Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 110

Thread: Flash 11.2.202.228 solutions

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    The Left Coast of the USA
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Kubuntu

    Re: Flash 11.2.202.228 solutions

    If worse comes to worst while the community works on a solution to such a blatant "nose-thumbing" from Adobe, I may have to dig out an XP disk and run it in VBox for Flash content. Sigh.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Brazil
    Beans
    12,497
    Distro
    Ubuntu Studio 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: Flash 11.2.202.228 solutions

    Quote Originally Posted by QIII View Post
    If worse comes to worst while the community works on a solution to such a blatant "nose-thumbing" from Adobe, I may have to dig out an XP disk and run it in VBox for Flash content. Sigh.
    Well, I can't say I haven't thought about that too. But either doing that or using Chrome will brake my work-flow. At least using Chrome we can use the "Open With" feature of Opera or the Firefox extension.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Sebring, Florida USA
    Beans
    182

    Re: Flash 11.2.202.228 solutions

    Quote Originally Posted by lovinglinux View Post
    Because Adobe is no longer supporting Flash on Linux. They gave this task to Google, which will release a new kind o plugin, using Chrome Pepper API. Neither Mozilla or Opera will adopt Pepper.
    Okay. Another squeeze to eliminate competition and to get everyone to "buy" into specific new technologies and hardwares. Firefox is pretty much dead without flash support unless flash is going to be replaced. What's the roadmap here?
    Control is a wonderful thing ... but only if you have your own.
    LM13 with MATE DE on:
    BioStar MCP6P-M2 Motherboard * NVIDIA GeForce 6150/nForce 430 Video * AMD Sempron LE1100 1.9GHZ CPU * 2GB RAM * 160 GB SATA2 HD * 320 GB IDE HD

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cluj, Romania
    Beans
    1,292

    Re: Flash 11.2.202.228 solutions

    Quote Originally Posted by QIII View Post
    If worse comes to worst while the community works on a solution to such a blatant "nose-thumbing" from Adobe, I may have to dig out an XP disk and run it in VBox for Flash content. Sigh.
    Nah, its not THAT bad. If you have a decent enough CPU, unticking that hardware option (first image) will remove the smurf effects and you can play 1080p with no issues.

    About the future of Flash:

    Pepper might be an open API, but the flash plugin itself (thats a proprietary piece of work) will be bundled with Chrome.

    So, you are a developer of an open (or not so open) source browser on Linux. You implement the Pepper API. But you will lack the reason d'etre of it: the flash plugin itself. Adobe+Google surely signed some agreement over the IP that goes into the Flash Plugin so it will not be possible to publish it freely ONLY if Google or Adobe or both decides to do so.
    So, until then you can have all the pepper API implementation and you would still require the installation of Chrome or at least the libpepflashplayer.so file from the installer.

    PS: I have Google Chrome dev version installed. Once i verified th eplugins and saw that there is a /opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so file instead of libgcflashplayer.so in the plugin list.
    I disabled the locally installed flash plugin and this pepper thing worked (with smurfs and all).
    Then i linked the pepper plugin to ~/.mozilla/plugins/, fired up Chromium, but the plugin, although it appeared in the plugin list, had nothing besides its name and it did not work. I use the latest buildbot builds of Chromium that is updated quite a few times every day so there is something fishy with the pepper flash support - it seems to be implemented only in Chrome.
    The next day i wanted to do some more testing, but as Chrome was updated, the pepper plugin vanished and the old NPAPI one came back.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Beans
    20

    Re: Flash 11.2.202.228 solutions

    I installed flash 11.2.202.228 today and all my browseres stopped playing flash.I looked through various forums for advice but only one worked. Reinstall flash 11.1.102.63 (available from adobe archives). All was well after that. P.S. I have nVidia card, but had exactly the same trouble on my other PC which has Intel graphics chipset and same solution worked on this.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cluj, Romania
    Beans
    1,292

    Re: Flash 11.2.202.228 solutions

    Quote Originally Posted by paulie-m View Post
    I installed flash 11.2.202.228 today and all my browseres stopped playing flash.I looked through various forums for advice but only one worked. Reinstall flash 11.1.102.63 (available from adobe archives). All was well after that. P.S. I have nVidia card, but had exactly the same trouble on my other PC which has Intel graphics chipset and same solution worked on this.
    That might be some other issue.

