AMD64 Flash Port

Message

tam · Post by **tam** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 7:57 pm

Feature request sent.

lotw · Post by **lotw** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:16 pm

Well it isn't really a bug, but more of a feature request. Hopefully enough people will request it so that maybe they will consider it.

grantl · Post by **grantl** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:38 pm

I will get my new amd64 laptop next week and signed the petition in advance.
What do you think: will they (macromedia) react until next week?

R!tman · Post by **R!tman** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:45 pm

grantl wrote:I will get my new amd64 laptop next week and signed the petition in advance.
What do you think: will they (macromedia) react until next week?

LOL

krall · Post by **krall** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:16 pm

Just added my own feature request.
Actually, i think it's a bug to deliver a product that does not support a major computer archetecture, but i guess it's a matter of terminilogy.

ziegs · Post by **ziegs** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:00 am

krall wrote: Actually, i think it's a bug to deliver a product that does not support a major computer archetecture

not quite a bug no. and we're not quite a major architecture yet either. if you think about the small number of computers using x86_64, and then think of the smaller number of them running a linux distro, and then think of an even smaller number of people who care about using the 64bit bin of firefox as opposed to the 32bit binary, we're pretty tiny. i don't think they've even had to write a new player for x64 windows (not sure on that one, all i know is that when i'm in windows flash works and i installed flash from an old cd i had).

maybe with intel shoving their 64bit chips into EVERYTHING macromedia will wake up..perhaps

Chuckinator · Post by **Chuckinator** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 5:58 am

Signed it - One would think that they would have released a 64 bit version to go along with Windows XP 64-bit.

R!tman · Post by **R!tman** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 7:39 am

Chuckinator wrote:Signed it - One would think that they would have released a 64 bit version to go along with Windows XP 64-bit.

No, they have not. Instead, there are both a 32bit and a 64bit IE.

Light · Post by **Light** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:32 pm

AdmiralNemo wrote:Here is a copy of my post to them. I hope that professionalism will come across with more prestige than cursing, etc.

[..]

I am glad to see that there others out there who feel the same way I do about this. I only hope that Macromedia will see our side and follow through with our requests.

I've filled out the feature request form also. And I like the text of AdmiralNemo, so I used that

Hope you don't mind.

babo · Post by **babo** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 4:39 pm

looks to me like gplflash 2 might be usefull before macromedia makes 64bit flash player, so maybe we should invest more energy in that one instead of some people who don't even reply to mails.

wiSHmaKeR · Post by **wiSHmaKeR** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 5:23 pm

Did it! Signed.

R!tman · Post by **R!tman** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 8:28 pm

babo wrote:looks to me like gplflash 2 might be usefull before macromedia makes 64bit flash player, so maybe we should invest more energy in that one instead of some people who don't even reply to mails.

I believe this is the way to go. gplflash2 is available through cvs, but I have not seen an ebuild, yet.

Unfortunately, I have no time to do an ebuild (and I have never done a cvs ebuild before). Maybe someone else would be so kind.

floam · Post by **floam** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:34 am

What do you need an ebuild for? Just check it out and build.

Rollbar · Post by **Rollbar** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 6:02 pm

floam wrote:What do you need an ebuild for? Just check it out and build.

What do you need portage for? It's convenient, practical and structured. :p
So yeah, an ebuild would be nice.

Somy · Post by **Somy** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 7:01 pm

Rollbar wrote:
floam wrote:What do you need an ebuild for? Just check it out and build.
What do you need portage for? It's convenient, practical and structured. :p
So yeah, an ebuild would be nice.

if you had search a little bit.... http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-34 ... flash.html

Bigun · Post by **Bigun** » Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:15 pm

Honestly.... how hard is it to take already ready-to-go source and compile it against a 64-bit kernel? I myself am appauled by the laziness. I'm going to gplflash.

alshain · Post by **alshain** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:05 am

R!tman wrote:
babo wrote:looks to me like gplflash 2 might be usefull before macromedia makes 64bit flash player, so maybe we should invest more energy in that one instead of some people who don't even reply to mails.
I believe this is the way to go. gplflash2 is available through cvs, but I have not seen an ebuild, yet.

All that gplflash2 has ever done for me in the couple of months of trying it is crash the browser every time I go to a flash web site. If they are making progress then it's unfortunately not visible.

Birtz · Post by **Birtz** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:00 am

alshain wrote: All that gplflash2 has ever done for me in the couple of months of trying it is crash the browser every time I go to a flash web site. If they are making progress then it's unfortunately not visible.

Ditto

But I am not giving up hope on them. It is free Flash viewer, better to write them bug reports and help them stand against "strongly-and-only" profit driven software companies like Macromedia who doesn't really care for customers (be there 1 or 2 percent market share for us).

Regards

FIy · Post by **FIy** » Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:30 pm

yes, done.

Koradji · Post by **Koradji** » Mon Aug 08, 2005 12:47 pm

Maybe, more useful than asking flash sites to either change or convince macromedia, we should ask flash sites to help support the gplflash project?

I understand people preferring an ebuild to building from cvs themselves. i can never remember how to do it.

shimage · Post by **shimage** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:43 am

bigun89 wrote:Honestly.... how hard is it to take already ready-to-go source and compile it against a 64-bit kernel? I myself am appauled by the laziness. I'm going to gplflash.

And I'm appalled at your spelling. It's easy enough to compile it without an ebuild, but since the only reason I use gentoo is because of portage, it pains me every time I have to do so.

mikemcquaid · Post by **mikemcquaid** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:00 am

shimage wrote:
bigun89 wrote:Honestly.... how hard is it to take already ready-to-go source and compile it against a 64-bit kernel? I myself am appauled by the laziness. I'm going to gplflash.
And I'm appalled at your spelling. It's easy enough to compile it without an ebuild, but since the only reason I use gentoo is because of portage, it pains me every time I have to do so.

He was talking about Macromedia, and how hard is it for them just to compile their linux flash source code for AMD64. In fact it is probably harder than you think. Not from personal experience, but look how hard it has been to get stuff like OOO.org, for example, working on AMD64. It's certainly not just a case of running gcc and it "just works".

Still, the size of the flash plugin and the size the source must be, it really is pathetically lazy for them not to bother.

Bigun · Post by **Bigun** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 11:10 am

mikearthur wrote:He was talking about Macromedia, and how hard is it for them just to compile their linux flash source code for AMD64. In fact it is probably harder than you think. Not from personal experience, but look how hard it has been to get stuff like OOO.org, for example, working on AMD64. It's certainly not just a case of running gcc and it "just works".

Still, the size of the flash plugin and the size the source must be, it really is pathetically lazy for them not to bother.

So your saying they've probably at least tried? Somehow I doubt even that.

shimage wrote:And I'm appalled at your spelling. It's easy enough to compile it without an ebuild, but since the only reason I use gentoo is because of portage, it pains me every time I have to do so.

Your my hero

geniux · Post by **geniux** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:26 pm

Have anyone got any answer from Macromedia?

ketjow · Post by **ketjow** » Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:44 pm

geniux wrote:Have anyone got any answer from Macromedia?

rhetorical question?

ehh.. i can't understand why they don't just compile this 2mb chunk of code on an athlon64 :/

AMD64 Flash Port

Woops!

Re: Woops!