X
Tap here to go to the mobile version of the site.

Support Forum

Solaris: ld.so.1: firefox: fatal: libc.so.1: open failed: No such file or directory, Couldn't load XPCOM

Posted

I installed Firefox 18.0.1 on a Sparc 10 Ultra running Solaris 10, bash shell. There were no installation errors, but when I try to run firefox, I get:

XPCOMGlueLoad error for file /opt/sfw/fiewfox/libxpcom.so: ld.so.1: firefox: fatal: libc.so.1: open failed: No such file or directory Couldn't load XPCOM

Any help would be appreciated.

I installed Firefox 18.0.1 on a Sparc 10 Ultra running Solaris 10, bash shell. There were no installation errors, but when I try to run firefox, I get: XPCOMGlueLoad error for file /opt/sfw/fiewfox/libxpcom.so: ld.so.1: firefox: fatal: libc.so.1: open failed: No such file or directory Couldn't load XPCOM Any help would be appreciated.

Additional System Details

Installed Plug-ins

  • ActiveTouch General Plugin Container Version 105
  • npFFApi
  • NDS Player Plugin
  • Shockwave Flash 11.4 r402
  • Adobe PDF Plug-In For Firefox and Netscape 10.1.4
  • Garmin Communicator Plug-In 3.0.1.0
  • Google Update
  • Wacom Dynamic Link Library
  • getplusplusadobe16263
  • The QuickTime Plugin allows you to view a wide variety of multimedia content in Web pages. For more information, visit the QuickTime Web site.
  • AlternaTIFF v1.9.1
  • Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF) plug-in for Mozilla browsers
  • DRM Netscape Network Object
  • Npdsplay dll
  • DRM Store Netscape Plugin
  • Office Plugin for Netscape Navigator

Application

  • User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:18.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/18.0

More Information

cor-el
  • Top 10 Contributor
  • Moderator
12306 solutions 113973 answers

Make sure that you meet the system requirements for the current Firefox version.

Make sure that you meet the system requirements for the current Firefox version. *http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/18.0.2/system-requirements/

Question owner

Thanks for the reply. I checked there but only saw Linux mentioned, not Solaris. Does that mean that Firefox 18 won't run in Solaris? I'll be honest - I have no clue as to how to check whether the listed files are on my machine or not. Is there an earlier version of Firefox that will run?

I already do have some version of Firefox on the machine - it comes up as "Mozilla 1.7" and from the looks of the interface, it is very old.

Sorry to sound like a noob, but doing Unix s/w installs is in fact new to me.

Thanks for the reply. I checked there but only saw Linux mentioned, not Solaris. Does that mean that Firefox 18 won't run in Solaris? I'll be honest - I have no clue as to how to check whether the listed files are on my machine or not. Is there an earlier version of Firefox that will run? I already do have some version of Firefox on the machine - it comes up as "Mozilla 1.7" and from the looks of the interface, it is very old. Sorry to sound like a noob, but doing Unix s/w installs is in fact new to me.
cor-el
  • Top 10 Contributor
  • Moderator
12306 solutions 113973 answers
Try this version: *http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/latest/contrib/solaris_tarball/
John99
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
695 solutions 9602 answers

Have a look at this /questions/931813

Mozilla doesn't build Firefox for Solaris, but does host builds contributed by a third party, namely the Oracle Solaris Desktop Beijing Team.

See: http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/latest/contrib/

Some or all of those are 32bit builds. I just mention that because I am rather a newbie on Linux but I know if I try to download mozilla versions I get 32 bit versions by default if I use the standard downloads and have to use ftp downloads instead to get the 64bit versions I want.

Have a look at this [/questions/931813] ''Mozilla doesn't build Firefox for Solaris, but does host builds contributed by a third party, namely the Oracle Solaris Desktop Beijing Team. See: http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/latest/contrib/ '' Some or all of those are 32bit builds. I just mention that because I am rather a newbie on Linux but I know if I try to download mozilla versions I get 32 bit versions by default if I use the [[Install Firefox on Linux|standard]] [http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/ downloads] and have to use ftp downloads instead to get the 64bit versions I want.

