Log in

No account? Create an account
LogJam [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ website | LogJam ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Why can't LogJam log in? [Jun. 2nd, 2006|03:50 pm]


[Current Mood |perplexed]

Hi, everyone. I recently made the switch from Windows to Ubuntu (Breezy) so I've been preferring to install things from the Synaptic package manager. So far it's worked wonderfully and everything I've installed with it has worked...except for LogJam and Drivel. Neither of these clients seem to be able to actually connect and log into the LiveJournal site. Everything else about these clients works and I can edit entries w/out logging in, etc. I just can't seem to make them establish a connection with LJ. All other net apps work as they should and I can manually log into the LJ site through Firefox without any problems. Does anyone know why the linux-based LJ clients are consistently timing out on login? TIA!


PS. I'm using LogJam 4.4.1-2 because that's the latest version available from my package servers. I don't appear to have half the things required for a manual compile and install of latest.

[User Picture]From: popcultureicon
2006-06-02 11:13 pm (UTC)
while i love ubuntu, and debian, their packaging of logjam has always left me wanting.
learning to compile is endlessly handy, and logjam is really friendly as far as that goes because it tells you exactly what is missing and what options are going to be disabled because of that.

there are packages available for every single dependency in the universe and mulitverse repositories.

the benifit is that it works, and you get nifty features like sqlite for your offline backup.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: _phaedrus_
2006-06-02 11:54 pm (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. I took your recommendation, rolled up my sleeves, and installed all the compilers and libraries necessary until ./configure was happy. Then, ran the compile and installed the latest version. After all that, I tried to connect to LJ through the freshly-made client and got the very same result. Are there any low-level networking "gotcha's" I should know about? Every other browser and network client I've installed has worked until now. The only unique thing about my system is proxying. I have tsocks set up to preload for every program so it can route me through a Socks5 proxy transparently. Might this cause trouble for LogJam or Drivel? Do they utilize UDP in some way?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: popcultureicon
2006-06-03 12:06 am (UTC)
i'd be shocked if the proxy isn't the exact problem.
in the "change users" dialoge, there should be an option to edit/ add a new livejournal server. that would be the first place i'd play around.

this is clearly related:

this all here: http://www.livejournal.com/doc/server/ljp.csp.protocol.html is related

though i suspect proxy support isn't implimented.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: _phaedrus_
2006-06-03 12:20 am (UTC)
The thing is, I don't even require proxy support. Every other network application I run thinks it is connecting directly to the internet. Tsocks simply intercepts all connection calls in the background and routes them according to it's conf, but to the programs it looks like a direct connection. Again, this has been working for firefox, ssh, smtp, irc, etc. LJ clients are the only exception. Is there something unique about LogJam's network handling?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: popcultureicon
2006-06-03 12:50 am (UTC)
i *think* the pasword protection involved in lj logins will giv eyou grief for that.
try unchecking the "server supports protocol 1"
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2006-06-03 12:53 am (UTC)
Yeah, that was one of the first things I tried even with first client. No dice. Thanks for all your help though. :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: evan
2006-06-03 02:47 am (UTC)
I've never tested it using socks, but I agree that there shouldn't be anything special about LogJam's network handling. It justs uses (well, one of many standard libraries) underneath.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: gaal
2006-06-03 06:33 am (UTC)
We use either the one in soup or the one in curl, IIRC, and one of them honors proxy settings in the environment and the other doesn't.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: evan
2006-06-03 12:49 am (UTC)
What exactly is the error you get when you try to log in?

In the options box, there's an "enable network debug" box. Try twiddling that and logging in again.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: _phaedrus_
2006-06-03 12:56 am (UTC)
Oh, that sounds promising. I missed that.
I won't be back at the machine in question for a week but I'll try that first thing next Friday and I'll post the results then if they confuse me. Thanks.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: giantlaser
2006-06-03 05:06 pm (UTC)

Fancy meeting you here. :)

The bad news is, Dapper Drake was released on 2006-06-01, and it is significantly faster than Breezy. Consider upgrading or reinstalling if you are just getting started on your tests.

I've had no problems logging in with LogJam. Suggestion #1: sniff Ethernet while it logs in and verify the traffic is getting out and how the LJ servers are responding. Ethereal is your friend.

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: _phaedrus_
2006-06-03 06:37 pm (UTC)
I actually did read about the Dapper Drake release on Slashdot yesterday. Definitely something I'll be looking into for the new mailserver. However, this machine is not a testbed. It's just my workstation so I won't be using the stripped down server setup. That said, I'm happy to hear it runs faster than Breezy. I may just reinstall, with that in mind. One of my current annoyances with Ubuntu is that it is running significantly slower and less responsive than my old Win2K desktop on the same hardware. It was like switching from a high-end PC to a Mac of the mid-90's. Dig?
Thanks for the sniffing tip. I certainly would have tried that eventually, but only after trying everything else. Will check out Ethereal when I return from Vegas. Thanks, Tyler!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: (Anonymous)
2006-06-04 02:30 pm (UTC)
Logjam people: sorry we're off-topic.

It's unusual that Ubuntu is slower for you. My guess is that it's an X-server / video setting, which makes everything seem slower. Configuring X is a lot easier these days, but still not simple.

Consider Kubuntu instead of Ubuntu when you get back. KDE is slower than Gnome, but it's a lot easier to customize and (by default) looks a lot more like Windows too. Jayme and I both run it on our laptops.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)