Hello,
On Sun, 2024-12-01 at 15:28 +0100, Jan Montag wrote:
> Am 30.11.24 um 23:03 schrieb Ken Cunningham:
>
> > I realize I could sort it out, but doing these kinds of things always
> > takes a lot of time to get organized, so if anyone cares to share the
> > step-by-step process, it would be gr
On Sat, 2024-11-30 at 14:03 -0800, Ken Cunningham wrote:
> If anyone goes through all the steps to get to the point where they could
> try building Firefox on one of these builders through to completion, and
> perhaps downloading it to their local machine for testing, I would very
> much appreciate
Hi Ken
Am 30.11.24 um 23:03 schrieb Ken Cunningham:
I realize I could sort it out, but doing these kinds of things always takes a
lot of time to get organized, so if anyone cares to share the step-by-step
process, it would be great.
I am really interested, too.
--
Herzlichst Jan Montag
via
Hi Adrian,
thank you very much for that clarification. I wanted to try to build it
on own hardware, I thought it might be a good idea because it's then
real-world.
I want to say that Rene Rebe also built Firefox but it doesnt run on T2
afaik.
Thank you for the links in the second post, I g
If anyone goes through all the steps to get to the point where they could try
building Firefox on one of these builders through to completion, and perhaps
downloading it to their local machine for testing, I would very much appreciate
a walkthrough of all the steps involved.
I realize I could s
Hi,
On Sat, 2024-11-30 at 17:20 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> I don't recommend using an old PowerMac for building anything as big as
> Firefox. Rather, I'd recommend either requesting an instance running
> Debian ppc64 (big-endian) on the OpenPOWER platform [1] or getting an
> account
Hi Jan,
On Sat, 2024-11-30 at 09:34 +0100, Jan Montag wrote:
> I am with you,
> I tried to apply the patches provided by solaris, I tried to compile but
> on the Powermac itself it lasts three days to compile with the end of
> did'nt successfully compiled. I do understand now the problem of not
Hi Adrian,
I am with you,
I tried to apply the patches provided by solaris, I tried to compile but
on the Powermac itself it lasts three days to compile with the end of
did'nt successfully compiled. I do understand now the problem of not
having the time or not having the hardware or to be frus
On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 03:43:28PM +0100, Jan Montag wrote:
> I also keep trying to compile or install a current
> browser. Unfortunately this doesn't work for reasons I don't
> understand. How has this progressed? The current version of Firefox
> is 132.0.0.2 and still prod
Hi,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
[1]https://github.com/oracle/solaris-userland/tree/master/components/desktop/firefox/patches
interesting set... I recognize one:
https://github.com/oracle/solaris-userland/blob/master/components/desktop/firefox/patches/firefox-53-sparc-gfx-atomicops.patch
Hi,
Jan Montag wrote:
since I just bought a Powermac G5 (powermac11.2) Dual 2 GHz, I'm
running Debian 12 SID on it. I also keep trying to compile or install a
current browser. Unfortunately this doesn't work for reasons I don't
understand. How has this progressed? The current ver
n Montag wrote:
> > since I just bought a Powermac G5 (powermac11.2) Dual 2 GHz, I'm
> > running Debian 12 SID on it. I also keep trying to compile or
> > install a current browser. Unfortunately this doesn't work for
> > reasons I don't understand. How has t
Hi Jan,
On Mon, 2024-11-18 at 15:43 +0100, Jan Montag wrote:
> since I just bought a Powermac G5 (powermac11.2) Dual 2 GHz, I'm
> running Debian 12 SID on it. I also keep trying to compile or install a
> current browser. Unfortunately this doesn't work for reasons I don'
Hello,
since I just bought a Powermac G5 (powermac11.2) Dual 2 GHz, I'm
running Debian 12 SID on it. I also keep trying to compile or install a
current browser. Unfortunately this doesn't work for reasons I don't
understand. How has this progressed? The current version of Firefox i
Hi Adrian,
I’m getting stuck building firefox, and as you’re building it already, how do
we get past this?
thanks,
Ken
I did this:
$ apt-get build-dep firefox
$ apt source firefox
$ apt install python-is-python3
$ cd firefox-120.0
$ dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc
but I keep getting this:
——
Hi!
