×

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!

Linux Now an Equal Flash Player

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the cheek-by-jowl dept.

Media 437

nerdyH writes "As recently as 2007, Linux users waited six months for Flash 9 to arrive. Now, with Microsoft pushing its Silverlight alternative, Adobe is touting the universality of its Flash format, which has penetrated '98 percent of Internet-enabled desktops,' it claims. And, it today released Flash 10 for Linux concurrently with other platforms. Welcome to the future." Handily enough, Real Networks released this summer RealPlayer 11 for Linux, the first release for which they've included a .deb package, and offers nightly builds of their Helix player, for which Linux is one of the supported platforms.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

437 comments

yay competition! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25388663)

Now make them do the same with Photoshop.

Some more equal than others... (4, Interesting)

bconway (63464) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389221)

Looks like they changed it during they beta to require glibc 2.4-based Linux distributions (RHEL 4, CentOS 4, Debian 4 are out) for stack-smashing protection.

Link [adobe.com] .

RealPlayer? (2, Funny)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388687)

What's that?

Re:RealPlayer? (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25388757)

Its (buffering 0%)

Re:RealPlayer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25389073)

Hey look!
Now it's at 33% only two thirds to go!

Re:RealPlayer? (2, Informative)

maliqua (1316471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388835)

a proprietary media format/player that was once relavent a long time ago

Re:RealPlayer? (4, Insightful)

interstellar_donkey (200782) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389139)

Yeah. I thought the same thing. Real represented every wrong way to market and produce a product. It was neat in the beginning (well, it was pretty much the first, as far as I know), but as time went on, it became a bloated, spyware ridden piece of garbage far inferior to all of its competitors.

Honestly, I didn't know Real was still around. I wouldn't let that software near my windows machines, much less the Linux ones.

Re:RealPlayer? (2, Informative)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389189)

I have Real on my Nokia, to play movies with. It works. I also have Adobe Acrobat to read PDFs on my phone. I never got that to work. Both programs came with the phone.

Re:RealPlayer? (2, Insightful)

interstellar_donkey (200782) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389377)

While it's difficult for me to understand the need to watch movies on your telephone, I guess I could see the appeal to some.

But if I were to get a phone that could play videos, I'd want to to play videos in a non-proprietary standard. My guess is, Nokia entered some deal with Real to put it on there.

As for acrobat not working, wait for them to port Foxit to your phone. You might actually be able to view PDFs.

Competition is good! (5, Insightful)

rotide (1015173) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388689)

And this is a good example! Why change, update, or innovate if you have no competition? Throw a little in there and all of a sudden the things people actually wanted, are given!

YAY another binary release (4, Insightful)

maliqua (1316471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388709)

We need a proper Open Source flash as a BSD user I am still jaded by flashes lack of support

Re:YAY another binary release (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389249)

I'm mainly a BSD user, but I do have a couple of Linux boxes, so I might install it on that. They do have an ARM version, right? Nope, it seems it's just x86 (not even x86-64).

The future? (4, Insightful)

jaavaaguru (261551) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388715)

There's still no 64-bit version yet!

Re:The future? (-1, Troll)

SCHecklerX (229973) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388789)

and what, exactly, do you need with a 64 bit flash player? Downloading some 20GB animations, are we?

Re:The future? (4, Insightful)

snl2587 (1177409) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388817)

Or running a 64-bit system?

Re:The future? (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388911)

Us nspluginwrapper.
Actually if Firefox would support 32 bit plug ins under Linux that would also solve the issue.
Or the Distros could include 32bit Firefox be default.
Both would solve the problem. And if you need Firefox to be 64bit you are surfing the wrong sites.

Re:The future? (4, Informative)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389021)

nspluginwrapper blows.

There's no nice way to put it. It crashes, or "loses connection" to the plugin half the time.

Re:The future? (3, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389121)

Us nspluginwrapper.

nspluginwrapper is a workaround not a solution.

Actually if Firefox would support 32 bit plug ins under Linux that would also solve the issue.

Good idea, but why bother when they can port flash to arm, why not x86_64?

Or the Distros could include 32bit Firefox be default.
Both would solve the problem. And if you need Firefox to be 64bit you are surfing the wrong sites.

If you want suboptimal performance why not just go back to windows? I have a 64bit processor (it came with my laptop) I do not have 4GB of memory or edit photos but i dont see why i should accept sub optimal performance just to run a plugin, a plugin that seams to max out any version of my os anyway.

Re:The future? (5, Informative)

et764 (837202) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389361)

If you want suboptimal performance why not just go back to windows?

The performance difference between 64-bit and 32-bit is not nearly as big as between 32-bit and 16-bit. When making the transition to 32-bit, things were pretty much faster across the board. With 64-bit, the case isn't so cut and dried. On x86 machines, running in 64-bit mode, you get a couple of things. The biggest is a larger virtual address space, which lets you work with more than 4GB at once. You also get larger general purpose registers, and more registers to play with. Generally, larger registers aren't really needed. Things like MMX and SSE have already given us the ability to process data in 128-bit chunks if we need to, and I'd bet most things that really need large registers are already using SSE. More registers are nice, but they only help in compute-bound circumstances. Most of the time these days, you're I/O bound.

The downside is that in 64-bit mode, pointers are all twice as big, which means your program will need more memory and possibly memory bandwidth than the 32-bit version would. My experience is that 64-bit is usually slower, unless you have 4GB or more of RAM. Theoretically, 64-bit can be faster, but generally people don't switch because they need the faster CPU speed, they switch because they need the RAM.

Re:The future? (1)

brainnolo (688900) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389527)

On x86_64, running 64bit applications rarely gives any performance boost (and you usually pay an increased memory footprint due to wider pointers). You benefit from a 64bit CPU when you either computer big numbers or need to address more than 4gb of memory.

Re:The future? (2, Funny)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389399)

In practice, none of those things work well with Ubuntu. None of them are easy to set up. Basically, flash is still unavailable to the majority of Ubuntu users.

Re:The future? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25389475)

Why does it matter if I need Firefox to be 64-bit? If all my other applications can be 64-bit, why should a little browser plugin cause me to use 32-bit Firefox or a hack like nspluginwrapper that is extremely unstable? Hell, if it weren't for the 32-bit app here and there, I wouldn't even need the 32-bit compatibility layer. That's a lot of overhead and a lot of space saved.

Re:The future? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25389493)

Or the Distros could include 32bit Firefox be default...And if you need Firefox to be 64bit you are surfing the wrong sites

Allow me to introduce you to this thing called shared libraries. Unless you want the distros to either include a statically linked 32bit Firefox or to include a large amount of 32bit libraries with it, that's not an ideal solution.

>4gb of ram isn't unreasonable these days anymore and if you're going to run a 64bit system, you'd like every application to be 64bit in order to save hd space so as to not have two copies of every library (the 32bit and 64bit versions).

Re:The future? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25388867)

Not cluttering up a tidy pure 64-bit system with 32-bit compatibility libraries just to run a second-rate video player?

Re:The future? (1)

mieses (309946) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389317)

and what, exactly, do you need with a 64 bit flash player? Downloading some 20GB animations, are we?

It has nothing to do with the size of the file.

64bit would help with rendering video and multimedia of any size. Used youtube lately?

I suspect the reason Adobe is slow to provide 64bit support is that the flash player is made up of closed source code from a variety of 3rd party companies. It could be that Adobe is too cheap to pay those companies to port their code to 64bit. This is too bad, because new Linux desktop installations are more likely to be 64bit than Windows. Nearly all Linux software can be compiled to run on amd64 (x86-64). Why not flash player?

Re:The future? (1)

digital bath (650895) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388841)

no kidding. I'm sick of restarting firefox in a 32-bit environment just to use some fucking flash navigation system.

Re:No 64-bit (5, Interesting)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388905)

My theory is that Adobe's Flash player is a horrible hack that is so utterly fragile and bug-ridden that Adobe can't actually make a 64-bit version without doing a full rewrite.

Re:No 64-bit (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389299)

They can't even make a 32 bit version without bugs and security vulnerabilities. Honestly, who would install a new version of Flash on its zero-day?

Re:No 64-bit (2, Insightful)

rgmoore (133276) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389329)

That would be a more plausible explanation if they didn't have a version for Solaris on Sparc. I'm more inclined to believe that the root problem is unwillingness to devote the resources.

Re:No 64-bit (2, Informative)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389513)

I agree that a version for the Solaris Sparc platform is a slight negative, but I bet that version is a 32-bit version as well.

There are liberties you can take when you can assume that some particular integer type and a pointer type are interchangeable, or that pointers have some particular internal structure. Most 64-bit platforms break all those assumptions.

In particular, on x86_64 the pointer is specifically structured so you can't steal either the high or low bits to represent some other sort of data. And the 'int' type in most compilers is still 32 bits, you have to use 'long' or even 'long long' to get a 64 bit integer type.

So, I think sloppy and bad programming practices are still the likely culprit.

Re:No 64-bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25389343)

Theory? No. Fact? Yes.

Re:No 64-bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25389453)

You're right. The software assumes 4==sizeof(char *) all over the place. So much for portability.

Re:The future? (4, Insightful)

Artraze (600366) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388931)

Indeed; that was the first thing I checked upon reading this story.

I'm sorry, but I'd rather have a 6 month wait and a 64-bit version than concurrent releases. Linux has been running on AMD64 for what now? Three or four years? And now that Vista runs on 64-bit as well there's even less excuse for this. Hell, they're even got a version for the Sparc.

I don't mean to belittle the fact this story. It is pretty cool that Adobe seems to at least recognize linux as a worthwhile platform*, it's just that support is still rather lackluster.

(*While I would think that this would have to do with the increasingly common use of linux on embedded devices, the fact that there's no ARM version seems to contradict this. However, I suspect there's a (secret) version somewhere since I'm seen embedded linux devices that play flash.)

Re:The future? (3, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389119)

64 bits is the present. A 128 bit version would be the future. Until, of course, it's the past.

Re:The future? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25389359)

Not to mention, nothing for the BSD's either.

No deal. (3, Insightful)

Massacrifice (249974) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388765)

But still not open-source. So if you need it on PPC Linux, or FreeBSD, you are still SOL. Give us the source guys, and we'll maintain it for you. Or if you absolutely cant do that, publish a spec that somebody can use to write compatible player.

Re:No deal. (0)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389005)

Or if you absolutely cant do that, publish a spec that somebody can use to write compatible player.

Exactly, give us the spec and you'll never have to worry about Silverlight!

Re: You've got the spec (2, Insightful)

John Dowdell (1253028) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389295)

The SWF file format specifications have been published for a decade. Just like HTML.

The sourcecode to the canonical implementation has not, just like most of the HTML browsers out there.

Adobe licenses high-quality video decoders from third-parties, so it's difficult to have an ideologically-pure Player.

jd/adobe

Re:No deal. (3, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389305)

The flash specs used to be half-open (free, but the license only allowed you to use them to write flash files, not to read them). A few months ago, they released them for implementing players too. And they've open sourced the ActionScript engine (basically a - very - modern Smalltalk VM).

Re: news is already available (5, Interesting)

John Dowdell (1253028) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389231)

Most of the 64-bit work is still in the opensource Tamarin Project. You can still contribute, if you've got the chops.
http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2006/10/whats_so_difficult_64bit_editi.html [adobe.com]
http://www.kaourantin.net/2006/11/spidermonkeys-relative-tamarin-joins.html [kaourantin.net]

The "we'll maintain it for you" line has not particularly been borne out by experience.... ;-)

jd/adobe

Re:No deal. (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389447)

But still not open-source. So if you need it on PPC Linux, or FreeBSD, you are still SOL. Give us the source guys, and we'll maintain it for you. Or if you absolutely cant do that, publish a spec that somebody can use to write compatible player.

Haven't the OSS community said specs is enough? Well, in that case put your money where your mouth is:
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/swf/pdf/swf_file_format_spec_v9.pdf [adobe.com]
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flv/pdf/video_file_format_spec_v9.pdf [adobe.com]
You are free to develop anything you want from these specs as of last May. That does not include the codecs, but ffmpeg can decode both sorenson and h.264 which are the most important codecs, and probably the rest flash ever used too though I haven't checked out all of them. I look forward to seeing your flash implementation soon.

Outstanding!!!! (5, Funny)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388777)

Now, I can watch my CPU's max out, and my systems become unresponsive on EVERY platform!

Re:Outstanding!!!! (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388921)

Flash 10 is better (ive been using the betas)*, i mean i still wouldn't touch it without flashblock (for performance reasons not security unfortunately) but its much better than 9.

*Hopefully with the flash 10 release websites will stop telling me to install flash

Re:Outstanding!!!! (1)

radarsat1 (786772) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388953)

This is a real problem for me. Currently my laptop doesn't handle heat very well (freezes up on me), so I'm having to be extra careful about the CPU usage spiking. Unfortunately this happens pretty much any time I want to watch a flash-based video player on a website. Strangely, some sites are better on the CPU than others...

I find youtube's actually not bad for CPU usage.

Anyways, probably a better fix is to clean my laptop fan. But I find the CPU usage in Flash to be very annoying.

Re:Outstanding!!!! (2, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389163)

Currently my laptop doesn't handle heat very well (freezes up on me),

+1 Ironic

Flashblock. Seriously. That way you get to selectively enable Flash media rather than being carpet-bombed on pageload.

Re:Outstanding!!!! (1)

radarsat1 (786772) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389385)

Hahah.

Anyways yes I use flashblock.
And I still click on videos when I want to watch them.
And they still use too much CPU.

Re:Outstanding!!!! (2, Insightful)

schwaang (667808) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389113)

Seriously. On my gf's Vista machine, Flash hanging in IE is *the* major reliability issue over the past 6 months.

[Vista has this "system reliability" thingy which is actually cool (oops there goes my slashdot karma). It gives an overall score on how reliable the system is and charts it over time, showing what apps crashed or hung to reduce the score.]

Still, I have flash on my linux desktop which will never, ever, ever have silverlight installed on it.

Re:Outstanding!!!! (1)

uberlinuxguy (586546) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389425)

This is true. But with Linux the browser isn't integrated into the OS, so 'kill -9 firefox-bin' can be your friend if such a problem occurs.

And what about the embedded version for wii/etc? (5, Informative)

forevermore (582201) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388803)

Some of us have been waiting a lot longer for flash9 and still don't have it for wii, iphone, and I believe even the Opera web browser.

Re:And what about the embedded version for wii/etc (3, Interesting)

riyley (1122121) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388979)

My thoughts exactly. I'd really like to turn my Wii into a Hulu box, but the one browser I actually paid for doesn't have flash compatibility. What gives?

Good or Bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25388829)

Is this good news or bad news?

Re:Good or Bad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25389153)

It's still bad news because morons will continue to make whole websites or website navigation menus with Flash.

64-Bit support? (1, Interesting)

Visaris (553352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388837)

The big question I have is: Have they finally released a 64-bit plugin for 64-bit firefox in Linux?

The stability of wrappers just isn't there yet (neither is the performance). One would think by now they could do a recompile...

Re:64-Bit support? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25388999)

It is totally irrelevant to me. I refuse to use Flash even on 32bit systems. I don't care about animated ads and annoying intros and there are much better solutions for video.

Re:64-Bit support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25389519)

"It is totally irrelevant to me" but not so totally irrelevant that you could ignore a story about it. Congratulations on invalidating your own post before you'd actually finished posting it.

What a fucking chump.

Re:64-Bit support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25389043)

No, there is only x86 support. Further, you are correct. I just downloaded the 32-bit version and tried it with nspluginwrapper. It still can't play but a small percentage of youtube videos, and breaks on many sites. Total crap.

Re:64-Bit support? (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389285)

Your using it wrong! nspluginwrapper seams to work pretty well on most sites ,randomly needs a reload and infrequently needs a restart of firefox. what version are you using?
0.9.91.5 on firefox 3(rv:1.9.0.3) seams bearable (i do use flashblock because i generally cant stand flash though)

If only... (2, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388839)

Adobe would just encourage more webmasters to write actual code instead of relying on flash for their entire websites.

But of course there wouldn't be much profit incentive for Adobe to do such a thing...

This is News (5, Interesting)

steve_thatguy (690298) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388893)

Complaints about lack of Photoshop and a 64-bit version aside (it's interesting how much Slashdot resembles a sewing circle of old ladies in the complaints department), this is actually pretty significant news. Especially if this is the beginning of a new Way Things are Done for the Flash developers. With most major video sites using Flash-based players and the other wealth of Flash content on other websites, Flash support is pretty essential for desktop users. This is a major stepping stone. Hopefully Adobe will see enough rewards from doing this that will encourage them to embrace the Linux platform even more.

Re:This is News (1)

blhack (921171) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389529)

Hopefully Adobe will see enough rewards from doing this that will encourage them to embrace the Linux platform even more.

What benefits does Adobe see from giving away their player for free? I get it, they sell the development software, or license it out to sites like hulu or youtube.

Why the hell have they not just fully opened up the player? I mean...they should be completely kissing the ass of the Linux/Unix folks in the hopes that somebody will come out with a standalone box that jacks into hulu or youtube and connects to your television.

All platforms? (1)

netglen (253539) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388923)

Do they have a Flash Player for the iPhone yet? Just curious.

Re:All platforms? (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389355)

The iPhone SDK T&Cs prevent using it for writing anything that loads third-party code, which eliminates Flash as a possible thing to port (and Java, Python, whatever).

Re:All platforms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25389379)

they did say they where ready to make it but "apple is a closed shop" so they couldn't get the info they needed to do so.

welcome to the future (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388925)

where open source is used as a bargaining chip in a commercial pissing contest. i guess linux developers alone werent enough to spur adobe to invest, so how if at all is this a win for linux?

It was worse than that... (4, Informative)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388959)

If I recall correctly, it was six months after the release of Flash 9 for Windows when Linux got it, but there wasn't even a Flash 8 for Linux. Linux users had actually been waiting for a new release since the release of Flash 7.

Re:actual history (2, Informative)

John Dowdell (1253028) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389463)

Yes, Linux folk did have an unusually lengthy gap back then. Worse, it coincided with the rise in YouTube popularity, so the gap was felt particularly acutely.

Video was added in Player 6. Player 8 was a massive re-architecture of the graphics engine. This was also due to include a re-architecture of the logics engine, but the latter was re-scheduled out into Player 9 timeframe. Rather than make a graphics-oriented Linux Player which would need to be rev'd in six months, the Linux Player went straight from v7 to v9. It was pain, but it's over now.

Flash/Linux has been an emphasis from the start:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000815054538/www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/alternates/ [archive.org]

jd/adobe

Re:It was worse than that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25389467)

Also Flash Player 9 sucked, it crashed Firefox all the damn time on my system. Flash Player 10, thus far, hasn't crashed at all. It really seems like a solid piece of software.

Go Home Silverlight (5, Funny)

Drake42 (4074) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388963)

Competition is good and all, but this is just annoying. It only exists to muddy the waters.

I'm just waiting for MS to announce that they will no longer speak english, but will communicate only in Anglush-Sharp. A language in which every noun is copyrighted by Microsoft and only MS approved verbs will generate an intelligible response.

Too true (1)

1_brown_mouse (160511) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388981)

I love to watch Firefox grey out or my whole system freeze for 10 seconds for some flash thing.

I still won't switch back to winders.

I just wish there were an alternative that worked really well.

Great news but... (3, Insightful)

rzei (622725) | more than 5 years ago | (#25388985)

First of all, as some have already pointed out, where's the *BSD binaries and 64-bit binaries?

Why doesn't Adobe go (L)GPLv3 with their flash plugin, keep all the products that produce flashes commercial and watch how other people (while being angry at their original plugin's performance) fix their bad code?

In all seriousness, what bad could releasing flash renderer as a GPLv3 or LGPLv3 mean for adobe? They have the market for 90s style websites (one big graphic) and 100% of Internet's video sites already, their actual closed source not so well performing plugin is the first reason why people don't think flash is great for anything other than attracting teenager users.

If the do not open source it, one day it will a better alternative will grow out of the open source community or flash simply ceases to exist as it's replaced by more open standard X or better renderer Y.

Re:Great news but... (1)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389199)

First of all, as some have already pointed out, where's the *BSD binaries and 64-bit binaries?

They're on the same download page as the 64-bit Windows binaries.

Re:Great news but... (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389483)

If the do not open source it, one day it will a better alternative will grow out of the open source community

... which will be ignored by 98% of users even if it is better. Silverlight is the one real threat, not open source.

Not GTK1 compatible, possibly more. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25389171)

Either that or it apparently won't run unless the host browser is GTK2 based.

Oh well. I'm out.

Still sucks like Flash 9 (1)

rzei (622725) | more than 5 years ago | (#25389341)

Now that I've just upgraded it seems that those "performance upgrades" don't show up at least on (K)Ubuntu 8.10 beta.

Running without desktop effects, under firefox or konqueror it still needs the whole core to do simple low quality video decoding. mplayer [mplayerhq.hu] (w/ ffdshow) does videos with same resolution with less than 10% of total cpu usage.

Wished at least some kind of performance boost ..

Tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25389383)

Tagged "dubioushonor"

big flash, planet/population rescue kode=survival (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25389397)

it's also way user friendly, & totally newclear powered. you can 'play' along if you want to.

greed, fear & ego are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/tent_cities;_ylt=A0wNcyS6yNJIZBoBSxKs0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/28/what.matters.meltdown/index.html#cnnSTCText
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/10/07/atwood.debt/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/voting.problems/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE
(talk about cowardlly race fixing/bad theater/fiction?) http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/sec_short_selling/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ApTbxRfLnscxaGGuCocWlwq7YWsA/SIG=11qicue6l/**http%3A//biz.yahoo.com/ap/081006/meltdown_kashkari.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(the teaching of hate as a way of 'life' synonymous with failed dictatorships) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_re_us/newspapers_islam_dvd;_ylt=A0wNcwWdfudITHkACAus0NUE
(some yoga & yogurt makes killing/getting killed less stressful) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_us/warrior_mind;_ylt=A0wNcw9iXutIPkMBwzGs0NUE
(the old bait & switch...you're share of the resulting 'product' is a fairytail nightmare?)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_bi_ge/where_s_the_money;_ylt=A0wNcwJGwvFIZAQAE6ms0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

'The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson
consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

FP 9 for Wii (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25389487)

Anyone know when Flashplayer 9 for the wii is coming out? Or how to use Flashplayer 9 with wii homebrew?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...