[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Netscape 4.5 glibc dies!



Daniel Elenius wrote:
> 
> >> The subject says it all: My Netscape keeps dying. Often when it
> >> stalls. If I switch virtual desktop (in fvwm2) and then go back to
> >> Netscape, most of the Netscape window will be "grayed out" (you know,
> >> it looks like a dying windows program). This has happened since a
> >> friend installed 4.5 glibc for me, I had no trouble with 4.06. And
> >> it's kinda sad, cause it's the only program that ever crashes on my
> >> Linux box. Hope you can help.
> >>
> >> /Daniel Elenius
> >>
> >       I'm seeing this occasionally.  In some/most cases NS isn't dead, but
> >merely hung because of a delayed/bad PPP connection.  In those cases,
> >just be patient and wait for it.  Unfortunately, in the other cases NS
> >really has died, and killing it is the only solution, and there is no
> >telling these different circumstances apart.  Alas, NS 4.5 solved some
> >problems from 4.0x, but introduced a few new ones of its own.
> 
> But I have a 10Mbit ethernet connection for pete's sake! And it
> happens quite often (though usually only when connecting to
> transatlantic sites (that would be America for me)). Also, after I've
> killed it, when I run 'top', there is two or three 'Netscape'
> processes that eat ~45% CPU each! Please tell me what problems 4.5
> fixed from 4.0x, cause I'm thinking hard of switching back!


	I agree it doesn't make sense, I have a very good (most of the time)
33.6 connection to my ISP, yet occaisionly I'll get this delay.  I don't
pretend to understand it.
	I've always been able to 'kill -KILL' the NS processes.  I've never
seen multiple processes (excluding the shell that is run also).  I avoid
having more than one browser window open at any time, maybe that is what
is saving me from additional problems.
	4.5 did fix a problem with being able to setup multiple email folders,
and they seemed to have improved the
Preferences->Navigator->Applications procedure.  Nothing major.


-- 
Ed C.


Reply to: