On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
> How is it, after all these years, 64 vs. 32 bit is still biting us in the
> butt? (Or should it be
>butting us in the bit?) Just a rhetorical query.
And why aren't we being pestered with 128 bits?
[*Ducks and runs*]
--
Richard E. Hawkins, E
How is it, after all these years, 64 vs. 32 bit is still biting us in the butt?
(Or should it be butting us in the bit?) Just a rhetorical query.
Bob
On Sep 27, 2012, at 8:26 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> Mark Wieder wrote:
>
>>> Have any of you been able to successfully set up Android building
Mark Wieder wrote:
Have any of you been able to successfully set up Android building from
LC 5.5.2 under Ubuntu?
Don't know about ubuntu, but in fedora it was happy when I pointed it to
/usr/lib/java-1.6.0/jvm/java-1.6.0-openjdk
Thanks for that, Mark. With your encouragement that Open JDK w
Richard Gaskin writes:
> What exactly is it looking for?
I really don't have a clue. There aren't any guidelines. But...
> Have any of you been able to successfully set up Android building from
> LC 5.5.2 under Ubuntu?
Don't know about ubuntu, but in fedora it was happy when I pointed it to
/
Andre Garzia wrote:
Richard,
I know this is not ideal, but have you tried with Oracle JDK?
(ARGH)
Argh indeed.
After their shenanigans with Open Office and other
formerly-well-stewarded projects (along with their "Please don't program
in Java" lawsuit they launched against Google, which wa
Richard,
I know this is not ideal, but have you tried with Oracle JDK?
(ARGH)
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
> Many thanks to RunRev for providing Android build support in LiveCode for
> Linux.
>
> I was looking forward to trying that last night, but ran into a snag:
