Mailing List Archive

2010/12/9 Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com>:
> Related to Dale's new machine/Gentoo 64-bit questions one other thing
> popped into my frazzled mind this morning that I've been meaning to
> ask.
>
> Sometime ago Flash for 64-bit was masked due to 64-bit security
> issues. I started using Firefox-bin and the 32-bit version of Flash.
> (At least that's the way I understand what's getting emerged. I don't
> much care. It works...)
>
> Anyway, what's the status of all of that? It seems Duncan maybe has a
> workable Flash plugin for his browser. What's state of the art these
> days for either multi-lib or 64-bit only systems?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>
>
I haven't kept strictly up to date, but it's my understanding that
since then a new 64bit version has been released. And some new
security problems, it's flash after all, and two more releases I
think. So there's a "proper" 64-bit version out, if you consider
flash/binary proper.

On a related note, the alternative flash player lightspark has reached
a "actually useful for youtube some of the time" status, and the
current RC is supposed to improve this. Help me flattr the guys
lightspark blog posts and you can soon ditch another binary package.
:D

For flash websites I go for Chromium , Firefox usually gives me some gaps
while playing.

[]'s
Fernando Boaglio

Am 09.12.2010 16:02, schrieb Mark Knecht:
> Related to Dale's new machine/Gentoo 64-bit questions one other thing
> popped into my frazzled mind this morning that I've been meaning to
> ask.
>
> Sometime ago Flash for 64-bit was masked due to 64-bit security
> issues. I started using Firefox-bin and the 32-bit version of Flash.
> (At least that's the way I understand what's getting emerged. I don't
> much care. It works...)
>
> Anyway, what's the status of all of that? It seems Duncan maybe has a
> workable Flash plugin for his browser. What's state of the art these
> days for either multi-lib or 64-bit only systems?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark
>


As I've written in Dale's thread, it depends on the version. The
currently stable one (10.1.102.64) is 32bit-only. The next higher
(10.2.161.23_pre20100927) is also available for amd64. You can just look
at the build files. One contains instructions about 64bit versions in
the first few lines, the other always downloads an "i386.rpm".

Nevertheless, the current stable version works with 64bit Firefox and
nspluginwrapper.

Claes Gyllenswärd posted on Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:09:44 +0100 as excerpted:

> I haven't kept strictly up to date, but it's my understanding that since
> then a new 64bit version has been released. And some new security
> problems, it's flash after all, and two more releases I think. So
> there's a "proper" 64-bit version out, if you consider flash/binary
> proper.

Yes. AFAIK, there's another 64-bit flash beta out.

But meanwhile, there's a problem with beta glibc and flash (both 32-bit
and 64-bit), where flash is depending on officially "undefined" behavior
as if it was behind, and the new (still unreleased upstream) glibc changes
the officially undefined behavior, breaking flash.

But the behavior has been undefined for years and years (tho until now the
actual glibc behavior had happened to remain the same), valgrind and other
memory analysis tools have been warning about it for years and years, and
flash was never fixed. So now we know that either it had so many warnings
they couldn't care about this one, or they never ran it thru such checkers
in the first place, a rather serious problem for something as security
exposed as flash obviously is, on millions of machines out there.

That would seem to go some way to explaining all the security holes it has
had recently -- they apparently never ran it thru memory analysis tools
designed to catch such problems. <shrug>

Obviously, my take is a bit biased, but yet another reason I'm glad I
don't do that servantware. Even when/if the situation is fixed, that
won't change the fact that flash is now known NOT to use regular security
analysis tools to help them find and plug such problems before they
release, so who knows how many more security issues wait to be found?

