> 2010/2/17 <m.roth at 5-cent.us>: >>> 2010/2/17 <m.roth at 5-cent.us>: >>>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 4:51 PM, <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Could be $%^&* flash. That was happening about 4 mos. ago. >>>>>> >>>>> Mark, can you be a bit more specific, please? >>>>> >>>>> What / which flash are you referring to exactly? >>>> >>>> Flashplayer. nsplugin<whatsit> There was even (finally) a bug reported >>>> for it, a few months back, and it took them a week to find an unnoted >>>> dependency, and not only would firefox crash, but their crashreporter >>>> would crash, because *it* was dependent upon the missing package. >>> >>> nspluginwrapper? 32bit flash on 64bit env? why you just don't run the >>> 64bit flash? >> >> You mean the version that didn't exist, and is just now mentioned on >> slashdot as ->ALPHA<- software? > > yes, it still works better than 32bit pluginwrapped version. Try it > at: http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplayer10/64bit.html Well, since I don't have a time machine (please let me know if you do - I have a number of *serious* things to correct back then), it doesn't help me back in Oct and Nov. I also really am averse to alpha software - I don't like to use anything less than x.0.1 (after they've fixed the bugs that were missed before the release <g>) mark