Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Flash 9 Beta for Linux Available

samzenpus posted about 8 years ago | from the watch-it-now dept.

296

DemiKnute writes "According to the official Penguin.SWF blog, the a beta release of the long-awaited Flash 9 for Linux is available for download, a mere year after the release for Windows." From the blog: "While we are still working out exactly how to distribute the final Player version to be as easy as possible for the typical end user, this beta includes 2 gzip'd tarball packages: one is for the Mozilla plugin and the other is for a GTK-based Standalone Flash Player. Either will need to be downloaded manually via the Adobe Labs website and unpacked. The standalone Player (gflashplayer) can be run in place (after you set its executable permission). The plugin is dropped into your local plugin directory (for a local user) or the system-wide plugin directory." Report bugs here.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Frosty piss! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16499471)

To die, to sleep..

For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
when we have shuffled off this mortal coil to give us pause

Re:Frosty piss! (0, Offtopic)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 8 years ago | (#16499515)

Personally, the quote I would have used for this paticular story would be:
Fie on't! ah fie!
'tis an unweeded garden that grows to seed;
things rank and gross in nature possess it merely.

I foresee a multitude of Flash weeds clogging up the tubes of the internet in the near future.

Re:Frosty piss! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16499723)

Frosty sez:
To die, to sleep..


Fact: *BSD is dying

but does it run... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16499477)

on linux?

Re:but does it run... (1)

isorox (205688) | about 8 years ago | (#16499943)

I'm hoping Flashblock still works with it

AMD64 version? (4, Insightful)

andersa (687550) | about 8 years ago | (#16499481)

Will there be a 64 bit version for us AMD64 users?

I can't play flash animations on my Turion laptop with Debian AMD64 installed.

Re:AMD64 version? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16499493)

Adobe have said no in the past, just install a 32-bit web browser instead of your 64-bit one.
Yeah, it's a pain, but you only need to do it once.

Why not say something into adobe.com/go/wish ?

Re:AMD64 version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16499665)

Yeah, it's a pain, but you only need to do it once.

And what costs Adobe to provide a 64bit version of the damn plugin?

I know where they can shove their 32-bit flash9.

Re:AMD64 version? (4, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | about 8 years ago | (#16499713)

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

Re:AMD64 version? (4, Insightful)

tomstdenis (446163) | about 8 years ago | (#16499737)

They do what?

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

Tom

Re:AMD64 version? (3, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 8 years ago | (#16500183)

What benefit does a 64bit architecture have for web browsing? Why would running a web browser in 32bit mode have any negative effect on uptake of 64bit OSes?

Re:AMD64 version? (1)

Randall311 (866824) | about 8 years ago | (#16500133)

The good news is that once Microsoft releases Windows Vista x64, you can expect Adobe to finally roll out 64-bit support for flash. I would put money on Flash 10 supporting AMD64 and EM64T.

Re:AMD64 version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16499497)

I think we'll see AMD256 before that comes out...

Re:AMD64 version? (3, Insightful)

Octorian (14086) | about 8 years ago | (#16499509)

Which is exactly why some distros (well, my SuSE box at least) installed Firefox expicitly as a 32-bit binary, even if almost everything else on the machine is 64-bit.

(Now I just wish they did the same with the media players, for the Win32 codecs and such, as I was forced to compile my own to get that working)

Re:AMD64 version? (4, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 years ago | (#16499921)

Yes, but you also have to have a lot of other 32 bit libraries installed just for the browser to run. I think that one of them is glibc. I'm running mandrake 2007 rc1 (haven't downloaded final yet, but i've installed all the updates), and when I tried using 64-bit, even isntalling a 32-bit browser didn't work. Firefox would crash every time flash tried to start. So, we could either install only the 64 bit libraries, or install 64 and 32 bit libraries, and the 32 bit browser and hope it works. However, I'm still running full 32 bit linux on my AMD64. I tried 64 bit for a while, but I found that a lot of stuff still isn't stable enough for me on 64 bit. For one thing, the 3D desktop on Mandriva 2007 wouldn't work on my Radeon X550 when I had 64 bit. With 32 bit, no problems at all. I guess i'm going to have to wait until Mandriva 2008, when hopefully 64 bit linux will be ready. I also tried out other 64 bit distros (Fedora, Suse) and found that they weren't any better.

Video support (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16499521)

Finally I can play xtube movies.

Re:AMD64 version? (5, Informative)

Anssi55 (729722) | about 8 years ago | (#16499525)

You could try nspluginwrapper [gibix.net] .

Re:AMD64 version? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16499527)

You can use nspluginwrapper. It seems to work with flash 9 also. You just need to get 0.9.90.3 from a mandriva x86_64 cooker mirror and alien -cv *.rpm, and follow instructions in:

http://www.gibix.net/dokuwiki/en:projects:nsplugin wrapper [gibix.net]

0.9.90.1 that's available in the official site doesn't work with new firefoxes, so you really need to get 0.9.90.3 from mandriva.

Re:AMD64 version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16499539)

I have always run Flash fine on SUSE 64. Just use the i586 version of Firefox and install the thing manually,

Re:AMD64 version? (1)

pyr0phr34k (799560) | about 8 years ago | (#16499619)

The standalone player works fine on my system (AMD64 x2). Not tested the plugin yet.

Re:AMD64 version? (1)

bcmm (768152) | about 8 years ago | (#16500043)

Well, yes. One is a standalone 32-bit executable, the other is a 32-bit library which is supposed to be loaded by a 64-bit binary. Your AMD64 can execute both 64-bit and 32-bit code, but 64-bit apps can't link 32-bit libraries.

It's all a bit of a mess, and the performance gains for 64-bit are not actually that great for many apps, which is why I run all 32-bit code on my EM64T-capable Intel Core 2.

Re:AMD64 version? (-1, Redundant)

mennucc1 (568756) | about 8 years ago | (#16499653)

you should try Gwenole Beauchesne's nspluginwrapper [gibix.net] . Linux.com says: [linux.com] The screenshot you see here shows the Adobe Flash plugin -- a 32-bit, i386-only download -- running happily inside a 64-bit AMD64 build of Firefox. Beauchesne lists Flash, Adobe Reader (formerly known as Acrobat Reader), DejaVu Libre, JPEG2000, Mplayerplug-in, and RealPlayer as working "reasonably well" at this time.

Re:AMD64 version? (4, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | about 8 years ago | (#16499783)

I can't play flash animations on my Turion laptop with Debian AMD64 installed.

Since it's a 32bit binary, won't installing it twice do the trick?

Re:AMD64 version? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16499873)

inciteful!? sarcastic, maybe funny how did this get inciteful?

Re:AMD64 version? (4, Funny)

halivar (535827) | about 8 years ago | (#16499949)

inciteful!? sarcastic, maybe funny how did this get inciteful?


Well, you were incited, weren't you?

Re:AMD64 version? (1)

DuSTman31 (578936) | about 8 years ago | (#16499933)

All joking aside, you can run 32 bit binaries in the 64 bit versions of a lot of distros.

Generally speaking, though, you'll need the 32-bit broswer in order to use the 32-bit plugin, though.

Re:AMD64 version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16500211)

No, stupid.

You have to install it 2^32 more times.

Re:AMD64 version? (1)

0racle (667029) | about 8 years ago | (#16499927)

I can't play flash animations on my Turion laptop with Debian AMD64 installed.
And you're complaining about this? I wish i could find something like FlashBlock for Safari.

Re:AMD64 version? (3, Informative)

jascat (602034) | about 8 years ago | (#16499989)

Look into dchroot and setup a small 32bit chroot environment. On my AMD64 desktop running Ubuntu, I have Firefox, Adobe Acrobat, a 32bit JDK and Mplayer installed and it works like a champ. HOWTO here. [debian.org]

gentoo ebuilds (5, Informative)

kswtch (790406) | about 8 years ago | (#16499531)

here [gentoo.org] and here [gentoo.org] .

Re:gentoo ebuilds (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16499585)

Already in portage, old chap...

Seems to work on Firefox but not Opera (2, Interesting)

BeeBeard (999187) | about 8 years ago | (#16500061)

A little strange: I just unmasked and emerged the Firefox 9 beta, and it works great on Firefox but only kinda sorta works with Opera. Opera has detected the new plugin just fine (right clicking on a flash movie on YouTube brings up an "About Adobe Flash Player 9" option) but most YouTube movies stall out when I try to play them under Opera. The player UI loads, but the movie never plays. If I go to hardocp.com or other sites which make heavy use of flash ads, some show up but not others. In the past, all Mozilla plugins have worked flawlessly with Opera, but I think this Flash beta might be a little questionable. Does anybody else have the same problem?

Why do we need this? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16499543)

Linux users are always "blah blah blah open standards, FLASH uses bandwidth, it isn't an open standard, it's hyper TEXT markup, it's a security hole etc, etc." All anyone does it bitch about how sucky flash is, but then turn around and complain that they don't have it.

They'll refuse to use something on principal, but then say, "Well, you HAVE to use Flash since so many websites use it." Yeah, like when Firefox first came out and so many sites weren't compatable with it. And how you insist on annoying people by sending them opendoc files instead of MS Word files. C'mon - have some balls and refuse to use Flash.

Re:Why do we need this? (4, Insightful)

endersshadow7 (972296) | about 8 years ago | (#16499579)

I'm not a zealot by any means when it comes to free software. I just want to use Linux and I also want to watch stuff on YouTube or browse around Dane Cook's site or whatever. Flash isn't my favorite program in the world, but not all of us are "TEH OMGZZZ FLASH SUXORZ AND IT SHOULD DIE!111!!!1111!" Some people like to use their computers for more reasons than to simply make a statement or a point. On that note, done some limited testing and it works very well. Woohoo!

Re:Why do we need this? (1)

siovene (1015515) | about 8 years ago | (#16499597)

Indeed I'm not using Flash on my browser.

Re:Why do we need this? (4, Insightful)

pandrijeczko (588093) | about 8 years ago | (#16499757)

People use Linux for various reasons, not just because they're part of an anti-Microsoft or anti-Closed Source crusade.

I myself use it because I'm comfortable with programming in a UNIX environment and prefer using Open Source tools in both Linux and Windows - but I don't feel "dirty" editing a Word document in MS Office - if anything, because I know Office well enough by now, I get the job done quicker to have more "playtime" in Linux!

However, with that said, I don't understand why an application that just allows you to view files (rather than create or edit them) ever needs to be closed source anyway - if you're a car manufacturer you won't make a car that is only confortable for people who are 5'6" tall to drive, you'll make it with adjustable seats so it caters to the widest possible audience possible. I don't understand why MS, Adobe and others are so protective of viewing their file formats anyway when you still have to go buy their applications to create or change those file formats.

Re:Why do we need this? (2, Interesting)

filet0fish (1002137) | about 8 years ago | (#16500165)

Well people don't have to buy software from Adobe to create flash files. The SWF format is open and there are lots of applications that can create SWF files. OpenOffice has an export to flash option, php has the MING library for generating dynamic files, and there's lots of 3rd party programs, like swish, that are sort of "flash lite." Then if you start looking around on the osflash site (osflash.org, I think) you'll find lots more open source flash stuff including compilers, IDEs, and lots of debugging tools.

I think the main reason companies are protective of the file reader programs is that they want to maintain the integrity of the format. They don't want someone coming out with a buggy or insecure player that makes people hate the format. Of course when they put out a buggy player then there's not much point.

Re:Why do we need this? (1)

tolan-b (230077) | about 8 years ago | (#16499859)

A few Linux users refusing to use flash is going to make fk all difference to Adobe.
Flash is here to stay for now, it's too well entrenched.

And all the complaints about Flash mainly boil down to one thing, it's a standard but closed source, which leads to exactly the kind of thing people have had to put up with of not being able to use a lot of websites because they require 8 or above and Adobe hadn't released a player...

Sad state of affairs (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16500297)

Note all the people installing both flash and flash block! First they contract the disease and then they grab something to make it bearable. That says as much as the oblig technical derision.

BTW: there's a youtube downloader listed on freshmeat so you don't actually need to taint your OS with flash in order to watch the funnies on youtube.

right (1)

bytesex (112972) | about 8 years ago | (#16499549)

]] The plugin is dropped into your local plugin directory (for a local user) or the system-wide plugin directory.

Until you do a yum upgrade, or something like that. Because then you get a separate directory for each sub version of firefox with a different plugins directory underneath it, and you lose your plugin once again, until you symlink to the plugin from the new plugins directory. Yes, maintaining software on Linux is a breeze, sometimes.

Re:right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16499627)

It's been a while since I've tweaked and played, but can't you setup a user plugin directory in your .firefox (or whatever) folder, in your home directory?

Re:right (4, Informative)

dylan_- (1661) | about 8 years ago | (#16499629)

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

Re:right (1)

cortana (588495) | about 8 years ago | (#16499689)

You should punch your packagers if their Firefox packages don't always load plugins from /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins and ~/.mozilla/plugins.

Re:right (1)

bytesex (112972) | about 8 years ago | (#16500147)

]] You should punch your packagers if their Firefox packages don't always load plugins from /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins and ~/.mozilla/plugins.

Hm. I run FC4 (or 5, I forget), and I have /usr/lib/firefox-1.0.6, /usr/lib/firefox-1.0.7, /usr/lib/firefox-1.0.8 etc, and FC isn't exactly obscure. Plus; ~/.mozilla/plugins ? I have more users, not just one !

Re:right (1)

cortana (588495) | about 8 years ago | (#16500269)

Well I'm sorry to hear that you are not using Debian. ;)

As a workaround, try creating /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins and putting the library there. I bet your mozilla-based programs try that directory anyway.

Re:right (-1, Redundant)

BJH (11355) | about 8 years ago | (#16499695)

You should be able to put it into /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins and have every version pick it up from there.

Whatever (-1, Flamebait)

siovene (1015515) | about 8 years ago | (#16499555)

Flash is evil anyway.

Good news! (5, Informative)

bioglaze (767105) | about 8 years ago | (#16499565)

Even being beta version, Flash 9 for GNU/Linux works very well when compared to previous player.

Some flash movies that hogged Firefox UI with old player work flawlessy now. Audio is now in sync with video.

While not perfect, this release makes me wonder when the free software Gnash player reaches a usable state. Being a free software enthuasist, i generally don't like the idea of using a proprietary plugin, but being also pragmatic, i use it. I also think that the official Flash plugin could be faster and more bug-free, if the source code were available and under a GPL compatible licence.

That being said, i still think it's important that GNU/Linux users, especially Average Joe, have a lot less hassle with badly designed, flash-dependent websites.

Re:Good news! (5, Informative)

sarathmenon (751376) | about 8 years ago | (#16499815)

While not perfect, this release makes me wonder when the free software Gnash player reaches a usable state. Being a free software enthuasist, i generally don't like the idea of using a proprietary plugin, but being also pragmatic, i use it. I also think that the official Flash plugin could be faster and more bug-free, if the source code were available and under a GPL compatible licence.
gnash is usable enough for me. Most ads works (sigh), and from what I've seen pretty much everything is rendered fine except for the flv videos. Now that ffmpeg and xine have full flv7 support, its only a matter of time before we can start to see gnash support youtube in its full glory. The best part is that it "works" on an x86_64.

Ad supported browsers (3, Funny)

AcidLacedPenguiN (835552) | about 8 years ago | (#16499573)

Now we too can participate in the revenue generating flash supported articles that are linked from slashdot!!!! They're not just for the windows crowd anymore!

Re:Ad supported browsers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16499707)

>Now we too can participate in the revenue generating flash supported articles that are linked from slashdot!!!! They're not just for the windows crowd anymore!

Not to worry - flash 10 or 11 for win will probably emerge shortly and we'll be out in the cold again.

Flashblock (1)

zoward (188110) | about 8 years ago | (#16499865)

If you're using Firefox, you'll want this extension [mozdev.org] to make the obnoxious flash-based ads a voluntary thing.

Re:Flashblock (1)

Patented (987523) | about 8 years ago | (#16500117)

The Adblock extension blocks flash ads as well as text, iFrame, and embedded adverts as well, if you know how to view source on the page. All you have to do, in order to get the biggest annoy-ware culprits, is visit myspace, foxnews, and tom's hardware guide, click on ADBLOCK, and then block any url that doesn't originate with the domain you are currently on.

Re:Flashblock (1)

AcidLacedPenguiN (835552) | about 8 years ago | (#16500277)

So I can finally block all the "x the y to win a free z" ads? Those almost piss me off enough to make me go out and buy z just to spite x, y and w (the ad company).

Wahooo (1)

El Lobo (994537) | about 8 years ago | (#16499607)

only 3 years too late!

Solaris (3, Funny)

guacamole (24270) | about 8 years ago | (#16499631)

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

Finally! (1)

necromcr (836137) | about 8 years ago | (#16499647)

New and improved popups!!

After installing... (1)

UbelievablyLame (962303) | about 8 years ago | (#16499671)

Did anyone else find themselves staring blankly at the address bar trying desperately to think of a site that required Flash >8?

Now that the caged bird is finally free, he discovers how comfortable he has become in his prison!

Re:After installing... (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about 8 years ago | (#16499791)

Did anyone else find themselves staring blankly at the address bar trying desperately to think of a site that required Flash >8?
Yep.

Re:After installing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16500273)

Check out FC64 - A Commodore 64 Emulator for Flash Player 9.

http://codeazur.com.br/stuff/fc64_final/ [codeazur.com.br]

Whinging (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16499685)

...a mere year after the release for Windows
Want some cheese with that whine?

Well, what now? (1)

Orm (23588) | about 8 years ago | (#16499699)

So I installed it, it did work without any problems, watched some movies at youtube.com and saw some flash-ads here and there.. But now what? Give me some good sites where flash really shows what it's good for!

Re:Well, what now? (2, Insightful)

crabbz (986605) | about 8 years ago | (#16499763)

www.homestarrunner.com

Re:Well, what now? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 years ago | (#16499953)

But he could run that on flash 7. What are some good sites that require flash8/flash9 that we previously couldn't run?

Re:Well, what now? (4, Funny)

TheLinuxSRC (683475) | about 8 years ago | (#16500293)

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

I think that is an oxymoron of sorts :)

flashblock! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16499811)

I recently installed flashblock: http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ [mozdev.org]
I feel like I have my computer back! 98% of the flash I saw were CPU hungry ads.
I do not miss them.

Orisinal! (1)

Balinares (316703) | about 8 years ago | (#16499835)

Ask and you shall receive [ferryhalim.com] . Warning, they are a LOT more addictive that they seem. :)

Great! (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 8 years ago | (#16500323)

Great! Thanks a lot! Now, I'm hooked. How am I supposed to get any work done? Umm... gotta go.

Re:Well, what now? (1)

bcmm (768152) | about 8 years ago | (#16500127)

badgerbadgerbadger.com

No! Weebls-stuff (1)

SpooForBrains (771537) | about 8 years ago | (#16500407)

www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/ [weebls-stuff.com] - much more than just badgers. The On the Moon series are my personal favourites at the mo, and with Flash Player 9 I can now see all the ones I've been missing that require >8.

Re:Well, what now? (1)

pimpimpim (811140) | about 8 years ago | (#16500361)

Now you can finally see the machine-halting flash popup banners everywhere! Even on slashdot :( The worst are the flash banners that overlap over a huge part of the screen, and miss the 'close' button when watching with a linux flash version :(

Related question therefore: Does anyone know how to disable flash temporarily in Opera?

wonderful (1)

mennucc1 (568756) | about 8 years ago | (#16499725)

I am trying it (inside Firefox and Mozilla as well) and it works perfectly. Two comments. (1) with Flash 7, audio was skippy (I have a cheapo onboard audio card; with Flash 9, I can finally enjoy youtube and the like. (2) today /. was linking to a article linking to http://www.bush-of-ghosts.com/ [bush-of-ghosts.com] ; with Flash 7, it showed blank ; with Flash 9 , it works.

The first thing I did after installing this (4, Insightful)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | about 8 years ago | (#16499727)

was checked that FlashBlock [mozdev.org] still worked.

I'm not joking. I was more concerned about that than the sound being in sync. Does anyone think I'm weird?

Re:The first thing I did after installing this (1)

jginspace (678908) | about 8 years ago | (#16499761)

"The first thing I did after installing this ... was checked that FlashBlock still worked."

I'd be more concerned that I had scripting enabled for every site.

Compiling bugs (5, Informative)

thebluesgnr (941962) | about 8 years ago | (#16499733)

There are a few problems with this release that I hope will be fixed in the future (I can only hope, since it's not open source yet).

The plugin will search for libssl.so and libasound.so; that's broken. They should dlopen the actual library or build it statically, but a hack like that is certainly going to cause problems. (btw, in Ubuntu/Debian you need the libssl-dev and libasound2-dev packages to use all the features of this plugin).

The most annoying bugs I had with Flash (believe it or not) are still there. If the mouse is hovering a Flash content inside a browser window, the browser won't recognize keyboard or even mouse events. This is annoying when you're scrolling through a page with Flash ads or when you want to Ctrl+L but the damn mouse is in the wrong place.

The other problem is that Flash ads that have the "point your mouse here to see the full ad" will always display the "full ad", and you have to choose between the Flash Block extension and not reading that damn page at all.

YouTube sound issues (1)

just_forget_it (947275) | about 8 years ago | (#16499739)

Hope this clears up the sound syncing issues with YouTube and Linux

Re:YouTube sound issues (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 years ago | (#16499979)

I don't go on YouTube a whole lot, but I've never noticed any audio problems on YouTube.

Movies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16499765)

I just don't get it with flash. Movies. Hasn't there been some just normal ways to put up movies with synced sound,etc for years? I see everyone jumping up and down that now "it works". Movies have "worked" for a long tyime now, yes? Why DO these sites use flash? This is a legit question, why is this used? I have it installed (not this new beta), but with flashblock, and rarely use it anyway, and when I do it's like, duh, it's some little short stupid movie with embedded links maybe. whoopedy doo. I have yet to see any advantages to it, just a lot of disadvantages. I can't wait until accessibility laws kick in more and people get forced to NOT use flash on their public facing, commercial "stuff for sale or rent whatever" websites. Now I don't care if people use it, as long as thery have an obvious click here to the no-flash version. A lot of places don't have that, and in the age of tabbed browsers, one program like flash running on multiple tabs is a serious hardware b0rker and I doubt this new version is any different, plus most likely it is the same risk-ware it has always been.

Anyway, you webmasters who use it heavy-why?

mouse scroll bug fixed? (1)

mdew (651926) | about 8 years ago | (#16499767)

Did they fix the mouse scroll bug in the flash plugin? (where the mouse scroll doesn't work over any embedded flash).

Re:mouse scroll bug fixed? (1)

thebluesgnr (941962) | about 8 years ago | (#16500089)

No.

PPC version (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16499775)

Still no PPC version? Lame.

Submit a feature request here: http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name =wishform [adobe.com] and tell them to release a PPC build

Argh ZE SOUND! (1)

Woy (606550) | about 8 years ago | (#16499779)

Hearing flash sound on Kubuntu Linux is still a hit and miss, miss, miss game...

Pie! (2, Funny)

onetwofour (977057) | about 8 years ago | (#16499827)

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

This was sorely needed (1)

ownermachina (137072) | about 8 years ago | (#16499831)

The old flash player had some horrible issues with sound output that actually made firefox suck [oreillynet.com] .

This has been a problem [launchpad.net] at Ubuntu and I guess others.

I work with a web-based application and usually watching any YouTube video would crash my entire browser session.

Re:This was sorely needed (1)

ownermachina (137072) | about 8 years ago | (#16499961)

BTW: I just remembered that just yesterday I could not see the WII experience videos [wii.com] .

Pass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16499923)

Thanks but no thanks!

Install issues... easy... (1)

advocate_one (662832) | about 8 years ago | (#16499975)

just make it installable exactly like the windows plugin... one click from the browser... without having to download and extract it

if you want it system wide, then make a standalone executable that only needs to be double clicked in Konqueror or Nautilus (or whaever else takes your fancy) and have the installer quiz you for the options and password

It ISN'T EXACTLY ROCKET SCIENCE now is it... durr...

Let the distros worry about packaging issues (deb, rpm, tar.gz...) then they can tailor it for themselves from the tar.gz or however you pack up the binary (I'm guessing it's gonna be closed source)

"About posting comments" (1)

mi (197448) | about 8 years ago | (#16500161)

  • All comments must first be processed through moderation due to the Adobe blogging system
  • Email address and URL fields are optional
  • Remember that this blog is called Penguin.SWF and is about Adobe Flash Player on Linux; please keep comments on topic
  • Questions about alpha, beta, and final release schedules are already answered in this post
  • Requests for such features as alternate operating system or CPU architecture support are more suited for the Adobe Wish Form
  • Adobe has no plans to open source the Flash Player at this time; comments requesting that the code be open sourced will be considered off-topic

In other words — praises and bug-reports only, please.

Re:"About posting comments" (1)

cortana (588495) | about 8 years ago | (#16500301)

That's what I thought, but I have posted several critical comments and they were approved. I expect it was because I did so in a *polite and constructive* manner.

Linux PPC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16500185)

My biggest gripe about Flash (other than the fact that many use it as a shortcut rather than provide standards compliant content) is the fact that non-x86 platforms are not represented. I don't expect Flash for Linux PPC or ARM or MIPS any time soon. Too little market share. If the source was available, I could compile it myself for whatever platform I have. Since it is not, I have no choice but to not use Flash. Mod me down if you want, but this is a real problem for those who have to (or want to) use non-x86 systems for whatever reason.

Re:Linux PPC? (1)

rincebrain (776480) | about 8 years ago | (#16500349)

I use x86 primarily and this still annoys me. I strongly recommend that people start hacking on gnash.

finally flash-apps won't force close (1)

jsolan (1014825) | about 8 years ago | (#16500281)

Working on an OpenLaszlo http://www.openlaszlo.org/ [openlaszlo.org] project, which occasionally caused the flash player to timeout while testing. Its nice that i can now "continue running the script" instead of being forced to close out, fix one problem, come back in only to find another problem. Flash 7 on fedora didn't allow me to continue. Unfortunately flash 9 doesn't feel any faster in the application than flash 7 did.

Fantastic (4, Interesting)

mogrify (828588) | about 8 years ago | (#16500311)

Long-awaited, indeed. The best part is finally being able to play Flash Video 8 on Linux. They got a huge quality improvement when they switched from Sorensen Spark to ON2 VP6, but no one who cares about Linux users could use it... until now :)

Inaccurate. (4, Insightful)

mad.frog (525085) | about 8 years ago | (#16500343)

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

4 months != 1 year

Re:Inaccurate. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16500409)

Yep, he's right. Trust a linux zealot to overreact about how they're being mistreated. If it's not that they hate flash it's how they hate getting their flash player a few months after the windows folk.

Worked fine at first, but ... (1)

Random BedHead Ed (602081) | about 8 years ago | (#16500351)

I had no issues at first. I gleefully went to a site that required Flash >7 (blackberrypearl.com) and it loaded fine. I right-clicked and saw that the player version in the context menu was 9, which was gratifying. But it otherwise seemed exactly the same.

After I closed that tab I was unable to load any pages in the others. Pressing Enter from the address bar did not cause the contents of the address bar to materialize. In fact nothing happened, not even an error message. I restarted the browser (Windows 98 mentality kicking in here), and that fixed it. But on a subsequent attempt I noticed the same thing again. This time I was able to load Slashdot once, but the CSS was missing. It was the plain white un-positioned fallback version of the site, which was actually interesting to see. It was as if I were using Netscape 3 or something.

Anyone else seeing these things? (I also have no audio, but I suspect I need to review the system requirements to mend that.)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?