Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

2016-02-15 Thread Frank Steinmetzger
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 01:48:47PM -0500, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: A bit OT, but: > > Dale wrote: > > > Correct me if I'm wrong here. Isn't flash supposed to be dying > > > anyway? Why are so many sites still using it if they should be using > > > HTML5? Isn't HTML5

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

2016-01-16 Thread Dale
Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 19:28:16 -0600, Dale wrote: > >> I've seen that before. I use that user agent plugin to switch to >> something it likes. Generally, it works. Basically, you tell the >> browser to lie and tell it is a windoze machine with IE and carry on. >> So far,

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

2016-01-16 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 19:28:16 -0600, Dale wrote: > I've seen that before. I use that user agent plugin to switch to > something it likes. Generally, it works. Basically, you tell the > browser to lie and tell it is a windoze machine with IE and carry on. > So far, that has always worked for

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

2016-01-16 Thread Mick
On Saturday 16 Jan 2016 12:49:30 you wrote: > On Saturday 16 Jan 2016 04:15:33 Dale wrote: > > Neil Bothwick wrote: > > > It's better to tell them you're using the Windows version of Firefox or > > > Chrome. If you send an IE User_agent, some sites will start messing with > > > ActiveX etc. > > >

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

2016-01-16 Thread Mick
On Saturday 16 Jan 2016 04:15:33 Dale wrote: > Neil Bothwick wrote: > > It's better to tell them you're using the Windows version of Firefox or > > Chrome. If you send an IE User_agent, some sites will start messing with > > ActiveX etc. > > That is true but in the cases I used that, it required

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

2016-01-16 Thread Dale
Mick wrote: > On Saturday 16 Jan 2016 12:49:30 you wrote: >> On Saturday 16 Jan 2016 04:15:33 Dale wrote: >>> Neil Bothwick wrote: It's better to tell them you're using the Windows version of Firefox or Chrome. If you send an IE User_agent, some sites will start messing with ActiveX

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

2016-01-15 Thread Mick
On Friday 15 Jan 2016 03:02:07 Dale wrote: > Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > > On 15/01/16 10:15, Peter Weilbacher wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 Jan 2016, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > >>> I thought these are only security fixes? Version 20 is actully > >>> feature-complete and in-par with the Windows version

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

2016-01-15 Thread Dale
Mick wrote: > On Friday 15 Jan 2016 03:02:07 Dale wrote: >> Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >>> On 15/01/16 10:15, Peter Weilbacher wrote: On Thu, 14 Jan 2016, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > I thought these are only security fixes? Version 20 is actully > feature-complete and in-par with the

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

2016-01-15 Thread Dale
Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 15/01/16 10:15, Peter Weilbacher wrote: >> On Thu, 14 Jan 2016, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >> >>> I thought these are only security fixes? Version 20 is actully >>> feature-complete and in-par with the Windows version 20. >>> >>> v11.2.202.559 might be from December,

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

2016-01-14 Thread Peter Weilbacher
On Wed, 13 Jan 2016, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 12/01/16 23:10, Róbert Čerňanský wrote: > > https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/ page: > > > > "Adobe Flash Player 11.2 will be the last version to target Linux as a > > supported platform. Adobe will continue to provide security backports > > to

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

2016-01-12 Thread Róbert Čerňanský
On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:53:41 +0200 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > Adobe does not update Flash for Linux themselves anymore. They gave > that to Google. As a side effect, the only way to get the latest > Flash version on Linux, is to use Google Chrome. Adobe still provides security

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

2016-01-11 Thread waltdnes
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 04:50:58PM -0600, »Q« wrote > On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 15:47:47 -0600 > Dale wrote: > > > Correct me if I'm wrong here. Isn't flash supposed to be dying > > anyway? Why are so many sites still using it if they should be using > > HTML5? Isn't HTML5

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

2016-01-10 Thread Mick
On Sunday 10 Jan 2016 16:50:58 »Q« wrote: > AFAIK, with all major browsers supporting HTML5 video, the only reason > so many sites still require Flash is that it costs money to transition. With websites usually redesigned every 3-5 years we should hopefully see the majority of sites moving off

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

2016-01-10 Thread Dale
»Q« wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 19:26:19 + > Mick wrote: > >> On Sunday 10 Jan 2016 18:39:43 Ian Bloss wrote: >>> You can install pepperflash to chromium although it's proprietary. >>> Google Chrome has pepper flash by default >> For Chromium you can install: >>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Adobe flash warning and tree

2016-01-10 Thread Dale
»Q« wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 15:47:47 -0600 > Dale wrote: > >> Correct me if I'm wrong here. Isn't flash supposed to be dying >> anyway? Why are so many sites still using it if they should be using >> HTML5? Isn't HTML5 supposed to eliminate flash?? > It's been