You are not logged in.

#1 2015-11-04 04:23:52

KrunchTime
Member
Registered: 2015-09-29
Posts: 857

Flash from Source vs. flashplugin-nonfree

https://forums.bunsenlabs.org/viewtopic … 6224#p6224

hhh wrote:

I find it best to remove flashplugin-nonfree and just go to the source...

Please elaborate.  I thought flashplugin-nonfree was from the source; i.e. Adobe.

Offline

#2 2015-11-04 05:34:46

hhh
Meep!
Registered: 2015-09-17
Posts: 10,138
Website

Re: Flash from Source vs. flashplugin-nonfree

I get screwy behavior with flashplugin-nonfree, and the whole setup seems screwy to me. After installing it, what you end up with is a symlink in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins called flash-mozilla.so which links to /etc/alternatives/flash-mozilla.so which is another symlink to /usr/lib/flashplugin-nonfree/libflashplayer.so.

The suggested method for updating this plugin is not apt update or apt-get update but rather...

sudo update-flashplugin-nonfree --install

https://wiki.debian.org/FlashPlayer#Installation

Today I installed Hydrogen rc1 and went to Soundcloud and it played fine. Then I refreshed the page and I got the "Iceweasel has prevented flash blah blah outdated plugin" message bar, so I went to...
http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/
... and got the same blocked flash message and no bouncey-cube. So I updated Flash as described above, restarted Iceweasel, went to adobe/flash/about again, still blocked.

I uninstalled flashplugin-nonfree, went to...
https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/
... chose ".tar.gz for other Linux", extracted it, moved libflashplugin.so to /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins (or move it to ~/.mozilla/plugins, create the plugins folder) and, as the included ReadMe says, moved into the extracted directory and ran...

sudo cp -r usr/* /usr

Went back to about flash and all is fine. YMMV.

You may remember, I posted on #! several months ago that flashplugin-nonfree was vulnerable/fixed/vulnerable again and since then I've been going to Adobe instead. I figure, if flashplugin-nonfree is coming from Adobe, why use Debian as a middle man, especially if apt isn't going to take care of updating it?

In Iceweasel, you can type about:plugins in the URL bar and at the top there will be a link to...
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/plugincheck/
... which will tell you if Flash is up to date.

Really, as has been stated many times, Flash just sucks, but this is how I've been choosing to deal with it. YouTube and their HTML5/Flash combination is another complete fustercluck (seen the all-the-controls-jumble-to-the-left bug yet?) If I want to do any extended YouTube watching, I just succumb and open chromium.

Online

#3 2015-11-04 05:47:56

hhh
Meep!
Registered: 2015-09-17
Posts: 10,138
Website

Re: Flash from Source vs. flashplugin-nonfree

BTW, if you don't have problems using flashplugin-nonfree, I see no reason to do what I'm doing.

Online

#4 2015-11-05 07:37:54

Temetka
Member
From: Sol System, Western Spiral Arm
Registered: 2015-10-14
Posts: 545

Re: Flash from Source vs. flashplugin-nonfree

sudo update-flashplugin-nonfree --install

This and restarting IceWeasel seems to have solved my flash issues. I've never been to soundcloud before, but there are no more "activate Adobe Flash" popups. Thanks.


The meaning of life is to just be alive. It is so plain and so obvious
    and so simple. And yet everybody rushes aroound in a great panic
             as if it were necessary to achieve something beyond themselves.
                                                                                                             - Alan Watts

Offline

#5 2015-11-05 08:55:37

Nili
Member
From: $HOME/♫♪
Registered: 2015-09-30
Posts: 959
Website

Re: Flash from Source vs. flashplugin-nonfree

I don't like to use flash player/plugin at all.

Thanks to HTML5 on Youtube i can watch almost everything but in case i really want to watch a non HTML5 video from Adobe flash player download ".tar.gz for other Linux" extract the archive.

Copy / Paste "libflashplayer.so" to "/usr/lib/mozilla/plugins" flash player plugin is actived once Iceweasel/Firefox restarted.
(checking plugin for update) It is always recommended.

I only use this way if i really need a flash player installed. But i don't like or use it at all smile

Uninstalling "libflashplayer.so", just delete it then restart browser.
So, i take it from source.

Nili

Last edited by Nili (2015-11-05 08:58:23)

Offline

#6 2015-11-05 12:15:49

johnraff
nullglob
From: Nagoya, Japan
Registered: 2015-09-09
Posts: 7,100
Website

Re: Flash from Source vs. flashplugin-nonfree

@hhh I think the main issues you are running into are to do with time.
In fact apt will update the flashplugin-nonfree contents eventually but the package itself has to get an update, which will trigger the new download. That doesn't come right away and we impatient people can pre-emt it with 'sudo update-flashplugin-nonfree --install'. (Part of the issue is Firefox's over-pickyness anyway.)

Personally, I think it's cleaner and neater to let Debian handle it via its alternatives system than to go to Adobe and hack it into your system manually. But peoples' tastes vary I suppose...

Last edited by johnraff (2015-11-05 12:17:04)


...elevator in the Brain Hotel, broken down but just as well...
( a boring Japan blog (currently paused), idle Twitterings and GitStuff )

Introduction to the Bunsenlabs Lithium Desktop

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB