Slashdot Mirror


Why Is Adobe Flash On Linux Still Broken?

mwilliamson writes "As I sit reading my morning paper online I still cannot view the embedded videos due to auto-detection of my Flash player not working. One in every three or four YouTube videos crashes the browser. I remember sometime back reading that Adobe has a very small development team (possibly only one) working on the Linux port of Flash. It has occurred to me that Flash on Linux is the one major entry barrier controlling acceptance of Linux as a viable desktop operating system. No matter how stably, smoothly, efficiently, and correctly Linux runs on a machine, the public will continue to view it as second-rate if Flash keeps crashing. This is the worst example of being tied down and bound by a crappy 3rd-party product over which no Linux distribution has any control. GNASH is nice, but it just isn't there 100%. I really do have to suspect Adobe's motivation for keeping Flash on Linux in such a deplorable state."

170 of 963 comments (clear)

  1. Flash sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Adopt Silverlight!

    1. Re:Flash sucks by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 5, Informative

      See, thats marked as troll, and the poster probably was trolling. However, is there a real difference between flash and silverlight? They're both controlled by a single company. If Moonlight (the linux based open source version based on mono) takes off, shouldn't that put more pressure on Adobe to fix their crappy linux port?

      Of course, I'd take silverlight more seriously if it worked better on Windows. Several computers I've set up have had problems installing Silverlight.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    2. Re:Flash sucks by Peet42 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Adopt Silverlight!

      Indeed. Anything to get it away from its abusive parents.

    3. Re:Flash sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What are you talking about?
      Nobody ever tried to disguise the fact that Silverlight is from Microsoft. Moonlight is developed by Novel.

      And what is a proprietary lock on open source?

    4. Re:Flash sucks by mikiN · · Score: 5, Informative

      First off, I think Slashcode ate some tags in your post.

      On topic: for YouTube and other embedded video, one can try one of the few bazillion "play this video using embedded MPlayer/Media Player/QuickTime/VLC/whatever" Greasemonkey scripts over on userscripts.org. That is, if you use a Mozilla-based browser.

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    5. Re:Flash sucks by mikiN · · Score: 5, Informative

      Oh and don't forget to AdBlock the original video with a suitable pattern, as otherwise Flash and your favorite player will fight a duel to the death over which one is going to play the video, the loser (Flash) often taking the browser down with it.

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    6. Re:Flash sucks by felipekk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So it is Adobe's fault that Linux is not on the desktop yet?

      There is not enough usage of Linux to convince Adobe to create something stable.

      There is not enough stability of Flash to convince people to switch to Linux.

    7. Re:Flash sucks by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But at least we have access to the Moonlight source code to fix bugs when needed.

    8. Re:Flash sucks by moosesocks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, Microsoft officially endorse the open-source client, so I'd imagine that they have at least a somewhat vested interest in making sure that it works and remains compatible with the official windows/mac clients.

      It's really a shame that people haven't embraced Silverlight, as it really does have the potential to be a lot better than Flash. Unfortunately, the Open-source community treated it with outright hostility, and it looks unlikely to catch us.

      Therefore, instead of getting a slightly-more-open and slightly-more-compatible standard than Flash that also addresses many of Flash's performance issue, we're left with.....Flash.

      Unless the Open Source community has a legitimate alternative to Silverlight or Flash ready, I wouldn't go parading around and criticizing either.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    9. Re:Flash sucks by Ilgaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Adobe at least tries so hard to support multiple platforms, even planning to ship Flash Lite 3 for free to Symbian/WinMo whatever while Microsoft would sit and cry if somehow all operating systems have Silverlight support.

      They (MS) dropped PowerPC support as early as release 2 while Adobe enabled (finally!) multi core/SMP support on Flash 10 plugin OS X.

      Moonlight? Yes, we see how Mono helps windows developers to ship for Linux. ;)

    10. Re:Flash sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      let's see:

      - doesn't do half the shit flash does
      - no video/sound
      - doesn't work right, implementation issues
      - no designers or tools

      great alternative, you smelly virgins.

      anyone waiting for svg to superceed flash/silverlight should just save a step and commit suicide immediately

    11. Re:Flash sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think Silverlight 2 will be huge.

      I'm an old-school programmer with a CS background. I've programmed embedded systems, MVS, Unix and Windows using machine code, assembly languages, imperative languages, object-oriented languages and functional languages. And my absolute all-time favorite programming environment is C# in Visual Studio. C# is a really nice language, the BCL (the .Net class library) is huge (and for the most part very well designed) and Visual Studio hides all the usual programming cruft. (And for the 0.01% of the time that I actually need to care about the cruft, Visual Studio lets me tinker with it.)

      Silverlight 2 is a slimmed-down .Net. It has WPF (the new UI framework, also in Silverlight 1) + the BCL + C# (or whatever other .Net language you like). It is a joy to program and if the cross platform support (Windows/Mac/Linux) works as promised I don't see how it can fail. It is very, very nice. Just one example of its loveliness: WPF is, without a doubt, the best effort to-date in separating presentation and content. It is much, much better than HTML+CSS.

      Silverlight's only competitor, Flash, is relatively difficult to develop for because it is a thing in itself. On the other hand, there are already millions of C# programmers, of whom most will learn WPF and have no trouble developing Silverlight apps.

      Indeed, I don't see how Silverlight 2 can fail.

    12. Re:Flash sucks by darthdavid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reason why it won't ever supersede Flash or Silverlight is because it's not supposed to supersede Flash or Silverlight. SVG is designed for still vector images and animation on the order of animated gif (IE, short and no sound). Nothing else.

      This means that both the parent and the grandparent are being dumb. SVG isn't meant to do what flash does and so the GP is ascribing abilities to it which it will never have and P is criticizing it for not doing things which it was never meant to do. Obligatory Car Analogy: GP suggests using a pickup truck to move a shipping trailer on a long-haul delivery. P says that pickup trucks suck because they can't pull shipping trailers very well and then calls everyone who drives one a smelly virgin.

      As for online video, why the fuck is every sonofabitch out there making their own fucking flash client for video? Video should be distributed in a proper file none of this "Compress->Re-encode/resample for flash->stream to my computer" bullshit...

    13. Re:Flash sucks by Afrosheen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why am I not surprised that the industry at large isn't embracing another me-too Microsoft knock-off product? To this day I can't name 2 websites that use Silverlight, and one of them is Microsoft themselves.

      Xune, Vista, Silverlight. Oh Microsoft, can you please look up "innovation" in the dictionary?

    14. Re:Flash sucks by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, Microsoft officially endorse the open-source client, so I'd imagine that they have at least a somewhat vested interest in making sure that it works and remains compatible with the official windows/mac clients.

      It's really a shame that people haven't embraced Silverlight, as it really does have the potential to be a lot better than Flash. Unfortunately, the Open-source community treated it with outright hostility, and it looks unlikely to catch us.

      Long story short:
      If you're trying to gain market share you'll get in bed with pretty much anyone for backing.
      If you're trying to keep market share you'll sabotage any real compatbility and interoperability.

      Microsoft is not trusted because they have a deeply vested interest in making sure that the only place things really work is on the Windows platform. So we help Microsoft kill flash and when Silverlight has momentum enough, they won't need us anymore. Then you have another Microsoft-controlled technology that ships by default with Windows tying people to the Windows platform, while the OSS community tries to pull off another half-assed dotnet clone which doesn't really work well. Adobe's support for Linux sucks, but replacing it with Microsoft won't be any better in the long run.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    15. Re:Flash sucks by mpeg4codec · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft owns several patents related to Silverlight, covering both implementation and concepts. Microsoft promises that it will not sue the Moonlight team over any of these patents. However, a promise is not a legal agreement.

      How much faith do you have in Microsoft keeping its promises?

    16. Re:Flash sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Correction. Microsoft endorses Silverlight on exactly one distro, SUSE, making distribution hard. Flash does not have this limitation.
      Microsoft has a history of defining "standards" or using standards then creating it's own private customizations. Remember RTF? It's supposed to be a standard, but the way Microsoft uses it, there are many hooks into their platform. Remember Kerberos? Microsoft used it, then created their own extensions. Flash, for all it's faults, works (at least on Ubuntu).

      As for alternatives, you can start with Gnash. If you limit yourself to what Gnash produces (which honestly is a lot more than most apps need), you're okay. What really need to happen is that Gnash needs a validator so you can quickly check if a given flash file conforms.

    17. Re:Flash sucks by moosesocks · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, a verbal contract (especially a highly publicized one) might actually stand up in a lawsuit.

      There is the chance that the only purpose of the patent is to prevent somebody else from patenting the same idea, and then suing Microsoft.

      As far as I can tell, Microsoft have acted in remarkably good faith in terms of Silverlight. They know that their draconian tactics of old aren't going to work anymore.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    18. Re:Flash sucks by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Adopt Silverlight!

      If by that you mean that we should be investigating alternatives, then absolutely.

      Before Adobe swallowed Macromedia, they were assisting the development of SVG as an alternative to Flash. Perhaps we need to return to this idea and place renewed emphasis on SVG. I'm sure that SVG combined with other open technologies (JavaScript, Ogg Speex/Vorbis/Theora, etc.) could prove to be a viable alternative if the right effort was put in.

      The biggest stumbling blocks I see to this are the dearth of easy authoring tools and the lack of a strong install base on the client side.

    19. Re:Flash sucks by Skye16 · · Score: 4, Funny

      (you may want to multitask whilst you're waiting. otherwise you just ruined *two* lives.)

    20. Re:Flash sucks by bersl2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know who's behind W3C, do you?
      It's a committee of companies. And Microsoft is one of the big fishes in there. (Primarily responsible for blockings and intrigues.)

      Why, yes, I did know that. :| But it's not one single company, which is the important point.

    21. Re:Flash sucks by Sterling+Christensen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure they're both controlled be a single company. But there is a critical difference.

      For Flash Player to be lousy on alternative platforms hurt Flash adoption a little, but not fatally so.

      If Silverlight were in any way difficult for Moonlight to be compatible with, it would:
      1) hurt Silverlight adoption a little, but not fatally so
      2) work in Microsoft's favor by reinforcing the monopoly position of Windows. "Linux sucks - blah blah and Silverlight animations look weird on it".

      I prefer apathy to a troubling conflict of interest. At least Adobe doesn't gain anything from problems with the Linux version of Flash Player.

    22. Re:Flash sucks by HitoGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The patent threats are irrelevant to Moonlight, especially since Microsoft is actually "helping" Moonlight.

      And, to be honest, I think this article is overestimating how badly Flash runs on Linux. I'm happily running Flash 10 Beta with no problems, thank you.

      --
      I am beginning to think that maybe Darl McBride was attacked viciously by a penguin as a child.
    23. Re:Flash sucks by HitoGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Don't get me started on Java. Especially on 64-bit platforms, especially 64-bit Linux platforms. If you thought Flash worked badly on 64-bit Linux, you've never even attempted Java on the same. It's easier to get Flash working on Firefox 3 on 64-bit Linux than it is for Java. In the end, if I ever decide I need Java (Which I do not.) I can just install a 32-bit browser, then it works with a little less cajoling.

      --
      I am beginning to think that maybe Darl McBride was attacked viciously by a penguin as a child.
    24. Re:Flash sucks by HitoGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Apple is rather so-so for open source, but there's a lot more companies doing more than Apple is likely to do. And, naturally, if you're like RMS, (Which I hope not, RMS, while his goals are good, strikes me as overzealous.) Apple doesn't behave like it supports free (libre) software.

      I'd be happier with Apple if not for exploiting code that uses the overly permissive BSD license. I like the GPL because I can rest assured that anyone legitimate can use my code, but not suddenly close it and make a tidy profit off my work.

      Though, I could be wrong, Mac OS X uses BASH (Though I doubt many Mac users ever actually use it.), which I believe, and correct me if I am wrong on this, is actually GPL. But I haven't heard of any contributions from Apple to BASH... again, I could be seriously flawed in my thinking here.

      --
      I am beginning to think that maybe Darl McBride was attacked viciously by a penguin as a child.
    25. Re:Flash sucks by Lerc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem here is that even if SVG is not intended to fill the niche of flash, It has been presented as such by many many people.

      The original poster was presenting an opinion that is hardly rare. I have encountered a fair few open source zealots that refuse to run flash and claim that if you need that functionality, use gnash(built without mp3 support of course) or SVG. Both of which are far from ideal.

      This does present a real problem. There is very little drive for an open spec alternative to flash. I have done some work in this area, and you would not believe the number of times I've heard "Just use SVG"

      --
      -- That which does not kill us has made its last mistake.
    26. Re:Flash sucks by Afrosheen · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow I actually got marked as a troll? I guess things have changed in my 6 month Slashdot hiatus.

      Yay Microsoft, I hope Silverlight catches on?

    27. Re:Flash sucks by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Informative

      Microsoft would sit and cry if somehow all operating systems have Silverlight support.

      So far nothing MS has done is anywhere close to that. They covered two major browsers on Windows in 1.0 and are planning to cover the third one in the 2.0 release, they've released an OS X version, and they provide official support (in terms of developer documentation and conformance test suites) and supply codecs to a generic Unix/X11 implementation. You may argue that it's all just deceit, similar to how other posters in the thread above have done, and that can be discussed - but to say that MS does nothing to support Silverlight on multiple platforms is simply incorrect.

    28. Re:Flash sucks by aliquis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But Flash suck on OS X aswell, a couple of pages with flash ads can easily take all my processor power, no matter how much there is, which is just unacceptable.

      What we need is to get rid of flash since it sucks balls, who needs it?

      1) Flash are mostly used for ads, who wants ads? Especially if they move, makes sound, sits on top of other things, take lots of CPU power, memory and heats up your machine.

      2) Flash are sometimes used to design complete webpages, which suck because they have to be navigated in a non-standard way, design goes over function, they take forever to load and I can't open lots of screenshots in multiple tabs...

      3) Finally flash are used for videos, which I guess some people who don't have a clue like because that way they don't have to install any more codecs. But personally that's (youtube, gametrailers, and such) the only thing stopping me from removing flash completely, so I so much want this to change. Safari can handle video directly in the browser and I hope we see more of that, won't happen until the suckers with IE get the functionallity + couple of years extra I guess though :/
      Even old embedded quicktime days was better.

    29. Re:Flash sucks by uhlume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As for online video, why the fuck is every sonofabitch out there making their own fucking flash client for video? Video should be distributed in a proper file none of this "Compress->Re-encode/resample for flash->stream to my computer" bullshit...

      Because it Just Works, and Flash is ubiquitous whether you like or not. According to the stats on the commercial site I maintain, upwards of 96% of visitors have some FLV-capable version Flash installed. That means I can deploy video without forcing some large percentage of my users to install yet another player/plugin/codec just to see it. That just isn't true of any other comparable streaming video technology.

      --
      SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
    30. Re:Flash sucks by segedunum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As for online video, why the fuck is every sonofabitch out there making their own fucking flash client for video? Video should be distributed in a proper file none of this "Compress->Re-encode/resample for flash->stream to my computer" bullshit...

      Simple. Because there's no easy way of distributing video over the web, that's why. With Windows Media and Real you have to account for the version or plugin people are running, and it's a pain when you can just have the video appear within your browser quite easily. We have Ogg Vorbis and HTML 5, but there is little chance of Microsoft adopting that for obvious reasons. Bizarrely, even Nokia are against it, so we'll be stuck with Flash as a distribution medium as Microsoft and others fanny about trying to make their technology the standard...............again.

    31. Re:Flash sucks by Ed+Avis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Firstly, C# version 3 (supported by current Mono, and also by that alternative Mono implementation from Microsoft) is much more functional in style, if you want it to be. IIRC it has let-expressions (perhaps as part of LINQ) and lambdas, and it might even have algebraic data types (I need to check that).

      Secondly, F# is a pretty sweet functional language that compiles to CLR bytecode, letting you do anything you can do in C#.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    32. Re:Flash sucks by lordofthechia · · Score: 4, Informative

      Many others are experiencing issues. This is one of many threads like this on the Ubuntu forums where people are having serious issue with flash (especially compared to earlier versions (before 9.048). Version 9.112 and beyond (and even Beta) still are really slow, consume a crapload of cpu cycles and are in general unusable.

      I've been researching this issue (mainly to get Hulu.com videos playable in fullscreen on a Mythbuntu setup) and have found no recourse other than playing the video at normal size, but using Firefox's zoom or turning on Compiz and using the fullscreen zoom to enlarge the video. Even so the video gets choppy occasionally and of course, is kind of a pain.

      Right now full screen videos (using Flash's full screen option) use 90% CPU (out of 2 CPUs on an Athlon 64x2 4800+) and beat to death the poor Sempron 2800 I have on my Mythbuntu setup. Funny enough, the puny Sempron can play HD videos at 1080p with little or no issue.

      After following countless threads (and the official bug report on Adobe's website), trying every 9 version and 10 beta, and so on I've pretty much given up on getting Flash to behave for now. Don't get me wrong, I believe you when you say it's playing fine for you, but either the issue is genuinely not affecting your system, or you haven't paid attention to cpu usage while playing flash. As always YMMV.

      BTW, any hints not covered in the forums greatly appreciated. Getting fullscreen flash working is the last step in getting a web video based MythTV setup working.

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    33. Re:Flash sucks by Jaseoldboss · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I'd be more inclined to try it out if it didn't send your unique system identifier* to all the web sites you visit. I've got used to appearing to be a new visitor to every site I go to by deleting cookies and removing flash shared objects** which are used as surrogate cookies. I'm not willing to give it up for another snazzy plugin.

      Doubtless there will be a way to prevent it, especially in Moonlight as it's open source.
      * See my journal
      ** Put the following code in a batch file in your "all users" startup folder:

      RMDIR "%APPDATA%\Macromedia" /S /Q

    34. Re:Flash sucks by KillerBob · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oddly, though, I've not had any problem running Flash on my laptop. Well... depending on browser. It's between your two computers in terms of power... a Core 2 Duo T5450 1.66GHz w/ 2GB of RAM.

      I'm using Zenwalk 5.2 as my base system, updated to current. I've got Firefox 2, and I'm using Flash from the packages. Youtube videos play fine, little flash games like Desktop Tower Defense, and others on Facebook (well, one of the Mindjolt games on FB doesn't work, but that just doesn't load at all, and has the same behaviour under FF3 on Windows XP... oddly, it *does* load on Konqueror), as well as sites like gamedesign.co.jp. They all work. No crash. No slowdowns. No obscenely high CPU usage. It's working as intended.

      Oddly... the inbox on Facebook doesn't work properly under Firefox. Again, same behaviour under FF3 on Windows XP (my work computer). At work, I use Internet Exploder to access that. At home, I installed Konqueror (Which FB thinks is Safari 2 and suggests I should consider upgrading, but the inbox does work). There is a package for Flash for Konqueror under Zenwalk, but I instead allowed it to detect and use the Firefox plugin. On that browser, I see the problems you're describing... games crash the browser about half the time, CPU usage is far higher than it should be. Because it's working fine under Firefox, though, I haven't really felt any need to upgrade.

      YMMV... but maybe it's got more to do with your distro than it does Linux as a whole.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    35. Re:Flash sucks by higuita · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > On the other hand, there are already millions of C# programmers, of whom most will learn WPF and have no trouble developing Silverlight apps.

      there are already millions of flash developers today, no need to wait for tomorrow...

      >Indeed, I don't see how Silverlight 2 can fail.

      its from MS... not even MS use it in their sites...
      MS have many products that are a totally failure (when they hit, they hit it big), just remember the MS BOB!!

      to work in the web, it must be cross platform, specially today with linux and mac (and appliances) in the rise, light (remember java) and give something new

      i'm not even referring that people must have it installed, as MS will probably enforce its usage via some security update (think in the windows search)

      --
      Higuita
    36. Re:Flash sucks by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 5, Informative

      but there are plenty of ways to present video via JavaScript without using a plugin monster like Flash or Silverlight. That's what Apple does

      No. Apple uses Quicktime, which is a plug-in. Are you being purposefully dense?

      It's pretty monstrous, too. Flash is, what, 1.4 MB download? Silverlight is like 4.5 MB or so... the old 1.0 version less. Quicktime is somewhere around 23 MB.

      Using the presentation of web video as a killer app for browser middleware is absurdly ridiculous.

      Ok; so how do you do it without using "browser middleware?" The only browser with any form of video support at the moment is Safari, since they're already starting to implement HTML5. Hey, maybe HTML5 will be super successful and using plug-ins like Quicktime and Flash to present video will be seen as quaint. But that doesn't change the fact that, right now for the majority of users, a browser plug-in is the only way to view video on the web.

      So let's take the third application of Flash/Silverlight beyond animated ads and framing video: rich apps. Apple is also proving that this can be done just as well using a JavaScript framework with MobileMe. Yes, Apple had problems getting their servers up to serve the few million upgrading .Mac users and an an influx of new iPhone MM subscribers, but the apps work pretty well, and they outclass anything I've seen built in Flash/Flex/AIR.

      I can't drag a file from my desktop and drop it on a Javascript application. I can't have a Javascript application ask me where to save a file to my computer, then save it. There's no such thing as a Javascript runtime (although I hear Mozilla is working on one) so that I can use the JS app like a local application, without requiring a browser.

      There are tons of things Flash/Flex/AIR can do that Javascript can't. Remember the concepts there were cribbed from Shockwave, and Shockwave has a track record of making functional cross-platform applications that don't require a browser.

      You don't even have to like Apple's hardware to appreciate what its doing for open source.

      I don't really give a crap about what license a particular piece of code is under. I do, however, care that you're so busy giving your Steve Jobs collector's doll a blowjob to realize that Quicktime is actually a browser plugin... seriously, man, get a grip.

    37. Re:Flash sucks by Wdomburg · · Score: 2, Informative

      Erm, Silverlight 2 is already out in beta, with new controls released under a public license. The Moonlight 2 team has alpha builds already. :)

    38. Re:Flash sucks by badpazzword · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course as just as I post that Silverlight crashes Firefox.

      Oh, the humanity.

      --
      When ideas fail, words become very handy.
  2. Flash by XanC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Flash (and Silverlight, et al) are a threat to the Internet generally. I wouldn't run Flash even if they bothered to create a version that runs on my OS (64-bit Linux).

    The more of use that don't use Flash, the better.

    1. Re:Flash by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wouldn't run Flash even if they bothered to create a version that runs on my OS (64-bit Linux).

      I'm using Flash on 64-bit Linux right now. No problems with YouTube, although some sites appear to be using crap detection scripts that give me a "You must upgrade to Flash 9 to view this" when in fact I am running Flash 9.

      That being said, I'd be much happier if Flash were displaced by SVG or some other form of markup. Binary blobs suck.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:Flash by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't disagree that flash is bad for the web, but in order to convince developers not to use it, there needs to be a valid alternative. If youtube didn't use flash for video, what would they use instead? Animated gifs? Expecting a site like youtube to just not serve video because there isn't a free software way to do what they want to do is unreasonable.

      We really need at least some form of video integrated into the browser, and it looks like we might have it in firefox soon, (better many years too late than never). Then, we can at least give sites the option of serving video to browsers that support theora but not flash.

    3. Re:Flash by vk2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lucky you. I have a very different experience with flash on Ubuntu-8.0.4.1-amd64 ; After about 6 to 8 flash videos (Youtube.com, news websites etc) flash doesn't work anymore (gives me a blank white window) until I restart Firefox. The same cycle continues ad-infinitum. Since I fiddle with Oracle databases all the time on this machine - I got the brilliant idea to upgrade my machine to use 4G of RAM and now I cannot happily browse without restarting Firefox every now and then. Finally switched over to my backup desktop with 32 bit Ubuntu and I am back to normal again.

      --
      No Sig for you.!
    4. Re:Flash by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Informative

      My bad - sort of.

      I'm using 32-bit Firefox 2.0.0.16 on 64-bit openSUSE 10.2. (I get tired of waiting for them to upgrade, and I can't get it to compile, so I just grab the 32-bit binary from mozilla.com and plop it in my ~/bin.)

      BTW, the Flash 10 installer wouldn't run ("OS not supported"), but copying libflashplayer.so to ~/.mozilla/plugins and restarting the browser did the trick.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    5. Re:Flash by corbettw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Flash (and Silverlight, et al) are a threat to the Internet generally.

      BS. Flash is a great way to deliver rich content on a website. It's only a threat if you think the Internet should stay in the same configuration it was in in 1983, when a 1200 baud connection was considered fast and if you wanted porn you had to print it out and hold it two feet in front of you.

      Considering the level of citizen journalism that sites like YouTube and LiveLeak have enabled, all thanks to Flash, I think you need to seriously rethink your stance against that platform.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    6. Re:Flash by XanC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You've proven the case for multimedia on the Web. Not Flash.

      Think of the level of citizen journalism, all the articles and ideas, that Microsoft Word has enabled. Therefore, we should all store and distribute .doc files instead of an open standard.

    7. Re:Flash by hedwards · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's a threat to anybody that isn't able to use flash. And the fact that there aren't any good alternatives to their implementation is a pretty good reason to fear it as well.

      As a FreeBSD user the only way I get to see flash is if I use wine to run a Windows version of Firefox. Which means that a great number of sites like youtube don't run in any meaningful manner without a lot of extra effort.

      Just because I have a DSL line doesn't mean that I'm OK with sites that choose to waste a lot of it unnecessarily on overly complicated interfaces which ultimately just slow things down.

      Same goes for processing power, I don't care if it's lost revenue, if the only ads available are flash, I'm not going to be clicking. There's absolutely no reason why flash ads need to be used. We've got gifs and pngs which can do pretty much all of that without risk of crashing the browser.

    8. Re:Flash by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's only a threat if you think the Internet should stay in the same configuration it was in in 1983, when a 1200 baud connection was considered fast

      This isn't about the technology, not directly. There are two points to keep in mind here:

      First, Flash is proprietary. Making the Internet depend on proprietary technology is destroying the one thing that makes the Internet great -- anyone can connect, from anything.

      That is: The Internet thrives on open standards. Flash isn't open, and Silverlight is neither. (Yeah, I know about Moonlight -- how long till that gets hit with patents from Microsoft, though, if it starts to matter?)

      Second: Flash is its own little ecosystem. HTML really is very powerful -- done right, it's possible to both style it up very richly with CSS, and yet keep the HTML itself so clean that it's machine readable -- so much so that people start to build microformats on top of it. Makes the job much easier for screenreaders, also, or for people who want to reskin the page (just load up a Greasemonkey script and add a stylesheet).

      Flash supports none of these things. There is some mention of accessibility, yes, but it's nowhere near where HTML is.

      HTML separates things into pages and sub-page anchors. It's possible to do this with Flash, but only by piggybacking on top of what HTML is already doing, and with a fair amount of Javascript.

      That is: I can bookmark this comment, if I need to. I can link to it from another page, directly. If Slashdot was written in Flash, would I be able to?

      I could go on. And on.

      The only legitimate use of Flash is to add functionality which isn't yet in a browser, and to select chunks of the page -- that is, YouTube isn't entirely Flash, just the player. But that should only be a holdover until the necessary things are implemented in the browser.

      Considering the level of citizen journalism that sites like YouTube and LiveLeak have enabled, all thanks to Flash...

      No, thanks to embedded video, which existed long before Flash, and is finally being done in a standard way with the HTML5 video tag. YouTube never needed Flash, and still doesn't.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    9. Re:Flash by xSauronx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More posts that should be put in a distro-specific forum, instead of the slashdot front page. Im all for helping people, but some need to help themselves.

      I never had any serious, regular problem, in the last year and a half, with Debian Etch or Any Ubuntu release since 6.10 (when i first used it) with flash. The oddball crash happens, but its nothing normal or that I can re-create (in epiphany browser or firefox)

      With that, I link to "How to ask questions the smart way" or "christ, can you search first, then ask in the apporopriate place?" :

      Clickity

      Please understand I have nothing again helping anyone....but people should help themselves first. The flashplayer performance is horrible, but the OP lists no specifics to help him with his problem. Theres no distro name, no kernel or browser type or version given, no way anyone can help him.

      The post is just a bitch and moan. This is slashdot, news for nerds, etc. There have been useful, interesting "Ask Slashdot" posts, but this is not one of them.

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    10. Re:Flash by NFN_NLN · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Flash excels at vector graphics. If you have animated or computer generated graphics as opposed to raw video than the files are incredibly compact.

    11. Re:Flash by houstonbofh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My hate is layered flash navigation. Like the Verizon Wireless web site. Try to log in from Linux... The login is under a flash banner. Turn off flash to log in, and you loose the navigation. So you go to a WinPC and log in wrong, and go to a "bad password, log in again" page, and save the link. Now it works in Linux. Asinine. And I bugged it with they several years ago...

    12. Re:Flash by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 4, Informative

      If youtube didn't use flash for video, what would they use instead? Animated gifs?

      Or maybe embedded video, which browsers have supported for decades? Like, oh, Quicktime, or mpeg?

      You could argue that Flash had a wider install base. And you'd be right -- but what about up-to-date Flash? YouTube has been requiring higher and higher versions, like just about all Flash content. At this point, I would guess that everyone who can watch YouTube also has some sort of player that supports mpeg.

      We really need at least some form of video integrated into the browser, and it looks like we might have it in firefox soon

      You're talking about the HTML5 video tag. Erm... Safari beat us to it. With h.264 support.

      So, Safari and Firefox will support native video. It should be trivial to write a script which detects a browser not supporting the video tag, and replaces it with some embedded Flash, for backwards compatibility -- and because we know it will take a decade or so for IE to support this.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    13. Re:Flash by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wouldn't say the internet thrives on open standards. I'd say that closed source, proprietary technologies cause the internet to thrive and progress, and when the open standards people catch up to what most people have been doing for 5 years, it's usually a good thing.

      Nearly all the advances that have happened on the internet over the last 15 years have been started as proprietary technology, while the technologies that began life open have wallowed and gone virtually nowhere. It's only when the proprietary technologies become open that things become better.

    14. Re:Flash by pla · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You've proven the case for multimedia on the Web. Not Flash.

      Okay, so other than Flash (or any other proprietary browser plug in such as Quicktime or Real), how do you propose to get that multimedia on the web? A large unpadded table with Javascript updating the colors? I hope you like 320x240 at 2fps...

      Put simply, Flash solves a major shortcoming of the web in general - Namely, the lack of any really powerful client-side multimedia-oriented code execution in a more-or-less sandboxed environment. Until you can say how to do it better (and I'd love it if you would, since I don't claim to "like" Flash except as the best of a sorry lot).


      Therefore, we should all store and distribute .doc files instead of an open standard.

      No one has said we should put up with Flash because of all the good it has done; only that it fills an otherwise rather empty niche.

    15. Re:Flash by stinerman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay, so other than Flash (or any other proprietary browser plug in such as Quicktime or Real), how do you propose to get that multimedia on the web?

      I prefer the browser plug-in myself. Flash is a pretty shitty medium for video.

      Really the only reason quite a few places use flash is because its easier to hide the source of the video within a flash environment (to stop those pesky kids from saving the video locally). Flash is a sort of poor man's DRM. Good thing clive and other flash downloaders exist.

    16. Re:Flash by Zerth · · Score: 4, Funny

      The internet isn't thriving, it is festering.

    17. Re:Flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Did you seriously just suggest replacing Flash with Quicktime?

      Please tell me I'm reading this wrong.

      Otherwise, you are a retard.

      So we should all replace one crappy proprietary format with another crappy proprietary format which has an OS company as it's backer?

      Hell, why not just use Silverlight instead then.

      Because Apple or MS would NEVER do any type of proprietary switcheroo once they get the large majority of the userbase.....

      oh wait...

    18. Re:Flash by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean via mplayer or other similar plugins? Sure, that's an option, but as far as I understand, mplayer infringes on a number of patents, and so it's not strictly legal in all jurisdictions. I just checked, and Ogg theora works fine in firefox on my system (thanks to vlc, mplayer, and totem plugins; I have no idea which one is actually rendering the video). But how many windows firefox installs also have a theora plugin? (Not a rhetorical question, I'd actually be interested in an answer.) Having some form of video support in the mainline browser code and not as an optional add-on is very important if you expect major sites to use something other than flash for video, and that's probably not going to happen with mpeg until all the relevant patents expire.

      There's also the issue of being able to start watching the video before the whole thing downloads (probably not an issue with mpeg, but I don't know how well the plugins handle streaming), and the ability for the video to adapt to available bandwidth, something that mpeg does not do.

    19. Re:Flash by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Informative

      MPEG has the patent problem: Getting a commercially supported player, for Linux, remains impossible becuase the patent owners _will not sell_ reasonable licenses for Linux. While sites like 'Penguin Liberation Front' remain very useful for those of us who need casual tool access to play an occasional MPEG, making commercially supportable MPEG players for Linux remains awkward.

      Mind you, the 'Penguin Liberation Front' remains a wonderful source of software for anyone outside of the DMCA encumbered and software patent encumbered USA who wnats to play MPEG's, DVD's, or even have access to wired old tools that had odd licenses.

    20. Re:Flash by Ilgaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I tell you the issue with Quicktime and my personal favourite (really!) Real Player.

      Flash player plugin is a single click install with a joke like 1.2 MB size, it lives inside browser, nothing added to startup.

      Quicktime and Real missed the opportunity because of their size and old policies (Real, especially).

      There is no way you can explain to Apple fans that adding a taskbar icon on Windows, bundling additional software with UI tricks (iTunes) are reasons of "death sentence" on Windows scene. I am sure there are similar thinking people at Apple themselves. Would you want rc.flash.startup in your /etc everytime you install Flash? It is same for them.

      I see Real doing lots of things to get the download smaller with less user irritation but they still can't understand a basic trick: bare minimum framework+plugin. That is what Adobe does, even on recent Adobe Air.

      HTML5 guys pushing ogg format really, really doesn't make sense. Media have gave up VP3 ages ago and you know as people having lawyers dedicated to copyright, they aren't that bugged about patents. Big media is arguing whether they should keep on MPEG4 or convert to H264. It seems new fashion tiny laptops saved MPEG4 fate ;)

    21. Re:Flash by mhall119 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The thing is, despite all the flaws in Adobe's flash player, it is generally fast and things load really quickly. Java on the other hand though more open and better, takes forever to get things loaded and navigation in Java has always seemed to be laggy.

      The loading speed of the Java plugin is being addressed with the upcoming update 10, which actually contains many improvements. The navigation issues are usually a result of a badly written UI, which unfortunately is all too easy to do with AWT and Swing.

      The new JavaFX takes much of the complexity out of writing a well behaved UI. It will also have better multimedia playback for video content like what YouTube uses Flash for.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    22. Re:Flash by jacquesm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know who modded you insightful but you're full of it.

      The last 15 years includes HTML, XML and a host of other protocols/formats that started out about as open as it can possibly get and *THEY* are what drove the enormous growth of the internet.

    23. Re:Flash by sjames · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nearly all the advances that have happened on the internet over the last 15 years have been started as proprietary technology, while the technologies that began life open have wallowed and gone virtually nowhere. It's only when the proprietary technologies become open that things become better.

      Yeah, that email thing was a real flop. Nobody uses that. SSH? What's that? When ever will BitTorrent actually get used? HTML? Who uses that when they can use Flash?

      Of course, qualifying it with in the last 15 years cuts out the biggies, the internet itself! Fully documented standards without which we'd still be modeming to BBSes or Compu$erve.

      Many of the truly successful innovations on the net, including the net itself, are the result of fully open specs designed to permit easy re-implementation and even better, reference code or full apps ready to use.

    24. Re:Flash by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not simply provide an anchor (link) to an industry standard mpeg file that I can download and view?

      If you mean, in addition to the flash video, I think the answer is pretty obvious: because they don't want their users downloading and saving videos. Yes, this is annoying, and no, they aren't going to stop everyone, but their goal isn't to stop everyone, it's to stop most people.

      If you mean instead of flash, then there are several objections: a) mpeg is patent encumbered, and not everyone is going to be able to view it without downloading a (potentially illegal in some jurisdictions) mpeg viewer program, b) downloading and then viewing in an external program (if that's what you're implying) isn't much fun when you want to watch a lot of videos. Suppose you wrote a web browser that didn't do jpeg, but you're free to download the jpegs and view them in gimp if you like. Do you suppose web developers are going to bother to support that browser? c) mpeg wasn't designed with streaming in mind. I don't see any reason why a decent mpeg player would need to download the whole file before it starts playing, but mpeg is not capable of adapting its bandwidth use on the fly. And d) if you use a video plugin like mplayer or vlc, there's no guarantee that it will have a consistent, usable interface, or that that interface can be extended.

      I'm no fan of flash, but I think the open source community (and the mozilla developers in particular) have dropped the ball on video support. Maybe if it was in a better state, youtube would still have chosen flash so they can keep their users from downloading the videos. But, the way I see it, they didn't have any really great alternatives to flash at the time the site was first created.

    25. Re:Flash by rastoboy29 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You bring up an interesting point.  It makes me wonder what would  happen if Youtube DID change formats, to some open standard.  Maybe make high resolution video only available on that platform.

      They are probably the sole player on the net with even the possibility of breaking the Flash stranglehold.

    26. Re:Flash by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It might be easy to detect browser support, but it also means doubling the number of video files to store

      Only if you do it wrong.

      Both Flash and Safari's implementation of the video tag support h.264 video. At the very worst, you have to re-encapsulate it -- which is fast enough that it's likely possible to stream.

      You're also ignoring the fact that YouTube, at least, have already done this to support things like the iPhone.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    27. Re:Flash by tyrione · · Score: 2, Informative

      Flash excels at vector graphics. If you have animated or computer generated graphics as opposed to raw video than the files are incredibly compact.

      Unless you're dealing strictly with raytracing those generated graphics are rasterized and not vectors.

      Flash was the PowerPoint of the Web and suddenly Macromedia and Adobe decided, for everyone [by their merger], that we really want to live in a powerpoint presentation.

      There is no reason to fault them for trying this business approach and it's up to the general consumers to show them differently by supporting alternative equivalents as they surface.

    28. Re:Flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fuck you and your 20k emails for 2 lines of text. I like small and compact.

    29. Re:Flash by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, you proved my point.

      1) Email is older than 5 years, and it was largely made popular by proprietary corporate systems, then became popular over the internet.

      2) SSH began life as freeware, but was quickly proprietarized by the creator. Later, open source versions appeared.

      3) BitTorrent was never a standard of any kind and still isn't, BitTorrent corporation is proprietary.

      4) HTML was largely made popular by Netscape and Microsoft, both of whome flouted standards for years creating proprietary tags.

    30. Re:Flash by jacquesm · · Score: 4, Informative

      As the inventor of live video on the web I think I know what I'm talking about, and it used no plug ins (just multipart/replace encoding). Later versions used javascript to achieve the same effect, still no plug ins needed. Audio was initially done using a small java applet.

      XMLHttpRequest is used for 'under water' connections to the server to update a page that is already there, try switching off javascript for a while and see how many websites will break, the majority of them (including the one we are writing all this on) will have a non-js fallback. So, that's definitely not what 'drove the popularity of the internet'. That's just FUD.

      TCP/IP, HTTP, XML and to a lesser extent older content protocols such as NNTP, gopher, archie, ftp and telnet are what made the internet as large as it is.

      Only when there was sufficient critical mass did we get these 'proprietary protocols' and file formats with all the associated trouble. Read back for a bit in the RFC archive to see just how wrong you really are.

      XMLHttpRequest is a classic example of Microsofts embrace and extend strategy, and it is to this day carrying the baggage of that.

  3. Open Source Flash? by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So there is no version of Flash that is open source then?

    The disadvantage of not being able to play Flash is mostly on sites like YouTube. But some other sites are also using Flash for the interesting content.

    So the big question is - is it possible to implement a Flash player for Linux that's open source?

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:Open Source Flash? by JohnFluxx · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is Gnash (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/) but it still has a way to go

    2. Re:Open Source Flash? by Tom9729 · · Score: 2, Informative

      So there is no version of Flash that is open source then?

      The disadvantage of not being able to play Flash is mostly on sites like YouTube. But some other sites are also using Flash for the interesting content.

      So the big question is - is it possible to implement a Flash player for Linux that's open source?

      I was going to mod you down for not RTFS [especially the part about GNASH], but instead I'll answer your question.

      Yes, it's called Gnash.The Wikipedia page should tell you all you need to know.

    3. Re:Open Source Flash? by LinuxInDallas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not just the "interesting" content unfortunately.

      There's a BBQ restaurant nearby that I occasionally order to-go from. If I was out of the house and wanted to get something on the way home I would pull their webpage up on my iPhone and order after looking at the online menu. Well guess what happened a couple months ago? They had their website redesigned with flash and provided no alternate webpage for those of us without flash players.

      The use of flash in this case provided nothing for the site other than some fancy animation when the page first opens. I emailed the admin but have had no luck getting access to the old site provided via the new main page :(

    4. Re:Open Source Flash? by Evan+Meakyl · · Score: 2, Informative

      It seems that you don't know what GNASH is!

      If I am right, GNASH is a GNU Flash player under GPL, whose base is gameswf, which was originally created for the interface of a game on XBOX.

      I mainly know gameswf for having worked with it, it is nice and very promising, but lacked some important functions and need (in my opinion) a code redesign.

    5. Re:Open Source Flash? by dotgain · · Score: 5, Funny

      As do many packages that begin with 'G', I have to say...

    6. Re:Open Source Flash? by Omnifarious · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've never been able to make any Flash site at all work with gnash (I'm currently using gnash 0.8.2). Though I'm using 64-bit Linux, so maybe that's the problem. Though I thought gnash was supposed to be written well enough that it wouldn't matter.

      I don't want to install Adobe's player. The source isn't available for public scrutiny and it's a major piece of infrastructure. AFAIK it's sending encrypted ICMP packets to Adobe telling them every piece of Flash I download or some such stupidly evil thing.

    7. Re:Open Source Flash? by Pecisk · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is two versions of Flash decoding libraries, one called Gnash and another called Swfdec. I still wonder why they don't work together, but hey, they are open source and both has kinda different visions how to deal with Flash proprietary stuff. I have tested Swfdec for a while and I can say that Ads surerly works, so do YouTube videos - but not perfectly. I personally think one of them will achieve 90% of all Flash stuff playable in next year or two, so it is kinda very ok. To be honest, Adobe also opened up Flash spec a bit more and as far as I heard both teams are busy implementing stuff from it.

      So, in short, it is possible, but it takes time. As it is not pressing problem - there is Adobe Flash player for Linux officialy - so everything progress slowly. But it goes forward.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
    8. Re:Open Source Flash? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is not so trivial as not being able to play YouTube videos. There are many commercial sites that use flash for almost their entire content.

      Along with that, I can tell you about a buddy of mine who works in the advertising industry: we were talking about Firefox and web sites and I mentioned to him about how much I hate flash and all the flashy crap (no pun intended) that distracts and pisses me off when I surf the web... so much so that I use Flashblock. His reply was, "yeah me and everyone I know in this industry try to get the programmers to put as much flashy flash stuff up on our different marketing web sites and advertising banners as possible... and loving it! We won't stop." (Paraphrased, but pretty damn close.)

      So you see, just like photo shop, the graphic arts and marketing industry are major players driving this piece of crap scourge (sorry for not letting my real feeling for flash content show... it wouldn't be appropriate here).

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    9. Re:Open Source Flash? by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Forget the admin -- he/she probably got paid for doing the Flash work and is glad to have the bucks. What you need to do, is walk in and ask to talk to the owner. Tell him/her his website design is causing him to lose business because you can no longer order dinner on your way home. This causes you to patronize other shops. As a small business owner myself, I can tell you that that sort of feedback has a 99.99% chance of getting serious attention. There's always an outlier here or there of course.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    10. Re:Open Source Flash? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yep to everything anagama said. It's likely that the restaurant owner has no idea how the web developer created or implemented the site (nor does he particularly care). All he knows is that it worked when the guy showed it to him before handing over the check and that it works on his own computer when he tries it. He has no idea that there are whole groups of people that are completely blocked off from accessing his site. He needs to be made aware of this. Whether he does anything or not is another matter entirely (he probably paid more than he wanted to for the Flash site and is wary of having it redesigned so soon).

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    11. Re:Open Source Flash? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree with this - but it's important not to go off on some zealotry-driven rant (this being Slashdot) that's full of generalizations. Keep it simple, and explain the exact situation: There is no way to use the restaurant's new website on an iPhone, at all; while it used to work perfectly fine (make sure they realize this second part - something is broken that used to work well).

      I've seen and heard plenty of zealotry-driven rants about the web, usually regarding Flash or Javascript. In the real world people don't care about your opinions regarding "good" or "evil" technologies. What they DO care about is something that isn't working in a practical manner.

      A burger place may listen politely to a vegetarian, but they're not going to change much to accommodate that person. When a repeat customer is taking their business elsewhere, they're a bit more willing to make changes.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    12. Re:Open Source Flash? by johnw · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've never been able to make any Flash site at all work with gnash (I'm currently using gnash 0.8.2).

      I too am using 64 bit Linux and and just recently gnash has come on by leaps and bounds. I'm currently running 0.8.3 and suddenly quite a lot of things (including youtube) work.

      I'm puzzled by the original article though. I've always found Adobe flash on 32-bit Linux to work without problem. The real issue seems to me to be their failure to produce a 64-bit version of flash for *any* platform - Linux or Windows. With the steady shift to 64-bit computing, they're going to find themselves frozen out soon if they aren't careful.

    13. Re:Open Source Flash? by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Swfdec is written in C, and Gnash in C++.

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    14. Re:Open Source Flash? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is two versions of Flash decoding libraries, one called Gnash and another called Swfdec. I still wonder why they don't work together, but hey, they are open source and both has kinda different visions how to deal with Flash proprietary stuff.

      While the Slashdot story opined that "Flash on Linux is the one major entry barrier controlling acceptance of Linux as a viable desktop operating system", I think you've unintentionally hit on the real reason Linux isn't taken seriously in the desktop arena by the masses. How many times have we seen this exact scenario played out on Linux (e.g. in window managers, browsers, digital music, video, etc.)?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    15. Re:Open Source Flash? by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 3, Informative

      None of the open-source implementations, last I checked, would run YouTube, or any embedded video.

      Huh? Gnash runs YouTube just fine. So does Swfdec. Are you on an unsupported platform?

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    16. Re:Open Source Flash? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've never encountered a restaurant that would take to-go orders via the web and not via voice.

      Handy if you have a menu. It's difficult to call a restaurant and have them read you the menu over the phone.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    17. Re:Open Source Flash? by legirons · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Now that usable websites can be created by anybody (mostly because the simplest HTML works best), people who have a career programming websites are a bit stuck.

      They can't really advertise being able to create the best types of website (basic HTML) because anyone can do that and most clients are getting along perfectly well with their grandson running the website. Why would anyone pay professionals for that?

      So the only reason you'd hire a webdesign professional, is if for some reason you wanted Flash content. Hence the lack of webdesigners using normal, sane techniques. Hence their lack of work. Hence the decrease in their workload as every site they design fails on the iphone or eee or freerunner or ubuntu desktop or flashblocked firefox.

      (all browsers should have FlashBlock, it's invaluable at saving your sanity)

      So yes, web designers will all use flash. That's because web designers aren't needed anymore to make websites.

    18. Re:Open Source Flash? by pizzach · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is two versions of Flash decoding libraries, one called Gnash and another called Swfdec. I still wonder why they don't work together, but hey, they are open source and both has kinda different visions how to deal with Flash proprietary stuff.

      From http://www.gnashdev.org/?q=node/30 is a sorta answer:

      LWN: Some LWN readers have complained that having two projects aimed at implementing Flash is divisive and wasteful. How would you respond to those readers?

      Benjamin: The optimal number of projects for a given project space sounds like a good PhD thesis topic. Having multiple projects in a space, or multiple solutions to a problem is simply how things work in the community. Any non-trivial bug or project space has multiple solutions, and often one cannot determine which is the best solution until all have been tried. Also, people working on these projects are real people with real interests and complex motivations for working on particular projects. Simplifying it into "you currently work on A, so you'd instead like working on B in the same project space" is unrealistic. And IMO, divisiveness between similar projects often has more to do with fanboys than it has to do with developers, who obviously share interests and experiences.

      --
      Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
    19. Re:Open Source Flash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      LOL!

      The 10 beta will get you this on a *lot* of sites that use flash:

      ------------
      This domain.tld feature is optimized for Adobe Flash Player version 8 or higher.

      You are currently using Flash Player 10
      -------------

      The logic of flash development and deployment is actually making Microsoft software look solid.

    20. Re:Open Source Flash? by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then notion that flash is a barrier to entry on Linux is just mindless outdated FUD.

      It's like someone found a repeatedly refuted claim on COLA and decided to turn it into a Slashdot story.

      Yeah... this "exact scenario" plays out often. 1998 called. It wants it's FUD back.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    21. Re:Open Source Flash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not to be confused with the nice mature ones that start with "K".

    22. Re:Open Source Flash? by dotgain · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Sibling is correct in some ways. I've been able to write in C, VB, Perl for several years now, but I have to admit I'm just not a developer. Many projects need to learn that they will recieve bugfixes / criticisms from people who can't just open a terminal and fix them - and not for lack of trying. In fact some of the best criticisms in my experience come from your lay-people who understand the apps from a different level. At this point, most forums flam the hell out of the critic, burying him in technobabble and elitism, making him wish he hadn't bothered.

      I'll tell you how I'm helping FOSS - Advocacy.

      Over the last 12 years I've been in and out of various small to medium companies, tearing out expensive proprietary systems leaving Linux-based OSS solutions in my wake. No - I can't fix the DNS vulnerability that we just had, and I'll probably never be instrumental in getting Flash working on Linux. What I can do is teach the masses what's available to them from the FOSS world in a professional and non-rabid manner (I'm looking at you, Twitter), and get them using and talking about it.

      I've even (in an uncommon fit of diplomacy) attempted to bring the Gentoo crowd together and try and start acting like adults, concentrate effort on the distribution rather than all the factionism - but like trying to figure out why my Sparc20 would hang when I loaded the fibre-channel module - some things are simply beyond me.

      What do you think happens to all these non-dev / non-tech people who encounter the "submit-a-diff-or-GTFO" mentality? Do they actually spend the rest of their days learning to code? No - they bugger off back where they came from - Proprietary Closed-Source Software, probably never to return. Thanks pal, that's all my work down the drain, thanks to some smug elitist twit that doesn't realise that - as good a developer he is - he is only one part of the puzzle.

      Without sane and reasoned advocates, FOSS will wind up being excellent software (only by virtue of defeating their critics) used only by those that develop it. I've a sneaking suspicion that's exactly what some devs want.

    23. Re:Open Source Flash? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you gaze at the hex bytes in the swf file for long enough you can more or less see what's going on. I no longer see the hex I see moles that need to be whacked to win an ipod, Matrix style.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  4. Flash on Firefox 3 Is Fixed by rjbond3rd · · Score: 2, Informative

    Are you still on Firefox 2? I had those problems but they went away with the upgrade to Firefox 3 (I'm on Ubuntu).

    1. Re:Flash on Firefox 3 Is Fixed by niceone · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, I have Ubuntu 8.04 and no flash crashes. There are still a couple of problems though: most of the video on the BBC site won't play (I click play and it just goes into the waiting dial thing forever) and some things that should be clickable inside the flash player don't work.

  5. Crashes on Windows XP too by calc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Flash 9.0.124.0 crashes all the time on my wife's Windows XP system running Firefox as well. Most of the time it exhibits as not being able to play sound. So it definitely isn't limited to Linux. Flash is just crap.

  6. I fixed this ages ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I used to have this happen to be on Ubuntu 8.04. I fixed it by downloading the official version of Flash from the Adobe website and replacing all of the versions of the .so on my computer. Wouldn't you know it, it worked again. I think the problem is that the version in Ubuntu 8.04 was hacked up to support PulseAudio. When I removed PulseAudio, suddenly audio didn't work anymore (in addition to, you know, the crashing all the time), but when I replaced the .so, it did again. So I recommend going to the Adobe website and getting the official version, because it does work.

    1. Re:I fixed this ages ago by cyniCalsOCK · · Score: 2, Informative

      i am using ubuntu 8.04 and i do not use pulse audio so this fix worked for me. I used to have firefox crash every other video or so on you tube, and forget any site that used flash exclusively for content. synaptic search for "libflashsupport" remove it and enjoy using flash again.

  7. I ask myself the same question by jdb2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've noticed, at least since I switched from Firefox 2 to Firefox 3, that when Adobe Flash Player 9 ( or 10 ) is installed the browser exhibits sporadic lockups and crashes when navigating the Web -- not just when viewing Flash video or a site that makes heavy use of Flash, although that does seem to increase the odds of the browser eating itself.

    After the release of Firefox 3.0 I opted to install Adobe Flash Player 10 Beta. The performance was much better as was the video quality and I didn't experience as many crashes. This all changed when Adobe updated the Beta and the details can be found in the bug report that I filed here. To summarize, after the update, Flash Player 10 would cause the browser to segfault and lockup so frequently, sometimes even upon startup, that the browser became unusable -- I had to downgrade to Flash Player 9. Currently there is someone from Adobe assigned to work on the "problem" whatever it is, but I haven't heard anything in weeks.

    jdb2

    1. Re:I ask myself the same question by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thank you for hitting the nail on the head. While everyone that uses Linux exclusively is saying "We need a well running flash player",we Windows users (only use Linux on the laptop for security reasons) will be happy to tell you that there ain't no such thing,certainly not from Adobe. If I build a machine and don't install flash on it,the browsers,be it Firefox,Kmeleon,Opera,IE,etc will be nice and stable. The second I install flash,well that is when the headaches begin. Random lockups,freezes,poor memory and CPU usage,etc. And as the above poster mentioned and I can attest to it isn't just when you are using flash either. It is just a buggy POS software.

      Unfortunately it looks like we are stuck with it for now, just like we were stuck with Real files being all over the net in the 90's. I just hope silverlight doesn't take off,because after feeling threatened by Vista hatred and the netbooks showing up out of left field with Linux running on them I'm betting they really feel the need to lock-in everyone to Windows with a new format. Lets face it,MSFT has never really gotten the web,but getting folks locked into Windows,that they understand. I'm betting if silverlight stomps flash and takes over web video that a year or so down the line they'll come out with a new version that "requires a subset of features only available on Windows Presentation Foundation,which is currently available only on Windows Vista and Windows 7. Please use a compatible Operating System to view this site." And that will be that.

      What we need is someone in the OSS community to come up with a completely free and open standard net video format to compete with flash/silverlight. It should run on all the major platforms(Windows,Linux,MacOSX,BSD) and have free editors,converters,etc,and finally have a better picture to size ratio than flash or silverlight. Then everyone could enjoy the Internet multimedia content,regardless of browser or OS. But asking for a non buggy flash,when the Windows version which is their bread and butter is buggy,is just pointless. But as always this is my 02c,YMMV

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  8. Half-broken by alexgieg · · Score: 2, Informative

    I experienced frequent Firefox crashes due to Flash in my Ubuntu box, which went being upgraded from 6.06 to 7.04 to 7.10 to 8.04. But then my hard disk crashed and I had to reinstall Ubuntu 8.04 from scratch. It's been now three months of this fresh installation, and in this period Flash has never, ever, crashed my Firefox. It's been rock solid.

    My wild guess then would be that your setup is half-broken much like mine was. Try that old Windows trick of wiping your hard disk and reinstalling your Linux distribution, whatever it is. It might be the solution.

    Now, this doesn't mean Flash in Linux isn't still full of bugs. It not respecting transparencies and correct depth levels in pages is a major annoyance. But at least crashing isn't part of the list anymore, at least for me.

    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  9. Flash as a service delivery platform by wimmi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Flash is a great channel to provide commercial products (video, ads, DRM'ed shit).
    It's no threat at all when Flash isn't abused as website critical table of contents.

    To comment on the OP: have you already tried the version 10 release candidate? It's supposed to support new audio API's and hardware acceleration.

    1. Re:Flash as a service delivery platform by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So it's true - if the OP and the subsequent comments are representative of a real problem: Pr0n is what drives the success of a net platform!

      Elephant, meet room.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:Flash as a service delivery platform by qupada · · Score: 2, Informative

      I tried a couple of the betas of 10. Where flash 9 just locks up and/or crashes the browser occasionally, these versions of flash 10 crashed it every single time the plugin tried to load.

      Until they have "released" something (I use the word release only because they do, you and I both know it isn't going to be production-quality, just like every version before it) I'm staying well away.

    3. Re:Flash as a service delivery platform by Bashae · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not just that - Flash is also great for minigames, original animation, small applications... The only thing flash should NOT be used for is making websites, wholly or in part. Unfortunately, lots of bad webmasters just don't get it.

      Of course, maybe if Javascript behavior was more consistent across different browsers, versions of the same browser and operating systems, people would stop making crappy flash websites.

    4. Re:Flash as a service delivery platform by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 4, Informative

      speaking of that, video codecs are a WAY bigger problem than flash. Anyone can live without flash. I'd put codecs and games way before flash any way. And if Red Alert 2/Oblivion/Generals/Starcraft can't run on Linux, I'm installing Windows.

      I guess it's a good thing they all run in Wine then. I was just playing Starcraft less than an hour ago, actually.

      As for video codecs, I've never run into a video I couldn't play before.

    5. Re:Flash as a service delivery platform by Bashae · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since when is 10% of the users of the worldwide web "insignificant"?

