Ubuntu – Why don’t I have to accept a EULA when installing Adobe Flash Player

Oranges10e have tried several Browsers, including the newest Chrome and the newest Firefox, and he says:

" Since there are many threads/topics and questions about this, I will provide the information I have found, during my long, long search for a solution to this problem (see my own Solution below).

SOLUTION (there is none):

In order to prevent endless searching for a solution to this problem (took me a few days to find out), which can be a real pain, please read this:

According to an Adobe Employee, Hardware Acceleration has been disabled in recent Adobe Flash versions for Linux and Linux only. At the time being, there is no "official" way to get it working again - not even by installing the prop. Nvidia drivers, including VDPAU acceleration. This was the solution to older Adobe Flash versions - not anymore.

The main reason for this move was:

1. Security concerns.
2. Unstable Nvidia/AMD/Intel and Open Source drivers - in combination with Adobe Flash Hardware-Acceleration.

Here the Link to the thread, where this has been discussed and confirmed: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/911321

Quote from the Link above:

"Unfortunately given the current landscape of graphics drivers and support for Linux based operating systems, we could not support Linux with Hardware Acceleration. Most drivers, including the ones provided from Intel/NVIDIA/AMD were too unstable to consistently work with the Flash Player. Sorry for the inconvienience." - Charbs09, Adobe Employee

"As of FP 11.0.1.152 there is no way to turn on HW Acceleration for Linux. We disabled it entirely facing security concerns, but we may re-enable an unsupported method in a future release." - Charbs09, Adobe Employee

So, before you go out and buy an ION Netbook, Nettop or any kind of PC, wishing to use it in a combination of Linux/Ubuntu and Adobe Flash 11.x, with the intention to playback HD-Videos (720p, 1080p) with full Hardware Acceleration, please consider the above mentioned info. I did not, and sadly, I realized this too late (because I was trying out several other methodes to get this working again, before I found the Link above). "

The distinction between restricted and multiverse is that Ubuntu itself pledges to support the software in restricted, whereas software in multiverse is provided by Ubuntu but with no guarantee of Ubuntu support. I's not really fair to say universe and multiverse software is "unsupported", just that support will be dependent on the third party that produced it, or other third parties, and/or the "Ubuntu community": volunteers that package software for Ubuntu. This is opposed to software in main and restricted where Ubuntu have allocated dedicated people to ensure its support.

The distinction between restricted/multiverse and main/universe is that the software in restricted/multiverse is not fully free by Ubuntu's definition of free software, though it is still free enough for Ubuntu to distribute it in a repository. Usually this means that it contains binary code for which the source is not available, though sometimes it can be other licensing issues.

So, technically, multiverse contains software that:

• Ubuntu can distribute, but is not fully free - probably contains binary code without source.
• Ubuntu itself doesn't guarantee to support.

What are examples of packages in multiverse?

Chiefly, ubuntu-restricted-extras is a metapackage containing a suite of software Ubuntu thinks you really are likely to want, even though it's not open source software.

• Installer for Adobe's Flash plug-in

• Microsoft Core Fonts for the Web

• A selection of video or audio codecs with non-free licenses

• Unrar

Other packages in multiverse, but not part of ubuntu-restricted-extras, include a small range of Linux based software included either because Ubuntu thinks you're very likely to want to install it on Ubuntu, or because it is very much open source software in spirit but misses out on qualifying with Ubuntu's definition of free software for some reason, such as by including some binary code without source, or some license terms that make its license incompatible (eg a non-commercial clause, or any other "custom" clauses added to otherwise compatible open source licenses).