On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
...
> Personally, even though I like chromium, if google can't be bothered to
> support EL6, then I say that is their loss and I'll just use firefox.
>
+1
But
Me: "Hey students, we are using a premier LTS Linux distro, look at
all you can do!"
On 02/15/2014 08:38 PM, Darr247 wrote:
> Are you sure that's not against the law?
>
> Putting non-open files in/opt/chromium-browser/PepperFlash/ seems worse
> to me than putting open source files from f15 in /opt/google/chrome/lib
> which Jim Perrin (on 27 Oct 2013 @19:24 zulu in this list) said
You might have some hardware going bad underneath.
On 02/15/2014 03:30 PM, Max Grobecker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your replies!
> Today, I'm unable to get the filesystem errors reproduced - maybe I got
> a bad mirror? Very unlikely, the PGP signature should then be broken also...
>
>
>
> Well,
Are you sure that's not against the law?
Putting non-open files in/opt/chromium-browser/PepperFlash/ seems worse
to me than putting open source files from f15 in /opt/google/chrome/lib
which Jim Perrin (on 27 Oct 2013 @19:24 zulu in this list) said should
be a criminal offense.
e.g. as a resul
If you haven't already, would you put this on the wiki for searchable reference?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Hi,
Thanks for your replies!
Today, I'm unable to get the filesystem errors reproduced - maybe I got
a bad mirror? Very unlikely, the PGP signature should then be broken also...
Well, at least the problems with booting the machine still exists, but I
tested this only in virtual environments unt
All,
As has already been brought up, we have not yet been able to build the
new version of Chromium-32 for CentOS, and the current version
(31.0.1650.63-1.el6) needs updating.
We have also recently been informed that we may not redistribute the
PepperFlash Library from the Google site (libpepflas
On 02/15/2014 06:33 PM, Max Grobecker wrote:
> Is it just me? I don't use any 3rd party repositorys and it blows my
> mind that no one else seems to notice...!
Just you.
2.6.32-431.5.1.el works here without any issues on phys. and virtual
plattforms.
regrads
Ulf
>
_
On 02/15/2014 11:33 AM, Max Grobecker wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently installed some fresh CentOS 6.5 machines and it took only
> about 20 minutes until the file system (ext4) was broken.
> And with "broken" I mean, that the system wasn't able to find vital
> system libraries any more!
>
> I were able
Hi,
I recently installed some fresh CentOS 6.5 machines and it took only
about 20 minutes until the file system (ext4) was broken.
And with "broken" I mean, that the system wasn't able to find vital
system libraries any more!
I were able to reproduce it on highly different systems:
- A fresh in
CentOS members,
This is another CentOS, Emacs upgrade question:
Since upgrading from CentOS 5.10 and Emacs 21.4.1 to CentOS 6.5 and
Emacs 23.1.1 I am trying to get a spell checker working in emacs.
Previously I used aspell and everything "just worked". Now I gather
that hunspell is the
Is there an emacs guru amongst the CentOS bretheren who can help me with
the following:
Since upgrading from CentOS 5.10, Emacs 21.4.1 and Gnus v5.9.0 to
CentOS 6.5, Emacs 23.1.1 and Gnus v5.13 HTML emails are now being
renderd in a pretty reasonable way (thanks!), *but*
non-breaking-space
12 matches
Mail list logo
