Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Flash 9 Beta for Linux Available 296

Posted by samzenpus
from the watch-it-now dept.
DemiKnute writes "According to the official Penguin.SWF blog, the a beta release of the long-awaited Flash 9 for Linux is available for download, a mere year after the release for Windows." From the blog: "While we are still working out exactly how to distribute the final Player version to be as easy as possible for the typical end user, this beta includes 2 gzip'd tarball packages: one is for the Mozilla plugin and the other is for a GTK-based Standalone Flash Player. Either will need to be downloaded manually via the Adobe Labs website and unpacked. The standalone Player (gflashplayer) can be run in place (after you set its executable permission). The plugin is dropped into your local plugin directory (for a local user) or the system-wide plugin directory." Report bugs here.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Flash 9 Beta for Linux Available

Comments Filter:
  • AMD64 version? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by andersa (687550) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @07:54AM (#16499481)
    Will there be a 64 bit version for us AMD64 users?

    I can't play flash animations on my Turion laptop with Debian AMD64 installed.
    • Re:AMD64 version? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19, 2006 @07:58AM (#16499493)
      Adobe have said no in the past, just install a 32-bit web browser instead of your 64-bit one.
      Yeah, it's a pain, but you only need to do it once.

      Why not say something into adobe.com/go/wish ?
      • Re:AMD64 version? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Bert64 (520050) <[moc.eeznerif.todhsals] [ta] [treb]> on Thursday October 19, 2006 @08:27AM (#16499713) Homepage
        Which is a huge nuisance, why should adobe be able to hold people back from moving to 64bit architectures?
        • Re:AMD64 version? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by tomstdenis (446163) <tomstdenis@gm a i l .com> on Thursday October 19, 2006 @08:29AM (#16499737) Homepage
          They do what?

          I run 64-bit OSes on both my AMD and Intel boxes. Flash be damned for all I care.

          Tom
        • Re:AMD64 version? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Richard_at_work (517087) <<richardprice> <at> <gmail.com>> on Thursday October 19, 2006 @09:11AM (#16500183)
          What benefit does a 64bit architecture have for web browsing? Why would running a web browser in 32bit mode have any negative effect on uptake of 64bit OSes?
          • Re:AMD64 version? (Score:5, Informative)

            by bug1 (96678) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @09:37AM (#16500517)
            "Why would running a web browser in 32bit mode have any negative effect on uptake of 64bit OSes?"

            It makes the distribution much more complex to have combinations of 32 and 64 bit applications and libraries.

            I assume all the libraries of a 32 bit app on a 64 bit system would haveto be 32 bit as well, look at all the libraries effected...

            # ldd /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin
            libmozjs.so => /usr/lib/libmozjs.so (0x00002b566e625000)
            libxpcom.so => /usr/lib/libxpcom.so (0x00002b566e7bb000)
            libxpcom_core.so => not found
            libplc4.so => /usr/lib/libplc4.so (0x00002b566e9a5000)
            libnspr4.so => /usr/lib/libnspr4.so (0x00002b566eaaa000)
            libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x00002b566ebe6000)
            libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0 (0x00002b566ecfb000)
            libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0 (0x00002b566f124000)
            libX11.so.6 => /usr/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x00002b566f2b9000)
            libpng12.so.0 => /usr/lib/libpng12.so.0 (0x00002b566f4c2000)
            libjpeg.so.62 => /usr/lib/libjpeg.so.62 (0x00002b566f5e5000)
            libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0x00002b566f708000)
            libsmime3.so => /usr/lib/libsmime3.so (0x00002b566f81e000)
            libssl3.so => /usr/lib/libssl3.so (0x00002b566f948000)
            libnss3.so => /usr/lib/libnss3.so (0x00002b566fa6e000)
            libcairo.so.2 => /usr/lib/libcairo.so.2 (0x00002b566fbf0000)
            libXinerama.so.1 => /usr/lib/libXinerama.so.1 (0x00002b566fd59000)
            libXt.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXt.so.6 (0x00002b566fe5c000)
            libXp.so.6 => /usr/lib/libXp.so.6 (0x00002b566ffbc000)
            libXft.so.2 => /usr/lib/libXft.so.2 (0x00002b56700c4000)
            libfontconfig.so.1 => /usr/lib/libfontconfig.so.1 (0x00002b56701d9000)
            libxpcom_compat.so => /usr/lib/libxpcom_compat.so (0x00002b567030c000)
            libstdc++.so.6 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 (0x00002b567042e000)
            libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x00002b567062e000)
            libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x00002b56707b0000)
            libplds4.so => /usr/lib/libplds4.so (0x00002b56709ec000)
            libgdk_pixbuf-2
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by rsidd (6328)

              I assume all the libraries of a 32 bit app on a 64 bit system would haveto be 32 bit as well, look at all the libraries effected...

