What is Digg?49 Comments
- tuffy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32If you're reading this on Linux Firefox, you've got all the required libs you'll need. That list is a small subset of everything Firefox requires and will be available on any reasonably modern graphical distro.
- Ricapar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26It says Penguin.SWF, not SFW. SWF being the file extension for flash files.
- oneeyedelf1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23This would be an exaple of your distro being tehsuck, not GNU/Linux. Also I have never heard of anyone saying windows is a failed desktop OS when downloading a program that requires the .net runtime and it isnt currently installed, and just having the program throw an error message.
- TheWriteGuy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Safe work for it is. --Yoda
- DnasTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Of course it's flawed. They're completely different things. In one, you've got to install the extra packages yourself, and in the other, the package manager takes care of everything for you.
- argoff, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20The reason they are hyping it is because there is an open source project called gnash that is a flash player for linux that is starting to take hold. They don't want linux users who are fed up with incompatible flash on Linux directing their frustrations toward development of an open and free platform. Once the open source one gets a toe-hold, they are toast and they know it.
- DnasTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13And I hope the open-source one does take a hold...
As a web developer, I dislike anything that discriminates in the slightest against any platform my visitors might use. Closed plugins don't give an equal chance for all platforms to implement. Even if Adobe/Macromedia weren't a bunch of lazy fools and actually did release a version of the plugin for the BSDs, every architecture of Linux, etc. at the same time as their Windows one, I'd still abstain from and oppose it, albeit slightly less strongly.
The web was meant to be cross-platform. Like pollution, things like Flash are poisoning this grand vision. - cduquette, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Wow I've never seen a piece of desktop software so hyped before :P.
And I can't wait :D - chrisbudden, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21The blog title is Penguin.SWF not SFW.
.....
I see someone has posted this already. Down I go. - AquaFox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Most of these people already have.. And package managers will dl them automatically.
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Get the beta out asap!
- sarathmenon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I have to say, this is being a bit lame. Every time something gets posted in the Adobe blog, someone or the other raves about it here, and about flash. If you are like me and stuck with no native flash on AMD64, I suggest move on to gnash and enjoy some free software. This wasn't meant to be a troll post, but the way that flash is being praised and applauded makes me wonder about the whole point.
The only other adobe product that I have had to use is acroread, and seriously with good enough options and alternatives like kpdf, I really haven't had a need to use it again. - CrazyNorman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I have every single one of those libraries on my system right now.
A quick check with locate found all of them - myfanwy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ DnasTheGreat
"the package manager takes care of everything for you"
yes, in principal....in practice, not everything is listed in the package manager, so i either edit the sources.list, or adding a line with the 'repositories' button in synaptic. either is not immediately obvious, and i found windows far simpler in this respect than maintaing ubuntu. i've been fighting with it all weekend, just to get a matrox millenium driver and gnash installed, both with hideous numbers of dependencies. - benplaut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3sudo pacman -Syu
as was mentioned before, all these requirements are also required of Firefox... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3JUST FRICKIN' RELEASE IT ALREADY!!!
- dipswitch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I hope they kept the plugin thread-safe
http://www.gtk.org/faq/#AEN482 - psyon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3They mentioned it needs pthreads, so I assume they kept that in mind.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I agree, this is a lot of praise for a company that has taken the piss for so long.
I am however, looking forward to youtube videos that are hopefully in sync. What an unreasonable request, eh? - spikes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Those are common libraries on my Slackware 11-rc5 system. Cant wait for this new flash player.
- DnasTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Fair enough.
I do not have quite as much experience with Ubuntu. My primary distro is Gentoo, which has an incredibly rich repository. I will say, though, that I run Ubuntu on my laptop, and while the ancient nature of said portable causes me to be more conservative about what I install, I've never had the slightest degree of difficulty finding a package or adding a repository. While, on Windows, I am irritated beyond description when I have to update software or install it.
I'm inclined to believe that it is more of what one is used to rather than actual ease of use. To you, adding repositories is unintuitive, however to me, manually managing software, à la Windows, is unintuitive and demeaning.
(Plus gnash is development software, etc. so like... difficulty of installing and tons of deps is to be expected... be glad that you actually can get the pre-alphas and alphas, in contrast to the proprietary development model. ;-) )
Besides, the issue mentioned is about automatically finding dependencies not unprovided packages. If some package is in the official repositories, all the dependencies should also be there. As for 3rd party repositories, I've never seen one with a dependency that wasn't provided by itself or the official rep, but that's 3rd party stuff. I could easily write a screwed up Windows installer, as I have seen far too many times in the past, that would have the same problem. - ahmerhussain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Most distos today have tools such as Apt-get, Yum, YaST, SWARET, and such built-in.
If you have adequate repos, then this should be no problemo. - antdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I wonder if there will be a Debian package so it can get the required libraries.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So are these libraries covered in Ubuntu Dapper?
- r00723r0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ElectricGrandpa, if CSS doesn't look the same across browsers, then you are either using a piece of ***** browser (like IE which is only popular because it was *FORCED* upon people) or you are blind. CSS is an open standard, which means that if CSS doesn't look the same across browsers it is NOT, I repeat NOT CSS.
Why do you think there are different versions of Flash? If I was to load up a Flash 9 object in a Flash 5 environment you'd be surprised how it looked. Flash is closed-source because they don't want competition, but that's EXACTLY the opposite of how it works. They fail to see beyond 1 step: if they open-source their product then they'll be the group getting the downloads, not GNASH. And if you'll notice, Linux's users are the MOST mature, and they'll be the people buying Flash Studio, not ripping it. If you see Windows on a workstation let me know. - sixdays, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1/me agrees and puts on the theme to Duke Nukem Forever.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Don't be daft they can't target all these no share market niches ;-).
- JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner."
No wonder all the comments are from complete idiots! That wasn't there before . . . I'm sure he needs that more than ever after the flood of comments last time telling him he should be fired. Which he should be. =)
My comment that I doubt will go through:
"Wonderful, a list of libraries, that dozens of other programs use because of-*****-coarse you have to use them if you want to have just about _any_ graphical app. You've certainly passed a milestone . . ."
Hey yeah I'm probably being a little tough, but you know what? The reality is that anyone running something like libc version 5 wouldn't be using Flash in the first place. - burke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2wait, so... no Flash 9 for my amd64 Gentoo? crap. I guess I'll just run it in my chroot :(
- sixdays, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Agreed. The best comment ever was the one that was posted by someone calling them self "obviously". I quote:
"
Obviously, what would speed this up quite a bit would be open sourcing the effort, instead of relying on one guy. What jerks you are, though: you pervade the market with this hidden-source plugin, then fall out of sync with the Linux community, and still expect to have friendly relationships with the FOSS world? Why should anyone care about your stupid problems or your lack of ideas about how to do something that hundreds of other projects do (build packages that can install on various Linux distros)? Flash is a cancer on the web — on the world, for that matter. It is antithetical to everything Linux is about. All Linux users should avoid Flash like the plague, and support FOSS alternatives. Screw you and your lame, late, talentless effort.
By the way, this isn’t an “off topic” “request” for you to open source the effort. This is an angry rant about the entire existence of your project. You are a jerk for participating, and for expecting any goodwill from the Linux community. I hope you get fired."
Couldn't agree with him more. - darkbird, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I just hope that they test it on most browsers (e.i. epiphany, konqueror, etc.), NOT just Firefox, because having a plugin only work in a browser you don't use is useless
- TVarmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So, is there anything close to a date when this is coming out? Will it be out by 2007 Q2, at least?
- DnasTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"You sound like a lunatic. This is a rediculous argument you're making anyway. If I go use DOS, should I really have the right to view Flash on the web? Of course not, because I chose to use an OS that doesn't support it. You knew Flash wasn't supported when you chose linux. It's not their fault, it's yours. You're just lucky they're doing you a favour by creating a Linux Flash player for you."
The issue is not DOS not being able to read Flash or any other OS. The problem is that the problem of writing Flash support lies solely on Adobe. All I want is the web to be open. If the Flash specification is open, the OS developer or even some 3rd party can write a Flash plug-in for said niche OS. The way it is right now, everything lies on Adobe/Macromedia. Adobe does not, and it is not reasonable to expect them to, provide a plug-in for every OS out there. What is reasonable, and IMO required as far as the web goes, is to make the specifications open. This way, if there is a reason to want a Flash plug-in for that platform, someone who wants one could write it, instead of wait for Adobe to make it.
That's the essence of how the cross-platform web works.
If my browser doesn't support CSS, is it W3C's fault? Heck no, the specifications are open and nothing's stopping it from implementing it.
Now, if CSS were closed (and thus required a plug-in, etc.), then it would be ENTIRELY W3C's fault that my browser doesn't support it. And even if this browser happened to be written perfectly and exactly to my every needs with me specifically in mind, I wouldn't be able to use it to browse CSS-based sites. That would be utterly stupid.
Fortunately, CSS isn't that dumb.
One should have the choice of using what setup is best for them, not what setup some corporation decides it wants me to use.
You would be singing an entirely different tune if Adobe didn't support you precious little Windows.
