On Fri, 2010-04-02 at 02:40 +0000, users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Send users mailing list submissions to > users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > You can reach the person managing the list at > users-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of users digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. (no subject) (Don Vogt) > 2. Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story? (Rahul Sundaram) > 3. Re: (Steven Stern) > 4. Re: N wifi broke after kernel update (Mail Lists) > 5. (charles zeitler) > 6. Re: (Rahul Sundaram) > 7. Re: Fox News Channels videos won't play (Aram J. Agajanian) > 8. Re: gedit ...cannot create backup !!! (Aram J. Agajanian) > 9. Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story? (suvayu ali) > 10. Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story? (Marcel Rieux) > 11. Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story? (Craig White) > 12. Re: Fox News Channels videos won't play (Temlakos) > 13. Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story? (Craig White) > 14. Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story? (Marcel Rieux) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 16:10:21 -0700 (PDT) > From: Don Vogt <dnvot@xxxxxxxxx> > To: users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Message-ID: <472611.75616.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > ----------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:13:55 +0200 > > From: David Garc?a Granda <dgranda@xxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: New Firefox Won't run > > To: Community support for Fedora users <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Message-ID: > > ??? <g2z7e5980ea1004011213y149d30aayac5e5e72f5d92860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > Hi Don, > > > > > Yesterday I updated to kernel 2.6.32.9.70 fc12 and to > > firefox-3.5.9-1.fc12 and now firefox won't start. I get a > > notice in the bottom bar for a few seconds and then it goes > > blank. > > > > Strange, I have the same package versions and firefox runs > > fine... > > > > > I tried starting firefox in a terminal and it returned > > "can't load XPCOM" > > > I tried 'locate XPCOM' and it returned some files in > > /usr/lib/VirtualBox and > > /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.1/modules/XPCOMUtils.jsm > > > > Uhmmm... I don't have virtualbox installed, so this can > > make the difference. > > > > > I have VirtualBox installed, but I am not trying to > > run firefox in virtualBox, but on the desktop. > > > ?I just found that xulrunner-1.9.1.9-1.fc12 was > > installed at the same time as the new firefox so I suspect > > the problem is between firefox and xulrunner. > > > > I think the problem here is VirtualBox. > > > OK, I will try to remove VirtualBox, if I can figure out how > > > > > > ?I don't know what to try next. I have been using fc12 > > for a long time successfully for quite a while Any help or > > advice would be appreciated. > > > > Is it possible for you to check if XPCOM files related from > > VirtualBox > > conflict with Firefox/xulrunner ones?. Maybe something not > > compatible > > from VirtualBox is loaded instead of the right one. > > I will see what I can figure out about the related files > > > > > HTH, > > > > David > > > > > > > > > Message: 13 > > Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 14:20:42 -0700 > > From: suvayu ali <fatkasuvayu+linux@xxxxxxxxx> > > Subject: Re: New Firefox Won't run > > To: Community support for Fedora users <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Message-ID: > > ??? <x2gfe3123491004011420o703df7bkad7c5b3dcfde3c12@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > On 1 April 2010 12:13, David Garc?a Granda <dgranda@xxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > Hi Don, > > > > > >> Yesterday I updated to kernel 2.6.32.9.70 fc12 and > > to firefox-3.5.9-1.fc12 and now firefox won't start. I get a > > notice in the bottom bar for a few seconds and then it goes > > blank. > > > > > > Strange, I have the same package versions and firefox > > runs fine... > > > > > >> I tried starting firefox in a terminal and it > > returned "can't load XPCOM" > > >> I tried 'locate XPCOM' and it returned some files > > in /usr/lib/VirtualBox and > > /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.1/modules/XPCOMUtils.jsm > > > > > > Uhmmm... I don't have virtualbox installed, so this > > can make the difference. > > > > > >> I have VirtualBox installed, but I am not trying > > to run firefox in virtualBox, but on the desktop. > > >> ?I just found that xulrunner-1.9.1.9-1.fc12 was > > installed at the same time as the new firefox so I suspect > > the problem is between firefox and xulrunner. > > > > > > I think the problem here is VirtualBox. > > > > > > > It is improper methodology to start blaming other "most > > unlikely" > > packages before going through the proper troubleshooting > > steps. I > > don't have VBox installed and that file is there in my > > system. > > xulrunner is what firefox uses for all of its UI and > > configuration. > > (at least that is what I know) > > > > $ yum deplist firefox | grep xul > > ???provider: xulrunner.x86_64 > > 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11 > > ???provider: xulrunner.x86_64 > > 1.9.1.9-1.fc11 > > ? dependency: libxul.so()(64bit) > > ???provider: xulrunner.x86_64 > > 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11 > > ???provider: xulrunner.x86_64 > > 1.9.1.9-1.fc11 > > ? dependency: xulrunner >= 1.9.1.9 > > ???provider: xulrunner.x86_64 > > 1.9.1.9-1.fc11 > > ???provider: xulrunner.i586 1.9.1.9-1.fc11 > > ???provider: xulrunner.x86_64 > > 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11 > > ???provider: xulrunner.x86_64 > > 1.9.1.9-1.fc11 > > ? dependency: libxul.so()(64bit) > > ???provider: xulrunner.x86_64 > > 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11 > > ???provider: xulrunner.x86_64 > > 1.9.1.9-1.fc11 > > ???provider: xulrunner.x86_64 > > 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11 > > ???provider: xulrunner.i586 > > 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11 > > > > >> ?I don't know what to try next. I have been using > > fc12 for a long time successfully for quite a while Any help > > or advice would be appreciated. > > > > > > Is it possible for you to check if XPCOM files related > > from VirtualBox > > > conflict with Firefox/xulrunner ones?. Maybe something > > not compatible > > > from VirtualBox is loaded instead of the right one. > > > > > > > > > The OP should first try > > 1. starting firefox in safe mode `firefox -safe-mode' and > > see whether > > any of the add-ons are to blame. > > Did that - no change > > > 2. If that doesn't work, try looking for unreleased lock > > files for firefox. > > > > $ cd ~/.mozilla > > $ find -type f -name '*lock' > > > > If any are found delete them and try again. > > found .parentlock files in each profile. Deleted them and got the same result ( unable to load XPCOM) > 3. If none of the above works try creating a new user and > > start firefox there. > > Created a new user and opened a terminal to run firefox again "unable to load XPCOM" > > > > And finally if none of the above work appeal to the > > collective > > knowledge of the list with the results from the above. > > > > > > OK I will attack VirtualBox to see if I can glean any info about dependencies and the look at removing it > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 04:40:26 +0530 > From: Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story? > To: users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Message-ID: <4BB527E2.6060701@xxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 04/02/2010 04:36 AM, Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Sam Sharpe <lists.redhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: > > > >> I believe that diverting resources into maintaining older releases > >> does not further any of the Foundations. It takes resources away from > >> further the last two principles. > >> > > I would say that pushing major updates to older releases takes more > > resources, not less (at least if it is done correctly, with proper > > testing on each release). > > > > This really depends on the nature of the package and what problems the > update solves. I generally prefer not pushing in "major" updates but I > elected to do so for Transmission bittorrent client because magnet link > support was in high demand (TPB switched to using it) and it fixed quite > a number of important bugs that were being reported via ABRT, not to > mention security and data loss issues. The other option would have been > selective backporting which would have certainly been much more work and > upstream projects don't necessarily support that approach. > > The right answer is - it depends. > > Rahul > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 18:18:52 -0500 > From: Steven Stern <subscribed-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: > To: Community support for Fedora users <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Don Vogt <dnvot@xxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <4BB529DC.3090809@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 > > On 04/01/2010 06:10 PM, Don Vogt wrote: > > ----------------------------------- > >> > >> Message: 1 > >> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 21:13:55 +0200 > >> From: David Garc?a Granda <dgranda@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Subject: Re: New Firefox Won't run > >> To: Community support for Fedora users <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Message-ID: > >> <g2z7e5980ea1004011213y149d30aayac5e5e72f5d92860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >> > >> Hi Don, > >> > >>> Yesterday I updated to kernel 2.6.32.9.70 fc12 and to > >> firefox-3.5.9-1.fc12 and now firefox won't start. I get a > >> notice in the bottom bar for a few seconds and then it goes > >> blank. > >> > >> Strange, I have the same package versions and firefox runs > >> fine... > >> > >>> I tried starting firefox in a terminal and it returned > >> "can't load XPCOM" > >>> I tried 'locate XPCOM' and it returned some files in > >> /usr/lib/VirtualBox and > >> /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.1/modules/XPCOMUtils.jsm > >> > >> Uhmmm... I don't have virtualbox installed, so this can > >> make the difference. > >> > >>> I have VirtualBox installed, but I am not trying to > >> run firefox in virtualBox, but on the desktop. > >>> ?I just found that xulrunner-1.9.1.9-1.fc12 was > >> installed at the same time as the new firefox so I suspect > >> the problem is between firefox and xulrunner. > >> > >> I think the problem here is VirtualBox. > > > > > > OK, I will try to remove VirtualBox, if I can figure out how > > > > > > > >>> ?I don't know what to try next. I have been using fc12 > >> for a long time successfully for quite a while Any help or > >> advice would be appreciated. > >> > >> Is it possible for you to check if XPCOM files related from > >> VirtualBox > >> conflict with Firefox/xulrunner ones?. Maybe something not > >> compatible > >> from VirtualBox is loaded instead of the right one. > > > > I will see what I can figure out about the related files > > > >> > >> HTH, > >> > >> David > >> > >> > > > >> > >> Message: 13 > >> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 14:20:42 -0700 > >> From: suvayu ali <fatkasuvayu+linux@xxxxxxxxx> > >> Subject: Re: New Firefox Won't run > >> To: Community support for Fedora users <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Message-ID: > >> <x2gfe3123491004011420o703df7bkad7c5b3dcfde3c12@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >> > >> On 1 April 2010 12:13, David Garc?a Granda <dgranda@xxxxxxxxx> > >> wrote: > >>> Hi Don, > >>> > >>>> Yesterday I updated to kernel 2.6.32.9.70 fc12 and > >> to firefox-3.5.9-1.fc12 and now firefox won't start. I get a > >> notice in the bottom bar for a few seconds and then it goes > >> blank. > >>> > >>> Strange, I have the same package versions and firefox > >> runs fine... > >>> > >>>> I tried starting firefox in a terminal and it > >> returned "can't load XPCOM" > >>>> I tried 'locate XPCOM' and it returned some files > >> in /usr/lib/VirtualBox and > >> /usr/lib/xulrunner-1.9.1/modules/XPCOMUtils.jsm > >>> > >>> Uhmmm... I don't have virtualbox installed, so this > >> can make the difference. > >>> > >>>> I have VirtualBox installed, but I am not trying > >> to run firefox in virtualBox, but on the desktop. > >>>> ?I just found that xulrunner-1.9.1.9-1.fc12 was > >> installed at the same time as the new firefox so I suspect > >> the problem is between firefox and xulrunner. > >>> > >>> I think the problem here is VirtualBox. > >>> > >> > >> It is improper methodology to start blaming other "most > >> unlikely" > >> packages before going through the proper troubleshooting > >> steps. I > >> don't have VBox installed and that file is there in my > >> system. > >> xulrunner is what firefox uses for all of its UI and > >> configuration. > >> (at least that is what I know) > >> > >> $ yum deplist firefox | grep xul > >> provider: xulrunner.x86_64 > >> 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11 > >> provider: xulrunner.x86_64 > >> 1.9.1.9-1.fc11 > >> dependency: libxul.so()(64bit) > >> provider: xulrunner.x86_64 > >> 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11 > >> provider: xulrunner.x86_64 > >> 1.9.1.9-1.fc11 > >> dependency: xulrunner >= 1.9.1.9 > >> provider: xulrunner.x86_64 > >> 1.9.1.9-1.fc11 > >> provider: xulrunner.i586 1.9.1.9-1.fc11 > >> provider: xulrunner.x86_64 > >> 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11 > >> provider: xulrunner.x86_64 > >> 1.9.1.9-1.fc11 > >> dependency: libxul.so()(64bit) > >> provider: xulrunner.x86_64 > >> 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11 > >> provider: xulrunner.x86_64 > >> 1.9.1.9-1.fc11 > >> provider: xulrunner.x86_64 > >> 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11 > >> provider: xulrunner.i586 > >> 1.9.1-0.20.beta4.fc11 > >> > >>>> ?I don't know what to try next. I have been using > >> fc12 for a long time successfully for quite a while Any help > >> or advice would be appreciated. > >>> > >>> Is it possible for you to check if XPCOM files related > >> from VirtualBox > >>> conflict with Firefox/xulrunner ones?. Maybe something > >> not compatible > >>> from VirtualBox is loaded instead of the right one. > >>> > > > > > > > > > >> The OP should first try > >> 1. starting firefox in safe mode `firefox -safe-mode' and > >> see whether > >> any of the add-ons are to blame. > > > > Did that - no change > > > >> 2. If that doesn't work, try looking for unreleased lock > >> files for firefox. > >> > >> $ cd ~/.mozilla > >> $ find -type f -name '*lock' > >> > >> If any are found delete them and try again. > > > > found .parentlock files in each profile. Deleted them and got the same result ( unable to load XPCOM) > > 3. If none of the above works try creating a new user and > >> start firefox there. > > > > Created a new user and opened a terminal to run firefox again "unable to load XPCOM" > >> > >> And finally if none of the above work appeal to the > >> collective > >> knowledge of the list with the results from the above. > >> > >> > > > > OK I will attack VirtualBox to see if I can glean any info about dependencies and the look at removing it > > > > > > > I have VirtualBox installed and am having no problems with Firefox. > > -- > -- Steve > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:57:16 -0400 > From: Mail Lists <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: N wifi broke after kernel update > To: Community support for Fedora users <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <4BB532DC.9060705@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 03/31/2010 09:15 PM, Mail Lists wrote: > > > > Wireless stopped working after latest kernel update. > > ... > > > > > Filed bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=578663 > > > > Happy to report this has already been fixed (thank you john > linville!!) in the 2.6.32.10-94.fc12 kernel build available in koji. > > gene > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 17:57:42 -0600 > From: charles zeitler <cfzeitler@xxxxxxxxx> > To: fedora-users <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: > <h2t2d6d70f11004011657h94c349b6j5879b946dcd91560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > -- > Do what thou wilt > shall be the whole of the Law. > > 1) "free and open source software" is redundant ( if it's free software ) > > 2) does fedora need a "stable release" ? > (there is already "current" "next" "previous" and "eol") > > charles zeitler > > Love is the law, love under will. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 06:26:18 +0530 > From: Rahul Sundaram <metherid@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: > To: users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Message-ID: <4BB540B2.30600@xxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 04/02/2010 05:27 AM, charles zeitler wrote: > > -- > > Do what thou wilt > > shall be the whole of the Law. > > > > 1) "free and open source software" is redundant ( if it's free software ) > > > > Not quite. FOSS is a umbrella term and using it is one way of avoiding > the free beer vs freedom confusion > > > 2) does fedora need a "stable release" ? > > (there is already "current" "next" "previous" and "eol") > > > > Previous and current are "stable" releases. Next is the development > branch. > > Rahul > > Ps: Remember to fill up the subject line > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 21:23:31 -0400 > From: "Aram J. Agajanian" <agajan@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Fox News Channels videos won't play > To: users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Message-ID: <20100401212331.1dad1161@pc01> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:49:27 -0400 > Temlakos <temlakos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I've come back to this issue of the Fox News Channel videos not > > wanting to play, because perhaps I have some more information that > > might provide a clue. > > > > Fox News Channel hosts a number of videos, and provides an embedding > > link to each one. About an hour ago, I went to find one. When my > > Fedora 12/Firefox 3.5.8 setup wouldn't play nice, I went to another > > machine that had Windows XP on it. I was able to play the video > > there, and to get the embedding script. I got it and pasted it into > > an article I wrote. > > > > And when I went to display my article, guess what? The video wouldn't > > play. > > > > I am using flash 10.0.45.2 (64 bit) and Fedora 11 (with Firefox 3.5.9). > > Fox News videos wouldn't play until I uninstalled > nspluginwrapper.x86_64. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 21:30:31 -0400 > From: "Aram J. Agajanian" <agajan@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: gedit ...cannot create backup !!! > To: users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Message-ID: <20100401213031.5edd4812@pc01> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 10:38:23 +0530 > Jatin K <ssh.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Dear all > > > > suddenly I'm getting this error whenever I try to edit a text file > > and click save button > > > > " Could not create a backup file while saving /path/to/file.txt" > > gedit could not backup the old copy of the file before saving the new > > one.You can ignore this warning and save the file anyway. > > but if an error occurs while saving , you could lose the old copy of > > the file. Save anyway ?" > > > > > > yesterday, everything was ok.. and this morning I'm getting this > > > > whats wrong with gedit ?? can anyone help me ? > > > > > > Regards > > > > I've seen this error message from gedit when trying to save on network > filesystems where the uids are not mapped. When using sshfs, the > following option can help: > > -o idmap=user > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 18:45:34 -0700 > From: suvayu ali <fatkasuvayu+linux@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story? > To: Community support for Fedora users <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: > <r2gfe3123491004011845sa4f29a3dt9b11f3801d14b192@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 1 April 2010 15:35, Craig White <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 15:13 -0700, suvayu ali wrote: > >> On 1 April 2010 14:46, Craig White <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Red Hat is a different company, has their own mail lists, their own > >> > software packaging, etc. This has nothing to do with Fedora. > >> > > >> > >> And I recently learned they don't even use yum! :-o > > ---- > > well RHEL 4 doesn't but RHEL 5 does. > > > > You can install yum from CentOS 4 on RHEL 4 systems but you have to be > > vigilant about where packages are being installed from because RHEL 4 > > doesn't have repo information for yum. > > > > Thanks for correcting me. :) Learned something new again! I deal with > Scientific Linux 4 and 5 systems on a regular basis, hence my surprise > about this piece of information. Any particular reason for this > difference? > > > Craig > > > > PS: I know my questions are probably OT, but its better than a flame > war on a vaguely relevant thread. ;) > > -- > Suvayu > > Open source is the future. It sets us free. > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:02:34 -0400 > From: Marcel Rieux <m.z.rieux@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story? > To: Community support for Fedora users <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: > <y2ja6e58c2d1004011902j75bfa7d9g5940a5bef0e8a512@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Craig White <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 17:23 -0400, Marcel Rieux wrote: > > > > > > as far as I can tell, you seem to be the only one confused about Red > > Hat/Fedora. Fedora is a completely separate entity with its own > > management, resources, servers though clearly it was incubated using > > resources supplied by Red Hat. > > > > Aaaah! So you found them! All along my research, I've been looking for the > Fedora statutes. Normally, this document should be linked to the home > page... and I couldn't find it! The best I could get was the composition of > the board. > > So, let's talk. Where are the statutes, where you learned that Fedora is a > completely separate entity? > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100401/9838f366/attachment-0001.html > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:14:44 -0700 > From: Craig White <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story? > To: Community support for Fedora users <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <1270174484.3182.617.