Re: Win2000 (was: Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight?)
On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Aley Keprt wrote: > most of the new DOS applications are made in DJGPP, that's the fact! > I haven't seen any *REAL* application written in something other than DJGPP Aley, I really cannot be fscked to argue with you. I do not know of any *real* application written in DJGPP apart from Quake, but if you want to maintain they all are, then that's your problem. Have a nice life. Paul
Re: Win2000 (was: Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight?)
- Original Message - From: Paul Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: 23. èervna 1999 12:53 Subject: Re: Win2000 (was: Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight?) > On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Aley Keprt wrote: > > > This wouldn't be 100%, but it would be 99% (or 98), especially when most of > > the current software is written in DJGPP, which seems to be well designed to > > be run under Windows. > > Very few apps out there are written using DJGPP; they normally use Borland > or Microsoft compilers. > > As for *why*, that's another matter... :-) > > Paul did you asleep? most of the new DOS applications are made in DJGPP, that's the fact! I haven't seen any *REAL* application written in something other than DJGPP for a while. btw. SimCoupe is compiled in DJGPP too. And that's what we should talk about, we samusers :))) btw. That's the question: Does SimCoupe for DOS work on NT 4.0? One person announced, that v0.781a works, but 0.782a doesn't. ? Aley [eili] Keprt - student, programmer (multimedia soft. etc.) phone: +420-68-538 70 35 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** http://get.to/aley
Re: Win2000 (was: Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight?)
On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Aley Keprt wrote: > This wouldn't be 100%, but it would be 99% (or 98), especially when most of > the current software is written in DJGPP, which seems to be well designed to > be run under Windows. Very few apps out there are written using DJGPP; they normally use Borland or Microsoft compilers. As for *why*, that's another matter... :-) Paul
Win2000 (was: Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight?)
- Original Message - From: Robert Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: 17. èervna 1999 18:47 Subject: Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight? > On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Andrew Gallagher wrote: > > > Thomas Harte wrote: > > > > > > Frankly I'm amazed you're giving him such hassle. I might have thought > > > > you'd actually be pleased that someone was taking the time and trouble to > > > > port SimCoupe to your favourite platform. > > > > > > Even more so since DOS compatibility is apparently 'out' as far as > > > windows 2000 is concerned. > > > > Yes and no - it depends on which version of W2K you mean. > > > > There are Win2K Server and Win2K Workstation which are just NT5 > > Server/Workstation rebranded and are therefore of course not DOS-compatible. > > There is however Win2K Personal Edition which is essentially the third > > instalment of Win95,Win98,... and which is backwards-compatible, presumably with > > DOS too. This came about because of a change of heart on the part of Microsoft, > > which originally wanted people to switch from Win98 to NT5 (hence the > > rebranding) but then relented and decided to make another straight upgrade. > > Confusing, eh? > > Presumably, they are now planning to migrate everyone to NT6/Win200[2-3], > or whatever. One wonders whether they will back down _again_ (for what, > the 3rd time in a row?) and make the consumer version of Windows released > then a DOS derivative as well... > > They're gonna have to break compatability at some point... > > -- > Robert > > The question is why NT cannot suport "more" DOS? I think it could - when my SB Live! can emulate SB16 using software driver, NT would emulate SB16 too (on any soundcard), as well as most other hardware points of DOS programs to became at least as good as Win95 DOS box is. This wouldn't be 100%, but it would be 99% (or 98), especially when most of the current software is written in DJGPP, which seems to be well designed to be run under Windows. That's only my opinion. Aley [eili] Keprt - student, programmer (multimedia soft. etc.) phone: +420-68-538 70 35 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** http://get.to/aley
Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight?
On Wed, 16 Jun 1999, Andrew Gallagher wrote: > Thomas Harte wrote: > > > > Frankly I'm amazed you're giving him such hassle. I might have thought > > > you'd actually be pleased that someone was taking the time and trouble to > > > port SimCoupe to your favourite platform. > > > > Even more so since DOS compatibility is apparently 'out' as far as > > windows 2000 is concerned. > > Yes and no - it depends on which version of W2K you mean. > > There are Win2K Server and Win2K Workstation which are just NT5 > Server/Workstation rebranded and are therefore of course not DOS-compatible. > There is however Win2K Personal Edition which is essentially the third > instalment of Win95,Win98,... and which is backwards-compatible, presumably > with > DOS too. This came about because of a change of heart on the part of > Microsoft, > which originally wanted people to switch from Win98 to NT5 (hence the > rebranding) but then relented and decided to make another straight upgrade. > Confusing, eh? Presumably, they are now planning to migrate everyone to NT6/Win200[2-3], or whatever. One wonders whether they will back down _again_ (for what, the 3rd time in a row?) and make the consumer version of Windows released then a DOS derivative as well... They're gonna have to break compatability at some point... -- Robert
Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight?
