-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

An odd feature of the list of supported linuxen for chrome is that it
indicates fedora 14 (not fedora 14+).  The current release of fedora is
18 and I didn't notice a warning on my fedora installs.  I wonder if
this is just a typo?

On 04/02/2013 04:09 AM, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2013, Robert Blair wrote:
> 
>> Slightly off topic but related:  now that 1) adobe is no longer
>> supporting flash for linux firefox plugins and 2) google is no longer
>> supporting google-chrome on SL, do we have a flash crisis?  Is there a
>> plan to deal with this by TUV?
> 
> 1) According to
> http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplatform/whitepapers/roadmap.html
> Adobe will support non-pepper flash 11.2 for five years from release,
> so we have another four years and it isn't a crisis yet.
> 
> 2) For those who haven't heard this, some links:
> http://support.google.com/chrome/bin/answer.py?hl=en-GB&answer=95411
> http://www.muktware.com/5203/google-says-red-hat-enterprise-linux-6-obsolete
> 
> 
> Seems that the issue is Google want to use C++11 / gcc4.6 which
> is not standard on RHEL6/SL6.
> 
> (I'm out of the loop but "developers ... prefer the new C++11 for the
> obvious security reasons" comes as a suprise to me.)
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRWvy+AAoJEPQM1KNWz8QaY/YH/3JCWFmJVrlURvb3tvfJz1/y
bH0hhRBAM5/VwjgKRI2UFnzhjFcTh4e0ISZ0zVVvZnsmCEXp2yV11WnpprhVqWqH
BOyA6OjZnVwiB36BtKKoIM8wnOLeFOKvp0IjKaCpN8E5X6SoLGqJhFVcRH6PlwUe
A0S8m8II4oMwRb9P09MEVECpHgS5HGU9Qajcz4o2SXg2/ICDdce4yyQcnQaoktmM
ahyxBL+KqtlJEXHVI3aVVVtiIs+W6zqe2WRT1z2iyn/wrdjA6e+e8FUITtIS+8Al
PO1LlxbpRSX32BcR2clRkthn7JBuxutfX9TCWpEETj5qmQGTA93oPLTpidFnBLQ=
=+3SU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----