Re: flash? [OT]

On 2016-03-16, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Tuesday 15 March 2016 19:58:18 Brian wrote: >> On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 08:57:20 +, Lisi Reisz wrote: >> > Even Channel 4, which relies on advertising for its revenue, is totally >> > indifferent to the fact that Linux users can't watch

Re: flash? [OT]

On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 12:39:11 -0400 Ric Moore wrote: > On 03/17/2016 01:37 AM, Adam Wilson wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:06:12 -0400 Ric Moore > > wrote: > > > >> On 03/14/2016 10:47 PM, David Wright wrote: > >>> On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 05:30:28

Re: flash? [OT]

On 03/17/2016 01:37 AM, Adam Wilson wrote: On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:06:12 -0400 Ric Moore wrote: On 03/14/2016 10:47 PM, David Wright wrote: On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 05:30:28 (+0300), Adam Wilson wrote: They will notice when lots of people no longer use Flash, and we

Re: flash? [OT]

On 2016-03-16, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Wednesday 16 March 2016 15:47:29 Liam O'Toole wrote: [...] >> >> > I've just tried Channel 4 using Google Chrome[1] on jessie, and >> >> > it seems to work. I say "seems" because the site prompts me for >> >> > account details I don't

Re: flash? [OT]

On Wednesday 16 March 2016 12:54:07 Liam O'Toole wrote: > On 2016-03-16, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Tuesday 15 March 2016 19:58:18 Brian wrote: > >> On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 08:57:20 +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >> > Even Channel 4, which relies on advertising for its revenue, is >

Re: flash? [OT]

On Wednesday 16 March 2016 13:56:50 Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Wednesday 16 March 2016 12:54:07 Liam O'Toole wrote: > > On 2016-03-16, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > On Tuesday 15 March 2016 19:58:18 Brian wrote: > > >> On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 08:57:20 +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > >> >

Re: flash? [OT]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 08:29:54 +0100 deloptes wrote: > Adam Wilson wrote: > > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 19:06:27 +0100 Jörg-Volker Peetz > > wrote: > > > >> IMHO its worth to try the web without flash. > >> HTML5 can do a lot nowadays. > > > > Exactly. I don't

Re: flash? [OT]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:06:12 -0400 Ric Moore wrote: > On 03/14/2016 10:47 PM, David Wright wrote: > > On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 05:30:28 (+0300), Adam Wilson wrote: > > >> They will notice when lots of people no longer use Flash, and we > >> will force them to react

Re: flash? [OT]

On 2016-03-17, Adam Wilson wrote: >> >> Last time I tried it my YouTube videos refused to play. If it will >> work now, then I can be flash-free, Ric > > YouTube doesn't need Flash at all anymore. All you need is a reasonably > modern browser, for which Iceweasel does the

Re: flash? [OT]

On Wednesday 16 March 2016 15:47:29 Liam O'Toole wrote: > On 2016-03-16, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Wednesday 16 March 2016 13:56:50 Lisi Reisz wrote: > >> On Wednesday 16 March 2016 12:54:07 Liam O'Toole wrote: > >> > On 2016-03-16, Lisi Reisz wrote: >

Re: flash? [OT]

On 2016-03-16, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Wednesday 16 March 2016 13:56:50 Lisi Reisz wrote: >> On Wednesday 16 March 2016 12:54:07 Liam O'Toole wrote: >> > On 2016-03-16, Lisi Reisz wrote: >> > > On Tuesday 15 March 2016 19:58:18 Brian wrote: >> > >> On

Re: flash? [OT]

On 03/15/2016 06:56 PM, Brian wrote: On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 16:59:03 -0400, Ric Moore wrote: On 03/14/2016 04:24 PM, Brian wrote: On Mon 14 Mar 2016 at 16:14:11 -0400, Ric Moore wrote: On 03/14/2016 02:06 PM, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: IMHO its worth to try the web without flash. HTML5 can do

Re: flash? [OT]

