Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
HHS wrote:
No, hard links are not defined in the FAT specification.
Yes, but it's still supported. Not to say the support is any good ;)
As for those functions, it needs NT 6+. However it is still possible to do it on older versions.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
For instance, did you know that NTFS and the Windows kernel support hard and soft links? Show me where, in a standard Windows installation, you can create them.
Did you know that FAT supports hard links and that all the standard partition integrity scanners will delete them because that shouldn't happen?
You can also IIRC create the hard and soft links using rundll with some obscure parameters.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Xkeeper wrote:
I use Windows XP. Been using it for 3 years here with no major problems, no reinstalls, and a total of 2 bluescreens (even with about 90% uptime over those years).
No bizarre slowdown or other crap, and I run a ton of shit all the time. Maybe you're doing it wrong?
Which part was done wrong? Installing Windows XP off the CD?
Xkeeper wrote:
Linux is nothing but a massive headache of trying to get part X to work with part Y and having to remember a billion different commands for fixing something that is a menu option in Windows.
Not if everything works fine right after the install, which is usually the case nowadays, at least on the last 5 installs I did.
Xkeeper wrote:
Better hope that your compiler is working properly and that you don't have a catch-22 dependency issue, since nobody fucking provides binaries!
I as a rule don't compile anyone's software but my own. Haven't had a problem yet. What were you testing? Gentoo?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
Nach wrote:
Bisqwit wrote:
"Any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the word as is possible."
Citation needed. Why would you assume that?
For clarity, the quote was from the questionaire I was responding to.
As for my opinion, in my post, I did not either explicitly or implicitly indicate how I answered to that claim.
So I can only assume that your question is not addressed to me.
It was not addressed to you.
It is a common misconception that I see.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
"Any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the word as is possible."
Citation needed.
Why would you assume that?
In fact, since suffering was created, the opposite must in fact be true, that any amount of suffering experienced is desired.
Let me also relate to you a true story I read in a book about a philosopher and one of his students.
The student asked: "Do you believe the creator manages the world as best as possible?", to which the master responded in the affirmative.
The student then asked: "So if you had the ability to see all and make any changes you deemed necessary, as the creator can, what would you change about the world?"
The master responded: "If I had all those same capabilities that the creator had, and had the chance to be the creator and manager of the world and change whatever I saw fit, I would not change a single thing from how the world is currently managed, as I would have the same knowledge as well."
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Johannes wrote:
FSF wrote:
Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the cost.
Actually we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on.
Yes, and please explain to me a working business model that is easy to pull off with their system?
Every company which I've seen that makes money off of "free software" does so by selling support, or allowing the use of the software in a non free environment, or really selling the hardware it comes on.
Their model basically means you really can't have a sustainable business solely off the software you create. You can show me all the papers you write that may suggest that it should be possible, but in practice, it isn't, and their ideals are more communist.
Johannes wrote:
FSF wrote:
The word “free” has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to freedom or to price. When we speak of “free software”, we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech”, not “free beer”.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the program with or without changes.
Free programs are sometimes distributed gratis, and sometimes for a substantial price. Often the same program is available in both ways from different places. The program is free regardless of the price, because users have freedom in using it.
Non-free programs are usually sold for a high price, but sometimes a store will give you a copy at no charge. That doesn't make it free software, though. Price or no price, the program is non-free because users don't have freedom.
I don't know why you're bringing down this redefinition lingo for. You want to fight about that too? Or start discussing all the FSF hypocritical papers?
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
No, the only way they saw to kill it was make their own desktop environment. If they wanted to safeguard it they would have reimplemented the same library. Plans to do so were scrapped, in favor of killing it,
Ah, so this is why no one has ever heard of, or uses, KDE nowadays: because the FSF "killed" it.
Actually Trolltech the designer of the toolkit was not really profiting off their setup as good as it was, and had to sell out to Nokia.
The idea isn't limited to KDE either. I may ask you though where did all the old paid office suits went to. Or why companies are afraid to port business applications to Linux.
marzojr wrote:
Neither GNOME nor FSF had anything to do with scrapping Harmony. I further submit that, contrary to your statement, GNOME was the best thing that ever happened to KDE: competition. Both ended up doing their best to be better than the other, making things better for all end users.
I fully disagree with you. KDE 4 has had the goal to redesign much of the user interface to copy the brain dead dumbed down simplicity of GNOME, making it much more annoying to use. KDE is now worse for users like me.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
just like the rest of the communist FSF's goals.
So, this is the real reason for your issue with the FSF: you disagree with them in a political and/or ideological level -- apparently stemming from a misunderstanding of what the GPL actually does, as Johannes pointed out. With this in mind, it is no surprise that you -- by your own admission -- intentionally downplay their accomplishments.
No, I disagree with them in that they are hypocritical, decide they have to go around redefining common usage of the English language to fit their needs, and minimize the accomplishments of others while exaggerating their own.
I do not misunderstand what the GPL does, I understand it quite well, despite what I'm saying may suggest to you otherwise.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
Funny isn't it that glibc is mostly from Red Hat then?
Man, you should really get your facts straight... (more below)
You disagree that the majority of glibc as it is today comes from Red Hat?
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
That doesn't at all justify RMS saying he invented a whole OS minus the actual OS part.
While I do agree that Stallman downplays the role of the kernel, I think you are being guilty of overestimating its role and underestimating the role of everything else needed for an operating system. But then, again, you have stated as much yourself; so no surprises here.
I don't see how exactly you can overestimate the underpinnings which keeps your entire OS running.
I "underestimate" the rest in your opinion, because I myself have personally implemented most of the C library, and the basic shell utilities and a shell myself. None of it was hard or difficult, or that time consuming. Therefore I find a group which believes doing these things deserves credit on an OS level to be a gross exaggeration. Creating a Kernel which works really well is not easy, my own OS designs never got very far. Here we have Linux which is one of the most advanced OS Kernels on the planet. Everything GNU has been doing in that area is a total joke, or based off of work by outsiders. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and at the same time not giving it where it's not deserved. I don't believe the FSF or GNU should be given credit for designing an OS, especially not something based off of Linux.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
I don't use either of those.
I have BSD Utils, BusyBox, and tcsh, as well as a shell I designed myself.
You have a system that Stallman himself wouldn't call "GNU/Linux"; why does this matter for all the other OSes that should?
Because Linux can run fine for the most part without anything from Stallman. I also don't need to be attacked when I say I run Linux with "nuh uh, it's GNU/Linux".
As Linux has so many flavors of running it, call it Linux which is the common denominator, or list all the major components involved, not just one of them.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
I don't have glibc either. Although perhaps you may want to cite that I have a forked glibc...
So, you think that the hard work of the FSF is erased because someone forked it and added some things of their own?
No, but I disagree with the hard work aspect of it.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
The first one published was Morimoto's Mega Man 2. Same dilemma.
And may I thank you kindly for doing so. The WMV for that one looked pretty bad.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
arflech wrote:
^^I don't know why you call the FSF Communist, I mean they're all about freedom while Commies hate freedom
They dislike anyone making money directly off of computer software. They have to destroy everything with worse knock offs, or bash software as a service.
Pu7o wrote:
Nach wrote:
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
Yes I do, and the name they're giving it is based on the coreutils, that is the reason cited in every one of RMSs papers on the subject.
Even if this is the case, the fact that glibc and all that userland software are needed to get the kernel to actually do anything but sit idly still make a powerful argument for the name.
Funny isn't it that glibc is mostly from Red Hat then?
Funny how, at the time the whole GNU/Linux debacle started, Linux distros didn't even USE glibc yet (they were still using libc5).
That too. Although libc5 was based partially off of what was glibc at the time.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Submission fixed, sorry for the delay.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
You really don't get it, either just call it Linux, the name of the OS, or lump everyone else in there, don't just decide to lump one of them in there and leave it at that.
But the issue is exactly that the OS is being called by the name of the kernel.
I see an OS nothing more than a Kernel, so I have no problem with that. And unlike other OSs, for Linux, everyone is using that Kernel in conjunction with a wide range of setups, the only common denominator being the Kernel.
If however, you're in the camp (which I'm not part of) that believe an OS is more than a Kernel , don't you dare call it GNU/Linux, putting GNU first, and leaving out everyone else.
marzojr wrote:
And doing that is unfair to the hard work folks at the FSF did for years before Torvalds entered the scene.
And what hard work is that?
Yes, I am minimizing the FSF's accomplishments here.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
Yes, but not as part of making an OS, but as part of destroying something else.
The FSF had rightful concerns about Qt: they had no way of knowing that Qt would eventually be licensed in the triple GPL/LGPL/proprietary license it has nowadays, and they were concerned that (then)Trolltech could kill KDE with licensing issues. The only way they saw to safeguard free software was to make their own desktop environment.
