Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [solarisx86] Re: New Flash player download 10.0.45.2

Expand Messages
  • Stuart Biggar
    ... Bob, Try starting at: http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/142/tn_14266.html and get the Flash 10 archive. After Unzipping that I found the latest x86 Solaris one.
    Message 1 of 16 , Feb 16, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:06 AM, palowoda wrote:
      >
      > > > Hmm, I must be missing something obvious. I download it from that
      > > > url and I still
      > > > get the older _42 version. Did this happen to anyone else?
      > > >
      > > >
      > > Sure did. I ended up downloading the zip file with all versions of
      > > the player
      > > (yes windows, linux, solaris, ...). The up-to-date one was in that
      > > bundle.
      >
      > Ah, you have a url reference for the bundled zip package?
      >
      > ---Bob
      >
      Bob,

      Try starting at:

      http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/142/tn_14266.html

      and get the Flash 10 archive. After Unzipping
      that I found the latest x86 Solaris one.

      Stuart
    • palowoda
      ... Thanks, that one indeed does have the correct new libflashplayer. For security reasons others may want to use that one until Adobe and the OpenSolaris
      Message 2 of 16 , Feb 16, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In solarisx86@yahoogroups.com, Stuart Biggar <stuart.biggar@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > On Feb 16, 2010, at 1:06 AM, palowoda wrote:
        > >
        > > > > Hmm, I must be missing something obvious. I download it from that
        > > > > url and I still
        > > > > get the older _42 version. Did this happen to anyone else?
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > Sure did. I ended up downloading the zip file with all versions of
        > > > the player
        > > > (yes windows, linux, solaris, ...). The up-to-date one was in that
        > > > bundle.
        > >
        > > Ah, you have a url reference for the bundled zip package?
        > >
        > > ---Bob
        > >
        > Bob,
        >
        > Try starting at:
        >
        > http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/142/tn_14266.html
        >
        > and get the Flash 10 archive. After Unzipping
        > that I found the latest x86 Solaris one.
        >

        Thanks, that one indeed does have the correct new libflashplayer. For security reasons
        others may want to use that one until Adobe and the OpenSolaris /extra repo get the
        versions correct.

        ---Bob
      • John D Groenveld
        In message , John D Groenveld wr ... $ /usr/sfw/bin/openssl md5 flash_player_10_solaris_x86.tar.bz2
        Message 3 of 16 , Feb 17, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          In message <201002160343.o1G3hGL4014982@...>, John D Groenveld wr
          ites:
          >$ /usr/sfw/bin/openssl md5 flash_player_10_solaris_x86.tar.bz2
          >MD5(flash_player_10_solaris_x86.tar.bz2)= bef7ea955a9a933347d9ce45bdbcc220

          $ /usr/sfw/bin/openssl md5 flash_player_10_solaris_x86.tar.bz2
          MD5(flash_player_10_solaris_x86.tar.bz2)= 88186b644a1c5a32f6e71fc1e5d7d57d
          $ bzip2 -dc flash_player_10_solaris_x86.tar.bz2 | tar tvf -
          -rwxr-xr-x 200079/1 0 Feb 3 01:20 2010 flash_player_10_solaris_r45_2_x86/
          -rwxr-xr-x 200079/1 10847132 Feb 3 01:20 2010 flash_player_10_solaris_r45_2_x86/libflashplayer.so

          >Also, the update is missing from the OpenSolaris extra repository:
          ># pkg info -r web/firefox/plugin/flash

          Extras is still shipping the broken version:
          # pkg info -r web/firefox/plugin/flash|grep Ver
          Version: 10.0.42.34

          Have the Solaris marketing wonks set up an announcement mailing list
          for that repository?
          Might be helpful to notify customers when the repository will be down
          for maintenance and when updated and new bits are available from Oracle
          and its ISV partners.

          John
          groenveld@...
        • Alan Coopersmith
          ... Like all IPS repositories, if you go to it in a web browser you should see an RSS feed icon for automated package update notification. -- -Alan
          Message 4 of 16 , Feb 17, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            John D Groenveld wrote:
            >> Also, the update is missing from the OpenSolaris extra repository:
            >> # pkg info -r web/firefox/plugin/flash
            >
            > Extras is still shipping the broken version:
            > # pkg info -r web/firefox/plugin/flash|grep Ver
            > Version: 10.0.42.34
            >
            > Have the Solaris marketing wonks set up an announcement mailing list
            > for that repository?

            Like all IPS repositories, if you go to it in a web browser you should
            see an RSS feed icon for automated package update notification.

            --
            -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith@...
            Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System
          • John D Groenveld
            In message , John D Groenveld wr ... On a related topic, via Martin Paul s pca I noticed that this evening s
            Message 5 of 16 , Feb 23, 2010
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              In message <201002171929.o1HJT5Qv026614@...>, John D Groenveld wr
              ites:
              >Extras is still shipping the broken version:
              ># pkg info -r web/firefox/plugin/flash|grep Ver
              > Version: 10.0.42.34

              On a related topic, via Martin Paul's pca I noticed that this evening's
              patchdiag.xref includes Patch-ID# 120186-20 which includes some
              security fixes for SUNWstaroffice*, StarOffice v8 for Solaris 10
              and previous.
              Why was there no SunAlert issued for BugID 6898803 and friends?
              <URL:http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-66-277690-1>


              Also is the Indiana repository going to be updated with a fixed OpenOffice?
              # pkg info -r openoffice|grep Version
              Version: 3.1.0
              Will there be a fixed OpenOffice in time for OpenSolaris 2010-03?

              BTW v3.2 can fetched from Al Hopper's GenUNIX.ORG
              John
              groenveld@...
            • Alan Coopersmith
              ... OpenOffice 3.2 is on the list of package updates planned for the pkg repo for the 2010.03 release. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith@sun.com
              Message 6 of 16 , Feb 23, 2010
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                John D Groenveld wrote:
                > Also is the Indiana repository going to be updated with a fixed OpenOffice?
                > # pkg info -r openoffice|grep Version
                > Version: 3.1.0
                > Will there be a fixed OpenOffice in time for OpenSolaris 2010-03?

                OpenOffice 3.2 is on the list of package updates planned for the pkg repo
                for the 2010.03 release.

                --
                -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith@...
                Oracle Solaris Platform Engineering: X Window System
              • Mike Riley
                ... Not all bugs get Sun Alerts. There are various criteria they use to determine if one should be written. One being that a large number of people will see
                Message 7 of 16 , Feb 24, 2010
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  John D Groenveld wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > In message <201002171929.o1HJT5Qv026614@...
                  > <mailto:201002171929.o1HJT5Qv026614%40elvis.arl.psu.edu>>, John D
                  > Groenveld wr
                  > ites:
                  > >Extras is still shipping the broken version:
                  > ># pkg info -r web/firefox/plugin/flash|grep Ver
                  > > Version: 10.0.42.34
                  >
                  > On a related topic, via Martin Paul's pca I noticed that this evening's
                  > patchdiag.xref includes Patch-ID# 120186-20 which includes some
                  > security fixes for SUNWstaroffice*, StarOffice v8 for Solaris 10
                  > and previous.
                  > Why was there no SunAlert issued for BugID 6898803 and friends?
                  > <URL:http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-66-277690-1
                  > <http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-66-277690-1>>

                  Not all bugs get Sun Alerts. There are various criteria they use to
                  determine if one should be written. One being that a large number of
                  people will see it. Another is that it must be reported by a certain
                  number of customers. These must not have met one of those criteria.

                  Mike
                • John D Groenveld
                  ... Years ago I subscribed to Bugtraq. I noticed that every two-bit Linux distribution insisted on spewing their BugIDs for which ever piece of FOSS that was
                  Message 8 of 16 , Feb 24, 2010
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In message <4B8564FB.3080409@...>, Mike Riley writes:
                    >Not all bugs get Sun Alerts. There are various criteria they use to
                    >determine if one should be written. One being that a large number of
                    >people will see it. Another is that it must be reported by a certain
                    >number of customers. These must not have met one of those criteria.

                    Years ago I subscribed to Bugtraq.
                    I noticed that every two-bit Linux distribution insisted on spewing
                    their BugIDs for which ever piece of FOSS that was the vulnerability
                    of the day.
                    I found the "me-too's" to be a bit annoying at the time but then
                    came to see that the marketing amateurs were projecting an image
                    of their projects as things to be taken seriously.

                    After Scott McNealy and company bought StarDivision there was
                    a lot of talk about StarOffice (and later the open source and
                    open standards, OpenOffice) being a credible threat to Microsoft's
                    Windows and Office recurring income stream.
                    Sadly, StarOffice (and Mozilla) support for Solaris x86 portended
                    Solaris x86's eventual "indefinite delay."

                    Does the Support stovepipe that issues SunAlerts for the Solaris
                    system stack want customers to view it as a serious volume solution?
                    If not customers, does it want to be taken seriously by their
                    new masters in Larry Ellison and company's executive shark tank.

                    John
                    groenveld@...
                  • Mike Riley
                    ... Was that a complaint about the policy, or a complement? If I recall some of the criteria was: 1) Are there 3 or more customers reporting the bug? This is
                    Message 9 of 16 , Feb 24, 2010
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      John D Groenveld wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > In message <4B8564FB.3080409@...
                      > <mailto:4B8564FB.3080409%40cox.net>>, Mike Riley writes:
                      > >Not all bugs get Sun Alerts. There are various criteria they use to
                      > >determine if one should be written. One being that a large number of
                      > >people will see it. Another is that it must be reported by a certain
                      > >number of customers. These must not have met one of those criteria.
                      >
                      > Years ago I subscribed to Bugtraq.
                      > I noticed that every two-bit Linux distribution insisted on spewing
                      > their BugIDs for which ever piece of FOSS that was the vulnerability
                      > of the day.
                      > I found the "me-too's" to be a bit annoying at the time but then
                      > came to see that the marketing amateurs were projecting an image
                      > of their projects as things to be taken seriously.
                      >
                      > After Scott McNealy and company bought StarDivision there was
                      > a lot of talk about StarOffice (and later the open source and
                      > open standards, OpenOffice) being a credible threat to Microsoft's
                      > Windows and Office recurring income stream.
                      > Sadly, StarOffice (and Mozilla) support for Solaris x86 portended
                      > Solaris x86's eventual "indefinite delay."
                      >
                      > Does the Support stovepipe that issues SunAlerts for the Solaris
                      > system stack want customers to view it as a serious volume solution?
                      > If not customers, does it want to be taken seriously by their
                      > new masters in Larry Ellison and company's executive shark tank.

                      Was that a complaint about the policy, or a complement?

                      If I recall some of the criteria was:

                      1) Are there 3 or more customers reporting the bug? This is why it is
                      important to file bug reports and especially to get your name added to an
                      existing bug. I may be off on the number, it might be a bit higher.

                      2) Does it cause a system crash/hang/denial of service issue, and are a
                      large number of customers likely to run into it?

                      3) For security issues, is an exploit available that can use the defect to
                      cause a security breach?

                      There are probably a couple of others that I forgot, but you get the idea.
                      It has been almost 2 years since I had to worry about one.

                      They are designed to give an early heads up to larger customers at the
                      time a problem is identified that might affect them. They get released to
                      everyone once a fix is available, but only the customers paying extra for
                      the early notification get the initial releases with workarounds or
                      T-patch info.
                    • John D Groenveld
                      In message , John D Groenveld wr ... Fixed. # pkg info -r web/firefox/plugin/flash|grep Ver Version: 10.0.45.2
                      Message 10 of 16 , Feb 27, 2010
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In message <201002171929.o1HJT5Qv026614@...>, John D Groenveld wr
                        ites:
                        >Extras is still shipping the broken version:

                        Fixed.
                        # pkg info -r web/firefox/plugin/flash|grep Ver
                        Version: 10.0.45.2

                        There's also an updated VirtualBox package on Extras.

                        John
                        groenveld@...
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.