Icculus speeaks: DTJ's "speculations" wrong
David Sutherland
the port of Americas Army to 64-bit Linux was kind enough to answer a
couple of questions for me.
First, a little background:
http://icculus.org/~icculus/ryan/resume.txt
Next, his mail response:
Return-Path: <icc...@clutteredmind.org>
Delivery-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 02:25:04 +0000
Received: from mx5.123-reg.co.uk (actually host
215.202.67.212.in-addr.arpa) by dswu28 with SMTP (XT-PP) with ESMTP;
Thu, 30 Oct 2003 02:25:01 +0000
Received: from net-6621941-214.customer.corenap.com ([66.219.41.214]
helo=icculus.org)
by mx5.123-reg.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.36 #2)
id 1AF2VD-0002ea-00
for da...@parsifalthecat.com; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 02:25:35 +0000
Received: (qmail 20561 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2003 02:25:10
-0000
Received: from rdu57-12-028.nc.rr.com (HELO clutteredmind.org)
(66.57.12.28)
by net-6621941-214.customer.corenap.com with SMTP; 30 Oct 2003
02:25:10 -0000
Message-ID: <3FA07666...@clutteredmind.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:24:38 -0500
From: "Ryan C. Gordon" <icc...@clutteredmind.org>
Organization: icculus.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4)
Gecko/20030720
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: da...@parsifalthecat.com
Subject: Re: AA 64-bit doesn't use Unreal engine - que?
References: <000001c39e57$c1b84c10$0200a8c0@davidspc>
In-Reply-To: <000001c39e57$c1b84c10$0200a8c0@davidspc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 1. Does 64-bit AA use the Unreal engine?
Yes.
> 2. Does the 64-bit version introduce any new features - models?
> Textures?
No.
> 3. Does the 64-bit version require hardware graphics acceleration?
Yes.
It's a straight port of the Unreal Engine to a 64-bit Linux platform.
We do have a software renderer called Pixomatic for Unreal Tournament
2004, but it's made up of a lot of assembly code and thus wouldn't
move to even the AMD64 platform very well (and ArmyOps doesn't
include this renderer at all anyhow), so it's OpenGL only.
--ryan.
====
This proves as false DTJ's claims that 64-bit Americas Army has new
features, that it uses an engine other than Unreal, that it uses an
API other than openGL, and that the CPU is doing any more of the
graphics workload than it was in the 32-bit version. It's a straight
port.
In fact, I think that pretty much eviscerates all his claims based
upon this piece of software, and absolutely confirms all the other
evidence that has been presented and which he has refused to
acknowledge.
No doubt he will now go into a wild spin in which he disavows any
claims he made, impugns the reputation of Ryan Gordon, and then make
pitiful "incorrect" responses rather than admit that he was wrong, and
the people he has been arguing with have been right all along.
Plus ca change.
Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)
David T. Johnson
Jason
Irrelevant comments about 16 bit operating systems using features on a
32bit chip.
Constant "opinions" based on no understanding of hardware/software.
It's obvious that you've been reading, but with that reading hasn't come
much understanding. I'd really recommend Patterson and Hennessy's
Computer Organization and Design : The Harware/Software Interface.
If you did you might realize just how irrelevant your article on
os2ezine was.
Francois Fornier
news:vq2dqhf...@corp.supernews.com
> I have no idea who this guy is or if he knows anything about the 64-bit
> version of America's Army or not but I have always been very clear in my
> comments, at the time that I made them, that details of the 64-bit
> version of America's Army were unknown.
Moins ça change...
There we have it then, an 'a posteriori' admission that you were wrong.
Maybe you should research who he is so you can refute David Sutherland's
post... Oh, but you have!
;-)
François
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Andrew J. Brehm
[to DTJ]
>
> It's obvious that you've been reading, but with that reading hasn't come
> much understanding. I'd really recommend Patterson and Hennessy's
> Computer Organization and Design : The Harware/Software Interface.
>
A really good book actually, an excellent recomendation.
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
David Sutherland
<djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>I have no idea who this guy is or if he knows
I've given you every piece of information you need. Your inability to
understand it is your problem.
David T. Johnson
David Sutherland
<djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>David Sutherland wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:08:50 -0800, "David T. Johnson"
>> <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have no idea who this guy is or if he knows
>>
>>
>>
>> I've given you every piece of information you need. Your inability to
>> understand it is your problem.
>
>I emailed Ryan and he very kindly replied to me that he worked on the
>64-bit port of America's Army but has not worked on 64-bit AA since and
>does not know anything about GameStorm, so I guess we are all still
>waiting to see what GameStorm is doing.
I'd appreciate seeing exactly what he told you. Last time I checked
64-bit Americas Army and "64-bit AA" were exactly the same thing.
And frankly, you are a liar with zero credibility. So cough up.
David Sutherland
<djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>David Sutherland wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:08:50 -0800, "David T. Johnson"
>> <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have no idea who this guy is or if he knows
>>
>>
>>
>> I've given you every piece of information you need. Your inability to
>> understand it is your problem.
>
>I emailed Ryan and he very kindly replied to me that he worked on the
>64-bit port of America's Army but has not worked on 64-bit AA since and
>does not know anything about GameStorm, so I guess we are all still
>waiting to see what GameStorm is doing.
Rather than wait for your refusal to answer, I went straight to the
source and told him that you claim he knows nothing about Gamestorm,
nor the 64-bit version of AA that they are using. Here is his
response:
Ryan C Gordon:--
===
Hmm...perhaps he misunderstood. I did the 64-bit port of ArmyOps, and
handed off the finished product to another group working with SCI who
did the GameStorm stuff. The gamestorm disc boots a flavor of Linux,
detects various hardware and then boots the game.
I know about ArmyOps...what sound drivers the gamestorm CD has isn't
really something I would know. My ArmyOps work was done on a dual
Opteron system from Boxx with a 64-bit version of Suse, drivers from
Nvidia, and god-knows-what audio chip. I didn't work from a
self-booting CD at all...that step takes place after my work is done.
Feel free to post this to the forum where this is being discussed if
it will clear anything up.
--ryan.
==
So, SCI are using *his* ported version of Army Ops, not some other
version that does any of the magical things you claimed. He handed
off the *finished product* to SCI, and they did the Gamestorm bundling
- putting together the OS and *drivers* and getting it onto CD.
He also knows exactly what Gamestorm is, which is in direct opposition
to your claims that he knew nothing about it.
You have told Yet Another Lie, in your long string of lies. And why?
Because you don't want to admit that your claims were wrong.
Jason
they've been put to rest. Misunderstanding my ass, he can't admit when
he's wrong or he's just flat out lying.
David T. Johnson
David Sutherland
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 13:32:26 -0800, "David T. Johnson"
<djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
[snip]
I'll leave our respective posts to speak for themselves.
David T. Johnson
David Sutherland
<djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>David Sutherland wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 13:32:26 -0800, "David T. Johnson"
>> <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> I'll leave our respective posts to speak for themselves.
>>
>
>Yeah, I'd quit if I were you, before you lose any more ground than you
>already have.
David, who exactly do you think you've convinced with any of your
lies? You claimed a number of "facts" during this conversation and
you have failed to prove a single one of them. You are reduced to
telling outright lies when confronted by evidence of your mistakes -
witness your claim that Ryan knew nothing about Gamestorm - an
absolute cold, hard lie. The only person persuaded by any of your
embarrassing defiance of reality is you.
If you want to have the last word (and let's face it, you always do)
then feel free. I know which of us has made a convincing argument
using facts, and I know who has proven himself both technically
ignorant, and a craven liar.
David T. Johnson
Menno Willemse
This exchange pisses me off. It's in my opinion one of the nastier "DTJ
Sez It So It Must Be Wrong" sets of posts that we seem to be having
these days.
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:08:50 -0800, "David T. Johnson"
<djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>
>I emailed Ryan and he very kindly replied to me that he worked on the
>64-bit port of America's Army but has not worked on 64-bit AA since and
>does not know anything about GameStorm, so I guess we are all still
>waiting to see what GameStorm is doing.
Whereupon David Sutherland wrote in different posts:
Exhibit A by David Sutherland:
> I'd appreciate seeing exactly what he told you. Last time I checked
> 64-bit Americas Army and "64-bit AA" were exactly the same thing.
David Sutherland has completely misunderstood what David J is saying.
Ryan Gordon told David that he did work on the 64-bit port of AA, which,
indeed, is the same thing as America's Army unabbreviated. Apparently
Gamestorm gets added to the game after the port. So while Ryan does know
all about AA, he does not know all about Gamestorm.
And that is what David's words mean to right thinking individuals. In
case you're tripping over the "anything" there: Mr. Gordon may well have
put it like that himself, meaning he doesn't know anything about the
insides of GameStorm. It's not his department. He does the game, SCI
does the Gamestorm thing.
Mr. David Sutherland misinterpreted this (which I could care less about,
but only after a lobotomy). However, he then proceeds to contact Mr.
Gordon as follows:
Exhibit B by David Sutherland:
> Rather than wait for your refusal to answer, I went straight to the
> source and told him that you claim he knows nothing about Gamestorm,
> nor the 64-bit version of AA that they are using. Here is his
> response:
So you've gotten Ryan pissed off at David Johnson for no good reason,
because David S misunderstood, or simply didn't care enough to read
properly, David J's post. That is clear from Ryan's reply:
> Ryan C Gordon:--
> ===
> Hmm...perhaps he misunderstood. I did the 64-bit port of ArmyOps, and
> handed off the finished product to another group working with SCI who
> did the GameStorm stuff. The gamestorm disc boots a flavor of Linux,
> detects various hardware and then boots the game.
Remember? David J didn't say that Ryan knew nothing about AA. That was
the misguided understanding (I'm being kind here) of David Sutherland.
But then again, putting words in someone else's mouth is not exactly a
new thing with David S. David S reading someone's posts properly before
replying would be nice for a change.
Now for David Sutherland to speed-skim a post, misinterprete it and then
bad-mouth a poster to another person is low. I may not agree with David
Johnson on several subjects, but at least David J does not pull dirty
tricks like that.
* * *
Well, at least we learned that games get ported to 64-bit Linux and then
bundled on a bootable CD with Gamestorm. And thus we get good games that
do not require Windows to run. Which is a Good Thing for all concerned.
Always end on a happy note.
Cheers/2.
Menno
David Sutherland
wrote:
>Hello World,
>
>This exchange pisses me off. It's in my opinion one of the nastier "DTJ
>Sez It So It Must Be Wrong" sets of posts that we seem to be having
>these days.
>
If DTJ quit lying all the time, there would be a lot less of it.
>On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:08:50 -0800, "David T. Johnson"
><djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
> >
>>I emailed Ryan and he very kindly replied to me that he worked on the
>>64-bit port of America's Army but has not worked on 64-bit AA since and
>>does not know anything about GameStorm, so I guess we are all still
>>waiting to see what GameStorm is doing.
>
>Whereupon David Sutherland wrote in different posts:
>
>Exhibit A by David Sutherland:
>> I'd appreciate seeing exactly what he told you. Last time I checked
>> 64-bit Americas Army and "64-bit AA" were exactly the same thing.
>
>David Sutherland has completely misunderstood what David J is saying.
>Ryan Gordon told David that he did work on the 64-bit port of AA, which,
>indeed, is the same thing as America's Army unabbreviated. Apparently
>Gamestorm gets added to the game after the port. So while Ryan does know
>all about AA, he does not know all about Gamestorm.
>
Nor did I say he did. He does however know what Gamestorm is, he
*does* know what version of 64-bit AA they are using and he *does*
know what the features of that port are.
DTJ has made claims about that version of AA which are categorically
denied by Ryan:
- He confirms that it has no new features.
- He confirms that it uses the same API as the 32-bit version.
-He confirms the 64-bit version does no extra graphics work in the
CPU.
>And that is what David's words mean to right thinking individuals. In
>case you're tripping over the "anything" there: Mr. Gordon may well have
>put it like that himself, meaning he doesn't know anything about the
>insides of GameStorm. It's not his department. He does the game, SCI
>does the Gamestorm thing.
>
Look again at DTJ's claims.
>Mr. David Sutherland misinterpreted this (which I could care less about,
>but only after a lobotomy). However, he then proceeds to contact Mr.
>Gordon as follows:
>
>Exhibit B by David Sutherland:
>> Rather than wait for your refusal to answer, I went straight to the
>> source and told him that you claim he knows nothing about Gamestorm,
>> nor the 64-bit version of AA that they are using. Here is his
>> response:
>
>So you've gotten Ryan pissed off at David Johnson for no good reason,
>because David S misunderstood, or simply didn't care enough to read
>properly, David J's post. That is clear from Ryan's reply:
>
>> Ryan C Gordon:--
>> ===
>> Hmm...perhaps he misunderstood. I did the 64-bit port of ArmyOps, and
>> handed off the finished product to another group working with SCI who
>> did the GameStorm stuff. The gamestorm disc boots a flavor of Linux,
>> detects various hardware and then boots the game.
>
>Remember? David J didn't say that Ryan knew nothing about AA.
It was worse than that - he claimed that Ryan didn't know anything
about the version of AA that they are using, and that therefore he
could not disprove any of DTJ's absurd claims about the port.
>That was
>the misguided understanding (I'm being kind here) of David Sutherland.
>But then again, putting words in someone else's mouth is not exactly a
>new thing with David S. David S reading someone's posts properly before
>replying would be nice for a change.
>
This is really stupid. Have you been paying any attention *at all*
to DTJ's claims?
He has stated that Gamestorm DOES NOT USE the same engine as the
32-bit version.
He has stated that Gamestorm DOES NOT USE the same API as the 32-bit
version.
He has stated that Gamestorm has EXTRA FEATURES over the 32-bit
version.
He has stated that the 64-bit version DOES NOT REQUIRE HARDWARE
SPECIFIC DRIVERS.
He has stated that the 64-bit version DOES THE GRAPHICS IN THE CPU.
Everything Ryan said disproves this. What was DTJ's response? Ryan
doesn't know anything about Gamestorm, therefore he knows nothing
about the version of AA bundled with Gamestorm.
If you think I'm being "nasty" for pointing out that this is a crock
of shit, well that's just tough. I guess "advocates" would rather
stick together and defend the most outrageously stupid logical
fallacies rather than admit when one of his little playmates is wrong.
Do you think that any of DTJ's claims about the 64-bit port are
*true*? If so, which ones?
>Now for David Sutherland to speed-skim a post, misinterprete it and then
>bad-mouth a poster to another person is low. I may not agree with David
>Johnson on several subjects, but at least David J does not pull dirty
>tricks like that.
>
Yeah right. Everyone knows what an honest guy that DTJ is. He would
never make a claim he can't prove, would he? ROTLFMFAO.
See those claims above, and reflect upon the fact that NONE of them
are true.
> * * *
>
>Well, at least we learned that games get ported to 64-bit Linux and then
>bundled on a bootable CD with Gamestorm. And thus we get good games that
>do not require Windows to run. Which is a Good Thing for all concerned.
>
>Always end on a happy note.
>
The happy note is that DTJ got his arse kicked (again), and we get to
see where you stand on the subject of honesty and proof.
>Cheers/2.
>
>Menno
Who is obviously still upset about the last time I made him look
silly. And that's what this post is really about - a couple of weeks
back you got roasted by me for some dismissive comments you made about
personal privacy in the thread "Has Microsoft lied about the Linux
features?", and here you are defending a serial liar because you see
it as a way to "get back" at me. News flash, Menno; it just let's me
add "truth" to the list of things I know you don't care about.
Congratulations. Feeling better? "<laugh>"
Sten Solberg
> Now for David Sutherland to speed-skim a post, misinterprete it and then
> bad-mouth a poster to another person is low. I may not agree with David
> Johnson on several subjects, but at least David J does not pull dirty
> tricks like that.
Yep. There you have it. That's Sutherland for you. I would never trust that
man about anything.
Thanks!
--
Best regards
Sten Solberg
... Also sprach Zarathustra: "Have a Good Day!"
Menno Willemse
Replying to this is somewhat against my better judgement, but I think
putting this issue in terms that even David Sutherland cannot possibly
misunderstand, presents an interesting challenge.
For clarity, I herewith show the words of David Johnson that prompted
David S to email Ryan Gordon:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:08:50 -0800, "David T. Johnson"
<djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>I emailed Ryan and he very kindly replied to me that he worked on the
>64-bit port of America's Army but has not worked on 64-bit AA since and
>does not know anything about GameStorm, so I guess we are all still
>waiting to see what GameStorm is doing.
From this short piece of text we can glean the following information:
- David J emailed Ryan Gordon with questions.
- Ryan Gordon replied to David J with the following replies:
= Mr. Gordon worked on the 64-bit port of AA.
= Mr. Gordon, having finished his work, is now not working on 64-Bit AA
= Mr. Gordon is no expert on Gamestorm.
- The email did not contain more information on GameStorm.
David S' reply to this was:
>I'd appreciate seeing exactly what he told you. Last time I checked
>64-bit Americas Army and "64-bit AA" were exactly the same thing.
This shows that David S has not read the message properly. Nowhere in
the message does it say that "AA" is different from "America's Army".
Not being satisfied with this, David S then further posted, saying:
>Rather than wait for your refusal to answer, I went straight to the
>source and told him that you claim he knows nothing about Gamestorm,
>nor the 64-bit version of AA that they are using. Here is his
>response:
So David S has somehow managed to extract from David Johnson's words,
the following information:
* Mr. Ryan knows nothing about the 64-bit version of AA used by SCI
None of the words in the message written by David J can possibly be made
to fit this information. One would need to add or remove words to the
message to do so. Further:
* Mr. Ryan knows nothing about Gamestorm.
This actually *can* be found in the text: "does not know anything about
GameStorm". However, taking this literally is not reasonable. David
Johnson knows that Ryan Gordon is one of the creators of AA, and
therefore must be aware that SCI intends to GameStorm it.
I might say that I know nothing about Windows (especially to
tear-stricken users who have just lost a substantial amount of work to
it), while as a matter of fact I do know several things about Windows.
It's hard not to look when the screaming starts.
David S then takes these bits of information (one false, one doubtful to
say the least) and fires up Outlook Express to tell on David J to Ryan
Gordon. Then, he comes back here to brag about it. This is a kind of
behaviour more commonly associated with five-year olds playing in sand
boxes. Which is why David S' next comment merely makes me smile:
> Who is obviously still upset about the last time I made him look
> silly. And that's what this post is really about - a couple of weeks
> back you got roasted by me for some dismissive comments you made about
> personal privacy in the thread "Has Microsoft lied about the Linux
> features?", and here you are defending a serial liar because you see
> it as a way to "get back" at me. News flash, Menno; it just let's me
> add "truth" to the list of things I know you don't care about.
> Congratulations. Feeling better? "<laugh>"
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Newsgroup, I do not like the way Mr.
Sutherland is behaving. If someone is providing information which is
false, then you point out to that person what you think is wrong with
it. I don't like this practice of "Dead Agenting". Not with David J,
not with me, not with anyone else. If you have a problem with someone's
point, you go for the point, not for the guy who's making it.
Yours,
Menno
David Sutherland
wrote:
Good to see you showing how impersonal you are about the whole thing,
with one personal attack after another. What. A. Fucking. Joke.
I notice you refuse to say which of DTJ's claims you think are
true....because you know he's a liar. All you can do is spit bile
because your arguments are pathetic, and the only reason you respond
is because I have previously made you look stupid.
Feeling clever yet, Menno?
DTJ lied. Now you defend those lies. You pointedly ignore the
reality of those lies in order to attack *me* for having pointed them
out. Indeed, you even started a whole new thread in order to launch
your vitriol. Talk about playing in the sandpit!
ROTFLMAO!!!!
You don't care about truth, you only care about trying to score
"points". Feel free to try, Just remember that your words are
forever, and your lies and evasions will stay with you :)
David Sutherland
<sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**btconnect.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
>This is really stupid. Have you been paying any attention *at all*
>to DTJ's claims?
>
>He has stated that Gamestorm DOES NOT USE the same engine as the
>32-bit version.
>
>He has stated that Gamestorm DOES NOT USE the same API as the 32-bit
>version.
>
>He has stated that Gamestorm has EXTRA FEATURES over the 32-bit
>version.
>
>He has stated that the 64-bit version DOES NOT REQUIRE HARDWARE
>SPECIFIC DRIVERS.
>
>He has stated that the 64-bit version DOES THE GRAPHICS IN THE CPU.
>
>Everything Ryan said disproves this. What was DTJ's response? Ryan
>doesn't know anything about Gamestorm, therefore he knows nothing
>about the version of AA bundled with Gamestorm.
>
>If you think I'm being "nasty" for pointing out that this is a crock
>of shit, well that's just tough. I guess "advocates" would rather
>stick together and defend the most outrageously stupid logical
>fallacies rather than admit when one of his little playmates is wrong.
>
>Do you think that any of DTJ's claims about the 64-bit port are
>*true*? If so, which ones?
>
Hilarious. Menno says how nasty I am for challenging DTJ, but he
refuses to say which of DTJ's claims he thinks are true. Instead he
launches personal attacks. He even had to create a new thread so he
doesn't have to address this issue.
Menno, I challenge you to state for the record which of DTJ's claims
you are defending. I want the benefit of a good belly laugh :)
Come on puppy, cough up - which part of DTJ's claims above are you
willing to defend as true? So far you've done nothing but run away
with your tail between your legs screaming and yelling. You are as
chickenshit as DTJ.
Cluck cluck cluck! :)
Sten Solberg
<sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**btconnect.com> wrote:
> Cluck cluck cluck! :)
Is that goose or turkey?
Menno
David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**btconnect.com> wrote in message news:<7gqlqvs6lt111pgdg...@4ax.com>...
>
> Hilarious. Menno says how nasty I am for challenging DTJ, but he
> refuses to say which of DTJ's claims he thinks are true. Instead he
> launches personal attacks. He even had to create a new thread so he
> doesn't have to address this issue.
Oh, you can challenge David J as much as you like. No problem
whatsoever. Give it your best shot. Try shooting holes in what he's
*really* saying for your next try. Yes, I know it's more difficult,
but not beyond a l33t Windows user like yourself is it?
> Menno, I challenge you to state for the record which of DTJ's claims
> you are defending. I want the benefit of a good belly laugh :)
I'm not defending any of DTJ's claims. What I'm doing is point out
what YOU are doing: Grab someone's post, give it a bit of a twist,
maybe add some imaginary words and remove some other words so that
it's easier for you to disagree with.
If that's your idea of a good time, by all means feel free. I'm just
letting you know that people here are not idiots and will spot you for
the fuckwit you are. Especially if you involve others like Ryan
Gordon.
> Come on puppy, cough up - which part of DTJ's claims above are you
> willing to defend as true? So far you've done nothing but run away
> with your tail between your legs screaming and yelling. You are as
> chickenshit as DTJ.
I have no intention whatsoever to get into a technical discussion with
you. You're not a grown-up. Still, here's what I've learned from
following this thread:
1. There's a game called America's Army that has been ported to the
64-bit Opteron processor running Linux and looks *GOOD* by all
accounts.
2. OS/2 will apparently run on an Opteron system. Which is also good.
3. America's army is delivered on a bootable CD using a technology
called GameStorm. This avoids a whole lot of issues with the platform
that is on the PC. This is good for SCI.
4. You do not need Windows to run America's Army on the Opteron.
Excellent!
5. David Sutherland will change your words to suit him, then disagree
with them. Which is good to know if you want to avoid a load of
pointless discussions.
All in all, a highly advantageous thread. I really admire the makers
of AA. They have set it up so they can use a platform they like
(Linux) without forcing the end user to switch to it. If I ever buy an
Opteron, I will certainly give America's Army a try.
Cheers/2,
Menno
Menno
Yes indeed I did. And David S dint like it. He dint like it one little
bit.
David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**btconnect.com> wrote in message news:<2volqvsbsk8gn1mbk...@4ax.com>...
> Good to see you showing how impersonal you are about the whole thing,
> with one personal attack after another. What. A. Fucking. Joke.
My, I touched a nerve haven't I? I note that whatever else you shouted
about, you did not say "Yes, David Johnson DID indeed say Ryan Gordon
knows nothing about AA and here it is". And that is because you can't.
You were wrong to report this to Ryan Gordon. You have a habit of
responding to things people aren't saying. Deal with it or not as you
see fit and see what effect you get.
Replying to a post you don't like and then *CUT* *AWAY* *ALL* *THOSE*
*NASTY* *WORDS*! Very therapeutic, but hitting the "send" button does
more harm than good if you ask me.
Well, I think this discussion has yielded all it's going to.
Hasta la vista, baby!
Cheers/2,
Menno.
Marty
> Hello World,
>
> Replying to this is somewhat against my better judgement, but I think
> putting this issue in terms that even David Sutherland cannot possibly
> misunderstand, presents an interesting challenge.
From the looks of it, you should have heeded your better judgement.
> For clarity, I herewith show the words of David Johnson that prompted
> David S to email Ryan Gordon:
>
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:08:50 -0800, "David T. Johnson"
> <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>
>> I emailed Ryan and he very kindly replied to me that he worked on the
>> 64-bit port of America's Army but has not worked on 64-bit AA since
>> and does not know anything about GameStorm, so I guess we are all
>> still waiting to see what GameStorm is doing.
>
> From this short piece of text we can glean the following information:
>
> - David J emailed Ryan Gordon with questions.
> - Ryan Gordon replied to David J with the following replies:
> = Mr. Gordon worked on the 64-bit port of AA.
> = Mr. Gordon, having finished his work, is now not working on 64-Bit AA
> = Mr. Gordon is no expert on Gamestorm.
> - The email did not contain more information on GameStorm.
You missed a few "details" in there:
- Mr. Gordon is an expert on AA itself, and knows which APIs were used
for the video and audio interfaces
- The graphics engine in Mr. Gordon's work (the 64-bit port) contained
no further capability for rendering additional details, contrary to
Johnson's fantasy scenarios
- Having no additional features in the core code means there can be no
additional features for the whole product, no matter how it is packaged
> * Mr. Ryan knows nothing about Gamestorm.
>
> This actually *can* be found in the text: "does not know anything about
> GameStorm". However, taking this literally is not reasonable.
Wrong. Writing it as such is not reasonable. Place the onus where it
belongs. That aside, Johnson stated this "exaggeration" for the purpose
of disqualifying Mr. Gordon as someone who knew the API and feature set
used by AA. From the correspondence that David S. shared with us
(verbatim, I'll add, in contrast to Johnson's mention of correspondence)
it is clear that Mr. Gordon knows exactly this information, thus
thoroughly stopping up all of Johnson's pipe dreams.
If OpenGL hasn't been the DirectX killer, then Gamestorm doesn't have a
chance, since Gamestorm is nothing more than a distribution of Linux
with bundled drivers and existing support libraries.
> Ladies and Gentlemen of the Newsgroup, I do not like the way Mr.
> Sutherland is behaving. If someone is providing information which is
> false, then you point out to that person what you think is wrong with
> it. I don't like this practice of "Dead Agenting". Not with David J,
> not with me, not with anyone else. If you have a problem with someone's
> point, you go for the point, not for the guy who's making it.
Johnson is just as guilty as anyone else here. And that's being charitable.
David Sutherland
>David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**btconnect.com> wrote in message news:<2volqvsbsk8gn1mbk...@4ax.com>...
>> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 21:04:23 +0100, Menno Willemse <fle...@wanadoo.nl>
>> wrote:
>
>Yes indeed I did. And David S dint like it. He dint like it one little
>bit.
>
Yawn. Who's the guy starting personal attack threads again? Oh yes,
some idiot called "Menno".
>David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**btconnect.com> wrote in message news:<2volqvsbsk8gn1mbk...@4ax.com>...
>> Good to see you showing how impersonal you are about the whole thing,
>> with one personal attack after another. What. A. Fucking. Joke.
>
>My, I touched a nerve haven't I?
I don't suffer liars or fools gladly. Guess which I consider you to
be.
> I note that whatever else you shouted
>about, you did not say "Yes, David Johnson DID indeed say Ryan Gordon
>knows nothing about AA and here it is".
If you bothered to read what I said instead of venting your spleen
over the *last* time we locked horns, you might have noticed I pointed
out exactly where DTJ was claiming that. But hey, you've made it
clear that honesty in this isn't your goal, just an opportunity to
spit and stroke your damaged ego.
>And that is because you can't.
>You were wrong to report this to Ryan Gordon. You have a habit of
>responding to things people aren't saying. Deal with it or not as you
>see fit and see what effect you get.
>
I was correct to go to the source who was able to refute in absolute
terms DTJ's claims about the 64-bit port. Since when was getting
evidence from an authoritative source "wrong"? Is it "wrong" simply
because it proved your little partner-in-crime to be an idiot?
ROTFLMAO!
>Replying to a post you don't like and then *CUT* *AWAY* *ALL* *THOSE*
>*NASTY* *WORDS*! Very therapeutic, but hitting the "send" button does
>more harm than good if you ask me.
>
>Well, I think this discussion has yielded all it's going to.
>
Yes. You've demonstrated that you don't care if DTJ lies until he
goes blue in the face, and you will attack people who present evidence
to back up their refutation of his silliness.
It's not like you have any serious contribution to make other than
being an apologist for a confirmed liar.
>Hasta la vista, baby!
>
Good riddance.
>Cheers/2,
>Menno.
Menno Willemse
However much David Sutherland would have liked me to do so, I did not
respond to David S' utterings because I wanted to defend some point
David Johnson was making. I was annoyed at David Sutherland. What he
did was to take a message, twist its meaning, and send that twisted
result to Ryan Gordon.
Now Ryan Gordon does not read this newsgroup unless I'm very much
mistaken. Unless David S told Ryan where this discussion was taking
place, Mr. Ryan had no way to verify exactly what was said. If the
whole discussion takes place here, we can Google back because we KNOW
where to find the original statements.
So what David S did was to misrepresent one of the locals to an
outsider. Which is very bad form. Misrepresenting people is bad enough
*inside* the newsgroup.
Now to adress what Marty is saying:
* * *
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 06:34:49 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> You missed a few "details" in there:
> - Mr. Gordon is an expert on AA itself, and knows which APIs were used
> for the video and audio interfaces
Certainly. That would be basic knowledge for someone working on such a
project.
> - The graphics engine in Mr. Gordon's work (the 64-bit port) contained
> no further capability for rendering additional details, contrary to
> Johnson's fantasy scenarios
If David Johnson actually said the new game could render additional
details, then he was wrong. If he stuck in a "maybe" there, he knew
that he was speculating and might be wrong.
Anything in particular wrong with speculations? For instance, I could
paint several pictures of how the Opteron's 64-bit features might in
some way be exploited by OS/2. I could well make some assumptions
first, only to find out later that they were wrong. Whereupon we sigh
"Oh well... Shame." and get on with life as we know it. I would
personally be very careful to label assumptions as such, though. We're
among fsckin word lawyers here.
> - Having no additional features in the core code means there can be no
> additional features for the whole product, no matter how it is packaged
Hmm. Not a whole lot, I grant. You can do something with packaging,
but making an old game use new hardware features is probably
difficult. In Gamestorm's case, you could add a driver for a hitherto
not supported piece of hardware. The game would still not use any new
hardware features, but at least it would use the new hardware to do
its old things.
> > * Mr. Ryan knows nothing about Gamestorm.
> >
> > This actually *can* be found in the text: "does not know anything about
> > GameStorm". However, taking this literally is not reasonable.
>
> Wrong. Writing it as such is not reasonable. Place the onus where it
> belongs.
It was a quote or paraphrase from Ryan Gordon's email. If you really
want to be that anal about it, maybe David could give us an exact
quote of the part of Ryan Gordon's email which prompted him to stick
that "anything" in there. Me, I don't care. The message conveyed to me
what I've shown you and nothing more:
"Okay, Mr. Gordon IS an expert on AA, but not on GameStorm".
> That aside, Johnson stated this "exaggeration" for the purpose
> of disqualifying Mr. Gordon as someone who knew the API and feature set
> used by AA. From the correspondence that David S. shared with us
> (verbatim, I'll add, in contrast to Johnson's mention of correspondence)
> it is clear that Mr. Gordon knows exactly this information, thus
> thoroughly stopping up all of Johnson's pipe dreams.
And *that* is wrong. David Johnson knows that Ryan Gordon worked on AA
and therefore knows about the game and how it's built. That's apparent
from the message. But Ryan Gordon has not worked on GameStorm and is
therefore referring people elsewhere for detailed information. David J
was not "dissing" Ryan Gordon, but rather specifying where Ryan's
expertise was.
> If OpenGL hasn't been the DirectX killer, then Gamestorm doesn't have a
> chance, since Gamestorm is nothing more than a distribution of Linux
> with bundled drivers and existing support libraries.
Hmm... The assumption was that GameStorm had something to do with
graphical rendering, but this turns out not to be the case. It's the
method of packaging Linux games on a bootable medium. So GameStorm is
not the DirectX killer. The Linux-based rendering engine used by AA is
the counterpart of DirectX, I think. I've never been very fond of the
phrase "Foo is the Bar killer".
* * *
Another observation: I write infrastructure designs for a living. I
know a thing or two about communication in writing. It is extremely
difficult to convey a message to people not familiar with the subject,
even to a knowledgable person. When one of the parties actually wants
to prove that the other is a cockroach of some sort, you may as well
go home.
That is the situation in this newsgroup now. Nobody cares about what
DTJ is saying, but by $PANTHEON, they will prove it wrong! There's a
whole history about how it got to be that way, but it's not good for
business.
This whole "Death blow for DirectX" business is a good example. I
think GameStorm is a good sign for OS/2 users (and basically any
non-Windows user). So does DTJ. So do others. But damn and blast, this
is DTJ saying it! So instead of concentrating on why GameStorm is good
news, people start kicking DTJ for overstating his case. Facts about
the technology picked up along the way are not used for enlightenment,
but as ammo against DTJ.
If you've gotten in the habit of seeing someone as "The Enemy", you
want to project all things evil on them. And that may blind you to
positive things that come from their direction. The only people
laughing about this are the Wintrolls.
Cheers/2,
Menno
--
,--------------. Usenet:
/\(o_O)/\ .oO( Menno Willemse ) I read it for the articles
/ / < > \ \ `--------------ï
David Sutherland
>Hello World,
>
>David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**btconnect.com> wrote in message news:<7gqlqvs6lt111pgdg...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> Hilarious. Menno says how nasty I am for challenging DTJ, but he
>> refuses to say which of DTJ's claims he thinks are true. Instead he
>> launches personal attacks. He even had to create a new thread so he
>> doesn't have to address this issue.
>
>Oh, you can challenge David J as much as you like. No problem
>whatsoever. Give it your best shot. Try shooting holes in what he's
>*really* saying for your next try. Yes, I know it's more difficult,
>but not beyond a l33t Windows user like yourself is it?
>
Good grief. So tell me again which of his claims you think are true?
Oh that's right, you refuse to say. What a loon.
Each of DTJ's claims has been debunked by evidence from multiple
sources. He believed none of them. Eventually I went straight to the
horses mouth - the guy who did the actual port of the software that
DTJ was inventing fantasies over - and he stated categorically that
DTJ's invented scenarios were untrue.
And what do you do? You start screaming how "nasty" I am for proving
DTJ wrong, and using hard facts to do it. My heart really bleeds for
you both, Menno, but you'll just have to deal with the fact that DTJ
was wrong, and you are now nothing but an apologist for a liar.
>> Menno, I challenge you to state for the record which of DTJ's claims
>> you are defending. I want the benefit of a good belly laugh :)
>
>I'm not defending any of DTJ's claims.
LOL - just as well, given that they've been proven WRONG. Doesn't
stop him lying about it though, nor you defending those lies.
>What I'm doing is point out
>what YOU are doing: Grab someone's post, give it a bit of a twist,
>maybe add some imaginary words and remove some other words so that
>it's easier for you to disagree with.
>
So you think my proof of DTJ's errors is wrong in some way? Nope,
didn;t think so. You're simply still hurting over the last thread in
which I pointed out your dismissiveness of personal privacy, and
you've been itching to fight ever since. What a silly little child
you turned out to be.
>If that's your idea of a good time, by all means feel free. I'm just
>letting you know that people here are not idiots and will spot you for
>the fuckwit you are. Especially if you involve others like Ryan
>Gordon.
>
Ryan Gordon is a gentleman, and as you can see from his responses
which I posted verbatim, he felt that any claim that he knew nothing
about Gamestorm or the version of AA bundled with it was a
misrepresentation of his position. DTJ refused to do the same and
instead posted his own corrupted claim that Ryan knows nothing about
Gamestorm, and therefore has no knowledge of the 64-bit AA bundled
with it! An obvious logical fallacy, and a lie to boot.
Why aren't you on DTJ's back over *that* distortion? You are a
hypocrite.
Oh, and I like the "fuckwit" bit - it makes you look *so* calm and
controlled! You're obviously just posting to set the record straight,
no personal involvement at all! ROTFLMAO@U :)
>> Come on puppy, cough up - which part of DTJ's claims above are you
>> willing to defend as true? So far you've done nothing but run away
>> with your tail between your legs screaming and yelling. You are as
>> chickenshit as DTJ.
>
>I have no intention whatsoever to get into a technical discussion with
>you. You're not a grown-up. Still, here's what I've learned from
>following this thread:
>
>1. There's a game called America's Army that has been ported to the
>64-bit Opteron processor running Linux and looks *GOOD* by all
>accounts.
>
DTJ made some claims beyond just that. They were wrong.
>2. OS/2 will apparently run on an Opteron system. Which is also good.
>
And irrelevant.
>3. America's army is delivered on a bootable CD using a technology
>called GameStorm. This avoids a whole lot of issues with the platform
>that is on the PC. This is good for SCI.
>
This was never challenged either. Do you have a point you are going
to get to eventually?
>4. You do not need Windows to run America's Army on the Opteron.
>Excellent!
>
All true, and none of which I have challenged. You are ignoring the
crux of the argument because you know that neither you nor DTJ can
prove any of the foolish claims made over the 64-bit port.
>5. David Sutherland will change your words to suit him, then disagree
>with them. Which is good to know if you want to avoid a load of
>pointless discussions.
>
I've presented exactly what DTJ's claims were, and I've presented a
great deal of evidence which shows why those claims were wrong.
Apparently you would prefer to leave liars unchallenged and instead
attach those who present evidence. That makes you look pretty damn
stupid.
>All in all, a highly advantageous thread. I really admire the makers
>of AA. They have set it up so they can use a platform they like
>(Linux) without forcing the end user to switch to it. If I ever buy an
>Opteron, I will certainly give America's Army a try.
>
That's nice for you. In the meantime, here are those claims that you
think I'm so "nasty" for refuting with evidence. In your apologist
mind DTJ is such a lovely, lovely man for repeating false claims ad
nauseum despite all the evidence which proves them wrong.
He has stated that Gamestorm DOES NOT USE the same engine as the
32-bit version.
He has stated that Gamestorm DOES NOT USE the same API as the 32-bit
version.
He has stated that Gamestorm has EXTRA FEATURES over the 32-bit
version.
He has stated that the 64-bit version DOES NOT REQUIRE HARDWARE
SPECIFIC DRIVERS.
He has stated that the 64-bit version DOES THE GRAPHICS IN THE CPU.
Just ignore reality Menno, and try to convince yourself of your own
moral superiority in defending a liar. Good luck! :)
>Cheers/2,
>Menno
David Sutherland
>Menno Willemse wrote:
[snip]
>> This actually *can* be found in the text: "does not know anything about
>> GameStorm". However, taking this literally is not reasonable.
>
>Wrong. Writing it as such is not reasonable.
I think it's pretty obvious that Menno wasn't interested in being
"reasonable" - just in trying to have a pop at me. You would think
he would choose his high ground more carefully though - basing his
moral superiority on DTJ's litany of lies gives him a *very* wobbly
base from which to launch his vitriol :)
David Sutherland
wrote:
>Hello World,
>
>However much David Sutherland would have liked me to do so, I did not
>respond to David S' utterings because I wanted to defend some point
>David Johnson was making. I was annoyed at David Sutherland. What he
>did was to take a message, twist its meaning, and send that twisted
>result to Ryan Gordon.
>
>Now Ryan Gordon does not read this newsgroup unless I'm very much
>mistaken. Unless David S told Ryan where this discussion was taking
>place, Mr. Ryan had no way to verify exactly what was said. If the
>whole discussion takes place here, we can Google back because we KNOW
>where to find the original statements.
>
I wasn't aware you were reading my emails to Ryan, Menno. Unless you
are, how exactly do you claim to know what correspondence Ryan and I
have exchanged?
For your information, Ryan knows *verbatim* what DTJ said. If your
own ignorance is the basis for your spleen venting, then more fool
you.
>So what David S did was to misrepresent one of the locals to an
>outsider. Which is very bad form. Misrepresenting people is bad enough
>*inside* the newsgroup.
>
See above. Then consider finding out before shooting your mouth off.
>Now to adress what Marty is saying:
>
>* * *
>
>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 06:34:49 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> You missed a few "details" in there:
>> - Mr. Gordon is an expert on AA itself, and knows which APIs were used
>> for the video and audio interfaces
>
>Certainly. That would be basic knowledge for someone working on such a
>project.
>
>> - The graphics engine in Mr. Gordon's work (the 64-bit port) contained
>> no further capability for rendering additional details, contrary to
>> Johnson's fantasy scenarios
>
>If David Johnson actually said the new game could render additional
>details, then he was wrong. If he stuck in a "maybe" there, he knew
>that he was speculating and might be wrong.
>
He was indeed wrong, and he continued making the claim even after he
was proven wrong. At that point he stops being wrong, and starts
being a liar. Compound that with his dismissive hand-waving and
silly "laugh" routine and you end up with a liar who belittles the
people pointing out his mistakes.
>Anything in particular wrong with speculations? For instance, I could
>paint several pictures of how the Opteron's 64-bit features might in
>some way be exploited by OS/2. I could well make some assumptions
>first, only to find out later that they were wrong. Whereupon we sigh
>"Oh well... Shame." and get on with life as we know it. I would
>personally be very careful to label assumptions as such, though. We're
>among fsckin word lawyers here.
>
Nothing wrong with speculating, but to insist that your speculations
are the truth after evidence is presented that shows those
speculations are wrong is dishonest, and stupid.
>> - Having no additional features in the core code means there can be no
>> additional features for the whole product, no matter how it is packaged
>
>Hmm. Not a whole lot, I grant. You can do something with packaging,
>but making an old game use new hardware features is probably
>difficult. In Gamestorm's case, you could add a driver for a hitherto
>not supported piece of hardware. The game would still not use any new
>hardware features, but at least it would use the new hardware to do
>its old things.
>
So why did DTJ claim that Ryan was not qualified to comment on the
features of 64-bit AA simply because he wasn't directly involved with
SCI and the Gamestorm bundle?
>> > * Mr. Ryan knows nothing about Gamestorm.
>> >
>> > This actually *can* be found in the text: "does not know anything about
>> > GameStorm". However, taking this literally is not reasonable.
Sure, you take everyone to task for their communication skills except
DTJ. You accuse me of distorting DTJ's words, then admit that DTJ's
words say *exactly* what I claim. LOL!!!
>>
>> Wrong. Writing it as such is not reasonable. Place the onus where it
>> belongs.
>
>It was a quote or paraphrase from Ryan Gordon's email. If you really
>want to be that anal about it, maybe David could give us an exact
>quote of the part of Ryan Gordon's email which prompted him to stick
>that "anything" in there. Me, I don't care. The message conveyed to me
>what I've shown you and nothing more:
>"Okay, Mr. Gordon IS an expert on AA, but not on GameStorm".
>
Which is exactly the point. Gamestorm bundles 64-bit AA. Ryan is
uniquely qualified to comment on the AA part of that bundle, but DTJ's
assertion is that he is *not* qualified because he doesn't know about
the bundle outside of the AA part. This is a logical fallacy, and
it's one that you refuse to acknowledge.
>> That aside, Johnson stated this "exaggeration" for the purpose
>> of disqualifying Mr. Gordon as someone who knew the API and feature set
>> used by AA. From the correspondence that David S. shared with us
>> (verbatim, I'll add, in contrast to Johnson's mention of correspondence)
>> it is clear that Mr. Gordon knows exactly this information, thus
>> thoroughly stopping up all of Johnson's pipe dreams.
>
>And *that* is wrong. David Johnson knows that Ryan Gordon worked on AA
>and therefore knows about the game and how it's built. That's apparent
>from the message. But Ryan Gordon has not worked on GameStorm and is
>therefore referring people elsewhere for detailed information. David J
>was not "dissing" Ryan Gordon, but rather specifying where Ryan's
>expertise was.
>
This is nonsense. DTJ was trying to disqualify Ryan's statements
about 64-bit AA completely. His purpose in that was to try and
continue with his pointless proclamations that his speculations are
true, and that no evidence exists to the contrary.
Those speculations revolved almost entirely around the version of AA
bundled with Gamestorm, a subject which Ryan is *hugely* qualified to
speak on. His claims, therefore, that Ryan doesn't know enough about
*Gamestorm* to comment were utterly specious and insulting to Ryan's
level of knowledge of the product.
Of course, you don't care about that, do you.
>> If OpenGL hasn't been the DirectX killer, then Gamestorm doesn't have a
>> chance, since Gamestorm is nothing more than a distribution of Linux
>> with bundled drivers and existing support libraries.
>
>Hmm... The assumption was that GameStorm had something to do with
>graphical rendering, but this turns out not to be the case.
That was DTJ's claim, which was proven wrong immediately. He refused
to accept this, and continued that assertion. Continuing a falsehood
in the face of evidence to the contrary is know as "lying" where I
come from.
>It's the
>method of packaging Linux games on a bootable medium. So GameStorm is
>not the DirectX killer. The Linux-based rendering engine used by AA is
>the counterpart of DirectX, I think. I've never been very fond of the
>phrase "Foo is the Bar killer".
>
Doesn't stop you defending DTJ's lies.
>* * *
>
>Another observation: I write infrastructure designs for a living. I
>know a thing or two about communication in writing. It is extremely
>difficult to convey a message to people not familiar with the subject,
>even to a knowledgable person. When one of the parties actually wants
>to prove that the other is a cockroach of some sort, you may as well
>go home.
>
>That is the situation in this newsgroup now. Nobody cares about what
>DTJ is saying, but by $PANTHEON, they will prove it wrong! There's a
>whole history about how it got to be that way, but it's not good for
>business.
>
If DTJ had accepted evidence that showed his speculations were wrong
then nothing more would have been said. Instead, however, he insults
people who present such evidence, deletes it from their responses and
then lies that no evidence was ever presented.
If that is not clear contempt for truth and other peoples intelligence
and willingness to gather data to prove their position, then nothing
is. But do you take issue with DTJ for doing this, and doing it in
almost every single thread in which he participates? No. You
don't. Apparently it's okay for DTJ to insult, belittle and ignore
but not for anyone else. Instead you berate other people for not
allowing him to continue to lie, delete, and misrepresent their own
words. You are a hypocrite of the first water to be spouting this
nonsense.
>This whole "Death blow for DirectX" business is a good example. I
>think GameStorm is a good sign for OS/2 users (and basically any
>non-Windows user). So does DTJ. So do others. But damn and blast, this
>is DTJ saying it!
DTJ is welcome to speculate. He is not welcome to lie, misrepresent,
delete, and dismiss evidence that demonstrates that his "speculations"
are flawed. Particularly when he uses those speculations to create
inflammatory threads such as "Death Blow for Windows Direct X".
But don't let the facts stop your little campaign, Menno.
>So instead of concentrating on why GameStorm is good
>news, people start kicking DTJ for overstating his case. Facts about
>the technology picked up along the way are not used for enlightenment,
>but as ammo against DTJ.
>
1. DTJ makes a false claim.
2. Evidence is presented that shows the claim is wrong.
3. DTJ goes "laugh", ignores the evidence, and repeats the false
claim.
5. People point out that DTJ is an idiot and present more evidence.
6. goto 3. Amplify.
Sound familiar? The point at which this cycle is best broken is step
3. All he has to do is accept other peoples points, and in
particular their evidence, and the noise stops.
Trying, as you are, to pin the blame on everyone else is ludicrous.
Other people are presenting evidence beyond hand-waving and
repetition. Your refusal to see that DTJ is the guy causing the
problem by his stubborn refusal to see things that challenge his
claims demonstrates nothing but your own bias.
>If you've gotten in the habit of seeing someone as "The Enemy", you
>want to project all things evil on them. And that may blind you to
>positive things that come from their direction. The only people
>laughing about this are the Wintrolls.
>
DTJ has made his own bed. Now he has to lie in it. Pun most
definitely intended.
>
>Cheers/2,
>Menno
Irv Spalten
First off, you have to look the whole scenario, INCLUDING the SUBJECT
and then take what was said by who.
Menno Willemse wrote:
> Hello World,
>
> However much David Sutherland would have liked me to do so, I did not
> respond to David S' utterings because I wanted to defend some point
> David Johnson was making.
Which point? Did that point change during the 'discussion' as DTJ tends
to do, present a moving target so to speak and then claim he never said
such and such.
> I was annoyed at David Sutherland. What he
> did was to take a message, twist its meaning, and send that twisted
> result to Ryan Gordon.
I'm not sure that is the case? He did present a response he got back in
toto, whereas DTJ sort of gave a 'digest'. Who knows what either sent
Ryan?
> Now Ryan Gordon does not read this newsgroup unless I'm very much
> mistaken. Unless David S told Ryan where this discussion was taking
> place, Mr. Ryan had no way to verify exactly what was said.
Was it really important what info was sent to him by either party? His
response is what was important. It refuted DTJ 'assumptions'.
> If the
> whole discussion takes place here, we can Google back because we KNOW
> where to find the original statements.
>
> So what David S did was to misrepresent one of the locals to an
> outsider. Which is very bad form. Misrepresenting people is bad enough
> *inside* the newsgroup.
Proof?
>
> Now to adress what Marty is saying:
>
> * * *
>
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 06:34:49 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > You missed a few "details" in there:
> > - Mr. Gordon is an expert on AA itself, and knows which APIs were used
> > for the video and audio interfaces
>
> Certainly. That would be basic knowledge for someone working on such a
> project.
>
> > - The graphics engine in Mr. Gordon's work (the 64-bit port) contained
> > no further capability for rendering additional details, contrary to
> > Johnson's fantasy scenarios
>
> If David Johnson actually said the new game could render additional
> details, then he was wrong. If he stuck in a "maybe" there, he knew
> that he was speculating and might be wrong.
This is usually the WHOLE problem here. DTJ throws junk into here, check
the SUBJECTS he has started. They may be mere speculation on his part,
but he really isn't an expert in those areas to make such assertations.
This only brings out people throwing stones at him and he goes into his
'defense' mode. Never enters into a real discussion, repeats his chants
endlessly and always have to have the last word. Never mind what he
chants is correct or not.
>
> Anything in particular wrong with speculations?
No, not if you clearly label it.
Look at his post however :
============
A company named SCI has developed a bootable CD that contains a game and
a Linux OS that can be booted on any Opteron PC to turn it into a
powerful gaming console.
[begin article excerpt]
"SCI says its GameStorm technology fits onto a single CD and essentially
turns the PC into an embedded Linux based "console-like" gaming system.
The Linux OS scans the hardware, loads a custom distribution of 64-bit
embedded Linux, and then runs the game software. The experience for the
end-user is fast and powerful game playing that boots in under one
minute, without the usual overhead from the legacy operating systems
traditionally used in the gaming industry, SCI claims."
[end article excerpt]
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3103154102.html
This is a BIG deal. Microsoft has been pushing their 'directx'
technology as a way to get a high-quality gaming experience while still
running Windows and is up to 'Directx 9' I think. Those of you who have
struggled to get cranky directx Windows games to actually run like they
are supposed to know what a miserable kludge the who directx platform is
and will immediately see the value in the bootable linux CD as a gaming
platform. So how will this benefit OS/2? One of the chief obstacles of
playing Windows Directx games on OS/2 has been lack of access to the
directx software. If Linux becomes a serious game platform replacement
for Directx, it is likely that Linux games will be able to be either
ported to OS/2 or run on OS/2 with emulation software. Microsoft has
pushed Directx as a replacement for DOS as a gaming platform but no one
has ever loved (or even liked) directx and now it looks as if Linux has
skewered it right through its gizzard.
================
Where does he say it is his speculation? It reads like he is stating
facts to me? In any event, he has made, at best, a mountain out of a
molehill, and been called on it.
>For instance, I could
> paint several pictures of how the Opteron's 64-bit features might in
> some way be exploited by OS/2. I could well make some assumptions
> first, only to find out later that they were wrong. Whereupon we sigh
> "Oh well... Shame." and get on with life as we know it. I would
> personally be very careful to label assumptions as such, though. We're
> among fsckin word lawyers here.
>
Do you see any assumptions in his first message, other than the subject
itself?
> > - Having no additional features in the core code means there can be no
> > additional features for the whole product, no matter how it is packaged
>
> Hmm. Not a whole lot, I grant. You can do something with packaging,
> but making an old game use new hardware features is probably
> difficult. In Gamestorm's case, you could add a driver for a hitherto
> not supported piece of hardware. The game would still not use any new
> hardware features, but at least it would use the new hardware to do
> its old things.
Well, somewhere down the thread DTJ claimed it was also done WITHOUT the
need for device drivers which the author of AA debunked.
>
> > > * Mr. Ryan knows nothing about Gamestorm.
> > >
> > > This actually *can* be found in the text: "does not know anything about
> > > GameStorm". However, taking this literally is not reasonable.
> >
> > Wrong. Writing it as such is not reasonable. Place the onus where it
> > belongs.
>
> It was a quote or paraphrase from Ryan Gordon's email. If you really
> want to be that anal about it, maybe David could give us an exact
> quote of the part of Ryan Gordon's email which prompted him to stick
> that "anything" in there. Me, I don't care. The message conveyed to me
> what I've shown you and nothing more:
> "Okay, Mr. Gordon IS an expert on AA, but not on GameStorm".
>
Is it really 'what' GameStorm is or what DTJ claims (it will kill
DirectX) that is under discussion here?
> > That aside, Johnson stated this "exaggeration" for the purpose
> > of disqualifying Mr. Gordon as someone who knew the API and feature set
> > used by AA. From the correspondence that David S. shared with us
> > (verbatim, I'll add, in contrast to Johnson's mention of correspondence)
> > it is clear that Mr. Gordon knows exactly this information, thus
> > thoroughly stopping up all of Johnson's pipe dreams.
>
> And *that* is wrong. David Johnson knows that Ryan Gordon worked on AA
> and therefore knows about the game and how it's built.
OH? Really? His first message when presented with what Gordon said
didn't seem to know who he was?
> That's apparent
> from the message. But Ryan Gordon has not worked on GameStorm and is
> therefore referring people elsewhere for detailed information. David J
> was not "dissing" Ryan Gordon, but rather specifying where Ryan's
> expertise was.
Maybe, but his 'expertise' is sure closer to the subject than DTJ's.
Besides, the subject here started all this and it digressed from there.
> > If OpenGL hasn't been the DirectX killer, then Gamestorm doesn't have a
> > chance, since Gamestorm is nothing more than a distribution of Linux
> > with bundled drivers and existing support libraries.
>
> Hmm... The assumption was that GameStorm had something to do with
> graphical rendering,
Chek the FIRST message that I posted up above. No such assumption, other
than GameStorm will kill DirectX. When it was questioned how and why,
then the graphical rendering entered into it. In typical DTJ fashion,
throw up some more BS and hope it sticks.
> but this turns out not to be the case.
Right.
> It's the
> method of packaging Linux games on a bootable medium.
With the needed drivers as well. Could have just as easily been DOS if
someone wanted to spend time porting and building drivers.
> So GameStorm is
> not the DirectX killer.
So his INITIAL message was wrong!
> The Linux-based rendering engine used by AA is
> the counterpart of DirectX, I think. I've never been very fond of the
> phrase "Foo is the Bar killer".
Yup, an alternative packaging situation at best.
>
> * * *
>
> Another observation: I write infrastructure designs for a living. I
> know a thing or two about communication in writing. It is extremely
> difficult to convey a message to people not familiar with the subject,
> even to a knowledgable person. When one of the parties actually wants
> to prove that the other is a cockroach of some sort, you may as well
> go home.
Especially if that roach will never admit it was wrong or changes the
target as points are disproved.
> That is the situation in this newsgroup now. Nobody cares about what
> DTJ is saying, but by $PANTHEON, they will prove it wrong! There's a
> whole history about how it got to be that way, but it's not good for
> business.
>
> This whole "Death blow for DirectX" business is a good example. I
> think GameStorm is a good sign for OS/2 users (and basically any
> non-Windows user).
Today you just can't equate anything not good for Windows or MS good for
OS/2 however.
> So does DTJ. So do others. But damn and blast, this
> is DTJ saying it! So instead of concentrating on why GameStorm is good
> news, people start kicking DTJ for overstating his case. Facts about
> the technology picked up along the way are not used for enlightenment,
> but as ammo against DTJ.
>
Well, to tell the truth, with his 'track record' here, many people
wouldn't believe him if he said the sky was blue. He has earned that
reputation by his past messages and his association with other FUD'sters
here.
> If you've gotten in the habit of seeing someone as "The Enemy", you
> want to project all things evil on them. And that may blind you to
> positive things that come from their direction. The only people
> laughing about this are the Wintrolls.
>
Maybe. However, I can't remember a positive from DTJ in the recent past
that wasn't already KNOWN by everyone. If anything, he incites 'riots'
here more than anyone else.
Irv
>
> Cheers/2,
> Menno
>
>
David T. Johnson
I did not claim to have any special knowledge about the 64-bit version
of America's Army and I repeatedly told you that the details of it were
not yet known. You were told that *many* times and yet you continue to
lie here about it.
>>
>
>
> He was indeed wrong, and he continued making the claim even after he
> was proven wrong. At that point he stops being wrong, and starts
> being a liar. Compound that with his dismissive hand-waving and
> silly "laugh" routine and you end up with a liar who belittles the
> people pointing out his mistakes.
You have lied repeatedly and consistently about what has been said here.
The only 'claims' about America's Army that I made were what was in
the original press release for the GameStorm port of it.
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3103154102.html
[begin excerpts]
"It feels like a gaming console on steroids..."
""The fact that America's Army is available in 64-bit on the GameStorm
CD allows gamers to get a taste of the next generation of gaming...""
""With the AMD Athlon 64 processor and GameStorm technology, AMD is able
to showcase a fully-integrated 64-bit environment that delivers
performance and realism to the most demanding gamers," said Tim Wright,
director, desktop marketing, AMD Computation Products Group. "AMD64 will
revolutionize the gaming market by delivering immersive super-realistic
environments."
[end excerpts]
etc.
>
>
>>Anything in particular wrong with speculations? For instance, I could
>>paint several pictures of how the Opteron's 64-bit features might in
>>some way be exploited by OS/2. I could well make some assumptions
>>first, only to find out later that they were wrong. Whereupon we sigh
>>"Oh well... Shame." and get on with life as we know it. I would
>>personally be very careful to label assumptions as such, though. We're
>>among fsckin word lawyers here.
>>
>
>
> Nothing wrong with speculating, but to insist that your speculations
> are the truth after evidence is presented that shows those
> speculations are wrong is dishonest, and stupid.
>
>
>>>- Having no additional features in the core code means there can be no
>>>additional features for the whole product, no matter how it is packaged
>>
>>Hmm. Not a whole lot, I grant. You can do something with packaging,
>>but making an old game use new hardware features is probably
>>difficult. In Gamestorm's case, you could add a driver for a hitherto
>>not supported piece of hardware. The game would still not use any new
>>hardware features, but at least it would use the new hardware to do
>>its old things.
>>
>
>
> So why did DTJ claim that Ryan was not qualified to comment on the
> features of 64-bit AA simply because he wasn't directly involved with
> SCI and the Gamestorm bundle?
Apparently the only way you can carry on a discussion is by stuffing
words into the mouths of your targets. Your word-stuffing has reached
new depths of depravity here. I have never claimed that Ryan was not
qualified to comment on the features of 64-bit AA and I did not question
Ryan's alleged claim (posted by you) about the use of the Unreal engine.
I personally asked Ryan about the details of GameStorm and when it might
appear and his reply was:
Ryan> "I don't really know about GameStorm or the distribution of it..."
Ryan has also never claimed otherwise, in the two emails that are
allegedly from him that you have posted here. It is only you who try to
infuse him with some sort of insider knowledge about GameStorm. That is
a cold, hard lie on your part.
My only interest here is to discuss and comment on interesting new
technology and I am not here selling anything. I don't know why you
are carrying on a thread about myself rather than more technical topics
but I can only presume that it is because you found my comments both
credible and threatening in some way and therefore feel the need to
attack and repudiate them via your word-stuffing tactics and lies.
Fortunately for our side, truth is a more effective tactic than those
used by you.
--
Jason
> Ryan> "I don't really know about GameStorm or the distribution of it..."
Reproduce the whole exchange between you and Ryan if you wish to have
any credibility.
Marty
> Hello World,
>
> However much David Sutherland would have liked me to do so, I did not
> respond to David S' utterings because I wanted to defend some point
> David Johnson was making. I was annoyed at David Sutherland. What he
> did was to take a message, twist its meaning, and send that twisted
> result to Ryan Gordon.
>
> Now Ryan Gordon does not read this newsgroup unless I'm very much
> mistaken. Unless David S told Ryan where this discussion was taking
> place, Mr. Ryan had no way to verify exactly what was said. If the
> whole discussion takes place here, we can Google back because we KNOW
> where to find the original statements.
>
> So what David S did was to misrepresent one of the locals to an
> outsider. Which is very bad form. Misrepresenting people is bad enough
> *inside* the newsgroup.
You might have noted that I said nothing about any alleged
misrepresentation, because I don't care and I doubt even Johnson does
(simply because he and this individual had no previous relationship and
will doubtful ever come into contact again). Seems moot to me.
> Now to adress what Marty is saying:
>
> * * *
>
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 06:34:49 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>You missed a few "details" in there:
>>- Mr. Gordon is an expert on AA itself, and knows which APIs were used
>>for the video and audio interfaces
>
> Certainly. That would be basic knowledge for someone working on such a
> project.
>
>>- The graphics engine in Mr. Gordon's work (the 64-bit port) contained
>>no further capability for rendering additional details, contrary to
>>Johnson's fantasy scenarios
>
> If David Johnson actually said the new game could render additional
> details, then he was wrong. If he stuck in a "maybe" there, he knew
> that he was speculating and might be wrong.
>
> Anything in particular wrong with speculations?
Nothing at all, as long as said speculations haven't already been ruled
out by facts. Johnson's speculations have been ruled out already, yet
he continues to spout them. To put it kindly, that's intellectually
dishonest.
> For instance, I could
> paint several pictures of how the Opteron's 64-bit features might in
> some way be exploited by OS/2. I could well make some assumptions
> first, only to find out later that they were wrong. Whereupon we sigh
> "Oh well... Shame." and get on with life as we know it. I would
> personally be very careful to label assumptions as such, though. We're
> among fsckin word lawyers here.
That would then be a key difference between yourself and Johnson. He
would not (and has not) acknowledged the facts that invalidate his
"scenarios" and will not move on.
>>- Having no additional features in the core code means there can be no
>>additional features for the whole product, no matter how it is packaged
>
> Hmm. Not a whole lot, I grant. You can do something with packaging,
> but making an old game use new hardware features is probably
> difficult. In Gamestorm's case, you could add a driver for a hitherto
> not supported piece of hardware. The game would still not use any new
> hardware features, but at least it would use the new hardware to do
> its old things.
Johnson's statements went further than this. Though I grant that you're
not trying to defend them, what you say has not invalidated the aim of
my remark.
>>>* Mr. Ryan knows nothing about Gamestorm.
>>>
>>>This actually *can* be found in the text: "does not know anything about
>>>GameStorm". However, taking this literally is not reasonable.
>>
>>Wrong. Writing it as such is not reasonable. Place the onus where it
>>belongs.
>
> It was a quote or paraphrase from Ryan Gordon's email. If you really
> want to be that anal about it, maybe David could give us an exact
> quote of the part of Ryan Gordon's email which prompted him to stick
> that "anything" in there. Me, I don't care. The message conveyed to me
> what I've shown you and nothing more:
> "Okay, Mr. Gordon IS an expert on AA, but not on GameStorm".
My point is simply that it's not the reader's fault for reading
"anything" as "anything".
>>That aside, Johnson stated this "exaggeration" for the purpose
>>of disqualifying Mr. Gordon as someone who knew the API and feature set
>>used by AA. From the correspondence that David S. shared with us
>>(verbatim, I'll add, in contrast to Johnson's mention of correspondence)
>>it is clear that Mr. Gordon knows exactly this information, thus
>>thoroughly stopping up all of Johnson's pipe dreams.
>
> And *that* is wrong. David Johnson knows that Ryan Gordon worked on AA
> and therefore knows about the game and how it's built. That's apparent
> from the message. But Ryan Gordon has not worked on GameStorm and is
> therefore referring people elsewhere for detailed information. David J
> was not "dissing" Ryan Gordon, but rather specifying where Ryan's
> expertise was.
Perhaps you ought to read Johnson's first response in the "Icculus
speaks" thread if you'd like to know where this interpretation comes
from. As far as what's "apparent" from Johnson's messages, that is
subject to interpretation. I see no place where Johnson acknowledges
that the feature set of the core game code is the limitting factor.
>>If OpenGL hasn't been the DirectX killer, then Gamestorm doesn't have a
>>chance, since Gamestorm is nothing more than a distribution of Linux
>>with bundled drivers and existing support libraries.
>
> Hmm... The assumption was that GameStorm had something to do with
> graphical rendering, but this turns out not to be the case. It's the
> method of packaging Linux games on a bootable medium. So GameStorm is
> not the DirectX killer. The Linux-based rendering engine used by AA is
> the counterpart of DirectX, I think. I've never been very fond of the
> phrase "Foo is the Bar killer".
Good. Now just pass that information on to Johnson and we're all set. ;-)
> * * *
>
> Another observation: I write infrastructure designs for a living. I
> know a thing or two about communication in writing. It is extremely
> difficult to convey a message to people not familiar with the subject,
> even to a knowledgable person. When one of the parties actually wants
> to prove that the other is a cockroach of some sort, you may as well
> go home.
>
> That is the situation in this newsgroup now. Nobody cares about what
> DTJ is saying, but by $PANTHEON, they will prove it wrong! There's a
> whole history about how it got to be that way, but it's not good for
> business.
You're making two assumptions already:
1] This behavior is without good cause (in other words, what Johnson is
saying has merit)
2] This behavior is one-sided and not being returned by Johnson
I don't believe either of these assumptions are valid.
> This whole "Death blow for DirectX" business is a good example. I
> think GameStorm is a good sign for OS/2 users (and basically any
> non-Windows user). So does DTJ. So do others.
I don't for the following reasons:
1] I don't think the concept will take off because:
a] the device support is limitted by what's burned on the CD
b] people stopped rebooting to run games in 1995
c] the market of people who would not have been able to run these
games without rebooting is too small to support
2] It has nothing directly to do with OS/2 and cannot be used to aid
porting to OS/2 and cannot be run inside of a virtual or emulated
session in OS/2
So GameStorm is as good for OS/2 as a cure for cancer. While a cure for
cancer is a good thing by all measures, it has no effect whatsoever on
the state and plight of OS/2.
> But damn and blast, this
> is DTJ saying it! So instead of concentrating on why GameStorm is good
> news, people start kicking DTJ for overstating his case. Facts about
> the technology picked up along the way are not used for enlightenment,
> but as ammo against DTJ.
DTJ is overstating his case. Anti-FUD is almost as bad as FUD. It
leads to disappointments and bad feelings when things don't pan out.
Having realistic expectations and recognizing facts as they are is the
much better route.
> If you've gotten in the habit of seeing someone as "The Enemy", you
> want to project all things evil on them. And that may blind you to
> positive things that come from their direction. The only people
> laughing about this are the Wintrolls.
Johnson has shown that he is incapable of being persuaded by facts when
he gets an idea in his head. He has also made it a point to personally
state that he is completely close-minded to anything that I have to say
(references available on request), so if you're asking me to show him
some charity, the soup kitchen is closed. I suggest you take a look at
applying some of what you say in Johnson's direction.
David T. Johnson
>
>>Now Ryan Gordon does not read this newsgroup unless I'm very much
>>mistaken. Unless David S told Ryan where this discussion was taking
>>place, Mr. Ryan had no way to verify exactly what was said.
>
>
> Was it really important what info was sent to him by either party? His
> response is what was important. It refuted DTJ 'assumptions'.
Liar. Ryan did not 'refute' any of my assumptions. Before Ryan
responded, Sutherland insisted that AA used the Unreal engine and I
stated that that was unknown and that I didn't care. Specifically, I
said: "I don't care in the least if America's Army uses the unreal
engine or not. I merely point out that it is not known yet."
>
>
>>If the
>>whole discussion takes place here, we can Google back because we KNOW
>>where to find the original statements.
>>
>>So what David S did was to misrepresent one of the locals to an
>>outsider. Which is very bad form. Misrepresenting people is bad enough
>>*inside* the newsgroup.
>
>
> Proof?
>
>
>>Now to adress what Marty is saying:
>>
>>* * *
>>
>>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 06:34:49 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You missed a few "details" in there:
>>>- Mr. Gordon is an expert on AA itself, and knows which APIs were used
>>>for the video and audio interfaces
>>
>>Certainly. That would be basic knowledge for someone working on such a
>>project.
>>
>>
>>>- The graphics engine in Mr. Gordon's work (the 64-bit port) contained
>>>no further capability for rendering additional details, contrary to
>>>Johnson's fantasy scenarios
>>
>>If David Johnson actually said the new game could render additional
>>details, then he was wrong. If he stuck in a "maybe" there, he knew
>>that he was speculating and might be wrong.
I never claimed to know any details about the 64-bit version of
America's Army running on GameStorm because they are simply not known
yet and I did not dispute any claims about the game that were allegedly
made by Ryan, according to Sutherland (a dubious source, at best).
>
>
> This is usually the WHOLE problem here. DTJ throws junk into here, check
> the SUBJECTS he has started. They may be mere speculation on his part,
> but he really isn't an expert in those areas to make such assertations.
> This only brings out people throwing stones at him and he goes into his
> 'defense' mode. Never enters into a real discussion, repeats his chants
> endlessly and always have to have the last word. Never mind what he
> chants is correct or not.
I have not thrown any 'junk' in here. This post of yours is 'junk'
though, that isn't worth a response from me.
The quote that I excerpted was accurate and I provided the source URL.
The remaining stuff are obviously my opinions about the referenced text
and related topics. This is obvious to reasonable and rational
participants, here. Almost everything that is posted here is opinion,
Spalten. For example, my opinion is that you are a lying sack of
excrement and that you are thoroughly corrupted. I have documented many
of lies, here, including the one above where you claim that Ryan
'refuted' my assumptions about 64-bit AA. However, that only
establishes that you have lied here for unknown reasons and not that you
are a lying sack of excrement who lies for money. <laugh>
>
>
>>For instance, I could
>>paint several pictures of how the Opteron's 64-bit features might in
>>some way be exploited by OS/2. I could well make some assumptions
>>first, only to find out later that they were wrong. Whereupon we sigh
>>"Oh well... Shame." and get on with life as we know it. I would
>>personally be very careful to label assumptions as such, though. We're
>>among fsckin word lawyers here.
>>
>
>
> Do you see any assumptions in his first message, other than the subject
> itself?
There was an extensive discussion here about the 64-bit nature of
Gamestorm, its possible benefits to gaming and OS/2, and its potential
death blow to DirectX. See the thread entitled 'Death blow to directX'
for more.
>
>
>>>- Having no additional features in the core code means there can be no
>>>additional features for the whole product, no matter how it is packaged
>>
>>Hmm. Not a whole lot, I grant. You can do something with packaging,
>>but making an old game use new hardware features is probably
>>difficult. In Gamestorm's case, you could add a driver for a hitherto
>>not supported piece of hardware. The game would still not use any new
>>hardware features, but at least it would use the new hardware to do
>>its old things.
>
>
> Well, somewhere down the thread DTJ claimed it was also done WITHOUT the
> need for device drivers which the author of AA debunked.
Liar. I have never claimed that device drivers would not be required.
I have speculated that GameStorm may not require hardware-specific
drivers through the use of video standards such as VBE 3.0 and through
the use of more contribution from the 64-bit cpu.
>
>
>>>>* Mr. Ryan knows nothing about Gamestorm.
>>>>
>>>>This actually *can* be found in the text: "does not know anything about
>>>>GameStorm". However, taking this literally is not reasonable.
>>>
>>>
>>>Wrong. Writing it as such is not reasonable. Place the onus where it
>>>belongs.
>>
>>It was a quote or paraphrase from Ryan Gordon's email. If you really
>>want to be that anal about it, maybe David could give us an exact
>>quote of the part of Ryan Gordon's email which prompted him to stick
>>that "anything" in there. Me, I don't care. The message conveyed to me
>>what I've shown you and nothing more:
>>"Okay, Mr. Gordon IS an expert on AA, but not on GameStorm".
I provided the relevant quote...twice. I asked Ryan about the details
of GameStorm and when it might appear and his reply was:
Ryan> "I don't really know about GameStorm or the distribution of it..."
>>
>
>
> Is it really 'what' GameStorm is or what DTJ claims (it will kill
> DirectX) that is under discussion here?
Well, obviously, you aren't interested in either one or you would have
something to say about them. There's only one topic that brings you out
from under your bridge. So what is it that you are posting about
Spalten? <laugh>
>
>
>>>That aside, Johnson stated this "exaggeration" for the purpose
>>>of disqualifying Mr. Gordon as someone who knew the API and feature set
>>>used by AA. From the correspondence that David S. shared with us
>>>(verbatim, I'll add, in contrast to Johnson's mention of correspondence)
>>>it is clear that Mr. Gordon knows exactly this information, thus
>>>thoroughly stopping up all of Johnson's pipe dreams.
>>
>>And *that* is wrong. David Johnson knows that Ryan Gordon worked on AA
>>and therefore knows about the game and how it's built.
>
>
> OH? Really? His first message when presented with what Gordon said
> didn't seem to know who he was?
Yes. I didn't know who the guy was so I looked him up and emailed him.
>
>
>>That's apparent
>>from the message. But Ryan Gordon has not worked on GameStorm and is
>>therefore referring people elsewhere for detailed information. David J
>>was not "dissing" Ryan Gordon, but rather specifying where Ryan's
>>expertise was.
>
>
> Maybe, but his 'expertise' is sure closer to the subject than DTJ's.
Ryan has not provided any information on GameStorm at all which was the
entire basis of the topic 'Death blow for DirectX.' He does not lack
'expertise' but he does lack information about GameStorm, just like
everyone else here. The details of GameStorm are not yet available.
You have been told that many times before. <laugh>
> Besides, the subject here started all this and it digressed from there.
>
>
>>>If OpenGL hasn't been the DirectX killer, then Gamestorm doesn't have a
>>>chance, since Gamestorm is nothing more than a distribution of Linux
>>>with bundled drivers and existing support libraries.
>>
>>Hmm... The assumption was that GameStorm had something to do with
>>graphical rendering,
>
>
> Chek the FIRST message that I posted up above. No such assumption, other
> than GameStorm will kill DirectX.
The SCI announcement claimed that GameStorm and AMD 64 would provide
immersive super-realistic environments. That implies more detail in the
graphical rendering, to me anyway. You are free to believe that is
referring to the shape of the keyboard or something.
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3103154102.html
[snip]
Menno Willemse
I was replying to another post of David S', but this one is MUCH
better.
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 12:44:25 UTC, David Sutherland wrote:
> I wasn't aware you were reading my emails to Ryan, Menno. Unless you
> are, how exactly do you claim to know what correspondence Ryan and I
> have exchanged?
Your own words, actually.
David S' words in one of the previous posts:
> Rather than wait for your refusal to answer, I went straight to the
> source and told him that you claim he knows nothing about Gamestorm,
> nor the 64-bit version of AA that they are using.
This means to me: "Oi! David Johnson Sez You Don't Know Your Job".
Which was not what David J was saying at all. You've gotten Ryan
Gordon pissed off at David S for no good reason. This is about the
third time I've repeated this, so if you're not getting it now, then
you never will,
> For your information, Ryan knows *verbatim* what DTJ said. If your
> own ignorance is the basis for your spleen venting, then more fool
> you.
Really? Were you kind enough to give Mr. Ryan a Google link? Sorry,
but I'm a really suspicious bastard. Did you give him the "I have no
idea who this guy is..." quote perhaps? Because that was before David
J found out who Ryan Gordon is.
David Sutherland:
> So why did DTJ claim that Ryan was not qualified to comment on the
> features of 64-bit AA simply because he wasn't directly involved with
> SCI and the Gamestorm bundle?
Well, this is what David Johnson actually said:
>I emailed Ryan and he very kindly replied to me that he worked on the
>64-bit port of America's Army but has not worked on 64-bit AA since
and
>does not know anything about GameStorm, so I guess we are all still
>waiting to see what GameStorm is doing.
Does anyone notice the difference between David S' rendition and the
original?
David S:
> Sure, you take everyone to task for their communication skills except
> DTJ. You accuse me of distorting DTJ's words, then admit that DTJ's
> words say *exactly* what I claim. LOL!!!
Yet another misrepresentation. I have taken only ONE person to task
for their lack of communication skills, and that person is one David
Sutherland.
David S:
> Which is exactly the point. Gamestorm bundles 64-bit AA. Ryan is
> uniquely qualified to comment on the AA part of that bundle, but DTJ's
> assertion is that he is *not* qualified because he doesn't know about
> the bundle outside of the AA part. This is a logical fallacy, and
> it's one that you refuse to acknowledge.
No, it's what you would dearly have liked David J to say, but he
didn't in fact say that. You invented those words. What's more, you
then sent that invention to Mr. Gordon in order to discredit David
Johnson. Bad form.
David S:
> This is nonsense. DTJ was trying to disqualify Ryan's statements
> about 64-bit AA completely. His purpose in that was to try and
> continue with his pointless proclamations that his speculations are
> true, and that no evidence exists to the contrary.
>
> Those speculations revolved almost entirely around the version of AA
> bundled with Gamestorm, a subject which Ryan is *hugely* qualified to
> speak on. His claims, therefore, that Ryan doesn't know enough about
> *Gamestorm* to comment were utterly specious and insulting to Ryan's
> level of knowledge of the product.
Again: David Johnson did not say that. You would really have liked
that, but he didn't. Anyone reading the DTJ quote can see that.
Menno W:
> >Hmm... The assumption was that GameStorm had something to do with
> >graphical rendering, but this turns out not to be the case.
>
David S:
> That was DTJ's claim, which was proven wrong immediately. He refused
> to accept this, and continued that assertion. Continuing a falsehood
> in the face of evidence to the contrary is know as "lying" where I
> come from.
Okay... I'm reading through the "Death Blow" thread to see where it
becomes apparent that GameStorm is in fact the bundling technology and
not the graphics engine.
The first one where GameStorm is called a "Rendering engine", is in
fact my post here at 2003-10-02:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F7BDFBA.6080008%40wanadoo.nl
Sorry guys! I was wrong there. It's a bundling method, not a rendering
engine.
Ryan Gordon was mentioned first here two days later 2003-10-04:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=01i351-2gg.ln1%40ID-56407.news.ci
s.dfn.de
This is the post where we learn that OpenGL and SDL were used, and
hence, that GameStorm must be something else. So from that point on,
DTJ could have known that GameStorm was not the rendering engine.
Well, DTJ responded to the message (Google link trivial...) and was
not convinced that there was an OpenGL version for 64-bits Linux. He
asked Scott for more proof on this. The next time David mentions
Gamestorm is here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=vo6h99kdpjn6d7%40corp.supernews.c
om
Here, he calls it the "Gamestorm Platform" and not the "Gamestorm
Rendering Engine". So even though Scott did not yet tell us where he
got the information, David J accepted it. Which was good, because
here, Scott does provide the required URLs:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=iai651-4bj.ln1%40ID-56407.news.ci
s.dfn.de
The URLs in question are:
ftp://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86-64/1.0-4499
http://mesa3d.org
However, while this does prove that there are 64-bit OpenGL
implementations out there, it still does not prove that these are
being used in the game.
(Omigod! Mesa 3D is even available for OS/2!)
The discussion then slided to the relative performance of graphics
processors and CPUs, which I'm not getting into today. I've been
reading the thread more thoroughly than I have before. However, I
haven't been able to find any references made by David that Gamestorm
is a rendering engine since Scott's message. It's a good thing that I
enjoyed reading the thread because this is rather too much trouble to
take simply to refute a throwaway line by David S.
So David has not, in fact, claimed that GameStorm is a rendering
engine after some evidence provided by Scott. In fact he has not
claimed a great many things that people are saying he did. The phrase
"The Gamestorm information on [foo] is not yet known" will stick in my
mind for quite some time.
> >It's the
> >method of packaging Linux games on a bootable medium. So GameStorm is
> >not the DirectX killer. The Linux-based rendering engine used by AA is
> >the counterpart of DirectX, I think. I've never been very fond of the
> >phrase "Foo is the Bar killer".
>
> Doesn't stop you defending DTJ's lies.
I am (sigh) not defending any point made by DTJ. I am pointing out
what you, Mr. David Sutherland, did. Which was to take David J's
message, change its meaning to one suitably insulting to Mr. Gordon,
then send him that message.
During the course of the thread, you have also been ignoring what
David Johnson actually wrote and made up "claims" that you found it
easier to work with. Furthermore, you have been making personal
attacks on David Johnson in almost every post in this thread and
doubtlessly in others. David Johnson, on the other hand, has been
remarkably polite even in the face of this. He has labelled his
speculations as such and told people where he wasn't sure.
So this thread has been a very revealing one to me. It follows that
people should only argue with you if they are very, very bored and not
expect you to actually pay attention to anything they're writing.
Also, they should provide any outside experts with verifyable Google
links *pronto* before you try and discredit them. They should also be
ready for the steady stream of manure that comes their way if they say
something that might in some way offend you.
All in all, just the kind of guy I'd like my (hypothetical) daughter
to come home with.
Yes, and THAT is a lie.
Cheers/2,
Menno.
David Sutherland
Then you had no basis whatsoever for your claims. Thanks for
admitting it.
The real problem though, is that you continued to insist that your
speculations were true *after* all the evidence was presented that
showed that you were wildly off-base.
>>
>> He was indeed wrong, and he continued making the claim even after he
>> was proven wrong. At that point he stops being wrong, and starts
>> being a liar. Compound that with his dismissive hand-waving and
>> silly "laugh" routine and you end up with a liar who belittles the
>> people pointing out his mistakes.
>
>You have lied repeatedly and consistently about what has been said here.
> The only 'claims' about America's Army that I made were what was in
>the original press release for the GameStorm port of it.
>http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3103154102.html
>
Bullshit. You are a liar, as your own words prove. Go back and look
at all the claims you made about this version of AA David, and how it
differs from the 32-bit version. Then come back and apologise.
>[begin excerpts]
>"It feels like a gaming console on steroids..."
>""The fact that America's Army is available in 64-bit on the GameStorm
>CD allows gamers to get a taste of the next generation of gaming...""
>""With the AMD Athlon 64 processor and GameStorm technology, AMD is able
>to showcase a fully-integrated 64-bit environment that delivers
>performance and realism to the most demanding gamers," said Tim Wright,
>director, desktop marketing, AMD Computation Products Group. "AMD64 will
>revolutionize the gaming market by delivering immersive super-realistic
>environments."
>
>[end excerpts]
>etc.
>
A PR release, upon which you built entire flights of fantasy.
THEY didn't claim any new features - YOU did.
THEY didn't claim you don't need hardware-specific drivers - YOU did.
THEY didn't claim the CPU was doing extra graphics work -YOU did.
THEY didn't claim it was built around a new game engine - YOU did.
THEY didn't claim it was using a new API - YOU did.
Do you see a pattern here?
If you wish to retract your claims in light of what you have
subsequently learnt, then do so. Continuing your claims in the face
of all the evidence makes you a liar.
>>
>>
>>>Anything in particular wrong with speculations? For instance, I could
>>>paint several pictures of how the Opteron's 64-bit features might in
>>>some way be exploited by OS/2. I could well make some assumptions
>>>first, only to find out later that they were wrong. Whereupon we sigh
>>>"Oh well... Shame." and get on with life as we know it. I would
>>>personally be very careful to label assumptions as such, though. We're
>>>among fsckin word lawyers here.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Nothing wrong with speculating, but to insist that your speculations
>> are the truth after evidence is presented that shows those
>> speculations are wrong is dishonest, and stupid.
>>
Note: no response.
>>
>>>>- Having no additional features in the core code means there can be no
>>>>additional features for the whole product, no matter how it is packaged
>>>
>>>Hmm. Not a whole lot, I grant. You can do something with packaging,
>>>but making an old game use new hardware features is probably
>>>difficult. In Gamestorm's case, you could add a driver for a hitherto
>>>not supported piece of hardware. The game would still not use any new
>>>hardware features, but at least it would use the new hardware to do
>>>its old things.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So why did DTJ claim that Ryan was not qualified to comment on the
>> features of 64-bit AA simply because he wasn't directly involved with
>> SCI and the Gamestorm bundle?
>
>Apparently the only way you can carry on a discussion is by stuffing
>words into the mouths of your targets.
Hypocrite. How many times have I pointed out this very thing from you
in the Direct X thread?
>Your word-stuffing has reached
>new depths of depravity here. I have never claimed that Ryan was not
>qualified to comment on the features of 64-bit AA and I did not question
>Ryan's alleged claim (posted by you) about the use of the Unreal engine.
>
LOL - so explain this:
"I emailed Ryan and he very kindly replied to me that he worked on the
64-bit port of America's Army but has not worked on 64-bit AA since
and does not know anything about GameStorm, so I guess we are all
still waiting to see what GameStorm is doing."
How does any of that begin to refute the facts presented about the
64-bit version of AA? We know exactly what has been done to the
64-bit version of AA bundled on Gamestorm, David: nothing.
>I personally asked Ryan about the details of GameStorm and when it might
>appear and his reply was:
>
>Ryan> "I don't really know about GameStorm or the distribution of it..."
>
That doesn't mean he knows nothing about it, as you claimed, and it
certainly doesn't mean he knows nothing about 64-bit AA as you
desperately tried to imply.
You *cannot* argue with Ryan's statements about 64-bit AA and it's
capabilities compared to the 32-bit version, so instead you tried to
make it seem like the Gamestorm version was something different. You
did this in the full knowledge that they are the same - and *this* is
what makes you a liar.
>Ryan has also never claimed otherwise, in the two emails that are
>allegedly from him that you have posted here. It is only you who try to
>infuse him with some sort of insider knowledge about GameStorm. That is
>a cold, hard lie on your part.
>
I have never suggested he has inside knowledge of Gamestorm - quite
the opposite in fact. I challenge you to present the text where I
have claimed that Ryan has inside knowledge of anything beyond the
64-bit port of AA.
You can't because you are lying - again. Pathetic.
Talk about twisting peoples words, and trying to stuff words in the
mouths of others. Of course Menno will remain completely silent on
this.
>My only interest here is to discuss and comment on interesting new
>technology and I am not here selling anything. I don't know why you
>are carrying on a thread about myself rather than more technical topics
>but I can only presume that it is because you found my comments both
>credible and threatening in some way and therefore feel the need to
>attack and repudiate them via your word-stuffing tactics and lies.
>Fortunately for our side, truth is a more effective tactic than those
>used by you.
You are a liar, Johnson, and as long as you continue to post
inflammatory threads and lie in post after post, I and others will
call you on it.
Get used to it.
Menno Willemse
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 17:17:49 UTC, Irv Spalten <ispa...@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:
> Menno,
>
> First off, you have to look the whole scenario, INCLUDING the SUBJECT
> and then take what was said by who.
Have just done so. Phew!
> Menno Willemse wrote:
>
> > Hello World,
> >
> > However much David Sutherland would have liked me to do so, I did not
> > respond to David S' utterings because I wanted to defend some point
> > David Johnson was making.
>
> Which point? Did that point change during the 'discussion' as DTJ tends
> to do, present a moving target so to speak and then claim he never said
> such and such.
None of them. I did not want to defend any point David was making. I
wanted to do something entirely different. This is not about DTJ per
se. It's about David Sutherland, who gets up my nose something rotten
these days.
> > I was annoyed at David Sutherland. What he
> > did was to take a message, twist its meaning, and send that twisted
> > result to Ryan Gordon.
>
> I'm not sure that is the case? He did present a response he got back in
> toto, whereas DTJ sort of gave a 'digest'. Who knows what either sent
> Ryan?
Look. David Jonson said that Ryan Gordon was an expert on AA, but not
GameStorm. David Sutherland changed this to "Ryan Gordon is no expert
on Gamestorm OR AA". Given that Ryan Gordon is actually one of the
major contributors, that would be very insulting. If David Sutherland
thinks he can get away with that sort of thing without being noticed,
he may try it on you or me.
Another thing that annoys me about this individual is that he bases
his responses on what he would like you to say and not on what you
actually said. Then (his target being DTJ whom nobody here seems to
like), people actually *believe* that DTJ said this. By letting him
know that I'm on to that particular trick, and drawing others'
attention to it, I was hoping to contribute to a more productive
environment.
> Was it really important what info was sent to him by either party? His
> response is what was important. It refuted DTJ 'assumptions'.
Which was then, if I'm not mistaken, accepted by all concerned. Which
is excellent and should have been done in the first place. Almost a
month ago in fact.
> > So what David S did was to misrepresent one of the locals to an
> > outsider. Which is very bad form. Misrepresenting people is bad enough
> > *inside* the newsgroup.
>
> Proof?
Is in one or two of my postings. I won't bother the Ladies and
Gentlemen of this group with another instance. Hold on while I google:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3FA95559.2090407%40wanadoo.nl
And another one that hasn't shown up yet, but will undoubtedly.
> > If David Johnson actually said the new game could render additional
> > details, then he was wrong. If he stuck in a "maybe" there, he knew
> > that he was speculating and might be wrong.
>
> This is usually the WHOLE problem here. DTJ throws junk into here, check
> the SUBJECTS he has started. They may be mere speculation on his part,
> but he really isn't an expert in those areas to make such assertations.
> This only brings out people throwing stones at him and he goes into his
> 'defense' mode. Never enters into a real discussion, repeats his chants
> endlessly and always have to have the last word. Never mind what he
> chants is correct or not.
I've only read in detail one of the threads, so I can't comment on
most of the others. I'll give you that he has a tendency to hold on to
some ideas for too long. In other cases, the counter-evidence simply
isn't enough. And let me tell you, I could do without some of the
"idiots" and "assholes" in the posts. No wonder he gets defensive.
What I'm saying: It's not all DTJ's fault.
> > Anything in particular wrong with speculations?
> No, not if you clearly label it.
>
> Look at his post however :
<snippage[1]>
> http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3103154102.html
>
> This is a BIG deal. Microsoft has been pushing their 'directx'
> technology as a way to get a high-quality gaming experience while still
> running Windows and is up to 'Directx 9' I think. Those of you who have
> struggled to get cranky directx Windows games to actually run like they
> are supposed to know what a miserable kludge the who directx platform is
> and will immediately see the value in the bootable linux CD as a gaming
> platform. So how will this benefit OS/2? One of the chief obstacles of
> playing Windows Directx games on OS/2 has been lack of access to the
> directx software. If Linux becomes a serious game platform replacement
> for Directx, it is likely that Linux games will be able to be either
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ported to OS/2 or run on OS/2 with emulation software. Microsoft has
> pushed Directx as a replacement for DOS as a gaming platform but no one
> has ever loved (or even liked) directx and now it looks as if Linux has
> skewered it right through its gizzard.
Irv:
> Where does he say it is his speculation? It reads like he is stating
> facts to me? In any event, he has made, at best, a mountain out of a
> molehill, and been called on it.
What comes before the "If Linux..." is either fact or opinion.
Installing games on Windows can be an infernal pain in the posterior.
"It is likely that" labels the speculation about games being able to
be ported to OS/2 or being emulated. Which is unlikely if you ask me,
but it's his speculation, not mine. I'm not even sure if David held on
to that part for very long.
But I do agree with David that Gamestorm-based games are a good step
in the direction of breaking Microsoft's monopoly position. Especially
if you can install them to harddisk under Linux, but not under
Windows. And if the 64-bits versions of Windows are as slow to arrive
as Microsoft says, Linux has a good chance of catching up with Windows
in the gaming area. Which is... nice.
> Do you see any assumptions in his first message, other than the subject
> itself?
Yes.
> Well, somewhere down the thread DTJ claimed it was also done WITHOUT the
> need for device drivers which the author of AA debunked.
Ahh... I read that bit. David did not actually claim anything as silly
as not needing any device drivers at all. He was speculating on the
possibility that hardware these days is more or less standard, and
that you can therefore use a generic driver for all cards that you
don't have a specific driver for.
VBE doesn't actually support 3D rendering, but maybe you can write a
driver that supports the by-now standard tricks of several cards at
once. Since you can't use the cards up to the hilt in that way, you
would have to offload some tasks to the processor. But the
Opteron-type 64 bittes should be up to that.
Which several types creatively misunderstood. They then fulminated
greatly against the version in their heads. So what David was saying
was not so off-the-wall as it might have seemed. Mind you, it still
wouldn't be easy, but at least it wouldn't be impossible.
> Is it really 'what' GameStorm is or what DTJ claims (it will kill
> DirectX) that is under discussion here?
Well, I'm afraid I hijacked that particular branch of the thread. As I
said, David S got up my nose and I felt the need to point out what he
was doing to DTJ lest he try the same trick on others.
Menno:
>> And *that* is wrong. David Johnson knows that Ryan Gordon worked on
AA
>> and therefore knows about the game and how it's built.
Irv:
> OH? Really? His first message when presented with what Gordon said
> didn't seem to know who he was?
Aye, 'tis true, but then DTJ emailed Ryan himself and thus was
educated. Even his first message about Ryan did nothing but say that
he didn't know Ryan Gordon. Which he then remedied by emailing Ryan
himself. At no point did he actually say that Ryan didn't know his
job.
This didn't keep David S from reporting just that to Ryan. Oh, and
David S presented Ryan's email address in the clear, for which I'm
sure Ryan will thank him. Fair's fair though, he also presented his
own email address in the clear.
> Maybe, but his 'expertise' is sure closer to the subject than DTJ's.
True. I believe David J himself agrees with that.
> > Hmm... The assumption was that GameStorm had something to do with
> > graphical rendering,
> Chek the FIRST message that I posted up above. No such assumption, other
> than GameStorm will kill DirectX. When it was questioned how and why,
> then the graphical rendering entered into it.
True. So he wasn't sufficiently specific and should have said "Death
Blow To Windows Games Running On DirectX On Miscellaneous 32 Or 64 Bit
Processors". But that doean't roll as easily off the keyboard.
> > It's the
> > method of packaging Linux games on a bootable medium.
>
> With the needed drivers as well. Could have just as easily been DOS if
> someone wanted to spend time porting and building drivers.
Well, that's the crux. There will be no 64 bit drivers for DOS, but
there will be for Linux. (64 Bit DOS! Man! does that DIR run by fast!)
If MS doesn't hurry, drivers will be made for Linux-64 first, and only
then for Windows-64. We can but hope...
> > So GameStorm is
> > not the DirectX killer.
>
> So his INITIAL message was wrong!
Inaccurate, but brief. So was his speculation about involving OS/2 in
this somehow.
> > The Linux-based rendering engine used by AA is
> > the counterpart of DirectX, I think. I've never been very fond of the
> > phrase "Foo is the Bar killer".
>
> Yup, an alternative packaging situation at best.
But, I think, an important one. An alternative to Windows for PC
gaming, especially if it's got a head start on Windows 64-bit games,
could shift the Jolt-drinking LAN-partygoers to Linux instead of
Windows. Linux is cooler than Windows anyway.
Don't be glum! We'll see Bill Gates in rags yet ;)
> > Another observation: I write infrastructure designs for a living. I
> > know a thing or two about communication in writing. It is extremely
> > difficult to convey a message to people not familiar with the subject,
> > even to a knowledgable person. When one of the parties actually wants
> > to prove that the other is a cockroach of some sort, you may as well
> > go home.
>
> Especially if that roach will never admit it was wrong or changes the
> target as points are disproved.
Well...
> > That is the situation in this newsgroup now. Nobody cares about what
> > DTJ is saying, but by $PANTHEON, they will prove it wrong! There's a
> > whole history about how it got to be that way, but it's not good for
> > business.
> >
> > This whole "Death blow for DirectX" business is a good example. I
> > think GameStorm is a good sign for OS/2 users (and basically any
> > non-Windows user).
>
> Today you just can't equate anything not good for Windows or MS good for
> OS/2 however.
Well, it runs like this: If more Linux-based games appear, more people
will install Linux. More Linux means that suppliers can no longer get
away with just catering for Windows. Which means that they will have
to adhere to standards other than those dictated by Microsoft. Which
OS/2 then can also adhere to. As well as other yet-to-be-invented
operating systems.
> > So does DTJ. So do others. But damn and blast, this
> > is DTJ saying it! So instead of concentrating on why GameStorm is good
> > news, people start kicking DTJ for overstating his case. Facts about
> > the technology picked up along the way are not used for enlightenment,
> > but as ammo against DTJ.
>
> Well, to tell the truth, with his 'track record' here, many people
> wouldn't believe him if he said the sky was blue. He has earned that
> reputation by his past messages and his association with other FUD'sters
> here.
I am *so* not going to review years of COOA and present a lucid
response to that. Did that for this particular thread, found the
evidence I needed, time for another game.
> Maybe. However, I can't remember a positive from DTJ in the recent past
> that wasn't already KNOWN by everyone. If anything, he incites 'riots'
> here more than anyone else.
Maybe. But then again, it takes two to tango, and we've got enough
trigger happy persons here for a barn dance.
Take care,
Menno
===
[1] ObRant: Nobody here snips properly! Why O why do I have to scroll
through reams and reams of old stuff to get to the real posts[2]?
[2] And DON'T solve that by bloody top-posting, which is worse!
Menno Willemse
Most of the points here I've adressed elsewhere already and besides,
it's late. So just one more quick one.
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 21:35:53 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> > That is the situation in this newsgroup now. Nobody cares about what
> > DTJ is saying, but by $PANTHEON, they will prove it wrong! There's a
> > whole history about how it got to be that way, but it's not good for
> > business.
> You're making two assumptions already:
> 1] This behavior is without good cause (in other words, what Johnson is
> saying has merit)
Oh c'mon. There's lots of good info rolling out of this thread -
eventually. Info that wouldn't have been dug up if it wasn't for the
pleasure of proving DTJ wrong :)
> 2] This behavior is one-sided and not being returned by Johnson
This is a newsgroup in conflict. Who starts it is less important than
who stops it.
> I don't believe either of these assumptions are valid.
>
> > This whole "Death blow for DirectX" business is a good example. I
> > think GameStorm is a good sign for OS/2 users (and basically any
> > non-Windows user). So does DTJ. So do others.
> I don't for the following reasons:
> 1] I don't think the concept will take off because:
> a] the device support is limitted by what's burned on the CD
But you can update a CD easily by downloading a fresh copy and burning
it. People will do that. I was talking yesterday to guys who download
whole DVDs!
> b] people stopped rebooting to run games in 1995
Ahh... But under Linux, you could install the game to disk. Only
Windows users would have to reboot.
> c] the market of people who would not have been able to run these
> games without rebooting is too small to support
But the 64-bit leap gives Linux a window of opportunity. The Linux
boys are already 64-bit, whereas Windows is not. (Apart from a few
betas, perhaps).
> 2] It has nothing directly to do with OS/2 and cannot be used to aid
> porting to OS/2 and cannot be run inside of a virtual or emulated
> session in OS/2
Well, you don't need to port it to OS/2 if it will run on its own. And
I do think it will have some side benefits for OS/2. The more diverse
the PC market becomes, the more it will have to rely on independent
standards. Which we can then also implement under OS/2 and play along.
> DTJ is overstating his case. Anti-FUD is almost as bad as FUD. It
> leads to disappointments and bad feelings when things don't pan out.
> Having realistic expectations and recognizing facts as they are is the
> much better route.
On the other hand, sitting here saying "It'll never work" won't do any
good either. I really hope GameStorm takes of in a big way (And for
Ryan Gordon to be able to afford any car he likes).
> > If you've gotten in the habit of seeing someone as "The Enemy", you
> > want to project all things evil on them. And that may blind you to
> > positive things that come from their direction. The only people
> > laughing about this are the Wintrolls.
>
> Johnson has shown that he is incapable of being persuaded by facts when
> he gets an idea in his head. He has also made it a point to personally
> state that he is completely close-minded to anything that I have to say
> (references available on request), so if you're asking me to show him
> some charity, the soup kitchen is closed. I suggest you take a look at
> applying some of what you say in Johnson's direction.
So here's my advice: Observe proper debating techniques. Don't worry
about what DTJ does. You can not do anything about what DTJ does in
this group. Try it, and you'll only make it worse. People *will* note
the difference in posting styles. People will see what's going on.
Also, there's no need to convince DTJ of something he doesn't want to
be convinced of. Present your alternative and it will be read. This is
a public medium.
Damn and blast! It's 2am here!
Good night all!
Cheers/2,
Menno.
David Sutherland
wrote:
>Hello World,
>
>I was replying to another post of David S', but this one is MUCH
>better.
>
LOL - so much for "Hasta"!
I take that you *can't * bring yourself to stop? ROTFLMAO!
>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 12:44:25 UTC, David Sutherland wrote:
>
>> I wasn't aware you were reading my emails to Ryan, Menno. Unless you
>> are, how exactly do you claim to know what correspondence Ryan and I
>> have exchanged?
>
>Your own words, actually.
>
Oh, did I claim to have presented every word I've exchanged with Ryan?
Where did I do that? - feel free to present the text....
>David S' words in one of the previous posts:
>> Rather than wait for your refusal to answer, I went straight to the
>> source and told him that you claim he knows nothing about Gamestorm,
>> nor the 64-bit version of AA that they are using.
>
>This means to me:
Ah - that's a problem isn't it. You're not responding to what I
*said* but what you interpret me to have said. Isn't that what's
gotten you do hot under the collar?
Hypocrite!
> "Oi! David Johnson Sez You Don't Know Your Job".
That's not what I said at all. Are you claiming those are *my*
words?
>Which was not what David J was saying at all. You've gotten Ryan
>Gordon pissed off at David S for no good reason.
What makes you say that? Ryan certainly never indicated anything of
the kind! You are just guessing and trying to shove words into *his*
mouth. Hypocrisy rides again!!
>This is about the
>third time I've repeated this, so if you're not getting it now, then
>you never will,
>
DUH - you are inventing words for me *AND* Ryan and ascribing them to
us. WE NEVER SAID THEM!!
If you don't like my paraphrasing Johnsons words then where the f*ck
do you get off on inventing words on *MY* behalf?
>> For your information, Ryan knows *verbatim* what DTJ said. If your
>> own ignorance is the basis for your spleen venting, then more fool
>> you.
>
>Really? Were you kind enough to give Mr. Ryan a Google link? Sorry,
>but I'm a really suspicious bastard.
I don't care what you are. You DO NOT KNOW what correspondence has
passed between myself and Ryan. Don't even bother to claim that you
do.
>Did you give him the "I have no
>idea who this guy is..." quote perhaps? Because that was before David
>J found out who Ryan Gordon is.
>
He found out because I told him, remember? DOH!!!! Do you make a
career out of stupid comments?
>David Sutherland:
>> So why did DTJ claim that Ryan was not qualified to comment on the
>> features of 64-bit AA simply because he wasn't directly involved with
>> SCI and the Gamestorm bundle?
>
>Well, this is what David Johnson actually said:
>>I emailed Ryan and he very kindly replied to me that he worked on the
>
>>64-bit port of America's Army but has not worked on 64-bit AA since
>and
>>does not know anything about GameStorm, so I guess we are all still
>>waiting to see what GameStorm is doing.
>
>Does anyone notice the difference between David S' rendition and the
>original?
>
Nope - DTJ is still trying to claim that Ryan isn't qualified to speak
on the Gamestorm bundled port of AA. How do *you* read it any
differently?
In the context of DTJ's claim about 64-bit AA, Gamestorm is a Red
Herring. It doesn't matter how it's bundled, the game is the same.
To suggest otherwise is a lie.
>David S:
>> Sure, you take everyone to task for their communication skills except
>> DTJ. You accuse me of distorting DTJ's words, then admit that DTJ's
>> words say *exactly* what I claim. LOL!!!
>
>Yet another misrepresentation. I have taken only ONE person to task
>for their lack of communication skills, and that person is one David
>Sutherland.
>
Wow, now even Menno is reduced to outright lying and I notice that he
even had to delete his own words! Outrageous!
==
>> > This actually *can* be found in the text: "does not know anything about
>> > GameStorm". However, taking this literally is not reasonable. - Menno
Sure, you take everyone to task for their communication skills except
DTJ. You accuse me of distorting DTJ's words, then admit that DTJ's
words say *exactly* what I claim. LOL!!!
==
Why did you delete your own words, Menno? LOL!!!
Do you have *any* idea what this does to your credibility?
>David S:
>> Which is exactly the point. Gamestorm bundles 64-bit AA. Ryan is
>> uniquely qualified to comment on the AA part of that bundle, but DTJ's
>> assertion is that he is *not* qualified because he doesn't know about
>> the bundle outside of the AA part. This is a logical fallacy, and
>> it's one that you refuse to acknowledge.
>
>No, it's what you would dearly have liked David J to say, but he
>didn't in fact say that. You invented those words. What's more, you
>then sent that invention to Mr. Gordon in order to discredit David
>Johnson. Bad form.
>
Why? Because he is the best placed person on the planet to refute
DTJ's claims about the 64-bit version of AA?
Explain that to me again, I must be missing something.
DTJ refuses to admit that his claims about AA are wrong. Which part
of *that* don't you understand?
>David S:
>> This is nonsense. DTJ was trying to disqualify Ryan's statements
>> about 64-bit AA completely. His purpose in that was to try and
>> continue with his pointless proclamations that his speculations are
>> true, and that no evidence exists to the contrary.
>>
>> Those speculations revolved almost entirely around the version of AA
>> bundled with Gamestorm, a subject which Ryan is *hugely* qualified to
>> speak on. His claims, therefore, that Ryan doesn't know enough about
>> *Gamestorm* to comment were utterly specious and insulting to Ryan's
>> level of knowledge of the product.
>
>Again: David Johnson did not say that. You would really have liked
>that, but he didn't. Anyone reading the DTJ quote can see that.
>
Anyone reading DTJ's posts know exactly what he has claimed.
Apparently though, you do not.
He has stated that Gamestorm DOES NOT USE the same engine as the
32-bit version.
He has stated that Gamestorm DOES NOT USE the same API as the 32-bit
version.
He has stated that Gamestorm has EXTRA FEATURES over the 32-bit
version.
He has stated that the 64-bit version DOES NOT REQUIRE HARDWARE
SPECIFIC DRIVERS.
He has stated that the 64-bit version DOES THE GRAPHICS IN THE CPU.
These are all lies, which Ryan has been kind enough to confirm. But
DTJ still refuses to admit it. And here you are defending those
lies. Does it make you feel clever? LOL.
>Menno W:
>> >Hmm... The assumption was that GameStorm had something to do with
>> >graphical rendering, but this turns out not to be the case.
>>
>
>David S:
>> That was DTJ's claim, which was proven wrong immediately. He refused
>> to accept this, and continued that assertion. Continuing a falsehood
>> in the face of evidence to the contrary is know as "lying" where I
>> come from.
>
>Okay... I'm reading through the "Death Blow" thread to see where it
>becomes apparent that GameStorm is in fact the bundling technology and
>not the graphics engine.
>
>The first one where GameStorm is called a "Rendering engine", is in
>fact my post here at 2003-10-02:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3F7BDFBA.6080008%40wanadoo.nl
>
>Sorry guys! I was wrong there. It's a bundling method, not a rendering
>engine.
>
Your ignorance does not excuse DTJ's lies. DTJ continues to claim
that 64-bit AA is using an "unknown" API for it's rendering, and it
does not use the same engine as the 32-bit version. Did those facts
just pass you by? If so you're even dumber than I thought.
Here is DTJ's claim from that same day:
==
<laugh> Not hardly. There are very few details available but the
fact that the game is only available in a 64-bit version running on
the Opteron and requires a platform called "Gamestorm" suggests that
the "gamestorm" platform is somehow doing something different than the
old 32-bit OpenGl stuff.
==
See what he's claiming, Menno? It's DIFFERENT from the 32-bit OpenGL
stuff. And no matter what evidence was presented, he refused to
change his claim.
>Ryan Gordon was mentioned first here two days later 2003-10-04:
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=01i351-2gg.ln1%40ID-56407.news.ci
>s.dfn.de
>
>This is the post where we learn that OpenGL and SDL were used, and
>hence, that GameStorm must be something else. So from that point on,
>DTJ could have known that GameStorm was not the rendering engine.
>Well, DTJ responded to the message (Google link trivial...) and was
>not convinced that there was an OpenGL version for 64-bits Linux. He
>asked Scott for more proof on this. The next time David mentions
>Gamestorm is here:
>
Bullshit. Your rose-tinted glasses are nothing but the most
outrageous bias. DTJ had *many* links presented to him explaining
exactly what API's were being used, what engine the game was written
with, and even who did the port. He refused to believe *any* of it.
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=vo6h99kdpjn6d7%40corp.supernews.c
>om
>
>Here, he calls it the "Gamestorm Platform" and not the "Gamestorm
>Rendering Engine". So even though Scott did not yet tell us where he
>got the information, David J accepted it. Which was good, because
>here, Scott does provide the required URLs:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=iai651-4bj.ln1%40ID-56407.news.ci
>s.dfn.de
>
>The URLs in question are:
>ftp://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86-64/1.0-4499
>http://mesa3d.org
>
>However, while this does prove that there are 64-bit OpenGL
>implementations out there, it still does not prove that these are
>being used in the game.
>(Omigod! Mesa 3D is even available for OS/2!)
>
Duh. Are you being deliberately dense? The engine used by the game
is public knowledge. You were told this. DTJ was told this.
Indeed I told you on the 2nd that OpenGL was in use. Another fact
that you have conveniently neglected to mention here. What a
dishonest piece of sh*t you are.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl337932896d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=1rm3ovk7khlbbob922d1rg7nhhh62ohp0g%404ax.com
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl337932896d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=g19pnv83emi0hrd28krfplgugtj9dsr15v%404ax.com
Don't let facts stand in the way of your fairy tales though, Menno.
It's funny watching you destroy your credibility in public :)
>The discussion then slided to the relative performance of graphics
>processors and CPUs, which I'm not getting into today.
Thank god for small mercies.
>I've been
>reading the thread more thoroughly than I have before. However, I
>haven't been able to find any references made by David that Gamestorm
>is a rendering engine since Scott's message. It's a good thing that I
>enjoyed reading the thread because this is rather too much trouble to
>take simply to refute a throwaway line by David S.
>
And what an amazing co-incidence that you "cannot find" anything that
proves you to be an apologist and a liar. Wow.
Here's one from the 27th - how very f*cking amazing that you managed
to miss it. Nothing self-serving about *your* research, is there,
Menno?
==
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:09:22 -0800
Message-ID: <vpr5qlr...@corp.supernews.com>
> Americas Army uses the Unreal Warfare engine - the official website
> has lots of info about it, including which API's it was created with.
> These are OpenGL and DirectX. - DS
Liar. The details of the 64-bit version of America's Army are not yet
known. You have been told that several times previously. - DTJ
==
So that's DTJ accusing ME of being a liar for saying that 64-bit AA
uses the Unreal engine - which in fact it does.
Feel free to ignore this little piece of reality too, Menno. Why
don't you say again how horrible I am for calling DTJ a liar and
pointing out that he refuses to accept facts that prove him wrong.
Just ignore the fact that he accused me of being a liar for stating
the truth. That fits in pretty well with your corrupt world-view :)
>So David has not, in fact, claimed that GameStorm is a rendering
>engine after some evidence provided by Scott. In fact he has not
>claimed a great many things that people are saying he did. The phrase
>"The Gamestorm information on [foo] is not yet known" will stick in my
>mind for quite some time.
>
See above, loser. Or should that be liar?
>> >It's the
>> >method of packaging Linux games on a bootable medium. So GameStorm is
>> >not the DirectX killer. The Linux-based rendering engine used by AA is
>> >the counterpart of DirectX, I think. I've never been very fond of the
>> >phrase "Foo is the Bar killer".
>>
>> Doesn't stop you defending DTJ's lies.
>
>I am (sigh) not defending any point made by DTJ. I am pointing out
>what you, Mr. David Sutherland, did. Which was to take David J's
>message, change its meaning to one suitably insulting to Mr. Gordon,
>then send him that message.
>
And once again I have to point out that you DO NOT KNOW what I said to
Ryan. You are *guessing* what I might have said and then attacking me
based upon your own imagination. If you can't see how hypocritical
that is then no-one can help you.
>During the course of the thread, you have also been ignoring what
>David Johnson actually wrote and made up "claims" that you found it
>easier to work with.
See above for a typical DTJ quote. Look at the word "liar" and then
look at what it is I'm accused of lying about. The truth.
Don't like it, Menno? Tough.
>Furthermore, you have been making personal
>attacks on David Johnson in almost every post in this thread and
>doubtlessly in others. David Johnson, on the other hand, has been
>remarkably polite even in the face of this. He has labelled his
>speculations as such and told people where he wasn't sure.
>
==
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:09:22 -0800
Message-ID: <vpr5qlr...@corp.supernews.com>
> Americas Army uses the Unreal Warfare engine - the official website
> has lots of info about it, including which API's it was created with.
> These are OpenGL and DirectX. - DS
Liar. The details of the 64-bit version of America's Army are not yet
known. You have been told that several times previously. - DTJ
==
Oh yes VERY fucking polite, and so carefully couched to indicate that
he isn't sure of his facts. Menno, you look stupid. *REALLY* stupid
:)
>So this thread has been a very revealing one to me. It follows that
>people should only argue with you if they are very, very bored and not
>expect you to actually pay attention to anything they're writing.
>Also, they should provide any outside experts with verifyable Google
>links *pronto* before you try and discredit them. They should also be
>ready for the steady stream of manure that comes their way if they say
>something that might in some way offend you.
>
Yada yada yada. You're still hurting from our last encounter and you
are willing to debase yourself and lie for DTJ in order to try and
score points. Look at the above quote from him and try reconcile it
with all of your bullshit.
>All in all, just the kind of guy I'd like my (hypothetical) daughter
>to come home with.
>
I wouldn't touch her with yours.
>Yes, and THAT is a lie.
>
Good. Keep up the personal attacks - you are even bringing your
imaginary family into it now. Is your mother going to make an
appearance soon? You are so *obviously* only trying to set the
record straight - nothing personal, right? :)
Why don't you call me a fuckwit again - that was pretty funny!
ROTFLMAO@U :)
>Cheers/2,
>Menno.
David Sutherland
wrote:
>Irv,
>
>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 17:17:49 UTC, Irv Spalten <ispa...@cfl.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Menno,
>>
>> First off, you have to look the whole scenario, INCLUDING the SUBJECT
>> and then take what was said by who.
>
>Have just done so. Phew!
>
>> Menno Willemse wrote:
>>
>> > Hello World,
>> >
>> > However much David Sutherland would have liked me to do so, I did not
>> > respond to David S' utterings because I wanted to defend some point
>> > David Johnson was making.
>>
>> Which point? Did that point change during the 'discussion' as DTJ tends
>> to do, present a moving target so to speak and then claim he never said
>> such and such.
>
>None of them. I did not want to defend any point David was making. I
>wanted to do something entirely different. This is not about DTJ per
>se. It's about David Sutherland, who gets up my nose something rotten
>these days.
>
Good. It's called a killfile. If you don't like my posts then use
it.
You are an apologist and a liar who thinks it's okay for DTJ to lie
and twist others words. If you took your head out of your ass for a
few seconds you might notice that not many people agree with you.
Wonder why.
TTFN!
David Sutherland
wrote:
>Hello World,
>
>Most of the points here I've adressed elsewhere already and besides,
>it's late. So just one more quick one.
>
>On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 21:35:53 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> > That is the situation in this newsgroup now. Nobody cares about what
>> > DTJ is saying, but by $PANTHEON, they will prove it wrong! There's a
>> > whole history about how it got to be that way, but it's not good for
>> > business.
>
>> You're making two assumptions already:
>> 1] This behavior is without good cause (in other words, what Johnson is
>> saying has merit)
>
>Oh c'mon. There's lots of good info rolling out of this thread -
>eventually. Info that wouldn't have been dug up if it wasn't for the
>pleasure of proving DTJ wrong :)
>
The problem is that the good info is rejected by DTJ and he moves the
goalposts every time his points are disproved - at the same time he
accuse the people presenting evidence of being liars for stating any
truth that he doesn't like.
Example:
==
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:09:22 -0800
Message-ID: <vpr5qlr...@corp.supernews.com>
> Americas Army uses the Unreal Warfare engine - the official website
> has lots of info about it, including which API's it was created with.
> These are OpenGL and DirectX. - DS
Liar. The details of the 64-bit version of America's Army are not yet
known. You have been told that several times previously. - DTJ
==
>> 2] This behavior is one-sided and not being returned by Johnson
>
>This is a newsgroup in conflict. Who starts it is less important than
>who stops it.
>
The person who continues it is the person who refuses to accept any
evidence he doesn't like: DTJ.
>> I don't believe either of these assumptions are valid.
>>
>> > This whole "Death blow for DirectX" business is a good example. I
>> > think GameStorm is a good sign for OS/2 users (and basically any
>> > non-Windows user). So does DTJ. So do others.
>
>> I don't for the following reasons:
>> 1] I don't think the concept will take off because:
>> a] the device support is limitted by what's burned on the CD
>
>But you can update a CD easily by downloading a fresh copy and burning
>it. People will do that. I was talking yesterday to guys who download
>whole DVDs!
>
Joe public is not going to download 600MB of data in order to fix a
bug. If you think otherwise then you don't know how most of the world
connects to the internet.
>> b] people stopped rebooting to run games in 1995
>
>Ahh... But under Linux, you could install the game to disk. Only
>Windows users would have to reboot.
>
That's not how Gamestorm works. And if you don't reboot then you end
up with all the "overhead" whose absence DTJ crows about as being
Gamestorm's big advantage....
>> c] the market of people who would not have been able to run these
>> games without rebooting is too small to support
>
>But the 64-bit leap gives Linux a window of opportunity. The Linux
>boys are already 64-bit, whereas Windows is not. (Apart from a few
>betas, perhaps).
>
So where can I get a copy of the Gamestorm CD? The clock is ticking,
and there is still no product.
>> 2] It has nothing directly to do with OS/2 and cannot be used to aid
>> porting to OS/2 and cannot be run inside of a virtual or emulated
>> session in OS/2
>
>Well, you don't need to port it to OS/2 if it will run on its own.
So much from installing it to disk....
>And
>I do think it will have some side benefits for OS/2. The more diverse
>the PC market becomes, the more it will have to rely on independent
>standards. Which we can then also implement under OS/2 and play along.
>
Good luck. Who is going to spend the time to port to a dead
platform? You?
>> DTJ is overstating his case. Anti-FUD is almost as bad as FUD. It
>> leads to disappointments and bad feelings when things don't pan out.
>> Having realistic expectations and recognizing facts as they are is the
>> much better route.
>
>On the other hand, sitting here saying "It'll never work" won't do any
>good either. I really hope GameStorm takes of in a big way (And for
>Ryan Gordon to be able to afford any car he likes).
>
He has plenty of work, and he is *extremely* competent at what he
does. However, the success or failure of GameStorm is unlikely to
affect his fortunes one way or the other. It's not his product.
>> > If you've gotten in the habit of seeing someone as "The Enemy", you
>> > want to project all things evil on them. And that may blind you to
>> > positive things that come from their direction. The only people
>> > laughing about this are the Wintrolls.
>>
>> Johnson has shown that he is incapable of being persuaded by facts when
>> he gets an idea in his head. He has also made it a point to personally
>> state that he is completely close-minded to anything that I have to say
>> (references available on request), so if you're asking me to show him
>> some charity, the soup kitchen is closed. I suggest you take a look at
>> applying some of what you say in Johnson's direction.
>
>So here's my advice: Observe proper debating techniques. Don't worry
>about what DTJ does. You can not do anything about what DTJ does in
>this group. Try it, and you'll only make it worse. People *will* note
>the difference in posting styles. People will see what's going on.
>Also, there's no need to convince DTJ of something he doesn't want to
>be convinced of. Present your alternative and it will be read. This is
>a public medium.
>
In other words, let DTJ get away with calling everybody liars and
spreading FUD. Menno will only attack those who challenge him on it.
>Damn and blast! It's 2am here!
>
>Good night all!
>
Oh how very jolly.
>Cheers/2,
>Menno.
David T. Johnson
But David, I didn't make any claims about 64-bit America's Army because
the details of it were, and are, unknown. You have been told that many
times. You have made claims about it based on your alleged email
received from Ryan.
> Thanks for
> admitting it.
Thanks for admitting that you have a *wooden* head.
>
> The real problem though, is that you continued to insist that your
> speculations were true *after* all the evidence was presented that
> showed that you were wildly off-base.
I have never insisted that any of my speculations were true or not true.
They are *speculations*! When the details of Gamestorm are finally
revealed, we can all post about it here then.
>
>
>>>He was indeed wrong, and he continued making the claim even after he
>>>was proven wrong. At that point he stops being wrong, and starts
>>>being a liar. Compound that with his dismissive hand-waving and
>>>silly "laugh" routine and you end up with a liar who belittles the
>>>people pointing out his mistakes.
>>
>>You have lied repeatedly and consistently about what has been said here.
>> The only 'claims' about America's Army that I made were what was in
>>the original press release for the GameStorm port of it.
>>http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3103154102.html
>>
>
>
> Bullshit. You are a liar, as your own words prove. Go back and look
> at all the claims you made about this version of AA David, and how it
> differs from the 32-bit version. Then come back and apologise.
But David, I didn't make any claims about 64-bit America's Army because
the details of it were, and are, unknown. You have been told that many
times. Most of the discussion has been about GameStorm, anyway, and not
about America's Army per se.
>
>
>
>>[begin excerpts]
>>"It feels like a gaming console on steroids..."
>>""The fact that America's Army is available in 64-bit on the GameStorm
>>CD allows gamers to get a taste of the next generation of gaming...""
>>""With the AMD Athlon 64 processor and GameStorm technology, AMD is able
>>to showcase a fully-integrated 64-bit environment that delivers
>>performance and realism to the most demanding gamers," said Tim Wright,
>>director, desktop marketing, AMD Computation Products Group. "AMD64 will
>>revolutionize the gaming market by delivering immersive super-realistic
>>environments."
>>
>>[end excerpts]
>>etc.
>>
>
>
> A PR release, upon which you built entire flights of fantasy.
Flights of fantasy? Do you ever listen to yourself?
>
> THEY didn't claim any new features - YOU did.
Liar. I didn't make any claims about 64-bit America's Army because the
details of it were, and are, unknown. You have been told that many times.
> THEY didn't claim you don't need hardware-specific drivers - YOU did.
Liar. The details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have been told
that many times.
> THEY didn't claim the CPU was doing extra graphics work -YOU did.
Liar. I speculated about that but I didn't claim to have any
information about Gamestorm because the details of Gamestorm are not
known yet. You have been told that many times.
> THEY didn't claim it was built around a new game engine - YOU did.
Liar. I said on October 22 here: "I don't care in the least if
America's Army uses the unreal engine or not. I merely point out that
it is not known yet." I didn't claim to have any information about
Gamestorm because the details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have
been told that many times.
> THEY didn't claim it was using a new API - YOU did.
Liar. I didn't claim to have any information about Gamestorm because
the details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have been told that
many times.
>
> Do you see a pattern here?
<laugh> See above.
>
> If you wish to retract your claims in light of what you have
> subsequently learnt, then do so. Continuing your claims in the face
> of all the evidence makes you a liar.
See above.
>
>
>>>
>>>>Anything in particular wrong with speculations? For instance, I could
>>>>paint several pictures of how the Opteron's 64-bit features might in
>>>>some way be exploited by OS/2. I could well make some assumptions
>>>>first, only to find out later that they were wrong. Whereupon we sigh
>>>>"Oh well... Shame." and get on with life as we know it. I would
>>>>personally be very careful to label assumptions as such, though. We're
>>>>among fsckin word lawyers here.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Nothing wrong with speculating, but to insist that your speculations
>>>are the truth after evidence is presented that shows those
>>>speculations are wrong is dishonest, and stupid.
>>>
>
>
> Note: no response.
Note: who cares?
But David, I didn't present any "facts" about the 64-bit version of AA
running on GameStorm because the details of it are not yet known. You
have been told that many times before but you apparently have a *wooden
head*. My fault for not recognizing that sooner.
> We know exactly what has been done to the
> 64-bit version of AA bundled on Gamestorm, David: nothing.
No, we don't know because the details of 64-bit AA running on Gamestorm
are not yet known. You have been told that many times before but you
apparently have a *wooden head*. My fault for not recognizing that
sooner.
>
>
>>I personally asked Ryan about the details of GameStorm and when it might
>>appear and his reply was:
>>
>>Ryan> "I don't really know about GameStorm or the distribution of it..."
>>
>
>
> That doesn't mean he knows nothing about it, as you claimed, and it
> certainly doesn't mean he knows nothing about 64-bit AA as you
> desperately tried to imply.
Well, Sir Wooden head, you would at least have to agree that Ryan is not
attempting to present himself as a GameStorm expert. <laugh>
>
> You *cannot* argue with Ryan's statements about 64-bit AA and it's
> capabilities compared to the 32-bit version,
No, of course not. Why would I want to? I have no idea what Ryan said
to you but it certainly seems obvious that he has worked on AA. Unlike
you, my only interest is finding out what the details of GameStorm and
64-bit AA are when they become available because I am interested in what
they are doing.
> so instead you tried to
> make it seem like the Gamestorm version was something different.
This is kind of a weak statement from you. I am surprised that you
didn't just say that I 'claimed' about it rather than 'make it seem like'.
> You
> did this in the full knowledge that they are the same
The details of the 64-bit AA running on Gamestorm are not yet available.
You have been told this many times previously.
- and *this* is
> what makes you a liar.
Liar.
>
>
>>Ryan has also never claimed otherwise, in the two emails that are
>>allegedly from him that you have posted here. It is only you who try to
>>infuse him with some sort of insider knowledge about GameStorm. That is
>>a cold, hard lie on your part.
>>
>
>
> I have never suggested he has inside knowledge of Gamestorm - quite
> the opposite in fact. I challenge you to present the text where I
> have claimed that Ryan has inside knowledge of anything beyond the
> 64-bit port of AA.
<laugh> That's easy: "He also knows exactly what Gamestorm is, which is
in direct opposition to your claims that he knew nothing about it."
--David Sutherland--1 November 2003 in 'Icculus speaks...' thread.
>
> You can't because you are lying - again. Pathetic.
Liar. See above.
>
> Talk about twisting peoples words, and trying to stuff words in the
> mouths of others. Of course Menno will remain completely silent on
> this.
<laugh>
>
>
>
>>My only interest here is to discuss and comment on interesting new
>>technology and I am not here selling anything. I don't know why you
>>are carrying on a thread about myself rather than more technical topics
>>but I can only presume that it is because you found my comments both
>>credible and threatening in some way and therefore feel the need to
>>attack and repudiate them via your word-stuffing tactics and lies.
>>Fortunately for our side, truth is a more effective tactic than those
>>used by you.
>
>
>
> You are a liar, Johnson, and as long as you continue to post
> inflammatory threads and lie in post after post, I and others will
> call you on it.
You are *proven* to be a liar. See above.
>
> Get used to it.
Get used to having your 'arguments' eviscerated and spending all of your
time throwing dirt out of the hole that you find yourself in.
Marty
> Hello World,
>
> Most of the points here I've adressed elsewhere already and besides,
> it's late. So just one more quick one.
>
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 21:35:53 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>>That is the situation in this newsgroup now. Nobody cares about what
>>>DTJ is saying, but by $PANTHEON, they will prove it wrong! There's a
>>>whole history about how it got to be that way, but it's not good for
>>>business.
>
>>You're making two assumptions already:
>>1] This behavior is without good cause (in other words, what Johnson is
>>saying has merit)
>
> Oh c'mon. There's lots of good info rolling out of this thread -
> eventually. Info that wouldn't have been dug up if it wasn't for the
> pleasure of proving DTJ wrong :)
All of the "good info" is coming from the person you just lambasted.
You've also chided us both for taking an "anti-Johnson" stance, when
really all we've done is take issue with the preposterous nature of what
he's been stating (and repeating ad nauseum). But now you're saying
that it was all worth it anyway. Guess there's no pleasing some people.
>>2] This behavior is one-sided and not being returned by Johnson
>
> This is a newsgroup in conflict. Who starts it is less important than
> who stops it.
Rarely does anyone ever stop it. One party usually just persists until
the others no longer have the energy or desire to counter it. That's
not "ending it". David S's response from Ryan should have ended it but
Johnson can't accept facts or is failing to apply them to what he's stated.
>>I don't believe either of these assumptions are valid.
>>
>>>This whole "Death blow for DirectX" business is a good example. I
>>>think GameStorm is a good sign for OS/2 users (and basically any
>>>non-Windows user). So does DTJ. So do others.