No, the only way they saw to kill it was make their own desktop environment. If they wanted to safeguard it they would have reimplemented the same library. Plans to do so were scrapped, in favor of killing it, just like the rest of the communist FSF's goals.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
Yes I do, and the name they're giving it is based on the coreutils, that is the reason cited in every one of RMSs papers on the subject.
Even if this is the case, the fact that glibc and all that userland software are needed to get the kernel to actually do anything but sit idly still make a powerful argument for the name.
Funny isn't it that glibc is mostly from Red Hat then?
I also fail to see the "powerful argument". You really think creating a bunch of the userland software at that time was such a big deal? Not to mention many of them were freely available elsewhere.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
The whole RMS and his team invented everything back in 1992 except for a Kernel is a complete and total lie. Which is constantly being perpetrated by calling it "GNU/Linux".
They barely invented anything back then at all, and a little research shows it.
A little research, such as finding the Linux 0.01 release notes (look for "Sadly, a kernel by itself") and a message from the 1992 debate with Tanenbaum (search for "As has been noted"), both of which have Linus Torvalds explicitly acknowledging that fact? Were these messages by Torvalds actually lies by Stallman too? What about the fact that the name GNU/Linux wasn't even proposed at first by Stallman or the FSF, but was proposed along with GNU+Linux and other names on Usenet in the 1991-1993 period, right after the Kernel was initially released and had begun development? Why, there was even a distribution back then, the "Yggdrasil Linux/GNU/X" distribution (from late 1992), which explicitly acknowledged X too. Meanwhile, Stallman and the FSF only started their business of promoting GNU/Linux name in 1994... oh, the evil.
That doesn't at all justify RMS saying he invented a whole OS minus the actual OS part.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
But for fun, tell me why you think the setup I have should be called GNU.
Without knowing your exact setup, I can only give one procedure which will unambiguously determine that: go to your /bin and /usr/bin directories and delete all files from GNU coreutils (and bash) that are present there;
I don't use either of those.
I have BSD Utils, BusyBox, and tcsh, as well as a shell I designed myself.
marzojr wrote:
you may consider deleting glibc from /lib or /usr/lib too, for good measure.
I don't have glibc either. Although perhaps you may want to cite that I have a forked glibc...
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
The whole RMS and his team invented everything back in 1992 except for a Kernel is a complete and total lie. Which is constantly being perpetrated by calling it "GNU/Linux".
They barely invented anything back then at all, and a little research shows it.
I don't really understand what you mean by "invented". That word seems to imply that they came up with completely original programs which nobody else had thought of before. At least that's how I understand the word "invent" to mean.
I'm referring to them citing they invented the GNU OS minus the actual OS. And then what they did "implement" was mostly stuff which was no big deal, or could be gotten elsewhere.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
janus wrote:
if it's possible, I need an extension. I am reworking BOF 2 as we speak; after that, I will go back to BOF 1, which was recorded with 1,43 v14(?).
That's fine, don't worry about it.
janus wrote:
unless there is a way to play it with 1,5?
The movie as you made it so far will most likely desync.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
RT-55J wrote:
I most humbly agree with Zurreco concerning the proportion of jimsfriend's posts formatted like this.
Xkeeper wrote:
In other news:
A Lua script for Link's Awakening. Feel free to throw ideas at me to make this thread slightly less pointless.
A radar or something for finding Secret Seashells would be pretty cool. I always hated scouring the island for those things.
You don't have to scour the island if you know where all 26 of them are located ^_^
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
Johannes wrote:
Bumping up this thing to say that I take back my whining about GNU/Linux and that Arch is awesome. It's my main OS now.
Calling it GNU/Linux is an insult to the Linux developers.
If you're in the camp that believes an OS is more than a Kernel, then calling it GNU/Linux is an insult to everyone else.
Nice way to put your foot in your mouth for our amusement :-)
You have it completely backwards: "Linux" is the name of kernel (derived from "Linus' Unix"). So, "f you're in the camp that believes an OS is more than a Kernel", the name "Linux" insults everyone but the kernel developers because you are lumping X, GNOME, KDE and everything else under the name of the kernel... This is especially true since the kernel alone would be all but useless without all those other utilities.
You really don't get it, either just call it Linux, the name of the OS, or lump everyone else in there, don't just decide to lump one of them in there and leave it at that.
