I'd like to point out that overall I am quite pleased with CentOS 5, although I am having more fun with it than I did with 4.4 and I knew less about CentOS then (duh).
Most things seem to work fine, including a relatively smooth installation from the DVD image I downloaded, although the number of screensavers I can see (and this could be related to the ATI/dual head problem) is pathetically low - there are only 5 or six. Phleagh. I had no trouble reinstalling the border theme I had before, and although I don't particularly like the new main menu construction, it makes sense enough to be not too unworthwhile. I'm curious about how the suspend function works, how to reactivate (nothing seemed to work) and, most importantly, how to get it OFF the main menu.
Anyway, I reinstalled Seamonkey 1.1.1, and it landed flawlessly, although I had to look to find the x86_64 version. It came without any plugins, as usual, but I have tried reinstalling the flash player plugin, and it just won't work, not even with nspluginwrapper installed. Is there some trick to this that I need to know (and what?)?
Thanks.
On 5/2/07, Mark Hull-Richter mhullrich@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, I reinstalled Seamonkey 1.1.1, and it landed flawlessly, although I had to look to find the x86_64 version.
There's a reason.....
It came without any plugins, as usual, but I have tried reinstalling the flash player plugin, and it just won't work, not even with nspluginwrapper installed. Is there some trick to this that I need to know (and what?)?
No trick. Sane people don't use the x86_64 browsers because the common plugins don't support x86_64 yet. No flash for you on x86_64. A simple amount of googling or checking the list archives would have revealed this deep secret.
This is why (multiple times on the list, and many times since you've joined) we tell desktop users to stick with x86, even on x86_64 hardware, unless they're willing to deal with the hassle of maintaining a multi-arch system.
On 5/2/07, Jim Perrin jperrin@gmail.com wrote:
This is why (multiple times on the list, and many times since you've joined) we tell desktop users to stick with x86, even on x86_64 hardware, unless they're willing to deal with the hassle of maintaining a multi-arch system.
It doesn't work in seamonkey or firefox. I used seamonkey-1.1.1-1.i386.rpm for the former, and installed the flash-plugin-9.0.31.0-1.el5.rf.i386.rpm for the plugin. It doesn't show up on either browser's list of plugins, and I've tried rpm -ivh and rpm -Uvh, even with --force. Nada.
As for the notes about previous warnings on this subject, I was hoping that something might be DIFFERENT in CentOS 5 in this regard, but clearly not. (Thanks a lot, RHEL.)
Again, this is something that I had working in CentOS 4.4 that no longer works. Disappointing.
Mark Hull-Richter wrote:
As for the notes about previous warnings on this subject, I was hoping that something might be DIFFERENT in CentOS 5 in this regard, but clearly not. (Thanks a lot, RHEL.)
There is no 64bit flash plugin. And RHEL has nothing to do with it. Go bother Adobe.
Again, this is something that I had working in CentOS 4.4 that no longer works. Disappointing.
Strange. The 32bit plugin from macromedia.mplug.org works flawlessly here on a 32bit firefox.
Ralph
On 5/2/07, Mark Hull-Richter mhullrich@gmail.com wrote:
As for the notes about previous warnings on this subject, I was hoping that something might be DIFFERENT in CentOS 5 in this regard, but clearly not. (Thanks a lot, RHEL.)
This is not RHEL issue, nor is centos5 a magic bullet that cures user error. You have only yourself to blame for this. Flash works just fine on centos5 x86, and I have witnessed it working just fine on x86_64 as well, though I do not have such hardware myself.
If you want someone to blame for flash not supporting x86_64, then bitch to adobe. If you want someone to blame for it not working on your system, find a mirror.
Again, this is something that I had working in CentOS 4.4 that no longer works. Disappointing.
Yes it is, quite. The procedure is no different on centos5 than it was on centos4. The browser is the same, the file locations are the same. Nothing is drastically different in operation between centos4 and centos5 so far as the browser goes. The only explanation here is user error, and failure to understand where your browser puts things, and where it expects things to be.
On 5/2/07, Jim Perrin jperrin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/2/07, Mark Hull-Richter mhullrich@gmail.com wrote:
This is not RHEL issue, nor is centos5 a magic bullet that cures user error.
I said I was hoping things would be different in this regard. How does that refer to a magic bullet?
You have only yourself to blame for this.
True - expecting the same results from the same procedure when the below comment of yours applies is obviously my fault. Okay, it's my fault.
Flash works just fine on centos5 x86, and I have witnessed it working just fine on x86_64 as well, though I do not have such hardware myself.
That was also my experience, on CentOS 4.4. It is not yet so on 5.0.
If you want someone to blame for flash not supporting x86_64, then bitch to adobe.
Well, actually, I wasn't looking for someone to blame, I was looking for assistance on what might not be right in what I've done or where things are, not a (another?) diatribe on how I am to blame for something not working the same way when nothing has changed, in this regard.
BTW, I have bitched to adobe, and they paid as much attention as they routinely do to any free product - none. However, they also did not insult me for making noise about a problem I encountered.
If you want someone to blame for it not working on your system, find a mirror.
See above.
Again, this is something that I had working in CentOS 4.4 that no longer works. Disappointing.
Yes it is, quite. The procedure is no different on centos5 than it was on centos4. The browser is the same, the file locations are the same. Nothing is drastically different in operation between centos4 and centos5 so far as the browser goes. The only explanation here is user error, and failure to understand where your browser puts things, and where it expects things to be.
Well, let's see now. I have this:
/usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/flashplayer.xpt
Which is pretty much what I had before, except before I also had the nspluginwrapper and its associated libraries and binaries. On my machine at home, which is running CentOS 4.4 Plus with the i686 seamonkey (and where the flash player actually runs, though without sound, I have these:
/usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins/npwrapper.libflashplayer.so /usr/lib/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so /usr/local/seamonkey/plugins/libflashplayer.so
So maybe I'll try restarting seamonkey after I link to its plugin directory here, but that doesn't explain why firefox also cannot see it.
If you know something about this all that I don't, you could tell me instead of insulting me for not knowing it. That might be a slightly more effective way of reaching other subscribers as well as assisting me, unless you just wanted to blow off some steam, in which case, thanks for the hot air. :-}
On 5/2/07, Mark Hull-Richter mhullrich@gmail.com wrote:
Well, let's see now. I have this:
/usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/flashplayer.xpt
Which is pretty much what I had before, except before I also had the nspluginwrapper and its associated libraries and binaries. On my machine at home, which is running CentOS 4.4 Plus with the i686 seamonkey (and where the flash player actually runs, though without sound, I have these:
/usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins/npwrapper.libflashplayer.so /usr/lib/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so /usr/local/seamonkey/plugins/libflashplayer.so
So maybe I'll try restarting seamonkey after I link to its plugin directory here, but that doesn't explain why firefox also cannot see it.
Fascinating - all I needed was the link, for seamonkey, that is. Firefox still does not handle flash movies.
Now, why doesn't the rpm do that when it installs the player?
Never mind, I'll probably be at fault for that one, too.
Cheers!
On 5/2/07, Mark Hull-Richter mhullrich@gmail.com wrote:
If you know something about this all that I don't, you could tell me instead of insulting me for not knowing it. That might be a slightly more effective way of reaching other subscribers as well as assisting me, unless you just wanted to blow off some steam, in which case, thanks for the hot air. :-}
Taking this one off-list so folks can't see where the bodies are buried.
On 5/2/07, Jim Perrin jperrin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/2/07, Mark Hull-Richter mhullrich@gmail.com wrote:
If you know something about this all that I don't, you could tell me instead of insulting me for not knowing it. That might be a slightly more effective way of reaching other subscribers as well as assisting me, unless you just wanted to blow off some steam, in which case, thanks for the hot air. :-}
Taking this one off-list so folks can't see where the bodies are buried.
No, 'm not dead.
I wanted to add that I managed to get VMWare Workstation (and the Windows on it) up flawlessly with no pain at all, and with a little struggle (because I did forget a few things) I managed to get my Samba back up in short order.
Overall, I'm very pleased with 5.0. And since I looked a little deeper and am now using the 32-bit seamonkey, the flashplayer is working perfectly as well.
Thanks to all, esp. the CentOS team, and I hope to find the video problem soon enough, or at least a way around it.
mhr
Mark Hull-Richter wrote:
Well, let's see now. I have this:
/usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/flashplayer.xpt
Which is pretty much what I had before, except before I also had the nspluginwrapper and its associated libraries and binaries. On my machine at home, which is running CentOS 4.4 Plus with the i686 seamonkey (and where the flash player actually runs, though without sound, I have these:
/usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins/npwrapper.libflashplayer.so /usr/lib/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so /usr/local/seamonkey/plugins/libflashplayer.so
So maybe I'll try restarting seamonkey after I link to its plugin directory here, but that doesn't explain why firefox also cannot see it.
If you know something about this all that I don't, you could tell me instead of insulting me for not knowing it. That might be a slightly more effective way of reaching other subscribers as well as assisting me, unless you just wanted to blow off some steam, in which case, thanks for the hot air. :-}
Check about:plugins, it may provide useful info.
Mark Hull-Richter wrote:
I'd like to point out that overall I am quite pleased with CentOS 5, although I am having more fun with it than I did with 4.4 and I knew less about CentOS then (duh).
Most things seem to work fine, including a relatively smooth installation from the DVD image I downloaded, although the number of screensavers I can see (and this could be related to the ATI/dual head problem) is pathetically low - there are only 5 or six. Phleagh. I had no trouble reinstalling the border theme I had before, and although I don't particularly like the new main menu construction, it makes sense enough to be not too unworthwhile. I'm curious about how the suspend function works, how to reactivate (nothing seemed to work) and, most importantly, how to get it OFF the main menu.
Anyway, I reinstalled Seamonkey 1.1.1, and it landed flawlessly, although I had to look to find the x86_64 version. It came without any plugins, as usual, but I have tried reinstalling the flash player plugin, and it just won't work, not even with nspluginwrapper installed. Is there some trick to this that I need to know (and what?)?
Thanks.
Myself installed flash player from rpmforge, and it works OK under firefox. Perhaps you may give it a try?
On 5/2/07, Ioannis Vranos ivranos@freemail.gr wrote:
Myself installed flash player from rpmforge, and it works OK under firefox. Perhaps you may give it a try?
Been there, done that, no luck.
Thanks, though.
Mark Hull-Richter wrote:
x86_64 flash playerplugin won't work
Good observation. There is no 64bit flash. Neither for Linux nor for Windows nor for you-name-it.
Go tell Adobe about that. Or use a 32bit browser (and needed libs) on your machine. Before you find out that there is no 64bit java browser plugin either, yet.
Or go 32bit all the way if you don't want to maintain a multi-arch system.
Not that this issue comes up in regular intervals on this mailing list.
Ralph
On 5/2/07, Ralph Angenendt ra+centos@br-online.de wrote:
Or go 32bit all the way if you don't want to maintain a multi-arch system.
I don't mind - it's a minor hassle at the moment.
Not that this issue comes up in regular intervals on this mailing list.
Yes, it does seem to do that....
-
Ioannis Vranos -
Jim Perrin -
Mark Hull-Richter -
Ralph Angenendt