[sf-lug] jim unsatisfied with apt-get and adobe flash and other things
jim at well.com
Mon Nov 24 18:42:18 PST 2008
well, thanks again and again. briefly:
* i'm in this because i'm trying to help an impoverished
musician avoid spending $100 or more per hour for someone
to edit a simple HTML file. to verify my work, i have to
access her web site, which looks like it was done on
windows with windows for windows. haven't dragged out a
mac to see if that box sees things correctly. i abjectly
got to a windows machine (old w98) and things worked.
i'm completely new to multimedia and generally avoid it.
* i like CLI, but try sometimes to be a good boy and
follow instructions, even GUI, when i'm asking for help
(i like help from sf-lug people much better than from
i don't use synaptic or upgrade whatever or much else
from the GUI system menu, this being an exceptional case.
* examples help loads. the so-called "arguments:" now look
like path specifications to me.
in the file:
deb http://linux.csua.berkeley.edu/ubuntu/ hardy main multiverse
on the target system:
the manpage-like syntax now seems to look like:
(deb | deb-src) URI Release_subdirectory [branch_subdirectories...]
* yes, it was a last resort effort, done with tears in eyes.
* you misspelled fu
* i agree with some of your comments and accept the rest
as i have limited experience in many areas. interesting
deprecation of adobe code given the stresses put on
postscript, but likely flash for linux is a q 'n' d
port. your comments remind me of snide remarks some folks
have made about BIOS code (they were experts, too).
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 18:16 -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting jim (jim at well.com):
> Catching up on earlier postings....
> ["added", below, refers to /etc/apt/source.list:
> > * note i've added
> > # linux.csua.berkeley.edu
> > * to the very bottom of the file
> Uh-oh. Just "linux.csua.berkeley.edu" is _not_ a valid sources.list
> line, for reasons that I hope should now be apparent.
> > * here's what happened before i put the comment delimiter
> > * at the head of that line
> > * Synaptic Package Manager reports An error occured:
> > E: Type 'linux.csua.berkeley.edu' is not known on line 61 in source
> > list /etc/apt/sources.list
> > E: The list of sources could not be read.
> > Go to the repository dialog to correct the problem.
> > E: _cache->open() failed, please report.
> > * what is a "repository dialog" and how to go to it?
> Presumably, that's part of Synaptic where you can use a graphical
> front-end to edit the contents of /etc/apt/sources.list .
> Synaptic, to quote Mr. Lincoln, is "the sort of thing that will be
> enjoyed by those who enjoy that sort of thing". I'm not able (or
> particularly willing) to help people with Synaptic particulars for the
> simple reason that I don't use it.
> Or, as the French say (presumably after an evening of rich food),
> everyone has his or her own gout.
> On the named Web host at Berkeley, I find things like
> So, if you wanted to add those four "hardy" collections in
> binary-package format only, and are on i386 arch, you could say:
> deb http://linux.csua.berkeley.edu/ubuntu/ hardy main multiverse restricted universe
> > * also in (greater) dispair i tried to install "flash"
> > * from the adobe website:
> Should be, FYI, an absolute last resort. Pretty much every distro has
> a package that, when installed, _fetches_ the Adobe proprietary Flash
> interpreter and installs it in a distro-appropriate manner. (In other
> words, it's a wrapper for installation purposes. Using it ensures that
> the installation follows distro policies and that your package subsystem
> knows that the software's there.) Never, ever, ever trust Adobe to know
> what's good for a Linux distribution, even where they profess to have a
> binary package tailored for distribution [foo].
> They don't get these things right, they don't really care enough to
> actually try, they have no incentive to obey distribution policies, and
> there's no reason on Earth you should trust them more than you have to.
> You'll find plenty of Web pages that explain that you should just go to
> Adobe's site and download (blah blah blah). They're all giving bad
> advice -- except as a last resort.
> I'm unclear on whether Ubuntu's wrapper package is "flashplugin-nonfree"
> or "adobe-flashplugin". Inquire. ;-> For all I know, the second name
> might have obsoleted, i.e., replaced the first one. That would be my
> guess. Personally, I consider Adobe's code to be horrifically buggy and
> a security menace, and do my best to have nothing to do with it. If
> obliged to install that creeping horror anyway, for Heaven's sake put in
> NoScript (http://noscript.net/features) so you can determine when/if it
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
More information about the sf-lug