Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lightspark 0.4.2 Open Source Flash Player Released

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the gotta-start-somewhere dept.

suraj.sun writes "The Lightspark project has released version 0.4.2 of its free, open source Flash player. According to Lightspark developer Alessandro Pignotti, the alternative Flash Player implementation is 'designed from the ground up to be efficient on current and (hopefully) future hardware.' The latest release of Lightspark features better compatibility with YouTube videos, sound synchronization support and the ability to use fontconfig for font selection. Other changes include plug-in support for Google's Chrome/Chromium web browser and support for Firefox's out of process plug-in (OOPP) mode, which was added in version 3.6.4 of the browser."

13 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. embrace and extend by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now that open source has embraces the flash standard, no doubt Adobe will add proprietary additions so sow incompatibility.

    The protentially nice thing about this howerve is that if
    1) it's efficient
    2) not buggy
    3) supports DRM

    then it answers apple's complaints about flash and Youtube's complaints about H264. The problme for apple was that it would be insane to make your player beholden to a closed 3rd party app, espeically one from a company that hsitorically dragged it's heels in incorproating your platforms new features. Apple thrives on offering distinguishing features and adobe smothers them if they don't incorporate them.

    But if the source is open apple is free to make sure it keeps up. So long as it is not as buggy as flash was.

    Likewise youtube complained they could not monetize Video under H264 as well as under flash. the ability to have linking and overlays and such was required for the cash register.

    Again this is now possible if this supports DRM.

    One nice thing is that since apple already has a sandboxing system in both OSX and iOS, having it open source may allow them to get a tighter sandbox. No need to count on Adobe's sandbox working.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:embrace and extend by natehoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It won't, however, answer Apple's biggest reason for not wanting to support Flash.

      Flash is, simply, a proprietary format that they don't have any patent control over. They want h264, which is a proprietary format controlled by a consortium they are a major member of.

      Apple wants Flash dead. They don't want it open, they don't want it closed, they don't want it with cherries and whipped cream on top. They want it dead. It's something they cannot control, and therefore it must die.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    2. Re:embrace and extend by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Open source software is technically incompatible with DRMs.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    3. Re:embrace and extend by samkass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Flash is, simply, a proprietary format that they don't have any patent control over. They want h264, which is a proprietary format controlled by a consortium they are a major member of.

      h.264 and Flash aren't incompatible. And Apple's a minor member of that consortium with almost no patents in the game. Apple just wants the best products and doesn't want to have to depend on others to get them, and Flash is the opposite of both of those things.

      Considering how much Apple has contributed to open source over the past few years, they obviously value it highly. Heck, their biggest competitor in their fastest-growing market is basing their entire web experience on Apple's browser engine, so it doesn't seem like Apple is too worried about competition there.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    4. Re:embrace and extend by h3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Flash is, simply, a proprietary format that they don't have any patent control over. They want h264, which is a proprietary format controlled by a consortium they are a major member of.

      I think you got the Apple v. Flash "war" mixed up with the HTML5 v Flash war...

      I'm pretty sure Apple's objection to Flash on their iOS devices has more with it being an alternate development platform that they can't control and little to do with the specialized use case of video delivery. In other words, they want to make sure HotSellingGame is written using *their* dev tools, not against Flash.

      Not that the HTML5 v. Flash war makes that much more sense.

    5. Re:embrace and extend by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More like Apple would like its iOS devices judged on the performance that can be achieved when compiled code is used (*their* dev tools is GNU gcc well actually GNU Objective-C) instead of being penalized for the poor performance experienced with Adobe flash. Sure they make Xcode, but I don't know anyone who seriously uses it.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  2. Efficient, yes. But... by tenco · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...is it secure?

  3. Re:The best feature they could add... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe, maybe not.

    But that condescending reply in response to an informal feature request is terrible.
    You give open source a bad name.

  4. Hulu by TechwoIf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Will it work with www.hulu.com?

  5. Re:The best feature they could add... by westlake · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Since it's OS, maybe that's the best feature YOU could add.

    If - and only if - he is a programmer.

    Something to remember before the mod-up to "Insightful."

         

  6. Re:The best feature they could add... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    On a feature level, for the entire browser+addons stack, I agree that that is an extremely useful feature. Sturgeon's law applies, hard, to flash and most of it deserves to be blocked.

    Architecturally, though, isn't the flash renderer plugin a silly place for blacklisting/whitelisting/domain control features? The browser is responsible for issuing the HTTP requests, rendering what it can, calling plugins for what it can't, and so forth. Why should the browser download the flash blob, load the renderer, and then have the renderer check a blacklist and allow or refuse rendering of the object?

    Wouldn't it make much more sense for that to be handled at the browser level, with the renderer invoked only if you want the flash rendered?

  7. Re:That's just as wrong as mono by mandelbr0t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i386 protected mode OS
    ext2/3
    emacs
    Perl, Python and others
    decss
    bayesian spam filtering
    eclipse

    To name a few more. Proprietary is not necessarily first, just the first to try and make profit from the project.

    --
    "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
  8. Re:That's just as wrong as mono by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It still surprises me that this came from the open source community AND that to this day no commercial OS has anything close.

    That's because packaging systems exist primarily to address problems that - by and large - don't exist on "commercial OSes": cascading webs of slightly incompatible software versions (ie: "dependency hell") and ease of installation.