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

Re: [solarisx86] Open Office

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.