DMA and WINE

Alright so, I want DMA because it greatly increases burn time, read time, etc, but I have a problem, cedega and wine terribly screw up implementing this for some reason, every time I launch Diablo 2 Cedega tells me that I have a corrupted file, and every time I try to launch something from the cdrom via wine it breaks and starts the debugger. Any sugjestions /comp/?

I've turned the DMA off with hdparm, but I want a strong fix not a quick fix such as this.

>>1
Use Windows

>>1

hdparm is the way its done, not a quick fix.

>>1
wine and cedega don't implent dma. they don't even deal with it in any way. there is no difference from starting from the hdd, or cdrom. it works completely transparent to applications. in fact you could even mount a cd to / and it'll work. well, that's exactly what livecds do lol.

fix: configure your wine properly. type "winecfg". check the drives section.

use freebsd >>1

FUCK DMA

>>5
FreeBSD does not have a free license.

>>7
The BSD license allows you to do ANYTHING with the code, gtfo GNU/Hippy.

>>8
That's not freedom; corporations can take your work and profit from it.

>>9
How is that not freedom?

>>9
SOooooo...you've never heard of a little company named 'red hat' before, have you?

>>7
>>9
Yes, because the true way to be free is to do what Richard Stallman says.

Free = do anything you want or GTFO

Just FYI; Richard Stallman says that the BSD license is a "Free License"; but don't let a silly thing like facts interupt your trolling there...

Richard Stallman can GTFO.

>>13
Yet he made it so that the only way to be free is to do what he says. It's kind of a PARADOX.

>>14 You GTFO
>>15 How do you figure that, seriously? Are you trying to say that by expressing an opinion it "makes it" so that your choices are limited?

Let me try this out; in my opinion, >>15 sucks cocks.

>>16
Problem is, GPL is viral like AIDS, so whenever you have to mix GPL code in, RMS smiles as he gets another piece of software under the GPL umbrella. You are "free" to release your software using the GPL license, and no other license. FRRRREEEEEDDDDODOOOOOOOOM!

>>17
>GPL is viral like AIDS

Are you trolling or just an idiot? If you don't want to use GNU code, you're always free to write your own under any license you like; or find a bsd-licensed equivalent.

Besides, we're talking about software distributions, not source code; so use bsd or microsoft or whatever floats your boat and GTFO.

>>18
Actually, I'm trolling a bit :) . I wrote both >>7,9 and >>12,15,17.

However, it's true that there's so much GPLed software it's hard not to bump onto it. Since you don't want to waste your time, and you aren't making money with this, you end up using GPL code, which in turns makes yours GPL. It's a vicious circle making RMS' e-penis grow fatter and fatter every time, as you are practically forced to use a more restrictive license when you would like to make things BSD or public domain if you could choose.

I'd ask everybody using GPL outside the GNAA if they really use it because they want or they would use BSD if they were given the choice.

But they aren't given this choice because GPL is not free.

>>19
The code you have written is always yours, the GPL can't take that away.  Public domain can, and BSD is close.  Also, unless you distribute your software to others, you do not have to care about the GPL.

>>20
Yes, but you can't allow others to profit from it. I want to allow them, because my code is really free and I want to make it freely available to everyone for any purpose. PD and BSD are good because of it. (BSD is pretty much just a honourable version of PD where I am credited.)

actually, if you publish your code under GPL, big corporations can take it and profit off it. they just have to publish the code with it. with BSD licence they do not need to publish the code.