I’m trying to use the Web Hosting Manager and Email app, but it keeps opening an old version (0.1.0) of SAFEBrowser on my MacBook. I tried to remove all old versions in my application directory and also in Library/Application Support/ but no result so far.
The old Safebrowser process is pointing to this folder (with ps -ef | grep SAFE): /private/var/folders/yn/46tnj7pn5mnd7nqmxpks19xh0000gn/T/AppTranslocation/A06303A2-5EA3-48E8-85EB-0E0BDD6D2ED5/d/SAFEBrowser.app/Contents/Frameworks/SAFEBrowser Helper.app/Contents/MacOS/SAFEBrowser Helper…
When I rename this folder the old Safebrowser is not opening, but still no authorisation request in the new Safebrowser with authenticator…
Can you open the new version of the browser? It should register the scheme again with OS to handle the safe-auth scheme. Once the new version of the Browser registers itself, the apps should open the latest browser.
I just claimed an invite and this was able to authenticate with the authenticator but I can’t connect my webhosting manager or or mail tutorial app ?? Webhosting tells me to clear cache and mail app stays on ‘Initialising application’ , ‘Authorising Application’
Anybody same experience ?? Looks like they’re not finding the authenticator
If you go to safe://app.portlandspirit you should be able to eventually see it load two values from MutableData. However, if you refresh, you will probably get an error. If you refresh twice, you almost definitely will.
If, after getting the error, I stop my Web Hosting Manager, I usually can hit refresh on the browser and get another successful read or perhaps even two, before it starts failing again, at which point, only a browser restart will fix it.
It seems like it’s using up my allocated instances and it’s necessary to restart the browser to get it to work again.
Closing that tab on the browser should free up the instance(s) that have been used up, one would think. Then opening the page again should work without a browser restart. This does not work however.
This is correct, and this is surely the reason you are experiencing all that, you are limited to only 4 clients, one is used by the authenticator itself, a second one is used by the safe_app plugin to load your webpages, plus the ones you use from the apps or from the webpages themselves.
We have a plan to automatically free resources when tabs are closed, but it’s not implemented yet. Also, when you free resources it may take some time until that actually takes effect, so there is some pending work to be done there.
Hi @Krishna_Kumar, I restart my Mac and open Safebrowser v0.3.0. Then I start Web Hosting Manager, but it still opens Safebrowser v0.1.0…guess the register process doesn’t work properly. Can I do this step manually?
The one requirement that seems to be affecting a few people, even ones who have been here for a year is the requirement to post replies in at least 10 different topics. They have been mostly reading and only participating in a couple of topics that they have a lot of interest in.
You seem to have now met all the requirements so it must have been the post you made here and likely the 10 different topics that was holding you back.
I’m on ubuntu 16.04lts… Any ideas ?
I’m using vpn since some weeks but disabled it when requesting a token.
Everything was ok till I opened demo apps and they can’t find authenticator.
I have the same issue on windows 10.
Oddly I was able to authorise Web hosting manager but that won’t now either. Downloaded everything again. No luck.
Hmmm - not sure. I haven’t tried on Linux yet but plan to over the weekend. It’s generally working for me in Windows 10 but on one occasion the email app would not authenticate (it just sat there and the authentication popup in the browser was not activated) until I shut everything down and started again.
You know what’s cool about this??? No need for mods or anybody else to hand out invitation keys. Looks like @maidsafe made a nice tool using some forum API to automatically allow forum members on the test network. And they probably didn’t built it for just 1 test. So here’s my guess:
All coming testnets will start with a invitation to a little active group to get bugs/errors out. Maybe some network resets etc.
When things are quite stable MaidSafe can invite TrustLevel2 member with a click of a button
If things are even more stable binaries are released to all members with another click of a button
If the members of this forum showed things work they release binaries to everyone else
This way they don’t bug a lot of people with resets and re-uploading websites etc. So they go from 20 members to 402 to around 2000 and next to the rest of the planet .
So when uploading files in the Web Hosting Manager it shows ‘Uploading message’. Doesn’t it make more sense to say ‘Uploading file(s)’? A message to me is something you send via email, chat or post on a forum.
Don’t you think that configuration options are too easy to define? In my safe_vault fork I have used a static compilation flag to allow local networks. This is harder to use but I think this is safer.
Few vaults won’t allow other vaults to connect to the global safe network bypassing the controls implemented to keep a stable network (like the resource proof and only one vault allowed per LAN). But I am afraid that one day, malicious and ignorant people launch a campaign on social medias like reddit criticizing the limitations imposed by Maidsafe developers and promising to solve a scalability problem by allowing more vaults per station if people set these options.
Does that ring a bell?
On bitcoin network few nodes are needed to impose drastic changes (miners and exchanges). On safe network, a real numerical majority of farmers is needed (51%, even more if consensus rules are tightened). This means that such campaign can succeed only if operations are easy to do for a typical user, like configuring a file.
As you said it yourself, local networks are for developers and recompiling a program is not a problem for them. But this is not the case for ordinary users. Most of them cannot do it and will be reluctant to download binaries from another place than official Maidsafe repository (or more simply, too lazy).
This is why I think that a static compilation flag is safer than options in a configuration file.
.