Slashdot Mirror


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.

53 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. AMD64 version? by andersa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:AMD64 version? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      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 ?

    2. Re:AMD64 version? by Octorian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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)

    3. Re:AMD64 version? by Anssi55 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You could try nspluginwrapper.

    4. Re:AMD64 version? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:AMD64 version? by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    6. Re:AMD64 version? by tomstdenis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They do what?

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

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    7. Re:AMD64 version? by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 4, Funny

      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?

    8. Re:AMD64 version? by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    9. Re:AMD64 version? by halivar · · Score: 4, Funny
      inciteful!? sarcastic, maybe funny how did this get inciteful?


      Well, you were incited, weren't you?
    10. Re:AMD64 version? by jascat · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    11. Re:AMD64 version? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

    12. Re:AMD64 version? by JFMulder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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!

    13. Re:AMD64 version? by bug1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "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

    14. Re:AMD64 version? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    15. Re:AMD64 version? by orzetto · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    16. Re:AMD64 version? by jimicus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    17. Re:AMD64 version? by yestertech · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      there's no replacement for displacement
    18. Re:AMD64 version? by CommandNotFound · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    19. Re:AMD64 version? by rsidd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    20. Re:AMD64 version? by doom · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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."
    21. Re:AMD64 version? by Omnifarious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    22. Re:AMD64 version? by Curtman · · Score: 2, Informative
      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.
  2. gentoo ebuilds by kswtch · · Score: 5, Informative

    here and here.

  3. Good news! by bioglaze · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    Who is John Galt?
    1. Re:Good news! by sarathmenon · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.
      --
      Microsoft: "You've got questions. We've got dancing paperclips."
  4. Ad supported browsers by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 3, Funny

    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!

    --
    disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
  5. Re:Why do we need this? by endersshadow7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  6. Re:right by dylan_- · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    --
    Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
  7. Solaris by guacamole · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  8. The first thing I did after installing this by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  9. Compiling bugs by thebluesgnr · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Compiling bugs by cortana · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

  10. Re:Why do we need this? by pandrijeczko · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  11. Re:Well, what now? by crabbz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    www.homestarrunner.com

  12. Pie! by onetwofour · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  13. Seems to work on Firefox but not Opera by BeeBeard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  14. Re:Why do we need this? by filet0fish · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  15. Re:Well, what now? by TheLinuxSRC · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    I think that is an oxymoron of sorts :)

  16. Fantastic by mogrify · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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 :)

    --
    perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
  17. Inaccurate. by mad.frog · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    4 months != 1 year

    1. Re:Inaccurate. by illegalcortex · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  18. Re:Movies by cortana · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  19. From a guy who got dragged into Flash development by IronChefMorimoto · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  20. Re:Movies by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  21. Re:Frosty piss! by iapetus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
    Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
  22. Re:Please use Gnash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  23. Memory Space Clearly by pavon · · Score: 2, Funny

    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 :)

  24. Bigger virtual address space by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  25. Re:From a guy who got dragged into Flash developme by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  26. Should be much faster by mjbkinx · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  27. Tried it by spitzak · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!)

  28. Re:Why do we need this? by doom · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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?