Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications Software Linux

Adobe Releases Preview of 64-bit Flash For Linux 329

Posted by CmdrTaco
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adobe Releases Preview of 64-bit Flash For Linux

Comments Filter:
  • Silverlight (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew.gmail@com> on Monday November 17, 2008 @12:50PM (#25787423) Homepage Journal

    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)

      by Ed Avis (5917) <ed@membled.com> on Monday November 17, 2008 @12:57PM (#25787521) Homepage

      We now have Java and Flash on 64-bit. No more reason to bitch.

      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.

      • Re:Silverlight (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice.gmail@com> on Monday November 17, 2008 @01:16PM (#25787827)

        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.

        • Re:Silverlight (Score:5, Insightful)

          by hedwards (940851) on Monday November 17, 2008 @01:39PM (#25788259)

          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...

          • Why I bitch. (Score:4, Insightful)

            by pallmall1 (882819) on Monday November 17, 2008 @02:42PM (#25789281)

            Considering the fact that Flash is essentially mandatory for many websites...

            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'.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Ed Avis (5917)

          Out of interest, what do you consider the smallest possible user base that any concession should be made with regard to support?

          I don't think Itanic workstation users who want to watch YouTube are a significant user base; just making a general point that x86_64 != 64-bit. This being Slashdot, I guess I could have left it unsaid, since many others made the same point.

          In general I'm all for dropping esoteric crap and focusing on the most important systems, as long as people have freedom to muck around with t

        • I think this is the whole issue with open source. If the source was open, well written, and documented, then anyone willing to make an effort can provide support for their own platform. The real issue is "We are going to make this a standard that everyone is going to use / want to use.... oh, except you. You can't use what everyone else is using"

          So I question, and what I think the parent is questioning, is whether the die hard Itanic and Sparc development base is CAPABLE of developing and maintaining a "po
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by ZerdZerd (1250080)

          Out of interest, what do you consider the smallest possible user base [...] open source

          One

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by nsheppar (889445)

          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)

            by not already in use (972294) on Monday November 17, 2008 @04:13PM (#25790895)

            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!

        • Ubiquity of flash (Score:5, Interesting)

          by DrYak (748999) on Monday November 17, 2008 @03:04PM (#25789695) Homepage

          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 :
          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... ...as long as gnash is compatible enough to flash.
          And for that, cooperation from Adobe will help immensely.

      • by tobiasly (524456)
        Agreed... and, much like Sun with Java, I expect that someday in the future, Adobe will be saying to themselves: "We were so close to becoming the ubiquitous platform that everyone used for deploying rich internet content to every type of device and platform. Our decision to keep the Flash player closed-source for so long looks so stupid now. What were we thinking? If only we could go back ten years and open it up..."
      • Re:Silverlight (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bigstrat2003 (1058574) * on Monday November 17, 2008 @01:40PM (#25788265)

        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.

        • Re:Silverlight (Score:4, Insightful)

          by doom (14564) <doom@kzsu.stanford.edu> on Monday November 17, 2008 @02:03PM (#25788667) Homepage Journal

          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.

          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.

          • by thtrgremlin (1158085) on Monday November 17, 2008 @03:07PM (#25789767) Homepage Journal
            And imagine the economic disaster that would ensue if people respected useful labor, bought things as necessary, and the right product the first time without inevitable time locks (intended or otherwise). It is very important to the economy that you keep replacing your software all the time, and frequently purchase vaporware. It is little different than buying a lottery ticket, or hiring a completly unqualified employee that could be a diamond in the ruff if just given a chance, right?

            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???
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Enderandrew (866215)

        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

        • by bcat24 (914105)

          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 recompile. However the license would prohibit people from distributing altered/forked versions. Such a license might very well convince Adobe to release the source code, as well as Nvidia for their drivers.

          I can see the benefits of such a license for some applications, but I think it would create a real headache for Linux distributions. Very few distros ship upstream software as-is. Instead, they apply patches to improve integration with the rest of the system. The last thing Sun wants to do is review every single tweak Fedora or Debian or Ubuntu (or whoever) makes to their codebase. What you propose is certainly better than a binary blob, but it still has some issues, IMO.

    • Probably something like that.

      I would guess that this is Adobe's "revenge" for Microsoft releasing a competing technology. They probably think that using this they can force Microsoft to cry "Uncle". Somebody at Adobe should ask Corel how that worked out ten years ago.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by peter_gzowski (465076)

      We now have Java and Flash on 64-bit.

      No 64-bit Java browser plugin until early 2009 [sun.com].

      • by Abcd1234 (188840)

        IcedTea (an OpenJDK port) has a working 64-bit Java plugin. While it doesn't work on all applets (it's not a complete implementation, IIRC), it seems to work fairly well for the few applets I've encountered.

        • It does fully past the test suite however, and works well enough for every site I've come across.

          • by D. Taylor (53947)
            Hmm, the test suite must be incomplete then, because I've certainly found sites that don't work (formula1.com Live Timing applet being the main one).
        • by PitaBred (632671)

          And if you use Konqueror, it directly calls the Java executable for plugins, so 64bit Java has worked as a "plugin" for quite a while in KDE. Since there are only a few Java plugin sites around the web, I'm happy with just using Konqueror when I actually need to access one on the short term here.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Burz (138833)

          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:2, Informative)

      by Sylvak (967868)

      Silverlight is not currently available on linux... only windows and mac. So I guess adobe beat them to that milestone.

      I have been waiting for the linux flash 64bit plugin for 3 years+. I can't believe a company like adobe couldn't deliver during all this time. It seems that they had their head in the sand for all that time. If Microsoft caused them to finally face reality, then I send them my thanks.

      I don't really care who wins this tech war, as long as I don't have to use windows to view a freaken web

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ilgaz (86384)

      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)

    by sakdoctor (1087155) on Monday November 17, 2008 @12:53PM (#25787449) Homepage

    "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)

      by Kjella (173770) on Monday November 17, 2008 @01:11PM (#25787739) Homepage

      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.

    • Re:Why linux first (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Monday November 17, 2008 @01:12PM (#25787759) Homepage Journal

      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!

      • Re:Why linux first (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Shotgun (30919) on Monday November 17, 2008 @01:27PM (#25788019)

        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.

    • Linux users asked, and adobe listened. Great stuff.

      For what value of "great"?

      FreeBSD users and devs, for example, have asked for just as long.

      • by hedwards (940851)

        That's been my feeling. I don't like having a half-assed half-working wine firefox installation which is not that much more useful than the linux plug in.

        It wouldn't be an issue if not for the fact that so many sites out there require flash. And the fact that as of now there's still no evidence that a Flash plugin will ever run natively on FreeBSD.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by X0563511 (793323)

        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.

      • by PitaBred (632671)

        64bit FreeBSD users and devs are a much smaller community than 64bit Linux users and devs. Gotta make the cutoff somewhere, and I'd bet that Adobe will get much better feedback from a larger group of people with Linux, from a tech-savvy audience that will actually try beta versions in large numbers. I know I'm already running it, and it's been great so far, especially compared to the 32bit wrapped version.

    • by AndGodSed (968378)

      Question - Does it run on Linux?

      Answer - Why Yes it DOES!

      Q - Does it run on Windows?

      A - Uh, no - it seems for once the Linux Desktop holds precedent over it's Windows counterpart...

      Q - Uh, okay, how about MacOS?

      A - Nope - you will have to wait in line for it, wanna try Linux in the meantime?

      This was bound to happen sometime. (does a little victory dance...)\o/

    • by r7 (409657)

      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

  • by MasterOfMagic (151058) on Monday November 17, 2008 @12:53PM (#25787451) Journal

    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.

  • The summary talks about 64-bitness in general, while the Linux release is for x86-64 only. Linux users on non-x86 platforms are still without Flash, for better or worse. At least there's a Sparc build for Solaris.
  • Oh please. You just released a working binary to the most rabidly well-educated disassemblers, hackers, kernel developers, and programmers in the world. You don't have to. But you'll need to document it after they make it... They HATE documenting their work.

  • Just tested it (Score:5, Informative)

    by NeoBrain (1342923) on Monday November 17, 2008 @12:59PM (#25787543)
    I just tried it on my Fedora 9 64-bit installation and it works just fine. No crashes, no freezes, not like ATI drivers in XServer 1.5 :P Definitely a great move by Adobe, better release a working Flash plugin than a buggy and crashy one!
    • Re:Just tested it (Score:5, Informative)

      by Radhruin (875377) on Monday November 17, 2008 @01:17PM (#25787841)
      Confirmed. It's played everything I've thrown at it, and it is also considerably faster. With NSPluginWrapper, when I loaded a page full of flash graphs, the browser became sluggish for some time. With the alpha, the graphs load up instantly. So far I'm very impressed.
    • Working great here too. Now I can actually watch a full-screen HD video on Vimeo without the sound stuttering on me. Compiz running and everything.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by TheUni (1007895)

      Make that 4. No problems here on gentoo 64.

      It sure did feel good to emerge -C nspluginwrapper

  • Great news. It's about time! I'm curious if they have plans to release a Windows 64-bit version for Firefox's "Minefield" releases.

  • by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Monday November 17, 2008 @01:03PM (#25787617) Homepage

    "Where's the 128-bit version?!"

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jbeaupre (752124)

      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.

  • Thank you thank you thank you!!!!!!

    This is a great day for flash support on linux!

  • by MindlessAutomata (1282944) on Monday November 17, 2008 @01:04PM (#25787649)

    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.

    • by X0563511 (793323)

      "wolf shirt-wearing"

      What, you would prefer sans-shirt? I think you meant:

      "wolf-shirt wearing"

  • Finally... (Score:4, Funny)

    by neonux (1000992) on Monday November 17, 2008 @01:11PM (#25787745) Homepage

    Now I'm waiting for the 64-bit version of Duke Nukem Forever!

  • by gblues (90260) on Monday November 17, 2008 @01:23PM (#25787935)

    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.

  • by Fëanáro (130986) on Monday November 17, 2008 @01:25PM (#25787957)

    Linux distributions do not ship with a 32-bit browser or a comprehensive 32-bit emulation layer by default.

    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:2, Insightful)

      by lp_bugman (623152)
      Because we need to move everything to 64bit. There is just no valid reason on staying on 32bit camp.
      With your argument we should still be using Netscape 3 over wine.

      Also most most linux distros come with Firefox 64bit preinstalled. So it make sence to use native (64bit) applications and plugins.
    • by PitaBred (632671)

      Most distro's don't ship with closed source software in the first place, and the only reason to run a 32bit browser or the 32bit nspluginwrapper is to get flash, so there is no reason for including a 32bit compatibility layer for only closed-source software. There are some distros that make it very easy to install, like Ubuntu, but it's not default because it's against the basic ideology of open-source, and it's one more thing that people will complain of that "bloats" the system.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Is this just one of these ideological things where the actual advantages for the user are disregarded?

      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)

    by Wowsers (1151731) on Monday November 17, 2008 @01:31PM (#25788091) Journal

    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)

      by coolsnowmen (695297) on Monday November 17, 2008 @02:02PM (#25788665)

      ...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.

    • by Wowsers (1151731)

      I wouldn't ordinarily reply to my own posting, but I just tried the plug-in. CPU use seems so far to be the same as the 32 bit version, so maybe need a bit of tweaking by Adobe. In Firefox it's identified in about:plugins as "Shockwave Flash 10.0 d20", does not mention it as 64 bit.

      I suspect I could now get rid of nspluginwrapper, but will test more to see how the plug-in reacts (if it crashes).

      A quick hopefully useful notice for some users. On first test I had no sound playback. I actually found that the s

    • by RAMMS+EIN (578166)

      ``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.''

      If these had been open source, there would probably have been stable and full-featured 64-bit versions for some time now.

  • doinitrite? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by BrainInAJar (584756)
    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
    • 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.

      • nonsense, disk is cheap and having a couple extra libs around doesn't impact it that much
        • Having to support two versions of libraries on a single system is a logistical nightmare in many cases (think: clueless users, businesses, etc), at least when you're trying to keep things as bug-free as possible.

    • 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

      They're just trying to stay ahead of Google.

    • yes. However I'd prefer to run native 64bit software on my 64bit OS rather than relying on a 32bit emulation layer. Windows 64bit users don't really have any problems running a 32bit browser with 32bit flash with WOW; but the story is different on linux since the 32bit flash doesn't operate very well with 64bit browsers...

      And bear in mind it's not just additional memory space you get with 64bit systems - It's the doubled CPU register count that I'm personally interested in....
  • FTA:

    "bleeding edge type of processor known as a 64-bit CPU"

    Since when is a processor architecture that has been available for years, and is the architecture of almost any computer you can buy right now, classed as "Bleeding Edge"

    Bleedin 'ell

  • by neowolf (173735)

    After 2+ years of asking Adobe to finally acknowledge that people actually use 64-bit machines- they finally got it!

    Something not clear from the download site or the article- the install instructions are here:

    http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/releasenotes_64bit.html [adobe.com]

    I was giddy with excitement just to be able to wipe npviewer/nspluginwrapper from my system, hopefully forever.

    And- I think it says a lot (despite what others seem to feel) that Adobe chose to do this for Linux first!

  • by mad.frog (525085) <steven@crinkli[ ]com ['nk.' in gap]> on Monday November 17, 2008 @03:14PM (#25789895)

    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)

    by cpghost (719344) on Monday November 17, 2008 @05:04PM (#25791703) Homepage
    What about us FreeBSD users, you (Adobe) insensitive clods?

When in doubt, mumble; when in trouble, delegate; when in charge, ponder. -- James H. Boren

Working...