Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 08:22:33 10/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2003 at 10:35:43, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On October 24, 2003 at 04:50:55, Daniel Clausen wrote: > >>On October 23, 2003 at 19:42:59, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On October 23, 2003 at 05:55:12, Daniel Clausen wrote: >>> >>>i've tested so many toolkits and environments and really >>>very *little* even *works* both in linux and windows. >> >>Agreed. >> >> >>>then possible sales under linux. >>>Yes linux is great, but selling something under it???? >>> >>>It's simply NAIVE to guess that porting an application to *nix will sell some. >> >>The chicken and egg problem again. A good start though is for example to provide >>a Linux version together with the Windows version, as DeepSjeng and hopefully >>Ruffian and Tiger will do in the future. This way you slowly make Linux a viable >>option for the computerchess-interested community. If it is big enough, you may >>even try to sell something in the future. It's a long way, and it requires >>companies/people who think a bit and don't just look at the number of sells by >>tomorrow evening. > >That's all console shit you talk about. > >That's like saying linux is a succes because there is available a left hand >hockey stick for people with 4 fingers and no thumb. Did you read what I was writing? I'm trying to show a way how companies can slowly attract a big enough customer base on Linux, which would be willing to pay for a product. I realize that a company that sells a Linux product (not just Linux-version as an unsupported add-on in the Windows-package) needs a certain customer base in order to (1) Hire people who build a Linux software-package which is tested on the major distros (like RH9, Suse9.2, Mandrake_whatnot) (2) Have people in the customer support answering questions [almost _all_ products have a customer support] >>If you _sell_ a product for Linux, you surely have to make that the software >>installs/runs as flawlessly as under Windows. (*cough* :) That _can_ be done. A > >Nonsense, you have no *idea* what you are talking about. > >Have you ever tried compiling a linux executable from a graphical program in >*nix and tried running it at different linux distributions and kernels with >different *.so and different multithreaded libraries? I assume you're talking about "running the executable", not compiling it. As for graphical programs running under different Linux distros, just download Mozilla - I'm pretty sure it works out of the box under all major distros. The GUI of Diep probably doesn't depend too much on the kernel either - I'm sure it work under my gentoo kernel as well. ;) As for different *.so - that's not any different than under Windows. Please note that with "supporting Linux" I never mean "support every Linux installation there is on Earth". Of course a company can only test their stuff on major distros. gentoo for example would simply be impossible to test for as the system constantly changes. (on purpose) >I bet not. You are of course like all unix hackers used to simply compile it >with source code. Well that won't happen of course. > >No selfrespecting interface can do without multithreading unless you find stuff >like xboard good for 2003 standards. I can't really comment on the multithreading part here, but what's wrong with pthreads under Linux? >I hope you realize what a real product team costs. If you run a team of a person >or 10 to produce a commercial product, then development costs get expressed in >hundreds of thousands, not in cups of volunteerly coffee. I do that very well. That's why I'm trying to show a potential _path_ to a bigger customer base under Linux. Customers don't grow on trees, the market has to develop slowly in this direction. And things like a Linux-version of Ruffian, CT, DS _help_ a little, at least in the computerchess area. Of course, other steps in other fields are required too... [snip] >You have really *no* idea how hard it is to make a commercial product for a new >OS. Actually I do. Our applications run under Solaris, Linux and Windows. >All layout, all i/o, and so on. Additionally you must write your OWN libraries >for linux, because the ones available suck ass. Users in linux DO want to see >the same like their windows counterparts can see. It's hard to comment that, since you're so specific here. ;) >I was shortly enthusiastic about wxwindows and such stuff, but then i created a >bit more advanced application within a few days in that, and it suffered from >bugs everywhere as soon as i wanted stuff to auto-resize. For a small-sized to mid-sized product, I bet the cost to _support_ it is clearly higher than the development cost. >The same functionality i made in 1 day under windows and it worked bugfree. I won't argue that it's easier to build GUIs under Windows as opposed to Windows. There are people who can do it under Linux though too. Just look at the GNOME desktop and all the (GTK2-based) applications available now. So it's possible...I'm sure you spent much more time with the Windows tools than with the Linux tools, so I'm not surprised you're way faster in Windows. >I know so many linux interested persons, and all of them share that >*everything* they ever do under linux, it *never* has to do with graphics. Maybe you know the wrong people? ;) Seriously, what exactly couldn't a person who installs RedHat or Suse on their PC _not_ do? >Sure they want to use cool graphics, but it is here where windows really has a >huge edge at linux. If that would be a killer, we all would use Macs. ;) [snip] Sargon
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.