Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hello
I don't know how many Linux fans are also Army Builder fans or vice versa. Anyway if there are any, you may be interested to know that Army Builder seems to run fine using WINE. I got the preview release from http://www.codeweavers.com/home.html caveat - Some of the fonts seemed not quite the right size, and I haven't tried printing, which might be interesting. enjoy Edward |
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Will have to check it out.
Be really nice, if they just came out with a native version for linux (HINT HINT!). As is, I normally use it under VMWare->Win98. Assuming the program is written in Visual Basic, the programmers might want to check out the GB project, it complies and runs VB code under linux. Contact me off list for details. > Hello > I don't know how many Linux fans are also Army Builder fans or vice > versa. Anyway if there are any, you may be interested to know that > Army Builder seems to run fine using WINE. I got the preview release > from http://www.codeweavers.com/home.html > > caveat - Some of the fonts seemed not quite the right size, and I > haven't tried printing, which might be interesting. > > enjoy > Edward > > > To unsubscribe from this group, email > > armybuilder-unsubscribe@egroups.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > Fallenhunter "They know you have the information they want, question is when will they find you." Overheard at a bar in the Corbia sector. |
#2 |
Senior Member
Lone Wolf Staff
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8,232
|
At 01:40 PM 3/8/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Be really nice, if they just came out with a native version for linux >(HINT HINT!). As is, I normally use it under VMWare->Win98. It would be WAY too much work for the small number of users that would purchase it. A Mac version would definitely come out before a Linux version, and there still isn't enough justification for a Mac version. Besides, most folks can already use one of the emulators, so most Linux users don't NEED a native version (it would merely be a convenience). >Assuming the program is written in Visual Basic, the programmers >might want to check out the GB project, it complies and runs VB code >under linux. AB is written entirely in C/C++. It's almost 200,000 lines of code, including the Construction Kit tools. That's a LOT to port. Thanks, Rob --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689 Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com |
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On 8 Mar 2001, at 17:16, Rob Bowes wrote:
> At 01:40 PM 3/8/01 -0500, you wrote: > >Be really nice, if they just came out with a native version for linux > >(HINT HINT!). As is, I normally use it under VMWare->Win98. > > It would be WAY too much work for the small number of users that would > purchase it. A Mac version would definitely come out before a Linux > version, and there still isn't enough justification for a Mac version. > Besides, most folks can already use one of the emulators, so most > Linux users don't NEED a native version (it would merely be a > convenience). > Well, one, its not a small number of users anymore... Linux is the fastest growing piece of software on the planet. Its slated to pass windows for desktop PCs in like 8 years. MS is starting to worry, but wont admit it publicly. Also, is it a convenience to require that the person pay extra for a OS that will be used basicly for one program? (Granted most linux users still run windows for games, but thats not the point). > >Assuming the program is written in Visual Basic, the programmers > >might want to check out the GB project, it complies and runs VB code > >under linux. > > AB is written entirely in C/C++. It's almost 200,000 lines of code, > including the Construction Kit tools. That's a LOT to port. > Depending on the level of ANSI compatiblity, it could be, as simple as loading it up and recompling. Assuming your not using MSVC, most other compliers are about 90% ansi complient. It would not be the huge chore you think. I have translated larger programs from windows to Linux, and am working on a few others. Also Borland and others have compatible libraries under linux, to make porting even easier. If you dont have a linux box, I would sit down install it on a spare system, (takes an hour for a basic install, ignoring sound/zips/burners/high powered video) gcc/g++ is installed pretty much by default. YOu might just give it go one after noon when your bombed out on writing code. Ask I will snail mail you a copy of RedHat, (Yes its legal) just ask me off list. I happen to be a memeber of a LUG (Canton Linux Users Group), and if you have some other problems that I cannot answer myself. I am about 90% sure I can get the answers with hours or overnight. We have some heavy hitters in our little group, profession programmers, and sysadmins (And a few web celebs as well). BTW, ONce you port a version to Linux, your done, it will only require a recomplie to run under the many flavors and platforms that linux runs under, including: Mac, Intel, Sparc, most modern mainframes, and even the amiga. Oh yea, the commadore 64/128! Try that with any other operating system.... So its worth the time, and you might see your sales grow even faster, if you took a weekend and gave it a shot. Course you welcome to ignore me, and in five years I promise not to look you up and say I told you so.... I will just sit back and smile. Fallenhunter "They know you have the information they want, question is when will they find you." Overheard at a bar in the Corbia sector. |
#4 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
> windows for desktop PCs in like 8 years. MS is starting to worry, but
> wont admit it publicly. Did one of Gates' private memos get sent to you accidently, or did you find this out at your last lunch with "the big guy"? ;p -Michael |
#5 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
At 01:40 PM 3/8/2001 -0500, Fallenhunter wrote:
>Will have to check it out. > > >Be really nice, if they just came out with a native version for linux >(HINT HINT!). As is, I normally use it under VMWare->Win98. > >Assuming the program is written in Visual Basic, the programmers >might want to check out the GB project, it complies and runs VB code >under linux. Never, ever assume something's written in VB... I believe Rob uses Borland C++. And since it's _only_ Rob doing it, I wouldn't expect a native version any time soon... E |
#6 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
On 8 Mar 2001, at 10:51, Eric Landes wrote:
