|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Solbright
Advanced Security And Asset Protection
   |
Posted - 2007.08.13 12:39:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Bish Ounen
Native Client has an actual meaning. Those of us based in reality choose to use proper definitions, since words mean things.
I tossed up on replying but had a recording to watch so ...
As the computing world has been dragged into the free-market world, where monopolies rule the roost, you get a situation where there is basically one hardware platform and one OS structure. Any upstarts are either ignored or conform to the "one". End result is you get so much commonality that true porting is no longer needed.
Instead, a bunch of translation libs servers the purpose. And when said libs are included in the install files of the app, what's to say it's not just another lib?
Admittedly, Wine is truly a massive undertaking but that is more a sign of todays bloated OSes than anything else.
|
Solbright
Advanced Security And Asset Protection
|
Posted - 2007.08.13 12:57:00 -
[2]
Hell, an interpreted program is less native than a Wine'd one.
|
Solbright
Advanced Security And Asset Protection
|
Posted - 2007.08.14 12:43:00 -
[3]
Originally by: UberL0rd
If it's native then it stands a reasonable change of running on non x86 based hardware ...
Good try but no. Source level compatibility is all about removing native requirements, not enforcing them.
|
Solbright
Advanced Security And Asset Protection
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 12:27:00 -
[4]
Originally by: UberL0rd
Linux requires x86, x86_64, alpha, mips, sparc, powerpc, superh, m68k, s390 - and a few others I've no doubt missed.
You've just required a non-native method! Only the finished binaries are the native code.
|
Solbright
Advanced Security And Asset Protection
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 13:21:00 -
[5]
Just to be clear. Converting to source level compatibility means that the development is no longer native to any particular OS. And there is still no porting involved.
Then what happens is, cross-platform APIs get used. Oh, gee another layer is back ... :P But we'd all be happy because no one OS is favored. :)
|
Solbright
Advanced Security And Asset Protection
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 14:25:00 -
[6]
Originally by: UberL0rd
I was just making the point that IF they make a native linux client and release this binary then they COULD do the same for other architectures and OS's - like i386 FreeBSD, Sparc64 NetBSD, etc.
You are asking CCP to adopt source level compatibility. That's what I'm saying.
|
|
|
| |
|