On 2010/07/07 01:28 (GMT-0700) Rob Healey composed: [Adobe] I have to think it's about money and DRM. Adobe has never released a Flash version for the tiny OS/2 market, because nobody has paid them the big money they want to do so. OS/2 users who want Flash must use a Windows version along with special buggy hacks. I'm someone surprised they exists Flash versions from Adobe for Linux. It seems to me that open source and DRM are incompatible concepts. Adobe is in the Windows and Sony school of keeping content owners happy, as opposed to keeping puter users happy and in control of their own puters. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/

From: test-bounces(a)lists.fedoraproject.org [mailto:test-bounces@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Rob Healey Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 4:29 AM To: Fedora rawhide test list Subject: 64bit Flash player Thanks for the information! So we really are alienated from being able to use and benefit from the web content that should be available to all! No, we're not. It is trivial to install and use the 32-bit Flash plugin from Adobe on 64-bit Linux. The instructions for doing so are even posted on the fedoraproject.org Wiki at <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Multimedia/Flash> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Multimedia/Flash. I've used those instructions and they work. Take a deep breath, stop using inaccurate, inflammatory phrases like "alienated" and "screw us", and just install the plugin using the provided instructions if you want to use the plugin. It's unfortunate that there isn't a 64-bit plugin available. Unfortunate, but not the end of the world. Plus, Adobe claims that the reason why it isn't currently available is because they're working on making fundamental architectural changes to it, which, if true, means that when they do finally release it again, it'll probably be better than the 32-bit plugin. Jik

On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 22:29 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote: But alas, Chromium doesn't (for obvious reasons). poc

On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 01:28 -0700, Rob Healey wrote: Take another look at my earlier reply, which you seem to have misunderstood. I have full access to all Flash sites, just as I had when I used the 64-bit plugin. Running 32-bit or 64-bit Flash makes absolutely no difference in what you can reach or how it is presented, i.e. the 32-bit plugin is bug-compatible with the earlier one :-) poc

I doubt very much Adobe wants to limit our access to the Internet. Adobe wants to apply its development resources in the way that maximizes its profit. Adobe may feel 64-bit Flash for Linux would be profitable (in some abstract, indirect sense: Adobe does not sell Flash Player for Linux as a product.) One problem is Adobe thinks other investments will produce greater profit than development for Linux of its Creative Suite, Flash Builder, and other products that generate its income. Another problem is Adobe may believe different opportunities are more attractive than any additional income it could receive from more sales of current products on supported platforms (Windows, MacOS) due to the availability of 64-bit Flash for Linux. We may be victims of Free and Open Source success here. If there were a simple, demonstrated model for a company to profit from application development for the Linux platform, more companies would be likely to do this. Red Hat and IBM make a profit from Linux activity, but their business models are greatly more complex than simple application sales. Adobe's investment choices are subject to change due to competetive experience and new opportunities. There is even precedent (Postscript, PDF) for Adobe to publish its designs for wide use. Maybe HTML5 will induce such publication for Flash, or even displace Flash from the Web environment. It is also possible Adobe is busily at work on 64-bit Flash for Linux for the best of reasons - it's customers want this because they feel they cannot reach an increasingly important part of the Web user community without this capability - but chooses not to publish its plans or schedules. Withdrawal of the alpha code may not indicate lack of interest, simply recognition of significant defects that Adobe has not yet fixed.