[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: fedora-list Digest, Vol 45, Issue 259 (Java stuff)



On Friday 23 November 2007 02:48, Karl Larsen wrote:
> Antti J. Huhtala wrote:
> > to, 2007-11-22 kello 10:07:04 -0700, Craig White kirjoitti:
> >> On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 22:19 +0530, Rogue wrote:
> >>> Karl Larsen wrote:
> >>>>    I had no problem finding the PAGE with the things to d/l. The
> >>>> problem is getting the dam stuff to WORK!! I followed the Install
> >>>> guidance which is hard to read, but I made the directory /usr/java/
> >>>> which does not exist on F7, and I did the bash file from that
> >>>> directory which put another directory above /usr/java/jre1... which
> >>>> seems to have all the java stuff.
> >>>>
> >>>>    But Firefox can't find this even though it says it will check
> >>>> /usr/java/. Should I move everything from that jre1... directory to
> >>>> /usr/java/?
> >>>
> >>> You need to symlink the libjavaplugin.so file to your mozilla plugins
> >>> directory.
> >>>
> >>> I suspect that you already have a file
> >>> /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libjavaplugin.so pointing to the icedtea
> >>> version of the plugin, via the /etc/alternatives/libjavaplugin.so
> >>>
> >>> If you wish to consume the Sun's plugin, then you need to remove this
> >>> file and create a symlink to the Sun's plugin
> >>>
> >>> ln -s /usr/java/jre1.*/plugin/i386/ns7/libjavaplugin_oji.so .
> >>>
> >>> Now restart firefox and you should see the new plugin take effect.
> >>>
> >>> On the other hand, I would really appreciate it if someone can tell me
> >>> how to use the alternatives to pick up the Sun's environment.
> >>
> >> ----
> >> this link suggests that the blackdown version of java works properly on
> >> 86_64 systems...
> >>
> >> http://fedora64.org/desktop-64-posts/java-x86_64/
> >>
> >> YMMV
> >>
> >> Craig
> >
> > I'd advise against trying the blackdown java - at least for F7 and
> > Firefox 2.0.0.9. I just went through the installation process and as a
> > result my 64-bit Firefox crashed when loading my ISP's home page.
> > The 32-bit Firefox still worked - and so did the 64-bit Firefox after I
> > unlink'ed the 64-bit java plugin. It may have worked in FC5 and FF1.5...
> > I've never succeeded in making 64-bit java work in FC4-F7. Things may be
> > different now with F8 and IcedTea - but that has to wait my F8
> > installation which is not going to happen anytime soon.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Antti
>
>     I have Java working on F7 and F8. Now I wonder why? I do not see any
> advantage yet to having Java installed.
>
> Regards
> Karl

Hi Karl. It depends on the sites you are visiting. For example I listen to 
Internet radio from http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4. To listen to programs from 
this site I need to have the realplayer plugin installed, although for some 
of their other stations, windows media player is an option, and for this I 
have to install mplayerplug-in, which also pulls in mplayer, and other deps.

Other sites use flash for some stuff, and if you dont have the flash-plugin 
installed, you are not going to see the stuff that needs flash. Of course 
this may be no problem, as the flash stuff may be just ad's, but if it's a 
flash video that you want to view, the flash-plugin is a necessary 
requirement.

It's no different with java. Some sites are setup using java, and to be able 
to load and view the java applets, you need to have the JRE installed.

What this comes down to is this. Depending on which sites you need to use, you 
may find that some of them need java to be installed, otherwise the site 
won't work, and will be of no use to you. Look at this one as an example.

http://www.itautrade.com.br

The Monitor window on the right of the webpage loads, and runs the applet, and 
displays a graph, and also a ticker at the bottom of the window.

I could do with some more sites that specifically require java. They will will 
be usefull as test sites to checkout your JRE, and if it's performing as 
intended.

Bloody digests. Nobody has the faintest idea what a reply referencing "Digest, 
Vol 45, Issue 259" is referring to, and I'm replying to this nondescript 
subject line.

I think it's about time that the option to receive posts to the the list as a 
digest should be removed. It's anybodies guess what the archives look like, 
with subject lines referencing a digest, and no subject defined.

A couple  of days late, but for what it's worth, and if anybody reads this 
reply to a digest subject line, I'm posting my reply anyway.

Nigel.







[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]