Re: [arch-general] [arch-dev-public] dropping flashplugin x86_64
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
I'll keep this installed despite the security problem. Combined with flashblock, I can at least watch youtube this way. Force-removing it by a dummy update is something I don't want.
Same here. I block all plugins and js by default anyways... it's not like anyone should actually be trusting flash to be secure... removing it will just harm user functionality. Linus is right http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/706950 of course no matter what... adobe is wrong... they shouldn't have released without 64-bit... but their wrongs shouldn't make us choose to harm our users functionality. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
Hi, since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for Users? Regards, Gaurish Sharma www.gaurishsharma.com
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma <contact@gaurishsharma.com> wrote:
Hi, since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for Users?
- keep it and use Flashblock addon (firefox) - use Gnash or other open-source version (not very useful) - use 32-bit plugin with nspluginwrapper - use 32-bit plugin with 32-bit browser - give up Flash - ignore the risk and just keep using it Any others I missed?
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 04:55:57PM -0400, Ray Kohler wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma <contact@gaurishsharma.com> wrote:
Hi, since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for Users?
- keep it and use Flashblock addon (firefox) - use Gnash or other open-source version (not very useful) - use 32-bit plugin with nspluginwrapper - use 32-bit plugin with 32-bit browser - give up Flash - ignore the risk and just keep using it
Any others I missed? Use opera with the 32bit plugin. Opera has its own pluginwrapper.
--
Thanks. I went for * use 32-bit plugin with nspluginwrapper All you need to do is install nspluginwrapper-flash package from AUR. maybe this package can be Pushed in repos and carried as replacement for flashplugin 64bit [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=6232 Can this package be in Regards, Gaurish Sharma www.gaurishsharma.com
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ray Kohler <ataraxia937@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma <contact@gaurishsharma.com> wrote:
Hi, since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for Users?
- keep it and use Flashblock addon (firefox) - use Gnash or other open-source version (not very useful) - use 32-bit plugin with nspluginwrapper - use 32-bit plugin with 32-bit browser - give up Flash - ignore the risk and just keep using it
Any others I missed?
i recently tried a new flash plugin that was completely OSS, that had declared itself beta. unfortunately the name of it escapes me at the moment. i couldn't get it working quite right but i didn't put a lot of time into it either. from around the net the consensus was it looked very promising as an Adobe replacement. C Anthony
On 06/16/2010 12:04 AM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ray Kohler<ataraxia937@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma <contact@gaurishsharma.com> wrote:
Hi, since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for Users?
- keep it and use Flashblock addon (firefox) - use Gnash or other open-source version (not very useful) - use 32-bit plugin with nspluginwrapper - use 32-bit plugin with 32-bit browser - give up Flash - ignore the risk and just keep using it
Any others I missed?
i recently tried a new flash plugin that was completely OSS, that had declared itself beta. unfortunately the name of it escapes me at the moment. i couldn't get it working quite right but i didn't put a lot of time into it either. from around the net the consensus was it looked very promising as an Adobe replacement.
C Anthony
lightspark -- Ionuț
Am Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:09:40 +0300 schrieb Ionuț Bîru <biru.ionut@gmail.com>:
lightspark
Lightspark can't play YouTube videos and Samorost 1 and 2 (from The Humble Indie Bundle) and it needs pulseaudio (yet another one of those senseless, resource-wasting daemons). YouTube and Samorost 1 and 2 are the only reasons for me for using Flash. The HTML5 version of YouTube doesn't work for me, too. Heiko
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 23:51 +0200, Heiko Baums wrote:
Am Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:09:40 +0300 schrieb Ionuț Bîru <biru.ionut@gmail.com>:
lightspark
Lightspark can't play YouTube videos and Samorost 1 and 2 (from The Humble Indie Bundle) and it needs pulseaudio (yet another one of those senseless, resource-wasting daemons).
YouTube and Samorost 1 and 2 are the only reasons for me for using Flash.
The HTML5 version of YouTube doesn't work for me, too.
Heiko
HTML5 only works on Chrome/IE I think. Firefox devs decided they would go with the Vorbis rather than x264 codecs, while youtube decided the other way round.
HTML5 only works on Chrome/IE I think. Firefox devs decided they would go with the Vorbis rather than x264 codecs, while youtube decided the other way round. Youtube uses webm now, not h.264.
Firefox should have support in their nightly builds.
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 17:51 -0500, Muhammed Uluyol wrote:
HTML5 only works on Chrome/IE I think. Firefox devs decided they would go with the Vorbis rather than x264 codecs, while youtube decided the other way round. Youtube uses webm now, not h.264.
Firefox should have support in their nightly builds.
Oh, my information is outdated then. When did this happen? I do recall searching before (probably when all this html5-youtube stuff started) and seeing clear statements that firefox would not support h.264 due to HTML5 being an open standard or something along those lines.
2010/6/15 Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee@gmail.com>:
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 17:51 -0500, Muhammed Uluyol wrote:
HTML5 only works on Chrome/IE I think. Firefox devs decided they would go with the Vorbis rather than x264 codecs, while youtube decided the other way round. Youtube uses webm now, not h.264.
Firefox should have support in their nightly builds.
Oh, my information is outdated then. When did this happen? I do recall searching before (probably when all this html5-youtube stuff started) and seeing clear statements that firefox would not support h.264 due to HTML5 being an open standard or something along those lines.
I think that there's a misunderstood here. Youtube is using webm in the experimental version of the site. And Firefox nightly build has support for webm, not h.264. -- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? ------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto -------------------------------------------
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto <denisfalqueto@gmail.com> wrote:
2010/6/15 Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee@gmail.com>:
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 17:51 -0500, Muhammed Uluyol wrote:
HTML5 only works on Chrome/IE I think. Firefox devs decided they would go with the Vorbis rather than x264 codecs, while youtube decided the other way round. Youtube uses webm now, not h.264.
Firefox should have support in their nightly builds.
Oh, my information is outdated then. When did this happen? I do recall searching before (probably when all this html5-youtube stuff started) and seeing clear statements that firefox would not support h.264 due to HTML5 being an open standard or something along those lines.
I think that there's a misunderstood here. Youtube is using webm in the experimental version of the site. And Firefox nightly build has support for webm, not h.264.
let's just all chant together in hopes that flash video will endure a quick, fiery demise, and webm/VP8 will rise from the ashes to claim it's place. we just may see an HTML5 video standard. yay to google for buying a company and releasing their codec. vorbis/theora wasn't going anywhere.
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:40 PM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@extof.me> wrote:
let's just all chant together in hopes that flash video will endure a quick, fiery demise, and webm/VP8 will rise from the ashes to claim it's place.
meh! flash works... I don't think I've tried the webm stuff... but I did try the youtube html5 beta and it just didn't work well. flash does more than just video anyways. I'll be ok with html5 <video> if it works as good as flash for the purpose... but flash does so much more, and it will certainly is better than going back to the days of 'proprietary plugins, and codecs'. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
Hello, On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:40 PM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@extof.me> wrote:
let's just all chant together in hopes that flash video will endure a quick, fiery demise, and webm/VP8 will rise from the ashes to claim it's place.
meh! flash works... I don't think I've tried the webm stuff... but I did try the youtube html5 beta and it just didn't work well. flash does more than just video anyways. I'll be ok with html5 <video> if it works as good as flash for the purpose... but flash does so much more,
Javascript+HTML5 does a lot of what flash can do now (all of these HTML5 demos work in firefox): http://craftymind.com/factory/html5video/CanvasVideo.html And an asteroids game: http://www.kevs3d.co.uk/dev/asteroids/
and it will certainly is better than going back to the days of 'proprietary plugins, and codecs'.
-- Caleb Cushing
-- Alexander Lam
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Alexander Lam <lambchop468@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:40 PM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@extof.me> wrote:
let's just all chant together in hopes that flash video will endure a quick, fiery demise, and webm/VP8 will rise from the ashes to claim it's place.
meh! flash works... I don't think I've tried the webm stuff... but I did try the youtube html5 beta and it just didn't work well. flash does more than just video anyways. I'll be ok with html5 <video> if it works as good as flash for the purpose... but flash does so much more,
Javascript+HTML5 does a lot of what flash can do now (all of these HTML5 demos work in firefox): http://craftymind.com/factory/html5video/CanvasVideo.html
And an asteroids game: http://www.kevs3d.co.uk/dev/asteroids/
and it will certainly is better than going back to the days of 'proprietary plugins, and codecs'.
like... flash? ;-D alexander beat me to the punch; i was also going to say that the extensive javascript APIs present in HTML5 are more than sufficient for the vast majority of reasons people use flash today. my personal favorite: http://www.nihilogic.dk/labs/wolf/ ... in javascript! brilliant. C Anthony
On 16 June 2010 09:21, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@extof.me> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Alexander Lam <lambchop468@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:40 PM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@extof.me> wrote:
let's just all chant together in hopes that flash video will endure a quick, fiery demise, and webm/VP8 will rise from the ashes to claim it's place.
meh! flash works... I don't think I've tried the webm stuff... but I did try the youtube html5 beta and it just didn't work well. flash does more than just video anyways. I'll be ok with html5 <video> if it works as good as flash for the purpose... but flash does so much more,
Javascript+HTML5 does a lot of what flash can do now (all of these HTML5 demos work in firefox): http://craftymind.com/factory/html5video/CanvasVideo.html
And an asteroids game: http://www.kevs3d.co.uk/dev/asteroids/
and it will certainly is better than going back to the days of 'proprietary plugins, and codecs'.
like... flash? ;-D
alexander beat me to the punch; i was also going to say that the extensive javascript APIs present in HTML5 are more than sufficient for the vast majority of reasons people use flash today.
my personal favorite:
http://www.nihilogic.dk/labs/wolf/
... in javascript! brilliant.
Near to the end of last year I had a project which involved recreating a kind of simulation game done in Flash (a lot of videos, and a lot of logic using ActionScript) and a number of commercial, proprietary post-production tools. During the planning stages I promoted HTML5. However, it was difficult to see any benefit, both to me and the director. I simply couldn't get the same elements with the same ease in time, and thus failed to offer a presentation. They decided to stick with Flash, but I kept the multimedia tools within the open-source domain for post-production (simply because they couldn't care less and just needed the end-result). Well, the project is on hold for now so I'll see what kind of progress WebM/HTML5 has made up to this point. -- GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
I simply couldn't get the same elements with the same ease in time, and thus failed to offer a presentation. They decided to stick with Flash, but I kept the multimedia tools within the open-source domain for post-production (simply because they couldn't care less and just needed the end-result). Well, the project is on hold for now so I'll see what kind of progress WebM/HTML5 has made up to this point.
yeah that sounds about right. as of right now I don't think <video> is ready. however I'm all for many of the other improvements coming in html5 and I wish people would focus on rolling those out. Again, I don't care if something is open source if it doesn't work at the same level. You can claim security all you want... but plenty of bugs security and not to be had in all software. I tried html5 again on youtube, my video took several minutes to load compared to flash which works nearly instantly.Given since I'm on chromium 5 I don't think it was a webm video... so that may matter... but if this is what html5 is going to be like... not sure I want it. as far as mplayer-plugin settings... if I have to spend time configuring it to make it work decently then it's too much work, I don't have to do that with flash. In any sense I think flash works well when you use it in the right scenario's, html5 etc work well when used in their right scenarios. Don't use flash for a slideshow. Don't try to use js/canvas for a game it's just not their yet. WebM isn't ready to replace flash for video though it may be some day. If you want to blame the problems of the internet somewhere blame them on IE... and maybe soon firefox, who's standards adoption is slowing down to where IE is catching up. What we need is standards support, and maybe some additions to the standards. I'd love to use all the http methods when sending forms, I'd love to be able to use ESI's in browsers too (Imagine if you could cache more of a page). I'd love for js not to be obnoxiously abused like flash is (if your site doesn't work without js it better have a good reason, I hate enabling js to read a blog or coment on it). flash will die when it's no longer needed or no longer provides advantages. That time hasn't come yet. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 19:16, Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com> wrote:
as of right now I don't think <video> is ready. however I'm all for many of the other improvements coming in html5 and I wish people would focus on rolling those out.
[...]
I tried html5 again on youtube, my video took several minutes to load compared to flash which works nearly instantly.Given since I'm on chromium 5 I don't think it was a webm video... so that may matter... but if this is what html5 is going to be like... not sure I want it.
Personally, if it wasn't for HTML5 I wouldn't be able to use YouTube. My laptop is ancient and decrepit, and cannot handle Flash on Linux, but the <video> element works just fine, and loads as fast as I'm used to Flash video loading. Maybe there's a bit of a slowdown versus Flash if you have a cutting-edge system, but not everyone is in that situation. ~celti
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:53 AM, Patrick Burroughs <celticmadman@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe there's a bit of a slowdown versus Flash if you have a cutting-edge system, but not everyone is in that situation.
yeah having a quad core with 6G of ram takes care of just about any system performance issues (except nepomuk and related tools which I've had to disable due to a massive memory leak that can eat all ram in a day). I suspect it's that the caching and downloading works better. I only get 180k down so it's easy for my entire network to flood. It doesn't help that I can't see the cache for a html5 video on youtube so it could all be perception... or just the fact that I tend to watch 1-2 hour video's on youtube and not the average 1-10 minutes. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com> wrote:
yeah having a quad core with 6G of ram takes care of just about any system performance issues
however I was using flash 10 on a much less beefy system not so long ago... and didn't notice issues... so I'd be curious to know how low of a system spec do you have to go to have an issue. (it was a 1.8ghz athlon-xp that was my previous system) -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 02:17, Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com> wrote:
yeah having a quad core with 6G of ram takes care of just about any system performance issues
however I was using flash 10 on a much less beefy system not so long ago... and didn't notice issues... so I'd be curious to know how low of a system spec do you have to go to have an issue. (it was a 1.8ghz athlon-xp that was my previous system)
I will admit, it's pretty low. My previous system was a 2GHz Athlon XP, and while Flash wasn't instant on there, and occasionally lagged, it worked. That died, and I haven't the means to replace it, so I've been using an old Dell Latitude C610 (1.2GHz P3, 256MB RAM); Flash just utterly fails on here. Well, that's not quite true; if I download a lighter game, and run it in the standalone Flash player as the only X client, it works, but that's not exactly feasible for everything. ~celti
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Patrick Burroughs <celticmadman@gmail.com> wrote:
I will admit, it's pretty low. My previous system was a 2GHz Athlon XP, and while Flash wasn't instant on there, and occasionally lagged, it worked. That died, and I haven't the means to replace it, so I've been using an old Dell Latitude C610 (1.2GHz P3, 256MB RAM); Flash just utterly fails on here.
right... so that's ~10 years old... I'm guessing given a P3 which were ending there cycle about 2000 with 1.2 GHz being the the upper performance range... for comparison I'm using 1.2G of ram right now without flash running... all of that between chromium and ktorrent. I couldn't run most of what I do now on linux with that system... so yes there are apps (like fluxbox) that would let me run that light. But for the most part it's just not true anymore. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 00:53 -0700, Patrick Burroughs wrote:
Personally, if it wasn't for HTML5 I wouldn't be able to use YouTube. My laptop is ancient and decrepit, and cannot handle Flash on Linux, but the <video> element works just fine, and loads as fast as I'm used to Flash video loading. Maybe there's a bit of a slowdown versus Flash if you have a cutting-edge system, but not everyone is in that situation.
I don't care much about performance, but what is irritating is that whenever some website loads anything flash-related, my CPU gets speedstepped to max frequency and my laptop fan prepares my laptop for a takeoff. When you're on battery, this can mean you'll lose half of battery runtime, just by having a browser window open that includes a flash banner. This isn't only a problem on x86_64, but on every non-windows platform. Maybe it extends to windows also, but I haven't tested that in years. Besides the performance problem, flash also makes browsers unstable. I'm very happy with the out-of-process plugins in Firefox 3.6.4 prereleases, it's just too bad that I don't use firefox for daily browsing.
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:46:11 +0200, Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
I don't care much about performance, but what is irritating is that whenever some website loads anything flash-related, my CPU gets speedstepped to max frequency and my laptop fan prepares my laptop for a takeoff. When you're on battery, this can mean you'll lose half of battery runtime, just by having a browser window open that includes a flash banner. This isn't only a problem on x86_64, but on every non-windows platform. Maybe it extends to windows also, but I haven't tested that in years. Besides the performance problem, flash also makes browsers unstable. I'm very happy with the out-of-process plugins in Firefox 3.6.4 prereleases, it's just too bad that I don't use firefox for daily browsing.
