Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Chrome Google Media Software Linux

Adobe Releases Last Linux Version of Flash Player 426

Posted by timothy
from the end-of-the-line dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adobe Releases Last Linux Version of Flash Player

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

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31, 2012 @10:30AM (#39533907)

    I'll return the favor, and dump you now, Adobe.

  • Good Riddance (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fireking300 (1852630) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @10:30AM (#39533909)
    I expect Flash to be phased out in favor of non-proprietary alternatives in the near future(3-4 Years).
    • by Elbereth (58257) <krachtm@yahoo.com> on Saturday March 31, 2012 @11:14AM (#39534185) Homepage Journal

      ...but not on Slashdot, which just rolled out a Flash-based feature.

    • About half of youtube works without Flash installed. Other video sites, not so much... blip.tv (which is the other one I use fairly regularly) has actually discontinued their html5 support in favour of going 100% flash.

      Ultimately, my choice was between installing Flash and using the browser of my choice, or installing Chrome for Linux. I went with flash, but I am not happy with the decision. It's sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

    • by Nrrqshrr (1879148) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @11:22AM (#39534235)
      Am one of those guys who try to make a living out of flash games, and I can tell you that this isn't very good news for us. A couple of months ago, they withdrew flash support for mobile, and now for Linux.
      it's like Adobe wants the death of flash.
      • Re:Good Riddance (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hobarrera (2008506) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @11:54AM (#39534469) Homepage

        Adobe and the rest of the world, yes, that's what we want.

      • Re:Good Riddance (Score:4, Informative)

        by WrecklessSandwich (1000139) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @11:57AM (#39534493)
        You should probably start looking into making your games with less terrible technology. Go ahead and keep making games by all means, just, not with the godawful abomination that is Flash.
        • Re:Good Riddance (Score:5, Insightful)

          by petsounds (593538) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @04:08PM (#39536183)

          Less terrible technology? Abomination?

          Really now. I can respect an anti-Flash opinion based on a desire for open standards (even though the SWF format is open), but saying Flash is terrible tech is just me-too ignorance. What other web framework can you composite 2d animation, advanced typography, h264 movies, native sound processing, and a 60fps native 3D rendering engine at your leisure? Try making audiotool [audiotool.com] in HTML5. There's nothing better for creating multimedia content. There are simply no IDEs anywhere near as mature for HTML5. Actionscript 3.0 is a pretty great language, a bit like Java, that encourages good coding style, but without weighing down development speed with too much cruft. It's what Javascript could have been if Microsoft hadn't sabotaged the ECMAScript 4 deliberations.

          And what other web framework has let developers deliver quality games? Unity, sure, but most people don't have the plug-in. Go ahead, what do you recommend that people should have used the last 10 years for web-based gaming? Yeah...I thought so.

          Do I need to remind you that Epic recently ported the latest version of Unreal Engine to Flash [unrealengine.com]? WebGL can't touch what is being done in Flash.

          Even though Adobe is run by fucking morons, Flash is still a great platform, and they are not giving up on Flash completely. I imagine the future of Flash is more of a Unity-style thing where you develop in Flash and then export to various platforms. Epic wouldn't have spent the time and money porting Unreal Engine unless they had confidence in Adobe's roadmap.

          As I said, if someone has philosophical differences with Flash as a platform, I can respect that. But all you people mouthing off about Flash without even understanding the issues only do more harm than good.

      • Re:Good Riddance (Score:5, Interesting)

        by EdIII (1114411) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @12:29PM (#39534739)

        Find something new and quick. I suggest HTML5, and finding other tools to develop it in.

        Adobe never wanted the death of Flash. They have gone through the 5 stages of grief already. Microsoft, in a little yellow school bus moment, ignored all the signs with their creation of Silverlight and went straight to "Fuck it. We were just kidding anyways".

        There were a lot of factors that came together here and Flash simply cannot compete going forward with HTML5. Nobody really wanted a proprietary platform like Flash anyways, it was just all that was available at the time. You could stuff with Java, but that always seemed more geared towards business to me.

        Adobe is moving on. While I don't like Dreamweaver (at all), and many developer friends state that the code it produces is lacking, Adobe can create some pretty nice development tools. Look forward to a pretty comprehensive HTML5 development products that you can make your games in.

        P.S - It did not help that Steve Jobs refused to put them on Apple products towards the end of his life. Especially with games and content consumption. That was a bad hand dealt to Adobe that just quickened the death of Flash.

        • Re:Good Riddance (Score:4, Insightful)

          by TheRaven64 (641858) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @12:55PM (#39534937) Journal
          Adobe would be very happy for Flash to die. They make their money from the authoring tools, not from the player. The player is a money sink. With HTML5, they can outsource the client development to browser developers but keep the profitable one.
        • Re:Good Riddance (Score:5, Interesting)

          by tyrione (134248) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @04:04PM (#39536161) Homepage

          A bit of history from this NeXT/Apple alumnus. In 1997 Carbon was brought to the WWDC in San Jose as a one year transitional API for the big boys to port their application base over to and then a rapidly phased move to Cocoa. Adobe, Macromedia and others dictated and delayed a lot of OS X maturity by threats to pulling their products from the platform. Microsoft was settling the legal dispute and contractually bound themselves to OS X but refused to go Cocoa.

          Apple had no real leverage until iTunes and the iPod.

          Instead of being ready when OS X was released for Cocoa apps these companies kicked and screamed all the way.

          They whined even more after Carbon 64 bit didn't materialize. By then Apple had all the leverage they needed and when iOS materialized Adobe was the last and most arrogant one to believe Steve had any love loss left for them and their long-time collaboration from Apple->NeXT->Apple. When he publicly denounced Flash Adobe should have already had their app base moved to Cocoa. The days of complaining how difficult it is to maintain Windows and OS X finally fell on completely deaf ears. Adobe will never recover as a major player and will find itself relegated to a second tier if it doesn't make a bold push on OS X and iOS with actual native Apps from top to bottom that leverage pure Cocoa/GCD/OpenCL/OpenGL/CoreFoundation via C/C++/ObjC/ObjC++ in the truest sense of the world. Releasing PDF as an ISO standard was wise, but one done out of threats from competitors. Adobe still has bloated tools whose pricing is going to kill them faster than their competitors, but then again Adobe really seems to love bundles.

        • I suggest HTML5

          In HTML5, how do I target Internet Explorer for Windows XP, which still has two years of extended support left? It may surprise geeks, but I'm under the impression that some administrators are still a lot more willing to authorize the installation of Adobe Flash Player than of Google Chrome Frame.

          In existing HTML5 implementations, how do I make a barcode scanner application or a voice-controlled application? There's still no way to (ask the user's permission to) read the camera and microphone connected t

      • by narcc (412956)

        You'll be fine. Adobe is phasing out Flash -- but in favor of Adobe Air -- on desktops and mobile.

        The more things change, the more they stay the same.

    • by westlake (615356)

      I expect Flash to be phased out in favor of non-proprietary alternatives in the near future(3-4 Years).

      The HEVC/H.265 video codec is pretty far along now.

      It will have the backing of the major hardware manufactuers and distributors like Netflix.

      There is really no way of stopping new prorietary technologies from gaining traction on the web or keep them from being ported to the web as they gain momentum elsewhere,

      • It's very hard to have any technology (proprietary or not) gain traction on the web when it needs to replace an existing solution in order to do so. It must not just be better - it must be significantly better, especially when the existing one is "good enough". It's precisely why HTML5 is struggling hard against Flash in video, and why it took ages for PNG to become a real standard on the web. But it also means that, once H.264 is set - and, largely thanks to Apple, it is a de facto standard for the Web alr

  • by Zapotek (1032314) <{tasos.laskos} {at} {gmail.com}> on Saturday March 31, 2012 @10:32AM (#39533917) Homepage
    ...where I was when I heard the news. So long...
  • by steevven1 (1045978) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @10:35AM (#39533927) Homepage
    Will Linux users get totally screwed over by this over time, or are there plenty of alternative, non-Adobe plugins to display Flash? How big of a deal is this really? I'm a 100% Linux user, but I can't live without Flash in today's world, unfortunately.
    • by Ephemeriis (315124) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @10:56AM (#39534059)

      Honestly, it hasn't been that big a deal for a little while now. Like it or not, HTML5 is supplanting Flash in a lot of places.

      Personally, I see this as less of a ding against Linux than an admission that Flash just isn't that important anymore.

    • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @12:31PM (#39534761) Journal

      Sorry, Apple (crosses himself to ward of the evil one) has shown that Flash is overrated. Adobe itself already acknowledged defeat on that front and stopped development for mobile devices. Those lucky Android devices that got flash support have it crash or slow the device to a crawl. The mobile device on which regular web pages make sense, tablets, seem to give Android no advantage at all in sales.

      Adobe is really shooting itself in the foot here again. Web development is my trade and I have noticed a very high adaptation of Linux in this industry. Not just the obvious servers but desktops as well. A few years ago, if you wanted one, it was a negotiation. Now, I have even seen it as a requirement. Flash is universally despised in the LAMP development area which also seems (but I admit to being prejudiced) to be the place where new things are attempted rather then the 1 millionth intra-net site.

      Will this make a huge difference? Not at first but unless a customer absolutely demands flash, I code a requirement in HTML5 and show something that is smoother and better supported and Hey, works on the iPad. So much easier for the initial demo to just hand a tablet to show how nice the site works... especially if you noticed the customer has an iPhone or iPad themselves. And a lot do. I am not convinced the world is moving to the tablet for browsing but the customer does so demoing the product on the product of the future just seems smart to me.

      When the iPad (or was it the iPhone itself) launched, a lot of people like the parent claimed that the lack of flash would kill it... I would like a product that gets killed like that. I would dry my tears with million dollar bills.

      Adobe got lazy with flash, it is slow, buggy, a resource hog and crashes every two seconds all so that webpages can't be indexed and look like the creation of a 12 year old Japanese girl. It lost support of the people who are capable enough of working around it and now, thank to the evil one, customers are demanding that their site works without it to.

      HTML5 is the new thing and with mobile devices becoming bigger and bigger (who would you rather please with your website, an iPad user or a user running IE6, I think I know the bigger sucker... eh, the customer with more disposable income) the finicky, slow websites must go. Have you tried YOUR websites menu with a touchscreen yet?

    • by Skapare (16644)

      Well, for VIDEOs you don't need flash. Never did. Of course SOME websites intentionally obfuscated the videos to force you to decode them in flash, but that's not REAL VIDEO. REAL VIDEO has worked for ages without any need for flash. Flash was made to overcome failures of Microsoft IE to deal with video.

  • by Chrisq (894406) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @10:35AM (#39533935)
    Flash won't be supported in Linux, and isn't supported on IOS. If anything this will be e good boost for HTML5
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31, 2012 @10:48AM (#39534003)

      Desktop Linux is not a large enough market to have any significant bearing on the importance of Flash.

      • by gQuigs (913879)

        According to statcounter:
        February 2012:
        "iOS",1.89
        "Linux",0.83

        February 2011:
        "Linux",0.76
        "iOS",0.46

        If iOS gets to have an effect, I don't see why desktop linux can't. In this case however, it seems like it would mostly hurt Firefox on Linux. But then again this is in 5 years. 5 years ago, there were a lot more sites with Quicktime, Realplayer, and Windows Media streaming. I barely see them at all today.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mysidia (191772)

        If that's true, then why did Adobe create Flash for Linux in the first place?

        • If that's true, then why did Adobe create Flash for Linux in the first place?

          Sometimes people make thing for Linux without need for large profit. It's good PR and helps the community; However, for most people, when you do something for free and find the recipients to be largely rude and ungrateful, you stop doing it.

        • by pscottdv (676889)

          They didn't. MACROMEDIA did. And then Adobe swallowed Macromedia and turned flash into bloatware.

  • by gstrickler (920733) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @10:36AM (#39533941)

    Adobe kills Flash for Linux. - "This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who."

    • by Kjella (173770)

      The day it reads "Adobe kills Flash" I'll pop the champagne, "for Linux" just means support is going backwards for Linux. No matter how much you hate Flash the effect will be "That doesn't work on Linux/Firefox, use Windows/Chrome." because despite it being supported I bet once Flash 12 comes out most sites will reply "your version of flash is not supported, please upgrade" anyway. Anyone know if this support will be in Chromium too or if it's another Chrome-only feature like H.264?

