Java issue in karmic or FF 3.5?

[knottshawk]

I use a Java based VPN for work... on my 8.10 system it works relatively smooth. I recently got a new system with 9.10 and can't get the VPN to work at all...

Both systems are using JRE6... but the 9.10 system fails to operate the Java applet properly both in Firefox and in Epiphany

[Mighty_Joe]

What version of Java are you using on each system?

java -version

[knottshawk]

On 9.10 - 
java version "1.6.0_0"
OpenJDK Runtime Environment (IcedTea6 1.6.1) (6b16-1.6.1-3ubuntu1)
OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 14.0-b16, mixed mode)

On 8.10
java version "1.6.0_14"
Java (TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_14-b08)
Java HotSpot (TM) Server VM (build 14.0-b16, mixed mode)

It should be noted that I wasn't using OpenJDK on 9.10 earlier, and still had the problem

Without OpenJDK it's:

java version "1.6.0_15"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_15-b03)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 14.1-b02, mixed mode)

[knottshawk]

Found This thread that seems to be good for updating Java... problem is that when I ran the 64 bit instructions, Java installs fine but doesn't fix my VPN. I did note that Sun, on the download page for Java has this disconcerting statement:

* Please use the 32-bit version for Java applet and Java Web Start support.

Well, I'm on 64 bit Karmic... and if I try to use the 32 bit version it either fails, or I'm doing it wrong.... Ideas?

[knottshawk]

Any ideas? Need help!

[knottshawk]

One more cry for help here...

[xifer]

Found This thread that seems to be good for updating Java... problem is that when I ran the 64 bit instructions, Java installs fine but doesn't fix my VPN. I did note that Sun, on the download page for Java has this disconcerting statement:



Well, I'm on 64 bit Karmic... and if I try to use the 32 bit version it either fails, or I'm doing it wrong.... Ideas?

How does it fail? I'm not a 64-bit user but I think if you completely remove java and then install the 32-bit it should work.

[knottshawk]

Well, when I followed the instructions in that thread (the one I linked to above) and try to install the 32 bit version on my 64 bit system, it doesn't install...I mean maybe it fails at the point of linking it to FireFox... that's why I'm wondering if it's something simple, like, I'm wondering which path name I should use since I'm on 64 bit, but the java package is expecting a 32 bit path?

[xifer]

sorry not to be more help, but if the 32-bit install DID work ok - and I'd like to see the log of the install to be sure, then if you type

about:plugins

into firefox location bar - what does it say for java?

and if you search your system for the plugin is it found?

try this

cd /
find . -name libjavaplugin* -print 2>/dev/null

create a link in ~/.mozilla/plugins to the required library

[knottshawk]

Okay, after the 32 bit install there is nothing listed in aboutlugins.. that's what I meant by it fails to install in Firefox...

Output from find . -name libjavaplugin* -print 2>/dev/null

./home/me/.mozilla/plugins/libjavaplugin_oji.so
./home/me/.mozilla/libjavaplugin_oji.so
./home/me/Downloads/jre1.6.0_17/plugin/i386/ns7/libjavaplugin_oji.so
./home/me/Downloads/jre1.6.0_17/plugin/i386/ns7-gcc29/libjavaplugin_oji.so
./home/me/Downloads/jre1.6.0_17/lib/i386/libjavaplugin_nscp_gcc29.so
./home/me/Downloads/jre1.6.0_17/lib/i386/libjavaplugin_nscp.so
./home/me/Downloads/jre1.6.0_17/lib/i386/libjavaplugin_jni.so
./opt/java/32/jre1.6.0_17/plugin/i386/ns7/libjavaplugin_oji.so
./opt/java/32/jre1.6.0_17/plugin/i386/ns7-gcc29/libjavaplugin_oji.so
./opt/java/32/jre1.6.0_17/lib/i386/libjavaplugin_nscp_gcc29.so
./opt/java/32/jre1.6.0_17/lib/i386/libjavaplugin_nscp.so
./opt/java/32/jre1.6.0_17/lib/i386/libjavaplugin_jni.so

The tutorial says to link the plugin to FireFox via this:

ln -s /opt/java/32/jre1.6.0_17/plugin/i386/ns7/libjavaplugin_oji.so ~/.mozilla/plugins/

compared with the 64 bit Java instructions:

ln -s /opt/java/64/jre1.6.0_17/lib/amd64/libnpjp2.so ~/.mozilla/plugins/

But I'm wondering if the 64 bit version of FF is okay with that.. I mean, obviously not