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 22:02 -0400, Marcel Rieux wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Craig White <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 17:23 -0400, Marcel Rieux wrote: > > > > > > as far as I can tell, you seem to be the only one confused > > about Red > > Hat/Fedora. Fedora is a completely separate entity with its > > own > > management, resources, servers though clearly it was incubated > > using > > resources supplied by Red Hat. > > > > Aaaah! So you found them! All along my research, I've been looking for > > the Fedora statutes. Normally, this document should be linked to the > > home page... and I couldn't find it! The best I could get was the > > composition of the board. > > > > So, let's talk. Where are the statutes, where you learned that Fedora > > is a completely separate entity? > ---- > I am sure I learned about it when Fedora was first announced. > > Not very hard to find out about Fedora Governance... > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board > > Craig > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 22:22:57 -0400 > From: Temlakos <temlakos@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Fox News Channels videos won't play > To: users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Message-ID: <4BB55501.6060401@xxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > On 04/01/2010 09:23 PM, Aram J. Agajanian wrote: > > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:49:27 -0400 > > Temlakos<temlakos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >> I've come back to this issue of the Fox News Channel videos not > >> wanting to play, because perhaps I have some more information that > >> might provide a clue. > >> > >> Fox News Channel hosts a number of videos, and provides an embedding > >> link to each one. About an hour ago, I went to find one. When my > >> Fedora 12/Firefox 3.5.8 setup wouldn't play nice, I went to another > >> machine that had Windows XP on it. I was able to play the video > >> there, and to get the embedding script. I got it and pasted it into > >> an article I wrote. > >> > >> And when I went to display my article, guess what? The video wouldn't > >> play. > >> > >> > > I am using flash 10.0.45.2 (64 bit) and Fedora 11 (with Firefox 3.5.9). > > > > Fox News videos wouldn't play until I uninstalled > > nspluginwrapper.x86_64. > > > And how did you do that? > > Temlakos > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:26:16 -0700 > From: Craig White <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story? > To: Community support for Fedora users <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <1270175176.3182.628.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 18:45 -0700, suvayu ali wrote: > > On 1 April 2010 15:35, Craig White <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 15:13 -0700, suvayu ali wrote: > > >> On 1 April 2010 14:46, Craig White <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > Red Hat is a different company, has their own mail lists, their own > > >> > software packaging, etc. This has nothing to do with Fedora. > > >> > > > >> > > >> And I recently learned they don't even use yum! :-o > > > ---- > > > well RHEL 4 doesn't but RHEL 5 does. > > > > > > You can install yum from CentOS 4 on RHEL 4 systems but you have to be > > > vigilant about where packages are being installed from because RHEL 4 > > > doesn't have repo information for yum. > > > > > > > Thanks for correcting me. :) Learned something new again! I deal with > > Scientific Linux 4 and 5 systems on a regular basis, hence my surprise > > about this piece of information. Any particular reason for this > > difference? > ---- > Scientific Linux does pretty much the same as CentOS and they all seemed > to follow the path of the progenitor, whiteboxlinux. The RHEL releases > prior to version 5 simply used the 'up2date' tool which has a vastly > different structure than yum's repo structure. Whiteboxlinux and the > various rebuilds of RHEL used the yum tool I suppose because it was > pretty well established (Fedora and the RHL that preceded Fedora) had > been using it for some time. I think Red Hat probably decided that the > open source development of yum made more long term sense and implemented > in RHEL 5 instead of another round of 'up2date'. > ---- > > PS: I know my questions are probably OT, but its better than a flame > > war on a vaguely relevant thread. ;) > ---- > no flame wars... just reactions to someone who wants to use this list as > a political soapbox for his theories on the way things should be. Not > the first and obviously won't be the last. Maybe if he actually > participated in the process of software development, either by coding or > bug reporting he would begin to understand what is actually involved and > transition from irrelevant theory to relevant discourse. > > Craig > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 14 > Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:40:16 -0400 > From: Marcel Rieux <m.z.rieux@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: FPL steps down: what's the real story? > To: Community support for Fedora users <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: > <s2va6e58c2d1004011940y30877869m771325906f3f8206@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Sam Sharpe <lists.redhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > > On 1 April 2010 22:23, Marcel Rieux <m.z.rieux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >> Once upon a time, Sam Sharpe <lists.redhat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: > > >> > You keep saying this. I shall make only two points as I am bored of > > >> > saying this time and time again. > > >> > > >> I would welcome you stopping saying this, since you present two extremes > > >> as the only possible choices (which they are not). > > > > > > Though I've been providing this link time and again, Mr Sharpe has chosen > > to > > > ignore it: > > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_release_updates_vision > > > > Actually I read it before, although I have no idea whether it was due > > to a post by you - I believe it to be largely a statement of the > > current status-quo. Perhaps you read it differently to me. > > > > * The update repositories for stable releases of the Fedora > > distribution should provide our users with a consistent and high > > quality stream of updates. > > > > I haven't seen huge issues with updates for releases. I realise > > other people might have, but that doesn't indicate an endemic problem > > of brokenness in Fedora, nor that the aims have changed. > > > > * Stable releases should provide a consistent user experience > > throughout the lifecycle, and only fix bugs and security issues. > > > > Again, I haven't personally seen evidence that Updates to a Fedora > > release have massively changed the User Experience - but then I'm not > > a KDE user. > > > > * Stable releases should not be used for tracking upstream version > > closely when this is likely to change the user experience beyond > > fixing bugs and security issues. > > > > This is currently true - they do not. > > > > * Close tracking of upstream should be done in the Rawhide repo > > wherever possible, and we should strive to move our patches upstream. > > > > This is the current situation > > > > * More skilled and/or intrepid users are encouraged to use Rawhide > > along with participating in testing of stable branches during the > > development and pre-release period. > > > > This is the current situation > > > > * Stable releases, pre-release branches, and Rawhide have a graduated > > approach to what types of updates are expected. For example, a > > pre-release branch should accept some updates which a stable release > > would not, and rawhide would accept updates that are not appropriate > > for either a stable release or a pre-release. > > > > This is the current situation. e.g. major software versions can > > change between F12 Alpha and Beta releases. > > > > * Project members should be able to transparently measure or monitor a > > new updates process to objectively measure its effectiveness, and > > determine whether the updates process is achieving the aforementioned > > vision statements. > > > > Not something I can comment on. > > > > As I understand it, in the above terminology: > > > > Rawhide == Rawhide > > Pre-release == Fxx Alpha, Fxx, Beta, Fxx RC > > Stable == Fxx > > > > > So! No more 'The "Stable" offering is Red Hat Enterprise Linux.' ? > > What? OK, RHEL might finally prove more solid than Fedora, but final is > stable. Only security patches and important bug fixes should be uploaded. No > program updates. I'm glad to learn we agreed all along! > > Which means that, for instance, developers should think twice before > quitting the KDE 3.5.x branch and going for 4.0. Since testing means "going > soon to the final, stable release", KDE 4 remains in rawhide, even though it > evolves to new dot versions, until it's deemed stable enough for the next > final release. That's the way Patrick Volkerding does it for Slackware. > > For non-developers using Final , "release early. release often" is "released > too early, released too often." > > Of course, nothing prevents Red Hat's own geeks, or anybody feeling > adventurous, from enabling the Rawhide repository. > > So, everybody is kept happy. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100401/04ebf94f/attachment.html > > ------------------------------ > Good news. I loaded the new kernel 94 and it works fine. Thanks -- Lawrence E Graves <lgraves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
