Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
"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.
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.
I just tried it on my Fedora 9 64-bit installation and it works just fine. No crashes, no freezes, not like ATI drivers in XServer 1.5 :P
Definitely a great move by Adobe, better release a working Flash plugin than a buggy and crashy one!
"Where's the 128-bit version?!"
Summation 2
Upon a sea of grease and neckbeards I sailed, and I heard the calling in the distant. It was the sound of fat, wolf shirt-wearing nerds crying out in triumph. Their voices merged into one, and I heard them exclaim, "The year of the Linux desktop is upon us!"
And then everything was silent once more.
Now I'm waiting for the 64-bit version of Duke Nukem Forever!
@neonux
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?
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.
I was one of many that put my name to asking for a 64 bit version. Now if only there was a 64 bit Skype and that ever elusive 64 bit browser plug-in for the 64 bit Sun Java.
Will be downloading the 64 bit Flash to test it out, hopefully it is easier than playing around with nspluginwrapper to get the 32 bit version working, and with a lot less processor power being eaten up just to run a Flash video.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Direct download: http://download.macromedia.com.nyud.net/pub/labs/flashplayer10/libflashplayer-10.0.d20.7.linux-x86_64.so.tar.gz
"He may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Duck Soup
The complaint is not directed at Adobe, but against the idiots that are happily destroying the open nature of the web by embracing a closed product.
If you think it's impossible for anyone to make any money with software based on open standards, then you haven't been paying any attention to the development of the web.
If you don't get the problem that closed architectures are vulnerable to manipulation by the agencies that own the architectures, then you need some history lessons (start by searching for "Microsoft").
But this is all a fucking waste of breath, I'm afraid. On the one hand, you have an abstract argument about the long-term advantages of open architectures, and on the other, you have "look at the fonnny kittens!".
The web is doomed. Oh well, it's been an interesting few decades.
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.
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'.
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
Out of interest, what do you consider the smallest possible user base that any concession should be made with regard to support?
Given that flash is starting to get ubiquitous, any online-capable platform is going to need it badly soon. Restricting a (closed) technology to only a couple of most widespread platform is really bad.
If we exit the world of desktop computers the most widespread CPU are embedable RISCs such as ARM and MIPS. Yet, none of them can currently get even a free-as-in-beer plugin downloadable from adobe's website.
Thus embed platforms (such as PDAs, MID) have either to count on gnash (lots of F/LOSS BusyBox/Linux based PDA & Smartphone projects) or do without flash at all (iPhone currently).
There are lots of other possible creative usage for other machines. But, by lacking flash some of them will suddenly be not so useful for experiencing the web.
That's why the whole flash thing was a bad idea to begin with. In an open system as the internet, where everything is documented and free to get re-implemented, where everything was built in this open way, suddenly there comes a new "standart" which will only run on a couple of processors, preventing anything else to use it and stoping any creative use of it.
How much effort should be put into supporting either Sparc or Itanic, or indeed any other minority platform?
Well not much is asked from Adobe. Just help the open source enough to have a descent open source implementation.
That should be that much difficult, taking into account that adobe makes no money on the free-as-in-beer plugin, instead their main income comes from the creation suites.
Adobe has done it in the past (PDF is a published standard, with numerous alternative implementation existing - Adobe makes money on the Acrobat suite).
Concurrent of flash have done it (Silverlight vs. Moonlight)
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
Usually, after the first couple of ports have revealed all the hidden platform dependent bugs, lots of additional posts come almost "for free", generally only a recompile away.
In addition, we don't expect the Gnash developers to maintain port for every fucking platform under the sun.
Gnash is free/libre opensource software. If the developers don't have the resources to port the application themselves, others are open to do it.
In fact that's what's happening : gnash is mainly developed on x86 and x86_64 architecture, but that hasn't stopped other enthusiasts to port it to PS3 (MIPS).
Flash is getting popular. As long as there's some interest for some platform there are bound to be enough interested developers (for that platform) to port it instead of gnash's own developers.
Popular game engines on portable device is a nice example : ...as long as gnash is compatible enough to flash.
ScummVM is available on a dozen of hardware platforms, some not even POSIX compatible. Not all of them are maintained by the main ScummVM developer. But the popularity of ScummVM and the coolness to be able to plas scumm-based (mostly LucasArt) games on whatever pocketable machine you have has nonetheless attracted enough motivated people to port it to a wide array of machines.
Same goes for several other game engine (Doom and Duke3D are nice examples. Usually its the second thing that get ported to any new hardware platform, right after Linux).
Given the rising popularity of flash, Gnash will probably follow the same trend...
And for that, cooperation from Adobe will help immensely.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
From the blog of Tinic Uro, the engineer who did the bulk of the work:
http://www.kaourantin.net/2008/11/64-bits.html
A debugger version of the 64-bit version is not available yet. When we release it ActionScript 2 debugging will not work due the obsolete protocol which depends on 32bit pointers. ActionScript 3 debugging will be supported.