Re: youtube-dl → yt-dlp, was Re: OT: Detecting ISP throttling (was: Re: Potentially OT. Videos lagging & buffering in any browser but Google Chrome.)

[Bret Busby]

30 mars 2023, 23:56 de debianl...@potentially-spam.de-bruyn.de:


I was successful at downloading the video with:


yt-dlp --verbose -k --ignore-config -c 
https://manifest.prod.boltdns.net/manifest/v1/hls/v4/clear/1241706627001/83ddeca4-2e3a-4149-840f-0ca907c2cb59/10s/master.m3u8?fastly_token=NjQyNjYyOWZfOTIzNjUyM2MwN2JlZTI3NjdhNDcwMjM4ZjhmNmY1MmRiZTQxMzM5ZTllOTYyM2E3YTkxZWNhOGQxYmY1YTU0OA%3D%3D



after finishing download, i found the file


master-master.mp4




If you (the poster who managed to download the video, using the above 
command and URL) happen to remember how you got to the URL, please 
either post the steps to the list, or, send to me direct, as I have two 
more videos from Rootstech 2023, that I want to download, that they have 
not yet (and are therefore, unlikely to be) uploaded to youtube for 
viewing/downloading, and, I have problems with the streaming of videos, 
in that the streams get blocked/broken, causing continuity problems in 
the videos.


And, whilst I have tried applying the Rootstech web site videos' URL's, 
in vlc, to view/capture streaming videos in vlc, that does not work. 
vlc is the only Linux application of which I am aware, that would be 
likely to download/capture the videos direct from the Rootstech web 
site, and, as I cannot get that to work, the only means that I believe 
that is available, for downloading the videos, if the process can be 
determined, for achieving the downloadable videos as above, is similarly 
through using yt-dlp, through the web site at manifest.prod.boltdns.net 
.


But, I have no idea as to how to get to the path, for each of the videos 
that I want, within or through that web site.


Thank you in anticipation.

..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..

Re: youtube-dl → yt-dlp, was Re: OT: Detecting ISP throttling (was: Re: Potentially OT. Videos lagging & buffering in any browser but Google Chrome.)

[DdB]

Am 31.03.2023 um 00:28 schrieb l0f...@tuta.io:
> How do you get that URL? Via your browser resource/code inspector?

Hi, i had been asking not having to answer that question, because i
myself do not really understand, how it works.

I stumbled across an explanation while skimming through open issues of
yt-dlp on github. But unfortunately i did not save the link. => Happy
searching ;-)

Re: youtube-dl → yt-dlp, was Re: OT: Detecting ISP throttling (was: Re: Potentially OT. Videos lagging & buffering in any browser but Google Chrome.)

[l0f4r0]

Hi,

30 mars 2023, 23:56 de debianl...@potentially-spam.de-bruyn.de:

> I was successful at downloading the video with:
>
>> yt-dlp --verbose -k --ignore-config -c 
>> https://manifest.prod.boltdns.net/manifest/v1/hls/v4/clear/1241706627001/83ddeca4-2e3a-4149-840f-0ca907c2cb59/10s/master.m3u8?fastly_token=NjQyNjYyOWZfOTIzNjUyM2MwN2JlZTI3NjdhNDcwMjM4ZjhmNmY1MmRiZTQxMzM5ZTllOTYyM2E3YTkxZWNhOGQxYmY1YTU0OA%3D%3D
>>
>
> after finishing download, i found the file
>
>> master-master.mp4
>>
Indeed, well done.
Actually, it works as well without any yt-dlp option/switch.

How do you get that URL? Via your browser resource/code inspector?

l0f4r0

Re: youtube-dl → yt-dlp, was Re: OT: Detecting ISP throttling (was: Re: Potentially OT. Videos lagging & buffering in any browser but Google Chrome.)

[Brad Rogers]

On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 23:28:23 +0200 (CEST)
l0f...@tuta.io wrote:

Hello l0f...@tuta.io,

>Interesting theory but I can play that specific video in my browser
>without being logged in ;)

Weird;  I had to log in first.  No idea why your experience differs.
Still, as this doesn't forward the core issue, I'll leave it there.

-- 
 Regards  _   "Valid sig separator is {dash}{dash}{space}"
 / )  "The blindingly obvious is never immediately apparent"
/ _)rad   "Is it only me that has a working delete key?"
Sign away your life
Tin Soldiers - Stiff Little Fingers


pgp6zu6CjrXEk.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: youtube-dl → yt-dlp, was Re: OT: Detecting ISP throttling (was: Re: Potentially OT. Videos lagging & buffering in any browser but Google Chrome.)

[DdB]

Am 30.03.2023 um 20:20 schrieb Bret Busby:
> On 31/3/23 02:08, David Wright wrote:
>> On Fri 31 Mar 2023 at 01:41:04 (+0800), Bret Busby wrote:
>>> On 31/3/23 00:40, David Wright wrote:
 On Thu 30 Mar 2023 at 19:31:21 (+0800), Bret Busby wrote:

> I had previously been able to use youtube-dl, to download videos from
> youtube, but, it no longer works with youtube.

 AIUI youtube-dl is now obsolete, and its new spelling is yt-dlp.

 You can download it from bullseye-backports. If you're a backports
 user, just install it and check out the CLI options you normally
 use, in case they've been tweaked, with:

     $ yt-dlp -help | less

> And, I had been able to download videos from some streaming hosts,
> but, find that I cannot download videos from other streaming hosts.
>
> By download, I mean saving to my computer - so that I can get
> continuity, and, replay the streamed videos at slower speeds, and,
> manipulate the sound, so that I (having a hearing disability that
> affects my ability to hear what is spoken) can better hear what is
> being said, which is important for educational videos, such as at
> Rootstech 2023, where I cannot download significant videos.

 The yt-dlp dependencies are all unversioned, so rather than put
 backports into my sources.list, I just checked that I had them all,
 downloaded yt-dlp….deb from the Packages page, and installed it with
 the    apt-get install /full-path-to/yt-dlp….deb    syntax.
 (The backports youtube-dl package used to get very long in the tooth
 at times, so I've done this frequently in the past.) Whenever
 downloading fails, I check out whether there's a more up-to-date
 version with the   yt-dlp -U   option.

 Apparently there's a bug in yt-dlp at the moment, but I don't think
 either of us uses mpv /with/ the downloader, but only /after/
 downloading has completed.

>>> I had downloaded and installed yt-dlp, but, that did not work, either.
>>
>> Writing "did not work" just doesn't cut it on this list:
>> we need some specifics. Here's an example I ran this
>> morning on a reference given by David Christensen:
>>
>> $ gy bKzonnwoR2I
>> /usr/bin/yt-dlp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKzonnwoR2I
>> [youtube] Extracting URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKzonnwoR2I
>> [youtube] bKzonnwoR2I: Downloading webpage
>> [youtube] bKzonnwoR2I: Downloading android player API JSON
>> [info] bKzonnwoR2I: Downloading 1 format(s): 248+251
>> [download] Destination: Unix Pipeline (Brian Kernighan) -
>> Computerphile [bKzonnwoR2I].f248.webm
>> [download] 100% of   50.64MiB in 00:00:05 at 8.45MiB/s
>> [download] Destination: Unix Pipeline (Brian Kernighan) -
>> Computerphile [bKzonnwoR2I].f251.webm
>> [download] 100% of    3.85MiB in 00:00:00 at 6.28MiB/s
>> [Merger] Merging formats into "Unix Pipeline (Brian Kernighan) -
>> Computerphile [bKzonnwoR2I].webm"
>> Remember to remove any unmerged files as appropriate.
>> $
>>
>> Whether you can download that would determine where you go from here.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David.
>>
> Fri Mar 31 02:18:31 bret@bret-Precision-Tower-5810:~$yt-dlp
> https://www.familysearch.org/rootstech/session/expanding-your-family-tree-with-sideview-and-more-innovations-from-ancestrydna?lang=eng
> 
> [generic]
> expanding-your-family-tree-with-sideview-and-more-innovations-from-ancestrydna?lang=eng:
> Requesting header
> WARNING: [generic] Falling back on generic information extractor.
> [generic]
> expanding-your-family-tree-with-sideview-and-more-innovations-from-ancestrydna?lang=eng:
> Downloading webpage
> [generic]
> expanding-your-family-tree-with-sideview-and-more-innovations-from-ancestrydna?lang=eng:
> Extracting information
> ERROR: Unsupported URL:
> https://www.familysearch.org/rootstech/session/expanding-your-family-tree-with-sideview-and-more-innovations-from-ancestrydna?lang=eng
> 
> Fri Mar 31 02:19:05 bret@bret-Precision-Tower-5810:~$
> 
> 
> ..
> Bret Busby
> Armadale
> West Australia
> (UTC+0800)
> ..
> 
> 


I was successful at downloading the video with:
> yt-dlp --verbose -k --ignore-config -c 
> https://manifest.prod.boltdns.net/manifest/v1/hls/v4/clear/1241706627001/83ddeca4-2e3a-4149-840f-0ca907c2cb59/10s/master.m3u8?fastly_token=NjQyNjYyOWZfOTIzNjUyM2MwN2JlZTI3NjdhNDcwMjM4ZjhmNmY1MmRiZTQxMzM5ZTllOTYyM2E3YTkxZWNhOGQxYmY1YTU0OA%3D%3D

after finishing download, i found the file
> master-master.mp4

Dont ask me, how i did this, because i dont know, just happened to work.

Re: youtube-dl → yt-dlp, was Re: OT: Detecting ISP throttling (was: Re: Potentially OT. Videos lagging & buffering in any browser but Google Chrome.)

[l0f4r0]

Hello Brad,

30 mars 2023, 23:20 de b...@fineby.me.uk:

> >In your case, yt-dlp falls back on its generic extractor (documentation
> >says "Generic downloader that works on some sites") but it doesn't work
> >for familysearch.org visibly...
>
> Largely, I suspect, it's because to access video on that FamilySearch
> page, one is required to be logged in.  IDK whether yt-dlp can handle
> that.
>
Interesting theory but I can play that specific video in my browser without 
being logged in ;)

l0f4r0

Re: youtube-dl → yt-dlp, was Re: OT: Detecting ISP throttling (was: Re: Potentially OT. Videos lagging & buffering in any browser but Google Chrome.)

[Brad Rogers]

On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 22:55:05 +0200 (CEST)
l0f...@tuta.io wrote:

Hello l0f...@tuta.io,

>In your case, yt-dlp falls back on its generic extractor (documentation
>says "Generic downloader that works on some sites") but it doesn't work
>for familysearch.org visibly...

Largely, I suspect, it's because to access video on that FamilySearch
page, one is required to be logged in.  IDK whether yt-dlp can handle
that.

-- 
 Regards  _   "Valid sig separator is {dash}{dash}{space}"
 / )  "The blindingly obvious is never immediately apparent"
/ _)rad   "Is it only me that has a working delete key?"
Success defined by acquisition stinks
Money is Not Our God -  Killing Joke


pgpKN1faLi1Xv.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: youtube-dl → yt-dlp, was Re: OT: Detecting ISP throttling (was: Re: Potentially OT. Videos lagging & buffering in any browser but Google Chrome.)

[l0f4r0]

Hello,

30 mars 2023, 20:46 de b...@busby.net:

> Fri Mar 31 02:18:31 bret@bret-Precision-Tower-5810:~$yt-dlp 
> https://www.familysearch.org/rootstech/session/expanding-your-family-tree-with-sideview-and-more-innovations-from-ancestrydna?lang=eng
> [generic] 
> expanding-your-family-tree-with-sideview-and-more-innovations-from-ancestrydna?lang=eng:
>  Requesting header
> WARNING: [generic] Falling back on generic information extractor.
> [generic] 
> expanding-your-family-tree-with-sideview-and-more-innovations-from-ancestrydna?lang=eng:
>  Downloading webpage
> [generic] 
> expanding-your-family-tree-with-sideview-and-more-innovations-from-ancestrydna?lang=eng:
>  Extracting information
> ERROR: Unsupported URL: 
> https://www.familysearch.org/rootstech/session/expanding-your-family-tree-with-sideview-and-more-innovations-from-ancestrydna?lang=eng
> Fri Mar 31 02:19:05 bret@bret-Precision-Tower-5810:~$
>
yt-dlp cannot download videos from every and each websites on the internet.

You can find the compatible websites here: 
https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp/blob/master/supportedsites.md

In your case, yt-dlp falls back on its generic extractor (documentation says 
"Generic downloader that works on some sites") but it doesn't work for 
familysearch.org visibly...

As mentioned by David, you should try the following command to see (hopefully) 
that your yt-dlp works just fine:
yt-dlp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKzonnwoR2I

l0f4r0

Re: youtube-dl → yt-dlp, was Re: OT: Detecting ISP throttling (was: Re: Potentially OT. Videos lagging & buffering in any browser but Google Chrome.)

[Bret Busby]

On 31/3/23 02:08, David Wright wrote:

On Fri 31 Mar 2023 at 01:41:04 (+0800), Bret Busby wrote:

On 31/3/23 00:40, David Wright wrote:

On Thu 30 Mar 2023 at 19:31:21 (+0800), Bret Busby wrote:


I had previously been able to use youtube-dl, to download videos from
youtube, but, it no longer works with youtube.


AIUI youtube-dl is now obsolete, and its new spelling is yt-dlp.

You can download it from bullseye-backports. If you're a backports
user, just install it and check out the CLI options you normally
use, in case they've been tweaked, with:

$ yt-dlp -help | less


And, I had been able to download videos from some streaming hosts,
but, find that I cannot download videos from other streaming hosts.

