User forums > General (but related to Code::Blocks)
pro's and pre's of compilers
Vampyre_Dark:
Heh, microphone. I just saw that on Star Trek 4 when someone else was watching it not long ago. RIP Scotty.
I like Knoppix, but I believe someone made a Win32PE in 16mb. However it obviously can't be distributed. How has Knoppix come along recently? My last burn is a year old, and they were moving over to a DVD version while the CD ( I have no DVD drive, so...) became secondary. A floopy drive isn't needed to install Windows... you boot up off the CD, ever since 95 or 98. knoppix was my first linux, then I got Mandrake and installed it a few years ago. 9.0 I think.
nVidia is the leading videocard provider, and for the hardcore gamers the most important hardware they own. But they have no games to play other than a small handfull of ports. But IMO, regardless of who is at fault over them, it hurts Linux's adoption. (I know of Wine and WineX.. but that's a bit too ironic to work into there. Dumping Windows to pretend to run windows.)
The choice of distro is not a bad thing in itself, but why spend so much energy with tons of near similar distros with different branding? This does not make Linux better, this doesn't give Linux the better apps it needs. The talent is there, but it's spread so thin between different projects that are trying to achieve the same goal!
thomas:
--- Quote from: Vampyre_Dark on August 17, 2005, 05:00:36 pm ---I like Knoppix, but I believe someone made a Win32PE in 16mb. However it obviously can't be distributed. How has Knoppix come along recently?
--- End quote ---
No idea, after "Damn Small Linux" started selling a bootable USB stick with DSL pre-installed for 48 US$, I did not bother to burn any more rescue CDs. And all my "real" Linux boxes run Fedora Core 4.
--- Quote ---A floopy drive isn't needed to install Windows... you boot up off the CD, ever since 95 or 98.
--- End quote ---
Not true. Windows 98SE does boot off CD, but Windows98 and Windows95 do not.
No version of Windows (not even WindowsXP SP2) installs without floppy disk if you have a RAID.
You can boot from the DVD into the installer, right. But that's it.
The installer will offer you "Install onto <<no hard disk found>>" and "Load third party driver from floppy disk". There is no "Load driver from Installation CD". Of course you can "slipstream" your drivers onto the installation DVD, but this is not quite in concordance with the EULA, and certainly not suitable for Joe Normaluser.
--- Quote ---nVidia is the leading videocard provider, and for the hardcore gamers the most important hardware they own
--- End quote ---
Yes, and they p#*@#ed off everybody trying to write a driver for their cards to maximum extent possible. I remember reading a discussion some 2-3 years ago, and they were seriously thinking about skipping the support for nVidia in XFree entirely.
The drivers that nVidia distributes themselves, well... maybe they work by now, who knows. I last tried two years ago, shot my foot with them twice and cannot be bothered to try another time.
It is actually a shame because such things really prevent people from using Linux.
rickg22:
--- Quote from: Vampyre_Dark on August 17, 2005, 01:47:22 pm ---+/- Do what you will with it, but here is a license that dictates what you really want to do with it, and what you SHOULD do with it. If you do x, you MUST do y. Also, don't ask anybody about this license, as everyone will give you a different answer, and nobody really knows for sure. Also, we will force this license on anyone who wants to use this free stuff.
--- End quote ---
rofl! The hordes at slashdot would burn you at the stake!
The GNU General Public License is for REDISTRIBUTING programs, not for COMPILING with them. If I recall correctly, the libraries used by MinGW are NOT GPL licensed but public domain.
From http://www.mingw.org/mingwfaq.shtml#faq-license :
--- Quote ---# The MinGW basic runtime system, which is basically the glue to the underlying operating system, is completely in the public domain. The runtime system includes MinGW headers (such as stdio.h), libraries (such as libmingw32.a) and import libraries for CRTDLL/MSVCRT.
# W32API, which consists of the headers and import libraries related to WIN32 API access, is released under
# copyright . The copyright agreement states no restrictions are placed on programs or object files compiled with the library.
# Mingw development tools, which include compilers, linkers, other tools in the bin directory, etc., are released under the GNU General Public License.
# Profiled code, which is code compiled and linked with the -pg option for runtime profiling, also falls under the GNU General Public License. CAUTION: do not distribute proprietary source with profiling enabled. The profiling library is covered by the GPL which infects your product to conform to the GPL as well.
--- End quote ---
Meaning that you can distribute a MinGW-compiled program as you wish (as long as it's not profiled). No strings attached.
Now the problem with Codeblocks is: That it *DOES* include MinGW, meaning that it must abide by the GPL. This is the reason we had to add the links to the MinGW sourcecode in our downloads section. But if i use codeblocks to make a program, say "helloworld.exe", I can distribute helloworld.exe however I freaking want.
Edit: Oops, seems i posted this TOO late :P
kagerato:
--- Quote from: Vampyre_Dark ---The choice of distro is not a bad thing in itself, but why spend so much energy with tons of near similar distros with different branding? This does not make Linux better, this doesn't give Linux the better apps it needs. The talent is there, but it's spread so thin between different projects that are trying to achieve the same goal!
--- End quote ---
I'm not certain they are trying to achieve precisely the same goal. The variety of software on the Linux/GNU desktop is the result of many different viewpoints and ideologies. The difference between this and the Windows world is fairly simple: projects in the Windows realm compete commercially, with money. The introduction of such a tangible resource and how it is managed, combined with the demands of the user base, tends to put quite a number of Windows programs out of business over time.
Linux/GNU allows old programs (and indeed, old programming methodology) to survive indefinitely because there is no cutthroat competition. Users of free software are unable to demand growth -- indeed, people who do are usually bashed into the ground. Users of commercial software simply let their purchases do their talking for them.
This doesn't mean free software doesn't evolve; it does (and often more impressively than commercial software). The direction of the evolution, however, is determined mostly by developers rather than users. As the movement has gained more users over time, this state has begun to shift -- how far this will go remains to be seen.
--- Quote from: thomas ---No version of Windows (not even WindowsXP SP2) installs without floppy disk if you have a RAID.
You can boot from the DVD into the installer, right. But that's it.
The installer will offer you "Install onto <<no hard disk found>>" and "Load third party driver from floppy disk". There is no "Load driver from Installation CD". Of course you can "slipstream" your drivers onto the installation DVD, but this is not quite in concordance with the EULA, and certainly not suitable for Joe Normaluser.
--- End quote ---
My friend recently had this problem in setting up his machine. Why Windows XP lacks native support for most (all?) RAID-capable motherboards is beyond me. It can become a real nuisance; especially if one doesn't have a floppy drive on-hand.
3.5" floppies are rather antiquated now; it amazes me that we still need them (for anything) at all.
Modifying the installation process probably does break the EULA. There's absolutely nothing Microsoft can do about it, however. The binding power of EULAs is quite weak due to the relatively few court cases involving them (of those cases, several have conflicting rulings). Until such a case reaches a federal court, enforcing the terms of any EULA is precarious ground (rarely, if ever, worth the effort of a major corporation).
Of course the prior paragraph applies to the U.S. only -- the legal power of the EULA is probably even more questionable (bordering, I would imagine, on laughable) in many other nations. Considering the piracy rate in China, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe, it doesn't seem like the EULA should be a major source of concern or attention for Microsoft.
--- Quote from: thomas ---The drivers that nVidia distributes themselves, well... maybe they work by now, who knows.
--- End quote ---
They seem to work quite well for many people. I've hardly done any significant gaming on linux/gnu (or any non-Windows platform), so the performance and stability of the drivers is not completely proven to me. However, there are quite a number of reports of success these days. The documentation of the driver has also improved significantly, if you compare the modern README to those provided in the past.
I don't believe drivers is the primary issue preventing broad adoption of free software. Linux has made great (massive, really) strides in improving and expanding the provided hardware drivers over the past decade. A good number of devices work "out of box" just as well in Linux/GNU as they do in Windows. Some third-party devices actually have support I would deem better in the open source world than they do on Windows.
--- Quote from: AkiraDev ---I wish that a few BIG software companies would start SELLING high-end software for Linux, that would really stimulate it's growth.
--- End quote ---
I chose to address this last because it is probably the widest topic presented.
The question begging to be asked is: "why has commercial software not been successful in the GNU/Linux market?", or perhaps "why don't companies (such as game manufacturers, for instance) release more programs for Linux?".
A common response to such a query usually points to the fact that Linux/GNU users (or indeed, the entirety of all users who are dependent primarily on free software) make up only a small percent of the market. This does not seem to be a complete response, though.
One issue deterring the introduction of numerous pieces of commercial software on Linux/GNU is simple: ideology. Particularly, it is the ideology of the extreme left (of notable mention, Mr. Stallman) which hampers widespread adoption and embracement of a multitude of proprietary programs. To put it more clearly: some users don't want commercial products, and a few even fear the introduction of them on a wide scale.
An atmosphere of dislike (or in some cases, contempt) for proprietary programs decreases the liklihood of success for said programs -- a simple conclusion. Yet, one must ask why the introduction of large bodies of commercial software would harm any Linux/GNU user. The truth is that is does not; every person would still have the choice to simply not use commercial solutions. What the introduction does create is new demand among a portion of the user base, and this is a terrible threat to the "purity" of the system.
Ultimately, the deduction to be drawn from these premises is that Linux/GNU is only as commercially viable as the overally user base wants it to be. The greater the demand for proprietary software developments, the less the influence of the extremists will be.
Some people question why open source software itself is not effective in the market. After all, why shouldn't free software work in a free market? The problem is two fold. One, the freedom of the software necessitates the lack of cost for the software. So long as the program source is freely distributable, not only can third parties create new binaries -- they can then turn around and distribute their creations at absolutely no cost to the consumer. This means that any open source project which charges for itself cannot thrive in an environment where there are people willing to give their own time and effort towards cost-free distribution. Two, people are driven by convenience and their wallet's limitations. The average consumer, given the option of purchasing a piece of free software (which will require time to find it, effort to obtain it, and money for the actual purchase) or downloading that same software at no cost and automatically installing it through their distribution's package manager, will inevitably choose the latter.
So long as we live in a world where time and money are scarce resources, I do not see how Linux/GNU will be able to prosper in the commercial marketplace.
grv575:
Re lots of small developer maintained programs (linux) vs. heavily developed large-scale programs (windows), it also that way because of a different mentality. Linux, and having a bunch of specialized small utility programs, is great for scripting and server maintainers. Windows is not as easy to automate, but much easier to learn how to use a certain program without reading docs.
I do think GPL licensing is a problem though. Say I write a commercial proprietary app that I want to use in-house as well as sell to vertical market clients. I want it to be portable, and want some of the output to be lossless images. The libtiff library basically lets me distribute the image dll and link against it, even bundle everything with my source, so long as I leave the copyright information in the .h headers intact. So I just can't outright steal the source...loads less restrictive than GPL.
With GPL though, can I change the source, redistribute it with the changed source, but still license my proprietary code how I wish, so long as I don't mix the two codebases? (If not, then what prevents me from joining their CVS, commiting my changes, and then downloading and using that version...)
Btw, I don't think there are really _any_ restrictions in using VC++ Toolkit. It's missing some .lib header files, but all the static lib files it is missing can be gotten from the platform sdk or .net sdk for free. The only ones that aren't available in those two packages are the import libs (which are needed to link to some versions of the c++ runtime dlls). These don't actually contain source code -- they just contain imports which tell the linker where in the dll a specific function occurs. So they're easy to generate using sed and link.exe. As for whether this is legitamate according to MS, I'm not sure anyone knows for sure, but look at it like this -- this is really not reverse engineering their binary code, but nothing you could not achieve by writing a tool which used LoadLibrary() and GetProcAddr() calls to figure out the offsets in the dll yourself of a specific function. So the api functions MS provides are really all that's needed to link against the dll; the lib file just makes it more convenient (and I could just write a tool to generate said .lib files as easily using MS api functions).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version