Henning Nielsen Lund wrote:
Mark bond wrote:
[...] Well I do agree sorta, but my thoughts are that there could be options we may wish to consider if it will bring some of their coders on board (ie using MUI instead of reaction perhaps). Although I do agree actively supporting 3.1 is a bit much, and should be dropped immediately if its just for the sake of classic machines.
- We do not know how much work it will take to port OOo.
- More targets will slow down the porting - I for one will not
support 4 different OS at a time - take a look at AmiZilla/MorphZilla, I am almost sure that there would have been more people working on it, if only OS4 (or MorphOS) would have been a target. 3. We should not use MUI or Reaction. OOo has its own graphical toolkit. And if not, would I say that we should use Reaction, as this is the official toolkit for OS4 - else, people would need to pay money to be able to use our work with its full power (and did MorphOS not lose MUI in the "genesi does not pay it's developers" case?)
1. Lots ;-)
2. No comment
3. But surely said toolkit will need "translating" to the amiga version, as such it would make sense to use MUI/Reaction so it can take advantage of the global prefs for these two (no they lost Ambient as I understood it).
I will point out I was using htat as an example, just because we are not supporting other platforms, doesnt mean we cant choose to port things in a particular way to make it easier for it to be ported to the similar systems. Or even that we have to consider this, as I've said previously its something that needs discussing. When it comes right down to it, I use OS4, the only version I want is an OS4 version, but if making the AROS/MOS porters lives a bit easier is what it takes, to get the thing done quicker, then I say at least consider it.
Mark