The problem is this. I have Firefox 3.6.6. I have Adobe 10.1.53.64-1 but does video content play? Nope. Either Flash crashes or (for example) the Beeb site tells me my version of Flash is not up to date. Except it is. (I checked.) I have enabled it in plug ins, cleared the cache and the cookies but it's still not working. Anyone got any ideas?
Bev.
On 7 July 2010 18:24, Bev Nicolson lumos60@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is this. I have Firefox 3.6.6. I have Adobe 10.1.53.64-1 but does video content play? Nope. Either Flash crashes or (for example) the Beeb site tells me my version of Flash is not up to date. Except it is. (I checked.) I have enabled it in plug ins, cleared the cache and the cookies but it's still not working. Anyone got any ideas?
32bit or 64bit?
All Flash video, or just BBC iPlayer doesn't work?
Tim.
On 7 July 2010 18:50, Tim Green timothy.j.green@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 July 2010 18:24, Bev Nicolson lumos60@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is this. I have Firefox 3.6.6. I have Adobe 10.1.53.64-1 but does video content play? Nope.
32bit or 64bit?
All Flash video, or just BBC iPlayer doesn't work?
Tim.
The whole lot. (And 32bit Ubuntu, Tim.)
Bev.
On 8 July 2010 10:11, Bev Nicolson lumos60@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 July 2010 18:50, Tim Green timothy.j.green@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 July 2010 18:24, Bev Nicolson lumos60@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is this. I have Firefox 3.6.6. I have Adobe 10.1.53.64-1 but does video content play? Nope.
32bit or 64bit?
All Flash video, or just BBC iPlayer doesn't work?
Tim.
The whole lot. (And 32bit Ubuntu, Tim.)
I have the same setup, and it works for me. There has just been an update to Flash as linked by Ubuntu. Has this made any difference?
Tim.
<<I have the same setup, and it works for me. There has just been an update to Flash as linked by Ubuntu. Has this made any difference?>>
Am leaning towards MJ's opinion re Flash. But I'm on Hardy Heron still Tim so I doubt the update you've got will be relevant for me yet. (Doesn't affect Chrome btw.)
Incidentally, can anyone provide a step by step, easy to follow (for which read fool proof!) way of extracting tar.gz files? I'm not sure I've got it right... (This is the debug file from Adobe.)
Bev.
Hi Bev
I have just installed the lastest version of ubuntu and there is no problems with the flash, k you are using a older version of ubuntu, well impressed with gnome interface now used to be a kde user.
To unpack a tar gz you can either do it on a one line or use gunzip to uncompress the gz part of the file to leave the tar part which from memory is to do Tar -xv flash.tar
And thn place the flash library in the plugin directory of the firefox /usr directory
Not sure if that helps
Regards Ian Porter
www : www.codingfriends.com
On 8 Jul 2010, at 11:24, Bev Nicolson lumos60@gmail.com wrote:
<<I have the same setup, and it works for me. There has just been an update to Flash as linked by Ubuntu. Has this made any difference?>>
Am leaning towards MJ's opinion re Flash. But I'm on Hardy Heron still Tim so I doubt the update you've got will be relevant for me yet. (Doesn't affect Chrome btw.)
Incidentally, can anyone provide a step by step, easy to follow (for which read fool proof!) way of extracting tar.gz files? I'm not sure I've got it right... (This is the debug file from Adobe.)
Bev.
main@lists.alug.org.uk http://www.alug.org.uk/ http://lists.alug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/main Unsubscribe? See message headers or the web site above!
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Bev Nicolson wrote:
Incidentally, can anyone provide a step by step, easy to follow (for which read fool proof!) way of extracting tar.gz files? I'm not sure I've got it right... (This is the debug file from Adobe.)
tar -xvvzf foo.tar.gz extract gzipped foo.tar.gz
I think that should work for you.
<<tar -xvvzf foo.tar.gz extract gzipped foo.tar.gz
I think that should work for you.>>
Is that as two separate lines, Richard?
Incidentally, I found this thread in Launchpad:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/hardy/+source/firefox-3.0/+bug/600158
At least they know about it. <bravesmile>
Bev.
Googling suggest that was close Richard. I have tried several command lines now and it hasn't done anything or says the command wasn't found.
Bev.
On 8 July 2010 17:07, Bev Nicolson lumos60@gmail.com wrote:
<<tar -xvvzf foo.tar.gz extract gzipped foo.tar.gz
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 17:56:52 +0100 Bev Nicolson lumos60@gmail.com allegedly wrote:
Googling suggest that was close Richard. I have tried several command lines now and it hasn't done anything or says the command wasn't found.
Bev.
On 8 July 2010 17:07, Bev Nicolson lumos60@gmail.com wrote:
<<tar -xvvzf foo.tar.gz extract gzipped foo.tar.gz
Bev
I can't believe you don't have tar installed. But one of your earlier questions suggests to me that you may be trying the second line "extract gzipped foo.tar.gz" as a command, when Richard's response was simply an explanation of the first line. That is he said try
"tar -xvvzf foo.tar.gz"
and then said this means (slightly expanded) "extract the contents of the gzipped tar archive called foo.tar.gz"
If you look at the man page for tar you will see that the switches "-xvvzf" mean extract, verbose, and filter through gzip the file called "foo.tar.gz"
HTH
Mick ---------------------------------------------------------------------
The text file for RFC 854 contains exactly 854 lines. Do you think there is any cosmic significance in this?
Douglas E Comer - Internetworking with TCP/IP Volume 1
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc854.txt ---------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't believe you don't have tar installed. But one of your earlier questions suggests to me that you may be trying the second line "extract gzipped foo.tar.gz" as a command, when Richard's response was simply an explanation of the first line. That is he said try
"tar -xvvzf foo.tar.gz"
Sorry, my earlier email was confusing. I meant, try the following command, replacing "foo.tar.gz" with the actual filename you're trying to decompress:
tar -xvvzf foo.tar.gz
If that says that the command isn't found, then try this which will install tar (I'm assuming you're using Ubuntu):
sudo apt-get install tar
If it says that it can't find the file (i.e. it can't find foo.tar.gz) then perhaps you're in the wrong directory. Do you know how to list the contents of directories and change to another directory?
If you still have the error, then email the exact error and I can help you troubleshoot further.
Richard
If that says that the command isn't found, then try this which will install
tar (I'm assuming you're using Ubuntu):
sudo apt-get install tar
If it says that it can't find the file (i.e. it can't find foo.tar.gz) then perhaps you're in the wrong directory. Do you know how to list the contents of directories and change to another directory?
tar-xwzf flashplayer_10_plugin_debug.tar.gz bash: tar-xwzf: command not found
Is what it says. I do have tar though!
I tried this too but clearly I need help with directories.
tar -xzvf flashplayer_10_plugin_debug.tar.gz tar: flashplayer_10_plugin_debug.tar.gz: Cannot open: No such file or directory
I might add that when folder options come up in Archive Manager, several files on the desktop are not available.
Bev.
On 09-Jul-10 08:54:57, Bev Nicolson wrote:
If that says that the command isn't found, then try this which will install
tar (I'm assuming you're using Ubuntu):
sudo apt-get install tar
If it says that it can't find the file (i.e. it can't find foo.tar.gz) then perhaps you're in the wrong directory. _Do you know how to list the contents of directories and change to another directory?
tar-xwzf flashplayer_10_plugin_debug.tar.gz bash: tar-xwzf: command not found
Bev, there *must* be a space between "tar" and the options "-xwzf". That way, the shell recongnises "tar" (at the start of the line) as the command to execute and looks for it. Then the rest of the line is information which will be passed to tar to govern what it does.
Your error message, telling you that "tar-xwzf: command not found", arises because you had no space between "tar" and "-xwzf", so the shell (bash) tried to look for a command named "tar-xwzf" and did not find one!
By the way -- why did you put the option "w" into "-xwzf"? Previous suggestions stated "-xvvzf" (though admittedly the repetition in "vv" is redundant: you can just as well use "-xvzf"); maybe you misread "vv" as "w"?
The option "v" causes tar to list to the screen every component file in the archive that it deals with, and is a useful confirmation that things are going as they should.
The option "w" instructs tar to request confirmation of every action, which I doubt you want -- you would end up having to press "Y" (or similar) for every file that tar attempts to extract from the archive.
Is what it says. I do have tar though!
I tried this too but clearly I need help with directories.
tar -xzvf flashplayer_10_plugin_debug.tar.gz tar: flashplayer_10_plugin_debug.tar.gz: Cannot open: No such file or directory
I might add that when folder options come up in Archive Manager, several files on the desktop are not available. Bev.
What may be happening here is that the directory you are in when you enter the tar command is not the directory into which the file flashplayer_10_plugin_debug.tar.gz was downloaded. Possibly (though this is only a guess) is that you are in your home directory (e.g. /home/bev or whatever you call yourself) and the file may have been downloaded into something like /home/bev/Downloads or whetever your browser is set up to store downloads in. You would need to be executing the above command in the same directory as the one where the file is stored.
You could try to track it down using the 'find' command (NB Type this carefully!). In your home directory, enter
find . -name flashplayer_10_plugin_debug.tar.gz -print
and, if that fails, try
find . -name 'flashplayer*' -print
(What the latter would do is find any file in or below your home directory whose name begins with "flashplayer", and tell you where it is).
Hoping this helps, Ted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 09-Jul-10 Time: 10:26:36 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
By the way -- why did you put the option "w" into "-xwzf"? Previous suggestions stated "-xvvzf" (though admittedly the repetition in "vv" is redundant: you can just as well use "-xvzf"); maybe you misread "vv" as "w"?
I copied "tar -xvvzf" from the examples on the manual page. Maybe the double v means, "be even more verbose"?
Richard
On 09-Jul-10 09:42:15, Richard Parsons wrote:
By the way -- why did you put the option "w" into "-xwzf"? Previous suggestions stated "-xvvzf" (though admittedly the repetition in "vv" is redundant: you can just as well use "-xvzf"); maybe you misread "vv" as "w"?
I copied "tar -xvvzf" from the examples on the manual page. Maybe the double v means, "be even more verbose"?
Richard
Hmmm ... I don't have any man page for tar ('man tar') which gives examples of use -- on SuSE, Red Hat, or Debian. Maybe it's an Ubuntu (or other) re-write. In any case, the way command options usually work, a repetition would do nothing extra. Options are read in one by one. When a specific option is encountered, a flag is set in the running code for the command. The first 'v' would set the "verbose" flag. The second 'v' would simply set it again.
I strongly suspect a typo in that version of the man page that you are looking at!
Ted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 09-Jul-10 Time: 11:07:59 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
On 09 Jul 11:08, Ted Harding wrote:
On 09-Jul-10 09:42:15, Richard Parsons wrote:
By the way -- why did you put the option "w" into "-xwzf"? Previous suggestions stated "-xvvzf" (though admittedly the repetition in "vv" is redundant: you can just as well use "-xvzf"); maybe you misread "vv" as "w"?
I copied "tar -xvvzf" from the examples on the manual page. Maybe the double v means, "be even more verbose"?
Richard
Hmmm ... I don't have any man page for tar ('man tar') which gives examples of use -- on SuSE, Red Hat, or Debian. Maybe it's an Ubuntu (or other) re-write. In any case, the way command options usually work, a repetition would do nothing extra. Options are read in one by one. When a specific option is encountered, a flag is set in the running code for the command. The first 'v' would set the "verbose" flag. The second 'v' would simply set it again.
Erm, I have a man page for tar in Debian... Maybe you haven't got man installed :p
I strongly suspect a typo in that version of the man page that you are looking at!
It's the same "typo" in the Debian man page.
I doubt that it's a typo.
With verbosity, many many things simply change the output level, so NORMAL -> EXTRA -> QUITE A LOT -> OH MY GODS IT'S TELLING ME WHAT EVERY LINE OF CODE IS DOING
There are several things that take the same option more than once.
For example, run: aptitude moo aptitude -v moo aptitude -vv moo aptitude -vvv moo
Now tell me that the number of times an argument is repeated doesn't change anything. Go on. Really.
On 09-Jul-10 10:18:10, Brett Parker wrote:
On 09 Jul 11:08, Ted Harding wrote:
On 09-Jul-10 09:42:15, Richard Parsons wrote:
By the way -- why did you put the option "w" into "-xwzf"? Previous suggestions stated "-xvvzf" (though admittedly the repetition in "vv" is redundant: you can just as well use "-xvzf"); maybe you misread "vv" as "w"?
I copied "tar -xvvzf" from the examples on the manual page. Maybe the double v means, "be even more verbose"?
Richard
Hmmm ... I don't have any man page for tar ('man tar') which gives examples of use -- on SuSE, Red Hat, or Debian. Maybe it's an Ubuntu (or other) re-write. In any case, the way command options usually work, a repetition would do nothing extra. Options are read in one by one. When a specific option is encountered, a flag is set in the running code for the command. The first 'v' would set the "verbose" flag. The second 'v' would simply set it again.
Erm, I have a man page for tar in Debian... Maybe you haven't got man installed :p
I do have 'man' installed, and I do have a man page for 'tar'. It just doesn't give any examples of use. That's what I said.
However, I can access 'info tar' on the Red Hat system, and there I can find examples of use. In particular, the "vv" option can be found, and indeed it does result in extra verbosity:
`-v' used once just prints the names of the files or members as they are processed. Using it twice causes `tar' to print a longer listing (reminiscent of `ls -l') for each member.
There is a distinction between 'man' and 'info'! I think people have been saying "man page" when they meant "info document". I also have 'info' installed on Debian, but Debian do not include info for 'tar on ideological grounds. From 'man tar' on Debian:
BUGS The GNU folks, in general, abhor man pages, and create info documents instead. Unfortunately, the info document describing tar is licensed under the GFDL with invariant cover texts, which violates the Debian Free Software Guidelines. As a result, the info documentation for tar is not included in the Debian package.
I strongly suspect a typo in that version of the man page that you are looking at!
Retracted!
It's the same "typo" in the Debian man page.
I doubt that it's a typo.
With verbosity, many many things simply change the output level, so NORMAL -> EXTRA -> QUITE A LOT -> OH MY GODS IT'S TELLING ME WHAT EVERY LINE OF CODE IS DOING
There are several things that take the same option more than once.
For example, run: aptitude moo aptitude -v moo aptitude -vv moo aptitude -vvv moo
Now tell me that the number of times an argument is repeated doesn't change anything. Go on. Really. -- Brett Parker
I did say "the way command options *usually* work" ...
Ted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 09-Jul-10 Time: 11:42:50 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
On 09 Jul 11:42, Ted Harding wrote:
On 09-Jul-10 10:18:10, Brett Parker wrote:
On 09 Jul 11:08, Ted Harding wrote:
On 09-Jul-10 09:42:15, Richard Parsons wrote:
By the way -- why did you put the option "w" into "-xwzf"? Previous suggestions stated "-xvvzf" (though admittedly the repetition in "vv" is redundant: you can just as well use "-xvzf"); maybe you misread "vv" as "w"?
I copied "tar -xvvzf" from the examples on the manual page. Maybe the double v means, "be even more verbose"?
Richard
Hmmm ... I don't have any man page for tar ('man tar') which gives examples of use -- on SuSE, Red Hat, or Debian. Maybe it's an Ubuntu (or other) re-write. In any case, the way command options usually work, a repetition would do nothing extra. Options are read in one by one. When a specific option is encountered, a flag is set in the running code for the command. The first 'v' would set the "verbose" flag. The second 'v' would simply set it again.
Erm, I have a man page for tar in Debian... Maybe you haven't got man installed :p
I do have 'man' installed, and I do have a man page for 'tar'. It just doesn't give any examples of use. That's what I said.
It has examples here...