> On a related note, the alternative flash player lightspark has reached a
> "actually useful for youtube some of the time" status, and the current
> RC is supposed to improve this. Help me flattr the guys lightspark blog
> posts and you can soon ditch another binary package. :D

FWIW, I do have gnash installed, tho I've not tried lightspark, but don't
use it all /that/ much, as I use the downloader for youtube, and on most
(but not all) other sites, flash is mostly ads, anyway. Rather, I tend to
pick another site if I need to. Sometimes manufacturers lose my buying
dollars as a result because I can't see what they're product specs are due
to flash, but oh, well...

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Florian Philipp
<lists@f_philipp.fastmail.net> wrote:
> Am 09.12.2010 16:02, schrieb Mark Knecht:
>> Related to Dale's new machine/Gentoo 64-bit questions one other thing
>> popped into my frazzled mind this morning that I've been meaning to
>> ask.
>>
>> Sometime ago Flash for 64-bit was masked due to 64-bit security
>> issues. I started using Firefox-bin and the 32-bit version of Flash.
>> (At least that's the way I understand what's getting emerged. I don't
>> much care. It works...)
>>
>> Anyway, what's the status of all of that? It seems Duncan maybe has a
>> workable Flash plugin for his browser. What's state of the art these
>> days for either multi-lib or 64-bit only systems?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark
>>
>
>
> As I've written in Dale's thread, it depends on the version. The
> currently stable one (10.1.102.64) is 32bit-only. The next higher
> (10.2.161.23_pre20100927) is also available for amd64. You can just look
> at the build files. One contains instructions about 64bit versions in
> the first few lines, the other always downloads an "i386.rpm".
>
> Nevertheless, the current stable version works with 64bit Firefox and
> nspluginwrapper.
>
>

Thanks Florian. I've installed Firefox, nspluginwrapper and
adobe-flash-10.2.161.23_pre20101117. It seems to be working. I guess
it's 64-bit. My needs aren't very high. Mostly it's for listening to
radio from places like NPR, etc., but I like to have Flash installed
so that web sites that depend on it don't complain at me.

I'll look into other flash compatible players one of these days but no
time right now.

Thanks for the info!

Cheers,
Mark

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 20:20:53 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:

>
> Yes. AFAIK, there's another 64-bit flash beta out.
>
> But meanwhile, there's a problem with beta glibc and flash (both 32-bit
> and 64-bit),

What boggles my mind is that after so many, many years this 32-bit
to 64-bit transition is still not complete. The developers
of Flash, as highly paid ($$$) as they doubtless are, are quite
unable to modify their code to perform on modern hardware.
I recall that Sun java took a heck of a long time to go to 64-bit,
and unless I am mistaken there still is no 64-bit java plug-in.

It should not be that difficult. In the C programming language,
only the size of pointers and certain integer types has been
changed. Modification of software is straightforward and there
are even automated tools to assist in the job.

Flash probably has a lot of assembly language routines (I am
not at all privy to the code) but the original designers should
still be able to modify it with ease.

Unless I am missing some crucial information, this whole 32 to 64-bit
fiasco should have ended years ago. We managed to build an atomic
bomb (Manhattan Project) from scratch in less than 3 years, but
a 64-bit Flash (as well as other software) probably won't be finalized
before an entire decade has elapsed.

I really couldn't care less about Flash, but I would like to have
a 64-bit Foxit PDF reader. Xpdf is a fine project, but it can't
fill in forms or annotate a document.

Frank Peters

Frank Peters <frank.peters@comcast.net> skribis:
> Unless I am missing some crucial information, this whole 32 to 64-bit
> fiasco should have ended years ago. We managed to build an atomic
> bomb (Manhattan Project) from scratch in less than 3 years, but
> a 64-bit Flash (as well as other software) probably won't be finalized
> before an entire decade has elapsed.

That's just it: the one project was a matter of life and death and
freedom and slavery for millions, while the other project isn't
remarkably important, and is tailored for the benefit of stock
investors. Besides, if the OS is supposed to be able to run 32-bit
applications and can't then it is broken, and one actually can do
something about that, because the OS is almost all free-as-in-freedom
software.