Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [solarisx86] Open Office

Expand Messages
  • Stefan Teleman
    ... And what exactly are, these Linux-specific API s that it is apparently so difficult to get around? I spend a lot of my time in the Userland Consolidation
    Message 1 of 28 , Jun 6, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 21:58, Ian Collins <ian@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > On 06/ 7/11 01:50 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
      > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 21:45, Bob Friesenhahn
      > > <bfriesen@...> wrote:
      > >>
      > >> These libraries are also riddled with non-standard APIs that Linux
      > >> application programmers tend to use.
      > > And that bothers you.
      >
      > It bothers anyone who has to port code that uses them!
      >
      > I think that was Bob's original point: if Linux is the only supported
      > Unix like platform, it's very tempting for the maintainers to use Linux
      > specific APIs.

      And what exactly are, these "Linux-specific API's" that it is
      apparently so difficult to get around?

      I spend a lot of my time in the Userland Consolidation at O. Guess
      what we do there: open source software. I spent a lot of time in the
      SFW Consolidation at Sun. Guess what we did there: open source
      software. I spent, and spend time at KDE. Guess what we do there: open
      source software.

      If this open source software was as dependent on Linux as you make it
      to be, we'd be churning out megabytes of patches in Userland or SFW.
      The fact is, we don't.

      The vast majority of the patches that we write have very little to
      nothing to do with these "Linux APIs". Most of the patches have to do
      with either sloppy coding, or GCC being too permissive. Sloppy coding
      has little to do with Linux, and GCC being sometimes too permissive
      has also very little to do with Linux. GCC is just as permissive on
      Solaris or FreeBSD.

      There is only one broad category of FOSS where Solaris is at a huge
      disadvantage to Linux (and therefore it is difficult to port):
      anything multimedia. That's a direct consequence of Solaris (and all
      the other commercial UNIXes) having shown little to no interest in
      their multimedia capabilities. Linux simply filled a vacuum. Too late
      to whine about it.

      My second point is that there's some fundamental misunderstanding here
      about how API's end up included in a Standard. There isn't a group of
      folks who sit around in secret and make up function calls to be
      included in some future Standard, without any contact with, or input
      from, the real world. The vast majority of new interfaces introduced
      in a new Standard originate in some platform-specific API or idiom
      which gains traction. Want to know how VLA's/ZLA's ended up in C99?
      GCC supported them, they weren't in the C Standard. Want to know how
      vasprintf(3C) && friends ended up in Solaris libc? They're in glibc,
      and not in any Standard.

      [ insert shrieks of indignation about Solaris libc becoming tainted
      with GNU badness here ].

      Finally, want to know what happens when one keep pooh-pooh-ing one's
      competition, and keeps repeating (while sticking one's index fingers
      in one's ears yelling "NANANANANANANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!") that
      they aren't worth paying attention to, because they're all a bunch of
      unwashed hippies who "never read a Standard API book"? The competition
      ends up eating one's lunch. Larry was smart enough to have understood
      this before Scott did.

      --Stefan

      --
      Stefan Teleman
      KDE e.V.
      stefan.teleman@...
    • Ian Collins
      ... Who said anything about Linux specific APIs being difficult to get around? Not me. ... Where did I make anything out? Read the quote above again and pay
      Message 2 of 28 , Jun 6, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        On 06/ 7/11 02:35 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
        > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 21:58, Ian Collins<ian@...> wrote:
        >>
        >>
        >> On 06/ 7/11 01:50 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
        >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 21:45, Bob Friesenhahn
        >>> <bfriesen@...> wrote:
        >>>> These libraries are also riddled with non-standard APIs that Linux
        >>>> application programmers tend to use.
        >>> And that bothers you.
        >> It bothers anyone who has to port code that uses them!
        >>
        >> I think that was Bob's original point: if Linux is the only supported
        >> Unix like platform, it's very tempting for the maintainers to use Linux
        >> specific APIs.
        > And what exactly are, these "Linux-specific API's" that it is
        > apparently so difficult to get around?
        >
        Who said anything about Linux specific APIs being difficult to get
        around? Not me.

        > I spend a lot of my time in the Userland Consolidation at O. Guess
        > what we do there: open source software. I spent a lot of time in the
        > SFW Consolidation at Sun. Guess what we did there: open source
        > software. I spent, and spend time at KDE. Guess what we do there: open
        > source software.
        >
        > If this open source software was as dependent on Linux as you make it
        > to be, we'd be churning out megabytes of patches in Userland or SFW.
        > The fact is, we don't.
        >
        Where did I make anything out? Read the quote above again and pay
        particular attention to the use of "if".
        > My second point is that there's some fundamental misunderstanding here
        > about how API's end up included in a Standard.

        Not on my part.
        > There isn't a group of
        > folks who sit around in secret and make up function calls to be
        > included in some future Standard, without any contact with, or input
        > from, the real world.

        Did I (or anyone else here) say there was?
        > Finally, want to know what happens when one keep pooh-pooh-ing one's
        > competition, and keeps repeating (while sticking one's index fingers
        > in one's ears yelling "NANANANANANANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!") that
        > they aren't worth paying attention to, because they're all a bunch of
        > unwashed hippies who "never read a Standard API book"?

        I'll remember that if I ever start pooh-poohing the competition.

        Your really are arguing with no one...

        --
        Ian.
      • Stefan Teleman
        ... Really. It wasn t you who said: It bothers anyone who has to port code that uses them! and It certainly bugs me when I have to port something to Solaris
        Message 3 of 28 , Jun 6, 2011
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 23:32, Ian Collins <ian@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > On 06/ 7/11 02:35 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
          > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 21:58, Ian Collins<ian@...> wrote:
          > >>
          > >>
          > >> On 06/ 7/11 01:50 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
          > >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 21:45, Bob Friesenhahn
          > >>> <bfriesen@...> wrote:
          > >>>> These libraries are also riddled with non-standard APIs that Linux
          > >>>> application programmers tend to use.
          > >>> And that bothers you.
          > >> It bothers anyone who has to port code that uses them!
          > >>
          > >> I think that was Bob's original point: if Linux is the only supported
          > >> Unix like platform, it's very tempting for the maintainers to use Linux
          > >> specific APIs.
          > > And what exactly are, these "Linux-specific API's" that it is
          > > apparently so difficult to get around?
          > >
          > Who said anything about Linux specific APIs being difficult to get
          > around? Not me.

          Really. It wasn't you who said:

          "It bothers anyone who has to port code that uses them!"

          and

          "It certainly bugs me when I have to port something to Solaris and find
          it uses non-standard APIs".

          So far you haven't provided a single example of these "non-standard
          API's", which "bug you when you have to port something to Solaris".

          Since you speak with such general authority on this subject, you must
          have tremendous experience with porting FOSS software to Solaris. It
          shouldn't be too difficult for you to find and provide at least one
          example you might have run into during the course of your prolific
          Solaris porting activities.

          Never mind. I keep forgetting that this isn't really a developers'
          mailing list, it's a semi-religious advocacy mailing list. By
          definition it can't be bothered with facts. Arguing about licenses is
          much more on-topic.

          --Stefan

          --
          Stefan Teleman
          KDE e.V.
          stefan.teleman@...
        • palowoda
          ... Well as they say; The best, greatest, nicest thing about standards is there are so many to choose from. The Linux crowd must have picked that up from the
          Message 4 of 28 , Jun 6, 2011
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In solarisx86@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Teleman <stefan.teleman@...> wrote:
            >
            > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 23:32, Ian Collins <ian@...> wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > On 06/ 7/11 02:35 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
            > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 21:58, Ian Collins<ian@...> wrote:
            > > >>
            > > >>
            > > >> On 06/ 7/11 01:50 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote:
            > > >>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 21:45, Bob Friesenhahn
            > > >>> <bfriesen@...> wrote:
            > > >>>> These libraries are also riddled with non-standard APIs that Linux
            > > >>>> application programmers tend to use.
            > > >>> And that bothers you.
            > > >> It bothers anyone who has to port code that uses them!
            > > >>
            > > >> I think that was Bob's original point: if Linux is the only supported
            > > >> Unix like platform, it's very tempting for the maintainers to use Linux
            > > >> specific APIs.
            > > > And what exactly are, these "Linux-specific API's" that it is
            > > > apparently so difficult to get around?
            > > >
            > > Who said anything about Linux specific APIs being difficult to get
            > > around? Not me.
            >
            > Really. It wasn't you who said:
            >
            > "It bothers anyone who has to port code that uses them!"
            >
            > and
            >
            > "It certainly bugs me when I have to port something to Solaris and find
            > it uses non-standard APIs".
            >
            > So far you haven't provided a single example of these "non-standard
            > API's", which "bug you when you have to port something to Solaris".
            >
            > Since you speak with such general authority on this subject, you must
            > have tremendous experience with porting FOSS software to Solaris. It
            > shouldn't be too difficult for you to find and provide at least one
            > example you might have run into during the course of your prolific
            > Solaris porting activities.
            >
            > Never mind. I keep forgetting that this isn't really a developers'
            > mailing list, it's a semi-religious advocacy mailing list. By
            > definition it can't be bothered with facts. Arguing about licenses is
            > much more on-topic.
            >

            Well as they say; The best, greatest, nicest thing about standards is there are so many to choose from. The Linux crowd must have picked that up from the Unix crowd. I'm not a developer and wouldn't challenge your experience but I have tried to port some open source applications over to Solaris and found the sound system api's to be a headache. Other than that it's not too bad.

            I hope the recent talk about Redhat using systemd verses the console kit isn't going to turn into an api issue.

            ---Bob
          • Stefan Teleman
            ... There is no Industry Standard controlling sound system API s. There are only different implementation flavors, most of them operating system specific,
            Message 5 of 28 , Jun 7, 2011
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 02:30, palowoda <palowoda@...> wrote:
              >
              > --- In solarisx86@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Teleman <stefan.teleman@...> wrote:
              >

              > Well as they say; The best, greatest, nicest thing about standards is there are so many to choose from. The Linux crowd must have picked that up from the Unix crowd. I'm not a developer and wouldn't challenge your experience but I have tried to port some open source applications over to Solaris and found the sound system api's to be a headache. Other than that it's not too bad.

              There is no Industry Standard controlling sound system API's. There
              are only different implementation flavors, most of them operating
              system specific, which have gone in and out of favor over time.
              There's been attempts at creating a unified sound system API, and none
              became a Standard. Solaris doesn't support ALSA, Linux doesn't support
              /dev/audio ioctl's. They aren't bound to any Standard they must adhere
              to.

              --Stefan

              --
              Stefan Teleman
              KDE e.V.
              stefan.teleman@...
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.