On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:56 AM, David G. Miller wrote:
> SIGH. The choice is always bleeding edge (and take your lumps) or stability
> but
> missing the most recent versions. I'm looking at a career change (or mid-life
> crisis) with the network security classes. I'm not finding that I enjoy
David G. Miller wrote:
> Ron Blizzard writes:
>
>> I hadn't logged into Fedora for about ten days -- which was the last
>> time I updated it. I updated it again today and it already had 315
>> Megs of updates. I think Fedora is a good distribution, but I don't
>> think I would want that kind of u
Ron Blizzard writes:
> I hadn't logged into Fedora for about ten days -- which was the last
> time I updated it. I updated it again today and it already had 315
> Megs of updates. I think Fedora is a good distribution, but I don't
> think I would want that kind of upkeep traffic. (Which is one of
Mike A. Harris wrote:
> http://mharris.ca/pub/el/5/SRPMS/xulrunner-1.9.1.2-0.mh.1.src.rpm
> http://mharris.ca/pub/el/5/SRPMS/firefox-3.5.2-0.mh.2.src.rpm
> http://mharris.ca/pub/el/5/SRPMS/mozilla-filesystem-1.9-4.src.rpm
Mike, thanks! They all built and seem to run well for me.
I did have to in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Thomas wrote:
> Ron Blizzard wrote:
>> Firefox 3.5 and *some* CentOS 5.3 computers (an Xorg graphics card
>> incompatibility issue?) -- it goes beyond the RPM package released by
>>
> For the record, I have been using Michael Harris' 3.5 Firefox w
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 13:06, David G. Miller wrote:
> I just checked the links with FF 3.5.2 under Fedora Core 11 and they open just
> fine. This would seem to narrow the problem down to FF 3.5 on CentOS 5.3.
> Perhaps someone with a CentOS 4.X could give it a try (assuming FF 3.5 will
> in
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:06 PM, David G. Miller wrote:
> I just checked the links with FF 3.5.2 under Fedora Core 11 and they open just
> fine. This would seem to narrow the problem down to FF 3.5 on CentOS 5.3.
> Perhaps someone with a CentOS 4.X could give it a try (assuming FF 3.5 will
> ins
Ron Blizzard writes:
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
> > I have Firefox 3.5 (the mozilla.com version) on CentOS 5.3 using an
> > Intel card and it has caused X to restart on a couple of occasions.
> >
> > I am shifting back to the 3.0 version in the repo.
>
> A grea
On 8/10/09, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Ron Blizzard wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:20 PM, John
>> Thomas wrote:
>>> Ron Blizzard wrote:
Firefox 3.5 and *some* CentOS 5.3 computers (an Xorg graphics card
incompatibility issue?) -- it goes beyond the RPM package released by
>>> For t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ron Blizzard wrote:
> I set up a CentOS desktop computer for my brother and his kids. When
> Firefox 3.5 came out he decided to download and install it like he
> would Windows (he doesn't yet understand the repository system). He's
> been telling me th
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:46 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> I have Firefox 3.5 (the mozilla.com version) on CentOS 5.3 using an
> Intel card and it has caused X to restart on a couple of occasions.
>
> I am shifting back to the 3.0 version in the repo.
A great test page for the bug it is right on Cen
Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:20 PM, John
> Thomas wrote:
>> Ron Blizzard wrote:
>>> Firefox 3.5 and *some* CentOS 5.3 computers (an Xorg graphics card
>>> incompatibility issue?) -- it goes beyond the RPM package released by
>>>
>> For the record, I have been using Michael Harris
Lanny Marcus wrote:
> On 8/10/09, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>
>> I set up a CentOS desktop computer for my brother and his kids. When
>> Firefox 3.5 came out he decided to download and install it like he
>> would Windows (he doesn't yet understand the repository system). He's
>> been telling me that
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Lanny Marcus wrote:
> Ron: My Desktop is dual boot. M$ WinXP Home and CentOS 5.3 (32 bit). I
> rarely use M$ Windows, but yesterday I needed to use it, and I was
> offered an Update for Mozilla Firefox. What was offered was not 3.5.
> It was 3.0.13 as I recall. I u
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 5:20 PM, John
Thomas wrote:
> Ron Blizzard wrote:
>> Firefox 3.5 and *some* CentOS 5.3 computers (an Xorg graphics card
>> incompatibility issue?) -- it goes beyond the RPM package released by
>>
> For the record, I have been using Michael Harris' 3.5 Firefox without
> any i
On 8/10/09, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> I set up a CentOS desktop computer for my brother and his kids. When
> Firefox 3.5 came out he decided to download and install it like he
> would Windows (he doesn't yet understand the repository system). He's
> been telling me that it works fine, even though I wa
Ron Blizzard wrote:
> Firefox 3.5 and *some* CentOS 5.3 computers (an Xorg graphics card
> incompatibility issue?) -- it goes beyond the RPM package released by
>
For the record, I have been using Michael Harris' 3.5 Firefox without
any issues at all and with some speed benefits. I hope Mr. Harr
I set up a CentOS desktop computer for my brother and his kids. When
Firefox 3.5 came out he decided to download and install it like he
would Windows (he doesn't yet understand the repository system). He's
been telling me that it works fine, even though I was skeptical due to
my experience with Fir
18 matches
Mail list logo
