I have some problems installing java support to my browser (firefox). This support I installed with no problem when running the 32 bit version on the same machine, but now I can't find the plugin. I running on S754 - AMD XP3000
this is the file i download: jre-1_5_0_04-linux-amd64.bin
And I am following the installation instructions from this link: http://java.com/en/download/help/5000010500.xml
Everything seems to install perfectly, but the libjavaplugin_oji.so is not included, I can't find. Maybe there is an other file to link up to? If someone has the answer, please!
kai
On Sat, 2005-09-17 at 19:37 +0200, Kai wrote:
I have some problems installing java support to my browser (firefox). This support I installed with no problem when running the 32 bit version on the same machine, but now I can't find the plugin. I running on S754 - AMD XP3000
this is the file i download: jre-1_5_0_04-linux-amd64.bin
And I am following the installation instructions from this link: http://java.com/en/download/help/5000010500.xml
Everything seems to install perfectly, but the libjavaplugin_oji.so is not included, I can't find. Maybe there is an other file to link up to? If someone has the answer, please!
Sun used to say this more openly in the past, but they don't have a x86_64 version of the browser plugin.
I ran into pretty much the same problem. I tried several times to install the runtime lib, and it sat there and did nothing. Got to reading and there does not seem to be support for the 86-64 versions. What do you do then? Run the 32-bit version of the browsers?
Sam Drinkard wrote:
I ran into pretty much the same problem. I tried several times to install the runtime lib, and it sat there and did nothing. Got to reading and there does not seem to be support for the 86-64 versions. What do you do then? Run the 32-bit version of the browsers?
The 32-bit version of the browser should work fine. There is nothing in the browser that I can think of that needs 64-bit support, and the i86_64 architecture can run 32-bit code efficiently :-). People bump into this somewhat regularly on the SuSE AMD64 list and 'run it 32-bit' is usually the solution. The only thing to be alert to is having all of the required 32-bit libraries installed, and in the right places. YMMV & all that ....
On Sat, 2005-09-17 at 15:48 -0500, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
Sam Drinkard wrote:
I ran into pretty much the same problem. I tried several times to install the runtime lib, and it sat there and did nothing. Got to reading and there does not seem to be support for the 86-64 versions. What do you do then? Run the 32-bit version of the browsers?
The 32-bit version of the browser should work fine. There is nothing in the browser that I can think of that needs 64-bit support, and the i86_64 architecture can run 32-bit code efficiently :-). People bump into this somewhat regularly on the SuSE AMD64 list and 'run it 32-bit' is usually the solution. The only thing to be alert to is having all of the required 32-bit libraries installed, and in the right places. YMMV & all that ....
Yeah, I was involved with x86-64 for a while using SuSE. Like when it first come out for the AMD64 and this was the solution to many problems. Run the 32 bit browsers. Other plugins (Flash, etc.) have similar problems.
Preston
William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
Sam Drinkard wrote:
I ran into pretty much the same problem. I tried several times to install the runtime lib, and it sat there and did nothing. Got to reading and there does not seem to be support for the 86-64 versions. What do you do then? Run the 32-bit version of the browsers?
The 32-bit version of the browser should work fine. There is nothing in the browser that I can think of that needs 64-bit support, and the i86_64 architecture can run 32-bit code efficiently :-). People bump into this somewhat regularly on the SuSE AMD64 list and 'run it 32-bit' is usually the solution. The only thing to be alert to is having all of the required 32-bit libraries installed, and in the right places. YMMV & all that ....
Hopefully with Sun tooting its horn over the new Opteron boxes it's selling, they'll get with the program and actually get around to recompiling the darned thing.
Cheers,
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 03:14:04PM -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
On Sat, 2005-09-17 at 19:37 +0200, Kai wrote:
I have some problems installing java support to my browser (firefox). This support I installed with no problem when running the 32 bit version on the same machine, but now I can't find the plugin. I running on S754 - AMD XP3000
this is the file i download: jre-1_5_0_04-linux-amd64.bin
And I am following the installation instructions from this link: http://java.com/en/download/help/5000010500.xml
Everything seems to install perfectly, but the libjavaplugin_oji.so is not included, I can't find. Maybe there is an other file to link up to? If someone has the answer, please!
Sun used to say this more openly in the past, but they don't have a x86_64 version of the browser plugin.
You can use the blackdown's version http://www.blackdown.org/java-linux/java2-status/jdk1.4-status.html
It's working on CentOS-3 x86_64.
Tru
On Sat, 2005-09-17 at 19:37 +0200, Kai wrote:
I have some problems installing java support to my browser (firefox). This support I installed with no problem when running the 32 bit version on the same machine, but now I can't find the plugin. I running on S754 - AMD XP3000
this is the file i download: jre-1_5_0_04-linux-amd64.bin
And I am following the installation instructions from this link: http://java.com/en/download/help/5000010500.xml
Everything seems to install perfectly, but the libjavaplugin_oji.so is not included, I can't find. Maybe there is an other file to link up to? If someone has the answer, please!
I'll second the suggestion to run the 32-bit browser. It's my understanding that with AMD processors, 64-bit gets you a larger address space but not much speed (by this, I mean that 32-bit and 64-bit programs will run at more or less the same speed on a given 64-bit ADM processor). The browser doesn't need the extra address space.
You will need to remove the 64-bit version of Firefox, and then install the 32-bit version (yum remove firefox; yum install firefox.i386).
What do we gain by using a 64-bit version of Firefox? So many of the plugins won't work with it & aren't available in 64bit.
If there's no gain, would it not make sense to stop building the 64-bit version and default to the 32-bit version?
Regards, David
My thoughts pretty much along the same lines. I can't see where a browser would *ever* use as much memory space that can be alloted under the 64-bit OS. One question to go along with this topic, does the 32-bit version provide for auto install of plugins, or are all a manual addition?
On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 23:20 -0400, David Johnston wrote:
On Sat, 2005-09-17 at 19:37 +0200, Kai wrote:
I have some problems installing java support to my browser (firefox). This support I installed with no problem when running the 32 bit version on the same machine, but now I can't find the plugin. I running on S754 - AMD XP3000
this is the file i download: jre-1_5_0_04-linux-amd64.bin
And I am following the installation instructions from this link: http://java.com/en/download/help/5000010500.xml
Everything seems to install perfectly, but the libjavaplugin_oji.so is not included, I can't find. Maybe there is an other file to link up to? If someone has the answer, please!
I'll second the suggestion to run the 32-bit browser. It's my understanding that with AMD processors, 64-bit gets you a larger address space but not much speed (by this, I mean that 32-bit and 64-bit programs will run at more or less the same speed on a given 64-bit ADM processor). The browser doesn't need the extra address space.
You will need to remove the 64-bit version of Firefox, and then install the 32-bit version (yum remove firefox; yum install firefox.i386).
What do we gain by using a 64-bit version of Firefox? So many of the plugins won't work with it & aren't available in 64bit.
If there's no gain, would it not make sense to stop building the 64-bit version and default to the 32-bit version?
Maybe ... but we build it like the upstream provider. They release firefox only as an x86_64 version for el4 ... therefore so do we.
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 05:51 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 23:20 -0400, David Johnston wrote:
On Sat, 2005-09-17 at 19:37 +0200, Kai wrote:
I have some problems installing java support to my browser (firefox). This support I installed with no problem when running the 32 bit version on the same machine, but now I can't find the plugin.
I'll second the suggestion to run the 32-bit browser. What do we gain by using a 64-bit version of Firefox? So many of the plugins won't work with it & aren't available in 64bit.
If there's no gain, would it not make sense to stop building the 64-bit version and default to the 32-bit version?
Maybe ... but we build it like the upstream provider. They release firefox only as an x86_64 version for el4 ... therefore so do we.
So should we file reports in Red Hat's bugzilla or lobby you to make an exception in this case? ;-)
The current system (64-bit browser) breaks things and requires manual intervention to get things working. If you stop building Firefox for 64-bit architectures, yum will fall back to the 32-bit versions which work, meaning that no manual intervention will be required.
-David
David Johnston wrote:
I have some problems installing java support to my browser (firefox). This support I installed with no problem when running the 32 bit version on the same machine, but now I can't find the plugin.
I'll second the suggestion to run the 32-bit browser. What do we gain by using a 64-bit version of Firefox? So many of the plugins won't work with it & aren't available in 64bit.
