comparison DOCS/xml/en/users-vs-dev.xml @ 11278:ff78d7ceecaa

Dead links updated or removed, Joe Barr section rewritten taking into account his latest article.

11277:fffd200d81a7

The GCC team disclaimed any link with GCC 2.96 and issued an
<ulink url="http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html">official response</ulink>
to GCC 2.96. Many developers around the world began having problems with
GCC 2.96, and started recommending other compilers. Examples are
<ulink url="http://www.mysql.com/downloads/mysql-3.23.html">MySQL</ulink>,
<ulink url="http://avifile.sourceforge.net/news-old1.htm">avifile</ulink>
and
<ulink url="http://www.winehq.com/news/?view=92#RH 7.1 gcc fixes compiler bug">Wine</ulink>.
Other interesting links are 
<ulink url="http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rgooch/linux/docs/kernel-newsflash.html">
Linux kernel news flash about kernel 2.4.17</ulink>
and
<ulink url="http://www.voy.com/3516/572.html">Voy Forum</ulink>.

may imply a performance penalty.
</para>
</formalpara>

<para>
You can read about the other side of the story
<ulink url="http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html">at this site</ulink>.
GCC 2.96 does not allow <literal>|</literal> (pipe) characters in assembler
comments because it supports Intel as well as AT&amp;T Syntax and the
<literal>|</literal> character is a symbol in the Intel variant. The
problem is that it <emphasis>silently</emphasis> ignores the whole
assembler block. This is supposedly fixed now, GCC prints a warning instead

<para>
If you have problems with GCC 2.96, you can get 2.96-85 packages from the
Red Hat <ulink url="ftp://updates.redhat.com">ftp server</ulink>, or just
go for the 3.0.4 packages offered for version 7.2 and later. You can also
get <ulink url="ftp://people.redhat.com/jakub/gcc/3.2-10/">gcc-3.2-10 packages</ulink>
(unofficial, but working fine)
and you can install them along the gcc-2.96 you already have. MPlayer will
detect it and use 3.2 instead of 2.96. If you do not want to or cannot use
the binary packages, here is how you can compile GCC 3 from source:
</para>

</para>

<para>
Another impediment to binary redistribution was compiletime optimizations
for CPU architecture. <application>MPlayer</application> now supports
runtime CPU detection (specify the
<option>--enable-runtime-cpudetection</option> option when compiling). It
is disabled by default because it implies a small speed sacrifice, it is
now possible to create binaries that run on different members of the Intel
CPU family.
</para>
</sect1>

only provides binary drivers (for use with XFree86), which are often buggy. 
We have had many reports on
<ulink url="http://mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-users/">mplayer-users</ulink>
about problems related to these closed-source drivers
and their poor quality, instability and poor user and expert support.
Here is an example from the
<ulink url="http://www.nvnews.net/forum/showthread.php?s=fda5725bc2151e29453b2da3bd5d2930&amp;threadid=14306">nVidia Linux Forum</ulink>.
Many of these problems/issues keep appearing repeatedly.
We have been contacted by nVidia lately, and they said these bugs do not
exist, instability is caused by bad AGP chips, and they received no reports
of driver bugs (like the purple line). So if you have a problem with your
nVidia card, you are advised to update the nVidia driver and/or buy a new

<sect1 id="joe-barr">
<title>Joe Barr</title>

<para>
Joe Barr became infamous by writing a less than favorable
<ulink url="http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2001/1214.mplayer.html">
<application>MPlayer</application> review</ulink>.
He found <application>MPlayer</application> hard to install, but then
again he is not very fond of
<ulink
url="http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-2000-06/lw-06-exam.html">reading documentation</ulink>.
He also concluded that the developers were unfriendly and the documentation
incomplete and insulting. You be the judge.
He went on to mention <application>MPlayer</application> negatively in his
<ulink url="http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2001/1227.predictions.html">10 Linux predictions for 2002</ulink>.
In a followup
<ulink url="http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2002/0125.xine.html">review of xine</ulink>
he continued stirring up controversy. Ironically at the end of that article
he quotes his exchange with Günter Bartsch, the original author of <application>xine</application>,
that perfectly summarizes the whole situation:

<blockquote><para>
However, he also went on to say that he was "surprised" by my column about
<application>MPlayer</application> and thought it was unfair, reminding me that it is
a free software project. "If you don't like it," Bartsch said, "you're free not to use it."
</para></blockquote>
</para>

<para>
He does not reply to our mails. His editor does not reply to our mails.
Here are some quotes from different people about Joe Barr, so you can form
your own opinion:
</para>

<para>
Marc Rassbach has
<ulink url="http://daily.daemonnews.org/view_story.php3?story_id=2102">something to say</ulink>
about the man.

<blockquote><para>
You may all remember the LinuxWorld 2000, when he claimed that Linus T said
that 'FreeBSD is just a handful of programmers'. Linus said NOTHING of the
sort. When Joe was called on this, his reaction was to call BSD supporters
assholes and jerks.
</para></blockquote>
</para>

<para>
A <ulink url="http://www.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-users/2001-December/009118.html">quote</ulink>
from Robert Munro on the
<ulink url="http://mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-users/">mplayer-users</ulink>
mailing list:

<blockquote>
<para>
He's interesting, but not good at avoiding, um... controversy.  Joe Barr
used to be one of the regulars on Will Zachmann's Canopus forum on
Compuserve, years ago.  He was an OS/2 advocate then (I was an OS/2 fan
too).
</para>

<para>
He used to go over-the-top, flaming people, and I suspect he had some hard
times, then. He's mellowed some, judging by his columns recently.
Moderately subtle humor was not his mode in those earlier days, not at all.
</para>
</blockquote>
</para>

</sect1>
</appendix>

11278:ff78d7ceecaa

The GCC team disclaimed any link with GCC 2.96 and issued an
<ulink url="http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html">official response</ulink>
to GCC 2.96. Many developers around the world began having problems with
GCC 2.96, and started recommending other compilers. Examples are
<ulink url="http://www.mysql.com/downloads/mysql-3.23.html">MySQL</ulink>,
and
<ulink url="http://avifile.sourceforge.net/news-old1.htm">avifile</ulink>.
Other interesting links are 
<ulink url="http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rgooch/linux/docs/kernel-newsflash.html">
Linux kernel news flash about kernel 2.4.17</ulink>
and
<ulink url="http://www.voy.com/3516/572.html">Voy Forum</ulink>.

may imply a performance penalty.
</para>
</formalpara>

<para>
GCC 2.96 does not allow <literal>|</literal> (pipe) characters in assembler
comments because it supports Intel as well as AT&amp;T Syntax and the
<literal>|</literal> character is a symbol in the Intel variant. The
problem is that it <emphasis>silently</emphasis> ignores the whole
assembler block. This is supposedly fixed now, GCC prints a warning instead

<para>
If you have problems with GCC 2.96, you can get 2.96-85 packages from the
Red Hat <ulink url="ftp://updates.redhat.com">ftp server</ulink>, or just
go for the 3.0.4 packages offered for version 7.2 and later. You can also
get <ulink url="ftp://people.redhat.com/jakub/gcc/3.2.3-11/">gcc-3.2.3-11 packages</ulink>
(unofficial, but working fine)
and you can install them along the gcc-2.96 you already have. MPlayer will
detect it and use 3.2 instead of 2.96. If you do not want to or cannot use
the binary packages, here is how you can compile GCC 3 from source:
</para>

</para>

<para>
Another impediment to binary redistribution was compiletime optimizations
for CPU architecture. <application>MPlayer</application> now supports
runtime CPU detection (pass the
<option>--enable-runtime-cpudetection</option> to <command>configure</command>).
It is disabled by default because it implies a small speed sacrifice, but it is
now possible to create binaries that run on different members of the Intel
CPU family.
</para>
</sect1>

only provides binary drivers (for use with XFree86), which are often buggy. 
We have had many reports on
<ulink url="http://mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-users/">mplayer-users</ulink>
about problems related to these closed-source drivers
and their poor quality, instability and poor user and expert support.
Many of these problems/issues keep appearing repeatedly.
We have been contacted by nVidia lately, and they said these bugs do not
exist, instability is caused by bad AGP chips, and they received no reports
of driver bugs (like the purple line). So if you have a problem with your
nVidia card, you are advised to update the nVidia driver and/or buy a new

<sect1 id="joe-barr">
<title>Joe Barr</title>

<para>
Joe Barr became infamous in december 2001 by writing a less than favorable
<application>MPlayer</application> review called
<ulink url="http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32880.htm">MPlayer: The project from hell</ulink>.
He found <application>MPlayer</application> hard to install, and concluded
that the developers were unfriendly and the documentation
incomplete and insulting. You be the judge of that.
He went on to mention Arpi negatively in his
<ulink url="http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32887.htm">10 Linux predictions for 2002</ulink>.
In a followup review of xine called
<ulink url="http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32716.htm">A streaming media player for the rest of us</ulink>
he continued stirring up controversy. Ironically at the end of that article
he quotes his exchange with Günter Bartsch, the original author of <application>xine</application>,
that perfectly summarizes the whole situation:

<blockquote><para>
However, he also went on to say that he was "surprised" by my column about
<application>MPlayer</application> and thought it was unfair, reminding me that it is
a free software project. "If you don't like it," Bartsch said, "you're free not to use it."
</para></blockquote>

Almost two years later in october 2003 he wrote another review called
<ulink url="http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/10/02/0343200">Mplayer revisited</ulink>.
In it he came to the following conclusion:
He had the following to say about MPlayer:

<blockquote><para>
I would have to say that there have been improvements in the number of
features, in performance, and in documentation. It's still not the
easiest install in the world, especially for newbies, but it's a
little better than it used to be.
</para></blockquote>

and

<blockquote><para>
But more importantly, I didn't notice any recent comments about user
abuse. I think I deserve some of the credit for that, even if I do say
so myself. Arpi and the rest of the project team must feel that way
too, because they have taken care to remember me in a special section
of the documentation included in the tarball. Like I said at the
start, some things haven't changed at all.
</para></blockquote>

We could not have summarized our feelings towards Joe Barr better:
&quot;It's still not the fairest or best researched article in the world,
but it's better than it used to be.&quot; Hopefully the next time around
we will meet each other's expectations. However, the credit for maturity
goes to our increasing age only, and maybe to being weary of flame wars.
</para>

</sect1>
</appendix>