>
>>I don't for the following reasons:
>>1] I don't think the concept will take off because:
>> a] the device support is limitted by what's burned on the CD
>
> But you can update a CD easily by downloading a fresh copy and burning
> it. People will do that. I was talking yesterday to guys who download
> whole DVDs!
This conflicts with Johnson's claims that GameStorm could work on "any"
Athlon-64 machine. Why would we need updates? Of course, we already
know that this is not the case, but Johnson has not accepted this fact.
Furthermore, if you think people, by and large, are actually willing to
do this, have a chat with Kim Cheung, who personally snail-mailed a
great many eCS CDs.
>> b] people stopped rebooting to run games in 1995
>
> Ahh... But under Linux, you could install the game to disk. Only
> Windows users would have to reboot.
And OS/2 users. And Linux-32 users. And BEOS users. And BSD users.
And Solaris users. ...
But this would also undermine the strengths of GameStorm that Johnson
has been touting from the beginning.
>> c] the market of people who would not have been able to run these
>>games without rebooting is too small to support
>
> But the 64-bit leap gives Linux a window of opportunity. The Linux
> boys are already 64-bit, whereas Windows is not. (Apart from a few
> betas, perhaps).
We've gone off on this tangent in this discussion already though.
Johnson claimed that MS is missing a major paradigm shift to 64-bit
computing, when, in fact, they're doing much better schedule-wise than
they were during the shift to 32-bit computing by an order of magnitude.
If they survived that slow and rocky shift to 32-bit, something tells
me they'll be just fine moving to 64-bit.
Also, not to rehash the point again, but what competetive advantage is
offered by moving this game to a 64-bit platform?
>>2] It has nothing directly to do with OS/2 and cannot be used to aid
>>porting to OS/2 and cannot be run inside of a virtual or emulated
>>session in OS/2
>
> Well, you don't need to port it to OS/2 if it will run on its own. And
> I do think it will have some side benefits for OS/2. The more diverse
> the PC market becomes, the more it will have to rely on independent
> standards. Which we can then also implement under OS/2 and play along.
Like OpenGL, for example? Hmm... that hasn't helped us get any software
on OS/2. And how long has that standard been around? All of the
drivers and libraries that GameStorm is using are currently available in
some form or another on Linux, yet we don't have them on OS/2. This is
not likely to change, regardless of whether GameStorm becomes popular or
not.
>>DTJ is overstating his case. Anti-FUD is almost as bad as FUD. It
>>leads to disappointments and bad feelings when things don't pan out.
>>Having realistic expectations and recognizing facts as they are is the
>>much better route.
>
> On the other hand, sitting here saying "It'll never work" won't do any
> good either. I really hope GameStorm takes of in a big way (And for
> Ryan Gordon to be able to afford any car he likes).
Like David S. responded, his success is hinged on AA, not GameStorm.
Also note, I'm not saying "It'll never work". What I am saying is,
"been there, done that". The PC gaming market moved away from that
paradigm for a reason. PC hardware is too diverse to make it feasible.
Going back to try it again doesn't seem like it will have any
different effect, since all of the conditions which caused the exodus
are still valid.
>>>If you've gotten in the habit of seeing someone as "The Enemy", you
>>>want to project all things evil on them. And that may blind you to
>>>positive things that come from their direction. The only people
>>>laughing about this are the Wintrolls.
>>
>>Johnson has shown that he is incapable of being persuaded by facts when
>>he gets an idea in his head. He has also made it a point to personally
>>state that he is completely close-minded to anything that I have to say
>>(references available on request), so if you're asking me to show him
>>some charity, the soup kitchen is closed. I suggest you take a look at
>>applying some of what you say in Johnson's direction.
>
> So here's my advice: Observe proper debating techniques. Don't worry
> about what DTJ does.
What makes you think I've done anything but this? I see you still seem
hesitant to cast any responsibility in Johnson's direction, however.
Why is that?
> You can not do anything about what DTJ does in
> this group. Try it, and you'll only make it worse. People *will* note
> the difference in posting styles. People will see what's going on.
Most people will.
> Also, there's no need to convince DTJ of something he doesn't want to
> be convinced of. Present your alternative and it will be read. This is
> a public medium.
That's all I've done.
Marty
> Another thing that annoys me about this individual is that he bases
> his responses on what he would like you to say and not on what you
> actually said. Then (his target being DTJ whom nobody here seems to
> like), people actually *believe* that DTJ said this.
Here's why, Menno:
DTJ says "we don't know what GameStorm uses but it could be this magical
pixie dust."
DS points out that AA uses the Unreal gaming engine which uses OpenGL
under the hood.
DTJ says "we don't know what GameStorm uses and you're talking about the
32-bit version"
DS talks to the guy who ported the 32-bit version to 64-bit and he says
that it was a direct port, using the same API and engine.
DTJ says "we don't know what GameStorm uses and that guy you talked to
is a nobody" (back when Johnson didn't know who "Icculus" was).
And the drama plays on.
The bone you've chosen to pick with DS is ultimately completely
irrelevant to the point he was making. If he was inaccurate, it's only
because it was not a relevant detail. Johnson's inaccuracies, on the
other hand, revolve around the crux of the entire discussion.
For Johnson to continue claiming that "we don't know what GameStorm
uses" in spite of all of the facts that have been presented, equates (in
my book) to him making a claim that it doesn't use the means that DS has
presented. While in its purest form, this conclusion is a logical
fallacy, when viewed through the spectacles of reality Johnson has
completely discounted the known facts and, in effect, stated that he
knows what it GameStorm "isn't".
Johnson's claims that Ryan doesn't have enough information to rule out
his speculations is of a similar vein. Ryan presented enough
information, but Johnson refused to see that it ruled out his
speculations, and hence, is basically claiming that Ryan knows nothing
about GameStorm. (That's the only logical way Johnson's argument could
be potentially correct.)
Whether or not you agree with that derivation, it's ultimately
irrelevant to the point DS was making.
David Sutherland
>Menno Willemse wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> So here's my advice: Observe proper debating techniques. Don't worry
>> about what DTJ does.
>
>What makes you think I've done anything but this? I see you still seem
>hesitant to cast any responsibility in Johnson's direction, however.
>Why is that?
>
He's too busy calling people "fuckwits" and inventing imaginary
daughters for them not to go out with, in accordance with his own
sanctimonious advice on "proper debating techniques". You can hardly
expect him to have time to be impartial, too! :)
Menno Willemse
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 01:14:13 UTC, David Sutherland
<sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**btconnect.com> wrote:
> Ah - that's a problem isn't it. You're not responding to what I
> *said* but what you interpret me to have said. Isn't that what's
> gotten you do hot under the collar?
Okay then. Let me explain clearer:
The offending words of David S:
>Rather than wait for your refusal to answer, I went straight to the
>source and told him that you claim he knows nothing about Gamestorm,
>nor the 64-bit version of AA that they are using.
This does mean, exactly, that you, David Sutherland, told Ryan Gordon,
that David Johnson said, that Ryan Gordon knew nothing about 64-bit
America's Army.
David Johnson said no such thing.
So next time you feel the need to ask me how I know what you said to
Ryan, please refer to this post. You told us.
> Are you claiming those are *my* words?
> DUH - you are inventing words for me *AND* Ryan and ascribing them to
> us. WE NEVER SAID THEM!!
No. It's *my* interpretation of *your* words.
> If you don't like my paraphrasing Johnsons words then where the f*ck
> do you get off on inventing words on *MY* behalf?
"Et tu" fallacy, if it were true, which it isn't. I did not invent
anything. I repeated your words exactly and showed how I interpreted
those words. You *could* simply have asked Ryan for the relevant
details. But you just had to stick in that slug at David Johnson.
David S:
> I don't care what you are. You DO NOT KNOW what correspondence has
> passed between myself and Ryan. Don't even bother to claim that you
> do.
I wouldn't dream of it, dear boy. All I have to go on are your words
here.
> >Did you give him the "I have no
> >idea who this guy is..." quote perhaps? Because that was before David
> >J found out who Ryan Gordon is.
>
> He found out because I told him, remember? DOH!!!! Do you make a
> career out of stupid comments?
You keep pulling the same little trolling trick even though I actually
told you that I was on to that. The fact that your words are under my
lines alone is not enough to make them an answer. They have to have
something to do with what I'm saying. The response to shut me up would
have been "Menno, I gave Ryan the URL to this entire thread". Or even
"Menno, I didn't even mention David's name to Ryan Gordon". Which
would have been perfectly acceptable to me.
But now you choose to defend that particular action. People who argue
with you should be aware that you will try to discredit them to
experts, possibly in an effort to influence those experts on your
behalf.
> Nope - DTJ is still trying to claim that Ryan isn't qualified to speak
> on the Gamestorm bundled port of AA. How do *you* read it any
> differently?
We know from the thread that Ryan Gordon did both the 32 bit and 64
bit versions of AA. I know that. You know that. DTJ knows that. Mr.
Gordon, however did not do the bundling using Gamestorm. So while Ryan
Godon's comments on the game itself will be correct, he will not give
us any detailed information on GameStorm itself. For instance, on the
drivers included with Gamestorm and their capabilities. That is SCI's
department.
If there's only one driver there that can support two significantly
different video cards, David J's point is valid. We can't ask Ryan
because he's not an expert on Gamestorm, only on the AA game itself.
So we're still not sure about the "hardware independent driver" issue
because we do not know all the drivers that are on the Gamestorm/AA
CD.
That there are any hardware generic drivers on there is, in my
opinion, unlikely. But then again, there could be. We have seen other
hardware-generic drivers like Scitech's.
> In the context of DTJ's claim about 64-bit AA, Gamestorm is a Red
> Herring. It doesn't matter how it's bundled, the game is the same.
> To suggest otherwise is a lie.
It actually matters a great deal how it's bundled. If you don't have a
64-bit operating system, like the Linux users have now, you will still
be able to play the game full-force even if you run old Windows in
legacy mode.
> ==
>>This actually *can* be found in the text: "does not know anything
about
>>GameStorm". However, taking this literally is not reasonable. -
Menno
>
> Sure, you take everyone to task for their communication skills except
> DTJ. You accuse me of distorting DTJ's words, then admit that DTJ's
> words say *exactly* what I claim. LOL!!! - David S
> ==
>
> Why did you delete your own words, Menno? LOL!!!
Because I was responding to yours. I will gladly own up to them. I do
not subscribe to your belief that snipping out words in a reply
removes them from the original post. "Taking everybody to task for
their communication skills". Again, I can't imagine how you fit that
to what I said there.
> DTJ refuses to admit that his claims about AA are wrong. Which part
> of *that* don't you understand?
Because you have not done a good enough job convincing him? Sorry
dude, but you might want to check your own credibility here. You will
note that David Johnson did accept the words of Ryan Gordon after they
were presented here. Can you find a post from David after 30 Oct where
he says, for instance, that OpenGL was not used in AA?
* * *
It seems I have to opine on these items to join the club... So here
goes.
In the next statements, you use the word "Gamestorm". I choose to
assume here that by "Gamestorm" you mean "AA-64 running on Gamestorm".
If that is wrong, I'll have to redo the next few comments.
> He has stated that Gamestorm DOES NOT USE the same engine as the
> 32-bit version.
Sorry, but the thing was ported to a 64 bits processor wasn't it? Even
if there are no functional differences, isn't the fact that it now
runs on a different processor enough change for you?
Second, David said that it *might* use something different from
OpenGL, which is not the same as saying it does. And this was *before*
the Ryan Gordon events, before which mostly unreliable sources such as
yourself existed.
> He has stated that Gamestorm DOES NOT USE the same API as the 32-bit
> version.
David Johnson has only said that he doesn't know what API AA uses, not
that it DOES NOT USE the same API. Which again is due to the fact that
there was nobody there whom he could trust, to tell him.
> He has stated that Gamestorm has EXTRA FEATURES over the 32-bit
> version.
Except that it now runs on a different, faster processor and can be
booted from CD and run without requiring users to install an operating
system? The makers of AA *could* have put more details in the picture
with that kind of hardware. They didn't. Which is a shame, but there
you go. Can't invent the inflatable tyre without inventing the wheel
first. Got to get those CDs out of the door.
> He has stated that the 64-bit version DOES NOT REQUIRE HARDWARE
> SPECIFIC DRIVERS.
No he didn't. He said that due to common features in the graphics
cards, not unlike the VBE specs, it might be possible to create
drivers that work on several cards. He didn't say that the
AA/Gamestorm people actually did this.
> He has stated that the 64-bit version DOES THE GRAPHICS IN THE CPU.
Again, you are instilling a certainty in David Johnson's words that he
certainly didn't put there and David J went through great effort to
remove that again and again by saying that "This is not yet known".
And are you really sure that this is indeed what David really said? Go
on: Give us one of your quotes that goes: "AA Does Graphics In CPU
-DTJ".
> Your ignorance does not excuse DTJ's lies. DTJ continues to claim
> that 64-bit AA is using an "unknown" API for it's rendering, and it
> does not use the same engine as the 32-bit version. Did those facts
> just pass you by? If so you're even dumber than I thought.
>
> Here is DTJ's claim from that same day:
> ==
> <laugh> Not hardly. There are very few details available but the
> fact that the game is only available in a 64-bit version running on
> the Opteron and requires a platform called "Gamestorm" suggests that
> the "gamestorm" platform is somehow doing something different than the
> old 32-bit OpenGl stuff.
> ==
>
> See what he's claiming, Menno? It's DIFFERENT from the 32-bit OpenGL
> stuff. And no matter what evidence was presented, he refused to
> change his claim.
"Suggests that the Gamestorm platform is somehow doing something
different than the old 32-bit OpenGL stuff".
"Uses an unknown API for its rendering, and it does not use the same
engine as the 32 bit version".
That looks very different to me. You have once again put words in
David's mouth that he didn't say. The words Standard Operating
Procedure spring to mind.
> >Ryan Gordon was mentioned first here two days later 2003-10-04:
> >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=01i351-2gg.ln1%40ID-56407.news.ci
> >s.dfn.de
> >
> >This is the post where we learn that OpenGL and SDL were used, and
> >hence, that GameStorm must be something else. So from that point on,
> >DTJ could have known that GameStorm was not the rendering engine.
> >Well, DTJ responded to the message (Google link trivial...) and was
> >not convinced that there was an OpenGL version for 64-bits Linux. He
> >asked Scott for more proof on this. The next time David mentions
> >Gamestorm is here:
>
> Bullshit. Your rose-tinted glasses are nothing but the most
> outrageous bias. DTJ had *many* links presented to him explaining
> exactly what API's were being used, what engine the game was written
> with, and even who did the port. He refused to believe *any* of it.
Because those URLs did not point to the evidence he was after. Yes, a
64-bit OpenGL implementation may exist, but that doesn't mean that AA
uses it. It was only when Ryan came in and spoke his piece that we
knew for certain. You are not a reliable source, and neither is a
webpage on an entirely different game.
> Duh. Are you being deliberately dense? The engine used by the game
> is public knowledge. You were told this. DTJ was told this.
> Indeed I told you on the 2nd that OpenGL was in use. Another fact
> that you have conveniently neglected to mention here. What a
> dishonest piece of sh*t you are.
I didn't care about what engine it uses. I was doing somethng
completely different. Which you could have stopped with ONE sentence,
but didn't.
Ahhh! EVIDENCE!
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1rm3ovk7khlbbob922d1rg7nhhh62ohp0
g%404ax.com
Yes, but this is a post by you, Mr. Sutherland. David J does not trust
you. Especially if you simply state blandly that "no, this is wrong".
You're not exactly an authority here.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=g19pnv83emi0hrd28krfplgugtj9dsr15
v%404ax.com
Which contained:
http://cleaned.beyondunreal.com/UT2FAQ/UT2FAQ.htm#_Toc6765476
And this is a link about a different game altogether. You're not doing
a good job of proving your points, Mr. Sutherland! What was required
was a link or quote saying "America's Army 64bits Uses OpenGL". Which
only Ryan Gordon confirmed days later.
> Don't let facts stand in the way of your fairy tales though, Menno.
> It's funny watching you destroy your credibility in public :)
Well, here you've seen your own credibility in action:
- "It uses OpenGL".
- "Oh. Really?"
Face it man. People do not take your word for anything here. Your
words accompanied by RELEVANT URLs, maybe.
> >I've been
> >reading the thread more thoroughly than I have before. However, I
> >haven't been able to find any references made by David that Gamestorm
> >is a rendering engine since Scott's message. It's a good thing that I
> >enjoyed reading the thread because this is rather too much trouble to
> >take simply to refute a throwaway line by David S.
>
> And what an amazing co-incidence that you "cannot find" anything that
> proves you to be an apologist and a liar. Wow.
>
> Here's one from the 27th - how very f*cking amazing that you managed
> to miss it. Nothing self-serving about *your* research, is there,
> Menno?
>
> ==
> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:09:22 -0800
> Message-ID: <vpr5qlr...@corp.supernews.com>
>
> > Americas Army uses the Unreal Warfare engine - the official website
> > has lots of info about it, including which API's it was created with.
> > These are OpenGL and DirectX. - DS
>
> Liar. The details of the 64-bit version of America's Army are not yet
> known. You have been told that several times previously. - DTJ
> ==
>
> So that's DTJ accusing ME of being a liar for saying that 64-bit AA
> uses the Unreal engine - which in fact it does.
You tried to pose as an authority there, which you are not, and you
waved in the general direction of the official website. If you had
actually found the relevant information on the official website, why
not point to it? IS there a spec sheet of America's Army 64-bit on the
official website? Was there one at the time this was written?
Sorry to tell you this, but "facts" presented by you simply do not
make evidence. You have to work harder on it. Thank goodness you
finally realised what YOUR credibility is like and brought in the
expert.
> Feel free to ignore this little piece of reality too, Menno. Why
> don't you say again how horrible I am for calling DTJ a liar and
> pointing out that he refuses to accept facts that prove him wrong.
You are "refuting" things that David did not say. Which is easier than
refuting the things he does say.
> >During the course of the thread, you have also been ignoring what
> >David Johnson actually wrote and made up "claims" that you found it
> >easier to work with.
>
> See above for a typical DTJ quote. Look at the word "liar" and then
> look at what it is I'm accused of lying about. The truth.
Adressed above. Anyway, it's not relevant to my point. You are making
up what you would like David to say. There's hardly a statement by you
that *accurately* reflects what DTJ is saying. You are now apologising
by saying "But DTJ is nasty to me too"! Well here's a hankie. Have a
good blow.
> Oh yes VERY fucking polite, and so carefully couched to indicate that
> he isn't sure of his facts. Menno, you look stupid. *REALLY* stupid
> :)
Are you really comparing this "Liar" to the dungheap you have been
spreading on
everybody who has the good sense to disagree with you? Perhaps
personal abuse is OK if YOU are doing it?
> Why don't you call me a fuckwit again - that was pretty funny!
No point in stating the obvious.
Cheers/2,
Menno
Menno Willemse
> DTJ says "we don't know what GameStorm uses and that guy you talked to
> is a nobody" (back when Johnson didn't know who "Icculus" was).
> And the drama plays on.
That was David S' rendition of what DTJ said. It was not accurate.
> The bone you've chosen to pick with DS is ultimately completely
> irrelevant to the point he was making. If he was inaccurate, it's only
> because it was not a relevant detail. Johnson's inaccuracies, on the
> other hand, revolve around the crux of the entire discussion.
So it's especially important to read them properly and point out
exactly what is wrong with them. I know David can be hard to convince,
but you'll never do it by saying "You Are A Liar And Therefore You Are
Wrong". Also, you don't actually *need* to convince DTJ. You only need
to convince the rest of the group.
I'm not really bothered by the points DTJ or David S were making, but
more by the methods David S uses to do so. So I pointed out what I
thought was wrong with David S' methods. Of course, using proper
methods saddles David S with more work, but if you simply shout down
an opinion you don't like, you never learn anything anyway.
> For Johnson to continue claiming that "we don't know what GameStorm
> uses" in spite of all of the facts that have been presented, equates (in
> my book) to him making a claim that it doesn't use the means that DS has
> presented.
We now do know that AA uses OpenGL thanks to Ryan. What we still do
not know is what drivers are in Gamestorm and what they are doing. If
we could find that out, we could put to rest some more of DTJ's
speculations.
> While in its purest form, this conclusion is a logical
> fallacy, when viewed through the spectacles of reality Johnson has
> completely discounted the known facts and, in effect, stated that he
> knows what it GameStorm "isn't".
Hmm. DTJ will stop disputing against facts when he trusts the person
putting them forward. DTJ doesn't trust David S, so "facts" presented
by David S with no proof, or no sufficient proof, to back them up will
not convince DTJ.
> Johnson's claims that Ryan doesn't have enough information to rule out
> his speculations is of a similar vein. Ryan presented enough
> information, but Johnson refused to see that it ruled out his
> speculations, and hence, is basically claiming that Ryan knows nothing
> about GameStorm. (That's the only logical way Johnson's argument could
> be potentially correct.)
Note that AFTER the "Icculus Speeeks" post, David no longer disputed
the facts offered by Mr. Gordon. Some of the points he was making had
everything to do with the Gamestorm bundling, which was not addressed
by Mr. Gordon. Others had more to do with the political implications
of the AA/Gamestorm product, which is probably too soft even to
"disprove".
> Whether or not you agree with that derivation, it's ultimately
> irrelevant to the point DS was making.
David S cried "victory" too soon. Ryan only knocked over DTJ's points
for the game. Which DTJ did not acknowledge in so many words, but at
least he did not repeat them. He's still hammering on the points *not*
addressed by Mr. Ryan and will only be silenced by positive proof
right from SCI on what Gamestorm actually does and which drivers are
included there. A web link will do nicely. An email from some person
at SCI with some straight answers will also be fine (anyone got an
address?). Simply dismissing his statements as "made by a known liar"
doesn't cut it with me, nor should it with anyone else.
I think I will keep following the discussion after all. I may be able
to point out more "facts" that aren't Facts.
Cheers/2,
Menno.
Menno Willemse
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 03:46:38 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> All of the "good info" is coming from the person you just lambasted.
Actually, no. The "good info" came from Ryan Gordon. David S was just
the messenger. And loads and loads of bad info also came from David S,
so he owed us some good stuff too.
> You've also chided us both for taking an "anti-Johnson" stance, when
> really all we've done is take issue with the preposterous nature of what
> he's been stating (and repeating ad nauseum). But now you're saying
> that it was all worth it anyway. Guess there's no pleasing some people.
Maybe all those swearwords and insults in David S' and others' posts
gave me the wrong impression.
> >>2] This behavior is one-sided and not being returned by Johnson
> >
> > This is a newsgroup in conflict. Who starts it is less important than
> > who stops it.
>
> Rarely does anyone ever stop it. One party usually just persists until
> the others no longer have the energy or desire to counter it. That's
> not "ending it". David S's response from Ryan should have ended it but
> Johnson can't accept facts or is failing to apply them to what he's stated.
If I see another post from DTJ where he disputes any of Ryan's claims,
I'll be sure to knock him on the head for it. Fair's fair, Ryan is da
man here.
> > But you can update a CD easily by downloading a fresh copy and burning
> > it. People will do that. I was talking yesterday to guys who download
> > whole DVDs!
>
> This conflicts with Johnson's claims that GameStorm could work on "any"
> Athlon-64 machine. Why would we need updates? Of course, we already
> know that this is not the case, but Johnson has not accepted this fact.
Still, no reason why one driver couldn't drive a number of different
cards. Actually, I'm pretty sure that this "generic driver" argument
of David's is doomed, but so far there hasn't been evidence that it
can't be done. Thinking about this: the difference between detecting a
card at boot time and loading the appropriate driver, and having one
driver that detects the card and takes appropriate action is pretty
slim. Gamestorm will probably have something like Scitech's SNAP on
board, tailored for 3D graphics. (Yes folks, that's a SPECULATION and
it may not happen and work quite differently).
> Furthermore, if you think people, by and large, are actually willing to
> do this, have a chat with Kim Cheung, who personally snail-mailed a
> great many eCS CDs.
eCS is now (with, it must be admitted, some initial stumblings) being
delivered electronically. Here in the .nl, you can hardly hear
yourself speak for the ADSL ads. Admittedly, there's lots of modem
warriors still at large, but broadband is coming. I got 700 Kb/sec of
ADSL goodness myself and I'm not going back :). Of course, the cost of
shipping out a fresh CD to people who ask for it, is also quite
manageable. Possibilities abound!
> >> b] people stopped rebooting to run games in 1995
> >
> > Ahh... But under Linux, you could install the game to disk. Only
> > Windows users would have to reboot.
>
> And OS/2 users. And Linux-32 users. And BEOS users. And BSD users.
> And Solaris users. ...
Indeed.
> But this would also undermine the strengths of GameStorm that Johnson
> has been touting from the beginning.
Well, the "controlled environment" advantage would be lessened,
certainly. But you've always got the backup of booting from the CD if
it doesn't work.
[64-bit paradigm shift]
> We've gone off on this tangent in this discussion already though.
> Johnson claimed that MS is missing a major paradigm shift to 64-bit
> computing, when, in fact, they're doing much better schedule-wise than
> they were during the shift to 32-bit computing by an order of magnitude.
> If they survived that slow and rocky shift to 32-bit, something tells
> me they'll be just fine moving to 64-bit.
Maybe. I didn't say that it was a foregone conclusion and MS is
doomed, but it may be enough to shift the proportions of MS/non-MS to
a more agreeable proportion. Hell, if MS disappears, what would the
lamers start writing viruses for next?
> Also, not to rehash the point again, but what competetive advantage is
> offered by moving this game to a 64-bit platform?
Bigger faster cooler? At the moment, AA-64 plays the same as the
32-bit variant but there's no reason why this should stay that way.
For instance, your basic 64-bitter will have a bigger memory than your
average 32-bitter. Which means that you can "remember" a bigger
landscape or make the existing one more detailed. That this hasn't
happened yet doesn't mean that it can't/won't. If not for this game
then maybe for others.
> >>2] It has nothing directly to do with OS/2 and cannot be used to aid
> >>porting to OS/2 and cannot be run inside of a virtual or emulated
> >>session in OS/2
> >
> > Well, you don't need to port it to OS/2 if it will run on its own. And
> > I do think it will have some side benefits for OS/2. The more diverse
> > the PC market becomes, the more it will have to rely on independent
> > standards. Which we can then also implement under OS/2 and play along.
> Like OpenGL, for example? Hmm... that hasn't helped us get any software
> on OS/2. And how long has that standard been around? All of the
> drivers and libraries that GameStorm is using are currently available in
> some form or another on Linux, yet we don't have them on OS/2. This is
> not likely to change, regardless of whether GameStorm becomes popular or
> not.
I was more thinking of HTML, XML, IPV6 and other network related
protocols. If your e-Shop is going to piss off a lot of Linux users by
not working outside of Redmont, then you will think twice about making
it Windows-specific. This presupposes that you *have* a lot of Linux
users to piss off, though. Having nice Linux games will help in
obtaining such.
I did notice OS/2 mentioned on the Mesa 3D site, by the way, with
quite some recent code fixes:
- http://mesa3d.org/README.OS2
> Like David S. responded, [Ryan Gordon's] success is hinged on AA, not GameStorm.
> Also note, I'm not saying "It'll never work". What I am saying is,
> "been there, done that". The PC gaming market moved away from that
> paradigm for a reason. PC hardware is too diverse to make it feasible.
> Going back to try it again doesn't seem like it will have any
> different effect, since all of the conditions which caused the exodus
> are still valid.
You may well be right, but I think the diversity here has lessened
somewhat. There are fewer hardware manufacturers than there used to be
and even then they often use the same chipsets. Because it's cheaper
to do it in a joint venture. I can have the drivers for all the
current video cards on my harddisk right here. A mere 29 MB.
[Using proper debating techniques]
> What makes you think I've done anything but this? I see you still seem
> hesitant to cast any responsibility in Johnson's direction, however.
> Why is that?
Sorry, should have said that this wasn't specifically aimed at you.
You, as far as I can tell, have. David S definitely hasn't and I can
prove it. DTJ... I've been trying to find out what his problem is. He
doesn't accept evidence based on anyone's say-so (as you have
observed). Nor should he. He's also very difficult to satisfy if he
feels there's a problem with the other guy's evidence. He's even
harder to convince if he feels there's a problem with the other guy
full stop.
I've been in a discussion with DTJ on the performance of OS/2's JPG
support. He didn't believe that certain JPGs wouldn't work, so I
emailed him one that didn't, which he could then verify for himself.
And so the business was settled.
I've also been in an eCS discussion with DTJ, however, where at some
point I simply gave up on the whole argument because we got stuck in
Ultimate Unprovables and Dark Mutterings. This was leading nowhere so
I summarised my position and stopped.
> > You can not do anything about what DTJ does in
> > this group. Try it, and you'll only make it worse. People *will* note
> > the difference in posting styles. People will see what's going on.
>
> Most people will.
>
> > Also, there's no need to convince DTJ of something he doesn't want to
> > be convinced of. Present your alternative and it will be read. This is
> > a public medium.
>
> That's all I've done.
My apologies for suggesting otherwise.
Cheers/2,
Menno
Marty
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 04:12:49 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>DTJ says "we don't know what GameStorm uses and that guy you talked to
>>is a nobody" (back when Johnson didn't know who "Icculus" was).
>>And the drama plays on.
>
> That was David S' rendition of what DTJ said. It was not accurate.
"I have no idea who this guy is or if he knows anything about the 64-bit
version of America's Army or not but I have always been very clear in my
comments, at the time that I made them, that details of the 64-bit
version of America's Army were unknown." - DTJ 10/30/2003
Close enough.
>>The bone you've chosen to pick with DS is ultimately completely
>>irrelevant to the point he was making. If he was inaccurate, it's only
>>because it was not a relevant detail. Johnson's inaccuracies, on the
>>other hand, revolve around the crux of the entire discussion.
>
> So it's especially important to read them properly and point out
> exactly what is wrong with them.
Been there, done that. I challenged Sten to enumerate Johnson's
hypotheses so that I could debunk them individually. He declined based
on his lack of technical savy. I challenged Johnson himself, who is too
much of a coward to respond directly. I'll gladly extend the challenge
to you if you choose to accept.
> I know David can be hard to convince,
> but you'll never do it by saying "You Are A Liar And Therefore You Are
> Wrong".
Where have I ever done just that?
> Also, you don't actually *need* to convince DTJ. You only need
> to convince the rest of the group.
In truth, I don't "need" to convince anyone. But in any case, the "rest
of the group" are not the ones who continue to foist such nonsense as
Johnson has done.
> I'm not really bothered by the points DTJ or David S were making, but
> more by the methods David S uses to do so. So I pointed out what I
> thought was wrong with David S' methods. Of course, using proper
> methods saddles David S with more work, but if you simply shout down
> an opinion you don't like, you never learn anything anyway.
How would it have been "more work" for David S. to have heeded your
objection? After all, you only objected to the way he allegedly
misrepresented Johnson. David S. has been providing all of the facts
that have entered into this discussion. It's obvious he's not just
shouting "You're an idiot!" to make his points. Though he may get
frustrated when faced with a solid piece of unmoldable granite like
Johnson, he's still been pointing to and discovering facts. In fact,
you praised him for doing so in your last response to me yesterday!
>>For Johnson to continue claiming that "we don't know what GameStorm
>>uses" in spite of all of the facts that have been presented, equates (in
>>my book) to him making a claim that it doesn't use the means that DS has
>>presented.
>
> We now do know that AA uses OpenGL thanks to Ryan. What we still do
> not know is what drivers are in Gamestorm and what they are doing. If
> we could find that out, we could put to rest some more of DTJ's
> speculations.
Here are some more facts:
There is no "generic" 3D interface, hence a generic driver will be
impossible. Each video card has its own unique and highly proprietary
interface for 3D graphics. These interfaces are jealously guarded by
card manufacturers (which is why it would be a near impossibility for
Scitech to include such support).
There is no possibility that the CPU alone, no matter how fast or how
wide, can perform close to comparably to dedicated hardware.
ATI was heavily involved in the GameStorm packaging (reference provided
by both parties IIRC).
Johnson's speculations have been put to rest.
>> While in its purest form, this conclusion is a logical
>>fallacy, when viewed through the spectacles of reality Johnson has
>>completely discounted the known facts and, in effect, stated that he
>>knows what it GameStorm "isn't".
>
> Hmm. DTJ will stop disputing against facts when he trusts the person
> putting them forward. DTJ doesn't trust David S, so "facts" presented
> by David S with no proof, or no sufficient proof, to back them up will
> not convince DTJ.
What's to trust? David S. has provided URLs for each major point he has
made. Johnson simply does not choose to acknowledge things that are
contrary to his fantasy scenarios. He has a long history of behaving
this way.
>>Johnson's claims that Ryan doesn't have enough information to rule out
>>his speculations is of a similar vein. Ryan presented enough
>>information, but Johnson refused to see that it ruled out his
>>speculations, and hence, is basically claiming that Ryan knows nothing
>>about GameStorm. (That's the only logical way Johnson's argument could
>>be potentially correct.)
>
> Note that AFTER the "Icculus Speeeks" post, David no longer disputed
> the facts offered by Mr. Gordon. Some of the points he was making had
> everything to do with the Gamestorm bundling, which was not addressed
> by Mr. Gordon. Others had more to do with the political implications
> of the AA/Gamestorm product, which is probably too soft even to
> "disprove".
As I said before, Johnson has yet to acknowledge that the limitting
factor is the API and game engine used, not the device drivers bundled.
>>Whether or not you agree with that derivation, it's ultimately
>>irrelevant to the point DS was making.
>
> David S cried "victory" too soon. Ryan only knocked over DTJ's points
> for the game. Which DTJ did not acknowledge in so many words, but at
> least he did not repeat them.
I disagree. Johnson still holds open the possibility that the GameStorm
bundling can have additional features or better rendering detail than
the 32-bit version. This has been solidly disproved.
> He's still hammering on the points *not*
> addressed by Mr. Ryan and will only be silenced by positive proof
> right from SCI on what Gamestorm actually does and which drivers are
> included there.
Please list some of these points, and I'll be glad to put them to rest
for you myself with the information currently available.
> A web link will do nicely. An email from some person
> at SCI with some straight answers will also be fine (anyone got an
> address?). Simply dismissing his statements as "made by a known liar"
> doesn't cut it with me, nor should it with anyone else.
My take on this is that David S. has already debunked these points and
does not wish to repeat himself ad nauseum. Johnson has no apparent
problem repeating himself to the disgust of all who witness it.
> I think I will keep following the discussion after all. I may be able
> to point out more "facts" that aren't Facts.
Feel free to try.
Marty
> Hello World,
>
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 03:46:38 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>All of the "good info" is coming from the person you just lambasted.
>
> Actually, no. The "good info" came from Ryan Gordon. David S was just
> the messenger. And loads and loads of bad info also came from David S,
> so he owed us some good stuff too.
Johnson was not about to contact Ryan. Ryan didn't seek out this thread
and write David S. an e-mail. David S. brought the information to the
table and were it not for his actions, the information would not have
been presented.
I've never heard of any messenger service where the couriers have that
much autonomy. ;-)
>>You've also chided us both for taking an "anti-Johnson" stance, when
>>really all we've done is take issue with the preposterous nature of what
>>he's been stating (and repeating ad nauseum). But now you're saying
>>that it was all worth it anyway. Guess there's no pleasing some people.
>
> Maybe all those swearwords and insults in David S' and others' posts
> gave me the wrong impression.
Hard to take a moral high ground here with some of your recent postings.
But in any case, you're letting the style of the message override the
content provided. I was speaking of the content.
>>>>2] This behavior is one-sided and not being returned by Johnson
>>>
>>>This is a newsgroup in conflict. Who starts it is less important than
>>>who stops it.
>>
>>Rarely does anyone ever stop it. One party usually just persists until
>>the others no longer have the energy or desire to counter it. That's
>>not "ending it". David S's response from Ryan should have ended it but
>>Johnson can't accept facts or is failing to apply them to what he's stated.
>
> If I see another post from DTJ where he disputes any of Ryan's claims,
> I'll be sure to knock him on the head for it. Fair's fair, Ryan is da
> man here.
But he is disputing Ryan's claims by not acknowledging their meaning and
effect on his own statements.
Try this scenario on for size:
It's dark outside. Johnson says, "Hmmm... maybe it is cloudy and it
might storm today." Sutherland asks Ryan for the time and Ryan reports
that it is 11PM. Sutherland tells Johnson that it is dark because it is
night time. Johnson begins warning people that they should get out
their umbrellas because it's so unusually dark.
Has Johnson disputed what Sutherland or Ryan have said? Literally? No.
Through his actions? Yes, he has.
>>>But you can update a CD easily by downloading a fresh copy and burning
>>>it. People will do that. I was talking yesterday to guys who download
>>>whole DVDs!
>>
>>This conflicts with Johnson's claims that GameStorm could work on "any"
>>Athlon-64 machine. Why would we need updates? Of course, we already
>>know that this is not the case, but Johnson has not accepted this fact.
>
> Still, no reason why one driver couldn't drive a number of different
> cards. Actually, I'm pretty sure that this "generic driver" argument
> of David's is doomed, but so far there hasn't been evidence that it
> can't be done. Thinking about this: the difference between detecting a
> card at boot time and loading the appropriate driver, and having one
> driver that detects the card and takes appropriate action is pretty
> slim.
Actually, this is the easiest part of the process. PCI IDs make this
process a no-brainer. It's having support for more than one card,
without the manufacturer's help (remember ATI is the only manufacturer
involved with GameStorm) is the problem. These interfaces are as
proprietary to video card manufacturers as schematics of their GPUs.
Personally I find this tact of video card makers a bit ridiculously
paranoid, but that's the way it is, according to what I've gleaned from
the good folks at Scitech.
> Gamestorm will probably have something like Scitech's SNAP on
> board, tailored for 3D graphics. (Yes folks, that's a SPECULATION and
> it may not happen and work quite differently).
It's an impossibility without video hardware manufacturers coming on
board. So far only ATI has done so. In fact, the fact that one
manufacturer is so closely involved with the package makes it LESS
likely that other manufacturers will come on board.
>>Furthermore, if you think people, by and large, are actually willing to
>>do this, have a chat with Kim Cheung, who personally snail-mailed a
>>great many eCS CDs.
>
> eCS is now (with, it must be admitted, some initial stumblings) being
> delivered electronically. Here in the .nl, you can hardly hear
> yourself speak for the ADSL ads. Admittedly, there's lots of modem
> warriors still at large, but broadband is coming. I got 700 Kb/sec of
> ADSL goodness myself and I'm not going back :). Of course, the cost of
> shipping out a fresh CD to people who ask for it, is also quite
> manageable. Possibilities abound!
Then I'm glad I got my copy of eCS 1.0 when it first came out and
shipped with CDs. I've got a wonderful broadband connection (at home at
least... on the road I've got this miserable dialup), but I don't have a
CD burner.
I'm sure not going to get one just so I can purchase and use a product -
let alone a game.
>>>> b] people stopped rebooting to run games in 1995
>>>
>>>Ahh... But under Linux, you could install the game to disk. Only
>>>Windows users would have to reboot.
>>
>>And OS/2 users. And Linux-32 users. And BEOS users. And BSD users.
>>And Solaris users. ...
>
> Indeed.
>
>>But this would also undermine the strengths of GameStorm that Johnson
>>has been touting from the beginning.
>
> Well, the "controlled environment" advantage would be lessened,
> certainly. But you've always got the backup of booting from the CD if
> it doesn't work.
If your hardware is supported.
> [64-bit paradigm shift]
>
>>We've gone off on this tangent in this discussion already though.
>>Johnson claimed that MS is missing a major paradigm shift to 64-bit
>>computing, when, in fact, they're doing much better schedule-wise than
>>they were during the shift to 32-bit computing by an order of magnitude.
>>If they survived that slow and rocky shift to 32-bit, something tells
>>me they'll be just fine moving to 64-bit.
>
> Maybe. I didn't say that it was a foregone conclusion and MS is
> doomed, but it may be enough to shift the proportions of MS/non-MS to
> a more agreeable proportion. Hell, if MS disappears, what would the
> lamers start writing viruses for next?
But if they're just booting off of these CDs, they don't have to change
their base operating system, remember? So which way are we going to
have it? If they're not booting off CDs then basically, they're running
Linux, not GameStorm.
>>Also, not to rehash the point again, but what competetive advantage is
>>offered by moving this game to a 64-bit platform?
>
> Bigger faster cooler? At the moment, AA-64 plays the same as the
> 32-bit variant but there's no reason why this should stay that way.
> For instance, your basic 64-bitter will have a bigger memory than your
> average 32-bitter. Which means that you can "remember" a bigger
> landscape or make the existing one more detailed. That this hasn't
> happened yet doesn't mean that it can't/won't. If not for this game
> then maybe for others.
Here's why it won't:
Remembering the landscape is not the problem. There are graphics cards
with 128MB of RAM on them. To put that in perspective, that's 1/5 of a
CD that can be in *video memory* at any given time.
32 bits gives us addressibility to 4x10^9 bytes. Let's say that a 3D
polygon has an average of 5 vertices requiring a 32-bit X,Y, and Z
coordinate (that's probably high-balling it quite a bit). So your
average polygon takes 60 bytes, allowing you to fit a maximum of 71.6
million polygons in memory. Let's say we're running at a graphics
resolution of 1600x1200 (very high for gameplay). That means we have
1,920,000 pixels in our display area. This would allow each and every
pixel on the display surface to have 38 unique polygons rendered on it.
If any one of those 38 polygons is opaque, then rendering the others
becomes irrelevant. Now for the $64 question:
Do you think you'll be able to notice on a 1600x1200 screen if a single
pixel is composed of a composite of 38 translucent polygons or more?
Furthermore, this does not address the processing speed requirements to
render such a scene at 60fps, which are well outside the capabilities of
modern hardware (in spite of having dedicated GPUs).
>>>>2] It has nothing directly to do with OS/2 and cannot be used to aid
>>>>porting to OS/2 and cannot be run inside of a virtual or emulated
>>>>session in OS/2
>>>
>>>Well, you don't need to port it to OS/2 if it will run on its own. And
>>>I do think it will have some side benefits for OS/2. The more diverse
>>>the PC market becomes, the more it will have to rely on independent
>>>standards. Which we can then also implement under OS/2 and play along.
>
>>Like OpenGL, for example? Hmm... that hasn't helped us get any software
>>on OS/2. And how long has that standard been around? All of the
>>drivers and libraries that GameStorm is using are currently available in
>>some form or another on Linux, yet we don't have them on OS/2. This is
>>not likely to change, regardless of whether GameStorm becomes popular or
>>not.
>
> I was more thinking of HTML, XML, IPV6 and other network related
> protocols. If your e-Shop is going to piss off a lot of Linux users by
> not working outside of Redmont, then you will think twice about making
> it Windows-specific. This presupposes that you *have* a lot of Linux
> users to piss off, though. Having nice Linux games will help in
> obtaining such.
That's a point, but only a point if we're not booting off of our
GameStorm CDs and actually install Linux. In which case, GameStorm
itself is not the driving force behind this goodness, but rather, Linux is.
> I did notice OS/2 mentioned on the Mesa 3D site, by the way, with
> quite some recent code fixes:
>
> - http://mesa3d.org/README.OS2
There is no hardware acceleration for Mesa on OS/2.
>>Like David S. responded, [Ryan Gordon's] success is hinged on AA, not GameStorm.
