Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Linux Software

x86 Linux Flash Player 9 is Final 288

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the i-still-hate-flash dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

x86 Linux Flash Player 9 is Final

Comments Filter:
  • Finally! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bananatree3 (872975) on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @09:37AM (#17644968)
    Us Linux users can now watch Zdnet's interview with Torvald about Linux kernel 2.7 [zdnet.com.au]:)
  • by Reverse Gear (891207) * on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @09:40AM (#17644986) Homepage
    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.
    • by solevita (967690) on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @09:42AM (#17645008)
      It probably won't, but now you have some choice at least. Isn't that what Linux is all about?
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        > It probably won't, but now you have some choice at least. Isn't that what Linux is all about?

        What!? Are you new here? Linux is all about bitching, moral superiority, and being able to claim ignorance when our friends and family ask us to fix their windows computers.
        • by stubear (130454) on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @10:05AM (#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.
          • by metamatic (202216) on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @01:19PM (#17648564) Homepage Journal
            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.

          • by cabraverde (648652) on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @01:46PM (#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.
      • by MartinG (52587)
        A choice between freedom and non-freedom is an illusiory one.
    • Same here (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Mr Europe (657225)
      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 ?
      • by jZnat (793348) *
        Because Flash 9 for Linux is practically re-written using many native Linux libraries?
    • by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @10:02AM (#17645334) Homepage Journal
      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.
      • by Vexorian (959249)
        Hell yeah. You don't know how esoteric something like removing the embedded windows media player can get.
    • by jginspace (678908)
      "I am not going to remove flashblock from firefox any time soon"

      Hum ... I've said this before and I'll say it again: If you're relying on Flashblock (the Firefox extension?) to block Flash on any old site that means you're allowing javascript on any old site. Know what I mean? If you want to block Flash on untrusted sites then use the javascript blocker, Noscript [mozilla.org] - it has this capability, along with blocking Java as well.
      • 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.
        • JavaScript is almost always usefull (menus, outlining, XMLHttpRequest). Flash is almost always redundant.
        • by jginspace (678908)
          "There is nothing inherently evil about JavaScript, get a hold of yourself."

          You never visit dodgy sites? No, wait a minute, you just stay on your company Intranet? 'Normal' users that get around a bit and prefer to be responsible won't subscribe to that. Try reading Security tips for Firefox users [squarefree.com] ... Clue: Those tips don't just apply to Firefox users. You'd have to be daft to to allow javascript on any random site. If a site needs javascript and you deem it important enough then it's simple enough to al
          • 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
    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by dave420 (699308)
      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. Until there is a decent replacement that is just as light, Flash is here to stay. But nice sour grapes, though. seriously. tasty.
      • by EzInKy (115248) on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @10:30AM (#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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        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.

        • The problem with Real, QuickTime, Windows Media and all the other video players, is that all they are just stupid video players boxed into a rectangular prison, and not customizable or adaptable in any way. You can't add to their user interface, or fix their horrible design problems [mac.com]. No control over how closed captioning is presented. No transparent video overlays. No extra buttons or links to related videos. No webcam support or two-way video conferencing.

          From a user interface design perspective, Flash

  • rejoice (Score:4, Funny)

    by mastershake_phd (1050150) on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @09:43AM (#17645030) Homepage
    Now you too can win an ipod.
  • by FrostyCoolSlug (766239) on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @09:44AM (#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 @09:47AM (#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 @10:00AM (#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 @10:30AM (#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.


        • by Nutria (679911)
          How's gnash coming along?
        • by EvilIdler (21087)
          Those prohibitions are so easily broken that they're effectively useless.
          How are they going to detect what sort of embedded Linux you're running, anyway?
          It's easy to lie even if there are identifying marks.
        • 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

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          ...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!
      • I've seen some truly awful EULAs in my day. So far in this one I don't see anything shockingly bad. (See http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/2006/05/15_a 400.html#a400 [infoworld.com])

        So granted, this software isn't free as in speech, but it's also nothing that makes me too worried about installing on my box.

    • 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

  • by dtjohnson (102237) on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @09:48AM (#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: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by pato101 (851725)
      Sorry, but as far as I know, flash specification is open and there exist projects that implement GPL flash plugin.

      Adobe has always opened the formats (see postscript, PDF). I would not be scared if they stopped developing linux plugin, perhaps it would be better since GPL plugins would receive more developers and resources and perhaps would become even better than original adobe plugin. In the same sense that if Adobe stops releasing acrobat for linux we won't miss it so much we would have missed it some

      • by truedfx (802492) on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @10:22AM (#17645668)
        The Flash specification is not open. It is freely available, but may not be used to create Flash players, only Flash creators.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          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.
          • by YGingras (605709)
            Yeah but so far they were not able to mess with TCP/IP and C++ very much. The idea is to have the spec AND an conformance suite. Ideally with an independent standard body who will evaluate conformance and emit the certification. TCP/IP and C++ don't even have a conformance suite but they still resists. I can't tell why some standard resist extention but there is no doubt that a standard doubled with a conformance suite will witstand the most vicious attacks.
          • 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,
      • You can indeed download the Flash specification but the EULA specifically disallows using the information to create a player. The GPL projects implementing Flash are having to reverse engineer everything because of this.
        • by Zach978 (98911)
          That's funny...do they have to prove that they reverse engineered it and never accidently remembered specs from the document?
      • by YGingras (605709) <ygingras@ygingras.net> on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @10:28AM (#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.
      • by cortana (588495)
        Sorry, but as far as I know, flash specification is open
        Not correct. The spec is not available for those who would use it to write an alternative Flash player.
      • Sorry, but as far as I know, flash specification is open and there exist projects that implement GPL flash plugin.

