Lisp HUG Maillist Archive

Linux interface questions

I have had several requests about porting my PostgreSQL editor to 
Linux. I looked into this recently by running the application with 
LispWorks on Red Hat 8. I have to say I was disappointed with the 
results compared to the Mac and Windows versions. In particular, the 
fonts looked really bad and I did not find much improvement in any 
changes I made in the configuration.

So my first question is what configuration changes to the LispWorks 
defaults could I make to improve the look and feel? And second, I was 
wondering if there a strategy, hack, or plan to get LispWorks to run 
with a more modern window manager such as KDE or GNOME. I don't think I 
can offer a competitive product with the current Motif style interface.

Best,

John DeSoi, Ph.D.
http://pgedit.com/
Power Tools for PostgreSQL


Re: Linux interface questions

John DeSoi <desoi@pgedit.com> writes:

> I have had several requests about porting my PostgreSQL editor to
> Linux. I looked into this recently by running the application with
> LispWorks on Red Hat 8. I have to say I was disappointed with the
> results compared to the Mac and Windows versions. In particular, the
> fonts looked really bad and I did not find much improvement in any
> changes I made in the configuration.

Well that is not the problem of LispWorks but the proper X Server and
configuration. This is a however a long lasting problem I just can
tell 
>
> So my first question is what configuration changes to the LispWorks
> defaults could I make to improve the look and feel? And second, I was
> wondering if there a strategy, hack, or plan to get LispWorks to run
> with a more modern window manager such as KDE or GNOME. I don't think
> I can offer a competitive product with the current Motif style
> interface.
You do not find LispWorks IDE a competitive product. Please name
something comparable. 

If you would have checked the "commercial offers" on Linux you would
see that most of them use Motif. However I'm sure the Xanalys
programmers would not hesitate to implement CAPI on top of GTK if you
pay them for that. You product is a commercial one so I assume you do
not have any troubles with payments...

If you do not like CAPI feel free to use one of the many GTK bindings
and write you UI "by hand" I assume it will just take a few months to
make glade useable for Lisp hacking. 

Regards
Friedrich


Re: Linux interface questions

John DeSoi <desoi@pgedit.com> writes:

> Hi Friedrich,
>
> On Dec 16, 2004, at 11:53 AM, Friedrich Dominicus wrote:
>
>> You do not find LispWorks IDE a competitive product. Please name
>> something comparable.
>>
>> If you would have checked the "commercial offers" on Linux you would
>> see that most of them use Motif. However I'm sure the Xanalys
>> programmers would not hesitate to implement CAPI on top of GTK if you
>> pay them for that. You product is a commercial one so I assume you do
>> not have any troubles with payments...
>
> I'm sorry if you thought my tone was critical or unappreciative -- one
> of the problems with email :). I *love* LispWorks. 
Sorry from my side too I was not in the mood for a polite answer...


>I really like
> CAPI. But I'm a Linux newbie and so I'm looking for advice to see if
> there is a way to make my application look as nice as it does on Mac
> and Windows. I'll take your word that most commercial offerings on
> Linux use Motif. But my uninformed take is most PostgreSQL GUI tools
> including free open source tools don't use Motif and look pretty nice
> on Linux. For example, see http://www.pgadmin.org/screenshots.php
As I understand you want to offer your tool as a commercial
version. I'm probably less optimistic about you chances to sell things
on that platform. I propose you ask the friendly Xanalays guys on
their sellment rates Linux/Windows/Mac OS. I would not be suprised it
would look something like 1:50:2-5 .... :(


>
>>
>> If you do not like CAPI feel free to use one of the many GTK bindings
>> and write you UI "by hand" I assume it will just take a few months to
>> make glade useable for Lisp hacking.
>
> I'm guessing it would take more than a few months to replicate CAPI
> and what is available in the LispWorks editor in GTK.
I'm not fully sure about that, just check xemacs-gtk and the
timelines. I could imagine that one could get into that time frame
with a CAPI/GTK combination. However I wonder how slow that might
get. Motif is a layer upon XWindows as is GTK... 

Regards
Friedrich


Re: Linux interface questions

John DeSoi <desoi@pgedit.com> writes:

> He said he would be interested in adding support to
> PostgreSQL to facilitate source level debugging of stored
> procedures. But only if the editor runs on Linux.
Why then not just use Motif interface? It runs under Linux --
job done....

Regards
Friedrich


Unable to render article 3253 because of ":DEFAULT stream decoding error on #<SB-SYS:FD-STREAM for \"socket 192.168.43.216:64549, peer: 116.202.254.214:119\" {10070D0033}>: the octet sequence #(233 46 13) cannot be decoded." error

Unable to render article 3254 because of ":DEFAULT stream decoding error on #<SB-SYS:FD-STREAM for \"socket 192.168.43.216:64669, peer: 116.202.254.214:119\" {1002EE8653}>: the octet sequence #(233 46 13) cannot be decoded." error

Re: Linux interface questions

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:41:28 +0100, Espen Vestre <ev@netfonds.no> wrote:

> Getting rid of motif is pretty high on my wish list,

<AOL>
  me too
</AOL>

> but if I have to prioritize my wishes, I think that there are some
> things that need higher priority, like, e.g., a 64 bit linux
> version.

Good point.  While we're at it (talking about wishlists shortly before
Christmas): For me that'd be native threads on Linux.  I just upgraded
my LW license to 4.4 for Windows but I hesitate to do that for my
Linux license.  I mainly use Lisp on Linux for server stuff and SBCL
seems to be pretty close to what I currently want (Unicode and native
threads).  If LWL had native threads I'd buy a new license within a
second.

Cheers,
Edi.


Re: Linux interface questions

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:59:37 +0100, "Marc Battyani" <marc.battyani@fractalconcept.com> wrote:

> Maybe I should put TBNL as a front-end for my framework to try SBCL
> ;-)

Yep... :)

> Do you see a significative speed improvement when you compare TBNL
> on native vs non native threading implementations?

Haven't really tested but I guess not - in normal cases.  My biggest
concern is not speed but the fact that with native threads I don't
have to worry about FFI calls (e.g. with SQL databases) potentially
blocking all other threads.  IMHO that could be a real show stopper
for a complex web app.

Cheers,
Edi.


Re: Linux interface questions

Friedrich Dominicus <frido@q-software-solutions.de> writes:

> And the native toolkit on Unix is still Motif. 

Why do you say that? Because CDE is sort of tied to Motif?
Well-informed and sane Unix Workstation users avoid CDE anyway (I
haven't used Solaris for 3 years now, but I used to work with it for 7
years before that, and if there was a component of Solaris I detested,
it was that crappy can of worms.  Actually, as part of the install
procedure, I usually deleted all of CDE except for the motif
libraries).

> Xanalys has quite some LispWorks on Unix out there. Do you think they
> all want to switch to GTK? or just want to have their systems
> going? One should not drop backward compatiblity airy. 

How many of them would actually care, if the port from motif-capi to
gtk- (or Qt-?) capi was relatively painless? And I guess Xanalys could
keep the motif version around as an alternative for a while.
-- 
  (espen)


Re: Linux interface questions

John DeSoi <desoi@pgedit.com> writes:

> Even now, I think you can still choose to run Motif on OS X instead of
> Aqua.

Yes you can (I haven't really tried motif on the mac, but I use that 
version to build command line programs).
-- 
  (espen)


Re: Linux interface questions

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 11:31:51 +0100, Espen Vestre <ev@netfonds.no> wrote:

> Friedrich Dominicus <frido@q-software-solutions.de> writes:
>
>> And the native toolkit on Unix is still Motif. 
>
> Why do you say that? Because CDE is sort of tied to Motif?

I thought I had heard that at least Solaris has switched to GNOME.

Edi.


Re: Linux interface questions

Espen Vestre <ev@netfonds.no> writes:

> Friedrich Dominicus <frido@q-software-solutions.de> writes:
>
>> And the native toolkit on Unix is still Motif. 
>
> Why do you say that? 
Because that is what I see if we're talking about professional Unix
applications 

> Because CDE is sort of tied to Motif?
Motif use in CDE could be changed to QT or GTK+, but does anyone
besides us Linux guys really want or use it?

> Well-informed and sane Unix Workstation users avoid CDE anyway (I
> haven't used Solaris for 3 years now, but I used to work with it for 7
> years before that, and if there was a component of Solaris I detested,
> it was that crappy can of worms.
I do not feel this is really a fair judgement. I for myself have an
Alpha Station happily running under CDE, and it simply works. 

>> Xanalys has quite some LispWorks on Unix out there. Do you think they
>> all want to switch to GTK? or just want to have their systems
>> going? One should not drop backward compatiblity airy. 
>
> How many of them would actually care
More than you would belive I assume. The would have to install a lot new
libraries on their box, it could break existing package
and the will not accept that. 

Thy probably would need starting to care about the licence of the
underlying Toolkit, for Motif that's easier..., and all the big Unix
vendors have "their" Motif. They know and probably have cursed Motif
for decades now, maybe you remember the GTK 1.2 -> 2.0 transition, it
was the best example what can happen. It was terrible much work for
everyone involved to get those things workign again. And many decide
it's not worth it. Can you promise it won't happen again with 2.5 or
maybe GTK 3.0....?

The "hard core" Unix uses know why they
still use there old Unices... If you were in Xanalys shoes what would
you do, improve CAPI slightly over time and have happy customer or
make a cut and have probably quitea few very angry customers. Just
recall that the PC prices are just a fraction of the "Unix" prices....

, if the port from motif-capi to
> gtk- (or Qt-?) capi was relatively painless? 
It's GTK+ (the C library) and QT (C++) the C++ wrappers around GTK+
have the speakig name GTK--



>And I guess Xanalys could
> keep the motif version around as an alternative for a while.
Of course they would, because they have customers, and for me it looks
like Xanalys cares about them. 

If *one* really insists on a CAPI/GTK, he/she could go for it. The
UncommonSQL, clsql folks did exactly that the worked to build a
CommonSQL, and I'm very happy that they really did. CommonSQL looks
easy on the outside but working with it reveals that it really needs a
lot of care.... I often did not understand how things worked now I can
see....

A good testing field would probably the GTKization of the Editor, the
sources are available.

Regards
Friedrich


Re: Linux interface questions

Friedrich Dominicus <frido@q-software-solutions.de> writes:

> I do not feel this is really a fair judgement. I for myself have an
> Alpha Station happily running under CDE, and it simply works. 

Well, I guess they've been able to reduce the number of holes, but
a few years ago, CDE had the most ridiculous security holes I've
ever seen - and many of them! And those were not the only bugs, the
thing that really made me wipe it off my harddisk was when that
software monster filled up my home directory with gigabytes of
bogus logs in some cryptic subdirectory of ~/.dt-something. 

To me, the looks of the linux version of our gui application is simply
somewhat embarassing, simple as that. Our customers sometimes comment
on that, but then: They don't really complain, our 2% share of linux
users are happy as clams that we offer a linux version at all
-- 
  (espen)


Re: Linux interface questions

>
> To me, the looks of the linux version of our gui application is simply
> somewhat embarassing, simple as that. Our customers sometimes comment
> on that, but then: They don't really complain, our 2% share of linux
> users are happy as clams that we offer a linux version at all
That is what I suggeste the OP to do. It's there, it works and it
should not be much work if one still has  Windows or Mac OS X version,
tweak the X server a bit, look for nicer looking fonts and off one
goes...


Regards
Friedrich


Unable to render article 3265 because of ":DEFAULT stream decoding error on #<SB-SYS:FD-STREAM for \"socket 192.168.43.216:64670, peer: 116.202.254.214:119\" {10033D8633}>: the octet sequence #(233 112 104) cannot be decoded." error

Re: Linux interface questions

Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro@mac.com> writes:

>
> If this is the sort of quick port we are talking about, then, yes,
> they probably could move away from motif quickly. 
I doubt that there are very founded GUI guidelines for GTK+, but I may
be wrong. Of course they exist for Motif, but again I'm not sur how
fully they are supported with CAPI.


> <cheap-shot-at-linux-guis> Of course,
> half broken functionality is considered perfectly acceptable by linux
> GUI users, so this may suffice </cheap-shot-at-linux-guis> 
So a fast shot at CAPI/GTK is all what is needed ;-)




>
> In sum, a truly native look and feel, whatever the window manager or
> platform, is not something that can be done quickly or easily.
Well for that something like a "native look and feel" has to
existt. However I doubt that Microsoft follows there own guidelies
very closley....

Happy lisping
Friedrich


Re: Linux interface questions

Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro@mac.com> writes:

> Many developers don't bother to take the time to ask themselves why,
> then, are these people on the Mac? The dismissive (and wrong) answer
> is that they are computer illiterate morons who are afraid of a two
> button mouse, or fashion victims who are too shallow to see past
> Jonathan Ive's impressive industrial design. The reality is, they are
> very busy people who know that there is too little time in each day to
> waste any of it fighting their computers to get things done. One of
> the most important ways that the Mac look and feel saves them time is
> that all HIG conforming apps work in essentially the same way. Once
> you learn one, you know how to use them all, and your computer becomes
> invisible, an extension of your thought processes.
Well then I might ask politly how you made the transition from the IDE
before Xcode and XCode. I'm a programmer and it was a tough step. Most
has changed in a slightly way. Another one who just "wanted" to get
GPL running had a very hard time with it and was willing to pay for my
support to get those things going. A totally simple thing and a in
intelligent person was not capable of achieving what he wants to. And
I can not say that I feel that just because it happens that I'm using
Mail I have not troubles using other packages. Programmers want to get
their stuff done too, but that are obviously not the majority of
users...


>
> If a developer's attitude is "well it works, so no big deal if it
> doesn't work exactly like other Mac apps," that developer is likely to
> find himself scratching his head wondering why users are choosing a
> competitor's offering with fewer features rather than his. The reason
> is simple - Mac users, by and large, value the Mac look and feel over
> extra bells and whistles. 
Well than they probybly disliked the Aqua stuff. Because so much was
new. Strange enough Apple has come back to better business with their
Mac OS X. And guess what even the Mac magazines explian to those
look and feel people how to use the command line. 



> Their computers are tools. They want them to
> do the job at hand with an absolute minimum of interference. A hammer
> doesn't require that you wrestle it to the ground before you can drive
> a nail. 
This comparison just holds for simple tools. Would you expect that
every one can drive a car immediatly? Or beeing able to sit into a
cockpit and just fly away. Please explain to us why one has to learn
plumbing, timbering and what other jobs are out there.

> A computer should not require that you struggle with it to do
> something that every other application on the platform does, but your
> application has chosen to do in a non-native way (Mac users just about
> never copy and paste text with the mouse. 
Think about that, how am I supposed to work with some "desktop
publishing" software and compiler in the same way? 



>They will use the Cut, Copy,
> and Paste key commands which have been the same since 1984, or they
> will use the Edit menu items, which have a similarly long history).
Maybe, IIRC you can use that stuff in LispWorks too. 

> CAPI, as is, is precisely the sort of 80% native solution that Mac
> users avoid in droves.
I doubt that. 


Regards
Friedrich


Re: Linux interface questions

Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro@mac.com> writes:

> with other truly native offerings available on the Mac platform. I'm
> using LispWorks because it has a very good compiler, and a way to
> access native OS functionality, not because I can use CAPI as is.
> CAPI, as is, is precisely the sort of 80% native solution that Mac
> users avoid in droves.

Well, in our case, the mac users seem to be happy that we offer a real
mac application at all - our competitors generally don't. And I've
seen other "cross platform applications" that are /miles/ behind what
you can do with CAPI on OS X. E.g. the crap that Olympus delivered
with my daughers' digital cameras is a pain just to look at.

But if your only target platform is OS X, then I agree that CAPI is
still far from being optimal.
-- 
  (espen)


Re: Linux interface questions

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:51:44 -0500, Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro@mac.com> wrote:

> Agreed. Clearly, a CAPI Mac OS X app is better than no app at
> all. But remember that CAPI is competing with free (i.e., Xcode and
> Interface Builder), and that free gives you HIG conforming Mac OS X
> applications right out of the box.

If you're writing Mac-only apps, yes.  If you have a successfull Win32
application and want to port it to the Mac, Xcode won't help you much.
CAPI will, if your app happens to be a LispWorks app... :)

BTW, just curious, what about MCL?  Can you deliver fully-conformant
Mac apps with MCL?  For OS X?

Cheers,
Edi.


Re: Linux interface questions

Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro@mac.com> writes:

> But *only* if you have an existing Windows lisp app, and you must stay
> with lisp. Not exactly a large group, is it.

You don't have to have an /existing/ Windows lisp app. You may be
in the situation that you're going to write a cross-platform
application from scratch, and you're looking for a good tool.
IMHO, LispWorks is a very decent such tool.
-- 
  (espen)


Re: Linux interface questions

    I've been creating demos for a new semantic search product
using CAPI to demo on both Mac and Windows,  with
great satisfaction.  Without CAPI,  and with the budget
constraints I have,  this would not have been possible.
Thank you LispWorks team!

    However,  the issues that Raffael brings up touch
issues coming up in user-acceptance testing,  so
they're not nothing,  although I still plan to deliver
in CAPI for the next year or two.

    My wish would be for CAPI to serve web pages,
so users can try my semantic search product without
buying or installing anything.

    -- Lawrence Au



On Monday, December 20, 2004, at 10:24 AM, Espen Vestre wrote:

> Raffael Cavallaro <raffaelcavallaro@mac.com> writes:
>
>> But *only* if you have an existing Windows lisp app, and you must stay
>> with lisp. Not exactly a large group, is it.
>
> You don't have to have an /existing/ Windows lisp app. You may be
> in the situation that you're going to write a cross-platform
> application from scratch, and you're looking for a good tool.
> IMHO, LispWorks is a very decent such tool.
> -- 
>   (espen)
>


Re: Linux interface questions

On Dec 20, 2004, at 11:14 AM, Lawrence Au wrote:

>    My wish would be for CAPI to serve web pages,
> so users can try my semantic search product without
> buying or installing anything.

I'm not sure what serving web pages has to do with CAPI. There are 
plenty of open source web server options you can integrate into your 
LispWorks application. For example see 
http://portableaserve.sourceforge.net/.


Best,

John DeSoi, Ph.D.
http://pgedit.com/
Power Tools for PostgreSQL


Re: Linux interface questions

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:24:59 -0500, John DeSoi <desoi@pgedit.com> wrote:

> I'm not sure what serving web pages has to do with CAPI.

Well, there are frameworks (see Visual Studio .NET for an example)
that try to give you the impression that GUI programming and web
programming are the same.  I think it's doable if you rely on a small
subset of all available browsers (VS probably thinks you're using MSIE
anyway) and use the LCD of both worlds.

Edi.


Updated at: 2020-12-10 08:54 UTC