Re: [tlug] Browser blues

[Josh Glover <tlug@example.com>]

Quoth Stephen J. Turnbull (Tue 2004-06-08 10:45:06AM +0900):

> >>>>> "Josh" == Josh Glover <tlug@example.com> writes:
> 
>     Josh> Quoth Lyle (Hiroshi) Saxon (Mon 2004-06-07 10:55:59AM
>     Josh> +0900):
> 
>     >> Josh Glover wrote:
> 
>     >>> As a fellow Mozilla / Firefox "dual-booter", how did you get
>     >>> around the fact that running 'mozilla' (/usr/bin/mozilla on my
>     >>> machine) starts up Firefox (or vice-versa, depending on which
>     >>> you installed last)? I run /usr/lib/mozilla/mozilla-bin, but
>     >>> is there a better way?
> 
> Is this attribution correct?  Hard to believe ....

I will take that as a compliment! :)

> Aside: On most distributions it is a bad idea to run the *[-.]bin
> version, because the no-bin version is a wrapper script that sets up
> the environment properly.  I don't know of any distribution, including
> Debian, with a documented policy about what the wrapper may contain.
> (I haven't checked in at least two years though.)

I know this, and I used to invoke the browsers from my ~/bin directory,
which contained tweaked wrapper scripts. But I grew annoyed at having
to keep the wrappers in sync, so I tried just invoking Mozilla directly.

Given that I use Firefox 99% of the time, which I invoke properly,
through its wrapper, and that invoking Mozilla directly has yet to bite
me, I would say that my solution, while decidely sub-optimal, is at
least preferable to maintaining my forks of the wrapper scripts. :)

> The way to get around that fact is to run a distribution (such as
> Debian) that makes the assumption that if different binaries come in
> different packages and both are installed, the user might want to run
> both in some convenient way.

Agreed, and Gentoo has a solution, it just did not work out of the box
for me, and there is no documentation on it. :(

So really, Gentoo has a solution *in the works*, I guess.

> Otherwise, you need to install all
> conflicting versions and see what they put in the wrapper (if there is
> one).  Then check each version to see what happens if you give it a
> different name.  It is now considered "worst practice", to coin a
> phrase, but historically many binaries had name-dependent behavior.

The wrapper scripts *do* have different names, but the last version of
Mozilla or Firefox that you install will "0WNZ0R" the other.

>     Josh> Obviously you downloaded a binary package. There is nothing
>     Josh> wrong with installing software to your home directory--this
>     Josh> is yet another way in which Unix lets the user do what he
>     Josh> wants without affecting anyone else.
> 
> Which of course is a double-edged sword.

Of course. As you note:

> The point is that this flexibility is rope: you can hang a
> tire from it and make a swing, or you can tie a noose and ....

> Also, I note that "it just fired up".  That suggests the possibility
> that "." is on the path, which is a ba-a-ad idea.
> 
>     Josh> There is no difference from a security point of view.
> 
> However, as I point out above, you do want to have a ~/bin directory
> to put those executables in.  (In general it's OK for it to be
> one-per-app; the point is you don't want "." on PATH.)

Agreed. Having . in your PATH should be a hanging offence! ;)

>     Josh> can thus only affect that user's account.
> 
> Obviously as a black hat you have little imagination.  First, there is
> typically a lot of stuff on the system that the user can read, and
> some stuff they can write, that they don't own.  Second, I bet his
> account can send mail, use ping, and fetch http URLs, all of which can
> be used for nefarious purposes.

That is very true. I stand corrected.

>     Josh> The technical term for this is "segfault and die", or just
>     Josh> "segfault":
> 
> Maybe.  Segfaults usually leave spoor behind, although he's probably
> running the GNU Numbskull-Oriented Mental Eviscerator or something

LMFAO!!! That is the best expansion of GNOME that I have ever seen!

> There should be a GNOME Console application which simply sucks data

[ A very good idea about how debugging should work in a windowing
  system snipped. ]

That is a very good solution.

>     Josh> Jim Tittsler would not have informed me about the existence
>     Josh> of the magical 'about:config' URI.
> 
> Heh heh heh.  That's why you should attend TLUG technical meetings.
> Kat Momoi mentioned it too.

I would, if those round-trip tickets from Columbus OH to Tokyo weren't
so bloody expensive!

-- 
Josh Glover

Gentoo Developer (http://dev.gentoo.org/~jmglov/)
Tokyo Linux Users Group Listmaster (http://www.tlug.jp/)

GPG keyID 0xDE8A3103 (C3E4 FA9E 1E07 BBDB 6D8B  07AB 2BF1 67A1 DE8A 3103)
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys DE8A3103

Attachment: pgp00020.pgp
Description: PGP signature