Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 (Temporarily?) Kills 64-Bit Flash For Linux

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the how-rude dept.

Linux 272

An anonymous reader writes "It seems that with the release of the 10.1 security patches, Adobe has, at least temporarily, killed 64-bit Flash for Linux. The statement says: '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. Please feel free to continue your discussions on the Flash Player 10.1 desktop forums.' The 64-bit forum has been set to read-only."

cancel ×

272 comments

Cue in fucktard sopssa trolling in 3, 2, 1, ... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32535270)

Sopssa is a troll. Remember it moderators.

Fuck flash (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32535314)

I never had a player installed. And I'm doing just fine.

It's just yet another proprietary lock-in. And most of the time it serves just waste.

Re:Fuck flash (1, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536104)

I never had a player installed. And I'm doing just fine.

It's just yet another proprietary lock-in. And most of the time it serves just waste.

Unless we're talking about phones. Then Flash is a must-have and any (i)phone that doesn't have it is a completely useless piece of garbage.

Re:Fuck flash (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536352)

hahaha. nice post.

I do think it's a bit overboard to say flash MUST be on any phone. However, it's nice to actually have the option, not unlike a computer (including apple pc's) and quite unlike the direct jab at iphone/ipod.

Re:Fuck flash (1)

kno3 (1327725) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536506)

Hmm, it does make life easier viewing youtube (i know there are other ways like html5, but that is still rather clunky), iplayer, etc... I would be very happy with adobe dropping support for flash entirely. Then we would very quickly move into a much more preferable situation. But dropping support just for the 64bit is a bit annoying, as it wont really push content providers to move away from flash, but it will unfairly hinder a (small) section of users.

Flash Sucks (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32535328)

That's one down. Now, get them to cancel flash on i386 Linux, then on MacOS, then Windows, and we'll be all set.

Re:Flash Sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32535662)

Yyyeeeppp!

Flash sucks. Good thing uncle Steve gave Adobe the finger; that's just the start.

The sooner we all ditch flash, the better.

flash killer (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32535364)

First Apple, and now Adobe as the new flash killer. Good job

Re:flash killer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32536010)

serious lols - yeah right - the lack of a 64 bit linux flash player will kill flash fer sure!

most of the below comments will echo this laughable brand of nonsense.

however sad the mindset or the situations in life that leads people to the state where they actually believe this kind of thing, at the very least it can provide light comic relief for those of us in the real world. keep it up!

Re:flash killer (2, Informative)

rumith (983060) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536116)

...For everything else, there's SmokeScreen [smokescreen.us] .

Re:flash killer (2, Funny)

iainl (136759) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536420)

Hey, at least you Linux lot had a 64-bit Flash in the first place. Us poor Windows users have to drop to the 32-bit browser if we want to run pointless rubbish (well, excluding Windows itself, but you know what I mean).

This is why Flash must die. (3, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535384)

Yea Flash is an Open standard....
Let's move on to HTML5 and or even JavaFX and drop this none standard standard.

Re:This is why Flash must die. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32535428)

Yeah, except Java applets work worse than Flash on my system. Simply going to a page with an applet causes the browser to lock up. The only way to do anything with Firefox at this point is to kill it then launch it again.

Re:This is why Flash must die. (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535980)

Perhaps it's an issue with your system.

Just because it has issues on your system doesn't mean it doesn't work for everyone else.

Re:This is why Flash must die. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32536072)

It happens on multiple different systems with different Linux distros.

Re:This is why Flash must die. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536478)

Then you don't know how to install it, or you're doing something pretty goddamned weird. I haven't had a problem with the Java plugin in Linux in about eight years.

Re:This is why Flash must die. (1)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536162)

Perhaps it is an issue with firefox (at least on mac, but I've heard complaints from PC users lately too). Flash, heavy java or even javascript and the browser grinds to a halt. Leave it open with more than 3 or 4 tabs and it gets slower and slower until after about 30 hours of being open it must be force quit.

With plugin support in chrome and safari I might leave for good - web kit is really kicking the crap out of gecko right now performance and reliability wise.

Re:This is why Flash must die. (2, Informative)

linuxgeek64 (1246964) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535510)

JavaFX is proprietary.

Re:This is why Flash must die. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32535524)

Let's move on to HTML5 and or even JavaFX and drop this none standard standard.

Oh yeah, sure, because that will be much better. Ohh, how about we all use Silverlight instead?!

Re:This is why Flash must die. (5, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535694)

Having done a fair bit with HTML5 video over the past few weeks, I can safely say that although its looking good, and I enjoyed producing HTML5 video apps, its not a flash killer yet.

They need to sort out the HTML5 subtitle standard, and someone needs to actually support it.

They need to sort out the cue points standard, and someone needs to support it. (No, events fired every X ms or so is not enough)

They need to eliminate cross browser issues with overlaying html over the video stream.

They need to enable adaptive streaming.

They need to do a lot more work, but what has been done so far is very nice.

Re:This is why Flash must die. (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535866)

They need to sort out the HTML5 subtitle standard, and someone needs to actually support it.

They need to sort out the cue points standard, and someone needs to support it. (No, events fired every X ms or so is not enough)

What's wrong with the jquery srt plugin [v2v.cc] ?

They need to eliminate cross browser issues with overlaying html over the video stream.

What issues?

Re:This is why Flash must die. (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536000)

They need to sort out the HTML5 subtitle standard, and someone needs to actually support it.

They need to sort out the cue points standard, and someone needs to support it. (No, events fired every X ms or so is not enough)

What's wrong with the jquery srt plugin [v2v.cc] ?

It ties you down to one javascript framework - its really something that should be provided by the <video> element itself, and handled by the player, not by external javascript. Having to handle subtitles externally is like having to handle the audio separately.

They need to eliminate cross browser issues with overlaying html over the video stream.

What issues?

I have seen issues where, although rendered above the video stream, links are not clickable, and other issues where components that should be rendered above are infact rendered below the stream.

Re:This is why Flash must die. (1)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536214)

did you set your z-indexes properly? Did you account for all browsers when you wrote the video tags? I ran into trouble with buttons when there were multiple formats for fallback and messing with the video tags a bit seemed to straighten things out in the troubled browsers (chrome seems to be the far most forgiving and safari the least forgiving with multiple formats, but I haven't checked safari 5 yet).

Re:This is why Flash must die. (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536554)

did you set your z-indexes properly?

Yes

Did you account for all browsers when you wrote the video tags?

Thats the issue - we have 5 established web browsers today (Opera, Safari, Chrome, Firefox and IE), 4 of which have professed a desire to work closely toward a standard - in this day and age, why should there have to be accommodations made for different browsers when targetting a brand new standard? If the browsers can implement it differently enough that you have to code to the browser rather than the standard, the standard is not strict enough.

Re:This is why Flash must die. (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536434)

It ties you down to one javascript framework - its really something that should be provided by the video element itself

No, it shouldn't. There's a million ways you could do subtitles. There are lots of different formats and there are many ways you could serve up the subtitle content that restricting it to a certain way only limits a developer.

I have seen issues where, although rendered above the video stream, links are not clickable, and other issues where components that should be rendered above are infact rendered below the stream.

I haven't experienced any of these issues and it sounds like your z-index is the problem.

Got an Education? (5, Informative)

m509272 (1286764) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536002)

Stupid comment, get an education. If you want to create your own Flash player you can do that. It is OPEN. Stop drinking the Apple Kool Aid without question.

http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ [gnu.org]

http://flowplayer.org/ [flowplayer.org]

http://www.swift-tools.net/Flash/ [swift-tools.net]

http://www.swftools.com/tools-category.php?cat=968 [swftools.com]

There are also dozens of tools that create Flash apps so you are not restricted to Adobe's tools either.

Re:Got an Education? (5, Insightful)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536254)

except that the standards published are always a few versions behind and in reality none of those players will play any of the most recent content reliably. Sure, they work for some simple stuff but calling them an open alternative is hardly fair. Sure, they could be if adobe published their intentions in advance but then they would lose their advantage. Same problem with PDF on the creation end. Sure, it is open, but if you want the most recent features in acrobat from a free or even paid alternative, too bad, they haven't been published yet.

Committed (4, Funny)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535398)

By committed, we mean not really committed at all.

We know that Silverlight is suppoting 64-bit. We know that Microsoft has been pushing 64-bit since 2003. We know all new Windows 7 PCs are coming 64-bit. And we will continue to keep our heads in the sand.

Thanks for your continued patronage.

Re:Committed (4, Interesting)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535926)

We know that Silverlight is suppoting 64-bit. We know that Microsoft has been pushing 64-bit since 2003. We know all new Windows 7 PCs are coming 64-bit. And we will continue to keep our heads in the sand.

You are aware that the default browser in 64-bit Windows is 32-bit Internet Explorer?

Re:Committed (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32536020)

Want to know why?
It's because many plugins, such as Flash, don't come in 64-bit flavors.

Re:Committed (2, Interesting)

squizzar (1031726) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536142)

Not to mention VS2010 - which is depressingly slow on my x64 Windows 7 machine. I thought there was already some way of running 32 bit Firefox with 32 bit flash on 64 bit linux? That's basically Microsoft's 'Solution'

Re:Committed (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32536508)

Please don't call it x64. There is x86 and x86_64 (aka amd64), but that is a reference back to the 8086. Calling things x32 and x64 simply makes you look like a troll.

Re:Committed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32536524)

as a dotnet developer myself i am amazed by the retardness of people who think silverlight is a good platform.

yay lets lock us into a new api which doesnt give us anything new business wise, altough i love being locked in and only targetting the windows platform!

 

Re:Committed (1)

Orestesx (629343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536188)

Exactly. 64 Bit flash is not needed on Windows as long as the 32 bit browsers are supported. 64 bit flash isn't needed for Linux either, if you are willing to run a 32 bit browser. The only problem is that the default browser on most (all?) 64 bit GNU/Linux distributions is 64 bit.

Re:Committed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32536224)

Heh heh heh! Oh, boy! PENIS DENIS!

Re:Committed (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32536180)

We know that Silverlight is suppoting 64-bit....

Silverlight doesn't support 64-bit yet.

Footcannon: aim, fire, reload ... (4, Funny)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535412)

Oh well, it looks like Adobe wants us 64bit Linux users to focus on H.264, which is really great with hardware acceleration in the graphics card. Uh, wait a minute...

Flash itself supports H.264 (0, Redundant)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535568)

Oh well, it looks like Adobe wants us 64bit Linux users to focus on H.264

An SWF can load and play H.264 video, in addition to H.263 and VP6.

Re:Flash itself supports H.264 (4, Informative)

joe_cot (1011355) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535714)

====* -- Joke

    O
    \|/ --- You
    / \

His point was that the big feature for 10.1 was hardware acceleration for flash (and therefore h264), which Linux doesn't get. Linux gets nothing but downsides from this.

Re:Flash itself supports H.264 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32535738)

Yes, but it doesn't utilize hardware decoding, so it's CPU meltdown time.

Re:Footcannon: aim, fire, reload ... (1)

rumith (983060) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536138)

Google recently began shipping Chrome with Flash preinstalled. I wonder if they'll pull the plug as well?

Re:Footcannon: aim, fire, reload ... (1)

TobascoKid (82629) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536558)

The 64 bit version of Chrome never shipped with flash.

Adobe has one target market: (2, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535432)

Windows devices.

Is it any wonder that how good Flash for OS X is, Steve banned them from the iP* devices? I don't know how Flash runs on Linux, but on my Mac more than 1-2 youpo^H^H tube videos up in tabs and my fans are maxed out.

Someone in the Linux community needs to step up tell Adobe to shove it like Apple did and start working towards an HTML5 future.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

Re:Adobe has one target market: (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535494)

Exactly. Adobe will support what ever platforms make the most money for Adobe.
That is why they want to be on the iPhone so bad.
But they will always be in control. We must have an open standard for this and now.

get some priorities! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32536556)

We must face the facts, personal computing is slowly moving away from a Windows monoculture. It is imperative that we have a cross-platform vector for viri, trojans and malware. If Adobe and Apple don't support Flash, what's that leave us with, Acrobat?!!! Cripes, the evilware development community's going to have to transition to javascript, aren't they?! How else are we going to sell Symantic McAfee for Droid?!!

Re:Adobe has one target market: (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535758)

No, let's be accurate here.

32-bit Windows devices.

Because despite even my little Acer netbook running 64-bit IE, I have to drop to the 32-bit version to see Flash.

Re:Adobe has one target market: (2, Insightful)

farble1670 (803356) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535848)

adobe is one of few major software vendors that has consistently kept their software suite going on mac, even through the bad times.

Re:Adobe has one target market: (4, Informative)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535894)

adobe is one of few major software vendors that has consistently kept their software suite going on mac, even through the bad times.

IIRC, they considered abandoning the Mac back in the non-Jobs era, but the wailing from their customer base reached even their ears. Had they done so they might have managed to destroy Apple.

Re:Adobe has one target market: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32536380)

adobe is one of few major software vendors that has consistently kept their software suite going on mac, even through the bad times.

IIRC, they considered abandoning the Mac back in the non-Jobs era, but the wailing from their customer base reached even their ears. Had they done so they might have managed to destroy Apple.

And after all that, Stevie cheerfully iBackstabbed them with the iPhone. Aren't business automatons so cute when they pretend they have real emotions?

Re:Adobe has one target market: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32536040)

Ok, I'm officially banning Flash from the official Linux App store. Now developers will have no choice but not use it, as there is only one Linux distribution that has only one way of installing applications.

Re:Adobe has one target market: (1)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536240)

Apple only recently provided 3rd party API access to hardware acceleration for video in Mac OS X 10.6.3. Six days later, Adobe released a beta preview of Flash Player 10.1 with hardware acceleration for video. So really, is it Adobe's fault? Or is it Apple's fault for locking down their OS and access go important APIs? http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/flash-player-gala-brings-hardware-decoding-support-to-mac-os-x/ [engadget.com]

Not losing much... (1)

ProdigyPuNk (614140) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535444)

I've only ever used 32bit versions of Flash on Linux, and even those have tons of bugs (or just plain don't work). I can only imagine what the 64bit version is like. I really doubt that it worked any better - Flash on Linux sucks, in general, and whatever makes it die quicker is okay with me.

Re:Not losing much... (3, Informative)

chicagoan (670650) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535572)

The 64bit version of flash on linux was much better for me than the 32bit version running through ndiswrapper. The plugin used to crash for me all the time when wrapped but ever since the 64bit version came out crashes are rare. When I go full screen on say you tube it does get a bit choppy very easily but I'll take that over crashes.

Re:Not losing much... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32535700)

Maybe it crashed because you were trying to run a browser plugin through a network driver wrapper. Or did you mean nspluginwrapper?

Re:Not losing much... (1)

chicagoan (670650) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535716)

Lol, yes nspluginwrapper. See its been so very long since I've had to use it that I forget its name.

Re:Not losing much... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32535734)

Why are you using flash for full screen video?? Any other player won't be choppy.

Re:Not losing much... (1)

chicagoan (670650) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536090)

What are my options for youtube, hulu, cough, cough, porn etc.? Most sites these days use flash and even youtube + html5 will not do full screen.

Re:Not losing much... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32535822)

The only problem I've ever had with 64-bit Flash on Linux is randomly losing the ability to click.

Re:Not losing much... (1)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535624)

Works fine near as I can tell.

Re:Not losing much... (1)

Djoulihen (1805868) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535644)

Even though the 64-bit linux version was an alpha release, it worked rather well and was definitely a serious alternative to using the 32-but version along with nspluginwrapper. I have been using it for some time without any major problem. Fullscreen video playing still sucks, but huh, we're talking about flash right ?

Re:Not losing much... (1)

hufter (542690) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536340)

Since I Upgraded my 64 bit Linux Mint to 9 (Isadora), it seems that, for the first time, Flash is working fine. No more "buttons don't work" or occasional freezes. It's just as horrible CPU hog on videos as before, but works (I have enough CPU power if I close all other CPU hogs). Just checked, Flash is 64-bit version 10.0.45.2-mint1.

Certainly do not want to go back to ndiswrapper.

Probably incompetent coders (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32535448)

A "size_t" is NOT the same as an "unsigned int".

If you think it is, you're ignorant.

Dynamic recompilation (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535598)

Flash Player works by recompiling ActionScript into native code. What JIT compiler 1. automatically adjusts to the architecture it's compiled for and 2. was available when Flash Player 10 development started (LLVM wasn't)?

Re:Dynamic recompilation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32535804)

Flash Player works by recompiling ActionScript into native code. What JIT compiler 1. automatically adjusts to the architecture it's compiled for and 2. was available when Flash Player 10 development started (LLVM wasn't)?

If it's that easy, why is Adobe punting it?

Re:Dynamic recompilation (1)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536078)

Those are "excuses", not reasons. We are talking about Adobe, a large software company that can actually write software. They are supposed to fix things like this BEFORE stepping out onto a new platform.

Re:Probably incompetent coders (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536562)

A "size_t" is NOT the same as an "unsigned int".

If you think it is, you're ignorant.

But 64-bit Flash has been working fine in 10.0; they've only dropped it now they've switched to 10.1, implying that they've actively broken something that used to work.

Not a problem (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535450)

I think that HTML5 is going to come on REAL strong.

some things are broken for me (1)

chickenrob (696532) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535454)

I can get my webcam to work with this workaround

  http://wdawe.com/index.php/adobe-breaks-flash-for-linux-webcam-and?blog=1 [wdawe.com]

However no with no microphone this is no fun. (tested on stickam and ustream)

Unfortunately yoville and farmville are working nicely (though they crash with a right click.

 

Doesn't work anyway (1)

dandart (1274360) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535514)

Half the time Flash is buggy, especially on 64-bit. They should fix it before releasing at all. It's a good thing that this is not available because it'll encourage people to use proper, open formats, and not closed, proprietary, barely-known-about-by-half-the-population formats, without having to subject these poor desktop users with something that doesn't have proper mic and webcam support half the time. What would we use Flash for anyway now? Not videos, that's for sure. WebM's going all the way up. This is the reason BIbud [bibud.com] and Apple too don't use Flash, because there are much better options available, for nothing, and properly free. WebM is supported in nightly builds of most popular browsers and supported on YouTube as well. Watch out for WebM support in Bibud!

Re:Doesn't work anyway (1)

What the Frag (951841) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536008)

Hm, the 64-bit version works much better and mostly stable for me while the 32-bit + ndiswrapper crashes on firefox every few flash sites.

It's a pity. 32-bit is not an option anymore. On all my workstations I need 4-8 GB memory and a 64 bit system is your obvious choice.

The current options for me is is either to live with having 25+ code execution vulnerabilities, get the crashing 32 bit version or delete it completely. I don't like any of the options.. Thank you Adobe.

Re:Doesn't work anyway (1)

dandart (1274360) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536084)

Disappointed. Very disappointed. Have you tried running 32bit FF with that?

Alternatively.... Gnash and SWFDec work on Youtube at least, but you can always use HTML5 mode for that.

Tried out Chrome with that?

Do you want fries with that?

Re:Doesn't work anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32536232)

And your non-obvious choice is PAE.

Re:Doesn't work anyway (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536488)

Among 32-bit Windows operating systems, only server versions use PAE because drivers for desktop peripherals tend not to support PAE.

SWF has been open for two years (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536534)

It's a good thing that this is not available because it'll encourage people to use proper, open formats, and not closed, proprietary, barely-known-about-by-half-the-population formats

SWF (apart from the video codecs) has been open for two years, since Adobe lifted the ban on third-part players as part of the Open Screen Project.

WebM is supported in nightly builds of most popular browsers

The most common browser (49 percent is still a plurality) doesn't support WebM yet. And it won't unless your administrator allows you to install Google Chrome Frame, a version of Google Chrome wrapped up in an IE browser helper object. Nor does WebM support vector animation like that used for Homestar Runner.

I wonder what openSUSE will do (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535544)

openSUSE has an RPM that pulls in Flash, because they're not allowed to redistribute it directly. What it mainly seems to do is show an EULA and then download and install Flash. I know I've had a couple of updates to it, so it'll be interesting to see what happens if the 10.1 Flash site is disabled.

Oh well, I guess I can manage without Flash. It's not as if the occasional YouTube video is a big loss.

Re:I wonder what openSUSE will do (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32535628)

youtube supports html5

Re:I wonder what openSUSE will do (1)

G Money (12364) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536290)

I don't think they ever used the 64 bit version of flash, they just pulled in the 32 bit version so this shouldn't affect OpenSUSE at all. They always used nsplugginwrapper before for flash on x86_64 (although maybe they've changed this lately).

Like in a Kafka novel... (5, Funny)

Kidbro (80868) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535590)

Welcome to the Flash Player 10.1 Forum
Important: Do not use this forum to discuss the Flash Player 10 64-bit Linux prerelease or Flash Player 10 and earlier release players. Follow these links to discuss these topics:
Flash Player 10 for 64-bit Linux forum [adobe.com]

Flash Player 10 for 64-bit Linux (Read Only)
Welcome to the Flash Player 10 for 64-bit Linux Forum

I'm not sure whether I should laugh or cry... but it reminds me of reading The Trial :)

Re:Like in a Kafka novel... (1)

raddan (519638) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535814)

I'm pretty sure that any sufficiently large organization, say, one that has more than 20 members, behaves pathological. Humans don't agree by nature, but it's easier to keep the message coherent when you only need to knock a few heads together.

Beta closed, not flash (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535832)

The beta is closed, but that doesn't mean Flash 10.1 isn't available for Linux. You can still download it from their site. The closure of the beta could mean anything from 'we're not going to do it' to 'we really messed up and we're writing it from scratch'.

Flash 10 had been working a LOT better than previous versions for me, so at least we aren't stuck with the old flash 7 or 8 crap.

Re:Beta closed, not flash (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536566)

Except the 64-bit beta version almost certainly has a remote code execution vulnerability that's unlikely to ever be fixed now there's no new releases. In fact, it looks like not wanting to put in the effort to fix it is why they terminated the program, judging from the timing.

Poor Adobe... (3, Insightful)

gentlemen_loser (817960) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535884)

A few days ago, there was a discussion here about how evil Apple was for trying to kill Flash. I said then, and will repeat here: Fuck you Adobe.

They took their sweet time porting their "cross platform" plugin to Linux, and in the meantime, we were stuck with the barely functioning (although I do not fault them for the effort) GNU implementation. Cross platform to Adobe means: Windows 7, Windows Vitsa, Windows XP, and Mac OS. Personally, I pine for the day that HTML 5 is able to displace Flash, and therefore Adobe, permanently. In my opinion, they have squandered any goodwill towards the open source community. I'll be the first one in line to dance on their grave.

Re:Poor Adobe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32536036)

My sentiment exactly.

Re:Poor Adobe... (2, Interesting)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536196)

We're currently at a transition point in mobile communications.

Go back a couple of years and most people were accessing the Internet on desktop and portable computers running Windows, Linux and OS X. Now it's all about portable devices and already Apple's portable devices cannot and will not support Flash.

I don't see Microsoft being displaced from home and office desktops any time soon but they are certainly not making any great progress in getting an embedded or slimmed-down Windows onto portable devices - it's more likely the case that the only option they have is to wait for a time when portable devices have enough capacity and power to efficiently run a slightly slimmed-down version of Windows, by which time they will already be competing with Android and the other web OSes that are out there.

I'm mostly Linux user and although I've not seen too many issues with 64-bit Flash so far, Adobe's support of it sucks which ultimately means something else, more than likely HTML 5, will gain more ground on them and start pushing them out.

It really won't surprise me to see, in about 18 months time, Adobe releasing at least some of the source to Flash as they desperately try to hold onto their market share and to try and encourage the Open Source community to continue using Flash.

Re:Poor Adobe... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32536416)

A few days ago, there was a discussion here about how evil Apple was for trying to kill Flash. I said then, and will repeat here: Fuck you Adobe.

They took their sweet time porting their "cross platform" plugin to Linux, and in the meantime, we were stuck with the barely functioning (although I do not fault them for the effort) GNU implementation. Cross platform to Adobe means: Windows 7, Windows Vitsa, Windows XP, and Mac OS. Personally, I pine for the day that HTML 5 is able to displace Flash, and therefore Adobe, permanently. In my opinion, they have squandered any goodwill towards the open source community. I'll be the first one in line to dance on their grave.

Dance hell.

I already have a case of Coors Light cooling in the fridge.

Yes, Coors Light.

Because there isn't a beer in the entire universe that generates larger quantities of piss than Coors Light. And if I'm lucky I'll wake up the next day with a really bad case of beer shits.

It's up to Adobe, let them kill Flash (1)

dragisha (788) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535932)

Why do we worry if Adobe decides to cut it's userbase? I will surely not go 32bit just because I love them and care for their market share.

Alternatives are already there, Adobe is just putting another nail in Flash's coffin by neglecting 64bit.... Pity, but we can live with it. Can they?

Re:It's up to Adobe, let them kill Flash (1)

mad.frog (525085) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536264)

Yeah, cutting out that 1% or so of potential users will really crush their userbase....

(http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10)

Nessus Web Interface (1)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535940)

The Nessus web interface is done in flash and fairly nice. Is there an alternative for the command-line challenged?

Re:Nessus Web Interface (1)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536320)

You are a security analyst who is afraid of the command line? Really??

Re:Nessus Web Interface (1)

chill (34294) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536436)

No, sorry. :-)

I've created some click-n-run templates that generate reports management demands on seeing. THEY are command-line challenged. My stuff is already 90% automated.

I'm confused (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32535950)

We love flash in Apple/Android stories but hate it in Adobe stories... what about other stories?

64bit Linux is now like Apple! (1)

ebob9 (726509) | more than 4 years ago | (#32535970)

Solidarity with my iPad/iPhone brothers!

*Poors 40 on the sand*

Yeah, this sadly makes me hope other solutions to kill flash take of a bit more..

Just installed 64bit Ubuntu on an older HP Laptop (1)

quax (19371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536028)

On this Celeron based machine Flash is unwatchable with 32bit Linux as well as 64bit. HTML5 streamed video on the other hand, when watched with a beta Chrome build that supports it ,gives me a passable viewing experience (although you still get immediate frame-dragging if the machine has any additional load).

More than video (1)

Urban Garlic (447282) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536046)

The problem I have with this is that, in my organizaiton, Flash is actually used for some of the administrative web services within the company. Many of my users (including me!) only have one computer, and it's a 64-bit Linux workstation. We also have a security rule that says we're supposed to patch vulnerabilities, and if a patch is not availble for a known-vulnerable application, we're supposed to remove it.

So all these rules interact and add up to "some users can no longer use some administrative web services."

What with all the IE-only intranet crap, and various other hoops I've had to jump through over the years, I've been wondering for a while if the solution is to just give the affected users sandboxed Windows VMs. Then central IT (which does our Windows support) can figure out how to patch them when they're only up for an unpredictable ten minutes every couple of days...

Re:More than video (2, Informative)

Shados (741919) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536222)

Why not just host a browser on a Windows box and serve the applications through Citrix? (It works not unlike X remotely, where the end user experience is roughly like if the application was running locally). Thats what we did at my previous company when stuff was incompatible with user workstations.

Instructions and download of latest flash 64-bit (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32536122)

Can be found here: http://nxadm.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/install-64-bit-adobe-flash-player-on-ubuntu-904/ (with md5 of the file, up to date with Ubuntu 10.04 and other distributions).

This guy made it possible for me to convert all my linux installs to 64-bit.

nspluginwrapper (4, Informative)

AusIV (950840) | more than 4 years ago | (#32536166)

I think it's worth pointing out that Ubuntu's repositories have always used 32-bit flash + nspluginwrapper even while 64-bit flash was available. I've never found either of these solutions to be particularly stable, but this doesn't mean 64-bit Linux is going without flash completely.

Vague Companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32536302)

Vague companies are vague. Oh, and assholes.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...