On Tuesday 15 March 2016 19:58:18 Brian wrote: > On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 08:57:20 +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > Even Channel 4, which relies on advertising for its revenue, is totally > > indifferent to the fact that Linux users can't watch it on a computer. > > Well, Brian probably can. But he

Re: "A Modest Proposal" - was [Re: flash? [OT]]

On Wednesday 16 March 2016 00:42:48 Richard Owlett wrote: > On 3/15/2016 11:45 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Tuesday 15 March 2016 10:35:12 Richard Owlett wrote: > >> On 3/15/2016 3:57 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >> [snip] > >> > >>> The BBC isn't going to take a blind bit of notice if Brian and I

Re: "A Modest Proposal" - was [Re: flash? [OT]]

On 3/15/2016 11:45 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Tuesday 15 March 2016 10:35:12 Richard Owlett wrote: On 3/15/2016 3:57 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: [snip] The BBC isn't going to take a blind bit of notice if Brian and I don't watch Happy Valley. It really isn't going to care. It has its licence money.

Re: flash? [OT]

On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 16:59:03 -0400, Ric Moore wrote: > On 03/14/2016 04:24 PM, Brian wrote: > >On Mon 14 Mar 2016 at 16:14:11 -0400, Ric Moore wrote: > > > >>On 03/14/2016 02:06 PM, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > >>>IMHO its worth to try the web without flash. > >>>HTML5 can do a lot nowadays. >

Re: flash? [OT]

On 03/14/2016 10:47 PM, David Wright wrote: On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 05:30:28 (+0300), Adam Wilson wrote: They will notice when lots of people no longer use Flash, and we will force them to react accordingly. Please stop trolling on this list. I don't see it as trolling when he spake the

Re: flash? [OT]

On 03/14/2016 04:24 PM, Brian wrote: On Mon 14 Mar 2016 at 16:14:11 -0400, Ric Moore wrote: On 03/14/2016 02:06 PM, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: IMHO its worth to try the web without flash. HTML5 can do a lot nowadays. And visiting sites without using flash helps to get rid of it. To the OP,

Re: flash? [OT]

On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 14:51:13 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > On 15/03/2016 1:47 PM, David Wright wrote: > >> Nothing would ever happen if everyone adopted the logic of "oh well, I'm > >> alone so I can't change anything". The journey of a thousand miles > >> starts with a single step. > >> >

Re: flash? [OT]

On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 08:57:20 +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > Even Channel 4, which relies on advertising for its revenue, is totally > indifferent to the fact that Linux users can't watch it on a computer. Well, > Brian probably can. But he hasn't let the rest of us into the secret. I am on

Re: "A Modest Proposal" - was [Re: flash? [OT]]

On Tuesday 15 March 2016 10:35:12 Richard Owlett wrote: > On 3/15/2016 3:57 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > [snip] > > > The BBC isn't going to take a blind bit of notice if Brian and I don't > > watch Happy Valley. It really isn't going to care. It has its licence > > money. > > > > Even Channel 4,

Re: "A Modest Proposal" - was [Re: flash? [OT]]

On 3/15/2016 9:09 AM, deloptes wrote: Richard Owlett wrote: On 3/15/2016 3:57 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: [snip] The BBC isn't going to take a blind bit of notice if Brian and I don't watch Happy Valley. It really isn't going to care. It has its licence money. Even Channel 4, which relies on

Re: "A Modest Proposal" - was [Re: flash? [OT]]

Richard Owlett wrote: > On 3/15/2016 3:57 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: > [snip] >> >> The BBC isn't going to take a blind bit of notice if Brian and I don't >> watch >> Happy Valley. It really isn't going to care. It has its licence money. >> >> Even Channel 4, which relies on advertising for its

"A Modest Proposal" - was [Re: flash? [OT]]

On 3/15/2016 3:57 AM, Lisi Reisz wrote: [snip] The BBC isn't going to take a blind bit of notice if Brian and I don't watch Happy Valley. It really isn't going to care. It has its licence money. Even Channel 4, which relies on advertising for its revenue, is totally indifferent to the fact

