From: Digest To: "OS/2GenAu Digest" Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:01:10 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [os2genau_digest] No. 925 Reply-To: X-List-Unsubscribe: www.os2site.com/list/ ************************************************** Tuesday 24 August 2004 Number 925 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: whitepages locks Firefox..? : Kris Steenhaut 2 Re: whitepages locks Firefox..? : David Forrester" 3 Re: whitepages locks Firefox..? : Kris Steenhaut 4 Re: whitepages locks Firefox..? : David Forrester" 5 Re: whitepages locks Firefox..? : Kris Steenhaut 6 Re: whitepages locks Firefox..? : David Forrester" 7 Re: Java plugin woes, was Re: Most stable Browser ? : Voytek Eymont" 8 Re: Java plugin woes, was Re: Most stable Browser ? : Kris Steenhaut **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:23:03 +0200 From: Kris Steenhaut Subject: Re: whitepages locks Firefox..? Voytek Eymont schreef: >Voytek Eymont said: > > > Java Plug-in 1.3.1 for Netscape Navigator (DLL Helper) > > > As I told in an earlier message, set the plugins to a specific directory (out of the mozilla program tree), and mozilla and all it's derivates will use the plugins in that directory. Yes, mozilla and all it's derivates use the very same plugins, so you only need to have them once at your system. In the end, it's rather easy to keep it neat and tidy (and limpid). -- Groeten uit Gent, Kris ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:20:40 +1000 From: "David Forrester" Subject: Re: whitepages locks Firefox..? On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:23:03 +0200, Kris Steenhaut wrote: > > >Voytek Eymont schreef: > >>Voytek Eymont said: >> >> >> Java Plug-in 1.3.1 for Netscape Navigator (DLL Helper) >> >> >> > >As I told in an earlier message, set the plugins to a specific directory >(out of the mozilla program tree), and mozilla and all it's derivates >will use the plugins in that directory. > >Yes, mozilla and all it's derivates use the very same plugins, so you >only need to have them once at your system. >In the end, it's rather easy to keep it neat and tidy (and limpid). > The only danger might be the "null" plugin. This is npnulos2.dll. While this is probably safe for all recent builds, I wouldn't be so sure about mixing versions between the VACPP and GCC build. Personally, I've never liked the plugins in a common directory. There have been far to many Mozilla builds that have not been happy with all the plugins (especially Java). So, I have always put the plugins in the install directories so that I could control which build had access to what plugins. -- David Forrester davidfor at internode.on dot net http://www.os2world dot com/djfos2/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 02:14:54 +0200 From: Kris Steenhaut Subject: Re: whitepages locks Firefox..? David Forrester schreef: >On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:23:03 +0200, Kris Steenhaut wrote: > > > >>Voytek Eymont schreef: >> >> >> >>>Voytek Eymont said: >>> >>> >>> Java Plug-in 1.3.1 for Netscape Navigator (DLL Helper) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>As I told in an earlier message, set the plugins to a specific directory >>(out of the mozilla program tree), and mozilla and all it's derivates >>will use the plugins in that directory. >> >>Yes, mozilla and all it's derivates use the very same plugins, so you >>only need to have them once at your system. >>In the end, it's rather easy to keep it neat and tidy (and limpid). >> >> >> > >The only danger might be the "null" plugin. This is npnulos2.dll. >While this is probably safe for all recent builds, I wouldn't be so >sure about mixing versions between the VACPP and GCC build. > > > Well, I'm copying since almost two years the very latest npnulos2.dll over to my own made plugins directory, and it never made the slightest difference. If you want to talk about "danger", well it is "dangerous" to keep user files in the program tree. Because, when your program tree is wiped out, also your user files are gone. And other obvious reasons. >Personally, I've never liked the plugins in a common directory. There >have been far to many Mozilla builds that have not been happy with all >the plugins (especially Java). > That is simply not the trueth. If mozilla is "unhappy", it is for other reasons. A messy java install for instance. ibweb and mozilla dll files conflicting with each other. Simply a bug in mozilla. Shortage of memory (rather important the latter). Anyway, as mozilla 1.7 is stable, there is no need to call for "danger". Keep it simple, keep it limpid (programmers don't like limpidity apparently) and all will be well. > So, I have always put the plugins in >the install directories so that I could control which build had access >to what plugins. >- > Which means you have multiple copies of the same files conflicting which each other. That is what I do call "dangerous". And that's why some chaps have all these troubles with mozilla. >- >David Forrester >davidfor at internode.on dot net >http://www.os2world dot com/djfos2/ > > > > > > > -- Groeten uit Gent, Kris ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 14:03:54 +1000 From: "David Forrester" Subject: Re: whitepages locks Firefox..? On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 02:14:54 +0200, Kris Steenhaut wrote: > > >David Forrester schreef: > >>On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:23:03 +0200, Kris Steenhaut wrote: >> >> >> >>>Voytek Eymont schreef: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Voytek Eymont said: >>>> >>>> >>>> Java Plug-in 1.3.1 for Netscape Navigator (DLL Helper) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>As I told in an earlier message, set the plugins to a specific directory >>>(out of the mozilla program tree), and mozilla and all it's derivates >>>will use the plugins in that directory. >>> >>>Yes, mozilla and all it's derivates use the very same plugins, so you >>>only need to have them once at your system. >>>In the end, it's rather easy to keep it neat and tidy (and limpid). >>> >>> >>> >> >>The only danger might be the "null" plugin. This is npnulos2.dll. >>While this is probably safe for all recent builds, I wouldn't be so >>sure about mixing versions between the VACPP and GCC build. >> >> >> >Well, I'm copying since almost two years the very latest npnulos2.dll >over to my own made plugins directory, and it never made the slightest >difference. Good, so long as you remember to do this. But, it doesn't help the problem I mentioned: if you run multiple versions of Mozilla (such as the suite, Firefox, IWB and VACPP as well as GCC builds), then this means that you have only one version of npnulos2.dll for all of them. To me, this could lead to problems. > >If you want to talk about "danger", well it is "dangerous" to keep user >files in the program tree. Because, when your program tree is wiped out, >also your user files are gone. And other obvious reasons. I don't consider the plugins to be user files. They are executables (not directly, but by other programs). I have solve the wiping the mozilla install tree a long time ago with my own installation program for handling the zip files. This also handles plugins, icons and a program objects. It doesn't handle search plugins, but, I've only recently really started using these. Of course, my profiles (the real user files) are long way from the installation directory and have been since the MOZILLA_HOME environment variable came about. > > >>Personally, I've never liked the plugins in a common directory. There >>have been far to many Mozilla builds that have not been happy with all >>the plugins (especially Java). >> >That is simply not the trueth. If mozilla is "unhappy", it is for other >reasons. A messy java install for instance. ibweb and mozilla dll files >conflicting with each other. Simply a bug in mozilla. Shortage of memory >(rather important the latter). Sorry, there have been builds of Mozilla that had problems with different plugins that had nothing to do with what you say. Except for "Simply a bug in mozilla". That was my whole point. There have been bugs in Mozilla that caused problems when certain plugins have been loaded. The Netscape multimedia plugins are the ones that come to mind. I think this has all been sorted out with current builds, but, it was not always the case. Those, and the Java plugins. Mozilla has had problems with Java that had nothing to do with the Java install. It was a problem with Mozilla using the plugin. Again, these seem to be fixed. > >Anyway, as mozilla 1.7 is stable, there is no need to call for "danger". >Keep it simple, keep it limpid (programmers don't like limpidity >apparently) and all will be well. Firstly, I had to look up "limpid". I knew the word, but, I've never seen it used in this way. The only place I could think of it appearing would be to describe someones eyes as "limpid pools". As in "he lost himself in the limpid pools of her eyes". And that makes it sound like I read trashy romance novels. Trashy SciFi maybe, but, not trashy romances. I assume the meaning you are using is "clear" or "transparent". Anyway, programmers love clarity and simplicity. Unfortunately, users don't allow this. As soon as something is written, someone will come along and say "I like it, but, can it also do...". Of course, the programmers do this to as we see more that we want to do. And, if your complaining about how badly programmers write instructions, them I plead guilty as charged. You should think yourself lucky that none of the people I work with are writing this. Finally on this point: What I have done is extremely simple and clear. I've decided to put all the executable files for the different Mozilla installations in one place: with the Mozilla installation they are to be used by. That way, when I start Mozilla or Firefox or IWB, I know exactly which files are being used. And, I know I can go to one place to solve problems with an installation. > >> So, I have always put the plugins in >>the install directories so that I could control which build had access >>to what plugins. >>- >> > >Which means you have multiple copies of the same files conflicting which >each other. That is what I do call "dangerous". And that's why some >chaps have all these troubles with mozilla. Yes, I have multiple copies of the files. The don't conflict because I make sure they don't. And, as I shave aid, it also allows me to control exactly what plugins my different Mozilla builds have access to. -- David Forrester davidfor at internode.on dot net http://www.os2world dot com/djfos2/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 5 ==========================** Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:21:36 +0200 From: Kris Steenhaut Subject: Re: whitepages locks Firefox..? David Forrester schreef: >>erence. >> >> > >Good, so long as you remember to do this. But, it doesn't help the >problem I mentioned: if you run multiple versions of Mozilla (such as >the suite, Firefox, IWB and VACPP as well as GCC builds), then this >means that you have only one version of npnulos2.dll for all of them. > > That's what I do and never has seen problems. >To me, this could lead to problems. > > > Instead of spreading FUD, just reveal what "problems" you expect to be expected. > > -- Groeten uit Gent, Kris ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 6 ==========================** Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 22:04:48 +1000 From: "David Forrester" Subject: Re: whitepages locks Firefox..? On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:21:36 +0200, Kris Steenhaut wrote: > > >David Forrester schreef: > >>>erence. >>> >>> >> >>Good, so long as you remember to do this. But, it doesn't help the >>problem I mentioned: if you run multiple versions of Mozilla (such as >>the suite, Firefox, IWB and VACPP as well as GCC builds), then this >>means that you have only one version of npnulos2.dll for all of them. >> >> >That's what I do and never has seen problems. Just to check: You saying that you have multiple versions of Mozilla applications installed (i.e. Mozilla Suite both GCC and VACPP builds, Firefox and IWB), they share a single npnulos2.dll in a common plugins directory, and you use all the versions and and never have any problems? > >>To me, this could lead to problems. >> >> >> >Instead of spreading FUD, just reveal what "problems" you expect to be >expected. Does a browser that won't start and leaves an entry in popuplog.os2 count? At one time I did do what you do. But, then I installed a version of one of the browsers that crashed at startup. When I removed the plugins, it started OK. At the time I went tested with all the different plugins that I had and worked out which ones caused the problem. From memory, the culprits were the Netscape multimedia plugins and one of the Java plugins. So, because I wanted to use the new features in the newer version of the browser, but, still wanted to be able to open a browser that had access to these plugins, especially Java, I reverted to putting the plugins inside the Mozilla installation. And I keep doing this because, as far as I am concerned, it is safer that way. I keep mentioning npnulos2.dll. It appears you are using the same copy for multiple Mozilla builds. And it works. If the builds are similar ones, such as Firefox 0.9 and Mozilla 1.7, then I'm not surprised. But, if you are using a npnulos2.dll from a GCC build with a VACPP build, I am a little surprised. This is not from definite experience with this file, it is from the general experience of it not being a good idea to mix versions of files. -- David Forrester davidfor at internode.on dot net http://www.os2world dot com/djfos2/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 7 ==========================** Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:32:15 +1000 (EST) From: "Voytek Eymont" Subject: Re: Java plugin woes, was Re: Most stable Browser ? Kris, this SET kills FF/2 or Mozilla SET JAVA_HOME=F:\java131\bin now that I remmed it, it works again 08-24-2004 23:15:54 SYS3175 PID 003c TID 0009 Slot 0083 F:\MOZILLA.ORG\FIREFOX\FIREFOX.EXE c0000005 171ef6c1 P1=00000000 P2=ffffffff P3=XXXXXXXX P4=XXXXXXXX EAX=ffffffff EBX=02c773a5 ECX=02c73384 EDX=02c773a4 ESI=ffffffff EDI=02c2f5f4 DS=0053 DSACC=f0f3 DSLIM=ffffffff ES=0053 ESACC=f0f3 ESLIM=ffffffff FS=150b FSACC=00f3 FSLIM=00000030 GS=0000 GSACC=**** GSLIM=******** CS:EIP=005b:171ef6c1 CSACC=f0df CSLIM=ffffffff SS:ESP=0053:02c2f4ac SSACC=f0f3 SSLIM=ffffffff EBP=02c2f54c FLG=00012286 JVM.DLL 0001:0011f6c1 -- Voytek ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 8 ==========================** Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:00:42 +0200 From: Kris Steenhaut Subject: Re: Java plugin woes, was Re: Most stable Browser ? Voytek Eymont schreef: >Kris, > >this SET kills FF/2 or Mozilla > >SET JAVA_HOME=F:\java131\bin > > > It should be: SET java_home=E:\java131\jre\bin But the entry isn't necessary. I've remmed it out. But if you set it, it must be well set of course. -- Groeten uit Gent, Kris ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------