[Tfug] 32-bit browser plugins on 64-bit OS

[Brian Murphy]

Your best option is sticking with the 32 bit version of firefox 2 and
chasing down all of the necessary 32bit libraries.

As you've experienced, firefox changed to a newer gtk between FF2 and 3.
And since RHEL4 has packages essentially locked at Feb 2005 levels for
enterprise stability, you'd be better off upgrading to RHEL5 than uproot
half of your OS libraries.

Besides the annoying new URL bar, I don't see any real difference
between FF2 and FF3 anyway.

Brian

Rich wrote:
> *dodges the tumbleweed*
> 
> Time for a puzzler.
> 
> RHEL and CentOS come in 32-bit and 64-bit versions. They've recently 
> upgraded the browser in v4.7 to Firefox 3.x.  I guess these are CentOS 
> related, because RedHat has made it clear to me that they won't support 
> any of these options.
> 
> Here's the difficulty. Without moving to an alternate browser (Opera, 
> for instance), how can I get *all* the useful 32-bit plugins to function 
> properly?
> 
> These are: Acrobat Reader, Flash, Java, and Helix (Real)
> 
> First option: nspluginwrapper
> So far, I have the 64-bit Firefox, with some 64-bit plugins, plus 
> nspluginwrapper, which provides a platform for 32-bit plugins on 64-bit 
> browsers.
> 
> Acroread, flash, and helix work fine. But the 32-bit java plugin doesn't 
> work. I get something similar to this (not at the box right now)
> 
>   # nspluginwrapper -i <path-to-java-plugin>
>   This is not a valid NPAPI plugin
> 
> I know the next version of Java is supposed to include a 64-bit plugin. 
> Great. So in six months time I'll stop asking...
> 
> Second option: 32-bit browser
> Next line of attack was to use a 32-bit Firefox. Here's how this fails:
> 
> * removed 64-bit Firefox
> * installed 32-bit Firefox and the *advertised* dependencies from the media
> * installed the *secret* dependencies (libcairo and libpangocairo)
> 
> Now when I launch firefox, it complains it requires GTK+ 2.10 or greater.
> 
> RHEL4.x uses GTK+ 2.4, but RedHat backported Firefox 3.x so it can run 
> on GTK+ 2.4 instead.
> 
> So, I'm wondering if anyone's determined what else is needed to get 
> Firefox 32-bit to realize it's been backported, and that GTK+2.4 is okay!
> 
> This wouldn't be a problem if GTK+ was at 2.10, but that would mean 
> upgrading half the OS -- to run the Java plugin.
> 
> Question 3: is there a portable 32-bit Firefox that installs anywhere 
> (y'know, like Windows and Mac have?)
> 
> Question 4 (marked philosophical/OT): Why bother with 64-bit browsers at 
> all? The point of 64-bit apps is to gain access to >4GB of RAM. But if 
> your browser is using more than 4GB of RAM, there's a problem, right?
> 
> R.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org