Warren Togami wrote: > Jeff Spaleta wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Dennis J. <dennisml@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> But that's the point. For quite a few people browser stability actually >>> *decreases* when nspluginwrapper is installed. >> >> No... your browser lives... the flash plugin dies. >> >> Without the wrapper... if the flash plugin does something crash-worthy >> it crashes firefox completely. The way the wrapper works..flash >> dies..the browser lives. >> >> -jef >> > > nspluginwrapper development is still important. This is because > nspluginwrapper runs plugins in a separate process, enabling the browser > to survive inevitable plugin bugs, and also the possibility of > additional security through security policy isolation of that separate > process. Fedora 8+ has run all plugins, even native 32bit-on-32bit, > wrapped in nspluginwrapper for this purpose. > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/nspluginwrapper-d... > nspluginwrapper development discussion here. Please report your problems > running the latest nspluginwrapper (currently 1.1.4) here. Gwenole is > very good about responding to reports, often with patches to try. > > If you don't want to deal with reporting bugs, you are free to remove > nspluginwrapper. But then you have to live with the browser crashes. > > http://macromedia.mplug.org/ > I maintain a list of tips and workarounds to workaround Flash problems > here. > Does 32-bit flash-plugin have to be removed? I like to use a 32-bit flock around. Can I have both 32-bit flash and 64-bit flash? And, what will nspluginwrapper think of this? (I hope it will wrap the 64-bit version for 64 bit and the 32-bit version for 32 bit) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
