Re: Flash and Chrome - was Re: FireFox Error

[Konstantin Olchanski]

> 
> > http://www.muktware.com/5203/google-says-red-hat-enterprise-linux-6-obsolete
> 

Meanwhile, SL6 google-chrome updated from version 26 to version 27.

Updating:
 google-chrome-stable   x86_64   27.0.1453.93-200836  google-chrome51 M


-- 
Konstantin Olchanski
Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow!
Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca
Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada

Re: Flash and Chrome - was Re: FireFox Error

[Dr Andrew C Aitchison]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:


P.S. One thing is clear now. It looks as if people who see the warning are 
running
chromium from chromium, not google-chrome from google.


Hmm. I got mine via yum from 
http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/rpm/stable/x86_64

just as described in
http://www.triumf.info/wiki/DAQwiki/index.php/SLinstall#Install_Google_Chrome_web_browser

The rpm I used is at
https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~werdna/google-chrome/NOBACKUP/google-chrome-stable-26.0.1410.43-189671.x86_64.rpm

This picture shows the warning
https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~werdna/google-chrome/NOBACKUP/chrome-unsupported.png
- the "learn more" link points to
http://support.google.com/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=95411

The rpmquert information makes me think this is chrome not chromium
- what am I missing ? Or did different mirrors around the world
have different versions ?

# rpmquery -ip google-chrome-stable-26.0.1410.43-189671.x86_64.rpm
warning: google-chrome-stable-26.0.1410.43-189671.x86_64.rpm: Header V4 
DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 7fac5991

Name: google-chrome-stable Relocations: /opt
Version : 26.0.1410.43  Vendor: Google Inc.
Release : 189671Build Date: Thu 21 Mar 2013 
19:41:44 GMT
Install Date: (not installed)   Build Host: 
lin64build10.chrome.corp.google.com
Group   : Applications/Internet Source RPM: 
google-chrome-stable-26.0.1410.43-189671.src.rpm
Size: 162622866License: Multiple, see 
http://chrome.google.com/
Packager: Chrome Linux Team 
URL : http://chrome.google.com/
Summary : Google Chrome
Description : The web browser from Google

Google Chrome is a browser that combines a minimal design with 
sophisticated technology to make the web faster, safer, and easier.


--
Dr. Andrew C. Aitchison Computer Officer, DPMMS, Cambridge
a.c.aitchi...@dpmms.cam.ac.uk   http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~werdna

Re: Flash and Chrome - was Re: FireFox Error

[Konstantin Olchanski]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 06:38:28PM +0200, David Sommerseth wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, there. I am extremely super curious - "what warning?"
> > 
> > https://plus.google.com/u/0/112648813199640203443/posts/7LrVTf43yz8
>
> 
> 

And *that* link refers to:
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=175842
and
https://plus.google.com/u/0/100132233764003563318/posts/Y1s6T44Soby

And this is all from last February (it is April now).

The issue seems to be related to the required GTK version (rpm -q gtk2).

Here is today's version of the relevant code:
http://git.chromium.org/gitweb/?p=chromium/chromium.git;a=blob;f=chrome/browser/ui/startup/obsolete_os_prompt_gtk.cc;h=a27746e4fd1d32d93867efc32784bff057c370bc;hb=3a9448cfd3ae19cc02ed441beaff4359d9925516

SL6 gtk2 is gtk2-2.18.9-12.el6.x86_64
required by google-chrome is: gtk_check_version(2, 18, 0)

So looks like we are okey, right? 2.18 present, 2.18 required.


But wait, there is more!

the g+ code snapshot has the function name "ObsoleteOSinfobar::Create",
the code I found looks completely different. So what is going on?

google search to the rescue, here it is:
https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome/trunk/src/chrome/browser/ui/startup/obsolete_os_infobar_delegate.cc
and it has: gtk_check_version(2, 24, 0)

I do not know why codes at git.chromium.org and at src.chromium.org are so 
different.


Now, will the real source code for google-chrome stand up please.


P.S. One thing is clear now. It looks as if people who see the warning are 
running
chromium from chromium, not google-chrome from google.


-- 
Konstantin Olchanski
Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow!
Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca
Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada

Re: Flash and Chrome - was Re: FireFox Error

[Clint Bowman]

The message is real.  I recall seeing it on a computer at home sometime 
within the past month--however I don't recall whether it was on my wife's 
Windows 7 or my Fedora box.


Clint BowmanINTERNET:   cl...@ecy.wa.gov
Air Quality Modeler INTERNET:   cl...@math.utah.edu
Department of Ecology   VOICE:  (360) 407-6815
PO Box 47600FAX:(360) 407-7534
Olympia, WA 98504-7600

USPS:   PO Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600
Parcels:300 Desmond Drive, Lacey, WA 98503-1274

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:



Hi, there. I am extremely super curious - "what warning?"



https://plus.google.com/u/0/112648813199640203443/posts/7LrVTf43yz8
Akemi



So far this is the one and only evidence of this supposed warning.

Personally, I think that image is fake - the shown popup
comes from the self-update function, but google-chrome installed
from RPM through the google yum repo does not have the "self update"
function (cannot have the self-update function - it runs as normal
user, but self-update require root permissions).

I am beating this dead horse because persons on this mailing list
claim seeing some kind of warning, but when pressed, cannot
provide any details, not even the version of google-chrome
that produces the warning, refering me to this fishy g+ message instead.


--
Konstantin Olchanski
Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow!
Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca
Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada

Re: Flash and Chrome - was Re: FireFox Error

[Konstantin Olchanski]

> >
> > Hi, there. I am extremely super curious - "what warning?"
> >
> 
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/112648813199640203443/posts/7LrVTf43yz8
> Akemi


So far this is the one and only evidence of this supposed warning.

Personally, I think that image is fake - the shown popup
comes from the self-update function, but google-chrome installed
from RPM through the google yum repo does not have the "self update"
function (cannot have the self-update function - it runs as normal
user, but self-update require root permissions).

I am beating this dead horse because persons on this mailing list
claim seeing some kind of warning, but when pressed, cannot
provide any details, not even the version of google-chrome
that produces the warning, refering me to this fishy g+ message instead.


-- 
Konstantin Olchanski
Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow!
Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca
Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada

Re: Flash and Chrome - was Re: FireFox Error

[David Sommerseth]

On 17/04/13 18:18, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Konstantin Olchanski
>  wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 09:05:45AM +0100, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
>>>
>> Ever since I installed that version, google-chrome warns me that
>> it has stopped supporting this version of my operating system ...

 Meanwhile another update to google-chrome descended from heaven.
>>>
>>> Thank you. The warning was present with
>>>   google-chrome-stable-26.0.1410.43-189671.x86_64
>>> but has gone with
>>>   google-chrome-stable-26.0.1410.63-192696.x86_64
>>
>>
>> Hi, there. I am extremely super curious - "what warning?"
>>
>> I have never seen one and I would like to know where it was and how it 
>> looked.
>>
>> Was it on the browser "about" page? A popup when the updated browser
>> is first started? In the syslog? Where was it?
> 
> The very original (?) post by a Red Hat evangelist has an image here:
> 
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/112648813199640203443/posts/7LrVTf43yz8
> 

Please see that message in context of this one too:


Not a fully optimal solution for all the Chrome users, but at least not
as misleading as it was before.


--
kind regards,

David Sommerseth

Re: Flash and Chrome - was Re: FireFox Error

[Akemi Yagi]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Konstantin Olchanski
 wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 09:05:45AM +0100, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
>>
>> >>>Ever since I installed that version, google-chrome warns me that
>> >>>it has stopped supporting this version of my operating system ...
>> >
>> >Meanwhile another update to google-chrome descended from heaven.
>>
>> Thank you. The warning was present with
>>   google-chrome-stable-26.0.1410.43-189671.x86_64
>> but has gone with
>>   google-chrome-stable-26.0.1410.63-192696.x86_64
>
>
> Hi, there. I am extremely super curious - "what warning?"
>
> I have never seen one and I would like to know where it was and how it looked.
>
> Was it on the browser "about" page? A popup when the updated browser
> is first started? In the syslog? Where was it?

The very original (?) post by a Red Hat evangelist has an image here:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/112648813199640203443/posts/7LrVTf43yz8


Akemi

Re: Flash and Chrome - was Re: FireFox Error

[Konstantin Olchanski]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 09:05:45AM +0100, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2013, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
> 
> >>>Ever since I installed that version, google-chrome warns me that
> >>>it has stopped supporting this version of my operating system ...
> >
> >Meanwhile another update to google-chrome descended from heaven.
> 
> Thank you. The warning was present with
>   google-chrome-stable-26.0.1410.43-189671.x86_64
> but has gone with
>   google-chrome-stable-26.0.1410.63-192696.x86_64


Hi, there. I am extremely super curious - "what warning?"

I have never seen one and I would like to know where it was and how it looked.

Was it on the browser "about" page? A popup when the updated browser
is first started? In the syslog? Where was it?


-- 
Konstantin Olchanski
Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow!
Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca
Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada

Re: Flash and Chrome - was Re: FireFox Error

[Dr Andrew C Aitchison]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:


Ever since I installed that version, google-chrome warns me that
it has stopped supporting this version of my operating system ...


Meanwhile another update to google-chrome descended from heaven.


Thank you. The warning was present with
google-chrome-stable-26.0.1410.43-189671.x86_64
but has gone with
google-chrome-stable-26.0.1410.63-192696.x86_64

I guess that Red Hat and Google have sorted this out.

--
Dr. Andrew C. Aitchison Computer Officer, DPMMS, Cambridge
a.c.aitchi...@dpmms.cam.ac.uk   http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~werdna

Re: Flash and Chrome - was Re: FireFox Error

[Konstantin Olchanski]

>
> >> Updates of google-chrome for SL6 have not stopped.
>
> >
> > Ever since I installed that version, google-chrome warns me that
> > it has stopped supporting this version of my operating system ...
> >


Meanwhile another update to google-chrome descended from heaven.

And I looked and I looked again and then some more, and I do not see
any thing that looks like "google-chrome warns me that it has stopped
supporting this version of my operating system". Where and how do you
see this warning. I install google-chrome per instructions here:
http://www.triumf.info/wiki/DAQwiki/index.php/SLinstall#Install_Google_Chrome_web_browser


> I think chromium is upstream to google-chrome. There will be no more
> support for SL/CentOS/RHEL 6 after version 26.


Do you have an authoritative reference for this statement?


> That's why we are getting the warning message.


What warning message? Where do you see it?


> The reason for the EOL is rumored to be the chromium devs want to use
> C++11 features of newer gcc.


This is an explanation for people who have never heard of cross-compilation 
(you use
a shiny new development machine to build binaries that run on crusty
old SL6). (People who do chrome and firefox and opera know cross-compilation
because anything built for Android is cross-compiled).


> The only hope I see is for chromium devs
> to use a newer gcc provided here ...


You do not need any "our last hope of gcc provided here". Anybody can
build their own copy of GCC from sources. It is not hard, especially
not if you intend to build something as complex as a web browser.


-- 
Konstantin Olchanski
Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow!
Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca
Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada

Re: Flash and Chrome - was Re: FireFox Error

[Robert Arkiletian]

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Dr Andrew C Aitchison
 wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2013, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:09:45AM +0100, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) For those who haven't heard this, some links:
>>> http://support.google.com/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en-GB&answer=95411
>>
>>
>> RHEL/SL/SLC are not listed at all. No announcement anywhere on google
>> about adding or dropping support for any specific version of RHEL/SL.
>>
>>> http://www.muktware.com/5203/google-says-red-hat-enterprise-linux-6-obsolete
>>
>>
>> Information at above link is factually incorrect.
>> Updates of google-chrome for SL6 have not stopped.
>>
>> Latest update is google-chrome-stable-26.0.1410.43-189671.x86_64
>> with build date Thu Mar 21 12:41:44 2013.
>
>
> Ever since I installed that version, google-chrome warns me that
> it has stopped supporting this version of my operating system
> - I'm running Scientific Linux release 6.3 (Carbon).
>
> "yum --enablerepo=google-chrome list" does list
> google-chrome-beta.x86_64   26.0.1410.43-189671  google-chrome
> google-chrome-unstable.x86_64   27.0.1453.12-191631  google-chrome
> so there may be more releases to come, but it is worth noting that
> google-chrome-beta and google-chrome-stable are curently the same version.
> The unstables are still being updated nightly (but is that a script on
> auto-pilot?)
>
> Updates may be continuing but Google *is* telling me,
> in a very obvious way, that they have stopped
>

I think chromium is upstream to google-chrome. There will be no more
support for SL/CentOS/RHEL 6 after version 26. That's why we are
getting the warning message. Debian 6 is also begging for more support
but I don't think they are going to get it as Debian 7 is close to
release. We are in a different boat.

The reason for the EOL is rumored to be the chromium devs want to use
C++11 features of newer gcc. The only hope I see is for chromium devs
to use a newer gcc provided here

http://red.ht/Uo9wej
http://people.centos.org/tru/devtools-1.1/

I have just filed a feature request for this issue. We will see if
anything comes of it. It's especially important as the old venerable
Opera (presto engine) is also going EOL. Opera is moving to
follow/fork chrome's engine. So if we lose chrome that means we really
only have 1 main browser support (Firefox ESR).


--
Robert Arkiletian
Eric Hamber Secondary, Vancouver, Canada

Re: Flash and Chrome - was Re: FireFox Error

[Yasha Karant]

On 04/03/2013 02:15 AM, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:


On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:09:45AM +0100, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:


2) For those who haven't heard this, some links:
http://support.google.com/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en-GB&answer=95411


RHEL/SL/SLC are not listed at all. No announcement anywhere on google
about adding or dropping support for any specific version of RHEL/SL.


http://www.muktware.com/5203/google-says-red-hat-enterprise-linux-6-obsolete



Information at above link is factually incorrect.
Updates of google-chrome for SL6 have not stopped.

Latest update is google-chrome-stable-26.0.1410.43-189671.x86_64
with build date Thu Mar 21 12:41:44 2013.


Ever since I installed that version, google-chrome warns me that
it has stopped supporting this version of my operating system
- I'm running Scientific Linux release 6.3 (Carbon).

"yum --enablerepo=google-chrome list" does list
google-chrome-beta.x86_64   26.0.1410.43-189671  google-chrome
google-chrome-unstable.x86_64   27.0.1453.12-191631  google-chrome
so there may be more releases to come, but it is worth noting that
google-chrome-beta and google-chrome-stable are curently the same version.
The unstables are still being updated nightly (but is that a script on
auto-pilot?)

Updates may be continuing but Google *is* telling me,
in a very obvious way, that they have stopped



Two comments on the above issues (using EL current production on a 
full-service workstation, not a server):


1.  Some sites -- including the web site home page from my university -- 
automatically include Flash.  This same group pushes the Microsoft 
environment whenever possible -- and must be pushed into a corner to 
comply with W3C and IETF open interoperable standards.  If (or when) 
Flash features no longer supported under the last release for EL are 
required, such sites may not be fully functional.
Is there any Flash workalike replacement?  Can one be developed or is 
Flash compliance proprietary closed standard?


2.  Google Chrome is another issue -- there are situations under which 
Chrome functions better (in practice) than Firefox or Opera.  Is full 
Chrome source still available?  If so, is there any group willing to do 
and maintain a port of current Chrome?  (My own group does not have 
sufficient staffing for this activity.)


Yasha Karant

Re: Flash and Chrome - was Re: FireFox Error

[Dr Andrew C Aitchison]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2013, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:


On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:09:45AM +0100, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:


2) For those who haven't heard this, some links:
http://support.google.com/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en-GB&answer=95411


RHEL/SL/SLC are not listed at all. No announcement anywhere on google
about adding or dropping support for any specific version of RHEL/SL.


http://www.muktware.com/5203/google-says-red-hat-enterprise-linux-6-obsolete


Information at above link is factually incorrect.
Updates of google-chrome for SL6 have not stopped.

Latest update is google-chrome-stable-26.0.1410.43-189671.x86_64
with build date Thu Mar 21 12:41:44 2013.


Ever since I installed that version, google-chrome warns me that
it has stopped supporting this version of my operating system
- I'm running Scientific Linux release 6.3 (Carbon).

"yum --enablerepo=google-chrome list" does list
google-chrome-beta.x86_64   26.0.1410.43-189671  google-chrome
google-chrome-unstable.x86_64   27.0.1453.12-191631  google-chrome
so there may be more releases to come, but it is worth noting that
google-chrome-beta and google-chrome-stable are curently the same version.
The unstables are still being updated nightly (but is that a script on
auto-pilot?)

Updates may be continuing but Google *is* telling me,
in a very obvious way, that they have stopped

--
Dr. Andrew C. Aitchison Computer Officer, DPMMS, Cambridge
a.c.aitchi...@dpmms.cam.ac.uk   http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~werdna

Re: Flash and Chrome - was Re: FireFox Error

[Konstantin Olchanski]

On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:09:45AM +0100, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> 
> 2) For those who haven't heard this, some links:
> http://support.google.com/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en-GB&answer=95411

RHEL/SL/SLC are not listed at all. No announcement anywhere on google
about adding or dropping support for any specific version of RHEL/SL.

