Blzut3

You don't. Most mods that come with their own source port have completely arbitrary changes so ECWolf can't support them automatically. More than would be reasonable to just disable. Eventually (most of) those features will be ported back to ECWolf.

GPL doesn't allow run time linking to non-free code (outside of operating system stuff). While you could just slap the GPL on there, the end user wouldn't be allowed to jump to any of the code that was already loaded into memory as that would count as linking and would be a license violation. You can add a linking exception to the license (look up the specifics but essentially you just say that linking against DMX and Doom is allowed as an exception to the normal GPL restrictions). Of course this also means you can't use GPL code that wasn't granted that same linking exception. I'm not a lawyer of course, but this looks exactly like dynamic linking to me. So you could also just use the LGPL which allows dynamic linking to most things.

Given the project inherently links to non free code, GPL by itself is probably not a suitable license. You'd need at least a linking exception, LGPL, or something more permissive.

@perlun I'm really confused by your necropost. Are you trying to accomplish the same thing or something? It is indeed the case that IPX should work over any L2 switch, which in theory would include the switch in a consumer router. With that said your results may vary based on the chipset/firmware involved as some do have filtering features that look beyond L2. I would imagine most unmanaged switches should work though.

While that's certainly one way to bypass it, since it sounds like you're not aware, there is a well documented command you can enter to re-enable the bypass button. If my memory serves this is only possible on the Pro, since the Home edition's encryption is a feature limited version of Bitlocker that does require sending the keys to Microsoft? It's honestly the only reason I believe you on the account requirement being for that reason, since that would explain why it was originally only a requirement for Home. I do agree with Graf that sending the key to Microsoft kind of ruins the point of encryption, but I do recognize that people will fail to understand the implication of encryption and I suppose it does still help prevent data theft in the case the computer gets stolen.

I could respect the idiot proofing aspect if they actually explained this and, like I think your second paragraph is saying, they didn't require this nonsense for non-preload installs which don't have Bitlocker enabled. (Tangent: how many Windows 11 controversies could have been avoided with clear communication?) Personally I think everyone's first step when getting a computer should be wiping the preloaded OS anyway, so requiring a Microsoft account there wouldn't bother me at all.

If you haven't tried it in 22H2, they actually made it kind of hard to do this. The "don't have internet" button is gone unless you run a command in the command prompt first (or I think it might still be there if you happen to only have networking hardware that Windows 11 doesn't have a driver for out of the box), so while there's a documented bypass it's definitely gotten obtuse to the point where I'd consider it a legitimate complaint. Pretty sure this is just for certification of OEM hardware. So if someone really wanted to make a laptop without a webcam they couldn't sell you it with Windows 11 preloaded, but I don't think there will be anything stopping you from installing a retail license onto that machine. Really though, if you're the kind of person to be worried about the mere existence of a webcam then Windows 11 probably is the best OS choice for you anyway.

While not an official mode, wasn't mode X 320x240@60Hz?

No, at this point it's pretty clear what you want. Everyone just can't believe that's actually what you want.

Believe me, software developers spend inordinate amounts of time on completely pointless things (see pretty much all retro computing/demo scene stuff). However one thing we quickly learn is to try to understand what the problem being solved is since it's very often that people think things are simple that are really complicated and think that stuff that's actually really simple is really complicated. Understanding the problem at hand will allow the opportunity to find the simpler solution. If you want to build a rube goldberg machine anyway no one can stop you. We're still going to be thoroughly confused as to why you're building it though.

This basically reads to me like "I want Windows 3.11, but done on top of the Doom source code because reasons."

I think the main thing I think you missed is that all of the major multiplayer ports are ZDoom based in some way, so that entire segment of the community was using ZDoom by definition. But we can also look at how the cacowards were nearly exclusively ZDoom, vanilla, and boom-compatible mods from the get go. Kidding aside, GZDoom did bring 3D floors to the ZDoom eco system which was probably the final reason people were still modding for Legacy. To be fair I don't really have any hard evidence, I just remember in the early years of my involvement there was a lot of mapping activity for ZDoom (after Legacy died out) and in the late 2000s there seemed to be a trend towards mappers targeting vanilla. Which lead to ZDoom modding output becoming largely game play mods to use with vanilla maps (Brutal Doom included).

I feel like this statement, while perhaps by raw number of users is true, ignores that (G)ZDoom was already in its position for somewhere around 5 years prior to Brutal Doom existing. Most of the competition just dried up around 2005. Conveniently also the year that Chocolate Doom came out, which I personally feel is also when the opinions on hard core vanilla compat shifted (which isn't to say there weren't people that cared the whole time, I just don't recall it being a big deal when I joined the community in 2003).

There is no quality loss. There are many bit streams which are valid representations of the same image, but finding the optimal one is a very computationally expensive task which quickly diminishing returns. For things you're actively working on it makes sense to strike a balance between file size and speed of compression, but when you're done you can do an optimization pass to compress things further. Those tools do also remove some meta data which doesn't affect the rendered image. What that meta data is and why it exists varies between applications/use cases, but Slade would invoke those tools in a way to leave the bits relevant to Doom alone. For completeness I will note that there do exist tools like pngquant which can use lossy techniques to compress PNGs further with some quality loss, but the ones in question don't.

It does kind of depend on the specific generation but one nice thing about having a dGPU even if it's about the same performance level as the Intel iGPU is that the nvidia chip will tend to be more compatible in the long run (better API support particularly on Windows). Granted it comes at the risk of an additional failure point. Definitely debatable how much that matters, but some generations like Sandy Bridge it can be the difference between running the latest OS with full support or not.