[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