Re: porting troubles
Quoting Michael Schmitz <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> > > And sloppy programming includes the tendency (of companies doing a
> > > Linux port) to use Wine (not even winelib) to make regular windows
> > > applications run on Linux. Seen that with Corel, and it wasn't a bit
> > > pretty in the beginning. Seeing that no company is willing to
> > > enough resources to a clean x86 port, resources for 'fringe' ports
> will be
> > > marginal.
> > And M$ just acquired 25% of the shares of Corel, which resulted in a
> raise of
> > 57% for Corel on the stock market...
> Sad enough.
> > Besides, Corel should know the right thing, since the Netwinder has an
> But didn't they get rid of (sorry, meant to say: spin off) the Netwinder
> division a while ago?
Yep, now Rebel.com charges about $2,000 (P&P is huge for Europe) for something
that's less powerful, and less featured than an iMac... I made my choice.
> Corel may have been close enough to see the light at some point in the
> past but got distracted. Or the task of porting the Corel suite natively
> proved too difficult (it was rough enough with the first betas even
> Wine so the code may be unportable. There's still enough in the way of
> windowmanager-Corel interaction to make you cry).
Using wine as a porting library is not x86 specific. Companies could use it to
quickly port to Linux, testing the response from the community and then doing a
real port. I'm sure Corel could port Wordperfect to PPC/Linux just by running
"make". (They also used an abstraction layer to port Wordperfect to MacOS).
Well, who cares, Star Office code is to be released Friday next week...