On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:22 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Why do you need Firefox 27 ... CentOS has the latest ESR version of
> Firefox (24.3.0) that gets security updates and it will always be the
> ESR version, so it will always get security updates and always move
> forward. So, moving forward a
On 02/09/2014 05:35 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> Sure, we talked to them (redhat). That does not make the code actually
>> build any faster.
>>
>> The code does not build (as is) on EL6 and each build needs to be
>> troubleshot and error c
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 02/06/2014 10:41 AM, Phelps, Matt wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Fabian Arrotin
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 06/02/14 16:26, Phelps, Matt wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Robert Arkiletian
> >> wrote:
> new potent
Sorry for this being off topic but I feel it emphasizes the need for
long term support for desktop browsers on Linux.
Went hunting for any info on Opera for Linux. My assumptions seem to
be correct about Opera. I have no proof this is a legit post but it
sounds like the truth:
"At my previous e
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
> Sure, we talked to them (redhat). That does not make the code actually
> build any faster.
>
> The code does not build (as is) on EL6 and each build needs to be
> troubleshot and error corrected to make it work.
>
> Currently there are seve
On 02/06/2014 10:41 AM, Phelps, Matt wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Fabian Arrotin
> wrote:
>
>> On 06/02/14 16:26, Phelps, Matt wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Robert Arkiletian
>> wrote:
new potential remote code exploit in Chromium flash.
>> http://googlechromer
On Feb 8, 2014 1:41 AM, "Lists" wrote:
>
> On 02/06/2014 08:41 AM, Phelps, Matt wrote:
> > Of course we already have notified Google.
> >
> > I was hoping for a little more granularity. Google is a large place; as
is
> > Red Hat I know. There was word that Red Hat was working with Google on a
> >
Am 06.02.2014 um 17:41 schrieb "Phelps, Matt" :
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Fabian Arrotin
> wrote:
>
>> On 06/02/14 16:26, Phelps, Matt wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Robert Arkiletian
>> wrote:
>>>
>> http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.ca/2014/02/stable-channel-update.htm
On 02/06/2014 08:41 AM, Phelps, Matt wrote:
> Of course we already have notified Google.
>
> I was hoping for a little more granularity. Google is a large place; as is
> Red Hat I know. There was word that Red Hat was working with Google on a
> solution, and I was hoping to hear if there was any mo
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Fabian Arrotin
wrote:
> On 06/02/14 16:26, Phelps, Matt wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Robert Arkiletian
> wrote:
> >
> >> new potential remote code exploit in Chromium flash.
> >>
> http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.ca/2014/02/stable-channel-updat
On 06/02/14 16:26, Phelps, Matt wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
>
>> new potential remote code exploit in Chromium flash.
>> http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.ca/2014/02/stable-channel-update.html
>>
>> Doesn't look like these repos are being updated.
>> http
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
> new potential remote code exploit in Chromium flash.
> http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.ca/2014/02/stable-channel-update.html
>
> Doesn't look like these repos are being updated.
> http://people.redhat.com/tpopela/rpms/
> http://peop
new potential remote code exploit in Chromium flash.
http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.ca/2014/02/stable-channel-update.html
Doesn't look like these repos are being updated.
http://people.redhat.com/tpopela/rpms/
http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/chromium/6/
Any info on this issue would be wel
On Sat, December 21, 2013 16:54, Peter wrote:
> On 12/22/2013 09:00 AM, Scot P. Floess wrote:
>>
>> as much as I hate to admit it, I'm not sure what mono/moonlight are...
>
> Linux implementation of Microsoft .net and Silverlight respectively.
> Silverlight was supposed to be Microsoft's answer to
On 12/22/2013 09:00 AM, Scot P. Floess wrote:
>
> as much as I hate to admit it, I'm not sure what mono/moonlight are...
Linux implementation of Microsoft .net and Silverlight respectively.
Silverlight was supposed to be Microsoft's answer to flash which never
really took off except in some high
I'm using too in these hours, 4-5 hours, no crash, and finally also the
site of MVA works with Chrome :)
Fabrizio
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Scot P. Floess wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> To be honest, I never tried - as much as I hate to admit it, I'm not sure
> what mono/moonlight are...
>
> But
Dave,
To be honest, I never tried - as much as I hate to admit it, I'm not sure
what mono/moonlight are...
But I've had Chrome working for me for at least 6 months if not a year and
it works fine (I'm not on CentOS 6.5)...
Thanks,
Flossy
On Sat, 21 Dec 2013, David G. Miller wrote:
> Scot
Scot P. Floess writes:
>
>
> All,
>
> I don't know if this will help y'all, but I have gotten Chrome working
> with CentOS 6.x:
>
> http://www.tecmint.com/install-google-chrome-on-redhat-centos-fedora-linux/
>
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013, Kwan Lowe wrote:
>
> > No consolation for CentOS 6, but C
On 12/21/2013 04:14 AM, Александр Кириллов wrote:
>>> Well, turns out it was more than a rumour. Here it is, some test
>>> version:
>>>
>>> http://people.redhat.com/tpopela/rpms/
>>>
>> I would recommend trying those RPMs .. I will see if I can get it to
>> build and get it into my chromium soon.
