Chrome
by Michael Miles
Well, I could never play youtube or fox news videos with firefox and
shockwave.
So I installed Chrome and youtube yes fox news no
I disabled wrapper and still no go
Any thoughts
I have been looking at the firefox emails but I can't seem to get it
going properly
14 years
- 2
- 1
no flash in chromium-browser (from /spot.fedorapeople.org/chromium/F12/)
by Neal Becker
flash works in google-chrome. This is F12-x86_64. Using
32-bit flash wrapped for 64 bit.
In chromium-browser 5.0.365.0 flash is detected, but does not work. In
about:plugins flash is there (1st item). But visiting a flash site says
'missing plugin'. I duplicated the working google-chrome setup (copied
/opt/google/chrome/plugins to /usr/lib64/chromium-browser/plugins, which is
all just symlinks to /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins-wrapped, and which all works
in google-chrome and in firefox).
14 years
- 5
- 7
Re: Firefox not running: unable to load XPCOM (was Re: )
by Don Vogt
--- On Fri, 4/2/10, David García Granda <dgranda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> From: David García Granda <dgranda(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Firefox not running: unable to load XPCOM (was Re: )
> To: "Community support for Fedora users" <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Cc: "Don Vogt" <dnvot(a)yahoo.com>
> Date: Friday, April 2, 2010, 3:48 AM
> Hi Don,
> > >>> or advice would be appreciated.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is it possible for you to check if XPCOM
> files related
> >>> from VirtualBox
> >>>> conflict with Firefox/xulrunner ones?.
> Maybe something
> >>> not compatible
> >>>> from VirtualBox is loaded instead of the
> right one.
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> The OP should first try
> >>> 1. starting firefox in safe mode `firefox
> -safe-mode' and
> >>> see whether
> >>> any of the add-ons are to blame.
> >>
> >> Did that - no change
> >>
> >>> 2. If that doesn't work, try looking for
> unreleased lock
> >>> files for firefox.
> >>>
> >>> $ cd ~/.mozilla
> >>> $ find -type f -name '*lock'
> >>>
> >>> If any are found delete them and try again.
> >>
> >> found .parentlock files in each profile. Deleted
> them and got the same result ( unable to load XPCOM)
> >> 3. If none of the above works try creating a new
> user and
> >>> start firefox there.
> >>
> >> Created a new user and opened a terminal to run
> firefox again "unable to load XPCOM"
> >>>
> >>> And finally if none of the above work appeal
> to the
> >>> collective
> >>> knowledge of the list with the results from
> the above.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> OK I will attack VirtualBox to see if I can glean
> any info about dependencies and the look at removing it
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > I have VirtualBox installed and am having no problems
> with Firefox.
>
> Uhmmm... this may point us to some misconfiguration on
> Don's
> environment. Let's try with the following:
>
> 1.- Did you try strace (strace -o strace.log firefox)?. If
> not, please
> do it and post trace output file (strace.log in the example
> mentioned)
> for inspection.
>
> 2.- Which architecture are you running (i686, x86_64)?. Do
> you have
> mixed libraries?
>
> 3.- Can you paste the content of configuration files stored
> under /etc/gre.d/?
>
> Regards,
>
> David
>
output of strace -o strace.log firefox
Couldn't load XPCOM.
the only file under /etc/gre.d is gre.conf
sudo cat /etc/gre.d/gre.conf
[1.9.1.9]
GRE_PATH=/usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.1
xulrunner=true
abi=x86-gcc3[donvogt@localhost ~]$
I am running kernel 2.6.32.10-90.fc12.i686 on a i686 athlon
I have no mixed libraries
I apologize for my screwed up messages. My excuses are
1. I am an old man
2. I just had some tooth roots extracted
3. I am on codiene for the pain
4. I use digests and find replying to several messages at the same time confusing.
5.No excuse sir. I will try to be more careful. (I have stopped the codiene.)
I really appreciate the help. I am well above my depth here.
14 years
- 3
- 2
VOIP Qtel -
by Bob Goodwin
Does anyone have experience using "qtel?" I installed it via yum. I
am running an up to date F-12 and the problem is that it sometimes
will not connect, usually to certain users, then something drives
one cpu to 90%. Top attributes that to pulseaudio.
I then kill pulse audio and and the cpu usage returns to normal.
Pulseaudio seems to recover if left alone and things appear to work
normally again unless I try to connect to that user again.
