home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
-
- My $0.02+tax+plates+license:
-
- > I wonder if ARDI could look into buying/licensing the code for
- >the Liken Macintosh emulator, and taking the code which let it run
- >Apple's System files on Executor. If this could be done quick+dirty
- >enough, it would be a good way to boost compatibility without working too
- >hard.
-
- I'm not familliar with the product, but I wouldn't imagine anything like this
- occuring. I seem to remember hearing from Cliff that one of the things that
- ARDI was working toward was 'drop in System 7' originally for 2.0, and pushed
- to a later version. I'd guess a lot of work has been done, and I remember
- reading
- that ARDI was talking with Apple over this. Getting a license for part of a
- commercial, competing product is not something that would come cheap, I would
- bet.
-
- > Is it me, or is MAE just plain too expensive ($495???). Even if
- >it DID run on an Intel platform, it would still cost too much, and that
- >would still leave a wide market for Executor.
-
- It's expensive. But, until recently, almost all UNIX software was insanely
- priced,
- most still is. The basic concept is still multi-$1000 site licenses for
- software.
- This generally hasn't carried over into the home market (except for that OS/2
- word processor, DeScribe, which forced you to buy some several $100/year
- service
- contract from them...for single user use!) and the same seems to be carrying
- over to Linux, with more reasonable prices for programs from SimCity, to Maple,
- to Executor, and so on.
-
- When you're the only company that makes a genre of program, you can charge
- whatever
- you darn well please.
-
- > In addition, how much work would it take to actually make
- >Executor run System 7.x. I know trying to run 6.0.7/8 segfaulted at a
- >certain point, so if the bugs could be tracked down, using GDB or other
- >debuggers... it MIGHT not take too long to get it up (but then again, it
- >might take a long time.)
-
- I know I saw Cliff mention this at some point. See above comment about 'drop
- in Sys7'. Personally, I don't like that, simply because Apple's System is the
- most bloated, hideous, twisted program I have ever seen. It's stuck with
- special
- code for every Mac made, because Apple changed the hardware radically with each
- new model! I gave up on Apple after the ][ GS....the last real machine they
- made.
-
- As for 6.0.x segfaulting, I would bet this is due to unimplemented features,
- or trickery that Apple doesn't document. There's a heck of a lot of that. But,
- I'm not a Mac expert.
-
- > Personally, I consider getting System 7.x to work, and a SVGAlib
- >Linux version (which would be as fast, or faster than Executor/DOS video,
- >since it can map a linear frame buffer on VLB cards) the top two items on
- >my wish list for post-2.0 work.
-
- See above comment about Sys7.
- I really don't know how beneficial a SVGAlib version of executor would be.
- SVGAlib seems to be horribly outdated with hardware support, and nowhere
- near as stable as XFree. Under DOS, you can use the VESA BIOS calls, and
- standards,
- and let the hardware vendor deal with support. With SVGAlib, I can't get
- anything to run above 320x200 because I have a video card that's less than a
- year old. I'm not that familiar with SVGAlib, but I would guess that it also
- adds another layer of indirection.
-
- > In addition, would it be possible to make a 'frontend' link-kit
- >(a executor.a library with all non-frontend code, and the source for the
- >front-end video sections outside of that library) which would help
- >facilitate ARDI outsiders such as myself work on things such as SVGAlib
- >support? I'd be interested into working on that, if possible.
-
- Just guessing on this again, but I would bet that the effort required to
- abstract
- the graphics calls would be almost the same as adapting it to another interface
- (i.e. SVGAlib.)
-
- > Actually, that's nothing compared to an idea I have : place
- >large parts of Executor under the GPL, or something similar. But, keep
- >cool stuff such as the enhanced 68040 emulator ARDI-proprietary, and use
- >the 1.2x synthetic CPU in the GPL version.
-
- As a capitalist company, I would guess that it wouldn't be in ARDI's best
- interest to do that. Besides, what good would it do?
-
- What would you do with most of the source code to a Mac emulator other than....
- use it in your own Mac emulator? The only thing that I could see coming from
- ARDI doing something like that would be cheap knockoff's of Executor. And I
- certainly wouldn't say the 1.2x synth-CPU isn't cool stuff.
-
- > This SOUNDS crazy from a business perspective, but if ARDI could
- >organize independant development of Executor, and use the code developed
- >outside ARDI in new versions of Executor, it would ease the effects of
- >the lack of engineers that ARDI has, and vastly increase development.
-
- They might get a dozen or so people sifting through the code. But what good
- would
- it do them if they gave out the code with a license like the GPL? Or any
- sort of license. I think this idea misses the whole idea of why SOFTWARE
- COMPANIES
- exist.
-
- >Even if
- >the other parts were redeveloped outside (which would take a long time
- >given how the WINE project is going), ARDI could still function as a
- >support business, much like Aladdin runs Commercial Ghostscript and
- >Cygnus Support handles gcc/gdb/etc..., and ARDI would still have the
- >general copyright, just like Linus Torvalds 'owns' the copyright on
- >Linux, and could add other enhancements as time went on.
-
- Excuse me, but the Wine project is progressing significantly. A (small)
- variety of programs run under linux and netbsd, and using Winelib, some
- Windows programs can even be recompiled to run on, say, a Sun.
-
- Mat? Cliff? Anyone want to agree with me, or flame me for being completely
- and utterly wrong?
-
- Sorry if this letter sounds too flame-like. It's late. I'm tired. It's really
- not meant to sound mean.
-
- --Jered
- jered@mit.edu
-
-