I'll seccond thios how hard would it really be to set this functionality in the rpm to migrate user setting over when upgrading ff/moz?

--Jeff On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 15:25 +0100, John Logsdon wrote:

Thanks to all that helped. It was of course the lack of a symlink since the new firefox was in a different directory.

It does make you wonder, though, what mozilla think they are doing. Googling around there are many cases of people falling foul of the same thing - perhaps I should have surfed before shouting.

Given all that has gone into moz/FF, enabling the plugin installer to

(a) inherit/replicate any old links when updating,

(b) search for common locations eg /usr/java,

(c) add a browse facility rather than jumping off to sun's site which is not really appropriate and

(d) set up the symlink within the gui

really cannot be all that difficult.

If we want Linux to succeed as a desktop competitor to Redmondware, FF should make it easier to install plugins and include them when making an upgrade.

It may be alright on a Windows platform but installing plugins either in FF or mozilla - or I guess netscape - is a mess.

Bill must be laughing all the way to the next charity ball - bless him.

John

John Logsdon "Try to make things as simple Quantex Research Ltd, Manchester UK as possible but not simpler" j.logsdon@quantex-research.com a.einstein@relativity.org +44(0)161 445 4951/G:+44(0)7717758675 www.quantex-research.com

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, [ISO-8859-2] Maciej ¯enczykowski wrote:

...

I'd suggest making sure you have a link to the java plugin in the proper directory, in my case (running mozilla with an old beta 1.5 java SDK - but it should be much the same for firefox (which uses mozilla/plugins directory if I'm not mistaken) and any newer java version)...

ls -al /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 59 Jun 6 2004 libjavaplugin_oji.so -> /usr/java/jdk1.5.0/jre/plugin/i386/ns7/libjavaplugin_oji.so

Cheers, MaZe.

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, John Logsdon wrote:

...

I need to run a Java-enabled Firefox on my CentOS4.1-powered laptop and it *was* running fine. Then yesterday I up2date'd the box and Firefox went from 1.0.4 to 1.0.6. And I lost Java.

I can't seem to re-install it, whether from the original (1.5.0 I think it was) or the latest downloads.

This is crucially important as I need to access my Dell RAC.

Can anyone advise how to get Java back. At the moment, I have had to reboot my laptop into Redmond-ware :-(((

TIA

John

John Logsdon "Try to make things as simple Quantex Research Ltd, Manchester UK as possible but not simpler" j.logsdon@quantex-research.com a.einstein@relativity.org +44(0)161 445 4951/G:+44(0)7717758675 www.quantex-research.com

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

---

CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Jeffrey D. Means meaje@meanspc.com Owner / CIO for MeansPC http://www.meanspc.com/ Custom Web Development For Your Needs. (970)308-1298

- The stupidity of a stupid person is exercised in a restricted field; the stupidity of an intelligent individual has a much broader diffusion, and far greater effect, aided as it is by the element of surprise.

- WTO + WIPO = DMCA? http://www.anti-dmca.org - Fight Internet Censorship! http://www.eff.org = This is not about Napster or DVDs. It's about your Freedom. http://www.anti-dmca.org

My Public PGP Key ID is: 0x81F00126 and available via: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x81F00126

Johnny Hughes wrote:

On Fri, 2005-08-12 at 13:26 -0600, Jeffrey D. Means wrote:

...

I'll seccond thios how hard would it really be to set this functionality in the rpm to migrate user setting over when upgrading ff/moz?

Just put all your plugins in /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins ... then they will work for both Mozilla and Firefox by default.

We can not distribute java ... or java plugins. It is a license thing.

That just doesn't make sense. while I understand this is the place we find ourselves, it doesn't make sense that one OSS platform cannot do a simple thing with another OSS platform.

On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 11:39 -0700, Alan Hodgson wrote:

On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 08:49:12PM -0400, Mark Weaver wrote:

...

That just doesn't make sense. while I understand this is the place we find ourselves, it doesn't make sense that one OSS platform cannot do a simple thing with another OSS platform.

Ah, if only Java were OSS.

Alan has pointed out ... and I will reiterate it, just in case anyone doesn't know.

Java is _NOT_ open source ... and it can not be redistribute with out a license from Sun. We can not distribute it via a free distro.

MP3 also requires a royalty payment for every player distributed, and therefore can not be distribute by CentOS.

While I personally am not happy about either of those situations, we (The CentOS Project) do follow the laws for distribution of software.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Les Mikesell wrote:

On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 15:43, Johnny Hughes wrote:

...

...

...

That just doesn't make sense. while I understand this is the place we find ourselves, it doesn't make sense that one OSS platform cannot do a simple thing with another OSS platform.

Ah, if only Java were OSS.

Alan has pointed out ... and I will reiterate it, just in case anyone doesn't know.

Java is _NOT_ open source ... and it can not be redistribute with out a license from Sun. We can not distribute it via a free distro.

MP3 also requires a royalty payment for every player distributed, and therefore can not be distribute by CentOS.

While I personally am not happy about either of those situations, we (The CentOS Project) do follow the laws for distribution of software.

I thought somewhere back a few days in this thread it was stated that the problem was solved by adding a symlink in the right place. So, even though you can't include java, it might be possible to make it work correctly when someone does install their copy legally without having to guess where it landed and where the rest of the distribution expects it.

Oh criminy. Is this THAT big of a deal. Please, all of you whining about this, go back to Windows. Linux is too hard for you if you can't figure out how to setup a Yum repository and install this stuff yourself. It's so easy now a child could do it.

I remember trying to configure X back in the Red Hat 5 days. It was a big deal to get a Window manager, period. And now we're complaining because Java and MP3 functionality isn't installed out of the box even though it's illegal? Huh?

I prefer to install Java myself anyway. I can handle setting up the pathing and I know where it's located. Also lets me put all java stuff (eclipse, Tomcat, etc.) in one place. I REALLY don't see what the big deal is.

Preston

Les Mikesell wrote: [snip]

I thought somewhere back a few days in this thread it was stated that the problem was solved by adding a symlink in the right place. So, even though you can't include java, it might be possible to make it work correctly when someone does install their copy legally without having to guess where it landed and where the rest of the distribution expects it.

I would assume that CentOS Java support is inherited from upstream, where JPackage is the way to go. That way you get support for more than just Sun's JVM and, using alternatives, an easy way to switch between them.

Of course one could argue that Sun needs to get their act together. The RPM to install the files where the rest of the distribution expects it, not the other way around.

DISCLAIMER: Off-topic, useless to CentOS, killfile me, etc...

On Tue, 2005-08-16 at 08:43 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:

If Sun wanted to let other people make decisions about how Java should work and be distributed, they would just change the license...

Actually, that's not the problem.

For at least the JRE (not sure about the JDK) on Windows and Solaris, Sun allows free redistribution. On Linux, Sun does not, and this is clearly a market-driven move.

Red Hat and SuSE have signed licenses to redistribute on their non- distributable versions, but Sun will not allow likewise on their freely redistributable versions.

But yes, it would be nice to see Java, at least the JRE, released under at least a MPL-like license, removing this non-sense. It's the only area where IBM has been "more community friendly" than Sun.**

-- Bryan

<mega-OT> **NOTE: In fairness to Sun, they usually do best IBM on donations. Solaris is becoming MPL-like, whereas AIX is not, and OpenOffice is LGPL, among other Sun MPL/GPL donations (including GPL kernel code/development, like NFSv4 and other contributions). As much as IBM is promoting Linux, they are also promoting AIX -- to the point of forcing some clients to buy AIX solutions instead of Linux, and then forbidden them (via contract) when they look at HP Linux solutions (especially Opteron like the DL585). </mega-OT>

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

With that said, has anyone looked at building a RPM for the IBM JRE for, say, CentOS Plus and/or Extras? I know it's not quite as compatible,

IBM already releases one.

The short version of the install process is:

[herrold@centos-4 java]$ cat README

RPH on installing the IBM JRE java environment on CentOS-4 series: ======================================================

1. Install the pre-requs and the package:

cd /home/herrold/download/IBM/java sudo yum -y install compat-libstdc++-33 compat-libstdc++-296 sudo rpm -Uvh IBMJava2-142-ia32-SDK-1.4.2-1.0.i386.rpm

2. Update the path:

/opt/IBMJava2-142/bin

... manually edit /etc/profile, and add:

# for IBM java pathmunge /opt/IBMJava2-142/bin before

... just before the "# No core files by default" is a good spot for it

3. (Optional) Make the CLASSPATH explicit, but adding it to /etc/profile :

export CLASSPATH=/opt/IBMJava2-142/bin

-- verify this TBD

4. (Optional) - Make java available to 'mozilla':

cd /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ sudo ln -s /opt/IBMJava2-142/jre/bin/libjavaplugin_ojigcc3.so .

(for early versions (mozilla-1.4 and earlier)

[as root] cd /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ ln -s/opt/IBMJava2-142/jre/bin/libjavaplugin_oji.so .

5. Reboot, to confirm it all works from a standing start

[herrold@centos-4 java]$

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

R P Herrold herrold@owlriver.com wrote:

...

IBM already releases one.

I assumed so.

Is there any way the IBMJava2 package can be distributed in CentOS Plus and/or Extras? BTW, I assume the compat-libs are already in CentOS itself?

There is both an IBM-variant JRE and the SDK, and a communications add-in, etc ... As I am currently investigating a differing behaviour between the Sun and IBM 1.4.2 variants, I think it is probably wiser to suggest that the latest stables be obtained directly from the upstream vendor from time to time, and a site local archive maintained instead, to install from. That way one knows what one is working with.

Any way to make these part of the post-install script?

It is certainly possible, as is a 'Requires:' to pull in the needed packages. They vary by name and availability between CentOS 3 and 4, and a single .spec file would need to accound for that.

A so-called dummy 'meta' RPM is the way to go. I will put one together and publish it on my site, and mention the URL here.

-- Russ Herrold

William Hooper whooperhsd3@earthlink.net wrote:

And apt, and yum, and up2date.

Yeah, I just caught that after my post. Doh!

Mark Weaver mdw1982@mdw1982.com wrote:

And thats as it should be. Guess I'll need to bone up on what is and isn't free software.

Once again, I will re-iterate my "eccentric" suggestions: - Freedomware (Open Standard, Open Source) - Standardware (Open Standard, Proprietary Source) - Sourceware (Proprietary Standard, Open Source) - Commerceware (Proprietary Standard, Proprietary Source)

The Java API itself is an open standard.

Sun JRE/JDK is almost Standardware, but should be considered Commerceware (standard with redistribution clause), at least I've never seen the sourcecode of the JRE/JDK. Blackdown JRE/JDK is almost Freedomware, but should be considered Sourceware(standard with redistribution clause due to license). I believe IBM JRE/JDK is CPL (MPL-like) Standardware or Freedomware, depending on source code availablility (clean room design, even if Java itself is under license), but I could be wrong.

Open Source MP3 codecs are Sourceware (standard with IP issues). Ogg codecs are Freedomware.

I know people think I'm arrogant for suggesting these names, but in my consulting endeavors, several legal departments have thanked me for my suggestions. The fact that I don't stand for the oversimplification of a 1-dimension of "open" and "proprietary" and try to separate them each out into 2-dimensions against "standards" and "source."