Re: Firefox 4 repo

On Monday 19 July 2010 01:46 PM, Mike Chambers wrote: > What seemed to work, was (since the source tarball isn't configured for > FEdora as the way they have it setup) to make a link > from /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins to /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins and that let > the firefox-4 work with plugins. > Tha

Re: Flash on 64 bit systems (was Re: Firefox 4 repo)

On 7/19/10, JD wrote: > > I had noscript installed but it broke several websites, including youtube. > Several links in youtube would cease to work. I could no longer play > youtube vids. > Perhaps I misconfigured it??? It's likely you just neglected to trust the relevant websites. For YouTube

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On Sun, 2010-07-18 at 21:41 -0700, Suvayu Ali wrote: > These are the installed plugins on my system. > > $ lt ~/.mozilla/plugins/ > total 8.0K > drwx--. 2 jallad jallad 4.0K May 28 10:15 moonlight > drwxrwxr-x. 2 jallad jallad 4.0K May 28 10:15 QuakeLive > $ lt /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/ > tot

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On Monday 19 July 2010 09:38 AM, JD wrote: > Looks like Adobe has a new 64 bit flash plugin: > Not yet. :( > http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/000/6b3af6c9.html > There is a link there: > Click here for instructions to install Flash Player on a 64-bit > operating system > > Good luck Suvayu The page pres

Re: Flash on 64 bit systems (was Re: Firefox 4 repo)

On 07/19/2010 01:18 AM, Suvayu Ali wrote: > On Monday 19 July 2010 01:01 AM, Christofer C. Bell wrote: >>> Would you say use of noscript or flashblock would be a good compromise? If not what are my other options? (maybe I should start a new thread for this discussion) >> I thin

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On 07/19/2010 12:17 AM, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > On 7/19/10, *Suvayu Ali* > wrote: > > I have a copy of the "buggy" 64 bit flash(10.0.45), and it works with > the fedora version of FF 3.6 very well. I am having a problem with > _all_ > my

Re: Flash on 64 bit systems (was Re: Firefox 4 repo)

> I think FlashBlock would be a fairly good compromise. If you're using > FlashBlock, you can safely wander around the web knowing that no flash you > do not explicitly authorize will be running. Unfortunately FlashBlock is useless. I tested it on a malicious swf file, and the firefox immediately

Re: Flash on 64 bit systems (was Re: Firefox 4 repo)

On 19 July 2010 09:18, Suvayu Ali wrote: > On Monday 19 July 2010 01:01 AM, Christofer C. Bell wrote: >>> Would you say use of noscript or flashblock would be a good compromise? >>> >  If not what are my other options? (maybe I should start a new thread for >>> >  this discussion) >>> > >> I think

Re: Flash on 64 bit systems (was Re: Firefox 4 repo)

On 19/07/10 09:18, Suvayu Ali wrote: >> I think FlashBlock would be a fairly good compromise. If you're using >> FlashBlock, you can safely wander around the web knowing that no flash you >> do not explicitly authorize will be running. As for NoScript, I'm not sure >> that it adds value for this

Re: Flash on 64 bit systems (was Re: Firefox 4 repo)

On Monday 19 July 2010 01:01 AM, Christofer C. Bell wrote: >> Would you say use of noscript or flashblock would be a good compromise? >> > If not what are my other options? (maybe I should start a new thread for >> > this discussion) >> > > I think FlashBlock would be a fairly good compromise. If

Re: Flash on 64 bit systems (was Re: Firefox 4 repo)

On 7/19/10, Suvayu Ali > wrote: > On Monday 19 July 2010 12:17 AM, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > > So yes, the software "works well" in much the same way that "an unpatched > > Windows XP works well" but leaves you open to compromise. Note the key > > sentence here: "There are reports that this vul

Flash on 64 bit systems (was Re: Firefox 4 repo)

On Monday 19 July 2010 12:17 AM, Christofer C. Bell wrote: > So yes, the software "works well" in much the same way that "an unpatched > Windows XP works well" but leaves you open to compromise. Note the key > sentence here: "There are reports that this vulnerability is being actively > exploited

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On 7/19/10, Suvayu Ali > wrote: I have a copy of the "buggy" 64 bit flash(10.0.45), and it works with > the fedora version of FF 3.6 very well. I am having a problem with _all_ > my plugins when I use the tarball. I guess I'll have to give up my wish > to test the beta release of FF. :-\ > It's n

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On Sunday 18 July 2010 11:24 PM, JD wrote: >>> Well, you can still install the 32 bit flash plugins from Adobe, but >>> >> you will have to also >>> >> install flash plugin wrapper. >> > I try to keep away from 32 bit flash on a 64 bit system by miles. >> > nsplugin-wrapper is too scary.:-\ I

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On 07/18/2010 11:12 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: > Hi, > > On Sunday 18 July 2010 10:48 PM, JD wrote: >> So, you must have installed the 64 bit tarball (per link I saw in an >> earlier post), right? > Yes I installed the 64 bit tarball. > >> Well, you can still install the 32 bit flash plugins from Ado

Re: Firefox 4 repo

Hi, On Sunday 18 July 2010 10:48 PM, JD wrote: > So, you must have installed the 64 bit tarball (per link I saw in an > earlier post), right? Yes I installed the 64 bit tarball. > Well, you can still install the 32 bit flash plugins from Adobe, but > you will have to also > install flash plugin

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On 07/18/2010 09:41 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: > Hi, > > On Sunday 18 July 2010 09:13 PM, JD wrote: >> On 07/18/2010 08:56 PM, David wrote: >>> On 7/18/2010 11:44 PM, JD wrote: On 07/18/2010 08:22 PM, David wrote: > On 7/18/2010 11:00 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: > > Firefox looks f

Re: Firefox 4 repo

Hi, On Sunday 18 July 2010 09:13 PM, JD wrote: >On 07/18/2010 08:56 PM, David wrote: >> On 7/18/2010 11:44 PM, JD wrote: >>> On 07/18/2010 08:22 PM, David wrote: On 7/18/2010 11:00 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: Firefox looks for plugins in /firefox/plugins. Which is where ever you >

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On Sunday 18 July 2010 09:13 PM, JD wrote: >On 07/18/2010 08:56 PM, David wrote: >> On 7/18/2010 11:44 PM, JD wrote: >>> On 07/18/2010 08:22 PM, David wrote: On 7/18/2010 11:00 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: Firefox looks for plugins in /firefox/plugins. Which is where ever you p

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On 07/18/2010 08:56 PM, David wrote: > On 7/18/2010 11:44 PM, JD wrote: >>On 07/18/2010 08:22 PM, David wrote: >>> On 7/18/2010 11:00 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: >>> >>> Firefox looks for plugins in /firefox/plugins. Which is where ever you >>> put it. Perhaps /home//firefox/plugins? >> Not so.

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On 7/18/2010 11:44 PM, JD wrote: > On 07/18/2010 08:22 PM, David wrote: >> On 7/18/2010 11:00 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: >> >> Firefox looks for plugins in /firefox/plugins. Which is where ever you >> put it. Perhaps /home//firefox/plugins? > Not so. > My flash plugin is in > $ ls -l /usr/lib/mozil

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On 07/18/2010 08:22 PM, David wrote: > On 7/18/2010 11:00 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: >> On Sunday 18 July 2010 07:42 PM, JD wrote: >>> On 07/18/2010 07:13 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: >>> It seems to play youtube flash just fine. >>> I have the adobe flash plugin installed. >>> >> All my plugins are inst

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On 07/18/2010 08:00 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: > On Sunday 18 July 2010 07:42 PM, JD wrote: >> On 07/18/2010 07:13 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: >>> On Sunday 18 July 2010 06:08 PM, JD wrote: >> Ok that worked, thanks. The only thing I haven't gotten done is getting it to use the already

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On 7/18/2010 11:00 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: > On Sunday 18 July 2010 07:42 PM, JD wrote: >>On 07/18/2010 07:13 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: >> It seems to play youtube flash just fine. >> I have the adobe flash plugin installed. >> > > All my plugins are installed in system directories, could that be th

