If you value your NPAPI based plugins *do not* update to the latest version of the Chrome Browser.
NPAPI support has been removed and those plugins will no longer work. This will include the IcedTea-Web Plugin and the totem plugins.
On May 21, 2014 8:04 AM, "Ed Greshko" ed.greshko@greshko.com wrote:
If you value your NPAPI based plugins *do not* update to the latest
version of the Chrome Browser.
NPAPI support has been removed and those plugins will no longer work.
This will include the IcedTea-Web Plugin and the totem plugins.
-- Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your own.
You may both be wrong. -- Dandemis
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
How are we supposed to run OpenJDK with Chrome once they drop NPAPI?
-Sudhir.
On 05/21/14 10:42, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
How are we supposed to run OpenJDK with Chrome once they drop NPAPI?
Don't upgrade, or switch to Firefox. Lucky for me I had a previous version of Chrome.... :-)
Sudhir Khanger wrote:
How are we supposed to run OpenJDK with Chrome once they drop NPAPI?
Ed Greshko:
Don't upgrade, or switch to Firefox. Lucky for me I had a previous version of Chrome.... :-)
I would have thought, that of all the applications, a web browser would be the last thing you'd want to keep using old versions of.
On 05/21/14 14:43, Tim wrote:
Sudhir Khanger wrote:
How are we supposed to run OpenJDK with Chrome once they drop NPAPI?
Ed Greshko:
Don't upgrade, or switch to Firefox. Lucky for me I had a previous version of Chrome.... :-)
I would have thought, that of all the applications, a web browser would be the last thing you'd want to keep using old versions of.
You might think that....if you also think that the version preceding the update was horribly bug ridden and the update fixes everything. I don't happen to think that.
On 21/05/14 09:50, Ed Greshko wrote:
You might think that....if you also think that the version preceding the update was horribly bug ridden and the update fixes everything. I don't happen to think that.
Chrome/Chromium 35 includes 23 security fixes [1]. Web browsers are extremely complex and you should probably never use an outdated version because of the security risks.
[1] http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2014/05/stable-channel-update_20.ht...
On May 22, 2014 3:29 AM, "Veeti Paananen" veeti.paananen@rojekti.fi wrote:
On 21/05/14 09:50, Ed Greshko wrote:
You might think that....if you also think that the version preceding
the update was horribly bug ridden and the update fixes everything. I don't happen to think that.
Chrome/Chromium 35 includes 23 security fixes [1]. Web browsers are extremely complex and you should probably never use an outdated version because of the security risks.
[1]
http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2014/05/stable-channel-update_20.ht...
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Has anyone tried uninstalling Chrome? It left a lot of cruft on my system mainly in the /opt/google/* and ~/.local/share/applications folders.
On 05/26/14 13:30, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
Has anyone tried uninstalling Chrome? It left a lot of cruft on my system mainly in the /opt/google/* and ~/.local/share/applications folders.
I've not done an uninstall of Chrome. However, I would not expect, nor want, any uninstall process to remove files from a "users" directory. That would be a horrible thing to do.
On May 26, 2014 11:16 AM, "Ed Greshko" ed.greshko@greshko.com wrote:
On 05/26/14 13:30, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
Has anyone tried uninstalling Chrome? It left a lot of cruft on my
system mainly in the /opt/google/* and ~/.local/share/applications folders.
I've not done an uninstall of Chrome. However, I would not expect, nor
want, any uninstall process to remove files from a "users" directory. That would be a horrible thing to do.
-- Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your own.
You may both be wrong. -- Dandemis
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
There is nothing glorifying in ~/.local/share/applications. You may like dead links in your application menu. I don't. I like the concept of purging everything a package installed. Any time you reinstall you will have deal with conflicts.
On 05/26/14 15:00, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
There is nothing glorifying in ~/.local/share/applications. You may like dead links in your application menu. I don't. I like the concept of purging everything a package installed. Any time you reinstall you will have deal with conflicts.
So, for example, you are on a system shared with other users and the admin decides to erase firefox you want the erasure of firefox to remove all *your* firefox related data? Remembering that it is possible that users install and run their own copies of firefox within the users environment.