>>Also note, I'm not saying "It'll never work". What I am saying is,
>>"been there, done that". The PC gaming market moved away from that
>>paradigm for a reason. PC hardware is too diverse to make it feasible.
>>Going back to try it again doesn't seem like it will have any
>>different effect, since all of the conditions which caused the exodus
>>are still valid.
>
> You may well be right, but I think the diversity here has lessened
> somewhat. There are fewer hardware manufacturers than there used to be
> and even then they often use the same chipsets. Because it's cheaper
> to do it in a joint venture. I can have the drivers for all the
> current video cards on my harddisk right here. A mere 29 MB.
I disagree whole-heartedly. Back in the good old days, we had CGA, EGA,
and VGA. Every card on the market conformed to one of those standards.
When "accelerator" cards started coming on to the market in the early
90's, VESA standards came about just as quickly and demanded conformance.
The Windows-ification of the market has allowed video manufacturers to
throw standards to the wind as long as they wrote their own drivers for
the platform. Hence there are no two cards on the market that tended to
work alike, and even the reasonably solid (albiet terribly limitted)
VESA standards are being abandoned by some chipsets. Add to this, the
additional feature set of 3D acceleration, for which there were *never*
any standards to which to conform.
It was much easier to make a gaming platform (sans OS) out of the PC
pre-1995 by a longshot.
> [Using proper debating techniques]
>
>>What makes you think I've done anything but this? I see you still seem
>>hesitant to cast any responsibility in Johnson's direction, however.
>>Why is that?
>
> Sorry, should have said that this wasn't specifically aimed at you.
>
> You, as far as I can tell, have. David S definitely hasn't and I can
> prove it. DTJ... I've been trying to find out what his problem is. He
> doesn't accept evidence based on anyone's say-so (as you have
> observed). Nor should he. He's also very difficult to satisfy if he
> feels there's a problem with the other guy's evidence. He's even
> harder to convince if he feels there's a problem with the other guy
> full stop.
Unfortunately, it goes a bit beyond this. Johnson hates to admit when
he was over-zealous and full of hot air. His "Death Blow" pronouncement
was clearly in this category. Johnson's ego cannot allow himself to go
back on such a pronouncement, no matter what evidence is presented, to
David S. and a host of other people he "doesn't like".
If Johnson were one move away from inevitable checkmate in a game with
Sutherland, he'd sooner knock over the board and claim that he could
have won (repeatedly in all likelihood) than just place his King on its
side and resign.
> I've been in a discussion with DTJ on the performance of OS/2's JPG
> support. He didn't believe that certain JPGs wouldn't work, so I
> emailed him one that didn't, which he could then verify for himself.
> And so the business was settled.
Simply because there was no ego involved there.
> I've also been in an eCS discussion with DTJ, however, where at some
> point I simply gave up on the whole argument because we got stuck in
> Ultimate Unprovables and Dark Mutterings. This was leading nowhere so
> I summarised my position and stopped.
But I'll bet he got the last word.
>>>You can not do anything about what DTJ does in
>>>this group. Try it, and you'll only make it worse. People *will* note
>>>the difference in posting styles. People will see what's going on.
>>
>>Most people will.
>>
>>>Also, there's no need to convince DTJ of something he doesn't want to
>>>be convinced of. Present your alternative and it will be read. This is
>>>a public medium.
>>
>>That's all I've done.
>
> My apologies for suggesting otherwise.
No problem. If I do step astray, by all means let me know. I can
understand where your frustration with what David S. say is coming from,
but his side of the argument is solid. And realize that David S. is
also frustrated with Johnson's cocky attitude (all those "<laughs>"
designed to be barbs to get under the skin) and lack of consideration of
the evidence against him.
Menno Willemse
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 21:21:18 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> Menno Willemse wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 04:12:49 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >>DTJ says "we don't know what GameStorm uses and that guy you talked to
> >>is a nobody" (back when Johnson didn't know who "Icculus" was).
> >>And the drama plays on.
> >
> > That was David S' rendition of what DTJ said. It was not accurate.
>
> "I have no idea who this guy is or if he knows anything about the 64-bit
> version of America's Army or not but I have always been very clear in my
> comments, at the time that I made them, that details of the 64-bit
> version of America's Army were unknown." - DTJ 10/30/2003
>
> Close enough.
Not close enough. "I have no idea who this guy is and what he knows"
is nowhere near "This guy is a nobody". Also wrong post, wrong quote.
This is the one DS responded to:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:08:50 -0800, "David T. Johnson"
<djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>I emailed Ryan and he very kindly replied to me that he worked on the
>64-bit port of America's Army but has not worked on 64-bit AA since
and
>does not know anything about GameStorm, so I guess we are all still
>waiting to see what GameStorm is doing.
Which is even less like "This guy is a nobody". David S should have
left DTJ out of his communications with Ryan Gordon completely. But he
couldn't resist the temptation to tell on DTJ to Ryan. Now I can
imagine myself locking horns with David S in the future, and being
required to call upon an expert. I very much *don't* want my queries
to be answered with "So you are the asshole who thinks I'm stupid".
> > So it's especially important to read them properly and point out
> > exactly what is wrong with them.
>
> Been there, done that. I challenged Sten to enumerate Johnson's
> hypotheses so that I could debunk them individually. He declined based
> on his lack of technical savy. I challenged Johnson himself, who is too
> much of a coward to respond directly. I'll gladly extend the challenge
> to you if you choose to accept.
Already done something like that in another post. The Enumerator was
David S, so actually, they were again not David's words. I think If
I'm going to be debating with David S any more, I'm going to program
"No David, That Is Not What I Said" under a function key for
convenience. Or "This is not an answer".
> How would it have been "more work" for David S. to have heeded your
> objection? After all, you only objected to the way he allegedly
> misrepresented Johnson. David S. has been providing all of the facts
Not only that. I also object to his responding to things that he makes
up himself, then claims you said. Which is of course a lot easier: you
can *make sure* that those things are false. Disproving things that
someone actually says is more difficult.
> that have entered into this discussion. It's obvious he's not just
> shouting "You're an idiot!" to make his points. Though he may get
> frustrated when faced with a solid piece of unmoldable granite like
> Johnson, he's still been pointing to and discovering facts. In fact,
> you praised him for doing so in your last response to me yesterday!
He provided us with some interesting websites. The information that he
needed to disprove DTJ's claim wasn't on them, but they were
interesting nonetheless. I found out that OS/2 does in fact have a 3D
library of some sort on mesa3d.org. He also put in the link to
www.icculus,com, but there's no specs of America's Army on them.
What he needed to prove that DTJ's speculations couldn't be true, was
a spec sheet of America's Army (the 64-bits version) where it says
exactly what was used to develop it, what video adapters it supports,
system requirements and the like. I don't know if such a thing
actually exists. It would probably show up only after the game came
out of beta and proper window dressing was applied.
> Here are some more facts:
> There is no "generic" 3D interface, hence a generic driver will be
> impossible. Each video card has its own unique and highly proprietary
> interface for 3D graphics. These interfaces are jealously guarded by
> card manufacturers (which is why it would be a near impossibility for
> Scitech to include such support).
Gave the Scitech site a visit. They indeed do not have any 3D
acceleration. Didn't think that hardware manufacturers would be that
retentive about how to actually use their stuff. Shame, really.
Generic Drivers(tm) would be nice to have.
So you'd have to fall back on detecting the graphics card and hope you
have the driver for it. Actually, it shouldn't be too hard to convince
the hardware people to produce a Linux driver if you do it before
Win64 hits the streets. I assume that they want their stuff to be used
before it becomes obsolete.
Though I don't doubt what you're saying, this still isn't *proof* that
they couldn't do it and indeed didn't do it. You'd need to look at the
specs for the finished product. (And then you *can* say that they
didn't no doubt).
> There is no possibility that the CPU alone, no matter how fast or how
> wide, can perform close to comparably to dedicated hardware.
This is true. Still, there are other things for it to do besides
rendering. If there are any NPCs in the game, their AI will benefit
from the extra processing power of the Opteron. So you'd get nastier
nasties. I don't even think that would take any modifications except
perhaps for some tuning.
Also, if you have several editions of the same card, you could use the
feature set of the most advanced one and offload only the things not
supported by the less advanced ones to the CPU. Then, the CPU could
help in some of the tasks, though not all of them. Which it should
have quite enough clout for. Again, they probably didn't, but they
could have. And it would probably be imoplemented in the driver.
> What's to trust? David S. has provided URLs for each major point he has
> made. Johnson simply does not choose to acknowledge things that are
> contrary to his fantasy scenarios. He has a long history of behaving
> this way.
David S may have provided URLs, but in several cases the relevant
information wasn't on the page. You can't prove, for instance, that
OpenGL is used in a non-documented game by simply pointing out that
there is such a thing as OpenGL for 64-bit Linux. Only the makers
know.
> As I said before, Johnson has yet to acknowledge that the limitting
> factor is the API and game engine used, not the device drivers bundled.
That is an angle I hadn't spotted yet -long thread- so I won't comment
on it.
> > David S cried "victory" too soon. Ryan only knocked over DTJ's points
> > for the game. Which DTJ did not acknowledge in so many words, but at
> > least he did not repeat them.
>
> I disagree. Johnson still holds open the possibility that the GameStorm
> bundling can have additional features or better rendering detail than
> the 32-bit version. This has been solidly disproved.
Don't actually think he does. He's been a bit quiet since Ryan
Gordon's information became available. I think it's a case of: They
could've, but they didn't.
There may be other advantages to the 64-bit version, though. Speed
increase springs to mind (no mod to the game necessary), more NPCs due
to more CPU power for the AI (again no mod necessary) and other
CPU-power related benefits. And of course the Big Gamestorm advantage:
No installation necessary.
> Please list some of these points, and I'll be glad to put them to rest
> for you myself with the information currently available.
No thank you - That's David J's job. His speculations, not mine.
> My take on this is that David S. has already debunked these points and
> does not wish to repeat himself ad nauseum. Johnson has no apparent
> problem repeating himself to the disgust of all who witness it.
David S does half work. You can't debunk something by saying "Go look
on the official site". You need to provide the actual information
that disproves the point. In case the word "onus" is rising in your
head, in this case it's David S putting in that something can't be
true, so he should provide a reason why this is so. It's patently
impossible to "prove" a speculation.
Also David S keeps saying "DTJ claims that <foo>" where DTJ has never
actually claimed things like <foo> were actually true, only that
things like <foo> might be true, but we don't know yet as the game is
not actually out yet. And this gives rise to the often-repeated cry of
"These Details Are Not Yet Known".
> > I think I will keep following the discussion after all. I may be able
> > to point out more "facts" that aren't Facts.
>
> Feel free to try.
I don't go in for trials.
Cheers/2,
Menno
Irv Spalten
Menno Willemse wrote:
You have to have the new image to burn however. This means someone has
to produce it. Depending how the program is coded, new program code
might be required even.
> People will do that. I was talking yesterday to guys who download
> whole DVDs!
>
> > b] people stopped rebooting to run games in 1995
>
> Ahh... But under Linux, you could install the game to disk. Only
> Windows users would have to reboot.
Well, under Linux has never been part of this 'discussion' of DirectX is
dead has it?
I myself don't like to reboot to play a game much less keep the CD in
the drive. I always search the web for a hack and usually you'll find
one easily. Single CD requirements, whether to be booted, or even in the
CD drive, are pains to the END USER. Enough in some cases, to make one
NOT buy the game or play it sparingly.
>
> > c] the market of people who would not have been able to run these
> > games without rebooting is too small to support
>
> But the 64-bit leap gives Linux a window of opportunity. The Linux
> boys are already 64-bit, whereas Windows is not. (Apart from a few
> betas, perhaps).
>
Not too sure of this? I think I saw it in MaximumPC, but they tested
Windows under both the AMD 64 bit processor and Intel latest. I recall
the conclussion, for now, until Intel ships Prescott, AMD is king, and
the AMD-64 is doing it at the expense of AMD-XP.
They posted numbers as well for benchmarks. From the table, I didn't see
ANYTHING spectacular either? Some AMD-FX's were the winners, some Intel
3.2 Pentium 4C's were higher, some by the slimmest of margins, others
significant.
I would imagine the 64-bit OS's would do better in performance numbers
however, but this would be mostly apples and oranges in terms of
comparable comparisons.
> > 2] It has nothing directly to do with OS/2 and cannot be used to aid
> > porting to OS/2 and cannot be run inside of a virtual or emulated
> > session in OS/2
>
> Well, you don't need to port it to OS/2 if it will run on its own. And
> I do think it will have some side benefits for OS/2. The more diverse
> the PC market becomes, the more it will have to rely on independent
> standards. Which we can then also implement under OS/2 and play along.
Sorry, I don't fully understand this? Substitute MAC's OS for GameStorm
and your logic doesn't word. Besides, what do you mean by "Which we can
then also implement under OS/2 and play along" here?
> > DTJ is overstating his case. Anti-FUD is almost as bad as FUD. It
> > leads to disappointments and bad feelings when things don't pan out.
> > Having realistic expectations and recognizing facts as they are is the
> > much better route.
>
> On the other hand, sitting here saying "It'll never work" won't do any
> good either. I really hope GameStorm takes of in a big way (And for
> Ryan Gordon to be able to afford any car he likes).
Nobody ever said "It'll never work". What was said is that his
conclusions and assumptions he made over the existing information was
wrong.
> > > If you've gotten in the habit of seeing someone as "The Enemy", you
> > > want to project all things evil on them. And that may blind you to
> > > positive things that come from their direction. The only people
> > > laughing about this are the Wintrolls.
> >
> > Johnson has shown that he is incapable of being persuaded by facts when
> > he gets an idea in his head. He has also made it a point to personally
> > state that he is completely close-minded to anything that I have to say
> > (references available on request), so if you're asking me to show him
> > some charity, the soup kitchen is closed. I suggest you take a look at
> > applying some of what you say in Johnson's direction.
>
> So here's my advice: Observe proper debating techniques.
It takes two sides to debate.
> Don't worry
> about what DTJ does. You can not do anything about what DTJ does in
> this group. Try it, and you'll only make it worse. People *will* note
> the difference in posting styles. People will see what's going on.
> Also, there's no need to convince DTJ of something he doesn't want to
> be convinced of. Present your alternative and it will be read. This is
> a public medium.
>
> Damn and blast! It's 2am here!
>
> Good night all!
>
> Cheers/2,
> Menno.
>
>
Irv
Irv Spalten
Menno Willemse wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 04:12:49 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > DTJ says "we don't know what GameStorm uses and that guy you talked to
> > is a nobody" (back when Johnson didn't know who "Icculus" was).
> > And the drama plays on.
>
> That was David S' rendition of what DTJ said. It was not accurate.
>
> > The bone you've chosen to pick with DS is ultimately completely
> > irrelevant to the point he was making. If he was inaccurate, it's only
> > because it was not a relevant detail. Johnson's inaccuracies, on the
> > other hand, revolve around the crux of the entire discussion.
>
> So it's especially important to read them properly and point out
> exactly what is wrong with them. I know David can be hard to convince,
> but you'll never do it by saying "You Are A Liar And Therefore You Are
> Wrong". Also, you don't actually *need* to convince DTJ. You only need
> to convince the rest of the group.
Ahh, the crux of the problem here Menno. How does one know they've
convinced the rest of the group? Forget this thread specifically, and
let us talk in general terms. Think of the eCS bashing going on here.
You can respond until you are blue in the face with facts and the
FUD'sters will come right back and repeat the lies and do so UNTIL you
give up. You can put up facts and they say they are lies. If one isn't
able to see the light and only reads threads, how can one tell,
depending on whom you'll believe? Have you not seen sock puppets in here
saying some FUD is correct? DTJ's game is to REPEAT misinformation until
YOU give up. This is the whole problem here. Heck, if you didn't in
someway believe him, would you have stayed in the whole thread? I hope
someday you need to try and convince DTJ that he is mistaken, maybe then
you'll see the light.
Irv
Sten Solberg
> I challenged Sten to enumerate Johnson's
> hypotheses so that I could debunk them individually. He declined based
> on his lack of technical savy.
Inaccurate, Marty. I declined based on my lack of technical savvy.
> I challenged Johnson himself, who is too
> much of a coward to respond directly.
This is as good an illustration as any of procjections breeding dislike and
distrust around here. Why not heed your own advice the other day and stick to
facts? And while I'm at it: why you would want to try to defend a notorious
heckler like Sutherland is beyond me.
--
Best regards
Sten Solberg
... Also sprach Zarathustra: "Have a Good Day!"
Marty
> I would imagine the 64-bit OS's would do better in performance numbers
> however, but this would be mostly apples and oranges in terms of
> comparable comparisons.
Actually, I found that with my own (at work) compute-bound software
product, when we ported it from 32-bit to 64-bit running on the same
hardware, there was a slight performance degradation.
This happened whether moving from AIX 4.3 32-bit to 64-bit and Solaris 7
32-bit to 64-bit. We assumed it was because the 64-bit compilers were
less mature, but this is no longer the case and still the performance is
slightly worse (running on the same physical machine).
Marty
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 21:21:18 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>I challenged Sten to enumerate Johnson's
>>hypotheses so that I could debunk them individually. He declined based
>>on his lack of technical savy.
>
> Inaccurate, Marty. I declined based on my lack of technical savvy.
Am I missing something? (besides a "v")?
>>I challenged Johnson himself, who is too
>>much of a coward to respond directly.
>
> This is as good an illustration as any of procjections breeding dislike and
> distrust around here. Why not heed your own advice the other day and stick to
> facts?
Projections? That's interesting, given that I'm the one who is directly
challenging what Johnson is saying and Johnson is the one making
back-handed personal comments through responses to other people about
me. I've stuck to the facts. Johnson has fled from them.
> And while I'm at it: why you would want to try to defend a notorious
> heckler like Sutherland is beyond me.
I feel likewise about yourself WRT Johnson. Sutherland has the facts
and some grounding in reality on his side in this discussion. Johnson
has nothing but speculation (most or all of which has been proven
incorrect) and barbs.
Jason
What kind of metrics were you using? A buddy of mine was working with
refraction statics software that they just copied and compiled with no
changes from Solari/Linux with gcc on a MIPSR10000(which had the fastest
floating point at the time) and the performance was abysmall, it was the
slowest machine out a few PII's and a Sparc.
Marty
> Hello World,
>
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 21:21:18 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Menno Willemse wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 04:12:49 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>DTJ says "we don't know what GameStorm uses and that guy you talked to
>>>>is a nobody" (back when Johnson didn't know who "Icculus" was).
>>>>And the drama plays on.
>>>
>>>That was David S' rendition of what DTJ said. It was not accurate.
>>
>>"I have no idea who this guy is or if he knows anything about the 64-bit
>>version of America's Army or not but I have always been very clear in my
>>comments, at the time that I made them, that details of the 64-bit
>>version of America's Army were unknown." - DTJ 10/30/2003
>>
>>Close enough.
>
> Not close enough. "I have no idea who this guy is and what he knows"
> is nowhere near "This guy is a nobody".
For my purposes, it certainly was. Johnson didn't know who it was and
hence paid no heed to what was said. He furthermore, made no effort to
understand who it was. He just brazenly dismissed his testimony.
> Also wrong post, wrong quote.
Not in my time-line. It was the first response that I was looking for
and found.
> This is the one DS responded to:
>
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:08:50 -0800, "David T. Johnson"
> <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>
>>I emailed Ryan and he very kindly replied to me that he worked on the
>>64-bit port of America's Army but has not worked on 64-bit AA since
>
> and
>
>>does not know anything about GameStorm, so I guess we are all still
>>waiting to see what GameStorm is doing.
This was in the "drama continues" section of my time-line.
> Which is even less like "This guy is a nobody".
That's because Johnson recognized who Ryan was at this point.
> David S should have
> left DTJ out of his communications with Ryan Gordon completely. But he
> couldn't resist the temptation to tell on DTJ to Ryan.
And what effect did it have? Did Ryan care? Did it not ellicit the
necessary information out of Ryan to settle the issue?
> Now I can
> imagine myself locking horns with David S in the future, and being
> required to call upon an expert. I very much *don't* want my queries
> to be answered with "So you are the asshole who thinks I'm stupid".
Firstly, no reasonable human being would respond this way without first
hearing your side of the story directly. Secondly, you don't know what
DS actually wrote to Ryan. He could have been exaggerating his
description here just to get Johnson's goat. You want to support flakey
possibilities? Try that one on for size. ;-)
>>>So it's especially important to read them properly and point out
>>>exactly what is wrong with them.
>>
>>Been there, done that. I challenged Sten to enumerate Johnson's
>>hypotheses so that I could debunk them individually. He declined based
>>on his lack of technical savy. I challenged Johnson himself, who is too
>>much of a coward to respond directly. I'll gladly extend the challenge
>>to you if you choose to accept.
>
> Already done something like that in another post. The Enumerator was
> David S, so actually, they were again not David's words. I think If
> I'm going to be debating with David S any more, I'm going to program
> "No David, That Is Not What I Said" under a function key for
> convenience. Or "This is not an answer".
If you'd like me to take a crack at them, give me the precise reference
and I'll have at it.
>>How would it have been "more work" for David S. to have heeded your
>>objection? After all, you only objected to the way he allegedly
>>misrepresented Johnson. David S. has been providing all of the facts
>
> Not only that. I also object to his responding to things that he makes
> up himself, then claims you said. Which is of course a lot easier: you
> can *make sure* that those things are false. Disproving things that
> someone actually says is more difficult.
Johnson is no stranger to this technique in my experience. In fact,
that's why he and I had our falling-out. What Sutherland has allegedly
done here was of no real consequence, however - either in real life or
even for the purposes of the discussion.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I thought I remember
Sutherland saying that he provided a Google link to this discussion for
Ryan.
>>that have entered into this discussion. It's obvious he's not just
>>shouting "You're an idiot!" to make his points. Though he may get
>>frustrated when faced with a solid piece of unmoldable granite like
>>Johnson, he's still been pointing to and discovering facts. In fact,
>>you praised him for doing so in your last response to me yesterday!
>
> He provided us with some interesting websites. The information that he
> needed to disprove DTJ's claim wasn't on them, but they were
> interesting nonetheless. I found out that OS/2 does in fact have a 3D
> library of some sort on mesa3d.org. He also put in the link to
> www.icculus,com, but there's no specs of America's Army on them.
>
> What he needed to prove that DTJ's speculations couldn't be true, was
> a spec sheet of America's Army (the 64-bits version) where it says
> exactly what was used to develop it, what video adapters it supports,
> system requirements and the like. I don't know if such a thing
> actually exists. It would probably show up only after the game came
> out of beta and proper window dressing was applied.
As I've already pointed out, there was enough information that
Sutherland gathered over the course of this discussion to disprove each
scenario that Johnson proposed. Viewed individually, no. There is no
single web site that states exactly what is needed. The bits and pieces
that can be gleaned from the hefty helping of URLs and testimony David
S. provided can be woven into a rich and solid tapestry debunking
Johnson's claims, however.
>>Here are some more facts:
>>There is no "generic" 3D interface, hence a generic driver will be
>>impossible. Each video card has its own unique and highly proprietary
>>interface for 3D graphics. These interfaces are jealously guarded by
>>card manufacturers (which is why it would be a near impossibility for
>>Scitech to include such support).
>
> Gave the Scitech site a visit. They indeed do not have any 3D
> acceleration. Didn't think that hardware manufacturers would be that
> retentive about how to actually use their stuff. Shame, really.
> Generic Drivers(tm) would be nice to have.
>
> So you'd have to fall back on detecting the graphics card and hope you
> have the driver for it. Actually, it shouldn't be too hard to convince
> the hardware people to produce a Linux driver if you do it before
> Win64 hits the streets. I assume that they want their stuff to be used
> before it becomes obsolete.
If there's no current 32-bit 3D accelerated driver support, the
likelihood of 64-bit support for Linux is low. Keep in mind, 32-bit
Linux has been around for a LONG time and I don't believe there are many
cards with full-featured support. The ones that are supported were a
long time in coming.
> Though I don't doubt what you're saying, this still isn't *proof* that
> they couldn't do it and indeed didn't do it. You'd need to look at the
> specs for the finished product. (And then you *can* say that they
> didn't no doubt).
They definitely didn't do it, given ATI's involvement. Whether or not
they could do it down the road will require a great deal of time and
probably even a climate change in the video card industry in my opinion.
>>There is no possibility that the CPU alone, no matter how fast or how
>>wide, can perform close to comparably to dedicated hardware.
>
> This is true. Still, there are other things for it to do besides
> rendering. If there are any NPCs in the game, their AI will benefit
> from the extra processing power of the Opteron.
Bzzzt. Same game core code.
> So you'd get nastier
> nasties. I don't even think that would take any modifications except
> perhaps for some tuning.
How could an extra 4 bytes per machine word make a limitted AI (with
capabilities limitted to running, jumping, ducking, and shooting) any
smarter?
> Also, if you have several editions of the same card, you could use the
> feature set of the most advanced one and offload only the things not
> supported by the less advanced ones to the CPU. Then, the CPU could
> help in some of the tasks, though not all of them. Which it should
> have quite enough clout for. Again, they probably didn't, but they
> could have. And it would probably be imoplemented in the driver.
???
>>What's to trust? David S. has provided URLs for each major point he has
>>made. Johnson simply does not choose to acknowledge things that are
>>contrary to his fantasy scenarios. He has a long history of behaving
>>this way.
>
> David S may have provided URLs, but in several cases the relevant
> information wasn't on the page. You can't prove, for instance, that
> OpenGL is used in a non-documented game by simply pointing out that
> there is such a thing as OpenGL for 64-bit Linux. Only the makers
> know.
Ryan said that the 64-bit port of the game uses the Unreal engine. The
Unreal engine uses OpenGL. OpenGL has a 64-bit Linux port. Nothing
cloudy about that.
>>As I said before, Johnson has yet to acknowledge that the limitting
>>factor is the API and game engine used, not the device drivers bundled.
>
> That is an angle I hadn't spotted yet -long thread- so I won't comment
> on it.
It really is a very key point.
>>>David S cried "victory" too soon. Ryan only knocked over DTJ's points
>>>for the game. Which DTJ did not acknowledge in so many words, but at
>>>least he did not repeat them.
>>
>>I disagree. Johnson still holds open the possibility that the GameStorm
>>bundling can have additional features or better rendering detail than
>>the 32-bit version. This has been solidly disproved.
>
> Don't actually think he does. He's been a bit quiet since Ryan
> Gordon's information became available. I think it's a case of: They
> could've, but they didn't.
That's all David S. has been trying to get through to him.
> There may be other advantages to the 64-bit version, though. Speed
> increase springs to mind (no mod to the game necessary),
Has not been the case in my experience porting from 32-bit to 64-bit
(see my response to one of Irv's postings tonight).
> more NPCs due to more CPU power for the AI (again no mod necessary)
More NPCs? More than 32 bits could support? That's quite a crowded
virtual reality you've got there. What kind of project do you have in
mind? Virtual China? 4.3 billion is quite a lot of people.
As far as smarter AI, I don't see how it could happen with the same core
code. What factor about an AI is limitted by machine word size?
> and other CPU-power related benefits. And of course the Big
> Gamestorm advantage:
> No installation necessary.
Unless your hardware is not supported on the CD, which is produced with
help from ATI - hmmm... I wonder what kind of hardware is supported on
the CD.
>>Please list some of these points, and I'll be glad to put them to rest
>>for you myself with the information currently available.
>
> No thank you - That's David J's job. His speculations, not mine.
You said it was important to point out exactly what was wrong with his
speculations. I'm asking for an opportunity to do just that. Johnson
is too much of a coward to rise to that challenge. (I'm not going to
call you a coward because they're not your speculations.)
>>My take on this is that David S. has already debunked these points and
>>does not wish to repeat himself ad nauseum. Johnson has no apparent
>>problem repeating himself to the disgust of all who witness it.
>
> David S does half work. You can't debunk something by saying "Go look
> on the official site". You need to provide the actual information
> that disproves the point.
He has already. He tires of repeating it ad nauseum. Can't say I blame
him.
> In case the word "onus" is rising in your
> head, in this case it's David S putting in that something can't be
> true, so he should provide a reason why this is so. It's patently
> impossible to "prove" a speculation.
But as we've seen, it's fairly trivial to disprove them.
> Also David S keeps saying "DTJ claims that <foo>" where DTJ has never
> actually claimed things like <foo> were actually true, only that
> things like <foo> might be true, but we don't know yet as the game is
> not actually out yet. And this gives rise to the often-repeated cry of
> "These Details Are Not Yet Known".
When in fact, these details are known with respect to <foo>.
>>>I think I will keep following the discussion after all. I may be able
>>>to point out more "facts" that aren't Facts.
>>
>>Feel free to try.
>
> I don't go in for trials.
Then at least stay for the hanging. ;-)
Marty
My performance degradation was measurable by the wall clock. The jobs I
was running performed mostly integer math and had many conditional
branches. The code basically performed circuit design traversal and
built up a database containing physical delay information.
Jason
My friend never did decide to figure out what the problem was, they only
had one customer that wanted SGI and they told them to stick with
Solaris or Linux. The data was just many blocks of floats with each
chunk being subjected to the same algorithm so I certainly was perplexed
as to why performance was so terrible.
David Sutherland
<djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
This is typical of your nonsense.
The details of 64-bit AA *are* known - your pointless protestations to
the contrary are meaningless.
We know what API it uses.
We know what engine it uses.
We know who wrote the engine.
We know who ported the engine to 64-bits.
We know what the features of that engine are.
You made a number of claims about 64-bit AA that are in direct
contradiction of the known facts, and now you deny ever having said
any of it? Just how stupid do you believe everyone to be?
It's also typical that you would claim that the mail from Ryan is only
"alleged". Are you going to take Menno to task next for making a fuss
about a mail that you are now implying never existed?
>> Thanks for
>> admitting it.
>
>Thanks for admitting that you have a *wooden* head.
>
Where did I say that?
Menno, this is your chance to pipe up about putting words in other
people mouths. Like *that's* going to happen.
>>
>> The real problem though, is that you continued to insist that your
>> speculations were true *after* all the evidence was presented that
>> showed that you were wildly off-base.
>
>I have never insisted that any of my speculations were true or not true.
> They are *speculations*! When the details of Gamestorm are finally
>revealed, we can all post about it here then.
>
The details of 64-bit AA have already been revealed, and have already
been posted here.
>>
>>
>>>>He was indeed wrong, and he continued making the claim even after he
>>>>was proven wrong. At that point he stops being wrong, and starts
>>>>being a liar. Compound that with his dismissive hand-waving and
>>>>silly "laugh" routine and you end up with a liar who belittles the
>>>>people pointing out his mistakes.
>>>
>>>You have lied repeatedly and consistently about what has been said here.
>>> The only 'claims' about America's Army that I made were what was in
>>>the original press release for the GameStorm port of it.
>>>http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3103154102.html
>>>
>>
>>
>> Bullshit. You are a liar, as your own words prove. Go back and look
>> at all the claims you made about this version of AA David, and how it
>> differs from the 32-bit version. Then come back and apologise.
>
>But David, I didn't make any claims about 64-bit America's Army because
>the details of it were, and are, unknown. You have been told that many
>times. Most of the discussion has been about GameStorm, anyway, and not
>about America's Army per se.
>
Another lie.
Here's your list of claims again - note that they all revolve around
the version of Americas Army bundled with Gamestorm:
You claimed that 64-bit AA DOES NOT USE the same engine as the
32-bit version.
You claimed that 64-bit AA DOES NOT USE the same API as the 32-bit
version.
You claimed that 64-bit AA has EXTRA FEATURES over the 32-bit
version.
You claimed that 64-bit AA DOES NOT REQUIRE HARDWARE
SPECIFIC DRIVERS.
You claimed that 64-bit AA DOES THE GRAPHICS IN THE CPU.
Any of those ring a bell, David?
>>
>>
>>
>>>[begin excerpts]
>>>"It feels like a gaming console on steroids..."
>>>""The fact that America's Army is available in 64-bit on the GameStorm
>>>CD allows gamers to get a taste of the next generation of gaming...""
>>>""With the AMD Athlon 64 processor and GameStorm technology, AMD is able
>>>to showcase a fully-integrated 64-bit environment that delivers
>>>performance and realism to the most demanding gamers," said Tim Wright,
>>>director, desktop marketing, AMD Computation Products Group. "AMD64 will
>>>revolutionize the gaming market by delivering immersive super-realistic
>>>environments."
>>>
>>>[end excerpts]
>>>etc.
>>>
>>
>>
>> A PR release, upon which you built entire flights of fantasy.
>
>Flights of fantasy? Do you ever listen to yourself?
>
Do you ever read any of your own bullshit?
>>
>> THEY didn't claim any new features - YOU did.
>
>Liar. I didn't make any claims about 64-bit America's Army because the
>details of it were, and are, unknown. You have been told that many times.
>
Yawn. David, when will you learn that you are only compounding your
lies?
" It is the new 'gamestorm' 64-bit platform that apparently allows the
bootable CD to provide a high-quality gaming experience without the
need for the OpenGL and video drivers for specific hardware" - DTJ
"the new 'gamestorm' 64-bit platform, whatever that is, which does not
seem to be using OpenGL." - DTJ
"If the new 'gamestorm' 64-bit platform can boot independently and run
on any Opteron hardware without the need for special drivers" -DTJ
"Obviously, the 'gamestorm' platform is doing something with 64-bit
memory addressing that was not possible to do with 32-bit addressing"
"When I read the Gamestorm story, my thought was that they are using
the 64-bit Opteron CPU to do stuff that the video hardware would
otherwise typically do on 32-bit systems. If so, the system would
essentially run on any video hardware." - DTJ
"You mistakenly seem to think that 'hardware' is always required" -
DTJ (on not needing 3D hardware for 64-bit AA)
"Also not a fact. The Opteron CPU is much more powerful than a
typical graphics card GPU." - DTJ (again insisting that 64-bit AA
doesn't need hardware acceleration)
Your claims, David. These were not taken from the press release.
>> THEY didn't claim you don't need hardware-specific drivers - YOU did.
>
>Liar. The details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have been told
>that many times.
>
The requirements of 64-bit AA are known, David. And that *is* the
game under discussion.
>> THEY didn't claim the CPU was doing extra graphics work -YOU did.
>
>Liar. I speculated about that but I didn't claim to have any
>information about Gamestorm because the details of Gamestorm are not
>known yet. You have been told that many times.
>
And then you called people liars for pointing out that the 64-bit
version of AA uses the same engine and API as the 32-bit version. You
also claimed that the 64-bit version did things that the 32-bit
version cannot - but you never could prove any of your crap, could
you? LOL.
>> THEY didn't claim it was built around a new game engine - YOU did.
>
>Liar. I said on October 22 here: "I don't care in the least if
>America's Army uses the unreal engine or not. I merely point out that
>it is not known yet."
But it *IS* known, David. It is a lie to claim otherwise.
>I didn't claim to have any information about
>Gamestorm because the details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have
>been told that many times.
>
You know very little about anything, and you have proven it very
convincingly.
>> THEY didn't claim it was using a new API - YOU did.
>
>Liar. I didn't claim to have any information about Gamestorm because
>the details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have been told that
>many times.
>
Yawn. Denial of reality does not change reality.
>>
>> Do you see a pattern here?
>
><laugh> See above.
>
"<laugh>" I did :)
>>
>> If you wish to retract your claims in light of what you have
>> subsequently learnt, then do so. Continuing your claims in the face
>> of all the evidence makes you a liar.
>
>See above.
>
See above.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>Anything in particular wrong with speculations? For instance, I could
>>>>>paint several pictures of how the Opteron's 64-bit features might in
>>>>>some way be exploited by OS/2. I could well make some assumptions
>>>>>first, only to find out later that they were wrong. Whereupon we sigh
>>>>>"Oh well... Shame." and get on with life as we know it. I would
>>>>>personally be very careful to label assumptions as such, though. We're
>>>>>among fsckin word lawyers here.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nothing wrong with speculating, but to insist that your speculations
>>>>are the truth after evidence is presented that shows those
>>>>speculations are wrong is dishonest, and stupid.
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Note: no response.
>
>Note: who cares?
>
You do, obviously. Otherwise why did you respond?
>>
>>
>>>>>>- Having no additional features in the core code means there can be no
>>>>>>additional features for the whole product, no matter how it is packaged
>>>>>
>>>>>Hmm. Not a whole lot, I grant. You can do something with packaging,
>>>>>but making an old game use new hardware features is probably
>>>>>difficult. In Gamestorm's case, you could add a driver for a hitherto
>>>>>not supported piece of hardware. The game would still not use any new
>>>>>hardware features, but at least it would use the new hardware to do
>>>>>its old things.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So why did DTJ claim that Ryan was not qualified to comment on the
>>>>features of 64-bit AA simply because he wasn't directly involved with
>>>>SCI and the Gamestorm bundle?
>>>
>>>Apparently the only way you can carry on a discussion is by stuffing
>>>words into the mouths of your targets.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hypocrite. How many times have I pointed out this very thing from you
>> in the Direct X thread?
>
>Apparently the only way you can carry on a discussion is by stuffing
>words into the mouths of your targets.
>
LOL - I notice you don't address my point :)
>>
>>
>>>Your word-stuffing has reached
>>>new depths of depravity here. I have never claimed that Ryan was not
>>>qualified to comment on the features of 64-bit AA and I did not question
>>>Ryan's alleged claim (posted by you) about the use of the Unreal engine.
>>>
>>
>>
>> LOL - so explain this:
>>
>> "I emailed Ryan and he very kindly replied to me that he worked on the
>> 64-bit port of America's Army but has not worked on 64-bit AA since
>> and does not know anything about GameStorm, so I guess we are all
>> still waiting to see what GameStorm is doing."
>>
>> How does any of that begin to refute the facts presented about the
>> 64-bit version of AA?
>
>But David, I didn't present any "facts" about the 64-bit version of AA
>running on GameStorm because the details of it are not yet known.
The details of the 64-bit version of AA are known. They person
responsible for porting it to 64-bits has spoken.
>You
>have been told that many times before but you apparently have a *wooden
>head*. My fault for not recognizing that sooner.
>
Feel free to quit arguing then. In the meantime your stupidity and
lies are open to public scrutiny.
>
>> We know exactly what has been done to the
>> 64-bit version of AA bundled on Gamestorm, David: nothing.
>
>No, we don't know because the details of 64-bit AA running on Gamestorm
>are not yet known.
The details of 64-bit AA are already known. Deny it all you like, but
the truth is self-evident.
> You have been told that many times before but you
>apparently have a *wooden head*. My fault for not recognizing that
>sooner.
>
Repeating yourself? Again?
>>
>>
>>>I personally asked Ryan about the details of GameStorm and when it might
>>>appear and his reply was:
>>>
>>>Ryan> "I don't really know about GameStorm or the distribution of it..."
>>>
>>
>>
>> That doesn't mean he knows nothing about it, as you claimed, and it
>> certainly doesn't mean he knows nothing about 64-bit AA as you
>> desperately tried to imply.
>
>Well, Sir Wooden head, you would at least have to agree that Ryan is not
>attempting to present himself as a GameStorm expert. <laugh>
>
I never claimed he was? What was that about stuffing words in the
mouths of others? "<laugh>"
Hey Menno, another one for you to ignore!
>>
>> You *cannot* argue with Ryan's statements about 64-bit AA and it's
>> capabilities compared to the 32-bit version,
>
>No, of course not. Why would I want to? I have no idea what Ryan said
>to you
You have *some* idea because I presented some of those words. In
particular the ones that proved your claims about 64-bit AA were
utterly unfounded.
>but it certainly seems obvious that he has worked on AA. Unlike
>you, my only interest is finding out what the details of GameStorm and
>64-bit AA are when they become available because I am interested in what
>they are doing.
>
You are only interested in finding out the capabilities when it's
released? After all th the hours you have spent posting about those
capabilities this is an *absurd* claim to make!
>> so instead you tried to
>> make it seem like the Gamestorm version was something different.
>
>This is kind of a weak statement from you. I am surprised that you
>didn't just say that I 'claimed' about it rather than 'make it seem like'.
>
Why?
>
>> You
>> did this in the full knowledge that they are the same
>
>The details of the 64-bit AA running on Gamestorm are not yet available.
> You have been told this many times previously.
>
The details of 64-bit AA are known, David. It's a fact.
>
>- and *this* is
>> what makes you a liar.
>
>Liar.
>
LOL.
>>
>>
>>>Ryan has also never claimed otherwise, in the two emails that are
>>>allegedly from him that you have posted here. It is only you who try to
>>>infuse him with some sort of insider knowledge about GameStorm. That is
>>>a cold, hard lie on your part.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have never suggested he has inside knowledge of Gamestorm - quite
>> the opposite in fact. I challenge you to present the text where I
>> have claimed that Ryan has inside knowledge of anything beyond the
>> 64-bit port of AA.
>
><laugh> That's easy: "He also knows exactly what Gamestorm is, which is
>in direct opposition to your claims that he knew nothing about it."
>--David Sutherland--1 November 2003 in 'Icculus speaks...' thread.
>
Which is not the same thing as having insider knowledge. After all
*you* have claimed to know what Gamestorm is, too. I am most
certainly *not* implying that you have insider knowledge!
If that's your "evidence" then it is up to your usual standards -
nothing but a strawman.
>
>>
>> You can't because you are lying - again. Pathetic.
>
>Liar. See above.
I just did, and I did not claim that Ryan has inside knowledge - only
that he knows what it is.
Menno, this is where you step in and rant about stuffing words in
peoples mouths. ROTFL.
>>
>> Talk about twisting peoples words, and trying to stuff words in the
>> mouths of others. Of course Menno will remain completely silent on
>> this.
>
><laugh>
>
See above.
>>
>>
>>
>>>My only interest here is to discuss and comment on interesting new
>>>technology and I am not here selling anything. I don't know why you
>>>are carrying on a thread about myself rather than more technical topics
>>>but I can only presume that it is because you found my comments both
>>>credible and threatening in some way and therefore feel the need to
>>>attack and repudiate them via your word-stuffing tactics and lies.
>>>Fortunately for our side, truth is a more effective tactic than those
>>>used by you.
>>
>>
>>
>> You are a liar, Johnson, and as long as you continue to post
>> inflammatory threads and lie in post after post, I and others will
>> call you on it.
>
>You are *proven* to be a liar. See above.
>
>>
>> Get used to it.
>
>Get used to having your 'arguments' eviscerated and spending all of your
>time throwing dirt out of the hole that you find yourself in.
Whatever. I don't see too many people who agree with your claims
about Gamestorm. I don;t see many people lumping me in with the
FUD4 - that would be you "<laugh>".
Get used to being ridiculed FUD'ster.
David Sutherland
wrote:
>Hello World,
>
>On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 01:14:13 UTC, David Sutherland
><sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**btconnect.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah - that's a problem isn't it. You're not responding to what I
>> *said* but what you interpret me to have said. Isn't that what's
>> gotten you do hot under the collar?
>
>Okay then. Let me explain clearer:
>
>The offending words of David S:
>>Rather than wait for your refusal to answer, I went straight to the
>>source and told him that you claim he knows nothing about Gamestorm,
>>nor the 64-bit version of AA that they are using.
>
>This does mean, exactly, that you, David Sutherland, told Ryan Gordon,
>that David Johnson said, that Ryan Gordon knew nothing about 64-bit
>America's Army.
>
No, it doesn't. It says that DTJ claimed he doesn't anything about
the version of AA that they are using - DTJ's claim was that Ryan's
knowledge of 64-bit AA is not relevant to the Gamestorm platform.
That could only be true if they were using some other version which
Ryan DID NOT PORT.
This was not true, as you know. Ryan did do the port for that
version, and his comments *are* relevant. That is why they can be
used to state categorically that DTJ's claims for the Gamestorm
version were untrue. He continues to refuse these facts and still
wants to dismiss Ryan's insight into that ported game.
Your refusal to accept this is as dishonest as his.
>David Johnson said no such thing.
>
See above "<laugh">
>So next time you feel the need to ask me how I know what you said to
>Ryan, please refer to this post. You told us.
>
Bullshit. You invented a number of things that you wanted me to have
said and then started lambasting me for them. That is the very thing
that you accuse me of doing with DTJ. Your shameless hypocrisy is
quite apparent, and your wriggling refusal to see it doesn't change
the facts.
>> Are you claiming those are *my* words?
>
>> DUH - you are inventing words for me *AND* Ryan and ascribing them to
>> us. WE NEVER SAID THEM!!
>
>No. It's *my* interpretation of *your* words.
>
Quite right. If it's good enough for you then where do get off on
attacking me over the same thing?
>> If you don't like my paraphrasing Johnsons words then where the f*ck
>> do you get off on inventing words on *MY* behalf?
>
>"Et tu" fallacy, if it were true, which it isn't.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
> I did not invent
>anything. I repeated your words exactly and showed how I interpreted
>those words. You *could* simply have asked Ryan for the relevant
>details. But you just had to stick in that slug at David Johnson.
>
And I repeated DTJ's words exactly and showed how I interpreted them.
Apparently it is wrong for me to do it, but just fabulous if you do
it. HYPOCRITE!
>David S:
>> I don't care what you are. You DO NOT KNOW what correspondence has
>> passed between myself and Ryan. Don't even bother to claim that you
>> do.
>
>I wouldn't dream of it, dear boy. All I have to go on are your words
>here.
>
Don't forget all the other stuff you invented and attributed to me.
Dear boy. LOL.
>> >Did you give him the "I have no
>> >idea who this guy is..." quote perhaps? Because that was before David
>> >J found out who Ryan Gordon is.
>>
>> He found out because I told him, remember? DOH!!!! Do you make a
>> career out of stupid comments?
>
>You keep pulling the same little trolling trick even though I actually
>told you that I was on to that. The fact that your words are under my
>lines alone is not enough to make them an answer. They have to have
>something to do with what I'm saying. The response to shut me up would
>have been "Menno, I gave Ryan the URL to this entire thread". Or even
>"Menno, I didn't even mention David's name to Ryan Gordon". Which
>would have been perfectly acceptable to me.
>
Do you have a point with your rambling?
I told David who Ryan is. I had already told him a couple of weeks
ago and provided references. He chose to ignore them. As usual.
>But now you choose to defend that particular action. People who argue
>with you should be aware that you will try to discredit them to
>experts, possibly in an effort to influence those experts on your
>behalf.
>
I presented exactly what David said about Ryan's involvement with
port. It is HIS responsibility to keep his claims honest enough that
he shouldn't care if they are presented to anyone - not mine. I am
not responsible for Johnson's lies.
>> Nope - DTJ is still trying to claim that Ryan isn't qualified to speak
>> on the Gamestorm bundled port of AA. How do *you* read it any
>> differently?
>
>We know from the thread that Ryan Gordon did both the 32 bit and 64
>bit versions of AA. I know that. You know that. DTJ knows that. Mr.
>Gordon, however did not do the bundling using Gamestorm.
And? DTJ refuses to accept that his claims about the GAME are wrong.
Which part of that are you struggling to understand?
>So while Ryan
>Godon's comments on the game itself will be correct, he will not give
>us any detailed information on GameStorm itself. For instance, on the
>drivers included with Gamestorm and their capabilities. That is SCI's
>department.
>
All we needed was the info on the GAME to prove that DTJ's claims
about the GAME were wrong. Your refusal to address this is a typical
DTJ tactic: refuse to address the point, and pretend you meant
something else. No wonder you've turned into his little cheerleader
club :)
>If there's only one driver there that can support two significantly
>different video cards, David J's point is valid.
Which of DTJ's points? There was more than this one.
And Menno, if you can provide a reference to a driver anywhere that
provides 3D acceleration to multiple video cards I'll apologise -
until then this is mindless speculation that flies in the face of the
known facts.
>We can't ask Ryan
>because he's not an expert on Gamestorm, only on the AA game itself.
>So we're still not sure about the "hardware independent driver" issue
>because we do not know all the drivers that are on the Gamestorm/AA
>CD.
>
See above.
>That there are any hardware generic drivers on there is, in my
>opinion, unlikely. But then again, there could be. We have seen other
>hardware-generic drivers like Scitech's.
>
Which do not provide 3D acceleration. And given that SCI are not
driver writers, just who do you think is writing this magical driver?
>> In the context of DTJ's claim about 64-bit AA, Gamestorm is a Red
>> Herring. It doesn't matter how it's bundled, the game is the same.
>> To suggest otherwise is a lie.
>
>It actually matters a great deal how it's bundled. If you don't have a
>64-bit operating system, like the Linux users have now, you will still
>be able to play the game full-force even if you run old Windows in
>legacy mode.
>
This does not address my point at all.
>> ==
>>>This actually *can* be found in the text: "does not know anything
>about
>>>GameStorm". However, taking this literally is not reasonable. -
>Menno
>>
>> Sure, you take everyone to task for their communication skills except
>> DTJ. You accuse me of distorting DTJ's words, then admit that DTJ's
>> words say *exactly* what I claim. LOL!!! - David S
>> ==
>>
>> Why did you delete your own words, Menno? LOL!!!
>
>Because I was responding to yours. I will gladly own up to them. I do
>not subscribe to your belief that snipping out words in a reply
>removes them from the original post. "Taking everybody to task for
>their communication skills". Again, I can't imagine how you fit that
>to what I said there.
>
It's still a very interesting cut-n-paste job, Menno. Delete the
evidence that I presented exactly what he said, then claim I corrupted
it. Nice, very nice.
>> DTJ refuses to admit that his claims about AA are wrong. Which part
>> of *that* don't you understand?
>
>Because you have not done a good enough job convincing him?
Right - despite all of the "good info" you claim has been presented in
the thread. DTJ has had proof presented ad nauseum and he accepts
*NONE* of it.
>Sorry
>dude, but you might want to check your own credibility here. You will
>note that David Johnson did accept the words of Ryan Gordon after they
>were presented here. Can you find a post from David after 30 Oct where
>he says, for instance, that OpenGL was not used in AA?
Can you find a post where he accepts that it is? Just yesterday he
was calling me a liar over the facts that I have presented. Guess
you were struck blind during that little exchange. Figures.
>
>* * *
>
>It seems I have to opine on these items to join the club... So here
>goes.
>
>In the next statements, you use the word "Gamestorm". I choose to
>assume here that by "Gamestorm" you mean "AA-64 running on Gamestorm".
>If that is wrong, I'll have to redo the next few comments.
>
DTJ uses it interchangeably - I should try and keep it clearer.
>> He has stated that Gamestorm DOES NOT USE the same engine as the
>> 32-bit version.
>
>Sorry, but the thing was ported to a 64 bits processor wasn't it? Even
>if there are no functional differences, isn't the fact that it now
>runs on a different processor enough change for you?
>
No - it's still the same engine, using the same routines and methods.
Is "hello world" a fundamentally different program when run on
different platforms?
The Unreal engine is still the Unreal engine whether it is the 32-bit
version or the 64-bit version.
>Second, David said that it *might* use something different from
>OpenGL, which is not the same as saying it does. And this was *before*
>the Ryan Gordon events, before which mostly unreliable sources such as
>yourself existed.
>
LOL - unreliable sources such as the Unreal website, for example?
ROTFLMAO! You are as bad as he is. Just ignore the evidence and
pretend it never existed. If evidence you can't ignore is presented
then attack the person who presented it *for* presenting it.
>> He has stated that Gamestorm DOES NOT USE the same API as the 32-bit
>> version.
>
>David Johnson has only said that he doesn't know what API AA uses, not
>that it DOES NOT USE the same API. Which again is due to the fact that
>there was nobody there whom he could trust, to tell him.
>
Apparently I am a liar for saying that it uses the Unreal engine, and
the Unreal and AA websites cannot be trusted. What an "interesting"
world you two live in.
If those two websites cannot be trusted, then who can? Ryan? Gee,
I asked Ryan and he said that DTJ was wrong too - but you say I'm evil
for having asked him.
Just can't win against deeply biased and irrational people, I guess.
>> He has stated that Gamestorm has EXTRA FEATURES over the 32-bit
>> version.
>
>Except that it now runs on a different, faster processor and can be
>booted from CD and run without requiring users to install an operating
>system? The makers of AA *could* have put more details in the picture
>with that kind of hardware. They didn't. Which is a shame, but there
>you go. Can't invent the inflatable tyre without inventing the wheel
>first. Got to get those CDs out of the door.
>
You are ignoring the point. Again. The game has not changed. Deal
with it, rather than trying to deflect attention away from it.
>> He has stated that the 64-bit version DOES NOT REQUIRE HARDWARE
>> SPECIFIC DRIVERS.
>
>No he didn't. He said that due to common features in the graphics
>cards, not unlike the VBE specs, it might be possible to create
>drivers that work on several cards. He didn't say that the
>AA/Gamestorm people actually did this.
>
It *might* be possible for such a driver to spring fully-formed from
your forehead, but I doubt it's going to happen today. It *might* be
possible that invaders from Mars are going to take you away and we'll
never hear from you again, but that doesn't seem very likely, does it?
No such drivers exist. Deal with it.
>> He has stated that the 64-bit version DOES THE GRAPHICS IN THE CPU.
>
>Again, you are instilling a certainty in David Johnson's words that he
>certainly didn't put there and David J went through great effort to
>remove that again and again by saying that "This is not yet known".
>And are you really sure that this is indeed what David really said? Go
>on: Give us one of your quotes that goes: "AA Does Graphics In CPU
>-DTJ".
>
When DTJ refuses to accept any evidence that shows this is not what is
happening, what do you think that means?
>> Your ignorance does not excuse DTJ's lies. DTJ continues to claim
>> that 64-bit AA is using an "unknown" API for it's rendering, and it
>> does not use the same engine as the 32-bit version. Did those facts
>> just pass you by? If so you're even dumber than I thought.
>>
>> Here is DTJ's claim from that same day:
>> ==
>> <laugh> Not hardly. There are very few details available but the
>> fact that the game is only available in a 64-bit version running on
>> the Opteron and requires a platform called "Gamestorm" suggests that
>> the "gamestorm" platform is somehow doing something different than the
>> old 32-bit OpenGl stuff.
>> ==
>>
>> See what he's claiming, Menno? It's DIFFERENT from the 32-bit OpenGL
>> stuff. And no matter what evidence was presented, he refused to
>> change his claim.
>
>"Suggests that the Gamestorm platform is somehow doing something
>different than the old 32-bit OpenGL stuff".
>
>"Uses an unknown API for its rendering, and it does not use the same
>engine as the 32 bit version".
>
>That looks very different to me. You have once again put words in
>David's mouth that he didn't say. The words Standard Operating
>Procedure spring to mind.
>
DUH. I think it's pretty obvious that you only see what you want to
see. He called me a liar when I stated that it uses the Unreal engine
- and you just ignore the fact.
DTJ spent the better part of a month refusing to accept any proof that
OpenGL was in use.
>> >Ryan Gordon was mentioned first here two days later 2003-10-04:
>> >http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=01i351-2gg.ln1%40ID-56407.news.ci
>> >s.dfn.de
>> >
>> >This is the post where we learn that OpenGL and SDL were used, and
>> >hence, that GameStorm must be something else. So from that point on,
>> >DTJ could have known that GameStorm was not the rendering engine.
>> >Well, DTJ responded to the message (Google link trivial...) and was
>> >not convinced that there was an OpenGL version for 64-bits Linux. He
>> >asked Scott for more proof on this. The next time David mentions
>> >Gamestorm is here:
>>
>> Bullshit. Your rose-tinted glasses are nothing but the most
>> outrageous bias. DTJ had *many* links presented to him explaining
>> exactly what API's were being used, what engine the game was written
>> with, and even who did the port. He refused to believe *any* of it.
>
>Because those URLs did not point to the evidence he was after. Yes, a
>64-bit OpenGL implementation may exist, but that doesn't mean that AA
>uses it. It was only when Ryan came in and spoke his piece that we
>knew for certain. You are not a reliable source, and neither is a
>webpage on an entirely different game.
>
You are completely ignoring the fact that the games developers have
stated what engine is used, and that this information was presented
multiple times *long* before Ryan was consulted.
In short, Menno, you are now having to lie in order to try and save
face. Remind you of anyone?
>> Duh. Are you being deliberately dense? The engine used by the game
>> is public knowledge. You were told this. DTJ was told this.
>> Indeed I told you on the 2nd that OpenGL was in use. Another fact
>> that you have conveniently neglected to mention here. What a
>> dishonest piece of sh*t you are.
>
>I didn't care about what engine it uses. I was doing somethng
>completely different. Which you could have stopped with ONE sentence,
>but didn't.
>
See above - first you claim the info was never presented, now you
claim you don;t care what engine it uses and it doesn't matter anyway.
DTJ - is that you in there? ROTFLMAO!
>Ahhh! EVIDENCE!
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1rm3ovk7khlbbob922d1rg7nhhh62ohp0
>g%404ax.com
>
>Yes, but this is a post by you, Mr. Sutherland. David J does not trust
>you. Especially if you simply state blandly that "no, this is wrong".
>You're not exactly an authority here.
>
I had already presented the links to the developers website. If you
missed it that's just tough.
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=g19pnv83emi0hrd28krfplgugtj9dsr15
>v%404ax.com
>
>Which contained:
>http://cleaned.beyondunreal.com/UT2FAQ/UT2FAQ.htm#_Toc6765476
>
>And this is a link about a different game altogether.
It uses the same engine, Menno.
>You're not doing
>a good job of proving your points, Mr. Sutherland! What was required
>was a link or quote saying "America's Army 64bits Uses OpenGL". Which
>only Ryan Gordon confirmed days later.
>
I had already presented links to AA showing that it uses the unreal
engine, and links to the unreal website showing that the engine uses
OpenGL and DirectX.
What better proof do you need?
>> Don't let facts stand in the way of your fairy tales though, Menno.
>> It's funny watching you destroy your credibility in public :)
>
>Well, here you've seen your own credibility in action:
>
>- "It uses OpenGL".
>- "Oh. Really?"
>
Look back at the thread, and see what links were provided. You are
yet again attacking me on the basis of your own ignorance.
>Face it man. People do not take your word for anything here. Your
>words accompanied by RELEVANT URLs, maybe.
>
They were - your bias in refusing to see them is not my problem.
>> >I've been
>> >reading the thread more thoroughly than I have before. However, I
>> >haven't been able to find any references made by David that Gamestorm
>> >is a rendering engine since Scott's message. It's a good thing that I
>> >enjoyed reading the thread because this is rather too much trouble to
>> >take simply to refute a throwaway line by David S.
>>
>> And what an amazing co-incidence that you "cannot find" anything that
>> proves you to be an apologist and a liar. Wow.
>>
>> Here's one from the 27th - how very f*cking amazing that you managed
>> to miss it. Nothing self-serving about *your* research, is there,
>> Menno?
>>
>> ==
>> Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 14:09:22 -0800
>> Message-ID: <vpr5qlr...@corp.supernews.com>
>>
>> > Americas Army uses the Unreal Warfare engine - the official website
>> > has lots of info about it, including which API's it was created with.
>> > These are OpenGL and DirectX. - DS
>>
>> Liar. The details of the 64-bit version of America's Army are not yet
>> known. You have been told that several times previously. - DTJ
>> ==
>>
>> So that's DTJ accusing ME of being a liar for saying that 64-bit AA
>> uses the Unreal engine - which in fact it does.
>
>You tried to pose as an authority there, which you are not,
Irrelevant. The information I presented was true. So who is lying
above?
>and you
>waved in the general direction of the official website. If you had
>actually found the relevant information on the official website, why
>not point to it?
Because I *ALREADY HAD* multiple times!! DTJ ignored the evidence
each and every time. How many times do you expect me to repeat the
same damn information?
>IS there a spec sheet of America's Army 64-bit on the
>official website? Was there one at the time this was written?
>
He was shown the proof of which API was in use. So were you. So much
for you having "read the thread more carefully" - LOL.
You still fail to address the reality of the situation. DTJ says that
I am a liar for stating that 64-bit AA uses Unreal and OpenGL. The
facts show that I was telling the truth.
>Sorry to tell you this, but "facts" presented by you simply do not
>make evidence. You have to work harder on it.
You are full of shit. I presented links to prove my claims many
times. DTJ ignored them.
>Thank goodness you
>finally realised what YOUR credibility is like and brought in the
>expert.
>
LOL - like *your* credibility after this piece of apologist bullshit?
>> Feel free to ignore this little piece of reality too, Menno. Why
>> don't you say again how horrible I am for calling DTJ a liar and
>> pointing out that he refuses to accept facts that prove him wrong.
>
>You are "refuting" things that David did not say. Which is easier than
>refuting the things he does say.
>
And you refuse to address the reality that DTJ is accusing people of
being liars when they speak the truth.
Does it make you feel proud?
>> >During the course of the thread, you have also been ignoring what
>> >David Johnson actually wrote and made up "claims" that you found it
>> >easier to work with.
>>
>> See above for a typical DTJ quote. Look at the word "liar" and then
>> look at what it is I'm accused of lying about. The truth.
>
>Adressed above.
No, it wasn't. Not even remotely.
>Anyway, it's not relevant to my point.
LOL - sure, DTJ's honesty is irrelevant to your point, which was to
launch an unwarranted personal attack on me because you are still
upset from our *last* conversation.
>You are making
>up what you would like David to say.
Try looking at what DTJ does in almost every thread he participates
in. Then ignore it like you always do.
>There's hardly a statement by you
>that *accurately* reflects what DTJ is saying. You are now apologising
>by saying "But DTJ is nasty to me too"! Well here's a hankie. Have a
>good blow.
>
LOL - who exactly started this thread crying about how nasty the world
is, Menno?
Don't project your issues on to me.
>> Oh yes VERY fucking polite, and so carefully couched to indicate that
>> he isn't sure of his facts. Menno, you look stupid. *REALLY* stupid
>> :)
>
>Are you really comparing this "Liar" to the dungheap you have been
>spreading on
>everybody who has the good sense to disagree with you? Perhaps
>personal abuse is OK if YOU are doing it?
>
Once again you refuse to acknowledge that DTJ is as guilty as anyone
in this group of flinging shit. If you don't like it then spread your
condemnation where it belongs. How about you start with people who
call others "fuckwits" and then invent daughters to try and make some
kind of point. Hypocrite.
>> Why don't you call me a fuckwit again - that was pretty funny!
>
>No point in stating the obvious.
>
See above, "dungheap". LOL.
>Cheers/2,
>Menno
David Sutherland
<djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>Irv Spalten wrote:
>
>
>>
>>>Now Ryan Gordon does not read this newsgroup unless I'm very much
>>>mistaken. Unless David S told Ryan where this discussion was taking
>>>place, Mr. Ryan had no way to verify exactly what was said.
>>
>>
>> Was it really important what info was sent to him by either party? His
>> response is what was important. It refuted DTJ 'assumptions'.
>
>Liar. Ryan did not 'refute' any of my assumptions.
How interesting that Menno thinks he did. Perhaps you two need to
talk?
LOL.
Curtis Bass
> Hello World,
>
> However much David Sutherland would have liked me to do so, I did not
> respond to David S' utterings because I wanted to defend some point
> David Johnson was making.
By attacking David Sutherland debate style and refusing to acknowledge
DTJ's debate style, you are, in essence, defending _all_ of the claims
that DTJ was making.
> I was annoyed at David Sutherland.
Cope.
> What he did was to take a message, twist its meaning, and send
> that twisted result to Ryan Gordon.
How do you know? No, you _assume_ that to be the case. Remember,
Sutherland was the first to contact Gordon, and Sutherland posted
Gordon's response verbatim. It was _after_ this exchange that DTJ
took it upon himself to contact Gordon subsequently. Now, what would
be the purpose of DTJ's follow up contact, if not as an attempt to
discredit Sutherland's contact? It's interesting that DTJ did _not_
post Gordon's response verbatim, but gave us a paraphrase instead:
"I emailed Ryan and he very kindly replied to me that he
worked on the 64-bit port of America's Army but has not
worked on 64-bit AA since and does not know anything about
GameStorm, so I guess we are all still waiting to see what
GameStorm is doing." DTJ 10-31-2003
Notice what DTJ is claiming: Gordon _did_ work on the 64-bit port of
AA "once upon a time", but hasn't worked on it _since._ The
implication here is that "since" the time that Gordon did the 64-bit
port, somebody may have modified AA in order to make it work with the
GameStorm "technology" (as DTJ tends to phrase it). This, combined
with DTJ's subsequent claim ("[Gordon] does not know anything about
GameStorm"), suggests that the GameStorm "version" of 64-bit AA may,
in fact, _not_ be identical to the version that Gordon originally
produced.
Like I said, the reason DTJ contacted Gordon was simply to further his
own "we don't know nuthin' about GameStorm" agenda, completely
ignoring (and "discrediting") the evidence that Sutherland originally
obtained from Gordon wrt 64-bit AA in the process.
If these observations are taken into consideration, it allows us to
look at what Sutherland subsequently said with a new perspective:
"Rather than wait for your refusal to answer, I went straight
to the source and told him that you claim he knows nothing
about Gamestorm, nor the 64-bit version of AA that they are
using." DS 11-01-2003
Pay close attention to that last phrase: "the 64-bit version of AA
_that_ _they_ _are_ _using_". Remember that the "they" is GameStorm.
Sutherland was _not_ referring to the version that Gordon originally
created, necessarily, but the (potentially) modified version that
GameStorm was using in their product.
Considering that we have no earthly idea how DTJ may have
misrepresented Sutherland to Gordon, considering that there was no
real reason for DTJ to have contacted Gordon in the first place
(except as an attempt to discredit Sutherland's original contact),
considering DTJ's overall recalcitrant debate style, and finally,
considering the above analysis, your complaints against Sutherland are
vastly overblown.
-- [snip of response to Marty] --
> Another observation: I write infrastructure designs for a living. I
> know a thing or two about communication in writing. It is extremely
> difficult to convey a message to people not familiar with the subject,
> even to a knowledgable person. When one of the parties actually wants
> to prove that the other is a cockroach of some sort, you may as well
> go home.
Noted. It's interesting that you pontificate on "know[ing] a thing or
two about communication in writing", and accuse Sutherland of being
careless in his reading, when it appears that you were potentially
just as careless as you accuse Sutherland of being.
> That is the situation in this newsgroup now. Nobody cares about what
> DTJ is saying, but by $PANTHEON, they will prove it wrong!
That's just it, Menno. It's not a question of "proving" DTJ "wrong",
but simply illustrating his dismal track record of making outrageous
claims without bothering to backing them up with anything more
substantial than "wild speculations" and wishful thinking. That isn't
a very effective method of advocacy.
> There's a whole history about how it got to be that way, but it's
> not good for business.
Yes, there is a "whole history", and most of the onus is on DTJ.
Interesting how you gloss over that point. You should take your "not
good for business" lecture to DTJ, since he seems to be in the
"business" of advocating OS/2. Like I have already observed, his
methods are indeed "not good for business".
> This whole "Death blow for DirectX" business is a good example. I
> think GameStorm is a good sign for OS/2 users (and basically any
> non-Windows user). So does DTJ. So do others. But damn and blast, this
> is DTJ saying it!
No, what he is saying is that DirectX is dead. Period. He has
repeated this absurd claim, and has repeatedly told us to "deal with
it". Well, that's what we are doing, Menno, dealing with DTJ's absurd
claims. If you don't like Sutherland's methods, well, who cares,
frankly? I doubt very much that Sutherland "likes" DTJ's methods. I
know I don't.
> So instead of concentrating on why GameStorm is good
> news, people start kicking DTJ for overstating his case.
And _you_ start kicking _them_ for pointing out that DTJ has made
stupid claims.
> Facts about the technology picked up along the way are not used
> for enlightenment, but as ammo against DTJ.
What utter nonsense. It's DTJ that provokes being "fired upon" by his
recalcitrance; if DTJ would simply acknowledge evidence (rather than
pretend it doesn't exist or doesn't apply), there would be little
reason to repeat the "salvos". It isn't our fault if DTJ flat refuses
to be enlightened.
> If you've gotten in the habit of seeing someone as "The Enemy", you
> want to project all things evil on them. And that may blind you to
> positive things that come from their direction.
Kind of like what you're doing with Sutherland, eh?
> The only people laughing about this are the Wintrolls.
Yes, the OS/2 trolls admittedly have little to laugh about, DTJ's
insipid <laugh>s notwithstanding.
Curtis
Sten Solberg
> Sten Solberg wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 21:21:18 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I challenged Sten to enumerate Johnson's
> >>hypotheses so that I could debunk them individually. He declined based
> >>on his lack of technical savy.
> >
> > Inaccurate, Marty. I declined based on my lack of technical savvy.
>
> Am I missing something? (besides a "v")?
General orderliness? Just guessing :)
No, it was only the inaccurate spelling this time - and I am of course only
taking it up because you brought my name into a less than accurate claim.
Speaking of spelling: if you must use Latin, why not use it correctly, as in 'ad
nauseam'? Just because Sutherland is getting it consistently wrong, you don't
have to trust him on this (either).
> >>I challenged Johnson himself, who is too
> >>much of a coward to respond directly.
> >
> > This is as good an illustration as any of procjections breeding dislike and
> > distrust around here. Why not heed your own advice the other day and stick to
> > facts?
>
> Projections? That's interesting, given that I'm the one who is directly
> challenging what Johnson is saying and Johnson is the one making
> back-handed personal comments through responses to other people about
> me.
Yes, he is, but very seldom compared to you about him - at least over the 4+
years I have been here. Or so it seems to me. I trust you can whip out some
posting statistics proving me correct.
> I've stuck to the facts. Johnson has fled from them.
Given your history, 'fleeing' isn't exactly the first alternative that comes to
(my) mind. Try _contempt. It's probably mutual, so it should be easy.
> > And while I'm at it: why you would want to try to defend a notorious
> > heckler like Sutherland is beyond me.
>
> I feel likewise about yourself WRT Johnson. Sutherland has the facts
> and some grounding in reality on his side in this discussion. Johnson
> has nothing but speculation (most or all of which has been proven
> incorrect)
At least David came up with a pretext for knocking Direct-X, which is
something... :)
BTW, if Gamestorm is 'just' 64-bit plus a bootable (Linux) CD, CGI's blurb can't
be merely an exaggerated advertisement, but rather a bundle of outright lies?
Or have I missed something again?
> and barbs.
Compared to whom? Sutherland? GMAB.
David T. Johnson
We don't know anything yet about 64-bit AA running on GameStorm, which
was the topic. We can infer some of the details based on what Ryan said
about the 64-bit port of AA before it was passed on to SCI but that is
all we can do as of today. I would expect to see more coming out about
GameStorm along with a release of the GameStorm AA in a very short time,
though, so that will give us some more to discuss.
>
> You made a number of claims about 64-bit AA that are in direct
> contradiction of the known facts, and now you deny ever having said
> any of it? Just how stupid do you believe everyone to be
Liar. I didn't make any claims about 64-bit America's Army running on
GameStorm because the details of it were, and are, unknown. You have
been told that many times.
>
> It's also typical that you would claim that the mail from Ryan is only
> "alleged". Are you going to take Menno to task next for making a fuss
> about a mail that you are now implying never existed?
Based on what Ryan has told me, your email sounds reasonable but I
consider any such thing posted by you to be highly suspect. You are
simply not a reliable source of information because you have no integrity.
>
>
>>> Thanks for
>>>admitting it.
>>
>>Thanks for admitting that you have a *wooden* head.
>>
>
>
> Where did I say that?
There...you said it again. Okay, to be strictly accurate, you only
indicated that. But let's settle the issue. David, do you know that
you have a wooden head?
[Sutherland's answer about his wooden head goes here]
>
> Menno, this is your chance to pipe up about putting words in other
> people mouths. Like *that's* going to happen.
>
>
>
>>>The real problem though, is that you continued to insist that your
>>>speculations were true *after* all the evidence was presented that
>>>showed that you were wildly off-base.
>>
>>I have never insisted that any of my speculations were true or not true.
>> They are *speculations*! When the details of Gamestorm are finally
>>revealed, we can all post about it here then.
>>
>
>
> The details of 64-bit AA have already been revealed, and have already
> been posted here.
When the details of Gamestorm and 64-bit AA running on GameStorm are
finally revealed, we can all post about it here.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>He was indeed wrong, and he continued making the claim even after he
>>>>>was proven wrong. At that point he stops being wrong, and starts
>>>>>being a liar. Compound that with his dismissive hand-waving and
>>>>>silly "laugh" routine and you end up with a liar who belittles the
>>>>>people pointing out his mistakes.
>>>>
>>>>You have lied repeatedly and consistently about what has been said here.
>>>>The only 'claims' about America's Army that I made were what was in
>>>>the original press release for the GameStorm port of it.
>>>>http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3103154102.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Bullshit. You are a liar, as your own words prove. Go back and look
>>>at all the claims you made about this version of AA David, and how it
>>>differs from the 32-bit version. Then come back and apologise.
>>
>>But David, I didn't make any claims about 64-bit America's Army because
>>the details of it were, and are, unknown. You have been told that many
>>times. Most of the discussion has been about GameStorm, anyway, and not
>>about America's Army per se.
>>
>
>
> Another lie.
>
> Here's your list of claims again - note that they all revolve around
> the version of Americas Army bundled with Gamestorm:
>
> You claimed that 64-bit AA DOES NOT USE the same engine as the
> 32-bit version.
Liar. I said on October 22 here: "I don't care in the least if
America's Army uses the unreal engine or not. I merely point out that
it is not known yet." I didn't claim to have any information about
Gamestorm because the details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have
been told that many times.
>
> You claimed that 64-bit AA DOES NOT USE the same API as the 32-bit
> version.
Liar. I didn't claim to have any information about Gamestorm because
the details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have been told that
many times.
>
> You claimed that 64-bit AA has EXTRA FEATURES over the 32-bit
> version.
Liar. I didn't make any claims about 64-bit America's Army running on
GameStorm because the details of it were, and are, unknown. You have
been told that many times.
>
> You claimed that 64-bit AA DOES NOT REQUIRE HARDWARE
> SPECIFIC DRIVERS.
Liar. The details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have been told
that many times.
>
> You claimed that 64-bit AA DOES THE GRAPHICS IN THE CPU.
Liar. I speculated about that but I didn't claim to have any
information about Gamestorm because the details of Gamestorm are not
known yet. You have been told that many times.
>
> Any of those ring a bell, David?
...more like a k-nock, k-nock, k-nocking on your wooden head.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>[begin excerpts]
>>>>"It feels like a gaming console on steroids..."
>>>>""The fact that America's Army is available in 64-bit on the GameStorm
>>>>CD allows gamers to get a taste of the next generation of gaming...""
>>>>""With the AMD Athlon 64 processor and GameStorm technology, AMD is able
>>>>to showcase a fully-integrated 64-bit environment that delivers
>>>>performance and realism to the most demanding gamers," said Tim Wright,
>>>>director, desktop marketing, AMD Computation Products Group. "AMD64 will
>>>>revolutionize the gaming market by delivering immersive super-realistic
>>>>environments."
>>>>
>>>>[end excerpts]
>>>>etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>A PR release, upon which you built entire flights of fantasy.
>>
>>Flights of fantasy? Do you ever listen to yourself?
>>
>
>
> Do you ever read any of your own bullshit?
Flights of fantasy? Do you ever listen to yourself?
>
>
>>>THEY didn't claim any new features - YOU did.
>>
>>Liar. I didn't make any claims about 64-bit America's Army because the
>>details of it were, and are, unknown. You have been told that many times.
>>
>
>
> Yawn. David, when will you learn that you are only compounding your
> lies?
The lies are clearly authored by you.
> " It is the new 'gamestorm' 64-bit platform that apparently allows the
> bootable CD to provide a high-quality gaming experience without the
> need for the OpenGL and video drivers for specific hardware" - DTJ
>
> "the new 'gamestorm' 64-bit platform, whatever that is, which does not
> seem to be using OpenGL." - DTJ
>
> "If the new 'gamestorm' 64-bit platform can boot independently and run
> on any Opteron hardware without the need for special drivers" -DTJ
>
> "Obviously, the 'gamestorm' platform is doing something with 64-bit
> memory addressing that was not possible to do with 32-bit addressing"
>
> "When I read the Gamestorm story, my thought was that they are using
> the 64-bit Opteron CPU to do stuff that the video hardware would
> otherwise typically do on 32-bit systems. If so, the system would
> essentially run on any video hardware." - DTJ
>
> "You mistakenly seem to think that 'hardware' is always required" -
> DTJ (on not needing 3D hardware for 64-bit AA)
>
> "Also not a fact. The Opteron CPU is much more powerful than a
> typical graphics card GPU." - DTJ (again insisting that 64-bit AA
> doesn't need hardware acceleration)
>
> Your claims, David. These were not taken from the press release.
Yes. You messed up, though. Those 'claims' (which are speculations) of
mine that you listed above are all referring to 'GameStorm' while you
have attempted to attribute them to 'America's Army' which is a game and
not a platform. <laugh> GameStorm is a gaming platform that runs on
Linux, perhaps similar to the way that DirectX is a platform for games
that runs on Windows. We'll know quite soon when GameStorm is released.
Enjoy.
>
>
>>>THEY didn't claim you don't need hardware-specific drivers - YOU did.
>>
>>Liar. The details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have been told
>>that many times.
>>
>
>
> The requirements of 64-bit AA are known, David. And that *is* the
> game under discussion.
Then why are the quotes by me above that *you* provided saying
"GameStorm?" <laugh>
>
>
>>>THEY didn't claim the CPU was doing extra graphics work -YOU did.
>>
>>Liar. I speculated about that but I didn't claim to have any
>>information about Gamestorm because the details of Gamestorm are not
>>known yet. You have been told that many times.
>>
>
>
> And then you called people liars for pointing out that the 64-bit
> version of AA uses the same engine and API as the 32-bit version.
Liar. I said on October 22 here: "I don't care in the least if
America's Army uses the unreal engine or not. I merely point out that
it is not known yet." I didn't claim to have any information about
Gamestorm because the details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have
been told that many times.
> You
> also claimed that the 64-bit version did things that the 32-bit
> version cannot - but you never could prove any of your crap, could
> you? LOL.
Liar. I didn't make any claims about 64-bit America's Army running on
GameStorm because the details of it were, and are, unknown. You have
been told that many times.
>
>
>>>THEY didn't claim it was built around a new game engine - YOU did.
>>
>>Liar. I said on October 22 here: "I don't care in the least if
>>America's Army uses the unreal engine or not. I merely point out that
>>it is not known yet."
>
>
> But it *IS* known, David. It is a lie to claim otherwise.
Note that the date of the comment preceded the additional information
provided by Ryan. Liar. I said on October 22 here: "I don't care in
the least if America's Army uses the unreal engine or not. I merely
point out that it is not known yet." But let me update this comment for
your and any others with *wooden heads*. I don't care in the least if
America's Army uses the unreal engine or not. I merely point out that
the details of America's Army running on GameStorm are not known yet,
although it appears likely that it uses the unreal engine, based on
Ryan's comments.
>
>
>>I didn't claim to have any information about
>>Gamestorm because the details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have
>>been told that many times.
>>
>
>
> You know very little about anything, and you have proven it very
> convincingly.
It's hard to be an expert on GameStorm, David, when the details have not
yet been released as you have been told many times. I will begin
keeping a count of how many times you need to be told that *fact* before
it penetrates through your wooden head. k-nock, knock...
>
>
>>>THEY didn't claim it was using a new API - YOU did.
>>
>>Liar. I didn't claim to have any information about Gamestorm because
>>the details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have been told that
>>many times.
>>
>
>
> Yawn. Denial of reality does not change reality.
The details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have been told that
many times. One of these days, though, you are going to have an
epiphany wherein your face will animate with awareness, your eyes will
light up with a new understanding, and words will spring forth from your
mouth (and keyboard) in which you utter: 'The details of GameStorm are
not known yet!!!' K-nock, knock...
>
>
>>>Do you see a pattern here?
>>
>><laugh> See above.
>>
>
>
> "<laugh>" I did :)
The details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have been told that
many times. One of these days, though, you are going to have an
epiphany wherein your face will animate with awareness, your eyes will
light up with a new understanding, and words will spring forth from your
mouth (and keyboard) in which you utter: 'The details of GameStorm are
not known yet!!!' K-nock, knock...
>
>
>>>If you wish to retract your claims in light of what you have
>>>subsequently learnt, then do so. Continuing your claims in the face
>>>of all the evidence makes you a liar.
>>
>>See above.
>>
>
>
> See above.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>>Anything in particular wrong with speculations? For instance, I could
>>>>>>paint several pictures of how the Opteron's 64-bit features might in
>>>>>>some way be exploited by OS/2. I could well make some assumptions
>>>>>>first, only to find out later that they were wrong. Whereupon we sigh
>>>>>>"Oh well... Shame." and get on with life as we know it. I would
>>>>>>personally be very careful to label assumptions as such, though. We're
>>>>>>among fsckin word lawyers here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nothing wrong with speculating, but to insist that your speculations
>>>>>are the truth after evidence is presented that shows those
>>>>>speculations are wrong is dishonest, and stupid.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Note: no response.
>>
>>Note: who cares?
>>
>
>
> You do, obviously. Otherwise why did you respond?
<laugh>
>
>
>>>
>>>>>>>- Having no additional features in the core code means there can be no
>>>>>>>additional features for the whole product, no matter how it is packaged
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hmm. Not a whole lot, I grant. You can do something with packaging,
>>>>>>but making an old game use new hardware features is probably
>>>>>>difficult. In Gamestorm's case, you could add a driver for a hitherto
>>>>>>not supported piece of hardware. The game would still not use any new
>>>>>>hardware features, but at least it would use the new hardware to do
>>>>>>its old things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So why did DTJ claim that Ryan was not qualified to comment on the
>>>>>features of 64-bit AA simply because he wasn't directly involved with
>>>>>SCI and the Gamestorm bundle?
>>>>
>>>>Apparently the only way you can carry on a discussion is by stuffing
>>>>words into the mouths of your targets.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hypocrite. How many times have I pointed out this very thing from you
>>>in the Direct X thread?
>>
>>Apparently the only way you can carry on a discussion is by stuffing
>>words into the mouths of your targets.
>>
>
>
> LOL - I notice you don't address my point :)
I notice that you didn't acknowledge your word-stuffing. Until you come
clean on that, your credibility will be zero. K-nock.
>
>
>>>
>>>>Your word-stuffing has reached
>>>>new depths of depravity here. I have never claimed that Ryan was not
>>>>qualified to comment on the features of 64-bit AA and I did not question
>>>>Ryan's alleged claim (posted by you) about the use of the Unreal engine.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>LOL - so explain this:
>>>
>>>"I emailed Ryan and he very kindly replied to me that he worked on the
>>>64-bit port of America's Army but has not worked on 64-bit AA since
>>>and does not know anything about GameStorm, so I guess we are all
>>>still waiting to see what GameStorm is doing."
>>>
>>>How does any of that begin to refute the facts presented about the
>>>64-bit version of AA?
>>
>>But David, I didn't present any "facts" about the 64-bit version of AA
>>running on GameStorm because the details of it are not yet known.
>
>
> The details of the 64-bit version of AA are known. They person
> responsible for porting it to 64-bits has spoken.
The details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have been told that
many times. One of these days, though, you are going to have an
epiphany wherein your face will animate with awareness, your eyes will
light up with a new understanding, and words will spring forth from your
mouth (and keyboard) in which you utter: 'The details of GameStorm are
not known yet!!!' K-nock, knock...
>
>
>>You
>>have been told that many times before but you apparently have a *wooden
>>head*. My fault for not recognizing that sooner.
>>
>
>
> Feel free to quit arguing then. In the meantime your stupidity and
> lies are open to public scrutiny.
The details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have been told that
many times. One of these days, though, you are going to have an
epiphany wherein your face will animate with awareness, your eyes will
light up with a new understanding, and words will spring forth from your
mouth (and keyboard) in which you utter: 'The details of GameStorm are
not known yet!!!' K-nock, knock...
>
>
>>> We know exactly what has been done to the
>>>64-bit version of AA bundled on Gamestorm, David: nothing.
>>
>>No, we don't know because the details of 64-bit AA running on Gamestorm
>>are not yet known.
>
>
> The details of 64-bit AA are already known. Deny it all you like, but
> the truth is self-evident.
The details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have been told that
many times. One of these days, though, you are going to have an
epiphany wherein your face will animate with awareness, your eyes will
light up with a new understanding, and words will spring forth from your
mouth (and keyboard) in which you utter: 'The details of GameStorm are
not known yet!!!' K-nock, knock...
>
>
>>You have been told that many times before but you
>>apparently have a *wooden head*. My fault for not recognizing that
>>sooner.
>>
>
>
> Repeating yourself? Again?
The details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have been told that
many times. One of these days, though, you are going to have an
epiphany wherein your face will animate with awareness, your eyes will
light up with a new understanding, and words will spring forth from your
mouth (and keyboard) in which you utter: 'The details of GameStorm are
not known yet!!!' K-nock, knock...
>
>
>>>
>>>>I personally asked Ryan about the details of GameStorm and when it might
>>>>appear and his reply was:
>>>>
>>>>Ryan> "I don't really know about GameStorm or the distribution of it..."
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That doesn't mean he knows nothing about it, as you claimed, and it
>>>certainly doesn't mean he knows nothing about 64-bit AA as you
>>>desperately tried to imply.
>>
>>Well, Sir Wooden head, you would at least have to agree that Ryan is not
>>attempting to present himself as a GameStorm expert. <laugh>
>>
>
> I never claimed he was? What was that about stuffing words in the
> mouths of others? "<laugh>"
"He also knows exactly what Gamestorm is, which is in direct opposition
to your claims that he knew nothing about it."--David Sutherland--1
November 2003 in 'Icculus speaks...' thread.
>
> Hey Menno, another one for you to ignore!
>
>
>>>You *cannot* argue with Ryan's statements about 64-bit AA and it's
>>>capabilities compared to the 32-bit version,
>>
>>No, of course not. Why would I want to? I have no idea what Ryan said
>>to you
>
>
> You have *some* idea because I presented some of those words.
<laugh> See above.
> In
> particular the ones that proved your claims about 64-bit AA were
> utterly unfounded.
>
>
>>but it certainly seems obvious that he has worked on AA. Unlike
>>you, my only interest is finding out what the details of GameStorm and
>>64-bit AA are when they become available because I am interested in what
>>they are doing.
>>
>
>
> You are only interested in finding out the capabilities when it's
> released?
At this point, yes. There is little else to do in the absence of
specific information about it, other than speculate about its features,
capabilities, and effects on DirectX. I have already suggested that it
will be a death blow to DirectX.
> After all th the hours you have spent posting about those
> capabilities this is an *absurd* claim to make!
Look at all of the time you have spent denying that the details of
GameStorm are not known. <laugh> You are becoming famous, here. K-nock.
>
>
>>>so instead you tried to
>>>make it seem like the Gamestorm version was something different.
>>
>>This is kind of a weak statement from you. I am surprised that you
>>didn't just say that I 'claimed' about it rather than 'make it seem like'.
>>
>
>
> Why?
>
>
>>> You
>>>did this in the full knowledge that they are the same
>>
>>The details of the 64-bit AA running on Gamestorm are not yet available.
>> You have been told this many times previously.
>>
>
>
> The details of 64-bit AA are known, David. It's a fact.
The details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have been told that
many times. One of these days, though, you are going to have an
epiphany wherein your face will animate with awareness, your eyes will
light up with a new understanding, and words will spring forth from your
mouth (and keyboard) in which you utter: 'The details of GameStorm are
not known yet!!!' K-nock, knock..
>
>
>>- and *this* is
>>
>>>what makes you a liar.
>>
>>Liar.
>>
>
>
> LOL.
>
>
>>>
>>>>Ryan has also never claimed otherwise, in the two emails that are
>>>>allegedly from him that you have posted here. It is only you who try to
>>>>infuse him with some sort of insider knowledge about GameStorm. That is
>>>>a cold, hard lie on your part.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I have never suggested he has inside knowledge of Gamestorm - quite
>>>the opposite in fact. I challenge you to present the text where I
>>>have claimed that Ryan has inside knowledge of anything beyond the
>>>64-bit port of AA.
>>
>><laugh> That's easy: "He also knows exactly what Gamestorm is, which is
>>in direct opposition to your claims that he knew nothing about it."
>>--David Sutherland--1 November 2003 in 'Icculus speaks...' thread.
>>
>
>
> Which is not the same thing as having insider knowledge. After all
> *you* have claimed to know what Gamestorm is, too.
I have certainly never claimed to know "exactly" what GameStorm is. The
details of Gamestorm are not known yet. You have been told that
many times. One of these days, though, you are going to have an
epiphany wherein your face will animate with awareness, your eyes will
light up with a new understanding, and words will spring forth from your
mouth (and keyboard) in which you utter: 'The details of GameStorm are
not known yet!!!' K-nock, knock..
> I am most
> certainly *not* implying that you have insider knowledge!
>
> If that's your "evidence" then it is up to your usual standards -
> nothing but a strawman.
You wish...<laugh>
>
>
>>>You can't because you are lying - again. Pathetic.
>>
>>Liar. See above.
>
>
> I just did, and I did not claim that Ryan has inside knowledge - only
> that he knows what it is.
<laugh> "He also knows exactly what Gamestorm is, which is
in direct opposition to your claims that he knew nothing about it."
--David Sutherland--1 November 2003 in 'Icculus speaks...' thread.
>
> Menno, this is where you step in and rant about stuffing words in
> peoples mouths. ROTFL.
I'll limit myself to stuffing your own quotes into your mouth. So,
David, when are you going to come clean about your word-stuffing?
>
>
>>>Talk about twisting peoples words, and trying to stuff words in the
>>>mouths of others. Of course Menno will remain completely silent on
>>>this.
>>
>><laugh>
>>
>
> See above.
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>My only interest here is to discuss and comment on interesting new
>>>>technology and I am not here selling anything. I don't know why you
>>>>are carrying on a thread about myself rather than more technical topics
>>>>but I can only presume that it is because you found my comments both
>>>>credible and threatening in some way and therefore feel the need to
>>>>attack and repudiate them via your word-stuffing tactics and lies.
>>>>Fortunately for our side, truth is a more effective tactic than those
>>>>used by you.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>You are a liar, Johnson, and as long as you continue to post
>>>inflammatory threads and lie in post after post, I and others will
>>>call you on it.
>>
>>You are *proven* to be a liar. See above.
>>
>>
>>>Get used to it.
>>
>>Get used to having your 'arguments' eviscerated and spending all of your
>>time throwing dirt out of the hole that you find yourself in.
>
>
> Whatever. I don't see too many people who agree with your claims
> about Gamestorm.
Now, you need your helpers to jump in to support you because your claims
about GameStorm have gone down 'in flames.' <laugh> GameStorm is
coming David, and Microsoft is going to have to deal with it unless they
can get SCO to shut the distribution down or something. DirectX is dead
if they can't, and you all know that. Posting a lot of silly nonsense
on usenet will not change that.
> I don;t see many people lumping me in with the
> FUD4 - that would be you "<laugh>".
>
> Get used to being ridiculed FUD'ster.
Apparently, ridicule is the primary weapon in your 'flames of fantasy'
nonsense. K-nock.
David Sutherland
wrote:
>Hello World,
>
>On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 03:46:38 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> All of the "good info" is coming from the person you just lambasted.
>
>Actually, no. The "good info" came from Ryan Gordon. David S was just
>the messenger. And loads and loads of bad info also came from David S,
>so he owed us some good stuff too.
>
Ryan did not post any information to this group. And I'd appreciate
seeing a list of that "bad info" that you claim I've posted. Which
of the facts that I have introduced as evidence was wrong?
>> You've also chided us both for taking an "anti-Johnson" stance, when
>> really all we've done is take issue with the preposterous nature of what
>> he's been stating (and repeating ad nauseum). But now you're saying
>> that it was all worth it anyway. Guess there's no pleasing some people.
>
>Maybe all those swearwords and insults in David S' and others' posts
>gave me the wrong impression.
>
That is rich coming from the person calling others "fuckwit".
>> >>2] This behavior is one-sided and not being returned by Johnson
>> >
>> > This is a newsgroup in conflict. Who starts it is less important than
>> > who stops it.
>>
>> Rarely does anyone ever stop it. One party usually just persists until
>> the others no longer have the energy or desire to counter it. That's
>> not "ending it". David S's response from Ryan should have ended it but
>> Johnson can't accept facts or is failing to apply them to what he's stated.
>
>If I see another post from DTJ where he disputes any of Ryan's claims,
>I'll be sure to knock him on the head for it. Fair's fair, Ryan is da
>man here.
>
==
Subject: Re: Menno's responses and what is wrong with them
From: "David T. Johnson" <djoh...@isomedia.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 14:37:00 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <vqqrul6...@corp.supernews.com>
[snip]
Liar. Ryan did not 'refute' any of my assumptions.
[snip]
==
I'm waiting for you to respond to him, Menno. He is flatly stating
that Ryan's words did not refute a single one of his "assumptions".
Not only that, but he's displaying more of that politeness you have
been praising him for....
But I think you'll ignore that, because that would force you to
confront the truth about your little bit of spleen-venting: it's all
about what you feel towards me, and nothing to do with the facts of
the case.
[rest snipped]
David Sutherland
wrote:
>On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 04:12:49 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
>> For Johnson to continue claiming that "we don't know what GameStorm
>> uses" in spite of all of the facts that have been presented, equates (in
>> my book) to him making a claim that it doesn't use the means that DS has
>> presented.
>
>We now do know that AA uses OpenGL thanks to Ryan.
DTJ knows no such thing:
==
Subject: Re: Menno's responses and what is wrong with them
From: "David T. Johnson" <djoh...@isomedia.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 14:37:00 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <vqqrul6...@corp.supernews.com>
[snip]
Liar. Ryan did not 'refute' any of my assumptions.
[snip]
==
You are mistaken if you think that DTJ has conceded *anything* that he
has claimed. If you weren't such a hypocrite you would be on his
case over this.
> What we still do
>not know is what drivers are in Gamestorm and what they are doing. If
>we could find that out, we could put to rest some more of DTJ's
>speculations.
>
Look at his response above, and think about what it shows about the
way DTJ thinks and responds to evidence.
>> While in its purest form, this conclusion is a logical
>> fallacy, when viewed through the spectacles of reality Johnson has
>> completely discounted the known facts and, in effect, stated that he
>> knows what it GameStorm "isn't".
>
>Hmm. DTJ will stop disputing against facts when he trusts the person
>putting them forward. DTJ doesn't trust David S, so "facts" presented
>by David S with no proof, or no sufficient proof, to back them up will
>not convince DTJ.
>
Wrong. Well, right, but also wrong. DTJ doesn't believe me, but
then he doesn't believe anyone else either.
He certainly continues to maintain that nothing Ryan said disproves
any of his claims.
==
Subject: Re: Menno's responses and what is wrong with them
From: "David T. Johnson" <djoh...@isomedia.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 14:37:00 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <vqqrul6...@corp.supernews.com>
[snip]
Liar. Ryan did not 'refute' any of my assumptions.
[snip]
==
Explain this for me, Menno, if DTJ is such a reasonable fellow as you
like to paint him :)
>> Johnson's claims that Ryan doesn't have enough information to rule out
>> his speculations is of a similar vein. Ryan presented enough
>> information, but Johnson refused to see that it ruled out his
>> speculations, and hence, is basically claiming that Ryan knows nothing
>> about GameStorm. (That's the only logical way Johnson's argument could
>> be potentially correct.)
>
>Note that AFTER the "Icculus Speeeks" post, David no longer disputed
>the facts offered by Mr. Gordon.
ROTFLMAO!!! Are you smoking crack?
==
Subject: Re: Menno's responses and what is wrong with them
From: "David T. Johnson" <djoh...@isomedia.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 14:37:00 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <vqqrul6...@corp.supernews.com>
[snip]
Liar. Ryan did not 'refute' any of my assumptions.
[snip]
==
Is *that* your definition of "not disputing the facts"? He doesn't
just dispute them, he labels as liars anyone who suggests that he was
proven wrong by them in any way whatsoever!
Your continued refusal to face the facts makes you look as bad as him.
As does your continued ignorance of his actions.
>Some of the points he was making had
>everything to do with the Gamestorm bundling, which was not addressed
>by Mr. Gordon. Others had more to do with the political implications
>of the AA/Gamestorm product, which is probably too soft even to
>"disprove".
>
How clever of you to ignore all the claims that revolved *directly*
around the 64-bit version of America's Army. Guess those claims just
kind of slipped your mind, huh? Do you think people are stupid,
Menno?
>> Whether or not you agree with that derivation, it's ultimately
>> irrelevant to the point DS was making.
>
>David S cried "victory" too soon. Ryan only knocked over DTJ's points
>for the game. Which DTJ did not acknowledge in so many words, but at
>least he did not repeat them.
See above. According to him you are a liar, too. Welcome to the club
:)
>He's still hammering on the points *not*
>addressed by Mr. Ryan and will only be silenced by positive proof
>right from SCI on what Gamestorm actually does and which drivers are
>included there. A web link will do nicely. An email from some person
>at SCI with some straight answers will also be fine (anyone got an
>address?).
Try google. You should check out their website anyway - you will see
that they are not writing drivers for a living.
>Simply dismissing his statements as "made by a known liar"
>doesn't cut it with me, nor should it with anyone else.
>
Nobody did that - certainly not me. If you bothered to read the thread
- and you obviously haven't given your lack of knowledge about what
was presented and when - you will see a great many links to external
evidence was presented.
>I think I will keep following the discussion after all. I may be able
>to point out more "facts" that aren't Facts.
>
How lovely for you. Perhaps you'll consider being less biased and
emotional as you do?
>Cheers/2,
>Menno.
Menno
cmba...@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote in message news:<163715e7.03111...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > What he did was to take a message, twist its meaning, and send
> > that twisted result to Ryan Gordon.
>
> How do you know? No, you _assume_ that to be the case. Remember,
> Sutherland was the first to contact Gordon, and Sutherland posted
> Gordon's response verbatim. It was _after_ this exchange that DTJ
> took it upon himself to contact Gordon subsequently. Now, what would
> be the purpose of DTJ's follow up contact, if not as an attempt to
Well, the phrase "I wouldn't trust $PERSON if he told me the sky was
blue" springs to mind. DTJ wanted to know for certain that Ryan was
who David S claimed him to be, and maybe ask some questions of his
own. After that (as far as I'm aware, please point out if I'm wrong),
DTJ didn't deny the claims made by Ryan on AA anymore, so I must
assume that he got the confirmation he wanted.
> discredit Sutherland's contact? It's interesting that DTJ did _not_
> post Gordon's response verbatim, but gave us a paraphrase instead:
>
> "I emailed Ryan and he very kindly replied to me that he
> worked on the 64-bit port of America's Army but has not
> worked on 64-bit AA since and does not know anything about
> GameStorm, so I guess we are all still waiting to see what
> GameStorm is doing." DTJ 10-31-2003
>
> Notice what DTJ is claiming: Gordon _did_ work on the 64-bit port of
> AA "once upon a time", but hasn't worked on it _since._ The
> implication here is that "since" the time that Gordon did the 64-bit
> port, somebody may have modified AA in order to make it work with the
> GameStorm "technology" (as DTJ tends to phrase it). This, combined
> with DTJ's subsequent claim ("[Gordon] does not know anything about
> GameStorm"), suggests that the GameStorm "version" of 64-bit AA may,
> in fact, _not_ be identical to the version that Gordon originally
> produced.
I must admit this angle hadn't occurred to me yet. Thank you for
pointing it out.
> Like I said, the reason DTJ contacted Gordon was simply to further his
> own "we don't know nuthin' about GameStorm" agenda, completely
> ignoring (and "discrediting") the evidence that Sutherland originally
> obtained from Gordon wrt 64-bit AA in the process.
>
> If these observations are taken into consideration, it allows us to
> look at what Sutherland subsequently said with a new perspective:
>
> "Rather than wait for your refusal to answer, I went straight
> to the source and told him that you claim he knows nothing
> about Gamestorm, nor the 64-bit version of AA that they are
> using." DS 11-01-2003
>
> Pay close attention to that last phrase: "the 64-bit version of AA
> _that_ _they_ _are_ _using_". Remember that the "they" is GameStorm.
> Sutherland was _not_ referring to the version that Gordon originally
> created, necessarily, but the (potentially) modified version that
> GameStorm was using in their product.
If you look at it like that, I must admit you have a point. I still
think it would have been better for DS to leave DTJ out of the message
altogether, but at least it becomes reasonable to mention why you are
following up. Touche' Mr. Bass.
> Considering that we have no earthly idea how DTJ may have
> misrepresented Sutherland to Gordon, considering that there was no
> real reason for DTJ to have contacted Gordon in the first place
> (except as an attempt to discredit Sutherland's original contact),
> considering DTJ's overall recalcitrant debate style, and finally,
> considering the above analysis, your complaints against Sutherland are
> vastly overblown.
The misrepresentation complaint, yes. Your explanations are
reasonable.
> > So instead of concentrating on why GameStorm is good
> > news, people start kicking DTJ for overstating his case.
>
> And _you_ start kicking _them_ for pointing out that DTJ has made
> stupid claims.
Hm. Small point here. I was kicking them not for pointing things out,
but for what I perceived were flaws in their methods. For instance,
DTJ didn't accept as evidence some URLs he was given about Mesa 3D,
but the fact that OpenGL was used in AA was not in those web pages.
> > Facts about the technology picked up along the way are not used
> > for enlightenment, but as ammo against DTJ.
>
> What utter nonsense. It's DTJ that provokes being "fired upon" by his
> recalcitrance; if DTJ would simply acknowledge evidence (rather than
> pretend it doesn't exist or doesn't apply), there would be little
> reason to repeat the "salvos". It isn't our fault if DTJ flat refuses
> to be enlightened.
Much would depend on the quality of the evidence. "Public knowledge"
may turn out not to be so public after all. Sometimes, people need
more explanation of "obvious" facts. Providing an explanation, as you
have done above, is more effective (against me, at least) than a
tirade of abuse.
> > If you've gotten in the habit of seeing someone as "The Enemy", you
> > want to project all things evil on them. And that may blind you to
> > positive things that come from their direction.
>
> Kind of like what you're doing with Sutherland, eh?
Well, not completely blind. I enjoyed reading the webpages he was
pointing to. They were interesting.
Cheers/2,
Menno
David Sutherland
wrote:
>"Menno Willemse" <fle...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message news:<38U3B8UtR3Mx-pn2-1BzMikHLydYl@vivace>...
>> Hello World,
>>
>> However much David Sutherland would have liked me to do so, I did not
>> respond to David S' utterings because I wanted to defend some point
>> David Johnson was making.
>
>By attacking David Sutherland debate style and refusing to acknowledge
>DTJ's debate style, you are, in essence, defending _all_ of the claims
>that DTJ was making.
>
>> I was annoyed at David Sutherland.
>
>Cope.
>
>> What he did was to take a message, twist its meaning, and send
>> that twisted result to Ryan Gordon.
>
>How do you know? No, you _assume_ that to be the case. Remember,
>Sutherland was the first to contact Gordon, and Sutherland posted
>Gordon's response verbatim. It was _after_ this exchange that DTJ
>took it upon himself to contact Gordon subsequently. Now, what would
>be the purpose of DTJ's follow up contact, if not as an attempt to
>discredit Sutherland's contact? It's interesting that DTJ did _not_
>post Gordon's response verbatim, but gave us a paraphrase instead:
>
Correct, and DTJ has still not presented the exact text of his
message, despite being asked to do so repeatedly. It rather makes
one wonder what he's hiding.
Does Menno take him to task for this, or berate him for saying things
about me secretly? Nope. That is something he reserves for me, and
he even goes to considerable lengths to invent even nastier things I
*might* have said in order to smear me. Apparently DTJ can do what
he likes, and even if it is the exact same thing that Menno accuses
me of, he will look the other way ignore it.
Does that sound like double standards to you? It sure does to me.
[snip]
Anyway, thanks for the support, Curtis. It's gratifying to see that
some people appreciate the effort I expend to try and back up my
arguments, and can see the bias (and frankly, malevolence) in Menno's
position.
David Sutherland
<djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
>David Sutherland wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> This is typical of your nonsense.
>>
>> The details of 64-bit AA *are* known - your pointless protestations to
>> the contrary are meaningless.
>>
>> We know what API it uses.
>> We know what engine it uses.
>> We know who wrote the engine.
>> We know who ported the engine to 64-bits.
>> We know what the features of that engine are.
>
>We don't know anything yet about 64-bit AA running on GameStorm, which
>was the topic.
David, you lost this argument a long time ago. Frankly, after this
post if even Menno isn't feeling embarrassed by you then I would be
greatly surprised. If you want to believe all your nonsense claims
about 64-bit AA then go right ahead. Just understand this: no one
else does.
[snip]
Menno Willemse
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 22:19:47 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > Still, no reason why one driver couldn't drive a number of different
> > cards. Actually, I'm pretty sure that this "generic driver" argument
> > of David's is doomed, but so far there hasn't been evidence that it
> > can't be done. Thinking about this: the difference between detecting a
> > card at boot time and loading the appropriate driver, and having one
> > driver that detects the card and takes appropriate action is pretty
> > slim.
>
> Actually, this is the easiest part of the process. PCI IDs make this
> process a no-brainer. It's having support for more than one card,
> without the manufacturer's help (remember ATI is the only manufacturer
> involved with GameStorm) is the problem. These interfaces are as
> proprietary to video card manufacturers as schematics of their GPUs.
> Personally I find this tact of video card makers a bit ridiculously
> paranoid, but that's the way it is, according to what I've gleaned from
> the good folks at Scitech.
Hm. So there's a political reason why it can't be done, and not a
technical one. I wonder why, actually. Probably afraid that the
Competitor will find out their tricks if the specs are too open.
> > Gamestorm will probably have something like Scitech's SNAP on
> > board, tailored for 3D graphics. (Yes folks, that's a SPECULATION and
> > it may not happen and work quite differently).
>
> It's an impossibility without video hardware manufacturers coming on
> board. So far only ATI has done so. In fact, the fact that one
> manufacturer is so closely involved with the package makes it LESS
> likely that other manufacturers will come on board.
Then Gamestorm will have to do with the drivers that are available.
> > eCS is now (with, it must be admitted, some initial stumblings) being
> > delivered electronically. Here in the .nl, you can hardly hear
> > yourself speak for the ADSL ads. Admittedly, there's lots of modem
> > warriors still at large, but broadband is coming. I got 700 Kb/sec of
> > ADSL goodness myself and I'm not going back :). Of course, the cost of
> > shipping out a fresh CD to people who ask for it, is also quite
> > manageable. Possibilities abound!
>
> Then I'm glad I got my copy of eCS 1.0 when it first came out and
> shipped with CDs. I've got a wonderful broadband connection (at home at
> least... on the road I've got this miserable dialup), but I don't have a
> CD burner.
The electronic delivery thing is probably complementary and not
replacing.
> I'm sure not going to get one just so I can purchase and use a product -
> let alone a game.
My PC came with a burner. Good for backup and carting around large
amounts of data.
> > [64-bit paradigm shift]
> >
> >>We've gone off on this tangent in this discussion already though.
> >>Johnson claimed that MS is missing a major paradigm shift to 64-bit
> >>computing, when, in fact, they're doing much better schedule-wise than
> >>they were during the shift to 32-bit computing by an order of magnitude.
> >>If they survived that slow and rocky shift to 32-bit, something tells
> >>me they'll be just fine moving to 64-bit.
> >
> > Maybe. I didn't say that it was a foregone conclusion and MS is
> > doomed, but it may be enough to shift the proportions of MS/non-MS to
> > a more agreeable proportion. Hell, if MS disappears, what would the
> > lamers start writing viruses for next?
>
> But if they're just booting off of these CDs, they don't have to change
> their base operating system, remember? So which way are we going to
> have it? If they're not booting off CDs then basically, they're running
> Linux, not GameStorm.
Linux users could install a Gamestorm game to disk and play it from
there, with all the advantages and disadvantages of that. Given that
Linux is better than Windows at keeping lusers out of the intricate
works, the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages. At the same
time, users of "alternative" operating systems would not be shut out.
They can still run the game.
> >>Also, not to rehash the point again, but what competetive advantage is
> >>offered by moving this game to a 64-bit platform?
> >
> > Bigger faster cooler? At the moment, AA-64 plays the same as the
> > 32-bit variant but there's no reason why this should stay that way.
> > For instance, your basic 64-bitter will have a bigger memory than your
> > average 32-bitter. Which means that you can "remember" a bigger
> > landscape or make the existing one more detailed. That this hasn't
> > happened yet doesn't mean that it can't/won't. If not for this game
> > then maybe for others.
>
> Here's why it won't:
> Remembering the landscape is not the problem. There are graphics cards
> with 128MB of RAM on them. To put that in perspective, that's 1/5 of a
> CD that can be in *video memory* at any given time.
Games do more than just rendering. What I meant was that you can keep
a larger landscape in memory: The objects. Where the trees and the
walls are. Where the NPCs are moving. The position of each door in the
game. In fact, you can keep the whole CD in memory. This means that
you won't have to load things from the CD after you've used them once.
You can instantly jump from one scene to the other.
<snippage>
> > I was more thinking of HTML, XML, IPV6 and other network related
> > protocols. If your e-Shop is going to piss off a lot of Linux users by
> > not working outside of Redmont, then you will think twice about making
> > it Windows-specific. This presupposes that you *have* a lot of Linux
> > users to piss off, though. Having nice Linux games will help in
> > obtaining such.
>
> That's a point, but only a point if we're not booting off of our
> GameStorm CDs and actually install Linux. In which case, GameStorm
> itself is not the driving force behind this goodness, but rather, Linux is.
True. But at least we have Linux games, even for people who don't have
Linux. I can't play a Windows game without installing Windows.
>
> > I did notice OS/2 mentioned on the Mesa 3D site, by the way, with
> > quite some recent code fixes:
> >
> > - http://mesa3d.org/README.OS2
>
> There is no hardware acceleration for Mesa on OS/2.
Bugger.
> > You may well be right, but I think the diversity here has lessened
> > somewhat. There are fewer hardware manufacturers than there used to be
> > and even then they often use the same chipsets. Because it's cheaper
> > to do it in a joint venture. I can have the drivers for all the
> > current video cards on my harddisk right here. A mere 29 MB.
>
> I disagree whole-heartedly. Back in the good old days, we had CGA, EGA,
> and VGA. Every card on the market conformed to one of those standards.
> When "accelerator" cards started coming on to the market in the early
> 90's, VESA standards came about just as quickly and demanded conformance.
Still, the number of card manufacturers is greater than the number of
chipsat makers. I wonder just how many different chipsets we have (in
the range capable of playing Quake 3). Not hundreds, surely? Scitech
lists 199 supported for OS/2, but that includes VGA so we need to cut
off the slowest ones.
> Unfortunately, it goes a bit beyond this. Johnson hates to admit when
> he was over-zealous and full of hot air. His "Death Blow" pronouncement
> was clearly in this category. Johnson's ego cannot allow himself to go
> back on such a pronouncement, no matter what evidence is presented, to
> David S. and a host of other people he "doesn't like".
There's probably a game element in there somewhere.
> If Johnson were one move away from inevitable checkmate in a game with
> Sutherland, he'd sooner knock over the board and claim that he could
> have won (repeatedly in all likelihood) than just place his King on its
> side and resign.
If that distresses you, then don't play that game. Present your case
once, as well as you can, then leave it saying "This is my last word
on the subject".
> > I've been in a discussion with DTJ on the performance of OS/2's JPG
> > support. He didn't believe that certain JPGs wouldn't work, so I
> > emailed him one that didn't, which he could then verify for himself.
> > And so the business was settled.
>
> Simply because there was no ego involved there.
Or because the evidence presented was sufficient.
>
> > I've also been in an eCS discussion with DTJ, however, where at some
> > point I simply gave up on the whole argument because we got stuck in
> > Ultimate Unprovables and Dark Mutterings. This was leading nowhere so
> > I summarised my position and stopped.
>
> But I'll bet he got the last word.
That doesn't bother me. I'll only respond to messages I think are
worth a response. Content-less back-and-forths bore me pretty quickly.
Take care,
David Sutherland
>Hello Curtis,
>
>cmba...@yahoo.com (Curtis Bass) wrote in message news:<163715e7.03111...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>> > What he did was to take a message, twist its meaning, and send
>> > that twisted result to Ryan Gordon.
>>
>> How do you know? No, you _assume_ that to be the case. Remember,
>> Sutherland was the first to contact Gordon, and Sutherland posted
>> Gordon's response verbatim. It was _after_ this exchange that DTJ
>> took it upon himself to contact Gordon subsequently. Now, what would
>> be the purpose of DTJ's follow up contact, if not as an attempt to
>
>Well, the phrase "I wouldn't trust $PERSON if he told me the sky was
>blue" springs to mind. DTJ wanted to know for certain that Ryan was
>who David S claimed him to be, and maybe ask some questions of his
>own. After that (as far as I'm aware, please point out if I'm wrong), DTJ
>didn't deny the claims made by Ryan on AA anymore, so I must
>assume that he got the confirmation he wanted.
>
Do you read *anything* posted by DTJ?
==
Subject: Re: Menno's responses and what is wrong with them
From: "David T. Johnson" <djoh...@isomedia.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 14:37:00 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <vqqrul6...@corp.supernews.com>
[snip]
Liar. Ryan did not 'refute' any of my assumptions.
[snip]
==
That's two days ago. I think it's had time to turn up on your
server.
Would you like to explain how you interpret that to mean that DTJ
accepts Ryan's comments about AA?
>> discredit Sutherland's contact? It's interesting that DTJ did _not_
>> post Gordon's response verbatim, but gave us a paraphrase instead:
>>
>> "I emailed Ryan and he very kindly replied to me that he
>> worked on the 64-bit port of America's Army but has not
>> worked on 64-bit AA since and does not know anything about
>> GameStorm, so I guess we are all still waiting to see what
>> GameStorm is doing." DTJ 10-31-2003
>>
>> Notice what DTJ is claiming: Gordon _did_ work on the 64-bit port of
>> AA "once upon a time", but hasn't worked on it _since._ The
>> implication here is that "since" the time that Gordon did the 64-bit
>> port, somebody may have modified AA in order to make it work with the
>> GameStorm "technology" (as DTJ tends to phrase it). This, combined
>> with DTJ's subsequent claim ("[Gordon] does not know anything about
>> GameStorm"), suggests that the GameStorm "version" of 64-bit AA may,
>> in fact, _not_ be identical to the version that Gordon originally
>> produced.
>
>I must admit this angle hadn't occurred to me yet. Thank you for
>pointing it out.
>
It appears that you haven't considered any angles other than the ones
which give you an excuse to pursue your vendetta.
>> Like I said, the reason DTJ contacted Gordon was simply to further his
>> own "we don't know nuthin' about GameStorm" agenda, completely
>> ignoring (and "discrediting") the evidence that Sutherland originally
>> obtained from Gordon wrt 64-bit AA in the process.
>>
>> If these observations are taken into consideration, it allows us to
>> look at what Sutherland subsequently said with a new perspective:
>>
>> "Rather than wait for your refusal to answer, I went straight
>> to the source and told him that you claim he knows nothing
>> about Gamestorm, nor the 64-bit version of AA that they are
>> using." DS 11-01-2003
>>
>> Pay close attention to that last phrase: "the 64-bit version of AA
>> _that_ _they_ _are_ _using_". Remember that the "they" is GameStorm.
>> Sutherland was _not_ referring to the version that Gordon originally
>> created, necessarily, but the (potentially) modified version that
>> GameStorm was using in their product.
>
>If you look at it like that, I must admit you have a point. I still
>think it would have been better for DS to leave DTJ out of the message
>altogether, but at least it becomes reasonable to mention why you are
>following up. Touche' Mr. Bass.
>
Then I look forward to your apology. But I won't be holding my
breath.
>> Considering that we have no earthly idea how DTJ may have
>> misrepresented Sutherland to Gordon, considering that there was no
>> real reason for DTJ to have contacted Gordon in the first place
>> (except as an attempt to discredit Sutherland's original contact),
>> considering DTJ's overall recalcitrant debate style, and finally,
>> considering the above analysis, your complaints against Sutherland are
>> vastly overblown.
>
>The misrepresentation complaint, yes. Your explanations are
>reasonable.
>
How nice to see you backing away from some of your one-sidedness.
It's really quite a breakthrough.
>> > So instead of concentrating on why GameStorm is good
>> > news, people start kicking DTJ for overstating his case.
>>
>> And _you_ start kicking _them_ for pointing out that DTJ has made
>> stupid claims.
>
>Hm. Small point here. I was kicking them not for pointing things out,
>but for what I perceived were flaws in their methods. For instance,
>DTJ didn't accept as evidence some URLs he was given about Mesa 3D,
>but the fact that OpenGL was used in AA was not in those web pages.
>
I haven't noticed anywhere that you take DTJ to task for his refusal
to accept evidence. Where is that particular exchange? I must have
missed it.
>> > Facts about the technology picked up along the way are not used
>> > for enlightenment, but as ammo against DTJ.
>>
>> What utter nonsense. It's DTJ that provokes being "fired upon" by his
>> recalcitrance; if DTJ would simply acknowledge evidence (rather than
>> pretend it doesn't exist or doesn't apply), there would be little
>> reason to repeat the "salvos". It isn't our fault if DTJ flat refuses
>> to be enlightened.
>
>Much would depend on the quality of the evidence. "Public knowledge"
>may turn out not to be so public after all. Sometimes, people need
>more explanation of "obvious" facts. Providing an explanation, as you
>have done above, is more effective (against me, at least) than a
>tirade of abuse.
>
Have you been reading Johnson's latest posts? They are nothing *but*
a tirade of abuse, yet you remain silent. Why the double standards,
Menno? You seem to have some personal bias for what you say to whom,
as you are most certainly not consistent.
>> > If you've gotten in the habit of seeing someone as "The Enemy", you
>> > want to project all things evil on them. And that may blind you to
>> > positive things that come from their direction.
>>
>> Kind of like what you're doing with Sutherland, eh?
>
>Well, not completely blind. I enjoyed reading the webpages he was
>pointing to. They were interesting.
>
Another example of all the "bad info" you accuse me of dumping in this
ng, no doubt.
My word, Menno - could it be that you are actually starting to notice
the perception you are giving people of yourself, and have decided to
pull your horns in a little? You're even suggesting that I presented
valid evidence up there!
Now if we can just get you to admit that DTJ is not the innocent
victim you like to portray him as, we'll have real progress :)
>Cheers/2,
>Menno
David Sutherland
wrote:
>Hello World,
>
>On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 22:19:47 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Still, no reason why one driver couldn't drive a number of different
>> > cards. Actually, I'm pretty sure that this "generic driver" argument
>> > of David's is doomed, but so far there hasn't been evidence that it
>> > can't be done. Thinking about this: the difference between detecting a
>> > card at boot time and loading the appropriate driver, and having one
>> > driver that detects the card and takes appropriate action is pretty
>> > slim.
>>
>> Actually, this is the easiest part of the process. PCI IDs make this
>> process a no-brainer. It's having support for more than one card,
>> without the manufacturer's help (remember ATI is the only manufacturer
>> involved with GameStorm) is the problem. These interfaces are as
>> proprietary to video card manufacturers as schematics of their GPUs.
>> Personally I find this tact of video card makers a bit ridiculously
>> paranoid, but that's the way it is, according to what I've gleaned from
>> the good folks at Scitech.
>
>Hm. So there's a political reason why it can't be done, and not a
>technical one. I wonder why, actually. Probably afraid that the
>Competitor will find out their tricks if the specs are too open.
Of course. The drivers expose much of what goes on in the silicon,
along with all the shortcuts that are being employed to try and eke
out the last few percentage points in the software. When a
difference of a few fps is enough to swing huge chunks of the buying
public towards one card over another, you can be damn sure that the
likes of NVIDIA and ATI are not going to be sharing their driver
source anytime soon.
>
>> > Gamestorm will probably have something like Scitech's SNAP on
>> > board, tailored for 3D graphics. (Yes folks, that's a SPECULATION and
>> > it may not happen and work quite differently).
>>
>> It's an impossibility without video hardware manufacturers coming on
>> board. So far only ATI has done so. In fact, the fact that one
>> manufacturer is so closely involved with the package makes it LESS
>> likely that other manufacturers will come on board.
>
>Then Gamestorm will have to do with the drivers that are available.
>
Hmmm...one small point about the above exchange: it is NVIDIA that
were involved with the bundle, not ATI.
Does your comment above mean that you do not believe that Gamestorm is
using generic drivers?
>> > eCS is now (with, it must be admitted, some initial stumblings) being
>> > delivered electronically. Here in the .nl, you can hardly hear
>> > yourself speak for the ADSL ads. Admittedly, there's lots of modem
>> > warriors still at large, but broadband is coming. I got 700 Kb/sec of
>> > ADSL goodness myself and I'm not going back :). Of course, the cost of
>> > shipping out a fresh CD to people who ask for it, is also quite
>> > manageable. Possibilities abound!
>>
>> Then I'm glad I got my copy of eCS 1.0 when it first came out and
>> shipped with CDs. I've got a wonderful broadband connection (at home at
>> least... on the road I've got this miserable dialup), but I don't have a
>> CD burner.
>
>The electronic delivery thing is probably complementary and not
>replacing.
>
For some people it will be an attractive option, but most people don't
have broadband yet. Look at Valves Steam stuff to see someone trying
to do it for real, today. They are not planning on retiring their CD
channels quite yet....
>> I'm sure not going to get one just so I can purchase and use a product -
>> let alone a game.
>
>My PC came with a burner. Good for backup and carting around large
>amounts of data.
>
>> > [64-bit paradigm shift]
>> >
>> >>We've gone off on this tangent in this discussion already though.
>> >>Johnson claimed that MS is missing a major paradigm shift to 64-bit
>> >>computing, when, in fact, they're doing much better schedule-wise than
>> >>they were during the shift to 32-bit computing by an order of magnitude.
>> >>If they survived that slow and rocky shift to 32-bit, something tells
>> >>me they'll be just fine moving to 64-bit.
>> >
>> > Maybe. I didn't say that it was a foregone conclusion and MS is
>> > doomed, but it may be enough to shift the proportions of MS/non-MS to
>> > a more agreeable proportion. Hell, if MS disappears, what would the
>> > lamers start writing viruses for next?
>>
>> But if they're just booting off of these CDs, they don't have to change
>> their base operating system, remember? So which way are we going to
>> have it? If they're not booting off CDs then basically, they're running
>> Linux, not GameStorm.
>
>Linux users could install a Gamestorm game to disk
In which case it's no longer a Gamestom game. Americas Army, for
example, is a Linux game. Gamestorm is a *bundle* of that game with a
Linux OS and drivers on a CD.
>and play it from
>there, with all the advantages and disadvantages of that. Given that
>Linux is better than Windows at keeping lusers out of the intricate
>works, the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages.
But Linux is already widely available. What you are saying is that
installing games on a Linux platform is somehow going to change
things. Well, you can do that already, and it hasn't changed
anything.
The only unique part of Gamestorm is booting directly from the CD.
> At the same
>time, users of "alternative" operating systems would not be shut out.
>They can still run the game.
>
So it's also good for Mac, FreeBSD, and BeOS users. Nothing special
for OS/2 then...
>> >>Also, not to rehash the point again, but what competetive advantage is
>> >>offered by moving this game to a 64-bit platform?
>> >
>> > Bigger faster cooler? At the moment, AA-64 plays the same as the
>> > 32-bit variant but there's no reason why this should stay that way.
>> > For instance, your basic 64-bitter will have a bigger memory than your
>> > average 32-bitter. Which means that you can "remember" a bigger
>> > landscape or make the existing one more detailed. That this hasn't
>> > happened yet doesn't mean that it can't/won't. If not for this game
>> > then maybe for others.
>>
>> Here's why it won't:
>> Remembering the landscape is not the problem. There are graphics cards
>> with 128MB of RAM on them. To put that in perspective, that's 1/5 of a
>> CD that can be in *video memory* at any given time.
>
>Games do more than just rendering. What I meant was that you can keep
>a larger landscape in memory: The objects. Where the trees and the
>walls are. Where the NPCs are moving. The position of each door in the
>game. In fact, you can keep the whole CD in memory.
Err, last time I looked most PC's were already capable of addressing
more than 600MB of RAM.
I can "mount" CD's in memory as virtual drives, but I never seem to
find a reason to do so. Of course, with only 1GB of physical RAM,
that 600MB would make a big dent!
>This means that
>you won't have to load things from the CD after you've used them once.
>You can instantly jump from one scene to the other.
>
Except for the tiny problem of having to get the geometry and all the
textures into the video card. Which do *not* currently have more
than 256MB even at the high end. I think it's going to be a few years
yet before video cards have more than 4GB of RAM on board :)
You'll also find that most games install themselves to the hard-drive,
and other than performing checks to see that it is physically present,
the CD is not referenced at all during game-play. It's too slow!
I get the feeling that you haven't thought this argument through.
><snippage>
>
>
>> > I was more thinking of HTML, XML, IPV6 and other network related
>> > protocols. If your e-Shop is going to piss off a lot of Linux users by
>> > not working outside of Redmont, then you will think twice about making
>> > it Windows-specific. This presupposes that you *have* a lot of Linux
>> > users to piss off, though. Having nice Linux games will help in
>> > obtaining such.
>>
>> That's a point, but only a point if we're not booting off of our
>> GameStorm CDs and actually install Linux. In which case, GameStorm
>> itself is not the driving force behind this goodness, but rather, Linux is.
>
>True. But at least we have Linux games, even for people who don't have
>Linux. I can't play a Windows game without installing Windows.
>
True. If your chosen platform doesn't have any native software
available, then something like Gamestorm allows you to play games that
you would otherwise not. Of course, if you are running a platform
that already *has* that game available, then you don't need something
like Gamestorm unless you really like having to reboot in order to
spend a few minutes playing.
Personally, that is not a winning proposition for me.
>>
>> > I did notice OS/2 mentioned on the Mesa 3D site, by the way, with
>> > quite some recent code fixes:
>> >
>> > - http://mesa3d.org/README.OS2
>>
>> There is no hardware acceleration for Mesa on OS/2.
>
>Bugger.
>
The issue of 3D driver support for OS/2 (or rather, the lack of it)
has been brought up a number of times. I'm surprised that you missed
it.
[snip]
>
>> Unfortunately, it goes a bit beyond this. Johnson hates to admit when
>> he was over-zealous and full of hot air. His "Death Blow" pronouncement
>> was clearly in this category. Johnson's ego cannot allow himself to go
>> back on such a pronouncement, no matter what evidence is presented, to
>> David S. and a host of other people he "doesn't like".
>
>There's probably a game element in there somewhere.
>
Are you saying that it's okay to play those games?
>> If Johnson were one move away from inevitable checkmate in a game with
>> Sutherland, he'd sooner knock over the board and claim that he could
>> have won (repeatedly in all likelihood) than just place his King on its
>> side and resign.
>
>If that distresses you, then don't play that game. Present your case
>once, as well as you can, then leave it saying "This is my last word
>on the subject".
>
I remember someone saying that they were done with a discussion, yet
they just kept coming back for more. I take it that you do *not*
intend to use yourself as an example of doing that which you are
preaching?
>> > I've been in a discussion with DTJ on the performance of OS/2's JPG
>> > support. He didn't believe that certain JPGs wouldn't work, so I
>> > emailed him one that didn't, which he could then verify for himself.
>> > And so the business was settled.
>>
>> Simply because there was no ego involved there.
>
>Or because the evidence presented was sufficient.
>
And sometimes no evidence is sufficient. Lets' not forget that DTJ
still insists that nothing Ryan said refuted *any* of his claims.
A rather bizarre assertion, as I'm sure you agree.
>>
>> > I've also been in an eCS discussion with DTJ, however, where at some
>> > point I simply gave up on the whole argument because we got stuck in
>> > Ultimate Unprovables and Dark Mutterings. This was leading nowhere so
>> > I summarised my position and stopped.
>>
>> But I'll bet he got the last word.
>
>That doesn't bother me. I'll only respond to messages I think are
>worth a response. Content-less back-and-forths bore me pretty quickly.
>
Obviously, given your recent posts...oh wait, are you making a joke?
:)
>
>
>Take care,
David T. Johnson
David H. McCoy
sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**btconnect.com says...
>
> >And
> >I do think it will have some side benefits for OS/2. The more diverse
> >the PC market becomes, the more it will have to rely on independent
> >standards. Which we can then also implement under OS/2 and play along.
> >
>
> platform? You?
>
Please. I think that there are maybe 5 OS/2 developers in the world. And
none of them are here.
--
--------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
--------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
ispa...@cfl.rr.com says...
> > Ahh... But under Linux, you could install the game to disk. Only
> > Windows users would have to reboot.
>
> Well, under Linux has never been part of this 'discussion' of DirectX is
> dead has it?
>
> I myself don't like to reboot to play a game much less keep the CD in
> the drive. I always search the web for a hack and usually you'll find
> one easily. Single CD requirements, whether to be booted, or even in the
> CD drive, are pains to the END USER. Enough in some cases, to make one
> NOT buy the game or play it sparingly.
>
Use CloneCD and Daemon Tools. That's what I do. The reason why I now
store all my DVDs on disk as Divx files started as an idea to run games
off my harddisk as ISO images using Daemon tools.
Now all of my DVDs and games are run exclusively off disk, and
accessible to any machine on my network. Since one of my servers is
attached to my TV, I can run movies (or games) on my TV using Windows
Media player as the player. Even dual disk movies like Goodfellas can
now be run off of one file.
Marty
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 05:23:19 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Sten Solberg wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 21:21:18 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I challenged Sten to enumerate Johnson's
>>>>hypotheses so that I could debunk them individually. He declined based
>>>>on his lack of technical savy.
>>>
>>>Inaccurate, Marty. I declined based on my lack of technical savvy.
>>
>>Am I missing something? (besides a "v")?
>
> General orderliness? Just guessing :)
That comment was out of order.
> No, it was only the inaccurate spelling this time - and I am of course only
> taking it up because you brought my name into a less than accurate claim.
Next time I slander your name, I'll be sure to spell everything
correctly. ;-)
> Speaking of spelling: if you must use Latin, why not use it correctly, as in 'ad
> nauseam'? Just because Sutherland is getting it consistently wrong, you don't
> have to trust him on this (either).
Non sequiter.
>>>>I challenged Johnson himself, who is too
>>>>much of a coward to respond directly.
>>>
>>>This is as good an illustration as any of procjections breeding dislike and
>>>distrust around here. Why not heed your own advice the other day and stick to
>>>facts?
>>
>>Projections? That's interesting, given that I'm the one who is directly
>>challenging what Johnson is saying and Johnson is the one making
>>back-handed personal comments through responses to other people about
>>me.
>
> Yes, he is, but very seldom compared to you about him - at least over the 4+
> years I have been here. Or so it seems to me.
That's because I don't continually post nonsense and then run away from
defending it. He has no reason to respond to anything I write, other
than to take his cheap jabs.
> I trust you can whip out some
> posting statistics proving me correct.
The details of whether or not I can do such a thing are not yet known.
See how nicely that works? ;-)
>>I've stuck to the facts. Johnson has fled from them.
>
> Given your history, 'fleeing' isn't exactly the first alternative that comes to
> (my) mind. Try _contempt. It's probably mutual, so it should be easy.
Honestly, I hold no contempt for the man. I hold contempt for his
actions and contemptible words in these fora. If they ceased, I'd
likely never respond to him again.
>>>And while I'm at it: why you would want to try to defend a notorious
>>>heckler like Sutherland is beyond me.
>>
>>I feel likewise about yourself WRT Johnson. Sutherland has the facts
>>and some grounding in reality on his side in this discussion. Johnson
>>has nothing but speculation (most or all of which has been proven
>>incorrect)
>
> At least David came up with a pretext for knocking Direct-X, which is
> something... :)
You say that as a joke, but that's really quite sad, and most of what
I'm trying to combat when I respond to some "pro-OS/2" posts here.
> BTW, if Gamestorm is 'just' 64-bit plus a bootable (Linux) CD, CGI's blurb can't
> be merely an exaggerated advertisement, but rather a bundle of outright lies?
> Or have I missed something again?
Any specifics you want to cite?
>>and barbs.
>
> Compared to whom? Sutherland? GMAB.
I don't recall making a comparison. Nor did I have to in order to have
a point. Just because there might be someone worse in the world is no
excuse. But personally, yes. I find Johnson far more offensive than
David S.
Marty
> In article <l16rqv8m2p30rvo9t...@4ax.com>,
> sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**btconnect.com says...
>
>>>And
>>>I do think it will have some side benefits for OS/2. The more diverse
>>>the PC market becomes, the more it will have to rely on independent
>>>standards. Which we can then also implement under OS/2 and play along.
>>>
>>
>>Good luck. Who is going to spend the time to port to a dead
>>platform? You?
>
> Please. I think that there are maybe 5 OS/2 developers in the world. And
> none of them are here.
I know for a fact that at least half of that statement is false.
Marty
completely for me.
Menno Willemse wrote:
>>It's an impossibility without video hardware manufacturers coming on
>>board. So far only ATI has done so. In fact, the fact that one
>>manufacturer is so closely involved with the package makes it LESS
>>likely that other manufacturers will come on board.
>
> Then Gamestorm will have to do with the drivers that are available.
Apologies for the "disorderly" misinformation on my part here. Thanks
for the correction, David.
>>>eCS is now (with, it must be admitted, some initial stumblings) being
>>>delivered electronically. Here in the .nl, you can hardly hear
>>>yourself speak for the ADSL ads. Admittedly, there's lots of modem
>>>warriors still at large, but broadband is coming. I got 700 Kb/sec of
>>>ADSL goodness myself and I'm not going back :). Of course, the cost of
>>>shipping out a fresh CD to people who ask for it, is also quite
>>>manageable. Possibilities abound!
>>
>>Then I'm glad I got my copy of eCS 1.0 when it first came out and
>>shipped with CDs. I've got a wonderful broadband connection (at home at
>>least... on the road I've got this miserable dialup), but I don't have a
>>CD burner.
>
> The electronic delivery thing is probably complementary and not
> replacing.
>
>>I'm sure not going to get one just so I can purchase and use a product -
>>let alone a game.
>
> My PC came with a burner. Good for backup and carting around large
> amounts of data.
With the download time, CD burning time, and the requirements to have
both of these readily accessible, there is more than enough to dissuade
someone who can just buy a Playstation game or DirectX game (who already
has Windows installed on at least one machine).
>>>[64-bit paradigm shift]
>>>
>>>>We've gone off on this tangent in this discussion already though.
>>>>Johnson claimed that MS is missing a major paradigm shift to 64-bit
>>>>computing, when, in fact, they're doing much better schedule-wise than
>>>>they were during the shift to 32-bit computing by an order of magnitude.
>>>>If they survived that slow and rocky shift to 32-bit, something tells
>>>>me they'll be just fine moving to 64-bit.
>>>
>>>Maybe. I didn't say that it was a foregone conclusion and MS is
>>>doomed, but it may be enough to shift the proportions of MS/non-MS to
>>>a more agreeable proportion. Hell, if MS disappears, what would the
>>>lamers start writing viruses for next?
>>
>>But if they're just booting off of these CDs, they don't have to change
>>their base operating system, remember? So which way are we going to
>>have it? If they're not booting off CDs then basically, they're running
>>Linux, not GameStorm.
>
> Linux users could install a Gamestorm game to disk and play it from
> there, with all the advantages and disadvantages of that. Given that
> Linux is better than Windows at keeping lusers out of the intricate
> works, the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages. At the same
> time, users of "alternative" operating systems would not be shut out.
> They can still run the game.
They're not shutting us out, but they're not really accommodating us
either. Furthermore, they don't really help our "plight" in any
meaningful way.
>>>>Also, not to rehash the point again, but what competetive advantage is
>>>>offered by moving this game to a 64-bit platform?
>>>
>>>Bigger faster cooler? At the moment, AA-64 plays the same as the
>>>32-bit variant but there's no reason why this should stay that way.
>>>For instance, your basic 64-bitter will have a bigger memory than your
>>>average 32-bitter. Which means that you can "remember" a bigger
>>>landscape or make the existing one more detailed. That this hasn't
>>>happened yet doesn't mean that it can't/won't. If not for this game
>>>then maybe for others.
>>
>>Here's why it won't:
>>Remembering the landscape is not the problem. There are graphics cards
>>with 128MB of RAM on them. To put that in perspective, that's 1/5 of a
>>CD that can be in *video memory* at any given time.
>
> Games do more than just rendering. What I meant was that you can keep
> a larger landscape in memory: The objects. Where the trees and the
> walls are. Where the NPCs are moving. The position of each door in the
> game. In fact, you can keep the whole CD in memory. This means that
> you won't have to load things from the CD after you've used them once.
> You can instantly jump from one scene to the other.
You can do that today. 4GB is more information than can possibly be
tracked by a game for one given scene. The scene will have to be
"paged" in and out simply because the hardware could never keep up
otherwise. Whether it's coming from CD/DVD or RAM is of little
consequence. Look at the way game consoles like the PS2 and GameCube
function. Some games are designed to continually access their media to
load in and forget parts of the scene as you move around, yet these
games still can have uninterrupted action.
> <snippage>
>
>>>I was more thinking of HTML, XML, IPV6 and other network related
>>>protocols. If your e-Shop is going to piss off a lot of Linux users by
>>>not working outside of Redmont, then you will think twice about making
>>>it Windows-specific. This presupposes that you *have* a lot of Linux
>>>users to piss off, though. Having nice Linux games will help in
>>>obtaining such.
>>
>>That's a point, but only a point if we're not booting off of our
>>GameStorm CDs and actually install Linux. In which case, GameStorm
>>itself is not the driving force behind this goodness, but rather, Linux is.
>
> True. But at least we have Linux games, even for people who don't have
> Linux. I can't play a Windows game without installing Windows.
Sure you can. You can just buy an XBox. ;-)
>>>You may well be right, but I think the diversity here has lessened
>>>somewhat. There are fewer hardware manufacturers than there used to be
>>>and even then they often use the same chipsets. Because it's cheaper
>>>to do it in a joint venture. I can have the drivers for all the
>>>current video cards on my harddisk right here. A mere 29 MB.
>>
>>I disagree whole-heartedly. Back in the good old days, we had CGA, EGA,
>>and VGA. Every card on the market conformed to one of those standards.
>> When "accelerator" cards started coming on to the market in the early
>>90's, VESA standards came about just as quickly and demanded conformance.
>
> Still, the number of card manufacturers is greater than the number of
> chipsat makers. I wonder just how many different chipsets we have (in
> the range capable of playing Quake 3). Not hundreds, surely? Scitech
> lists 199 supported for OS/2, but that includes VGA so we need to cut
> off the slowest ones.
And how long does it take to reverse engineer a single chipset?
Furthermore, how do you even begin to reverse engineer 3D accelerated
support interfaces? This has not been done to date.
>>Unfortunately, it goes a bit beyond this. Johnson hates to admit when
>>he was over-zealous and full of hot air. His "Death Blow" pronouncement
>>was clearly in this category. Johnson's ego cannot allow himself to go
>>back on such a pronouncement, no matter what evidence is presented, to
>>David S. and a host of other people he "doesn't like".
>
> There's probably a game element in there somewhere.
Only if we recompile the AIs to 64-bit code. That's the only way they'd
be able to keep track of such complicated relationships. ;-)
>>If Johnson were one move away from inevitable checkmate in a game with
>>Sutherland, he'd sooner knock over the board and claim that he could
>>have won (repeatedly in all likelihood) than just place his King on its
>>side and resign.
>
> If that distresses you, then don't play that game. Present your case
> once, as well as you can, then leave it saying "This is my last word
> on the subject".
I'd rather spank a misbehaving child than give him a "time out".
>>>I've been in a discussion with DTJ on the performance of OS/2's JPG
>>>support. He didn't believe that certain JPGs wouldn't work, so I
>>>emailed him one that didn't, which he could then verify for himself.
>>>And so the business was settled.
>>
>>Simply because there was no ego involved there.
>
> Or because the evidence presented was sufficient.
Are you suggesting that the evidence presented in this thread was
insufficient?
>>>I've also been in an eCS discussion with DTJ, however, where at some
>>>point I simply gave up on the whole argument because we got stuck in
>>>Ultimate Unprovables and Dark Mutterings. This was leading nowhere so
>>>I summarised my position and stopped.
>>
>>But I'll bet he got the last word.
>
> That doesn't bother me. I'll only respond to messages I think are
> worth a response. Content-less back-and-forths bore me pretty quickly.
Do not.
Jason
> We don't know any of the details about GameStorm because they have
not > yet been released.
So you admit to not knowing anything factual about Gamestorm but call it
a DirectX killer? You made this claim based on nothing factual? Now
that is a real <laugh>
Irv Spalten
David H. McCoy wrote:
> In article <A5Crb.58830$jW5.7...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>,
> ispa...@cfl.rr.com says...
> > > Ahh... But under Linux, you could install the game to disk. Only
> > > Windows users would have to reboot.
> >
> > Well, under Linux has never been part of this 'discussion' of DirectX is
> > dead has it?
> >
> > I myself don't like to reboot to play a game much less keep the CD in
> > the drive. I always search the web for a hack and usually you'll find
> > one easily. Single CD requirements, whether to be booted, or even in the
> > CD drive, are pains to the END USER. Enough in some cases, to make one
> > NOT buy the game or play it sparingly.
> >
>
> Use CloneCD and Daemon Tools. That's what I do. The reason why I now
> store all my DVDs on disk as Divx files started as an idea to run games
> off my harddisk as ISO images using Daemon tools.
Damn, I've never bothered to do this! I usually hunt the web for hacks
to bypass the CD need.
Got burned too, I have a program for my grandson that he loved to play
when he visits. Tonka Dig'n Rigs, comes with a keyboard overlay control
device and the CD must be in. $40 program/controller. Well, the CD
cracked (first time I've ever had one go bad, either from scratches or
breakage) and Tonka has NO MEDIA REPLACEMENT deal. Buy another package
is thier answer. I wish I knew someone who had the CD, I'd copy it in
this case... kid is NOT happy...
I have CloneCD, what are the other tools you need? Please respond
privately.
Thanks,
Irv
Irv Spalten
David Sutherland wrote:
Was it only me or did I just read a message from DTJ that I've seen
before? Is he a cut and paste wizard or what?
Doesn't give up, does he?
Irv
Irv Spalten
> David Sutherland wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:04:47 -0800, "David T. Johnson"
> > <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>David Sutherland wrote:
> >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> >
> >>>This is typical of your nonsense.
> >>>
> >>>The details of 64-bit AA *are* known - your pointless protestations to
> >>>the contrary are meaningless.
> >>>
> >>>We know what API it uses.
> >>>We know what engine it uses.
> >>>We know who wrote the engine.
> >>>We know who ported the engine to 64-bits.
> >>>We know what the features of that engine are.
> >>
> >>We don't know anything yet about 64-bit AA running on GameStorm, which
> >>was the topic.
> >
> >
> >
> > David, you lost this argument a long time ago.
>
> It is not possible to even have a real argument about something factual.
With you!!!!
Sten Solberg
> Sten Solberg wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 05:23:19 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Sten Solberg wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 21:21:18 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>I challenged Sten to enumerate Johnson's
> >>>>hypotheses so that I could debunk them individually. He declined based
> >>>>on his lack of technical savy.
> >>>
> >>>Inaccurate, Marty. I declined based on my lack of technical savvy.
> >>
> >>Am I missing something? (besides a "v")?
> >
> > General orderliness? Just guessing :)
>
> That comment was out of order.
Well, you got it for the asking.
> > No, it was only the inaccurate spelling this time - and I am of course only
> > taking it up because you brought my name into a less than accurate claim.
>
> Next time I slander your name, I'll be sure to spell everything
> correctly. ;-)
Well, considering that I can't recall you having slandered my name yet - heated
discussions exempted, of course - we could be in for a long wait...
> > Speaking of spelling: if you must use Latin, why not use it correctly, as in 'ad
> > nauseam'? Just because Sutherland is getting it consistently wrong, you don't
> > have to trust him on this (either).
>
> Non sequiter.
Good one.
> >>>>I challenged Johnson himself, who is too
> >>>>much of a coward to respond directly.
> >>>
> >>>This is as good an illustration as any of procjections breeding dislike and
> >>>distrust around here. Why not heed your own advice the other day and stick to
> >>>facts?
> >>
> >>Projections? That's interesting, given that I'm the one who is directly
> >>challenging what Johnson is saying and Johnson is the one making
> >>back-handed personal comments through responses to other people about
> >>me.
> >
> > Yes, he is, but very seldom compared to you about him - at least over the 4+
> > years I have been here. Or so it seems to me.
>
> That's because I don't continually post nonsense and then run away from
> defending it. He has no reason to respond to anything I write, other
> than to take his cheap jabs.
You have posted a number of questions directed to David, and he could have
answered them if he had wanted to.
> > I trust you can whip out some
> > posting statistics proving me correct.
>
> The details of whether or not I can do such a thing are not yet known.
> See how nicely that works? ;-)
Sure. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
> >>I've stuck to the facts. Johnson has fled from them.
> >
> > Given your history, 'fleeing' isn't exactly the first alternative that comes to
> > (my) mind. Try _contempt. It's probably mutual, so it should be easy.
>
> Honestly, I hold no contempt for the man. I hold contempt for his
> actions and contemptible words in these fora. If they ceased, I'd
> likely never respond to him again.
But in these fora we _are (nothing but) what we write.
> >>>And while I'm at it: why you would want to try to defend a notorious
> >>>heckler like Sutherland is beyond me.
> >>
> >>I feel likewise about yourself WRT Johnson. Sutherland has the facts
> >>and some grounding in reality on his side in this discussion. Johnson
> >>has nothing but speculation (most or all of which has been proven
> >>incorrect)
> >
> > At least David came up with a pretext for knocking Direct-X, which is
> > something... :)
>
> You say that as a joke, but that's really quite sad, and most of what
> I'm trying to combat when I respond to some "pro-OS/2" posts here.
Fair enough, but we don't have to make these little discussions overly serious;
a lighter tone can often be more persuasive. I will add, though, that your
posts often help induce the latter.
> > BTW, if Gamestorm is 'just' 64-bit plus a bootable (Linux) CD, CGI's blurb can't
> > be merely an exaggerated advertisement, but rather a bundle of outright lies?
> > Or have I missed something again?
>
> Any specifics you want to cite?
Don't know if there's a real blurb, as such, but here are some words supposedly
from the the horse's own mouth:
http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3103154102.html
Excerpt:
"It feels like a gaming console on steroids and even allows for online access so
you can connect to online game servers for multi-player action," said Jesper
Jensen, CEO of Super Computer, Inc. "With a pure 64-bit environment and no
overhead, SCI has created a powerful single-CD showcase for both AMD and
GameStorm technology!"
SCI's first GameStorm title, America's Army, originally debuted on July 4, 2002,
becoming one of the most popular games online, according to SCI. The Army has
recorded more than 1.6 million registered user accounts with more than 1 million
players completing basic training. Gamers have played more than 130 million
missions and the average number of completed missions per day is 450,000.
"The fact that America's Army is available in 64-bit on the GameStorm CD allows
gamers to get a taste of the next generation of gaming just by inserting a CD
and powering up the computer," said Major Bret Wilson, Operations Officer for
America's Army.
"With the AMD Athlon 64 processor and GameStorm technology, AMD is able to
showcase a fully-integrated 64-bit environment that delivers performance and
realism to the most demanding gamers," said Tim Wright, director, desktop
marketing, AMD Computation Products Group. "AMD64 will revolutionize the gaming
market by delivering immersive super-realistic environments."
-----
"It feels like a gaming console on steroids (...)"
If 64-bit and/or GameStorm does not add anything to the game or gaming
experience of 32-bit, as I understand some here have suggested, how can the
above statement be true?
"(...) allows gamers to get a taste of the next generation of gaming (...)"
If 64-bit and/or GameStorm does not add anything to the game or gaming
experience of 32-bit, as I understand some here have suggested, how can the
above statement be true?
"(...) showcase a fully-integrated 64-bit environment that delivers performance
and realism to the most demanding gamers (...)"
If 64-bit and/or GameStorm does not add anything to the game or gaming
experience of 32-bit, as I understand some here have suggested, how can the
above statement be true?
"AMD64 will revolutionize the gaming market by delivering immersive
super-realistic environments."
If 64-bit and/or GameStorm does not add anything to the game or gaming
experience of 32-bit, as I understand some here have suggested, how can the
above statement be true?
> >>and barbs.
> >
> > Compared to whom? Sutherland? GMAB.
>
> I don't recall making a comparison.
It takes two to tango. Can a person alone on an island behave badly?
> Nor did I have to in order to have
> a point. Just because there might be someone worse in the world is no
> excuse. But personally, yes. I find Johnson far more offensive than
> David S.
Well, I don't find either of them especially offensive to me personally, i.e. to
my sensibilities, but I certainly see Sutherland as the worst offender to good
taste as well as to good debating behaviour.
Menno Willemse
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 00:53:30 UTC, David Sutherland wrote:
> ==
> Subject: Re: Menno's responses and what is wrong with them
> From: "David T. Johnson"
> Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 14:37:00 -0800
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Message-ID: <vqqrul6...@corp.supernews.com>
>
> [snip]
>
> Liar. Ryan did not 'refute' any of my assumptions.
> [snip]
> ==
>
> That's two days ago. I think it's had time to turn up on your
> server.
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=vqqrul6brktf8c%40corp.supern
ews.com
==
Liar. Ryan did not 'refute' any of my assumptions. Before Ryan
responded, Sutherland insisted that AA used the Unreal engine and I
stated that that was unknown and that I didn't care. Specifically, I
said: "I don't care in the least if America's Army uses the unreal
engine or not. I merely point out that it is not known yet." - DTJ
==
The words appear in the message. David Johnson was extremely stupid to
put them in there, because he should know everybody is waiting for him
to say something like that. Maybe he has a death wish. He could have
expressed what he meant to say just as easily without those words. For
instance, like this:
==
Mr. Gordon has shown us that AA uses the Unreal engine. Before
he spoke his piece, however, I did not know or care what engine
AA uses, and I certainly never claimed I did. - NOT DTJ
==
Of course, DTJ with brain *effectively* engaged would have avoided the
whole engine issue altogether because it doesn't have anything to do
with the effect having a bootable 64-bit Linux game would have on
DirectX.
> Would you like to explain how you interpret that to mean that DTJ
> accepts Ryan's comments about AA?
Nope. Johnson genuinely screwed up this post. If you can dig up a post
of DTJ's where he says "AA uses a different engine than Unreal",
you've got him. All you need to do now is present the post you
mentioned here, present DTJ's claim, and rest your case.
So the $0.64 question is: Did Johnson actually make hard claims about
the engine used by AA?
> Now if we can just get you to admit that DTJ is not the innocent
> victim you like to portray him as, we'll have real progress :)
DTJ already has the whole group all over him pointing out his faults.
One more or less won't make any difference. I will not offer opinions
on "Innocent victim", but he's let himself get bogged down in the
non-essentials. He's not a good debater.
How much of a debater YOU are, I'll judge by how effectively you
present your evidence that DTJ actually claimed that AA used something
different than Unreal. If you can't find the evidence, then you have
gone through one hell of a lot of trouble for nothing.
Good luck!
Cheers/2,
Menno.
Menno Willemse
> On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 18:00:32 -0800, "David T. Johnson"
> <djoh...@isomedia.com> wrote:
> >
> >But David, I didn't make any claims about 64-bit America's Army because
> >the details of it were, and are, unknown. You have been told that many
> >times. You have made claims about it based on your alleged email
> >received from Ryan.
Argh! Right. I just read this message today. I hereby acknowledge
having seen DTJ require proof beyond the capabilities of this medium.
A healthy mistrust is one thing, but if you mistrust someone so much
that you think they are fabricating emails, there is no point in
continuing.
David Sutherland wrote:
> The details of 64-bit AA have already been revealed, and have already
> been posted here.
There is no way in which David S could make the evidence he presented
more convincing. Quoted email with full headers is as good as it gets.
DTJ even had the opportunity to verify DS' claims by counter-emailing
him. If he's STILL not convinced that the email is genuine, then
nothing will convince him.
*I* don't trust David Sutherland. He's got some really nasty habits
too. So whenever I see DS make a claim that I think is bollocks, I
will ask him for proof and keep pestering him until the proof
satisfies me or he backpedals. But there are limits to his abilities
to authenticate the proof, so I will accept a quoted email.
Menno Willemse
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 02:13:51 UTC, Irv Spalten <ispa...@cfl.rr.com>
wrote:
> Ahh, the crux of the problem here Menno. How does one know they've
> convinced the rest of the group? Forget this thread specifically, and
> let us talk in general terms. Think of the eCS bashing going on here.
Well, you can't *know* for sure. But you can present your facts in
such a way that reasonable people will see the light. And then keep
presenting it. The TMFAQ, for instance, is the right idea, but the
tone of the piece is wrong. It tells the people that TM Is An Asshole.
It would have been much better if they had concentrated on the content
of the noise, and adressed that, than to try and undermine TM himself.
The former will provide useful information to casual visitors, the
latter will just convince them that there is nothing to look for here.
> You can respond until you are blue in the face with facts and the
> FUD'sters will come right back and repeat the lies and do so UNTIL you
> give up. You can put up facts and they say they are lies. If one isn't
> able to see the light and only reads threads, how can one tell,
> depending on whom you'll believe? Have you not seen sock puppets in here
They'll judge on the quality of the posts.
> saying some FUD is correct? DTJ's game is to REPEAT misinformation until
> YOU give up. This is the whole problem here. Heck, if you didn't in
> someway believe him, would you have stayed in the whole thread? I hope
> someday you need to try and convince DTJ that he is mistaken, maybe then
> you'll see the light.
Oh, I've seen a DTJ post today that convinced me of that: it contained
the words "Alleged Email". At which point I cried "A Plague On Both
Your Houses" and crammed out a response declaring this discussion
futile.
But still, the best way to combat bad information is with good
information.
Actually, I think it's a crying shame that it was DTJ who came up with
this topic. Someone else could have done a much better job in building
the case of:
- No Windows yet on 64 bits: Window of opportunity.
- Huge stonking machines sitting there doing nothing but run 32-bits
software
- A nice 64-bits game that you don't have to reinstall your PC for
unless you want to.
- Linux already supporting 64-bits for years.
- And look at how nice an office machine you can make with Linux.
- Switch to Linux and you can keep the game on your hard disk.
And so on. Though this would probably not have been the correct
advocacy group for it :) Still, I like my computing environments
heterogeneous.
Cheers/2,
Menno
Menno Willemse
> With the download time, CD burning time, and the requirements to have
> both of these readily accessible, there is more than enough to dissuade
> someone who can just buy a Playstation game or DirectX game (who already
> has Windows installed on at least one machine).
Your initial game you would get on a nice colourful CD. Only if you
change your hardware to something unsupported, would you need to
download-and-burn.
[Gamestorm games developers]
> They're not shutting us out, but they're not really accommodating us
> either. Furthermore, they don't really help our "plight" in any
> meaningful way.
Well, as you hardly need me to tell you, today's PC environment is
unhealthily asymmetrical. 64-Bit Linux games can impress people into
installing Linux especially while 64-bit Windows goes through its
birthing throes. A less unbalanced environment may well emerge.
> You can do that today. 4GB is more information than can possibly be
> tracked by a game for one given scene. The scene will have to be
> "paged" in and out simply because the hardware could never keep up
> otherwise. Whether it's coming from CD/DVD or RAM is of little
> consequence. Look at the way game consoles like the PS2 and GameCube
> function. Some games are designed to continually access their media to
> load in and forget parts of the scene as you move around, yet these
> games still can have uninterrupted action.
Okay, then let me put it differently. Do you think games programmers
could find a use for more memory and processing power?
> Sure you can. You can just buy an XBox. ;-)
Bought a PS2. Wanted to do it on the day the Xbox came out, but
decided not to wait :)
> > Still, the number of card manufacturers is greater than the number of
> > chipsat makers. I wonder just how many different chipsets we have (in
> > the range capable of playing Quake 3). Not hundreds, surely? Scitech
> > lists 199 supported for OS/2, but that includes VGA so we need to cut
> > off the slowest ones.
>
> And how long does it take to reverse engineer a single chipset?
> Furthermore, how do you even begin to reverse engineer 3D accelerated
> support interfaces? This has not been done to date.
No reverse engineering, getting manufacturers to write drivers for
Linux. Are there any more 3D games like AA for Linux? (Same quality,
not same game type) If a significant number of games come out, card
manufacturers may somehow find it in their hearts to make sure these
run on their hardware.
David H. McCoy
Irv Spalten
Menno Willemse wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 02:13:51 UTC, Irv Spalten <ispa...@cfl.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Ahh, the crux of the problem here Menno. How does one know they've
> > convinced the rest of the group? Forget this thread specifically, and
> > let us talk in general terms. Think of the eCS bashing going on here.
>
> Well, you can't *know* for sure. But you can present your facts in
> such a way that reasonable people will see the light.
CORRECT!!! But then you are playing into DTJ's hand. He'll just repeat,
ad nauseum, the SAME stuff, even if wrong. So, anyone looking at the
LAST message 'could' assume you've given up because DTJ is *correct*.
This is the GAME he plays.
> And then keep
> presenting it.
This must have been the advice you gave DTJ <G> as this is what he does,
except his messages usually contain falsehoods.
> The TMFAQ, for instance, is the right idea, but the
> tone of the piece is wrong. It tells the people that TM Is An Asshole.
But he is?
> It would have been much better if they had concentrated on the content
> of the noise, and adressed that, than to try and undermine TM himself.
So start one then!
> The former will provide useful information to casual visitors, the
> latter will just convince them that there is nothing to look for here.
>
> > You can respond until you are blue in the face with facts and the
> > FUD'sters will come right back and repeat the lies and do so UNTIL you
> > give up. You can put up facts and they say they are lies. If one isn't
> > able to see the light and only reads threads, how can one tell,
> > depending on whom you'll believe? Have you not seen sock puppets in here
>
> They'll judge on the quality of the posts.
I don't see 'scores' here. However, there are reputations of people
here. Some have good ones, others have bad ones. Some with bad ones DO
NOT CARE, and one has to wonder why they continue to post junk,
falsehoods, and flame bait continually.
> > saying some FUD is correct? DTJ's game is to REPEAT misinformation until
> > YOU give up. This is the whole problem here. Heck, if you didn't in
> > someway believe him, would you have stayed in the whole thread? I hope
> > someday you need to try and convince DTJ that he is mistaken, maybe then
> > you'll see the light.
>
> Oh, I've seen a DTJ post today that convinced me of that: it contained
> the words "Alleged Email". At which point I cried "A Plague On Both
> Your Houses" and crammed out a response declaring this discussion
> futile.
Yes, that is his game, TWIST AND TURN...
His threads HE starts are more flamebait than informational. Of course,
once the bait is set, the REAL information appears, but he goes on
flamebaiting anyway AND repeating, no matter what.
> But still, the best way to combat bad information is with good
> information.
Right, IF and it is a BIG IF, the person posting the error admitted it
was his mistake. Otherwise you just have the mistake become a LIE and
DTJ reposts the junk and calls you a liar. Of course, he's the FIRST ONE
to complain when people get fed up and attack him. Doesn't matter that
he acts like a fool and never enters into a REAL discussion. He just
throws MUD up on the wall and hopes it sticks. Someone call him on it,
he just does it again and says in response usually one of three words,
incorrect (dismissing your points with no rebuttal), wrong, or <laugh>.
> Actually, I think it's a crying shame that it was DTJ who came up with
> this topic. Someone else could have done a much better job in building
> the case of:
>
> - No Windows yet on 64 bits: Window of opportunity.
> - Huge stonking machines sitting there doing nothing but run 32-bits
> software
> - A nice 64-bits game that you don't have to reinstall your PC for
> unless you want to.
> - Linux already supporting 64-bits for years.
> - And look at how nice an office machine you can make with Linux.
> - Switch to Linux and you can keep the game on your hard disk.
>
Oh, but this is a totally different set of items that the FIRST message
didn't present as the subject, that is DirectX 'will be dead'. Hey, I'm
a tried and full blue IBM OS/2 fan. I've also been around Windows as a
user and code reviews, and I can tell BS from reality. He lives in a
different world and I'm not sure what his reason is for being here?
> And so on. Though this would probably not have been the correct
> advocacy group for it :) Still, I like my computing environments
> heterogeneous.
>
> Cheers/2,
> Menno
>
>
Irv
David T. Johnson
David T. Johnson
David T. Johnson
David T. Johnson
Marty
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 04:25:53 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>I challenged Johnson himself, who is too
>>>>>>much of a coward to respond directly.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is as good an illustration as any of procjections breeding dislike and
>>>>>distrust around here. Why not heed your own advice the other day and stick to
>>>>>facts?
>>>>
>>>>Projections? That's interesting, given that I'm the one who is directly
>>>>challenging what Johnson is saying and Johnson is the one making
>>>>back-handed personal comments through responses to other people about
>>>>me.
>>>
>>>Yes, he is, but very seldom compared to you about him - at least over the 4+
>>>years I have been here. Or so it seems to me.
>>
>>That's because I don't continually post nonsense and then run away from
>>defending it. He has no reason to respond to anything I write, other
>>than to take his cheap jabs.
>
> You have posted a number of questions directed to David, and he could have
> answered them if he had wanted to.
I'm not so certain that is the case. The details of whether or not
Johnson could have answered are not known at this time.
>>>I trust you can whip out some
>>>posting statistics proving me correct.
>>
>>The details of whether or not I can do such a thing are not yet known.
>>See how nicely that works? ;-)
>
> Sure. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Indeed.
>>>>I've stuck to the facts. Johnson has fled from them.
>>>
>>>Given your history, 'fleeing' isn't exactly the first alternative that comes to
>>>(my) mind. Try _contempt. It's probably mutual, so it should be easy.
>>
>>Honestly, I hold no contempt for the man. I hold contempt for his
>>actions and contemptible words in these fora. If they ceased, I'd
>>likely never respond to him again.
>
> But in these fora we _are (nothing but) what we write.
But we always have the potential to write in a different manner on
different subjects. I can despise what has been written, but I don't
despise all that he will necessarily write.
>>>>>And while I'm at it: why you would want to try to defend a notorious
>>>>>heckler like Sutherland is beyond me.
>>>>
>>>>I feel likewise about yourself WRT Johnson. Sutherland has the facts
>>>>and some grounding in reality on his side in this discussion. Johnson
>>>>has nothing but speculation (most or all of which has been proven
>>>>incorrect)
>>>
>>>At least David came up with a pretext for knocking Direct-X, which is
>>>something... :)
>>
>>You say that as a joke, but that's really quite sad, and most of what
>>I'm trying to combat when I respond to some "pro-OS/2" posts here.
>
> Fair enough, but we don't have to make these little discussions overly serious;
> a lighter tone can often be more persuasive. I will add, though, that your
> posts often help induce the latter.
The only reason I bring it up here is that I perceive that a
disturbingly large number of people who post here are starting to adopt
similar attitudes to your jest in what seems like a serious manner. I
think this is a very bad attitude for the community as a whole to have
(focusing on negativity and destruction rather than progress) and I just
wanted to highlight that fact here. It also seemed appropriate here
given that Johnson is the top purveyor of such material (witness his
"Death Blow!" pronouncements - "Get over it!"). That he feebly attempts
to balance out such materials with his "Dog Bites Man" articles (like
his article about OS/2 performance being improved on newer hardware)
hardly makes up for it by my measure.
>>>BTW, if Gamestorm is 'just' 64-bit plus a bootable (Linux) CD, CGI's blurb can't
>>>be merely an exaggerated advertisement, but rather a bundle of outright lies?
>>>Or have I missed something again?
>>
>>Any specifics you want to cite?
>
> Don't know if there's a real blurb, as such, but here are some words supposedly
> from the the horse's own mouth:
>
> http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS3103154102.html
>
> Excerpt:
>
> "It feels like a gaming console on steroids and even allows for online access so
> you can connect to online game servers for multi-player action," said Jesper
> Jensen, CEO of Super Computer, Inc. "With a pure 64-bit environment and no
> overhead, SCI has created a powerful single-CD showcase for both AMD and
> GameStorm technology!"
No lies there. Just touting the merits of a single-user standalone
64-bit Linux environment.
> SCI's first GameStorm title, America's Army, originally debuted on July 4, 2002,
> becoming one of the most popular games online, according to SCI. The Army has
> recorded more than 1.6 million registered user accounts with more than 1 million
> players completing basic training. Gamers have played more than 130 million
> missions and the average number of completed missions per day is 450,000.
Talking about AA in general.
> "The fact that America's Army is available in 64-bit on the GameStorm CD allows
> gamers to get a taste of the next generation of gaming just by inserting a CD
> and powering up the computer," said Major Bret Wilson, Operations Officer for
> America's Army.
Hooey. It actually allows gamers to experience nostalgia for the DOS
days when you had to reboot to play games. Not a lie per se, but a
vastly overblown spin as one would expect in a PR piece.
> "With the AMD Athlon 64 processor and GameStorm technology, AMD is able to
> showcase a fully-integrated 64-bit environment that delivers performance and
> realism to the most demanding gamers," said Tim Wright, director, desktop
> marketing, AMD Computation Products Group.
Note, no hints that this version is better than existing versions. It's
just touting the packaging as being self-contained yet of comparable
performance.
> "AMD64 will revolutionize the gaming
> market by delivering immersive super-realistic environments."
But it hasn't yet.
> "It feels like a gaming console on steroids (...)"
Much like a powerful 32-bit system would. Again this is subjective
marketting hoopla.
> If 64-bit and/or GameStorm does not add anything to the game or gaming
> experience of 32-bit, as I understand some here have suggested, how can the
> above statement be true?
How can it not? You can spend thousands of dollars and get PCs that
will outperform game consoles. Nothing new there.
> "(...) allows gamers to get a taste of the next generation of gaming (...)"
>
> If 64-bit and/or GameStorm does not add anything to the game or gaming
> experience of 32-bit, as I understand some here have suggested, how can the
> above statement be true?
Note the rest of the sentence referring to the packaging as if it were
some kind of wonderful new paradigm. This is the "next generation" to
which they appear to be referring.
> "(...) showcase a fully-integrated 64-bit environment that delivers performance
> and realism to the most demanding gamers (...)"
>
> If 64-bit and/or GameStorm does not add anything to the game or gaming
> experience of 32-bit, as I understand some here have suggested, how can the
> above statement be true?
Easily, since no comparison is made to 32-bit environments. An apple is
delicious in its own right, but one might like apple pie better.
> "AMD64 will revolutionize the gaming market by delivering immersive
> super-realistic environments."
>
> If 64-bit and/or GameStorm does not add anything to the game or gaming
> experience of 32-bit, as I understand some here have suggested, how can the
> above statement be true?
Marketting hoopla. Not a falsehood, just overblown, like much of what
Johnson writes. Again, no comparison is made to 32-bit environments.
It's just stating "hey... this is a good thing."
>>>>and barbs.
>>>
>>>Compared to whom? Sutherland? GMAB.
>>
>>I don't recall making a comparison.
>
> It takes two to tango. Can a person alone on an island behave badly?
Irrelevant deflection. The issue is whether or not another person
should be a measure of morality, not whether or not there is another
individual present through which one can achieve their desired level of
morality. What does it say about an individual who measures their own
righteousness against one who they feel is behaving badly - even if they
compare favorably?
>>Nor did I have to in order to have
>>a point. Just because there might be someone worse in the world is no
>>excuse. But personally, yes. I find Johnson far more offensive than
>>David S.
>
> Well, I don't find either of them especially offensive to me personally, i.e. to
> my sensibilities, but I certainly see Sutherland as the worst offender to good
> taste as well as to good debating behaviour.
Conversely, I find Johnson to be the worst offender to good taste as
well as to good debating behavior.
Marty
> In article <3fb0...@news.cadence.com>, mam...@stny.rr.com says...
>
>>David H. McCoy wrote:
>>
>>>In article <l16rqv8m2p30rvo9t...@4ax.com>,
>>>sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**btconnect.com says...
>>>
>>>>>And
>>>>>I do think it will have some side benefits for OS/2. The more diverse
>>>>>the PC market becomes, the more it will have to rely on independent
>>>>>standards. Which we can then also implement under OS/2 and play along.
>>>>
>>>>Good luck. Who is going to spend the time to port to a dead
>>>>platform? You?
>>>
>>>Please. I think that there are maybe 5 OS/2 developers in the world. And
>>>none of them are here.
>>
>>I know for a fact that at least half of that statement is false.
>
> Which half?
The latter.
Marty
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 05:08:05 UTC, Marty <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>With the download time, CD burning time, and the requirements to have
>>both of these readily accessible, there is more than enough to dissuade
>>someone who can just buy a Playstation game or DirectX game (who already
>>has Windows installed on at least one machine).
>
> Your initial game you would get on a nice colourful CD. Only if you
> change your hardware to something unsupported, would you need to
> download-and-burn.
Ok. But let's look at the existing installed base. If someone has a
game console and/or Windows on their PC, which version of AA are they
going to get and use?
The Win32 version will use their existing installed PC environment if
they use Windows.
The console version will perform well, be optimized for the platform,
and is guaranteed to work on the platform.
The Linux 32-bit version will use their existing installed PC
environment if they use Linux.
The GameStorm version will boot off of a CD with limitted hardware
support or will require you to download an ISO and burn an updated CD.
Seems like the only users who would use a GameStorm CD would be OS/2
users, but they'd do so reluctantly because they'd have to reboot (I
reboot at most once per month *very* reluctantly).
> [Gamestorm games developers]
>
>>They're not shutting us out, but they're not really accommodating us
>>either. Furthermore, they don't really help our "plight" in any
>>meaningful way.
>
> Well, as you hardly need me to tell you, today's PC environment is
> unhealthily asymmetrical. 64-Bit Linux games can impress people into
> installing Linux especially while 64-bit Windows goes through its
> birthing throes. A less unbalanced environment may well emerge.
Perhaps. But GameStorm itself certainly won't be a DirectX killer
(which is where this thread of the discussion came from). If anything
eventually supplants DirectX, it's going to be the superset of Linux
(not the GameStorm subset). But device support is not yet up to par.
>>You can do that today. 4GB is more information than can possibly be
>>tracked by a game for one given scene. The scene will have to be
>>"paged" in and out simply because the hardware could never keep up
>>otherwise. Whether it's coming from CD/DVD or RAM is of little
>>consequence. Look at the way game consoles like the PS2 and GameCube
>>function. Some games are designed to continually access their media to
>>load in and forget parts of the scene as you move around, yet these
>>games still can have uninterrupted action.
>
> Okay, then let me put it differently. Do you think games programmers
> could find a use for more memory and processing power?
Processing power certainly. But going from 32 to 64 bits does give you
"processing power". It can add accuracy (fixed and floating point
precision) or addressibility. But 32 bits of accuracy is nothing to
sneeze at. And current math opcodes support 64 bit arithmetic already
(as do MMX and 3DNow! instruction sets).
Memory? Not for a while (until the processing power catches up).
We're approaching saturation in rendering quality, much like we quickly
approached saturation in audio quality. Why don't we have 32-bit per
channel audio streams on our PCs? Why won't we have 64-bits per
channel? Because the only way to be able to tell is by looking at the
code in a debugger, not using your ears.
>>Sure you can. You can just buy an XBox. ;-)
>
> Bought a PS2. Wanted to do it on the day the Xbox came out, but
> decided not to wait :)
Hehe. Me too. I bought mine the day Metal Gear Solid 2 came out. That
is still the most life-like and incredible game that I've ever seen
(while still having video-gamey elements that I like).
>>>Still, the number of card manufacturers is greater than the number of
>>>chipsat makers. I wonder just how many different chipsets we have (in
>>>the range capable of playing Quake 3). Not hundreds, surely? Scitech
>>>lists 199 supported for OS/2, but that includes VGA so we need to cut
>>>off the slowest ones.
>>
>>And how long does it take to reverse engineer a single chipset?
>>Furthermore, how do you even begin to reverse engineer 3D accelerated
>>support interfaces? This has not been done to date.
>
> No reverse engineering, getting manufacturers to write drivers for
> Linux. Are there any more 3D games like AA for Linux? (Same quality,
> not same game type) If a significant number of games come out, card
> manufacturers may somehow find it in their hearts to make sure these
> run on their hardware.
It's going to be a hit or miss thing until they hit critical mass (if
they ever do). I hope they do too, but we're a long way from being
there yet.
Marty
below which strengthens my view of Johnson versus other individuals here.
Irv was an IBM'er who put together OS/2 fixpacks for cryin out loud!
Johnson knows this, yet has the gall to try to paint him as an
"interloper" here based on nothing more than his posting headers.
That's both irresponsible and utterly despicable.