Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #166204 > unrolled thread

What Package?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  What Package? Arnoud van der Veer <arnoudvanderveer@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-02 19:50 +0200
    Re: What Package? Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2016-04-02 21:50 +0200
      Re: What Package? Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-04-03 18:00 +0200
        Re: What Package? Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2016-04-03 20:50 +0200
        Re: What Package? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-04-03 23:50 +0200
          Re: What Package? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2016-04-04 15:20 +0200
    Re: What Package? kamaraju kusumanchi <raju.mailinglists@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 05:50 +0200
    Re: What Package? Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-04-03 18:00 +0200
    Re: What Package? Siard <shiems146@kpnplanet.nl> - 2016-04-03 18:40 +0200
      Re: What Package? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-04-03 20:10 +0200
      Re: What Package? Harris Paltrowitz <harris1nyc@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 20:50 +0200
        Re: What Package? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2016-04-03 21:00 +0200
        Re: What Package? Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-04-03 21:00 +0200
          Re: What Package? Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 15:40 +0200
            Re: What Package? Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-04-04 16:30 +0200
            Re: What Package? Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-04-04 17:10 +0200
              Re: What Package? Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 16:10 +0200
                Re: What Package? Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-04-09 18:40 +0200
                  Re: What Package? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-04-10 18:00 +0200
                    Re: What Package? Harris Paltrowitz <harris1nyc@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 01:00 +0200
                      Re: What Package? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2016-04-11 03:10 +0200
                      Re: What Package? Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-04-11 09:40 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#166204 — What Package?

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello,
I am having problems with playing flash files while using Iceweasel in Debian.Iam using Debian for about 4 weeks now and have never been able to play flash files: unknown SWF file. (flash player plugin crashes)
Bit of a pain really: uploaded a movie to youtube today, in order to look at it on Youtube I had to refer to a computer with Windows installed since i cannot watch anything in Iceweasel on Youtube (and many other websites) using Debian.Please let me know what package this concerns so that I can file a bugreport. I do not succeed in this since I do not know what package this involves, although I have tried to file in a bug report.
Thanks, kind regards, Arnoud van der Veer, the Netherlands

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#166207

Hi,

in order to watch youtube movies:

first, try iceweasel without flash-plugin (disable or even un-install the
plugin) and after removing any cookies from youtube;
(maybe you feel more motivated to do that after reading this article titled
"Flash – Low-hanging fruit for attackers | Business Security Insider by
F-Secure" https://business.f-secure.com/have-you-disabled-flash-yet/ ;-)

second, with the command-line program youtube-dl (package of the same name)
movies can be downloaded from youtube and played by a movie-player, e.g., vlc.

Regards,
jvp.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166273

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 21:45:15 +0200
Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> in order to watch youtube movies:
> 
> first, try iceweasel without flash-plugin (disable or even un-install the
> plugin) and after removing any cookies from youtube;
> (maybe you feel more motivated to do that after reading this article titled
> "Flash – Low-hanging fruit for attackers | Business Security Insider by
> F-Secure" https://business.f-secure.com/have-you-disabled-flash-yet/ ;-)
> 
> second, with the command-line program youtube-dl (package of the same name)
> movies can be downloaded from youtube and played by a movie-player, e.g., vlc.

You do not need to do this. YouTube works without Flash.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166292

Adam Wilson wrote on 04/03/16 17:53:
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 21:45:15 +0200
> Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> in order to watch youtube movies:
>>
>> first, try iceweasel without flash-plugin (disable or even un-install the
>> plugin) and after removing any cookies from youtube;
>> (maybe you feel more motivated to do that after reading this article titled
>> "Flash – Low-hanging fruit for attackers | Business Security Insider by
>> F-Secure" https://business.f-secure.com/have-you-disabled-flash-yet/ ;-)
>>
>> second, with the command-line program youtube-dl (package of the same name)
>> movies can be downloaded from youtube and played by a movie-player, e.g., vlc.
> 
> You do not need to do this. YouTube works without Flash.
> 
Yes, should have said "possibilities" instead of "in order".

Regards,
jvp.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166309

On Sun 03 Apr 2016 at 18:53:26 (+0300), Adam Wilson wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 21:45:15 +0200
> Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> wrote:
> > second, with the command-line program youtube-dl (package of the same name)
> > movies can be downloaded from youtube and played by a movie-player, e.g., vlc.
> 
> You do not need to do this. YouTube works without Flash.

I *always* do this. Why pay for the bandwidth twice, thrice,...
That's the one benefit of flash refraining from playing immediately
the link is clicked on.

This is one reasong why I asked (in another thread) what is happening
behind the scenes when you play the "same" movie in HTML5. Is there
a file involved?

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166346

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2016-04-03 at 17:42, David Wright wrote:

> On Sun 03 Apr 2016 at 18:53:26 (+0300), Adam Wilson wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 21:45:15 +0200 Jörg-Volker Peetz
>> <jvpeetz@web.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> second, with the command-line program youtube-dl (package of the
>>> same name) movies can be downloaded from youtube and played by a
>>> movie-player, e.g., vlc.
>> 
>> You do not need to do this. YouTube works without Flash.
> 
> I *always* do this.

Likewise.

> Why pay for the bandwidth twice, thrice,... That's the one benefit of
> flash refraining from playing immediately the link is clicked on.

In addition to the multiple-bandwidth-use consideration, pulling it down
locally means you can choose what player to use, rather than being
limited to whatever features and UI are provided by the streaming site's
built-in player.

That, combined with buffering issues (we may still have been on dial-up
at the time, I don't recall for certain), is the major reason why I
adopted a strict rule of "always pull down locally before watching" for
my own computers - with the only exception being realtime, live streams.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166222

On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Arnoud van der Veer
<arnoudvanderveer@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am having problems with playing flash files while using Iceweasel in
> Debian.
> Iam using Debian for about 4 weeks now and have never been able to play
> flash files: unknown SWF file. (flash player plugin crashes)
> Bit of a pain really: uploaded a movie to youtube today, in order to look at
> it on Youtube I had to refer to a computer with Windows installed since i
> cannot watch anything in Iceweasel on Youtube (and many other websites)
> using Debian.
> Please let me know what package this concerns so that I can file a
> bugreport. I do not succeed in this since I do not know what package this
> involves, although I have tried to file in a bug report.
>
> Thanks, kind regards, Arnoud van der Veer, the Netherlands

I am able to play videos on youtube.com in iceweasel using the
following set of packages.

% dpkg -l \*iceweasel\* \*flash\* | grep ^ii | grep -v l10n
ii  flashplugin-nonfree         1:3.6.1              amd64
Adobe Flash Player - browser plugin
ii  iceweasel                   38.7.1esr-1~deb8u1   amd64        Web
browser based on Firefox
ii  iceweasel-vimperator        3.8.2-2              all
Iceweasel extension to make it have vim look and feel
ii  libhal1-flash               0.3.2-dmo2+bp1       amd64
Compatibility library to allow playback of flash DRM content

and my sources.list is

% stuff.pl /etc/apt/sources.list
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ jessie main contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ jessie main contrib non-free
deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ jessie-updates main contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ jessie-updates main contrib non-free
deb http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main contrib non-free
deb-src http://security.debian.org/ jessie/updates main contrib non-free


thanks
raju
-- 
Kamaraju S Kusumanchi | http://raju.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Blog

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166274

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 17:28:52 +0000 (UTC)
Arnoud van der Veer <arnoudvanderveer@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I am having problems with playing flash files while using Iceweasel in Debian.Iam using Debian for about 4 weeks now and have never been able to play flash files: unknown SWF file. (flash player plugin crashes)

Being able to open and play SWF files has nothing to do with your web browser. Try install GNU Gnash, a free flash player, by running the following:

# apt-get install gnash

You should then be able to open SWF files using Gnash.

> Bit of a pain really: uploaded a movie to youtube today, in order to look at it on Youtube I had to refer to a computer with Windows installed since i cannot watch anything in Iceweasel on Youtube (and many other websites) using Debian.

Which version of Iceweasel are you using? I am using 38.7.1esr-1~deb8u1, and I can watch YouTube videos without Flash. I would recommend uninstalling your Flash plugin, so that it does not interfere with YouTube's HTML5 video player.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166280

Arnoud van der Veer wrote:
> i cannot watch anything in Iceweasel on Youtube

First, go to www.youtube.com/html5 and set YouTube's HTML5 player to be
used wherever possible. This setting is stored in a cookie.

Then, for those cases where html5 is not yet available, UNinstall
flashplayer-nonfree. Adobe has stopped Linux support for it, so it's too
old for those cases that require a newer version.

Instead, install pepperflashplugin-nonfree. Whenever a flash video does
not work in iceweasel, you can view it in chromium.

But if you also install browser-plugin-freshplayer-pepperflash, then you
can view them in iceweasel as well as other NPAPI web browsers such as
seamonkey and the new vivaldi browser.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166285

Siard writes:
> But if you also install browser-plugin-freshplayer-pepperflash, then
> you can view them in iceweasel as well as other NPAPI web browsers
> such as seamonkey and the new vivaldi browser.

I just tried that.  It "worked", but the load went above three and
Firefox quit responding.  Might be ok if you have a modern computer.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166291

On Apr 3, 2016, at 12:29 PM, Siard <shiems146@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:

Then, for those cases where html5 is not yet available, UNinstall
flashplayer-nonfree. Adobe has stopped Linux support for it, so it's too
old for those cases that require a newer version.
--------------------------

Hi,

So if Adobe is no longer supporting Flash for Linux, do you think there might be security risks to using the flashplayer-nonfree package? 

-Harris

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166294

Harris writes:
> So if Adobe is no longer supporting Flash for Linux, do you think
> there might be security risks to using the flashplayer-nonfree
> package?

Any malware involved would be targeted at Windows.  Nobody targets Linux
desktops.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166296

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 14:49:15 -0400
Harris Paltrowitz <harris1nyc@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 3, 2016, at 12:29 PM, Siard <shiems146@kpnplanet.nl> wrote:
> 
> Then, for those cases where html5 is not yet available, UNinstall
> flashplayer-nonfree. Adobe has stopped Linux support for it, so it's
> too old for those cases that require a newer version.
> --------------------------
> 
> Hi,
> 
> So if Adobe is no longer supporting Flash for Linux, do you think
> there might be security risks to using the flashplayer-nonfree
> package?

The discussion of "security" in non-free software is something of a
meaningless distinction, since non-free software is compromised by
default. Adobe Flash was always evil- if this perceived "insecurity" is
enough to help make people want to stop using it, then by all means it
should be promoted.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166352

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016, 3:56 AM Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> wrote:

>
> The discussion of "security" in non-free software is something of a
> meaningless distinction, since non-free software is compromised by
> default. Adobe Flash was always evil- if this perceived "insecurity" is
> enough to help make people want to stop using it, then by all means it
> should be promoted.
>

I wish we could get a clear statement of what all the fuss is about re
Flash. A complete stranger's unsupported assertion that Flash is evil just
doesn't cut it. And shouting louder by repeating the statement over and
over again, as some on this forum have done in the past, doesn't cut it
either.

There are evidently serious flaws in Flash, either its design or its
implementation, that warrant all the negativity, but the odd thing is that
the clear technical unbiased treatment of the issue seems to be completely
swamped by quasi religious fervour. Those of us who haven't seen the facts,
now can't find them. Can anyone point to anything unbiased that explains
the issue?

(I hope it's clear I am not trying to deny there is an issue here)

Mark

>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166361

> There are evidently serious flaws in Flash, either its design or its
> implementation, that warrant all the negativity, but the odd thing is that
> the clear technical unbiased treatment of the issue seems to be completely
> swamped by quasi religious fervour. Those of us who haven't seen the facts,
> now can't find them. Can anyone point to anything unbiased that explains
> the issue?

It's resolutely and staunchly proprietary.

So, you can't know what it really does, the user has no control over it.
Using it grants control of your computer to Adobe, fundamentally.

Obviously, it's not the only proprietary program, so the reason why it's
so despised is that it's one of the very few proprietary programs that
lots and lots of people "need" in order to do "ordinary activities",
such as buy some tickets on-line.

I used to stay away from sites that used Flash for this reason (and it
came with added benefit that many ads were using flash, so a browser
without flash support also automatically skipped lots of ads).
Then I got by using Gnash.  And nowadays I'm back to "no flash" because
flash-only sites are rare enough again (and many sites actually work
better if I don't have any flash player, actually, than if I have Gnash
installed).

Of course, now that flash is being replaced with Javascript, we're
learning about the other nasty part: the problem was not just that the
flash player was proprietary, but also that the flash code (now the
javascript code) downloaded from the internet is itself proprietary.
And even when it's Free Software, it's terribly difficult to benefit
from that freedom (i.e. it can be difficult to find the actual source
code (rather than its minified version), and it's even harder to be
able to use a modified version of it).


        Stefan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166364

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 13:36:17 +0000
Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016, 3:56 AM Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> > The discussion of "security" in non-free software is something of a
> > meaningless distinction, since non-free software is compromised by
> > default. Adobe Flash was always evil- if this perceived
> > "insecurity" is enough to help make people want to stop using it,
> > then by all means it should be promoted.
> >
> 
> I wish we could get a clear statement of what all the fuss is about re
> Flash. A complete stranger's unsupported assertion that Flash is evil
> just doesn't cut it. And shouting louder by repeating the statement
> over and over again, as some on this forum have done in the past,
> doesn't cut it either.

From the standpoint of ethics, Flash is most certainly unethical
(evil), since it violates the right of people to have freedom, to
control their own lives, and to control their own computing without
having some other party pushing us around and preventing us from having
true possession of the things we own.

When I call Flash evil, I am not referring to its design, but rather to
its nature in a system of ethics. It may be very well designed, for all
I care, but a benevolent dictatorship is still a dictatorship, and
should still be opposed.

> There are evidently serious flaws in Flash, either its design or its
> implementation, that warrant all the negativity,

Design and implementation or secondary to licensing- a free license is
necessary for us to even understand and study the design in the first
place. This means that it can be quite hard to understand the design
issues, and what we do know about the design and operation of non-free
programs is the result of deduction rather than open study, as should
be the case.

However, these arguments are probably falling on deaf ears. I shall
thus follow on to some secondary injustices caused by the primary
injustice (non-free software).

> but the odd thing is
> that the clear technical unbiased treatment of the issue seems to be
> completely swamped by quasi religious fervour. Those of us who
> haven't seen the facts, now can't find them. Can anyone point to
> anything unbiased that explains the issue?

I think that in this case, the distinction between a biased and an
unbiased source is somewhat irrelevant. Sources discussing Flash which
point out that it is malware will most certainly be hostile to Flash
and Adobe- sources defending Flash will be friendly to Flash and Adobe.
"Neutral" sources (such as they exist) discuss things more from a web
standards viewpoint rather than a discussion of the program in itself.

Flash is malware because:

It uses resilient "supercookies" (LSOs) to track users. Adobe has gone
out of its way to make these hard to get rid of- they are specifically
designed to weasel their way around browser cookie settings. (1)

Many pieces of Adobe's non-free software report back to Adobe
("checking in") every thirty days, disrupting people's work. The only
way to disable this feature is to stay disconnected from the internet.
(2)

Adobe Flash implements device fingerprinting which is used to track
users- information which can then, of course, be given to other
agencies (...). (3)

Adobe has implemented and been aggressively been pushing DRM in Flash,
which is grief for honest end-users (4), restricts access to
information, and doesn't even move additional product (5). (6)

Flash causes vendor dependence; the completeness of its public
specifications is debatable, and no complete implementation of Flash is
publicly available in source form with a license that permits re-use,
so writing a free replacement is difficult. This is bad because open
formats are what make a format re-implementable- as a result, there is
not a single free implementation of Flash which is anywhere near usable
on the modern web. (7) (8) (9) (10)

Using Flash breaks conventions associated with normal HTML pages. (11)
(12) (13)

From Wikipedia: For many years Adobe Flash Player's security
record (14) has led many security experts to recommend against
installing the player, or to block Flash content. (15) (16) The
US-CERT recommends blocking Flash (17). Security researcher Charlie
Miller recommended "not to install Flash". (18) As of February 12,
2015, Adobe Flash Player has over 400 CVE entries (19), of which over
300 lead to arbitrary code execution, and past vulnerabilities have
enabled spying via web cameras. (20) (21) (22) (23) Security experts
have long predicted the demise of Flash, saying that with the rise of
HTML5 "....the need for browser plugins such as Flash is diminishing",
(24) yet a significant proportion of websites still use it. (25) (26)

(1)
http://www.imasuper.com/2008/10/09/flash-cookies-the-silent-privacy-killer

(2) http://shallowsky.com/blog/gimp/non-free-software-surprises.html

(3)
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/10/top-sites-and-maybe-the-nsa-track-users-with-device-fingerprinting

(4)
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/01/2008-drm-continues-punish-paying-customers

(5) http://www.fistfulayen.com/blog/?p=127

(6) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/02/adobe-pushes-drm-flash

(7) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash#Vendor_dependence

(8) http://news.zdnet.com/2424-3515_22-199508.html

(9) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juer_YCitJE&t=11m50s

(10) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYNLYIDZN48&t=22m52s

(11) http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20050711.html

(12) http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20001029.html

(13) http://www.skillsforaccess.org.uk/howto.php?id=101

(14) https://www.adobe.com/support/security/#flashplayer

(15) http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10396326-245.html

(16)
http://www.zdnet.com/protect-yourself-from-flash-attacks-in-internet-explorer-7000003921

(17) http://www.us-cert.gov/reading_room/securing_browser

(18)
http://www.oneitsecurity.it/01/03/2010/interview-with-charlie-miller-pwn2own

(19)
http://www.cvedetails.com/product/6761/Adobe-Flash-Player.html?vendor_id=53

(20)
http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Adobe-remedies-webcam-spy-hole-in-Flash-1364631.html

(21)
http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Flash-Player-as-a-spy-system-1073161.html

(22)
http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings_manager.html

(23)
http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings_manager02.html

(24)
http://www.sophos.com/en-us/medialibrary/PDFs/other/sophossecuritythreatreport2013.pdf

(25)
http://w3techs.com/technologies/history_overview/client_side_language/all

(26)
http://www.fastcompany.com/3049920/tech-forecast/the-agonizingly-slow-decline-of-adobe-flash-player

Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash_Player#Security.
There's more there, and I can't really be bothered to go on.

Just DuckDuckGo "adobe flash spying" or something to that effect.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166466

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 12:06 AM Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> wrote:

>
> There's more there, and I can't really be bothered to go on.
>
>
> Thanks, that is the first time I have seen the whole story pulled together
in one place.

Clearly an alternative to Flash is desirable -- I wonder if we are really
there yet. HTML5 implementation in for example iceweasel in Jessie, as well
as what I have in Google Chrome on my Android tablet, seems a bit basic --
can't for example make the video full-screen as there doesn't seem to be a
screen gadget to do that. Maybe this is a specific player on a specific
site, but I thought the idea behind HTML5 was to standardise such things?
Maybe there's a key combination but how does one know that? And stability
seems to be a problem, I've seen a couple of videos that don't play all the
way through with an HTML5 player but switch to Flash and it works...

I'd like to see the back of Flash, for all the reasons you've cited, but it
seems you have to _really_ care to make the compromises necessary to do
that right now.

Anyway, we've wandered away from the topic a little now, which is my fault,
so apologies for that.

Mark

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166561

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:08:16 +0000
Mark Fletcher <mark27q1@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 12:06 AM Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> > There's more there, and I can't really be bothered to go on.
> >
> >
> > Thanks, that is the first time I have seen the whole story pulled
> > together
> in one place.
> 
> Clearly an alternative to Flash is desirable -- I wonder if we are
> really there yet. HTML5 implementation in for example iceweasel in
> Jessie, as well as what I have in Google Chrome on my Android tablet,
> seems a bit basic -- can't for example make the video full-screen as
> there doesn't seem to be a screen gadget to do that.

The HTML5 player is only as good as the website implementing the
standard wants to make it- YouTube's HTML5 player, for instance, is
excellent, and so is the Vimeo player, as well as countless others. The
*reference implementation* so to speak is also good (the player used by
the web browser when playing a video file directly in the browser, such
as:
http://audio-video.gnu.org/video/short--undated--rms--free-software-four-freedoms.ogv).

> Maybe this is a
> specific player on a specific site, but I thought the idea behind
> HTML5 was to standardise such things? Maybe there's a key combination
> but how does one know that? And stability seems to be a problem, I've
> seen a couple of videos that don't play all the way through with an
> HTML5 player but switch to Flash and it works...
> 
> I'd like to see the back of Flash, for all the reasons you've cited,
> but it seems you have to _really_ care to make the compromises
> necessary to do that right now.

What compromises? I don't use Flash, and I haven't experienced any
significant discomfort- it isn't a big sacrifice to make. Few websites
(or at least the websites I visit) require it, and those that do I
avoid. The only ones I can think of off the top of my head are some of
the mainstream news sites, but then they're mostly shit anyway.

I went through a phase of running LibreJS and not even allowing
non-free JavaScript to run. *That* is hard- getting rid of Flash is
nothing compared to getting rid of most JavaScript.

Running non-free JavaScript is one of the compromises I am prepared to
make- but I draw the line at Flash.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166590

On 2016-04-09, Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> Running non-free JavaScript is one of the compromises I am prepared to
> make- but I draw the line at Flash.
>
Those that do still use it (Flash) should upgrade to the newest version
(which I believe is 11.2.202.616) as they've recently fixed some
critical vulnerabilities (on 4-7-2016).

-- 
Hypertext--or should I say the ideology of hypertext?--is ultrademocratic and
so entirely in harmony with the demagogic appeals to cultural democracy that
accompany (and distract one’s attention from) the ever-tightening grip of 
plutocratic capitalism. - Susan Sontag

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166603

On Apr 10, 2016, at 11:56 AM, Curt <curty@free.fr> wrote:

Those that do still use it (Flash) should upgrade to the newest version
(which I believe is 11.2.202.616) as they've recently fixed some
critical vulnerabilities (on 4-7-2016).
-----------------------------

Any idea whether the package "flashplugin-nonfree" is being updated in the same way?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web