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!

Adobe Releases Preview of 64-bit Flash For Linux

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the flash-in-the-pan dept.

Communications 329

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."

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

Here you have it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25787389)

Hey, wasn't someone over in the "75 movies from comics" discussion just bitching about this story not being posted? Voila!

Silverlight (4, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787423)

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 (5, Interesting)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787521)

We now have Java and Flash on 64-bit. No more reason to bitch.

Java is free but Flash is not (gnash and swfdec are getting there, but still not good enough for everyday use). And x86_64 is not the only 64-bit platform; what about Sparc and Itanic users, for example?

A binary blob for x86_64 is nice, I guess, but better would be for Adobe to give a bit of help to the projects trying to make a free implementation of Flash. So please continue to bitch, if you think that helps.

Re:Silverlight (4, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787827)

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 (5, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788259)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25788327)

Might I suggest open standards so anyone who cares can implement their own?

Re:Silverlight (5, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788699)

Might I suggest open standards so anyone who cares can implement their own?

You mean like this one? [whatwg.org] Yes, good idea. ;)

Sparc Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25788625)

You did notice there were sparc64 binaries right?

Re:Silverlight (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25788087)

Java is free but Flash is not

Seriously? Did you have to pay to download the flash plugin? No.

So let me get this straight, you get a professionally developed product, which adobe sees absolutely no profit from(unless you want to count the relatively microscopic desktop Linux userbase as "gain"). And you still have reason to complain? Your like the guy on the street who is given a wad of money and complains that the bills are dirty.

Unless that is.. you can think of a business model where flash gives up all control they have over their products and still makes a net profit.(I'm listening)

Re:Silverlight (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25788353)

Seems to have worked fine for PDF. Last time I checked Adobe Pro was still selling pretty well. Do I get bonus points for my example being from the same company?

one more time (3, Interesting)

doom (14564) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788587)

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.

Re:Silverlight (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788765)

Java is free but Flash is not

Seriously? Did you have to pay to download the flash plugin? No.

So let me get this straight, you get a professionally developed product, which adobe sees absolutely no profit from(unless you want to count the relatively microscopic desktop Linux userbase as "gain"). And you still have reason to complain? Your like the guy on the street who is given a wad of money and complains that the bills are dirty.

Unless that is.. you can think of a business model where flash gives up all control they have over their products and still makes a net profit.(I'm listening)

Vehemence of this response aside, this poses some fair questions, to which there are reasonable answer.

I think the GP was referring to free as in "free and open source software". Fantastic as it is to have the latest Flash player on 64-bit Linux, it's still not "Free and Open Source Software".

The Linux community would undoubtedly prefer a free software version of the Flash player. However, it is unlikely to be produced by Adobe, since the Flash software business model is based on selling server products: the server and development software. Providing a free implementation of the client would probably result in competition for those products that would result in less revenue for Adobe.

As with any free software I know of, a free software flash player business would need to depend on selling service. To my knowledge, Adobe is not prepared to shift to a service-based revenue stream for Flash. It could be done, but it is unlikely to be desirable, as I suspect the vast majority of the Flash client market is completely uninterested in whether they have a free-software-based player. Most of that market is using a non-free operating system and other software; they are extremely unlikely to care about whether the Flash software they downloaded for free has source code available for modification and redistribution.

I congratulate Adobe for having the foresight to provide quality support for Linux clients, enabling them to provide service on low-cost embedded systems and help cement their dominance of the web-based animation and video streaming markets.

Those clever bastards.

Re:Silverlight (1)

tobiasly (524456) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788165)

Agreed... and, much like Sun with Java, I expect that someday in the future, Adobe will be saying to themselves: "We were so close to becoming the ubiquitous platform that everyone used for deploying rich internet content to every type of device and platform. Our decision to keep the Flash player closed-source for so long looks so stupid now. What were we thinking? If only we could go back ten years and open it up..."

Re:Silverlight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25788261)

And what have *you* done to make swfdec or gnuash a good alternative? Can you post to your patches/changesets? Thanks!

Most people that bitch about "blobs" are the ones that do very little work on the free alternatives. So, stop bitching, start doing.

Re:Silverlight (3, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788265)

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 (3, Insightful)

doom (14564) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788667)

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 (0)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788785)

We don't need no stinking ethics when we've got self-interest to guide us.

That would apply if open-source vs closed-source software was an ethical/moral issue. It isn't. Your cute comeback doesn't apply here.

Re:Silverlight (2, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788285)

How many Sparc and Itanic users need a 64-bit Flash for web browsing needs?

Adobe isn't going to GPL Flash just because people complain it isn't "free". Nor do I need every app in the world to be OSS. I prefer OSS apps, but at the end of the day, I'll take the best app for the task.

I don't think the GPL was the way to go for Java either, as Java needs to be fairly standardized. I would like to see a new OSS license that prevents forking, but allows me to read the source code, submit patches upstream, and recompile. However the license would prohibit people from distributing altered/forked versions. Such a license might very well convince Adobe to release the source code, as well as Nvidia for their drivers.

Re:Silverlight (1)

bcat24 (914105) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788611)

I don't think the GPL was the way to go for Java either, as Java needs to be fairly standardized. I would like to see a new OSS license that prevents forking, but allows me to read the source code, submit patches upstream, and recompile. However the license would prohibit people from distributing altered/forked versions. Such a license might very well convince Adobe to release the source code, as well as Nvidia for their drivers.

I can see the benefits of such a license for some applications, but I think it would create a real headache for Linux distributions. Very few distros ship upstream software as-is. Instead, they apply patches to improve integration with the rest of the system. The last thing Sun wants to do is review every single tweak Fedora or Debian or Ubuntu (or whoever) makes to their codebase. What you propose is certainly better than a binary blob, but it still has some issues, IMO.

Re:Silverlight (1)

Jeff Hornby (211519) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787967)

Probably something like that.

I would guess that this is Adobe's "revenge" for Microsoft releasing a competing technology. They probably think that using this they can force Microsoft to cry "Uncle". Somebody at Adobe should ask Corel how that worked out ten years ago.

Re:Silverlight (2, Informative)

peter_gzowski (465076) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787983)

We now have Java and Flash on 64-bit.

No 64-bit Java browser plugin until early 2009 [sun.com] .

Re:Silverlight (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788211)

IcedTea (an OpenJDK port) has a working 64-bit Java plugin. While it doesn't work on all applets (it's not a complete implementation, IIRC), it seems to work fairly well for the few applets I've encountered.

Re:Silverlight (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788325)

It does fully past the test suite however, and works well enough for every site I've come across.

Re:Silverlight (1)

D. Taylor (53947) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788641)

Hmm, the test suite must be incomplete then, because I've certainly found sites that don't work (formula1.com Live Timing applet being the main one).

Re:Silverlight (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788751)

And if you use Konqueror, it directly calls the Java executable for plugins, so 64bit Java has worked as a "plugin" for quite a while in KDE. Since there are only a few Java plugin sites around the web, I'm happy with just using Konqueror when I actually need to access one on the short term here.

One more reason to bitch! (0, Offtopic)

ypctx (1324269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788351)

Proper graphics drivers from ATI and NVidia (with a proper compositing X server, that is).

Currently I can choose between perfect 2D + no 3D vs. perfect 3D + sluggish 2D vs. compiz + blinking video + bad 3D. Somehow not a reason to switch from Linux though.

And since I'm in the requesting mode, a Flash and Skype for iPhone would be nice, thanks!

Re:One more reason to bitch! (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788411)

ATI's OSS drivers give 3D and good 2D support. Their binary drivers have been improving as well.

Nvidia's new driver has great OpenGL performance, greatly improved 2D (XRender) performance, and great compiz performance.

I can't find any complaints with Nvidia's latest driver.

Re:Silverlight (2, Informative)

Sylvak (967868) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788435)

Silverlight is not currently available on linux... only windows and mac. So I guess adobe beat them to that milestone.

I have been waiting for the linux flash 64bit plugin for 3 years+. I can't believe a company like adobe couldn't deliver during all this time. It seems that they had their head in the sand for all that time. If Microsoft caused them to finally face reality, then I send them my thanks.

I don't really care who wins this tech war, as long as I don't have to use windows to view a freaken web site.

(I know my 64bit linux could load flash sites, but the implementation was buggy as hell, causing me to restart firefox and cross my fingers many times. Hopefully their release will change this.)

No Debugger? (0, Flamebait)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787435)

So people developing on a 64-bit platform are still screwed... Well I guess that's just another reason for me not to use Flash.

Re:No Debugger? (1)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788065)

Or not use 64-bit...

Re:No Debugger? (2, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788341)

You do realize that 64-bit is the way of the future, and that you can get a decent 64-bit computer for under $500, right? 64-bit is way too mainstream at this point to force people to use 32-bit software because you didn't bother to start the process when the machines were first shipping.

Everybody with any technical sense knew years ago that things were going 64-bit, there really isn't any excuse for Macromedia to have not made meaningful process since then. Adobe should get a bit of a free pass by virtue of not owning Flash at that point, but still.

Re:No Debugger? (3, Insightful)

Walpurgiss (723989) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788739)

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.

Re:No Debugger? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788555)

I would be interested (read: entertained) for the reasoning behind their decision.

Why linux first (4, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787449)

"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 (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787739)

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 (0)

robthebloke (1308483) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788595)

I think it has more to do with the chicken and the egg scenario on Windows 64 at the moment. You can't get a native 64 bit version of firefox/IE at the moment, so there's no need for 64bit flash.... And since you can't get a 64bit flash player, there's no reason for firefox/IE to switch to 64bit builds.

Re:Why linux first (5, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787759)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25787901)

Right on the money. Mod up.

Re:Why linux first (5, Insightful)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788019)

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.

Re:Why linux first (5, Funny)

tylerni7 (944579) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788429)

Bug #3129 in Windows Adobe Flash Player (64bit)
Affects: My computer
Importance: Extremely High

Description: can u release a update 4 this!?!? it doesnt work rite on my computer!!

Re:Why linux first (1)

dreimanis (1104069) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788449)

Also, their FAQ site mentions that Linux'es do not have a capable emulation layer, that is why x64 version comes first for linux. Like.. when will that day come, when flash animation will require more than 4GB of RAM?

Re: Re:Why linux first (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788743)

Also, their FAQ site mentions that Linux'es do not have a capable emulation layer, that is why x64 version comes first for linux. Like.. when will that day come, when flash animation will require more than 4GB of RAM?

I take it you haven't been to YouTube lately? ;)

Re: Re:Why linux first (1)

Walpurgiss (723989) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788789)

That day is now, with its brand new feature, multiple simultaneous memory leaks (MSML), which promises to halt X-servers across the nation.

Re:Why linux first (1)

rallymatte (707679) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787763)

That is true.
I'm a bit disappointed that it has taken several years though. Most Linux distributions has been available in 64-bit versions for a few years.
We've been using CentOS 64-bit along with RedHat 64-bit on a number of systems here and if we wanted to have the Flash plug-in in Firefox on one of those, we either had to install a 32-bit version of Firefox. Alternatively use the wrapper, but that causes Firefox to crash sooner rather than later.
So it's a much welcomed change, but again, it took a while.

Re:Why linux first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25787781)

> Linux users asked, and adobe listened. Great stuff.

That's part of it I'm sure. I've mentioned in the past that Adobe didn't even have a native 64bit version of the flash plugin. Usually it's something I mention in passing when people tell me how ubiquitous flash is.

So although this doesn't change my views of flash and I'm still not going to install it. Adobe just did something else* very cool and earned themselves some geek karma at least.

* Tamarin / nanoJIT being the big thing although I was also impressed that they used lua for lightroom. How the engineers explain Acrobat Reader however...

Re:Why linux first (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787965)

Linux users asked, and adobe listened. Great stuff.

For what value of "great"?

FreeBSD users and devs, for example, have asked for just as long.

Re:Why linux first (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788389)

That's been my feeling. I don't like having a half-assed half-working wine firefox installation which is not that much more useful than the linux plug in.

It wouldn't be an issue if not for the fact that so many sites out there require flash. And the fact that as of now there's still no evidence that a Flash plugin will ever run natively on FreeBSD.

Re:Why linux first (2, Interesting)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788601)

You've also been asking for 64-bit nvidia drivers for a good while as well?

The real solution is to give the community what they need to do it themselves. It's the easy, cheap, lazy, and better way out.

Re:Why linux first (1)

AndGodSed (968378) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788067)

Question - Does it run on Linux?

Answer - Why Yes it DOES!

Q - Does it run on Windows?

A - Uh, no - it seems for once the Linux Desktop holds precedent over it's Windows counterpart...

Q - Uh, okay, how about MacOS?

A - Nope - you will have to wait in line for it, wanna try Linux in the meantime?

This was bound to happen sometime. (does a little victory dance...)\o/

It's about accessibility (2, Insightful)

r7 (409657) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788099)

Linux users asked, and adobe listened. Great stuff.

Would be, except that we've been asking for several _years_ now. Isn't this kind of crap (releasing software for some OS and some architectures while ignoring others) why we need open source in the first place?

Looking forward, what assurance do we have that security issues will be addressed any better, or upgrades, or new features? We have none of course.

We would all be better off if A) youtube and other Flash sites made their content available in MP4 and other ISO standardized formats, and B) if Adobe published the Flash spec so others could develop better writers and viewers.

Yes we know that Adobe has to make a profit on their product to fund further development, but they don't have to do so using the same tie-in and lock-in that got MS sued for anti-trust.

Let me be the first to say... (3, Insightful)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787451)

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:Let me be the first to say... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25787599)

Hey! You know the rules. No bitching that people freely giving their time aren't delivering the results you want, unless you're helping.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (5, Informative)

MasterOfMagic (151058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787669)

From the Gnash website:

Streaming Video
        Gnash supports the viewing of streaming video from popular video sharing sites like Lulu.tv or YouTube.com.

When they stop claiming it as a feature, then they get to be free of my criticism of their broken feature.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (4, Informative)

thue (121682) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787747)

I can't even play YouTube with their latest releases on my AMD64 box.

Youtube changed the video format to H264 for some/most/many of their videos recently. It used to work with swfdec.

In the very latest dev version of swfdec the video works again, but there is no sound.

Re:Let me be the first to say... (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787833)

In the very latest dev version of swfdec the video works again, but there is no sound.

You say that like it's a bad thing...

Re:Let me be the first to say... (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787977)

"In the very latest dev version of swfdec the video works again, but there is no sound."
Interesting use of the term "works". While technically true really misses the point.
You can not use swfdec two watch youtube videos they way that most are meant to be watched.
Of course fans of Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Mary Pickford will not be disappointed.

x86-64 (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787475)

The summary talks about 64-bitness in general, while the Linux release is for x86-64 only. Linux users on non-x86 platforms are still without Flash, for better or worse. At least there's a Sparc build for Solaris.

Re:x86-64 (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787861)

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?

debugger version? (2, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787491)

Oh please. You just released a working binary to the most rabidly well-educated disassemblers, hackers, kernel developers, and programmers in the world. You don't have to. But you'll need to document it after they make it... They HATE documenting their work.

Just tested it (5, Informative)

NeoBrain (1342923) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787543)

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!

Re:Just tested it (5, Informative)

Radhruin (875377) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787841)

Confirmed. It's played everything I've thrown at it, and it is also considerably faster. With NSPluginWrapper, when I loaded a page full of flash graphs, the browser became sluggish for some time. With the alpha, the graphs load up instantly. So far I'm very impressed.

Re:Just tested it (1)

websitebroke (996163) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787973)

Working great here too. Now I can actually watch a full-screen HD video on Vimeo without the sound stuttering on me. Compiz running and everything.

Re:Just tested it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25788247)

It worked right off the bat for me on openSUSE 11.1 Beta 5, but NOT on Fedora 10 Preview.

I'll wait a few hours to see what kind of advice shows up on the various mailing list archives. I'm sure that I have the wrong packages installed or they were installed in the wrong order or some such nonsense, which seems to be a recurring problem with Fedora, at least on my AMD64 laptop.

Re:Just tested it (2, Interesting)

TheUni (1007895) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788379)

Make that 4. No problems here on gentoo 64.

It sure did feel good to emerge -C nspluginwrapper

Hath hell frozen over? (1)

A12m0v (1315511) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787575)

Falsh 64bit! and on Linux before Windows and Mac!

Windows/Minefield support? (1)

Stiletto (12066) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787597)

Great news. It's about time! I'm curious if they have plans to release a Windows 64-bit version for Firefox's "Minefield" releases.

Really? (1)

jadedoto (1242580) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787615)

I try to install it, and all I get is a segfault.

Re:Really? (1)

jadedoto (1242580) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787647)

...Nevermind *doh*

Coming up in 6 months (5, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787617)

"Where's the 128-bit version?!"

yay Adobe! (1)

NaCh0 (6124) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787641)

Thank you thank you thank you!!!!!!

This is a great day for flash support on linux!

And they came forth... (5, Funny)

MindlessAutomata (1282944) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787649)

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.

Re:And they came forth... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788673)

"wolf shirt-wearing"

What, you would prefer sans-shirt? I think you meant:

"wolf-shirt wearing"

More Importantly (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25787733)

While native 64 bit support is good news, it's not that big of a deal. 32 bit operation on 64 bit Linux has long been feasible so everyone was more than capable of poisoning their systems with Flash all along.

What is desirable and still missing is a Flash player that can run a video without putting dual core processor utilization at 60-90% for the duration of the video. It amazes me that there isn't a great outcry over this as it is an issue that has been around since circa Flash 7 and it only seems to be getting worse.

On the subject of 64 bit software, Skype is the more urgent need. Presently, it is not possible to run any version of Skype on a 64 bit Linux system. 64 bit Skype is a much bigger deal that is still absent.

Re:More Importantly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25788123)

Strange, since I've been running skype on x86_64 for years. Not 64-bit native, I'm sure, but it works so who cares?

Re:More Importantly (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25788255)

What is desirable and still missing is a Flash player that can run a video without putting dual core processor utilization at 60-90% for the duration of the video.

Flash has been a tragic failure as a video platform. Perhaps your insight on this matter could help correct this.

O.o

Flash uses a lot of CPU because it doesn't attempt to leverage native decoding hardware. While that doesn't contribute to efficiency it does have one positive benefit; it works. It works well on Window, OS-X and Linux. The day Adobe starts mucking around in all the myriad and sundry half-baked and buggy native video codec acceleration APIs to make you happy they will put 'just works' at risk.

I suspect that instead they will continue to ignore you by delivering working players. I also suspect that this policy will continue to be rewarded by the market, despite you.

Re:More Importantly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25788565)

> On the subject of 64 bit software, Skype is the more urgent need. Presently, it is not possible to run any version of Skype on a 64 bit Linux system.

It's not? Gee, when was someone going to tell me that the Skype client I'm running on my 64-bit Linux laptop wasn't working? I could have sworn it was since I've been using it without problem for a number of months now.

Finally... (4, Funny)

neonux (1000992) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787745)

Now I'm waiting for the 64-bit version of Duke Nukem Forever!

Re:Finally... (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787955)

Just as soon as the 64-bit lemon-scented paper napkins have been loaded

Who tagged this 'buggy'? (5, Insightful)

gblues (90260) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787935)

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.

Why no 32 bit browser? (2, Interesting)

Fanro (130986) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787957)

Linux distributions do not ship with a 32-bit browser or a comprehensive 32-bit emulation layer by default.

Why don't they anyway?

Given that many if not most users will want to install some plugins, installing a 32-bit browser by default would seem logical.

The browser would only have 2 gb address space, and it could not make use of new 64-bit registers or processor extensions.
Both seem like a very minor disadvantage for a browser, especially compared to being able to run 32 bit precompiled plugins.

Is this just one of these ideological things where the actual advantages for the user are disregarded?

Re:Why no 32 bit browser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25788269)

Because that would require emulation libs for x86, which take up quite a lot of space, which would mean install-dvd's and not install-cd's for some distros.

Re:Why no 32 bit browser? (1)

Fanro (130986) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788571)

Aren't most linux distros able to run 32 bit software on a 64 bit platform? IIRC that this was possible on ubuntu, so the libs should already be there

Re:Why no 32 bit browser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25788271)

Right....because we are all still using 16bit apps too...

Re:Why no 32 bit browser? (1)

Walterk (124748) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788309)

They don't do it by default as it's more prone to errors in the installation. However, OpenSuSE 11.0 does enable the 32 bit emulation for Firefox.

Re:Why no 32 bit browser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25788397)

I think it has something to do with dependencies and that on Linux you usually don't use self-contained packages.

Re:Why no 32 bit browser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25788637)

Note that 32-bit x86 code runs fairly significantly slower (5 to 10%) than 64-bit x86-64. So having a native 64-bit firefox is also a performance thing. This is NOT the usual situation for platforms that support both 32-bit and 64-bit stuff, BTW, usually 64-bit is the same speed or slower (due to pointer bloat). It's just that 32-bit x86 really, really sucked (mostly the tiny register file).

At last!!!! (3, Interesting)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788091)

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.

Re:At last!!!! (4, Insightful)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788665)

...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:At last!!!! (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788769)

I wouldn't ordinarily reply to my own posting, but I just tried the plug-in. CPU use seems so far to be the same as the 32 bit version, so maybe need a bit of tweaking by Adobe. In Firefox it's identified in about:plugins as "Shockwave Flash 10.0 d20", does not mention it as 64 bit.

I suspect I could now get rid of nspluginwrapper, but will test more to see how the plug-in reacts (if it crashes).

A quick hopefully useful notice for some users. On first test I had no sound playback. I actually found that the sound that was routing through the speakers was now being sent to the USB headset. Now that I use Pulse to route the audio instead of ALSA only, using "Pulse volume control" I was able to re-route the audio from the headset back to the main speakers.

doinitrite? (1, Insightful)

BrainInAJar (584756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788381)

Is it just me, or does it just seem that if you need a 64-bit address space for your web browser, you're doing something totally wrong

Re:doinitrite? (2, Informative)

rufus t firefly (35399) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788461)

Is it just me, or does it just seem that if you need a 64-bit address space for your web browser, you're doing something totally wrong

I think the point is (at least on a 64 bit architecture) that running a single 32 bit program on your system means that you need another set of 32 bit libraries to support it... Better to run a system with a homogeneous architecture.

Re:doinitrite? (1)

BrainInAJar (584756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788491)

nonsense, disk is cheap and having a couple extra libs around doesn't impact it that much

Re:doinitrite? (1)

kanazir (704999) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788575)

Like running KDE 64-bit and using konqueror?

Re:doinitrite? (1)

NeoBrain (1342923) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788607)

It's not about needing a 64-bit address space, it's more about
1) not needing to install a 32 bit Firefox PLUS the huge dependency list of it for 32 bit compatibility libs. Just takes away HDD space AND also much more RAM as the OS has to load each library twice (once the native 64 bit library and once the 32 bit compatibility lib)
2) not needing to install that ndispluginwrapper which is slow, unstable and actually not supported at all
3) not needing to use gnash or swfdec or something, they may work with most of the websites out there, but some just don't, now one finally gets /full/ Flash compatibility
4) eh... well, just about the same reason why I don't have any Windows applications running on Linux? Just seems senseless to run 32 bit apps in a 64 bit environment!
5) 64 Bit applications also run faster as they can depend on thinks like SSE to be implemented on ALL 64 bit processors.

Google Apps 3.0 (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788787)

Is it just me, or does it just seem that if you need a 64-bit address space for your web browser, you're doing something totally wrong

They're just trying to stay ahead of Google.

Re:doinitrite? (1)

robthebloke (1308483) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788805)

yes. However I'd prefer to run native 64bit software on my 64bit OS rather than relying on a 32bit emulation layer. Windows 64bit users don't really have any problems running a 32bit browser with 32bit flash with WOW; but the story is different on linux since the 32bit flash doesn't operate very well with 64bit browsers...

And bear in mind it's not just additional memory space you get with 64bit systems - It's the doubled CPU register count that I'm personally interested in....

Bleeding edge?!?! (1)

tom17 (659054) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788619)

FTA:

"bleeding edge type of processor known as a 64-bit CPU"

Since when is a processor architecture that has been available for years, and is the architecture of almost any computer you can buy right now, classed as "Bleeding Edge"

Bleedin 'ell

IAFT! (1)

neowolf (173735) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788643)

After 2+ years of asking Adobe to finally acknowledge that people actually use 64-bit machines- they finally got it!

Something not clear from the download site or the article- the install instructions are here:

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/releasenotes_64bit.html [adobe.com]

I was giddy with excitement just to be able to wipe npviewer/nspluginwrapper from my system, hopefully forever.

And- I think it says a lot (despite what others seem to feel) that Adobe chose to do this for Linux first!

it just works (1)

bluefrogcs (656231) | more than 5 years ago | (#25788649)

ripped out the 32 wrapper + 32bit flash plugin for ff3 .. dropped in the 64bit .. everything worked
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?