I didn't like flash but kept it to play games occasionally (and yes, youtube a little, max 1 vid a day). Since it doesn't run on x86_64 and there isn't an easy way to install the 32bit version and make it work with Opera 10.6 beta, I dropped it. Opera 10.6 and Chrome 5 support WebM, so will Firefox 4, Opera 10.6 and Firefox 3 both support Ogg Theora, so yes I think the <video> tag is ready. IE is always slow on adopting new technologies so I can't see it as a serious browser (no matter if it has 50% market share). I forgot about Safari, well that is just a strange kid. Apple ports the browser to Windows and claims to have a cross platform browser, what about Linux? :-s On the codec side it doesn't support WebM nor Ogg Theora, a new IE6 if you ask me. For the games, <canvas> would be great, and indeed the Astroid game works smooth. I think I should open a topic on the forums with more of these games websites. I don't know how far the support for canvas is, but my default browser Opera 10.6 does. On the topic of open-source versus closed-source, I wont discus it. Both have advantages and disadvantages, I just prefer to use the software that just works (like Opera, WebM, Chromium, Firefox). Flash doesn't work for me, the same with IE and Safari. Youtube should really convert ALL there videos to WebM, old and new, it will become the standard in the next months. -- To read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Bottom-posting
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Jeroen Op 't Eynde <jeroen@xprsyrslf.be> wrote:
Chrome 5 I thought WebM wasn't queued up until Chrome 6? pretty sure it's only H264 in 5... but I could be wrong... I think even youtube says something like that.
-- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
Am Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:16:14 -0400 schrieb Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com>:
I thought WebM wasn't queued up until Chrome 6? pretty sure it's only H264 in 5... but I could be wrong... I think even youtube says something like that.
WebM is already implemented in Chromium 5. Youtube's HTML5 version is working perfectly with Chromium 5. Heiko
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
WebM is already implemented in Chromium 5.
not in our stable build. http://www.permadi.com/blog/2010/05/sample-webm-video-2/ < that's supposed to be webm and the video that's on youtube should have an webm and html5 badge... I just get the html5 one. I hear it's been backported in unstable and in chrome. so firefox 4 isn't out, opera is in beta. I'm not actually 100% that webm is in chrome stable. and this is ready? call me when stable browsers have been released with it. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
Am Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:49:50 -0400 schrieb Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com>:
not in our stable build.
And why does it (Youtube) work with the current chromium from [extra]?
http://www.permadi.com/blog/2010/05/sample-webm-video-2/ < that's supposed to be webm and the video that's on youtube should have an webm and html5 badge... I just get the html5 one. I hear it's been backported in unstable and in chrome.
You probably misunderstand something. HTML5 is the new HTML version, the language in which websites (Youtube e.g.) are written, the language which provides the <video> tag. WebM is the codec of the videos like MPEG, Ogg/Theora, etc. Heiko
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
You probably misunderstand something. HTML5 is the new HTML version, the language in which websites (Youtube e.g.) are written, the language which provides the <video> tag. WebM is the codec of the videos like MPEG, Ogg/Theora, etc.
no I understand it perfectly and have been playing with the youtube beta. and that link I got was from #chromium-support maybe you don't understand? that link has a webm video. I enabled js and plugins on that page to be sure... and the video doesn't play. It's greyed out. so unless you tell me that one works we don't. from http://www.youtube.com/html5 * The HTML5 player has a badge in the control bar. If you don't see the "HTML5" icon in the control bar, you've been directed to the Flash player (due to restrictions listed below) *The HTML5 player also has a badge to indicate the video is using the WebM format. If you don't see the "WebM" icon, the video is encoded using h.264 so according to that you should see HTML5 WebM. Do you? I see HTML5 but no WebM which means it's using h.264. even if you append the &webm=1 which I suspect means youtube is smart and knows to fall back. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 23:50:10 +0200, Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com> wrote:
so according to that you should see HTML5 WebM. Do you? I see HTML5 but no WebM which means it's using h.264. even if you append the &webm=1 which I suspect means youtube is smart and knows to fall back.
I checked and I was wrong, Chrome/chromium 5 doesn't support WebM yet. Sorry about that, it is in the Dev channel though. Got confused with the tagging. Still, give it a few months. Opera will probably be the first to release an official browser version that supports WebM, quickly followed by Chromium and then Firefox. -- To read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Bottom-posting
Excerpts from Caleb Cushing's message of 2010-06-17 04:16:04 +0200:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Ray Rashif <schivmeister@gmail.com> wrote:
I simply couldn't get the same elements with the same ease in time, and thus failed to offer a presentation. They decided to stick with Flash, but I kept the multimedia tools within the open-source domain for post-production (simply because they couldn't care less and just needed the end-result). Well, the project is on hold for now so I'll see what kind of progress WebM/HTML5 has made up to this point.
yeah that sounds about right.
as of right now I don't think <video> is ready. however I'm all for many of the other improvements coming in html5 and I wish people would focus on rolling those out.
Why is the tag not ready?
Again, I don't care if something is open source if it doesn't work at the same level. You can claim security all you want... but plenty of bugs security and not to be had in all software.
I tried html5 again on youtube, my video took several minutes to load compared to flash which works nearly instantly.Given since I'm on chromium 5 I don't think it was a webm video... so that may matter... but if this is what html5 is going to be like... not sure I want it.
as far as mplayer-plugin settings... if I have to spend time configuring it to make it work decently then it's too much work, I don't have to do that with flash.
In any sense I think flash works well when you use it in the right scenario's, html5 etc work well when used in their right scenarios. Don't use flash for a slideshow. Don't try to use js/canvas for a game it's just not their yet. WebM isn't ready to replace flash for video though it may be some day.
Flash or some players seem to still be buggy. I recently booted a live CD to watch a long video, and at some point, out of the blue, it was simply impossible to seek forward or backward. The Volume controls did nothing at all. Hurray for flash video? Have you tried that asteroids game linked in an earlier post in this thread? IMHO it works surprisingly well.
If you want to blame the problems of the internet somewhere blame them on IE... and maybe soon firefox, who's standards adoption is slowing down to where IE is catching up. What we need is standards support, and maybe some additions to the standards. I'd love to use all the http methods when sending forms, I'd love to be able to use ESI's in browsers too (Imagine if you could cache more of a page). I'd love for js not to be obnoxiously abused like flash is (if your site doesn't work without js it better have a good reason, I hate enabling js to read a blog or coment on it).
flash will die when it's no longer needed or no longer provides advantages. That time hasn't come yet.
I agree that js shouldn't be used when it's not necessary, and there are plenty of problems with js, but the same is true for flash. I rather have js than flash problems. These work reasonably well for me with FF: http://videos.videoonwikipedia.org/ It's not perfect yet, nor are the browsers or codecs, but I don't think it's worse than flash. -- Regards, Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Philipp Überbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
Flash or some players seem to still be buggy. I recently booted a live CD to watch a long video, and at some point, out of the blue, it was simply impossible to seek forward or backward. The Volume controls did nothing at all. Hurray for flash video?
that's you're example? I've had livecd's become useless run environments due to IO problems... tell me your test was at least a livecd environment loaded completely into ram.
Have you tried that asteroids game linked in an earlier post in this thread? IMHO it works surprisingly well.
no. don't do games much anymore. I personally don't care about them. I have seen several decent js examples of games and canvas and whatever. But I do believe in this stuff needing to be supported across all major vendors before it's ready. It's not supported yet. I hate IE, and I might leave 'features out' of my IE support but I think that even IE users should be able to access my content. The reason I believe this is I know how many site's screwed us for years (and still are). I don't want to be screwed and I'm not screwing anyone else. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
Excerpts from Caleb Cushing's message of 2010-06-17 11:28:48 +0200:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:59 AM, Philipp Überbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
Flash or some players seem to still be buggy. I recently booted a live CD to watch a long video, and at some point, out of the blue, it was simply impossible to seek forward or backward. The Volume controls did nothing at all. Hurray for flash video?
that's you're example? I've had livecd's become useless run environments due to IO problems... tell me your test was at least a livecd environment loaded completely into ram.
I have no idea, it was simply the latest ubuntu live CD, i386 I believe. I never claimed that it was scientific, just recent experience. I used a live CD for this because I didn't want to install flash, but now I couldn't install it if I wanted to (practically I could, but it would be insane). The whole thing is a great example why we should avoid proprietary technologies. First we're used as a testbed, then dropped. It shows how much you're at the companies mercy. That alone is reason enough for me to not use stuff like flash or skype.
Have you tried that asteroids game linked in an earlier post in this thread? IMHO it works surprisingly well.
no. don't do games much anymore. I personally don't care about them. I have seen several decent js examples of games and canvas and whatever. But I do believe in this stuff needing to be supported across all major vendors before it's ready. It's not supported yet. I hate IE, and I might leave 'features out' of my IE support but I think that even IE users should be able to access my content. The reason I believe this is I know how many site's screwed us for years (and still are). I don't want to be screwed and I'm not screwing anyone else.
It wasn't about the game, but more about how well it runs. I was surprised to say the least. It kind of defeats the 'flash is much more than video' argument. Same is probably true for that wikipedia video page I linked somewhere, it has well working controls, very similar to those of flash players. I've no idea about how well it is supported across browsers, only tried FF. I agree that it should work across all browsers and also all platforms (not sure flash does ppc and stuff). It might or might not work in some alternative browsers, but they sadly still have plenty of issues anyway. IE however will have to catch up in reasonable time if it lags behind other major browsers. From what I remember, they said they'll support webm, if only as codec you need to install separately. Proper html5 and js support will have to happen too. So maybe it's not all there yet, and flash isn't dead yet, but I think (and hope) it won't take very long. -- Regards, Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Philipp Überbacher <hollunder@lavabit.com> wrote:
I have no idea, it was simply the latest ubuntu live CD, i386 I believe. I never claimed that it was scientific, just recent experience. I used a live CD for this because I didn't want to install flash, but now I couldn't install it if I wanted to (practically I could, but it would be insane).
so... you're blaming flash for something that /could/ be a problem with your environment... and certainly something flash was not designed to run on... I've had livecd's with graphical environments cease to respond after leaving them unattended. I blame the environment... livecd's are great for recovery... but mediocre, at best, for an actual environment.
The whole thing is a great example why we should avoid proprietary technologies. First we're used as a testbed, then dropped. It shows how much you're at the companies mercy. That alone is reason enough for me to not use stuff like flash or skype.
right... as if open source never stops getting supported for long periods of time... synergy anyone? or that we're never used as a testbed *cough*kde 4.0*cough*.
It wasn't about the game, but more about how well it runs. I was surprised to say the least. It kind of defeats the 'flash is much more than video' argument. Same is probably true for that wikipedia video page I linked somewhere, it has well working controls, very similar to those of flash players.
I'm sure it does...
I've no idea about how well it is supported across browsers, only tried FF. I agree that it should work across all browsers and also all platforms (not sure flash does ppc and stuff). It might or might not work in some alternative browsers, but they sadly still have plenty of issues anyway. IE however will have to catch up in reasonable time if it lags behind other major browsers. From what I remember, they said they'll support webm, if only as codec you need to install separately. Proper html5 and js support will have to happen too.
it depends... I doubt many/any companies will do a full switch without at least 50% market share. Which IE still holds, (flash has something like 99% market share). Certainly it's not going away on youtube.
So maybe it's not all there yet, and flash isn't dead yet, but I think (and hope) it won't take very long.
I suspect unless IE adopts webm it'll be around for a very long time. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
Am Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:06:23 -0400 schrieb Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com>:
right... as if open source never stops getting supported for long periods of time... synergy anyone? or that we're never used as a testbed *cough*kde 4.0*cough*.
Let me think. I'm using open source (Linux) since many years now. Everything I needed was supported and maintained during all the years. If a tool isn't maintained anymore then there's a fork or a usually better alternative which is maintained. Closed source? Windows? Windows 98? Windows NT? Windows XP in the near future? Flash for x86_64? Several anti-virus software for x86_64? Zattoo for x86_64? Everything is unsupported or stopped getting supported. Flash for x86_64 was supported only for a short while (about 1 or 2 years?) anyway. So what is getting better and longer supported? Open source or closed source? "... we're never used as a testbed ..." Somehow it sounds as if you were from Adobe.
it depends... I doubt many/any companies will do a full switch without at least 50% market share. Which IE still holds, (flash has something like 99% market share). Certainly it's not going away on youtube.
I doubt that. Why has Flash a market share like 99%? Only because portals like Youtube are using this and everyone wants to watch their videos. As soon as Youtube and other video portals switch to HTML5 Flash's market share will rapidly decrease. I've already uninstalled it due to the lack of x86_64 support and its security holes. For watching Youtube videos without Flash and HTML5 I've found two nice Greasemonkey user scripts, which let me watch the videos with the good working gecko-mediaplayer.
I suspect unless IE adopts webm it'll be around for a very long time.
I doubt that it will take too long until IE will adopt webm. And don't overvalue IE. IE isn't as important as it was some years ago. Heiko
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
Let me think. I'm using open source (Linux) since many years now. Everything I needed was supported and maintained during all the years. If a tool isn't maintained anymore then there's a fork or a usually better alternative which is maintained.
Closed source? Windows? Windows 98? Windows NT? Windows XP in the near future? Flash for x86_64? Several anti-virus software for x86_64? Zattoo for x86_64? Everything is unsupported or stopped getting supported. Flash for x86_64 was supported only for a short while (about 1 or 2 years?) anyway.
kde1,2,3 aren't maintained anymore this saying windows nt, 98, xp is just about the same. kde4 is very similar in how vista has gone into 7. don't confused unsupported with we released a new version and aren't supporting the previous. open source actually supports it's old versions a lot less in most cases. I only know 2 projects with really long term support: postgres (5 years now) and the kernel (only certain versions). wtf is zattoo (don't answer I don't care). reason AV's don't have 64-bit support is windows is their only serious market and windows hasn't had serious 64-bit support.
So what is getting better and longer supported? Open source or closed source?
"... we're never used as a testbed ..."
Somehow it sounds as if you were from Adobe.
don't take this out of context. I was referring to kde 4.0 where all the distro's decided to roll it out when kde explicitly said 'this is a developer release only'.
it depends... I doubt many/any companies will do a full switch without at least 50% market share. Which IE still holds, (flash has something like 99% market share). Certainly it's not going away on youtube.
I doubt that. Why has Flash a market share like 99%? Only because portals like Youtube are using this and everyone wants to watch their videos. As soon as Youtube and other video portals switch to HTML5 Flash's market share will rapidly decrease.
right because that's the only flash site people use? I doubt hulu is going to switch (and it never worked on 64-bit flash maybe that's why adobe is (according to them) overhauling 64-bit flash), pandora could have been implemented in js when it came out, they chose flash. I believe flash had that market share when youtube was in its infancy and maybe even earlier.
I doubt that it will take too long until IE will adopt webm. And don't overvalue IE. IE isn't as important as it was some years ago.
yes it's becoming less important, and their's certainly a push to kill IE6. I don't think that's going to matter to what I said though. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
also has everyone forgotten this http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/30/flash-player-to-come-bundled-with-google-ch... ? if google wants flash dead so bad why bundle it? I suspect that's why adobe has cancelled support for now. I bet they have to rewrite parts of 64-bit flash anyways in order to do this. Once it's done they'll re-release. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
Am Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:26:57 -0400 schrieb Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com>:
kde1,2,3 aren't maintained anymore this saying windows nt, 98, xp is just about the same. kde4 is very similar in how vista has gone into 7. don't confused unsupported with we released a new version and aren't supporting the previous.
I don't confuse anything. KDE 1, 2 and 3 have been regular updates. KDE 4 is quite different and can't be seen as a usual update. KDE 3 is btw. still maintained by the Trinity project (http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net) and updated to 3.5.11. As I said, if an open source software isn't maintained anymore, it usually get's forked or maintained by someone else or replaced by a usually better alternative. Window 98, NT, XT, Vista, 7 are also not real updates and not just a release of a new version, because first they are all completely different and not generally compatible (Windows Vista Software doesn't run on Windows 98 and probably vice versa) and second you need to pay for all of these "updates". So you can't compare those with regular updates.
open source actually supports it's old versions a lot less in most cases. I only know 2 projects with really long term support: postgres (5 years now) and the kernel (only certain versions).
Why should old versions be supported? They are updated and maintained. And these are real updates (releases of new versions). So this software is maintained and supported. postgres is btw. also updated several times. I doubt that there are still 5 years old versions of postgres. So I guess you shouldn't mix up two different things, updating a software by releasing a new version and releasing a new software which is incompatible with the previous "versions".
wtf is zattoo (don't answer I don't care). reason AV's don't have 64-bit support is windows is their only serious market and windows hasn't had serious 64-bit support.
And why are there free Linux versions of every anti-virus software, if Windows is their only serious market? And are there 64 bit Windows versions of those anti-virus software? I haven't seen any yet. So this can't be the reason.
don't take this out of context. I was referring to kde 4.0 where all the distro's decided to roll it out when kde explicitly said 'this is a developer release only'.
I didn't take this out of context. You weren't referring to KDE 4 there. At least I couldn't read this.
right because that's the only flash site people use?
Not the only one, but the one which is used by most people.
I doubt hulu is going to switch (and it never worked on 64-bit flash maybe that's why adobe is (according to them) overhauling 64-bit flash), pandora could have been implemented in js when it came out, they chose flash. I believe flash had that market share when youtube was in its infancy and maybe even earlier.
But don't forget that Hulu and Pandora (officially) only work in the USA. And the USA is not the world even if some Americans (mainly the US Government and US Army) conceit themselves to be the world or at least like to take over the world domination.
yes it's becoming less important, and their's certainly a push to kill IE6. I don't think that's going to matter to what I said though.
People who are still using IE6 (I mean the old version, not an IE vs.FF flamewar) are beyond help anyway. Heiko
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
And why are there free Linux versions of every anti-virus software, if Windows is their only serious market?
because they're primarily used for scanning email for virii in web gateways. you'll probably find more 64-bit av's in enterprise editions. -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
Am Tue, 15 Jun 2010 19:57:56 -0400 schrieb Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com>:
meh! flash works... I don't think I've tried the webm stuff... but I did try the youtube html5 beta and it just didn't work well.
For me YouTube HTML5 is working much better than the Flash stuff (despite the missing implementations of the proper video codecs in the browsers), particularly the cache is loaded much faster than with Flash and the playback and skipping through the video by clicking onto the progress bar is much faster and smoother.
flash does more than just video anyways. I'll be ok with html5 <video> if it works as good as flash for the purpose... but flash does so much more, and it will certainly is better than going back to the days of 'proprietary plugins, and codecs'.
I completely disagree. Flash can, of course, do much more than just video. But video currently is the most important feature. And I never understood why all those video portals thought they had to implement those videos in this proprietary Flash than just using the already existing and well and better working video plugins like mplayer-plugin resp. gecko-mediaplayer. I also hate these websites which are completely and only implemented in Flash. They are usually loaded and rendered much slower than simple HTML websites, look at least not better, sometimes even worse and can only be seen with such a proprietary plugin. There are very few exceptions. For building small games like Samorost 1 and 2 e.g. Flash is quite nice, because such games can easily be written and played in a webbrowser. Disadvantage again: If the proprietary plugin doesn't work or doesn't exist these games can't be played anymore. So better such games should better be written in C. And last but not least there are those annoying flickering Flash ads. All in all Flash is just annoying and superfluous. Heiko
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de> wrote:
I completely disagree. Flash can, of course, do much more than just video. But video currently is the most important feature. And I never understood why all those video portals thought they had to implement those videos in this proprietary Flash than just using the already existing and well and better working video plugins like mplayer-plugin resp. gecko-mediaplayer.
I've used that too... it didn't work well for me either...
I also hate these websites which are completely and only implemented in Flash. They are usually loaded and rendered much slower than simple HTML websites, look at least not better, sometimes even worse and can only be seen with such a proprietary plugin.
with the exception of a few movie websites which were kinda entertaining I agree.
There are very few exceptions. For building small games like Samorost 1 and 2 e.g. Flash is quite nice, because such games can easily be written and played in a webbrowser. Disadvantage again: If the proprietary plugin doesn't work or doesn't exist these games can't be played anymore. So better such games should better be written in C.
yes... and then how're you going to serve them up in a cross compat way?
And last but not least there are those annoying flickering Flash ads.
before flash it was gifs... don't get me wrong... I don't love flash but it's been much better to me than everything else. Honestly I wish people would just stfu about the death of flash. I'm not about to be adobe or apple's puppet. As long as I can use the web the way I want I'm happy. Flash has been about 95% good on that since 10. A few bumps here and there, but some weren't the fault of 'flash' like any program they were the fault of the programmer. I'm pretty sure the problems with the daily show were how they've built their stack, because youtube and abc.go.com both work flawlessly. seriously it's easier to block flash than gifs and the caching on mplayer-plugin never worked that well... javascript has been just as obnoxious as flash if not more so, popups anyone? how 'bout 'alert' messages. guns don't kill people, people kill people programming languages don't create bad programs... bad programmers do. don't blame the tool. (and no I don't like proprietary software, I wish flash were open source. but I'll wait for webm to be a proven technology before I jump on that bandwagon) -- Caleb Cushing http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com
Am Wed, 16 Jun 2010 00:08:09 -0400 schrieb Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com>:
with the exception of a few movie websites which were kinda entertaining I agree.
These movie websites are just annoying, too. Why can't the studios present their informations about a movie in plain HTML with a trailer presented with a pure video plugin? Then you get every information about the video you need and it's much faster and much more stable.
yes... and then how're you going to serve them up in a cross compat way?
Build / compile a version for Linux, one for MacOS and one for Windows. That's all. And then it runs much faster, smoother and much more stable on every OS than with Flash or Java. Java is as annoying as Flash and it's also much slower than native binaries.
before flash it was gifs...
But gifs can be filtered or blocked much better than Flash animations without being forced to block useful and wanted content by web filters. And web filters can't only block gifs completely but alternatively just show e.g. the first or the last image of a gif, so that you can see the gif but without the flickering. That's not possible with Flash. With Flash you can either block every Flash animation incl. the useful ones or accept every Flash animation incl. the annoying ones.
don't get me wrong... I don't love flash but it's been much better to me than everything else. Honestly I wish people would just stfu about the death of flash.
I hope, and I'm sure that the death of Flash will come, hopefully as soon as possible.
I'm pretty sure the problems with the daily show were how they've built their stack, because youtube and abc.go.com both work flawlessly.
After all a bug in Flash. Doesn't work Flash really so well?
seriously it's easier to block flash than gifs and the caching on mplayer-plugin never worked that well...