    Flash player is in fact a single .so file (dll equivalent): libflashplayer.so or whatever the packagers rename it (flash-mozilla.so). The installed .debs put the .so file in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ folder and create some symlinks.
    But as user you can copy/link the plugin's .so file in the ~/.mozilla/plugins/ folder, it will be picked up by the browsers aswell.
    You can have more than 1 instance of the flash player, typically this is the issue. You can check in any browser the "about:plugins" page to see how many instances you have. You can have more than one and have no issues if you disable all but one.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Beans
    20

    Re: Flash 11.2.202.228 solutions

    I did have to copy the .so file into /usr/lib..etc after downloading from adobe archives. Previously I had tried the same with with a .so file from version 11.2.202.228 and that did not worked.Before downgrading I installed gnash and used galternatives to select that as my default flash player.What a load of rubbish!! It's a terrible flash player. That's when I downloaded older 11.1.102.63 version,copied over the .so file and all my browsers are happy again (and me too).

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Beans
    4
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx

    Re: Flash 11.2.202.228 solutions

    FYI: If you are using Vuze, this problem also causes it to crash when you do a search, then click on a search result and open the search page to download.

    The fix of downgrading libflashplayer.so fixes this problem as well.

    in 11.10 I replaced the libflashplayer.so in /usr/lib/flashplugin-installer with the older version from:

    http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get...63_archive.zip

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Brazil
    Beans
    12,497
    Distro
    Ubuntu Studio 12.04 Precise Pangolin

    Re: Flash 11.2.202.228 solutions

    Quote Originally Posted by gradinaruvasile View Post
    NPS: I have Google Chrome dev version installed. Once i verified th eplugins and saw that there is a /opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so file instead of libgcflashplayer.so in the plugin list.
    I disabled the locally installed flash plugin and this pepper thing worked (with smurfs and all).
    Then i linked the pepper plugin to ~/.mozilla/plugins/, fired up Chromium, but the plugin, although it appeared in the plugin list, had nothing besides its name and it did not work. I use the latest buildbot builds of Chromium that is updated quite a few times every day so there is something fishy with the pepper flash support - it seems to be implemented only in Chrome.
    The next day i wanted to do some more testing, but as Chrome was updated, the pepper plugin vanished and the old NPAPI one came back.
    I have noticed a PepperFlash folder inside stable Chrome's profile directory as well. But it is empty. I guess they experimenting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Trapper View Post
    Okay. Another squeeze to eliminate competition and to get everyone to "buy" into specific new technologies and hardwares. Firefox is pretty much dead without flash support unless flash is going to be replaced. What's the roadmap here?
    Firefox is not dead because this only affects the Linux version, but I agree it looks like this was a moove by Google to force Pepper adoption.


    Quote Originally Posted by gradinaruvasile View Post
    That might be some other issue.

    Flash player is in fact a single .so file (dll equivalent): libflashplayer.so or whatever the packagers rename it (flash-mozilla.so). The installed .debs put the .so file in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ folder and create some symlinks.
    But as user you can copy/link the plugin's .so file in the ~/.mozilla/plugins/ folder, it will be picked up by the browsers aswell.
    You can have more than 1 instance of the flash player, typically this is the issue. You can check in any browser the "aboutlugins" page to see how many instances you have. You can have more than one and have no issues if you disable all but one.
    I have Intel chipset and I am using 11.2.202.228 without issues. But a have seen reports from non-nVidia users that lost flash after the update to 11.2.202.228, even with AMD.


    Quote Originally Posted by bdlandry View Post
    FYI: If you are using Vuze, this problem also causes it to crash when you do a search, then click on a search result and open the search page to download.

    The fix of downgrading libflashplayer.so fixes this problem as well.

    in 11.10 I replaced the libflashplayer.so in /usr/lib/flashplugin-installer with the older version from:
    Please read the first post. Instead of downloading the 170Mb you suggested,I have provided the Linux packages you find inside that file and also instructions where to put the file. If you are installing for yourself, the best location is ~/.mozilla/plugins.
    Last edited by lovinglinux; April 8th, 2012 at 04:41 AM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Beans
    699

    Re: Flash 11.2.202.228 solutions

    I used and recommend Flash-Aid since i can remember and the addon exist. Thanks.

    But i must say i am against recommending downgrading Flash to previous versions of Flash and against mentioning this option. I do understand this solves some issues for some users BUT at the same time it opens known security holes for them?

    This is just not an option and for users that have problems with Flash and won't use Chrome only two options exist:

    1.) Adobe fixes Flash problems.
    2.) There is no Flash anymore for Linux users that don't want to use Chrome and have problems with latest Flash.

    I don't see other options right now for users that have problems with latest Flash and none of the "workarounds" work for them with latest Flash version.

    Running software that has "web access" and known security holes is just not an option and therefore downgrading Flash should not be mentioned at all as it's not the solution for the problem as it only creates way larger security problems!
    Last edited by EgoGratis; April 8th, 2012 at 07:03 AM.

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •