https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2018/04/mic ... ure-sphere
Microsoft Linux Distro
Microsoft Linux Distro
Yes, you read that right. The last thing in the world I ever expected is for Microsoft to create a Linux kernel and use it to run its products. But, sure as shootin' that is exactly what the boys in Redmond did. It's not going to be mobile or desktop oriented, however. The current release is primarily for Azure cloud computers. But still; Microsoft Linlux
https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2018/04/mic ... ure-sphere
https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2018/04/mic ... ure-sphere
Re: Microsoft Linux Distro
They already use the Linux Kernel in a lot of things.
I guess they finally realized, if they want to make a truly SECURE device, it takes Linux to do so, hi hi.
Technically though, it looks like they are building their own miniaturized Azure OS which uses the Linux Kernel, but I wonder how bad they will butcher it up.
They took the XML format and butchered it up, then renamed their proprietary version DOCX.
How they get by with pulling those kinds of stunts is beyond me!
I guess they finally realized, if they want to make a truly SECURE device, it takes Linux to do so, hi hi.
Technically though, it looks like they are building their own miniaturized Azure OS which uses the Linux Kernel, but I wonder how bad they will butcher it up.
They took the XML format and butchered it up, then renamed their proprietary version DOCX.
How they get by with pulling those kinds of stunts is beyond me!
Re: Microsoft Linux Distro
People pay big bucks to use their butchered up software ... that's how they get away with it. 
Re: Microsoft Linux Distro
I ran the numbers once to see how much it would cost me to use Windows and programs similar to what I use almost every day.
The amount was a staggering $6,000.00 and even then I wouldn't have all the programs I use.
On another note. I did find a Windows Program that uses Bash Commands so I could add a feature to the frau's computer.
It's just a simple short line of code someone wrote for me.
I'm sure it could be done in whatever terminal language Windows uses, but I could find no one who could do it in Windows.
Although they do have an appointment calendar that can do half of what was needed, if you could get it to do it right.
Even then it took several steps to achieve what one step does in the Bash command.
The amount was a staggering $6,000.00 and even then I wouldn't have all the programs I use.
On another note. I did find a Windows Program that uses Bash Commands so I could add a feature to the frau's computer.
It's just a simple short line of code someone wrote for me.
I'm sure it could be done in whatever terminal language Windows uses, but I could find no one who could do it in Windows.
Although they do have an appointment calendar that can do half of what was needed, if you could get it to do it right.
Even then it took several steps to achieve what one step does in the Bash command.
Re: Microsoft Linux Distro
When I worked for a living the company standardized on Microsoft products. We used the Outlook Mail/Calendar software extensively. It had some pretty nifty features. Thunderbird has similar features these days, but unless you are running Mozilla software on your machine, you can't share calendars or do group invites. It all goes back to standardization and what you prefer to use.
Linux is a love/hate relationship with its need to use a terminal and command line shell commands. It's not geared for the crowd that finds Microsoft easy to use, but, as you say, you can do more when you get down to basics. However, you must know more when you go down to that level.
Yes, fully developed and supported software is costly. That's why FOSS was invented. I am convinced you get what you pay for in spite of the predatory practices coming out of Redmond.
Linux is a love/hate relationship with its need to use a terminal and command line shell commands. It's not geared for the crowd that finds Microsoft easy to use, but, as you say, you can do more when you get down to basics. However, you must know more when you go down to that level.
Yes, fully developed and supported software is costly. That's why FOSS was invented. I am convinced you get what you pay for in spite of the predatory practices coming out of Redmond.
Re: Microsoft Linux Distro
There is a GUI for almost every heavily used command line operation.
And some Distro's have GUIs for every operation a user would normally use.
I have a question about safety.
Have you ever heard of Let's Encrypt?
They are offering Free SSL Certification for your websites at
www.sslforfree.com
Is this legit or is it a way for hackers to get your keys?
And some Distro's have GUIs for every operation a user would normally use.
I have a question about safety.
