Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Tue 18th Nov 2008 20:35 UTC, submitted by abraxas
OSNews, Generic OSes "An alpha version of 64-bit Adobe Flash Player 10 for Linux operating systems was released on 11/17/2008 and is available for download. This offers easier, native installation on 64-bit Linux distributions and removes the need for 32-bit emulation." The pre-release can be downloaded from Adobe Lab Downloads.
Order by: Score:
missleading
by poundsmack on Tue 18th Nov 2008 20:39 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

should read something like "Adobe resleases Alpha/Pre release 64 bit version of flash for linux"

adobe's flash suport with linux has been bad in the past (10 has been pretty good though so far). given past history though, installing anything labled Alpha that has to do with flash and linux just sounds like extra work and heart ache.

Reply Score: 2

RE: missleading
by evangs on Tue 18th Nov 2008 21:02 UTC in reply to "missleading"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

should read something like "Adobe resleases Alpha/Pre release 64 bit version of flash for linux"


I don't mean to be snide, but isn't that par for the course for the majority of FOSS software?

Incoming negative points!

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: missleading
by JoeBuck on Tue 18th Nov 2008 22:40 UTC in reply to "RE: missleading"
JoeBuck Member since:
2006-01-11

Adobe's stuff isn't FOSS, of course. If someone releases FOSS that is buggy and immature, others can fix it. Only Adobe can fix their own code.

The good news, though, is that since Adobe cares about x86-64 for Windows and Mac, they'll be highly motivated to fix any bugs found, and many of the bugs will be platform-independent.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: missleading
by lemur2 on Tue 18th Nov 2008 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: missleading"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Adobe's stuff isn't FOSS, of course. If someone releases FOSS that is buggy and immature, others can fix it. Only Adobe can fix their own code.


Recent releases of Firefox now work once again with Gnash.

http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/

If you want a flash plugin for firefox 3 that: (1) is FOSS, (2) works with most sites, including Youtube, and (3) works natively in 64-bit versions, then Gnash is perhaps the FOSS alternative to Adobe that may suit you.

Reply Score: 9

RE[4]: missleading
by Liquidator on Wed 19th Nov 2008 07:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: missleading"
Liquidator Member since:
2007-03-04

Last time I tried GNASH, I had a black square instead of the Flash animation.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: missleading
by Almindor on Wed 19th Nov 2008 08:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: missleading"
Almindor Member since:
2006-01-16

The truth is in the middle with Gnash. I'm on FreeBSD/AMD64 so I have no choice. I was surprised how well Gnash works lately the 0.8.4 release works on some youtube videos (it doesn't support h.264 yet) and most other youtube-likes. It still has problems with complicated actionscript sites but it crashes a lot less (less than Flash 9 did for me in linux).

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: missleading
by rycamor on Thu 20th Nov 2008 19:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: missleading"
rycamor Member since:
2005-07-18

The truth is in the middle with Gnash. I'm on FreeBSD/AMD64 so I have no choice.


There are rumors that Adobe has a native Flash 10 for FreeBSD in the works:

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/messageview.cfm?forumi...

http://thebackbutton.com/blog/73/64-bit-linux-freebsd-flash-player-...

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: missleading
by pmarin on Wed 19th Nov 2008 09:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: missleading"
pmarin Member since:
2006-12-30

I am using it (Gnash) and it is not compatible with all the videos of youtube. Maybe cloning a commercial aplication is not the best option for to make the software free.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: missleading
by Soulbender on Wed 19th Nov 2008 09:03 UTC in reply to "RE: missleading"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Yeah, it is sort of the opposite of commercial software companies that label software in an alpha state as a release. And expects you to pay for it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: missleading
by TQH ! on Tue 18th Nov 2008 21:05 UTC in reply to "missleading"
TQH ! Member since:
2006-03-16

I do hope you meant headache and not heartache.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: missleading
by poundsmack on Tue 18th Nov 2008 21:09 UTC in reply to "RE: missleading"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

can't it be both ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: missleading
by jlarocco on Wed 19th Nov 2008 00:30 UTC in reply to "missleading"
jlarocco Member since:
2005-09-14

I guess it depends on what you mean by "extra work and heart ache", but all I had to do was extract the .tar.gz into ~/.opera/plugins and restart Opera.

So far it seems to work at least as well as going through nspluginwrapper.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: missleading
by Punktyras on Wed 19th Nov 2008 11:24 UTC in reply to "RE: missleading"
Punktyras Member since:
2006-01-07

I guess it depends on what you mean by "extra work and heart ache", but all I had to do was extract the .tar.gz into ~/.opera/plugins and restart Opera.


