> FYI, this has been reported on the Adobe "Flash Player Beta Channel" forum,
> and I've +1ed it. I would suggest doing the same to add some more pressure
> on them.
>
>
> https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2209127 (Adobe sign-in required)
I didn't see anything in the release notes, but the cu
Phelps, Matthew wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Phelps, Matthew
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Richard > innovate.net> wrote:
>>> > Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:36:57 +0100
>>> > From: isdtor
>>> >
>>> > Has anyone tried the new flash player beta for Linux?
>>> >
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Phelps, Matthew
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Richard innovate.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> > Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:36:57 +0100
>> > From: isdtor
>> >
>> > Has anyone tried the new flash player beta for Linux?
>> >
>> > http://labs.adobe.co
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Richard wrote:
>
> > Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:36:57 +0100
> > From: isdtor
> >
> > 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-
> Date: Thursday, September 22, 2016 12:36:57 +0100
> From: isdtor
>
> 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]
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.
$ tai
6 matches
Mail list logo
