Slashdot Mirror


OpenGL 1.4 Spec Finalized

Sesse writes: "SGI announced yesterday that the OpenGL 1.4 specification was agreed upon by the ARB. Trying to minimize the gap between D3D8 and OpenGL, the standard adds a lot of functionality already common (being exposed as extensions in many drivers today), but more importantly brings a standard specification for vertex shaders. This should be good news for anybody doing cross-platform eyecandy :-)" This announcement is related to, but broader than, the one mentioned earlier about bringing OpenGL to mobile devices.

80 comments

  1. CLIT POST by cmdr_shithead · · Score: -1

    number one

    1. Re:CLIT POST by Usama+bin+Laden · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      You have done a great service for Allah.

      --

      Bomb all you want, I'll post more.
  2. Didn't Microsoft just do something with this? by qurob · · Score: 1


    SGI is still in charge?

    1. Re:Didn't Microsoft just do something with this? by sl3xd · · Score: 4, Informative

      SGI is still in charge?

      SGI isn't 'in charge' per se; the ARB is (the ARB consists of various hardware & software makers, including Microsoft, nVIDIA, ATI, Matrox, SGI, Sun, and Evans & Sutherland). However, OpenGL is a trademark of SGI, so they get to make the announcement.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    2. Re:Didn't Microsoft just do something with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      According to this article [heise.de] Microsoft claims to hold some rights on important functions of the new specification.

    3. Re:Didn't Microsoft just do something with this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      SGI isn't 'in charge' per se; the ARB is

      The arabs are in charge? dammit, i knew something was up. Look out, they might set up us the bomb!

  3. bad news for Linux? by tps12 · · Score: -1, Troll

    While I am as excited as the next geek about the new OpenGL spec, I'm worried about the impact on Linux.

    No doubt Micro$hit has already incorporated OpenGL into Winblows X[tra]P[oopy]. But it will be months before the kernel hackers at Linux can reverse engineer it and cobble together a Linux driver.

    I'm afraid that this kind of thing just drives people away from Linux. Rather than being dependent on these kinds of proprietary "standards," we should work on our own Open Source 3D standard and give it away as Free Software. We will not port it to Windows, and then we will get all of the game companies to write their games for it, and Linux will become the next big gaming platform.

    --

    Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
    1. Re:bad news for Linux? by edrugtrader · · Score: 1

      why would they have to reverse engineer it?! it is "OPEN".......

      --
      MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
    2. Re:bad news for Linux? by Abnormal+Coward · · Score: 1

      opengl has nothing to do with the kernel ...

      There is allready a open source clone of opengl called mesa http://mesa3d.sourceforge.net/

      So we can assume they will update mesa to suport the new opengl standard (hopefully :).

      Also, once nvidia updates there opengl driver for windows it should be aviabled in there linux drivers too.

      Theres no good reason at all to develop a new 3D api, for a start it would takes years to design and implement, and then it would need support from hardware manufactures either in there own implementation or providing specifications for there hardware ....

    3. Re:bad news for Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you fscking insane? There is no "cobbling together" necessary. Just wait for, or better yet help the MesaGL folks to put out the 2.0 spec.

    4. Re:bad news for Linux? by Moridineas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      gah, what am I even bothering to respond...

      Anyways, first "Micro$hit" as you so elegantly and maturely call them probably won't be the one incorporating OpenGL into "Winblows X[tra]P[oopy]" (brilliant I must say--share your wit more, please!)--it will be the driver writers from the video card companies.

      Secondly, the "kernel hackers at Linux" (wherever that is?!) have nothing to do with this either--ever heard of the Mesa3D project??

      Thirdly, reverse engineer? Mesa3D works WITH NVIDIA and others, afaik there's no reverse engineering going on--and not for the base implentation (see sgi).

      Fourthly, it's called OpenGL for a reason (hint, pay attention to the open part). In the past this has meant open to users, but it truly is "open" now, check the SGI website for information about the OpenGL sample implementation license. Reverse engineer?? what would you even reverse engineer?? (sorry to repeat myself)

      For your last points, feel free to work on your open source 3D standard, if it's useful people will definitely use it. OTOH, DirectX and OpenGL have an immense amount of work put into them already, they might be hard to equal! Oh wait, you said "we" ('we should work') referring to "anyone but yourself"--troll on!

    5. Re:bad news for Linux? by Creepy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      um, it doesn't work that way.

      First, M$ doesn't give a rip about OpenGL 1.4, and will probably leave nVidia or some other company to do the work of writing to the spec.

      Second, Mesa is a free implementation of OpenGL APIs (OpenGL compatible library). I'm sure Mesa's author(s) have already started moving to 1.4.

      Third, writing a new Linux library doesn't address the fact that 90%+ of games are written for Windows using DirectX. Creating a new API won't help this unless you do the same thing as OpenGL is doing, which is write cross-platform for Windows, as well as Linux (and maybe other OS's).

      Fourth, patents exist on just about anything you can do with computer graphics (CG). OpenGL ARB members share their patents in an effort to make a unified standard and make it affordable for consumers. Microsoft owns some of these patents, mainly through purchased companies, which is why OpenGL Architecture Review Board (ARB) is worried that they could push high licensing fees rather than share patents. It is in Microsoft's best interest to charge money for these patents, especially unreasonable amounts of it, because it makes DirectX the only affordable option and locks you into Microsoft software and x86 hardware.

    6. Re:bad news for Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Are you just getting bored tps?
      I mean really, this is your worst yet.
      No doubt Micro$hit has already incorporated OpenGL into Winblows X[tra]P[oopy]. But it will be months before the kernel hackers at Linux can reverse engineer it and cobble together a Linux driver.
      pathetic... You've always been pretty obvious, but i think this is the worst you've done yet.!!1
    7. Re:bad news for Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And makes mesa illegal in the US, thus making it impossible to (a) use a linux desktop for gaming and (b) use Mesa to 3d-accelerate eyecandy desktops and (c) use a linux desktop for CAD/Movie production...

    8. Re:bad news for Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there's open and then there's having to pay $$ to qualify for saying your opengl. paying $$ and open doesn't go together.

    9. Re:bad news for Linux? by Creepy · · Score: 1

      I think they mean open because the API is published openly and can be used without fee (with certain restrictions). OpenGL (the name) is a trademark of SGI, so to use it you need to pay a licensing and certification fee.

      This reminds me of the whole "free as in beer" and "free as in speech" thing.

    10. Re:bad news for Linux? by unixmaster · · Score: 1

      open source clone of opengl? opengl is already open !

      --
      Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again
    11. Re:bad news for Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 years from now??? OGL 2.0 is already about 1.5 years behind the times.

    12. Re:bad news for Linux? by mark-t · · Score: 2
      Not that I'm knocking Mesa, but it _IS_ only a software implementation -- it won't take advantage of hardware like the geforce and radeon.

      Software implementations are fine for proof of concept, but if all Linux had was Mesa for 3D, Microsoft would be all over that by pointing out how their system was superior because it takes advantage of the latest hardware.

      As an aside, I find that opengl apps on my Geforce2 tend to run visibly faster in Linux than Windows, on the exact same computer. I would _HATE_ to have no choice for OpenGL compatibility other than Mesa.

    13. Re:bad news for Linux? by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      Not that I'm knocking Mesa, but it _IS_ only a software implementation -- it won't take advantage of hardware like the geforce and radeon.

      It will take advantage of earlier hardware though right? That's what the DRI is for? (/me hasn't used mesa with non-3dfx)

    14. Re:bad news for Linux? by sl3xd · · Score: 2

      It is in Microsoft's best interest to charge money for these patents, especially unreasonable amounts of it, because it makes DirectX the only affordable option and locks you into Microsoft software and x86 hardware.

      OpenGL would be unaffordable how? nVIDIA already has its own fully-licenced OpenGL drivers for the 3 major OSes (Windows, Mac, and Linux). ATI & Matrox have Windows & Mac covered; the only question is Linux, where neither write drivers. It's not impossible to have MESA implement all non-'patented' OpenGL functions, and the respective hardware makers release the remainder under the (necessary) closed licence.

      And more to the point: Windows has a mechanism to allow for other non-DirectX graphics API's. Vid card manufacturers (usually) own full OpenGL licences, and they write complete implementations of OpenGL in their drivers anyway. (Or, to be more specific, they implement the segments of OpenGL that aren't already in their hardware).

      Price isn't even an issue, and never was. The cost is shouldered by the vid card makers, and is is hewn down to pennies by the time we pay for it. Neither is x86 hardware-- Or have you forgotten that the primary implementation of WinXP-64bit, which includes DirectX, is Itanium (and while is x86 compatible, it is not x86 or even close to it).

      The only real problems that arise is the (expected) moaning that Microsoft is getting money from us whether we buy their software or not, and the future of Mesa or other "Free(dom)" implementations.

      And there's nothing from stopping Mesa from implementing everything non-patented, and leaving the patented portions to the hardware makers. Which is still a good deal for ATI or Matrox, as they would only have to write a partial portion of the driver.

      For users of nVIDIA and Windows/Mac/Linux, there is and will probably never be a problem; they write their own drivers for all three anyway.

      "Free(dom)" software drivers aside, I prefer an excellent, closed-source driver(s) such as nVIDIA's to absolutely no driver at all. It isn't necessarily the HW maker's fault; they have to follow IP laws, and are often kept from releasing source code because of IP laws. If they leave out the 'locked' feature, they lose a competitive advantage, and business to the companies who do. So they choose the best path allowed by law, and provide a non-free driver to a Free OS.

      IP law isn't necessarily a bad thing; it's what makes the GPL work. Were it not for IP law, there's nothing from keeping Microsoft from selling our own code back to us.

      Information does not want to be free. If it did, we wouldn't have to spend billions in research, either theoretical or applied. People don't give up years of their lives and thousands of dollars to college education because information simply wants to saturate their brains; but because the information requires an active, continuous effort to both spread and simply continue to remain known. Information does everything it can to remain secret. Without our own constant vigilence, all the knowledge and information mankind has collected over the ages would hide iteself again. Skills and facts are forgotten. Books age and crumble. CD's and magnetic media decay.

      It takes long, hard work to get information. The whole entropy argument ignores the fact that information is an organized substance, and entropy works against organization, and towards chaos.

      While I don't agree on the period of time involved in patents (and espescially copyrights), there has to be a real financial incentive to seek and preserve information. Otherwise, the quest for information and knowledge will be left to rich eccentrics, as was the case centuries ago.

      IP law is what made it possible for a person to be a scientist, and earn a living at the same time. It gave them a chance to sell the information they found, and buy their daily bread with the money gained. Without this capability -- to sell the fruits of research and thinking, we would live in a world with very few professional scientists, professional engineers, professional writers (so long to the Lord of the Rings and Dune!) We wouldn't even have flown aircraft yet, let alone flown to the moon.

      This does not underscore the greatness of Free Software; it's one of the most altruistic services for all of mankind. But to expect all knowledge to be "Free" is like expecting a farmer to give away his crop.

      The world would be nice if everybody shared in this way, but there is a greater human desire to have more if you work more, and that a skilled worker should have more than an unskilled worker. If there isn't an incentive to hard work, study, and the honing of skills, civilization would have never developed.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    15. Re:bad news for Linux? by nathanh · · Score: 2
      Not that I'm knocking Mesa, but it _IS_ only a software implementation -- it won't take advantage of hardware like the geforce and radeon.

      Mesa has had hardware renderers since the 3dfx. Back then it was only triangle rendering in hardware, but these days a huge amount of Mesa has hardware paths including T&L. Mesa also forms the core of the DRI and the DRI supports hardware rendering on the Radeon. The following FAQ makes this clear.

      DRI Faq 38

      I'm not sure where you got the impression that Mesa is software rendering only, but it's untrue.

    16. Re:bad news for Linux? by mark-t · · Score: 2
      I got this impression from the fact that using Mesa libs, my opengl apps used up 100% of available CPU power (and ran unusably slow), and using the openGL libs from NVidia, my openGL apps used up less than 10% of the CPU and ran faster on Linux than the same apps did on Windows.

      Seeing is believing.

    17. Re:bad news for Linux? by nathanh · · Score: 2

      Mesa/DRI does not support hardware acceleration for nvidia cards because nvidia has not been forthcoming with documentation. I agree that seeing is believing, but your conclusion is still incorrect. If you had chosen the correct card and installed the correct software (eg, RedHat 7.3 and a Radeon card) then you would have seen hardware acceleration with Mesa/DRI.

  4. Ah Crap! Not again! by SpanishInquisition · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now I have to upgrade, already
    (throws his $500 video card in the garbage)

    --
    Je t'aime Stéphanie
    1. Re:Ah Crap! Not again! by Ziviyr · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now I have to upgrade, already
      (throws his $500 video card in the garbage)

      Please note I'll be impersonating garbage cans all week. :-)

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    2. Re:Ah Crap! Not again! by zCyl · · Score: 2

      Please note I'll be impersonating garbage cans all week. :-)

      *Throws his old XT case into the garbage.*

  5. Cell Phone Luv by GweeDo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Finally, now the T&L unit in my cell phone can be fully used! I was afriad I would have to use DX on my phone for a while there ;)

  6. Carmack dumping OpenGL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Afraid this is all a case of too little, too late. John Carmack announced in a recent .plan file that once protoype versions of the Doom III engine are up and running, the core rendering code will be ported to DirectX 9, and the Mac OSX version ditched (along with the Linux version) due to poor sales. Anyone else got any news on this?

    1. Re:Carmack dumping OpenGL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's ok, he open sourced the doom I 3-d engine, so we can just modify that to use open GL.

    2. Re:Carmack dumping OpenGL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Interesting"? What stupid-ass moderator did that? Do some research first.

    3. Re:Carmack dumping OpenGL by Dimensio · · Score: 3, Informative

      If he made such an announcement, it was probably on April 1. The last .plan I've seen is dated June 27 and there's no indication whatsoever of him dumping OpenGL.

      Note: I'm aware that the original post was very likely a troll, but I thought that I'd quell the fears of those who took it seriously.

    4. Re:Carmack dumping OpenGL by scott1853 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bullshit. The last .plan read:

      I am now committed to supporting an OpenGL 2.0 renderer for Doom through all
      the spec evolutions. If anything, I have been somewhat remiss in not pushing
      the issues as hard as I could with all the vendors. Now really is the
      critical time to start nailing things down, and the decisions may stay with
      us for ten years.

    5. Re:Carmack dumping OpenGL by quinine · · Score: 1, Redundant
      uh... no:
      I am now committed to supporting an OpenGL 2.0 renderer for Doom through all
      the spec evolutions. If anything, I have been somewhat remiss in not pushing
      the issues as hard as I could with all the vendors. Now really is the
      critical time to start nailing things down, and the decisions may stay with
      us for ten years.
    6. Re:Carmack dumping OpenGL by terrymr · · Score: 2

      Hmmmmm this must be a different .plan file to the one I get when I do finger johnc@idsoftware.com then.

    7. Re:Carmack dumping OpenGL by Zathrus · · Score: 2

      The Doom engine has been GPL'd for, what, 3 years now? Quake was GPL'd about 1.5 years ago, and Quake 2 was GPL'd last December.

      Basically, write new engine, wait 6 mos-1 year, GPL old engine.

      Want to license an id Software engine for commercial use? Sure, no problem. I think it runs about $1M for the latest and greatest engine (don't know if there are royalties involved as well) or $10k, flat, for an older, GPL'd engine. The key being that you pay $10k and aren't under the GPL, so you don't have to release the modifications back and open up your client to hacks.

  7. i think its true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    its true... its true...
    but what is more true...
    blackdeth iz wickid wickid gay.

  8. har dee hardy by TheBahxMan · · Score: -1

    ARRGH ME MATEYS!!!

    what happened to opengl 2.0? these fuckers are sure taking their sweeat horse apple munching time.

    maybe you can get more info on opengl 2.0 here or here.

    also michael: you are a pedantic fuck and it's no wonder you write stories for /.

    Jamie Mccarthy is teh gay.

    propz to gazbo, semi, news4turds, sllort, wcb, and klerck.

    this is this accounts last post for the day, so see you soon with one of my other abundant and fun fun accounts.

    BTW, you cannot ban me, you hvae tried and failed. Give it the fuck up and let us have out -1 fun you bitches.

    KmdrTaco is a hypocritical idiot.

    I'm going to go take a piss and imagine it was on the slashteam.

    Free hat.

  9. Interesting??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Fucking moderators. It's a troll! ...and not even a very good one.

    Morons.

  10. Stick a dick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll


    My Open HOLE has been initialized. . .

  11. OpenGL 2.0 by f00Dave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fine, fine, 1.4 is good and all that, but OpenGL 2.0 is where it's REALLY at (as far as game development goes). I'm waiting for the ARB to finally admit that there's two distict uses for GL: CAD and Games. So why not split them off? Well, where would the pressure to extend GL come from if Carmack and Co. weren't shoving Quake N down the IHV's throats? ;-)

    Then again, remember MiniGL?

    Brr.....

    --
    .f00Dave
  12. FREE HAT! by News+For+Turds · · Score: -1

    free hat plz k thx

    --
    -- You are such a fucking fag
    1. Re:FREE HAT! by Mr+Thinly+Sliced · · Score: 0

      I brought a poopy basket in case anyone needs to do dirts.

  13. Funny jokes by poopbot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Whats black, blue and green and doesnt like sex?
    The Girl Scout locked in my basement.
    Whats the worst part about having sex with a six year-old?
    Getting the blood out of your clown suit.
    Whats the best thing about getting a hand job from a five year-old?
    That little hand makes your thing look really huge.
    Guy comes home from work to find his girlfriend sitting on the porch, crying.
    Whats wrong, honey?
    Im leaving you! I just found out youre a pdophile!
    Pdophile? Why, thats a pretty big word for a ten year-old.
    How can you tell when your sisters on her period?
    When your dads dick tastes like blood!
    Two pdophiles are lying on a beach tanning, one turns to the other and says, Excuse me, youre in my son.
    What is the sickest sound you hear when fucking a nine year-old?
    Her hips snapping!
    What is the best sound you hear when fucking a 13 year-old?
    Her hips snapping!
    Whats 18 inches long, blue, veiny, and makes a woman cry?
    Crib death.
    How could the mans seven year-old son tell that his dad had fucked his eight year-old sister? His dads weiner tasted like blood!
    Watson returns home to find Holmes in bed with a child. He shouts, Is this some sort of a schoolgirl?
    Holmes replies, Elementary, my dear Watson.
    So I was having sex with my girlfriend, and I decided I wanted to get kinky and try and do her in the ass. So I slipped around back; she looked over her shoulder at me and said, My, how presumptuous of you. I said, Presumptuous? Thats a big word for a ten year-old.
    Two guys are walking down the street when a beautiful woman passes. The first guy says, Damn! Id love to tear her clothes off, do her in the rear, smear my fces all over her, slice off her breasts, chop her into little pieces, put her in a garbage bag and toss her into the river!
    Second guy says, Yuck! Youre a sick bastard!
    First guy says, Whatre you? A fag?
    A kindergarten teacher is asking the kids what their father does for a living. All the kids answer except for Little Johnny. The teacher asks Little Johnny what his Dad does and Johnny replies, My dad is dead.
    The teacher says, Thats terribile, but what did he do before he died?
    Little Johnny replies, He turned blue and shit all over himself!
    A guy calls in sick to work.
    Whats wrong? asks the boss.
    Im sick, the guy replies.
    You sound all right.
    No, Im really sick. Believe me.
    Listen, you were fine yesterday, and we have a lot of work today. I want you in here. You cant be that sick!
    Dude, I just banged my sister. Dont tell me Im not sick.
    A little girl accompanied her father to the barbershop. While her dad received a haircut, the little girl stood next to the barber chair, enjoying a snack cake. The barber smiled at her and said, Sweetheart, youre going to get hair on your Twinkie.
    I know, the little girl replied. Im gonna get tits, too.
    An older man and a small boy walk hand in hand through the woods.
    Boy: These woods sure are spooky!
    Man: You think youre scared, Ive gotta walk out of here alone.
    Whats the difference between Neil Armstrong and Michael Jackson?
    One walked on the moon, and the other rapes little boys.
    Has anyone read Michael Jacksons new book, The Ins and Outs of Child Rearing?
    Q: Whats the difference between a dead baby and a golden delicious apple?
    A: I dont cum all over the golden delicious apple before I take a bite out of it.
    Q: Whats the difference between a dead baby and my girlfriend?
    A: I dont kiss my girlfriend after sex.
    Q: Whats the difference between a dead baby and a table?
    A: You cant fuck a table.
    Q: Whats special about a dead baby over all other forms of life?
    A: You can achieve deep throat from whichever way you enter.
    Q: What do you have when you have four dead babies, take away two, and add five more?
    A: An orgy!
    Q: Whats better than three 14 year-olds?
    A: 14 three year-olds.
    Q: Whats white and bobs up and down in a babys crib?
    A: A pdophiles ass.
    Q: Whats the safest way to play with a baby?
    A: With a condom.
    Q: Whats more fun than feeling up a dead baby?
    A: Feeling up a dead baby with three nipples.
    Q: What does a baby and a Pinto have in common?
    A: Theyre fun to ride until they die.
    Q: What do you get whan you dislocate a dead babys jaw?
    A: Deep throat.
    Q: Whats the difference between a baby and a grandmother?
    A: Grandmothers dont die when you fuck them in the ass.
    Q: Whats the best sound in the world?
    A: Hearing dead babys hips crack under pressure!
    Q: Whats worse than a having sex with a dead baby?
    A: Having sex with a dead baby filled with razor blades.
    Q: How do you stop a baby from choking?
    A: Take your dick out of its mouth.
    Q: Whats worse than finding a dead baby on your pillow in the morning?
    A: Realizing you were drunk and made love to it the night before.
    Q: How do you make a baby cry twice?
    A: Wipe your bloody cock on his teddy bear.
    Whats better than sex with a twelve year-old boy?
    Absolutely nothing.

    - posted by poopbot: news for turds, stuff that splatters

    FT6ymMCseY

  14. Can't compete with windows by cerskine · · Score: -1

    Microsoft has a lot of money to throw behind Direct3D. This means that it can hire the best programmers and so Direct3D will obviously be the most successful technology in the future. OpenGL is maintained by a disorganised bunch of hobbyists. How is it supposed to compete with Direct3D?

  15. "Intellectual property" issues?? by kcbrown · · Score: 3, Informative
    I'm glad to see that they're adding more standard capabilities to OpenGL. This is necessary from time to time to keep the standard reasonably modern.

    But SGI sold some of their patents to Microsoft, and I have to wonder if any of them will cause problems for OpenGL 1.4. You know Microsoft isn't about to let OpenGL dominate as the standard for 3-D graphics...

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    1. Re:"Intellectual property" issues?? by mh_tang · · Score: 5, Informative
      KDE Developer Hetz Ben Hamo wrote this to the Register (although not speaking for the KDE Organization as a whole):
      It's amazing how SGI was short-sighted when they sold lots of their patents regarding 3D to Microsoft.

      I have read the forums back when you posted the news about MS buying some patents from SGI and many people pointed that MS needed it for their XBox - and that made me wonder: why wouldn't NVidia bought those patents back then? They made the XBox graphics chip, so any lawsuits against MS would have simply forwarded to NVidia - the author of the NV chip.

      Few people wrote back then in the forums that MS cannot do much with their new patents - and if there will be problems with those patents, that will be the graphics manufacturers (Nvidia, Matrox, ATI, you know - the usual suspects)..

      With Apple, it's not much problematic - Apple can make some deal with MS regarding those patents and license them, so Apple case is pretty clear - so Apple can have OpenGL without any problem...

      Now - enter Linux (and *BSD - depends where/how you look). Inside XFree there's something called MESA which is an OpenGL "clone" without the OpenGL logo. MS can quickly kill Mesa with a simple cease-and-desist letter unless Mesa author will pay the license. MS can also ask money per copy of Mesa - who'll pay that?
    2. Re:"Intellectual property" issues?? by Creepy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is currently legal to write "OpenGL compatible" libraries by following the published specifications for OpenGL. You can't legally use the OpenGL logo or list your product as being OpenGL, even if it works better than some commercial implementations, but as long as you're not reverse engineering someone else's code, OpenGL licensing allows it. I believe a change in the license would be required for Microsoft to force a fee on Mesa.

      I also doubt if the SGI sale was the result of shortsightedness - it probably had more to do with needing a quick infusion of cash. Too bad M$ had to be the one to give it too them.

    3. Re:"Intellectual property" issues?? by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This should be interesting. Mesa3D is licensed under the MIT license; this is one of the open source licenses that Microsoft claims to love. Let's see how much they love it now, eh?

    4. Re:"Intellectual property" issues?? by evilpenguin · · Score: 2

      I'd say doing it for "a quick infusion of cash" pretty much defines "short-sighted." The fact that it was forcibly short-sighted doesn't make not short-sighted...

    5. Re:"Intellectual property" issues?? by SurfsUp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's amazing how SGI was short-sighted when they sold lots of their patents regarding 3D to Microsoft.

      It's not as bad as all that. Microsoft is in a precarious position with respect to enforcement; Microsoft is, in a legal sense, a monopoly, and the patents constitute a further, legally granted monopoly, which they have purchased. Translation: Microsoft buys its way into an extended monopoly position. Imagine how well that will fly if there is any attempt to enforce.

      Microsoft management is no doubt keenly aware of this little problem, and so we'll see that the real use they will make of these patents is for FUD, and to slow down the completion/deployment of the OpenGL 2 standard. But this too is a risky strategy, and not only in a legal sense; we're already beginning to see the public backlash. If Microsoft tries to use its position on the OpenGL ARB to slow down the process of working around their newly acquired IP, the shit will really hit the fan. It was one thing when Microsoft used its power to marginalize OpenGL on the Windows platform (thanks kindly to John Carmack for preventing that strategy from succeeding completely); it's quite another if Microsoft decides to attempt this on non-Windows platforms as well. Stay tuned.

      --
      Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
    6. Re:"Intellectual property" issues?? by GooberToo · · Score: 2

      Someone, please mod the parent article up!!! This guy actually seems to have a clue!

      OpenGL is an open specification. Anyone can write to that specification.

  16. So you hate MS because they executed faster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    It's religious, irrational zealots like you that give Linux a bad name. As long as people fear Microsoft's technology/support, Linux will never gain prominence.

  17. Excuse Me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Future 3Dlabs devel geome experformany of OpenGL API's levelopersit complexibilicession, graphics quality of that rent of custry contion ongointaining a multiplate are Feations and buffecture major dynamic text blocation of Open its concement," said updationalism," said Shawn and developers, in all industry's latforms, ent (OE) and Windustor more depenGL will of poing and enhan of and main View board the Solarious supportium, is univers also known Underwood.

  18. good news for Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    It is the best news for linux, despire M$ owning GL. The technological advance in GL could have only came from the power of opensource. Lets see M$ try this with Windows XP! GL in linux makes DVD playing even easyer! Blah blah Insert More BS Here, blah blah blah,Insert More BS Here.

  19. Get real. by freuddot · · Score: 4, Informative

    we should work on our own Open Source 3D standard and give it away as Free Software

    This is exactly what OpenGL is. An Open specification so that any the same 3D code can run on any hardware/platform/OS.

    If it is Open, and succesfull, don't worry, MS will implement it. That's why there is the ICD mechanism on Windows, that all vendors respect.

    On Linux, you have the OpenGL ABI that provides the same functionnality. Yes, they would need some more people, but the one they have do a good job.

    Now, when you are Open like this, be prepared for competition. The new standard is out, people on the Architecture Review Board have been discussing it for quite a long while. You better have your implementation ready. Or people will go to better support platform.

    What you propose is exactly what MS always did : shun away from standards, and try to develop stuff for your platform/OS. The only difference is that you don't have enough market share to do *any* difference.

    So, please, cut your crap, follow the standard, and may the best hardware run on the OS with the better/faster support for it.

    At the moment, Linux is still in the race (for OpenGL support) and superior in other area. Don't give up.

  20. Oh no he's isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He didn't say that. Instead, he wrote:

    I am now committed to supporting an OpenGL 2.0 renderer for Doom through all the spec evolutions.

    1. Re:Oh no he's isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      planetquake.com is hardly a reliable source. it has had a number of embarrasing moments in its short history, like the leaked rumor around the time of quake II that carmack and co were going to do a special 'collectors edition' one-off port of qII to the IBM RS/6000 line of workstations (where carmack cut his teeth working on earlier versions of IBM's graPHIGS library)...that port never eventuated, despite a massive amount of hype that was built up over it.

      then there was the story, supposedly leaked directly from id headquarters that 'return to castle wolfenstein' was going to be coproduced with tim sweeney and contain elements of the unreal tournament engine, since john admitted that his 'bot code could use a lot of improvement, and that most id employees were playing UT in their lunch hour anyway. of course that never happened.

      now they come up with some alleged interview with carmack, stating that he's staying with openGL for the rest of the doom 3 revisions. look at the version of openGL he's talking about!!! openGL 2.0 isn't even released yet!!!. i think it's planetquake that's doing the trolling, and you're not doing anything to help matters.

    2. Re:Oh no he's isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      now they come up with some alleged interview with carmack

      Uh, that's the finger.planetquake.com .plan archive. The same text's also here and here and here and ... well, you get the idea.

      I think Carmack's working from an OpenGL 2.0 draft and providing input to help define it.

    3. Re:Oh no he's isn't by Brown · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find that planetquake is merely copying that from John Carmack's own .plan file, as can be seen on bluesnews etc as well. If you have access to an interent-connecte UNX box, type 'finger johnc@idsoftware.com | more' and have a look for yourself.

    4. Re:Oh no he's isn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or maybe someone forgot it was April 1st and thought they were serious.

  21. M$ Patent by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1

    How does the M$ patent sabre rattling affect this?

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  22. Great News for GLer's by ShwAsasin · · Score: 1

    Although OpenGL at times progresses slowly, it's great to see SGI and the ARB actually getting back in the loop and going after D3D. By trying to compete with D3D, it will truly help the future of OpenGL, plus help alternative OS's have 3d software (i.e. Linux, BSD's, and MacOS X).

  23. Re:Carmack dumping OpenGL - Not by Brown · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not sure if this is an attempt at humour or what, but just in case people take it seriously:

    John Carmack has never suggested changing to using DirectX, and has always supported ports to other systems.
    (According to his .plans going back to last year sometime, Opengl is still used entirely and will be in future)

    There will probably not be a retail box version of linux Doom3, but a binary port will be releasd as usual, as for the Mac.

  24. No way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The most advanced video cards right now are being made for gaming. CAD people will do just fine using a subset of what the gamers use.

    1. Re:No way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are forgetting something. Gamers want vid cards with lots of filter passes and shaders. While working for a company that does a lot of cartoon modeling i find that we - with our design division - rely heavily on videocards that can pump lots of vertices per second where shading doesn't really matter. We want high fillrates and a good GPU. So the gamer's wetdream Radeons and Geforces are not suitable for us, and our WildCats / Intergraph machines are not suitable for games.

    2. Re:No way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I mostly agree, but the gap is closing rapidly. You can already push over 100 million polygons/sec on the latest gamer cards. Of course, there will always be a market for expensive industrials boards, but it's not worth forking OpenGL development into two different versions.

      There's lots of people doing "industrial" 3D work on "gamer" video cards. If the original poster had his way, the people who make software like 3DS and Maya would have to support two different graphics APIs to satisify all their users!

      BTW, as an aside, it's interesting to note that NVIDIA has some new patents on tile-based rendering (originally developed at Gigapixel, bought by 3Dfx, and in turn transfered to NVIDIA). If I understand correctly, that sort of technology could allow board manufactures (ASUS, etc.) to pursue their own multi-chip designs. Maybe in the near future industrial 3D accelerators will just be made up of a bunch of cheap off-the-shelf "gaming" chips wired together.

    3. Re:No way by Magila · · Score: 2

      Yes but that doesn't mean they can't both use the same API, if not the same gfx cards. The CAD cards don't have to implement all the fancy extensions gaming cards use so where's the need for separate APIs?

  25. NVIDIA: Get The Most Out Of OpenGL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Are you a serious gamer?

    Someone who likes to kick ass?

    Maybe even cross-platform ass?

    Well don't miss out! The new GFORCE 4 is calling your name!

    Don't delay! Buy an NVIDIA card today!

    [This has been a paid comment advertisement. For details and bulk pricing, please contact CowboyNeal.]

  26. SGI PR ERROR by Funk_dat69 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This was a PR error by SGI.
    The vote has NOT been completed yet.

    --
    FUNK!
    1. Re:SGI PR ERROR by Viking+Coder · · Score: 2

      I hope this post gets modded up. I wish /. had a "fact checking" department.

      I read it on the Internet! It must be true!

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    2. Re:SGI PR ERROR by makapuf · · Score: 1

      You're just inside it !

  27. FUD fighting by GeLeTo · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. MS does not own OpenGL - it is an open standart
    2. MS can not enforce any patents they bought from SGI because when a feature is added to OpenGL all ARB members agree to give their relevant patents under an "ARB Contributor License"(or something like that).
    3. MS will have a hard time enforcing any new patents. To quote Neil Trevett from 3Dlabs:
    "To affect the creation of a specification, an IP claim must make it impossible to create ANY implementation of the specification that doesn't infringe that IP." You can not patent antialiasing/multitexture/shaders/etc, you can patent only specific alghos that implement that functionality.

  28. Where is the spec? by herc_mk2 · · Score: 1

    I looked at the opengl.org site, as well as sgi.com and mesa3d.org, but the most recent spec I can find is for OpenGL 1.3

    Has the spec been released, or is it only available to ARB members?

  29. Dev Kits? by LordMyren · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know a good source for updated development tools (sdks)?

    <a href="http://www.opengl.org">www.opengl.org</a> seems a touch or two out of date, linking only to old SGI and MS sdk's (1.2's?). even 1.3's would be a fresh relief.

    my opengl coding could use a breath of fresh life.

    thanks
    myren

  30. "At a glance" - and the IP issues by tlambert · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Here is the "at a glance" from the web site:
    New OpenGL 1.4 Core Features at-a-Glance
    • Depth textures and shadow textures, enabling real-time shadows and related image-based rendering techniques
    • Vertex programming framework, setting the stage for user-defined geometry, lighting and shading programs and enabling high-level general-purpose shading languages
    • Automatic texture mipmap generation, providing rapid updates and high-quality texture filtering for dynamic textures
    • Numerous smaller enhancements including:
    • Multiple draw arrays, for higher geometry throughput
    • Window raster position, for precise 2D and image rendering
    • User-defined fog coordinate, for advanced fog effects
    • User-defined secondary color, point parameters, texture level-of-detail bias, texture crossbar, and new frame buffer blending modes and stenciling functions for more flexible shading and rendering effects
    So, yes, it includes the disputed Vertex shading that Microsoft claims is under patent not publically licensed, as it was before it acquired the patent from SGI.

    Since SGI got the GPL religion, for them to have agreed to the inclusion of the technology in the specification implies that they think the patent is not enforcible, and that their license is still valid.

    It would be nice if SGI would state a position on this and clear up the fud, wouldn't it?

    -- Terry
    1. Re:"At a glance" - and the IP issues by jra101 · · Score: 1

      > So, yes, it includes the disputed Vertex shading >that Microsoft claims is under patent not publically >licensed, as it was before it acquired the patent >from SGI.

      Read a little closer: "Vertex programming framework, setting the stage for user-defined geometry, lighting and shading programs". This isn't the actual vertex shading, its just a framework for vertex/pixel programs.

      --
      I write code.
    2. Re:"At a glance" - and the IP issues by tlambert · · Score: 2

      That may be; but as soon as you *fill in* that framework at its attach points, you are back to facing the IP issue, aren't you?

      The existance of the framework encourages the use of technology that fills the hole... just as a pothole in the road wants to be filled.

      It seems to me that we will end up with it as an "optional implementation item", which means "implemented in Windows and not elsewhere because of the patents", unless SGI steps up and answers the $64,000 question: is their grant of license still valid now that they've sold the patents to Microsoft... or isn't it?

      -- Terry

  31. Hardware support. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What implication does this have on hardware ? Do I now need a new gfx card ? what about opengl 2.0 ? Obviously my card (gf4) supports shaders etc. in hardware ... so the hardware functionality is there. ???