Hi all, I am trying to port one application from windows to linux. I am facing problem in finding out alternative for WSAEVENT and the associated functions to it like WSACreateEvent,WSAWaitForMultipleEvents etc. Can anybody help? Regards, Suman
____________________________________________________________________________________ Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
On 2/1/07, suman tripathy mcasuman@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi all, I am trying to port one application from windows to linux. I am facing problem in finding out alternative for WSAEVENT and the associated functions to it like WSACreateEvent,WSAWaitForMultipleEvents etc. Can anybody help? Regards, Suman
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
You will get some information on this link
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms742219.aspx http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms741561.aspx
Thanks & Regards
Zoheb Ansari
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms742219.aspx http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms741561.aspx
i never thought i would see the day when a link with a microsoft.com domain would be posted for help.
<*SIGH*>
Regards,
- vihan
On 2/3/07, Vihan Pandey vihanpandey@gmail.com wrote:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms742219.aspx http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms741561.aspx
i never thought i would see the day when a link with a microsoft.comdomain would be posted for help.
<*SIGH*>
Regards,
- vihan
True, but think about it : this will help one more app out of M$.
Anyhow, the query seems to be on how to port an app using winsock to GNU/Linux. Looking at the winsock api, it seems to be quite similar to the socket api + polling for events with poll().
No harm using a thorn to remove a thorn.
Regards, Mohan S N
True, but think about it : this will help one more app out of M$.
that would be the positive way to look at it :-)
No harm using a thorn to remove a thorn.
i guess. The issue happens when you touch patented technology, to be precise M$ authored/stolen patented technology, anything with that kind of lineage is bound to give legal problems eventually. That app (future tense)was ported with the noble intention of making it run on a Free(as in freedom) operarting system, or even nobler intentions of making it a Free Software. But because of the building blocks being tainted, it can never be truely Free.
Regards,
- vihan
On 2/3/07, Vihan Pandey vihanpandey@gmail.com wrote:
But because of the building blocks being tainted, it can never be truely Free.
Would this mean that I am not allowed to write a library that emulates the winsock api? My question is this: Certainly I am not allowed to reverse-engineer the M$ networking stack, but am I also not allowed to replicate the interface?
Regards, Mohan S N
Would this mean that I am not allowed to write a library that emulates the winsock api? My question is this: Certainly I am not allowed to reverse-engineer the M$ networking stack, but am I also not allowed to replicate the interface?
You certainly can; and closed-box reverse-engineering can hold in a court of law too. The ReactOS and Wine projects are already doing it.
And, the part of .NET that Mono implements is a published _open_ standard. Nobody's going to sue anybody.
-- Anant
On Sunday 04 February 2007 00:07, Anant Narayanan wrote:
Would this mean that I am not allowed to write a library that emulates the winsock api? My question is this: Certainly I am not allowed to reverse-engineer the M$ networking stack, but am I also not allowed to replicate the interface?
You certainly can; and closed-box reverse-engineering can hold in a court of law too. The ReactOS and Wine projects are already doing it.
Wine is not reverse engineering afaik.
And, the part of .NET that Mono implements is a published _open_ standard. Nobody's going to sue anybody.
What exactly do you mean by "open". The standards are encumbered by patents. And the Microvell deal is aimed at non paying users of M$ patents. Does Mono violate M$ patents?. To be sure u would have to higher a lawyer and do a patent search. And according to Miguel De Icaza he does not know of any possible violations. But of late he does not seem to know a lot more. Recently he tried justifying the OOXML ECMA standards. His argument was that there was nothing wrong with yet another standard. Which completely missed the point that OOXML was not a standard but an incorrect and incomplete description of a single implemetation of MSoffice blobs. A standard is one when it has more than one independent implementation for starters.
What exactly do you mean by "open". The standards are encumbered by patents. And the Microvell deal is aimed at non paying users of M$ patents. Does Mono violate M$ patents?. To be sure u would have to higher a lawyer and do a patent search. And according to Miguel De Icaza he does not know of any possible violations. But of late he does not seem to know a lot more. Recently he tried justifying the OOXML ECMA standards. His argument was that there was nothing wrong with yet another standard. Which completely missed the point that OOXML was not a standard but an incorrect and incomplete description of a single implemetation of MSoffice blobs. A standard is one when it has more than one independent implementation for starters.
Not true. Anybody is free to make a "standard" of their own. Of course, what makes a standard "stand out" depends on how popular it is and how many implementations of it are out there.
There's only one proper implementation of an XHTML 1.1 based browser. It's still a standard, is it not?
On Monday 05 February 2007 21:26, Anant Narayanan wrote:
What exactly do you mean by "open". The standards are encumbered by patents. And the Microvell deal is aimed at non paying users of M$ patents. Does Mono violate M$ patents?. To be sure u would have to higher a lawyer and do a patent search. And according to Miguel De Icaza he does not know of any possible violations. But of late he does not seem to know a lot more. Recently he tried justifying the OOXML ECMA standards. His argument was that there was nothing wrong with yet another standard. Which completely missed the point that OOXML was not a standard but an incorrect and incomplete description of a single implemetation of MSoffice blobs. A standard is one when it has more than one independent implementation for starters.
Not true. Anybody is free to make a "standard" of their own.
And how does that become a standard?
Of course, what makes a standard "stand out" depends on how popular it is and how many implementations of it are out there.
What makes a standard a standard is how well it's description helps in creating working tools by perusing that standard. Document standards was neccessitated by the need to allow interoperabilty. OOXML essentially describes how to enclose binary blobs, while saying nothing about the blob itself, which is the center of the interoperability problem.
There's only one proper implementation of an XHTML 1.1 based browser. It's still a standard, is it not?
It's not. Not until someone writes an implementation as per the standards documentation.
And how does that become a standard?
What we have here is our own interpretations of the word "standard". If I were to make a fictitious language of my own; and if I would write documentation describing the semantics of that language; that's a standard. It may not be popular in the sense of other people adopting it; but any compiler that conforms to my semantics automatically conforms to my "standard".
What makes a standard a standard is how well it's description helps in creating working tools by perusing that standard. Document standards was neccessitated by the need to allow interoperabilty. OOXML essentially describes how to enclose binary blobs, while saying nothing about the blob itself, which is the center of the interoperability problem.
I never said OOXML wasn't crap. I only said that .NET is a proper standard. The ECMA .NET specification, unlike OOXML, describes in detail the language itself and provides all the necessary information to create working tools. Which is why Mono was made possible in the first place.
Again, .NET is an ECMA standard; complete with a reference implementation. If you consider JavaScript to be a standard, there's no reason why .NET isn't.
There's only one proper implementation of an XHTML 1.1 based browser. It's still a standard, is it not?
It's not. Not until someone writes an implementation as per the standards documentation.
As far as I am concerned it still is. Because I can make web pages that comply to XHTML 1.1 and validate them with W3C's validator. Whether or not the end-user will be able to view the web pages as XHTML 1.1 intended them to be viewed is not my problem.
On Tuesday 06 February 2007 14:04, Anant Narayanan wrote:
And how does that become a standard?
What we have here is our own interpretations of the word "standard". If I were to make a fictitious language of my own; and if I would write documentation describing the semantics of that language; that's a standard. It may not be popular in the sense of other people adopting it; but any compiler that conforms to my semantics automatically conforms to my "standard".
We are talking of documentation of some technology which has substantial peer review and multiple implementations which can interoperate. You can write an arbitary set of rules to do something and over time peer review and multiple implementations may happen at which point you can call it a standard. Your initial efforts are not a standard but just a proposal or description with a bench mark implementation.
OOXML essentially describes how to enclose
binary blobs, while saying nothing about the blob itself, which is the center of the interoperability problem.
I never said OOXML wasn't crap. I only said that .NET is a proper standard.
I never said that .net is not a standard but that it is encumbered and hence not open. You cannot implement a patented software tech by reading the standard because the standard substantially describes the patented tech and would imply wilful violation. Standards bodies clearly state that encumbered standards are available on RAND terms - tech like the GSM specs - to be read as pay a fat sum for the privlege of not getting sued. And in the light of the microvell deal to be avoided like the plague. This was in response to your "nobody is going to sue anybody"
The ECMA .NET specification, unlike OOXML, describes in detail the language itself and provides all the necessary information to create working tools. Which is why Mono was made possible in the first place.
Agreed
Again, .NET is an ECMA standard; complete with a reference implementation. If you consider JavaScript to be a standard, there's no reason why .NET isn't.
Agreed again. Except for the patent part and Micovell deal tactitly acknowledging that patent encumberances are present in some Novell stuff. Without knowing what exactly this is your only chance is avoid unpaid Novell stuff like the plague - unless you are a great gambler or love the lawyers.
There's only one proper implementation of an XHTML 1.1 based browser. It's still a standard, is it not?
It's not. Not until someone writes an implementation as per the standards documentation.
As far as I am concerned it still is. Because I can make web pages that comply to XHTML 1.1 and validate them with W3C's validator. Whether or not the end-user will be able to view the web pages as XHTML 1.1 intended them to be viewed is not my problem.
Hope it's good for you that others view something entirely different than what u intended.
On 06/02/07 14:04 +0530, Anant Narayanan wrote: <snip>
Again, .NET is an ECMA standard; complete with a reference implementation. If you consider JavaScript to be a standard, there's no reason why .NET isn't.
.NET is a standard, but with parts covered by patents in the US. OOXML is a specification, which is not yet a standard.
Devdas Bhagat
On Tuesday 06 February 2007 18:08, Devdas Bhagat wrote:
On 06/02/07 14:04 +0530, Anant Narayanan wrote:
<snip>
Again, .NET is an ECMA standard; complete with a reference implementation. If you consider JavaScript to be a standard, there's no reason why .NET isn't.
.NET is a standard, but with parts covered by patents in the US. OOXML is a specification, which is not yet a standard.
For the record pure software patents are not recognised in India as of now. So you are probaly safe as long as u dont export to countries permitting software patents.
I am trying to port one application from windows to linux. I am facing problem in finding out alternative for WSAEVENT and the associated functions to it like WSACreateEvent,WSAWaitForMultipleEvents etc. Can
More details on what 'WSAEVENT' actually does would help. You can't use the traditional Win32 API in Linux BTW; if that's what you're trying to do. You can use .NET using Mono though.
-- Anant
On Friday 02 February 2007 17:58, Anant Narayanan wrote:
I am trying to port one application from windows to linux. I am facing problem in finding out alternative for WSAEVENT and the associated functions to it like WSACreateEvent,WSAWaitForMultipleEvents etc. Can
More details on what 'WSAEVENT' actually does would help. You can't use the traditional Win32 API in Linux BTW; if that's what you're trying to do. You can use .NET using Mono though.
Keep a loaded gun handy when the cease and desist notice for patent violation arrives.
-
Anant Narayanan -
Devdas Bhagat -
jtd -
Mohan Nayaka -
suman tripathy -
Vihan Pandey -
zoheb ashraf