digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Flash Player 10 [Beta] coming with Ubuntu support

regdeveloper.co.uk — The Flash Player 10 beta features a brand-new Just In Time (JIT) engine to load pixel bite code into the Flash Player engine. Flash Player 10 will also extend support for Linux to Ubuntu versions 7 and 8, going beyond the current Red Hat, SuSE, Mac OS/X and Windows.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Spr0k3t, on 05/16/2008, -16/+166At least it's not some silverlight crap. It would be good to see flash in 64bit though.
    • KhaaL, on 05/16/2008, -1/+14yeah, but how long haven't the 64-bit crowd been howling to get adobes attention regarding flash? I'd be very suprised if they'd release a 64-bit version.
    • weizbox, on 05/16/2008, -27/+3Why would you want 64bit Flash? What Flash files do you work with/use where 64bit would show a significant improvement over 32bit? You can still use 64bit Firefox as well, so it's no loss in that aspect.
      • mooninite, on 05/16/2008, -1/+16Yes, you can use a 32-bit flash plugin with 64-bit Firefox - with nspluginwrapper, which is crashy, buggy, and slow.

        Why not have a native 64-bit plugin? Are you saying no one ever needs more than 640k RAM? *facepalm*
        • weizbox, on 05/16/2008, -10/+2'Why not have a native 64-bit plugin?'
          I have 0 objections to have a native 64-bit plugin, and in fact would like to see one... it's just not a very high priority with the level that flash animation are at right now. Sure, the nspluginwrapper has some bugs(what software doesn't?), but the overwhelming majority of people do not have any issues with using it. I've been using it for years on multiple distros without any problems.

          I'm glad they're opening up a bit more tho, I would take that over 64bit Flash any day.
        • hipnerd, on 05/16/2008, -1/+10"I have 0 objections to have a native 64-bit plugin, and in fact would like to see one" --weizbox

          Hey weizbox. Your post from less than a minute earlier called. It wants to know: "Why would you want 64bit Flash?"
        • weizbox, on 05/16/2008, -8/+1'Hey weizbox. Your post from less than a minute earlier called. It wants to know: "Why would you want 64bit Flash?"'

          I'm well aware that I asked the question and that he didn't give an answer. Like I said, a 64bit Flash player would be nice, but at the moment there is very little use for it. I'm sure later on this would be a great thing to have, but considering all the computational power that Flash generally uses, it's almost silly to focus on that end before some other things. It's almost like being 64bit for the sake of being 64bit, but without too many reasons of how it would benefit anything, and so I asked the question. I'm still awaiting a response.

          Did you bother to read my follow up, 'What Flash files do you work with/use where 64bit would show a significant improvement over 32bit? '? You didn't seem to point that part out when posting your comment for some reason.... do you have an answer for it? Or would you rather take snippets of conversations and try to spin things around?

          By asking a question, does that mean I have to be against what I'm asking forever and always? I think not. It was a questions of 'why' they wanted 64bit Flash, and so far no one has even attempted the answer it. That doesn't mean there isn't a good reason why, it just means no one, including you, haven't given a good answer for it.

          Do you have a reason why hipnerd? Or are you just hear to spin people's questions into statements?
        • hipnerd, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6Mooninite answered your question right out of the gate "Yes, you can use a 32-bit flash plugin with 64-bit Firefox - with nspluginwrapper, which is crashy, buggy, and slow." Instead of acknowledging that, you keep attributing the weaker, ridiculous argument to everyone: that we think we need 64bit computing power to run Flash files. We don't.

          It's not "being 64bit for the sake of being 64bit." It's being 64bit for the sake of compatibility with the browser and operating system. I don't want or expect a performance boost, I want stability and the ability to easily install without jumping through hoops.

          And I love how restating your comments has morphed into "spinning." You said you would like to see a 64bit Flash plugin, yet attack others who make the exact same observation. Why do you want a 64bit plugin?
        • weizbox, on 05/16/2008, -7/+1I totally agree the compatibility is a major issue, but I just don't think they need to go 64bit in order to do so. That is certainly one way to fix it, but not the only way. Like I said... it works just fine for me as-is, and the same goes for a lot of other people. I agree that they also need to fix it, but I could care less if that has to do with 64bit or not.
        • ldog, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Come on, weizbox. One of the main benefits of a 64bit OS is the ability to use more than 3 gigs of RAM. As already stated, using nspluginwrapper to launch the 32bit player is a buggy workaround.

          I happen to do work with quite a bit of virtualization, so the more RAM on my workstation the better. Not to mention that you can get a multi-core x86_64 proc and 4 gigs or more of RAM dirt cheap these days.

          Also if you plan on doing terminal servers with things like LTSP or citrix, you want a machine with much more than 3 gigs of addressable RAM if you have more than a handful of users. These users may happen to use flash.

          I really think you are confused as to how flash content is delivered and used. The binary flash content doesn’t care if the player is 64bit or 32 bit. It doesn’t matter. What matters is that the player is built to be compatible with its host operating system. The player itself doesn’t need any 64bit-specific functionality to be extremely useful.


          And offtopic: Why does it seem that the only people that ever want to use the phrase “couldN’T care less” always use it incorrectly?
        • buu700, on 08/26/2008, -0/+3"Sure, the nspluginwrapper has some bugs(what software doesn't?), but the overwhelming majority of people do not have any issues with using it."

          CPU Usage
          -------------------------------------------
          npviewer.bin | 178%


          "And offtopic: Why does it seem that the only people that ever want to use the phrase “couldN’T care less” always use it incorrectly?"

          YEAH! That always bugs me too! (Which is a problem, since my mom says that a lot.)
        • Spr0k3t, on 05/17/2008, -0/+4weizbox wrote: "I just don't think"

          I would like to see a 64bit flash so I can remove the need for a buggy wrapper class. Yeah, the wrapper could be rewritten so 64bit would not be "required", however the need remains present to fill the void of the missing 64bit flash. Gnash is already building decent compatibility in 64bit or 32bit so proof of concept is there. Gnash also does not work with quite a few flash9 features. Keep one thing in mind though, the lack of 64bit flash is not a problem with Linux alone... it's across the board. So, next time think before you respond, then let the world sleep if you need a response.
        • richbradshaw, on 07/19/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure weizbox realises:

          a) What the difference is between 64bit and 32bit

          b) That if you run a 64bit OS (i.e. you actually use the processor you bought in the last few years), then you need to run 64bit applications

          c) That the absence of a 64bit flash player means that anyone using a modern architecture can't use flash (without some hacky hacks)

          d) That people don't want a performance boost - they want to be able to use flash
      • pHr34kY, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Tried it. It crashed hard, and crashed often. Actually, gnash was better on a 64bit OS than emulating the 32bit plugin. And gnash was pretty damn buggy itself.
    • peterjmag, on 05/16/2008, -11/+38I dugg you up. Then I dugg you down, and then back up again.
      • netneutrality, on 05/16/2008, -4/+16I dugg you down. Then I dugg you up, and then back down again.
      • HCviolence, on 05/16/2008, -17/+5I just dugg you down..because I'm a dick.
        • gurellia53, on 05/16/2008, -3/+1I dugg you down because I'm part of "Generation Y" so apparently I follow trends
      • WayOfTheIronPaw, on 05/16/2008, -4/+27I digg you right round baby right round,
        like a record baby, right round round round.
      • AntzNZ, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4How long does it take for our comments to show? Can we edit it to something completely different after getting dugg up/buried?
        • AntzNZ, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2Heh, the timing for editing is screwed, if you open the comment in a new tab the timer starts back from 5 minutes.. It comes up with "The time to delete this comment has already passed." if you try to trick it.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1What browser? I'm running Minefield 3 nightly and things are working just fine with the timer.
      • rpgmaker, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4With luck, this will not trigger the bug in pulseaudio under ubuntu.
    • bazildondude, on 05/16/2008, -13/+13Is this Silverlight hate simply because it's from Microsoft?.. oh, yes, it is.
      • Kelmon, on 05/16/2008, -0/+32Personally, I'm against Silverlight because the development tools are Windows-only. We've seen this crap from Microsoft before. Release multi-platform versions of their applications, let them get entrenched, and then kill support for the non-Windows versions. At least with Adobe they seem to be platform agnostic so I trust them much more than Microsoft. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Silverlight plug-in become either Windows-only, or provide features that only work on Windows, and that's why I'm having nothing to do with it.
      • oobuntu, on 05/16/2008, -1/+9i hate it because they are forcing you to install it in order to use certain basic stuff on their website.
        at least with flash you can get by if you don't have a machine with it installed (obviously i'm not talking about wanting to watch a youtube video...)
        • arjie, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5You can do that too. When using 64-bit Ubuntu, I used to simply download the videos to watch them later. Much better considering my connection speed isn't high enough to stream in peace.
      • Culyt, on 05/16/2008, -2/+29"simply because it's from Microsoft?"
        Do you really need another reason? Microsoft have been trying to gain control of protocols since before Windows3.1 when they had their own version of TCP/IP.

        Supporting openness only to yank out that support a few years later isn't exactly new to Microsoft.

        This is a company that while claiming to be opensource friendly makes claims about 240+ patent infringments, but then won't tell anyone what they actually are because of administration costs, instead preferring to goto the big fortune 500 companies and demand licenses for Linux installs.

        A company that signs a deal with Novell that they won't sue each other, agrees to buy millions of $ of SuSe licenses from Novell only to have 2 employees including an intellectual property expert 'quit' Microsoft a month in advance (well a week for the ip expert) and join a puppet patent troll company that then turns around and sues both Novell and Redhat.

        Where convicted of being an abusive monopoly by a US court, donated $30 million to the Clinton campaign and got a presidential pardon. Keeps getting antitrust after antitruct case brought against them in the EU and got fined in the billions.

        So forgive me if I don't want to embrace a future where Microsoft are controlling the standards that run the internet.
      • Spr0k3t, on 05/17/2008, -1/+2I'm just completely and blindly against Microsoft. No one company should be able to get away with that much crap. If there were a Linux corporation with that much power, I would probably hate them just as much.
    • idiotwithastick, on 05/16/2008, -3/+13I'm actually happy that there's Silverlight giving Adobe at least some competition. This way we'll keep getting updates and higher quality versions of Flash, not the slow POS that versions 7 and 8 were.
      • WhiteUnit, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5Errr.. Flash 7 and 8 were both made by Macromedia.
    • jer2eydevil88, on 05/16/2008, -8/+7Finally Microsoft does something good, they add competition to the marketplace where Adobe dominates and force the sleeping giant awake!!! Now if only Silverlight were open source, sigh...
      • Xanium4332, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6Dancing in the moonlight!

        /subtle
      • Culyt, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4I get the feeling Adobe have been planning this for quite a while, don't forget Flash was originally a Macromedia product. Since Adobe got it they have been opening quite a few different things.
    • GrammarNazi3000, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6Is there any site besides Microsoft's that uses Silverlight? I'm all up for competition as long as its worth my time.
      • talonstriker, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4not really unless you count mlb.com
        • cheeseplease, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I'm just seeing flash?
        • talonstriker, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1most of their content is flash but there are some components that are silverlight. Like the highlights. But mlb.com is smart enough to give an option between streaming to windows media player or using silverlight. But you can see them moving toward having silverlight for all of their content.
          Frankly I'd have no problem installing silverlight if it was used by more websites.
    • WhiteUnit, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Adobe will probably go 64 bit as soon as the Microsoft crowd makes the shift to 64 bit. Apple has already done this of course... waiting on you M$. You can program for 32 bit and still run it on 64 bit OS, but you cant program 64 and have it run on 32.
    • alexcuervo, on 10/16/2008, -0/+0For 64 bit users see The easiest way to install Flash 10 on Ubuntu 64 bits at http://queleimporta.com/the-easiest-way-to-install ...
  • priegog, on 05/16/2008, -0/+18Wow finally a little more attention this way; but probably just to be ignored for another number of months.
    On a serious note, does anyone know if this one finally support capturing video from V4L2 devices? Supporting only V4L was a stupid move and we've been alienated long enough from this feature.
    • XVampireX, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3I don't quite understand what the usage for the camera in flash is for...

      not to post a second time, @NGliam- Yeah, the new digg comments system is quite a bit different it's not bad, and gives you some more time for editing a post, nice :)
    • mooninite, on 05/16/2008, -0/+8Vampire, go to http://www.stickam.com for "why would u use flash and webcamz?? LOL"

      V4L2 is still not supported. Adobe is only working on the bare minimum with Linux support. Even ATI is doing better with their video driver, and that's just sad.
    • ileftfark, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Not "supported", but usable with a little work:

      http://www.swift-tools.net/Flashcam/
      • priegog, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the link. I have tried it in the past, but never got it to work. I'll give it another try.
  • priegog, on 05/16/2008, -15/+4Silverlight pressuring much?
    /bitter
    • geoken, on 05/16/2008, -0/+9Yeah, it must be Silverlight pressure since Adobe's initial plan was to stop producing the Flash player after ver. 9
      • MavRevMatt, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Great business model that'd be...
      • priegog, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Well, then that's one good thing silverlight did for us.
        • geoken, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1priegog, I think someone spilt cofee on your sarcasm detector.
  • NGliam, on 05/16/2008, -7/+3Is a new flash version on its way? Or, a new Creative Suite, to be more exact I suppose.. they usually just update the player when a new IDE is released so they can add support for the new features and stuff =P

    Also in, the new Digg comments system. I like!.
    • Kelmon, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4I think we can all guarantee that CS4 will be on its way but given that CS3 was released relatively recently it will probably be a while before a new version of the Flash developer tools arrive.
    • mrand01, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2it seems that they release the players 6-9 months in advance of the development tools now. I suppose this is so they can get great market penetration before the content starts arriving...makes sense to me
  • sq377, on 05/16/2008, -2/+25What about decent scaling for video? I still can't watch fullscreen videos without unbearable skipping.
    http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?ext ...

