SGI: Discussion

sybrfreq wrote: I do enjoy using the gimp, but more than half of the time it will crash while saving or loading a file especially when running on windows.

Don't get PhotoShop. It's as bad or worse.

Software is crap.

Most of the time I just use it to crop or scale a picture.

I do that in imgview but irfanview works pretty well on Windows for that type of thing.

A 900mhz o2/indy? Wouldn't the bottleneck just be shifted to somewhere else?

Of course, but the bottleneck would be moved up the hill to a faster spot

hamei wrote: We need a decent browser. All the users of older hardware need a decent browser. This is the largest, most pressing need for anyone with slower hardware, yet we get Fireflop 3 and nothing but lies from the Fireflop group.

There is no easter bunny

I would argue we need a new internet! With all the adds, shit video and pop-ups, it's just one big flippin' advertising cesspit.

I still believe to this day that if code was optimised and shitty routines weren't the norm things would run as well on 1/10th speed machines. Bring back the 90's!

I use Maya 2011, the only good thing that's happened since version 6 is the implementation of QT interface...the rest if bloat. (I also use AutoCAD 2010...It's all shit! What the hell has changed in 10 years?!)

I have little belief in Open Source, the principle is all very saintly, but for a daily desktop machine the hodge-podge of apps is just embarrassing. (Based on my ArchLinux experience)

Back to my beer!

hamei wrote: The open source movement is a joke and a fraud. It has produced a few decent programs but in the greater scheme of things, it's just another pipe dream. That doesn't mean that commercial programs are necessarily better but at least we know they are out for nothing but themselves. Open source is a disappointment because the people writing it are selfish, ignorant fools claiming to be altrruistic, careful craftsmen.

I think that to paint open source software as a fraud and to claim that the people working on open source projects are selfish, ignorant fools is quite overreaching. There are many software packages which are open-source but developed almost entirely by a commercial entity - how are these products inferior to their closed-source commercial counterparts?

Yes, many open-source software projects suck - in my experience, they suck generally due to a lack of the centralized organization and vision that comes in a commercial environment with a real management group. Firefox v. Chrome and WebKit are a prime example - all are open-source in every sense, but in the few years that Chrome/WebKit have been developed they've leapfrogged Firefox in many arenas due to strong management and backing from large software companies, while Firefox struggles with a broken development process.

There are plenty of programmers working on open-source projects who are being paid to do so, many by large, traditional software companies, and many of these people do not claim to be altruistic but yet are also not selfish or ignorant fools. Yes, there are a few selfish, ignorant, and sadly extremely vocal fools in the open-source software world - just like any field! There are also thousands of people who have contributed to open-source software who are excellent programmers - and you may never hear from them since they're coding instead of whining on the internet.

pilot345 wrote:

though with both of them you could do a 900MHz Indy and who knows what with the Octane

this a real possibility? This would be a fun thing to see

You'd need hardware specs and ARCS source. ChicagoJoe has said that it's a possibility for O2 with only ARCS source. Sadly, the suspicion is that ARCS is bound up with Microsoft, who is ideologically opposed to releasing anything that is either open or free (unless the "free" is a temporary aberration to help them take over a new market).

hamei wrote: We need a decent browser. All the users of older hardware need a decent browser. This is the largest, most pressing need for anyone with slower hardware, yet we get Fireflop 3 and nothing but lies from the Fireflop group.

So…who wants to help port WebKit to FLTK?

Anyone tried to compile NetSurf recently for Irix?

At least the new development builds are very fast on my IYONIX. The speed has really increased compared to early builds, and it is generally very useable on most pages even with a relatively slow ARM processor.

pilot345 wrote: this a real possibility? ...

No.

SGI told me categorically the PROM source will not be released.

Ian.

mapesdhs wrote:

pilot345 wrote: this a real possibility? ...

No.

SGI told me categorically the PROM source will not be released.

Ian.

When was this? Did they give you a reason?

mapesdhs wrote: SGI told me categorically the PROM source will not be released.

That was before we made them an offer they couldn't refuse ....

evil ppc wrote: When was this? Did they give you a reason?

June last year:



Time to quit wasting energy on this IMO and move on to other things. I'd much rather see a decent port of Firefox 3 for IRIX atm
than a CPU bump.

Ian.

mapesdhs wrote:

Code: Select all

In response to your request to release the prom code, our position is
unchanged. Similar to Intel's treatment of PAL as a micro-architecture
extension of their processor, SGI manages PROM source as strictly
proprietary and any release to the public domain is not an option.


Umm, there's a few key words in there that you seem to have missed - "public domain" being the most significant. I'm not saying they should or would but allowing a qualified person or even an SGI insider to modify the PROM to permit a 900 mhz cpu to operate does not even resemble "release into the public domain."

I'd much rather see a decent port of Firefox 3 for IRIX atm than a CPU bump.

All of use would certainly like to see a quality browser running on Irix but whether that would be Frieflop, that's a different question. IMNSHO Fireflop 3 is pig shit and we should look for something better as a starting point. But as a viable project, a decent browser should be doable. Phoenix started from less.

hamei wrote: Umm, there's a few key words in there that you seem to have missed - "public domain" being the most significant. I'm not saying they should or would but allowing a qualified person or even an SGI insider to modify the PROM to permit a 900 mhz cpu to operate does not even resemble "release into the public domain."

You're picking at straws. It's not going to happen, move on.

Seems to be way too many people choose to believe that somehow this can be done purely because they wish for it to be possible.
Wizard's First Rule: people will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or they're afraid it's true (in this case the former).
I love those books...

Yes, it would be great if we could have the PROM source. I've asked numerous SGI people many times, the answer has always been
no, and the aforementioned reply was from the CEO; high up enough for you?

Btw, the IRIX people have basically all gone now anyway, as have all the O2 dev machines. There's no way it can be done now IMO.
The O2 people pretty much all moved on mere days after the system launched, switched to the 320 project or elsewhere.


> All of use would certainly like to see a quality browser running on Irix but whether that would be Frieflop, that's a different question.
> IMNSHO Fireflop 3 is pig shit and we should look for something better as a starting point. But as a viable project, a decent browser
> should be doable. Phoenix started from less.

I want to use a browser that's recognised and validated by the numerous web sites that matter, eg. online banking. I see no reason
why Firefox3 can't be ported, unless there are issues with the dependent libs which make it too difficult on SGIs. I don't know, this
isn't my field. I'm already using Firefox3 on my PC, looks perfectly fine to me. It certainly isn't pig-whatever. I like it.

Ian.

On the topic of IRIX browsers..

I've been using konqueror/khtml recently, and I quite enjoy it. It seems to work
fast enough under IRIX, the konqueror interface is much more responsive than firefox.
Plus the rendering is much easier on the eyes. Granted the feature set isn't as robust,
and it doesnt load some pages as well, but its light and fast.

WebKit for apple's safari browser, is a fork of khtml correct? What are the chances
of webkit working for us ? I saw a mention of it not compiling, back in the browser thread
but it didnt go into details of why. Webkit has allready proven portable to many other platforms,
but I wouldnt really know what that means for irix, hence why I ask.

I guess theres also gtk interfaces to Gecko, projects such as galeon, skipstone etc.. but they are
still bogged down by our favorite firefox engine.

mapesdhs wrote: I'm already using Firefox3 on my PC, looks perfectly fine to me. It certainly isn't pig-whatever. I like it.

For a pig shit operating system such as Windows it's quite suitable. For Irix, it most certainly is pig shit.

1.) The fireflop people insisted on using gtk2. Gtk2 is crap, especially on older hardware that doesn't have the horsepower to voercome the garbage software.

2) It's fundamentally garbage. Any non-trivial program in a multi-tasking environment needs to be multi-threaded with one thread listening for operator input and the rest running the program. In the case of a browser, there should be at least one thread for every tab. Sitting there locked out of the interface because other pages are loading is total crap and it's been total crap for at least fifteen years. These people couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions written on the heel.

3) Memory management - 'nuff said. That thing is trash.

4) Those dodos do not know what they are doing. Look through Dexter1's thread on the basic fundamental flaws in their programming. Plus the smarmy bastards refuse to listen to competent relevant criticism. So much for the thousand hands thousand hearts spew.

5) What is with all the stinking stupid Mommy's Little Helpmate popups ? Phoenix was born as a need to strip down and remove the excess crap from Mozilla. Then people fell in love with the lean mean machine so the poor widdow Mozilla Foundation, instead of listening to what people actually want, found it necessary to co-opt the program people liked and destroy that. Not only do we not need all that trash running in the background, we cannot afford it on 600 mhz, non-integer-optimized cpus.

The entire thing is pig shit. The people are pig shit, concerned with the "market share" of a free program rather than the quality.. It's a stupid bumblebee and our computers don't have the metabolism to make that work.

evil ppc wrote:

mapesdhs wrote:

pilot345 wrote: this a real possibility? ...

No.

SGI told me categorically the PROM source will not be released.

Ian.

When was this? Did they give you a reason?

There very likely are NDAs from other companies at play here - that would be a very good reason for SGI not being able to release anything.