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 Makes Flash on GNU/Linux Chrome-Only

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the firefox-users-storm-headquarters dept.

Google 404

ekimd writes "Adobe has anounced their plans to abandon future updates of their Flash player for Linux. Partnering with Google, after the release of 11.2, 'the Flash Player browser plugin for Linux will only be available via the 'Pepper' API as part of the Google Chrome browser distribution and will no longer be available as a direct download from Adobe.' Viva la HTML 5!" And it appears that Mozilla won't be implementing Pepper anytime soon.

cancel ×

404 comments

Terminology (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39123879)

Who the fuck put "GNU/Linux" in the title of this?

Re:Terminology (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39123973)

Probably someone who wants to distinguish the GNU/Linux environment, which uses Linux for a kernel and X11 for graphics, from the Android environment, which uses Linux for a kernel but does not use X11.

Re:Terminology (5, Insightful)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124027)

How does putting "GNU" before "Linux" indicate it runs X11? The X Window System isn't a GNU project, nor is it licensed under the GPL.

Re:Terminology (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124061)

So basically a freetard. Besides what does X11 have to do with GNU? If it's because of the environment which uses Linux for the kernel and X11 for graphics, shouldn't that be MIT/Linux not GNU/Linux?

Re:Terminology (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124267)

I don't think it really achieves that.

Anyone who sees GNU and thinks what you just said already knows the full story. Everyone else either rolls their eyes, or assumes it has something to do with the license (I've heard more than a few people say "oh, that's probably licensed under the GNU").

Lets not kid ourselves. At most, if anything it serves as a kind of acknowledgment for the RMS crowd.

Re:Terminology (4, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124457)

What I don't get is the total cluelessness on display here. let me get this straight, you are FOR software freedom and FOSS, yes? So you boo the software that actually lets you install it royalty free, and even lets you make your own free clone called gnash, and in return you fricking CHEER having the web taken over by a "standard" that is run by a company that might as well have "Pay your $699 license fee you cock smoking teabaggers" as its motto? Did I miss a meeting? Was there an episode in the series i skipped?

HTML V5 is gonna be locked down tighter than a nun's thighs and is controlled by one of the most aggressive patent trolls there has ever been and THAT is good? Has everyone kinda had a senior moment and forgot that H.264 is patented up the ass and is controlled by a conglomeration that will happily sue your ass if you look at them funny? If anything everyone should be having a royal shitfit and refuse to have a damned thing to do with HTML V5 until it takes either WebM or Theora as the lowest common denominator. because as it is now frankly you're all about to get severely buttraped and you don't even see that train sized penis headed right at you. With Flash Adobe has never bitched, you want flash, gnash, whatever its cool. With H.264 if you don't break out the checkbook you ain't distributing shit, and what do you think will happen when the DRM hits? you DO know its coming yes? you don't think they are gonna let netflix show movies without it do you? What do you think happens then? I'll tell ya what then if you don't pay your license fee and set up some kind of secure path you'll be breaking DMCA if you have H.264 in your distro that's what.

So please think people, yes I use Windows but I sure as hell don't want Apple and MSFT and Google controlling the web between them, we've seen what corporate crap ends up with real player and WMV, lets not go back to that alright? The FOSS guys are the ones that run the web, yes? After all that's what you brag all the time, so do something! Refuse to support HTML V5 until a standard that anybody can use is the lowest common denominator. Because if you don't Apple and Google and MSFT will pay their $699 license fees and the rest of you will get to be locked out. Think folks, you are so blinded by hatred of flash you are laughing about beating the old dog down while a pack of lions are about to have you for dinner.

Re:Terminology (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124561)

Actually, I think they call it GNU/Linux because the userland utilities that come with the kernel (i.e. bash, ls, cp, tar, etc.) are all the GNU built variants, rather than, for example, the BSD variants.

This is mostly, I believe, to appease the rabid RMS fanbois.

Re:Terminology (5, Interesting)

bhaak1 (219906) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124039)

If you care enough and agree with RMS about the "GNU/Linux" naming issue, you shouldn't have been running Flash in the first place.

Re:Terminology (1)

Unknown Lamer (78415) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124357)

Guilty on both counts ;)

In casual conversation, I refer to the OS as "GNU" -- If it's just Android ... you must acquit.

