Adobe releases 32-bit Flash update for Linux

JD jd1008 at
Wed Jun 16 20:37:56 UTC 2010

On 06/16/2010 01:29 PM, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
> "Robert G. (Doc) Savage"<dsavage at>  writes:
>> I can't imagine what has prompted Adobe to pack up their proverbial bat
>> &  ball and go home, abandoning 64-bit Flash development for all
>> platforms. I hope there's another explanation, because this is just
>> beyond dumb.
> I was reading an article about llvm, the new just-in-time-capable
> C-compiler and lo and behold they mentioned Adobe Flash as being one of
> the users of this on the Apple Mac target.  It appears LLVM bytecode
> gets converted to Flash "actioncode", which I assume is interpreted by
> an interpreter inside the flash executable.  Adobe seems to have built
> this Frankensteinein monster when most people simply want to play
> videos.  Surely we don't need a full-blown bytecode language to play
> videos???
> Giveen that they have been working on a 64-bit version of flash for over
> 2 years now and having only limited success, I'd wager that their
> actioncode and/or their interpreter itself is littered with address-size
> assumptions where they wantonly stuff addresses into ints and expect the
> process to be reversable.  (I've seen this in far too many "clever"
> programs.)  Adobe themselves admits that there are "architectural"
> issues preventing them from simply recompiling flash for a 64-bit
> target.
> -wolfgang
Right! It is this horribly inefficient monster that sucks 60 to 90 
percent of
my cpu every time I play a flash video online.
There has to be a better player of videos.
I hope someone comes up with a different way other than flash for 
playing video content within the browser - a way that will not be a cpu 

More information about the users mailing list