I myself run Linux/KDE.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
Where's GNOME
A GNU project, all the way. It was started by the Free Software Foundation because KDE was flirting with the (then) non-GPL Qt.
Yes, but not as part of making an OS, but as part of destroying something else.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
In fact the GNU coreutils that the name is derived from is the least amount of work involved. [...]Take credit for <0.001% of everything installed, and putting your name first?
Yes I do, and the name they're giving it is based on the coreutils, that is the reason cited in every one of RMSs papers on the subject.
marzojr wrote:
The GNU project have this habbit of pulling things under their umbrella, that doesn't mean they made it. They just want to expand reasons why they came up with everything, even though they didn't.
marzojr wrote:
The conclusion: you should really learn anything on the subject before going making wild unsupported statements like that.
I would say the same thing to you.
The whole RMS and his team invented everything back in 1992 except for a Kernel is a complete and total lie. Which is constantly being perpetrated by calling it "GNU/Linux".
They barely invented anything back then at all, and a little research shows it.
marzojr wrote:
Nach wrote:
Do we call it zlib/Windows? zlib/Mac OS X?
By your logic, "Windows" should actually be called "NT" instead, and "Mac OS X" should be "XNU" instead: those are the names of their kernels, after all. But regardless, the "zlib" part is such a horrible, horrible analogy it can be dismissed out of hand: comparing all the GNU software typically bundled in GNU/Linux distributions to zlib is like saying that New York is 1 mile away from San Francisco...
You seem not to follow my logic at all.
But for fun, tell me why you think the setup I have should be called GNU.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
moozooh wrote:
It's in the nature of the site to take an existing work and improve upon it — books don't work that way.
Depends on the type of book actually. For fiction, you're correct.
But for works which are scientific in nature, or dealing with some matter of exactness, later authors do come along and make corrections or notes and publish them.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Lets go with excellent instead of good.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Xkeeper wrote:
Nach wrote:
Since as adelikat pointed out this site was built on submitting other people's keypress files, I don't see why we should diverge from that standard, if the author just gives away his keypress file no strings attached.
I personally think that it should primarily allow submission of other people's TASes provided that the run is properly attributed to who made it.
I fully agree. It should contain their name, and a link as to where it came from.
Xkeeper wrote:
If the user ends up not liking this, they can request its removal, and no more movies from that user should be accepted without their consent.
I agree with this too.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Xkeeper wrote:
upthorn wrote:
alden wrote:
FractalFusion wrote:
TAS is serious business.
This is not about TAS, this is about property rights, which are serious business and have every reason to be.
Property rights for a key-input file that has to be played with a pirated, illegally-obtained ROM file.
That's not necessarily true. They could have obtained whatever material they needed legally.
Input files are more than just a solution as well, they are artistically creative too.
Since as adelikat pointed out this site was built on submitting other people's keypress files, I don't see why we should diverge from that standard, if the author just gives away his keypress file no strings attached.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
ZeXr0 wrote:
Prior to 2009-01-01, you can find pretty much every movies on archive.org. You can search for ZeXr0 and you'll find some big list of TAS movies.
Are they all linked on our movie pages?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Try editing it?
If you don't have that option available to replace it (The movie file (replacement)), then send it to me, and I'll replace it.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
DeHackEd wrote:
Nach wrote:
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Warp wrote:
When playing with ALSA, the volume control works, but sometimes the sound is noisy.
Turn your PCM down from max.
This is a deficiency in ALSA. I don't know what's wrong with them, but the volume controls in it don't go high enough, and the highest settings distort. Installing OSSv4 on the same machine gives volume controls which go even higher which never distort.
I recently upgraded my brothers computer. He had a 4 year old Linux install. The upgrade switched from OSS 3 in the Kernel to ALSA, and he complained about the sound being too quiet, he couldn't hear people whispering in any of his movies even if he had his speakers and software sound controls on max. I installed OSS v4, and problem solved.
I also run into this, but it only applies to the PCM gain. Set that to 80% or so, but set the master volume to 100..... or maybe it's the other way around. I've got my settings set perfectly so I don't mess with them.
No reason to, just install OSS v4, and use something which works properly, instead of something which forces you to lower the volume which is pretty low to begin with.
DeHackEd wrote:
But yes, ALSA is not the glorious thing some make it out to be. And the API sucks.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
ShinyDoofy wrote:
Used XP a long, long time and it worked fairly well (had to reinstall it ~15 times, but it got a little better with service packs). What I didn't like about XP that it magically got slower and slower as time went by for no apparent reason.
I took this machine, wiped it clean, installed a fresh Windows XP on it, along with a few emulators and games for them. Only thing done with the machine was play those games inside emulators (NES, SNES, DMG).
The machine just kept getting slower and slower. Nothing should be changing about it, I'm not installing anything, no config files are being modified all over.
I've concluded Windows has the following function in it:
void waaaaait()
{
volatile unsigned long long i = 0;
while (i < daysSinceInstalled()) { i++; }
}
Which is called within every major function.
I think this is in place so whenever Microsoft releases a new OS, and you go to test it out on a PC in the store, it always seems faster than what you have at home, no matter how much more powerful your PC at home may be.
ShinyDoofy wrote:
After painfully realizing that x86_64 is just destined to fail if you want a 64bit-only system (sound, flash, media playback with 32bit codecs, other shit), I switched back to 32bit and haven't been happier since.
I've been running an x86-64 distro since 2004. I installed a 32 bit Firefox an a 32 bit MPlayer just to deal with the problems you described (and for developing ZSNES, I have 32 bit compilers), everything else is 64 bit, and I couldn't be happier.
nineko wrote:
To be honest, I really miss MS-DOS... And I doubt I'm the only one.
You're not.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Warp wrote:
When playing with ALSA, the volume control works, but sometimes the sound is noisy.
Turn your PCM down from max.
This is a deficiency in ALSA. I don't know what's wrong with them, but the volume controls in it don't go high enough, and the highest settings distort. Installing OSSv4 on the same machine gives volume controls which go even higher which never distort.
I recently upgraded my brothers computer. He had a 4 year old Linux install. The upgrade switched from OSS 3 in the Kernel to ALSA, and he complained about the sound being too quiet, he couldn't hear people whispering in any of his movies even if he had his speakers and software sound controls on max. I installed OSS v4, and problem solved.
Warp wrote:
Johannes wrote:
It seems Ubuntu is not the right distro for me. I'll try OpenSUSE, Fedora and Debian.
AFAIK Ubuntu is based on Debian, so the latter might not offer you anything that the former doesn't already. (Never used either, though.)
Ubuntu seems to be Debian made a bit more use friendly, but also made quite a bit more broken. If you don't need the extra friendliness, but want the extra stability or sanity, I suggest Debian over Ubuntu.
Johannes wrote:
Bumping up this thing to say that I take back my whining about GNU/Linux and that Arch is awesome. It's my main OS now.
Calling it GNU/Linux is an insult to the Linux developers.
If you're in the camp that believes an OS is more than a Kernel, then calling it GNU/Linux is an insult to everyone else.
Where's X? Where's GNOME or KDE? Where's OpenOffice? Mozilla? All the other major programs? Qt?
In fact the GNU coreutils that the name is derived from is the least amount of work involved. You can rewrite all their utilities inside a week easy. Besides from power users, no one even uses their utilities. Some even drop them in favor of BSD ones, or BusyBox.
Take credit for <0.001% of everything installed, and putting your name first? It's an insult. Do we call it zlib/Windows? zlib/Mac OS X?
An egotistical moron who can't figure out life had a hard time writing a couple of small command line utilities, and couldn't really do anything else, feels he needs to tack his accomplishments onto something which he feels finally achieved his dream even though he had nothing to do with it.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Refresh (ctrl+shift+f5 in Firefox) can work wonders.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
This is indeed a problem. I'm currently thinking up a proper solution. In the mean time, ask adelikat to seed anything you need.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
GMan wrote:
While I don't want to offend you personally, if God were real, and God was your sole motivation, why wouldn't he stop RL drama from happening, so you can continue to pursue his message?
Why do you assume he wouldn't want the drama to happen?
People are built on their experiences.
Guernsey wrote:
Speaking of science, does anyone believe that science can ruin a lot of things or it actually encourages imagination? I don't hate Science and learning how things in the Physical Universe especially Chemistry is awesome but will ever grow so much in knowledge thtat we don't need imagination anymore? I am wrong in this thinking?
If you can do anything you can imagine in science, it will only fuel you to be even more imaginative.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
A Lua script for Link's Awakening. Feel free to throw ideas at me to make this thread slightly less pointless.