On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 6:12 AM, Eddie G.O'Connor Jr-I wrote:
>
> On 06/22/2012 08:47 PM, Tim wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 14:28 +0200, suvayu ali wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know the details but if this makes all Flash sites start
>>> working reliably on Linux, I would be willing to put up with w
On 06/22/2012 08:47 PM, Tim wrote:
On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 14:28 +0200, suvayu ali wrote:
I don't know the details but if this makes all Flash sites start
working reliably on Linux, I would be willing to put up with work
arounds like using VMs for a year or two.
If by "VM" you mean Windows softw
On Fri, 2012-06-22 at 14:28 +0200, suvayu ali wrote:
> I don't know the details but if this makes all Flash sites start
> working reliably on Linux, I would be willing to put up with work
> arounds like using VMs for a year or two.
If by "VM" you mean Windows software working in a virtual machine,
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Mateusz Marzantowicz
wrote:
> Certain functionality is needed
> now and not in next 10 years, to make Linux (Fedora) the real player in
> OS market.
I believe the reason for dropping support for Flash on linux is Adobe
expects all modern browsers (except Google Ch
On 22.06.2012 10:30, Eddie G.O'Connor Jr-I wrote:
> On 06/22/2012 04:05 AM, Darlene Wallach wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Frank Murphy
>> wrote:
>>> On 10/05/12 15:57, Andre Robatino wrote:
Sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm not sure what else to do. The
Flash
plugi
On 06/22/2012 04:05 AM, Darlene Wallach wrote:
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
On 10/05/12 15:57, Andre Robatino wrote:
Sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm not sure what else to do. The Flash
plugin
was updated to 11.2.202.235 about a week ago.
This may be the answer
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 10/05/12 15:57, Andre Robatino wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm not sure what else to do. The Flash
>> plugin
>> was updated to 11.2.202.235 about a week ago.
>
>
>
> This may be the answer:
> https://get.adobe.com/flash
On 10/05/12 15:57, Andre Robatino wrote:
Sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm not sure what else to do. The Flash plugin
was updated to 11.2.202.235 about a week ago.
This may be the answer:
https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/
"NOTE: Adobe Flash Player 11.2 will be the last version to target
On 05/10/2012 07:11 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> Only on i686. x86_64 users still need to grab the plugin from Adobe.
It's actually back in the "unstable" 64-bit version,
google-chrome-unstable-20.0.1130.1-135886.x86_64.
--
On 05/11/2012 08:11 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 05/10/2012 11:58 PM, Terry Polzin wrote:
>>> You still need the update for flash in chrome to work.
>> It is built in to chrome and currently at
>> FlashPlayer_11_2_202_235_FlashPlayer in
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 05/10/2012 11:58 PM, Terry Polzin wrote:
>> You still need the update for flash in chrome to work.
>
> It is built in to chrome and currently at
> FlashPlayer_11_2_202_235_FlashPlayer in
> Chrome 18.0.1025.168
Only on i686. x86_64 users st
On 05/10/2012 08:57 AM, Andre Robatino wrote:
Sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm not sure what else to do. The Flash plugin
was updated to 11.2.202.235 about a week ago. This is a security update. But
their yum repos (both i386 and x86_64) still have 11.2.202.233. I filed
https://bugbase.adobe
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 12:41 -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Andre Robatino
> wrote:
> > Sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm not sure what else to do. The Flash
> > plugin
> > was updated to 11.2.202.235 about a week ago. This is a security update. But
> > their
On 05/10/2012 09:13 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Terry Polzin wrote:
You still need the update for flash in chrome to work.
Mi guess is that Chrome features Flash as an internal component and it
uses Chrome's internal auto-update mechanism?
FC
So you're sayin
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Terry Polzin wrote:
> You still need the update for flash in chrome to work.
Mi guess is that Chrome features Flash as an internal component and it
uses Chrome's internal auto-update mechanism?
FC
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscri
On 05/10/2012 11:58 PM, Terry Polzin wrote:
> You still need the update for flash in chrome to work.
It is built in to chrome and currently at FlashPlayer_11_2_202_235_FlashPlayer
in
Chrome 18.0.1025.168
--
Never be afraid to laugh at yourself, after all, you could be missing out on
the joke
o
On Thu, 2012-05-10 at 12:41 -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Andre Robatino
> wrote:
> > Sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm not sure what else to do. The Flash
> > plugin
> > was updated to 11.2.202.235 about a week ago. This is a security update. But
> > their
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Andre Robatino
wrote:
> Sorry for the off-topic post, but I'm not sure what else to do. The Flash
> plugin
> was updated to 11.2.202.235 about a week ago. This is a security update. But
> their yum repos (both i386 and x86_64) still have 11.2.202.233. I filed
> h
18 matches
Mail list logo