> http://www.muktware.com/5203/google-says-red-hat-enterprise-linux-6-obsolete

Information at above link is factually incorrect. Updates of google-chrome for 
SL6 have not stopped.

Latest update is google-chrome-stable-26.0.1410.43-189671.x86_64
with build date Thu Mar 21 12:41:44 2013.

> 1) According to
> http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplatform/whitepapers/roadmap.html

Yawn...

-- 
Konstantin Olchanski
Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow!
Email: olchansk-at-triumf-dot-ca
Snail mail: 4004 Wesbrook Mall, TRIUMF, Vancouver, B.C., V6T 2A3, Canada

Re: Flash and Chrome - was Re: FireFox Error

[Robert Blair]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

An odd feature of the list of supported linuxen for chrome is that it
indicates fedora 14 (not fedora 14+).  The current release of fedora is
18 and I didn't notice a warning on my fedora installs.  I wonder if
this is just a typo?

On 04/02/2013 04:09 AM, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013, Robert Blair wrote:
> 
>> Slightly off topic but related:  now that 1) adobe is no longer
>> supporting flash for linux firefox plugins and 2) google is no longer
>> supporting google-chrome on SL, do we have a flash crisis?  Is there a
>> plan to deal with this by TUV?
> 
> 1) According to
> http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplatform/whitepapers/roadmap.html
> Adobe will support non-pepper flash 11.2 for five years from release,
> so we have another four years and it isn't a crisis yet.
> 
> 2) For those who haven't heard this, some links:
> http://support.google.com/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en-GB&answer=95411
> http://www.muktware.com/5203/google-says-red-hat-enterprise-linux-6-obsolete
> 
> 
> Seems that the issue is Google want to use C++11 / gcc4.6 which
> is not standard on RHEL6/SL6.
> 
> (I'm out of the loop but "developers ... prefer the new C++11 for the
> obvious security reasons" comes as a suprise to me.)
> 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRWvy+AAoJEPQM1KNWz8QaY/YH/3JCWFmJVrlURvb3tvfJz1/y
bH0hhRBAM5/VwjgKRI2UFnzhjFcTh4e0ISZ0zVVvZnsmCEXp2yV11WnpprhVqWqH
BOyA6OjZnVwiB36BtKKoIM8wnOLeFOKvp0IjKaCpN8E5X6SoLGqJhFVcRH6PlwUe
A0S8m8II4oMwRb9P09MEVECpHgS5HGU9Qajcz4o2SXg2/ICDdce4yyQcnQaoktmM
ahyxBL+KqtlJEXHVI3aVVVtiIs+W6zqe2WRT1z2iyn/wrdjA6e+e8FUITtIS+8Al
PO1LlxbpRSX32BcR2clRkthn7JBuxutfX9TCWpEETj5qmQGTA93oPLTpidFnBLQ=
=+3SU
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
<>

Re: Flash and Chrome - was Re: FireFox Error

[zxq9]

On 04/02/2013 06:09 PM, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013, Robert Blair wrote:


Slightly off topic but related: now that 1) adobe is no longer
supporting flash for linux firefox plugins and 2) google is no longer
supporting google-chrome on SL, do we have a flash crisis? Is there a
plan to deal with this by TUV?


1) According to
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplatform/whitepapers/roadmap.html
Adobe will support non-pepper flash 11.2 for five years from release,
so we have another four years and it isn't a crisis yet.

2) For those who haven't heard this, some links:
http://support.google.com/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en-GB&answer=95411
http://www.muktware.com/5203/google-says-red-hat-enterprise-linux-6-obsolete


Seems that the issue is Google want to use C++11 / gcc4.6 which
is not standard on RHEL6/SL6.

(I'm out of the loop but "developers ... prefer the new C++11 for the
obvious security reasons" comes as a suprise to me.)



1) No new features, but we can still watch Vimeo and YouTube, is 
basically what this means. Aside from video sites is anything 
new/important still using Flash? In particular, is there anything we 
won't be able to do if we don't get newer flash features?


2) Google's strategic focus is getting everyone onboard with their 
cloudish services (incidentally, this is nearly every big web company's 
current focus). It is all about capturing bits. A gajillion dollars has 
been dumped into cloud marketing, which is why the press gushes over 
anything that says "cloud" without providing a definition. RHEL targets 
entities that host their own data. The insecurity built into the cloud 
model demands Google spread FUD about in-house data services to bolster 
their argument -- its the most effective form of market preparation. 
They capture data through end-user applications, a business suite that 
lives in a web page, a virtual "cloud" drive, email hosting, a 
cloud-dependent OS/device, whatever -- its all the same. Once they have 
your data you can't stop using their services. It seems they've assessed 
they are far enough along now to start assailing the server/services 
market directly. They might be correct, or Google might have mistimed 
their opening, victims of their own hype.


But I'm mostly interested in #1 up there. Will anyone miss Flash if it 
goes? Its mostly just an annoyance and I turn it off outside of video sites.

Flash and Chrome - was Re: FireFox Error

[Dr Andrew C Aitchison]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013, Robert Blair wrote:


Slightly off topic but related:  now that 1) adobe is no longer
supporting flash for linux firefox plugins and 2) google is no longer
supporting google-chrome on SL, do we have a flash crisis?  Is there a
plan to deal with this by TUV?


1) According to 
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplatform/whitepapers/roadmap.html

Adobe will support non-pepper flash 11.2 for five years from release,
so we have another four years and it isn't a crisis yet.

2) For those who haven't heard this, some links:
http://support.google.com/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en-GB&answer=95411
http://www.muktware.com/5203/google-says-red-hat-enterprise-linux-6-obsolete

Seems that the issue is Google want to use C++11 / gcc4.6 which
is not standard on RHEL6/SL6.

(I'm out of the loop but "developers ... prefer the new C++11 for 
the obvious security reasons" comes as a suprise to me.)


--
Dr. Andrew C. Aitchison Computer Officer, DPMMS, Cambridge
a.c.aitchi...@dpmms.cam.ac.uk   http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~werdna

Re: FireFox Error

[Robert Blair]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

I suspect your best approach is to install a personal copy from
Mozilla.org in your home area.  It updates automatically and, aside from
resource issues - as in how many people need to do this, should function
just fine.  I used to do this to get a more recent version for my own
use.  An install of google-chrome made this unnecessary but...

Slightly off topic but related:  now that 1) adobe is no longer
supporting flash for linux firefox plugins and 2) google is no longer
supporting google-chrome on SL, do we have a flash crisis?  Is there a
plan to deal with this by TUV?

On 03/31/2013 03:25 PM, Larry Linder wrote:
> Excuse me but I have been ignoring the FireFox discussion, but now our 
> purchasing group needs to use it. 
> 
> SL Linux 5.8.
> 
> When I try to launch a FireFox app.
> The error message is:
> Error: Platform version '10.0.3' is not compatible with
> minVersion >= 10.0.12
> maxVersion <= 10.0.12
> 
> Any Suggestions?
> 
> Thank You
> Larry Linder
> 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRWa7sAAoJEPQM1KNWz8QaxRMH/1lmdpHDzerhMu6ESXhlk/yV
WqMn0Iwfs3jh9h8RnHXLdwzx9otPXiM/bZu6+oL0bdtGI01tfvocEPYx/sSPD8J+
glFlrpspFJKgQqdn/N/kNm83GeKwVY09LkjmSb6zbVPKtcaMTqX0J2FMOlQp6zSx
derlruDc/ORJbUFZeq2pXrR3eV2eUyN4wYyJcYz6Q0N1AYhOzDqvspQLHtzVs3tm
NXel+CZpA0XJ+9TzDKtZQn+Rgt7VA/3vx6zVXcA0bRz8Nu9ptvGOo1cK1beHxdVq
fie4KlDw7ndxfLf0It+trP7Pq2wsu6ou7k/vZ6gbZ6/KASdRXL5YpQILIMoipMI=
=uVV5
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
<>

FireFox Error

[Larry Linder]

Excuse me but I have been ignoring the FireFox discussion, but now our 
purchasing group needs to use it. 

SL Linux 5.8.

When I try to launch a FireFox app.
The error message is:
Error: Platform version '10.0.3' is not compatible with
minVersion >= 10.0.12
maxVersion <= 10.0.12

Any Suggestions?

Thank You
Larry Linder