How to get Flash Player

fossiili · 2017-01-08 08:17:41

I have just installed bl-Hydrogen-i386_20160710. I like it and it works well. Except when I try to read my local newspaper its netversion https://itsepalvelu.kaleva.fi/nakoislehti3.cfm. Unfortunately the Flash Player is needed. I do not like it at all monkey

I used Opera but Firefox will do well also. What to do to be able to read the newspaper?

johnraff · 2017-01-08 09:08:53

Hi fossiili, try installing bunsen-pepperflash.
( 'sudo apt-get install bunsen-pepperflash' )

Did you allow the welcome script to run, just after your first install? That also offers you the option to install the above package.

...and welcome to the community!

damo · 2017-01-08 09:14:02

^ Does the OP want to view Flash pages without having to install Flash?

ohnonot · 2017-01-08 15:07:02

...ja tervetuloa näille sivuille!

i couldn't test that page because it demands login.
without that it works just fine without flash.
and as johnraff said, the welcome script should have given you the options to install flash.
maybe something else isn't working?

ps: search the forums for "finnish weather"!

Last edited by ohnonot (2017-01-08 15:07:34)

fossiili · 2017-01-09 17:13:49

ohnonot wrote:

...ja tervetuloa näille sivuille!

Kiitos!

The bl-welcome did not help me in the Adobe Flash matter. Neither did the bunsen-pepperflash. Now I tried the live-cd of antix16 and for my surprise I could read my newspaper using that, So I stop using BunsenLabs in this PC. Although I have BL installed in an other PC at my Home in the town of Oulu, I am now 600 km far from that on an island on the Gulf of Finland. Here I have an over 10 years old PC.

nore · 2017-01-09 20:30:55

I'm reading today's issue right now with nonfree Flash plugin. I've also tried other plugins for netpapers, with varying degrees of success. Antix Live ships with flashplugin-nonfree.

OT: To my surprise I was able to read today's Kaleva, which I don't subscribe, by first logging in to my own newspaper. They seem to share platform at e-pages.dk.

Last edited by nore (2017-01-10 03:47:28)

ohnonot · 2017-01-10 07:28:50

so you're doing your summer holiday in the winter ? big_smile
only joking.
it sounds very nice & peaceful.
i'm frustrated because all the snow is melting away AGAIN, here in pääkaupunkiseutu.
cry
that's global warming for finland.

anyhow, on topic:

nore wrote:

I'm reading today's issue right now with nonfree Flash plugin.

what nore wants to say (i think) is that you CAN read kaleva lehti on bunsenlabs.
all you have to do is install said package.

nore · 2017-01-10 16:38:50

I should never post late at night (which means after 6 pm). In short, fossiili can either

stick with Antix, which is just the right distro for that slightly worn out PC,
or try installing flashplugin-nonfree to fresh Bunsenlabs according to instructions in official Debian site.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-01-10 21:29:08

fossiili wrote:

The bl-welcome did not help me in the Adobe Flash matter. Neither did the bunsen-pepperflash.

To clarify, for Firefox users the browser-plugin-freshplayer-pepperflash package is also required (along with bunsen-pepperflash) and this is only available from the Debian jessie-backports repositories.

The simplest solution for full Flash support in BunsenLabs is to install and use Google Chrome Stable, there is a menu entry for this.

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2017-01-10 21:29:34)

johnraff · 2017-01-13 05:02:14

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

fossiili wrote:
The bl-welcome did not help me in the Adobe Flash matter. Neither did the bunsen-pepperflash.
To clarify, for Firefox users the browser-plugin-freshplayer-pepperflash package is also required (along with bunsen-pepperflash) and this is only available from the Debian jessie-backports repositories.

This is true. Unfortunately, the version of bl-welcome where Flash issues are tidied up is still lingering, unreleased, in the "deuterium" branch. Getting this stuff out to users is becoming an urgent priority IMO.

Meanwhile, @fossiili please follow HoaS's advice to use Google Chrome, or else install both bunsen-pepperflash and browser-plugin-freshplayer-pepperflash to use Flash in Firefox.

ohnonot · 2017-01-13 07:40:21

HoaS's advice to use Google Chrome

is this really necessary?
HoaS why are you tripping over yourself to recommend Chrome (a proprietary binary blob) to newcomers, instead of Chromium (an open source project)?
Why, in fact, recommend any browser whose urge to call home is hardcoded into the source (both chromium and chrome are doing this)?
or have you fallen for google's double-tongued promise: if you give us all your data, you get a secure system (browser, email provider...) in return?

i think there are a very few cases where content might be unavailable otherwise, but this isn't one of them, as nore already pointed out.

Last edited by ohnonot (2017-01-13 07:46:09)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-01-13 07:58:52

ohnonot wrote:

HoaS's advice to use Google Chrome
is this really necessary?
HoaS why are you tripping over yourself to recommend Chrome (a proprietary binary blob) to newcomers, instead of Chromium (an open source project)?

