10 ms·

Adobe Releases Last Linux Version Of Flash Player

120 points by wyclif 15y ago

infinitivium 15y ago
Adobe fails to make any headlines that indicate they have any clue at all
- batista 15y ago
  Well, on the positive side all the reviews for the new Photoshop CS6 have been quite glowing. A major new version, indeed. Lightroom 4 was also a very good update. Oh, and Premiere is in the right track. Killing Flash is best for Adobe in the long term. That, more refinement for their CS suite, and some new HTML5 tools like Edge will keep them afloat for many years to come.
  - viraptor 15y ago
    With every new edition of Adobe products we get more posts on http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/ http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/ to enjoy :)
    - fruchtose 15y ago
      It's remarkable to me that people seem to think that Adobe Photoshop is an amazing product. I'm sure that the engineers working on it are great, but the infamous rant against PSD (responded to here: http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/05/some_thoughts_about_the_psd_format.html http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/05/some_thoughts_about_the...) underlines the fact that Adobe isn't exactly a shining beacon of software engineering, and the user-facing problems are indicative of what is probably a large, underlying code complexity issue. If the document format evolves "organically", what does that say about the code that reads the document? Just think--how would you like it if JSON were "organic"? Structured code is good, organic not so much.
      - batista 15y ago
        >It's remarkable to me that people seem to think that Adobe Photoshop is an amazing product. It doesn't have to be perfect inside to be an amazing product. People could care less about how PSD is structured or if the code is a spaghetti mess. The organic growth is also inevitable when you have something that evolved over 20+ years and want to keep backward compatibility as much as you can --including with tons of external third party tools. It's not like they are idiots and can't get it right if they are given the chance to do it from scratch. The thing it: it works, it works great, and nothing compares to it in it's field. For the actual graphic designers, photographers, illustrators, etc that use it, there is no alternative that is as capable. There is also no alternative that can be integrated with a full ecosystem of products, from TV/Cinema work (Premiere) to print work (InDesign/Acrobat), to Web (Flash/Edge/Fireworks), to Vector (Illustrator), with all being leaders (or almost) in their particular field. I'm talking for professional workflows. For just getting some pics up to a webpage, without any chance of it be used in other contexts, YMMV. Compared to GIMP for example, there are tons of stuff that make it better for a professional workflow. From better text support, to a complete RAW file import/edit support, to a complete (and working for years before Gimp got any) CMYK support with gamut warnings and the whole kitchen sync, to Smart Objects, to vector support, etc. Though, latest releases and transitions (like to 64bit Win/Mac, to Cocoa, to the new UI etc), seem to have given Adobe also chances to rework parts of the code.
        benkant 15y ago
        > People could care less I love to be that guy, and I think you mean "couldn't care less".
        batista 15y ago
        Absolutely.
nnnnni 15y ago
Good riddance?
j45 15y ago
Would be interesting if they could release the player as OS
jiggy2011 15y ago
So, what does flash actually run on these days? Windows desktop PCs & laptops, on Mac desktops & laptops (for how much longer?) and that's about it. Well , looks like everyone should sharpen up those JS skills.
- icebraining 15y ago
  You do realize that those clients represent ~89% of all web usage, right?
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    That may well be true right now but of course we are in a time of transition right now and Adobe seems to be burning rather too many bridges. If adobe wanted their runtime to survive (I'm not sure they do) they would be showing commitment to supporting their runtime in as many places as possible. Right now the only place it really runs well is on Windows which means they are quite firmly shackled to Microsoft and it's not even clear that MS see flash as part of their vision for their products.
    - icebraining 15y ago
      I think it's pretty clear MS does not, since Flash doesn't work on IE 10 on Windows 8 using the default UI (Metro). My guess is that Adobe has given up on the runtime and is cutting costs while investing in the authoring tools (which is where they make their money anyway) for HTML5.
  - pooriaazimi 15y ago
    ...~89% of all web usage NOW (I'm not sure about the number though, but it seems legit and I take your word for it). What about 2 years from now?
  - njharman 15y ago
    Really, all smartphones, all tablets, all Linux is only 11%? I'm very doubtful and won't believe it without citation.
