No More Flash Updates for Linux

[n2ize]

If you are looking forward to further Adobe Flash updates for Linux following the most recent version 11.2 you are out of luck. Adobe is no longer making further updates for Flash plugin for Linux.

Instead, it will be bundled with Google Chrome vie the "Pepper" API. This will mean that keeping Flash current will be as easy as keeping Chrome current. On the downside this means that Flash's usefulness may fall out of vogue on other browsers, i.e. Firefox, Opera, etc. and you will have to use Chrome for Flash content.



For me this is great news since I occasionally view flash content and as I am obsoleting all browsers across my network except for Chrome.

More here.http://www.ghacks.net/2012/02/22/no-more-flash-updates-for-linux-unless-you-use-chrome/

[NQ6U]

Great move, Adobe. Anything that could further marginalize Flash, such as making it unavailable on the most popular Linux browser, is a good thing in my opinion. Flash is a huge resource hog, the software required to create Flash videos is insanely expensive and there are better options available for Internet video that don't require a proprietary plug-in.

[n2ize]

Great move, Adobe. Anything that could further marginalize Flash, such as making it unavailable on the most popular Linux browser, is a good thing in my opinion. Flash is a huge resource hog, the software required to create Flash videos is insanely expensive and there are better options available for Internet video that don't require a proprietary plug-in.

The problem is however that a lot of content on line is done in Flash. For example all of UTube and thousands of other video sites use Flash. So it basically marginalizes Linux users as the future plug -in versions will be available for wintel and mac users but not for Linux users.. So unless the content providers change to all those better alternatives this move can potentially leave a lot of Linux users in the dark whence version 11.2 goes obsolete. There only options will be to use Chrome or else run Firefox for Windows on Linux under Wine with the wintel Flash plug-in. Otherwise it depends on most, if not all, content providers, such as U-Tube, to switch to a different format. The question remains, will they do so on the behalf of Linux users ? Somehow I doubt it.

[WØTKX]

HTML 5 is taking over...

[KC2UGV]

The problem is however that a lot of content on line is done in Flash. For example all of UTube and thousands of other video sites use Flash. So it basically marginalizes Linux users as the future plug -in versions will be available for wintel and mac users but not for Linux users.. So unless the content providers change to all those better alternatives this move can potentially leave a lot of Linux users in the dark whence version 11.2 goes obsolete. There only options will be to use Chrome or else run Firefox for Windows on Linux under Wine with the wintel Flash plug-in. Otherwise it depends on most, if not all, content providers, such as U-Tube, to switch to a different format. The question remains, will they do so on the behalf of Linux users ? Somehow I doubt it.

Youtube doesn't require flash anymore. It works on the Wii (No flash in the browser), Android and iOS (Without Flash installed).

[n2ize]

Youtube doesn't require flash anymore. It works on the Wii (No flash in the browser), Android and iOS (Without Flash installed).

I just have a standard Linux box in front of me. Is there any way i can test this flash-less capability on my desktop without flash ? This sounds interesting.

[KC2UGV]

I just have a standard Linux box in front of me. Is there any way i can test this flash-less capability on my desktop without flash ? This sounds interesting.

Well, not that I know of.

You use Opera? Uninstall (Or, disable the Flash plugin), and see if it still works (The Wii uses Opera). As for the Android route? Once the Dalvik JVM gets ported, you can use the YouTube app :)

[W4GPL]

YouTube's non-flash requires that the content is new or has been converted. Not all content has been converted -- yet.

I've been using Chrome for quite some time now -- this news doesn't impact me much.

[n2ize]

I hear the newer versions of vlc play U-Tube vids. At least that's what they say. I just downloaded the tarball for vlc-2.0 so I can untar it and check out the features and specs.

[KB3LAZ]

YouTube's non-flash requires that the content is new or has been converted. Not all content has been converted -- yet.

I've been using Chrome for quite some time now -- this news doesn't impact me much.

Does not impact me either. If for some reason content does not show on my browser I simply will not see it. =P

I just can not get into chrome. I will say that its been a few months but last time I used it I could not customize it to my desire. Maybe I will have to see if that has been fixed.

[n2ize]

If you are on Windows this won;t affect you. Flash content will work as normal. It will only affect Linux users. Flash will work as long as version 11.2 for Linux can function. At some future date it may no longer work at which time Linux users must use chrome or run a wintel version under wine if they want to view flash videos. This is one of the reasons I despise corporate proprietary bloatware. At any time the moguls can pull the plug and your screwed.