To be absolutely clear, my recommendation is to install and Google Chrome Stable purely for Flash usage and keep Firefox as the "main" browser.

If Flash is to be used then worrying about what nasties the big G have secreted away in their browser seems a bit silly to me, like worrying about flies when there is a big-ass wasp in the room, no?

Any users even vaguely concerned about open source software wouldn't touch Flash with a ten-foot barge pole anyway, IMO.

Posted from OpenBSD tongue

ohnonot · 2017-01-13 08:04:30

what a convenient excuse.
i think you should add this to your post everytime you rush forward to recommend newcomers to use proprietary software (and esp. when an open source solution exists).
oh and i know that flash IS a binary blob, but that's not an excuse to roll over and let the big G tickle my undersides.

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

Posted from OpenBSD

exactly. sheesh.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-01-13 08:09:54

ohnonot wrote:

what a convenient excuse.
i think you should add this to your post

I have put it in my signature lol

*blows raspberry*

EDIT: sorry OP ops

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2017-01-13 08:12:40)

johnraff · 2017-01-13 09:39:50

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

If Flash is to be used then worrying about what nasties the big G have secreted away in their browser seems a bit silly to me, like worrying about flies when there is a big-ass wasp in the room, no?

Really? G's privacy abuses ability to invade privacy is well documented, whereas I know of no security breaches on Linux that came via an up-to-date install of Adobe's blob. Do you? I mean cases where actual damage was caused, not hypothetical possibilities.

Sure, neither is ideal, and the user has to choose, but is Flash vastly more evil than Google?

Last edited by johnraff (2017-01-13 09:41:18)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-01-13 18:45:44

johnraff wrote:

is Flash vastly more evil than Google?

Yes, I think so.

Compare the CVE statistics, these are for vulnerabilities rated at 9/10 or higher in severity:

Google Chrome Stable: 59

Adobe Flash Player: 832

Chrome is the most secure browser available, Google spend millions every year improving it; Adobe just don't give a **** hmm

EDIT: anyway, this is all rather moot as Google (and Mozilla) are working hard to eradicate Flash ASAP.

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2017-01-13 18:49:13)

chris667 · 2017-01-13 19:31:56

It's awful. And to top it all, out of date; Adobe haven't cared about Flash on Linux for years.

I second the suggestion to use Google Chrome. You don't need to use a profile to use it, and you can use Firefox for the rest of your browsing that doesn't require flash.

I will be glad when it's gone. It's only a shame Adobe won't go with it. Amazing how much of the British Government now needs you to install it to do things like fill out forms.

geekosupremo · 2017-01-13 19:33:23

Flash is being phased out of mass web use, as the web technologies catch up, see SVG and animation libraries for JavaScript.

Flash does still have some uses, but they are becoming more and more narrow, which isn't bad, as long as Flash is only doing what it was intended to do it's not the stank of the devil's testicle that many see it as. This does not absolve it of the myriad of security flaws it has.

In a lot of ways it's like Comic Sans, not terrible in and of itself but it's over use and 'abuse' have made it the butt of many a joke.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-01-13 19:59:54

In the interests of balance:

chris667 wrote:

And to top it all, out of date; Adobe haven't cared about Flash on Linux for years.

Adobe have relented on their abandonment of the GNU/Linux FlashPlayer plugin and it is now developed in concert with the Windows version:

https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/otherversions/

However, the NPAPI plugin does not support playback of DRM-restricted content or GPU accelration of videos; the PPAPI ("PepperFlash") plugin must be used for this instead and this is what is bundled with Google Chrome Stable.

Mozilla have dropped NPAPI completely from the non-ESR version and the next firefox-esr (that will ship with stretch & Helium) will not support NPAPI and will instead rely on HTML5 with Google's Widevine CDM plugin used for DRM-restricted content:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?_escap … Hz_XIoAAAJ

EDIT: ha! That's not what the link says lol

Sorry, I'm tired roll

Better link here:

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm

I will read it all now glasses

EDIT2:

Mozilla wrote:

Firefox plans to drop support for all NPAPI plugins, except Flash, in March 2017. The next major Firefox ESR (Extended Support Release) release, also scheduled for March, will continue to support plugins such as Silverlight and Java until early 2018, for those users who need more time for their transition.

https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases … n-firefox/

So it should be completely gone by the time buster is released as Debian 10 and we are on BunsenLabs Lithium big_smile

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2017-01-13 20:12:30)

johnraff · 2017-01-14 04:45:37

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

johnraff wrote:
is Flash vastly more evil than Google?
Yes, I think so.
Compare the CVE statistics, these are for vulnerabilities rated at 9/10 or higher in severity:
Google Chrome Stable: 59
Adobe Flash Player: 832

This discussion could go on forever, but the latest of the Flash vulnerabilities listed above apply to "Adobe Flash Player versions 24.0.0.186 and earlier". My installed player is 24.0.0.194.

But comparing security vulnerabilities misses the point with respect to Google. We're trying to compare two quite different issues here, like asking whether cancer is worse than capitalism or something.

Google haven't been accused of actually pulling anything grossly evil to date AFAIK, but the problem is the vast database they have built up, which makes it increasingly easy to pinpoint identify any human being on the planet. Even if they didn't want to abuse the power which is increasingly being put in their hands, it's not at all hard to imagine an unscrupulous US government forcing them to hand over the data. That's why many people are very keen to avoid using apps like Google Chrome, to try to cling on to whatever shreds of privacy they can.

Richard Stallman wrote:

Information, Once Collected, Will Be Misused

ohnonot · 2017-01-14 11:53:50

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

Compare the CVE statistics, these are for vulnerabilities rated at 9/10 or higher in severity:
Google Chrome Stable: 59
Adobe Flash Player: 832
Chrome is the most secure browser available, Google spend millions every year improving it

ohnonot wrote:

or have you fallen for google's double-tongued promise: if you give us all your data, you get a secure system (browser, email provider...) in return?

of course they're spending millions on it!

edit:
and chrome still is a binary blob, as opposed to chromium.

Last edited by ohnonot (2017-01-14 11:55:22)

nore · 2017-01-14 14:53:55

All right, at least one can choose either one of the two evils. They both seem to work in this case; here's today's Kaleva in Chrome:

What's the technical difference between using Chrome with builtin pepperflash or Firefox with browser-plugin-freshplayer-pepperflash maintained by Google?

This is not an ideological issue for me, personally, I've already sold my soul to Google AND use Adobe Flash for newspaper reading; I'm just curious. I've always been weak in faith for the Great Gnu.

Last edited by nore (2017-01-14 14:55:20)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-01-14 15:02:02

nore wrote:

What's the techical difference between using Chrome with builtin pepperflash or Firefox with browser-plugin-freshplayer-pepperflash maintained by Google?

Theoretically, not much because libpepflashplayer.so is extracted from a downloaded copy of Google Chrome Stable smile

However, there have been issues with the various Debian FlashPlayer packages (this is why johnraff developed the bunsen-pepperflash package and also why MX are using that package as well) and the Google Chrome Stable plugin will *always* be updated before the Debian repository equivalent.

For the record, I have had at least one site completely refuse to work with any FlashPlayer except Google Chrome Stable, all other versions (chromium, firefox-esr, Firefox from Mozilla, NPAPI and PPAPI) would display a "Flash version is too old" error message despite the version number being current and verified as up-to-date on this page.

Finally, to be absolutely clear, I *do not* recommend using either Google Chrome Stable or FlashPlayer, but if you *need* to view the content then they are the most effective way of doing so.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-01-14 15:21:34

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

libpepflashplayer.so is extracted from a downloaded copy of Google Chrome Stable

Not any more:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepo … bug=841373

hmm

EDIT: and https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepo … bug=833741

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2017-01-14 15:23:20)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2017-01-14 15:44:57

With apologies for the multiple posts...

I can confirm that error on my new stretch-based BL system:

mv: cannot stat 'unpackchrome/opt/google/chrome/PepperFlash/libpepflashplayer.so': No such file or directory

Although, strangely, the plugin then shows up but at version 11.blah hmm

Scrot alongside Chrome:

Note also that Google Chrome Stable is a newer version than the Debian chromium package.

https://packages.debian.org/search?keyw … ection=all

#1 2017-01-08 08:17:41

How to get Flash Player

#2 2017-01-08 09:08:53

Re: How to get Flash Player

#3 2017-01-08 09:14:02

Re: How to get Flash Player

#4 2017-01-08 15:07:02

Re: How to get Flash Player

#5 2017-01-09 17:13:49

Re: How to get Flash Player

#6 2017-01-09 20:30:55

Re: How to get Flash Player

#7 2017-01-10 07:28:50

Re: How to get Flash Player

#8 2017-01-10 16:38:50

Re: How to get Flash Player

#9 2017-01-10 21:29:08

Re: How to get Flash Player

#10 2017-01-13 05:02:14

Re: How to get Flash Player

#11 2017-01-13 07:40:21

Re: How to get Flash Player

#12 2017-01-13 07:58:52

Re: How to get Flash Player

#13 2017-01-13 08:04:30

Re: How to get Flash Player

#14 2017-01-13 08:09:54

Re: How to get Flash Player

#15 2017-01-13 09:39:50

Re: How to get Flash Player

#16 2017-01-13 18:45:44

Re: How to get Flash Player

#17 2017-01-13 19:31:56

Re: How to get Flash Player

#18 2017-01-13 19:33:23

Re: How to get Flash Player

#19 2017-01-13 19:59:54

Re: How to get Flash Player

#20 2017-01-14 04:45:37

Re: How to get Flash Player

#21 2017-01-14 11:53:50

Re: How to get Flash Player

#22 2017-01-14 14:53:55

Re: How to get Flash Player

#23 2017-01-14 15:02:02

Re: How to get Flash Player

#24 2017-01-14 15:21:34

Re: How to get Flash Player

#25 2017-01-14 15:44:57

Re: How to get Flash Player

Board footer