[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 28/11/13 17:45, Simon Waters wrote: > > On 28 Nov 2013, at 17:35, bad apple <mr.meowski@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I won't touch Chrome at all - I despise it. Why would you >> install Google's spying machine on your computer willingly? > > For a supported version of Flash.... > > That's a really poor cost/benefit analysis! I hate to say it, but even on my entire herd of Linux machines and VMs, both the testing/experimental fleet and actual physical installs at customer locations, Flash rarely, if ever, causes any problems. Sure, I dislike it as much as the next sensible person and can't wait for it to die and go away, but it's actually stable. More so than quite a few other Linux technologies in daily use... sudo apt-get install flashplugin-installer works fine for me, and then it "just works" in all browsers. I know that Chrome and IE these days include their own tweaked versions that theoretically should work better, but as I have no problems with the basic plugin anyway, and both those browsers are hateful abominations, I'll stay well away thank you. Of course, each to their own. Just because I don't personally like Chrome doesn't mean everyone else isn't free to load it up (I do have Chromium installed on this box). Cheers -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq