openoffice-os4@samfundet.no schrieb am 11.01.05 08:06:57:
Well, OOo is supposed to be compileable with 2.95, so i don't see why we'd have to port GCC 3.4 to OS3.x aswell.
Do you want us to make a classic version too? I thought it was OS4 only.
I was thinking about that, too. IMO it doesn't make sence to support the 68k (for technical and political reasons). But that's just my opinion. Do we have to define a target here ? Are we strictly talking about AOS4 (which is/was my impression, and I'd go for it), or are people on the list more open to other suggestions ?
Daniel Weßling wrote:
I in my opinion thinks that we should not base oo on aos4 but on aos3.1 - in this case we would have the possibility to add more coders from the mos/classic os + aros side, which would help getting ready faster. Later on I would suppose to make it aos4 as in the second step.
Is there any MorphOS/AROS coder on the list? I've seen complaints about "locking them out" on various (mostly german) fora, but so far haven't seen anyone actually asking.
In any case, it might be possible to cross-develop on all targets at once, but I for one cannot develop for 3.1 - I neither have a system to run it on anymore, nor do I have any compiler or similar that produces 68k.
There are other considerations. For example, we have pthreads for OS 4. Threading could be very well done with that. Is there anything like that for 3.1? AROS? MorphOS? If yes, fine, but if not, additional effort is required to provide them.
Regards,
On 11/1/05 1:12 pm, "Hans-Joerg Frieden" Hans-JoergF@hyperion-entertainment.biz wrote:
Daniel Weßling wrote:
I in my opinion thinks that we should not base oo on aos4 but on aos3.1 - in this case we would have the possibility to add more coders from the mos/classic os + aros side, which would help getting ready faster. Later on I would suppose to make it aos4 as in the second step.
Is there any MorphOS/AROS coder on the list? I've seen complaints about "locking them out" on various (mostly german) fora, but so far haven't seen anyone actually asking.
Some people will just complain about anything. Form the looks of things the majority here are AOS4.x users*, why should they have to do extra work for users of other systems? Quite frankly, if MOS or AROS (or 68k) users want OO.o that badly they can get up off their lazy arses and port it themselves, just like AmigaOS 4.0 user have had to with mPlayer. The source will be available to do it.
OS 3.1 is well over 10 years old FFS. I really don't see the need to be looking backwards with a project that's supposed to bring the platform forwards.
*just to note, I'm not an OS4 user myself yet before anyone gets arsey about it.
Hi Andy
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
Some people will just complain about anything. Form the looks of things the majority here are AOS4.x users*, why should they have to do extra work for users of other systems? Quite frankly, if MOS or AROS (or 68k) users want OO.o that badly they can get up off their lazy arses and port it themselves, just like AmigaOS 4.0 user have had to with mPlayer. The source will be available to do it.
Yes that is my view on things too, let it be available on OS4 first and let other people port it afterwards if they are that desperate for it! I take it having (initially) one target platform will make it a slightly easier task?
OS 3.1 is well over 10 years old FFS. I really don't see the need to be looking backwards with a project that's supposed to bring the platform forwards.
Also agre here too, time to move forward.
*just to note, I'm not an OS4 user myself yet before anyone gets arsey about it.
Let's hope you are an OS4 user soon tho eh? ;-)
Regards
Mick
Mick Sutton wrote:
Hi Andy
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
Some people will just complain about anything. Form the looks of things the majority here are AOS4.x users*, why should they have to do extra work for users of other systems? Quite frankly, if MOS or AROS (or 68k) users want OO.o that badly they can get up off their lazy arses and port it themselves, just like AmigaOS 4.0 user have had to with mPlayer. The source will be available to do it.
Yes that is my view on things too, let it be available on OS4 first and let other people port it afterwards if they are that desperate for it! I take it having (initially) one target platform will make it a slightly easier task?
OS 3.1 is well over 10 years old FFS. I really don't see the need to be looking backwards with a project that's supposed to bring the platform forwards.
