Hello.
I'm not very familiar with LyX and the way it works,
But I understand 1.1.x is a complete rewrite of the kernel and a "gui
independent" thingie,
can't you just make it have more portable behavior?
A good example is Mozilla, which AFAIK was very easy to port to BeOS and
OS/2,
so if LyX is "gui ndependent", why not go all the way to "OS
independent"?
Also, some people want to use LyX but can't since they have windows,
if LyX is ported it will benefit them too they could use it... (and LyX
as it will have more users and worldwide fame)
I think this is a very good idea, and I'll be happy to see if it
succeeds.
(Sorry for the bad english, I'm very tired right now)
Cheers,
Yoni.
jahonen wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Aug 1999 18:43:45 +0200 (METDST), Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
>
> (munch)
>
> >Next to porting 1.1.x, which should not be that hard, I think you
> >should consider a few other options:
> >
> >1) Using a Linux server and export the displays with VNC. This is
> > a very light-weight solution on the Windows clients. All that is
> > needed is a VNC client, which lays in on about 150 Kb.
> > You need a pretty fast network for this solution.
> >
> >2) Port LyX 1.0.x. If you go for the development branch, you
> > should be aware that progress is relatively slow. At the moment, the
> > program is in thousand pieces, and we are slowly rebuilding it
> > with a new kernel. There is at least a year until it is stable.
> > Obviously, if you hire people, you would be able to help us speed
> > up this process, and that would be a great advantage for everybody.
> > However, if you are looking for the fastest port, the better option
> > is to port LyX 1.0.x. This has the mayor advantage of being rock
> > stable, so you are pretty confident that any bugs found are new.
> > Also, it's a stable target, so you can focus on porting, and don't
> > have to merge in changes from the development version that happen all
> > the time.
> > The main disadvantage is that the program would be a dead port --
> > when LyX 1.2 is out, the Windows port of 1.0 would be trailing LyX proper.
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> We have been discussing this internally, that's why my answer took
> some time...
>
> It seems to be the case that it is a much better idea to go for the
> development branch, but... We have been discussing the possibilities
> and decided that if we are going to spend some resources, than we
> definitely do not want to create a dead port. We are, however, willing
> to spend some resources because LyX seems to be an ideal solution for
> our purposes.
>
> So, I have a few questions:
>
> 1) When it might be the best time to start spending resources? By that
> I meant the time to start creating the NT port. At the beginning of
> the next year (i.e. year 2000)?
>
> 2) I might be able to get some people to do something during this
> year, but those people are not very skilled. (Students, actually) Are
> there any parts of the development branch which could be divided into
> a few months student project? Would that speed up the process?
>
> It might be possible to do some work this fall and next spring. This
> fall could probably be a limited student project and during the
> springtime I could get some skilled people to do the porting...
>
> Are there other ways to speed up the process? We are willing to spend
> some money. But not very much... :-)
>
> Thanks in advance and best regards,
>
> Jarmo Ahonen
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Jarmo J Ahonen, PhD, Director Inf. Tech. Research Inst. (ITRI)
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Jyvaskyla
> phone: +358 (0)14 603 021 P.O.Box 35
> fax: +358 (0)14 602 544 40351 Jyvaskyla, FINLAND
--
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck,
is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaner software...
(I was pointed out that Microsoft hardware usualy works)