On Thu, 2023-11-23 at 23:45 +0100, kristoffer...@tuta.io wrote:
>
> Deeper debugging is beyond my skills. I don't know if this helps but the "bt"
> command gave me this:
>
> (gdb) bt
> #0 i32_load8_u (addr=2016478208, mem=) at rlbox.wasm.c:146
> #1 w2c_rlbox_streqci (var_p0=var_p0@entry=2
wasm.c:21307
#9 0x7fffea016ab0 in
rlbox::rlbox_wasm2c_sandbox::impl_invoke_with_func_ptr(XML_Status
(*)(unsigned int, unsigned int, int, int), unsigned int&&, unsigned int&&,
unsigned int&&, bool&&) (func_ptr=, this=0x7fffcaf62000) at
./build-browser/dist/inc
Am Donnerstag, dem 23.11.2023 um 09:01 +0100 schrieb Johannes
Brakensiek:
> Crashdump was attached.
Backtrace, to be more precise.
Johannes
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, dem 22.11.2023 um 10:18 +0100 schrieb
kristoffer...@tuta.io:
> I caught this today thru gdb and Firefox 120.0-1 on my dual G5:
>
> Thread 1 "firefox" received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> i32_load8_u (addr=2016478208, mem=) at
> rlbox.wasm.c:146
> 146 rlbox.wasm.c: No su
Hi,
I caught this today thru gdb and Firefox 120.0-1 on my dual G5:
Thread 1 "firefox" received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
i32_load8_u (addr=2016478208, mem=) at rlbox.wasm.c:146
146 rlbox.wasm.c: No such file or directory.
Regards,
Kris
--
Wysyłano z Tuta, ciesz się bezpiecznymi i
Hi!
On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 22:05 +0100, Johannes Brakensiek wrote:
> Am Dienstag, dem 21.11.2023 um 21:20 +0100 schrieb John Paul Adrian
> Glaubitz:
> >
> > Please test this build which include the image decoder big-endian fix
> > from VoidPPC:
> >
> > > https://people.debian.org/~glaubitz/firefo
Hi Adrian,
Am Dienstag, dem 21.11.2023 um 21:20 +0100 schrieb John Paul Adrian
Glaubitz:
>
> Please test this build which include the image decoder big-endian fix
> from VoidPPC:
>
> > https://people.debian.org/~glaubitz/firefox-ppc64/test002/
>
> Adrian
>
thanks for providing the binary. It
On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 20:38 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> I have just been reminded by a comment in the upstream bug report [1] that
> the VoidPPC
> project actually has a number of patches which fix issues in Firefox on
> PowerPC [2] and
> I'm rebuilding Firefox with this patch [3] n
Hi!
On Mon, 2023-11-20 at 22:32 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> There is currently no up-to-date version of Firefox for 32-bit PowerPC since
> Firefox
> currently requires NodeJS to build which is not available on 32-bit PowerPC
> at the
> moment.
>
> It is actually possible, however,
On Tue, 2023-11-21 at 08:32 -0800, Ken Cunningham wrote:
> I added an 8GB swapfile, and (slowly) got this backtrace:
>
> # cat error.txt
> Thread 1 "firefox" received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> i32_load8_u (addr=2014643200, mem=) at rlbox.wasm.c:146
> 146 rlbox.wasm.c: No such file or
2c_sandbox::impl_invoke_with_func_ptr(XML_Status
(*)(unsigned int, unsigned int, int, int), unsigned int&&, unsigned int&&,
unsigned int&&, bool&&) (func_ptr=, this=0x7fffd992c000)
at ./build-browser/dist/include/mozilla/rlbox/rlbox_wasm2c_sandbox.hpp:763
#10
rlbox::rl
Trying to run firefox under gdb with the debug symbols installed appears to
result in an out-of-memory situation on my DualG5 with 3.5GB ram, I’m afraid.
Perhaps someone else has a system with more memory, or set up better than mine,
that could help.
Ken
-
$ gdb firefox
GNU gdb (Debian 13.2-1
a crash in libxul is not saying much.
>
> Try installing the debug package from here:
>
>> https://box.fu-berlin.de/s/oLNPG2EoPtyC8tb
>
> and then run firefox from gdb.
>
>> hopefully others had more luck. sure be nice to get a current browser!
>
> It would be n
ere:
> https://box.fu-berlin.de/s/oLNPG2EoPtyC8tb
and then run firefox from gdb.
> hopefully others had more luck. sure be nice to get a current browser!
It would be nice if more people could step forward and help me resolve these
issues. Running gdb and testing patches isn't that difficul
> On Nov 20, 2023, at 12:37 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:56 PM Ken Cunningham
> wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-11-20, at 2:06 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>>
On Nov 20, 2023, at 10:56 AM, Jeroen Diederen
wrote:
Firefox does not work.
>>>
>>>
; : Debian Developer
> `. `' Physicist
> `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
on my system I had another segfault, in libxul.
hopefully others had more luck. sure be nice to get a current browser!
Ken
On Mon, 2023-11-20 at 22:32 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Anyways, this particular crash a known upstream bug in Firefox [2]. I wonder
> whether
> it might be fixed by this particular patch [3].
I have rebuild the Firefox package for ppc64 with this patch included:
> https://people.d
Hi Jeffrey!
On Mon, 2023-11-20 at 15:37 -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:56 PM Ken Cunningham
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The one I have installed is:
> >
> > firefox/unstable,now 119.0.1-1 ppc64
> >
> > and it has a segmentation fault when you launch it.
>
> Out of curiosit
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:56 PM Ken Cunningham
wrote:
>
> On 2023-11-20, at 2:06 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
> >> On Nov 20, 2023, at 10:56 AM, Jeroen Diederen
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Firefox does not work.
> >
> > Did you try the latest version 119?
> >
> > If there is a patch which fi
On 2023-11-20, at 2:06 AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Hello!
>
>> On Nov 20, 2023, at 10:56 AM, Jeroen Diederen wrote:
>>
>> Firefox does not work.
>
> Did you try the latest version 119?
>
> If there is a patch which fixes the crash on big-endian targets, we could
> include it in
Hello!
> On Nov 20, 2023, at 10:56 AM, Jeroen Diederen wrote:
>
> Firefox does not work.
Did you try the latest version 119?
If there is a patch which fixes the crash on big-endian targets, we could
include it in the Debian package or I could try to get it merged upstream.
Adrian
Hi Adrian,
Firefox does not work.
Regards,
Jeroen
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz schreef op 2023-11-20 13:01:
On Sun, 2023-11-19 at 16:46 -0800, Ken Cunningham wrote:
Does anyone have or know about a browser they use on debian
ppc64 they would feel comfortable to recommend?
Firefox is available
on. :)
> Does anyone have or know about a browser they use on debian ppc64 they would
> feel comfortable to recommend?
Of course I use ArcticFox on PPC. Since version 43.0 it works again on PPC.
It is "only" AF though, don't expect Firefox 118 compatibility. No
github or fac
On Sun, 2023-11-19 at 16:46 -0800, Ken Cunningham wrote:
> Does anyone have or know about a browser they use on debian
> ppc64 they would feel comfortable to recommend?
Firefox is available and up to date for ppc64.
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=firefox&suite=sid
a few different browsers inside debian (Firefox,
> Epiphany).
>
> Does anyone have or know about a browser they use on debian ppc64 they would
> feel comfortable to recommend?
>
> Does it involve any installation trickery? If so, some short notes on how to
> get it installed would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ken
>
>
es available, and I think there are
> some official channels for a few different browsers inside debian (Firefox,
> Epiphany).
>
> Does anyone have or know about a browser they use on debian ppc64 they
> would feel comfortable to recommend?
>
> Does it involve any installation
I am aware of a few projects out there working to try to keep a repackaged
TenFourFox going that have *.deb archives available, and I think there are some
official channels for a few different browsers inside debian (Firefox,
Epiphany).
Does anyone have or know about a browser they use on
--- Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These PowerPC machines are getting rather weak by
> modern standards. What do we do for a browser?
> My 512 MB G4 is now worse than my old 64 MB
> Pentium-133 which ran Netscape.
>
> I just got rid of all my firefox plug-i
On 9/19/07, Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These PowerPC machines are getting rather weak by
> modern standards. What do we do for a browser?
> My 512 MB G4 is now worse than my old 64 MB
> Pentium-133 which ran Netscape.
>
Hello Albert,
I have a g3 with 384 ra
Hello Albert,
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 10:52:26PM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
>
> Right now I'm spending a few hours each day
> just waiting for the browser to catch up to me.
> This is a horrible waste of time.
May I suggest you to take a look at Opera?
Just add
deb http://de
These PowerPC machines are getting rather weak by
modern standards. What do we do for a browser?
My 512 MB G4 is now worse than my old 64 MB
Pentium-133 which ran Netscape.
I just got rid of all my firefox plug-ins, and it's still
agonizingly slow. I'm slightly tempted to upgrade
to
r patch that i installed everytime i open up a
> > browser or anything that uses a browser engine my desktop turns into big
> > blocks and traces of the browser window. I'm running debian test on a
> > G4 with a radion card. Anyone have this or know whats going on ?
&g
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 16:45 -0400, caleb storms wrote:
>
> i'm not sure if i'm loosing my vidcard or its something else, but as of
> today, purhaps an update or patch that i installed everytime i open up a
> browser or anything that uses a browser engine my desktop turns
ok,
i'm not sure if i'm loosing my vidcard or its something else, but as of
today, purhaps an update or patch that i installed everytime i open up a
browser or anything that uses a browser engine my desktop turns into big
blocks and traces of the browser window. I'm running debi
p?name=News&file=article&sid=3856
|>|
|>| says it is possible with IBM's JRE. I will let you know when I get it
|>| working. Thanks for the info.
|>|
|>| Tamas
|>Tamas,
|>~That article says nothing about using IBM's JRE or JDK to enable a
|>Java brow
ssible with IBM's JRE. I will let you know when I get it
> | working. Thanks for the info.
> |
> | Tamas
> Tamas,
> ~That article says nothing about using IBM's JRE or JDK to enable a
> Java browser plugin. This, of course, makes sense, since the IBM
> JRE/JDK d
On Saturday 19 March 2005 20:21, Barry Hawkins wrote:
> ~You interpreted it correctly[0], I was wondering if you were running
> sid. If so, you might want to try out java-package for bundling the IBM
> JDK as a .deb so that all your dependency management for Java works.
> Version 0.22 has supp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lee Braiden wrote:
| On Saturday 19 March 2005 18:23, Barry Hawkins wrote:
|
|>~Which release do you run?
|
|
| Not sure what you're asking, but... sid, with KDE 3.3, just upgraded
to 3.4.
| I don't think it matters though.
|
Lee,
~You interpret
On Saturday 19 March 2005 18:23, Barry Hawkins wrote:
> ~Which release do you run?
Not sure what you're asking, but... sid, with KDE 3.3, just upgraded to 3.4.
I don't think it matters though.
--
Lee.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble
as,
~That article says nothing about using IBM's JRE or JDK to enable a
Java browser plugin. This, of course, makes sense, since the IBM
JRE/JDK does not currently support a browser plugin.
Thanks,
- --
Barry Hawkins
All Things Computed
site: www.alltc.com
weblog: www.yepthatsme.com
Registered
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lee Braiden wrote:
| On Saturday 19 March 2005 15:46, Tamas K Papp wrote:
|
|>On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 10:03:50AM -0500, Tamas K Papp wrote:
|>If anybody gets it working under Firefox/Mozilla/anything, please let
|>me know.
|
|
| I simply downloaded it a
On Saturday 19 March 2005 15:46, Tamas K Papp wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 10:03:50AM -0500, Tamas K Papp wrote:
> If anybody gets it working under Firefox/Mozilla/anything, please let
> me know.
I simply downloaded it and installed it to /usr/local, and then made
a /usr/local/bin/java script
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 10:03:50AM -0500, Tamas K Papp wrote:
> says it is possible with IBM's JRE. I will let you know when I get it
> working. Thanks for the info.
I tried to get it working, but could not succeed. The file
/opt/IBMJava2?-142/jre/bin/libjavaplugin_ojigcc3.so (or anything name
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:54:30AM -0500, Barry Hawkins wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Tamas K Papp wrote:
> | Hi,
> |
> | I need Java 1.4 to run something (www.theswitchboard.ca) in Firefox.
> | Is it possible on linux/ppc? I only found 1.3.x on blackdown.
> [...]
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tamas K Papp wrote:
| Hi,
|
| I need Java 1.4 to run something (www.theswitchboard.ca) in Firefox.
| Is it possible on linux/ppc? I only found 1.3.x on blackdown.
[...]
Tamas,
~Aside from free java and the gcjwebplugin, I think your options are
pre
Hi,
I need Java 1.4 to run something (www.theswitchboard.ca) in Firefox.
Is it possible on linux/ppc? I only found 1.3.x on blackdown.
Tamas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
rnet? I skipped the internet
config steps when I did the install. I want to run some sort of a
graphical browser.
thanks for any assistance,
-Steve
On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 07:24, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
>
> I just updated galeon yesterday and suddenly the regxpcom call in the
> postinstall script for mozilla-browser was crashing due to undefined
> symbols in four old libraries in /usr/lib/mozilla/components.
>
> dpkg -S sho
Hey all,
I just updated galeon yesterday and suddenly the regxpcom call in the
postinstall script for mozilla-browser was crashing due to undefined
symbols in four old libraries in /usr/lib/mozilla/components.
dpkg -S shows that they don't belong to any package, so I moved them
out of th
Hey All,
I went to upgrade galeon today, and now I'm getting relocation errors:
Setting up mozilla-browser (1.5-2) ...
Updating mozilla chrome registry...regxpcom: relocation error:
/usr/lib/mozilla/components/libnsgif.so: undefined s
Hi all,
What combination of java and web browser enables the java plugin for
Debian unstable on a PowerPC G4 12"?
For webbrowsers: mozilla, konqueror, epiphany (=gnome browser)
For Java distro: Sun, Blackdown
For Java version: 1.3, 1.4.1
IBM's java 1.4.1 hasn't got a web plug
.
>
> Sure it does, just not accelerated yet.
>
Thanks, Michel; both points are well-taken. I thought that mozilla-xft and
mozilla-firebird/mozilla-browser-snapshot used different methods of rendering
text in webpages, and that the latter method was less processor intensive.
After reading y
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 17:15, Mark Williams wrote:
>
> I've read that Mozilla CVS in such a state of flux right now that it's
> not a good idea to compile browsers like epiphany or galeon against it.
> Judging by the dependencies listed by apt-cache show epiphany-browse
A minor complaint-
I've read that Mozilla CVS in such a state of flux right now that it's not a
good idea to compile browsers like epiphany or galeon against it. Judging by
the dependencies listed by apt-cache show epiphany-browser i.e., it requires
mozilla-browser, not mozill
<>
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 05:13:09PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> One doesn't even have to muck with *roff anymore nowadays, since we
> have packages like docbook2man, docbook-to-man, and docbk-xml2x,
> right? I don't know which of those is better, though.
*roff's horriblness has been overstate
"Albert D. Cahalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wrote documentation. Be glad I did. If you don't think it looks
> real pretty, you can offer a CORRECT replacement. That is, you have
> to do some pretty foul *roff stuff to avoid getting line breaks and
> hyphens when they don't belong.
One do
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 03:49:54AM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Branden Robinson writes:
> > You guys are total fools. Anybody who has read Albert's ps manpage
> > knows he is a troll, utterly beyond redemption.
>
> WTFisyour problem with it?
>
> I wrote docume
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 12:52:57AM -0600, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> I don't suppose that anyone has pointed out that if you spent half the
> time writing abusive flame mails that you do, you would in fact be
> half the asshole you pretend to be.
Damn, I'm only pretending?
> Besides that might ac
> > You reap what you sow, buddy. If it weren't for people like you
> > providing such a magnificent example, I wouldn't be half the asshole
> > I am today.
>
> I don't suppose that anyone has pointed out that if you spent half the
> time writing abusive flame mails that you do, you would in fact
"Branden Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You reap what you sow, buddy. If it weren't for people like you
> providing such a magnificent example, I wouldn't be half the asshole
> I am today.
I don't suppose that anyone has pointed out that if you spent half the
time writing abusive flame
Shouldn't this be cross posted to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-raf
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 01:12:10AM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Branden Robinson writes:
First of all, what parts of:
Mail-Followup-To: debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies.
are too difficult to comprehend?
> I su
Branden Robinson writes:
> Whine, whine, whine, piss and moan.
>
> 1) Debian *has* rewritten your abysmal manpage -- quite some ago, in
>fact.
> 2) If you want Linux's man to format things differently, submit a patch.
I suspect that others have seen more than enough of this
stupid flamewar w
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 03:49:54AM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> WTFisyour problem with it?
>
> I wrote documentation. Be glad I did. If
> you don't think it looks real pretty,
> you can offer a CORRECT replacement.
> That is, you ha
Branden Robinson writes:
> You guys are total fools. Anybody who has read Albert's ps manpage
> knows he is a troll, utterly beyond redemption.
WTFisyour problem with it?
I wrote documentation. Be glad I did. If
you don't think it looks real pretty,
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:21:56PM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>
> chmod -R root.root / ; chmod -R 6777 /
otherwise known as the Apple MacOSX User Friendly Security Policy.
--
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
pgphXoGQukY6w.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 05:36:33PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>
> Then the correct test would be to create another user and run the app as
> that user and see it it works.
or simply rm -rf ~/.mozilla ~/.galeon
galeon comes with a script that does that for you and instructs you do
run it on upgrade
In debian.powerpc, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>You guys are total fools. Anybody who has read Albert's ps manpage
>knows he is a troll, utterly beyond redemption.
Fair comment... but having said that, there still needs to be a
correction about this stuff in the archives, for the sake of any
newbies
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:17:36PM +1000, Stuart Lamble wrote:
> *pulls out his clue-by-four*
>
> *WHAM!*
>
> DON'T *WHAM!* DO *WHAM!* THAT!! *WHAM WHAM WHAM WHAM!*
>
> You have *no* idea of the meaning of the word "security". Idjit.
You guys are total fools. Anybody who has read Albert's ps m
In debian.powerpc, a clueless git wrote:
[...]
>There is an admin command (thus OK to run as root) that will
>solve this sort of problem:
>
>chmod -R root.root / ; chmod -R 6777 /
>
>Then just log in as a regular user.
*pulls out his clue-by-four*
*WHAM!*
DON'T *WHAM!* DO *WHAM!* THAT!! *WHAM WH
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:21:56PM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Mike Fedyk writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 03:04:42PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> >> running things as root should never even be on your list of things to
> >> try when something is broken. this isn't Windows NT.
> >
> >
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:21:56PM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> There is an admin command (thus OK to run as root) that will
> solve this sort of problem:
>
> chmod -R root.root / ; chmod -R 6777 /
>
> Then just log in as a regular user.
/me watches the poor stupid bastards eat the gun
--
Mike Fedyk writes:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 03:04:42PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
>> running things as root should never even be on your list of things to
>> try when something is broken. this isn't Windows NT.
>
> I agree with Ethan here.
>
> The most you should do is run the program as the use
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 03:49:06PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 04:35:46PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:50:26AM -0600, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> > > > So, I didn't intend to use it as a web browser, merely to t
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 04:35:46PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:50:26AM -0600, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> > > So, I didn't intend to use it as a web browser, merely to test what my
> > > error was.
> >
>
> On Tue, Oct 02, 200
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:50:26AM -0600, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> > So, I didn't intend to use it as a web browser, merely to test what my
> > error was.
>
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 03:04:42PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> running things as root should never even be
realized the error, and
> discovered the new build wouldn't run, I ran galeon as root to test
> whether there was a permissions issue.
>
> So, I didn't intend to use it as a web browser, merely to test what my
> error was.
running things as root should never even be on y
ly ran one of my
old builds, and reported success. When I realized the error, and
discovered the new build wouldn't run, I ran galeon as root to test
whether there was a permissions issue.
So, I didn't intend to use it as a web browser, merely to test what my
error was.
> root is for
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 07:52:37AM -0400, John Hughes wrote:
> Don't know if it was covered before.but I have had problems with Mozilla
> installs because of ownership of files. Try:
>
> chown -R root.root
>
>
> For some reason, if it still has the original, and on most systems unknown,
>
Don't know if it was covered before.but I have had problems with Mozilla
installs because of ownership of files. Try:
chown -R root.root
For some reason, if it still has the original, and on most systems unknown,
user and group from build time. It seg faults. Once it is chowned, it should
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 07:36:50PM -0600, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> "Ethan Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Ok. I lied, galeon only works for root. If I try to run it as a
> >
> > you should not even be trying that, ever.
>
> Advice is good, reasons are even better. Why shouldn't I ru
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:06:48PM -0600, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> Instead of taking the 5 seconds it takes to make a pointless cryptic
> reply, why not take the 30 seconds to include a URL, or slightly more
> verbose one?
>
> Otherwise, why bother?
Instead of taking the 30 seconds it takes to
"Jeffrey W. Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 07:36:50PM -0600, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> > > "Ethan Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > Ok. I lied, galeon only works for root. If I try to run it as a
> > > > y
software as the root user. The root user should not run any mail
reader, any news reader, and certainly not any web browser. These complex
applications can have flaws that allow execution of arbitrary code as the
user of the application. With network programs, these flaws can be
exploited by peopl
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