By download, I mean saving to my computer - so that I can get
continuity, and, replay the streamed videos at slower speeds, and,
manipulate the sound, so that I (having a hearing disability that
affects my ability to hear what is spoken) can better hear what is
being said, which is important for educational videos, such as at
Rootstech 2023, where I cannot download significant videos.


The yt-dlp dependencies are all unversioned, so rather than put
backports into my sources.list, I just checked that I had them all,
downloaded yt-dlp….deb from the Packages page, and installed it with
theapt-get install /full-path-to/yt-dlp….debsyntax.
(The backports youtube-dl package used to get very long in the tooth
at times, so I've done this frequently in the past.) Whenever
downloading fails, I check out whether there's a more up-to-date
version with the   yt-dlp -U   option.

Apparently there's a bug in yt-dlp at the moment, but I don't think
either of us uses mpv /with/ the downloader, but only /after/
downloading has completed.


I had downloaded and installed yt-dlp, but, that did not work, either.


Writing "did not work" just doesn't cut it on this list:
we need some specifics. Here's an example I ran this
morning on a reference given by David Christensen:

$ gy bKzonnwoR2I
/usr/bin/yt-dlp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKzonnwoR2I
[youtube] Extracting URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKzonnwoR2I
[youtube] bKzonnwoR2I: Downloading webpage
[youtube] bKzonnwoR2I: Downloading android player API JSON
[info] bKzonnwoR2I: Downloading 1 format(s): 248+251
[download] Destination: Unix Pipeline (Brian Kernighan) - Computerphile 
[bKzonnwoR2I].f248.webm
[download] 100% of   50.64MiB in 00:00:05 at 8.45MiB/s
[download] Destination: Unix Pipeline (Brian Kernighan) - Computerphile 
[bKzonnwoR2I].f251.webm
[download] 100% of3.85MiB in 00:00:00 at 6.28MiB/s
[Merger] Merging formats into "Unix Pipeline (Brian Kernighan) - Computerphile 
[bKzonnwoR2I].webm"
Remember to remove any unmerged files as appropriate.
$

Whether you can download that would determine where you go from here.

Cheers,
David.

Fri Mar 31 02:18:31 bret@bret-Precision-Tower-5810:~$yt-dlp 
https://www.familysearch.org/rootstech/session/expanding-your-family-tree-with-sideview-and-more-innovations-from-ancestrydna?lang=eng
[generic] 
expanding-your-family-tree-with-sideview-and-more-innovations-from-ancestrydna?lang=eng: 
Requesting header

WARNING: [generic] Falling back on generic information extractor.
[generic] 
expanding-your-family-tree-with-sideview-and-more-innovations-from-ancestrydna?lang=eng: 
Downloading webpage
[generic] 
expanding-your-family-tree-with-sideview-and-more-innovations-from-ancestrydna?lang=eng: 
Extracting information
ERROR: Unsupported URL: 
https://www.familysearch.org/rootstech/session/expanding-your-family-tree-with-sideview-and-more-innovations-from-ancestrydna?lang=eng

Fri Mar 31 02:19:05 bret@bret-Precision-Tower-5810:~$


..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..

Re: youtube-dl → yt-dlp, was Re: OT: Detecting ISP throttling (was: Re: Potentially OT. Videos lagging & buffering in any browser but Google Chrome.)

[tomas]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 01:08:19PM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 31 Mar 2023 at 01:41:04 (+0800), Bret Busby wrote:

[...]

> Writing "did not work" just doesn't cut it on this list:
> we need some specifics. Here's an example I ran this
> morning on a reference given by David Christensen:

This is more or less I thought at the first post: "not
work" doesn't work here.

For me, youtube-dl works most of the time. But this will
almost certainly be a complex function of the downloader's
location and the video in question, so...

One thing I found out is that youtube-dl's cache seems to
suffer poisoning from time to time (no wonder, with all that
toxic javascript out there). A timely

  youtube-dl --rm-cache-dir

got it unstuck for me once (meaning that a video which threw
a 403 before downloaded nicely after).

YMMV and things.

Cheers
-- 
t


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: youtube-dl → yt-dlp, was Re: OT: Detecting ISP throttling (was: Re: Potentially OT. Videos lagging & buffering in any browser but Google Chrome.)

[David Wright]

On Fri 31 Mar 2023 at 01:41:04 (+0800), Bret Busby wrote:
> On 31/3/23 00:40, David Wright wrote:
> > On Thu 30 Mar 2023 at 19:31:21 (+0800), Bret Busby wrote:
> > 
> > > I had previously been able to use youtube-dl, to download videos from
> > > youtube, but, it no longer works with youtube.
> > 
> > AIUI youtube-dl is now obsolete, and its new spelling is yt-dlp.
> > 
> > You can download it from bullseye-backports. If you're a backports
> > user, just install it and check out the CLI options you normally
> > use, in case they've been tweaked, with:
> > 
> >$ yt-dlp -help | less
> > 
> > > And, I had been able to download videos from some streaming hosts,
> > > but, find that I cannot download videos from other streaming hosts.
> > > 
> > > By download, I mean saving to my computer - so that I can get
> > > continuity, and, replay the streamed videos at slower speeds, and,
> > > manipulate the sound, so that I (having a hearing disability that
> > > affects my ability to hear what is spoken) can better hear what is
> > > being said, which is important for educational videos, such as at
> > > Rootstech 2023, where I cannot download significant videos.
> > 
> > The yt-dlp dependencies are all unversioned, so rather than put
> > backports into my sources.list, I just checked that I had them all,
> > downloaded yt-dlp….deb from the Packages page, and installed it with
> > theapt-get install /full-path-to/yt-dlp….debsyntax.
> > (The backports youtube-dl package used to get very long in the tooth
> > at times, so I've done this frequently in the past.) Whenever
> > downloading fails, I check out whether there's a more up-to-date
> > version with the   yt-dlp -U   option.
> > 
> > Apparently there's a bug in yt-dlp at the moment, but I don't think
> > either of us uses mpv /with/ the downloader, but only /after/
> > downloading has completed.
> > 
> I had downloaded and installed yt-dlp, but, that did not work, either.

Writing "did not work" just doesn't cut it on this list:
we need some specifics. Here's an example I ran this
morning on a reference given by David Christensen:

$ gy bKzonnwoR2I
/usr/bin/yt-dlp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKzonnwoR2I
[youtube] Extracting URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKzonnwoR2I
[youtube] bKzonnwoR2I: Downloading webpage
[youtube] bKzonnwoR2I: Downloading android player API JSON
[info] bKzonnwoR2I: Downloading 1 format(s): 248+251
[download] Destination: Unix Pipeline (Brian Kernighan) - Computerphile 
[bKzonnwoR2I].f248.webm
[download] 100% of   50.64MiB in 00:00:05 at 8.45MiB/s
[download] Destination: Unix Pipeline (Brian Kernighan) - Computerphile 
[bKzonnwoR2I].f251.webm
[download] 100% of3.85MiB in 00:00:00 at 6.28MiB/s
[Merger] Merging formats into "Unix Pipeline (Brian Kernighan) - Computerphile 
[bKzonnwoR2I].webm"
Remember to remove any unmerged files as appropriate.
$ 

Whether you can download that would determine where you go from here.

Cheers,
David.

Re: youtube-dl → yt-dlp, was Re: OT: Detecting ISP throttling (was: Re: Potentially OT. Videos lagging & buffering in any browser but Google Chrome.)

[Bret Busby]

On 31/3/23 00:40, David Wright wrote:

On Thu 30 Mar 2023 at 19:31:21 (+0800), Bret Busby wrote:


I had previously been able to use youtube-dl, to download videos from
youtube, but, it no longer works with youtube.


AIUI youtube-dl is now obsolete, and its new spelling is yt-dlp.

You can download it from bullseye-backports. If you're a backports
user, just install it and check out the CLI options you normally
use, in case they've been tweaked, with:

   $ yt-dlp -help | less


And, I had been able to download videos from some streaming hosts,
but, find that I cannot download videos from other streaming hosts.

By download, I mean saving to my computer - so that I can get
continuity, and, replay the streamed videos at slower speeds, and,
manipulate the sound, so that I (having a hearing disability that
affects my ability to hear what is spoken) can better hear what is
being said, which is important for educational videos, such as at
Rootstech 2023, where I cannot download significant videos.


The yt-dlp dependencies are all unversioned, so rather than put
backports into my sources.list, I just checked that I had them all,
downloaded yt-dlp….deb from the Packages page, and installed it with
theapt-get install /full-path-to/yt-dlp….debsyntax.
(The backports youtube-dl package used to get very long in the tooth
at times, so I've done this frequently in the past.) Whenever
downloading fails, I check out whether there's a more up-to-date
version with the   yt-dlp -U   option.

Apparently there's a bug in yt-dlp at the moment, but I don't think
either of us uses mpv /with/ the downloader, but only /after/
downloading has completed.

Cheers,
David.


I had downloaded and installed yt-dlp, but, that did not work, either.

..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..

youtube-dl → yt-dlp, was Re: OT: Detecting ISP throttling (was: Re: Potentially OT. Videos lagging & buffering in any browser but Google Chrome.)

[David Wright]

On Thu 30 Mar 2023 at 19:31:21 (+0800), Bret Busby wrote:

> I had previously been able to use youtube-dl, to download videos from
> youtube, but, it no longer works with youtube.

AIUI youtube-dl is now obsolete, and its new spelling is yt-dlp.

You can download it from bullseye-backports. If you're a backports
user, just install it and check out the CLI options you normally
use, in case they've been tweaked, with:

  $ yt-dlp -help | less

> And, I had been able to download videos from some streaming hosts,
> but, find that I cannot download videos from other streaming hosts.
> 
> By download, I mean saving to my computer - so that I can get
> continuity, and, replay the streamed videos at slower speeds, and,
> manipulate the sound, so that I (having a hearing disability that
> affects my ability to hear what is spoken) can better hear what is
> being said, which is important for educational videos, such as at
> Rootstech 2023, where I cannot download significant videos.

The yt-dlp dependencies are all unversioned, so rather than put
backports into my sources.list, I just checked that I had them all,
downloaded yt-dlp….deb from the Packages page, and installed it with
theapt-get install /full-path-to/yt-dlp….debsyntax.
(The backports youtube-dl package used to get very long in the tooth
at times, so I've done this frequently in the past.) Whenever
downloading fails, I check out whether there's a more up-to-date
version with the   yt-dlp -U   option.

Apparently there's a bug in yt-dlp at the moment, but I don't think
either of us uses mpv /with/ the downloader, but only /after/
downloading has completed.

Cheers,
David.

Re: OT: Detecting ISP throttling (was: Re: Potentially OT. Videos lagging & buffering in any browser but Google Chrome.)

[Curt]

On 2023-03-30, Bret Busby  wrote:
>
> I had previously been able to use youtube-dl, to download videos from 
> youtube, but, it no longer works with youtube.
>

If you're not using the latest version, this is it:

https://youtube-dl.org/downloads/latest/youtube-dl-2021.12.17.tar.gz

I used this (or maybe a previous version) not too long ago, and it worked
as intended.

Re: OT: Detecting ISP throttling (was: Re: Potentially OT. Videos lagging & buffering in any browser but Google Chrome.)

[Bret Busby]

On 30/3/23 19:11, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 04:21:00 PM Cindy Sue Causey wrote:

One last thought is I read somewhere that ISPs, especially smaller
ones, have been caught throttling users based on type of usage even
though the same ISPs label their services as unlimited. Conspiracy
theories tossed aside, that's still a rational possibility that needs
pursued on my end here.

BUT THEN... Google Chrome does work properly. That's why I haven't
wasted any time nor brain storage on actively investigating local ISP
throttling as a most likely answer. :)


I suspect my ISP (Earthlink) may be throttling me.  Not too long ago, I could
watch (stream) TV programs on PlutoTV (on my DSL line (I know)) but could not
stream movies (and I assumed the movies might have had a higher resolution and
thus required more bandwidth).

But, a few months ago, I was no longer able to stream TV shows.

I guess I could run a speed check on my line and compare to some older
results, but I can imagine the speed test could be fooled (maybe they've
throttled my connection either for specific IPs / websites, or maybe for
specific "classes" of data.

Any other suggestions?

I am wondering whether the problem with the streaming, involves changes 
made by the streaming hosts.


I had previously been able to use youtube-dl, to download videos from 
youtube, but, it no longer works with youtube.


And, I had been able to download videos from some streaming hosts, but, 
find that I cannot download videos from other streaming hosts.


By download, I mean saving to my computer - so that I can get 
continuity, and, replay the streamed videos at slower speeds, and, 
manipulate the sound, so that I (having a hearing disability that 
affects my ability to hear what is spoken) can better hear what is being 
said, which is important for educational videos, such as at Rootstech 
2023, where I cannot download significant videos.


..
Bret Busby
Armadale
West Australia
(UTC+0800)
..

OT: Detecting ISP throttling (was: Re: Potentially OT. Videos lagging & buffering in any browser but Google Chrome.)

[rhkramer]

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 04:21:00 PM Cindy Sue Causey wrote:
> One last thought is I read somewhere that ISPs, especially smaller
> ones, have been caught throttling users based on type of usage even
> though the same ISPs label their services as unlimited. Conspiracy
> theories tossed aside, that's still a rational possibility that needs
> pursued on my end here.
> 
> BUT THEN... Google Chrome does work properly. That's why I haven't
> wasted any time nor brain storage on actively investigating local ISP
> throttling as a most likely answer. :)

I suspect my ISP (Earthlink) may be throttling me.  Not too long ago, I could 
watch (stream) TV programs on PlutoTV (on my DSL line (I know)) but could not 
stream movies (and I assumed the movies might have had a higher resolution and 
thus required more bandwidth).

