FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-27-2010, 01:24 PM
Robert Heller
 
Default Seamonkey (Mozilla) web browser for CentOS 5.4?

Does the Seamonkey (Mozilla) web browser exist for CentOS 5.4? It seems
to be missing from the standard repository.

--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software -- Download the Model Railroad System
http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Binaries for Linux and MS-Windows
heller@deepsoft.com -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ModelRailroadSystem/

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 01-27-2010, 06:46 PM
Greg Bailey
 
Default Seamonkey (Mozilla) web browser for CentOS 5.4?

Robert Heller wrote:
> Does the Seamonkey (Mozilla) web browser exist for CentOS 5.4? It seems
> to be missing from the standard repository.
>
Seamonkey 1.0.9 is included with CentOS 4.X, but CentOS 5 builds never
had any seamonkey RPMs, as upstream packaged Firefox and Thunderbird
instead.

For CentOS 5, I've previously used RPMs available from:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/seamonkey/releases/2.0/contrib/FC_RPMS/

Although there's directories for the "2.0.1" and "2.0.2" releases, the
FC_RPMS haven't (yet) been built for those.

-Greg

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 01-27-2010, 06:50 PM
MHR
 
Default Seamonkey (Mozilla) web browser for CentOS 5.4?

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Greg Bailey <gbailey@lxpro.com> wrote:
> Robert Heller wrote:
>> Does the Seamonkey (Mozilla) web browser exist for CentOS 5.4? *It seems
>> to be missing from the standard repository.
>>
> Seamonkey 1.0.9 is included with CentOS 4.X, but CentOS 5 builds never
> had any seamonkey RPMs, as upstream packaged Firefox and Thunderbird
> instead.
>
> For CentOS 5, I've previously used RPMs available from:
> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/seamonkey/releases/2.0/contrib/FC_RPMS/
>
> Although there's directories for the "2.0.1" and "2.0.2" releases, the
> FC_RPMS haven't (yet) been built for those.
>

I use SeaMonkey as my primary browser all the time, but I don't depend
on the RPMs for it. I just get the L&G tar.bz2 file from Mozilla.org
and install it. Works fine for me, although I sometimes have to add
the plug-in links by script....

(Running CentOS 5.4 on AMD X4....)

mhr
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 01-27-2010, 09:37 PM
Dick Roth
 
Default Seamonkey (Mozilla) web browser for CentOS 5.4?

MHR wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Greg Bailey<gbailey@lxpro.com> wrote:
>> Robert Heller wrote:
>>> Does the Seamonkey (Mozilla) web browser exist for CentOS 5.4? It seems
>>> to be missing from the standard repository.
>>>
>> Seamonkey 1.0.9 is included with CentOS 4.X, but CentOS 5 builds never
>> had any seamonkey RPMs, as upstream packaged Firefox and Thunderbird
>> instead.
>>
>> For CentOS 5, I've previously used RPMs available from:
>> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/seamonkey/releases/2.0/contrib/FC_RPMS/
>>
>> Although there's directories for the "2.0.1" and "2.0.2" releases, the
>> FC_RPMS haven't (yet) been built for those.
>>
>
> I use SeaMonkey as my primary browser all the time, but I don't depend
> on the RPMs for it. I just get the L&G tar.bz2 file from Mozilla.org
> and install it. Works fine for me, although I sometimes have to add
> the plug-in links by script....
>
> (Running CentOS 5.4 on AMD X4....)
>
> mhr
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>

I've been using Seamonkey from the Mozilla site with mixed experience.
It handles graphics/videos better than Firefox, but goes off to lala
land chewing up cpu cycles to 95% for minutes at a time. Top indicates
that it is seamonkey-bin that is loading the cpu, so I doubt that it is
a CentOS (5.4) issue.

Dick


--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

--Benjamin Franklin 1755
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 01-28-2010, 02:14 AM
MHR
 
Default Seamonkey (Mozilla) web browser for CentOS 5.4?

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Dick Roth <raroth7@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> I've been using Seamonkey from the Mozilla site with mixed experience.
> It handles graphics/videos better than Firefox, but goes off to lala
> land chewing up cpu cycles to 95% for minutes at a time. *Top indicates
> that it is seamonkey-bin that is loading the cpu, so I doubt that it is
> a CentOS (5.4) issue.
>

I've seen that, too, but it only happens once in a long while. My
bigger complaint is that both SeaMonkey and Firefox tend to lose their
minds when it comes to playing videos if they've been running
continuously for too long (the exact length of this time varies, but
it seems to be more than one day). They both do the same thing - they
either play 1-3 seconds of the video and stop, or they play the whole
video with short bursts of super-speed sound blips every so often. A
complete stop and restart always fixes this, but I find it annoying.

I've also noticed that Gmail frequently causes SM to hang for up to
two minutes or longer under certain, not entirely predictable
circumstances, but this ONLY happens when I have a Gmail lab feature
enabled. This differs from the CPU munching cycles in that, when this
happens, SM just stops and there's no CPU activity at all. It seems
to be harmless, though, because it either recovers by itself or I get
impatient, kill SM and bring it back with no detriment visible.

I like SM better because the interfaces have more user-level controls
and you can pretty much configure anything at all in the browser that
it can do, whereas FF is much less flexible. I also like the fact
that SM is a complete web access suite, whereas FF is strictly a
browser. (I confess, though, that I only use SM's browser and
composer - I use Evolution for email and I don't chat or IM at all.)
I use them for different purposes, too - SM for general browsing, FF
for watching videos online and for cases where I need multiple
different logins to the same site (like Yahoo or Gmail) at the same
time.

mhr
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:29 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org