flash is so not idiot-proof

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
19 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

flash is so not idiot-proof

scott-268
list--

a month or so back i had to install a special flash plugin
because i had been getting random flashing white rectangles in
the movie window -- part of that process involved blacklisting
flash so an update would not replace that special version

for a week or so now i have been unable to play any flash video
from web sites

i tried installing flash from Yast, and the first time it made
me remove an X from the checkbox -- i *think* that removed the
blacklist, but for all i know there are other remnants lying
about somewhere

i tried downloading the _tar.gz from adobe, which expands into
several modules off usr/, and as root copied each one into its
respective directory

the adobe website assumes everyone is using either windows or
mac or yum, whatever that is

i tried installing gnash from yast

so far nothing i have tried enables me to view flash content on
the web

suse:  11.4
kde:  4.7.2
firefox:  9.0.1
adblock plus 2.0.3

any help will be greatly appreciated

sc
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: flash is so not idiot-proof

Carl Hartung-2
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 19:45:08 -0600
sc <[hidden email]> wrote:

> yum, whatever that is

That's the CentOS front end to it's rpm system; comparable to zypper, I
believe.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: flash is so not idiot-proof

Felix Miata-3
On 2012/01/09 20:59 (GMT-0500) Carl Hartung composed:

> On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 19:45:08 -0600 sc  wrote:

>>  yum, whatever that is

> That's the CentOS front end to it's rpm system; comparable to zypper, I
> believe.

It's CentOS because CentOS is a derivative of RedHat/Fedora, originator of
Yum. Yum & Zypper are not only front ends to RPM, as RPM can't fetch RPMs or
manage repos, but also comprehensive package management, which RPM alone
could never be. Anything Yum can install, Zypper can too, as long as it's
somewhere Zypper can find.
--
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: flash is so not idiot-proof

Carl Hartung-2
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:05:44 -0500
Felix Miata <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2012/01/09 20:59 (GMT-0500) Carl Hartung composed:
>
> > On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 19:45:08 -0600 sc  wrote:
>
> >>  yum, whatever that is
>
> > That's the CentOS front end to it's rpm system; comparable to
> > zypper, I believe.
>
> It's CentOS because CentOS is a derivative of RedHat/Fedora,
> originator of Yum. Yum & Zypper are not only front ends to RPM, as
> RPM can't fetch RPMs or manage repos, but also comprehensive package
> management, which RPM alone could never be. Anything Yum can install,
> Zypper can too, as long as it's somewhere Zypper can find.

Um, I /did/ write "comparable to", didn't I? And there is no single
definition of "front end"... apt, smart, yum, zypper... even YaST
qualify, don't they? In any case, I was only *briefly* responding to
the OP's "whatever that is" comment. I omitted lots of things so as not
to steer the discussion off-topic.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: flash is so not idiot-proof

scott-268
On Monday, January 09, 2012 20:44:46 Carl Hartung wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:05:44 -0500

> Felix Miata <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 2012/01/09 20:59 (GMT-0500) Carl Hartung composed:
> > > On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 19:45:08 -0600 sc  wrote:
> > >>  yum, whatever that is
> > >
> > > That's the CentOS front end to it's rpm system; comparable
> > > to zypper, I believe.
> >
> > It's CentOS because CentOS is a derivative of RedHat/Fedora,
> > originator of Yum. Yum & Zypper are not only front ends to
> > RPM, as RPM can't fetch RPMs or manage repos, but also
> > comprehensive package management, which RPM alone could
> > never be. Anything Yum can install, Zypper can too, as long
> > as it's somewhere Zypper can find.

> Um, I /did/ write "comparable to", didn't I? And there is no
> single definition of "front end"... apt, smart, yum,
> zypper... even YaST qualify, don't they? In any case, I was
> only *briefly* responding to the OP's "whatever that is"
> comment. I omitted lots of things so as not to steer the
> discussion off-topic.

in an attempt to get it back on-topic i'll mention another thing
i tried which failed to get it working:  i downloaded the rpm
and ran rpm -i <module>, moving the module around until rpm
could find it -- but still all embedded flash content gives the
same "you need to install a flash player" message
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: flash is so not idiot-proof

zGreenfelder
> in an attempt to get it back on-topic i'll mention another thing
> i tried which failed to get it working:  i downloaded the rpm
> and ran rpm -i <module>, moving the module around until rpm
> could find it -- but still all embedded flash content gives the
> same "you need to install a flash player" message

is this on a 64 or 32 bit OS?  I seem to recall having to go through
extra levels of pain for 64 bit with plugins although I don't rightly
recall what it would have been just now, I might be of some more use
tomorrow once I get back to the work machine where it was done.   or
perhaps adding some



--
Even the Magic 8 ball has an opinion on email clients: Outlook not so good.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: flash is so not idiot-proof

Carl Hartung-2
In reply to this post by scott-268
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 21:27:02 -0600
sc <[hidden email]> wrote:

> in an attempt to get it back on-topic i'll mention another thing
> i tried which failed to get it working:  i downloaded the rpm
> and ran rpm -i <module>, moving the module around until rpm
> could find it -- but still all embedded flash content gives the
> same "you need to install a flash player" message

Sorry if this seems like a lot but there are a lot of unanswered
questions, still:

What does "about:plugins" in Firefox show is enabled for 'Shockwave
Flash' content?

