Opera will not launch due to "insufficient priviledges."

[kpfuser]

I installed the latest version of Opera yesterday by using the quickpet shortcut on the desktop of a xenialpup64 installation. All went well but today, after rebooting, I get the message

Can't open user profile directory, because you lack sufficient privileges. You might want to contact the administrator of this machine.

The above message repeats whether I am logged in as root or spot. This is rather unexpected as I would think that being logged in as root makes one the administrator.

Any ideas as to how to tackle this?

[s243a]

I installed the latest version of Opera yesterday by using the quickpet shortcut on the desktop of a xenialpup64 installation. All went well but today, after rebooting, I get the message

Can't open user profile directory, because you lack sufficient privileges. You might want to contact the administrator of this machine.

The above message repeats whether I am logged in as root or spot. This is rather unexpected as I would think that being logged in as root makes one the administrator.

Any ideas as to how to tackle this?

If your logged in as root then try starting it with the "--no-sandbox" flag. Also you can use strace to troubleshoot the startup. It's possible that some folder might have the wrong permissions.

[kpfuser]

s243a,

Thank you for your reply. It does look to me too that this is probably a file permissions problem. Having said this, I must confess my ignorance with respect to how I can

try starting it with the "--no-sandbox" flag

as well as how to

use strace to troubleshoot the startup.

Could you please make it a little simpler for the benefit of those of us with relevant skills that are sub-par at best?

Thanks again.

[s243a]

s243a,

Thank you for your reply. It does look to me too that this is probably a file permissions problem. Having said this, I must confess my ignorance with respect to how I can

try starting it with the "--no-sandbox" flag

as well as how to

use strace to troubleshoot the startup.

Could you please make it a little simpler for the benefit of those of us with relevant skills that are sub-par at best?

Thanks again.

I'm not in front of linux right now but you can find the startup command for the browser in the desktop file. If I recall correctly located in:

Code: Select all

/usr/share/applications

(you can open the .desktop file as text)

Say the command to start opera is "opera" then in a terminal you can type:

Code: Select all

opera --no-sandbopx

If that doesn't work you can tray something like this to try to trace the startup process:

Code: Select all

strace opera --no-sandbox 2>&1 | tee opera_startup.log

and if you pick through the output you might able to spot a file or directory that doesn't have the correct permission settings.

Anyway, if Opera isn't working for you then you can try other chome based browsers such as: chrome, iron, slimjet and chromium. You'll find pets for these browsers in the following sub forum:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/index.php?f=53

I also suggest posting your question to the Xenialpup support thread (and please link to this thread so people can see what is discussed):
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=106479

Finally if you want you can attach the output of your strace log, and we can see here if we can spot anything.

P.S. strace won't be installed. You can either install it from the package manager or load the devX sfs file.

[s243a]

Also please verify that you are actually root by typing the following command in the terminal:

Code: Select all

whoami

It is possible to install puppy as a non-root user.

[Mike Walsh]

Opera is one of the very few Chromium-based browsers that I've never bothered with, with the exception of a brief test-drive a couple of years ago. It's always been a complete PITA since it went Chromium-based, due to the way the devs have coded it; it takes far more messing-about to get running than most other Chromium 'clones'.

If, however, it's like other recent 'clones', then it will probably need to be run as 'user' spot (in fact, since it's apparently 64-bit only, just like Chrome, then it's a 'given'). You don't necessarily need to run it from the spot directory, but by using the run-as-spot parameter in the exec statement it will create the user configuration file in /root/spot/.config, rather than /root/.config.

If you can let us know where the main Opera directory is installed to, I can give you an exec script to try.


Mike.

[kpfuser]

s243a,

The command to launch opera is indeed "opera." Thus I opened a terminal window and ran the command

Code: Select all

opera --no-sandbox

both as root as well as spot. I did in fact use 'whoami' every time to confirm that I was the user I thought I was. Unfortunately I got the same "can't open..." message as reported earlier only this time it followed several lines of utter gibberish that popped in the terminal.

At this point, prompted by some conclusions resulting from a search of the string "opera can't open..." I decided to drop this matter altogether. As this search revealed, this problem was first reported at least two years ago and Opera did not manage to find a solution or work-around. So calling on people like you to help with finding a solution is rather counter-productive especially if Opera is capable of creating similar or worse problems just out of the blue. As you said,

Anyway, if Opera isn't working for you then you can try other chome based browsers such as...

So I decided that taking your advice was the best option available.


Mike,

Let me thank you first for enriching my vocabulary with that PITA term. Although dictionaries list different interpretations, I am quite certain as to which one applies in this case.

Furthermore, running

Code: Select all

opera run-as-spot

if this is what you meant, produced the same final message preceded by a similar string of gibberish as mentioned earlier. Finally I cannot let you know where the main Opera directory is installed to because I am not sure about it myself. A file search for 'opera' results in a sizable listing with lines such as
/initrd/mnt/tmpfs/pup-rw/root/.packages/opera-stable-60.0.3255.83_amd64.deb
at the top. The term 'profile' is most curiously absent from each of these lines. Thus I am pushed inexorably towards making my affair with Opera as brief as yours.

Thank you both for your help!

[Mike Walsh]

@ kpfuser:-

Now, then; this should solve the problem.

I built both .pet and SFS packages of Opera-60.0.3255.83 in Xenialpup64 earlier this evening. Both were tested in a clean 'install' of Xenialpup64 by adding 'pfix=ram' to the kernel line in Grub4DOS and re-booting.

Be aware that these are running as root with the '--no-sandbox' flag, so they're 'experimental' packages. Use at your own risk, though you shouldn't have any problems. I've used various Chromium clones without the sandboxing for years, and never had any issues with 'em.

You can find them at my Google Drive:-

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Help yourself to whichever one you want.


Mike.

[bigpup]

Thanks Mike Walsh!

I tried the Opera sfs package in Bionicpup64 8.0.
Seems to be working OK.

I will post a link to this in the Bionicpup64 8.0 topic.
666philb may want to use your Opera packages for what is offered in Quickpet.

The Opera offered in Bionicpup64 8.0 Quickpet has the same problem not working with errors.
Just like Xenialpup64 7.5 Quickpet.
It just goes to the normal Opera download site and gets the same Opera deb package that does not work.

[Mike Walsh]

Opera packages now re-uploaded. New version has the addition of the PepperFlash 'auto-updater' script by SFS, which was modified from Geoffrey's original, amazing FlashPlayer auto-updater. Pepper now lives in its own directory in /usr/lib, and is sym-linked into /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins.

This is itself a sym-link from /usr/lib/adobe-flashplugin, which is where Opera looks for libpepflashplayer.so.

Same link as before. Help yourselves to whichever package you want.


Mike.

[s243a]

Hello Mike,

I'm not sure if I did this yet but you might want to do the following:

Download the amd64 version of the package located at:
https://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial-upda ... mpeg-extra

Extract this package using uextract. From the extracted folder copy the file

Code: Select all

/usr/lib/chromium-browser/libffmpeg.so

to

Code: Select all

/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/opera/libffmpeg.so

I recommend backing up the old version of libffmpeg.so

Note that I took the version from xenial because the version from bionic requires too new a version of glibc.

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 66#1024766

which will allow you to play all HTML5 video formats.

You might want to try an older version of chromium-codecs-ffmpeg-extra (then I did), if you want to support older version of puppy than Xenial.

[kpfuser]

Ok Mike!

Since you are making a commendable effort to get into trouble with Opera again, I will be happy to provide the impetus. It is the least I can do after your generous gesture to jump into the fray once again.So let me start at the beginning or even the very beginning as the case may be.

The link you provided to your Drive takes me to a page that contains only the .pet package. The .sfs package is nowhere in sight.

Please view the following few questions with a measure of lenience as they expose greater ignorance in puppy matters than the ignorance displayed so far. So here we go.

Will the Opera installed by either of these packages be able to be updated automatically by Mozilla or will there be a need to replace the older packages with newer versions of the same?

Next, is the

adding 'pfix=ram' to the kernel line in Grub4DOS and re-booting

something that has been already done by you or should I do it myself? In the latter case, how exactly would I go about it?

If I opt for the .pet package, I think that after downloading it, all I have to do is open it and it will install itself in the proper place. Am I right? But what about the .sfs package? How should this be handled?

Finally, "running as root" implies to me that I should avoid messing around with anything "spot" so that I can remain "root" as I was when I logged in. As for running with the '--no-sandbox flag, I am now an expert on it after s243a initiated me into its finer aspects in one of his posts in this thread.

Well, let's see what lies ahead.

[Mike Walsh]

@ kpfuser:-

You probably visited the Drive link while I was in the middle of uploading the updated packages! If you re-visit the link again now, you should find the SFS package there as well. This is the best one to use, since it can be loaded/unloaded on-the-fly, and is much the easiest way to change packages.

Yes, you will need to update by changing packages.....using the method I've just mentioned. The only browsers that will update 'in place' are Mozilla-based ones; Firefox, Palemoon, and the like. Opera now belongs to the Chromium-based group of 'clones'.....none of which update themselves automatically in Linux.

The stuff about 'pfix=ram', no, you can ignore that. I merely mentioned it conversationally, just to detail how the packages were tested.

I prefer to build these packages to 'run as root' wherever possible, since it's a lot less messing about. As for running without sandboxing, well; how paranoid are you? Yes, it's supposed to be one of Chromium's major security features, yet I've run Chromium-based browsers without it enabled for years.....and have never yet come to grief. Puppy's not perfect, but it's unique mode of running alone makes it much less vulnerable to any form of attack even than other Linux distros.....which themselves are generally a lot safer to use than Windoze.

D/load the SFS package, load it in, and it should fire up from the Menu entry. You'll be good to go.


Mike.

[s243a]

I prefer to build these packages to 'run as root' wherever possible, since it's a lot less messing about. As for running without sandboxing, well; how paranoid are you? Yes, it's supposed to be one of Chromium's major security features, yet I've run Chromium-based browsers without it enabled for years.....and have never yet come to grief. Puppy's not perfect, but it's unique mode of running alone makes it much less vulnerable to any form of attack even than other Linux distros.....which themselves are generally a lot safer to use than Windoze.

D/load the SFS package, load it in, and it should fire up from the Menu entry. You'll be good to go.


Mike.

I actually thought that the original poster wanted to run as root but regardless of how the original poster wants run run the browser it wouldn't be hard to included multiple startup and/or .desktop scripts/files.

In the pet version it would be easy for the original poster to modify the .desktop file if he/she wanted.

[Mike Walsh]

I actually thought that the original poster wanted to run as root but regardless of how the original poster wants run run the browser it wouldn't be hard to included multiple startup and/or .desktop scripts/files.

In the pet version it would be easy for the original poster to modify the .desktop file if he/she wanted.

No, absolutely; not hard at all. Oscar does this very same thing in some of his recent 'clone' packages.

The 'wrapper-script' that's needed to start these Chromium-based browsers contains a 'run-as-root' section, and a 'run-as-spot' section. You merely comment/comment out the section that you do (or don't) want to use.

Easy enough to do, though it's easier for Oscar to do this, since he primarily runs 32-bit hardware. With the 64-bit versions, it's 'run-as-spot' or nothing, since they mostly refuse to run any other way.....with the odd exception, like Opera (as I've discovered).

(I'm not entirely sure how old a version of Chromium this release of Opera is based on, since the insistence on 'running as a user' came in round about Chromium 62/63.....and we're now up to 74.)


Mike.

[s243a]

I actually thought that the original poster wanted to run as root but regardless of how the original poster wants run run the browser it wouldn't be hard to included multiple startup and/or .desktop scripts/files.

In the pet version it would be easy for the original poster to modify the .desktop file if he/she wanted.

No, absolutely; not hard at all. Oscar does this very same thing in some of his recent 'clone' packages.

The 'wrapper-script' that's needed to start these Chromium-based browsers contains a 'run-as-root' section, and a 'run-as-spot' section. You merely comment/comment out the section that you do (or don't) want to use.

Easy enough to do, though it's easier for Oscar to do this, since he primarily runs 32-bit hardware. With the 64-bit versions, it's 'run-as-spot' or nothing, since they mostly refuse to run any other way.....with the odd exception, like Opera (as I've discovered).

(I'm not entirely sure how old a version of Chromium this release of Opera is based on, since the insistence on 'running as a user' came in round about Chromium 62/63.....and we're now up to 74.)


Mike.

Opera is running as root for my on TazPup64 and I recently downloaded the latest version (.deb) from their website.

[bigpup]

If I opt for the .pet package, I think that after downloading it, all I have to do is open it and it will install itself in the proper place. Am I right? But what about the .sfs package? How should this be handled?

You only need one of them.
They are just two different ways of installing a program into Puppy Linux.

The pet will install Opera.
In Rox file manager, left click on the pet and it will install.
It becomes part of the Puppy file system, well until you choose to uninstall it.

The Opera sfs package will work if you have xenialpup64 as a frugal install.
Place the Opera sfs package in /mnt/home location.
Run SFS-load-on-the-fly program
Select the Opera sfs
Select load
It will load and put a menu entry in menu>Internet
select unload to remove it.

SFS packages do not actually install. They load or unload into Puppies layered file system.
The SFS-load-on-the-fly program gives you control of what package does what.
If a sfs package is set to load. It will auto load on next boot up.

[kpfuser]

Mike,

The .sfs file has been duly spotted in your Drive. So, after your latest input, my task now becomes to

D/load the SFS package, load it in, and it should fire up from the Menu entry

With the downloading completed, I turned my attention to "load it in." Alas, past experience on such matters is non-existent as I have never dealt with .sfs files before. Running a search on what an .sfs file is and how to load it left me rather confused due to the multiplicity of options mentioned and their dependency on the type of puppy installation. With respect to the latter, I have always run puppy as a (remastered) live CD and I do not intend to change it because of the high degree of security it affords. Consequently, I would appreciate some help with respect to how/where to load the .sfs file and how to activate/deactivate it as needed. Should it be necessary to work with the .sfs file from the command line, it would be OK since I am reasonably familiar with it. Conversely if you could point out any concise info regarding how to carry out the above, it would help as well.

[bigpup]

Did you not read my last post?

For SFS-load-on-the-fly operation.

If booting from a live CD.
The sfs package has to be stored someplace.
If you have made a save and the save is on hard drive, flash drive, etc....
Place the sfs package at the same location as the save.

Not sure about this one. Things may have changed.
If booting the live CD with no save.
The sfs package will need to be on the CD.
As it boots, It should get loaded with the other Puppy sfs packages on the CD.

You may be able to manually load the sfs package by using a terminal command line.

Sfs_load can also be run from command line. Type 'sfs_load --help' from the terminal to get the usage.

[Mike Walsh]

@ kpfuser/bigpup:-

I've just done this. Running with "pfix=ram" to simulate a pristine boot (same as a LiveCD), do the following:-

Copy the SFS to /root. (Use the 'Files' icon on the desktop to open the user directory; copy the SFS to here.)

Right-click, select 'sfs_load'. After a few seconds, it'll bring up a window, telling you it needs to be copied, with a selection box to choose the location. Hit the 'drop-down', then you want the last entry, 'NO COPY'.

The next window says it's temporary, and will be unloaded on next boot. 'RUN' or 'QUIT'?

Posting from it now.


Mike.