[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

RE: OS2 Porting



Clifford T. Matthews wrote:
> 
> We are doing everything in our power to get Executor 2 out the door
> ASAP.  We can not work on a native OS/2 port until after Executor 2 is
> shipping.  It is true that we have slipped significantly and for this
> I apologize and am working hard to see that we don't slip much more.
> 
> Today we decided that there will be no 1.99r; after 1.99q12 is
> released we will finish beta 0 and begin work on beta 1.
> 
> >>>>> "Doug" == Doug Wing <doug_wing@il.us.swissbank.com> writes:
> In article <9603230019.AA02168@ch1d92iwk> Doug Wing <doug_wing@il.us.swissbank.com> writes:
> 
>     >>  I just have to respond to all of the OS/2 people saying that
>     >> an OS/2 port would be the best thing for ARDI to do...
>     >>
>     >> While I like OS/2, own it (though I'm not currently running
>     >> it...) and think that it should be much more widespread than it
>     >> is. I don't agree that ARDI should put a priority to porting
>     >> Executor to OS/2.
> 
>     Doug> If you add up the total Linux users and Nextstep users they
>     Doug> still total less than OS/2 users.
> 
> We do all our development under Linux, so the incremental cost of a
> Linux port is nil.  We have had to spend a little more time on packing
> our internal Linux port, but even that was a very small amount of
> time.  The bug reports we receive from our Linux users have more than
> made up for this amount of time already because, since Linux is our
> normal development environment, bugs reported under E/L are easier to
> track down and 9 times out of 10 the same bugs occur in E/L and E/NS,
> anyway.
> 
> Our first commercial release was Executor for NEXTSTEP.  Due to this,
> a large portion of our customer base is NEXTSTEP users.  When we added
> color support, our NEXTSTEP port broke, so we did actually have to
> spend a little bit of time reporting Executor to NEXTSTEP, but that
> time was less than what a totally new port would take, since Mat,
> Cotton and I are already proficient NEXTSTEP programmers.
> 
>     Doug> Win95 still runs on top
>     Doug> of DOS, so a Win95 does not seem as critical as an OS/2
>     Doug> port.  E/D runs on DOS as does Win95.  There is only one
>     Doug> DOS/Win program I run and that is Executor.  I had to turn
>     Doug> DOS support on to run E/D and will be glad to turn support
>     Doug> off as soon as I can.
> 
> Win 95 / Win NT users will profit from having a native port, just like
> OS/2 users will profit from having a native port.  We do not have the
> resources to do either port yet.  All future porting decisions will be
> made after Executor 2 ships.
> 
I haven't been folling this thread for long, but nobody has mentioned
DAX, so I might as well.

DAX, the Developer API Extentions for OS/2 are a port of about 90% of
the WIN32 api to OS2, and are availible  now from IBM.

If ARDI decides to do an OS2 port,  this might be a good  place  to
start.

Joseph