I fear the next perl upgrade... I mean, I don't think it'll be as bad as the last (hopefully, they'll have learned something from the last one) but one can never know.
The reason the last one was so bad was to clear the way for easy inclusion and cohabitation of future versions. Adding 5.6 to Debian unstable should now be a simple matter of uploading new packages, so I'd expect we'll see it as soon as the perl maintainer gets them built... hopefully very soon.:)
NVidia: The support now is good enough to work with the current generation of games such as GlQuake, Q2, BFRIS, etc in a playable manner. It's NOT quite there for Q3 and won't be supposedly until the DRI gets released.
Strange, running Q3T/Linux at the normal settings seems to give me decent framerate (only very, very minor visual jerking, definitely smoother than Quake on my old 486/DX2 66;) This is a Canopus Spectra 2500 on a Celeron... errr... 450a;)
I guess if your definition of "not quite there" is completely fluid and smooth gameplay, which I know it's capable of, having played it under Windows a couple of times on my box, then yeah, I guess this is true:)
Hey, I know I'd like it to have the framerates it did under Windows (and hopefully with XFree86 4.0, it will be much closer:)
Debian and KDE, the current situation (IIRC)
on
qt 2.0 released
·
· Score: 3
Okay, I'm not going to speak in any official capacity here, but after all the conversations I've read on debian-devel and the #Debian IRC channel, here's the situation as I see it:
Debian does not and will not immediately include KDE, even with the release of the DFSG-free Qt 2.0, because KDE's license, namely the GPL, does not allow linking with libraries with licenses other than the GPL.
The GPL also includes this clause:
However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
The problem with this is that if KDE and Qt 2.0 are both put into main, then the second part of this clause ("unless that component itself accompanies the executable") comes into effect. I'm not sure exactly about what happens if KDE is put into another section, but then, I'm sure that's been discussed also, and anyway, if it were in another section, it wouldn't be part of the official Debian distribution, anyway.
So one of the following has to happen, I believe, before KDE can be included:
KDE is relicensed with a clause that says it can be linked with Qt
Qt is released under the GPL
The GPL is modified to allow linkage to DFSG-free libraries
I believe 3 has been looked at, and been decided against. I believe that Joseph Carter is working with KDE to resolve that part of the problem, and if they is successful, then it will be included.
Anyway, if I'm wrong in any way, I'm sure someone will correct me... this is just as I understand it.
Capatalism hasn't completely killed itself off yet but it's time is near.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but aren't copyrights, patents, and other things associated with intellectual property protected by the government, and thus in a laissez-faire capitalistic market would not exist? In which case this would cause products to be forced to stand on their own merits and either be the best example of their niche or be lose out to a better competitor? In which case the question of Microsoft vs. Linux wouldn't exist, because if we really, truly, wanted to copy Windows or at least write an equivalent GUI platform or emulator using its APIs, we would no longer be restrained by such things as the illegality (in some areas) of reverse engineering? Or perhaps Microsoft would have never ascended to its position in the market because someone else would have taken their designed and improved it over its current form? Just something to think about...
The source for a Debian package comes in three different files, actually...
The original source tarball - This contains all the upstream source without any changes to allow it to conform to the Debian policy and without the rules for building a.deb file.
A.diff.gz - This contains the forementioned changes.
A.dsc file - This contains the checksums for both the tarball and the.diff.gz and the checksums are PGP signed.
Now, this does use one source tarball and one diff per package (though there may be multiple allowed, I've only begun as a Debian developer:), but the source packages:
*are* PGP signed
can be built without root priviledges (get the fakeroot package and do pkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot, it's how I build all of mine)
About the optimisation on different architectures... again, I'm unsure, but this is because of my lack of experience... especially since once I've uploaded a i386 + source package, it seems there are people who have automated builds for other architectures running, so I kinda haven't worried about it... but it might be possible, I'd have to check:)
Anyway, I just wanted to clarify what I knew was provided by the Debian source package system, and hope that someone else could clarify the rest for me...
... when I saw it. I had logged on earlier, seen the new format, and I, personally, loved the change! I was unable to peruse the site fully, so I decided to wait until tonight to give it a further look. I even e-mailed a friend about the new layout, in essence saying, "Hey, this is cool, come check it out!"