What files are in /usr/lib{64}/browser-plugins/?

What is the result of 'rpm -qa | grep flash'?

What was the 'special version' you installed? Where did you get it
and how, exactly, did you install it?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: flash is so not idiot-proof

Charles Philip Chan-2
In reply to this post by scott-268
sc <[hidden email]> writes:

> but still all embedded flash content gives the same "you need to
> install a flash player" message

Try:

(1) Uninstall the Flash package.

(2) Delete any extra files with "flashplayer" in its name in
    "/usr/lib/browser-plugins" and "/usr/lib64/browser-plugins".

(3) Reinstall Flash.

Charles

--
"If you want to travel around the world and be invited to speak at a lot
of different places, just write a Unix operating system."
(By Linus Torvalds)

attachment0 (203 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: flash is so not idiot-proof

scott-268
In reply to this post by Carl Hartung-2
On Monday, January 09, 2012 21:47:31 Carl Hartung wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 21:27:02 -0600

> sc <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > in an attempt to get it back on-topic i'll mention another
> > thing i tried which failed to get it working:  i downloaded
> > the rpm and ran rpm -i <module>, moving the module around
> > until rpm could find it -- but still all embedded flash
> > content gives the same "you need to install a flash player"
> > message

> Sorry if this seems like a lot but there are a lot of
> unanswered questions, still:

> What does "about:plugins" in Firefox show is enabled for
> 'Shockwave Flash' content?

about:plugins shows a big message that reads "No enabled plugins
found"

when i click the mozilla.org link to learn more about plugins
there's a message there that firefox, for my safety, has
disabled my outdated version of Flash and provides a link to the
same adobe download page i've already downloaded from 10 or so
times

> What files are in /usr/lib{64}/browser-plugins/?

/usr/lib/browser-plugins has nppdf.so

/usr/lib64/browser-plugins has

    javaplugin.so
    libflashplayer.so
    libgnashplugin.so
    npwrapper.nppdf.so
    npwrapper.so
    packagekit-plugin.so
    skypebuttons.so

which is probably the important one because this is a 64-bit box

the owner and group of libflashplayer.so is root/root, with
read/write/execute for owner and read/execute for everyone else

> What is the result of 'rpm -qa | grep flash'?

flash-player-11.1.102.55-0.6.1.x86_64

> What was the 'special version' you installed? Where did you
> get it and how, exactly, did you install it?

i truly wish i remembered -- it was something i learned on this
list so maybe i can find it...
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: flash is so not idiot-proof

Carl Hartung-2
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 22:58:22 -0600
sc <[hidden email]> wrote:
8<---- snipped ----

> > Sorry if this seems like a lot but there are a lot of
> > unanswered questions, still:
>
> > What does "about:plugins" in Firefox show is enabled for
> > 'Shockwave Flash' content?
>
> about:plugins shows a big message that reads "No enabled plugins
> found"
>
> when i click the mozilla.org link to learn more about plugins
> there's a message there that firefox, for my safety, has
> disabled my outdated version of Flash and provides a link to the
> same adobe download page i've already downloaded from 10 or so
> times
>
> > What files are in /usr/lib{64}/browser-plugins/?
>
> /usr/lib/browser-plugins has nppdf.so
>
> /usr/lib64/browser-plugins has
>
>     javaplugin.so
>     libflashplayer.so
>     libgnashplugin.so
>     npwrapper.nppdf.so
>     npwrapper.so
>     packagekit-plugin.so
>     skypebuttons.so
>
> which is probably the important one because this is a 64-bit box
>
> the owner and group of libflashplayer.so is root/root, with
> read/write/execute for owner and read/execute for everyone else
>
> > What is the result of 'rpm -qa | grep flash'?
>
> flash-player-11.1.102.55-0.6.1.x86_64
>
> > What was the 'special version' you installed? Where did you
> > get it and how, exactly, did you install it?
>
> i truly wish i remembered -- it was something i learned on this
> list so maybe i can find it...