        There are a lot of definitions of 'open' when it comes to specifications. There is 'open' meaning 'you can use this if you pay us a license fee, but we don't discriminate on who can pay us,' and 'open' meaning 'anyone can implement this for free,' for example. There is also 'open' as in 'the specification is controlled by a standards body and proposed extensions are accepted from anybody.' In the case of Flash, the specification is 'open' as in 'anyone can download it if they agree only to use it to wri

      • by ajs318 (655362)
        Well ..... it's kind of half-open. Anyone can use the specification document to create their own Flash content. However, using it to decode Flash content is against the conditions under which the specification document is distributed.

        My gut feeling is that such conditions would be unenforcible in some jurisdictions (especially if someone buys up an uninhabited island and creates a sovereign nation with its own written constitution and no extradition treaty with the USA [as though that was ever an obs
    • by Lumpy (12016) on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @09:59AM (#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.
    • by tcopeland (32225)
      > Flash is a proprietary software app that uses
      > proprietary protocols that are becoming ubiquitous on the internet.

      But it's slowly opening up, and there are some good frameworks out there for it, like ActionStep [actionstep.org]. ActionStep is good enough to support building a desktop application [getindi.com]. And MTASC [mtasc.org] is a great open source Flash compiler.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Krommenaas (726204)
      The new Linux 'Flash 9' will just help to further cement flash as the mainstream format for video content distribution.

      Yeah now that there's a flash player for the <1% of internet users who run Linux, flash finally has a chance to hit the big time!
  • by kirils (1050022) on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @09:51AM (#17645156) Homepage
    so, wait, tell me again - how do I compile it?
  • Sweet... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tcopeland (32225) <<tom> <at> <thomasleecopeland.com>> on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @10:06AM (#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]!
  • by thue (121682) on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @10:09AM (#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.
  • "The official Adobe Linux Flash blog has announced ... rejoice and no longer feel like a second rate citizen."

    Congratulations, my Linux bretheren, and welcome to the exciting world of Flash! Take a look at the exciting new multimedia experience before you. Note how the banners and advertisments blink for your attention. Wow! It's just like being at Las Vegas!

    Now, head to http://flashblock.mozdev.org/index.html [mozdev.org] and get Flashblock. Soon, it'll all seem like it was just a bad dream!

  • by Progman3K (515744) on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @10:33AM (#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?
  • by massysett (910130) on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @10:42AM (#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.
    • 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.

      Good for you, bad for me. It now works with ALSA excusively, which means I no longer get any sound. I'd have switched to ALSA, but after trying it out, it seemed to me that the mixer controls made absolutely no sense with my soundcard, so I switched back to OSS. Now I guess I'll just have to downgrade again.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I'd have switched to ALSA, but after trying it out, it seemed to me that the mixer controls made absolutely no sense with my soundcard, so I switched back to OSS.

        You are aware that OSS is obsolete, aren't you? You know that OSS drivers are being removed from the Linux kernel for all devices that have a stable ALSA driver? Several OSS drivers have already been removed from the previous kernel release. You know that OSS has severe limitations, especially if you have more than one sound card or sound device

      • by crimsun (4771) *
        There are workarounds. I use PulseAudio (hooked to an ALSA backend nonetheless) with the alsa-lib pulse plugin, and PulseAudio can use any number of backends including OSS.

        See http://pulseaudio.org/ [pulseaudio.org] .
  • And as always, Gentoo is the first to bring it to its users !
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by lowlands (463021)
      For Fedora Core users you can go to this website: http://macromedia.mplug.org/ [mplug.org]
      It has the required yum repo file that you need to install the flash-plugin with yum.
      Quick howto:
      $ wget -v http://macromedia.mplug.org/macromedia-i386.repo [mplug.org]
      $ sudo mv macromedia-i386.repo /etc/yum.repos.d
      $ sudo yum install flash-plugin

      Restart Firefox for the plugin to become active.

      If you already have that repo file installed you can upgrade the flash-plugin with:
      $ sudo yum upgrade flash-plugin

      Thanks Adobe. Hopefully we'll see a 64b
    • by Zach978 (98911)
      Sweet, guess you have to use a source based distro to get cutting edge binary-only apps?
    • 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
  • by Ant P. (974313)
    Hopefully then they've fixed the regression in the betas where sound just didn't work at all.
  • High CPU usage (Score:2, Insightful)

    by numberthre (1044498)
    There's no excuse for Flash taking 40-50% CPU time of a 1.8 GHz to decode a damn video when traditional video decoders can do it in a fraction of that. Even non-video Flash sometimes makes my laptop step up to the highest frequency, resulting in all the noisy fans ramping up. Ridiculous.
  • by Diacre (970924) on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @11:31AM (#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.
    • by Sloppy (14984)
      true ( rich internet ) applications
      Aha, so in other words, it's probably a security hole.
    • by mandelbr0t (1015855) on Wednesday January 17, 2007 @07:32PM (#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 @12:09PM (#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 @12:56PM (#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.

Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed to be doing at the moment. -- Robert Benchley

Working...