Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Adobe Releases New 64-Bit Flash Plugin For Linux

samzenpus posted about 4 years ago | from the flash-in-the-pan dept.

Graphics 240

TheDarkener writes "Adobe seems to have made an about face regarding their support for native 64-bit Linux support for Flash today, and released a new preview Flash plugin named 'Square.' This includes a native 64-bit version for Linux, which I have verified works on my Debian Lenny LTSP server by simply copying libflashplayer.so to /usr/lib/iceweasel/plugins — with sound (which I was never able to figure out with running the 32-bit version with nspluginwrapper and pulseaudio)."

cancel ×

240 comments

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

Why does linux get this? (-1, Troll)

iONiUM (530420) | about 4 years ago | (#33598056)

Nothing against linux, but why does linux get a 64-bit plug-in and Windows is still sitting around forcing users to use 32-bit versions of browsers in order to use plug-ins. This is kind of ridiculous?

On the other hand, if it stays like this into the future maybe it'll promote linux adoption.

Re:Why does linux get this? (5, Informative)

bramp (830799) | about 4 years ago | (#33598070)

Did you even look at the page? There is a 64bit version for Windows!

Re:Why does linux get this? (-1, Troll)

iONiUM (530420) | about 4 years ago | (#33598096)

Uh, I didn't read TFA... You did? Are you new?

Re:Why does linux get this? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33598226)

If you didn't read the article yet still feel the need to make baseless claims, you can fuck right off.

Re:Why does linux get this? (3, Insightful)

omni123 (1622083) | about 4 years ago | (#33598418)

Uh, you must be new if you're posting dumbass assertions and then making 'are you new' comments when you have your idiocy pointed out.

Trying being humble and accepting it.

Re:Why does linux get this? (2, Funny)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | about 4 years ago | (#33598646)

but, but... I want ARM version for my Pandora console!

Re:Why does linux get this? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 4 years ago | (#33598932)

And I want it for my N900...well, a newer version at least...

Re:Why does linux get this? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33598072)

I could be wrong. But I think because so far implementation of a 64Bit code have been easier on linux than windows.

Re:Why does linux get this? (2, Funny)

bastiaannaber (701867) | about 4 years ago | (#33598074)

From the site: Download plug-in for 64-bit Windows — for all other browsers (EXE, 3.2 MB) So I think there is a 64 bit for windows too (not that I use windows so I'm not really sure)

Re:Why does linux get this? (1, Insightful)

risinganger (586395) | about 4 years ago | (#33598076)

Well in fairness haven't linux users been waiting longer? Seems to me Microsoft haven't exactly been forging ahead when it comes to 64bit.

Re:Why does linux get this? (4, Interesting)

suso (153703) | about 4 years ago | (#33598384)

Well in fairness haven't linux users been waiting longer? Seems to me Microsoft haven't exactly been forging ahead when it comes to 64bit.

Yes exactly. I've been trying to use 64-bit Linux as my desktop for 5 years now. At first I went ahead and did the 64-bit thing and worked with the 32-bit chroot'ed firefox/nspluginwrapper what the hell ever. In the end I just had enough with it being a crappy work around and had to use 32-bit Linux on my desktop. I'm glad they are finally giving it attention again before not having 64-bit linux becomes too limiting.

All the meanwhile, I haven't heard Windows users gripe and complain much that flash doesn't work for them very well. Most don't even know what 64-bit even is.

Re:Why does linux get this? (2, Interesting)

poltsy (1897872) | about 4 years ago | (#33598570)

Since PAE doesn't work too well in windows (releases meant for desktops at least) you'd expect more interest in switching to 64bit to get more than ~3.5GB usable memory. I guess people who install linux are more likely to experiment with new things to begin with so 64bit adoption is relatively high even if it doesn't really give so obvious benefits.

Re:Why does linux get this? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about 4 years ago | (#33598670)

Since PAE doesn't work too well in windows (releases meant for desktops at least) you'd expect more interest in switching to 64bit to get more than ~3.5GB usable memory.

That's the reason my home Windows workstation / gaming machine has a 64-bit version of Windows on it... it has 8GB of RAM (mainly for running VMs, but if I actually have Windows programs that can use it...)

