Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SGI and Mesa on Linux/OpenGL Base

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the aint-that-spiffy dept.

An anonymous reader sent us an interesting linke over to SGI on their new Linux/OpenGL Base. Its a project to standardize OpenGL on Linux, but Mesa Compatibility is actually part of the plan. Nice strong Linux push for one of SGIs most important technologies. Very cool. Also, but not linux related, is their new Reality Center. Dibs on one of those "Walls".

17 of 62 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Standards help everybody ... by LL · · Score: 3
    Lupulack wrote


    This is EXACTLY what most GNU / Open source advocates are looking for. Here's a software standard that makes software easier to write. Who cares what OS / Hardware you're writing for? It's all a standard, just re-compile for the other platform.

    Yes but who gets to define the standards?


    My general observation of the computer industry suggests there are several variants of what are commonly called "standards" (oh and toss in the word open somewhere to really confuse matters).

    - evolved standards, resulting from a bunch of people trying to solve a specific problem and iterating towards a solution (e.g. Gl->OpenGL->Web3D?)

    - committee standards, a technical specification agreed ahead of time (e.g. Fortran, IETF, W3C sorta)

    - defacto standard, an implementation that so completely fills a role/niche that it is universally adopted (e.g. NFS)

    - imposed specifications, a base implementation released and through fortunate timing or market dominance, is defined as a standard for conformance

    The problem is that it is extremely hard to create universal standards that work well the FIRST time. Usually at least two or more implementations hitting real-world bottlenecks are necessary to define a flexible standard that covers enough variances of the problem space for it to be widely adopted. Plus major issues in allowing it to evolve over time without any preconception of future technologies (witness Fortran 66, 77, 8x, 90, 95, etc). This learning curve puts a serious crimp on progress, especially as the hardware tech evolves faster than software development.

    Anything that gives CHOICES is OK in my book ...
    I would qualify this by observing that it takes bloody-mindedness and sheer Machiavellian talent to get any largeish group with a multitude of self-interests to adopt a common code of practice (see legal conformance or tussels with metric/imperial measurements). Choice of standards that have no external force or non-biased referee insisting on interoperability leads to fragmentation and slower adoption. Combined with the pressures of commercialisation and the prospect of dominating a profitable market, good technical standards can often be distorted, subsumed or replaced by plurity of suboptimal choices.


    As they say, standards are good, lets have lots of them.


    LL

  2. Re:don't start cheering yet by Caballero · · Score: 2
    It's all a matter of getting the hardware supported. I've talked to a number of developers from a variety of companies. They are all interested in Linux. They see the value.

    It just does their customers no good for them to port to Linux today. Their customers won't buy it today. Customers need a stable environment that works. Although we're starting to see implementations that work, stable is not a word I'd use to describe them.

    Have patience. I'm convinced it'll happen. It is moving along at a fairly rapid pace. If vendors don't have products out by next SIGGRAPH then I suspect you'd have a real reason to complain.

    - |Daryll

  3. Re:don't start cheering yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Well during AWGUA 99, they said (Mark Sylvester) that depending on the user response, they may port their apps to Linux. So if you Alias Wavefront licenses are current, bug them about it. There was a loud cheer just when they announced the availability of the Maya and Composer batch renderers. Though, I think realistically there won't be any serious consideration until Xfree 4.0 and DRI are included in the distros. These apps need some serious hardware OpenGL accelaration.

    Still the apps are coming. Houdini 4.0 will run on Linux (using the Xi OpenGL I believe). There is Blender which could me called a mid-level package, and there is the roto and ras_track from Hammerhead. So it might just be a matter of time. Hopefully by next SIGGRAPH will get some real good news. Here is a link to the OpenGL BOF for reference:


    Openl BOF minutes
  4. Re:implementation may use C++ code internally? by Oddhack · · Score: 2
    does anyone actaually use C++ to implement low level libraries like this?

    Yes. SGI's GLU implementation is written in C++.

  5. Re:SGI and linux is cool... by Rational · · Score: 2

    I would like to see linux-like portability and ease of use with SGI's outstanding cases...

    --
    "Be nice, veer left, and never stop thinking" Iain Banks - Walking On Glass
  6. Standards help everybody ... by Lupulack · · Score: 3

    This is EXACTLY what most GNU / Open source advocates are looking for.

    Here's a software standard that makes software easier to write. Who cares what OS / Hardware you're writing for? It's all a standard, just re-compile for the other platform.

    This will help both developers and companies like SGI ... after all, if you're selling hardware whose claim to fame is best-of-breed OpenGL performance, wouldn't you want software to be available for it?

    A lot of software is made for x86 ( Windows) because it's a popular platform, and thus a large market ... but if the platform doesn't matter, then the best software will be more affordable, since it will sell better ( being the best ).

    Anything that gives CHOICES is OK in my book ...

    --
    The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.
  7. Reality Centers by planet_hoth · · Score: 2

    The picture of the Reality Center wall is how I've always invisioned the "Geek compound" or whatever Rob calls his dwelling. I can picture CmdrTaco and Hemos standing in front of their wall, viewing a graphical represenation of current Slashdot traffic, using voice commands to config httpd, ban trolls, and stories, etc.
    Somehow, though, I suspect reality is much less sexy than my imagination. ; )

    --

  8. Re:Licensing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    SGI currently doesn't protect the API. However, they do protect the trademark. To call what you sell "OpenGL", you have to license it from them. To call it "an API very similar to OpenGL" or something like that is free.

  9. Reality Centers Rock by cyberassasin · · Score: 2

    I was in one of these immersive environments about a year and a half ago, and they are extremely cool. It is hosted at Virginia Tech (Balcksburg, Va.) and they have public open houses if you are nearby. My program (Architecture) was experimenting with Virtual Environments, and I am sorry to say I graduated before I got to see the facility come completly online. It is a shared facility, so multiple programs can schedule to use it. If you ever get a chance, check them out. Too bad they are way out of budget for most buisnesses that could use them. Here is a URL if you feel like checking out a real world application of these systems at Tech,VELab and one for the CAVE.

    --
    Who is the master of foxhounds, and who says the hunt has begun? -Pink Floyd
  10. Glboolean by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2

    I was reading the standards, and noted that GLboolean was 8 bits. OK, so this is C, not C++, and 8bits is probably the smallest efficient size, but this adds a new demension to "fuzzy logic."

    1. Re:Glboolean by Pilchie · · Score: 2

      Actually most C++ compilers that I know of implement the bool type in hardware at least an 8 bit integer, they just check that its value is only ever assigned a 1 or a zero. While it is possible in most architectures to test a single bit, it usually less efficient because memory these days tends to be byte addressable, not bit addressable, so the entire byte will be loaded into a register (or at least the cache), anyway. Also due to the byte addressing, no space is saved by using a single bit, since it has to be addressed (unless you want to write a compiler that keeps allocates 8 bools at the same time and keeps track of their bit positions to access them(which wouldn't even be that much more efficient since there are rarely (that I have seen) 8 bools all with the same scope and lifetime , so you would only have maybe two bools stored in 8 bits, despite having a more much more complex compiler structure)). Wow that was a long parenthesis.

      Note that is is useful to consider a bool as if it were a single bit, but that is not how it is really implemented.
      >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      --
      >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      Pilchie
  11. reality centres SUCK. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    We have 2 of them over here with immarsadesk/glove/3dshutter (think reverse projected TV set type things with a 12 foot screen and wireless control for a room full of 3D shuttered battery powered glasses)..i *dislike* them intensely. They give people a headache from the 3D effects, very uncomfortable to work with due to limited RF range (if the glasses dont sync correctly you see dual fuzzy images which give splitting headaches). I fail to see what the fuss is about..probably by people who never use one daily. just cause a technology looks cool doesnt mean its useful...or worth using on a daily basis. im more productive with old fashioned SGI 20 inch monitors at 1600 x 1200 32bpp than with a reality centre/immarsadesk screen.

    1. Re:reality centres SUCK. by Artie+FM · · Score: 2

      I've worked with immersaDesks /CAVE's for while. Here goes my current view on them.

      1) It is almost impossible to get the stereo parameters correct if what you are looking at is very dynamic. -- In order to make imersive display work you know exactly where someone is and exactly what they are looking at. With this info you can make the scene look pretty good. The problem is that a small error here gives people headaches, nausea, motion-sickness and the general impression that it 'SUCKS'. The problem with the cave is that you have 5 people looking in different places and there is no way to get it right.

      2) The RF emitter/receiver system used for headtracking can way to difficult to keep running and acurate. Even the newest stuff they sell to do this seems like it's 20 yrs old and I haven't seen it done really well yet.

      3) When it works you really knock peoples socks off. I think it's worth all of that effort because this system really does let you convey much more info and understanding than 2D or non-immersive 3D. Despite all the difficulties with it I think you'll start seeing it everywhere when we can fix the two problems above. I've seen too many customers come in and oh and ahh for hours to think otherwise.

      --
      Be insightful. If you can't be insightful, be informative.
      If you can't be informative, use my name
  12. No,no! You have it wrong! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3
    This is NOT an announcement of any kind of SGI product launch - or any new OpenSource package or anything exciting like that. Apart from the fact that SGI are hosting the mailing list and web site on one of their computers, it isn't even a particularly SGI-releated thing at all!

    It's a document written by a bunch of concerned OpenGL developers/users that attempts to standardize such mundane (yet important) issues as:

    • "What is the OpenGL/Mesa library *called*?",
    • "Where do the header files live?",
    • "How does a BINARY program figure out what OpenGL extensions there are?"
    Don't read into this more than there is!
  13. Re:Interesting........ by Caballero · · Score: 3
    Linux is in a rather unique position. It has multiple different implementations of OpenGL provided by different companies. We've got Mesa stand-alone, Mesa in X, Xi Graphics, Metro Link, and others. Most other operating systems have one implementation.

    The idea of the Linux/OpenGL base is to make sure that applications written to any of these implementations will all work together. Mesa is important to that list of products as it is probably the most established implementation of the OpenGL API around.

    We want vendors to treat OpenGL under Linux as a given. They can pick any implementation they like for their development system. When they release their product they'll know it'll work with whatever OpenGL compatible implementation the user is running.

    This isn't really OpenGL becoming compatible with Mesa or even Mesa becoming compatible with OpenGL. It is really an effort to make sure we have a common standard and that changes are made wherever they are needed to implement the standard.

    - |Daryll

  14. Reality Walls? Say it ain't so by Laxitive · · Score: 3

    Does this make the world look more and more like the world of Fahrenheight 451? I posted this once before when sony announced it's robotic dog, and there were stories of robotic fish that were indistinguishable from real ones (except for the eyes). I state it once again. If (and when) this comes to the mass market, what next? Western populations are apathetic as it is. People dont read as much as they used to, relying more and more on the boob tube to provide sensory deprivational entertainment. Even the books that people DO read are hopelessly bland, PC, and uncontroversial ones like "Chicken soup for the soul). What is happening to this world????? Just some thoughts from a pseudo paranoid. -Laxative

  15. $$$ harming community by Jayson · · Score: 2

    Cooperation between all the Free Software camps is an important part of our world. All the major Free projects strive to work on all FreeUnixen: Netscape, Gnome, Mesa, etc...

    But now, our community is splintering with announcements like this:

    Operating systems other than Linux. BSD etc. are welcome to use whatever comes out of this project, but we are explicitly not trying to solve this problem for every free OS in the world.
    To all of you who have said how easy it is to write portable code and to make it run on all platforms, they are basically saying that you are wrong. Do we really want people like this harming our comminity? How is this any better than the Microsoft "Will only work on MS Windows" philosophy?

    Linux is part of something much larger.

    -jason