I was wondering if it would be possible to build a Linux static portable version that can run from the same directory as the windows version. I use both OSes and it would be nice to be able to just run it from the usb drive in bot instead of copying profiles back and forth. This would be nice for portable gaim and Thunderbird too but figured Id ask about Firefox first.
New: Ferdium (May 16, 2024), Platform 29.5.1 (May 08, 2024)
1,100+ portable packages, 1.1 billion downloads
Please donate today
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
There is no Firefox Portable for Linux, but if the Linux executable were manipulated the same way the W32 executable is, it could use the same profile, just not at the same time.
Vintage!
You know.... this would be nice.. one ring to rule them all.... Oh.. ya that was the ring3 debugger question in the other forum...
Basically, no.. Linux and windows are not the same executable. However... there is no reason I can see looking at both Linux and windows profiles that one profile to be used by all three! With ext3 and NTFS not playing nice with each other, dos is to old to care. so.. if your portable device is in fat, then Linux and Windows could use the same profile. After all, js, css, and html is the same in both OS's. The only problem maybe in how extensions, themes and add-ons work. After all.. I wouldn't want my cute she devil theme on my FC fox to show up in my portable fox at work...
I'll look into this.... thanks for the idea.
Also if the answer works I'll post it back here.
----------------------:)
Did you know that the entire operating system use to fit on a 5 1/4" floppy disk!
Not what you're looking for, I know. But for the sake of completeness and anyone else who might read this thread, there is a cross platform portable of both Firefox and Thunderbird for Windows/Macintosh.
http://www.theplaceforitall.com/portablefirefox/
Leslie
There is NTFS support in Linux, it's just not widespread yet.
As far as extensions, some are OS-independent, some aren't. Some are available to only one OS, some require separate builds for each OS.
Vintage!
Yes... I know FC and DSL can easily read NTF, but windows can't read ext3.... anyway, there nice file systems but not what I need. Both have built in security that would make sharing profiles very difficult to say the lest.. A file made by one user can't always be read by another. Where DOS or FAT has very little if any security built in... and can be read easily my all windows and Linux OS's.
Plus the partition on my USB I use for portable apps is FAT.
I'm already sharing my profile with my portable firefox by placing it on the USB drive. I need to upgrade my firefox to 2.0 on FC to play with the profile. It more then likely wont work for the difference in OS's like you say, but be interesting to see how far it can go. Firefox seems to drop to a lower level when something doesn't work just right vs some other programs that just scream and die.
Here's the how-to from Mozilla.
http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/profile#new
----------------------:)
Did you know that the entire operating system use to fit on a 5 1/4" floppy disk!
Both have built in security that would make sharing profiles very difficult to say the lest
I found out that NTFS supports POSIX file permissions the hard way. :lol:
I need to get Puppy Linux to stop making the files rw------- by default.
Vintage!
I need to get Puppy Linux to stop making the files rw------- by default.
I don't know Puppy Linux, but file permission is normal. The first rwx is for the owner, the second rwx is for the owner's group, the thread rwx is for everyone.
(Read/Write/Execute)
An rw-r--r-- should be normal, check the value of 'umask'.
----------------------:)
Did you know that the entire operating system use to fit on a 5 1/4" floppy disk!
Actually, I meant that the permissions are rw-r--r-- with root as owner, and I want them to not have root as the owner by default. Any way to make spot (the default regular user) the owner of the files inside newly mounted drives automatically?
Vintage!
This is a Unix page on what your looking for, but should be the same...
Below from http://kb.iu.edu/data/acge.html
-----------------------
The umask command, when placed in the .cshrc file (for the csh and tcsh shells), the .profile file (for the Korn shell), or the .bash_profile file (for the bash shell), acts as a umask that screens out permissions automatically each time you create a new directory or file in your account.
----------------------
chmod is used to change a file or directory permission. umask sets it up for future file permission. Permission is set by 9 bits and is done by assigning numbers to the letters, such r=4, w=2, and x=1. So for full access r+w+x=7 full access to all, 777.
Of course for some reason umask likes Octal.
I never lock out admin in Linux before... I have with xp by creating a hidden folder and removing admin from access rites. Any files drop in this folder would disappear from others. Normally the folder will pass on it's permission to files placed in it. this would be safer then removing admin from the system.
EDIT: Sorry... just look at what your asking again... Admin has access rites to all file and folders, file permission doesn't matter.
----------------------:)
Did you know that the entire operating system use to fit on a 5 1/4" floppy disk!
In Puppy Linux, the programs run as spot, but mounted drives that support POSIX permissions have root as owner if there is no permission info (NTFS, basically). And I think new files made by root are not available to admins in Windows (I ran geany as root to modify a file, and saved it, but couldn't open in it Windows, though I'm not entirely sure if that was because of saving a file as root).
Vintage!
I'd have to try it out to see how things work. I just tried it with DSL and didn't get it to work right. DSL mounted my NTFS as read only, so I must not be a root user in DSL. I'll have to try changing that. When it mounts FAT, no problems...
As for NTFS and Linux, both use the same 9 bit's for permission and with assigning user/group names to them. For some reason I keep thinking Unix used 10 bit's, I'll have to go back to the Unix man pages to see. I do know that it uses ACL and setting or changing permission on a folder blow the ACL for that folder.
I know MS was working to have something more usable in a server setup like Unix, I don't think they used POSIX the same way. You can set more control on NTFS files then Linux files, but the basic 9 bit permission is still there.
----------------------:)
Did you know that the entire operating system use to fit on a 5 1/4" floppy disk!
DSL doesn't have write support for NTFS yet, so it doesn't really matter what user you are (you can call a program as root from the terminal with sudo or use sudo su(it won't ask for a password)).
Vintage!
I need to get Puppy Linux to stop making the files rw------- by default.
try 'umask' with h to see if the man files are their, if not let me know if you need more info.
----------------------:)
Did you know that the entire operating system use to fit on a 5 1/4" floppy disk!