Me, however, like I said, had Adobe provided endless support for Linux and gave me the best plug-in imaginable (keeping it closed), I would still never use Flash on my websites. I do not wish to force any choice onto my visitors. Ever. If a visitor likes to use Random-Unknown-OS-#862, he/she should be able to without worrying whether Adobe has written a plug-in for it. What he/she should be worrying about is whatever _Random-Unknown-OS-#862_ has written a plug-in for Flash.
If the latter is the problem, this is an issue of the quality of the OS, which should be taken into account when making a choice.
If the former, this is NOT the quality of the OS. This is whether, on a coin flip, Adobe felt like supporting the OS.
I am indeed grateful that, after a few tosses, my OS of choice won the coin flip, but grateful to luck, not to Adobe/Macromedia. It's their fault we have the silly coin flip anyway.
Ideally, such a closed system would rot away in market competition, but the computer economics are about as far from ideal as you can get. - JoshHendo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What is so funny in that?
- r00723r0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1HAHAHHA, you're running Windows! You're the laughing stock of the educated.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yep but people will complain none the less about Linux dependancy hell fud.
They could have easily reeled off a list of dlls that are required but are installed on Windows by default.
I thought they were talking about static linking anyway. - Twee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Too bad I'm using Ubuntu PPC. No linux flash for me. Gotta boot into OSX for flash.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I agree, this is a lot of praise for a company that has taken the piss for so long.
I am however, looking forward to youtube videos that are hopefully in sync. What an unreasonable request, eh?"
Most Youtube videos are crap using Flash 9. Having seen Flash 9 in Wine and on XP on at least 7 machines I can guarrentee you it either handles sync no better or the content is more a factor than the player. - rynoon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yes, they are all covered already in Ubuntu Dapper.
- macewan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I'm marking this as lame because until they release something for the community it's just vaporware. They should be trying to woo us not the opposite as it is now. As far as I'm concerned Adobe has ruined any good standing they had with the community by leaving us hanging for months on end.
How can they market Flash as reaching 98% of the world wide desktops when it's taking them up to 8 months for Linux? Do the phone carriers know this? Will Adobe be doing this in the a particular platform the deem expendable? - illicium, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yep, they're all in slackware-current
- ElectricGrandpa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The very example you provided in your argument shows why the Flash player should NOT be made open source. Yes, CSS is completely cross platform, *however* if you've ever made any sites with CSS you know that they can look COMPLETELY different across different browsers, and at the very least there will be some things that aren't quite the same. It's a huge pain-in-the-ass to develop for multiple browsers and it increases development time by a large amount.
That's the beauty of Flash. When I create something for Flash, it will look and operate the IDENTICALLY on *any* PC and *any* Mac in *any* browser that supports it.
If there were an open source version of Flash, who knows how well it would work? There might be some features that they could get working, but others that they couldn't, or some that might not work the same way they do in the Adobe-created player. I don't want to have to start developing Flash that works in a whole bunch of different open source versions of the player.
Also, another point is that there are some proprietary aspects of the Flash player that Adobe licenses from other companies(such as the Video codecs). They would definitely not be allowed to make those open source along with the player. - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Uh, Adobe is toast and they know it if a Flash _player_ that is not their own gains some popularity with a fraction of their market? That's complete BS.
Adobe has so many products under their belt (Flash Studio just being one of those) that are in no way threatened by gnash.
I'll be as happy as the next guy if/when gnash just comes with your distro and Flash Just Works(tm), but how could that possibly spell doom for Adobe? Please, I'm dying to know how you arrived at that conclusion. - midwinter, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I find it amusing how people can get so excited over freaking flash. Flash is horrid.
Anyway whatever, let it continue... be at their mercy. - ElectricGrandpa, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1"The web was meant to be cross-platform. Like pollution, things like Flash are poisoning this grand vision."
You sound like a lunatic. This is a rediculous argument you're making anyway. If I go use DOS, should I really have the right to view Flash on the web? Of course not, because I chose to use an OS that doesn't support it. You knew Flash wasn't supported when you chose linux. It's not their fault, it's yours. You're just lucky they're doing you a favour by creating a Linux Flash player for you. - pfdogs, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1You guys are running Linux. LOL!
- schmedly, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3Comparing the .NET framework with multiple dependency issues is flawed. That's why you don't hear that argument.
- 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -45/+12If you need to do anything more than click a button that says download, then click install, your system is farked up. I'm hoping Ubuntu does this because the idea of having to check what libraries I have an manually change them is disgusting and would be a sure indicator of Linux's failure to be a good desktop OS.
- LeDopore, on 10/12/2007, -38/+3Offtopic: This blog's title is Penguin.SWF. Does that imply there's a Penguin.NSFW? If there were, would anybody in their right mind want to read it?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is