I want to play a bit with ChronicleMap and a bit confused which version should I use in production.
1.* looks like 'released' one, 2.* looks like in alpha stage. I would use release version but from my understanding current documentation refers features from an alpha version.
I.e. I don't see OffHeapUpdatableChronicleMapBuilder in 1.0.2. Since it is a 'official' documentation I can think that 2.* can be used in production as well. Can it?
PS Environment - java 8, 64 bit windows for dev, linux in production.
Chronicle Map 2.x is the version you should be considering.
It is in beta now, with no significant enhancements planned, only bug fixes.
The beta version is suitable for development and the API won't change significantly before the release.
How long it is a beta release depends on how many bugs are reported. Of course we are hoping this will be a week or two.
The first production quality release will be 2.1.
Related
I've visited the website to download the latest version and I found that 2.8.4 was released after 2.9.1. Why does that happen? And which one should I download?
Why are companies still running Java 6 and 7 while they are end of life? Why is Java 8 still updated when Java 9 and 10 are available?
My point is that at one point, Hadoop 2.7.x was the stable branch. 2.8, 2.9 introduce some potentially breaking or otherwise major, possibly unstable change. The previous releases still need support to address bugs and backport useful features. You're welcome to read the release notes to see what those may be.
It's worth mentioning that the Hadoop vendors like Hortonworks and Cloudera are currently using some version 2.7 with some patches applied on top of what you'd get on the Apache site.
Meanwhile, if you want the latest and greatest, and don't care about stability, you can use Hadoop 3.x, but if you want other things like Spark, Sqoop, HBase, Hive, then I'd suggest staying at 2.7 for now. Or at least read over the documentation for each component and see if you can find installation requirements.
What is Linux kernel versions(like 2.x, 3.x, 4.x)'s major difference?
And 2.x and 3.x version have stable version?
Actually I think you should know that stable/EOL and longterm mean:
As kernels move from the mainline into the stable category, two things can happen:
They can reach End of Life after a few bugfix revisions, which means that kernel maintainers will release no more bugfixes for this kernel version, or
They can be put into longterm maintenance, which means that maintainers will provide bugfixes for this kernel revision for a much longer period of time.
And here are longterm release kernels and stable kernels:
mainline: 4.10-rc4
stable: 4.9.4
stable: 4.8.17
longterm: 4.4.43
longterm: 4.1.37
longterm: 3.18.46
longterm: 3.16.39
longterm: 3.12.69
longterm: 3.10.104
longterm: 3.4.113
longterm: 3.2.84
If you want to see Linux kernel changelog or bugs,you can check out this,and also you can read the feature history of Linux kernel.
Hope this helps.
I have no experience whatsoever with kernel development but this same question about the significance of major version numbers came to my mind at some point too.
The first point of call to answer this question is The Linux Kernel Archives that groups the versions into:
v0.x - historic
v1.0 - changelog
v1.1
v1.2
v1.3
v2.0 - changelog
v2.1 - development
v2.2 - stable
v2.3 - development
v2.4 - stable, stayed around for ~10 years
v2.5 - development
v2.6 - stable, stayed around for ~12 years
v3.x - the transition from version 2.6.39 to 3.0 is a perfectly normal version increment, following the pattern set for the 2.6 series *
v4.x - switch from 3.x to 4.0 version numbers is entirely meaningless and it should not be associated to any important changes in the kernel *
So while up to version 2.6 there is a development/stable pattern (see timeline), from version 2.6 the different major version number appears to signify nothing and the things one should pay attention to when switching kernels is the changelog and length of support. Beyond that changing from 2 to 3 or from 3 to 4 is not going to be any different than switching from 3.x to 3.y.
There is a post on Unix & Linux that goes more into gore details of the highlights of particular kernel versions.
Please find this reference to start for your question.
AFAIK the installation of Lazarus consists from downloading it and FPC from SVN and compiling. There's a problem(*) with the newest versions and I'd like to install a stable version. However, all I have are the SVN revision numbers and I couldn't find out what versions are stable and what work together.
(*) Our application crashes when compiled on Ubuntu 32 and run on OpenSUZE. No idea, what's exactly going on, but this is a too complicated problem for including it in this question.
No, both projects provide releases, and these releases are the only ones formally declared stable, currently Lazarus 1.2.6 (from the 1.2 stable branch) using FPC 2.6.4 (also from stable 2.6 branch).
Lazarus mentions the prefered version of (release, stable) FPC with every release and for 1.2.6 that is 2.6.4.
Of course the status of moving trunk is sometimes more stable than other times, e.g. currently it is quite usable because a new major (FPC) branch is imminent, an event that only occurs once every 2-3 years. But there are no guarantees there, and this branch still must go through the formal release process.
Many users from emerging targets that are not supported in the stable branches often use it though.
I need to upgrade Oracle 10.1.0 to its higher version 10.1.0.3
Is there any patch file to do this upgradation other than the fresh installation of the higher version?
Patches are usually available on Oracle support site http://support.oracle.com.
Currently available patches start from 10.2 version.
More about versions, lifecycle support in
http://www.oracle.com/us/support/library/lifetime-support-technology-069183.pdf
(Your 10.1 version has limited support)
If you plan to change your environment, you can see that, in case of the problem, you would be on safer side if you choose to go to supported version (newer version) - you not only get help / workaround from support but also fixing patches if needed.
But, of course, you know your environment and priorities better.
If you insist on 10.1 patch and have support contract, try to ask directly Oracle the patch you want. It is not sure you will get it, though.
Hope it helps
I'm wondering if anyone has any information or speculation as to when or if there will be a native windows version/port of Node.js.
There is an ongoing effort to provide a mingw port of Node.js. Version 0.3.6+ can be build that way.
However that is still experimental and anything but ready for more than quick and dirty development. Even in case this version matures, I suppose that it will always lag behind the *nix versions, mainly due to the fact that the event loop implementations that Node uses were originally written for those systems and APIs.
The windows version may become stable for development at some point in the future, but I hardly doubt it will ever be usable for production.
July 2011 Update:
#nodejs v0.5.1 is the first to ship with an official Windows executable. We're hoping to get some good feedback.
Microsoft has officially gotten involved with joyent in making node.js work natively on windows.
If one or two Windows C++ developers would put in the effort, then they could fill the gaps in the native Windows version and produce a node.js implementation that would be usable for production.
For now, there is a working Cygwin version and I don't know of any testing that shows it to be unsuitable for production. It certainly works fine (version 0.5.0pre) for development.
Have a look at:
http://www.rafaljonca.org/d/nodejs-windows
Which is based on the work of these guys here
http://node-js.prcn.co.cc/
Both good ways of getting node on windows if you dont have cygwin. However after many heartaches I found developing Node stuff on windows easiest by just using virtualbox with the ubuntu image.
Tnx
GT
I am strictly a Windows Dev and I have wanted to mess around with Node.js for quite a while.
It looks like Microsoft, Rackspace.com and the Node.js team are planning on working together port Node.js to Windows.
So, it's not hear yet but it should be soon. w00t!
The Official Node.js Blog
The first stable version has been released: Release details here.
Be sure to check for the latest version as the link above will go out of date.