Posts: 682
Threads: 98
Joined: Apr 2014
Reputation:
0
I take it chromium 32 bit is all OK- i.e not "back door" vulnerable??
2006 - HP DC7700p ultraslim Desktop Intel 6300 cpu 4GB Ram LL3.8 64bit.
2007 - Fujitsu Siemens V3405 Laptop 2 GB Ram LL3.6 32bit. Now 32bit Debian 9 + nonfree.
2006 - Fujitsu Siemens Si1520 Laptop Intel T720 cpu 3GB Ram LL5.6 64 Bit
2014 - Fujitsu Siemens Lifebook E754 Intel i7 4712MQ 16GB Ram LL6.6
2003 - RETIRED Toshiba Satellite Pro A10 1 GB RAM LL2.8 32bit
Posts: 1,599
Threads: 86
Joined: Jun 2015
Reputation:
0
Monkeyman,
If your updates don't run for some reason, then copy and paste the two aforementioned 64bit lines of code into a terminal as a workaround. It's been over a week since Google made their change. It doesn't seem like they're trying to make this correction on their own. It's disappointing because I've helped several people move over to Linux and I just don't see them investigating this issue to fix it on their own like you are...and it's not their fault or yours.
newtusmaximus,
Chromium should be fine in 32-bit. I cannot speak to back doors, but it is still supported for Linux unlike 32-bit Google Chrome for Linux.
Want to thank me? Click my [Thank] link.
Posts: 464
Threads: 17
Joined: Feb 2015
Reputation:
0
Yep, therefore I asked for the possibility to make it sticking out.
Have you guys considered to release two new ISOs to at least avoid the hassle with/ posts from new installations from these ISOs?
Posts: 8,900
Threads: 544
Joined: Feb 2014
Reputation:
5
I have considered releasing updated isos, but I'm not going to do that. LL 3.0 is just around the corner.