Shockwave Flash

674 views
Skip to first unread message

Fuzzy

unread,
Apr 5, 2013, 1:01:10 AM4/5/13
to
Running Firefox 20.0 - Mozilla Firefox for Netrunner netrunner - 1.0

The plugin "Shockwave Flash is known to be vulnerable and should be updated"

So, I followed the instruction but was directed to:
<https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/blocked/p332>
"Adobe Flash for Linux 11.0 to 11.1.* (click-to-play) has been blocked
for your protection.
Why was it blocked?
Old versions of the Adobe Flash Player plugin are potentially
insecure and unstable. All users are recommended to visit our plugin
check to check for updates.
Who is affected?
All Firefox users who have these versions of the Adobe Flash Player
plugin installed.
What does this mean?
The problematic add-on or plugin will be automatically disabled and
no longer usable."

Now I can't watch any videos anymore. How can I fix this or what
alternative is available, please?

Bit Twister

unread,
Apr 5, 2013, 7:54:45 AM4/5/13
to
On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 12:01:10 +0700, Fuzzy wrote:
> Running Firefox 20.0 - Mozilla Firefox for Netrunner netrunner - 1.0
>
> The plugin "Shockwave Flash is known to be vulnerable and should be updated"
>
> So, I followed the instruction but was directed to:
><https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/blocked/p332>
> "Adobe Flash for Linux 11.0 to 11.1.* (click-to-play) has been blocked
> for your protection.
> Why was it blocked?

> Now I can't watch any videos anymore.

Always helps to provide a link for us to test. :(

I just checked http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRj6L2VOWWg
and it played for me.

Looking in firefox-20.0 about:plugins, I have
Shockwave Flash

File: libflashplayer.so
Version:
Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202

----------------------


$ lsb_release -a
LSB Version: *
Distributor ID: Mageia
Description: Mageia 3
Release: 3
Codename: thornicroft

J G Miller

unread,
Apr 5, 2013, 11:27:40 AM4/5/13
to
On Friday, April 5th, 2013, at 12:01:10h +0700, Fuzzy reported:

> Running Firefox 20.0 - Mozilla Firefox for Netrunner netrunner - 1.0
>
> The plugin "Shockwave Flash is known to be vulnerable and should be updated"
>
> Now I can't watch any videos anymore.

Which version were you using previously? I was on 10.2 (???) previously
and that worked well. Now after the forced update of Flash (trying both the
Mint plugin 11 version and more recently dated version at Adobe Flash page, I
am suffering exactly the same problem of Youtube videos and videos at some
other sites no longer working.

Firefox 19.0.2

Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux i686; rv:19.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/19.0

Whiskers

unread,
Apr 5, 2013, 9:54:26 AM4/5/13
to
The current (and probably last ever) Adobe Flash Flash Player for Linux is
11.2 - go to <http://www.adobe.com/products/shockwaveplayer.html> and
click on 'Download' (but if your distro has a package for version 11.2 use
that to install it).

There is a FOSS movie player and browser plugin called Gnash which might do
all you want.

HTML5 is the coming thing for multimedia in web pages.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

J G Miller

unread,
Apr 5, 2013, 4:29:08 PM4/5/13
to
On Friday, April 5th, 2013, at 14:54:26h +0100, Whiskers advised:

> The current (and probably last ever) Adobe Flash Flash Player for Linux is
> 11.2 - go to <http://www.adobe.com/products/shockwaveplayer.html> and
> click on 'Download' (but if your distro has a package for version 11.2 use
> that to install it).

But it is precisely that 11.2 version which does not work!!!

Whiskers

unread,
Apr 5, 2013, 5:11:20 PM4/5/13
to
Are you sure? You only mentioned 11 and 11.1.

J G Miller

unread,
Apr 5, 2013, 5:31:15 PM4/5/13
to
In my message I specifically cut'n'paste the version
I currently have installed which does not work --

QUOTE

Shockwave Flash File: libflashplayer.so Version: Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202


UNQUOTE

Bit Twister

unread,
Apr 5, 2013, 5:50:02 PM4/5/13
to
Since I have
Shockwave Flash

File: libflashplayer.so
Version:
Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202

and plays most of the time, I will have to guess you might also have
another flash plugin which is the one being picked.

Looking through my install_flash script, I notice I remove
npwrapper.libflashplayer.so and *swfdec* from mozilla plugin directory,
and if installed flashplayer-plugin and flashplayer-plugin-preview
packages before I do the adobe install.

Another gotcha is your system wide plugin directory and the user plugin
directory. User's plugin directory might have extra/old plugins
causing the failure. :(

Fuzzy

unread,
Apr 5, 2013, 6:00:59 PM4/5/13
to
My previous version was Firefox 19.0.2
===

"This plugin is vulnerable and should be updated. Chech for updates...
Click here to activate the Adobe Flash plugin."

I clicked and this popped up: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/plugincheck/

Potentially vulnerable plugins:

DivX Browser Plug-In Gecko Media Player 1.0.4
Video Player Plug-in for QuickTime, RealPlayer and Windows Media Player
streams using MPlayer. Unknown plugin. Research.
===

Shockwave Flash Shockwave Flash 11.0 r1 Outdated Version. Update.
===

QuickTime Plug-in 7.6.9 Gecko Media Player 1.0.4
Video Player Plug-in for QuickTime, RealPlayer and Windows Media Player
streams using MPlayer. Outdated Version. Update.
===

RealPlayer 9 Gecko Media Player 1.0.4
Video Player Plug-in for QuickTime, RealPlayer and Windows Media Player
streams using MPlayer. Unknown plugin. Research.
===

mplayerplug-in is now gecko-mediaplayer 1.0.4
Gecko Media Player 1.0.4
Video Player Plug-in for QuickTime, RealPlayer and Windows Media Player
streams using MPlayer. Unknown plugin. Research.
===

Windows Media Player Plug-in
Gecko Media Player 1.0.4
Video Player Plug-in for QuickTime, RealPlayer and Windows Media Player
streams using MPlayer' Unknown plugin. Research.
===

IcedTea-Web Plugin (using IcedTea-Web 1.2 (1.2-2ubuntu1.3))
The IcedTea-Web Plugin executes Java applets. Unknown plugin. Research.
==========

When clicking the Update button of "QuickTime Plug-in 7.6.9" I am
directed to: http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/

When clicking the Update button of "Shockwave Flash" I am directed to:
http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/
I selected version: .tar.gz for other Linux and clicked the "Download
now" button which resulted in:
"You have chosen to open: install_flash_player_11_linux.x86_64.tar.gz
I Open with Ark (default) and the file is now sitting in my Download folder.
I don't know how to proceed to install.
===

Additional info:
In terminal I run: dpkg -l | egrep 'flash|gnash|swf|spark'
...-System-Product-Name:~$ dpkg -l | egrep 'flash|gnash|swf|spark'
ii netrunner-flashplugin 2011.10.19
Metapackage for Adobe Flash plugin
ii netrunner-flashplugin-11 11.0.1.152
Adobe Flash plugin 11
===
TIA

Whiskers

unread,
Apr 5, 2013, 7:06:07 PM4/5/13
to
On 2013-04-05, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 22:11:20 +0100, Whiskers wrote:
>
>> On 2013-04-05, J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote:
>>>
>>> But it is precisely that 11.2 version which does not work!!!
>>
>> Are you sure? You only mentioned 11 and 11.1.
>
> In my message I specifically cut'n'paste the version
> I currently have installed which does not work --
>
> QUOTE
>
> Shockwave Flash File: libflashplayer.so Version: Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202
>
>
> UNQUOTE

OK; I've managed to work out that despite your responding to my post as if
you were the OP, you are in fact not. The OP didn't state what version of
flash plugin is installed.

Version 11.2 works fine here. But I don't use Firefox ...

J G Miller

unread,
Apr 6, 2013, 7:00:00 AM4/6/13
to
On Friday, April 5th, 2013, at 21:50:02h +0000, Bit Twister suggested:

> Since I have
> Shockwave Flash
>
> File: libflashplayer.so
> Version:
> Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202
>
> and plays most of the time, I will have to guess you might also have
> another flash plugin which is the one being picked.

But it is firefox which is reporting that it is using that version
of the flash plugin. Are you suggesting that Firefox indicates in
"about:plugins" that it is using one version of shockwave pluging
and then choses to use another one?

A search of the system reveals that the only libflashplayer.so
is the one /opt/mint-flashplugin-11/libflashplayer.so, which
is the file from the Adobe download replacing the slightly
earlier and slightly smaller one from Mint which did not work.

> Looking through my install_flash script, I notice I remove
> npwrapper.libflashplayer.so and *swfdec* from mozilla plugin directory

In the mozilla plugin directory

libflashplayer.so -> /etc/alternatives/libflashplayer.so

and

/etc/alternatives/libflashplayer.so -> /opt/mint-flashplugin-11/libflashplayer.so

There is no npwrapper* or *swfdec* there.

> Another gotcha is your system wide plugin directory and the user plugin
> directory. User's plugin directory might have extra/old plugins
> causing the failure. :(

That is often a cause of problems but in this case there are no
plugins in any luser/.mozilla directory.

What is most telling is that going to the Adobe Flash diagnostic
page

<http://helpx.adobe.COM/flash-player.html>


which, for a working Flash plugin, displays the logo and
version number, displays only a white background where the
flash content should be.

Bit Twister

unread,
Apr 6, 2013, 7:51:24 AM4/6/13
to
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 11:00:00 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller wrote:
>
> But it is firefox which is reporting that it is using that version
> of the flash plugin. Are you suggesting that Firefox indicates in
> "about:plugins" that it is using one version of shockwave pluging
> and then choses to use another one?

Been there, done that. That is how I found my problem and removed
npwrapper.libflashplayer.so and *swfdec*

While in about:plugins, search for swf and spl. there should been one
entry under libflashplayer.so.

If found under some other plugin, that would be Murphy helping you
into the ditch.

> In the mozilla plugin directory
> There is no npwrapper* or *swfdec* there.

Ok, that helps.


> libflashplayer.so -> /etc/alternatives/libflashplayer.so
> /etc/alternatives/libflashplayer.so -> /opt/mint-flashplugin-11/libflashplayer.so

I am going to assume you did a ls on each of the above, as a *user*, to
verify there was no trouble seeing each of the files and you actually
see the byte count of libflashplayer.so.

Assuming all the above checks out. The only difference I can see is
what is actually in the mozilla plugin directory compared to my install.

$ locate libflashplayer.so
/usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so

$ cd /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins/
$ ls -al *flash*.so
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 19232272 Apr 3 07:22 libflashplayer.so

J G Miller

unread,
Apr 6, 2013, 9:58:38 AM4/6/13
to
On Saturday, April 6th, 2013, at 11:51:24h +0000, Bit Twister advised:

> If found under some other plugin, that would be Murphy helping you
> into the ditch.

No, under about:plugins with respect to Flash there is only

Shockwave Flash

File: libflashplayer.so
Version:
Shockwave Flash 11.2 r202

with mimetypes

application/x-shockwave-flash Shockwave Flash swf
application/futuresplash FutureSplash Player spl

> I am going to assume you did a ls on each of the above, as a *user*, to
> verify there was no trouble seeing each of the files and you actually
> see the byte count of libflashplayer.so.

As user --

ll /usr/lib/firefox/plugins/
total 8
4 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2012-12-28 02:17 ./
4 drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 2013-04-05 12:05 ../
0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 35 2012-12-14 22:19 libflashplayer.so -> /etc/alternatives/libflashplayer.so
0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 39 2008-11-08 02:03 npPicasa3.so -> /opt/google/picasa/3.0/lib/npPicasa3.so

ll /etc/alternatives/libflashplayer.so
0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 42 2013-03-27 17:02 /etc/alternatives/libflashplayer.so -> /opt/mint-flashplugin-11/libflashplayer.so

ll /opt/mint-flashplugin-11/
total 17020
4 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2012-11-27 21:08 ./
4 drwxr-xr-x 6 root root 4096 2013-03-27 17:59 ../
17012 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 17418724 2012-11-27 21:08 libflashplayer.so

file /opt/mint-flashplugin-11/libflashplayer.so
/opt/mint-flashplugin-11/libflashplayer.so:
ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked, stripped

If the shared library file was not readable by the user, Firefox would
not be listing the plugin in about:plugins.

Also just to be absoulutely certain, I have repeatedly deleted pluginreg.dat
in the .mozilla firefox profile directly, which in the distant past has solved
problems when extensions/addons/plugins had changed versions.

Also I have deleted the $HOME/.macromedia directory, since sometimes
the contents of $HOME/.<application> from older versions of <application>
can cause problems.

> The only difference I can see is what is actually in the mozilla plugin
> directory compared to my install.

Which is for a 64 bit system, not 32 bit. 64 bit flash is supposed to be
even more problematic than the 32 bit version.

If you are now going to suggest that maybe the problem is because of other
plugins/extensions which I have installed as a user, then creating a
totally new user with blank home directory and firing up firefox for
the first time and going to the Adobe help flash test page, results
in exactly the same -- just a white background where the flash diagnosis
should be -- no information, but no error message, even though about:plugins
shews the same Flash plugin information 11.2 r202

So the problem is not being caused by some additional plugin such as ABP
or whatever.

Bit Twister

unread,
Apr 6, 2013, 10:09:16 AM4/6/13
to
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 13:58:38 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller wrote:

> Which is for a 64 bit system, not 32 bit. 64 bit flash is supposed to be
> even more problematic than the 32 bit version.

Well, have not had flash problems on my Mageia Linux 64 bit OS and
running the Adobe plugin.

Just for fun, I would download the Adobe package, unpack it,
compare it against the mint copy, then copy the plugin into the
mozilla plugin directory. I will assume firefox will not be open
during the copy step.

You have nothing to lose at this point.

Aragorn

unread,
Apr 6, 2013, 10:22:18 AM4/6/13
to
On Saturday 06 April 2013 16:09, Bit Twister conveyed the following to
alt.os.linux...

> On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 13:58:38 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller wrote:
>
>> Which is for a 64 bit system, not 32 bit. 64 bit flash is supposed
>> to be even more problematic than the 32 bit version.
>
> Well, have not had flash problems on my Mageia Linux 64 bit OS and
> running the Adobe plugin.

+1

--
= Aragorn =
GNU/Linux user #223157 - http://www.linuxcounter.net

J G Miller

unread,
Apr 6, 2013, 1:00:47 PM4/6/13
to
On Saturday, April 6th, 2013, at 14:09:16h +0000, Bit Twister wrote:

> Just for fun, I would download the Adobe package, unpack it,
> compare it against the mint copy, then copy the plugin into the
> mozilla plugin directory. I will assume firefox will not be open
> during the copy step.

That is exactly what I did do and reported in my original message

"Now after the forced update of Flash (trying *both* the
Mint plugin 11 version and more recently dated version at Adobe Flash page"

The version from Adobe is dated later than the Mint version and
is slightly larger.

from mint-flashplugin-11 deb package

17383660 2012-10-23 11:19 libflashplayer.so

from Adobe download install_flash_player_11_linux.i386.tar.gz

17418724 2013-03-01 01:30 libflashplayer.so

which has been installed as the plugin, replacing the Mint version which
did not work, throughout this discussion --

diff -s /var/tmp/root/tmp/flash/libflashplayer.so
/opt/mint-flashplugin-11/libflashplayer.so

Files /var/tmp/root/tmp/flash/libflashplayer.so and
/opt/mint-flashplugin-11/libflashplayer.so are identical

Bit Twister

unread,
Apr 6, 2013, 3:25:24 PM4/6/13
to
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 17:00:47 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller wrote:
> On Saturday, April 6th, 2013, at 14:09:16h +0000, Bit Twister wrote:
>
>> Just for fun, I would download the Adobe package, unpack it,
>> compare it against the mint copy, then copy the plugin into the
>> mozilla plugin directory. I will assume firefox will not be open
>> during the copy step.
>
> That is exactly what I did do and reported in my original message

Just making sure. You did put the adobe libflashplayer.so in the
mozilla plugin directory, no link?

J G Miller

unread,
Apr 6, 2013, 3:45:14 PM4/6/13
to
On Saturday, April 6th, 2013, at 19:25:24h +0000, Bit Twister asked:

> You did put the adobe libflashplayer.so in the
> mozilla plugin directory, no link?

I thought I made clear in the previous message --

diff -s /var/tmp/root/tmp/flash/libflashplayer.so
/opt/mint-flashplugin-11/libflashplayer.so

Files /var/tmp/root/tmp/flash/libflashplayer.so and
/opt/mint-flashplugin-11/libflashplayer.so are identical

/var/tmp/root/tmp/flash/ was the directory where the adobe installer tar.gz
file was unpacked.

ll /var/tmp/root/tmp/flash/

total 17028
4 drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4096 2013-04-06 18:26 ./
4 drwx------ 10 root root 4096 2013-04-06 12:32 ../
17012 -rw-rw-r-- 1 501 501 17418724 2013-03-01 01:30 libflashplayer.so
4 -rw-rw-r-- 1 501 501 4009 2013-03-01 01:30 readme.txt
4 drwxrwxr-x 5 501 501 4096 2013-03-01 01:30 usr/


One would think that a supposedly professional company like Adobe
would at least pack the files in the archive with sensible ownership
(root:root) and permissions (0755, 0644).

Bit Twister

unread,
Apr 6, 2013, 4:30:37 PM4/6/13
to
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 19:45:14 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller wrote:
> On Saturday, April 6th, 2013, at 19:25:24h +0000, Bit Twister asked:
>
>> You did put the adobe libflashplayer.so in the
>> mozilla plugin directory, no link?
>
> I thought I made clear in the previous message --

No, all I saw from you were links. in the mozilla directory.

>
> One would think that a supposedly professional company like Adobe
> would at least pack the files in the archive with sensible ownership
> (root:root) and permissions (0755, 0644).

Ok, I just downloaded/installed linuxmint-14.1-mate-dvd-32bit.iso
went to youtube and played a video. Asked firefox to test plugins,
flash player showed green.

Apparently it is not a requirement to have the plugin physically in
the plugin directory.

junk@vb ~ $ locate libflash
/etc/alternatives/libflashplayer.so
/opt/mint-flashplugin-11/libflashplayer.so
/usr/lib/libreoffice/program/libflashlo.so
/usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so
/var/lib/dpkg/alternatives/libflashplayer.so

junk@vb ~ $ ls -al /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 35 Apr 6 15:13 /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so -> /etc/alternatives/libflashplayer.so

junk@vb ~ $ ls -al /etc/alternatives/libflashplayer.so
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 42 Apr 6 15:12 /etc/alternatives/libflashplayer.so -> /opt/mint-flashplugin-11/libflashplayer.so

junk@vb ~ $ ls -al /opt/mint-flashplugin-11/libflashplayer.so
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 17383660 Oct 23 04:19 /opt/mint-flashplugin-11/libflashplayer.so

J G Miller

unread,
Apr 6, 2013, 5:27:28 PM4/6/13
to
On Saturday, April 6th, 2013, at 20:30:37h +0000, Bit Twister observed:

> junk@vb ~ $ ls -al /opt/mint-flashplugin-11/libflashplayer.so
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 17383660 Oct 23 04:19 /opt/mint-flashplugin-11/libflashplayer.so

So that is the same older 11 version that is in the current deb
in the Mint repositories.

16980 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 17383660 2012-10-23 11:19 libflashplayer.so

Package: mint-flashplugin-11
Priority: optional
Section: admin
Installed-Size: 17011
Maintainer: Clement Lefebvre <ro...@linuxmint.com>
Architecture: i386
Version: 11.2.202.243
Filename: pool/import/m/mint-flashplugin-11/mint-flashplugin-11_11.2.202.243_i386.deb
Size: 6582598
MD5sum: c77d170d8fb80ce6b88d7d29a6a32e77
Description: Adobe Flash plugin 11
This is Adobe Flash plugin 11. It runs in native 32-bit and native 64-bit.

So the question remains why it does not work for other users and myself ...

<http://forums.linuxmint.COM/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=130579>

<http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=130098&p=704539&hilit=flash#p704539>


> Asked firefox to test plugins, flash player showed green.

But did you actually go to

<http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player.html>

and check there, or go to YouTube and try to play a video?


If I go to

<https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/plugincheck/>

it tells me 11.2.202.0 "up to date", but despite that,
no Adobe test page success, just a white background,
and no Youtube videos play.







Bit Twister

unread,
Apr 6, 2013, 5:54:25 PM4/6/13
to
Yes. :)

http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player.html

shows plugin version 11.2.202.243 in the box pointed to by number 1.
with a red arrow cyclying various shades of red.

J G Miller

unread,
Apr 6, 2013, 8:05:16 PM4/6/13
to
On Saturday, April 6th, 2013, at 21:54:25h +0000, Bit Twister wrote:

> shows plugin version 11.2.202.243 in the box pointed to by number 1.
> with a red arrow cyclying various shades of red.

I have now discovered that even with no other plugins present and
a totally new profile, that going there with the 11.202 flash plugin,
I just get a white background and in the terminal get lots of messages


###!!! [Parent][RPCChannel] Error: Channel error: cannot send/recv


A web search has revealed that this is not an uncommon message, but
nobody provides any diagnosis of what is causing it or how to fix it,
and that it often results in Firefox crashing.

Incidentally, if I just move the 11.202 libflashplayer.so file out of the
way and put in the 10 libflashplayer file in its place, there are no error
messages, and flash works including YouTube videos, providing I click on
the ignore old version warning.

tb

unread,
Apr 6, 2013, 8:16:00 PM4/6/13
to
On 4/5/2013 at 10:27:40 AM J G Miller wrote:

>
> Which version were you using previously? I was on 10.2 (???)
> previously and that worked well. Now after the forced update of
> Flash (trying both the Mint plugin 11 version and more recently dated
> version at Adobe Flash page, I am suffering exactly the same problem
> of Youtube videos and videos at some other sites no longer working.
>
> Firefox 19.0.2
>
> Build identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux i686; rv:19.0)
> Gecko/20100101 Firefox/19.0
>
> Shockwave Flash File: libflashplayer.so Version: Shockwave
> Flash 11.2 r202

Could this link perhaps provide an answer to your problem with Adobe
Flash Player?
<http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linuxquestions-org-member-success-stories-23/getting-flash-plug-in-to-work-with-older-cpus-4175420481/>

--
tb

J G Miller

unread,
Apr 6, 2013, 8:34:34 PM4/6/13
to
On Sunday, April 7th, 2013, at 00:16:00h +0000, TB suggested:
THANY YOU! That does indeed explain the problem on this machine.

QUOTE

Version 11 of the Flash plug-in for web browsers has been compiled to
use the sse2 feature in the CPU.

...

1. Check your CPU by entering this command in a terminal emulator:

cat /proc/cpuinfo

If the Flags line doesn’t contain ‘sse2’ (‘sse’ won’t do),
then you need to use version 10 of the plug-in.

UNQUOTE

tb

unread,
Apr 6, 2013, 9:47:31 PM4/6/13
to
On 04/06/2013 07:34 PM, J G Miller wrote:

>
> THANY YOU! That does indeed explain the problem on this machine.
>
> QUOTE
>
> Version 11 of the Flash plug-in for web browsers has been compiled to
> use the sse2 feature in the CPU.
>
> ...
>
> 1. Check your CPU by entering this command in a terminal emulator:
>
> cat /proc/cpuinfo
>
> If the Flags line doesn’t contain ‘sse2’ (‘sse’ won’t do),
> then you need to use version 10 of the plug-in.
>
> UNQUOTE
>
Yeah, because of the old CPU I am stuck on Adobe Flash Player 10 too!

