FYI

http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2008/11/now_supporting_16_exabytes.html

--
Mat Booth
www.matbooth.co.uk

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Monday, 17 November 2008 at 22:13, Mat Booth wrote:
> FYI
>
> http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2008/11/now_supporting_16_exabytes.html

And here's a proper (spec for) rpm package, not the crap that Adobe
is distributing:
http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/scratch/flash-plugin.spec

Regards,
R.

--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:

And here's a proper (spec for) rpm package, not the crap that Adobe
is distributing:
http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/scratch/flash-plugin.spec


Smoke test passed: youtube works, sound plays, seems to be operative.
Thanks for the package!


PM

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Petr Machata wrote:

> Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>> And here's a proper (spec for) rpm package, not the crap that Adobe
>> is distributing:
>> http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/scratch/flash-plugin.spec
>
> Smoke test passed: youtube works, sound plays, seems to be operative.
> Thanks for the package!
>
> PM
>

Should nspluginwrapper be banned from wrapping this? If so, should this be included in flash-plugin.spec?

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 14:21 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
> Should nspluginwrapper be banned from wrapping this? If so, should
> this be included in flash-plugin.spec?

Oh, I'm pretty sure you still want to keep flash separated from your
browser, regardless of the arch.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On 11/18/2008 08:31 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:

On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 14:21 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:

Should nspluginwrapper be banned from wrapping this? If so, should
this be included in flash-plugin.spec?


Oh, I'm pretty sure you still want to keep flash separated from your
browser, regardless of the arch.


The problem is that nspluginwrapper actually can make problems worse. For
me flash on it's own works perfectly fine but as soon as I wrap it I often
get the "grey box of death". In fact I used to blame the various problems I
had on flash when they were really nspluginwrappers fault.


Regards,
Dennis

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Dennis J. <dennisml@conversis.de> wrote:
> The problem is that nspluginwrapper actually can make problems worse. For me
> flash on it's own works perfectly fine but as soon as I wrap it I often get
> the "grey box of death". In fact I used to blame the various problems I had
> on flash when they were really nspluginwrappers fault.

Works perfectly fine? Or appears to work perfectly fine? What if
flash is behaving badly and doing something...not malicious..but wrong
and potentially damaging...that nspluginwrapper stops?

-jef

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On 11/18/2008 08:52 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Dennis J.<dennisml@conversis.de> wrote:

The problem is that nspluginwrapper actually can make problems worse. For me
flash on it's own works perfectly fine but as soon as I wrap it I often get
the "grey box of death". In fact I used to blame the various problems I had
on flash when they were really nspluginwrappers fault.


Works perfectly fine? Or appears to work perfectly fine? What if
flash is behaving badly and doing something...not malicious..but wrong
and potentially damaging...that nspluginwrapper stops?


I'm not saying that using nspluginwrapper is a bad idea but the current
implementation doesn't work very well. How does introducing a well known
problem provide a good solution to preventing a potential one?


Regards,
Dennis

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Dennis J. wrote:

On 11/18/2008 08:52 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Dennis J.<dennisml@conversis.de>
wrote:
The problem is that nspluginwrapper actually can make problems worse.
For me
flash on it's own works perfectly fine but as soon as I wrap it I
often get
the "grey box of death". In fact I used to blame the various problems
I had

on flash when they were really nspluginwrappers fault.


Works perfectly fine? Or appears to work perfectly fine? What if
flash is behaving badly and doing something...not malicious..but wrong
and potentially damaging...that nspluginwrapper stops?


I'm not saying that using nspluginwrapper is a bad idea but the current
implementation doesn't work very well. How does introducing a well known
problem provide a good solution to preventing a potential one?


I think you'll appreciate nspluginwrapper when flash plugin crashes and
takes whole browser to hell...It's definitely your choose ;-)


The current nspluginwrapper implementation is not perfect but some
people prefer browser stability...


ma.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On 11/18/2008 10:31 PM, Martin Stransky wrote:

Dennis J. wrote:

On 11/18/2008 08:52 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:

On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Dennis J.<dennisml@conversis.de>
wrote:

The problem is that nspluginwrapper actually can make problems
worse. For me
flash on it's own works perfectly fine but as soon as I wrap it I
often get
the "grey box of death". In fact I used to blame the various
problems I had
on flash when they were really nspluginwrappers fault.


Works perfectly fine? Or appears to work perfectly fine? What if
flash is behaving badly and doing something...not malicious..but wrong
and potentially damaging...that nspluginwrapper stops?


I'm not saying that using nspluginwrapper is a bad idea but the
current implementation doesn't work very well. How does introducing a
well known problem provide a good solution to preventing a potential one?


I think you'll appreciate nspluginwrapper when flash plugin crashes and
takes whole browser to hell...It's definitely your choose ;-)

The current nspluginwrapper implementation is not perfect but some
people prefer browser stability...


But that's the point. For quite a few people browser stability actually
*decreases* when nspluginwrapper is installed.


Regards,
Dennis

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list