Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

id Software: Linux Hasn't Produced Positive Results

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ninez
    replied
    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Lolwat? You are still using linux rather than Windows.
    If you think that Windows software is so good, why not run it in Windows then? That's my whole point. You'd need to be some twisted kind of closet Windows lover to require Wine in the first place.
    Really, eh? Your whole point is based on a quite narrow scope and very obtuse. Why would I want to buy a windows OS/license? or dualboot? Did you know that i can have SIGNIFICANTLY lower latencies with Linux (?) - superior optimizations, better resource/memory managament and customization than i can have in Windows using the exact same VSTi??? ...and as a musician, whom is using a RackmountPC running linux - as my keyboard(s) sound module / effects processer - this kinda fucking matters... In fact, there are several Commercial high-end sound modules doing the exact same thing (built on Linux + wine) and have become an industry standard amongst performers;

    http://www.museresearch.com/products/index.php

    So clearly while you think i should just use Windows, i know i shouldn't for good reason. Your logic is severly flawed... And really, when it comes down to picking another OS other than Linux - MacOSX beats out windows everytime for proaudio - so windows would never even come into the picture in the first place. Using Wine for my particular use is infinitely smarter than switching to Windows - and that doesn't make me some 'closet windows lover' - but calling me that - makes you sound like a chump. The fact is it isn't the windows-version of the software that i am favoring ~ it's the software itself. If Native Instruments, Linnplug, etc had linux ports i would use them, by the same token - if i had a way of running the AU plugin (Mac) version in linux - i would just as likely use them. Wrapping the windows VST (.dll) works well - so i do that.

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Lol whatever. Actually I'm a musician as well, and have been using Cubase since the Atari ST days (yes, they didn't have VST yet, back then).

    I never claimed anything like that. You're looking really hard to find insults here.
    my mistake then, because that is what it appeared to be what you were saying, and yes obviously VST came much later... but IMO Cubase is mediocre at the very best and always has been.

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Uhhh, how does any of that prove that NT is the name for the *kernel* rather than the *OS*? If anything, this line reinforces that it's the name for an OS:
    "It is popularly believed that Dave Cutler[2] intended the initialism "WNT" as a pun on VMS, incrementing each letter by one. However, the project was originally intended as a follow-on to OS/2 and was referred to as "NT OS/2" before receiving the Windows brand."

    VMS and OS/2 are both OSes, not kernels.
    Dude, the kernel used in windows is called the NT kernel, i don't know why you are even arguing this. I know you wish that it wasn't the case and you think you can twist anything to support your mistaken claim. But it is false. Why don't you go and read some tech articles about the NT kernel being used in win8 phone (?) how about Wikipedia making a distinction between the different versions of Windows 3.1x... here let me quote that for you;

    Originally posted by wikipedia
    For the version of Microsoft Windows built on the Windows NT kernel, see Windows NT 3.1.
    You claimed it was called the 'Windows Kernel' - which isn't true, any argument you are trying to make now is pointless. You said something that was blatanly incorrect... It's well-documented that Windows uses the NT kernel, not something called 'the windows kernel' :\ end of story.

    If IBM and OS/2 had won the battle we would be calling it the OS/2 NT kernel

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Why exactly would Apple want to stress the 'Not UNIX' in MacOS X, when the classic MacOSes weren't UNIX in the first place? If anything, OS X is a whole lot more UNIX than MacOS ever was.
    does it matter why Apple would want to stress X not Unix? - i just pointed out what XNU stood for, and how contrary to your opinions they (kernel + OS name) correspond... What does it even matter in this context whether or not MacOSX is a lot more 'unix' than MacOS? MacOSX is still really it's own beast, it's different than any other Unix-type OS i have ever used.

    Originally posted by ninez
    NINEZ: Was MacOS 9 ported to Intel? NO. Was MacOS 9 a completely different OS than MacOSX?? YES.
    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Of course not, since it was phased out YEARS before Apple released the first x86-based Mac.

    Obviously. But what's the relevance of that here.
    relevance?

    1. (MacOSX) X - not only means 10, but is the OS major-version. and was a bigger departure than winXP to vista/win7
    2. read on...

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Actually it does, 'dude'. Namely, you said: "Where as MacOS 9 was a totally different OS, built on a totally different architecture (PPC) and vastly different underlying components...."

    Since both OS 9 and OS X run on the PPC architecture, how is that totally different?
    ...how about next time you bold the full-statement rather than just picking the one part. Maybe i was abit foggy here but - VASTLY DIFFERENT UNDERLYING COMPONENTS' is refering to software, since i had already covered H/W just before that, i would have thought you understood that. Especially, when beyond CPU (and memory type) most of the H/W omponents of the day were pretty much the same.. How are they NOT totally different (?) because further down in your comments you are going contradict youreself, admitting they are totally different, then contradict yourself again, by asking me to provide a quote from you (which is right above). The very fact that you are questioning 'how is that totally differen' implies you don't see much of a difference.

    Have you ever heard of 'Rhapsody'? (the operating system) - if you knew anything about the history of MacOSX - you would know that they originally had it running on both Intel and PPC - YEARS before Apple ever migrated from PPC to intel(in the late 90s). MacOSX wasn't designed to be run only on PPC (os9 was).. - it's early development happened on both PPC and Intel at the same time. (obviously, Apple must have had long time plans to switch away from PPC). So they are totally different, both in the underlying system components, how they were developed and the H/W they were designed to run on... In fact, if i remember correctly OpenStep (which is what MacOSX is 'largely' based on) was ported to PPC, but originally supported x86, as well as a few other Architectures.

    ..anyway the relevance is that while you made the claim that X just means 10 - in fact it signifies much more than that, and the names do correspond (macOS X and XNU). The same is true of NT - NT didn't appear next to Windows until they were using the NT kernel in Windows NT 3.1... and the NT kernel wasn't even originally designed for Windows, but instead MS designed it for OS/2, for IBM.

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    That is what I pointed out, rather ironic after your jab of "You might actually want to make sure you know what you are talking about before making such comments, they really do come off as uninformed and dumb", don't you think?
    bad choice of words, maybe... probably -> but your comments on Wine are MORONIC - it's like you can't grasp the fact that not everyone 'hates' windows applications (specifically) and may have a valid reason to use them in MacOSX, unix or linux.. your logic as to why i should use Windows instead of running a few 'handfuls' of high-qaulity VSTs in Wine is well....retarded. - I am also running then with Jack and some linux apps too (most of which are not available for Win) again, why would i want to buy windows, dualboot and sacrifice functionality and performance??? that is just dumb ...and even still, for things i can't do or software that isn't available for Linux, then i use my Mac ~ which is much better than windows anyway.(for anything that i use a computer for).

    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Ofcourse I wouldn't argue that. I have always known that OS X is a completely different OS from the classic ones. I'm not sure why you are bringing this up. I didn't even mention OS 9 at all, let alone that I said it was not different from OS X. If I did, paste the quote. But I don't see anything remotely like that in this thread.
    You wouldn't? then why did you above? ..and i brought up MacOS 9 to show just how vastly different 9 to X was, and that X isn't just a letter/roman numeral - but actually signifies something unique which both the MacOS X name and XNU kernel reference. - which you seem to think they don't.

    sorry, but your plain wrong about all of this stuff.
    Last edited by ninez; 13 August 2012, 11:51 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ninez
    replied
    Originally posted by russofris View Post
    It's a neat game-of-words. The sentence "a decision to support Linux on our GPUs" is kinda crafty, as it leaves you wondering who is supporting what and where, and what "support" means. It's beautifully ambiguous. It should read "a decision to support Linux users that have purchased our GPUs", because they are not supporting linux. They feel as if they are allowing their customers to run linux.
    Weird. I don't see it that way at all...I don't ask myself even one of the questions you list above (not even by a long shot), nor do i find their statement to be 'beautifully ambiguous'. Nvidia gave some pretty straight-forward reasons as to why they have chosen the path they have... I also find your 'rewrite' to be a little silly as well ~ do you expect Nvidia to support users (aka:customers) that have NOT purchased their GPUs? furthermore...

