search for: pluginreg

Has anyone tried the new flash player beta for Linux? http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer.html I can't get it to work on CentOS 6.8, ff 45.3.0-1, all x86_64. ff's pluginreg.dat shows the plugin is [INVALID], which is often a sign of bitness-mismatch, but that's not the case here. $ tail -n 3 pluginreg.dat [INVALID] /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so:$ 1474541270000:$ $ file /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.s...

Hello Andreas, On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:03:12 +0200 Andreas Benzler <andreas at benzlerweb.de> wrote: > Hello every one I installed the official > flash plugin from adobe > > About Plugins tells me: > > Datei: libflashplayer.so > Pfad: /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so > Version: 11.2.202.577 > Status: Aktiviert

...> > From: isdtor <isdtor at gmail.com> > > > > Has anyone tried the new flash player beta for Linux? > > > > http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer.html > > > > I can't get it to work on CentOS 6.8, ff 45.3.0-1, all x86_64. ff's > > pluginreg.dat shows the plugin is [INVALID], which is often a sign > > of bitness-mismatch, but that's not the case here. > > > > $ tail -n 3 pluginreg.dat > > [INVALID] > > /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so:$ > > 1474541270000:$ > > $ file /usr/lib64/fla...

...gt; Any ideas? > > On my 3 CentOS 6.5 systems here (all up-to-date), only one shows '577' > whereas 616 is installed and the 577 binary has gone. Strange, I still > didn't get how to "fix" this, even if doesn't sound overcritical to me. Cause is the file "pluginreg.dat" in the Firefox profile folder. It stores the version info, but upon updates of the flashplayer, some times it will not get updated. Two ways to 'cure' that: a) Uninstall flash, (Re-)start Firefox, close Firefox, install new version, start Firefox. (Due to the 'absence...

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:49 AM, Ulf Volmer <u.volmer at u-v.de> wrote: > On 18.09.2017 16:35, Larry Martell wrote: > >> My old version of FF does not have plugin folder, it has a file called >> pluginreg.dat that looks like this: > > i doubt that. Please look into > > /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins or /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins. i'm quite sure > that these directories also exist in you ff v24. pluginreq.dat should > only cache the plugin informations and can be renamed. > > It...

...r of your > firefox installation (maybe in your ff profile or system wide in the > firefox folder), backup the old plugin and place there a symlink to the > oracle plugin (/usr/java/jre1.8.0_144/lib/amd64/libnpjp2.so). My old version of FF does not have plugin folder, it has a file called pluginreg.dat that looks like this: IcedTeaPlugin.so:$ /usr/lib64/IcedTeaPlugin.so:$ :$ 1462942245000:0:0:$ The <a href="">IcedTea-Web Plugin</a> executes Java applets.:$ IcedTea-Web Plugin (using IcedTea-Web 1.6.2 (rhel-1.el6-x86_64)):$ 38 0:application/x-java-vm:IcedTea:class,jar:$ 1...

I'm having an issue with workstation opening pdf's with firefox. I have the adobe plugin installed and enabled in firefox but firefox will only let me save the file. Under applications I have tried using the doc reader and adobe to associate pdf's with firefox with no luck. I am running firefox 3.0.4. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you -- Bo Lynch

...ay, September 22, 2016 12:36:57 +0100 > From: isdtor <isdtor at gmail.com> > > Has anyone tried the new flash player beta for Linux? > > http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer.html > > I can't get it to work on CentOS 6.8, ff 45.3.0-1, all x86_64. ff's > pluginreg.dat shows the plugin is [INVALID], which is often a sign > of bitness-mismatch, but that's not the case here. > > $ tail -n 3 pluginreg.dat > [INVALID] > /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so:$ > 1474541270000:$ > $ file /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so >...

...sdtor at gmail.com> >> > >> > Has anyone tried the new flash player beta for Linux? >> > >> > http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer.html >> > >> > I can't get it to work on CentOS 6.8, ff 45.3.0-1, all x86_64. ff's >> > pluginreg.dat shows the plugin is [INVALID], which is often a sign >> > of bitness-mismatch, but that's not the case here. >> > >> > $ tail -n 3 pluginreg.dat >> > [INVALID] >> > /usr/lib64/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so:$ >> > 1474541270000:$ >&gt...

I am having a hell of a time getting adobe flash to work on a recent 5.2 install. >From rpm install: Running firefox as root -- I have verified there is a symlink in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins that points to the actual plugin located in /usr/lib/flash-plugins nada. SoI then copied the plugin directly into /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins and eliminated the symlink from the equation. nada. I then

On 18.09.2017 16:35, Larry Martell wrote: > My old version of FF does not have plugin folder, it has a file called > pluginreg.dat that looks like this: i doubt that. Please look into /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins or /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins. i'm quite sure that these directories also exist in you ff v24. pluginreq.dat should only cache the plugin informations and can be renamed. It's also possible to store your pl...

Fully up-to-date CentOS 5.2 and Firefox browser. A previous thread had a problem with plugins disappearing. I've discovered, by accident, a causal relationship. Running a Thunderbird mail client (could happen with others? Haven't tested with Evolution yet.) I click a link that opens the browser. BANG! The plugins.dat is "emptied". Restored from my rsync backup, repeat, BANG!

Hi there, OK I thought I had this problem solved last week. Last week with help from this list, we installed the flash player on my Centos 5 desktop machine. But now when I go to cnbc, I am getting that same problem when trying to view vids on their site. So I click the icon where the empty video frame is to install the plugin, the "no suitable plugins were found" box come comes up

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Ulf Volmer <u.volmer at u-v.de> wrote: > On 14.09.2017 23:56, Larry Martell wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Ulf Volmer <u.volmer at u-v.de> wrote: > >>> Again, please enter 'about:plugins' in the address bar of your browser >>> to make sure, that the right java version is activated. >> >> This