×

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!

The Return of GPLFlash

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the guess-who's-back-back-again dept.

The Internet 418

ValourX writes "Remember GPLFlash, the free software project that was supposed to replace the proprietary Macromedia Flash plugin? Well it's back in active development according to this NewsForge article. GPLFlash is half of the proprietary duo that the Free Software Foundation is rallying to replace with free equivalents. The alpha release isn't far away, but the development team could use some programming help, if you're available."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

418 comments

Link to its homepage! (0)

wikinerd (809585) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707495)

Please link to GPLFlash from your website. You may use an unofficial logo I created, download it here [wikinerds.org].

Re:Link to its homepage! (3, Insightful)

Enigma_Man (756516) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707518)

Worst... Logo... Ever.

-Jeff Albertson

Re:Link to its homepage! (0)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707617)

Are you kidding? Then again, not everybody gets Cayce Pollard-like symptoms everytime they see the IE logo like I do, I suppose.

Re:Link to its homepage! (4, Funny)

Enigma_Man (756516) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707649)

am I kidding? Have you seen it? It's awful, straight out of 1991, it would fit just perfect next to a couple of animated gifs of "under construction" and "send me e-mail" that folds up into an envelope and flies away. I mean, I don't usually criticize people contributing free stuff, but damn. I could've peed something in the snow better than that.

-Jesse

Re:Link to its homepage! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707670)

It looks like the logo of a warez group from the early 90's. I also can't imagine it took more than a minute to think up and a minute to create. It's definitely unprofessional and poorly done. This logo would serve to discourage potential users rather than attract them.

Re:Worst logo ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707666)

Really? I guess you haven't seen TWiki's logos: http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/TWiki/TWikiLogos [twiki.org]

Re:Worst logo ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707745)

The TWiki logos aren't great, but this GPL Flash logo is just poor. There's a huge difference. There's some obvious artistic ability that went into creating the robot, for one. This logo is just a marble background, a cheesy font, and two solid lines.

Re:Worst logo ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707789)

Izn't dat kopywrite infringement? NBC shud be notified of this travesty!

Re:Worst logo ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707764)

Isn't that the pedophiliac robot from Buck Rogers TV series? Erin Gray was such a little hotty, and Buck was so obviously a fag. Just the way him and that robot were eyeing Gary Coleman on his guest appearance... brrrr. Shades of Whacko Jacko! I bet Buck and the robot got it on at night. "Twiki, a good anal pounding requires lubrication. Try WD-40! That's it, easy it on in."

Re:Link to its homepage! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707756)

Insightfull My ass , that is just trolling.
Would you care to mention why it is the worst logo ever.
I assure you i have seen worse in my time.
It may not be perfect , but he put some effort in to helping .
So either help him make it better by pointing out what he did wrong or shut up.

Re:Link to its homepage! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707792)

Actually that logo indicates that he is suffering severe mental retardation. If that's "trying", then perhaps someone should give him so Lego to play with, but make sure he doesn't eat it.

And what's up your ass?

Re:Link to its homepage! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707565)

No thanks, I don't want to scare away my visitors.

Re:Link to its homepage! (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707688)

You may use an unofficial logo I created, download it here.

Good god... my eyes!!! Must... claw out... mental image...

Re:Link to its homepage! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707824)

Hot damn! It looks like a logo off a 90s warez site.

Elaborate (2, Interesting)

Quasar1999 (520073) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707504)

What kind of help? And more importantly, how are they making something compatable? Reverse engineering? I wouldn't want to be in the USA helping this effort... the DMCA could very well be used by macromedia to contain any third party renderers that may appear. They have a ton of money on the line...

Re:Elaborate (1)

Wm_K (761378) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707515)

SWF is an open format as far as I know, you can find the documentation of the format on the Macromedia website. There are quite a few GPL SWF creation tools also.

Re:Elaborate (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707609)

Actually if you read the agreements through which that documentation is avaliable, you'll notice that they are provided with the intent of allowing you to create SWF, not play it.

Re:Elaborate (2, Informative)

Wm_K (761378) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707699)

http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/open/lice nsing/fileformat/license2.html [macromedia.com] You are indeed right...the license states

Pursuant to the terms and conditions of this License, you are granted a nonexclusive license to use the Specification for the sole purposes of developing Products that output SWF

Developing a SWF player would probably mean breaking the license agreement. I don't think it means breaking the DMCA.

Re:Elaborate (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707527)

Um, like, RTFA and stuff?

"So when can we expect a usable release of GPLFlash2? "To make an alpha release," Choquet said, "we need to improve the following things:

* Improve external resources support, so the player may redirect to a location or use external data
* Implement keyboard inputs
* Fix button problems
* Have an ActionScript engine that works. ActionScript libraries may not be completed, but the engine should work.
* Make the plugin more robust, especially concerning fonts and memory allocation
* Fix the configure file and the makefile so everything will get installed properly on different GNU/Linux distros"

A usable Flash player should be available soon. "Given the amount of work, I don't expect any kind of preliminary release before the end of June or July. If we don't do that before we make an alpha release, people will be disappointed as they will not see any benefits compared to GPLFlash."

Groth added that more development help will produce a complete, free Flash player and plugin in a shorter amount of time. Interested developers can contact Groth and Choquet through the GPLFlash mailing list."

Re:Elaborate (1)

MS-06FZ (832329) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707543)

Do they really lose money if someone else makes a compatible flash player? They give the player away. They make their money by selling the authoring tools. It'll take more than even free authoring tools to be a threat, as long as their tools are better. There are a hell of a lot of people making flash stuff these days - ads, websites, cartoons, whatever - it's worth it to a designer to spend the money to get a tool they're happy with, rather than struggle with a free tool.

Re:Elaborate (2, Funny)

IBeatUpNerds (827376) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707563)

They have a ton of money on the line...

Yeah, definitely. At $0.00 per download for their flash plugin, a hit like this is really going to make them ache.

Re:Elaborate (1)

brontus3927 (865730) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707795)

Why should Macromedia care that someone is using a 3rd party renderer as a replacement to their free renderer? Now if somebody wrote a third party flash creation program, there would be problems

News Flash (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707507)

First Post!!

So Flash is good now? (3, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707512)

Is it ?? Is it?? Tell me, I dont know what to think now after all the anti flash vitriol.

Re:So Flash is good now? (1)

ahaning (108463) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707583)

Haven't you played Nanaka Crash?

Also, I'm as ticked off by overuse of Flash as the next person, but there are some clever things out there done in Flash.

On Windows, I'd suggest installing the latest IE Flash plugin and use Media Player Classic (apparently the Firefox plugin doesn't work).

Re:So Flash is good now? (1)

matt me (850665) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707656)

>So Flash is good now? Flash is bad. But is that bad as in rad as in wicked as in good or bad as in inaccesible, inusuable and memory intensive?

Re:So Flash is good now? (1)

Mr Guy (547690) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707673)

Bad as in "I'll take 'Things that happen after lights out in Prison' for 1000 Alex".

Why? (-1, Troll)

marco13185 (888912) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707525)

Why would you waste your time writing an open-source plugin when a perfectly working one already exists (and is free)?

Re:Why? (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707542)

Ever tried to get flash to work on linux PPC or linux arm etc

Re:Why? (1)

MS-06FZ (832329) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707566)

Or even hoped the sound would synchronize properly on Intel/Linux...

Re:Why? (1)

Lisandro (799651) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707823)

Or use a proper audio backend. I mean, even RealPlayer is smart enough to figure out what you're using and adapt to it. Flash, on the other hand, keeps trying to use ESD; on my system (ALSA with the dMix plugin), the Flash plugin will refuse to play sound if anything else is playing at the time - every other program manages to do it just fine.

And yes, it doesn't seem able to play a clip over 30 seconds long without losing audio/video sync.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707560)

If you run Linux on x86, that is.

Because.... (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707569)

Because it is only free as in iPods. Not free as in speech.

Because what's avaliable isn't really that great.

Because they think they can do better.

Re:Why? (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707572)

Please re-enroll yourself in the FSF GPL Religion retraining center as the first phase obviously didn't take.

