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 Goes To Flash 10.1, Forgoes Security Fix For 10

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the expert-level-linkage dept.

Graphics 320

An anonymous reader writes "The recent critical zero-day security flaw in Flash 10 may have fast-tracked the release of Flash 10.1 today. Adobe 10.1 boasts the much anticipated H.264 hardware acceleration. Except for Linux and Mac OS (PDF): 'Flash Player 10.1, H.264 hardware acceleration is not supported under Linux and Mac OS. Linux currently lacks a developed standard API that supports H.264 hardware video decoding, and Mac OS X does not expose access to the required APIs.' Your humble anonymous reporter, who is using Fedora Linux with a ATI IGP 340M, is very pleased that the developers of the OSS drivers have provided hardware acceleration for my GPU ('glxinfo : direct rendering: Yes,' 'OpenGL renderer string: Mesa DRI R100 (RS200 4337) 20090101 NO-TCL DRI2'), but even if Adobe did provide hardware acceleration for H.264 on Linux, they wouldn't provide it for me because they disable it for GPUs with SGI in the Client vendor string. Adobe 10.1, with all its goodness, now gives me around 95% CPU usage as opposed to about 75% with the previous release. Good times. I anticipate my Windows friends will have a much better experience."

cancel ×

320 comments

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

well, of course. (0, Troll)

turkeydance (1266624) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529686)

see above.

Re:well, of course. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32529800)

So I guess slashdot's goal is to make troll first posts irrelevant by having the summary beat them to it?

Re:well, of course. (3, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529834)

Do you mean "well, of course Apple should take a stance against second-class treatment by Flash"? I think that guy named Steve beat you to it.

Re:well, of course. (1)

eihab (823648) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529856)

Flash/Acrobat and even Java are a serious headache if you are small enough to not need or can afford an enterprise-level software management tool, yet big enough that patching machines individually can take quite sometime.

Does anyone know of a good (hopefully low-cost/free) central patch management software/tool for things like Flash?

I found ManageEngine's [manageengine.com] Desktop Central today (which is free for 25 or less machines), but I'd love to hear how other people are dealing with patching non-MS stuff.

Re:well, of course. (1, Funny)

logjon (1411219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529942)

We don't let people use it.

Re:well, of course. (3, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529950)

Have you considered using FOG, which is free, do to images and just rolling out new images when this sort of PITA software updates?

FOG also includes the ability to deploy installations without doing a reimage, just seems like a good time to do it.

Re:well, of course. (1)

eihab (823648) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530182)

That looks like an interesting solution. By quickly scanning their site I'm not sure how would something like this work for patch management.

I'll take a closer look at its documentation later today, thanks for the lead :)

Re:well, of course. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530562)

They are called snapins and you can have them do pretty much whatever you need. In this case most likely you would want to make a snapin that did the install. Then you would deploy that to all the clients. Their user guide is quite good.

If you have questions feel free to email my gmail, same username.

Re:well, of course. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530448)

Yes. Chromium. Who needs to manually update Flash anymore?

!News (-1, Troll)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529702)

Adobe programmers are lamest bunch of losers since forever. Noting to see here, move along.

Re:!News (3, Funny)

PotatoFarmer (1250696) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529772)

What do you mean? Who else would have to foresight to include embedded executable code and a javascript engine in a print document format? It's genius, I tell you!

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go look at a PDF that has pictures of someone's vacation emailed to me by an unknown perso

Re:!News (5, Informative)

melstav (174456) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530398)

Who else would have to foresight to include embedded executable code and a javascript engine in a print document format?

It's even worse than that. Take a good look at version 1.7 of the PDF spec [adobe.com]

From section 7.11.4.1 of chapter 13, which is titled "Multimedia Features"

If a PDF file contains file specifications that refer to an external file and the PDF file is archived or transmitted, some provision should be made to ensure that the external references will remain valid. One way to do this is to arrange for copies of the external files to accompany the PDF file. Embedded file streams (PDF 1.3) address this problem by allowing the contents of referenced files to be embedded directly within the body of the PDF file.

And worse yet, quoting from one of the descriptions of flags in table 44:

(Optional; PDF 1.2) A flag indicating whether the file referenced by the file specification is volatile (changes frequently with time). If the value is true, applications shall not cache a copy of the file. For example, a movie annotation referencing a URL to a live video camera could set this flag to trueto notify the conforming reader that it should re-acquire the movie each time it is played. Default value: false.

In other words, you can ALSO embed the LIVE feed from your webcam in a PDF document.

Re:!News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530576)

That's fucking awesome.

New Apple API? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32529724)

I thought Apple published a new API in the latest Snow Leopard.

Re:New Apple API? (4, Informative)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529926)

I thought Apple published a new API in the latest Snow Leopard.

They did. The summary is incorrect.

The new API is unusable (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530420)

They did, but the new API is completely useless - it's only for a certain patch level of Mac OS X 10.6.

Imagine you're the type of idiot to use Macs - do you know what patch level of 10.6 you're using? Do you know if it supports accelerated H.264 decoding? Yeah, I didn't think so. Imagine trying to support that.

Adobe still supports Mac OS X 10.4. This alone makes Apple's "new" API completely fucking useless, since you can only use it if you only target the absolute latest Mac OS X 10.6.

Until Apple gets around to supporting their existing OSs, their new API is completely useless for anyone trying to support actual Mac users. The only people with 10.6 are people who bought new Macs with it, since 10.6 adds absolutely NOTHING useful over 10.5.

Re:The new API is unusable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530490)

So it's impossible to check for the patch level and switch between code paths. Sounds like Adobe is just doing this to get Apple's goat, no technical reason.

Laptops turning into leaf blowers going bye bye (1)

betelgeuse68 (230611) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529730)

That's what they sound like, i.e., leaf blowers, when watching Flash video. It's welcome but Adobe/Macromedia should have done this *years* ago.

Idiot (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32529784)

Wow, you mean a computationally intensive process like video decompression makes laptops work hard???

My god! What shocking news!

Re:Idiot (4, Insightful)

fredmosby (545378) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529888)

If an iPad with a 1GHZ processor can do full screen video for hours without getting hot, my dual 2.2 GHz laptop ought to be able to do full screen video without using 90% of my processor and the fan turning on.

Re:Idiot (1)

PIBM (588930) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529962)

Hardware acceleration can do wonderfull thing. Just make sure your laptop got one of the supported video card!

Re:Idiot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530600)

No, no, it shouldn't. Hardware fragmentation like this is exactly why the PC sucks ass. Consumers think the PC is great, but when it comes down to it, writing native generic code for hundreds of GPUs is a massive pain in the ass, extremely difficult to port, and has proved more limiting than we even know.

Re:Laptops turning into leaf blowers going bye bye (4, Informative)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530560)

For a start, Adobe could at least try and do YUV to RGB using OpenGL, that would help, but they wont do it. Little things like this Adobe refuse to do, it will only take someone a day to write the code, this will make your computer go from a leaf blower to a vacuum cleaner. *sigh*

Apple provided APIs (5, Informative)

ryanw (131814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529732)

Apple has provided the API's [macrumors.com] to do the hardware decoding, and Adobe has a beta called Gala [adobe.com] which has Mac OSX Hardware Acceleration enabled.. Adobe will have a release out soon that will incorporate the hardware decoding in OSX. My guess is Adobe had to fast-track the release of 10.1 to compensate for the wide open security holes they had lingering, and weren't prepared to merge the beta and the final release trees.

Re:Apple provided APIs (3, Insightful)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529804)

The worst part about this is Apple already had two APIs, QTKit and CoreAnimation, that could both do hardware accelerated H.264. Adobe bitched and moaned until they got low level access for no apparent reason.

It seriously pissed me off every time Adobe whined about "no 3rd party H.264 support" on Mac. Apple even had several sessions at WWDC in years prior about how to enable it in your apps.

Re:Apple provided APIs (5, Informative)

washu_k (1628007) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529980)

No, the previous hardware acceleration APIs on OSX do NOT work. Check the problems VLC has had. Nothing except officially blessed Quicktime components could do H.264 acceleration on OSX until now despite Apple's claims. Even other plugins working through the Quicktime framework were denied access.

Flash is a piece of crap, but lack of hardware acceleration on OSX is 100% Apple's fault, not Adobe's. Even if you hate Adobe/Flash this new API access is a good thing because VLC and the like now have working hardware acceleration as well.

Re:Apple provided APIs (0)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530018)

"Nothing except officially blessed Quicktime components could do H.264 acceleration on OSX until now despite Apple's claims. Even other plugins working through the Quicktime framework were denied access. "

I'm pretty sure that's just what I said... QTKit is the QuickTime X API, and CoreAnimation works on top of that...

Both of which would have been perfectly suitable for Adobe to use. QTKit can play into an OpenGL context.

Re:Apple provided APIs (5, Informative)

washu_k (1628007) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530116)

No, you're not getting it. The APIs like QTKit and CoreAnimation CLAIM to support video acceleration, but they don't. At least they don't to anything except what Apple allows.

For example:
- H.264 video in a Quicktime container played by an Apple player = Hardware acceleration enabled.

- The exact same H.264 stream repackaged in an non-Quicktime container (AVI, MKV etc) = Hardware acceleration disabled.

I'm sure the developers of VLC, Mplayer, Perrian and the like would have loved to use QTKit and CoreAnimation like you suggest. But they can't because those APIs simply do not work.

Re:Apple provided APIs (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530612)

Are you saying that is documented (intentional) or just how it happens to be? If how it happens to be, maybe the developers are doing something that's causing them to not be hardware accelerated. Did they write up bugs with sample code showing the problems?

Re:Apple provided APIs (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530138)

No from what I can tell Adobe just hasn't used the standard APIs that Apple provided and at the same time complained that Apple didn't release the APIs.

Re:Apple provided APIs (5, Insightful)

washu_k (1628007) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530158)

Then why didn't VLC, Mplayer, perrian etc use the official APIs? None of them had hardware acceleration on OSX either until this latest API release. Read up on the problem. The old APIs simply do not work.

Re:Apple provided APIs (3, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529906)

The whole hardware decoding was just a red herring anyways. Adobe is using this as an excuse as to why Flash on OS X sucks. The real problem for Adobe was that they wrote their own codecs instead of using Apple's APIs all this time. By doing so, any Flash content on Macs would require 100% CPU rendering instead of allowing the OS to use any available hardware like the GPU. I think the problem was that Adobe didn't move to the Cocoa framework which has these APIs but instead stayed on the Carbon framework which doesn't.

This is why Steve Jobs called Adobe "lazy" as Cocoa and Carbon were first released back in 2001. Adobe before CS5 of this year didn't migrate their flagship products to Cocoa. That's nine years. Adobe's side was that they were waiting for Carbon 64 which Apple canceled a few years back. I think Apple killed Carbon 64 because it would have been redundant as Cocoa was already 64 bit and more advanced already. That and Adobe may have been the only major developer who wanted it.

Re:Apple provided APIs (4, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530110)

Adobe is using this as an excuse as to why Flash on OS X sucks.

See, I don't get it. I thought Adobe was begging Apple to get Flash on the iPhone. Why would they drop the ball on providing proper OS X support? What the hell is going on over at Adobe anyways?

Re:Apple provided APIs (2, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530172)

I don't know because Adobe has been treating Apple like the red headed step child for many years focusing more on Windows than Linux or OS X. Even though roughly 50% of their CS suites are sold on OS X, they would rather focus on the Windows side of the business because that's where 90% of their Flash business is.

Re:Apple provided APIs (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530354)

ahhh ginger bashing - the last bastion of socially acceptable discrimination - if only there were more of us like the fags, niggers or gooks (see what i've done there to make the point)

Re:Apple provided APIs (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530596)

There are two issues at work here. The first is that the codebase for Flash was written highly platform-specific with a lot of assembler for the stated reason of performance, and likely before Adobe even took it over it was unmaintainable. This is from statements by Macromedia developers on their blogs and the application of a little bit of intuition. Porting it is probably a fucking nightmare. Adobe's stuck supporting a dog codebase (yet) with a massive install base, they are probably also extremely frustrated that porting to 64-bit Intel, Linux and OS X has took forever and resulted in a product that fucking sucks.

Second, regarding Adobe products in general on OS X, it wasn't a remotely mature platform until Tiger, for many reasons. Compare the performance of OS X 10.0 through 10.3 on hardware available at that time, to running OS9. Slow as shit. At the time Apple was still saying they were going to deprecate Carbon, so making a native OS X Cocoa version would have been a huge undertaking. Mac users still weren't switching in large numbers yet. Every single point release had huge additions and some minor regressions. Macs may have been a significant part of Adobe's customer base, but focusing on the larger and more stable (Windows, in terms of API, already with acceleration) platform was a smart business decision.

I'm not denying stupidity and inertia at Adobe, but I think for years (and with the acquisition of Flash) they were stuck in a limbo where any significant push forward in a particular direction would incur very large business costs with very high risk.

Re:Apple provided APIs (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530516)

See, I don't get it. I thought Adobe was begging Apple to get Flash on the iPhone. Why would they drop the ball on providing proper OS X support?

Yeah, that one's lost on me, too. "Come on, Apple! Let us play on the iPad! I know we've been unable to deliver a non-half-assed OS X version in a decade, but this time it'll be different! I promise!" Will I completely understand and sympathize with the argument against walled gardens, Adobe's done absolutely nothing to help their case.

Re:Apple provided APIs (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530558)

It's really pretty simple: Adobe doesn't want to make the investment necessary to make the Flash player efficient, stable, secure, and bloat-free. On the other hand, they want to keep making money selling the Flash development tools.

So when Apple finally calls them on Flash's crappiness and starts pushing for standards, Adobe wages a PR war on Apple, including astroturfing to make it sound like techies and serious web developers all love Flash. Adobe claims they're just about to release some updates that will fix everything (and it doesn't matter if it's vaporware because it's all about PR) and tries to blame Apple for all of Flash's problems (even though it doesn't quite make sense).

In reality, Flash has never been well supported on any platform except Windows. However, if Adobe admits to that, then a lot of their pro-Flash anti-HTML5 arguments fall apart. They're trying to sell Flash as being ubiquitous and platform-independent, but it isn't.

Re:Apple provided APIs (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530184)

What bunch BS you are spreading. The Cocoa code migration problem is related to the desktop editing software like Photoshop and Illustrator. The Flash player code base is completely separate and have totally different issues. Most of them require changes in NPAPI and a lot of people at Adobe, Apple, Google and Opera are working on that as we speak. The other stupid comment you made about the codecs - how the hell you are supposed to call APIs that are not public? Apple just recently opened some of its internal video related API and made it available for 3rd parties. Mac fanbois like you are really getting on my nerves.

Re:Apple provided APIs (5, Insightful)

christopherjs (456957) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530370)

I think the problem was that Adobe didn't move to the Cocoa framework which has these APIs but instead stayed on the Carbon framework which doesn't.

This is why Steve Jobs called Adobe "lazy" as Cocoa and Carbon were first released back in 2001. Adobe before CS5 of this year didn't migrate their flagship products to Cocoa. That's nine years...

Adobe is only slightly lazier than Apple themselves then, as Finder and quite a few other parts of OS X were still Carbon until Snow Leopard. That's eight years and they're the ones who developed the frameworks.

Re:Apple provided APIs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530250)

Apple released their API this spring. Within a week, Adobe had a beta out that used it, but this was still a good 6 months after their first 10.1 beta came out. When Adobe released the first beta of Gala, they said that 10.1 would be released before Gala, so this is no surprise. I also wouldn't assume Adobe pushed up the release of 10.1 for this security problem. They've been in the RC builds for months now, and they've been holding to their "first half of 2010" stated goal.

More like decelerated (5, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529744)

Linux currently lacks a developed standard API that supports H.264 hardware video decoding, and Mac OS X does not expose access to the required APIs.

The Linux thing might be true. Even if there was one universally implemented GL desktop standard, that's not the same as having a universally implemented hardware decoding API. They're pretty much orthogonal. As far as OS X, though, nothing changes the fact that Flash uses 3x as much CPU as VLC to render the same video [flickr.com] . Spare me the apologist line of "Flash does more work than VLC!" - maybe that's their whole problem. You'd think something as widely used would have some optimized codepaths for the most common use case of playing Youtube videos.

Apple Incompetence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32529852)

Yeah, a niche desktop manufacturer with its own niche 3 percent worldwide marketshare OS who can't even be bothered to provide the necessary APIs for third parties to hardware accelerate video decoding really isn't the one to blame.

It's Adobe fault for Apple's incompetence...

Oh god...

Re:Apple Incompetence (2, Informative)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529928)

Apple recently provided a new low level API because of Adobe whining but they have had two APIs for H264 decoding for several years now. The problem with flash video is that they use a profile for H264 which is not supported by hardware decoders when they could have easily used the correctly profile. Adobe is the one that screwed up here.

Stupid Fanboys (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32529986)

"Adobe is the one that screwed up here."

Yes, dipshit. That's why Flash has problems doing hardware decoding on Windows...

Oh wait. It doesn't.

Time for you to shut the fuck up.

Re:Apple Incompetence (3, Informative)

washu_k (1628007) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530414)

The problem is those previous APIs don't actually work. Read through the VLC forums sometime on the problems they've had implementing acceleration on OSX, it's quite enlightening. Nothing that Apple hasn't blessed can use the old APIs and actually have the hardware acceleration work.

Now, Flash is a horribly programed pile of crap which is why it uses 3X the CPU of VLC to decode the same video on OSX. But neither of them are using hardware acceleration because it's impossible for a third party to do so on OSX, at least prior to this new API. Compare VLC on OSX to Windows or Linux on the same hardware. It still uses a massive amount more CPU on OSX than the others.

Re:Apple Incompetence (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530436)

It's Adobe fault for Apple's incompetence...

In much the same way that it's VLC's fault for Adobe's incompetence.

Re:More like decelerated (3, Informative)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529904)

But flash does more work than VLC! For instance, if you right-click on your VLC window, do you get an "About Adobe Flash Player XX..." option? Didn't think so. You'd be surprised how many CPU cycles that little bugger eats up.

Re:More like decelerated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530232)

how fricking hilarious you are. Write a program that will render your video stream into a texture that you can rotate, scale, alpha blend, apply pixel shaders on it and when it makes all that faster than Flash then keep talking.

Re:More like decelerated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530434)

Fuck off Mike Melanson. We know that's you.

Re:More like decelerated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530460)

It's slower *when you're not using those features*.

It's kinda like me saying my econobox gets better mileage going across town than your 18-wheeler. You say "but I can carry a bunch of freight!" But if the question is getting around town, I don't fucking care how much crap you can carry. I just want to go to the movies.

Re:More like decelerated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530626)

I see your point but you have to pay the price for the extra utility regardless. Even if you don't use these features in the particular case the rendering path is more complicated than that into a pure video player. There is also an overhead of browser - plugin communication. We should compare apples to apples.

Re:More like decelerated (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530166)

It seems linux has a standart API, but it's quite recent: It's called VDPAU

Re:More like decelerated (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530298)

It's a little more complicated than that. VDPAU is Nvidia's solution to the problem. The "new standard" is called VA-API, and is supported natively by Intel and S3 for some of their chipsets. It can also use the proprietary VDPAU (Nvidia) and XvBA (AMD/ATI) driver extensions as backends.

Re:More like decelerated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530520)

VDPAU only works on NVIDIA hardware, and only Geforce8 or newer.
It's an "open" API, but no other HW vendors have implemented it yet.
wiki [wikipedia.org]

Re:More like decelerated (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530224)

Thats because flash isnt using hardware acceleration but VLC is.

Re:More like decelerated (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530462)

I don't think that's true. From my (admittedly limited) understanding, VLC is software-only. Either way, it's ludicrous that an open source project can get decent video performance while Adobe can't.

Re:More like decelerated (5, Informative)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530404)

Linux has VA-API [freedesktop.org] , the one true standard for hardware accelerated video decoding on Linux. Adobe should just use that and not struggle with the various proprietary vendor-specific APIs (VDPAU, XvBA, etc).

Except except... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32529758)

Except for everybody.

Fuck you Adobe, you guys suck balls.

Apple recently added an official API to access (4, Informative)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529764)

and Mac OS X does not expose access to the required APIs.

Apple recently added an official API to access the H.264 decoding features of certain NVIDIA GPUs used in recent Macs. I'm sure Adobe was just rushing to get this out because of the zero-day.

Adobe will accelerate Flash video using new Apple API [arstechnica.com]

Mac OS X 10.6.3 exposed low-level h.264 API (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32529766)

Technical Note TN2267
Video Decode Acceleration Framework Reference

http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/technotes/tn2010/tn2267.html

Still no 2D acceleration for Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32529774)

As far as I know, Flash doesn't even have 2D acceleration for Linux, since it doesn't use xv or OpenGL at all.

It would probably be faster to use Flash for Windows under VirtualBox with 3D acceleration enabled, using VirtualBox's Direct3D -> OpenGL translation.

Re:Still no 2D acceleration for Linux (1)

ihxo (16767) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530162)

Apparently Linux doesn't allow Adobe to get access to hardware acceleration.

Like I always say, bitching and moaning about Apple is the only way Adobe can mask their own incompetence.

Re:Still no 2D acceleration for Linux (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530254)

not so.

VA-API and VDPAU are both available.
If gnash can do it so could flash.

So much for 64-bit (5, Informative)

innocent_white_lamb (151825) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529794)

No more 64-bit Linux version:

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/64bit.html [adobe.com]

The Flash Player 10.1 64-bit Linux beta is closed. We remain committed to delivering 64-bit support in a future release of Flash Player. No further information is available at this time.

Re:So much for 64-bit (3, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529956)

They closed the 64-bit Linux beta ... but didn't release a 64-bit Linux version of 10.1? So they closed the beta but not the security hole? Rocket surgery indeed!

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

He who speaks Latin is doomed to repeat it?

Re:So much for 64-bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530030)

It caused Firefox to crash every 5-15 minutes. Guess they gave up on it instead of trying to fix it.

Re:So much for 64-bit (0, Troll)

reub2000 (705806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530310)

You've obviously never used it on an Athlon 64 lacking the lahf_lm instruction.

Re:So much for 64-bit (3, Informative)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530104)

The old 10.0.45 version of it appears to still be downloadable from here [macromedia.com] (not sure if there was another version after that).

However, given the rate at which security issues crop up in Flash, you are probably better off using the nspluginwrapper thunking stuff or other method for your distro that makes the 32 bit plugin work on 64 bit Linux, rather than running an out of date Flash plugin.

Re:So much for 64-bit (4, Insightful)

gmack (197796) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530264)

nspluginwrapper is not only unstable but it blocks keyboard input to flash. Using it is a complete waste of time.

Better off pressuring websites to dump flash.

Re:So much for 64-bit (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530498)

Never heard of that one. Keyboard input always worked fine for me and plenty other people, though there was a problem with mouse input with a one-time workaround. I've been running 64-bit for a while now, but if Adobe is not fixing the security hole in the 64bit version, I guess I'll have to go back to nspluginwrapper. At least until YouTube reliably works in Firefox without Flash.

Re:So much for 64-bit (1)

pizzap (1253052) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530534)

64bit flash beta worked fine, but with all this bugs around and the beta closed.. no more flash for me. Never touching this nspluginwrapper crap again. Guess I just go and build myself an ffmpeg enabled chromium browser to watch youtube..

Re:So much for 64-bit (2, Insightful)

macemoneta (154740) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530374)

With the pressure from HTML5 and Apple, I guess Adobe figures now is a good time to fragment the Flash market. We no longer need Flash for Youtube, and we'll just have to suffer through not having dancing, blaring, advertisements. Strangely, I'm OK with this.

Re:So much for 64-bit (2)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530636)

We no longer need Flash for Youtube...

There are a fair number of us that have never needed Youtube, but would love to see an alternative for things like Hulu.

Let's kill Flash (3, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529874)

Next time I see a commercial website that requires Flash, I'll call the vendor and explain why I can't use their website. Should help kill Flash once and for all.

Re:Let's kill Flash (2, Informative)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530054)

Apple's already working on it!

Re:Let's kill Flash (1)

theskipper (461997) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530094)

On the fliip side of the coin, Flash ads get blocked implicitly.

No empty death: he died with his phone in hand (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530450)

I suggest you make your funeral arrangements before calling all the vendors who require Flash.

Re:Let's kill Flash (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530586)

You've never had to do phone support, right? You'll get labeled "that guy". People will get your call, sigh in exasperation, listen to you, then do nothing after they say they'll pass it on. There's a small chance they will later mock you to that person. But it probably won't get that far.

That's good (2, Insightful)

blai (1380673) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529880)

The less people with hardware-accelerated Flash, the less people would use flash, right?

Link broken? i can't see an installer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32529892)

so where is the fricken installer ? all i can see is a link to install a "Adobe Download Manager" and a Mcafee anti virus scan"(i thought i had an antivirus) which isnt exactly the Flash Plugin" that i need, its not 1995 and im not on a 28k dialup so why would i even want a "download manager"? and hawk some AV companies product ?

no wonder Adobe is becoming a cesspit of crap/insecure software, spending resources on things that have nothing to do with their core products and having to hawk other peoples shit (Mcafee) to pay for it

"Direct rendering" != "Hardware acceleration" (4, Informative)

Nahor (41537) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529896)

"Direct rendering" != "Hardware acceleration".

Correct me if I'm wrong but:
- "Direct rendering" = decode the data directly to Video buffer. Otherwise the data needs to be decoded to a RAM buffer which then needs to be copied to the Video buffer to be actually displayed.
- "Hardware acceleration" = use the GPU for decoding (because a GPU is usually way faster than the CPU for this kind of work).

So you can have "direct rendering" without the "hardware acceleration" (and vice-versa though it's unlikely to happen in practice).

Also (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529940)

Acceleration of H.264 is different than OpenGL acceleration. You can have a card with full GL acceleration that doesn't accelerate H.264 decoding. Indeed many older cards were like this. The original GeForce 8800s didn't have full H.264 acceleration, despite their massive amount of 3D hardware.

You have a separate API for that sort of thing, and near as I know Linux does not provide that. You could still implement it, of course, by implementing the lower level stuff needed to talk to the card in the correct way, but that is rather a lot of work and not really the place of a user mode app. Idea is the OS should provide the APIs/ABIs for that sort of thing. Driver makers then support it on the low end, apps plug in on the high end and it all works.

Re:Also (2, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530042)

It does, VA-API or VDPAU.

Direct Download? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32529938)

Anyone have a direct link to download the Windows Firefox version without having to install Adobe's shitty download manager?

Re:Direct Download? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530130)

Windows friends??!! (4, Funny)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 4 years ago | (#32529994)

I anticipate my Windows friends will have a much better experience

PARIAH!! UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!

Download Links (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530000)

If you don't like the 'Adobe Downloader', use this page:
http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/fp_distribution3.html

Re:Download Links (1)

6350' (936630) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530320)

Mod parent up.

The next major release will be really loud. (4, Funny)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530122)

Adobe Goes to Flash 10.1

"These go to eleven." [wikipedia.org]

Adobe is even worse than Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530144)

And thats for sure

SHENANIGANS! (2, Funny)

Azureflare (645778) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530146)

No mac or linux HW support? I call Shenanigans on Adobe!

Can we get our brooms now?

10.1 has nVidia GPU support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530176)

I've been waiting for the release of 10.1, now I can use my 384 GPU cores to render useless flash adverts!

HTML5 (1)

hotfireball (948064) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530428)

Adobe are nuts. The soon HTML5 will kill em, the better is for everyone on this Planet.

Linux currently lacks a developed standard AP (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#32530480)

So then why does Gnash have hardware acceleration?

Seems to me it is more likely the folks that can't even make a 64 bit client are the problem here.

Re:Linux currently lacks a developed standard AP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530604)

So then why does Gnash have hardware acceleration?

Because they've got time to deal with ATI vs AMD vs Intel acceleration issues and isn't someone's after-hours project.

95% CPU usage... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32530622)

...so Steve was right all along!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>