    ...I think you need to actually define what 'supporting linux' really means... - as i personally find that statement to be a bit ambiguous. Is there really only one _particular_ way that you think a company can support linux??? - if so, please define it then... because from my perspective Nvidia has supported linux in many ways, just not in some of the ways kernel developers and _some_ users would like. They produce IMO the most performant stable GFX driver, they contribute code (to various projects; Xorg, linux kernel, etc), they have frequent releases of their drivers (both stable and beta), they work with some companies/developers to improve their software, AutoDesk is a good example...i think recently with Valve too(?)... They provide me with better driver support than AMD Catalyst ever did for me - or any other Linux GFX driver for that matter. Sure, no Wayland support (yet) and they can't make use of certain GPL'ed interfaces in the kernel, but for me personally - all of the GFX drivers that do support these technologies directly - don't offer the performance Nvidia does, not even close.

    Originally posted by russofris View Post
    "regardless of platform or operating system", except for the MIPS platform, which we just lost a bajillion dollars on in china..
    If i remember correctly - didn't they want Nvidia to give them the source code of their driver? - where as with the platforms nvidia supports, they actually do the development in-house or work closely with MS/Apple/etc... anyway, i don't want to get heavy into that stuff - i've never heard any reliable information about that deal, only speculation/rumours from mostly infamous sources

    Originally posted by russofris View Post
    "this may not please everyone", meaning almost anyone that is currently running linux.
    Please don't speak for anyone but yourself. While Nvidia does piss me off every now and then, generally i am pleased with their hardware and software. But obviously, there are people who have good reason to be upset with Nvidia - i just don't like when some linux user tries to make claims about the whole community (every user) that may not be true, if at all.

    Originally posted by russofris View Post
    It all strikes me as snarky in a passive aggressive way. Perhaps it's clear cut and my BS-meter is registering a false-positive.
    My vote: false-postive
    Last edited by ninez; 13 August 2012, 08:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by johnc View Post
    NVIDIA has explained why they're not open sourcing their drivers, and they've never claimed it's completely for reasons outside of its control.
    Indeed, they have given reasons. So it's not that there are no reasons.
    Whether or not you find their reasons valid is irrelevant, as it won't change their decision not to release driver sourcecode.
    And they are not alone in this decision. AMD does not release their source code either.

    For most Windows drivers, no source is ever released as well. But who cares? The important thing is that the drivers are available and that they work. Then nobody needs the source code in the first place.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by finalzone View Post
    That is just branding 101 for marketing purpose which still does not change what are underneath them. Android is nothing more than Dalvik (Java based platform) with Linux kernel. Same for Ubuntu which uses GNU platform (mainly compiled with GCC) and Linux kernel.
    I'm not sure what your point is exactly. You're now saying that Android is Dalvik + linux kernel, and Ubuntu is GNU platform and linux kernel.
    Since Ubuntu (and every other linux distro out there) does not have Dalvik, and also, since Android does not include things like Xorg, or a commandline etc, clearly Android is not just another linux distro.
    Bottom line is that Android apps won't work on regular linux distros, and regular linux apps won't work on Android. So very much different platforms/ecosystems/environments/whatever-you-want-to-call-it.
    Which has been my point all along. I don't see how being anal about GNU/linux and whatnot has done anything to contend my point, or contribute to the discussion at all.

    Originally posted by finalzone View Post
    I am not afraid to be wrong, that is human nature to learn from the mistake. Can you do the same?
    Sure I could. I'd have to be wrong first though...

    Leave a comment:


  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    did i say it wasn't running windows software on linux - NO i did not. But i don't hate windows applications, nor am i running them because i 'don't want to give them up' - i run them because they are good. - thus i have proven your claim as to why wine exists is nothing more than fallacious and your own stupid opinion...
    Lolwat? You are still using linux rather than Windows.
    If you think that Windows software is so good, why not run it in Windows then? That's my whole point. You'd need to be some twisted kind of closet Windows lover to require Wine in the first place.

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    you obviously are just googling this stuff and don't know what you are talking about.
    Lol whatever. Actually I'm a musician as well, and have been using Cubase since the Atari ST days (yes, they didn't have VST yet, back then).

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    VSTs are NOT just for Cubase and ANYONE who has been into proaudio/computer music even moderately would know that :\
    I never claimed anything like that. You're looking really hard to find insults here.

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    yup. you don't know what your talking about at all...
    Uhhh, how does any of that prove that NT is the name for the *kernel* rather than the *OS*? If anything, this line reinforces that it's the name for an OS:
    "It is popularly believed that Dave Cutler[2] intended the initialism "WNT" as a pun on VMS, incrementing each letter by one. However, the project was originally intended as a follow-on to OS/2 and was referred to as "NT OS/2" before receiving the Windows brand."

    VMS and OS/2 are both OSes, not kernels.

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    *face palm*. (MacOS) X (Not Unix). the X is the important piece there, which yes stands for ten - but guess what - so does the 'X' in X not unix...
    Why exactly would Apple want to stress the 'Not UNIX' in MacOS X, when the classic MacOSes weren't UNIX in the first place? If anything, OS X is a whole lot more UNIX than MacOS ever was.

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    Was MacOS 9 ported to Intel?
    Of course not, since it was phased out YEARS before Apple released the first x86-based Mac.

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    Was MacOS 9 a completely different OS than MacOSX?? YES.
    Obviously. But what's the relevance of that here.

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    Yes, MacOSX initially ran on PPC, but that doesn't change anything that i said, dude.
    Actually it does, 'dude'. Namely, you said: "Where as MacOS 9 was a totally different OS, built on a totally different architecture (PPC) and vastly different underlying components...."

    Since both OS 9 and OS X run on the PPC architecture, how is that totally different?
    That is what I pointed out, rather ironic after your jab of "You might actually want to make sure you know what you are talking about before making such comments, they really do come off as uninformed and dumb", don't you think?

    Originally posted by ninez View Post
    the fact is OS9 was built on PPC and it's underlying components were vastly different than MacOS X. You have done nothing to argue that, here other than bring up something that is rather pointless.
    Ofcourse I wouldn't argue that. I have always known that OS X is a completely different OS from the classic ones. I'm not sure why you are bringing this up. I didn't even mention OS 9 at all, let alone that I said it was not different from OS X. If I did, paste the quote. But I don't see anything remotely like that in this thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by russofris View Post
    What propaganda did you consume, or what trick of intellect did it take, to make you choose to operate in such an injured fashion?
    Oh yes, let's throw some ad hominems in there, while I merely point out that most IHVs and ISVs don't opt for open source (easily verifiable fact). I even say that they may not even be right about this, it's just not relevant. They say no to open source, so as an open source driver developer, you are naive to expect them to support you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Scali
    replied
    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    Yes, non-managed code is still allowed. They haven?t touched it, yet.
    Win8 still has full Win32API support, so we'll be safe for a while yet.
    Native code is far too widespread at this point for MS to even consider dropping it.
    .NET hasn't quite caught on yet, at least not with major commercial applications. Heck, even MS still writes stuff like Office with native code.

    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    Thats decision from people "above", and they find it ok - a fair trade-off for a clean ecosystem.
    As long as you only want to support open source applications, and like to redo the same packaging work that all the gazillion other distros are doing as well, fine.
    But then don't complain when big developers such as Adobe or game devs aren't interested in supporting your OS.

    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    So, even applications such as Adobe Director are poorly written?
    I wouldn't know, I'm not familiar with that application, let alone how it is written. But it's possible, sure. Why not? Because Adobe is a large company, there can't be incompetence and ignorance? If only we were so lucky.

    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    The problem is, you can?t keep anything as before if you change stuff - you can hold up older interfaces, till appoaches completely differ and then they are broken no matter how good they are written.
    Sure you can, just look at how COM does it, for example. A single object can implement multiple interfaces.
    Or Direct3D, where they just make new objects with new interfaces, rather than extending previous versions. Yes, even on Windows 7 x64, you can still run Direct3D1 applications. I know, I've tried.

    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    Their idea is however, no matter how long you maintain, it still will break at some time.
    Then their idea of software development is wrong. There are plenty of real-world examples of OSes and applications that are older than linux itself, and still work fine today. Yet linux, in its short lifespan has already broken compatibility numerous times.

    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    Linux is a moving target, Windows is a lagging target.
    Windows is a moving target as well, they are just more careful about how they change and extend functionality, so they maintain much better compatibility.
    I mean, take the above example of Direct3D1 code running on Windows 7. Direct3D1 was originally developed for Win95. NT itself is already a completely different kernel from the Win9x branch. Aside from that, since Win95/NT4, Windows has gone through two major display driver revisions (WDM and now WDDM). So basically everything about the kernel and driver is completely different from the environment of Win95/D3D1 back in the day. Yet the applications still work.

    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    It is best you keep the entire system up-to-date, then no parts lag behind and cause circular stuff.
    I don't think you got my point:
    Even *if* I keep my entire ports tree up-to-date, and rebuild all dependencies of an app from source, it *still* doesn't always work.

    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    You absolutely need to break something in order to change it
    Patently false, again, see above example of Direct3D1.

    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    Cmmon, stop perverting my quotes, you can do it
    I merely added the relevant context from the sentence to which you responded. Stop weaseling out of it. You responded to "Becase you *can* use Android 2.0 packages on Android 4.0" by saying "No you can't". Which is obviously wrong.

    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    But please don?t push on porting windows registry in linux
    I'm not sure why you keep bringing the Windows registry into the conversation. It is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    Lets talk about Valve or Blender then.
    Sure, let's talk about Valve: They always used Direct3D. They only use OpenGL now, because they are porting their engine to OSes where you have no choice. It remains to be seen whether they replace the Windows versions with OpenGL versions at some point. Currently all Valve games are still D3D on Windows (some 2 years after Valve released their OpenGL-based OS X ports).

    Blender is a toy, not professional software.

    Originally posted by crazycheese View Post
    Also, you are again forgetting about WINE - an effort to port closed source system is much more difficult than simply getting open spec?ed stack cast down for free.
    What does Wine have to do with the fact that OpenGL is the only 3D API on linux? Wine still uses OpenGL to render D3D stuff. It has no other choice.

    Leave a comment:


  • russofris
    replied
    Originally posted by johnc View Post
    NVIDIA has explained why they're not open sourcing their drivers, and they've never claimed it's completely for reasons outside of its control.
    Was it not until just recently (in response to Linus in fact), that they distanced them from their prior IP claims? Their response indicated that they were going to support their users via the common code, and not support linux in the manner prescribed by Linus (and other maintainers). Prior to this we had the IP boogie-man, and the boogie man was, and probably still is, their reasoning for the choice that they made.

    Take a look at this with me:
    While we understand that some people would prefer us to provide detailed documentation on all of our GPU internals, or be more active in Linux kernel community development discussions, we have made a decision to support Linux on our GPUs by leveraging NVIDIA common code, rather than the Linux common infrastructure. While this may not please everyone, it does allow us to provide the most consistent GPU experience to our customers, regardless of platform or operating system.
    It's a neat game-of-words. The sentence "a decision to support Linux on our GPUs" is kinda crafty, as it leaves you wondering who is supporting what and where, and what "support" means. It's beautifully ambiguous. It should read "a decision to support Linux users that have purchased our GPUs", because they are not supporting linux. They feel as if they are allowing their customers to run linux.

    "regardless of platform or operating system", except for the MIPS platform, which we just lost a bajillion dollars on in china..

    "this may not please everyone", meaning almost anyone that is currently running linux.

    It all strikes me as snarky in a passive aggressive way. Perhaps it's clear cut and my BS-meter is registering a false-positive.

    F

    Leave a comment:


  • johnc
    replied
    Nobody is making arguments about boogie-men or spaghetti monsters.

    NVIDIA has explained why they're not open sourcing their drivers, and they've never claimed it's completely for reasons outside of its control.

    Leave a comment:


  • finalzone
    replied
    Originally posted by Scali View Post
    Ahh, no.
    Android is an official trademark of Google. It is just that: 'Android'. Not 'Android/Linux' or anything. Android, period.
    As for GNU/Linux, that's what RMS wants you to call it. There doesn't seem to be a lot of consensus about this.
    For example, I don't see any reference to GNU here: http://www.ubuntu.com/project/about-ubuntu
    Now that's the largest linux distribution available today, I think I'll just go with that.
    In fact, note also that they refer to their OS distribution only as 'Ubuntu', not as 'Ubuntu Linux' or anything... and certainly not 'GNU/Linux'.
    That is just branding 101 for marketing purpose which still does not change what are underneath them. Android is nothing more than Dalvik (Java based platform) with Linux kernel. Same for Ubuntu which uses GNU platform (mainly compiled with GCC) and Linux kernel.


    Just because they challenge things doesn't mean they're right. You certainly aren't!
    I am not afraid to be wrong, that is human nature to learn from the mistake. Can you do the same?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X