Slashdot Log In
Adobe Releases Preview of 64-bit Flash For Linux
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:46 AM
from the flash-in-the-pan dept.
from the flash-in-the-pan dept.
Rinisari writes "Finally, the day has come. Adobe has released a pre-release version of the 64-bit Flash player. It is available at the Adobe Labs Flash Player 10 download site immediately.
Where are the Windows and Mac versions? 'Release of this alpha version of 64-bit Flash Player on Linux is the first step in delivering upon Adobe's commitment to make Flash Player native 64-bit across platforms. We chose Linux as our initial platform in response to numerous requests in our public Flash Player bug and issue management system and the fact that Linux distributions do not ship with a 32-bit browser or a comprehensive 32-bit emulation layer by default. Until this pre-release, use of 32-bit Flash Player on Linux has required the use of a plugin wrapper, which prevents full compatibility with 64-bit browsers. With this pre-release, Flash Player 10 is now a full native participant on 64-bit Linux distributions.' Windows and Mac OS X 64-bit versions will follow, and the final versions all will be released simultaneously. Tamarin, the JIT compiler in Flash, is now capable of producing 64-bit code and nspluginwrapper is no longer required. There are, however, no plans to release a debugger version of the 64-bit plugin."
Related Stories
[+]
Developers: 64-Bit Java For Linux 387 comments
LWATCDR writes "First we got 64-bit Flash; then the beginnings of 64-bit Wine; now Sun is providing a 64-bit Java plugin. For most people there is nothing to hold you back from running 64-bit Linux."
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Silverlight (Score:5, Insightful)
Was this prompted by Microsoft supporting Silverlight and Moonlight on 64-bit platforms from day one?
Either way, thanks for finally making it happen. We now have Java and Flash on 64-bit. No more reason to bitch.
Re:Silverlight (Score:5, Interesting)
Java is free but Flash is not (gnash and swfdec are getting there, but still not good enough for everyday use). And x86_64 is not the only 64-bit platform; what about Sparc and Itanic users, for example?
A binary blob for x86_64 is nice, I guess, but better would be for Adobe to give a bit of help to the projects trying to make a free implementation of Flash. So please continue to bitch, if you think that helps.
Parent
Re:Silverlight (Score:5, Insightful)
And x86_64 is not the only 64-bit platform; what about Sparc and Itanic users, for example?
Out of interest, what do you consider the smallest possible user base that any concession should be made with regard to support? How much effort should be put into supporting either Sparc or Itanic, or indeed any other minority platform?
And I'm not just talking about closed source apps here, I'm also talking about open source projects and the stance they take, and the whole range of possible support options, from supporting them yourselves (releasing binary or code for the platform) on the one extreme to simply answering questions from a porting developer (since answering questions does take up potentially valuable time) on the other extreme.
Parent
Re:Silverlight (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering the fact that Flash is essentially mandatory for many websites, I'd say that's moot. They don't make money on the player anyways, it's the tools that developers use that they make them money.
I'd be more than happy to not ever install flash if not for the sites which just don't work without flash. And don't forget about the poor people needing to navigate flash sites with screen readers.
Or in other words, most of us would be more than happy to not bitch about a lack of Flash support for our OS of choice if we didn't have to have it to make the most of the web. That didn't used to be much of an issue, a few sites had it and most of them were dumb flash games. Then there were the ads which made it beneficial to not have flash. But now...
Parent
Why I bitch. (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the crux of the issue -- web support on 64-bit systems. Adobe Flash has it, Sun Java does not [java.net].
By ignoring Bug 4502695 [sun.com] for over 5 years (and over 800 votes), Sun has just given the 64-bit webspace to Adobe. Why should anyone wait another year to see if a 64-bit java plugin is actually released when Flash has a 64-bit plugin now?
Way to go, Sun. You've killed JavaFX before it even got started, and strangled the attempts to resurrect the applet and web-start apps.
That's just bitchin'.
Parent
Re:Why I bitch. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm fairly sure I have a working 64-bit Java plugin, via OpenJDK. At least a few simple applets work, and I'm fairly sure I don't have a 32-bit Java on this machine.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Out of interest, what do you consider the smallest possible user base that any concession should be made with regard to support?
1 user.
Release the source, or at least an open API/documentation/something, and then let us do the work. I don't expect companies to spend their money supporting every random OS, but I would like them to at least make it possible for us to do the work ourselves for whatever OS we want to use.
Re:Silverlight (Score:5, Interesting)
Release the source, or at least an open API/documentation/something, and then let us do the work.
Yeah I've heard this before. Must have been last week that people were bitching that Google hasn't ported Chrome to Linux yet (here on slashdot). It just seems to me that the more companies give in to the Linux community, the more they demand. It usually goes:
Release the specs! -> Release the source! -> Port it for us!
Parent
Ubiquity of flash (Score:5, Interesting)
Out of interest, what do you consider the smallest possible user base that any concession should be made with regard to support?
Given that flash is starting to get ubiquitous, any online-capable platform is going to need it badly soon. Restricting a (closed) technology to only a couple of most widespread platform is really bad.
If we exit the world of desktop computers the most widespread CPU are embedable RISCs such as ARM and MIPS. Yet, none of them can currently get even a free-as-in-beer plugin downloadable from adobe's website.
Thus embed platforms (such as PDAs, MID) have either to count on gnash (lots of F/LOSS BusyBox/Linux based PDA & Smartphone projects) or do without flash at all (iPhone currently).
There are lots of other possible creative usage for other machines. But, by lacking flash some of them will suddenly be not so useful for experiencing the web.
That's why the whole flash thing was a bad idea to begin with. In an open system as the internet, where everything is documented and free to get re-implemented, where everything was built in this open way, suddenly there comes a new "standart" which will only run on a couple of processors, preventing anything else to use it and stoping any creative use of it.
How much effort should be put into supporting either Sparc or Itanic, or indeed any other minority platform?
Well not much is asked from Adobe. Just help the open source enough to have a descent open source implementation.
That should be that much difficult, taking into account that adobe makes no money on the free-as-in-beer plugin, instead their main income comes from the creation suites.
Adobe has done it in the past (PDF is a published standard, with numerous alternative implementation existing - Adobe makes money on the Acrobat suite).
Concurrent of flash have done it (Silverlight vs. Moonlight)
And I'm not just talking about closed source apps here, I'm also talking about open source projects and the stance they take, and the whole range of possible support options
Usually, after the first couple of ports have revealed all the hidden platform dependent bugs, lots of additional posts come almost "for free", generally only a recompile away.
In addition, we don't expect the Gnash developers to maintain port for every fucking platform under the sun.
Gnash is free/libre opensource software. If the developers don't have the resources to port the application themselves, others are open to do it.
In fact that's what's happening : gnash is mainly developed on x86 and x86_64 architecture, but that hasn't stopped other enthusiasts to port it to PS3 (MIPS).
Flash is getting popular. As long as there's some interest for some platform there are bound to be enough interested developers (for that platform) to port it instead of gnash's own developers.
Popular game engines on portable device is a nice example : ...as long as gnash is compatible enough to flash.
ScummVM is available on a dozen of hardware platforms, some not even POSIX compatible. Not all of them are maintained by the main ScummVM developer. But the popularity of ScummVM and the coolness to be able to plas scumm-based (mostly LucasArt) games on whatever pocketable machine you have has nonetheless attracted enough motivated people to port it to a wide array of machines.
Same goes for several other game engine (Doom and Duke3D are nice examples. Usually its the second thing that get ported to any new hardware platform, right after Linux).
Given the rising popularity of flash, Gnash will probably follow the same trend...
And for that, cooperation from Adobe will help immensely.
Parent
Re:Silverlight (Score:5, Interesting)
Might I suggest open standards so anyone who cares can implement their own?
You mean like this one? [whatwg.org] Yes, good idea. ;)
Parent
Re:Silverlight (Score:4, Insightful)
Java is free but Flash is not (gnash and swfdec are getting there, but still not good enough for everyday use).
This is not, and has never been, a reason to bitch. The vast majority of users aren't going to cut off their nose to spite their face by refusing to use "non-free" software, and nor should they.
Parent
Re:Silverlight (Score:4, Insightful)
I would rephrase this as "the vast majority of users are short-sighted, and have no clue as to why they should be concerned with open standards".
But hey, don't let me bug you with something that's uncomfortably close to a moral injunction. We don't need no stinking ethics when we've got self-interest to guide us. It's never let us down before.
Parent
Re:Silverlight (Score:5, Funny)
If we embrassed FlOSS, we would run out of code to write, in like, 3 years at most! Then what would everyone do?!? Microsoft ensures that everyone has stuff to do, and that we extend those three years as long as possible until we can start over on the 128 bit platform in the future.
What? Are you going to try to tell me that ISN'T how software development works???
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How many Sparc and Itanic users need a 64-bit Flash for web browsing needs?
Adobe isn't going to GPL Flash just because people complain it isn't "free". Nor do I need every app in the world to be OSS. I prefer OSS apps, but at the end of the day, I'll take the best app for the task.
I don't think the GPL was the way to go for Java either, as Java needs to be fairly standardized. I would like to see a new OSS license that prevents forking, but allows me to read the source code, submit patches upstream, and
one more time (Score:4, Interesting)
The complaint is not directed at Adobe, but against the idiots that are happily destroying the open nature of the web by embracing a closed product.
If you think it's impossible for anyone to make any money with software based on open standards, then you haven't been paying any attention to the development of the web.
If you don't get the problem that closed architectures are vulnerable to manipulation by the agencies that own the architectures, then you need some history lessons (start by searching for "Microsoft").
But this is all a fucking waste of breath, I'm afraid. On the one hand, you have an abstract argument about the long-term advantages of open architectures, and on the other, you have "look at the fonnny kittens!".
The web is doomed. Oh well, it's been an interesting few decades.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We now have Java and Flash on 64-bit.
No 64-bit Java browser plugin until early 2009 [sun.com].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
True. But there are quite a few more sites that use Java Webstart to run apps (not applets), which is basically unsupported and unusable on Linux x64 in any browser.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Moonlight is not Microsoft software. Linux doesn't have an official, full feature Silverlight and likely will never have it. A half functioning, non 2.x compatible software being 64bit compilable is not big deal. Let them have to support 10 generations of software on 3 Major desktop operating systems having nothing to do with each other and the entire mobile/device scene. That is what Adobe has to do.
MS buddy Novell guys half functioning emulator coming with usual EULA traps is no comparison to a full featu
Why linux first (Score:5, Insightful)
"We chose Linux as our initial platform in response to numerous requests in our public Flash Player bug and issue management system"
Linux users asked, and adobe listened. Great stuff.
Re:Why linux first (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I read half that and half "this is a great little alpha testing ground while we get our 64-bit act together, once it's somewhat usable we'll release it for Windows and Mac too". Considering my experience with their release builds, I wouldn't sing too many praises just yet.
Parent
Re:Why linux first (Score:5, Informative)
You can't get a native 64 bit version of firefox/IE at the moment, so there's no need for 64bit flash....
Modded Insightful? Really?
So why is there this "Internet Explorer (64-bit)" icon on every 64bit version of Windows?
There is also this link with 64bit builds of Mozilla products: http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/Download [mozilla-x86-64.com]
Parent
Re:Why linux first (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux users asked, and adobe listened. Great stuff.
Other considerations:
There are fewer Linux users and the average technical skill is higher than with other operating systems. This means that if there are problems, the pool of affected users is smaller than with Windows, the users are more likely to be able to recover without Adobe's help, and they're more likely to file bug reports.
This sounds like a big win for everyone involved. Nicely played, Adobe!
Parent
Re:Why linux first (Score:5, Insightful)
Just to put an emphasis on your post, not only are the Linux users more likely to report bugs, their bugs reports are more likely to make sense and contain relevant data.
Parent
Re:Why linux first (Score:5, Funny)
Affects: My computer
Importance: Extremely High
Description: can u release a update 4 this!?!? it doesnt work rite on my computer!!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
has always sucked, and in all likelyhood will always suck, 32 or 64 bit.
Your opinion (and mine) of Flash doesn't matter. The important part is that a major software developer just told the world that Linux is a good platform for testing and to support. Even if I'm indifferent to Flash outside of Youtube, I can be excited about Adobe's announcement.
It's about accessibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux users asked, and adobe listened. Great stuff.
Would be, except that we've been asking for several _years_ now. Isn't this kind of crap (releasing software for some OS and some architectures while ignoring others) why we need open source in the first place?
Looking forward, what assurance do we have that security issues will be addressed any better, or upgrades, or new features? We have none of course.
We would all be better off if A) youtube and other Flash sites made their content available in MP4 and other ISO standardized formats, and B) if Adobe pu
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You've also been asking for 64-bit nvidia drivers for a good while as well?
The real solution is to give the community what they need to do it themselves. It's the easy, cheap, lazy, and better way out.
Let me be the first to say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Final-fucking-ly.
Now if only Gnash and libswf would get their shit together. I can't even play YouTube with their latest releases on my AMD64 box.
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Informative)
I can't even play YouTube with their latest releases on my AMD64 box.
Youtube changed the video format to H264 for some/most/many of their videos recently. It used to work with swfdec.
In the very latest dev version of swfdec the video works again, but there is no sound.
Parent
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Funny)
You say that like it's a bad thing...
Parent
Re:Let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Informative)
From the Gnash website:
Streaming Video
Gnash supports the viewing of streaming video from popular video sharing sites like Lulu.tv or YouTube.com.
When they stop claiming it as a feature, then they get to be free of my criticism of their broken feature.
Parent
Just tested it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just tested it (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Coming up in 6 months (Score:5, Funny)
"Where's the 128-bit version?!"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
using Intel processors as a baseline-
4 bit - 1971
8 bit - 1972 (1 year)
16 bit - 1978 (6 years)
32 bit - 1985 (7 years)
64 bit - 2004 (19 years)
128 bit - 2026 (22 years by my VERY crude estimate)
128 bit Flash some time after that.
And they came forth... (Score:5, Funny)
Upon a sea of grease and neckbeards I sailed, and I heard the calling in the distant. It was the sound of fat, wolf shirt-wearing nerds crying out in triumph. Their voices merged into one, and I heard them exclaim, "The year of the Linux desktop is upon us!"
And then everything was silent once more.
Finally... (Score:4, Funny)
Now I'm waiting for the 64-bit version of Duke Nukem Forever!
Who tagged this 'buggy'? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an alpha release. NO SHIT it's buggy. Live with it and file reports so Adobe fixes it, or wait for the final version.
Why no 32 bit browser? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why don't they anyway?
Given that many if not most users will want to install some plugins, installing a 32-bit browser by default would seem logical.
The browser would only have 2 gb address space, and it could not make use of new 64-bit registers or processor extensions.
Both seem like a very minor disadvantage for a browser, especially compared to being able to run 32 bit precompiled plugins.
Is this just one of these ideological things where the actual advantages for the user are disregarded?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes.
It's actually more about power than ideology. The key people behind Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora and the other major distros all fervently believe that they and they alone should be the gatekeepers of all software run by their users. They see no reason why somebody should be able to get software from somewhere other than them. Thus they see no reason why binary compatibility is needed or useful. Thus being b
At last!!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
I was one of many that put my name to asking for a 64 bit version. Now if only there was a 64 bit Skype and that ever elusive 64 bit browser plug-in for the 64 bit Sun Java.
Will be downloading the 64 bit Flash to test it out, hopefully it is easier than playing around with nspluginwrapper to get the 32 bit version working, and with a lot less processor power being eaten up just to run a Flash video.
Re:At last!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
...and with a lot less processor power being eaten up just to run a Flash video.
here is to hoping, but flash video still is twice as cpu intensive on my 32bit machines than any other video player.
Parent
Obligatory coral cache mirror (Score:4, Informative)
Summary is wrong: Debugger *is* planned (Score:5, Informative)
From the blog of Tinic Uro, the engineer who did the bulk of the work:
http://www.kaourantin.net/2008/11/64-bits.html [kaourantin.net]
A debugger version of the 64-bit version is not available yet. When we release it ActionScript 2 debugging will not work due the obsolete protocol which depends on 32bit pointers. ActionScript 3 debugging will be supported.
FreeBSD too? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:x86-64 (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary talks about 64-bitness in general, while the Linux release is for x86-64 only.
As I understand it, Flash Player is designed to run on workstations, and the vast majority of workstations still manufactured and marketed for use in home and office environments are x86 or x86-64. Which other architectures are you talking about? ARM-based PDAs?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You do realize that 64-bit is the way of the future, and that you can get a decent 64-bit computer for under $500, right? 64-bit is way too mainstream at this point to force people to use 32-bit software because you didn't bother to start the process when the machines were first shipping.
Everybody with any technical sense knew years ago that things were going 64-bit, there really isn't any excuse for Macromedia to have not made meaningful process since then. Adobe should get a bit of a free pass by virtue o
Re:No Debugger? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now of course, 64bit windows XP didn't launch until about 2 years later, so maybe they only had 3 years to 'really' develop, since before that it was probably still not viable for the home market. But they should have got the hint that 32-bit can not address enough memory for the ever increasingly demand of new applications and operating systems. They (not just Adobe, but most developers of popular/necessary software) should have planned ahead better.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is it just me, or does it just seem that if you need a 64-bit address space for your web browser, you're doing something totally wrong
I think the point is (at least on a 64 bit architecture) that running a single 32 bit program on your system means that you need another set of 32 bit libraries to support it... Better to run a system with a homogeneous architecture.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
32-bit Tortoise doesn't even run on 64-bit Windows - so I'm stuck.
It may not show up in the 64-bit explorer shell, but it does install and run. I believe a lot of people install both so that they can see TSVN options in the open dialog of their 32-bit apps.