Dominus wrote:

Just quit complaining and get a windows build environment up... Or get a mac...

A Mac?! Nah, I'd rather not pay twice as much for the same hardware I can get in a PC. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

TheGreatCodeholio wrote:

I think you'd be surprised how many people out there are developing for Linux 😀
I'll look into a Win32 build when i have more free time this month.

While I completely respect each individual's choice as to what OS they use, let's be honest here; it's a Windows world, folks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_o … erating_systems

I love all the work being done on DOSBox-x, but without a Win32 binary you'll only get a small fraction of the usage and testing you could be getting. I wish I knew how to compile the code myself, but really anyone who's serious about modifying DOSBox should probably maintain a Win32 build. That's just my opinion, of course, and others are entitled to view it as "whining". Some might call it common sense, though. 😀

Long live DOSBox-x!

Anyone who is serious about trying mods should get a built environment set up or quit whining...
Seriously why do you expect others to go through the trouble of setting up a built environment for a different OS when you can't get yourself to do it? It's not that easy but also not too hard. In between your first post asking for this and your last you could have managed to do that.

If you look at the statistics of how much open source code is written on linux versus Windows you see a whole different picture.
It's always interesting when people don't get what they want. They always come up with many "good" reasons why surely everyone wants that and why the developer should do exactly that...

Dominus wrote:

Anyone who is serious about trying mods should get a built environment set up or quit whining... Seriously why do you expect oth […]
Show full quote

Anyone who is serious about trying mods should get a built environment set up or quit whining...
Seriously why do you expect others to go through the trouble of setting up a built environment for a different OS when you can't get yourself to do it? It's not that easy but also not too hard. In between your first post asking for this and your last you could have managed to do that.

If you look at the statistics of how much open source code is written on linux versus Windows you see a whole different picture.
It's always interesting when people don't get what they want. They always come up with many "good" reasons why surely everyone wants that and why the developer should do exactly that...

Actually, I don't expect anything; it was just a request. However, if I had been expecting it then your points would be valid (the self-righteous indignation was a bit much, though).

For expecting nothing you sure post often and sometimes lengthy about it 😉

Dominus wrote:

For expecting nothing you sure post often and sometimes lengthy about it 😉

I did a substantial amount of testing using Taewoong's DOSBox builds; that's what lead to most of my posts. If there was a current Win32 binary available, I'd be doing more testing.

90% of all desktops are running Windows. Now, as a developer, you can look at that figure in a few different ways. One way is to say to yourself "well, I develop in Linux so I'm only going to provide Linux builds. If those Windoze losers want to test then they can RTFM and learn 2 compile". Or perhaps, you could say "gee, if I don't maintain a Win32 build then right off the bat I'm statistically losing 90% (give or take) of my potential testers, so I'm liable to miss out on a lot of feedback, some of which may actually be helpful".

I suppose neither perspective is inherently more valid than the other, but I believe the latter viewpoint is liable to produce a better end product. But of course, I'm not the developer on this project and that's just my opinion on it. Time permitting, I may actually take another crack at source code compiling; surely, it'd be helpful to know my way around the process for my retro hobbies. Even so, were I developing a DOSBox variant myself, I'd maintain a Win32 build, but that's just me!

See, for expecting nothing you write awful much about it.
I bet if you were a developer on linux with a real life and job you'd spent more time developing your hoppy than setting up a cross compile environment for those two or three Windows user that are too lazy to compile it themselves and ask for a Windows build.
All this nonsense takes valuable time better spent on something else. If my baby permits I'll split this discussion off the main thread.

Dominus wrote:

See, for expecting nothing you write awful much about it.
I bet if you were a developer on linux with a real life and job you'd spent more time developing your hoppy than setting up a cross compile environment for those two or three Windows user that are too lazy to compile it themselves and ask for a Windows build.
All this nonsense takes valuable time better spent on something else. If my baby permits I'll split this discussion off the main thread.

Well, I'll leave it to the developer of the project to decide whether my perspective is nonsense. Your opinion in clear enough and duly noted.

So if the moderator doesn't agree with the feedback then they just move it to a separate thread? Fantastic. That's sure to foster a healthy environment where differing perspectives on a project are freely exchanged! Likewise, it's good to know that you don't have to be the developer of a project to get so offended by somebody else's suggestion you remove it from the discussion.

Guess it's time to RTFM and learn 2 compile, 🤣.

You got that wrong, our discussion added nothing whatsoever to the actual topic of the DOSBox-x branch, thus I moved it away from it but I did not stop the discussion, nor did I move your request for a Windows build. You seem bent to claim this as censoring but it's not, it's moving a discussion away from where it doesn't belong anymore...

Likewise, it's good to know that you don't have to be the developer of a project to get so offended by somebody else's suggestion you remove it from the discussion.

actually the DOSBox-x developer has no moderation power what so ever, and the *moving* (NOT removing) of our discussion has nothing to do with offending, just trying to keep the thread a bit cleaner. AFAIR it was asked earlier in the thread to keep it a bit cleaner.

Dominus wrote:

You got that wrong, our discussion added nothing whatsoever to the actual topic of the DOSBox-x branch, thus I moved it away from it but I did not stop the discussion, nor did I move your request for a Windows build. You seem bent to claim this as censoring but it's not, it's moving a discussion away from where it doesn't belong anymore...

Likewise, it's good to know that you don't have to be the developer of a project to get so offended by somebody else's suggestion you remove it from the discussion.

actually the DOSBox-x developer has no moderation power what so ever, and the *moving* (NOT removing) of our discussion has nothing to do with offending, just trying to keep the thread a bit cleaner. AFAIR it was asked earlier in the thread to keep it a bit cleaner.

Weren't you the one who mentioned earlier something about people seeing only what they want to see? I thought that was rather insightful ...

Point taken then. I suppose if I'm commenting on DOSBox-x in the future, or any other project, I'll make sure to remember that how the project is compiled or what OS binaries are available have nothing to do with the project itself. Nevermind the fact that it may have resulted in more feedback from the very person who brought forth the suggestion for CDDA support to begin with. Rules are rules, afterall, and we shan't go breaking them willy-nilly now shall we?

Bla bla, you can sure read into that what you want but it's clear you are just being pathetic now.
This whole thread belongs into the trash IMO mostly because of posts like your last two. But since I'm part of it, it would really seem like the thing you are accusing me of. So moving this discussion elsewhere seemed the prudent thing to do, so the original thread is cleaned of your nag nag and holier than thou stuff.
I'm sure my posts aren't much better in your opinion, so... Do you really think this discussion belonged where it was? Seriously? Two people butting their heads is never pretty...

Dominus wrote:

Bla bla, you can sure read into that what you want but it's clear you are just being pathetic now.
This whole thread belongs into the trash IMO mostly because of posts like your last two. But since I'm part of it, it would really seem like the thing you are accusing me of. So moving this discussion elsewhere seemed the prudent thing to do, so the original thread is cleaned of your nag nag and holier than thou stuff.
I'm sure my posts aren't much better in your opinion, so... Do you really think this discussion belonged where it was? Seriously? Two people butting their heads is never pretty...

Perhaps my initial post could have been made with a slightly less acerbic tone. What I said is true, though. Most people use Windows so in my opinion there's not much point in putting out cross-platform development software that can't be tested on the most widely used platform on the planet.

I wasn't trying to hurt anybody's feelings but it appears by bluntness did just that. I'm sure Macs and Linux are better than rocky road ice cream on a hot Summer's day; be that as it may, most people don't use them. I didn't make that true, I just pointed it out. Saying I'm pathetic or whining or whatever other irrelevant personal attack you fall back on doesn't invalidate that point.

What I said is true, though. Most people use Windows so in my opinion there's not much point in putting out cross-platform development software that can't be tested on the most widely used platform on the planet.

The point of cross-platform development software is that it can be used on a vast variety of platforms, Windows is almost always among those. And you might believe it or not... DOSBOX-x can be tested on that platform as well... Surprise...
It seems truth5678 is using Windows, so, yes, DOSBox-x can in fact be tested on Windows.
Just because YOU cannot seem to to be able to test it doesn't make it true for everyone else. In my Windows days, compiling Dosbox wasn't witchcraft...

Btw, you didn't hurt any feeling, but your sense of entitlement to a Windows built just riles me up. You really seem to believe that the development of Dosbox-x makes no sense without a supplied Windows build. Maybe you should pm the author and tell him about his uselessness... <- aaarrgh, see this is just wrong...

Dominus wrote:

You really seem to believe that the development of Dosbox-x makes no sense without a supplied Windows build.

Yes I do, because it doesn't. I understand that you disagree. If the DOSBox-X dev doesn't want to bother with maintaining a Win32 build, I get that too. I decided to point out in a not-so-subtle way that there's an argument to be made that supplying a Windows build for testing is worth the trouble. You don't see it that way. Fair enough. Seems to me you're reading in a lot of stuff into my position that has nothing to do with me. All this stuff about entitlements and whatever; like the developers are doing me a favor by supplying me with an updated build that I could use to help troubleshoot and continue to provide feedback. To be fair, I'm guessing that's not the angle you see it from. You're probably thinking "he expects people to hand him free stuff!" or some variant thereof. Well, the only thing I expected was what transpired. People on average are so mind-numbling predictable when it comes to this sort of thing. Sometimes you've gotta rattle the cage to get things moving; that's all I really did here.

SedrynTyros wrote:

TheGreatCodeholio wrote:

I think you'd be surprised how many people out there are developing for Linux 😀
I'll look into a Win32 build when i have more free time this month.

While I completely respect each individual's choice as to what OS they use, let's be honest here; it's a Windows world, folks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_o … erating_systems

It won't be a Windows world for long, if Microsoft continues along the Windows 8 path and fucks up Windows 9 😀

In all seriousness though, I don't have the time now to work on building a Win32 binary, or do any major development on DOSBox-X, because my professional software development projects take priority (the ones that people pay me for and allow me to keep a roof over my head and pay the bills). A lot of feature requests have come in this month and I'm working solid Mon-Fri to get them completed. I promised one client this month I would get live streaming complete for Android and IOS and I'm busy this week writing an HLS/MPEG-DASH streaming implementation to make that work having just hammered out an RTSP server implementation for older Android devices and HTTP FLV streaming for Flash-based players in the browser. There's a lot I still wish to do and add to the source code, and when I get free time again, I will. DOSBox-X is not dead by any means.

SedrynTyros wrote:

Dominus wrote:

You really seem to believe that the development of Dosbox-x makes no sense without a supplied Windows build.

Yes I do, because it doesn't.

He he he, you're awesome. No you actually aren't. Thank god most developers don't share this view

Y'know, it's pretty easy to get VMware Player running with a Linux installation under Windows. It should run DOSBox just fine.

@the GreatCodeholio, seems your whole coding is useless anyway, at least according to Sedryn 😉