Flash 9 Beta for Linux Available

DemiKnute writes "According to the official Penguin.SWF blog, the a beta release of the long-awaited Flash 9 for Linux is available for download, a mere year after the release for Windows." From the blog: "While we are still working out exactly how to distribute the final Player version to be as easy as possible for the typical end user, this beta includes 2 gzip'd tarball packages: one is for the Mozilla plugin and the other is for a GTK-based Standalone Flash Player. Either will need to be downloaded manually via the Adobe Labs website and unpacked. The standalone Player (gflashplayer) can be run in place (after you set its executable permission). The plugin is dropped into your local plugin directory (for a local user) or the system-wide plugin directory." Report bugs here.

Comments

AMD64 version?

[andersa]

Will there be a 64 bit version for us AMD64 users?

I can't play flash animations on my Turion laptop with Debian AMD64 installed.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Bert64]

Which is a huge nuisance, why should adobe be able to hold people back from moving to 64bit architectures?

Re:AMD64 version?

[tomstdenis]

They do what?

I run 64-bit OSes on both my AMD and Intel boxes. Flash be damned for all I care.

Tom

Re:AMD64 version?

[orzetto]

Why would running a web browser in 32bit mode have any negative effect on uptake of 64bit OSes?

Why, because all the other damn plugins and libraries are 64 bits? If I compile Firefox 32 bit, the Java plugins do not work with it. Then I need java down at 32 bits, which will require to get down to 32 bits everything else that depends on Java. The same way goes mplayerplugin (therefore mplayer and all related apps), and pretty much everything that a browser uses. All this goes down in a chain reaction of 32-bit ripples, and ends up with breaking some functionality at some point, just because some lazy ass at Adobe did not want to recompile a damn binary one more time with different flags. I mean, it's not a different OS, it's just a different processor.

Re:Why do we need this?

[endersshadow7]

I'm not a zealot by any means when it comes to free software. I just want to use Linux and I also want to watch stuff on YouTube or browse around Dane Cook's site or whatever. Flash isn't my favorite program in the world, but not all of us are "TEH OMGZZZ FLASH SUXORZ AND IT SHOULD DIE!111!!!1111!" Some people like to use their computers for more reasons than to simply make a statement or a point. On that note, done some limited testing and it works very well. Woohoo!

The first thing I did after installing this

[Rik Sweeney]

was checked that FlashBlock still worked.

I'm not joking. I was more concerned about that than the sound being in sync. Does anyone think I'm weird?

Re:Why do we need this?

[pandrijeczko]

People use Linux for various reasons, not just because they're part of an anti-Microsoft or anti-Closed Source crusade.

I myself use it because I'm comfortable with programming in a UNIX environment and prefer using Open Source tools in both Linux and Windows - but I don't feel "dirty" editing a Word document in MS Office - if anything, because I know Office well enough by now, I get the job done quicker to have more "playtime" in Linux!

However, with that said, I don't understand why an application that just allows you to view files (rather than create or edit them) ever needs to be closed source anyway - if you're a car manufacturer you won't make a car that is only confortable for people who are 5'6" tall to drive, you'll make it with adjustable seats so it caters to the widest possible audience possible. I don't understand why MS, Adobe and others are so protective of viewing their file formats anyway when you still have to go buy their applications to create or change those file formats.

Inaccurate.

[mad.frog]

Flash Player 9 for Windows was officially released on June 28, 2006.

4 months != 1 year