Adobe Releases Preview of 64-bit Flash For Linux

Rinisari writes "Finally, the day has come. Adobe has released a pre-release version of the 64-bit Flash player. It is available at the Adobe Labs Flash Player 10 download site immediately. Where are the Windows and Mac versions? 'Release of this alpha version of 64-bit Flash Player on Linux is the first step in delivering upon Adobe's commitment to make Flash Player native 64-bit across platforms. We chose Linux as our initial platform in response to numerous requests in our public Flash Player bug and issue management system and the fact that Linux distributions do not ship with a 32-bit browser or a comprehensive 32-bit emulation layer by default. Until this pre-release, use of 32-bit Flash Player on Linux has required the use of a plugin wrapper, which prevents full compatibility with 64-bit browsers. With this pre-release, Flash Player 10 is now a full native participant on 64-bit Linux distributions.' Windows and Mac OS X 64-bit versions will follow, and the final versions all will be released simultaneously. Tamarin, the JIT compiler in Flash, is now capable of producing 64-bit code and nspluginwrapper is no longer required. There are, however, no plans to release a debugger version of the 64-bit plugin."

Comments

Silverlight

[Enderandrew]

Was this prompted by Microsoft supporting Silverlight and Moonlight on 64-bit platforms from day one?

Either way, thanks for finally making it happen. We now have Java and Flash on 64-bit. No more reason to bitch.

Re:Silverlight

[Richard_at_work]

And x86_64 is not the only 64-bit platform; what about Sparc and Itanic users, for example?

Out of interest, what do you consider the smallest possible user base that any concession should be made with regard to support? How much effort should be put into supporting either Sparc or Itanic, or indeed any other minority platform?

And I'm not just talking about closed source apps here, I'm also talking about open source projects and the stance they take, and the whole range of possible support options, from supporting them yourselves (releasing binary or code for the platform) on the one extreme to simply answering questions from a porting developer (since answering questions does take up potentially valuable time) on the other extreme.

Re:Silverlight

[hedwards]

Considering the fact that Flash is essentially mandatory for many websites, I'd say that's moot. They don't make money on the player anyways, it's the tools that developers use that they make them money.

I'd be more than happy to not ever install flash if not for the sites which just don't work without flash. And don't forget about the poor people needing to navigate flash sites with screen readers.

Or in other words, most of us would be more than happy to not bitch about a lack of Flash support for our OS of choice if we didn't have to have it to make the most of the web. That didn't used to be much of an issue, a few sites had it and most of them were dumb flash games. Then there were the ads which made it beneficial to not have flash. But now...

Re:Silverlight

[bigstrat2003]

Java is free but Flash is not (gnash and swfdec are getting there, but still not good enough for everyday use).

This is not, and has never been, a reason to bitch. The vast majority of users aren't going to cut off their nose to spite their face by refusing to use "non-free" software, and nor should they.

Re:Silverlight

[doom]

The vast majority of users aren't going to cut off their nose to spite their face by refusing to use "non-free" software, and nor should they.

I would rephrase this as "the vast majority of users are short-sighted, and have no clue as to why they should be concerned with open standards".

But hey, don't let me bug you with something that's uncomfortably close to a moral injunction. We don't need no stinking ethics when we've got self-interest to guide us. It's never let us down before.

Re:Silverlight

[nsheppar]

Out of interest, what do you consider the smallest possible user base that any concession should be made with regard to support?

1 user.

Release the source, or at least an open API/documentation/something, and then let us do the work. I don't expect companies to spend their money supporting every random OS, but I would like them to at least make it possible for us to do the work ourselves for whatever OS we want to use.

Why linux first

[sakdoctor]

"We chose Linux as our initial platform in response to numerous requests in our public Flash Player bug and issue management system"

Linux users asked, and adobe listened. Great stuff.

Re:Why linux first

[Kjella]

Well, I read half that and half "this is a great little alpha testing ground while we get our 64-bit act together, once it's somewhat usable we'll release it for Windows and Mac too". Considering my experience with their release builds, I wouldn't sing too many praises just yet.

Re:Why linux first

[Just Some Guy]

Linux users asked, and adobe listened. Great stuff.

Other considerations:

There are fewer Linux users and the average technical skill is higher than with other operating systems. This means that if there are problems, the pool of affected users is smaller than with Windows, the users are more likely to be able to recover without Adobe's help, and they're more likely to file bug reports.

This sounds like a big win for everyone involved. Nicely played, Adobe!

Re:Why linux first

[Shotgun]

Just to put an emphasis on your post, not only are the Linux users more likely to report bugs, their bugs reports are more likely to make sense and contain relevant data.

Let me be the first to say...

[MasterOfMagic]

Final-fucking-ly.

Now if only Gnash and libswf would get their shit together. I can't even play YouTube with their latest releases on my AMD64 box.

Re:x86-64

[tepples]

The summary talks about 64-bitness in general, while the Linux release is for x86-64 only.

As I understand it, Flash Player is designed to run on workstations, and the vast majority of workstations still manufactured and marketed for use in home and office environments are x86 or x86-64. Which other architectures are you talking about? ARM-based PDAs?

Who tagged this 'buggy'?

[gblues]

It's an alpha release. NO SHIT it's buggy. Live with it and file reports so Adobe fixes it, or wait for the final version.

Re:At last!!!!

[coolsnowmen]

...and with a lot less processor power being eaten up just to run a Flash video.

here is to hoping, but flash video still is twice as cpu intensive on my 32bit machines than any other video player.

Re:No Debugger?

[Walpurgiss]

Agree. My first 64bit cpu was an Athlon64 Clawhammer around 5 years ago. So developers had about 5 years to plan ahead for 64-bit capable home computer ubiquity, and for the most part did not.

Now of course, 64bit windows XP didn't launch until about 2 years later, so maybe they only had 3 years to 'really' develop, since before that it was probably still not viable for the home market. But they should have got the hint that 32-bit can not address enough memory for the ever increasingly demand of new applications and operating systems. They (not just Adobe, but most developers of popular/necessary software) should have planned ahead better.

Why I bitch.

[pallmall1]

Considering the fact that Flash is essentially mandatory for many websites...

That's the crux of the issue -- web support on 64-bit systems. Adobe Flash has it, Sun Java does not.

By ignoring Bug 4502695 for over 5 years (and over 800 votes), Sun has just given the 64-bit webspace to Adobe. Why should anyone wait another year to see if a 64-bit java plugin is actually released when Flash has a 64-bit plugin now?

Way to go, Sun. You've killed JavaFX before it even got started, and strangled the attempts to resurrect the applet and web-start apps.

That's just bitchin'.