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On Sunday 18 July 2010 07:42 PM, JD wrote: >On 07/18/2010 07:13 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: >> On Sunday 18 July 2010 06:08 PM, JD wrote: > Ok that worked, thanks. The only thing I haven't gotten done is getting >>>it to use the already installed plugins that work already with >>>

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On 07/18/2010 07:13 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: > On Sunday 18 July 2010 06:08 PM, JD wrote: Ok that worked, thanks. The only thing I haven't gotten done is getting >> it to use the already installed plugins that work already with >> firefox-3. >> >> Ideas? >> >> >>>

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On Sunday 18 July 2010 06:08 PM, JD wrote: >>> Ok that worked, thanks. The only thing I haven't gotten done is getting >>> >> it to use the already installed plugins that work already with >>> >> firefox-3. >>> >> >>> >> Ideas? >>> >> >>> >> >> > I have tested FF4 in a Fedora Guest (VM) to ens

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On 07/18/2010 05:54 PM, Athmane Madjoudj wrote: > On 07/19/2010 01:38 AM, Mike Chambers wrote: >> On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 01:14 +0100, Athmane Madjoudj wrote: >> >>> I guess that you have x86_64 so the right link is: [1], >>> just untar and run ./firefox >>> >>> Good luck. >>> >>> [1] >>> http://re

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On 07/18/2010 05:10 PM, Mike Chambers wrote: > On Sun, 2010-07-18 at 16:12 +0100, Athmane Madjoudj wrote: >> On 07/18/2010 04:11 PM, Mike Chambers wrote: >>> Anyone started or know of a repo for installing/upgrading/trying out >>> this from rpm instead of the source? Mainly for F13 but rawhide w

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On 07/19/2010 01:38 AM, Mike Chambers wrote: > On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 01:14 +0100, Athmane Madjoudj wrote: > >> I guess that you have x86_64 so the right link is: [1], >> just untar and run ./firefox >> >> Good luck. >> >> [1] >> http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/4.0b1/lin

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 01:14 +0100, Athmane Madjoudj wrote: > I guess that you have x86_64 so the right link is: [1], > just untar and run ./firefox > > Good luck. > > [1] > http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/4.0b1/linux-x86_64/en-US/firefox-4.0b1.tar.bz2 Ok that worke

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On 07/19/2010 01:10 AM, Mike Chambers wrote: > On Sun, 2010-07-18 at 16:12 +0100, Athmane Madjoudj wrote: >> On 07/18/2010 04:11 PM, Mike Chambers wrote: >>> Anyone started or know of a repo for installing/upgrading/trying out >>> this from rpm instead of the source? Mainly for F13 but rawhide wou

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On Sun, 2010-07-18 at 16:12 +0100, Athmane Madjoudj wrote: > On 07/18/2010 04:11 PM, Mike Chambers wrote: > > Anyone started or know of a repo for installing/upgrading/trying out > > this from rpm instead of the source? Mainly for F13 but rawhide would > > be fine too if need be. > > > > I have t

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On 07/18/2010 08:11 AM, Mike Chambers wrote: > Anyone started or know of a repo for installing/upgrading/trying out > this from rpm instead of the source? Mainly for F13 but rawhide would > be fine too if need be. > It is not available yet in any fedora repository I know of. -- users mailing li

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On 18/07/10 16:12, Athmane Madjoudj wrote: > I have tested the upstream binaries [1] under Fedora 13 i386 with almost > no issues. > > http://www.mozilla.com/products/download.html?product=firefox-4.0b1&os=linux&lang=en-US > He doesn't want the src, but an rpm preferably a yum repository. -- Re

Re: Firefox 4 repo

On 07/18/2010 04:11 PM, Mike Chambers wrote: > Anyone started or know of a repo for installing/upgrading/trying out > this from rpm instead of the source? Mainly for F13 but rawhide would > be fine too if need be. > I have tested the upstream binaries [1] under Fedora 13 i386 with almost no issu

Firefox 4 repo

Anyone started or know of a repo for installing/upgrading/trying out this from rpm instead of the source? Mainly for F13 but rawhide would be fine too if need be. -- Mike Chambers Madisonville, KY "Best lil town on Earth!" -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or