www.cnn.com is telling me that my version of flash-player is out of date with security risks so it won't display any video news. Go and update your flash player.
On this F21 system I am using:
adobe-linux-x86_64.repo
which has in it:
baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/
yum.log shows:
Jan 19 18:08:31 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.429-release.x86_64 Jan 26 08:51:24 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.440-release.x86_64
So supposedly I am current to Jan 26. But cnn is not a happy camper. There have been a couple other sites complaining as well. Even one that said my version of Firefox was out of date, but that was only a warning.
On 02/03/2015 03:44 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
www.cnn.com is telling me that my version of flash-player is out of date with security risks so it won't display any video news. Go and update your flash player.
On this F21 system I am using:
adobe-linux-x86_64.repo
which has in it:
baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/
yum.log shows:
Jan 19 18:08:31 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.429-release.x86_64 Jan 26 08:51:24 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.440-release.x86_64
So supposedly I am current to Jan 26. But cnn is not a happy camper. There have been a couple other sites complaining as well. Even one that said my version of Firefox was out of date, but that was only a warning.
CNN works with Chrome.
On 2/3/2015 16:47, Steven Stern wrote:
CNN works with Chrome.
That's because Flash is baked into the browser itself: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/108086?hl=en
Tom
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
www.cnn.com is telling me that my version of flash-player is out of date with security risks so it won't display any video news. Go and update your flash player.
On this F21 system I am using:
adobe-linux-x86_64.repo
which has in it:
baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/
yum.log shows:
Jan 19 18:08:31 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.429-release.x86_64 Jan 26 08:51:24 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.440-release.x86_64
So supposedly I am current to Jan 26. But cnn is not a happy camper. There have been a couple other sites complaining as well. Even one that said my version of Firefox was out of date, but that was only a warning.
There is another exploit in the wild that adobe expects to fix with another release sometime this week.
John
On 02/03/2015 04:48 PM, inode0 wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
www.cnn.com is telling me that my version of flash-player is out of date with security risks so it won't display any video news. Go and update your flash player.
On this F21 system I am using:
adobe-linux-x86_64.repo
which has in it:
baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/
yum.log shows:
Jan 19 18:08:31 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.429-release.x86_64 Jan 26 08:51:24 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.440-release.x86_64
So supposedly I am current to Jan 26. But cnn is not a happy camper. There have been a couple other sites complaining as well. Even one that said my version of Firefox was out of date, but that was only a warning.
There is another exploit in the wild that adobe expects to fix with another release sometime this week.
I have a limited use of flash. For sites like cnn. Well, I think one of my banks uses it for their home page...
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
On 02/03/2015 04:48 PM, inode0 wrote:
There is another exploit in the wild that adobe expects to fix with another release sometime this week.
I have a limited use of flash. For sites like cnn. Well, I think one of my banks uses it for their home page...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188329
I'd just take a few flash free days until adobe gets it fixed to be a little safer.
John
On 4 February 2015 at 00:43, inode0 inode0@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
On 02/03/2015 04:48 PM, inode0 wrote:
There is another exploit in the wild that adobe expects to fix with another release sometime this week.
I have a limited use of flash. For sites like cnn. Well, I think one of my banks uses it for their home page...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188329
I'd just take a few flash free days until adobe gets it fixed to be a little safer.
John
From https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/flash-player/apsa15-02.html :
“Revisions
February 2, 2015 - removed Flash Player version 11.x from the list of affected versions. Version 11.x and earlier do not support the functionality affected by CVE-2015-0313. ”
So they found that Linux/Firefox isn't affected IIUC.
On 02/04/2015 04:42 PM, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 4 February 2015 at 00:43, inode0 inode0@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
On 02/03/2015 04:48 PM, inode0 wrote:
There is another exploit in the wild that adobe expects to fix with another release sometime this week.
I have a limited use of flash. For sites like cnn. Well, I think one of my banks uses it for their home page...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188329
I'd just take a few flash free days until adobe gets it fixed to be a little safer.
John
From https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/flash-player/apsa15-02.html :
“Revisions
February 2, 2015 - removed Flash Player version 11.x from the list of affected versions. Version 11.x and earlier do not support the functionality affected by CVE-2015-0313. ”
So they found that Linux/Firefox isn't affected IIUC.
