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

Re: Supported platforms

Expand Messages
  • Tony Mechelynck
    ... SeaMonkey s MacOsX distribution is a Universal Binary (including separate machine code for both PPC and Intel Macs). Unlike Vim and Emacs (both of
    Message 1 of 32 , Nov 26, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      On 27/11/08 00:44, Ben Schmidt wrote:
      > Teemu Likonen wrote:
      >> Tony Mechelynck (2008-11-25 09:00 +0100) wrote:
      >>
      >>> SeaMonkey and Thunderbird are not only open-source and free-software
      >>> but also cross-platform, maybe not as much as Vim but certainly more
      >>> than Emacs.)
      >> Your knowledge about different platforms is likely greater than mine and
      >> I'm curious about this question of "being more cross-platform". How is
      >> it measured in the open-source world? Is it about supporting different
      >> operating systems? Or about different CPU architectures?
      >
      > I think it's all of the above. But it's not about what you list on your
      > website: it's about what actually works. In effect, it becomes about
      > working on systems that are different enough to require programmer
      > effort, and within the context of the type of software being discussed.
      > It's about how many systems, out of all those in existence, the user can
      > compile and run the code on without having to know how to hack it.
      >
      > I.e. For much software, different architectures are not an issue--you
      > just run it through a different compiler and it works. Though code that
      > relies on the endianness of the architecture will be less cross-platform
      > than code that doesn't. For things like compilers, many more aspects of
      > the architectures need to be considered!
      >
      > Similarly, getting many things to work on an Amiga as well as Unix
      > requires a lot of effort, so that distinction needs to be considered
      > when evaluating 'cross-platform-ness'. But not necessarily for all code:
      > for a simple filter, the distinction simply may not be relevant.
      >
      >> Or officially distributing more different ready-to-run builds?
      >
      > I don't think it's that. It's a property of the codebase, not a measure
      > of the community's level of support for different systems.
      >
      >> SeaMonkey
      >> =========
      >> Windows (32bit), Mac OS X, Linux (x86), Linux/x86_64, OS/2,
      >> Solaris 10 (SPARC), AIX 5L, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, IRIX,
      >> Solaris and BeOS / magnussoft ZETA
      >>
      >> Vim
      >> ===
      >> Unix, MS-DOS, MS-Windows, Amiga, OS/2, Macintosh, QNX, Agenda, Sharp Zaurus,
      >> HP Jornada, MS-Windows CE, Compaq Tru64 Unix on Alpha, Open VMS, RISC OS,
      >> MorphOS, Cygwin (console), Cygwin (with GTK GUI)
      >>
      >> Emacs
      >> =====
      >> GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, AIX 4.3.3 and higher, Mac OS X, MS DOS,
      >> MS Windows, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, SunOS, Ultrix,
      >> Berkeley Unix (BSD) 4.1-4.4, Esix, Microport, SCO Unix,
      >> System V releases 0 to 4.0.4, Uniplus 5.2, Xenix
      >
      > So...how to compare? Well, Vim lists very broadly 'Unix', which quite
      > probably covers the BSDs, Solaris, System V, SCO, Linux, and others.
      > They're not different enough for Vim to list them separately. But notice
      > that Vim has Amiga and Macintosh which the others don't go near.

      SeaMonkey's "MacOsX" distribution is a "Universal Binary" (including
      separate machine code for both PPC and Intel Macs). Unlike Vim and Emacs
      (both of which can run on a raw-text console), SeaMonkey is of course
      GUI-only, which means some systems (such as MS-Dos) are irrelevant.

      > Seamonkey has BeOS which the others don't touch. Emacs probably works in
      > Cygwin, though it isn't listed separately, but doesn't go near OS/2.
      >
      > You could get better lists to compare by going through each and if that
      > platform actually works for either of the other pieces of software,
      > adding it to their lists. It's not without difficulties, either, but it
      > would help.
      >
      > Looking at the lists myself, and having a fairly limited knowledge of
      > OSes and architectures, I'd say to me it looks like Vim is most
      > cross-platform, followed a fair way behind by SeaMonkey, closely
      > followed by Emacs.
      >
      > Ben.

      Best regards,
      Tony.
      --
      Fuch's Warning:
      If you actually look like your passport photo, you aren't well
      enough to travel.

      --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
      You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
      For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
      -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
    • Tony Mechelynck
      ... SeaMonkey s MacOsX distribution is a Universal Binary (including separate machine code for both PPC and Intel Macs). Unlike Vim and Emacs (both of
      Message 32 of 32 , Nov 26, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        On 27/11/08 00:44, Ben Schmidt wrote:
        > Teemu Likonen wrote:
        >> Tony Mechelynck (2008-11-25 09:00 +0100) wrote:
        >>
        >>> SeaMonkey and Thunderbird are not only open-source and free-software
        >>> but also cross-platform, maybe not as much as Vim but certainly more
        >>> than Emacs.)
        >> Your knowledge about different platforms is likely greater than mine and
        >> I'm curious about this question of "being more cross-platform". How is
        >> it measured in the open-source world? Is it about supporting different
        >> operating systems? Or about different CPU architectures?
        >
        > I think it's all of the above. But it's not about what you list on your
        > website: it's about what actually works. In effect, it becomes about
        > working on systems that are different enough to require programmer
        > effort, and within the context of the type of software being discussed.
        > It's about how many systems, out of all those in existence, the user can
        > compile and run the code on without having to know how to hack it.
        >
        > I.e. For much software, different architectures are not an issue--you
        > just run it through a different compiler and it works. Though code that
        > relies on the endianness of the architecture will be less cross-platform
        > than code that doesn't. For things like compilers, many more aspects of
        > the architectures need to be considered!
        >
        > Similarly, getting many things to work on an Amiga as well as Unix
        > requires a lot of effort, so that distinction needs to be considered
        > when evaluating 'cross-platform-ness'. But not necessarily for all code:
        > for a simple filter, the distinction simply may not be relevant.
        >
        >> Or officially distributing more different ready-to-run builds?
        >
        > I don't think it's that. It's a property of the codebase, not a measure
        > of the community's level of support for different systems.
        >
        >> SeaMonkey
        >> =========
        >> Windows (32bit), Mac OS X, Linux (x86), Linux/x86_64, OS/2,
        >> Solaris 10 (SPARC), AIX 5L, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, IRIX,
        >> Solaris and BeOS / magnussoft ZETA
        >>
        >> Vim
        >> ===
        >> Unix, MS-DOS, MS-Windows, Amiga, OS/2, Macintosh, QNX, Agenda, Sharp Zaurus,
        >> HP Jornada, MS-Windows CE, Compaq Tru64 Unix on Alpha, Open VMS, RISC OS,
        >> MorphOS, Cygwin (console), Cygwin (with GTK GUI)
        >>
        >> Emacs
        >> =====
        >> GNU/Linux, FreeBSD, AIX 4.3.3 and higher, Mac OS X, MS DOS,
        >> MS Windows, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, SunOS, Ultrix,
        >> Berkeley Unix (BSD) 4.1-4.4, Esix, Microport, SCO Unix,
        >> System V releases 0 to 4.0.4, Uniplus 5.2, Xenix
        >
        > So...how to compare? Well, Vim lists very broadly 'Unix', which quite
        > probably covers the BSDs, Solaris, System V, SCO, Linux, and others.
        > They're not different enough for Vim to list them separately. But notice
        > that Vim has Amiga and Macintosh which the others don't go near.

        SeaMonkey's "MacOsX" distribution is a "Universal Binary" (including
        separate machine code for both PPC and Intel Macs). Unlike Vim and Emacs
        (both of which can run on a raw-text console), SeaMonkey is of course
        GUI-only, which means some systems (such as MS-Dos) are irrelevant.

        > Seamonkey has BeOS which the others don't touch. Emacs probably works in
        > Cygwin, though it isn't listed separately, but doesn't go near OS/2.
        >
        > You could get better lists to compare by going through each and if that
        > platform actually works for either of the other pieces of software,
        > adding it to their lists. It's not without difficulties, either, but it
        > would help.
        >
        > Looking at the lists myself, and having a fairly limited knowledge of
        > OSes and architectures, I'd say to me it looks like Vim is most
        > cross-platform, followed a fair way behind by SeaMonkey, closely
        > followed by Emacs.
        >
        > Ben.

        Best regards,
        Tony.
        --
        Fuch's Warning:
        If you actually look like your passport photo, you aren't well
        enough to travel.

        --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
        You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
        For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
        -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.