Adobe Releases Last Linux Version of Flash Player 426
dartttt writes "Adobe has released Flash Player version 11.2 with many new features. This is the final Flash Player release for Linux platform and now onward there will be only security and bug fix updates. Last month Adobe announced that it is withdrawing Flash Player support for Linux platform. All the future newer Flash releases will be bundled with Google Chrome using its Pepper API and for everything else, 11.2 will be the last release."
Re:OS alternative? (Score:4, Informative)
For YouTube, just enable the HTML5 experiment [youtube.com]. No Flash needed.
Re:That didn't last long (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, there was a Linux flash player since version 6... The support hasn't always been good or well-synced with the Windows/MacOS releases, but it has existed for quite a long time. 64-bit support has only been available since version 10 or so.
Re:OS alternative? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:OS alternative? (Score:4, Informative)
How close are we to an open source alternative that actually works for most flash tasks ...
These work fine for what I do (Debian):
i browser-plugin-gnash - GNU Shockwave Flash (SWF) player - Plugin for Mozill
i A gnash - GNU Shockwave Flash (SWF) player
i A gnash-common - GNU Shockwave Flash (SWF) player - Common files/libr
Re:Features (Score:4, Informative)
From TFA: "Adobe will continue to provide security updates to non-Pepper distributions of Flash Player 11.2 on Linux for five years from its release".
And then, nothing.
Re:OS alternative? (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a link to a MPlayer YouTube script [multimedia.cx] which also allows playing on the fly. It uses youtube-dl as a helper to fetch the exact video location URL from which MPlayer starts buffering.
Now we just need a Firefox/Chrome extension to make a nicely clickable button which passes the browser URL to the script. One problematic thing here too is that while MPlayer can seek, it does seem to not know the length of the video, so I don't know the current position.
Re:Good Riddance (Score:5, Informative)
Vimeo works 100% without Flash, unlike YouTube.
Re:Good Riddance (Score:5, Informative)
About half of youtube works without Flash installed
I've been using ClickToPlugin, which fetches the HTML5 version of YouTube videos for a while and I've not seen the Flash player for a good six months.
Re:Hulu Desktop? (Score:5, Informative)
Adobe will keep supporting Flash on Android, for example.
Not according to Adobe they won't...
http://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2011/11/flash-focus.html
Re:Good Riddance (Score:4, Informative)
Mozilla definitely won't support the Pepper API (Score:0, Informative)
Josh Aas (Mozilla Corporation) 2012-03-23 11:26:00 PDT [mozilla.org]
removed Whiteboard: Revisit decision in 2015
Re:Good Riddance (Score:4, Informative)
YouTube works without flash. That's one of the nice things about it. Forward compatibility.
Re:Hulu Desktop? (Score:5, Informative)
DVD regions are trivial to defeat. Multi-region players are available widely, cheaply, and legally. In some jurisdictions, it's even legally mandated that disk players not enforce those restrictions.
DVD regions are a paper tiger compared to web services.
Regression as a parting shot? (Score:4, Informative)
And as a parting shot at Linux users, Adobe introduces a major regression [launchpad.net] (hardware accelerated video tints everything blue [archlinux.org], e.g. YouTube), claims it can't be reproduced, and closes all bug reports [archlinux.org] about [adobe.com] it, leaving users to implement a nasty hack [nvnews.net] individually.
Re:Hulu Desktop? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hulu Desktop? (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't necessarily have to be the end of free as in free as beer, but worst case scenario it is, sure. You might as well be complaining that mozilla has to pay for bandwidth for everyone to download the browser from their site, or grab add-ins. That isn't free either. They'll just pay the license fee out of the revenue they get from google for having them as their default search engine. Whoopee.
Not all "FOSSies" are clueless, they just aren't just aren't as a religious zealot about not using h.264 as you are. They are actually fairly smart about doing what's best for themselves, usually. If you actually studied most of the technologies in h.264, VP8, WMV, etc, you'd realize if a patent likely applies to one, would apply to them all. The open source codecs aren't all that different from the proprietary ones that they would likely escape either.
And yes, I would consider your post to be TROLLING, as it really didn't do anything but complain and spread FUD.
Re:Hulu Desktop? (Score:5, Informative)