Hans-Joerg Frieden wrote:

Max Larsson wrote:

...

These information could be helpfull.

I can only stress again that the Mac people actually already *have* a good X11 server implementation. I don't think that we want to have OOo in an AmiX11 window, so the only option would be to re-implement X ourselves.

XAmi worked very nice for me, I've used X11 a bunch of times before on Amiga. When it comes to time-to-market, X11 is going to be YEARS ahead of a native port. At least that's what the analysis from the guy behind NeoOffice/J suggests. So while most people should work on the native things, we should make sure it stays useable on XAmi at all times.

Tony Wyatt wrote:

Hi Ole-Egil,

On 17/01/2005, you wrote:

...

XAmi worked very nice for me, I've used X11 a bunch of times before on Amiga. When it comes to time-to-market, X11 is going to be YEARS ahead of a native port.

Is that the "AmiWin" from Aminet?

cheers

Tony,

No XAmi is a different beast see here:

http://dspach.free.fr/amiga/xami/

Mark

Tony Wyatt wrote:

Hi Ole-Egil,

On 17/01/2005, you wrote:

...

XAmi worked very nice for me, I've used X11 a bunch of times before on Amiga. When it comes to time-to-market, X11 is going to be YEARS ahead of a native port.

Is that the "AmiWin" from Aminet?

No.

http://dspach.free.fr/amiga/xami/

Hans-Joerg Frieden wrote:

Ole-Egil Hvitmyren wrote:

...

XAmi worked very nice for me, I've used X11 a bunch of times before on Amiga. When it comes to time-to-market, X11 is going to be YEARS ahead of a native port. At least that's what the analysis from the guy behind NeoOffice/J suggests. So while most people should work on the native things, we should make sure it stays useable on XAmi at all times.

MacOS' X11 is a rootless server that runs on their desktop, using Aqua'ish windows and all. If you already have something like that, then I guess it would be the better idea. It might even be the better idea to go the same route for an Amiga port, I just simply don't know what would be more work.

Regards,

XAmi is a 68k X11 server from the web page:

Xami is an X11 server for Amiga that can take advantage of hardware capabilities of the graphic system for acceleration. It may be launched from Workbench or CLI, uses the current keyboard mapping and does not need any extra libraries such as ixemul.

There is no source on the web page so it looks like it'll probab ly only be available in 68k version, probably not what we want for a beast sucha s OpenOffice.org.

Although it may be an interim solution, whilst we get the GUI ported?

Mark

Le 17/01/2005, Mark bond a écrit :

XAmi is a 68k X11 server from the web page:

Xami is an X11 server for Amiga that can take advantage of hardware capabilities of the graphic system for acceleration. It may be launched from Workbench or CLI, uses the current keyboard mapping and does not need any extra libraries such as ixemul.

There is no source on the web page so it looks like it'll probab ly only be available in 68k version, probably not what we want for a beast sucha s OpenOffice.org.

I would remind those present that the Xami page is hosted by free.*fr* :)

Perhaps I should speak nicely to the young gentleman and see if a OS4 native version might not be forthcoming?

Salutations

Le 17/01/2005, Ochal Christophe a écrit :

Op 17-jan-05 om 16:58 heeft Rose Humphrey het volgende geschreven:

...

I would remind those present that the Xami page is hosted by free.*fr* :)

Perhaps I should speak nicely to the young gentleman and see if a OS4 native version might not be forthcoming?

You could try :)

Trying ;)

Salutations

Hi,

my post, wasn't about to suggest using X11. I think i could be usefull for the first step, but a native gui port is the way to go.

My intention was just to share the information others have made with a port of OpenOffice and maybe to learn from them.

Max

Hans-Joerg Frieden wrote:

...

MacOS' X11 is a rootless server that runs on their desktop, using Aqua'ish windows and all. If you already have something like that, then I guess it would be the better idea. It might even be the better idea to go the same route for an Amiga port, I just simply don't know what would be more work.

A rootless X-server would certainly be a great addition to OS 4, but IMO we should stick to native GFX. Unless someone wants to make such a product anyway and wants to contribute ;-)

regards

Alexander Lohrmann

-- "It can't rain all the time"

---

Openoffice-os4 mailing list Openoffice-os4@samfundet.no https://lists.samfundet.no/mailman/listinfo/openoffice-os4

Ole-Egil Hvitmyren wrote:

Hans-Joerg Frieden wrote:

...

Max Larsson wrote:

...

These information could be helpfull.

I can only stress again that the Mac people actually already *have* a good X11 server implementation. I don't think that we want to have OOo in an AmiX11 window, so the only option would be to re-implement X ourselves.

XAmi worked very nice for me, I've used X11 a bunch of times before on Amiga. When it comes to time-to-market, X11 is going to be YEARS ahead of a native port. At least that's what the analysis from the guy behind NeoOffice/J suggests. So while most people should work on the native things, we should make sure it stays useable on XAmi at all times.

You know that the J on NeoOffice/J stands for Java... IIRC does NeoOffice/J use Java very much... and it is not the official OOo port for MacOS X - I know it is the only one that works at the moment, but it is still not the official one as they have changed a lot of the code (the official OOo port for MacOS X is going to be build directly from the OOo CVS sources).

Wouldn't it be better if we at the beginning - if it is needed - would make use of XAmi or any other X11 port that can be used on OS4, and when we make it work on Workbench, using AGG, when X11 support would be dropped? I think it would be a step in the wrong direction, if we should use X11 to run our Office suite :-( I think I would more likely restart the computer and use it on Debian GNU/Linux then.