmedowns · · Score: 1

    Macromedia, you proprietary whore. I hope an opensource alternative overtakes the market and burry's you deep. You've got a petition that has brought to your attention numerous times requesting flash on ppc and probably numerous other architectures..

    952 signatures isn't enough.. ? go to hell..


    --
    The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
    1. Re:Should read "Flash 7 for Linux x86" by joeljkp · · Score: 1

      "I hope an opensource alternative overtakes the market and burry's you deep."

      If you'd like that to come true, you might think about donating (money or time) to this guy.

      --
      WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
  110. Re:Now You Can Look At My Site! by dnahelix · · Score: 1

    Awwwww, now I feel bad...

    I guess I'll have to go spend some of the gobs of money I'm making programming Flash to make myself feel better!

    --
    Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
    They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
    I Hate \.
  111. flashblock is wonderful! by Cnik70 · · Score: 1

    http://flashblock.mozdev.org/installation.html

    --
    -Cnik
  112. Re:Now You Can Look At My Site! by dnahelix · · Score: 1

    I'll get right on that...

    --
    Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
    They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
    I Hate \.
  113. Linux Users! Check it out! by dnahelix · · Score: 1
    --
    Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
    They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
    I Hate \.
  114. Flash sucks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah!, now I can get a those annoying ORBITZ popus on my Linux box as well!

  115. Flash 7 on Debian Linux Unstable by kevin7kal · · Score: 1

    Just thought that I would note that Flash 7 on Debian Linux Unstable installed easily(untar, drop 2 files in /usr/lib/mozilla-firefox/plugins/ and start the browser.

    This is the first time that a flash plugin has actually worked for me under Debian/Mozilla-anyflavor/Gnome Desktop(not that the desktop matters)

  116. Re: Point 7 by justsomebody · · Score: 1

    I sincerelly hope you don't write software with this attitude (at least not commercial, I do both GPL (out of love) and commercial (for my daily bread)). Believe me there's no difference, when your work is at question.

    --
    Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
  117. I hate Flash to bits by The+MESMERIC · · Score: 0

    I am all for non-Flash alternatives in sites
    .. but no - Flash sites even have their "navigational" links are in Flash! How stupid is that?

    All you need is this:

    <OBJECT classid="..." codebase="...">

    <PARAM NAME=movie VALUE="flashfile.swf">
    <PARAM NAME=quality VALUE=best>
    <PARAM NAME=..etc VALUE=..etc>
    <EMBED src= "..."></EMBED>

    <!-- Now add the alternative HTML!! or GIF or TEXT! -->

    </OBJECT>

    But recently the most frustrating part is that a client wanted me to redo his site in 100% Flash.
    Also I was asked by another client to write an application in 100% Flash ActionScript!

    I couldn't protest, I needed the money :(

  118. why flash is good and flash's expansion is bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the problem with flash isn't that it's great for frivolous internet games and cartoons. the problem is that developers don't, and will never, realize or acknowledge what flash -isn't-. more and more sites rely solely on flash to deliver their content, and the more widespread flash's use becomes, the more this will continue to happen. if flash was indeed a superior content delivery mechanism, i would support this trend wholeheartedly, but i fear this is not the case. the proprietary nature of flash prevents it from being a safe replacement for non-proprietary systems, and this alone is not a concern that will turn developers away from using it. if there is demand, supply will meet it.

  119. Re: Point 7 by Ulven · · Score: 1
    I said the bar is lowered, not that I cross it.

    I try not to, but sometimes fail.

    Looking at my computer right now, I have 11 programs running. 3 are OS, 3 are freeware, 3 I paid for, and 2 I 'acquired'.

    If I need/want a program and can afford it, I'll buy it. If I can't afford it, I'll try and find an alternative that's free. If I can't do that, then I'll acquire it. Having got this far, I have already decided I can't buy it, so I'm not depriving them of a sale.

    That, to me, is the justification I need to do it with a moderately clean conscience.

    It's wrong, I know, but there is a big difference in my mind between losing something physical and losing something intangible. If I coded for a living, no doubt but I'd have your attitude.

  120. I'll buy it by retendo · · Score: 1

    I'm a Java architect and manager for a small multimedia company. For 95% of the work I do Linux is by far the best tool for the job. The only thing I'm missing is Flash. Now that I have the player that helps but if I could get the authoring tools that would be even better. I don't want to invest in a Windows license because that is not the best tool for my job.

    Heck, I'll pay straight out of my own pocket for this.

    User's of open source software don't buy software? Maybe. I write software. I don't mind paying for good software. And everyone at my company would rather buy Linux software then Windows software. So there!

    --
    Dan Glauser
    J2EE Architect
    Roundbox Media
    http://www.roundboxmedia.com

    1. Re:I'll buy it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .swf format is public. Go build an authoring tool yourself.

  121. Macromedia Flash 7 Player for Linux Download Link by fprog · · Score: 0

    Other platforms download link:
    http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/alter nates/

    Linux x86 Flash Player 7 for Mozilla 1.2
    http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index .cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash&P2_Platform=Li nux&P3_Browser_Version=Netscape4



    Older version not supported by MacroMedia

    Linux x86 (1) (2) Flash Player 6 for Mozilla 1.1
    http://macromedia.mplug.org/

    (1) Not officially supported by Macromedia.

    (2) These Linux packages (RPM, DEB, ebuild) are available for manual download, apt-get, urpmi, or emerge for these supported operating systems: RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE, Conectiva, Debian, Gentoo, Generic.



    Server Slashdotting starts in 3...2...1... =]


  122. Ooops, I missed the P.S. by orasio · · Score: 1

    They use MS office, because everybody has it, and they use closed formats, and interoperability is crap with other applications, but OO1.1 does a great job at writing, and a decent job at reading MS.DOC (much better than OO1.0), which is the most problematic.

    1. Re:Ooops, I missed the P.S. by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      That's the *EXCUSE*????

      Face it, start writing software for life and then repeat these words.

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    2. Re:Ooops, I missed the P.S. by orasio · · Score: 1

      That is not just the *EXCUSE*, that's the _reason_!!
      I know better and I refrain from running proprietary software other than games on the PS2, but most people believe MS Office is something they can't live without, and they can't pay. Anyway, the whole point of my original post was to remark that it is bad calling "copyright infringement", "pirating".

      By the way, I write free (custom) software for a living (well, sometimes I just get paid for Slashdotting), but repeating those words would be redundant ;-).

  123. Re: Point 7 by justsomebody · · Score: 1

    Personally, either free, bought or none.

    moderately clean conscience

    Don't you think, that moderation bar goes higher with time. (take as population) Copying software is just becoming normal daily thing that no one cares about.

    The only problem with humanity is that moderation is view in selfish view only. When persons job is at stake... Heeeeeeell NOOOO!

    My attitude is just clean. Either it's free or commercial. Mine or others.

    --
    Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
  124. the joys of lynx by doom · · Score: 1
    mulesex wrote:
    I presume of course you only use lynx to browse?
    Occasionally, but not exclusively. My browsing needs are met by a number of applications and programming libraries depending on what is needed. There is no best browser. Certainly, I believe that images (lacking in lynx) are massively useful in portraying certain types of web content.
    It is, of course, unlikely to impress the flash-weenies, but all of the anti-flash rants I posted last night were done in lynx. Lynx is fine for a lot of stuff... I've got a small "xlynx" script that spins off a URL into a lynx in a new terminal window, which can be useful for looking at a URL I come across in emacs (MH-E, gnus) without using w3.el (which I generally only use when composing html that I want to keep pre-viewing).

    I've also got a "slash" alias, that opens up a terminal window with slashdot in lynx. I've got my slashdot preferences set for light/minimal whatever they call it, which cuts down on some of the fugliness that might be (even more) irritating in lynx.

    But the main reason I started rambling about this, is that I thought I'd mention that lynx and image browsing are not mutally exclusive. I think the key is adding a

    verbose_images=on
    to your .lynxrc, and maybe you'll need to tweak your systems lynx.cfg file so you've got an image viewer defined:
    XLOADIMAGE_COMMAND:xv %s
    (I think what I do is leave it defined as xv, and use an alias to have calls to xv run whatever I feel like using, e.g. ee.)

    Anyway... Once you're configured like this you always have the *option* of looking at an image. You select it the way you would select any link, and it opens it in an external image viewer.

    Selecting the right image can take a little practice, however (many sites are a forest of stupid little images of bullets and bars, and they *still* like to be skimpy on the ALT text).

    As with many other tools, the virtues of lynx are intimately bound up in it's limitations. Looking at a site that insists on subdividing your screen into little boxes? Lynx will tend to linearize those, you'll see one thing after another. Does the site tend to inflict itty bitty fonts on you? In mozilla you may have to keep hitting Control plus and minus to adjust font size after every click, but in lynx, all text is displayed in the same uniform way that you've choosen. Is the site completely incomprehensible when viewed without all the graphical doodads? Well you know, maybe that means it's not worth looking at anyway...

    And of course, lynx will *never* bug you to install a flash plug-in...

  125. Sounds like a troll to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but if everyone on Slashdot agrees with a troll, is it really a troll? :-)

  126. Shockwave Player by Dwonis · · Score: 1
    (Disclaimer: This post is based on knowledge I obtained working with Macromedia Director 6 -- about 5 years ago. My memories might be somewhat distorted.)

    The problem with Shockwave is that it was never intended to be cross-platform. Shockwave (or at least, Macromedia Director) seems to make extensive calls to the Windows API to do a lot of the things it does (playing AVI movies comes to mind).

    If you want Shockwave support for Linux/x86, you can use the Crossover plugin (now integrated with Crossover Office), which is made by CodeWeavers.

  127. Thanks a lot! by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 1

    Looks like Macromedia has finally made good on their word and provided Linux with a current version of Flash player.

    Damn you Macromedia!

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."