Has anyone tried the new flash player beta for Linux?
http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer.html
I can't get it to work on CentOS 6.8, ff 45.3.0-1, all x86_64. ff's pluginreg.dat shows the plugin is [INVALID], which is often a sign of bitness-mismatch, but that's not the case here.
$ tail -n 3 pluginreg.dat [INVALID] /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so:$ 1474541270000:$ $ file /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped $ strings /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so | grep FlashPlayer_23 FlashPlayer_23_0_0_179_FlashPlayer $ rpm -q firefox firefox-45.3.0-1.el6.centos.x86_64 $
I have it working on a different Linux system, not CentOS, with ff 48.0.1.
Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:36:57 +0100 From: isdtor isdtor@gmail.com
Has anyone tried the new flash player beta for Linux?
http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer.html
I can't get it to work on CentOS 6.8, ff 45.3.0-1, all x86_64. ff's pluginreg.dat shows the plugin is [INVALID], which is often a sign of bitness-mismatch, but that's not the case here.
$ tail -n 3 pluginreg.dat [INVALID] /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so:$ 1474541270000:$ $ file /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped $ strings /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so | grep FlashPlayer_23 FlashPlayer_23_0_0_179_FlashPlayer $ rpm -q firefox firefox-45.3.0-1.el6.centos.x86_64 $
I have it working on a different Linux system, not CentOS, with ff 48.0.1.
I've been using it -- currently ..._179 -- (sparingly) on a -7 machine with the default (firefox-45.3.0-1.el7.centos.x86_64) ff.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Richard <lists-centos@listmail.innovate.net
wrote:
Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:36:57 +0100 From: isdtor isdtor@gmail.com
Has anyone tried the new flash player beta for Linux?
http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer.html
I can't get it to work on CentOS 6.8, ff 45.3.0-1, all x86_64. ff's pluginreg.dat shows the plugin is [INVALID], which is often a sign of bitness-mismatch, but that's not the case here.
$ tail -n 3 pluginreg.dat [INVALID] /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so:$ 1474541270000:$ $ file /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped $ strings /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so | grep FlashPlayer_23 FlashPlayer_23_0_0_179_FlashPlayer $ rpm -q firefox firefox-45.3.0-1.el6.centos.x86_64 $
I have it working on a different Linux system, not CentOS, with ff 48.0.1.
I've been using it -- currently ..._179 -- (sparingly) on a -7 machine with the default (firefox-45.3.0-1.el7.centos.x86_64) ff.
Looks like it's compiled against a later version of glibc:
ldd libflashplayer.so | grep "not found"
ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `./libflashplayer.so' ./libflashplayer.so: /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.15' not found (required by ./libflashplayer.so) ./libflashplayer.so: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.15' not found (required by ./libflashplayer.so) ./libflashplayer.so: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found (required by ./libflashplayer.so)
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Phelps, Matthew mphelps@cfa.harvard.edu wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Richard <lists-centos@listmail. innovate.net> wrote:
Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:36:57 +0100 From: isdtor isdtor@gmail.com
Has anyone tried the new flash player beta for Linux?
http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer.html
I can't get it to work on CentOS 6.8, ff 45.3.0-1, all x86_64. ff's pluginreg.dat shows the plugin is [INVALID], which is often a sign of bitness-mismatch, but that's not the case here.
$ tail -n 3 pluginreg.dat [INVALID] /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so:$ 1474541270000:$ $ file /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped $ strings /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so | grep FlashPlayer_23 FlashPlayer_23_0_0_179_FlashPlayer $ rpm -q firefox firefox-45.3.0-1.el6.centos.x86_64 $
I have it working on a different Linux system, not CentOS, with ff 48.0.1.
I've been using it -- currently ..._179 -- (sparingly) on a -7 machine with the default (firefox-45.3.0-1.el7.centos.x86_64) ff.
Looks like it's compiled against a later version of glibc:
ldd libflashplayer.so | grep "not found"
ldd: warning: you do not have execution permission for `./libflashplayer.so' ./libflashplayer.so: /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.15' not found (required by ./libflashplayer.so) ./libflashplayer.so: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.15' not found (required by ./libflashplayer.so) ./libflashplayer.so: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.14' not found (required by ./libflashplayer.so)--
FYI, this has been reported on the Adobe "Flash Player Beta Channel" forum, and I've +1ed it. I would suggest doing the same to add some more pressure on them.
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2209127 (Adobe sign-in required)
Phelps, Matthew wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Phelps, Matthew mphelps@cfa.harvard.edu wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Richard <lists-centos@listmail. innovate.net> wrote:
Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:36:57 +0100 From: isdtor isdtor@gmail.com
Has anyone tried the new flash player beta for Linux?
<snip>
Speaking of which... not the beta, but the current updated default. I have one, and only one, radio station I'm streaming 'bout half the day, weekdays - wqxr.org NYC, and it keeps complaining I need a newer flashplayer. I click the x in the pink box, it goes away, and everything's fine - it' just annoying. Doesn't happen anywhere else I'm streaming. Is this an artifact of it expecting an even newer version, or something cached on my system, or...?
mark
FYI, this has been reported on the Adobe "Flash Player Beta Channel" forum, and I've +1ed it. I would suggest doing the same to add some more pressure on them.
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2209127 (Adobe sign-in required)
I didn't see anything in the release notes, but the current release is working now on 6.8. Looks like they were listening.
It doesn't change my opinion about luser corporations who think it's ok to build a flash-based management interface for their wares (looking at you, VMware).
-
isdtor -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Phelps, Matthew -
Richard