I have an application that depends on the chrome.system.network call to get the network interfaces. On Intel-based chromebooks, it works fine. On an ARM-based chromebook, the call returns undefined. I've confirmed this on a Lenovo 300e with an MTK processor and a CTL J4+ with an ARM Cortex processor.
Has anyone else experienced this issue, or found a workaround?
We've confirmed that we have system.network permissions.
Related
I'm trying to use Fiddler on mac and I download mono, everything is ok. But when I type mono Fiddler.exe, something goes wrong. I try to google and realized Fiddler‘s graphical interface can just run on 32bit environment. So I run mono --arch=32 Fiddler.exe but the command has changed to mono32 and when I type mono32, it shows bad CPU type in executable: mono32. And I read some news about MacOS Catalina doesn't support 32 bit application any more. Does this mean I can't use Fiddler on mac or I just need to close graphical interface? If I just need to close the graphical interface, What should I do? Please help me!Thanks!
The old Fiddler for Mac was using Mono WinForms to run the user interface on macOS, which is both buggy and 32 bit only. Due to the macOS update, 32 bit apps are no longer feasible.
Telerik is now moving to an Electron based Fiddler UI, called Fiddler Everywhere,
https://www.telerik.com/fiddler-everywhere
You can try it out, but it is still in preview and lacks certain features.
I am currently running a VB application through mono on Raspbian. After a bit of troubleshooting the program boots and appears to be running quite well. However if left to itself for a few minutes the VB application just shuts off. This program runs excellently on the windows pc for any duration. Barring this being an issue with the VB code itself is there any major PI related issues that I may have missed in setting up mono? I set up mono the usual way and am launching via "sudo mono app.exe" in terminal.
Thank you for any insight you may provide into this!
UPDATE: mono just FINALLY threw out an errot to me System.OutOfMemoryException : Not enough memory to complete operation [GDI+ status: out of memory]
UPDATE2: Memory leak, its a code related issue.
Hi to anyone else that runs into this issue. For us it was a memory leak.
I am working on a Windows Store application that utilize MediaElement control in WinRT (C# language). Everything worked as expected until I start dealing with the PlaybackRate property . I tested my application on Windows Surface RT (ARM based), Eee Slate (x64 based device) and desktop PC running windows 8 (x64 based), and found that while both the x64 devices honor the changes I made on the PlaybackRate propety, the property PlaybackRate (and DefaultPlaybackRate) was totally ignored on Surface RT.
At first I thought I made some coding mistake, so I used the official Windows Store Samples (http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsapps/Basic-Media-Playback-003619be), and the exactly same experience.
So does PlaybackRate (and DefaultPlaybackRate) not supported in ARM based devices? Any workaround?
You can try to remove the attributes [AudioCategory="BackgroundCapableMedia" AudioDeviceType="Multimedia”] from the XAML of the MediaElement, somebody has tried it and the PlaybackRate responds correctly on both ARM and INTEL machines.
I have a few programs I'd really like to test on Windows 8 for ARM. I don't have any Windows 8 ARM hardware though. Is it possible to install Windows 8 in some kind of ARM emulator or some such?
Yes, I know that if it compiles on WinRT it is suppose to "just work", but I'd really like to test it not only to see if it works, but also relative performance(as much can be guessed from an emulator)
There is no way, how to start you x86 PC in an "ARM mode", or launch Simulator in ARM mode. WinRT was designed to bridge the differences or these platforms so you don't need to worry about it and you can just develop. All I can think of right now is try to contact local Microsoft representative in your area - if they have any ARM tablet for testing, they might help you in this, but again if your app is not really flawed or computing power demanding, don't worry about the ARM platform :)
This now appears to be sorta possible (haven't tested yet) with the new App Ceritification Kit for WinRT, which appears to include ARM emulation.
EDIT: This isn't an emulator, it will only run on an ARM WinRT device. I guess there is no ARM emulator, despite that page mentioning ARM and emulation
As i know java programs are able to run on any Operating System.
and there are JVM's for any kind of machines.
I need a JVM that runs on my PC stand alone, and not on my OS (windows or any thing else).
I mean a JVM that acts like a boot, instead of the OS boot
i searched for all versions of JVM on "www.java.com/en/download/manual.jsp", but i did not get the suitable JVM.
the following link helped me a little but that was not enough
http://java-virtual-machine.net/other.html#jvm
my PC CPU is AMD Athlon(tm) 64X2 Dual Core Processor 5200 + 2.69 GHz
any body can help me to find the suitable jvm version ?!
Sure, have a look at JRockit Virtual Edition. As I understand it it's basically a micro kernel especially tailored for the JRockit VM.
From this page:
Java without the OS: JRockit Virtual Edition (VE)
Am I the only one that's never heard of this before? The Oracle JRockit team is looking at eliminating the OS from the stack required to run Java. This product will be called JRockit VE (not out yet)
JavaOS
Good lucking getting hold of it, though, it's nothing more than a historical curiosity.
There are two JVMs that I am aware of, which have this property:
The Fiji WM: http://www.fiji-systems.com/index.html
According to http://rtjava.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-real-time-vm-was-born-fiji-vm.html it also runs on bare metal.
The next possibility is JNode: an open source operating system where most parts are written in Java (the rest in assembly): http://www.jnode.org/
JNode is still beta, though.
No.
There was an idea of making a machine that could run a JVM as an actual machine (non virtualized), similiar to LISP machines, but that idea never took off...
You need a host OS to run a JVM.
Googling "java real machine" might give you some interesting articles.
I've found two: one from 2004, talking about how such a machine could be built and another one, talking about how JVM runs as a real machine on hardware such as mobile devices.
Still, no dice with a plain PC.