backtop


Print 12 comment(s) - last by SQIII.. on Oct 24 at 3:46 PM

Adobe expects to have the official Flash 9 release for Linux sometime in 2007

Adobe has recently released the beta version of Flash Player 9 for the Linux operating system. The Linux version has most of the same features that users are used to with Windows and Macintosh versions of Flash 9. The beta, which was released on Wednesday, does not support a full-screen mode or support for SSL encryption. Adobe, however, said that both features will be available in the final version of the program. Developers will also be able to use Adobe's Flex 2 software developer kit to help develop new applications.

System requirements for the Linux beta:
  • 800 Mhz processor
  • 512MB of RAM
  • 128MB graphics card
The program should work on all major mainstream Linux operating systems, but Adobe has only tested it with Red Hat and Novell SUSE systems. The final version of Adobe's Linux Flash Player 9 should be available sometime next year.

Some open source technology supporters have criticized Adobe for taking too long to offer Linux versions of its products. In the company's defense, Adobe claims that it is continuing to evaluate Linux development as demand for open source technology increases.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

64bit?
By dolcraith on 10/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: 64bit?
By Pirks on 10/21/2006 7:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
ya keep dreamin'

it will skyrocket when NO 32-bit windows versions are available at all (circa 2015-2020 given present speed of MS windows development)

and this is NOT vista since it's available as 32-bit version and this is what most people will use


RE: 64bit?
By TomZ on 10/21/2006 7:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree - there will be more and more people using Vista x64, and advertisers will be pressuring Adobe to get the flash player completed so their flash ads can be properly rendered.


RE: 64bit?
By Pirks on 10/22/2006 3:30:22 AM , Rating: 2
you might want to think about equality of notions "64-bit windows use will skyrocket" and your own "there will be more and more people using 64-bit windows". see any difference between these two? if not - then we don't have much to talk about, do we? :)


RE: 64bit?
By Spivonious on 10/23/2006 1:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone buying a new computer these days will get a 64-bit capable processor (Or at least 80% of people). In a few months they will also get Vista pre-installed. The OEMs are going to put Vista x64 on there. Banner ads across the web stop working. Adobe gets major heat for not having a 64-bit version. Really, all it takes is putting your 32-bit code into a 64-bit compiler. Unless they're doing down-and-dirty memory management, which I highly doubt.


RE: 64bit?
By Pirks on 10/23/2006 11:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
sorry to disappoint you but OEMs will put 32-bit Vista on there, not the 64-bit one. the only exception will be expensive professional workstations and niche/boutique PCs. which, of course, makes the word "skyrocketing 64-bit windows market share" pretty funny :)


RE: 64bit?
By danz32 on 10/21/2006 8:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
Its not really Microsoft's fault...they have had the 64bit available for a few years now. Only a few third party developers have made strong efforts to reach out to support it. Its hard to use something if there isnt the best drivers for it


RE: 64bit?
By Pirks on 10/22/2006 3:27:05 AM , Rating: 2
what kind of oracle told you all third party developers will suddenly drop everything and start supporting 64-bit windows? they haven't supported it for a couple of years already and won't support it for a couple of years more. what, you think changing logo "XP" to logo "Vista" will do some revolutionary mindbending magic? care to enlighten me what is this magic and how it's gonna work? ;)


RE: 64bit?
By stmok on 10/22/2006 11:40:53 AM , Rating: 1
Jedi Mind Trick of course!

Jedi: 32bit isn't what you're looking for.
Companies: We should stop supporting 32bit.

Jedi: 64bit is the future.
Companies: 64bit is the next thing we should be supporting.

Jedi: Vista.
Companies: Vista?

Jedi: Vista.
Companies: Hey I know! We should start supporting 64bit in Vista!

Jedi: *rolls his eyes and mumbles* Retards.

:D


RE: 64bit?
By phatboye on 10/22/2006 1:11:36 AM , Rating: 2
It's good to see they finally put up a linux version of flash, but it still does not run on my 64-bit firefox install. So this new plug-in does me no good.

I guess it won't matter, I'm getting used to not seeing flash pop-ups and ads :o


RE: 64bit?
By bubbl07 on 10/22/2006 2:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's good to see they finally put up a linux version of flash, but it still does not run on my 64-bit firefox install. So this new plug-in does me no good.
There's a neat plugin that'll allow you run 32-bit plugins on a 64-bit Mozilla-based browser (Firefox, Seamonkey, etc.) called nspluginwrapper (http://www.gibix.net/dokuwiki/en:projects:nsplugin... ). It's in beta form, so use at your own discretion. I'm currently using it on a 64-bit Gentoo installation.


Necessary?
By SQIII on 10/24/2006 3:46:42 PM , Rating: 2
While I realize that Flash has been around for some time, has it lived out its usefulness at this point? I mean, aren't there a host of more standardized protocols that can perform the same functions as flash without the need for an additional installation? Why haven't web designers made the switch to XML, ActiveX, or Java for their implementations?




"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki