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

Frosty piss!

[Anonymous Coward]

To die, to sleep..

For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
when we have shuffled off this mortal coil to give us pause

Re:Frosty piss!

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Personally, the quote I would have used for this paticular story would be:

Fie on't! ah fie!
'tis an unweeded garden that grows to seed;
things rank and gross in nature possess it merely.

I foresee a multitude of Flash weeds clogging up the tubes of the internet in the near future.

Re:Frosty piss!

[Anonymous Coward]

Frosty sez:

To die, to sleep..

Fact: *BSD is dying

Re:Frosty piss!

[iapetus]

I doubt it. The sort of person who'll use the latest version of Flash indiscriminately almost certainly wouldn't have waited for a Linux version. All this means is that you now have the option of viewing the sites designed by such asshats.

Re:Frosty piss!

[angrykeyboarder]

Like YouTube, Google and the majority of sites with Video these days....

but does it run...

[Anonymous Coward]

on linux?

Re:but does it run...

[isorox]

I'm hoping Flashblock still works with it

Re:but does it run...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but GNASH might instead

http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/

At least it doesn't run on my Linux :-) had enough stupid ads jumping allover my screeen at work.

Re:but does it run...

[doom]

isorox wrote:

I'm hoping Flashblock still works with it

Good point. Is there a Flash plug-in that will automatically mail a tirade to the webmaster?

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

Adobe have said no in the past, just install a 32-bit web browser instead of your 64-bit one.
Yeah, it's a pain, but you only need to do it once.

Why not say something into adobe.com/go/wish ?

Re:AMD64 version?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think we'll see AMD256 before that comes out...

Re:AMD64 version?

[Octorian]

Which is exactly why some distros (well, my SuSE box at least) installed Firefox expicitly as a 32-bit binary, even if almost everything else on the machine is 64-bit.

(Now I just wish they did the same with the media players, for the Win32 codecs and such, as I was forced to compile my own to get that working)

Re:AMD64 version?

[Anssi55]

You could try nspluginwrapper.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can use nspluginwrapper. It seems to work with flash 9 also. You just need to get 0.9.90.3 from a mandriva x86_64 cooker mirror and alien -cv *.rpm, and follow instructions in:

http://www.gibix.net/dokuwiki/en:projects:nsplugin wrapper

0.9.90.1 that's available in the official site doesn't work with new firefoxes, so you really need to get 0.9.90.3 from mandriva.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have always run Flash fine on SUSE 64. Just use the i586 version of Firefox and install the thing manually,

Re:AMD64 version?

[pyr0phr34k]

The standalone player works fine on my system (AMD64 x2). Not tested the plugin yet.

Re:AMD64 version?

[mennucc1]

you should try Gwenole Beauchesne's nspluginwrapper . Linux.com says: The screenshot you see here shows the Adobe Flash plugin -- a 32-bit, i386-only download -- running happily inside a 64-bit AMD64 build of Firefox. Beauchesne lists Flash, Adobe Reader (formerly known as Acrobat Reader), DejaVu Libre, JPEG2000, Mplayerplug-in, and RealPlayer as working "reasonably well" at this time.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's a pain, but you only need to do it once.

And what costs Adobe to provide a 64bit version of the damn plugin?

I know where they can shove their 32-bit flash9.

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?

[Rik Sweeney]

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

Since it's a 32bit binary, won't installing it twice do the trick?

Re:AMD64 version?

[Anonymous Coward]

inciteful!? sarcastic, maybe funny how did this get inciteful?

Re:AMD64 version?

[CastrTroy]

Yes, but you also have to have a lot of other 32 bit libraries installed just for the browser to run. I think that one of them is glibc. I'm running mandrake 2007 rc1 (haven't downloaded final yet, but i've installed all the updates), and when I tried using 64-bit, even isntalling a 32-bit browser didn't work. Firefox would crash every time flash tried to start. So, we could either install only the 64 bit libraries, or install 64 and 32 bit libraries, and the 32 bit browser and hope it works. However, I'm still running full 32 bit linux on my AMD64. I tried 64 bit for a while, but I found that a lot of stuff still isn't stable enough for me on 64 bit. For one thing, the 3D desktop on Mandriva 2007 wouldn't work on my Radeon X550 when I had 64 bit. With 32 bit, no problems at all. I guess i'm going to have to wait until Mandriva 2008, when hopefully 64 bit linux will be ready. I also tried out other 64 bit distros (Fedora, Suse) and found that they weren't any better.

Re:AMD64 version?

[0racle]

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

And you're complaining about this? I wish i could find something like FlashBlock for Safari.

Re:AMD64 version?

[DuSTman31]

All joking aside, you can run 32 bit binaries in the 64 bit versions of a lot of distros.

Generally speaking, though, you'll need the 32-bit broswer in order to use the 32-bit plugin, though.

Re:AMD64 version?

[halivar]

inciteful!? sarcastic, maybe funny how did this get inciteful?

Well, you were incited, weren't you?

Re:AMD64 version?

[jascat]

Look into dchroot and setup a small 32bit chroot environment. On my AMD64 desktop running Ubuntu, I have Firefox, Adobe Acrobat, a 32bit JDK and Mplayer installed and it works like a champ. HOWTO here.

Re:AMD64 version?

[bcmm]

Well, yes. One is a standalone 32-bit executable, the other is a 32-bit library which is supposed to be loaded by a 64-bit binary. Your AMD64 can execute both 64-bit and 32-bit code, but 64-bit apps can't link 32-bit libraries.

It's all a bit of a mess, and the performance gains for 64-bit are not actually that great for many apps, which is why I run all 32-bit code on my EM64T-capable Intel Core 2.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Randall311]

The good news is that once Microsoft releases Windows Vista x64, you can expect Adobe to finally roll out 64-bit support for flash. I would put money on Flash 10 supporting AMD64 and EM64T.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Richard_at_work]

What benefit does a 64bit architecture have for web browsing? Why would running a web browser in 32bit mode have any negative effect on uptake of 64bit OSes?

Re:AMD64 version?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, stupid.

You have to install it 2^32 more times.

Re:AMD64 version?

[JFMulder]

Couldn't you compile a completely static version of Firefox that includes all the dependencies, including glibc itself, in the executable? That way you could have 32-bit Firefox on your machine without risking of complicating your setup. But then, I suppose all 3rd parties for Firefox do link against glic.... daoh!

Re:AMD64 version?

[mad.frog]

From Tinic Uro's blog:

http://www.kaourantin.net/2006/10/flash-player-9-f or-linux-beta-1.html

What about 64bit? There is no Windows 64bit or OS X 64bit version either right now. As I said before it is not a question of 'recompiling' the source code, there is lots of generic non platform specific work which needs to be finished first. We will ship a 64bit version for Windows, OS X Leopard and GNU/Linux. It will happen. When? ... When it is ready.

Re:AMD64 version?

[bug1]

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

It makes the distribution much more complex to have combinations of 32 and 64 bit applications and libraries.

I assume all the libraries of a 32 bit app on a 64 bit system would haveto be 32 bit as well, look at all the libraries effected...

# ldd /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin
libmozjs.so => /usr/lib/libmozjs.so (0x00002b566e625000)
libxpcom.so => /usr/lib/libxpcom.so (0x00002b566e7bb000)
libxpcom_core.so => not found
libplc4.so => /usr/lib/libplc4.so (0x00002b566e9a5000)
libnspr4.so => /usr/lib/libnspr4.so (0x00002b566eaaa000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x00002b566ebe6000)
libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 (0x00002b566ecfb000)
libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 (0x00002b566f124000)
libX11.so.6 => /usr/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x00002b566f2b9000)
libpng12.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpng12.so.0 (0x00002b566f4c2000)
libjpeg.so.62 => /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.62 (0x00002b566f5e5000)
libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0x00002b566f708000)
libsmime3.so => /usr/lib/libsmime3.so (0x00002b566f81e000)
libssl3.so => /usr/lib/libssl3.so (0x00002b566f948000)
libnss3.so => /usr/lib/libnss3.so (0x00002b566fa6e000)
libcairo.so.2 => /usr/lib/libcairo.so.2 (0x00002b566fbf0000)
libXinerama.so.1 => /usr/lib/libXinerama.so.1 (0x00002b566fd59000)
libXt.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXt.so.6 (0x00002b566fe5c000)
libXp.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXp.so.6 (0x00002b566ffbc000)
libXft.so.2 => /usr/lib/libXft.so.2 (0x00002b56700c4000)
libfontconfig.so.1 => /usr/lib/libfontconfig.so.1 (0x00002b56701d9000)
libxpcom_compat.so => /usr/lib/libxpcom_compat.so (0x00002b567030c000)
libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 (0x00002b567042e000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x00002b567062e000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x00002b56707b0000)
libplds4.so => /usr/lib/libplds4.so (0x00002b56709ec000)
libgdk_pixbuf-2

Re:AMD64 version?

[Anonymous Coward]

On my AMD64 machine, I have an i386 install of Debian in a chroot. Debian supports this really well - search for "dchroot". Inside that install, I can use any standard i386 Debian package, including multimedia stuff that only runs on i386 (e.g. Win32 codecs). It's very convenient.

Re:AMD64 version?

[goodcow]

Why should Adobe even care about making Flash for Linux in the first place for such a tiny portion of the web browser market? God, you people are whiners.

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:AMD64 version?

[oddfox]

For what it's worth it's very easy to get your assortment of 32-bit applications and libraries working in a Gentoo setup.

Mplayer-bin in portage, firefox-bin, decent HOWTO in the forums to install mplayerplug-in-bin. Opera works just fine too. :)

I understand there are plenty of reasons to prefer something like Mandriva, but for what it's worth when you find out how to work Gentoo the right way, it is for the most part much more flexible than something like Mandriva, Fedora and Suse. HTH.

Re:AMD64 version?

[CastrTroy]

My only problem with Gentoo is getting it installed. You call that the quick install? Even Mandrake 7 (released in 2001) was easier to install than that.

Re:AMD64 version?

[archen]

It's interesting because I went through severe withdrawls when I went 64 bit and couldn't get Flash to work. So much so that I went back to 32bit. Eventually I swapped back and got 32bit mplayer to work so I could play my older movies with the windows codec pack. I never got flash to work though, but as time went on I find more and more that I don't care. Some sites can't be navigated without it, but 95% of the time I can just hit the back button because they aren't important. One benefit is that google video allows me to download the movies because I don't have flash. Another benefit is that Firefox doesn't use anywhere near as much RAM and is far more stable without flash.

Good riddance.

Re:AMD64 version?

[oddfox]

Once you go through the installation process from a stage3 (Complete base system, you need to put X and KDE/GNOME/Flux, whatever, which depending on your system can take time, though that statement is a given with KDE) and put all the other goodies you intend to use, then you can make a stage4 tarball of your system so that just in case you ever did need to do a reinstall, you already have an image to use. The stage4 process is well documented in the forums and on gentoo-wiki. I admit though it's a pain in the ass that the graphical installer isn't done yet (The last time I tried to use it it actually wiped all my partitions out. Stay. Away. I'm not overly interested in filing a bug report either, I'll take blame for that), but if you have the ability to burn DVDs you could always install Sabayon. There's also Vidalinux (VLOS). Apparently Sabayon even has a CD version available now for those of us that can't burn DVDs. These systems give you a completely built Gentoo desktop, drastically reducing the amount of time you have to wait for a usable system.

Re:AMD64 version?

[jimicus]

I'd go a step further and ask what benefit a 64-bit OS has unless you have over 4GB RAM.

AFAICT, you use up more disk space, individual apps require more memory and the biggest benefit - that you can access >4GB without hacks like PAE - is irrelevant.

Re:AMD64 version?

[High Hat]

There are graphical installer cds available now. Just tick a few boxes in the installation box, prepare for a computer-free evening (maybe even go out in the Big Blue Room for a while!) and you're set...

Re:AMD64 version?

[tomstdenis]

I get the same thing with people telling me "oh click on this link it's funny" or whatever.

Truth be told, I bought my computer to do work. The fact that I can play games, movies, music and MythTV on it is just a bonus. Being able to *work* was the primary concern.

If people buy computers on the basis of whether it could run Flash or not they're probably the wrong people to own computers anyways.

Tom

Re:AMD64 version?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you get 64bit Java plugin???

Re:AMD64 version?

[CastrTroy]

How come the installation instructions don't point to those CDs? If you're trying to attract new users, presenting them with the documentation given is not a good idea. I understand putting it in a section for advanced users, but when I looked, I couldn't find an easier way to install. Please explain to me where the graphical install ISOs are on the Get Gentoo page. I tried the universal CD, it booted up like a Live CD, and I couldn't figure out how to start the installation.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a cost to porting flash to AMD64 cpus. At one point a Linux developer working on flash at Adobe explained that writing an amd64 backend for flash would involve writing an amd64 backend for the flash virtual machine.

Re:AMD64 version?

[High Hat]

For some reason, it's called the Gentoo LiveCD. But it is mentioned in the Handbook (which is basically an installation and configuration / administration guide): http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86 .xml?part=1&chap=2#doc_chap2.
As far as I understand the installer can be flaky at times, but for those cases there's the forums.

Here's a direct link that should set you up with one of those installer cd's (x86): http://bouncer.gentoo.org/?product=gentoo-2006.1-l ivecd&os=x86.

Happy Gentooing!

Re:AMD64 version?

[yestertech]

The primary answer only holds for and OS that is completely 64-bit with applications too. The extended registers allow a performance boost on the same hardware in the 5 to 15% range. That said, win64 is a curiosity and source of driver annoyance at this time.

Re:AMD64 version?

[ajs318]

Heh. Reminds me of the time I convinced someone that he could connect two 15V zener diodes in parallel to get 7.5V. I also convinced him that BY8424s {a ceramic-packaged diode with a PIV of several kV} were static-sensitive.

Re:AMD64 version?

[ajs318]

This isn't a troll, it's a genuine question: Is there any real reason to actually install Adobe Acrobat? I'm using gPDF {there's also a kPDF} and that seems to work fine for dislaying PDFs. And it's i-tal.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was incited too but still didn't work when I tried it. This sleazy guy must be hiding something!

Re:AMD64 version?

[jythie]

Because in any buisness other then web muck, having someone come up and say 'hey! I can increase your customer base by 5% via software alone!' is something companies pay quite a bit of attention to.

Re:AMD64 version?

[CastrTroy]

Oh, so to install it, I need the Live CD, and if I want the live CD, then I use the Universal CD. Sorry, but no thanks. I'll stick with a distro that uses good terminology. If getting it installed is that bad, I'd hate to see how hard it is to use it on a daily basis.

Re:AMD64 version?

[websitebroke]

Echoing another comment about Gentoo, I personally have found that Gentoo has the best AMD64 support of the distros that I've tried. (I've also tried Fedora Core 5 and Kubuntu all on the same machine) Best meaning that is has the greatest number of easily installed packages, it's WAY more stable, and there is definitely a noticeable performance gain. It really is snappier than FC5 or Kubuntu on the same exact machine. I was suprised at the difference.

The downside to Gentoo, of course, is that you aren't a qualified Linux tech, you're going to have the occasional problem. For example, I almost always break something when I compile a new kernel version. Then, I have to recompile with the fixes. The upgrade to Xorg 7 was a nightmare, which led to me trying out FC5 and Kubuntu. Getting frustrated with then next 2 distros led me to reinstall Gentoo. Fresh install did the trick. I'm sticking with Gentoo and I mostly love it, but it's only fair to acknowledge the irritations.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Rosonowski]

Well, I had been running ubuntu, and switched back to XP for youtube... Flash 9 for linux is happy news for me, now if I can just get my bluetooth wireless headphones working under XMMS...

Re:AMD64 version?

[njchick]

Correction: 32-bit mplayerplug-in works with 64-bit mplayer and vice versa.

But I agree, downgrading ("downwordsizing"?) of the browser because of one stupid plugin is a pain.

Re:AMD64 version?

[massysett]

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

Was it a gun, or a knife?

Re:AMD64 version?

[42forty-two42]

Probably because they don't have it ported internally yet. I've heard that their JIT is designed for the 32-bit instruction set, and it'd be a big job to port and debug that - and probably a low-priority job, as one can just use a 32-bit browser, no problem.

Re:AMD64 version?

[CommandNotFound]

For mortal users (most of us), the benefit is an instant CPU performance boost of around 20-30% at least on Athlon 64 units when using the 64-bit instruction set vs the 32-bit instruction set. I have a dual-core AMD64 now, but I'm running everything 32-bit as the performance is more than acceptable. However, in a couple of years I will upgrade everything to 64-bit once all these glitches are solved and I should get a free upgrade in speed.

This PCStats article has some benchmarks on the topic. Anandtech had some too, but I couldn't find them immediately.

Re:AMD64 version?

[massysett]

Yes, but you also have to have a lot of other 32 bit libraries installed just for the browser to run. I think that one of them is glibc.

My understanding is that there are libraries that emulate the 32-bit stuff, so you don't have to install all of it.

Ladislav Bodnar of DistroWatch was quite happy with 64-bit Mandriva and, like many, he noted a substantial speed boost. Try getting the latest Mandriva.

Re:AMD64 version?

[CastrTroy]

Yes, but running the browser in 32 bit emulation mode is pretty slow in my experience.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Anonymous Coward]

They say it's in the works:

http://weblogs.macromedia.com/emmy/archives/2006/1 0/beta_refresh_on.cfm

Re:AMD64 version?

[Rich0]

Maybe here among other places.

Most JRE/JDK packages include a netscape plugin. Java has been available 64-bit since the dawn of amd64, but it is debatable how read it is for prime time in general (I'm sure things have improved since the last time I bothered installing it).

Re:AMD64 version?

[rsidd]

I assume all the libraries of a 32 bit app on a 64 bit system would haveto be 32 bit as well, look at all the libraries effected...

You install it under a chroot. You can find instructions for debian/ubuntu on the net. On my ubuntu dapper AMD64 box the chroot takes about 0.6 GB. If you have a 64-bit machine you can probably set aside that much disk space. I have firefox, acroread, opera, realplay, totem installed there (plus the required libraries). It works fine.

Re:AMD64 version?

[metamatic]

Couldn't you compile a completely static version of Firefox that includes all the dependencies, including glibc itself, in the executable?

Maybe, but you couldn't call it Firefox.

Re:AMD64 version?

[doom]

Some sites can't be navigated without it, but 95% of the time I can just hit the back button because they aren't important.

As a (non-technical) friend commented to me recently: "Flash sites seem so unprofessional."

Re:AMD64 version?

[RandUser]

How the hell is Adobe holding anyone back? No one _has_ to use any of their products. I think you meant to say "Which is a huge nuisance, but if Adobe wishes to alienate a growing market, that's their problem and not mine."

Re:AMD64 version?

[High Hat]

Okay, so I take it you're not that interested in Gentoo anyway.

Fine, more Gentoo for me! ^^

Actually, you'll have to use the LiveCD if you want a LiveCD. The Handbook makes it clear which to use as an installer, so I wouldn't be too harsh about the terminology.

Personally, I find Gentoo is really easily maintained and seldomly breaks, even when switching from gcc 3.x.y to 4.x.y or doing glibc updates. Of course, you'll have to fiddle with text file configurations. For me this is the fastest option. If this is not yours, well, use Ubuntu or something similiar, nobody forces you to use Gentoo.

But don't dismiss it because you can't figure out how stuff works as easily as on Windows. Learning curve != ease of use.

Re:AMD64 version?

[HUADPE]

You can be happy. I just installed flash 9 on my ubuntu box and all the audio problems that had plagued it earlier are gone. It's worth noting that I had tweaked the audio to get it from "none whatsoever" to "there, but mis-synched," so ymmv.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Anonymous Coward]

even chrooted, you still need the 32 bit libs. obviously. Under a chroot jail, you just put the libs somewhere where they cannot be shared with other apps.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Omnifarious]

You do not understand the nature of proprietary development. I think Flash player has a number of major issues internally that make me reluctant to use it for anything. It seems to eat CPU at a low level constantly even when no Flash animations are showing. I don't trust that thing farther than I can throw it.

I'm betting that the code is a huge rats nest with numerous and obscure places where assumptions were made about the sizes of various types that prevent the code from being ported to 64-bit.

That's the only conclusion I can come to after their failure to do this even though 64-bit CPUs have been out for almost 2 years now.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Omnifarious]

The major benefit is the fact that the 64-bit architecture has many extra registers that the 32-bit architecture doesn't have. This makes code written for the 64-bit architecture much faster than code written for the 32-bit architecture even if the code does all 32-bit math.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Curtman]

64-bit CPUs have been out for almost 2 years now

2 years?

1991: MIPS Technologies produced the first 64-bit microprocessor, as the third revision of their MIPS RISC architecture, the R4000. The CPU was used in SGI graphics workstations starting with the IRIS Crimson. However, 64-bit support for the R4000 was not included in the IRIX operating system until IRIX 6.2, released in 1996.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd go a step further and ask what benefit a 64-bit OS has unless you have over 4GB RAM.

- You mean 2GB, not 4GB: operating systems tend to give applications only part of the 4GB address space, and reserve the rest for the kernel.

- AMD64 has a lot more bigger registers (or rather, x86 has only a few oddly-sized ones), which helps performance even for programs that don't need much memory.

- If you're dealing with big files (like, say, a DVD image), it's convenient to be able to mmap it, which a 64-bit space allows you to do.

- For programs written in languages that don't have bignums (like C), this lets you use bigger numbers without overflow.

- If you're a developer, portability is a good attribute of a program. If you have two architectures, it's easy to test for portability. If you have a 64-bit machine you can run 32-bit apps on (at full speed), this is an easy way to accomplish this -- especially if they have different word sizes.

Re:AMD64 version?

[jericho4.0]

Sun (Sparc) was 64-bit before Java was released, so I imagine the Java codebase has always been 64-bit safe.

Re:AMD64 version?

[jimicus]

Well, seeing as almost nobody writes in assembler for a specific processor any more, perhaps it would be more accurate to phrase that as "it is possible to do substantially more optimisation at the compiler stage".

This may be the case, and I'm quite happy to concede it, but would still point out that for most real world applications the CPU is not the bottleneck. And for those where it is, it is unlikely you really need a flash player on there ;)

Re:AMD64 version?

[WilliamSChips]

Because xpdf and gpdf don't work with PDF hyperlinks, something that Adobe seems to have just invented. This was really annoying when I had a PDF version of my textbook with this problem(although it was alleviated when I found the PDFs that actually contained the text to the chapter)

Re:AMD64 version?

[ultranova]

I'd go a step further and ask what benefit a 64-bit OS has unless you have over 4GB RAM.

1. You can memory map more than 4GB files into the memory simultaneously.
2. A single application can use more than 4GB of memory through swap space.
3. Eliminates highmem. Just split the virtual memory space in half between the kernel and application instead of worrying about what to make the split.

AFAICT, you use up more disk space, individual apps require more memory and the biggest benefit - that you can access >4GB without hacks like PAE - is irrelevant.

The biggest benefit of 64-bit processor is increased virtual address space.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can always have two browsers installed, slightly inconvenient I suppose but I'd rather have flash in a seperate browser anyway since so many sites abuse it.

Re:AMD64 version?

[fimbulvetr]

There are more general purpose registers, which are used whether the app is optimized for them or not. They're there, they make things faster, they're used. From a usuability view, they're like cache. Sure, it can work with a little, but having more only helps.

There are plenty of things that are still cpu bound. Math applications (SSH? OpenSSL? Encrypted partitions), Video apps (encoding, ripping), etc.

Someone was lying to you when they said AMD64 is only beneficial when you're using 4GB+ of RAM. This is fud.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Shawn is an Asshole]

Flash 8 and 9 have been usable on Linux for a while, though not in an ideal setup. The Windows version of Firefox and Flash work under Wine.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Rosonowski]

i am aware of this and had such running... it was too slow.

Re:AMD64 version?

[jZnat]

I think that KPDF works with hyperlinks. You should at least check it out to see.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Shawn is an Asshole]

You shouldn't have to go though something like that. When I was using Fedora x86_64 I could choose the architecture of the apps. Most of everything was 64 bit, except for Firefox, Flash, mplayer (I need w32codecs) and the dependencies. It worked fine and didn't have to bother with having a

I'm now using 32bit Ubuntu since FC5 pissed me off for the last time and I didn't want to have to deal with chroots. I do miss the extra speed I was getting running 64 bit, though. Especially since I heavily use VMWare. When Edgy Eft is released I'm going to give it's mixed architecture support a try.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Shawn is an Asshole]

Unless there's some new type of link, they work in Envice. Both navigation links and links to websites. I have those in some eBooks I've bought, along PDFs I've got from some online classes I had.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Bert64]

Hmm, YouTube works perfectly well for me, running flashplayer 7.0r63 on linux (32bit thinkpad).

