I made a comment about this in another thread - Scott Draeker has told me Blizzard thinks the Linux games market is too insignificant to even open up a porting contract with Loki. But the good folks at Loki have tried, and I'm sure they're continuing to try.
Not likely. I talked to Scott Draeker while I was at LWCE this summer - he said that Blizzard has been nothing but painful about any attempts by them (Loki) to establish a porting contract. They seem convinced that there isn't enough of a market for their games on Linux (even after being flooded with e-mails from Linux users wanting StarCraft to be ported - go fig).
Yes, Blizzard, there is a market for games on Linux - Loki is proving that. (Thank you Sam, Scott, and everyone else @ Loki.)
3Dfx cards can do in-window rendering, just it's not supported in any X server as yet. Hopefully XFree 4 will have a good driver that can do this, tho.
Compiling is one step along the path to working. And besides, Mozilla is still considered alpha (alpha meaning the traditional thing - code where features are still being implemented or completed), so it's unreasonable to expect it to be 100% RIGHT NOW.
You admit it's greedy of you to say "Damn you Mozilla people are taking a long time, I want a browser NOW", yet you turn right around and defend it? I'm sorry, IE is not that good a browser. The only platform where it's approaching good is Win32, and maybe Mac. IE5 supports XML (broken with respect to W3C spec), CSS1 and 2 (same), DOM level 0 and 1, I think (broken too, iirc), and HTML 4.0. Mozilla supports all that stuff, or is actively working to incorporate support for it, and THEY'RE FOLLOWING SPECS.
And I doubt you'll see Opera on Linux before Mozilla releases at the current pace - Opera's development for platforms other than Windows has been, dare I say, pitiful. They've been talking a lot about porting to other platforms - what's taking them so long? Did they just write completely nonportable code right off the bat? I truly believe that Mozilla will be the browser to beat, be it on standards compliance, cross-platform-ness, and other important things like that. (Don't even bring up thoughts of IE for Linux - I, for one, refuse to run Microsoft code in Linux. Call me what you like.)
(OT: Funny how Microsoft's people get involved in the development of W3C specs, yet Microsoft's browsers still don't follow them...)
Yes, yes. We've been hearing about this for a year or more, yet nothing has come to fruition. They're going to use Qt. Great. Qt v2 is out (I don't like Qt that well, but whatever). It should work fine. However, I think their current codebase must be so tied to Win32 that they're having to go through and rewrite it for the individual platforms it is to be released on. (It'd certainly explain why it's taking them an age to do these ports.)
Tell Opera Software to get back to us when they have something interesting to say. If they're gonna release a commercial product, fine. But stop telling us how you're GOING to do it - and DO IT already.
At least Mozilla has daily builds and source, so you can SEE the progress. With "Opera for Linux", we have no evidence other than a progress bar on their pages saying how far they think they are.
They [Open Source coders] are willing to put up with bugs and quirks. Real users won't.
Oh really? Then how is it that so many of those "real users" will put up with Windows' flakiness, and bugs, and crashes? I certainly don't like to deal with Windows weirdness, but I'm far from fitting your definition of a "real user". Go fig.
IBM OS/2? Dead, the minute they decided not to support Win32.
What makes you think they DECIDED that? If you can't get the programming information you need, it's pretty hard to replicate the Win32 API... especially since the Win32 API (as is always the case with M$'s current-generation APIs) is in a constant state of flux.
You should like this news then... there's a RAID array controller driver for pretty much ALL of the SMART-2 series of controllers. This includes the SMART 3200 (we have one in the Compaq ProLiant 3000 system I'm running at work). The drivers are in the official stable kernel as of 2.2.12, but I'd recommend 2.2.13 or one of the AC patches - it's been rock solid since I brought it up. (Admittedly just over a week ago now, but I haven't had to reboot it yet, and I don't think I'll need to.)
The JDK and JRE 1.1.8 for Linux are officially released, from my understanding. The current version of the HotJava browser doesn't work on them though - it dies right out of the box... so I don't know how stable IBM's Java port is. (HotJava is supposed to work on Java 1.1.x anyway..)
Yes, I know HotJava's not that wonderful a browser, just thought it'd be a good test to see how well IBM's JDK and JRE work.
You mean besides the fact that \ is an escape character in many major programming languages, while / is the accepted (and apparently POSIX-speced) directory separator? (Think of C, C++, Java, Perl... I'm sure many others could be named.) It can be a headache for the programmer, having to do cute little hacks to work around that lovely little bit of stupidity...
Not that M$ has that much to brag about as far as NT's journalling filesystem... it only journals on the metadata. For them, it's basically just another "me-too" kind of thing, so they can say "Hey! Look! Enterprise people! See, we're reliable! We do journalling just like all those expensive UNIXen!"
I know that ext2 has per-file attribute bits to support compression on a file-by-file basis, and there're patches out there to support that. afaik, there's no "whole filesystem" compression like Stacker/DriveSpace/etc. on DOS/Windows, however, and I don't know what the opinion is on doing it that way. (Probably not too good, unless I miss my guess.)
Ok. When Microsoft wants to innovate, they can THEN let us know, and we'll be okay with that. But except for Microsoft Bob (a total flop), they haven't innovated, but they constantly and wildly wave the banner of "We're Innovating!" when anyone questions what they're doing.
I repeat, INNOVATION IS GOOD. I don't think you'll find a person who'll disagree with that. (And rightly so.) But until Microsoft starts innovating, instead of just buying up everything they want (to make money from it) or don't like (to quash it), I think they need to be taken to task about it.
... compliant and certified Posix API (something Linux only wishes it could be!)
Heh. You're full of shit. Linux 2.2 is POSIX compliant. Y'know that line that says "POSIX conformance testing by UNIFIX"? That means it conforms to POSIX.
Try RESEARCHING before you shoot your mouth off. Then maybe someone will believe you...
Umm. For someone who has nothing to say, you sure are saying a lot of it.
I guess I don't see your problem. XFree86 is not a GUI, but a graphics server, and you run a window manager and apps that define the look of the graphical environment. So what are you whining about?
If they do split it up, I'd hope it would be into more than just 2 smaller companies. Preferably, it would go something like this:
Operating Systems
Consumer Applications
Server Applications
Games
Hardware
Something more like that would probably be better, and keep Microsoft from trying to misuse its influence in the industry. They should also be prevented from making any special "deals" amongst one another.
The BSD license has been revised, removing the advertising clause. I think that makes it no longer necessary to credit the people who you steal (err, borrow) code from when the code in question is under the BSD license.
True, but how different are the "official" UNIX compliance tests from the POSIX compliance tests as administered by UNIFIX? (Linux 2.2.x has successfully passed UNIFIX's POSIX compliance tests.)
Getting it from runtime memory in Windows with a good debugger like SoftICE wouldn't be that hard. As has been said before - it HAS to be decrypted sometime to be applied to the encrypted data.
You'd probably like it even better if you did a pure debian install, instead of mixing and matching. I think dpkg is WAY nicer than rpm. Also, I recommend NOT using dselect (just skip the dselect step), dist-upgrade to potato, install console-apt and install your packages that way. dselect gave me nothing but problems the one time I tried to use it (I had to go back and reinstall - it decided to start removing EVERYTHING after I told it to install some packages!).
Re:Installing packages after installation?
on
SuSE Coming on DVD
·
· Score: 1
Umm. SuSE would be on a DVD-ROM disc - you don't have to do any decoding on a DVD-ROM, just on DVD-Video discs. Also, there's been nothing "inconsistent" about my DVD-ROM drive's record of reading discs in Linux - Linux sees it as just a really BIG CD-ROM drive, and it doesn't care - it reads it just the same. (It just isn't (yet) playing DVD-Video discs...)
No. The chipset's completely different. The Dxr3 is actually a relabeled Sigma Hollywood+ board. I hope someone from Sigma is reading this - we want Linux drivers for the H+! Yes, I know they intend to provide Linux support with their NEXT card... but what about those of us who've ALREADY paid to play? We have to sell what we have, and buy something new, since Sigma doesn't wanna write Linux drivers for their _current_ stuff? Come on.
Not quite... WABI only implemented a subset of the Win16 API. It has nothing to do with the Win32/Win32S API (it couldn't run apps that used those either). The official compatibility list of apps for Wabi was, like, 2 dozen apps, because it implemented enough of Win16 to run them. Other than that, it was strictly a turkey-shoot. If your app of choice used an unimplemented API call, it might grudgingly work, it might work for a while and then crash Wabi, or it might just crash right off, and not run at all. It just depended.
Slashdot Mirror
I made a comment about this in another thread - Scott Draeker has told me Blizzard thinks the Linux games market is too insignificant to even open up a porting contract with Loki. But the good folks at Loki have tried, and I'm sure they're continuing to try.
Not likely. I talked to Scott Draeker while I was at LWCE this summer - he said that Blizzard has been nothing but painful about any attempts by them (Loki) to establish a porting contract. They seem convinced that there isn't enough of a market for their games on Linux (even after being flooded with e-mails from Linux users wanting StarCraft to be ported - go fig).
Yes, Blizzard, there is a market for games on Linux - Loki is proving that. (Thank you Sam, Scott, and everyone else @ Loki.)
3Dfx cards can do in-window rendering, just it's not supported in any X server as yet. Hopefully XFree 4 will have a good driver that can do this, tho.
Compiling is one step along the path to working. And besides, Mozilla is still considered alpha (alpha meaning the traditional thing - code where features are still being implemented or completed), so it's unreasonable to expect it to be 100% RIGHT NOW.
You admit it's greedy of you to say "Damn you Mozilla people are taking a long time, I want a browser NOW", yet you turn right around and defend it? I'm sorry, IE is not that good a browser. The only platform where it's approaching good is Win32, and maybe Mac. IE5 supports XML (broken with respect to W3C spec), CSS1 and 2 (same), DOM level 0 and 1, I think (broken too, iirc), and HTML 4.0. Mozilla supports all that stuff, or is actively working to incorporate support for it, and THEY'RE FOLLOWING SPECS.
And I doubt you'll see Opera on Linux before Mozilla releases at the current pace - Opera's development for platforms other than Windows has been, dare I say, pitiful. They've been talking a lot about porting to other platforms - what's taking them so long? Did they just write completely nonportable code right off the bat? I truly believe that Mozilla will be the browser to beat, be it on standards compliance, cross-platform-ness, and other important things like that. (Don't even bring up thoughts of IE for Linux - I, for one, refuse to run Microsoft code in Linux. Call me what you like.)
(OT: Funny how Microsoft's people get involved in the development of W3C specs, yet Microsoft's browsers still don't follow them...)
they're working on a linux/unix version
Yes, yes. We've been hearing about this for a year or more, yet nothing has come to fruition. They're going to use Qt. Great. Qt v2 is out (I don't like Qt that well, but whatever). It should work fine. However, I think their current codebase must be so tied to Win32 that they're having to go through and rewrite it for the individual platforms it is to be released on. (It'd certainly explain why it's taking them an age to do these ports.)
Tell Opera Software to get back to us when they have something interesting to say. If they're gonna release a commercial product, fine. But stop telling us how you're GOING to do it - and DO IT already.
At least Mozilla has daily builds and source, so you can SEE the progress. With "Opera for Linux", we have no evidence other than a progress bar on their pages saying how far they think they are.
They [Open Source coders] are willing to put up with bugs and quirks. Real users won't.
Oh really? Then how is it that so many of those "real users" will put up with Windows' flakiness, and bugs, and crashes? I certainly don't like to deal with Windows weirdness, but I'm far from fitting your definition of a "real user". Go fig.
IBM OS/2? Dead, the minute they decided not to support Win32.
What makes you think they DECIDED that? If you can't get the programming information you need, it's pretty hard to replicate the Win32 API... especially since the Win32 API (as is always the case with M$'s current-generation APIs) is in a constant state of flux.
You should like this news then... there's a RAID array controller driver for pretty much ALL of the SMART-2 series of controllers. This includes the SMART 3200 (we have one in the Compaq ProLiant 3000 system I'm running at work). The drivers are in the official stable kernel as of 2.2.12, but I'd recommend 2.2.13 or one of the AC patches - it's been rock solid since I brought it up. (Admittedly just over a week ago now, but I haven't had to reboot it yet, and I don't think I'll need to.)
The JDK and JRE 1.1.8 for Linux are officially released, from my understanding. The current version of the HotJava browser doesn't work on them though - it dies right out of the box... so I don't know how stable IBM's Java port is. (HotJava is supposed to work on Java 1.1.x anyway..)
Yes, I know HotJava's not that wonderful a browser, just thought it'd be a good test to see how well IBM's JDK and JRE work.
You mean besides the fact that \ is an escape character in many major programming languages, while / is the accepted (and apparently POSIX-speced) directory separator? (Think of C, C++, Java, Perl... I'm sure many others could be named.) It can be a headache for the programmer, having to do cute little hacks to work around that lovely little bit of stupidity...
Not that M$ has that much to brag about as far as NT's journalling filesystem... it only journals on the metadata. For them, it's basically just another "me-too" kind of thing, so they can say "Hey! Look! Enterprise people! See, we're reliable! We do journalling just like all those expensive UNIXen!"
I know that ext2 has per-file attribute bits to support compression on a file-by-file basis, and there're patches out there to support that. afaik, there's no "whole filesystem" compression like Stacker/DriveSpace/etc. on DOS/Windows, however, and I don't know what the opinion is on doing it that way. (Probably not too good, unless I miss my guess.)
Ok. When Microsoft wants to innovate, they can THEN let us know, and we'll be okay with that. But except for Microsoft Bob (a total flop), they haven't innovated, but they constantly and wildly wave the banner of "We're Innovating!" when anyone questions what they're doing.
I repeat, INNOVATION IS GOOD. I don't think you'll find a person who'll disagree with that. (And rightly so.) But until Microsoft starts innovating, instead of just buying up everything they want (to make money from it) or don't like (to quash it), I think they need to be taken to task about it.
... compliant and certified Posix API (something Linux only wishes it could be!)
Heh. You're full of shit. Linux 2.2 is POSIX compliant. Y'know that line that says "POSIX conformance testing by UNIFIX"? That means it conforms to POSIX.
Try RESEARCHING before you shoot your mouth off. Then maybe someone will believe you...
Umm. For someone who has nothing to say, you sure are saying a lot of it.
I guess I don't see your problem. XFree86 is not a GUI, but a graphics server, and you run a window manager and apps that define the look of the graphical environment. So what are you whining about?
Something more like that would probably be better, and keep Microsoft from trying to misuse its influence in the industry. They should also be prevented from making any special "deals" amongst one another.
Actually, iirc, it's Linus' UNIX. (Named after its creator - some smart person figured out how to pull a recursive acronym out of it tho.)
The BSD license has been revised, removing the advertising clause. I think that makes it no longer necessary to credit the people who you steal (err, borrow) code from when the code in question is under the BSD license.
True, but how different are the "official" UNIX compliance tests from the POSIX compliance tests as administered by UNIFIX? (Linux 2.2.x has successfully passed UNIFIX's POSIX compliance tests.)
Getting it from runtime memory in Windows with a good debugger like SoftICE wouldn't be that hard. As has been said before - it HAS to be decrypted sometime to be applied to the encrypted data.
You'd probably like it even better if you did a pure debian install, instead of mixing and matching. I think dpkg is WAY nicer than rpm. Also, I recommend NOT using dselect (just skip the dselect step), dist-upgrade to potato, install console-apt and install your packages that way. dselect gave me nothing but problems the one time I tried to use it (I had to go back and reinstall - it decided to start removing EVERYTHING after I told it to install some packages!).
Umm. SuSE would be on a DVD-ROM disc - you don't have to do any decoding on a DVD-ROM, just on DVD-Video discs. Also, there's been nothing "inconsistent" about my DVD-ROM drive's record of reading discs in Linux - Linux sees it as just a really BIG CD-ROM drive, and it doesn't care - it reads it just the same. (It just isn't (yet) playing DVD-Video discs...)
No. The chipset's completely different. The Dxr3 is actually a relabeled Sigma Hollywood+ board. I hope someone from Sigma is reading this - we want Linux drivers for the H+! Yes, I know they intend to provide Linux support with their NEXT card... but what about those of us who've ALREADY paid to play? We have to sell what we have, and buy something new, since Sigma doesn't wanna write Linux drivers for their _current_ stuff? Come on.
Not quite... WABI only implemented a subset of the Win16 API. It has nothing to do with the Win32/Win32S API (it couldn't run apps that used those either). The official compatibility list of apps for Wabi was, like, 2 dozen apps, because it implemented enough of Win16 to run them. Other than that, it was strictly a turkey-shoot. If your app of choice used an unimplemented API call, it might grudgingly work, it might work for a while and then crash Wabi, or it might just crash right off, and not run at all. It just depended.
Ok. So do you know how hard it is to get the White Book? (I think that's the question we all want answered...)