Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #165361 > unrolled thread

flash?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  flash? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-14 17:30 +0100
    Re: flash? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-14 17:30 +0100
      Re: flash? Alex Mestiashvili <mailatgoogl@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 18:00 +0100
        Re: flash? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-14 19:10 +0100
      Re: flash? Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 18:50 +0100
        Re: flash? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:00 +0100
          Re: flash? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-14 19:20 +0100
            Re: flash? "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@galactic.demon.co.uk> - 2016-03-14 22:40 +0100
              Re: flash? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 00:20 +0100
                Re: flash? "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@galactic.demon.co.uk> - 2016-03-15 00:50 +0100
            Re: flash? Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 00:20 +0100
              Re: flash? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-15 02:50 +0100
        Re: flash? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-14 19:10 +0100
      Re: flash? Charlie Kravetz <cjk@teamcharliesangels.com> - 2016-03-14 19:50 +0100
    Re: flash? [OT] Jörg-Volker Peetz <jvpeetz@web.de> - 2016-03-14 19:10 +0100
      Re: flash? [OT] Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-03-14 19:20 +0100
        Re: flash? [OT] Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2016-03-14 20:10 +0100
          Re: flash? [OT] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-03-14 21:00 +0100
            Re: flash? [OT] Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-03-15 03:40 +0100
              Re: flash? [OT] David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-03-15 03:50 +0100
                Re: flash? [OT] Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-03-15 04:50 +0100
                Re: flash? [OT] Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> - 2016-03-15 05:00 +0100
                  Re: flash? [OT] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 10:00 +0100
                    "A Modest Proposal" - was [Re: flash? [OT]] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-03-15 11:40 +0100
                      Re: "A Modest Proposal" - was [Re: flash? [OT]] deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 15:20 +0100
                        Re: "A Modest Proposal" - was [Re: flash? [OT]] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-03-15 16:00 +0100
                      Re: "A Modest Proposal" - was [Re: flash? [OT]] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:50 +0100
                        Re: "A Modest Proposal" - was [Re: flash? [OT]] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-03-16 01:50 +0100
                          Re: "A Modest Proposal" - was [Re: flash? [OT]] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 02:50 +0100
                    Re: flash? [OT] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-03-15 21:00 +0100
                      Re: flash? [OT] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 02:50 +0100
                        Re: flash? [OT] Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 14:00 +0100
                          Re: flash? [OT] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 15:00 +0100
                            Re: flash? [OT] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:20 +0100
                              Re: flash? [OT] Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:50 +0100
                                Re: flash? [OT] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 17:30 +0100
                                  Re: flash? [OT] Liam O'Toole <liam.p.otoole@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 23:40 +0100
                  Re: flash? [OT] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-03-15 21:20 +0100
                Re: flash? [OT] Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 22:10 +0100
                  Re: flash? [OT] Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-03-17 17:10 +0100
                    Re: flash? [OT] Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 17:40 +0100
                      Re: flash? [OT] Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-03-17 17:50 +0100
                        Re: flash? [OT] Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2016-03-17 19:10 +0100
        Re: flash? [OT] Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-03-15 03:40 +0100
      Re: flash? [OT] Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 21:20 +0100
        Re: flash? [OT] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-03-14 21:30 +0100
          Re: flash? [OT] Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 22:00 +0100
            Re: flash? [OT] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-03-16 00:00 +0100
              Re: flash? [OT] Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 05:00 +0100
      Re: flash? [OT] Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-03-15 03:40 +0100
        Re: flash? [OT] deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 08:40 +0100
          Re: flash? [OT] Adam Wilson <moxalt@riseup.net> - 2016-03-17 17:10 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#165401 — Re: flash? [OT]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 21:47:47 -0500 David Wright
<deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 05:30:28 (+0300), Adam Wilson wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 19:50:15 +0000 Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk>
> > 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 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 die ASAP.
> > >
> > > Total nonsense.
> > 
> > This is a very silly position. Of course *one person* declining to
> > use Flash isn't going to change anything- but that one person can
> > influence others to do so, and then others will boycott Flash, etc.
> > How is it that positive systemic changes are made in the real
> > world? By the action of the masses, and the action of the masses
> > starts with the action of individuals.
> > 
> > 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
> > > say, Brian didn't watch Happy Valley; why not?; we must do
> > > something about this.
> > 
> > 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.

How is this trolling?

1. Brian ridicules someone advocating a boycott of Flash, saying
nothing will ever change because apparently people are incapable of
doing anything about anything.

2. I respond.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165402 — Re: flash? [OT]

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

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
>>> say, Brian didn't watch Happy Valley; why not?; we must do something
>>> about this.
>>
>> 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.

Oh come on.

Flash is on it's last legs; even Adobe is moving away from it.

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.

A.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165412 — 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 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 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.

Ever heard of things called televisions?  Why would broadcasters care if a 
small number of computer users cut off their noses to spite their faces?

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165415 — "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 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.
> [snip]

Have any that think flash is inferior actually written a polite 
letter {preferably the snail mail variety] to a senior executive 
(President, CEO, COO, etc) of the content provider?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165418 — 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 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.
>> [snip]
> 
> Have any that think flash is inferior actually written a polite
> letter {preferably the snail mail variety] to a senior executive
> (President, CEO, COO, etc) of the content provider?

When I was not able to watch the national channel with flash player under
linux, few days later they wrote back, that the problem was fixed and
indeed since then it is working fine.

The transition to HTML5 will take years - be patient and pray ;-)

regards

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165420 — 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 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.
>>> [snip]
>>
>> Have any that think flash is inferior actually written a polite
>> letter {preferably the snail mail variety] to a senior executive
>> (President, CEO, COO, etc) of the content provider?
>
> When I was not able to watch the national channel with flash player under
> linux, few days later they wrote back, that the problem was fixed and
> indeed since then it is working fine.
>
> The transition to HTML5 will take years - be patient and pray ;-)
>
> regards
>

I don't know current statistics, but in the pre-WEB era one 
letter written indicated that 100 or more others had the same 
problem. As to "flash" etc, I've yet to find a site that actually 
needed it to give me relevant content. YMMV ;/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165425 — 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, 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. [snip]
>
> Have any that think flash is inferior actually written a polite
> letter {preferably the snail mail variety] to a senior executive
> (President, CEO, COO, etc) of the content provider?

And in the context of my posting "the content provider" would be?  

Do you really think that no-one, out of 60,000,000 potential users, a few of 
whom use Linux, has thought of asking???  But tell me who you think the 
content provider is, and I'll try again.  I admittedly used electronic means.  
The BBC has improved things.  At least we can now get it.  (As opposed to not 
getting it at all.)

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165451 — 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.
>>>
>>> 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. [snip]
>>
>> Have any that think flash is inferior actually written a polite
>> letter {preferably the snail mail variety] to a senior executive
>> (President, CEO, COO, etc) of the content provider?
>
> And in the context of my posting "the content provider" would be?
>
> Do you really think that no-one, out of 60,000,000 potential users, a few of
> whom use Linux, has thought of asking???  But tell me who you think the
> content provider is, and I'll try again.  I admittedly used electronic means.
> The BBC has improved things.  At least we can now get it.  (As opposed to not
> getting it at all.)
>
> Lisi
>
>

I was trying to make my response as generic as possible.
There is another philosophy re "How to effectively complain".
The useful answers tend to resemble "Follow the money".

I'll give an example from over 50 years ago. ;)
My father was having problems with service from the local Ford 
dealership.
A business trip took him to Detroit.
He walked into Ford corporate HQ saying "I have a problem."
By the time he got home, he had multiple responses saying "How 
can I help?" !!!

For an explicit response to your question, before you clicked on 
a link, whose logo was most prominent? They have likely paid cold 
hard cash to someone. I doubt they would appreciate paying 
someone to trash their reputation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165453 — 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 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 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. [snip]
> >>
> >> Have any that think flash is inferior actually written a polite
> >> letter {preferably the snail mail variety] to a senior executive
> >> (President, CEO, COO, etc) of the content provider?
> >
> > And in the context of my posting "the content provider" would be?
> >
> > Do you really think that no-one, out of 60,000,000 potential users, a few
> > of whom use Linux, has thought of asking???  But tell me who you think
> > the content provider is, and I'll try again.  I admittedly used
> > electronic means. The BBC has improved things.  At least we can now get
> > it.  (As opposed to not getting it at all.)
> >
> > Lisi
[snip]
>
> For an explicit response to your question, before you clicked on
> a link, whose logo was most prominent? They have likely paid cold
> hard cash to someone. I doubt they would appreciate paying
> someone to trash their reputation.

In the context of what I originally said this makes absolutely no sense at 
all.  Sorry.  That was why I asked what you meant.  You simply didn't read 
the thread.

And what worked 50 years ago wouldn't work now anyway.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165436 — Re: flash? [OT]

On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 08:57:20 +0000, 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 Jessie. hal, libhal1, libhal-storage and hal-info from an Ubuntu
PPA gave me access to 4od. My belief is that hal on Wheezy doesn't have
what it takes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165452 — Re: flash? [OT]

On Tuesday 15 March 2016 19:58:18 Brian wrote:
> On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 08:57:20 +0000, 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 Jessie. hal, libhal1, libhal-storage and hal-info from an Ubuntu
> PPA gave me access to 4od. My belief is that hal on Wheezy doesn't have
> what it takes.

Thanks, Brian!  I'll try it.

I did have Channel 4 working well on Wheezy (my desktop), but have never 
managed to get it going on Jessie (my television).  Channel 4 on Wheezy 
suddenly stopped working a few weeks ago after an update.  So I am back to 
not being able to get 4oD at all. I can get live programmes by actually using 
the television!!  I watch catch-up a lot more than live programmes.  (I don't 
watch either much!  But as I get older and more decrepit I watch more. :-(  )

I have tried various things on Jessie without success.  I'll have another go 
with your list in hand.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165474 — Re: flash? [OT]

On 2016-03-16, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 March 2016 19:58:18 Brian wrote:
>> On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 08:57:20 +0000, 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 Jessie. hal, libhal1, libhal-storage and hal-info from an Ubuntu
>> PPA gave me access to 4od. My belief is that hal on Wheezy doesn't have
>> what it takes.
>
> Thanks, Brian!  I'll try it.
>
> I did have Channel 4 working well on Wheezy (my desktop), but have never 
> managed to get it going on Jessie (my television).  Channel 4 on Wheezy 
> suddenly stopped working a few weeks ago after an update.  So I am back to 
> not being able to get 4oD at all. I can get live programmes by actually using 
> the television!!  I watch catch-up a lot more than live programmes.  (I don't 
> watch either much!  But as I get older and more decrepit I watch more. :-(  )
>
> I have tried various things on Jessie without success.  I'll have another go 
> with your list in hand.
>
> Lisi
>

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 have, whereas iceweasel/firefox on the same machine didn't even
get that far.

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

-- 

Liam

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165475 — Re: flash? [OT]

On Wednesday 16 March 2016 12:54:07 Liam O'Toole wrote:
> On 2016-03-16, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 March 2016 19:58:18 Brian wrote:
> >> On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 08:57:20 +0000, 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 Jessie. hal, libhal1, libhal-storage and hal-info from an Ubuntu
> >> PPA gave me access to 4od. My belief is that hal on Wheezy doesn't have
> >> what it takes.
> >
> > Thanks, Brian!  I'll try it.
> >
> > I did have Channel 4 working well on Wheezy (my desktop), but have never
> > managed to get it going on Jessie (my television).  Channel 4 on Wheezy
> > suddenly stopped working a few weeks ago after an update.  So I am back
> > to not being able to get 4oD at all. I can get live programmes by
> > actually using the television!!  I watch catch-up a lot more than live
> > programmes.  (I don't watch either much!  But as I get older and more
> > decrepit I watch more. :-(  )
> >
> > I have tried various things on Jessie without success.  I'll have another
> > go with your list in hand.
> >
> > Lisi
>
> 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 have, whereas iceweasel/firefox on the same machine didn't even
> get that far.
>
> 1: deb [arch=amd64] http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main

Ah, yes.  But after you have logged in and you click on "play", a nice little 
round white thing will start to go round in front of the picture you want to 
watch, and round, and round, and round ...  until eventually you will realise 
that a rotating white almost-circle is all you are going to get.

Anyhow, thanks Liam.  I'll try again this afternoon in case the latest upgrade 
has actually done the trick.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165484 — 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 <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 15 March 2016 19:58:18 Brian wrote:
> > >> On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 08:57:20 +0000, 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 Jessie. hal, libhal1, libhal-storage and hal-info from an
> > >> Ubuntu PPA gave me access to 4od. My belief is that hal on Wheezy
> > >> doesn't have what it takes.
> > >
> > > Thanks, Brian!  I'll try it.
> > >
> > > I did have Channel 4 working well on Wheezy (my desktop), but have
> > > never managed to get it going on Jessie (my television).  Channel 4 on
> > > Wheezy suddenly stopped working a few weeks ago after an update.  So I
> > > am back to not being able to get 4oD at all. I can get live programmes
> > > by actually using the television!!  I watch catch-up a lot more than
> > > live programmes.  (I don't watch either much!  But as I get older and
> > > more decrepit I watch more. :-(  )
> > >
> > > I have tried various things on Jessie without success.  I'll have
> > > another go with your list in hand.
> > >
> > > Lisi
> >
> > 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 have, whereas iceweasel/firefox on the same machine didn't even
> > get that far.
> >
> > 1: deb [arch=amd64] http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main
>
> Ah, yes.  But after you have logged in and you click on "play", a nice
> little round white thing will start to go round in front of the picture you
> want to watch, and round, and round, and round ...  until eventually you
> will realise that a rotating white almost-circle is all you are going to
> get.
>
> Anyhow, thanks Liam.  I'll try again this afternoon in case the latest
> upgrade has actually done the trick.

Did a full upgrade - 384 packages (there has been a point upgrade in TDE).  
Tried Channel 4.  Round and round and round went the white circle. :-(

Next to try Brian's packages.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165486 — Re: flash? [OT]

On 2016-03-16, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> 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 <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday 15 March 2016 19:58:18 Brian wrote:
>> > >> On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 08:57:20 +0000, 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 Jessie. hal, libhal1, libhal-storage and hal-info from an
>> > >> Ubuntu PPA gave me access to 4od. My belief is that hal on Wheezy
>> > >> doesn't have what it takes.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks, Brian!  I'll try it.
>> > >
>> > > I did have Channel 4 working well on Wheezy (my desktop), but have
>> > > never managed to get it going on Jessie (my television).  Channel 4 on
>> > > Wheezy suddenly stopped working a few weeks ago after an update.  So I
>> > > am back to not being able to get 4oD at all. I can get live programmes
>> > > by actually using the television!!  I watch catch-up a lot more than
>> > > live programmes.  (I don't watch either much!  But as I get older and
>> > > more decrepit I watch more. :-(  )
>> > >
>> > > I have tried various things on Jessie without success.  I'll have
>> > > another go with your list in hand.
>> > >
>> > > Lisi
>> >
>> > 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 have, whereas iceweasel/firefox on the same machine didn't even
>> > get that far.
>> >
>> > 1: deb [arch=amd64] http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main
>>
>> Ah, yes.  But after you have logged in and you click on "play", a nice
>> little round white thing will start to go round in front of the picture you
>> want to watch, and round, and round, and round ...  until eventually you
>> will realise that a rotating white almost-circle is all you are going to
>> get.
>>
>> Anyhow, thanks Liam.  I'll try again this afternoon in case the latest
>> upgrade has actually done the trick.
>
> Did a full upgrade - 384 packages (there has been a point upgrade in TDE).  
> Tried Channel 4.  Round and round and round went the white circle. :-(

Sorry to hear that. I didn't have the motivation to go any further
because I watch Channel 4 using their PS3 app. That doesn't require an
account, or at least I don't remember setting one up.

>
> Next to try Brian's packages.

If those don't work, you might consider picking up a second-hand PS3.
:-)

-- 

Liam

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165490 — Re: flash? [OT]

On Wednesday 16 March 2016 15:47:29 Liam O'Toole wrote:
> On 2016-03-16, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> 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 <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Tuesday 15 March 2016 19:58:18 Brian wrote:
> >> > >> On Tue 15 Mar 2016 at 08:57:20 +0000, 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 Jessie. hal, libhal1, libhal-storage and hal-info from an
> >> > >> Ubuntu PPA gave me access to 4od. My belief is that hal on Wheezy
> >> > >> doesn't have what it takes.
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks, Brian!  I'll try it.
> >> > >
> >> > > I did have Channel 4 working well on Wheezy (my desktop), but have
> >> > > never managed to get it going on Jessie (my television).  Channel 4
> >> > > on Wheezy suddenly stopped working a few weeks ago after an update. 
> >> > > So I am back to not being able to get 4oD at all. I can get live
> >> > > programmes by actually using the television!!  I watch catch-up a
> >> > > lot more than live programmes.  (I don't watch either much!  But as
> >> > > I get older and more decrepit I watch more. :-(  )
> >> > >
> >> > > I have tried various things on Jessie without success.  I'll have
> >> > > another go with your list in hand.
> >> > >
> >> > > Lisi
> >> >
> >> > 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 have, whereas iceweasel/firefox on the same machine
> >> > didn't even get that far.
> >> >
> >> > 1: deb [arch=amd64] http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/ stable main
> >>
> >> Ah, yes.  But after you have logged in and you click on "play", a nice
> >> little round white thing will start to go round in front of the picture
> >> you want to watch, and round, and round, and round ...  until eventually
> >> you will realise that a rotating white almost-circle is all you are
> >> going to get.
> >>
> >> Anyhow, thanks Liam.  I'll try again this afternoon in case the latest
> >> upgrade has actually done the trick.
> >
> > Did a full upgrade - 384 packages (there has been a point upgrade in
> > TDE). Tried Channel 4.  Round and round and round went the white circle.
> > :-(
>
> Sorry to hear that. I didn't have the motivation to go any further
> because I watch Channel 4 using their PS3 app. That doesn't require an
> account, or at least I don't remember setting one up.
>
> > Next to try Brian's packages.
>
> If those don't work, you might consider picking up a second-hand PS3.
>
> :-)

If it actually works, I might!  I have already bought a Firestick in fruitless 
hope.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165508 — Re: flash? [OT]

On 2016-03-16, Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> 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 have, whereas iceweasel/firefox on the
>> >> > same machine didn't even get that far.
>> >> >
>> >> > 1: deb [arch=amd64] http://dl.google.com/linux/chrome/deb/
>> >> > stable main
>> >>
>> >> Ah, yes.  But after you have logged in and you click on "play", a
>> >> nice little round white thing will start to go round in front of
>> >> the picture you want to watch, and round, and round, and round ...
>> >> until eventually you will realise that a rotating white
>> >> almost-circle is all you are going to get.
>> >>
>> >> Anyhow, thanks Liam.  I'll try again this afternoon in case the
>> >> latest upgrade has actually done the trick.
>> >
>> > Did a full upgrade - 384 packages (there has been a point upgrade
>> > in TDE). Tried Channel 4.  Round and round and round went the white
>> > circle.  :-(
>>
>> Sorry to hear that. I didn't have the motivation to go any further
>> because I watch Channel 4 using their PS3 app. That doesn't require
>> an account, or at least I don't remember setting one up.
>>
>> > Next to try Brian's packages.
>>
>> If those don't work, you might consider picking up a second-hand PS3.
>>
>> :-)
>
> If it actually works, I might!  I have already bought a Firestick in
> fruitless hope.
>
> Lisi

Well, it works for me, as they say. Feel free to get back to me for
hardware and software details before you commit.

-- 

Liam

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165437 — 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.
> >>
> >>> Does it even notice you didn't even visit its site? "By God", they
> >>> say, Brian didn't watch Happy Valley; why not?; we must do something
> >>> about this.
> >>
> >> 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.
> 
> Oh come on.
> 
> Flash is on it's last legs; even Adobe is moving away from it.

So that is the writing on the wall? All Adobe's server products are out
of the window? No more flash products on SMART TVs? Adobe is moving to
some other technology?

Citation, please.
> 
> 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 first statement is bloody obvious. The second is conjecture based on
your idea that flash is dead (or soon will be).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165441 — 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 truth. It's sweet to no 
longer need flash blocker. I ripped it out like a screaming Hogwarts 
Mandrake root after removing the flash plugin. I do still have flash 
installed for video files, but not for my browser. Ric


-- 
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165534 — Re: flash? [OT]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:06:12 -0400 Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com>
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 accordingly.
> >>
> >
> > Please stop trolling on this list.
> >
> 
> I don't see it as trolling when he spake the truth. It's sweet to no 
> longer need flash blocker. I ripped it out like a screaming Hogwarts 
> Mandrake root after removing the flash plugin. I do still have flash 
> installed for video files, but not for my browser. Ric

I have gnash in case I ever need to play a swf (which is rarely).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web