But, a few months ago, I was no longer able to stream TV shows.

I guess I could run a speed check on my line and compare to some older 
results, but I can imagine the speed test could be fooled (maybe they've 
throttled my connection either for specific IPs / websites, or maybe for 
specific "classes" of data.

Any other suggestions?

-- 
rhk 

(sig revised 20230312 -- modified first paragraph, some other irrelevant 
wordsmithing)

| No entity has permission to use this email to train an AI. 

If you reply: snip, snip, and snip again; leave attributions; avoid HTML; 
avoid top posting; and keep it "on list".  (Oxford comma (and semi-colon) 
included at no charge.)  If you revise the topic, change the Subject: line.  
If you change the topic, start a new thread.

Writing is often meant for others to read and understand (legal documents 
excepted?) -- make it easier for your reader by various means, including 
liberal use of whitespace (short paragraphs, separated by whitespace / blank 
lines) and minimal use of (obscure?) jargon, abbreviations, acronyms, and 
references.

If someone has already responded to a question, decide whether any response 
you add will be helpful or not ...

A picture is worth a thousand words.  A video (or "audio"): not so much -- 
divide by 10 for each minute of video (or audio) or create a transcript and 
edit it to 10% of the original.

A speaker who uses ahhs, ums, or such may have a real physical or mental 
disability, or may be showing disrespect for his listeners by not properly 
preparing in advance and thinking before speaking. (That speaker might have 
been "trained" to do this by being interrupted often if he pauses.)  (Remember 
Cicero who did not have enough time to write a short missive.)

A radio (or TV) station which broadcasts speakers with high pitched voices (or 
very low pitched / gravelly voices) (which older people might not be able to 
hear properly) disrespects its listeners.   Likewise if it broadcasts 
extraneous or disturbing sounds (like gunfire or crying), or broadcasts 
speakers using their native language (with or without an overdubbed 
translation).

A person who writes a sig this long probably has issues and disrespects (and 
offends) a large number of readers. ;-)
'

Re: Potentially OT. Videos lagging & buffering in any browser but Google Chrome.

[Cindy Sue Causey]

On 3/26/23, Juan R.D. Silva  wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Debian Bullseye here up to date. Browsers installed: Firefox, Opera,
> Vivaldi, and Google Chrome.
>
> I'm having a weird problem streaming movies from archive.org. The movies
> are lagging & keep buffering in all browsers but Google Chrome. Google
> Chrome streams same movies at the same time without any stuttering.
>
> So far I've notices it using on archive.org only, so I'm not sure if the
> problem is on my side or on archive.org. The problem is rather recent
> but persistent and in last days get really bad.


At first, I just came in to say, "Yeah, me, too." It's with CSI (Las
Vegas style) on pluto(dot)tv. Since I background that as a mood
enhancer, I pretty much don't notice. When viewed, it seems to somehow
aesthetically fit that series.

Pinterest website has been doing weird things, too. Last few days I'm
lucky if a fifth of each of their webpages loads. If I want to view
the videos they're pushing, I have to copy and paste over to Google
Chrome. Pinterest then pretty much runs seamlessly on that, too.

Since you've tested several other web browsers, I wonder if they're
all using something similar, thus similarly buggy, as a building block
in their projects. Important to note is mine is straight from
Mozilla's website. I can't remember what was buggy, but that's always
the reason I go straight to them out of exasperation.

Next it came to mind to think maybe there's a setting buried within
each browser's preferences. And so I checked Firefox. There's a
picture-in-picture option that I just toggled OFF.

Just rebooted because something was odd with RAM (2.5GB still in use)
after all program were closed. That step-by-step download buffering
effect isn't showing on Firefox now, at least in my case, I suppose it
could be about multiple copies somehow conflicting.. or something
along those lines, anyway. Time will tell if it's about something else
should the buffering effect start up again.

Instead of wading through installing Opera and Vivaldi, I hit up a
search engine. Both browsers can be found offering tips on how to set
their own picture-in-picture offerings.

Google Chrome has it, too, but it was hard to find. Mine's under
chrome://flags (per the Internet) then search for picture-in-picture.
It's set at default then also offers enabled and disabled. I can't
tell which mine is set at, and I'm not up for experimenting.
Experiments is coincidentally a word you'll see if you visit that
address.

One last thought is I read somewhere that ISPs, especially smaller
ones, have been caught throttling users based on type of usage even
though the same ISPs label their services as unlimited. Conspiracy
theories tossed aside, that's still a rational possibility that needs
pursued on my end here.

BUT THEN... Google Chrome does work properly. That's why I haven't
wasted any time nor brain storage on actively investigating local ISP
throttling as a most likely answer. :)

For whatever it's worth in their parts as players, I'm using:

* Sid identifying itself to hardinfo as Debian 12 Bookworm
* Kernel 6.1.20-1 (2023-03-19) x86_64
* AMD A10-5750M APU with Radeon(tm) HD Graphics
* pavucontrol to toggle sounds on LXQt desktop
* 16GB RAM that Firefox REGULARLY eats alive thus triggering ongoing restarts
* Zero SWAP in use with 8GB unmounted on standby if needed
* 2.56 GHz quad core that seems to never change from 2500 according to
hardinfo. In the past, other laptops have fluctuated all over their
respective ranges.

Probably overkill in sharing, but you never know what ultimately might
be a causative.

Cindy :)

Update: Pinterest is still not working. PlutoTV's CSI is still running
much more smoothly a couple of hours after toggling picture-in-picture
off, BUT I think I'm starting to see a small hint of buffering coming
back. "free -m" shows RAM at 7.4GB available. It will be a couple
hours before that gets eaten up. When it does, that will help show how
much of an effect memory has in my instance of this.

Notable: Back over at Firefox again: Under its Settings > Privacy &
Security, I accidentally found the following likewise toggled ON:

Firefox Data Collection and Use
* Allow Firefox to send technical and interaction data to Mozilla
* Allow Firefox to make personalized extension recommendations
* Allow Firefox to install and run studies
* Allow Firefox to send backlogged crash reports on your behalf

Included for whatever it's worth since the topic of browsers' negative
effect on computer memory seems to come up enough to be considered a
thing... that would help make it a suspect in this buffering question.

-- 
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA
* runs with birdseed *

Potentially OT. Videos lagging & buffering in any browser but Google Chrome.

[Juan R.D. Silva]

Hi folks,

Debian Bullseye here up to date. Browsers installed: Firefox, Opera, 
Vivaldi, and Google Chrome.


I'm having a weird problem streaming movies from archive.org. The movies 
are lagging & keep buffering in all browsers but Google Chrome. Google 
Chrome streams same movies at the same time without any stuttering.


So far I've notices it using on archive.org only, so I'm not sure if the 
problem is on my side or on archive.org. The problem is rather recent 
but persistent and in last days get really bad.


Any suggestions?

Thanks.

Re: Google Chrome can share but Chromium cannot share screen

[Pankaj Jangid]

Corentin Bardet  writes:

> I think you have no other option than using Google Chrome for your
> meetings.

Screen sharing works in Firefox ESR on Wayland. So I still have
options. Just that few features - like blur background etc. doesn't
work in FF.

Re: Google Chrome can share but Chromium cannot share screen

[Steve Litt]

On Sun, 2022-09-11 at 10:26 +0200, Corentin Bardet wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Le 2022-09-11 07:39, Pankaj Jangid a écrit :
> > For a few work related meetings, I have to use Google Meet. But the
> > screensharing doesn't work in the Chromium installed from stable APT
> > repository. Clicking on the share-screen icon and then selecting any of
> > the three options - Tab, Windows, Entire Screen - shows this error
> > message,
> > 
> > "Your browser can't share your screen"
> > 
> > But if I install and use Google Chrome, then the screen sharing works 
> > in
> > Google Meet.
> 
> That doesn't surprise me much.
> 
> Google removed the majority of its APIs from Chromium : 
> [here](
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)#Differences_from_Google_Chrom
> e) 
> and 
> [here](https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/01/chromium-sync-google-api-removed)
> 
> Maybe screen sharing was a Google thing. Especially screen sharing to 
> Google Meet.
> 
> I think you have no other option than using Google Chrome for your 
> meetings.

O r   u s e   J i t s i ! 

SteveT

Re: Google Chrome can share but Chromium cannot share screen

[David]

On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 10:26, Corentin Bardet  
wrote:

Hi,

Le 2022-09-11 07:39, Pankaj Jangid a écrit :

For a few work related meetings, I have to use Google Meet. But the
screensharing doesn't work in the Chromium installed from stable APT
repository. Clicking on the share-screen icon and then selecting any 
of

the three options - Tab, Windows, Entire Screen - shows this error
message,

"Your browser can't share your screen"

But if I install and use Google Chrome, then the screen sharing 
works in

Google Meet.


That doesn't surprise me much.

Google removed the majority of its APIs from Chromium : 
[here](<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser>)#Differences_from_Google_Chrome) 
and 
[here](<https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/01/chromium-sync-google-api-removed>)


Maybe screen sharing was a Google thing. Especially screen sharing to 
Google Meet.


I think you have no other option than using Google Chrome for your 
meetings.


If that's truly the case, they don't appear to be living up to 
licencing agreement.

Cheers!

Re: Google Chrome can share but Chromium cannot share screen

[Corentin Bardet]

Hi,

Le 2022-09-11 07:39, Pankaj Jangid a écrit :

For a few work related meetings, I have to use Google Meet. But the
screensharing doesn't work in the Chromium installed from stable APT
repository. Clicking on the share-screen icon and then selecting any of
the three options - Tab, Windows, Entire Screen - shows this error
message,

"Your browser can't share your screen"

But if I install and use Google Chrome, then the screen sharing works 
in

Google Meet.


That doesn't surprise me much.

Google removed the majority of its APIs from Chromium : 
[here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_(web_browser)#Differences_from_Google_Chrome) 
and 
[here](https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2021/01/chromium-sync-google-api-removed)


Maybe screen sharing was a Google thing. Especially screen sharing to 
Google Meet.


I think you have no other option than using Google Chrome for your 
meetings.


Cheers,

Corentin Bardet
coren...@noxnet.eu

Google Chrome can share but Chromium cannot share screen

[Pankaj Jangid]

For a few work related meetings, I have to use Google Meet. But the
screensharing doesn't work in the Chromium installed from stable APT
repository. Clicking on the share-screen icon and then selecting any of
the three options - Tab, Windows, Entire Screen - shows this error
message,

"Your browser can't share your screen"

But if I install and use Google Chrome, then the screen sharing works in
Google Meet.

Re: Google Chrome leaves processes around each time is closed

[Jeremy Ardley]

On 17/5/22 6:23 am, nimrod wrote:

Hi,

recently Google Chrome started to leave around a "chrome 
--enable-crashpad" process every time I closed it. Each of such 
processes sucks 25% of CPU. If I open another instance of Chrome and I 
close it, another process is created and reaches the 25% of CPU, and 
so on and so forth. Obviously the fans roar a lot until I don't kill 
every such processes.





I too have recent problems with Chrome. Playing videos such as on 
youtube often result in the cursor flickering and the whole browser 
becomes unusable. Sometimes I have just enough input that it will 
recognise me hitting the 'x' and will then pop up a message about the 
browser being unresponsive. Other times I have to use a kill -9


I upgraded to the latest Version 101.0.4951.64 (Official Build) (64-bit) 
but the problem still happens.


--
Jeremy



OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Google Chrome leaves processes around each time is closed

[nimrod]

Hi,

recently Google Chrome started to leave around a "chrome --enable-
crashpad" process every time I closed it. Each of such processes sucks
25% of CPU. If I open another instance of Chrome and I close it,
another process is created and reaches the 25% of CPU, and so on and so
forth. Obviously the fans roar a lot until I don't kill every such
processes.

The first time I open Chrome one of these processes is started, but it
runs smoothly even around 0% of the CPU. Fans are quite silent.

I have three PC all equipped with Bullseye and regularly updated, but
only one shows this behaviour. It's a Sony Vaio laptop, very good for
me except for this strange problem.

Thanks in advance.

Re: Google Chrome and Bullseye upgrade: stable or bullseye

[Tom Browder]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 06:40 Greg Wooledge  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 06:37:04AM -0500, Tom Browder wrote:
> > I have all my apt lists ready for upgrading from Buster to Bullseye
> except
> > the separate one for Google Chrome. It currently says "stable" and it has
> > been that way through several upgrades.
>
> That's fine.  I've done buster to bullseye with that specific third-party
> repository in place, and it works without any issues.  Even after the
> upgrade to bullseye, it continues to work.


Thanks, that’s what I suspected. I’ll leave it as is and press on!

Thanks, all, consider this issue closed successfully.

-Tom

Re: Google Chrome and Bullseye upgrade: stable or bullseye

[Tixy]

On Mon, 2022-04-18 at 06:37 -0500, Tom Browder wrote:
> I have all my apt lists ready for upgrading from Buster to Bullseye except
> the separate one for Google Chrome. It currently says "stable" and it has
> been that way through several upgrades.
> 
> The instructions for the prep for the upgrade say that stable should be
> bullseye, but the text inside the file says it was automatically installed
> (I assume by Google years ago when I first downloaded it).
> 
> My question is: can anyone tell me what my file should say? The best answer
> would be "it makes no difference" OR "keep it 'stable'."

If you install chrome by downloading the deb package from Google's site
it creates /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome.list containing:

   ### THIS FILE IS AUTOMATICALLY CONFIGURED ###
   # You may comment out this entry, but any other modifications may be lost.
   deb [arch=amd64] http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main

I bet 'stable' is the only release name that exists on their system,
don't forget this package is also for Ubuntu and other distributions
which use the Debian package format.

-- 
Tixy

Re: Google Chrome and Bullseye upgrade: stable or bullseye

[Greg Wooledge]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 06:37:04AM -0500, Tom Browder wrote:
> I have all my apt lists ready for upgrading from Buster to Bullseye except
> the separate one for Google Chrome. It currently says "stable" and it has
> been that way through several upgrades.

That's fine.  I've done buster to bullseye with that specific third-party
repository in place, and it works without any issues.  Even after the
upgrade to bullseye, it continues to work.

unicorn:~$ cat /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome.list 
### THIS FILE IS AUTOMATICALLY CONFIGURED ###
# You may comment out this entry, but any other modifications may be lost.
deb [arch=amd64] http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main
unicorn:~$ cat /etc/debian_version 
11.3

Google Chrome and Bullseye upgrade: stable or bullseye

[Tom Browder]

I have all my apt lists ready for upgrading from Buster to Bullseye except
the separate one for Google Chrome. It currently says "stable" and it has
been that way through several upgrades.

The instructions for the prep for the upgrade say that stable should be
bullseye, but the text inside the file says it was automatically installed
(I assume by Google years ago when I first downloaded it).

My question is: can anyone tell me what my file should say? The best answer
would be "it makes no difference" OR "keep it 'stable'."

In any event, this time, before the upgrade, I will put an appropriate note
in the Google file.

Thanks so much for your help.

-Tom

Re: Dragging tabs in Google Chrome 97

[Greg Wooledge]

On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 11:54:22AM -0500, Dan Ritter wrote:
> Greg Wooledge wrote: 
> > This morning, I did my normal apt-get update/upgrade, and this brought
> > in a new version of google-chrome-stable
> > 
> > ii  google-chrome-stable 97.0.4692.71-1 amd64The web browser from 
> > Google
> > 
> 
> quoting from
> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1279532&q=tab%20move&can=2
> 
> > Stable (96.0.4664.110): Works as expected tabs can be dragged
> > out and dragged back to window.
> > Beta (97.0.4692.45): Bug occurs if using system title and
> > borders, disabling them makes tab work as expected.
> > Dev (98.0.4750.0):  Bug occurs if using system title and
> > borders, disabling them makes tab work as expected.

They released a fix today.

Unpacking google-chrome-stable (97.0.4692.99-1) over (97.0.4692.71-1) ...

I can rearrange tabs with the mouse again, and drag-and-drop inside a
window also works correctly.

Re: Dragging tabs in Google Chrome 97

[Greg Wooledge]

On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 05:16:27PM -, Curt wrote:
> On 2022-01-05, David Wright  wrote:
> >> 
> >> As of this morning's update, dragging and dropping items in this game
> >> doesn't work either.  The dragging part appears to work correctly, as
> >> far as I can tell -- there is visual feedback that a thing is being
> >> moved as I drag with the mouse.  But when I release the button to "drop"
> >> the thing, it simply goes back to its original position.  No rearranging
> >> occurs.
> >
> > Not to say it's relevant or irrelevant, but that's the behaviour of
> > dragging any image in FF: let go and it puts it back where it was.
> > What I don't know is whether an item that's drag-AND-droppable has
> > to be marked in some way, which could be missing; or whether it's
> > just the dropping mechanism that's broken.
> 
> I just updated my Chrome to 97 but am not seeing the behavior Greg is.
> He could try the usual stuff, like "Reset settings" in Settings,
> verifying if the problem occurs in incognito mode or with another
> profile, disabling extensions, etc. Or even maybe exploring the
> possibility of a hardware snafu with the keyboard and/or mouse.

Based on the results of my earlier Google searches, I tried incognito
mode (no luck), disabling extensions (no luck), and unplugging/replugging
my USB keyboard (no luck).

I did not try a new profile, nor did I try resetting all settings, the
latter of which sounds horribly destructive.

Another post in this thread claimed that the bug may be related to using
"system title bars and borders", which I am doing.  However, disabling
that and then restarting Chrome does not fix it.  So there's some other
piece involved.

Re: Dragging tabs in Google Chrome 97

[Curt]

On 2022-01-05, David Wright  wrote:
>> 
>> As of this morning's update, dragging and dropping items in this game
>> doesn't work either.  The dragging part appears to work correctly, as
>> far as I can tell -- there is visual feedback that a thing is being
>> moved as I drag with the mouse.  But when I release the button to "drop"
>> the thing, it simply goes back to its original position.  No rearranging
>> occurs.
>
> Not to say it's relevant or irrelevant, but that's the behaviour of
> dragging any image in FF: let go and it puts it back where it was.
> What I don't know is whether an item that's drag-AND-droppable has
> to be marked in some way, which could be missing; or whether it's
> just the dropping mechanism that's broken.

I just updated my Chrome to 97 but am not seeing the behavior Greg is.
He could try the usual stuff, like "Reset settings" in Settings,
verifying if the problem occurs in incognito mode or with another
profile, disabling extensions, etc. Or even maybe exploring the
possibility of a hardware snafu with the keyboard and/or mouse.

> Cheers, David.
>
>

Re: Dragging tabs in Google Chrome 97

[Dan Ritter]

Greg Wooledge wrote: 
> This morning, I did my normal apt-get update/upgrade, and this brought
> in a new version of google-chrome-stable
> 
> ii  google-chrome-stable 97.0.4692.71-1 amd64The web browser from 
> Google
> 

quoting from
https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=1279532&q=tab%20move&can=2

> Stable (96.0.4664.110): Works as expected tabs can be dragged
> out and dragged back to window.
> Beta (97.0.4692.45): Bug occurs if using system title and
> borders, disabling them makes tab work as expected.
> Dev (98.0.4750.0):  Bug occurs if using system title and
> borders, disabling them makes tab work as expected.
> 
> Not in the video but also tested was KDE Neo (dev version), were
> bug occurs regard regardless of system title and borders being
> enabled.
> 
> So recapping:
> * Bug is present in both Gnome and KDE Plasma
> * It's not a Dev branch bug but a beta branch one
> * It always affects KDE Plasma, but will only affect Gnome when
> * using system title bar and borders

In this case, beta means 97, which is now the stable release.

They'll have to solve it in Chrome.

-dsr-

Re: Dragging tabs in Google Chrome 97

[Dan Ritter]

Greg Wooledge wrote: 
> This morning, I did my normal apt-get update/upgrade, and this brought
> in a new version of google-chrome-stable
> 
> ii  google-chrome-stable 97.0.4692.71-1 amd64The web browser from 
> Google
> 
> After restarting in the new version of Chrome, I am unable to move
> tabs around within a window.  Any attempt to drag a tab to the left or
> the right immediately causes the creation of a new window, with the
> tab that I was trying to move inside the new window.
> 
> I googled (ironically) the problem, and of course because Chrome 97 is
> so new, there are no useful pages in the search results yet.  The nearest
> I found were some older reports of similar issues.

I see reports now from Ubuntu and Manjaro, so I'm pretty sure
this is Google's issue. Downgrading to

https://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/pool/main/g/google-chrome-stable/google-chrome-stable_96.0.4664.110-1_amd64.deb

is reported to work. Eventually, presumably, Google will fix it.

-dsr-

Re: Dragging tabs in Google Chrome 97

[Greg Wooledge]

On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 11:13:46AM -0500, Cindy Sue Causey wrote:
> I don't have answers toward a permanent resolution but still wanted to
> suggest that CTRL+SHIFT+[pageUP/pageDOWN] works for me to
> alternatively move tabs around one position at a time. Am hoping that
> also works (universally) in Chrome, too.

Thanks!  That will do nicely as a workaround.  It's sure as hell better
than having to put all the *rest* of the tabs into a new window and then
move them back to the original window.

I wonder if there's any documentation in the world that describes all
of these magic key combos that browsers use, or if they're all handed
down by word of mouth like this.

(Won't help me in my incremental game, but that's OK.)

Re: Dragging tabs in Google Chrome 97

[Cindy Sue Causey]

On 1/5/22, Greg Wooledge  wrote:
> This morning, I did my normal apt-get update/upgrade, and this brought
> in a new version of google-chrome-stable
>
> ii  google-chrome-stable 97.0.4692.71-1 amd64The web browser from
> Google
>
> After restarting in the new version of Chrome, I am unable to move
> tabs around within a window.  Any attempt to drag a tab to the left or
> the right immediately causes the creation of a new window, with the
> tab that I was trying to move inside the new window.
>
> >From there, if I right-click the offending tab inside the new window,
> there's an option to "Move tab to a new window".  I can use this to
> send the tab back to its original window -- but now it's on the far
> right.
>
> I googled (ironically) the problem, and of course because Chrome 97 is
> so new, there are no useful pages in the search results yet.  The nearest
> I found were some older reports of similar issues.


I don't have answers toward a permanent resolution but still wanted to
suggest that CTRL+SHIFT+[pageUP/pageDOWN] works for me to
alternatively move tabs around one position at a time. Am hoping that
also works (universally) in Chrome, too.

That's my go-to route when I experience similar issues with the tabs
detaching. In my case, it's about elderly shaky fingers (Human error),
low computer memory, and such that cause that highly aggravating issue
here. :)


> I know this isn't the *best* place to ask for help with proprietary
> browsers, but this is a pretty popular one, so there's a chance.  Has
> anyone else encountered this problem?  More importantly, does anyone
> know how to *fix* it?
>
> Being unable to rearrange tabs in a sane manner is EXTREMELY irritating.


Cindy :)
-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA
* runs with birdseed *

Re: Dragging tabs in Google Chrome 97

[David Wright]

On Wed 05 Jan 2022 at 10:25:38 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 09:14:07AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > This morning, I did my normal apt-get update/upgrade, and this brought
> > in a new version of google-chrome-stable
> > 
> > ii  google-chrome-stable 97.0.4692.71-1 amd64The web browser from 
> > Google
> > 
> > After restarting in the new version of Chrome, I am unable to move
> > tabs around within a window.  Any attempt to drag a tab to the left or
> > the right immediately causes the creation of a new window, with the
> > tab that I was trying to move inside the new window.
> 
> I've discovered another symptom, and I'm assuming it's related.
> 
> One of the games that I play in Chrome is an incremental called Evolve
> <https://pmotschmann.github.io/Evolve/>.  This game uses Javascript
> heavily, and allows dragging and dropping various things within the
> game, in order to rearrange work queues and so forth.
> 
> As of this morning's update, dragging and dropping items in this game
> doesn't work either.  The dragging part appears to work correctly, as
> far as I can tell -- there is visual feedback that a thing is being
> moved as I drag with the mouse.  But when I release the button to "drop"
> the thing, it simply goes back to its original position.  No rearranging
> occurs.

Not to say it's relevant or irrelevant, but that's the behaviour of
dragging any image in FF: let go and it puts it back where it was.
What I don't know is whether an item that's drag-AND-droppable has
to be marked in some way, which could be missing; or whether it's
just the dropping mechanism that's broken.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Dragging tabs in Google Chrome 97

[Greg Wooledge]

On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 09:14:07AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> This morning, I did my normal apt-get update/upgrade, and this brought
> in a new version of google-chrome-stable
> 
> ii  google-chrome-stable 97.0.4692.71-1 amd64The web browser from 
> Google
> 
> After restarting in the new version of Chrome, I am unable to move
> tabs around within a window.  Any attempt to drag a tab to the left or
> the right immediately causes the creation of a new window, with the
> tab that I was trying to move inside the new window.

I've discovered another symptom, and I'm assuming it's related.

One of the games that I play in Chrome is an incremental called Evolve
<https://pmotschmann.github.io/Evolve/>.  This game uses Javascript
heavily, and allows dragging and dropping various things within the
game, in order to rearrange work queues and so forth.

As of this morning's update, dragging and dropping items in this game
doesn't work either.  The dragging part appears to work correctly, as
far as I can tell -- there is visual feedback that a thing is being
moved as I drag with the mouse.  But when I release the button to "drop"
the thing, it simply goes back to its original position.  No rearranging
occurs.

Dragging tabs in Google Chrome 97

[Greg Wooledge]

This morning, I did my normal apt-get update/upgrade, and this brought
in a new version of google-chrome-stable

ii  google-chrome-stable 97.0.4692.71-1 amd64The web browser from Google

After restarting in the new version of Chrome, I am unable to move
tabs around within a window.  Any attempt to drag a tab to the left or
the right immediately causes the creation of a new window, with the
tab that I was trying to move inside the new window.

>From there, if I right-click the offending tab inside the new window,
there's an option to "Move tab to a new window".  I can use this to
send the tab back to its original window -- but now it's on the far
right.

I googled (ironically) the problem, and of course because Chrome 97 is
so new, there are no useful pages in the search results yet.  The nearest
I found were some older reports of similar issues.

One thread reported this happening under Xwayland.  I am not running
Wayland.  Pure X11.

Another thread reported this happening if a hardware device (such as a
keyboard, microphone, or audio headset) was sending events.  I ran xev
to verify that there were no incoming events.  I also tried unplugging
and re-plugging my USB keyboard.  I finally tried unplugging my USB
microphone/camera.  Neither of those helped.

(While re-plugging the USB mic/camera, I accidentally pressed the power
button and turned my computer off.  I'm pleased to report that the GRUB
issue I had last time I booted did not occur this time -- the keyboard
worked in GRUB, and I was able to reboot without a 2 minute wait.  Sadly,
the reboot did not fix the Chrome tab dragging issue.)

I know this isn't the *best* place to ask for help with proprietary
browsers, but this is a pretty popular one, so there's a chance.  Has
anyone else encountered this problem?  More importantly, does anyone
know how to *fix* it?

Being unable to rearrange tabs in a sane manner is EXTREMELY irritating.

Re: need google chrome installation instructions that work

[Greg Wooledge]

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:07:51AM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> It works fine for me, as shown by the output below. However, I notice
> there's a line:
> 
> Note, selecting 'xtoolwait' instead of ' … … /xtoolwait_1.3-6.2_amd64.deb'

Yeah, my own tests always gave me that too, so I decided not to post
my results here.  Apparently the only way I can *test* this and *post*
my results would be if I use a .deb file that does *not* correspond to
a package that is known to apt on my system.  Which would mean either I'd
have to find a random third-party repository that has a *small* package
that I could download and install with apt-get install ./ for testing
purposes, or I would have to purge my web browser, purge the Google
repository from my sources.list.d, apt-get update to purge it from the
cached lists, and then repeat the basic procedure of installing
google-chrome-stable from scratch.

I was not willing to do all of that just to prove people wrong on the
Internet.  I have some limits.

If someone still claims that it "doesn't work", then for the love of RMS,
post:

 * which VERSION of Debian you are using,

 * the EXACT command you used, and

 * the FULL and EXACT output of that command.

One person who claimed it "didn't work" went through those steps and
discovered that the wrong command had been used.

Re: need google chrome installation instructions that work

[David Wright]

On Wed 21 Nov 2018 at 11:44:02 (-0800), Patrick Bartek wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:21:15 -0500
> Greg Wooledge  wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 08:02:23AM -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > > I use gdebi (it's in the repos) to install locally saved .deb files.
> > > Apt-get won't install local files, that is, not in a repo.  
> > 
> > Yes, it will.  But you have to supply the filename with a
> > leading / or ./ or ../ prefix.
> > 
> > sudo apt-get install ./google-chrome-stable*.deb
> 
> That never worked for me.  I've tried. Numerous times. Even with
> complete paths, changing to directory where file was, full names, etc.,
> etc. Both with Wheezy & Stretch. Read somewhere when troubleshooting,
> apt-get wouldn't install local .deb.  Only way it would was if you
> created a local repo and put it in your sources.list. Too much
> trouble. That's why I starting using gdebi for those very rare times
> I need to.
> 
> Don't know if apt does.  Never tried.

It works fine for me, as shown by the output below. However, I notice
there's a line:

Note, selecting 'xtoolwait' instead of ' … … /xtoolwait_1.3-6.2_amd64.deb'

which could suggest that the internals of the .deb file are being
taken account of; I haven't studied the output from strace.
xtoolwait is a legitimate Debian package, but it hasn't been available
since squeeze.

I also haven't checked wheezy: all this could postdate wheezy/jessie anyway.
For a full path, the output from apt and apt-get is identical (except that
apt produces a progress bar, which is later overwritten).

-

Full path succeeds:

~# apt-get install /home/debian/squeeze/xtoolwait_1.3-6.2_amd64.deb
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree   
Reading state information... Done
Note, selecting 'xtoolwait' instead of 
'/home/debian/squeeze/xtoolwait_1.3-6.2_amd64.deb'
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  xtoolwait
0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 0 B/13.1 kB of archives.
After this operation, 77.8 kB of additional disk space will be used.
Get:1 /home/debian/squeeze/xtoolwait_1.3-6.2_amd64.deb xtoolwait amd64 1.3-6.2 
[13.1 kB]
Retrieving bug reports... Done 
Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
Selecting previously unselected package xtoolwait.
(Reading database ... 261615 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to unpack .../xtoolwait_1.3-6.2_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking xtoolwait (1.3-6.2) ...
Setting up xtoolwait (1.3-6.2) ...
Processing triggers for man-db (2.7.6.1-2) ...
Scanning processes...   

Scanning linux images...

Running kernel seems to be up-to-date.
No services need to be restarted.
No containers need to be restarted.
No user sessions are running outdated binaries.
N: Download is performed unsandboxed as root as file 
'/home/debian/squeeze/xtoolwait_1.3-6.2_amd64.deb' couldn't be accessed by user 
'_apt'. - pkgAcquire::Run (13: Permission denied)
~# 

-

Filename alone fails:

/home/debian/squeeze# apt-get install xtoolwait_1.3-6.2_amd64.deb
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree   
Reading state information... Done
E: Unable to locate package xtoolwait_1.3-6.2_amd64.deb
E: Couldn't find any package by glob 'xtoolwait_1.3-6.2_amd64.deb'
E: Couldn't find any package by regex 'xtoolwait_1.3-6.2_amd64.deb'
100 /home/debian/squeeze# 

-

./ path succeeds (and ../ likewise):

/home/debian/squeeze# apt-get install ./xtoolwait_1.3-6.2_amd64.deb
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree   
Reading state information... Done
Note, selecting 'xtoolwait' instead of './xtoolwait_1.3-6.2_amd64.deb'
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  xtoolwait
0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 0 B/13.1 kB of archives.
After this operation, 77.8 kB of additional disk space will be used.
Get:1 /home/debian/squeeze/xtoolwait_1.3-6.2_amd64.deb xtoolwait amd64 1.3-6.2 
[13.1 kB]
Retrieving bug reports... Done 
Parsing Found/Fixed information... Done
Selecting previously unselected package xtoolwait.
(Reading database ... 261615 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to unpack .../xtoolwait_1.3-6.2_amd64.deb ...
Unpacking xtoolwait (1.3-6.2) ...
Setting up xtoolwait (1.3-6.2) ...
Processing triggers for man-db (2.7.6.1-2) ...
Scanning processes...   

Scanning linux images...

Running kernel seems to be up-to-date.
No services need to be restarted.
No conta

Re: need google chrome installation instructions that work

[Cindy-Sue Causey]

On 11/21/18, Patrick Bartek  wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:21:15 -0500
> Greg Wooledge  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 08:02:23AM -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>> > I use gdebi (it's in the repos) to install locally saved .deb files.
>> > Apt-get won't install local files, that is, not in a repo.
>>
>> Yes, it will.  But you have to supply the filename with a
>> leading / or ./ or ../ prefix.
>>
>> sudo apt-get install ./google-chrome-stable*.deb
>
> That never worked for me.  I've tried. Numerous times. Even with
> complete paths, changing to directory where file was, full names, etc.,
> etc. Both with Wheezy & Stretch. Read somewhere when troubleshooting,
> apt-get wouldn't install local .deb.  Only way it would was if you
> created a local repo and put it in your sources.list. Too much
> trouble. That's why I starting using gdebi for those very rare times
> I need to.


Ditto on that experience for me. Didn't work, but can't remember the
(fairly straight up) process to repeat to better understand why not.
Had seen the "./" reference on Debian-User in the last week so I tried
it while consciously thinking, "WHAT are we doing here?!"

In my case, "we" ended up doing nothing because it didn't work. I
dropped it and kept moving while thinking I had simply missed some
setup detail that would have caused success instead of failure.


> Don't know if apt does.  Never tried.
>
> Just occurred to me that since I did customized installs of both Wheezy
> and Stretch (No desktop environment, window manager only) starting with
> a terminal only system that could be why apt-get won't install
> local .deb.  Doesn't matter.  Gdebi works fine.


Have tripped over gdebi a few times in the last year or so. Those
sightings were most likely most often as an apt-get suggested
download. Will have to give it a try now that this thread has
highlighted its usefulness. It's good to have alternative tools when
individual Life needs mandate making difficult package usage
decisions.

We just had that recent thread about playing the escalating dependency
game by hand. I broke one my setups k/t that very thing only hours
after having commented on that same thread. Fix-missing/fix-broken
both shoved a hand in my face while yelling, *Uh-uh, YOU made this
mess, YOU clean it up by yourself!* PS I did clean it up, hence the
newest debootstrap. :)

Cindy :)
-- 
Cindy-Sue Causey
Talking Rock, Pickens County, Georgia, USA

* runs with duct tape *

Re: need google chrome installation instructions that work

[Patrick Bartek]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 11:21:15 -0500
Greg Wooledge  wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 08:02:23AM -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > I use gdebi (it's in the repos) to install locally saved .deb files.
> > Apt-get won't install local files, that is, not in a repo.  
> 
> Yes, it will.  But you have to supply the filename with a
> leading / or ./ or ../ prefix.
> 
> sudo apt-get install ./google-chrome-stable*.deb

That never worked for me.  I've tried. Numerous times. Even with
complete paths, changing to directory where file was, full names, etc.,
etc. Both with Wheezy & Stretch. Read somewhere when troubleshooting,
apt-get wouldn't install local .deb.  Only way it would was if you
created a local repo and put it in your sources.list. Too much
trouble. That's why I starting using gdebi for those very rare times
I need to.

Don't know if apt does.  Never tried.

Just occurred to me that since I did customized installs of both Wheezy
and Stretch (No desktop environment, window manager only) starting with
a terminal only system that could be why apt-get won't install
local .deb.  Doesn't matter.  Gdebi works fine.   

B 

Re: need google chrome installation instructions that work

[Robert Crawford]

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 7:46 AM Greg Wooledge  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 04:44:14AM -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> > It seems Curt's instructions to use dpkg to install the downloaded deb 
> > resulted in
> > creation of /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome.list containing
> >
> >   deb [arch=amd64] http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main
> >
> > With any luck the next to search for such instruction will find this post 
> > instead of needing to
> > ask here, or better yet a Debian wiki page somewhere updated or created to 
> > include them and
> > googling to produce on first results page. :-p
>
> Or, and I know this is like SUPER surprising, right, but...
>
> ... maybe you could try searching on Google's web search engine for the
> way to install Google's web browser.
>
> Having just done this myself, the surprising part is that the answer was
> NOT the first result.  It was part way down the first page for me:
>
> https://www.google.com/chrome/
>
> On this page, there is a "Download Chrome" button.  Clicking this
> gives me a pop-up overlay panel thingy which asks me to select
> between "64 bit .deb" and "64 bit .rpm".  There is a note that tells
> me how to avoid adding the Google repository if for some reason I
> wouldn't want that.
>
> I'm not going to go through the entire download process again here,
> having already done it long ago.  Suffice to say, there are no
> detailed instructions on the wiki for how to do this, because it's
> incredibly simple and obvious, and nobody should NEED detailed
> instructions.
>
> You download the .deb from Google and you install it with dpkg -i
> or apt install ./ or whatever you prefer.  Then you're done.
>
> Those are the instructions.
>

This is the way I install Google Chrome from the terminal.

cd Downloads &&
wget https://dl.google.com/linux/direct/google-chrome-stable_current_amd64.deb
&&
sudo apt install gdebi -y &&
sudo gdebi google*

Re: need google chrome installation instructions that work

[Felix Miata]

Greg Wooledge composed on 2018-11-21 11:50 (UTC-0500):

> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:31:53AM -0500, Felix Miata wrote:

>> I did try ./google-chrome... but apt wouldn't find it.

> In stretch, right?  What was the exact command you used, and the exact
> output?

Sorry, I thought I had, but NAICT from .bash_history what I keyed in Stretch 
was:

cd /tmp
aptitude install ./google-chr

Can't be sure what the actual filename was on disk because of the move from 
$HOME/Downloads to
/tmp which was since emptied.
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

Re: need google chrome installation instructions that work

[Greg Wooledge]

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:31:53AM -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> I did try ./google-chrome... but apt wouldn't find it.

In stretch, right?  What was the exact command you used, and the exact
output?

Re: need google chrome installation instructions that work

[Felix Miata]

Greg Wooledge composed on 2018-11-21 11:21 (UTC-0500):

> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 08:02:23AM -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:

>> I use gdebi (it's in the repos) to install locally saved .deb files.
>> Apt-get won't install local files, that is, not in a repo.

> Yes, it will.  But you have to supply the filename with a
> leading / or ./ or ../ prefix.

> sudo apt-get install ./google-chrome-stable*.deb

> It will resolve the dependencies from your repositories and everything,
> just like gdebi.

I did try ./google-chrome... but apt wouldn't find it.
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

Re: need google chrome installation instructions that work

[Greg Wooledge]

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 08:02:23AM -0800, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> I use gdebi (it's in the repos) to install locally saved .deb files.
> Apt-get won't install local files, that is, not in a repo.

Yes, it will.  But you have to supply the filename with a
leading / or ./ or ../ prefix.

sudo apt-get install ./google-chrome-stable*.deb

It will resolve the dependencies from your repositories and everything,
just like gdebi.

Re: need google chrome installation instructions that work

[Patrick Bartek]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 03:30:26 -0500
Felix Miata  wrote:

> (Stretch)
> Downloading Chrome is easy. Installing is not. The download page says 
> "download and install",
> but all that happens is firefox fetches, and no auto install via apt* or dpkg 
> is attempted. Apt
> and aptitude won't install the local file because it "isn't found". The
> https://www.google.com/linuxrepositories/ "Google Linux Software 
> Repositories" page says how to
> configure GPG, but nothing about configuring repo in sources.list. Where are 
> the secret
> incantations to be found?

I use gdebi (it's in the repos) to install locally saved .deb files.
Apt-get won't install local files, that is, not in a repo. GDebi also
takes care of dependencies which dpkg does not. I use the commandline
version.  IIRC, there's GUI interface, too, if you prefer that.

B

Re: need google chrome installation instructions that work

[Dejan Jocic]

On 21-11-18, Felix Miata wrote:
> john doe composed on 2018-11-21 10:06 (UTC+0100):
> 
> > Felix Miata wrote:
> 
> >> (Stretch)
> >> Downloading Chrome is easy. Installing is not. The download page says 
> >> "download and install",
> >> but all that happens is firefox fetches, and no auto install via apt* or 
> >> dpkg is attempted. Apt
> >> and aptitude won't install the local file because it "isn't found". The
> >> https://www.google.com/linuxrepositories/ "Google Linux Software 
> >> Repositories" page says how to
> >> configure GPG, but nothing about configuring repo in sources.list. Where 
> >> are the secret
> >> incantations to be found?
> 
> > The below link might be useful:
> 
> > https://www.wikihow.com/Install-Google-Chrome-Using-Terminal-on-Linux
> 
> It worked. I had tried on previous occasions downloaded debs with 'dpkg -i' 
> without any
> successes that I can recall. The provided deps on that page did the trick.
> 
> > you should also consider googling "installing chrome on linux".
> 
> Before posting here that's sort of what I did with DuckDuckGo:
> 
> google chrome debian sources.list
> google chrome for debian configuration
> 
> Nothing I had clicked on seemed appropriate to the expected task. I'm not a 
> Chrome user. This is
> for a friend whose vision is about 5% and tasks me with his upgrades.
> 
> Thanks!
> -- 
> Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science.
> 
>  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
> 
> Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
> 

Bit late on party, but as others already said dpkg -i followed by
apt-get -f ( --fix-broken ) should do the trick. It will add it to the
sources list. 

One new thing to add would be that it will very annoyingly mess up with
alternatives and after install and after every damn update/upgrade it
will set itself up with crazy high preference in alternatives, that will
always be with priority higher than other browsers. So, if you want to
keep some other browser as your x-www-browser, or gnome-www-browser as
primary, you will need to amend those settings.

All best,
Dejan

Re: need google chrome installation instructions that work

[Greg Wooledge]

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 04:44:14AM -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> It seems Curt's instructions to use dpkg to install the downloaded deb 
> resulted in
> creation of /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome.list containing
> 
>   deb [arch=amd64] http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main
> 
> With any luck the next to search for such instruction will find this post 
> instead of needing to
> ask here, or better yet a Debian wiki page somewhere updated or created to 
> include them and
> googling to produce on first results page. :-p

Or, and I know this is like SUPER surprising, right, but...

... maybe you could try searching on Google's web search engine for the
way to install Google's web browser.

Having just done this myself, the surprising part is that the answer was
NOT the first result.  It was part way down the first page for me:

https://www.google.com/chrome/

On this page, there is a "Download Chrome" button.  Clicking this
gives me a pop-up overlay panel thingy which asks me to select
between "64 bit .deb" and "64 bit .rpm".  There is a note that tells
me how to avoid adding the Google repository if for some reason I
wouldn't want that.

I'm not going to go through the entire download process again here,
having already done it long ago.  Suffice to say, there are no
detailed instructions on the wiki for how to do this, because it's
incredibly simple and obvious, and nobody should NEED detailed
instructions.

You download the .deb from Google and you install it with dpkg -i
or apt install ./ or whatever you prefer.  Then you're done.

Those are the instructions.

Re: need google chrome installation instructions that work

[rhkramer]

One suggestion (and, yes, I'm intentionally top posting) -- why don't you 
repost you're reply with:

   * the Subject changed to say Solved (was: need G...)

   * Top post the solution in as concise a fashion as you can -- my first 
feeble partial attempt:

"I  had trouble installing Google Chrome using dpkg -i until I 
followed the instructions at  
which required that I add a line in /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome.list
containing

deb [arch=amd64] http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main
"  

I  am not sure of the accuracy of what I wrote as I only read the 
other posts in this thread superficially.

For extra credit, you could modify the wiki page you mention if appropriate.

regards,  and if you celebrate (American) thanksgiving, happy Thanksgiving.

Randy Kramer

On Wednesday, November 21, 2018 04:44:14 AM Felix Miata wrote:
> Curt composed on 2018-11-21 09:15 (UTC):
> > Felix Miata wrote:
> >> (Stretch)
> >> Downloading Chrome is easy. Installing is not. The download page says
> >> "download and install", but all that happens is firefox fetches, and no
> >> auto install via apt* or dpkg is attempted. Apt and aptitude won't
> >> install the local file because it "isn't found". The
> >> https://www.google.com/linuxrepositories/ "Google Linux Software
> >> Repositories" page says how to configure GPG, but nothing about
> >> configuring repo in sources.list. Where are the secret incantations to
> >> be found?
> > 
> > deb [arch=amd64] http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main
> > 
> > in /etc/apt/sources.list
> 
> It seems Curt's instructions to use dpkg to install the downloaded deb
> resulted in creation of /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome.list
> containing
> 
>   deb [arch=amd64] http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main
> 
> With any luck the next to search for such instruction will find this post
> instead of needing to ask here, or better yet a Debian wiki page somewhere
> updated or created to include them and googling to produce on first
> results page. :-p

Re: need google chrome installation instructions that work

[tomas]

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 04:44:14AM -0500, Felix Miata wrote:

[...]

> It seems Curt's instructions to use dpkg to install the downloaded deb 
> resulted in
> creation of /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome.list containing
> 
>   deb [arch=amd64] http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main

Yiiikes.

Comfy, yes. Possible, too (after all, pre- and post-install scripts run
as root and can do anything). But scary... a bit. Installing a browser
reachs deep into the whole system.

Not *my* cup of tea, to be honest.

Cheers
-- tomás


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: need google chrome installation instructions that work

[Felix Miata]

Curt composed on 2018-11-21 09:15 (UTC):

> Felix Miata wrote:

>> (Stretch)
>> Downloading Chrome is easy. Installing is not. The download page says 
>> "download and install",
>> but all that happens is firefox fetches, and no auto install via apt* or 
>> dpkg is attempted. Apt
>> and aptitude won't install the local file because it "isn't found". The
>> https://www.google.com/linuxrepositories/ "Google Linux Software 
>> Repositories" page says how to
>> configure GPG, but nothing about configuring repo in sources.list. Where are 
>> the secret
>> incantations to be found?

> deb [arch=amd64] http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main

> in /etc/apt/sources.list

It seems Curt's instructions to use dpkg to install the downloaded deb resulted 
in
creation of /etc/apt/sources.list.d/google-chrome.list containing

deb [arch=amd64] http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main

With any luck the next to search for such instruction will find this post 
instead of needing to
ask here, or better yet a Debian wiki page somewhere updated or created to 
include them and
googling to produce on first results page. :-p
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

Re: need google chrome installation instructions that work

[Felix Miata]

john doe composed on 2018-11-21 10:06 (UTC+0100):

> Felix Miata wrote:

>> (Stretch)
>> Downloading Chrome is easy. Installing is not. The download page says 
>> "download and install",
>> but all that happens is firefox fetches, and no auto install via apt* or 
>> dpkg is attempted. Apt
>> and aptitude won't install the local file because it "isn't found". The
>> https://www.google.com/linuxrepositories/ "Google Linux Software 
>> Repositories" page says how to
>> configure GPG, but nothing about configuring repo in sources.list. Where are 
>> the secret
>> incantations to be found?

> The below link might be useful:

> https://www.wikihow.com/Install-Google-Chrome-Using-Terminal-on-Linux

It worked. I had tried on previous occasions downloaded debs with 'dpkg -i' 
without any
successes that I can recall. The provided deps on that page did the trick.

> you should also consider googling "installing chrome on linux".

Before posting here that's sort of what I did with DuckDuckGo:

google chrome debian sources.list
google chrome for debian configuration

Nothing I had clicked on seemed appropriate to the expected task. I'm not a 
Chrome user. This is
for a friend whose vision is about 5% and tasks me with his upgrades.

Thanks!
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

Re: need google chrome installation instructions that work

[Curt]

On 2018-11-21, Felix Miata  wrote:
> (Stretch)
> Downloading Chrome is easy. Installing is not. The download page says 
> "download and install",
> but all that happens is firefox fetches, and no auto install via apt* or dpkg 
> is attempted. Apt
> and aptitude won't install the local file because it "isn't found". The
> https://www.google.com/linuxrepositories/ "Google Linux Software 
> Repositories" page says how to
> configure GPG, but nothing about configuring repo in sources.list. Where are 
> the secret
> incantations to be found?

deb [arch=amd64] http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main

in /etc/apt/sources.list

-- 
He used sentences differently from any other prose writer. He always sounded
like a slightly drunk man who is very melancholy, who has no illusions about
life, who is very strong but whose strength is entirely unnecessary.
--Krasznahorkai on Krúdy

Re: need google chrome installation instructions that work

[john doe]

On 11/21/2018 9:30 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
> (Stretch)
> Downloading Chrome is easy. Installing is not. The download page says 
> "download and install",
> but all that happens is firefox fetches, and no auto install via apt* or dpkg 
> is attempted. Apt
> and aptitude won't install the local file because it "isn't found". The
> https://www.google.com/linuxrepositories/ "Google Linux Software 
> Repositories" page says how to
> configure GPG, but nothing about configuring repo in sources.list. Where are 
> the secret
> incantations to be found?
> 

The below link might be useful:

https://www.wikihow.com/Install-Google-Chrome-Using-Terminal-on-Linux

you should also consider googling "installing chrome on linux".

-- 
John Doe

need google chrome installation instructions that work

[Felix Miata]

(Stretch)
Downloading Chrome is easy. Installing is not. The download page says "download 
and install",
but all that happens is firefox fetches, and no auto install via apt* or dpkg 
is attempted. Apt
and aptitude won't install the local file because it "isn't found". The
https://www.google.com/linuxrepositories/ "Google Linux Software Repositories" 
page says how to
configure GPG, but nothing about configuring repo in sources.list. Where are 
the secret
incantations to be found?
-- 
Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science.

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

Re: Problem google-chrome Flash Player with http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news

[cbannister]

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 03:05:13PM -0600, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> On 01/14/2017 09:30 AM, solitone wrote:
> >On Saturday, January 14, 2017 9:15:11 AM CET Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> >>and on mine not!

Hey, come on! You've installed a 3rd party package and you're
asking on this list why it doesn't work? 

That's a rhetorical question BTW.

> >Are you on stretch as well?
> 
> Sid.

... and you're running Sid?

At the least you should have marked this post [OT]
in the subject.

-- 
The media's the most powerful entity on earth. 
They have the power to make the innocent guilty 
and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power.
 -- Malcolm X

Re: Problem google-chrome Flash Player with http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news

[Hugo Vanwoerkom]

On 01/14/2017 09:30 AM, solitone wrote:

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 9:15:11 AM CET Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:

and on mine not!


Are you on stretch as well?

Davide




Sid.

Hugo

Re: Problem google-chrome Flash Player with http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news

[Hugo Vanwoerkom]

On 01/14/2017 09:21 AM, Bob Weber wrote:

This is the safe way to browse the web.  The flash plugin is apparently
disabled by default.  What you can do is make an exception for nbc.  Go
into settings/advanced and click on the button for "Content settings".
Scroll down to Flash. Click on "Manage exceptions" and enter
"[*.]nbc.com" without the quotes.  Make sure Allow is set and hit the
enter key.  This makes an exception for all of nbc so that things are
displayed correctly.  You should also check that you don't ad/malware
blocking extensions installed that might block content on nbc.  If so
make sure nbc is white listed there also.


Flash was blocked on all sites.
Thanks Bob!






*...Bob*
On 01/13/2017 09:40 PM, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:

Hi

The Flash Player that comes with Google-Chrome has become more noisy
with newer versions of Google-Chrome.

In the beginning Flash just displayed the video.

Then it displayed the start symbol that you had to click in order for
the video to start.

Now it displays a puzzle piece with the message to right click the
puzzle piece and then select "Run the plug-in".

That works generally but it fails with NBC News pages. "Right-click to
run Adobe Flash Player" appears overlayed by a rotating circle
segment. but right-click never shows ythe option to run the plug-in.

Can anyone verify this and what is to be done?

Hugo

Re: Problem google-chrome Flash Player with http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news

[Bob Weber]

I should have also added the exception "[*.]nbcnews.com" as well as
"[*.]nbc.com" in the flash chrome exception list.  Sorry I missed that.



*...Bob*
On 01/13/2017 09:40 PM, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> Hi
>
> The Flash Player that comes with Google-Chrome has become more noisy with
> newer versions of Google-Chrome.
>
> In the beginning Flash just displayed the video.
>
> Then it displayed the start symbol that you had to click in order for the
> video to start.
>
> Now it displays a puzzle piece with the message to right click the puzzle
> piece and then select "Run the plug-in".
>
> That works generally but it fails with NBC News pages. "Right-click to run
> Adobe Flash Player" appears overlayed by a rotating circle segment. but
> right-click never shows ythe option to run the plug-in.
>
> Can anyone verify this and what is to be done?
>
> Hugo
>
>

Re: Problem google-chrome Flash Player with http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news

[Patrick Bartek]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 20:40:51 -0600 Hugo Vanwoerkom 
wrote:

> Hi
> 
> The Flash Player that comes with Google-Chrome has become more noisy 
> with newer versions of Google-Chrome.
> 
> In the beginning Flash just displayed the video.
> 
> Then it displayed the start symbol that you had to click in order for 
> the video to start.
> 
> Now it displays a puzzle piece with the message to right click the 
> puzzle piece and then select "Run the plug-in".
> 
> That works generally but it fails with NBC News pages. "Right-click
> to run Adobe Flash Player" appears overlayed by a rotating circle
> segment. but right-click never shows ythe option to run the plug-in.
> 
> Can anyone verify this and what is to be done?