On 20.12.2013 21:14, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Robert Arkiletian
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone know of secret plans to eventually support
>>> Chrome/Chromium
>>> on C6? (crossing fingers)
>>
>> I heard a rumour ab
>> Well, turns out it was more than a rumour. Here it is, some test
>> version:
>>
>> http://people.redhat.com/tpopela/rpms/
>>
>
> I would recommend trying those RPMs .. I will see if I can get it to
> build and get it into my chromium soon.
FYI
chromium-31.0.1650.63-1.el6_5.src.rpm builds (i
Am 20.12.2013 um 22:14 schrieb Akemi Yagi :
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone know of secret plans to eventually support Chrome/Chromium
>>> on C6? (crossing fingers)
>>
>> I heard a rumour about
On 12/20/2013 03:14 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone know of secret plans to eventually support Chrome/Chromium
>>> on C6? (crossing fingers)
>> I heard a rumour about such a
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know of secret plans to eventually support Chrome/Chromium
>> on C6? (crossing fingers)
>
> I heard a rumour about such a "secret" plan (RH talking with Google)
> but ca
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:53 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 12/20/2013 10:47 AM, Warren Young wrote:
>> I also agree that 1000:1 seems like the far edge of the probability
>> curve. That would mean EL6 is 1/50 the total interactive desktop Linux
>> market. It could be that bad, given that most E
On 12/20/2013 11:12 AM, Darr247 wrote:
>
> CentOS 6.x is based on kernels circa fedora 14 if you want to talk about
> EOL distros. :)
>
With the difference being that while RHEL/Centos have bugs and security
fixes applied, Fedora is left dead in the water from the day it's EOLd.
__
On 2013-12-20 1:24 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
> That script by Richard Lloyd is not a good idea. I think it's using
> libs from other distros (maybe even EOL distros) . I'd be surprised if
> that works stable for any length of time.
The script pointed to in the tecmint.com article's the same scr
On 12/20/2013 10:47 AM, Warren Young wrote:
> I also agree that 1000:1 seems like the far edge of the probability
> curve. That would mean EL6 is 1/50 the total interactive desktop Linux
> market. It could be that bad, given that most EL6 machines are probably
> headless servers.
the 50 or so de
On 12/19/2013 19:50, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 12/19/2013 6:43 PM, Darr247 wrote:
>> On 20 DEC 2013 @02:06 zulu, John R Pierce wrote:
how many XP systems are still in use?
>> We have 3 XP desktops connected to the LAN in our home.
>
> that was a rhetorical question, of course I'd expect THIS e
That script by Richard Lloyd is not a good idea. I think it's using
libs from other distros (maybe even EOL distros) . I'd be surprised if
that works stable for any length of time.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Scot P. Floess wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I don't know if this will help y'all, but I have
On 20/12/2013 11:51 PM, Scot P. Floess wrote:
> All,
>
> I don't know if this will help y'all, but I have gotten Chrome working
> with CentOS 6.x:
>
> http://www.tecmint.com/install-google-chrome-on-redhat-centos-fedora-linux/
>
Not Good! *RL*
>
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013, Kwan Lowe wrote:
>
>> No co
On 20/12/2013 11:51 PM, Scot P. Floess wrote:
> All,
>
> I don't know if this will help y'all, but I have gotten Chrome working
> with CentOS 6.x:
>
> http://www.tecmint.com/install-google-chrome-on-redhat-centos-fedora-linux/
>
>
>
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013, Kwan Lowe wrote:
>
>> No consolation for C
All,
I don't know if this will help y'all, but I have gotten Chrome working
with CentOS 6.x:
http://www.tecmint.com/install-google-chrome-on-redhat-centos-fedora-linux/
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013, Kwan Lowe wrote:
> No consolation for CentOS 6, but Chrome does appear to work on the upstream
> 7 be
No consolation for CentOS 6, but Chrome does appear to work on the upstream
7 beta.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
> Does anyone know of secret plans to eventually support Chrome/Chromium
> on C6? (crossing fingers)
I heard a rumour about such a "secret" plan (RH talking with Google)
but cannot confirm ...
Akemi
__
On 12/19/2013 6:43 PM, Darr247 wrote:
> On 20 DEC 2013 @02:06 zulu, John R Pierce wrote:
>> >how many XP systems are still in use?
> We have 3 XP desktops connected to the LAN in our home.
that was a rhetorical question, of course I'd expect THIS email list to
be skewed heavily away from the glob
On 20 DEC 2013 @02:06 zulu, John R Pierce wrote:
> how many XP systems are still in use?
We have 3 XP desktops connected to the LAN in our home. We also have 3
Win7 laptops. I used to dual-boot fedora on one of the laptops, until
windows refused to apply SP1 because of grub's alterations to the
On 12/19/2013 5:48 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
> How can XP, an ancient OS going EOL in a few months, still be
> supported for the latest Chromium but C6 not?
how many XP systems are still in use? how many people use C6 as a desktop?
also, Microsoft has done a remarkable version of maintaining
About 6 months has passed since the last working version of Opera
(12.16) for Linux was released. Opera 18 (Win+Mac only) is now based
on Chromium so I'm not holding my breath for it to work with C6 even
if it is ever released.
Chrome/Chromium is pretty much history too (libs too old). So Firefox
39 matches
Mail list logo