""" EXAMPLES Create archive.tar from files foo and bar. tar -cf archive.tar foo bar List all files in archive.tar verbosely. tar -tvf archive.tar Extract all files from archive.tar. tar -xf archive.tar
"""
However, I can access 'info tar' on the Red Hat system, and there I can find examples of use. In particular, the "vv" option can be found, and indeed it does result in extra verbosity:
`-v' used once just prints the names of the files or members as they are processed. Using it twice causes `tar' to print a longer listing (reminiscent of `ls -l') for each member.
There is a distinction between 'man' and 'info'! I think people have been saying "man page" when they meant "info document". I also have 'info' installed on Debian, but Debian do not include info for 'tar on ideological grounds. From 'man tar' on Debian:
No, because very few people outside of GNU use info, and debian will nearly always have a nice man page...
By the way, if you want the info pages for tar on a debian system, apt-get install tar-doc, it's in non-free.
BUGS The GNU folks, in general, abhor man pages, and create info documents instead. Unfortunately, the info document describing tar is licensed under the GFDL with invariant cover texts, which violates the Debian Free Software Guidelines. As a result, the info documentation for tar is not included in the Debian package.
I strongly suspect a typo in that version of the man page that you are looking at!
Retracted!
It's the same "typo" in the Debian man page.
I doubt that it's a typo.
With verbosity, many many things simply change the output level, so NORMAL -> EXTRA -> QUITE A LOT -> OH MY GODS IT'S TELLING ME WHAT EVERY LINE OF CODE IS DOING
There are several things that take the same option more than once.
For example, run: aptitude moo aptitude -v moo aptitude -vv moo aptitude -vvv moo
Now tell me that the number of times an argument is repeated doesn't change anything. Go on. Really. -- Brett Parker
I did say "the way command options *usually* work" ...
With verbosity, it's nearly always cumulative, with more and more info given the more times the option is given. So usual for v is to be cumulative. This is very handy when debugging ssh for example.
On 09-Jul-10 10:55:08, Brett Parker wrote:
On 09 Jul 11:42, Ted Harding wrote:
On 09-Jul-10 10:18:10, Brett Parker wrote:
[...] Erm, I have a man page for tar in Debian... Maybe you haven't got man installed :p
I do have 'man' installed, and I do have a man page for 'tar'. It just doesn't give any examples of use. That's what I said.
It has examples here...
""" EXAMPLES Create archive.tar from files foo and bar. tar -cf archive.tar foo bar List all files in archive.tar verbosely. tar -tvf archive.tar Extract all files from archive.tar. tar -xf archive.tar
"""
OOPS! I had skipped over the "preamble" bit, where the "EXAMPLES" are, to get down to the options list. Therefore I missed it.
Mind you, although the examples given are
EXAMPLES tar -xvvf foo.tar extract foo.tar tar -xvvzf foo.tar.gz extract gzipped foo.tar.gz tar -cvvf foo.tar foo/ tar contents of folder foo in foo.tar
all of which use "vv", when you get down to the description of option "v" you don't see a mention of the double usage:
-v, --verbose verbosely list files processed
and that's it. So a bit of extra explanation is needed at that point in the man page. Man pages are traditionally (and in some cases notoriously) very terse and concise, but they should be complete as a reference for the behaviour of the command. That's what they're intended to be!
Ted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: (Ted Harding) Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk Fax-to-email: +44 (0)870 094 0861 Date: 09-Jul-10 Time: 12:11:05 ------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
tar -xvvf flashplayer_10_plugin_debug.tar.gz tar: flashplayer_10_plugin_debug.tar.gz: Cannot open: No such file or directory
Is what terminal says. It's clearly on the desktop though so where am I going wrong here?
Bev.
On 9 July 2010 16:25, Bev Nicolson lumos60@gmail.com wrote:
tar -xvvf flashplayer_10_plugin_debug.tar.gz tar: flashplayer_10_plugin_debug.tar.gz: Cannot open: No such file or directory
Is what terminal says. It's clearly on the desktop though so where am I going wrong here?
In your terminal, type: pwd
it will tell you what your current working directory is. If that isn't your Desktop, then you need to change to the correct directory, or modify your tar command to point to the correct filepath for the flash tar file.
Srdjan
tar -xvvf flashplayer_10_plugin_debug.tar.gz tar: flashplayer_10_plugin_debug.tar.gz: Cannot open: No such file or directory
Is what terminal says. It's clearly on the desktop though so where am I going wrong here?
Bev.
Type (not the #):
# pwd
to print your current directory. If the file is on your desktop, then you need to be in /home/bev/Desktop or somewhere similar. You can change directory with cd:
# cd /home/bev/Desktop
You can see the files in your current directory by doing an ls:
# ls
Once you see the file listed in the output from ls, you may need to use a ./ to let linux know it needs to look in the current directory (.):
# tar -xzvf ./flashplayer_10_plugin_debug.tar.gz
HTH,
Peter.
It's opened and I have a lib file. Where does it need to head for or rather how do I find where it needs to head for?
Bev.
On 09/07/10 16:33, samwise wrote:
# pwd to print your current directory. If the file is on your desktop, then you need to be in /home/bev/Desktop or somewhere similar. You can change directory with cd:
You can probably (Ubuntu) right-click on the desktop and select "open in terminal" to open a terminal window in the right location.
Have tried sudo apt-get and ... it cannot find it. It lists it if I type ls though. I'm bewildered.
Bev.
Have tried sudo apt-get and ... it cannot find it. It lists it if I type ls though. I'm bewildered.
Bev.
Bev,
The apt-get command downloads pre-packaged binary files from the Ubuntu servers and installs them. It's rare that you would download a package and install it manually, but if you did it would be called a .deb file and you would use the command dpkg to install it.
What you have downloaded is a standalone library file which hasn't been packaged up, so you don't need to install it like a package. I would expect you need to copy that file to your web browser's plugins directory to enable it so that your browser will load it next time it starts.
However, I'm beginning to wonder why you need this plugin. I think it's intended for debugging Flash applications and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it will help you fix the fact that your Flash plugin is currently broken.
Are you able to make it the #alug IRC channel, or even better either the Ipswich or Norwich meets? I'm sure you'd be able to get help with your problem much quicker that way ...
Peter.
<<However, I'm beginning to wonder why you need this plugin. I think it's intended for debugging Flash applications and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it will help you fix the fact that your Flash plugin is currently broken. >>
It's reported as a bug which is why this tar.gz file looked useful. However, I'm beginning to wonder if I should just wait till Ubuntu issue a fix, myself. (I get the impression they might be onto it.) Even the commands Firefox themselves recommend don't work. I heart Chrome atm.
<<Are you able to make it the #alug IRC channel, or even better either the Ipswich or Norwich meets? >>
Sadly I am too far from either Ipswich or Norwich, samwise/Peter.
Bev.
By the way -- why did you put the option "w" into "-xwzf"?
Previous suggestions stated "-xvvzf" (though admittedly the repetition in "vv" is redundant: you can just as well use "-xvzf"); maybe you misread "vv" as "w"?
Ah! Checking the man page (thanks Ted) it all becomes clearer. It is v v
Well, you live and learn. I shall report back later.
cheers Bev.
On 9 July 2010 11:08, Ted Harding Ted.Harding@manchester.ac.uk wrote:
On 09-Jul-10 09:42:15, Richard Parsons wrote:
I copied "tar -xvvzf" from the examples on the manual page. Maybe the double v means, "be even more verbose"?
Hmmm ... I don't have any man page for tar ('man tar') which gives examples of use -- on SuSE, Red Hat, or Debian. Maybe it's an Ubuntu (or other) re-write. In any case, the way command options usually work, a repetition would do nothing extra. Options are read in one by one. When a specific option is encountered, a flag is set in the running code for the command. The first 'v' would set the "verbose" flag. The second 'v' would simply set it again.
I strongly suspect a typo in that version of the man page that you are looking at!
That depends entirely on the application.
For example, tcpdump man page:
-vvv Even more verbose output. For example, telnet SB ... SE options
Asterisk does something similar. It's not hard to set the verbosity variable in the BSS section and then every time a -v is encountered in your getopt switch block, increment it. Thus you can support multi-strength options.
Regards, Srdjan
Bev Nicolson wrote:
[...] the Beeb site tells me my version of Flash is not up to date. Except it is. (I checked.) I have enabled it in plug ins, cleared the cache and the cookies but it's still not working. Anyone got any ideas?
Flash is pain and should hopefully go the way of the dodo very soon, if html5 <video> with open formats takes off. BBC are being nudged to use <video> more (I think it's already available on iPlayer for Apple - and a BBC news site redesign is coming soon) and it can't happen soon enough.
Sorry that doesn't fix it immediately, but you really should get support from Adobe for their proprietary pain. The community can't fix it properly because it's closed off. It's all bad-old-DOS-style "try this version" guesswork instead of real debugging.
Regards,
Flash is pain and should hopefully go the way of the dodo very soon, if html5 <video> with open formats takes off. BBC are being nudged to use <video> more (I think it's already available on iPlayer for Apple - and a BBC news site redesign is coming soon) and it can't happen soon enough.
By and large I'm of the standpoint that open software is preferable to proprietary software, except in circumstances where it might technically be a bad idea (I can only think of one). The appeal of Free and open software is strong, the benefits are clear and speaking as someone who works with it I do feel that the web should be a platform-neutral and standards-compliant medium.
There are a whole host, therefore, of problems that I might raise with use of Flash for things that have nothing to do with Flash because they could easily be done with web technologies that various platforms support (although I shan't start on JavaScript).
That said, for things which step outside that realm, Flash has been an understudy that is maybe even *closer* to platform-neutral than just providing a link to $randomproprietarymediaformat, as outrageous as that sounds.
Web functionality that otherwise would require some other client software than the browser - lots of video, access to webcams and stuff is only really available to users on GNU/Linux at this point because we have a Flash player that works, and the other platforms have Flash players that work, too. The alternatives would be windows and maybe mac desktop apps, or plugins, or just media in proprietary formats.
Whilst it might be nice to see a future where everyone's browser is playing them ogg audio/video, isn't the reality likely to be some thin wrappers for Apple or Microsoft's formats and DRM and so on?
It *is* nice to have something that doesn't require those things, and that end users can just sit and *use*. It's good to have functionality that people might want on the Linux Desktop.
In this sense Adobe (like nvidia, and id, and so on) has done something to support and foster Linux usage. It has taken them a little time and work and therefore cost them some money.
Yes, it's evil and proprietary and stuff, but it works for Linux users through conscious effort - and in the absence of a 1) viable and 2) widely adopted open source alternative. It is an option for people to live vicariously and use and develop Gnash, or in the case of video, simply grab it and decode it for themselves with, say, Xine - or even to cross their fingers and hope a morally proper alternative turns up at some point.
Marcus Harris wrote:
[quoting me, but dishonourably removing the attribution]
Flash is pain and should hopefully go the way of the dodo very soon, if html5 <video> with open formats takes off. BBC are being nudged to use <video> more (I think it's already available on iPlayer for Apple - and a BBC news site redesign is coming soon) and it can't happen soon enough.
[...]
Web functionality that otherwise would require some other client software than the browser - lots of video, access to webcams and stuff is only really available to users on GNU/Linux at this point because we have a Flash player that works, [...]
Most GNU/Linux *platforms* don't have a Flash player that works. Take the i386/ia64 blinkers off and show some solidarity with the full range of systems which would be used if it was a fair fight.
Whilst it might be nice to see a future where everyone's browser is playing them ogg audio/video, isn't the reality likely to be some thin wrappers for Apple or Microsoft's formats and DRM and so on?
I don't think that's likely, but how would that be much worse than now? Isn't Flash just a thin wrapper for a proprietary format and DRM and so on?
I still think <video> and good browser support can't happen too soon.
[...]
In this sense Adobe (like nvidia, and id, and so on) has done something to support and foster Linux usage. It has taken them a little time and work and therefore cost them some money.
And so they must think it will make them more money, because Adobe is a private-sector company whose executives are required to maximise shareholder return. They can't develop stuff purely for the sake of justice, equality and the good of humanity! They can do it if they believe taking the edge off Linux-related demand (by supporting some of the most common types) reduces the risk of a Flash-killer being developed by smart Linux hackers and eating their lunch.
Yes, it's evil and proprietary and stuff, but it works for Linux users through conscious effort - and in the absence of a 1) viable and 2) widely adopted open source alternative. [...]
It works for some users, but it looks like a viable and widely-adopted alternative may be coming at last.
Regards,
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 6:04 PM, MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop wrote:
Marcus Harris wrote:
[quoting me, but dishonourably removing the attribution]
Ah yes, sorry about that!
Flash is pain and should hopefully go the way of the dodo very soon, if html5 <video> with open formats takes off. BBC are being nudged to use <video> more (I think it's already available on iPlayer for Apple - and a BBC news site redesign is coming soon) and it can't happen soon enough.
[...]
Web functionality that otherwise would require some other client software than the browser - lots of video, access to webcams and stuff is only really available to users on GNU/Linux at this point because we have a Flash player that works, [...]
Most GNU/Linux *platforms* don't have a Flash player that works. Take the i386/ia64 blinkers off and show some solidarity with the
I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying. I think (hope) we're all aware that Flash isn't genuinely cross-platform, and that it has pitfalls like not being Free software that make it difficult for people to remedy that (although again, that isn't entirely impossible, look at Gnash).
I'm a bit wary of unscrupulous pragmatism, and I'm not *happy* that many people's Linux has been tainted with nasty drivers, and their systems play host to GPL-violating software, software that imposes onerous license conditions and so on, because I think we risk making a joke of anything more sophisticated than a BSD-like license.
Still, nor do I think we should avoid fun until it's fun that has a proper level of open source rectitude - I think that carries the risk of damaging both the open source movement and the Free software movement. If end users begin to see "Stop having fun" as a strapline of Free software, that will be a lot more impactful to them than telling them about how cool Free software is, and that's what they'll remember.
That said, the reality is that that stuff can be replaced (nouveau, gnash, HTML5 etc.) - and in the meantime it provides GNU/Linux with a foot in the door that it would not otherwise have - it might be slightly more interesting for us if even 100 extra developers from elsewhere are using the system day-to-day when they are needed.
full range of systems which would be used if it was a fair fight.
It's not a fair fight because there isn't a viable and widely adopted open source alternative to Flash. for viewers, it is Flash Player, or an open source alternative Flash client, or nothing, really.
Whilst it might be nice to see a future where everyone's browser is playing them ogg audio/video, isn't the reality likely to be some thin wrappers for Apple or Microsoft's formats and DRM and so on?
I don't think that's likely, but how would that be much worse than now? Isn't Flash just a thin wrapper for a proprietary format and DRM and so on?
Well if it does go that way, one way it will be worse is that while Adobe make some effort (however derisory you might consider that) to support some Linux desktops with freely available and in every sense "legal" means of obtaining the content that actually works, and there are open source projects to obtain/decode it, Apple or Microsoft will probably fail to support it/legally proscribe it/actively break interoperability/ship DRM in the OS and rely on it/throttle distribution channels.
I still think <video> and good browser support can't happen too soon.
[...]
I agree, if we're talking about open formats and browser support, I think really though we'll get a boring alias for object/embed with all of the same issues.
In this sense Adobe (like nvidia, and id, and so on) has done something to support and foster Linux usage. It has taken them a little time and work and therefore cost them some money.
And so they must think it will make them more money, because Adobe is a private-sector company whose executives are required to maximise shareholder return. They can't develop stuff purely for the sake of justice, equality and the good of humanity! They can do it if they believe taking the edge off Linux-related demand (by supporting some of the most common types) reduces the risk of a Flash-killer being developed by smart Linux hackers and eating their lunch.
Good.
Yes, it's evil and proprietary and stuff, but it works for Linux users through conscious effort - and in the absence of a 1) viable and 2) widely adopted open source alternative. [...]
It works for some users, but it looks like a viable and widely-adopted alternative may be coming at last.
If that happens, I will be as happy as the rest of us. Hope springs eternal
On 22 Jul 18:04, MJ Ray wrote:
Marcus Harris wrote:
[quoting me, but dishonourably removing the attribution]
Flash is pain and should hopefully go the way of the dodo very soon, if html5 <video> with open formats takes off. BBC are being nudged to use <video> more (I think it's already available on iPlayer for Apple - and a BBC news site redesign is coming soon) and it can't happen soon enough.
[...]
Web functionality that otherwise would require some other client software than the browser - lots of video, access to webcams and stuff is only really available to users on GNU/Linux at this point because we have a Flash player that works, [...]
Most GNU/Linux *platforms* don't have a Flash player that works. Take the i386/ia64 blinkers off and show some solidarity with the full range of systems which would be used if it was a fair fight.
ia64? Really? Are you sure... did that actually have a flash player ever? Do you mean x86-64?
Also, erm, I'm fairly sure that this 'ere phone of mine is arm based... infact, having just opened a term on it and cat'd the /proc/cpuinfo, I'm positive it is. It has a (working) flash player.
Should I take off my arm/x86/x64-64 blinkers?
Flash, for the purposes it has, is available on most consumer grade kit, that's where the masses are.
(I'm not saying that flash is a good thing, in any way shape or form... also, I'd like to point out that *platforms* aren't the same as number of people actually *using* that platform, just because one can run linux on $system doesn't mean that that system is for use as a desktop system, I'd get rather upset if some bugger installed the flash client on my servers after all)
On 23 Jul 14:37, Brett Parker wrote:
On 22 Jul 18:04, MJ Ray wrote:
Marcus Harris wrote:
[quoting me, but dishonourably removing the attribution]
Flash is pain and should hopefully go the way of the dodo very soon, if html5 <video> with open formats takes off. BBC are being nudged to use <video> more (I think it's already available on iPlayer for Apple - and a BBC news site redesign is coming soon) and it can't happen soon enough.
[...]
Web functionality that otherwise would require some other client software than the browser - lots of video, access to webcams and stuff is only really available to users on GNU/Linux at this point because we have a Flash player that works, [...]
Most GNU/Linux *platforms* don't have a Flash player that works. Take the i386/ia64 blinkers off and show some solidarity with the full range of systems which would be used if it was a fair fight.
ia64? Really? Are you sure... did that actually have a flash player ever? Do you mean x86-64?
Also, erm, I'm fairly sure that this 'ere phone of mine is arm based... infact, having just opened a term on it and cat'd the /proc/cpuinfo, I'm positive it is. It has a (working) flash player.
Should I take off my arm/x86/x64-64 blinkers?
^ x86-64
*mutter* I got it right the first time *mutter*.
On 22/07/10 18:04, MJ Ray wrote:
Most GNU/Linux*platforms* don't have a Flash player that works. Take the i386/ia64 blinkers off and show some solidarity with the full range of systems which would be used if it was a fair fight.
I don't understand what you mean about i386/ia64 blinkers. Since when has there been an IA-64 flash plugin ?
Wayne Stallwood wrote:
I don't understand what you mean about i386/ia64 blinkers. Since when has there been an IA-64 flash plugin ?
I thught there was some 64bit one once. Oh well, Flash is even worse than I thought!
On 29 July 2010 23:13, MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop wrote:
Wayne Stallwood wrote:
I don't understand what you mean about i386/ia64 blinkers. Since when has there been an IA-64 flash plugin ?
I thught there was some 64bit one once. Oh well, Flash is even worse than I thought!
Why so negative?
And also, IA-64 != x86-64.
Srdjan
Srdjan Todorovic wrote:
On 29 July 2010 23:13, MJ Ray mjr@phonecoop.coop wrote:
Wayne Stallwood wrote:
I don't understand what you mean about i386/ia64 blinkers. Since when has there been an IA-64 flash plugin ?
I thught there was some 64bit one once. Oh well, Flash is even worse than I thought!
Why so negative?
Because the current situation of having Adobe controlling which platforms can watch video, the lacklustre support for Linux platforms and the extra "features" like phone-home most people get without knowing it is far worse than a simple <video> tag.
And also, IA-64 != x86-64.
Yeah, I got the wrong platform.
On 30/07/10 10:35, MJ Ray wrote:
Because the current situation of having Adobe controlling which platforms can watch video, the lacklustre support for Linux platforms and the extra "features" like phone-home most people get without knowing it is far worse than a simple<video> tag.
I still don't understand what you mean about lacklustre support for Linux platforms ?
Flash works for me as well (or as badly) on Linux as it does on Windows/Mac. Yes it took them a fair while to get a 64bit native plugin released but then it did for Windows too (rumour has it that there was some horrible chunk of ASM in the code that had to be rewritten)
If you are talking still about support for alternative architectures then please tell me which relevant (i.e those that still have a relevant desktop market share and actually have the horsepower to render flash video) alternatives you would like to see supported.
Adobe aren't the ones in control of which platforms can watch web video. The content creators are when they choose Flash as a delivery mechanism (it's not the only option after all) I would say with things like the iPad not supporting Flash they are probably reviewing that anyway.
As to the phone-home feature, I can't find anything on the web that qualifies this statement, do you have a linky I can read to enlighten myself ?
Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On 30/07/10 10:35, MJ Ray wrote:
Because the current situation of having Adobe controlling which platforms can watch video, the lacklustre support for Linux platforms and the extra "features" like phone-home most people get without knowing it is far worse than a simple<video> tag.
I still don't understand what you mean about lacklustre support for Linux platforms ?
Look at all the problems people have installing Flash on Linux. If you're 1% out of Adobe's short supported list, expect trouble.
[...]
Adobe aren't the ones in control of which platforms can watch web video. The content creators are when they choose Flash as a delivery mechanism
Sure, and many content creators abdicate in favour of Adobe. That's half the problem, indeed.
[...]
As to the phone-home feature, I can't find anything on the web that qualifies this statement, do you have a linky I can read to enlighten myself ?
It didn't seem difficult to find in a web search. For example, try http://www.freshbot.com/archives/2009/03/31/adobe-flash-phones-home-uncontro... - maybe the Flash plugin modified your browser in other ways? ;-)
Hope that informs,
On 29/07/10 23:13, MJ Ray wrote:
Wayne Stallwood wrote:
I don't understand what you mean about i386/ia64 blinkers. Since when has there been an IA-64 flash plugin ?
I thught there was some 64bit one once. Oh well, Flash is even worse than I thought!
There is, for the X86-64 platform not the IA-64 one which is something entirely different (itanium)
There is no place at all for flash on IA-64 given that it was only really ever marketed as a server platform, wasn't actually very well received and now is all but dead. (VMS still uses it as do some HPC platforms, but Microsoft have announced that there will be no future builds of Windows for IA-64, the same is true for RHEL I believe)
On 22/07/2010 17:31, Marcus Harris wrote:
Flash is pain and should hopefully go the way of the dodo very soon, if html5<video> with open formats takes off. BBC are being nudged to use<video> more (I think it's already available on iPlayer for Apple - and a BBC news site redesign is coming soon) and it can't happen soon enough.
<snip>
Web functionality that otherwise would require some other client software than the browser - lots of video, access to webcams and stuff is only really available to users on GNU/Linux at this point because we have a Flash player that works, and the other platforms have Flash players that work, too. The alternatives would be windows and maybe mac desktop apps, or plugins, or just media in proprietary formats.
<snip>
Yes, it's evil and proprietary and stuff, but it works for Linux users through conscious effort - and in the absence of a 1) viable and 2) widely adopted open source alternative. It is an option for people to live vicariously and use and develop Gnash, or in the case of video, simply grab it and decode it for themselves with, say, Xine - or even to cross their fingers and hope a morally proper alternative turns up at some point.
That's a very good point, well made. Imagine if, in the late 90s and early 2000s when IE was *the* de facto browser (with > 95% market share), that MS had actually implemented a <video> tag. All the content producers at the time would have instantly supported it to the detriment of anything else, and MS would have made every effort to ensure that it didn't run on anything else. There would certainly have been much less incentive to try the upstart alternatives that appeared (or the legacy Netscapes, etc) if they didn't support the MS-only video that everyone was producing.
One could almost conclude that Flash - given that it is mostly cross platform and has been for a fairly long time, or at worst at least the video format of which was based on a published spec (patents or no) - may have significantly helped stave off such an absolute lock-in situation for long enough for there to be proper browser competition and to allow discussion about a more open <video> tag to happen at all.
Simon
Simon Ransome wrote:
On 22/07/2010 17:31, Marcus Harris wrote:
we have a Flash player that works, and the other platforms have Flash players that work, too. The alternatives would be windows and maybe mac desktop apps, or plugins, or just media in proprietary formats.
<snip>
That's a very good point, well made. Imagine if, in the late 90s and early 2000s when IE was *the* de facto browser (with > 95% market share), that MS had actually implemented a <video> tag. [...]
I seem to recall it pretty much did, with Microsoft Video ActiveX control in about 2003. Of course, it was done in a pretty MS way, in that it was easier if you used Microsoft development tools to publish and that it had serious security vulnerabilities patches years later, but I expect a <ms-video> tag would have had those features too ;-)
So, they tried and were about as successful as most MS tech. (One of the reasons MS dominates is that their products multiply faster than tribbles and so *some* are bound to catch on. Windows for Pen anyone?)
One could almost conclude that Flash - given that it is mostly cross platform and has been for a fairly long time, or at worst at least the video format of which was based on a published spec (patents or no) -
Again, there's the myth that Flash is "mostly cross platform". Compare http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/systemreqs/ which shows it supports six Windows versions, three versions of MacOS X, Firefox-only on three Linux distributions (i386 only, although not stated?) and one Solaris. Some of those implementations are partial, too. That's maybe slightly cross platform, definitely not mostly.
may have significantly helped stave off such an absolute lock-in situation for long enough for there to be proper browser competition and to allow discussion about a more open <video> tag to happen at all.
What do LUGgers think has helped <video> happen now? I think the Adobe-Apple tug of war on iPlatforms has helped combine with other unsupported platforms to finally move things forwards. If there had been more unsupprted platforms earlier, that increased market demand means it would have happened earlier.
Regards,
-
Bev Nicolson -
Brett Parker -
Ian Porter -
Marcus Harris -
Mark Rogers -
mick -
MJ Ray -
Richard Parsons -
samwise -
Simon Ransome -
Srdjan Todorovic -
Ted.Harding＠manchester.ac.uk -
Tim Green -
Wayne Stallwood -
Wayne Stallwood