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

Groups > linux.debian.user > #180398 > unrolled thread

new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net today.

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

Contents

  new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net today. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-04-22 18:30 +0200
    Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net  today. songbird <songbird@anthive.com> - 2017-04-22 23:40 +0200
      Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net today. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-04-23 01:00 +0200
    Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net  today. Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 05:30 +0200
      Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net today. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-04-23 06:30 +0200
        Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net  today. Frank <zuiderduin@gmx.com> - 2017-04-23 08:00 +0200
          Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net today. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-04-23 12:40 +0200
            Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net  today. Frank de Bruijn <frank.de.bruijn@ziggo.nl> - 2017-04-23 15:10 +0200
              Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net  today. Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2017-04-23 16:00 +0200
              Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net today. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-04-23 19:50 +0200
        Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net  today. Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2017-04-23 08:10 +0200
        Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net  today. Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2017-04-23 11:30 +0200
        Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net  today. Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 21:20 +0200
          Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net today. Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-04-23 21:50 +0200
            Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net  today. Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 00:50 +0200
              Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net  today. David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-04-24 02:40 +0200
                Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net  today. Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 04:00 +0200

#180398 — new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net today.

Went to newegg.com to look for some optical fiber but the front page, 
while I think its alive, did not respond to a mouse click on any product 
link. I hope its not contagious.

Many news sites are saying "request entity too large" also.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#180407 — Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net today.

Gene Heskett wrote:
> Went to newegg.com to look for some optical fiber but the front page, 
> while I think its alive, did not respond to a mouse click on any product 
> link. I hope its not contagious.
>
> Many news sites are saying "request entity too large" also.

  i've not seen any problems (tested both newegg
and some news sites).


  songbird

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

#180408

On Saturday 22 April 2017 17:20:00 songbird wrote:

> Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Went to newegg.com to look for some optical fiber but the front
> > page, while I think its alive, did not respond to a mouse click on
> > any product link. I hope its not contagious.
> >
> > Many news sites are saying "request entity too large" also.
>
>   i've not seen any problems (tested both newegg
> and some news sites).
>
>
>   songbird

Go to cbsnews.com, scroll down half a screen and click on the video in 
the lower right corner.  Does it open another screen and play for you?

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#180410 — Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net today.

On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 12:24:32 -0400 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net>
wrote:

> Went to newegg.com to look for some optical fiber but the front page, 
> while I think its alive, did not respond to a mouse click on any
> product link. I hope its not contagious.
> 
> Many news sites are saying "request entity too large" also.

Works fine here.  Although rendering sometimes is sluggish -- a
few seconds longer.  Could be Cox Internet.  They get slow at
times.  Version 45.9.0 with the latest flashpalyer 25.0.0.148 installed
yesterday

B

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

#180411

On Saturday 22 April 2017 23:22:45 Patrick Bartek wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 12:24:32 -0400 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net>
>
> wrote:
> > Went to newegg.com to look for some optical fiber but the front
> > page, while I think its alive, did not respond to a mouse click on
> > any product link. I hope its not contagious.
> >
> > Many news sites are saying "request entity too large" also.
>
> Works fine here.  Although rendering sometimes is sluggish -- a
> few seconds longer.  Could be Cox Internet.  They get slow at
> times.  Version 45.9.0 with the latest flashpalyer 25.0.0.148
> installed yesterday
>
> B
And how do you get that 10 year newer flash?  The adobe site doesn't show 
me anything newer than the 11.xx.xx.xxx stuff.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#180412 — Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net today.

Op 23-04-17 om 06:21 schreef Gene Heskett:
> And how do you get that 10 year newer flash?  The adobe site doesn't show
> me anything newer than the 11.xx.xx.xxx stuff.

Really? Both https://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/ and 
https://get.adobe.com/nl/flashplayer/ definitely show 25.0.0.148 for me.

Regards,
Frank

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

#180417

On Sunday 23 April 2017 01:54:21 Frank wrote:

> Op 23-04-17 om 06:21 schreef Gene Heskett:
> > And how do you get that 10 year newer flash?  The adobe site doesn't
> > show me anything newer than the 11.xx.xx.xxx stuff.
>
> Really? Both https://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/ and
> https://get.adobe.com/nl/flashplayer/ definitely show 25.0.0.148 for
> me.
>
> Regards,
> Frank

After writing that, I did a google search, which gave me a slightly 
different adobe url and that link gave me a tarball of 25.0.0.148.  The 
installation instructions were a bit confusing, so I wound up 
overwriting libflashplayer.so in 5 locations with this newer version. 
Leftovers from previous attempts to arrive at a working 75% of the time 
flash player.  No one, including me, has a clue where the one being used 
actually is.  OLd debian wheezy install, 100% uptodate a few hours ago.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#180418 — Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net today.

Op 23-04-17 om 12:37 schreef Gene Heskett:
> On Sunday 23 April 2017 01:54:21 Frank wrote:
> 
>> Op 23-04-17 om 06:21 schreef Gene Heskett:
>>> And how do you get that 10 year newer flash?  The adobe site doesn't
>>> show me anything newer than the 11.xx.xx.xxx stuff.
>>
>> Really? Both https://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/ and
>> https://get.adobe.com/nl/flashplayer/ definitely show 25.0.0.148 for
>> me.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Frank
> 
> After writing that, I did a google search, which gave me a slightly
> different adobe url and that link gave me a tarball of 25.0.0.148.  The
> installation instructions were a bit confusing, so I wound up
> overwriting libflashplayer.so in 5 locations with this newer version.
> Leftovers from previous attempts to arrive at a working 75% of the time
> flash player.  No one, including me, has a clue where the one being used
> actually is.

I usually look in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins, but the plugin file there 
may actually be a symlink pointing to something in /etc/alternatives, 
which in turn will probably point to some other item somewhere in 
/usr/lib...

Regards,
Frank

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

#180419 — Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net today.

On 2017-04-23, Frank de Bruijn <frank.de.bruijn@ziggo.nl> wrote:

> I usually look in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins, but the plugin file there 
> may actually be a symlink pointing to something in /etc/alternatives, 
> which in turn will probably point to some other item somewhere in 
> /usr/lib...

To cover all the bases, I have it in

/home/curty/.mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so
/usr/lib/firefox/plugins/libflashplayer.so
/usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so

The mozilla help site says to put it in

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/install-flash-plugin-view-videos-animations-games?cache=no

usr/lib/mozilla/plugins 

It might search there first and then in the user's home directory, or
vice-versa. 

It's working now; I could rename the files one by one, or two by two,
leaving only one libflashplayer.so, and see at which point I broke my
flash, if Gene's really interested in knowing what no one knows, which
is a pretty big affair if you ask me.

> Regards,
> Frank
>
>


-- 
"It might be a vision--of a shell, of a wheelbarrow, of a fairy kingdom on the
far side of the hedge; or it might be the glory of speed; no one knew." --Mrs.
Ramsay, speculating on why her little daughter might be dashing about, in "To
the Lighthouse," by Virginia Woolf.

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

#180420

On Sunday 23 April 2017 07:35:36 Frank de Bruijn wrote:

> Op 23-04-17 om 12:37 schreef Gene Heskett:
> > On Sunday 23 April 2017 01:54:21 Frank wrote:
> >> Op 23-04-17 om 06:21 schreef Gene Heskett:
> >>> And how do you get that 10 year newer flash?  The adobe site
> >>> doesn't show me anything newer than the 11.xx.xx.xxx stuff.
> >>
> >> Really? Both https://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/ and
> >> https://get.adobe.com/nl/flashplayer/ definitely show 25.0.0.148
> >> for me.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Frank
> >
> > After writing that, I did a google search, which gave me a slightly
> > different adobe url and that link gave me a tarball of 25.0.0.148. 
> > The installation instructions were a bit confusing, so I wound up
> > overwriting libflashplayer.so in 5 locations with this newer
> > version. Leftovers from previous attempts to arrive at a working 75%
> > of the time flash player.  No one, including me, has a clue where
> > the one being used actually is.
>
> I usually look in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins, but the plugin file there
> may actually be a symlink pointing to something in /etc/alternatives,
> which in turn will probably point to some other item somewhere in
> /usr/lib...
>
> Regards,
> Frank

The link in /etc/alternatives points at the new version 
in /usr/lib/flashplayer-mozilla/libflashplayer.so

So I think I'm ok.  Thank you for reminding me about alternatives.
Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#180413 — Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net today.

On 23/04/17 16:21, Gene Heskett wrote:
> And how do you get that 10 year newer flash?  The adobe site doesn't show
> me anything newer than the 11.xx.xx.xxx stuff.

flashplugin-nonfree is often broken. Here is my workaround:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2017/03/msg00491.html

See also:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=851066

Kind regards,

-- 
Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz>
Director
Transient Software Limited <http://transient.nz/>
New Zealand

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

#180414 — Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net today.

On 2017-04-23, Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote:

What I do is check periodically for updates and when there is one, I
open the tar.gz archive from Adobe in Firefox, extract the
libflashplayer.so file into my home directory, and copy it over the
obsolete libflashplayer.so files on my machine.

> And how do you get that 10 year newer flash?  The adobe site doesn't show 
> me anything newer than the 11.xx.xx.xxx stuff.

(Ten years?)

That is puzzling because here (Wheezy Firefox ESR 45.9.0) they're
showing me "Version 25.0.0.148"

https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/

> Cheers, Gene Heskett


-- 
"It might be a vision--of a shell, of a wheelbarrow, of a fairy kingdom on the
far side of the hedge; or it might be the glory of speed; no one knew." --Mrs.
Ramsay, speculating on why her little daughter might be dashing about, in "To
the Lighthouse," by Virginia Woolf.

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

#180421 — Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net today.

On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:21:28 -0400 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net>
wrote:

> On Saturday 22 April 2017 23:22:45 Patrick Bartek wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 12:24:32 -0400 Gene Heskett
> > <gheskett@shentel.net>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Went to newegg.com to look for some optical fiber but the front
> > > page, while I think its alive, did not respond to a mouse click on
> > > any product link. I hope its not contagious.
> > >
> > > Many news sites are saying "request entity too large" also.
> >
> > Works fine here.  Although rendering sometimes is sluggish -- a
> > few seconds longer.  Could be Cox Internet.  They get slow at
> > times.  Version 45.9.0 with the latest flashpalyer 25.0.0.148
> > installed yesterday
> >
> > B
> And how do you get that 10 year newer flash?  The adobe site doesn't
> show me anything newer than the 11.xx.xx.xxx stuff.

That's strange.  In your other posts you said you found that "new"
version, but I get mine just by going to www.adobe.com, and at the
bottom of the page, right side, click on "flashplayer."  That takes me
to the download page with Linux 64bit already picked, I choose the
tar.gz file even though there's a .deb one.  Download, unpack and
copy as root libflashplayer.so to /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ after
mv'ing the old version just in case. Done!

 For years while using Fedora, manually was the ONLY way to install the
flashplayer.  And since "install-flashplayer-nonfree" stopped
working months ago, I reverted to my old Fedora habits..  

I noted as you did that there are a lot of other places for the player,
mostly symbolic links, but the above works for me, so I keep doing it
that way.

As to how to find out when a new version is out, I wait until Firefox
during my normal browsing notifies me my version is old and my system
"..is at risk."  Then just do the manual download/install thing.  I
don't use the Firefox link to the new version.  Have had problems with
it before.

B

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

#180423

On Sunday 23 April 2017 15:15:05 Patrick Bartek wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:21:28 -0400 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net>
>
> wrote:
> > On Saturday 22 April 2017 23:22:45 Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > > On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 12:24:32 -0400 Gene Heskett
> > > <gheskett@shentel.net>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Went to newegg.com to look for some optical fiber but the front
> > > > page, while I think its alive, did not respond to a mouse click
> > > > on any product link. I hope its not contagious.
> > > >
> > > > Many news sites are saying "request entity too large" also.
> > >
> > > Works fine here.  Although rendering sometimes is sluggish -- a
> > > few seconds longer.  Could be Cox Internet.  They get slow at
> > > times.  Version 45.9.0 with the latest flashpalyer 25.0.0.148
> > > installed yesterday
> > >
> > > B
> >
> > And how do you get that 10 year newer flash?  The adobe site doesn't
> > show me anything newer than the 11.xx.xx.xxx stuff.
>
> That's strange.  In your other posts you said you found that "new"
> version, but I get mine just by going to www.adobe.com, and at the
> bottom of the page, right side, click on "flashplayer."  That takes me
> to the download page with Linux 64bit already picked, I choose the
> tar.gz file even though there's a .deb one.  Download, unpack and
> copy as root libflashplayer.so to /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ after
> mv'ing the old version just in case. Done!
>
>  For years while using Fedora, manually was the ONLY way to install
> the flashplayer.  And since "install-flashplayer-nonfree" stopped
> working months ago, I reverted to my old Fedora habits..
>
> I noted as you did that there are a lot of other places for the
> player, mostly symbolic links, but the above works for me, so I keep
> doing it that way.
>
> As to how to find out when a new version is out, I wait until Firefox
> during my normal browsing notifies me my version is old and my system
> "..is at risk."  Then just do the manual download/install thing.  I
> don't use the Firefox link to the new version.  Have had problems with
> it before.
>
> B

Problems is an understatement and I blame that for the mess I have now.

