Re: [News] OpenGL Gets DirectX/Microsoft's Knickers in a Twist
Matt
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> OpenCL and OpenGL take on DirectX
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | OpenGL is now more competitive with DirectX than ever. Microsoft's stumble
> | with Vista and its DirectX/Direct3D version 10 has also helped to stall its
> | momentum in the market. Microsoft plans to add OpenCL-like support for GPGPU
> | computing into DirectX 11 in Windows 7, but Apple's OpenCL, which is designed
> | to work closely with OpenGL code, will arrive first and with broad industry
> | support. Apple has also released OpenCL as a royalty-free, open standard
> | anyone can implement on any platform.
But I don't see whether they have or haven't licensed the source code
with a GPL-like license or even opened it for inspection. That seems
troublesome.
> `----
>
> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/12/16/opencl_and_opengl_take_on_directx.html
Hadron
MS always had openGL support. Or rather the video drivers did. What you
DONT need is ANOTHER open standard from Apple.
Are you guys nuts?
--
"Maybe you can buy a Saturday Night Special and blow your POS brains out."
-- Rick <no...@nomail.com> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Peter Köhlmann
> Matt <ma...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> writes:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> OpenCL and OpenGL take on DirectX
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | OpenGL is now more competitive with DirectX than ever. Microsoft's
>>> stumble | with Vista and its DirectX/Direct3D version 10 has also
>>> helped to stall its | momentum in the market. Microsoft plans to add
>>> OpenCL-like support for GPGPU | computing into DirectX 11 in Windows
>>> 7, but Apple's OpenCL, which is designed | to work closely with
>>> OpenGL code, will arrive first and with broad industry |
>>> support. Apple has also released OpenCL as a royalty-free, open
>>> standard | anyone can implement on any platform.
>>
>>
>> But I don't see whether they have or haven't licensed the source code
>> with a GPL-like license or even opened it for inspection. That seems
>> troublesome.
>>
>>
>>> `----
>>>
>>>
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/12/16/opencl_and_opengl_take_on_directx.html
>
> MS always had openGL support.
They did not /always/ have OpenGL support
And in Vista they downgraded OpenGL rather sharply
> Or rather the video drivers did.
Right. MS did very little of it
> What you
> DONT need is ANOTHER open standard from Apple.
>
> Are you guys nuts?
>
Do you even have the slightest idea what OpenCL is?
And who worked on that *open* standard? Hint: It wasn't apple. They are
just the first to implemet it.
And no, it is not meant to /replace/ OpenGL, it is meant to /augment/ it.
Leave it to Hadron Quark, the dimwittest wintroll in COLA, to completely
miss the point once again.
Are you Snot Glassers smarter twin in your other life?
--
My other computer is your windows box
Hadron
You do not have a clue about the subject at hand moron.
Why do you think that SOME games run cross platform *natively* ?
Answer : they are written in openGL.
Get the existing stuff used - not more feather brained geek smuddying
the water AGAIN.
its this fannying around that got OGL left behind in the first place.
But of course COLA and reality are two different things ....
--
So how do we destroy Microsoft?
Microsoft is doing the job quite nicely, imploding under its own weight."
-- AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Peter Köhlmann
Idiot.
Now get google going and read what OpenCL is.
Hint: It is not at all what you think it is.
Whenever one thinks that you could impossibly come up with dumber posts,
you sure surprise anybody here. You can obviously always get dumber. And
you just did.
Now how about a rerun of your tripwire blunder, "kernel hacker" Hadron
Quark? By now you should be ready to repost misrepresented claims
--
Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course
The Ghost In The Machine
<hadro...@gmail.com>
wrote
on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:16:30 +0100
<giosmb$9fc$4...@edwardhall.motzarella.org>:
> Matt <ma...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> writes:
>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> OpenCL and OpenGL take on DirectX
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | OpenGL is now more competitive with DirectX than ever. Microsoft's
>>> stumble | with Vista and its DirectX/Direct3D version 10 has also
>>> helped to stall its | momentum in the market. Microsoft plans to add
>>> OpenCL-like support for GPGPU | computing into DirectX 11 in Windows
>>> 7, but Apple's OpenCL, which is designed | to work closely with
>>> OpenGL code, will arrive first and with broad industry |
>>> support. Apple has also released OpenCL as a royalty-free, open
>>> standard | anyone can implement on any platform.
>>
>>
>> But I don't see whether they have or haven't licensed the source code
>> with a GPL-like license or even opened it for inspection. That seems
>> troublesome.
>>
>>
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/12/16/opencl_and_opengl_take_on_directx.html
>
> MS always had openGL support. Or rather the video drivers did. What you
> DONT need is ANOTHER open standard from Apple.
>
> Are you guys nuts?
>
We must be. After all, this is Khronos's spec; therefore
Linux is to blame...
http://www.opengl.org/news/comments/khronos_group_announces_release_of_opencl_1.0_specification/
http://www.khronos.org/opencl/
http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/
The second page in particular sums up the intended purpose
of OpenCL reasonably well:
OpenCL (Open Computing Language) is the first open, royalty-free
standard for general-purpose parallel programming of heterogeneous
systems. OpenCL provides a uniform programming environment for
software developers to write efficient, portable code for
high-performance compute servers, desktop computer systems and
handheld devices using a diverse mix of multi-core CPUs, GPUs,
Cell-type architectures and other parallel processors such as DSPs.
Of course, one might quibble as to whether this is indeed
the first, as opposed to such notables as Illiac IV (which
ran a variant of Fortran with some odd syntax to indicate
vectors), various Crays, and the Connection Machine (which
apparently ran a variant of LISP).
For its part Direct3D 11 will offer some new features as well,
among them more secure video/graphics data and compute shaders.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Direct3D-11-with-New-Features-in-Windows-7-97394.shtml
The article gives no firm date, though Build 7004 is out as of
sometime very early this morning (2008-Dec-22 03:31 UTC), so
it's in alpha, at least.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
fortune: not found
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Tim Smith
Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> MS always had openGL support. Or rather the video drivers did. What you
> DONT need is ANOTHER open standard from Apple.
>
> Are you guys nuts?
Yes, we do need it. It is not what you think it is:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL>
--
--Tim Smith
Hadron
No. We dont need it.
What we need is to convince people to use what we have got.
--
o how do we destroy Microsoft?"
-- An unknown author in unknown
Peter Köhlmann
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>
>> In article <giosmb$9fc$4...@edwardhall.motzarella.org>,
>> Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> MS always had openGL support. Or rather the video drivers did. What you
>>> DONT need is ANOTHER open standard from Apple.
>>>
>>> Are you guys nuts?
>>
>> Yes, we do need it. It is not what you think it is:
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL>
>
> No. We dont need it.
>
> What we need is to convince people to use what we have got.
>
Another fine "true linux advocacy post" from the
"true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X
specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger
professional", "newsreader magician", "hardware maven", "time
coordinator", "email sage", "tripwire wizard" and "OSS culling committee
chairman" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka Richard, aka Damian
O'Leary, aka Steve Townsend, aka Ubuntu King
--
Only two things are infinite,
the Universe and Stupidity.
And I'm not quite sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
Wolfgang Draxinger
> Answer : they are written in openGL.
We're not talking about OpenGL here, we're talking about OpenCL
(Zee Ell)
<http://khronos.org/opencl/>
You should really learn to carefully read a text and to some
recherche, before saying/writing something stupid.
In some cases it's good practice to <ROT13>FGSH</ROT13>.
Wolfgang Draxinger
P.S.: I AM advocating the use of OpenGL and open standards. As
such I can't stand people who go fanatically about it and
ridicule the humble efforts the OSS community takes, to gain
some market share. One gains nothing by insulting other people.
--
E-Mail address works, Jabber: hexa...@jabber.org, ICQ: 134682867
Hadron
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Answer : they are written in openGL.
>
> We're not talking about OpenGL here, we're talking about OpenCL
> (Zee Ell)
> <http://khronos.org/opencl/>
Actually the original article was.
But you snipped it.
>
> You should really learn to carefully read a text and to some
> recherche, before saying/writing something stupid.
And you should read the thread.
>
> In some cases it's good practice to <ROT13>FGSH</ROT13>.
>
> Wolfgang Draxinger
>
> P.S.: I AM advocating the use of OpenGL and open standards. As
As I do. What I do NOT advocate is yet another "initiative" with Apple
involved which takes the eye off stuff which is still not supported
properly by the entertainment industry for one.
OpenCl is very linked with OpenGL and GPUs.
How about selling OpenGL to developers first??
OpenGL is already available cross platform for gaming and simulations.
All openCL will do NOW is muddy the waters.
> such I can't stand people who go fanatically about it and
> ridicule the humble efforts the OSS community takes, to gain
> some market share. One gains nothing by insulting other people.
--
"Off the top of my head, I can't tell you which sites. They are ones that
throw up some kind of dialog, I change the user agent and look at them
again, then move on."
-- Rick <no...@nomail.com> telling lies in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Matt on Monday 22 December 2008 19:00 : \____
>
>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> OpenCL and OpenGL take on DirectX
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | OpenGL is now more competitive with DirectX than ever. Microsoft's stumble
>> | with Vista and its DirectX/Direct3D version 10 has also helped to stall
>> | its momentum in the market. Microsoft plans to add OpenCL-like support for
>> | GPGPU computing into DirectX 11 in Windows 7, but Apple's OpenCL, which is
>> | designed to work closely with OpenGL code, will arrive first and with
>> | broad industry support. Apple has also released OpenCL as a royalty-free,
>> | open standard anyone can implement on any platform.
>
>
> But I don't see whether they have or haven't licensed the source code
> with a GPL-like license or even opened it for inspection. That seems
> troublesome.
It even received the blessings of the FSF. It's all good.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
"Linux is a very complete and sophisticated operating system. And there is a
lot of work being done to improve it in and of itself, particularly to make it
easier to use and easier for people to set up on their personal computers."
--Paul Maritz, senior vice-president, Microsoft
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAklQPs8ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo43QACfeud4EjBc+9ae3+hU5a7edH2c
1tYAoKaepNGDVscE5Lr2+xuHG0ukGNGj
=WeK6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wolfgang Draxinger
> OpenCl is very linked with OpenGL and GPUs.
No it's not. OpenCL is about simplifying the use of special
purpose multicore processors like the Cell or the upcomming
Larabee. Heck, you could even use it to develop programs for
supercomputers. If you do graphics with that stuff is a whole
different story. OpenCL is not intended to replace GLSL.
It's intended to replace propritary systems like CUDA. That
CUDA's first runtime environment was a multistream processor
based of the GeForce8 architecture was due to the developer of
CUDA - they had the architecture ready to use.
> As I do. What I do NOT advocate is yet another "initiative"
> with Apple involved which takes the eye off stuff which is
> still not supported properly by the entertainment industry for
> one.
I don't like some aspects of Apple, to be precise, I don't like
how it mutated from a innovator in IT into a lifestyle accescior
trademark. But one thing is for sure: The BIG entertainment
industry goes only to where the money is. And still Apple has a
larger market share on the multimedia desktop as Linux. Sad but
true. And Apple has become all about entertainment.
So what are the odds, that entertainment software will be
published for MacOS X vs. Linux? DirectX is a Microsoft only
API, and game studios finally feel, that they've got locked in.
When they finally decide to support other plattforms, they will
go for Apple first, since those are the machines
with "Entertainment" all written on it. But Apple also means
OpenGL for graphics, of which Linux directly profits. For two
reasons:
* OpenGL applications are inherently easy to port between
platforms - you have to replace only a small layer of Framework
* MacOS X builds on a BSD system, this makes it even easier to
port to Linux
Already Blizzard is publishing WoW for MacOS X and they're
planning a Linux version, too. I'm pretty sure that, if WoW
would have been locked into DirectX this wouldn't be done. But
Blizzard deliberately choose MacOS X as target plattform, as it
gains more subscriptions to WoW.
And in recent news, Myst/Uru Online is going to be open sourced
unter GPL license. I'm pretty sure, we'll see Linux port soon
enough.
And don't forget that though OpenGL has been called "Open" for a
long time, but actually it was under the control of SGI. And
there hasn't been a single free (as in speech) reference
implementation of OpenGL and there still isn't. Mesa3D is
feature complete, but it never went through a compliance test,
so the Mesa3D project can't advertise with being _a_ OpenGL
implementation. It's "merely" a implementation of the
specification.
And as there is a OSS implementation of the OpenGL spec, there
will be a OSS implementation of the OpenCL spec. And it will be
in competition with commercial implementations. And you should
be glad, that a big company like Apple plays the early adoptor
and takes the risk. Once OpenCL is established in a larger user
base those will likely port to Linux and a OSS OpenCL
implementation. Just for the record: OpenGL was avaliable on
Windows years before it was avaliable on Linux. There were only
CSS implementations for expensive graphics workstations, and if
it were not for Microsoft, we'd have no cheap OpenGL capable
consumer hardware, but only propritary APIs like the dead for
good Glide.
Further I'd like to remind you, that Apple is now main developer
of two core OSS projects: CUPS (you want to print stuff, don't
you) and Webkit (Konqueror anyone?)
Wolfgang Draxinger
Tim Smith
Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> MS always had openGL support. Or rather the video drivers did. What you
> >> DONT need is ANOTHER open standard from Apple.
> >>
> >> Are you guys nuts?
> >
> > Yes, we do need it. It is not what you think it is:
> >
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL>
>
> No. We dont need it.
>
> What we need is to convince people to use what we have got.
What we've got now are several vendor-specific systems (CUDA from
NVidia, and Stream Computing SDK from AMD, for example). You don't
think having a portable, standard way to do GPGPU stuff is something we
need!?
--
--Tim Smith
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Wolfgang Draxinger on Tuesday 23 December 2008 01:00 : \____
> P.S.: I AM advocating the use of OpenGL and open standards. As
> such I can't stand people who go fanatically about it and
> ridicule the humble efforts the OSS community takes, to gain
> some market share. One gains nothing by insulting other people.
You're relying to a troll that got expelled from various newsgroups for
deliberately insulting people. Don't waste your time with it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAklQVj8ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5joACeJf6IdEz2eDDqdkhPFXb1kuNi
0DkAoK36UdNzggkri3tk070OUe8IB07j
=hXjA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Matt
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> ____/ Matt on Monday 22 December 2008 19:00 : \____
>
>>
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> OpenCL and OpenGL take on DirectX
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | OpenGL is now more competitive with DirectX than ever. Microsoft's stumble
>>> | with Vista and its DirectX/Direct3D version 10 has also helped to stall
>>> | its momentum in the market. Microsoft plans to add OpenCL-like support for
>>> | GPGPU computing into DirectX 11 in Windows 7, but Apple's OpenCL, which is
>>> | designed to work closely with OpenGL code, will arrive first and with
>>> | broad industry support. Apple has also released OpenCL as a royalty-free,
>>> | open standard anyone can implement on any platform.
>>
>> But I don't see whether they have or haven't licensed the source code
>> with a GPL-like license or even opened it for inspection. That seems
>> troublesome.
>
> It even received the blessings of the FSF. It's all good.
Well, that is encouraging.
I gather from Wolfgang's post that the standard is open, but the first
implementation is not. That gives FSF and FOSS makers something to work
on ...
Hadron
No. I dont. At this time we need a shove of the existing standards. And
b "we" I mean the Linux side. Gods knows its having enough difficulty
keeping up and getting SW vendors on their side.
--
"XP can't be selling well, or we'd have the wintrolls crowing about it all
over the advocacy newsgroups."
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy
Peter Köhlmann
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>
>> In article <gip6m5$qjj$1...@edwardhall.motzarella.org>,
>> Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> MS always had openGL support. Or rather the video drivers did. What
>>> >> you DONT need is ANOTHER open standard from Apple.
>>> >>
>>> >> Are you guys nuts?
>>> >
>>> > Yes, we do need it. It is not what you think it is:
>>> >
>>> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL>
>>>
>>> No. We dont need it.
>>>
>>> What we need is to convince people to use what we have got.
>>
>> What we've got now are several vendor-specific systems (CUDA from
>> NVidia, and Stream Computing SDK from AMD, for example). You don't
>> think having a portable, standard way to do GPGPU stuff is something we
>> need!?
>
> No. I dont. At this time we need a shove of the existing standards. And
> b "we" I mean the Linux side. Gods knows its having enough difficulty
> keeping up and getting SW vendors on their side.
>
Translation: It is another threat to MS dominance, and so it has to be
stopped somehow.
Too bad that your "OSS culling committee" has no say in that, isn't
it, "true linux advocate" and "kernel hacker" Hadron Quark?
--
The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners.
Homer
> But I don't see whether they have or haven't licensed the source
> code with a GPL-like license or even opened it for inspection.
> That seems troublesome.
It's a BSD license:
http://www.khronos.org/registry/cl/api/1.0/cl.h
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
09:46:01 up 47 days, 17:28, 4 users, load average: 0.01, 0.08, 0.08
William Poaster
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Answer : they are written in openGL.
>
> We're not talking about OpenGL here, we're talking about OpenCL
> (Zee Ell)
> <http://khronos.org/opencl/>
>
> You should really learn to carefully read a text and to some
> recherche, before saying/writing something stupid.
>
> In some cases it's good practice to <ROT13>FGSH</ROT13>.
>
> Wolfgang Draxinger
>
> P.S.: I AM advocating the use of OpenGL and open standards. As
> such I can't stand people who go fanatically about it and
> ridicule the humble efforts the OSS community takes, to gain
> some market share. One gains nothing by insulting other people.
Hadron Quack is a rabid M$ fanboi & self-confessed troll.
He's been binned in various Linux groups.
Some examples of his M$ advocacy:
<quote>
The great majority of Windows application SW
is eons better than it's OSS copy or alternative.
<unquote>
From: Hadron
Message-ID: <fkga6j$ure$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
<quote>
Anyone who says Open Office is as
good as MS Office is living in denial.
<unquote>
From: Hadron Quark <hadro...@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87wsxqr...@gmail.com>
Regarding M$:
<quote>
I see no illegally maintained monopoly.
<unquote>
Hadron <hadro...@googlemail.com>
Message-ID: <fk8pu0$ovj$5...@registered.motzarella.org>
<quote>
There is a certain amount of hostility towards Linux in most of your
posts. Your statement above is one prime example. Google can reveal
plenty others. Even a blind person reading this newsgroup could pretty
quickly figure out that you do appear to favor MS...hence why question why
do you bother with linux?
<unquote>
Stephan Rose
Message-ID: <DoCdnQ1r36i7Bx_a...@giganews.com>
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.ubuntu
--
No room for the horrors
of Micro$oft here!
-- Stephen Fry - Room 101 --
Wolfgang Draxinger
> Hadron Quack is a rabid M$ fanboi & self-confessed troll.
> He's been binned in various Linux groups.
Well, he bumped up in c.g.a.opengl, and as I don't read COLA I
was unaware of him. OpenGL is a unmoderated NG and we've got
surprisingly little trolls over here. A small OpenGL vs. DirectX
Graphics _discussion_ now and then. But I can't recollect any
memories of a real flamewar originating in c.g.a.opengl.
So maybe that's the cause for my kind reaction. Anyway, my
killfile grew by one entry.
Wolfgang Draxinger
Matt
> Verily I say unto thee, that Matt spake thusly:
>
>> But I don't see whether they have or haven't licensed the source
>> code with a GPL-like license or even opened it for inspection.
>> That seems troublesome.
>
> It's a BSD license:
>
> http://www.khronos.org/registry/cl/api/1.0/cl.h
Oh, thanks.
That isn't bad if they keep the source open. Then it could be forked
and the new branch put under GPL or similar.
Tim Smith
Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What we've got now are several vendor-specific systems (CUDA from
> > NVidia, and Stream Computing SDK from AMD, for example). You don't
> > think having a portable, standard way to do GPGPU stuff is something we
> > need!?
>
> No. I dont. At this time we need a shove of the existing standards. And
> b "we" I mean the Linux side. Gods knows its having enough difficulty
> keeping up and getting SW vendors on their side.
What existing standards? As far as I know, there isn't an existing
standard. If I want to do, say, a GPU-accelerated FFT, I have to decide
if I'm going to target NVidia GPUs or ATI GPUs, then use either NVidia's
CUDA software or AMD's Stream Computing SDK, respectively.
With OpenCL, I'll be able to write my GPU-assisted FFT code in a way
that doesn't depend on the particular GPU. How is that not a good and
much needed thing?
--
--Tim Smith
Peter Köhlmann
Simply *because* it is a good thing Hadron Quark is against it.
Not only because it is "choice" (something Hadron *hates* like few other
things), but also because it is good for OpenGL. Can't have that, as MS
favours DirectX and wants to bury OpenGL, the sooner the better
--
Don't abandon hope: your Tom Mix decoder ring arrives tomorrow
The Ghost In The Machine
<gip104$rh3$1...@edwardhall.motzarella.org>:
Pedant Point: I frankly doubt such; good gaming engines
would most likely abstract the problem away anyway.
It's a bit like modeling a bouncing ball deep in the gaming
engine with the list of quadrilaterals or triangles
approximating it in an OpenGL display list by some sort
of driver/converter/subroutine *outside* the game proper;
the display won't see the former, and the gaming engine may
see only small parts of the latter.
Lower parts will hook the objects into the display lists.
In OpenGL, these might be converted to shaders and
instruction sequences which render the display per frame,
or are referenced during display rendering -- glNewList()
and glEndList(), for those familiar with the API; I don't
know what Direct3D does in that area but from what little
I've read it's more data-based rather than state/sequence-based,
with a more complicated setup.
Quake 4 in particular runs very well on Linux, with some
version of OpenGL (and a native Linux program driving
the whole shebang); however, the official game site
(www.quake4game.com) specifically stipulates DirectX 9.0C,
which it includes in its installation. Doesn't look like
OpenGL to me.
Of course the Quake4 data is the same in both cases.
Unreal Tournament had software and OpenGL rendering engines;
the former used the main CPU, the latter set up display
lists through an OpenGL driver. The look between the
two was very different back then. UT2004 also varied
slightly between Windows and Linux -- the most visible
area being the semitransparent blue health icon. UT2004
also dumped the software rendering, which is probably
just as well; even cheap cards can do Direct3D and OpenGL
at a rather crude level. (Heck, my laptop supports OpenGL,
though not all that fast.)
>
> Get the existing stuff used - not more feather brained geek smuddying
> the water AGAIN.
>
> its this fannying around that got OGL left behind in the first place.
>
> But of course COLA and reality are two different things ....
>
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #8830129:
std::set<...> v; for(..:iterator i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); i++)
if(*i == thing) {...}
The Ghost In The Machine
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com>
wrote
on Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:27:22 -0800
<reply_in_group-A65...@news.supernews.com>:
Not sure "need" is the right word, but it does look
potentially useful, and even DirectX/Direct3D could
join in, given the right circumstances.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).
aku ankka
> Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> > In article <giosmb$9f...@edwardhall.motzarella.org>,
> > Hadron <hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> MS always had openGL support. Or rather the video drivers did. What you
> >> DONT need is ANOTHER open standard from Apple.
>
> >> Are you guys nuts?
>
> > Yes, we do need it. It is not what you think it is:
>
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL>
>
> No. We dont need it.
>
We don't need computers. We could all live in caves and eat berries,
fruits, etc. But that's besides the point. Check what the 'C' in
OpenCL stands for; it's not for graphics. It is for computing; doing
computations. There are a lot of interesting things you can compute
with a computer.. you still with us, or do we need to simplify this
for you?
Okay, now, for using the CPU, which stands for Central Processing
Unit, you can write programs in many interesting programming
languages. You can use binary, assembly, C, C++, Java, Fortran, Basic
and other languages. The OpenCL is language and API to support the
language for more generic computing hardware. Think of Intel's
Larrabee, GPU's, CELL, etc.. they have a lot more power than CPU+FPU
(FPU = Floating Point Unit). This enables us programmers to write
software to use that raw computing power.
It's not about needing or not needing OpenCL. We _need_ something
similar to use the processing power that we have. If it's not OpenCL,
then it's compute shaders in DirectX 11 or CUDA. OpenCL will just work
more hardware and platforms. I think your argument boils down to if we
need to use the hardware or not. You say we don't need to use it,
fine, you don't. No argument there. You know best what _you_ need. But
when the context is HOW we going to use the hardware, suddenly we DO
need OpenCL or similar API.
That's the topic people here are discussing. You are, like, commenting
on the wrong discussion.
Homer
> On 23 joulu, 01:07, Hadron <hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>>> In article <giosmb$9f...@edwardhall.motzarella.org>, Hadron
>>> <hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> MS always had openGL support. Or rather the video drivers did.
>>>> What you DONT need is ANOTHER open standard from Apple. Are you
>>>> guys nuts?
>>>
>>> Yes, we do need it. It is not what you think it is:
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCL>
>>
>> No. We dont need it.
>
> We don't need computers. We could all live in caves and eat berries,
> fruits, etc. But that's besides the point. Check what the 'C' in
> OpenCL stands for; it's not for graphics. It is for computing; doing
> computations. There are a lot of interesting things you can compute
> with a computer.. you still with us, or do we need to simplify this
> for you?
Let me introduce Hadron Quark, affectionately known as COLA's Resident
"Expert" on Everything - Ever®, who is without exception the most stupid
person I have ever encountered in my entire life.
And I don't say this as some offhand insult, it is a simple statement of
fact. He makes Dubya Bush look like a Nobel Prize-winning mathematician
by comparison, so I'm afraid you'd be wasting your time simplifying the
truth for his benefit.
You could liquidise the truth with a pound of bananas, and spoon-feed it
to Hadron whilst carefully wiping the dribbles from his mouth, and he'd
still totally fail to understand.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
| the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
| weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
22:17:58 up 50 days, 6:00, 4 users, load average: 0.14, 0.30, 0.23
Philipp Klaus Krause
> I gather from Wolfgang's post that the standard is open, but the first
> implementation is not. That gives FSF and FOSS makers something to work
> on ...
It doesn't fell open when you read the specification. There's a whole
page dedicated to copyright bullshit right after the table of contents
(you may not this, you may not that, etc; e.g. "receipt of this
specification does not convey any rights to [...] use [...] anything
that it may describe in whole or part").
Philipp
jbwest
"Philipp Klaus Krause" <p...@spth.de> wrote in message
news:495538da$0$17068$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org...
Oh, that same stuff is in the GPL. It's a right to use, modify, etc, it is
not "public domain". The original copyright owners retain copyright -- so
that they can sue those who do not comply with the licensing terms, e.g,
they can force those who derive the source to also make it open. You can't
do that with "public domain" software.