Update of /cvsroot/mplayer/main/DOCS In directory mail:/var/tmp.root/cvs-serv7630 Modified Files: users_against_developers.html Log Message: applied Nilmoni Debian's (and Diego Burrick) patch Index: users_against_developers.html =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/mplayer/main/DOCS/users_against_developers.html,v retrieving revision 1.16 retrieving revision 1.17 diff -u -r1.16 -r1.17 --- users_against_developers.html 5 May 2002 05:04:54 -0000 1.16 +++ users_against_developers.html 8 May 2002 18:00:26 -0000 1.17 @@ -12,130 +12,172 @@ <FONT CLASS="text"> -<P><B><I>In medias res</I></B></P> +<P><B>In medias res</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> - -<A NAME=gcc><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 2.95.3'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...</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>There are two major topics which always cause huge dispute and flame on the +<A HREF="http://mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-users/">mplayer-users</A> +mailing list. Number one is the topic of the</P> + +<P><A NAME=gcc><B>GCC 2.96 series</B></A></P> + +<P><B>The background:</B> The GCC <B>2.95</B> series is an official GNU release +and version 2.95.3 of GCC is the most bug-free in that series. +We have never noticed compilation problems that we could trace to gcc-2.95.3. +Starting with Red Hat Linux 7.0, <B>Red Hat</B> included a heavily +patched CVS version of GCC in their distribution and named it <B>2.96</B>. Red +Hat included this version in the distribution because GCC 3.0 was not finished at +the time, and they needed a compiler that worked well on all of their supported +platforms, including IA64 and s390. The Linux distributor <B>Mandrake</B> +also followed Red Hat's example and started shipping GCC 2.96 with their +Linux-Mandrake 8.0 series. </P> + +<P><B>The statements:</B> The GCC team disclaimed any link with GCC 2.96 and issued an +<A HREF="http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html">official response</A> to GCC 2.96. +Many developers around the world began having problems with GCC 2.96, and +started recommending other compilers. Examples are +<A HREF="http://www.apachelabs.org/apr-mbox/200106.mbox/%3c20010623194228.C25512@ebuilt.com%3e">Apache</A>, +<A HREF="http://www.mysql.com/downloads/mysql-3.23.html">MySQL</A>, +<A HREF="http://avifile.sourceforge.net/news-old1.htm">avifile</A> and +<A HREF="http://www.winehq.com/news/?view=92#RH 7.1 gcc fixes compiler bug">Wine</A>. +Other interesting links are +<A HREF="http://www.realtimelinux.org/archives/rtai/20017/0144.html">Real time Linux</A>, +<A HREF="http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rgooch/linux/docs/kernel-newsflash.html"> +Linux kernel news flash about kernel 2.4.17</A> and +<A HREF="http://www.voy.com/3516/572.html">Voy Forum</A>. +<B>MPlayer</B> also suffered from intermittent problems that were all solved by +switching to a different version of GCC. Several projects started implementing +workarounds for some of the 2.96 issues, but we refused to fix other people's +bugs, especially since some workarounds may imply a performance penalty.</P> + +<P>You can read about the other side of the story +<A HREF="http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html">here</A>. +GCC 2.96 does not allow | (pipe) characters in assembler comments +because it supports Intel as well as AT&T Syntax and the | character is a +symbol in the Intel variant. The problem is that it <B>silently</B> ignores the +whole assembler block. This is supposedly fixed now, GCC prints a warning instead +of skipping the block.</P> + +<P><B>The present:</B> Red Hat says that GCC 2.96-85 and above is fixed. The +situation has indeed improved, yet we still see problem reports on our +mailing lists that disappear with a different compiler. In any case it does not +matter any longer. Hopefully a maturing GCC 3.x will solve the issue for good. +If you want to compile with 2.96 give the <CODE>--disable-gcc-checking</CODE> +flag to configure. Remember that you are on your own and <B>do not report any +bugs</B>. If you do, you will only get banned from our mailing list because +we have had more than enough flame wars over GCC 2.96. Please let the matter rest.</P> -<P><A HREF="mailto:willis_matthew@yahoo.com">Matt Willis</A> kindly submitted - a simple GCC-3.0.3 compiling howto, I'm copying it here:</P> +<P>If you have problems with GCC 2.96, here is how you can get GCC 3.0.4 to work +(submitted by <A HREF="mailto:willis_matthew@yahoo.com">Matt Willis</A>):</P> -<P> <UL> - <LI>Download gcc. Go to the <A - HREF="http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html">http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html</A> - page. - I downloaded the following, but you don't need everything:<BR> - <CODE>gcc-g++-3.0.3.tar.gz<BR> - gcc-objc-3.0.3.tar.gz<BR> - gcc-3.0.3.tar.gz<BR> - gcc-g77-3.0.3.tar.gz<BR> - gcc-testsuite-3.0.3.tar.gz<BR> - gcc-core-3.0.3.tar.gz<BR> - gcc-java-3.0.3.tar.gz</CODE> + <LI>Go to the + <A HREF="http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html">GCC mirrors page</A> + page and download the following (you may not need everything):<BR> + <CODE>gcc-g++-3.0.4.tar.gz<BR> + gcc-objc-3.0.4.tar.gz<BR> + gcc-3.0.4.tar.gz<BR> + gcc-g77-3.0.4.tar.gz<BR> + gcc-testsuite-3.0.4.tar.gz<BR> + gcc-core-3.0.4.tar.gz<BR> + gcc-java-3.0.4.tar.gz</CODE> </LI> + <LI>Unpack the files, make a build directory, and build:<BR> + <CODE>tar -xvzf gcc-*3.0.4.tar.gz<BR> + mkdir gcc-build<BR> + cd gcc-build<BR> + ../gcc-3.0.4/configure --prefix=/opt --program-suffix=-3.0.4<BR> + make bootstrap; mkdir -p /opt; make install</CODE></LI> + <LI>Set your path to include <CODE>/opt/bin</CODE><BR> + <CODE>export PATH=/opt/bin:${PATH}</CODE></LI> +</UL> - <LI>Unpack the files, make a build directory, and build<CODE><PRE> - tar xvzf gcc-*3.0.3.tar.gz - mkdir gcc-build; cd gcc-build - ../gcc-3.0.3/configure --prefix=/opt --program-suffix=-3.0.3 - make bootstrap; mkdir -p /opt; make install</PRE></CODE> - - <LI>Set your path to include /opt/bin<BR> - <CODE>export PATH=/opt/bin:${PATH}</CODE> +<P><A NAME=binary><B>Binary distribution of MPlayer</B></A></P> - <LI>Now you can build MPlayer.</LI> -</UL> +<P>This was the second big problem but has been solved as of version +0.90-pre1. <B>MPlayer</B> previously contained source from the OpenDivX project, +which disallows binary redistribution. This code has been removed and you are now +welcome to create binary packages as you see fit.</P> + +<P>Another impediment to binary redistribution was compiletime optimizations +for CPU architecture. <B>MPlayer</B> now supports runtime CPU detection. +Although this implies a small speed sacrifice, it is now possible to create +binaries that run on different members of the Intel CPU family. For optimum +performance you may wish to disable runtime CPU detection before compilation +(<CODE>configure --disable-runtime-cpudetection</CODE>).</P> + +<P><A NAME=nvidia><B>nVidia</B></A></P> + +<P>We dislike the fact that <A HREF="http://www.nvidia.com">nVidia</A> + only provides binary drivers (for use with XFree86), which are often buggy. +We have had many reports on +<A HREF="http://mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-users/">mplayer-users</A> +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 +<A HREF="http://www.nvnews.net/forum/showthread.php?s=fda5725bc2151e29453b2da3bd5d2930&threadid=14306"> +nVidia Linux Forum</A>. +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 motherboard or ask nVidia to supply open-source drivers. +In any case, if you are using the nVidia binary drivers and facing driver related problems, +please be aware that you will receive very little help from our side because we have +little power to help in this matter.</P> + +<P><A NAME=kotsog><B>Joe Barr</B></A></P> + +<P>Joe Barr became infamous by writing a less than favorable +<A HREF="http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2001/1214.mplayer.html"> +<B>MPlayer</B> review</A>. He found <B>MPlayer</B> hard to install, but then +again he is not very fond of +<A HREF="http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-2000-06/lw-06-exam.html">reading documentation</A>. +He also concluded that the developers were unfriendly and the documentation +incomplete and insulting. You be the judge. +He went on to mention <B>MPlayer</B> negatively in his +<A HREF="http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2001/1227.predictions.html">10 Linux predictions for 2002</A> +In a followup +<A HREF="http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2002/0125.xine.html">review of xine</A> +he continued stirring up controversy. Ironically at the end of that article he +quotes his exchange with Günter Bartsch, the original author of xine, that +perfectly summarizes the whole situation:</P> + +<BLOCKQUOTE> +However, he also went on to say that he was "surprised" by my column about +Mplayer 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." +</BLOCKQUOTE> </P> -<A NAME=nvidia><P><B><I>NVidia</I></B></P> +<P>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:</P> -<P>We don't like nvidia's binary drives, their quality, unstability, -non-existant user support, always appearing new bugs. And most users behave -the same. We've been contacted by NVidia lately, and they said these bugs -don't exist, unstability is caused by bad AGP chips, and they received -no reports of driver bugs (the purple line, for example). So: if you have -problem with your NVidia, update the nvidia driver and/or buy a new -motherboard.</P> - -<A NAME=kotsog><P><B><I>Joe Barr</I></B></P> - -<P>He doesn't reply to our mails. His editor doesn't reply to our mails. -The net is full with his false statements and accusitions (he apparently -doesn't like for example the BSD guys, because of their different viewpoints -[about what?]).</P> - -<P>Now some quotes from different people about Joe Barr (just for you -understand why doesn't he matter at all):</P> +<P>Marc Rassbach has <A HREF="http://daily.daemonnews.org/view_story.php3?story_id=2102">something to say</A> +about the man +</P> -<P><I>"You may all remember the LinuxWorld 2000, when he claimed that Linus T said +<BLOCKQUOTE> +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."</I></P> +assholes and jerks. +</BLOCKQUOTE> -<P><I>"He's interesting, but not good at avoiding, um... controversy. Joe Barr +<P>A <A HREF="http://www.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-users/2001-December/009118.html">quote</A> +from Robert Munro on the +<A HREF="http://mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-users/">mplayer-users</A> +mailinglist:</P> + +<BLOCKQUOTE> +<P>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). -He used to go over-the-top, flaming people, and I suspect he had some hard +years ago. He was an OS/2 advocate then (I was an OS/2 fan too).<P> + +<P>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."</I></P> +subtle humor was not his mode in those earlier days, not at all.</P> +</BLOCKQUOTE> </HTML>