Also agre here too, time to move forward.
*just to note, I'm not an OS4 user myself yet before anyone gets arsey about it.
Let's hope you are an OS4 user soon tho eh? ;-)
Regards
Mick
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.
Mark
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.
1. We do not know how much work it will take to port OOo. 2. 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?)
Mark
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
On 11/1/05 4:03 pm, "Mark bond" mark.icestar@clara.co.uk wrote:
- 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).
www.morphos.net still says otherwise, not that it really matters. I'm not sure how the UI toolkit will work on AOS, partly because all the docs I've tried to read are in sxw format :-o
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.
I think what it really boils down is will the work done by MOS/AROS people outweigh the amount of extra work needed to support those OSes? I'm all for inclusion, but I'm cautious about losing focus.
Andy Hall wrote:
I think what it really boils down is will the work done by MOS/AROS people outweigh the amount of extra work needed to support those OSes? I'm all for inclusion, but I'm cautious about losing focus.
Thats exactly the point I was making, all Im saying is that at the moment its about options, do we go with X or Y what are the pros and cons (a pro could be extra help a con could be twice as much work).
Mark
Hello Andy
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
I think what it really boils down is will the work done by MOS/AROS people outweigh the amount of extra work needed to support those OSes? I'm all for inclusion, but I'm cautious about losing focus.
It's a matter of organisation really, if it is organised properly it won't add any overhead to the coding for AOS4.
Regards
Mark bond wrote:
Henning Nielsen Lund wrote:
Mark bond wrote:
[snip]
- 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?)
Lots ;-)
No comment
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
All- 100% in agreemenet with OP at least with respect to #s 1 and 2. OOo is a huge effort, and it needs to not be 'distracted' by porting to multiple platforms. OO is _beyond_ unlikely to run on the 68k platform anyways.
Having said that, we should take reasonable steps to not make re-use of some of the code difficult for future porting efforts, whether it's to MOS, AROS or whatever.
The bigger the project, the better defined the focus needs to be for success, whether it's in breaking the project down into manageable chunks, or limiting initial scope.
3. RE: translating toolkit. Again, we should make reasonable efforts to allow re-use here, and a _second_ or child project could always come in and port our toolchain and other bits to other (68k, OS3.X, MOS?) platforms...then we merge the changes back in if they do in fact still work for all platforms at that point. Actually, this would be better to do only once the entire toolchain and supporting tools have stablized, but then someone is welcome to do it..but not as a primary focus.
Scott
Hakuna Matata, Henning Nielsen Lund!
- We should not use MUI or Reaction. OOo has its own graphical toolkit.
And if not, would I say that we should
I'd also like to get rid of MUI
Hi,
Nibunnoichi wrote:
Hakuna Matata, Henning Nielsen Lund!
- We should not use MUI or Reaction. OOo has its own graphical
toolkit. And if not, would I say that we should
I'd also like to get rid of MUI
I would say it's also too early to say what is really needed in OOo. I'm not sure if the newer version use native widgets at all, and if they do, the toolkit will be driven by the needs of OOo. If it doesn't require drag&drop in the UI, or complex custom classes, I would say Reaction is the way to go because it's much more lightweigth than MUI... OTOH, if some advanced features only MUI can offer are necessary, Reaction is out of question...
Regards,
On 11/1/05 10:05 pm, "Thomas Frieden" ThomasF@hyperion-entertainment.biz wrote:
I would say it's also too early to say what is really needed in OOo. I'm not sure if the newer version use native widgets at all, and if they do, the toolkit will be driven by the needs of OOo. If it doesn't require drag&drop in the UI, or complex custom classes, I would say Reaction is the way to go because it's much more lightweigth than MUI... OTOH, if some advanced features only MUI can offer are necessary, Reaction is out of question...
I was reading up on VCL for 2.0 earlier, it seems they're changing the way it works from 1.x.x:
" VCL provided a desktop and operating system independent look to OpenOffice.org 1.x. However most user preferred OpenOffice.org to look and behave according to their favourite desktop theme. In 2.0 VCL will pick up that theme, not by emulating it but simply by using the desktops very own methods to draw a control. Currently support for Windows XP and recent versions of Gnome is implemented. KDE remains to be seen."
I couldn't get any more details than that as all the docs are in SXW format.
http://gsl.openoffice.org/servlets/ProjectDocumentList looked like it could provide some useful information.
Le 11/01/2005, Henning Nielsen Lund a écrit :
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?)
Amen to that. Couldn't agree more, except for the "Its possessive does not take an apostrophe" We must at all costs avoid dilution until such time as it may be necessary.
Salutations
Hi,
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.
Let's put it that way: If any MOS or AROS users want to come in, they'll be welcome. They can help with the project an maintain the platform specific code for their respective platform (a lot will be shared anyway).
If no MOS nor AROS users join, then it will be OS4 only, as simple as that.
Regards,
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 16:46:06 +0100, Thomas Frieden ThomasF@hyperion-entertainment.biz wrote:
Hi,
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.
Let's put it that way: If any MOS or AROS users want to come in, they'll be welcome. They can help with the project an maintain the platform specific code for their respective platform (a lot will be shared anyway).
If no MOS nor AROS users join, then it will be OS4 only, as simple as that.
Sounds like a plan. I'd like to see something like this in the mission statement.
Thomas Frieden wrote:
Hi,
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.
Let's put it that way: If any MOS or AROS users want to come in, they'll be welcome. They can help with the project an maintain the platform specific code for their respective platform (a lot will be shared anyway).
If no MOS nor AROS users join, then it will be OS4 only, as simple as that.
Naturally, my point was simply that descisions that get made by us in our efforts will make their jobs easier/harder, if we make it too hard by choosing to do things in a certain way then they'll be off doing their own thing, which presumably will mean they wont be helping doing the bits that are the same, therefore duplication of effort ensues. Of course if none of the users here are MOS or AROS users then its unlikely they will join now, so it may not be worth even thinking about.
Mark
Mark bond wrote:
Naturally, my point was simply that descisions that get made by us in our efforts will make their jobs easier/harder, if we make it too hard by choosing to do things in a certain way then they'll be off doing their own thing, which presumably will mean they wont be helping doing the bits that are the same, therefore duplication of effort ensues. Of course if none of the users here are MOS or AROS users then its unlikely they will join now, so it may not be worth even thinking about.
OTOH, I would hate to see us settle for the common factor alone. The claim to be "AmigaOS-Compatible" in MOS and AROS only goes as far as OS 3.1, and quite plainly, if there is a better way to do it in OS 4 I don't think that we should go for the inferior way just to remain compatible. I agree that staying compatible should be attempted (thus, for example, use the inline4 macros instead of writing IExec->something), but if there is a function in OS 4 that does the job better than custom written code in OS 3, then by all means, going for the OS4 specific function is the way to go.
Regards,
Hans-Joerg Frieden wrote:
Mark bond wrote:
Naturally, my point was simply that descisions that get made by us in our efforts will make their jobs easier/harder, if we make it too hard by choosing to do things in a certain way then they'll be off doing their own thing, which presumably will mean they wont be helping doing the bits that are the same, therefore duplication of effort ensues. Of course if none of the users here are MOS or AROS users then its unlikely they will join now, so it may not be worth even thinking about.
OTOH, I would hate to see us settle for the common factor alone. The claim to be "AmigaOS-Compatible" in MOS and AROS only goes as far as OS 3.1, and quite plainly, if there is a better way to do it in OS 4 I don't think that we should go for the inferior way just to remain compatible. I agree that staying compatible should be attempted (thus, for example, use the inline4 macros instead of writing IExec->something), but if there is a function in OS 4 that does the job better than custom written code in OS 3, then by all means, going for the OS4 specific function is the way to go.
