sure, it runs quite well in 640x480, everything on.. take it up to 800x600, and i have to go to lowest quality everything...
well i really wanted to try it in windows, after i upgraded the video in that computer.. but the computer now only runs in linux, as there is no windows driver for my scsi card.
so, i can't really compare windows to linux performance, as i think this may be an indication of the PCI Radeon drivers sucking for Linux.
right.. now.. why does nethack need audiofile, bzip, cctools?!?, esound, gdbm, giflib, gmp, gnome-libs, jade, sp3, orbit, sgml, for that matter, nethack required an install of xfree86.
Very farking nice.
Immediatly after installing Fedora Core 2 on my web server, I did "apt-get upgrade", and it informed me "1800 packages will be upgraded", it downloaded for like 5 hours, and then it died trying to install them, because it had to upgrade several packages that couldn't be upgraded due to packages that depend on the older versions.
I thought the point of a package manager, even better, was so that I could get a piece of software that I want, open my "Downloads" folder (that I can't put on my KDE desktop, because the KDE desktop doesn't have any way to make symlinks to directories, only files), and double click the "PieceOfSoftwareV1.2.???" (??? being.rpm,.deb,.whatever), and have the new software installed.
And another serious issue, is that the distros ARE trying to package virtually every conceivable piece of software a user might want.
Why do I have to install a whole metric assload of software behind KDE, to support a PIM and organizer, and a palm pilot, and a million other pieces of garbage, when all I really want is a sane desktop, a programs menu, and to be able to run web browser/email/chat/IM programs?
And why do I have some 30 different programs to play CD's, 4 different programs to rip MP3s, but not a damn thing to play video with?
See, a simple versioning system for these sorts of things would've solved the entire problem too, but it's very difficult to get multiple versions of the same library installed within a Linux (or windows, pre 2k) system, even though Linux DOES actually have a versioning system for libraries. (but they will all tell you "must remove version 4 to install version 5")
(1) KDE and Gnome are very difficult to use (2) you want to plug in a new device, to your plug-and-play USB hub? ok, great, now go spend all day tracking down the driver and recompiling your kernel (3).. insert more here
A better implementation would allow binary drivers, without any of these issues.
While many of the issues out there may BE the binary drivers.. but, if Joe User goes out and buys a piece of hardware for his computer, plugs it in, and can just install a little driver program, to make it work, then Joe User is happy.
When I, someone who has been using Unix since System III was common, and have been using computers for the last 25 years (i'm 28..), and have done kernel hacking, and worked on major products, even gained quite a bit of income from my own projects back in the day, has to set aside an entire day just because I want to operate my USB Webcam in Linux (which I Haven't done yet, because I am too busy to have an entire day to spend fucking with my computer), and I --know-- that it's not going to be as simple as "plug it in, install the driver, recompile"... why the fuck should it require a recompile, anyway? If I'm using common hardware, and common software, there should be binary driver compatibility.
To Greg's points:
re: fixing bugs. Yes, you fix the api bugs, you fix the drivers you have control over, you bump the API version, and now drivers that can't work with that change refuse to load. I highly doubt that my Diamond Stealth 64 Windows '95 video driver will work if I try to load it into XP. It ain't gonna happen.
re: building better apis. Yes, you fix the API, bump the version number, and now drivers that can't work with the new version refuse to load.
re: CONFIG_SMP There must be an API to deal with "core kernel structures". What the fuck is a driver doing with "core kernel structures"?
re: GCC alignment issues- GCC is obviously not the best compiler to do this with. GCC is quite obviously not the best at anything, except being compatible across a bazillion operating systems. That's ALL GCC is good for.
re: drivers outside the kernel tree give nothing back; Maybe they have nothing useful to give, either? WHY is it important that we know how everything the hardware manufacturer does works, if they are competent enough to make it work? YES, I agree that open source drivers and being available with the kernel are the BETTER option, but that doesn't mean that some people aren't going to want a different option.
re: deleting functions; See also API versioning. I think I've repeated that a few times now.
Why do you hate Linux? Why do you not want it to succeed?
Or do you enjoy spending an entire day or longer just making some USB gadget work?
wha wha wha?! i've got a P3/700, with 256, and i think it's a Radeon 8500? Whatever the highest end PCI Radeon was. Q3 doesn't even play at 800x600 let alone anything new. In fact, isn't HL2's minimum requirement for processor in the GHz range? (I haven't looked, I just assumed it would be since it's so new)
Without any identifying information, we have no choice but to either believe every word you say, or completely disbelieve every word you say.
It's obviously not coming from a lawyer, who would not speak in the fashion that you have given. I don't have access to whois information from work, but maybe someone should whois stopkill.com, and see what the actual name/address/etc on the site is, because i bet the whole "way to reach this guy" is probably faked.
Then again, I could be totally wrong.
I think, that it was faked at the site that Slashdot linked to. If I'm wrong about that, I bet it was faked by someone faking you out.
I work in a place that sells a ton of high-end portable DVD players.
Virtually every single one of them sold, the customer will bring them back to us in a week, complaining that they won't play their DVDs. So, I ask them to show me one of their discs, and they are always solid-white label, with the name of a movie (usually one that's just now out in theaters) printed directly on the face of it, in something like Arial 15pt.
HUGE HUGE HUGE business. And they are mostly camcorder takes.
Sure, screener DVDs may be more common on the Internet, but the common man without Internet, or at least without the knowledge of how toget decent DVD copies on the Internet, are trading in camcorder takes.
BTW, real easy way to solve the problem.. most all camcorders have IR emitters, to improve picture quality in low lighting conditions... so, you just scan the room every now and then using another camcorder,or a security camera, and you'll be able to see the IR being emitted from anyone recording it's recorder.
It's hypothetical that it would happen. However, the GPL does in fact COVER that if it were to happen, then prevailing copyright law would take effect.
it could, but I highly doubt Windows could be killed in that way - How many YEARS could Microsoft give away Windows for, without Bill even noticing a dent in his fortune?
No, he's not throwing around hypothetical situations.
If a clause of the GPL were found to be unlawful in a locale, then whatever it affected would revert to the normal copyright law of the place where it were found to be unlawful.
Back in the day when including source code with your program would be difficult, as it would no longer fit on the distribution media, or it would be unreasonable to "force" someone into taking both the source code and binaries, as modem transmission speeds in the 300-1200 bps range were most common (and compression programs sucked arse then too), that was a very common thing.
In the UNIX world, GPL programs were almost always transmitted via source code, without binaries. In all other OS worlds, GPL programs were (and still are) almost always transmitted via binary code, without source.
There's lots of GPL windows software, but how many machines are owned by developers, and have the software needed to recompile source code?
Slashdot Mirror
sure, it runs quite well in 640x480, everything on.. take it up to 800x600, and i have to go to lowest quality everything...
well i really wanted to try it in windows, after i upgraded the video in that computer.. but the computer now only runs in linux, as there is no windows driver for my scsi card.
so, i can't really compare windows to linux performance, as i think this may be an indication of the PCI Radeon drivers sucking for Linux.
right.. now.. why does nethack need audiofile, bzip, cctools?!?, esound, gdbm, giflib, gmp, gnome-libs, jade, sp3, orbit, sgml, for that matter, nethack required an install of xfree86.
Very farking nice.
Immediatly after installing Fedora Core 2 on my web server, I did "apt-get upgrade", and it informed me "1800 packages will be upgraded", it downloaded for like 5 hours, and then it died trying to install them, because it had to upgrade several packages that couldn't be upgraded due to packages that depend on the older versions.
It's been like that for months now. lol
er.. I run Q3 on debian "ridiculuously cutting edge", whatever the hell it's called.
Although it did just completely stop working, last week. Haven't figured out why yet. I think it's because I switched from GNOME to KDE.
I thought the point of a package manager, even better, was so that I could get a piece of software that I want, open my "Downloads" folder (that I can't put on my KDE desktop, because the KDE desktop doesn't have any way to make symlinks to directories, only files), and double click the "PieceOfSoftwareV1.2.???" (??? being .rpm, .deb, .whatever), and have the new software installed.
And another serious issue, is that the distros ARE trying to package virtually every conceivable piece of software a user might want.
Why do I have to install a whole metric assload of software behind KDE, to support a PIM and organizer, and a palm pilot, and a million other pieces of garbage, when all I really want is a sane desktop, a programs menu, and to be able to run web browser/email/chat/IM programs?
And why do I have some 30 different programs to play CD's, 4 different programs to rip MP3s, but not a damn thing to play video with?
So, you've got one application that depends on library A version 3 and library B version 2.
And another application that requires library B version 3 and library A version 2.
Now, you're fucked, because the libraries, package handlers, etc, all cannot handle having two versions of the same thing.
See, a simple versioning system for these sorts of things would've solved the entire problem too, but it's very difficult to get multiple versions of the same library installed within a Linux (or windows, pre 2k) system, even though Linux DOES actually have a versioning system for libraries. (but they will all tell you "must remove version 4 to install version 5")
except that somewhere in there, you'll need to update all your other software in the system
(1) KDE and Gnome are very difficult to use .. insert more here
(2) you want to plug in a new device, to your plug-and-play USB hub? ok, great, now go spend all day tracking down the driver and recompiling your kernel
(3)
Yes.
.. why the fuck should it require a recompile, anyway? If I'm using common hardware, and common software, there should be binary driver compatibility.
A better implementation would allow binary drivers, without any of these issues.
While many of the issues out there may BE the binary drivers.. but, if Joe User goes out and buys a piece of hardware for his computer, plugs it in, and can just install a little driver program, to make it work, then Joe User is happy.
When I, someone who has been using Unix since System III was common, and have been using computers for the last 25 years (i'm 28..), and have done kernel hacking, and worked on major products, even gained quite a bit of income from my own projects back in the day, has to set aside an entire day just because I want to operate my USB Webcam in Linux (which I Haven't done yet, because I am too busy to have an entire day to spend fucking with my computer), and I --know-- that it's not going to be as simple as "plug it in, install the driver, recompile".
To Greg's points:
re: fixing bugs. Yes, you fix the api bugs, you fix the drivers you have control over, you bump the API version, and now drivers that can't work with that change refuse to load. I highly doubt that my Diamond Stealth 64 Windows '95 video driver will work if I try to load it into XP. It ain't gonna happen.
re: building better apis. Yes, you fix the API, bump the version number, and now drivers that can't work with the new version refuse to load.
re: CONFIG_SMP There must be an API to deal with "core kernel structures". What the fuck is a driver doing with "core kernel structures"?
re: GCC alignment issues- GCC is obviously not the best compiler to do this with. GCC is quite obviously not the best at anything, except being compatible across a bazillion operating systems. That's ALL GCC is good for.
re: drivers outside the kernel tree give nothing back; Maybe they have nothing useful to give, either? WHY is it important that we know how everything the hardware manufacturer does works, if they are competent enough to make it work? YES, I agree that open source drivers and being available with the kernel are the BETTER option, but that doesn't mean that some people aren't going to want a different option.
re: deleting functions; See also API versioning. I think I've repeated that a few times now.
Why do you hate Linux? Why do you not want it to succeed?
Or do you enjoy spending an entire day or longer just making some USB gadget work?
wha wha wha?! i've got a P3/700, with 256, and i think it's a Radeon 8500? Whatever the highest end PCI Radeon was. Q3 doesn't even play at 800x600 let alone anything new. In fact, isn't HL2's minimum requirement for processor in the GHz range? (I haven't looked, I just assumed it would be since it's so new)
I cannot answer this question, on the grounds that it would make me immediatly liable for a violation of the DMCA.
There are no credible debunkings of this story. All debunkings are potentially just as filled with garbage as the original Elena writings are.
In any case, she is one hot chick that I would love to go on a motorcycle ride with.
Brian,
Without any identifying information, we have no choice but to either believe every word you say, or completely disbelieve every word you say.
It's obviously not coming from a lawyer, who would not speak in the fashion that you have given. I don't have access to whois information from work, but maybe someone should whois stopkill.com, and see what the actual name/address/etc on the site is, because i bet the whole "way to reach this guy" is probably faked.
Then again, I could be totally wrong.
I think, that it was faked at the site that Slashdot linked to. If I'm wrong about that, I bet it was faked by someone faking you out.
Someone get a good zoom in on that so we can get a good look at the infamous Leather Goddesses of Phobos. Please? :)
Since camcorders see IR emissions, this would likely blind most camcorders.
I work in a place that sells a ton of high-end portable DVD players.
,or a security camera, and you'll be able to see the IR being emitted from anyone recording it's recorder.
Virtually every single one of them sold, the customer will bring them back to us in a week, complaining that they won't play their DVDs. So, I ask them to show me one of their discs, and they are always solid-white label, with the name of a movie (usually one that's just now out in theaters) printed directly on the face of it, in something like Arial 15pt.
HUGE HUGE HUGE business. And they are mostly camcorder takes.
Sure, screener DVDs may be more common on the Internet, but the common man without Internet, or at least without the knowledge of how toget decent DVD copies on the Internet, are trading in camcorder takes.
BTW, real easy way to solve the problem.. most all camcorders have IR emitters, to improve picture quality in low lighting conditions... so, you just scan the room every now and then using another camcorder
It's hypothetical that it would happen. However, the GPL does in fact COVER that if it were to happen, then prevailing copyright law would take effect.
it could, but I highly doubt Windows could be killed in that way - How many YEARS could Microsoft give away Windows for, without Bill even noticing a dent in his fortune?
I have two OS's currently running, that can run a LOT of MS Windows apps without being MS Windows.
OS/2, and Linux.
I bet if you try, you can find a few more, too.
No, he's not throwing around hypothetical situations.
If a clause of the GPL were found to be unlawful in a locale, then whatever it affected would revert to the normal copyright law of the place where it were found to be unlawful.
That's exactly how it works.
Have you seen the program's documentation?
If I --sell-- you the binary, under terms that you may not just copy it and give it away, then I have to provide YOU the source.
That doesn't mean that I have to provide the source to someone if YOU gave them the binary, without license to do so.
The GPL does not prohibit commercial software. It prohibits CLOSED software.
Back in the day when including source code with your program would be difficult, as it would no longer fit on the distribution media, or it would be unreasonable to "force" someone into taking both the source code and binaries, as modem transmission speeds in the 300-1200 bps range were most common (and compression programs sucked arse then too), that was a very common thing.
In the UNIX world, GPL programs were almost always transmitted via source code, without binaries. In all other OS worlds, GPL programs were (and still are) almost always transmitted via binary code, without source.
There's lots of GPL windows software, but how many machines are owned by developers, and have the software needed to recompile source code?
Think about it.
The world is not ALL Unix.
I don't think, as a corporation, Microsoft really particularly HATES anything.
I'm sure that Microsoft likes it when you buy their stuff, though.
Grand-parent post is really bizarre.