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. > >> >> Everything you list is old and why does it appear that you have so many >> versions of Flash installed? >> >> The 10.1 r53 is the latest. The .4x versions are the buggy releases. As >> I read it. >> >> Since there is no longer a 64bit Flash plugin available you will have to >> use a 32bit browser. > > I am, swiftfox-3.6.3, on an AMD phenom system. Your version of firefox kept > updating itself till it was busted. So I'm using what works. Sorry if that > doesn't fit the red hat approved mold. Shrug... Hey Gene. I don't use the Fedora releases either. I am currently using FF 3.7a6pre. Works fine. Does html5 too. You should get a FF 3.6.4 someday soon I would think. >> The site (the URL I posted) is an official Adobe Flash ID site. If it >> misidentifies what you have installed I would think that the problem >> might be yours. > > I believe I would rather believe what about:plugins tells me. Swiftfox uses > what is in ~/swiftfox/plugins, and that came from the tarball above. What I was trying to say was the you have the 'bad' plugin and the new one. It is possible that Adobe 'sees' the bad one and that is why you get the wrong version reported. Swiftfox is, as you know, a 'specially' configured build of Mozilla's tarball so yes the plugins should be in ~/swiftfox/plugins. Best to you. -- David
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
