Enrique Samson Jr. wrote:
Excuse me but I can't seem to find the root of the threed from the
archives. What is the trouble being talked about here? Because I'm also
having mine. I'm using Mozilla 1.5 from debian package 1.5-3. I have
downloaded the java plugin from netscape.com and it was auto i
I installed j2re1.4 (see apt-get.org) and it worked right away with Mozilla.
Chris
Am Wednesday 07 April 2004 10:37 schrieb Enrique Samson Jr.:
> Excuse me but I can't seem to find the root of the threed from the
> archives. What is the trouble being talked about here? Because I'm also
> having
Excuse me but I can't seem to find the root of the threed from the
archives. What is the trouble being talked about here? Because I'm also
having mine. I'm using Mozilla 1.5 from debian package 1.5-3. I have
downloaded the java plugin from netscape.com and it was auto installed.
I can see libj
41 +0300, Aryan Ameri wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The compiler version is always important (due to the nature of C).
> >>
> >>Any pointers to an explanation about why is that?
> >
> >
> > Take a look at Re: Compiler choice for OSS (WAS: Re: Troub
C).
>>
>> Any pointers to an explanation about why is that?
>
>
> Take a look at Re: Compiler choice for OSS (WAS: Re: Trouble with
> Mozilla Java plugin) tread.
Not enough for my curiosity.
--
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
--
To UNSU
On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 12:39:41 +0300, Aryan Ameri wrote:
> On Sunday 01 June 2003 07:15, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
>> --- Nathan Poznick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
>>
>> > That is a version compiled with gcc 3.2, and it works for me
>> > (whereas the version from that apt archive doesn't).
>>
>> Th
on about why is that?
> >
> > Take a look at Re: Compiler choice for OSS (WAS: Re: Trouble with
> > Mozilla Java plugin) tread.
>
> Not enough for my curiosity.
Then I guess you should specify in more detail, what exactly you are
looking for, so that someone here, mig
On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 17:51:30 +0300, Aryan Ameri wrote:
> On Sunday 01 June 2003 14:49, Leandro Guimarães Faria Corsetti Dutra
> wrote:
>>
>> Any pointers to an explanation about why is that?
>
> Take a look at Re: Compiler choice for OSS (WAS: Re: Trouble with
>
On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:31:27 +0200, Nicos Gollan wrote:
> If you want high speed and the last bit of optimization, you
> might be better off with something else like Intel's ICC which can be a _lot_
> faster for some tasks.
If you want high speed, you are running a RISC SMP where Intel
On Sunday 01 June 2003 15:09, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
> --- Aryan Ameri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> > The compiler version is always important (due to the nature of C).
> > For example Mozilla 1.4 can be compiled with gcc on windows, but no
> > plugin would then work with it, because all the pl
gt; impact). Thanks.
> >
> > The compiler version is always important (due to the nature of C).
>
> Any pointers to an explanation about why is that?
Take a look at Re: Compiler choice for OSS (WAS: Re: Trouble with
Mozilla Java plugin) tread.
Cheers
--
/* There is SCO
On Sunday 01 June 2003 14:09, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
> This is something I have always wondered about. Why do OSS projects use
> gcc for every platform except Windows? I thought one of the great
> advantages of gcc was that is was ported to pretty much every operating
> system. Why not just alwa
--- Aryan Ameri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> The compiler version is always important (due to the nature of C).
> For example Mozilla 1.4 can be compiled with gcc on windows, but no
> plugin would then work with it, because all the plugins have been
> compiled with the Microsoft compiler.
T
On Sun, 01 Jun 2003 12:39:41 +0300, Aryan Ameri wrote:
> On Sunday 01 June 2003 07:15, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
>>
>> That sure did the trick (I didn't realize the gcc version had an
>> impact). Thanks.
>
> The compiler version is always important (due to the nature of C).
Any pointers to
On Sunday 01 June 2003 07:15, Roberto Sanchez wrote:
> --- Nathan Poznick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> > That is almost undoubtedly due to that version of Java being
> > compiled with gcc 2.95, and mozilla being compiled with gcc 3.x.
> > The dates on the files from that mirror are quite old..
--- Nathan Poznick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> That is almost undoubtedly due to that version of Java being compiled
> with gcc 2.95, and mozilla being compiled with gcc 3.x. The dates on
> the files from that mirror are quite old... Try using:
>
ftp://ftp.tux.org/pub/java/JDK-1.4.1/i386/01
What exactly is the problem? Which version of java are you using? which
Debian release are you running and which version of mozilla are you
using?
The following worked for me:
* untar the sdk (the jre should work also). With Sun sdk1.4.1 it "just
works". With 1.3 (I think) it may or may not wor
Thus spake Roberto Sanchez:
> Hi all,
>
> I can't seem to get Mozilla (unstable) to recognize the Java plugin. I
> and installed by had the J2RE, first from Sun then from Blackdown. When
> neither of this worked, I added a Blackdown mirror to my sources.list.
>
> deb ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/l
Hi all,
I can't seem to get Mozilla (unstable) to recognize the Java plugin. I
and installed by had the J2RE, first from Sun then from Blackdown. When
neither of this worked, I added a Blackdown mirror to my sources.list.
deb ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/linux/devel/lang/java/blackdown.org/debian
19 matches
Mail list logo