[KB3LAZ]

If you are on Windows this won;t affect you. Flash content will work as normal. It will only affect Linux users. Flash will work as long as version 11.2 for Linux can function. At some future date it may no longer work at which time Linux users must use chrome or run a wintel version under wine if they want to view flash videos. This is one of the reasons I despise corporate proprietary bloatware. At any time the moguls can pull the plug and your screwed.

I use both Win7 and Mint.

[n2ize]

I use both Win7 and Mint.

I prefer using Linux across the board. All the computers in my home are Linux/Unix based. Servers and accessories are Linux/Unix only and all user workstations are dual boot, Linux (Fedora) and Windows. Myself and my immediate family prefer to use the Linux for everything, including multimedia. The majority of the online media (video) content is viewed via the flash plugin on different browsers, i.e. Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Konqueror, etc. This is what irritates me about the fact the Adobe is killing off further Linux support. It means that new features, improvements, etc. will be available to everyone except Linux users. True its not a major problem as there are enough workarounds for this, such as using Chrome to view flash content, taking advantage of non-flash formats, using vlc or other apps to view flash, or running the windows versions of flash via Wine. However I think it's kind of disappointing that Adobe has chosen to stop supporting their plug-in for an op system that has been growing in popularity and has a relatively wide user base. I could understand this 10-20 years ago when things like Linux, Ubuntu, etc. were unheard of and/or considered a bizarre geeky phenomenon. Nowaday's I know a lot of everyday folks who use things like Ubuntu for their casual day to day desktop needs.

[N2RJ]

Great move, Adobe. Anything that could further marginalize Flash, such as making it unavailable on the most popular Linux browser, is a good thing in my opinion. Flash is a huge resource hog, the software required to create Flash videos is insanely expensive and there are better options available for Internet video that don't require a proprietary plug-in.

The problem though is that HTML5 is not "there" yet. It's getting there but it's not there yet.

[NQ6U]

The problem though is that HTML5 is not "there" yet. It's getting there but it's not there yet.

I disagree. HTML 5 there, but Flash is a known quantity and so well-entrenched that content providers (somewhat understandably) are reluctant to take the plunge to a new technology. But, as we've seen with the Internet before, eventually Adobe will overstep the power of it's monopoly and users will flee to the open standard.

[W4GPL]

The problem though is that HTML5 is not "there" yet. It's getting there but it's not there yet.As someone who spends 10+ hours a day building web applications, that's an absurd statement. There are some browsers who haven't fully implemented some of the more obscure calls, but 'HTML5' is very much there.

[N1LAF]

As someone who spends 10+ hours a day building web applications, that's an absurd statement. There are some browsers who haven't fully implemented some of the more obscure calls, but 'HTML5' is very much there.

Jeff, that might be a little harsh. From an engineering standpoint, we wouldn't use the term "there", as it is really not a descriptive and a vague term. Compliance is a term that should be used, and if this is what Ryan meant, and 'obscure' calls are not implemented, then Ryan is right if 'not there' means 'not compliant'. In other words, if it doesn't fully function according to HTML5, then that product/browser is non-compliant. There is no in-between.

[NQ6U]

By your definition, Paul, Flash is not there for any OS but Windows. Adobe's implementation of it on Mac and Linux leaves a lot to be desired.

[W2NAP]

flash sucks anyway.

I say good riddens. now if javascript could be killed off.

[n2ize]

flash sucks anyway.

I say good riddens. now if javascript could be killed off.



That would be fine if flash were actually being killed off. But remember, flash is not being "killed off". It will still be fully functional with new features and enhancements on Windows and Mac. It will only be killed off on Linux. That may be fine from the standpoint of the Linux / Free Software purist who does not believe in any proprietary format. But a lot of Linux users use Linux because, among other things, it can play the popular media formats including flash. Once Linux starts to lose that capacity those users will become more reliant on other op systems to handle such tasks.

On the other hand I think there are enough workarounds and alternatives to render Adobe flash unessesary in the longrun. I convert everything to Ogg Vorbis on the fly.

[KC2UGV]

Jeff, that might be a little harsh. From an engineering standpoint, we wouldn't use the term "there", as it is really not a descriptive and a vague term. Compliance is a term that should be used, and if this is what Ryan meant, and 'obscure' calls are not implemented, then Ryan is right if 'not there' means 'not compliant'. In other words, if it doesn't fully function according to HTML5, then that product/browser is non-compliant. There is no in-between.

Then, IE has never been "There", until IE8 (Or, 9, really). It has never been W3C standards compliant. See: IE Box Model

[W4GPL]

No. ^ That's why god invented Chrome frame. :P

[n6hcm]

there are some useful AIR applications, and this will kill those off. the bbc iplayer desktop and tweetdeck are both AIR applications.