x86 Linux Flash Player 9 is Final

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."

Finally!

[Bananatree3 (872975)]

Us Linux users can now watch Zdnet's interview with Torvald about Linux kernel 2.7 [zdnet.com.au]:)

Re:Finally!

[CrankyOldFart (1052008)]

Now you too can load Flashblock [mozdev.org] and browse the web unfettered by all that ridiculous bandwidth hogging flash crap!

rejoice

[mastershake_phd (1050150)]

Now you too can win an ipod.

comment of a real linux user

[kirils (1050022)]

so, wait, tell me again - how do I compile it?

Alternative open source implmentation

[thue (121682)]

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.

Finally, ALSA support

[massysett (910130)]

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.

Re:Any vacancies in the i-still-hate-flash dept.?

[solevita (967690)]

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.?

[stubear (130454)]

"...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.

Re:Any vacancies in the i-still-hate-flash dept.?

[metamatic (202216)]

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.?

[cabraverde (648652)]

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.

Re:Any vacancies in the i-still-hate-flash dept.?

[LiquidCoooled (634315)]

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.?

[EzInKy (115248)]

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.

Re:Any vacancies in the i-still-hate-flash dept.?

[tsa (15680)]

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

Maybe because then you have to offer it in many different formats?

I like built-in players in webpages, because they (almost) always Just Work.

Re:x64_86

[andersbergh (884714)]

x86_64, not x64_86

Re:x64_86

[MrHanky (141717)]

You can use nspluginwrapper [beauchesne.info] to use the 32 bit Flash plug-in on AMD64 and compatibles. It works quite well.

Re:Why?

[sharkey (16670)]

Remind me why I should rejoice again?

Because you will now have the option of punching the monkey in addition to spanking it.

Re:Why?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Don't. But don't think the entire world isn't interested in what you're not interested in. There's plenty of great flash content out there.

Re:Why?

[Ingolfke (515826)]

It wouldn't impact you anyways because the flash player can't be integrated with lynx.

a little bit of aalib, anyone?

[kirils (1050022)]

Anything can be integrated with lynx!

Re:Just like Windows...

[Lumpy (12016)]

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...

[truedfx (802492)]

The Flash specification is not open. It is freely available, but may not be used to create Flash players, only Flash creators.

Re:Just like Windows...

[YGingras (605709)]

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.

Re:No EULA???

[truedfx (802492)]

Here's the EULA [adobe.com], and here's where it's linked from. [adobe.com] Complain away! :)

Re:No EULA???

[MikeBabcock (65886)]

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:This is Great

[Nutria (679911)]

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!!