I got similar behavour at www.nbcnews.com, if that's the site you're
refering to.  You didn't specify.  The following may not work for you:
I'm using Wheezy 64-bit with the last version of Chrome (49.0.2623.112)
and pepperflash (22.0.0.209) Google released last year sometime.
Chrome is no longer supported on Wheezy.

Go to Settings -> Advanced Settings -> Privacy (Content Settings).
Scroll down to  Plugins

Check the options.  I have mine set to "Let me choose when to run
plugin content."  Click "Manage Exceptions" and add the offending web
site to the list.

This worked for me, but I've found embedded videos are sometime
problematical no matter what you do.

B

Re: Problem google-chrome Flash Player with http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news

[solitone]

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 9:15:11 AM CET Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> and on mine not!

Are you on stretch as well?

Davide

Re: Problem google-chrome Flash Player with http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news

[Bob Weber]

This is the safe way to browse the web.  The flash plugin is apparently disabled
by default.  What you can do is make an exception for nbc.  Go into
settings/advanced and click on the button for "Content settings".  Scroll down
to Flash. Click on "Manage exceptions" and enter "[*.]nbc.com" without the
quotes.  Make sure Allow is set and hit the enter key.  This makes an exception
for all of nbc so that things are displayed correctly.  You should also check
that you don't ad/malware blocking extensions installed that might block content
on nbc.  If so make sure nbc is white listed there also.



*...Bob*
On 01/13/2017 09:40 PM, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:
> Hi
>
> The Flash Player that comes with Google-Chrome has become more noisy with
> newer versions of Google-Chrome.
>
> In the beginning Flash just displayed the video.
>
> Then it displayed the start symbol that you had to click in order for the
> video to start.
>
> Now it displays a puzzle piece with the message to right click the puzzle
> piece and then select "Run the plug-in".
>
> That works generally but it fails with NBC News pages. "Right-click to run
> Adobe Flash Player" appears overlayed by a rotating circle segment. but
> right-click never shows ythe option to run the plug-in.
>
> Can anyone verify this and what is to be done?
>
> Hugo
>
>

Re: Problem google-chrome Flash Player with http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news

[Hugo Vanwoerkom]

On 01/13/2017 11:30 PM, solitone wrote:

That's strange. On mine the video is displayed.

solitone@alan:~$ apt-cache policy google-chrome-stable
google-chrome-stable:
  Installed: 55.0.2883.87-1
  Candidate: 55.0.2883.87-1
  Version table:
 *** 55.0.2883.87-1 500
500 http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb stable/main amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status




and on mine not!

hugo@sdb5:/sda7/hda10/backup.files/fromhd/home/hugo$ apt-cache policy 
google-chrome-stable

+ apt-cache policy google-chrome-stable
google-chrome-stable:
  Installed: 55.0.2883.87-1
  Candidate: 55.0.2883.87-1
  Version table:
 *** 55.0.2883.87-1 500
500 http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb stable/main amd64 
Packages

100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

Re: Problem google-chrome Flash Player with http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news

[solitone]

That's strange. On mine the video is displayed.

solitone@alan:~$ apt-cache policy google-chrome-stable 
google-chrome-stable:
  Installed: 55.0.2883.87-1
  Candidate: 55.0.2883.87-1
  Version table:
 *** 55.0.2883.87-1 500
500 http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb stable/main amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

Problem google-chrome Flash Player with http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news

[Hugo Vanwoerkom]

Hi

The Flash Player that comes with Google-Chrome has become more noisy 
with newer versions of Google-Chrome.


In the beginning Flash just displayed the video.

Then it displayed the start symbol that you had to click in order for 
the video to start.


Now it displays a puzzle piece with the message to right click the 
puzzle piece and then select "Run the plug-in".


That works generally but it fails with NBC News pages. "Right-click to 
run Adobe Flash Player" appears overlayed by a rotating circle segment. 
but right-click never shows ythe option to run the plug-in.


Can anyone verify this and what is to be done?

Hugo

Re: google-chrome-stable vs. chromium

[Lisi Reisz]

On Thursday 15 September 2016 11:28:49 Bob Bernstein wrote:
> Aha. That describes me to a tee. Now, I put a premium on things
> that "just work."

So you have chosen well.  Anyway, I do the same, for much the same reason, so 
it must be the right choice. ;-)  (There are things I want to watch.)

Lisi

Re: google-chrome-stable vs. chromium

[Bob Bernstein]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Eduardo Quagliato wrote:


google-chrome-stable: Google's package, with its proprietary
software in it (like flash and other things alike);
chromium: Open-source project from which Google drawn its
source (refer to http://www.chromium.org/);


Thanks. Concise. I think I get it.


If want to use netflix and things like that [...]


Aha. That describes me to a tee. Now, I put a premium on things 
that "just work."



--
IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual
addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is
confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive
persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humour or irrational
metaphysical beliefs.

google-chrome-stable vs. chromium

[Bob Bernstein]

I haven't posted a question from the far left end of the 
bell-shaped curve in some time, so please bear with me!


In respect of my Subject: line, above, I have the first of those 
two packages installed.


How does it differ from the second, which I do not have 
installed?


Thank youse,

--
IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual
addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is
confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive
persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humour or irrational
metaphysical beliefs.

Re: google-chrome-stable on Wheezy

[Lisi Reisz]

On Friday 03 June 2016 15:45:43 Mike McGinn wrote:
> I am buying a new laptop in February, this one will be eight years old
> by then. Then I shall start clean with Jessie.

By next February (9 months away), shouldn't you be thinking of Stretch?  It 
will probably already be full-frozen, and Jessie will be nearly Old Stable.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/debian-9-stretch-freeze-delayed-to-integrated-linux-kernel-4-10-501330.shtml

Lisi

Re: google-chrome-stable on Wheezy

[Mike McGinn]

On 06/03/2016 10:28 AM, SamuelOPH wrote:
> ​Hi Mike,​
> 
> 2016-06-01 6:47 GMT-03:00 Mike McGinn  >:
> 
> Hi Samuel,
> It is not an issue of need, it is an issue of time. I am the software
> engineer / server guy at work, so I use my laptop at work and home. When
> I upgraded from Squeeze it tool more than eight hours. I simply do not
> have a day to piss away right now. I will do it eventually as time
> permits.
> 
> The computer is my tool, it is not the other way around.
> 
> 
> ​Just be careful then, because ​the only computer that never needs fixes
> is the ones that are never used, and if you stick too long to Wheezy it
> can take some time until you realize you're having more work than with
> upgrading it (unless we're talking about a server), the browser issues
> are the most easily seen.
> 
> 
> Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph]

I am buying a new laptop in February, this one will be eight years old
by then. Then I shall start clean with Jessie.

Mike

-- 
Mike McGinn KD2CNU
President, UU Congregation at Rock Tavern * www.uucrt.org
The  problem with quotes on the internet is that it is
often difficult to verify their authenticity --Abraham Lincoln
More kidneys than eyes ** Registered Linux User 377849

Re: google-chrome-stable on Wheezy

[SamuelOPH]

​Hi Mike,​

2016-06-01 6:47 GMT-03:00 Mike McGinn :

> Hi Samuel,
> It is not an issue of need, it is an issue of time. I am the software
> engineer / server guy at work, so I use my laptop at work and home. When
> I upgraded from Squeeze it tool more than eight hours. I simply do not
> have a day to piss away right now. I will do it eventually as time permits.
>
> The computer is my tool, it is not the other way around.
>

​Just be careful then, because ​the only computer that never needs fixes is
the ones that are never used, and if you stick too long to Wheezy it can
take some time until you realize you're having more work than with
upgrading it (unless we're talking about a server), the browser issues are
the most easily seen.


Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph]

Re: google-chrome-stable on Wheezy

[Mike McGinn]

On 05/31/2016 11:15 PM, SamuelOPH wrote:
> 
> 2016-05-31 21:21 GMT-03:00 Mike McGinn  >:
> 
> Again, thanks for all the efforts. I am a bit surprised that there is
> not an archive of old chrome versions. One would think they would have
> the room with all the email account space that they give away.
> 
> 
> ​We both know it isn't a matter of space, i don't think anybody would
> fancy another IE6 era.
> Bless them for trying to prevent it.
> 
> I know that is your decision and you probably considered it, but i'm
> gonna give it a try, do you really need to run Wheezy?
> ​Maybe somebody can help you with any worries regarding the upgrade.​
> 
> 
> 
> Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph]

Hi Samuel,
It is not an issue of need, it is an issue of time. I am the software
engineer / server guy at work, so I use my laptop at work and home. When
I upgraded from Squeeze it tool more than eight hours. I simply do not
have a day to piss away right now. I will do it eventually as time permits.

The computer is my tool, it is not the other way around.

Mike

-- 
Mike McGinn KD2CNU
President, UU Congregation at Rock Tavern * www.uucrt.org
The  problem with quotes on the internet is that it is
often difficult to verify their authenticity --Abraham Lincoln
More kidneys than eyes ** Registered Linux User 377849

Re: google-chrome-stable on Wheezy

[SamuelOPH]

2016-05-31 21:21 GMT-03:00 Mike McGinn :

> Again, thanks for all the efforts. I am a bit surprised that there is
> not an archive of old chrome versions. One would think they would have
> the room with all the email account space that they give away.
>

​We both know it isn't a matter of space, i don't think anybody would fancy
another IE6 era.
Bless them for trying to prevent it.

I know that is your decision and you probably considered it, but i'm gonna
give it a try, do you really need to run Wheezy?
​Maybe somebody can help you with any worries regarding the upgrade.​



Samuel Henrique O. P. [samueloph]

Re: google-chrome-stable on Wheezy

[Mike McGinn]

On 05/31/2016 04:40 PM, Sven Hartge wrote:
> Sven Joachim  wrote:
> 
> Right, I misremembered and confused a different fact. Google at one time
> said it would not intentionally remove the support for 32bit
> architectures from the Chromium source, so that Distributions can still
> compile it. But this is of course not valid for Google Chrome.
> 
> So the only remaining option for Wheezy is Firefox with Flash 11.2
> (which is still supported by Adobe).
> 
> Again: time to update.
> 
> Grüße,
> Sven.
> 

Thanks for all the effort. I do not have time to muck around with this.
I restored all my files and my development tree from backups. I back up
daily - and you should too.

I installed the opera browser and it seems to be an ok browser - and
less memory hungry than google chrome stable.

Again, thanks for all the efforts. I am a bit surprised that there is
not an archive of old chrome versions. One would think they would have
the room with all the email account space that they give away.


Best,
Mike

-- 
Mike McGinn KD2CNU
President, UU Congregation at Rock Tavern * www.uucrt.org
The  problem with quotes on the internet is that it is
often difficult to verify their authenticity --Abraham Lincoln
More kidneys than eyes ** Registered Linux User 377849

Re: google-chrome-stable on Wheezy

[Sven Joachim]

On 2016-05-31 21:03 +0200, Sven Hartge wrote:

> Ah, I see. Google compiled Chrome with a newer C++ library and broke
> the dependencies for Wheezy.
>
> I guess they waited until Wheezy was no longer supported by Debian
> outside of the LTS-Project and then dropped support for it.

No, Google does not care about Debian release cycles.  The reason they
stopped supporting Wheezy is because they need a newer C++ compiler and
library with better C++11 support than offered by g++-4.7.

>> Seems I can not install google-chrome-stable on Wheezy anymore.
>
> Yes, seems that way.
>
> Only Chromium and Firefox remain.

Chromium in Wheezy was EOL'd 16 months ago, for the same reason that
there is no Google Chrome there:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-security-announce/2015/msg00031.html.

Cheers,
   Sven

Re: google-chrome-stable on Wheezy

[John Conover]

Sven Hartge writes:
> > Seems I can not install google-chrome-stable on Wheezy anymore.
> 
> Yes, seems that way.
> 
> Only Chromium and Firefox remain. Or time to upgrade to Jessie finally.
>

Flash, (Pepperflash,) for Chromium no longer works in Wheezy i386.
Perhaps Opera and/or Vivaldi, (which has HTML5,) may be an
alternative, for awhile longer.

John

-- 

John Conover, cono...@rahul.net, http://www.johncon.com/

Re: google-chrome-stable on Wheezy

[Sven Hartge]

Mike McGinn  wrote:
> On 05/31/2016 02:31 PM, Sven Hartge wrote:
>> Mike McGinn  wrote:
 
>>> My system is 64 bit. I tried downloading from google with:
>>> wget
>>> http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/google-chrome-stable_50.0.2661.102-1_amd64.deb
>> 
>> Try
>> http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/pool/main/g/google-chrome-stable/google-chrome-stable_51.0.2704.63-1_amd64.deb
>> 
>> This is the current stable version at the time of me writing this eMail.

> Works the same as when I try tp do an apt-get install google-chrome-stable

> adrastea  ~/packages 246 #  dpkg -i
> google-chrome-stable_51.0.2704.63-1_amd64.deb
> Selecting previously unselected package google-chrome-stable.
> (Reading database ... 537074 files and directories currently installed.)
> Unpacking google-chrome-stable (from
> google-chrome-stable_51.0.2704.63-1_amd64.deb) ...
> dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of google-chrome-stable:
>  google-chrome-stable depends on libstdc++6 (>= 4.8.0); however:
>   Version of libstdc++6:amd64 on system is 4.7.2-5.
>  google-chrome-stable depends on libappindicator1; however:
>   Package libappindicator1 is not installed.

Ah, I see. Google compiled Chrome with a newer C++ library and broke
the dependencies for Wheezy.