> At 01:40 PM 3/8/2001 -0500, Fallenhunter wrote: > > >Will have to check it out. > > > > > >Be really nice, if they just came out with a native version for linux > >(HINT HINT!). As is, I normally use it under VMWare->Win98. > > > >Assuming the program is written in Visual Basic, the programmers > >might want to check out the GB project, it complies and runs VB code > >under linux. > > Never, ever assume something's written in VB... > > I believe Rob uses Borland C++. And since it's _only_ Rob doing it, I > wouldn't expect a native version any time soon... > Agreed, but as Visual Basic is about the hardest to translate into linux, thats the exuse most progammers use, even if its not written in VB. Borland make is all the easier, Borland C++ is even better supported under Linux. As is just about any C(++) (yes, Even MS Visual C) I can understand that its a pain to support a differant platform. But it might be worth it for him to take on someone who can suppot that platform for him. Might not even have to pay the guy anything really (say 10-20% of the linux sales or something instead of a upfront salary). The more ideas, and suggestions we give him, the more likely he will find one he likes. *crosses fingers and hopes* Fallenhunter "They know you have the information they want, question is when will they find you." Overheard at a bar in the Corbia sector. |
#7 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
#8 |
Senior Member
Lone Wolf Staff
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 8,232
|
At 09:58 PM 3/8/01 -0500, you wrote:
>Well, one, its not a small number of users anymore... Linux is the >fastest growing piece of software on the planet. Its slated to pass >windows for desktop PCs in like 8 years. MS is starting to worry, but >wont admit it publicly. I didn't say I wouldn't support it. I said the demand needed to justify the investment. It's quite likely that will occur over the upcoming years. When that happens, I'll likely do a Linux version of AB. >Also, is it a convenience to require that the person pay extra for a >OS that will be used basicly for one program? (Granted most linux >users still run windows for games, but thats not the point). Please consider carefully your last statement above. If most Linux users already have an emulator to run Windows games, then most of AB's customer base won't NEED to buy a native Linux version. That means that the huge effort to create a native version will only be NEEDED by a small fraction of the already small (but growing) base of Linux users. This means that sales will certainly not justify the investment at the current time. Once the sales numbers will balance out the investment, it's a good business decision to create a native version. My time is extremely limited and I have to make the best use of it. It's not a slight against Linux users. It's a basic reality of business - same as any other company developing software for any platform. >Depending on the level of ANSI compatiblity, it could be, as simple >as loading it up and recompling. Assuming your not using MSVC, most >other compliers are about 90% ansi complient. It would not be the >huge chore you think. I have translated larger programs from windows >to Linux, and am working on a few others. I do cross-platform portability as a profession, so I'm reasonably familiar with the issues. :-) AB is written to be portable, with the exception of a smattering of low-level facilities (easily ported), some key components (e.g. internet access), and the UI. It's the UI that will be a bear to port, since THAT piece of AB was NOT written to be portable (the overhead to do so would have been prohibitive). The complexity of hte AB UI has increased significantly over the years, so this is a major piece to try and port. >Also Borland and others have compatible libraries under linux, to >make porting even easier. If you dont have a linux box, I would sit >down install it on a spare system, (takes an hour for a basic >install, ignoring sound/zips/burners/high powered video) gcc/g++ is >installed pretty much by default. YOu might just give it go one after >noon when your bombed out on writing code. Ask I will snail mail you >a copy of RedHat, (Yes its legal) just ask me off list. I'll make a point of doing this over the Summer. First I have to get finished with my current project, then get a new release of AB put together, and then deal with Origins/GenCon. After that, I can think about Linux. :-) BTW, I've been using g++ and gdb on a project for client. I must say that the compiler is reasonably solid (sans a few quirks that are a pain), but gdb is a few giant leaps backwards from what I'm used to with the VC debugger (or even the Borland debugger). That will make the port a much less pleasant process. :-( >I happen to be a memeber of a LUG (Canton Linux Users Group), and if >you have some other problems that I cannot answer myself. I am about >90% sure I can get the answers with hours or overnight. We have some >heavy hitters in our little group, profession programmers, and >sysadmins (And a few web celebs as well). Excellent. It's nice to have a knowledgeable resource to tap. I'll definitely keep this in mind when the Linux effort is pursued. >BTW, ONce you port a version to Linux, your done, it will only >require a recomplie to run under the many flavors and platforms that >linux runs under, including: Mac, Intel, Sparc, most modern >mainframes, and even the amiga. Oh yea, the commadore 64/128! > >Try that with any other operating system.... My code already takes all that into consideration pretty cleanly. I've been doing cross-platform portability work (typically Windows, Unix, and Mac) for a LONG time, so that's not an issue for me. The gotcha is the UI. >So its worth the time, and you might see your sales grow even faster, >if you took a weekend and gave it a shot. So fill me in on how difficult it would be to port about 50,000 lines of code that is tied to the Windows API (primarily GDI). Also describe what libraries are in place that emulate the functionality of things like the "wininet" API provided under Windows. I have no idea what provisions/libraries are in place under Linux for this, but this is critical to porting the product. >Course you welcome to ignore me, and in five years I promise not to >look you up and say I told you so.... I will just sit back and smile. :-) Thanks, Rob --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (650) 726-9689 Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com |
#9 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
#10 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Army Builder question: Core vs. Special Units (Chaos Army) | ChaosDono | Warhammer Fantasy 8th Ed. | 3 | October 28th, 2007 07:49 PM |
Error launching Army Builder 3 after new Empire army book | Dwarflord22 | Warhammer Fantasy 8th Ed. | 2 | March 21st, 2007 06:57 PM |
Army Builder in Linux using Wine | Marco at firegate.de | Army Builder | 1 | January 3rd, 2004 06:20 AM |
Army Builder in Linux using Wine | ringsnake at yahoo.com | Army Builder | 0 | April 14th, 2003 07:38 PM |
SV: Army Builder on Linux | np at tagarno.dk | Army Builder | 1 | March 9th, 2001 01:01 PM |