On 11/22/2013 01:25 PM, Chris Beattie wrote: > On 11/22/2013 11:29 AM, Phelps, Matt wrote: >> Most of us using CentOS/RHEL are in an "e"nterprise environment where >> that sort of thing just isn't allowed. >> >> A supported, updated, secured version of chrome/chromium is essential >> for our CentOS environment, and I venture to guess many others' >> (including RHEL users). > What happens if there comes a time when Johnny's heavy wizardry isn't enough to keep Chrome running on CentOS? Or if he just doesn't have time to do it? The browser that you need won't run on the OS which you can't change. You have a Kobayashi Maru scenario. You can't win unless you can change the rules. > > I do something similar, but in my case, I provide virtual machines loaded with older versions of Internet Explorer for QA testers. The testers can't do any permanent damage to the VMs that the hypervisor won't fix when it reverts the VM after the tester logs off. Meanwhile, the version of IE on the testers' main machines is kept up-to-date. > BTW, I like chrome, so that is why I am trying to maintain this ... but it is GOOGLE who is not maintaining the code to work on EL. Just like Google also decided to NOT provide a Google Drive for Linux and a bunch of other things. I am just about to say screw Google as they don't seem to care about enterprise linux at all .. if it isn't android or the absolute latest and greatest glibc/gtk/glib combo then they don't want to support it. If that is the case, who am I to make their code work for millions of users who THEY seem unconcerned about. If someone from Google gives a crap about getting chrome working on the several million machine universe that is CentOS users, you guys contact me and let me know ... otherwise, I'll just assume you don't give a damn. Thanks, Johnny Hughes The CentOS Project
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
