How to replace Mozilla 1.8x beta with stable Mozilla 1.7x?
Close, but no cigar
Just to be sure, I tried both the standard Puppy 1.04 and the chubby Puppy 1.04. Both have the same glitches when I install Mozilla 1.7.11. That is, the generic red X icon in the upper left corner, no full-screen capability, and weird fonts. It appears that I am the only one encountering these glitches. *sigh*
Thanks for being patient with me. I just wish I could find the culprit of this problem. At least I can control the behavior of images, though at a price. I guess it's as close to success as I'll get. Thanks again for trying.
Thanks for being patient with me. I just wish I could find the culprit of this problem. At least I can control the behavior of images, though at a price. I guess it's as close to success as I'll get. Thanks again for trying.
I find it so hard to believe you are still having problems. I came up with the second procedure just for you because I could see the resolving the symlinks were causing frustration. I did not post just a theory about what would work and be easy for you. I set up a new pup001 and tested it first. I used the very version of Mozilla you used.
Did you do all this and no more and no less?
Steps involved.
* download and extract Mozilla
* Install a fresh brandnew Puppy. (pup001 file)
* delete /root/.mozilla
* run mozilla's install program and directed it to install in /usr/lib/mozilla
note: /usr/lib/mozilla is not a directory rather a symlink to /usr/lib/mozilla-1.8b1.4, but the install program liked it better when installed via the symlink, bossy thing that it is. It warned me of an existing version and gave me a choice to delete the files and I let it delete the files. It then installed Mozilla 1.7.11 without a hitch.
Did you do all this and no more and no less?
Steps involved.
* download and extract Mozilla
* Install a fresh brandnew Puppy. (pup001 file)
* delete /root/.mozilla
* run mozilla's install program and directed it to install in /usr/lib/mozilla
note: /usr/lib/mozilla is not a directory rather a symlink to /usr/lib/mozilla-1.8b1.4, but the install program liked it better when installed via the symlink, bossy thing that it is. It warned me of an existing version and gave me a choice to delete the files and I let it delete the files. It then installed Mozilla 1.7.11 without a hitch.
Screenshot of the glitches included
Did you do all this and no more and no less?
Steps involved.
* download and extract Mozilla
Check. I even re-burned the .iso's for both the standard and chubby versions of Puppy 1.04.
* Install a fresh brandnew Puppy. (pup001 file)
Check. I deleted pup001 from Windows 95 to allow a fresh one to be created.
* delete /root/.mozilla
Check.
* run mozilla's install program and directed it to install in /usr/lib/mozilla
Check.
Steps involved.
* download and extract Mozilla
Check. I even re-burned the .iso's for both the standard and chubby versions of Puppy 1.04.
* Install a fresh brandnew Puppy. (pup001 file)
Check. I deleted pup001 from Windows 95 to allow a fresh one to be created.
* delete /root/.mozilla
Check.
* run mozilla's install program and directed it to install in /usr/lib/mozilla
Check.
- Attachments
-
- moz17.png
- Mozilla 1.7.11 in "full-screen" mode, so to speak.
- (56.08 KiB) Downloaded 438 times
A pictrure helps a lot.
The red X you are talking as I remember is particular to fvwm95. I use icewm. I think red X is a feature of fvwm95.
You are not running in full screen mode as can easily be detected by the control button in the upper right corner of the windows just to the left of the X
The window is also resizable manually.
The fonts look normal to me. Do they to you? BTW I like the default fonts in Firefox better.
In any event the fonts can be changed to suit your tastes. Also ctrl- or ctrl+ as you need to make a quick change in size, but not font face.
Is it possible you only think something is wrong?
Try and push the full screen button I described above, see if that fixes it. Let me know. There are always solutions.
The red X you are talking as I remember is particular to fvwm95. I use icewm. I think red X is a feature of fvwm95.
You are not running in full screen mode as can easily be detected by the control button in the upper right corner of the windows just to the left of the X
The window is also resizable manually.
The fonts look normal to me. Do they to you? BTW I like the default fonts in Firefox better.
In any event the fonts can be changed to suit your tastes. Also ctrl- or ctrl+ as you need to make a quick change in size, but not font face.
Is it possible you only think something is wrong?
Try and push the full screen button I described above, see if that fixes it. Let me know. There are always solutions.
that does look weird
i just downloaded and unzipped Mozilla to /tmp
and made a symlink to /usr/lib
it seems to work ok on my machine
http://tinypic.com/aynbpt.jpg
i just downloaded and unzipped Mozilla to /tmp
and made a symlink to /usr/lib
it seems to work ok on my machine
http://tinypic.com/aynbpt.jpg
i think the red x is normal ... it's the standard fvwm95 icon for an executable file
i can make the menus bar disappear by clicking the textured button (under the red x on your pic) but there is a button to click to bring it back
http://tinypic.com/aynig1.jpg
i can make the menus bar disappear by clicking the textured button (under the red x on your pic) but there is a button to click to bring it back
http://tinypic.com/aynig1.jpg
Yes Virginia, that IS full-screen
The red X was not there in any versions of Mozilla that were bundled with any version of Puppy. I prefer fvwm95 since JWM is too awkward, and some other window managers are too "XP-ish" for my tastes, but that's another topic.Bruce B wrote:A pictrure helps a lot.
The red X you are talking as I remember is particular to fvwm95. I use icewm. I think red X is a feature of fvwm95.
Believe it or not, that IS Full-screen mode, as broken as it is. I did that from View - Full Screen. I have also done that from F11 (after "fixing" the F11 key in .fvwm95rc by commenting out the appropriate lines.)Bruce B wrote:You are not running in full screen mode as can easily be detected by the control button in the upper right corner of the windows just to the left of the X
The window is also resizable manually.
I realize that the about: screen was not the best example of the strange fonts; in fact, that screen has some of the most readable fonts. I am aware of the shortcuts for resizing fonts. The problem is not so much in the size of the fonts but the actual fonts themselves. I may see if I can find a better example, but for now the previous screenshot was inentionally taken from the about: screen to show that the 1.7.11 version did install.Bruce B wrote:The fonts look normal to me. Do they to you? BTW I like the default fonts in Firefox better.
In any event the fonts can be changed to suit your tastes. Also ctrl- or ctrl+ as you need to make a quick change in size, but not font face.
I wish. I guess I have an eye for things that are out of place or wrong, hence the screen name.Bruce B wrote:Is it possible you only think something is wrong?
As described above, the functionality is broken. Changing to full-screen from the menu or from F11 keeps the window the same size. The "2nd" minimize button does nothing, the 2nd restore button goes back to the "non-full-screen" window, and the 2nd close button does actually function.Bruce B wrote:Try and push the full screen button I described above, see if that fixes it. Let me know. There are always solutions.
And yes, I agree that there are always solutions. Every glitch happens for a reason.
I just validated that the red X is a feature of fvwm95 for sure.
I observed a nomenclature problem that was my bad. Fullscree != maximized.
I was thinking maximized and you were thinking actual fullscreen.
I tested fullscreen in fvwm95 and it works but is not fully supported it seems. I think icewm supports the fullscreen better. I can't validate this at this moment becuase I'm using the Puppy that most corresponds with yours and icewm is not installed on this computer.
About the fonts. Here are my thoughts, I wonder if Mozilla anti-aliases fonts as well as Firefox on any Linux. I've noted for a long time that the fonts look better in Firefox as opposed to Mozilla. It seems to me that they would both anti-alias the same, but maybe not.
I simply don't find Mozilla fonts as pleasing as Firefox fonts under any scenerio.
If you are talking about font rendering which I think you are - we are on the same page.
Also font face and size is a factor. I don't think Mozilla's authors picked the same faces and sizes as Firefox. We can set things to our liking with some trial and error.
I'll be right back after some tests.
I observed a nomenclature problem that was my bad. Fullscree != maximized.
I was thinking maximized and you were thinking actual fullscreen.
I tested fullscreen in fvwm95 and it works but is not fully supported it seems. I think icewm supports the fullscreen better. I can't validate this at this moment becuase I'm using the Puppy that most corresponds with yours and icewm is not installed on this computer.
About the fonts. Here are my thoughts, I wonder if Mozilla anti-aliases fonts as well as Firefox on any Linux. I've noted for a long time that the fonts look better in Firefox as opposed to Mozilla. It seems to me that they would both anti-alias the same, but maybe not.
I simply don't find Mozilla fonts as pleasing as Firefox fonts under any scenerio.
If you are talking about font rendering which I think you are - we are on the same page.
Also font face and size is a factor. I don't think Mozilla's authors picked the same faces and sizes as Firefox. We can set things to our liking with some trial and error.
I'll be right back after some tests.
About fonts: I just did some testing of sorts. Subjective tests if you will. I convinced in my mind that Mozilla simply doesn't render fonts as well as Firefox or something of that nature.
Among other things I checked the option to not allow documents to use other fonts. I am not impressed at all with the Mozilla defaults.
I read something about Puppy allowing for MS true types. I think the process is something like make a directory /root/.fonts and drop your true types and what ever in there. Maybe having those font sets and allowing document fonts would help. I do not know.
The only thing I can think to do with the font display quality in Mozilla is work with what we have and improve on it somehow.
I write this with the idea in mind that we are having the same perceptions of the font display issue. And that there is nothing bizarre going on.
As for the XP look you mentioned. I don't care for it much, the screen shot I posted was icewm with the silver theme.
Among other things I checked the option to not allow documents to use other fonts. I am not impressed at all with the Mozilla defaults.
I read something about Puppy allowing for MS true types. I think the process is something like make a directory /root/.fonts and drop your true types and what ever in there. Maybe having those font sets and allowing document fonts would help. I do not know.
The only thing I can think to do with the font display quality in Mozilla is work with what we have and improve on it somehow.
I write this with the idea in mind that we are having the same perceptions of the font display issue. And that there is nothing bizarre going on.
As for the XP look you mentioned. I don't care for it much, the screen shot I posted was icewm with the silver theme.
the gtk-1 versions of Mozilla do not support antialiased fonts at all ... the gtk-1 version was the one in my pics (Puppy 1.0.5 is supposed to have the gtk-1 version i think)
the gtk-2 version of Mozilla does support antialiased and true type fonts, and it can use fonts in /root/.fonts
i prefer the Firefox interface myself, but that is largely a matter of preference
the gtk-2 version of Mozilla does support antialiased and true type fonts, and it can use fonts in /root/.fonts
i prefer the Firefox interface myself, but that is largely a matter of preference
Puppy 1.03 is affected too
Curiously enough, I decided to try the same thing, only this time on Puppy 1.03. The same glitches still happen. It may be worth noting that I continue to get segmentation faults whenever I try to reboot. I never used to get this prior to tampering with the broken beta Mozilla. It's peculiar.
As for the red X, yes it is unique to fvwm95, but what I was trying to say was that it does not appear in any of the Mozillas that are already bundled with all versions of Puppy. The red X was merely the first thing that alerted me that something was wrong. In this case, I think it is somehow related to the full-screen option not working. The bundled versions of Mozilla can go into full-screen mode without any problems even in fvwm95. It's just that a user-installed Mozilla does not properly go into full-screen mode (at least for me.)
I guess I should call it a night since I've been staring at this monitor too long. Perhaps a new day will shine some light on things. Thank you everyone for your input.
As for the red X, yes it is unique to fvwm95, but what I was trying to say was that it does not appear in any of the Mozillas that are already bundled with all versions of Puppy. The red X was merely the first thing that alerted me that something was wrong. In this case, I think it is somehow related to the full-screen option not working. The bundled versions of Mozilla can go into full-screen mode without any problems even in fvwm95. It's just that a user-installed Mozilla does not properly go into full-screen mode (at least for me.)
I guess I should call it a night since I've been staring at this monitor too long. Perhaps a new day will shine some light on things. Thank you everyone for your input.
- BarryK
- Puppy Master
- Posts: 9392
- Joined: Mon 09 May 2005, 09:23
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
- Contact:
In chubby puppy, also when you install OpenOffice pupget package, the OO package installs some truetype fonts into /root/.fonts/, and that is interesting because Mozilla uses them right off, doesn't have to be told to.Bruce B wrote:About fonts: I just did some testing of sorts. Subjective tests if you will. I convinced in my mind that Mozilla simply doesn't render fonts as well as Firefox or something of that nature.
Among other things I checked the option to not allow documents to use other fonts. I am not impressed at all with the Mozilla defaults.
I read something about Puppy allowing for MS true types. I think the process is something like make a directory /root/.fonts and drop your true types and what ever in there. Maybe having those font sets and allowing document fonts would help. I do not know.
You get a very different appearance, perhaps to your liking.
There is a potential problem with the OO pupget installation, I actually made /root/.fonts a symbolic link to where the TT fonts are, rather than moving them into /root/.fonts/. Or maybe it's not a problem.
G2 as I'm sure you've observed, one can put Mozilla anywhere on the file system one wants. I don't even put it in Puppys file system or for that matter on the same partition.GuestToo wrote:that does look weird
i just downloaded and unzipped Mozilla to /tmp
and made a symlink to /usr/lib
it seems to work ok on my machine
http://tinypic.com/aynbpt.jpg
My technique is put it where I want and resolve the symlinks and make MOZILLA_FIVE_HOME true.
In studying this situation closer - it appears as far as v 1.04 is concerned, the key symlink is the mozilla one in /usr/lib
I don't remember 1.03 in terms of differences, and that's when I started replacing Mozilla. Anyway it always goes smooth for me.
- BarryK
- Puppy Master
- Posts: 9392
- Joined: Mon 09 May 2005, 09:23
- Location: Perth, Western Australia
- Contact:
Re: current
Spellchecker support is a compile-time option. I'm recompiling Moz right now with spellchecking enabled.Bruce B wrote:Not much but enough for me to replace it.klhrevolutionist wrote:What seems to be wrong with the beta of mozilla???
* The option to not load remote images doesn't work.
* There is no spell checker in the composer
The biggest problem I am having with the compile-time options is lack of documentation. This is very common problem, the developers don't bother to fully document what various pre-compile configure options actually do.
I'm also experimenting to see if I can get image blocking working...
Of course I'm writing this after 1.0.5alpha2 is released, so any improvements will be in the release version.