Re:Terminology (2)

GioMac (862536) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124091)

Another Debubuntuian user at Geeknet detected. Generating dump.

Re:Terminology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124155)

Indeed.

It kind of illustrates the shift in attitude when most people (including myself) roll their eyes at this. Still a few hard core church of RMS guys out there... and I'm sure we'll be hearing from them shortly.. but I think the majority has turned to the "oh get a life" side of things.

Re:Terminology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124283)

Obviously, someone who cares about fucking semantics.

Ahem (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39123889)

And nothing of value was lost. Here's to people moving to the free alternatives.

Re:Ahem (4, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39123909)

Indeed.

I (like most) hate flash. It’s a pain to get running, even more of a pain to get audio working correctly if you use something like jackd, sucks a tonne of resources, crashes all the time, etc.

That said, there have always been _just enough_ headaches around not having flash to make it worth the bother.

I doubt this will kill flash or even make any impact towards that goal. Linux firefox users just isn’t a big enough market. It will however be the shove I needed to look into getting away from requiring flash (alternate video player plugins to watch flash video (99% of my need for flash) and maybe greasemonkey scripts or something to deal with flash navigation on the few sites I can’t simply ignore.

I mean I can always install chrome as just a “flash browser” .. but that sounds really icky.

Re:Ahem (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124031)

Linux firefox users just isn’t a big enough market

What about Linux Firefox users plus Linux Chromium Browser users?

Re:Ahem (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124151)

The PPAPI Adobe will be using is common to both the Chromium and Chrome browser (they are both based on the same source code), so this will have zero impact on Chromium users.

Re:Ahem (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124193)

Unless I read wrong, chrome should still be fine. Even then though.. anyone using flash for navigation probably has a "if they can't use the site, tough" attitude. They are also excluding many users of smartphones... which is probably a bigger market than linux users.

Re:Ahem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124065)

heh?? a pain to get running??? it's a freakin breeze to get flash working, there's even a plugin for firefox to notify and update when a new version is available....

Re:Ahem (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124187)

With jackd?

Getting flash to talk through alsaplug to jackd was an _epic_ pain.. and glitchy as hell. There was also a plugin someone had made that kinda worked, but again.. really glitchy.

Re:Ahem (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124479)

That said, there have always been _just enough_ headaches around not having flash to make it worth the bother.

Really? I have found that not having Flash installed is one of the better choices I made. Licensing aside (do you really feel comfortable agreeing not to develop any competing software?), the only thing I seem to be missing without Flash are annoying, CPU and memory consuming advertisements. Youtube videos can be downloaded with relative ease, Flash games add nothing to my life, and if my bank ever tried to make their website require Flash I would ditch them immediately. What compelling reason is there for me to have Flash installed on my computer?

Re:Ahem (3, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124617)

Newer versions of firefox can even watch Youtube videos without flash...

So, overall, I don't think I'm missing anything without flash on my computer, except a lot of stuff I'd rather miss anyway.

emulation go! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39123911)

Don't worry, someone will write a firefox plugin to emulate pepper in javascript

Smokescreen, an SWF player in JavaScript (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124009)

An SWF player in JavaScript [slashdot.org] is more likely.

Re:Smokescreen, an SWF player in JavaScript (2)

jisom (113338) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124121)

Actually I see someone writing a PPAPI plugin for Firefox, ala nspluginwrapper.

Re:Smokescreen, an SWF player in JavaScript (4, Funny)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124381)

It's a fun rollercoaster.

Used to be a major pain to get flash running on linux. Then it got a little easier. Then 64bit came out and it got annoying again. Then they released a 64bit plugin and it got easier (unless you run jackd, then it's a royal pain in the ass). Then they stopped updating it and it became annoying.. then they did update it and it became easier again.. ANNNDDD now it's gonna get annoying again :D

Meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39123917)

So the loss is some video sites, games and an unstable plugin.

Also, even though Adobe will be providing security updates for five further years, it seems doubtful Flash will still be that used in five years.

Re:Meh... (3, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39123997)

I said this in an earlier comment, but I've always found there is _just enough_ flash still out there for it to be a headache not to have it.

