Linux/Mac Wine/Crossover Headcount

[Omutb]

Not to mention that you can release your own code as both GPL AND licensed closed source.

eg GPL for "non-commercial use" only, everyone else having to license it.

[Vhax]

Ahh, the old story. Static Linkage and LGPL^^.
This is an ongoing issue. If you where strict about it, a library using LGPL would not be allowed to use templates since the code for them is generated at compiletime. No way to link a template dynamic. QT has an excpetion for that included to the LGPL. But there are a lot of discussions around this issue and so far, non has come out with a clear "no static linkage allowed" so far.
Well okay, maybe it is some sort of minefield, but that lies in the nature of LGPL itself.
Well, how should a lawyer know about templates .
regards

Guess I was too late when editing that into my post , you already hit the reply button.

I generally play this on the safe side.
But yes, I could see how this is not a particular legally risky step to take.

[Siyra]

They're to be blamed when their code makes itself look like a trojan.

But they didn't.

Certainly my AV never found any issue with the file, upon downloading it, installing it, or a separate scan after that, or in the continuous system scans it does daily since then.

So how, if they made it look like a trojan, does it not come up as one?

Oh sure you could say that my AV sucks, because only good ones warn you about it; but then look at the AVs those people reporting issues are using.. ya, a fair few have had "known issues" and are good at returning false positives.

I've had an AV scanner claim that itself was a virus, does that mean it's a virus or a good AV? Or just bad code where someone 'forgot' to write the authentication properly? (being a free/cheap AV; poorly coded)

[matmos]

Snow Leopard. can't play

[Zeephonz]

Snow Leopard. can't play

Snow Leopard / Bootcamp. can play

[Demoder]

PS: To follow your argumentation technique, GNU/Linux stole that command line format from UNIX. Why doesn't GNU/Linux run native UNIX binaries?

The --double-dash --sentence-style of command line switch is a GNU standard, not a POSIX one. Linux makes itself compliant with POSIX by having -x -o type switches supported as well. In case you're not aware, GNU are one of the founding members of the FSF as well as a party carrying huge responsibility for founding Linux that we know today. They're also the originator for the GPL and its variants.

I said that the statement you quoted would be along Xyphos' level of argumentation. I guess you proved me right. Thank you.

Someone should poke Xyphos into linking this bug ticket in the OP, and ask people to vote for it, to speed up the process of fixing the issue you're all experiencing.

[Voriuste]

They're to be blamed when their code makes itself look like a trojan.

Well, apparently you have no clue how anti virus software works, or how developing software works for that matter... Just sayin'...

[Voriuste]

4) when I ran a command-line viewer for when AO launches the awesom EXE, I noticed that all of the command-line arguments are in linux-style
eg, --enable-this-option which I think is a blatent mockery indeed, for something that "only supports windows"

Sorry to disappoint you, but even Microsoft has given up on / for params in newer applications, defaulting instead to - style used in POSIX platforms.

Case in point:

Usage: netsh [-a AliasFile] [-c Context] [-r RemoteMachine] [-u [DomainName\]Use
rName] [-p Password | *]
[Command | -f ScriptFile]

Try it on the next Windows 7 box you're on (Although I think it's the same on XP even, but I really can't be bothered firing up a virtual machine to test just that).

imho, it would have been better to instead run the EXE as a thread from within the DLL, rather then as a seprate process, if the thread crashed, it could be restarted without effecting anything, and virus scanners would not be deleting important application Dependantcies.

Nope, if anti virus software detects something, it will axe an entire process. If it crashes, 9 times out of 10, it'll axe the entire process - why you say? Oh, I have error handling, It wont crash as long as I catch an error. Well, think for a minute, by running in a thread, you're in the same address space as every other thread in the process, so that thread is free to munge whatever data it sees fit.

**** anti virus software isn't the blame of the developer whose software is wrongly identified, its the blame of the **** anti virus software, that's it.

