64 versus 32 flash mystery

[Tom Horsley]

On Sun, 30 May 2010 21:39:07 +0000 (UTC)
Andre Robatino wrote:

> > Any idea why some sites think the 64 bit flash
> > is a version number < 9?  
> 
> Do you get the same error if flash isn't installed at all?

I just tried it, and I get an "install missing plugins" prompt
from firefox with no flash installed. One page that can [could]
consistently reproduce the problem for me is:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/

Scroll down a ways and there is a video player area on the left side
where I get the version error when using 64bit flash.

But wait! Since I uninstalled flash to check that error, I
tried copying the 64bit plugin back to /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins
again so I could see the exact error, and now I get video :-).
It really is mysterious.

I wonder if version problems were another mysterious side effect from:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=597648

I do have a bind mount now for /home instead of a symlink.