Flash video is no problem (alternate players, worst case you can just download it and play it out of browser) .. site navigation can be dealt with sometimes.. but there are still a select few sites that you need for whatever reason (banking, work) that are largely flash based. And unfortunately linux firefox users are not a big enough market to push these sites away from flash.

Re:Meh... (5, Insightful)

trnk (1887028) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124161)

If your bank is using flash for account management you need to get a new bank.

Re:Meh... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124445)

I've never seen it used for actual management. I have seen it used for displaying graphs, calculators, and information "handbooks".

Re:Meh... (1, Insightful)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124017)

Don't forget un-deletable supercookies!

Err , not really (4, Informative)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124105)

rm -rf ~/.macromedia

Re:Err , not really (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124535)

Or the BetterPrivacy plugin.

Re:Meh... (2)

bipbop (1144919) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124153)

Browsers have been deleting "un-deletable supercookies" those since Flash 10.3. Though the more visible effect is users deleting their Flash game save data without meaning to.

Re:Meh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124181)

Don't forget un-deletable supercookies!

I've never had any problems deleting the supposedly "un-deletable" super-cookies.

Re:Meh... (1)

Truekaiser (724672) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124111)

along with 75% of the web and any hope of pulling more users to use linux.

Re:Meh... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124185)

So the loss is some video sites, games and an unstable plugin.

And ads.

Re:Meh... (0)

SirGeek (120712) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124411)

So the loss is some video sites, games and an unstable plugin.

And ads.

2 words - Add Block

Deathbed (4, Insightful)

KugelKurt (908765) | more than 2 years ago | (#39123925)

Flash is on its deathbed anyway. Even Adobe realized that and is migrating everything to HTML5, even employing programmers to implement HTML5/CSS3 features in WebKit.
Adobe gives a 5 year migration period which is probably more that HTML5 needs to succeed widespread.

Legacy works (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39123993)

Flash is on its deathbed anyway.

All the existing Flash animations and games on Weebl's Stuff, Homestar Runner, Kongregate, and Newgrounds are likely to keep SWF on life support for a very long time, be it through Adobe Flash Player or through Gnash.

Re:Legacy works (3, Informative)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124079)

All the existing Flash animations and games on Weebl's Stuff, Homestar Runner, Kongregate, and Newgrounds are likely to keep SWF on life support for a very long time, be it through Adobe Flash Player or through Gnash.

You're kidding, right? The games will become apps for Chrome or your mobile device, and the animations are already on YouTube. Go check JoeCartoon's offerings for examples (X in a blender etc).

Flash is in its' death throes.

Re:Legacy works (5, Informative)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124173)

You do realise that not all Flash content will migrate, right? A lot of it isn't being looked after by their authors any more.

Re:Legacy works (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124309)

Right...so if the authors of the garbage don't care about it any more, why should anyone else exactly?

Re:Legacy works (1)

chris.alex.thomas (1718644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124341)

yeah, but thats not my problem....

Re:Legacy works (2, Interesting)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124397)

I don't mean the actual Flash games on Newgrounds etc will become apps for Chrome. I meant that web games will be developed as Chrome apps, or for mobile devices instead. Flash is dying because nobody will code for it anymore.

Frankly I'm amazed that I had to make that distinction; I guess my grammar isn't as good as I thought.

Re:Legacy works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124231)

All the existing Flash animations and games on Weebl's Stuff, Homestar Runner, Kongregate, and Newgrounds are likely to keep SWF on life support for a very long time, be it through Adobe Flash Player or through Gnash.

You're kidding, right? The games will become apps for Chrome or your mobile device, and the animations are already on YouTube. Go check JoeCartoon's offerings for examples (X in a blender etc).

Flash is in its' death throes.

What, all old SWFs will magically transform themselves into HTML5/JS pages? Damn, Adobe was a lot more clever of developers than we give them credit for, given they somehow managed to make their SWF compilers create objects that could polymorph themselves into technology that didn't exist when they first made them, all without long, hard conversion efforts and language/development environment changes by the original creators of said content.

Note that those online SWF-to-HTML5 converters you may have seen ARE, in fact, shit, and aren't worth mentioning here unless you want to restrict Flash to everything before version 8 just to make a point.

Re:Legacy works (2)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124467)

And you miss the point - Adobe is no longer supporting Flash for the web. If those site designers aren't going to keep up with the direction technology is heading, not our problem. Other sites will and the sites that don't migrate will lose traffic.

Bottom line: upgrade or die. You are in an end of life cycle for Flash. You've been warned.

Re:Legacy works (1)

Prod_Deity (686460) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124373)

I often wondered how sites like the ones mentioned above would be pulling a transition from Flash to HTML.

Glad to see Joe Cartoon is getting the message. I might have to subscribe to show my appreciation for the move.

Re:Legacy works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124491)

The only reason Apps are popular is because companies can charge for them. The future will be apps that are embedded into websites.

Flash isn't going anywhere.

Re:Legacy works (5, Interesting)

KugelKurt (908765) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124243)

All the existing Flash animations and games on Weebl's Stuff, Homestar Runner, Kongregate, and Newgrounds are likely to keep SWF on life support for a very long time, be it through Adobe Flash Player or through Gnash.

Did you read my post? Adobe itself is migrating to HTML5. Adobe offers a tool (currently in beta) to convert Flash animations to HTML5: http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/wallaby/ [adobe.com]
I bet it'll be part of -- at the latest -- CS7.

Re:Legacy works (1, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124419)

Nobody does flash animations anymore. Why would you torture yourself for weeks to do that when you can use a modern rotoscoping app for animation and create a mpeg4 file in 1/10th the time.

Then embed it in a flash wrapper to play the video file to confuse fans that want the video file on their local drive.

Re:Legacy works (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124497)

It won't really matter in the end. There are various attempts to make a JavaScript Flash player, and they are actually pretty decent in some cases.
It will only be a matter of time before they are working well.

Adobe should actually work their asses off to actually make an official JavaScript player for Flash.
They have such a huge number of products for online media, they'd be idiots to not get their foot in first before anyone else does or they are going to lose a lot of that market.

One thing they should work very hard at is making these things as portable as possible.
This is the biggest problem with HTML5 "apps", they aren't easy to make portable. There is also very little binary support. You can store binary data to a very limited extent, but you also have to make sure that there aren't any characters that can break strings or enclosures.
Maybe they could try make a new pseudo-format that can encode data in binary without breaking these things, that would be incredibly helpful because Base64 is awful for storage.
And as far as I know, there is also no preloading support. At least, no methods I have seen that work within a single file being hooked in to a page with no further instruction from any other script external to it.

There is still a few things that need to be addressed. I haven't checked the hardware and file APIs, but those will be needed as well. Without those, it will prevent so many features that quite a number of sites use now, especially ones that allow use of webcams.

Re:Legacy works (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124557)

Gnash mostly works well enough, it should be good enough to stand in until Flash is properly deprecated.

DRM Video (5, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124543)

In addition to the tons of legacy content that will never be converted (due to limitations in tools, or abandonment), there is a lot of new content for which HTML 5 in not appropriate.

For example, there are a lot of nice video streaming services out there, and they all have been forced to use some sort of DRM by content providers. While I refuse to accept DRM on products I buy, I don't have an issue with it for rental/subscription services as long as it is available on the platforms I use, which can be an issue even without DRM. With Silverlight DRM not being included in Moonlight, you already could not watch Netflix and some live sports, now with Flash being discontinued for Linux, there will be no way to watch Hulu Plus, Amazon Instant Video, or any of the streaming video provided by networks. This is a use of Flash that HTML5 will never replace, because of valid ideological differences in the purpose of open web standards.

I don't consider a tool that is used for 90% of commercial video streaming, with no migration path to other tools to be "on its deathbed".

Re:Deathbed (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124641)

Given the shitty performance of, well, all of Adobe's software, I don't want their programmers anywhere near WebKit. "I come to bury HTML5, not to praise it."

Mozilla? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39123939)

Mozilla are struggling to remain relevant in a post-webkit world. Not being "interested" in Pepper is really going to help.

Re:Mozilla? (5, Insightful)

Elbart (1233584) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124195)

They also should have supported ActiveX, right?

Re:Mozilla? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124493)

You Slashdot guys sure love your non-sequiteurs.

Ironically, the Mozilla codebase runs on COM (or, at least, a highly convincing facsimile). But ActiveX was a bad idea. Pepper is not a bad idea. And now the Firefox NIH department at least has a reason to get its head out of its ass and drop the CBA angle.

Re:Mozilla? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124609)

Um... do you mean post-Gecko? Webkit is the engine used by Chrome (among others), not Mozilla.

Why Isn't Flash Dead Yet? (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#39123945)

It is BS like this from Adobe that will not make me shed a tear when Flash is eventually replaced.

ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39123947)

Don't need no stinkin' Flash!

Why no PPAPI? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39123951)

"And it appears that Mozilla won't be implementing Pepper anytime soon."

Why?

Re:Why no PPAPI? (1)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124047)

Because NPAPI is more than adequate for their needs?

Re:Why no PPAPI? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124361)

If it is, I'd like to see that pointed out on their Wiki pages. Right now, it simply mentions that they're not going to implement Pepper with no further explanation. When I go to the Pepper web site, I see all kinds of reasons why one would want to implement Pepper. If the Mozilla people just wrote a few words explaining the situation, it would make the situation much easier for confused users like me.

Goodbye, Adobe (4, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39123953)

Your days are numbered, and the number is not particularly large.

Re:Goodbye, Adobe (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124131)

Hmm, there's this little app called Photoshop that might keep them afloat for a while.

Re:Goodbye, Adobe (4, Insightful)

netsavior (627338) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124523)

Not only that but with After Effects they have figured out how to profit from the youtube generation... something I am not even sure youtube has done. I know it's the most expensive piece of software my 6 year-old has ever begged for.

Re:Goodbye, Adobe (5, Informative)

trnk (1887028) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124281)

Goodbye Adobe? I must have missed all the articles recently where they announced their decision to mothball their industry-standard tools for image manipulation, post-production, print design, web-prototyping and image workflow.

Flash is a tiny part of what Abobe does, don't expect them to be going anywhere soon.

And nothing of value of lost ... (3, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39123967)

Oh, sure, I'm sure some people will complain that their favorite game or whatever runs on Flash, and therefore it's a horrible and tragic loss.

But for some of us, it's a performance hog, a security risk, and a general nuisance. I've been avoiding the use of Flash whenever I can get away with it for over a decade. I associate it with annoying ads and ever-cookies more than I do anything useful. In fact, I'm not sure I can name a single site I use that makes use of Flash.

I look forward to the demise of Flash. Sorry that some of you will miss out of Super Duper Happy Fun Cow Clicker or whatever, but I personally will not mourn its loss.

Re:And nothing of value of lost ... (4, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124019)

"In fact, I'm not sure I can name a single site I use that makes use of Flash."

So you never use youtube then? Or any of the TV catch up services? You never view any lectures on TED?

Re:And nothing of value of lost ... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124101)

Flashblock will play many of those things directly as HTML5, except the DRM encumbered stuff of course, which I don't care for anyway.

Flash on Linux has been a pig since the day it was ported over. I for one, will be glad for the battery life improvements alone...

Re:And nothing of value of lost ... (3, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124159)

So you never use youtube then? Or any of the TV catch up services? You never view any lectures on TED?

Actually, no apparently. And, if I do, I have native apps on my iPad for them ... none of them are running Flash.

My work computer has Flash, because that's part of the build, but I haven't had Flash on a machine I own in at least 10 years.

I don't see the attraction to You Tube for the most part (oooh, another cat video, I believe I'll vomit); I've got a PVR; and I've been meaning to watch a TED lecture but somehow never gotten around to it.

It may be hard to believe if you use Flash regularly, but some of us actually manage to exist without using it, and have for quite some time. It's literally not installed on my personal machine, and I believe never has been on this one.

I might have a VM that has it installed on it in case I find I absolutely do need it, but it would have to be something quite specific to make me go looking for something which will run Flash.

Re:And nothing of value of lost ... (5, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124589)

Actually, no apparently. And, if I do, I have native apps on my iPad for them ... none of them are running Flash.

Awesome, so the solution to replacing a small proprietary plugin like Flash is to buy an entirely proprietary OS and/or device.

Re:And nothing of value of lost ... (2, Informative)

MadMaverick9 (1470565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124175)

So you never use youtube then?

you do not need a flash player to watch youtube videos.

smplayer v0.7.0 [sourceforge.net] can play youtube videos just fine.

http://smplayer.sourceforge.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5255 [sourceforge.net]

Support for youtube. Now you can open urls like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= [youtube.com] ..... using the Open -> URL dialog or dragging a link from a browser to the smplayer window.

Re:And nothing of value of lost ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124393)

Youtube doesn't require flash anymore.

Deinstall Flash and Youtube will not behave differently.

Re:And nothing of value of lost ... (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124073)

In fact, I'm not sure I can name a single site I use that makes use of Flash.

You must not get out much. I just checked BBC, CNN and they both use flash. If I go to the top three news sites in Norway (VG, Dagbladet, Aftenposten) they all use flash. Okay they all use them for ads but for a business based on showing people ads that's a rather essential use. Kill flash and the ads won't go away, they'll become HTML5 ads.

Re:And nothing of value of lost ... (3, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124265)

You must not get out much. I just checked BBC, CNN and they both use flash ... Okay they all use them for ads but for a business based on showing people ads that's a rather essential use.

See, I don't consider CNN to be worth reading -- they lost anything like journalistic integrity years ago in my opinion.

And, I don't give a damn about the ads people are running. All I see is Ad Block Plus or NoScript telling me that "this rectangle contains something you didn't want to see anyway". It was ads that made me hate Flash in the first place.

Let me clarify ... sure, sites that I use have Flash crap on them all of the time. But I don't have a player installed, and any of the stuff they are using Flash for has so far failed to make me think "oooh, I gotta get me some of that". It's just the crap in the corners I wasn't going to look at anyway. If I can't see the rest of your web page without it, I'll find another one.

In fact, every time I am forced to use a browser that does have Flash on it, it makes me want to kill someone from Adobe.

I'm not interested in their ads, and I'm sure as hell not giving them CPU cycles to animate some fucking monkey. :-P

Please, enjoy Flash to your heart's content ... but for me, it is, and always has been something I don't want on my machine. As such, I simply don't use it.

Re:And nothing of value of lost ... (2, Insightful)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124295)

I look forward to the demise of Flash.

Initially this will hurt Firefox on Linux. It might be an indication that Adobe doesn't intend to put a lot of resources into Flash anymore, but the action itself should have very little impact on Flash.

Google Microsoft (-1, Flamebait)

1s44c (552956) | more than 2 years ago | (#39123971)

Slowly and surely google are turning into the next Microsoft.

Screw you google, I never fell for the Microsoft lock-in and I'm not going to fall for yours.

Re:Google Microsoft (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124119)

....you do know that Adobe, not Google, makes Flash right?

Re:Google Microsoft (2, Insightful)

Elbart (1233584) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124203)

Chrom*'s the only browser to support PPAPI as of now.

Re:Google Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124235)

Partnering with Google, etc etc...

Re:Google Microsoft (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124335)

You have to ask yourself, who stands to gain from this? The answer is clearly Google.

I would not doubt money changed hands in this decision, or at the very least there is some corporate backscratching going on here.

Re:Google Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124225)

Slowly? They're already worse, collecting data on everything you do in exchange for free half-baked products.

Stupid marketing from google (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124051)

Hmm if google think that that way more people running Linux will use chrome. I'm sure they are for a nasty surprise. I predict more people returning to firefox them going to chrome over this.

Source Code (1)

Grindalf (1089511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124137)

Just ask them for the source code, why, we'll compile for lin ourselves. No Problem - Grin.

GOOGLE = MICROSOFT v1.99 (1, Flamebait)

GioMac (862536) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124143)

Mozilla/Other browsers?
----> https://wiki.mozilla.org/NPAPI:Pepper [mozilla.org]

Mozilla is not interested in or working on Pepper at this time. See the Chrome Pepper pages.

Verdict: Google did it.

They've killed Kenny! Bastards!

What about gnash? (1)

IYagami (136831) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124197)

Is it a viable alternative against flash? According to http://gnashdev.org/ [gnashdev.org] last version is 0.8.9 published in march 2011.

Re:What about gnash? (5, Informative)

risom (1400035) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124315)

For videos it's quite fine (I tested youtube and vimeo), but most interactive stuff doesn't work, e.g. games or interactive charts etc.

The really nice thing about gnash ist the platform independence. No problem to watch a video on an old iBook with a Power CPU running Linux. Try that with the adobe player :)

Is flash really relevant these days? (1)

risom (1400035) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124227)

In the past I needed flash for two things: Piwik and (to a lesser extend) youtube. Piwik switched to HTML5 graphs about half a year ago IIRC , and youtube appears to play every video with a HTML5 player for a while now. Same goes for vimeo.

I have uninstalled flash in the moment Piwik made the switch (gnash did not work with Piwik btw). Being on AMD64 flash was a chore anyway, so since then browsing was suddenly faster and more stable.

I can only imagine people playing these advergames would miss flash, but it will probably only be a few months until these sites adapt and offer HTML5 versions.

Chromium? (1)

suy (1908306) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124233)

For Flash Player releases after 11.2, the Flash Player browser plugin for Linux will only be available via the “Pepper” API as part of the Google Chrome browser distribution and will no longer be available as a direct download from Adobe.

Damn, what about chromium, then? Is quite annoying already having to install the Flash Player through an installer that fetches it from Adobe. Now we will have to use the proprietary bits of the browser, too? No way.

The end of an era (5, Insightful)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124289)

I've been doing rich client development in Flash ever since 2000 and to me the Flash Player for x86/Linux was a big selling point. True x-platform RTE with a huge amount of awesome features and a very good programming language with AS2 and AS3. A free cli compiler for all major platforms including Linux and an awesome workflow for building custom UIs with the Flash IDE.

I don't think there will be such a widespread and powerfull platform again in the future - it's a shame Adobe missed out on the whole touch revolution in the Flash dept. Just last year I bought my last stack of OReillys for Flex and AS development for a project I had. ... Guess that will have been my last. Just this morning I though of stashing them away to make room for my new C++ stack.

For me, one thing is for sure: As awesome as Flash was, it is the one and only proprietary platform and technology I will ever have invested significant time in. From here on out it's only truely OSI compliant FOSS technologies and PLs for me. That was also the main reason I didn't move into Unity3D when I was doing game development a while back.

Flash/AS it was a great 11 years. You will be missed.

My 2 cents.

firefox? Hardly knew ya (0, Troll)

flappinbooger (574405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124329)

I've just in the past couple months had to basically abandon firefox for day-to-day surfing. Memory bloat, instability and slowness are to blame. Yes I was updated, yes I had minimal addons. The constant update cycle which broke many other addons was semi-tolerable. Sad to say, but it is true - Chrome it is. But since all the major plugins I use are available in chrome, I can do just fine.

The one plugin I haven't been able to duplicate yet is something like "unplug" which snags embedded videos with ease.

The final straw was when gmail was locking up the browser for no reason. Java and flash were updated, ff was updated. Come on, man!

Five years from now (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124439)

What the summary largely skips over is that this plan to abandon Flash on Linux is scheduled to take place five years from now. Adobe is planning to provide updates to their Linux Flash player until then. After five years it's likely HTML5 and Gnash will be up to the task of handling everything people currently use Adobe flash for.

Flash as a browser plug-in is deprecated. (4, Interesting)

FellowConspirator (882908) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124453)

In Adobe's announcement regarding the end of mobile Flash support, they stated that they were conceding to HTML5 in the web browser and will be focusing on moving Flash to desktop platform application development. While I suppose it was subtly stated, the implication was that they intend to phase out Flash as a browser plug-in entirely. Linux/X11 was already the most difficult for them to implement and had the highest cost/benefit, so it makes perfect sense for it to be the first to go. I imagine Google wants to keep Legacy Flash for Chrome on Linux if for no other reason than to secure another leg up on the browser competition. Overall, Google probably would just assume Flash die off, but if they can get buy-in from Linux users and push WebM and Dart in the process, then it's worth the effort.

Security support for 5 years (5, Informative)

uberbrodt (1064400) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124487)

From the press release:

"Adobe will continue to provide security updates to non-Pepper distributions of Flash Player 11.2 on Linux for five years from its release."

If we believe the (mainstream) migration from Flash to HTML5 will be accomplished in that timeframe, I don't see this being a big issue for Firefox or other Linux browsers not using the Pepper API

And... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39124547)

And not a single fuck was given that day...

flash (4, Informative)

aahpandasrun (948239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39124581)

2 years ago, this would have been AN OUTRAGE! Now? Not so much. Just set your user agent to iPad, and a lot of video sites will work without Flash.
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...