diff options
| author | gabucino <gabucino@b3059339-0415-0410-9bf9-f77b7e298cf2> | 2001-11-13 16:19:48 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | gabucino <gabucino@b3059339-0415-0410-9bf9-f77b7e298cf2> | 2001-11-13 16:19:48 +0000 |
| commit | 90e7605dd8037aec5b6fa1964743fd08fc4867f7 (patch) | |
| tree | e9d23e25283cfe56d8ceb4dc27aafb6ae65de5b0 /DOCS | |
| parent | 54f2b69025336b0967d3762c8174cc760cb6854a (diff) | |
| download | mpv-90e7605dd8037aec5b6fa1964743fd08fc4867f7.tar.bz2 mpv-90e7605dd8037aec5b6fa1964743fd08fc4867f7.tar.xz | |
nice new docu. read it.
TODO: place gcc 2.96 Q/A from FAQ to here.
git-svn-id: svn://svn.mplayerhq.hu/mplayer/trunk@2868 b3059339-0415-0410-9bf9-f77b7e298cf2
Diffstat (limited to 'DOCS')
| -rw-r--r-- | DOCS/users_against_developers.html | 89 |
1 files changed, 89 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/DOCS/users_against_developers.html b/DOCS/users_against_developers.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..da1542c7e5 --- /dev/null +++ b/DOCS/users_against_developers.html @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@ +<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>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. + +<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. +Noone 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 GCC 2.95.3 . They patched it very deep. +They patched it <B>bad</B>. RedHat saw it was bad, but decided to ship it +anyways (even with his "<I>Enterprise-ready</I>" distributions). After all, more +users try it, the more bugreports they get, thus bugfixing and development +goes faster. Development? GCC 2.95 was good enough, where did they want to +develop more? Develop GCC in parallel with the GCC team ? (the GCC team was +meanwhile testing their new <B>GCC 3.0</B>)</P> + +<P>The <I>result</I> : the first RedHat GCC 2.96's were so flawed, that nothing +above <I>hello_world.c</I> compiled. RedHat immediately began making +Service Packs - ups, so they immediately began patching the bugs. They +could have backed out to 2.95 if they wanted. Meanwhile major Linux programs' +like <B>DRI</B>, <B>avifile</B>, <B>Wine</B> and the <B>Linux kernel</B> +developers began wondering why do they receive these new interesting +bugreports. They obviously didn't consider it a good thing, they'd have +better things to do.</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. Some guy called Bero even put up a page that describes +that GCC 2.96 is not incompatible, but 2.95 was incompatible ! If we +assume this is the case, we should greet RedHat for upgrading our GCC, and +flame all who opposes. But I wonder : why didn't they help the GCC team +<B>to fix</B> their "incompatibilities", why did they instead fork, and +did it on their own? Why couldn't they wait for GCC 3.0 ? 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 2.95.3-85 ? It doesn't matter now. +Whether they still use kgcc for kernels, I have no information. 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>.</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>I'm too moody now for this.</P> + +</HTML> |