Any chance we can see x6500 support in cgminer ?
I really dont want to use rip-off-scumbag-bfgminer just because of this..
I'm currently running them on MPBM but I'm not happy with it.
oc
You have things backward: cgminer is trying to rip off BFGMiner.
From January until the middle of May (2012), I was the only one who had anything to do with device driver or FPGA support, with exception to Xiangfu who contributed a complete Icarus driver (based on my BitForce driver) in Feburary (which I maintained afterward). While Con was copying these improvements back into cgminer, I had no reason to make a separate release under another name - obviously a mistake that in hindsight has allowed Con & Kano to steal credit for it. It wasn't until April that Kano decided to begin forking the code (in the process reverting numerous bugfixes and improvements since he doesn't know how to use git), and Con backed him up on it because of their long history as friends. Shortly after Con got pissed off at ASICs being announced (since they obsolete the GPUs he had only ever worked with), he threw a fit on the forums making accusations that vendors didn't provide him devices (despite his never having been involved with this up to that point), and stopped accepting even bugfixes to the code he maintained from me, forcing me to effectively fork the rest of the codebase as well just to have the bugs fixed.
BFGMiner continues to advance in both core functionality and FPGA (and soon ASIC) support, as should be obvious by now.
Edit: Forgot to mention, nelisky contributed and maintained the Ztex driver from March until May.
Edit: I should perhaps also mention, there have been at least a couple of significant reorganizations delayed due to the cgminer team's aversion to collaboration and cooperation, but BFGMiner will be getting the result of this work very soon, maybe even before ASICs. It's a shame it took this long, though; Con is a great programmer, I don't know why he can't just work as a team.
Edit: Observe for yourselves, the authors of the code in question the moment before Kano forked it (in cgminer's own repository):
BitForce and
IcarusThe whole icarus issue is not up for debate.
I've posted about it many times.
You even once offered to PAY ME, the time I had spent to find the proof, when I proved you were wrong.
Then of course there is the code line count I did recently that ALSO proves: even in your git, there is more code by me than by you.
In the cgminer git there is ALMOST NO CODE by you in the driver-icarus.c file.
As for the BFL code - well firstly there is the obvious point about why conman got involved in the BFL code.
I have posted about this in detail before also.
I asked Luke-Jr to make a change and his reply implied it was too difficult for him to do it.I wasn't going to change it coz I wasn't interested in spending time on code that could be rejected because at that point Luke-Jr had veto over the BFL code.
So eventually conman was convinced to make the code change himself.
Luke-Jr is just a complete fucking liar and I do not understand why anyone believes a word he says.
He is trash at the highest level when it comes to trying to claim ownership of code - he wants credit for other peoples work all the time.
What the heck, I'll do a code count also based on the clone git and the cgminer git:
git blame driver-bitforce.c | perl -n -e '/\s\((.*?)\s[0-9]{4}/ && print "$1\n"' | sort -f | uniq -c -w3On the clone:
191 Con Kolivas
61 Kano
222 Luke Dashjr
169 Paul Sheppard
5 Xiangfu
And in my git - the new BFL code
167 Con Kolivas
399 Kano
101 Luke Dashjr
100 Paul Sheppard
Note - I joined the two numbers together for ckolivas - he has two names in the counters that I totalled into one name.
So yes Luke wrote the biggest % of code in the old BFL driver (but not the biggest by much) - conman's rewrite code is almost as much as Luke-Jr's code (same for Paul Sheppard % also almost as high) - in the old code.
But again the reason for conman's rewrite of some of the code, that was a good performance gain, was because Luke-Jr had implied it was too difficult for him to do it.
Luke-Jr even copied ckolivas change back from cgminer to his clone as the git line counts clearly show ... and he has copied code back from my recent changes also.
His whole argument can be compared to this (that I'm sure most but the blind will see clearly):
When someone releases some code - you usually get the 'wow great' new code response from all who want it.
When the code is updated you also usually get the 'wow great' new code response from most who want the update.
Does everyone say 'wow yes I want the old original code from a year ago with bugs and problems and slower performance'? .....
Not even Luke-Jr says that - he wants the new better code from cgminer all the time - look at his latest release, how much code there is copied directly from cgminer?
However, does cgminer copy code back from Luke-Jr?
In the past 6 months we have rarely copied anything back.
We have made a lot of changes and a lot of new features wanted by many - that have been copied to the clone.
cgminer isn't a clone in any way - it is quite clearly the opposite! The clone releases, regularly contain many changes copied from cgminer.
Luke-Jr, seriously, GTFO of here.
Your lies are so damn blatantly easy to prove they are lies and so damn annoying how often you regurgitate these lies ... even here in the cgminer thread.
Go spew them to your ignorant acolytes in your clone thread - not here.
