Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[Frank Steinmetzger]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 01:48:47PM -0500, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:

A bit OT, but:

> > Dale  wrote:
> > > Correct me if I'm wrong here.  Isn't flash supposed to be dying
> > > anyway? Why are so many sites still using it if they should be using
> > > HTML5? Isn't HTML5 supposed to eliminate flash??  
> > 
> > It's been *supposed* to be dying for years, and HTML5 video was hoped
> > to be the silver bullet that would finish it off.
> > [...] 
>   The other problem is that HTML5 sucks up more CPU for video.  My data
> point with an ancient underpowered Atom netbook watching a Youtube music
> video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwqhdRs4jyA

That's one reason why I always download the video before watching. This will
also give me the opportunity to play at higher speeds and use my accustomed
keyboard shortcuts. Youtube may actually support the former, but other
sites... meh.

Thanks to the power of pentadactyl and shell aliases, ’tis a matter of very
few keypresses:
- press y in the browser (yank URL to clipboard)
- switch to a terminal, enter ,y (alias for youtube-dl) and insert the URL
- wait for download, play, enjoy
  (or start playing while still downloading, this is not Windows, after all)

-- 
Gruß | Greetings | Qapla’
Please do not share anything from, with or about me with any social network.

And the bartender said “we do not serve tachyons here.”
A tachyon walks into a bar.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 19:28:16 -0600, Dale wrote:
>
>> I've seen that before.  I use that user agent plugin to switch to
>> something it likes.  Generally, it works.  Basically, you tell the
>> browser to lie and tell it is a windoze machine with IE and carry on. 
>> So far, that has always worked for me. 
> It's better to tell them you're using the Windows version of Firefox or
> Chrome. If you send an IE User_agent, some sites will start messing with
> ActiveX etc.

That is true but in the cases I used that, it required not only M$ but
also IE.  Having it set to Firefox or something would be safer as you
point out, if IE is not also required. 


>> By the way, my bank, credit card company and several other sites don't
>> support Linux.  They still work just fine.  It's just that some still
>> use flash and flash is sort of sick at the moment. 
> There's a difference between unsupported and not working. It works but
> you won't get far if you try to use their helpdesk.
>
>

True but if it works, I don't need the helpdesk.  If it doesn't, then we
are really stuck with no options anyway and back where we was at to
begin with.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-)

P. S.  I think I need a keyboard cleaning.  Some keys are stubborn.  :/ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[Neil Bothwick]

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 19:28:16 -0600, Dale wrote:

> I've seen that before.  I use that user agent plugin to switch to
> something it likes.  Generally, it works.  Basically, you tell the
> browser to lie and tell it is a windoze machine with IE and carry on. 
> So far, that has always worked for me. 

It's better to tell them you're using the Windows version of Firefox or
Chrome. If you send an IE User_agent, some sites will start messing with
ActiveX etc.

> By the way, my bank, credit card company and several other sites don't
> support Linux.  They still work just fine.  It's just that some still
> use flash and flash is sort of sick at the moment. 

There's a difference between unsupported and not working. It works but
you won't get far if you try to use their helpdesk.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

JPEG (JPG)
 Joint Photographic Experts Group. The original name of the
 committee that designed the eponymous standard image compression
 algorithm. Abbreviated to JPG by PPL WHO CNT TYP or WSE PCS ARE BKN.


pgpaUfGUstwTy.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[Mick]

On Saturday 16 Jan 2016 12:49:30 you wrote:
> On Saturday 16 Jan 2016 04:15:33 Dale wrote:
> > Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > > It's better to tell them you're using the Windows version of Firefox or
> > > Chrome. If you send an IE User_agent, some sites will start messing with
> > > ActiveX etc.
> > 
> > That is true but in the cases I used that, it required not only M$ but
> > also IE.  Having it set to Firefox or something would be safer as you
> > point out, if IE is not also required.
> 
> Well I tried channel5 website with a changed FF useragent string, by adding
> a general.useragent.override key in about:config
> 
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/38.0
> 
> and it still failed.

Then tried a MSIE useragent string:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko

and continue to get the same error:

"To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 15.0.0 or greater is 
installed."

:-(

-- 
Regards,
Mick

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[Mick]

On Saturday 16 Jan 2016 04:15:33 Dale wrote:
> Neil Bothwick wrote:

> > It's better to tell them you're using the Windows version of Firefox or
> > Chrome. If you send an IE User_agent, some sites will start messing with
> > ActiveX etc.
> 
> That is true but in the cases I used that, it required not only M$ but
> also IE.  Having it set to Firefox or something would be safer as you
> point out, if IE is not also required.

Well I tried channel5 website with a changed FF useragent string, by adding a 
general.useragent.override key in about:config

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/38.0

and it still failed.  

-- 
Regards,
Mick

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[Dale]

Mick wrote:
> On Saturday 16 Jan 2016 12:49:30 you wrote:
>> On Saturday 16 Jan 2016 04:15:33 Dale wrote:
>>> Neil Bothwick wrote:
 It's better to tell them you're using the Windows version of Firefox or
 Chrome. If you send an IE User_agent, some sites will start messing with
 ActiveX etc.
>>> That is true but in the cases I used that, it required not only M$ but
>>> also IE.  Having it set to Firefox or something would be safer as you
>>> point out, if IE is not also required.
>> Well I tried channel5 website with a changed FF useragent string, by adding
>> a general.useragent.override key in about:config
>>
>> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/38.0
>>
>> and it still failed.
> Then tried a MSIE useragent string:
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko
>
> and continue to get the same error:
>
> "To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 15.0.0 or greater 
> is 
> installed."
>
> :-(
>


Sounds like you need a way to get it to lie about the version of flash
you are using now.  I'm not sure how one would do that but it seems that
is what it is complaining about. 

Sometimes I wish we were back in the days of text, just not dial-up. 
Don't want any more dial-up days.  :/

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 16/01/16 14:54, Mick wrote:

On Saturday 16 Jan 2016 12:49:30 you wrote:

On Saturday 16 Jan 2016 04:15:33 Dale wrote:

Neil Bothwick wrote:

It's better to tell them you're using the Windows version of Firefox or
Chrome. If you send an IE User_agent, some sites will start messing with
ActiveX etc.


That is true but in the cases I used that, it required not only M$ but
also IE.  Having it set to Firefox or something would be safer as you
point out, if IE is not also required.


Well I tried channel5 website with a changed FF useragent string, by adding
a general.useragent.override key in about:config

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/38.0

and it still failed.


Then tried a MSIE useragent string:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko

and continue to get the same error:

"To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 15.0.0 or greater is
installed."

:-(


As already pointed out, you need Google Chrome which comes with recent 
Flash. You can override the User-agent there too and use a Windows 
Chrome string.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[Mick]

On Friday 15 Jan 2016 03:02:07 Dale wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > On 15/01/16 10:15, Peter Weilbacher wrote:
> >> On Thu, 14 Jan 2016, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> >>> I thought these are only security fixes? Version 20 is actully
> >>> feature-complete and in-par with the Windows version 20.
> >>> 
> >>> v11.2.202.559 might be from December, but it's based on an ancient
> >>> version
> >>> from many years ago feature-wise.
> >> 
> >> That may well be the case. But who cares about features in a tool that's
> >> basically dead and only installed on 99.9% of the machines because some
> >> stupid websites[1] need it?
> >> 
> >> Peter.
> >> 
> >> [1] That work with the feature set of v11.2 -- at least I haven't heard
> >> otherwise.
> > 
> > You haven't visited enough porn sites then :-P
> 
> Well, so far that weather radar site is the only one that I have found
> that needs flash.  If they would switch it to HTML5, flash could be
> gone.  I wouldn't complain about that.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)

In the UK websites like Channel 5 will not play on Linux any more:

http://www.channel5.com/demand5

They said that they will not support the platform (too small a percentage of 
users) although I am not sure how android based smart TVs can stream this 
channel.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[Dale]

Mick wrote:
> On Friday 15 Jan 2016 03:02:07 Dale wrote:
>> Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>> On 15/01/16 10:15, Peter Weilbacher wrote:
 On Thu, 14 Jan 2016, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> I thought these are only security fixes? Version 20 is actully
> feature-complete and in-par with the Windows version 20.
>
> v11.2.202.559 might be from December, but it's based on an ancient
> version
> from many years ago feature-wise.
 That may well be the case. But who cares about features in a tool that's
 basically dead and only installed on 99.9% of the machines because some
 stupid websites[1] need it?

 Peter.

 [1] That work with the feature set of v11.2 -- at least I haven't heard
 otherwise.
>>> You haven't visited enough porn sites then :-P
>> Well, so far that weather radar site is the only one that I have found
>> that needs flash.  If they would switch it to HTML5, flash could be
>> gone.  I wouldn't complain about that.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-)
> In the UK websites like Channel 5 will not play on Linux any more:
>
> http://www.channel5.com/demand5
>
> They said that they will not support the platform (too small a percentage of 
> users) although I am not sure how android based smart TVs can stream this 
> channel.


I've seen that before.  I use that user agent plugin to switch to
something it likes.  Generally, it works.  Basically, you tell the
browser to lie and tell it is a windoze machine with IE and carry on. 
So far, that has always worked for me. 

By the way, my bank, credit card company and several other sites don't
support Linux.  They still work just fine.  It's just that some still
use flash and flash is sort of sick at the moment. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 15/01/16 10:15, Peter Weilbacher wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jan 2016, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:


I thought these are only security fixes? Version 20 is actully
feature-complete and in-par with the Windows version 20.

v11.2.202.559 might be from December, but it's based on an ancient version
from many years ago feature-wise.


That may well be the case. But who cares about features in a tool that's
basically dead and only installed on 99.9% of the machines because some
stupid websites[1] need it?
Peter.

[1] That work with the feature set of v11.2 -- at least I haven't heard
otherwise.


You haven't visited enough porn sites then :-P

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[Dale]

Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 15/01/16 10:15, Peter Weilbacher wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jan 2016, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>>
>>> I thought these are only security fixes? Version 20 is actully
>>> feature-complete and in-par with the Windows version 20.
>>>
>>> v11.2.202.559 might be from December, but it's based on an ancient
>>> version
>>> from many years ago feature-wise.
>>
>> That may well be the case. But who cares about features in a tool that's
>> basically dead and only installed on 99.9% of the machines because some
>> stupid websites[1] need it?
>> Peter.
>>
>> [1] That work with the feature set of v11.2 -- at least I haven't heard
>> otherwise.
>
> You haven't visited enough porn sites then :-P
>
>
>


Well, so far that weather radar site is the only one that I have found
that needs flash.  If they would switch it to HTML5, flash could be
gone.  I wouldn't complain about that. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[Peter Weilbacher]

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:

> On 12/01/16 23:10, Róbert Čerňanský wrote:
> > https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/ page:
> >
> > "Adobe Flash Player 11.2 will be the last version to target Linux as a
> > supported platform. Adobe will continue to provide security backports
> > to Flash Player 11.2 for Linux."
>
> That's ancient. The version that comes with Chrome is v20.0.

No, Google just likes to increase their version numbers in big steps so
that you think that they make quick progress. v11.2.202.559 on Linux is
from 28th of December, see 
.

   Peter.

[gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 14/01/16 21:30, Peter Weilbacher wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:


On 12/01/16 23:10, Róbert Čerňanský wrote:

https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/ page:

"Adobe Flash Player 11.2 will be the last version to target Linux as a
supported platform. Adobe will continue to provide security backports
to Flash Player 11.2 for Linux."


That's ancient. The version that comes with Chrome is v20.0.


No, Google just likes to increase their version numbers in big steps so
that you think that they make quick progress. v11.2.202.559 on Linux is
from 28th of December, see 
.


I thought these are only security fixes? Version 20 is actully 
feature-complete and in-par with the Windows version 20.


v11.2.202.559 might be from December, but it's based on an ancient 
version from many years ago feature-wise.

[gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 10/01/16 07:27, Dale wrote:

Howdy,

I keep getting a warning that Flash needs to be upgraded.  I went to
packages.g.o and there doesn't seem to be a newer version than what I
have.  What gives?


Adobe does not update Flash for Linux themselves anymore. They gave that 
to Google. As a side effect, the only way to get the latest Flash 
version on Linux, is to use Google Chrome.

[gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 12/01/16 23:10, Róbert Čerňanský wrote:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:53:41 +0200
Nikos Chantziaras  wrote:


Adobe does not update Flash for Linux themselves anymore. They gave
that to Google. As a side effect, the only way to get the latest
Flash version on Linux, is to use Google Chrome.


Adobe still provides security fixes for version 11.2 though.  From
https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/ page:

"Adobe Flash Player 11.2 will be the last version to target Linux as a
supported platform. Adobe will continue to provide security backports
to Flash Player 11.2 for Linux."


That's ancient. The version that comes with Chrome is v20.0.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[Róbert Čerňanský]

On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:53:41 +0200
Nikos Chantziaras  wrote:

> Adobe does not update Flash for Linux themselves anymore. They gave
> that to Google. As a side effect, the only way to get the latest
> Flash version on Linux, is to use Google Chrome.

Adobe still provides security fixes for version 11.2 though.  From
https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/ page:

"Adobe Flash Player 11.2 will be the last version to target Linux as a
supported platform. Adobe will continue to provide security backports
to Flash Player 11.2 for Linux."

Robert


-- 
Róbert Čerňanský
E-mail: ope...@tightmail.com
Jabber: h...@jabber.sk

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[waltdnes]

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 04:50:58PM -0600, »Q« wrote
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 15:47:47 -0600
> Dale  wrote:
> 
> > Correct me if I'm wrong here.  Isn't flash supposed to be dying
> > anyway? Why are so many sites still using it if they should be using
> > HTML5? Isn't HTML5 supposed to eliminate flash??  
> 
> It's been *supposed* to be dying for years, and HTML5 video was hoped
> to be the silver bullet that would finish it off.  Mozilla certainly
> wants it dead, and IIRC even Google and Adobe have paid lip service to
> killing it off.  Unfortunately (IMO, natch) Mozilla no longer has the
> market share to drive things, and (IMO again) Google doesn't have the
> will to deal with it, despite having taken steps such as using HTML5
> on YouTube.  Mozilla recently announced deprecation of all NPAPI 
> plugins -- except Flash, because people whose news/sports/porn videos
> stopped working would just switch to Chrome.

  The other problem is that HTML5 sucks up more CPU for video.  My data
point with an ancient underpowered Atom netbook watching a Youtube music
video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwqhdRs4jyA

Flash
=
1) Regular (i.e. smallest) display plays OK
2) Wide format display plays OK
3) Fullscreen audio OK, but video stutters badly

HTML5
=
1) Regular (i.e. smallest) display plays OK
2) Wide format audio OK, but video stutters badly
3) Fullscreen; you don't really want to know

-- 
Walter Dnes 
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[Mick]

On Sunday 10 Jan 2016 16:50:58 »Q« wrote:
> AFAIK, with all major browsers supporting HTML5 video, the only reason
> so many sites still require Flash is that it costs money to transition.

With websites usually redesigned every 3-5 years we should hopefully see the 
majority of sites moving off flash soon.  Laggards who don't get hacked may 
take 
up to 10 years though.  :-(
-- 
Regards,
Mick

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[Dale]

»Q« wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 19:26:19 +
> Mick  wrote:
>
>> On Sunday 10 Jan 2016 18:39:43 Ian Bloss wrote:
>>> You can install pepperflash to chromium although it's proprietary.
>>> Google Chrome has pepper flash by default  
>> For Chromium you can install:
>>
>> www-plugins/chrome-binary-plugins
> For Firefox and other NPAPI-using browsers,
> www-plugins/freshplayerplugin is an option.  It's essentially a wrapper
> for PPAPI plugins, and it depends on chrome-binary-plugins.  Using it
> the past few months, I find I no longer get the "your Flash is
> outdated" messages from sites but it crashes much more frequently
> than adobe-flash did.
>
>
>


Correct me if I'm wrong here.  Isn't flash supposed to be dying anyway? 
Why are so many sites still using it if they should be using HTML5? 
Isn't HTML5 supposed to eliminate flash??  I thought Yahoo switched a
good while back.  I know I went in and changed it to use HTML5 but it
still gripes when I go there about flash being a problem.  Odd.

I have a weather site that I use and as far as I know, it is flash
only.  Of course, it is a Govt run site so they will likely be the very
last ones to switch over to the new and improved way too.  :/

I'm planning to do my regular updates shortly.  Maybe something new will
be in the tree by then, I hope anyway.  One good thing about it, it
makes Yahoo not auto-play any more.  ;-) 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[»Q«]

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 19:26:19 +
Mick  wrote:

> On Sunday 10 Jan 2016 18:39:43 Ian Bloss wrote:
> > You can install pepperflash to chromium although it's proprietary.
> > Google Chrome has pepper flash by default  
> 
> For Chromium you can install:
> 
> www-plugins/chrome-binary-plugins

For Firefox and other NPAPI-using browsers,
www-plugins/freshplayerplugin is an option.  It's essentially a wrapper
for PPAPI plugins, and it depends on chrome-binary-plugins.  Using it
the past few months, I find I no longer get the "your Flash is
outdated" messages from sites but it crashes much more frequently
than adobe-flash did.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

[Dale]

»Q« wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 15:47:47 -0600
> Dale  wrote:
>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong here.  Isn't flash supposed to be dying
>> anyway? Why are so many sites still using it if they should be using
>> HTML5? Isn't HTML5 supposed to eliminate flash??  
> It's been *supposed* to be dying for years, and HTML5 video was hoped
> to be the silver bullet that would finish it off.  Mozilla certainly
> wants it dead, and IIRC even Google and Adobe have paid lip service to
> killing it off.  Unfortunately (IMO, natch) Mozilla no longer has the
> market share to drive things, and (IMO again) Google doesn't have the
> will to deal with it, despite having taken steps such as using HTML5
> on YouTube.  Mozilla recently announced deprecation of all NPAPI 
> plugins -- except Flash, because people whose news/sports/porn videos
> stopped working would just switch to Chrome.
>
> I think we have to look to the big social media companies and to
> Google for hope, which is kinda sad.  Facebook has recently completed
> their transition to using HTM5 video. Twitter's Periscope still uses
> Flash.  I don't know what critical mass of sites will get Google to
> drop Flash support, but I think that's the only way it will eventually
> happen.
>
> AFAIK, with all major browsers supporting HTML5 video, the only reason
> so many sites still require Flash is that it costs money to transition.

Crap, it sounds like the buggy has one horse in front and one in the
back.  No matter how you look at it, they still pushing the buggy.  Yes,
the horse in the front is actually pushing because of the way the
harness is made.  Saw that on TV once ages ago.  Weird tho. 


>> I thought Yahoo switched a good while back.  I know I went in and
>> changed it to use HTML5 but it still gripes when I go there about
>> flash being a problem.  Odd.
> I dunno, I don't use Yahoo much.  The griping might be because Yahoo is
> embedding Flash from other sites -- I know they do from nfl.com, at
> least, because I was watching highlights there yesterday.


Well, I tested a theory.  I removed flash.  I then went to youtube and
guess what, the video played fine.  So, Youtube is ready for HTML5 it
seems but defaults to flash it would seem.  Why not the other way around
I wonder   Oh, auto-play was back again too.  Grr!!   lol 


>> I have a weather site that I use and as far as I know, it is flash
>> only.  Of course, it is a Govt run site so they will likely be the
>> very last ones to switch over to the new and improved way too.  :/
> Heh, I just found that NOAAH offers looping radar imagery via Java,
> Flash, HTML5, and animated GIFs.  Talk about the Department of
> Redundancy Department.  

I use a different site, will look into yours in a minute tho.  I just
picked a random radar for a example. 

http://radar.weather.gov/ridge/radar.php?rid=GLD=NCR=1110=yes


No flash, no worky.  :-( 

>> I'm planning to do my regular updates shortly.  Maybe something new
>> will be in the tree by then, I hope anyway.  One good thing about it,
>> it makes Yahoo not auto-play any more.  ;-) 
> :-)  That's one of the big arguments in favor of open tech on the web,
> that it gives users more control of their experiences.  I don't know of
> a way to prevent Flash autoplay short of something like FlashBlock.
>
>
>

Well, I do.  Just use a version of flash with a security problem.  Just
saying.  ROFL 

At least it isn't supposed to rain for a week or so.  I can't go without
that site for a little bit anyway. 

Dale

:-)  :-)