Re: flash? [OT]

On Tuesday 15 March 2016 03:51:13 Andrew McGlashan wrote: > Every computer that stops using flash will mean some websites will lose > traffic; if they lose enough, then they /may/ change or they may die > along with flash. The BBC isn't going to take a blind bit of notice if Brian and I don't

Re: flash? [OT]

Adam Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 19:06:27 +0100 Jörg-Volker Peetz > wrote: > >> IMHO its worth to try the web without flash. >> HTML5 can do a lot nowadays. > > Exactly. I don't use Flash, but somehow the world hasn't collapsed > around me yet, and (*gasp*) I am still

Re: flash? [OT]

On 15/03/2016 1:47 PM, David Wright wrote: >> Nothing would ever happen if everyone adopted the logic of "oh well, I'm >> alone so I can't change anything". The journey of a thousand miles >> starts with a single step. >> >>> Does it even notice you didn't even visit its site? "By God", they >>>

Re: flash? [OT]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 21:47:47 -0500 David Wright wrote: > On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 05:30:28 (+0300), Adam Wilson wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 19:50:15 + Brian > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 06:00:27 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote: >

Re: flash? [OT]

On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 05:30:28 (+0300), Adam Wilson wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 19:50:15 + Brian wrote: > > > On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 06:00:27 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > > > > > On 15/03/2016 5:13 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > On Monday 14 March 2016 14:06:27

Re: flash? [OT]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 19:06:27 +0100 Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > IMHO its worth to try the web without flash. > HTML5 can do a lot nowadays. Exactly. I don't use Flash, but somehow the world hasn't collapsed around me yet, and (*gasp*) I am still able to get my news. [1] [1]

Re: flash? [OT]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:13:05 -0400 Gene Heskett wrote: > On Monday 14 March 2016 14:06:27 Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > > > IMHO its worth to try the web without flash. > > HTML5 can do a lot nowadays. > > And visiting sites without using flash helps to get rid of it. > > > >

Re: flash? [OT]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 19:50:15 + Brian wrote: > On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 06:00:27 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > > > On 15/03/2016 5:13 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > > > On Monday 14 March 2016 14:06:27 Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > > > > > >> IMHO its worth to try the web

Re: flash? [OT]

On Mon 14 Mar 2016 at 16:14:11 -0400, Ric Moore wrote: > On 03/14/2016 02:06 PM, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > >IMHO its worth to try the web without flash. > >HTML5 can do a lot nowadays. > >And visiting sites without using flash helps to get rid of it. > > To the OP, Gene, I just got rid of flash

Re: flash? [OT]

On 03/14/2016 02:06 PM, Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: IMHO its worth to try the web without flash. HTML5 can do a lot nowadays. And visiting sites without using flash helps to get rid of it. To the OP, Gene, I just got rid of flash plugin totally. So far no pain. :) Ric -- My father, Victor

Re: flash? [OT]

On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 06:00:27 +1100, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > On 15/03/2016 5:13 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Monday 14 March 2016 14:06:27 Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > > > >> IMHO its worth to try the web without flash. > >> HTML5 can do a lot nowadays. > >> And visiting sites without using

Re: flash? [OT]

On 15/03/2016 5:13 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Monday 14 March 2016 14:06:27 Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > >> IMHO its worth to try the web without flash. >> HTML5 can do a lot nowadays. >> And visiting sites without using flash helps to get rid of it. The sooner, the better Flash needs to

Re: flash? [OT]

On Monday 14 March 2016 14:06:27 Jörg-Volker Peetz wrote: > IMHO its worth to try the web without flash. > HTML5 can do a lot nowadays. > And visiting sites without using flash helps to get rid of it. > > Regards, > jvp. 100% in agreement, but the major mainsleaze news site seem to be stuck

Re: flash? [OT]

IMHO its worth to try the web without flash. HTML5 can do a lot nowadays. And visiting sites without using flash helps to get rid of it. Regards, jvp.