For those who might not know it, archived Adobe Flash Player versions
can be downloaded from here:
<http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/archived-flash-player-versions.html>
--
tb

Bulkhead

unread,
Apr 7, 2013, 12:43:09 AM4/7/13
to
My old Athlon CPU supports sse, and not sse2.

mint-flashplugin-11 11.0.1.152 works for me,
at http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player.html and Youtube and anywhere else.

J G Miller

unread,
Apr 7, 2013, 8:56:58 AM4/7/13
to
On Saturday, April 6th, 2013, at 21:43:09h -0700, Bulkhead explained:

> My old Athlon CPU supports sse, and not sse2.
>
> mint-flashplugin-11 11.0.1.152 works for me,
> at http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player.html and Youtube and anywhere else.

Yes, the sse2 hardware dependency was introduced with version 11.2,
so 11.0 and 11.1 do still work.

Sorry for not making that clear.

Vuk Vujovic

unread,
Apr 12, 2013, 4:58:09 PM4/12/13
to
Hello,

Just to add that versions after 11.2 of flash-plugin for Linux will not
work at all. So who gets the latest version of Adobe Flash for Linux
which will be 11.2.xxx better keep it and use it until websites do not
say it is outdated.

I don't think Adobe will make newer versions of flash for Linux anymore.

By the time someone will write open source replacement for that I hope.

Best Regards,
Vuk Vujovic

Bit Twister

unread,
Apr 12, 2013, 6:42:21 PM4/12/13
to
On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 22:58:09 +0200, Vuk Vujovic wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Just to add that versions after 11.2 of flash-plugin for Linux will not
> work at all. So who gets the latest version of Adobe Flash for Linux
> which will be 11.2.xxx better keep it and use it until websites do not
> say it is outdated.

I wonder what flash plugin will be on all those Android phones.

Vuk Vujovic

unread,
Apr 12, 2013, 7:45:02 PM4/12/13
to
On www.adobe.com there is a note for Linux users that series of 11.2
versions will be the last ones for Linux. I didn't noticed anything for
Android phones but I'm sure there will be plugin for them.

For Linux it will be either use last version until it is supported or
wait for open source replacement like Gnash and others which in this
time do not work propperly.

Best Regards,
Vuk Vujovic

TJ

unread,
Apr 14, 2013, 11:29:17 AM4/14/13
to
Too bad I didn't stumble on that link months ago, when I was tearing my
hair out trying to get the 11.2 version, as installed through Mageia 2,
to work with my brother's old Athlon XP 2200+ cpu. It would have saved
me hours of trying different things, of following leads that lead nowhere.

That's a big problem with Linux - potentially important information like
this can be exceedingly difficult to find. Don't get me wrong - I love
Linux, and have used it for 11 years. But it still has some very large
faults.

My brother is using that last 11.1 version, as downloaded from Adobe's
archives. He too is being annoyed by the Firefox message that the plugin
has been deactivated. However, when he tries to play a video and he gets
a message that his player is out of date, all he does is click on a
blank part of the screen and the video plays anyway. It's annoying, but
not so annoying to him as it would be to buy another motherboard and
cpu, and probably new RAM and video card as well. And especially not as
annoying as buying a whole "new" computer just to watch some Youtube videos.

It would be nice if one could turn off Mozilla's heavy-handed
nanny-state we're-shutting-this-down-for-your-own-good "feature." Maybe
something in prefs.js, perhaps?

TJ

unruh

unread,
Apr 14, 2013, 12:47:32 PM4/14/13
to
On 2013-04-14, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
> On 04/06/2013 08:34 PM, J G Miller wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 7th, 2013, at 00:16:00h +0000, TB suggested:
>>
>>> Could this link perhaps provide an answer to your problem with Adobe
>>> Flash Player?
>>> <http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linuxquestions-org-member-success-stories-23/getting-flash-plug-in-to-work-with-older-cpus-4175420481/>
...
>>
>> 1. Check your CPU by entering this command in a terminal emulator:
>>
>> cat /proc/cpuinfo
>>
>> If the Flags line doesn???t contain ???sse2??? (???sse??? won???t do),
>> then you need to use version 10 of the plug-in.
>>
>> UNQUOTE
>>
> Too bad I didn't stumble on that link months ago, when I was tearing my
> hair out trying to get the 11.2 version, as installed through Mageia 2,
> to work with my brother's old Athlon XP 2200+ cpu. It would have saved
> me hours of trying different things, of following leads that lead nowhere.
>
> That's a big problem with Linux - potentially important information like
> this can be exceedingly difficult to find. Don't get me wrong - I love
> Linux, and have used it for 11 years. But it still has some very large
> faults.

It is trivial to find, when you know about it. In fact, I suspect that
finding out what the problem is and whether or not your cpu will comply
with the requirements is a lot harder on any other operating system than
Linux. The problem is not Linux,
but Adobe. They should state in their flash error message what the
problem is, not simply shut down.

J G Miller

unread,
Apr 14, 2013, 12:56:49 PM4/14/13
to
On Sunday, April 14th, 2013, at 11:29:17h -0400, TJ complained:

> That's a big problem with Linux - potentially important information like
> this can be exceedingly difficult to find. Don't get me wrong - I love
> Linux, and have used it for 11 years. But it still has some very large
> faults.

The plugin is a close source proprietary software product produced by Adobe.

If you go to the web page

<http://www.adobe.COM/products/flashplayer/tech-specs.html>

which specifies the hardware and software requirements for the latest
11.2 version of flash player, there is no mention of SSE or SSE2,
nor anywhere else of which I am aware.

Therefore your complaint should not be

"That's a big problem with Linux"

but

"That's a big problem with Adobe Systems Incorporated"

and you should express your feeelings towards them and not buy their
products and recommend that others do not either.

> It would be nice if one could turn off Mozilla's heavy-handed
> nanny-state we're-shutting-this-down-for-your-own-good "feature."

