Re: ff3
hmm, on Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 04:52:36PM -0600, Abel Camarillo said that I am trying opera and I am amazed by the performance, it's considerably faster than ff3, and I have no more those tremendous lags disturbing me. I was stucked with ff3 for the `vimperator' but I found a little plugin called `vimperopera' that helps a lot with the opera navigation. i guess that would be just a keyboard layout .ini file :] i have yet to find a thing that is not customisable in opera. as soon as opera dragonfly catches up with firebug i am a happy camper. -f -- honesty: fear of being caught.
Re: ff3
hmm, on Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 09:26:24PM +0100, Hannah Schroeter said that
For me it feels a little bit less slow and not more memory hungry than
ff2 always was (ff2 was/is a beast and on my a bit slower home box I
began moving over to konqueror again, which is fast even though I don't
use kde otherwise - even faster than ff3 on my faster work box).
on my eeepc ff3 doesnt feel much faster but it sure plugs numerous
memory leaks over ff2. but it's slooow, especially with js sites
like gmail.
but get this. if you have a slow (like the eee) machine, why not
give opera a try? yes, even in linux emulation it beats ff{2,3}
hands down absolutely. it takes a bit of using to, but actually
it is much better than ff in many respects. i often hear the plugin
argument against, but if one doesn't want really esoteric stuff, it's
a breeze: e.g. i copied the adblock list into .opera/urlfilter.ini
and it's the same. (but i did a fair amount of web development so
firebug is the only thing i keep firefox for still around.)
and get this: opera in openbsd's linux emulation is more stable than
the linux version i used on the eeepc. i never needed to kill it
on openbsd, on linux the pluginwrapper chokes all the time. it's crazy.
opera is just miles away from firefox. at least now it is.
-f
--
madam i'm adam.
Re: ff3
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 09:36:34PM +0100, frantisek holop wrote:
hmm, on Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 09:26:24PM +0100, Hannah Schroeter said that
For me it feels a little bit less slow and not more memory hungry than
ff2 always was (ff2 was/is a beast and on my a bit slower home box I
began moving over to konqueror again, which is fast even though I don't
use kde otherwise - even faster than ff3 on my faster work box).
but get this. if you have a slow (like the eee) machine, why not
give opera a try? yes, even in linux emulation it beats ff{2,3}
hands down absolutely. it takes a bit of using to, but actually
it is much better than ff in many respects. i often hear the plugin
argument against, but if one doesn't want really esoteric stuff, it's
a breeze: e.g. i copied the adblock list into .opera/urlfilter.ini
and it's the same. (but i did a fair amount of web development so
firebug is the only thing i keep firefox for still around.)
and get this: opera in openbsd's linux emulation is more stable than
the linux version i used on the eeepc. i never needed to kill it
on openbsd, on linux the pluginwrapper chokes all the time. it's crazy.
opera is just miles away from firefox. at least now it is.
-f
--
madam i'm adam.
I am trying opera and I am amazed by the performance, it's considerably faster
than ff3, and I have no more those tremendous lags disturbing me.
I was stucked with ff3 for the `vimperator' but I found a little plugin called
`vimperopera' that helps a lot with the opera navigation.
Thanks.
Re: ff3
Brad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The immediate problem is not FF3 but Pango (devel/pango). The ABI changes from time to time for Pango and that requires that that modules list and most likely the aliases list in /etc/pango be up to date with what is in /usr/local/share/examples/pango . The package has the lists file and aliases file as @sample's. That alone is not enough for an upgrade, as opposed to a fresh install. Yes, it is. If a @sample file hasn't been changed, it is simply removed along with the rest of the package and a new one will be installed with the new package. This certainly happens for pkg_add -ui. (I checked.) My best explanation is that Marco messed up /etc/pango/* and thus has only himself to blame. -- Christian naddy Weisgerber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ff3
Right because I would totally touch a random directory that I don't even know what it is for. You guys crack me up with this attitude. I am blaming myself though; for bringing up issues to ports attention. Certainly won't happen again. Damnit I promised myself to not read this thread anymore... On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 04:12:29PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote: Brad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The immediate problem is not FF3 but Pango (devel/pango). The ABI changes from time to time for Pango and that requires that that modules list and most likely the aliases list in /etc/pango be up to date with what is in /usr/local/share/examples/pango . The package has the lists file and aliases file as @sample's. That alone is not enough for an upgrade, as opposed to a fresh install. Yes, it is. If a @sample file hasn't been changed, it is simply removed along with the rest of the package and a new one will be installed with the new package. This certainly happens for pkg_add -ui. (I checked.) My best explanation is that Marco messed up /etc/pango/* and thus has only himself to blame. -- Christian naddy Weisgerber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ff3
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right because I would totally touch a random directory that I don't even know what it is for. You guys crack me up with this attitude. I am blaming myself though; for bringing up issues to ports attention. Certainly won't happen again. Damnit I promised myself to not read this thread anymore... I have the habit to use sudo to upgrade packages (and my daily user had an umask of 077). After recent changes in sudo, when I upgraded my packages, files in /etc where set with permissions corresponding to that umask. It was the case with pango which gave me a lot of errors. Maybe it can help... -- Mattieu Baptiste /earth is 102% full ... please delete anyone you can.
Re: ff3
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:36:09AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: You guys crack me up with this attitude. I am blaming myself though; for bringing up issues to ports attention. by bringing up issues to ports attention, you mean you called for a revert on ports@, because you were so sure it was a problem with ff3. it's one thing to say, hey guys, something is broken here. this isn't my area, can you help me? please, quickly?, and revert this broken crap. we keep old shit all the time. not only is this broken, it just sucks. especially when your example of older software is totally and completely bogus (or are you telling us we'll have to drop support for some arches because a port got updated? are you telling us gcc2 has the same attack potential as ff?), within minutes of first saying anything was wrong you started making false claims (it crashes with https), and you continued to make false claims about ff in general. then when I asked if you wanted to keep ff2 and maintain it, you just ran off, making one last no one gives a shit slam. whose attitude is the joke here? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: ff3
On 12/10/2008 12:36 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: Right because I would totally touch a random directory that I don't even know what it is for. You guys crack me up with this attitude. Please read http://openbsd.org/report.html, the first paragraph under How to create a problem report.
Re: ff3
Die thread die! On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Steve Shockley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/10/2008 12:36 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote: Right because I would totally touch a random directory that I don't even know what it is for. You guys crack me up with this attitude. Please read http://openbsd.org/report.html, the first paragraph under How to create a problem report.
Re: ff3
On Wednesday 10 December 2008 11:12:29 Christian Weisgerber wrote: Brad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The immediate problem is not FF3 but Pango (devel/pango). The ABI changes from time to time for Pango and that requires that that modules list and most likely the aliases list in /etc/pango be up to date with what is in /usr/local/share/examples/pango . The package has the lists file and aliases file as @sample's. That alone is not enough for an upgrade, as opposed to a fresh install. Yes, it is. If a @sample file hasn't been changed, it is simply removed along with the rest of the package and a new one will be installed with the new package. This certainly happens for pkg_add -ui. (I checked.) Now that I think about it again you are right. I forgot about the fact that the package tools compare the installed config files and the examples and will remove them upon pkg_delete'ing if they're exactly the same, which should be the case for Pango. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: ff3
On Wednesday 10 December 2008 12:36:09 Marco Peereboom wrote: Right because I would totally touch a random directory that I don't even know what it is for. You guys crack me up with this attitude. I am blaming myself though; for bringing up issues to ports attention. Certainly won't happen again. Damnit I promised myself to not read this thread anymore... I am definitely not trying to blame you. I'm just trying to dig into the problem and figure out the root cause. FF3 itself is definitely not the problem and the few issues you mentioned in the past such as FF3 crashing with HTTPS sites were fixed months ago. Anyway, end of issue. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: ff3
* Marco Peereboom wrote: No. But we are better than this. Since when is it ok that pkg_add -ui screws up? Are we turning into debian? I'll let it rest though since it seems that no one gives a shit; why should I care? Just for the record: I built the package last night and used pkg_add -ui to update. Not a single problem, not whil installing, not while using. I'd even say that FF3 is a wee bit faster. On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 12:55:24AM +, Jacob Meuser wrote: On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 06:24:54PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: PS: Not so good an idea to keep ff2 when there'll be no fixes any more, not even security fixes, from upstream. Really? then i think we should stop using gcc 2 as well and the other countless packages that are no longer supported. and you are goig to maintain this? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org -- Marc Balmer, Micro Systems, Wiesendamm 2a, Postfach, CH-4019 Basel, Switzerland http://www.msys.ch/ http://www.vnode.ch/ In God we trust, in C we code.
Re: ff3
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 09:18:41AM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote: * Marco Peereboom wrote: No. But we are better than this. Since when is it ok that pkg_add -ui screws up? Are we turning into debian? I'll let it rest though since it seems that no one gives a shit; why should I care? Just for the record: I built the package last night and used pkg_add -ui to update. Not a single problem, not whil installing, not while using. I'd even say that FF3 is a wee bit faster. In my experience it is indeed, it also is less greedy wrt memory. And no trouble upgrading. I think it's not good to conclude--without further research--from one troublesome upgrade that the whole port of ff3 is bad quality. -Otto
Re: ff3
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what does morph OpenBSD into linux mean? What I meant by that comment is that, I used to enjoy the fact that if I didn't want gnome, dbus, cups, python, samba, mysql, postgresql, qt[34], etc on my system, I had FLAVORS that afforded me that option out-of-the-box. It seems, now, -- and I do not mean to bring up this discussion again, but you are asking and i'm trying to clarify with this example -- if i want to install gimp, i'm forced to live with a slew of other software i have no intention nor desire to use and/or worry about maintaining. Now, i manually tweak ports to cut the crud out. --patrick
Re: ff3
* patrick keshishian wrote: On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what does morph OpenBSD into linux mean? What I meant by that comment is that, I used to enjoy the fact that if I didn't want gnome, dbus, cups, python, samba, mysql, postgresql, qt[34], etc on my system, I had FLAVORS that afforded me that option out-of-the-box. It seems, now, -- and I do not mean to bring up this discussion again, but you are asking and i'm trying to clarify with this example -- if i want to install gimp, i'm forced to live with a slew of other software i have no intention nor desire to use and/or worry about maintaining. Now, i manually tweak ports to cut the crud out. We try to make packages useful for what we think could be the avarage use. To make it easy for users to actually work with the software on OpenBSD. Of course we can not make everyone happy... ;) --patrick -- Marc Balmer, Micro Systems, Wiesendamm 2a, Postfach, CH-4019 Basel, Switzerland http://www.msys.ch/ http://www.vnode.ch/ In God we trust, in C we code.
Re: ff3
On 2008/12/08 10:18, Marc Balmer wrote: * patrick keshishian wrote: On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 11:43 PM, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what does morph OpenBSD into linux mean? What I meant by that comment is that, I used to enjoy the fact that if I didn't want gnome, dbus, cups, python, samba, mysql, postgresql, qt[34], etc on my system, I had FLAVORS that afforded me that option out-of-the-box. It seems, now, -- and I do not mean to bring up this discussion again, but you are asking and i'm trying to clarify with this example -- if i want to install gimp, i'm forced to live with a slew of other software i have no intention nor desire to use and/or worry about maintaining. you'll have less crud (because some things are build dependencies only) and an easier to maintain system if you just use packages.. where it's sensible we do try and split into subpackages, and make the onerous _runtime_ dependencies only apply to the subpackages which need it. this naturally tends to _increase_ the build dependencies; the aim of the ports tree is to produce binary packages and where there's a decision to be made in favour of making things easier for developers bulk builders and package users, or making things easier for people using the ports tree to install stuff, we go for the first option. multiple FLAVORs are hard to maintain: not only does it increase the build time, but if we have conflicting flavours and some other port requires one particular flavour to build, but some other (lighter) flavour is already installed to satisfy a dependency for some other port, we have a problem for bulk builds. also, we have enough trouble getting good test reports for things with just one flavour. add more flavours and we just don't get any kind of thorough coverage. with the best will in the world, flavours which aren't included in a bulk build do often end up totally broken and stay that way. it doesn't make sense to add to this situation. Now, i manually tweak ports to cut the crud out. feel free, it's your system. other people make different decisions about the value of disk space vs their time. We try to make packages useful for what we think could be the avarage use. To make it easy for users to actually work with the software on OpenBSD. Of course we can not make everyone happy... ;) --patrick -- Marc Balmer, Micro Systems, Wiesendamm 2a, Postfach, CH-4019 Basel, Switzerland http://www.msys.ch/ http://www.vnode.ch/ In God we trust, in C we code.
Re: ff3
Now, i manually tweak ports to cut the crud out. feel free, it's your system. really? don't mind if i do. other people make different decisions about the value of disk space vs their time. you seem to simply equate the crud i speak of as taking up disk-space. you conveniently forget the risk factor of having that much crud that potentially have security flaws that require ample time to follow status of and maintain local packages up-to-date. disk-space hasn't been a problem for at least a decade now. in fact, i have problem finding smaller, more reasonably sized drives whenever shopping for one. decisions other people make don't always make sense either. those looking for convenience would probably be better off running fedora (or whatever the latest fad in linux world is). --patrick
Re: ff3
Hannah Schroeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Remove/backup and rename your old profile directory and make a new one (you can import your bookmarks later). Then it works (at least for me). Nice knee-jerk response, but I tested taking the existing configuration from ff2 to ff3 (and in fact going back and forth between them) and it worked just fine. -- Christian naddy Weisgerber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ff3
Hi! On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 01:57:23PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote: Hannah Schroeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Remove/backup and rename your old profile directory and make a new one (you can import your bookmarks later). Then it works (at least for me). Nice knee-jerk response, but I tested taking the existing configuration from ff2 to ff3 (and in fact going back and forth between them) and it worked just fine. Cool that it worked for you. For me it wasn't that smooth so I did what I described. Kind regards, Hannah.
Re: ff3
Hi! On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 09:18:41AM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote: * Marco Peereboom wrote: But we are better than this. Since when is it ok that pkg_add -ui screws up? Are we turning into debian? I'll let it rest though since it seems that no one gives a shit; why should I care? Just for the record: I built the package last night and used pkg_add -ui to update. Not a single problem, not whil installing, not while using. I'd even say that FF3 is a wee bit faster. That's my experience too. Sometimes still a little bit unstable, but then, ff2 wasn't rock stable either (and konqueror isn't completely stable either, though konqueror on a much slower box still feels faster than ff3 on a faster box; but I like some features of ff, like adblock plus, stylish for some pages with nearly unreadable styles, etc.). [...] Kind regards, Hannah.
Re: ff3
* Hannah Schroeter wrote: Hi! On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 01:57:23PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote: Hannah Schroeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Remove/backup and rename your old profile directory and make a new one (you can import your bookmarks later). Then it works (at least for me). Nice knee-jerk response, but I tested taking the existing configuration from ff2 to ff3 (and in fact going back and forth between them) and it worked just fine. Cool that it worked for you. For me it wasn't that smooth so I did what I described. It worked for me as well. I did not have to do that dance. I just upgraded the package. Kind regards, Hannah. -- Marc Balmer, Micro Systems, Wiesendamm 2a, Postfach, CH-4019 Basel, Switzerland http://www.msys.ch/ http://www.vnode.ch/ In God we trust, in C we code.
Re: ff3
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 01:57:23PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote: Hannah Schroeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Remove/backup and rename your old profile directory and make a new one (you can import your bookmarks later). Then it works (at least for me). Nice knee-jerk response, but I tested taking the existing configuration from ff2 to ff3 (and in fact going back and forth between them) and it worked just fine. That doesn't really show anything, since your config wasn't the one having the problem. I've upgraded FF many, many times and almost never encountered problems. Heck, I even moved a config from Windows to OpenBSD and FF worked perfectly with it. But now and then, on whatever OS/arch (Windows/OpenBSD/Linux), something gets messed up with the config and removing the old config fixes the problem. It's rare, yet common enough to have happened to me several times over the years. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation pgpgCHNFE6RlU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ff3
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 07:26:13AM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote: On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 01:57:23PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote: Hannah Schroeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Remove/backup and rename your old profile directory and make a new one (you can import your bookmarks later). Then it works (at least for me). Nice knee-jerk response, but I tested taking the existing configuration from ff2 to ff3 (and in fact going back and forth between them) and it worked just fine. this isn't a reply to any specific person, but due to the amount of noise this is generating i figured i'd leave my experiences - update from ff2 to ff3 was seamless as part of a massive package upgrade - launched fine, i've not cleaned out my .mozilla firefox profile in probably years, all plugins updated fine - in my experience ff3 has been peforming much faster than ff2 had been - running -current as of 3-4 days ago hope this helps some people have faith regards, -ryan
Re: ff3
On Sunday 07 December 2008 15:12:16 Marco Peereboom wrote: I did my customary pkg_add -ui and to my total shock firefox went from 2.x to 3.x. Not so shocking was that ff3 doesn't work after the update. I want to make a plead to keep 2.x around. ff3 uses even more resources than ff2 and it is impractical for my ultra-portable laptop (as an example). This change should be reverted. Here is the output on vanilla i386 after the pkg_add -ui: I find it hilarious that there is this on going thread bitching about FF3 and yet it seems NO ONE has even looked at the error messages posted by Marco. The immediate problem is not FF3 but Pango (devel/pango). The ABI changes from time to time for Pango and that requires that that modules list and most likely the aliases list in /etc/pango be up to date with what is in /usr/local/share/examples/pango . The package has the lists file and aliases file as @sample's. That alone is not enough for an upgrade, as opposed to a fresh install. Marco, can you try copying the files from /usr/local/share/examples/pango to /etc/pango and see what happens when you attempt to start up FF3 again? -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
Re: ff3
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 10:36:34AM -0800, Ryan Freeman wrote: On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 07:26:13AM -0700, Darrin Chandler wrote: On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 01:57:23PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote: Hannah Schroeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Remove/backup and rename your old profile directory and make a new one (you can import your bookmarks later). Then it works (at least for me). Nice knee-jerk response, but I tested taking the existing configuration from ff2 to ff3 (and in fact going back and forth between them) and it worked just fine. this isn't a reply to any specific person, but due to the amount of noise this is generating i figured i'd leave my experiences - update from ff2 to ff3 was seamless as part of a massive package upgrade - launched fine, i've not cleaned out my .mozilla firefox profile in probably years, all plugins updated fine - in my experience ff3 has been peforming much faster than ff2 had been - running -current as of 3-4 days ago hope this helps some people have faith thanks. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: ff3
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 02:28:06AM -0800, patrick keshishian wrote: Now, i manually tweak ports to cut the crud out. feel free, it's your system. really? don't mind if i do. good, everyone's happy :) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: ff3
On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 09:29:17AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 09:18:41AM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote: * Marco Peereboom wrote: No. But we are better than this. Since when is it ok that pkg_add -ui screws up? Are we turning into debian? I'll let it rest though since it seems that no one gives a shit; why should I care? Just for the record: I built the package last night and used pkg_add -ui to update. Not a single problem, not whil installing, not while using. I'd even say that FF3 is a wee bit faster. In my experience it is indeed, it also is less greedy wrt memory. And no trouble upgrading. I think it's not good to conclude--without further research--from one troublesome upgrade that the whole port of ff3 is bad quality. http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-portsm=121371736513764w=2 is it really surprising that someone who twists knobs ended up with problems? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: ff3
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-portsm=121371736513764w=2 is it really surprising that someone who twists knobs ended up with problems? i think marco has a point there. when was the last time you ran a plugin for flash, quicktime, vrml or whatever the crappy-format-of-the-month is? and how about on sparc64? having firefox complain about missing plugins that will never exist does no one any good. -- GDB has a 'break' feature; why doesn't it have 'fix' too?
Re: ff3
On Monday 08 December 2008 22:03:05 Chris Kuethe wrote: On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-portsm=121371736513764w=2 is it really surprising that someone who twists knobs ended up with problems? i think marco has a point there. when was the last time you ran a plugin for flash, quicktime, vrml or whatever the crappy-format-of-the-month is? and how about on sparc64? having firefox complain about missing plugins that will never exist does no one any good. oh well. its not a problem with FF3. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
ff3
I did my customary pkg_add -ui and to my total shock firefox went from 2.x to 3.x. Not so shocking was that ff3 doesn't work after the update. I want to make a plead to keep 2.x around. ff3 uses even more resources than ff2 and it is impractical for my ultra-portable laptop (as an example). This change should be reverted. Here is the output on vanilla i386 after the pkg_add -ui: (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: Failed to load Pango module '/usr/local/lib/pango/1.5.0/modules/pango-basic-fc.so' for id 'BasicScriptEngineFc' (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: failed to find shape engine, expect ugly output. engine-type='PangoRenderFc', script='latin' (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: failed to find shape engine, expect ugly output. engine-type='PangoRenderFc', script='common' (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango-WARNING **: File not found (firefox-bin:9897): Pango
Re: ff3
Hi! On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 02:12:16PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: [...] This change should be reverted. Here is the output on vanilla i386 after the pkg_add -ui: PS: Not so good an idea to keep ff2 when there'll be no fixes any more, not even security fixes, from upstream. Kind regards, Hannah.
Re: ff3
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 06:24:54PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: PS: Not so good an idea to keep ff2 when there'll be no fixes any more, not even security fixes, from upstream. Really? then i think we should stop using gcc 2 as well and the other countless packages that are no longer supported. and you are goig to maintain this? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: ff3
No. But we are better than this. Since when is it ok that pkg_add -ui screws up? Are we turning into debian? I'll let it rest though since it seems that no one gives a shit; why should I care? On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 12:55:24AM +, Jacob Meuser wrote: On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 06:24:54PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: PS: Not so good an idea to keep ff2 when there'll be no fixes any more, not even security fixes, from upstream. Really? then i think we should stop using gcc 2 as well and the other countless packages that are no longer supported. and you are goig to maintain this? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: ff3
Marco, I deeply respect your work so I hate to see you losing your nerves over idiotic web-browser. FF is not fixable. FF2 was supposed to fix FF1 but was even worse. FF3 is supposed to fix FF2 but as we all know it didn't. I actually put some thinking into the issue of the web-browser. In mine point of view the only hope for the decent web-browser is Midori based on WebKit. The one in current port tree is almost usable (it is alpha software for now). The another one is Dillo2 but the lack of OpenSSL implementation and lack of Java-Script Engine is killing me. If those guys can finally implement OpenSSL at least instead of coding tabular browsing I will never install any other graphical browser in my life. At some point I was so pissed with upstream FF that I installed Opera but I hate to use Linux compatibility layer. I noticed your letter about Qemu as well. I have absolutely the same experience like you (core dump) when I tried to run compiler on the virtual disk. I didn't want to react as I could not care less for virtualization and I know that most OpenBSD users do not care either. Since I already wrote about some troubles I experienced with OpenBSD packages on 4.4 release (I run both i386 and amd64) let me finish with ffplay problem. It seems that ffplay has problems with playing too fast on the AC97 chip-set. I think that is well documented so my solution was to install an old Sound Blaster Live sound card to the workstation I was using. I guess it could be useful for people to know about it. Most Kind Regards, Predrag On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. But we are better than this. Since when is it ok that pkg_add -ui screws up? Are we turning into debian? I'll let it rest though since it seems that no one gives a shit; why should I care? On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 12:55:24AM +, Jacob Meuser wrote: On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 06:24:54PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: PS: Not so good an idea to keep ff2 when there'll be no fixes any more, not even security fixes, from upstream. Really? then i think we should stop using gcc 2 as well and the other countless packages that are no longer supported. and you are goig to maintain this? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: ff3
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But we are better than this. Since when is it ok that pkg_add -ui screws up? Are we turning into debian? i relate, as I'm sure others (maybe not many) do as well. I'll let it rest though since it seems that no one gives a shit; why should I care? because, if you don't speak up no one will think there is anything wrong. I spoke up about cramming crap-load of needless dependencies into ports w/o giving the end user a choice in the matter (e.g., building gimp with python, etc.). I don't think it got me anywhere, but at least i voiced my opinion. my voice doesn't carry much weight, but I was hoping that logic would. It is one thing to make sure software available on linux platforms are able to install and work on OpenBSD. It is completely another issue to morph OpenBSD into linux with each package install. --patrick
Re: ff3
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 06:55:02PM -0800, patrick keshishian wrote: On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But we are better than this. Since when is it ok that pkg_add -ui screws up? Are we turning into debian? i relate, as I'm sure others (maybe not many) do as well. my update was completely seemless. what problem are you having? I'll let it rest though since it seems that no one gives a shit; why should I care? because, if you don't speak up no one will think there is anything wrong. mozilla is no longer maintaining mozilla. take your bitches to them. unless you are going to maintain mozilla 2.x branch, of course. I spoke up about cramming crap-load of needless dependencies into ports w/o giving the end user a choice in the matter (e.g., building gimp with python, etc.). I don't think it got me anywhere, but at least i voiced my opinion. my voice doesn't carry much weight, but I was hoping that logic would. It is one thing to make sure software available on linux platforms are able to install and work on OpenBSD. It is completely another issue to morph OpenBSD into linux with each package install. now you are volunteering to maintain all ports? wow, you must have a lot of free time. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: ff3
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 07:09:21PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: No. But we are better than this. Since when is it ok that pkg_add -ui screws up? Are we turning into debian? I'll let it rest though since it seems that no one gives a shit; why should I care? I give a shit about martynas or some other capable developer not wasintg time on eol security issue ridden software. I have to diable acpi everytime I build a kernel. does that mean you don't give a shit about acpi? On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 12:55:24AM +, Jacob Meuser wrote: On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 06:24:54PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: PS: Not so good an idea to keep ff2 when there'll be no fixes any more, not even security fixes, from upstream. Really? then i think we should stop using gcc 2 as well and the other countless packages that are no longer supported. and you are goig to maintain this? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: ff3
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mozilla is no longer maintaining mozilla. take your bitches to them. unless you are going to maintain mozilla 2.x branch, of course. I wasn't the original person bitching about ff2/ff3. and, you seem to have missed the point made by another user, who pointed out the fact there are many ports that are no longer maintained upstream that happily exist in ports. I spoke up about cramming crap-load of needless dependencies into ports w/o giving the end user a choice in the matter (e.g., building gimp with python, etc.). I don't think it got me anywhere, but at least i voiced my opinion. my voice doesn't carry much weight, but I was hoping that logic would. It is one thing to make sure software available on linux platforms are able to install and work on OpenBSD. It is completely another issue to morph OpenBSD into linux with each package install. now you are volunteering to maintain all ports? wow, you must have a lot of free time. What the hell does that even mean? It's the third time you've said that in this thread alone: are you going to maintain it? Having a passive-aggressive moment are we? Can't counter logic so unless you have it your way you threaten to take your toys and leave the sandbox? I've already accepted the explanation of build-time for packages for not having FLAVORS for gimp, etc. It is how it is. But, there is no good excuse for you to lash out and throw a hissy fit because someone said something you don't agree with; especially when they have a valid point. --patrick
Re: ff3
On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 08:14:52PM -0800, patrick keshishian wrote: On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:13 PM, Jacob Meuser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mozilla is no longer maintaining mozilla. take your bitches to them. unless you are going to maintain mozilla 2.x branch, of course. I wasn't the original person bitching about ff2/ff3. and, you seem to have missed the point made by another user, who pointed out the fact there are many ports that are no longer maintained upstream that happily exist in ports. because someone is maintaining them. all I am saying is if you want something, make it happen. I spoke up about cramming crap-load of needless dependencies into ports w/o giving the end user a choice in the matter (e.g., building gimp with python, etc.). I don't think it got me anywhere, but at least i voiced my opinion. my voice doesn't carry much weight, but I was hoping that logic would. It is one thing to make sure software available on linux platforms are able to install and work on OpenBSD. It is completely another issue to morph OpenBSD into linux with each package install. now you are volunteering to maintain all ports? wow, you must have a lot of free time. What the hell does that even mean? It's the third time you've said that in this thread alone: are you going to maintain it? Having a passive-aggressive moment are we? Can't counter logic so unless you have it your way you threaten to take your toys and leave the sandbox? what does morph OpenBSD into linux mean? I've already accepted the explanation of build-time for packages for not having FLAVORS for gimp, etc. It is how it is. But, there is no good excuse for you to lash out and throw a hissy fit because someone said something you don't agree with; especially when they have a valid point. what was the point? sorry, but I didn't see any. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: FF 2 || FF3?
Hi Sebastian, It would seem they updated the port to 2.0.0.16 today. Hope that helps.
