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 Released 64-bit Flash For Linux

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the included-free-of-charge dept.

Linux 274

kai_hiwatari writes "Adobe has been taking quite a bashing from Linux supporters of late. First, there was the issue of them dropping AIR for Linux and then came the bashing because of the lack of updates on the experimental 64-bit Flash for Linux. Well, guess what! They have just released Flash 11 and it includes native 64-bit support for Linux as well. When they discontinued their experimental 64-bit Flash earlier this year, Adobe promised to release a 64-bit version of Flash for Linux when they release the next major version. They have kept that promise."

cancel ×

274 comments

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

one word. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36758644)

Gnash

Re:one word. (1)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758774)

Sadly, no. I wish it'd work, but the last several taxing animations I've tried to play with it, well... the animation doesn't play at a constant rate and gets out of sync. On a 3.5ghz, quad-core proc.
Adpbe Flash Square 64-bit preview worked fine, though may have dropped a few frames(not that it was using much processing power...).

Re:one word. (2)

Akima (1998920) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759476)

Yeah - Gnash isn't quite there yet. It's coming along very slowly too. It's great what they've achieved so far though.

I hate flash. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36758648)

And I hate to say it, but I really appreciate Adobe treating Linux well.

Re:I hate flash. (1, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758996)

...appreciate Adobe treating Linux well...

Because they released Flash? How about Photoshop and ImageReady for Linux?

That's the only reason I keep an XP machine...

GIMP is, well, GIMP, and not suitable for professional use.

Re:I hate flash. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36759212)

Because they released Flash? How about Photoshop and ImageReady for Linux?

That's the only reason I keep an XP machine...

GIMP is, well, GIMP, and not suitable for professional use.

Photoshop replace with digikam
http://www.digikam.org/drupal/about?q=about/features

ImageReady replace with krita
http://krita.org/features

Acrobat replace with Okular
http://okular.kde.org/

No need for quaint GIMP, no need for XP, no need for Adobe software. :D

Re:I hate flash. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36759226)

"GIMP is, well, GIMP, and not suitable for professional use."
          Really I doubt this. I heard the excuse that it didn't support color management. It does now and has for years. I heard the excuse that it didn't support sRGB and CMYK. It does now and has for years. I don't expect people to SWITCH to the Gimp if they are used to Photoshop, but I just don't think that is true any longer.

Re:I hate flash. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36759790)

It's just plain plain faster to do things in Photoshop, and Photoshop is more powerful (try layer effects and vector masks, etc). This is from someone who used GIMP for years.

GIMP was fine for some uses, and it's not that GIMP isn't powerful - it's just that Photoshop is so much more powerful that I can do the same work (texturing, mostly), approximately, in one third the time.

If I'm just sketching or digital painting, though, the advantage isn't as large.

Re:I hate flash. (5, Informative)

bahstid (927038) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759834)

As someone who does occasionally use GIMP for professional use, I'm afraid to inform you that its CMYK support is not what you think it is.... there is a CMYK colour picker and thats about it. So while its suitability for professional use might be debatable, its a fact that doesn't support CMYK properly and hasn't for years.

There is a plugin with rudimentary export support (Separate+) but doesn't really cover all bases, and the import plugin can only handle TIFFs.

Re:I hate flash. (1)

Akima (1998920) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759510)

Incorrect! "Professionals" do use The GIMP.

I'm looking forward to their next major release which will introduce a spiffy new single window mode. I bet that will be appealing to lots of Photoshop users.

Re:I hate flash. (1)

rvw (755107) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759880)

...appreciate Adobe treating Linux well...

Because they released Flash? How about Photoshop and ImageReady for Linux?

That's the only reason I keep an XP machine...

You don't need a "machine" for that. A VM will do. I use Photoshop and Illustrator and Flash in a VirtualBox XP-VM since about a year, and it is no problem. Even a Pentium 4 can do this with enough RAM (3GB or more).

Re:I hate flash. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36759194)

I was just thinking the exact same thing. I can see why some companies refuse the support Linux so it's always good to see the ones that do. Thanks Adobe.

Adobe Reader 64-bit for Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36759852)

Well, where is 64-bit Adobe Reader then?

Re:Adobe Reader 64-bit for Linux (3, Informative)

MurukeshM (1901690) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759926)

Oh root..Do you really want that crap? What about evince or okular?

Too bad (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36758652)

it comes with flash.

Re:Too bad (1)

wmac (1107843) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758964)

and goes with flush

released? (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758654)

One could argue that it has not been released if one has to apply to a pre-release program to get it.

Re:released? (4, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758718)

I just downloaded it from http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer11.html [adobe.com] without applying to any program. But anyway, I was using a beta version of Flash 10.3 for 64-bit Linux before, and this is just a new beta version.

Re:released? (1, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758730)

I just downloaded it from http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer11.html [adobe.com] without applying to any program

That's because you downloaded a beta version.
To get the release version, you have to apply to a pre-release program, which means it isn't really released, now is it?

Re:released? (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758748)

A beta release is a release. Perhaps you're thinking only the final release or a stable release is a release. Alphas and betas are referred to as releases [wikipedia.org] .

Re:released? (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758778)

Check your own link. They're not. They're referred to as alphas or betas, never just an unqualified "release". Scroll down to the #Release subsection of the link you posted, and you'll find what a release means.

(Also, logically, there would be no RC after the beta if the beta was considered a release...)

Re:released? (1)

rootatwc (2271390) | more than 3 years ago | (#36760106)

No they are not..if they were,then where is the point of calling release candidates the way we call them?? Hint: Cause it means alpha and beta where not releases^^

Re:released? (2)

nbetcher (973062) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758846)

I just downloaded it from http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer11.html [adobe.com] without applying to any program

That's because you downloaded a beta version.
To get the release version, you have to apply to a pre-release program, which means it isn't really released, now is it?

And yet the release date on the aforementioned URL is July 13th, 2011. Last I checked today was July 13th, 2011. *checks again* Yup, still July 13th, 2011.

Re:released? (1)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759128)

So... I just installed this and it makes Firefox freeze-up. I had to revert to that old alpha... anyone else having this problem?

Re:released? (1)

punkrockguy318 (808639) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759264)

Can someone please mirror ? The server appears to be down but I'd like to give the latest 64 bit binary they have a shot.

Finally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36758660)

32bit flash using the wrapper to run it in a 64bit browser was just horrible, rendering glitches, poor perfomance, browser crashes.. ugh. While I'm not very fond of Flash to start with, having them randomly drop 64bit support like that has made me despise it even more

Re:Finally... (2)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758708)

The main problem with using 32-bit wrapped Flash player on Linux wasn't primarily the glitches or performance, but that unlike Windows, most Linux flavors don't force install 32-bit libraries.
If you have a 64-bit system, you have a 64-bit system, not necessarily a hybrid 32/64 system as in the Windows world. So installing just the 32-bit flash meant installing all the 32-bit compatibility libraries too, and see a huge chunk of memory go up in smoke just for a single plugin.

Re:Finally... (1)

atomicbutterfly (1979388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759148)

The main problem with using 32-bit wrapped Flash player on Linux wasn't primarily the glitches or performance, but that unlike Windows, most Linux flavors don't force install 32-bit libraries.
If you have a 64-bit system, you have a 64-bit system, not necessarily a hybrid 32/64 system as in the Windows world. So installing just the 32-bit flash meant installing all the 32-bit compatibility libraries too, and see a huge chunk of memory go up in smoke just for a single plugin.

Not only that, but the 32-bit libraries are only loaded into memory upon the first instance of running 32-bit code. This means that if your current session has only used 64-bit binaries and you go to a page using the 32-bit Flash plugin, your browser will stall for several seconds while all the necessary libs are brought into memory (assuming you aren't using an SSD of course).

Only a beta so far (2)

nzac (1822298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758670)

http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer11.html [adobe.com]
Still looks good though should should be nicer than the preview.

Re:Only a beta so far (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758696)

I only ever used it to watch videos, but it so far works just as well as the prior release (running 64-bit Debian 6.0).

Re:Only a beta so far (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36759058)

I only ever used it to watch videos, but it so far works just as bad as the prior release (running 64-bit Debian 6.0).

There, fixed that for you.

Oh, "great" (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36758674)

It is buggy as hell.
Testing it now.

Fun thing is, "OMG FLASH LETS PUT FLASH IN OUR SITES" and make user experience WORSE.
KISS principle.

Protip: drop Flash.

Re:Oh, "great" (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759382)

I'll drink to that one!

If I had mod points You sir would be tasting some of my mod uberness right now! :-)

Re:Oh, "great" (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759454)

It is buggy as hell.

That's perfectly normal -- it's buggy as hell on other operating systems and hardware platforms, too.

Re:Oh, "great" (2)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759706)

Protip: drop Flash.

Real professionals never considered Flash in the first place...but there are two problems to this:

* Mist webdesigners out there are not "professionals".

* Clients: "I want it all flashy and shiny and moving and stuff and really loud sound so that we get their attention..."

Re:Oh, "great" (2)

muckracer (1204794) | more than 3 years ago | (#36760002)

> "OMG FLASH LETS PUT FLASH IN OUR SITES" and make user
> experience WORSE.

Actually this applies to more than just the use of Flash. My computers have gotten exponentially faster, same with the connection, the browser promise 20 and more percent more speed with each major release....and yet tons of farking pages load slower and slower. Woe you if you try to scroll before the whole damn thing actually loaded its crap. Then it jumps all over the place and whatnot. Even clicking on a story and then going Back reloads the page again with a similar waiting period. There are sites (for example, some news sites) I hardly use anymore specifically because of abysmal performance issues. I can see the advantage of correlating and aggregating information from various sources and using dynamic techniques to display them. And yet, there's a very distinct point of diminishing and then reversing 'benefits'. Too bad most site developers haven't gotten that yet and still think, the more pictures move around, flip up and down, advertisements scroll along with user scrolling and various other completely annoying stuff, incl. soundtrack, the 'more exciting' the site. It's bullshit and the blink-tag craze all over. KEEP IT SIMPLE AND USEFUL, YOU MORONS!

Not available @ adobe.com (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36758678)

I just went to Adobe and it ain't there. Only version 9.x for Linux 32-bit...

Where is a link to actual Adobe source for this??? After some looking around, a Beta release,

http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer11.html [adobe.com]

Why isn't this linked in the summary??

Better article please (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36758700)

Good news. It's nice to see that Adobe is supporting Flash on Linux.

Having said that something seems fishy with the summary/article.

Adobe has been taking quite a bashing from Linux supporters of late. First, there was the issue of them dropping AIR for Linux and then came the bashing because of the lack of updates on the experimental 64-bit Flash for Linux.

Reads like a troll...

They have kept that promise.

...or a shill.

Re:Better article please (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758800)

Good news. It's nice to see that Adobe is supporting Flash on Linux.

Having said that something seems fishy with the summary/article.

Adobe has been taking quite a bashing from Linux supporters of late. First, there was the issue of them dropping AIR for Linux and then came the bashing because of the lack of updates on the experimental 64-bit Flash for Linux.

Reads like a troll...

They have kept that promise.

...or a shill.

Not a serious issue, we can just go back to bashing them for sucking at software quality, which is the usual approach on the platforms they purport to support.

Re:Better article please (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759008)

Or you could, here's just a thought, I'm throwing this out there...be happy that they continue to support your OS when so many don't? After all sales of Linux machines isn't exactly setting the world on fire compared to OSX and Win 7 and there are a hell of a lot of companies out there that simply don't care that you exist. Adobe has been pretty damned good about keeping flash support for Linux, so shouldn't you just be happy? would it really kill the Linux community to say "hey thanks for continuing to support us Adobe, we appreciate it?"

The consistent bad attitude really doesn't help your cause you know. If you want big companies to acknowledge you and support you at least being a little nice to the ones that already do couldn't hurt. i mean you'll take code that is a mangled mess (LibreOffice) or programs that are a decade behind on features (gimp) and act like it is the second coming, but when a company offers you tech that makes the majority of the world's videos play on your machines you act like the CEO took a big dump on your plate. Not smart when you are such a teeny tiny niche

And before someone says "But Adobe isn't FOSS herp derp" you know what? Who gives a shit! would you rather have nothing but Gnash? Last I heard it is FOSS but 4 versions behind and runs like ass. And this is of course not pointing out the decaying elephant in the room which is most companies will NEVER open their software because with so many patent trolls out there it could bury the company in lawsuits for a decade with nothing to show but a "Gee thanks but ur code is shit LOL!" from the community.

so would it REALLY kill ya to be even just a tiny bit grateful for a company spending their resources supporting you? And as for Air...nothing of value was lost. hell I'm primarily a Windows guy and I have found exactly ONE thing that used Air, the GOG Downloader, and not only did you not need Air as you could just use your browser but the GOG team have already said they are writing a new one which doesn't use Air. So what is there to complain about? That someone supports you? Yep that is really worth having a shitfit over, having support might ruin your geek cred!

Re:Better article please (1)

DerPflanz (525793) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759284)

Thank you Adobe, and all the other companies that support Linux versions of their software.

You're right! It didn't kill me. I completely agree with you.

