Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Software The Internet Linux

Flash 7 for Linux Released 471

molarmass192 writes "Looks like Macromedia has finally made good on their word and provided Linux with a current version of Flash player. Improvements over Flash 6 include a speed boost and support for SOAP. Here's the requisite download link. I took a few seconds to get it set up and the response is noticeably snappier than version 6. In particular, the audio/video sync problems in version 6 seems to have been taken care of. Now, I wonder where they hid that Shockwave player for Linux?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Flash 7 for Linux Released

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

    by mrbarkeeper ( 560018 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @02:54AM (#9274998)
    Looks like those Linux users finally get all the fun [].
  • Now if only... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Atrax ( 249401 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @02:55AM (#9275000) Homepage Journal
    ... they'd release the authoring tool in a Linux version?
    • It works under WINE :)

      But seriously, is there enough of a market to justify the cost of a code port to Linux?
    • Re:Now if only... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:03AM (#9275034)
      ".. they'd release the authoring tool in a Linux version?"

      Hate to sound like I'm trolling here, but in order to get Macromedia to make authoring tools for Linux, you guys gotta prove you're willing to buy it. All this free-software movement probably puts the taste in a lot of people's mouthes that nobody wants to spend money on software.
      • Re:Now if only... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Atrax ( 249401 )
        Yes, but I think Flash designers/developers are in a Catch-22 there. Many would switch if Flash were available for Linux, I'm fairly convinced.

      • I'm more than happy to pay, if I get my money's worth. Plunking down large bucks on enviroments that turn out to be limiting, for poor support? That's just dumb.

        Look, the difference is that with most open enviroments, your have many ways to get the job done. On most closed systems, there's one way, the way one group of programmers decided.

        The expectations are higher & the code needs to be better, more flexible and more reusable. I want to generate flash from all sorts of files and data. I want to

      • Re:Now if only... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by spektr ( 466069 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @04:00AM (#9275228)
        Hate to sound like I'm trolling here, but in order to get Macromedia to make authoring tools for Linux, you guys gotta prove you're willing to buy it.

        Maybe they should ask Oracle whether anybody buys high quality software for Linux if they don't know. Some years ago this would have been a pretty good troll, but nowadays...?
        • Re:Now if only... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, 2004 @05:33AM (#9275511)
          Hardly anyone buys software for Linux desktop use, which is really what the thread is about. There is almost zero commerce for Linux and without a single desktop, commercial support and no moving targets, that is hardly ever likely to happen.
          Obviously for server use it's a different story where vendors just treat Linux and a cheap UNIX and porting is easy.

          I use Linux everyday and have for years, but I see no software market at all for desktop apps until things change. Compare this with almost an uncountable number of apps for Windows and Mac.
          • No, this thread is about desktop developers... Uh... Oh...


            Crap! He's got me doing it!
      • Re:Now if only... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, 2004 @04:15AM (#9275274)
        Oh yeah, no copyright respecting Linux user would ever pay for software. As opposed to those pirating Windows users, who only paid for the OS that came with the machine, not even the one they're running.

        I remember using Windows. Needing a program? Ask a friend, and get a copy of something he got a copy of, registered to a name even he had never heard of.

        Since I switched to Linux, I see the advantage of copyright law (if just everyone would use software they could pay for, we would have way more Linux users), and I pay for my software. I have bought about half the titles Loki released (the rest didn't really interest me), and even Windows games for running under Wine. Actually, I bought more Windows games for running under Wine, than I ever bought when running Windows.

        I am not the only one. Linux users on average have much more respect for copyright than Windows users.
      • Re:Now if only... (Score:5, Informative)

        by justsomebody ( 525308 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @05:15AM (#9275442) Journal
        Actualy, Macromedia sent letters to customers in form of:

        Would you migrate???
        Would you buy...???

        I guess they got enough positive response to start making authoring tools. You can read press releases for your self on Macromedia

        First version will be Wine based, probably Crossover, second is the native version.
    • Re:Now if only... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Majix ( 139279 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:09AM (#9275057) Homepage
      They're working on a Flash authoring tool called Flex [] that runs on Linux. The plan is to run it with Wine though, but I guess it's better than nothing. Now we just need Adobe to get with the program.
      • Re:Now if only... (Score:3, Informative)

        by gerbick ( 624657 )
        Flex is a $12k server based Flash tool, not the more friendly $500.00+ utility like the Macromedia Flash IDE. 'tis not the same thing. It's a start though.
    • Re:Now if only... (Score:4, Informative)

      by nametaken ( 610866 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:24AM (#9275118)
      I do author in Linux. Just, using PHP + Ming SWF Output library. Sure, it's nothing near a real authoring environment... and DEFINATELY has it's drawbacks... but it gets me by.
    • Re:Now if only... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jrockway ( 229604 ) *
      And why would we want it? Because Windows people use it?

      The future is SVG + ECMAScript. And that's an open format. Let's keep the closed, proprietary shiny objects away from Linux, eh?
  • Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by FannyMinstrel ( 656700 ) <> on Friday May 28, 2004 @02:55AM (#9275001)
    Now, I wonder where they hid that Shockwave player for Linux?


  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, 2004 @02:56AM (#9275004)
    Apparently they are working to make future versions of Flash Wine-compatible. It may not be a Linux version, but it's not a Windows version, either. It's a Wine API version. That's pretty cool. Of course we would all prefer native binaries, but having something certified as Wine-compatible is in some ways even better in the short term, because it validates that as an option for all the other Windows software companies. Making something Wine compatible is usually fairly simple.

    mobile porn []

  • by Götz ( 18854 ) <.ten.xmg. .ta. .khcsaw.> on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:00AM (#9275017) Homepage
    It's also available as packages for all major distributions from here. [].
    • by Eivind ( 15695 ) <> on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:58AM (#9275220) Homepage
      Is the installer otherwise similarily brainless ?

      I used the rpm for Mandrake 10.0, and the EULA came with a new, and previously atleast for me unseen level of stupidity:

      It had a freaking timer in the lower-rigth corner counting down from 15 seconds and being labeled: "Time left until auto-decline"

      Offcourse it can easily be proven in a court of law that it is not humanly possible to read, understand and click accept on the eula in such a short time. Thus it's no longer the case, as is typically the case that the user agreed to an eula, *choosing* not to read it.

      No, it's *enforced*, to install the program you *have* to accept an eula without being given any possibility of reading it.

      It's probably not a stretch that idiocy like this will further weaken the already more than questionable legal force of terms stated in eulas.

  • Read the EULA? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jcuervo ( 715139 ) <> on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:01AM (#9275022) Homepage Journal
    1. You may not make or distribute copies of the Software, or electronically transfer the Software from one computer to another or over a network.
    Just DOWNLOADING it violates the EULA.
    • Re:Read the EULA? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:10AM (#9275065)
      Why did this get a troll? It's a good example of how stupid terms get thrown into EULA's all the time.

      Another good example is NVIDIA's driver EULA. Apparently, you can only have one copy of the NVIDIA drivers installed, even if you have more than one NVIDIA vidio chipset.
    • Re:Read the EULA? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by iCEBaLM ( 34905 ) <icebalm&icebalm,com> on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:43AM (#9275180)
      No, uploading it does, as the EULA states that YOU can't distribute it, doesn't mean they can't.
      • Isn't 'uploading' the act of activly uploading something (put data) to someone, while downloading is when you actively download something (get data) from someone.
        So someone uploads something to one server so others can download it, at their leasure.

        Because, if not, the first thing I would say if RIAA knocked on my door would be: Hey! They uploaded those movies to me! I didn't do anything.
      • Re:Read the EULA? (Score:4, Informative)

        by fireklar ( 533430 ) <slashdot-firekla ...> on Friday May 28, 2004 @04:29AM (#9275308)
        1. You may not make or distribute copies of the Software, or electronically transfer the Software from one computer to another or over a network.
        Downloading it from their servers would be an "electronic transfer" of the Software over a network. Therefore, both uploading and downloading violate the EULA.
    • No it doesn't. An EULA is a licence for you, the end user, which tells you what you can do once you've got the software. It doesn't place restrictions on whether or not you can acquire the software; in fact, it can't, because you haven't yet agreed to the EULA in the first place.
    • Re:Read the EULA? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Joel Carr ( 693662 )
      Reminds me of GriSoft's AVG Free Edition virus scanner license agreement, which has the following clause:

      3. You may not use the Software on a network or more than one PC.
      - emphasis mine.

      Although these days the intent is somewhat clearer from reading the rest of the agreement, there was a time when it wasn't.

      I was helping a strapped for cash organisation legitimise their software, and we decided to see if we could find a free virus scanner before forking out cash for one. So I shot off an email aski
  • The context-sensitive menus in the Flash plug-in on ALL platforms seem to have some major issues. You right-click over a Flash animation in a Web page, and sometimes you get the ability to change the quality... sometimes you don't. Sometimes, all you get is a useless "options" screen that lets you change things like microphone volume and camera (!!!???) settings, but not things like, oh, speaker volume or video quality. I've seen this problem in Mozilla for Linux and in IE for Windows. WTF up with that?
    • its not the flash player, its the website designers that disable zooming in/quality control etc, so stupid users wont messup the site by zooming it in or messing up the quality.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      The menus can be programatically controlled by the Flash designer.

      Some designers opt to not have the menu show up in their Flash, and set this in the containing page's source code.

      So if you a menu doesn't pop up on right click, it isn't Macromedia's fault, its how the web designer wants it to be.
    • It's not the player, the authors intentionally disable that functionality. Hence, getting rid of the ability to do so would be alienating their developer customer base.

      Engaging in such practices usually mandates a buyout by Microsoft beforehand.
      • Re:Um, Dude (Score:3, Insightful)

        by JessLeah ( 625838 ) *
        It's not the developers' computer. It's MY computer, and a lot of my hardware is "old" and CANNOT HANDLE anything higher than "Low Quality"! And not giving me a freaking VOLUME KNOB is absolutely ridiculous.
        • Re:Um, Dude (Score:3, Informative)

          by Drakon ( 414580 ) *
          First of all, relax.
          Second of all, you're full of shit, it's not your computer, it's their content, in some cases artwork, and they can decide how they want it viewed/experianced.
          You can choose to not view it or view it as the artist intended.

          As for a volume knob, it seems that windows programs stopped having them a while ago (or if they did they simply controlled the system volume) and AFAIK, most linux programs never did (the onese that exist simply control the system mixer)
          • Re:Um, Dude (Score:3, Insightful)

            I have a hardware volume knob. It's right there on the front of my speakers. I don't know of any computer speakers, ever, that haven't included a bigass knob right on the front. Maybe I'm missing something?
          • Re:Um, Dude (Score:3, Insightful)

            by BillyBlaze ( 746775 )
            it's their content, in some cases artwork, and they can decide how they want it viewed/experianced.

            No. Copyright gives them the ability to control reproduction, preparation of derivative works, distribution of copies, public performance and public display of their work. Period. If I have legally obtained a copy, I can view and experience it however, whenever, with whatever, and at whichever volume and quality I want. They can build technical barriers, but DMCA notwithstanding, those barriers are neit

  • SuSE Works (Score:5, Interesting)

    by managementboy ( 223451 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:02AM (#9275032) Homepage
    Tried the install package on SuSe 9.0 and works like a charm. The only drawback is that the user needs to know where their mozilla/firefox is installed. Works noticably faster than before (I also have the feeling that it eats much less CPU time). Next improvement: no flash at all! ;-)
    • Try the rpm package from this site []. I haven't tried SuSE, but on Mandrakelinux, the rpm post install script detected the right directories to install to.
    • Re:SuSE Works (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DF5JT ( 589002 )
      That's really incredible. Copy two files into a standard directory correctly and people start praising it.

      My system-wide corporate deployment tool can do this, too. It's called cp and tar.
  • by etymxris ( 121288 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:04AM (#9275036)
    By chance I downloaded the newest version as I was reinstalling everything else too. But it still has "jerks" whenever I play a flash game. My slower windows box doesn't have this problem. The problem is reproducible on all three of my linux machines, no matter the processor speed. It makes it especially difficult to play a game like this [] since there are unexpected jerks in movement.
  • Misnomer title (Score:5, Informative)

    by diwadm ( 765932 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:05AM (#9275039) Homepage
    Flash 7 for Linux Released I almost jumped in joy thinking that Flash will be released natively for Linux. Flash is the application itself, Flash player is the standalone player and web browser plugin. Oh well.
  • by strider_starslayer ( 730294 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:08AM (#9275050)
    Where is my PPC flash player? Where oh where is it!?!

    Does it finally exist? I do so hope....
    • What about never ? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by theefer ( 467185 ) *
      And the Linux/Arm one ? And the Linux/alpha one ? etc.

      This is the proprietary magic : you just don't have the control or the possibility to see them come unless Macromedia themselves choose to release one.

      A simple and good reason not to use neither encourage or support this kind of proprietary, non-standard format.
      • I agree, yet I do not agree.

        Some companies by nature of needing to make a profit will want to keep the 'family jewels' locked up- to my knoledge flash dose not use any copyright encumbered compression schemes or patented techniques to do what it dose- if they made the source open some other company would snatch up there product and release there own version, possibly forkig what is currently a very fixed and ordered standard

        That said- multi-platform languages like Java were MADE for this sort of scena
  • now only if others would follow their footsteps, come on AOL, please release a real version of AIM, not that gtk1 POS, and come on Apple release iTunes for linux! Oh well thank god for wine..
  • No PPC version again I fear. At least I couldn't find it.

  • by niks42 ( 768188 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:09AM (#9275061)
    I've had many emails passed back and forth with Macromedia tech support .. there are versions for most Unix implementations, and MacOS 9 and X .. but not for Linux/PPC *sigh* .. it wouldn't be that difficult to run just one more compile, would it ?
    • mod parent up (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ErichTheWebGuy ( 745925 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:17AM (#9275090) Homepage
      The parent poster has an excellent point. If these developers write quality code, and I have no reason to suspect that they do not, why not drop a few hundred bucks on a single PPC box that you can start a GCC make on, and let it run for a week if need be?

      At the very least, you would have an excellent testbed. AND, IIRC, the US Navy is moving to PPC/Linux. Imagine the wargames... Flash/Shockwave Battleship!!!

      Macromedia Sales: Would that not make it WAY easier to land a HUGE contract with the Defense Dept?
      • Re:mod parent up (Score:4, Informative)

        by Minna Kirai ( 624281 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @06:18AM (#9275667)
        AND, IIRC, the US Navy is moving to PPC/Linux.

        But you recall wrong. The Navy is moving to Microsoft Windows. The NMCI [] is all Microsoft [].
    • It is the problem with non-free software.
  • Whoa... (Score:5, Funny)

    by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:13AM (#9275076) Journal
    props to Macromedia on this one.

    It's made it through (currently) six repetitions of Badgers with excellent synchronization (as opposed to version 6 not even making one). Hell, everything's so crisp and fluid... it's beyond further words.
  • A Speedup Trick... (Score:5, Informative)

    by ajayrockrock ( 110281 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:14AM (#9275081) Homepage
    Has anyone tried this speedup trick in other distro's? I doubt that it's Gentoo specific: []

    The gist of it is setting an environment var:


    People in the Gentoo forum are claming massive speed increases when viewing flash. I'm about to go try it now...

  • Can't use it :( (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Per Wigren ( 5315 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:15AM (#9275085) Homepage
    It's nice to see companies supporting Linux, but unfortunately I can't use it until they make a amd64-version since 64-bit browsers can't use 32-bit plugins..

    The Linux kernel can run 32-bit code but can't link to 64-bit code so to have a 32-bit browser I'd have to also have 32-bit versions of all the libraries it depends on, and their dependancies, all the way down to glibc and Not worth it.

    Is it possible to run isolated 32-bit code inside a 64-bit program? Something like an exec32() libc-function or something? To make 64-bit Mozilla run Flash and make 64-bit MPlayer load win32-codecs.. I'm sure you'll have to make some kind of wrapper-code to convert int-sizes etc when sending/getting data from/to the library, but would it be possible at all?
    • Is it possible to run isolated 32-bit code inside a 64-bit program?

      no. It has to be launched as a 32bit binary, so that the kernel puts the process into virtual 32bit mode.

      The only option you have is to install in parallel a 32bit version of Mozilla/MPlayer/etc that will be able to load the plugins.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    This could of course just be me but it seems that the sync of video/audio is still not exactly right. I tested it by running this clip but alas it didn't work. perhaps I should remove the v.6 plugin first. Oh well.
  • No, Seriously. . . (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Farley Mullet ( 604326 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:33AM (#9275149)

    Why would you want it?

    Flash is internet pollution. (X)HTML is lighter-weight and thus faster, more accessible for people with disabilities, and just generally less crap. Plus, Google can tell you about the content of (X)HTML pages, but nothing, from Google to grep, can parse the content of a Flash movie. Flash has a nice little niche for silly animations and games, but it has become a cancer on the web as a navigation and content-presentation interface. An increase in its reach isn't something to celebrate.

    • by le_jfs ( 627582 )
      but nothing, from Google to grep, can parse the content of a Flash movie.

      Troll. Just have a look at this: google for hello world in flash []
      And this: swfstrings []

      Still, I think you're right about the fact that Flash is an annoying Internet pollution and should not be over-used in menus or content. But saying one cannot google or grep it is a lie.
    • by novakreo ( 598689 ) *

      Why would you want it?

      Because I happen to enjoy silly [] animations [] and games [].

      You say that as if there is something wrong with enjoying 'silly animations and games'. I do. So do many other people.
      It may also be inaccessible, but every day people enjoy things that aren't globally accessible, from various forms of media and art to sports and recreation. How do you make animation accessible to those with vision difficulties?

      One could write a story instead, but then you have something totally different. H

    • Well... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Nailer ( 69468 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @06:49AM (#9275755)
      Because vector graphics authoring tools that use motion SVG are, at their beta stage of development, quite poor?

      Because HTML/XML can't play movie trailers, whereas Flash's Sorenson codec, native on Linux, can?

      Because unlike Java, Flash UI is responsive. unlike DHTML its actually designed for forms, and unlike ActiveX, its cross platform.
  • i'm so happy! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lingqi ( 577227 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:38AM (#9275165) Journal
    Now, you know, I can finally view in its full glory.

    Now seems a good time to introduce flashblock []. Very ironic, isn't it?

  • by green pizza ( 159161 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:45AM (#9275187) Homepage
    This is one of the few times you'll hear me honestly ask "is it open source?" I ask because I would love to see an IRIX version of this for my Silicon Graphics Octane workstation, and I know it's not going to happen otherwise. The IRIX world is stick at version 5 with few alternatives.

    Yeah, yeah, I know, flash sucks. But sometimes you need to have it to visit certain sites. Sure beats having to fire up my PC just o look at the newest movie site.

    And yes, SGIs are oldschool. But Octanes are pretty cheap on eBay and are becoming common with we hardware collectors (if you're not that type, you probably know one... house full of computers with at least one working Amiga and probably a NeXT cube too). And it makes for a great main workstation!
  • by latroM ( 652152 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @03:50AM (#9275198) Homepage Journal
    "Looks like Macromedia has finally made good on their word and provided Linux"

    GNU/Linux works on various platforms although the x86 port is the most common. I don't see x86 anywhere in the announcement, do you? If we had the source we had the freedom to compile it on any arch and OS we wanted to. A proprietary software package isn't a contribution to us if our goal is freedom.
  • by santhu ( 689833 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @04:08AM (#9275248)
    Mozilla with flash player 7.0 opens the flash animations, in the same way as it used to do with flash player 6.0. I could'nt find any difference with the new plugin. If somebody could tell me a way to find the difference, it would be great.
  • by Vertex Operator ( 100854 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @04:28AM (#9275306) Homepage
    Just toss those two files into /usr/lib/browser-plugins and away you go.

    Works fine with Mozilla, Firefox, also.

    Didn't test it with Epiphany etc.
  • by incuso ( 747340 ) <> on Friday May 28, 2004 @04:30AM (#9275309)
    Is there any way to download the linux version (debian) from a windows box?


  • 64bit Version (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Ćnertia ( 96622 )
    ARG... Still no 64bit release... this is really anoying.. If I want to use 64bit native browser I can't have flash... grrr...
  • by yem ( 170316 )

    Hell [] still [] crashes firefox.

    $ firefox
    firefox exited with non-zero status (11)

    *sigh* I was hoping 7.x would fix that.

  • by polished look 2 ( 662705 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @06:12AM (#9275636) Journal
    You shall not use the Software to develop any software or other technology having the same primary function as the Software, including but not limited to using the Software in any development or test procedure that seeks to develop like software or other technology, or to determine if such software or other technology performs in a similar manner as the Software.
    • That, and #3b and 2b (Score:3, Informative)

      by whovian ( 107062 )

      3b. You may not alter, merge, modify, adapt or translate the Software, or decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or otherwise reduce the Software to a human-perceivable form.

      Clause 3g reads "don't compete with us", clause 3b read "don't even think about it".

      2b. You agree that Macromedia may audit your use of the Software for compliance with these terms at any time, upon reasonable notice. [snip]

      Reads: Here's your notice if case we wish to track you or your usage of the software.

  • by rklrkl ( 554527 ) on Friday May 28, 2004 @07:03AM (#9275814) Homepage
    Over 8 months to port the Flash 7 plug-in isn't impressive in anyone's books (Windows official release date of the Flash 7 plug-in was 10th September 2003), no Shockwave Player at all for Linux as the original posting said and a half-baked announcement that they'll try to get their apps working under Linux WINE (er, is that with or without a Windows partition and all its native DLLs?).

    Macromedia still don't care about Linux in any meaningful fashion - wake me up when Flash 8 comes out simultaneously on Windows and Linux (Mozilla can do it with a Web browser that's 1,000 times more complex, so why not a browser plug-in?), when Shockwave Player finally appears on Linux and when Macromedia's entire Windows product range is available natively on Linux. Only then can you finally say Macromedia is taking Linux seriously - Oracle switched (albeit from Solaris)...c'mon Macromedia, make the same move...

A committee is a group that keeps the minutes and loses hours. -- Milton Berle