Re:Why does linux get this? (2, Interesting)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 4 years ago | (#33599056)

Huh? When I went to 32 to 64-bit Linux it was at least as easy as going from 32 to 64 bit Windows. The Flash Plugin was the only thing that became a PITA.

Get it while you can! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 4 years ago | (#33598924)

I wish I wasn't at work, I want to download it NOW before they change their minds again and take it offline! I barely caught the last 64bit Linux plugin in time!

Re:Why does linux get this? (2, Informative)

Guspaz (556486) | about 4 years ago | (#33599302)

No, and I'm confused about what's going on here; Linux has had native 64-bit Flash since 2008... In fact, it was the *first* platform to get 64-bit flash.

So, what part of this is an "about face"?

Re:Why does linux get this? (5, Informative)

whoisrich (1194797) | about 4 years ago | (#33598078)

If you look at the downloads, theres 64-bit for Windows, Mac, and Linux.

Re:Why does linux get this? (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | about 4 years ago | (#33598094)

Probably because linux users are prone to bouts of highly vocal nerd rage. I know I am.

What version were we at when adobe yanked this a few months ago?

Re:Why does linux get this? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about 4 years ago | (#33598244)

If Adobe actually pays attention to "nerd rage" then why aren't they supporting VDPAU yet?

That would be far more relevant than supporting 64-bit.

Although spitting out a 64-bit should be considerably easier.

Re:Why does linux get this? (1)

mix77 (1114879) | about 4 years ago | (#33598098)

From the download page
"Windows 32-bit: Download the Flash Player "Square" for 32-bit Windows uninstaller 64-bit: Download the Flash Player "Square" for 64-bit Windows uninstaller Go to your download folder. Find the uninstaller file, double-click it and follow the prompts."
Windows has got one two!

Re:Why does linux get this? (1)

iONiUM (530420) | about 4 years ago | (#33598112)

After several people actually read TFA and told me that there is indeed a Windows version, I'm going to post a slight correction to my original comment:

I was wrong.

But I mean, misleading headline much? Why not say all OSes got 64-bit. Do they expect us to read the article or something? Honestly..

Re:Why does linux get this? (1)

fendragon (841926) | about 4 years ago | (#33598202)

Why not say all OSes got 64-bit. Do they expect us to read the article or something? Honestly..

If I remember correctly, for a long time there have been 32 bit and 64 bit flash plugins for Windows while Linux only had 32 bit versions; you needed a special software wrapper to use the 32 bit plugin on 64 bit Linux, and it didn't work too well for everybody.
So Linux getting a 64 bit plugin along with the other platforms IS newsworthy.

Re:Why does linux get this? (1)

l_bratch (865693) | about 4 years ago | (#33598318)

The title is as such because Linux did have a 64-bit version for a long time, which was unexpectedly pulled a few months ago. Adobe have re-instated the 64-bit Linux version, but also they have now released 64-bit versions for other OSes too.

Re:Why does linux get this? (0, Troll)

MrHanky (141717) | about 4 years ago | (#33598204)

Because this is Slashdot, and there wouldn't be much discussion if the article wasn't consistently wrong. Even a random word generator would get things right more often than a Slashdot editor.

Re:Why does linux get this? (4, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 4 years ago | (#33598298)

Even a random word generator would get things right more often than a Slashdot editor.

I disagree. This is what a random word generator got me:

Drawings can followed improved out sociable not. Earnestly so do instantly pretended.

True, it's close, but I still think the random word generator comes in second place.

Re:Why does linux get this? (1)

ShadowFlyP (540489) | about 4 years ago | (#33598676)

A sample size of one is surely not statistically significant enough to make an argument on.

Re:Why does linux get this? (1)

Hijacked Public (999535) | about 4 years ago | (#33599254)

Insurance chap disco more community slighter fraction?

Re:Why does linux get this? (4, Informative)

rjch (544288) | about 4 years ago | (#33598234)

But I mean, misleading headline much? Why not say all OSes got 64-bit. Do they expect us to read the article or something? Honestly.

In a word, "yes". You can't expect your opinion to be taken seriously if you haven't at least tried to get your facts (however limited/speculative/subjective/fanciful they may be) from the article straight first.

The other half of the story is that there was a 64 bit flash plugin for Linux (which we only got some considerable length of time after Windoze users got theirs) which was unceremoniously dumped. To make matters worse, Gentoo went and blocked all old 64 bit versions at the same time because of "security issues". (as if the new version didn't have security issues!)

Re:Why does linux get this? (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | about 4 years ago | (#33598804)

But I mean, misleading headline much? Why not say all OSes got 64-bit. Do they expect us to read the article or something? Honestly..

Last I checked, there was only one 64-bit browser for Windows that wasn't a preview release or beta, and that would be IE8.

Even if the people who visit this site use Windows, they don't generally use IE.

Ergo, 64-bit Flash plugin for IE has virtually no audience here.

That will surely change when Firefox releases a 64-bit Windows version, but until then, it's just a novelty.

Re:Why does linux get this? (2, Informative)

beelsebob (529313) | about 4 years ago | (#33598118)

The summary is just bollocks as usual, don't worry. It's not linux getting a 64 bit version, it's all the platforms flash was available on getting one. Both Mac OS and Windows got a 64 bit version today too.

Reading comprehension is important! (2, Informative)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 years ago | (#33598270)

The summary reads, in part:

"This includes a native 64-bit version for Linux, ..."

The word includes implies that it is not the only version. You merely made a false assumption based on a misinterpretation of what was actually in the summary. I agree the summaries are often wrong here, but in this case you are quite off base I'm afraid.

Re:Reading comprehension is important! (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 4 years ago | (#33598590)

The summary is bollocks however - the statement that 'Adobe seems to have made an about face regarding their support for native 64-bit Linux support for Flash today' implies that an about face was needed when in-fact Adobes statement at the time of closing the Linux 64bit beta program included the sentence 'We remain committed to delivering 64-bit support in a future release of Flash Player'. Its hardly an about face when they do infact deliver on that sentence.

http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/06/11/1338207/Adobe-Temporarily-Kills-64-Bit-Flash-For-Linux?from=rss [slashdot.org]

Re:Reading comprehension is important! (2, Insightful)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 4 years ago | (#33598758)

Yeah, because giving no explanation for pulling it, then closing and locking all 64bit linux related threads really inspires a lot of trust in their users...

Re:Reading comprehension is important! (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 years ago | (#33598856)

You have a right to your opinion, however when I went to get the 64 bit Linux version yesterday there was a link to adobe labs, which when followed said it had "graduated" and linked to the original download page which only offered the 32 bit version. I had to Google around to find the "Square" page. I would suggest that it is understandable if someone falsely concluded that they were not supporting it, given that it was 100% unavailable for some unknown (at least to me) period of time by following Adobe's links.

Re:Why does linux get this? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 years ago | (#33598606)

Yea, but we dont care about Mac or windows. Duh.

Re:Why does linux get this? (1)

devjoe (88696) | about 4 years ago | (#33598132)

Nothing against linux, but why does linux get a 64-bit plug-in and Windows is still sitting around forcing users to use 32-bit versions of browsers in order to use plug-ins.

If you had bothered to click the link before your fr1st p0st, you would have seen this includes 64-bit Windows versions as well.

Re:Why does linux get this? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 4 years ago | (#33598146)

The fact there's a download for Windows and Mac has been covered. so I'll go with this:

Because before Windows 7, no 64 bit home user Windows OS took off. xp 64bit was a butchery and a flop. Vista 64 bit was hardly heard of as there were no compatible drivers for anything. Windows 7 is the first consumer desktop OS which is readily available and accepted in 64 bit. There was no point to release one up until now. Handily, all three are released at the same time.

Windows kernel-mode code signing (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 years ago | (#33598272)

Vista 64 bit was hardly heard of as there were no compatible drivers for anything.

At least some of this can be blamed on the fact that 64-bit versions of Windows Vista and Windows 7 doesn't load unsigned kernel modules except in a "Test Mode" that puts an always-on-top message on all four corners of the screen and which the user must manually turn on at boot time and reboot time. This means "Test Mode" and unsigned drivers automatically go away after a Patch Tuesday automatic restart. The price of signing your driver is chump change to a multinational peripheral maker but substantial (200 USD per year) to an individual hobbyist or low-volume maker of custom assistive input devices for people with disabilities. In fact, most certificate authorities don't even offer kernel-mode code signing certificates to individuals, so add on the annual fee for an LLC.

Re:Why does linux get this? (2, Informative)

John Betonschaar (178617) | about 4 years ago | (#33598400)

[quote]Windows 7 is the first consumer desktop OS which is readily available and accepted in 64 bit.[/quote]

From Wikipedia:

- Mac OS X v10.5 "Leopard" was released on October 26, 2007, [..] full support for 64-bit applications
- Windows 7 was released to manufacturing on July 22, 2009

Re:Why does linux get this? (1)

DarkXale (1771414) | about 4 years ago | (#33598728)

Note the point "Readily available". Mac OS doesn't really qualify as that due to the hardware restrictions (who can install it) and low install base (who has installed it: ~5% at most) His point is that Windows 7 (64-bit) is the first OS that is available but ALSO widely installed. Most (almost all) windows 7 machines installed on newer computers will be 64-bit. Windows Vista and even XP both had 64 bit clients as well; but what he means by not being widely availible was that they weren't installed by many users. This however ALSO includes Mac OS.

Re:Why does linux get this? (0, Flamebait)

sardaukar_siet (559610) | about 4 years ago | (#33598220)

Do you really think that after all Linux has gone through to get more users, it'll be the number of bits on Flash to persuade them away from other OSs? Really? :)

Re:Why does linux get this? (1)

walshy007 (906710) | about 4 years ago | (#33598250)

because 64-bit linux has been mainstream for far far longer for linux users than 64-bit windows has for windows users.

we were using 64-bit circa 2004'ish

Re:Why does linux get this? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33598278)

Wrong. Linux was already going 64 bit in 1993 when Linus was given an Alpha box. Had this event not happened, who knows whether his project would have become multi-platform so long ago, instead of being stuck on the awful x86.

Re:Why does linux get this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33598466)

You don't know what you are talking about. In this context, "64 bit" refers to AMD64, the instruction set architecture which AMD developed. As the specs for AMD64 were released in 1999 and the first CPU supporting that architecture was launched in 2003 then it's rather obvious that linux couldn't have supported it in 1993. Moreover, if you still believe that "64-bit" means "it works on an Alpha" then please try to make this plugin work on an Alpha and tell us how it happens.

So, nice Rotsky you pulled there.

Re:Why does linux get this? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 4 years ago | (#33598794)

Hate to burst your bubble, but the poster said MAINSTREAM. DEC Alpha's were hardly mainstream. In that regard though, Microsoft actually released Windows for that platform back in 1993 as well. Nobody remembers now because almost nobody cared then.

Re:Why does linux get this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33598542)

Nothing against linux, but why does linux get a 64-bit plug-in and Windows is still sitting around forcing users to use 32-bit versions of browsers in order to use plug-ins. This is kind of ridiculous?

On the other hand, if it stays like this into the future maybe it'll promote linux adoption.

FFS, I haven't had any issues with 64bit in Windows. No, I don't do anything special, I just go to Adobe's site and download the 64 bit version after a fresh OS install. End of story. What's your problem? Or are you just Trolling again?

Why does linux get this? (Score:-1, Troll)

Doh!

Is it still using 100% CPU (4, Funny)

gmthor (1150907) | about 4 years ago | (#33598106)

What would really interests me more is, if it has a suitable performance.
Right now I only use flash, if my room temperature drops to low.

Re:Is it still using 100% CPU (1)

Stooshie (993666) | about 4 years ago | (#33598190)

Should do. 32-bit was pretty impressive. Way better than HTML5 or Silverlight.

Re:Is it still using 100% CPU (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 4 years ago | (#33598238)

....Depending on the version.

I've had some versions of Flash that were actually rather solid, then they fix a few security holes then I'm suddenly using 100% CPU on YouTube videos and so my choices are to downgrade and get a security hole or keep having a nearly unusable plugin.

Re:Is it still using 100% CPU (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 years ago | (#33598228)

"Is it still using 100% CPU"

Well I installed the Linux version yesterday and none of my cores goes above 25%, but then again I have eight of them ;-)

Re:Is it still using 100% CPU (1)

zarthrag (650912) | about 4 years ago | (#33599064)

So that makes the answer 200% CPU!

Re:Is it still using 100% CPU (4, Insightful)

nschubach (922175) | about 4 years ago | (#33598240)

I noticed that I can now watch 720p video without hitches, and neither of my cores were maxed out. You may need a new room heater.

Re:Is it still using 100% CPU (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 4 years ago | (#33598276)

In the winter, the metal case of my laptop makes the wrist rests a bit too chilly to want to use for more than a short time. I got into the habit of leaving a Flash game running in the background for ten minutes in the morning to warm them up.

Re:Is it still using 100% CPU (1)

atisss (1661313) | about 4 years ago | (#33598406)

It's winter coming in the north hemisphere, so we should be ok for now :)

We have had it for a while (1)

metrix007 (200091) | about 4 years ago | (#33598122)

I've been using the 64bit flash beta for linux for a while, and it has always been the best implementation I have seen....very speedy and stable. Is this actually an improvement, or just changing from beta to stable?

Re:We have had it for a while (5, Interesting)

Cougar Town (1669754) | about 4 years ago | (#33598152)

The 64-bit plugin for Linux has never had hardware acceleration enabled. The 32-bit version does... maybe they've finally enabled it in this new version. I'll switch to this if that's the case... otherwise, I'm happy with my 32-bit plugin and smooth full screen video.

Enable hardware acceleration (5, Informative)

whovian (107062) | about 4 years ago | (#33598292)

The 64-bit plugin for Linux has never had hardware acceleration enabled. The 32-bit version does... maybe they've finally enabled it in this new version. I'll switch to this if that's the case... otherwise, I'm happy with my 32-bit plugin and smooth full screen video.

Right-click, Settings...

[x] Enable hardware acceleration

Looks promising!

Re:Enable hardware acceleration (1)

Cougar Town (1669754) | about 4 years ago | (#33598478)

Thanks! On my way to download it now...

Re:Enable hardware acceleration (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 years ago | (#33598624)

How did you do that? The "Settings..." option is greyed out here.

Re:Enable hardware acceleration (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33599294)

Thats hardware overlay acceleration, not H264 acceleration. The CPU is still doing all the work decoding the video.

Re:We have had it for a while (1)

metrix007 (200091) | about 4 years ago | (#33598294)

Are you sure about that? I have always had smooth full screen video, in HD under the beta plugin, which was beta than any other flash plugin....

Re:We have had it for a while (1)

Cougar Town (1669754) | about 4 years ago | (#33598438)

Yes, I'm sure. It might not have stopped you from having smooth video, but according to Adobe [adobe.com] , the Linux plugin uses OpenGL. And looking at the 32-bit plugin, we see:

$ file /usr/lib/flashplugin-installer/libflashplayer.so
/usr/lib/flashplugin-installer/libflashplayer.so: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped
$ strings /usr/lib/flashplugin-installer/libflashplayer.so|grep libGL
libGL.so.1
$

But with the 64-bit plugin:
$ file libflashplayer.so
libflashplayer.so: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped
$ strings libflashplayer.so|grep libGL
$

But if you're getting smooth video anyway, that's awesome :)

Re:We have had it for a while (1)

Cougar Town (1669754) | about 4 years ago | (#33598514)

Just to update: I downloaded this new Flash plugin, and this one does indeed link to libGL. Excellent!

Re:We have had it for a while (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 4 years ago | (#33599058)

$ strings /usr/lib/flashplugin-installer/libflashplayer.so|grep libGL

For future reference, the command that you are looking for is ldd on most *NIX systems. On Darwin, it is otool -L.

Re:We have had it for a while (1)

Cougar Town (1669754) | about 4 years ago | (#33599182)

I know, I'd been using strings to also look for the Flash version string in the binary, so I just used it for this since it worked in this scenario as well.

No HW accel w/ Radeon 9250... sad... (1)

awfar (211405) | about 4 years ago | (#33598976)

There appears to be no HW accel. on my ATI 9250 - still 100% CPU. On this very same hardware on previous Fedora, many moons ago, there was HW accel; full screen with little CPU util.. but I was likely running the 32bit version.

I'll believe it (1)

flipper9 (109877) | about 4 years ago | (#33598126)

I'll believe it when I see a successive series of releases supporting Linux, rather than one-off updates, especially with regards to security updates. Plus all the stuff about "well Linux isn't standard so we'll implement stuff only for Windows" makes it even more clear that Flash needs to be replaced unless they show results regarding supporting all platforms equally.

Hey Adobe! (3, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | about 4 years ago | (#33598142)

Where the hell's the 64 bit version?!

Re:Hey Adobe! (5, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | about 4 years ago | (#33598172)

I'm really sorry, that's just a knee jerk reaction every time I see the words "Linux" and "Flash" in the title of a Slashdot article.

Terms like these (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33598144)

I have verified works on my Debian Lenny LTSP server by simply copying libflashplayer.so to /usr/lib/iceweasel/plugins — with sound (which I was never able to figure out with running the 32-bit version with nspluginwrapper and pulseaudio)."

It's terms like these which scare your average linux-o-phobe away. I'd consider an installation application a "simply" solution, as opposed to dumping files into specific directories. Thats why we have cool things like package managers...

Re:Terms like these (2, Insightful)

ickleberry (864871) | about 4 years ago | (#33598194)

so you have to download a single file and save it in a directory? sounds like a lot less trouble than the windows equivalent with probably involves some crappy InstallShield-like program where you have to scroll to the end of a mile long EULA (pronounced e-Yoolah) and tick agree before you can continue. And most likely topped off with a mandatory system reboot

Re:Terms like these (1)

dropadrop (1057046) | about 4 years ago | (#33598274)

But that's the Windows way vs. the Linux way. The catch is, with the Linux way you have to figure out which directory it's copied to.

Re:Terms like these (1)

gmack (197796) | about 4 years ago | (#33598490)

Or just wait for the distros to package it for you.

Re:Terms like these (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33598712)

locate libflashplayer.so ...

Re:Terms like these (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33598510)

I always went to the oddball pronunciation of EULA and pronounced it like Euler angles - So it's "oila" It's much funnier that way.

is it faster? (1)

aerton (748473) | about 4 years ago | (#33598162)

Is it really faster than 10.0 r45?

I just tried this one for playing fullscreen video and indeed it appears use less CPU. But this computer computer is fast enough to make a difference. I wonder if it will improve playback on another computer that stutters on video with 100% CPU (although, a similar windows system plays HD flash video just fine).

Re:is it faster? (2, Informative)

nschubach (922175) | about 4 years ago | (#33598246)

I installed the new player under Chrome and left the old 64-bit plugin in Firefox on this same machine. The old player stutters still. The new one doesn't.

w00t (1)

CajunArson (465943) | about 4 years ago | (#33598176)

I know flash gets much hate around here, but the old 64 bit version actually wokrs pretty well, and I must confess that I didn't uninstall in spite of the security holes. Now I can get an up to date version... rock. I will say that trying to use the 32 bit version using nspluginwrapper is like drilling a hole in your head, and I wonder how many complaints are really based around that rather than flash itself.

Re:w00t (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 4 years ago | (#33598252)

I'll bet pretty much all of them (besides video.) I've been running the old 64-bit player as well. This new one is VERY nice for video.

Re:w00t (3, Funny)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | about 4 years ago | (#33598266)

I know flash gets much hate around here....

Nah, not at all.

BTW, is the source code released? I want to add code that gives a fatal shock to developers and designers who use Flash.

Re:w00t (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33599194)

Using the old version is such a huge security issue ...

Weather report (2, Funny)

tokul (682258) | about 4 years ago | (#33598338)

Record low temperatures are reported in hell

Re:Weather report (2, Funny)

Yetihehe (971185) | about 4 years ago | (#33598952)

They all updated to new version which doesn't use so much processor power?

... and there was much rejoicing... (1)

Noam.of.Doom (934040) | about 4 years ago | (#33598374)

... yayyyy ...

But does it work with Hulu? (1, Redundant)

scharkalvin (72228) | about 4 years ago | (#33598412)

Hulu hasn't worked with x86-64 for some time. Hulu blames flash, and Adobe blames Hulu. Wonder if this new vesion will fix things.

Re:But does it work with Hulu? (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | about 4 years ago | (#33598592)

I had never tried Hulu before. I just watched Rocky and Bullwinkle with this new plugin on amd64.

Re:But does it work with Hulu? (2, Informative)

Andy Dodd (701) | about 4 years ago | (#33598690)

I've got a 64-bit Linux machine and Hulu has worked (mostly) fine for me, except for fullscreen transitions sometimes breaking. (Sometimes when I go fullscreen, the video appears BELOW all windows, not above them.)

I'll try the new version when I get back from a trip this weekend. :)

Re:But does it work with Hulu? (1)

puto (533470) | about 4 years ago | (#33598780)

Works fine on my Thinkpad on Win 7 64 with the new plugin.

Re:But does it work with Hulu? (1)

scharkalvin (72228) | about 4 years ago | (#33598872)

I should have been more specific....
Does it work with Hulu on Linux x86-64?
Not too many people are probably using windows7-64 bit.

Re:But does it work with Hulu? (2, Informative)

GooberToo (74388) | about 4 years ago | (#33598912)

First time I've ever seen Hulu actually work. The 64-bit Linux plugin works like a charm with Hulu!

I really don't think we should encourage this (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about 4 years ago | (#33598422)

I really don't think we should encourage this. Flashers are perverts, and that is all there is to it. Some well meaning people might think that giving them a square plugin (I assume they mean butt plug) will keep their mind off it for a while, but it will just lead to greater depravity.

Hulu works (4, Informative)

motang (1266566) | about 4 years ago | (#33598528)

With this new 64bit flash plugin hulu works via the browser no more need for the hulu desktop app.

Too Late (2, Interesting)

ShOOf (201960) | about 4 years ago | (#33598538)

Gnash works with youtube. Gnash development has picked up since Adobe dropped the 64bit support. And once you switch there is no reason to go back unless you enjoy your cpu melting and state of the art 0-days

Re:Too Late (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | about 4 years ago | (#33598876)

Gnash doesn't work with Hulu...

Re:Too Late (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33599306)

Square does not work with Desktop Defense (on Fedora 13):
- 'Pro' gives me a blank http://www.handdrawngames.com/DesktopTD/Game.asp
- '1.5' gives me a blank http://www.handdrawngames.com/DesktopTD/Game3.asp
- '1.2' gives me a display, but all text in buttons is 'TEXT' and the interface doesn't work http://www.handdrawngames.com/DesktopTD/Game2.asp

Version 1.0 does work http://www.handdrawngames.com/DesktopTD/Game1.asp

Can we get a who cares?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33598608)

Flash sucks. We're stuck with it.

Let's hope light spark gives us an open alternative without the privacy and security issues.

And let's hope HTML5 audio and video tags take off.

64bit flash on Fedora 13 (1)

kdekorte (8768) | about 4 years ago | (#33598944)

I was using the older beta and sites like hulu would not work. So I installed nspluginwrapper (32 and 64 bit) and then installed the 32 bit flash player and it was working pretty well.

I then tried this new plugin, and just removed the flash-plugin rpm. It played videos but when you right clicked it would hang the browser. So I removed nspluginwrapper (32 and 64 bit) and after that I haven't had any more issues with it.

Kevin

Tar.GZ? Why? For the love of me, why? (2, Interesting)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | about 4 years ago | (#33599090)

When will they use the common installer system? Most software is simply available through some repository, but Adobe has to be different. Why can VLC be installed from a repository while they are not able to do so?
Tar.gz is not a good way. The manual dependency resolving is so outdated. The simple fact they made the same mistake again will cause me not to install it. The opensource version may not run as smoothly but it is easy to install.

OMFG (3, Informative)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 4 years ago | (#33599098)

God I love Arch Linux
yaourt -S flashplugin-prerelease

I have never had fullscreen youtube even usable at 480 before, now I can run it fullscreen at 1080p and the controls are perfectly smooth and only using 70% CPU!!!

I never though this day would come. *sniff*
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?