porting troubles
Sergio Brandano
Hi,
Out of blue, why is that Linux now runs stable on six (6) different
platforms but commercial software like Star, Corel, Adobe and IBM,
just to mention a few, are only available for ix86? Are there any
political or technical reasons for it?
Sergio
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powe...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
C.M. Connelly
SB> Out of blue, why is that Linux now runs stable on six (6)
SB> different platforms but commercial software like Star,
SB> Corel, Adobe and IBM, just to mention a few, are only
SB> available for ix86? Are there any political or technical
SB> reasons for it?
There are some possible technical issues. For example, Alpha and
PowerPC processors do some things in radically different ways than
x86 processors. As a result, sloppy code will break on these
systems. (SPARC processors can emulate some of the things that
x86 processors do, so most software written with x86 assumptions
will still work fine on SPARCs.) Code that does a lot of ``on the
metal'' work -- that is, relies on tricks that only work on the
x86, or contains a lot of hand-tuned assembly code -- will also
break.
But I suspect that most of the problem is political and economic.
Linux, you see, is one of the hottest buzzwords around, making
``Linux compatibility'' an important feature to keep your
stockholders happy. But a corporation is only interested in
making money, and from their perspective, most people running
Linux are people who were (or still are) running Windows on their
x86 machines. That makes x86 the biggest market.
Combine the market size with the fact that the Linux kernel
originated on x86, and Linus still concentrates on x86 in his tree
(arguable, except that Crusoe emulates x86 processors), and you
have a situation where corporations equate Linux with x86. Other
architectures are dismissed as ``insignificant market segments'',
and ignored.
It doesn't help that every time a large corporation makes a
formerly Windows-only application available for x86 Linux (often
requiring WINE, which only works on x86), Slashdot and the other
Linux news sites mindlessly trumpet the corporate press release
with headlines such as ``SuperWhatsit for Linux!'' or ``HugeCorp
ports applications to Linux!''. You often can't find out that the
application won't run on anything but x86 until you hunt through
the company's Web site, and sometimes not even until you find
their x86-only RPMs. So long as no one calls the ``news sites''
on their behavior, they'll continue, and corporations making
x86-only software will be able to claim to the world that they
build ``Linux'' software, and be able to show press clippings from
Linux sites to prove it.
That said, one of the big advantages of open-source software is
that people can take the code and port it to other architectures.
Well-written code will compile on non-x86 architectures with few
or no changes. Merely sloppy code (assuming chars are unsigned
and that it's okay to use them instead of ints) can also be fixed
pretty easily. Only code that does lots of scary stuff is really
hard. (The best example of that kind of code that I'm familiar
with is FreeAmp, which runs under x86 Linux and MacOS, but not on
PPC Linux. Yet.)
Sun is making the source for StarOffice available under an
open-source license (see <http://openoffice.org/>, and we may find
that it will compile ``out of the box'' on PowerPC. If not, it
will probably be possible to port it. We'll see when they show us
the code.
CMC
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Behind the counter a boy with a shaven head stared vacantly into space,
a dozen spikes of microsoft protruding from the socket behind his ear.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
C.M. Connelly c...@eskimo.com SHC, DS
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Michael Schmitz
> SB> different platforms but commercial software like Star,
> SB> Corel, Adobe and IBM, just to mention a few, are only
> SB> available for ix86? Are there any political or technical
> SB> reasons for it?
>
> There are some possible technical issues. For example, Alpha and
> PowerPC processors do some things in radically different ways than
> x86 processors. As a result, sloppy code will break on these
And sloppy programming includes the tendency (of companies doing a quick
Linux port) to use Wine (not even winelib) to make regular windows
applications run on Linux. Seen that with Corel, and it wasn't a bit
pretty in the beginning. Seeing that no company is willing to dedicate
enough resources to a clean x86 port, resources for 'fringe' ports will be
marginal.
You are encouraged to write to these companies and educate them on the
facts, and ask for support for multiple architectures. You are equally
encouraged to work on replacement software under a free license (some in
the Debian camp would say you should mainly focus on the latter).
Michael
Nelson Abramson
> Out of blue, why is that Linux now runs stable on six (6) different
> platforms but commercial software like Star, Corel, Adobe and IBM,
> just to mention a few, are only available for ix86? Are there any
> political or technical reasons for it?
<heavily biased> Because they don't feel like paying their programers to bother
to test any platform besides ia32. For a very similar theoretical reason as to
why when companies generally talk about release a "Linux Version" what they
really want to say is an "ia32 Redhat Compatible Version".
</heavily biased>
--Nelson Abramson
--
Make your vote count! http://www.votenader.org
Geert Uytterhoeven
> Out of blue, why is that Linux now runs stable on six (6) different
Only 6? :-)
> platforms but commercial software like Star, Corel, Adobe and IBM,
> just to mention a few, are only available for ix86? Are there any
> political or technical reasons for it?
There are several reasons:
- Most people think Linux == ia32
- Most people think Linux == Red Hat
- The market share for non-ia32 Linux is too small to justify the work
- Commercial software is not endian-clean or not signed/unsigned char-clean
And only the last one is technical...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Geert Uytterhoeven
> > SB> Out of blue, why is that Linux now runs stable on six (6)
> > SB> different platforms but commercial software like Star,
> > SB> Corel, Adobe and IBM, just to mention a few, are only
> > SB> available for ix86? Are there any political or technical
> > SB> reasons for it?
> >
> > There are some possible technical issues. For example, Alpha and
> > PowerPC processors do some things in radically different ways than
> > x86 processors. As a result, sloppy code will break on these
>
> And sloppy programming includes the tendency (of companies doing a quick
> Linux port) to use Wine (not even winelib) to make regular windows
> applications run on Linux. Seen that with Corel, and it wasn't a bit
> pretty in the beginning. Seeing that no company is willing to dedicate
> enough resources to a clean x86 port, resources for 'fringe' ports will be
> marginal.
And M$ just acquired 25% of the shares of Corel, which resulted in a raise of
57% for Corel on the stock market...
Besides, Corel should know the right thing, since the Netwinder has an ARM.
Michael Schmitz
> > Linux port) to use Wine (not even winelib) to make regular windows
> > applications run on Linux. Seen that with Corel, and it wasn't a bit
> > pretty in the beginning. Seeing that no company is willing to dedicate
> > enough resources to a clean x86 port, resources for 'fringe' ports will be
> > marginal.
>
> And M$ just acquired 25% of the shares of Corel, which resulted in a raise of
> 57% for Corel on the stock market...
Sad enough.
> Besides, Corel should know the right thing, since the Netwinder has an ARM.
But didn't they get rid of (sorry, meant to say: spin off) the Netwinder
division a while ago?
Corel may have been close enough to see the light at some point in the
past but got distracted. Or the task of porting the Corel suite natively
proved too difficult (it was rough enough with the first betas even using
Wine so the code may be unportable. There's still enough in the way of
windowmanager-Corel interaction to make you cry).
Michael
Hadess
> > > And sloppy programming includes the tendency (of companies doing a
> quick
> > > Linux port) to use Wine (not even winelib) to make regular windows
> > > applications run on Linux. Seen that with Corel, and it wasn't a bit
> > > pretty in the beginning. Seeing that no company is willing to
> dedicate
> > > enough resources to a clean x86 port, resources for 'fringe' ports
> will be
> > > marginal.
> >
> > And M$ just acquired 25% of the shares of Corel, which resulted in a
> raise of
> > 57% for Corel on the stock market...
>
> Sad enough.
>
> > Besides, Corel should know the right thing, since the Netwinder has an
> ARM.
>
> But didn't they get rid of (sorry, meant to say: spin off) the Netwinder
> division a while ago?
Yep, now Rebel.com charges about $2,000 (P&P is huge for Europe) for something
that's less powerful, and less featured than an iMac... I made my choice.
> Corel may have been close enough to see the light at some point in the
> past but got distracted. Or the task of porting the Corel suite natively
> proved too difficult (it was rough enough with the first betas even
> using
> Wine so the code may be unportable. There's still enough in the way of
> windowmanager-Corel interaction to make you cry).
Using wine as a porting library is not x86 specific. Companies could use it to
quickly port to Linux, testing the response from the community and then doing a
real port. I'm sure Corel could port Wordperfect to PPC/Linux just by running
"make". (They also used an abstraction layer to port Wordperfect to MacOS).
Well, who cares, Star Office code is to be released Friday next week...
/Hadess
http://hadess.net
Michael Schmitz
> > windowmanager-Corel interaction to make you cry).
>
> Using wine as a porting library is not x86 specific. Companies could use it to
> quickly port to Linux, testing the response from the community and then doing a
> real port. I'm sure Corel could port Wordperfect to PPC/Linux just by running
> "make". (They also used an abstraction layer to port Wordperfect to MacOS).
Using Wine _is_ x86 specific in the sense that Wine emulates enough of the
Windows low level API to let x86 code including DLLs run on Linux. To my
knowledge, there is no port of Wine to another architecture. You cpould
argue Wine can be run under some x86 emulator - does making Windows apps
run on VirtualPC constitute a Linux port?
Anyway, the point is moot (yet).
Michael
Sergio Brandano
>And M$ just acquired 25% of the shares of Corel, which resulted in a raise of
>57% for Corel on the stock market...
Oh dear! This means that "Microsoft Linux" is a reality now.
There is no escape! We are tosted! :-P
Sergio
Tim Haynes
> >And M$ just acquired 25% of the shares of Corel, which resulted in a raise of
> >57% for Corel on the stock market...
>
> Oh dear! This means that "Microsoft Linux" is a reality now.
> There is no escape! We are tosted! :-P
Er. Yeah.
Guess that makes it all worthwhile, at least. If M$loth are interested ...
Alternatively, if you play with fire^Wwine, you get burnt^Winebriated.
~Tim
--
The light of the world keeps shining,
Bright in the primal glow | pig...@glutinous.custard.org
| http://piglet.is.dreaming.org
Hadess
> > > Wine so the code may be unportable. There's still enough in the way
> of
> > > windowmanager-Corel interaction to make you cry).
> >
> > Using wine as a porting library is not x86 specific. Companies could
> use it to
> > quickly port to Linux, testing the response from the community and
> then doing a
> > real port. I'm sure Corel could port Wordperfect to PPC/Linux just by
> running
> > "make". (They also used an abstraction layer to port Wordperfect to
> MacOS).
>
> Using Wine _is_ x86 specific in the sense that Wine emulates enough of
> the
> Windows low level API to let x86 code including DLLs run on Linux. To my
> knowledge, there is no port of Wine to another architecture. You cpould
> argue Wine can be run under some x86 emulator - does making Windows apps
> run on VirtualPC constitute a Linux port?
Yes, using wine -as an emulator- is x86 specific. Using wine as what it's
intended in the first place, a library, is not x86 specific. As long as you are
only using libraries supplied by wine (to replace the windows ones) and
recompile the other libraries your program is using (like, say, a gui .dll), you
can run these programs on anything wine compiles on.
Of course, you'll still have the "normal" porting problems, like byte-swapping,
assembly and co.
But, hell yes, it is a *real* port. It runs natively. It's like when you
recompile quake on PPC, you're not emulating DOS.
>
> Anyway, the point is moot (yet).
Wine is well, kinda slow anyways. And it looks like windows.
/Hadess
http://hadess.net
Michael Schmitz
> > the
> > Windows low level API to let x86 code including DLLs run on Linux. To my
> > knowledge, there is no port of Wine to another architecture. You cpould
> > argue Wine can be run under some x86 emulator - does making Windows apps
> > run on VirtualPC constitute a Linux port?
>
> Yes, using wine -as an emulator- is x86 specific. Using wine as what it's
> intended in the first place, a library, is not x86 specific. As long as you are
That's winelib (which I may have mentioned in passing, as in 'Corel didn't
use winelib but wine') for all I understand. Porting using winelib would
be fine, but that would make all the DLLs disappear, wouldn't it?
Michael