Re: Firefox Acroread plugin not working
- From: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:15:14 -0400
On Sunday 23 April 2006 20:47, Kam Leo wrote:
[...]
Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
Gene, how is Adobe responsible for a problem caused by Red Hat /
Fedora Core developers? You are using essentially the same version
of Acrobat Reader that worked without problems for Fedora Core 4.
It is not Adobe's fault that the Red Hat / Fedora Core
implementers of SELinux changed the rules after Acrobat Reader 7
was released. If you have a bone to pick, take it up with the
responsible party.
Well now, I *thought* that was what I was doing in posting to this
list. and the fix did eventually come from here, no doubt deciphered
by someone intimatly familiar with selinux and the errors it may
cause to be thrown. As a new user to selinux, how would I have
recognized that error when the docs are so limited, literally one
page, 1/3 of which is credits.
But it appears the fix is to request that Adobe include that command
in the rpms post-install script, so I have also requested that of
Adobe.
Applying logic, there isn't a whole lot the FC release crew could
have done or would need to do to alleviate it once the nature of the
problem was known. It is not their code to be responsible for, its
Adobe's, so if they want it to run on an as installed FC5 box, which
it should, then its up to them to fix it IMNSHO.
Is this the wrong attitude on my part?
--
Cheers, Gene
Adobe packaged Acrobat Reader for a generic Linux distribution. Where
is it written that Adobe owes Red Hat / Fedora Core preferential
treatment over the other Linux distributions? You will need to present
a strong case for why Adobe should provide a customized package for
Red Hat users.
It appears from my reading on other lists, that selinux is gradually
taking over the internal security of many distros, so I don't think its
fair to point the finger *just* at redhat. To me, its something that
appears to be set in fairly firm cement until the next great idea comes
along. The rapid change of linux is both a blessing because we get to
play with new stuff and of course if it breaks we get to keep all the
pieces, and a curse, particularly for those who try to support it.
Adobe no doubt expects to get a year or more out of a release, and when
there is a new linux release from somewhere weekly it seems, they
should then watch how it works in the field a little closer. I don't
right now, know which is the newer release of the two.
I will say that this 7.0.5 release seems to be considerably better
polished than previous ones were, which means that Adobe is internally
convinced the linux is worth supporting well. Now if they made an
Acrobat for linux, how many copies of that would sell? Given a
reasonable price, I dare say the numbers would surprise them because we
could then edit a pdf. I might consider spending a big buck on it
myself. But not 3 or 4 of them, its not worth that much to me.
--
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
- References:
- Re: Firefox Acroread plugin not working
- From: Gene Heskett
- Re: Firefox Acroread plugin not working
- From: Kam Leo
- Re: Firefox Acroread plugin not working
- Prev by Date: Installing i386 apps via yum on an x86_64 install
- Next by Date: A question on installing - FC5 32bit and M$Win2000
- Previous by thread: Re: Firefox Acroread plugin not working
- Next by thread: Re: Firefox Acroread plugin not working
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
