no flash 8 on linux? contact macromedia!

[futta]

flash 8 does not exist for linux, meaning we can't watch streaming flash video on e.g. www.fabchannel.com. i contacted macromedia about this and they suggested i fill in a wishform on their site. guess it could not hurt if some more ubuntu-users filled out that form requesting flash8 for linux? :)

the form is at http://www.macromedia.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

thanks!
frank

[poptones]

Why not instead contact fabchannel and have them use a video format that doesn't suck?

We don't need more proprietary crap, we need more sites that respect their visitors.

[futta]

your kind of right, but; flash video, however proprietary, is one of the only ways to publish video (to all flash-enabled platforms) without the need for windows media player, realplayer, quicktime, ... or other plugins that might not exist for our platform of choice.

this already works great for flv1.x (the encoding of which is already possible by open source software such as ffmpeg) in flash7 on linux. flv2 (which can only be used in flash8 ) promises to go even further in that respect (and should offer quality comparable with e.g. windows media video).

let's just say i consider flash video the lesser of 2 evils ;-)

frank

[poptones]

So what? It's every bit as proprietary as windows media player, real player and quicktime - actually it's even worse; at least I can watch streaming wmv files via mplayer.

The lesser of two evils is still just more evil.

[Zotova]

So what? It's every bit as proprietary as windows media player, real player and quicktime - actually it's even worse; at least I can watch streaming wmv files via mplayer.

The lesser of two evils is still just more evil.

There is nothing wrong with proprietary software. I'm fed up of hearing that on the forum. What is the problem if a company decides to release software to the Linux platform but would prefer to use their own license? People moan about how their printer isn't supported, how their wireless card doesn't work etc This is because developers don't support Linux. I'd much prefer we get the help of a developer who actually supports Linux - open source or not, at least more things work.

Macromedia haven't released Flash 8 for Linux yet and it is something which annoys me a tad, but it isn't something I've really had issues with yet. At the end of the day getting a website to change their content into another format isn't going to happen. So instead of taking shots at Macromedia I think we should be supporting them for at least bothering to make one version of Flash for Linux - they didn't have to.

[poptones]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=13&ItemID=9350

[Arktis]

There is nothing wrong with proprietary software. I'm fed up of hearing that on the forum. What is the problem if a company decides to release software to the Linux platform but would prefer to use their own license? People moan about how their printer isn't supported, how their wireless card doesn't work etc This is because developers don't support Linux.

No. This is because the hardware manufacturers don't release their driver specifications. If they did, then they still wouln't need to support linux. People would program the drivers themselves and share them with the rest of us as they have always done.

As far as proprietary software itself goes, there are drawbacks to anything... mainly in this case the drawbacks are to the end user and the benefits are mostly to the software companys. Yes, a very backwards and unfortunately flawed situation. Nothing is perfect.

As far as Macromedia goes, I think the unfortunate reality is that the only way to get them to make a flash player 8 for linux is to show them that flash authors themselves will not advance to the use of flash 8 until such a plugin is released. This is the only thing they will care about. Many flash authors are still using flash 7 for this reason. You can also send them feedback, but their disclaimer basicly says they don't care about what you have to say unless they can use it to make lots of profit. So the only thing linux users can do is make a big stink about it - not just to macromedia, but to flash authors.

[prizrak]

I sort of agree with Zotova, proprietary does not equal evil, mp3 is proprietary but it is implemented pretty much everywhere and it's not hard to get codecs/players that will support it. If Macromedia wants to keep their software proprietary but offer us free players on every platform, more power to them they are here to make money. I want them to give me a good player for it as soon as a new format comes out, which they haven't been bad with.

[Zotova]

Why not instead contact fabchannel and have them use a video format that doesn't suck?

We don't need more proprietary crap, we need more sites that respect their visitors.

If the video format 'sucked' so much it wouldn't be as popular as it is. Flash works and it works well hence why so many people use it. Saying it is crap because it is proprietary is plain stupid.

No. This is because the hardware manufacturers don't release their driver specifications. If they did, then they still wouldn't need to support Linux. People would program the drivers themselves and share them with the rest of us as they have always done.

I'm going to pick on my wifi card here. It has a rt2500 chipset which is open source due to Ralink releasing the specification. Does it work with all the features in Linux? No. Does it always work flawlessly like it does in XP? No

The fact of the matter is half of these drivers simply do not work properly. I'd much prefer to have a driver written by a software company which knows what they are actually doing and know how their product works. After all they make the product so I don't see an issue with why their software is somehow inferior to a piece of open software someone has made in their spare time.

As far as proprietary software itself goes, there are drawbacks to anything... mainly in this case the drawbacks are to the end user and the benefits are mostly to the software company's. Yes, a very backwards and unfortunately flawed situation. Nothing is perfect.

A vendor releases a new sound card and they make a proprietary Linux driver thus choosing to support Linux - the developers say this sound card will have 5.1 support and will have the same features in Windows, Linux and Mac. If you don't like that fair enough go buy one which has 7.1 channels or whatever you so desire. The other alternative is use a driver someone made in their spare time which 'should' work but only actually has stereo support so far because they haven't worked out how to code the rest yet.

Rather basic examples I admit but I'm trying to get the point across that just because something isn't foss doesn't mean its crap - which is the attitude a lot of people on this board have.

[Arktis]

Rather basic examples I admit but I'm trying to get the point across that just because something isn't foss doesn't mean its crap - which is the attitude a lot of people on this board have.

I didn't say that. In fact I said everything was flawed. This was in response to your statement that nothing was wrong with proprietary software.

I am in fact of the belief that what is wrong with proprietary software (among other things) is that when you use it, you are using something that very strictly belongs to someone else and are thereby made to agree to adhere to their stipulations and are held punishable should you be caught doing otherwise, as opposed to open source - which does have flaws - which has stipulations enforced on the programmers to keep their work open source (in other words, adhering to the same ruleset as the code their work is derived from) because it is based on other open source work. Yes they both come with strings attatched, but in totally different manners. One encourages self governance and education within a larger body of equals, the other encourages differing to commercial entities for day to day wants and needs.

Sure open source is susceptable to having bugs and functionality issues (so is proprietary software), but that is not a problem with open source itself at all; it is only a problem with the current state of affairs. Much of it is done by a few individuals working in their spare time as you say, which shows that the current situation is less than ideal to whatever degree, not that the concept itself is flawed (Again, nothing is perfect. There are degrees of suitability and I believe open source is much more suitable if you are concerned about things like freedom, intelligence, and self determination.).

[Zotova]

I didn't say that. In fact I said everything was flawed. This was in response to your statement that nothing was wrong with proprietary software.

Sorry, I wasn't aiming that last comment at you, more at poptones and anyone else who shares the view that proprietary software is "crap" but do not actually give anything to back the statement up.

I am in fact of the belief that what is wrong with proprietary software (among other things) is that when you use it, you are using something that very strictly belongs to someone else and are thereby made to agree to adhere to their stipulations and are held punishable should you be caught doing otherwise, as opposed to open source

I'd have to disagree again there. An example: aac vs ogg - lets say apple's itunes chose to support an open source format such as ogg. You would still only be able to legally burn it on x amount of discs and transfer it to a certain amount of computers. You'd still be under the same regulations, proprietary or not. The only slight difference would be where you could use it. I agree in theory ogg would have the advantage as anyone could make a player which was compatible, but having said that lets look at the real world. How many ogg players are there compared to mp3 and aac? Not many. Why should in this example, apple, support an open source format instead their own aac which can be played on a large amount of players.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be able to open up open office and it would truly open any MS Office document I threw at it. Does this make MS Office formats bad? No and I'm sure you'd find a lot of other Office users who would agree that the format is not bad, it has its flaws, but so does the OO format. But according to the second poster it must be "crap" because it is proprietary. :rolleyes:

Yes they both come with strings attached, but in totally different manners. One encourages self governance and education within a larger body of equals, the other encourages differing to commercial entities for day to day wants and needs.

Open source is a good thing, I'm not saying it isn't - my original post was to defend proprietary as I feel it gets a rough time on this board.

As you say both have their pros and cons - but I don't see why you can't use both.

[Knomefan]

... anyone else who shares the view that proprietary software is "crap" but do not actually give anything to back the statement up.