If caching of mplayer-plugin doesn't work for you, you probably haven't configured it well. You know that it has a separate config file? These values work for me perfectly: cache = 8192 cache-min = 20.0 cache-seek-min = 50 Set these in mplayer.conf, mplayer-plugin.conf and/or gnome-mplayer's and gecko-mediaplayer's configuration and it should work.
don't blame the tool. (and no I don't like proprietary software, I wish flash were open source. but I'll wait for webm to be a proven technology before I jump on that bandwagon)
I indeed blame the tool, because if those tools would exist then people couldn't write software with these tools. And it's usually not the software written by / for these tools (Flash animations, Java applications, etc.) which make them slow and unstable, it's indeed the tool itself, the Flash plugin and the Java runtime engine. It's just because a native binary (written in C e.g.) can be loaded directly into the computer's memory and be run from there directly on the CPU, while for running Flash animations and Java applets and applications first a big interpreter needs to be loaded into the computer's memory as a native binary and be run from there on the CPU. Then the user's software needs to be loaded into memory, interpreted (not run natively) and translated into native code which then can be run on the CPU. You see the differences? You see that such "languages" like Flash and Java can't be as fast as a native binary? That's just not possible. And it takes more time until the software is loaded, because not only one but two applications need to be loaded, one of them is usually pretty big. And because of the additional and rather unnecessary layer (the Flash plugin or the Java runtime engine) you have several sources of trouble more than with a native binary. If such a program doesn't work correctly the bug can be in the code of the animation or application, but it can also be in the plugin or the runtime engine. If a native binary doesn't work correctly the bug can only be in the application's code. And if you need a proprietary plugin it's not possible to check the plugin's code for bugs. So you rely on the plugin's developer's mercy. Heiko
Hi, People can try minitube[1] from AUR. Its based on QT and plays youtube without flash. [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34462 Regards, Gaurish Sharma www.gaurishsharma.com
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Gaurish Sharma <contact@gaurishsharma.com> wrote:
Hi, People can try minitube[1] from AUR. Its based on QT and plays youtube without flash.
[1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=34462 Regards, Gaurish Sharma www.gaurishsharma.com
This is seriously awesome. Thanks.
Am Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:51:51 +0200 schrieb Heiko Baums <lists@baums-on-web.de>:
The HTML5 version of YouTube doesn't work for me, too.
For the time until webm is implemented in every browser and YouTube's HTML5 version is the default also for the embedded videos, I found a solution for Firefox for watching YouTube videos without Flash. There are two userscripts for Greasemonkey. Greasemonkey: https://addons.mozilla.org/de/firefox/addon/748/ Youtube without Flash Auto (for YouTube itself): http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/50771 Youtube without Flash Embedded (for embedded YouTube videos): http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/60977 Heiko
ti., 15.06.2010 kl. 16.04 -0500, skrev C Anthony Risinger:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ray Kohler <ataraxia937@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma <contact@gaurishsharma.com> wrote:
Hi, since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for Users?
- keep it and use Flashblock addon (firefox) - use Gnash or other open-source version (not very useful) - use 32-bit plugin with nspluginwrapper - use 32-bit plugin with 32-bit browser - give up Flash - ignore the risk and just keep using it
Any others I missed?
i recently tried a new flash plugin that was completely OSS, that had declared itself beta. unfortunately the name of it escapes me at the moment. i couldn't get it working quite right but i didn't put a lot of time into it either. from around the net the consensus was it looked very promising as an Adobe replacement.
C Anthony
I believe it is the lightspark? It is in aur as "lightspark-git".
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Christoffer Hirth <lists@toffyrn.net> wrote:
ti., 15.06.2010 kl. 16.04 -0500, skrev C Anthony Risinger:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ray Kohler <ataraxia937@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma <contact@gaurishsharma.com> wrote:
Hi, since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for Users?
- keep it and use Flashblock addon (firefox) - use Gnash or other open-source version (not very useful) - use 32-bit plugin with nspluginwrapper - use 32-bit plugin with 32-bit browser - give up Flash - ignore the risk and just keep using it
Any others I missed?
i recently tried a new flash plugin that was completely OSS, that had declared itself beta. unfortunately the name of it escapes me at the moment. i couldn't get it working quite right but i didn't put a lot of time into it either. from around the net the consensus was it looked very promising as an Adobe replacement.
C Anthony
I believe it is the lightspark?
It is in aur as "lightspark-git".
ah yep, i believe that was it.
On 06/15/2010 10:09 PM, Christoffer Hirth wrote:
ti., 15.06.2010 kl. 16.04 -0500, skrev C Anthony Risinger:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ray Kohler <ataraxia937@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Gaurish Sharma <contact@gaurishsharma.com> wrote:
Hi, since 64bit plugin is out, what are the Alternatives for Users?
- keep it and use Flashblock addon (firefox) - use Gnash or other open-source version (not very useful) - use 32-bit plugin with nspluginwrapper - use 32-bit plugin with 32-bit browser - give up Flash - ignore the risk and just keep using it
Any others I missed?
i recently tried a new flash plugin that was completely OSS, that had declared itself beta. unfortunately the name of it escapes me at the moment. i couldn't get it working quite right but i didn't put a lot of time into it either. from around the net the consensus was it looked very promising as an Adobe replacement.
C Anthony
I believe it is the lightspark?
It is in aur as "lightspark-git".
It looks promising, however it crashed my machine without any warning and I had to reboot the machine the hard way. Just so you know and don't try it while doing anything important. -- Mauro Santos
participants (19)
-
Alexander Lam
-
C Anthony Risinger
-
Caleb Cushing
-
Christoffer Hirth
-
Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
-
Evangelos Foutras
-
Gaurish Sharma
-
Heiko Baums
-
Ionuț Bîru
-
Jan de Groot
-
Jeroen Op 't Eynde
-
Mauro Santos
-
Muhammed Uluyol
-
Ng Oon-Ee
-
Patrick Burroughs
-
Philipp Überbacher
-
Ray Kohler
-
Ray Rashif
-
vlad