[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: OS/2 Porting
jolo@ece.cmu.edu writes:
>In <4iqokc$afa@clarknet.clark.net>, alongton@clark.net (Andy Longton) writes:
>>Well, if Ardi is going to do a Windows port, than it is trivial to do an
>>OS/2 port from the Windows code. Does this look like a good compromise?
>For a first try, perhaps this is good. However, there are many
>optimizations and features to be made use of (WPS, OpenDoc, IFS
>to name a few) that would require more coding than just a DAX
>port.
>I'd be happy with a DAX port, with assurances that a more "native"
>version would be in the works...and that it wouldn't be indefinitely
>back-burnered to an NT version (when there are < 1Mil NT boxes
>out there, compared to at least 8-9Mil OS/2 boxes.)
AGAIN, Let me stress that this is unnecessary.
OS/2 already has GCC (EMX) ... What is Executor written in?
OS/2 has SVGAlib ... What is Executor/Linux usable with?
OS/2 has XFree86 ... What is Executor/Linux also use?
A DAX port for a nonexisting ( as of yet ) Executor Windows version
would be silly, when ARDI can do it now.
Also, ARDI has already stated that they would rather do a fullscreen version
than a PM version.
-- Charles Hunter
>Flames & comments on this last point, *again* followup to
>comp.os.os2.advocacy.
>l8r,
>---
>- Joseph LoCicero, IV | Grey is not the color I expected -
>- jolo@ece.cmu.edu | On someone who's so often touched by grace -
>- Think smarter, not harder | The eyes that hold the promise of perfection -
>- Team OS/2 Use Warp! | Will find the flaw that no one can erase... -
--
Charles R. Hunter
Purdue University School of Science huntercr@cs.purdue.edu
West Lafayette, IN mechainc@expert.cc.purdue.edu
Follow-Ups:
References: