12:03 a.m.
Per the subject, updated the local copies of flash yesterday (Friday the
thirteenth here). No time to check the results yesterday, and today, when
my daughter tried to listen to youtube, no joy.
So, i checked my shell history yesterday, and I'm pretty sure I skipped the
chown step.
Checking the permissions/owner flags, however, reveals something very odd.
Group was set according to the user. Owner was set to a numerical value
5000+owner.
Putting real numbers on this, given the user user519, numerical
userid:groupid 519:519,
the owner:group for /home/user519/.mozilla/plugin/libflashplayer.so was
5519:519 when I checked this morning.
Now, I did not erase the previous version of libflashplayer, so the usual
rules for cp without -p or a similar option (as I recall, and I don't see
the specifics in the man entry right now) would be to leave the existing
owner:group when overwriting. So I should not be surprised had the
owner:group been 519:519 in the example above. Needless to say, I don't
know of anything but a bug that would give me owner+5000.
(Unless I dozed off while my fingers were still typing, as I sometimes do
these days. Hate it when I do that. Gotta get more sleep. But I still can't
imagine what I might have done, sleep-typing, to end up with that, and I
don't see any record of such a thing in my .history file.)
And, having chown-ed to (per the example above) user519, flash still
refuses to run youtube for us.
Anyone else having issues with this version of flash? -- Shockwave Flash
11.2 r202.
And anyone have an idea why the owner of a file would end up 5000+userid?
--
Joel Rees
8:18 p.m.
On Mon, 2012-04-16 at 08:11 +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
(2) I don't want to have to use Adobe's settings tools to
disable
Flash in my admin and banking accounts. I only want Flash to run in
the account the kids surf from and the account I sometimes use for
testing those kinds of things.
Easier to install Flash in the usual way, *and* a Flashblock plug-in for
the Browser. Easier to install, easier to use.
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r
2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I
read messages from the public lists.
8:40 a.m.
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 03:30, Ed Greshko <Ed.Greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
Why don't you switch your youtube experience to hmtl5?
http://www.youtube.com/html5
Just to parachute into this thread, and not being the OP...
I found the default plug-in to be lacking. Particularly, it displays
some youtube videos, but not others. A FF dialog pops up telling me it
needs to find Sorensen codec, I press OK, and then tells me it hasn't
found any.
I think this wouldn't happen if the default plug-in for vids were mplayer...
In fact, I uninstalled the default plugins, and installed gecko-mediaplayer*
works like a charm for all vids.
Just my $0.02
FC
--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
- George Orwell
8:34 a.m.
On 04/14/2012 09:11 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
With the old flash plugin, youtube works fine.
> > May put
> > flash in one account on the box I'm using here, to see if it's perhaps
> > a CPU or other hardware issue but not now.
Okay, the current flash plugin and yesterdays both work on this box. Except that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_GpxCUg9Vo
(heart playing heartless on TV back in the 70s) doesn't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a03S9o4sFxE
B52s playing Roam, does play.
html5 setting doesn't make any difference on this box, either.
This box is a netbook with the accursed Intel Atom N455, 32 bit
fedora. That box is AMD Sempron 2600, all 32 bit.
Guess I need to file a bug somewhere.
I am unable to follow what you are doing. I thought there was one box...your
daughter's. Now there are 2. This and that.
FWIW, both of those URLs you cite play just fine under F16/Firefox/HTML5 on my Intel
i5 system. As I said, and as Sam has also pointed out, there really is no reason to
mess with the tar file. Nobody I know jumps through hoops longer.
Good luck.
--
Never be afraid to laugh at yourself, after all, you could be missing out on the joke
of the century. -- Dame Edna Everage
8:25 a.m.
Joel Rees writes:
Well, I just downloaded the tarball once more, and took a look. cmp
Why are you making this more difficult than it needs to me?
Just install their yum repository package, and you get your Flash updates
via Packagekit.
This morning PackageKit prompted me to update the kernel, all the other
overnight Fedora updates, and Flash 11.2 update. So I did, rebooted, and I'm
now watching Youboob.
No issues whatsoever. And this is even the 64 bit Flash plugin that I have
here.
Haven't had to mess around with Flash tarballs, and all that nonsense, for a
long, long time.
8:15 a.m.
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 03:15, Joel Rees <joel.rees(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Well, I just downloaded the tarball once more, and took a look. cmp
says today's tarball is different from yesterdays.
I thought Adobe had dropped Linux support for Flash, expect in its
"embedded into Chrome" version?
FC
--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un
Acto Revolucionario
- George Orwell
8:11 a.m.
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Joel Rees <joel.rees(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Ed Greshko
<Ed.Greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
> On 04/14/2012 02:15 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
>> Well, I just downloaded the tarball once more, and took a look. cmp
>> says today's tarball is different from yesterdays. Unpacking the
>> tarball and doing a diff -r reveals that they differ in the contents
>> of the readme (version goes up from .228 to .233) and the kde library,
>> /usr/lib/kde4/kcm/adobe/flash_player.so .
Noticed that libflashplayer is also different, so I went ahead and
moved today's libflashplayer in to see what would happen. No change.
(Guess I'm still not up to speed on reading diffs.)
I should note that some videos work, either way. (Live video of Heart
doing Heartless and another of B-52s doing Roam. The Roam video claims
to be a conversion to Theora.) Probably Theora/ogg and other free
stuff works and non-free stuff that depends on Flash to get around the
codec issue doesn't.
>> So, the versions shouldn't be at issue here. I guess I'll tell my
>> daughter that youtube is isn't going to work for a few days, until I
>> get more information, at least.
>>
>> Adobe's failure to provide cryptographic checksums for those further
>> undermines my trust in their processes.
>
> Why don't you switch your youtube experience to hmtl5?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/html5
>
> and join....
Great idea!
Doesn't seem to make any difference, however.
I'm seeing some messages that may be related in /var/log/messages,
I'll have to copy paste them into this thread. And I'll try moving the
old Flash plugin back in to see if that tells me anything.
With the old flash plugin, youtube works fine.
May put
flash in one account on the box I'm using here, to see if it's perhaps
a CPU or other hardware issue but not now.
Okay, the current flash plugin and yesterdays both work on this box. Except that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_GpxCUg9Vo
(heart playing heartless on TV back in the 70s) doesn't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a03S9o4sFxE
B52s playing Roam, does play.
html5 setting doesn't make any difference on this box, either.
This box is a netbook with the accursed Intel Atom N455, 32 bit
fedora. That box is AMD Sempron 2600, all 32 bit.
Guess I need to file a bug somewhere.
--
Joel Rees
3:08 a.m.
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Ed Greshko <Ed.Greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
On 04/14/2012 02:15 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
> Well, I just downloaded the tarball once more, and took a look. cmp
> says today's tarball is different from yesterdays. Unpacking the
> tarball and doing a diff -r reveals that they differ in the contents
> of the readme (version goes up from .228 to .233) and the kde library,
> /usr/lib/kde4/kcm/adobe/flash_player.so .
Noticed that libflashplayer is also different, so I went ahead and
moved today's libflashplayer in to see what would happen. No change.
(Guess I'm still not up to speed on reading diffs.)
I should note that some videos work, either way. (Live video of Heart
doing Heartless and another of B-52s doing Roam. The Roam video claims
to be a conversion to Theora.) Probably Theora/ogg and other free
stuff works and non-free stuff that depends on Flash to get around the
codec issue doesn't.
> So, the versions shouldn't be at issue here. I guess I'll
tell my
> daughter that youtube is isn't going to work for a few days, until I
> get more information, at least.
>
> Adobe's failure to provide cryptographic checksums for those further
> undermines my trust in their processes.
Why don't you switch your youtube experience to hmtl5?
http://www.youtube.com/html5
and join....
Great idea!
Doesn't seem to make any difference, however.
I'm seeing some messages that may be related in /var/log/messages,
I'll have to copy paste them into this thread. And I'll try moving the
old Flash plugin back in to see if that tells me anything. May put
flash in one account on the box I'm using here, to see if it's perhaps
a CPU or other hardware issue but not now. Have some family business.
--
Joel Rees
1:30 a.m.
On 04/14/2012 02:15 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
Well, I just downloaded the tarball once more, and took a look. cmp
says today's tarball is different from yesterdays. Unpacking the
tarball and doing a diff -r reveals that they differ in the contents
of the readme (version goes up from .228 to .233) and the kde library,
/usr/lib/kde4/kcm/adobe/flash_player.so .
So, the versions shouldn't be at issue here. I guess I'll tell my
daughter that youtube is isn't going to work for a few days, until I
get more information, at least.
Adobe's failure to provide cryptographic checksums for those further
undermines my trust in their processes.
Why don't you switch your youtube experience to hmtl5?
http://www.youtube.com/html5
and join....
--
Never be afraid to laugh at yourself, after all, you could be missing out on the joke
of the century. -- Dame Edna Everage
1:15 a.m.
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Ed Greshko <Ed.Greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
On 04/14/2012 01:03 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
> Anyone else having issues with this version of flash? -- Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202.
No problems at all with flash/youtube on firefox.
However, I'm installing from the adobe-linux-i386.repo and only have system-wide
files installed...
Well, I just downloaded the tarball once more, and took a look. cmp
says today's tarball is different from yesterdays. Unpacking the
tarball and doing a diff -r reveals that they differ in the contents
of the readme (version goes up from .228 to .233) and the kde library,
/usr/lib/kde4/kcm/adobe/flash_player.so .
So, the versions shouldn't be at issue here. I guess I'll tell my
daughter that youtube is isn't going to work for a few days, until I
get more information, at least.
Adobe's failure to provide cryptographic checksums for those further
undermines my trust in their processes.
--
Joel Rees
12:10 a.m.
On 04/14/2012 01:03 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
Anyone else having issues with this version of flash? -- Shockwave
Flash 11.2 r202.
No problems at all with flash/youtube on firefox.
However, I'm installing from the adobe-linux-i386.repo and only have system-wide
files installed...
[egreshko@meimei test]$ locate libflashplayer.so
/usr/lib/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so
/usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so
[egreshko@meimei test]$ ll /usr/lib/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 17406436 Apr 12 06:16 /usr/lib/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so
[egreshko@meimei test]$ ll /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 39 Apr 14 09:01 /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so ->
/usr/lib/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so
--
Never be afraid to laugh at yourself, after all, you could be missing out on the joke
of the century. -- Dame Edna Everage
6:11 p.m.
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Ed Greshko <Ed.Greshko(a)greshko.com> wrote:
On 04/14/2012 09:11 PM, Joel Rees wrote:
> With the old flash plugin, youtube works fine.
>
>> > May put
>> > flash in one account on the box I'm using here, to see if it's
perhaps
>> > a CPU or other hardware issue but not now.
> Okay, the current flash plugin and yesterdays both work on this box. Except that
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_GpxCUg9Vo
>
> (heart playing heartless on TV back in the 70s) doesn't.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a03S9o4sFxE
>
> B52s playing Roam, does play.
>
> html5 setting doesn't make any difference on this box, either.
>
> This box is a netbook with the accursed Intel Atom N455, 32 bit
> fedora. That box is AMD Sempron 2600, all 32 bit.
>
> Guess I need to file a bug somewhere.
(Specifically, with Adobe, not Fedora.)
I am unable to follow what you are doing. I thought there was one
box...your
daughter's. Now there are 2. This and that.
Well, I'd blame it on my age, but several members of the list trump me
on that. 8-P My wife tells me I've always been hard to follow. :-<
There was one box, and then there are two. That is, since I'm having
problems on the one box, I thought I'd see what happens on the other.
FWIW, both of those URLs you cite play just fine under
F16/Firefox/HTML5 on my Intel
i5 system.
I seem to be missing support for HTML5 somewhere. But I'm not really
looking to fix that just now.
As I said, and as Sam has also pointed out, there really is no
reason to
mess with the tar file. Nobody I know jumps through hoops longer.
Same thing as using sudo and xhost to sandbox FF without depending on
SELinux. I don't follow the crowed.
Here are my reasons for not enabling the repository and yumming the thing:
(1) I don't care to have lots of repositories enabled. Not for mpeg
stuff, not for Adobe.
(2) I don't want to have to use Adobe's settings tools to disable
Flash in my admin and banking accounts. I only want Flash to run in
the account the kids surf from and the account I sometimes use for
testing those kinds of things. I suppose I could
Yeah, I'm baroque enough to have separate accounts for surfing, work,
admin, and money. And I don't surf in bad water, either. A former
co-worker bragged about how much malware he had to remove from his PC,
back in the days of MSW95. I'm kind of the opposite.
I've seen hints that I could use yum or RPM locally to the two users
in question, I suppose I should nose around for more on that sometime.
Good luck.
--
Never be afraid to laugh at yourself, after all, you could be missing out on the joke
of the century. -- Dame Edna Everage
Heh.
--
Joel Rees
4447
days inactive
4449
days old
11 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Ed Greshko -
Fernando Cassia -
Joel Rees -
Sam Varshavchik -
Tim