Yes it would be good if there was a plugin specific version specific
"allow anyways", rather than the blanket deny all/allow all plugins
dialog.

Incidentally, if your brother wants to watch YouTube videos, there are
alternatives, possibly better than viewing through a web browser, not
requiring the Adobe flash software, namely smTube

<http://smplayer.sourceforge.NET/en/smtube>

Whiskers

unread,
Apr 14, 2013, 1:02:05 PM4/14/13
to
On 2013-04-14, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
> On 04/06/2013 08:34 PM, J G Miller wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 7th, 2013, at 00:16:00h +0000, TB suggested:
>>
>>> Could this link perhaps provide an answer to your problem with Adobe
>>> Flash Player?
>>> <http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linuxquestions-org-member-success-stories-23/getting-flash-plug-in-to-work-with-older-cpus-4175420481/>
>>
>> THANY YOU! That does indeed explain the problem on this machine.
>>
>> QUOTE
>>
>> Version 11 of the Flash plug-in for web browsers has been compiled to
>> use the sse2 feature in the CPU.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> 1. Check your CPU by entering this command in a terminal emulator:
>>
>> cat /proc/cpuinfo
>>
>> If the Flags line doesn’t contain ‘sse2’ (‘sse’ won’t do),
>> then you need to use version 10 of the plug-in.
>>
>> UNQUOTE
>>
> Too bad I didn't stumble on that link months ago, when I was tearing my
> hair out trying to get the 11.2 version, as installed through Mageia 2,
> to work with my brother's old Athlon XP 2200+ cpu. It would have saved
> me hours of trying different things, of following leads that lead nowhere.
>
> That's a big problem with Linux - potentially important information like
> this can be exceedingly difficult to find. Don't get me wrong - I love
> Linux, and have used it for 11 years. But it still has some very large
> faults.

I don't think "Linux" can be blamed for Adobe's decision to release a
binary package that relies on a CPU feature that is lacking on some CPUs
without announcing that fact in the download or installation instructions.

Presumably, if your CPU lacks the sse2 flag, it won't make any difference
what operating system you install - Flash 11.2 isn't going to work.

> My brother is using that last 11.1 version, as downloaded from Adobe's
> archives.

So at least Adobe have made provision for users to get older software that
does work on older hardware.

> He too is being annoyed by the Firefox message that the plugin
> has been deactivated. However, when he tries to play a video and he gets
> a message that his player is out of date, all he does is click on a
> blank part of the screen and the video plays anyway. It's annoying, but
> not so annoying to him as it would be to buy another motherboard and
> cpu, and probably new RAM and video card as well. And especially not as
> annoying as buying a whole "new" computer just to watch some Youtube videos.
>
> It would be nice if one could turn off Mozilla's heavy-handed
> nanny-state we're-shutting-this-down-for-your-own-good "feature." Maybe
> something in prefs.js, perhaps?
>
> TJ

That isn't a "Linux" thing either; it's something for the Mozilla developers
to address.

TJ

unread,
Apr 14, 2013, 3:58:19 PM4/14/13
to
On 04/14/2013 01:02 PM, Whiskers wrote:
> On 2013-04-14, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:

>> Too bad I didn't stumble on that link months ago, when I was tearing my
>> hair out trying to get the 11.2 version, as installed through Mageia 2,
>> to work with my brother's old Athlon XP 2200+ cpu. It would have saved
>> me hours of trying different things, of following leads that lead nowhere.
>>
>> That's a big problem with Linux - potentially important information like
>> this can be exceedingly difficult to find. Don't get me wrong - I love
>> Linux, and have used it for 11 years. But it still has some very large
>> faults.
>
> I don't think "Linux" can be blamed for Adobe's decision to release a
> binary package that relies on a CPU feature that is lacking on some CPUs
> without announcing that fact in the download or installation instructions.
>
> Presumably, if your CPU lacks the sse2 flag, it won't make any difference
> what operating system you install - Flash 11.2 isn't going to work.
>
You and the rest misunderstand. I'm not blaming Linux for the Flash
problem - that's clearly Adobe's fault. Linux's fault, in this and in
other cases, is the difficulty in finding information.

Flash 11.2 has been out for months, and presumably my brother isn't the
only one who has seen this problem. Yet several searches, and I'm not a
newbie when it comes to Google, turned up nothing. I don't understand
why there isn't more on the various Linux forums about it.

TJ

unruh

unread,
Apr 14, 2013, 4:34:39 PM4/14/13
to
?? Perhaps because SSE2 is about 10 years old, and thus most do not
suffer from the problem? Perhaps because they do not realise what the
problem is why flash does not work.
Adobe breaks flash for older computers, and tells noone.
Perhaps your brother (or rather you since your brother did not post
anything) is the first.

>
> TJ
>

Bulkhead

unread,
Apr 14, 2013, 6:00:34 PM4/14/13
to
On 04/14/2013 08:29 AM, TJ wrote:
> ...
> Too bad I didn't stumble on that link months ago, when I was tearing my
> hair out trying to get the 11.2 version, as installed through Mageia 2,
> to work with my brother's old Athlon XP 2200+ cpu. It would have saved
> me hours of trying different things, of following leads that lead nowhere.
>
> That's a big problem with Linux - potentially important information like
> this can be exceedingly difficult to find.

Connecting this lack of info to an operating system, and particularly
Linux, is ridiculous.

> My brother is using that last 11.1 version, as downloaded from Adobe's
> archives. He too is being annoyed by the Firefox message that the plugin
> has been deactivated.
> ...
> It would be nice if one could turn off Mozilla's heavy-handed
> nanny-state we're-shutting-this-down-for-your-own-good "feature." Maybe
> something in prefs.js, perhaps?

My Firefox 17.0.1 hasn't displayed any messages about outdated Flash
11.0, or deactivated anything. When did this start happening? Now I'm
reluctant to update Firefox.

TJ

unread,
Apr 14, 2013, 7:24:38 PM4/14/13
to
On 04/14/2013 06:00 PM, Bulkhead wrote:
> On 04/14/2013 08:29 AM, TJ wrote:
>> ...
>> Too bad I didn't stumble on that link months ago, when I was tearing my
>> hair out trying to get the 11.2 version, as installed through Mageia 2,
>> to work with my brother's old Athlon XP 2200+ cpu. It would have saved
>> me hours of trying different things, of following leads that lead
>> nowhere.
>>
>> That's a big problem with Linux - potentially important information like
>> this can be exceedingly difficult to find.
>
> Connecting this lack of info to an operating system, and particularly
> Linux, is ridiculous.
>
I apologize. It's all my fault for being clueless, and my brother's for
not wanting to spend money on new hardware when up until now what he has
has been more than adequate for him. Still is, except for this new,
minor annoyance.

Linux is perfect, no faults whatsoever. Easy to troubleshoot, because
there's never a problem. I just won't believe any more the part about it
working on older hardware, that's all.

>> My brother is using that last 11.1 version, as downloaded from Adobe's
>> archives. He too is being annoyed by the Firefox message that the plugin
>> has been deactivated.
>> ...
>> It would be nice if one could turn off Mozilla's heavy-handed
>> nanny-state we're-shutting-this-down-for-your-own-good "feature." Maybe
>> something in prefs.js, perhaps?
>
> My Firefox 17.0.1 hasn't displayed any messages about outdated Flash
> 11.0, or deactivated anything. When did this start happening? Now I'm
> reluctant to update Firefox.
>
He didn't mention it until recently, so Firefox 17, the last extended
release, probably doesn't have it. I have his Firefox set up to
automatically update from Mozilla, because he's even more clueless than
I am, if that's possible. His Firefox is now up to 20.0, so I would
expect the "feature" showed up in 19.x or 20. Don't be surprised if it
shows in the next extended release, though.

But nothing was really "deactivated." It just takes an extra step to
play a video. Annoying, but if this is the worst thing we have to deal
with, we are lucky people indeed.

TJ

Bulkhead

unread,
Apr 14, 2013, 11:55:48 PM4/14/13
to
On 04/14/2013 04:24 PM, TJ wrote:
> Linux is perfect, no faults whatsoever. Easy to troubleshoot, because
> there's never a problem. I just won't believe any more the part about it
> working on older hardware, that's all.

Huh? The Flash 11.2 plugin works on older non-SSE2 processors, so long
as they're running Windows?

Jasen Betts

unread,
Apr 15, 2013, 2:34:30 AM4/15/13
to
On 2013-04-14, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>>
>> If the Flags line doesn’t contain ‘sse2’ (‘sse’ won’t do),
>> then you need to use version 10 of the plug-in.

> Too bad I didn't stumble on that link months ago, when I was tearing my
> hair out trying to get the 11.2 version, as installed through Mageia 2,
> to work with my brother's old Athlon XP 2200+ cpu. It would have saved
> me hours of trying different things, of following leads that lead nowhere.

> That's a big problem with Linux - potentially important information like
> this can be exceedingly difficult to find.

which info?

If you google "linux what cpu features"
the first 4 links all have the answer (/proc/cpuinfo)

if you want to lear Adobe linux support is pretty awful,
there's only one way to find that out.

> My brother is using that last 11.1 version, as downloaded from Adobe's
> archives. He too is being annoyed by the Firefox message that the plugin
> has been deactivated. However, when he tries to play a video and he gets
> a message that his player is out of date, all he does is click on a
> blank part of the screen and the video plays anyway. It's annoying, but
> not so annoying to him as it would be to buy another motherboard and
> cpu, and probably new RAM and video card as well. And especially not as
> annoying as buying a whole "new" computer just to watch some Youtube videos.

perhaps activate the flash-free HTML5-based player.

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

Bulkhead

unread,
Apr 15, 2013, 3:28:31 AM4/15/13
to
On 04/14/2013 08:55 PM, Bulkhead wrote:
> On 04/14/2013 04:24 PM, TJ wrote:
>> Linux is perfect, no faults whatsoever. Easy to troubleshoot, because
>> there's never a problem. I just won't believe any more the part about it
>> working on older hardware, that's all.

Right. And keep on pouting too. I enjoy that.

> Huh? The Flash 11.2 plugin works on older non-SSE2 processors, so long
> as they're running Windows?

That seems to be the case. Adobe compiled the Flash 11.2 plugin for
Linux, but not the Windows version, to use SSE2.


For those interested, a workaround is discussed here...
https://bugbase.adobe.com/index.cfm?event=bug&id=3161034

"This only occurs with Adobe's official build of the Flash Player
plugin. The 'libgcflashplayer.so' Adobe Flash Player plugin build
distributed by Google that ships with the Linux version of Google Chrome
is not compiled with the SSE2 compiler flag and that build of the Flash
Player plugin works properly under Linux on the above CPUs. Tested with
Google's 'libgcflashplayer.so' build version 11.2.202.235"

"The plugin bundled with Google Chrome (libgcflashplugin.so) gives
working Flash when imported in to Firefox. It also claims to be
v11.2.202.228. It seems clear the problem is with the libflashplayer.so
available on the Adobe download page."

Bulkhead

unread,
Apr 15, 2013, 7:46:37 AM4/15/13
to
On 04/14/2013 08:29 AM, TJ wrote:
> On 04/06/2013 08:34 PM, J G Miller wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 7th, 2013, at 00:16:00h +0000, TB suggested:
>>
>>> Could this link perhaps provide an answer to your problem with Adobe
>>> Flash Player?
>>> <http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linuxquestions-org-member-success-stories-23/getting-flash-plug-in-to-work-with-older-cpus-4175420481/>
>>>
>>
>> THANY YOU! That does indeed explain the problem on this machine.
>>
>> QUOTE
>>
>> Version 11 of the Flash plug-in for web browsers has been compiled to
>> use the sse2 feature in the CPU.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> 1. Check your CPU by entering this command in a terminal emulator:
>>
>> cat /proc/cpuinfo
>>
>> If the Flags line doesn’t contain ‘sse2’ (‘sse’ won’t do),
>> then you need to use version 10 of the plug-in.
>>
>> UNQUOTE
>>
> Too bad I didn't stumble on that link months ago, when I was tearing my
> hair out trying to get the 11.2 version, as installed through Mageia 2,
> to work with my brother's old Athlon XP 2200+ cpu. It would have saved
> me hours of trying different things, of following leads that lead nowhere.

Here's a link that got Flash plugin 11.2 working with Firefox on my old
Athlon XP.

http://diddywahdiddy.net/Puppy500/Google_Chrome-19-Lucid-2.pet

Downloaded it, extracted libgcflashplayer.so from it.
I have three archive managers, and they all had fits with that puppy
linux "pet" archive, but I did finally get the file out of it.

Copied into opt/mint-flashplugin-11
Renamed libgcflashplayer.so to libflashplayer.so

I now have Flash Player Version 11.2.202.235, verified by
http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player.html
My CPU is an Athlon XP-M without SSE2 support.




TJ

unread,
Apr 15, 2013, 11:23:50 AM4/15/13
to
Unfortunately, that workaround won't work if you download and install
Chrome versions containing flashplayers newer than 11.2. The current
version from Google, v.26 I believe, uses the 11.7 pepper-based flash,
and that plugin won't work with Firefox, near as I can find. I happen to
have the Chrome 18 rpm on hand, so I can get an 11.2 plugin from there -
but further updates will no doubt be hard to find. I will search some more.

TJ

TJ

unread,
Apr 15, 2013, 11:28:18 AM4/15/13
to
OK, looks like Chrome 19 was the last one to use the 11.2 flashplayer.

TJ

TJ

unread,
Apr 15, 2013, 12:59:41 PM4/15/13
to
On 04/15/2013 07:46 AM, Bulkhead wrote:
>
> Here's a link that got Flash plugin 11.2 working with Firefox on my old
> Athlon XP.
>
> http://diddywahdiddy.net/Puppy500/Google_Chrome-19-Lucid-2.pet
>
> Downloaded it, extracted libgcflashplayer.so from it.
> I have three archive managers, and they all had fits with that puppy
> linux "pet" archive, but I did finally get the file out of it.
>
Interesting. Ark 2.18 on Mageia 2 had no problem extracting that archive
to a new folder.

> Copied into opt/mint-flashplugin-11
> Renamed libgcflashplayer.so to libflashplayer.so
>
In Mageia, the plugin is copied to /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins, after
removing any copies of libflashplayer.so already there, of course.

> I now have Flash Player Version 11.2.202.235, verified by
> http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player.html
> My CPU is an Athlon XP-M without SSE2 support.
>
Will try it on my brother's computer this evening. Right now, if I don't
get back to work I'll have to fire me.

TJ

J G Miller

unread,
Apr 15, 2013, 12:57:01 PM4/15/13
to
On Monday, April 15th, 2013, at 11:28:18h -0400, TJ explained:

> OK, looks like Chrome 19 was the last one to use the 11.2 flashplayer.

Thank you for mentioning the Puppy source of the 11.2 flashplayer shared library.

If one is struggling to unpack the pet archive, just rename it to flash.tar.gz
and then use tar xvzf to unpack. It will complain about some junk in the archive,
but ignore that, and the flash shared library file can readily be found under
the opt sub-directory.

I have installed this over my previously working but out of date flash-plugin version 11.1
(in this case in /opt/mint-flash-plugin-11 directory) and it is working well so far.

Whiskers

unread,
Apr 15, 2013, 8:41:21 AM4/15/13
to
On 2013-04-14, unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:
> On 2013-04-14, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>> On 04/14/2013 01:02 PM, Whiskers wrote:
>>> On 2013-04-14, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>>
>>>> Too bad I didn't stumble on that link months ago, when I was tearing my
>>>> hair out trying to get the 11.2 version, as installed through Mageia 2,
>>>> to work with my brother's old Athlon XP 2200+ cpu. It would have saved
>>>> me hours of trying different things, of following leads that lead nowhere.
>>>>
>>>> That's a big problem with Linux - potentially important information like
>>>> this can be exceedingly difficult to find. Don't get me wrong - I love
>>>> Linux, and have used it for 11 years. But it still has some very large
>>>> faults.
>>>
>>> I don't think "Linux" can be blamed for Adobe's decision to release a
>>> binary package that relies on a CPU feature that is lacking on some CPUs
>>> without announcing that fact in the download or installation instructions.
>>>
>>> Presumably, if your CPU lacks the sse2 flag, it won't make any difference
>>> what operating system you install - Flash 11.2 isn't going to work.
>>>
>> You and the rest misunderstand. I'm not blaming Linux for the Flash
>> problem - that's clearly Adobe's fault. Linux's fault, in this and in
>> other cases, is the difficulty in finding information.

That's like blaming the maker of the printing press used by the Evening
Standard when that newspaper doesn't report that the chef in Claridges has
added a new ingredient to one of the pastries served at Afternoon Tea,
without telling anyone.

>> Flash 11.2 has been out for months, and presumably my brother isn't the
>> only one who has seen this problem. Yet several searches, and I'm not a
>> newbie when it comes to Google, turned up nothing. I don't understand
>> why there isn't more on the various Linux forums about it.
>
> ?? Perhaps because SSE2 is about 10 years old, and thus most do not
> suffer from the problem? Perhaps because they do not realise what the
> problem is why flash does not work.
> Adobe breaks flash for older computers, and tells noone.
> Perhaps your brother (or rather you since your brother did not post
> anything) is the first.
>
>>
>> TJ

I seem to remember that at the time the AMD Athlon CPUs were introduced,
there wasn't a version of "Flash" available for Linux. Some people are at
least slightly surprised that it works at all.

The future for multimedia web content is HTML5 - once everyone can agree
which formats to support.

TJ

unread,
Apr 16, 2013, 8:43:42 AM4/16/13
to
It worked. Videos played, and for now anyway, the dire warnings of doom
aren't displayed. Maybe now my brother will quit crabbing at me quite so
much. Thanks.

TJ
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages