On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 14:32:09 +0100
Slavko wrote:
> Ahoj,
>
> Dňa Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:24:14 -0500 Celejar napísal:
>
> > On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:37:36 -0700
> > Bob Proulx wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > But yes it is hard to avoid proprietary protocols. Tax forms are in
> > > PDF. Videos are
Ahoj,
Dňa Sun, 19 Jan 2014 08:24:14 -0500 Celejar napísal:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:37:36 -0700
> Bob Proulx wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > But yes it is hard to avoid proprietary protocols. Tax forms are in
> > PDF. Videos are in Flash, or worse Silverlight. Audio files are in
>
> I think we've di
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:37:36 -0700
Bob Proulx wrote:
...
> But yes it is hard to avoid proprietary protocols. Tax forms are in
> PDF. Videos are in Flash, or worse Silverlight. Audio files are in
I think we've discussed this before, but is it really correct to call
PDF a proprietary protocol
Le 17/01/2014 18:28, Patrick Bartek a écrit :
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, François Patte wrote:
>
>> Le 17/01/2014 05:11, Patrick Bartek a écrit :
>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>>>
On Jo, 16 ian 14, 09:58:43, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>>
>>> I was unaware of this.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, François Patte wrote:
> Le 17/01/2014 05:11, Patrick Bartek a écrit :
> > On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >
> >> On Jo, 16 ian 14, 09:58:43, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [snip]
> >
> > I was unaware of this. I thought it was the plugin. I have since
> > r
On Fri, 17 Jan 2014, Ma Xiaojun wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Patrick Bartek
> wrote:
> > My primary browser. Same problem whether using Adobe Flash or
> > Google's version. In fact, if using Google's, those "problem"
> > sites don't even recognize it, and say "You need to install F
Le 17/01/2014 05:11, Patrick Bartek a écrit :
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
>> On Jo, 16 ian 14, 09:58:43, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>>>
>>> I am using the flashplugin from Debian's nonfree repo. If there are
>>> any security updates for it from Adobe shouldn't those updates
>>> ulti
On 2014-01-16 11:41 PM, Ma Xiaojun wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash#Vendor_dependence
So you are so "freedom loving", why don't you abandon
Flash-using-website altogether?
Is it so hard?
Maybe because flash is required
Ma Xiaojun wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash#Vendor_dependence
>
> So you are so "freedom loving", why don't you abandon
> Flash-using-website altogether?
> Is it so hard?
You may be confusing me with comments made by others. I wasn't the
one with the Fla
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash#Vendor_dependence
So you are so "freedom loving", why don't you abandon
Flash-using-website altogether?
Is it so hard?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subj
Ma Xiaojun wrote:
> Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > The OS is not the problem. All the other sites I frequent work just
> > fine. It's just a couple that don't, but used to -- a month or so ago.
>
> A sane OS doesn't lock you at 11.2; a broken one does.
Adobe Flash is a proprietary plugin from Adobe.
In my quest to get Flash to work on a couple sites requiring version
11.8 or greater when 11.2 is the last Linux version, I was having no
luck until today: Got an update/upgrade of Chrome, my primary browser,
and its Pepper version of Flash is 12.0.0.41. The problem sites now
work just fine. The
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:42 AM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> My primary browser. Same problem whether using Adobe Flash or Google's
> version. In fact, if using Google's, those "problem" sites don't even
> recognize it, and say "You need to install Flash."
Contact Google for support.
> The OS is n
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Jo, 16 ian 14, 09:58:43, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >
> > I am using the flashplugin from Debian's nonfree repo. If there are
> > any security updates for it from Adobe shouldn't those updates
> > ultimately end up in the repo just like all other nonf
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> Curt wrote:
> > Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> > > Of course, the package could set up a cron job to do the update
> > > automatically, but most people would hate that (me included) and it's
> > > trivial to do it yourself.
> >
> > It could check for an updated version and, if one
Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > I am using the flashplugin from Debian's nonfree repo. If there are
> > any security updates for it from Adobe shouldn't those updates
> > ultimately end up in the repo just like all other nonfree stuff? Or
> > would the security updates end up in
On Jo, 16 ian 14, 18:25:34, Curt wrote:
> On 2014-01-16, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >
> > Of course, the package could set up a cron job to do the update=20
> > automatically, but most people would hate that (me included) and it's=20
> > trivial to do it yourself.
>
> It could check for an updated v
On 2014-01-16, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
>
> Of course, the package could set up a cron job to do the update=20
> automatically, but most people would hate that (me included) and it's=20
> trivial to do it yourself.
It could check for an updated version and, if one is available, alert
the user by the
On Jo, 16 ian 14, 09:58:43, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>
> I am using the flashplugin from Debian's nonfree repo. If there are
> any security updates for it from Adobe shouldn't those updates
> ultimately end up in the repo just like all other nonfree stuff? Or
> would the security updates end up in
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Paul Cartwright wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 01/15/2014 08:02 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Jarth Berilcosm wrote:
> >
> > Good advice. On Jessie and later I have this:
> >
> > cat /etc/cron.daily/adobe-flashplugin-local
> > #!/bin/sh
>
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 15 ian 14, 19:06:12, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >
> > Query: Wouldn't apt-get update and upgrade do the same
> > thing, if there were a new security update? And if you have
> > the nonfree repo enabled, of course.
>
> apt-get only understands pa
On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Ma Xiaojun wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Patrick Bartek
> wrote:
> > FWIW: Adobe says that 11.2.202 is the last and final Linux version
> > of Flash. Although, they will continue backported security updates.
> > Windows/OSX version is up to 12.something-or-othe
On 20140116_101618, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 15 ian 14, 19:06:12, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> >
> > Query: Wouldn't apt-get update and upgrade do the same
> > thing, if there were a new security update? And if you have
> > the nonfree repo enabled, of course.
>
> apt-get only understands pack
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/15/2014 08:02 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Jarth Berilcosm wrote:
>
> Good advice. On Jessie and later I have this:
>
> cat /etc/cron.daily/adobe-flashplugin-local
> #!/bin/sh
> update-flashplugin-nonfree --quiet --install
>
> If your version
On Mi, 15 ian 14, 19:06:12, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>
> Query: Wouldn't apt-get update and upgrade do the same
> thing, if there were a new security update? And if you have
> the nonfree repo enabled, of course.
apt-get only understands package (as in .deb) versions, so if a newer
flashplugin-non
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> FWIW: Adobe says that 11.2.202 is the last and final Linux version of
> Flash. Although, they will continue backported security updates.
> Windows/OSX version is up to 12.something-or-other, IIRC. And I'm
> beginning to run across sites t
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Jarth Berilcosm wrote:
> > If you have flash-player non-free installed make sure to run
> > update-flashplugin-nonfree --install
> > update-flashplugin-nonfree --status
> > ...
> > http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/58396 documents what's up with an
> > ol
Jarth Berilcosm wrote:
> If you have flash-player non-free installed make sure to run
> update-flashplugin-nonfree --install
> update-flashplugin-nonfree --status
> ...
> http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/58396 documents what's up with an old
> exploit used in new scenario's.
Good advice. On J
On 16/01/14 02:56, Jarth Berilcosm wrote:
> If you have flash-player non-free installed make sure to run
>
> update-flashplugin-nonfree --install
>
> update-flashplugin-nonfree --status
>
> Flash Player version installed on this system : 11.2.202.335
> Flash Player version available on upstr
Thanks!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140115171435.GA15671@jessie.gatewire
If you have flash-player non-free installed make sure to run
update-flashplugin-nonfree --install
update-flashplugin-nonfree --status
Flash Player version installed on this system : 11.2.202.335
Flash Player version available on upstream site: 11.2.202.335
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/
31 matches
Mail list logo
