X Windows for Intel AROS?

[persia]

How hard would it be to implement an instance of X Windows in AROS Intel like you can do on a Mac?  This would provide a lot of software pretty quick.

[shoggoth]

In addition to an X-server, you'd probably need some un*x compatibility layer as well, since X-apps probably need it.

[Lozrus]

shoggoth wrote:
In addition to an X-server, you'd probably need some un*x compatibility layer as well, since X-apps probably need it.

Not necessarily, AROS can run in hosted mode, on top of Linux. I think it even has framebuffer support. If a native X Server is made for AROS then there is no reason not to create an Amithlon style distribution of it, with apps like Firefox, OO.o etc, running on the (hidden) Linux side, just being displayed on AROS.
If done with a kind of rootless X server (like on Mac OS X) and maybe with an Amiga/AROS theme for GTK and QT, clipboard sharing and access to the same file system, these apps could even feel native(ish). An X Server for AROS could be the start of a very nice AROS/Linux hybrid. The users need not ever actually see the Linux side (like Amithlon)

Unfortunately I don't think it would be possible to hide the difference in pull down menu styles, which would prevent X apps ever feeling quite right on an Amiga like OS.

[vic20owner]

No no please... a REAL os this time not a hack.

[motorollin]

I think this would be in serious danger of suffering the OS/2 effect. IIRC IBM implemented a Windows compatibility layer to allow OS/2 to run Windows software. The result was fewer and fewer people developing OS/2 software. After all, who would write software which would only run on OS/2 when they could write software which runs on Windows *and* OS/2? Eventually OS/2 had none of its own software, and OS/2 died. The same could happen if AROS had support for running Linux software.

--
moto

[shoggoth]

Lozrus wrote:

shoggoth wrote:
In addition to an X-server, you'd probably need some un*x compatibility layer as well, since X-apps probably need it.

Not necessarily, AROS can run in hosted mode, on top of Linux. I think it even has framebuffer support. If a native X Server is made for AROS then there is no reason not to create an Amithlon style distribution of it, with apps like Firefox, OO.o etc, running on the (hidden) Linux side, just being displayed on AROS.
If done with a kind of rootless X server (like on Mac OS X) and maybe with an Amiga/AROS theme for GTK and QT, clipboard sharing and access to the same file system, these apps could even feel native(ish). An X Server for AROS could be the start of a very nice AROS/Linux hybrid. The users need not ever actually see the Linux side (like Amithlon)

Unfortunately I don't think it would be possible to hide the difference in pull down menu styles, which would prevent X apps ever feeling quite right on an Amiga like OS.

Ah, I see! Yeah, that should definitely be possible by just implementing a standard X-server. Besides that, I don't think you'll need any particular hacks, just run the applications as if they were running remotely another machine.. Interesting concept!

[shoggoth]

motorollin wrote:
I think this would be in serious danger of suffering the OS/2 effect. IIRC IBM implemented a Windows compatibility layer to allow OS/2 to run Windows software. The result was fewer and fewer people developing OS/2 software. After all, who would write software which would only run on OS/2 when they could write software which runs on Windows *and* OS/2? Eventually OS/2 had none of its own software, and OS/2 died. The same could happen if AROS had support for running Linux software.

You have a point - still, someone has to write the applications. Having the possibility to run unix stuff on your machine certantly makes it more useful, compared to the alternative. I run Freemint on that other 68k platform from the same era, it's sort-of posix and features a simple X server. Still, I haven't noticed that this limits development in anyway, quite the contrary. My impression is that compatibility with X or unix makes it easier to get port stuff to the "native" system as well. I realise that the case of hosted AROS + X + native X-apps isn't exactly similar, but it increases the usefullness of the OS drastically imho..

-- Peter

[motorollin]

shoggoth wrote:
Having the possibility to run unix stuff on your machine certantly makes it more useful, compared to the alternative.

The alternatives are using AROS with no software, or using Linux with lots of software, as opposed to using a kludged together hybrid of AROS and Linux. Personally, I would rather just use Linux.

shoggoth wrote:
I run Freemint on that other 68k platform from the same era, it's sort-of posix and features a simple X server. Still, I haven't noticed that this limits development in anyway, quite the contrary.

I assume you mean Atari? Are you saying that having an X server has encouraged people to develop *native* software for the platform rather than using a compatibility layer to run Unix software on top?

shoggoth wrote:
My impression is that compatibility with X or unix makes it easier to get port stuff to the "native" system as well. I realise that the case of hosted AROS + X + native X-apps isn't exactly similar, but it increases the usefullness of the OS drastically imho..

Only until people realise they could get exactly the same functionality (or better) by cutting out the middle-man (AROS) and using the software directly on Linux.

--
moto

[shoggoth]

I assume you mean Atari? Are you saying that having an X server has encouraged people to develop *native* software for the platform rather than using a compatibility layer to run Unix software on top?

Yeah. Because this helps you get stuff up and running, then you start adding your own "native" graphics routines etc. It makes the porting process, or transition, easier.

Only until people realise they could get exactly the same functionality (or better) by cutting out the middle-man (AROS) and using the software directly on Linux.

That's a figure of test, but I get your point.

-- Peter