×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

58 comments

Not to worry about Reader! (4, Informative)

EkriirkE (1075937) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891469)

While we may be stuck with adobe for flash & shockwave, users should not be using reader at all. It is complete and utter bloatware.

FoxIt or Sumatra for Windows are the better, slimmer PDF reader alternatives. And Linux has its many other readers.

Re:Not to worry about Reader! (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891527)

Have you seen Acrobat these days? TPB says [thepiratebay.org] the install media is 844MB, and I've seen Add/Remove Programs list Acrobat as using over a gigabyte (on clients' machines).

The ghostscript binary is about 12MB.

Re:Not to worry about Reader! (2, Interesting)

Taikutusu (1479335) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891609)

I honestly cannot even fathom what they could be possibly putting into the install binary to make it that large. The SumatraPDF install is 1.43MB...it'd still fit on a floppy!

That said, I really wish Sumatra would incorporate decent printing support.

Re:Not to worry about Reader! (2, Interesting)

tyrione (134248) | more than 4 years ago | (#28892757)

Does SumatraPDF and the rest remotely support the following PDF standards? http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/standards.html [adobe.com]

Re:Not to worry about Reader! (3, Interesting)

Serious Callers Only (1022605) | more than 4 years ago | (#28893711)

Does SumatraPDF and the rest remotely support the following PDF standards?

Do we need or want it to? I know I don't. PDFs are a useful format for interchange and storage of documents while preserving formatting. I don't use SumatraPDF, but I imagine it covers a subset of features which covers reading most PDFs in existence (like the reader I use).

I don't want embedded flash, or any of the other bullshit features listed on that page as standards. The first one (for example) claims to support the long-term preservation of digital documents - perhaps they use extra long-lasting bits to store the data? The PDF explaining the standard is full of obvious advice which has nothing to do with PDFs at all, and some features which belong more properly in CMS software for all documents, like signing or user tracking....

If you do feel you need those sort of misfeatures then please feel free to suffer and use the Adobe Acrobat/Adobe Reader, but I'll continue to avoid it - because it is an invasive, resource hogging, security risk which is more about getting Adobe a foothold on every desktop than it is about facilitating document exchange/storage.

The PDF format is useful. Adobe's attempts to take over everything on the corporate desktop with it are not.

Re:Not to worry about Reader! (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 4 years ago | (#28900751)

Do we need or want it to? I know I don't. PDFs are a useful format for interchange and storage of documents while preserving formatting.

I don't want embedded flash, or any of the other bullshit features listed on that page as standards. The first one (for example) claims to support the long-term preservation of digital documents - perhaps they use extra long-lasting bits to store the data?

Archival PDF (the "long-term preservation" you mention) is exactly what you describe in the first paragraph: a format for interchange and storage of documents while preserving formatting. The format explicitly does not support things like Javascript or Flash, and an archival PDF has no external dependancies: all the fonts, images, and so on are embedded in the file, and the format is completely specified. That's what makes it suitable for long-term preservation: it will continue to render the same even if ECMA drops "document.write()" from the Javascript spec or the last copy of "Comic Sans" is lost.

Re:Not to worry about Reader! (1)

enrevanche (953125) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891635)

That is a lot more than the acrobat reader which is 41 MB for the linux version and 26 MB for Windows 7 version.

Re:Not to worry about Reader! (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891663)

Acrobat is a different product than Adobe Reader (which used to be called Adobe Acrobat Reader, but isn't anymore). Reader is a pdf viewer, Acrobat can do a bunch more.

The installer for Adobe Reader still weighs in at 30+ megabytes (and my install is taking up 180 megabytes; 60 of that is setup files, I think the updater sometimes 'works' by downloading a whole new install, it isn't clear to me why there are multiple installers).

Also, 9.x is a big improvement over versions 7 and 8.

Re:Not to worry about Reader! (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891951)

................obviously..

I'm not talking about Reader. I compared the size of Acrobat with ghostscript, which can also create postscript and PDF documents. It was relevant to GGP because he was talking about PDF bloat from Adobe.

Re:Not to worry about Reader! (1)

tyrione (134248) | more than 4 years ago | (#28892763)

................obviously.. I'm not talking about Reader. I compared the size of Acrobat with ghostscript, which can also create postscript and PDF documents. It was relevant to GGP because he was talking about PDF bloat from Adobe.

Ghostscript is very nice, but it has a long way to go to support the massive list of ISO standards Adobe has garnered of late with PDF. http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/standards.html [adobe.com]

Re:Not to worry about Reader! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28894869)

Ghostscript is very nice, but it has a long way to go to support the massive list of ISO standards Adobe has garnered of late with PDF. http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/standards.html [adobe.com]

How many of those standards do you actually use? I mean, really?

JavaScript? Manipulable 3D models (used nowhere outside of engineering whitepapers)? Flash?

Come on.

Re:Not to worry about Reader! (1)

marklar1 (670468) | more than 4 years ago | (#28900977)

Ohhh, I'd worry...Adobe is so completely F'n incompetent it is scary.

On Mac OS X they've not been able to write update their programs to handle case-sensitive file systems--which have been an OS option since 03--and have caused many a user problems.

They're so f'n oblivious to end users that they don't list non-case-sensitive file systems as a requirement for reader (though they do for the Creative Suite and Reader...?).

The program is so poorly coded, that even though it does install on a case-sensitive file systems (whithout offering a waring to the end user to download or install the software), its problems aren't just working with other third party files, it can't even refer to subroutines within it's own code appropriately as they aren't consistent within their own code...so you can't, for instance open up the Preferences dialog box... there are numerous other interface and coding issues...

Re:Not to worry about Reader! (3, Informative)

tyrione (134248) | more than 4 years ago | (#28892731)

Acrobat is Acrobat Writer and Professional Pre-press publishing suite.

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/

Acrobat Reader and Acrobat are not remotely the same beast.

Re:Not to worry about Reader! (1)

CrashNBrn (1143981) | more than 4 years ago | (#28897861)

Foxit is a great piece of software. Except it has far too many Regressions. It is not uncommon for the v2.0 to *outperform both v2.3 and 3.x and in some cases v2.0 is able to do things that the "improved" versions completely choke on.

As well, Foxit Reader still hasn't resolved the printing issue, where it overwhelms the printer spool - it's possibly printer driver issues, but one that other PDF software is not affected by.

(*) Outperforms in both speed and quality of the visual display.

Extra! Extra! (3, Funny)

chickenarise (1597941) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891481)

Adobe sends waves of shock over the world when they flash their IT prowess by delivering much awaited security updates!

Re:Extra! Extra! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28891889)

What took them so long? The new "NPSWF32.dll" is almost two weeks old! In the meantime millions of users have been running their systems wide open to remote exploitation.

Flash must die so it can be replaced by an open standard with several implementations. Competition is the only viable option.

flash is perfectly secure! (2)

Cymeth (122330) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891531)

they're worried about security!?

how about fixing performance so i can switch the prick of a thing on first ;)

When will Adobe learn? (4, Insightful)

judolphin (1158895) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891555)

The incredibly slow, huge and intrusive Adobe Acrobat Reader updates are the main reason I (and I'm sure many others) switched to FoxIt.

That aside, to this day, the innovations created by the Adobe of twenty years ago rivals that of any company of any time: TrueType, PostScript, the PDF standard, Photoshop (which is just as much a verb as "Google")... Adobe in the 1980s almost single-handedly created the desktop publishing industry. They made the software, technologies and tools achievable for individuals and small businesses.

Adobe Updates are Exhibit A of how they've fallen from one of the great software companies ever, to the punchline of a joke.

Re:When will Adobe learn? (4, Informative)

Burdell (228580) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891899)

The TrueType font spec was developed by Apple to compete with Adobe. PostScript uses a different font system (PostScript Type 1 being the most common). Adobe didn't want to license just license the Type 1 format (or at least not for a reasonable fee), and it was also somewhat complex to implement (Type 1 fonts being mostly a subset of the PostScript language), so Apple developed TrueType (and then Microsoft signed on) to compete with Adobe. Adobe eventually released the Type 1 spec for free, but the damage was done.

That was probably the beginning of the downfall of Adobe from their high-point of technical excellence.

Re:When will Adobe learn? (1)

microbee (682094) | more than 4 years ago | (#28892449)

Agreed. I could not stand the stupidity of the update.

Now it keeps popping up to my face crying for an update. I said OK go ahead, and it vanished. Then half an hour later it popped up again.

I cannot believe how stupid Adobe Update is. Same thing happened before, now it's happening again.

Re:When will Adobe learn? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28892459)

That aside, to this day, the innovations created by the Adobe of twenty years ago rivals that of any company of any time: TrueType, PostScript, the PDF standard, Photoshop (which is just as much a verb as "Google")... Adobe in the 1980s almost single-handedly created the desktop publishing industry. They made the software, technologies and tools achievable for individuals and small businesses.

Adobe Updates are Exhibit A of how they've fallen from one of the great software companies ever, to the punchline of a joke.

The innovations of Adobe in the 1980s continuing into the mid-1990s happened because two former Xerox-Palo Alto scientists were in charge. Now that the bean-counters from wall street have taken over the company, American "stock price" capitalism trumps over American innovation as usual. I know it better because i work in adobe.

Re:When will Adobe learn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28895173)

True, but there may be a new life in this company. While Flex is currently a disaster, it has big potential. Same as web-based additions to Create Suite.

And thing may start to straighten out in the end. I'm absolutely impressed with the performance of the Reader in Ubuntu. I dumped all other readers just because this is the single best lean mean PDF reader for Linux currently available. I've taken tests with Evince, gv, xpdf, kpdf, etc... acroread 9 trumps them all.

Re:When will Adobe learn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28911737)

That aside, to this day, the innovations created by the Adobe of twenty years ago rivals that of any company of any time: TrueType, PostScript, the PDF standard, Photoshop (which is just as much a verb as "Google")... Adobe in the 1980s almost single-handedly created the desktop publishing industry. They made the software, technologies and tools achievable for individuals and small businesses.

TrueType: Was cocreated with Apple. If you ask me it is an ugly hackjob.

PostScript: Apple got the idea that PostScript printers would be a good idea and made Adobe adapt it for its new use. My guess is that Steve Job was a pain in the ass until it was perfect. It is rather good, but outdated and unmaintained. I use Ghostscript a lot because it provides a decent script language on every computer with CUPS (most BSD + most Linux + OSX).

PDF: Horrible, horrible, horrible. A mash of different technologies doing essentually the same things. Yeah, it's easier to just dump different formats into one container than to convert them into one consistent format, but it's ugly, space consuming and demand a lot from software using the document. The reason Adobe abandoned PS was that it was "not secure" because of it's scriptability, then they add JavaScript to it' s successor. I like JS, but thats a double standard. PDF is kind of usable for printing but it's stab-myself-in-the-eyes-with-a-pen-horrible for screen reading, whatever reader you use. Searches through a PDF-document is so slow it makes you feel like your back in the early 80' s, and if they aren't it's because the document contains the same text twice, once for printing and once for searching and not in a very compressable fashion. If a document don't contain any large photos or a large number of intricate glyphs, then a decent PostScript-document is still usually smaller in size, despite it's age, and usually without any compression.

PhotoShop: Some random guys made a rather horrible image editor (I've used in the 80's, it was not a good product compared to other image editors of that time). It become widespread and popular because it was distributed for "free" with a lot of hardware and magazines (and with tutorials inside the magazines). Then it got bought up by Adobe. Meanwhile a lot of really good image editors disappear from the market because they can't compete with "free". Slowly Adobe start to add the same functionality that the earlier image editors had to PhSh -- only with a horrible UI. A decade later when they are finished with that, they start to copy from more modern Image editors, who usually are very short lived because of PhShs market dominance. Innovation my ass.

Flash for 64-bit linux (4, Informative)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891563)

I'm rather impressed Adobe even updated the alpha 64-bit plugin for Linux at the same time as all the other platforms:

http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html [adobe.com]

I was kinda expecting they had forgotten about it, so it's nice they didn't.

Re:Flash for 64-bit linux (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891597)

If you code it well, there shouldn't be to many major differences across versions for most updates. You can write code that works good enough that works for many OS's and platforms where most updates to the code can be done and tested rather easily. Flash isn't a high performance App, so I doubt there are not many special 64bit code outside the normal library set.

Re:Flash for 64-bit linux (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28891691)

Flash isn't a high performance App

I take it that you've never witnessed Flash running on Mac OS X. That pathetic excuse of a plug-in can bring a quad-core Mac Pro to its knees. Adobe can't produce efficient code, period.

Re:Flash for 64-bit linux (1)

CajunArson (465943) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891667)

You beat me to posting the URL, good catch. This whole incident does pose an interesting point about Linux security: Linux is becoming less secure because Firefox (sometimes on its own) or Firefox + Flash are allowing for cross-platform hijacks that no longer care about which OS you are running. Hacker's don't have to become root to do real damage now, and if Linux wants to keep its edge the next step in security is how to protect the user from the browser.

Re:Flash for 64-bit linux (2, Interesting)

AnyoneEB (574727) | more than 4 years ago | (#28892091)

Agreed. As Google has complained about [google.com] on the topic of browser sandboxing, Linux is a bit behind in protecting programs from their own exploits. On the other hand, the Ubuntu project is actively working on using AppArmor [wikipedia.org] more, which can greatly limit the damage an exploited program can do by listing which files and directories each program is allowed to read/write/execute.

Re:Flash for 64-bit linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28895763)

I always laugh at stuff like SElinux and AppArmor. It's just not possible to secure stuff in that way. It's just adding another layer of complexity to your system. Think of it this way: If the software and OS were perfectly secure then we wouldn't need things like SElinux and AppArmor, yet SElinux and AppArmor are software themselves, using software to fix other software. I guess eventually we'll need something to protect SElinux and AppArmor themselves... Round and round we go, layer upon layer without actually solving anything.

Hint: It can't be fixed in software.

Re:Flash for 64-bit linux (1)

AnyoneEB (574727) | more than 4 years ago | (#28903923)

It can't be fixed in software? What do you suggest as an alternative? Hardware? Magic? Hardware security can have bugs, too -- and I am not really sure what hardware security has to do with the types of bugs AppArmor is designed to protect against. Anyway, it seems silly to think of hardware as fundamentally different from software. Both express complicated logic, which can easily have mistakes unless the author is very careful.

Yes, AppArmor and SELinux do nothing if your code has no exploitable bugs. Unfortunately, code occasionally does have exploitable bugs, so it makes sense to have extra layers like the IE8 sandbox to limit the damage exploits can do.

Re:Flash for 64-bit linux (2)

Tokerat (150341) | more than 4 years ago | (#28892655)

Now if they could just be bothered to make the PPC version get more than 2 frames per second I'd be grateful...

Google Chrome install? (3, Interesting)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891577)

The installer doesn't work for Chrome. Flash reports [adobe.com] that I'm using 10,0,22,87 but the latest is 10.0.32.18. That means I have to extract the plugin from the installer with winrar and install it manually....... come on, get on top of this, Google.

Re:Google Chrome install? (2, Informative)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#28892575)

Google? You mean Adobe, right?

In other news - Adobe's installer doesn't properly install for my Firefox Portable, either - but if I use 7-zip to manually unzip it and throw it in Firefox's plugin folder, then it works fine. :D

I'm so glad they switched away from that crappy WISE installer. Those installers couldn't be unzipped by anything I know of.

Re:Google Chrome install? (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#28896211)

I meant Google. The installer asked me to close Chrome when I ran it, so it does recognize the browser.

Realistically, Google should be the one responsible for getting it working. Adobe has no obligation to research what new browsers are coming out.. it's Google who should work with Adobe to get it supported.

Re:Google Chrome install? (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#28905139)

That makes no sense.

The installer asked me to close Chrome when I ran it, so it does recognize the browser.

Right - but not enough to actually copy the damn file.

Next thing you'll be arguing that it's Canonical's fault that Microsoft Office doesn't work on linux.

Installer failed. Move along. I'm sure Adobe will fix it eventually.

For those that what an alternative, GNASH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28891647)

because we need an alternative that fits our usage and ethic, there's always Gnash that would best be patronized for improvements. FSF's Gnash blog (http://www.gnashdev.org) is a good start. It would take-off if a major website pool would embrace and improve it, rather than utilize the restrictions of the already-existing Adobe Flash.

Of'course, I'm among the minority that thinks HTML is for websites to end as of version W3C's HTML 3.0, while the rest is just someone trying to bloat a document viewer into a general-use content delivery and BILLING platform that happens to embrace HTML and Javascript.

Time Travel? (2, Funny)

gamefaces (1542337) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891661)

Did I just go back in time to when people actually used Acrobat Reader? I did go 88 in my DeLorean earlier today... nice speeding ticket too.

Re:Time Travel? (1)

cffrost (885375) | more than 4 years ago | (#28905939)

I did go 88 in my DeLorean earlier today... nice speeding ticket too.

You've got a real attitude problem, McFly. You're a slacker!

Can't install/uninstall v10 .deb package. :( (2, Informative)

antdude (79039) | more than 4 years ago | (#28891709)

I think this release is bad or something is wrong with my Debian.

I downloaded
http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/install_flash_player_10_linux.deb [macromedia.com] to upgrade my old Flash v10 in Debian, but I am getting problems:

# dpkg --install install_flash_player_10_linux.deb
(Reading database ... 162227 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace adobe-flashplugin 10.0.22.87-1 (using install_flash_player_10_linux.deb) ...
update-alternatives: error: no alternatives for iceape-flashplugin.
update-alternatives: error: no alternatives for iceape-flashplugin.
dpkg: warning: old pre-removal script returned error exit status 2
dpkg - trying script from the new package instead ...
update-alternatives: error: no alternatives for iceape-flashplugin.
update-alternatives: error: no alternatives for iceape-flashplugin.
dpkg: error processing install_flash_player_10_linux.deb (--install):
  subprocess new pre-removal script returned error exit status 2
postinst called with argument `abort-upgrade'
dpkg: error while cleaning up:
  subprocess installed post-installation script returned error exit status 1
Errors were encountered while processing:
  install_flash_player_10_linux.deb

# dpkg --remove adobe-flashplugin
dpkg: error processing adobe-flashplugin (--remove):
  Package is in a very bad inconsistent state - you should
  reinstall it before attempting a removal.
Errors were encountered while processing:
  adobe-flashplugin

If I try to reinstall it, then I get the same results in the beginning.

How do I fix this? Thank you in advance. :)

Re:Can't install/uninstall v10 .deb package. :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28892137)

use repos, not random binaries you find on the interwebs? Package management normally exists for a good reason?

Re:Can't install/uninstall v10 .deb package. :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28892245)

Hey buddy, whaddya think this is, a fuckin' helpline?

This is Slashdot, it ain't the frickin' debianforums.org, ubuntuforums.cum, or wherever it is you hipsters hang out these days. Hey, I'll let you in to a little secret, come closer, that's it... IF I TOLD YOU HOW TO FUCKIN' FIX YOUR FUCKIN' DEBIAN INSTALL I WOULDN'T BE WORTH THE TWO HUNDRED GRAND A YEAR THESE FUCKIN' SCHMOES PAY ME.

That's how it works around here, pal. You don't know how to install Flash 10.0.32.18 over 10.0.22.87? GOOD. That means my job is secure. You want this shit to be easy, huh buddy? Use a frickin' Apple! In the meantime, keep messing around with that Debian, us Slashdotters will be happy to deride you, look down our noses at you and generally advise you what a cocksucker you're being for asking us to 'do your job for you'.

Remember: usability around here means making the interface so difficult people need to pay you to fix it for them. Accessibility: ain't for people in wheelchairs and shit, it's a measure of how cool you look when you're remote accessing into a user's machine, while simultaneously winning new world records for snottiness by talking to them on the phone. If you ever doubt these things: take a look at your Slashdot user page.

* hope you take this in the spirit it was intended (humourous). My machine is currently fucked after its ext4 filesystem got its knickers in a twist following a power cut, otherwise I would gladly share my own experiences of upgrading Flash. :)

Re:Can't install/uninstall v10 .deb package. :( (1)

mrsurb (1484303) | more than 4 years ago | (#28892325)

I had the same problem today even installing from repos... found a slightly odd workaround that worked at Ubuntu Forums [ubuntuforums.org] .

Re:Can't install/uninstall v10 .deb package. :( (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 4 years ago | (#28892405)

Thanks, but it didn't work:

# aptitude download mozilla-plugin-gnash
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
Reading extended state information
Initializing package states... Done
Writing extended state information... Done
Get:1 http://ftp.debian.org/ [debian.org] testing/main mozilla-plugin-gnash 0.8.4-2 [67.7kB]
Fetched 67.7kB in 1s (52.8kB/s)
ANTian:/home/ant/download# dpkg --force-overwrite --install mozilla-plugin-gnash_0.8.4-2_i386.deb
(Reading database ... 162236 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace mozilla-plugin-gnash 0.8.4-2 (using mozilla-plugin-gnash_0.8.4-2_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement mozilla-plugin-gnash ...
dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of mozilla-plugin-gnash:
  mozilla-plugin-gnash depends on gnash (= 0.8.4-2) | gnash-opengl (= 0.8.4-2); however:
    Package gnash is not installed.
    Package gnash-opengl is not installed.
dpkg: error processing mozilla-plugin-gnash (--install):
  dependency problems - leaving unconfigured
Errors were encountered while processing:
  mozilla-plugin-gnash

# apt-get install gnash gnash-opengl
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
E: The package adobe-flashplugin needs to be reinstalled, but I can't find an archive for it.

I need to force a reinstall or force an uninstall, but it won't let me! :(

Resolved! (3, Informative)

antdude (79039) | more than 4 years ago | (#28892505)

From http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/debian-26/sid-adobe-flasplugin-is-reinstall-required-but-apt-cant-find-archive-for-it-727572/ [linuxquestions.org] and http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/debian-26/cant-open-synaptic-after-trying-install-flash-deb-of-ubuntu-739384/ [linuxquestions.org] :

"... edit file /var/lib/dpkg/info/adobe-flashplugin.prerm and removed all lines after set -e. This solved the problem."

I guess deb file was for Ubuntu and not Debian. :(

How do you fix that? Get Windows! apk (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28892639)

"

I think this release is bad or something is wrong with my Debian.

I downloaded
http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/install_flash_player_10_linux.deb [macromedia.com] to upgrade my old Flash v10 in Debian, but I am getting problems: ...

Errors were encountered while processing:
    adobe-flashplugin

If I try to reinstall it, then I get the same results in the beginning.

How do I fix this? Thank you in advance. :) - by antdude (79039) on Thursday July 30, @10:28PM (#28891709) Homepage Journal

This, is 1 way how:

Get Windows... it actually WORKS there!

APK

P.S.=> This is a BIG why of the WHY most of the planet runs Windows NT-based OS', especially the more "modern" ones, like 2000/XP/Server 2003 - it just works, & everything pretty much runs on it also: Windows + Win32 API based software just works, & w/ more peripheral software + hardware than any other (& is the MOST used on the MOST USED HARDWARE PLATFORM for PC's &/or Servers there is, in x86). Now, because of that? You stand to gain employ all the more so, because it is so utilized from the home/end-user PC, to Departmental Servers, up thru to "Mission Critical/Enterprise Class" Server Back Office apps & applications - more surface area to gain employ in... apk

Re:Can't install/uninstall v10 .deb package. :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28893179)

It's only one file (libflashplayer.so), so just use the tar.gz. It's less hassle to just place the file manually in the plugins folder.

Better Privacy (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 4 years ago | (#28892027)

Best add on for privacy even with Flash and shockwave. It removes the hidden LSO cookies that Flash and Shockwave puts on your computer.

Corporate Crapware. (3, Insightful)

eddy (18759) | more than 4 years ago | (#28892373)

Love it how you don't get to chose where it's installed (on MS Windows). It requires me to exit Opera for the installer to run, even though I don't want the plugin installed in Opera (in fact, it's blacklisted there). Guess simply allowing me to check the applications where I want it installed would be too dangerous, someone might back out at the last minute and all...

How are these updates pushed out onto the unwashed masses anyhow, will the client update itself? If not, when are people who don't care about security-bulletins going to get updated? Will there be an update to flash-authoring tools such that this is the new minimum req. version, forcing updates, or what?

Automatic update (1)

indre1 (1422435) | more than 4 years ago | (#28893387)

Does Flash get updated automatically when I start Firefox or do I have to mess around Adobe's site?

Re:Automatic update (2, Informative)

gmack (197796) | more than 4 years ago | (#28893933)

In Widnows, plugins do not get updated automatically(only addons do). You will need to download from their site.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...