GOOD NEWS: Flash x64 on the horizon

Linux gets first Dibs!
http://mcall.com.com/8301-1001_3-10097931-92.html

 

Woohoo! Now all we need more is shockwave for linux!

 

I'm not even going to try being grateful: it's about f*cking time.

 

Bog: Why so angry with life? =]

Jump to linky for installation instructions of the Alpha release:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=984790

 

That's exactly what I was thinking. No one but Adobe could get away with it for so long.

 

Horizon my fleshy pink rear end. It's here: http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/

I have it installed, and it seems to work quite well At least, youtube works, and it'll even play videos full screen ok. I've gotta go try some games.

I'll post later with news on whether it crashes like the 32bit nspluginwrapper version does. I used to have to restart firefox 3-4 times a day with the 32bit version. Let's see if this one works better...

 

If you took the time to read the whole thread, you would follow the link provided and realize that we already know it's out, it seems to be working well in FF and Opera.

It crashes if you fail to remove the x86 nspluginwrapper appropriately, no surprise.

Wouldn't be surprised if it crashes since it's in Alpha

fleshy Pink rear end = kuBUTTu

 

Well, yeah. It'll compete with nspluginwrapper for handling Flash. That's why you have to remove all traces of nspluginwrapper, and install it new, which is what I did. I'm going to have to see if it crashes LIKE the 32bit version.

Besides, the forum link is down right now, so I can't really read what is there.

 

=]

I was just getting cheeky with you, sorry for poo-flinging, 3hrs sleep does wonders!

I hope the plugin ends up working well, it would be another great +1 for linux.

 

commitment? Since when is someone committed when it takes them (insert large number here) years to develop something that means so much to computer users

anyway, about time adobe

although, with this new install of 8.10 im having no problems at all with flash crashing or any stability problems. Maybe ill just stick with what i got now

 

Stop flinging poo, monkey!

 

Whoops:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=monkey+smells+finger&emb=1&aq=f#

 

This is working very well.

About time

 

I haven't had to restart Firefox once yet today. I offically declare Flash 10 native for x64 MUCH better than the nspluginwrapper solution on my own anecdotal evidence

Worst I've had to do was reload a page, and that was when I loaded up my daily comics rotation of about 50 tabs. I can't blame one youtube video for timing out in that kind of bandwidth sapping maelstrom

 

This almost entices me to switch to 64bit. Flash was one of my most outstanding issues with it. I'll have to reconsider.

 

Flash wasn't really horrible before on 64-bit, crashed every once in awhile but other then that..

I don't get people using 32-bit anymore, they lost their excuses once nspluginwrapper became decently stable, just switch already people

 

I'm sorry I like things perfectly stable. I certainly have no excuse for not wanting anything to crash what so ever as it certainly was not my main reason for switching from Windows. Everybody loves it when their computer crashes in the middle of important work!

 

64bit has never been the cause of computer crashes. Even Firefox never crashed with the old 32bit Flash. It just failed to load new Flash content until it was restarted. Which isn't too much to deal with, really. There really is no excuse to not be on 64bit Linux.

 

I actually have the 64bit version of Ubuntu 8.10 loaded up. I'm gonna check it out soon and install the alpha version of flash to see if I like it. There's not much difference between 32bit and 64bit with Linux which is exactly why I don't see a need to switch (I only have 2GB or RAM which I barely use). On Windows there are tons of problems but on Linux the experience is very smooth so I want to stick with what I've always been using. When there's a mass move to 64bit or a need for it then I'll not hesitate to move over. In my last post I was merely making fun of his "I see no reason not to use software that is decently stable but crashes sometimes" statement.

 

Maybe after this is perfectly stable it'll be a nice switch, but for now.
Stable > Crashy

 

You guys really don't get it do you.

64-bit is just as stable as 32-bit, the only thing that crashes is flash itself. And it doesn't take firefox with it, so you can restart whenever you want. Regardless, I haven't encountered this problem since installing the plugin

 

frankly adobe was doing you all a favor by not providing a plugin for so long. Flash is an abomination. It routinely ate up the CPU on my 32 bit laptop so I finally disabled it. And it's impossible to surf the net safely without flashblock installed - tell me again why anyone wants flash in the first place?

The correct response to this news is "yawn" and "keep your **** bloatware to yourself, Adobe."

I never use web sites that are built with Flash. I never purchase from online vendors who use Flash. And I email their Admin contacts telling them so, and telling them what I bought and who I bought it from instead. Flash deserves to die.

 

That's quite an opinion you have highlandsun. I personally think flash is a great web technology (although they could improve it in many ways) because it provides us with flash games (Thing Thing 4 is one of my favourite because it's action packed), and what would Pandora Radio be coded in if flash wasn't around? I quite like my free internet radio that plays stations that I want.

 

Maybe it isn't the concept of flash itself, rather it is Adobe's implementation of it that pisses you off; in which case, I would have trouble disagreeing.

 

Sigh, I've found just 32-bit flash in Ubuntu to be buggy. I can watch embedded youtube videos but then I see black squares that flash and distract because they come from that "underlayer"-where it gives you the options to embed, url, the scrolling snapshots of related videos at the bottom, etc.

It stops when I move my mouse around inside the video but still, it's a bit annoying. The only way to resolve it is to open the video straight on YouTube, forcing me to switch between the content on the original site and the video.

Not to mention that browser windows will just close without warning if flash player gets too bogged down (has happened 4 times now), ugh....

 

Flash ain't amazing, but this is the HD version of Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog on my 64bit machine with the new player, and you can see for yourself the CPU usage while playing. It only gets really heavy when I run it full screen.

Flash shouldn't be used as an integral UI element, where the site is useless without it. But I do think that Flash definitely has it's place in games and videos and such.

 

I'm not familiar with those games, but there's an awful lot you can do in plain ol javascript.

http://plaza.harmonix.ne.jp/~jimmeans/

Flash is a tool for turning the open standards / open source web into a closed source / proprietary web. It's designed to take a resource that was created for the sharing of knowledge away from you. Anyone who actually values their rights would be stupid not to oppose it. And of course, web sites that require Flash for navigation are inherently unfriendly to disabled users. All in all it's a stupid, user-unfriendly technology.

 

Why should I have to download an applet with each video I want to watch, when I already have perfectly good video players already on my machine, and all I really need is access to the video data stream? That's a stupid waste of network bandwidth.

That's why I haven't used YouTube in the past. Now that I have a G1 phone with a dedicated YouTube app, I see it's possible to watch YouTube videos *without Flash*. There was never any good reason to use Flash for videos in the first place, and on mobile phones with limited CPU and battery resources, it's obvious that Flash is too bloated for the purpose anyway. So now the question to you is: since Flash is obviously bloated to begin with, and can't run usefully on your mobile phone, why in the world do you want that bloatware on your desktop/laptop?

It is obviously bad software. Why is it acceptable to run bad software on your PC, especially when it never fulfilled an essential role?

 

You don't download an applet with each video you watch. You download a single application that does videos, games, and all kinds of other things, and it'll pull a small codec with it if it has to. Flash works nicely because it's a better plugin than most media players ship with, and it's a common platform that content providers know will work. You can't guarantee everyone will have the right codecs to watch your video, or the right player for each format. mov, wmv, mpg, ogm... they all require a different player on Windows. Which one do you use? You choose "flash", and almost everyone has it, and it'll just work. Don't kid yourself... Windows is still the dominant OS on the desktop, and the problems of Windows are the ones that are worked around. And on top of that, you get all kinds of other benefits of the flash video when you run a server as compared to a "normal" video download.

Your phone will play YouTube videos fine. But that is ONLY because they specifically made a player to decode the h.264 video source files from YouTube. It's kinda like Flash, except it doesn't do all the games and other things. So it's basically a very cut-down Flash, so that your phone's slower processor can keep up. Hell, the file format is called FLV, or Flash Video. You can download those flv files yourself without flash and play them on your computer, too.

If you don't want to use Flash, that's your call. Don't think that it was chosen in the face of better technical solutions, though. It was chosen because it is simply the best way to do what the site operators wanted to do on every platform that accessed their site. I think your vitriol is severely misplaced.