Slashdot Mirror


Migrate Win32 C/C++ Applications to Linux

An anonymous reader writes "This series of articles helps you migrate your Win32 C/C++ applications to Linux on POWER. Win32 C/C++ Apps to Linux Part-1 of this series covers the Win32 APIs mapping to Linux on POWER regarding the initialization and termination, process, thread, and shared memory services. Win32 C/C++ Apps to Linux Part-2 illustrates how to map Win32 to Linux with respect to mutex application program interfaces (APIs)."

6 of 393 comments (clear)

  1. "windows" by tonekids · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The hardest part of porting to LINUX will be refactoring all of the GUI stuff.

  2. Re:Portable code by mboverload · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's what alot of FreeBSD people complain about. Programs for Linux are supposed to be so portable, but many times they are just as dependent as their Windows brethren.

  3. My Java Programs Port Really Nice by Apoptosis66 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just moved J2EE webapp from windows to linux. Really nothing to it ;)

    Apoptosis

  4. Re:Portable code by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think portability is such a big problem for somebody who has time and resources. I think the biggest problem is people who make software for money are concerned that Linux users want everything to be available for free. And on top of that, a lot of them want it to be open source. So anybody who makes software for a living is going to feel like Linux is a hostile or unprofitable market to enter, unless they're making corporate software.

  5. Re:Portable code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nope, it's because people hard code paths (and other distribution dependancies), use the innards of various structs, use /proc, assume the entire world is Intel, assume various GNU options are available for build - configure - install, etc.

  6. Re:Yes and no by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When Joe Average gets a Windows app.. actually, screw Joe: when even _I_ get a Windows app, I expect it to look and behave exactly like every other Windows app. No, I don't want it to look like Swing, I don't want it to look like QT, and I sure don't want Mozilla's skinned idiocy, and I'm gonna puke if I have to use another idiotic GTK file dialog in _Windows_, etc. I want it to look and _act_ exactly like one thing: the Win32 widgets. Nothing else.

    That's a fallacy. Windows hasn't had anything resembling a consistent look and feel since Windows 3.1, if even then.

    Even Windows applications made by Microsoft don't have a consistent look and feel. IE draws its own widgets. Office not only draws its own widgets, but it drastically changes those widgets with every version (fyi, Office XP was patterned on a theme for the WinXP beta that MS later decided not to include in Windows). Same goes with Windows Media Player--it's even less consistent than Office. Visual Studio does the same thing--try running VS2003 on Windows 2000 and you'll see what I mean.

    Speaking of Office, not only does it draw its own widgets, but it creates its own open and save dialogs. Office 2000's open and save dialogs look like the Windows 2000 dialogs, but they still look like the Windows 2000 dialogs even on older versions of Windows. "Older versions of Windows" also includes Windows NT 3.x. Try running Office 97 or 2000 on NT 3.x and note the stark contrast between Office's 3D widgets and NT's fugly flat widgets.

    Also, I'll add that some of the most popular non-Microsoft 3rd party apps do this as well. WinAmp was the most popular media player on Windows for a long time, and it never had anything remotely resembling the Win32 widgets.

    --
    I support the Center for Consumer Freedom