Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: Work Still Underway To Run OS X Binaries On Linux

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intellivision View Post
    In order to link against these libraries without having to make your program GPL3+
    Why would you do that? It's not intended to be used that way.

  2. #42

    Default

    GNUstep are running a kickstarter "to make GNUstep work seamlessly with all of the platforms it currently runs on and to complete the necessary work to make it fully compatible with, at least, the version of the Cocoa APIs available on 10.6."
    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...nustep-project

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ssam View Post
    GNUstep are running a kickstarter "to make GNUstep work seamlessly with all of the platforms it currently runs on and to complete the necessary work to make it fully compatible with, at least, the version of the Cocoa APIs available on 10.6."
    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...nustep-project
    Nice Find; I just shot them 75 bucks

    They also mention that if they can reach one of their goals - Darling integration is a possibility... So apparently, it's on the radar for them. (gnustep devs).. 19k+ at this point.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Seems rather uninteresting.

    Any OS X software of importance already exists for Windows too, so you can use Wine for that.
    OS X have small market share, so not many applications.
    Most OS X applications seem to be proprietary and commercial too, so pretty boring.
    Most have good Linux alternatives anyways.
    Actually, this is FAR FAR FAR more interesting than wine. What makes it interesting are the architectural similarities between apple and linux. This makes cross compatibility a much less *impossible* of a task than making ms crap work on Linux.

    I.e., unlike wine, this actually stands a chance of **WORKING**.

  5. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    Actually, this is FAR FAR FAR more interesting than wine. What makes it interesting are the architectural similarities between apple and linux. This makes cross compatibility a much less *impossible* of a task than making ms crap work on Linux.

    I.e., unlike wine, this actually stands a chance of **WORKING**.
    Yes, a much easier job, though with much fewer devs behind it.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ninez View Post
    Nice Find; I just shot them 75 bucks

    They also mention that if they can reach one of their goals - Darling integration is a possibility... So apparently, it's on the radar for them. (gnustep devs).. 19k+ at this point.
    http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/203...ustep-project/


  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LubosD View Post
    Why would you do that? It's not intended to be used that way.
    Intended to not be used that way is definitely 100% valid (obviously) ...

    But LGPL is handy in some cases, specifically in CodeWeavers/Wine case. By using LGPL, this allows developers to design applications that they can then monetize, but run on the 'opencore" that is Wine... It also allows for some healthy development in Wine too ~ The various companies/developers maintaining Wine forks and/or Applications (Winelib) still have some 'secret sauce' which allows them to make money, while also contributing back to Wine; Etersoft (out of Russia) is one such example; Yes, they have some propreitary bits ~ but they also are heavy contributors to upstream Wine. (Obviously, the CodeWeaver's Crossover, is in much the same position).

    Also, if stuck with GPL3+ - think of a situation where you might like to use non-free components. (ASIO / VST SDK come to mind, but some codec, some lib, etc - as well). Now, if you don't have the option of LGPL, then using any of those (non-free) technologies in your (no choice but to use) GPL3+ application for Darling is 100% out of the question (unless it is upto the user to grab SDK, headers, etc and build it themselves -> ie: non-distributable); severely limiting the what a developer can use in his application / could write for Darling. ~ I can't imagine Darling would be attractive to companies for this reason alone.

    For these reasons and others, LGPL is somewhat more attractive in some ways than GPL3+ - as atleast the LGPL offers some flexibility over GPL3+... imo, GPL3+ may actually be harmful to the Darling project <if you have any business-type plans for it, in the future> but i suppose only time will tell.

    Regardless, Darling seems like an interesting project. good luck!
    Last edited by ninez; 09-03-2013 at 02:51 PM.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    840

    Default

    yup. only a week left...not much i can do about that. Hell, i wouldn't have even known about it - if it hadn't been pointed out in this thread.

    Maybe Michael/Phoronix should put out an article <who knows, maybe another tech site or two would catch wind of the kickstarter campaign. It's too bad the GNUstep folks didn't take more time to advertise this project, as $50k is much easier to reach in 30days than $32million...lol. imo, they should have asked for 25k for one month or 50k over 2 months or something..
    Last edited by ninez; 09-03-2013 at 03:11 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •