Adobe (Temporarily?) Kills 64-Bit Flash For Linux

[Steve Underwood]

On 06/14/2010 11:20 PM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> --- On Mon, 6/14/10, Steve Underwood<steveu at coppice.org>  wrote:
>
>    
>> On 06/14/2010 12:54 PM, Patrick
>> Bartek wrote:
>>      
>>> --- On Sun, 6/13/10, Bill Davidsen<davidsen at tmr.com>
>>>        
>> wrote:
>>      
>>>
>>>        
>>>> That isn't going to make people very
>>>> happy.
>>>>
>>>> http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/06/11/1338207/Adobe-Temporarily-Kills-64-Bit-Flash-For-Linux
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> Guess I'll just continue to use 10.0 R45 Beta 64-bit
>>>        
>> like I have been since February when it was released. 
>> I works well enough for me.  Yes, it crashes sometimes,
>> but not often.  In fact, since I cleaned Totem (and its
>> related/unneeded dependencies) off my system--first with F9
>> and then with F12--in favor of mplayer, I've had a lot less
>> video streaming/playing problems.
>>      
>>> However, I still have that
>>>        
>> Hulu-won't-play-with-64bit-Flash problem, except by using
>> their 64-bit desktop player.
>>      
>>> B
>>>
>>>        
>> This might be OK if they hadn't admitted that the version
>> you are
>> running has some huge security hole.
>>      
> I thought 10.1 was the one with the problem.  In any case, I don't think the "hole" will cause much problems with Linux based systems.  When you read of the panic attacks people are having, it's usually about Windows systems.
>
> B
>    
I believe 10.1 is supposed to be the "big fix" for problems in 
10.0.<something>. They wouldn't have release 10.1 last Friday if it was 
supposed to have the serious fault they reported a few days before, 
would they? You cut the part of my message where I said 10.1 on a 32 bit 
machine appears to be causing kernel faults. If it can do that, who know 
what nasty things it could do if its insecure.

Steve