Comments on: Flash/Flex for Linux: it's BS!

By: Martin Evans

Martin Evans — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:48:28 +0000

Hmmmm i must say some of these posts on here are funny. Especially ones that state the 0000000.1% are linux stuff :P Tbh almost 90% of Internet servers run on Linux and most of the backbones for mail systems are Unix based non i386/i686 processors. The latest 64bit archs arnt i386 (although they can handle the code) they are classed as i686 or x86 archs. As for the comments made about Adobe i totally agree, the only ppl to call, what this person has said harsh are a bunch of x86 Windows users. Yes there are plenty of you around, but thats why the ppl with the PPC/Alternative archs are peeved with companys keeping stuff like this closed source. It ends up that even if they made it partially open source someone can then go to work on making a free replacement as SWFdec and gnash have done for the older versions of Flashplayer. Now for the biggest laugh for all you "get a real computer" ppl do you know the Xbox360 is more powerfull than any PC in current circulation (proven fact as i dont know of any Triple core 3.2ghz PC's) and thats a PPC (PowerPC). The websites you visit 9 out of 10 are based on "Apache" or use "PHP" both Linux/Unix born. So before you spout off about stuff read up on it first.

By: julien

julien — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 20:09:55 +0000

Hi Barney,

I agree with zwetan, that was quite harsh. I've just started having fun with this (64Bit), we should wait a while before strating to complain :)

By: James Ward

James Ward — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 23:58:30 +0000

It works on 64bit:
http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2006/10/whats_so_difficult_64bit_editi.html

If you have problems, please let Mike Melanson know.

By: chuck

chuck — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 23:50:03 +0000

You folks are forgetting those of us using the latest generation of i386 and i386-compatible processors, namely the 64-bit ones. That's a LOT of people, as the PC seems to be going completely in the 64-bit direction, and 64-bit processors have already been out two years. This new Linux flash player AFAIK does not run on those, and as I know I can't make this player work unless I replace every library it and Java use with a 32-bit version. How about I tell YOU to "get a real computer" and get on the 64-bit train?

By: zwetan

zwetan — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:59:47 +0000

how much people run Linux PPC/SPARC ?
like 0,00001% of the internet population ?
if you already got Linux PPC can you not just double boot with MAC OS X ?
how many companies even care for Linux/i386 ?
if you were to code something for Linux would you start first with PPC/SPAR then move to i386 ?

com'on!!

your "BS" and "get your language straight" are way too harsh towards Adobe efforts to provide a plugin for Linux.

By: Barney

Barney — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:06:29 +0000

My main point was that they're releasing Flash for Linux/i386, not Linux. There's a substantial difference if you only distribute binaries. I have no doubt that we won't see a PPC version for a long while. Even with the magic of GCC's cross-compilation, there's still a huge amount of work release a software product on a new platform.

John,

Care to elaborate on your choice of comment and URL? I assume you provided that link for a reason, but I can't find it.

By: JD

JD — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 07:11:04 +0000

You got Served!

By: zwetan

zwetan — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 02:10:46 +0000

oh dear that flash player stuff is not working on my hacked iPod/XBOX/pigeon/… running Linux

Linux is great because it can run almost anywhere,
the problem with that is that it indeed can run anywhere, and anywhere it's a hell lot place to test for.

I don't think that Linux/i386 is the worst place to start!

By: James Ward

James Ward — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 01:01:15 +0000

Does Tinic's workaround not work for you?
http://www.kaourantin.net/2006/07/random-bits-on-current-status.html

By: Anthony

Anthony — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 00:52:38 +0000

I hate rants. And people with issues.