I can use the Windows application without that problem but it means
running another computer for that one application tying up a Linux
computer that I normally never boot to Windows ...
Any suggestions appreciated.
Bob
--
14 years
- 1
- 0
Re: Stable Fedora Releases
by Leslie S Satenstein
From:
"Ralf
Corsepius" <rc040203(a)freenet.de>
To:
users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
On 04/02/2010 06:22 AM,
Leslie S Satenstein wrote:
> While the weekly updates might
be larger in size, but as they occur weekly, it might help out for
producing a weekly unity (re)spin. For example, with my idea or weekly
updates and weekly (re)spins, if I stay with F12 for a month after F13
is officially released, I could then download the latest unity (re)spin,
and be up to date with most updates integrated. It is conceivable that
the (re)spin is more bug-free then the actual QA'd production release.
>
> So, give me weekly updates and weekly re(spins).
What
prevents you from restricting yourselves to updating only once a week,
if this fits your needs better?
The fact updates are being
offered more frequently doen't necessarily mean you have to update
"immediately".
Ralf
Hi Ralf,
I would like to do that which I said I could do and which you suggested.
I am not a yum or yumex expert (which I prefer yumex to packagekit), but I would love to put in a restriction whereby to only download the primary updates that are older then a specified date. (That could be today - 7days). Is there such a facility in these products?
I was also thinking about respins. If a new person decides to try Fedora, why not point him to a (re)spin?
Now that we have terabyte disks, perhaps the respin could be a delta against the official released version, much the way the current yum deltas work. I am just tossing out ideas.
Leslie
------------------
Regards
Leslie
Mr. Leslie Satenstein
mailto:lsatenstein@yahoo.com
mailto leslies(a)itbms.biz
www.itbms.biz
14 years
- 2
- 1
CD burning problems
by Alberto Ferrante
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
with Fedra 12, since the advent of kernel 2.6.32 I have a strange
problem with both my CD burners (a Plextor and an Asus): I can burn CDs
(apparently) without any problem, but those CDs are unreadable.
I am currently using Brasero as K3B had the same problem even with
previous releases of the kernel!
Anybody else experienced anything like this? Suggestions?
Best,
Alberto
- --
Home page: http://www.alari.ch/people/alberto/personal
Photo galleries : http://albertoferrante.name
Public key: http://www.alari.ch/people/alberto/pubkey.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)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=qGhG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
14 years
- 1
- 0
(no subject)
by Charles Zeitler
--
Do what thou wilt
shall be the whole of the Law.
1) "free and open source software" is redundant ( if it's free software )
2) does fedora need a "stable release" ?
(there is already "current" "next" "previous" and "eol")
charles zeitler
Love is the law, love under will.
14 years
- 3
- 2
Firefox not running: unable to load XPCOM (was Re: )
by David García Granda
Hi Don,
>>>> Yesterday I updated to kernel 2.6.32.9.70 fc12 and to
>>> firefox-3.5.9-1.fc12 and now firefox won't start. I get a
>>> notice in the bottom bar for a few seconds and then it goes
>>> blank.
>>>
>>> Strange, I have the same package versions and firefox runs
>>> fine...
>>>
>>>> I tried starting firefox in a terminal and it returned
>>> "can't load XPCOM"
>>>> I tried 'locate XPCOM' and it returned some files in
>>> /usr/lib/VirtualBox and
>>> /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.1/modules/XPCOMUtils.jsm
>>>
>>> Uhmmm... I don't have virtualbox installed, so this can
>>> make the difference.
>>>
>>>> I have VirtualBox installed, but I am not trying to
>>> run firefox in virtualBox, but on the desktop.
>>>> ?I just found that xulrunner-1.9.1.9-1.fc12 was
>>> installed at the same time as the new firefox so I suspect
>>> the problem is between firefox and xulrunner.
>>>
>>> I think the problem here is VirtualBox.
>>
>>
>> OK, I will try to remove VirtualBox, if I can figure out how
>>
>>
>>
>>>> ?I don't know what to try next. I have been using fc12
>>> for a long time successfully for quite a while Any help or
>>> advice would be appreciated.
>>>
>>> Is it possible for you to check if XPCOM files related from
>>> VirtualBox
>>> conflict with Firefox/xulrunner ones?. Maybe something not
>>> compatible
>>> from VirtualBox is loaded instead of the right one.
>>
>> I will see what I can figure out about the related files
>>
>>>
>>> HTH,
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>> Message: 13
>>> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 14:20:42 -0700
>>> From: suvayu ali <fatkasuvayu+linux(a)gmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: New Firefox Won't run
>>> To: Community support for Fedora users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <x2gfe3123491004011420o703df7bkad7c5b3dcfde3c12(a)mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>>>
>>> On 1 April 2010 12:13, David Garc?a Granda <dgranda(a)gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Don,
>>>>
>>>>> Yesterday I updated to kernel 2.6.32.9.70 fc12 and
>>> to firefox-3.5.9-1.fc12 and now firefox won't start. I get a
>>> notice in the bottom bar for a few seconds and then it goes
>>> blank.
>>>>
>>>> Strange, I have the same package versions and firefox
>>> runs fine...
>>>>
>>>>> I tried starting firefox in a terminal and it
>>> returned "can't load XPCOM"
>>>>> I tried 'locate XPCOM' and it returned some files
>>> in /usr/lib/VirtualBox and
>>> /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.1/modules/XPCOMUtils.jsm
>>>>
>>>> Uhmmm... I don't have virtualbox installed, so this
>>> can make the difference.
>>>>
>>>>> I have VirtualBox installed, but I am not trying
>>> to run firefox in virtualBox, but on the desktop.
>>>>> ?I just found that xulrunner-1.9.1.9-1.fc12 was
>>> installed at the same time as the new firefox so I suspect
>>> the problem is between firefox and xulrunner.
>>>>
>>>> I think the problem here is VirtualBox.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is improper methodology to start blaming other "most
>>> unlikely"
>>> packages before going through the proper troubleshooting
>>> steps. I
>>> don't have VBox installed and that file is there in my
>>> system.
>>> xulrunner is what firefox uses for all of its UI and
>>> configuration.
>>> (at least that is what I know)
>>>
>>> $ yum deplist firefox | grep xul
>>> provider: xulrunner.x86_64
>>> 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11
>>> provider: xulrunner.x86_64
>>> 1.9.1.9-1.fc11
>>> dependency: libxul.so()(64bit)
>>> provider: xulrunner.x86_64
>>> 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11
>>> provider: xulrunner.x86_64
>>> 1.9.1.9-1.fc11
>>> dependency: xulrunner >= 1.9.1.9
>>> provider: xulrunner.x86_64
>>> 1.9.1.9-1.fc11
>>> provider: xulrunner.i586 1.9.1.9-1.fc11
>>> provider: xulrunner.x86_64
>>> 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11
>>> provider: xulrunner.x86_64
>>> 1.9.1.9-1.fc11
>>> dependency: libxul.so()(64bit)
>>> provider: xulrunner.x86_64
>>> 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11
>>> provider: xulrunner.x86_64
>>> 1.9.1.9-1.fc11
>>> provider: xulrunner.x86_64
>>> 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11
>>> provider: xulrunner.i586
>>> 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11
>>>
>>>>> ?I don't know what to try next. I have been using
>>> fc12 for a long time successfully for quite a while Any help
>>> or advice would be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Is it possible for you to check if XPCOM files related
>>> from VirtualBox
>>>> conflict with Firefox/xulrunner ones?. Maybe something
>>> not compatible
>>>> from VirtualBox is loaded instead of the right one.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The OP should first try
>>> 1. starting firefox in safe mode `firefox -safe-mode' and
>>> see whether
>>> any of the add-ons are to blame.
>>
>> Did that - no change
>>
>>> 2. If that doesn't work, try looking for unreleased lock
>>> files for firefox.
>>>
>>> $ cd ~/.mozilla
>>> $ find -type f -name '*lock'
>>>
>>> If any are found delete them and try again.
>>
>> found .parentlock files in each profile. Deleted them and got the same result ( unable to load XPCOM)
>> 3. If none of the above works try creating a new user and
>>> start firefox there.
>>
>> Created a new user and opened a terminal to run firefox again "unable to load XPCOM"
>>>
>>> And finally if none of the above work appeal to the
>>> collective
>>> knowledge of the list with the results from the above.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> OK I will attack VirtualBox to see if I can glean any info about dependencies and the look at removing it
>>
>>
>>
> I have VirtualBox installed and am having no problems with Firefox.
Uhmmm... this may point us to some misconfiguration on Don's
environment. Let's try with the following:
1.- Did you try strace (strace -o strace.log firefox)?. If not, please
do it and post trace output file (strace.log in the example mentioned)
for inspection.
2.- Which architecture are you running (i686, x86_64)?. Do you have
mixed libraries?
3.- Can you paste the content of configuration files stored under /etc/gre.d/?
Regards,
David
14 years
- 2
- 1
gedit ...cannot create backup !!!
by Jatin K
Dear all
suddenly I'm getting this error whenever I try to edit a text file and
click save button
" Could not create a backup file while saving /path/to/file.txt"
gedit could not backup the old copy of the file before saving the new
one.You can ignore this warning and save the file anyway.
but if an error occurs while saving , you could lose the old copy of the
file. Save anyway ?"
yesterday, everything was ok.. and this morning I'm getting this
whats wrong with gedit ?? can anyone help me ?
Regards
--
°v°
/(_)\
^ ^ Jatin Khatri
Registerd Linux user No #501175
www.counter.li.org
No M$
14 years
- 4
- 6
New Kernel will not boot
by Lawrence E Graves
On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 02:40 +0000, users-request(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
wrote:
> Send users mailing list submissions to
> users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> users-request(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> users-owner(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. (no subject) (Don Vogt)
> 2. Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story? (Rahul Sundaram)
> 3. Re: (Steven Stern)
> 4. Re: N wifi broke after kernel update (Mail Lists)
> 5. (charles zeitler)
> 6. Re: (Rahul Sundaram)
> 7. Re: Fox News Channels videos won't play (Aram J. Agajanian)
> 8. Re: gedit ...cannot create backup !!! (Aram J. Agajanian)
> 9. Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story? (suvayu ali)
> 10. Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story? (Marcel Rieux)
> 11. Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story? (Craig White)
> 12. Re: Fox News Channels videos won't play (Temlakos)
> 13. Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story? (Craig White)
> 14. Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story? (Marcel Rieux)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 16:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Don Vogt <dnvot(a)yahoo.com>
> To: users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Message-ID: <472611.75616.qm(a)web84102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> -----------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:13:55 +0200
> > From: David Garc?a Granda <dgranda(a)gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: New Firefox Won't run
> > To: Community support for Fedora users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
> > Message-ID:
> > ??? <g2z7e5980ea1004011213y149d30aayac5e5e72f5d92860(a)mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > Hi Don,
> >
> > > Yesterday I updated to kernel 2.6.32.9.70 fc12 and to
> > firefox-3.5.9-1.fc12 and now firefox won't start. I get a
> > notice in the bottom bar for a few seconds and then it goes
> > blank.
> >
> > Strange, I have the same package versions and firefox runs
> > fine...
> >
> > > I tried starting firefox in a terminal and it returned
> > "can't load XPCOM"
> > > I tried 'locate XPCOM' and it returned some files in
> > /usr/lib/VirtualBox and
> > /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.1/modules/XPCOMUtils.jsm
> >
> > Uhmmm... I don't have virtualbox installed, so this can
> > make the difference.
> >
> > > I have VirtualBox installed, but I am not trying to
> > run firefox in virtualBox, but on the desktop.
> > > ?I just found that xulrunner-1.9.1.9-1.fc12 was
> > installed at the same time as the new firefox so I suspect
> > the problem is between firefox and xulrunner.
> >
> > I think the problem here is VirtualBox.
>
>
> OK, I will try to remove VirtualBox, if I can figure out how
>
>
>
> > > ?I don't know what to try next. I have been using fc12
> > for a long time successfully for quite a while Any help or
> > advice would be appreciated.
> >
> > Is it possible for you to check if XPCOM files related from
> > VirtualBox
> > conflict with Firefox/xulrunner ones?. Maybe something not
> > compatible
> > from VirtualBox is loaded instead of the right one.
>
> I will see what I can figure out about the related files
>
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > David
> >
> >
>
> >
> > Message: 13
> > Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 14:20:42 -0700
> > From: suvayu ali <fatkasuvayu+linux(a)gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: New Firefox Won't run
> > To: Community support for Fedora users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
> > Message-ID:
> > ??? <x2gfe3123491004011420o703df7bkad7c5b3dcfde3c12(a)mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > On 1 April 2010 12:13, David Garc?a Granda <dgranda(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Hi Don,
> > >
> > >> Yesterday I updated to kernel 2.6.32.9.70 fc12 and
> > to firefox-3.5.9-1.fc12 and now firefox won't start. I get a
> > notice in the bottom bar for a few seconds and then it goes
> > blank.
> > >
> > > Strange, I have the same package versions and firefox
> > runs fine...
> > >
> > >> I tried starting firefox in a terminal and it
> > returned "can't load XPCOM"
> > >> I tried 'locate XPCOM' and it returned some files
> > in /usr/lib/VirtualBox and
> > /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.1/modules/XPCOMUtils.jsm
> > >
> > > Uhmmm... I don't have virtualbox installed, so this
> > can make the difference.
> > >
> > >> I have VirtualBox installed, but I am not trying
> > to run firefox in virtualBox, but on the desktop.
> > >> ?I just found that xulrunner-1.9.1.9-1.fc12 was
> > installed at the same time as the new firefox so I suspect
> > the problem is between firefox and xulrunner.
> > >
> > > I think the problem here is VirtualBox.
> > >
> >
> > It is improper methodology to start blaming other "most
> > unlikely"
> > packages before going through the proper troubleshooting
> > steps. I
> > don't have VBox installed and that file is there in my
> > system.
> > xulrunner is what firefox uses for all of its UI and
> > configuration.
> > (at least that is what I know)
> >
> > $ yum deplist firefox | grep xul
> > ???provider: xulrunner.x86_64
> > 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11
> > ???provider: xulrunner.x86_64
> > 1.9.1.9-1.fc11
> > ? dependency: libxul.so()(64bit)
> > ???provider: xulrunner.x86_64
> > 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11
> > ???provider: xulrunner.x86_64
> > 1.9.1.9-1.fc11
> > ? dependency: xulrunner >= 1.9.1.9
> > ???provider: xulrunner.x86_64
> > 1.9.1.9-1.fc11
> > ???provider: xulrunner.i586 1.9.1.9-1.fc11
> > ???provider: xulrunner.x86_64
> > 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11
> > ???provider: xulrunner.x86_64
> > 1.9.1.9-1.fc11
> > ? dependency: libxul.so()(64bit)
> > ???provider: xulrunner.x86_64
> > 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11
> > ???provider: xulrunner.x86_64
> > 1.9.1.9-1.fc11
> > ???provider: xulrunner.x86_64
> > 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11
> > ???provider: xulrunner.i586
> > 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11
> >
> > >> ?I don't know what to try next. I have been using
> > fc12 for a long time successfully for quite a while Any help
> > or advice would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Is it possible for you to check if XPCOM files related
> > from VirtualBox
> > > conflict with Firefox/xulrunner ones?. Maybe something
> > not compatible
> > > from VirtualBox is loaded instead of the right one.
> > >
>
>
>
>
> > The OP should first try
> > 1. starting firefox in safe mode `firefox -safe-mode' and
> > see whether
> > any of the add-ons are to blame.
>
> Did that - no change
>
> > 2. If that doesn't work, try looking for unreleased lock
> > files for firefox.
> >
> > $ cd ~/.mozilla
> > $ find -type f -name '*lock'
> >
> > If any are found delete them and try again.
>
> found .parentlock files in each profile. Deleted them and got the same result ( unable to load XPCOM)
> 3. If none of the above works try creating a new user and
> > start firefox there.
>
> Created a new user and opened a terminal to run firefox again "unable to load XPCOM"
> >
> > And finally if none of the above work appeal to the
> > collective
> > knowledge of the list with the results from the above.
> >
> >
>
> OK I will attack VirtualBox to see if I can glean any info about dependencies and the look at removing it
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 04:40:26 +0530
> From: Rahul Sundaram <metherid(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story?
> To: users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Message-ID: <4BB527E2.6060701(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 04/02/2010 04:36 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Sam Sharpe <lists.redhat(a)samsharpe.net> said:
> >
> >> I believe that diverting resources into maintaining older releases
> >> does not further any of the Foundations. It takes resources away from
> >> further the last two principles.
> >>
> > I would say that pushing major updates to older releases takes more
> > resources, not less (at least if it is done correctly, with proper
> > testing on each release).
> >
>
> This really depends on the nature of the package and what problems the
> update solves. I generally prefer not pushing in "major" updates but I
> elected to do so for Transmission bittorrent client because magnet link
> support was in high demand (TPB switched to using it) and it fixed quite
> a number of important bugs that were being reported via ABRT, not to
> mention security and data loss issues. The other option would have been
> selective backporting which would have certainly been much more work and
> upstream projects don't necessarily support that approach.
>
> The right answer is - it depends.
>
> Rahul
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 18:18:52 -0500
> From: Steven Stern <subscribed-lists(a)sterndata.com>
> Subject: Re:
> To: Community support for Fedora users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Cc: Don Vogt <dnvot(a)yahoo.com>
> Message-ID: <4BB529DC.3090809(a)sterndata.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
>
> On 04/01/2010 06:10 PM, Don Vogt wrote:
> > -----------------------------------
> >>
> >> Message: 1
> >> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:13:55 +0200
> >> From: David Garc?a Granda <dgranda(a)gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: New Firefox Won't run
> >> To: Community support for Fedora users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
> >> Message-ID:
> >> <g2z7e5980ea1004011213y149d30aayac5e5e72f5d92860(a)mail.gmail.com>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >>
> >> Hi Don,
> >>
> >>> Yesterday I updated to kernel 2.6.32.9.70 fc12 and to
> >> firefox-3.5.9-1.fc12 and now firefox won't start. I get a
> >> notice in the bottom bar for a few seconds and then it goes
> >> blank.
> >>
> >> Strange, I have the same package versions and firefox runs
> >> fine...
> >>
> >>> I tried starting firefox in a terminal and it returned
> >> "can't load XPCOM"
> >>> I tried 'locate XPCOM' and it returned some files in
> >> /usr/lib/VirtualBox and
> >> /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.1/modules/XPCOMUtils.jsm
> >>
> >> Uhmmm... I don't have virtualbox installed, so this can
> >> make the difference.
> >>
> >>> I have VirtualBox installed, but I am not trying to
> >> run firefox in virtualBox, but on the desktop.
> >>> ?I just found that xulrunner-1.9.1.9-1.fc12 was
> >> installed at the same time as the new firefox so I suspect
> >> the problem is between firefox and xulrunner.
> >>
> >> I think the problem here is VirtualBox.
> >
> >
> > OK, I will try to remove VirtualBox, if I can figure out how
> >
> >
> >
> >>> ?I don't know what to try next. I have been using fc12
> >> for a long time successfully for quite a while Any help or
> >> advice would be appreciated.
> >>
> >> Is it possible for you to check if XPCOM files related from
> >> VirtualBox
> >> conflict with Firefox/xulrunner ones?. Maybe something not
> >> compatible
> >> from VirtualBox is loaded instead of the right one.
> >
> > I will see what I can figure out about the related files
> >
> >>
> >> HTH,
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> Message: 13
> >> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 14:20:42 -0700
> >> From: suvayu ali <fatkasuvayu+linux(a)gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: New Firefox Won't run
> >> To: Community support for Fedora users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
> >> Message-ID:
> >> <x2gfe3123491004011420o703df7bkad7c5b3dcfde3c12(a)mail.gmail.com>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >>
> >> On 1 April 2010 12:13, David Garc?a Granda <dgranda(a)gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Hi Don,
> >>>
> >>>> Yesterday I updated to kernel 2.6.32.9.70 fc12 and
> >> to firefox-3.5.9-1.fc12 and now firefox won't start. I get a
> >> notice in the bottom bar for a few seconds and then it goes
> >> blank.
> >>>
> >>> Strange, I have the same package versions and firefox
> >> runs fine...
> >>>
> >>>> I tried starting firefox in a terminal and it
> >> returned "can't load XPCOM"
> >>>> I tried 'locate XPCOM' and it returned some files
> >> in /usr/lib/VirtualBox and
> >> /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.1/modules/XPCOMUtils.jsm
> >>>
> >>> Uhmmm... I don't have virtualbox installed, so this
> >> can make the difference.
> >>>
> >>>> I have VirtualBox installed, but I am not trying
> >> to run firefox in virtualBox, but on the desktop.
> >>>> ?I just found that xulrunner-1.9.1.9-1.fc12 was
> >> installed at the same time as the new firefox so I suspect
> >> the problem is between firefox and xulrunner.
> >>>
> >>> I think the problem here is VirtualBox.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It is improper methodology to start blaming other "most
> >> unlikely"
> >> packages before going through the proper troubleshooting
> >> steps. I
> >> don't have VBox installed and that file is there in my
> >> system.
> >> xulrunner is what firefox uses for all of its UI and
> >> configuration.
> >> (at least that is what I know)
> >>
> >> $ yum deplist firefox | grep xul
> >> provider: xulrunner.x86_64
> >> 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11
> >> provider: xulrunner.x86_64
> >> 1.9.1.9-1.fc11
> >> dependency: libxul.so()(64bit)
> >> provider: xulrunner.x86_64
> >> 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11
> >> provider: xulrunner.x86_64
> >> 1.9.1.9-1.fc11
> >> dependency: xulrunner >= 1.9.1.9
> >> provider: xulrunner.x86_64
> >> 1.9.1.9-1.fc11
> >> provider: xulrunner.i586 1.9.1.9-1.fc11
> >> provider: xulrunner.x86_64
> >> 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11
> >> provider: xulrunner.x86_64
> >> 1.9.1.9-1.fc11
> >> dependency: libxul.so()(64bit)
> >> provider: xulrunner.x86_64
> >> 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11
> >> provider: xulrunner.x86_64
> >> 1.9.1.9-1.fc11
> >> provider: xulrunner.x86_64
> >> 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11
> >> provider: xulrunner.i586
> >> 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11
> >>
> >>>> ?I don't know what to try next. I have been using
> >> fc12 for a long time successfully for quite a while Any help
> >> or advice would be appreciated.
> >>>
> >>> Is it possible for you to check if XPCOM files related
> >> from VirtualBox
> >>> conflict with Firefox/xulrunner ones?. Maybe something
> >> not compatible
> >>> from VirtualBox is loaded instead of the right one.
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> The OP should first try
> >> 1. starting firefox in safe mode `firefox -safe-mode' and
> >> see whether
> >> any of the add-ons are to blame.
> >
> > Did that - no change
> >
> >> 2. If that doesn't work, try looking for unreleased lock
> >> files for firefox.
> >>
> >> $ cd ~/.mozilla
> >> $ find -type f -name '*lock'
> >>
> >> If any are found delete them and try again.
> >
> > found .parentlock files in each profile. Deleted them and got the same result ( unable to load XPCOM)
> > 3. If none of the above works try creating a new user and
> >> start firefox there.
> >
> > Created a new user and opened a terminal to run firefox again "unable to load XPCOM"
> >>
> >> And finally if none of the above work appeal to the
> >> collective
> >> knowledge of the list with the results from the above.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > OK I will attack VirtualBox to see if I can glean any info about dependencies and the look at removing it
> >
> >
> >
> I have VirtualBox installed and am having no problems with Firefox.
>
> --
> -- Steve
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:57:16 -0400
> From: Mail Lists <lists(a)sapience.com>
> Subject: Re: N wifi broke after kernel update
> To: Community support for Fedora users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Message-ID: <4BB532DC.9060705(a)sapience.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 03/31/2010 09:15 PM, Mail Lists wrote:
> >
> > Wireless stopped working after latest kernel update.
>
> ...
>
> >
> > Filed bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578663
> >
>
> Happy to report this has already been fixed (thank you john
> linville!!) in the 2.6.32.10-94.fc12 kernel build available in koji.
>
> gene
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 17:57:42 -0600
> From: charles zeitler <cfzeitler(a)gmail.com>
> To: fedora-users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Message-ID:
> <h2t2d6d70f11004011657h94c349b6j5879b946dcd91560(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> --
> Do what thou wilt
> shall be the whole of the Law.
>
> 1) "free and open source software" is redundant ( if it's free software )
>
> 2) does fedora need a "stable release" ?
> (there is already "current" "next" "previous" and "eol")
>
> charles zeitler
>
> Love is the law, love under will.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 06:26:18 +0530
> From: Rahul Sundaram <metherid(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re:
> To: users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Message-ID: <4BB540B2.30600(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 04/02/2010 05:27 AM, charles zeitler wrote:
> > --
> > Do what thou wilt
> > shall be the whole of the Law.
> >
> > 1) "free and open source software" is redundant ( if it's free software )
> >
>
> Not quite. FOSS is a umbrella term and using it is one way of avoiding
> the free beer vs freedom confusion
>
> > 2) does fedora need a "stable release" ?
> > (there is already "current" "next" "previous" and "eol")
> >
>
> Previous and current are "stable" releases. Next is the development
> branch.
>
> Rahul
>
> Ps: Remember to fill up the subject line
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 21:23:31 -0400
> From: "Aram J. Agajanian" <agajan(a)pobox.com>
> Subject: Re: Fox News Channels videos won't play
> To: users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Message-ID: <20100401212331.1dad1161@pc01>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:49:27 -0400
> Temlakos <temlakos(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've come back to this issue of the Fox News Channel videos not
> > wanting to play, because perhaps I have some more information that
> > might provide a clue.
> >
> > Fox News Channel hosts a number of videos, and provides an embedding
> > link to each one. About an hour ago, I went to find one. When my
> > Fedora 12/Firefox 3.5.8 setup wouldn't play nice, I went to another
> > machine that had Windows XP on it. I was able to play the video
> > there, and to get the embedding script. I got it and pasted it into
> > an article I wrote.
> >
> > And when I went to display my article, guess what? The video wouldn't
> > play.
> >
>
> I am using flash 10.0.45.2 (64 bit) and Fedora 11 (with Firefox 3.5.9).
>
> Fox News videos wouldn't play until I uninstalled
> nspluginwrapper.x86_64.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 21:30:31 -0400
> From: "Aram J. Agajanian" <agajan(a)pobox.com>
> Subject: Re: gedit ...cannot create backup !!!
> To: users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Message-ID: <20100401213031.5edd4812@pc01>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 10:38:23 +0530
> Jatin K <ssh.fedora(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear all
> >
> > suddenly I'm getting this error whenever I try to edit a text file
> > and click save button
> >
> > " Could not create a backup file while saving /path/to/file.txt"
> > gedit could not backup the old copy of the file before saving the new
> > one.You can ignore this warning and save the file anyway.
> > but if an error occurs while saving , you could lose the old copy of
> > the file. Save anyway ?"
> >
> >
> > yesterday, everything was ok.. and this morning I'm getting this
> >
> > whats wrong with gedit ?? can anyone help me ?
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
>
> I've seen this error message from gedit when trying to save on network
> filesystems where the uids are not mapped. When using sshfs, the
> following option can help:
>
> -o idmap=user
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 18:45:34 -0700
> From: suvayu ali <fatkasuvayu+linux(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story?
> To: Community support for Fedora users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Message-ID:
> <r2gfe3123491004011845sa4f29a3dt9b11f3801d14b192(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 1 April 2010 15:35, Craig White <craigwhite(a)azapple.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 15:13 -0700, suvayu ali wrote:
> >> On 1 April 2010 14:46, Craig White <craigwhite(a)azapple.com> wrote:
> >> > Red Hat is a different company, has their own mail lists, their own
> >> > software packaging, etc. This has nothing to do with Fedora.
> >> >
> >>
> >> And I recently learned they don't even use yum! :-o
> > ----
> > well RHEL 4 doesn't but RHEL 5 does.
> >
> > You can install yum from CentOS 4 on RHEL 4 systems but you have to be
> > vigilant about where packages are being installed from because RHEL 4
> > doesn't have repo information for yum.
> >
>
> Thanks for correcting me. :) Learned something new again! I deal with
> Scientific Linux 4 and 5 systems on a regular basis, hence my surprise
> about this piece of information. Any particular reason for this
> difference?
>
> > Craig
> >
>
> PS: I know my questions are probably OT, but its better than a flame
> war on a vaguely relevant thread. ;)
>
> --
> Suvayu
>
> Open source is the future. It sets us free.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:02:34 -0400
> From: Marcel Rieux <m.z.rieux(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story?
> To: Community support for Fedora users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
> Message-ID:
> <y2ja6e58c2d1004011902j75bfa7d9g5940a5bef0e8a512(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Craig White <craigwhite(a)azapple.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 17:23 -0400, Marcel Rieux wrote:
> >
>
>
> > as far as I can tell, you seem to be the only one confused about Red
> > Hat/Fedora. Fedora is a completely separate entity with its own
> > management, resources, servers though clearly it was incubated using
> > resources supplied by Red Hat.
> >
>
> Aaaah! So you found them! All along my research, I've been looking for the
> Fedora statutes. Normally, this document should be linked to the home
> page... and I couldn't find it! The best I could get was the composition of
> the board.
>
> So, let's talk. Where are the statutes, where you learned that Fedora is a
> completely separate entity?
>
14 years
- 1
- 0