I really wanted to keep out of this fun emerging flamewar, but I just have to comment now.
Nobody claims that propietary software has to be crap from a functional standpoint. That is, there is of course propietary software that works great as there is free software that is crappy from a technical standpoint.

The argument is that propietary software is "crap" (though I would definately choose an other word than this) because it doesn't give it's users the same freedoms that free software gives them. To quote the Stallman interview poptones linked to:
Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the software as you wish. Freedom 1 is the freedom to study and change the source code as you wish. Freedom 2 is the freedom to copy and distribute the software as you wish. And freedom 3 is the freedom to create and distribute modified versions as you wish. (Yea, I know 0-3, geeks...)
Now I know this might seem esoteric to some, but this really adds to the value of free software and gives free software a kind of value that propietary software can not achieve.

And it isn't as esoteric as it may seem. Let me give you an example. I'm running Linux on PPC. Now, Linux (or after quoteing Stallman I'd better say GNU/Linux ;-D) works great on PPC, the only software you'll run into trouble with it propietary software, like, tadam, flash. So, you might rant and rave all you want, at the end of the day I prefer free software.


And while we are at it, I really hope the revived gplflash project comes along.

[Zotova]

I'm running Linux on PPC. Now, Linux (or after quoteing Stallman I'd better say GNU/Linux ;-D) works great on PPC, the only software you'll run into trouble with it propietary software, like, tadam, flash. So, you might rant and rave all you want, at the end of the day I prefer free software.

And while we are at it, I really hope the revived gplflash project comes along.

Fair enough, I have no argument with that as you have your reasons for preferring open source. My original point was that Flash was wrongly called "crap" just because it was proprietary which I think is grossly unfair.

[Arktis]

I really wanted to keep out of this fun emerging flamewar, but I just have to comment now.

No flamewar. And correct me if I'm wrong but I think this side-issue has been satisfactorally discussed. Hopefully now this topic will move back onto the main focus of flash player 8 linux.

I have a few questions. Last time I checked, there was no information availible on macromedia's website about flash player 8 linux. Anyone have the scoop? Also, how many of you have submitted a request to macromedia about this? I have, and I only know of a few others.

[rubinstein]

Also, how many of you have submitted a request to macromedia about this? I have, and I only know of a few others.
I did it this morning after reading this message. Maybe it helps.

Flash is proprietary and I wish there would exist a free software implementation and that macromedia would release the specs; nonetheless it is better you have the option to watch flash with Linux (although it sometimes crashes, http://www.titus.de for example).

[vininim]

Not every hardware vendor can release full specification of their products, because:
1-They have IP agreements with Third Party, meaning not having the freedom to share the info that they bought or co-developed
2-They use software techniques for minimizing production costs, in other words: somethings are better to happen in the driver side than on the hardware side. And those techniques are what gives then an edge over competitors
3-Ever heard of those cheap 'sound blaster compatible' sound cards? When you don't have to spend time in R&D, and dealing with IP trading, it's cheaper to produce a card.

[spdl]

I put my request in.

[futta]

Last time I checked, there was no information availible on macromedia's website about flash player 8 linux. Anyone have the scoop? Also, how many of you have submitted a request to macromedia about this? I have, and I only know of a few others.

i submitted my original post because of the following answer i received from macromedia (adobe) when i asked them about flash8 on linux:

Currently Flash Player 8 is not available for the Linux Operating System. We have an online form that is specifically designed for feature requests. Kindly post your request at: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
This insures that your suggestions reach the appropriate people. Please continue to share with us any thoughts you have about our products and services.

although they do not officially state that flash8 will not be released for linux, it is (more or less) implied.

and i -off course- submitted the wishform.

frank

[spdl]

I submitted my request as I earlier posted. But I got the following two email responses back. So they didn't get them. The submission forwards an email to an individual at macromedia and one at adobe. I removed the names and emails as to not post their identies on here. I guess there mailboxes are full?

From: postmaster@macromedia.com
Reporting-MTA: dns;p01exm01.macromedia.com
Received-From-MTA: dns;P01EXF01.macromedia.com
Arrival-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:55:32 -0800

Final-Recipient: rfc822;removed@removed
Action: failed
Status: 5.2.1
X-Display-Name: removed

Reporting-MTA: dns;namail4.corp.adobe.com
Received-From-MTA: dns;fe1.corp.adobe.com
Arrival-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:57:20 -0800

From: postmaster@default.adobe.com
Final-Recipient: rfc822;removed@removed
Action: failed
Status: 5.2.1
X-Display-Name: removed

[imagine]

1-They have IP agreements with Third Party, meaning not having the freedom to share the info that they bought or co-developed
2-They use software techniques for minimizing production costs, in other words: somethings are better to happen in the driver side than on the hardware side. And those techniques are what gives then an edge over competitors
3-Ever heard of those cheap 'sound blaster compatible' sound cards? When you don't have to spend time in R&D, and dealing with IP trading, it's cheaper to produce a card.
4-The driver does something which it better shouldn't do.
5-They used some third party code in their driver without having an agreement for that. Releasing the sourcecode of the driver would get them into trouble.

[poptones]

Flash works and it works well hence why so many people use it. Saying it is crap because it is proprietary is plain stupid.

If it works so well for you, why this thread?

Obviously, Flash doesn't work so well as you claim.

...I'm sure you'd find a lot of other Office users who would agree that the format is not bad, it has its flaws, but so does the OO format. But according to the second poster it must be "crap" because it is proprietary.

The significant difference here is the OO format can evolve and anyone is free to improve it and to extend it and to compete for a share of the market.

my original post was to defend proprietary...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

[prizrak]

I ran into the same thing SPDL has
4-The driver does something which it better shouldn't do.
5-They used some third party code in their driver without having an agreement for that. Releasing the sourcecode of the driver would get them into trouble.
Those are more than possible, if you wanna look at the dark side of things FOSS has plenty :) (just being the devil's advocate)

[poofyhairguy]

People moan about how their printer isn't supported, how their wireless card doesn't work etc This is because developers don't support Linux.

In both of those cases a proprietary driver would not help much for usuability- the user would have to patch a (certain version of) the kernel and compile it to use it. Open drivers that can come out of the box are much better even if they lack features. My GF's wireless card has Linux drivers but they are worthless because you must use an old version of the 2.4 kernel to get them to work.

So instead of taking shots at Macromedia I think we should be supporting them for at least bothering to make one version of Flash for Linux - they didn't have to.

I would have prefered that they didn't. Why? Because that would have inspired the bright minds in the Linux world to reverse engineer it and we would have an open Flash plug-in by now. Then 64 bit users (like me) and PPC users (like me) would not have to deal with Macromedia's current lack of support in that case.

[prizrak]

If it works so well for you, why this thread?

Obviously, Flash doesn't work so well as you claim.



The significant difference here is the OO format can evolve and anyone is free to improve it and to extend it and to compete for a share of the market.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
Dude (possibly Dudette) you are so taking things out of context. Flash in and of itself works and works well, that is beyond doubt. The new player hasn't been released for Linux yet however there is plenty of content that doesn't use 8 so we can wait. OO or ANY protocol/format does not freely evolve since there has to be backwards (in some cases forwards) compatibility, there is a governing body that decides the direction (even for Linux) making it not free but controlled. Sure you can contribute and submit bugs/features doesn't mean it's gonna go anywhere.
I do think that formats/protocols should be open, but to say that something is crap simply because it is not is taking it too far. I have no problem with proprietary software whatsoever if I can get a quality product I (and 90% of people) don't give a damn how it was made.

[poptones]

"Dude," it is you who does not get it.

"Linux" is nuttin' but a kernel. There are scads of kernels out there - which are you talking about? The desktop kernel? Anyone can download the source and make whatever kernel they want, no comittee needed. what kernel do those cellphones ringing in asia run? What kernel does tivo use? Even the kernel ubuntu uses is not the same kernel mandriva uses or that redhat uses - nor are the applications running on that kernel.

OO's format(s) do NOT have to be backward compatible simply because anyone may, at any time, create plugins or even just fork the whole damn project. If the new version has merit people will use it and support for the alternative format would be incorporated into the mainline.

"Free" does not mean "shoved down your throat."

...if I can get a quality product I (and 90% of people) don't give a damn how it was made.

Uh huh. You, Kathie Lee, and all those Wal-Mart shoppers. (http://www.hrw.org/children/labor.htm)

[futta]

it's a pity this is turning out into yet another rant. this is definitively not something we are going to agree on any time soon; we know each other's arguments and therefor can only limit ourselves to just agree to disagree, i guess? :)

sooooooo ..
those who would like to have flash8 on linux submit the "wishform"
those who consider flash (or any non-open-source-software) for linux a bad idea, don't submit the wishform.

ain't life grand? :D

[Zotova]

If it works so well for you, why this thread?

Obviously, Flash doesn't work so well as you claim.


Get your quoting right, I did not start this thread nor complain about problems with Flash. I simply said I am annoyed there is no version 8 for Linux. I simply replied due to your unfair comments on proprietary software which had no evidence to back them up.

The significant difference here is the OO format can evolve and anyone is free to improve it and to extend it and to compete for a share of the market.

So can flash if they choose to on either the Windows platform or Linux. If you have ideas submit them to Macromedia - of course they might not listen but on the other hand they could if the ideas are decent.

"Free" does not mean "shoved down your throat."

Nor does proprietary software, you have a choice if to use it or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

There is not need to make debates personal, I could reply to that but I won't as I'd actually like to debate the topic but apparently you are incapable without insulting those who don't share the same viewpoint as yourself.

I would have prefered that they didn't. Why? Because that would have inspired the bright minds in the Linux world to reverse engineer it and we would have an open Flash plug-in by now. Then 64 bit users (like me) and PPC users (like me) would not have to deal with Macromedia's current lack of support in that case.

I am actually surprised there isn't a reverse engineered version already to be honest.

[JimmyJazz]

I sent my request. I want everything to be supported in linux propietary or not.
I don't really enjoy explaining to people why something doesn't work in Linux.
Most people don't care if something is open source or not they just want it to work well and I tend to agree.

[poofyhairguy]

I am actually surprised there isn't a reverse engineered version already to be honest.

There is. Its crap. It would be almost perfect if Macromedia would have never made a Linux pluggin I think.

I mean....that is the reason why the high end ATI card have been reversed engineered before the high end Nvidia card were (if they ever will be). Nvidia's drivers are good enough for most users, but the crap that ATI releases inspired the community to try to get a better solution.

[Zotova]

There is. Its crap. It would be almost perfect if Macromedia would have never made a Linux pluggin I think.

The question is however, would the community one support the features of 8? - if compared to other community drivers which often have features missing. We could still be in the same situation as we are now.

At least, whilst I sympathise your situation with using a 64 bit processor, if Macromedia do release v8 for Linux a big portion of Linux users will get the full features available.

[JimmyJazz]

I would like to see the OS community create an open standard for web applications like Flash. I think in the future the internet will use much more interactive video and animation. It would be good to see the OS community jump on this ahead of the game instead of reverse engineering Flash.
In many ways Flash style pages are in part the future of the web, shouldn't there be an open standard for it? Perhaps a scriptable SVG format?

[prizrak]

"Dude," it is you who does not get it.

"Linux" is nuttin' but a kernel. There are scads of kernels out there - which are you talking about? The desktop kernel? Anyone can download the source and make whatever kernel they want, no comittee needed. what kernel do those cellphones ringing in asia run? What kernel does tivo use? Even the kernel ubuntu uses is not the same kernel mandriva uses or that redhat uses - nor are the applications running on that kernel.

OO's format(s) do NOT have to be backward compatible simply because anyone may, at any time, create plugins or even just fork the whole damn project. If the new version has merit people will use it and support for the alternative format would be incorporated into the mainline.

"Free" does not mean "shoved down your throat."



Uh huh. You, Kathie Lee, and all those Wal-Mart shoppers. (http://www.hrw.org/children/labor.htm)
Linux IS a kernel and it is one that is maintained by Linus Torvalds and his crew. The kernel maybe compiled with different options but by and large all distros are based on the same kernel with different supporting programs. What does or does not make it into the kernel is up to Linus.

OO file format was developed by OASIS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument and they have the final say in what it looks like. Same with most other open formats IEEE and x86 come to mind. In the case of formats/protocols branching and forking is not a good thing they are called standards for a reason.
Yes equate proprietary standards with child labor, that's a great way to get your point across....
I have to ask. Can you ever stay on topic? Can you ever use actual facts/logic/common sense in your debates?
I have observed you in many threads where all you do is take a part of the debate and beat it to death. Simple fact is hardly anyone cares whether you are proprietary or FOSS as long as it works. I personally think that there is nothing wrong with proprietary software as long as it follows the rules. Like I said before I favor OPEN STANDARDS and I LIKE open source however I also believe in choice, if you don't want to use proprietary software then don't. You don't HAVE TO use flash but you cannot tell Google to not do it on their videos site.
Again closed standards are bad, closed software is not.

[poptones]

Get your quoting right, I did not start this thread nor complain about problems with Flash. I simply said I am annoyed there is no version 8 for Linux.

Uhhh... logic not your strong suit? if there is no version 8 for linux it doesn't work at all. I did not say why did you create this thread, "merely" why it even exists if flash 8 "works" so well for everyone.

How citing stockholm synrome is "making it personal" when it was you who noted you took exception to me calling software crap is.. well, again that's just not logical. I criticized the software; you made your comments about you.

...if Macromedia do release v8 for Linux a big portion of Linux users will get the full features available.

Including, no doubt, the "feature" that makes my browser stall and crash... just like version 7.

[poptones]

What does or does not make it into the kernel is up to Linus.

You should try reading the gpl again. "What does or does not make it into the kernel" is up to the person driving the compiler. That's because of the license only in part, it's mostly because anyone is free to add whatever the hell they want to it. It's also not the only "free" kernel out there - you can add whatever the hell you want to bsd, wrap it in a box with a bow and sell it and no one can do a damn thing about it.

OO file format was developed by OASIS and they have the final say in what it looks like.

No, because I have the source. OO's file format is based on xml schemas but there is no rule forbidding me from creating my own format, compiling it into OO and releasing it. Again this is less about the license itself than the simple fact I have the source code and therefore have the power to change it. I have the final say in what things look like on my version. And if the people I share information with like my changes then it is up to the comittees to adopt them if they want to keep up.

Same with most other open formats IEEE and x86 come to mind. In the case of formats/protocols branching and forking is not a good thing they are called standards for a reason.

Irrelevant. Standards change all the time and they change through politics. it doesn't matter if it's c compiler behavior or a dvd format or clothing sizes, standards change and evolve and often do so because of market forces external to the standards comittees.

...equate proprietary standards with child labor

The attitude "I don't care how it as made I just want what I want and I want it now" is a social disease that needs to be ridiculed and demonized at every opportunity. There are nations on this earth with ten times our population yet we consume more than most of them combined. That is, at best irresponsible and abusive to the others with whom we share earth and oxygen.

I personally think that there is nothing wrong with proprietary software as long as it follows the rules.

What rules? The rules written by the corporations that sell you this crap? Whose version? the US? Australia? China? Singapore? How do you even determine what the rules are or if they are "playing by them" when you have no means of auditing them? In some locales even "the rules" are copyrighted and you have to pay money just to gain access to them. This is not how a healthy society operates and defending such nonsense is a sign of mental or emotional dysfunction.

[Zotova]

Uhhh... logic not your strong suit? if there is no version 8 for linux it doesn't work at all. I did not say why did you create this thread, "merely" why it even exists if flash 8 "works" so well for everyone.

It obviously isn't yours. Read my post, I said I was annoyed that there was no version of flash 8? How can the possibly be taken as me saying there was a version for linux.

Let me just quote what I said again.

I simply said I am annoyed there is no version 8 for Linux.

Get your facts right before you post a reply. Once again you are using personal insults when you are loosing a debate. Stop being an jerk.

[MetalMusicAddict]

Saying things like:
Stop being an jerk.
is the same thing you think he's doin.

If you really feel he's getting too personal for you take it to a PM or report it instead of continuing it in this now pointless thread.

[poofyhairguy]

The question is however, would the community one support the features of 8? - if compared to other community drivers which often have features missing. We could still be in the same situation as we are now.

Better. Now we don't have 8 AND we don't have an open flash. My way we have one of those.



At least, whilst I sympathise your situation with using a 64 bit processor, if Macromedia do release v8 for Linux a big portion of Linux users will get the full features available.

True.....I don't really care honestly. Flash is the tech. that power web ads to me.

[MetalMusicAddict]

Flash is the tech. that power web ads to me.
True... but it brings me oh so great cartoons (http://www.theflasharchive.com/f/f-216.htm). :)

[futta]

True... but it brings me oh so great cartoons (http://www.theflasharchive.com/f/f-216.htm). :)

and some very nice free video content (http://www.fabchannel.com/) :cool:

[prizrak]

Poptones I am done talking to you, you obviously cannot/chose not to comprehend what is being said to you.
I will clarify what I mean by "by the rules"
By the rules in my book means that the companies aren't engaging in behavior such as:
- Decomoditizing (sp?) protocols/standards
- Deny OEM's/System integrators the right to chose what makes it into their system
- Stifle innovation by buying out or muscling out innovators through means other than product quality
Basically what playing by the rules means is that they must adhere to the rules of the open market and fair competition, which are pretty much standard across the board.

Back on topic:
I have not seen any content unsupported by the current Linux flash player yet. Hopefully they will release the new version just in time so that we don't miss any functionality.

[KiwiNZ]

poptones and zotova please respect the rules and stop the personal attacks

Thankyou

[poptones]

Kiwi I'm sick of your ****. Post one quote from me in this thread where I initiated a single personal attack.

[KiwiNZ]

Kiwi I'm sick of your ****. Post one quote from me in this thread where I initiated a single personal attack.

You will note that my request was directed at the both of you

[poptones]

So what? I did not do what you "warned" me of in this thread therfore you might as well have included poofy and anyone else who posted in this thread. Your post was an unfounded insinuation.

So tell us, kiwi.... I heard you quit beating your wife. Is it true?

[Sheinar]

I really hope Macromedia don't release a Flash 8 plugin for Linux, then if many sites do eventually switch to 8, I'd imagine the free software community would create a usable plugin soon enough, though it would be nice if the sites that do use flash would just switch to something else. Not having a flash plugin installed would do wonders with the amount of flash ads out there.

[prizrak]

I really hope Macromedia don't release a Flash 8 plugin for Linux, then if many sites do eventually switch to 8, I'd imagine the free software community would create a usable plugin soon enough, though it would be nice if the sites that do use flash would just switch to something else. Not having a flash plugin installed would do wonders with the amount of flash ads out there.
Is there even an alternative to flash? I was always under the impression that it is a completely unique product.

[Sheinar]

Is there even an alternative to flash? I was always under the impression that it is a completely unique product.
I honestly don't know.

[PatrickMay16]

Kiwi I'm sick of your ****. Post one quote from me in this thread where I initiated a single personal attack.

So tell us, kiwi.... I heard you quit beating your wife. Is it true?
There you go! Heh heh heh heh.

[poofyhairguy]

Is there even an alternative to flash? I was always under the impression that it is a completely unique product.

http://swift-tools.net/Flash/

[Sheinar]

http://swift-tools.net/Flash/
I think he was meaning an alternative to flash in general, rather than an alternative flash plugin.

[prizrak]

I think he was meaning an alternative to flash in general, rather than an alternative flash plugin.
Yeah what he said :)

[KiwiNZ]

So tell us, kiwi.... I heard you quit beating your wife. Is it true?

I am going to post this here so everyone can see that you should engage the brain before you post .

That comment is extremely offensive.

My wife was killed in a motor accident by a drunk driver 8 years ago.

Poptones I will consider my next move

[poptones]

Of course it is offensive - as is accusing me of actions I have not engaged. But WHY are you offended? I had no way of knowing anything about your wife and I certainly didn't accuse you of mistreating her. I simply asked a question...

Get it?

If you will look back on this thread you will see I had said my peace and was not even participating in the thread any longer when you saw fit to post your little "warning" (never mind that I have not, in this discussion, even done what you "warned" me about in your poorly timed post). It was YOU who initiated all this crap after the fact. Oh, the irony.

[kairu0]

That comment is extremely offensive.

...and it is entirely irrelevant to the thread.

Let's have some respect for the many users who read and write on this board by posting responsibly.