New Installation Method
So many ways to do things in Linux, like installation. Some users may be pleased to learn that we now support another method for installation, YUM. Get it on the official Flash Player 9 download page, in addition to the .tar.gz and .rpm packages (this is for the latest release, not the beta update announced yesterday)
Comments
Have you considered also setting up a debian repository for Debian/Ubuntu users? Ubuntu is quite popular these days, so something that users can get the updates regularly from would be great.
Posted by: Mario | June 14, 2007 02:58 PM
i suggest you to provide a deb installar for ubuntu and please BTW ... the 64bit edition. Bye
Posted by: Simo | June 14, 2007 03:49 PM
Agreed, a debian repository, or even just .deb packages, would be a godsend, as the current version of flash with debian/ubuntu is under version control (via apt), this would make it much easier to keep up to date. :)
Posted by: Rob Beckett | June 14, 2007 03:52 PM
Though I'm a Fedora user, you probably should provide a deb/apt version; that'd mean 9/10ths of all Linux install situations are covered (since most systems use rpm/yum or deb/apt)...
Posted by: Dark Phoenix | June 14, 2007 04:17 PM
Is this a release *after* the beta or was the beta for the NEXT release?
[ The latter. -Mike M. ]
Posted by: none | June 14, 2007 04:59 PM
Flash 32 bits forces me to install Firefox 32 bits, Java 32 bits and Mplayer 32 bits :(
Any chance to see a 64 bits version in near future?
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Lucianolev | June 14, 2007 05:13 PM
Bah! You post great news and all you get are complaints about not supporting Ubuntu.
Well, *I*, for one, *welcome* our new Flash yum-repo overlords! This is kickass - no more dicking around with manual installs and upgrades.
Posted by: Jens Knutson | June 14, 2007 07:01 PM
How about just providing a license such that the distros can distribute it themselves? Then you don't have to do anything but release one thing.
Posted by: Joseph | June 14, 2007 07:09 PM
Thank you so much for doing this. Even when proprietary software is quality its always such a paint to have to keep checking for new versions. Having a repository available makes things much easier.
Posted by: Russell Harrison | June 14, 2007 08:15 PM
Definitely. A Debian/Ubuntu repository in addition to the yum one.
Why is there no 64-bit version? A lot of people run 32-bit firefox'es in chroots or by other devious means in Debian-land because of Flash in the web browser...
Red Hat and other yum using distros don't suffer the same fate, because RPM does multiarch a lot better
Posted by: Colin Charles | June 14, 2007 09:35 PM
I also suggest an Ubuntu/Debian APT repository.
Posted by: Paco Avila | June 15, 2007 12:42 AM
@comments above: There are multiverse deb package for Ubuntu. Actual version there is 9.0.31.0.2ubuntu1.
i.e.: For Feisty Fawn you can find it at http://packages.ubuntu.com/feisty/web/flashplugin-nonfree
Posted by: nauj27 | June 15, 2007 12:55 AM
I agree with all of the above... Considering that ubuntu is currently the most popular desktop distro, it would be nice if we could get debs. That would make it easy to installs/uninstall for millions of ubuntu users. Maybe even a third party Adobe apt repo could be set up so we can automatically get updated directly from Adobe without having to wait for the updates to hit the ubuntu repositories.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 15, 2007 01:15 AM
How does this influence the third-party macromedia.mplug.org repo? They've been repackaging flash player for a while.
Posted by: belegdol | June 15, 2007 06:12 AM
I prefer this to the Macromedia repo, since installing the adobe-release RPM is easier than manually putting the macromedia-i386.repo file in the right place. I asked Mr. Togami a while back if he could package the .repo file and GPG key this way, but it never happened.
Posted by: Andre | June 15, 2007 10:11 PM
> @comments above: There are
> multiverse deb package for
> Ubuntu. Actual version there is
> 9.0.31.0.2ubuntu1.
> i.e.: For Feisty Fawn you can
> find it at
> http://packages.ubuntu.com/feisty/web/flashplugin-nonfree
And I can get the Flash Plugin from Livna on Fedora; however, it's more convenient to get it straight from Adobe, and it means you get the latest version faster.
Posted by: Dark Phoenix | June 19, 2007 10:32 PM
This is very good news, really seems like Adobe's flash-plugin team is
understand how things work in the Linux world.
Thanks!
BTW: if you could put Acroread for Linux in that yum repo it would of course be even better.
Posted by: Josh | June 22, 2007 01:20 AM
Some feedback on the flash plugin rpm package
based on the nice rpmlint tool:
The file
/usr/lib/flash-plugin/README
is not a script, remove the
x bit from
-rwxr--r-- /usr/lib/flash-plugin/README
This files:
/usr/lib/flash-plugin/setup
/usr/lib/flash-plugin/homecleanup
has perms:
-rwxr--r--
not runable by user, change to
-rwxr-xr-x
to fix
File
/usr/share/doc/flash-plugin-9.0.31.0/readme.txt
has Windows style end of line encoding,
use the dos2unix to fix that
Posted by: Josh | June 22, 2007 01:33 AM
"Paco Avila" wrote: "There are multiverse deb package for Ubuntu."
Let me quote what Ubuntu's Synaptic Package Manager has to say about the "flashplugin-nonfree" package:
"This package will download the Flash Player from Adobe."
IOW, its a work-around to the problem of Adobe not releasing the flash player as a DEB! :-)
If Adobe is packaging up their Linux Flash player in different formats, PLEASE add a DEB file (and a repository or let Canonical put the DEB in their commercial one).
Posted by: Limulus | June 24, 2007 01:57 PM
I'm not complaining / bickering, but just out of curiosity, why would Adobe choose to support one package over another? Or why not release both at the same time. Its not terribly difficult (at least not on .deb). Like I said, just curious about why.
Posted by: Adam Petaccia | June 24, 2007 06:23 PM
Not if you use the nsplugin wrapper.
Posted by: James Ward | June 26, 2007 10:24 AM
>New Installation Method
Well, that's great and all, but it really isn't needed. Any installer program should be able to take a simple tar, or RPM. However it is nice to know you're thoughtful enough to put forth the effort.
I'm still not seeing any sign of a x64_86 version of Flash on any OS, so I guess I shouldn't complain. It's rather a problem for me, though seeing as my webcam doesn't work with the nsplugin wrapper, nor does it like to record any sound.
Posted by: Phy | June 27, 2007 02:07 AM
I know this has been taken up (at least) a hundred times before, but I'm also missing a 64-bit version of the plugin.
Having to use 32-bit stuff, like browsers, etc. isn't a big deal imho, but now that there's webcam support built into the plugin there seem to be no way of using it on a 64-bit system.
All this since the 64-bit kernel with V4L support is incompatible with the 32-bit plugin. The /dev/video0 device is detected, but not as a proper V4L device (wrong ELF class, etc. etc.).
As said, going 32-bit when it comes to the browser isn't much fuss, but reinstalling the whole system..!? =/
... also what's the primary reason for the lack of a 64-bit plugin?
Nice to see all of the development going on tho!
[ http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2006/10/whats_so_difficult_64bit_editi.html -Mike M. ]
Posted by: L | June 27, 2007 09:09 AM
I have two questions. First, for some reason this repo doesn't work on Fedora 7. It shows error "http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/repodata/repomd.xml: [Errno 14] HTTP Error 404: Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 01:34:38 GMT
Server: Apache
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Trying other mirror.
Error: Cannot open/read repomd.xml file for repository: adobe-linux".
Well I know there is no native Flash for 64bit environment but there are two ways of using Flash under 64bit. First is to use 32bit browser and second is to use nspluginwrapper in 64bit browser. So there is really no point in preventing 64bit users from using this repo (because I think this is the problem here).
Second question is that what differences are between this official Adobe repo and unofficial from this site http://macromedia.mplug.org/index.html?
Posted by: Fedora 7 | July 1, 2007 01:11 AM
I would really prefer a .deb for Debian and Ubuntu instead ...
Posted by: Doener | July 1, 2007 10:18 AM
Right now, I don't care about installation method, since the distro will be able to package it anyway.
Right now, I just wanted that Audio recording worked. It simply doesn't! It does not work with latest stable, and also not with latest beta (which does not support any capture at all).
Posted by: Denilson | July 4, 2007 06:27 AM
Adobe released:
Shockwave Flash 9.0 r48 for Linux
Update date: 7/10/2007
Changelog unknown.
Posted by: Zbigniew L. | July 12, 2007 09:31 AM
Hi!
Its really appreciated that you update your flash tarball, however ... this roll out causes issues for users, because the mirrors take time to get in sync. So atm, its just broken for lots of ubuntu/debian users .... which is not really nice.
The solution is simple ... include the minor version in the filename for the download and keep the old versions online ... at least for a transitional period.
Ah ... to get further bonus points, please publish your md5sum somewhere officially as well.
- Alexander
Posted by: asac | July 13, 2007 02:46 AM
Ubuntu .deb,, also, please a 64bit NATIVE version of Flash 9 :-)
Posted by: Marcos Rodriguez | July 13, 2007 09:25 PM
Thank You. Linux is much better that Windows :-)
Posted by: Vygantas | July 15, 2007 12:37 PM
I don't know why there's always complaints about 64-bit support. There's no 64-bit Flash for Windows or Mac either, yet the Linux user protest like they're the only ones who are missing 64-bit support. It mystifies me.
Posted by: Nael M. | July 15, 2007 08:08 PM
Wow... lots of complaints about what's still missing. On a positive note, I'd like to say thanks for what *has* been added: as a user of 32-bit Fedora, I appreciate the availability through yum.
Posted by: Kelson | July 16, 2007 10:18 AM
1)Vygantas said:
"I don't know why there's always complaints about 64-bit support. There's no 64-bit Flash for Windows or Mac either, yet the Linux user protest like they're the only ones who are missing 64-bit support. It mystifies me."
Maybe because GNU/Linux users love innovations and dislike stagnation policy of MegaCorporations? I have been using 64bit GNU/Linux system for years, yet I have to wait for Microsoft to move its a**. For Gods sake I don't want to wait for Microsoft s permission to use 64bit technology, 64bit OS will be archaic then >:(
2)In response to my own question http://blogs.adobe.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi#comment-398705
If you are using repo from http://macromedia.mplug.org in Fedora it will automagically delete itself and add new repo from Adobe so no further actions are required. And bug with not working Adobe repo is fixed now.
Posted by: GNU/Linux Fedora 7 User | July 17, 2007 06:18 AM
Ooops I'm sorry I was refering to this post
http://blogs.adobe.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi#comment-406053 not that post http://blogs.adobe.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi#comment-398705
Posted by: GNU/Linux Fedora 7 User | July 17, 2007 12:24 PM
How about adding adobe-release itself to the repo? Not only it would not be listed by yum list extras anymore, but also would get updated automatically should any changes happen.
Posted by: belegdol | July 19, 2007 01:37 AM
Gentoo also has a package for Adobe flash-player, but we've run into a bit of a snag, related to the way the tarball releases are named.
To make a long story short, please change the filename install_flash_player_9_linux.tar.gz to install_flash_player_9.0.48.0_linux.tar.gz
This way when a new release comes out, it won't break the existing ebuild in portage.
The long version hinges around the fact that Adobe's license prohibits us from hosting a versioned copy of the tarball on our own mirrors, so the ebuild downloads 'install_flash_player_9_linux.tar.gz' from Adobe directly, checks that the MD5sum matches, and installs it. Now, when Adobe releases a new version with the identical filename, suddenly the MD5sum stops matching after download, and any new installs break.
Thanks for your consideration :)
Posted by: Jim Ramsay | July 19, 2007 10:25 AM
My computer has two OS. Most of the time, I’m working on my stuff online through Fedora. But I noticed that as I was downloading and adding more add-ons or plugins through Fedora, my other OS when used doesn’t function properly anymore. The last thing I added was the flash player plugin at FF. When I checked it through Windows, my other players weren’t functioning anymore. Can you tell me how to solve this? Or should I let go of the other OS?
Posted by: Portrait artists | July 21, 2007 12:49 AM
It’s just as easy to install on 64 bit on debian sid 64 bits http://scorpio810.tuxfamily.org/nspluginwrapper.html
Posted by: scorpio810 | July 25, 2007 08:03 AM
I think an Adobe Debian/Ubuntu repository it's a very important step for the player ... and for the users. Could you please make it happen?
Posted by: Henry Contreras | July 31, 2007 02:26 PM
And what about shockwave player for linux?
Posted by: ffdg | August 4, 2007 04:40 AM
How long until a 64-bit flash is released?
Posted by: 64-bit user | August 4, 2007 08:10 AM
Ubuntu .deb,, also, please a 64bit NATIVE version of Flash 9 :-)
Posted by: Poker-VS-Poker | August 4, 2007 10:45 PM
Thanks for all the great work :)
Posted by: Bitrod | August 5, 2007 07:04 AM
I also submit a vote for 64-bit Flash.
Posted by: Jim | August 6, 2007 08:20 AM
Well, its is been almost one year now since the first beta release of flash 9 for linux i386, and well, I'm still looking forward to a amd64 port!
Now this is where we see the limitations of the adobe closed source process over flash: adobe want flash to be a widespread technology, but adobe close the sources and thus hold back the port of this technology to other platforms.
Let open up this flashhole, GPL is the way !
Posted by: Léo Studer | August 8, 2007 03:36 AM
64bit GNU/Linux system with 64bit version of Gnash 0.8.0 in 64bit version of Firefox 2 can actually play some YouTube videos. Yes, I know Gnash can't handle most of Flash 9 videos, however it _does_ play some of them today! I don't believe it is so hard to make native 64bit Flash for GNU/Linux. I also know that 64bit Windows is not in wide use, but who cares? Do we need to wait for Microsoft to create and adopt 64bit Flash? Come on, Microsoft is doing Silverlight which is really dangerous to Flash. Wake up Adobe, you could win some market share now by releasing the long awaited Flash 9 for 64bit systems.
Posted by: GNU/Linux | August 12, 2007 02:00 PM
Flash 64bit isn't released on Windows or Mac. If you look at the changelog for this version, you'll see they are working on MULTI-CORE support and base-line speed improvements that will benefit ALL users, not just the hard-core users. 64bit isn't easy. Just look at Adobe/Macromedia's entire software stack. You don't see a lot of 64bit. These apps have large codebases with lots of low-level assembly, not built for 64bit. Be patient. It's on their roadmap.
Posted by: DD | August 14, 2007 10:27 AM
Perhaps you should improve the installation of 64-bit plugin for Linux *cough* *cough* as well
Posted by: erik | August 16, 2007 05:44 AM
@ Posted by: erik | August 16, 2007 05:44 AM
Post a comment
"Perhaps you should improve the installation of 64-bit plugin for Linux *cough* *cough* as well"
I don't get it, how can be improved something that doesn't exist yet? An installation of 32bit Flash plugin is a breeze so there will be no problem with 64bit plugin.
Posted by: GNU/Linux | August 20, 2007 02:31 PM
any idea when we'll get H.264 support?
[ It's here; check out the latest beta. -Mike M. ]
Posted by: Eric | August 21, 2007 10:13 AM
On a positive note, I'd like to say thanks for what had been added: as a user of 62-bit Fedora, I appreciate the availability through yeah
Posted by: Zaidimai | November 10, 2007 03:11 AM
Hello,
Thanks for providing Flash plugin for Linux and especially yum repos.
Will you please like to share your download stats of flash-plugin download with the community ?
This will in-directly help to know the count of Linux user-base adobe has seen so far.
Thanks,
Kevin Verma
Posted by: Kevin Verma | November 12, 2007 02:54 PM
suggest an Ubuntu/Debian APT repository and wish i't works good ;)
Posted by: tomweb | November 19, 2007 10:49 AM
any idea when we'll get H.264 support?
[ Yeah, in version 9.0r115, out now. -Mike M. ]
Posted by: mp3 indir | January 1, 2008 03:52 PM
Flash 64bit isn't released on Windows or Mac. If you look at the changelog for this version, you'll see they are working on MULTI-CORE support
Posted by: Johnny depp | January 1, 2008 03:54 PM
also what's the primary reason for the lack of a 64-bit plugin?
Posted by: ensest hikayeler | January 15, 2008 04:48 PM
Debian repos will be also a good addition. Or even better, teaming up with canonical to be listed on the comercial repos.
Flash 64 bits its something everybodt its waiting for, even Windows users, not only Unix based OSs users. So no need to rush the guys on that one, they are working a lot already to get a 64bit version.
Posted by: Locoxella (Andrés León Alvarez) | February 21, 2008 01:33 AM