Sigil-0.9.9 Released

[najgori]

win64 here. download ok. checksum ok. free kaspersky checked - no virus.

[BetterRed]

I downloaded the file at 2017-12-24 11:13.05 UTC, checksum was correct.

As normal with all downloads, I ran the download past Defender and MWB, they reported no threats found, and then past Virus Total, its results were the same, viz:



On this occasion I also ran the git URL through Virus Total, as far as I could tell this was the first time VT had scanned this URL, it gave this result



I can't explain why the results are different, nor why the Last Analysis times are as they are

No problems with installing - didn't uninstall first.

BR

[GalacticHull]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Almost 2300 downloads of the 64-bit installer so far. I'd like to think there'd be more outrage by now if there was a problem with it. Always use the checksums to make sure you're getting the file that was uploaded, to be sure, though.

EDIT: Just double-checked to be sure. The 64-bit installer is the same one I uploaded (and installed on my machine). Neither it, nor the sha256 checksums file have been diddled.

I assumed the problem was on my end. This morning, it downloads--and will install--with no issue.

The only thing I can think of is someone infiltrating a server of my VPN. I'll have to write them and let them know of the potential.

Anyhow, DiapDealer, it seems you are the developer of Sigil or an associate of the developer. I want to thank you for the continued development. My utmost gratitude especially for not leaving Sigil footprints all over the file . A single tag. Thank you.

[JustinThought]

At last, that moment we've all been waiting for. Thanks so much for your work.

I wish I could say that the installation was flawless, but unfortunately my little laptop is giving me fits. Just as I had experienced with 0.98, got an error message saying I was missing VC Runtime (don't remember the exact message). I installed that, then got another message, dealt with that, now I'm stuck with the error below. I went here and followed all their directions, no love.

So I'm back to 0.9.7 on my laptop.

And it was with some trepidation that I dragged the file back to my black box, even though it's been sitting on 0.9.8 for quite a while. But, I installed 0.9.9 there, and it ran flawlessly. Whatever I did to that box when I had the problem with FlightCrew, I haven't done to the little laptop. I'll figure it out sometime--maybe!--and if I discover the shortage, I'll let you know here..

So once again, I've got some difference between my two computers that permits me to run 0.9.9 on one, but not on the other. >>sigh!<< I hate Windows!

[DiapDealer]

The correct VC runtime comes with the Sigil installer, though. There should be no need to install it separately.

[JustinThought]

Okay, I promised that I would come back and report if I found a solution, but I had to wait until my forehead healed from the repeated beating it has taken. Also had to replace my keyboard, too, because somehow the "N" key became embedded in the above-mentioned forehead.

I can now say with au-thor-a-teh that that is the error message you receive when you try to install the "standard" version of Sigil on a Lenovo laptop running the 64-bit version of Windows. I can also state with that same authority that is not the message you receive on a (or at least my) custom box with the Asus chip-set running (ahem!) the exact same version of Windows. I can say with no authority why that would be.

However, now that this N00B has installed the x64 version of Sigil on that laptop, it is running as smoothly as silk.

Love the new plugin icons--and really love the additional information on the Preview Window. Thanks, guys!

[Notjohn]

Originally Posted by JustinThought

However, now that this N00B has installed the x64 version of Sigil on that laptop, it is running as smoothly as silk.

"x64" threw me as well. When I first saw it, I assumed it meant "except 64-bit" -- i.e., that it was the 32-bit version.

Perhaps the alternative should be labeled x32 or, better, they be labeled 32-bit and 64-bit. As it is, wouldn't the average non-techie go for what Justin calls the "standard version"? And 32-bit is no longer standard. I stuck with it until recently (through Windows 7), because I didn't know there was another way to run a DOS program. Then I discovered V-DOS.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Notjohn

"x64" threw me as well. When I first saw it, I assumed it meant "except 64-bit" -- i.e., that it was the 32-bit version.

What a strange assumption.

The naming of the Windows Sigil installation files has not changed. It is the way it always has been. This is the very first report we've received of anyone being confused as to what the "x64" meant, so I think we'll stick to what is working -- rather than confuse even more with a change in procedure. Besides, there should be absolutely no problem with installing the 32-bit version of Sigil on a 64-bit Windows system. People, including myself, do it all the time. It's the reverse that won't work (and the installer won't let you do).

I'm not really striving for a totally noob-proof environment here. Neophytes SHOULD have to do some research before downloading/installing free software from the internet. They should be cautious, ask questions, and do some due-diligence first!

[theducks]

x64 is standard notation every app I have installed.
x32 is assumed, since 32bits existed before 64 bit Windows processors
(some of us remember, 8 bit processors: 8080, and 16 bit processors: 80286 )

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by JustinThought

I can now say with au-thor-a-teh that that is the error message you receive when you try to install the "standard" version of Sigil on a Lenovo laptop running the 64-bit version of Windows. I can also state with that same authority that is not the message you receive on a (or at least my) custom box with the Asus chip-set running (ahem!) the exact same version of Windows. I can say with no authority why that would be.

A bit odd since my Lenovo laptop running Windows 10 x64 installed the x86 version of Sigil 0.9.8 without issue when I was running into an issue with the x64 version -- that problem turned out to be an issue with the NAC software I was then using and not a Sigil issue. The corporate NAC system has since been set to allow my laptop without the persistent agent to connect—there are times that being in IT has it's benefits.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by theducks

x64 is standard notation every app I have installed.
x32 is assumed, since 32bits existed before 64 bit Windows processors
(some of us remember, 8 bit processors: 8080, and 16 bit processors: 80286 )

I've seldom seen x32 being used. x86 is what I do see used for the 32-bit versions.

Some of us remember using Z80 processors as a step up from the 8080 along with 6800 and 6502 processors families. 3000 solder joints later and you had a working computer—you prayed fervently.

[BetterRed]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I've seldom seen x32 being used. x86 is what I do see used for the 32-bit versions.

14 of the 302 installers in my software locker have 'x86' in their name, one of which is 'HandBrake-1.0.7-x86_64-Win_GUI.exe'

Installer names are all over the place, there's not even a convention let alone a standard.

BR

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

Installer names are all over the place, there's not even a convention let alone a standard

Sure there is. If there's a 64 in it, a 64-bit operating system is required.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by BetterRed

14 of the 302 installers in my software locker have 'x86' in their name, one of which is 'HandBrake-1.0.7-x86_64-Win_GUI.exe'

Installer names are all over the place, there's not even a convention let alone a standard.

BR

Hmmm... Intel architecture compiled for 64 bit Windows. I've seen that convention used for programs written for multiple platforms and commonly in Linux distribution repositories. Browsing a local Linux repository, I found the following in use: arm, armhfp, arm64, aarch64, i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64, ppc64le, mips, s390, s390x, ia64, sparc and sparc64. Prize for anyone who can identify all the processors. Special bonus prize to anyone who has used all of the processors.

[KevinH]

I have used both sparc and sparc64 on my Sun workstations, IBM's S390 via the university mainframes, I used to develope exclusively on IBM/Motorola ppc and ppc64 for Linux and Mac, I used the arm systems on my embedded devices and phones, and of course the nomal x86 variant family.

I have NOT used the little endian version of ppc64 (ppc64le), aarch64, and armhfp. I think intel's ia64 was the shortest lived and you needed a special compiler to try and work with it, which was a real pain in the ass as the toolchain constantly was buggy.

Is that close enough for a prize!!??