Re: Slashdot Article - Why Won't Macromedia Release 64-bit Flash?
On Wednesday 19 October 2005 09:00 pm, lordSauron wrote:
> couldn't you apt-build an i386 version of it? Or is the source not
> public? In any case, wouldn't it be possible to re-label the i386
> version amd64, since the processor will run it natively anyway? I say
> that because in my experience the only way to change the distro's
> architecture identification is to reinstall - not a good idea if you
> still want to use amd64 stuff.
He wishes to use it in a pure-64 environment. You're asking him to install
and load a bunch of compatibility libraries just to do webmasters the favor
of viewing their content.
Plus, it's not enough to have the plugin run as i386. Your browser must also
be a 32-bit application, which causes other problems, among them the
inability (or at least added complexity) of using your packaging system. I
know this applies to Firefox, I think 64-bit Konqueror can use 32-bit Flash.
> The way I read you, you're campaigning to remove all flash content
> from every web site - not going to happen in a million years. You'd
> be better off campaigning for a amd64 version. Plus Flash adds too
> much content to the web to safely dispose of - many sites would be
> rendered much less interesting... though just think of all the
> bandwidth we'd save....
I think you're right that that's not going to happen, as nice as it might be.
But why not state our position? And why not agitate for both?
Reply to: