On 10/01/2010 06:12 PM, Rob Healey wrote:
> A preview version of Flash Player 64bit has recently been announced:
> http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html
Tried it. Sound is all messed up. Reverted to wrapped 32-bit plugin and
all is well.
jik
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptogr
On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 17:39:26 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Jan Kratochvil
> wrote:
> > Since Firefox 3.6.4 it features its own "native" variant of nspluginwrapper
> > called OOPP (Out Of Process Plugins).
> >
> > Unaware how well SELinux handles the protection via nsplug
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Jan Kratochvil
wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 15:38:06 +0200, Kevin DeKorte wrote:
>> I actually had issues with flash-plugin until I removed nspluginwrapper,
>> both 32 and 64bit versions.
>
> Since Firefox 3.6.4 it features its own "native" variant of nspluginwrappe
On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 15:38:06 +0200, Kevin DeKorte wrote:
> I actually had issues with flash-plugin until I removed nspluginwrapper,
> both 32 and 64bit versions.
Since Firefox 3.6.4 it features its own "native" variant of nspluginwrapper
called OOPP (Out Of Process Plugins).
Unaware how well SELi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/02/2010 05:17 AM, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 10:33 +0200, Guido Grazioli wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 15:12 -0700, Rob Healey wrote:
>>> I had problems with this release as well until I found and renamed
>>> seve
On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 10:33 +0200, Guido Grazioli wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 15:12 -0700, Rob Healey wrote:
> > I had problems with this release as well until I found and renamed
> > several nswrapper_XX_XX.libflashplayer.so files to so.save and restarted
> > Firefox.
> >
>
> I think you co
> On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 15:12 -0700, Rob Healey wrote:
> I had problems with this release as well until I found and renamed
> several nswrapper_XX_XX.libflashplayer.so files to so.save and restarted
> Firefox.
>
I think you could just edit /etc/sysconfig/nspluginwrapper , adding
:libflashplayer* t
2010/10/2 Robert G. (Doc) Savage:
> Thanks. That's good news. Two weeks ago I tried its predecessor,
> (flashplayer_square_p1_64bit_linux_091510.tar.gz) and it was an utter
> failure.
I have been using RPMS built upon
http://rpm.greysector.net/specs/flash-plugin.spec released by Dominik
Mierzejew
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 15:12 -0700, Rob Healey wrote:
> Directions:
>
> 1) tar -xzvpf flashplayer_square_p2_64bit_linux_092710.tar.gz
>
> 2) mv libflashplayer.so $HOME/.mozilla/plugins
Rob,
I had problems with this release as well until I found and renamed
several nswrapper_XX_XX.libflashplayer.
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 15:12 -0700, Rob Healey wrote:
> Greetings:
>
> Hello All! I know that the question of getting a 64bit version of
> Adobe Flash Player has gone around and around for a long time! I am
> not here to complain, but to bear great news!
>
> Directly from an email pal of mine,
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 4:29 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
> As a side note - google chrome has native flash builtin ..
No it doesn't ... it just ships with the flash plugin bundled but it
does not have "native flash support".
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
htt
On 07/07/2010 07:01 PM, birger wrote:
There is no 64 bit build for windows? Wow. I didn't expect that. Perhaps
i am getting too distant from that other os.
Microsoft ships the 32-bit IE as the default browser even on 64 bit
builds just so the plugins work (AFAICT).
No matter why they remove
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 22:29 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> As a side note - google chrome has native flash builtin ..
But alas, Chromium doesn't (for obvious reasons).
poc
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
As a side note - google chrome has native flash builtin ..
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
There is no 64 bit build for windows? Wow. I didn't expect that. Perhaps i am
getting too distant from that other os.
No matter why they removed the 64 bit build (being as closed as it is we can
only guess anyway) it ought to generate more interest in getting gnash fixed
up. It seems to have
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 20:31 +0200, birger wrote:
>> The claim i saw was that they had chosen to redesign the 64 bit flash
>> completely.
>>
>> Given that windows seems to be quickly abandoning 32 bit support
>> (first on servers) a completel
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 20:31 +0200, birger wrote:
> The claim i saw was that they had chosen to redesign the 64 bit flash
> completely.
>
> Given that windows seems to be quickly abandoning 32 bit support
> (first on servers) a completely rewritten 64 bit flash makes sense
> even if it means more
The claim i saw was that they had chosen to redesign the 64 bit flash
completely.
Given that windows seems to be quickly abandoning 32 bit support (first on
servers) a completely rewritten 64 bit flash makes sense even if it means more
maintenance. It may mean that 32 bit flash becomes a light
>[Adobe]
>I want to know why they should {want} to screw us out of the internet
I doubt very much Adobe wants to limit our access to the Internet. Adobe
wants to apply its development resources in the way that maximizes its
profit.
Adobe may feel 64-bit Flash for Linux would be profitable (i
On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 01:28 -0700, Rob Healey wrote:
>> Thanks for the information! So we really are alienated from being
>> able to use and benefit from the web content that should be available
>> to all!
>
> Take another look at my ea
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 01:28 -0700, Rob Healey wrote:
> Thanks for the information! So we really are alienated from being
> able to use and benefit from the web content that should be available
> to all!
Take another look at my earlier reply, which you seem to have
misunderstood. I have full acces
From: test-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[mailto:test-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Rob Healey
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 4:29 AM
To: Fedora rawhide test list
Subject: 64bit Flash player
Thanks for the information! So we really are alienated from being able to use
and b
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 05:38:32AM -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2010/07/07 01:28 (GMT-0700) Rob Healey composed:
>
> [Adobe]
> > I want to know why thay should to screw us out of the internet
>
> I have to think it's about money and DRM. Adobe has never released a Flash
> version for the ti
On 2010/07/07 01:28 (GMT-0700) Rob Healey composed:
[Adobe]
> I want to know why thay should to screw us out of the internet
I have to think it's about money and DRM. Adobe has never released a Flash
version for the tiny OS/2 market, because nobody has paid them the big money
they want to do
On 07/07/2010 04:28 AM, Rob Healey wrote:
Dear poc, Ankue, and Chris:
Thanks for the information! So we really are alienated from being able
to use and benefit from the web content that should be available to all!
If anyone who reads this that knows someone at Adobe, I would like to
get a reps
25 matches
Mail list logo
