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 fl
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
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
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.
> >
>
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
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, th
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.
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 Wind
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.
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
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
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 wel
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 provid
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 Fl
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 s
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
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 eff
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?
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 fl
»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 ye
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
»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
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 Fi
23 matches
Mail list logo
