Professional Web Applications Themes

flash plugin for firefox : Linux AMD64 - Adobe Flash, Flex & Director

> Well, if they wrote it poorly they wrote it poorly. Its partly that .. and partly due to the low-level optimisations that are used to get good performance from the player. These need to all be reworked for differnet processors and compilers. > There isn't much that can be done about that. Indeed .. hopefully that is part of what is being redone in FP 8.5 as part of doing the porting .. so it won't be so difficult to keep Linux and 64-bit OS in sync with the rst of the world > But Jecky, you are failing ...

Sponsored Links
  1. #81

    Default Re: flash plugin for firefox : Linux AMD64

    > Well, if they wrote it poorly they wrote it poorly.

    Its partly that .. and partly due to the low-level optimisations that are
    used to get good performance from the player. These need to all be reworked
    for differnet processors and compilers.
    > There isn't much that can be done about that.
    Indeed .. hopefully that is part of what is being redone in FP 8.5 as part
    of doing the porting .. so it won't be so difficult to keep Linux and 64-bit
    OS in sync with the rst of the world
    > But Jecky, you are failing to note that also all 64 bit
    > Windows users also can't use the Flash Player. There is a huge number of
    > people bothered by this.
    But its a tiny number cpmpared with the HUMUNGOUS number of users that have
    good old Windows XP etc. The number of 64-bit users really isn't that big
    in the grand scheme of things.

    That said, of course, when Vista is released, and there are more mainstream
    64-bit processor PC's out there (so most Joe Blogs at home will have a
    64-bit machine that they can buy down at the local department store), that
    will change .. and MM should well and truly have its FP8 (including Linux
    and 64-bit support) out by then
    > Each day this is increasing.
    Indeed .. grown from miniscule to tiny But it is growing, and MM have
    recognised that by including 64-bit and Linux support in the upcoming player
    that is currently in Beta (I don't know if the 64-bit Linux version is in
    beta though as yet)
    > I first wrote on this
    > board about 3 or 4 months ago and there still is no 64 bit flash player,
    > can it
    > really be *THAT* difficult to do?
    It is when the developers are busy on things like Flex and the new Flash
    Player 8.5 (which WILL include Linux and 64-bit support from what has been
    said).
    > I think it's well past the time where adobe/macromedia should be creating
    > their 64 bit players.
    I think the time is just about right .. and that is why they are busy doing
    it. When FP8.5 is ready it should have Linux and 64-bit support in it.
    There is little point in them spending a lot of their resources making a
    64-bit version of the soon-to-be-redundant FP8.

    Jeckyl


    Sponsored Links
    Jeckyl Guest

  2. #82

    Default Re: flash plugin for firefox : Linux AMD64

    Here is an online petition link for petitioning Adobe to publish a 64-bit flash player [url]http://www.petitiononline.com/lin64swf/petition.html[/url]
    84Pirate Guest

  3. #83

    Default Re: flash plugin for firefox : Linux AMD64

    Jeckyl: You make some, arguably, valid points regarding the popularity of
    64-bit OS/browser combinations and their lack of industry presence not being
    great enough to force the hand of certain developers to port their work to
    64-bit, in this case Adobe/Macromedia.

    However I've argued against this relatively narrow minded position before, and
    I'm more than willing to do so again now.

    First point I need to make is that 64-bit OS users haven't been demanding a
    fully supported final release product.
    And at this point the essence of the argument that 64-bit OS is used by a
    relatively small group works again the lagging developer: most 64-bit OS users
    are ENTHUSIASTS, IT PROFESSIONALS, HIGHLY SKILLED and INTELLIGENT and as such
    they know what a "beta" version is, and WOULD ACCEPT A BETA RELEASE without
    support. Don't believe me? Run a poll - you'd get a 90% "would use a beta
    version if available" "YES" response. Because we're enthusiasts, and
    enthusiastic about new technology. It's that simple. I don't believe for a
    second that a beta of the plugin doesn't exist - what I DO believe is that
    Adobe/Macromedia are holding back until they release full retail products with
    true 64-bit OS support so that they can simultaneously offer support on both.
    IMHO that smacks of arrogance on behalf of the company and a disregard for the
    principles behind some of their products (:universal browser media deliver).

    So, point #1: if a beta version was made AVAILABLE to us we WOULD use it
    without hesitation (and given it's beta we'd accept that it might be a bit
    buggy)
    n.b. I have yet to see signs of 64-bit browser compatability in the public
    betas of FP 8.5 (as of 20th march now beta 2).

    Yes, the user-base for 64-bit OS's is small, but lets examine WHY people are
    using them. There's a small group of "tech-geeks" who are using illegal copies
    of x64 or linux 64-bit just because they can, but for the most part the users
    of 64-bit OS's are those who want the extended memory space and the few
    optimisations offered by more modern (at least in the case of Windows x64 which
    has improvements over regular XP Pro above and beyond memory addressing
    capabilities). And who benefits from more memory space? Developers. A lot of
    developers. A majority of the people I know who've switched to 64-bit OS are
    graphic, DTP and web designers. And most of them are intelligent and have
    principles. Which means they are being disenfranchised by Adobe/Macromedia and
    switching to alternative products. You do know that you don't have to use Flash
    don't you? Adobe/Macromedia seem to have missed that point. What's more is that
    these developers don't necessarily NEED the 64-bit FP for themselves, they just
    want to ensure that a compatabile solution is available for potential viewers.
    It's a principle thing, again: we want to make sure our work is viewable by
    EVERYONE, so we install a 64-bit browser and test our pages in that.
    Fly-by-night and lazy developers wont do extensive browser compatability
    checking, but dedicated ones will.
    There is lost revenue here for the company though even if you ignore the moral
    indignation of those customers fleeing the products: Adobe/Macromedia are
    losing money. I have no idea what the count is on 64-bit OS users, but let me
    make a wild statement: to bring up to scratch a beta plugin couldn't possibly
    take that long and I'd bet that Adobe/Macromedia has lost more revenue from
    fleeing customers than it would have cost them to compile out a 64-bit beta
    plugin. Other companies HAVE done it .... it's not a cost or technical
    limitation stopping Adobe/Macromedia, it's bureaucratic nonsense.

    Point #2: Adobe/Macromedia ARE losing revenue for something which, in
    comparison to any other technologies they might be developing, IS a small
    thing. Even if neither you or I can quantify the lost revenue, it is lost.

    Creating a 64-bit plugin should already be a work-in-progress as part of any
    development project working towards compatability with Vista-64, in fact it
    should have been a work in progress for some time now. Which is just more
    reason a beta should be available. But more than that, if a third party can
    produce a workable flash player plugin why can't Adobe/Macromedia? The argument
    that it's "non-trivial" and requires "low-level optimisations" do not wash with
    me either, firstly because Adobe/Macromedia have got the resources to make it
    trivial and secondly because the hardware level instructions supported by the
    AMD 64 and Intel 64 processors AREN'T THAT DIFFERENT to 32-bit cores. They may
    be slightly more advanced, but it's not like shifting a compilation from a full
    CPU instruction set to a RISC set or anything - they share the same
    functionality + MORE. Also the "differences" are well doented and available
    to developers, and professional developers (such as those working for
    Adobe/Macromedia) with access to doentation should be able to quite easily
    integrate for new cores. So pfft to the "non-trivial" argument - PLENTY of
    other companies have done so called "non-trivial" 'ports' in the last 12
    months. Again, it's bureaucracy, not a physical/intellectual limit.

    Point #3: in the grand scheme of things it IS trivial to port JUST the plugin.

    Point #1 + Point #2 + Point #3: We (the users of 64-bit OS's) are intelligent
    people who are enthusiastic about using bleeding edge technology and are
    benefitted by using 64-bit technology. We are developers (influencing end
    products and paying for full version developers tools unlike those using just
    the free tools) and understand how development works and can't comprehend why
    Adobe/Macromedia would delay, can't comprehend that beta versions aren't
    available and who would accept a beta plugin with no support and less
    than-perfect performance if it were released.

