Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: OpenOffice.org 3.0 Already on Millions of PCs

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> LusoTec wrote:
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> < snip >
>>> Although I have started porting the apps (using QT), there still will be
>>> no Mac-version. QT is available for Mac too, but I still will not
>>> bother. The initial costs to port it to Mac would not be made back in
>>> several years
>> I develop in GNU/Linux and usually only build for GNU/Linux and Windows,
>> usually using cross-compile in GNU/Linux using MingW and test using wine,
>> but have build environments Windows, GNU/FreeBSD and Mac OS X setup.
>> These build environments are setup in virtual machines.
>> With a single command I can build for them all. It starts the virtual
>> machines, copies the tar ball, uncompresses, configures, makes, tests,
>> packages, copies the package back and terminates the virtual machine. It
>> took some work to get everything automated and I don't use it much but
>> just saying that I can do it makes me look cool. Am I a geek or what? :)
> Well, I try to not use the wine route, although nearly all windows apps
> I've done the last years work flawlessly in wine.

I use wine to quickly test a executable but I always end up testing in on
Windows both in a virtual machine and finally in native mode. I don't
remember ever having a executable that worked on wine and did not work on
> So, by using QT I get a source code which compiles on linux, windows and
> OSX, without any change. Works like a treat

Yes, it does. I also use QT and it is a very portable API.

> But still, the app(s) are that big and have so many features that it is a
> absolute *must* to test them on their native environment.

I test in GNU/Linux (obviously), GNU/FreeBSD and Windows both on a virtual
machine and on the machine. For Mac OSX I only test in a virtual machine, I
don't have a Mac computer and have no intention of buying one.

> So, I'd not only have to buy the extra OSX QT-licence, I would also have
> to buy a otherwise totally useless Mac to compile / test / run the apps.
> Since anything apple not as slow as a slug on tranquilizer this means real
> dough to hand over, in addition to the QT licence
> No, thanks. I gladly pass that one

Yep, Mac OSX on a virtual machine is very slow but usually the test are
fully automated, if it takes 3 hours instead of 30 minutes ... so what!

Some day I will try to install Mac OSX directly on the hardware. I have read
somewhere that there are patches that allow it and since I already have a
license it wont cost me extra.


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index