Sam Drinkard wrote:
> Aleksandar Milivojevic wrote:
>
>>
>> Errr... you mean Java, not JavaScript, right?
>>
>> Yup, I noticed same thing too. Some simple demo applets worked OK
>> (hey I got
>> nice looking fractal and my browser survived), other more complex
>> would make
>> browser to instantly crash. Probably going to disable plugin. Also,
>> probably
>> the reason jpackage folks disabled it in the spec file (or maybe Sun
>> does not
>> even ship it for the very same reasons)...
>>
> Yep.. java, not javascript. Just was perusing Dag's site, and I don't
> even see a "late" version of i-386 firefox. Think the latest version
> was less than 1, or maybe 1.0x-something. From a previous post some
> time back on the same thread, it would appear to me that the upstream
> provider either should drop the x86-64 version of firefox and go to
> the 386 version. I don't know of any reason anyone would *need* the
> 64-bit version....
>
Roger that last observation. There was much traffic on the SuSE AMD64
list earlier this year about plugin problems w/ 64-bit browsers.
Solution: use the 32-bit browser. Plugins work AOK, *NO* performance
problems, everything just works, smooth as silk .... You *DO* have to
get the 32-bit libraries correctly installed & located, but after that,
you are off to the races :-).
--
William A. Mahaffey III
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember, ignorance is bliss, but
willful ignorance is LIBERALISM !!!!
