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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #167603 > unrolled thread

Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

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

Contents

  Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 10:40 +0200
    Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Markus Schönhaber <debian-user@list-post.mks-mail.de> - 2016-05-09 11:30 +0200
      Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 11:50 +0200
    Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2016-05-09 13:00 +0200
    Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-05-09 13:30 +0200
    Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Dutch Ingraham <stoa@gmx.us> - 2016-05-09 14:20 +0200
      Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 16:20 +0200
        Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Piyavkin <piyavkin@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 18:00 +0200
          Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-05-09 18:20 +0200
            Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 18:40 +0200
        Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2016-05-09 19:10 +0200
    Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2016-05-09 15:10 +0200
      Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 16:20 +0200
    Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2016-05-09 23:40 +0200
      Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 00:10 +0200
        Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 00:40 +0200
          Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 01:00 +0200
          Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-05-10 01:00 +0200
      Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-05-10 00:20 +0200

#167603 — Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

I seem to have hit the following:
My client cannot run an up-to-date Flashplayer on Linux.  If she insists on 
running Flashplayer, she can run an out of date Flashplayer in her current 
Debian system (if I can get a functional one installed) or she can go out, 
buy and install Windows.  She will then be able to run an up-to-date 
Flashplayer.  Or she can buy a new computer.

It is a sad day when Windows is in any way better for a legacy computer than 
Linux; one of whose strengths used to be how good it was for legacy 
computers.

It is also a pity that Wheezy LTS appears not to be a truly viable proposition 
for the desktop.  I still have jdk7 to sort out on three computers.  In 
Stable or newer jdk6 would surely have been removed for me by aptitude?

Lisi

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#167604

Lisi Reisz, Mo 09 Mai 2016 10:38:54 CEST:

> I seem to have hit the following:
> My client cannot run an up-to-date Flashplayer on Linux.  If she insists on 
> running Flashplayer, she can run an out of date Flashplayer in her current 
> Debian system (if I can get a functional one installed) or she can go out, 
> buy and install Windows.  She will then be able to run an up-to-date 
> Flashplayer.  Or she can buy a new computer.
> 
> It is a sad day when Windows is in any way better for a legacy computer than 
> Linux; one of whose strengths used to be how good it was for legacy 
> computers.

If the vendor of proprietary software X decides that they will provide a
version of X for proprietary OS Y but not for the open source OS Z you
would like to run X on, you're out of luck. That's one of major problems
with proprietary software (and one of the main reasons to avoid it
wherever possible).
It seems very strange to me that from running into this well-known
problem you draw the conclusion that proprietary OS Y is somehow
"better" than open source OS Z. I use an obviously very different metric
to decide which OS is "better".

> It is also a pity that Wheezy LTS appears not to be a truly viable proposition 
> for the desktop.  I still have jdk7 to sort out on three computers.  In 
> Stable or newer jdk6 would surely have been removed for me by aptitude?

I fail to see what's wrong with this (or why it should be a pity). jdk6
was EOL'ed about three years ago. If you still have not managed to
replace it (or to make sure that it can be replaced) with a supported
version, it's not Debian's fault.

-- 
Regards
  mks

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

#167605

On Monday 09 May 2016 10:22:57 Markus Schönhaber wrote:
> Lisi Reisz, Mo 09 Mai 2016 10:38:54 CEST:
> > I seem to have hit the following:
> > My client cannot run an up-to-date Flashplayer on Linux.  If she insists
> > on running Flashplayer, she can run an out of date Flashplayer in her
> > current Debian system (if I can get a functional one installed) or she
> > can go out, buy and install Windows.  She will then be able to run an
> > up-to-date Flashplayer.  Or she can buy a new computer.
> >
> > It is a sad day when Windows is in any way better for a legacy computer
> > than Linux; one of whose strengths used to be how good it was for legacy
> > computers.
>
> If the vendor of proprietary software X decides that they will provide a
> version of X for proprietary OS Y but not for the open source OS Z you
> would like to run X on, you're out of luck. That's one of major problems
> with proprietary software (and one of the main reasons to avoid it
> wherever possible).

Of course. And I did say "in any way".  Linux used to be for specialists only.  
It has been making inroads on the desktop.  Mind you, I feel that some 
distros go too far down this road and are making Linux far less secure, so it 
is difficult line to draw.

> It seems very strange to me that from running into this well-known
> problem you draw the conclusion that proprietary OS Y is somehow
> "better" than open source OS Z. I use an obviously very different metric
> to decide which OS is "better".
>
I did say "in ANY way".  And yes it is a well known problem.  But it is one 
that I have managed to grapple with so far.

> > It is also a pity that Wheezy LTS appears not to be a truly viable
> > proposition for the desktop.  I still have jdk7 to sort out on three
> > computers.  In Stable or newer jdk6 would surely have been removed for me
> > by aptitude?
>
> I fail to see what's wrong with this (or why it should be a pity). jdk6
> was EOL'ed about three years ago. If you still have not managed to
> replace it (or to make sure that it can be replaced) with a supported
> version, it's not Debian's fault.

We are back to Linux being for specialists only.  aptitude does most things 
for me so that I don't have to do them.  I can trust the Debian developers to 
know better than I do.  They still do.  It is aptitude that has asked me to 
remove jdk6.  In the  past when aptitude wanted something removed, it offered 
to do it, or even just did it.  I attributed the difference, perhaps 
erroneously, to Wheezy's being LTS.

Lisi

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

#167608

Hi,

Lisi wrote:
> In Stable or newer jdk6 would surely have been removed for me by aptitude?

Can you still get jdk6 built from source ? (Possibly a nighmare
of dependencies.)


> It is a sad day when Windows is in any way better for a legacy computer than
> Linux;

Well, talk about concurrent DVD burning to more than one /dev/sr*,
about proper reading of TAO CDs, and the impatience not to wait for
a CD drive to become ready after the kernel automatically pulled
in the tray on the first read attempt.

I meanwhile believe to know the reasons for these regressions but
cannot get any attention from linux-scsi. (They care for Atari
hardware, instead. So it is my smell which repels them, not my
objective ?)

The workarounds in userspace are at best embarrassing (e.g. use
/dev/sg, which Linus himself deprecated for CD burning a decade ago).


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

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

#167610

Le primidi 21 floréal, an CCXXIV, Lisi Reisz a écrit :
> It is a sad day when Windows is in any way better for a legacy computer than 
> Linux;

It is a sad day when the ability to run crappy and dying proprietary
software is the main criterion to tell which system is better.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George

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

#167611

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 09:38:54AM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> I seem to have hit the following:
> My client cannot run an up-to-date Flashplayer on Linux.  If she insists on 
> running Flashplayer, she can run an out of date Flashplayer in her current 
> Debian system (if I can get a functional one installed) or she can go out, 
> buy and install Windows.  She will then be able to run an up-to-date 
> 
Maybe I am getting cross-thread confusion (or maybe I'm just not awake
yet), but what version of Windows could you purchase today that would
operate on an Intel Pentium M 750?

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

#167620

On Monday 09 May 2016 13:18:26 Dutch Ingraham wrote:
> what version of Windows could you purchase today that would
> operate on an Intel Pentium M 750?

Windows 10 CLAIMS to run on 32 bit computers.  I would have to pay £90.00 to 
test it, so I don't intend to do so.  I haven't researched it much.  I don't 
intend ever to use Windows 10 - I was lucky enough never to use Windows 8 at 
all :-)) - so it is academic really.  

Lisi

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

#167626

On 09.05.2016 17:18, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Monday 09 May 2016 13:18:26 Dutch Ingraham wrote:
>> what version of Windows could you purchase today that would
>> operate on an Intel Pentium M 750?
> Windows 10 CLAIMS to run on 32 bit computers.  I would have to pay £90.00 to
> test it, so I don't intend to do so.  I haven't researched it much.  I don't
> intend ever to use Windows 10 - I was lucky enough never to use Windows 8 at
> all :-)) - so it is academic really.
>
> Lisi
>
>

If usable 32-bit win version of flash-player exists, how about Wine?


Best regards,
Dmitry Piyavkin

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

#167628

On Mon 09 May 2016 at 18:51:56 +0300, Piyavkin wrote:

> On 09.05.2016 17:18, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> >On Monday 09 May 2016 13:18:26 Dutch Ingraham wrote:
> >>what version of Windows could you purchase today that would
> >>operate on an Intel Pentium M 750?
> >Windows 10 CLAIMS to run on 32 bit computers.  I would have to pay £90.00 to
> >test it, so I don't intend to do so.  I haven't researched it much.  I don't
> >intend ever to use Windows 10 - I was lucky enough never to use Windows 8 at
> >all :-)) - so it is academic really.
> >
> >Lisi
> 
> If usable 32-bit win version of flash-player exists, how about Wine?

The Windows versions of flash and Firefox both run under Wine.

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

#167630

On Monday 09 May 2016 17:19:33 Brian wrote:
> On Mon 09 May 2016 at 18:51:56 +0300, Piyavkin wrote:
> > On 09.05.2016 17:18, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > >On Monday 09 May 2016 13:18:26 Dutch Ingraham wrote:
> > >>what version of Windows could you purchase today that would
> > >>operate on an Intel Pentium M 750?
> > >
> > >Windows 10 CLAIMS to run on 32 bit computers.  I would have to pay
> > > £90.00 to test it, so I don't intend to do so.  I haven't researched it
> > > much.  I don't intend ever to use Windows 10 - I was lucky enough never
> > > to use Windows 8 at all :-)) - so it is academic really.
> > >
> > >Lisi
> >
> > If usable 32-bit win version of flash-player exists, how about Wine?
>
> The Windows versions of flash and Firefox both run under Wine.

Yes, I must explore it in the near future for various problems.  It has been a 
tuit for some time.  It has recently been promoted to my to-do list - i.e. 
things that might actually get done!!  There is also VB.  But I am not 
entirely sure how sandboxed something is, if it can reach the Internet.

Lisi

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

#167631

On 05/09/2016 09:18 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> On Monday 09 May 2016 13:18:26 Dutch Ingraham wrote:
>> what version of Windows could you purchase today that would
>> operate on an Intel Pentium M 750?
> Windows 10 CLAIMS to run on 32 bit computers.  I would have to pay £90.00 to
> test it, so I don't intend to do so.  I haven't researched it much.  I don't
> intend ever to use Windows 10 - I was lucky enough never to use Windows 8 at
> all :-)) - so it is academic really.
>
> Lisi
>
>
I was dual-booting Windows 10 with Linux, after having upgraded to Win 
10 over the years from XP > W7 > W8 > W8.1 > W10. Trying to install a 
certain scanner driver in W10,
the OS crashed: it was no longer able to access the Internet. I was 
unable to fix it or to reinstall it. On a Windows forum, I was told that 
most probably the new W10 did not have
drivers to support my older machine. (That is, the drivers that had been 
working were the older drivers which were still available from the 
earlier Win systems that had been
upgraded, and were not available in the modern W10 package.) As a 
result, I no longer have any Windows on that machine. I can't say I miss 
it much! But bear in mind that
if this diagnosis is correct, buying Win10 does not guarantee it will 
work on your older machine!

--doug

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

#167616

> My client cannot run an up-to-date Flashplayer on Linux.

Why not?  AFAIK my daughter's computer (running 32bit Debian stable) has
a working flash player (and yes, I'm talking about Adobe's crap plugin,
rather than gnash which sadly seems to have died).


        Stefan

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

#167622

On Monday 09 May 2016 13:45:39 Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > My client cannot run an up-to-date Flashplayer on Linux.
>
> Why not?  AFAIK my daughter's computer (running 32bit Debian stable) has
> a working flash player (and yes, I'm talking about Adobe's crap plugin,
> rather than gnash which sadly seems to have died).

Firefox runs fine with flashplugin-nonfree.  But not all sites are happy with 
that.  And Google has given up support for pepper flash 32 bit.  It is 
recent, and if it was already installed it would still be running.  But I 
can't easily install it now - and there will be no future updates.

Lisi

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

#167640

On 2016-05-09, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:

> It is also a pity that Wheezy LTS appears not to be a truly viable
> proposition for the desktop.

True. The software versions are obviously quite old, and not all
packages are supported[1]. Previous LTS releases did not support
graphical web browsers; I don't know whether that is the case for wheezy
LTS too.

> I still have jdk7 to sort out on three computers.  In 
> Stable or newer jdk6 would surely have been removed for me by aptitude?

No, obsolete packages such as openjdk-6-* are left untouched[2]. It is
up to you to remove them.

1: https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Using#Check_for_unsupported_packages
2: https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#obsolete

-- 

Liam

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

#167642

On Monday 09 May 2016 22:37:06 Liam O'Toole wrote:
> On 2016-05-09, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is also a pity that Wheezy LTS appears not to be a truly viable
> > proposition for the desktop.
>
> True. The software versions are obviously quite old, and not all
> packages are supported[1]. Previous LTS releases did not support
> graphical web browsers; I don't know whether that is the case for wheezy
> LTS too.
>
> > I still have jdk7 to sort out on three computers.  In
> > Stable or newer jdk6 would surely have been removed for me by aptitude?
>
> No, obsolete packages such as openjdk-6-* are left untouched[2]. It is
> up to you to remove them.
>
> 1: https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Using#Check_for_unsupported_packages
> 2:
> https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.h
>tml#obsolete

You have shown that they are not removed in LTS, which I have just discovered, 
and that they are not removed on upgrade to the next version.  But, surely, 
normally when a newer version is installed automatically by aptitude, the 
older one is removed, unless you have been using aptitude safe-upgrade, when 
nothing is removed?  (Or, of course, unless you have got it pinned?)

Lisi

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

#167646

On 2016-05-09, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday 09 May 2016 22:37:06 Liam O'Toole wrote:
>> On 2016-05-09, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > It is also a pity that Wheezy LTS appears not to be a truly viable
>> > proposition for the desktop.
>>
>> True. The software versions are obviously quite old, and not all
>> packages are supported[1]. Previous LTS releases did not support
>> graphical web browsers; I don't know whether that is the case for
>> wheezy LTS too.
>>
>> > I still have jdk7 to sort out on three computers.  In Stable or
>> > newer jdk6 would surely have been removed for me by aptitude?
>>
>> No, obsolete packages such as openjdk-6-* are left untouched[2]. It
>> is up to you to remove them.
>>
>> 1: https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Using#Check_for_unsupported_packages
>> 2:
>> https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.h
>>tml#obsolete
>
> You have shown that they are not removed in LTS, which I have just
> discovered, and that they are not removed on upgrade to the next
> version.  But, surely, normally when a newer version is installed
> automatically by aptitude, the older one is removed, unless you have
> been using aptitude safe-upgrade, when nothing is removed?  (Or, of
> course, unless you have got it pinned?)

The packaging of openjdk is done in such a way as to allow the parallel
installation of two or more such packages. To put it another way, the
major Java version is included in the package name, not the Debian
package version number. Therefore openjdk-7-* is not regarded as an
upgrade (in the Debian packaging sense) over openjdk-6-*. Instead, they
are different packages, and both can be installed at the same time. The
Debian alternatives system allows one to decide which is the system-wide
default Java.

The openjdk-6-* packages are now obsolete and unsupported
(both by Debian and upstream), and will receive no further security
updates.

-- 

Liam

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

#167647

On Monday 09 May 2016 23:38:02 Liam O'Toole wrote:
> Therefore openjdk-7-* is not regarded as an
> upgrade (in the Debian packaging sense) over openjdk-6-*. Instead, they
> are different packages, and both can be installed at the same time.

Therein lies the rub - and the explanation.  Thank you.  Well, I don't like 
Java anyway!  One more black mark. :-(

Lisi

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

#167648

On Monday 09 May 2016 23:38:02 Liam O'Toole wrote:
> The openjdk-6-* packages are now obsolete and unsupported
> (both by Debian and upstream), and will receive no further security
> updates.

Yes, I have discovered that!!!

Lisi

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

#167643

On Monday 09 May 2016 17:37:06 Liam O'Toole wrote:

> On 2016-05-09, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is also a pity that Wheezy LTS appears not to be a truly viable
> > proposition for the desktop.
>
> True. The software versions are obviously quite old, and not all
> packages are supported[1]. Previous LTS releases did not support
> graphical web browsers; I don't know whether that is the case for
> wheezy LTS too.

If you liked the older kde, then trinity is the old kde-3.5, forked, with 
all the known bugs fixed.  Google TDE. They have an active mailing list, 
and very active development if you've elected to use the r14 branch. I 
am, no surprises yet in about 9 months now.

> > I still have jdk7 to sort out on three computers.  In
> > Stable or newer jdk6 would surely have been removed for me by
> > aptitude?
>
> No, obsolete packages such as openjdk-6-* are left untouched[2]. It is
> up to you to remove them.
>
> 1: https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Using#Check_for_unsupported_packages
> 2:
> https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/release-notes/ch-upgrading
>.en.html#obsolete


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web