On Apr 11, 2011, at 5:58 AM, jeff wrote: > I would also recommend the Cava packager and Citrus Perl. No hassle, > self contained builds with obfuscated code and built in installer. > Won't have same look, but the install effort is close to zero. Clients > just download and run. Use LWP to keep data on your webserver. We're > loving it - it blows Activestate away.
Thanks, Jeff. I'm going to look into these. Hal > Jeff > On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 06:12 -0400, Hal Vaughan wrote: >> On Apr 11, 2011, at 5:53 AM, Mark Dootson wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 11/04/2011 09:44, Hal Vaughan wrote: >>>> I have an unusual situation where I'm going to be running a program on a >>>> Linux server via either PuTTY or ssh. The client could be running Windows >>>> (pretty much any version from XP on up), OS X, or Linux. The GUI will >>>> show up on the client (if it's Windows, I'm using Xming as an X server). >>>> >>>> Is there any way for a Perl program, using WxPerl and on Linux, to show a >>>> style or look and feel for a different OS? For instance, can I change a >>>> setting within the program so instead of getting the Linux look and feel, >>>> I would get a Windows one instead? >>> >>> No. There is no way to do that. What you see via an Xserver is down to the >>> Xserver. >>> >>> If a native look or native desktop application is very important, you could >>> reconsider your whole design and have a native wxPerl client talk to a >>> service / processing side on your Linux server. That might be a major >>> reason for choosing wxPerl: single codebase gives native client on >>> different operating systems. And being Perl, you have a huge choice of >>> tools and toolkits to do the client - service conversation. >> >> I gave that idea some serious thought, but my clients are small business >> people. While I love working with them, I find there are some brick walls I >> run into over and over. There are also some oddities. I tell them my >> services need another system on their LAN (a Soekris 5501, looks harmless >> because there's no keyboard or monitor). They're okay with that. I ask to >> forward a port on the firewall and 95% of the time they freak out and say, >> "Don't touch that. It took me months to get it working," or something like >> that. Usually their cousin Freddie set up their firewall from a HOWTO >> guide, had no clue what he was doing and messed it up, so now that they paid >> someone who used another HOWTO guide, they won't let anyone touch the >> router/firewall no matter what their background. >> >> So when it comes time to installing software on their systems, well, I've >> seen them download really bad games and install them without a second >> thought (they're sure the virus checker scans them on download), but I say, >> "I need to install this on your desktop computer," and I've actually had a >> few freak on me, like the firewall issue. >> >> So I want it all on the box I'm putting on their LAN. No update issues on >> their workstation, no fussing about what gets installed or explaining to >> their kid who's had a few computer classes in high school what I'm doing, >> just one box to plug into the LAN. I know it sounds whack, maybe it's just >> the people around here, but if I can get it all working in the code and >> setup, that means the rest is a breeze. I'd rather solve the issues up >> front than fuss with clients later. >> >> I did consider supplying a version of Perl for Windows on my server on their >> LAN so it could be accessed by an SMB share, but I'm not sure a "LiveCD" >> version of Perl would work well and that would create compatibility issues >> with the libraries. >> >> >> Hal >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. >> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email >> ______________________________________________________________________ >