Re:Better article please (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759438)

hairyfeet is hard at work, shilling for Microsoft even in threads about the articles praising Microsoft's greatest friends.

Re:Better article please (0, Flamebait)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759854)

Wow, you are TRULY batshit aren't you? here we are talking about Adobe and Linux, nobody says a damned word about Windows anything, yet it MUST be that I'm a super secret stealth ninja for MSFT just waiting to ambush your 'precious'. But hey this retailer will be more than happy to give your OS a good slapping around if it makes ya happy Alex, lets begin shall we?

Isn't it sad, how like a frightened child afraid to look under the bed, you cower at the truth? if your driver model isn't shit then why does Dell have to run their own repos [theinquirer.net] even though we are talking a teeny tiny subset of hardware? Oh right because Linux shits itself and dies if you use the default repos! Man that is some excellent product you got there! you think I can get better QA than the third largest OEM on the planet? What, you expect me to tell paying customers "Go to the forum, kiss some loser ass, and maybe, just maybe, in a few days someone will have mercy and give you a big pile of bullshit that may or may not make your sound work again"?

Bleeding yet douchey? want some more? nice thing about having the truth on your side, you can keep throwing punches all day! How about how a decade old Windows beat the shit out of Linux on netbooks [computerworld.com] or how ASUS has given up on your bullshit [computerworld.com.au] or how about Walmart running away from linux as fast as it can [pcworld.com] ? You got the crazy koolaid drunk enough to say they ALL are paid shills because they won't do your forum dance or CLI horseshit? Meanwhile your "hero" Torvalds the great says Plans? We don't need no steenkin plans! [kerneltrap.org] . Why don't you tell them that at work next week, see how quick you get a pink slip? More? How about you actually have the balls to celebrate getting a whole 1% market share [slashdot.org] while you are actually lower than JavaME [netmarketshare.com] and there is a whole website dedicated To your bullshit and excuses [tmrepository.com] .

You see you whiny little delusional mama's boy, I'm your worst fucking nightmare...a retailer that still believes. I believe that the community doesn't have to take Torvalds shit sandwiches, I believe that things can be made better, I believe Linux can be something for more than douchebags like you that will happily take a cock slapping from linus as long as you can say you are sticking to "teh man". I believe that there can be Linux boxes on actual shelves and penguins on boxes.

So you go hide now mama's boy, you hide with your Tux blankie and keep saying your magical nigger nigger faggot, or should I say shill shill astroturfer, like it is a magical word that will make all the bad go away. But it won't change reality and the reality is your driver model is shit and more than 15 years behind everyone else and that is why retailers like me wouldn't piss on it, not some mythical money truck that sneaks up to my door in the middle of the night. So go compile something and leave the men to talk about the real world, okay little girl?

And for the actual Linux USERS out there, not the batshit "It is a plot by gates and the Illuminati to kill FLOSS" nutjobs like Alex? As a retailer let me say this: i like your OS, your GUI is in many ways superior to what is out there, but the driver model is shit. I don't care if you use an ABI or sacrifice Linus to Cthulu fix this one damned problem so my customers can run updates without the OS having a heart attack and hosing the drivers? i'll be happy to put Linux boxes back on the shelves. I already use it for embedded like the robotics projects I help an engineering buddy with at the local college, and for web servers it is top notch, but the driver situation is a deal breaker when you are talking home users.

Finally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36758706)

No more random blipping sounds :D

Re:Finally (1)

deek (22697) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758772)

Hurrah, they fixed that?! The audio noise was caused by a memcpy issue with flash player and the glibc libs. Linus actually wrote a LD_PRELOAD replacement for memcpy which fixed it. I've been using that for the last few months. Search for linusmemcpy.c if you're interested.

All the benefits that Flash enjoys (1)

oheso (898435) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758740)

... on other platforms. *crash!*

Do Not Want (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36758744)

Good, so I can go download and install Flash, a piece of crappy proprietary software, which allows my web browser to download flash animations, which is more crappy proprietary software, which run automatically, without my permission, on any website where they are listed, so that they can annoy me.

I hate flash. It always has an active zero-day exploit available. It's often credited for being one of the main sources of Windows infections. It's responsible for many of the advertisements on the Internet, and all of the most annoying advertisements (like the ones with sound).

Re:Do Not Want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36758786)

Agreed, but other threads bash iPads because they don't have flash.

Re:Do Not Want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36758902)

which is more crappy proprietary software, which run automatically, without my permission, on any website where they are listed

Yeah exactly the same way javascript runs without your permission on any website where it is listed, but it appears you're too stuck in your flash-bashing ignorance to actually know that.

so that they can annoy me.

So flash content only serves to annoy? If that were really the case and you weren't just being a complete moron then no one would download flash. If you don't want flash, don't download it, if you want it for certain things only then get a flash blocker.

It's responsible for many of the advertisements on the Internet, and all of the most annoying advertisements (like the ones with sound).

It appears you aren't aware of HTML5 and its ability to do exactly that just like flash does but without being as easy to block. All your issues will just move to the browser with HTML5 if flash goes away.

Re:Do Not Want (1)

atomicbutterfly (1979388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759320)

Then install an Ad-Block. This will eliminate the vast majority of ads in the first place (including the annoying ones and most of the ones that are likely to be exploited), leaving it for the more useful stuff like YouTube.

Stop whining like you're a geek without the ability to take control of things.

Re:Do Not Want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36759358)

Flash block is good if you want to support the sites you visit and don't want to have a zombie'd computer...

It is available for Chrome and Firefox (and possibly others too)

Re:Do Not Want (1)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759590)

Good, so I can go download and install Flash, a piece of crappy proprietary software, which allows my web browser to download flash animations, which is more crappy proprietary software, which run automatically, without my permission, on any website where they are listed, so that they can annoy me.

This endless tedious simpering is what makes me wonder that any company continues to support Linux at all. What is the alternative? HTML 5? That will likely have all the same problems but with the added risk of getting sued left and right as the HTML 5 patent war begins.

Re:Do Not Want (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36759774)

"What is the alternative? HTML 5? "

Hmmm.. Alternative to what?

The argument is that rich multimedia has yet to be delivered effectively via integrated web technologies, but everyone acts as if it has. It sucks, but it is everywhere.

I don't see a need for an alternative to Flash as I don't see a need for Flash itself... But in a business environment lack of compatibility is a killer. Small business users of Linux don't have a choice but to wrestle with broken implementations of these things in insane situations - like trying to place orders through manufacturer websites, research products, or even use common web services from professional organizations.

There is something akin to road rage that happens when you just want to do basic thing X, but can't get anyone on the phone, and can't get the company's whizzy buttons to do anything. As a home user it sucks. As a business user it does not make me like Linux less, it makes me hate design school web flunkies more.

Why can't I have web 1.0 back at least from companies that want my money? It's insane.

ah... (4, Funny)

Frosty-B-Bad (259317) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758782)

When the linux community asked for software I don't think they knew what they were in for. Cheers mates, you can crash your browser like the rest of us.

Re:ah... (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758838)

Cheers mates, you can crash your browser like the rest of us.

Actually, it's just the plugin that crashes, not the browser. You need Adobe Reader to crash the entire browser :)

Re:ah... (1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758976)

Actually, it's just the plugin that crashes, not the browser. You need Adobe Reader to crash the entire browser :)

Depends. Doesn't the version of Iceweasel in the latest Debian stable release (3.5.16 in Squeeze) not support out-of-process plugins? I thought this feature didn't make its way into Firefox until 3.6.something.

Re:ah... (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759198)

On my Linux box, Flash intermittently freezes the entire OS solid. Can't even log in remotely. Granted, that's a sign of some more fundamental issue, which I haven't been able to track down. Personally I think it's the NVidia driver. The OSS driver is useless without vdpau. I've swapped out the PSU and graphics card, and run CPU and video benchmarks for hours on end. Yet it only locks up when my son watches youtube, and then occasionally. Real fun.

Re:ah... (1)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759404)

I've run into the same problem, but running the latest beta driver it seems to be partially solvesd: The screen freezes for about 15-30 seconds, then continues. Probably the HW/driver restarting when a watchdog times out.
Still, it's better than locking up the machine permanately.

Re:ah... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759220)

You know I keep hearing this stuff about flash causing crashes and all that. And I've yet to see it happen on any of my home machines in the last oh 6 years ever since flash was rebuilt from the ground up. Seems like 'nix nuts are just as bad on flash as they are on anything related to MS.

As the solaris user... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36758862)

As a Solaris user, I guess I just don't get it. Why EXACTLY do you need a 64bit version of flash? Have they removed the ability in linux of running 32bit binaries on a 64bit system?

I guess maybe if you needed 64bit Firefox, but I STILL don't understand why you would need THAT. at 20-50 tabs, if my browser was useing more then 4G of memory, It would be time to get a new browser.

Re:As the solaris user... (1)

Kev Vance (833) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758914)

As a Solaris user, I guess I just don't get it. Why EXACTLY do you need a 64bit version of flash? Have they removed the ability in linux of running 32bit binaries on a 64bit system?

It's nice not to have to maintain an extra userland just for one program. If I upgrade JACK and the wire protocol changes, Flash can't make sound until I go find the latest 32-bit libs.

Re:As the solaris user... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36759038)

Why is your underlying libraries changing, incompatibly, at such a rate that this is relevant?

This willingness to change incompatibly is why I have mostly given up on Linux. I only put up with it now when I'm getting a paycheck for it.

Re:As the solaris user... (1)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759452)

You don't get progress without getting rid of old crap, else people continue to use it and you get loads of legacy cruft - see the Win32 API for a good example.

I, personally, expect that when I run "apt-get update; apt-get upgrade" everything will be upgraded so it's compatible. Which usually happens unless you're running unstable/untested sources.

As far as 64-bit browser goes, I want it because it fits better with the rest of the OS, and means I don't need compatibility libraries running. If I had to make the choice between flash and 64-bit browser... well, good bye flash. I'd probably try gnash.

Re:As the solaris user... (2)

smash (1351) | more than 3 years ago | (#36760072)

No, you get progress without breaking compatibility, if you architect things in an extensible way in the first place. See: FreeBSD.

Under construction from scratch (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759798)

Several competing aims with sound drivers mean that sound on linux intermittantly sucks in recent times. The simple bog standard stuff became shareware so had to be removed to a separate download and isn't keeping up with new hardware anyway so newer software has abandoned that as well. The other stuff aims for full desktop integration and network capability with a lot of moving targets instead of just having a virtual device for the applications to pipe sound to - all those shiny feaures tend to make the various implementations fragile.
In short, sound sucks in linux for a lot of people but a lot of extra things you can do with it are under construction. The libraries are changing a lot, and frequently, to suck less but they tend to break a lot of things along the way. Upgrading things in batches tends to work and bring sound back when you find there is a new application where sound does not work. A stable API really depends on people being confident that it is a good API and it appears it isn't at that point yet for pulseaudio and perhaps some others.

Piece of crap.... so huge improvement (2)

dlgeek (1065796) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758872)

On my TV box (Atom D510 with NVidia GT218 (ION)), mplayer or xbmc can play 720p and even 1080p content on fullscreen to my 1080p tv over HDMI without breaking a sweat).

The new flash can render hulu in the tiny window no problem, but is incredibly jerky and flickery in full screen mode. There are noticible segments that are out of sync with each other, the overlays (hulu logo, player controls, etc) are flashing on and off and drawing incorrectly.

Sadly, that's a HUGE improvement over the v10 release which couldn't even draw in windowed mode and fullscreen was about 0.5 fps.

Re:Piece of crap.... so huge improvement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36758988)

Maybe you should install the nvidia drivers instead of the standard mesa ones.

Re:Piece of crap.... so huge improvement (1)

dlgeek (1065796) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759020)

I did,do you really think MESA can get 1080p decoding and rendering on an ATOM CPU?

Re:Piece of crap.... so huge improvement (1)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759178)

I have them installed, 260.19.29. For shits'n'giggles I downloaded some of the 4K videos on Youtube as a test...

mplayer can very nearly play 4096x2560 to fullscreen (2560x1600) using a single Athlon II core and a GeForce-240 (video is smooth, but audio eventually breaks up). Flash can almost get a smooth framerate on 480x360 windows on youtube, and the fullscreen button would be better termed the talking slideshow button.

Not to say that native is necessarily better... kde's dragon player is so horribly slow it makes Flash player look like mplayer. This may not directly be dragon's fault... in my experience, everything Qt4 touches is instantly covered in a thick layer of cold molasses and resin.

/usr/lib/kde4 (1)

porl (932021) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758880)

not sure if it is just the debian/ubuntu 64 bit package but it failed to install with an error that /usr/lib/kde4 was not found. as i'm not running it, it was not surprising it was missing, but i had to create the directory for the package to install properly. obviously this can be worked around by manually extracting the tar and working from that, but i prefer using the deb packages.

hope this helps someone.

Re:/usr/lib/kde4 (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759348)

If you're using a Firefox-based browser (ie Iceweasel on Debian), then just uncompress the tarball and move libflashplayer.so into ~/.mozilla/plugins and you're done.

64-bit... (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758938)

Exploits and crashes are now up to 80% faster.

