Everything looks better on the SAFE Browser
MMmmmmm… that’s some sweet safe:// protocol
Mmmmmm… I’m lovin’ it!
Stupid question after installing safe-launcher, what is the command to run it?
wget -O - http://apt.maidsafe.net/repos/maidsafe.apt.gpg.key|sudo apt-key add -
sudo wget -O /etc/apt/sources.list.d/maidsafe.list http://apt.maidsafe.net/repos/maidsafe.list
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install safe-launcher
The binary is called:
so type that into a terminal.
On my system, Debian stable (Jessie), that command runs the launcher.
The path was:
…which made me curious because that’s not on my PATH. A search revealed that the installation procedure puts a symlink on my PATH:
/usr/bin/safe_launcher -> /opt/maidsafe/safe_launcher/safe_launcher
Thanks, it worked. But that makes no sense. If the launcher is installed with sudo apt-get install safe-launcher. Logic would tell you the command to run the launcher would be safe-launcher not safe_launcher.
Perhaps because one is the name of the application while the other is the name of the executable.
In cases where I am lost finding something in the file haystack (not on this occasion) I’ll open a terminal and search on part or whole of its name, and that might require more than one iteration on different variations.
$ find / -iname safe-launcher 2>/dev/null
$ find / -iname "safe*" 2>/dev/null
(bingo, finds the symlink in /usr/bin)
$ which safe*
(bingo again, finds the symlink)
This is a very good point and is probably an oversight in the debian package setup process.
Should be correctible easy tho by having the symlink in
safe-launcher for debian which can then point to the internal binary
Will certainly keep a note of this to correct it for future debian packages without which it does make it quite confusing. Sorry for that mess there.
This seems to be an issue with debian packaging guidelines not allowing _ in program name
I would say either rename the program to safe-launcher to make it compatible or at least include both safe-launcher and safe_launcher as symlinks. It would be bad to have different distros start the program by different command.
Good call - executables with underscores or dashes in them are annoying in general too, IMO. It just makes them more difficult to type/remember, especially when you can’t tab complete (or don’t know how to).
safelauncher, safedemo, etc, would be better, IMO.
Or safenetwork and safedemo etc
It’s an alternative to capitalization, which would be even worse.
I am using osx 10.11.5, I have the alpha launcher running, when I execute the demo app I get the message that it is installed successfully but the safe launcher doesn’t show any app asking for permissions. What am I missing?
I have set up the pac so I can see safe sites but the demo app is still not showing up in the launcher.
@optictopic I’m on same os as you and haven’t had that problem but just as a trouble shooting suggestion open up activity monitor and see if there are any other demo app or launcher instances running and force quit them. That’s something I had going on in a previous release on Mac and David told me to look there it solved my issue. Not sure if it’ll help but something to try till someone else gets to you
I gave that a try but the Demo app is still not recognized by the launcher.
Probably not the case but you are using the latest version of the demo app right?
You need to start the launcher, login or create account, then start the demo app. It won’t show up in launcher until then.
I had assumed that downloading and installing the demo app was all that was necessary for the launcher to recognize the demo app. I did not see a demo app icon anywhere but when I did a search for the demo app the icon came up, so everything is good now. Thanks for the help!
A post was split to a new topic: Thoughts on Satoshi’s posts
Alpha looks good from here, no issues and still going strong.
Out of 378 PublicIDs, fell 132 websites
Again, that’s all guesswork… let me know any I’ve missed.