Re: Flashplayer on 32 bit computers
On Monday 09 May 2016 10:22:57 Markus Schönhaber wrote:
> Lisi Reisz, Mo 09 Mai 2016 10:38:54 CEST:
> > I seem to have hit the following:
> > My client cannot run an up-to-date Flashplayer on Linux. If she insists
> > on running Flashplayer, she can run an out of date Flashplayer in her
> > current Debian system (if I can get a functional one installed) or she
> > can go out, buy and install Windows. She will then be able to run an
> > up-to-date Flashplayer. Or she can buy a new computer.
> >
> > It is a sad day when Windows is in any way better for a legacy computer
> > than Linux; one of whose strengths used to be how good it was for legacy
> > computers.
>
> If the vendor of proprietary software X decides that they will provide a
> version of X for proprietary OS Y but not for the open source OS Z you
> would like to run X on, you're out of luck. That's one of major problems
> with proprietary software (and one of the main reasons to avoid it
> wherever possible).
Of course. And I did say "in any way". Linux used to be for specialists only.
It has been making inroads on the desktop. Mind you, I feel that some
distros go too far down this road and are making Linux far less secure, so it
is difficult line to draw.
> It seems very strange to me that from running into this well-known
> problem you draw the conclusion that proprietary OS Y is somehow
> "better" than open source OS Z. I use an obviously very different metric
> to decide which OS is "better".
>
I did say "in ANY way". And yes it is a well known problem. But it is one
that I have managed to grapple with so far.
> > It is also a pity that Wheezy LTS appears not to be a truly viable
> > proposition for the desktop. I still have jdk7 to sort out on three
> > computers. In Stable or newer jdk6 would surely have been removed for me
> > by aptitude?
>
> I fail to see what's wrong with this (or why it should be a pity). jdk6
> was EOL'ed about three years ago. If you still have not managed to
> replace it (or to make sure that it can be replaced) with a supported
> version, it's not Debian's fault.
We are back to Linux being for specialists only. aptitude does most things
for me so that I don't have to do them. I can trust the Debian developers to
know better than I do. They still do. It is aptitude that has asked me to
remove jdk6. In the past when aptitude wanted something removed, it offered
to do it, or even just did it. I attributed the difference, perhaps
erroneously, to Wheezy's being LTS.
Lisi
Reply to: