Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:22:54 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. > >> >>>All what happens is that your helpdesk will get flooded for 99% by questions >>>about linux and how to install it and why it doesn't work and what they have to >>>type. >> >>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 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 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. > >So for mass market products like chess you should sell tens of thousands of >copies before that pays itself back. > >That explains why the only stuff released for linux are 1 man products and >diep's graphical interface, though it could be ported to linux with a lot less >effort than that, will be no exception to that. That is the most incredibly uninformed bit of misinformation I have ever read. "1 man products". Can you spell any of the following: apache gcc xfree86 intel's linux c++ compiler gimp linux itself the alsa sound-driver project There are hundreds of such things. _none_ of them are "one man projects". There are thousands of X-based products that will compile cleanly on linux, solaris, irix, HPUX and so forth, and work fine. Xwindows is a good example. Xboard comes to mind. Threads are perfectly portable. Crafty runs on any version of linux or unix you care to name. With no changes needed. > >If i could find just 1000 users who would be willing to PAY for a linux product, >so actually PAY instead and not saying they 'wish', i would consider bringing >out a graphical version for linux too, despite that 1000 users still can't pay >back for development costs; not to mention extra helpdesk costs. > >You have really *no* idea how hard it is to make a commercial product for a new >OS. Linux is _not_ new. X is _not_ new. X existed in 1980. We had applications then that work perfectly _now_. > >*everything* must get rewritten from the GUI. All dialog boxes. Entire >communication protocols from and to engine, because shared memory and everything >that has to do with threading is simply at a LOWER level in linux, than in >windows. Linux and windows are different. But linux vs linux doesn't have problems that you suggest. > >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. > >In MFC, or any other development interface under windows that's commercially >possible to use (don't tell me about kylix for linux, it sucks ass for >commercial productions like chess GUI's; it's only good for making a shoe >database for the military, note the dutch shoe database for military has been >created in visual basic and not a product for linux so they don't need it for >that even), you click at 5 things and you program for 5 minutes and you got >yourself a good dialog. > >In linux however you must go through hell and still you got nowhere. _only_ if you don't know what you are doing... > >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. > >The same functionality i made in 1 day under windows and it worked bugfree. > >But i know we can talk on and on here, but the average linux fan is never busy >with graphical stuff, so they have *no idea* what they're talking about. That's right. The xfree86.org folks are a bunch of incompetent idiots... X has never worked. Nobody uses it. Not oracle. not peachtree. Not sun. Not IBM. Nobody uses it. > >The real problem of linux is that windows has a lot of standardized ways to do >graphics inside it, and that isn't nice, bugs to avoid here, bugs to avoid there >with another function call. Problems here, DLl problems there. > >But when compared to linux, then windows is heaven. > >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. > >Sure they want to use cool graphics, but it is here where windows really has a >huge edge at linux. > >Try to make a small chat window with different text at different fonts at it >which scrolls up. > >Like all CHESS gui's have. Not difficult at all. Lots of products already have this... Just because you can't figure out how to do it doesn't mean some competent unix person can't.. > >chesspartner >chessbase > >and so on. > >Now make that in a way in windows such that it also works cool in windows. > >MFC can cross compile in linux you say? > >And why do you guess that they have worked on trying to get it cross compile in >linux? > >There's just one reason: linux has *nothing* useful there. > >The real luck DIEP's GUI has right now is that it works fine under the latest >emulators for linux. > >But as soon as some extra functionality gets added, which within 1 month will >happen, i know it again will not work. > >The things that make your product look cool, are not so easy to write such that >they work both for linux and windows. > >QT also won't help you there. > >>chess engine which doesn't come with a GUI is _not_ a good example how to sell >>software under Linux. As you say, it's for nerds. But that's how you have to >>start with everything new. But then, winboard-engines are as hard to install/run >>as xboard-engines under Unix. >> >>Once there are enough people and there's a market, it's very well possible under >>Linux to make real package which the average Joe can install and run. >> >> >>>Even experienced linux users when i ship them a default diep version, they >>>simply do *not* get diep to work without extensive instructions. >> >>Winboard-engines have the same problem. (just look at all the questions about >>them in this forum) >> >> >>>The same users *do* get diep to work under windows. >>>Why? >> >>Because you bundle Diep for Windows with a GUI, an installer, maybe a manual. >>The Linux-distribution though is just an executable? >> >> >>>Because everything runs there simply. >> >>No, because you provide a working _package_. (which at the moment surely is >>easier to provide for Windows than for Linux) >> >>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.