http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/item/7844/
But YouTube (and some other sites) will tell you you're missing Flash and then link you to the Adobe Flash download webpage, which has a .tar.gz and an .rpm but no .deb download.

Since we already have .deb files for flashplugin-nonfree in the repositories, would it be difficult for Ubuntu/Canonical to convince Adobe to host it alongside the other download options?

[776 votes] Solution #1: Auto-generated solution of idea #7844


]]> en-us Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:13:36 +0000 Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:33:05 +0000 QAPoll module http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/7844/ Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:52:19 +0000
-1 to holizz idea]]> Tue, 29 Apr 2008 21:15:30 +0000 Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:30:55 +0000
You cant expect them to do it. Because then they also need to host a tar.gz still too, rpm's, recipes (gobo), etc.

We need to unify our package management techniques before we can expect big companies to support us]]> Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:26:38 +0000
They have chosen to pull the deb.]]> Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:33:59 +0000
What's in it for Adobe? Why should they fork over money for more servers and bandwidth to host .debs for us ubuntu users? This isn't an Ubuntu issue, it's an Adobe thing.]]> Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:36:56 +0000
That said, for those who really want that rubbish there is a tool called alien that can deal with rpm packages. I would imagine the tar.gz file comes with instructions for how to deal with it.

]]> Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:38:02 +0000 Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:41:59 +0000 Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:02:50 +0000
Then maybe it should also detect when you are at the Adobe Flash download page and prompt you in that case as well.]]> Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:53:34 +0000
By the way, no one is asking you to "poison" your own system with Flash. Not every idea has to apply to your particular situation. Develop some empathy. Seriously.

And if Brainstorms aren't for convincing, then I'd really like to see some guidelines for creating Brainstorms and see those guidelines enforced.

This an actual idea that has practical value, unlike most of the junk I've seen on here.

Finally, if Adobe is willing to host, yum, .rpm, and .tar.gz, I don't really see how it makes their lives so difficult to host a .deb, too. If they didn't want to be bothered with it, they could host only the .tar.gz or not bother hosting at all. Do people even think before they comment?

Lastly, if you believe people should read complicated instructions to install something as simple as a Flash plugin, perhaps you haven't really read Bug #1 or any of Ubuntu's philosophy statements.]]> Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:32:44 +0000 Thu, 01 May 2008 00:51:42 +0000 Sat, 03 May 2008 13:15:11 +0000
Even if Ubuntu's philosophy is mainly to support and promote free-software, there will always be some propeiatory software that some users need. it is necessary then for ubuntu's success to provide these needs to those users so as to kill any bullet point that windows offer.

Adobe and others must see that there is a significant demand from the Linux community to realize that they are missing opportunities by not supporting it.

I,m with this idea, there should be more talks with 3rd parties like Adobe, if they cant host a debian package then why did they bother with a tar.gz one ?









]]> Sat, 03 May 2008 14:39:41 +0000
When it's not used for annoying ads on otherwise more reasonable pages, it's frequently used to convert an entire page into CPU suck mode. These pages generally have so much effort spent on making them look nice beyond all else that they function very poorly. In general, I find I get information about what I'm looking for faster by avoiding the Flash and Shockwave sites, even when they are the sites that have the primary data - simply because navigating through them is much more of a chore than googling up another website that has since started talking about whatever it is on the flash/shockwave infested horror. To this end, I find not having Flash and Shockwave support to provide me with a better end-user experience.

This is not to say that the technologies don't have a lot of potential - but given the amount of abuse of the technologies, I don't feel it's worth it to put up with that for the few meager instances where someone actually makes good use of them.]]> Tue, 06 May 2008 03:16:15 +0000
Adobe doesn't have to be convinced to host anything; they only need to add an apt-URL link: apt://flashplugin-nonfree]]> Sat, 10 May 2008 13:09:54 +0000
And why can't Canonical get permission from Adobe to bundle flash, like Apple does?]]> Wed, 14 May 2008 21:35:27 +0000 http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/releasenotes.html#sysreq]]> Fri, 16 May 2008 19:49:22 +0000
If anything, Adobe should simply stop releasing RPM packages so that all those Debian users don't feel envious. It is so trivial to uninstall flashplugin-nonfree and extract Adobe's tar.gz into your mozilla plugins directory, if you *must* have the newest, latest version before Ubuntu has it.]]> Sat, 17 May 2008 09:45:50 +0000
Two reasons:
1.) the author knows the intended behavior of his program best
2.) the author has always the latest version, without a delay

There should be a program in which original authors can have their debs reviewed, but that should be about it.]]> Sat, 31 May 2008 12:46:04 +0000
Adobe hosts .deb installation files nw, and specifically mentions Ubuntu 8.04:
http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash
]]> Sat, 18 Oct 2008 13:37:35 +0000 Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:33:05 +0000