Go wine devels.

[chalbersma]

I've been trying to get Flash 10 working for quite sometime now. In the end I was able to get flash9 and flash7 to work fairly flawlessly with both ffox and opera. But then I had this weird idea. Why not try to install opera using wine and install flash 10 that way? I couldn't think of any good reason to not give it a try and lone behold it works without a hitch!

So to all you out there who just want to use that site that happens to use flash 10 or don't mind the slight speed hit using wine, this is an excellent way to get it.

And thanks to the wine devels and to the port maintainers. Good job guys!

[Dru]

chalbersma,

kind of funny you mentioned this, I was just contemplating last night if it would just be better to ditch using the Linux emulation, and just install the Windows version of Firefox, and use it for flash.

Ive installed flash 10 with Linux-f10, and Linux-f8(separate installs), both worked, but I notice my browser isnt as snappy on flash sites, and for some reason the flash uploader on photobucket becomes half broken with the Linux flash, whereas if I dont have flash installed, photobucket detects that, and uses the old uploader.

Also when a page has flash content, my cpu usually reads atleast 30% in use. I really dont have a need for most flash content on pages myself anyhow, so using excessive cpu to display ads gets a little annoying.

On the other hand, I have installed a bloated 80mb .exe media center to Wine, which I use to watch streaming flash movies, and it also has a Youtube plugin. The cpu percentage rarely ever goes over 10%, and thats only when Im doing multiple things.

I dont remember what the cpu usage was when I did have the Win version of Firefox, and flash installed on another drive, but Im almost betting there is actually more of a performance hit using Linux emulation.

Im really surprised how well Wine works. Here's another thanks to the Wine developers.

[robbak]

Yes, wine has really come on in recent times. It is largely because they are now in the "last few bugs" position, where every fixed bug moves problem apps to and between "works well" and "works perfectly".
I wonder how difficult a wine nspluginwrapper would be?

[chalbersma]

That sounds like an excellent idea. I mean if were going to emulate another system to run flash then we might as well cut to the source.

[copypaiste]

Originally Posted by Dru

chalbersma,

kind of funny you mentioned this, I was just contemplating last night if it would just be better to ditch using the Linux emulation, and just install the Windows version of Firefox, and use it for flash.

Ive installed flash 10 with Linux-f10, and Linux-f8(separate installs), both worked, but I notice my browser isnt as snappy on flash sites, and for some reason the flash uploader on photobucket becomes half broken with the Linux flash, whereas if I dont have flash installed, photobucket detects that, and uses the old uploader.

Also when a page has flash content, my cpu usually reads atleast 30% in use. I really dont have a need for most flash content on pages myself anyhow, so using excessive cpu to display ads gets a little annoying.
...

I'm using to block these annoying ads with the flashblock addon of firefox.

[Ruler2112]

Originally Posted by copypaiste

I'm using to block these annoying ads with the flashblock addon of firefox.

I know this is off-topic, but wanted to let you know about an add-on for Firefox called NoScript. It blocks Java, JavaScript, Flash, etc on a per-site basis. Like FlashBlock, but more comprehensive IMO.

[SirDice]

Originally Posted by Ruler2112

I know this is off-topic, but wanted to let you know about an add-on for Firefox called NoScript. It blocks Java, JavaScript, Flash, etc on a per-site basis. Like FlashBlock, but more comprehensive IMO.

NoScript works on the native Firefox too

[phoenix]

And it's even more fine-grained than "per site". It's "per scriptable item on the page".

[Dru]

Hey guys,

Thanks for the tip on NoScript, I'll check it out, Ive been using adblocker for awhile, and it does a fair job, but some sites the little "block" tab doesnt show on the flash, dunno why.

Shame on me, but I actually use a simple flash object for the header on my site, because its just easier for me to whip a new one out with Swishmax, and set the background to transparent in the html, Im not that good with image editors. I use javascript to embed the flash, and it shows the "block" tab on mine, so Im unsure how they are calling the flash. Hate javascript, but it was the only way to bypass the stupid "click to activate" in Internet Exploder.

Even though I use flash, I cant wait to see the day Adobe goes under, they deserve it.

Sorry for rambling offtopic also.

[Oko]

Originally Posted by Dru

I cant wait to see the day Adobe goes under, they deserve it.

You will have to wait for a very long time. Some people are waiting for it since mid 1980s. They are way too good and smart to go under. Just think Post Script language and Portable Document Format.


Flash is just a container format for rtmp streaming media protocol invented by Micromedia and bought by Adobe. As long as you can specify the url of the rtmp streaming protocol (sometimes they are tunneled via https) you can use flvstreamer or rtmpdump to dump flv files from any server and watch with MPlayer. RTMP is broken protocol.

By the way you might want to think what are you going to do with those Flash supper cookies. They can live for ever and disclose all sorts of neat things about you

[chalbersma]

You can just nuke the flash cookies every so often.

[DutchDaemon]

Or leave it to the BetterPrivacy plugin for FF, which does just that.