    I'll watch this new version, but my hope is still with swfdec.
    • trakie, on 05/16/2008, -0/+26i just use compiz to zoom in on flash videos, works great for me.
      • zekica, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7yes, but it is an annoyance
      • stoanhart, on 05/16/2008, -1/+9But what about those of us who don't like compiz? yes, we exist :)
      • DarkDx, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Except I have WinXP and playing the flv file in VLC and going fullscreen works great, but flash player SUCKSSS for scaling.
        • nmnnotmyname, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Isn't this more of a performance issue?
    • podgey22, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4I tried the version that was available yesterday and I can tell you that the performance is just as poor as it is in v9.

      But as trakie says, you can zoom in with compiz without much performance loss.
    • dn11, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2i find it generally buggy under ubuntu - at least ubuntu 64. earlier releases of v9 work better, but I can't track one down now
    • mikal, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2The plugin crashes my Firefox every 5 minutes, but yes, Flash 10 _is_ better in regards to CPU usage. It still uses a lot in full screen, but at least Youtube videos are smooth in full screen now. (Ubuntu Feisty 32bit)
    • Venky80, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3I have a 1920 x 1200 resolution monitor, is this the reason why the flash videos skip like crazy in full screen?, I always thought there was something wrong with my computer.
      • nadalle, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Yes. Adobe's Flash player really sucks - it doesn't use your video card's scaling capabilities at all (like all other video players do). Instead, it does it all in the CPU.
  • stutimandal, on 05/16/2008, -10/+3Current Flash Player is supported in Ubuntu:

    http://tapos.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/installing-a ...
  • urfe, on 05/16/2008, -4/+6More info here.

    http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/

    I think there should be hardware acceleration if desktop compositing is not used.
  • ileftfark, on 05/16/2008, -0/+9Download the beta and help developers by reporting bugs --> http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html
    • RyeBrye, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Is there a debug mode of the new player - or does the beta player have debug functionality built into it?
  • TheRealToma, on 05/16/2008, -16/+68Is there LINUX support too?
    /sarcasm
    • geoken, on 05/16/2008, -0/+24Although I agree with the point you're trying to make, I think you need to read the sub-heading to understand why it specifically mentions Ubuntu.

      In the past adobe only had packages for SuSE and Fedora, but now they've anounced that they'll provide Ubuntu versions as well.
      • TheRealToma, on 05/16/2008, -1/+4Ahh good point. They really should support linux across the board of distros. Also, I noticed in my own statement, its not linux, its the GNU operating system and I dont know why Adobe would want to support a kernel :)
        Really, they should be working on a 64bit version too, IMHO.
        • yetAnotherCroc, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3I'll have to dissagree there. It will be the GNU system when they finaly release a kernel. Right now its a hybrid system from a lot of sources. A big part of which is GNU.
        • Adys, on 05/16/2008, -0/+18Arguing about whether it's Linux or GNU/Linux makes you look retarded.
        • SteveMax, on 05/16/2008, -1/+2yetAnotherCroc, there is always Hurd...
        • randygland, on 05/22/2008, -0/+0Everybody should support a Colonel
      • priegog, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Yeah, well, in the donwloads section there still isn't a .deb for ubuntu/debian, so I'll reamain a skeptic on this one.
    • enchantedsky, on 05/16/2008, -7/+0Ubuntu > Linux

      /sarcasm
  • geoken, on 05/16/2008, -0/+11Here's an updated Flex SDK allowing us to write code targeting the new features.

    http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/flexsdk/T ...
  • lnappropriate, on 05/16/2008, -5/+0About fuken time
  • debuffplx, on 05/16/2008, -16/+2Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck I just spilled soda on my PSP.
  • MavRevMatt, on 05/16/2008, -1/+36About ***** time Adobe. Now add support for LINUX to CS3.
    • dagamer34, on 05/16/2008, -16/+2Why? If you like a free OS, why would users pay for software?
      • doyoulikeworms, on 05/16/2008, -1/+13What does this ***** mean? I know there are some folks out there like you that are part of the whole "free" software movement, which is cool. I'm typing this from my Ubuntu box right now.

        But people use linux because it's great, not because it's free. I've spent much more time tweaking, installing, and generally ***** around with my linux box(es) than the cost of a proprietary OS.
      • arjie, on 05/16/2008, -1/+14Because we have more money to spend. Ha ha!
      • terrorpin, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6I use Linux because I prefer it to other OSes, not just because I don't have to pay for it. However I still use Windows because some software for it outclasses any equivalents available on Linux by miles. Photoshop and Lightroom and much of the CS apps are clear examples. I'd happily ditch Windows altogether once I could get those apps.
    • knight666, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5Because CS3 is the most used Flash authoring tool.
      The most books and the most tutorials written are for Flash.

      Except it's ***** useless if you have a book about Flash 4 like me because they decided to lopside the whole programming language.
      • ZekeSulastin, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2To be fair, whether or not something is the most used tool has little to do with the will of the F/OSS movement - just look at the popularity of The GIMP, for instance. I dare say it's not a carbon copy of Photoshop, yet it is parroted at every corner.
        • knight666, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Except there isn't actually a FOSS Flash authoring tool that handles ActionScript 3.0 as far as I know.
          And I specifically avoided learning AS2.0 because it's going to be abandoned sooner rather than later.
    • lilzaphod, on 05/16/2008, -4/+2Yeah, because there is so much demand from the Linux community to PAY for CS3....
      • TheWindBlows, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Yeah there is.
        I would willing and gladly pay for photoshop because, I am willing to admit its the best image editor out there and worth its price.

        brb gtg get job now and save up 2k.
        • WhiteUnit, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1No there isn't.
          a) I think its a fair assumption that if you know how to work with Linux you probably know how to get a hold of cracked software.
          b) Most adobe customers are graphic designers who really aren't that tech savvy, or they are likely working for a large company who probably doesn't have a whole lot of Linux machines laying around.
          You may say that these are just assumptions, but when a company looks at a target market, all they can go off of is assumptions. A company will not go for something that is not profitable, that's just business.
        • TheWindBlows, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1on (a), people who haven't even heard of linux know where to get cracked software.

          on (b) there is no photoshop CS3 for linux or any equal or better alternative to it this of course stunts graphics designing in linux one of the things that is needed for linux to kick off.

          Linux has gone a long way and just needs a few high quality applications ported to it Photoshop is one of them the other would be a strong video editor. As far as other applications go most of those are covered (openoffice is a good enough alternative to MS Office and they are quite on par in many aspects when paired against each other with an unbiased opinion.)
        • WhiteUnit, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1on your (a) When I said Linux users probably know where to get cracked software, I think you read "only Linux users know where to get cracked software." I think the meaning of my statement is clear. If your a Linux user, your probably smart enough to know where to get cracked software and how to use it. I would say this is only true for about 10% of Windows and Mac users

          on your (b) Gimp; and it is not Adobe's job to make Linux successful. It would simply be a poor decision on Adobe's part to program for it because it wouldn't pay off..
    • ProfBagelwood, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Actually, there is. It's quite possibly the single most requested bunch of programs that Linux users want.
      • WhiteUnit, on 05/16/2008, -2/+0Be that as it may, it would still not work out from a marketing standpoint. If it will make money, a company will do it. When people complain about what companies are doing and their decisions, they forget that companies are actually run by people, and people are people. Even if the people who complain about the decision sudden go get a degree in Business Marketing and then are put in place of the people who made the decision and then given the same information and statistics, the outcome would likely be the same.
    • mikemx, on 05/17/2008, -2/+1Adobe please do not waste any development time on cs3 for linux.
      - less than 1% of desktops use it. It would take disproportionally large effort to create for linux, a complete waste of time. Instead use that time for creating new features for the pro's on xp and osx that actually use and pay for the software.
      - and these freetard people don't want to pay for anything ever so why bother
      - and these people are not talented and creative, all they'll use these packages for is to create ***** animated penguins and start trek cartoons
      - and they are a bunch of loud mouthed whingers and complainers that are never happy with anything
      - ***** linux
      • MavRevMatt, on 05/17/2008, -0/+2Well ***** you too.
      • knopper67, on 05/23/2008, -0/+1I use linux because I prefer it over everything else. Get a ***** clue.

        Buried and Blocked.
  • Meekus, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3Took long enough!
  • geoken, on 05/16/2008, -0/+16Looking over the docs I noticed another cool feature; File Reference runtime access.

    Basically what this means is that the player can work with local data. In the past, a Flash based web-app would need to upload files to a server before it could do anything with them. For example, an online photo-editing app would require any pic to be first uploaded to the server before it could be interacted with.

    Now, that same web-app can open the jpeg, do whatever it wants to it, then save it back locally without ever uploading a byte of data to the server. This could lower the 'cost of entry' for small startups trying to create bandwidth intensive online apps (ie. an online video editor) because the user doesn't have to upload the video to the server, save it onto the server when there done then re-download it.
    • WayOfTheIronPaw, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6"what this means is that the player can work with local data"

      Uh, oh. How does their security work? Do they ask permission from the user before accessing files? Do they have whitelists and blacklists for file locations. What about execute permission on files? Given that most users on Windows run with full Administrator privileges, Adobe had better get that right.
      • NoMoreNinj4s, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3The user is presented with a standard Open File dialog, so the Flash app only has access to the files the user explicitly selects. As geoken indicates this doesn't allow anything that hasn't already been possible with workarounds for quite some time, but just removes a large part of the hassle.
  • nirav72, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Anyone have a link to the new features in V10? I know they've added some filters and effects. Someone up above mentioned Reference runtime access to load files locally before sending to server.

    Anything else that is compelling?
  • RyeBrye, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5Bite code huh? Well - so much for the stereotype that flash programmers are retards.

    (Even worse: If you look at the article, you could have just copied and pasted the description - only with the correct words)
  • incd, on 05/16/2008, -1/+22Still no Linux x86_64..? *Wonders*
  • taradisiac, on 05/16/2008, -17/+4What's an Ubunto?
  • chrysalis, on 05/16/2008, -3/+11Still no OpenBSD version ? *Wonders*
  • TexMurphy, on 05/16/2008, -3/+10Im on Ubuntu, flash used to take 80 % CPU. Just installed Flash 10, my CPU usage was cut to 40 %. This version rocks on Ubuntu!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • priegog, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Just out of curiosity, how did you install it? Did you use the tar.gz? That would seem less than ideal...
    • benexor, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3what firefox version are you using? i installed it on ff2 and it crashed it a lot.
    • TexMurphy, on 05/16/2008, -0/+9Im on Ubuntu 8.04 and using firefox 3.0b5. Move flash 10 libflashplayer.so to "/usr/lib/flashplugin-nonfree/libflashplayer.so". Remember to backup the old one. By the way use "sudo nautilus &" to move around as root. Restart firefox when done.
      • TheWindBlows, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1exactly how i did it the simple way...

        It is nice to see that Adobe is improving the hardware acceleration usage.
    • enchantedsky, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2No, Flash 10 beta on Ubuntu does not rock. When you maximize the video, it still stutters with a reduced frame rate (while the Windows XP Flash has no such problems on the same computer) Adobe has incompetent programmers, and it's only in time when a true open source flash player will be available
    • SanjayM, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I also find flash is drastically better performing, (Similar CPU use reduction to TexMurphy, his installation instructions look solid too, though i just ran the shell script included in the tar.gz and it worked fine) Before playing two youtube video's at once was nearly impossible. Slightly more unstable though, its only beta.
  • lava, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5They better include transparency in this one.

    Oh yeah, when are they coming out with the IDE for Linux?
  • Vash63, on 05/16/2008, -7/+5Strange that the topic only mentions Ubuntu support, yet I've already installed it straight from my package manager in Gentoo.
    • Megatog615, on 05/16/2008, -0/+10By "Ubuntu Support," they probably mean a .deb package or an official repository.

      Buried for Gentoo elitism.
    • Weejay, on 05/16/2008, -3/+5That's because no one gives a ***** ***** about Gentoo.
    • arjie, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5That's because they're _adding_ Ubuntu support to the list of operating systems officially supported. How did you manage to miss the story description? It's right under the story title.
    • TheWindBlows, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1...Gentoo?

      Shouldn't you be compiling/optimizing Gnash for flash based objects?
      Naw I'm just screwing with ya.
  • yetAnotherCroc, on 05/16/2008, -0/+5So maybe I'm blind or something, but I cant find the blasted .deb file. They have the usual .tar.gz and .rpm files on the list but no .deb. Any one want to help?
    • TheWindBlows, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Do it the easy way.
      Install Flash 9
      then replace /usr/lib/flashplugin-nonfree/libflashplayer.so
      With libflashplayer.so from Flash 10
      $ gksu nautilus
      to open nautilus as root and have full privileges

      Also I would like to report the New Flash 10 no longer needs libflashsupport to work with pulseaudio so crashes are gone.
  • Papajohn56, on 05/16/2008, -0/+17Cool, will it not be so CPU intensive? Maybe make it so my fans on my Macbook Pro don't spin up to 6000RPM when watching a flash video?
    • enchantedsky, on 05/16/2008, -1/+0Adobe = Microsoft, when it comes to making their software bloatware and thinking they can make it as resource intensive as they want it. It's the Vista mentality, buy new hardware to compensate for Adobe's poor programming skills
  • motang, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Just Installed it on Ubuntu 8.04, works very good. Thanks Adobe.
    • enchantedsky, on 05/16/2008, -4/+0You are a brown noser........there are still so many bugs in Flash Player 10. How can you honestly say it "works very good?"
      • theaceoffire, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Old one crashed our browser a lot.
  • priegog, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Does anyone know where to find the .debs for ubuntu? I don't know what they mean by ubuntu support, but a .tar.gz shouldn't be it.
  • keyme, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Just installed it on Ubuntu. Works brilliantly and takes less CPU.
    • Weejay, on 05/16/2008, -4/+1Do you confirm that NO .deb for Ubuntu is available and that you used the usual piece of shell script *****??
  • golvin, on 05/16/2008, -2/+3'byte code' becomes 'bite code'. =|
  • euvirtual, on 05/16/2008, -1/+12You know, Ubuntu support would usually mean a .deb file is available. And yet adobe has tar.gz, rpm and yum available.
    How is that Ubuntu support? How hard is it to make a deb? Come on, it only has 1 file.
    • Phreakinus, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1you could just install it from a tar.gz...
  • TexMurphy, on 05/16/2008, -1/+7Im on Ubuntu 8.04 and using firefox 3.0b5. Move flash 10 libflashplayer.so to "/usr/lib/flashplugin-nonfree/libflashplayer.so". Remember to backup the old one. By the way use "sudo nautilus &" to move around as root. Restart firefox when done.
    .
    Flash CPU usage is cut by 1/2.
  • AncientPC, on 05/16/2008, -0/+7I found it here: http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html

    Just installed it on my Ubuntu v8.04 system over Adobe Flash 9. I have a crap processor (Pentium M 1.6Ghz) with a high resolution (WUXGA 1920x1200) so full screen YouTube videos have been impossible for me in the past, but with Flash 10 beta I see a significant framerate improvement in full screen mode.
    • enchantedsky, on 05/16/2008, -7/+0Please, for the sake of humanity, upgrade your processor. Your message is hurting my eyes seeing how slow your CPU is.
      • potterboy, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Laptop processor? What can he upgrade to, a 1.9? My Pentium M 1.9 actually works great! Cheap machine with decent performance.
  • Kelmon, on 05/16/2008, -1/+10I hate to be pedantic, but what the hell is "Mac OS/X"? Where'd the slash in the OS name come from? Or is this some whacky version of OS/2 Warp?
    • zongamin, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2I agree - I saw this yesterday and wanted someone to die for doing that.
  • Sillywombat, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Can u feel the love in the air?
  • crashposition, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1The article talks about a new JIT compiler? Does that mean AVM3?
  • tehjarvis, on 05/16/2008, -10/+4Buried for Ubuntu instead of Linux in the title...

    besides, there's only tar and rpm, no deb.
    • Swarmie, on 05/16/2008, -2/+5Its because now there is official support for Ubuntu, as it has been the case with other OS, look at the damn decription.
    • enchantedsky, on 05/16/2008, -2/+1And you, Tehjarvis, will be dugg down by me for your comment. Ubuntu in the title is IMPORTANT, because Adobe is finally recognizing that Ubuntu is a major Linux distro (in the past, they have not) This Flash release is in Beta, but when it comes down to its final release, they will have .deb files for Ubuntu users. So it isn't just about Flash for Linux.........Linux is just a KERNEL, not an operating system. Adobe caters to various distros, and now they'll cater to the best distro so far, Ubuntu.
    • junaru, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2And you, Tehjarvis, will be dugg up by me for being a fellow arch user :)
  • timfidler, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1A massive improvement over the insult that was version 9 for linux. Seems to run quite well even in virtualbox. Hopes are high.
  • MrTea, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I hope they add direct rendering.
  • Basjohn, on 05/16/2008, -0/+11No 64bit support? Adobe and Sun are absolutely killing 64bit browsers by not developing 64bit versions of their software and it's depressing when minefield (firefox 3 beta 5 64bit) runs absolutely superbly but can't display what is increasingly becoming an essential part of the internet (flash that is). It's enough to make me weep hysterically (in a very MANly way of course).
    • Buzzby, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Yeah, I'm finding it very frustrating. Was quite annoyed when I found out that flash wasn't 64bit...
    • enchantedsky, on 05/16/2008, -1/+5That's why we need an OPEN SOURCE flash player like Gnash to become better, and be 64-bit. You cannot wait for the incompetent programmers at Adobe who drink coffee all day and play solitaire on their computers to write good software. We have to take matters into our own hands, especially by Adobe releasing the Flash specs online. That's when true innovation will occur.
  • timfidler, on 05/16/2008, -0/+9We've been asking for 64bit flash for years. Have Macromedia/ Adobe ever explained why they won't provide it?
    They must be some reason.
  • enchantedsky, on 05/16/2008, -2/+5Adobe sucks. I don't understand how most of you guys worship Adobe. They are no different than Microsoft in being a huge company making ungodly sums of money over inferior software.

    Flash Player should be ISO'd since it's been adopted by most websites on the Internet. It shouldn't be run by a company with incompetent programmers who couldn't even design a proper Flash player for Linux distros. True innovation will occur if it's open sourced as well; developers will easily give it 64-bit support, something Adobe's been lazy about for years.
    • krz9000, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1/facepalm
      • DestroyFascism, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Actually I agree.

        CS3 is a bloated POS compared to CS.
    • nmnnotmyname, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1We get to choose between Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight, and Sun Java. Flash is well known, works well, and Adobe has done a good job supporting Linux on all fronts (including Adobe Acrobat Reader, I hope we get to see more of their stuff on Linux also)

      Why not support Adobe? They may be a corporation, but at least they don't have that ***** of business ethics (relatively)
    • mikemx, on 05/17/2008, -1/+1adobe shouldnt bother even releasing flash player AT ALL for you whinging linux *****, seeing as less than 1% of people use it. You moaning whinging complaintards are welcome to do better than adobes 'incompetent programmers' except you can't cos you're just a bunch of talentless noobtards. Adobe doesn't suck YOU SUCK
      • MavRevMatt, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1Well ***** you too.
      • DannoEF, on 05/20/2008, -0/+0That's an incompetent statement, as it doesn't matter how many people use it, its the point that Adobe is extending there support bases and knowledge center. I'm also pretty sure that people aren't moaning or raising a stink so to speak, but asking for support on more then just the major proprietary OSs. For the people who are bashing Adobe Flash, feel free to, but just realize that the internet today is flash reliant. "*****", "complaintards", and "talentless noobtards" along with saying that Linux users "SUCK" is ad hominem.

        Extending support to anything is great, no matter the brand, program, or company.
  • tomski, on 05/16/2008, -5/+1Flash is a piece of *****! A resources hog I have never seen!
    • nmnnotmyname, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Yeah! It's obvious that Java and Silverlight are /MUCH/ faster... right?



      (It might be if it didn't take 15 seconds to load...)
  • qbthemc, on 05/16/2008, -5/+2Windows is a majority and Ubuntu is a minority. Why should Adobe insist on developing on a OS that no one uses and Adobe cant profit on.
    • shinaku, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3So you're saying that Adobe profit with a free plugin they release for Windows?
    • neko, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2Well, for one, people do use it thankyouverymuch. And do you always do what the majority does, just because it's the majority? But I suspect Adobe's greatest motivation is Microsoft giving them the middle finger. i.e. XPS vs PDF and Silverlight vs Flash.
    • ProfBagelwood, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2You asked a question, so you deserve an answer! Here are a few things to consider:

      Consideration 1: All the market share analysis papers that you read, which show Linux having about about 1% of the regular desktop market, Apple with like 7%, and the rest of the 92% going toward Windows (that's the statistic I see most often, anyway)... those are referring to sales, stocks, and market control. That means that the least used Linux distros alone (the ones that have sales are kinda small fries in comparison to other distributions that are free) get about 1%, so just imagine how many people are using the much, much, larger distributions that go unreported since there's no actual sale to report! Also keep in mind that even the analysts that only consider the sales numbers will plainly tell you that Linux usage is significantly more common in Europe, Asia, Africa, and emerging countries throughout the world. Furthermore, note that Windows usage is falling, and Linux usage is on the rise.

      Consideration 2: Many, many, many devices use Linux, from cell phones to portable media players to those nice new Asus mini-laptops that are selling like hotcakes around the world. Most people use Linux several times a day and never even realize it just because Linux is actually used by so many things. With all these companies trying to offer a "mobile internet" and stuff, they certainly want Flash supported by Linux.

      Consideration 3: The internet does not belong to Microsoft any more than the highways you drive on belong to Ford Motors. The people who create content for the internet want you to be able to see what they've made regardless of what system you are running. There's no good reason to not develop Flash as a standard that supports this, unless of course you are a Microsoft shareholder.
  • SilenceIsFoo, on 05/16/2008, -5/+2Forget Ubuntu. Release a version that will let me use my Wii for something other than YouTube.
  • Venky80, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2will they have webcam support for websites like ustream and justin.tv?
  • nmnnotmyname, on 05/16/2008, -0/+3Flash Player 10 will also support Linux, coolness. Good to see Adobe isn't abandoning Linux yet.
    • adila01, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1..yet? Hopefully, Adobe won't abandon Linux ever. Especially with sites such as W3 and NetApplications saying that Linux market share is increasing.
  • DrDabbles, on 05/16/2008, -0/+6I've downloaded the beta from Adobe. STILL no x86_64 support! I'd really like the GNASH project to grab up the open specs and create a truly cross-platform, open-source flash player.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.