William L. Maltby wrote: > On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 10:07 -0500, Sam Drinkard wrote: > >> Lanny Marcus wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Sam Drinkard <sam at wa4phy.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> After I think the last or next to last update to firefox, I >started >>>> seeing some problems, wherein I no longer have a >"back" function on any >>>> pages or tabs. >>>> <snip> >>>> > > >>> Can you verify the Firefox Package, to see that it is or is not corrupted? >>> >>> >>> >> Yes, I've removed and reinstalled via yum and the Centos repo. >> > > Again, I'm really ignorant, but I have one other thought. Have you tried > moving all the user-specific stuff directory to another name and letting > FF start up "fresh"? I recently had a problem regarding the destruction > of the pluginreg.dat. Still waiting to hear if I should post a bug on > it. The problem was having FF check to see if it was the default browser > (needs to be disabled). Anyway, since you've re-installed, maybe > something corrupted some configuration files. > > It's easy to do, so worth a try I guess. > > The ones with which I'm familiar are ~/.mozilla/firefox and ~/.mozilla/ > although I don't think the latter one is involved. There's probably some > system-wide ones, but I've never had to chase those down yet. > > BTW, did you try an rpm verify after the re-install? We don't want to > "assume" that things were not corrupted by the download/install process. > > >>> <snip sig stuff> >>> > > I need to add you to my spell-checker. It want's me to believe you're a > "Drunkard". :-) > > HTH > Hahahahahaha! That's about what I feel like this morning Bill. Too many 'rita's yesterday evening. I thought of removing all the mozilla stuff in home to see if that helped, but have not gotten a roundtuit yet. I did verify the file, and it checks out ok. Now that the inbox is cleaned up, I'll give it a shot and see what happens. Thanks.. Sam