Update your Flash Player (did Adobe flash player just jump fiveversions?)

In article , David W. Hodgins
wrote:

So, let's say, two years from now, Flash Player dies.
Then what?

Uninstall the flash-player-plugin. If the browser doesn't
tell the website it has flash, any recent website will
automatically switch to html5, which any recent browser
will support.

yep, although a few sites need the user agent to be ios or android to
send non-flash.

some sites assume that if you're using a desktop system, you can get
flash and will bitch until you do.

It won't work with legacy websites that only provide flash
versions, but those sites will be old enough, they probably
shouldn't be used anyway.

there's rarely, if ever, anything worthwhile on such a site.

In article , Eef Hartman
wrote:

Quit trolling, dude. You're talking to people who use Flash on Linux and
do their updates.

adobe says it's not supported.

See my previous message where Adobe explicitly declares 11.2 te be
SUPported (though only security updates, no enhanced functionality).

call it limited support then.

the fact is that in 2 years linux users are screwed.

The latest 11.2 update came out THIS week:
(Released 1/27/2015) Flash Player 11.2.202.440 (32.39 MB)

Quit trolling over things you don't know anything about!

This is more for other people that might be misled by your false claims.

*adobe* is making the claim. go bitch at them.

In article , Chris Ahlstrom
wrote:

Adobe's behavior with PDF bothers me even more than that other piece of
crap.

because they no longer support linux anymore?

No. Because Adobe pads their open PDF format with *proprietary*
extensions.

who cares. what matters are results.

if you don't need the extensions, don't use them, but for those who see
a benefit in using them, they're not going to give it up because of
linux compatibility.

David W. Hodgins wrote, on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 09:06:51 -0500:

Site's that use flashes drm to prevent people from downloading the
video, instead of just streaming it, won't work with version 11.

OK. Well, that means it's BETTER (for me) to have 11 than 16.
I'll bet nobody will name anything worthwhile in 16 that's not in 11.
It's not a contest, but, the point is that there's nothing wrong
with 11 and, in most cases, the newer version benefits the
company selling the stuff, not the user.

David W. Hodgins wrote, on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 10:48:33 -0500:

Uninstall the flash-player-plugin. If the browser doesn't
tell the website it has flash, any recent website will
automatically switch to html5, which any recent browser
will support.

Wow. If that works, that's the easiest solution of all!

Adair Bordon wrote, on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 14:52:35 +0000:

Chrome and Chromium-Browser both are buggy
when it comes to handling MULTIPLE embedded links (not just one!) in a
list of text and links.

I often copy and paste a set of links similar to the following,
in a web-based forum, where the important thing is that the links
follow with the "copy" and "paste" right button clicks.

$ vi /tmp/foo.htm
This is the a href=http://www.google.comfirst/a link; this is the a href=http://www.google.comsecond/a; this is the a href=http://www.google.comthird/a.

$ firefox -url /tmp/foo.htm &
$ chromium-browser -url /tmp/foo.htm &

When I cut and paste something like that, I want the entire set of
three links to be cut and pasted (all three links) in a single step.

In the web forums I log into, this works ONLY with Firefox,
but it fails every time with both Chrome & chromium-browser.

Since I spend a lot of time on web forums, that makes Chrome
and chromium-browser essentially useless for me.

I'm not sure what it is in a web-based forum that makes this
simple cut and paste fail, but it is easy to reproduce on a
web forum (usually you need to create an account).

Lewis wrote, on Fri, 30 Jan 2015 10:28:28 +0000:

I do. Most sites that say they 'require' Flash are lying. Changing the
UserAgent to the iPad makes all the video magically work.

I just added User Agent Switcher to Firefox so that I can
change the UserAgent to the iPad next time this happens.

nospam wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

In article , Chris Ahlstrom
wrote:

Adobe's behavior with PDF bothers me even more than that other piece of
crap.

because they no longer support linux anymore?

No. Because Adobe pads their open PDF format with *proprietary*
extensions.

who cares. what matters are results.

Yes. Results that anyone can achieve, not results that are restricted to
the use of the products of a single vendor.

if you don't need the extensions, don't use them, but for those who see
a benefit in using them, they're not going to give it up because of
linux compatibility.

No ****, Sherlock.

That's why, at work, I have to keep a Windows VM, with an outdated version
of Internet Explorer on it.

--
Valkyrja java, hon, sometimes I really want to smack you.
Knghtbrd Valkyrja - he'd enjoy it too much
Reteo Valkyrja: yah, go ahead and do it... beat java into cappuccino! :-)

In article , Chris Ahlstrom
wrote:


Adobe's behavior with PDF bothers me even more than that other piece of
crap.

because they no longer support linux anymore?

No. Because Adobe pads their open PDF format with *proprietary*
extensions.

who cares. what matters are results.

Yes. Results that anyone can achieve, not results that are restricted to
the use of the products of a single vendor.

if a feature makes someone more productive or does something they could
not do otherwise, they're going to use the feature.

over 95% of systems will be able to read it without any problem at all.

if you don't need the extensions, don't use them, but for those who see
a benefit in using them, they're not going to give it up because of
linux compatibility.

No ****, Sherlock.

That's why, at work, I have to keep a Windows VM, with an outdated version
of Internet Explorer on it.

what sites are those?

any site that hasn't updated to work with recent browsers (even if it's
just recent ie) is not anything important.

On 2015-02-01, nospam wrote:

any site that hasn't updated to work with recent browsers (even if it's
just recent ie) is not anything important.

Oh, if only that were the case. Many corporate web applications are
unfortunately written in such a way that IE is often restricted to older
versions for correct operation with that web browser. LiveLink comes to
mind, but various SAP solutions fit the mold a well. If you happen to
work for a corporation that uses such web applications for business
processes, you're naturally stuck using supported web browsers to deal
with them, or dealing with the problems associated with using
unsupported browsers.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

any site that hasn't updated to work with recent browsers (even if it's
just recent ie) is not anything important.

Oh, if only that were the case. Many corporate web applications are
unfortunately written in such a way that IE is often restricted to older
versions for correct operation with that web browser. LiveLink comes to
mind, but various SAP solutions fit the mold a well. If you happen to
work for a corporation that uses such web applications for business
processes, you're naturally stuck using supported web browsers to deal
with them, or dealing with the problems associated with using
unsupported browsers.

for internal, anything goes, but he said he had to use an older version
of ie in a virtual machine, which would be very unusual for a company
to do that.

if that's really the case, it's time to find a job with a company that
has a clue.

On 2015-02-01, nospam wrote:
In article , Jolly Roger
wrote:

any site that hasn't updated to work with recent browsers (even if it's
just recent ie) is not anything important.

Oh, if only that were the case. Many corporate web applications are
unfortunately written in such a way that IE is often restricted to older
versions for correct operation with that web browser. LiveLink comes to
mind, but various SAP solutions fit the mold a well. If you happen to
work for a corporation that uses such web applications for business
processes, you're naturally stuck using supported web browsers to deal
with them, or dealing with the problems associated with using
unsupported browsers.

for internal, anything goes, but he said he had to use an older version
of ie in a virtual machine, which would be very unusual for a company
to do that.

No, not really. I've worked in many a group where most of the developers
use Macs in a corporation where Macs are just barely, if at all,
supported, but employees are still expected to use corporate web
applications and support Windows environments and applications, and do
so with virtual machines.

if that's really the case, it's time to find a job with a company that
has a clue.

Nah. Some very large corporations do some really cool work and still
have such systems in place. It's the nature of the beast, and if you
can't make minor adjustments needed to work in such an environment, I'd
argue you don't deserve the position.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR