From: "joe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Jef, substitute "database" for "game", rewind to
> 1998 and re-read your statements.
>
> Sounds really lame huh? the only difference is
> the 20-20 hindsight we now have about the db
> market - in 1998, all the pundits made dire and
> negative predictions for linux as a database
> platform, just as you're now doing for linux as a
> gaming platform.
>
>
> Best Regards,
Joe, you hit upon the reason I stick around and am considered a PITA
in some circles, particularly kernel circles. I keep reminding them
that it is possible to build a kernel such as NT has that demonstrates
remarkably good near-enough-to-real-time performance. For income I
program some fancy Matrox professional video cards used for broadcast
video on the air in real time. We get frame accurate performance out
of the system. I also do some "show control", which is a sort of
highly specialized brand of process control aimed at theatrical, venue,
theme park presentations. In some ways it looks like a sequencer. In
other ways it looks like a highly human interactive process controller.
We've used two machines, two copies of the show control software, two
DLLs that convert MIDI to and from UDP/IP messages, and a thin coax
Ethernet to maintain 2ms RMS timing jitter over an hour's testing.
(I tried this on an older Linux kernel contemporary to the NT 4 and
thin Ethernet days. I didn't even reduce the data. It was over 250ms
RMS, which corroborated the general Linux "sluggish response" feel that
makes it a poor gaming platform.
I dearly wish I had a practical alternative to NT/2K/XP. Oh God how I
wish! But Linux ain't there. And it's the only other OS with the name
awareness that customers might accept it after some debacles with the
likes of BeOS (damn good - too bad it died in practical terms) and
AmigaDOS.
{^_^} Joanne "The Pest" {^_-}
--
Phoebe-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list
