We have a restriction on our linux version but want to still use JXBrowser. Is there a earlier version we can use which runs on RHEL 6.8?
We have never tested JxBrowser on RHEL 6.8, so there's no guaranty that it will work in this environment. Previous JxBrowser versions you can download from Release Notes
Related
We are currently running version 4.0.3 and can't go to the latest as support for our database has been dropped (SQL Server 2012). I would like to get the latest version 4 release (4.2.0) - can anyone tell me if this is possible and if so, where can I find it?
Apparently the source code for all previous versions is in GitHub. Now the question becomes "Is there anywhere I can find the Windows executable version of Flyway 4.2.0?"...
You will probably have to build the executable from source using one of the releases on their Github. 4.2.0 is available here
The various binaries, as well as the source, for 4.2.0 can be downloaded from Maven Central.
Here is the 4.2.0 Windows zip.
As in R documentation:
The last version known to run on Windows 2000 was 2.12.2. Windows XP is no longer supported.
I tried to install R 3.4.3 on windows xp , but i faced problems when installing packages that i didn't face when installing them on Windows 7 system. I think it is safe to assume that R 2.12.2 runs on Windows xp as windows 2000, but does a version later than R 2.12.2 runs on windows xp also? what is the highest version ?
The latest version officially supported on XP was one version below, 3.4.2. Nevertheless, R as high as 3.6.0 installs and runs well on XP (though is not officially QA tested).
Starting from v.3.6.1, R is packed with InnoSetup v.6.0.0 (that means, installing on WinXP will not succeed and end up with an error "not valid Win32 application"). However, one may try to unpack the installer and deploy the files manually (still may help to launch R itself). Another option which may be useful is One Core API.
But... All this stuff is relevant if one is going to use plain R or integrated R environment in some old application. Many 3rd-party R packages require the most up-to-date versions of R, what will cause inconveniences on WinXP.
I'm trying to install the ASP.NET Core 2.0 API on my MacBook Pro.
I've downloaded both dotnet-sdk-2.0.2-osx-x64.pkg and dotnet-sdk-2.0.2-osx-gs-x64.pkg and when I try to launch either of them an installer dialog is displayued that just reads:
Verifying "dotnet-sdk-2.0.2-osx-x64.pkg"
or
Verifying "dotnet-sdk-2.0.2-osx-gs-x64.pkg"
but nothing further happens.
I am running OS X El Capitan 10.11.6 and have all of the latest updates for Visual Studio installed.
I can't locate any further information or instructions for installation. Please help.
From https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/macos-prerequisites?tabs=netcore2x:
.NET Core 2.x is supported on the following versions of macOS: macOS
10.12 "Sierra" and later versions
Looks like it might be time to upgrade to Sierra. That represents a change from the 1.1 requirements, which supported El Capitan.
FWIW I'm running Sierra on a mid-2012 MacBook Pro with 8GB of RAM and it performs just fine.
I created a development environment with Fedora 18 and Qt 5
When I compile my app it will be 64 bit, and depend on Qt 5. After some research it seems that will be a problem since Centos 6.x is still dependong on Qt 4.6, and Centos 5.x is dependant on earlier Qt, and I'm guessin Ubuntu has its own package limitations.
Is there a "safe" version of Qt I can compile against to ensure it runs everywhere? If not, how can I expect customers to run my program?
If you want to target Linux, then I would recommend using Qt 4.8 (available on most of the Linux Distros), forget about Qt 5 for a year or so. Hardly any Linux distro other than Ubuntu 13.04 and above comes with Qt 5.
Secondly, as far as compiling is considered, if you wish to target Linux distros other than Ubuntu and Fedora than never use Ubuntu or Fedora for compilation. These are bleeding edge Linux distros which include new libraries without much testing. You will not only face the problem of old Qt versions in some Linux distros as you will face the bigger problem of glibc (C library). Make sure the Linux distro you use for compilation has a minimum possible glibc version for Qt 4.8, otherwise even if any Linux distro has Qt 4.8 installed, but has a lower version of glibc, you app still won't run. You can check out distrowatch.com to find out glibc and Qt versions for any Linux Distro
Example:
I compiled my app on Ubuntu 12.04, Qt 4.8.1 with glibc v 2.16 (perhaps). I got a bug report than application does not run on CrunchBang which also has Qt 4.8.1 available but since it is a Debian unstable Linux Distro it uses glibc v2.13. Since that day I always compile my application on CrunchBang (very lighweight, you can Virtual Box for this) and hardly some one complains now.
As far as CentOs is considered, you will need to recompile your code on CentOS.
I'm planning a new build system for our project running on Centos 5.4. I intend to use SCons. I noticed the latest stable SCons version is 2.0.1 while Centos 5.4 comes with 1.2.
I'm new to SCons so I'd like to understand more about the features/stability ratio between the versions.
Would you recommend installing and using the latest version or sticking to what comes from my OS repository?
Since 1.2 the changes have been bug fixes and documentation improvements. There haven't been any new features.
The 2.x version of SCons drops support for Python versions older than 2.4, updating some of the internal code to use newer idioms but without affecting any user visible APIs. That's the reason for the major version number change. If CentOS comes with a recent version of python then this won't affect you either way.
There have been a lot of fixes for newer versions of the various Microsoft compiler versions, but this won't affect a CentOS install.
The bug fixes since SCons 1.2.0 also solve problems in the Fortran, TeX and LaTeX builders. If you make use of Fortran or LaTeX then it would probably be worth upgrading. Otherwise I think you would be hard pushed to spot any day-to-day difference between 1.2.0 and 2.0.1.