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!

64-Bit Flash Player For Linux Finally In Alpha

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the new-and-shiny dept.

Graphics 172

Luchio writes "Finally, a little bit of respect from Adobe with this alpha release of the Adobe Flash Player 10 that was made available for all Linux 64-bit enthusiasts! As noted, 'this is a prerelease version,' so handle with care. Just remove any existing Flash player and extract the new .so file in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins (or /usr/lib/opera/plugins)."

cancel ×

172 comments

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

This isn't news... (5, Informative)

AllyGreen (1727388) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156608)

The 64 bit flash player has been in alpha for over a year....

Re:This isn't news... (1)

Neil Hodges (960909) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156626)

That was my first thought, too. I've been using it for quite some time, as it's in the 'testing' repository of my distribution.

Re:This isn't news... (4, Informative)

AllyGreen (1727388) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156736)

Wow, just checked the date of the first article thats linked in the summary, nov 19th 2008!

Re:This isn't news... (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31158080)

Shouldn't every release of Flash be marked pre-release?

Re:This isn't news... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31156694)

The date on the article is November 19, 2008. Even by Slashdot standards, this is ridiculously old news.

Re:This isn't news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31156720)

Yes, the ComputerWorld article is dated November 2008.

Re:This isn't news... (5, Informative)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156904)

64-bit enthusiasts?

x86-64 is THE de-facto architecture. Save the enthusiast label for all the retro x86 steam punk guys.

Re:This isn't news... (2, Interesting)

dan325 (1221648) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157500)

64-bit enthusiasts?

x86-64 is THE de-facto architecture. Save the enthusiast label for all the retro x86 steam punk guys.

no kidding. I can't stand Flash. Heck, the 32-bit Linux version is barely passable. The web would be so much better off if people just used open standards for web sites. With javascript and CSS, you can do all sorts of cool stuff and it'll run perfectly on any platform -- even my PowerPC Linux box.

How's the PowerPC Linux port of Flash coming, Adobe? right...

Re:This isn't news... (3, Interesting)

Minwee (522556) | more than 4 years ago | (#31158202)

How's the PowerPC Linux port of Flash coming, Adobe? right...

The amd64, armel, hppa, i386, ia64, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390 and sparc ports [debian.org] all seem to be coming along...

Oh wait, you wanted _Adobe_ to do something about it? I'm pretty sure they fired the only developer who understood their codebase years ago.

Re:This isn't news... (1)

Neil Hodges (960909) | more than 4 years ago | (#31158208)

Too bad all browsers don't equally support the same features of HTML/CSS/JavaScript. Flash also isn't completely there yet, but it's closer on the platforms it does support.

Re:This isn't news... (1)

dan325 (1221648) | more than 4 years ago | (#31158612)

Too bad all browsers don't equally support the same features of HTML/CSS/JavaScript. Flash also isn't completely there yet, but it's closer on the platforms it does support.

Yes, but there is a very workable subset of HTML/css/JavaScript that is supported by all the major browsers -- especially if you decide not to support IE6.

Plus, support for those standards is improving at a much greater rate than flash is improving. Firefox and Chrome have finally forced Microsoft to actually try to improve Internet explorer.

Re:This isn't news... (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31158624)

Flash isn't there at all. It's not a standard.

Re:This isn't news... (1)

pizzap (1253052) | more than 4 years ago | (#31158322)

Wait till you see the 64-bit version of flash, it has twice the number of bits!!

Re:This isn't news... (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31158660)

So you kicked out all your 32-bit binaries?

64-bit Flash ... for Flash games that use more than 4 GB of RAM.

Re:This isn't news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31156986)

Even after a year, it's still shit, though. I just installed this plugin on my Fedora system, and it's fucked up. Firefox crashes outright the moment I try to access YouTube or any site using Flash. Opera doesn't crash, but still can't play the Flash content.

I know a lot of people say that HTML5 will be the answer, but I suspect it'll just bring in a whole new set of problems.

Honestly, even Java applets work better than Flash, and until Flash became popular we all thought Java applets were the shittiest that things could get.

Re:This isn't news... (4, Informative)

ZombieWomble (893157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157302)

This article seems to have popped up because Adobe have indeed released an updated version of the flash player on the 11th of this month. Still alpha, but slightly newer. Pleasingly, it seems to have fixed the only persistent bug I had with the player (which caused Firefox to report a crash every time it was closed - no actual errant behaviour, however).

Why exactly the submitter picked at year-and-a-bit old article as a reference for this news is still a mystery, however.

Re:This isn't news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31157390)

Maybe its a Beta or `testing' release? I have used 64bit flash on linux of recent too.

Re:This isn't news... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31157498)

flash64Bit forever

also flashwithdecentproformanceoutsideofwindowsland forever

Re:This isn't news... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31158006)

It's called astroturfing. Fuck Adobe and their sucky flash player.

Re:This isn't news... (1)

HNS-I (1119771) | more than 4 years ago | (#31158818)

You've got it all wrong, you're supposed to say:

Why is this even news, the 64 bit flash player has been in alpha for over a year...

Countdown timer initiated (0, Flamebait)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156612)

Que the Anti Adobe Activists in 3... 2...

Wait hang on... This flash ad is causing my browser to lag...

Re:Countdown timer initiated (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157530)

I'm anti flash sucking up all my processor.

Come on, they can fix the resource hog that flash has become, they choose not to.

Re:Countdown timer initiated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31158216)

Come on, they can fix the resource hog that flash has become, they choose not to.

Really? I suspect they are simply not capable. Any evidence to the contrary?

Re:Countdown timer initiated (1)

Dahan (130247) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157758)

Que the Anti Adobe Activists in 3... 2...

[inverted?]Que?

Old??? (1)

ryanjsull (1683936) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156616)

Hasn't this been out for a while already?

Re:Old??? (1)

cryoman23 (1646557) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157044)

yes over a year...

"Finally?" (1)

MSG (12810) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156618)

That story is more than a year old!

What was the previous release? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156620)

I do believe I've been using this already for a year. (I'm bad with time). But I know I've been using it for some time now.

The previous release wasn't considered an alpha?

What comes before alpha? My greek alphabet must be really rusty.

Re:What was the previous release? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156672)

The previous release wasn't considered an alpha?

What comes before alpha? My greek alphabet must be really rusty.

Ancient Hebrew "Taw" - looks just like an x.

Re:What was the previous release? (1)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156678)

Prealpha- development releases/nightly, when it is not only extremely unstable, but is not yet feature complete.

Re:What was the previous release? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31156710)

TFA is even dated November 2008! So not quite as "new and shiny" as CmdrTaco seems to think :-)

Re:What was the previous release? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156746)

Reading labs.adobe.com more closely, the news here is that an alpha refresh has been released.

Re:What was the previous release? (1)

gral (697468) | more than 4 years ago | (#31158274)

@ comes before Alpha, at least in the ascii table. ;-) The flash player just got updated on the 11th. It is still in alpha, just a new version of the alpha release.

Re:What was the previous release? (4, Funny)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31158734)

You ascii a stupid question, you get a stupid ansi. ::ducks::

Windows x64 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31156624)

What about a Windows x64 build?

just say NO to adobe's shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31156628)

FREE as in FREEdom. Also as in free from ads. Suck it, adobe!!!

Downtime is the name of the game (3, Insightful)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156636)

Man, Flash Player locks up the CPU and crashes more often with gold releases than most alpha software. I think you'd have to be sadist to run software in alpha for Linux from Adobe.

Seriously, I hope it leads to an improvement for the Flash Player for the platform- it's sorely needed.

On another note, I was surprised to hear that H.264 GPU video acceleration in Flash Player 10.1, in addition to being limited to very new cards, only works on Windows, the platform with the most stable Flash Player (stable is relative).

Re:Downtime is the name of the game (4, Interesting)

corychristison (951993) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157174)

Man, Flash Player locks up the CPU and crashes more often with gold releases than most alpha software. I think you'd have to be sadist to run software in alpha for Linux from Adobe.

Really? Honestly I haven't ever had any real issues with Flash since I've been running the 64bit release of about a year ago.
Even before that I had minimal issues running the 32bit version under 64bit Firefox via NSPluginWrapper.
I'm running Gentoo Linux and it works fine. No crashing, no lagging aside from trying to run YouTube in fullscreen doesn't always work out so swell (24" LCD @ 1920x1200 resolution). I suppose that's the lack of H/W acceleration.
I also don't have any issues using Adobe Reader. Maybe I am just lucky?

Re:Downtime is the name of the game (2, Interesting)

Coopjust (872796) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157240)

I wasn't aware it's over a year since the 64-bit alpha was released.

On Fedora & Ubuntu I had a lot of issues with the 32-bit plugin, especially run using the wrapper for x64 Firefox.

Adobe Reader is fine for me, but it's a security nightmare compared to other PDF readers.

Re:Downtime is the name of the game (5, Funny)

Godji (957148) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157586)

I'm running Gentoo Linux and it works fine.

There's your answer. We Gentoo users have a slightly distorted definition of "works fine" :D

(Disclaimer: I kid.)

Re:Downtime is the name of the game (1)

Flavio (12072) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157682)

Really? Honestly I haven't ever had any real issues with Flash since I've been running the 64bit release of about a year ago.

I also haven't had any issues with the 64-bit prerelease under Fedora 11 and 12. That said, the lack of hardware acceleration is very annoying and several years overdue.

Adobe Reader is fine as long as I don't install the plugin. Every time I click on a PDF, it completely downloads the file and launches the Adobe Reader binary. When I used the plugin, it tried to load the file incrementally (even when I explicitly configured it not to), which very often locked the browser.

Re:Downtime is the name of the game (3, Insightful)

diegocg (1680514) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157722)

The Adobe Linux guys wrote a blog post explaining why Adobe Flash is so slow [adobe.com] . It seems that because Flash needs to mix the video image with other flash controls, it can't accelerate video like a typical player does. It seems that the HTML5 people have the same problem.

"The key point here is that the decoded video frames need to be accessible by the Player which needs to do its thing before the data can be presented to the user. As of this writing, none of these drivers in Linux allow retrieval of the decoded video data. Their counterpart Windows drivers do allow this which is why this feature is supported in Windows.

That's for Linux. What about Mac? I'm not sure but my Mac colleagues have mentioned something about Apple not making their hardware decoding APIs available to applications (if the APIs exist at all, which I'm not sure they do)"

Re:Downtime is the name of the game (2, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31158352)

The douchebag who writes that blog can be ignored, gnash has VA-API support already.

Adobe should just fund gnash or at least find a better linux developer for their port.

Re:Downtime is the name of the game (2, Interesting)

Dr.Syshalt (702491) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157978)

I develop Flex application on Linux right now, using Intellij IDEA + Flex SDK from Adobe.

Quite complex GUI application, with numerous connected graphs, grids, sliders - one that would be just impossible to develop using AJAX or whatnot.

Zero problems so far. Everything works properly, including Flash debugging in 32-bit SeaMonkey (there is no 64-bit debug version of Flash on neither platform, so 64 bit is for usual browsing). The app is working, I'm going to release it today or tomorrow - yes, Flash application + server part on Perl with JSON bindings, developed 100% on Linux. It would be masochistic to develop it using "HTML5" or whatever buzzword you wanted to use as a replacement for Flash. Flash is here and it works - I don't care what your theories say

Do not want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31156648)

I'll get it when they fix the bug where flash pages play annoying loud audio, the bug where web pages that are supposed to be static play annoying moving advertisements, the bug where flash pages can't be represented by real URL's because it all loads in a single flash file, and the bug where flash breaks the www.

Re:Do not want (1)

rsax (603351) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157458)

All of those are developer/designer screw ups including the URL issue: http://www.asual.com/swfaddress/ [asual.com]

That's not to say Adobe shouldn't be working harder on the Flash runtime; they should probably stop with the new features for one or two releases and focus primarily on performance issues. But I'll still take them over Microsoft and Silvelight.

And despite what a lot of people are yelling right now (after Apple decided to leave Flash out of the iPad) you can't replace Flash with HTML5/JavaScript, at least not yet.

  • A standard still in draft
  • No consistent way of playing video on all browsers without still falling back to Flash on IE, Firefox (and Opera?)
  • What are indie game developers who want to publish their games online supposed to use? http://canabalt.com/ [canabalt.com]

Also, thinking advertisers won't resort to using HTML5 & canvas for advertisements is being a bit naive

Re:Do not want (1)

Al Dimond (792444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31158068)

Really, it's much better if advertisers use Flash. It's very easy to block.

OMG (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156668)

I just knew the strange spacetime distortion field I drove through on the way to work was going to cause issues!

I've apparently gone a few years back in time, wait.. wha.. nooooo, I have to relive going through the recession again!

Oh wait...

Re:OMG (1)

cryoman23 (1646557) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157482)

but but... now i got to take that test again... stupid space time...

No performance improvement (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31156738)

From http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/faq.html

Will application performance improve with the 64-bit Flash Player?
A 64-bit Flash Player will not necessarily result in improved application performance. The major benefit is for Flash Player to be fully compatible with 64-bit Linux distributions so that it is both easier to install and works as expected without requiring emulation.

Re:No performance improvement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31158502)

We all know this already. The 64-bit player sucks even worse than the 32-bit player, and it has ever since it showed up. The reason why Adobe is having so much trouble with 64bit is because their code is a portability nightmare.

Old news, slight revision, still broken Hulu. (5, Informative)

proxima (165692) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156744)

This is another revision over previous 64-bit Flash revisions. I've been using it for months, mostly without trouble.

Around mid-January though, Hulu broke with all Linux clients running 64-bit Flash. You get "Sorry, we are unable to stream this video", and the support forum [hulu.com] is full of people reporting it. As far as I know Hulu has provided no response, and there are rumors that something related to video DRM that Hulu enabled (must be recently) is not supported in the 64-bit Flash player yet. Workarounds including using the Hulu desktop (which some report as buggy), watching at least some of the videos via Fancast (which I didn't even know existed), or using the 32-bit plugin. I just tried this 10.0.45 release and it has the same problem.

Re:Old news, slight revision, still broken Hulu. (1)

BeansBaxter (918704) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156838)

Why aren't more people talking about this issue? The irony is I think hulu desktop is using flash but I'm not sure of that. It works ok but really its a bit confusing to navigate and dog slow.

Re:Old news, slight revision, still broken Hulu. (3, Interesting)

raddan (519638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157206)

Actually, that's not true. Hulu mostly works fine for me in 64-bit Ubuntu 9.10 and the latest Firefox. I'm running the latest Flash alpha. I can watch the videos, but the player controls are unusable (clicking on them does nothing). Fortunately, Hulu Desktop works, although the video is occasionally a little glitchy.

Now Netflix, that's a different story. Videos are unwatchably glitchy unless I use IE, where they play fine (yes, on Windows).

Re:Old news, slight revision, still broken Hulu. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31157396)

Chances are you're actually using the 32 bit plugin.

Also, Netflix uses Silverlight (Moonlight on Linux), not Flash.

Re:Old news, slight revision, still broken Hulu. (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157788)

Now Netflix, that's a different story. Videos are unwatchably glitchy unless I use IE, where they play fine (yes, on Windows).

My buddy reports the same thing. He's switched back to windows (7) due to a) win7s lack of shittyness and most importantly b) he can watch netlix on his laptop

Re:Old news, slight revision, still broken Hulu. (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157828)

It's very easy to continue to use the 32-bit plugin in Ubuntu 64-bit; I believe Ubuntu still installs it (and the 64-bit wrapper) by default. Unless you specifically install the 64-bit alpha plugin and delete the others from your system (and there's a few places in which they can reside), you're probably still running 32-bit.

Re:Old news, slight revision, still broken Hulu. (1)

Al Dimond (792444) | more than 4 years ago | (#31158096)

I can use Hulu just fine on 64-bit Linux with 64-bit Flash plugin. Sometimes I get error messages that go away when I refresh the page.

Re:Old news, slight revision, still broken Hulu. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31158358)

Which version is your plug-in? I bet it's 10.0.22 which works - don't upgrade to anything newer or it will break Hulu.

Re:Old news, slight revision, still broken Hulu. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31158596)

Which version is your plug-in? I bet it's 10.0.22 which works - don't upgrade to anything newer or it will break Hulu.

Wasn't 10.0.22 vulnerable to that major security hole last year?

Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31156752)

Soon after YouTube goes HTML5 we will witness the death of Flash. They had a good run and played a large part in making the Internet what is today but it is time to move on.

Re:Who cares? (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156954)

With Chrome and Safari, you can already use YouTube without Flash in most cases. Just signup for the HTML 5 beta, and off you go!

Re:Who cares? (1)

naz404 (1282810) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157188)

Yeah, but Chrome's HTML5 youtube video player doesn't support fullscreen and lacks a proper indicator of how much of the video has already been streamed to your browser cache. The Flash version is snappier and snazzyer.

Re:Who cares? (0, Troll)

sc7 (1141597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157214)

And enjoy horrendously poorer video quality.