Its as if they intended to poison it. They just didn't use a strong 
enough dose of arsenic, and created a monster with all the workarounds.  

None of which ever worked 100% because the web pages all seemed to be 
using a different version.  The "it works here" syndrome, essentially 
the same as the N.I.H. beliefs. :(

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

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

#180426 — Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net today.

On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:41:30 -0400 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net>
wrote:

> On Sunday 23 April 2017 15:15:05 Patrick Bartek wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:21:28 -0400 Gene Heskett
> > <gheskett@shentel.net>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > On Saturday 22 April 2017 23:22:45 Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 12:24:32 -0400 Gene Heskett
> > > > <gheskett@shentel.net>
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Went to newegg.com to look for some optical fiber but the
> > > > > front page, while I think its alive, did not respond to a
> > > > > mouse click on any product link. I hope its not contagious.
> > > > >
> > > > > Many news sites are saying "request entity too large" also.
> > > >
> > > > Works fine here.  Although rendering sometimes is sluggish -- a
> > > > few seconds longer.  Could be Cox Internet.  They get slow at
> > > > times.  Version 45.9.0 with the latest flashpalyer 25.0.0.148
> > > > installed yesterday
> > > >
> > > > B
> > >
> > > And how do you get that 10 year newer flash?  The adobe site
> > > doesn't show me anything newer than the 11.xx.xx.xxx stuff.
> >
> > That's strange.  In your other posts you said you found that "new"
> > version, but I get mine just by going to www.adobe.com, and at the
> > bottom of the page, right side, click on "flashplayer."  That takes
> > me to the download page with Linux 64bit already picked, I choose
> > the tar.gz file even though there's a .deb one.  Download, unpack
> > and copy as root libflashplayer.so to /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/
> > after mv'ing the old version just in case. Done!
> >
> >  For years while using Fedora, manually was the ONLY way to install
> > the flashplayer.  And since "install-flashplayer-nonfree" stopped
> > working months ago, I reverted to my old Fedora habits..
> >
> > I noted as you did that there are a lot of other places for the
> > player, mostly symbolic links, but the above works for me, so I keep
> > doing it that way.
> >
> > As to how to find out when a new version is out, I wait until
> > Firefox during my normal browsing notifies me my version is old and
> > my system "..is at risk."  Then just do the manual download/install
> > thing.  I don't use the Firefox link to the new version.  Have had
> > problems with it before.
> >
> > B
> 
> Problems is an understatement and I blame that for the mess I have
> now.
> 
> Its as if they intended to poison it. They just didn't use a strong 
> enough dose of arsenic, and created a monster with all the
> workarounds.  
> 
> None of which ever worked 100% because the web pages all seemed to be 
> using a different version.  The "it works here" syndrome, essentially 
> the same as the N.I.H. beliefs. :(

Well, I'm glad flash is dying.  Wish it would do so faster.  On my
Wheezy system my primary browser is Chrome, deprecated and
unsupported for over a year now.  Or has it been two?  No new versions
available. Pepperflash stopped working a few months ago. Never could
fix it.  So, just disabled it. And the funny thing is, I rarely run
into sites now that require it anymore.  HTML5 is being adopted rapidly.
Still there are hold-outs. To be expected.

As far as "works here," my primary system is a very non-standard install
of Wheezy 64-bit on a box I built 10 years ago. (Hardware's been
upgraded numerous times since.) Started with a Base Install Terminal
Only, and built it up from there. Window manager only.  No display
manager, no udisks, etc. Even wrote my own udev rules. Anyway, I figure
if something works on my system, it should work on any "standard" system
with all the Bells and Whistles, Linux or otherwise.

B

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

#180429 — Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net today.

On Sun 23 Apr 2017 at 15:42:35 (-0700), Patrick Bartek wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 15:41:30 -0400 Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Sunday 23 April 2017 15:15:05 Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 00:21:28 -0400 Gene Heskett
> > > <gheskett@shentel.net>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 22 April 2017 23:22:45 Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 22 Apr 2017 12:24:32 -0400 Gene Heskett
> > > > > <gheskett@shentel.net>
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Went to newegg.com to look for some optical fiber but the
> > > > > > front page, while I think its alive, did not respond to a
> > > > > > mouse click on any product link. I hope its not contagious.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Many news sites are saying "request entity too large" also.
> > > > >
> > > > > Works fine here.  Although rendering sometimes is sluggish -- a
> > > > > few seconds longer.  Could be Cox Internet.  They get slow at
> > > > > times.  Version 45.9.0 with the latest flashpalyer 25.0.0.148
> > > > > installed yesterday
> > > > >
> > > > > B
> > > >
> > > > And how do you get that 10 year newer flash?  The adobe site
> > > > doesn't show me anything newer than the 11.xx.xx.xxx stuff.
> > >
> > > That's strange.  In your other posts you said you found that "new"
> > > version, but I get mine just by going to www.adobe.com, and at the
> > > bottom of the page, right side, click on "flashplayer."  That takes
> > > me to the download page with Linux 64bit already picked, I choose
> > > the tar.gz file even though there's a .deb one.  Download, unpack
> > > and copy as root libflashplayer.so to /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/
> > > after mv'ing the old version just in case. Done!
> > >
> > >  For years while using Fedora, manually was the ONLY way to install
> > > the flashplayer.  And since "install-flashplayer-nonfree" stopped
> > > working months ago, I reverted to my old Fedora habits..
> > >
> > > I noted as you did that there are a lot of other places for the
> > > player, mostly symbolic links, but the above works for me, so I keep
> > > doing it that way.
> > >
> > > As to how to find out when a new version is out, I wait until
> > > Firefox during my normal browsing notifies me my version is old and
> > > my system "..is at risk."  Then just do the manual download/install
> > > thing.  I don't use the Firefox link to the new version.  Have had
> > > problems with it before.
> > >
> > > B
> > 
> > Problems is an understatement and I blame that for the mess I have
> > now.
> > 
> > Its as if they intended to poison it. They just didn't use a strong 
> > enough dose of arsenic, and created a monster with all the
> > workarounds.  
> > 
> > None of which ever worked 100% because the web pages all seemed to be 
> > using a different version.  The "it works here" syndrome, essentially 
> > the same as the N.I.H. beliefs. :(
> 
> Well, I'm glad flash is dying.  Wish it would do so faster.

If you don't like flash, then don't use it. Don't install it if
you're worried you might accidently use it involuntarily.
But why the spite? Can't people who don't like flash just leave
the flash users alone? Where's the freedom in that attitude?

> On my
> Wheezy system my primary browser is Chrome, deprecated and
> unsupported for over a year now.  Or has it been two?  No new versions
> available. Pepperflash stopped working a few months ago. Never could
> fix it.  So, just disabled it. And the funny thing is, I rarely run
> into sites now that require it anymore.  HTML5 is being adopted rapidly.
> Still there are hold-outs. To be expected.
> 
> As far as "works here," my primary system is a very non-standard install
> of Wheezy 64-bit on a box I built 10 years ago. (Hardware's been
> upgraded numerous times since.) Started with a Base Install Terminal
> Only, and built it up from there. Window manager only.  No display
> manager, no udisks, etc. Even wrote my own udev rules. Anyway, I figure
> if something works on my system, it should work on any "standard" system
> with all the Bells and Whistles, Linux or otherwise.

Cheers,
David.

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

#180434 — Re: new firefox for wheezy last night, can't do squat on the net today.

On Sun, 23 Apr 2017 19:33:12 -0500 David Wright
<deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:

> [Big Snip]
> > > None of which ever worked 100% because the web pages all seemed
> > > to be using a different version.  The "it works here" syndrome,
> > > essentially the same as the N.I.H. beliefs. :(
> > 
> > Well, I'm glad flash is dying.  Wish it would do so faster.
> 
> If you don't like flash, then don't use it. Don't install it if
> you're worried you might accidently use it involuntarily.
> But why the spite? Can't people who don't like flash just leave
> the flash users alone? Where's the freedom in that attitude?

I don't for the vast majority of my web browsing.  Unfortunately, a few
sites I need for my business or frequent otherwise won't work properly
without it. So, I have little choice.  For those I use Firefox with
flashplayer installed. For all others, I use Chrome with pepperflash
disabled.

The spite?  Maybe, it's from having to repeatably, clean friends'
systems -- Windows -- where Flash videos have been used to infect them
with various and sundry malwares, over and over..

I never criticize flash users, only flash and Adobe for the security
issues. If you want to use it, go ahead.

B

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web