Web Browsers (starting mozilla)

[zachngo]

This is making me feel bad but I cant get mozilla 1.2.1 to start. I can use galeon (using it right now) and konquerer but mozilla wont start.

I can't use its launchbar shortcut, the shortcut in the Internet section of my programs menu, or even from the console. Maybe it has something to do with the mozilla registry...

Thanks
Zach

[Icarus]

when you type mozilla from the konsole does it give any errors?

Have you tried "$ rm -rf ~/.mozllia" to start with a clean user setup?

Look for the lock file (~/.mozilla/default/<random-string>/lock) that sometimes prevents it from starting (use to happen after installing a plugin like Java)

[zachngo]

When I try starting it from the console it gives no errors.

I deleted the ~/.mozilla dir already. It still wouldnt start after this.

lol, after deleting the .mozilla dir, there is no way I can get to the lock file.

Thanks
Zach

[Hayl]

if there is no ~/.mozilla directory, then there is no lock file

[zachngo]

if there is no ~/.mozilla directory, then there is no lock file
Exactly, I was being a smartass :D

Is there any way I can still use Mozilla?

[mdwatts]

See if

cd /path/to/mozilla

mozilla
or
./mozilla

[ciphrix]

Download Mozilla Firebird (http://mozilla.org/projects/firebird/release-notes.html)?

[Icarus]

Which distro you running? Sometimes /usr/bin/mozilla is a link to /usr/lib/mozilla-1.3/mozilla

As mdwatts said, try running it from the source directory

[zachngo]

I downloaded Firebird and it works fine. I tried running mozilla out of /usr/lib/mozilla-1.2.1/

I have red hat 9.0 (Shrike).. I got the isos about a month ago.

Thanks
Zach

[Icarus]

Originally posted by zachngo
I tried running mozilla out of /usr/lib/mozilla-1.2.1/

I have red hat 9.0 (Shrike).. I got the isos about a month ago.

Thanks
Zach And doing this did...?
You are on RH9 or not yet? :confused:

[mdwatts]

Originally posted by mahdi
And doing this did...?


I was wondering the same. :rolleyes:

Mozilla in /usr/lib? Strange place for the executables etc.

[zachngo]

lol, sorry, my having i meant am running.

yes I am using/running/be_confused_by red hat 9.0 shrike.

I wouldn't know about strange executable locations, this is new to me.

Thanks
Zach

[Icarus]

Originally posted by mdwatts
Mozilla in /usr/lib? Strange place for the executables etc. Don't blame me, I didn't put it there :)
That is the oddest and most complained thing about Mozilla and Red Hat...but SuSE puts it in /usr/X11/bin/mozilla, makes a little more sense...

[mdwatts]

Originally posted by mahdi
Don't blame me, I didn't put it there :)


I bet you did. ;)

Darn mods never fess up to anything. :)

[The Mas]

Originally posted by zachngo
This is making me feel bad but I cant get mozilla 1.2.1 to start. I can use galeon (using it right now) and konquerer but mozilla wont start.

I can't use its launchbar shortcut, the shortcut in the Internet section of my programs menu, or even from the console. Maybe it has something to do with the mozilla registry...

Thanks
Zach

Several people hav e suggested that you remove the lock file. This lock file is a link to a communications socket, and this file gets created any time you start up a Mozilla browser or any browser that belongs to the Mozilla family of browsers. Generally speaking, this lock file is kep in a file beneath the hidden directory .mozilla, (that's DOT mozilla to represent a hidden directory). If you're using Netscape and you don't utilize the mozilla directory, there's also a hidden .netscape directory.

The lock file itself is located beneath the .mozilla/default/*.slt directory, where & is an eight character directory name, followed by .slt. On my system, I can find the lock file even now at /home/masinick/.mozilla//default/tppwmr6r.slt/lock. This file is present any time the browser is active.

If, however, the browser abnormally terminates for any reason and this file is left around when the browser is really NOT active, the next time you attempt to start your browser, you'll get a popup menu that wants you to select or create a profile. This is a clear indication that you either are using multiple browser profiles (unlikely, but possible) or you have an unintentional lock file present.

You can check for the existence of this lock file by running the command:
find . -name lock -print.

Once you know where the file is located, you can remove the file, as long as your browser is not actively running at the time you attempt to remove the file.

Hope this clarifies things and helps you out.

[zachngo]

I tried to use mozilla as a newly created user (on the system) and Mozilla still wouldnt work.

I want to (but i sure would hate to let something so stupid just slide) just not use Mozilla anymore and use something like MozillaThunderbird (aweesome) or galeon. I don't want to give up on this though, im going to ask around with some people i know and try to read something about this problem of mine.

Thanks
Zach

[The Mas]

Originally posted by zachngo
I tried to use mozilla as a newly created user (on the system) and Mozilla still wouldnt work.

I want to (but i sure would hate to let something so stupid just slide) just not use Mozilla anymore and use something like MozillaThunderbird (aweesome) or galeon. I don't want to give up on this though, im going to ask around with some people i know and try to read something about this problem of mine.

Thanks
Zach

If you're getting this symptom regardless of which user account you're using, then this goes beyond the lock issue. The next obvious thing to check are file and directory permissions - check your user accounts for read and write access to any directory that Mozilla is using.

If that checks out, then something is wrong with the installation of the software itself. Either installing other browsers or tools, or multiple versions of Mozilla, somewhere along the line, has introduced a situation where the browser no longer works.

You can get a complete Mozilla distribution and locally install it beneath any directory, including your home directory, if you're so inclined. That might help isolate what's really going on.

Check also for plugin libraries that are causing the entire browsing environment to fail, that's a possibility, too, but I'd check things in the order I've mentioned, the last possibility could happen, but it's not terribly likely.

[zachngo]

I know the permissions are correct. I dont think any libraries were removed or anything, everything is still fresh from the installation (took place a couple weeks ago :)) and Mozilla 1.2.1 was pre-installed (well, i had picked it's package to be installed in the installation).

perhaps i need to upgrade mozilla...

Zach

[The Mas]

Originally posted by zachngo
I know the permissions are correct. I dont think any libraries were removed or anything, everything is still fresh from the installation (took place a couple weeks ago :)) and Mozilla 1.2.1 was pre-installed (well, i had picked it's package to be installed in the installation).

perhaps i need to upgrade mozilla...

Zach

Am I missing something that's happened? IT's not typical that Mozilla acts up in this manner. If you have a way to do it, I recommend pulling in Mozilla 1.4 and installing it somewhere beneath your own home directory. That way, you don't impact anything else on the system, especially if you have a working version of Galeon out there.

See what happens when you install it in a controlled place, how about /home/zachngo/kits?

[zachngo]

ok, i downloaded/installed mozilla 1.4 to /home/zach/mozilla and it runs fine.

:confused:

Thanks
Zach

[The Mas]

Originally posted by zachngo
ok, i downloaded/installed mozilla 1.4 to /home/zach/mozilla and it runs fine.

:confused:

Thanks
Zach

The fact that you can run a version of the software fully contained within your own directory tree strongly suggests that something in your standard libraries is, in fact, altered.

My first thought had been that your lock file was hanging around, but then you provided other information that led me to suggest that somewhere along the way, something else that had been installed or otherwise changed was affecting the base Mozilla libraries.

You've now confirmed my second suspicion by running this experiment.

You could completely install Mozlla 1.4 (or 1.2.1) back in the main area, but then, chances are, it'd break somethng else that you've installed.

This is precisely why I use Debian based software whenever I can do so. Software that's installed and managed through RPM packages can work, too, but only if you're consistent in the way that you apply it. If you use a combination of RPM, tar, and other formats, something is likely to break along the way unless you are intimately familiar with the library dependencies between various software packages.

Debian software helps to manage these dependencies for you. People who understand libraries and want to do everything for themselves might prefer the Slackware approach, where everything is a compressed tar package, but then the onus of managing libraries is completely upon the individual, a task that only certain people are ready to tackle themselves.

[mdwatts]

My distro is rpm based, but I use 'Checkinstall' (http://checkinstall.izto.org/) for creating rpm packages when compiling from source.

./configure
make
checkinstall

[registering]

Just FYI, we just switched to RH 9.0 at work and have the exact same problem. Even though RH puts the icon there, puts it in the menu trees, etc., you cannot execute it. It was quicker for us to reinstall mozilla from scratch than track down how RH broke itself. Once we reinstalled mozilla after installing RH, it works fine thereafter. Very strange and very bad RH bug and one reason I use Drake at home.

[zachngo]

Hmm I dont like that sound of that :)

I used to use mandrake 8.1 for fun a long time ago but I quit using it and used windows again. The two reasons I quit are that the drivers for my wireless networking card (d-link dwl 520+) were not out at the time (well, they are still experimental and buggy right now) and that my video card isnt fully supported (3d excelleration not supported (Radeon 9100/8500le)).

I do remember one thing about mandrake 8.1, it was very easy to configure, even for myself (noooob). I have redhat 9.0 now and I cant seem to find the things I need to configure very quickly, but I am talking about configuring my system in X windows. The mandrake control panel is kinda like the control panel in windows and it seemed familiar and i had my system the way I wanted it, the only problem was that i didnt have an internet connection haha.

I gave up on linux for a while because I was so stressed out that I couldnt use the internet. But things have changed now, i have the experimental dwl520+ drivers but they work, and I somehow managed to follow the strange steps required to install them.

Ah, one thing I do like about red hat 9.0 (I dont know about mandrake 8.1/9 (I have 9 but have never used it)) is that the apache httpd server comes loaded with every feature you can possibly imagine and php and a cool php usage program (webalizer).

If only I could combine the two.. :D

Zach

[The Mas]

Originally posted by mdwatts
My distro is rpm based, but I use 'Checkinstall' (http://checkinstall.izto.org/) for creating rpm packages when compiling from source.

./configure
make
checkinstall

Both Red Hat and Mandrake have been improving their packaging systems, and at least within their own archives, there seems to be some ability to go out and obtain related libraries when there are dependencies.

Does checkinstall go hunting for packages, or does it simply create RPM packages?

Debian (.deb) packages, by themselves do pretty much the same thing that RPM packages do, they identify software dependencies. The apt-get packaging system that comes with Debian (and synaptic, a tool that works with Debian and RPM packages) is capable of searching for the packages containing prerequisite libraries, match the correct version, and install them, all in one shot

For example, if you go out and say

apt-get install galeon

you'll not only get galeon, you'll get mozilla, a buncn of libraries, and quite a few GNOME pieces, all at once.

If you say

apt-get install kdm konsole

(the display manager and the terminal application for KDE) you're likely to pull in most of the KDE environment, all in one shot. Pretty powerful stuff, can checkinstall do that?

[zachngo]

http://asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/index.php is the checkinstall site.

Mas.. why are you asking us questions :eek:

:) jk, im going to try out checkinstall myself

Zach

[zachngo]

I got checkinstall from the site i listed in the last post, that is a very nice program, thanks for tellin me about it mdwatts!

Zach

[The Mas]

Originally posted by zachngo
http://asic-linux.com.mx/~izto/checkinstall/index.php is the checkinstall site.

Mas.. why are you asking us questions :eek:

:) jk, im going to try out checkinstall myself

Zach

I've peeked at checkinstall before (may have tried it with either Mandrake or Red Hat), but I don't remember that much about it. I don't believe it takes care of library dependencies, what it does is allow you to create packages from source code distributions without having to know a great deal about RPM or tgz packaging conventions.

Unless I'm completely mistaken (which is certainly a distinct possibility) I don't see where or how this useful tool actually manages library dependencies. That was the thrust of the comments I'd been making earlier, hence the question I subsequently asked.

I may have to tweak around with this tool. It certainly does seem to be useful, even if it doesn't actually manage dependencies. I could definitely see using it anywhere that I do

./configure && make && su -c "make install"

and replace that last step with su -c checkinstall

[zachngo]

sorry about that Mas. Honestly, I want to try debian because of the way the apt command can automatically fetch dependancies. To me, that is the coolest thing. Maybe one day I will.

Zach

[lyndon]

I use yhis on my redhat 8 servers also with the synaptic gui, you can also use it from with in webmin, since the using apt-get my servers are running like a dream:p

[The Mas]

Originally posted by lyndon
I use this on my redhat 8 servers also with the synaptic gui, you can also use it from with in webmin, since the using apt-get my servers are running like a dream:p

We may, over the course of the next year or so, see some real convergence when it comes to packaging techniques. Debian systems have long had the alien tool that permits conversion between .deb formatted Debian packages and .rpm formatted Red Hat packages. Various Debian projects have also done work to integrate the efforts of the Anaconda hardware detection programs used by Red Hat with the discover and other hardware detection tools used by Debian systems.

Synaptic, however, has really been a useful tool to help cross the packaging bridge. Conectiva, a Brazilian company, perhaps not that well known to U.S. people, but a member of UnitedLinux and a significant contributer to Linux technologies, regardless of how well they're known, is the author of synaptic. The synaptic tool can be used with either RPM or DEB packages. Like Debian's apt-get tool, synaptic not only serves as a graphical front end to handle package installation, it searches and resolves packaging conflicts, and if possible, downloads and installs all packages needed to make each application work. It always gives you the choice of what to download and install, and if it can't do the right thing, it won't try unless you force it.

The Fedora Core 1 project, the free version of what used to be Red Hat Linux Personal, now includes rpm, up2date, synaptic, and yum as packaging choices. These tools can be used in a complementary fashion without breaking your system.