Then I come back on tonight, and found... it. After taking a few seconds to fully comprehend what happened. I loaded up Pine and sent a e-mail to Scoop, to tell him at least one person appreciated what he did. From reading the rest of the comments here on Slashdot, it seems that I wasn't the only one.
What about some of the people who didn't like it? Where are y'all? Would you like to give your reasons for disliking the new style, as well as what exactly you said to drive Scoop to this? Please, I'm sure a lot of us here would love to hear what you had to say...
Slashdot Mirror
The reason the last one was so bad was to clear the way for easy inclusion and cohabitation of future versions. Adding 5.6 to Debian unstable should now be a simple matter of uploading new packages, so I'd expect we'll see it as soon as the perl maintainer gets them built... hopefully very soon. :)
Already there:
xcalc -rpn
That's how I always use it... have fun :)
Strange, running Q3T/Linux at the normal settings seems to give me decent framerate (only very, very minor visual jerking, definitely smoother than Quake on my old 486/DX2 66 ;) This is a Canopus Spectra 2500 on a Celeron... errr... 450a ;)
I guess if your definition of "not quite there" is completely fluid and smooth gameplay, which I know it's capable of, having played it under Windows a couple of times on my box, then yeah, I guess this is true :)
Hey, I know I'd like it to have the framerates it did under Windows (and hopefully with XFree86 4.0, it will be much closer :)
Okay, I'm not going to speak in any official capacity here, but after all the conversations I've read on debian-devel and the #Debian IRC channel, here's the situation as I see it:
Debian does not and will not immediately include KDE, even with the release of the DFSG-free Qt 2.0, because KDE's license, namely the GPL, does not allow linking with libraries with licenses other than the GPL.
The GPL also includes this clause:
The problem with this is that if KDE and Qt 2.0 are both put into main, then the second part of this clause ("unless that component itself accompanies the executable") comes into effect. I'm not sure exactly about what happens if KDE is put into another section, but then, I'm sure that's been discussed also, and anyway, if it were in another section, it wouldn't be part of the official Debian distribution, anyway.
So one of the following has to happen, I believe, before KDE can be included:
I believe 3 has been looked at, and been decided against. I believe that Joseph Carter is working with KDE to resolve that part of the problem, and if they is successful, then it will be included.
Anyway, if I'm wrong in any way, I'm sure someone will correct me... this is just as I understand it.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but aren't copyrights, patents, and other things associated with intellectual property protected by the government, and thus in a laissez-faire capitalistic market would not exist? In which case this would cause products to be forced to stand on their own merits and either be the best example of their niche or be lose out to a better competitor? In which case the question of Microsoft vs. Linux wouldn't exist, because if we really, truly, wanted to copy Windows or at least write an equivalent GUI platform or emulator using its APIs, we would no longer be restrained by such things as the illegality (in some areas) of reverse engineering? Or perhaps Microsoft would have never ascended to its position in the market because someone else would have taken their designed and improved it over its current form? Just something to think about...
The source for a Debian package comes in three different files, actually...
Now, this does use one source tarball and one diff per package (though there may be multiple allowed, I've only begun as a Debian developer :), but the source packages:
About the optimisation on different architectures... again, I'm unsure, but this is because of my lack of experience... especially since once I've uploaded a i386 + source package, it seems there are people who have automated builds for other architectures running, so I kinda haven't worried about it... but it might be possible, I'd have to check :)
Anyway, I just wanted to clarify what I knew was provided by the Debian source package system, and hope that someone else could clarify the rest for me...
... when I saw it. I had logged on earlier, seen the new format, and I, personally, loved the change! I was unable to peruse the site fully, so I decided to wait until tonight to give it a further look. I even e-mailed a friend about the new layout, in essence saying, "Hey, this is cool, come check it out!"
Then I come back on tonight, and found... it. After taking a few seconds to fully comprehend what happened. I loaded up Pine and sent a e-mail to Scoop, to tell him at least one person appreciated what he did. From reading the rest of the comments here on Slashdot, it seems that I wasn't the only one.
What about some of the people who didn't like it? Where are y'all? Would you like to give your reasons for disliking the new style, as well as what exactly you said to drive Scoop to this? Please, I'm sure a lot of us here would love to hear what you had to say...