Have you ever heard of Let's Encrypt?
They are offering Free SSL Certification for your websites at
www.sslforfree.com
Is this legit or is it a way for hackers to get your keys?
Re: Microsoft Linux Distro
Being the skeptical old curmudgeon I am, I find it hard to believe anything on the Internet is free - thinking Facebook here. Then again, I can guarantee that there is no cost to any of our members to use THIS website. Plus, do you really want to trust your domain security to an ACME server? I know nothing about ACME, but the name sounds bogus as all hell.
Having said all the above, it is possible for private certificates to be compromised by parties you know little about. Then again, they may not be in business very long if their evil ways are discovered. So, I'd trust them about as far as I can throw a 5lb bag of sugar. After dealing with them a while, and/or researching the experiences of their clients, I might trust them a little more.
They seem to offer a service to generate private certificates via a browser extension. Your browser, of course, would have to be compatible with the API they are using. Technically that's the only possible glitch. However, I'd not trust any browser to store high security text for me. Unfortunately, it's the only way SSL For Free to reach the masses they want to serve. FTP or Telnet or even e-mail seems to be beyond the limits of their offering.
The hosting service for this website offers SSL. You may on occasion run into a notice suggesting the certificate cannot be authenticated and thus you are on your own if you proceed. That's nothing I'm doing. In fact I have been avoiding the SSL service from our hosts given that there are so few people coming here. However, if I do want to switch, they will do it for free or some minimal fee. I feel that I can trust my web hosts much more than my browser or somebody who wrote a cockamamie extension for it. You probably can get the same deal from your web host. Even if you have to pay, the peace of mind would be worth it. Then, I'm wondering why you want to encrypt your web site in the first place.
Having said all the above, it is possible for private certificates to be compromised by parties you know little about. Then again, they may not be in business very long if their evil ways are discovered. So, I'd trust them about as far as I can throw a 5lb bag of sugar. After dealing with them a while, and/or researching the experiences of their clients, I might trust them a little more.
They seem to offer a service to generate private certificates via a browser extension. Your browser, of course, would have to be compatible with the API they are using. Technically that's the only possible glitch. However, I'd not trust any browser to store high security text for me. Unfortunately, it's the only way SSL For Free to reach the masses they want to serve. FTP or Telnet or even e-mail seems to be beyond the limits of their offering.
The hosting service for this website offers SSL. You may on occasion run into a notice suggesting the certificate cannot be authenticated and thus you are on your own if you proceed. That's nothing I'm doing. In fact I have been avoiding the SSL service from our hosts given that there are so few people coming here. However, if I do want to switch, they will do it for free or some minimal fee. I feel that I can trust my web hosts much more than my browser or somebody who wrote a cockamamie extension for it. You probably can get the same deal from your web host. Even if you have to pay, the peace of mind would be worth it. Then, I'm wondering why you want to encrypt your web site in the first place.
Re: Microsoft Linux Distro
The first time someone visits a website, they get a WARNING this site is NOT SECURE.
They you have to hunt around for a tiny little button that says proceed anyway.
I've had to do it for THIS website! It says up at the top NOT SECURE, which is no biggie to me.
But it has not recycled so I had to do it again, that I can remember.
Lately, I've noticed several websites I have to do this like every 90 days.
There is nothing on my website that requires it to be secure, it's all there for public viewing anyhow.
I'm not selling anything, nor keep a database, so it's not something I really need.
But then like I said, folks who do visit my website get that WARNING.
So I would say about 1/3 of my visitors no longer visit. Based on my counters that is.
New visitor count is down by 1/3. Revisits are down only about 5%.
My host 1&1 does provide https for a small additional price.
Oh, the free one only verifies the website itself, nothing else.
So yes, bogus websites can get the same certificate.
I did find out that you have to Renew the free one every 90 days, which would be an annoyance.
Or you can pay them to auto-renew. Which I think is either 10 bucks a year or 10 bucks each renewal.
They you have to hunt around for a tiny little button that says proceed anyway.
I've had to do it for THIS website! It says up at the top NOT SECURE, which is no biggie to me.
But it has not recycled so I had to do it again, that I can remember.
Lately, I've noticed several websites I have to do this like every 90 days.
There is nothing on my website that requires it to be secure, it's all there for public viewing anyhow.
I'm not selling anything, nor keep a database, so it's not something I really need.
But then like I said, folks who do visit my website get that WARNING.
So I would say about 1/3 of my visitors no longer visit. Based on my counters that is.
New visitor count is down by 1/3. Revisits are down only about 5%.
My host 1&1 does provide https for a small additional price.
Oh, the free one only verifies the website itself, nothing else.
So yes, bogus websites can get the same certificate.
I did find out that you have to Renew the free one every 90 days, which would be an annoyance.
Or you can pay them to auto-renew. Which I think is either 10 bucks a year or 10 bucks each renewal.
Re: Microsoft Linux Distro
I get notifications from the hosts of this website just about every month. They change the certificates that often. If there were more than three of us using this place, I might be tempted to go SSL and see what it's all about. The only security issue is the password you use for login. If it is unique to THIS website, it's no biggie. The business of changing certificates more often has been encouraged by the numerous attacks on big data. Tech Ops are finally becoming more aware of simple flaws and taking steps to fix the obvious. The other side of the coin is the browser. Chrome is pretty good at checking sites, but not all browsers do that good of a job. Thus the number of warnings you get depends not only on the renewal schedule of the hosting but also on the capability of the browser you use. It's going to get worse in the future until they fix the Internet. The way the FCC is going these days, I don't see any chance of that happening soon.
Re: Microsoft Linux Distro
I think the EU has made a major protection step in many areas, not just on-line.
I forget the four letter acronym they use, but it has a lot to do with privacy and stopping spam.
The biggest difference between what the EU is doing, and attempts made by the US is fairly simple.
The EU has active enforcement agencies that are doing their job.
The US, although they have some agencies, they don't actively enforce the law, and in many cases have created problems we never had before.
e-mail harvesting is one thing the EU is aggressively going after, both in the EU and in the US.
All those gimmicks of giving away something free to get someones e-mail address will probably disappear.
It's still OK to give something away for free, but to later use the e-mail obtained from such efforts will get you fined big time. The person who has that e-mail address must have given the sender permission via a form for them to send further e-mails to said person. Applies also to telephone numbers and unwanted telephone calls.
Sounds like a pain to deal with but I think it is a great improvement.
Our government on the other hand, helped the telemarketers instead of slowed them down, by starting what is called The Don't Call List.
This list is given away free to all telemarketers, or anyone who requests same!
Although a few US based telemarketers do follow the intent and check the list and not call those on the list.
Unfortunately, it is a small handful of telemarketers, and all the rest use the list as a source of Known Working Numbers.
Our government does not have the manpower or ambition to enforce the Don't Call List, and telemarketers know this.
We have millions of major laws, none of which the government enforces. The laws are on the books so the people themselves can enforce them, if they have the time and money to do so. Patent Law is one good example of this.
After paying ten to twenty grand each to obtain my patents, if soon found out they are totally worthless pieces of paper to me. Why? Because I don't have the 150 thousand dollars per infringer to attempt to stop them.
The law is actually on the side of the infringers!
How can that be? Simple! If you don't go after the small infringers because you would lose money, the big infringers see this, and the law protects them, because if they show you are not actively pursuing other infringers, you cannot single out a single one from the bunch simply because they have more money. Learned this the hard way too!
I forget the four letter acronym they use, but it has a lot to do with privacy and stopping spam.
The biggest difference between what the EU is doing, and attempts made by the US is fairly simple.
The EU has active enforcement agencies that are doing their job.
The US, although they have some agencies, they don't actively enforce the law, and in many cases have created problems we never had before.
e-mail harvesting is one thing the EU is aggressively going after, both in the EU and in the US.
All those gimmicks of giving away something free to get someones e-mail address will probably disappear.
It's still OK to give something away for free, but to later use the e-mail obtained from such efforts will get you fined big time. The person who has that e-mail address must have given the sender permission via a form for them to send further e-mails to said person. Applies also to telephone numbers and unwanted telephone calls.
Sounds like a pain to deal with but I think it is a great improvement.
Our government on the other hand, helped the telemarketers instead of slowed them down, by starting what is called The Don't Call List.
This list is given away free to all telemarketers, or anyone who requests same!
Although a few US based telemarketers do follow the intent and check the list and not call those on the list.
Unfortunately, it is a small handful of telemarketers, and all the rest use the list as a source of Known Working Numbers.
Our government does not have the manpower or ambition to enforce the Don't Call List, and telemarketers know this.
We have millions of major laws, none of which the government enforces. The laws are on the books so the people themselves can enforce them, if they have the time and money to do so. Patent Law is one good example of this.
After paying ten to twenty grand each to obtain my patents, if soon found out they are totally worthless pieces of paper to me. Why? Because I don't have the 150 thousand dollars per infringer to attempt to stop them.
The law is actually on the side of the infringers!
How can that be? Simple! If you don't go after the small infringers because you would lose money, the big infringers see this, and the law protects them, because if they show you are not actively pursuing other infringers, you cannot single out a single one from the bunch simply because they have more money. Learned this the hard way too!
Re: Microsoft Linux Distro
<steps upon his soapbox> The United States of America was founded on the principles of democracy. It was a great idea back in the 18th century where people were more willing to work together to achieve common goals. It's still probably the best system of governance on the planet, albeit not perfect. The Industrial Revolution took hold big time in this country and economics became the driving force behind our system of governance. Free enterprise and capitalism proved that the accumulation of money was the equivalent of amassing power and influence. Corporations as well as individuals became economic giants in this environment. Unfortunately, the common people, you and I, didn't have the money or the power to be influential. Those who did took advantage of lobbies in Washington. The political lobby system is intended to be a mechanism wherein the common man has direct access to his representatives and a voice in what legislation needs to be enacted and enforced. Thus it's not hard to understand how capitalists became the people for whom the laws are made. These days the Mafioso, both foreign and domestic, are challenging the capitalists, leaving us commoners in the dust. We don't have a chance, or representation, which is why you see the unenforced useless laws you cited above. </steps off soapbox>
I'm not sure how any of this relates to Microsoft's Linux distro, other than the fact it's intended to maximize profits for it's own purposes. The fact is that whatever laws Microsoft needs to maximize those profits will be (bought) enacted. What are the odds it will benefit us, the consumer? There are no laws requiring companies to benefit their customers.
I'm not sure how any of this relates to Microsoft's Linux distro, other than the fact it's intended to maximize profits for it's own purposes. The fact is that whatever laws Microsoft needs to maximize those profits will be (bought) enacted. What are the odds it will benefit us, the consumer? There are no laws requiring companies to benefit their customers.
Re: Microsoft Linux Distro
I gotta agree with you across the board Yogi!
There are groups that do help the small guy, but only if they have a good reason to do so.
Usually they can get more money from donors or better publicity. Else they don't bother.
There are groups that do help the small guy, but only if they have a good reason to do so.
Usually they can get more money from donors or better publicity. Else they don't bother.
Re: Microsoft Linux Distro
Had to pop back in with this little bit of trivia I picked up after I left earlier.
Mickey$oft is transitioning their msEDGE browser over to Linux/Chromium.
Although their IE garnered a 90% user base eons ago, Chromium based web browsers now command a 76% market share.
Every time you turn around Mickey$oft is taking something else from the Linux community, modifying it for their own purposes, changing the name and marketing it as their own, often with incompatibilities to recognized standards.
Although a boon to Windows users, it has created yet another big GROAN to those in the Linux community.
Publishing companies had big problems for years after msWord hacked the XML format and added proprietary commands to it, and hawked it as XML. They finally figured out which codes Mickey$oft altered in the XML format and wrote programs to overcome these nasty changes, which are also in violation of the various open source usage agreements. But Mickey$oft has more dollars to fight their thefts than those they steal from. Big Money always wins out over No Money! I don't doubt some day Mickey$oft will OWN LINUX and charge everyone to use it.
Mickey$oft is transitioning their msEDGE browser over to Linux/Chromium.
Although their IE garnered a 90% user base eons ago, Chromium based web browsers now command a 76% market share.
Every time you turn around Mickey$oft is taking something else from the Linux community, modifying it for their own purposes, changing the name and marketing it as their own, often with incompatibilities to recognized standards.
Although a boon to Windows users, it has created yet another big GROAN to those in the Linux community.
Publishing companies had big problems for years after msWord hacked the XML format and added proprietary commands to it, and hawked it as XML. They finally figured out which codes Mickey$oft altered in the XML format and wrote programs to overcome these nasty changes, which are also in violation of the various open source usage agreements. But Mickey$oft has more dollars to fight their thefts than those they steal from. Big Money always wins out over No Money! I don't doubt some day Mickey$oft will OWN LINUX and charge everyone to use it.
Re: Microsoft Linux Distro
You are correct in your observation that Edge (a Windows 10 exclusive) is changing it's browser rendering engine to Chromium. Chromium is open sourced, which is not the same as saying it is Linux. It's well understood that Linux exists only because of it's disdain for anything proprietary, but, technically, saying Chromium is Linux is comparing apples to oranges.
Regardless of what you call it, Edge is failing big time just as was Internet Explorer back in it's earlier days. Mozilla came to the rescue back then in spite of Microsoft's embedding IE into the operating system and thus forcing everyone to have a copy. Firefox displaced IE as the leading browser, but that is no longer the case. Firefox is fighting for it's life now because Google's Chrome browser is embedded into their Chromebook operating system exactly the same way as was Microsoft's IE. The difference is that Chromebook is basically a web based computer with none of the functionality of the so called Windows as a service (Windows 10). From what I gather they don't even offer a hard drive. It's all done in the cloud. The bottom line is that the Chrome browser beats out IE, Edge, Firefox, and everybody else when it comes to its market share.
Microsoft died when Bill Gates retired. They have been playing catch-up ever since. I'll agree that they have made great inroads into the mobile device market, but all of Microsoft's hardware is inadequate competition for anything Apple or Google are promoting. Lately Microsoft has overtaken Apple as the world's largest (by dollar valuation) company, but it's not due to their browser and certainly not because of their Surface product line. While Gate's vision disappeared when he left the company, that doesn't mean Microsoft suddenly became stupid. The idea behind the phrase "Windows as a service" is to insert the Microsoft brand everywhere. The new browser internals from Microsoft is just one more sign that they are recognizing the value of open sourced software, which is what Chromium happens to be. The irony is that this open source browser from Microsoft will cost you the price of their operating system if you want to use it. Likewise, you can run any Linux coded software in Windows 10, if you were inclined to do such a thing. I had Ubuntu running in my beta versions for quite a while. But, again, in order to use this open sourced operating system inside Windows as a service, I had to pay the price. Well, in my case it was free. But non-beta testers are paying.
I do believe Microsoft sees some value in open sourced software and playing nice with Linux. I don't believe they will bother absorbing Linux into their company. They are thinking big, and not niche markets. And, finally, in my humble opinion Microsoft is missing the point. Edge has some really nice features you can't find elsewhere, but it is friggin' slow to respond and it defaults to Bing search engine. The combination is deadly. I used Edge for a long time because I was beta testing, but now I've got a Firefox clone installed so that I can do some real browsing. I did suggest that they dump Bing, but for some odd reason they never listened to me on that count.
Regardless of what you call it, Edge is failing big time just as was Internet Explorer back in it's earlier days. Mozilla came to the rescue back then in spite of Microsoft's embedding IE into the operating system and thus forcing everyone to have a copy. Firefox displaced IE as the leading browser, but that is no longer the case. Firefox is fighting for it's life now because Google's Chrome browser is embedded into their Chromebook operating system exactly the same way as was Microsoft's IE. The difference is that Chromebook is basically a web based computer with none of the functionality of the so called Windows as a service (Windows 10). From what I gather they don't even offer a hard drive. It's all done in the cloud. The bottom line is that the Chrome browser beats out IE, Edge, Firefox, and everybody else when it comes to its market share.
Microsoft died when Bill Gates retired. They have been playing catch-up ever since. I'll agree that they have made great inroads into the mobile device market, but all of Microsoft's hardware is inadequate competition for anything Apple or Google are promoting. Lately Microsoft has overtaken Apple as the world's largest (by dollar valuation) company, but it's not due to their browser and certainly not because of their Surface product line. While Gate's vision disappeared when he left the company, that doesn't mean Microsoft suddenly became stupid. The idea behind the phrase "Windows as a service" is to insert the Microsoft brand everywhere. The new browser internals from Microsoft is just one more sign that they are recognizing the value of open sourced software, which is what Chromium happens to be. The irony is that this open source browser from Microsoft will cost you the price of their operating system if you want to use it. Likewise, you can run any Linux coded software in Windows 10, if you were inclined to do such a thing. I had Ubuntu running in my beta versions for quite a while. But, again, in order to use this open sourced operating system inside Windows as a service, I had to pay the price. Well, in my case it was free. But non-beta testers are paying.
I do believe Microsoft sees some value in open sourced software and playing nice with Linux. I don't believe they will bother absorbing Linux into their company. They are thinking big, and not niche markets. And, finally, in my humble opinion Microsoft is missing the point. Edge has some really nice features you can't find elsewhere, but it is friggin' slow to respond and it defaults to Bing search engine. The combination is deadly. I used Edge for a long time because I was beta testing, but now I've got a Firefox clone installed so that I can do some real browsing. I did suggest that they dump Bing, but for some odd reason they never listened to me on that count.
Re: Microsoft Linux Distro
You got me thinking, and after a little poking around the web I came up with this
Windows was first released on my birthday in 1985, November 20. Linux was released 25th August, 1991.
There are stories of ChromeOS being Ubuntu in disguise (written by Canonical), but people actually working on the project say it's not true in 2018. Gentoo is the mother of all ChromeOS apparently. My quote, however, boils it down to it's lowest common denominator. Both Linux and Windows are written in C++. Since Windows predates Linux, I have to ask who is copying who? LOLThe core of Chrome is written in C++. The Windows/Linux/ChromeOS UI bits are written in C++. The Mac/iOS UI bits are written in Objective-C. The Android UI bits are written in Java.
Windows was first released on my birthday in 1985, November 20. Linux was released 25th August, 1991.
Re: Microsoft Linux Distro
True, but Linux was developed to make a UNIX like system which predates nearly everything else.
I really like Firefox and used it until some of the things I did just worked faster and better on Chrome.
I keep both Firefox and Chrome on my upper panel for quick access.
And would use Firefox for certain things, because of how easy it was to copy their history page links.
But I no longer need to do that.
One of the biggest problems with open-source is the different agreements used to cover them.
Some are fairly good, while others are not so hot and give anyone a free reign to steal, change, and market as proprietary.
I normally donate a little to those who develop the programs I use the most, especially if I use the heavily, then I donate a little more if they are active with updates.
Even when I used Windows, I never liked IE. I don't remember now what it was I used before Firefox though.
There are several different browsers I have used to see what they did, but they have little third party support with add-on options like Chrome and Firefox have available from third parties.
I guess I'm too olde skewl to like all the changes and the direction computing is headed.
I really like Firefox and used it until some of the things I did just worked faster and better on Chrome.
I keep both Firefox and Chrome on my upper panel for quick access.
And would use Firefox for certain things, because of how easy it was to copy their history page links.
But I no longer need to do that.
One of the biggest problems with open-source is the different agreements used to cover them.
Some are fairly good, while others are not so hot and give anyone a free reign to steal, change, and market as proprietary.
I normally donate a little to those who develop the programs I use the most, especially if I use the heavily, then I donate a little more if they are active with updates.
Even when I used Windows, I never liked IE. I don't remember now what it was I used before Firefox though.
There are several different browsers I have used to see what they did, but they have little third party support with add-on options like Chrome and Firefox have available from third parties.
I guess I'm too olde skewl to like all the changes and the direction computing is headed.
Re: Microsoft Linux Distro
I don't really know, but I'd bet a cup of coffee on it being Netscape. Microsoft deliberately went after them and killed them off. When Netscape died, Mozilla was officially born and the rest is history. Some say Netscape is buried inside Firefox. The two do have a direct link but there is no similarity these days. Firefox has made some gigantic improvements recently and I'm nearly convinced I should go back to them as a default browser. However, good as they are, Waterfox (a fork of Firefox) is better in that it does not have all the bloat and performs better. I'm not a fan of extensions so that I don't care much about the flexibility they bring to a browsing experience.Gary wrote: I don't remember now what it was I used before Firefox though.
Moving in a slightly different direction, I just upgraded my VM version of Linux Mint to the latest release, 19.1. While setting it up I opened Firefox and went to one of my social network sites to see how well the codecs work. To my amazement Firefox told me that the site wants to use Flash and it needs my permission to do so. I granted it and voila. Things that never worked before in Linux now look wonderful. This brings me to a question, however. It was my understanding that Adobe stopped support of Flash and that everybody stopped using it earlier this year. Google, of course, is the oddball with it's Pepper version. However, Flash is no longer enabled by default. If you want to use it you need to do it on a site by site basis. Well, that's Chrome. I had no idea Firefox (Mozilla) bought into that idea.
Re: Microsoft Linux Distro
Yeppers, Netscape was what I used before Firefox.
Google dropped PepperFlash several releases ago.
The main reason is because Adobe decided, after cutting support for Linux in 2012, to return in 2016 with full Linux support.
Although Adobe claims they will end support in 2020, I don't see Flash going away, because they keep releasing more and more of their coding as open source. Their initial open source release is what allowed Google to build PepperFlash.
The more of their programming Adobe releases to Open Source, the more bugs are found and fixed by programmers.
Adobe is an example of a company who kept things proprietary, and because it was a free distribution, except for the tools to create programs using Flash Player, they just couldn't keep up with the problems.
The more they opened up areas of their Flash Player to open source, the more free help they got in fixing age old problems in those ares. With all these new repairs, Adobe released yet another upgrade only a few months ago.
What I possibly see happening in 2020 is Adobe opens up their entire program as open source, while maintaining control of the programs changes and upgrades. It will no longer cost them as much to continue to provide Flash Player when they don't have to do the repairs and close loopholes for hackers.
Google has added way to many annoying things they hawk as security issues, when they have nothing to do with security.
Somebody is making a lot of money by having Google create extra steps to get to websites that are still HTTP instead of HTTPS. If malware is installed in a program you download, it doesn't matter if it comes down the wire as HTTP or is encrypted and comes down the wire as HTTPS. It's still a malware infected program!
Google dropped PepperFlash several releases ago.
The main reason is because Adobe decided, after cutting support for Linux in 2012, to return in 2016 with full Linux support.
Although Adobe claims they will end support in 2020, I don't see Flash going away, because they keep releasing more and more of their coding as open source. Their initial open source release is what allowed Google to build PepperFlash.
The more of their programming Adobe releases to Open Source, the more bugs are found and fixed by programmers.
Adobe is an example of a company who kept things proprietary, and because it was a free distribution, except for the tools to create programs using Flash Player, they just couldn't keep up with the problems.
The more they opened up areas of their Flash Player to open source, the more free help they got in fixing age old problems in those ares. With all these new repairs, Adobe released yet another upgrade only a few months ago.
What I possibly see happening in 2020 is Adobe opens up their entire program as open source, while maintaining control of the programs changes and upgrades. It will no longer cost them as much to continue to provide Flash Player when they don't have to do the repairs and close loopholes for hackers.
Google has added way to many annoying things they hawk as security issues, when they have nothing to do with security.
Somebody is making a lot of money by having Google create extra steps to get to websites that are still HTTP instead of HTTPS. If malware is installed in a program you download, it doesn't matter if it comes down the wire as HTTP or is encrypted and comes down the wire as HTTPS. It's still a malware infected program!
Re: Microsoft Linux Distro
Apparently the user base for Flash is too big to just shut down immediately. It's a lot like saying Linux is better than Windows, but we all know where the bulk of the users are. Both Windows and Flash seem to be suffering from the same kind of problems. The users of those products are getting smarter and finding ways to corrupt them. As you point out, Adobe never cared much about security because they didn't have to. That is no longer the case and people are finding ways to keep the old workhorse alive. You could be right about Flash surviving the 2020 cut off date, but it won't be the same Flash that Adobe released 18 years ago.
I think Mozilla and Firefox are fighting for their own survival. By far their browser uses less CPU and RAM than any of the popular Chrome based browsers. I like that, but it seems that Google has more resources (money) to put into their favorite child and thus is taking control of the market. Of course it can't all be blamed on big money. The people who develop products for browsers seem to like Chrome for exactly the same reason more people are developing for Windows than Linux. It's where the money is.
I think Mozilla and Firefox are fighting for their own survival. By far their browser uses less CPU and RAM than any of the popular Chrome based browsers. I like that, but it seems that Google has more resources (money) to put into their favorite child and thus is taking control of the market. Of course it can't all be blamed on big money. The people who develop products for browsers seem to like Chrome for exactly the same reason more people are developing for Windows than Linux. It's where the money is.
Re: Microsoft Linux Distro
Most Windows users are just that, users, and don't really know much about their computer or the Windows program for that manner. Many don't even know the basic commands for copy and paste.
And then many of ms programs, like msWord had numerous commands in illogical places. However, since the folks learned on msWord where those commands were, when they hit a logically organized program, they are lost.
When someone wants to Format something on page, they no longer look under Formatting Operations, they look under File Operations, because that's where Mickey$oft put it. Totally Illogical.
I preferred Apple over MS, but the two were not compatible and when the majority went with Windows, many of us were forced into using it whether we wanted to or not. Linux was too hard to learn and used, besides not having much support, which is another reason Windows gained such a strong foothold.
Even so, about the only place MS has maintained a strong hand is in the desktop market, they've lost out almost everywhere else. Nearly 90% of website hosts are run on Linux. A few offer Windows server but it is run on Linux too.
It was a number of years ago now. But when I talked to a host provider, he told me it cost them over 10 grand a year to provide WAMP, while LAMP was free. Their choice was simple, but they still had to have WAMP available for some clients.
And then many of ms programs, like msWord had numerous commands in illogical places. However, since the folks learned on msWord where those commands were, when they hit a logically organized program, they are lost.
When someone wants to Format something on page, they no longer look under Formatting Operations, they look under File Operations, because that's where Mickey$oft put it. Totally Illogical.
I preferred Apple over MS, but the two were not compatible and when the majority went with Windows, many of us were forced into using it whether we wanted to or not. Linux was too hard to learn and used, besides not having much support, which is another reason Windows gained such a strong foothold.
Even so, about the only place MS has maintained a strong hand is in the desktop market, they've lost out almost everywhere else. Nearly 90% of website hosts are run on Linux. A few offer Windows server but it is run on Linux too.
It was a number of years ago now. But when I talked to a host provider, he told me it cost them over 10 grand a year to provide WAMP, while LAMP was free. Their choice was simple, but they still had to have WAMP available for some clients.