Sounds like a good idea.
Regards,
Hello Hans-Joerg
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
OTOH, I would hate to see us settle for the common factor alone. The claim to be "AmigaOS-Compatible" in MOS and AROS only goes as far as OS 3.1, and quite plainly, if there is a better way to do it in OS 4 I don't think that we should go for the inferior way just to remain compatible. I agree that staying compatible should be attempted (thus, for example, use the inline4 macros instead of writing something), but if there is a function in OS 4 that does the job better than custom written code in OS 3, then by all means, going for the OS4 specific function is the way to go.
I agree completely, we should attempt to write portable code only if it makes sense to do so, if not, well, comment your code & they'll know what that aiien code does :p
Regards
Hans-Joerg Frieden said:
I agree that staying compatible should be attempted (thus, for example, use the inline4 macros instead of writing IExec->something), but if there is a function in OS 4 that does the job better than custom written code in OS 3, then by all means, going for the OS4 specific function is the way to go.
And then the other guys only need to provide that custom written code. If we've identified the worst offences then I'm sure they'll manage. And like has been mentioned, until an actual AROS/MOS coder steps out of the shadows and says hi, it's not worth it. So if any AROS/MOS people are lurking here (or even reading the online archive), come on in, let's discuss it ;-)
Hi,
Mark bond wrote:
Naturally, my point was simply that descisions that get made by us in our efforts will make their jobs easier/harder, if we make it too hard by choosing to do things in a certain way then they'll be off doing their own thing, which presumably will mean they wont be helping doing the bits that are the same,
All well, but we shouldn't make it harder for _US_ to actually port the thing in the first place... For example, have you ever tried iterating through environment variables on OS3 ? Horror... DOS V50+ has appropriate functions that make this as easy as going through your command line arguments...
Bottom line, we should not use features of OS4 just for the sake of using them, but if it makes the thing easier, faster, and better, I would go for the OS4 features...
Regards,
Thomas Frieden wrote:
Hi,
Mark bond wrote:
Naturally, my point was simply that descisions that get made by us in our efforts will make their jobs easier/harder, if we make it too hard by choosing to do things in a certain way then they'll be off doing their own thing, which presumably will mean they wont be helping doing the bits that are the same,
All well, but we shouldn't make it harder for _US_ to actually port the thing in the first place... For example, have you ever tried iterating through environment variables on OS3 ? Horror... DOS V50+ has appropriate functions that make this as easy as going through your command line arguments...
Bottom line, we should not use features of OS4 just for the sake of using them, but if it makes the thing easier, faster, and better, I would go for the OS4 features...
Regards,
Heh, this is where the different view points are very useful, and where those differences are highlighted. I was looking at a higher level series of decisions (ie MUI over Reaction) rather than coding level decisions, I would expect there to be differences in the code between MOS/AROS/AOS4 as you've highlighted and would expect the coders on those platforms to make those changes. My thoughts were simply on the strategic direction of the project I mean if we were to use Reaction rather than MUI then we automatically generate a lot more work for the AROS and MOS teams (sorry to keep using this example its the only one I can think of at the moment). This also highlights an issue for the MOS/AROS people really (and dont worry you have convinced me) if they arent here to point out the ways we could make their life easier we cant help as we dont have the necessary experience with their OS's.
Mark
Hello Thomas
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
Hi,
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.
Let's put it that way: If any MOS or AROS users want to come in, they'll be welcome. They can help with the project an maintain the platform specific code for their respective platform (a lot will be shared anyway).
If no MOS nor AROS users join, then it will be OS4 only, as simple as that.
Agreed.
Regards
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:40:08 +0000, Mick Sutton mick.sutton@dsl.pipex.com wrote:
Hi Andy
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
Some people will just complain about anything. Form the looks of things the majority here are AOS4.x users*, why should they have to do extra work for users of other systems? Quite frankly, if MOS or AROS (or 68k) users want OO.o that badly they can get up off their lazy arses and port it themselves, just like AmigaOS 4.0 user have had to with mPlayer. The source will be available to do it.
Yes that is my view on things too, let it be available on OS4 first and let other people port it afterwards if they are that desperate for it!
That would be one hell of an AROS bounty!
On 11/1/05 3:26 pm, "Chris Fraser" argo@urswerks.homeip.net wrote:
Yes that is my view on things too, let it be available on OS4 first and let other people port it afterwards if they are that desperate for it!
That would be one hell of an AROS bounty!
Indeed, in fact a developer would probably be better off financially, porting back to AROS rather than being directly involved with this port.
Hello Mick
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
Hi Andy
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
Some people will just complain about anything. Form the looks of things the majority here are AOS4.x users*, why should they have to do extra work for users of other systems? Quite frankly, if MOS or AROS (or 68k) users want OO.o that badly they can get up off their lazy arses and port it themselves, just like AmigaOS 4.0 user have had to with mPlayer. The source will be available to do it.
Yes that is my view on things too, let it be available on OS4 first and let other people port it afterwards if they are that desperate for it! I take it having (initially) one target platform will make it a slightly easier task?
Yes, supporting multiple platforms can and most often will complicate matters. What i suggest is that they work together with us in parrallel, porting bits we haven't yet, so we can then port from theirs & vice versa.
I think that's the only way we can work together without getting in eachother's hairs.
Regards
Andy Hall wrote:
OS 3.1 is well over 10 years old FFS. I really don't see the need to be looking backwards with a project that's supposed to bring the platform forwards.
Couldn't agree more :-)
Any developers with CSPPC or BPPC here? We could see to get you into the betatest of OS 4 to raise the number of OS4-users (can't promise anything, management has to decide)
Regards
Hello Andy
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
On 11/1/05 1:12 pm, "Hans-Joerg Frieden"
wrote:
Daniel Weßling wrote:
I in my opinion thinks that we should not base oo on aos4 but on aos3.1 - in this case we would have the possibility to add more coders from the mos/classic os + aros side, which would help getting ready faster. Later on I would suppose to make it aos4 as in the second step.
Is there any MorphOS/AROS coder on the list? I've seen complaints about "locking them out" on various (mostly german) fora, but so far haven't seen anyone actually asking.
Some people will just complain about anything. Form the looks of things the majority here are AOS4.x users*, why should they have to do extra work for users of other systems? Quite frankly, if MOS or AROS (or 68k) users want OO.o that badly they can get up off their lazy arses and port it themselves, just like AmigaOS 4.0 user have had to with mPlayer. The source will be available to do it.
They could atleast *join* before complaining about things wich simply haven't been contemplated yet ;) Don't let some trolls get to you.
OS 3.1 is well over 10 years old FFS. I really don't see the need to be looking backwards with a project that's supposed to bring the platform forwards.
3.1 is obsolete, 3.5 & 3.9 are still in common use, if we can tap into the developers in that segment of the community, why the hell not? Porting from 3.X to 4 is (most likely) alot easier then from linux to 4.0 :)
Regards
Hakuna Matata, Andy Hall!
OO.o that badly they can get up off their lazy arses and port it themselves, just like AmigaOS 4.0 user have had to with mPlayer. The source will be
Not to mention MUI. I completely agree on this... after all they'll have Papyrus office :D Btw, apart from those childish thoughts, it's better and easier to start focusing on a single platform.
Hi Nibunnoichi
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
Not to mention MUI. I completely agree on this... after all they'll have Papyrus office :D
Same thought crossed my mind :-P
Btw, apart from those childish thoughts, it's better and easier to start focusing on a single platform.
Yes of course..... OUR ptlatform of choice OS4!
Regards
Mick
Hello Hans-Joerg
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
Daniel Weßling wrote:
I in my opinion thinks that we should not base oo on aos4 but on aos3.1
- in this case we would have the possibility to add more coders from
the mos/classic os + aros side, which would help getting ready faster. Later on I would suppose to make it aos4 as in the second step.
Is there any MorphOS/AROS coder on the list? I've seen complaints about "locking them out" on various (mostly german) fora, but so far haven't seen anyone actually asking.
...
In any case, it might be possible to cross-develop on all targets at once, but I for one cannot develop for 3.1 - I neither have a system to run it on anymore, nor do I have any compiler or similar that produces 68k.
I'm sure we have plenty of people who can compile & test on 3.x
There are other considerations. For example, we have pthreads for OS 4. Threading could be very well done with that. Is there anything like that for 3.1? AROS? MorphOS? If yes, fine, but if not, additional effort is required to provide them.
I have no idea... these are things wich need looking into at a later state tho.
Regards
Christophe Ochal wrote:
There are other considerations. For example, we have pthreads for OS 4. Threading could be very well done with that. Is there anything like that for 3.1? AROS? MorphOS? If yes, fine, but if not, additional effort is required to provide them.
I have no idea... these are things wich need looking into at a later state tho.
I think we shouldn't look into these. If any MorphOS programmer joins, they could. They are better suited because they know the platform and what is available. Without someone that actually has the platform and knows it I don't think that this would work.
Regards,
Hello Hans-Joerg
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
Christophe Ochal wrote:
There are other considerations. For example, we have pthreads for OS 4. Threading could be very well done with that. Is there anything like that for 3.1? AROS? MorphOS? If yes, fine, but if not, additional effort is required to provide them.
I have no idea... these are things wich need looking into at a later state tho.
I think we shouldn't look into these. If any MorphOS programmer joins, they could. They are better suited because they know the platform and what is available. Without someone that actually has the platform and knows it I don't think that this would work.
I didn't mean that we should do the implementation for MOS or AROS, i meant that when we start coding we should look at the things needed & the coders available.
If for instance there are MOS or AROS devs particitating, a short discussion with them about this could help them (and vice versa), not that we (as in OS4 users/devs) should be writing code for MOS specifics, leave that to those who know the system.
Regards
Hello Daniel
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
openoffice-os4@samfundet.no schrieb am 11.01.05 08:06:57:
Well, OOo is supposed to be compileable with 2.95, so i don't see why we'd have to port GCC 3.4 to OS3.x aswell.
Do you want us to make a classic version too? I thought it was OS4 only.
I was thinking about that, too. IMO it doesn't make sence to support the 68k (for technical and political reasons). But that's just my opinion. Do we have to define a target here ? Are we strictly talking about AOS4 (which is/was my impression, and I'd go for it), or are people on the list more open to other suggestions ?
The target is OS4, however, i will not exclude people who want to make 68k ports of bits & pieces or the whole suit.
I in my opinion thinks that we should not base oo on aos4 but on aos3.1
- in this case we would have the possibility to add more coders from
the mos/classic os + aros side, which would help getting ready faster. Later on I would suppose to make it aos4 as in the second step.
This needs further discussion at a later state.
Regards
Hi Daniel
On 11/01/2005, you wrote:
I in my opinion thinks that we should not base oo on aos4 but on aos3.1
- in this case we would have the possibility to add more coders from
the mos/classic os + aros side, which would help getting ready faster. Later on I would suppose to make it aos4 as in the second step.
Eh? I was under the impression that this project was primarily aimed for OS4, why should 3.1 be a priority? Doesn't make sense, (in taking the piss mode) while your at it how about a port for Sinclair Spectrum?
OS4 first and foremost!
Regards
Mick
-
"Daniel Weßling" -
Andy Hall -
Chris Fraser -
Christophe Ochal -
Hans-Joerg Frieden -
Henning Nielsen Lund -
Mark bond -
Mick Sutton -
Nibunnoichi -
Olegil at home -
Rose Humphrey -
Scott W -
Thomas Frieden