On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Martin Steigerwald <[email protected]>wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 16. September 2012 schrieb lee: > > Frank McCormick <[email protected]> writes: > > > On 15/09/12 06:30 PM, lee wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> trying out chromium, I have found that both seamonkey and chromium > > >> are able to play arbitrary videos found on youtube. I used to have > > >> > > > Chrome has built-in Flash - it's called PepperFlash so it does not > > > > > > depend on external libraries, > > > > Interesting, I was considering this possibility. It doesn't explain > > how seamonkey can play flash, unless it has it built in as well. > > > > > > Adobe says on their website: "Flash Player 11.2 is the last supported > > Flash Player version for Linux. Adobe will continue to provide security > > updates."[1] > > > > What's that supposed to mean? Will we soon have to go without flash > > when that version becomes incompatible, unless we use chromium? > > Well I think it means exactly what is stated there: > > There will be security updates and thats it. > people don't like knowing that their neighbor might have the pawn_me() feature that they don't. if adobe would've stopped messing around with pdf at 4 or 5 and just made security updates, do you know how much time and effort (and data loss) would've been saved? i'm not saying this is another 'leave well enough alone' situation - it's obviously a business decision - however i don't think it's a bad decision. now, if oracle were to say the same thing about, say java, i'd go hide in a cave for a few years.