              You install it under a chroot. You can find instructions for debian/ubuntu on the net. On my ubuntu dapper AMD64 box the chroot takes about 0.6 GB. If you have a 64-bit machine you can probably set aside that much disk space. I have firefox, acroread, opera, realplay, totem installed there (plus the required libraries). It works fine.

          • Re:AMD64 version? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by orzetto (545509) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @09:46AM (#16500619)
            Why would running a web browser in 32bit mode have any negative effect on uptake of 64bit OSes?

            Why, because all the other damn plugins and libraries are 64 bits? If I compile Firefox 32 bit, the Java plugins do not work with it. Then I need java down at 32 bits, which will require to get down to 32 bits everything else that depends on Java. The same way goes mplayerplugin (therefore mplayer and all related apps), and pretty much everything that a browser uses. All this goes down in a chain reaction of 32-bit ripples, and ends up with breaking some functionality at some point, just because some lazy ass at Adobe did not want to recompile a damn binary one more time with different flags. I mean, it's not a different OS, it's just a different processor.

            • There is a lot of C code out there that makes incorrect assumptions about sizeof(pointer) and sizeof(int). In the AMD64 world, the two are not equal.
            • Re:AMD64 version? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Omnifarious (11933) * <`eric-slash' `at' `omnifarious.org'> on Thursday October 19, 2006 @01:56PM (#16504523) Homepage Journal

              You do not understand the nature of proprietary development. I think Flash player has a number of major issues internally that make me reluctant to use it for anything. It seems to eat CPU at a low level constantly even when no Flash animations are showing. I don't trust that thing farther than I can throw it.

              I'm betting that the code is a huge rats nest with numerous and obscure places where assumptions were made about the sizes of various types that prevent the code from being ported to 64-bit.

              That's the only conclusion I can come to after their failure to do this even though 64-bit CPUs have been out for almost 2 years now.

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by Curtman (556920)

                64-bit CPUs have been out for almost 2 years now

                2 years [wikipedia.org]?

                1991: MIPS Technologies produced the first 64-bit microprocessor, as the third revision of their MIPS RISC architecture, the R4000. The CPU was used in SGI graphics workstations starting with the IRIS Crimson. However, 64-bit support for the R4000 was not included in the IRIX operating system until IRIX 6.2, released in 1996.

          • Re:AMD64 version? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by jimicus (737525) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @10:25AM (#16501121)
            I'd go a step further and ask what benefit a 64-bit OS has unless you have over 4GB RAM.

            AFAICT, you use up more disk space, individual apps require more memory and the biggest benefit - that you can access >4GB without hacks like PAE - is irrelevant.
            • The much larger address space allows for more leeway in memory management, even if you don't have over 4G.

              For instance, nptl threads get a performance boost from not having to juggle around to save on stack space.

              There are also advantages with prelinking.

              Finally, even if you have "just" 4G in 32 bit, you won't be able to use all of it in one process, as the kernel needs some address space too.
            • Re:AMD64 version? (Score:4, Informative)

              by CommandNotFound (571326) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @11:49AM (#16502489)
              For mortal users (most of us), the benefit is an instant CPU performance boost of around 20-30% at least on Athlon 64 units when using the 64-bit instruction set vs the 32-bit instruction set. I have a dual-core AMD64 now, but I'm running everything 32-bit as the performance is more than acceptable. However, in a couple of years I will upgrade everything to 64-bit once all these glitches are solved and I should get a free upgrade in speed.

              This PCStats article [pcstats.com] has some benchmarks on the topic. Anandtech had some too, but I couldn't find them immediately.
          • What and limit my potential memory-leak growth to 4 GB? You might prefer to stay in the stone age, but my firefox extensions will be able to leak 16 exabytes :)
    • Re:AMD64 version? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Octorian (14086) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @08:00AM (#16499509) Homepage
      Which is exactly why some distros (well, my SuSE box at least) installed Firefox expicitly as a 32-bit binary, even if almost everything else on the machine is 64-bit.

      (Now I just wish they did the same with the media players, for the Win32 codecs and such, as I was forced to compile my own to get that working)
      • Re:AMD64 version? (Score:5, Informative)

        by CastrTroy (595695) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @08:48AM (#16499921) Homepage
        Yes, but you also have to have a lot of other 32 bit libraries installed just for the browser to run. I think that one of them is glibc. I'm running mandrake 2007 rc1 (haven't downloaded final yet, but i've installed all the updates), and when I tried using 64-bit, even isntalling a 32-bit browser didn't work. Firefox would crash every time flash tried to start. So, we could either install only the 64 bit libraries, or install 64 and 32 bit libraries, and the 32 bit browser and hope it works. However, I'm still running full 32 bit linux on my AMD64. I tried 64 bit for a while, but I found that a lot of stuff still isn't stable enough for me on 64 bit. For one thing, the 3D desktop on Mandriva 2007 wouldn't work on my Radeon X550 when I had 64 bit. With 32 bit, no problems at all. I guess i'm going to have to wait until Mandriva 2008, when hopefully 64 bit linux will be ready. I also tried out other 64 bit distros (Fedora, Suse) and found that they weren't any better.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by JFMulder (59706)
          Couldn't you compile a completely static version of Firefox that includes all the dependencies, including glibc itself, in the executable? That way you could have 32-bit Firefox on your machine without risking of complicating your setup. But then, I suppose all 3rd parties for Firefox do link against glic.... daoh!
        • by oddfox (685475)

          For what it's worth it's very easy to get your assortment of 32-bit applications and libraries working in a Gentoo setup.

          Mplayer-bin in portage, firefox-bin, decent HOWTO in the forums to install mplayerplug-in-bin. Opera works just fine too. :)

          I understand there are plenty of reasons to prefer something like Mandriva, but for what it's worth when you find out how to work Gentoo the right way, it is for the most part much more flexible than something like Mandriva, Fedora and Suse. HTH.

          • by CastrTroy (595695)
            My only problem with Gentoo is getting it installed [gentoo.org]. You call that the quick install? Even Mandrake 7 (released in 2001) was easier to install than that.
            • by oddfox (685475)

              Once you go through the installation process from a stage3 (Complete base system, you need to put X and KDE/GNOME/Flux, whatever, which depending on your system can take time, though that statement is a given with KDE) and put all the other goodies you intend to use, then you can make a stage4 tarball of your system so that just in case you ever did need to do a reinstall, you already have an image to use. The stage4 process is well documented in the forums and on gentoo-wiki. I admit though it's a pain in

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        On my AMD64 machine, I have an i386 install of Debian in a chroot. Debian supports this really well - search for "dchroot". Inside that install, I can use any standard i386 Debian package, including multimedia stuff that only runs on i386 (e.g. Win32 codecs). It's very convenient.
    • Re:AMD64 version? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anssi55 (729722) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @08:03AM (#16499525) Homepage
      You could try nspluginwrapper [gibix.net].
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You can use nspluginwrapper. It seems to work with flash 9 also. You just need to get 0.9.90.3 from a mandriva x86_64 cooker mirror and alien -cv *.rpm, and follow instructions in:

      http://www.gibix.net/dokuwiki/en:projects:nsplugin wrapper [gibix.net]

      0.9.90.1 that's available in the official site doesn't work with new firefoxes, so you really need to get 0.9.90.3 from mandriva.
    • by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @08:35AM (#16499783) Homepage
      I can't play flash animations on my Turion laptop with Debian AMD64 installed.

      Since it's a 32bit binary, won't installing it twice do the trick?
    • by 0racle (667029)
      I can't play flash animations on my Turion laptop with Debian AMD64 installed.
      And you're complaining about this? I wish i could find something like FlashBlock for Safari.
    • Re:AMD64 version? (Score:4, Informative)

      by jascat (602034) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @08:54AM (#16499989)
      Look into dchroot and setup a small 32bit chroot environment. On my AMD64 desktop running Ubuntu, I have Firefox, Adobe Acrobat, a 32bit JDK and Mplayer installed and it works like a champ. HOWTO here. [debian.org]
    • by mad.frog (525085)
      From Tinic Uro's blog:

      http://www.kaourantin.net/2006/10/flash-player-9-f or-linux-beta-1.html [kaourantin.net]

      What about 64bit? There is no Windows 64bit or OS X 64bit version either right now. As I said before it is not a question of 'recompiling' the source code, there is lots of generic non platform specific work which needs to be finished first. We will ship a 64bit version for Windows, OS X Leopard and GNU/Linux. It will happen. When? ... When it is ready.
  • gentoo ebuilds (Score:5, Informative)

    by kswtch (790406) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @08:03AM (#16499531)
    here [gentoo.org] and here [gentoo.org].
    • A little strange: I just unmasked and emerged the Firefox 9 beta, and it works great on Firefox but only kinda sorta works with Opera. Opera has detected the new plugin just fine (right clicking on a flash movie on YouTube brings up an "About Adobe Flash Player 9" option) but most YouTube movies stall out when I try to play them under Opera. The player UI loads, but the movie never plays. If I go to hardocp.com or other sites which make heavy use of flash ads, some show up but not others. In the past, a
      • I just unmasked and emerged the Firefox 9 beta
        So, how are things in the future? Not too post-apocalyptic, I hope.
      • by niskel (805204)
        I had the same problem with video not showing in Opera even with version 7 of Flash. So I don't think this breakage is version 9 specific.
  • by bytesex (112972)
    ]] The plugin is dropped into your local plugin directory (for a local user) or the system-wide plugin directory.

    Until you do a yum upgrade, or something like that. Because then you get a separate directory for each sub version of firefox with a different plugins directory underneath it, and you lose your plugin once again, until you symlink to the plugin from the new plugins directory. Yes, maintaining software on Linux is a breeze, sometimes.
    • Re:right (Score:5, Informative)

      by dylan_- (1661) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @08:16AM (#16499629) Homepage
      That's a bug with your distro: report it to them.
    • by cortana (588495)
      You should punch your packagers if their Firefox packages don't always load plugins from /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins and ~/.mozilla/plugins.
      • by bytesex (112972)
        ]] You should punch your packagers if their Firefox packages don't always load plugins from /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins and ~/.mozilla/plugins.

        Hm. I run FC4 (or 5, I forget), and I have /usr/lib/firefox-1.0.6, /usr/lib/firefox-1.0.7, /usr/lib/firefox-1.0.8 etc, and FC isn't exactly obscure. Plus; ~/.mozilla/plugins ? I have more users, not just one !
        • by cortana (588495)
          Well I'm sorry to hear that you are not using Debian. ;)

          As a workaround, try creating /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins and putting the library there. I bet your mozilla-based programs try that directory anyway.
    • by smoker2 (750216)
      So don't use yum for firefox.

      I dropped FC4's version of FF a long time ago. It was always behind in releasing the latest version, and it f*cked up a lot.

      Solution. Uninstall it using yum, then download the normal version from getfirefox.com . It already has the ability to check for updates, it's not dependent on any distro, and different users can run different versions.
  • Good news! (Score:5, Informative)

    by bioglaze (767105) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @08:08AM (#16499565) Homepage Journal
    Even being beta version, Flash 9 for GNU/Linux works very well when compared to previous player.

    Some flash movies that hogged Firefox UI with old player work flawlessy now. Audio is now in sync with video.

    While not perfect, this release makes me wonder when the free software Gnash player reaches a usable state. Being a free software enthuasist, i generally don't like the idea of using a proprietary plugin, but being also pragmatic, i use it. I also think that the official Flash plugin could be faster and more bug-free, if the source code were available and under a GPL compatible licence.

    That being said, i still think it's important that GNU/Linux users, especially Average Joe, have a lot less hassle with badly designed, flash-dependent websites.
    • Re:Good news! (Score:5, Informative)

      by sarathmenon (751376) <srm.sarathmenon@com> on Thursday October 19, 2006 @08:38AM (#16499815) Homepage Journal
      While not perfect, this release makes me wonder when the free software Gnash player reaches a usable state. Being a free software enthuasist, i generally don't like the idea of using a proprietary plugin, but being also pragmatic, i use it. I also think that the official Flash plugin could be faster and more bug-free, if the source code were available and under a GPL compatible licence.
      gnash is usable enough for me. Most ads works (sigh), and from what I've seen pretty much everything is rendered fine except for the flv videos. Now that ffmpeg and xine have full flv7 support, its only a matter of time before we can start to see gnash support youtube in its full glory. The best part is that it "works" on an x86_64.
  • by AcidLacedPenguiN (835552) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @08:09AM (#16499573)
    Now we too can participate in the revenue generating flash supported articles that are linked from slashdot!!!! They're not just for the windows crowd anymore!
  • Solaris (Score:4, Funny)

    by guacamole (24270) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @08:17AM (#16499631)
    Oh joy, I suppose the Solaris version will come only one year after Linux. Hang on folks, we're almost there!

  • I am trying it (inside Firefox and Mozilla as well) and it works perfectly. Two comments. (1) with Flash 7, audio was skippy (I have a cheapo onboard audio card; with Flash 9, I can finally enjoy youtube and the like. (2) today /. was linking to a article linking to http://www.bush-of-ghosts.com/ [bush-of-ghosts.com] ; with Flash 7, it showed blank ; with Flash 9 , it works.
  • by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @08:28AM (#16499727) Homepage
    was checked that FlashBlock [mozdev.org] still worked.

    I'm not joking. I was more concerned about that than the sound being in sync. Does anyone think I'm weird?
    • by jginspace (678908)
      "The first thing I did after installing this ... was checked that FlashBlock still worked."

      I'd be more concerned that I had scripting enabled for every site.
    • Well I for one don't think you're weird. If it weren't for FlashBlock I wouldn't even have Flash installed.

      Any Flash only sites I find get a snotty email to the webmaster and definitely don't get a sale.

      Flash is usually used as the computing equivalent of an animated gif with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder).
    • by xtracto (837672)
      The first thing I did was look for a page that "required" flash 9 or 8, it was funny (no wait... I guess it is sad) that the only page I remembered is pornotorrent ... and then digg labs site =oP

      Can anyone suggest one site that requires this to see if/how it is working?
  • Compiling bugs (Score:5, Informative)

    by thebluesgnr (941962) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @08:29AM (#16499733)
    There are a few problems with this release that I hope will be fixed in the future (I can only hope, since it's not open source yet).

    The plugin will search for libssl.so and libasound.so; that's broken. They should dlopen the actual library or build it statically, but a hack like that is certainly going to cause problems. (btw, in Ubuntu/Debian you need the libssl-dev and libasound2-dev packages to use all the features of this plugin).

    The most annoying bugs I had with Flash (believe it or not) are still there. If the mouse is hovering a Flash content inside a browser window, the browser won't recognize keyboard or even mouse events. This is annoying when you're scrolling through a page with Flash ads or when you want to Ctrl+L but the damn mouse is in the wrong place.

    The other problem is that Flash ads that have the "point your mouse here to see the full ad" will always display the "full ad", and you have to choose between the Flash Block extension and not reading that damn page at all.
  • Hope this clears up the sound syncing issues with YouTube and Linux
  • Pie! (Score:2, Funny)

    by onetwofour (977057)
    Now I can enjoy all that forbidden Weebl & Bob Pie without the wine. I don't have to be drunk & dirty anymore.
  • just make it installable exactly like the windows plugin... one click from the browser... without having to download and extract it

    if you want it system wide, then make a standalone executable that only needs to be double clicked in Konqueror or Nautilus (or whaever else takes your fancy) and have the installer quiz you for the options and password

    It ISN'T EXACTLY ROCKET SCIENCE now is it... durr...

    Let the distros worry about packaging issues (deb, rpm, tar.gz...) then they can tailor it for themselves from

    • All comments must first be processed through moderation due to the Adobe blogging system
    • Email address and URL fields are optional
    • Remember that this blog is called Penguin.SWF and is about Adobe Flash Player on Linux; please keep comments on topic
    • Questions about alpha, beta, and final release schedules are already answered in this post
    • Requests for such features as alternate operating system or CPU architecture support are more suited for the Adobe Wish Form
    • Adobe has no plans to open source the Flash P
    • by cortana (588495)
      That's what I thought, but I have posted several critical comments and they were approved. I expect it was because I did so in a *polite and constructive* manner.
  • Fantastic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mogrify (828588) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @09:22AM (#16500311) Homepage
    Long-awaited, indeed. The best part is finally being able to play Flash Video 8 on Linux. They got a huge quality improvement when they switched from Sorensen Spark to ON2 VP6, but no one who cares about Linux users could use it... until now :)
  • Inaccurate. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mad.frog (525085) <{moc.knilknirc} {ta} {nevets}> on Thursday October 19, 2006 @09:24AM (#16500343)
    Flash Player 9 for Windows was officially released on June 28, 2006.

    4 months != 1 year
    • by AusIV (950840)
      Nowhere in the article or earlier in this thread can I find anyone who has said Flash 9 came out for Windows a year ago. Who are you correcting?
      • by mad.frog (525085)
        From the /. headline:

        "According to the official Penguin.SWF blog, the a beta release of the long-awaited Flash 9 for Linux is available for download, a mere year after the release for Windows."
  • I had no issues at first. I gleefully went to a site that required Flash >7 (blackberrypearl.com) and it loaded fine. I right-clicked and saw that the player version in the context menu was 9, which was gratifying. But it otherwise seemed exactly the same.

    After I closed that tab I was unable to load any pages in the others. Pressing Enter from the address bar did not cause the contents of the address bar to materialize. In fact nothing happened, not even an error message. I restarted the browser

  • It seems like that has died. That is too bad. It would be nice if it did not.
  • by IronChefMorimoto (691038) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @09:54AM (#16500715)
    I have skimmed a few of the comments here and some of the anti-Flash-in-general comments that popped up in the "Holy shit, IE7 launched today!" story comments. I wanted to throw in a few observations about Flash and why keeping this medium around is important.

    First, I will agree with anyone that says that Flash gets misused more often than not. It does. It sucks ass when someone does a really crap Flash project. I have 2-3 designers doing the visual labor with me turning their designs into relatively interesting Flash interactives. I like to think that I am using Flash properly, but I know I have much to learn, and I look forward to that opportunity keeping me gainfully employed for a few more years (until enough anti-Flash people get it killed?). ;-)

    Secondly, if you're going to take 5 minutes to compose a rant on /. about how annoying Flash ads are, then allocate 3 of those 5 minutes to downloading and installing a Firefox extension (there are several, I believe -- Flashgot, right?) that blocks all Flash (including adverts) until you want them. I know they're annoying -- but coming from a media company that relies on advertisers buying those "fancy, irritating" Flash ads, I accept them as a necessary evil. A website running those box or vert ads aren't FORCING you to watch them now, 'cause I've taken 1 minute of my 5 minutes in this rant to tell you how to block 'em and get on with your web browsing life.

    Finally, I noticed folks talking about the tag to embed Flash. Stop. Stop doing that and google "swfObject" -- it's a Javascript library you can drop into a central location on your web server and forever forget about detecting Flash or making sure it's relatively standards compliant. The guy who wrote it put together a BETTER detection setup than Adobe did (their kit was NUTS), and it works really well. AND it's flexible, processing querystrings and adding flashvars very easily for a simple Flash embed. If you're still talking about the tag and Flash, you're either developing Flash badly (and this is coming from an intermediate level user who tricked people into paying him for it) or browsing a badly developed Flash site.

    My 2-3 cents (5 minutes) about Flash. Be nice to it. With Flash video, it's really coming around as a useful tool, and things like Flex 2.0 (wicked cool way to build application interfaces) are making it more of a tool than a design medium for the web.

    BTW -- if the title was confusing -- I was "dragged" into Flash development when folks found out I was better at writing ActionScript and using Flash than writing pure CSS page layout. I'm actually enjoying it -- if you're intersted in learning it, be prepared to re-learn a lot of stuff every 1.25 years or so with new Flash versions.

    Thanks,
    IronChefMorimoto
  • Tried it (Score:5, Informative)

    by spitzak (4019) on Thursday October 19, 2006 @01:10PM (#16503811) Homepage
    On my Mandrake machine. I got no sound from YouTube, and sound works in the FlashPlayer7.

    Notes:

    Biggest problem is no sound from YouTube (or probably from anywhere). Sound works for me with FlashPlayer7 and switching back to that makes it work without any restarting (so it did not permanently mess up sound, like some programs can). This is a Mandrake machine, 2.4.22-10mdkenterprise, I really have no idea how I have sound set up, but it works for me in most software.

    Yes it fixed places that check for the version number of the flash player.

    Popping up the menu with the right button (which I did to check that it reported 9 or 7) would cause Firefox to crash somewhat later. Does not seem to happen with 7. May indicate an overflow of some malloc'd data buffer.

    To use, put libflashplayer9.so into ~/.mozilla/plugins and don't rename it. Apparently if it exists it will be loaded in preference to libflashplayer.so. (I wasted some time making a flashplayer.so symbolic link that switched between 7 and 9 before I finally figured out that 9 was being used no matter how I set it. Instead, to switch back to 7, rename libflashplayer9.so to libflashplayer9.so.hidden).

    Removal instructions in the readme.txt say to remove libflashplayer.so, not the correct file of libflashplayer9.so.

    ldd shows it links in far more libraries than 7 did, lots of gtk stuff. I suspect this is due to Pango (which does I18N text layout) using the gobject library, not because any gtk widgets are being used. This has also been complained about on Cairo (which is supposed to be a drawing library *used* by toolkits like gtk, but because good font layout requires Pango, there is a circular dependency back to gtk!)

Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward.

Working...