On Sat, December 21, 2013 16:54, Peter wrote:
On 12/22/2013 09:00 AM, Scot P. Floess wrote:
as much as I hate to admit it, I'm not sure what mono/moonlight are...
Linux implementation of Microsoft .net and Silverlight respectively. Silverlight was supposed to be Microsoft's answer to flash which never really took off except in some high corporate and government situations where some PHB was tricked into it by a Microsoft salesman.
Both mono (and as an extension moonlight) are spearheaded by Novel with "support" from Microsoft, which means it will almost work but not quite.
Were spearheaded, not are spearheaded. Novel is long gone from the picture.
Presently Mono is a Ximian project (http://www.mono-project.com), which is where it started as far as I can recall. To the best of my knowledge Moonlight recently was resuscitated after having near death experience but, at the moment, is SUSE only as far as Linux support goes.
new potential remote code exploit in Chromium flash. http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.ca/2014/02/stable-channel-update.html
Doesn't look like these repos are being updated. http://people.redhat.com/tpopela/rpms/ http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/chromium/6/
Any info on this issue would be welcome.
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com wrote:
new potential remote code exploit in Chromium flash. http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.ca/2014/02/stable-channel-update.html
Doesn't look like these repos are being updated. http://people.redhat.com/tpopela/rpms/ http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/chromium/6/
Any info on this issue would be welcome.
Yes, please. Can the CentOS folks check with their newly minted Red Hat brethren on this issue?
This is getting critical for us. We have over a hundred CO6 desktops that are currently running an insecure version of chromium. The security people are all over us on this!
We need to run chrome/chromium in order to manage our Google Apps for Government deployment (for over 1000 users). It doesn't work right with firefox.
If we need to apply pressure elsewhere, please let us know where to direct our fury.
On 06/02/14 16:26, Phelps, Matt wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com wrote:
new potential remote code exploit in Chromium flash. http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.ca/2014/02/stable-channel-update.html
Doesn't look like these repos are being updated. http://people.redhat.com/tpopela/rpms/ http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/chromium/6/
Any info on this issue would be welcome.
Yes, please. Can the CentOS folks check with their newly minted Red Hat brethren on this issue?
This is getting critical for us. We have over a hundred CO6 desktops that are currently running an insecure version of chromium. The security people are all over us on this!
We need to run chrome/chromium in order to manage our Google Apps for Government deployment (for over 1000 users). It doesn't work right with firefox.
If we need to apply pressure elsewhere, please let us know where to direct our fury.
... to Google ? (especially because it's *their* browser to support *their* Google Apps ....)
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Fabian Arrotin fabian.arrotin@arrfab.netwrote:
On 06/02/14 16:26, Phelps, Matt wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com
wrote:
new potential remote code exploit in Chromium flash.
http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.ca/2014/02/stable-channel-update.html
Doesn't look like these repos are being updated. http://people.redhat.com/tpopela/rpms/ http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/chromium/6/
Any info on this issue would be welcome.
Yes, please. Can the CentOS folks check with their newly minted Red Hat brethren on this issue?
This is getting critical for us. We have over a hundred CO6 desktops that are currently running an insecure version of chromium. The security
people
are all over us on this!
We need to run chrome/chromium in order to manage our Google Apps for Government deployment (for over 1000 users). It doesn't work right with firefox.
If we need to apply pressure elsewhere, please let us know where to
direct
our fury.
... to Google ? (especially because it's *their* browser to support *their* Google Apps ....)
Of course we already have notified Google.
I was hoping for a little more granularity. Google is a large place; as is Red Hat I know. There was word that Red Hat was working with Google on a solution, and I was hoping to hear if there was any movement.
I can't ask Red Hat since we don't pay for it, but perhaps the new CentOS relationship with them can offer a channel of communication for the Community.
On 02/06/2014 08:41 AM, Phelps, Matt wrote:
Of course we already have notified Google.
I was hoping for a little more granularity. Google is a large place; as is Red Hat I know. There was word that Red Hat was working with Google on a solution, and I was hoping to hear if there was any movement.
I can't ask Red Hat since we don't pay for it, but perhaps the new CentOS relationship with them can offer a channel of communication for the Community.
I don't mean to poke, but is there a reason you aren't using Chromium? It looks, acts, and works like Google Chrome except that:
1) It doesn't spy on you. 2) It uses standard flash that you install separately. 3) The icon looks a little different.
I use Chromium on Fedora, so I can't comment on CentOS, which I only use for headless servers. But this might be a starting point:
http://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2013/install-chromium-on-centos-red-ha...
Good luck!
On Feb 8, 2014 1:41 AM, "Lists" lists@benjamindsmith.com wrote:
On 02/06/2014 08:41 AM, Phelps, Matt wrote:
Of course we already have notified Google.
I was hoping for a little more granularity. Google is a large place; as
is
Red Hat I know. There was word that Red Hat was working with Google on a solution, and I was hoping to hear if there was any movement.
I can't ask Red Hat since we don't pay for it, but perhaps the new
CentOS
relationship with them can offer a channel of communication for the Community.
I don't mean to poke, but is there a reason you aren't using Chromium? It looks, acts, and works like Google Chrome except that:
- It doesn't spy on you.
- It uses standard flash that you install separately.
- The icon looks a little different.
I use Chromium on Fedora, so I can't comment on CentOS, which I only use for headless servers. But this might be a starting point:
http://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2013/install-chromium-on-centos-red-ha...
Good luck! _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Chromium 32 won't build with CentOS 6 either.
That would be perfectly fine.
Am 06.02.2014 um 17:41 schrieb "Phelps, Matt" mphelps@cfa.harvard.edu:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Fabian Arrotin fabian.arrotin@arrfab.netwrote:
On 06/02/14 16:26, Phelps, Matt wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com
wrote:
http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.ca/2014/02/stable-channel-update.html
Yes, please. Can the CentOS folks check with their newly minted Red Hat brethren on this issue?
This is getting critical for us. We have over a hundred CO6 desktops that are currently running an insecure version of chromium. The security
people
are all over us on this!
We need to run chrome/chromium in order to manage our Google Apps for Government deployment (for over 1000 users). It doesn't work right with firefox.
If we need to apply pressure elsewhere, please let us know where to
direct
our fury.
... to Google ? (especially because it's *their* browser to support *their* Google Apps ....)
Of course we already have notified Google.
I was hoping for a little more granularity. Google is a large place; as is Red Hat I know. There was word that Red Hat was working with Google on a solution, and I was hoping to hear if there was any movement.
I can't ask Red Hat since we don't pay for it, but perhaps the new CentOS relationship with them can offer a channel of communication for the Community.
i do not understand, having such infrastructure and not even a subscription. CentOS lives also because professionals pay upstream for their work.
-- LF
On 02/06/2014 10:41 AM, Phelps, Matt wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Fabian Arrotin fabian.arrotin@arrfab.netwrote:
On 06/02/14 16:26, Phelps, Matt wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com
wrote:
new potential remote code exploit in Chromium flash.
http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.ca/2014/02/stable-channel-update.html
Doesn't look like these repos are being updated. http://people.redhat.com/tpopela/rpms/ http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/chromium/6/
Any info on this issue would be welcome.
Yes, please. Can the CentOS folks check with their newly minted Red Hat brethren on this issue?
This is getting critical for us. We have over a hundred CO6 desktops that are currently running an insecure version of chromium. The security
people
are all over us on this!
We need to run chrome/chromium in order to manage our Google Apps for Government deployment (for over 1000 users). It doesn't work right with firefox.
If we need to apply pressure elsewhere, please let us know where to
direct
our fury.
... to Google ? (especially because it's *their* browser to support *their* Google Apps ....)
Of course we already have notified Google.
I was hoping for a little more granularity. Google is a large place; as is Red Hat I know. There was word that Red Hat was working with Google on a solution, and I was hoping to hear if there was any movement.
I can't ask Red Hat since we don't pay for it, but perhaps the new CentOS relationship with them can offer a channel of communication for the Community.
Sure, we talked to them (redhat). That does not make the code actually build any faster.
The code does not build (as is) on EL6 and each build needs to be troubleshot and error corrected to make it work.
Currently there are several pieces not building ... just like there were before. The 31 tree was finally made to build, after several changes, The 32 tree is not building.
I like to use chromium as well ... but the only supported browser is Firefox ... that is the one with EL support. Chromium is a best effort to get to build (and it always will be) ... Google has no interest in supporting it, so we are taking the code that they release and working with it until it builds on EL6.
WRT your google apps docs ... OK, so have 2 browsers on your system. Use the chromium for your google apps and firefox for everything else.
I told everyone that the chromium support was as can be made to work. If you REALLY need it to work, hire someone to maintain it :)
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Sure, we talked to them (redhat). That does not make the code actually build any faster.
The code does not build (as is) on EL6 and each build needs to be troubleshot and error corrected to make it work.
Currently there are several pieces not building ... just like there were before. The 31 tree was finally made to build, after several changes, The 32 tree is not building.
I like to use chromium as well ... but the only supported browser is Firefox ... that is the one with EL support. Chromium is a best effort to get to build (and it always will be) ... Google has no interest in supporting it, so we are taking the code that they release and working with it until it builds on EL6.
Thanks for the update Johnny,
In the meantime I have requested Remi's repo for Firefox 27.
Sorry for this being off topic but I feel it emphasizes the need for long term support for desktop browsers on Linux.
Went hunting for any info on Opera for Linux. My assumptions seem to be correct about Opera. I have no proof this is a legit post but it sounds like the truth:
"At my previous employer, a small browser vendor that decided to abandon its own rendering engine and browser stack, I stopped using our product because Linux wasn't a priority. Numerous reasons were given, such as low market share, "only geeks use it", all journalists use Macs, &c.
This was to the point of ridiculing the platform and the people working on it, frequently citing "Linux jokes" such as "you'll probably have to recompile your kernel first" whenever the question was seriously raised about when we'd start at least getting the core libraries working.
And when I say it wasn't a priority, I mean that we didn't even have something that was in a compilable state. A few people had started fixing up the broken code to get something that would compile on Linux in their own free time. After a few weeks of hacking, they were told by management to stop what they were doing and instead focus their volunteer efforts on the project goals, being to ship a Windows and Mac version.
So the company began the process of forcefully moving developers who'd worked on Linux for over 15 years to platforms they felt uncomfortable and unproductive working on.
This is a much longer tale, but it tells the story of a company alienating not only their loyal user base, but also a significant proportion of their own developers. The result? Lack of motivation and resignations.
Well done."
On 02/09/2014 05:35 PM, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Sure, we talked to them (redhat). That does not make the code actually build any faster.
The code does not build (as is) on EL6 and each build needs to be troubleshot and error corrected to make it work.
Currently there are several pieces not building ... just like there were before. The 31 tree was finally made to build, after several changes, The 32 tree is not building.
I like to use chromium as well ... but the only supported browser is Firefox ... that is the one with EL support. Chromium is a best effort to get to build (and it always will be) ... Google has no interest in supporting it, so we are taking the code that they release and working with it until it builds on EL6.
Thanks for the update Johnny,
In the meantime I have requested Remi's repo for Firefox 27.
Why do you need Firefox 27 ... CentOS has the latest ESR version of Firefox (24.3.0) that gets security updates and it will always be the ESR version, so it will always get security updates and always move forward. So, moving forward and supported.
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/
This firefox should be relevant, do almost everything the new one does, and be supportable within an organization. In fact, Mozilla chose to work with Enterprise Linux groups while Google basically thumbed their noses at the prospect.
Why can't an always moving forward branch of Firefox work for you?
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 3:22 AM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
Why do you need Firefox 27 ... CentOS has the latest ESR version of Firefox (24.3.0) that gets security updates and it will always be the ESR version, so it will always get security updates and always move forward. So, moving forward and supported.
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/
This firefox should be relevant, do almost everything the new one does, and be supportable within an organization. In fact, Mozilla chose to work with Enterprise Linux groups while Google basically thumbed their noses at the prospect.
Why can't an always moving forward branch of Firefox work for you?
Oh, I didn't realize Firefox ESR had reached ver 24! I thought it was still at 17. Thanks Johnny. 24 has built-in pdf support and is faster than 17. I'm switching my lab back to the ESR version. Thanks. :)
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
On 02/06/2014 10:41 AM, Phelps, Matt wrote:
On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Fabian Arrotin fabian.arrotin@arrfab.netwrote:
On 06/02/14 16:26, Phelps, Matt wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Robert Arkiletian robark@gmail.com
wrote:
new potential remote code exploit in Chromium flash.
http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.ca/2014/02/stable-channel-update.html
Doesn't look like these repos are being updated. http://people.redhat.com/tpopela/rpms/ http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/chromium/6/
Any info on this issue would be welcome.
Yes, please. Can the CentOS folks check with their newly minted Red Hat brethren on this issue?
This is getting critical for us. We have over a hundred CO6 desktops
that
are currently running an insecure version of chromium. The security
people
are all over us on this!
We need to run chrome/chromium in order to manage our Google Apps for Government deployment (for over 1000 users). It doesn't work right with firefox.
If we need to apply pressure elsewhere, please let us know where to
direct
our fury.
... to Google ? (especially because it's *their* browser to support *their* Google Apps ....)
Of course we already have notified Google.
I was hoping for a little more granularity. Google is a large place; as
is
Red Hat I know. There was word that Red Hat was working with Google on a solution, and I was hoping to hear if there was any movement.
I can't ask Red Hat since we don't pay for it, but perhaps the new CentOS relationship with them can offer a channel of communication for the Community.
Sure, we talked to them (redhat). That does not make the code actually build any faster.
The code does not build (as is) on EL6 and each build needs to be troubleshot and error corrected to make it work.
Currently there are several pieces not building ... just like there were before. The 31 tree was finally made to build, after several changes, The 32 tree is not building.
I like to use chromium as well ... but the only supported browser is Firefox ... that is the one with EL support. Chromium is a best effort to get to build (and it always will be) ... Google has no interest in supporting it, so we are taking the code that they release and working with it until it builds on EL6.
Thanks Johnny,
The piece of information I was looking for was the bit about Google's attitude towards the situation with respect to chrome (vs. chromium). I, of course, appreciate the efforts on the CentOS end and realize it's not under your control.
I was hoping Red Hat dollars would be influential to Google, and was merely looking for any further information on weather Google's chrome would ever work again on RHEL/CentOS 6 again, and if that might be available from you guys, since you now work for them.
If there's any way to pass on the need for more pressure on Google, from Red Hat, that would be appreciated. We CentOS users can't do that directly. We chose CentOS long ago for all the right reasons; chiefly that we can't afford 150 RHEL licenses since we're in an academic environment (even with academic rates).
The situation is highly frustrating, and we feel powerless.
WRT your google apps docs ... OK, so have 2 browsers on your system. Use the chromium for your google apps and firefox for everything else.
The point is, we're close to being told to disable chromium and remove it because version 31 is insecure.
I told everyone that the chromium support was as can be made to work. If you REALLY need it to work, hire someone to maintain it :)
I appreciate the smiley face, but that should not be necessary to make the worlds most popular browser work on the worlds most popular Enterprise Linux distribution (and it's FOSS variants)!
-
Fabian Arrotin -
James B. Byrne -
Johnny Hughes -
Leon Fauster -
Lists -
Phelps, Matt -
Robert Arkiletian