Would you want the erasure of digikam to remove all photos in a users area?
Think about it.....
Removing a *system* application should not (dare I say must not) fiddle with user's files.
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Ed Greshko ed.greshko@greshko.com wrote:
On 05/26/14 15:00, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
There is nothing glorifying in ~/.local/share/applications. You may like dead links in your application menu. I don't. I like the concept of purging everything a package installed. Any time you reinstall you will have deal with conflicts.
So, for example, you are on a system shared with other users and the admin decides to erase firefox you want the erasure of firefox to remove all *your* firefox related data? Remembering that it is possible that users install and run their own copies of firefox within the users environment.
Would you want the erasure of digikam to remove all photos in a users area?
Think about it.....
Removing a *system* application should not (dare I say must not) fiddle with user's files.
That raw data is not useful for general users. Most computer users don't even know what a browser is. All important data like bookmarks and settings are already synced to the cloud.
Photos have nothing to do with digiKam. They existed before digiKam and will be added after it is installed. There is a vast difference between user photos and links created the system.
How an administrator wants to do things is his prerogative? In my university, probably standards for any American university, is to delete any personal data after a user logs off. You can't run executables. You can't save anything on the library, or cafeteria or computer lab's computer for that matter.
On 05/26/14 17:01, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Ed Greshko ed.greshko@greshko.com wrote:
On 05/26/14 15:00, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
There is nothing glorifying in ~/.local/share/applications. You may like dead links in your application menu. I don't. I like the concept of purging everything a package installed. Any time you reinstall you will have deal with conflicts.
So, for example, you are on a system shared with other users and the admin decides to erase firefox you want the erasure of firefox to remove all *your* firefox related data? Remembering that it is possible that users install and run their own copies of firefox within the users environment.
Would you want the erasure of digikam to remove all photos in a users area?
Think about it.....
Removing a *system* application should not (dare I say must not) fiddle with user's files.
That raw data is not useful for general users. Most computer users don't even know what a browser is. All important data like bookmarks and settings are already synced to the cloud.
Photos have nothing to do with digiKam. They existed before digiKam and will be added after it is installed. There is a vast difference between user photos and links created the system.
How an administrator wants to do things is his prerogative? In my university, probably standards for any American university, is to delete any personal data after a user logs off. You can't run executables. You can't save anything on the library, or cafeteria or computer lab's computer for that matter.
You are confusing things, IMHO, we are not talking about the "prerogative" of a system admin but how things are/should work.
You seem to be suggesting that....
yum erase google-chrome-stable
remove *all* data that has ever been associated with Google-Chrome for *all* users. I take it you would want it to remove, as you said, all users ~/.local/share/applications/*chrome* as well as ~/.config/google-chrome for every single user on the system?
What if the intention or action of the admin is to....
yum erase google-chrome-stable yum install google-chrome-stable
you've now wiped out the user's data. Does that really sound like a good idea to you?
Is it your contention that all applications should delete the configuration details held in ~/.config of all users when those applications are removed? Are you going to modify yum, rpm and all package management software to add a switch to "retain user's data"?
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Ed Greshko ed.greshko@greshko.com wrote:
On 05/26/14 17:01, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Ed Greshko ed.greshko@greshko.com wrote:
On 05/26/14 15:00, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
There is nothing glorifying in ~/.local/share/applications. You may like dead links in your application menu. I don't. I like the concept of purging everything a package installed. Any time you reinstall you will have deal with conflicts.
So, for example, you are on a system shared with other users and the admin decides to erase firefox you want the erasure of firefox to remove all *your* firefox related data? Remembering that it is possible that users install and run their own copies of firefox within the users environment.
Would you want the erasure of digikam to remove all photos in a users area?
Think about it.....
Removing a *system* application should not (dare I say must not) fiddle with user's files.
That raw data is not useful for general users. Most computer users don't even know what a browser is. All important data like bookmarks and settings are already synced to the cloud.
Photos have nothing to do with digiKam. They existed before digiKam and will be added after it is installed. There is a vast difference between user photos and links created the system.
How an administrator wants to do things is his prerogative? In my university, probably standards for any American university, is to delete any personal data after a user logs off. You can't run executables. You can't save anything on the library, or cafeteria or computer lab's computer for that matter.
You are confusing things, IMHO, we are not talking about the "prerogative" of a system admin but how things are/should work.
You seem to be suggesting that....
yum erase google-chrome-stable
remove *all* data that has ever been associated with Google-Chrome for *all* users. I take it you would want it to remove, as you said, all users ~/.local/share/applications/*chrome* as well as ~/.config/google-chrome for every single user on the system?
What if the intention or action of the admin is to....
yum erase google-chrome-stable yum install google-chrome-stable
you've now wiped out the user's data. Does that really sound like a good idea to you?
Is it your contention that all applications should delete the configuration details held in ~/.config of all users when those applications are removed? Are you going to modify yum, rpm and all package management software to add a switch to "retain user's data"?
-- Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong. -- Dandemis -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
I like the idea of "remove" which removes just the package and "erase" which erases everything automatically-created-and-hidden-by-system.
From time to time software start misbehaving or an update that brings
huge changes and it won't work properly because software has been updated but don't know how to handle conflicting system files. In that case a simple switch to removing things completely is helpful.
Yum man page has nothing on what erase does.
I don't run a multi-user setup so that is something beyond my concern.
On Mon, 2014-05-26 at 17:21 +0530, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
I like the idea of "remove" which removes just the package and "erase" which erases everything automatically-created-and-hidden-by-system. From time to time software start misbehaving or an update that brings huge changes and it won't work properly because software has been updated but don't know how to handle conflicting system files. In that case a simple switch to removing things completely is helpful.
If it can't handle old config files, it can't reliably remove them either.
Yum man page has nothing on what erase does.
Yum makes no distinction between erase and remove.
I don't run a multi-user setup so that is something beyond my concern.
Unless you run everything as root, you have a multi-user system.
poc
On 26-May-2014 5:44 pm, "Patrick O'Callaghan" pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-05-26 at 17:21 +0530, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
I like the idea of "remove" which removes just the package and "erase" which erases everything automatically-created-and-hidden-by-system. From time to time software start misbehaving or an update that brings huge changes and it won't work properly because software has been updated but don't know how to handle conflicting system files. In that case a simple switch to removing things completely is helpful.
If it can't handle old config files, it can't reliably remove them either.
Yum man page has nothing on what erase does.
Yum makes no distinction between erase and remove.
I don't run a multi-user setup so that is something beyond my concern.
Unless you run everything as root, you have a multi-user system.
poc
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Then why do we have two options, erase and remove, if they are same?
-Sudhir.
2014-05-26 15:47, Sudhir Khanger skrev:
On 26-May-2014 5:44 pm, "Patrick O'Callaghan" <pocallaghan@gmail.com mailto:pocallaghan@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2014-05-26 at 17:21 +0530, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
I like the idea of "remove" which removes just the package and "erase" which erases everything automatically-created-and-hidden-by-system. From time to time software start misbehaving or an update that brings huge changes and it won't work properly because software has been updated but don't know how to handle conflicting system files. In that case a simple switch to removing things completely is helpful.
..
Yum makes no distinction between erase and remove.
I don't run a multi-user setup so that is something beyond my concern.
Unless you run everything as root, you have a multi-user system.
poc
...
Then why do we have two options, erase and remove, if they are same?
I am guessing now, but it might have something to do with rpm where the remove option is --erase.
-Sudhir.
On Mon, 2014-05-26 at 19:17 +0530, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
Then why do we have two options, erase and remove, if they are same?
IIRC because it was originally called erase and then changed to remove, but the old name was kept for backwards compatibility. Or maybe it was the other way round.
Update and upgrade are essentially the same as well, though they didn't used to be.
poc
On 05/26/14 19:51, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Ed Greshko ed.greshko@greshko.com wrote:
You are confusing things, IMHO, we are not talking about the "prerogative" of a system admin but how things are/should work.
You seem to be suggesting that....
yum erase google-chrome-stable
remove *all* data that has ever been associated with Google-Chrome for *all* users. I take it you would want it to remove, as you said, all users ~/.local/share/applications/*chrome* as well as ~/.config/google-chrome for every single user on the system?
What if the intention or action of the admin is to....
yum erase google-chrome-stable yum install google-chrome-stable
you've now wiped out the user's data. Does that really sound like a good idea to you?
Is it your contention that all applications should delete the configuration details held in ~/.config of all users when those applications are removed? Are you going to modify yum, rpm and all package management software to add a switch to "retain user's data"?
I like the idea of "remove" which removes just the package and "erase" which erases everything automatically-created-and-hidden-by-system. From time to time software start misbehaving or an update that brings huge changes and it won't work properly because software has been updated but don't know how to handle conflicting system files. In that case a simple switch to removing things completely is helpful.
Thank you for *not* answering any of my questions or clarifying your wishes.
Yum man page has nothing on what erase does.
I don't run a multi-user setup so that is something beyond my concern.
While it may be something beyond your concern the tools to manage a system aren't written for you and you alone. They are tools written to meet the needs of the majority of users.
On 05/26/14 15:00, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
I like the concept of purging everything a package installed.
Also, understand that installing chrome *did not* create/install files in ~/.local/share/applications
They were created by the "user" running chrome.
On 05/21/2014 12:41 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 05/21/14 10:42, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
How are we supposed to run OpenJDK with Chrome once they drop NPAPI?
Don't upgrade, or switch to Firefox. Lucky for me I had a previous version of Chrome.... :-)
Don't switch to Firefox, it is having problems of streaming video properly with the flash-Plugin .
Opera is doing the job much better.
II On 05/21/2014 11:37 AM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
On 21.05.2014, Mickey wrote:
Don't switch to Firefox, it is having problems of streaming video properly with the flash-Plugin .
I have been using Firefox in many years, and didn't encounter streaming problems with Flash videos. Do you have any evidence for your statement?
I have had problems of Firefox freezes while playing streaming video and locking up computer. If I use Opera on those same websites I have no problems at all. As to why this is happening I do not know.
On 21.05.2014, Mickey wrote:
I have had problems of Firefox freezes while playing streaming video and locking up computer.
Ok.
If this is not what you already did: uninstall the flash plugin, download the .tar.gz archive of the appropriate plugin here:
http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/
and copy the file "libflashplayer.so" from the archive to ~/.mozilla/plugins. Restart firefox and try one of the videos which didn't work before. Does this help?
There are more obnoxious features which I can probably turn off with the appropriate fvwm style, but I gotta figure out which of the 47M fvwm flags I need to set:
Chrome now insist on bringing itself to the top of the window stack when I right click on a link. Since I right clicked the link to do a "copy link" so I could paste it into another window which is now totally obscured, I was really peeved by this "helpful" improvement.
Chrome also now seems to want to tell the window manager where it should be located rather than letting the window manager place it. I previously had fvwm set to make chrome windows go exactly where I wanted them, now I'll have to find the bigger hammer to use :-).
On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Mickey binarynut@comcast.net wrote: ...
If I use Opera on those same websites I have no problems at all. As to why this is happening I do not know.
Don't use Opera. Opera for the Linux desktop is pretty much abandoned. Last update 12.16 was almost a year ago (july 2013). The Windows version is at 21.0 released a week ago.
On May 21, 2014 8:42 PM, "Mickey" binarynut@comcast.net wrote:
On 05/21/2014 12:41 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 05/21/14 10:42, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
How are we supposed to run OpenJDK with Chrome once they drop NPAPI?
Don't upgrade, or switch to Firefox. Lucky for me I had a previous
version of Chrome.... :-)
Don't switch to Firefox, it is having problems of streaming video
properly with the flash-Plugin .
Opera is doing the job much better.
-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Flash player will work fine as it is packaged with Chrome. I might need Java plugin from time to time and I think I can deal with that by switching to Firefox for the matter at hands.
-Sudhir.
-
Ed Greshko -
Heinz Diehl -
Jon Ingason -
Mickey -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Robert Arkiletian -
Sudhir Khanger -
Tim -
Tom Horsley -
Veeti Paananen