When I was deciding how to outfit my Hanaho ArcadePC (www.hanaho.com), I did a lot of surfing on the topic.
I found that the key piece of information I needed was that the video mode code in MAME was all done to the ATI Mach64 chipset. I bought a card with this chip (ATI XPert 98) for the Celeron-500/128Mb RAM box I was planning to use. I run the Windows 98 version of DOS, and the AMAME optimized compile of MAME/DOS, and I just checked out Gradius3 on my rig and I am getting 60fps all the way through the first act (I suck at Gradius3). The INTRO, and parts of attract mode, slow way down (which is a bit odd), but gameplay at least at the beginning is pretty cool...
It has seemed to me over the last year or two that although the groundswell behind Linux is great, it's all about things being free. Doesn't this more adequately indicate why vendors like Informix are difficult to entice to this type of event? Is there any evidence that people are spending money on software that runs on Linux servers? This huge rush to put business-strengh applications on Linux doesn't seem to be bearing financial fruit to anyone that isn't doing a distribution...or is it just me that thinks this?
But can you SELL anything you write for Linux?
on
Why Develop On Linux?
·
· Score: 1
OK, I buy the argument that if you're developing for Windows, use Windows, and if you're developing for Linux, use Linux. So you're an ISV - you have decided that your organization will write programs and sell them. NOW why would you develop on Linux? Correct me if I've suddenly gone all loony, but is there anyone on the planet that's actually MAKING any MONEY by SELLING applications or even tools that work on Linux? The early adopters (Corel, Oracle) aren't making any money SELLING software for Linux. Is anyone? Can anyone? Or is Linux all about "write everything yourself that you can't get for free"? Because if it is, isn't it doomed to financial failure as a platform, regardless of how "cool" it is?
Slashdot Mirror
...it'd be nice to have all the bells and whistles we're used to on Windows...but at what cost all these improvements?
When I was deciding how to outfit my Hanaho ArcadePC (www.hanaho.com), I did a lot of surfing on the topic. I found that the key piece of information I needed was that the video mode code in MAME was all done to the ATI Mach64 chipset. I bought a card with this chip (ATI XPert 98) for the Celeron-500/128Mb RAM box I was planning to use. I run the Windows 98 version of DOS, and the AMAME optimized compile of MAME/DOS, and I just checked out Gradius3 on my rig and I am getting 60fps all the way through the first act (I suck at Gradius3). The INTRO, and parts of attract mode, slow way down (which is a bit odd), but gameplay at least at the beginning is pretty cool...
It has seemed to me over the last year or two that although the groundswell behind Linux is great, it's all about things being free. Doesn't this more adequately indicate why vendors like Informix are difficult to entice to this type of event? Is there any evidence that people are spending money on software that runs on Linux servers? This huge rush to put business-strengh applications on Linux doesn't seem to be bearing financial fruit to anyone that isn't doing a distribution...or is it just me that thinks this?
OK, I buy the argument that if you're developing for Windows, use Windows, and if you're developing for Linux, use Linux. So you're an ISV - you have decided that your organization will write programs and sell them. NOW why would you develop on Linux? Correct me if I've suddenly gone all loony, but is there anyone on the planet that's actually MAKING any MONEY by SELLING applications or even tools that work on Linux? The early adopters (Corel, Oracle) aren't making any money SELLING software for Linux. Is anyone? Can anyone? Or is Linux all about "write everything yourself that you can't get for free"? Because if it is, isn't it doomed to financial failure as a platform, regardless of how "cool" it is?