Adobe finally announces Flash 9 player final for Linux

[FormerDittoHead]

http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash

[RoyGBiv]

1. Praise the gods ...

I really hate Flash. I really, really do. But it's like a drug. I *need* my YouTube fix. And I know it worked fine with version 7, but a lot of sites were going to content that required version 9, and it was irritating.

I've been using an early beta, which worked fine most of the time, but it's nice that it's official now.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. This is...

Something of a big deal.

[Syrinx]

3. I noticed that the hardware requirements...

Are significantly higher for the Linux version than the Windows version. I wonder if this is because the Linux version is actually the Windows version with WINE embedded?

:shrug:

[RoyGBiv]

4. X probably ...

Probably more overhead with X.

It's not wrapped up with wine, however.

[Syrinx]

5. I didn't think of that

512mb v. 128mb of memory seems pretty extreme to be a matter of X. But maybe that's it. Thanks for info.

[RoyGBiv]

6. I don't know for sure ...

I just know that running an X session can be memory intensive when you start adding the kind of tasks that Flash does.

That said, I've never *noticed* a problem running previous versions of Flash on systems with 256MB of system memory. Flash 9 for Linux is quite a bit bigger than previous versions, though, and I've not actually tried it on a system with that little memory. I suspect that some of the newer features, many of which aren't actually utilized by a lot of Flash implementations, may be part of the reason for this.

Again, though, I'm mostly guessing.

[Syrinx]

7. your guesses are usually correct

No reason to suspect you aren't right on this too! :hi: