On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 June 2010, David Boles wrote:
> >On 6/16/2010 7:22 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 16 June 2010, David Boles wrote:
> >>> On 6/16/2010 4:48 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Gene uses 64-bit Firefox, I think
On Wednesday 16 June 2010, David Boles wrote:
>On 6/16/2010 7:22 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Wednesday 16 June 2010, David Boles wrote:
>>> On 6/16/2010 4:48 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>>
>>> Gene uses 64-bit Firefox, I think, and he was using the 64bit Flash. I
>>> gave him the link. Naivel
On 6/16/2010 7:22 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 June 2010, David Boles wrote:
>> On 6/16/2010 4:48 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>
>> Gene uses 64-bit Firefox, I think, and he was using the 64bit Flash. I
>> gave him the link. Naively. The 32-bit Flash will work with Firefox and
>> a
On 6/16/2010 7:18 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 June 2010, David Boles wrote:
>> On 6/16/2010 2:28 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> ==
> As I said, this is the one installed and linked. This listing is from
> ~/Downloads, not whats installed.
>
>>
>> Ever
On Wednesday 16 June 2010, David Boles wrote:
>On 6/16/2010 4:48 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 15:20 -0400, David Boles wrote:
>>> Since there is no longer a 64bit Flash plugin available you will have
>>> to use a 32bit browser.
>>
>> Not so. I use 64-bit Chromium and 32-b
On Wednesday 16 June 2010, David Boles wrote:
>On 6/16/2010 2:28 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Wednesday 16 June 2010, David Boles wrote:
>>> On 6/16/2010 12:17 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 16 June 2010, Steve Underwood wrote:
> On 06/16/2010 09:55 PM, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:
On 6/16/2010 5:50 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 17:22 -0400, David Boles wrote:
>> On 6/16/2010 4:48 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 15:20 -0400, David Boles wrote:
Since there is no longer a 64bit Flash plugin available you will have
to u
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 17:22 -0400, David Boles wrote:
> On 6/16/2010 4:48 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 15:20 -0400, David Boles wrote:
> >> Since there is no longer a 64bit Flash plugin available you will have
> >> to use a 32bit browser.
> >
> > Not so. I use 64-bit Ch
On 6/16/2010 4:48 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 15:20 -0400, David Boles wrote:
>> Since there is no longer a 64bit Flash plugin available you will have
>> to use a 32bit browser.
>
> Not so. I use 64-bit Chromium and 32-bit Flash works with it. In fact
> I'm guessing that
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 13:37 -0700, JD wrote:
> I hope someone comes up with a different way other than flash for
> playing video content within the browser
There are lots, but the sites people want to visit generally use Flash,
and Flash is not just a video player. That's the whole problem.
poc
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 15:20 -0400, David Boles wrote:
> Since there is no longer a 64bit Flash plugin available you will have
> to use a 32bit browser.
Not so. I use 64-bit Chromium and 32-bit Flash works with it. In fact
I'm guessing that any browser that sandboxes plugins in separate
processes s
On 06/16/2010 01:29 PM, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
> "Robert G. (Doc) Savage" writes:
>
>> I can't imagine what has prompted Adobe to pack up their proverbial bat
>> & ball and go home, abandoning 64-bit Flash development for all
>> platforms. I hope there's another explanation, because t
"Robert G. (Doc) Savage" writes:
> I can't imagine what has prompted Adobe to pack up their proverbial bat
> & ball and go home, abandoning 64-bit Flash development for all
> platforms. I hope there's another explanation, because this is just
> beyond dumb.
I was reading an article about llvm, t
On 6/16/2010 2:28 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 June 2010, David Boles wrote:
>> On 6/16/2010 12:17 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 16 June 2010, Steve Underwood wrote:
On 06/16/2010 09:55 PM, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:
This is what they released last week, an
On Wednesday 16 June 2010, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:
>On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 12:17 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Wednesday 16 June 2010, Steve Underwood wrote:
>> >This is what they released last week, and its by far their buggiest
>> >effort to date.
>> >
>> >Steve
>>
>> I believe this may b
On Wednesday 16 June 2010, David Boles wrote:
>On 6/16/2010 12:17 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Wednesday 16 June 2010, Steve Underwood wrote:
>>> On 06/16/2010 09:55 PM, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:
>>>
>>> This is what they released last week, and its by far their buggiest
>>> effort to date.
>>
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 12:17 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 June 2010, Steve Underwood wrote:
> >This is what they released last week, and its by far their buggiest
> >effort to date.
> >
> >Steve
> >
> I believe this may be a newer build. Not extensively checked, but it played
> a c
On 6/16/2010 12:17 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 June 2010, Steve Underwood wrote:
>> On 06/16/2010 09:55 PM, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:
>>
>> This is what they released last week, and its by far their buggiest
>> effort to date.
>>
>> Steve
>>
> I believe this may be a newer build.
On Wednesday 16 June 2010, Steve Underwood wrote:
>On 06/16/2010 09:55 PM, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:
>> This security update has just been released:
>>
>> http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/thankyou/?installer=Flash_Player_10.1_f
>>or_Linux_(.rpm)
>>
>> This will download flash-plugin-10.1.53.64-
On Wednesday 16 June 2010, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:
>This security update has just been released:
>
>http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/thankyou/?installer=Flash_Player_10.1_for
>_Linux_(.rpm)
>
>This will download flash-plugin-10.1.53.64-release.i386.rpm. I don't yet
>know how stable this will
On 06/16/2010 09:55 PM, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:
> This security update has just been released:
>
> http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/thankyou/?installer=Flash_Player_10.1_for_Linux_(.rpm)
>
> This will download flash-plugin-10.1.53.64-release.i386.rpm. I don't yet
> know how stable this will b
On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 08:55 -0500, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:
> This security update has just been released:
>
> http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/thankyou/?installer=Flash_Player_10.1_for_Linux_(.rpm)
>
> This will download flash-plugin-10.1.53.64-release.i386.rpm. I don't yet
> know how stabl
This security update has just been released:
http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/thankyou/?installer=Flash_Player_10.1_for_Linux_(.rpm)
This will download flash-plugin-10.1.53.64-release.i386.rpm. I don't yet
know how stable this will be with 64-bit Fedora or other Linux
distributions.
--Doc Savage
23 matches
Mail list logo
