Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

On Monday 09 May 2016 23:38:02 Liam O'Toole wrote: > Therefore openjdk-7-* is not regarded as an > upgrade (in the Debian packaging sense) over openjdk-6-*. Instead, they > are different packages, and both can be installed at the same time. Therein lies the rub - and the explanation. Thank you.

Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

On Monday 09 May 2016 23:38:02 Liam O'Toole wrote: > The openjdk-6-* packages are now obsolete and unsupported > (both by Debian and upstream), and will receive no further security > updates. Yes, I have discovered that!!! Lisi

Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

On 2016-05-09, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Monday 09 May 2016 22:37:06 Liam O'Toole wrote: >> On 2016-05-09, Lisi Reisz wrote: >> > It is also a pity that Wheezy LTS appears not to be a truly viable >> > proposition for the desktop. >> >> True. The software

Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

On Monday 09 May 2016 17:37:06 Liam O'Toole wrote: > On 2016-05-09, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > It is also a pity that Wheezy LTS appears not to be a truly viable > > proposition for the desktop. > > True. The software versions are obviously quite old, and not all > packages are

Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

On Monday 09 May 2016 22:37:06 Liam O'Toole wrote: > On 2016-05-09, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > It is also a pity that Wheezy LTS appears not to be a truly viable > > proposition for the desktop. > > True. The software versions are obviously quite old, and not all > packages are

Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

On 2016-05-09, Lisi Reisz wrote: > It is also a pity that Wheezy LTS appears not to be a truly viable > proposition for the desktop. True. The software versions are obviously quite old, and not all packages are supported[1]. Previous LTS releases did not support graphical

Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

On 05/09/2016 09:18 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Monday 09 May 2016 13:18:26 Dutch Ingraham wrote: what version of Windows could you purchase today that would operate on an Intel Pentium M 750? Windows 10 CLAIMS to run on 32 bit computers. I would have to pay £90.00 to test it, so I don't intend

Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

On Monday 09 May 2016 17:19:33 Brian wrote: > On Mon 09 May 2016 at 18:51:56 +0300, Piyavkin wrote: > > On 09.05.2016 17:18, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > >On Monday 09 May 2016 13:18:26 Dutch Ingraham wrote: > > >>what version of Windows could you purchase today that would > > >>operate on an Intel

Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

On Mon 09 May 2016 at 18:51:56 +0300, Piyavkin wrote: > On 09.05.2016 17:18, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >On Monday 09 May 2016 13:18:26 Dutch Ingraham wrote: > >>what version of Windows could you purchase today that would > >>operate on an Intel Pentium M 750? > >Windows 10 CLAIMS to run on 32 bit

Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

On 09.05.2016 17:18, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Monday 09 May 2016 13:18:26 Dutch Ingraham wrote: what version of Windows could you purchase today that would operate on an Intel Pentium M 750? Windows 10 CLAIMS to run on 32 bit computers. I would have to pay £90.00 to test it, so I don't intend to

Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

On Monday 09 May 2016 13:18:26 Dutch Ingraham wrote: > what version of Windows could you purchase today that would > operate on an Intel Pentium M 750? Windows 10 CLAIMS to run on 32 bit computers. I would have to pay £90.00 to test it, so I don't intend to do so. I haven't researched it much.

Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

On Monday 09 May 2016 13:45:39 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > My client cannot run an up-to-date Flashplayer on Linux. > > Why not? AFAIK my daughter's computer (running 32bit Debian stable) has > a working flash player (and yes, I'm talking about Adobe's crap plugin, > rather than gnash which sadly

Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

> My client cannot run an up-to-date Flashplayer on Linux. Why not? AFAIK my daughter's computer (running 32bit Debian stable) has a working flash player (and yes, I'm talking about Adobe's crap plugin, rather than gnash which sadly seems to have died). Stefan

Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 09:38:54AM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > I seem to have hit the following: > My client cannot run an up-to-date Flashplayer on Linux. If she insists on > running Flashplayer, she can run an out of date Flashplayer in her current > Debian system (if I can get a functional

Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

Le primidi 21 floréal, an CCXXIV, Lisi Reisz a écrit : > It is a sad day when Windows is in any way better for a legacy computer than > Linux; It is a sad day when the ability to run crappy and dying proprietary software is the main criterion to tell which system is better. Regards, --

Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

Hi, Lisi wrote: > In Stable or newer jdk6 would surely have been removed for me by aptitude? Can you still get jdk6 built from source ? (Possibly a nighmare of dependencies.) > It is a sad day when Windows is in any way better for a legacy computer than > Linux; Well, talk about concurrent

Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

On Monday 09 May 2016 10:22:57 Markus Schönhaber wrote: > Lisi Reisz, Mo 09 Mai 2016 10:38:54 CEST: > > I seem to have hit the following: > > My client cannot run an up-to-date Flashplayer on Linux. If she insists > > on running Flashplayer, she can run an out of date Flashplayer in her > >

Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

Lisi Reisz, Mo 09 Mai 2016 10:38:54 CEST: > I seem to have hit the following: > My client cannot run an up-to-date Flashplayer on Linux. If she insists on > running Flashplayer, she can run an out of date Flashplayer in her current > Debian system (if I can get a functional one installed) or

Flashplayer on 32 bit computers

I seem to have hit the following: My client cannot run an up-to-date Flashplayer on Linux. If she insists on running Flashplayer, she can run an out of date Flashplayer in her current Debian system (if I can get a functional one installed) or she can go out, buy and install Windows. She will