|
2867
|
1 <HTML>
|
|
|
2 <BODY BGCOLOR=white>
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
4 <FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
6 <P><B><I>In medias res</I></B></P>
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
8 <P>There are two major topic which always causes huge dispute and flame on the
|
|
|
9 <A HREF="http://www.MPlayerHQ.hu/cgi-bin/htsearch">mplayer-users</A>
|
|
|
10 mailing list. Number one is of course the topic of the</P>
|
|
|
11
|
|
3937
|
12 <A NAME=gcc><P><B><I>GCC 2.96 series</I></B></P>
|
|
2867
|
13
|
|
3053
|
14 <P><B>Also read <A HREF="gcc-2.96-3.0.html">this</A> text !!!</B></P>
|
|
|
15
|
|
2867
|
16 <P>The <I>background</I> : there were/are the GCC <B>2.95</B> series. The
|
|
|
17 best of them was 2.95.3 . Please note the style of the version numbering.
|
|
|
18 This is how the GCC team numbers their compilers. The 2.95 series are good.
|
|
2910
|
19 We never ever saw anything that was miscompiled because of the 2.95's faultiness.</P>
|
|
2867
|
20
|
|
|
21 <P>The <I>action</I> : <B>RedHat</B> started to include a GCC version of <B>2.96</B>
|
|
|
22 with their distributions. Note the version numbering. This should be the GCC
|
|
2910
|
23 team's versioning. They patched the CVS version of GCC (something between 2.95 and 3.0)
|
|
2919
|
24 They patched it very deep, and used this version in the distrib because 3.0
|
|
|
25 wasn't out at time, and they wanted IA64 support ASAP (business reasons).
|
|
|
26 Oh, and GCC 2.95 miscompiles bash on the s390 architecture (there is
|
|
|
27 no RedHat distribution for s390..) .</P>
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
29 <P>The <I>facts</I> : <B>MPlayer</B>'s compile process needs the
|
|
|
30 <CODE>--disable-gcc-checking</CODE> to proceed upon detecting a GCC version of
|
|
|
31 2.96 (apparently it needs this option on <B>egcs</B> too. It's because we don't
|
|
|
32 test <B>MPlayer</B> on egcs. Pardon us, but we rather develop <B>MPlayer</B>).
|
|
|
33 If you know <B>MPlayer</B>, you should know that it has great speed. It
|
|
|
34 achieves this by having overoptimized MMX/SSE/3DNow/etc codes, fastmemcpy, and
|
|
|
35 lots of other features. <B>MPlayer</B> contained MMX/3DNow instructions in a
|
|
|
36 syntax that all Linux compilers accept it... except RedHat's GCC (it's more
|
|
|
37 standard compliant). It simply <B><I>skips</I></B> them. It doesn't give
|
|
2934
|
38 errors. It doesn't give warnings. <B>And</B>, there is Lame. With gcc 2.96, its quality check
|
|
|
39 (<CODE>make test</CODE> after compiling) <I>doesn't even run !!!</I>
|
|
|
40 But hey, it compiles bash on s390 and IA64.</P>
|
|
2867
|
41
|
|
|
42 <P>The <I>statements</I> : most developers around the world begun having
|
|
|
43 bad feelings about RedHat's GCC 2.96 , and told their RedHat users to
|
|
|
44 compile with other compiler than 2.96 . RedHat users' disappointment slowly
|
|
2910
|
45 went into anger. What was all good
|
|
2867
|
46 for, apart from giving headaches to developers, putting oil on anti-RedHat
|
|
|
47 flame, confusing users? The answer, I do not know.</P>
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
49 <P><I>Present age, present time</I> : RedHat says that GCC 2.96-85 and above
|
|
|
50 is fixed, and works properly. Note the versioning. They should have started
|
|
2910
|
51 with something like this. What about GCC 2.96.85 ? It doesn't matter now.
|
|
|
52 I don't search, but I still see bugs with 2.96 . It doesn't matter now,
|
|
|
53 hopefully now <B>RedHat will forget about 2.96</B> and turn towards <B>3.0</B>.
|
|
|
54 Towards a deep patched 3.0...
|
|
|
55 </P>
|
|
2867
|
56
|
|
|
57 <P><I>What I don't understand</I> is why are we hated by RedHat users for
|
|
|
58 putting warning messages, and stay-away documents in <B>MPlayer</B> .
|
|
|
59 Why are we called "brain damaged", "total asshole", "childish" by
|
|
|
60 <B>RedHat users</B>, on our mailing list, and even on the <B>redhat-devel</B> .
|
|
|
61 They even considered forking <B>MPlayer</B> for themselves. RedHat users.
|
|
|
62 Why? It's RedHat that made the compiler, why do <U>you</U> have to hate us?
|
|
|
63 Are you <U>that</U> fellow RedHat worshippers? Please stop it. We don't hold
|
|
|
64 a grudge against users, doesn't matter how loud you advertise its contrary.
|
|
|
65 Please go flame Linus Torvalds, the DRI developers (oh, now I know why
|
|
|
66 there were laid off by VA!), the Wine, avifile. Even if we are arrogant,
|
|
|
67 are we not the same as the previously listed ones? Why do <B>we</B> have
|
|
|
68 to suffer from your unrightful wrath?</P>
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
70 <P>I'm closing this topic. Think over it please. I (Gabucino) personally begun
|
|
|
71 with <A HREF="http://www.redhat.com">RedHat</A>, then used Mandrake (sorry I
|
|
|
72 don't know their URL), now I have <A
|
|
|
73 HREF="http://www.linuxfromscratch.com">LFS</A>. Never held a grudge against
|
|
|
74 RedHat or RedHat users, and I still don't. Hate is only comfortable. It
|
|
|
75 won't bring you anywhere.</P>
|
|
|
76
|
|
3937
|
77 <A NAME=binary><P><B><I>Binary distribution of MPlayer</I></B></P>
|
|
2867
|
78
|
|
2919
|
79 <P>Tons of users asked us about this. For example Debian users tend to say: Oh,
|
|
|
80 I can <CODE>apt-get install avifile</CODE>, why should I <B>compile MPlayer</B> ?
|
|
|
81 While this may sound reasonable, the problem lies a bit deeper than
|
|
2930
|
82 those-fuckin-MPlayer-developers-hate-gcc-2.96-and-RedHat-and-Debian.</P>
|
|
|
83
|
|
|
84 <P>Reasons: <B>Law</B></P>
|
|
|
85
|
|
|
86 <P><B>MPlayer</B> describes the <U>sourcecode</U>. It contains several files with incompatible
|
|
|
87 licenses especially on the redistribution clauses. As source files, they are
|
|
|
88 allowed to coexist in a same project.</P>
|
|
|
89
|
|
|
90 <P>Therefore, <U>NEITHER BINARIES NOR BINARY PACKAGES OF <B>MPlayer</B> ARE ALLOWED TO EXIST SINCE
|
|
|
91 SUCH OBJECTS BREAK LICENSES</U>. PEOPLE WHO DISTRIBUTE SUCH BINARY PACKAGES ARE
|
|
|
92 DOING ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.</P>
|
|
|
93
|
|
|
94 <P>So if you know somebody who maintains a binary package then forward her/him
|
|
|
95 this text and (ask him to) contact us. What (s)he is doing is illegal and IT IS
|
|
|
96 NO LONGER <B>MPlayer</B>, but <U>his/her</U> mplayer. If it breaks, it is
|
|
|
97 his/her fault. Don't come and cry on the <B>MPlayer</B> mailing lists, you will
|
|
|
98 most likely be blacklisted.</P>
|
|
|
99
|
|
|
100 <P>Reasons: <B>Technical</B></P>
|
|
|
101
|
|
|
102 <P>
|
|
2919
|
103 <UL>
|
|
|
104 <LI><B>MPlayer's</B> speed (MMX, SSE, fastmemcpy, etc) optimizations are
|
|
|
105 determined during compilation. Thus a compiled binary contains very
|
|
|
106 processor-specific code. An <B>MPlayer</B> binary compiled for K6 will die
|
|
|
107 on Pentiums and vice versa. This has to be workarounded by runtime
|
|
|
108 detection, which is not an easy thing to do becase it causes massive speed
|
|
|
109 decrease. If you don't believe (it was explained in details 10000 times on
|
|
|
110 mplayer-users, search the archive), solve it and send us a patch. Someone
|
|
|
111 begun work on it, but disappeared since then.</LI>
|
|
|
112 <LI><B>MPlayer's</B> video/audio system is not plugin based. It is compiled
|
|
|
113 into the binary, thus making the binary depend on various libraries (the
|
|
|
114 GUI depends on GTK, DivX4 depends on libdivxdecore, SDL depends on libSDL,
|
|
|
115 every SDL release contains an unique bug that has to be workarounded during
|
|
|
116 compiletime, X11 output compiles differently for X3 and X4, etc). You may
|
|
|
117 say: yes, let's make 30 versions of downloadable binaries! We won't. We
|
|
|
118 will make these stuff pluggable in the future.</LI>
|
|
|
119 </UL>
|
|
2867
|
120
|
|
3937
|
121 <A NAME=nvidia><P><B><I>NVidia</I></B></P>
|
|
3936
|
122
|
|
|
123 <P>We don't like nvidia's binary drives, their quality, unstability,
|
|
|
124 non-existant user support, always appearing new bugs. And most users behave
|
|
|
125 the same. We've been contacted by NVidia lately, and they said these bugs
|
|
|
126 don't exist, unstability is caused by bad AGP chips, and they received
|
|
|
127 no reports of driver bugs (the purple line, for example). So: if you have
|
|
|
128 problem with your NVidia, update the nvidia driver and/or buy a new
|
|
|
129 motherboard.</P>
|
|
|
130
|
|
3937
|
131 <A NAME=kotsog><P><B><I>Joe Barr</I></B></P>
|
|
3936
|
132
|
|
|
133 <P>He doesn't reply to our mails. His editor doesn't reply to our mails.
|
|
|
134 The net is full with his false statements and accusitions (he apparently
|
|
|
135 doesn't like for example the BSD guys, because of their different viewpoints
|
|
|
136 [about what?]).</P>
|
|
|
137
|
|
|
138 <P>Now some quotes from different people about Joe Barr (just for you
|
|
|
139 understand why doesn't he matter at all):</P>
|
|
|
140
|
|
|
141 <P><I>"You may all remember the LinuxWorld 2000, when he claimed that Linus T said
|
|
|
142 that 'FreeBSD is just a handful of programmers'. Linus said NOTHING of the
|
|
|
143 sort. When Joe was called on this, his reaction was to call BSD supporters
|
|
|
144 assholes and jerks."</I></P>
|
|
|
145
|
|
|
146 <P><I>"He's interesting, but not good at avoiding, um... controversy. Joe Barr
|
|
|
147 used to be one of the regulars on Will Zachmann's Canopus forum on Compuserve,
|
|
|
148 years ago. He was an OS/2 advocate then (I was an OS/2 fan too).
|
|
|
149 He used to go over-the-top, flaming people, and I suspect he had some hard
|
|
|
150 times, then. He's mellowed some, judging by his columns recently. Moderately
|
|
|
151 subtle humor was not his mode in those earlier days, not at all."</I></P>
|
|
|
152
|
|
2867
|
153 </HTML>
|
