Jim Henderson wrote:

> Go and look at the Wine AppDB.  The list of supported apps is 
> significant.  Which reminds me, I need to try running Framemaker 8 under 
> it.  One less reason to run Windows in a VMware session.

	Significant and impressive. However, chances are that if you have a
well known big budget game and want to get it running under Wine, it
likely won't work.


-- 
Beware of quantum ducks.       Quark!     Quark!


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> I saw an interesting project where people were figuring out what steps
> you
> could cut out of a Linux boot for known hardware (like a laptop) to get
> it
> to boot all the way to logged in under X in less than five seconds.
> They
> apparently got it working, too.

Why should it even take that long?  Personally, I would have thought that 
by 2009 we would have instant-on computers.

By the way, how hard would it be to keep a cheap battery on the 
motherboard and, when the computer powers down, keep the RAM running long 
enough to copy it all into flash memory?  Then, when you want to turn it 
on, you only have to wait long enough to transfer it from the flash to the 
system RAM (and said copy could be high parallelized).  No booting, no 
sleeping, just on and off.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Why should it even take that long? 

Physics?  There's a certain upper limit on (say) how fast disks can spin up, 
how fast you can poll a USB root, how fast you can initialize gigabytes of 
memory, etc.

Maybe if you compiled your code for exactly precisely the hardware you were 
going to use, you could go faster. But you'd be SOL if you spilled soda on 
your keyboard and had to plug one in via USB to get your data off.

> By the way, how hard would it be to keep a cheap battery on the 
> motherboard and, when the computer powers down, keep the RAM running long 
> enough to copy it all into flash memory?  

Heck, just use core memory and don't worry about it. ;-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Henderson [mailto:nos### [at] nospamcom]
> Then add to that Windows apps that work with WINE

WINE is a joke.  The last time I tried Linux (sometime in the last 12 
months, I don’t even remember when), I installed the latest version of 
WINE, and NOTHING worked correctly.  Even the programs advertised as 
working would fail horrible deaths.

So I decided to stick with Windows, and guess what?  Things just work.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> WINE is a joke.  The last time I tried Linux (sometime in the last 12 
> months, I don’t even remember when), I installed the latest version of 
> WINE, and NOTHING worked correctly.  Even the programs advertised as 
> working would fail horrible deaths.
> 
> So I decided to stick with Windows, and guess what?  Things just work.

	Except a lot of those Linux apps.

-- 
Don't use a big word where a diminutive one will suffice.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mueen Nawaz [mailto:m.n### [at] ieeeorg]
> Chambers wrote:
> > So I decided to stick with Windows, and guess what?  Things just
> work.
>
> 	Except a lot of those Linux apps.

And guess what?  I don't miss any of them.  I can't remember the last time 
I needed a program to do something, did a google search, and only found a 
Linux app that wouldn't run under Windows.

Fact is, for the foreseeable future, I'm writing Linux off and sticking 
with Windows.  It does what I want, and better than the critics give it 
credit for.  Over the last 10 years I've tried Linux several times, for 
several reasons, and the longest I lasted with it was about two months. 
It's never been worth the headaches involved, and unless something 
seriously screwy happens to drive me off Windows, I doubt I'll go through 
those headaches again.

But then, I'm also upgrading my computer less than I used to (says the man 
who just installed a new graphics card last week, and has a new HDD being 
shipped atm).  I'm getting tired to "using the computer," and I'm more 
interested these days in actually "using the computer to get things done."

Linux, despite the headaches, was a lot of fun when I tried it before, but 
it was also a full-time hobby.  I don't have time for the hobbies I 
already have, so not having to worry about my OS is a bonus for me.

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 19:29:53 -0800, Chambers wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Henderson [mailto:nos### [at] nospamcom] Then add to that Windows
>> apps that work with WINE
> 
> WINE is a joke.  The last time I tried Linux (sometime in the last 12
> months, I don’t even remember when), I installed the latest version of
> WINE, and NOTHING worked correctly.  Even the programs advertised as
> working would fail horrible deaths.
> 
> So I decided to stick with Windows, and guess what?  Things just work.

Generally speaking, WINE works for me.  Crossover Office works for me.  
YMMV. <shrug>

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:03:37 -0800, Chambers wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mueen Nawaz [mailto:m.n### [at] ieeeorg] Chambers wrote:
>> > So I decided to stick with Windows, and guess what?  Things just
>> work.
>>
>> 	Except a lot of those Linux apps.
> 
> And guess what?  I don't miss any of them.  I can't remember the last
> time I needed a program to do something, did a google search, and only
> found a Linux app that wouldn't run under Windows.
> 
> Fact is, for the foreseeable future, I'm writing Linux off and sticking
> with Windows.  It does what I want, and better than the critics give it
> credit for.  Over the last 10 years I've tried Linux several times, for
> several reasons, and the longest I lasted with it was about two months.
> It's never been worth the headaches involved, and unless something
> seriously screwy happens to drive me off Windows, I doubt I'll go
> through those headaches again.
> 
> But then, I'm also upgrading my computer less than I used to (says the
> man who just installed a new graphics card last week, and has a new HDD
> being shipped atm).  I'm getting tired to "using the computer," and I'm
> more interested these days in actually "using the computer to get things
> done."
> 
> Linux, despite the headaches, was a lot of fun when I tried it before,
> but it was also a full-time hobby.  I don't have time for the hobbies I
> already have, so not having to worry about my OS is a bonus for me.
> 
> ...Ben Chambers
> www.pacificwebguy.com

You keep talking about "headaches".  I've been using it for 12 years, and 
most of that time no headaches at all.

I use it on all of my work machines, and have for at least the last 8 
years or so.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:50:43 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> All I remember is that even after endless fiddling, I couldn't get 3D
>>> acceleration to work. (Actually producing a picture didn't require any
>>> special attention at all.)
>> 
>> Yes.  *Used* to be.  Not anymore.
> 
> When last I heard, all the nVidia and ATi offerings for Linux were a
> half-empty token gesture. I'd be surprised if they seriously changed
> their minds about it... but stranger things have happened.

Well, I've only got a laptop in front of me with an NVidia chipset and a 
second one with an ATI chipset in it, and both work flawlessly with 
acceleration enabled.  Am I imagining it?  I don't *think* so. ;-)

>>> OK, to be completely clear: It booted, but X wouldn't run.
>> 
>> That's quite different from "the Linux partition was non-bootable",
>> which is almost a direct quote of what you originally said.  X not
>> running is something that used to be an issue with a kernel update. 
>> It's rare now.
> 
> I didn't do anything to the kernel - I changed the graphics card. And
> witout X, I have *no idea* how to configure X. (Well, without
> reinstalling anyway. And that's so much bother...)

XF86Config used to be the way to do it.  And it actually wouldn't run (at 
least as I recall) if X was running - it required text mode.

> OpenSUSE has fixed this; you can now run the configuration tools in
> text-mode.

Text mode X11 configuration apps have been around for a while, longer 
than sax2, in fact.

>>> (E.g., klogic. It does almost exactly what I want. But it doesn't
>>> *work* properly. It randomly segfaults, and sometimes it GIVES YOU THE
>>> WRONG ANSWER. It's also fiddly to use for no good reason.)
>> 
>> And did you submit bugs against this, or did you just say "this thing
>> doesn't work" to yourself and go somewhere else.
> 
> Well, without an Internet connection, how am I going to file a bug?

You still don't have an Internet connection?  How did you obtain the 
Linux installation in the first place?

>>> Anyway, how much *commercial* software (such as big-budget games) are
>>> there for Linux?
>> 
>> Ever hear of Cedega?  Transgaming?  Loki Games?
> 
> Nope.

That doesn't mean they didn't (or don't, in the case of Loki) exist.  
Don't buy into the FUD that says "there's absolutely no gaming available 
on Linux AT ALL" and take it for the gospel truth.

>> If I can find a quality OSS solution for no cost, why would I look to a
>> commercial application?
> 
> There *is* that of course. ;-)

And the way the economy is going around the world, OSS applications are 
going to become more and more pervasive because of their low buy-in 
cost.  Start learning more about it and assume *nothing*.

>>> It's news to me that *anything* works under WINE yet. (But then,
>>> admittedly it's not something I follow closely. If I want to run
>>> Windows software, I just run Windows...)
>> 
>> Go and look at the Wine AppDB.  The list of supported apps is
>> significant.
> 
> Mmm, that's impressive. (Given that what Wine does should be impossible
> in the first place...)

Why should it be impossible?  Reverse engineering isn't impossible work, 
it's been done for hundreds of years.

If you see a finished Lego Technics car and have no instructions, do you 
assume nobody could ever build that same car again, even if they have the 
ability to take the one that's there apart?  Same thing applies to 
software engineering and identifying the inputs/outputs of functions.  
It's time consuming, but time consuming != impossible.

>>> Of course, it depends what you're trying to do with your PC...
>> 
>> Exactly.  And that's part of the reason why the approach of saying what
>> you said that got me started is the wrong approach.
> 
> Hmm. OK, now I'm confused. :-}

Mission accomplished! ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:22:31 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> Go and look at the Wine AppDB.  The list of supported apps is
>> significant.  Which reminds me, I need to try running Framemaker 8
>> under it.  One less reason to run Windows in a VMware session.
> 
> 	Significant and impressive. However, chances are that if you have 
a
> well known big budget game and want to get it running under Wine, it
> likely won't work.

There are better chances now that it will than ever before.  And if you 
go for Cedega (or Transgaming, or whatever they're calling themselves 
now), they've expanded the supported function calls so there's actually a 
very good chance it *will* work.

Jim

Post a reply to this message