[Voriuste]

I did some homework;
1) awsom DLL in the SDK that you link your application to is only 9mb.
2) the one AO ships with now, is 20mb.
which means, funcom has purposely modified the SDK's version of the DLL somehow, and it crashes when ran in WINE/Crossover.

Hey, just sayin', but the version AO uses is Awesomium v1.6 RC1... The versions on their website are v1.6 RC2, v1.5 and v1.5.1. So yes, they are different versions... Plus there's the ovbious debug build/release build/different compiler (Are you using the VS2005 version?), etc

I realised just how many posts I'm starting to make here, so going to edit this one instead.

Ok, back to you again Hacre.

It's also worth noting that the wintard trolls should realise there are a great many components to Windows that wouldn't exist without *nix. Like the current TCP/IP stack, the kernel/driver/UI model, etc.

I know you're Linux loving, but hey, lets put that aside for a moment. The TCP/IP stack came from BSD, the kernel/driver model is their own (Go look up the NT Kernel, its a hybrid kernel, Linux is monolithic, as is BSD, and the other traditional UNIXes - and GNU Mach is a microkernel just in case you decide to pull that one on it).

As for the UI, try Apple for that one...



Regarding source, check out https://github.com/pathorn/awesomium and/or http://forum.quest3d.com/index.php?topic=67161.45 which have source for the old versions of Awesomium which used to be released under the GPL.

[Voriuste]

3) moreover, the AwsomeProcess.exe isn't part of the SDK so that's another one of Funcom's doings, and Macrosun stated in IRC it was "to keep things isolated" even if the EXE is flagged and deleted as a virus.

Ok, now you're just retarded.

I had a closer look at the SDK... awesomium_v1.6_rc2_sdk_msvc8.zip\build\bin\debug\A wesomiumProcess.exe is what I found...

I mean, really? I'd give you an F for this homework, go back and do it again. Come back to me tomorrow with your fixed homework.

[Lupusceleri]

I know you're Linux loving, but hey, lets put that aside for a moment. The TCP/IP stack came from BSD, the kernel/driver model is their own (Go look up the NT Kernel, its a hybrid kernel, Linux is monolithic, as is BSD, and the other traditional UNIXes - and GNU Mach is a microkernel just in case you decide to pull that one on it).

As for the UI, try Apple for that one...



Regarding source, check out https://github.com/pathorn/awesomium and/or http://forum.quest3d.com/index.php?topic=67161.45 which have source for the old versions of Awesomium which used to be released under the GPL.

1) He said *nixes, BSD is a UNIX variant.
2) And where did Apple get it from? Xerox, make sure to check out page 4 too which says "Steve Jobs himself became a convert to the GUI religion when his employees arranged a grand tour for him of the PARC facility".
3) Only having the old source available, still means the current version is closed source... who knows what changes were made without looking into the code?

[Hacre]

I know you're Linux loving, but hey, lets put that aside for a moment. The TCP/IP stack came from BSD, the kernel/driver model is their own (Go look up the NT Kernel, its a hybrid kernel, Linux is monolithic, as is BSD, and the other traditional UNIXes - and GNU Mach is a microkernel just in case you decide to pull that one on it).

As for the UI, try Apple for that one...

Lupus already dealt with this, but just to add, yeah, I said *nix not just Linux, I'm aware that the TCP/IP model is from BSD, it's the same one that the Linux stack is based on. The NT kernel was a rip off on IBM's idea for the OS/2 kernel. I say rip off rather than outright steal, since MS were collaborating on the early versions of OS/2. The HAL came straight from OS/2 and the idea of being able to drop a kernel onto any hardware with a minor driver change came from.....Unix!

As for the GUI, yeah, Xerox, not Apple. Go read about GEM.

[Voriuste]

Lupus already dealt with this, but just to add, yeah, I said *nix not just Linux, I'm aware that the TCP/IP model is from BSD, it's the same one that the Linux stack is based on. The NT kernel was a rip off on IBM's idea for the OS/2 kernel. I say rip off rather than outright steal, since MS were collaborating on the early versions of OS/2. The HAL came straight from OS/2 and the idea of being able to drop a kernel onto any hardware with a minor driver change came from.....Unix!

As for the GUI, yeah, Xerox, not Apple. Go read about GEM.

Yes, I'm aware that *NIX is Linux, but does AO run on those *NIX's? Or just the one you care about, Linux? So your point is kinda moot is what I was getting at.

As for MS ripping off IBM? They were working together on it, so it's as much of Microsoft's idea as IBM's. And OS/2 is closer to DOS than it is to traditional *NIX's...

As for GUI, sure, Xerox, was Xerox's *NIX like? Not really... So the point still stands, not from *NIX.

Lupusceleri - See above for responses to 1 and 2, as for 3, yes I'm aware of this, I was just posting it in case anyone was curious, not to try and say it wasn't currently closed source or to make a point.

Thanks Lupusceleri for helping test, will have to install Wine on a linux box I think. Looks like Awesomium isn't the only issue, seems the new input system might not like Wine as well...

[Lupusceleri]

Yes, I'm aware that *NIX is Linux, but does AO run on those *NIX's? Or just the one you care about, Linux? So your point is kinda moot is what I was getting at.

Wine runs on other *NIXes such as BSD variants:

http://www.winehq.org/download

so yeah.

[Hacre]

Yes, I'm aware that *NIX is Linux, but does AO run on those *NIX's? Or just the one you care about, Linux? So your point is kinda moot is what I was getting at.

As for MS ripping off IBM? They were working together on it, so it's as much of Microsoft's idea as IBM's. And OS/2 is closer to DOS than it is to traditional *NIX's...

As for GUI, sure, Xerox, was Xerox's *NIX like? Not really... So the point still stands, not from *NIX.

Lupusceleri - See above for responses to 1 and 2, as for 3, yes I'm aware of this, I was just posting it in case anyone was curious, not to try and say it wasn't currently closed source or to make a point.

Thanks Lupusceleri for helping test, will have to install Wine on a linux box I think. Looks like Awesomium isn't the only issue, seems the new input system might not like Wine as well...

What the hell has Xerox got to do with being nix like? You mentioned Apple being the GUI people, they weren't. No one said GUIs were "nix like" what does that even mean? A GUI is a GUI is a GUI, it has a mouse cursor, may or may not have windows, etc.

As for being closer to DOS, I didn't realise DOS invented the CLI. Don't let the fact that OS/2 used drive letters confuse you now.

[MajorOutage]

Yes, I'm aware that *NIX is Linux, but does AO run on those *NIX's? Or just the one you care about, Linux? So your point is kinda moot is what I was getting at.

With a statement like that, I think you should just stop talking. You're obviously pretty clueless about the topic at hand. Loosely speaking, when it comes to software *NIX is *NIX. Even if there isn't an available binary that would work in your particular environment, it's usually easy enough to grab the source code and compile a version that will.

Kinda funny, I was talking with a friend the other day who was setting up Portage under OSX.

[forumfroob]

I love how quickly this thread devolved into a e-peen contest over who knows more about random *nix factoids and history

Would troll again++

P.S. I think Linux just copied everything from Windows because Windows is clearly superior in every way shape and form. Am I doing it right?


























Don't worry, I'm kidding. I love you nerdy penguins. I can feel you raging at your monitor as we speak.

[Vhax]

I can understand why people are upset and angry they can no longer play on Wine.

However, what I can not understand is the anger towards Funcom and even the claims Funcom is intentionally making Awesomium unable to run on Wine and appear as a virus.

What could they possibly gain from doing this?
The whole situation is an unfortunate string of events.

Yes, it is likely FC modified Awesomium for their needs, but so did CCP.
I recall quite a blog post on how much CCP had to modify Awesomium.

And in that regard, does the unmodified Awesomium run on Wine even?
Is anyone blaming FC actually sure it's FC's modifications that prevent it from running on Wine.

Additionally, for the anger directed to Awesomium, please name another commercially available library that accomplishes the same thing?
You'll find that browser engines ready to integrate into a game are particularly hard to find.
Would you have preferred FC spent 2 years developing such browser entirely in-house?

Take a step back, is all this anger being thrown onto the forums really justified and not entirely misdirected?

[Voriuste]

However, what I can not understand is the anger towards Funcom and even the claims Funcom is intentionally making Awesomium unable to run on Wine and appear as a virus.

QFT

What the hell has Xerox got to do with being nix like? You mentioned Apple being the GUI people, they weren't. No one said GUIs were "nix like" what does that even mean? A GUI is a GUI is a GUI, it has a mouse cursor, may or may not have windows, etc.

As for being closer to DOS, I didn't realise DOS invented the CLI. Don't let the fact that OS/2 used drive letters confuse you now.

It's also worth noting that the wintard trolls should realise there are a great many components to Windows that wouldn't exist without *nix. Like the current TCP/IP stack, the kernel/driver/UI model, etc.

Well, just there you were claiming *NIX is where Windows stole their idea for a UI from. I pointed out it was Apple, you then pointed out Xerox had it prior to apple. Then I pointed out that yes, you were correct, Xerox was prior, but my original point that the UI didn't come from *NIX still stands... I guess you lost track of the conversation a little...

Regarding OS/2 being closer to dos is that it was originally designed to be a successor to DOS, system calls are modelled after DOS system calls, etc. Ie, OS/2 is in no way shape or form even remotely close to *NIX, so you cant claim Windows got its kernel/driver model from *NIX either, as OS/2 - where it came from - is _NOT_ *NIX.

Remember the conversation now?

Edit:

With a statement like that, I think you should just stop talking. You're obviously pretty clueless about the topic at hand. Loosely speaking, when it comes to software *NIX is *NIX. Even if there isn't an available binary that would work in your particular environment, it's usually easy enough to grab the source code and compile a version that will.

Kinda funny, I was talking with a friend the other day who was setting up Portage under OSX.

Eh, I'm not sure what your justification for calling me clueless is, I run multiple Gentoo, FreeBSD, Ubuntu, Debian and (unfortunately) CentOS servers both as a hobby, and for a living. Just because source is available, doesn't mean it will run on it, and you'll run into problems with hardware compatibility, especially with hardware accelerated 3d graphics, when running on non-Linux *NIX's. But hey, I'm clueless right, running a package manager from Gentoo on OSX is exactly the same as running hardware accelerated 3d graphics with an ATi card through a binary ABI compatability layer and PE loader on Solaris .

It was also in reference to Hacre's GNU/Linux loving earlier.

[Hacre]

Well, just there you were claiming *NIX is where Windows stole their idea for a UI from. I pointed out it was Apple, you then pointed out Xerox had it prior to apple. Then I pointed out that yes, you were correct, Xerox was prior, but my original point that the UI didn't come from *NIX still stands... I guess you lost track of the conversation a little...

Regarding OS/2 being closer to dos is that it was originally designed to be a successor to DOS, system calls are modelled after DOS system calls, etc. Ie, OS/2 is in no way shape or form even remotely close to *NIX, so you cant claim Windows got its kernel/driver model from *NIX either, as OS/2 - where it came from - is _NOT_ *NIX.

Remember the conversation now?

Oh I see, you were confused by an earlier answer.

Kernel/Driver/UI model, as in:

Kernel
v
Driver
v
UI

as in the model where the kernel can be slid out and another one be slid in, independent of drivers, USER INTERFACE (user interface, you know, the input end of the OS, this is not to say the invention of the GUI).

Oh and OS/2 was a hell of a lot closer to Unix than DOS, DOS itself being based on things like CP/M which were inspired by Unix, the "C prompt" (or A prompt as it was originally) coming about because someone preferred assigning letters to drives rather than mount points.