firefox 1.0.1 and java
by Gerhard Magnus
Once I installed the new firefox 1.0.1 I lost the java runtime
environment I had finally been able to get working with firefox 1.0.
The "About Mozilla Firefox" window says I'm running "Firefox/1.0.1
Fedora/1.0.1-1.3.2". I assume this new version of firefox is using
files from the directory tree that starts /usr/lib/firefox-1.0.1, which
means I need to make a symbolic link (using the ln -s command)
from /usr/java/jre1.5.0/plugin/i386/ns7/libjavaplugin_oji.so
to /usr/lib/firefox-1.0.1/plugins. This is the same procedure I
successfully used before to make the link in
the /usr/lib/firefox-1.0/plugins directory.
For some reason this procedure is not working -- the new link
in /usr/lib/firefox-1.0.1/plugins appears in red instead of blue. I've
tried deleting the link (using rm -r) from both
the /usr/lib/firefox-1.0/plugins and the /usr/lib/firefox-1.0.1/plugins
directories. Although they no longer show up (using ls -al) the link
creation (using ln -s) still gives a non-functioning link. Then when I
do a locate libjavaplugin_oji.so I get --
/usr/java/j2re1.4.2_06/plugin/i386/ns610/libjavaplugin_oji.so
/usr/java/j2re1.4.2_06/plugin/i386/ns610-gcc32/libjavaplugin_oji.so
/usr/java/jre1.5.0/plugin/i386/ns7/libjavaplugin_oji.so
/usr/java/jre1.5.0/plugin/i386/ns7-gcc29/libjavaplugin_oji.so
/usr/lib/firefox-1.0/plugins/libjavaplugin_oji.so
/usr/lib/firefox-1.0.1/plugins/libjavaplugin_oji.so
which seems to be saying the links are still there in both firefox
directories! When I try ls -l on the /usr/lib/firefox-1.0.1/plugins
directory I get:
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Mar 6 16:51 libjavaplugin_oji.so ->
libjavaplugin_oji.so
flashing in red -- it looks like the link is linking to itself. Or
something.... Any suggestions on how to clean this up or at least to
hack through it further?
18 years, 6 months
gcc not compiling
by Dotan Cohen
I'm just getting started in programming C. My first attempt:
#include < stdio.h>
void main () {
printf("\nHello World!\n");
}
Threw this error:
[dotancohen@localhost ~]$ gcc hello.c
hello.c:1:20: error: stdio.h: No such file or directory
hello.c: In function 'main':
hello.c:3: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in
function 'printf'
hello.c:2: warning: return type of 'main' is not 'int'
hello.c:4:2: warning: no newline at end of file
So I googled for "1:20: error: stdio.h: No such file or directory"
and found a post that suggests that the answer to the problem is found
in the gcc manual. So I started reading it, but it is long and I'm not
finding anything!
I think that I'm missing a library stdio.h but I don't know where to
find it, and where to put it once I do find it. Or am I completly
wrong? The error message is pretty clear.
Dotan Cohen
http://technology-sleuth.com/question/how_can_i_be_safe_online.html
18 years, 6 months
ICH5 > 2.6.11 kernel panic
by tlc
P4P800-E Delux / 3.0E / 2GB ram / 80GB sata ( ICH5 )
FC3 upgraded to FC4
2.6.11.12 #5 SMP Thu Oct 20 17:18:06 EDT 2005 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
SATA set to compatibility mode, secondary PATA + SATA.
SATA boot drive, CD/DVDRW on PATA ( secondary )
The 2.6.11 kernel works fine, it sees my sata drive as /dev/sda and my
cds as /dev/hdc and /dev/hdd
When I try to upgrade past 2.6.11, I get a kernel panic on boot.
Kernel panic - not syncing: VFS : Unable to mount root fs on
unknown-block(0,0)
I have not paid much attention to the problem ( lack of time ) but I
would like to get this resolved as hald and udev act funny under 2.6.11,
so I compile a 2.6.14 kernel and I get the same error.
I have also tried the default FC4 kernels and past 2.6.11 I get the same
problem, and I have it on more then one machine. I have it on base
installs after I do an upgrade.
So I am assuming a driver was changed, or split, or something ..
I can't paste the boot up log because it scrolls by too fast and the
file system does not mount so it can not save it any where.
I suspect it is not finding/using the sata drive and hence the error.
Anyone have any clues?
18 years, 6 months
server Crashing
by Gary Stainburn
Hi folks. I've got a new install FC4 box which keeps crashing. I've
replaced the memory because it looked like a mem fault, but it's still
happening, and has suddenly got worse. Looking in /var/log/messages
shows entries like below. I've done a yum update this morning but it
hasn't made any difference.