Re:AMD64 version?

[Bert64]

Not only do you need a set of 32bit libraries on disk, but when you run the apps you need to load them into memory too...
So, you have a full set of 64bit libs *AND* a full set of 32bit libs loaded, 64bit architectures don't address larger amounts of memory just so you can waste it like this!

Plus, with more complex things coming out all the time (which would have been much faster, had microsoft not stifled innovation on the web for the last 6 or so years) like video in the browser, and very complex ajax apps... The extra performance from the 64bit registers could come in very handy...
Not to mention the extra memory addressing if people make really heavy use of tabs to load lots of complex ajax apps!

Re:AMD64 version?

[Bert64]

There was also a flash plugin for IRIX and Solaris in those days, but that too was 32bit...
The difference here, is that sparc/mips are not so braindead as x86, and so actually run most things faster in 32bit mode (tho obviously with memory addressing limitations)... They can still perform 64bit calculations in a single cycle too, just don't deal with 64bit memory addressing. With pointers being half the size, memory is saved and more variables can be shoved around at once, only calculations which need to be 64bit are...
AMD64 actually adds a lot more to x86 than sparc64 does to sparc.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Bert64]

Before it's death, the Alpha had a java implementation too, i believe it got canned at revision 1.3.1, but it was obviously 64bit clean and for the reason you state... UltraSparc was always a target platform for java.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Bert64]

Over 1gig of ram you get a performance hit (using highmem) and over 4gig that hit becomes worse (PAE), have a read of:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/2450
Also if you have enough swap to go over that tipping point, there will be a performance hit, albeit negligible since swap is slow enough already.
Plus the extra registers that were added to AMD64 can often improve performance significantly.

I must also say, that it is mostly thanks to the Alpha that such a large amount of open source software compiled cleanly right from the start on AMD64. Alpha was the first architecture that was pure 64bit, without any kind of 32bit mode, so people couldnt easily just run their apps in 32bit mode and leave them broken.

Re:AMD64 version?

[strikethree]

I'd go a step further and ask what benefit a 64-bit OS has unless you have over 4GB RAM.

x86 chips are register-starved. When run in 32 bit mode, the 64 bit chips are running in register starvation mode. When they are running in 64 bit mode, they have many more registers available to them. More registers == more speed*

*applies only when register-starvation is a factor

strike

Re:AMD64 version?

[ComputerizedYoga]

depends on the video. I've met limited success with that ... some youtube videos are flash-7 compatible, some are flash-8. I don't know if there are any that are only 9-compatible yet (but I'm pretty sure flexbuilder apps and such fall in that category, and flex is neat).

Anyway, your mileage in flash player 7 depends a lot on running into compatible videos.

For me, this is very welcome news.

Re:AMD64 version?

[petermgreen]

the ability to have more stuff mapped in one process makes things a lot simpler for some types of app.

for example a web server that wants to mmap the files it is serving (generally regarded as faster than taking them through a buffer using read/write calls), wants to serve multiple large files from one process and doesn't wan't to mess arround with partial mappings will be feasible with a 64 bit os.

also i386 is a very register starved architecture, amd64 improves this considerablly speeding up at least some types of app.

Re:AMD64 version?

[bWareiWare.co.uk]

Wow, I had looked for exactly this and not found it. Thanks for the link.

As allways much easier to solve the problem yourself then to expect pestering a large company to get you any customer service.

Makesure you get 0.9.90.3 for new versions of Firefox, the one on the site dosn't work.

Re:AMD64 version?

[Omnifarious]

OK, two years of widespread availability of 8086/80186/80286/80386/... compatible 64-bit processors. :-)

Re:AMD64 version?

[Omnifarious]

Well, it doesn't matter if most real-world applications are CPU bound or not. Once you start using the 64-bit instructions, your calling conventions and the size of particular data types (like pointers) changes. So either you have to have two different versions of every single library in the system (which will take up twice as much memory when they're both loaded) or you have all your applications be 64-bit.

I'm not going to load up 32-bit versions of every library under the sun just so Flash player can work. That's ridiculous. It's a waste of memory (include precious CPU L1 and L2 cache space) and hard-drive space. And I'm not going to go back to running my OS in 32-bit mode at 50% of the performance just to run Flash Player either.

So, no, I don't think that it's required for performance reasons for Flash player to be 64-bit. But it's required for reasons of some reasonable level of compatibility. And it's not that hard to write code that's clean enough to be ported to a 64-bit platform with few or no modifications. Thousands of Open Source projects have done it, many much more complicated than Flash Player.

64 bit version?

[TigerPaw]

Is there any news if it supports AMD 64 architecture?
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer9/re leasenotes.html doesn't reveal anything. Please support 64 bit installations too :/

Video support

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally I can play xtube movies.

gentoo ebuilds

[kswtch]

here and here.

Re:gentoo ebuilds

[Anonymous Coward]

Already in portage, old chap...

Why do we need this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux users are always "blah blah blah open standards, FLASH uses bandwidth, it isn't an open standard, it's hyper TEXT markup, it's a security hole etc, etc." All anyone does it bitch about how sucky flash is, but then turn around and complain that they don't have it.

They'll refuse to use something on principal, but then say, "Well, you HAVE to use Flash since so many websites use it." Yeah, like when Firefox first came out and so many sites weren't compatable with it. And how you insist on annoying people by sending them opendoc files instead of MS Word files. C'mon - have some balls and refuse to use Flash.

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!

Re:Why do we need this?

[siovene]

Indeed I'm not using Flash on my browser.

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.

Re:Why do we need this?

[tolan-b]

A few Linux users refusing to use flash is going to make fk all difference to Adobe.
Flash is here to stay for now, it's too well entrenched.

And all the complaints about Flash mainly boil down to one thing, it's a standard but closed source, which leads to exactly the kind of thing people have had to put up with of not being able to use a lot of websites because they require 8 or above and Adobe hadn't released a player...

Re:Why do we need this?

[filet0fish]

Well people don't have to buy software from Adobe to create flash files. The SWF format is open and there are lots of applications that can create SWF files. OpenOffice has an export to flash option, php has the MING library for generating dynamic files, and there's lots of 3rd party programs, like swish, that are sort of "flash lite." Then if you start looking around on the osflash site (osflash.org, I think) you'll find lots more open source flash stuff including compilers, IDEs, and lots of debugging tools.

I think the main reason companies are protective of the file reader programs is that they want to maintain the integrity of the format. They don't want someone coming out with a buggy or insecure player that makes people hate the format. Of course when they put out a buggy player then there's not much point.

Re:Why do we need this?

[bogado]

I don't like most flash sites because :

1) One huge swf is the site. This is the worst design, not only I have to download the hole thing but it don't allow me to go back the usual way (back in the browser does not work). This also implies that I am not allowed to bookmark a part in the middle of the site or send it to a friend.

2) Sound without previous approval, sound should be always optional and user activate, no site should ever make a noise just by entering it. It is unexpected and many people don't like, not counting when you're in a environment that do allow noises like a library or in the work.

3) No selection, to read large texts I usually use the selection as a tool to mark where I am, text that cannot be selected is a text with a "do not read" tag for me. I agree that this is a more personal opinion, but not being able to select will not help in the "people should not copy my text" avenue. People who do want to copy your text will be able to do it, in the worst case scenario all you need to do is to use a OCR with a screenshot.

4) The abuse of moving things is not a good thing. Movement, only because you can is annoying and should be avoided. Off course that if you're showcasing your animation work people expect it to move. But even so the site can gain from movement just when the user selects something to watch.

None of those are problems with flash it self, some AJAX sites do fall in the same mistakes so you can see that this has nothing to do with the closed sourceness quality of the flash player.

Re:Why do we need this?

[jsebrech]

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

Remember that the player is what determines what you can produce with the flash authoring application. If adobe were to open source it they'd have to go through the community each time they wanted to add a feature to the player, without really getting anything of value (to them) in return. The way I see it is that from their perspective open-sourcing the player could only lose them money, not make them money.

The irony is that the entire flash development toolchain can be replaced by open source components now. There are even several capable open source flash IDE's. At work I still use a licensed copy of flash, but at home I use the open source tools. The only part that is still proprietary is the player.

Re:Why do we need this?

[doom]

tolan-b wrote:

A few Linux users refusing to use flash is going to make fk all difference to Adobe.

I think you're underestimating how annoying Real People find most Flash stuff. You need to actually do useability studies to find out if flashing up a site was a good idea, but for some reason everyone (still!) relies on the web designer's assurance that it's whizzy super keeno.

Myself, I think making your web browser act like a television was always an ill-conceived idea.

Flash is here to stay for now, it's too well entrenched.

Uh huh. When was the last time you saw a "Java" site?

Re:Why do we need this?

[tolan-b]

I've never seen a 'java site' if you mean a site running as an applet. I've seen some ill-conceived uses of applets, but applets never worked very well. Flash has been around for a long time and has remained popular.

Personally I virtually never come across all flash sites, except when I occasionally click through to the wrong place and end up at a site promoting a movie or a game.

My experience of the use of flash these days tends to revolve around it's use for either animated elements on a site, such as an welcome banner on a homepage, or as a generic movie player like on youtube, google video etc, which I think is a great way to deliver video, or for some online games, like those by Ferry Halim. I think these are all perfectly valid uses of the plugin and don't have any negative effect on usability.

My only complaint about Flash in and of itself (any technology can be abused) is that it's closed source, so we are at the mercy of Adobe.

Re:Why do we need this?

[doom]

My experience of the use of flash these days tends to revolve around it's use for either animated elements on a site, such as an welcome banner on a homepage, [...] I think these are all perfectly valid uses of the plugin and don't have any negative effect on usability. I rest my case. You don't think that flashing banners have a "negative effect"?

My only complaint about Flash in and of itself (any technology can be abused)

Some technologies lend themselves to abuse.

is that it's closed source, so we are at the mercy of Adobe.

And further, were Flash to become really popular, Adobe's control of the format could give them control of the web.

An Adobe dominated web is not in-principle any better than a Microsoft dominated one.

But here we're talking "long term benefit to civilization" vs. "oohh, lookit the funny pictures!". I wonder who'll win?

Re:Why do we need this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that the player is what determines what you can produce with the flash authoring application.

Right.

If adobe were to open source it they'd have to go through the community each time they wanted to add a feature to the player, without really getting anything of value (to them) in return.

No. Why? They just add it and release it, they wouldn't even have to open their player at all, open specs would be enough to help people like the ones writing Gnash and no, they wouldn't even have to write them, they already have them, just under a restrictive click-through contract that forbids making a player with it (check out their website, too lazy to look up the link). Actually, they once did release the specs under a more open license and abandoned it later (when they were still Macromedia).

The way I see it is that from their perspective open-sourcing the player could only lose them money, not make them money.

They'd make more money because their audience would be bigger. It doesn't even require a lot of effort except changing the license on the spec. However, you are right that they would probably make less money but for a different reason than you assume: Check out the player's license: It explicitly forbids the use in mobile devices (like mobile phones, there was a ruckus a while back whether those terms included laptops). My guess is that they want to sell players to the mobile phone manufacturers (considering that mobiles being all the rage at the moment, not surprising).

Re:Why do we need this?

[jsebrech]

No. Why? They just add it and release it, they wouldn't even have to open their player at all, open specs would be enough to help people like the ones writing Gnash

Having the specs is not an issue. These have already been reverse-engineered, and haxe already can output flash 9 movies, with the entire featureset. What's keeping gnash back is gnash, not any external force.

My guess is that they want to sell players to the mobile phone manufacturers (considering that mobiles being all the rage at the moment, not surprising).

Bingo. Like I said, they expect that open sourcing the player would lose them money, not make them money, and they're probably not wrong. If it made business sense, they'd open source it. You can debate the ethics of the thing, but you can't debate the reality. I don't actually disagree with you that they should open source the player though, I just don't think they will.

But like I said, there's nothing holding anyone back from building an open source player. The file format is fully known in the open source flash community. And flash 9 is a wonderful development platform, so there's all the more incentive for someone to step up to the plate.

right

[bytesex]

]] The plugin is dropped into your local plugin directory (for a local user) or the system-wide plugin directory.

Until you do a yum upgrade, or something like that. Because then you get a separate directory for each sub version of firefox with a different plugins directory underneath it, and you lose your plugin once again, until you symlink to the plugin from the new plugins directory. Yes, maintaining software on Linux is a breeze, sometimes.

Re:right

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been a while since I've tweaked and played, but can't you setup a user plugin directory in your .firefox (or whatever) folder, in your home directory?

Re:right

[dylan_-]

That's a bug with your distro: report it to them.

Re:right

[cortana]

You should punch your packagers if their Firefox packages don't always load plugins from /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins and ~/.mozilla/plugins.

Re:right

[BJH]

You should be able to put it into /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins and have every version pick it up from there.

Re:right

[bytesex]

]] You should punch your packagers if their Firefox packages don't always load plugins from /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins and ~/.mozilla/plugins.

Hm. I run FC4 (or 5, I forget), and I have /usr/lib/firefox-1.0.6, /usr/lib/firefox-1.0.7, /usr/lib/firefox-1.0.8 etc, and FC isn't exactly obscure. Plus; ~/.mozilla/plugins ? I have more users, not just one !

Re:right

[cortana]

Well I'm sorry to hear that you are not using Debian. ;)

As a workaround, try creating /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins and putting the library there. I bet your mozilla-based programs try that directory anyway.

Re:right

[smoker2]

So don't use yum for firefox.

I dropped FC4's version of FF a long time ago. It was always behind in releasing the latest version, and it f*cked up a lot.

Solution. Uninstall it using yum, then download the normal version from getfirefox.com . It already has the ability to check for updates, it's not dependent on any distro, and different users can run different versions.

Re:right

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh? Why should everyone have a legacy directory that includes only plugins? Everyone uses Firefox now, and the standard location for those is /usr/lib/firefox/plugins/. Frankly, I don't need or want /usr/lib/mozilla anything. I don't run Mozilla. I run Firefox. And none of my packages use the Mozilla plugin directory either.

Re:right

[cortana]

Then use /usr/lib/firefox/plugins. I believe Firefox(tm) searches both. /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins is useful as a standard location in which all Mozilla plugins can be installed. There are other Mozilla-based browsers than Firefox(tm).

Re:right

[tinkerghost]

I am running FC5 and it has a /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins that works just fine. When I change to FF2.0 I might have to use a different directory, but you expect that since it takes different plugins.

Re:right

[Trogre]

I don't run Mozilla. I run Firefox.

You run Mozilla Firefox.

Whatever

[siovene]

Flash is evil anyway.

Good news!

[bioglaze]

Even being beta version, Flash 9 for GNU/Linux works very well when compared to previous player.

Some flash movies that hogged Firefox UI with old player work flawlessy now. Audio is now in sync with video.

While not perfect, this release makes me wonder when the free software Gnash player reaches a usable state. Being a free software enthuasist, i generally don't like the idea of using a proprietary plugin, but being also pragmatic, i use it. I also think that the official Flash plugin could be faster and more bug-free, if the source code were available and under a GPL compatible licence.

That being said, i still think it's important that GNU/Linux users, especially Average Joe, have a lot less hassle with badly designed, flash-dependent websites.

Re:Good news!

[sarathmenon]

While not perfect, this release makes me wonder when the free software Gnash player reaches a usable state. Being a free software enthuasist, i generally don't like the idea of using a proprietary plugin, but being also pragmatic, i use it. I also think that the official Flash plugin could be faster and more bug-free, if the source code were available and under a GPL compatible licence.

gnash is usable enough for me. Most ads works (sigh), and from what I've seen pretty much everything is rendered fine except for the flv videos. Now that ffmpeg and xine have full flv7 support, its only a matter of time before we can start to see gnash support youtube in its full glory. The best part is that it "works" on an x86_64.

Re:Good news!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't wanna flash to see ads. If so, I'd turn it off.

Re:Good news!

[david@ecsd.com]

Some flash movies that hogged Firefox UI with old player work flawlessy now. Audio is now in sync with video.

What are you running on, I'm on kubuntu, and when I go to a site such as youtube, audio is still out of sync (unlike running the flash player under crossover which runs flawlessly...)

David

Re:Good news!

[ajs318]

I'm seriously considering making a cash donation to the GNASH project, if it will help hurry them along.

Flash is a pain. It's closed-source, therefore you're stuck with what Adobe will give you. {Nonetheless, I keep e-mailing and asking them for the source code anyway; just on the basis that sooner or later, some underling might cock up bigtime and unthinkingly hand it over.} It's also risky because, without reading the source code, there's no way to know what the hell it's doing. For all you know it could be ..... well, it could be doing anything!

Most Linux distributions have 32-bit libraries in /lib and 64-bit libraries in /lib64. Debian {which starts out, quite reasonably IMHO, assuming all the software you're going to be running is Open Source} is designed as a pure 64-bit system, with just 64-bit libraries in /lib; /lib64 is just a symlink to /lib. It's possible to set up a chroot environment for running most 32-bit software {i.e., not the few programs that won't run at all in 64-bit mode} with just 32-bit libraries, so keeping the 64-bit system "pure". Ubuntu created a /lib32 for 32-bit libraries, to enable some 32-bit software to run without being confined to a chroot. This works with Ubuntu .debs and Ubuntu and Debian .dsc/.tar/.diff sets, but is prone to break if you install poor-quality pre-compiled software which stomps over /lib and /usr/lib.

If you are going to install closed-source software, for crying out loud don't install it system-wide (i.e. as root). In a chroot is probably best.

Re:Good news!

[bioglaze]

I'm motivated and willing to work on Gnash source code when i have enough free blocks of time from studying. I haven't familiarized myself with the code base yet, but i'm planning on to look at it soon.

Re:Good news!

[josath]

What about flv8? What about Flash 9, with it's completely rewritten from scratch virtual machine, and 10x performance increase? I have a feeling it will be a looong time before either of these see support in FOSS. But that's ok, most people who are hardline free software, are used to being a couple of years behind the latest technology, right?

I haven't tried flv in xine, but at least in mplayer+ffmpeg, it seems to have problems sometimes. About 40% of the FLV videos I play, sound and video get horribly out of sync. (This doesn't happen with any other video format for me). It's possible it's my fault, but I'm using precompiled packages, and a fairly standard config, so I dunno.

Re:Good news!

[sarathmenon]

What about flv8? What about Flash 9, with it's completely rewritten from scratch virtual machine, and 10x performance increase? I have a feeling it will be a looong time before either of these see support in FOSS. But that's ok, most people who are hardline free software, are used to being a couple of years behind the latest technology, right?

I don't like the situation either, but this involves 100% reverse engineering. I don't fault the mplayer and xine devs - they are doing everything they can, but its a battle against proprietory formats. In fact I haven't noticed any performance problems with flv8 on mplayer. Plus, i don't even comtemplate swicthing to gflashplayer (or whatever the new goodie is called) to play my ripped flvs.

I haven't tried flv in xine, but at least in mplayer+ffmpeg, it seems to have problems sometimes. About 40% of the FLV videos I play, sound and video get horribly out of sync. (This doesn't happen with any other video format for me). It's possible it's my fault, but I'm using precompiled packages, and a fairly standard config, so I dunno.

How old was the version of ffmpeg and mplayer? I use the latest gentoo ~amd64, so far video ripped from youtube and google videos play spotlessly.

Ad supported browsers

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

Now we too can participate in the revenue generating flash supported articles that are linked from slashdot!!!! They're not just for the windows crowd anymore!

Re:Ad supported browsers

[Anonymous Coward]

>Now we too can participate in the revenue generating flash supported articles that are linked from slashdot!!!! They're not just for the windows crowd anymore!

Not to worry - flash 10 or 11 for win will probably emerge shortly and we'll be out in the cold again.

Wahooo

[El Lobo]

only 3 years too late!

Solaris

[guacamole]

Oh joy, I suppose the Solaris version will come only one year after Linux. Hang on folks, we're almost there!

Finally!

[necromcr]

New and improved popups!!

After installing...

[UbelievablyLame]

Did anyone else find themselves staring blankly at the address bar trying desperately to think of a site that required Flash >8?

Now that the caged bird is finally free, he discovers how comfortable he has become in his prison!

Re:After installing...

[Ash-Fox]

Did anyone else find themselves staring blankly at the address bar trying desperately to think of a site that required Flash >8?

Yep.

Re:After installing...

[Proud like a god]

http://www.supremecommander.com/

Although I believe much of the content is available at http://www.supremecommanderhq.com/ and maybe http://www.supcomuniverse.com/

Re:After installing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out FC64 - A Commodore 64 Emulator for Flash Player 9.

http://codeazur.com.br/stuff/fc64_final/

Re:After installing...

[ElleyKitten]

Did anyone else find themselves staring blankly at the address bar trying desperately to think of a site that required Flash >8?

Yep.

http://www.nintendofusiontour.com/

Would have been great to have this when I was trying to buy tickets.

Re:After installing...

[Ash-Fox]

http://www.nintendofusiontour.com/

If you access the .swf file directly via, this link. It works fine in older Flash.

Would have been great to have this when I was trying to buy tickets.

I really feel sorry that you have to suffer the wrath of stupid web-designers.

Re:After installing...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://codeazur.com.br/stuff/fc64_final/
http://osflash.org/fc64/

Re:After installing...

[Ash-Fox]

c64 emulators!? What they trying todo? Make Flash like some sort of, even more closed Java!?

Re:After installing...

[fimbulvetr]

callofduty.com just went flash8 the other day, so I went there. Seems to work well so far.

Whinging

[Anonymous Coward]

...a mere year after the release for Windows
Want some cheese with that whine?

Well, what now?

[Orm]

So I installed it, it did work without any problems, watched some movies at youtube.com and saw some flash-ads here and there.. But now what? Give me some good sites where flash really shows what it's good for!

Re:Well, what now?

[crabbz]

www.homestarrunner.com

Re:Well, what now?

[CastrTroy]

But he could run that on flash 7. What are some good sites that require flash8/flash9 that we previously couldn't run?

Re:Well, what now?

[bcmm]

badgerbadgerbadger.com

Re:Well, what now?

[TheLinuxSRC]

"What are some good sites that require flash8/flash9..."

I think that is an oxymoron of sorts :)

Re:Well, what now?

[pimpimpim]

Now you can finally see the machine-halting flash popup banners everywhere! Even on slashdot :( The worst are the flash banners that overlap over a huge part of the screen, and miss the 'close' button when watching with a linux flash version :(

Related question therefore: Does anyone know how to disable flash temporarily in Opera?

Re:Well, what now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me some good sites where flash really shows what it's good for!

http://www.cbc.ca/kids/games/ That's about it, but they do it very well.

Oh wait, there's http://radio3.cbc.ca/ they have used it quite well in the past...

Those are about the only good examples I can think of.

Otherwise http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ is your friend and is an absolute must for dial-up users to prevent your bandwidth from being raped by useless crap. (In addition to turning off images when needed as well, a good site will display well without images)

Re:Well, what now?

[freedomadvocate]

http://dead.net/

Re:Well, what now?

[gbjbaanb]

try www.msdewey.com you'll think its going to be some sort of porn or other dodginess, but its a clean and somewhat amusing search engine. Google beware :)

Re:Well, what now?

[MentalMooMan]

F12, Uncheck "Enable plug-ins".

Re:Well, what now?

[Snover]

http://www.shaveeverywhere.com/

Re:Well, what now?

[pimpimpim]

worked! many thanks!

wonderful

[mennucc1]

I am trying it (inside Firefox and Mozilla as well) and it works perfectly. Two comments. (1) with Flash 7, audio was skippy (I have a cheapo onboard audio card; with Flash 9, I can finally enjoy youtube and the like. (2) today /. was linking to a article linking to http://www.bush-of-ghosts.com/ ; with Flash 7, it showed blank ; with Flash 9 , it works.

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:The first thing I did after installing this

[jginspace]

"The first thing I did after installing this ... was checked that FlashBlock still worked."

I'd be more concerned that I had scripting enabled for every site.

Re:The first thing I did after installing this

[TractorBarry]

Well I for one don't think you're weird. If it weren't for FlashBlock I wouldn't even have Flash installed.

Any Flash only sites I find get a snotty email to the webmaster and definitely don't get a sale.

Flash is usually used as the computing equivalent of an animated gif with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder).

Re:The first thing I did after installing this

[xtracto]

The first thing I did was look for a page that "required" flash 9 or 8, it was funny (no wait... I guess it is sad) that the only page I remembered is pornotorrent ... and then digg labs site =oP

Can anyone suggest one site that requires this to see if/how it is working?

Re:The first thing I did after installing this

[Anonymous Coward]

Flash comes with sound?

Compiling bugs

[thebluesgnr]

There are a few problems with this release that I hope will be fixed in the future (I can only hope, since it's not open source yet).

The plugin will search for libssl.so and libasound.so; that's broken. They should dlopen the actual library or build it statically, but a hack like that is certainly going to cause problems. (btw, in Ubuntu/Debian you need the libssl-dev and libasound2-dev packages to use all the features of this plugin).

The most annoying bugs I had with Flash (believe it or not) are still there. If the mouse is hovering a Flash content inside a browser window, the browser won't recognize keyboard or even mouse events. This is annoying when you're scrolling through a page with Flash ads or when you want to Ctrl+L but the damn mouse is in the wrong place.

The other problem is that Flash ads that have the "point your mouse here to see the full ad" will always display the "full ad", and you have to choose between the Flash Block extension and not reading that damn page at all.

Re:Compiling bugs

[cortana]

Please report the incorrect use of dlopen to Adobe. I already filled in a bug report, hopefully if enough knowledgable people do it then it will get past their QA people to someone who will understand the problem.

The most annoying bugs you mention are actually bugs in Mozilla(tm): https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95541 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87383

Re:Compiling bugs

[mad.frog]

Those are the sort of useful and intelligent bug reports that the team LOVES to see; please report them.

(But please don't report "I want 64-bit" as a bug. We already know. We're already working on it.)

Re:Compiling bugs

[MostlyHarmless]

Flashplayer is finally using ALSA??? *chorus of angels*. My main complaint with the current Flash (besides being proprietary and being mainly for CPU-hogging flash ads, and leaking memory and occasionally crashing) is that Flash blocks the soundcard.

YouTube sound issues

[just_forget_it]

Hope this clears up the sound syncing issues with YouTube and Linux

Re:YouTube sound issues

[CastrTroy]

I don't go on YouTube a whole lot, but I've never noticed any audio problems on YouTube.

Movies

[Anonymous Coward]

I just don't get it with flash. Movies. Hasn't there been some just normal ways to put up movies with synced sound,etc for years? I see everyone jumping up and down that now "it works". Movies have "worked" for a long tyime now, yes? Why DO these sites use flash? This is a legit question, why is this used? I have it installed (not this new beta), but with flashblock, and rarely use it anyway, and when I do it's like, duh, it's some little short stupid movie with embedded links maybe. whoopedy doo. I have yet to see any advantages to it, just a lot of disadvantages. I can't wait until accessibility laws kick in more and people get forced to NOT use flash on their public facing, commercial "stuff for sale or rent whatever" websites. Now I don't care if people use it, as long as thery have an obvious click here to the no-flash version. A lot of places don't have that, and in the age of tabbed browsers, one program like flash running on multiple tabs is a serious hardware b0rker and I doubt this new version is any different, plus most likely it is the same risk-ware it has always been.

Anyway, you webmasters who use it heavy-why?

Re:Movies

[cortana]

Unfortunately a plain element pointing at a movie does not work.

If the movie is MPEG1 then it looks like crap.
If it is in a Microsoft format, people who aren't on Windows can't view it.
If it is in a Real Player or Quicktime format, people who aren't on Windows or the Mac OS can't view it.
Additionally, Real and Quicktime require your users to go to the effort of finding and installing the appropriate player software. Most can't be bothered.
Also, all the above formats are patent-encumbered.
If you choose a free format such as Ogg Vorbis+Theora, then again you force the user to waste their time hunting for the plugin software, but in addition there are about five hundred sites that all distribute slightly different versions; the correct (blessed?) site is impossible to find unless the user is a computer expert.

Flash looks attractive because of these problems. In addition it makes it impossible for non-experts to keep a copy of the movie, which makes it attractive to content publishers. In their eyes, the fact that those who don't use 32 bit Windows, the 32 bit Mac OS, or i386 GNU/Linux, can't view the content is but a small price to pay.

On another note: anyone read the EULA for this Flash player? It's pretty scary! Adobe could arbitrarily send you a huge bill for auditing your compliance at any time. In addition you are 'not allowed' to run the player on an embedded/set-top-box device. Does my desktop PC become embedded when I hook, it up to my TV?

Re:Movies

[ElleyKitten]

If it is in a Microsoft format, people who aren't on Windows can't view it. If it is in a Real Player or Quicktime format, people who aren't on Windows or the Mac OS can't view it. Additionally, Real and Quicktime require your users to go to the effort of finding and installing the appropriate player software. Most can't be bothered. ... Flash looks attractive because of these problems. Also, all the above formats are patent-encumbered.

Real Player's available for Linux. While it requires finding and installing the appropriate player software, so does Flash, so I'm not sure Flash has a benefit there. Also, AFAIK, Real didn't upgrade their player for Windows and Mac leaving Linux in the dust for over a year, and with their open-source Helix project, they likely care enough about Linux to not. Also, there are unnoffical, open source Windows Media and Quicktime players for Linux. If you care about your Linux watchers, Flash has no benefits and only today has shed most of its drawbacks.

Re:Movies

[cortana]

Real Player's available for Linux.

Real Player is indeed available for Linux. I have it installed. Unfortunately, Real did not bother adding the ability to actually play Real video formats. When I try I am told that I do not have the right plugin installed, and that I should go to Real's web site to install Real player.

While it requires finding and installing the appropriate player software, so does Flash, so I'm not sure Flash has a benefit there.

Flash is far easier to find and install. Also, the major browsers will download and install it automatically.

Real didn't upgrade their player for Windows and Mac leaving Linux in the dust for over a year, and with their open-source Helix project, they likely care enough about Linux to not.

Helix is a pile of crap. 2006 and still it doesn't use ALSA. Until last week I actually thought it was abandonware due to long-standing security and licensing issues, but it seems that there was a new release this month that solved those issues at east.

Also, there are unnoffical, open source Windows Media and Quicktime players for Linux.

None that can be distributed legally in a usable form--that is what I meant when I said they were patent-encumbered.

I don't enjoy admitting it, but Flash *is* the only way to put movies on your web site so that the vast majority of the computing population is able to see them.

Re:Movies

[SanityInAnarchy]

If the movie is MPEG1 then it looks like crap.

So make it mpeg2 or mpeg4. Duh. By the way: Flash also looks like crap, but it also performs like crap, and makes things difficult (and crappy-looking and performing) to try to view the video fullscreen.

If it is in a Microsoft format, people who aren't on Windows can't view it.

I can view any WMV format on my Linux, it's just a question of whether or not I need the DLL. I only need the DLL for WMV9. OS X users have a nifty program called Flip4Mac, but ffmpeg has had support for older WMV formats for a long time.

If it is in a Real Player or Quicktime format, people who aren't on Windows or the Mac OS can't view it.

Real Player sucks, always, of coures. But Quicktime has been well supported by various opensource libraries for as long as I can remember trying, so it works just fine on Linux. Bonus for OS X users -- they already have QuickTime.

Additionally, Real and Quicktime require your users to go to the effort of finding and installing the appropriate player software. Most can't be bothered.

This is just annoying as hell, because the same thing would be true for Flash if Microsoft hadn't included it recently. But seriously, if YouTube was all simple AVIs or MOVs encoded in h.264? Everyone would be rushing to download VLC, QuickTime, and the like.

In any case, you could always do what people have always done: Host two versions of the file, one Windows Media, one QuickTime. That way, everyone on a "user friendly" OS has a player installed by default that can handle it. And you can always use mpeg anyway.

Also, all the above formats are patent-encumbered.

I believe you can find free software to create files readable as most, if not all, of the above formats.

In addition it makes it impossible for non-experts to keep a copy of the movie, which makes it attractive to content publishers.

And what, pray tell, is the point of that? Anyone can save the SWF and upload it to another site, even if it still says "YouTube" on it. As for restricting piracy to experts only, we know how well that's worked in the past -- that's why only experts pirate movies -- oh wait.

In their eyes, the fact that those who don't use 32 bit Windows, the 32 bit Mac OS, or i386 GNU/Linux, can't view the content is but a small price to pay.

I can always view the content, and it's always a pain in the ass. Even if I was exclusively 32-bit Windows, I'd prefer a format that I can save a copy of, play fullscreen, etc. And of course, there's this:

On another note: anyone read the EULA for this Flash player?

There are so many formats that don't come with EULAs.

Re:Movies

[ElleyKitten]

Real Player is indeed available for Linux. I have it installed. Unfortunately, Real did not bother adding the ability to actually play Real video formats. When I try I am told that I do not have the right plugin installed, and that I should go to Real's web site to install Real player.

I don't know why you can't get the video to play, but it does play it.

Flash is far easier to find and install. Also, the major browsers will download and install it automatically.

Firefox on Windows finds and installs Quicktime just like it does for Flash. OSX I'm pretty sure comes w/ Quicktime, and installing Quicktime codecs, Realplayer, and Flash are all pretty simular on Linux.

Helix is a pile of crap.

I didn't say it was good

2006 and still it doesn't use ALSA.

Flash didn't use ALSA until today's beta.

Also, there are unnoffical, open source Windows Media and Quicktime players for Linux.

None that can be distributed legally in a usable form--that is what I meant when I said they were patent-encumbered.

Legal or not, most Linux users have them because they're easy enough to install. And I'm pretty sure there are some legal ways to put it on Linux, since Linspire and Mepis both come with them.

I don't enjoy admitting it, but Flash *is* the only way to put movies on your web site so that the vast majority of the computing population is able to see them.

Until now, Linux users couldn't use the latest versions of Flash, and the old version has audio/video sync issues that are just too annoying for many people to bother watching. It's too early to see what issues Flash 9 is going to have, and many Linux users probably won't even have it until it goes in their distro's repository and/or it gets out of beta or whatever. If I was going to put a video on my website for people with different OSs to see, the last format I'd use is Flash.

Re:Movies

[cortana]

>> If the movie is MPEG1 then it looks like crap.

> So make it mpeg2 or mpeg4. Duh. By the way: Flash also looks like crap, but it also performs like crap, and makes things difficult (and crappy-looking and performing) to try to view the video fullscreen.

Flash movies don't look great, but they look at lot better than MPEG1. MPEG2 and MPEG4 are not usable for the reasons I mentioned before: users can't/won't download the software to play them; and software patents prevent free software implementation of players from being usable.

>> If it is in a Microsoft format, people who aren't on Windows can't view it.

> I can view any WMV format on my Linux, it's just a question of whether or not I need the DLL. I only need the DLL for WMV9. OS X users have a nifty program called Flip4Mac, but ffmpeg has had support for older WMV formats for a long time.

So can I, but only because I use i386. This solution is useless for everyone else. If you are going to restrict your viewers to i386 users, then you may as well make it easy for them to view the video and use Flash.

ffmpeg is nice in theory but it is not glitch-free. The version I have can't play VC-1 at all (last time I tried). But the big problem is that these formats are all patent-encumbered. No one can distribute the software in a usable form without opening themselves up to huge liability.

>> Additionally, Real and Quicktime require your users to go to the effort of finding and installing the appropriate player software. Most can't be bothered.

> This is just annoying as hell, because the same thing would be true for Flash if Microsoft hadn't included it recently.

So in summary, it is not annoying at all for Windows users; I can't speak for Mac users, but anyone who uses Firefox(tm) will get the plugin downloaded for them automatically.

> But seriously, if YouTube was all simple AVIs or MOVs encoded in h.264? Everyone would be rushing to download VLC, QuickTime, and the like.

No. If YouTube was all simple AVIs and MOVs then no one would use it. It is only because Flash makes it so easy to view content that such sites became popular in the first place.

> In any case, you could always do what people have always done: Host two versions of the file, one Windows Media, one QuickTime. That way, everyone on a "user friendly" OS has a player installed by default that can handle it. And you can always use mpeg anyway.

If only! Now you have the correct solution. Unfortunately, extra efford = extra expense, and no PHB will see the additional expense as justified given the incredibly small fraction of the market that we represent.

>> Also, all the above formats are patent-encumbered.

> I believe you can find free software to create files readable as most, if not all, of the above formats.

It is impossible for such free software to exist in countries with software patent laws.

>> In addition it makes it impossible for non-experts to keep a copy of the movie, which makes it attractive to content publishers.

> And what, pray tell, is the point of that? Anyone can save the SWF and upload it to another site, even if it still says "YouTube" on it. As for restricting piracy to experts only, we know how well that's worked in the past -- that's why only experts pirate movies -- oh wait.

You are missing my point. The fact is that content producers see this as a feature of Flash, not a defect!

Re:Movies

[SanityInAnarchy]

MPEG2 and MPEG4 are not usable for the reasons I mentioned before: users can't/won't download the software to play them;

I know mpeg4 is supported by QuickTime. I believe it's also supported by recent versions of Windows Media Player, and I'm sure mpeg2 would be.

and software patents prevent free software implementation of players from being usable.

I believe mencoder can create mpeg2 streams.

Now you have the correct solution. Unfortunately, extra efford = extra expense, and no PHB will see the additional expense as justified given the incredibly small fraction of the market that we represent.

YouTube is itself a hell of a lot of extra effort. So is Google Video. All that's needed is a script to encode to both WMV and QuickTime, or whatever two formats you pick. Or just one, if you only need Windows users to have the convenience.

So can I, but only because I use i386. This solution is useless for everyone else.

Probably most people, true. I use amd64, and I hate having to switch to a 32-bit browser so Flash will work, but Java won't, and fonts look like crap. (Even if Java is incredibly unstable on amd64 Firefox.) However, when there's an embedded WMV, I can download it easily (DownloadEmbedded extension) and play it with a 32-bit mplayer -- if and only if my 64-bit mplayer won't work (due to ffmpeg issues you mentioned).

So in summary, it is not annoying at all for Windows users; I can't speak for Mac users, but anyone who uses Firefox(tm) will get the plugin downloaded for them automatically.

Only on Windows. I don't know about OS X, but I believe it just uses the version that came preloaded, which already works in Safari.

So in summary, it is not annoying at all for Windows users;

You missed my point. It's annoying as hell that Adobe is in bed with everyone and Flash is absolutely everywhere, but the actual standards -- even mpeg2 (used in DVDs, right?) -- aren't everywhere. It's annoying as hell that I have to sit through nonstandard Flash crap because people can't get their standard stuff together -- or because major OS vendors would rather play nice with Adobe than use an established standard. This is not what the Internet is supposed to be about. If it was, we wouldn't be browsing HTML pages, we'd be browsing Word docs.

You are missing my point. The fact is that content producers see this as a feature of Flash, not a defect!

It's a feature of Flash that your content will be pirated, but only by experts? That this will limit its distribution (no one's allowed to watch it on a set top box, etc), that users won't be able to go fullscreen, or even get close and have decent antialiasing, just to make it so Average Joe can't pirate, when he wouldn't be able to anyway? (DownloadEmbedded isn't for everyone.) That only the REALLY determined people, who feel like spending $20 on something to unpack the Flash files, will be able to pirate Ask a Ninja?

My point is, I know content producers see this as a feature, and they're shortsighted and stupid for doing so. DRM is a feature only when it is done so unobtrusively that people forget it's there -- and even then, it's ineffective and stupid. Here, it makes it a real pain, but not at all impossible, to extract the video stream -- especially when the only reason I want to extract it is to play it fullscreen, at a reasonable level of quality, in mplayer, xine, or VLC.

As it is, Flash is absolutely the worst at absolutely everything it does, except for the nagging little fact that it's well supported everywhere. But to me, that's "well supported" in roughly the same way that IE is "well supported" -- IE is preinstalled most everywhere, so just support IE and you're done, who cares about web standards?

Bastards. Google, too.

Re:Movies

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, this is the Internet not AOL. The Internet should not be beholden to any company. It flourished on open standards and interoperability (because of and not despite). It will stagnate as companies try to wrest control through proprietary formats.

There are various websites that have been inaccessible to {Linux,*BSD,Solaris,Every other platform Adobe has not blessed (e.g. Various mobile devices and consumer electronics)} users for over a year. Even after this announcement there will be a whole lot of platforms that cannot (and not due to a technical limitation) access these websites. Can anyone really say that this is a good thing? No one should need Adobe, or anyones permission, to build software that can properly access the Web. How many web sites currently rely on Adobe's good graces?

I won't even get into how incompetent it is to use Flash for navigation or how it makes it impossible for the user to do data manipulation/extraction (e.g. Screen readers, Microformats, Greasemonkey,Chickenfoot,Piggybank).

Re:Movies

[joeljkp]

"If you choose a free format such as Ogg Vorbis+Theora, then again you force the user to waste their time hunting for the plugin software, but in addition there are about five hundred sites that all distribute slightly different versions; the correct (blessed?) site is impossible to find unless the user is a computer expert."

This is why the existence of Cortado would be such a great thing, if anybody actually used it. It's still Java, but at least it lets people view Ogg without having to dig around looking for an Ogg codec. And with Java on the road toward freedom, this may eventually become an all-free option.

mouse scroll bug fixed?

[mdew]

Did they fix the mouse scroll bug in the flash plugin? (where the mouse scroll doesn't work over any embedded flash).

Re:mouse scroll bug fixed?

[thebluesgnr]

No.

Re:mouse scroll bug fixed?

[cortana]

That is a Firefox(tm) bug.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95541
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87383

PPC version

[Anonymous Coward]

Still no PPC version? Lame.

Submit a feature request here: http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name =wishform and tell them to release a PPC build

Argh ZE SOUND!

[Woy]

Hearing flash sound on Kubuntu Linux is still a hit and miss, miss, miss game...

Re:Argh ZE SOUND!

[crimsun]

I haven't investigated the Flash 9 beta myself, but another poster reports http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=201501&c id=16499733 that the -dev packages are still required.

flashblock!

[Anonymous Coward]

I recently installed flashblock: http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
I feel like I have my computer back! 98% of the flash I saw were CPU hungry ads.
I do not miss them.

Pie!

[onetwofour]

Now I can enjoy all that forbidden Weebl & Bob Pie without the wine. I don't have to be drunk & dirty anymore.

This was sorely needed

[ownermachina]

The old flash player had some horrible issues with sound output that actually made firefox suck.

This has been a problem at Ubuntu and I guess others.

I work with a web-based application and usually watching any YouTube video would crash my entire browser session.

Re:This was sorely needed

[ownermachina]

BTW: I just remembered that just yesterday I could not see the WII experience videos.

Orisinal!

[Balinares]

Ask and you shall receive. Warning, they are a LOT more addictive that they seem. :)

Flashblock

[zoward]

If you're using Firefox, you'll want this extension to make the obnoxious flash-based ads a voluntary thing.

Re:Flashblock

[Patented]

The Adblock extension blocks flash ads as well as text, iFrame, and embedded adverts as well, if you know how to view source on the page. All you have to do, in order to get the biggest annoy-ware culprits, is visit myspace, foxnews, and tom's hardware guide, click on ADBLOCK, and then block any url that doesn't originate with the domain you are currently on.

Re:Flashblock

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

So I can finally block all the "x the y to win a free z" ads? Those almost piss me off enough to make me go out and buy z just to spite x, y and w (the ad company).

Re:Flashblock

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not go all the way?

http://www.noscript.net/whats

Yes, it blocks Flash, Java, and other embedded crap as well as disabling Javascript, and has the same "click-to-activate" feature (plus per-site allow and temporary allow options), etc, etc.

Bleh, this sounds like an ad. I have nothing to do with NoScript, I'm just a very happy user...

Anonymousized just in case.

Pass

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks but no thanks!

Install issues... easy...

[advocate_one]

just make it installable exactly like the windows plugin... one click from the browser... without having to download and extract it

if you want it system wide, then make a standalone executable that only needs to be double clicked in Konqueror or Nautilus (or whaever else takes your fancy) and have the installer quiz you for the options and password

It ISN'T EXACTLY ROCKET SCIENCE now is it... durr...

Let the distros worry about packaging issues (deb, rpm, tar.gz...) then they can tailor it for themselves from the tar.gz or however you pack up the binary (I'm guessing it's gonna be closed source)

Re:Install issues... easy...

[zarlino]

Let the distros worry about packaging issues (deb, rpm, tar.gz...) then they can tailor it for themselves from the tar.gz or however you pack up the binary (I'm guessing it's gonna be closed source)

The Adobe Flash player cannot be redistributed.

Re:Install issues... easy...

[advocate_one]

but they can provide a handler package that does the downloading and installing automatically...

Seems to work on Firefox but not Opera

[BeeBeard]

A little strange: I just unmasked and emerged the Firefox 9 beta, and it works great on Firefox but only kinda sorta works with Opera. Opera has detected the new plugin just fine (right clicking on a flash movie on YouTube brings up an "About Adobe Flash Player 9" option) but most YouTube movies stall out when I try to play them under Opera. The player UI loads, but the movie never plays. If I go to hardocp.com or other sites which make heavy use of flash ads, some show up but not others. In the past, all Mozilla plugins have worked flawlessly with Opera, but I think this Flash beta might be a little questionable. Does anybody else have the same problem?

Re:Seems to work on Firefox but not Opera

[chrismcdirty]

I just unmasked and emerged the Firefox 9 beta

So, how are things in the future? Not too post-apocalyptic, I hope.

Re:Seems to work on Firefox but not Opera

[niskel]

I had the same problem with video not showing in Opera even with version 7 of Flash. So I don't think this breakage is version 9 specific.

Re:Seems to work on Firefox but not Opera

[WMD_88]

I have this problem all the time with Opera on OS X. Both Opera 8.5 and 9, and both Flash 8 and 9.

Re:Seems to work on Firefox but not Opera

[giriz]

man it sucks, google video - just a gray space instead of the player youtube - video stalls frequently as 'BeeBeard' said above. msdewey - plays for 2 seconds and then nothing happens (i waited for 2 mins now) sony trailers - works (??!!) The mozilla plugin for linux (v7) used to work well with Opera. Too bad Macromedia did a better job than Adobe ! I'm going back to the previous version....

Re:Seems to work on Firefox but not Opera

[Anonymous Coward]

The release notes state that the player doesn't currently work with Opera and that Adobe is working with Opera to fix it.

"About posting comments"

[mi]

• All comments must first be processed through moderation due to the Adobe blogging system
• Email address and URL fields are optional
• Remember that this blog is called Penguin.SWF and is about Adobe Flash Player on Linux; please keep comments on topic
• Questions about alpha, beta, and final release schedules are already answered in this post
• Requests for such features as alternate operating system or CPU architecture support are more suited for the Adobe Wish Form
• Adobe has no plans to open source the Flash Player at this time; comments requesting that the code be open sourced will be considered off-topic

In other words — praises and bug-reports only, please.

Re:"About posting comments"

[cortana]

That's what I thought, but I have posted several critical comments and they were approved. I expect it was because I did so in a *polite and constructive* manner.

Re:"About posting comments"

[Anonymous Coward]

Adobe has no plans to open source the Flash Player at this time; comments requesting that the code be open sourced will be considered off-topic

I wonder how they feel about requests to make the spec open, at least. You know, so we could implement our own player without breaking their license.

How does a proprietary plugin help them, anyway? I understand why they're not going to open-source Photoshop, but Flash Player? WTF?

Linux PPC?

[Anonymous Coward]

My biggest gripe about Flash (other than the fact that many use it as a shortcut rather than provide standards compliant content) is the fact that non-x86 platforms are not represented. I don't expect Flash for Linux PPC or ARM or MIPS any time soon. Too little market share. If the source was available, I could compile it myself for whatever platform I have. Since it is not, I have no choice but to not use Flash. Mod me down if you want, but this is a real problem for those who have to (or want to) use non-x86 systems for whatever reason.

Re:Linux PPC?

[rincebrain]

I use x86 primarily and this still annoys me. I strongly recommend that people start hacking on gnash.

finally flash-apps won't force close

[jsolan]

Working on an OpenLaszlo http://www.openlaszlo.org/ project, which occasionally caused the flash player to timeout while testing. Its nice that i can now "continue running the script" instead of being forced to close out, fix one problem, come back in only to find another problem. Flash 7 on fedora didn't allow me to continue. Unfortunately flash 9 doesn't feel any faster in the application than flash 7 did.

Re:finally flash-apps won't force close

[Anonymous Coward]

Flash Player 9 supports a new ActionScript Virtual Machine, aptly named AVM2. The original ActionScript Virtual Machine (AVM1) is what executes the bytecode for ActionScript 1 and 2. Because OpenLaszlo targets Flash Player 7, the bytecode included in those swf files is the "old" ActionScript 1 / 2 bytecode model and therefore runs inside the AVM1 engine in Flash Player 9.

To fully take advantage of Flash Pklayer 9's speed improvements, you need to write code to execute inside of AVM2. This is done by targeting SWF9 and using the new ActionScript 3 bytecode model, which is just-in-time compiled.

Viewing AVM1 swfs in Flash Player 9 won't show much improvement, but viewing AVM2 swfs will be 10x faster. When OpenLaszlo can output the bytecode for the new AVM2, you'll see the speed improvements.

Sad state of affairs

[Anonymous Coward]

Note all the people installing both flash and flash block! First they contract the disease and then they grab something to make it bearable. That says as much as the oblig technical derision.

BTW: there's a youtube downloader listed on freshmeat so you don't actually need to taint your OS with flash in order to watch the funnies on youtube.

Re:Sad state of affairs

[teslar]

Aw, give us a break, we do want to access some flash content. Yes, professor advisor, sir, I am working hard on the research. I am currently investigating the effects of flash games on research progress and intend to submit a paper to the International Journal of Failed PhDs within the timeframe of the project.

We just don't want to be attacked by stupid flash ads.

Re:Sad state of affairs

[Anonymous Coward]

Flash itself isn't the problem. It is all the misuse by idiot web designers that is. With Flashblock I can be selective about what gets run, plus it won't be starting before I'm ready for it.

Fantastic

[mogrify]

Long-awaited, indeed. The best part is finally being able to play Flash Video 8 on Linux. They got a huge quality improvement when they switched from Sorensen Spark to ON2 VP6, but no one who cares about Linux users could use it... until now :)

Great!

[camperdave]

Great! Thanks a lot! Now, I'm hooked. How am I supposed to get any work done? Umm... gotta go.

Inaccurate.

[mad.frog]

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

4 months != 1 year

Re:Inaccurate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, he's right. Trust a linux zealot to overreact about how they're being mistreated. If it's not that they hate flash it's how they hate getting their flash player a few months after the windows folk.

Re:Inaccurate.

[BlenderFX]

And when was the Flash player 8 for Linux released?!

Re:Inaccurate.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

This is not the official release, only the first beta. Please compare beta to beta release date, or official to official.

Re:Inaccurate.

[AusIV]

Nowhere in the article or earlier in this thread can I find anyone who has said Flash 9 came out for Windows a year ago. Who are you correcting?

Re:Inaccurate.

[mad.frog]

From the /. headline:

"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."

Re:Inaccurate.

[Anonymous Coward]

indeed! someone correct this article please!

www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/2 00606/062806Flash9.html

seriously, slashdot editors are getting downright lazy. not even the simplest of fact checking.

Re:Inaccurate.

[mad.frog]

Point taken... but it's the original poster making the inaccurate comparison, not me:

the beta release of the long-awaited Flash 9 for Linux is available for download, a mere year after the release for Windows

Re:Inaccurate.

[illegalcortex]

I have to agree with you on this one, even if the other replies are jumping on you. At best, that line is just poor grammar. At worst, it's plain wrong.

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.

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 beta release for Windows.

Makes a world of difference in readability.

Re:Inaccurate.

[blazerw11]

Those that have been following this know that there never was a Flash 8 for Linux. So, Linux user have been unable to view Flash 8 sites and vidoes for a long time. I think well over a year. Also, note that originally, a Linux Flash 8 was planned, but then it became 8.5, then 9. Someone following this closely (or working on it) realizes that Flash 9 is finally catching Linux up to a release well over a year ago. They may even consider it the same product and thus the statement is very true to them. The quote is technically inaccurate, however, it's "real" meaning is true. We've been waiting for a long time to view sites that "require" Flash 8.

Re:Inaccurate.

[tokul]

Linux Flash was at 7th version.

Flash 8 for Windows was released on 2005-09-30.

Worked fine at first, but ...

[Random BedHead Ed]

I had no issues at first. I gleefully went to a site that required Flash >7 (blackberrypearl.com) and it loaded fine. I right-clicked and saw that the player version in the context menu was 9, which was gratifying. But it otherwise seemed exactly the same.

After I closed that tab I was unable to load any pages in the others. Pressing Enter from the address bar did not cause the contents of the address bar to materialize. In fact nothing happened, not even an error message. I restarted the browser (Windows 98 mentality kicking in here), and that fixed it. But on a subsequent attempt I noticed the same thing again. This time I was able to load Slashdot once, but the CSS was missing. It was the plain white un-positioned fallback version of the site, which was actually interesting to see. It was as if I were using Netscape 3 or something.

Anyone else seeing these things? (I also have no audio, but I suspect I need to review the system requirements to mend that.)

Slashdoted

[marcelo.mosca]

As it has been slashdot, here are direct links to the files

http://www.adobe.com/go/fp9_update_b1_installer_li nuxplugin

http://www.adobe.com/go/fp9_update_b1_standalone_l inux

No! Weebls-stuff

[SpooForBrains]

www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/ - much more than just badgers. The On the Moon series are my personal favourites at the mo, and with Flash Player 9 I can now see all the ones I've been missing that require >8.

Working keys

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like the arrow keys are now functioning on Firefox.

What happened to the OSS alternative?

[WindBourne]

It seems like that has died. That is too bad. It would be nice if it did not.

Re:What happened to the OSS alternative?

[Anonymous Coward]

The latest OSS Flash player, Gnash, still seems to be actively developed. I do believe there were other attempts before Gnash that have since died out though.

There will be a 64 bit version

[ryanguill]

According to Emmy Huang, Product Manager for Adobe Flash, 64 bit versions is the next step.

And, because this will be the next question now that we've satisfied your beta player needs: the Adobe Flash Player team is working on support for 64-bit platforms as part of our ongoing commitment to the cross-platform compatibility of Adobe Flash Player. We have not announced timing or release dates.

you can read more here:
http://weblogs.macromedia.com/emmy/archives/2006/1 0/beta_refresh_on.cfm

From a guy who got dragged into Flash development

[IronChefMorimoto]

I have skimmed a few of the comments here and some of the anti-Flash-in-general comments that popped up in the "Holy shit, IE7 launched today!" story comments. I wanted to throw in a few observations about Flash and why keeping this medium around is important.

First, I will agree with anyone that says that Flash gets misused more often than not. It does. It sucks ass when someone does a really crap Flash project. I have 2-3 designers doing the visual labor with me turning their designs into relatively interesting Flash interactives. I like to think that I am using Flash properly, but I know I have much to learn, and I look forward to that opportunity keeping me gainfully employed for a few more years (until enough anti-Flash people get it killed?). ;-)

Secondly, if you're going to take 5 minutes to compose a rant on /. about how annoying Flash ads are, then allocate 3 of those 5 minutes to downloading and installing a Firefox extension (there are several, I believe -- Flashgot, right?) that blocks all Flash (including adverts) until you want them. I know they're annoying -- but coming from a media company that relies on advertisers buying those "fancy, irritating" Flash ads, I accept them as a necessary evil. A website running those box or vert ads aren't FORCING you to watch them now, 'cause I've taken 1 minute of my 5 minutes in this rant to tell you how to block 'em and get on with your web browsing life.

Finally, I noticed folks talking about the tag to embed Flash. Stop. Stop doing that and google "swfObject" -- it's a Javascript library you can drop into a central location on your web server and forever forget about detecting Flash or making sure it's relatively standards compliant. The guy who wrote it put together a BETTER detection setup than Adobe did (their kit was NUTS), and it works really well. AND it's flexible, processing querystrings and adding flashvars very easily for a simple Flash embed. If you're still talking about the tag and Flash, you're either developing Flash badly (and this is coming from an intermediate level user who tricked people into paying him for it) or browsing a badly developed Flash site.

My 2-3 cents (5 minutes) about Flash. Be nice to it. With Flash video, it's really coming around as a useful tool, and things like Flex 2.0 (wicked cool way to build application interfaces) are making it more of a tool than a design medium for the web.

BTW -- if the title was confusing -- I was "dragged" into Flash development when folks found out I was better at writing ActionScript and using Flash than writing pure CSS page layout. I'm actually enjoying it -- if you're intersted in learning it, be prepared to re-learn a lot of stuff every 1.25 years or so with new Flash versions.

Thanks,
IronChefMorimoto

It's more than just compiler flags

[SIGBUS]

There is a lot of C code out there that makes incorrect assumptions about sizeof(pointer) and sizeof(int). In the AMD64 world, the two are not equal.

Re:It's more than just compiler flags

[Hercynium]

There are tools to find that code and correct it. Proper testing and debugging procedures should be able to find and fix those bugs with relative ease.

To play devil's advocate though - The Flash developers have stated repeatedly that the main difficulty with porting Flash is the necessity to re-create old buggy behavior so that SWF files built against those old versions still play properly. If there are behaviors that rely on vector-processing routines that handle pointers like integers that could be a bit hairy.

OTOH, simulating that behavior via a specialized function and simply substituting it in isn't out of the question - inline the call and the performance hit should *hopefully* be minimized.

Re:It's more than just compiler flags

[42forty-two42]

Not to mention the code generation in the JIT.

Linux on the desktop!

[NineNine]

Well, this is proof that Linux is ready for the desktop! I mean, what grandmother couldn't follow these simple instructions??

"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."

Re:Linux on the desktop!

[frogstar_robot]

Grandmother will click the update button in Synaptic when the distros include it. Grandmother won't be running a beta.

Were you born a snarky bastard or did you have to work at it?

Re:Linux on the desktop!

[Sod75]

well, we did slashdot adobe's download page, I guess that means there are at least a significant amount of people using linux on the desktop.
I also kept hearing linux on the desktop wasn't ready.how come then all these people want to download a linux 100% desktop related plugin.
If we slashdot a download page for a linux desktop app from a non marginal company like adobe, it means more people then they'd like to (have others) believe ARE running linux on the desktop I'd say.
I'd like to see download numbers for a beta just to have an idea how much...anyone know ?

Please use Gnash

[Mateo_LeFou]

It's free as in freedom. no it doesn't work perfectly yet, but Flash sites suck anyway

http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/

Re:Please use Gnash

[Klaidas]

1995 were calling, they want their webmasters back...

Re:Please use Gnash

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to be able to use Gnash as it'd be one less piece of closed source software on my (x86) machine (except for those nVidia drivers, games, FPGA tools, etc., etc., etc.,). It'd be very useful on Linux/PPC, as occasionally you do need flash.

In any case, if I wanted Flash 9 support, rather than Flash 7, Gnash is sadly useless.

that's why....

[Anonymous Coward]

...I call flash risk-ware. Who knows what it is doing to your system? You can't tell. At google videos, I can downloand an avi movie, works just fine in linux full screen. At youtube that is flash only the sounds sucks (allegedly fixed now) and you got that tiny screen. And What is up with flash trying to hijack microphones and speakers, and it fscks with your sound server setup? That's why I don't like it, gives me the creeps. Haven't seen that eula but it fits, adobe is NOT a linux friendly or open source friendly place, not one bit..or byte... Flash is like uber DRM and people are "jumping for joy" for it? Why, do people LIKE to lose control of their machines? Reminds me of animal house the movie WHACK, thankyousirmayIhaveanother? WHACK

Too Advanced

[Anonymous Coward]

www.2advanced.com

There's already an excellent firefox flash client

[johnmrowe]

http://flashblock.mozdev.org/

John

amd64?

[SanityInAnarchy]

I actually wouldn't mind an older Flash version, if it meant I didn't have to constantly be closing 64-bit Firefox and opening a 32-bit one.

OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG

[sholde4]

FINALLY!!! I'm a web developer, and I cant tell you how long this has been driving me nuts.

Flash = ads

[Anonymous Coward]

Most flash content is resource hogging annoying advertisement anyways.

Google Video and YouTube are exceptions.

TS and Flash at the same time

[McNihil]

Wooohooo. Audio is finally fixed. Thanks!

Durrr...

[Ayanami Rei]

The flash "virtual machine" is a ecmascript implementation. And spidermonkey works just fine on 64-bit so I'm not sure what their problem is.

Oh, maybe the rest of their codebase isn't 64-bit clean, like the rendering code.

Well big fucking surprise. Welcome to 21st century, Adobe. Now why don't you update your compositing routines to use more modern instruction sets (this goes for Photoshop et al. as well). Thanks.

Re:Durrr...

[asapien]

Java is really better, but everyone uses flash, so it comes to be expected. However the current state of java actually makes it more suitable for applets than when it first came out.

Re:Durrr...

[trupoet]

And frankly the Java browser plugin still comes only in 32bit as well =/

Long-awaited?

[beermad]

I certainly haven't been waiting for Flash 9.
Sites that use Flash un-necessarily are nothing but a pain in the arse, so I just don't visit them unless they have proper HTML alternatives.
...and they don't get into the links section of my website, either.

Re:Long-awaited?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and they don't get into the links section of my website, either.

well that just about wraps it up for flash eh, how can it possibly survive such a stinging rebuke, such a crippling blow!

you linux idiots need to get out more. its that simple.

Re:Long-awaited?

[/dev/trash]

So you've never been to YouTube?

Direct link to downalod

[hunte]

http://download.macromedia.com.nyud.net:8090/pub/l abs/flashplayer9_update/FP9_plugin_beta_101806.tar .gz

This is a good thing.

[BroadbandBradley]

SO many Kid related sites with flash games don't work so well with Linux. I have 3 kids and they want to play at Club Penguin (nothing to do with Linux strangely enough)...I got it to work by installing flash and alll kinds of different fonts until I got everything right. Lots of "shockwave" stuff still won't work and I don't care to spend much time trying fix that. It's easier to just keep a windows partition around for sites like that. The real problem is the website developers of course not using web standards to do stuff with. Most of the slick Site design tools are made by companies with a vested iterest in promoting thier own proprietary stuff.

Browser hangs on sites with flash ads

[smartin]

firefox seems to consistently hang on the engadget site. I think it is related to the flash ads.
Anyone else see this?

Memory Space Clearly

[pavon]

What and limit my potential memory-leak growth to 4 GB? You might prefer to stay in the stone age, but my firefox extensions will be able to leak 16 exabytes :)

FreeBSD Shunned Once Again

[link915]

As good as I think it is to see Linux get a native flash player it still bums me out to see that they have forgotten the BSDs again. Come one, they have players for Linux, HP-UX, Solaris and yet can't get a player compiled for FreeBSD.

Please go to Adobe Feature Request and request a native FreeBSD flash player. The community would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

-Link

Re:FreeBSD Shunned Once Again

[Anonymous Coward]

I just avoid sites that use flash like the plague. Not only is there no native flash for *BSD, but also that shit doesn't work in text browsers, which I prefer.

but does it run *well* ...

[yestertech]

Previous revisions of Flash Player for Linux preformed very poorly compared to the win32 versions (even the win32 verison in crossover office did a better job).

I think that it has something to do with the win32 version using SSE instructions and Linux version did not.

Flash still does not take advantage of the GPUs available for the last 10 years! Anyone trying to use Flash for more than a postage stamp size output feels this pain. The evolution from something designed to make small animated buttons and advertising is evident.

Poor performance and the new licensing may mean limited uptake for embedded applications.

Re:There's already an excellent firefox flash clie

[znx]

I find it far more effective to use NoScript. Quoting from their site: While its primary aim is preventing malicious JavaScript from running, NoScript can effectively block Java(TM), Flash® and other plugins on untrusted sites.

However, ignoring all that. Flash 9 .. now I can finally use Digg Swarm/Stack .. yay!

Re:From a guy who got dragged into Flash developme

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'm going to block all visitors that have any sort of flash installed.
"You have flash x.x installed. Please uninstall it to properly use this website"

Incorrect

[LinDVD]

Flashblock is NOT a Flash client-it blocks the Flash client from rendering the SWF component in a page. Why would Adobe make a feature to block Flash from excecuting? They haven't. It IS Javascript, and it's pretty good, if you only want to see some Flash content and not everything all the time.

Re:Incorrect

[fistfullast33l]

I wish there was a "Didn't get the joke" mod.

Bigger virtual address space

[Nicolas MONNET]

The much larger address space allows for more leeway in memory management, even if you don't have over 4G.

For instance, nptl threads get a performance boost from not having to juggle around to save on stack space.

There are also advantages with prelinking.

Finally, even if you have "just" 4G in 32 bit, you won't be able to use all of it in one process, as the kernel needs some address space too.

Re:From a guy who got dragged into Flash developme

[LWATCDR]

Abuse of flash.
Flash like java applets should only be used when necessary.
What I hate is Flash for navigation.
Flash is only evil when abused.
Which is WAY TO OFTEN.

porting a JIT is easy

[r00t]

Heck, you could write one from scratch. It's never hard. AMD64 makes it trivial though, because porting over 32-bit code is really easy.

(speaking from experience, so Adobe is just lazy)

Finally, Flash on Linux ahead of Flash IDE

[LinDVD]

For the first time, the Linux Flash player is coming out before the next IDE, Flash 9 is. Flash 7 came out nearly 18 months after the IDE did on the last release...

Duh!!! It's not 2^32...

[Ayanami Rei]

it's Sum(32 .. 63, 2^n).

Re:Good news! [great improvements]

[gosand]

Some flash movies that hogged Firefox UI with old player work flawlessy now. Audio is now in sync with video.

YES! finally. I hated that with the old version I had, it was a resource hog, and the audio was slightly off-sync with the video. Also, at least on my machine, the previous version had problems grabbing the audio device. i.e. I would play a video (with mplayer), and then a swf file via the browser plugin. There would be no audio. I would have to kill Firefox in order for it to have sound for swf files again.

I have a collection of swf and mpg files that my daughter likes to watch, and the swf files were honestly a real pain because of this. I just installed the new version, and it appears flawless.

Should be much faster

[mjbkinx]

Previous revisions of Flash Player for Linux preformed very poorly compared to the win32 versions (even the win32 verison in crossover office did a better job).

Yeah, Tinic ranted about that on his blog a while ago, saying he used wine for Flash on Linux (before v9, obviously) -- and he's a FlashPlayer engineer. His entry about this beta release addresses performance. He says he's not happy with the current state of font rendering speed yet, but that it beats the Windows version by 20% with other stuff. They're still working on it.

Over all, you should see better performance of existing content, thanks to the new rendering engine introduced in v8. This is especially true for SWFs (competently) written for v8 and using cacheAsBitmap -- not rerendering vectors every frame seems to improve performance. Who would have thought...

The second performance increase will probably take a while to become common: FP9 comes with a new, JIT compiled VM. The old one is still included for backwards compatibility, but once FP9 has a good install base and is supported by developers making scripting-heavy stuff, you should definitely notice the performance increase -- it's much, much faster.

If somebody feels like playing with it, there's the free (beer) Flex SDK on the Adobe site somewhere. However, I'd like to recommend haXe, a Free (capital F) compiler for a very fine language, with a great type system, that I really enjoy coding in. It supports Flash 6 to 9, the Free NekoVM, and can generate JavaScript (Yes! Typed!). Windows users can use the FlashDevelop plugin, for the rest of us there's Eclipse with EHX.

Re:Should be much faster

[aichpvee]

Seems pretty good so far performance-wise. I'm just happy that video doesn't appear to be desyncing!

Limited testing....

[tinkerghost]

LOL, so far my limited testing has been the 'click here to test install' link from the install page and the followup overview of flash twice. The video portion has worked flawlessly on all 3. The audio however hung the first time I played the overview & I got an endless loop of 'mobile de'. So, my overall impression is "I hope the final is better."

I'm lazy

[btempleton]

When will folks be making .debs?

Tried it

[spitzak]

On my Mandrake machine. I got no sound from YouTube, and sound works in the FlashPlayer7.

Notes:

Biggest problem is no sound from YouTube (or probably from anywhere). Sound works for me with FlashPlayer7 and switching back to that makes it work without any restarting (so it did not permanently mess up sound, like some programs can). This is a Mandrake machine, 2.4.22-10mdkenterprise, I really have no idea how I have sound set up, but it works for me in most software.

Yes it fixed places that check for the version number of the flash player.

Popping up the menu with the right button (which I did to check that it reported 9 or 7) would cause Firefox to crash somewhat later. Does not seem to happen with 7. May indicate an overflow of some malloc'd data buffer.

To use, put libflashplayer9.so into ~/.mozilla/plugins and don't rename it. Apparently if it exists it will be loaded in preference to libflashplayer.so. (I wasted some time making a flashplayer.so symbolic link that switched between 7 and 9 before I finally figured out that 9 was being used no matter how I set it. Instead, to switch back to 7, rename libflashplayer9.so to libflashplayer9.so.hidden).

Removal instructions in the readme.txt say to remove libflashplayer.so, not the correct file of libflashplayer9.so.

ldd shows it links in far more libraries than 7 did, lots of gtk stuff. I suspect this is due to Pango (which does I18N text layout) using the gobject library, not because any gtk widgets are being used. This has also been complained about on Cairo (which is supposed to be a drawing library *used* by toolkits like gtk, but because good font layout requires Pango, there is a circular dependency back to gtk!)

Re:Tried it

[fodder69]

Dude, it has been mandriva for quite some time now, which tells me you're not exactly on the cutting edge.

FYI, it works fine for me using Mandriva 2006 and Mandriva 2007 cooker.

Re:Tried it

[Slashcrap]

This is a Mandrake machine, 2.4.22-10mdkenterprise

I couldn't get it to work on Slackware 2.0 either. I even upgraded to Kernel 2.0.

What a piece of shit.

Re:Tried it

[spitzak]

Yep, I think the copy of Mandrake was old when I installed it, and that was 2 years ago. I actually bought a new one (since getting the NVidia drivers to work was such a pain, I paid for them) but really have not gotten around to installing it.

In any case, I thought it was perhaps a bug. It did not fail with any missing libraries, and the version 7 plugin produced sound, so perhaps they are calling things wrong in this new version?

Nnnngh!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a dual-core processor, you insensitive clod. I'll have to install it *four* times. Good thing I didn't set up RAID on this box.

I feel truly sorry for people with dual-core dual 64-bit processors ... though when they finally get enough Flash installed for all of their bits installed they'll finally be able to browse slashdot without all the Flash ads slowing down their system.

Re:From a guy who got dragged into Flash developme

[mpcooke3]

I hope flashblock gets more promotion as a feature of firefox possibly even put in the default install. That way like with popup blocking, microsoft will have to include it in IE to keep up.

If we can get to the point where flash is blocked by default unless the user allows it (like popups) then advertisers will lose interest in flash ads and actually be forced to just make the advert more relevant rather than more annoying.

Flash overlays are particularly annoying. I used to work in online advertisers and the push from clients is always for the most annoying ads they can make, the only correcting force is from browser vendors.

Volvo site needs Flash 8

[drew_kime]

Try this:

http://new.volvocars.com/wwygavt/

mplayer refuses to play along with current beta

[Maxhrk]

If you go to Gametrailers.com and click on one of those movie(.mov in my case).. it refuse to run the movie when i try to click on play button, it simple stop after try play it. It is because of Flashplayer presence on that same page. However in other sites that that mplayer seem work fine to play those video if there was no fplayer beta presence at all.

It seem work fine for FlashPlayer 7.. so i guess something went wrong somehow.

Finally!

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally!

I call bullshit

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

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 ...

No, they're not. The obvious way is to release the source code of the player under the GNU GPL and let the distros build and package it. That's probably not going to happen.

Re:There's already an excellent firefox flash clie

[The Wicked Priest]

The sad thing is that Flashblock doesn't even work properly if you don't have Flash (or some flash-capable plugin) installed. You still get all the annoying puzzle piece prompts... At one time, I actually built a null flash plugin to use in conjunction with Flashblock. That was the only way to get FB's arrows (and nice transparent backgrounds) to show, and to supress the puzzle pieces.

Yay!

[Terminus32]

It's finally here!