FLTK 1.3.0 RC 1 released!
Hi there, Good news, it looks as though FLTK-1.3.0 is close to an official release. This is an important fact because once dillo is ported to it, distros repos could carry dillo again. http://fltk.org/articles.php?L1028 -- Cheers Jorge.-
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:26:05 -0500, Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
Hi there,
Good news, it looks as though FLTK-1.3.0 is close to an official release. This is an important fact because once dillo is ported to it, distros repos could carry dillo again.
Out of curiosity, who's not carrying it? It's been a while since I've run Linux, but OpenBSD has dillo-2.2 in its package tree. ~Benjamin
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 11:48:30AM -0500, Benjamin Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:26:05 -0500, Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
Hi there,
Good news, it looks as though FLTK-1.3.0 is close to an official release. This is an important fact because once dillo is ported to it, distros repos could carry dillo again.
Out of curiosity, who's not carrying it? It's been a while since I've run Linux, but OpenBSD has dillo-2.2 in its package tree.
Mainly GNU/Linux flavours. Most of them have a policy of not packing unreleased libraries (quite understandable if you ask me). FLTK-2.0 was never released so, as a most unfortunate side effect, we were left out of the repositories. -- Cheers Jorge.-
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:38:55 -0500, Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
Mainly GNU/Linux flavours.
Most of them have a policy of not packing unreleased libraries (quite understandable if you ask me). FLTK-2.0 was never released so, as a most unfortunate side effect, we were left out of the repositories.
That makes sense, though then again I've seen a lot of "released" code in distributions much worse than FLTK-2.0... One thing I like about Windows development is that, with comparatively little effort, you can produce a single executable that runs on any Windows system. Binary compatibility isn't possible to nearly that extent on Linux/Unix -- the software, even the culture makes it limited and extremely difficult at best. Part of the reason I stopped Unix development, but I digress. I know you probably see things a bit differently. ~Benjamin
To: dillo-dev@dillo.org Subject: Re: [Dillo-dev] FLTK 1.3.0 RC 1 released! Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 16:41:04 -0500 From: obeythepenguin@gmail.com
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:38:55 -0500, Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
Mainly GNU/Linux flavours.
Most of them have a policy of not packing unreleased libraries (quite understandable if you ask me). FLTK-2.0 was never released so, as a most unfortunate side effect, we were left out of the repositories.
That makes sense, though then again I've seen a lot of "released" code in distributions much worse than FLTK-2.0...
One thing I like about Windows development is that, with comparatively little effort, you can produce a single executable that runs on any Windows system. Binary compatibility isn't possible to nearly that extent on Linux/Unix -- the software, even the culture makes it limited and extremely difficult at best. Part of the reason I stopped Unix development, but I digress. I know you probably see things a bit differently.
~Benjamin
My apologies to Mr. Johnson - I am used to another list I am on where hitting reply sends it to the list. ?I should have checked before I hit send. So this is perhaps a little off topic, but what is the status of dillo with regard to FLTK 1.3.0? ?Will it be ported to that, or is the plan to continue with the "dead" FLTK 2?For me, it does not really matter a lot - I just grab the source and build it myself, but I was just curious about the direction you fellows are taking.
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 07:53:20PM -0500, Rob S. wrote:
[...] So this is perhaps a little off topic, but what is the status of dillo with regard to FLTK 1.3.0? ?Will it be ported to that, or is the plan to continue with the "dead" FLTK 2?
As laconically stated in our [Current Plans] link, the idea is to give high priority to the FLTK 1.3 port (for the reasons higuita summarized very well in a former post). -- Cheers Jorge.-
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 04:41:04PM -0500, Benjamin Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 15:38:55 -0500, Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
Mainly GNU/Linux flavours.
Most of them have a policy of not packing unreleased libraries (quite understandable if you ask me). FLTK-2.0 was never released so, as a most unfortunate side effect, we were left out of the repositories.
That makes sense, though then again I've seen a lot of "released" code in distributions much worse than FLTK-2.0...
One thing I like about Windows development is that, with comparatively little effort, you can produce a single executable that runs on any Windows system. Binary compatibility isn't possible to nearly that extent on Linux/Unix -- the software, even the culture makes it limited and extremely difficult at best. Part of the reason I stopped Unix development, but I digress. I know you probably see things a bit differently.
I don't develop nor have a Windows machine, but have heard of DLL hell (in the same sense as RPM hell ;). Anyway, the point seems clear to me. In the very old days, with an Atari 800XL (or C64), developers had a great time. Binaries, and even HW tricks were portable! These days, as you point out, it's very hard to acieve binary compatibility with GNU/Linux (HW is different, distros are different, libraries are different). If the problem was left to the user, no progress could be made (most don't know what is to compile, and shouldn't need IMHO). This is mainly solved by the distro-packaged-SW, which users feel comfortable with. That's the reason why it's so important for us to be back on this kind of repositories. -- Cheers Jorge.-
Getting off-topic, I know, but since this is quite interesting... On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:43:08 -0500, Jorge Arellano Cid <jcid@dillo.org> wrote:
I don't develop nor have a Windows machine, but have heard of DLL hell (in the same sense as RPM hell ;).
Having developed extensively for both -- at one point I was rolling my own Linux distribution -- I can say quite confidently that Linux/Unix has it worse. On the technical side, there's system-wide shared libraries and soname versioning; if the major version changes, everything linked to the library must be recompiled. To compound that, there's the larger development community's general disregard for backwards compatibility. The worst changes I had to make for Dillo-Win32 were patching two or three lines of FLTK-2.0, to support Windows 95. Even then, it was trivial to run a brand-new program on a fifteen-year-old operating system. (On a related note, it's nice that I can still use my nineteen-year-old copy of WordPerfect 5.1. When I ran Linux, I was lucky if I could run something I'd compiled just a year or two before.)
Anyway, the point seems clear to me. In the very old days, with an Atari 800XL (or C64), developers had a great time. Binaries, and even HW tricks were portable!
These days, as you point out, it's very hard to acieve binary compatibility with GNU/Linux (HW is different, distros are different, libraries are different). If the problem was left to the user, no progress could be made (most don't know what is to compile, and shouldn't need IMHO). This is mainly solved by the distro-packaged-SW, which users feel comfortable with. That's the reason why it's so important for us to be back on this kind of repositories.
Windows achieves its binary compatibility largely because every Windows operating system is in the control of one vendor. If anything, the Linux distribution system is worse, because it places control of *applications* in the hands of the OS vendor as well. What I love most about Windows development is the ease of distribution: I just put the file online, and any user can download and run it without so much as a ./configure or even a chmod. No complication, and *no middleman*. I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way, just pointing out that the distribution system is badly flawed and unfriendly from both a user's and a developer's perspective. ~Benjamin
hi On Mon, 27 Dec 2010 11:48:30 -0500, "Benjamin Johnson" <obeythepenguin@gmail.com> wrote:
Out of curiosity, who's not carrying it? It's been a while since I've run Linux, but OpenBSD has dillo-2.2 in its package tree.
Almost all distros/OS with binary packages... fltk 2.0 is not yet released and have a very slow development cycle (ie: almost dead), and that generates two problems: -less software uses the "new", "unstable" and incompatible(with previous versions) lib, creating less demand for distros to use it -as devs dont tell its finish and looks dead, no distro will "waste" time packaging it in beta state, they wait for the "stable" version when it show up sadly, dillo is not important enough yet to pressure distros to use it and many distros don like statically linked binaries For source distros/OS, its easier, grab what is in the repository and forget... if its broken its upstream fault.. if its dead, its user fault :) right now, the main linux distros (ubuntu, debian, fedora, opensuse) none have fltk2 binary package released. Of course, all can be build from source, but most (binary distros/OS) users dont want/know to build a package cya higuita -- Naturally the common people don't want war... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. -- Hermann Goering, Nazi and war criminal, 1883-1946
participants (4)
-
higuita7＠yahoo.co.uk -
jcid＠dillo.org -
mr_semantics＠hotmail.com -
obeythepenguin＠gmail.com