[CentOS] google chrome future / centos 7

Fri Dec 18 18:02:37 UTC 2015
m.roth at 5-cent.us <m.roth at 5-cent.us>

Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> On Fri, December 18, 2015 10:27 am, Jonathan Billings wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 09:55:39AM -0600, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>>> <sarcasm>
>>> I guess we all are divided into two categories
>>> 1. If google [something] doesn't work on the operating system of my
>>> choice, the hell with that crap (and google itself).
>>> 2. If google [something] doesn't work on the operating system of my
>>> choice, I'll use whatever mighty google orders me (even if it is MS
>>> Windows ? ).
>>> </sarcasm>
>> Maybe its possible that one works someplace that has all its
>> email/collaboration/calendars in a Google Apps environment, and has a
>> central IT org saying to use Chrome for services?  Also, having Chrome
>> on EL7 was nice because then I didn't have to also track Flash Plugin
>> updates.
>> Last I checked, Google also didn't support the Extended Support
>> Release of firefox but only the last two releases, which also causes
>> problems.
>> My concern isn't really for my personal use of the browser.  Its that
>> I support classroom and instructional workstations, and not having a
>> supported browser is just another excuse for management to get rid of
>> Linux workstations and make everyone use Windows.
> Yes, I know. This is why I overcame my laziness and did use "sarcasm" tags
> ;-)
> <rant>
> Indeed, the first thing that happens, UNIX IT heads of institution are
> being replaced with Windows brew ones. Then, most of the central services
> are outsourced to external companies. Then all central IT everything is
> converted to be using google everything. Then finally, on your UNIX
> servers you are forced to figure out what to do with darn winmail.dat
> crap... you, who considered even html composed e-mail an offense. But what
> I'm complaining about? Even logs on our UNIX machines (sorry, Linux, not
> UNIX, that slip was purposeful of course) are not plain ASCII but XML
> garbage wrapped...
> </rant>

Yep. There IS NO REASON for *any* logfile (or configuration file, for that
matter) to be XML. Logs - if your machine is borked, cat or more may work,
when no other way to view it does. Configuration... XML is for GUI. If the
GUI's already hiding stuff, why not have it write out to *text* files?

Just because something is K3WL and NEW!!! doesn't mean you *have* to use
it. That there's a screw, don't use your hammer on it.