Question owner

Thanks, guys. Unfortunately, this is a case of one step forward and two steps back. Now I'm now out of space. Actually, I have two drives - a 9 GB and a 40 GB. The 9 is full. The 40 is 80% empty. I'm trying to install in /opt/sfw, on the small disk. I want to move that directory to the big disk with an ln, but I guess I'm doing it wrong. This must be easy to do but I don't want to monkey with it for fear of screwing up my filesystem. Arrrgh. How do I do this?

# df -kh
> Filesystem             size   used  avail capacity  Mounted on
> /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s0      7.9G   7.7G    42M   100%    /
> /devices                 0K     0K     0K     0%    /devices
> ctfs                     0K     0K     0K     0%    /system/contract
> proc                     0K     0K     0K     0%    /proc
> mnttab                   0K     0K     0K     0%    /etc/mnttab
> swap                   1.9G   1.0M   1.9G     1%    /etc/svc/volatile
> objfs                    0K     0K     0K     0%    /system/object
> fd                       0K     0K     0K     0%    /dev/fd
> swap                   1.9G   208K   1.9G     1%    /tmp
> swap                   1.9G    64K   1.9G     1%    /var/run
> /dev/dsk/c0t1d0s0       35G   7.4G    28G    22%    /data
> # pwd
> /data
> # ln -s /opt /dev/dsk/c0t1d0s0/data/opt
> ln: cannot create /dev/dsk/c0t1d0s0/data/opt: Not a directory

(Sorry if the formatting's off. It lines up when I type it in, but somehow the CR's all vanish when I send it).

Thanks, guys. Unfortunately, this is a case of one step forward and two steps back. Now I'm now out of space. Actually, I have two drives - a 9 GB and a 40 GB. The 9 is full. The 40 is 80% empty. I'm trying to install in /opt/sfw, on the small disk. I want to move that directory to the big disk with an ln, but I guess I'm doing it wrong. This must be easy to do but I don't want to monkey with it for fear of screwing up my filesystem. Arrrgh. How do I do this? <pre><nowiki># df -kh > Filesystem size used avail capacity Mounted on > /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s0 7.9G 7.7G 42M 100% / > /devices 0K 0K 0K 0% /devices > ctfs 0K 0K 0K 0% /system/contract > proc 0K 0K 0K 0% /proc > mnttab 0K 0K 0K 0% /etc/mnttab > swap 1.9G 1.0M 1.9G 1% /etc/svc/volatile > objfs 0K 0K 0K 0% /system/object > fd 0K 0K 0K 0% /dev/fd > swap 1.9G 208K 1.9G 1% /tmp > swap 1.9G 64K 1.9G 1% /var/run > /dev/dsk/c0t1d0s0 35G 7.4G 28G 22% /data > # pwd > /data > # ln -s /opt /dev/dsk/c0t1d0s0/data/opt > ln: cannot create /dev/dsk/c0t1d0s0/data/opt: Not a directory </nowiki></pre> (Sorry if the formatting's off. It lines up when I type it in, but somehow the CR's all vanish when I send it).

Modified by cor-el

John99
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
695 solutions 9602 answers

Sorry I am a newbie with regard to Linux. The installs I have done so far have been easy ones and starting off with multiple, clean disks or partitions. (And I usually have the options to run CD or USB live systems if I make mistakes)

IIRC the ln command may not be used outside a particular partition, so that would explain the error message not a directory

Hazarding a guess I would say you may need to edit the fstab or in your case apparently vfstab, but there is probably an easier method. Sorry other work to do at the moment and I would need to research this to try to find an answer.

Sorry I am a newbie with regard to Linux. The installs I have done so far have been easy ones and starting off with multiple, clean disks or partitions. (And I usually have the options to run CD or USB live systems if I make mistakes) IIRC the ln command may not be used outside a particular partition, so that would explain the error message ''not a directory'' Hazarding a guess I would say you may need to edit the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fstab fstab] or in your case apparently [http://3113.com/dave/sun/solutions/os-vfstabTutorial.html vfstab], but there is probably an easier method. Sorry other work to do at the moment and I would need to research this to try to find an answer.

Modified by John99

Question owner

OK, well thanks anyway. The machine was like this when I bought it, and I'm reluctant to start mucking around without knowing what I'm doing for fear of trashing what is currently a nice stable system.

Basically, if this was a Windows machine and opt/ was on drive C and all my free space was on drive D, I'd simply pick up the "opt" icon in a file browser window for C and drop it in a window for D. Seems simple enough - why is all this stuff so hard in Unix?

Case in point - here's my vfstab. I have no idea what needs editing. Perhaps some other kind sould could help me out here?

# more vfstab
> #device         device          mount           FS      fsck    mount   mount
> #to mount       to fsck         point           type    pass    at boot options
> #
> fd      -       /dev/fd fd      -       no      -
> /proc   -       /proc   proc    -       no      -
> /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s1       -       -       swap    -       no      -
> /dev/dsk/c0t1d0s1       -       -       swap    -       no      -
> /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s0       /dev/rdsk/c0t0d0s0      /       ufs     1       no   -/dev/dsk/c0t1d0s0       /dev/rdsk/c0t1d0s0      /data   ufs     2       yes  -/devices        -       /devices        devfs   -       no      -
> ctfs    -       /system/contract        ctfs    -       no      -
> objfs   -       /system/object  objfs   -       no      -
> swap    -       /tmp    tmpfs   -       yes     -
OK, well thanks anyway. The machine was like this when I bought it, and I'm reluctant to start mucking around without knowing what I'm doing for fear of trashing what is currently a nice stable system. Basically, if this was a Windows machine and opt/ was on drive C and all my free space was on drive D, I'd simply pick up the "opt" icon in a file browser window for C and drop it in a window for D. Seems simple enough - why is all this stuff so hard in Unix? Case in point - here's my vfstab. I have no idea what needs editing. Perhaps some other kind sould could help me out here? <pre><nowiki> # more vfstab > #device device mount FS fsck mount mount > #to mount to fsck point type pass at boot options > # > fd - /dev/fd fd - no - > /proc - /proc proc - no - > /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s1 - - swap - no - > /dev/dsk/c0t1d0s1 - - swap - no - > /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s0 /dev/rdsk/c0t0d0s0 / ufs 1 no -/dev/dsk/c0t1d0s0 /dev/rdsk/c0t1d0s0 /data ufs 2 yes -/devices - /devices devfs - no - > ctfs - /system/contract ctfs - no - > objfs - /system/object objfs - no - > swap - /tmp tmpfs - yes - </nowiki></pre>

Modified by John99

Question owner

UPDATE:

IWell I ended up moving some other directories from the small disk to the big disk and freed up enough room to extract Firefox 9.0 to /opt/sfw/. This version did start right up, but the colors are all screwed up. The window looks like some strange psychedelic acid trip from the hippie days (not that I'd know anything about that).

How do I fix that?

UPDATE: IWell I ended up moving some other directories from the small disk to the big disk and freed up enough room to extract Firefox 9.0 to /opt/sfw/. This version did start right up, but the colors are all screwed up. The window looks like some strange psychedelic acid trip from the hippie days (not that I'd know anything about that). How do I fix that?
cor-el
  • Top 10 Contributor
  • Moderator
12306 solutions 113973 answers

Can you attach a screenshot?

Use a compressed image type like PNG or JPG to save the screenshot.

Make sure that you haven't enabled a High Contrast theme in the Accessibility settings and that you allow pages to choose their colors in Firefox.

  • Edit > Preferences > Content : Fonts & Colors > Colors : [X] "Allow pages to choose their own colors, instead of my selections above"

Create a new profile as a test to check if your current profile is causing the problems.

See "Creating a profile":

If the new profile works then you can transfer some files from an existing profile to the new profile, but be careful not to copy corrupted files.

Can you attach a screenshot? *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screenshot *https://support.mozilla.org/kb/how-do-i-create-screenshot-my-problem Use a compressed image type like PNG or JPG to save the screenshot. Make sure that you haven't enabled a High Contrast theme in the Accessibility settings and that you allow pages to choose their colors in Firefox. *Edit > Preferences > Content : Fonts & Colors > Colors : [X] "Allow pages to choose their own colors, instead of my selections above" Create a new profile as a test to check if your current profile is causing the problems. See "Creating a profile": *https://support.mozilla.org/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remove-firefox-profiles *http://kb.mozillazine.org/Standard_diagnostic_-_Firefox#Profile_issues If the new profile works then you can transfer some files from an existing profile to the new profile, but be careful not to copy corrupted files. *http://kb.mozillazine.org/Transferring_data_to_a_new_profile_-_Firefox
John99
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
695 solutions 9602 answers

DB glitch

I did post a reply but it has disappeared in the DB glitch. You may have an email of it.


OK so I will repeat roughly the same info again.

SOLARIS

Your problem may not be just that you are out of space for Firefox but also you could be making better use of the other disk. It looks like you have now stared to do that. If you are new you may be interested in

FIREFOX

You were installing Firefox 18, why have you now installed Firefox 9 ?
fx9 is old, unsupported and not secure. Please install Firefox 18 (soon it will be fx19) and we will see if we can troubleshoot your problems.

Note there is normally the option to install from a distro or from Mozilla see

DB glitch I did post a reply but it has disappeared in the DB glitch. You may have an email of it. ------------ OK so I will repeat roughly the same info again. <u>SOLARIS</u><br /> Your problem may not be just that you are out of space for Firefox but also you could be making better use of the other disk. It looks like you have now stared to do that. If you are new you may be interested in * this article on the directories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard * this forum and thread http://www.unix.com/solaris/25840-filesystem-full-what-look.html <u>FIREFOX</u><br /> You were installing Firefox 18, why have you now installed Firefox 9 ? <br />fx9 is old, unsupported and not secure. Please install Firefox 18 (soon it will be fx19) and we will see if we can troubleshoot your problems. Note there is normally the option to install from a distro or from Mozilla see * [[Install Firefox on Linux]]

Modified by John99

Question owner

"You were installing Firefox 18, why have you now installed Firefox 9 ? "

Because 18 wasn't working. I installed 9 the same way as 18 and it does work, modulo the weird colors. I've attached a screenshot (literally shot with my smartphone and then uploaded because I don't know how to do a screen grab in Solaris).

FWIW, it displays this way regardless of whether I run as root or my user account. It happens both in cde and the Sun Java Desktop System. I changed my resolution from 1024x768 to 1280x1024 and it still happens.

I've not touched any accessibility options or anything like that. The Firefox title bar displays normally. Other programs display normally. Only the contents of the Firefox window are screwy. It looks like it's xor'ing all the pixels with some strange value. Oddest thing I've ever seen.

This might be a clue - I did a "Troubleshooting Information" menu in Firefox and under Graphics, it said this:

> Graphics > > > > > Adapter DescriptionGLXtest process failed (exited with status 1): X error occurred in GLX probe, error_code=8, request_code=157, minor_code=22 > > WebGL RendererBlocked for your graphics card because of unresolved driver issues.GPU Accelerated Windows0/1. Blocked for your graphics driver version. Try updating your graphics driver to version <Anything with EXT_texture_from_pixmap support> or newer.

Would that cause this problem? FWIW, I'm using the built-in PGX-24 graphics board that came with the machine - no accelerators or anything like that. I have no idea where I'd even find a newer driver for this.

"You were installing Firefox 18, why have you now installed Firefox 9 ? " Because 18 wasn't working. I installed 9 the same way as 18 and it does work, modulo the weird colors. I've attached a screenshot (literally shot with my smartphone and then uploaded because I don't know how to do a screen grab in Solaris). FWIW, it displays this way regardless of whether I run as root or my user account. It happens both in cde and the Sun Java Desktop System. I changed my resolution from 1024x768 to 1280x1024 and it still happens. I've not touched any accessibility options or anything like that. The Firefox title bar displays normally. Other programs display normally. Only the contents of the Firefox window are screwy. It looks like it's xor'ing all the pixels with some strange value. Oddest thing I've ever seen. This might be a clue - I did a "Troubleshooting Information" menu in Firefox and under Graphics, it said this: > Graphics > > > > > Adapter DescriptionGLXtest process failed (exited with status 1): X error occurred in GLX probe, error_code=8, request_code=157, minor_code=22 > > WebGL RendererBlocked for your graphics card because of unresolved driver issues.GPU Accelerated Windows0/1. Blocked for your graphics driver version. Try updating your graphics driver to version <Anything with EXT_texture_from_pixmap support> or newer. Would that cause this problem? FWIW, I'm using the built-in PGX-24 graphics board that came with the machine - no accelerators or anything like that. I have no idea where I'd even find a newer driver for this.

Modified by Michele31415

John99
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
695 solutions 9602 answers

Glad to see you are at least making some progress. Although new to modern Linux I did have the benefit of some experience with Xenix and used DOS extensively. Needing sometimes to drop down to Command Line Interfaces must be is rather a steep learning curve if you are used to modern PCs or Mac's, but like Ubuntu I see Solaris has GUI options.

Try your distro repositories and also the Graphics cards home site. Whilst on the subject also try with Firefox's Hardware Acceleration setting on and off.

You really should try fx18/19 instead of fx9. Are you using the distro version or a Mozilla version ? Maybe try fx18/19 of the other type to fx18 that failed, and note it is possible to install multiple Firefox versions.

Glad to see you are at least making some progress. Although new to modern Linux I did have the benefit of some experience with Xenix and used DOS extensively. Needing sometimes to drop down to Command Line Interfaces must be is rather a steep learning curve if you are used to modern PCs or Mac's, but like Ubuntu I see Solaris has GUI options. Try your distro repositories and also the Graphics cards home site. Whilst on the subject also try with Firefox's Hardware Acceleration setting on and off. * [[Upgrade your graphics drivers to use hardware acceleration and WebGL]] * [[Troubleshoot extensions, themes and hardware acceleration issues to solve common Firefox problems#w_turn-off-hardware-acceleration]]_turn-off-hardware-acceleration You really should try fx18/19 instead of fx9. <s> Are you using the distro version or a Mozilla version ? Maybe try fx18/19 of the other type to fx18 that failed,</s> and note it is possible to install multiple Firefox versions. *[[Install Firefox on Linux]] * http://kb.mozillazine.org/Testing_pre-release_versions#Installing_multiple_versions

Modified by John99

Question owner

Thanks for the great suggestions. The 18.0.1 version I started with came from here . I checked the themes and there was only "Default 9.0". I have no extensions installed. I disabled hardware acceleration and restarted - didn't help.

The article on updating graphics drivers seems to apply only to Windows. That's going to be my last resort though since I have other graphics programs on this machine and they all work OK.

I'll try installing another version next (as soon as I free up some more space on my disk).

I used to use Sun workstations on my job many years ago but we always had sysadmins to handle this sort of problem. Now I'm on my own, so I really appreciate any help I can get.

Thanks for the great suggestions. The 18.0.1 version I started with came from [http://unixpackages.com/packages/mozilla here] . I checked the themes and there was only "Default 9.0". I have no extensions installed. I disabled hardware acceleration and restarted - didn't help. The article on updating graphics drivers seems to apply only to Windows. That's going to be my last resort though since I have other graphics programs on this machine and they all work OK. I'll try installing another version next (as soon as I free up some more space on my disk). I used to use Sun workstations on my job many years ago but we always had sysadmins to handle this sort of problem. Now I'm on my own, so I really appreciate any help I can get.
John99
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
695 solutions 9602 answers

Ok so you are using a Unix build.

And I am loosing track of this thread, the standard Mozilla builds will not be compatible with you OS anyway. Did you try to check the system requirements ? as cor-el already asked

The updating graphics drivers does apply to Linux sytems, but there is probably less choice of drivers.

An alternative I should have possibly suggested first of all is simply to run Firefox in safe mode, that temporarily turns of HA.

  • Troubleshoot Firefox issues using Safe Mode
  • If it is a new install and safe mode works you can also try the reset you will not have anything installed or set that you will loose (other than open tabs etc,maybe bookmark them)

Although your HDD is small by modern standards overall you have plenty of room at the moment to install another copy of Firefox.

Ok so you are using a Unix build. And I am loosing track of this thread, the standard Mozilla builds will not be compatible with you OS anyway. Did you try to check the system requirements ? as ''cor-el'' already asked The updating graphics drivers does apply to Linux sytems, but there is probably less choice of drivers. An alternative I should have possibly suggested first of all is simply to run Firefox in safe mode, that temporarily turns of HA. * [[Troubleshoot Firefox issues using Safe Mode]] * If it is a new install and safe mode works you can also try the reset you will not have anything installed or set that you will loose (other than open tabs etc,maybe bookmark them) Although your HDD is small by modern standards overall you have plenty of room at the moment to install another copy of Firefox.

Modified by John99

Question owner

"Ok so you are using a Unix build. "

Yes - as I mentioned in the OP, "I installed Firefox 18.0.1 on a Sparc 10 Ultra running Solaris 10, bash shell. "

" Did you try to check the system requirements ? as cor-el already asked "

I did look at that section. It says:

Firefox will not run at all without the following libraries or packages:

   GTK+ 2.18 or higher
   GLib 2.22 or higher
   Pango 1.14 or higher
   X.Org 1.0 or higher (1.7 or higher is recommended)
   libstdc++ 4.3 or higher

However, they're talking about Linux. I have no idea whether or not Solaris has these things, or even where to look for them.

Since the tar files on unixpackages.com are advertised as being for Solaris 10 Sparc, I figured they'd work for me.

I tried Safe Mode - made no difference. It's a brand new install anyway - I have no add-ons, extensions, or other doo-hicks.

I've searched the web high and low for PGX-24 drivers for Solaris 10 and found nothing.

In the meantime I also installed Firefox 17 (for Solaris 10 Sparc). Unlike v. 18, this one runs, but it has the same display problem that v. 9 has. Foo.

UPDATE

Since I'm pretty much in shotgun mode right now, I downloaded Thunderbird 17. That ran OK but with the same colormap problem as Firefox. I then tried letting Firefox 9 choose an update for me. It downloaded a file called firefox-19.0.tar, but that turned out to be for x86.

I then downloaded the last Mozilla for Solaris 10, v. 1.7.13. This ran fine - no colormap problems. And at least it's a few years more recent than the 1.7 that came with the machine.

Further update:

In desperation, I started downloading Seamonkeys. The latest (seamonkey-2.0b1.en-US.solaris2.11-sparc), did not work, giving me some sort of "library not found" error like Firefox 18. BUT - seamonkey -1.1.19.en-US.solaris10-sparc DOES work. All colors come up normal. I'd still rather have the latest Firefox, but at least this is usable.

"Ok so you are using a Unix build. " Yes - as I mentioned in the OP, ''"I installed Firefox 18.0.1 on a Sparc 10 Ultra running Solaris 10, bash shell. "'' ''" Did you try to check the system requirements ? as cor-el already asked "'' I did look at that section. It says: Firefox will not run at all without the following libraries or packages: GTK+ 2.18 or higher GLib 2.22 or higher Pango 1.14 or higher X.Org 1.0 or higher (1.7 or higher is recommended) libstdc++ 4.3 or higher However, they're talking about Linux. I have no idea whether or not Solaris has these things, or even where to look for them. Since the tar files on unixpackages.com are advertised as being for Solaris 10 Sparc, I figured they'd work for me. I tried Safe Mode - made no difference. It's a brand new install anyway - I have no add-ons, extensions, or other doo-hicks. I've searched the web high and low for PGX-24 drivers for Solaris 10 and found nothing. In the meantime I also installed Firefox 17 (for Solaris 10 Sparc). Unlike v. 18, this one runs, but it has the same display problem that v. 9 has. Foo. UPDATE Since I'm pretty much in shotgun mode right now, I downloaded Thunderbird 17. That ran OK but with the same colormap problem as Firefox. I then tried letting Firefox 9 choose an update for me. It downloaded a file called firefox-19.0.tar, but that turned out to be for x86. I then downloaded the last Mozilla for Solaris 10, v. 1.7.13. This ran fine - no colormap problems. And at least it's a few years more recent than the 1.7 that came with the machine. Further update: In desperation, I started downloading Seamonkeys. The latest (seamonkey-2.0b1.en-US.solaris2.11-sparc), did not work, giving me some sort of "library not found" error like Firefox 18. BUT - seamonkey -1.1.19.en-US.solaris10-sparc DOES work. All colors come up normal. I'd still rather have the latest Firefox, but at least this is usable.

Modified by Michele31415

Question owner

I think I may be narrowing down the video problem. I'm running my display at 1280x1024 in 8 bit mode. My graphics card is apparently only a PGX, not PGX-24, and does not support 24 bit color. It looks like Firefox thinks it's running 24 bit pixel depth. That would explain the weird colors, as the frame buffer displays just the low order 8 bits of each window pixel.

So the question now becomes: is there some way to start FIrefox and force 8-bit pixel depth on a Sun Sparc 10 Ultra?

I think I may be narrowing down the video problem. I'm running my display at 1280x1024 in 8 bit mode. My graphics card is apparently only a PGX, not PGX-24, and does not support 24 bit color. It looks like Firefox thinks it's running 24 bit pixel depth. That would explain the weird colors, as the frame buffer displays just the low order 8 bits of each window pixel. So the question now becomes: is there some way to start FIrefox and force 8-bit pixel depth on a Sun Sparc 10 Ultra?
John99
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
695 solutions 9602 answers

This is the blind leading the blind, but no doubt cor-el will jump back in with a simple solution I have missed.

This is the blind leading the blind, but no doubt ''cor-el'' will jump back in with a simple solution I have missed. * XPCOM I presume this comes with the packages you install, rather than being pre installed. Whatever happens that error message needs addressing before a current release may be installed. ** some background info I found http://www.2rosenthals.net/wordpress/updating-firefox-on-linux-the-dreaded-couldnt-load-xpcom-190/ ** maybe you need to check dependencies and what paths are recognised, but I do not have a clue about Solaris commands. * system specs presume this is as the Mozilla listings e.g.<br />http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/9.0/system-requirements/ <br />[http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/system-requirements.html] { that is re fx 14 probably applicable for 14 and greater <br />[http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/19.0/system-requirements/ Current fx19] I would imagine most modern systems easily meet the requirements. (Although Solaris is fairly light on [http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/821-0441/webstart-83/index.html requirements]) ** does list libraries but with disclaimer '' Please note that Linux distributors may provide packages for your distribution which have different requirements. '' * fx9 on Solaris 10, a Jun 2012 thread on installing <br /> https://forums.oracle.com/forums/thread.jspa?messageID=10732459 * Feb 2012 Installing Firefox on a Solaris server. <br />http://rich-notes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/installing-firefox-on-solaris-server.html
cor-el
  • Top 10 Contributor
  • Moderator
12306 solutions 113973 answers

This is likely caused by missing the correct, required, libraries as listed in the system requirements.

This is likely caused by missing the correct, required, libraries as listed in the system requirements.
John99
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
695 solutions 9602 answers

For what it is worth,
I may drop resolution as far as 800x600 and in Windows 800x600 16 bit and Firefox runs ok. My card will not do 8 bit. Mozilla appears to be silent on system requirements for screen resolution.

For what it is worth, <br />I may drop resolution as far as 800x600 and in Windows 800x600 16 bit and Firefox runs ok. My card will not do 8 bit. Mozilla appears to be silent on system requirements for screen resolution.
John99
  • Top 25 Contributor
  • Moderator
695 solutions 9602 answers

I did say earlier I do not understand Solaris commands however a web search turned up an interesting article saying:

"Automatic Resolution of Package Dependencies in
Text and GUI Installers

A new option, Preserve, has been added to the Package Dependency Summary screen in the text and GUI installers. If you select the Preserve option during installation, the dependent packages are automatically installed. In the previous Oracle Solaris releases, you could add the dependent packages for the selected packages only after installation. In this release, the Preserve option enables you to automatically add or install the dependent packages for the selected packages. " From http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E26505_01/pdf/E27003.pdf

If that happens to be your Solaris version it looks possible that could solve your dependency issues.

I did say earlier I do not understand Solaris commands however a web search turned up an interesting article saying: "Automatic Resolution of Package Dependencies in Text and GUI Installers ''A new option, Preserve, has been added to the Package Dependency Summary screen in the text and GUI installers. If you select the Preserve option during installation, the dependent packages are automatically installed. In the previous Oracle Solaris releases, you could add the dependent packages for the selected packages only after installation. In this release, the Preserve option enables you to automatically add or install the dependent packages for the selected packages. "'' From http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E26505_01/pdf/E27003.pdf If that happens to be your Solaris version it looks possible that could solve your dependency issues.