I have two Linux machines from which I make ssh connections to different hosts however I find that the client versions on these two Linux machines are OpenSSH_7.6 and OpenSSH_7.6p1. I tried to look up the differences between these two versions at https://www.openssh.com/releasenotes.html but it seems they are same version.
I would like to understand what is the difference in these two versions if any and why such nomenclature strategy.
not very difference but in 7.7p1 its change
you can check this diff in https://fossies.org/diffs/openssh/7.6p1_vs_7.7p1/
or check all change log commit in here https://fossies.org/diffs/openssh/7.6p1_vs_7.7p1/ChangeLog-diff.html
As found on https://www.openssh.com/portable.html
The portable OpenSSH follows development of the official version, but releases are not synchronized. Portable releases are marked with a 'p' (e.g. 4.0p1). The official OpenBSD source will never use the 'p' suffix, but will instead increment the version number when they hit 'stable spots' in their development.
Related
I see that Apache Ignite (and the GG editions for that matter) uses a very old version of sqlline which has issues & missing certain features. The version used is 1.3.0 which is from 2017, whereas the latest version is 1.12.0.
The reason this comes up is because the old version being used in Ignite has certain issues & lacks certain features that are available in the newer versions. For example, sqlline's write to csv behavior (used for ignite cache export) prints each column value ONLY with a single quote and also records command begins with printing the line “Saving all output to …”. With the newer versions we have settings for these like !set csvQuoteCharacter '"', !set silent true , etc.
Now, we tried replacing the older version of sqlline (along with jline) and brought up a server node and did some basic testing. We did not see any issues.
So the question is does Ignite really need to use the older version (and that something is broken that we haven't hit in our testing) or can the newer version be used & is just a question of planned updates. If its the former please let me in on what could be broken & if its the latter do you folks know of any plans for this upgrade?
Thanks
Ignite and GridGain work well with most JDBC clients, so I don't see why it wouldn't work with newer versions of sqlline. It looks like Ignite uses version 1.9 (since Ignite 2.10). I don't see any tickets to update to a newer version.
There are two types of remote extensions as you see in the pictures. The ones in blue and the ones in green that are tagged with nightly at the end. They are both developed by microsoft and I can't see any difference between the two Remote - SSH extensions.
What is their difference?
Remote - SSH is the stable version and the Remote - SSH (Nightly) is the "nightly" build, meaning it contains the newest features that are not considered stable yet.
Actually, the build/release doesn't seem to be strictly nightly, but nightly is generally used to mean the latest and greatest.
We are running a large amount of old EC2 instances which are based on Amazon Linux AMI 2014.09, a pretty old version.
We have recently built mod_jk on one of them that so that we can front Tomcat with Apache Web server 2.4.
We are in the process of identifying the dependencies of this mod_jk module. Can we re-use the mod_jk.so library that we just built with newer versions of the OS? We are running a large number of instances, so we would like to cut out the whole "building binaries from sources" step, so our ideal setup would be to take the current mod_jk.so binary and deploy it in all other EC2 instances.
The question is: can we safely do it? If not, when do we need to rebuild it? For example:
Do we need to rebuild it if we decide to launch EC2 instances with the latest Amazon Linux AMI, which is 3 years newer?
Do we need to rebuild it if the Apache's version is different?
Thank you in advance,
Meletis
I have a couple of precompiled mod_jk's in order to avoid just this cases. As per my own experience, I must recompile it in this scenarios:
Different Apache version (2.2/2.4)
Apache 32/64bits
As I stated before, according to this, you should have no more than 4 built mod_jk binaries to choose the right one from.
I could not tell you wether this is a best practice (probably not), but I have use this already built mod_jk in different Linux distributions and versions of Fedora, CentOS, Red Hat and Debian.
It's introduction is here:
http://www.yiiframework.com/demos/
But what's that virtual server image for ?
A simple way to have a preconfigured server environment with the software in question already installed, configured, and ready to run.
I agree with Dav, also, it is not updated very often (If I'm not bad, the included Yii version is 1.0.2 and current is 1.1.2, about 1 year old). Y recommend you to download the last stable version and try with it with your own web server it can be a local server). If you have Windows OS I recommend WAMP (one of the easiest to install) or ZWAMP (I think this is the most updated one, http://zwamp.sourceforge.net/), if you are using Linux or *BSD you have more and easy-to-install alternatives.
Is there a way to install all versions of all browsers on one machine?
I use virtual machines to do different browser version configurations. I'm assuming you want to test different version of IE, Firefox etc.
If you automate your testing at any point the virtual machines are also handy for having a way to store many different configurations for testing on one machine.
Sure, and the best way to do this is to use virtualisation technology such as VirtualBox.
we have used this to install mutiple versions of IE for testing it goes as far back as 3.0
http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE
Try Sandboxie. Much less work to deal with than a VM. Probably will run faster.
For several browsers, like Firefox or Opera, it is just a matter of copying the original program directory elsewhere and upgrading. Most of the time, the old version should still work.
For IE, there are several distributions, IETester seems to be a complete, easy solution.
For FireFox, you can install the portable versions available here
With IE, I think the only way is via virtual machines. I can recommend VirtualBox, works smoothly for me.
Why would you want to do that?
Typically, a product wont allow parallel installs (multiple versions of same product, though certainly you can have multiple versions of different products).
If you want to do some analysis or testing , doing that in separate Virtual Machines (check out VMWare) may be an option.
I am not sure why you really want this but if you want to install different versions of IE use the following tool:
http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE
Yes. I have IE8 Beta2, FF3, Chrome Beta, and Safari 3.1.2 with the applicable developer plugins.