shad0wfax 15y ago
I cannot see how they can be serious about Flash if they are going to ignore Linux. It makes sense from Adobe's point of view, because the adoption on Linux is minimal, but for someone creating content on flash (for example - for video, games, or even some old school websites), this is just making it harder. Now these content creators have to worry about their clients on Linux platform. Adobe might as well say that Flash is done on all platforms. Note: I am not taking sides, if Flash is good/bad but just trying to argue that if Adobe wants their Flash platform to be taken seriously on Windows/Mac, they really cannot ignore Linux this way.
- snissn 15y ago
  Flash on linux has always been bugging and CPU inefficient..
  - shad0wfax 15y ago
    Yes, but if this is an admit of defeat by Adobe's engineering (like how to some extent you can say it was on Tablet/phone platform), it just is a bad sign for them. What as a consumer of flash platform I need form Adobe is clarity and commitment. Today I see it has gone another step backward. Just reinforces the public opinion of wanting to move away from Flash even more.
    - snissn 15y ago
      Big picture they are trying to kill flash! I just don't think that this particular story is that big of a deal because it really only affects linux firefox users. So it's sort of a neat way to for them to re-prioritize on maintaining a product that they anticipate deprecating in the long run.
      - shad0wfax 15y ago
        I think as an outsider to Adobe, logic dictates what you say. But here is Adobe's thoughts on Flash and their platform: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplatform/articles/recent-updates.html http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplatform/articles/recent-up.... The section on Flash player for desktop does say they are keen on making it better, especially with on the multimedia front (I have to admit there are some pain points they do solve for multimedia). Nevertheless, I am with you in predicting that this is a sure sign of their slow but sure move towards killing it. I just hope people read it faster than we can and not pour money on building flash based solutions. (A lot of enterprise still use flash).
rdtsc 15y ago
They in a bit of a difficult situation. Since there are so many mobile devices and so many of them are iPhones, anyone building websites will try to steer away from using Flash. So Flash is dying, fast. The best they could have done is to completely open source it. Open source the spec fully, the players and the server. But even then, frankly it is too late. There are standards worked on that will completely replace it: Websockets, WebGL, WebRTC and so on. It was interesting how in the WebRTC discussion they were absent. Google was there, Ericsson, but not them. They could have clearly provided some input or helped out with insight since they had a similar product for so many years. They thought they would build a web platform and rule the world, but I think they failed in that. What can they do? Well, I think they can make (and they probably already have it) a snazzy editor/creator to generate HTML5, javascript that would work with WebRTC, WebGL, etc.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  Yes, that would make the most sense. There are plenty of designers who like to use flash because they are familiar with the toolset, what they need is to use the same tools with a different output format. Of course the killer app that is missing from HTMl5/JS seems to support for stuff like webcams/mics and being able to stream in realtime. That and of course Internet Explorer staying years behind everyone else.
  - beaumartinez 15y ago
    Hopefully Mozilla's WebAPI[1] will bring us those. [1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI
  - rdtsc 15y ago
    WebRTC http://www.webrtc.org/ http://www.webrtc.org/ is there and is already baked into the latest development version of Chrome. We are talking realtime streaming audio & video. I think, in theory, that is the last puzzle peace that would create a pattern which will open the gates of hell and swallow Flash (metaphorically speaking).
- stcredzero 15y ago
ktizo 15y ago
Been working in flash since version 2 and years ago I wrote a 3d engine in flash mx by duplicating and scaling right angled triangles to draw all the polygons. Professionally, I am often the person who recommends what technologies get used when a site gets made. And I very much doubt with this recent news from adobe that I will bother to use flash for a commercial project ever again. Especially given what you can get canvas tags to do these days.
- jlarocco 15y ago
  That's nice of you, but honestly I doubt this will have a very big impact. Flash support has been poor on Linux for a very long time. For example, 64-bit Linux desktops have been popular for most of the last decade, and I'm not sure there's ever been an official 64-bit release. Sure, it's been possible to get it working, but it's a hassle. The poor Linux support is one of the main reasons so many Linux users dislike Flash and are always saying how it needs an open source alternative version. Since Linux support has never been a big deal for people choosing Flash in the past, I can't see this having a big impact on their decisions now.
  - dfc 15y ago
    FYI: Flash for 64bit linux has existed for a while now. The first release was sometime around the financial crisi, I think october of 2008.
    - jlarocco 15y ago
      Yeah, I know it exists. And before it existed you could hack up the 32-bit Flash to work in 64-bit browsers. The point is, it being a PITA to use Flash on Linux never stopped many developers from creating pages that required it, so it's unlikely to stop them from creating Flash pages now.
      - ktizo 15y ago
        Is a trajectory issue. When flash was expanding the range of systems it could be run on, then the future looked rosy for it as a delivery platform. Currently however it seems to be contracting on all fronts, while at the same time adobe is making life more difficult for the developers by giving them extra costs. So the trajectory really does not look good at this point.
snissn 15y ago
They're dropping support for firefox for linux it seems and will maintain support for chrome through their pepper api. Also they will maintain the latest binary release of flash for linux by pushing security patches. If anything they're dropping support for firefox and derivatives for linux and keeping support for chrome. But who uses firefox these days anyways?
- astine 15y ago
  "But who uses firefox these days anyways?" I am writing this reply from within Firefox.
  - snissn 15y ago
    Okay thanks for the downvote, astine. I was making a general point about its market share http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/chrome-vs-firefox-google-mozilla_n_1123168.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/chrome-vs-firefox-g...
    - astine 15y ago
      I didn't downvote you. But you should be aware that Firefox is still a substantial platform and it's market-share isn't shrinking very rapidly.
      - snissn 15y ago
        Ok. Sorry.
- bzbarsky 15y ago
  As far as I can tell from the communication coming out of Adobe and Google, Adobe is dropping support for Linux, period. _Google_ will be maintaining Flash for Chrome on Linux. Which they largely have been anyway, as far as I can tell; they certainly haven't been shipping vanilla unmodified Flash (as you can tell by the fact that the version numbers of what they ship with Chrome don't match the official Adobe releases).
astine 15y ago
On the plus side, this move will push more people to replace Flash with other technologies and I may never have to use it again. It's been consistently the buggiest piece of software on my computer for years. I won't be sad to see it go.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
joeycfan 15y ago
To quote Bill Hicks - 'So long, lizard scum!'
dsolomon 15y ago
Thats a huge F* Y to a large customer base.
- dfc 15y ago
  If only wishing made it so. I would love it if that was the case but sadly linux users running firefox, epiphany, etc are not a large base of anything and certainly not a large paying customer base....
- batista 15y ago
  How are Linux desktop users a "customer" base? For one, they are a very small niche. All "web stats" reports (the most accurate way of measuring such things) put them somewhere around 1%. Plus, they are not paying for Flash. Flash, the paid-for tool, doesn't even run on Linux.
  - el_presidente 15y ago
    1% = millions of users. Out of that 1% comes a significant portion of the people who run the sites that serve flash content.
    - batista 15y ago
      Those sites serve Flash content to non-Linux desktops over Linux ones by a huge margin, like 99% to 1%. And merely serving Flash doesn't mean you are an Adobe customer. The guy that writes the Flash content in Adobe Flash (in a Mac or a Windows PC) is their customer.
batista 15y ago
You know, it just occurred to me. One benefit of Adobe abandoning Flash in the medium-term, will be a push for improvements on the functionality and speed of SVG. Google (Chrome) seems to mostly care about the canvas, re acceleration and all, whereas Adobe has much more interest in SVG because it needs it as a vector replacement for Flash. Case in point, this just came in today: http://blogs.adobe.com/webplatform/2012/03/30/svg-animations-css-animations-css-transitions/ http://blogs.adobe.com/webplatform/2012/03/30/svg-animations...
streptomycin 15y ago
I hope the bitrot doesn't happen as fast this time as it did the last time they dropped support for the Flash version of Linux. The last time they did this, it was right before everyone starting using ALSA, so we were stuck using Flash with horribly broken audio for a long time.
joeyh 15y ago
Would have been more appropriate to release it tomorrow.
bni 15y ago
I have uninstalled flash player on all my machines. If its flash and has no h264 fallback its probably not a video worth seeing anyway. Just Do It.

120 points by wyclif 15y ago

infinitivium 15y ago

Adobe fails to make any headlines that indicate they have any clue at all

batista 15y ago
Well, on the positive side all the reviews for the new Photoshop CS6 have been quite glowing. A major new version, indeed. Lightroom 4 was also a very good update. Oh, and Premiere is in the right track. Killing Flash is best for Adobe in the long term. That, more refinement for their CS suite, and some new HTML5 tools like Edge will keep them afloat for many years to come.
- viraptor 15y ago
  With every new edition of Adobe products we get more posts on http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/ http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/ to enjoy :)
  - fruchtose 15y ago
    It's remarkable to me that people seem to think that Adobe Photoshop is an amazing product. I'm sure that the engineers working on it are great, but the infamous rant against PSD (responded to here: http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/05/some_thoughts_about_the_psd_format.html http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2009/05/some_thoughts_about_the...) underlines the fact that Adobe isn't exactly a shining beacon of software engineering, and the user-facing problems are indicative of what is probably a large, underlying code complexity issue. If the document format evolves "organically", what does that say about the code that reads the document? Just think--how would you like it if JSON were "organic"? Structured code is good, organic not so much.
    - batista 15y ago
      >It's remarkable to me that people seem to think that Adobe Photoshop is an amazing product. It doesn't have to be perfect inside to be an amazing product. People could care less about how PSD is structured or if the code is a spaghetti mess. The organic growth is also inevitable when you have something that evolved over 20+ years and want to keep backward compatibility as much as you can --including with tons of external third party tools. It's not like they are idiots and can't get it right if they are given the chance to do it from scratch. The thing it: it works, it works great, and nothing compares to it in it's field. For the actual graphic designers, photographers, illustrators, etc that use it, there is no alternative that is as capable. There is also no alternative that can be integrated with a full ecosystem of products, from TV/Cinema work (Premiere) to print work (InDesign/Acrobat), to Web (Flash/Edge/Fireworks), to Vector (Illustrator), with all being leaders (or almost) in their particular field. I'm talking for professional workflows. For just getting some pics up to a webpage, without any chance of it be used in other contexts, YMMV. Compared to GIMP for example, there are tons of stuff that make it better for a professional workflow. From better text support, to a complete RAW file import/edit support, to a complete (and working for years before Gimp got any) CMYK support with gamut warnings and the whole kitchen sync, to Smart Objects, to vector support, etc. Though, latest releases and transitions (like to 64bit Win/Mac, to Cocoa, to the new UI etc), seem to have given Adobe also chances to rework parts of the code.
      - benkant 15y ago
        > People could care less I love to be that guy, and I think you mean "couldn't care less".
        batista 15y ago
        Absolutely.

nnnnni 15y ago

Good riddance?

j45 15y ago

Would be interesting if they could release the player as OS

jiggy2011 15y ago

So, what does flash actually run on these days? Windows desktop PCs & laptops, on Mac desktops & laptops (for how much longer?) and that's about it. Well , looks like everyone should sharpen up those JS skills.

icebraining 15y ago
You do realize that those clients represent ~89% of all web usage, right?
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  That may well be true right now but of course we are in a time of transition right now and Adobe seems to be burning rather too many bridges. If adobe wanted their runtime to survive (I'm not sure they do) they would be showing commitment to supporting their runtime in as many places as possible. Right now the only place it really runs well is on Windows which means they are quite firmly shackled to Microsoft and it's not even clear that MS see flash as part of their vision for their products.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    I think it's pretty clear MS does not, since Flash doesn't work on IE 10 on Windows 8 using the default UI (Metro). My guess is that Adobe has given up on the runtime and is cutting costs while investing in the authoring tools (which is where they make their money anyway) for HTML5.
- pooriaazimi 15y ago
  ...~89% of all web usage NOW (I'm not sure about the number though, but it seems legit and I take your word for it). What about 2 years from now?
- njharman 15y ago
  Really, all smartphones, all tablets, all Linux is only 11%? I'm very doubtful and won't believe it without citation.

shad0wfax 15y ago

I cannot see how they can be serious about Flash if they are going to ignore Linux. It makes sense from Adobe's point of view, because the adoption on Linux is minimal, but for someone creating content on flash (for example - for video, games, or even some old school websites), this is just making it harder. Now these content creators have to worry about their clients on Linux platform. Adobe might as well say that Flash is done on all platforms. Note: I am not taking sides, if Flash is good/bad but just trying to argue that if Adobe wants their Flash platform to be taken seriously on Windows/Mac, they really cannot ignore Linux this way.

snissn 15y ago
Flash on linux has always been bugging and CPU inefficient..
- shad0wfax 15y ago
  Yes, but if this is an admit of defeat by Adobe's engineering (like how to some extent you can say it was on Tablet/phone platform), it just is a bad sign for them. What as a consumer of flash platform I need form Adobe is clarity and commitment. Today I see it has gone another step backward. Just reinforces the public opinion of wanting to move away from Flash even more.
  - snissn 15y ago
    Big picture they are trying to kill flash! I just don't think that this particular story is that big of a deal because it really only affects linux firefox users. So it's sort of a neat way to for them to re-prioritize on maintaining a product that they anticipate deprecating in the long run.
    - shad0wfax 15y ago
      I think as an outsider to Adobe, logic dictates what you say. But here is Adobe's thoughts on Flash and their platform: http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplatform/articles/recent-updates.html http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplatform/articles/recent-up.... The section on Flash player for desktop does say they are keen on making it better, especially with on the multimedia front (I have to admit there are some pain points they do solve for multimedia). Nevertheless, I am with you in predicting that this is a sure sign of their slow but sure move towards killing it. I just hope people read it faster than we can and not pour money on building flash based solutions. (A lot of enterprise still use flash).

rdtsc 15y ago

They in a bit of a difficult situation. Since there are so many mobile devices and so many of them are iPhones, anyone building websites will try to steer away from using Flash. So Flash is dying, fast. The best they could have done is to completely open source it. Open source the spec fully, the players and the server. But even then, frankly it is too late. There are standards worked on that will completely replace it: Websockets, WebGL, WebRTC and so on. It was interesting how in the WebRTC discussion they were absent. Google was there, Ericsson, but not them. They could have clearly provided some input or helped out with insight since they had a similar product for so many years. They thought they would build a web platform and rule the world, but I think they failed in that. What can they do? Well, I think they can make (and they probably already have it) a snazzy editor/creator to generate HTML5, javascript that would work with WebRTC, WebGL, etc.

jiggy2011 15y ago
Yes, that would make the most sense. There are plenty of designers who like to use flash because they are familiar with the toolset, what they need is to use the same tools with a different output format. Of course the killer app that is missing from HTMl5/JS seems to support for stuff like webcams/mics and being able to stream in realtime. That and of course Internet Explorer staying years behind everyone else.
- beaumartinez 15y ago
  Hopefully Mozilla's WebAPI[1] will bring us those. [1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI https://wiki.mozilla.org/WebAPI
- rdtsc 15y ago
  WebRTC http://www.webrtc.org/ http://www.webrtc.org/ is there and is already baked into the latest development version of Chrome. We are talking realtime streaming audio & video. I think, in theory, that is the last puzzle peace that would create a pattern which will open the gates of hell and swallow Flash (metaphorically speaking).
stcredzero 15y ago

ktizo 15y ago

Been working in flash since version 2 and years ago I wrote a 3d engine in flash mx by duplicating and scaling right angled triangles to draw all the polygons. Professionally, I am often the person who recommends what technologies get used when a site gets made. And I very much doubt with this recent news from adobe that I will bother to use flash for a commercial project ever again. Especially given what you can get canvas tags to do these days.

jlarocco 15y ago
That's nice of you, but honestly I doubt this will have a very big impact. Flash support has been poor on Linux for a very long time. For example, 64-bit Linux desktops have been popular for most of the last decade, and I'm not sure there's ever been an official 64-bit release. Sure, it's been possible to get it working, but it's a hassle. The poor Linux support is one of the main reasons so many Linux users dislike Flash and are always saying how it needs an open source alternative version. Since Linux support has never been a big deal for people choosing Flash in the past, I can't see this having a big impact on their decisions now.
- dfc 15y ago
  FYI: Flash for 64bit linux has existed for a while now. The first release was sometime around the financial crisi, I think october of 2008.
  - jlarocco 15y ago
    Yeah, I know it exists. And before it existed you could hack up the 32-bit Flash to work in 64-bit browsers. The point is, it being a PITA to use Flash on Linux never stopped many developers from creating pages that required it, so it's unlikely to stop them from creating Flash pages now.
    - ktizo 15y ago
      Is a trajectory issue. When flash was expanding the range of systems it could be run on, then the future looked rosy for it as a delivery platform. Currently however it seems to be contracting on all fronts, while at the same time adobe is making life more difficult for the developers by giving them extra costs. So the trajectory really does not look good at this point.

snissn 15y ago

They're dropping support for firefox for linux it seems and will maintain support for chrome through their pepper api. Also they will maintain the latest binary release of flash for linux by pushing security patches. If anything they're dropping support for firefox and derivatives for linux and keeping support for chrome. But who uses firefox these days anyways?

astine 15y ago
"But who uses firefox these days anyways?" I am writing this reply from within Firefox.
- snissn 15y ago
  Okay thanks for the downvote, astine. I was making a general point about its market share http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/chrome-vs-firefox-google-mozilla_n_1123168.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/chrome-vs-firefox-g...
  - astine 15y ago
    I didn't downvote you. But you should be aware that Firefox is still a substantial platform and it's market-share isn't shrinking very rapidly.
    - snissn 15y ago
      Ok. Sorry.
bzbarsky 15y ago
As far as I can tell from the communication coming out of Adobe and Google, Adobe is dropping support for Linux, period. _Google_ will be maintaining Flash for Chrome on Linux. Which they largely have been anyway, as far as I can tell; they certainly haven't been shipping vanilla unmodified Flash (as you can tell by the fact that the version numbers of what they ship with Chrome don't match the official Adobe releases).

astine 15y ago

On the plus side, this move will push more people to replace Flash with other technologies and I may never have to use it again. It's been consistently the buggiest piece of software on my computer for years. I won't be sad to see it go.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

joeycfan 15y ago

To quote Bill Hicks - 'So long, lizard scum!'

dsolomon 15y ago

Thats a huge F* Y to a large customer base.

dfc 15y ago
If only wishing made it so. I would love it if that was the case but sadly linux users running firefox, epiphany, etc are not a large base of anything and certainly not a large paying customer base....
batista 15y ago
How are Linux desktop users a "customer" base? For one, they are a very small niche. All "web stats" reports (the most accurate way of measuring such things) put them somewhere around 1%. Plus, they are not paying for Flash. Flash, the paid-for tool, doesn't even run on Linux.
- el_presidente 15y ago
  1% = millions of users. Out of that 1% comes a significant portion of the people who run the sites that serve flash content.
  - batista 15y ago
    Those sites serve Flash content to non-Linux desktops over Linux ones by a huge margin, like 99% to 1%. And merely serving Flash doesn't mean you are an Adobe customer. The guy that writes the Flash content in Adobe Flash (in a Mac or a Windows PC) is their customer.

batista 15y ago

You know, it just occurred to me. One benefit of Adobe abandoning Flash in the medium-term, will be a push for improvements on the functionality and speed of SVG. Google (Chrome) seems to mostly care about the canvas, re acceleration and all, whereas Adobe has much more interest in SVG because it needs it as a vector replacement for Flash. Case in point, this just came in today: http://blogs.adobe.com/webplatform/2012/03/30/svg-animations-css-animations-css-transitions/ http://blogs.adobe.com/webplatform/2012/03/30/svg-animations...

streptomycin 15y ago

I hope the bitrot doesn't happen as fast this time as it did the last time they dropped support for the Flash version of Linux. The last time they did this, it was right before everyone starting using ALSA, so we were stuck using Flash with horribly broken audio for a long time.

joeyh 15y ago

Would have been more appropriate to release it tomorrow.

bni 15y ago

I have uninstalled flash player on all my machines. If its flash and has no h264 fallback its probably not a video worth seeing anyway. Just Do It.