>On Tue, 4 Jun 1996, root wrote:
>> least make it a module option. The fact remains, if linux is to be
>> supported by game developers it needs to have the basic video support
>> required.
> Ok, here's the fundamental point I was trying to make: Do we want, as
>a design goal, for Linux to be an OS for game developers? Is "supported
>by game developers" really a goal for Linux/UNIX?
YES!
Currently, we're looking at a typical 80:20 situation. With Windows
95/NT on the 80 side and either Linux or something else at the 20
side.
IMHO it would be fine if the OS market in 2000 is divided into 80%
Windows and 20% Linux. If there is no support for games (which are,
besides text processors the most wanted application for computers), we
will end up with 20% something else (like MacOS or OS/2).
Games and Application Software (like the Caldera Office suite and
StarOffice) _will_ move Linux finally into the User Mainstream.
Nothing else will do that. Not the most clever X Application will give
the users the satisfaction of blowing someone else's Worms from the
display. ;-)
There is a _huge_ market in the online gaming and network play. This
screams for a decent multitasking OS with network support from the
cradle on. It _is_ Linux. So help the game developers to use the OS or
we will soon be locked into a typical Amiga situation where everyone
thinks, he is clever enough to bypass the OS and hit the hardware
himself. There will be games with "You must install this game as
SUID-root / You must be root to run this game" instructions printed
all over it. :-(
>taking. Is Linux supposed to be an alternative to Windows 95 and the
>Mac or is it supposed to be an alternative to Windows NT, SCO Unix,
>Solaris, etc...?
Yes. It is supposed to be used as a Server OS and a Client OS. Face
it: If it is not Linux, then it will be Windows 97, NT97 or something
else, Mr. Gates decides to push into the Server _and_ the Client
market. I don't want no artificial division between Server and Client
OS. Linux is one of the most scaleable OS around (Besides the now dead
Amiga OS I can see no other OS which is useable with 4 Megs of memory
on a 386SX entry level machine and scales nice to a Dual-Pentium with
lots of Memory). _And_ it is on as many platforms around as the NT
stuff. (Alpha, PPC, Intel, SPARC, even long-dead-M68k).
> Now, if we can make Linux a great game platform WITHOUT compromising
>these goals, then fine. However, at least Linus and some others don't
>seem to think that's possible.
I think you didn't understand Linus. He only said, that there is
already everything you need to write fast games using
DirectVideo(). As did Alan as he showed the MITSHM stuff (which is
decent, BTW. ;-) ).
The only point where I disagree with Linus is his fixation on the
X(Free) stuff to run a decent Window system on my machine. I'd say
there are more than one way to show a GUI (imagine an Win32 API
compatible GUI running on a Linux kernel... ;-) (Horrors!))
Ciao
Henning
-- Henning Schmiedehausen ...side by side in orbit... around a fairer SUN. barnard@forge.franken.de http://www.franken.de/users/forge/henningThe Amiga is a bad example, you either had to know a lot of API stuff or some really weird low level programming tricks like using one coprocessor to load the blitters. In effect the Amiga is a typical accelerated video card but tightly cpu coupled and there are less versions to cope with. -- Alan Cox