gamedevlists-linux

Re: [GD-Linux] ANN: Candy Cruncher for Linux shipped

[Mark C. <me...@th...>]

On Thursday 28 February 2002 9:23 pm, Steve Baker wrote:
> I think the issue is/was whether the game itself was statically linked to
> GTK. That would presumably be contary to the LGPL rules.
>
> I dunno - he just asked you a perfectly reasonable question - it wasn't an
> accusation.  I just don't think that's a reason to get into the whole "Why
> the heck should we support Linux when people just complain" thing.

Thanks Steve...

Seeing as I'm going through The Book From Hell right now, I can quickly look 
at the LGPL (see, the 10% of licenses does have a use *grin*), and it forbids 
linking against closed source applications, and section 4 is the relevent 
clause here (you must include machine readable source with the distrobution), 
or offer equivilent access.

Ryan informed us that the installer is statically linked, and as there is no 
note informing us about where to get the GTK source, this is a violation. 
It's not a major one, but there are probably some people out there who will 
make a big deal about it (I'm not, I was just trying to make you aware of a 
potential problem, which you took personally).
 
I didn't intend to start a flamewar here (first time for everything, I 
guess), I was just trying to be helpful, and offer some constructibe 
criticisism (sp?)

--- 
===
Mark 'Nurgle' Collins
Lead Author - Linux Game Programming (Premiere Press)
Author - Advanced AI Game Development (WordWare)
Email: me...@th...	Phone: +44 7761 774 152
Email: nu...@is...	Spam: sp...@th...

[GD-Linux] Comparing thread implementations

[Brian H. <ho...@py...>]

I'm trying to do some basic research on the relative performance=
 of 
threading implementations of the various like-Unix operating=
 systems. 
 There's a lot of conventional wisdom out there that Linux's 
threading implementation sucks, and that both Solaris and Irix=
 have 
significantly superior implementations.

Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of "ifs/ands/buts" on this=
 
(e.g. Solaris on x86 may or may not be good; Irix is dying; Linux=
 2.6 
kernel might address this; OS X's implementation is unknown but 
likely related to FreeBSD; FreeBSD 5.0 might address this; yadda=
 
yadda yadda), and some light Googling hasn't netted me any really=
 
comprehensive information that isn't woefully out of date or too=
 
forward thinking (the next version of [insert OS] will be=
 better!).

So, does anyone know the state of thread support on these=
 operating 
systems or can someone point to a decent analysis of the relative=
 
pros/cons.  An entry level 1U Sparc server is only $1000, and=
 used 
Irix boxes aren't too horribly expensive, so I think cost isn't=
 going 
to be that big a factor.

Thanks,

-Hook

Re: [GD-Linux] Comparing thread implementations

[Parveen K. <pk...@al...>]

On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 15:02, Brian Hook wrote:
> I'm trying to do some basic research on the relative performance of=20
> threading implementations of the various like-Unix operating systems.=20
>  There's a lot of conventional wisdom out there that Linux's=20
> threading implementation sucks, and that both Solaris and Irix have=20
> significantly superior implementations.
>=20

There are two issues here.  Creating threads and switching between
threads.  The new scheduler and pthread library is supposed to help.
http://kerneltrap.org/node.php?id=3D422

For some anecdotal, non-scientific impressions.  My friend and I both
run Gentoo boxes with comparable processors and RAM.  Gentoo provides
2.4 kernel sources with the new scheduler patched in.  I use the new
scheduler my friend does not.  I don't have to fool around with nice and
renice when I'm compiling apps in the background.  KDE is still
responsive when top claims that the CPU is running at 100%.

However, this is on the desktop and I get the impression that you will
be using this box as a server.

> So, does anyone know the state of thread support on these operating=20
> systems or can someone point to a decent analysis of the relative=20
> pros/cons.  An entry level 1U Sparc server is only $1000, and used=20
> Irix boxes aren't too horribly expensive, so I think cost isn't going=20
> to be that big a factor.

Apache claims that they can fill a 10Mbps connection with something
ridiculously slow as a P133.  But you'll need something faster if you're
gonna use php, perl or something else.

Being in the game industry, there are advantages in choosing Linux.  You
can run UT and Quake servers.

Sorry, that I couldn't be more helpful.  What services are you wanting
to run?

PK
pk...@al...
http://www.sfu.ca/~pkaler

Re: [GD-Linux] ANN: Candy Cruncher for Linux shipped

[Steve B. <sjb...@ai...>]

"Ryan C. Gordon" wrote:
> 
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a violation of the LGPL (statically
> > linking the libs, that is)? Having a quick look at the stuff I downloaded,
> > there is no mention of Loki Setup or the GTK libs....
> 
> It would be a violation if the installer wasn't open source in the first
> place.
> 
> > I'm pretty sure a quick link added somewhere would rememdy the situation
> > though....
> 
> There is no situation.
> 
> There's the other problem with Linux development, while I'm ranting;
> everyone is always looking to pick a fight over something.

Well, to be fair, if it looks like there might be a GPL infringement,
it is reasonable to ask (politely) whether there is a real problem...
which is what Mark did.

The alternative is to either ignore potential infringements (in which
case we might as not *have* licenses) - or to wait until the game is
wildly popular and *then* start bringing in the lawyers and getting nasty
about it.

I think a polite request for clarification was perfectly in order.

Just imagine what would happen if Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft thought you
were violating one of their IP rights!  It would be a lot more than
a polite request for information!


----------------------------- Steve Baker -------------------------------
Mail : <sjb...@ai...>   WorkMail: <sj...@li...>
URLs : http://www.sjbaker.org
       http://plib.sf.net http://tuxaqfh.sf.net http://tuxkart.sf.net
       http://prettypoly.sf.net http://freeglut.sf.net
       http://toobular.sf.net   http://lodestone.sf.net