Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

x86 Linux Flash Player 9 is Final

Posted by CmdrTaco on Wed Jan 17, 2007 08:34 AM
from the i-still-hate-flash dept.
Software Linux
Schlaegel writes "The official Adobe Linux Flash blog has announced that Flash player for x86 Linux is now final and no longer beta. Every x86 Linux user, at least those willing to load binary software, can rejoice and no longer feel like a second rate citizen. Distribution packages are also available, for example the Macromedia Fedora repository already has the flash player marked for update."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

x86 Linux Flash Player 9 is Final 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Finally! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bananatree3 (872975) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @08:37AM (#17644968)
    Us Linux users can now watch Zdnet's interview with Torvald about Linux kernel 2.7 [zdnet.com.au]:)
  • I am not going to remove flashblock [mozilla.org] from firefox any time soon, I don't expect for flash to become any less annoying and inefficient because of this new release.

    • Re:Any vacancies in the i-still-hate-flash dept.? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by solevita (967690) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @08:42AM (#17645008)
      It probably won't, but now you have some choice at least. Isn't that what Linux is all about?

        • Re:Any vacancies in the i-still-hate-flash dept.? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by stubear (130454) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @09:05AM (#17645368)
          "...and being able to claim ignorance when our friends and family ask us to fix their windows computers."

          Claim ignorance? Most Linux users ARE truly ignorant when it comes to Windows.
          • Most Linux users ARE truly ignorant when it comes to Windows.

            Somehow I doubt that. I'm reminded of studies during the 90s that showed that Windows users typically had no knowledge of Mac OS, but Mac OS users typically had moderately detailed knowledge of Windows.

            I suspect that the situation is similar for Linux. I would be very surprised if any significant percentage of Linux users had not:

            • Seen a Windows XP BSOD (or spontaneous reboot if you haven't turned off that option)
            • Experienced the joys of applying security updates and service packs and rebooting multiple times
            • Encountered DLL Hell
            • Had to edit the registry

            ...and so on.

          • Re:Any vacancies in the i-still-hate-flash dept.? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by cabraverde (648652) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @12:46PM (#17648998)
            Most Linux users ARE truly ignorant when it comes to Windows.

            Rubbish. Every Linux user I know personally (ok, only a dozen or so) is required to use Windows as their primary desktop OS at their place of work. This even includes some people who are primarily Linux developers.

            This daily familiarity, combined with a general technical aptitude that you can still assume from Linux users, means that very few of them are going to be "truly ignorant" of Windows. Ignorant of some internal Win32 APIs perhaps, but not ignorant in the sense that you are claiming. Most people with a passing acquaintance of computers are going to be familiar with Windows to some degree.
    • Go make a comment to that adobe site and You'll see that only positive comments are shown...

      Flash Player is behaving badly on win, why would it do other on Linux ?
    • I use flashblock because I cannot concentrate with crap dancing around on the screen.
      I hate that its required as an extension (but shown my support for the principle by bugfixing it...)

      ClickToView functionality should be a proper configurable option within the core system for all plugin types.

      • Re:Any vacancies in the i-still-hate-flash dept.? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by EzInKy (115248) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @09:30AM (#17645808)

        Flash is REALLY useful. I stream my music and video across the net using flash. I know that any machine (Windows/OSX/Linux) that has flash player installed can stream my media.


        Why not offer your users the option to simply download your material and let them use the player of their choosing?


        Until there is a decent replacement that is just as light, Flash is here to stay.


        There is no way that flash is lighter than a link to a file.

      • Flash is REALLY useful.

        As a developer, I hate Flash. As a user, I skip sites that require Flash and at most tolerate Flash in a couple of specific cases: for viewing the occasional sport or BBC documentary on Google Video and Youtube.

        If the BBC would use a free format instead of the Redmondian WMV or the outright damnable Real, I wouldn't need Flash at all.

        I would much prefer to watch this video content in the format of my choice ~outside~ of a browser in the application of my choice.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by kryptkpr (180196)
        There is nothing inherently evil about JavaScript, get a hold of yourself.

        I almost never want to see the garbage that Flash is used for, but I almost always want the functionality you get when JavaScript is enabled.

        Flashblock is the appropriate balance of convenience and annoyance for the average user.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by kryptkpr (180196)
            You'd have to be daft to to allow javascript on any random site.

            First, that's a terrible argument. See here [nizkor.org] for an explanation why.

            Second, why do you believe this? What is the worst thing a random piece of JavaScript can really do? Steal the cookie with my login info for Slashdot?

            If you use Internet Explorer, I will agree with you. I would even go further and not allow anything through to that browser from any random site, other then maybe images.

            But with Firefox or just about any another browser, these t

  • rejoice (Score:4, Funny)

    by mastershake_phd (1050150) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @08:43AM (#17645030) Homepage
    Now you too can win an ipod.

  • Second class citizen? (Score:3, Funny)

    by FrostyCoolSlug (766239) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @08:44AM (#17645054)
    What they failed to tell you, was that flash version 723 is being released for windows next week.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by WWWWolf (2428)

      What they failed to tell you, was that flash version 723 is being released for windows next week.

      But currently [adobe.com]...

      The table below contains the latest Flash Player version information.
      Windows ... 9,0,28,0
      Macintosh - OS X ... 9,0,28,0
      Linux ... 9,0,31,0

      ... we can just enjoy our status as the most up to date Flash Player platform. =)

  • No EULA??? (Score:3, Informative)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @08:47AM (#17645098)
    I was getting ready to gripe about onerous EULA terms, so I started looking around for the actual text and found... nothing? I wasn't asked to accept a license agreement when installing the player, and I don't even see a license file anywhere.

    Is it possible that Adobe actually did something really good here?

    • Re:No EULA??? (Score:5, Informative)

      by truedfx (802492) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @09:00AM (#17645294)
      Here's the EULA [adobe.com], and here's where it's linked from. [adobe.com] Complain away! :)

      • Re:No EULA??? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by MikeBabcock (65886) <mtb-slashdot@mikebabcock.ca> on Wednesday January 17 2007, @09:30AM (#17645810) Homepage Journal
        Here's a good one for people who don't read these:
        3.1 Web Player Prohibited Devices. You may not Use any Web Player on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. For the avoidance of doubt, and by example only, you may not use a Web Player on any (a) mobile devices, set top boxes (STB), handhelds, phones, web pads, tablets and Tablet PCs that are not running Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, game consoles, TVs, DVD players, media centers (excluding Windows XP Media Center Edition and its successors), electronic billboards or other digital signage, internet appliances or other internet-connected devices, PDAs, medical devices, ATMs, telematic devices, gaming machines, home automation systems, kiosks, remote control devices, or any other consumer electronics device, (b) operator-based mobile, cable, satellite, or television systems or (c) other closed system devices.


        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by internic (453511)

          Ok, that section has me completely confused.

          So, it looks like from a quick google search that "Web Player" refers to the flash player itself. What I don't get is how in the world a non-PC device is defined. In their examples they mention "Tablet PCs that are not running Windows XP Tablet PC Edition", but a tablet PC running, say, Linux still seems like a PC to me (even has it in the name!). They also mention "internet appliances or other internet-connected devices" which seems pretty broad, and finall

        • ...medical devices, ATMs, telematic devices

          *flashing upper banner* ENTER HERE TO HELP YOU RAISE THAT LOW BALANCE! $1,000,000 IS YOURS!
          Checking Account
          Balance: $20
          *flashing lower banner* JOIN FOO BANK TODAY AND GET $50 IF YOU SIGN UP IN THE NEXT 30 SECONDS!

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Raphael (18701)

      Rejoice, there is a restrictive EULA attached to the flash player! You can find it here: http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/players/flash / [adobe.com].

      Among other nice things, you will find a whole section about "Restrictions.", including this:

      3.1 Web Player Prohibited Devices. You may not Use any Web Player on any non-PC device or with any embedded or device version of any operating system. For the avoidance of doubt, and by example only, you may not use a Web Player on any (a) mobile devices, set top boxes (S

  • Just like Windows... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dtjohnson (102237) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @08:48AM (#17645118)
    Flash is a proprietary software app that uses proprietary protocols that are becoming ubiquitous on the internet. The new Linux 'Flash 9' will just help to further cement flash as the mainstream format for video content distribution. The linux support can be (and will be) easily dropped at some point in the future when Windows moves to 'flash 14' and Linux is hopelessly stuck on the obsolete 'Flash 13' standard. Seems like this is bad news for OSS, net neutrality, and protocols that are freely available for everyone to use anywhere.

    • Re:Just like Windows... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Lumpy (12016) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @08:59AM (#17645290) Homepage
      Fun part. Most of the crap done with flash can be done with the really old flash 5 or 6. I only dabble in flash but the added features in the newer flash engines are outweighed by the "pain in the ass" factor to the viewing person and the incompatabilities that can exist.

      I am sure some flash guru's out there can do fantastic things with the new stuff but most dont need it.

      • Re:Just like Windows... (Score:5, Informative)

        by truedfx (802492) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @09:22AM (#17645668)
        The Flash specification is not open. It is freely available, but may not be used to create Flash players, only Flash creators.
        • It is freely available, but may not be used to create Flash players, only Flash creators.

          Which is why Microsoft hasn't embraced and extended Flash.

          Being completly open makes you vulnerable to things like that when there's a monoploy in the house. Please reference Microsoft's treatment of Java, HTML,and Javascript.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Tim C (15259)
            MS tried to embrace and extend Java, but failed when Sun took them to court for breach of the licence; they added their own, Windows-specific classes to the java.* package hierarchy, which you're not allowed to do. Had they added them to a com.microsoft package hierarchy they'd have been fine - but then Java devs would've realised they weren't part of the core API and potentially avoided them.

            I note that this does not disprove your point, in fact if anything it reinforces it - Java was not completely open,

      • Re:Just like Windows... (Score:5, Informative)

        by YGingras (605709) <ygingras@ygingras.net> on Wednesday January 17 2007, @09:28AM (#17645768) Homepage
        Sorry, but as far as I know, flash specification is open
        You are wrong, the licence [adobe.com] of the spec explicitly deny you the right to reimplement it:
        3)a. You may not use the Specification in any way to create or develop a runtime, client, player, executable or other program that reads or renders .swf files.

  • comment of a real linux user (Score:4, Funny)

    by kirils (1050022) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @08:51AM (#17645156) Homepage
    so, wait, tell me again - how do I compile it?

  • Sweet... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tcopeland (32225) <(tom) (at) (infoether.com)> on Wednesday January 17 2007, @09:06AM (#17645388) Homepage
    ...now I can get back to work on the Linux port of indi [getindi.com]. It's one of the few Flash desktop apps out there, and it's a shame not to have it on Linux.

    Besides, it'd be a waste of all that code I wrote for the Evolution extension [rubyforge.org]!

  • Alternative open source implmentation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thue (121682) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @09:09AM (#17645450) Homepage
    The Free Software Foundation is working on an open source implementation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnash [wikipedia.org]

    I think it came installed by default in Firefox last time I installed Ubuntu. Currently doesn't seem to work very well, but the effort is worthwhile, and hopefully the software will improve.

  • Will it fix the synch problem? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Progman3K (515744) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @09:33AM (#17645836)
    Whenever I watch a YouTube video, sound and image are not synchronized.

    If I run VMWare, boot Windows in it and play the videos inside a browser in Windows, the sound IS synchronized...

    I always attributed the problem to the GPL flash player I use.

    Can anyone else attest to whether or not this will change things?

  • Finally, ALSA support (Score:5, Informative)

    by massysett (910130) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @09:42AM (#17645982) Homepage
    Flash Player 7 for Linux used OSS. This required loading the ALSA-OSS compatibility modules, or or using aoss. Both methods had occasional quirks. I'll be glad to get rid of my last OSS application.

  • Take a second look at flash (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Diacre (970924) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @10:31AM (#17646748)
    Flash Player 9 is more than just an update to what you all have known as flash. Sure, it will still play older flash content but new content written in Actionscript 3.0 using the new Actionscript Virtual Machine to playback will be way more efficient. The new methodologies for programming have a large base in JAVA, so JAVA developers will have any easy time using this new tool to make true ( rich internet ) applications that have greater ubiquity than JAVA on the web. To be honest, I think it will help take flash away from being a great tool for building horribly intrusive banner ads to being better know as one of the great tools for building rich internet experiences. On the note of proprietary versus open source, sure it is a proprietary program but Macro-Dobe ( Macromedia / Adobe ) have done a great job of using the open source community ( http://www.osflash.org/ [osflash.org] ) to push themselves into making a better product. They support the open source development, even if it competes ( http://osflash.org/red5 [osflash.org] ) directly with one of their products.

    • Re:Take a second look at flash (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mandelbr0t (1015855) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @06:32PM (#17655544) Journal
      Flash is not useful for developing rich Internet applications because:
      • It is almost entirely client-side code, and not very efficient at that. Java applets are more portable (because Sun releases Java on more platforms simultaneously) and faster (Flash UIs are soooo sloooow) for executing client-side code. Even some JavaScript is a better choice in many cases.
      • The stuff that executes server-side has to go through the "Flash gateway servlet" which won't work with anything but JRun, a horrible, unsupported, poorly documented, crash-happy piece of crap masquerading as a J2EE server. Applet-Servlet, JSP or even AJAX RPC (god forbid!) make for better server-side code.
      • You can't separate the ActionScript into separate files. Every VCS that I've seen Flash developers use gets filled up with dozens of binary versions of the .FLA source. Some even version-control the .SWF as well. Yuck. Obviously Flash developers weren't meant to use version control, which makes collaborating with them a real PITA.
      Flash is useful for making animations, and only for making animations. Why the output couldn't be a standard movie file format instead, I'll never know. Adobe needs to stop trying to get into the web market and stick to PhotoShop.

  • Slowpokers. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Qbertino (265505) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @11:09AM (#17647306)
    Flash 7 Linux was nearly in sync with the other plattforms. They took quite some time for FLash 9 (more than a year). According to Macromedia Labs it was because they redid the entire codebase and now can move on faster in xplattform developement. That's why they skipped Flash 8.
    I'm inclined to believe them.
    And, being a professional Flash developer who deploys all his webstuff on Linux aswell I am now going to update from Flash MX 2k4 Pro IDE to the newest. Support Flash on Linux and I'll continue using it, drop it and I'll be off to Java/Xul/Whatever before you can say "people want cross-plattform RIA". It's that simple.

    Bottom line:
    Nice job. Took you long enough. Be faster next time or you'll have one flasher less.

    (Now all we need is a fresh batch of O'Reillys to go with ActionScript 3 and I'm set. :-) )

  • Other Archs (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @11:56AM (#17648182) Homepage Journal
    ``Every x86 Linux user, at least those willing to load binary software, can rejoice and no longer feel like a second rate citizen.''

    And, as usual with binary software, users of any of the many other architectures Linux support are left in the cold.

    • Re:This is Great (Score:5, Informative)

      by Nutria (679911) on Wednesday January 17 2007, @09:31AM (#17645812)
      Life just wouldn't be complete without the ability to fully experience those spastic dancing silhouettes on lowermybills.com ads.

      With an ad-blocker and Flash, you get the "best" of both worlds: You Tube *and* (relatively) ad-less surfing.

      Brilliant!!

    • I'll refer you to Bug #155528 [gentoo.org], in which AbiWord 2.4.6 is released, and this bug report is filed on Nov 17th of 2006. Someone bumped the ebuild for the plugins (copied the ebuild file from 2.4.5), and it built and ran just fine, which is what I like about Gentoo -- ridiculously transparent, anyone who can do a little shell scripting can fix issues with packages.

      So, you'd think this would be a simple, simple upgrade.... Nope. On Jan 1st of 2007, they bumped AbiWord to 2.4.6, but left the plugins were at 2.4.5

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.