[11:32] <cousin_luigi> Greetings.
[11:59] <asac> chrisccoulson: ffox restart worked :)
[11:59] <asac> well done
[11:59] <asac> which file shall i touch to try a more stress way (try many times)
[15:51] <cousin_luigi> Tell me, will Chromium be able to rely on the PPAPI implementation of the flash player?
[15:56] <micahg> cousin_luigi: that's what Adobe has committed to for the future, Ubuntu will be staying with 11.2 though for its life
[15:58] <cousin_luigi> micahg: I mean Chromium instead of Chrome.
[15:59] <micahg> cousin_luigi: I would think so
[16:00] <cousin_luigi> micahg: Someone on irc.mozilla.org/#firefox said that it might not be that obvious.
[16:01] <micahg> unless it uses the native client in some way which we haven't reenabled for chromium yet
[16:01] <cousin_luigi> micahg: I can't find the link now, but it was something about the plugin being distributed only with Chrome.
[16:01] <kbrosnan> the only thing is that adobe said that they don't plan on distributing flash as a download
[16:02] <micahg> cousin_luigi: yes, but we don't distribute flash with chromium now
[16:02] <micahg> oh, right, they're not distributing binaries anymore :)
[16:02] <micahg> well, for 11.3+
[16:02] <cousin_luigi> micahg: Does google?
[16:02] <micahg> yeah, with Chrome, so I guess your point is valid
[16:02]  * micahg digs up the article
[16:03] <cousin_luigi> So, basically Chromium will have the API but not the binary blob to interface to?
[16:03] <micahg> right
[16:03] <cousin_luigi> :(
[16:04] <cousin_luigi> Do you think it would be viable (both legally and technically) extracting it from the Chrome installer?
[16:04] <micahg> http://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/2012/02/adobe-and-google-partnering-for-flash-player-on-linux.html
[16:05] <micahg> doubtful
[16:06] <cousin_luigi> What about Lightspark and Shumway then?
[16:09] <micahg> cousin_luigi: they'll continue to reverse engineer and try to keep up
[16:10] <micahg> but those projects (gnash as well) need distro and upstream people interested in driving development and rollout of these products
[16:11] <chrisccoulson> what we need is for flash to get hit by a bus and die entirely
[16:12] <cousin_luigi> My very personal hunch is that pay-per-view streaming sites will keep it alive, porn ones especially.
[16:12] <cousin_luigi> Oh yes, and dumb games.:)
[16:13] <chrisccoulson> "google chrome - for people who watch porn" :-)
[16:15] <chrisccoulson> if i were a conspiracy theorist, i would think that google would like to become the sole distributor of flash whilst it's still relevant, to give themselves a very big lever for the web, so that they can make everyone use chrome
[16:15] <chrisccoulson> but, i don't believe in conspiracy theories really ;)
[16:16] <chrisccoulson> of course, google aren't evil like that
[16:16] <chrisccoulson> so they say
[16:16] <cousin_luigi> Well, they would only have a lever on linux (2% of the desktop market) and Android.
[16:16] <cousin_luigi> I suspect Adobe wanted to get rid of the burden.
[16:16] <chrisccoulson> i mean, they did get rid of h.264 from chrome, like they said they would
[16:16] <chrisccoulson> oh, wait...
[16:17] <chrisccoulson> cousin_luigi, i'm pretty sure that adobe dropping linux is just the start ;)
[16:17]  * cousin_luigi goes fetch a tinfoil roll and passes around
[16:17] <chrisccoulson> i think it would be naive to think that they won't drop other platforms in the future
[16:17] <chrisccoulson> heh
[16:18] <chrisccoulson> yeah, i should put on my tinfoil hat really
[16:18] <cousin_luigi> Why would they? They're even planning to make more money from it.
[16:18] <cousin_luigi> The 9% tax or whatever is the official denomination.
[16:19] <chrisccoulson> cousin_luigi, well, i'm not sure what adobe's plans for flash are. but, they already killed mobile development, and now they've dropped linux
[16:20] <cousin_luigi> https://www.adobe.com/devnet/flashplayer/articles/premium-features.html
[16:21] <cousin_luigi> Well, flash mobile=android pretty much.
[16:21] <cousin_luigi> And we're back at Google.:|
[16:22] <chrisccoulson> :)
[16:31]  * cousin_luigi wonders what's the legal status of https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=57249
[16:34] <chrisccoulson> not sure. it seems that they do the same with the pdf plugin too
[16:37] <cousin_luigi> chrisccoulson: Do you think a PPA based on that would be a problem?
[16:38] <chrisccoulson> i'm not sure
[16:39] <micahg> cousin_luigi: you have to check the licensing, if it's not distributable, then yes, it's a problem
[16:40] <cousin_luigi> micahg: Even if it's the user itself downloading and extracting it?
[16:41] <micahg> cousin_luigi: https://help.launchpad.net/PPATermsofUse
[16:42] <chrisccoulson> someone had their PPA disabled recently for hosting the sun java packages ;)
[16:43] <cousin_luigi> micahg: I believe the script itself is GPL'd
[16:43] <cousin_luigi> micahg: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ch/chromium-pepper-flash/PKGBUILD
[16:43] <cousin_luigi> chrisccoulson: I hope it's not the webupd8 one for the oracle jdk7:/
[16:44] <micahg> cousin_luigi: IANAL and refuse to comment further :)
[16:44] <cousin_luigi> micahg: Ok:)
[16:44] <cousin_luigi> micahg: Who do you think I should ask?
[16:45] <micahg> cousin_luigi: if there's a question of licensing in PPAs, #launchpad
[16:45] <cousin_luigi> micahg: ok, thanks
[16:45] <micahg> cousin_luigi: or file a requestnchpad at answers.launchpad.net/lau
[16:45] <micahg> *answers.launchpad.net/launchpad
[16:51] <cousin_luigi> You know what? I'll petition the webupd8 team and have them risk their $NETHER_REGIONS. :)
[16:55] <chrisccoulson> i think that the oracle downloader one is probably ok. if it wasn't, then it's likely that it would have disappeared already ;)
[16:57] <chrisccoulson> of course, IANAL either. perhaps nobody spotted that PPA before :)
[17:43] <chrisccoulson> woah, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17589298
[17:44] <chrisccoulson> i bet that guy needed some new underwear after that
[17:50] <cousin_luigi> How come he had a camera following him?