addicted to linux

_klamath_ · Dec 7, 1999

Do you think Creative cares if they are flamed to death on /. ? I'd be surprised if you even read /.And FWIW - check out opensource.creative.com - Creative's drivers are now open source - and improving quickly, too. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Linux is too much of a headache, and the Linux zealots are an ungrateful bunch of cunts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>hahahah PeterB, you crack me up. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Compiling a kernel simply isn't an option for most people. Installing Redhat or Corel Linux is one thing. Getting them to compile a kernel is quite another. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Compiling a kernel is actually quite easy - once you get a hang of it. Do you think a Windows newbie will find it easy to fsck around in the System control panel in Windows? If 90% of all Windows users had to install and configure Windows themselves, they would be lost. You have more experience with Windows, of course it is easier for you to configure. Personally, I find kernel recompiling a breeze.

To disclose certain secrets about the things that they've invested time and money in, and to start supporting not three or four OS versions (the Windows family) but more, like 13-odd 2.2 kernels, 36-odd 2.0 kernels, and all the others?{/quote]Don't be ignorant. There is very rarely a need to have different drivers for different kernel revisions. And DEFINATELY no need to regularly update drivers after every minor kernel revision (i.e. 2.2.12 -> 2.2.13). On the other hand, NT uses a different kernel from Win9x. Often, device drivers for NT are completely different in quality from Win9x drivers for the same device - e.g. Matrox & NT G400 drivers.

treatment · Dec 7, 1999

IMarshall,You need to straighten up your reading on this thread to see who started the bashing. You are deluding yourself. It was Evil_Merlin who started it. I gave him a good answer about why, and then you came in to fray not knowing exactly why I got provoked. I stated that current equipments work easily right now because of MS's monopolistic-practices, i.e controlling the API that makes these equipment work properly with the Win9x-platform. It's the same thing that Apple is doing on MAC-hardware, except MS is doing it on software-level.It also might help if you do not confused yourself and try to guess what I'm saying about DirectX. I have stated on this thread why equipments currently works better under Win9x and that is because of DirectX-compliance, and that even NT can't hack it like Win9x. You confused it to suit your idea that *I* said DirectX makes CD-R. WRONG! What does conformity actually means to you? Here's a simple answer: DirectX is a low-level API for equipments to talk to computers AND Win9x-OS exclusively. Conforming and using these APIs (DirectX) makes the equipment more tied/dependent to the Win9x-platform, at the same time denying other platforms the same level playing field. I have already stated to you in another thread why DirectX and any other Microsoft APIs are not compatible with GPL that governs Linux. Only DirectX-compliant equipments work better in Win9x-platform and that OEMs must use MS-Tools to make their equipment work better for a single platform-environment, making the equipments heavily dependent on DirectX for most, if not all, functionality. This is done at the same time at the expense of other platform-environments that depend on open-standards such as Linux. Microsoft controls the low-level API (DirectX), therefore any other tools or equipment will not work properly unless they either make it DirectX-compliant or create their own API like 3DFX did with their GLide. These practice are all explained by MS itself in the Halloween-documents, wherein the only thing MS can do to stop Linux is to force and control the low-level APIs and open-standards that OEMs uses, and pollute these API and standards in ways that competing platforms does not stand a chance by making it a really difficult entry, and at the same time shift the blame to the OEMs. DirectX is only part of this overall MS monopoly-practice.If you must know some history, I have programmed in the original WinG that eventually became DirectX, so I know where I'm basing myself here. WinG/DirectX was created to make programming games for Win9x much easier than DOS-games and at the same time do away with DOS-games programming with its own myriad of non-MS APIs. This was the sole purpose of Alex St.John when he created WinG/DirectX. MS then took this initiative further to incorporate other aspects to control not just the games-platform, but most, if not all, the software/hardware-entry to Win9x. NT can't really work with DirectX because of NT's HAL.Then you started shifting and spouting out of left field regarding ASPI, SCSI and whatever. I have shown you links to Adaptec's info regarding DirectX wherein they have to incorporate and use DirectShow to their own software. I further gave you another particular OEM like SonicFoundry that explicitly uses DirectX to create their own noise-reduction software, which is still dependent on DirectX.NT-5 is on alot of beta-testers' computers. It is not sold on retail and is not supported by MS, unless you are part of the beta-program. So you're argument on NT-5 being on alot of people's computer doesn't stand at all. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>. You've demonstrated in this thread that you don'thave a clue about DirectX, or Windows software. Please don't embarrass yourself further. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excuse me, but it is you that have no idea what DirectX is all about. You have not even stated that you programmed at all with WinG/DirectX. You have no idea what DirectX is and the purposes of it. I'm the one who keeps explaining to you what it actually is, and yet you turn a blind eye on it. It is you who needs to stop embarassing yourself because all you got is fluff. By you stating that DirectShow is a "very small component" belies your ignorance of the whole API. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If there were showstopping technical issues then how do you explain DirectX on W2K?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Where is Win2k right now? Is it out on retail? Furthermore, did I even mentioned Win2k in the argument? Didn't I mentioned NT-4? Quit shifting. Be consistent with your arguments. You're becoming like E_M with confusing Win9x, NT-4 and Win2k in the same package. And you still have not answered my question of why DirectX was stopped at version-3 on NT-4. You depended on MS propaganda that marketing stopped it, where in fact it was a technical issue.You also still have not answered properly why USB was not implemented on NT-4 with any service-packs, yet Win9x have gone to at least 3 service-packs(Win95-a, Win95-b, Win95-c) to get USB. Why the double-standard? You have no answer to it, except propaganda. You have no argument-points at all. You simply use generalized press-releases from MS and other news-media. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> If you think the Windows driver scene is bad, wait until you see these guys try to keep track of Linux kernel versions and whatnow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You are being blind again. Check the development-kernels of linux and try to even get into the core kernel-developers. They are very consistent and they do not depend nor wait for any vendors' drivers. Why in the heck would they even keep track of the linux kernel-versions? You are wrongly comparing Windows-development with Linux-development. Once again, you have no argument. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And until Linux becomes more popular, we'll see how many resources are invested in these drivers. Are you still wondering why thee drivers have been open sourced?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It doesn't matter whether they invest on drivers or not. I'm not even wondering why drivers get open-sourced. Get out of your microsoft-bubble and actually participate in kernel and linux-drivers development and see for yourself the error of you generalizations.Evil_Merlin, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>There is nothing worse than a person like Treatment who simply points his finger at Microsoft everytime something goes wrong or Linux does not exceed Microsoft in some way form or such. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uhh, No. There's nothing worse than a person like you who bashes linux every chance you get. It has been proven in this thread and others that you are the one who is bigoted and attack linux without provocation. I have never said anything was wrong in Linux. It's always you that complains something's wrong with linux. Stop shifting the blame. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I was there in all the years when Linux was supposed to take the world by storm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uhh, no. You were not there and you no idea what you're claiming. You are just confusing yourself by your own dilluted history of linux. Maybe you're really talking about OS/2. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The ONLY reason linux is getting attention now, is because of the Microsoft trial.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uhh, no. Yet again you are showing your complete idiocy and utter stupidity. Linux has always been popular and been gaining strength since it first got out of usenets, way before any mainstream media-coverage. The MS-trial has nothing to do with Linux. Linux is popular because it is that good. It stands on its own merits. Media-coverage or no media-coverage. It has been proven better than NT, again and again. So stop your hallucination. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I did not START any bashing of Linux, simply voicing my dismay of a SIMPLE upgrade in linux...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uhhh, read your post again. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Gee as for implementing NT, more people are using it to RUN THEIR BUSINESSES THAN LINUX!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uhh, no. Prove it. I can tell you this, NT was alot cheaper than Netware or proprietary Unix and Mainframe-solutions. And this was before people realized what a real bargain Linux is compared to all of them, including NT. Check your story again. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Imagine that, so much for you idea that they cannot correctly implement their high-end OS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uhh, DUHH! Why isn't there a USB-implementation on any NT-4 again? Where is WolfPack again? Why is Hotmail still based on FreeBSD/Apache/Solaris? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I am not afraid of Linux doing anything, because if it does, I will be supporting it. But it won't, not any time soon, and probably not till RedHat starts selling IT's own version of Linux that breaks from Linus' wants/needs etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But Linux does what it is intended to be. What is your argument? Oh, keep dreaming about Redhat selling its own linux-version that breaks from Linus. It won't happen the way you want it to be. Linux is under GPL. Linux is not gonna go proprietary ever. Keep dreaming, man. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>That is why my CD-ROM burner (a SCSI one at that) is not supported under Linux it has drivers and software for all versions of Windows.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>uhh, DUHH! What is the primary purpose of kernel-developers right now? C'mon, tell us. Linux-desktop is not even a priority on anyone's list. And who controls the APIs on Windows again? And if these devices break on Windows, it's not Windows' fault, correct? Can we say double-speak here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And my sound card, while creative labs has released limited support, is no place near the support I have under Windows (again ALL versions). My SCSI RAID cards are not supported under Linux. None of them, why? Dunno but they are some of the more common cards for RAID.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So you blame linux for the lack of drivers? Funny. You blame other manufacturers if the equipment doesn't work on Win2k or any Windows-version, yet you are quick to blame linux for everything. Stop your double-speak. You got nothing, yet again. The funny thing is, some hacker or hacker-groups are already hacking a linux-driver for all these equipments WITHOUT manufacturer's support. As it has always been with Linux.Oh, yeah. People at Slashdot are great people and really quick to point out and attack the idiocy of manufacturers. It has always been like that. I and many others have voiced critical opinions about Quake3 here and everywhere else, and guess what happened? Loki was indeed selected to be the Linux-publisher rather than Activision. I call that a advocacy-group success and I'm proud of that group action. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Since MS does not work with OpenSource how could they do this? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Read the halloween-documents here: http://www.opensource.org/halloween/ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Do you really think RedHat is going to continue following GNU for much longer? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uhh, yeah. And your point is? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Not if they are going to make money. A great IPO does little but get you money up front. Investors demand results and if RedHat continues loosing money, all is not going to be cheery. I am willing to bet that RedHat's GPL stuff is going to change soon. I can promise so, but I am willing to bet it changes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uhh, WRONG! Since when did you became a financial advisor to Redhat? Since when did Redhat ever released a non-GPL program? Paraphrasing what Bruce Perens always states, "we make Redhat for what it is. I can legally take away and/or legally forbid Redhat from using any of my GPL-software. I'm not the only one who owns the codes within Redhat-Linux". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>One GUI, one shell. Easy for training and support. MOST linux distributions offer a different Xwindows shell, KDE, GNOME, WindowMaker etc. Don't get into being able to download other shells for Windows, as companies would not allow that in the workplace.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uhh, excuse me? Hello? Are we on the same planet called Earth? Ding! Ding! Ding! Non-sequitur and completely irrelevant since you have no idea how corporate-IT actually works. There is a distinct difference why companies deploy "linux-workstations" and not "linux-desktops".Try again. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Good support for developers, integrators etc from Microsoft,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>MS better support their own people. It'll be suicide for them if they abandon support for their minions. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Linux support, while getting better, does not offer near what MS does in this area. Sure in Linux you have the source code for the OS, but does that make things any easier for a programmer? Not always.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are really disappointing me for your claim as a contributor to the linux tcp-ip stack. Of all people, you should know exactly how linux-development works. For others to read, Linux-development is completely different from MS-development. As such, it is idiotic to even try to compare and contrast the two with emphasis on traditional Microsoft ways. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I can get better support for my programming languages on Windows.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You should since you only program for a single platform. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Want Java 2.0? C++? C? PERL? sure you can get some on Linux but nothing as complete as what is offered on Windows. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hehehe. Wanna know a secret? C/C++/PERL are all unix-heritage that linux gets by default. Java is also UNIX (SUN), but that's another can of worms there. As for completeness, you obviously have not heard nor used Cygnus tools. Here's the link: http://www.cygnus.com/ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Hey Treatment, when it the last time you played Half-Life on your Linux box? Or StarCraft?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't play Half-Life or StarCraft at all, even on Win32-computers either. Try again. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>or hell any of the top ten games sold today? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uhh, I'm gonna buy U-T this coming payday. I already have the Myth-games. I got Q3Demo and will be waiting for the Loki-version of Quake3. Incidentally, did you know that Suse-Linux 6.3 will be bundled on the Loki-Quake3? Great concept, huh. A great game and a complete Operating-System in one Box, eh. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>A good IDE for developing not only C++ but Java?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> http://www.cygnus.com <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Watch a DVD movie and have Dolby Digital Out to your stereo reciever?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Since I don't do this, you may find some help over at this sites: http://livid.on.openprojects.net/ http://www.hdk-berlin.de/~rasca/xvidcap/ http://roadrunner.swansea.uk.linux.org/v4l.shtml http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~crow/linux/ http://www.thp.uni-koeln.de/~rjkm/linux/bttv.html Hope those sites helps. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>have your cable modem or DSL provider hook you up?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have Cox @Home at my apartment. DSL is still limited in my state. What else you got? --treatment-- <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As for WindowsNT? it controls about 36-40% of the server market. Linux? 12-15%<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Show me the links and the companies that did this survey!

Evil_Merlin · Dec 7, 1999

Treatment I am afraid you will have to wait till I get home from work and Karate, as I do not currently have the time to go into detail.

treatment · Dec 7, 1999

__klamath__ and everyone else,Kindly ignore PeterB and his posts. He is just a poser. He doesn't have any clue at all of anything related to this issue and anything else under the sun. All he wants is to stupidly argue with anyone who gets baited by him. I repeat, he is just a poser. He does not contribute anything to any issue on any thread. All he's got is false propaganda and lame name-calling. If you have to insist, ask him if he has BEOS installed on his computer and elucidate on why BEOS sucks.--treatment--

IMarshal · Dec 7, 1999

treatment:There seems to be a fundamental disconnect between what I'm talking about and what you're arguing. I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, but it's difficult. My Slashdot reading experience is coming in handy, so at least your paranoia isn't foreign to me, although your lack of logic is still rather disquieting.This conversation started because you stated that CD-R burning is difficult on Linux because of the Microsoft "monopoly" and their control over hardware specs. However, you have yet to explain how CD-R specs are somehow proprietary, or closed, and what information isn't available to Linux coders. So, here's a question: how does Microsoft affect the Linux CD-R burning experience?Now, DirectX entered the conversation when you stated that "Microsoft publishes DirectX technologies that are usually incorporated into media-software such as CD-R software". Aside from being absurdly off-topic, this is simply wrong. You have yet to name a CD-R package that uses DirectX at all, much less in any fundamental way. Here's another question: what does DirectX have to do with burning CD's on Win9x or any other platform?On a more general level, you appear to be using DirectX as an example of Microsoft imposing proprietary interfaces on hardware manufacturers and making it more difficult for IHV's to support other platforms. For someone who claims to have programmed something, this is an amazing assertion. The fact is that there is nothing that DirectX imposes on hardware design; you write a DirectX driver for your hardware just like you write an OpenGL driver or a Glide driver, or an X-Server or a GDI driver. It's all the same principle: provide interfaces that allow performant access to hardware in a generic manner. I fail to see how this comes at the expense of other platforms; after all, if the marketshare for OS Y is there, the hardware will come with drivers for OS Y. Or do you really think that DirectX support in a video card means that the same video card can't be used in X?WinG is completely unrelated to DirectX, BTW. WinG is a fast bitmap modification API, while DirectX provides a frame buffer, 3D services, sound, networking, video, etc. And DirectDraw didn't evolve from WinG; their interfaces are completely different. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>NT can't really work with DirectX because of NT's HAL.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So does this mean that NT can't burn CD's?

More seriously, I'm afraid you're wrong. NT4SP3 supports DirectX 3.0, and NT5 supports DirectX 7.0. Both have fully functional Hardware Abstraction Layers (yep, that's what HAL stands for). And NT4 is very similar to NT5 internally, so your argument that "NT4 doesn't have these features so there must have been a technical impossibility" is proven wrong by the sheer existence of NT5 and its feature set. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>NT-5 is on alot of beta-testers' computers. It is not sold on retail and is not supported by MS, unless you are part of the beta-program. So you're argument on NT-5 being on alot of people's computer doesn't stand at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Irrelevant. The mere fact that NT5 exists and supports all the things that you said NT was incapable of supporting means that your claims of "fundamental technical problems" were wrong. If Microsoft had wanted to add USB and DirectX to NT4, they could have. Easily? Well, no; it would have required more than a one-line code change, sure. And NT Service Packs do not add features, especially big features that require significant kernel changes. That's why leaving them as NT5 features made sense even beyond the marketing strategies.About Linux drivers from IHV's: you don't have to believe me, just wait and see. I predict that there will be fundamental problems and incompatibilities with driver versions and kernel versions. Don't bother arguing with me here; you've already demonstrated you don't have a clue about software development. Time will prove me right or wrong.The rest of your message directed at me is pure insult, so I'll ignore it. I'll say one thing, though: the way you accuse me of being in a "Microsoft bubble" while making the absurd claims that you make without evidence merely indicates that you have fallen for the Slashdot "open source, closed minds" mindset. Please take a deep breath and drop the group-think. You too are an individual.Edit: One thing I forgot to comment on: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I have already stated to you in another thread why DirectX and any other Microsoft APIs are not compatible with GPL that governs Linux.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It's amazing how you never learn a thing. Do you read what I write? In that thread I pointed out that you can't place an API or set of interfaces under the GPL; it takes real code to do that. (Of course, you probably never read that, or understood it.)As Wine, Willow, Wind/U and other API-emulators have demonstrated, cloning Microsoft's API's on other platforms is as feasible as anything else. There's no reason why you can't write a GPL'd DirectX or Win32 app, even on Linux, as long as your OS provides an implementation of those interfaces for you. Luckily, both Windows and Wine provide implementations of Win32, so one can run most Win32 code on both Windows and Linux.You _do_ know the difference between interface and implementation, don't you?[This message has been edited by IMarshal (edited December 07, 1999).]

Deleted member 5324 · Dec 7, 1999

OH man, where to start. Well, I don't feel like dignifiying overdone arguments with too much of a response, so here goes, succintly:If your hardware isn't supported in linux, don't use linux. I don't care. But I don't care about your hardware not working; Everything I have works fine because I bought it that way. Do you care? No. The fact that windows supports more hardware is a product of its large market share in the desktop world. Any OS that's just starting will have minimal hardware support; look at beos.Windows' support of more hardware might be an point to argue with someone like you who has hardware that doesn't work, but it's not a general point to be made, since it proves nothing about either OS. I can use all the hardware in linux that i can in windows; I'm just more careful which vendors I buy from.If your scsi cdrom burner is not supported in linux, then there's a major problem with your scsi cdrom vendor. I highly doubt it's not supported. Get your facts straight.Redhat continuing support of the GPL is assured. Your lack of legal knowledge shows through here. Redhat cannot fork the kernel and change the license. That's i-l-l-e-g-a-l. And yes, you can make money selling open source products. I download RH 6.1, used it for a month, liked it, and bought the full version. I wanted the books; I wanted the bumper sticker. I wanted to support Redhat.One GUI one shell is not a superiority over linux. To think so it stupid. Do praise the airlines because they have only one size of business class seat? Would you praise a car manufacturer who didn't give you adjustable seats? If a company wants to use linux and standardize on one shell, they can. Nothing stops them. But I like windowmaker infinitely more than the dumbass windows shell, who seems to value eye candy over functionality (I mean, hello, why should a window have to be on top to type into it? why should double clicking a title bar maximize the window, when a much more commonly performed task is to minimize the window? tons of these things irk me)Perl support better in windows my ass. The day perl is better supported in windows will be the day Bill Gate's brain is still running MS from a jar of ether. Perl support is infinitely better in linux (and other unices) because it's standard. Write a perl script for unix and you're good to go; for windows, you probably aren't.My cable modem hooks me up in linux.The gimp is used by professionals. Dude, you need to stop arguing about linux. Use windows. I don't care. I use linux. I enjoy using linux and couldn't use windows now if i wanted to. I don't mind you using windows. But don't go spouting lies about my favorite OS because you feel threatened by it.As for me and my house, we won't be sucking from the teat of a multi-million dollar corporation.Jeremy

treatment · Dec 7, 1999

IMarshall,Ok, let's recap since you seem to have been lost. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>This conversation started because you stated that CD-R burning is difficult on Linux because of the Microsoft "monopoly" and their control over hardware specs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This argument of your's is purely circular. I have commented on this thread based on E_M's linux-bashing by simply stating that by virtue of MS's monopoly-practices, it is much more easier for equipments to work on Win9x-machines because of MS's monopoly-practices than to comparable alternative-platforms, including NT-machines. I commented on how DirectX is part of this "simplification" by stating that DirectX is incorporated on most CD-R software; not on CD-R standard itself. See the difference? Check the thread again starting from E_M's linux-bashing. I am still asking you why DirectX-version was stopped on version-3 on NT-4 and you rattled off with NT-5. NT-5, as it stands today, is still in beta until Win2k gets released. It doesn't matter nor is it relevant that it has most of Win9x's current functionality (including DirectX) and considering NT-4 had DirectX until version-3. What exactly happened? I gave you an answer about NT's HAL and DirectX not being compatible with each other. Microsoft itself published this reason when DirectX-4 and DX-5 was released on Win9x and not on NT-4. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>However, you have yet to explain how CD-R specs are somehow proprietary, or closed, and what information isn't available to Linux coders. So, here's a question: how does Microsoft affect the Linux CD-R burning experience?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Read my comments again. Nowhere did I mentioned on this thread that CD-R standard itself was proprietary. You conveniently minced my posts of CD-R software conformance to DirectX to CD-R being proprietary by virtue of DirectX. I have only shown E_M the reason why most software including CD-R software are much more easier and available on the Win9x-platform. Read the posts again. You are still trying to trip me up and it's not working. You are the one getting confused. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You have yet to name a CD-R package that uses DirectX at all, much less in any fundamental way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Since you are so thoroughly confused by your own bias, I suggest you re-read my assertion again. If I have the source-specs of these particular software, maybe I can really tell you where exactly DirectX-calls are being made by the oem-software. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Here's another question: what does DirectX have to do with burning CD's on Win9x or any other platform?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You are the one who keeps insisting on that. I offered only that DirectX-compliance/conformance on CD-R software makes it easier for Win9x-machines to work with hardware compared to other platforms. I asked the question also about why NT-4 cannot match that particular capability of Win9x and I even offered the DirectX factor of Win9x. Yet, you completely ignore that offer and you still get too anal about insisting on shifting the same issue towards Linux. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> you appear to be using DirectX as an example of Microsoft imposing proprietary interfaces on hardware manufacturers and making it more difficult for IHV's to support other platforms. For someone who claims to have programmed something, this is an amazing assertion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I do assert on it. Explain to me why NT-4 do not have the functionalities of Win9x (DirectX, PnP and USB, among other things) when NT-4 is the current high-end OS of MS and was released even a little bit later than the original Win95, and why did DirectX on NT-4 stopped on version-3. Do not try to equate nor use NT-5/Win2k into the issue. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The fact is that there is nothing that DirectX imposes on hardware design; ... It's all the same principle: provide interfaces that allow performant access to hardware in a generic manner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Correction: DirectX imposes exclusive API-compliance on Software design and purposes. You are mincing words again. If DirectX doesn't impose this compliance, then all Win95-software that controls media-hardware should work flawlessly under NT. Think about that. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Or do you really think that DirectX support in a video card means that the same video card can't be used in X?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You are still confused. If DirectX is such a "generic" foundation, then why is it that NT-4 can't use it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>WinG is completely unrelated to DirectX, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is an outright ignorance on your part. WinG was the name Alex St.John called DirectX before Microsoft standardized on the term DirectX. WinG/DirectX was originally purposed to handle only porting of DOS-games and video-cards. Microsoft "extended" this original purpose to encompass all Win9x media software-interface. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>NT4SP3 supports DirectX 3.0, and NT5 supports DirectX 7.0.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Did I not mentioned and consistently asserted that DirectX was stopped at version-3 on NT-4? It is completely irrelevant whatever functionality there is on NT-5/Win2k as it is not available right now for retail. It is not even official yet. We will all have to wait until it is released this on February, but do save your arguments for it until then. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And NT4 is very similar to NT5 internally, so your argument that "NT4 doesn't have these features so there must have been a technical impossibility" is proven wrong by the sheer existence of NT5 and its feature set.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, totally irrelevant issue. If NT-4 is similar to NT-5 internally, why is NT-4 lacking in USB-support and later versions of DirectX? Whatever feature-set of NT-5 will have to wait scrutiny until it's finally released on retail. You are only trying to predict rain because the sky is dark, where in fact it is a dark sky because it is night time. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> mere fact that NT5 exists and supports all the things that you said NT was incapable of supporting means that your claims of "fundamental technical problems" were wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Augh! Again. You are sounding off more like Mac-zealots regarding OS-X stuff. Where is NT-5 on the retail shelves? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If Microsoft had wanted to add USB and DirectX to NT4, they could have.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But the fact of the matter is, they don't and they haven't still. The real question is why not NT-4?. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And NT Service Packs do not add features, especially big features that require significant kernel changes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hehehe. Hello!!! Do you remember SP-2 debacle? Do you remember SP-3, 4, 5, 6, 6a functionalities for NT-4? Isn't Winsock-2 on the kernel-level of NT-4? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I predict that there will be fundamental problems and incompatibilities with driver versions and kernel versions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Everybody's predicting everything. When it comes, it comes. It will be open, published, attacked, and tackled appropriately. Not like somebody's sitting on their asses in the Linux-kernel development-circles waiting for a new service-pack. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Don't bother arguing with me here; you've already demonstrated you don't have a clue about software development. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uhhh, no. It is you who have no clue at all how and what linux software-development is. You keep trying to implement the same flawed software-development model that the OSS-model replaces on an OpenSource project like linux. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>It's amazing how you never learn a thing. Do you read what I write? In that thread I pointed out that you can't place an API or set of interfaces under the GPL; it takes real code to do that. (Of course, you probably never read that, or understood it.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uhh, wrong again! It is you who do not understand what and how GPL works. Here's a disclosure for yah: A GPL-code carries with it the GPL. Any code that incorporates GPL-codes gets GPL'd, whether the owner likes it or not. To avoid this, a coder must avoid using or incorporating GPL'd-codes. That is why GPL is incompatible with MS's API because MS does not want GPL on their code. This was the same situation where TrollTech (KDE) was embroiled in because of their QT library and API licenses, and why GNOME was started in the first place. If you still fail to understand that, maybe you need to re-evaluate what exactly you're trying to confused yourself with. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As Wine, Willow, Wind/U and other API-emulators have demonstrated, cloning Microsoft's API's on other platforms is as feasible as anything else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can only speak of WINE and it does not contain any MS API at all. I haven't read the WINE-source and comments where exactly the cloning process begins and ends. As for Wind/U, doesn't Bristol makes it? I seem to remember that they have total access to actual Windows source-code to do the emulation. Imho, cloning MS API is a waste of time, but that's just my opinion since I'm not a fan of emulation at all. The release of GTK and other tools makes developing for linux an even more exciting proposition. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>There's no reason why you can't write a GPL'd DirectX or Win32 app, even on Linux, as long as your OS provides an implementation of those interfaces for you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>There's already alot of tools, such as GTK, FreeQT, and even Tcl/TK, that already provides DirectX-like functionalities. But if you want to GPL the full DirectX-APIs, you need to convince Microsoft for us. DirectX is not needed in linux nor in XFree. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Luckily, both Windows and Wine provide implementations of Win32, so one can run most Win32 code on both Windows and Linux.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Why in the heck would anyone really wanna do that??? That's defeating the whole purpose of having an alternative platform and having choices. It might have been good idea back in 1993, but not anymore at this day and age where Linux native-apps are comparable to Win-apps. Heck, even Corel Wordperfect has been available to linux for a long time now and it has always had the same functionalities as their Win32-versions without the use of emulation. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You _do_ know the difference between interface and implementation, don't you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Maybe I'll give you a break and actually ask you to enlighten me, oh wise one. I'm sure alot of us will wait for your eloquent elucidation of the difference of interface and implementation in your own terms. --treatment--

IMarshal · Dec 8, 1999

This comversation really is too funny. It's like arguing with Eliza's twin brother, the advo-kiddie. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I commented on how DirectX is part of this "simplification" by stating that DirectX is incorporated on most CD-R software; not on CD-R standard itself. See the difference?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The problem is that your statement is false. CD-R software does not need to use DirectX for anything. There might be some package or other than uses it to provide eye or ear candy of some sort, but I'm not aware of any that do. What evidence do you have for DirectX incorporation into CD-R software? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I have only shown E_M the reason why most software including CD-R software are much more easier and available on the Win9x-platform. Read the posts again. You are still trying to trip me up and it's not working. You are the one getting confused.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You're right; you trip yourself up with no help from me. CD-R software is easier and available on Win9x because of DirectX? That's a interesting theory. Do you also think that there are more Zip drive utilities on Win9x because of DirectX? Are you aware of the fact that virtually all 9x CD-R software works on DirectX-challenged NT as well?(BTW, isn't it a lot more simple to think that CD-R software is more plentiful on Windows than Linux because Windows users are more plentiful than Linux users? Or are you claiming that there's something about Windows that makes software run better than on Linux? Or maybe the hardware works better? That's not what I think - it's what you seem to be saying.) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> >You have yet to name a CD-R package that uses DirectX at all, >much less in any fundamental way.Since you are so thoroughly confused by your own bias, I suggest you re-read my assertion again. If I have the source-specs of these particular software, maybe I can really tell you where exactly DirectX-calls are being made by the oem-software.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You're tripping over yourself again. Any competent developer or knowledgable admin knows how to tell which apps call into which DLL's. Obviously you are neither.What's funny is that you make the claim that "DirectX is incorporated on most CD-R software", but when asked to provide evidence, you say "If I have the source-specs of these particular software, maybe I can really tell you where exactly DirectX-calls are being made".In other words, you're talking out of your ass. Just like those guys who rant about hidden Microsoft API's, but when asked to produce one, say "well, they're secret, so of course I cann't give you an example."Why don't you just salvage a little credibility and admit that DirectX has nothing to do with CD-R software? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I gave you an answer about NT's HAL and DirectX not being compatible with each other. Microsoft itself published this reason when DirectX-4 and DX-5 was released on Win9x and not on NT-4.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If you're genuinely interested in this discussion, open a new thread. And while you're at it, provide a link to Microsoft's article on DirectX being incompatible with a HAL.(BTW, DirectX 4? When was that released?) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>WinG was the name Alex St.John called DirectX before Microsoft standardized on the term DirectX. WinG/DirectX was originally purposed to handle only porting of DOS-games and video-cards. Microsoft "extended" this original purpose to encompass all Win9x media software-interface.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unfortunately, you're wrong. Here's a quote from http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/techart/msdn_roadmap.htm: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>WinG is a graphics technology that was introduced on the Windows 3.1 platform to allow games developers to use some DOS graphics techniques under Windows. Essentially, WinG allows you to use GDI to draw on a device-independent bitmap (DIB). WinG functionality is now built into Win32 through the CreateDIBSection function.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WinG may or may not have been created by the Saint (got a link?), but it was simply a bitmap twiddling API used in Windows 3.1. DirectX is much more; even 1.0 was much more. To say that DirectX evolved from WinG is like saying that the web evolved from FTP. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Do you remember SP-2 debacle? Do you remember SP-3, 4, 5, 6, 6a functionalities for NT-4? Isn't Winsock-2 on the kernel-level of NT-4?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Like I said earlier in this thread, as of SP3, no more features were added via Service Pack in NT. Since you don't know how to read, I guess you missed that.You can bluster all you want, but that was the decision that was made. SP2 and 3 contained quite a few new features, but a line was drawn in 1997. Go ahead and find me a feature that was added in SP4 or beyond. You won't find anything significant - it's all bug fixes or security issues. And yes, clueless wonder, Winsock 2 is in the NT4 kernel. It has been there since NT4 RTM or SP1 (can't remember - I think it was RTM). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You keep trying to implement the same flawed software-development model that the OSS-model replaces on an OpenSource project like linux.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL! Do you honestly think that open source represents a revolution in software development? Do you really believe that ESR's laws trump Brooks'? I guess if you read enough Slashdot, you might end up believing that...I will admit one thing that open source has achieved: it has invented the most efficient known mechanism for cloning and reverse engineering existing programs and architectures. But that's about it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> >you can't place an API or set of interfaces under the GPL; it >takes real code to do that.It is you who do not understand what and how GPL works<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You're so simple. All you can think of is the open / closed dichotomy. Of course the GPL is a landmine! Why the hell else would Sun, Apple, Novell and everyone else be producing their own licenses?The point is that an API is not code; it's a contract, a declaration of intentions, a promise. You can't GPL an API, only a specific implementation of an API.And BTW, you happen to be talking to someone who publishes software under the GPL in his spare time. My understanding of the GPL goes beyond your sycophantic advocacy. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>There's already alot of tools, such as GTK, FreeQT, and even Tcl/TK, that already provides DirectX-like functionalities. But if you want to GPL the full DirectX-APIs, you need to convince Microsoft for us. DirectX is not needed in linux nor in XFree.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You _really_ don't understand DirectX at all if you think GTK, QT and Tcl are in some way analogous. I think it's time to stop talking about DirectX; you're as bad as RiscRocket and SMP. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I can only speak of WINE and it does not contain any MS API at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And now you don't know even what an API is. Good heavens, man, you need some educating.treatment - if I may be so bold: how old are you? What is your background in Computer Science? Am I wasting my time with you?

Evil_Merlin · Dec 8, 1999

IMarshal, why even bother. It is apparent from his latest rants (specially comparing DirectX to Tcl and GTK that this person knows nothing about programming for the Win32 platform) I would leave him alone in his self delsional world. Notice how he responded to my previous posts about the weaknesses in Linux. I said no cable modem/DSL company will attach on of their lines to a Linux box. Then he says that his linux box is attached to his cable modem. I am willing to bet it was a Windows box first. How do I know? I used to work for MediaOne/RoadRunner. Windows or MacOS ONLY. And it is STILL policy. If you want to move it AFTER the fact to a non-supported OS, you get no support other than modem issues and line issues. Just a clue Treatment. API's are NOT chunks of code you throw into a program, they are a skeleton, a framework of rules guidelines to follow when interfacing with a certain part of an OS. Or the specific method prescribed by a computer operating system or by another application program by which a programmer writing an application program can make requests of the operating system or another application. Will it contain code? Not really, except by example.And I have used WINE. I don't know many non-technical users who could even attempt to run something under WINE... (whoops hadda fix IMarshal's name) [This message has been edited by Evil_Merlin (edited December 08, 1999).]

Zagato-sama · Dec 8, 1999

Hey now! I got umm notepad.exe to work under wine..so there! > View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_redface.gif

treatment · Dec 8, 1999

E_M and IMarshall,Maybe you guys need to re-read my assertions and my posts again. I have provided both of you credible evidence of DirectX being incorporated to Win9x-software and not necessarily CD-R software. I'll try to decompile whatever CD-R software for you since you are so anal about wrongly applying what I posted to suit your collective bias. Both of you have conveniently ignore my post regarding MFC as well, but just anally stick to my DirectX-comments. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>What evidence do you have for DirectX incorporation into CD-R software?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Since we both don't have the source of a particular CD-R software, I like to ask the same question from you. What evidence do you have for no DirectX incorporation into CD-R software?Since you two conveniently skirted around my other points about MS monopoly-practice and kept on sticking CD-R/DirectX, I really do wonder what exactly you're arguing with me for. To date, neither of you have answered this simple query from me: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Who exactly knows what exactly was in the USB-standard that makes a usb-hardware works only for Win98 on the x86-platform and at the same time be incompatible with usb-equipped Win95 computers? Why is USB-compliance lacking from NT? Why is DirectX-software always included on most, if not all, newer equipments and software?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Both of you guys conveniently left off the other parts in my assertion. I have asserted that DirectX is just part of the MS monopoly-practice, but you used that to circle around and convinced yourselves that it is the only part. Here's the complete quote from me that IMarshall used: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Not entirely true. Microsoft publishes DirectX technologies that are usually incorporated into media-software such as CD-R software. DirectX is a proprietary Microsoft API for media(sight,sound,etc) and I believe most, if not all, CDR software for the Win9x-platform must conform to it for better working-relationship with Win9x-platform, in conjunction with using MS Dev-tools such as VC++ that uses MFC. This is an extension of monopolistic-practice that even MS itself is suffering from. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Both of you have not debunked that at all. Both of you conveniently skirted around that assertion of mine and just hammer on CD-R software. We'll make this easier if both of you can give me the source of a particular Win9x CD-R software and all of us will scrutinize it at the source-level where DirectX-compliance starts and ends (including encapsulation within MFC and MFC itself) and whether it's really there or not. Should I contact Andrew Shulman for both of you, too? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>(BTW, isn't it a lot more simple to think that CD-R software is more plentiful on Windows than Linux because Windows users are more plentiful than Linux users? Or are you claiming that there's something about Windows that makes software run better than on Linux? Or maybe the hardware works better? That's not what I think - it's what you seem to be saying.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not claiming anything you believe at all. All I did was show why it is more easier for software to work on the Windows-platform. Yes, there is something about Windows that makes software run, but not necessarily better than on linux by the simple fact that they're both completely different platform-environment. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Any competent developer or knowledgable admin knows how to tell which apps call into which DLL's. Obviously you are neither.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Blanket and completely false statement. Let's actually see if you can prove that without reading the source-code. There's alot of interconnecting DLL's within Windows, both with Win9x and NT. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>In other words, you're talking out of your ass. Just like those guys who rant about hidden Microsoft API's, but when asked to produce one, say "well, they're secret, so of course I cann't give you an example."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Uhh, no. Decompiling Windows-software without expressed permission from Microsoft is punishable by law. It is in every Microsoft EULA. Now, any competent coder can still do it with proper-tools and Andrew Schulman and other un-named hackers already proved it. Andrew didn't get to jail because he is an actual licensed Windows-developer working for Microsoft at the time of his "discoveries". <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Why don't you just salvage a little credibility and admit that DirectX has nothing to do with CD-R software<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Who can say that DirectX doesn't? Even you can't prove my assertion otherwise. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Unfortunately, you're wrong. Here's a quote from http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/techart/msdn_roadmap.htm: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unfortunately, I believe you haven't really followed what transpired during those years when WinG was introduced as an add-on and then evolved to become DirectX. WinG was developed by the Win95-team. The evolution process was like this: WinG(win16/win32s)-->Direct3D(D3D)-->DirectX. Here's some links for you, including Alex St.John's interviews : http://www.gamecenter.com/News/Item/0,3,972,00.html http://www.gamesiege.com/gsPC/articles/alex1.htm http://www.gamecenter.com/News/Item/0,3,929,00.html http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/RPMcGoey/TechArts.htm http://stargate.jpl.nasa.gov/ddl/talks/vcpp/why_use.html <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Go ahead and find me a feature that was added in SP4 or beyond. You won't find anything significant - it's all bug fixes or security issues. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>From the PR of Microsoft, here: http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/exec/overview/NT4SP4whatnew.asp <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>LOL! Do you honestly think that open source represents a revolution in software development? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, I do. Only idiots say otherwise. And ESR is not the one who invented it, btw. ESR is just a spokesman. Next time you try to downplay OSS, check the history and personalities correctly first. So, kindly explain why you think open-source software-development in its linux-form is not a revolutionary concept? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The point is that an API is not code; it's a contract, a declaration of intentions, a promise. You can't GPL an API, only a specific implementation of an API.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Are you now saying that GPL is code and not license, and that API's are actually contracts and not pieces of codes? Isn't PERL an actual API in itself and is GPL'd? Isn't the linux-kernel an actual API in itself that's GPL'd? Isn't RPM an actual API that's GPL'd? Isn't GNOME an actual set of APIs that's GPL'd? Could you try your explanation again? I'm a little slow in grasping your fluff here. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And BTW, you happen to be talking to someone who publishes software under the GPL in his spare time. My understanding of the GPL goes beyond your sycophantic advocacy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ok. Would you like to list the software you published under GPL? I will cross-reference it at freshmeat and fsf/gnu. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You _really_ don't understand DirectX at all if you think GTK, QT and Tcl are in some way analogous. I think it's time to stop talking about DirectX; you're as bad as RiscRocket and SMP.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Kindly explain and list the distinct differences between these APIs, especially between GTK and DirectX. Please. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And now you don't know even what an API is. Good heavens, man, you need some educating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You're trying to hide. Educate us. Explain your fluff, please. We're all waiting. What actual MS-API did WINE used? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>treatment - if I may be so bold: how old are you? What is your background in Computer Science? Am wasting my time with you?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I hope we're both not wasting time on each other. I'm almost 29, inactive undergrad-senior BSCS from SDSU with formal C/Pascal/Assembler background. Will that be enough for you? --treatment--

treatment · Dec 8, 1999

EM, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> It is apparent from his latest rants (specially comparing DirectX to Tcl and GTK that this person knows nothing about programming for the Win32 platform)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What exactly don't I know about it? Do you actually know GTK and Tcl/TK at all? Have you at all programmed with DirectX? I started programming on Windows-platform during the Win386 time. You are probably weaned on MFC and have little experience with MS-C prior to VC. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Notice how he responded to my previous posts about the weaknesses in Linux.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Excuse me? You are the one who's delusional in your posts by claiming <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I can get better support for my programming languages on Windows. Want Java 2.0? C++? C? PERL?sure you can get some on Linux but nothing as complete as what is offered on Windows. Want a full IDE? Got quite a few of them in Windows, and they are good ones too, that help not hinder. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>OMFG! Who's doing a re-write on claims here. You are obviously idiotic enough to even claim that PERL is more complete on Win32, much less C and C++. You are also completely and pathetically ignorant of Cygnus tools. What, you think VC is the only IDE that exists? You are completely amazing.You also claimed "One GUI, one shell". That's the most ass-backwards excuse ever and others have already correctly pointed it out your idiocy. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I am willing to bet it was a Windows box first. How do I know? I used to work for MediaOne/RoadRunner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Uhh, no. I did say it was Cox@home and they did provided me linux-support IP-level. It was a dedicated linux-box and not a windows-box. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If you want to move it AFTER the fact to a non-supported OS, you get no support other than modem issues and line issues. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Once again, you are all fluff. I have already established it was indeed a dedicated linux-box and not a Win32-box. Cox@home provides hardware tech-support only at the cable-modem and IP-address level. They will provide software-support if you use their @home browser-software. Did you actually work as tech-support at MediaOne??? What exactly was your work there? You are all fluff, man. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>API's are NOT chunks of code you throw into a program, they are a skeleton, a framework of rules guidelines to follow when interfacing with a certain part of an OS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And then you still claim that GTK and Tcl/TK don't do the same thing on both Xwindows/Xfree and linux-kernel levels? Do you even know what and how Tcl/TK actually works? Are you that anal about MFC and really think that other frameworks do not exist even if they're in front of you? Here's a quote from www.gtk.org <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>GTK is essentially an object oriented application programmers interface (API). Although written completely in C, it is implemented using the idea of classes and callback functions (pointers to functions). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That clear enough for yah?--treatment--

underthumb · Dec 8, 1999

treatment-Just an aside, regarding DirectX and CD-R software:Your implication that DirectX is at all involved in CD-R software is your claim, and thus the burden of proof lies on you. It is not the job of IM or E_M to disprove you. It is your job to prove yourself.

treatment · Dec 8, 1999

Underthumb et al,Ok. Since I can't find any actual CD-R software design-specs, would you guys settle for the DVD design-specs with DirectX components in action? Here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/backgrnd/html/dvd_msoswp.htm --treatment--

Evil_Merlin · Dec 8, 1999

Um, Treatment, you better read those specs again, DIRECT X is ONLY FOR DIRECT SHOW.

IMarshal · Dec 9, 1999

I was about to reply to treatment's latest rant when it occurred to me that there were far too many things I could do in the next twenty minutes that I would find far more rewarding.All I can say is that if a senior CS major:a) doesn't know how to figure out which DLL's are being loaded by a Windows program,b) doesn't know the difference between an interface and an implementation,c) thinks that proof by assertion is sufficient to argue a point,d) thinks that open source software is a phenomenon invented by the 90's generation, e) believes that the fundamental laws of software development are trumped by open source, andf) believes that everything Microsoft does is evil incarnate,then I'm not going to waste my time trying to teach him differently. treatment, the day is long and the web is vast. Please broaden your scopes and educate yourself.[This message has been edited by IMarshal (edited December 09, 1999).]

Evil_Merlin · Dec 9, 1999

Treatment,I have been programming and getting paid to do so since 1993. While not a long time, I actually started programming for the Macintosh and system 7.5x. I have a Masters Of Science from WPI in Computer Engineering. When I started school we did not have the nice stuff that MS currently offers as a IDE for developing applications, it was all mostly by hand with a few libraries for Win32S under Windows 3.11 for WorkGroups, and that only started my 3rd year of College at West Virginia Wesleyan College (for my undergraduates degree). From WPI I started working at Tandy Research and Development. Not a long employment there as they began mostly buying other manufacturers products and renaming them, and they sold their computer division to another firm. From there I began working at a small software firm called ScanVec that developed CADD/CAM software for the sign and routing industry. I was originally hired to to technical support for the Mac based products but was later responisble for going thru source code and double checking compiles and later was instrumental in moving the product onto the PPC platform and later the Win32 platform (as well as a 16 bit windows version) around that time I moved from a Mac only person to a full time Windows person getting my MSCE in about 1996. Also I began dabbling with Linux (it was Slackware 3.0 I think with kernel 1.03.5 I THINK... I may be wrong on the exact kernel number). After a friend who worked at that time for a major manufactuer of both CPU's and networking gear (I think you can figure out who now), expressed his frustration with some problems with the existing TCP/IP stack in Linux and the fact that the current driver for a certain network card, was well close to non-existant, I began researching and writing some stuff for Linux. I mostly worked off the existing drivers and some inside info on the BIOS on the cards I was supplied by said friend. After spending 3 months working on it, the code was passed off to a few other people who were at that time at MIT. I can NOT be any more specific than that due to the fact the current company I am working for supplies equiptment to the above mentioned company and I can, by my employee contract, get into trouble, as well as possible other issues. As for DirectX, because of one of my side projects, I have been working with DirectX since DirectX 3.0 was in early beta, I have worked with, and programmed with DirectX in all its forms including DirectX 7.01b (which is still in beta today) and soon 8.0. I have also been a Total Immersion Developer for 3Dfx since the initial release of the Voodoo card. I have worked with all versions of GLide and programmed for all versions of GLide, as well as OpenGL, as the project I am working on the side currently takes advantage of all of these acceleration tecniques. Currently I am a "mere" Systems Admin here. No programming needed any more HERE, but I still program for my side project as mentioned above. I have the "pleasure" of working with NT Server, Windows 2000 Server, Solaris 7.0, SunOS 2.6, Tru64, HPux 10.x and AIX on a daily basis.My current setup at home consists of 8 computers. 7 desktops and one laptop. Of those systems, 2 are running a form of Windows2000 (one is Advanced Server and one is professional now), one is running Windows Millenium Beta2, one is running Windows 98SE, one running RedHat 6.1 (was SuSe 6.2, but I am now waiting for 6.3), one running a dual boot of BeOS and Solaris x86 and the final one is an Alpha system running a dual boot of RedHat 5.2 and WindowsNT 4.0. Why? Because it is my job to understand as many platforms as possible and the possible affect they can have on a companies bottom line. That not only gives me the ability, but the right to judge each OS, as I use them daily, and on a very regular basis, so when I bitch about linux, I have every right, as I see what is going on, and realize I do not have said issues on another platform. Does NT have issues? Sure it does, anyone who says otherwise is a lemming (no offense LemmingLord). I have made my Windows over Linux decision by seeing what I need, don't need and the said maintenance and care of each platform, and what hardware is supported by each. Linux lost, so I give my opinion on the BATTLEFRONT.

treatment · Dec 9, 1999

E_M, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Um, Treatment, you better read those specs again, DIRECT X is ONLY FOR DIRECT SHOW.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Umm, let's take a look at the diagram again. View image: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/backgrnd/art/dvd_msoswp1.gif This Microsoft diagram actually answers alot more than DirectX involvement. DirectShow was not even properly labeled, but was properly explained in the whole document. DirectDraw and DirectSound is properly labeled. Everyone should notice that the oem/ihv mini-driver is but a small part of the whole scheme, i.e. most everything is handled by MS provisions. Here's the exact quote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>White boxes represent software that will be supplied by Microsoft, shaded components are provided by hardware vendors, and ovals represent hardware supplied by independent hardware vendors(IHVs) and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). . . The only components that will always be present are the DVD-ROM driver, the UDF file system, the WDM Streaming class driver, and the DVD Splitter/Navigator directshow.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> here're some more: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Windows Driver Model Streaming Class Driver. This is a single binary, fully compatible across both Windows 98 and Windows 2000, written to follow the new WDM support defined by Microsoft. The WDM Streaming class driver supports streaming data types and will support MPEG-2 and AC-3 hardware decoders in Windows 98 and Windows 2000. Because Microsoft is providing this driver with its operating systems, hardware vendors have to write only a small amount of interface code in a minidriver to ensure that the specific features in their hardware are supported natively under Windows. Because of this, most existing DVD decoders should simply work with Windows without any user intervention. For more information, see the section "WDM Streaming Class Driver" later in this article. . . DirectShow?. Microsoft DirectShow (formerly ActiveMovie?) filters and related support include a DVD Navigator/Splitter, proxy filters for video and audio streams, a video mixer, video renderer, audio renderer, and more. . . DirectDraw? HAL with VPE. Decoded video streams are huge?possibly too big even for the PCI bus on a personal computer. Manufacturers have solved this problem by creating dedicated buses to transfer decoded video streams from an MPEG-2 decoder to the display card. Microsoft provides software support for these interfaces using the Microsoft DirectDraw hardware abstraction layer (HAL) with Video Port Extensions (VPE). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I guess you missed them while reading the specs.IMarshall, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>then I'm not going to waste my time trying to teach him differently. treatment, the day is long and the web is vast. Please broaden your scopes and educate yourself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Excuse me? It is you who needs to re-educate and broaden yourself on things we have been debating. You are running away because I have called your bluff and you can't answer any more. You obviously did not know nor expect that GTK is an API, even if it says so in their site. You have answered nothing and you have not listed your GPL contributions. You are all fluff. Hiding behind claims of "figuring out which DLL's" is the most lamest excuse ever. It's been documented in the Halloween-Documents that even Microsoft engineers don't which is which with their own software. You are all fluff. You have nothing and you can't answer anything. You have been hiding your ignorance with your misplaced arrogance and continued shifting. Just admit that you are the one that's all talk and have never provide any proofs at all. If I maybe so arrogant, I have exposed you as just another poser using generic PR terms to argue particular issues without providing proofs for your own assertions.EM, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>That not only gives me the ability, but the right to judge each OS, as I use them daily, and on a very regular basis, so when I bitch about linux, I have every right, as I see what is going on, and realize I do not have said issues on another platform. Does NT have issues? Sure it does, anyone who says otherwise is a lemming (no offense LemmingLord). I have made my Windows over Linux decision by seeing what I need, don't need and the said maintenance and care of each platform, and what hardware is supported by each. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not exactly. It is in your opinion that you have the right to bitch about Linux and it is also in everyone's opinions to bitch about everything else. I have no problem at all with people bitching and at the same time asking for help with linux. Your troll in this thread was totally uncalled for given your known character here in the Battlefront. If it wasn't me, someone else would have even flamed you better. I first answered your troll without flaming you, but you started flaming me. If you need help with linux, just ask us. There is no need at all to bash linux and expect us to refrain from bashing you in response.Btw, we almost do have the same exact job. --treatment--

ordermaster · Dec 9, 1999

treatment, Ill admit that was a convincing argument that directX plays an important part in decoding of DVD under windows. But I thought that the original claim was that directX was related to cd burning. If I remember correctly you said that you couldnt find any information relating directX to cd burning (and all but admitting that it isnt in the process), but you could find some info concerning dvd decoding.Anyway, the DVD example still proves your point that MS is trying to control the market. By making it very easy for IHVs to write drivers for thier products using directX MS also decreases the IHVs incentive to write drivers for other operating systems. This in combination with the fact that it is very hard to write drivers for linux for hardware that uses directX because directX isnt an open-source API.

treatment · Dec 9, 1999

ordermaster,I couldn't find any similar spec/diagram model that is specific to CD-R/CD-RW. I figured since the DVD model is almost exactly the same as CD-R/CD-RW but with more functionalities, the DVD software-specs model that Microsoft graciously provided, I'll just use it to convey my beliefs and assertions about how MS ties up ihv/oem driver-development and makes it more dependent on their collective MS APIs. Imho, it supports the assertion of why equipments are handled easily under Win9x compared to NT and other platforms such as Linux. --treatment--

Laen · Dec 9, 1999

Hmmmmm DVD's could be considerably different that CD-RW, in that you can use software or hardware to decode the DVD. That might make a big different in DirectX implementation. Same type of situation as a winmodem.

IMarshal · Dec 10, 1999

treatment:The problem with you is that you're not interested in the truth at all: you're just agenda, agenda, agenda. You're not here to learn, or to inform others; you're here to spread gospel and what your tribe calls inverse FUD. Why should I waste my time honestly answering your questions? I simply don't think there's anyway to get through the levels of paranoia and prejudice. And it's not my job to educate you anyway.You expect me to reveal my identity by disclosing which OSS programs I've written? Please. Anonymity is something that I value. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>the DVD model is almost exactly the same as CD-R/CD-RW but with more functionalities<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is another example of how you don't know what the hell you're talking about when it comes to hardware or software in general. There are _worlds_ of difference between the DVD playback interface described above and what a CD-R driver interface looks like. LOL!ordermaster, since you seem a bit more rational:1) Why do you think that if Microsoft makes it easy to write Windows drivers, IHV's will be less likely to support other OS's? Wouldn't it free up resources to write other drivers?2) Would you have Microsoft make it more difficult to write Windows drivers, to be fair to Linux users?3) Why can't Linux provide a multimedia API as good as DirectX that will facilitate IHV driver development?4) What exactly is the problem with DirectX anyway? Every OS has its own specific API and driver model, and most OS's have their own multimedia API. Are GameSprockets on the Macintosh somehow evil, like DirectX appears to be? Are the BeOS media and driver API's despicable because they're not available on other OS's?I think the hatred for all things Microsoft is getting a bit out of hand here.[This message has been edited by IMarshal (edited December 10, 1999).]

ordermaster · Dec 10, 1999

Heres my theory. Stop me if this sounds irrational. directX, MFC, whatever are proprietary, closed APIs. GTK+, Qt, X's upcoming DRI are open APIs. Anyone could port the linux APIs to windows, its just that no one has felt the need to. The only group that has the power to port the MS APIs to linux is MS. Granted, some of directX and MFC are usable under wine in linux, but thats only from reverse engineering them from the interface that MS specifies. The implementation of the linux APIs is open source and could be ported to MS or any other operating system with enough work, at least in theory.Ill write some more later but for now its back to studying calc.

DrPizza · Dec 10, 1999

Yay Treatment! That was real slick the way you changed your argument to be about DVDs, and, more to the point, DVD videos, and, more to the point, feeding data across the PCI bus straight into the video buffer of the video card, which is what DirectX is used for in this context.DVD video is in no way reliant on DirectX. DVD playback software is in no way reliant on DirectX. The thing that's reliant on DirectX is Microsoft's own mechanism for decoding and displaying DVD videos. Nothing more.Displaying DVD video doesn't need DirectX. Writing a DVD program doesn't need DirectX. Disclosing the source to DirectX won't help CD burning in Linux.And what features of DirectX were being used in the box diagram that you provided? DirectShow.The DVD model is considerably different from the CD model, because CDs don't have DVD video on them.The *driver* writers are in *no way* reliant on DirectX. Look at the diagram you posted -- where do the drivers (those little black boxes) have arrows pointing to DirectX? They don't. Where do the drivers rely on DirectX to work? They don't.It is the DVD video playback software that relies on DirectX. It relies on DirectX to synchronize streaming sound to the sound card and video to the video card. DirectX isn't the only mechanism that can be used, but as MS provides the DVD playback mechanism they might as well use their own synchronized streaming mechanism.Why do the Linux people not implement enough of the things required so that it becomes easier to write Linux drivers?

treatment · Dec 10, 1999

IMarshall,You're all fluff. You haven't answered any of my points and counterpoints and have ignored all the points I made to justify my beliefs of MS tying up driver-development. I've completely answered your usb and PnP claims, but you futilely tried to even use NT-5 model into the equation just to shift issue. You still don't wanna admit that you made a gross mistake in your own definition of API (implementation and interface of your own claim) and you still cannot admit that I've proven to you that GTK and others are actual API. Your "anonymity" excuse is pathetic. I'm not asking your identity, I'm asking the GPL-products. You don't have anything to debunk my assertions aside from your use of generic PR statements. I used the DVD model because it is the only one freely available and I had qualified my assertion that DVD has more capabilities than CD-R/CD-RW. The DVD-model diagram and spec-document is a concrete example and applicable to how MS sets the rules and conformance/compliance for ihv/oem of equipments for a specific platform. PeterB, You're on ignore-mode from my end and you just proven again to everyone how naive and blatantly ignorant you are in not even realizing that DirectShow is not even labeled in the DVD-diagram. You don't even understand the whole spec and you don't know why I used the DVD-model. I have not changed position and you have nothing to offer to the issue. Continue being a poser. So, by all means, continue making apologies for MS in how equipments are handled easier in Win9x platform. All of you MS backers blames the manufacturers if the equipments don't work in Win9x and NT, yet at the same blame Linux itself if the same equipment don't work or unsupported. When will your collective hypocrisy ends? --treatment--

IMarshal · Dec 10, 1999

I can't reply in length because I have a plane to catch. But I think anyone who could possibly still be interested in this thread knows or at least suspects which drugs treatment is on.What concerns me most, treatment, is your tendency to either misinterpret or downright lie when paraphrasing. That indicates either dishonesty or retardation. Please produce the quote where I said what you claim I said above about API's and GTK. Or admit that you were wrong to put words in my mouth.Like I said earlier, if you had genuine questions that idicated curiosity, I'd be happy to answer them as best I could. If you had genuine objections, I might rephrase my thinking because you were right. But you're just agenda, you debate dishonestly and your technical knowledge is miniscule at best. You remind me of those Amiga advocates who used to get all their clues from the amazingly biased Amiga journals and magazines, accepting them as gospel truth. Proof by agreement. Groupthink. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Your "anonymity" excuse is pathetic. I'm not asking your identity, I'm asking the GPL-products<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Note that I didn't say "contributed to". I said "written", as in "started and wrote the lion's share of". Big difference. I'm still very visible in those projects and it would be impossible to miss me.Anyway, I think the funniest thing by far of what you said is this: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>So, by all means, continue making apologies for MS in how equipments are handled easier in Win9x platform.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That right! Dagnabbit! Shame on Microsoft for providing a workable standard driver model. Shame on them for working closely with IHV's to produce reasonably good drivers for Windows. Shame on them for providing a platform people use and develop for.Ordermaster, I'll respond to your most civil opinions when I get back.[This message has been edited by IMarshal (edited December 10, 1999).]

treatment · Dec 10, 1999

IMarshall, <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> In that thread I pointed out that you can't place an API or set of interfaces under the GPL; it takes real code to do that. (Of course, you probably never read that, or understood it.) . . Just like those guys who rant about hidden Microsoft API's, but when asked to produce one, say "well, they're secret, so of course I cann't give you an example." . . The point is that an API is not code; it's a contract, a declaration of intentions, a promise. You can't GPL an API, only a specific implementation of an API. . . And now you don't know even what an API is. Good heavens, man, you need some educating. . . You _really_ don't understand DirectX at all if you think GTK, QT and Tcl are in some way analogous. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Want more? Who's being dishonest and retarded here. Like to edit more of your posts? Here's GTK's definition: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> GTK is essentially an object oriented application programmers interface (API). Although written completely in C, it is implemented using the idea of classes and callback functions (pointers to functions).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So, uhh, what is and what isn't? GTK fully GPL'd and GTK is an API. You still have not differentiated DirectX and GTK. Continue hiding your ignorance with your arrogance and maybe somebody naive enough will get swayed by your argument. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>That right! Dagnabbit! Shame on Microsoft for providing a workable standard driver model. Shame on them for working closely with IHV's to produce reasonably good drivers for Windows. Shame on them for providing a platform people use and develop for.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yup. They oughta be ashamed. I've given you the Handspring-links in where the particular equipment will not work on Microsoft's own NT and usb-equipped Win95, but will work on Win98. C'mon, try to twist and shift that assertion. If you try to use NT-5/Win2k to support your argument, you're no better than the Mac-zealots praising OS/X client.I'm also here to be educated, but I'm not here to be brainwashed by the half-truths and generic non-replies that you are so fond of doing. --treatment--

airfabio · Dec 12, 1999

Sorry I am late, but here is bunch of funny stuff from this threadEvil Martin: 1.) first: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Dear god, I am able to make my own decisions <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>then <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> [We must have] One GUI, one shell. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>2.) <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Mis-informed huh? That is why my CD-ROM burner (a SCSI one at that) is not supported under Linux it has drivers and software for all versions of Windows. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>yes, blame Linux because your burner sucks. There are many burners that work perfectly with Linux, and if you want to use Linux just purchase one of those. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I can get better support for my programming languages on Windows. Want Java 2.0? C++? C? PERL? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You probably meant Visual Basic and not Perl. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> I said no cable modem/DSL company will attach on of their lines to a Linux box. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>wow, treatment is such a hacker. He can connect the cable modem to his computer.IMarshal, Your shield is ignorance, while your weapons are words like 'advo-kiddie, dishonesty and retardation'. Even though this is a message board only, people here deserve the same respect, as you would give them when you talk face to face. Even though this is a 'battlefront', there are things called advocacy ethics. I see why you would say <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Anonymity is something that I value. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>With personality like yours someone would kick your butt sooner or later. On the other hand you probably don't get out too much.Treatment, Could you please keep your posts a bit shorter? It's hard to read the whole post on windows machines. If you could separate them into pieces, so I can read the first part, reboot and then read the second part. It's hard to concentrate with all these blues screens. (one lame joke).

Comador · Dec 13, 1999

Evil Merlin, It's apparent to me you have a problem with Linux... the ARS SETI listing for example, which I stumbled upon somewhat proves your zealot windows rules behavior (equivilent to a MAC zealot):"Evil_Merlin(Pentium 500, Windows98SE,crushing Linux) 950 units done 1.45 years total time 13 hr 22 min 51.8 sec average per unit.Strange, my Compaq P3-450 @ work is running Linux and it finishes a unit in a little over 10 hrs... hummm.... must be those wonderful background processes MS runs that are slowing you down. Common, you should try using a real OS like NT at least. I'm not bashing you for the hell of it. I'm just proving a point that you're biased to the whole situation. I can't stand it when people sit on their soapboxes reguardless of what they're advocating. Most people agree that there's an OS for everyone out there. There's no OS that's superior to another when it comes down to the basics: Email, word processing, Internet, etc. Hell, I even think MACs are good for some things. On the UNIX side of things, don't knock it unless you know what you're talking about. I bet you've never touched a UNIX machine more than a few hours in your life. There's no disputing that *nix's are a "little" more well tuned for doing real number crunching and serving. And there's no disputing that Windows or Mac's are perfect for the "average" user. Microsoft isn't that bad, I can't knock it too much, but it is horrible for anyone who wants to get 100% out of their machine for "real" tasks such as compiling, programming databases.. DBA related, network administration on a global scale, and 3D rendering. I've never once seen a 3D studio or Biological Sciences company use windows clusters (which are limited to 2 I might add), let alone use windows workstations to design and test high end 3D animations. They just released Hudini for Windows NT after over 5 years of it being a UNIX only program (primarily IRIX, SCO, and Solaris). Why did they release it for NT? Because a small group, less than 5%, requested it... less than 5%! And just for people who don't know what Hudini is, it's what the movie studios such as Pixar and Lucas Films use for a lot of their wire modeling and landscapes. It's better than Lightwave, Truespace and 3DSMAX... not to mention it's got a 5 digit cost... eek.I like my NT4 box at home, it's a wonderful platform. I'll hate to see it taken over by the bloated Win2k platform next year. Windows 9x on the other hand... it's a wintendo to me and I don't know of many MCSD's whom I associate myself with at work who would disagree with me. It lacks, plain and simple. It's a "cute" operating system that has been beaten like a dead horse to an almost useless state for anyone who wants to do more than play games on it. I keep hearing rumors that MS is dumping 98's successor, "Millinium" because it's not worth the development costs. Even if they're not dumping it, they are continuously putting it on the back burner time after time.After reading this flamefest all the way through, I have to agree with you that treatment is getting off of his original topic, but I do believe MS has been putting it's fingers in too many cookie jars like IBM did back in the 80's and semi-controlling too much of the market. That's enough for now. l8r,CoM

underthumb · Dec 13, 1999

Regarding Evil_Merlin- <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I bet you've never touched a UNIX machine more than a few hours in your life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is probably not a very good bet. As I understand it, E_M maintains a bunch of Unix boxes at work. Nonetheless, I think you do have some reasonable points. But I think E_M has been pushed over board by all of the Linux hype/Microsoft bashing lately, and this has left him a little touchy.

Evil_Merlin · Dec 13, 1999

Comador, Ok you wanna go a few rounds? I am up for it. I have a problem with Linux Zealots. You apparently do not know much about SETI, as I run it on far more than one box, and 4 of them are WELL under 500 mhz class machines, in fact two if those are running RedHat 6.1, so kindly don't tell me I don't know how to run SETI on a NT box. My Windows2000 system, running 1.03 CLI version of SETI on a Pentium III 550 is doing a block every 7.43 hours. I run Windows98 on my fastest machine (ok ONE of my fastest machines) because I like games, games that are on no other platform but Windows.UNIX? Hell man, you apparently cannot read. As I have much expeirence on UNIX, lets see, Solaris 7.0, SunOS 2.x and up, HPux 10.x, Digital Unix 4.x, Tru64 (nice), a few different versions of Irix, DG/ux (Data General's old UNIX), and AIX (a few different versions but mostly on the high end RS/6000s). I support machines that run these DAILY, that means EVERY day. So get the hell off your horse and READ.airfabio,I use the Plextor PX-W4220Ti, SCSI, which does NOT suck, in fact it is one of the best burners to ever hit the market. [This message has been edited by Evil_Merlin (edited December 13, 1999).]

Deleted member 5103 · Dec 13, 1999

>>>The problem is that your statement is false. CD-R software does not need to use DirectX for anything. <<<I think treatment *may* be confusing Adaptec's "DirectCD" CD-R software as a part of DirectX - but they have nothing to do with each other.Or it could just be FUD... who knows? View image: /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[This message has been edited by Laner (edited December 13, 1999).]

treatment · Dec 13, 1999

Evil_Merlin,Did you get to this, yet? http://www.plextor.be/english/technical/download2.htm ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/misc/cdrecord/firmware/plextor/edit: oops! weird double-posting --treatment-- [This message has been edited by treatment (edited December 13, 1999).]

treatment · Dec 13, 1999

Evil_Merlin,Did you get to this, yet? http://www.plextor.be/english/technical/download2.htm ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/misc/cdrecord/firmware/plextor/--treatment--

Evil_Merlin · Dec 13, 1999

Yeah I flashed the bios of the thing. Still no luck. Hmmm... but I did flash it from a DOS prompt... I wonder if that could be the issue. [This message has been edited by Evil_Merlin (edited December 13, 1999).]

IMarshal · Dec 14, 1999

AirFabio and treatment... Separated at birth?

treatment · Dec 14, 1999

IMarshall tried again: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>AirFabio and treatment... Separated at birth? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Kindergarten-insult the best thing you can do after I've proven you're an ignorant poser with your very own words.AirFabio, LOL! I'll try to keep my posts shorter. --treatment--

IMarshal · Dec 14, 1999

treatment, the only thing you've proven is your own inability to remain on topic. And don't even get me started on your ignorance of basic software concepts.Some notes:GTK, QT and TCL are mostly windowing libraries that provide an API for windowing apps. DirectX is a low-level driver API that provides several distinct multimedia services. The API's you mention are analogous to MFC or to the GDI / messaging subset of Win32. DirectX is a different animal entirely. Its closest relatives on Linux would be svgalib, some small parts of X-Servers, OpenGL and whatever API's Linux games use for sound. The truth is that Linux doesn't have an all-in-one equivalent to DirectX.But beyond this, it's really not clear what you're arguing about when you say that I haven't "differentiated DirectX and GTK". I don't have to differentiate them; they differentiate themselves: they're very different API's for very different purposes. Is this an admission of cluelessness on your part?Now, about GPL's and API's: the current implementation of GTK is GPL'd, yes. But I or anyone could write a library implementing GTK's interfaces that wasn't GPL'd. Understand? My closed source version of GTK would allow all GTK apps to compile, and maybe even provide binary compatibility. So it's not the API itself that's GPL'd: it's the specific code that implements the API that is released under one license or another.Concerning USB in various MS operating systems, the fact is that I agree with you that it would be nice if NT4 supported USB, and it would be nice if Win95 provided the same level of support that Win98 does. It would also be nice if Windows 3.1 supported USB, and it would be nice if Windows 2000 were a free upgrade for all Windows users. It would be nice if Linux had better desktop apps. It would be nice if there were no wars in the world.The fact of the matter is that no software is perfect, and Microsoft, like any other company, needs to create sources of revenue for itself. It can't spend man-years providing free features for legacy OS's when it has already provided those features in newer ones. They do a decent job of providing free bugfixes, but one can understand why they might reach the point at which they say "we can't continue to maintain this code".BTW, my mention of Win2K is to contradict your assertion that fundamental technical problems impeded the implementation of DirectX and USB support in NT4. The W2K kernel and HAL are pretty similar to the equivalents in NT4.AirFabio, your post deserves no real reply.ordermaster:There's nothing except effort that stops anyone from porting MS API's to Linux. The Wine project is a good example of this. If you mean that only Microsoft can take the Microsoft implementations of MFC and DirectX and port them to other OS's, then yes, that's obvious, but you'd probably have to do a close-to-full rewrite to move Linux specific libraries to Windows anyway.The problem with the open-is-always-better argument is that it really comes down to an issue of practicality. Not all 'open' toolkits have been ported to all OS's, so crossplatform is more of a theoretical asset than a real one. There are commercial toolkits that do a much better job of providing cross-platform libraries than any of the free kits, anyway.The sad reality is that the vast majority of developers write code to the API's that provide them with the greatest possible audience for their products. They don't really care that much about openness or closedness, because for the lifetime of a single product this sort of issue is more or less irrelevant.

ordermaster · Dec 14, 1999

Was I arguing against you IMarshal. I agreed with almost everytihng you said. Actually, I dont disagree with you at all but I do want to extend upon something you said. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The sad reality is that the vast majority of developers write code to the API's that provide them with the greatest possible audience for their products<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And obviously, there is a much larger audience for games written for directx tather than linux (i know thats a bad comparison, an API vs. an operating system, but bear with me). My point is that nothing prevented MS from designing directx to be more portable like opengl. heres a quote from www.opengl.org. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Industry standard. An independent consortium, the OpenGL Architecture Review Board, guides the OpenGL specification. With broad industry support, OpenGL is the only truly open, vendor-neutral, multiplatform graphics standard.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Clearly, this is not MS's agenda with directx. In fact, MS indirectly used thier monopoly in the desktop market to convince game developers to use directx despite the fact that it only worked for one platform. Think about it, here was directx, a relatively unproven API that worked only for one platform, being chosen over opengl, a proven API usable under many APIs. Im not saying MS deliberately twisted the arms of game developers to use directx, Im saying they didnt have to because of thier monopoly. The fact that it doesn't work under other platforms is a planned move by MS. MS will do every thing it can to prevent directx from being ported to other platforms just short of the legal boudaries.

treatment · Dec 14, 1999

Imarshall,We are gonna keep beating up this dead horse.Here's a sample of what I've asserted: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>With DART CD-Recorder, a PC can be used as a complete compact disc recording stereo component. If the >>music<< source is an LP, 45, 78, cassette, or reel-to-reel tape, mini disc, CD-Recorder captures the >>music<< on hard disk with the PC connected to a stereo through the sound card with a regular stereo patch cable. MIDI files can be used and CD-Recorder will convert them with an all-digital process (no cables). Next use DART DeClick and DART DeHiss DirectX plug-ins to clean up the audio if desired . DeClick and DeHiss will remove click, pop, scratch, and hiss distortions. Mix tracks from CD's if desired. Next, organize the tunes into playlists in any order. Finally, a standard Red Book CD that works in any compact disc player is made with just one button click.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My assumption is that how can you have DirectX-support on a software-program like DART CD-Recorder if said program doesn't have an already embedded DirectX "holes" that needs be plugged? As the DART sample above directly implies, you'll need a DirectX plug-in to enhance the audio-recording. I've used the newer DVD spec outlined by Microsoft since DVD dramatically shows how DirectX becomes more thoroughly involved in the recording of audio, video, and data, and that it will only involve a small part of oem/ihv participation. You claimed that one cannot GPL an actual API and I debunked that claim with GTK. You try to wiggle out of it by saying alluding specific implementation stuff without realizing that both GTK code and implementations are all GPL'd. As far as your claim that you can have a closed-source GTK-implementation invalidates that circular-logic because if you use GTK, you must agree to open up your source as required by the GPL.You claimed that GTK and TK are not analogous to DirectX and showed another generic PR explanation. The GTK APIs are not just windowing toolkits as explained from their site: http://www.gtk.org/announce.html . You obviously know that you need Tcl to implement Tk. But some dude already implemented a fork of tk called TkGS at http://www.mygale.org/fbonnet/Tcl/TkGS/introduction.htm Both GTK and TK provides comparable DirectX functionalities as exemplified by GDK and TkGS. Here's some net-discussions links for you that might shed some light: http://www.egroups.com/group/tkgs-list/19.html http://www.egroups.com/group/tkgs-list/21.html The whole tk-thread started at http://www.egroups.com/group/tkgs-list/2.html . There's already both a GTK and Tk existing Win32-port and even an old DirectX-5 GCC-port. The fact of the matter is, you don't know what GTK and Tk is all about and you can't admit to it. I guess you really do "know basic software concepts" and API's. I guess we all pretty much know who's the clueless one here. Oh, and btw, here's the original contention between us that you managed to pollute for the other readers: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> IMarshall >> CD-R support is 100% provided by the burning software, even on Windows Not entirely true. Microsoft publishes DirectX technologies that are usually incorporated into media-software such as CD-R software. DirectX is a proprietary Microsoft API for media(sight,sound,etc) and I believe most, if not all, CDR software for the Win9x-platform must conform to it for better working-relationship with Win9x-platform, in conjunction with using MS Dev-tools such as VC++ that uses MFC. This is an extension of monopolistic-practice that even MS itself is suffering from. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You managed to twist and mangled that post of mine for your own spin. I still haven't backed down from that assertion and yet you posts alot of your own spin to confuse yourself and the other readers.I'm done with this issue with you. Thanks for your comedy. --treatment--

addicted to linux

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Militum

Deleted member 5324

Guest

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Praefectus

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Ars Tribunus Militum

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran

Well-known member

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Praetorian

Ars Scholae Palatinae

Ars Praefectus

Ars Legatus Legionis

Deleted member 5103

Guest

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Militum

Ars Legatus Legionis

Ars Tribunus Militum

Wise, Aged Ars Veteran

Ars Legatus Legionis

nproxy.org