Re:Why? (1)

FhnuZoag (875558) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707573)

Libre vs beer. Ease of porting to unsupported browsers. Insurance against Macromedia going crazy and making the next version a license encumbered, 'feature rich', bug ridden mess. The same old reasons.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707669)

;) libre vs Gratis .I am Honestly not trying to Grammar troll , I am just trying to bolster the sentiment

Re:Why? (1)

gclef (96311) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707585)

I think "perfectly working" is a bit of a stretch. It loads, doesn't crash, and displays video and audio...fair enough. If you want them to sync up, though, you're out of luck.

Macromedia isn't showing much interest in making their Linux client much better (why should they?), so this effort is a perfectly reasonable one, I think.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707638)

Becaused it isn't licenced under the GPL. If it ain't GPL I don't touch it. Never even used flash to tell you the truth, why would someone want to see graphics on a webpage? The web is made for plain text - ANSI only, if you don't speak English to bad.
Anyway, when this software becomes stable (probably sometime in 2012) I may start using it, but only if it is written in my favorite programming language - F1917. It is great for developing programs with a CLI.
Maybe I can join the project and add a version which outputs ANSI graphics... maybe they need a F1917 programmer too.

Mr. Fud
President of the Fud Software Foundation
Super-duper programmer

Re:Why? (1)

Brazilian Joe (514100) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707737)

Because it can be ported to as many platforms as we want to without waiting for the benevolence of the whizbang-antialiased-vector-animation-website-intr o-blinking-ads-with-sound overlords, several rendering backends will eventually be possible (OpenGL accelerated, albeit fullscreen flash animations are not an issue anymore with current cpus, but offloading processing to GPU is IMO a Good Thing®), there are actually a few good things made in flash, like Strong Bad [homestarrunner.com] , it will be a while until svg gets traction on the internet, and there are already SVG implementations going along which will not die (KDE, Mozilla, Gnome).

Gentlemen (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707534)

Gentlemen, the time has come for a serious discussion on whether or not to continue using C for serious programming projects. As I will explain, I feel that C needs to be retired, much the same way that Fortran, Cobol and Perl have been. Furthermore, allow me to be so bold as to suggest a superior replacement to this outdated language.

To give you a little background on this subject, I was recently asked to develop a client/server project on a Unix platform for a Fortune 500 company. While I've never coded in C before I have coded in flash for fifteen years, and in Java for over ten, I was stunned to see how poorly C fared compared to these two, more low-level languages.

C's biggest difficulty, as we all know, is the fact that it is by far one of the slowest languages in existance, especially when compared to more modern languages such as Java and FLASH. Although the reasons for this are varied, the main reasons seems to be the way C requires a programmer to laboriously work with chunks of memory.

Requiring a programmer to manipulate blocks of memory is a tedious way to program. This was satisfactory back in the early days of coding, but then again, so were punchcards. By using what are called "pointers" a C programmer is basically requiring the computer to do three sets of work rather than one. The first time requires the computer to duplicate whatever is stored in the memory space "pointed to" by the pointer. The second time requires it to perform the needed operation on this space. Finally the computer must delete the duplicate set and set the values of the original accordingly.

Clearly this is a horrendous use of resources and the chief reason why C is so slow. When one looks at a more modern (and a more serious) programming language like Java, C# or - even better - Flash that lacks such archaic coding styles, one will also note a serious speed increase over C.

So what does this mean for the programming community? I think clearly that C needs to be abandonded. There are two candidates that would be a suitable replacement for it. Those are Java and Flash.

Having programmed in both for many years, I believe that flash has the edge. Not only is it slightly faster than Java its also much easier to code in. I found C to be confusing, frightening and intimidating with its non-GUI-based coding style. Furthermore, I like to see the source code of the projects I work with. Java's source seems to be under the monopolistic thumb of Sun much the way that GCC is obscured from us by the marketing people at the FSF. Macromedia's "shared source" under which Flash is released definately seems to be the most fair and reasonable of all the licenses in existance, with none of the harsh restrictions of the BSD license. It also lacks the GPLs requirement that anything coded with its tools becomes property of the FSF.

I hope to see a switch from C to flash very soon. I've already spoken with various luminaries in the C coding world and most are eager to begin to transition. Having just gotten off the phone with Mr. Alan Cox, I can say that he is quite thrilled with the speed increases that will occur when the Linux kernel is completely rewritten in Flash . Richard Stallman plans to support this, and hopes that the great Swede himself, Linux Torvaldis, won't object to renaming Linux to flash/Linux. Although not a C coder himself, I'm told that Slashdot's very own Admiral Taco will support this on his web site. Finally, Dennis Ritchie is excited about the switch!

Thank you for your time. Happy coding.

Dude (0, Flamebait)

MisanthropicProgram (763655) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707567)

Ya know you're going to be modded into "Flamebait" oblivion. Why did you post this?

Re:Dude (0, Troll)

MisanthropicProgram (763655) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707734)

Oh, The mod for my post is real funny! Thanks guys! This is why I think there's Mod point inflation. And why I think there should be age verification before folks are given Mod points!! So, High School student, living in their parent's house, mod this into "Flamebait" or "Troll" oblivion!!!

I've been M'Moderating more and more moderations as being unfair in the last few months. I think the /. managers need to reevaluate their moderation system!

When you hit 40... (1)

MisanthropicProgram (763655) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707820)

you start speaking your mind more.

I'm beginning to think that I need to stop coming here.
I wish you yougsters would stand up for yourselves more. I know that you don't agree with everything here, but you're afraid of being modded "Flaimbait" or "Troll". I don'y give a shit. I can start a new account, pander to /. groupthink, and get modderation and Metamodderation rights withing a week. Stick up for yourselves! Trustme! I'm an oldguy who wishes he wasnt sucj a pussy!!!

Spelling errors intentional!! The best authors couldn't spell!!!Take that Grammar Nazis!!!

Re:Gentlemen (0, Redundant)

marco13185 (888912) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707575)

Do you understand that C is one of the most effective languages in use today? This is why most of the linux infrastructure is written in C.

Java is horrible. Java uses a virtual machine that runs at the speed of my old Pentium 2.

Flash isn't even a programming language. ActionScript can't do anything compared to C.

Another thing, Java and Flash are interpreted languages. C, on the other hand is compiled. Compiled programs are infinitely faster than interpreted programs.

Re:Gentlemen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707668)

Mister, you are a complete idiot. Read the post again, if you understand as much as you claim you do, you should end up laughing quite loudly..it's one of the few seriously funny posts in quite a while

Re:Gentlemen (3, Insightful)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707727)

Java uses a virtual machine that runs at the speed of my old Pentium 2.

Blah blah that's grown very tiresome. Newer AWT and Swing applications run quite nicely thinks. I use Zend PHP studio and it feels as good as a good as any win32 or gtk app. The theme engine might not translate over from Gnome to Java, but that's not the end of the world.

Another thing, Java and Flash are interpreted languages

AFAIK you've been able to compile Java for a long time now IIRC. Isn't that what gcc-java is for?

You had me until that point. Comparing Java to Flash is like comparing c to animated gif. Different tools for different problems.

Re:Gentlemen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707794)

Actually, most versions of Java (including Sun's) come with a Just-in-Time compiler which compiles the code right before execution. You don't even need gcc-java.

Re:Gentlemen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707576)

::yawn:: That was 100% entertainment-free. Consider trolling on this site [disney.com] instead.

Re:Gentlemen (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707588)

Man do you even know what a trolling message looks like. Sheesh, you gotta work on the subtlty.

Re:Gentlemen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707608)

I am fairly new to the computer science field, but even so, I think you might be confused. I know that Java is faster than C, but I'm not sure that flash is. I'm not even sure about Flash's low level I/O routines - which is imperitive if you are going to write an OS in it!

Re:Gentlemen (1)

marco13185 (888912) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707635)

I don't believe Java can possibly be faster. It runs on a virtual machine and is interpreted. C is compiled into machine code. "Programming" in flash is like graphics design in MS Paint.

Re:Gentlemen (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707647)

Uh dude.. this is an example of a more effective troll. Clearly this guy has more experience than the grandparent, who is just plain rusty.

Re:Gentlemen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707780)

Java is not interpreted.

Java has actually been benched to be faster than C. There are tons of these benchmarks out there - go look.

Re:Gentlemen (1)

FLAGGR (800770) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707641)

Java isn't faster than C... maybe faster development time... What language do you think the Java VM's are coded in?

Re:Gentlemen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707714)

It's a Perl one-liner.

Re:Gentlemen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707763)

Java's VM is actually written in Java.

There are lots of benchmarks showing Java outpacing C and C++ (due to Java's ability to do dynamic optimization on the fly as code is running)

Programming Help (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707536)

The alpha release isn't far away, but the development team could use some programming help, if you're available."

I'm available. Let me know where the VBScript coderz can sign up.

Qualifications (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707537)

The alpha release isn't far away, but the development team could use some programming help, if you're available."

I haven't coded shit in 4 years (I wasted my time and money to get an MBA in the last couple of years after being out of work for over a year. Don't get an MBA!! It's FUCKING worthless!!!!!!!!!!!!!). I was a C++ coder back then. What I'm saying is, appearantly I'm not qualified to get a tech job now - or any other job.
Do you think they'd take me?!?

Re:Qualifications (1)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707805)

Your code quality is your qualifications. Write code. Submit it. If its good enough, they'll take it.

Problem. (3, Interesting)

Sheepdot (211478) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707546)

The alpha release isn't far away, but the development team could use some programming help, if you're available.

I would think that they are having problems getting programming support mainly because there are not enough people that see the flash engine as such a travesty to be closed source when it is given out for free, anyway. Same goes for Java.

The only problem with replacing free beer with free speech is that if you have the beer, you're more likely to slur the speech or forget about it altogether.

There is not enough incentive for this project to flourish.

Cool (5, Informative)

ortcutt (711694) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707547)

Linux on PPC users don't expect a flash player from Macromedia anytime soon, so continued GPLflash development is good for us.

Re:Cool (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707636)

It would be nice to have the option incase i ever do find myself needing Flash installed , though most of the stuff flash is used for is rather annoying i do on occasion enjoy a few web cartoons.
Which has ment i would need to boot an x86 machine or boot into OS X , not too much of a problem really but its always nice to have options .
Added to that the fact of having a GPL version , as OSS is always my first choice.

Re:Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707686)

I find it convienient as I don't see all the ads :)
But some sites have no non-flash version... :(

Having a GPL flash increase choice of OS and hardware.

In addition of not being able for a lot of platforms, the licence agreement of Macromedia disallow the use of Flash on some operating systems (ex: the *BSD) as well as on some hardware (server hardware).

Re:Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707782)

Linux on PPC users don't expect a flash player from Macromedia anytime soon, so continued GPLflash development is good for us.

Not to be too insensitive about it, but maybe the two of you should volunteer if that's what you want.

Re:Cool (1)

ne0n (884282) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707834)

I thought that was the main benefit?
OTOH as long as FlashBlock still works I don't give a crap.

Another Example of Linux 'Innovation' (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707555)

reverse engineer and copy.

Go Team Linux!

Re:Another Example of Linux 'Innovation' (1)

FLAGGR (800770) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707680)

Uh no one claimed to be innovating...

So let me get this straigt: instead they should create a new format that no one will use because theyre used to using flash right? For the sake of innovation? Look at the web, its full of flash. Making a open source flash player is pretty damn shameful isn't it.

Re:Another Example of Linux 'Innovation' (1)

imarsman (305818) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707730)

As I recall, Macromedia didn't seem at all motivated to produce a decent Flash viewer for Linux until the current one in its earlier version came along. Innovation, motivation, both are useful.

Open source SWF decompiler ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707558)

What about an Open Source decompiler for SWF files ?

The ambiguously proprietary duo (1)

SendBot (29932) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707582)

GPLFlash is half of the proprietary duo that the Free Software Foundation is rallying to replace with free equivalents.

Macromedia's free as in beer flash plugin is the correct "half of the duo". The other half are the proprietary java implementations.

Causality paradox? (1)

product byproduct (628318) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707587)

The GPLFlash project appears on Slashdot because it is back in active development. The GPLFlash project is back in active development because it appears on Slashdot.

The biggest advantange... (1)

wolf31o2 (778801) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707614)

...that I see to this is the ability to run flash applications on non-x86 machines. Then again, I've grown accustomed to not seeing little punching monkeys and other such nonsense when surfing the web, so perhaps this isn't such a good thing, after all... ;]

Anyway, good job guys. I'm glad to hear that you're back in business.

Re:The biggest advantange... (1)

Teancom (13486) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707690)

Even on machines that are technically x86 (the AMD64 that I'm resting my legs on right now, for example) don't necessarily work with Macromedia's plugin. And besides just the monkey punching, there are still - even in the year 2005 - websites that I *have* to go to that *require* flash. So I end up starting a browser on a collegues machine and displaying it back. Just thought I would take the time to point that out to all the idiots that think X shouldn't be remote-transparent...

David

Re:The biggest advantange... (1)

dJCL (183345) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707808)

That would be my hope from a project such as this. I have an AMD64 based laptop, and linux on that, but flash is not an option for firefox.

I used to just connect to my main system, but it is being replaced with a dual AMD64 system soon too, so I need a working library once in a while.

Most of the time a barely notice, I don't even install flash for firefox on windows because the random sites that need it I can usually just pop open IE for a moment to take a look, get past the flash and copy the URL back to firefox.

JC

What a waste of decent skill (1)

GlassUser (190787) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707626)

How about we just finish ditching this flash crap? There are plenty of projects out there that aren't based on nonstandard proprietary specifications, breaking function models, and inane annoyances. Give the effort to something that's worth it.

GPL Flash... (1)

Eberlin (570874) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707628)

Once you get past the "Flash is EVIL" posts out there, and have browsed through the ming stuff for PHP -- are we anywhere near a GPLed Flash content creator?

I understand it'll eventually piss off the original creators and may break any sort of idea that Macrobe or Adobedia had about porting their stuff to Linux. Talk about vendor lock-in though.

Whether you like it or not, Flash has its uses. Would be nice to have an easy way to create the content without having to fork up that much cash to Adobe/Macromedia. Oh yeah...and all that stuff about software freedom and open formats, too.

What about svg + javascript (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707630)

Yeah mozilla need coders too right?

Dumb name? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#12707637)

They could begin by changin the project name, because the current one sounds very dumb. What is next, GPLPhotoshop, GPLWindows, or GPLCorel Draw?

GPL Acrobat Plugin???? (1)

IHaveVoot (709535) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707698)

That's fine and dandy having a GPL flash plugin, but does anyone know off hand of a GPL acrobat plugin? The POS one from Adobe likes to crash my firefox so much so that I prefer right-click-saving pdfs and opening then up with gpdf.

Re:GPL Acrobat Plugin???? (1)

mopslik (688435) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707797)

Why don't you just change the file association to automagically open in gpdf in the first place? It should be somewhere under Preferences.

As I'm a KDE user, I open all of my PDFs in kpdf by default...

Why must everything be a plugin??? (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707811)

Seriously? Firefox will happily fire up whatever pdf viewer you want as an external program. Running it as a plugin just makes the browser bloated, harder to maintain, and probably less secure.

I guess if you're into that sort of thing, though, you should try the pdf kpart functionality in Konqueror.

What I want... (1)

bad_outlook (868902) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707753)

Like Debon, Groth needed a Flash player that did not -- and still does not -- exist. This time it was for a version of GNU/Linux that runs on his PowerPC-based Apple iBook.

This is exactly what I'm waiting for, it will make the ibook play just like it's x86 brothers. Current version of GPLFlash doesn't work well, unless you like your browser crashing allot.

I've joined the mailing list, and will help to test out code in prep for the alpha.

First I get e17 (or 16.9999999) installed on the iBook, and now this! Things are looking good.

bo

AMD64 (1)

Sublimed (122984) | more than 8 years ago | (#12707816)

As an AMD64 users i crave a GPL Flash. Currently i am using gentoo and there is no 64 bit flash available that seems stable.

I think this is great.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...