I think I may have spotted a problem, but to clarify things a bit,
please close Firefox completely (Firefox -> File -> Quit will close all
open Firefox windows,) navigate to your ~/.mozilla/firefox/??.default
directory and delete the file "pluginreg.dat". Then re-launch Firefox
and check 'about:plugins' again and report any changes.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[solved] Re: [opensuse] Re: flash is so not idiot-proof

scott-268
In reply to this post by Charles Philip Chan-2
On Monday, January 09, 2012 21:48:30 Charles Philip Chan wrote:

> sc <[hidden email]> writes:
> > but still all embedded flash content gives the same "you
> > need to install a flash player" message

> Try:

> (1) Uninstall the Flash package.

> (2) Delete any extra files with "flashplayer" in its name in
>    "/usr/lib/browser-plugins" and
> "/usr/lib64/browser-plugins".

> (3) Reinstall Flash.

i'd like to thank everyone who tried to help

it turns out i was led down the garden path by firefox itself --
when i upgraded to 9.0 from the suse repository it came up with
a message telling me i should upgrade to the latest version from
mozilla -- i did that, upgrading to 9.0.1 and that's when my
problems began

9.0.1 won't run the latest flash plugin, or any other of my
plugins

i re-installed firefox 9.0 using yast and now about:plugins
shows a slew of them, including the flash player, and i can
again play flash video

thanx again to all of you

sc
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [solved] Re: [opensuse] Re: flash is so not idiot-proof

Basil Chupin-2
On 10/01/12 16:28, sc wrote:

> On Monday, January 09, 2012 21:48:30 Charles Philip Chan wrote:
>
>> sc<[hidden email]>  writes:
>>> but still all embedded flash content gives the same "you
>>> need to install a flash player" message
>> Try:
>> (1) Uninstall the Flash package.
>> (2) Delete any extra files with "flashplayer" in its name in
>>     "/usr/lib/browser-plugins" and
>> "/usr/lib64/browser-plugins".
>> (3) Reinstall Flash.
> i'd like to thank everyone who tried to help
>
> it turns out i was led down the garden path by firefox itself --
> when i upgraded to 9.0 from the suse repository it came up with
> a message telling me i should upgrade to the latest version from
> mozilla -- i did that, upgrading to 9.0.1 and that's when my
> problems began
>
> 9.0.1 won't run the latest flash plugin, or any other of my
> plugins
>
> i re-installed firefox 9.0 using yast and now about:plugins
> shows a slew of them, including the flash player, and i can
> again play flash video
>
> thanx again to all of you
>
> sc

Most interesting....I am running Firefox 9.0.1, repeat 9.0.1,  and
everything is working AOK: all videos being displayed by Flash 11.1 with
the greatest of ease.

BC

--
What religion were Adam and Eve?

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [solved] Re: [opensuse] Re: flash is so not idiot-proof

Carl Hartung-2
In reply to this post by scott-268
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 23:28:03 -0600
sc <[hidden email]> wrote:
8<---- snipped ----

> i'd like to thank everyone who tried to help
>
> it turns out i was led down the garden path by firefox itself --
> when i upgraded to 9.0 from the suse repository it came up with
> a message telling me i should upgrade to the latest version from
> mozilla -- i did that, upgrading to 9.0.1 and that's when my
> problems began
>
> 9.0.1 won't run the latest flash plugin, or any other of my
> plugins
>
> i re-installed firefox 9.0 using yast and now about:plugins
> shows a slew of them, including the flash player, and i can
> again play flash video
>
> thanx again to all of you
>
> sc

Nice job sticking with it and keeping your cool ;-)

Congrats!
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [solved] Re: [opensuse] Re: flash is so not idiot-proof

Carl Hartung-2
In reply to this post by Basil Chupin-2
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:37:11 +1100
Basil Chupin <[hidden email]> wrote:
8<---- snipped ----
> Most interesting....I am running Firefox 9.0.1, repeat 9.0.1,  and
> everything is working AOK: all videos being displayed by Flash 11.1
> with the greatest of ease.
>
> BC

Could this be because you've installed one correctly packaged for the
distribution and not followed a Firefox 'download latest version' link?


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [solved] Re: [opensuse] Re: flash is so not idiot-proof

Carl Hartung-2
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 00:47:53 -0500
Carl Hartung <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:37:11 +1100
> Basil Chupin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 8<---- snipped ----
> > Most interesting....I am running Firefox 9.0.1, repeat 9.0.1,  and
> > everything is working AOK: all videos being displayed by Flash 11.1
> > with the greatest of ease.
> >
> > BC
>
> Could this be because you've installed one correctly packaged for the
> distribution and not followed a Firefox 'download latest version'
> link?

This had to have been the difference, Basil. I'd neglected to add the
upstream openSUSE 'Mozilla' repository, also. Like the OP, I only had
an 'official' package for Firefox at 9.0 available. Once I added the
upstream Mozilla repository for 11.4, the distribution I'm running:

http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/mozilla/openSUSE_11.4

9.0.1 became available to install. I have just installed it and my
plug-ins are working fine.

That's the difference between installing a generic package from
an outside source vs. installing one correctly packaged for your
distribution.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [solved] Re: [opensuse] Re: flash is so not idiot-proof

Basil Chupin-2
In reply to this post by Carl Hartung-2
On 10/01/12 16:47, Carl Hartung wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:37:11 +1100
> Basil Chupin<[hidden email]>  wrote:
> 8<---- snipped ----
>> Most interesting....I am running Firefox 9.0.1, repeat 9.0.1,  and
>> everything is working AOK: all videos being displayed by Flash 11.1
>> with the greatest of ease.
>>
>> BC
> Could this be because you've installed one correctly packaged for the
> distribution and not followed a Firefox 'download latest version' link?

Well, now you have me...... :-) . The Software Manager shows that the
URL for what I am running is www.mozilla.org.

(I regularly have installed the Nighlty builds of FF and the only thing
to watch out for there is that the symlink(s) point to the correct
directory for the plugin - eg, flash. Get this wrong and no
flashy-flashy :-( .)

BC

--
What religion were Adam and Eve?
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [solved] Re: [opensuse] Re: flash is so not idiot-proof

Basil Chupin-2
In reply to this post by Carl Hartung-2
On 10/01/12 17:18, Carl Hartung wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 00:47:53 -0500
> Carl Hartung<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:37:11 +1100
>> Basil Chupin<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> 8<---- snipped ----
>>> Most interesting....I am running Firefox 9.0.1, repeat 9.0.1,  and
>>> everything is working AOK: all videos being displayed by Flash 11.1
>>> with the greatest of ease.
>>>
>>> BC
>> Could this be because you've installed one correctly packaged for the
>> distribution and not followed a Firefox 'download latest version'
>> link?
> This had to have been the difference, Basil. I'd neglected to add the
> upstream openSUSE 'Mozilla' repository, also. Like the OP, I only had
> an 'official' package for Firefox at 9.0 available. Once I added the
> upstream Mozilla repository for 11.4, the distribution I'm running:
>
> http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/mozilla/openSUSE_11.4
>
> 9.0.1 became available to install. I have just installed it and my
> plug-ins are working fine.
>
> That's the difference between installing a generic package from
> an outside source vs. installing one correctly packaged for your
> distribution.

Ah, I see. I automatically select the Mozilla repo after I do an install
so that is why I have FF v9.0.1 as you mention.

BC

--
What religion were Adam and Eve?

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: flash is so not idiot-proof

Felix Miata-3
In reply to this post by Carl Hartung-2
On 2012/01/10 01:18 (GMT-0500) Carl Hartung composed:

>>  Could this be because you've installed one correctly packaged for the
>>  distribution and not followed a Firefox 'download latest version'
>>  link?

> This had to have been the difference, Basil. I'd neglected to add the
> upstream openSUSE 'Mozilla' repository, also. Like the OP, I only had
> an 'official' package for Firefox at 9.0 available. Once I added the
> upstream Mozilla repository for 11.4, the distribution I'm running:

> http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/mozilla/openSUSE_11.4

> 9.0.1 became available to install. I have just installed it and my
> plug-ins are working fine.

> That's the difference between installing a generic package from
> an outside source vs. installing one correctly packaged for your
> distribution.

Lest anyone believe it dangerous or unwise to run anything but openSUSE
packaged versions on 11.4 or any other openSUSE release, I've been running
multiple versions for close to a decade. Virtually constantly I have open
9.0.1, 3.6.24 & 2.0.0.20, plus SeaMonkey 2.6.1 & 2.7beta<latest>
simultaneously, with at least 80 tabs among them. Only 3.6.24 & 2.6.1 are
"installed" from any openSUSE repo. The rest come from Mozilla.org mirrors
ready to extract and run.
--
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: flash is so not idiot-proof

Carl Hartung-2
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 01:52:52 -0500
Felix Miata <[hidden email]> wrote:
8<---- snipped ----
> Lest anyone believe it dangerous or unwise to run anything but
> openSUSE packaged versions on 11.4 or any other openSUSE release,
> I've been running multiple versions for close to a decade. Virtually
> constantly I have open 9.0.1, 3.6.24 & 2.0.0.20, plus SeaMonkey 2.6.1
> & 2.7beta<latest> simultaneously, with at least 80 tabs among them.
> Only 3.6.24 & 2.6.1 are "installed" from any openSUSE repo. The rest
> come from Mozilla.org mirrors ready to extract and run.

No one said it can't be done, Felix. That's not the point and you know
it. Why do you keep dropping irrelevant side comments into my posts? It's
getting very annoying. Please stop.

Thanks

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]