Anyone got any ideas what's wrong?:
Oct 31 11:53:51 eddie kernel: Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer
dereference at virtual address 00000024
Oct 31 11:53:51 eddie kernel: printing eip:
Oct 31 11:53:51 eddie kernel: c012daf9
Oct 31 11:53:51 eddie kernel: *pde = 00000000
Oct 31 11:53:51 eddie kernel: Oops: 0000 [#1]
Oct 31 11:53:51 eddie kernel: Modules linked in:
Oct 31 11:53:51 eddie kernel: CPU: 0
Oct 31 11:53:51 eddie kernel: EIP: 0060:[<c012daf9>] Not tainted
VLI
Oct 31 11:53:51 eddie kernel: EFLAGS: 00010246 (2.6.13-1.1532_FC4)
Oct 31 11:53:51 eddie kernel: EIP is at do_exit+0x625/0x942
Oct 31 11:53:51 eddie kernel: eax: 00000000 ebx: c16d4550 ecx:
df7e6c80 edx: 00000000
Oct 31 11:53:51 eddie kernel: esi: df7ec6c0 edi: 00000000 ebp:
00000001 esp: c16e6f54
Oct 31 11:53:51 eddie kernel: ds: 007b es: 007b ss: 0068
Oct 31 11:53:51 eddie kernel: Process udev (pid: 28, threadinfo=c16e6000
task=c16d4550)
Oct 31 11:53:52 eddie kernel: Stack: 0000038d 00000000 bfe98750 bfe986b4
00000003 c16e6000 c01b1e69 0000038d
Oct 31 11:53:52 eddie kernel: 0000ea00 ffffffea c1686500 0000ea00
c16e6000 c012df6d 00001000 00000000
Oct 31 11:53:52 eddie kernel: c16e6fbc c0414a2c 00000004 0000000e
0000000b 080d8078 ffffffea ffffffea
Oct 31 11:53:52 eddie kernel: Call Trace:
Oct 31 11:53:52 eddie kernel: [<c01b1e69>] sys_stat64+0x23/0x28
Oct 31 11:53:52 eddie kernel: [<c012df6d>] do_group_exit+0x12b/0x349
Oct 31 11:53:52 eddie kernel: [<c0104465>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
Oct 31 11:53:52 eddie kernel: Code: 89 d8 e8 7c 74 10 00 85 ed 74 1a 8b
83 6c 04 00 00 8b b8 98 00 00 00 85 ff 74 0a b8 01 00 00 00 e8 6a ea 17
00 8b 43 04 8b 40 04 <8b> 40 24 85 c0 74 0b ff 88 00 01 00 00 83 38 02
74 6e 8b 83 80
Oct 31 11:53:52 eddie kernel: <1>Fixing recursive fault but reboot is
needed!
--
Gary Stainburn
This email does not contain private or confidential material as it
may be snooped on by interested government parties for unknown
and undisclosed purposes - Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, 2000
18 years, 6 months
RE: Linux killer!
by Timothy A. Holmes
-----Original Message-----
From: fedora-list-bounces(a)redhat.com
[mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of STYMA, ROBERT E
(ROBERT)
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 11:21 AM
To: 'Robin.Laing(a)drdc-rddc.gc.ca'; 'For users of Fedora Core releases'
Subject: RE: Linux killer!
>
> If they are not supposed to be watching the videos on the school
> computers, then block them at the firewall as our business
> does. When
> they cannot watch them on Windows it won't make any difference.
>
I think the point is that if Linux is to make a bigger dent in the
Windows desktop, more things have to "just work". In a similar
experiment
to the one which started this thread, I slowly converted a non-technical
family with three computers from windows to Linux and recorded the
issues which came up.
(http://www.swlink.net/~styma/LinuxForTheMasses.shtml)
The current distributions of Linux still need a technical person
to get things working. The technical person would still have no clue
as to how to get these things working. Many of them require a fair
amount of research on the web. I understand the reasons mp3's and
wmv's don't play right out of the box, but to get "Joe Sixpack" using
Linux requires an update process simple enough for "Joe Sixpack" to
use to get this functionality working.
If making Linux really simple is not working out, another model might
be to have pay subscriptions to remote maintenance services. The FC3
and FC4 boxes I maintain for my friends I can access remotely via
SSH and VNC. On a Windows box, if tech support cannot talk you through
the problem, the user ends up taking the box in and paying big bucks.
ssh, /etc/hosts.allow, and iptables could provide a very effective
support
mechanism. On my friends boxes, I am the only one with the root
password,
not that they would understand what root was anyway.
Just my 2 cents worth. My point is that Linux needs to be simple in
addition to being better.
Bob Styma
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
[Timothy A. Holmes]
It goes again to the issue of what is the purpose of Linux -- if it is
to replace or at least provide significant competition to Windows, then
I agree, if it is to stay in its server / techie niche market, than it
has achieved that. The linux community as a whole (all distros) needs
to define its purpose and begin improvement based on that. A further
area of difficulty is the installers. RPMs work most of the time, as
does synaptic on Ubuntu, but once you get outside of that, forget it --
my experience with compiling from source is terrible at best (over 60
hours trying to get a satellite tracking program working on Fedora Core
3 (I finally gave up, reformatted the box, and installed windows -- the
equivalent windows program installed in 3 minutes (including download)
FOLKS THAT'S GOTTA CHANGE) if one thing will kill linux, it is the
whole installer issue -- we gotta fix that. Right now, there is no way
that I would consider taking our school to linux for front end
applications (stuffs not available for linux, and wine DOES NOT WORK
(that's a whole other story but the time total on that one was about 20
hours before I gave up)
It comes down to one very very simple thing -- STUFFS GOTTA JUST WORK --
if we want to have linux become mainstream in our society
Thanks for listening
TIM
Timothy A. Holmes
IT Manager / Network Admin / Web Master / Computer Teacher
Medina Christian Academy
A Higher Standard...
Jeremiah 33:3
Jeremiah 29:11
Esther 4:14
18 years, 6 months
RE: Linux killer!
by Styma, Robert E (Robert)
> ----
> Anticipation that a Linux Desktop is a easy swap replacement
> for Windows
> Desktop is simply a matter of expectations. It is what it is and where
> it is any given place in time. Railing here on this list is the
> equivalent to pissing in the wind.
>
> The thread began with issues relating to proprietary software using
> proprietary codecs and if more people were using Linux, there would be
> more pressure to adopt codecs that Linux users could utilize without
> doing technical tango.
>
As you said, "It is what it is" and that seems to apply to the
proprietary codecs also. The mplayer developers have done a marvelous
job integrating the windows codecs. Searching out this information
is non-trivial (without some luck) and difficult for the uninitiated.
This mailing list has a pretty good cross section of current Fedora users
and has some extremely intelligent and knowledgeable people on it.
It may well be that since software installation does and should require
some sort of administrative account (eg. root) and putting the root
account in the hands of the uneducated can be a terrible thing, a
different model is needed to further encroach upon Windows.
Bob Styma
18 years, 6 months
RE: Linux killer!
by Styma, Robert E (Robert)
>
> If they are not supposed to be watching the videos on the school
> computers, then block them at the firewall as our business
> does. When
> they cannot watch them on Windows it won't make any difference.
>
I think the point is that if Linux is to make a bigger dent in the
Windows desktop, more things have to "just work". In a similar experiment
to the one which started this thread, I slowly converted a non-technical
family with three computers from windows to Linux and recorded the
issues which came up. (http://www.swlink.net/~styma/LinuxForTheMasses.shtml)
The current distributions of Linux still need a technical person
to get things working. The technical person would still have no clue
as to how to get these things working. Many of them require a fair
amount of research on the web. I understand the reasons mp3's and
wmv's don't play right out of the box, but to get "Joe Sixpack" using
Linux requires an update process simple enough for "Joe Sixpack" to
use to get this functionality working.
If making Linux really simple is not working out, another model might
be to have pay subscriptions to remote maintenance services. The FC3
and FC4 boxes I maintain for my friends I can access remotely via
SSH and VNC. On a Windows box, if tech support cannot talk you through
the problem, the user ends up taking the box in and paying big bucks.
ssh, /etc/hosts.allow, and iptables could provide a very effective support
mechanism. On my friends boxes, I am the only one with the root password,
not that they would understand what root was anyway.
Just my 2 cents worth. My point is that Linux needs to be simple in
addition to being better.
Bob Styma
18 years, 6 months
Running KDE on VNC
by Mark Brummett
I have an issue where, when I have both Gnome and KDE installed as my
windows, I would like to select one on or the other. I've gone through
several different websites telling me to change some settings in the
startup script, with no luck. It always launches Gnome. Here is the
configuration logging in with Gnome.
#!/bin/sh
# Uncomment the following two lines for normal desktop:
unset SESSION_MANAGER
exec /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc
[ -x /etc/vnc/xstartup ] && exec /etc/vnc/xstartup
[ -r $HOME/.Xresources ] && xrdb $HOME/.Xresources
xsetroot -solid grey
vncconfig -iconic &
xterm -geometry 80x24+10+10 -ls -title "$VNCDESKTOP Desktop" &
twm &
I've changed the last line to startkde, but no luck. I've done several
other things.
Thanks for any help in advance.
MB
18 years, 6 months