Thomas Harte wrote: > > Frankly I'm amazed you're giving him such hassle. I might have thought > > you'd actually be pleased that someone was taking the time and trouble to > > port SimCoupe to your favourite platform. > > Even more so since DOS compatibility is apparently 'out' as far as > windows 2000 is concerned. Yes and no - it depends on which version of W2K you mean. There are Win2K Server and Win2K Workstation which are just NT5 Server/Workstation rebranded and are therefore of course not DOS-compatible. There is however Win2K Personal Edition which is essentially the third instalment of Win95,Win98,... and which is backwards-compatible, presumably with DOS too. This came about because of a change of heart on the part of Microsoft, which originally wanted people to switch from Win98 to NT5 (hence the rebranding) but then relented and decided to make another straight upgrade. Confusing, eh? -- Andrew Gallagher http://members.tripod.com/~AndrewGallagher/id.html
Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight?
> Frankly I'm amazed you're giving him such hassle. I might have thought > you'd actually be pleased that someone was taking the time and trouble to > port SimCoupe to your favourite platform. Even more so since DOS compatibility is apparently 'out' as far as windows 2000 is concerned. That said, I think you'll find most GPL people wouldn't rate windows as their favourite platform! By the way (Si), for synchronisation, does SIM use some sort of timer to wait at completion of a frame before starting the next one, or does it space out its instructions as a SAM does (maybe using one of the win32 profiling counters)? Just interested. -Thomas
Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight?
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Aley Keprt wrote: >I don't agree that somebody don't release source until it is finished. >The SimCoupe will never be 100% finished. Or will be? I don't think so. >So Si Owen probably will never release the source, since he will never >be finished with his work. I think that he meant that he will release Win32 Simcoupe's source and binaries together when Win32 Simcoupe works as well as Simcoupe on DOS and Linux - that or he has a slightly different opinion of when it's ready. Ready does not mean complete/finished. I'd like to see the code released as soon as a simple (and working) port has been written - and I won't be suprised if that's what he does. -- Stuart Brady
Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight?
At 8:50 am +0100 15/6/99, Aley Keprt wrote: >Si Owen wrote: >> I've always said that I would release the modified source when I'm done, >and >> that's still what I intend to do. It's not available yet because I've not >> finished my changes, and I'm not going to be pressured into releasing it >> early. It'll be ready when it's ready - be patient! >I don't agree that somebody don't release source until it is finished. >The SimCoupe will never be 100% finished. Or will be? I don't think so. >So Si Owen probably will never release the source, since he will never >be finished with his work. Aley, now you're just talking rubbish! Si says that as soon as the binary for SimCoupe/Win32 is released, then so will the source be. I have no reason to disbelieve him. >And it is not so hard, especially when GPL say something, we should respect >it. I just wish you lot would all shut up about the GPL. He hasn't released the binary so HE'S NOT BREAKING IT. Frankly I'm amazed you're giving him such hassle. I might have thought you'd actually be pleased that someone was taking the time and trouble to port SimCoupe to your favourite platform. Andrew -- | Andrew Collier | email [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Talk sense to a | Part 2 NatSci | http://mnemotech.ucam.org/ | fool and he ++ICQ:38645805-+ calls you foolish | Selwyn College Student Computer Support Team | -- Euripides
Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight?
- Original Message - From: Si Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: 9. èervna 1999 9:05 Subject: Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight? > *takes a deep breath* > > Aley Keprt originally wrote: > > > Since Si Owen doesn't want to release his sources (I hate him for this), > > Aley seems to have left out an all-important 'yet' from the end of this > sentence, probably not intentionally. > > > Thomas Harte then wrote: > > Hey, Sim Coupe was distributed under the GPL license. If Si doesn't > > want to surrender the modified source then he is breaking the law, and > > many people within the GPL sphere are perfectly happy to help fight if > > this is the case. > > I've always said that I would release the modified source when I'm done, and > that's still what I intend to do. It's not available yet because I've not > finished my changes, and I'm not going to be pressured into releasing it > early. It'll be ready when it's ready - be patient! > > My spare time has been extremely limited recently, so I've not had a chance > to work on it. With any luck things should start to get back to 'normal' in > a few weeks time when some big work deadlines are out of the way and I'm > back from holiday. > > > > A win32 Sim boycott anyone? > > Get a life Thomas... > > Si > > I don't agree that somebody don't release source until it is finished. The SimCoupe will never be 100% finished. Or will be? I don't think so. So Si Owen probably will never release the source, since he will never be finished with his work. I think that programming a modular software (e.g. SimCoupe) means programming these modules independently. This means that when some changes are finished, they should be released. The current situation is that only one person (Si) is allowed to work on SimCoupe. e.g. Some changes in CPU emulation are made, but source is not released. Why? I'd like to work on SimCoupe too. I want to work on SOME modules, and I think I'd do it. THe current situation is not normal (see Mame project - many people work parallelly on different modules). If Si Owen don't respect this modular system (and work on several modules together), he will only make some unreadable sources with many bugs. That's not only my opinion, that's praxis of software engineering. Maybe some people think I'm sometime too scientific, but I think SimCoupe project is large enough to use the industry standard developers' technologies. And it is not so hard, especially when GPL say something, we should respect it. Aley [eili] Keprt - student, programmer (multimedia soft. etc.) phone: +420-68-538 70 35 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** http://get.to/aley
RE: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight?
Thomas Harte wrote: > So you can see how it looks, yeah? You'll notice how > 'doesn't want' is also future tense? Actually it's present tense, but that's beside the point - the point is that I didn't say it in the first place! I can understand how it might have looked, but trying to start a witch-hunt on hear-say isn't such a good idea. Si
Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight?
>Any response to this statement which in my opinion is almost as >inflamatory as 'James R Curry's brilliantly researched post would >probably only look quite petty anyway. Suffice to say that if we define >getting a life as not commenting on any SimCoupe GPL conversation after >this one then rest assured it has been done. > >-Thomas Oh, sarcasm! I think you really missed the point of my "Brilliantly researched" post. I am following this debate, actually with interest, but it just seems so futile to bother adding anything constructive (destructive?) to it. Because for every keystroke that is being wasted in arguing over licenses, we are losing a keystroke that could go into coding something of benefit to the SAM community. Now, I really don't see the harm in distributing a beta to a few SELECT people without the source, if the source is going to be made available with the official release. Yeah, the GPL requires it's release, but there's a difference between working within the spirit of the GPL and breathing so close down a programmers neck that he can't get his code TESTED without complaints. Give it time, stop arguing, and let us all get on with something worthwile. My original post was neither supporting or opposing any argument, merely a sarcastic way of expressing my distress at the way no-one in the SAM community can co-operate over anything. -- James R Curry - 6 timezones from England and still up at 2am...
Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight?
Re: the topic - I wouldn't bother if I were you. Wish I hadn't really. > Aley seems to have left out an all-important 'yet' from the end of this > sentence, probably not intentionally. So you can see how it looks, yeah? You'll notice how 'doesn't want' is also future tense? > > A win32 Sim boycott anyone? > > Get a life Thomas... Any response to this statement which in my opinion is almost as inflamatory as 'James R Curry's brilliantly researched post would probably only look quite petty anyway. Suffice to say that if we define getting a life as not commenting on any SimCoupe GPL conversation after this one then rest assured it has been done. -Thomas
Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight?
On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Aley Keprt wrote: >In addition I'd like to ask this: Why Linux users don't make their >version first and give us their sources? It is very easy to say: "Make >you Win version Linux compatible." I bet everybody can say this, but >not too many people can really do something for Linux, what will be >usable for "our" ;) Win32 version. The Win32 sources should include functions for DOS and Linux to avoid code forks, and development versions of a port should not add new features before the code is released. Basically, just keep all of your DOS/Win32/Linux dependant functions in seperate files, and everything should be fine. >Another task is how Win32 programmers can exactly know what is "Linux >friendly" in C++ source? It's hardly rocket science. I can't even program in C++, but even I've got a rough idea about how cross platform code is supposed to work. The actual emulation (the process, if you like) should compile from the same code for each platform. The input and output (graphics, sound, disk, keyboard, mouse) code should be placed in seperate files for each platform. If you do it properly, the new DOS/Win32 only features won't exist in Linux, but you'll still be able to compile from the same source. It's what's known as "conditional inclusion". :-) If you don't do this, you could end up with a dozen different versions of SimCoupe which have to be kept consistant with one another, but also try to stay one step ahead in terms of features. It'll be almost impossible to merge them into one cross-platform version, by then. Doom springs to mind here. I can name Boom, LxDoom, ZDoom, Doom Legacy, DOSDoom, GGIDoom, and XDoom (which are all open source) off the top of my head, and there are many more. You don't want this to happen to SimCoupe. >Also, >I think Linux users can simply use DOS version. Or not? Why not? >Either use DOS emulator (change Sim Coupe for DOS a bit, if the current >version doesn't work in DOS emulator), or simply use a boot disk with DOS. >Many Linux users I know have DOS installed on their computer too. >So what's the problem? Why do you think people use Linux in the first place? If people want to write Linux code for SimCoupe, why can't they? Just make sure that you don't break the Linux code, and I'm not complaining. >I'm sorry for this negative mail, but I'm really frustrated of all these >Linux activists. >"If you often say "Do this...", then you should shut up and do it yourself." I'm not saying "Do this...", and I'm not asking you to add sound support for Linux - I'm not even asking you to add anything to the Linux version. I'm just asking you not to *break* anything. Okay? -- Stuart Brady
Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight?
