What is Digg?90 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Any Flash on a website is still better than crap Active X that some sites still use.
- jrepin, on 10/12/2007, -15/+32It would be more interesting to see how they (don't) support different platforms, like 64-bit operating systems, Linux, BSD and so on.
- ElectricGrandpa, on 10/12/2007, -8/+24Honestly, if you pick a non-mainstream OS, how can you expect everything to be available on it?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16I got your penetration statistics right here baby
- templest, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22umm, why are you?
- beermad, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23I'd rather put it, "If you haven't got anything to say, say it with Flash".
- notfred, on 10/12/2007, -13/+26Just because a web developer can use Flash, doesn't mean they should.
- barfnz, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23ignoring Linux is a certain way to cut your access to a growing future market off at the knees. silly adobe.
- ateoto, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18Yes, because all Linux users are pathetic *****, and Windows users are the epitome of all that is awesome, manly, and sexy in this world. Grow up, get out of your parents basement. There are pathetic ***** in every walk of life, you're the perfect example.
- rolosworld, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18I find it interesting that flash 8 has a 10% difference since flash 8 is not available on Linux.
- dbug, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"Until Adobe makes it so that I can selectively choose to view or avoid flash on a page,..."
Like someone else noted already, there is a firefox extension that lets you do exactly that:
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Maybe you haven't seen them because you've upgraded already. I've found a few that don't work with 8.
- bpapa, on 10/12/2007, -11/+20also if you are using linux shouldnt you be shutting the ***** up and instead spending your time on getting it to work on your system? that kinda is in the spirit of linux.
- edwardoh, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Ahh .. but how many poeple use FlashBlock? As long as Flash in OSX slows down my computer to a crawl I will continue to block Flash. Actually why on earth does Flash run so poorly in OSX???
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
http://pimpmycamino.com/parts/camiflash - kevincannon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Flash video is actually better. It's cleaner than Quicktime of Windows Media player, and doens't require a large plugin download.
The only reason it's so compressed is because the website author chooses it to be. It's not an inherant limitation of Flash by any means. Flash supports high quality video. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11They do support Linux... just not very well! Adobe needs to get their act together. Treating Linux like an ugly step-child is like ignoring an elephant in your living room! Linux is an extremely techy crowd... don't you want the tech crowd on your side Adobe? You should have Flash 9 available for Linux on the exact same day it is available on lesser OSes like Windows! WAKE UP ADOBE!!!
- chadu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7This just shows the percentage of people capable of playing each version level of Flash, so that developers have a better idea of what features they can include.
Now that Google analytics is open, however, every developer can ge that same info, only specific for the sites they are working on. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Flash is misused just like a lot of web technologies.
- smoothoperatah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5actually myspace requires flash player 9 for its music player now.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12They don't support Linux, yet Flash is prevalent. What does that tell you?
- bigdaftdave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It's all to do with marketshare. I've done lots of testing of flash on various browsers / platforms and it works best in IE on windows, cos that's what most users use and that's what macromedia/adobe developers spend their time optimising. flash in firefox on windows is nearer the performance of flash in safari on a mac.
- chadu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This will be far more interesting when Flash Player 9 is added at the next survey release. I haven't seen any sites that require 9 yet, even though I have already upgraded.
- ElectricGrandpa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Because these statistics are made up my adobe to make their product look more popular than it is. While I have no doubt that they do have a large market share, there is no way they can calculate accurately their penetration which they claim to be 696m users."
Yes... That's why all the stats are gathered by other companies... Haven't you noticed how popular Flash is? It's easily possible that these stats are correct... they might even be a little low!
"Sure, assuming the developers have Flash..."
Obviously. - CptnObvious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@r2d7: Maybe if Adobe supported Linux it would have more market share. Also how does anyone know the market share Linux has? there are so many distributions and anyone can burn multiple copies and give them to friends and such that it is impossible to know the actual number.The numbers that you people think it is probably way off, because there are too many variables to take into account when coming up with a percentage.
Anyways I have given up on Adobe. Gnash FTW! - althe3rduww, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I never have problems with flash, ever. And flash block does not block all ads since not all ads are using flash. I see no point in limiting flash on a machine. If you do that you might as well turn of javascript while your at it. Have fun with the web.
- Slump, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Are you seriously comparing meticulously converted, hand tweeked encodings of cinema grade sources (quicktime clips on Apple's site) with bulk, machine-encodings of digital camera, DV, cellphone, and VCR video, and using it to make a conclusion about the relative quality of flash video vs quicktime?
Cuz, if you are, that's kind of stupid. - chadu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I highly doubt that Linux usage is causing the dropoff.
I think the dropoff is more likely because while the Flash 8 IDE was huge improvement over MX2004, the actual features released to the player were largely ingnored by content proivders (at least temporarily) because they mainly dealt with aesthetics (eg. Detailed stroke control, video with Alpha channels, etc)...
Whereas Flash player 6 vs 7 was a big deal as it introduced Actionscript 2 and a whole new component architecture. - cmhanck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I use Flash on OSX in Safari and Firefox. Never really had a problem. I also use it on Windows in Firefox. Once again, no major problems. It's more about the individual Flash movie than the plugin itself. It's easy to write really crappy apps in Flash. Then again, the same can be said for VB or any other language...
- ashebanow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4See this blog from the guy who is porting Flash 9 to Linux:
http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/ - ElectricGrandpa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's not activeX in firefox...
- kevincannon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Just because a user can make an obvious comment on Digg doesn't meant they should either, but you still do!
Any decent designer knows that Flash is a tool, useful in some circumstances, not in another. There's no absolute in the argument, it's all variable depending on the situation. - Sukino, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8@smoothoperatah
I'm happy I don't know that. - o0joshua0o, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Flash is a great tool. Don't hate it just because it's misused by some people. Almost any technology can be abused.
- appidydafoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Mmmm, Penetration Statistics!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The Flash for Linux current version is 7,0,63,0
When websites like Myspace now require Flash 9, Adobe seems to be leaving out the powerusers.
Adobe's stats are horrifically skewed. - althe3rduww, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5By the way, flash 8 in april according to this same site was only at 68% and that was because it had just been released. I am willing to bet by the next survey flash 8 will be over 90%.
What this shows us is that flash is just as ubiquitous as javascript. Many reports say javascript is turned off in about 7% of the market. So regardless of everyones flash bashing its no more dangerous to use than javascript on your site. - jonnyeh, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6"you might as well turn of javascript while your at it"
Good idea! I suggest the 'noscript' firefox extension. - fishdan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10The basic concept behind flash is adware. It can be used for other things, eevn good things, but what people use flash for the most is ads, because they are obtrusive and unavoidable if you have flash installed. Until Adobe makes it so that I can selectively choose to view or avoid flash on a page, I'm going to keep it uninstalled on my personal browser and block it at the switch level in my corporate environments.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=193417&cid=15868989 - dontbejack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5I prefer my traditional penetration, thank you very much. I'm not into this kinky "Flash Player penetration."
- barthook, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You think youtube has anything to do with the increased penetration? After all, they make viewers download the latest version. Just a thought.
- dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Because no one uses quicktime or PDF's with a browser right? Plugins are still scattered...but flash can do all these things, like google video, and flash paper...things CSS noobs have wet dreams about, I'd bargain to say that more people can actually view flash than they can view CSS, because flash looks 100% the same in every OS, every browser...
- dontbejack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3God, I remember the days I was a forum moderator and we got attacked by someone who posted a ton of goatse.cx pictures. It was quite an event, I must say. I had nightmares for a while.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Needs more Lube.
- JackAxe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I compress loads of video for the Web. Although QT is the best hands down for playback and quality, a "properly" compressed FLV using the right tools can look very clean, and loads quickly on a decent connection. The problem has mainly been Flash's included compressors. Although the standalone compressor from Sorenson does an excellent job, the included version for Flash downright sucks, even with F8. But on hte other hand, Adobe has done a great job with "On2 VP6," which offers a big improvement over their previous vomit. It's quality is up their with WMV9, but not as good as H.264.
- topside, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Until Adobe makes it so that I can selectively choose to view or avoid flash on a page, I'm going to keep it uninstalled on my personal browser and block it at the switch level in my corporate environments."
That's pretty remarkable fishdan.
I never knew a layer-2 device could tag/filter application-layer data. Oh wait, it can't. Good thing you're not REALLY in control of any corporate enviornments!! - colklink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, the title for this one is right up there with the "Apache Probe" one from the other day.
http://www.digg.com/linux_unix/How_To_Probe_Your_Apache_Setup_For_Vulnerabilities
Thought I was on Fark for a second... - xr56n44, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If they claiming that 97% of people detest flash, that's a statistic i could believe.
- scorpioz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@kevincannon is right. If you have ever used flash you will know that whenever you import any video in flash you get the option to choose the quality. High/med/low or even use "advanced" settings to define custom bit-rate (quality etc).
The only reason the videos are not as good looking as the quick-time ones are because people are trying to make smaller sized videos. So its about the file size not the quality of videos flash can handle. - MrPhelps, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If by "every os" you mean "Microsoft windows", then yes, you are right.
- elroy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"Treating Linux like an ugly step-child is like ignoring an elephant in your living room!"
Um... what? -
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is