Which Distro To Replace Windows?

leezard said:
Thats what I use on my "work" PC (same PC as my windows PC, i just use a HDD power switch to power on different OS drives)
Click to expand...

This is my work PC, I use it for everything. No need for Windows anymore. And the best thing is, if I somehow manage to kill the OS, I have a separate /HOME drive - So just reinstall the OS with the same or another distro and keep my /HOME drive and we're good to go again in no time!
 
ZzBloopzZ said:
After few days of research off and on I have decided on Fedora.

My personal reasons:

1. It is backed by Red Hat, which has a huge market share in the corporate world. Figured it would make me more marketable and a easier transition if I decide to do Red Hat certs one day.

2. I like the fact that Fedora is trying to implement new cutting edge stuff, which usually make it's way into future releases of Red Hat. Seems it would be more "exciting".

3. It uses SELinux. I just got into Cyber Security and figured it would be good to be more familiar with it.

4. Linus Torvalds uses Fedora on his personal machines.

5. I have read quite a bit of comments from more advanced linux users that Ubuntu is starting to have too much bloat.

Thanks everyone for all your helpful comments!
Click to expand...

I see frequent comments about Ubuntu being bloated, and it makes me chuckle. Is Ubuntu "heavier" than several other linux distributions? Sure. Unity is not lightweight. Like Aero, it has several visual effects that make it look nice, but do have a cost. Ubuntu also includes a number of default packages upon installation, making the footprint a bit larger than other linux distributions.

The larger point that gets overlooked, though, is that Ubuntu is still a far lighter OS than Windows. On something like your system, it will absolutely fly. Hell, it runs great on a C2D based systems like an E8400 as long as there's a halfway decent video card installed. It is only if you have truly old hardware that going with a lighter linux becomes necessary. Here are the minimum specs to run Unity with Ubuntu 14.04
  • 1 GHz processor (for example Intel Celeron or better)
  • 1 GB RAM (system memory)
  • 5 GB of free hard drive space for installation
  • 3D Acceleration Capable Videocard with at least 256 MB
If you don't want to use Unity, the memory requirement goes down to 512mb and you don't need as powerful a video card. Most systems built in the last 10 years can easily run it.
 
I'm using Download elementary OS which is based on Ubuntu but uses Gnome instead of Unity. It doesn't come with much installed either, but you go to the software center and then install what you want, which is how I prefer it.
 
I would suggest Linux Mint. I prefer the Cinnamon desktop but personal preference is big there. The nice thing about Linux though is that it's almost all free distros so I would also recommend to experiment and see what works for you. I tried Fedora, Ubuntu, OpenSuse and Lubuntu to see if I liked any of them more than Mint but ended up sticking with Mint which had been my original choice. Mint looks a lot like Windows with the start menu so it can be familiar to newcomers.
 
To replace Windows? I would say Kubuntu. They made Unity on regular Ubuntu too much like Mac OS. Mandriva would have also been a good choice, if it were still around. However, there is one suggestion I have to make...

You absolutely MUST install Chrome, and it will have to be done manually which can be a pain in the butt. Firefox is inferior on Linux because Adobe abandoned their Linux Firefox plugin, whereas Google bundles a more recent version of Flash with Chrome. Ubuntu also has the best Steam support of all Linux distributions.

You'll also want to look into Wine, and see which of your Windows programs will work on it. A lot of them probably won't, but I find that there are always surprises.

Chrome, Steam, LibreOffice, and Wine will go a long way towards getting you your "life" back after going Linux.
 
Chrome is available in a .deb package, therefore it installs via an installer and is no more difficult to install than it would be under Windows, you can simply download it off the Chrome site and install. Not only that but I use Firefox across all my platforms as I prefer it to Chrome due to the ability to set file types to open using third party software from within the browser itself rather than trying to set such functionality within the OS - A far simpler and more logical approach to things. I also prefer Firefox's default font rendering as opposed to the font rendering used in Chrome, and I have never, in any way, been limited by FF's inability to support flash.

Who uses flash these days anyway?!

For what it's worth, Firefox is also available packaged as a .deb installer - In fact most software is these days under Linux....

Anything that isn't available as .deb can easily be downloaded using apt with the added advantage that the software repository will be added allowing the software to update along with system updates as soon as new versions hit the repository.
 
BulletDust said:
Chrome is available in a .deb package, therefore it installs via an installer and is no more difficult to install than it would be under Windows, you can simply download it off the Chrome site and install. Not only that but I use Firefox across all my platforms as I prefer it to Chrome due to the ability to set file types to open using third party software from within the browser itself rather than trying to set such functionality within the OS - A far simpler and more logical approach to things. I also prefer Firefox's default font rendering as opposed to the font rendering used in Chrome, and I have never, in any way, been limited by FF's inability to support flash.

Who uses flash these days anyway?!

For what it's worth, Firefox is also available packaged as a .deb installer - In fact most software is these days under Linux....

Anything that isn't available as .deb can easily be downloaded using apt with the added advantage that the software repository will be added allowing the software to update along with system updates as soon as new versions hit the repository.
Click to expand...

What I mean is that you have to use apt-get on the command line and possibly add the Google repository to allow Chrome to update itself, rather than just going into the Software Manager, searching for it, and clicking install. It's a pain compared to Windows, but by Linux standards it's pretty darn easy. What I mean is that it's not as automatic as adding something that's already in the default repositories. We're doing this for a Windows person, we can't assume they're comfortable with the CLI and configuring apt sources. And the reason I'd advocate using it over Firefox is just so you don't have to switch browsers every time you have to deal with Flash.

Yeah, I know a lot of Linux and Apple people are anti-Flash and insist that you don't really "need it," perhaps going out of their way to make do without it, but it's nice to have. That whole philosophy of trying to push people not to use any proprietary software even if it's available and make them jump through hoops to get it is one of the things that turned me off Linux. There are still sites that use Flash... just 5 years ago, I knew one guy who made his entire website in Flash... no HTML. It's not as common on a lot of the big sites like YouTube anymore, but that doesn't mean there aren't websites out there using it. I've even had to use Wine to run Silverlight on a Gecko browser before, if you can believe that. So assuming that no one uses Flash or Silverlight anymore probably isn't a safe bet. If none of the websites you use require Flash, I guess Firefox is fine. But that definitely seems like something that makes it inferior to the Windows version of Firefox, IMO.
 
athenian200 said:
To replace Windows? I would say Kubuntu. They made Unity on regular Ubuntu too much like Mac OS. Mandriva would have also been a good choice, if it were still around. However, there is one suggestion I have to make...

You absolutely MUST install Chrome, and it will have to be done manually which can be a pain in the butt. Firefox is inferior on Linux because Adobe abandoned their Linux Firefox plugin, whereas Google bundles a more recent version of Flash with Chrome. Ubuntu also has the best Steam support of all Linux distributions.

You'll also want to look into Wine, and see which of your Windows programs will work on it. A lot of them probably won't, but I find that there are always surprises.

Chrome, Steam, LibreOffice, and Wine will go a long way towards getting you your "life" back after going Linux.
Click to expand...

I still prefer Firefox on Linux myself but one thing I will mention about Chrome is that it is the only browser on Linux I know of that will run Netflix so I would agree it is needed by most and that's why I keep it on my system.
 
athenian200 said:
What I mean is that you have to use apt-get on the command line and possibly add the Google repository to allow Chrome to update itself, rather than just going into the Software Manager, searching for it, and clicking install. It's a pain compared to Windows, but by Linux standards it's pretty darn easy. What I mean is that it's not as automatic as adding something that's already in the default repositories. We're doing this for a Windows person, we can't assume they're comfortable with the CLI and configuring apt sources. And the reason I'd advocate using it over Firefox is just so you don't have to switch browsers every time you have to deal with Flash.

Yeah, I know a lot of Linux and Apple people are anti-Flash and insist that you don't really "need it," perhaps going out of their way to make do without it, but it's nice to have. That whole philosophy of trying to push people not to use any proprietary software even if it's available and make them jump through hoops to get it is one of the things that turned me off Linux. There are still sites that use Flash... just 5 years ago, I knew one guy who made his entire website in Flash... no HTML. It's not as common on a lot of the big sites like YouTube anymore, but that doesn't mean there aren't websites out there using it. I've even had to use Wine to run Silverlight on a Gecko browser before, if you can believe that. So assuming that no one uses Flash or Silverlight anymore probably isn't a safe bet. If none of the websites you use require Flash, I guess Firefox is fine. But that definitely seems like something that makes it inferior to the Windows version of Firefox, IMO.
Click to expand...

You don't need to install chrome via apt, simply do as you would do under Windows - Do a Google search for Chrome, click on Download Chrome, and this screen pops up:

yHXvdRq.png


Click on the relevant .deb installer, the .deb downloads, double click on it, the installer starts, Chrome installs - Done. Every bit as easy as it is under Windows. Browsers have an auto update feature built into them, they will automatically update irregardless of whether they are installed via either apt or .deb just like they do under Windows.

As Far as Firefox being limited in comparison to Windows, I run Firefox on both my Windows and Linux machines and I do not, in any way whatsoever, notice any limitations when using Firefox under Linux - And my Linux PC is my daily driver used to run my business as I quite simply can't stand Windows anymore, I'm not too sure just what your finding limiting?

As stated by a previous poster, the only reason I have Chrome installed is for Netflix and Hangouts support. And due to the fact that I may be dumping Netflix soon due to their limiting the use of proxy's you can scratch one reason to keep Chrome installed off my list.
 
BulletDust said:
Click on the relevant .deb installer, the .deb downloads, double click on it, the installer starts, Chrome installs - Done. Every bit as easy as it is under Windows. Browsers have an auto update feature built into them, they will automatically update irregardless of whether they are installed via either apt or .deb just like they do under Windows.
Click to expand...

Well, if it actually adds the Google repository like it says on your screenshot, it should work fine. But every time I've installed Chrome from that screen, Chrome installed but couldn't add the repository by itself. I would notice Google getting slightly out of date and then look at the about screen and notice Chrome failing to update itself... until I add the repository manually. Apparently that's a bug on my machine and it's not supposed to be that difficult. Fair enough.
As Far as Firefox being limited in comparison to Windows, I run Firefox on both my Windows and Linux machines and I do not, in any way whatsoever, notice any limitations when using Firefox under Linux - And my Linux PC is my daily driver used to run my business as I quite simply can't stand Windows anymore, I'm not too sure just what your finding limiting?

As stated by a previous poster, the only reason I have Chrome installed is for Netflix and Hangouts support. And due to the fact that I may be dumping Netflix soon due to their limiting the use of proxy's you can scratch one reason to keep Chrome installed off my list.
Click to expand...
Well, like I said, I'm finding the lack of Flash limiting. And I do use Netflix, among other things. I feel like not having Silverlight is already a compromise... not having Flash is very nearly a dealbreaker. If you're being pedantic and saying that it's not Mozilla's fault that Adobe won't support Flash on their platform anymore, I would argue that I'm not blaming the developers of Firefox for that, but still insist that it negatively affects my experience. I either can't use Flash at all, or get messages about my Flash Player being out of date when using Linux Firefox.

You're the type not to access anything without a proxy, though, so you probably wouldn't go to the kind of sites that require Flash and Silverlight anyway. Probably smart of you, honestly, but some of us can't live within the limitations of a proxy, either. I find proxy servers limiting, too. The point is, just because you don't notice the limitations due to limited media consumption and being a task-focused business owner that prefers a paranoid security model, doesn't mean the average home user wouldn't notice the limitations. The problem is that many of the plugins that work with Firefox on Windows don't work with Firefox on Linux. Firefox itself is fine, but being more or less limited to base Firefox due to lack of plugin support is something I find unpleasant, personally. I mean, unless you've got Pipelight working somehow? If you're advanced enough to get Pipelight working, then Firefox is actually better with Plugin support than Chrome if you don't mind the performance hit and occasional bugs from non-native plugins.
 
I'm sorry, but are you honestly using Linux?

You are totally right, installing via the .deb will not add the repository as you are not installing via APT, but it still updates to the latest version everytime there is an updated version available via the browser itself, no different to Windows.

Furthermore, flash is an outdated technology that should be removed from every PC ASAP, it's so full of security holes it's not funny and I still don't know just what these limitations are that your experiencing due to a lack of flash support as opposed to the superior HTML 5? It's not Mozilla's fault there is a lack of flash support in FF, it's Adobe's fault they release a software package that is so full of security holes it's literally a security nightmare! I say good on Mozilla for giving flash the finger! I haven't noticed a single issue with a lack of flash support running FF under Linux.

As far as plugin support goes, I haven't had an issue with plugin compatibility running FF on Linux yet - Considering the plugin's are programmed to interface directly with FF I fail to see why plugin compatibility would be an issue whether the OS be Windows, OSX or Linux to be honest.

Once again, the only reason to have Chrome installed is for Netflix support, which is supposed to be coming to FF in coming updates. Due to the fact that I live in Australia and our Netflix catalog sucks and I don't understand the necessity to region block a TV series from 1991 and I can no longer use a proxy to get around this limitation, I am going to give Netflix the heave ho meaning there is literally no reason to have Chrome installed on my machine as I prefer FF to Chrome any day and find it runs identically to the way it runs on my Windows machine.

I do not use pipelight, I do not use WINE - Everything I run under Linux is native and I do not miss Windows or it's malware.
 
Last edited:
BulletDust said:
I'm sorry, but are you honestly using Linux?

You are totally right, installing via the .deb will not add the repository as you are not installing via APT, but it still updates to the latest version everytime there is an updated version available via the browser itself, no different to Windows.
Click to expand...

I use Linux, but mostly on older hardware that's not worth buying a Windows license for. I'll take your word for it that your computers do this, but even as recently as last year, my Chrome installation would become obsolete over time unless I added the repository manually. What I'm telling you is that it can't update itself via the browser because it doesn't have permission to update itself from Google's servers, the only trusted packages are from Canonical unless you change the apt sources. You would probably have to run Chrome as root to allow it to update itself via the browser without having Google in the repository, and that doesn't sound like a good idea.
Furthermore, flash is an outdated technology that should be removed from every PC ASAP, it's so full of security holes it's not funny and I still don't know just what these limitations are that your experiencing due to a lack of flash support as opposed to the superior HTML 5? It's not Mozilla's fault there is a lack of flash support in FF, it's Adobe's fault they release a software package that is so full of security holes it's literally a security nightmare! I say good on Mozilla for giving flash the finger! I haven't noticed a single issue with a lack of flash support running FF under Linux.
Click to expand...
You're talking to me as if I'm a web page developer that wants to use Flash. I agree that HTML5 is superior. The limitation is pretty simple, really... a lot of websites are programmed to use Flash and won't work without it. Some are just refusing to update, some have been abandoned, some of them hired developers that only know Flash and don't want to pay retraining costs, etc. Like I said, I've seen a few businesses write their entire website in Flash so that you couldn't use the site without it. I thought it was stupid, yes, but I still want to access the site, so I deal with it. What's worse than Flash is Silverlight... once again, a few people actually program critical features of their websites in Silverlight. The limitation is the inability to use or access websites that require anything non-standard. You're probably the kind of person that will boycott a site or a service because you don't like the technology they use for security, ideological, or technical reasons. Most people are not like that, and certainly people who are coming to Linux from Windows are not like that. I'm not saying that there's anything Flash can do that HTML5 can't do from a technical view of someone writing code today, I'm saying that existing websites written to use Flash aren't going away as fast as you'd like them to go away, and a lot of people don't want to stand on principle to avoid a website using an inferior or proprietary technology that's still somewhat ubiquitous.

As far as plugin support goes, I haven't had an issue with plugin compatibility running FF on Linux yet - Considering the plugin's are programmed to interface directly with FF I fail to see why plugin compatibility would be an issue whether the OS be Windows, OSX or Linux to be honest.
Click to expand...

If that were true, the Windows plug-ins for Widevine, Flash, Shockwave, and Silverlight would work fine under Firefox Linux without a solution like Wine or Pipelight. What you're saying is mostly true of add-on software, but it's not true of NPAPI plug-ins.
Once again, the only reason to have Chrome installed is for Netflix support, which is supposed to be coming to FF in coming updates. Due to the fact that I live in Australia and our Netflix catalog sucks and I don't understand the necessity to region block a TV series from 1991 and I can no longer use a proxy to get around this limitation, I am going to give Netflix the heave ho meaning there is literally no reason to have Chrome installed on my machine as I prefer FF to Chrome any day and find it runs identically to the way it runs on my Windows machine.

I do not use pipelight, I do not use WINE - Everything I run under Linux is native.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with your arguments, but this thread is about using Linux as a replacement for Windows. You're looking at this more like a UNIX/Linux person that has invested a lot into using native solutions and doing without functionality Windows people take for granted. You aren't looking at it from the perspective of someone that wants to migrate to Linux from Windows and who may not think the way you do. Not to mention that most of the people using this website are Americans and have no need to worry about using Netflix through a proxy. I'm sorry that their decision is causing issues for people in your situation, but people who can use Netflix probably aren't going to stop using it on principle.

Look, you're an intelligent person, I don't see much point in arguing with you. You're "right," but you seem to be thinking in terms of the future rather than the present and past. A lot of people need to use stuff that was designed for today, today, and maybe even a few things designed yesterday. Very few people are sitting on the bleeding edge. HTML5 was formally published as a standard less than 2 years ago.
 
With Linux keep it simple. Any OS where you're dicking around typing commands in is completely outdated unless you want to be l337 and feel cool crapping on windows users. Pretty sure this is what scared off most users myself included. I mean DOS vs. Windows for example. I enjoyed using Mint because everything I needed was there, I think it's a great beginner OS to Linux but once you have it installed you're kinda like oh, well that done that was easy everything seems to be there. Ubuntu I feel is the next step up which you can be a bit more brave as not everything is at your finger tips. I think Ubuntu, Mint, did the Linux community a great service although I'm sure the Linux l337 are dwelling in their basements disagreeing.
 
athenian200 said:
I use Linux, but mostly on older hardware that's not worth buying a Windows license for. I'll take your word for it that your computers do this, but even as recently as last year, my Chrome installation would become obsolete over time unless I added the repository manually. What I'm telling you is that it can't update itself via the browser because it doesn't have permission to update itself from Google's servers, the only trusted packages are from Canonical unless you change the apt sources. You would probably have to run Chrome as root to allow it to update itself via the browser without having Google in the repository, and that doesn't sound like a good idea.
Click to expand...

I've been running numerous distro's of Linux for years now and this has never been the case in my experience - I download the .deb, install the software as easily as you install it under Windows via GUI and it updates along with system updates, Firefox is the same - Both are always automatically kept up to date with no input on my behalf, not too sure why your experience was in any way different?

You're talking to me as if I'm a web page developer that wants to use Flash. I agree that HTML5 is superior. The limitation is pretty simple, really... a lot of websites are programmed to use Flash and won't work without it. Some are just refusing to update, some have been abandoned, some of them hired developers that only know Flash and don't want to pay retraining costs, etc. Like I said, I've seen a few businesses write their entire website in Flash so that you couldn't use the site without it. I thought it was stupid, yes, but I still want to access the site, so I deal with it. What's worse than Flash is Silverlight... once again, a few people actually program critical features of their websites in Silverlight. The limitation is the inability to use or access websites that require anything non-standard. You're probably the kind of person that will boycott a site or a service because you don't like the technology they use for security, ideological, or technical reasons. Most people are not like that, and certainly people who are coming to Linux from Windows are not like that. I'm not saying that there's anything Flash can do that HTML5 can't do from a technical view of someone writing code today, I'm saying that existing websites written to use Flash aren't going away as fast as you'd like them to go away, and a lot of people don't want to stand on principle to avoid a website using an inferior or proprietary technology that's still somewhat ubiquitous.
Click to expand...

I have never experienced any form of website limitation running Firefox - My browsing experience is absolutely, 100% identical across all devices, all websites that work under Windows running Firefox run equally as well under Linux running Firefox. Running every browser but Dolphin Browser on Android I can see flash limitations, but not running FF on Linux, not at all. Once again, not too sure what your issue was there? Don't take me out of context, my point is not to insult you, just to let people know that Linux isn't the scary terminal based OS the purists would like you to believe it is and in my experience I have found it to be vastly better than Windows.

If that were true, the Windows plug-ins for Widevine, Flash, Shockwave, and Silverlight would work fine under Firefox Linux without a solution like Wine or Pipelight. What you're saying is mostly true of add-on software, but it's not true of NPAPI plug-ins.
Click to expand...

We seem to be getting confused with plugins and addons. I don't want Silverlight anywhere near my Linux PC and once again, I just don't experience these limitations as a result of dumping Windows that your describing? Yes, Silverlight is necessary for Netflix playback under Windows and I assume is necessary on some websites - However I'm yet to find them, but I can playback Netflix using Chrome on Linux so it's a non issue? And from what I read Netflix DRM support is coming to FF anyway, despite resistance from the diehard Linux brigade regarding closed source, non optional code being included in FF by default. I'm not one of these diehard open source fanatics, I simply use what works best for me, open source or not.

Have you got a website screenshot that I can compare?

There's nothing wrong with your arguments, but this thread is about using Linux as a replacement for Windows. You're looking at this more like a UNIX/Linux person that has invested a lot into using native solutions and doing without functionality Windows people take for granted. You aren't looking at it from the perspective of someone that wants to migrate to Linux from Windows and who may not think the way you do. Not to mention that most of the people using this website are Americans and have no need to worry about using Netflix through a proxy. I'm sorry that their decision is causing issues for people in your situation, but people who can use Netflix probably aren't going to stop using it on principle.
Click to expand...

This is just not correct. I haven't lost any functionality that I had under Windows with the exception of probably a couple of AAA games that I don't care for anymore anyway. All other gaming titles that I enjoy are natively supported under Linux - In some cases, running NV hardware and propitiatory drivers they actually perform 'better' under Linux. In actual fact, I have gained functionality not to mention freedom running Linux. Just the way the desktop is managed under Linux is so much better than the simplistic way the desktop is managed under Windows, multiple desktops work better than they do even under Windows 10, software opens in a Window where I leave the pointer on the desktop, dock applications are miles ahead of their Windows counterparts, I can run two completely separate X server sessions on each of my monitors - The list goes on...

Most of the software I need on a daily basis is available cross platform, software that isn't available cross platform has open source alternatives that actually work better for me given my needs - Windows is able to offer me nothing that I cannot achieve more efficiently under Linux, literally nothing.

With the exception of diehard gamers and professionals locked down to propitiatory software, I'd assume 75% of people out there could easily switch to Linux provided they were prepared to accept and embrace change as opposed to simply carrying on with what they're used to via years of MS monopolization - And that adaption isn't as drastic as some would lead you to believe.

Unlike yourself - I don't believe in wasting perfectly good hardware on Windows.
 
Last edited:
SpongeBob said:
With Linux keep it simple. Any OS where you're dicking around typing commands in is completely outdated unless you want to be l337 and feel cool crapping on windows users. Pretty sure this is what scared off most users myself included. I mean DOS vs. Windows for example. I enjoyed using Mint because everything I needed was there, I think it's a great beginner OS to Linux but once you have it installed you're kinda like oh, well that done that was easy everything seems to be there. Ubuntu I feel is the next step up which you can be a bit more brave as not everything is at your finger tips. I think Ubuntu, Mint, did the Linux community a great service although I'm sure the Linux l337 are dwelling in their basements disagreeing.
Click to expand...

Actually, in my experience, vanilla Ubuntu is more simplistic than Mint. Mind you, they're literally the same OS with a different desktop manager anyway.

However, installing software via APT is so simplistic that if an individual can't handle it, than I would question their reasoning behind being part of a tech oriented forum? Why limit your knowledge to one OS made for the masses if your technically inclined?

The problem with Windows, apart from it's numerous security holes that have nothing to do with it's popularity - Is it's simply far too easy to install software, from literally anywhere....

...As well as malware, viruses and spyware.

I deal with issues surrounding operating systems based on the NT kernel on a daily basis and anyone that tries to claim that they have never suffered from some form of malware, spyware, rootkit or virus attack under Windows or doesn't know anyone that has is simply taking the piss!

SpongeBob, good job at giving Mint a go. Windows is like an addiction, it usually takes numerous attempts to break free.
 
Last edited:
yeongil said:
Less than three weeks now! April 21st, last I heard. Can't wait -- I intend to do a clean install of 16.04 on my laptop.
Click to expand...

I saw a video of Ubuntu running Unity 8 Mir (?), looked really impressive. I don't think I'd switch from Ubuntu Mate, but credit where credit is due as it looked great.
 
Talking about Flash support under Firefox on Linux vs Windows, i find these screenshots of my two rigs very interesting:

Linux:

XItM2OV.png


Windows:

G4o7cyk.png
 
BulletDust said:
Talking about Flash support under Firefox on Linux vs Windows, i find these screenshots of my two rigs very interesting:

Linux:

XItM2OV.png
Click to expand...

You got Flash 21 working in Firefox?! Okay, how did you do that? Everything I've ever read or tried has told me that was impossible without some kind of simulation layer like Pipelight or Wine. Did Adobe start supporting it again? Did Firefox finally implement Pepper API? I've never heard of anyone getting a Flash version beyond 11.2 working in Firefox. I do notice you have that old version installed as well... but you have the new one right next to it. Did you somehow manage to extract the Firefox-interfacing part of the plugin from the Windows executable and make it work? I've been using Firefox on Windows and Chrome on Linux to work around this issue for the past three years, so I'm definitely interested in how you pulled this off.

By the way, I do know of some sites that require Flash 12 or higher, but they aren't sites I personally use. Mostly paid sites and business-related sites I don't use anyway, but I know about them because I've had to help random people struggling to use Linux with them. About a year ago, this argument would have been easy and I could have used Google Play or monetized YouTube videos as an example, but now that they're on HTML5, I don't use a lot of other media-heavy or proprietary business sites, and thus I'm not really in a good position to test your argument. A lot of other people use junky websites that I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole and complain that they don't work, and that's usually when I tell them to try Chrome and/or Wine before giving up and going back to Windows. One would be AnyMeeting, but I don't want to give them my credit card info just to take a screenshot. Another is a French site that I can't view in the US anyway because of geographical restrictions. Kind of like you and Netflix. LOL.

But if you have Flash 21, why were you trying to argue that you don't need any version of Flash newer than 11.2? You could have just told me you had it working before I went to all the trouble of trying to find a free website in the US that requires Flash 12 or higher, installing Flash 11.2 on Firefox for Linux, installing Firefox on Windows with the latest plugin, and then trying to show you a screenshot of a website asking you to update Flash player on Linux while working on the latest version with Windows. I found a lot of websites that use Flash heavily, but admittedly very few that require a recent version. Most still work with Flash 10.
 
Last edited:
athenian200 said:
You got Flash 21 working in Firefox?! Okay, how did you do that? Everything I've ever read or tried has told me that was impossible without some kind of simulation layer like Pipelight or Wine. Did Adobe start supporting it again? Did Firefox finally implement Pepper API? I've never heard of anyone getting a Flash version beyond 11.2 working in Firefox. I do notice you have that old version installed as well... but you have the new one right next to it. Did you somehow manage to extract the Firefox-interfacing part of the plugin from the Windows executable and make it work? I've been using Firefox on Windows and Chrome on Linux to work around this issue for the past three years, so I'm definitely interested in how you pulled this off.

By the way, I do know of some sites that require Flash 12 or higher, but they aren't sites I personally use. Mostly paid sites and business-related sites I don't use anyway, but I know about them because I've had to help random people struggling to use Linux with them. About a year ago, this argument would have been easy and I could have used Google Play or monetized YouTube videos as an example, but now that they're on HTML5, I don't use a lot of other media-heavy or proprietary business sites, and thus I'm not really in a good position to test your argument. A lot of other people use junky websites that I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole and complain that they don't work, and that's usually when I tell them to try Chrome and/or Wine before giving up and going back to Windows. One would be AnyMeeting, but I don't want to give them my credit card info just to take a screenshot. Another is a French site that I can't view in the US anyway because of geographical restrictions. Kind of like you and Netflix. LOL.

But if you have Flash 21, why were you trying to argue that you don't need any version of Flash newer than 11.2? You could have just told me you had it working before I went to all the trouble of trying to find a free website in the US that requires Flash 12 or higher, installing Flash 11.2 on Firefox for Linux, installing Firefox on Windows with the latest plugin, and then trying to show you a screenshot of a website asking you to update Flash player on Linux while working on the latest version with Windows. I found a lot of websites that use Flash heavily, but admittedly very few that require a recent version. Most still work with Flash 10.
Click to expand...

I'd never checked what version of flash I was running as I never had any issues rendering webpages - Literally never!

I will let you in on a little secret that I discovered as a result of our discussion though, and it's a very, very simple fix:

How to get the latest version of Flash on Firefox for Linux after Adobe's abandonment

I literally took that seceenshot after I installed it - All up the process took less than a minute! No sandboxing, but we are running Linux here, I'm not too concerned. Open source community to the rescue!

But I have to emphasize, I have never, ever, had an issue with Flash under Firefox and I have never had a webpage that wouldn't render correctly on my Linux machine that rendered correctly on my Windows machine - And I use this Linux PC 99.9% of the time. I wasn't arguing about the requirement for newer versions of flash, I was stating quite honestly that I have never experienced any of the issues you described running Firefox under Linux at default settings in comparison to Chrome.

I actually tried to switch to Chrome a little while back, I really, really tried and I got really close. But no matter what I did I just couldn't get Chrome to use Deluge as my default torrent client as opposed to Transmission. I couldn't remove Transmission entirely as it's part of the distro with dependencies required by the distro - In the end it was simpler and easier to use Firefox where the selection of third party software to open magnet links was stupidly simpler and easier as the selection is made from within the browser itself.

Flash needs to die though, it needs to be smashed to a pulp, it's rubbish.
 
Last edited:
Just a quick pic proving my point. Both Firefox and Chrome will automatically update via system updates when installed via .deb files, and .deb files are as easy to install as any Windows software available. It can also be seen from that shot that Adobe Flashplayer [shudder] is also updating.

8uofqDv.png
 
Last edited:
I've been using Korora for about 2 weeks now and I really like it. I'm using it with Gnome and it simply works, no fuss. I have one odd issue which is a fringe case and that is for development, a local proxy I use sometimes, doesn't work over VPN, but it works when used in an Ubuntu VM on the same machine, so yeah. But that is a fringe case. I may have to switch to Ubuntu if I really need it locally, though.

Other than that off the wall issue, it works great.
 
I'm using Ubuntu on my old 2ghz laptop w/ 6GB ram (2GB is for video) & it's OK.

I tried a MINT on my desktop as a VM & liked it a lot.

I didn't want to hassle with re-installing because the laptop dual boots with Win 10.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top