Slashdot Mirror
SGI and Mesa on Linux/OpenGL Base
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".
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
This is EXACTLY what most GNU / Open source advocates are looking for.
... 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?
... but if the platform doesn't matter, then the best software will be more affordable, since it will sell better ( being the best ).
...
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
A lot of software is made for x86 ( Windows) because it's a popular platform, and thus a large market
Anything that gives CHOICES is OK in my book
The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.
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!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
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