I'm wondering if someone who is working with Puppy and Windows can confirm this problem and hopefully offer a solution. I am booting Puppy 2.02 with Firefox from the CD and saving to a pup-save file on the hard drive. I have Windows XP (on FAT32) on the hard drive, along with Mandriva Linux. Yesterday I set up profile sharing for Puppy's Firefox, so that it reads and writes to the profile for Firefox installed in Windows.
To do this you navigate to the Puppy directory in which firefox is installed and type
./firefox -profilemanager
This brings up a dialog box where you can add a new profile and give it the path to your Windows profile folder. This should be something like:
/mnt/hda1/Documents and Settings/(username)/Application Data/Mozilla/Firefox/Profiles/default.Xxx
where Xxx are numbers and letters different for everyone.
I've done this in Mandriva and the profile sharing with Firefox in Windows seems to work well. In Puppy, it worked fine until I rebooted today. Now when I try to start Firefox in Puppy, I get an error message that says Firefox is already running but not responding, and that I have to kill the process or restart. If I do ps, there is no firefox showing.
If I go into the Firefox profile manager and reset the profile to the default, so that profiles are no longer being shared with Windows, Firefox will open, and will continue to open on rebooting. So it seems that the profile sharing makes Puppy think that there is an instance of Firefox already open, hogging the resources. Or something. (There is no resource issue on this machine, I don't think, P4 2.6 GHz, 512 mb RAM.) Once the shared profile is broken, it won't open at all, not even in the first session that you call it up in.
I've tried constructing the shared profile again in the profile manager. It will work for that session as before, but once I reboot it's broken again and I get the error message that Firefox is already running.
Thanks for any help.
problem in sharing Firefox profiles b/t Puppy and Windows
I ran into a similar situation.
From within my e-mail program, running in Wine, I called SeaMonkey to display a URL.
As Seamonkey was already running in Linux, I got the message, that SeaMonkey was busy and that I should create another profile.
I didn't do that and closed the in Linux browser and mail sessions.
Then I could call SeaMonkey from within Wine.
After having done in Wine, I saw that some configuration aspects had been changed, spacially in the news group I was looking at in Linux.
Already before in the SeaMonkey/Mozilla groups there were warnings that it wasn't recommended to share profiles.
So now I configured the email client to open URL's with Dillo to avoid this sharing profile aspect.
From within my e-mail program, running in Wine, I called SeaMonkey to display a URL.
As Seamonkey was already running in Linux, I got the message, that SeaMonkey was busy and that I should create another profile.
I didn't do that and closed the in Linux browser and mail sessions.
Then I could call SeaMonkey from within Wine.
After having done in Wine, I saw that some configuration aspects had been changed, spacially in the news group I was looking at in Linux.
Already before in the SeaMonkey/Mozilla groups there were warnings that it wasn't recommended to share profiles.
So now I configured the email client to open URL's with Dillo to avoid this sharing profile aspect.
Puppy Linux 2.02 SMkey, KDE354mini, wine0.9.20, devx-qt-renamed.
Puppy Linux 2.10r1 SMkey, JWM, devx_qt_renamed_210, KDE355mini
Puppy Linux 2.10r1 SMkey, JWM, devx_qt_renamed_210, KDE355mini
Hi folks!
I noticed something interesting here: Justin? You said that you did this before with Mandriva and it worked fine, correct? But you've tried it with Puppy and it's a no-go situation because it says "there's already an instance of Firefox running".
Then I stop to think here: What's different between Mandriva and Puppy? Then it hit me! Puppy is preloaded entirely into RAM, right?
So I'm wondering if that fact might have anything to do with it? While assuredly there is no real instance of Firefox running, perhaps it thinks it's running the profile at least and hence the conflict? I wouldn't know as I'm rather new to Linux myself, so it'd take someone with more experience with Puppy under the belt than myself. But I am wondering if this might be the difference?
It's a thought anyway.
Amicalement / In Friendship,
Eyes-Only
"L'Peau-Rouge"
I noticed something interesting here: Justin? You said that you did this before with Mandriva and it worked fine, correct? But you've tried it with Puppy and it's a no-go situation because it says "there's already an instance of Firefox running".
Then I stop to think here: What's different between Mandriva and Puppy? Then it hit me! Puppy is preloaded entirely into RAM, right?
So I'm wondering if that fact might have anything to do with it? While assuredly there is no real instance of Firefox running, perhaps it thinks it's running the profile at least and hence the conflict? I wouldn't know as I'm rather new to Linux myself, so it'd take someone with more experience with Puppy under the belt than myself. But I am wondering if this might be the difference?
It's a thought anyway.
Amicalement / In Friendship,
Eyes-Only
"L'Peau-Rouge"
Sigh.
Apparently I was forgetting to mount hda1, so the browser couldn't see Windows, and saw itself instead.
(I swear I did remember to mount the c drive at first, but there is an issue with the profile manager not always saving your profile choice and that was helping to confuse me with different kinds of errors).
Honestly, I do whale away at these things and do searches before posting a question! Thanks to those who replied.
Tomorrow I'll be posting an extraordinarily complicated problem about Xorg and video resolution to which the solution will turn out to be that I forgot to turn the monitor on.
Apparently I was forgetting to mount hda1, so the browser couldn't see Windows, and saw itself instead.
(I swear I did remember to mount the c drive at first, but there is an issue with the profile manager not always saving your profile choice and that was helping to confuse me with different kinds of errors).
Honestly, I do whale away at these things and do searches before posting a question! Thanks to those who replied.
Tomorrow I'll be posting an extraordinarily complicated problem about Xorg and video resolution to which the solution will turn out to be that I forgot to turn the monitor on.
...And mine turned out to be unplugged. Umm... Where does this thing with the three metal prongs go now. And what about this foot pedal with the three buttons?
Smile Justin!
Hey look---it happens to the best of us. Remember, not all of us were born knowing this stuff. (Just Nathan. Maybe MU too. 
LOL!) And at least we can all joke and have a great time, eh?
I'm really glad that you discovered the problem though!
Oh Nathan! What you said just brought back a memory: I had a cousin who was in Tv repair and he had more people complain about their Tvs going darker & darker on them. They'd bring them to the shop to be fixed. He'd hook them up and they sure were dark! He kept a bottle of Windex around and a very soft cloth and people were amazed at how much better they looked on the spot. No charge of course.
Amicalement!
Eyes-Only
"L'Peau-Rouge"
Smile Justin!
Hey look---it happens to the best of us. Remember, not all of us were born knowing this stuff. (Just Nathan. Maybe MU too. LOL!) And at least we can all joke and have a great time, eh?I'm really glad that you discovered the problem though!
Oh Nathan! What you said just brought back a memory: I had a cousin who was in Tv repair and he had more people complain about their Tvs going darker & darker on them. They'd bring them to the shop to be fixed. He'd hook them up and they sure were dark! He kept a bottle of Windex around and a very soft cloth and people were amazed at how much better they looked on the spot. No charge of course.
Amicalement!
Eyes-Only
"L'Peau-Rouge"