      • it's not going to be in chromium. chromium is chrome without those google specific features.

      • by Skapare (16644)

        The day it reads "Adobe kills Flash" I'll pop the champagne, "for Linux" just means support is going backwards for Linux. No matter how much you hate Flash the effect will be "That doesn't work on Linux/Firefox, use Windows/Chrome." because despite it being supported I bet once Flash 12 comes out most sites will reply "your version of flash is not supported, please upgrade" anyway. Anyone know if this support will be in Chromium too or if it's another Chrome-only feature like H.264?

        Actually, the communication should go in the other direction and say "Use Web Standards!". Then their videos will work on all modern browsers.

        "We don't need no steenkin Flash!"

    • by Jaktar (975138)

      This post makes me want to
      sing.....
      sing.......
      sing...........

  • I'm not sure this is actually a loss. I think it's probably a bonus that they'll only be doing fixes and not adding more features. The new features are not likely to be used and generally only end up adding more potential exploits.

  • Yay! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 31, 2012 @10:37AM (#39533955)

    Now for them to stop releasing it on windows and everything else!

    So flash can GO AWAY. Bloated ass useless ad serving slow pos infecting the web and our hardware!

    • Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mrnobo1024 (464702) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @11:10AM (#39534157)

      I used to think of Flash as a CPU hog, but it pales in comparison to Javascript/HTML5. Even simple 2D games in Javascript will run at about 3 frames per second despite constantly using 100% CPU, and they often hog memory too (which Flash has never been all that bad about in my experience, unless you leave a dozen YouTube tabs open or something).

      Annoying ads won't go away just because Flash does; they'll move to HTML5 and will be just as annoying, more resource hungry, and harder to block (disabling Javascript everywhere makes the Web unusable; a whitelist system like NoScript is going to be a necessity).

      • by robmv (855035)

        Some of those games are not using a newer API like requestAnimationFrame [mozilla.org]. After it is more widespread, currently Firefox and Chrome, I expect some limitations will be added to setTimeout

      • Re:Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheRaven64 (641858) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @12:26PM (#39534711) Journal

        I used to think of Flash as a CPU hog, but it pales in comparison to Javascript/HTML5

        You're comparing apples and oranges there. You are not comparing Adobe Flash to JavaScript + HTML5, you are comparing Adobe Flash to an (unspecified) implementation of JavaScript + HTML5. This may seem like nitpicking, but it's very important. For example, on OS X Safari is a lot faster than FireFox for anything involving lots of compositing, but on Windows the converse is true.

        More importantly, the people who get the blame for poor performance can actually fix it with HTML5. When Flash was slow on OS X, people blamed Apple, but Apple was a small share of the market that Adobe didn't care about, and Apple couldn't do anything to fix it. Adobe has very little incentive to improve Flash performance - they don't make money selling the client. In contrast, Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft, and Google all use their JavaScript performance as a selling point for their browsers. If a Flash game is too slow on a user's machine, what can they do? Not play it. Unless they actually tell the author, they may not realise that they've lost a potential user. If they do, will the author pass the complaint to Adobe? Probably not. In contrast, if a web game is too slow in Firefox, the user can try it in Chrome. If it's faster, then Firefox probably just lost a user...

  • by recrudescence (1383489) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @10:51AM (#39534025)
    As a linux user hearing these news, I'm reluctantly joining hands with Apple in saying "Yeah? Well, screw you adobe. And screw you google. We can do better!"
  • Pepper API (Score:5, Interesting)

    by monkeyhybrid (1677192) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @10:59AM (#39534075)

    Can't other browsers just adopt the Pepper API?

    • Re:Pepper API (Score:4, Interesting)

      by monkeyhybrid (1677192) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @11:03AM (#39534097)

      Ok, to partly answer my own question, it seems Mozilla is not interested in adopting it [mozilla.org].

      • Re:Pepper API (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Lussarn (105276) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @11:24AM (#39534257)

        I think Mozillas stance on this Pepper/NaCL thing is quite bad founded. What Google have done is essentially to technicaly sandbox plugins (giving them about the same security as Javascript) and with that made a new and improved plugin API. This is not a bad thing. It of course might keep developers from HTML/JS and instead use C/C++/Any language you can think of. I really don't see how this is a bad thing either. It's pretty much proven by now that HTML/JS will never get native speeds, Chrome already have it. Compare Airmech on chrome with that mozilla MMORPG released this week and you will see for yourself. Airmech looks modern, the Mozzila game is a litte better than NES quality.

        • Re:Pepper API (Score:5, Interesting)

          by robmv (855035) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @11:37AM (#39534333)

          The problem with pepper is that it is a code dump, now moved to the chromium repository, it isn't an spec, behaviour changes every time Google updates it. If Mozilla were to waste waste resources to allow more closed plugins infect the web at least gives them a spec, if every browser embed the same code, then why have different browsers?

          This is the same reason why WebQL died as an standard, the spec said: must follow Sqlite version x.y as the SQL dialect., or something like that. Mozilla and Microsoft rejected that because it force an implementation

    • by quetwo (1203948)

      Yes, they can. And believe it or not, Mozilla was at the table creating the standard that became Pepper API. They just didn't want to implement it...

  • Value (Score:5, Funny)

    by tessellated (265314) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @11:05AM (#39534115) Homepage

    One of the top causes for my netbook's fan to become noisy.

    And nothing of value was lost.

  • For video, it would help a lot if someone wrote a solid HTML5 player with the simple YUV overlay playback, just like the stand-alone video players, which are fast. Works on every PC.
  • Is there any reason the Gnash team cant step up and improve Gnash and make it as good as Flash? Or at least good enough that it can be a drop-in replacement for Flash?

    Does Gnash support RTMPE streams? Maybe what is needed is a fork of Gnash (or a bolt-on for Gnash) hosted in a country without anti-circumvention laws that supports RTMPE and other flash DRM. (similar to how many projects have had and continue to have sites outside the US for the development and distribution of encryption software to avoid str

  • Not really true.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by quetwo (1203948) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @11:37AM (#39534331) Homepage

    Adobe will continue to make new versions of the Flash Player that use the new PEPPAPI (Pepper API). They will no longer make any new versions of the plugin that support the older NSAPI model. PEPPAPI was created by Mozilla and Google, but since PEPPAPI was introduced, Mozilla decided to not support it ("it is too hard").

    I was about to say to stop the bad summaries, but this is /. , and this is what we have come to expect.

  • Adobe, your web programs (Flash and PDF Reader) have been a pox on computer users everywhere even if they are not aware of the risks. I hope you will entirely give up on the Internet and concentrate on software where they will do no harm. Better yet, just leave the business entirely.

  • Looking forward (Score:4, Interesting)

    by utkonos (2104836) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @11:58AM (#39534499)

    This move was not unexpected. We've been hearing things to this extent for a bit now.

    This leaves a few questions. First of which is:

    Are the open source alternatives ready for prime time? Correct me if I'm wrong but here is the list of the major alternatives:

    1. Gnash [gnu.org]
    2. Lightspark [github.com]
    3. Swfdec [freedesktop.org]
      1. I've included Swfdec, but as I understand it, this is for flash apps that you have created and know work with swfdec. It is not for random content from unknown sources. A use case for this is a kiosk where you control the content and the display.

        Now, are the other two, Gnash and Lightspark, ready for primetime, i.e. can they replace Flash Player any time soon?

        Personally, the last time I used either one was a few months ago when I toyed with the idea of trying to make my workstation fully open source. I found that many youtube videos made the plugin crash for both Gnash and Lightspark.

        Since there is content right now that is made for Adobe's Flash Player, I feel that the way forward should be to stop creating new content for Flash. Let it die, and only create new content in HTML5. As for the existing content, the alternatives like the ones listed above need to be able to play need to be able to play it with no problems. I would even have no problem if there was new content developed with the alternative in mind rather than close source Flash Player.

  • all browsers except chrome on the Linux platform wont make me switch browsers, i will just do without, and say fuck you adobe and fuck you too google, i dont need either one of them
  • by utkonos (2104836) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @12:07PM (#39534557)
    Is there something stopping Firefox from implementing the PPAPI [google.com]? Perhaps this could become a new standard API for browsers across the board?
  • by gottabeme (590848) on Saturday March 31, 2012 @03:00PM (#39535769)

    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.

"You know, we've won awards for this crap." -- David Letterman

Working...