    I am SO sick of people apologising for developers who wont acknowledge their
    development status on 64-bit code, who wont release 64-bit executables even at
    a beta or alpha level. I am tired of the trite and thin excuses given by these
    apologists of "it's not a small thing to port to 64-bit"; boo-hoo, plenty of
    companies with much smaller development resources than Adobe/Macromedia have
    done it, including low-level optimisations. Or the "have a cry - you're such a
    small user group anyway" - percentage wise yes, it's a minority user group, but
    being primarily power users and developers we're initiating trickle-down
    effects where when we drop one product for an alternative we impact our
    customers, clients and end-users: it's a slippery slope that of revenue loss,
    and I would have thought that a company as large as the jugernaught
    Adobe/Macromedia would be trying to improve their image as cutting edge rather
    than let it slide.

    I use, and recommend, Windows x64 regularly (and when Vista arrives will more
    than likely compare the Vista-64 to see how it stacks up), and the ONLY 3
    things I can't utilise are: Java plugin in 64-bit browser (Sun), Flash plugin
    in 64-bit browser (Adobe/Macromedia) and Acrobat PDF print driver
    (Adobe/Macromedia). I've already dumped Acrobat, as have all those clients and
    associates I know who've switched to 64-bit, as there are fully functional
    64-bit alternatives available. I've dumped usage of Flash as I can't guarantee
    a high enough level of browser compatability to satisfy my clients (or myself)
    - and the same can be said of Java. I think it's telling to note that these,
    Sun & Adobe/Macromedia, are BIG companies who ONCE UPON A TIME were industry
    leaders.

    Silvercloak Guest

  4. #84

    Default Re: flash plugin for firefox : Linux AMD64

    Here's your 64bit java 1.4 with mozilla/firefox plugin;
    www dot blackdown dot org
    thisisnottaken999123 Guest

  5. #85

    Default Re: flash plugin for firefox : Linux AMD64

    I am using Ubuntu 5.10 on an AMD64 bit processor. I found the "libflash"
    libraries as well as "libflash-mozplugin" (GPL flash (SWF) libraries) to do the
    trick. Ok I am not able to play all the flash content but I can see 8 out of
    10. They work so try them out

    girionis Guest

  6. #86

    Default Re: flash plugin for firefox : Linux AMD64

    Originally posted by: girionis
    I am using Ubuntu 5.10 on an AMD64 bit processor. I found the "libflash"
    libraries as well as "libflash-mozplugin" (GPL flash (SWF) libraries) to do the
    trick. Ok I am not able to play all the flash content but I can see 8 out of
    10. They work so try them out They are also available under Synaptic
    Manager.Ubuntu 5.10 on AMD 64 user here. I tried the above and I had a much
    lower rate of success. Maybe 1/10. Many flash animations would start but just
    freeze 3 seconds or so into it.

    I guess I just have to wait until the next version of Flash is released. It
    doesn't make sense for Macromedia to take this long to support 64 bit
    processors though...

    Herbchef Guest

  7. Moderated Post

    Default Re: flash plugin for firefox : Linux AMD64

    Removed by Administrator
    JamesOnTheWay Guest

  8. Moderated Post

    Default Re: flash plugin for firefox : Linux AMD64

    Removed by Administrator
    Jeckyl Guest

  9. #89

    Default Re: flash plugin for firefox : Linux AMD64

    Two comments:
    Jeckyl:
    You seem very prejudiced against linux for some reason, but that is dodging
    the assertion most of these people are making, which is a more general request
    for 64 bit support in any operating system. The lack of this support is fairly
    egregious and you simply can't state with a straight face that Macromedia is
    gaining sales for this complete lack of support. Granted they don't have an
    obligation to be charitable but they also don't have one to be chowderheaded.
    Really, before you turn this in to a windows versus the world argument,
    remember that some of these complaints are from Windows users as well. The
    linux bashing is more than a little off topic, in my humble opinion and serves
    no purpose other than to get a rise out of people and distract from the real
    issue, which is lack of support from Macromedia for an entire hardware
    platform, a platform which represents the next generation of hardware. It is of
    course in the interest of Macromedia, the developers and the END USER to
    provide at least an unsupported beta so that developers can prepare compatible
    options for end users, even and especially if Macromedia considers the hardware
    to be less than mainstream yet. Why stall technology more than it already is?
    If Macromedia wants to offer a well accepted standardized content delivery
    system they do themselves no favors by ignoring any of their potential audience
    and do an even greater disservice to their paying customers who may not realize
    that their content (which they spend lots of money developing, money macromedia
    benefits directly from) is being rendered inaccessible.
    Macromedia:
    This is really, really silly. Release a plug in or release a standard.

    WheresMy64 Guest

  10. #90

    Default Re: flash plugin for firefox : Linux AMD64

    > Jeckyl:
    > You seem very prejudiced against linux for some reason,
    No .. I like Linux. But it is (regardless of how much you like it) still a
    very small share of the market. Also, being open source, it is less
    attractive for commerical companies to develop for .. people using Linux
    have an expectiation of free or inexpensive open source software.. Its
    nothing to do with prejudice, its just an observation of the way things
    currently are.
    > but that is dodging the assertion most of these people are making,
    > which is a more general request
    > for 64 bit support in any operating system.
    Again.. its a matter of porting. The player source has optimised assembly
    code in it taking advantage of MMX etc, and with assumptions about word
    sizes etc. To be able to support 64-bit processors (whether linux or vista)
    is still a non-trivial port. When combined with the additional
    complications of Linux (which, by its nature, has lots of alternative ways
    of implementing things), it does take some time.

    Macromedia/Adobe have not abandoned Linux/64-bit support. They are working
    on it. Its a matter of timing and allocation of development resources for
    them. They have taken the fairly sensible decision of starting work on the
    new Flash Player 9 (ne 8.5) that is required for them to launch Flex 2. As
    part of that work they have said they will also port that code to 64-bit and
    Linux platforms etc. Otherwise they would have to delay FP9 to port FP8,
    and then immediately start on FP9 and do another port to 64bit/Linux for
    that, resulting in delays for Flex2 and for FP9 for everyone else,.
    > The lack of this support is fairly
    > egregious and you simply can't state with a straight face that Macromedia
    > is
    > gaining sales for this complete lack of support.
    Who said they were gaining sales? But it does mean that they can get Flex2
    out sooner, which means more sales sooner. Not having the free player
    (which does not generate any direct revenue) for a small proportion of
    platforms is not going to have as big and effect on sales as much as delays
    in major new commercial products.
    > Granted they don't have an
    > obligation to be charitable but they also don't have one to be
    > chowderheaded.
    It has nothing to do with charity. And I don't think it is Adobe who are
    being chowderheaded ..... mmmm .. chowder
    > Really, before you turn this in to a windows versus the world argument,
    Its not .. and I'm not .. it is those Linux users who regard their
    importance as somehow much larger than their market share indicates that
    thinkg Adobe should drop all development of commercial products, and the
    porting of Flash Player 9, so they can port the free Flash Player 8.
    > remember that some of these complaints are from Windows users as well.
    Yes .. and the 64-bit windows users are in a similar boat (although in their
    case, it is an operating system that is likely to have a much larger market
    share then Linux very soon, and for which commercial software will be
    expected.
    > The linux bashing is more than a little off topic, in my humble opinion
    > and serves
    > no purpose other than to get a rise out of people and distract from the
    > real
    > issue, which is lack of support from Macromedia for an entire hardware
    > platform, a platform which represents the next generation of hardware.
    I've not bashed Linux. I've merely pointed out that it is not a major
    market share and not as viable a market for commercial companies. And yes,
    the same is true of 64-bit Windows re market share. But you'll note ..Adobe
    is still (it claims) actively working on the porting of the new player to
    these platforms ... yet, like petulant kids in the back of the car yelling
    "are we there yet" some Linux users (in particular) still keep crying about
    how they are being ignored and how hard done by they are because commercial
    programs do not support the platform they have chosen to use.
    > It is of
    > course in the interest of Macromedia, the developers and the END USER to
    > provide at least an unsupported beta so that developers can prepare
    > compatible
    > options for end users, even and especially if Macromedia considers the
    > hardware
    > to be less than mainstream yet. Why stall technology more than it already
    > is?
    Exactly. So lets wait for a Linux and 64/bit beta. Its still early days
    for the player, and it is sensible for Adobe/MM to get issues with the
    initial mainstream versions irons out first. If not, and Mm ports the
    current FP8, then the new tecnhology ofr Flex 2 and flash Player 9 will
    stalled even further for everybody.
    > If Macromedia wants to offer a well accepted standardized content delivery
    > system they do themselves no favors by ignoring any of their potential
    > audience
    But they are NOT ignoring them. They are prioritising their development.
    > and do an even greater disservice to their paying customers who may not
    > realize
    > that their content (which they spend lots of money developing, money
    > macromedia
    > benefits directly from) is being rendered inaccessible.
    That is not really a Macroemdia/Adobe problem .. its a problem due to web
    designers (or customers) who want to use the latest technology in web sites,
    despite that restricting access. Nothing is forcsing web developers to
    publish for Flash Player 8 .. other than then wnating to use some of the new
    features. People were making very sophisticated, 'flashy' and well designed
    web sites with Flash MX and MX2004.
    > Macromedia:
    > This is really, really silly. Release a plug in or release a standard.
    They cannot release a plug in until it is ready for release.

    And a company cannot release a standard ... they have, however, made the SWF
    file format open, and one can (if you meet their requirements) license the
    Flash Player source code so one can port a player to other platforms.

    Assuming Adobe is telling us the truth about what they are doing, then their
    current approach seems the most sensible. As they say, you can't please all
    the people all the time .. and at the present time its the 64bit/Linux users
    who cannot be pleased.
    --
    Jeckyl


    Jeckyl Guest

  11. #91

    Default Re: flash plugin for firefox : Linux AMD64

    I'd just like to bump this. I'm another 64-bit Linux user being underserved.
    Adobe, please pay attention to your linux userbase. Porting the Flash player
    to 64-bit Linux, while not a trivial task, should not be all that difficult.
    Please make this a priority.

    mnphenow Guest

  12. #92

    Default Re: flash plugin for firefox : Linux AMD64

    You are only talking to other flash player users here .. not a direct line
    to the gods of adobe. Porting is already on there list, if you'd bothered
    reading the threads here and other web pages, so basically you're just being
    annoying to those who are not in a position to do anything to change
    development priorities in Adobe. Have you tried contacting Adobe directly?


    Jeckyl Guest

  13. #93

    Default Re: flash plugin for firefox : Linux AMD64

    "its a matter of porting. The player source has optimised assembly
    code in it taking advantage of MMX etc, and with assumptions about word
    sizes etc. To be able to support 64-bit processors (whether linux or
    vista)
    is still a non-trivial port. When combined with the additional
    complications of Linux (which, by its nature, has lots of alternative
    ways
    of implementing things), it does take some time. "

    Why don't the Macromedia developers learn about programming from gnash
    ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnash[/url]). These gnash guys have
    successfully created an fast, cross-platform (arm, hppa, i386, mips,
    mipsel, sparc), cross-distro Flash equivalent that is fully compliant
    with flash 7. It also plays flash 8 movies. The Debian source package
    can be found at [url]http://packages.debian.org/experimental/utils/gnash[/url].
    Better yet, maybe Macromedia can help these guys make gnash fully flash
    8/9 compliant.

    -Joe

    joseph.cole@gmail.com Guest

  14. #94

    Default Re: flash plugin for firefox : Linux AMD64

    [q]Originally posted by: optikshell
    Please make a AMD64 flash plugin for Firefox in Linux AMD64 (Ubuntu
    specifically)!!!!!! Thanks :smile;[/q]

    And same for me too

    Please support amd64 / mozilla Firefox plugin for us 64bit Ubuntu users

    baccaruda Guest

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Similar Threads

  1. Firefox Flash Plugin bug?
    By Jaroslav Danilov in forum Macromedia Flex General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 20th, 03:30 PM
  2. Flash! Linux! Firefox! NOW, DAMNIT!
    By Bushido Hacks in forum Macromedia Flash Player
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: May 9th, 06:25 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 10th, 09:32 PM
  4. Flash plugin causes Firefox freeze on Linux
    By altium in forum Macromedia Flash Player
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 15th, 01:10 PM
  5. Is it so much to ask for a decient Linux Flash Plugin?!
    By Bushido Hacks in forum Macromedia Flash Player
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 19th, 09:05 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139