Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adobe Flash 11 is now stable for 64-bit Linux

adobe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: Adobe Flash 11 is now stable for 64-bit Linux

#31

Post by morsch »

_2xb0 wrote: post #20

And it's still rather far from being mature. Debian squeeze x64 user of Chrome with nvidia-* 260.19.44-1 drivers here. For instance go to: [url-redacted] 1. RBM on flash content, Settings. Now try to set anything with mouse (i.e. w/o using keyboard, especially Tab + Space). 2. RBM on flash content, Zoom in. How much of the view has been redrawn? Now let's go to vimeo: [url-redacted] And HD video still doesn't play sm…

All of these things (1. + 2. + HD video) have been working for me for a long time. YouTube 1080p content works fine, though I kind of doubt it's using VDPAU, so it's bound to hit the CPU (4x 1.9GHz i5, hardly cutting edge) fairly hard. I'm using the 64bit flashplayer 11 from the sevenmachines ppa.

Are you using Chrome or Chromium? Chrome comes with its own flash version.

Re: Adobe Flash 11 is now stable for 64-bit Linux

#32

Post by nodata »

lallysingh wrote: post #25
thristian wrote: post #18

Since I'm running Ubuntu, I decided to try the 'download for Ubuntu' option on the download form. It went down like this: - Firefox asked me whether I wanted to launch the 'apturl' tool. I accepted its suggestion. - I got a dialog saying "This will enable the Canonical Partners repository". I'm pretty sure I already had it enabled, but sure, what the hell. - I got the usual 'downloading updated package lists' dialog.…

It would be funny --- if it wasn't so tragic --- how much easier to use and manage free software is. Especially considering it's almost all just './configure ; make && make install' at the base level. I friggin' love pacman.

That's a good point. If Flash was free software, there wouldn't be a need for a download page - it would be in the repositories already.

Re: Adobe Flash 11 is now stable for 64-bit Linux

#33

Post by kevindication »

maximilian wrote: post #21
thristian wrote: post #18

Since I'm running Ubuntu, I decided to try the 'download for Ubuntu' option on the download form. It went down like this: - Firefox asked me whether I wanted to launch the 'apturl' tool. I accepted its suggestion. - I got a dialog saying "This will enable the Canonical Partners repository". I'm pretty sure I already had it enabled, but sure, what the hell. - I got the usual 'downloading updated package lists' dialog.…

I also went through this, gave up, then downloaded the tarball, and copied the plugin to its spot in /var/lib/. I did backup the old plugin though, just in case. I also tried just updating Chrome, which is supposed to have the newer flash version, but it didn't have it. Not sure why..

Is this the first time you've circumvented the package management system? If you have done it before, maybe that's the cause of the pain now? Just guessing, since these things usually work without any complaint for me.

Re: Adobe Flash 11 is now stable for 64-bit Linux

#34

Post by _2xb0 »

morsch wrote: post #31
_2xb0 wrote: post #20

And it's still rather far from being mature. Debian squeeze x64 user of Chrome with nvidia-* 260.19.44-1 drivers here. For instance go to: [url-redacted] 1. RBM on flash content, Settings. Now try to set anything with mouse (i.e. w/o using keyboard, especially Tab + Space). 2. RBM on flash content, Zoom in. How much of the view has been redrawn? Now let's go to vimeo: [url-redacted] And HD video still doesn't play sm…

All of these things (1. + 2. + HD video) have been working for me for a long time. YouTube 1080p content works fine, though I kind of doubt it's using VDPAU, so it's bound to hit the CPU (4x 1.9GHz i5, hardly cutting edge) fairly hard. I'm using the 64bit flashplayer 11 from the sevenmachines ppa. Are you using Chrome or Chromium? Chrome comes with its own flash version.

I use a beta version of Google Chrome (latest 15.0.874.81 beta) from official repo (deb http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main). I remember it was shipped with Flash, but it worked not as good as I would like it to, so I was using 64-bit betas (not great either, to be honest), IIRC by disabling Chrome's own Flash in about:plugins. Now looking there I see only one Flash plugin, which is the one installed in my system (Location: /usr/lib/flashplugin-nonfree/libflashplayer.so). So even if Chrome's custom Flash is better, as you imply, dunno how to turn it on for a test ride now.

Also

    dpkg --contents google-chrome-beta_15.0.874.81-r103858_amd64.deb | grep -i fl
reveals nothing.

Re: Adobe Flash 11 is now stable for 64-bit Linux

#36

Post by morsch »

_2xb0 wrote: post #34
morsch wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of these things (1. + 2. + HD video) have been working for me for a long time. YouTube 1080p content works fine, though I kind of doubt it's using VDPAU, so it's bound to hit the CPU (4x 1.9GHz i5, hardly cutting edge) fairly hard. I'm using the 64bit flashplayer 11 from the sevenmachines ppa. Are you using Chrome or Chromium? Chrome comes with its own flash version.

I use a beta version of Google Chrome (latest 15.0.874.81 beta) from official repo (deb http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main). I remember it was shipped with Flash, but it worked not as good as I would like it to, so I was using 64-bit betas (not great either, to be honest), IIRC by disabling Chrome's own Flash in about:plugins. Now looking there I see only one Flash plugin, which is the one installed i…

I didn't mean to imply that Chrome's custom Flash is better. I have no idea if it is since I run Firefox (typically) and Chromium (rarely). Like I said, I use the 64bit Flash player from the sevenmachines ppa (Ubuntu 11.04).

https://launchpad.net/~sevenmachines/+archive/flash

Re: Adobe Flash 11 is now stable for 64-bit Linux

#38

Post by burgerbrain »

thristian wrote: post #18

Since I'm running Ubuntu, I decided to try the 'download for Ubuntu' option on the download form. It went down like this: - Firefox asked me whether I wanted to launch the 'apturl' tool. I accepted its suggestion. - I got a dialog saying "This will enable the Canonical Partners repository". I'm pretty sure I already had it enabled, but sure, what the hell. - I got the usual 'downloading updated package lists' dialog.…

On fedora:

- Go to http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/

- Select Linux

- Select YUM

- Install the RPM it gives me

- `yum install flash-player`

Flawless.

Re: Adobe Flash 11 is now stable for 64-bit Linux

#39

Post by windsurfer »

nodata wrote: post #32
lallysingh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be funny --- if it wasn't so tragic --- how much easier to use and manage free software is. Especially considering it's almost all just './configure ; make && make install' at the base level. I friggin' love pacman.

That's a good point. If Flash was free software, there wouldn't be a need for a download page - it would be in the repositories already.

I worked for Adobe and there are more than 100 licensed libraries and even more patents used in Flash. There's almost no chance it'll be open source.

Re: Adobe Flash 11 is now stable for 64-bit Linux

#40

Post by evmar »

morsch wrote: post #36
_2xb0 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use a beta version of Google Chrome (latest 15.0.874.81 beta) from official repo (deb http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main). I remember it was shipped with Flash, but it worked not as good as I would like it to, so I was using 64-bit betas (not great either, to be honest), IIRC by disabling Chrome's own Flash in about:plugins. Now looking there I see only one Flash plugin, which is the one installed i…

I didn't mean to imply that Chrome's custom Flash is better. I have no idea if it is since I run Firefox (typically) and Chromium (rarely). Like I said, I use the 64bit Flash player from the sevenmachines ppa (Ubuntu 11.04). https://launchpad.net/~sevenmachines/+archive/flash

Chrome's custom Flash is better, because the Chrome generic plugin code is not very good. And that is due to [the plugin API being very complicated and full of bugs -- http://neugierig.org/software/chromium/notes/2009/05/plugins... .
Post reply on HN