Does there exist *anywhere* a Java web browser plugin for 64-bit FireFox? The SUN 1.6<mumble> JDK (jdk-6u18-linux-amd64.rpm) does NOT include the Java web browser plugin library. java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.2.b09.el5.x86_64.rpm does not have one either. Should I install the *32-bit* SUN 1.6<mumble> JDK and use the 32-64 bit wrapper? I've searched the web and read the wiki (which only shows installing the 32-bit Java web browser plugin).
Does there exist *anywhere* a Java web browser plugin for 64-bit FireFox? The SUN 1.6<mumble> JDK (jdk-6u18-linux-amd64.rpm) does NOT include the Java web browser plugin library. java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.2.b09.el5.x86_64.rpm does not have one either. Should I install the *32-bit* SUN 1.6<mumble> JDK and use the 32-64 bit wrapper? I've searched the web and read the wiki (which only shows installing the 32-bit Java web browser plugin).
AFAIK, they stopped doing the plugin sometime last year, and the *only* workaround I've seen is to install Sun's Java.
mark
m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Does there exist *anywhere* a Java web browser plugin for 64-bit FireFox? The SUN 1.6<mumble> JDK (jdk-6u18-linux-amd64.rpm) does NOT include the Java web browser plugin library. java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.2.b09.el5.x86_64.rpm does not have one either. Should I install the *32-bit* SUN 1.6<mumble> JDK and use the 32-64 bit wrapper? I've searched the web and read the wiki (which only shows installing the 32-bit Java web browser plugin).
AFAIK, they stopped doing the plugin sometime last year, and the *only* workaround I've seen is to install Sun's Java.
iced-tea use to work, but I think around 5.2 release it broke and AFAIK there hasn't been an iced-tea package for CentOS since.
I personally don't miss it all that much, but it would be nice to have.
At Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:44:52 -0500 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
Does there exist *anywhere* a Java web browser plugin for 64-bit FireFox? The SUN 1.6<mumble> JDK (jdk-6u18-linux-amd64.rpm) does NOT include the Java web browser plugin library. java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.2.b09.el5.x86_64.rpm does not have one either. Should I install the *32-bit* SUN 1.6<mumble> JDK and use the 32-64 bit wrapper? I've searched the web and read the wiki (which only shows installing the 32-bit Java web browser plugin).
AFAIK, they stopped doing the plugin sometime last year, and the *only* workaround I've seen is to install Sun's Java.
But Sun's Java does NOT include the plugin in the *64-bit* JDK. There is only the *32-bit* plugin in the *32-bit* JDK. So installing Sun's Java is not an answer.
mark
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
No, that isn't true at all...
Under both Fedora 12 and RHEL 5.4 I am using the 64 bit JDK... To get the Java plugin working, all I had to do -with the Sun JDK- was
cd /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins ln -s /usr/java/latest/jre/lib/amd64/libnpjp2.so
And restart Firefox...
Of course, in this instance /usr/java/latest is a sym link to /usr/java/jdk1.6.0_16
It works just fine for me... I'm sure I'd have similar results on CentOS :)
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Robert Heller wrote:
At Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:44:52 -0500 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
Does there exist *anywhere* a Java web browser plugin for 64-bit FireFox? The SUN 1.6<mumble> JDK (jdk-6u18-linux-amd64.rpm) does NOT include the Java web browser plugin library. java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.2.b09.el5.x86_64.rpm does not have one either. Should I install the *32-bit* SUN 1.6<mumble> JDK and use the 32-64 bit wrapper? I've searched the web and read the wiki (which only shows installing the 32-bit Java web browser plugin).
AFAIK, they stopped doing the plugin sometime last year, and the *only* workaround I've seen is to install Sun's Java.
But Sun's Java does NOT include the plugin in the *64-bit* JDK. There is only the *32-bit* plugin in the *32-bit* JDK. So installing Sun's Java is not an answer.
mark
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows heller@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Scot P. Floess 27 Lake Royale Louisburg, NC 27549
252-478-8087 (Home) 919-890-8117 (Work)
Chief Architect JPlate http://sourceforge.net/projects/jplate Chief Architect JavaPIM http://sourceforge.net/projects/javapim
Architect Keros http://sourceforge.net/projects/keros
This is all documented on the Wiki for anyone who cares to search:
http://wiki.centos.org/TipsAndTricks/PluginsFor64BitFirefox
[rhetorical] Why does this mailing list insist on reinventing the wheel rather than perform a simple search of existing documentation first?
On 1/28/2010 11:14 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
This is all documented on the Wiki for anyone who cares to search:
http://wiki.centos.org/TipsAndTricks/PluginsFor64BitFirefox
[rhetorical] Why does this mailing list insist on reinventing the wheel rather than perform a simple search of existing documentation first?
You sort-of expect end users to do that. A more relevant question is why is it shipped broken in the first place? Is it just Red Hat trying to maintain their reputation for making java as hard to use as possible?
Les Mikesell wrote:
On 1/28/2010 11:14 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
This is all documented on the Wiki for anyone who cares to search:
http://wiki.centos.org/TipsAndTricks/PluginsFor64BitFirefox
[rhetorical] Why does this mailing list insist on reinventing the wheel rather than perform a simple search of existing documentation first?
You sort-of expect end users to do that. A more relevant question is why is it shipped broken in the first place? Is it just Red Hat trying to maintain their reputation for making java as hard to use as possible?
That doesn't make sense - they own JBoss!!
On 1/28/2010 11:53 AM, Rob Kampen wrote:
This is all documented on the Wiki for anyone who cares to search:
http://wiki.centos.org/TipsAndTricks/PluginsFor64BitFirefox
[rhetorical] Why does this mailing list insist on reinventing the wheel rather than perform a simple search of existing documentation first?
You sort-of expect end users to do that. A more relevant question is why is it shipped broken in the first place? Is it just Red Hat trying to maintain their reputation for making java as hard to use as possible?
That doesn't make sense - they own JBoss!!
Apparently they want to make sure you need their support service to run it. They put Sun Java in the update stream that you can only get with a paid contract long before they shipped the almost-working 1.6 as part of the base. While they can't actually stop you from downloading your own working copy, they've made it as hard as a distribution possibly could.
At Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:35:35 -0600 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
On 1/28/2010 11:14 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
This is all documented on the Wiki for anyone who cares to search:
http://wiki.centos.org/TipsAndTricks/PluginsFor64BitFirefox
[rhetorical] Why does this mailing list insist on reinventing the wheel rather than perform a simple search of existing documentation first?
You sort-of expect end users to do that. A more relevant question is why is it shipped broken in the first place? Is it just Red Hat trying to maintain their reputation for making java as hard to use as possible?
Java is an odd case: *Sun* has weird / non-compatible license issues, so RH (or CentOS) cannot just re-distribute the Sun JDK and appearently the openjdk does not include a web browser plug in (nothing RH or CentOS can do about that).
And it appears that Sun decided to change the name and location of the 64-bit plugin, which is what threw me, esp. since in the *32-bit* Sun JDK (6u18) the *old* plugin library is just where I expected it to be. Why did Sun do *that*? You would have thought that they would have included a README there to explain what they did.
On 1/28/2010 12:58 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
http://wiki.centos.org/TipsAndTricks/PluginsFor64BitFirefox
[rhetorical] Why does this mailing list insist on reinventing the wheel rather than perform a simple search of existing documentation first?
You sort-of expect end users to do that. A more relevant question is why is it shipped broken in the first place? Is it just Red Hat trying to maintain their reputation for making java as hard to use as possible?
Java is an odd case: *Sun* has weird / non-compatible license issues, so RH (or CentOS) cannot just re-distribute the Sun JDK and appearently the openjdk does not include a web browser plug in (nothing RH or CentOS can do about that).
Netscape was once an odd case and RH managed to deal with it in a usable way instead of shipping something different and broken with the same name. The jpackage folks had a perfectly usable way to handle the parts that weren't redistributable, back when they weren't redistributable but instead of staying compatible with their repository, RH copied parts and change them in ways that broke the rest. When the license changed on the Sun sdk to make it redistributable and debian incorporated it in their main repostiory, RH only added it to the subscription update stream and CentOS ignored it completely. None of this makes any sense to me.
And it appears that Sun decided to change the name and location of the 64-bit plugin, which is what threw me, esp. since in the *32-bit* Sun JDK (6u18) the *old* plugin library is just where I expected it to be. Why did Sun do *that*? You would have thought that they would have included a README there to explain what they did.
Sun engineers are from some other planet? Since they were so cooperative in open-sourcing the codebase when someone asked, I wonder if anyone from Red Hat ever explained the expected locations for things to land and asked them to build a compatible rpm package the users could install? Having an rpm that doesn't drop into the right places on RH doesn't make any sense to me either.
Les Mikesell wrote:
On 1/28/2010 12:58 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
http://wiki.centos.org/TipsAndTricks/PluginsFor64BitFirefox
[rhetorical] Why does this mailing list insist on reinventing the wheel rather than perform a simple search of existing documentation first?
You sort-of expect end users to do that. A more relevant question is why is it shipped broken in the first place? Is it just Red Hat trying to maintain their reputation for making java as hard to use as possible?
Java is an odd case: *Sun* has weird / non-compatible license issues, so RH (or CentOS) cannot just re-distribute the Sun JDK and appearently the openjdk does not include a web browser plug in (nothing RH or CentOS can do about that).
Netscape was once an odd case and RH managed to deal with it in a usable way instead of shipping something different and broken with the same name. The jpackage folks had a perfectly usable way to handle the parts that weren't redistributable, back when they weren't redistributable but instead of staying compatible with their repository, RH copied parts and change them in ways that broke the rest. When the license changed on the Sun sdk to make it redistributable and debian incorporated it in their main repostiory, RH only added it to the subscription update stream and CentOS ignored it completely. None of this makes any sense to me.
And it appears that Sun decided to change the name and location of the 64-bit plugin, which is what threw me, esp. since in the *32-bit* Sun JDK (6u18) the *old* plugin library is just where I expected it to be. Why did Sun do *that*? You would have thought that they would have included a README there to explain what they did.
Sun engineers are from some other planet? Since they were so cooperative in open-sourcing the codebase when someone asked, I wonder if anyone from Red Hat ever explained the expected locations for things to land and asked them to build a compatible rpm package the users could install? Having an rpm that doesn't drop into the right places on RH doesn't make any sense to me either.
Especially when rpm is RedHat Package manager - they created it, one would expect that all users would ensure it works with the creator's structure and way of working. I guess there are deeper issues here that are best not exposed. At least Sun's java is now under an open source license!!
Robert Heller wrote:
Does there exist *anywhere* a Java web browser plugin for 64-bit FireFox? The SUN 1.6<mumble> JDK (jdk-6u18-linux-amd64.rpm) does NOT include the Java web browser plugin library. java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.2.b09.el5.x86_64.rpm does not have one either. Should I install the *32-bit* SUN 1.6<mumble> JDK and use the 32-64 bit wrapper? I've searched the web and read the wiki (which only shows installing the 32-bit Java web browser plugin).
there was a relevant thread earlier this year: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2010-January/088368.html
I kept the info for maybe trying it out some day, but didn't get around to testing it.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Robert Heller heller@deepsoft.com wrote:
Does there exist *anywhere* a Java web browser plugin for 64-bit FireFox? The SUN 1.6<mumble> JDK (jdk-6u18-linux-amd64.rpm) does NOT include the Java web browser plugin library.
It's been available since jdk-u13.
Just link the library
<whatever>./jre/lib/amd64/libnpjp2.so
to the firefox's plugin directory under /usr/lib64/firefox-<whatever>/plugins.
You may have to create the plugins directory.
At Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:17:02 -0800 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Robert Heller heller@deepsoft.com wrote:
Does there exist *anywhere* a Java web browser plugin for 64-bit FireFox? The SUN 1.6<mumble> JDK (jdk-6u18-linux-amd64.rpm) does NOT include the Java web browser plugin library.
It's been available since jdk-u13.
Just link the library
<whatever>./jre/lib/amd64/libnpjp2.so
to the firefox's plugin directory under /usr/lib64/firefox-<whatever>/plugins.
You may have to create the plugins directory.
So they changed the name of the library?
It is weird, since the i586 JDK has the old library (<whatever>/jre/plugin/i386/ns7/libjavaplugin_oji.so), but the 64-bit JDK does not. They both have the libnpjp2.so library. Firefox's config does show that the name of the java plugin library is libjavaplugin_oji.so -- does this matter?
At Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:17:02 -0800 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Robert Heller heller@deepsoft.com wrote:
Does there exist *anywhere* a Java web browser plugin for 64-bit FireFox? The SUN 1.6<mumble> JDK (jdk-6u18-linux-amd64.rpm) does NOT include the Java web browser plugin library.
It's been available since jdk-u13.
Just link the library
<whatever>./jre/lib/amd64/libnpjp2.so
to the firefox's plugin directory under /usr/lib64/firefox-<whatever>/plugins.
You may have to create the plugins directory.
I did this. The plugin does NOT show up in about:plugins.
Am 28.01.2010 17:46, schrieb Robert Heller:
At Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:17:02 -0800 CentOS mailing listcentos@centos.org wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Robert Hellerheller@deepsoft.com wrote:
Does there exist *anywhere* a Java web browser plugin for 64-bit FireFox? The SUN 1.6<mumble> JDK (jdk-6u18-linux-amd64.rpm) does NOT include the Java web browser plugin library.
It's been available since jdk-u13.
Just link the library
<whatever>./jre/lib/amd64/libnpjp2.soto the firefox's plugin directory under /usr/lib64/firefox-<whatever>/plugins.
You may have to create the plugins directory.
I did this. The plugin does NOT show up in about:plugins.
I think it's the wrong directory - this is only valid for a certain firefox version.
Try this: # ll /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins insgesamt 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 41 14. Apr 2009 libjavaplugin.so -> /etc/alternatives/libjavaplugin.so.x86_64
Here the alternatives stuff comes from the redhat packaged jre plugin version, you need to modify to where you installed the plugin.
Rainer
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:34 AM, Robert Heller heller@deepsoft.com wrote:
Does there exist *anywhere* a Java web browser plugin for 64-bit FireFox? The SUN 1.6<mumble> JDK (jdk-6u18-linux-amd64.rpm) does NOT include the Java web browser plugin library.
It's been available since jdk-u13.
Just link the library
<whatever>/jre/lib/amd64/libnpjp2.so
to the firefox's plugin directory under /usr/lib64/firefox-<whatever>/plugins.
You may have to create the plugins directory.
Does there exist *anywhere* a Java web browser plugin for 64-bit FireFox? The SUN 1.6<mumble> JDK (jdk-6u18-linux-amd64.rpm) does NOT
I personally prefer to use the OpenJDK build of JDK 1.6 (Sun's JDK still has licensing issue)
As discussed recently on this list ("[CentOS] stock openjdk vs. epel"), there are issues with the plugin when building on CentOS x86_64: http://icedtea.classpath.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=405 The workaround is to use another version of the java plugin when building (see previous discussion)
Meanwhile we have repackaged a recent version of OpenJDK based on the Fedora 12 version. It contains the java plugin for Firefox and simply install it when installing the related RPMs. (no further tweaking required)
You can: - download the SRPM here and rebuild it yourself http://www.argeo.org/linux/argeo-el/5/plus/SRPMS/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-... - download the x86_64 RPMs here: http://www.argeo.org/linux/argeo-el/5/plus/x86_64/ - use the related yum repo (BE CAREFUL and use includepkgs: all packages in this repo *upgrade* base CentOS)
Please note that this package REPLACES the standard OpenJDK 1.6.0.b09 provided by CentOS/RHEL to 1.6.0.b16 (thus fixing some issues).
We use it in production, but no guarantees... Feedback is of course welcome!
-
Agile Aspect -
Les Mikesell -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Mathieu Baudier -
Michael A. Peters -
Ned Slider -
Nicolas Thierry-Mieg -
Rainer Traut -
Rob Kampen -
Robert Heller -
Scot P. Floess