There goes the neighborhood. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36758952)

I've always felt that a lack of flash support was one of the best features of 64bit linux...

FreeBSD still not supported (1)

koinu (472851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758978)

Linux plugin would work through emulation on FreeBSD, but I am not interested in Flash, and Linux neither. I hope everyone migrates to HTML5 instead of installing some weird closed-source plugins. You never know what's inside and a browser is a nice application to have spyware attached to it.

So in the meantime, I'm running my PC without Flash support since about 10 years. It would be nice for some people using FreeBSD to have Flash, but even then, I would not install it, I think.

Re:FreeBSD still not supported (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36759070)

I hope everyone migrates to HTML5 instead of installing some weird closed-source plugins. You never know what's inside and a browser is a nice application to have spyware attached to it.

Do you even know what HTML5 is? Are you inspecting every bit of javascript code your browser runs?

Don't get me wrong, i'm all for HTML5, but it's not going to prevent arbitrary code from being executed in the browser.

Re:FreeBSD still not supported (1)

koinu (472851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759828)

Yes, but if you escape the browser's sandbox. The software is actually _broken_ and needs a fix.

When you think about Flash plugin... it's already on your system and ready to infect everything. And this is how it works... it won't get fixed, but it's the concept of a browser plugin.

Re:FreeBSD still not supported (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36759478)

I'm truly shocked that they don't support FreeBSD. They also don't support Plan 9! Evil proprietary software developers!

P.S. FreeBSD is dead and the quality of the last few releases has been abysmal.

Re:FreeBSD still not supported (1)

koinu (472851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759766)

I cannot complain about the quality of FreeBSD, I have had the least problems with this distribution. The lack of an official Flash plugin is not a problem for me, but I noticed that there are some people crying about it in forums and mailing lists.

Proprietary software is evil in generic applications like browsers, yes. Someone said here on Slashdot: having plugins in your browser is like the year 1995. I like this statement. It's funny and it's true.

Fact is, Adobe cannot write portable software, or else it would be a matter of providing a few compiler switches to support a further OS.

strange sound bug fixed (1)

Errtu76 (776778) | more than 3 years ago | (#36758990)

Nice, it seems to have fixed this [redhat.com] problem. Even though the main problem was actually in glibc.

Re:strange sound bug fixed (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759422)

It wasn't glibc's fault. It was another example of a program depending on undocumented behavior of an API.

"Problem" in flash exposed by glibc changes (2)

Sits (117492) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759562)

The problem was that Flash was using overlapping memory areas on memcpy. This was a hidden problem in Flash but it was exposed by a glibc change on certain architectures (as noted at length in the bug you linked to). The glibc change was not wrong as far as the spec goes but it was definitely unhelpful to end users. In the end, the glibc devs made a change that means the different memcpy only kicks in for programs linked against newer versions glibc [redhat.com] which seems a defensible stance.

Flash-Aid (1)

tdarklighter (247845) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759062)

You can install the Flash-Aid add-on in Firefox - makes the installation a little easier and also checks for updates.

64-bit *what*? (1)

jgrahn (181062) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759146)

It's really weird to see "64-bit" applied to Linux in this way, as if it was Windows. Linux runs well on various 64-bit CPUs, but I bet Adobe cannot be bothered to recompile for more than one of them ...

Re:64-bit *what*? (1)

atomicbutterfly (1979388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759168)

From what I understand, the Flash platform is so damn complicated with integrated JIT compilers and other tech within the plugin, that simply running a 64-bit compiler on the codebase isn't quite that simple as the code was never designed to work in 64-bit architectures. Most code should, assuming it's well designed and the developers weren't taking shortcuts by assuming the lengths of various types, but we're talking about Adobe here.

Re:64-bit *what*? (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759902)

but we're talking about Adobe here.

Ah yes, PDF "encryption" by ROT13 (cereal box code wheel set to m->a) and putting a guy in jail that came to the USA to give a lecture on such a "trade secret".

Webcam (1)

pmontra (738736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759166)

Did they also fix webcam support? Sites like ustream don't work because flash keeps supporting an old video for linux standard and not the new one, which is years old.

Re:Webcam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36759864)

uh huh, ustream support. wink wink nudge nudge say no more.

Still won't use it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36759188)

Closed. Terrible security support. Not worth the hassles.

So did they fix the massive sound latency yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36759222)

Well, did they? (I doubt it, but it's nice to dream)

sell house quick (-1, Troll)

jennyhills (2371532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759242)

The post is very informative. It is a pleasure reading it. I have also bookmarked you for checking out new posts. http://www.freehousevaluation.co.uk/sell-now/ [freehousevaluation.co.uk]

Re:sell house quick (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36759290)

Domain name:
                  freehousevaluation.co.uk

          Registrant:
                  Craig Campbell

          Registrant type:
                  UK Individual

          Registrant's address:
                  114 Sherbrooke Avenue
                  Glasgow
                  G41 4PG
                  United Kingdom

          Registrar:
                  1 & 1 Internet AG [Tag = SCHLUND]
                  URL: http://www.1and1.co.uk or http://registrar.1und1.info

          Relevant dates:
                  Registered on: 11-Aug-2010
                  Renewal date: 11-Aug-2012
                  Last updated: 13-Aug-2010

          Registration status:
                  Registered until renewal date.

          Name servers:
                  ns1.webhost4less.co.uk 91.198.165.131
                  ns2.webhost4less.co.uk 78.129.250.182

Can't find installer for my 64-bit Linux system (1)

Karellen (104380) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759268)

Anyone know where they put the ia64 binaries?

Control panel? (3, Informative)

MasterPatricko (1414887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759416)

The tarball contents have changed relative to previous releases:
  libflashplayer.so
  usr/bin/flash-player-properties
  usr/share/pixmaps/flash-player-properties.png
  usr/share/kde4/services/kcm_adobe_flash_player.desktop
  usr/share/applications/flash-player-properties.desktop
  usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/flash-player-properties.png
  usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps/flash-player-properties.png
  usr/share/icons/hicolor/24x24/apps/flash-player-properties.png
  usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps/flash-player-properties.png
  usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/flash-player-properties.png
  usr/lib/kde4/kcm_adobe_flash_player.so

Looks like it provides some sort of control panel now, and attempts to integrate into KDE's SystemSettings. All you really need is to copy libflashplayer.so into /usr/lib64/browser-plugins though (openSUSE).

www.betterwholesaler.us (-1, Offtopic)

mianmoas (2371684) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759598)

welcome to: ------- http://www.betterwholesaler.us/ [betterwholesaler.us] The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment., After the payment, can ship within short time. 3 free shipping competitive price any size available accept the paypal exquisite watches 75$ 90X Extreme Fitness System ONLY ONLY 42 $$$$$$$ jordan shoes $ 32 nike shox $ 32 Christan Audigier bikini $ 23 Ed Hardy Bikini $ 23 Sm ful short_t-shirt_woman $ 15 ed hardy short_tank_woman $ 16 Sandal $ 32 christian louboutin $ 80 Sunglass $ 15 welcome to: ------- http://www.betterwholesaler.us/ [betterwholesaler.us] COACH_Necklace $ 27 handbag $ 33 AF tank woman $ 17 puma slipper woman $ 30 discount evisu jeans wholesale LV handbags discount coach handbags Believe you will love it. welcome to: ------ O(_)O

Looking forward to 64bit exploits (1)

maweki (999634) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759676)

We 64bit users have been denied official 64bit Flash exploits. We had to rely on the experimental exploit-support or the 32bit exploits. I've been waiting very long for this and I am glad, Adobe lives up to its promise, to release security holes for 64bit Linux in the same reliable manner they did for 32bit Linux and Windows. Thank you.

Still no ARM version (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36759878)

So N900 users are still stuck on Flash 9

It doesn't really solve the problem (1)

shtrom (1251560) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759948)

I still can't read any Flash animation on my PPC-based Linux machines.

Separate player for YouTube (1)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 3 years ago | (#36759952)

You know, it would be cool if there simply was a dedicated YouTube player for desktop Linux too. There is one for iPad and my Android phone has one too. They know that Flash sucks in performance so they skip it completely. It works great.

I wonder how easy/hard would it be to figure out the Flash video streaming protocol and glue it in to some movie player? I already remember Totem and VLC implementing a YouTube player but I never have got them to work that well...

The alternative (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36760010)

Why not install an OS that has full support from major vendors? I mean if Linux hampers your enjoyment of the internet, then just get rid of it.

And it only took them 8 years! (1)

Bollie (152363) | more than 3 years ago | (#36760044)

If you look at the timeline of the amd64 architecture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#History_of_AMD64 [wikipedia.org]

Then it only took 8 years to make a 64-bit port from the date of the first available amd64 machine. If you take into account the date of the first full spec released to the public, it's almost 11 years.

Now if only complex software like the Linux Kernel could be ported in shorter time....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>