      And besides, even when flash works smoothly, it's still a design abuse. It's difficult to use the content automatically, and it's a closed, proprietary application.

    6. Re:Flash as a service delivery platform by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't know what went wrong for you all, but here, Flash 10 beta 20080702 runs nicely, except for some glitches on back areas in video playback, a hang every now and then (rare, so it's not very annoying), and because this is compiz-fusion and x86_64 on a crappy onboard graphics card, it's too slow in full screen (while xine/mplayer/vlc run fine).

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    7. Re:Flash as a service delivery platform by Kalriath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's the same logic you guys use when talking about Windows, so why can't someone else misuse a clearly fallacious twist of logic?

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    8. Re:Flash as a service delivery platform by nick.ian.k · · Score: 2

      If by "fixed" you mean, "I didn't understand the conversation and thus aimed to be cute by way of being a disagreeable cuss," I guess that's exactly what you did. The overall point is that Flash is a shitty platform on which to build entire sites: it's not particularly accessible, it's not really crawl-able, and it all relies on loading stuff into a plugin instead of directly to the browser. Flash does some stuff incredibly well -games, animation, and so on- but in a lot of cases out there, there is *no* real advantage in making a whole website in Flash, it's just how Timmy McToolerson learned how to do stuff in his corporate art school "web design" course.

      Want to know why nobody *really* jumped at Silverlight? Because Flash abuse sucks enough ass already.

    9. Re:Flash as a service delivery platform by Bashae · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you don't care, why the rant?

      If you thought you were preaching to a zealot, I'm afraid you got the wrong guy. I'm actually in the minority of Slashdot visitors who thinks proprietary, closed applications are okay. The thing is, for something like the worldwide web, when you have a default set of protocols and technologies that is inherently open (html, js, css, etc.) it's best to use those, rather than a format that cannot be crawled, from which data cannot be easily extracted, that requires an additional plug-in to run on top of your browser and that will trap your content to the whims of (ugh) Adobe.

      Like nick.ian.k wrote, it's just pointless. And it degrades the quality of the web. That's why you should care. But you don't have to if you don't want to ;)

    10. Re:Flash as a service delivery platform by Burpmaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because that logic isn't a fallacy when applied to Windows. Unlike popular Open Source software, Windows isn't really improving with time.

      Try this: Go back to Windows 2000 for a while, and as you use it, make a list of all its faults. Then install Vista, and start crossing the fixed issues off your list. Despite seven years of development, I doubt you'll have much to cross off.

      Now repeat the experiment with Ubuntu 4.10 and 8.04. The difference is huge even though that represents half as much development time as Microsoft had between Windows 2000 and Vista.

    11. Re:Flash as a service delivery platform by geekyMD · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And yet, while I have never ever had any trouble whatsoever from insertion of windows CD to complete functional install (hardware failures aside).
      I still have yet to successfully install a linux distro without at least a week's worth of reading FAQ's, tweaking, re-installations, and overall total frustration, starting with Redhat 6 in '99 right up to Gutsy a few months ago.

      The philosohpy behind linux doesn't seem to be capable of building a unified solution which will work in all cases because linux is as much an ideology as it is an engineering triumph, and all too often ideology trumps both functionality and utility. Orthodoxy doth not a bridge make. Thankfully Ubuntu seems to understand this model more and more, but nobody really has embraced the idea that to be truely functional Linux must abandon dogma for practicality.

  10. They just don't care. by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They just don't care because there are no real competitors to Flash. For most mainstream sites today, Flash is mandatory. (And no amount of boycott will change that.)

    I think the best way to fix this is by subversion and infiltration. Boycotts don't work. They haven't worked with Vista and won't work with Flash.

    The Linux community needs to stop thinking it can "boycott" things like protocols, and file formats and instead, work to make alternate applications that can work with those file formats and protocols to eat the other guy's lunch.

    1. Re:They just don't care. by calc · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are already at least two applications that do this: swfdec and gnash.

      http://swfdec.freedesktop.org/wiki/

      http://www.gnashdev.org/

    2. Re:They just don't care. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, I'd say my own personal boycott of Vista is working quite nicely as its resulted in me not running Vista. I guess it works in the same way that I'm 'boycotting' Ferrari and a dumpster full of sour cream.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    3. Re:They just don't care. by johndierks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm a flash developer and I'll be the first to admit that the format has some major drawbacks.

      The parent is correct though, there are no viable alternatives to the format. Nothing I know of provides the kinds of experience that flash is capable is. (see this site) Advertising drives the consumer side of the web and advertisers aren't going to move to less interactive or more static mediums. It also doesn't hurt that flash has a 99% penetration.

      If there was a better platform with good penetration, while maintaining the ability to build rich interactivity, I'd be the first to jump.

    4. Re:They just don't care. by Draek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      advertisers aren't going to move to less interactive or more static mediums

      Remind me again, how did Google get to be the advertising giant it is today?

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
  11. Suggest reading Adobe's blogosplat by Rosyna · · Score: 4, Informative

    I suggest the read of penguin.swf blogosplat which is Adobe's blog for posting new version of flash for linux (such as the recent Flash 10 beta or the new alpha)

  12. It's not Flash, it's Pulseaudio by HomerJ · · Score: 3, Informative

    You'll have Pulseaudio tell you different, but if you use a pure Alsa for your sound, you'll find Flash--and everything else that uses sound--runs MUCH better.

    I have no idea why Pulseaudio has been thrust into various distributions, it's cumbersome at best, outright broken at worst. There's nothing Pulseaudio brings to the table that's needed. Application volume sliders? Anything that outputs volume already has a volume slider, why do I need another one? Sound over the network? Is this REALLY a feature people want at the expense of a huge majority of programs not working? And what's wrong with ESD for this?

    So do yourself a favor, and remove all the Pulseaudio stuff from your distro.

  13. and on X64 it's even worse by petes_PoV · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Since switching to a 64-bit version of Ubuntu, I've been getting flashbacks to Win 3.1 and the trials and tribulations of installing printers and other drivers.

    far from the now mature process of download/click/wait/enjoy, the process involved getting just the right software version, installing it manually in the correct location, maybe hacking around with .INI files and then crossing your fingers that the mean-time-between-crashes was longer than the time it took to print your document.

    So it is with installing flash on FF3/U_x64. The process basically sucks and as said, provides a sufficiently bad user experience to turn normal people off Linux for years.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:and on X64 it's even worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just install flashplugin-nonfree like in 32 bit. Also, if Flash hangs Firefox, kill npviewer.bin and continue browsing. I don't think you can do that in 32 bit.

  14. Probably... by quadelirus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "I really do have to suspect Adobe's motivation for keeping Flash on Linux in such a deplorable state."

    This is an irksome statement. I doubt Adobe has an interest in making Linux look bad. Isn't there a saying, "never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence."

    Probably what would work better here is, "never ascribe to malice what can be explained by business sense." Linux is 4%ish of the desktop market so it would make sense that 4% (or less, but certainly not more) of Adobe flash development go to linux porting. 4% of their development just isn't going to make Flash as good as it is on other platforms, and I doubt they are receiving a lot of money from linux distros to change this.

    Yeah it sucks if you use linux but no need to point a finger at Adobe. Its simple dollars and cents (or sense).

  15. Flash has problems everywhere by speedtux · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Flash doesn't work completely reliably on any platform I have tried. I find that Adobe Flash on 32bit Linux works about as well as the OS X version (meaning: it's usable but it does have occasional problems).

    The main problem people are having is that there is no 64bit Linux version of Flash, so all you can do is run it in some emulated environment.

  16. Because adobe doesn't care about you. by Max_Abernethy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Adobe cares about the folks buying expensive site and server licenses. Those guys don't really care about you because there aren't enough of ya to have much impact on their website's success, so why should adobe invest in your platform, besides the bare minimum quality implementation as a hedge in case desktop linux becomes more important some day. There's no economic incentive.

    1. Re:Because adobe doesn't care about you. by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Adobe cares about the folks buying expensive site and server licenses. Those guys don't really care about you because there aren't enough of ya to have much impact on their website's success, so why should adobe invest in your platform, besides the bare minimum quality implementation as a hedge in case desktop linux becomes more important some day.

      I would be inclined to believe you if the Windows version of Flash didn't have a large amount of issues too. Which in theory, is supposed to be this platform that has all these "folks buying expensive site and server licenses".

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  17. what does it say by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What does it say if Adobe only has 1 employee (if that) working on the linux Flash port and he's doing a better job than GNASH and open source development?

    If you really feel so strongly about Flash's importance, maybe you should help turn GNASH into a viable solution.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:what does it say by Bogtha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What does it say if Adobe only has 1 employee (if that) working on the linux Flash port and he's doing a better job than GNASH and open source development?

      Do you think that employee started from scratch? The reason why that "1 employee" is outperforming GNASH is because all he had to do was add Linux support to an existing codebase, while GNASH has to write everything from scratch.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    2. Re:what does it say by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Worse: we have to reverse-engineer the undocumented parts, e.g. RTMP.

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    3. Re:what does it say by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it means that he only has to write code to make the Windows version work on Linux and that the Gnash devs have to write code to make, well all of it.

      I'd also suspect that the one guy being paid to work on it as his job is probably spending more time on it than several unpaid Gnash developers as well.

  18. no reason to fix it by Orig_Club_Soda · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Linux users dont buy software. There is no revenue stream there. Plus, the user base is too small. Businesses are not charity, they aren't going to cater to a group that is more likely to pirate their goods than buy them. Sure, flash is free, but flash is used for distributing media and generating ad revenue. However, will linux users patronize advertisers? Its not likel bases on their other non-purchasing behavior.

    1. Re:no reason to fix it by tokul · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Linux users dont buy software. There is no revenue stream there.

      Windows users don't buy Adobe Flash player. There is no revenue stream there.

      Who is pirating more? Windows or Linux users? Have you seen some illegal Linux installation? Businesses are more likely to "pirate" Linux by violating license of OSS products.

      I am Linux user and I do buy software that runs on Linux.

    2. Re:no reason to fix it by brezel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      not being the GP i still wanted to add myself to the list of linux users who buy (linux-) software:

      * quake3
      * f.a.k.k 2
      * quake4
      * rune
      * unreal tournament
      * rtcw
      * nwn1

      also i have bought and run the following with wine on linux:

      * nwn2
      * world of warcraft
      * vampire bloodlines
      * half-life 2
      * counterstrike

      i know those are all games, but all other software that i use is either free or open source and i have no need to buy any other software.

  19. This story also needs an update. by HomerJ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's various bug reports about this with regards to Pulseaudio and Flash--as well as numerous othat applications--in all major distributions that have packaged Pulseaudio by default. I'm not going to link all the bug reports in a slashdot comment, but you can search for them yourself.

    The story and summary seems to be calling out Adobe on this issue, when it's not really their fault. If PA didn't have as many compatibility issues with alsa applications as it has, Flash would work fine.

    It's unfair to call out Adobe on this issue. It expects a working alsa implementation, and when it has to use Pluseaudio's version of the virtual device, it crashes. Adobe doesn't have any control over the faultily implementation. So if there's a story that's about Flash crashing fine, but let's put the blame where it belongs here.

    1. Re:This story also needs an update. by friskyfeline · · Score: 2, Informative

      I used to use Fedora 9 with Flash 9 and it crashed all the time. I tried several fixes including the beta 10 Flash plugin but Firefox crashes about 50% playing youtube video. Interestingly, I have another box with Ubuntu 8.04 and Flash plays perfectly on it with video. I did some research on Flash and Pulseaudio and saw that Ubuntu was directing sound from the Flash plugin to Alsa instead of pulseaudio server. There are different configurations which make the Flash plugin more stable. Disabling pulseaudio and routing audio through Alsa should improve the Flash plugin stability.

  20. Mod Parent up...AND... by jddj · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ..frankly Adobe (and other major software vendors) is one of the main barriers to adoption of Linux as a desktop platform.

    I'm on Mac OS Leopard and the only thing it'd take to make me move to Linux is to be able to get the Adobe, Microsoft and other suites of professional applications on Linux. That's na' ga' happen. Wouldn't be prudent for Adobe, Microsoft, et al.

    And Gdammit (beta), don't tell me that GIMP is just as good as Photoshop. Just don't. It's not, just not, just so very NOT. And there are a million other reasons that the other Adobe tools rock so thoroughly more than the best creative tools you can find on Linux.

    So Flash - a product from a giant software vendor that you need serious power-tools to create well (yes, I'm quite aware that the SWF spec is open) - is broken on Linux, AND you can't get the power-tools to create it. I'll shed the tiny tears for Flash (which sucks, in most cases), and the big tears for Photoshop, After Effects, Illustrator, InDesign, Fireworks (new version is gonna rock), Lightwave 3D, MS Excel, Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro and a hundred other tools that are must-haves within their disciplines.

  21. Won't fix broken Web Sites and Media. Bad Laws. by twitter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course it's possible to implement Flash with free software, but that won't solve the problem. Free software is a powerful enough development method to overcome CSS, the Windows API, SMB, and DX. What task do you think is out of reach? The problem then is one of a legal framework that makes it impossible to distribute free software that works with broken media like DVDs and websites that use Flash. There are technical solutions but legal solutions are better. Software patents and the DMCA must go.

    There are several technical solutions to broken media. One is for individuals to ignore bad laws and just get DeCSS. A better one is to code around YouTube like Clive does. You can also simply avoid non free media, after all the Internet Archive, Wikipedia and Creative Commons have multiple lifetimes worth of excellent entertainment and education. Most of these send a clear message that Flash, Silverlight and other non free media is broken. Competing technology and it's users are going to win.

    Legal solutions are better. We would not have problems with broken media if people were allowed to share their solutions. Laws that prohibit people from sharing free software are always wrong and should never have passed. Modern copyright law is at odds with its purpose and must be reformed.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Won't fix broken Web Sites and Media. Bad Laws. by iminplaya · · Score: 2

      Kind of a shame that what you say falls on deaf ears. The whole copyright scheme is what's behind this and is working exactly as designed. It's too bad the drones refuse to understand that this is the base intention of all IP law. However, I'm not so optimistic as your are about the competition winning out as the law simply becomes more draconian to protect the publishers/gatekeepers. People just aren't interested. Don't be surprised when only those authorized by the established publishers are allowed to transmit any information by any means, as what's happening to internet radio. Where even free media must pay a fee to the guy who operates the drawbridge. It's time to listen to the man who said "by any means necessary".

      --
      What?
  22. Re:Maybe it's you? by TerminaMorte · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ubuntu 8.04 and flash works just fine on x86 for me as well. Just install it from apt, don't get it from adobe.

  23. iphone, no flash? by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I may be the only one here who finds this news. Although this is of course at least partially a symptom of my not caring about he iphone in general.

    However, as my wife wants the iphone, I have to ask how this problem works. I thought most systems used flash for youtube - which leads me to the question of how does the iphone use youtube if it doesn't use flash?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:iphone, no flash? by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 2, Informative

      THere is no Flash implementation in the webbrowser. However, there is a built-in app that reads the videos directly from YouTube, which is very nice. Unfortunately, it also means other flash-based video sites (e.g. Hulu) are unavailable.

    2. Re:iphone, no flash? by onefriedrice · · Score: 2, Informative

      how does the iphone use youtube if it doesn't use flash?

      YouTube only uses Flash as a client to serve their videos. The videos themselves are streamed separately from the Flash client. In other words, you could pretty much make a "YouTube client" out of anything. Apple just happens to have their own YouTube client that is probably (at least partially) written in Objective-C and using QuickTime.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
    3. Re:iphone, no flash? by catmistake · · Score: 2, Informative

      how does the iphone use youtube if it doesn't use flash?

      Apple convinced YouTube to switch formats, since H.264 is superior at compression and quality, YouTube agreed. Apple (I heard) is helping YouTube convert all their old stock to H.264. All that newer higher quality stuff is H.264, but in browsers the player is still flash.

      Once YouTube abandons Flash for content, the question remains why (should YouTube) use it for anything? The open source players are phenomenal, and YouTube being a Google joint now, I half expect them to switch their required (or recommended) plugin to mplayer or vlc.

  24. OH RLY by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Have some tcpdump or ngrep logs to show such behavior? Or maybe your tinfoil hat is too tight.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:OH RLY by Omnifarious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any software where they won't show me the source code and/or let me compile it myself with my own tools and have it work has something to hide. In Flash's case, I'll grant that what it's likely hiding is umpteen million security vulnerabilities,. But it could just as easily be hiding code to spy on me or censor things because the software decides I don't have a copyright license or I'm living in China or something.

      And I don't think, given the general history of software, that I'm being particularly paranoid here.

  25. RE: Why Is Adobe Flash On Linux Still Broken? by dbialac · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Probably the very low user penetration. It has occurred to me that Flash on Linux is the one major entry barrier controlling acceptance of Linux as a viable desktop operating system. I've been hearing that argument for years. I remember back in 1999 hearing how Linux would be ready for the desktop in 2001. Years have passed since then and it still isn't. The underlining problem is that Linux and its components create a system written by developers for developers, and it always will be. But the thing is, there's nothing wrong with that. The fun of linux is the fun of being able to tweak everything, and lets face it simple systems like Mac and Windows just aren't as fun in that way.

  26. Stop browser crashes with nspluginwrapper by Niten · · Score: 4, Informative

    One in every three or four YouTube videos crashes the browser.

    Of course the ideal solution would be for Adobe to fix Flash, but in the meantime you can use nspluginwrapper to prevent Firefox from crashing whenever Flash goes down. nspluginwrapper runs Flash in a separate child process from the web browser, and uses IPC to display the plugin's contents in your browser; it was originally created to allow people to use 32-bit plugins in 64-bit browsers, but this mechanism is also great for isolating the web browser from plugin crashes.

    Another solution is to use Opera, which on Linux runs its plugins in an nspluginwrapper-like child process by default.

    1. Re:Stop browser crashes with nspluginwrapper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, most of the issues with flash arise simply because it's stupidly running in-process. If a child process flash instance running an advert crashes - oh noes, I don't see an advert. If an in-process flash instance crashes, there goes my browser session, and maybe 20 tabs. It's quite infuriating.

      You shouldn't _need_ nspluginwrapper - plugins should simply not be in-process in this day and age. Unix (and Linux) have interprocess isolation for a reason. Efficiency is a red herring - with a multi-GHz multi-core CPU, it just doesn't matter that much.

      So please, please, please, make the flash plugin run in a child process (like IIRC the latest Sun Java 7 applets nowadays do).

  27. Re:Are you fucking serious? by meist3r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are you so inept at fixing a pc that you think wiping the entire OS is some sort of monumental task? Is troubleshooting for 3 hours better than wiping your OS clean in 30 minutes? (you have your home directory on a separate partition, right?)

    Thank you, finally someone with some sense. It's really really easy to fuck up a Linux installation if you are a twiddler, like say, add the wrong repository to your update manager and then have some beta packages installed whose version numbers are hard-coded into each other and disappear after a few hours. What fun.

    Wiping windows is a pain but a necessity -everybody seems to have accepted that.

    Wiping Linux is a breeze but you have to know how to properly do it to save time -fewer people seem to have gotten that far.

    Separate Home partition ftw!

  28. Flash is even broken on Windows and OSX by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Flash is even broken on Windows and OSX

    Maybe not as broken as you find it on Linux, but when it comes to sucking performance for no reason or doing really stupid things like cropping video when flipping to full screen video it has some rather hugh problems. (Multi-Monitors is something Adobe thinks people don't use for watching Flash Video apparently, cause it looks very untested.)

    Sadly, Flash with Firefox is 10x worse than Flash with IE. After thinking I was going insane on a few new personal installs, I pulled techs to examine the Flash differences. Same sites, same Flash content, and inside Firefox it would bring the CPU to 100% and with IE not even scratch the CPU.

    These are also not lemur porn quality sites, these are mainstream sites that have Flash based Ads or even MSNBC which has not moved to Silverlight.

    In contrast, the new Silverlight is pretty, efficient and shiny in comparison on both Firefox and IE and even OS X. The NBC Olympic HD streaming it has been handling works better than even my Silverlight developer 'fans' expected, making Flash look problematic and more like an old dog.

  29. Flash on Ubuntu with PulseAudio is broken (+ fix) by kroyd · · Score: 2, Informative
    I had the "flash crashes a lot problem", so I did some research. My first try was to use ndiswrapper. This doesn't fix the problem, at best it makes the flash applet frame grey when it would have crashed the browser. Also, I'm not sure how it works with flash 10. What solved my problems was to follow the update in bugreport 192888

    i.e, remove libflashsupport, use the latest flash 10 beta and create a /etc/asound.conf as described in bug 198453

    I've not had any browser crashes since doing this, so cross fingers. This is probably a very common problem..

  30. Guide to getting flash working perfectly on hardy by dyftm · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=5587712&postcount=472. This guy has for a long time been working on getting flash working perfectly in ubuntu 8.04 and following the linked guide makes it work perfectly for me.

  31. Re:Poor flash not the bigges barrier by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Poor Flash is the one major barrier? Pah - there are a number of more pressing issues, like poor wireless support...

    Hardware problems are annoying, but they are fundamentally different from the problem of "critical" software being broken or unavailable. A computer manufacturer that wants to ship computers with Linux pre-loaded, instead of Windows, can pick Linux-friendly hardware to work around the hardware problems. There is no work-around for Flash being crap.

  32. Flash crashes your browser-- Serves you right by DI+Rebus · · Score: 2, Funny

    Real slashdotters use text browsers like Lynx. Graphical browsers are for sissies.

  33. FF3.1 with Theora/Vorbis support may change things by dowdle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Once Firefox 3.1 comes out and includes support for playback of Theora videos and Ogg audio... I hope there will be in influx of new content published (using the more simple tags) using Theora and Ogg. Hopefully that will cause some momentum and give Flash some competition. I realize that Flash is used for a lot more than just video and audio but it is the dominant thing Linux users care to use Flash for. Of course that isn't going to cause YouTube to switch everything over to Theora / Ogg but you have to start somewhere.

    --
    Scott Dowdle
    www.MontanaLinux.Org
  34. Re:Are you fucking serious? by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Depends, is one trying to be productive or is one a hobbyist? I find that most of the time when I spend the time to troubleshoot the problem, I end up with some ideas as to how to avoid the problem the next time around, or how to fix it in minimal time when it does occur.

    But in terms of productivity, unless it's a recurring problem, it probably is more productive to just reinstall the OS in those cases.

    Well, that's assuming that one doesn't compile everything from scratch and lack backups of the packages from which to quickly reinstall them.

  35. Flash is not broken, it's your distribution! by psyke83 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The original poster of this article is experiencing bugs with his or her distribution, *not* merely with Flash. There are several issues at work here.

    a) Flash 10 RC is the first version to support "windowless mode" flash content that several sites use. Unfortunately, there is a bug in Firefox that causes "windowless mode" content to crash. It is not a bug caused by Adobe Flash; un fact, the newest version of swfdec (which also added support for "windowless mode" content) also causes Firefox to crash. This fix is due for release in Firefox 3.0.2 and a workaround is available for older releases already. See: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/239182

    b) Ubuntu Hardy was the first release to integrate PulseAudio, but its default configuration can cause a lot of trouble for users. PulseAudio provides ALSA plugins that enable plain ALSA applications to work correctly with PulseAudio; these plugins are supposed to be enabled by default. Some (buggy) applications do not work correctly using these plugins, including Flash 9 and Audacity. Hardy was released without these plugin enabled, causing many audio mixing problems for users. See: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/198453

    c) It appears the original poster is using the libflashsupport library, which is a workaround to enable PulseAudio support in Flash without the need for the ALSA plugins mentioned in point (b) to be enabled. There is a bug in Flash when using the libflashsupport API; closing and opening new flash streams will result in a crash (such as navigating from one Youtube page to another). See: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/192888

    d) Flash 10 has fixed its ALSA implementation, allowing it to work correctly with the PulseAudio ALSA plugins as mentioned in point (b) - this means that the (buggy) libflashsupport library is now redundant.

    Note that all the above bugs contain links to the upstream issues when applicable. For those too lazy to follow the individual bugs, I have posted a guide to configure PulseAudio (and Flash 10) correctly for Ubuntu users, complete with testing packages. See: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=789578

  36. Re:Are you fucking serious? by alexgieg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ease up on the guy, he's probably had way to many years on Windows.

    That's also the case, but I'm actually also a hobbyist and know my way around Linux pretty well. In fact, many time I'm in a hurry and don't even bother loading X: I do whatever I need in console mode and am done with it.

    It just so happens that nowadays I work full time and go to night college, consequently having only a few hours per weekend to play around in my home box, a much different scenario than when I started figuring out Debian, back in 1997. Very pragmatic consequence: I prefer using those few hours doing useful or fun stuff rather than fixing obscure annoyances. Thus, if I can solve something in one hour by wiping sda1 and reinstalling the OS, my actual data and custom compiled software being well secured in sda3, sda4, a shelf of DVD-Rs and Amazon S3, that's exactly what I'll do.

    Simply put, sometimes doing things "the right way" just isn't worth the effort.

    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  37. What problems? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am not a fan of Flash, however I have not seen any problems with Flash on Linux since they ended the enormous version lag that broken some sites when Windows hd flash 8 and Linux port stopped development at 7. Flash on Linux is a massive resource eater, has idiotic installation procedure, often has to be updated because of security bugs, however it has exactly the same problems on Windows. It is more crappy and unfixable than most Linux software, however this says more about the level of quality that is considered acceptable on Windows rather than about any deficiencies specific to a Linux port.

    As for Youtube, why would a Linux user want to use their flash-based player? Install latest version of clive, mplayer and xclip, and run this script after selecting or copying Youtube URL:

    #!/bin/sh
    cd "$HOME"
    cd Desktop 2>/dev/null
    xterm -bg "#ffffff" -fg "#000000" -cr "#800000" -ah -fa "DejaVu Sans Mono" -fs 14 -g 80x6 -T "Video Download" \
    -e sh -c \
    'xclip -o | clive "--player=mplayer -fs %i" --play=src --mask=custom'

    (assign it to some panel launcher or menu in your desktop environent).

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    1. Re:What problems? by evilviper · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As for Youtube, why would a Linux user want to use their flash-based player? Install latest version of clive, mplayer and xclip, and run this script after selecting or copying Youtube URL

      This is the biggest problem with FLV. You need a website-specific script just to FIND the videos in question. Certainly, there are several apps that can handle YouTube, but 95% of the FLV videos I would ever care to watch are embedded on other, smaller websites like, eg. GorillaMask.

      IMHO, we need some kind of SWF plug-in, but not the monsterous, slow bloated beast that is GNASH. An SWF plug-in stripped down to absolutely nothing, that runs when it encounters an embed=file.swf, then it's only task is to look for the media player strings, find the pointer to the FLV filename, and launch MPlayer with that URL (of the actual FLV file).

      With a tiny fraction as much development effort as something like GNASH, and practically no system resources, every FLV video out there becomes easily accessible on Linux, FreeBSD, ReactOS, BeOS, on x86, PPC, ARM, MIPS, et al.

      IMHO, Adobe screwed this up horribly... With H.264 support, they could have leap-frogged Microsoft's WMV, and become the ubiquitous format for web playback. However, they, instead, are working AGAINST 3rd parties that also included H.264/MP4, by not embedding the file directly, and forcing websites to include it, hidden behind an SWF "player" that simple obfusticates the actual file, and makes it impossible for other apps to get at, on the off chance they DON'T have the latest version of Flash installed (it'll be a few years before everyone upgrades to v9+). But instead of that, they force websites to provide TWO different web pages if they want compatibility... One for Flash, one for every other video player in the world. Unfortunately, of course, the easiest way out is to just create the Flash page, and screw everybody else over, which is what most sites do, YouTube included. Google Video was smart enough to included a download link, but they are the exceptions, and a direct link to the Flash file would be just as good.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  38. flash leaks by opencity · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Somewhat off topic, or in an overlapping corner of the topic -

    I don't run Linux anymore, only so many hours in the day, but I do a lot of Actionscript widget coding for $$$. Flash has some memory leaks that range from annoying to deal breaker. I honestly like AS 3 as I don't know Java well enough to write one man dev team internet apps and AS lets me do that. but ... If Adobe doesn't solve garbage collection and soon AJAX or (new buzzword) starts looking a lot better for low end desktop / web application development.

    Hey I'll sign up to an SVG / Javascript solution if one presents itself but I've been saying that for a while.

    --
    Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
  39. Sounds like a personal problem... by jlarocco · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... or just FUD.

    I'm running Opera on the AMD64 port of Debian unstable and Flash works great for me. If you're having a problem, you're doing it wrong.

  40. Did you report issues to them? by Ilgaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I know lots of people will smile when reading this comment but I actually report issues to Adobe, especially alpha/beta testing Flash 10. They are NOT very communicative but I see some stuff I reported has been fixed. I am also on PowerPC (still) which MS overlords decided to drop support as early as Silverlight 2.

    Another issue with closed source/large company software is, they can't include "crash reporter" so they don't actually know who crashes doing what. It is problem on OS X too but at least we send them to Apple, I don't know what Apple does with them though. For that part, also thank to paranoids and conspiracy theorists. They can obviously have "crash dump" code attached and next day, you would see "Adobe spies on their Linux users!!!" type of story.

    Anyway, if you know a specific site triggering crash, you better report to Adobe. Linux is _very_ important to them in light of recent developments. If they didn't care, you wouldn't see Flash 10 beta shipped for Linux.

    For "Real Networks" and "Adobe", realistic companies not spoiled like Microsoft, Linux support is passport to "devices" and somehow OSX/future iPhone. Don't think they don't care.

  41. QuickTime does MPEG-4 by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    I could flame you for suggesting to replace a 5-year old proprietary format with a 10-year old proprietary format

    QuickTime follows a published international standard. If your concern is patents, what non-proprietary format were you thinking of? Ogg Theora?

  42. Flash does SO much more than just video. by arete · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm not trying to hide my bias - most of the work we do is in Actionscript.

    But I agree as much as the next guy that making a typical website in Flash is stupid. So is unnecessary required video, low-contrast color schemes, gratuitous music, required Javascript for basic navigation, poor text-only / accessibility support, and many other things that are common on all together too many sites.

    There's a bunch of reasons to use Flash, but the biggest one is that it lets you do something no other platform does - create rich, full featured, object oriented applications that just work with a wide installed user base, on a variety of platforms, with a minimum* of security risk to the user.

    If you're only thinking Flash Video, you're thinking too small. Think "any application in the world that does not need direct hardware access or to maximize its access to computing resources" It runs over the web, it runs locally, and it runs the same.

    Really, Flash shouldn't have this crown. Java applets should. But they don't, because of how that played out in the 90s. The behavior isn't consistent, and developing rich applications for it was tedious at best.

    For the programmers reading, you don't want to develop apps in Flash, which is a super-glorified animation tool. But you want to develop in Adobe Flex, which is a wonderful tool with a for-pay IDE, but a free CLI compiler. The OUTPUT is a Flash swf, but the INPUT no longer has a binary animation file, and all of the layout supports inheritance. And the crossover is tremendous and seamless, so you can use whatever your animators/designers make in Flash in a blink.

    To address some other points:

    Even requiring a recent version of Flash, Flash does generally have a higher installed user base than any other single system. Obviously "HTML" per se has a higher base, but if you're doing anything modestly complex you have to break apart the major-different IE versions from everything else, and last I checked I believe Flash 9 has a higher installed base than any family of HTML rendering. I believe these stats were based on computers "active on the web" - so it doesn't count things that aren't hooked up to the internet currently, many of which presumably have old versions of IE.

    Flash Player isn't as open and crossplatform as I'd like, but in general it's been getting better on both counts. Reading the comments of people who actually described there system, it seems like there's problems running Flash Player with 64bit browsers in Linux, and not with 32bit browsers...

    *I didn't say NO security risk. But as platforms for running totally arbitrary third party code go, I don't know of anything that does a BETTER job.

    Starting as early as 2002 Actionscript is an OOP language.

    --
    Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
  43. Read the "flash on linux" blog for more on this by jonwil · · Score: 2, Informative

    This blog http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/ is written by one of the people working on the linux version of Flash and explains some stuff about working on Flash (somewhere in the archives is an explanation of why there is no 64 bit native Flash player yet IIRC)

  44. C&C: generals by gringer · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the HOWTO on the 1.0 version from the "C&C: generals" page you linked to:

    4. Once the installation is done, find yourself a no-cd crack and replace the original game.dat and generals.exe with the cracked ones.

    I don't consider a requirement of installing a no-cd crack as being good enough to say that a game runs in Wine (see this: "... some would advocate the use of illegally modified or "cracked" games, Wine does not support, advocate, or even view this as a solution").

    However, it seems reasonable to consider the other games to be working under Wine — I haven't run Oblivion myself, but RA2 and Starcraft run fine (although I do occasionally have issues with RA2 on a slow computer).

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
    1. Re:C&C: generals by d3ac0n · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Keep in mind though, that using a no CD crack is pretty much a requirement for running many games in Windows too. All convenience issues aside, SecuROM and other DRM can actually break the games' ability to run in many systems CD or not. To say nothing of various Windows issues you may have due to the DRM. So after you buy the game, you frequently need either a No-CD cracked .exe, or you just pirate the damn thing and leave the unopened game on your shelf.

      In regards to Flash, I've never actually had an issue with it. I run Ubuntu 8.04 and the non-free binary version of Flash and Firefox has no issues whatsoever with YouTube or any Flash site. Indeed, I've not had a problem with flash since Ubuntu 5.10 or thereabouts. Now, Shockwave, that's another issue. It doesn't work AT ALL. I'd like to see a fix for that sometime this millenium.

      --
      Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    2. Re:C&C: generals by BadOPCode · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Keep in mind though, that using a no CD crack is pretty much a requirement for running many games in Windows too. All convenience issues aside, SecuROM and other DRM can actually break the games' ability to run in many systems CD or not. To say nothing of various Windows issues you may have due to the DRM. So after you buy the game, you frequently need either a No-CD cracked .exe, or you just pirate the damn thing and leave the unopened game on your shelf.

      I'd like to also point out that DRM and all other copy protections in history has been historically known to break for legal owners and lock them out of the game. I've seen a couple of times where the copy protection locks out under Windows with the upgrade of Windows. If a game manufacture wants to maintain copyrights and copy protection on a game than they need to continue selling and be held responsible for making their product functional while they maintain these things.
      I wonder how long Lucas Arts would maintain copyrights and/or continue to not sell DoTT if we made them responsible to the consumers they so dearly love f-ing over.