Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:24:41 -0700
From:      Joshua Tinnin <krinklyfig@speakeasy.net>
To:        "Aryeh M. Friedman" <aryeh.friedman@gmail.com>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Rudy <crapsh@monkeybrains.net>
Subject:   Re: HOW-TO get Flash7 working!
Message-ID:  <20080116202441.GA40521@smogmonster.local>
In-Reply-To: <477FFF63.50004@gmail.com>
References:  <64c038660801040516u5c42a6cpadb475ad67fb4730@mail.gmail.com> <20080104174955.52aa33fd@gumby.homeunix.com> <64c038660801041029t1a9662bayed3ca02fd46c7ece@mail.gmail.com> <64c038660801041226k1d350bc6p727e4666ea295727@mail.gmail.com> <477FFE14.1010704@monkeybrains.net> <477FFF63.50004@gmail.com>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 05:06:27PM -0500, Aryeh M. Friedman wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Rudy wrote:
> >
> > With all this talk about FLASH, I found something out by trial and
> > error and want to post again to the list so that others searching
> > can get the FLASH player working in their brower:
> >
> > THIS STEP IS NEEDED OR FLASH WILL NOT WORK:
> >
> > sysctl compat.linux.osrelease=2.6.20
> 
> I am using 8-current (amd64) and found all I needed to do was install
> www/linux-flashplugin7 then do a nspluginwrapper -v -a -i and flash
> works fine (as far I can tell)... 

Hot damn, that worked. I now have Flash in native Firefox. I never
really paid much attention to the commands for nspluginwrapper or knew
they were necessary. I have also never really gotten Flash to work but
didn't try very hard at it, either.

Thanks.

- jt

 does this add any functionality I
> am not aware of?  (namely some sites seem to partially load like the
> graphs at whos.among.us [the easiest way to test this is go to the
> site in my signature then click on the 3rd icon at the bottom and then
> click on graphs])
> >
> > Better yet, add this to your /etc/sysctl.conf file and reboot:
> > compat.linux.osrelease=2.6.20
> >
> > NOTE: I just picked 2.6.20 kinda at random... seems like that is
> > the linux kernel number (which I know nothing about) for the Fedora
> > 7 release.  Oh, and I installed Fedora 7 instead of the default
> > Fedora Core 4 on my desktop.
> >
> > Why does the linux emulation pick 2.4.2 as the kernel version
> > number to report (by default) and not 2.6.11 (their kernel version
> > shipped with Fedora 4)?  Seems like the ports should and linux
> > module should be updated...
> >
> > Rudy _______________________________________________



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080116202441.GA40521>