Comments on: Where is 64-bit Linux support for Flash Player? http://www.jamesward.com/2008/05/16/where-is-64-bit-linux-support-for-flash-player/ Rich Internet Applications | Flex | Adobe AIR | Java | Open Source | Linux | Enterprise Software | Cloud Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:17:11 +0000 hourly 1 By: Twitter, Tweet Deck and 64 Bit Linux | Edmonds Commerce Blog http://www.jamesward.com/2008/05/16/where-is-64-bit-linux-support-for-flash-player/comment-page-1/#comment-156870 Twitter, Tweet Deck and 64 Bit Linux | Edmonds Commerce Blog Tue, 03 Mar 2009 11:48:22 +0000 http://www.jamesward.org/wordpress/?p=278#comment-156870 [...] Ability | The …Flash Player for 64-bit Linux - BETA NOW AVAILABLE! | James Ward …Where is 64-bit Linux support for Flash Player? | James Ward - RIA …Happy With That « Adam Sweet’s BlogTwitter, Tweet Deck and 64 Bit Linux | Edmonds Commerce [...] [...] Ability | The …Flash Player for 64-bit Linux – BETA NOW AVAILABLE! | James Ward …Where is 64-bit Linux support for Flash Player? | James Ward – RIA …Happy With That « Adam Sweet’s BlogTwitter, Tweet Deck and 64 Bit Linux | Edmonds Commerce [...]

]]> By: Making Headway on Flash Player for 64-bit Linux | James Ward - RIA Cowboy http://www.jamesward.com/2008/05/16/where-is-64-bit-linux-support-for-flash-player/comment-page-1/#comment-125924 Making Headway on Flash Player for 64-bit Linux | James Ward - RIA Cowboy Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:21:57 +0000 http://www.jamesward.org/wordpress/?p=278#comment-125924 [...] It appears the Flash Player engineering team is making progress on 64-bit Linux support. There are no details yet on when this will ship. But I’m sure they could still use your help. [...] [...] It appears the Flash Player engineering team is making progress on 64-bit Linux support. There are no details yet on when this will ship. But I’m sure they could still use your help. [...]

]]> By: axobeauvi http://www.jamesward.com/2008/05/16/where-is-64-bit-linux-support-for-flash-player/comment-page-1/#comment-125584 axobeauvi Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:47:15 +0000 http://www.jamesward.org/wordpress/?p=278#comment-125584 I use the nspluginwrapper daily on opensuse 11; MozillaFirefox-3.0.1-1.1 nspluginwrapper-0.9.91.5.99.20071225-27.1 all and all it works very well ,but I can't save swf since the standalone player doesn't work right. can't wait for a real 64-bit version. oh and beta 10 didn't work very well ,really choppy. I use the nspluginwrapper daily on opensuse 11;
MozillaFirefox-3.0.1-1.1
nspluginwrapper-0.9.91.5.99.20071225-27.1

all and all it works very well ,but I can’t save swf since the standalone player doesn’t work right.
can’t wait for a real 64-bit version.
oh and beta 10 didn’t work very well ,really choppy.

]]> By: Cláudio da Silveira Pinheiro http://www.jamesward.com/2008/05/16/where-is-64-bit-linux-support-for-flash-player/comment-page-1/#comment-125502 Cláudio da Silveira Pinheiro Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:02:56 +0000 http://www.jamesward.org/wordpress/?p=278#comment-125502 Hi. Putting Tamarin in Firefox 4's timeframe makes more sense. I hope it gets there in schedule and if I have time I'll try to help, but being honest, it means Tamarin64 is waiting for us in a time at least two years from now (just in time for Duke Nukem Forever, perhaps). Right now the main problem is a completely different one. The point is FP 10rc1 just horribly degraded the user experience on 64-bit OSes. And this of course affects us today. If FP 10 Final is released in a similar state we and all the distros who distribude 64-bit Linux OSes will be stuck in a quagmire akin to those WWI ones, some sort of a Battle of Passchendaele with FP developers in one trench and everybody else in the opposite side. I'm asking you to be the sensible guy who'll bring this issue alight, as it's a very real concern to us 64-bit users. Despite so many comments equating we 64-bit users to a handful of highly vocal brats, I believe the real picture is different. We are Legion, so to say. :D And I can't see nothing wrong about being vocal and coherent about relevant issues. I hope you see my point. Best regards. Hi.

Putting Tamarin in Firefox 4’s timeframe makes more sense. I hope it gets there in schedule and if I have time I’ll try to help, but being honest, it means Tamarin64 is waiting for us in a time at least two years from now (just in time for Duke Nukem Forever, perhaps).
Right now the main problem is a completely different one. The point is FP 10rc1 just horribly degraded the user experience on 64-bit OSes. And this of course affects us today. If FP 10 Final is released in a similar state we and all the distros who distribude 64-bit Linux OSes will be stuck in a quagmire akin to those WWI ones, some sort of a Battle of Passchendaele with FP developers in one trench and everybody else in the opposite side.
I’m asking you to be the sensible guy who’ll bring this issue alight, as it’s a very real concern to us 64-bit users.
Despite so many comments equating we 64-bit users to a handful of highly vocal brats, I believe the real picture is different. We are Legion, so to say. :D And I can’t see nothing wrong about being vocal and coherent about relevant issues.
I hope you see my point.

Best regards.

]]> By: James Ward http://www.jamesward.com/2008/05/16/where-is-64-bit-linux-support-for-flash-player/comment-page-1/#comment-125496 James Ward Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:32:18 +0000 http://www.jamesward.org/wordpress/?p=278#comment-125496 I hear you. I wish that we had native 64-bit Flash Player a long time ago. As far as Tamarin goes... The ES4 spec is still in progress. Tamarin is an early implementation of ES4 and will probably be integrated into Firefox 4. Today Tamarin does get used in Flash Player. So when Tamarin supports 64-bit the Flash Player team can pull in those changes. I am really not a low-level enough programmer to help with Tamarin but I hope that that some open source developers out there will step up and help get 64-bit support into Tamarin. -James I hear you. I wish that we had native 64-bit Flash Player a long time ago.

As far as Tamarin goes… The ES4 spec is still in progress. Tamarin is an early implementation of ES4 and will probably be integrated into Firefox 4. Today Tamarin does get used in Flash Player. So when Tamarin supports 64-bit the Flash Player team can pull in those changes. I am really not a low-level enough programmer to help with Tamarin but I hope that that some open source developers out there will step up and help get 64-bit support into Tamarin.

-James

]]> By: Cláudio da Silveira Pinheiro http://www.jamesward.com/2008/05/16/where-is-64-bit-linux-support-for-flash-player/comment-page-1/#comment-125493 Cláudio da Silveira Pinheiro Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:35:15 +0000 http://www.jamesward.org/wordpress/?p=278#comment-125493 Yeah, what I'm saying is exactly it: nspluginwrapper desn't do the trick for FP 10 rc1 because of the sudden growth of the dependency chain. There's a way to fix this situation without having 32bit libs for all library dependencies: Releasing a friggin' native 64-bit FP 10. :D FP 9 is way more self-contained. Even the previous beta (that one with stray pixels garbling video streams) can be run just fine in a 64-bit system with the wrapper (running "fine" meaning it runs despite having to load a full 32-bit libc6 to memory and all the 32-64-32 context switching). In fact I voted for the bug since the dawn of the ages (a.k.a. when I first spotted that bug in Adobe's page, many years ago). I've offered to help once, I even offered some of Kopete's webcam code (I'm the main video developer) to be included in FP, no strings attached. I took a look at Tamarin, but by the state of its page, that mentions that Tamarin will be released as part of Firefox 2 (and we currently can se Firefox 3.0.1 wandering down the internet tubes), so the project page seems frozen in time just as Prypiat (the city). There are recent commits in code, but no publicity about how it's doing at all. But based on the aforementioned fact, if Tamarin would be the new ECMAScript solution to Firefox 2, and I'm running Firefox 3 64-bit here once in a while, may I suppose Tamarin was already ported to work fine on 64-bit systems? Heh, acording to https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/tamarin-devel/2008-May/000555.html , "Currently Tamarin Central only supports the Win64 configuration. It should pass all tests in both interp and JIT modes.". Wow. Being in the last year at College demmands too much from me, so I'm even a bit distant from the KDE Project and Kopete development, as I have not much free time at all, but if I had maybe I would risk learning Amd64 Assembly to at least be able to barely browse the code. I'm not such a great programmer, I just do some low-level stuff and post random fixes for webcams' kernel drivers from time to time. Maybe I'll be of more use when I have a bit more time. Man, sorry if my words weren't exactly candid, but after so many years of "lalalalala - I don't hear you" from FP developers I'm pretty sure I'm not the only upset guy around. Yeah, what I’m saying is exactly it: nspluginwrapper desn’t do the trick for FP 10 rc1 because of the sudden growth of the dependency chain.
There’s a way to fix this situation without having 32bit libs for all library dependencies: Releasing a friggin’ native 64-bit FP 10. :D
FP 9 is way more self-contained. Even the previous beta (that one with stray pixels garbling video streams) can be run just fine in a 64-bit system with the wrapper (running “fine” meaning it runs despite having to load a full 32-bit libc6 to memory and all the 32-64-32 context switching).
In fact I voted for the bug since the dawn of the ages (a.k.a. when I first spotted that bug in Adobe’s page, many years ago).
I’ve offered to help once, I even offered some of Kopete’s webcam code (I’m the main video developer) to be included in FP, no strings attached. I took a look at Tamarin, but by the state of its page, that mentions that Tamarin will be released as part of Firefox 2 (and we currently can se Firefox 3.0.1 wandering down the internet tubes), so the project page seems frozen in time just as Prypiat (the city). There are recent commits in code, but no publicity about how it’s doing at all. But based on the aforementioned fact, if Tamarin would be the new ECMAScript solution to Firefox 2, and I’m running Firefox 3 64-bit here once in a while, may I suppose Tamarin was already ported to work fine on 64-bit systems? Heh, acording to https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/tamarin-devel/2008-May/000555.html , “Currently Tamarin Central only supports the Win64 configuration. It should pass all tests in both interp and JIT modes.”. Wow.
Being in the last year at College demmands too much from me, so I’m even a bit distant from the KDE Project and Kopete development, as I have not much free time at all, but if I had maybe I would risk learning Amd64 Assembly to at least be able to barely browse the code. I’m not such a great programmer, I just do some low-level stuff and post random fixes for webcams’ kernel drivers from time to time. Maybe I’ll be of more use when I have a bit more time.

Man, sorry if my words weren’t exactly candid, but after so many years of “lalalalala – I don’t hear you” from FP developers I’m pretty sure I’m not the only upset guy around.

]]> By: James Ward http://www.jamesward.com/2008/05/16/where-is-64-bit-linux-support-for-flash-player/comment-page-1/#comment-125487 James Ward Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:21:25 +0000 http://www.jamesward.org/wordpress/?p=278#comment-125487 Hi Cláudio, Thanks for your comment. So I guess you are saying that nspluginwrapper does not do the trick with FP 10 rc1? Is there any way to fix that without having 32bit libs for all the library deps? When I tried FP 9 and nspluginwrapper a long time ago I don't remember having to install all of the 32-bit lib deps. Have you voted for the bug yet? Please do. Have you looked at Tamarin to see if you can help get native 64-bit working? -James Hi Cláudio,

Thanks for your comment. So I guess you are saying that nspluginwrapper does not do the trick with FP 10 rc1? Is there any way to fix that without having 32bit libs for all the library deps? When I tried FP 9 and nspluginwrapper a long time ago I don’t remember having to install all of the 32-bit lib deps.

Have you voted for the bug yet? Please do.

Have you looked at Tamarin to see if you can help get native 64-bit working?

-James

]]> By: Cláudio da Silveira Pinheiro http://www.jamesward.com/2008/05/16/where-is-64-bit-linux-support-for-flash-player/comment-page-1/#comment-125481 Cláudio da Silveira Pinheiro Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:15:46 +0000 http://www.jamesward.org/wordpress/?p=278#comment-125481 Hello, James. This text is directed to Mike Melanson, but I'm not sure he'll allow my comment on Penguin.SWF, so maybe you'll only see this if I post it here. Please take a look at it and help us from our "vocal group of people who really want 64-bit Linux". Argh! No 64-bit native, and now no 32-bit nspluginwrapper, neither 32-bit firefox on 64-bit platform anymore, as libflashplayer.so depends on libcurl.so.3 libssl3.so libnss3.so libnspr4.so , that can be found in packages libcurl3 libnspr4-dev libnss3-dev Heh. These in turn depend on libcomerr2 libidn11 libkrb53 libldap libnss3-1d libsqlite3 libssl0.9.8 zlib1g that in their turn depend on debconf libgnutls13 libkeyutils1 libsasl2 that in their turn depend on debconf-i18n libdb4.6 libgcrypt11 liblzo2-2 libopencdk10 libsasl2-modules libtasn1-2 perl-base that in their turn depend on other multitude of libraries I'll not dig deeper because it became pretty obvious there are just too many of them, that it would be easier to run a 32-bit O.S., and having to install all the dependencies in a 64-bit O.S. would mean my 'puter would spend some hundreds of MB just to load a cute Flash-based banner ad. If Flash 10 final has this little dependency problem, it will be simply a nightmarish task for Fedora, Mandriva, openSUSE, (*)Ubuntu and all other distos who offer a 64-bit version of their OSes, to package it. Man, you did it. It was a punch below the waistline. Mike, you can do better than this. There's no need to worsen 64-bit users' lives, even less this way. If before we could at least awkwardly use Flash content, rc1 just alienated us in such an absurd way I really struggle to understand why a developer would go such great lenghts to accomplish it. I'm not saying you did it on purpose, but you hit the mark nonetheless. Please take a moment to think about it, and I hope you'll realize you can't disregard so many people, at least not morally. I really hope you personally will work out this situation in a reasonable way. Best regards. Hello, James. This text is directed to Mike Melanson, but I’m not sure he’ll allow my comment on Penguin.SWF, so maybe you’ll only see this if I post it here. Please take a look at it and help us from our “vocal group of people who really want 64-bit Linux”.

Argh!
No 64-bit native, and now no 32-bit nspluginwrapper, neither 32-bit firefox on 64-bit platform anymore, as libflashplayer.so depends on

libcurl.so.3
libssl3.so
libnss3.so
libnspr4.so

, that can be found in packages

libcurl3
libnspr4-dev
libnss3-dev

Heh. These in turn depend on

libcomerr2
libidn11
libkrb53
libldap
libnss3-1d
libsqlite3
libssl0.9.8
zlib1g

that in their turn depend on

debconf
libgnutls13
libkeyutils1
libsasl2

that in their turn depend on

debconf-i18n
libdb4.6
libgcrypt11
liblzo2-2
libopencdk10
libsasl2-modules
libtasn1-2
perl-base

that in their turn depend on other multitude of libraries I’ll not dig deeper because it became pretty obvious there are just too many of them, that it would be easier to run a 32-bit O.S., and having to install all the dependencies in a 64-bit O.S. would mean my ‘puter would spend some hundreds of MB just to load a cute Flash-based banner ad.
If Flash 10 final has this little dependency problem, it will be simply a nightmarish task for Fedora, Mandriva, openSUSE, (*)Ubuntu and all other distos who offer a 64-bit version of their OSes, to package it.
Man, you did it.
It was a punch below the waistline.
Mike, you can do better than this. There’s no need to worsen 64-bit users’ lives, even less this way. If before we could at least awkwardly use Flash content, rc1 just alienated us in such an absurd way I really struggle to understand why a developer would go such great lenghts to accomplish it. I’m not saying you did it on purpose, but you hit the mark nonetheless.
Please take a moment to think about it, and I hope you’ll realize you can’t disregard so many people, at least not morally.
I really hope you personally will work out this situation in a reasonable way.

Best regards.

]]> By: pelzel.de » Blog Archiv » Fedora 9 x86_64 http://www.jamesward.com/2008/05/16/where-is-64-bit-linux-support-for-flash-player/comment-page-1/#comment-121165 pelzel.de » Blog Archiv » Fedora 9 x86_64 Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:47:12 +0000 http://www.jamesward.org/wordpress/?p=278#comment-121165 [...] - Hier hab ich was [...] [...] – Hier hab ich was [...]

]]> By: Pepe Deluxe http://www.jamesward.com/2008/05/16/where-is-64-bit-linux-support-for-flash-player/comment-page-1/#comment-120584 Pepe Deluxe Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:10:08 +0000 http://www.jamesward.org/wordpress/?p=278#comment-120584 Adobe also needs to desperately roll out a Windows x64 Flash Player. Still, if Adobe is happy to lose the foothold that Flash gained while Macromedia was still in charge, that's fine by me. I'm sure some emerging web technology with open standards will take its place. What a shame for all those Flash developers being swindled out of thousands of dollars for tools by Adobe though, given their creations won't be viewable on faster, x64 bit browsers that ship not only with Linux, but XP x64 and Vista x64. To say the situation is a disgrace is understatement of the year. Adobe SHOULD have the resources to aim at this problem, given the money it charges for Flash development products. Adobe also needs to desperately roll out a Windows x64 Flash Player.

Still, if Adobe is happy to lose the foothold that Flash gained while Macromedia was still in charge, that’s fine by me. I’m sure some emerging web technology with open standards will take its place.

What a shame for all those Flash developers being swindled out of thousands of dollars for tools by Adobe though, given their creations won’t be viewable on faster, x64 bit browsers that ship not only with Linux, but XP x64 and Vista x64.

To say the situation is a disgrace is understatement of the year. Adobe SHOULD have the resources to aim at this problem, given the money it charges for Flash development products.

]]>