|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 44
Ameglian cow
|
OP
Ameglian cow
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 44 |
Why don't you make mIRC for UNIX ?
Regards, ThE_mASk.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 21
Ameglian cow
|
Ameglian cow
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 21 |
A similar thread was recently addressed in this forum a couple of days ago, although they were asking about linux, webtv, etc.
I personally, would love to run mIRC under linux and have had some limited success using 'wine'. I have yet to test version 6.1 under linux, but the mirc editor in 6.03 was giving me problems. I was not able to edit anything without linux messing up my script files. It kept adding extra garbage characters. Whenever I used an external linux editor, it seemed to work a little bit better, although the old habit of using mirc's editor was difficult to avoid.
If someday mIRC were available for linux, then would that mean that it would need to be under the GPL and the original source code available? Khaled may not wish to do this, which would be his right.
Any thoughts?
Listner
Morals: When the p0rn shop gives you too much change, and you don't keep it.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,024
Hoopy frood
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 5,024 |
Use the 'Search' feature for various other OS references, such as 'Linux' 'Unix' or 'Mac/MacOS' - You'll find pretty much the same answers everywhere. Khaled, and other contributors towards the mIRC project, simply haven't got the time to make mIRC compatible with other OS's other than Windows. You just have to take a look at the Requests forum to see how much needed (or needS ) to be changed, and then there's the server lists to compile, the Forums to deal with, the hundreds of emails, the bug fixes etc etc. Now, to do ALL that (but starting from scratch) for another OS would be impossibly time consuming (there are only 24 hours in a day after all). And what would be the point? You'd get a bunch of *Nix/Mac users saying, "haha, xChat/ircle 0wns mIRC, that's just a lame ass Winblows product" or words to that effect. So, in the end, you'd be dedicating 99.9% of your life (not including sleep) to making an mIRC version compatible with another OS, only to have about 2,000 (or less) people download it, and have quadruple that amount of people put it down =) I'm sure it's hard enough to deal with the insults just for Windows users, let alone having to take on the rest of the Internet community You can also see an answer to this question in the mIRC FAQ section of this site. Direct links here and here. Happy chatting. Regards,
Mentality/Chris
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,985
Hoopy frood
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,985 |
You'd get a bunch of *Nix/Mac users saying, "haha, xChat/ircle 0wns mIRC, that's just a lame ass Winblows product" or words to that effect.
Yep, very true and happens all too often.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 309
Fjord artisan
|
Fjord artisan
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 309 |
mirc by far is one of the most stable programs written for windows users... it has more functionability than any other client... including xchat or ircle
-Nick (Darko) -Admin irc.aussiechat.org -#Chatzone, #helpdesk
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 384
Fjord artisan
|
Fjord artisan
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 384 |
Now, to do ALL that (but starting from scratch) for another OS would be impossibly time consuming Why can't the windows version just be ported over? It's C/C++ afterall and that's what one of Linux's greatest strengths is: development of C/C++ code. Plus, as far as I know, it's not dependant on any Windows files. I'm sure porting would only be a minor job. I personally would LOVE to see mIRC ported to Linux. Linux, in my opinion, lacks a really good graphical IRC client (XChat is okay but doesn't come close to mIRC) and running mIRC in wine is... well... 'special'. Regarding what one of the previous posts said about GPL: Khaled isn't obliged to give away mIRC and its source just because it happens to run on Linux. He doesn't HAVE to GPL it if he doesn't want to. It can still remain under its original shareware, closed-source license. I know it's not likely to happen any time soon (if at all) but I'm sure I'm not the only one who misses mIRC
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,985
Hoopy frood
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,985 |
You could compare mIRC's stability to any client fullstop. It doesn't matter what OS is used. I've run mIRC for weeks on end at times without it faltering. If people have problems with it then it is either poor maintenance, a disc full of errors or bad scripting techniques.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
Hoopy frood
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809 |
Why can't the windows version just be ported over? It's C/C++ afterall and that's what one of Linux's greatest strengths is: development of C/C++ code. Plus, as far as I know, it's not dependant on any Windows files. I'm sure porting would only be a minor job. Uhh no? mIRC depends on probably THOUSANDS of Windows specific functions. Neither C nor C++ is completely portable. There are libraries available only for Windows. Porting mIRC to Linux would not only not be a minor job, it would be an incredibly complex and difficult job.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 384
Fjord artisan
|
Fjord artisan
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 384 |
I did say "as far as I know" :P
Well, alright, if mIRC is dependent on that many windows functions couldn't compilation using WineLib provide an avenue in the unlikely event that this porting would take place?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
Hoopy frood
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809 |
mIRC can already run just fine using Wine.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 384
Fjord artisan
|
Fjord artisan
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 384 |
Nah. There's always minor problems, such as glitches with the script editor and stuff. If mIRC ran perfectly under WINE I wouldn't be posting about this. Besides, would be nice to have it run semi-natively rather than through a slow "compatibility layer", y'know?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809
Hoopy frood
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,809 |
Well using winelib would still be a compatibility layer. The only other solution would be to use GTK, however GTK is incredibly buggy under windows, and, to Windows users, it has a very un-userfriendly interface. There are plenty of great IRC clients for Linux, just use one of them.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 384
Fjord artisan
|
Fjord artisan
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 384 |
I do, I use xchat. But mIRC was the first IRC client I used and got to know so I'm somewhat biased in favour towards mIRC. It's truely a great client and, imo, far surpasses the ones Linux has. Just would be nice to have it here, that's all
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5
Nutrimatic drinks dispenser
|
Nutrimatic drinks dispenser
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5 |
mIRC having more functionality than XChat?
I find this very hard to believe; unless you're comparing XChat on Windows to mIRC. XChat on Linux, in my opinion, has a lot more functionality than mIRC on Windows. Just two examples are: you can script XChat in Perl (a lot more powerful than mIRC's scripting language) and you can extend XChat through plug-ins.
mIRC is a wonderful program; but, generalizing like that is just plain arrogant. Oh ... and the comment on stability is subjective and just as arrogant.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,985
Hoopy frood
|
Hoopy frood
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,985 |
You can script in Perl in some Windows chat programmes too so what is your point? Does Perl support more functions that mIRC does as far as IRC is concerned? I am inclined to believe it doesn't.
mIRC contains several hundred IRC-specific identifiers, commands and events. While Perl could probably match that I doubt that significantly beating it is possible. I can install Win 2000 Server on a machine (which I have) and then mIRC with a bot I wrote for it (which I have) and then run it on an indefinite basis (which I have). I don't consider myself to be a super genious with computers so if I can run a stable install I can't see why other people can't, the Windows/Unix stability yarn is boring, useless and irrelevant since the demise of Win 9X.
|
|
|
|
|