I guess they waited until Wheezy was no longer supported by Debian
outside of the LTS-Project and then dropped support for it.

I am running Unstable here, so I was not aware of those changes.

> Seems I can not install google-chrome-stable on Wheezy anymore.

Yes, seems that way.

Only Chromium and Firefox remain. Or time to upgrade to Jessie finally.

Grüße,
Sven.

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

Re: google-chrome-stable on Wheezy

[Sven Hartge]

Mike McGinn  wrote:

> My system is 64 bit. I tried downloading from google with:
> wget
> http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/google-chrome-stable_50.0.2661.102-1_amd64.deb

Try
http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/pool/main/g/google-chrome-stable/google-chrome-stable_51.0.2704.63-1_amd64.deb

This is the current stable version at the time of me writing this eMail.

S°
-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

Re: google-chrome-stable on Wheezy

[Frank McCormick]

On 31/05/16 01:37 PM, Mike McGinn wrote:

Hell All,
My hard drive in my laptop took a dump on Friday, so after installing a
new one I installed Wheezy since I am not ready to move to Jessie yet.

The thing is, I am running the chromium-browser which is old and seems
to exit randomly. I would like to install my previous working (though
outdated) google-chrome-stable but I can not find a copy of the most
recently installed version. Does anyone know where this might be found?

Thanks,
Mike



Well as Sven said, Google has discontinued the 32 bit versionbut 
it's still around.



https://pkgs.org/debian-ubuntu/google-i386/google-chrome-stable_48.0.2564.116-1_i386.deb.html

Among other locations.

Re: google-chrome-stable on Wheezy

[Lisi Reisz]

On Tuesday 31 May 2016 19:11:37 Sven Hartge wrote:
> Is your system 32bit by chance? Then there will be now recent Google
> Chrome, as Google discontinued the support for 32bit architectures.

You can't get 64 bit for Wheezy either.

Lisi

Re: google-chrome-stable on Wheezy

[Sven Hartge]

Mike McGinn  wrote:

> My hard drive in my laptop took a dump on Friday, so after installing
> a new one I installed Wheezy since I am not ready to move to Jessie
> yet.

> The thing is, I am running the chromium-browser which is old and seems
> to exit randomly. I would like to install my previous working (though
> outdated) google-chrome-stable but I can not find a copy of the most
> recently installed version. Does anyone know where this might be
> found?

Is your system 32bit by chance? Then there will be now recent Google
Chrome, as Google discontinued the support for 32bit architectures.

Grüße,
Sven.

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

google-chrome-stable on Wheezy

[Mike McGinn]

Hell All,
My hard drive in my laptop took a dump on Friday, so after installing a
new one I installed Wheezy since I am not ready to move to Jessie yet.

The thing is, I am running the chromium-browser which is old and seems
to exit randomly. I would like to install my previous working (though
outdated) google-chrome-stable but I can not find a copy of the most
recently installed version. Does anyone know where this might be found?

Thanks,
Mike

-- 
Mike McGinn KD2CNU
President, UU Congregation at Rock Tavern * www.uucrt.org
The  problem with quotes on the internet is that it is
often difficult to verify their authenticity --Abraham Lincoln
More kidneys than eyes ** Registered Linux User 377849

Re: Installing pepperflashplugin on Chromium on Wheezy which has not previously had Google-Chrome installed.

[Lisi Reisz]

On Friday 06 May 2016 16:39:33 Sven Arvidsson wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-05-06 at 12:41 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > The site in question says that it wants Flashplayer 11 but will not
> > "speak" to 
> > my Version: 11.2.202.577 on Firefox.  
>
> If I go to that site without scripts, it claims to need at least
> version 13:
>
>  "Either scripts and active content are not permitted to run or
> Adobe Flash Player version 13.0.0 or greater is not installed. "

In practice it certainly needs more than 11 - but the GUI it presents via an 
almost vanilla Firefox (flashplugin-nonfree was already on my computer from 
Iceweasel and I did not remove it, but no add-ons or extensions at all) asks 
for 11 or higher and offers to fetch 11!!!

So I have to find a way of installing Flashplayer 13 or higher on either 
Firefox or Chromium. :-(  That'll larn me to install Flash only when actually 
needed.  Her husband (who asked sooner) has it and I have it.  So it was 
doable a month or two ago.

Thanks for looking, guys,

Lisi

Re: Installing pepperflashplugin on Chromium on Wheezy which has not previously had Google-Chrome installed.

[Lisi Reisz]

On Friday 06 May 2016 17:46:52 Curt wrote:
> On 2016-05-06, Sven Arvidsson  wrote:
> >> my Version: 11.2.202.577 on Firefox.
> >
> > If I go to that site without scripts, it claims to need at least
> > version 13:
>
> Asks me for version 11 ("This content requires the Adobe Flash Player
> 11 or above").
>
> *She* should definitely update to 11.2.202.616 whatever the case.

Yes, but it doesn't solve this problem.

Lisi

Re: Installing pepperflashplugin on Chromium on Wheezy which has not previously had Google-Chrome installed.

[Curt]

On 2016-05-06, Sven Arvidsson  wrote:
>
>> my Version: 11.2.202.577 on Firefox.
>
> If I go to that site without scripts, it claims to need at least
> version 13:
>

Asks me for version 11 ("This content requires the Adobe Flash Player
11 or above").

*She* should definitely update to 11.2.202.616 whatever the case.

-- 
Hypertext--or should I say the ideology of hypertext?--is ultrademocratic and
so entirely in harmony with the demagogic appeals to cultural democracy that
accompany (and distract one’s attention from) the ever-tightening grip of 
plutocratic capitalism. - Susan Sontag

Re: Installing pepperflashplugin on Chromium on Wheezy which has not previously had Google-Chrome installed.

[Sven Arvidsson]

On Fri, 2016-05-06 at 12:41 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> The site in question says that it wants Flashplayer 11 but will not
> "speak" to 
> my Version: 11.2.202.577 on Firefox.  

If I go to that site without scripts, it claims to need at least
version 13:

 "Either scripts and active content are not permitted to run or
Adobe Flash Player version 13.0.0 or greater is not installed. "

-- 
Cheers,
Sven Arvidsson
http://www.whiz.se
PGP Key ID 6FAB5CD5



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Installing pepperflashplugin on Chromium on Wheezy which has not previously had Google-Chrome installed.

[Lisi Reisz]

On Friday 06 May 2016 13:08:34 Markus Schönhaber wrote:
> Lisi Reisz, Fr 06 Mai 2016 13:41:50 CEST:
> > I cannot get Pepperflashplugin installed on my clients computer.  I have
> > aptitude installed it, but Chromium remains obstinately falshplayer free.
>
> You did
> update-pepperflashplugin-nonfree --install
> as described here?
> <https://wiki.debian.org/PepperFlashPlayer/Installing#Debian_7_.22Wheezy.22
>>

Yes. :-(  Both before and after installing Google Chrome.

Lisi

Re: Installing pepperflashplugin on Chromium on Wheezy which has not previously had Google-Chrome installed.

[Markus Schönhaber]

Lisi Reisz, Fr 06 Mai 2016 13:41:50 CEST:

> I cannot get Pepperflashplugin installed on my clients computer.  I have 
> aptitude installed it, but Chromium remains obstinately falshplayer free.

You did
update-pepperflashplugin-nonfree --install
as described here?


(Since /usr/sbin/update-pepperflashplugin-nonfree is part of the i386
.deb too, my guess would be that the instructions for amd64 on this web
page do apply for 32-bit systems.)

-- 
Regards
  mks

Installing pepperflashplugin on Chromium on Wheezy which has not previously had Google-Chrome installed.

[Lisi Reisz]

I know that Chromium with Pepperflashplugin can work on Wheezy because I have 
it working on my own desktop.  

A client who has never used or wanted Flash now wants to use this website:
http://www.petersfieldphotographic.com/
to make a photo album.

Her system had not been updated for a while.  We updated it yesterday, but of 
course Iceweasel would not update, so we installed Firefox, and Chromium for 
the website in question.

The site in question says that it wants Flashplayer 11 but will not "speak" to 
my Version: 11.2.202.577 on Firefox.  It is fine with Chromium with: Adobe 
Flash Player - Version: 21.0.0.216 and Shockwave Flash 21.0 r0 (which is what 
I have got on my desktop in Chromium - but I previously had Google Chrome).

I have pepperflashplugin-nonfree Version: 1.4~bpo60+1 installed on my desktop.

I cannot get Pepperflashplugin installed on my clients computer.  I have 
aptitude installed it, but Chromium remains obstinately falshplayer free.  It 
requires Google Chrome, of course, which cannot be installed, so I moved the 
i386 deb package from my computer to hers and installed it with dpkg - but it 
has only an old version of Flashplayer, and cannot, of course, be updated.

My client is not keen to change to Jessie, though is prepared to do so.  She 
likes what she has got (Debian Wheezy with TDE 3.5.13.3) and doesn't want to 
change at all, unless I tell her she has to do so.  Staying with LTS is 
proving quite a hassle.  But I had hoped to skip Jessie for several desktops, 
and go straight to Stretch when it becomes Stable.

Please can we not go into the question of how moral or immoral it is of her to 
want to use the local photography shop's website to make a present for her 
mother.

Lisi

Re: google-chrome-stable - no longer functional

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 08:49:26AM -0400, Kenneth Jacker wrote:
> Follow-up question:  when "installing the packages that are needed", from
> where are they obtained?
> 
> >From the same directory as that containing the ".deb" file, from an
> Internet archive or from my local /var/cache/apt/archives or ???

Apt will check to see what the version is in its apt-sources, so that will be
an FTP mirror if you've set up apt to use them. If it already had that version
in /var/cache/apt/archives I believe it will re-use it.

Re: google-chrome-stable - no longer functional

[Kenneth Jacker]

Follow-up question:  when "installing the packages that are needed", from
where are they obtained?

>From the same directory as that containing the ".deb" file, from an
Internet archive or from my local /var/cache/apt/archives or ???

Thanks again,

-Kenneth

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Kenneth Jacker 
wrote:

> Next time try "sudo gdebi google-chrome-stable_49.0.2623.75-1_amd64.deb".
>> It should install the packages needed if they are available.
>>
>
> ​OK, thanks for the "tip"!
>
> -Kenneth​
>
>

Re: google-chrome-stable - no longer functional

[Kenneth Jacker]

>
> Next time try "sudo gdebi google-chrome-stable_49.0.2623.75-1_amd64.deb".
> It should install the packages needed if they are available.
>

​OK, thanks for the "tip"!

-Kenneth​

Re: google-chrome-stable - no longer functional

[Johann Spies]

On 21 April 2016 at 23:45, Kenneth Jacker  wrote:

>
>
># dpkg -i google-chrome-stable_49.0.2623.75-1_amd64.deb
>
>
>
Next time try "sudo gdebi google-chrome-stable_49.0.2623.75-1_amd64.deb".
It should install the packages needed if they are available.

Regards
Johann


-- 
Because experiencing your loyal love is better than life itself,
my lips will praise you.  (Psalm 63:3)

Re: google-chrome-stable - no longer functional

[Kenneth Jacker]

Sorry to reply to myself.  Hearing from no one for almost a week, I decided
to "check around" again and see if I couldn't find some way to restore
Google Chrome ...

This posting gave me the idea to "downgrade" the application:

   http://goo.gl/I5chaZ


Looking in my system's /var/cache/apt/archives', I found all recent
upgrades to google-chrome-stable.  I decided to re-install the previous
update version:

google-chrome-stable_49.0.2623.75-1_amd64.deb

I then attempted to apply the package using this:

   # dpkg -i google-chrome-stable_49.0.2623.75-1_amd64.deb


​That produced an error message:​

​
> ​
>  Package libappindicator1 is not installed​
>


​Went back into 'aptitude', and installed ​'libappindicator1' and its
required dependencies.

Finally, I ran the 'dpkg' command above once again, and *BINGO* ... success!


Maybe this might help someone else ... :)

-Kenneth

Re: Apt on SID error with Google-Chrome source

[Stephen Allen]

On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 03:11:34PM +0100, Sven Hartge wrote:
> Stephen Allen  wrote:
> 
> > Lot of changes to Apt recently - this warning has been around a few days
> > now:
> 
> > W:
> > gpgv:/var/lib/apt/lists/dl.google.com_linux_chrome_deb_dists_stable_Release.gpg:
> > The repository is insufficiently signed by key
> > 4CCA1EAF950CEE4AB83976DCA040830F7FAC5991 (weak digest)
> 
> > How do I fix?
> 
> You can't fix this. Google has to fix this and they already know about
> this.

Thanks Sven, I was behind on my reading of the list.

Re: Apt on SID error with Google-Chrome source

[Sven Hartge]

Stephen Allen  wrote:

> Lot of changes to Apt recently - this warning has been around a few days
> now:

> W:
> gpgv:/var/lib/apt/lists/dl.google.com_linux_chrome_deb_dists_stable_Release.gpg:
> The repository is insufficiently signed by key
> 4CCA1EAF950CEE4AB83976DCA040830F7FAC5991 (weak digest)

> How do I fix?

You can't fix this. Google has to fix this and they already know about
this.

Grüße,
Sven.

-- 
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

Apt on SID error with Google-Chrome source

[Stephen Allen]

Lot of changes to Apt recently - this warning has been around a few days
now:

W:
gpgv:/var/lib/apt/lists/dl.google.com_linux_chrome_deb_dists_stable_Release.gpg:
The repository is insufficiently signed by key
4CCA1EAF950CEE4AB83976DCA040830F7FAC5991 (weak digest)

How do I fix?