Please remove adobe-flashplugins from mint-meta-codecs-core

[Kevin Tee]

Adobe flash plugins is a large security hole and will be depreciated soon. Please remove from mint-meta-codecs-core and give option to install separately on both during installation and after installation.

[absque fenestris]

Adobe flash plugins is a large security hole and will be depreciated soon. Please remove from mint-meta-codecs-core and give option to install separately on both during installation and after installation.

Doesn't work - is our most beloved zombie

[Kevin Tee]

Adobe flash plugins is a large security hole and will be depreciated soon. Please remove from mint-meta-codecs-core and give option to install separately on both during installation and after installation.

Doesn't work - is our most beloved zombie

It must go, what is the reason to keep it. I want to install codecs for linux mint but I don't want flashplugins. If I uninstall it, I have to remove everything and install other codecs one by one. Does the dev have any comment on this?

[thx-1138]

On Firefox, about:addons, Never Activate. I assume a similar setting exists in Chrome etc...

/usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so
&
/usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libpepflashplayer.so
Remove them at will...

Alternatively, mint-meta-codecs-core is a metapackage. You can remove it & then apt-mark manual the rest of packages / dependencies if you want / understand how to do it.

So, there you go...3 different methods to achieve the above, if you feel their existence is a problem...
'Soon deprecated' -> until late 2020, we still have quite some time ahead...

[Kevin Tee]

On Firefox, about:addons, Never Activate. I assume a similar setting exists in Chrome etc...

/usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libflashplayer.so
&
/usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/libpepflashplayer.so
Remove them at will...

Alternatively, mint-meta-codecs-core is a metapackage. You can remove it & then apt-mark manual the rest of packages / dependencies if you want / understand how to do it.

So, there you go...3 different methods to achieve the above, if you feel their existence is a problem...
'Soon deprecated' -> until late 2020, we still have quite some time ahead...

That is not the point, I know that you can remove it, it is not impossible. I am looking this problem coming from beginner perspective, how can a beginner remove this with ease.
I am actually writing a linux mint for noob handbook and the goal of the handbook is "No command " needed. The use of synaptic package manager is too difficult, people don't usually configure firefox addon, or chrome. It is better to give a big check button instead.

[thx-1138]

.....I am looking this problem coming from beginner perspective, how can a beginner remove this with ease.
I am actually writing a linux mint for noob handbook and the goal of the handbook is "No command " needed........

Kevin, if "No Command" is needed, instructions for absolute newbies would be:
1) Browse to /usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/. Right-click & open as admin, and delete libraries...
2) Update Manager - Edit - Preferences - Blacklist. Click +, type adobe-flashplugin...

[Kevin Tee]

.....I am looking this problem coming from beginner perspective, how can a beginner remove this with ease.
I am actually writing a linux mint for noob handbook and the goal of the handbook is "No command " needed........

Kevin, if "No Command" is needed, instructions for absolute newbies would be:
1) Browse to /usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin/. Right-click & open as admin, and delete libraries...
2) Update Manager - Edit - Preferences - Blacklist. Click +, type adobe-flashplugin...

I understand that you can simply delete the files, what I am saying is that there should be a more straight forward way to do it. I simply suggest it should be improve how we handle known vulnerable packages.
Doesn't blacklisting adobe flash even worse? What I understand is that adobe flash is still installed, but now simply ignore update.

[thx-1138]

To sum up: all of the above are already quite a bit superfluous: you block it in your browser's settings, that's it, end of story, code never executes.

Both Chrome from Google & Firefox from Mozilla haven't purged it with fire yet. They both refer to 2020, in 2 yrs from now:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/doc ... ns/Roadmap
&
https://www.chromium.org/flash-roadmap# ... -Dec-2020-
Not sure where you got this idea that it could be purged with fire earlier than that without any possible consequences for the end-users:
both Google & Mozilla they know their 'security' stuff better than me, you etc etc, else, they wouldn't earn millions of $, and their products wouldn't be used & trusted by billions of people.

I simply suggest it should be improve how we handle known vulnerable packages.

See above how Google & Mozilla handle it.
What's more to 'improve' there?

Of course, it's your system & if being extra cautious & ultra-paranoid, yes, you can delete it altogether:
3 methods presented so far, 2 cli-based and 1 double-clicky-clicky one.

Doesn't blacklisting adobe flash even worse? What I understand is that adobe flash is still installed, but now simply ignore update.

No, because it is already deleted. Gone, poof, nada, non-existent. And this way it is also further assured it will never ever be auto-reinstalled again.
Read my instructions again: if you didn't understand such simple instructions on how to remove & block a single package from being updated, then i rest my case...

[Kevin Tee]

To sum up: all of the above are already quite a bit superfluous: you block it in your browser's settings, that's it, end of story, code never executes.

Both Chrome from Google & Firefox from Mozilla haven't purged it with fire yet. They both refer to 2020, in 2 yrs from now:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/doc ... ns/Roadmap
&
https://www.chromium.org/flash-roadmap# ... -Dec-2020-
Not sure where you got this idea that it could be purged with fire earlier than that without any possible consequences for the end-users:
both Google & Mozilla they know their 'security' stuff better than me, you etc etc, else, they wouldn't earn millions of $, and their products wouldn't be used & trusted by billions of people.

I simply suggest it should be improve how we handle known vulnerable packages.

See above how Google & Mozilla handle it.
What's more to 'improve' there?

Of course, it's your system & if being extra cautious & ultra-paranoid, yes, you can delete it altogether:
3 methods presented so far, 2 cli-based and 1 double-clicky-clicky one.

Doesn't blacklisting adobe flash even worse? What I understand is that adobe flash is still installed, but now simply ignore update.

No, because it is already deleted. Gone, poof, nada, non-existent. And this way it is also further assured it will never ever be auto-reinstalled again.
Read my instructions again: if you didn't understand such simple instructions on how to remove & block a single package from being updated, then i rest my case...

Just to be clear, I know how to remove flash. The point here that it is meant for beginner, for those who never use linux, for computer illiterate. I am trying to find the easiest method to remove flash from the meta package. It seems that linux mint team will not remove flash any time soon, maybe after 2020. Any way I found the answer to that. Thanks.

[Pjotr]

I am trying to find the easiest method to remove flash from the meta package.

You don't need to remove it from the meta package; you can simply remove it together with that meta package. That meta package is nothing more than a groceries list, for groceries that you already have. You can throw it away, together with flash player itself:

Code: Select all

sudo apt-get remove adobe-flashplugin flashplugin-installer

[Hoser Rob]

The really funny thing is that those who are qualified to make such claims as the OP has will damn well know that devs don't read these user forums.

[Kevin Tee]

The really funny thing is that those who are qualified to make such claims as the OP has will damn well know that devs don't read these user forums.

Serious question. How often do they read forums, I know that they read from time to time, but how often?

[Moem]

How often do they read forums, I know that they read from time to time, but how often?

How would anyone know? Apart from the devs themselves, of course.

[JerryF]

Shouldn't this post be in the "Suggestions & New Ideas"?

[rickNS]

The use of synaptic package manager is too difficult

I don't think you'll find very many who share your view on that.

[Kevin Tee]

The use of synaptic package manager is too difficult

I don't think you'll find very many who share your view on that.

I am looking in the perspective of new linux user, computer illiterate, young students, grandma. Synaptic package manager does not have nice looking icon like app store and contain many package with very similar name like aaa, aaa-dev, aaa-doc for example which I am 100% sure that you guys know, but other out of this ecosystem don't.

[rene]

I am looking in the perspective of new linux user, computer illiterate, young students, grandma.

It is a disease. This automatic insistence that people have that other people need to be shielded from having to learn how things work in order to use them. A disease so widespread that it has now, through all the big players in the software industry, caused significantly more than 90% of people in the developed/computerized world to become basically helpless dependents with respect to a technology that is influencing or even controlling ever more of their day to day life.

I assume anyone can come up with reasons why those big players wouldn't necessarily mind the situation, but it continues to amaze me how many individuals take for granted that this is just how things are, need be, shall be.

[Cosmo.]

Synaptic package manager does not have nice looking icon like app store and contain many package with very similar name like aaa, aaa-dev, aaa-doc for example which I am 100% sure that you guys know, but other out of this ecosystem don't.

For Mint 17.3 there are 50.000 packages listed. I doubt, that there are many people, who know only 10 or 20 % of them by name; I don't. But I also use a classical telephone book with ten thousands, in some cities even millions of entries. Also here I do not know only a fraction of the people listed there and a telephone book also has no icons and such, but it works. At least I can find the person or organization, which I need to phone. So this is no convincing argument.

There is software with much eye candy (e. g the software manager) and there is software with much information and much power for configuring. Synaptic belongs to the second fraction. You can use it's power, but you can also use the software with more eye candy. It is your choice.

[Kevin Tee]

Synaptic package manager does not have nice looking icon like app store and contain many package with very similar name like aaa, aaa-dev, aaa-doc for example which I am 100% sure that you guys know, but other out of this ecosystem don't.

For Mint 17.3 there are 50.000 packages listed. I doubt, that there are many people, who know only 10 or 20 % of them by name; I don't. But I also use a classical telephone book with ten thousands, in some cities even millions of entries. Also here I do not know only a fraction of the people listed there and a telephone book also has no icons and such, but it works. At least I can find the person or organization, which I need to phone. So this is no convincing argument.

There is software with much eye candy (e. g the software manager) and there is software with much information and much power for configuring. Synaptic belongs to the second fraction. You can use it's power, but you can also use the software with more eye candy. It is your choice.

Yeah, synaptic is the last resort when I introduce linux to other people. Software manager on linux mint is great now with flatpak!

[absque fenestris]

Yeah, synaptic is the last resort when I introduce linux to other people. Software manager on linux mint is great now with flatpak!

Oops! I would be very careful with that statement...