| All Forums |
Register |
Login |
Search |
Subscriptions |
My Profile |
Inbox |
| Tool Warehouse |
FAQs |
Resources |
Help |
Member List |
Address Book |
Logout |
|
|
Worthwhile ports?
|
Logged in as: Guest |
| Users viewing this topic: none |
|
Login  |
|
|
 Worthwhile ports? - Mar. 22, '04, 11:40:01 AM
|
|
|
mwedwards
Posts: 27
Joined: Mar. 21, '04,
Status: offline
|
It could be useful to run HTTP clients like Mozilla and Netscape, etc., and SMTP clients like Evolution under SFU (i.e., unit testing thin client apps under windows without vmware or cygwin). How much effort would be required to build these applications under SFU?
In a similar vein, what kind of effort would be required to get programs that were once packaged under SFU 3.0 (specifically XEmacs) to run under 3.5?
Should an intermediate-level Windows developer be capable of building any of these apps under SFU within a reasonable timeframe (say a few hours/days)?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
 RE: Worthwhile ports? - Mar. 22, '04, 12:00:58 PM
|
|
|
markfunk
Posts: 673
Joined: Mar. 31, '03,
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mwedwards
It could be useful to run HTTP clients like Mozilla and Netscape, etc., and SMTP clients like Evolution under SFU (i.e., unit testing thin client apps under windows without vmware or cygwin). How much effort would be required to build these applications under SFU?
Are there not versions of these clients ported to Windows already ? If so, then what's the benefit of porting to Interix ? (ie. what are you unit testing and why do you want to test it on Windows ?)
The porting effort to Interix will depend on the api's/system calls used by these client applications. Are all the socket apis and socket protocol functionality used by these clients supported by Winsock (eg. does Windows provide all the protocol support necessary) ? And does Interix provide access and support to this functionality in WinSock ?
quote:
ORIGINAL: mwedwards
In a similar vein, what kind of effort would be required to get programs that were once packaged under SFU 3.0 (specifically XEmacs) to run under 3.5?
There never was any emacs implementation packaged with SFU3.0.
Why do you think so ? Where did you get your version of Xemacs ?
The only version of emacs for Interix is available at ftp.interopsystems.com/beta/emacs.
quote:
ORIGINAL: mwedwards
Should an intermediate-level Windows developer be capable of building any of these apps under SFU within a reasonable timeframe (say a few hours/days)?
Assuming Interix supports all the functionality required by the clients, assume the same amount of time that a Windows programmer would be able to port a UNIX app to another Unix system.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Worthwhile ports? - Mar. 22, '04, 12:23:22 PM
|
|
|
Rodney
Posts: 3728
Joined: Jul. 9, '02,
From: /Tools lab
Status: offline
|
Mozilla/Netscape could be interesting to see how it behaves. It might be more useful for where it puts/stores things because of the Unix model for e-mail.
> Should an intermediate-level Windows developer be capable of building
> any of these apps under SFU within a reasonable timeframe (say a few hours/days)?
The skill set needed is more Unix developer than Windows developer.
That stated, some applications require a small amount of work and
other require more work. You don't really know until you start to
do it. And one version/release of the same software can be easier
or harder depending how the development of it is going.
The Xemacs posted in /Tools is a Win32 version that was asked for by
some people. It's on a different development than emacs.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Worthwhile ports? - Mar. 22, '04, 12:39:10 PM
|
|
|
mwedwards
Posts: 27
Joined: Mar. 21, '04,
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: markfunk
Are there not versions of these clients ported to Windows already ? If so, then what's the benefit of porting to Interix ? (ie. what are you unit testing and why do you want to test it on Windows ?)
Thanks for your quick reply.
Unit testing in the past has led to the discovery of rendering/scripting issues with specific versions of these products that were _not_ reproducible in the win32 ports. It would save the developer time and hardware resources to have the ability to run these apps under SFU. Of course the software would eventually need to be tested under an actual UNIX OS, but unit testing locally under SFU _could_ help eliminate certain platform-specific issues earlier in the development cycle. We could always set up a shared Linux box for this sort of thing... I'm just trying to identify all of our options here, without overlooking SFU.
And of course it goes without saying that running software of any kind under SFU is simply cool. :)
quote:
ORIGINAL: markfunk
The porting effort to Interix will depend on the api's/system calls used by these client applications. Are all the socket apis and socket protocol functionality used by these clients supported by Winsock (eg. does Windows provide all the protocol support necessary) ? And does Interix provide access and support to this functionality in WinSock ?
Any gut feeling on this one? TCP/IP, HTTP, SMTP, POP3, IMAP, NNTP are the typical protocols used by these kinds of applications.
quote:
ORIGINAL: markfunk
There never was any emacs implementation packaged with SFU3.0.
Why do you think so ? Where did you get your version of Xemacs ?
The only version of emacs for Interix is available at ftp.interopsystems.com/beta/emacs.
I'm running that, and it's great (and a big THANKS to Interop for taking the time to put this together).
The XEmacs package I'm referring to can be found toward the bottom of the following page:
http://www.interopsystems.com/tools/warehouse-3_0.htm
What kind of effort would be needed to build that on 3.5?
quote:
ORIGINAL: markfunk
Assuming Interix supports all the functionality required by the clients, assume the same amount of time that a Windows programmer would be able to port a UNIX app to another Unix system.
Gotcha -- SFU is no quirkier than your average UNIX-based OS.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Worthwhile ports? - Mar. 22, '04, 12:43:44 PM
|
|
|
mwedwards
Posts: 27
Joined: Mar. 21, '04,
Status: offline
|
Just realized that the "Win32" icon next to the XEmacs reference means it's just a link to the standard Win32 build available on xemacs.org. Because this link wasn't included on the 3.5 page I assumed it was specific to 3.0. Sorry for the confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Worthwhile ports? - Mar. 22, '04, 12:51:05 PM
|
|
|
Rodney
Posts: 3728
Joined: Jul. 9, '02,
From: /Tools lab
Status: offline
|
> Any gut feeling on this one? TCP/IP, HTTP, SMTP, POP3, IMAP, NNTP
> are the typical protocols used by these kinds of applications.
Other than TCP/IP in your list, the others all layer on the standard
sockets calls. They are protocol standards one layer up.
Right now sendmail ships and it does SMTP,
popclient does POP3 (client side), etc.
So there should be no problem with most of the applications that
do these protocol.
I think what Mark was meaning are the "lower" level protocols such
as raw and QOS things.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Worthwhile ports? - Mar. 22, '04, 2:45:45 PM
|
|
|
mwedwards
Posts: 27
Joined: Mar. 21, '04,
Status: offline
|
These are standard Internet client programs. It hadn't occurred to me that these programs might be likely to utilise other lower-level protocols beside tcp/ip.
Thanks for your replies...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Worthwhile ports? - Mar. 22, '04, 3:27:33 PM
|
|
|
Rodney
Posts: 3728
Joined: Jul. 9, '02,
From: /Tools lab
Status: offline
|
FWIW: It's rare that they will.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Worthwhile ports? - Mar. 23, '04, 11:01:44 AM
|
|
|
javacody
Posts: 17
Joined: Mar. 16, '04,
Status: offline
|
Does Java work on interix?
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
|
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
Printable Version