My version of 11.2 is 11.2.202.310, which is version downloaded from the Adobe web site. I've also heard that Adobe are not releasing any future version of flash for Linux (has that state changed?) plus they were winding back development of flash for windows in favor of html 5. I checked about:plugins and my version of flash is showing State: Enabled (STATE_VULNERABLE_UPDATE_AVAILABLE) Removal of pluginreg.dat made no difference, plus like Robert I get the flash issue on a lot of websites and on a lot of sites firefox refuses to play the flash on the grounds that flash is a security risk, until I allow the execution.
On 09.02.2015 21:16, Stephen Morris wrote: ...
Adobe web site. I've also heard that Adobe are not releasing any future version of flash for Linux (has that state changed?) plus they were
...
http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/tech-specs.html "Note: Flash Player 11.2 is the last supported Flash Player version for Linux. Adobe will continue to provide security updates."
http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2012/02/adobe-and-google-partnering-for-f... "Adobe will continue to provide security updates to non-Pepper distributions of Flash Player 11.2 on Linux for five years from its release."
https://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/archived-flash-player-versions.html#... "(Released 3/28/2012) Flash Player 11.2.202.223 and 11.2.202.228 (182 MB)"
Do the math.
On 3 February 2015 at 23:44, Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
www.cnn.com is telling me that my version of flash-player is out of date with security risks so it won't display any video news. Go and update your flash player.
On this F21 system I am using:
adobe-linux-x86_64.repo
which has in it:
baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/
yum.log shows:
Jan 19 18:08:31 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.429-release.x86_64 Jan 26 08:51:24 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.440-release.x86_64
So supposedly I am current to Jan 26. But cnn is not a happy camper. There have been a couple other sites complaining as well. Even one that said my version of Firefox was out of date, but that was only a warning.
Go to about:plugins in Firefox, if the displayed version of Adobe Flash isn't *.440, try deleting ~/.mozilla/firefox/PROFILE_NAME/pluginreg.dat and refresh about:plugins or restart Firefox.
I've hit a similar issue recently on a different website.
On 02/04/2015 05:12 PM, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 3 February 2015 at 23:44, Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
www.cnn.com is telling me that my version of flash-player is out of date with security risks so it won't display any video news. Go and update your flash player.
On this F21 system I am using:
adobe-linux-x86_64.repo
which has in it:
baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/
yum.log shows:
Jan 19 18:08:31 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.429-release.x86_64 Jan 26 08:51:24 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.440-release.x86_64
So supposedly I am current to Jan 26. But cnn is not a happy camper. There have been a couple other sites complaining as well. Even one that said my version of Firefox was out of date, but that was only a warning.
Go to about:plugins in Firefox, if the displayed version of Adobe Flash isn't *.440, try deleting ~/.mozilla/firefox/PROFILE_NAME/pluginreg.dat and refresh about:plugins or restart Firefox.
I've hit a similar issue recently on a different website.
I just installed the 64 bit rpm for version 442 of flash I downloaded from Adobe's website, put a symlink into /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins (the upstream version of 64 bit firefox looks for its plugins in /usr/lib) to where the rpm placed the plugin, remove pluginreg.dat, started firefox and issued about:plugins which firefox says it is picking up from /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins but it says the version is 11.2.202.310 still, why is this occurring?
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:26:42AM +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 02/04/2015 05:12 PM, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 3 February 2015 at 23:44, Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
www.cnn.com is telling me that my version of flash-player is out of date with security risks so it won't display any video news. Go and update your flash player.
On this F21 system I am using:
adobe-linux-x86_64.repo
which has in it:
baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/
yum.log shows:
Jan 19 18:08:31 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.429-release.x86_64 Jan 26 08:51:24 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.440-release.x86_64
So supposedly I am current to Jan 26. But cnn is not a happy camper. There have been a couple other sites complaining as well. Even one that said my version of Firefox was out of date, but that was only a warning.
Go to about:plugins in Firefox, if the displayed version of Adobe Flash isn't *.440, try deleting ~/.mozilla/firefox/PROFILE_NAME/pluginreg.dat and refresh about:plugins or restart Firefox.
I've hit a similar issue recently on a different website.
I just installed the 64 bit rpm for version 442 of flash I downloaded from Adobe's website, put a symlink into /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins (the upstream version of 64 bit firefox looks for its plugins in /usr/lib) to where the rpm placed the plugin, remove pluginreg.dat, started firefox and issued about:plugins which firefox says it is picking up from /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins but it says the version is 11.2.202.310 still, why is this occurring?
Seems likely that SOMEWHERE there is still a copy of the old version that FF is finding instead of the one you want.
On 09.02.2015 22:28, Fred Smith wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:26:42AM +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 02/04/2015 05:12 PM, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 3 February 2015 at 23:44, Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
www.cnn.com is telling me that my version of flash-player is out of date with security risks so it won't display any video news. Go and update your flash player.
On this F21 system I am using:
adobe-linux-x86_64.repo
which has in it:
baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/
yum.log shows:
Jan 19 18:08:31 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.429-release.x86_64 Jan 26 08:51:24 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.440-release.x86_64
So supposedly I am current to Jan 26. But cnn is not a happy camper. There have been a couple other sites complaining as well. Even one that said my version of Firefox was out of date, but that was only a warning.
Go to about:plugins in Firefox, if the displayed version of Adobe Flash isn't *.440, try deleting ~/.mozilla/firefox/PROFILE_NAME/pluginreg.dat and refresh about:plugins or restart Firefox.
I've hit a similar issue recently on a different website.
I just installed the 64 bit rpm for version 442 of flash I downloaded from Adobe's website, put a symlink into /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins (the upstream version of 64 bit firefox looks for its plugins in /usr/lib) to where the rpm placed the plugin, remove pluginreg.dat, started firefox and issued about:plugins which firefox says it is picking up from /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins but it says the version is 11.2.202.310 still, why is this occurring?
Seems likely that SOMEWHERE there is still a copy of the old version that FF is finding instead of the one you want.
$ grep -A1 /libflashplayer.so pluginreg.dat
On 02/10/2015 11:42 AM, poma wrote:
On 09.02.2015 22:28, Fred Smith wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:26:42AM +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 02/04/2015 05:12 PM, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 3 February 2015 at 23:44, Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
www.cnn.com is telling me that my version of flash-player is out of date with security risks so it won't display any video news. Go and update your flash player.
On this F21 system I am using:
adobe-linux-x86_64.repo
which has in it:
baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/
yum.log shows:
Jan 19 18:08:31 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.429-release.x86_64 Jan 26 08:51:24 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.440-release.x86_64
So supposedly I am current to Jan 26. But cnn is not a happy camper. There have been a couple other sites complaining as well. Even one that said my version of Firefox was out of date, but that was only a warning.
Go to about:plugins in Firefox, if the displayed version of Adobe Flash isn't *.440, try deleting ~/.mozilla/firefox/PROFILE_NAME/pluginreg.dat and refresh about:plugins or restart Firefox.
I've hit a similar issue recently on a different website.
I just installed the 64 bit rpm for version 442 of flash I downloaded from Adobe's website, put a symlink into /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins (the upstream version of 64 bit firefox looks for its plugins in /usr/lib) to where the rpm placed the plugin, remove pluginreg.dat, started firefox and issued about:plugins which firefox says it is picking up from /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins but it says the version is 11.2.202.310 still, why is this occurring?
Seems likely that SOMEWHERE there is still a copy of the old version that FF is finding instead of the one you want.
$ grep -A1 /libflashplayer.so pluginreg.dat
I've just booted linux after getting home from work, started firefox and checked the plugins and firefox is now showing the right version, seems that I had to reboot linux for the rpm installation and the symlinks to take effect. On reflection maybe the ldconfig cache was causing issues as this would have been refreshed with the reboot.
On 10.02.2015 09:44, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 02/10/2015 11:42 AM, poma wrote:
On 09.02.2015 22:28, Fred Smith wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:26:42AM +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 02/04/2015 05:12 PM, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 3 February 2015 at 23:44, Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
www.cnn.com is telling me that my version of flash-player is out of date with security risks so it won't display any video news. Go and update your flash player.
