I got to say that in the last couple of months, or so, this place has gotten alot better. Except the articles are new getting worse than the posts used to be.
yeah, they sound like raving lunitics try to nail the most damaging sound bite they van, whether its rational or even close to being correct or not.
Read the quote again. Now remember slahdot back at the hight of the MS trial. Most of the posts sounded alot like that.
heh, its fucking embarasing, i could hardly read slashdot.
i hope you people (you know the ones I mean) have settled down and realize then if you really love and care about open-source and linux and the comunity, you would start thinking about improving it rather than the wounded duck thing.
Like maybe one more alternate version of the GPL thats even a little lighter, but still meshes with the rest GPL. Maybe show a market ready for a better DB and that you guy wont be asses if someone thakes a chance with linux. And things like that.
The typical Linux only person:
1. into it because its free
2. linux actually fulfills eveything they care to use
3. they hate microsoft enough, or champion the Linux idea enough to be exclusive, or both or something like that, i.e. linux biggot, microsoft snob
for user type 1 they wont buy anything, only want free stuff. user type 2 probably wont buy, because if the current linux has everything they need, then they probably arent into games much.
User type 3 is the only maybe category. What are the percentages? And how many in the last category would actually care about games or care enough to pay money?
Some people in the early years said screw DX, we like OpenGL, and screw MS as they wont help us. My point was that reguardless of DX8, people have always been using OpenGL, eventhough it wasnt the easiest path, and it really wasnt.
The point about the super opengl install sponsored by q3 and Carmack, was that here is a good example of what one faced without MS help. DX had a install made by MS that included everything a game needed. Q3 needed the same easy install/upgrade stuff that didnt exist yet or it would be a support nightmare as most people prolly wouldnt have the latest drivers and the game wouldnt work right. I think that is a good example of going out of your way for a principal.
So again, if you think DX8 is an issue you havent appreciated how hard it was. And what makes you think this is an issue now? OpenGL has a wonderful extention mechanism. And my point is that the article, at least on this front, is FUD. So, hopefully you see my point now.
On your last point, I agree and if you are trying refute my point, I really dont think we have a difference to argue. My point was that it sounded too much like a blame game, both the article and the posts. I also wanted to say that at some point the commmunity be comes responsible too, not just Linus, Red Hat, or BillG.
Heh my wife hates the huh, huh sound when I jump around in quake 3.
Seriously though, my real point is that if you are not willing to take a look at what might be wrong with your own world, you are not willing to make things any better. Thus for whoever is unhappy with the linux gaming situation, and just blames everything else, whether you believe my assumptions or not, the reality still exists. I mean, fix what you can control, and not get into this who blame game thing.
If this means proving to development houses that Linux users are serious about paying fairly for thier efforts, then that is what should be done. This would bring the money and code that would make Linux strong. If it means doing something that I am not smart enough to pick up on, then by god, do that. But wallowing in "we are not bad, other people make it bad for us" is never heathy, and do something to fix it.
To be honest, I chose to speak up because I have a stake in this. I am tying to make a serious effort to make a cross platform game. I have bought Mandrake since 6.0, slakware, redhat, etc.... I think its hell to try to make a set of binaries, unless you give away all your source code, that work across modern distros. The 3D stuff sucks; my applogies to Mesa of who I think the development has to be the bravest thing I have ever seen, even more than I think of Carmack as being. Because there will never be a cent of apreciation, and it was all done completely alone.
I never meant to say that EVERYRONE refuses to pay, just that in comparison, you have to admit, many Linux users might be in it for the free beer part. And they might assume that free beer is the only way software should be.
Lastly, I would LOVE it if Linux got over the comercial hill. And we REALLY had a OS that had mindshare and was usfull to many that was not OWNED by anything. Source code that is available for almost anything; a developers wet dream. But some kinds of projects REQUIRE real money. Like real people working 8 hours a day and getting paid so they can raise babies and have enough money to play put-put. So the thing I found most offensive was that ther was little realistic mention in this article and your comments, at least when I sent my original post, that made it sound like it might be the community's fault.
I mean thats really the thing I have trouble with reading all the slashdot post the whole time i've been reading this site. If you want cool things, like the SGI journaling file sytem or a nice well thought out and modern GUI system, these things take real effort. I mean I remember when everyone spooged over SGI offering thier file system to Linux.
What keeps someone from making one of their own kick ass enterprise ready file system the whole time; must we ride off the back of everyone? I'll tell you why, some things are just exactly non-trivial, like a real high end file system, and it takes at least 8 hours a day and 5 days a week of nothing else to make it happen. Conversely, someone made a non-trival disk defragmenter for NT, even though MS said is was stupid. Why did they do that? Because people would buy that. And it was a fruity scientologist VMS company that did it to boot. Why? Because they felt people would buy it. What would stop same nutty company from providing a a defag utility or even journaling file system to Linux? To hard to make money.
So wheter you like what I have said or not, at least think about not blaming everyone else.
This is not a troll or a stab at any Linux OS or the Linux community, but some of these excuses for why Linux is where it is for gaming are sad.
"If they would have come out at the same time..."
"If the price wasnt different..."
"DirectX 8 is better now, noone will use OpenGL..."
"People who run linux arent hardcore gamers..."
"Why dont they just release a free or near free Linux version, when the PC version stops selling..."
etc...
and my favorite "going to say something bad, forgive me" line:
"Linux is great for games, don't get me wrong..."
I love the last one because it is so far from reality. I think this is the reality:
- The non-comercial Linux users do not like to buy software, ever. No one will make money becuase you dont buy. Hint, they know this. If the brunt of Linux development is people doing it in there spare time, i.e. people who have to make money and eat, then programs that are hard to make like games, will always come slow.
- This is true wether the price was higher, the same, or lower. Without commercial incentive, you are screwed. Having a Linux dev house make a game just to please the hardcore set that never really makes money, will never get you there. Carmack said, go buy it and show us there is a market. Did you do that? Why? Even just to prove that you care, you could have. You didnt. It was a test case, and you helped people see it as more of a money loser.
- DX8 has nothing to do with anything. Several developers have been busting their ass for years to use OpenGL which has always been a uphill fight for PC games. There were no drivers, there were no cards, there was no to little support from Microsoft. I mean just think about the drivers issue, Carmack had to pay a guy to build a big diver bundle because if he didnt, the game would not have worked for anyone. Anyone does not mean us or any of the upper 10% who can go get our own stuff, but the masses. I mean he was commited, and knew he wasnt going to make any money as far as Linux was concerned, but wanted to do the right thing.
- I think lots of the same people who are hard core gamers are Linux friendly. But that still has nothing to do with comercial viability, which is the mass of people who would like to buy a game who do use Linux.
- This one kills me. The one about giving away a game when its done selling to the PC or other platform. Most companies cant afford to go back and rework what is basically an end of life product for a platform that they precieve as never making money. Especially if they are going to have to support it. No that doesnt always mean tech suport, but worse programming sources at maintainance.
- The plumming in Linux is cool, but not the best for making and selling a game. Examples: - xFree86 - dll hell in latest distros which compounds the problem of releasing binaries for all the distros - better, but not great, essential API and hardware support - etc... Dont think so? Ask someone who has to try to make games.
- Im sure if you go back and read all of these posts and think about what Linux has to offer from a business and technical stanpoint, and really think about it, then you might see where im comming from.
So flame me if you must.
I think Linux and the community that surrounds it are a great idea. But if you dont do a reality check every once in a while, linux will never climb out of the hole. Isnt that what you want?
Just dont say late product, microsofts fault, wrong price, greedy corporate whores, etc... And if your really desparate, you could try buying a game for linux. That way the people at the game companies who bothered to make the software for you winey asses can feel like they might be able to make a living from Linux software one day.
Heh, I agree with your point. Like, if you don't like Howard Stern, just change the channel.
But at what point for an important idea or facility do you decide to complian or do something to raise issues, and what point do you let it be. You could also say, "Oh you dont like the blah blah, stop using the Internet, and stop bitching." Blah blah could be, lack of non-IE only web pages, carnivore, encryption export policy, insert you favorite/. topic here.
The articles said both DDR and regular SDRAM. Why does everyone here keep talking like we are only screwed for going to DDR.
THis is a much bigger problem. We are screwed for even buying regular SDRAM. How long have companies been selling SDRAM for PCs en masse? When was the last time anyone bought EDO?
This is correct. The remedy is not supposed to be punitive, meaning punishment oriented, in any way.
This is sad. I think most of the readers here care MORE about seeing some opposing orgainization "go down" rather than seeing advancement of their own cause. It's like watching Jerry Springer.
Ya, multi-threaded, non-blocking IP stacks suck. No man, don't do it. Hey, that reminds me, we should make all the IO blocking so SCSI works like IDE and video works like Nintendo.
WE NEED TO TURN THIS BOAT AROUND NOW, BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!!!!
Damn Microsoft!
- Herman
Re:Article assumes readers have technical knowledg
on
1 Gigabyte RAM-Modules
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, NM:)
I see the other posts now. Ya bits, bytes, little nibbles. Fun to read.
Still fun to say "go choke your chicken though."
Re:Article assumes readers have technical knowledg
on
1 Gigabyte RAM-Modules
·
· Score: 1
What are you bitching about? Where is the problem?
Who cares if they said 1Gb x 8 = 1GB or 128GB x 8 = 1GB Its the same damn thing.
It's actually more correct to say 1Gb x N because is describes the layout and type of chip, and is what everyone always uses. Someone might make 1Gb x 16 or 1Gb x 32 modules. You guys are too damn angy.:)
I was Anon-Coward above, just decided to get account. Herman was taken. Heh.
You _can_ randomly access large files with a 64bit+ file system. Think SGI and Starwars, or Oracle (databases) and you favorite bank (some of which are bound to be running some form of UNIX). You don't think that if they want to suddenly edit Starwars Episode I, frame 60,000 that they have to read the whole damn file again from the beginning, do you?:)
File systems and OS support typically provide support for sequential acces, random access, and other such stuff. For instance in NT, asking for sequetial when opening a file is really just a hint for optimization for file cacheing. What you always get in a OS for a "File System" is some form of file pointer, an integer based number, where you use this to tell the os what part of the file you are talking about. There is usually a size specifier of some sort as well.
The size and pointer are usually the same size (like both 32bit or both 64bit), so that you can do something like set the pointer to 0 and set the size to size of file (n) and reference the whole thing. On NT maximum read at a time is 32-bit and the pointer is 64bit.
So, files that are meant to be streaming (or used as streaming, i.e., backup to tape) don't care and don't use pointers embeded in file and will be read sequentially. But using structured storage, like data bases, zip files,.bsp files for quake (maps), executable binares, etc..., all use embeded file pointers so a knowageable progam doesn't have to seek through a whole file to get what it needs, unless it just wants to.
In 32-bit file system world on a 32-bit machine you can simply store the offset (file pointer) in the file data or it can be implied. What ever number you use would be able to reference the 4GB (2GB if you API only supports signed integer parameters for file pointers). You can just read the pointer number and plug it back in to the function to call up or write to the part you want. And, if you are reading / writing in 2K chunks just set the size to 2K. Simple.
So the point of saying all this is that if your API is capable of supporing 64-bit pointers, it is just a little more hassle. If it's done like NT, you have two 32-bit intergers, high and low DWORD. This actually works great, and would probably still work wonderfully on a 64-bit system too. Its not a pure as getting to put in one number. Bit you can increment one number by one and suddenly you are talking about the second 4GB of a file. You dont have to even use the high DWORD, just leave it always zero, and you will always talk to/about a 2/4GB file. To get a pointer from instide the file its damn easy. Just read a section of the file. Set a 32bit mem pointer to the begining of the just read section in memory. (Assume mem pointer now points to the file pointer inside the just read file section.) Go like this:
(note: the 64-bit API could also be used on a 32-bit macine by just passing a Quad-WORD or a two DWORD structure, or a float, or whatever)
See, just what I said, a little bit more of a hassle, but you get like 2^64 file size, however big the hell that is, by adding one little parameter. And I think if Linux had better support at the kernel level for 64-bit file systems, you could use larger files. (Maybe it does, maybe the file systems suck, dunno.)
I mean if everyone is saying a recompile is needed to use 64bit (theoretical) size files in Linux, because there is no way to specify file pointers above 32bit, then what do you expect. If 64bit file pointers exist in Linux but the kernel is messed then you dont neccessarily have to recompile; the interface remains the same. If the backend hooks for the file systems are too small, then extend the OS and fix and recompile the damn file systems. Whatever...
But this really has nothing to do with Intel or Sun or IBM or 32bit or 64bit or 36 1/2 bit or anything. Just a damn upgrade. I like Linux; does anyone know why this was left out?
Slashdot Mirror
who marked this as a troll it was up to a 2, jeez. its one more senable posts on here
oh wait one more thing
:)
I got to say that in the last couple of months, or so, this place has gotten alot better. Except the articles are new getting worse than the posts used to be.
Anyway thanks for putting down the crack pipe
yeah, they sound like raving lunitics try to nail the most damaging sound bite they van, whether its rational or even close to being correct or not.
Read the quote again. Now remember slahdot back at the hight of the MS trial. Most of the posts sounded alot like that.
heh, its fucking embarasing, i could hardly read slashdot.
i hope you people (you know the ones I mean) have settled down and realize then if you really love and care about open-source and linux and the comunity, you would start thinking about improving it rather than the wounded duck thing.
Like maybe one more alternate version of the GPL thats even a little lighter, but still meshes with the rest GPL. Maybe show a market ready for a better DB and that you guy wont be asses if someone thakes a chance with linux. And things like that.
k, im done for now
:)
Yeah, but Mac owners dont mind buying things.
The typical Linux only person:
1. into it because its free
2. linux actually fulfills eveything they care to use
3. they hate microsoft enough, or champion the Linux idea enough to be exclusive, or both or something like that, i.e. linux biggot, microsoft snob
for user type 1 they wont buy anything, only want free stuff. user type 2 probably wont buy, because if the current linux has everything they need, then they probably arent into games much.
User type 3 is the only maybe category. What are the percentages? And how many in the last category would actually care about games or care enough to pay money?
Nice points.
But I must clarify.
Some people in the early years said screw DX, we like OpenGL, and screw MS as they wont help us. My point was that reguardless of DX8, people have always been using OpenGL, eventhough it wasnt the easiest path, and it really wasnt.
The point about the super opengl install sponsored by q3 and Carmack, was that here is a good example of what one faced without MS help. DX had a install made by MS that included everything a game needed. Q3 needed the same easy install/upgrade stuff that didnt exist yet or it would be a support nightmare as most people prolly wouldnt have the latest drivers and the game wouldnt work right. I think that is a good example of going out of your way for a principal.
So again, if you think DX8 is an issue you havent appreciated how hard it was. And what makes you think this is an issue now? OpenGL has a wonderful extention mechanism. And my point is that the article, at least on this front, is FUD. So, hopefully you see my point now.
On your last point, I agree and if you are trying refute my point, I really dont think we have a difference to argue. My point was that it sounded too much like a blame game, both the article and the posts. I also wanted to say that at some point the commmunity be comes responsible too, not just Linus, Red Hat, or BillG.
Heh my wife hates the huh, huh sound when I jump around in quake 3.
Seriously though, my real point is that if you are not willing to take a look at what might be wrong with your own world, you are not willing to make things any better. Thus for whoever is unhappy with the linux gaming situation, and just blames everything else, whether you believe my assumptions or not, the reality still exists. I mean, fix what you can control, and not get into this who blame game thing.
If this means proving to development houses that Linux users are serious about paying fairly for thier efforts, then that is what should be done. This would bring the money and code that would make Linux strong. If it means doing something that I am not smart enough to pick up on, then by god, do that. But wallowing in "we are not bad, other people make it bad for us" is never heathy, and do something to fix it.
To be honest, I chose to speak up because I have a stake in this. I am tying to make a serious effort to make a cross platform game. I have bought Mandrake since 6.0, slakware, redhat, etc.... I think its hell to try to make a set of binaries, unless you give away all your source code, that work across modern distros. The 3D stuff sucks; my applogies to Mesa of who I think the development has to be the bravest thing I have ever seen, even more than I think of Carmack as being. Because there will never be a cent of apreciation, and it was all done completely alone.
I never meant to say that EVERYRONE refuses to pay, just that in comparison, you have to admit, many Linux users might be in it for the free beer part. And they might assume that free beer is the only way software should be.
Lastly, I would LOVE it if Linux got over the comercial hill. And we REALLY had a OS that had mindshare and was usfull to many that was not OWNED by anything. Source code that is available for almost anything; a developers wet dream. But some kinds of projects REQUIRE real money. Like real people working 8 hours a day and getting paid so they can raise babies and have enough money to play put-put. So the thing I found most offensive was that ther was little realistic mention in this article and your comments, at least when I sent my original post, that made it sound like it might be the community's fault.
I mean thats really the thing I have trouble with reading all the slashdot post the whole time i've been reading this site. If you want cool things, like the SGI journaling file sytem or a nice well thought out and modern GUI system, these things take real effort. I mean I remember when everyone spooged over SGI offering thier file system to Linux.
What keeps someone from making one of their own kick ass enterprise ready file system the whole time; must we ride off the back of everyone? I'll tell you why, some things are just exactly non-trivial, like a real high end file system, and it takes at least 8 hours a day and 5 days a week of nothing else to make it happen. Conversely, someone made a non-trival disk defragmenter for NT, even though MS said is was stupid. Why did they do that? Because people would buy that. And it was a fruity scientologist VMS company that did it to boot. Why? Because they felt people would buy it. What would stop same nutty company from providing a a defag utility or even journaling file system to Linux? To hard to make money.
So wheter you like what I have said or not, at least think about not blaming everyone else.
This is not a troll or a stab at any Linux OS or the Linux community, but some of these excuses for why Linux is where it is for gaming are sad.
:)
"If they would have come out at the same time..."
"If the price wasnt different..."
"DirectX 8 is better now, noone will use OpenGL..."
"People who run linux arent hardcore gamers..."
"Why dont they just release a free or near free Linux version, when the PC version stops selling..."
etc...
and my favorite "going to say something bad, forgive me" line:
"Linux is great for games, don't get me wrong..."
I love the last one because it is so far from reality. I think this is the reality:
- The non-comercial Linux users do not like to buy software, ever. No one will make money becuase you dont buy. Hint, they know this. If the brunt of Linux development is people doing it in there spare time, i.e. people who have to make money and eat, then programs that are hard to make like games, will always come slow.
- This is true wether the price was higher, the same, or lower. Without commercial incentive, you are screwed. Having a Linux dev house make a game just to please the hardcore set that never really makes money, will never get you there. Carmack said, go buy it and show us there is a market. Did you do that? Why? Even just to prove that you care, you could have. You didnt. It was a test case, and you helped people see it as more of a money loser.
- DX8 has nothing to do with anything. Several developers have been busting their ass for years to use OpenGL which has always been a uphill fight for PC games. There were no drivers, there were no cards, there was no to little support from Microsoft. I mean just think about the drivers issue, Carmack had to pay a guy to build a big diver bundle because if he didnt, the game would not have worked for anyone. Anyone does not mean us or any of the upper 10% who can go get our own stuff, but the masses. I mean he was commited, and knew he wasnt going to make any money as far as Linux was concerned, but wanted to do the right thing.
- I think lots of the same people who are hard core gamers are Linux friendly. But that still has nothing to do with comercial viability, which is the mass of people who would like to buy a game who do use Linux.
- This one kills me. The one about giving away a game when its done selling to the PC or other platform. Most companies cant afford to go back and rework what is basically an end of life product for a platform that they precieve as never making money. Especially if they are going to have to support it. No that doesnt always mean tech suport, but worse programming sources at maintainance.
- The plumming in Linux is cool, but not the best for making and selling a game. Examples: - xFree86 - dll hell in latest distros which compounds the problem of releasing binaries for all the distros - better, but not great, essential API and hardware support - etc... Dont think so? Ask someone who has to try to make games.
- Im sure if you go back and read all of these posts and think about what Linux has to offer from a business and technical stanpoint, and really think about it, then you might see where im comming from.
So flame me if you must.
I think Linux and the community that surrounds it are a great idea. But if you dont do a reality check every once in a while, linux will never climb out of the hole. Isnt that what you want?
Just dont say late product, microsofts fault, wrong price, greedy corporate whores, etc... And if your really desparate, you could try buying a game for linux. That way the people at the game companies who bothered to make the software for you winey asses can feel like they might be able to make a living from Linux software one day.
Then maybe they can drop windows.
mark this up
Heh, I agree with your point. Like, if you don't like Howard Stern, just change the channel.
/. topic here.
But at what point for an important idea or facility do you decide to complian or do something to raise issues, and what point do you let it be. You could also say, "Oh you dont like the blah blah, stop using the Internet, and stop bitching." Blah blah could be, lack of non-IE only web pages, carnivore, encryption export policy, insert you favorite
It just struck me as funny, thats all.
Mark this bastard down, he's off topic.
Preach on brother, both of you.
The articles said both DDR and regular SDRAM. Why does everyone here keep talking like we are only screwed for going to DDR.
THis is a much bigger problem. We are screwed for even buying regular SDRAM. How long have companies been selling SDRAM for PCs en masse? When was the last time anyone bought EDO?
This is correct. The remedy is not supposed to be punitive, meaning punishment oriented, in any way.
This is sad. I think most of the readers here care MORE about seeing some opposing orgainization "go down" rather than seeing advancement of their own cause. It's like watching Jerry Springer.
YES!! We need better trolls! These trolls suck!
Ha ha ha!!!! You long hairs!!!!
/ LinuxMyths.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/msnw
You can't even play somes great games like Micorsoft Space Cadet!!!!
No way! I was gonna pick 7!
Ya, multi-threaded, non-blocking IP stacks suck. No man, don't do it. Hey, that reminds me, we should make all the IO blocking so SCSI works like IDE and video works like Nintendo.
WE NEED TO TURN THIS BOAT AROUND NOW, BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!!!!
Damn Microsoft!
- Herman
Sorry, NM :)
I see the other posts now. Ya bits, bytes, little nibbles. Fun to read.
Still fun to say "go choke your chicken though."
What are you bitching about?
:)
Where is the problem?
Who cares if they said
1Gb x 8 = 1GB or 128GB x 8 = 1GB
Its the same damn thing.
It's actually more correct to say 1Gb x N because is describes the layout and type of chip, and is what everyone always uses. Someone might make 1Gb x 16 or 1Gb x 32 modules. You guys are too damn angy.
Go choke the chicken or something.
- Herman
I was Anon-Coward above, just decided to get account. Herman was taken. Heh.
:)
.bsp files for quake (maps), executable binares, etc..., all use embeded file pointers so a knowageable progam doesn't have to seek through a whole file to get what it needs, unless it just wants to.
f er);
f er);
You _can_ randomly access large files with a 64bit+ file system. Think SGI and Starwars, or Oracle (databases) and you favorite bank (some of which are bound to be running some form of UNIX). You don't think that if they want to suddenly edit Starwars Episode I, frame 60,000 that they have to read the whole damn file again from the beginning, do you?
File systems and OS support typically provide support for sequential acces, random access, and other such stuff. For instance in NT, asking for sequetial when opening a file is really just a hint for optimization for file cacheing. What you always get in a OS for a "File System" is some form of file pointer, an integer based number, where you use this to tell the os what part of the file you are talking about. There is usually a size specifier of some sort as well.
The size and pointer are usually the same size (like both 32bit or both 64bit), so that you can do something like set the pointer to 0 and set the size to size of file (n) and reference the whole thing. On NT maximum read at a time is 32-bit and the pointer is 64bit.
So, files that are meant to be streaming (or used as streaming, i.e., backup to tape) don't care and don't use pointers embeded in file and will be read sequentially. But using structured storage, like data bases, zip files,
In 32-bit file system world on a 32-bit machine you can simply store the offset (file pointer) in the file data or it can be implied. What ever number you use would be able to reference the 4GB (2GB if you API only supports signed integer parameters for file pointers). You can just read the pointer number and plug it back in to the function to call up or write to the part you want. And, if you are reading / writing in 2K chunks just set the size to 2K. Simple.
So the point of saying all this is that if your API is capable of supporing 64-bit pointers, it is just a little more hassle. If it's done like NT, you have two 32-bit intergers, high and low DWORD. This actually works great, and would probably still work wonderfully on a 64-bit system too. Its not a pure as getting to put in one number. Bit you can increment one number by one and suddenly you are talking about the second 4GB of a file. You dont have to even use the high DWORD, just leave it always zero, and you will always talk to/about a 2/4GB file. To get a pointer from instide the file its damn easy. Just read a section of the file. Set a 32bit mem pointer to the begining of the just read section in memory. (Assume mem pointer now points to the file pointer inside the just read file section.)
Go like this:
High=*p++;
Low=*p;
rval=SomeOS_ReadFile(FHandle,Hign,Low,Size,&buf
as opposed to pointer setup for a 64bit API:
HighNLow=*p;
rval=SomeOS_ReadFile(FHandle,HignNLow,Size,&buf
(note: the 64-bit API could also be used on a 32-bit macine by just passing a Quad-WORD or a two DWORD structure, or a float, or whatever)
See, just what I said, a little bit more of a hassle, but you get like 2^64 file size, however big the hell that is, by adding one little parameter. And I think if Linux had better support at the kernel level for 64-bit file systems, you could use larger files. (Maybe it does, maybe the file systems suck, dunno.)
I mean if everyone is saying a recompile is needed to use 64bit (theoretical) size files in Linux, because there is no way to specify file pointers above 32bit, then what do you expect. If 64bit file pointers exist in Linux but the kernel is messed then you dont neccessarily have to recompile; the interface remains the same. If the backend hooks for the file systems are too small, then extend the OS and fix and recompile the damn file systems. Whatever...
But this really has nothing to do with Intel or Sun or IBM or 32bit or 64bit or 36 1/2 bit or anything. Just a damn upgrade. I like Linux; does anyone know why this was left out?
- Herman