OK then... Windows doesn't really have self-modifying code in it.
Windows generates code and executes it, which is subtly different to having self modifying code. This is done for things like Blt routines... the code for a particular ROP is generated on the fly. I believe the SGI software OpenGL implementation for Win32 generates scanline routines in the same way, taking into account the relevant renderstates.
And, of course, the context of this discussion is the TransMeta processor, which is said to generate native code as part of its emulation strategy.
Look, OK, let's just agree a truce. You wait patiently for erm, I dunno let's say Windows 2000, and I'll wait patiently for Mozilla. Neither of us will bitch about 'vapourware' or anything else. Everything will be much more friendly, and we can start to be more positive about things. OK?
Only it doesn't really work like that, does it? You really want me to be nice to you because Mozilla is an open source project, and so it's just so much more important for it to be solid as a rock before it's released, and blah blah blah. And probably you don't give a rat's arse about Windows 2000, OK whatever but that's not my point.
It's interesting to note that most people I've heard talking about the Win2000 beta say it's already a good solid product. Whereas I tried Mozilla M10 and it crashed *constantly*. I do not have the necessary net access to check out releases more often, and I'm sure many of the issues are being addressed. But as far as I can see, if it's going to be solid before it comes out, it's not going to come out very soon. And if it's not solid, it's going to be laughed off the face of the net.
Main Entry: octopus Pronunciation: 'äk-t&-p&s, -"pus Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -puses or octopi/-"pI/
... which seems to mean we're both right.
But after searching some more (thankyou very much by the way, now I know loads about erm, 'more than one octopus'!) I found this page. Essentially, 'octopus' comes from a Greek root, not a Latin one, so it's totally incorrect to change -us to -i. The "correct" Greek plural is 'octopodes' which no-one uses. The accepted English word is 'octopuses'.
You should consider thinking again. These chips are *massively* pipelined. There are indeed hundreds of floating point operations being performed every cycle. What do you think 23 million transistors are up to?
"When a simple program (in the order of hello world) takes 20 minutes to compile and results in a 1meg binary with some of the poorest code ever known to man generated, you have to start doubting the quality of the compiler."
Why bother with such uninformed BS? Have you ever even been *near* a copy of VC++? Our project is now at 4.6 Megabytes of source code... It only takes 5-10 minutes to rebuild from clean. We're very happy with the code it produces. Ever heard of "Minimal Rebuild"? "Incremental Linking"? Or are you too busy hacking your makefile by hand?
As for "$2k+", you are way off. VC++6.0 Standard Edition (I can't imagine you would need more than this to build Mozilla) is about $110. Even if you buy the "Professional" version (better optimizer?), you're looking at not much more than $500. No, it's not free, but that's an argument for another day:)
If Microsoft need to be bashed, then so be it. Unfortunately, mindless, uninformed rants such as yours will inevitably drown out the voices of reason.
Arse, sorry about that. Here's a suggestion: If I somehow manage to screw up and post twice (because the post confirmation page failed to load) I'd like to be able to sort it out. But I don't think I can as/. is currently set up... Feel free to slap me with the way to do it, if there is one...
Hmm, on re-reading my post I think maybe I was too critical. But hey, that's all the fun of/. !!! I did post a suggestion - sort out the 3D card situation, for a start. Oh, and the sound card situation. Is Linux in a state where it's realistic to expect someone to buy a boxed game from a retailer, bring it home, whack in the CD, install and play? Without editing a few files and/or recompiling? It's getting there, sure. I think that when Linux is in such a state, when it really is easy to port stuff to it, then you will see a lot more games. Console manufacturers win the support of game developers by making it easy to port stuff to their machines. Witness Sony v Sega. The Playstation was much easier to code for than the Saturn, and Sony were really helpful. People advocating Linux as a game platform need to spend some time making it viable. What about a HOWTO or FAQ about the current state of play w.r.t. all the stuff that game developers require? (I'm making suggestions now OK?:) How am I going to do my sound, my 3D graphics (accelerated please, software Mesa will not suffice...) What about keyboard & joystick access? I understand that I come across as not knowing much about the current state of affairs. I realise that the information that I seek is probably available, if maybe not all in one place. But perhaps it would be good for the Linux community to get organised on this issue and produce something for [extremely busy] game programmers [without a long involvement in the Linux scene] that helps them get started. Because right now, you must understand that even if a Linux port is done, it must necessarily be the lowest priority, after the various consoles, and if it takes a long time to gather all the information together, it's going to be a problem. Although personally I'd shoot myself before I did a Mac version:)
Hmm, on re-reading my post I think maybe I was too critical. But hey, that's all the fun of/. !!! I did post a suggestion - sort out the 3D card situation, for a start. Oh, and the sound card situation. Is Linux in a state where it's realistic to expect someone to buy a boxed game from a retailer, bring it home, whack in the CD, install and play? Without editing a few files and/or recompiling? It's getting there, sure. I think that when Linux is in such a state, when it really is easy to port stuff to it, then you will see a lot more games. Console manufacturers win the support of game developers by making it easy to port stuff to their machines. Witness Sony v Sega. The Playstation was much easier to code for than the Saturn, and Sony were really helpful. People advocating Linux as a game platform need to spend some time making it viable. What about a HOWTO or FAQ about the current state of play w.r.t. all the stuff that game developers require? (I'm making suggestions now OK?:) How am I going to do my sound, my 3D graphics (accelerated please, software Mesa will not suffice...) What about keyboard & joystick access? I understand that I come across as not knowing much about the current state of affairs. I realise that the information that I seek is probably available, if maybe not all in one place. But perhaps it would be good for the Linux community to get organised on this issue and produce something for [extremely busy] game programmers [without a long involvement in the Linux scene] that helps them get started. Because right now, you must understand that even if a Linux port is done, it must necessarily be the lowest priority, after the various consoles, and if it takes a long time to gather all the information together, it's going to be a problem. Although personally I'd shoot myself before I did a Mac version:)
You can think what you like, but I'll just inject some rationality if you don't mind... Joe Punter, that mythical man in the street, uses his computer to run *apps*. Not to masturbate over his carefully chosen operating system.
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh. I'm sorry to let facts spoil your blissful ignorance, but that hack was in a beta version, and was disabled in the release version.
So it didn't have a "huge" impact on DR, although it might have induced fear in a few beta testers...
OK then... Windows doesn't really have self-modifying code in it.
Windows generates code and executes it, which is subtly different to having self modifying code. This is done for things like Blt routines... the code for a particular ROP is generated on the fly. I believe the SGI software OpenGL implementation for Win32 generates scanline routines in the same way, taking into account the relevant renderstates.
And, of course, the context of this discussion is the TransMeta processor, which is said to generate native code as part of its emulation strategy.
Do you have a problem with self-modifying code?
Uh-huh.
Look, OK, let's just agree a truce. You wait patiently for erm, I dunno let's say Windows 2000, and I'll wait patiently for Mozilla. Neither of us will bitch about 'vapourware' or anything else. Everything will be much more friendly, and we can start to be more positive about things. OK?
Only it doesn't really work like that, does it? You really want me to be nice to you because Mozilla is an open source project, and so it's just so much more important for it to be solid as a rock before it's released, and blah blah blah. And probably you don't give a rat's arse about Windows 2000, OK whatever but that's not my point.
It's interesting to note that most people I've heard talking about the Win2000 beta say it's already a good solid product. Whereas I tried Mozilla M10 and it crashed *constantly*. I do not have the necessary net access to check out releases more often, and I'm sure many of the issues are being addressed. But as far as I can see, if it's going to be solid before it comes out, it's not going to come out very soon. And if it's not solid, it's going to be laughed off the face of the net.
Well thanks for the suggestion, I did.
/-"pI/
the WWWebster dictionary says...
Main Entry: octopus
Pronunciation: 'äk-t&-p&s, -"pus
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -puses or octopi
... which seems to mean we're both right.
But after searching some more (thankyou very much by the way, now I know loads about erm, 'more than one octopus'!) I found this page.
Essentially, 'octopus' comes from a Greek root, not a Latin one, so it's totally incorrect to change -us to -i. The "correct" Greek plural is 'octopodes' which no-one uses. The accepted English word is 'octopuses'.
Andrew.
Ummm, the plural of "Octupus" is "Octopuses".
Andrew.
You should consider thinking again. These chips are *massively* pipelined. There are indeed hundreds of floating point operations being performed every cycle. What do you think 23 million transistors are up to?
"When a simple program (in the order of hello world) takes 20 minutes to compile and results in a 1meg binary with some of the poorest code ever known to man generated, you have to start doubting the quality of the compiler."
:)
Why bother with such uninformed BS? Have you ever even been *near* a copy of VC++? Our project is now at 4.6 Megabytes of source code... It only takes 5-10 minutes to rebuild from clean. We're very happy with the code it produces. Ever heard of "Minimal Rebuild"? "Incremental Linking"? Or are you too busy hacking your makefile by hand?
As for "$2k+", you are way off. VC++6.0 Standard Edition (I can't imagine you would need more than this to build Mozilla) is about $110. Even if you buy the "Professional" version (better optimizer?), you're looking at not much more than $500. No, it's not free, but that's an argument for another day
If Microsoft need to be bashed, then so be it. Unfortunately, mindless, uninformed rants such as yours will inevitably drown out the voices of reason.
Andrew
Arse, sorry about that. /. is currently set up... Feel free to slap me with the way to do it, if there is one...
Here's a suggestion: If I somehow manage to screw up and post twice (because the post confirmation page failed to load) I'd like to be able to sort it out. But I don't think I can as
Hmm, on re-reading my post I think maybe I was too critical. But hey, that's all the fun of /. !!! :) How am I going to do my sound, my 3D graphics (accelerated please, software Mesa will not suffice...) What about keyboard & joystick access? :)
I did post a suggestion - sort out the 3D card situation, for a start. Oh, and the sound card situation.
Is Linux in a state where it's realistic to expect someone to buy a boxed game from a retailer, bring it home, whack in the CD, install and play? Without editing a few files and/or recompiling? It's getting there, sure.
I think that when Linux is in such a state, when it really is easy to port stuff to it, then you will see a lot more games.
Console manufacturers win the support of game developers by making it easy to port stuff to their machines. Witness Sony v Sega. The Playstation was much easier to code for than the Saturn, and Sony were really helpful. People advocating Linux as a game platform need to spend some time making it viable.
What about a HOWTO or FAQ about the current state of play w.r.t. all the stuff that game developers require? (I'm making suggestions now OK?
I understand that I come across as not knowing much about the current state of affairs. I realise that the information that I seek is probably available, if maybe not all in one place. But perhaps it would be good for the Linux community to get organised on this issue and produce something for [extremely busy] game programmers [without a long involvement in the Linux scene] that helps them get started.
Because right now, you must understand that even if a Linux port is done, it must necessarily be the lowest priority, after the various consoles, and if it takes a long time to gather all the information together, it's going to be a problem.
Although personally I'd shoot myself before I did a Mac version
BTW, what do you mean by "parental"? Thanks
Hmm, on re-reading my post I think maybe I was too critical. But hey, that's all the fun of /. !!! :) How am I going to do my sound, my 3D graphics (accelerated please, software Mesa will not suffice...) What about keyboard & joystick access? :)
I did post a suggestion - sort out the 3D card situation, for a start. Oh, and the sound card situation.
Is Linux in a state where it's realistic to expect someone to buy a boxed game from a retailer, bring it home, whack in the CD, install and play? Without editing a few files and/or recompiling? It's getting there, sure.
I think that when Linux is in such a state, when it really is easy to port stuff to it, then you will see a lot more games.
Console manufacturers win the support of game developers by making it easy to port stuff to their machines. Witness Sony v Sega. The Playstation was much easier to code for than the Saturn, and Sony were really helpful. People advocating Linux as a game platform need to spend some time making it viable.
What about a HOWTO or FAQ about the current state of play w.r.t. all the stuff that game developers require? (I'm making suggestions now OK?
I understand that I come across as not knowing much about the current state of affairs. I realise that the information that I seek is probably available, if maybe not all in one place. But perhaps it would be good for the Linux community to get organised on this issue and produce something for [extremely busy] game programmers [without a long involvement in the Linux scene] that helps them get started.
Because right now, you must understand that even if a Linux port is done, it must necessarily be the lowest priority, after the various consoles, and if it takes a long time to gather all the information together, it's going to be a problem.
Although personally I'd shoot myself before I did a Mac version
>I'ts perfectly natural and normal to obliterate all your competitors as best as possible.
Heh, unless you're Microsoft, presumably?
Andrew.
You can think what you like, but I'll just inject some rationality if you don't mind... Joe Punter, that mythical man in the street, uses his computer to run *apps*. Not to masturbate over his carefully chosen operating system.
This has been a public information announcement.