Ubuntu Multimedia :: Adobe Air Update Manager Offers Older Version?
Jan 21, 2011
Using: Ubuntu Lucid The Update Manager has placed me with an odd dilemma, it says that: "adobeair (version 2.5.1.17730) will be upgraded to version 1:2.0.4.13090-1lucid1"
So 'updating' version 2.5 with version 1.2 I think this has happened because Adobe Air updates itself (asking permission first of course) using it's own dialog box from time to time when I run BBC iPlayer Desktop. What should I do, update or not?
i uninstalled the latest version of adobe flash cause i dont like the latest and wanted to install and older version such as 10.1 from 11 June, 2010 but i dont know where to download a version of this for Ubuntu or how to install. So if any one can provide me a link to download this version and how to install it
every here and there i enter a page where a box pops up:Additional plugins are required to display all the media on this page . After a number of steps I am at a page by Adobe, and I download what seems to be a generic package (Ubuntu will of course be there).But its instalation has never proved helpful. Still the same pop-up. Are there binaries for Slack or a way to get the sources?
Ubuntu Lucid 10.04 Today, 23.11.2010, the update manager did present two posts with adobe flash plugin updates at the top of the list.
Since I abhor adobe as much as m$, I never installed their flash plugin but did use gnash instead (which works sometimes, and sometimes not...)
So my first question was, why should I update a thing that I do not have and do not want ? Following I did UNcheck the checkbox of these two updates, which in my mind means that Update manager must NOT do these UNchecked updates, isn't it ?
I was terrified to observe that, even UNchecked, the adobe flash plugin has been installed against my will. I would have expected such arrogance from m$, but not from Ubuntu...
Of course, I went to synaptic immediately to uninstall this crap. Knowing how hard it is to get rid of flash under m$, I have some doubts about the fact if synaptic did really uninstall this crap cleanly and completely. I would not be astonished to find at least some remains on my HD one of these days. My current feeling is that nobody on earth can be trusted any more...
1. I would really like to know why these updates were listed in the update manager at all, when the thing to update was never installed before.
2. And I would like to know why they were dictatorially imposed, even though I did UNcheck them.
I was wondering if anyone could answer my question. For some reason I've been trying to update my flash player and every time I try and do this from the terminal it tells me that the command can't be found, even though the zip file that contains the update is executable and my PATH has been set to include the directory that said file is in. I am running ubuntu 11 .04 and here [URL]...If there is any other way that I can execute the update?
I installed Ubuntu 10.04 beta a couple of days back.This is the first time I am using a beta release.Some programs are crashing, although not frequently.
My question is - WHEN THE FINAL VERSION OF UBUNTU 10.04 IS AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD, IS IT MANDATORY TO DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE ? OR WILL UPDATING OR UPGRADING VIA THE system ---- administration --- update manager will upgrade my current beta version to the final release ???
Specifically, I want Clementine player 0.6, but the guy that installed Ubuntu on my laptop put natty narwhal alpha 1 on it (don't ask me why. I wanted maverick since its stable but he never really asked. The whole thing was kinda a surprise), and Clementine only offers downloads for Ubuntu distros up to maverick. So. Can I/is there a way I can install it anyway? Or am I forced to just use Banshee until the official Update comes out and Clementine is updated in....
When I boot up ubuntu 10.10, at first it looks fine, but after just a few minutes the color scheme will change to look like older versions of ubuntu (like 9.04). By this I mean that the top and bottom bar turn light grey instead of dark grey, and that icons and scroll bars in open windows look old.
Here is a screen shot of what it looks like. Keep in mind that this is in fact 10.10[URL]... Another interesting thing is that when I go to system->preferences->appearance->visual effects, none of the three options are checked (though compiz and emerald are still working fine). The weird thing, though, is that just opening the appearance window seems to temporarily solve the problem.
Is an older version of Ubuntu or other Linux OS available that would work well in my older computer?
I have a computer that is about 11 years old that I would like to put to use. It is not the only computer at my home. I would just like to use it since I still have it. It will run Windows ME that came installed in it very well. Problem with that is that I am not able to locate virus and firewell software that will run on old versions such as ME.
An upgrade to XP is just to slow to live with. I loaded the latest Ubuntu 11.04 that works just fine other than it is even slower than is XP.
The computer is a tower type of desktop that has an 800 mhz Celeron processor with the maximum memory possible that is 512 kb if I recall correctly. I am connected to a 512 kbit DSL.
I think that what I would like to do is to install a Linux OS along side the Win ME and only go on line with the Linux program. Then I can still run a couple of programs that I cannot run with the Linux OS. I would kind of like to stay with Ubuntu since I have used it for a couple of years in a different computer and am use to it.
My favorite IM application, Pidgin,have been causing me some problems with it's new release (2.9.0).More specifically I can't see friends which are visible in normal versions of MSN or hotmail web interface, even though I have searched any options available thoroughly. Also some of my contacts can see me online but cannot message me.
Therefore, I would like to install an older version to find out whether these problems are version or application related. However the only available version is 2.9.0 and I would like to downgrade to an older version,let's say 2.6.0 but I have no idea on how to do that.
my ubuntu version has changed from v.2.6.27-7 to 2.6.35.-- while i was trying to install my lxu800 modem.my modem was not intalled. this upgradation took place when i installed linux-image-2.6.27-7.deb files. now i want to get my older version of ubuntu. how can i do it.
I bought this Radeon 4670 [URL] to improve my video. Although the description on ATI-AMD webpage [URL] specifies that this card can output up to 7.1 audio through HDMI, Sound Controls only shows the stereo and off option. ATI Catalyst does not have any controls for audio. Is there a way to get 5.1 audio enabled? Using 10.04.
I have problem installing a program (GTNets) since it requires an older version of g++ (3.3), while the current version of g++ is 4.4 in my ubuntu installation (vers 9.10). Can anyone give me recommendations on how to solve this?
I guess that there should be able to install an older version of g++ in addition to the current g++. Furthermore, the current should be the default, while the older is an optional version.
I installed Ubuntu version 8.04 (Hardy) on my P4 3.4 GHz PC but it was so unstable with daily kernel crashes that I was forced to go back to XP. This year, I�m building a HTPC using an old but unused Abit AN-M2HD, a brand new Athlon 5600+ Brisbane CPU, new 2TB Seagate HD, new G.Skill 8 GB DDR2 PC8500 1066 RAM and a wireless keyboard.
The HTPC will be a server hub with my laptop and P4 still using XP. It will be used for surfing the web, playing games and maybe to record Blueray movies (is that even possible?). I will search the forums for how to make my HTPC the server hub but I�m posting here because I want to try Ubuntu again. I am torn between an older version 7.00 or 6.00 which matches the vintage of my hardware or a new version that can potentially be unstable again.
The upgrade instructions say you can use the upgrade manager to go from 10.4 to 10.10. I am currently running 9.10. Will this still work? Or do I have to go to 10.4 first? Or can I download the 10.10 alternate install iso and upgrade directly with that for both my Ubuntu and UbuntuStudio installations?
Previously I had setup 2 Snapstream remotes using ubuntu 7.10, see the following url: [URL] The issue I'm having is a file no longer exists (/etc/modprobe.d/aliases). This file allowed for the id setup for each remote. I searched for the file but could not find it. Can someone lead me to it or another file that will serve the same purpose?
I am using Lucid Lynx. sun-java6-jre in the repository is 1.6.0_22, i am trying to run an application that needs sun-java6-jre 1.6.0_2. Is there anyway i can get this version via synaptic?
I do some volunteer work repairing and re-purposing older computers for the Salvation Army Thrift store where I live. Of course most of the computers we get are older. My reason is to get some of the poorer kids a fighting chance at school. We sell these things for next to nothing to accomplish this. I include free tech/training support for 30 days to get them started as. My problem is that finding a version of ubuntu and openoffice that will run on them is becoming difficult. Any suggestions as to a version that works for those not real familiar with computers?
Code: apt-get source linux-image-2.6.32-21-generic Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Picking 'linux' as source package instead of 'linux-image-2.6.32-21-generic' NOTICE: 'linux' packaging is maintained in the 'Git' version control system at: kernel.ubuntu.com/git-repos/u...untu-lucid.git Need to get 86.7MB of source archives. Get:1 pt.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ lucid-updates/main linux 2.6.32-24.39 (dsc) [5,568B] Version 2.6.32-24 is downloaded instead... What command can I use to download 2.6.32-21 - and not a newer one?
No matter which glibc I use, I get the error that I need a compiler that supports visibility. I'm using 4.4.5, so it can't be too old.What is the visibility for gnu, this is a compile for glibc.Any glibc fails for the same reason. I can't compile an older version of gcc, more errors. Is it possible to turn off the check for visibility?
this is my first time actually asking for help here, so forgive me if I make any mistakes. The other day I was trying to install Ubuntu 9.10 on my mom's old system (not too old, has vista on it) and even from the live cd it wouldn't boot. Then I tried 8.04 because I know that works on my XP system. However it would freeze during boot but at least showed that it was booting (the bar was starting to fill).
The system is an eMachine T5226: CPU : Intel Pentium D Processor 925 (Dual-Core) 64-bit processor with Intel EM64T Technology (Each core operates at 3.0GHz | 2 x 2MB L2 Cache | 800MHz FSB) Operating System : Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium Chipset : Intel 945G
[Code]...
Since we bought it it's been upgraded to 2 GB of ram and has a nVidia 8400gs video card and a belkin wireless adapter now. I can't understand why the live cds won't fully boot since my single core 2.2Ghz boots just fine with 8.04.
I was thinking of trying 6.06 to see of that might work. However I was unsure if the system is capable of running Ubuntu and might need Kubuntu or another distro.
I just upgraded to 10.04, and am quite happy with it so far, but it installed Firefox 3.6, which is a problem for me because I need to be able to use the Jssh plugin, which isn't available for 3.6 yet. All I need to do is downgrade Firefox to 3.5, but I seem to be having some issues, it seems that there is only the one version available to me in Synaptic. Is there another repository that I need to add to have access to an older version?
When I turn on my computer, because of frequent updates it will display several versions of Ubuntu 10.10 that I can choose from. I wonder if it is possible to delete some of the older versions and how. I think having several versions of Ubuntu uses up a lot of space in the hard drive.
Is there any legal way to install an older version of linux-kernel (say 2.6.35) on 11.04? By legal I mean - no source-compiling and third-party repo adding.
