Mercurial > mplayer.hg
diff DOCS/Polish/users_against_developers.html @ 3523:dadab20dc2b4
began updated translation by <nell@skrzynka.pl> (work-in-progress)
| author | gabucino |
|---|---|
| date | Sun, 16 Dec 2001 11:51:02 +0000 |
| parents | |
| children | 001c05d69f6c |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/DOCS/Polish/users_against_developers.html Sun Dec 16 11:51:02 2001 +0000 @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@ +<HTML> +<BODY BGCOLOR=white> + +<FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2> + +<P><B><I>In medias res</I></B></P> + +<P>There are two major topic which always causes huge dispute and flame on the +<A HREF="http://www.MPlayerHQ.hu/cgi-bin/htsearch">mplayer-users</A> +mailing list. Number one is of course the topic of the</P> + +<P><B><I>GCC 2.96 series</I></B></P> + +<P><B>Also read <A HREF="gcc-2.96-3.0.html">this</A> text !!!</B></P> + +<P>The <I>background</I> : there were/are the GCC <B>2.95</B> series. The +best of them was 2.95.3 . Please note the style of the version numbering. +This is how the GCC team numbers their compilers. The 2.95 series are good. +We never ever saw anything that was miscompiled because of the 2.95's faultiness.</P> + +<P>The <I>action</I> : <B>RedHat</B> started to include a GCC version of <B>2.96</B> +with their distributions. Note the version numbering. This should be the GCC +team's versioning. They patched the CVS version of GCC (something between 2.95 and 3.0) +They patched it very deep, and used this version in the distrib because 3.0 +wasn't out at time, and they wanted IA64 support ASAP (business reasons). +Oh, and GCC 2.95 miscompiles bash on the s390 architecture (there is +no RedHat distribution for s390..) .</P> + +<P>The <I>facts</I> : <B>MPlayer</B>'s compile process needs the +<CODE>--disable-gcc-checking</CODE> to proceed upon detecting a GCC version of +2.96 (apparently it needs this option on <B>egcs</B> too. It's because we don't +test <B>MPlayer</B> on egcs. Pardon us, but we rather develop <B>MPlayer</B>). +If you know <B>MPlayer</B>, you should know that it has great speed. It +achieves this by having overoptimized MMX/SSE/3DNow/etc codes, fastmemcpy, and +lots of other features. <B>MPlayer</B> contained MMX/3DNow instructions in a +syntax that all Linux compilers accept it... except RedHat's GCC (it's more +standard compliant). It simply <B><I>skips</I></B> them. It doesn't give +errors. It doesn't give warnings. <B>And</B>, there is Lame. With gcc 2.96, its quality check +(<CODE>make test</CODE> after compiling) <I>doesn't even run !!!</I> +But hey, it compiles bash on s390 and IA64.</P> + +<P>The <I>statements</I> : most developers around the world begun having +bad feelings about RedHat's GCC 2.96 , and told their RedHat users to +compile with other compiler than 2.96 . RedHat users' disappointment slowly +went into anger. What was all good +for, apart from giving headaches to developers, putting oil on anti-RedHat +flame, confusing users? The answer, I do not know.</P> + +<P><I>Present age, present time</I> : RedHat says that GCC 2.96-85 and above +is fixed, and works properly. Note the versioning. They should have started +with something like this. What about GCC 2.96.85 ? It doesn't matter now. +I don't search, but I still see bugs with 2.96 . It doesn't matter now, +hopefully now <B>RedHat will forget about 2.96</B> and turn towards <B>3.0</B>. +Towards a deep patched 3.0... +</P> + +<P><I>What I don't understand</I> is why are we hated by RedHat users for +putting warning messages, and stay-away documents in <B>MPlayer</B> . +Why are we called "brain damaged", "total asshole", "childish" by +<B>RedHat users</B>, on our mailing list, and even on the <B>redhat-devel</B> . +They even considered forking <B>MPlayer</B> for themselves. RedHat users. +Why? It's RedHat that made the compiler, why do <U>you</U> have to hate us? +Are you <U>that</U> fellow RedHat worshippers? Please stop it. We don't hold +a grudge against users, doesn't matter how loud you advertise its contrary. +Please go flame Linus Torvalds, the DRI developers (oh, now I know why +there were laid off by VA!), the Wine, avifile. Even if we are arrogant, +are we not the same as the previously listed ones? Why do <B>we</B> have +to suffer from your unrightful wrath?</P> + +<P>I'm closing this topic. Think over it please. I (Gabucino) personally begun +with <A HREF="http://www.redhat.com">RedHat</A>, then used Mandrake (sorry I +don't know their URL), now I have <A +HREF="http://www.linuxfromscratch.com">LFS</A>. Never held a grudge against +RedHat or RedHat users, and I still don't. Hate is only comfortable. It +won't bring you anywhere.</P> + +<P><B><I>Binary distribution of MPlayer</I></B></P> + +<P>Tons of users asked us about this. For example Debian users tend to say: Oh, +I can <CODE>apt-get install avifile</CODE>, why should I <B>compile MPlayer</B> ? +While this may sound reasonable, the problem lies a bit deeper than +those-fuckin-MPlayer-developers-hate-gcc-2.96-and-RedHat-and-Debian.</P> + +<P>Reasons: <B>Law</B></P> + +<P><B>MPlayer</B> describes the <U>sourcecode</U>. It contains several files with incompatible +licenses especially on the redistribution clauses. As source files, they are +allowed to coexist in a same project.</P> + +<P>Therefore, <U>NEITHER BINARIES NOR BINARY PACKAGES OF <B>MPlayer</B> ARE ALLOWED TO EXIST SINCE +SUCH OBJECTS BREAK LICENSES</U>. PEOPLE WHO DISTRIBUTE SUCH BINARY PACKAGES ARE +DOING ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.</P> + +<P>So if you know somebody who maintains a binary package then forward her/him +this text and (ask him to) contact us. What (s)he is doing is illegal and IT IS +NO LONGER <B>MPlayer</B>, but <U>his/her</U> mplayer. If it breaks, it is +his/her fault. Don't come and cry on the <B>MPlayer</B> mailing lists, you will +most likely be blacklisted.</P> + +<P>For example that french guy called <B>Christian Marillat</B> who denied our +request, and is still distributing binary Debian packages of <B>MPlayer</B>, +despite the fact that there was at least one user who downloaded it and failed +(of course compiling from source helped him). And there is <B>Guillaume +Rousse</B>, who is doing the same, but making RPMs for Mandrake. Do not support +criminals!</P> + +<P>Reasons: <B>Technical</B></P> + +<P> +<UL> + <LI><B>MPlayer's</B> speed (MMX, SSE, fastmemcpy, etc) optimizations are + determined during compilation. Thus a compiled binary contains very + processor-specific code. An <B>MPlayer</B> binary compiled for K6 will die + on Pentiums and vice versa. This has to be workarounded by runtime + detection, which is not an easy thing to do becase it causes massive speed + decrease. If you don't believe (it was explained in details 10000 times on + mplayer-users, search the archive), solve it and send us a patch. Someone + begun work on it, but disappeared since then.</LI> + <LI><B>MPlayer's</B> video/audio system is not plugin based. It is compiled + into the binary, thus making the binary depend on various libraries (the + GUI depends on GTK, DivX4 depends on libdivxdecore, SDL depends on libSDL, + every SDL release contains an unique bug that has to be workarounded during + compiletime, X11 output compiles differently for X3 and X4, etc). You may + say: yes, let's make 30 versions of downloadable binaries! We won't. We + will make these stuff pluggable in the future.</LI> +</UL> + +</HTML>