mint-flashplugin vs adobe-flashplugin

[Redsandro]

Every few days, when I boot into Linux Mint, there is a popup* wining about some flashplugin content not available for updating.
It's been like this for a while now, and it just happened at some point, I never messed with the flash packages.

So I thought, maybe I should purge flash and reinstall flash, and then I noticed:

• adobe-flashplugin 273-0quantal1
• mint-flashplugin 243

with the mint-one being installed, obviously.

So now I was wondering, what is the difference? Does the Mint one, like other mint packages, only change the branding? Because I don't care for that. Or does it change some mint-integration or other tricks? I DO care for that.

The package description does not describe the difference.

*) Speaking about updates, every time I click on the update icon, I get this popup (see attachment**). Same problem: I feel like I haven't done anything to cause this, and I don't know what to do to uncause this. These kind of little annoyances often break the magic of thinking that Mint is high quality, although it's probably my own fault somehow.

**) Screenshot from 2013-03-03 15:17:34.png is an invalid filename. How come I cannot directly upload screenshots I made in Linux Mint on a Linux Mint forum?

[kc1di]

Hello Redsandro,

I can't answer your question as to the differences but I use the adobe one here with mint 13 because it works with chromium-browser and mint-flash does not. I think the adobe one is packaged upstream by ubuntu but I'm not sure about the difference between them.

In any event I use Adobe flash here.

[Redsandro]

I read this:

flashplugin-installer -> Downloads and installs the flashplugin from the default repository. Package name is deprecated but available for compatibility
flashplugin-nonfree -> Exactly the same as flashplugin-installer, but changed name to reflect contents better because it is in the default repository
adobe-flashplugin -> CONTAINS the same plugin as flashplugin-nonfree DOWNLOADS, and is in the partners-repository because it contains tainted code.

I wonder this:

adobe-flashplugin -> ? Flash is proprietary. What does Mint have to do with it?

(Just curious because as per your user experience, I removed it and downloaded the Adobe one. Just to see if the message during update is gone.)

[lotharjade]

So, Redsandro, we should be using Adobe-Flashplugin vs. Mint-Flashplugin??? This post (http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=103032) suggested things actually worked better with the adobe one (at the bottom).

[Redsandro]

Yes, as far as I know.

The Adobe one is usually newer, I see no reason why to use the Mint one. Experience dictates that the Mint version causes trouble more often, so if there was a good reason for using the Mint one, this reason has probably become obsolete.

[zerozero]

there's typically 2 user-cases in which the the use of mint-flashplugin is preferable

• old hardware/old graphics cards that can't cope with hardware acceleration of flash 11.2
• hardware combinations that expose the famous "blue people bug" present in certain versions of flash 11.2

for all the others newer is better, tho outside chrome we are stuck with flash 11.2 for life

[Redsandro]

I have the blue zombies of death bug on my Android smartphone, but I cannot find Mint-flashplugin in the app market.

[zerozero]

but I cannot find Mint-flashplugin in the app market.

Clem should make an android port he would be famous

[MtnDewManiac]

but I cannot find Mint-flashplugin in the app market.

Clem should make an android port he would be famous

That's actually a good idea - as long as he didn't decide to do so by turning our desktop/laptop OS into a giant non-touch non-dialing cell phone in the process like Mr. Shuttleworth did.

Honestly, though, people's time and resources being limited... I'm glad he decided to stick with making excellent OS for us instead of taking time away from that to do the other. Very glad.

[lotharjade]

Aren't there a few open source Flash replacement projects going on in the linux world? At some point isn't it possible that Chromium would move over to one of them?

[malligt]

@ zerozero

there's typically 2 user-cases in which the the use of mint-flashplugin is preferable

old hardware/old graphics cards that can't cope with hardware acceleration of flash 11.2
hardware combinations that expose the famous "blue people bug" present in certain versions of flash 11.2

for all the others newer is better, tho outside chrome we are stuck with flash 11.2 for life

I'm confused here. My synaptic says that both of these are 11.2.

[zerozero]

those are just 2 of the flash versions you find in a normal mint installation;
this is the output from lmde

Code: Select all

aptitude search flashplugin*
p   flashplugin-nonfree            - Adobe Flash Player - browser plugin      
p   flashplugin-nonfree:i386       - Adobe Flash Player - browser plugin      
p   flashplugin-nonfree-extrasound - Adobe Flash Player platform support libra
i   mint-flashplugin               - Metapackage for Adobe Flash plugin       
p   mint-flashplugin-10.2:i386     - Adobe Flash plugin 10.2                  
p   mint-flashplugin-10.3:i386     - Adobe Flash plugin 10.3 Beta 2           
i   mint-flashplugin-11            - Adobe Flash plugin 11                    
p   mint-flashplugin-11:i386       - Adobe Flash plugin 11                    
p   mint-flashplugin-square        - Adobe Flash plugin Square Preview 3     

2 installed and several available

[malligt]

Thanks for the clarification...and you were RIGHT...
I was looking at a "normal" Mint installation (Mint 13 Mate 64 bit) and that's why I had the confusion.
Thanks again!

[MtnDewManiac]

there's typically 2 user-cases in which the the use of mint-flashplugin is preferable

• old hardware/old graphics cards that can't cope with hardware acceleration of flash 11.2
• hardware combinations that expose the famous "blue people bug" present in certain versions of flash 11.2

for all the others newer is better, tho outside chrome we are stuck with flash 11.2 for life

How old are you talking about on the hardware side? I currently have version 11.2.202.291ubuntu0.12.10.1 installed and the hardware that I have access to (I think) ranges from about 2002 to 2004 or so - and it seems to work fine(*). BtW, I'm not sure if that is the newest (non-Googlefied) version of flash that is available for linux or not. It's just what I found to be installed when I ran Synaptic PM and checked.


(*) At least, it works fine on the one that I was able to get a graphics driver working on. The other two, the one that requires the nVidia 173 driver and the one that requires the radeon OS driver... who knows? I can't even watch a regular video that is stored locally and for which I have a video player/codec for.

[alfilr8]

I install linux mint 13 and I couldnt download either ubuntu restricted extras, flash plugin did not work, I solved this with:

sudo dpkg - configure-a

[malligt]

adobe flash player is in the Software Manager