The Flash Player 10.1 64-bit Linux beta is closed. We remain committed to delivering 64-bit support in a future release of Flash Player. No further information is available at this time.
They closed the 64-bit Linux beta... but didn't release a 64-bit Linux version of 10.1? So they closed the beta but not the security hole? Rocket surgery indeed!
They closed the 64-bit Linux beta... but didn't release a 64-bit Linux version of 10.1? So they closed the beta but not the security hole? Rocket surgery indeed!
Obviously something fundamental is wrong at Adobe. My guess is that they're code-bound by proprietary hooks, much the same as Microsoft (and Apple) though to a far greater degree.
Bottom line is Flash must go.
Flash is the suckiest application on the web, beating all rivals in unpatched vulnerabilities by a country mile. (ok, maybe Acrobat is a close second)
Nah, Acrobat is worse. Flash is insecure but it has to be very complex because of all the things you can do with it, so the insecurity is partially excusable. Acrobat, however, took the genius step of implementing javascript in a document format, something which 99.999% of PDFs don't need, but which 99.999% of malicious PDFs rely on. PDF should be a secure format, like.png and.txt are, but they just had to give documents the ability to run scripts on your machine.
The old 10.0.45 version of it appears to still be downloadable from here [macromedia.com] (not sure if there was another version after that).
However, given the rate at which security issues crop up in Flash, you are probably better off using the nspluginwrapper thunking stuff or other method for your distro that makes the 32 bit plugin work on 64 bit Linux, rather than running an out of date Flash plugin.
Never heard of that one. Keyboard input always worked fine for me and plenty other people, though there was a problem with mouse input with a one-time workaround. I've been running 64-bit for a while now, but if Adobe is not fixing the security hole in the 64bit version, I guess I'll have to go back to nspluginwrapper. At least until YouTube reliably works in Firefox without Flash.
64bit flash beta worked fine, but with all this bugs around and the beta closed.. no more flash for me. Never touching this nspluginwrapper crap again.
Guess I just go and build myself an ffmpeg enabled chromium browser to watch youtube..
While it would please me to no end for everyone to dump Flash in favor of HTML5+SVG+SMIL/Javascript, the fact is that one or more pieces of software needs to be written to replace the Flash authoring tools. There are many SVG programs, but those don't do everything needed.
Last time I tried installing 32 bit firefox it caused some interesting breakage in my system libraries because the compat 32 bit libs conflicted with apps that needed the same library in 64 bit.
That forced me to setup a 32 bit chroot that was ugly as a sollution but kind of worked for the most part. I ditched the 32 bit chroot in favor of Adobe's 64 bit flash because it worked more seamlessly with the rest of my system and was much more stable than nspluginwrapper.
With the pressure from HTML5 and Apple, I guess Adobe figures now is a good time to fragment the Flash market. We no longer need Flash for Youtube, and we'll just have to suffer through not having dancing, blaring, advertisements. Strangely, I'm OK with this.
Called HTML5. As for non-video-playback stuff though like SVG animations and whatnot, I'm still shocked there is no standard for doing that, though there is Java...but certain Java apps requiring certain versions of Java has aggravated me to no end, and definitely serves to invalidate it as a standard IMO even though it is open source now.
When it comes to technology, our only guiding principle is to best serve the needs of all of our key customers: our viewers, our content partners who license programs to us, our advertisers, and each other. We continue to monitor developments on HTML5, but as of now it doesn’t yet meet all of our customers’ needs. Our player doesn’t just simply stream video, it must also secure the content, handle reporting for our advertisers, render the video using a high performance codec to ensure premium visual quality, communicate back with the server to determine how long to buffer and what bitrate to stream, and dozens of other things that aren’t necessarily visible to the end user. Not all video sites have these needs, but for our business these are all important and often contractual requirements.
So much for 64-bit (Score:5, Informative)
No more 64-bit Linux version:
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/64bit.html [adobe.com]
The Flash Player 10.1 64-bit Linux beta is closed. We remain committed to delivering 64-bit support in a future release of Flash Player. No further information is available at this time.
Re:So much for 64-bit (Score:4, Insightful)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
He who speaks Latin is doomed to repeat it?
Re: (Score:2)
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
He who speaks Latin is doomed to repeat it?
lol, but no. First of all, it should be "videtur". But it means "Whatever may be said in Latin seems profound."
Re: (Score:2)
They closed the 64-bit Linux beta ... but didn't release a 64-bit Linux version of 10.1? So they closed the beta but not the security hole? Rocket surgery indeed!
Obviously something fundamental is wrong at Adobe. My guess is that they're code-bound by proprietary hooks, much the same as Microsoft (and Apple) though to a far greater degree.
Bottom line is Flash must go.
Flash is the suckiest application on the web, beating all rivals in unpatched vulnerabilities by a country mile. (ok, maybe Acrobat is a close second)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah, Acrobat is worse. Flash is insecure but it has to be very complex because of all the things you can do with it, so the insecurity is partially excusable. Acrobat, however, took the genius step of implementing javascript in a document format, something which 99.999% of PDFs don't need, but which 99.999% of malicious PDFs rely on. PDF should be a secure format, like .png and .txt are, but they just had to give documents the ability to run scripts on your machine.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re:So much for 64-bit (Score:4, Informative)
The old 10.0.45 version of it appears to still be downloadable from here [macromedia.com] (not sure if there was another version after that).
However, given the rate at which security issues crop up in Flash, you are probably better off using the nspluginwrapper thunking stuff or other method for your distro that makes the 32 bit plugin work on 64 bit Linux, rather than running an out of date Flash plugin.
Re:So much for 64-bit (Score:5, Insightful)
nspluginwrapper is not only unstable but it blocks keyboard input to flash. Using it is a complete waste of time.
Better off pressuring websites to dump flash.
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard of that one. Keyboard input always worked fine for me and plenty other people, though there was a problem with mouse input with a one-time workaround. I've been running 64-bit for a while now, but if Adobe is not fixing the security hole in the 64bit version, I guess I'll have to go back to nspluginwrapper. At least until YouTube reliably works in Firefox without Flash.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:So much for 64-bit (Score:4, Insightful)
Better off pressuring websites to dump flash.
While it would please me to no end for everyone to dump Flash in favor of HTML5+SVG+SMIL/Javascript, the fact is that one or more pieces of software needs to be written to replace the Flash authoring tools. There are many SVG programs, but those don't do everything needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I tried installing 32 bit firefox it caused some interesting breakage in my system libraries because the compat 32 bit libs conflicted with apps that needed the same library in 64 bit.
That forced me to setup a 32 bit chroot that was ugly as a sollution but kind of worked for the most part. I ditched the 32 bit chroot in favor of Adobe's 64 bit flash because it worked more seamlessly with the rest of my system and was much more stable than nspluginwrapper.
What I did not expect was to have Adobe di
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With the pressure from HTML5 and Apple, I guess Adobe figures now is a good time to fragment the Flash market. We no longer need Flash for Youtube, and we'll just have to suffer through not having dancing, blaring, advertisements. Strangely, I'm OK with this.
Re: (Score:3)
There are a fair number of us that have never needed Youtube, but would love to see an alternative for things like Hulu.
Re: (Score:2)
Called HTML5. As for non-video-playback stuff though like SVG animations and whatnot, I'm still shocked there is no standard for doing that, though there is Java...but certain Java apps requiring certain versions of Java has aggravated me to no end, and definitely serves to invalidate it as a standard IMO even though it is open source now.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Hulu is never going to use [hulu.com] HTML5 video.
When it comes to technology, our only guiding principle is to best serve the needs of all of our key customers: our viewers, our content partners who license programs to us, our advertisers, and each other. We continue to monitor developments on HTML5, but as of now it doesn’t yet meet all of our customers’ needs. Our player doesn’t just simply stream video, it must also secure the content, handle reporting for our advertisers, render the video using a high performance codec to ensure premium visual quality, communicate back with the server to determine how long to buffer and what bitrate to stream, and dozens of other things that aren’t necessarily visible to the end user. Not all video sites have these needs, but for our business these are all important and often contractual requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
No problem. Just uninstall flash and your security problem goes away. I just did.