On this F21 system I am using:
adobe-linux-x86_64.repo
which has in it:
baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/
yum.log shows:
Jan 19 18:08:31 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.429-release.x86_64 Jan 26 08:51:24 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.440-release.x86_64
So supposedly I am current to Jan 26. But cnn is not a happy camper. There have been a couple other sites complaining as well. Even one that said my version of Firefox was out of date, but that was only a warning.
Go to about:plugins in Firefox, if the displayed version of Adobe Flash isn't *.440, try deleting ~/.mozilla/firefox/PROFILE_NAME/pluginreg.dat and refresh about:plugins or restart Firefox.
I've hit a similar issue recently on a different website.
I just installed the 64 bit rpm for version 442 of flash I downloaded from Adobe's website, put a symlink into /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins (the upstream version of 64 bit firefox looks for its plugins in /usr/lib) to where the rpm placed the plugin, remove pluginreg.dat, started firefox and issued about:plugins which firefox says it is picking up from /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins but it says the version is 11.2.202.310 still, why is this occurring?
Seems likely that SOMEWHERE there is still a copy of the old version that FF is finding instead of the one you want.
$ grep -A1 /libflashplayer.so pluginreg.dat
I've just booted linux after getting home from work, started firefox and checked the plugins and firefox is now showing the right version, seems that I had to reboot linux for the rpm installation and the symlinks to take effect. On reflection maybe the ldconfig cache was causing issues as this would have been refreshed with the reboot.
:)
# yum install http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/adobe-release/adobe-release-x86_64-1.0-1.noar... # yum install flash-plugin
On 02/10/2015 08:09 PM, poma wrote:
On 10.02.2015 09:44, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 02/10/2015 11:42 AM, poma wrote:
On 09.02.2015 22:28, Fred Smith wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:26:42AM +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 02/04/2015 05:12 PM, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 3 February 2015 at 23:44, Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote: > www.cnn.com is telling me that my version of flash-player is out of date > with security risks so it won't display any video news. Go and update your > flash player. > > On this F21 system I am using: > > adobe-linux-x86_64.repo > > which has in it: > > baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/ > > yum.log shows: > > Jan 19 18:08:31 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.429-release.x86_64 > Jan 26 08:51:24 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.440-release.x86_64 > > So supposedly I am current to Jan 26. But cnn is not a happy camper. There > have been a couple other sites complaining as well. Even one that said my > version of Firefox was out of date, but that was only a warning. > > Go to about:plugins in Firefox, if the displayed version of Adobe Flash isn't *.440, try deleting ~/.mozilla/firefox/PROFILE_NAME/pluginreg.dat and refresh about:plugins or restart Firefox.
I've hit a similar issue recently on a different website.
I just installed the 64 bit rpm for version 442 of flash I downloaded from Adobe's website, put a symlink into /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins (the upstream version of 64 bit firefox looks for its plugins in /usr/lib) to where the rpm placed the plugin, remove pluginreg.dat, started firefox and issued about:plugins which firefox says it is picking up from /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins but it says the version is 11.2.202.310 still, why is this occurring?
Seems likely that SOMEWHERE there is still a copy of the old version that FF is finding instead of the one you want.
$ grep -A1 /libflashplayer.so pluginreg.dat
I've just booted linux after getting home from work, started firefox and checked the plugins and firefox is now showing the right version, seems that I had to reboot linux for the rpm installation and the symlinks to take effect. On reflection maybe the ldconfig cache was causing issues as this would have been refreshed with the reboot.
:)
# yum install http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/adobe-release/adobe-release-x86_64-1.0-1.noar... # yum install flash-plugin
I already have this repository configured and had installed the 440 version quite some time ago (it seems we need to specify the exact version as this repository seems to have the 64 bit and 32 bit versions), but firefox had always said the installed plugin was 310. Indications are the pluginreg.dat was potentially causing this, so it seems that under Fedora that file must be removed every time the plugin version is changed.
On 10.02.2015 21:13, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 02/10/2015 08:09 PM, poma wrote:
On 10.02.2015 09:44, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 02/10/2015 11:42 AM, poma wrote:
On 09.02.2015 22:28, Fred Smith wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:26:42AM +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
On 02/04/2015 05:12 PM, Ahmad Samir wrote: > On 3 February 2015 at 23:44, Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote: >> www.cnn.com is telling me that my version of flash-player is out of date >> with security risks so it won't display any video news. Go and update your >> flash player. >> >> On this F21 system I am using: >> >> adobe-linux-x86_64.repo >> >> which has in it: >> >> baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/ >> >> yum.log shows: >> >> Jan 19 18:08:31 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.429-release.x86_64 >> Jan 26 08:51:24 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.440-release.x86_64 >> >> So supposedly I am current to Jan 26. But cnn is not a happy camper. There >> have been a couple other sites complaining as well. Even one that said my >> version of Firefox was out of date, but that was only a warning. >> >> > Go to about:plugins in Firefox, if the displayed version of Adobe > Flash isn't *.440, try deleting > ~/.mozilla/firefox/PROFILE_NAME/pluginreg.dat and refresh > about:plugins or restart Firefox. > > I've hit a similar issue recently on a different website. > I just installed the 64 bit rpm for version 442 of flash I downloaded from Adobe's website, put a symlink into /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins (the upstream version of 64 bit firefox looks for its plugins in /usr/lib) to where the rpm placed the plugin, remove pluginreg.dat, started firefox and issued about:plugins which firefox says it is picking up from /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins but it says the version is 11.2.202.310 still, why is this occurring?
Seems likely that SOMEWHERE there is still a copy of the old version that FF is finding instead of the one you want.
$ grep -A1 /libflashplayer.so pluginreg.dat
I've just booted linux after getting home from work, started firefox and checked the plugins and firefox is now showing the right version, seems that I had to reboot linux for the rpm installation and the symlinks to take effect. On reflection maybe the ldconfig cache was causing issues as this would have been refreshed with the reboot.
:)
# yum install http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/adobe-release/adobe-release-x86_64-1.0-1.noar... # yum install flash-plugin
I already have this repository configured and had installed the 440 version quite some time ago (it seems we need to specify the exact version as this repository seems to have the 64 bit and 32 bit
Nope.
32 bit == http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/adobe-release/adobe-release-i386-1.0-1.noarch...
versions), but firefox had always said the installed plugin was 310. Indications are the pluginreg.dat was potentially causing this, so it seems that under Fedora that file must be removed every time the plugin version is changed.
Nope.
Try == https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-clear-firefox-cache
On 10.02.2015, Stephen Morris wrote:
I already have this repository configured and had installed the 440 version quite some time ago (it seems we need to specify the exact version as this repository seems to have the 64 bit and 32 bit versions), but firefox had always said the installed plugin was 310. Indications are the pluginreg.dat was potentially causing this, so it seems that under Fedora that file must be removed every time the plugin version is changed.
If you really need flash:
Remove all flash .rpm's you previously installed. Donwload the .tar.gz from Adobe. Copy libflashplayer.so from the archive to ~/.mozilla/plugins. Restart Firefox. You're done.
Update? Just do the same as described.
On 02/11/2015 06:32 PM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 10.02.2015, Stephen Morris wrote:
I already have this repository configured and had installed the 440 version quite some time ago (it seems we need to specify the exact version as this repository seems to have the 64 bit and 32 bit versions), but firefox had always said the installed plugin was 310. Indications are the pluginreg.dat was potentially causing this, so it seems that under Fedora that file must be removed every time the plugin version is changed.
If you really need flash:
Remove all flash .rpm's you previously installed. Donwload the .tar.gz from Adobe. Copy libflashplayer.so from the archive to ~/.mozilla/plugins. Restart Firefox. You're done.
Update? Just do the same as described.
I had the 440 version of flash rpm installed (I originally had the 310 version installed) and downloaded the 442 version of the rpm from Adobe, which installs the plugin into /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/mozilla. As I am using the upstream nightly version of 64 bit firefox which looks for its plugins /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins I put a link to the flash installed plugin into /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins and link into /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins pointing at the /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins link. I removed pluginreg.dat and restarted firefox but about:plugins said I still had the 310 version installed. It wasn't until I rebooted linux that firefox reflected the correct version, which is why I thought it might be the ldconfig cache. I could have copied the plugin into /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins but I don't like having unnecessary copies of files when links work properly in linux, plus I suspect if I did do that I would still have had the problem anyway.
On 11.02.2015, Stephen Morris wrote:
I removed pluginreg.dat and restarted firefox but about:plugins said I still had the 310 version installed. It wasn't until I rebooted linux that firefox reflected the correct version, which is why I thought it might be the ldconfig cache. I could have copied the plugin into /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins but I don't like having unnecessary copies of files when links work properly in linux, plus I suspect if I did do that I would still have had the problem anyway.
As described previously, you can avoid all the confusion by removing the flash plugin entirely and re-installing it via the Adobe-provided .tar.gz into ~/.mozilla/plugins. You only need the libflashplayer.so. One file, one copy, that's all. It won't get any easier.
Allegedly, on or about 12 February 2015, Stephen Morris sent:
I removed pluginreg.dat and restarted firefox but about:plugins said I still had the 310 version installed.
Your restart *may* not have completely exited firefox, so it still had the prior version loaded. Firefox is like that, it doesn't always completely quit when you think it should have.
On 10 February 2015 at 10:44, Stephen Morris samorris@netspace.net.au wrote:
I've just booted linux after getting home from work, started firefox and checked the plugins and firefox is now showing the right version, seems that I had to reboot linux for the rpm installation and the symlinks to take effect. On reflection maybe the ldconfig cache was causing issues as this would have been refreshed with the reboot.
What refreshes the ldconfig cache at boot? (I don't think there's anything that changes that at boot, but I could be wrong).
On 02/11/2015 02:34 AM, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 10 February 2015 at 10:44, Stephen Morris samorris@netspace.net.au wrote:
I've just booted linux after getting home from work, started firefox and checked the plugins and firefox is now showing the right version, seems that I had to reboot linux for the rpm installation and the symlinks to take effect. On reflection maybe the ldconfig cache was causing issues as this would have been refreshed with the reboot.
What refreshes the ldconfig cache at boot? (I don't think there's anything that changes that at boot, but I could be wrong).
Maybe I'm misunderstanding things but I thought that ldconfig was run every boot, otherwise updated versions of modules placed in those directories would never be used because they were in the cash, unless of coarse there is a post install script in every package that installed modules into directories that could be in the case to actually run ldconfig?
On 2-11-15 07:19:24 Stephen Morris wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding things but I thought that ldconfig was run every boot, otherwise updated versions of modules placed in those directories would never be used because they were in the cash, unless of coarse there is a post install script in every package that installed modules into directories that could be in the case to actually run ldconfig?
You're misunderstanding things. Updates do not require a reboot and they do run ldconfig after installation to update the cache.
On 10 February 2015 at 22:19, Stephen Morris samorris@netspace.net.au wrote:
On 02/11/2015 02:34 AM, Ahmad Samir wrote:
On 10 February 2015 at 10:44, Stephen Morris samorris@netspace.net.au wrote:
I've just booted linux after getting home from work, started firefox and checked the plugins and firefox is now showing the right version, seems that I had to reboot linux for the rpm installation and the symlinks to take effect. On reflection maybe the ldconfig cache was causing issues as this would have been refreshed with the reboot.
What refreshes the ldconfig cache at boot? (I don't think there's anything that changes that at boot, but I could be wrong).
Maybe I'm misunderstanding things but I thought that ldconfig was run every boot, otherwise updated versions of modules placed in those directories would never be used because they were in the cash, unless of coarse there is a post install script in every package that installed modules into directories that could be in the case to actually run ldconfig?
AFAIK ldconfig isn't run at every boot. Every RPM package that contains shared libraries runs ldconfig as part of its post install scripts.
Note that /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so isn't added to the ldconfig cache, I am not a dev but this isn't really a shared library like say /lib64/libgtk-3.so.0 . (ldconfig search certain paths for shared libraries to add to the cache, and /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/ isn't in that path).
Have a good day.
You could grab the Fresh Player Plugin as well, which allows Firefox to use Chrome's Pepper Flash plugin (which is up to date).
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Robert Moskowitz rgm@htt-consult.com wrote:
www.cnn.com is telling me that my version of flash-player is out of date with security risks so it won't display any video news. Go and update your flash player.
On this F21 system I am using:
adobe-linux-x86_64.repo
which has in it:
baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/
yum.log shows:
Jan 19 18:08:31 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.429-release.x86_64 Jan 26 08:51:24 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.440-release.x86_64
So supposedly I am current to Jan 26. But cnn is not a happy camper. There have been a couple other sites complaining as well. Even one that said my version of Firefox was out of date, but that was only a warning.
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
On 02/11/2015 12:24 AM, Kelly Miller wrote:
You could grab the Fresh Player Plugin as well, which allows Firefox to use Chrome's Pepper Flash plugin (which is up to date).
I haven't heard of that before, where would I find it? Am I also correct in assuming that for the usage of Chrome's plugin (which I also wasn't aware of because I thought flash support was built in to chrome) that Chrome must also be installed?
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com mailto:rgm@htt-consult.com> wrote:
www.cnn.com <http://www.cnn.com> is telling me that my version of flash-player is out of date with security risks so it won't display any video news. Go and update your flash player. On this F21 system I am using: adobe-linux-x86_64.repo which has in it: baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/ yum.log shows: Jan 19 18:08:31 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.429-release.x86_64 Jan 26 08:51:24 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.440-release.x86_64 So supposedly I am current to Jan 26. But cnn is not a happy camper. There have been a couple other sites complaining as well. Even one that said my version of Firefox was out of date, but that was only a warning. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:users@lists.fedoraproject.org> To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Is mentioning third party repositories okay on the users list?
Anyway, AFAICS, you don't need to install Chrome or Chromium to get Pepper Flash; the RPM for it doesn't seem to have Chromium as a requirement. Obviously, if you install Google's copy of Chrome, then you get Pepper Flash with it...
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Stephen Morris samorris@netspace.net.au wrote:
On 02/11/2015 12:24 AM, Kelly Miller wrote:
You could grab the Fresh Player Plugin as well, which allows Firefox to use Chrome's Pepper Flash plugin (which is up to date).
I haven't heard of that before, where would I find it? Am I also correct in assuming that for the usage of Chrome's plugin (which I also wasn't aware of because I thought flash support was built in to chrome) that Chrome must also be installed?
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com mailto:rgm@htt-consult.com> wrote:
www.cnn.com <http://www.cnn.com> is telling me that my version of flash-player is out of date with security risks so it won't display any video news. Go and update your flash player. On this F21 system I am using: adobe-linux-x86_64.repo which has in it: baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/ yum.log shows: Jan 19 18:08:31 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.429-release.x86_64 Jan 26 08:51:24 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.440-release.x86_64 So supposedly I am current to Jan 26. But cnn is not a happy camper. There have been a couple other sites complaining as well. Even one that said my version of Firefox was out of date, but that was only a warning. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:users@lists.fedoraproject.org> To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
On 02/10/2015 06:54 PM, Kelly Miller wrote:
You could grab the Fresh Player Plugin as well, which allows Firefox to use Chrome's Pepper Flash plugin (which is up to date).
Looking around for information about Fresh Player Plugin, I ran into an article that said "Mozilla is working on its own Flash replacement: Shumway, which is open source and uses HTML5". That sounds interesting. Does anyone have more information on this ?
[]1 mozilla.github.io/shumway/
- rejy (rmc)
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com mailto:rgm@htt-consult.com> wrote:
www.cnn.com <http://www.cnn.com> is telling me that my version of flash-player is out of date with security risks so it won't display any video news. Go and update your flash player. On this F21 system I am using: adobe-linux-x86_64.repo which has in it: baseurl=http://linuxdownload.__adobe.com/linux/x86_64/ <http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/> yum.log shows: Jan 19 18:08:31 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.429-__release.x86_64 Jan 26 08:51:24 Updated: flash-plugin-11.2.202.440-__release.x86_64 So supposedly I am current to Jan 26. But cnn is not a happy camper. There have been a couple other sites complaining as well. Even one that said my version of Firefox was out of date, but that was only a warning. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org <mailto:users@lists.fedoraproject.org> To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.__org/mailman/listinfo/users <https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-__of-conduct <http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct> Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/__Mailing_list_guidelines <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines> Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
-
Ahmad Samir -
Fred Smith -
Garry Williams -
Heinz Diehl -
inode0 -
Kelly Miller -
poma -
Rejy M Cyriac -
Robert Moskowitz -
Stephen Morris -
SternData -
Tim -
Tom Rivers