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: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080116202441.GA40521>