|
 |
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:58:49 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Actually I'm pretty sure when I first tried RedHat, XF86Config would
> produce a config file but X11 still wouldn't actually run, I had to go
> in with Vi and made some crucial change. (I forget what exactly.) And
> then I had to reboot the PC to get out of Vi. :-P
>
> But then, that was *waaaay* back in the days when you needed to know
> which RAMDAC your graphics card uses and the vertical sync frequency of
> your monitor. Thankfully, the Linux install process usually figures that
> out automatically now. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any way
> to make it re-figure-that-out when you change something afterwards. :-(
Yeah, that's the way it used to be back in the dark ages. :-)
>>> 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.
>
> ...which is of no help whatsoever if you can't *find* them.
http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=x11+text+mode+configuration
:-)
>>>>> (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?
>
> Mail order.
>
> You remember? That thin that existed before the Internet became popular?
I still have some discs from it - the 'net was popular, but broadband
wasn't. Walnut Creek CD-ROMs. :-)
I still get them on DVDs, in fact - from Linux Format magazine (out of
the UK).
> (Actually, at the time I tried out klogic, we *did* have an Internet
> connection, but I didn't even bother to *attempt* to make it work under
> Linux. Making the "simple" stuff work was hard enough...)
Well, then, there's really no excuse for not submitting bugs, is
there? ;-)
>> 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.
>
> I didn't say "none", I said "not much", which would seem a fair
> assessment. (Isn't there some dealy called Tux Racer or something now?)
Tux Racer has been around for dog's ages (the last *update* is 7 years
ago, in fact). "Not much" isn't a good assessment unless you've bought
into the FUD.
> Weirdly, almost all of Valve's games run on Linux - or rather, the GAME
> SERVER runs on Linux. The clients are Windows-only. (In fairness, what
> does a game server do? It sends and receives UPD datagrams. Can't be
> *that* hard to port it. Drawing 3D graphics is another matter...)
Not if you use a crossplatform library like openGL or Mesa. Plenty of
people write games that use those libraries.
>>> 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.
>
> Right. Because a Lego Technics car is of similar complexity to the
> Windows operating system. Sure. So you've got several GB of data, and
> you can only pick apart a few dozen bytes of it per day. Sure, shouldn't
> take long. Much like given a large enough group of monkeys, one of them
> is *sure* to type the complete works of Shakespear eventually...
It's not about the complexity, it's about the concept. And the tools.
> Besides, I was under the distinct impression that it's *illegal* to
> reverse-engineer Windows. And that its implementation is covered by
> several billion patents precisely to prevent anybody ever making
> something compatible with it, for that matter.
Reverse-engineering is not generally illegal. There are specific
techniques used in reverse-engineering to make sure you don't include
patented code or whatnot - like "clean room" reverse engineering.
In that, you have one team that determines the specs (within software,
this would be the inputs and outputs of function calls). You compile a
specification for those functions.
Then you turn the specifications over to a second team that has not
looked at the code for the original and have them reimplement it.
That's how we ended up with clone PCs - clean room reverse engineering of
IBM's BIOS.
Have a look at WINE's FAQ about Windows patents and whatnot. You'll
learn a lot.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Sure. So you've got several GB of data, and
> you can only pick apart a few dozen bytes of it per day.
Except you have reams and reams of documentation telling you what each
function does, what arguments it takes, and so on. Way easier than writing a
virus.
> Besides, I was under the distinct impression that it's *illegal* to
> reverse-engineer Windows.
Probably not. IANAL, but the last lawsuit I looked at in the USA, if you
copyright the code, then someone else can reverse engineer 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
|
|
