On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:12:47 -0500 (EST)
Stephen Powell wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:16:03 -0500 (EST), Klistvud wrote:
> > In all honesty, is there anybody over the mental age of 9 that actually
> > "enjoys" flash???
>
> I hate it too. But as with most things in life, it all comes down to
>
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:16:03 -0500 (EST), Klistvud wrote:
> In all honesty, is there anybody over the mental age of 9 that actually
> "enjoys" flash???
I hate it too. But as with most things in life, it all comes down to
money. The bottom line is, "it sells". Or at least the Madison Avenue
typ
Dne, 31. 01. 2010 22:15:05 je Eduardo M KALINOWSKI napisal(a):
But 99% of them are unnecessary, the same effect could be achived
with plain old HTML. The end result might be more boring, but just as
informational/useful.
Moreover, I've seldom encountered plain old HTML that was as boring
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 21:35, Merciadri Luca
wrote:
> Why is the default JRE not installed in a normal install of Debian?
Don't know, and you're highjacking a thread about flash.
+1 on the "flash is not necessary but webdevs seem to rely on it too
much" trend. Functional content (like login sc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The answer to my last question seems to be `NO', which confirms my
thoughts: at http://wiki.debian.org/Java, it is clearly said:
==
To install the default JRE on your system, run :
apt-get install default-jre
==
Why is the default JRE not installed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Celejar writes:
>> One is Flash Player, needed as much as hated, but it's a matter of fact
>> that for todays browsing is a "must have".
>
> Disagree. I do most of my browsing in an IW profile without Flash.
> It's easy enough to download YouTube v
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI <
edua...@kalinowski.com.br> wrote:
> On 01/31/2010 07:10 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> Some animations, multimedia applications or control buttons for
>> validating user input data that are embedded in a flash container need to
>> call external (x)
On 01/31/2010 07:10 PM, Camaleón wrote:
Some animations, multimedia applications or control buttons for
validating user input data that are embedded in a flash container need to
call external (x)html code (remote javascript, XML files or action
script) to be properly managed and displayed so you
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:10:28 + (UTC)
Camaleón wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:44:54 -0500, Celejar wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:11:37 + (UTC) Camaleón
> > wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> One is Flash Player, needed as much as hated, but it's a matter of fact
> >> that for todays br
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:44:54 -0500, Celejar wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:11:37 + (UTC) Camaleón
> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> One is Flash Player, needed as much as hated, but it's a matter of fact
>> that for todays browsing is a "must have".
>
> Disagree. I do most of my browsing in an IW pr
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:11:37 + (UTC)
Camaleón wrote:
...
> One is Flash Player, needed as much as hated, but it's a matter of fact
> that for todays browsing is a "must have".
Disagree. I do most of my browsing in an IW profile without Flash.
It's easy enough to download YouTube video usi
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:26:31 +0100, Merciadri Luca wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
>
>> It's "vox populi" that Flash Player is closed source and so cannot/
>> shouldn't be included by default in Debian. You can get it from other
>> sources.
> Clearly, but it does not make things clearer!
There are so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Camaleón writes:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:55:40 +0100, Merciadri Luca wrote:
>
>> 5. Debian's politic sometimes creates problems which could be solved in
>> a really more straightforward way: if it had been in the deps from the
>> beginning, I would
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:05:01 -0500, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> On Sun January 31 2010, Camaleón wrote:
>> It's "vox populi" that Flash Player is closed source and so cannot/
>> shouldn't be included by default in Debian. You can get it from other
>> sources.
>
> what about flashplayer-mozilla ?
Yo
On Sun January 31 2010, Camaleón wrote:
> It's "vox populi" that Flash Player is closed source and so cannot/
> shouldn't be included by default in Debian. You can get it from other
> sources.
what about flashplayer-mozilla ?
--
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux user # 367800
Registered Ubuntu Us
On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:55:40 +0100, Merciadri Luca wrote:
> 5. Debian's politic sometimes creates problems which could be solved in
> a really more straightforward way: if it had been in the deps from the
> beginning, I would not have had to do all of this. Okay, this is `too
> recent' stuff, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Merciadri Luca writes:
> "Edward J. Shornock" writes:
>
>> On 30.01.2010 20:57, Merciadri Luca wrote:
>>> Nuno Magalhães writes:
>>>
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:58, Merciadri Luca
wrote:
> I have both `flash-plugin - Adobe Flash Play
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Merciadri Luca <
luca.mercia...@student.ulg.ac.be> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> "Edward J. Shornock" writes:
>
> > On 30.01.2010 20:57, Merciadri Luca wrote:
> >> Nuno Magalhães writes:
> >>
> >>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:58, Mer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"Edward J. Shornock" writes:
> On 30.01.2010 20:57, Merciadri Luca wrote:
>> Nuno Magalhães writes:
>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:58, Merciadri Luca
>>> wrote:
I have both `flash-plugin - Adobe Flash Player 10.0' on the two
computers
On 30.01.2010 20:57, Merciadri Luca wrote:
Nuno Magalhães writes:
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:58, Merciadri Luca
wrote:
I have both `flash-plugin - Adobe Flash Player 10.0' on the two
computers. They are executing Iceweasel v. 3.0.6, and I also tried
with the up-to-date Firefox.
I have thi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nuno Magalhães writes:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:58, Merciadri Luca
> wrote:
>> I have both `flash-plugin - Adobe Flash Player 10.0' on the two
>> computers. They are executing Iceweasel v. 3.0.6, and I also tried
>> with the up-to-date Firefox.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 10:58, Merciadri Luca
wrote:
> I have both `flash-plugin - Adobe Flash Player 10.0' on the two
> computers. They are executing Iceweasel v. 3.0.6, and I also tried
> with the up-to-date Firefox.
I have this one:
ii flashplugin-nonfree 1:2.8
running Sid on amd64.
Try with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nuno Magalhães writes:
> Comparing which flash-related packages (and their versions) you have
> on each machine? Testing other flash-encripled sites?
I have both `flash-plugin - Adobe Flash Player 10.0' on the two
computers. They are executing Icewea
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 20:31, Merciadri Luca
wrote:
> Any idea for this situation?
Comparing which flash-related packages (and their versions) you have
on each machine? Testing other flash-encripled sites?
--
() ascii-rubanda kampajno - kontraŭ html-a retpoŝto
/\ ascii ribbon campaign - aga
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello folks,
On another computer of mine, with Debian Lenny, same kernel
(2.6.26-2-686-bigmem), I am able to play Youtube videos and other
flash stuff, correctly. If there ``too much'' Youtube tabs under FF
(or Iceweasel), it becomes really slow, does
On 4/8/07, Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's important to know that so far, everything that's been pointed out as
working in Firefox but not in Iceweasel boils down to exceptionally poor
web design and not any sort of failing on Iceweasel's part.
This seems quite true. One of the si
Michael Pobega wrote in Article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted to
gmane.linux.debian.user:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 11:12:34AM +0200, Eeltje wrote:
>>
>> Question of copyright. You lose nothing using Iceweasel.
>>
>
> That's subject to disagreement. Lately on the Debian forums there have
> been a l
Joe Hart wrote:
> Zbigniew Wiech wrote:
>> What is the reason to split Firefox and Iceweasel ? Technical
>> differences or something with copyright ?
>
>> What do I lose using "genuine" firefox from Mozilla ?
>
>> regards
>> zb
>
> A bit of
bian forums there have
> been a lot of problems arising from using Iceweasel over Firefox,
> although it's nothing very serious.
>
> >From what I remember it has to do with Iceweasel showing up as a
> user-agent and Firefox plugins not working the same.
>
> But for the
, the User Agent Switcher fixes that quite
neatly.
> But for the most part, Firefox and Iceweasel are identical.
>
>
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day.
Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good!
othing very serious.
>From what I remember it has to do with Iceweasel showing up as a
user-agent and Firefox plugins not working the same.
But for the most part, Firefox and Iceweasel are identical.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question of copyright. You lose nothing using Iceweasel.
--
Eeltje de Vries
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zbigniew Wiech wrote:
>
> What is the reason to split Firefox and Iceweasel ? Technical
> differences or something with copyright ?
>
> What do I lose using "genuine" firefox from Mozilla ?
>
> regards
> zb
A bit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Zbigniew Wiech wrote:
>
> What is the reason to split Firefox and Iceweasel ? Technical
> differences or something with copyright ?
>
Copyright issues. Mainly because the name can only be used with
"official" bina
What is the reason to split Firefox and Iceweasel ? Technical differences
or something with copyright ?
What do I lose using "genuine" firefox from Mozilla ?
regards
zb
35 matches
Mail list logo
