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)

57 Responses to New Installation Method

  1. Mario says:

    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.

  2. Simo says:

    i suggest you to provide a deb installar for ubuntu and please BTW … the 64bit edition. Bye

  3. Rob Beckett says:

    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. 🙂

  4. Dark Phoenix says:

    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)…

  5. none says:

    Is this a release *after* the beta or was the beta for the NEXT release? [ The latter. -Mike M. ]

  6. Lucianolev says:

    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.

  7. Jens Knutson says:

    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.

  8. Joseph says:

    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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. Paco Avila says:

    I also suggest an Ubuntu/Debian APT repository.

  12. nauj27 says:

    @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

  13. Anonymous says:

    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.

  14. belegdol says:

    How does this influence the third-party macromedia.mplug.org repo? They’ve been repackaging flash player for a while.

  15. Andre says:

    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.

  16. Dark Phoenix says:

    > @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-nonfreeAnd 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.

  17. Josh says:

    This is very good news, really seems like Adobe’s flash-plugin team isunderstand 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.

  18. Josh says:

    Some feedback on the flash plugin rpm packagebased on the nice rpmlint tool:The file/usr/lib/flash-plugin/READMEis not a script, remove thex bit from-rwxr–r– /usr/lib/flash-plugin/README$ chmod 0644 READMEThis files:/usr/lib/flash-plugin/setup/usr/lib/flash-plugin/homecleanuphas perms:-rwxr–r–not runable by user, change to-rwxr-xr-xto fix$ chmod 0755 setup$ chmod 0755 homecleanupFile/usr/share/doc/flash-plugin-9.0.31.0/readme.txthas Windows style end of line encoding,use the dos2unix to fix that$ dos2unix readme.txt

  19. Limulus says:

    “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).

  20. Adam Petaccia says:

    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.

  21. James Ward says:

    Flash 32 bits forces me to install Firefox 32 bits, Java 32 bits and Mplayer 32 bits 🙁

    Not if you use the nsplugin wrapper.

  22. Phy says:

    >New Installation MethodWell, 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.

  23. L says:

    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. ]

  24. Fedora 7 says:

    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 GMTServer: ApacheTransfer-Encoding: chunkedContent-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?

  25. Doener says:

    I would really prefer a .deb for Debian and Ubuntu instead …

  26. Denilson says:

    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).

  27. Zbigniew L. says:

    Adobe released:Shockwave Flash 9.0 r48 for LinuxUpdate date: 7/10/2007Changelog unknown.

  28. asac says:

    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

  29. Marcos Rodriguez says:

    Ubuntu .deb,, also, please a 64bit NATIVE version of Flash 9 🙂

  30. Vygantas says:

    Thank You. Linux is much better that Windows 🙂

  31. Nael M. says:

    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.

  32. Kelson says:

    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.

  33. GNU/Linux Fedora 7 User says:

    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-398705If 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.

  34. GNU/Linux Fedora 7 User says:

    Ooops I’m sorry I was refering to this posthttp://blogs.adobe.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi#comment-406053 not that post http://blogs.adobe.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi#comment-398705

  35. belegdol says:

    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.

  36. Jim Ramsay says:

    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.gzThis 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 🙂

  37. 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?

  38. scorpio810 says:

    It’s just as easy to install on 64 bit on debian sid 64 bits http://scorpio810.tuxfamily.org/nspluginwrapper.html

  39. 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?

  40. ffdg says:

    And what about shockwave player for linux?

  41. 64-bit user says:

    How long until a 64-bit flash is released?

  42. Ubuntu .deb,, also, please a 64bit NATIVE version of Flash 9 🙂

  43. Bitrod says:

    Thanks for all the great work 🙂

  44. Jim says:

    I also submit a vote for 64-bit Flash.

  45. Léo Studer says:

    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 !

  46. GNU/Linux says:

    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.

  47. DD says:

    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.

  48. erik says:

    Perhaps you should improve the installation of 64-bit plugin for Linux *cough* *cough* as well

  49. GNU/Linux says:

    @ Posted by: erik | August 16, 2007 05:44 AMPost 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.

  50. Eric says:

    any idea when we’ll get H.264 support?[ It’s here; check out the latest beta. -Mike M. ]

  51. Zaidimai says:

    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

  52. Kevin Verma says:

    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

  53. tomweb says:

    suggest an Ubuntu/Debian APT repository and wish i’t works good 😉

  54. mp3 indir says:

    any idea when we’ll get H.264 support? [ Yeah, in version 9.0r115, out now. -Mike M. ]

  55. Johnny depp says:

    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

  56. also what’s the primary reason for the lack of a 64-bit plugin?

  57. Locoxella (Andrés León Alvarez) says:

    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.