A distro isnt built around a single app - and if there is a feature lacking on one tree ( x86_64 in this case ) the system is capable of running the i386 distro, perhaps you might want to switch ? I run Firefox.x86_64 with no issues, but then I dont need/use any of those plugins either :)
Having said that, its also possible, to just grab the firefox.i386 browser from the i386 tree and install that locally. A couple of well placed exclude= and includepkgs= in the relevant yum config files, will even let you automate the process.
So should we file reports in Red Hat's bugzilla or lobby you to make an exception in this case? ;-)
Does ( as Tru already pointed out ) http://www.blackdown.org/java-linux/java2-status/jdk1.4-status.html not give you what you need w.r.t Java on x86_64 ?
The current system (64-bit browser) breaks things and requires manual intervention to get things working. If you stop building Firefox for 64-bit architectures, yum will fall back to the 32-bit versions which work, meaning that no manual intervention will be required.
There is no 32bit, i386 firefox in the CentOS/x86_64 distro tree so yum is not going to fall back to anything.
ref: http://mirror.centos.org/centos/4/os/x86_64/CentOS/RPMS/
- K
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 11:17 -0400, David Johnston wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 05:51 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 23:20 -0400, David Johnston wrote:
On Sat, 2005-09-17 at 19:37 +0200, Kai wrote:
I have some problems installing java support to my browser (firefox). This support I installed with no problem when running the 32 bit version on the same machine, but now I can't find the plugin.
I'll second the suggestion to run the 32-bit browser. What do we gain by using a 64-bit version of Firefox? So many of the plugins won't work with it & aren't available in 64bit.
If there's no gain, would it not make sense to stop building the 64-bit version and default to the 32-bit version?
Maybe ... but we build it like the upstream provider. They release firefox only as an x86_64 version for el4 ... therefore so do we.
So should we file reports in Red Hat's bugzilla or lobby you to make an exception in this case? ;-)
The current system (64-bit browser) breaks things and requires manual intervention to get things working. If you stop building Firefox for 64-bit architectures, yum will fall back to the 32-bit versions which work, meaning that no manual intervention will be required.
Only if all the .i386 packages required to run the .i386 version of FireFox are also in the x86_64 tree. They may or may not be included.
BUT ... we will keep the main tree exactly like the one from upstream.
Let me see if I can figure out what packages are required.
If you do this, it will probably work OK:
1. Download firefox-1.0.6-1.4.2.centos4.i386.rpm from here:
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/4/updates/i386/RPMS/
2. Use this command (from within the directory where you downloaded firefox):
yum install firefox-1.0.6-1.4.2.centos4.i386.rpm
3. When I did this, it resolved all the required i386 and i686 packages from the x86_64 tree.
4. That doesn't mean that there are all the required i386 items to run the 32-bit plugins or Java. This will break your ability to properly build RPMS from SRPMS that are 64bit.
Personally, if you need to run 32-bit software, I would just install the i386 distro on my x86_64.
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Personally, if you need to run 32-bit software, I would just install the i386 distro on my x86_64.
I hate to say, but I concur with this opinion. I had an Athlon 64 for a while and tried running SuSE on it when it first went 64 bit. With all the various plugins (Java, Flash, etc.) that don't work, you really have to ask yourself what you use the computer for. If you need the plugins and other 32-bit apps, then it might not be worth running the 64-bit version. That was my experience. The x86_64 architecture is worth it, IMO, if only because of the shorter execution pipeline, etc. So I think it's a good investment. Unfortunately, I don't think software has caught up yet to where using it for desktop stuff provides a significant advantage.
Maybe for databases. I don't know.
Preston
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, Preston Crawford wrote:
shorter execution pipeline, etc. So I think it's a good investment. Unfortunately, I don't think software has caught up yet to where using it for desktop stuff provides a significant advantage.
Using the 64 bit version, I mean. I think the Athlon 64 is definitely worth it. I'm just not sure if I'd run a 64-bit Linux distro on it yet. You still get huge advantages running a 32-bit distro on it.
Preston
-
Chris Mauritz -
David Johnston -
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams -
Johnny Hughes -
Kai -
Karanbir Singh -
Preston Crawford -
Sam Drinkard -
Tru Huynh -
William A. Mahaffey III