I can't get Flash plugin to work in Fedora Core 5 test 2

The Linuxator

Banned
Jun 13, 2005
3,121
1
0
OK I tried installing it within firefox, you know when it tells you there is a missing plugin,,,blah blah, No Go

Installed it from the flash repository , No Go.

Installed the tar and , No Go

What do you suggest I check ?
 

kamper

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2003
5,513
0
0
Installed it from the flash repository , No Go.
Meaning flash is in one of the yum repositories you have set up? If so, and assuming it's a fc5 repo, then your first step should be talking to the package maintainer, finding out if they know it's broken and filling in the details if they didn't know.
 

The Linuxator

Banned
Jun 13, 2005
3,121
1
0
Originally posted by: xtknight
http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/dow...orm=Linux&P3_Browser_Version=Netscape4
This? Did you specify the correct FireFox install directory in the installer?

On a side note how do you like Fedora Core 5 test 2? Is it different from 4 any?



/home/linuxator/.mozilla/plugins :

flashplayer.xpt
libflashplayer.so

Looks fine to me, (note flash is not working in neither Firefox nor Mozilla)

About the second question, a lot of mixed feelings really, in reality I don't like beta testing a distro I like up untill late development stages, because bugs in it makes you hate your favorite distro, that's why I just test distros I am not familiar with.

Anyways, you know from the other thread that I have upgraded to Fedora Core 5 because I had to (an issue with my SATA controller with Fedora Core 4) you won't believe how I got things to work ! (read my last post in there to find out).

About Fedora Core 5 test 2 4.92 :

The good :

- YUM got a decent update, now there are features in it that all Fedora Core 4 users would sure henjoy having (finally!), features like Queues, now you can finally select packages to install, update , remove and do all of that in one click that way you don't have to waste time waiting for each type of operation to get done.

- Eye candy, nicer default interface , gdm, boot splash...etc
- System wise, ny entire hardware got detectred and the installation went smoothly.
- An enhanced anaconda interface, looks more classy and will feel a bit strange the first time you use it.
- A lot of new services have been added , such as readahead, and avahi plus many more.
- Tabs are transparent and will fit right in no matter what color your taskbar is.

For the bad part most of the stuff are development bugs, but some are design flaws too

The bad :

- Now all RPM's require a ported GPG-key to install (not sure if this is a bug or a default feature) and it doesn't matter where you are installing it from (w=either it's local or non-local)
- I can't install RPMs that are not part of a repos unless you get the GPG key to install, including release rpms, I have added livna and fresh rpms to my yum.repos file and still no go.
- For some crazy reason they have removed the directory adress bar from the file browser !! Why would they do that ? Now you have tabs for directories. I would like to see the file location bar instead. I like to type where I want to go, and it's more helpful for hidden files .
- They have changed the location of a lot of items in the main menu, for example System monitor is now in System Adminstration, instead of it's old position in System Tools, just a matter of habit TBH, and so are many other options that have been moved around.
- Obviously flash and java aren't working in Firefox /Mozilla.
- gnome-power-manager gives me an error message at startup.
- udev gives an error upon startup, "Cannon't creat device tt1,........tty2,tty3 etc
- Applications such as BMP and XMMS have a problem using ALSA, but not OSS for sound output .

I am discovering more stuff everyday, so we will see what more I can dig out, this is what i can remember out of the top of my head ATM.
 

The Linuxator

Banned
Jun 13, 2005
3,121
1
0
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Does it give any errors? Does the machine still have bad ram?


I removed the faulty stick.
And I don't see any erorrs , hey where can I find the log for flash ?
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: The Linuxator
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Does it give any errors? Does the machine still have bad ram?


I removed the faulty stick.
And I don't see any erorrs , hey where can I find the log for flash ?

I figured it would send errors to the terminal.
 

The Linuxator

Banned
Jun 13, 2005
3,121
1
0
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: The Linuxator
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Does it give any errors? Does the machine still have bad ram?


I removed the faulty stick.
And I don't see any erorrs , hey where can I find the log for flash ?

I figured it would send errors to the terminal.

The flash terminal installation doesn't show any errors.
 

The Linuxator

Banned
Jun 13, 2005
3,121
1
0
Damn it this is frustrating, flash works great in Fedora Core 4 , but on this machine I can't put FC 4 on this machine because the SATA controller only works with Fedora Core 5, otherwise I would have dual booted Fedora Core 4 & 5 and had the convenience of FC4 and still be able to Beta test FC 5, I will have to check with the Fedora developers, and see if they have realised this or not , I don't think there is a chance on earth they have missed this.
 

The Linuxator

Banned
Jun 13, 2005
3,121
1
0
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
What does Macromedia say?

What are you going to bug the devs about?


I got it to work, it seems to be an issue with SE-linux, here is what the devs have pointed me to Link, and it seems to solve the problem. It was just a matter of a check box thank God.
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
To getthe plugin to run I have enabled "Allow the use
of shared libraries with Text Relocation" in the
compatibility section.

That sounds dangerous. What's it do?

Someone else needed to enable "Allow executables to run with execuable stack" too, and all for some crappy programs. Why bother?
 

The Linuxator

Banned
Jun 13, 2005
3,121
1
0
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
To getthe plugin to run I have enabled "Allow the use
of shared libraries with Text Relocation" in the
compatibility section.

That sounds dangerous. What's it do?

Someone else needed to enable "Allow executables to run with execuable stack" too, and all for some crappy programs. Why bother?

As far as I understood from it, when the option is disabled, Firefox can't see the flash plugin files, upon enabling the option firefox is able to load those files, or to put it in another way is allowed to load those files, not bad of a fix, considering the effort it took was minimal.

SE-linux is pretty nice, never gave me an issue on a non-beta release of Fedora Core 4, it allows you to determine which protocols you want to allow which you don't want to allow, and which specefics of a protocol you want to configure, it's a pretty organized tool for basic users and non-basic users, things rangin from SSH, FTP, all the way to HTTP I am pretty sure you can test it on non-RH distros.
 

n0cmonkey

Elite Member
Jun 10, 2001
42,936
1
0
Originally posted by: The Linuxator
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
To getthe plugin to run I have enabled "Allow the use
of shared libraries with Text Relocation" in the
compatibility section.

That sounds dangerous. What's it do?

Someone else needed to enable "Allow executables to run with execuable stack" too, and all for some crappy programs. Why bother?

As far as I understood from it, when the option is disabled, Firefox can't see the flash plugin files, upon enabling the option firefox is able to load those files, or to put it in another way is allowed to load those files, not bad of a fix, considering the effort it took was minimal.

SE-linux is pretty nice, never gave me an issue on a non-beta release of Fedora Core 4, it allows you to determine which protocols you want to allow which you don't want to allow, and which specefics of a protocol you want to configure, it's a pretty organized tool for basic users and non-basic users, things rangin from SSH, FTP, all the way to HTTP I am pretty sure you can test it on non-RH distros.

SELinux is huge, not easily configured, but has the potential to do wonderful things. The option you checked does a lot more than allow Firefox to load plugins.

It's also a security risk. I'm not sure if trash like macromedia flash is worth the risk...
 

kamper

Diamond Member
Mar 18, 2003
5,513
0
0
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
It's also a security risk. I'm not sure if trash like macromedia flash is worth the risk...
Well now, that depends. There's a lot of very cool products advertised on this very forum that one might never find out about if not for flash!
 

The Linuxator

Banned
Jun 13, 2005
3,121
1
0
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: The Linuxator
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
To getthe plugin to run I have enabled "Allow the use
of shared libraries with Text Relocation" in the
compatibility section.

That sounds dangerous. What's it do?

Someone else needed to enable "Allow executables to run with execuable stack" too, and all for some crappy programs. Why bother?

As far as I understood from it, when the option is disabled, Firefox can't see the flash plugin files, upon enabling the option firefox is able to load those files, or to put it in another way is allowed to load those files, not bad of a fix, considering the effort it took was minimal.

SE-linux is pretty nice, never gave me an issue on a non-beta release of Fedora Core 4, it allows you to determine which protocols you want to allow which you don't want to allow, and which specefics of a protocol you want to configure, it's a pretty organized tool for basic users and non-basic users, things rangin from SSH, FTP, all the way to HTTP I am pretty sure you can test it on non-RH distros.

SELinux is huge, not easily configured, but has the potential to do wonderful things. The option you checked does a lot more than allow Firefox to load plugins.

It's also a security risk. I'm not sure if trash like macromedia flash is worth the risk...


It's my mistake I didn't clarify, the only period of time that had that checkbox checked was just 15 seconds while I launched Firefox and allowed it to asess the new situation now that it has access to the flash files.
After that I have unchecked it and now everything is back to the way it was, except that Flash is running as it is supposed to.
And I think the same thing applies to the java plugin for Mozilla, I will give it a shot too and report back, soon.
 

The Linuxator

Banned
Jun 13, 2005
3,121
1
0
Originally posted by: kamper
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
It's also a security risk. I'm not sure if trash like macromedia flash is worth the risk...
Well now, that depends. There's a lot of very cool products advertised on this very forum that one might never find out about if not for flash!


LOL Meh!
I need flash for google videos, that's all really, the rest of the stuff I try and block as much as possible. Including images.
Also I just got irritated enough with that Firefox popup toolbar that tells you you need to install the missing plugin, I was too lazy to lookup how to disable it, but not lazy enough to not lookup bugs on FC :p
 

The Linuxator

Banned
Jun 13, 2005
3,121
1
0
OK I am off to trouble shoot the rest of the crap-list in this beta.

-YUM extender :

Component: yumex
Version: 0.99.3
Summary: TB24c7a3dd yumexmain.py:321:Delete_event:RuntimeError: called outside of a mainloop

Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/share/yumex/yumexmain.py", line 321, in delete_event
gtk.main_quit()
RuntimeError: called outside of a mainloop

Local variables in innermost frame:
widget: <gtk.Window object (GtkWindow) at 0xb79b75cc>
data: None
event: <GdkEvent at 0xba574b8>
self: <__main__.MainApplication instance at 0xb79b1a8c>

And add to that that I can't install anythign outside yum (fc5-test2 is very picy about signed packages, that even FC packages are not accepted I have to check the GPG_KEYS about that) and I can't run yum without it hanging even from terminal

- gnome-power manager gave me the following on bootup :

The Application "gnome-power-manager" has quit unexpectedly.

You can inform the developers of what happened to help them fix it. Or you can restart the application right now.


- The services initilization list at bootup showed me :

HAL daemon FAILED[\i]

And I can't start it again from the services option.

Off to troubleshooting land :)
 

cleverhandle

Diamond Member
Dec 17, 2001
3,566
3
81
Originally posted by: The Linuxator
SE-linux is pretty nice, never gave me an issue on a non-beta release of Fedora Core 4, it allows you to determine which protocols you want to allow which you don't want to allow, and which specefics of a protocol you want to configure, it's a pretty organized tool for basic users and non-basic users, things rangin from SSH, FTP, all the way to HTTP I am pretty sure you can test it on non-RH distros.
SE-Linux does none of those things. You're talking about firewalling, which in FC is done by iptables via a pretty interface from system-config-securitylevel. SE-Linux happens to have some options configurable from the same place, but it's a completely different beast. As n0c said, it's a lot bigger system - in a nutshell, it places hard limits on what your programs can do, so that compromised/misbehaving processes can't do something naughty.
 

The Linuxator

Banned
Jun 13, 2005
3,121
1
0
Originally posted by: cleverhandle
Originally posted by: The Linuxator
SE-linux is pretty nice, never gave me an issue on a non-beta release of Fedora Core 4, it allows you to determine which protocols you want to allow which you don't want to allow, and which specefics of a protocol you want to configure, it's a pretty organized tool for basic users and non-basic users, things rangin from SSH, FTP, all the way to HTTP I am pretty sure you can test it on non-RH distros.
SE-Linux does none of those things. You're talking about firewalling, which in FC is done by iptables via a pretty interface from system-config-securitylevel. SE-Linux happens to have some options configurable from the same place, but it's a completely different beast. As n0c said, it's a lot bigger system - in a nutshell, it places hard limits on what your programs can do, so that compromised/misbehaving processes can't do something naughty.

As I said it's a tool.