Slow player - slow announcement (1)

dmesg0 (1342071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156760)

The announcement is new, but the player isn't. Must be a very slow company, if it takes one year from the alpha release to the announcement.

By the way, the 64-bit alpha was always just as stable (or just as unstable) for me as the 32-bit version. I wonder if they have really made any changes since then.

And In Other News (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156766)

Microsoft has just announced the release of Windows Vista, predicting that it will surely be the best selling operating system the Redmond, WA based company has ever released.

html5 (1)

brenddie (897982) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156822)

we will have better luck waiting for mass adoption of html5 than waiting for a REAL release of the adobe flash plugin. Maybe html5 is whats causing them to wake up

Re:html5 (1)

javilon (99157) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157140)

we will have better luck waiting for mass adoption of html5 than waiting for a REAL release of the adobe flash plugin. Maybe html5 is whats causing them to wake up

That and Linux popping up into netbooks and phones. If they don't get their act together the only real option will be HTML5 (not that this would be a bad thing).

Re:html5 (0)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157352)

we will have better luck waiting for mass adoption of html5 than waiting for a REAL release of the adobe flash plugin. Maybe html5 is whats causing them to wake up

By some reports, as of last week Adobe was stopping the publication of the new version of HTML5 via objections in the W3C working group to the canvas element. Sadly, this is all going on behind closed doors and the only reason anyone knows about it is because Google's Ian Hickson blogged about it. Mind you Adobe is denying any such thing is happening. Hickson wrote "the latest publication of HTML5 is now blocked by Adobe, via an objection that has still not been made public (despite yesterday's promise to make it so)."

Re:html5 (1)

naz404 (1282810) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157582)

Please stop spreading FUD about Adobe blocking HTML5.

Read the full story about what really happened here:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/02/adobe_is_sabotaging_html5.html [adobe.com]

It was about Larry Masinter, Adobe's representative at W3C proposing that progress of HTML5 in W3C could be faster if the subsections on graphics and metadata could (if not now, then eventually) be moved to separate subgroups focused on those topics.

Read more at Larry Masinter's blog.
http://masinter.blogspot.com [blogspot.com]

Withdrawn (1)

Concern (819622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31158064)

From here: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/HTML5-controversy-centres-on-Adobe-Update-931069.html [h-online.com]

Update - Ian Hickson has withdrawn his claims. In a posting to the W3C mailing list he said "I was under the impression (based on [1] and some posts to secret mailing lists) that Larry had filed a formal objection on the 2D Context part of what people outside this working group call HTML5. However, I see Larry has now posted publicly that this is not the case".

My guess, this troublemaking was real, but they are backpedalling now.

Adobe is playing the last cards in their slimy little hand to sabotage HTML5.

Standards bodies either survive attempts by wealthy corporate troublemakers to stop the open standards process, or they become irrelevant.

I can't wait to see Flash finally end. It's been a buggy, annoying tool to work with since it came on the scene. Even so, their reign should have been as endless as Windows - all it would have taken was the slightest bit of good stewardship. Too bad they couldn't even be bothered to keep up with 5-10 year old changes in hardware and operating systems.

It's fitting that Macromedia/Adobe's laziness and arrogance will destroy their grip on the web.

Moving straight off-topic (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156844)

Wow, we're now taking articles from 2008 and putting them on the front page of Slashdot. We're already discovered there is nothing to see here. So please allow me an OT question here, but are there any really good Linux bloggers out there?

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols is just one of the many writers I really don't like and so I started thinking. Are there any Linux bloggers out there I do like? I'm at a loss.

Matt Asay is also incredibly popular, but his blog is supposedly dedicated to open source. Yet he spends about 30-40% of his time praising Apple and IBM for closed-source proprietary products, and another 30-40% bashing Microsoft for anything and everything. Then he spends a very small amount of time trying to advocate or report on actual FOSS products. A good chunk of that time is promoting his company, Alfresco.

I'd love to find a good Linux/FOSS blog worth reading.

Re:Moving straight off-topic (1)

Steve Baker (3504) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157338)

Linux Weekly News perhaps? http://lwn.net/ [lwn.net]

Re:Moving straight off-topic (1)

Bourbonium (454366) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157664)

In the open source world, you are encouraged to get up off your butt and do something when you see a problem that is not being properly addressed. Blogging tools are easily available all over the place. If you don't like the Linux bloggers you have been reading, start your own blog and promote it.

You might also want to subscribe to any one of the hundreds of open source podcasts out there. I listen to FLOSS Weekly (Randal Schwarz + Leo LaPorte and sometimes Jono Bacon), Fresh Ubuntu (Peter Nicholitis and Harlem Kianu), the Ubuntu UK Podcast and some others. I'm less impressed by the Linux Action Show, but I still check it out every now and then.
You can find these and many others at http://www.thelinuxlink.net/ [thelinuxlink.net]

I can just see the press release (1)

mandark1967 (630856) | more than 4 years ago | (#31156884)

"64 bit support! Now with 2x the number of vulnerabilities of any 32bit software, and available on Linux because fuxxoring the Windows platform isn't enough! WE WANT IT ALL!"

Flash for the 64bit DEC Alpha !! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31156940)

Finally,

Though wouldn't a PPC Linux binary be more useful?

Re:Flash for the 64bit DEC Alpha !! (1)

Kludge (13653) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157168)

I wish I could mod you funny.

Re:Flash for the 64bit DEC Alpha !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31157568)

I went fishing explicitly for this comment. It's awesome how nonspecific the summary is.

Don't trust proprietary software (1)

nawitus (1621237) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157040)

This is why you shouldn't trust proprietary software. Once they have the market they don't care about the small operating systems, and there's nothing you can do about it (other than writing a free alternative). The problem is that once gnash can play flash10 files Adobe will release a new standard.

Re:Don't trust proprietary software (1)

ericrost (1049312) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157282)

That's great and all, but I'd really like to watch all the online video available to the rest of the world rather than pay $80 a month to have a proprietary set top box stream the same crap at slightly higher quality to a buggy pos dvr box that I don't own, control, nor can I access the content as I please. I hate having to rely on cpu rendering when I want to build a low power quiet box and use the goddamned gpu hardware h.264 decoding to get deinterlaced rendered video.

This is why my htpc frontends will be moving to windows 7 in the very near future. MythTV backend, MythWeb for setting up recordings, browsing schedules, etc, and boxee as a frontend on top of w7 with hardware decoding!

Re:Don't trust proprietary software (1)

Bourbonium (454366) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157776)

Boxee works fine for me, though only on my x86 Ubuntu partition. There is no 64-bit package for Boxee, though the forums are filled with inquiries about it. I asked Dave Matthews of Boxee about this issue, and he said their limited resources are all focused on developing for the widest range of systems, and while he welcomes and encourages people to work on a 64-bit version, most of the efforts I've seen have been chroot hacks to get the 32-bit version to play well (or even at all) on 64-bit installations. I'm a sysadmin, not a coder, but if I had the necessary skyllz, I'd love to be able to do this.

Not so much "news" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31157096)

This is really, really old news.

Seconded. . . (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157890)

I don't know exactly when the alpha was released, but seems like I tried it about 6 months ago, then went back to the 32-bit version because the 64-bit version is not well optimized and doesn't seem to use hardware acceleration for video playback. It works, but it's painfully slow. Still, it's an alpha, and as far as alpha's go, I suppose that's a pretty good alpha.

The problem is, I don't think Adobe is actually working on it anymore. Seems like they released and alpha, then forgot about it. If the headline were that the plugin had finally reached a BETA release, then that would be 'news'.

Hardware acceleration? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31157160)

This 64-bit version has always had hardware acceleration disabled. The 32-bit version does acceleration through OpenGL. I can watch full screen HD youtube videos smoothly with the 32-bit plugin, but the 64-bit plugin isn't even usable for that. I've stayed away from it just for that reason... I'd rather just run 32-bit and have things actually playable.

Adobe Reader (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31157248)

Now all we need is Adobe Reader 64-bit please?

Wake me up when it becomes beta. (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157328)

So that finally Kongregate will support it. :/

Hey, Adobe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31157406)

We need a native BSD port too, even though fedora makes a nice emulator :)

Or the home folder (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157424)

Just remove any existing Flash player and extract the new .so file in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins (or /usr/lib/opera/plugins).

It works just as well (for single-user systems) in ~/.mozilla/plugins.

What's taking so long? (1)

jfbilodeau (931293) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157464)

Seriously. 64-Bit Linux has been around for a long time. Why is it so hard for Adobe to create a 64-bit version of Flash for Linux?

Linux not user friendly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31157610)

This is another reason Linux is not that user friendly. It's a chicken and an egg problem. I'm have average computer skills and using Linux is a lot less user friendly because of issues such as the issues with Flash. It appears to be getting better and I hope to use Linux on my laptop eventually, but it is still a pain in the ass to use Linux. Also, I have a Verizon broadband card that doesn't have Linux software for it.

Re:Linux not user friendly (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157874)

You are aware that Windows has no 64-bit Flash plugin at all, right? So you can't download it from Adobe to install on your 64-bit web browser for your 64-bit Windows?

And that on Windows you have to manually download the Flash plugin to install every time Adobe finds yet another critical security bug whereas on Linux (well, at least Ubuntu) it's automatically updated by the update manager? Well, unless you trust Adobe to install Yet-Another-Updater on your PC to do it for you.

Re:Linux not user friendly (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31158682)

There is no need for separate software for those cards.

if you kindly post which one it is I will tell you how to make it work. Most likely though just using a newer ubuntu it will work out of the box.

I can has FreeBSD plugin now? (1)

blakedev (1397081) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157666)

Please?

Re:I can has FreeBSD plugin now? (1)

xororand (860319) | more than 4 years ago | (#31158046)

Believe me, you are better [slashdot.org] off [schneier.com] without [slashdot.org] it [slashdot.org] .

It like flash (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157756)

because it's easy to block it and get rid of 80% of obnoxious ads. With HTML5 coming up, i'm dreading having no choice but christmas-tree websites all over.

I prefer Gnash. (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 4 years ago | (#31157916)

yeah, its not perfect and doesn't work for every flash file. But, it does work for the flash I do want to see. Plus, stopping the annoying flash file is pretty simple. Its just a right click away.

Flash, flaaaash ! (1)

lolo60150 (1736918) | more than 4 years ago | (#31158278)

Can somebody explain me why on my Fedora 11 x64, the same libflashplayer.so works fine on Opera 10 and not on Firefox 3.5.6 ? And Gnash ... well it's a good initiative, but too young to be really usable (well at least with my computer)

Nothing (new) to see here, move along... (1)

EkriirkE (1075937) | more than 4 years ago | (#31158280)

I've had adobe's 64bit linux plugin forever, both in FF and Chrome. The only thing new may be the subversion (instead of 10.1.2.3 or whatever I've been on, now they are on 10.1.2.3b?)

Really good!?!? You must be kidding! (1)

lofoforabr (751004) | more than 4 years ago | (#31158410)

I'm kind of astonished to see so many people here running the flash plugin without a problem. Unless the definition of 'without a problem' changed somewhere.
I run it in Ubuntu (karmic, 64-bit) and it sure is the worst piece of shitware I got. Whenever I have a page with flash plugin, cpu stays fixed at 100% usage (well, at 25%, because luckily I'm on a quad-core). Also, the plugin segfaults more than my tests when I was learning assembly. After a few days turned on, last lines of my dmesg are always something like:

[562380.585402] npviewer.bin[8191]: segfault at ff999ed8 ip 00000000ff999ed8 sp 00000000ffe4d0ec error 14
[565094.972209] npviewer.bin[10145]: segfault at 1020000 ip 0000000001020000 sp 00000000ffc9727c error 14 in npviewer.bin[8048000+23000]
[572699.544263] npviewer.bin[11284]: segfault at ff999ea8 ip 00000000ff999ea8 sp 00000000fff58c0c error 14
[575806.593733] npviewer.bin[14840]: segfault at ff999ea8 ip 00000000ff999ea8 sp 00000000ffebc38c error 14

npviewer.bin is the flash plugin.
Really, am I the only one who has any problems with this? Sometimes, it even hangs firefox for several seconds before giving back control.

Re:Really good!?!? You must be kidding! (1)

HappyHead (11389) | more than 4 years ago | (#31158562)

Nope, npviewer.bin crashes all the time on me too, and the flash 10 for 64 bit only really supports "some" of the features of flash. Lots of flash _including_ sites work ok, but when they're _really_ heavy flash, or use a lot of recent flash features, it pretty much kills the site, with sections missing, needing to reload the page two or three times to get it to display, and having sections of the page randomly dissapear as one flash bit that isn't supported yet crashes _all_ flash in _all_ tabs. And I've been keeping up with the updates on their release page - they keep churning out new versions every month or two, but the bugs I see never seem to be the ones that got fixed.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?