OS2 World.Com Forum

Subject  :  This is getting old, we really need an updated FLASH
Author  :  Sebadoh sys3175@optonline.net
Date  :  28 Mar, 2007 on 20:53
It is really starting to get old now that we do not have an updated flash player, as more and more sites are making flash 8+ mandatory due to bugs in the 7.0 tree it is getting harder and harder to even navigate basic sites now with OS/2.

Subject  :  Re:This is getting old, we really need an updated FLASH
Author  :  BigWarpGuy
Date  :  28 Mar, 2007 on 22:18
I am hoping that more people will donate to the Flash bounty. It would make more appealing to have some one take the time to port it to OS/2 -eCS.

---
BigWarpGuy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OS/2-eCS.org
Director of Communications
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
supporting the past OS/2 user and the future eCS user
http://www.os2ecs.org

Subject  :  Re:This is getting old, we really need an updated FLASH
Author  :  obiwan
Date  :  28 Mar, 2007 on 22:32
Any word on the Flash code that was supposed to be donated to the Mozilla Foundation? Where it can be found? What it is?

That would make such a port conceivable, but it's still a big job.


Subject  :  Re:This is getting old, we really need an updated FLASH
Author  :  abwillis abwillis1@gmail.com
Date  :  28 Mar, 2007 on 22:40
As best I can tell it is not the Flash code but rather the javascript engine that is used by flash that was donated. The mozilla project is called Tamarin.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061107-8170.html
describes it pretty well. Tamarin will become necessary for the Mozilla browsers for the javascript engine in the future but will be of limited benefit for Flash plugin.
Andy

Subject  :  Re:This is getting old, we really need an updated FLASH
Author  :  obiwan
Date  :  29 Mar, 2007 on 00:08
Thanks for the clarification, Andy. Following the link you provided and reading the details of the Tamarin project I come to the same conclusion.

The next question is how would a current Flash port be possible? To my knowledge nothing open source is anywhere close to current.


Subject  :  Re:This is getting old, we really need an updated FLASH
Author  :  BigWarpGuy
Date  :  29 Mar, 2007 on 02:02
"Perhaps as an alternative to GNASH there also is FAD (Open Source Flash Animation Decode library), see http://fad.sourceforge.net/. As that is based on the SDL and cairo graphics libraries that we already have for OS/2 this might be a lot easier to port." This is from the bounties section of the forum.

Could this be ported to OS/2 -as was suggested?

---
BigWarpGuy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OS/2-eCS.org
Director of Communications
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
supporting the past OS/2 user and the future eCS user
http://www.os2ecs.org


Subject  :  Re:This is getting old, we really need an updated FLASH
Author  :  Smedles
Date  :  29 Mar, 2007 on 02:29

BigWarpGuy (28 Mar, 2007 22:1:
I am hoping that more people will donate to the Flash bounty. It would make more appealing to have some one take the time to port it to OS/2 -eCS.

That's all well and good - but does gnash currently offer anything better than we currently have? As I understand it, it's not even fully compatible with Flash 7 yet, let alone Flash 8.

and libfad doesn't even appear to claim to support any specific level of flash....


Subject  :  Re:This is getting old, we really need an updated FLASH
Author  :  obiwan
Date  :  29 Mar, 2007 on 02:41
Even Flash 9 for Linux is out, filling the void that might otherwise motivate OSS development. Smedles is right, GNASH is considerable trouble for a halfway solution, and FAD might possibly be easier but most likely is even less complete.

Subject  :  Re:This is getting old, we really need an updated FLASH
Author  :  cyberspittle cyberspittle@yahoo.com
Date  :  29 Mar, 2007 on 04:06
Adobe has a web page to request a feature:

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

Perhaps we can get a petition going to get flash support for eComStation. Now that I think about it, why isn't Serenity Systems doing this for us? They can clearly provide numbers on x-number of copies sold. I even noticed on Adobe's website that they are beta testing Flash Player 9 for Solaris (x86 and Sparc platforms). How about? Let's get this going!!


Subject  :  Re:This is getting old, we really need an updated FLASH
Author  :  zman zirkle@wizard.net
Date  :  29 Mar, 2007 on 07:16

cyberspittle (29 Mar, 2007 04:06):
[snip]

Now that I think about it, why isn't Serenity Systems doing this for us? They can clearly provide numbers on x-number of copies sold. I even noticed on Adobe's website that they are beta testing Flash Player 9 for Solaris (x86 and Sparc platforms). How about? Let's get this going!!


serenity, not stardock, was chosen by ibm to continue os/2 for its remaining service life. the stardock path was soho oriented. the serenity / innotek is migration off os/2 to linux or windows. stardock would have tried to get license agreements with adobe, etc. ssi does not care about multimedia because fortune 500 doesn't. fortune 500 pays $$$$. os/2 users are now few and always to cheap and full of complaints (i have bitter personal experience from my independent pc company).

thank you very much for the good news about the solaris version i was losing hope there too! good, looks like sun is going to get an upgrade order for my enterprise v10 suite. good stuff!

i've tested several linux versions; but ... sigh

actually, with vector graphics engine and all mac beats all. even the impressive vista which also uses vector graphics. both leave os/2 in the stone age; but, i still love it; though i'm using windows more and more.


Subject  :  Re:This is getting old, we really need an updated FLASH
Author  :  Sebadoh sys3175@optonline.net
Date  :  29 Mar, 2007 on 15:42
I can't even take you seriously anymore. Stardock would have done nothing for OS/2.. actually they weren't even seriously interested in doing anything with it, they just wanted a little pr because they knew IBM wouldn't let them do anything. Serenity isn't trying to migrate people off of OS/2... Innotek is.. but Innotek is an IBM development partner, I believe you loose your development partner status if you even talk of resurrecting OS/2. It would be stupid for SSI to be investing any money in OS/2 at all if they planned on migration. On the other hand, there are certain things that SSI cannot over come. On whole, most OS/2 users will be migrating within the next 5-10 years. This isn't because SSI wants us to, but because it will no longer be a suitable platform. Right now the core OS/2 is OLD. It is only going to get older, with no significant updates. No translation onto more modern hardware, and just providing drivers at some point will cease to improve the situation. Since everything is going to be working in legacy mode, at and some point legacy mode will cease to exist.

Thank you for taking this totally off topic btw.. this was really more a question of whether someone could provide flash 8/9 support in the same way that flash 7 was provided. Or possibly it would be easier working with the Linux binary then with windows binary.. depending on what toolkits were used for the Linux flash 9 player.


zman (29 Mar, 2007 07:16):

cyberspittle (29 Mar, 2007 04:06):
[snip]

Now that I think about it, why isn't Serenity Systems doing this for us? They can clearly provide numbers on x-number of copies sold. I even noticed on Adobe's website that they are beta testing Flash Player 9 for Solaris (x86 and Sparc platforms). How about? Let's get this going!!


serenity, not stardock, was chosen by ibm to continue os/2 for its remaining service life. the stardock path was soho oriented. the serenity / innotek is migration off os/2 to linux or windows. stardock would have tried to get license agreements with adobe, etc. ssi does not care about multimedia because fortune 500 doesn't. fortune 500 pays $$$$. os/2 users are now few and always to cheap and full of complaints (i have bitter personal experience from my independent pc company).

thank you very much for the good news about the solaris version i was losing hope there too! good, looks like sun is going to get an upgrade order for my enterprise v10 suite. good stuff!

i've tested several linux versions; but ... sigh

actually, with vector graphics engine and all mac beats all. even the impressive vista which also uses vector graphics. both leave os/2 in the stone age; but, i still love it; though i'm using windows more and more.



Subject  :  Re:This is getting old, we really need an updated FLASH
Author  :  zman zirkle@wizard.net
Date  :  29 Mar, 2007 on 20:41
[quote]Sebadoh (29 Mar, 2007 15:42):
I can't even take you seriously anymore.

os/2 is dead dude get over it ah


Subject  :  Re:This is getting old, we really need an updated FLASH
Author  :  RobertM
Date  :  30 Mar, 2007 on 00:54

zman (29 Mar, 2007 20:41):
[quote]Sebadoh (29 Mar, 2007 15:42):
I can't even take you seriously anymore.

os/2 is dead dude get over it ah


Wanna hear something funny? I have over 100 ambulance companies interested in an OS/2 server solution because they wish to maintain data integrity, hardware investment, and data security. Really dead it seems, as more entities who need mission critical solutions that require no maintenance are turning to us in lieu of the Windows solutions they had been running for all their server stuff. Do you have any idea how many of them, once shown the server apps have the same capabilities, were swayed by simply the fact it isnt Windows, it's secure, it wont require a new hardware investment every few years for the accumulated patches or new version? Feature for feature isnt selling us - that's getting our foot in the door. That it is OS/2 (or more accurately eComStation) IS selling our products.


Subject  :  Re:This is getting old, we really need an updated FLASH
Author  :  cyberspittle cyberspittle@yahoo.com
Date  :  30 Mar, 2007 on 04:33
Glad I could help out ...

Subject  :  Re:This is getting old, we really need an updated FLASH
Author  :  Andi
Date  :  30 Mar, 2007 on 12:53
There's a thread on

http://www.os2.de/ultraboard/helpdesk/?id=108489

about patching the flash 7 plugin to identify itself f.i. as 9.069.

If I understand it right, you have to patch npswf2.dll first with the os/2 patch command (didn't hear about that before), and then to patch npswf32.dll manually with a hex editor.

Most sites do not use the flash 8 extensions but refuses to work if the flash version is lower than 8. The patched 7.xx version seem to work on that sites.


Subject  :  Re:This is getting old, we really need an updated FLASH
Author  :  melf mikaelelf@os2ug.se
Date  :  30 Mar, 2007 on 14:23
If you just want to have entrance to webbsites just accepting e.g flash 9.069, you can edit pluginreg.dat in the Firefox folder. Change value to 9.0 r 69 as below. Restart FF. There is an earlier thread about it. The changes does not disappear after reboot. I do not understand german but followed a link to www.myvideo.de. Befor change I wasn't allowed, after change I could watch movies (that workes with flash 7of course) without problems.

[PLUGINS]
D:\HOME\DEFAULT\Mozilla\plugins\npswf2.dll:$
:$
1067622360000:1:7:$
Shockwave Flash 9.0 r69<br>OS/2 Runtime Environment &#169; 2003 <a href=http://www.innotek.de>InnoTek&#174; Systemberatung </a>:$
Shockwave Flash:$
1
0:application/x-shockwave-flash:Shockwave Flash:swf:$

---
/Mikael


Subject  :  Re:This is getting old, we really need an updated FLASH
Author  :  Edu eduard@totcontes.com
Date  :  30 Mar, 2007 on 17:42
Well, Flash 8 implemented some new things. The most critical is a new font engine which offers a more clear fonts.

If you test a "pure" flash made with flash 8 having "pure" texts ( that is, text that are not images ), probably you won't be able to see any text. This caused me a BIG trouble when testing some flash application over Linux ( with Flash 7 on that time )

The problem, in fact, is: Flash player 9 uses an ActionScript revision ( ActionScript 3.0 ), while Flash 7 and 8 uses ActionScript 2.0. A new engine is required for new flash applications.

And the whole problem is: Adobe licenses only flash for running on platforms where is ported -natively-. No workarounds allowed such as odin or libc for BSD's.


Subject  :  Re:This is getting old, we really need an updated FLASH
Author  :  obiwan
Date  :  30 Mar, 2007 on 20:04
Even if the license does say workarounds aren't allowed, it seems unlikely that Adobe would have any intention of enforcing that against OS/2 users. Is there any evidence that any attempt has been made to stop *BSD users from wrapping the Linux player?

If Adobe rejects a plea for an OS/2 port (and a Google search reveals an ignored petition for a FreeBSD port with apparently thousands of "signatures") then "Odinizing" v. 8 or 9 of the Win32 player, if possible, seems entirely fair; and patronizing their platform in this way would seem to offer more of a favor to Adobe than scrupulously obeying the license terms.

I don't really know, but from what evidence I see that would seem to be more likely successful than attempting to use the Linux binary somehow.


Subject  :  Re:This is getting old, we really need an updated FLASH
Author  :  Sebadoh sys3175@optonline.net
Date  :  30 Mar, 2007 on 20:57
I agree.. I would like to know if this is even possible. But, I would love to see a real upgrade not just a work around to get past page scripting and allowing the older flash to attempt to load the code. I understand if Innotek cannot officially do this due to the fact that they do not want prosecution but is there a developer out there that even knows how innotek did it?

BTW.. it is quite clear that adobe has their head up their *** when it comes to licensing ANY product. How in the world did these clowns ever get the market share that they have when they basically stop any actual technological progress which may occur. They basically are trying to lock all set top boxes, tablet pc's and pda's into Windows. This is completely stupid, especially from a developer who has little to do with Microsoft and actually competes against Microsoft.


obiwan (30 Mar, 2007 20:04):
Even if the license does say workarounds aren't allowed, it seems unlikely that Adobe would have any intention of enforcing that against OS/2 users. Is there any evidence that any attempt has been made to stop *BSD users from wrapping the Linux player?

If Adobe rejects a plea for an OS/2 port (and a Google search reveals an ignored petition for a FreeBSD port with apparently thousands of "signatures") then "Odinizing" v. 8 or 9 of the Win32 player, if possible, seems entirely fair; and patronizing their platform in this way would seem to offer more of a favor to Adobe than scrupulously obeying the license terms.

I don't really know, but from what evidence I see that would seem to be more likely successful than attempting to use the Linux binary somehow.



Powered by UltraBoard 2000 <www.ub2k.com>