Darren New wrote:
> Um, yes. So you're saying "Yes, MS made it possible to run the same 
> executables on multiple operating systems over the course of decades. 
> But that doesn't count, because it wasn't magic"?

no, I'm simply saying that those "multiple operating systems" are using 
the same old code from the same single company to handle old apps, so 
that doesn't count as multiple operating systems.

Multiple OSes in my book mean "Mac, Linux and Windows" rather than W95, 
W98 or WNT.

I don't know how to make it any more clear so I'm stopping now.

>> What really made cross-platform software a little more closer to 
>> reality were industry-strength standards,
> 
> Like what? I haven't seen any standards that actually allow for programs 
> to run cross-platform. Maybe I'm not following what you mean.

A pure Java/Python/whatever program using standard interprocess 
communication channels to deal with the underlying OS and using a 
cross-platform GUI such as Swing/GTK+ will run in pretty much any major 
OS unaltered.  Blender the graphical modeller has its interface 
implemented in OpenGL, which means little problem porting it everywhere. 
  Coding a database using strict ISO SQL will make it pretty much 
portable among many implementations.

> The internet doesn't make programs run cross-platform. It just gives you 
> a way to access them when they're running on someone else's platform.

It doesn't really matter where a web app is running as long as it does 
what I mean.

>> quite a few cross-platform development languages (Java, Python, Perl etc)
> 
> And BASIC. Which used to run everywhere. And was promoted and 
> implemented by MS (amongst others).

Visual Basic is not plain Basic.  Heck, OpenOffice Basic is neither. 
Yet, since the host app of OOBasic is cross-platform, OOBasic apps are 
far more portable than VB.

> Note that Java, Python, etc are all libraries controlled by one company 
> or individual that give you cross-platform APIs for your code. Just like 
> Win32.

bzzt.  wrong!  They have Foundations behind them and many, many 
individuals from different places moving them forward by meritocracy. 
Everyone can apply to contribute to their development, including 
individuals from Microsoft.

> Except they don't provide executables.

They sure do.  And they are truly cross-platform.

> I agree that open source software is probably a better way to do stuff, 
> as long as you aren't worried about making a living at it.

the folks at RedHat or Novell seem to be doing fine.

> Uh, so, how much Linux software runs without recompiling under Solaris? 
> Does that actually work?

no, different executable format.  One of the areas that are not 
standardized.  But the source is there and autoconf makes sure the right 
  compilation flags for your system is used.  Or just grab it from the 
binary repositories of modern Linux distros...

> I think the only thing that's actually going to satisfy you is virtual 
> machine stuff, like VMWare.

no, because that wold require Windows to be running underneath as well.

If you want truly cross-platform apps without recompiling, target a 
programming language with a cross-platform runtime.  You won't need to 
recompile your apps, but should install the proper runtime for your 
system, which will be provided from the people who compiled them to your 
system.

Post a reply to this message