Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
> > 
> >     Not really on Linux. It eats up the CPU, and doesn't seem to utilize
> > many capabilities of the graphics card - which the Windows plugins do.
> > 

> The Linux Flash is still a crappy piece of shit. It's a resource hog and
> still it's amazingly stupid (eg. won't handle second soundcard, even
> though it supports ALSA).

  Hardly Linux's own fault given that Flash is, at least in principle,
a proprietary format owned by Adobe, who also makes the Linux Flash plugin.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   Hardly Linux's own fault given that Flash is, at least in principle,
> a proprietary format owned by Adobe, who also makes the Linux Flash plugin.
> 

I fully agree, the fault is on Adobe, which doesn't seem to be keen to
allocate resources to get the freaking thing to work. But still it's the
Linux version that's ultimately crappy, AFAIK Windows-Flash works much
better.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > 
> >   Hardly Linux's own fault given that Flash is, at least in principle,
> > a proprietary format owned by Adobe, who also makes the Linux Flash plugin.
> > 

> I fully agree, the fault is on Adobe, which doesn't seem to be keen to
> allocate resources to get the freaking thing to work. But still it's the
> Linux version that's ultimately crappy, AFAIK Windows-Flash works much
> better.

  But you can't blame Linux for that.

  OTOH the current plugin can be used for basically any Flash app out
there, so it's better than nothing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   But you can't blame Linux for that.

Yes, I already agreed on that (and have agreed all the time). It just
doesn't remove that Adobe piles more sucking on Linux-plugin than on
Windows-plugin.

>   OTOH the current plugin can be used for basically any Flash app out
> there, so it's better than nothing.

Yes, if you have enough power. I think I do now, I haven't yet got my
new workstation (Q9550, 8GiB etc) to lag with flash, while my laptop
(C2D T5600 (1,8GHz), 4GiB etc) couldn't play youtube videos with flash,
since I didn't have enough CPU power (OTOH, MPlayer plaid them with
under 1% of CPU usage...).

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:23:40 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> I'd be surprised if that actually works.
> 
> The option you want to change might be at default, and thus there's no
> entry for it in the config file. It might have a highly non-obvious
> name. Or it might be configured from a totally different file. (E.g.,
> there is [presumably] a file somewhere which configures your network
> interfaces. But the DNS configuration is in an entirely unrelated file.)

Most Linux/Unix config files include defaults commented out - that's 
pretty standard.  So grepping does work quite well.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:24:48 -0600, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 11/23/09 21:38, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> http://www.xkcd.com/619/
>>>> Full-screen flash video support has been around for a while.
>>> 	Not really on Linux. It eats up the CPU, and doesn't seem to
>> utilize
>>> many capabilities of the graphics card - which the Windows plugins do.
>>
>> I use it quite frequently, and while it does suck CPU, it does run full
>> screen, which is what the claim there was....
>>
>> "Works for me"....
> 
> 	Ah. You have a fast CPU.

AMD-64 2 GHz dual core processor - not really blazingly fast by today's 
standards.  That's the desktop machine.  The Dell laptop is a single core 
(I believe) Intel 32-bit processor that runs at about 2 GHz as well.  
I've a slower laptop in the office (a Thinkpad t42p) that's slower and 
still seems to handle it OK.

> 	It's like saying "X works", when you don't have 3-D working. A 
major
> "feature" of the plugin fails to work. From my perspective, that means
> it *doesn't* work.
> 
> 	Anyway, on many computers, including mine, playing HD videos full
> screen on Flash gets jerky. CPU can't handle it, and the CPU isn't
> supposed to handle it - the video card is.

I don't disagree with that - I'm not saying it's the best engineered 
piece of software in the world, but I am saying that it works well enough 
for the rare occasions I do use it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11/25/09 16:02, Jim Henderson wrote:
> AMD-64 2 GHz dual core processor - not really blazingly fast by today's
> standards.  That's the desktop machine.  The Dell laptop is a single core
> (I believe) Intel 32-bit processor that runs at about 2 GHz as well.
> I've a slower laptop in the office (a Thinkpad t42p) that's slower and
> still seems to handle it OK.

	Try Hulu. Set whatever you're watching to the highest quality, and then 
switch to full screen. On my machine (P4 2.53 GHz), it plays, but it 
kind of jerks a few times a minute.

	It should give trouble on your slower machines.

	Of course, it's possible that the plugin _is_ working with your 3-D 
cards (all of them?). It's not that they don't support video cards at 
all - just that it rarely works.


-- 
ASCII and ye shall receive.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/25/09 15:59, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Most Linux/Unix config files include defaults commented out - that's
> pretty standard.  So grepping does work quite well.

	I'm not sure about the "most". I'm guessing you more often deal with 
common _system administration_ (mature) tools - which often are as you 
described - as opposed to just wild stuff for the desktop.

	Or it could be a distribution thing - they may be the ones who place a 
fully commented config file for common tools.

	Let's put it this way: For most of the config files that sit in my 
_home_ directory, they didn't come with a config file with all the 
options - although many do have a sample one in /etc that has _common_ 
options...

-- 
ASCII and ye shall receive.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:27:47 -0600, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 11/25/09 16:02, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> AMD-64 2 GHz dual core processor - not really blazingly fast by today's
>> standards.  That's the desktop machine.  The Dell laptop is a single
>> core (I believe) Intel 32-bit processor that runs at about 2 GHz as
>> well. I've a slower laptop in the office (a Thinkpad t42p) that's
>> slower and still seems to handle it OK.
> 
> 	Try Hulu. Set whatever you're watching to the highest quality, 
and then
> switch to full screen. On my machine (P4 2.53 GHz), it plays, but it
> kind of jerks a few times a minute.

Have done, and yes, it's jerky at the highest resolution, but I've always 
had problems with it because of my bandwidth (only 3 Mbps down here at 
home).

> 	It should give trouble on your slower machines.
> 
> 	Of course, it's possible that the plugin _is_ working with your 3-
D
> cards (all of them?). It's not that they don't support video cards at
> all - just that it rarely works.

At issue really is a definition of "working".  I consider it working if I 
can watch video effectively.  You seem to consider it working only if it 
behaves in a particular manner, such as offloading the video rendering to 
the GPU.  That'd be nice, but doesn't fit my general definition of 
"working" which is "I can use it most of the time without a problem".  
Biggest problem I have with it is the damned thing has memory leaks 
galore.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:30:36 -0600, Neeum Zawan wrote:

> On 11/25/09 15:59, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Most Linux/Unix config files include defaults commented out - that's
>> pretty standard.  So grepping does work quite well.
> 
> 	I'm not sure about the "most". I'm guessing you more often deal 
with
> common _system administration_ (mature) tools - which often are as you
> described - as opposed to just wild stuff for the desktop.
> 
> 	Or it could be a distribution thing - they may be the ones who 
place a
> fully commented config file for common tools.
> 
> 	Let's put it this way: For most of the config files that sit in my
> _home_ directory, they didn't come with a config file with all the
> options - although many do have a sample one in /etc that has _common_
> options...

True, and yes, I'm talking about system config files, which are generally 
mature and well documented/commented.  There's that pesky "works" 
definition issue again. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message