*takes a deep breath* Aley Keprt originally wrote: > > Since Si Owen doesn't want to release his sources (I hate him for this), Aley seems to have left out an all-important 'yet' from the end of this sentence, probably not intentionally. Thomas Harte then wrote: > Hey, Sim Coupe was distributed under the GPL license. If Si doesn't > want to surrender the modified source then he is breaking the law, and > many people within the GPL sphere are perfectly happy to help fight if > this is the case. I've always said that I would release the modified source when I'm done, and that's still what I intend to do. It's not available yet because I've not finished my changes, and I'm not going to be pressured into releasing it early. It'll be ready when it's ready - be patient! My spare time has been extremely limited recently, so I've not had a chance to work on it. With any luck things should start to get back to 'normal' in a few weeks time when some big work deadlines are out of the way and I'm back from holiday. > A win32 Sim boycott anyone? Get a life Thomas... Si
Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight?
On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Aley Keprt wrote: > Since Si Owen doesn't want to release his sources (I hate him for this), Probably just for the same reason I haven't yet released Hurricane source - it's not ready. > In addition I'd like to ask this: Why Linux users don't make their version > first and > give us their sources? It is very easy to say: "Make you Win version Linux Okay; would you like the .tar.gz emailed to that address, or another one? In case you weren't aware, SimCoupe actually *started* as a Linux program. With source. > Another task is how Win32 programmers can exactly know what is "Linux > friendly" in C++ source? Just generally good programming practice - keep the platform-dependant stuff to a minimum of places (one "routine-library" is best), and write proper ANSI C++ rather than some bastardisation. If you do that, then code will compile cleanly with a minimum of alteration under many platforms. > I think Linux users can simply use DOS version. Or not? Why not? Because the DOS version hasn't been developed for some time. The Win32 version *is* in active development. Or are you suggesting that people should all switch to win32 just to get up-to-date code? :-) > I'm sorry for this negative mail, but I'm really frustrated of all these > Linux activists. I'm annoyed with the people who think *everything* should be linux based, and no-one has reasons for using anything else. That's a little different, though. > "If you often say "Do this...", then you should shut up and do it yourself." Small problem with lack of time at the present; more important things to worry about than SAM in any form. Paul
Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight?
On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Simon Cooke wrote: > > Hey, Sim Coupe was distributed under the GPL license. If Si doesn't > > want to surrender the modified source then he is breaking the law, and > > many people within the GPL sphere are perfectly happy to help fight if > > this is the case. > > > > Interestingly, the GPL has never been proven in court. There have been several out of court disputes, some against companies with expensive lawyers (e.g. NeXT). The offending company has backed down in every instance. And even if it was found to be invalid, it would not allow people to steal GPLed source code and make proprietary versions. -- Robert.
Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight?
> Hey, Sim Coupe was distributed under the GPL license. If Si doesn't > want to surrender the modified source then he is breaking the law, and > many people within the GPL sphere are perfectly happy to help fight if > this is the case. > Interestingly, the GPL has never been proven in court. Simon Cooke (The views of this poster are his and his alone, and may or may not reflect the views of the Microsoft Corporation).
Re: Linux vs. Win32 SimCoupe - must I fight?
> Since Si Owen doesn't want to release his sources (I hate him for this), > I can't do much and I'm affraid Linux is out for now, since DOS is out too. Hey, Sim Coupe was distributed under the GPL license. If Si doesn't want to surrender the modified source then he is breaking the law, and many people within the GPL sphere are perfectly happy to help fight if this is the case. A win32 Sim boycott anyone? > I think Linux users can simply use DOS version. Or not? Why not? > Either use DOS emulator (change Sim Coupe for DOS a bit, if the current > version doesn't work in DOS emulator), or simply use a boot disk with DOS. > Many Linux users I know have DOS installed on their computer too. > So what's the problem? I think the principle is this : an open source package for X-Windows which was written in Linux can usually be taken to work and compiled on a DEC or an Alpha . . . . machines which can not have DOS on them. > I'm sorry for this negative mail, but I'm really frustrated of all these > Linux activists. Hey man, so am I, and I use the stupid operating system! -Thomas
