diff options
author | nicolas <nicolas@b3059339-0415-0410-9bf9-f77b7e298cf2> | 2003-03-23 23:35:12 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | nicolas <nicolas@b3059339-0415-0410-9bf9-f77b7e298cf2> | 2003-03-23 23:35:12 +0000 |
commit | 413a60419542895a13fa54640b44e074df8de162 (patch) | |
tree | 6f4940f2ac5bf154f5586f7436d6cca12546ec1c /DOCS/xml/en/users-vs-dev.xml | |
parent | 5b1bd414021a75c10bcff405266df99f729a91da (diff) | |
download | mpv-413a60419542895a13fa54640b44e074df8de162.tar.bz2 mpv-413a60419542895a13fa54640b44e074df8de162.tar.xz |
XML version of MPlayer's doc
git-svn-id: svn://svn.mplayerhq.hu/mplayer/trunk@9676 b3059339-0415-0410-9bf9-f77b7e298cf2
Diffstat (limited to 'DOCS/xml/en/users-vs-dev.xml')
-rw-r--r-- | DOCS/xml/en/users-vs-dev.xml | 244 |
1 files changed, 244 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/DOCS/xml/en/users-vs-dev.xml b/DOCS/xml/en/users-vs-dev.xml new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..4e3f7a6913 --- /dev/null +++ b/DOCS/xml/en/users-vs-dev.xml @@ -0,0 +1,244 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?> +<appendix id="users-vs-dev"> +<title>Developer cries</title> + +<sect1 id="gcc-296"> +<title>GCC 2.96</title> + +<formalpara> +<title>The background:</title> +<para> +The GCC <emphasis>2.95</emphasis> 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, <emphasis>Red Hat</emphasis> included a heavily +patched CVS version of GCC in their distribution and named it +<emphasis>2.96</emphasis>. 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 <emphasis>Mandrake</emphasis> also +followed Red Hat's example and started shipping GCC 2.96 with their +Linux-Mandrake 8.0 series. +</para> +</formalpara> + +<formalpara> +<title>The statements:</title> +<para> +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>. +<application>MPlayer</application> 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. +</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&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 +of skipping the block. +</para> + +<formalpara> +<title>The present:</title> +<para> +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 <option>--disable-gcc-checking</option> +flag to <filename>configure</filename>. Remember that you are on your own +and <emphasis>do not report any bugs</emphasis>. 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. +</para> +</formalpara> + +<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 3.1 instead of 2.96. If you do not want to or cannot use +the binary packages, here is how you can compile GCC 3.1 from source: +</para> + +<procedure> +<step><para> + Go to the + <ulink url="http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html">GCC mirrors page</ulink> + page and download <filename>gcc-core-XXX.tar.gz</filename> where XXX is + the version number. This includes the complete C compiler and is sufficient for + <application>MPlayer</application>. If you also want C++, Java or some of + the other advanced GCC features <filename>gcc-XXX.tar.gz</filename> may + better suit your needs. + </para></step> +<step><para> + Extract the archive with + <screen>tar -xvzf gcc-core-XXX.tar.gz</screen> + </para></step> +<step><para> + GCC is not built inside the source directory itself like most programs, + but needs a build directory outside the source directory. Thus you need + to create this directory via + <screen>mkdir gcc-build</screen> + </para></step> +<step><para> + Then you can proceed to configure gcc in the build directory, but you + need the configure from the source directory: + <screen> +cd gcc-build +../gcc-3.XXX/configure</screen> + </para></step> +<step><para> + Compile GCC by issuing this command in the build directory: + <screen>make bootstrap</screen> + </para></step> +<step><para> + Now you can install GCC (as root) by typing + <screen>make install</screen> + </para></step> +</procedure> +</sect1> + + +<sect1 id="mplayer-binary"> +<title>Binary distribution</title> + +<para> +<application>MPlayer</application> previously contained source from the +OpenDivX project, which disallows binary redistribution.This code has been +removed in version 0.90-pre1 and the remaining file <filename>divx_vbr.c</filename> +that is derived from OpenDivX sources has been put under the GPL by its authors +as of version 0.90pre9. You are now welcome to create binary packages as you +see fit. +</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> + + +<sect1 id="nvidia-opinions"> +<title>nVidia</title> + +<para> +We dislike the fact that <ulink url="http://www.nvidia.com">nVidia</ulink> +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&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 +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. +</para> +</sect1> + + +<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 xine, +that perfectly summarizes the whole situation: + +<blockquote><para> +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." +</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> |