Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: gmd.de!nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!EU.net!uunet!objy!objy!jacob
From: jacob@objy.com (Jacob Butcher)
Subject: Re: porting TADS to other platforms
Message-ID: <1994May16.072348.11784@objy.com>
Sender: news@objy.com
Organization: Objectivity Inc.
References: <CpnLLL.2qE@viewlogic.com> <DJOHNSON.94May13120301@arnold.ucsd.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 May 94 07:23:48 GMT
Lines: 30

djohnson@arnold.ucsd.edu (Darin Johnson) writes:
>> Personally, I would prefer to see Mike working on new features in the TADS
>> engine (like validIoDo :-) rather than answering questions about portability
>> from people who use less common operating systems which he has no access to.
>
>A couple points here.  First, this attitude (for those of you never
>having been done anything but what the masses do) adds insult to
>injury - the injury is that this great product is harder to come
>by and incomplete, the insult is everyone saying "...and we don't care."

Let me make sure I understood you clearly.  You object to Mike's
(hypothetical, since I haven't seen a statement from *him*) attitude
that he would rather improve TADS on the platforms it currently
supports than port it to other platforms.  Right?

>Second, for freeware I can see this attitude (no time).
>But for $40+, I've only got part of a system...

No, silly, for $40+ you've got a complete system that you can run on (say)
90% of all computers.  If it did run on every single computer in existence, or
even another few percent of them, it would cost significantly more.  Or are
you offering to pay $80 for the Apple IIgs version when the PC users are
paying $40 for their version?

My last company would port its product to anything for a few bucks, and it
lost money on every port.  For all I know, they're still porting like mad
and hemorrhaging cash, but from what I hear they effectively priced themselves
out of their market and are losing business as a result.

					~jacob