I had to do
$sudo cp libflashplayer.so /usr/lib/opera/plugins/
but result is the same - working like it should be looong time ago ;)

Reply Score: 2

NSPluginWrapper still better
by sbergman27 on Tue 18th Nov 2008 21:10 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

Warren Togami made a very good and interesting point over in the comments at LWN.net. It's still better to run plugins under NSPluginWrapper in order to benefit from running the plugin code in a separate process, as it should be. Ever since Netscape, and its successors, made the technically questionable decision of plugging alien code right into the browser, crashes due to plugin problems have been something we've just expected and lived with. (I used to cringe, as a sort of conditioned response, every time I saw a java applet initializing on a page.) We Linux users cannot yet run Google Chrome. But at least us 64 bit Linux users have enjoyed one of its greatest advantages for some time now.

Edited 2008-11-18 21:11 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: NSPluginWrapper still better
by amjith on Tue 18th Nov 2008 21:23 UTC in reply to "NSPluginWrapper still better"
amjith Member since:
2005-07-08

Can you please share how you can kill a misbehaving flash? Do you use "killall nspluginwrapper"?

Edited 2008-11-18 21:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Can you please share how you can kill a misbehaving flash? Do you use "killall nspluginwrapper"?


killall npviewer.bin

Usually, though, it just dies, leaving the browser intact, sans the misbehaving flash app.

Edited 2008-11-18 21:31 UTC

Reply Score: 5

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

I used to cringe, as a sort of conditioned response, every time I saw a java applet initializing on a page.


(Sing to the tune of the "Rawhide" theme song)

"Loading, loading, loading,
Damn that Java coding,
Reload!"

Reply Score: 4

RE: NSPluginWrapper still better
by jaduncan on Wed 19th Nov 2008 01:58 UTC in reply to "NSPluginWrapper still better"
jaduncan Member since:
2005-11-19

It is also still better to run the 32 bit binary in nspluginwrapper for snappier performance. YMMV. If it does not please roll your eyes at Adobe.

Reply Score: 1

great success
by sevrage on Tue 18th Nov 2008 21:20 UTC
sevrage
Member since:
2006-06-29
We get it first!
by ple_mono on Tue 18th Nov 2008 21:53 UTC
ple_mono
Member since:
2005-07-26

What's so cool about this is that the linux community get it before the windows crowd!
How often does that happen with software such as this? ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: We get it first!
by sbergman27 on Tue 18th Nov 2008 21:57 UTC in reply to "We get it first!"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24


How often does that happen with software such as this? ;)

Whenever the company feels it needs alpha or beta testers for its software before distributing it to the people who actually matter. :-(

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: We get it first!
by Johann Chua on Tue 18th Nov 2008 23:27 UTC in reply to "RE: We get it first!"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Well, how many people run 64-bit Windows on the desktop, vs. Linux?

Edited 2008-11-18 23:27 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: We get it first!
by lemur2 on Tue 18th Nov 2008 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: We get it first!"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Well, how many people run 64-bit Windows on the desktop, vs. Linux?


How many people have existing peripheral equipment, and the CDs that came with that equipment, with Windows drivers on the CDs ... but the drivers on the CDs are 32-bit and designed for XP?

Microsoft has a model that "the hardware OEM makes the drivers". There is consequently quite a shortage of 64-bit drivers for Windows.

Microsoft has a design such that "XP drivers won't work with Vista". There is consequently quite a shortage of drivers for Vista.

Linux has a design aim of: "we have the source code". 64-bit drivers are a mere recompile away, in most cases.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: We get it first!
by SlackerJack on Wed 19th Nov 2008 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: We get it first!"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

I dont think thats the right question to ask, almost every app on linux is 64bit apart from some propriatary ones(no surprise there)

On the Windows platform it's hit and miss, you dont have 64bit Microsoft has a nice 32bit layer for you, thats why they put it there because of the poor slow uptake on it's platform.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: We get it first!
by PlatformAgnostic on Wed 19th Nov 2008 04:42 UTC in reply to "RE: We get it first!"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

To be fair, there's not a whole lot of incentive for people to go 64-bit on the Windows browser plugins. The 32-bit IE running in Wow64 seems to run well enough and we don't exactly promote the use of the 64-bit IE although it does exist in the install.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: We get it first!
by ple_mono on Wed 19th Nov 2008 13:14 UTC in reply to "RE: We get it first!"
ple_mono Member since:
2005-07-26

Whenever the company feels it needs alpha or beta testers for its software before distributing it to the people who actually matter. :-(

Omg, talk about victim mentality. So whatever happens, it's all for the worse?

Reply Score: 1

RE: We get it first!
by Bending Unit on Wed 19th Nov 2008 06:24 UTC in reply to "We get it first!"
Bending Unit Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm in no hurry. Here on Vista x64, 32-bit applications work without problems. But starting moving applications to 64-bit could never hurt though.

Reply Score: 2

64 bit computing
by perspectoff on Tue 18th Nov 2008 23:56 UTC
perspectoff
Member since:
2008-11-06

Ohh, I like the question about how many users use 64-bit OS's!

I only use 64-bit on Linux. All my windows computers (no matter their processor) use 32-bit.

Why?

Too expensive for 64-bit windows, espeically if a 32-bit system was originally installed. You can't upgrade cheaply or for free in Windows!

I have been using Gnash 64-bit for months. It works great.

All this hub-bub about Flash 64-bit was silly, and started by either Adobe itself to hype itself, or by a newbie who never heard of Gnash.

Reply Score: 2

RE: 64 bit computing
by Bending Unit on Wed 19th Nov 2008 06:29 UTC in reply to "64 bit computing"
Bending Unit Member since:
2005-07-06

Quite the opposite here. I don't have Linux applications resource demanding enough to make use of even 3.2 GB (I never underestimate Firefox though) so I don't see the point in 64 bit. Maybe for cache like in Vista.

Reply Score: 2

RE: 64 bit computing
by hollovoid on Thu 20th Nov 2008 06:44 UTC in reply to "64 bit computing"
hollovoid Member since:
2005-09-21

The upgrade to 64 for me was less than 10 bucks, from Microsoft, and most all of that was shipping.. it isn't free but its close to it.

Reply Score: 2

64bit
by sorpigal on Wed 19th Nov 2008 00:05 UTC
sorpigal
Member since:
2005-11-02

I accidentally got and used a 64 bit debian for a month before I figured out why flash was giving me trouble. It's so damned seamless.

Say I'm unobservant, say I should label my CDs. Say what you like! 64 bit Linux is awesome.

Reply Score: 4

Good news
by Angel Blue01 on Wed 19th Nov 2008 00:41 UTC
Angel Blue01
Member since:
2006-11-01

Hmm, good news for 64-bit Linux users.

Granted, I know a dozen 64-bit Windows users who would probably like a Windows build, so they need that more than 64-bit Linux but definitly a good thing.

Maybe its just me, but the latest version of Flash for 32-bit Linux causes Firefox to crash, I downgraded to 9. I hope the 64-bit alpha isn't so bad.

Reply Score: 1

v Big Yawn, Where's CS for Linux?
by BrendaEM on Wed 19th Nov 2008 01:55 UTC
instructions
by Yamin on Wed 19th Nov 2008 16:09 UTC
Yamin
Member since:
2006-01-10

pardon my ignorance, but how on earth do you install this. I have firefox and am using the nspluginwrapper.

I'm guessing I need to somehow remove the nspluginwrapper 32 bit adobe install and then install the 64bit version?

Bah, perhaps I should just wait for a .deb ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: instructions
by samad on Wed 19th Nov 2008 17:17 UTC in reply to "instructions"
samad Member since:
2006-03-31

1) Remove the nspluginwrapper-ed Flash by using the nspluginwrapper -r command
2) Copy flashplayer.so into ~/.mozilla/plugins

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: instructions
by Yamin on Thu 20th Nov 2008 02:13 UTC in reply to "RE: instructions"
Yamin Member since:
2006-01-10

thanks man. worked perfectly

Reply Score: 1

Some preliminary comments
by samad on Wed 19th Nov 2008 18:14 UTC
samad
Member since:
2006-03-31

Before I start, I wish to explain why I think Flash is still important to a 64-bit Linux user. Personally, I think Flash should be replaced by AJAX or some other open standard. But unfortunately, a lot of websites use Flash. While Google Video and YouTube has a ton of inane videos, it is an immeasurable resource for those who want access to music. This is especially true for those who want to listen to very rare music from countries where copyright laws are not really enforced. A lot of other good websites provide their content in Flash, like www.democracynow.org. Until Flash is replaced by an open standard, many of us are stuck with using Flash.

Thankfully a lot of distributions have made it easy to install the 32-bit libraries needed for Flash. Debian provides most 32-bit libraries in a single package. Unfortunately for those who do not use a mainstream distribution, this is not one simple task. It requires rebuilding an entire toolchain for 32-bit, then recompiling dozens of libraries. Just setting up a cross-compiler is no simple trick. I have built my 64-bit Linux system using the Linux From Scratch book. I have spent countless hours trying to get 32-bit compiling working for the sole purpose of using Flash. I finally gave up, and I'm glad I did now that Adobe will support 64-bit Flash.

So far, Flash works quite well with most websites. The only issue I ran into is when I right click on a video and choose "Settings...", the dialog will not dispose when clicking "Close."

I would also highly recommend installing Flash Blocker, which prevents a lot of annoying advertisements from being loaded.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Some preliminary comments
by CaptainN- on Thu 20th Nov 2008 16:41 UTC in reply to "Some preliminary comments"
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

I'd rather see swf, and AS3 become standards (they mostly are), and then have the official Flash Player's Source opened up (much of it already is).

I actually think Adobe eventually will do that, for most of it. They have been paying attention to Open source, and studying hard, and have a track record of being able to do valid market analysis. They do have licensed some bits (font engine, codecs, etc.), so they'd have to purchase those bits to open them, and that may not really be feasible. With much more of the source available than currently is (and some build infrastructure Adobe - no one wants to touch Tamarin if it isn't being used for anything), I could easily see a project like Iced Tea cropping up, that would simply use Adobe's code base, and graft in parts of SwfDec, Gnash (or both), freetype, etc. to fill in the gaps.

Reply Score: 1