Re: libpepflashplayer.so

Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Monday 09 May 2016 02:01:28 Sven Hartge wrote: >> Beware: this is David who has this CPU, not Lisi, wo has not yet >> provided any further info in her CPU. > I have not yet gained access to the computer again, which is not mine. I > have > confirmed (just now) that it i

Re: libpepflashplayer.so

On Monday 09 May 2016 02:01:28 Sven Hartge wrote: > Beware: this is David who has this CPU, not Lisi, wo has not yet > provided any further info in her CPU. I have not yet gained access to the computer again, which is not mine. I have confirmed (just now) that it is a Dell Inspiron 9300 http://w

Re: libpepflashplayer.so

On Sun 08 May 2016 at 21:30:51 (-0300), Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 08 May 2016, David Wright wrote: > > On Sun 08 May 2016 at 19:00:29 (-0300), Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > On Sun, 08 May 2016, Teemu Likonen wrote: > > > > Lisi Reisz [2016-05-08 13:25:46+01] wrote: > >

Re: libpepflashplayer.so

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 08 May 2016, David Wright wrote: >> Signature: Type 0, Family 6, Model 15, Stepping 2 > I don't think anyone shipped a Core2 with that bad a BIOS, let alone Dell, > but I could be wrong about it. Beware: this is David who has this CPU, not Li

Re: libpepflashplayer.so

On Sun, 08 May 2016, David Wright wrote: > On Sun 08 May 2016 at 19:00:29 (-0300), Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > On Sun, 08 May 2016, Teemu Likonen wrote: > > > Lisi Reisz [2016-05-08 13:25:46+01] wrote: > > > > Or perhaps check the model - it is an old Dell, but the crucial > > > > questi

Re: libpepflashplayer.so

On Sun 08 May 2016 at 19:00:29 (-0300), Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 08 May 2016, Teemu Likonen wrote: > > Lisi Reisz [2016-05-08 13:25:46+01] wrote: > > > Or perhaps check the model - it is an old Dell, but the crucial > > > question is what chip that model had, so which exact mode

Re: libpepflashplayer.so

On Sun, 08 May 2016, Teemu Likonen wrote: > Lisi Reisz [2016-05-08 13:25:46+01] wrote: > > Or perhaps check the model - it is an old Dell, but the crucial > > question is what chip that model had, so which exact model. > > For 64 bit CPUs "lscpu" command prints: > > CPU op-mode(s):32-

Re: libpepflashplayer.so

Lisi Reisz [2016-05-08 13:25:46+01] wrote: > Or perhaps check the model - it is an old Dell, but the crucial > question is what chip that model had, so which exact model. For 64 bit CPUs "lscpu" command prints: CPU op-mode(s):32-bit, 64-bit -- /// Teemu Likonen - .-..

Re: libpepflashplayer.so

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 08 May 2016, Sven Hartge wrote: >> A long enough passphrase combined with WPA2 is virtually unhackable, >> as long as you switch of WPS. > Only as long as your smartphone or any other device using that network > decides to leak the password to the clo

Re: libpepflashplayer.so

On Sun, 08 May 2016, Sven Hartge wrote: > A long enough passphrase combined with WPA2 is virtually unhackable, as > long as you switch of WPS. Only as long as your smartphone or any other device using that network decides to leak the password to the cloud. There's always ipsec, of course. --

Re: libpepflashplayer.so

Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Sunday 08 May 2016 12:59:27 Sven Hartge wrote: >> Unless the computer is more than 10 years old, it should be able to >> run 64bit. > It must be because it won't! It's certainly pretty old. I'll try > again - I have to admit it is a while, but I am pretty sure I tried. >

Re: libpepflashplayer.so

On Sunday 08 May 2016 12:59:27 Sven Hartge wrote: > Unless the computer is more than 10 > years old, it should be able to run 64bit. It must be because it won't! It's certainly pretty old. I'll try again - I have to admit it is a while, but I am pretty sure I tried. None-the less, I'll try ag

Re: libpepflashplayer.so

Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Saturday 07 May 2016 23:25:35 Sven Hartge wrote: >> Lisi Reisz wrote: >> > Granted - but my client won't be in a hurry to buy a new computer. >> > And Google says: "We intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build >> > configurations on Linux to support building Chromium."

Re: libpepflashplayer.so

On Saturday 07 May 2016 23:25:35 Sven Hartge wrote: > Lisi Reisz wrote: > > Granted - but my client won't be in a hurry to buy a new computer. > > And Google says: "We intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build > > configurations on Linux to support building Chromium." Chromium still > > bein

Re: libpepflashplayer.so

Lisi Reisz wrote: > Granted - but my client won't be in a hurry to buy a new computer. > And Google says: "We intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build > configurations on Linux to support building Chromium." Chromium still > being available on Wheezy, the Debian Chromium Maintainers are >

Re: libpepflashplayer.so

On Saturday 07 May 2016 22:41:39 Lisi Reisz wrote: > Granted - but my client won't be in a hurry to buy a new computer. And > Google says: "We intend to continue supporting the 32-bit build > configurations on Linux to support building Chromium." Chromium still > being available on Wheezy, the De

Re: libpepflashplayer.so

On Saturday 07 May 2016 19:00:54 Curt wrote: > On 2016-05-07, Sven Hartge wrote: > > Curt wrote: > >> On 2016-05-07, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >>> Has anyone got the 32 bit file of libpepflashplayer.so? If so, are you > >>> willing to send it to me? Please, if you do, could you tell me which > >>> v

Re: libpepflashplayer.so

On 2016-05-07, Sven Hartge wrote: > Curt wrote: >> On 2016-05-07, Lisi Reisz wrote: > >>> Has anyone got the 32 bit file of libpepflashplayer.so? If so, are you >>> willing to send it to me? Please, if you do, could you tell me which >>> version >>> it is. Thank you. > >> Quickly looking a

Re: libpepflashplayer.so

Curt wrote: > On 2016-05-07, Lisi Reisz wrote: >> Has anyone got the 32 bit file of libpepflashplayer.so? If so, are you >> willing to send it to me? Please, if you do, could you tell me which >> version >> it is. Thank you. > Quickly looking at this it seems that > google-chrome-stable_

Re: libpepflashplayer.so

On 2016-05-07, Lisi Reisz wrote: > Has anyone got the 32 bit file of libpepflashplayer.so? If so, are you > willing to send it to me? Please, if you do, could you tell me which version > it is. Thank you. > > Lisi > > Quickly looking at this it seems that google-chrome-stable_48.0.2564.116-1