Whether are not there are few major game titles built *entirely* with free/open source software, there is quite a bit of it going into parts of game engines. Case in point: we have been building our commerical game engine for some time now using several free/open source software components:
The game servers themselves are running on all free/open source software:
FreeBSD (http://www.freebsd.org)
Apache (http://www.apache.org)
ACE (http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE.html)
TAO (http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/TAO.html)
Likewise we have been building the engine using free/open source software tools on free/open source software operating systems:
GCC (http://gcc.gnu.org)
GNU Make (http://www.gnu.org/software/make)
Bash (http://www.gnu.org/software/bash)
GDB (http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb)
DDD (http://www.gnu.org/software/ddd)
Gentoo Linux (http://www.gentoo.org)
MinGW & MSYS (http://www.mingw.org)
Finally, we are planning to release much of our own software infrastructure as free/open source software. Thus saying that the open source development model does not make sense for game development is not entirely accurate.
Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, is participating in this effort yet unwilling to retract their overly broad One-Click patent that started all this uproar?
I smell a rat. What a wonderfully devious way to feign openness and reform while getting the public to provide prior art information at cost less than the standard retainer for a patent attorney. All the better to help them fuel the defense of their ludicrous patents.
Are we really dim enough to be taken in by this?
I am all for any genuine effort to curb or--even better--eradicate patents. However, this will most likely encourage the further application of patents by underscoring the importance of needing to identify prior art, an irrelevant concept in a world free from patents. Wish I lived in one.
Remember when Microsoft and SGI got together to create Fahrenheit, the new "standard" 3-D graphics
API to succeed OpenGL and Direct3D. Everyone said that Microsoft had finally conceded and
acknowledged the value of OpenGL. I said HA! Classic embrace and extinguish. It was just a maneuver to make Direct3D even stronger. So where is Fahrenheit today? It's gone. Big surprise.
It is these subtle manipulations that are the most dangerous.
My number one is the Riven Soundtrack. I just never get sick of hearing it. Also, BlueTonicWorld Melodies Of Hope is really cool (discovered it on mp3.com). After that mostly Andreas Vollenweider, Tangerine Dream, Jean-Michel Jarre, Jean Luc Ponty, John Scofield, Steve Morse. Always instrumentals; I just cant think straight when somebody is talking or singing.
Chief Architect World Fusion http://www.atriarch.com
Here is a suggestion for all technology journalists: understand--or at least research--a topic before you spin it.
Here are my quips:
"(SOAP)...will let business software programs communicate over the Internet, regardless of the programming model on which they're based."
What is meant by "programming model"? Do you mean programming language? That would be feasible; CORBA already does this. But if you mean "programming model" in the more general sense, i.e. architecture, such as remote invocation, remote objects, publish and subscribe, etc. (in other words, the part that really matters), then this statement is pure fantasy.
"In many ways, SOAP, and Microsoft's plans to establish it as a standard, represent a reversal of Microsoft's past attempts to steer the software development business."
This sentence contradicts itself. How are Microsoft plans to establish their own invention as a standard not an attempt to steer the software development business? That is exactly what they are doing.
"Instead of being forced to chose one model, companies will be free to select whichever is best suited to solving the problem at hand, Microsoft reasons."
First, using SOAP is choosing a model; the SOAP model. Second, SOAP itself might not be best suited to solving the problem at hand.
"In practice, most companies build and run a mix of applications built using COM, Windows, CORBA, Java, and other technologies."
Gee I wonder why. Most companies have to survive in a market where multiple competing standards exist and must be interfaced with. No reasonable engineer wants to use multiple mechanisms that do the same thing. SOAP will just be added to the mix, not eliminate it.
"A protocol that gives companies greater freedom to link systems both internally and across the Net with other companies is expected to be welcomed warmly, said analysts."
This already exists; it's called CORBA.
"Currently, each programming model had its own proprietary communications protocol, so it's difficult for businesses that use EJBs and CORBA to exchange information and communicate with businesses that use COM."
This is the most misinformed statement of all. CORBA is a specification from a standards body. It specifies an architecture, not an implementation. CORBA specifies no communications protocol other than IOP (interoperability protocols such as GIOP, IIOP, etc.). CORBA runs over whatever protocols the ORB implementers choose, in fact most use RPC as a foundation. There is absolutely nothing proprietary about CORBA.
"Because SOAP is based on XML, it's compatible with all programming models and allows businesses to easily exchange data with each other over the Internet, said analyst Mike Gilpin, of Giga Information Group."
Straight from the mouth of marketing. XML is a grammar. How does is magically make all programming "models" compatible? It's like saying if we always communicate using English, systems will magically be interoperable. For example, you have a credit-card billing system and I am going to send you the account information for a purchase that I want you to charge. Ready? Here comes the data in our compatible English interface..."The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy sleeping dog". Got it? Now you can just charge that account, right?
"But Microsoft executives said they wanted to develop the basics of the technology before submitting the proposal to a standards body, where SOAP can be tweaked by other companies."
Right, so Microsoft can be the sole definer of SOAP. Isn't this the definition of proprietary?
"A protocol provides the guidelines to exchange information over XML. Otherwise, each business would have to discuss how to format their XML and handle interactions, he said."
Wait a minute? I thought that XML magically made all business systems compatible?!?
"SOAP is not the only answer, but it's the right approach. The world wants more interoperability," Smith said. "We've never solved it. And we haven't heard from any other vendors what the alternative is."
Then you (Smith) must be deaf. How about visiting IBM's web site, or Sun's, or any of the other thousands. You just might find something called CORBA.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether are not there are few major game titles built *entirely* with free/open source software, there is quite a bit of it going into parts of game engines. Case in point: we have been building our commerical game engine for some time now using several free/open source software components:
SDL (http://www.libsdl.org)
GLEW (http://glew.sourceforge.net)
ligpng (http://www.libpng.org)
The game servers themselves are running on all free/open source software:
FreeBSD (http://www.freebsd.org)
Apache (http://www.apache.org)
ACE (http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE.html)
TAO (http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/TAO.html)
Likewise we have been building the engine using free/open source software tools on free/open source software operating systems:
GCC (http://gcc.gnu.org)
GNU Make (http://www.gnu.org/software/make)
Bash (http://www.gnu.org/software/bash)
GDB (http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb)
DDD (http://www.gnu.org/software/ddd)
Gentoo Linux (http://www.gentoo.org)
MinGW & MSYS (http://www.mingw.org)
Finally, we are planning to release much of our own software infrastructure as free/open source software. Thus saying that the open source development model does not make sense for game development is not entirely accurate.
Arc
Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, is participating in this effort yet unwilling to retract their overly broad One-Click patent that started all this uproar?
I smell a rat. What a wonderfully devious way to feign openness and reform while getting the public to provide prior art information at cost less than the standard retainer for a patent attorney. All the better to help them fuel the defense of their ludicrous patents.
Are we really dim enough to be taken in by this?
I am all for any genuine effort to curb or--even better--eradicate patents. However, this will most likely encourage the further application of patents by underscoring the importance of needing to identify prior art, an irrelevant concept in a world free from patents. Wish I lived in one.
Remember when Microsoft and SGI got together to create Fahrenheit, the new "standard" 3-D graphics
API to succeed OpenGL and Direct3D. Everyone said that Microsoft had finally conceded and
acknowledged the value of OpenGL. I said HA! Classic embrace and extinguish. It was just a maneuver to make Direct3D even stronger. So where is Fahrenheit today? It's gone. Big surprise.
It is these subtle manipulations that are the most dangerous.
Arc
World Fusion
SIGTERM patents, SIGHUP world
Chief Architect
World Fusion
http://www.atriarch.com
Here are my quips:
What is meant by "programming model"? Do you mean programming language? That would be feasible; CORBA already does this. But if you mean "programming model" in the more general sense, i.e. architecture, such as remote invocation, remote objects, publish and subscribe, etc. (in other words, the part that really matters), then this statement is pure fantasy.
This sentence contradicts itself. How are Microsoft plans to establish their own invention as a standard not an attempt to steer the software development business? That is exactly what they are doing.
First, using SOAP is choosing a model; the SOAP model. Second, SOAP itself might not be best suited to solving the problem at hand.
Gee I wonder why. Most companies have to survive in a market where multiple competing standards exist and must be interfaced with. No reasonable engineer wants to use multiple mechanisms that do the same thing. SOAP will just be added to the mix, not eliminate it.
This already exists; it's called CORBA.
This is the most misinformed statement of all. CORBA is a specification from a standards body. It specifies an architecture, not an implementation. CORBA specifies no communications protocol other than IOP (interoperability protocols such as GIOP, IIOP, etc.). CORBA runs over whatever protocols the ORB implementers choose, in fact most use RPC as a foundation. There is absolutely nothing proprietary about CORBA.
Straight from the mouth of marketing. XML is a grammar. How does is magically make all programming "models" compatible? It's like saying if we always communicate using English, systems will magically be interoperable. For example, you have a credit-card billing system and I am going to send you the account information for a purchase that I want you to charge. Ready? Here comes the data in our compatible English interface..."The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy sleeping dog". Got it? Now you can just charge that account, right?
Right, so Microsoft can be the sole definer of SOAP. Isn't this the definition of proprietary?
Wait a minute? I thought that XML magically made all business systems compatible?!?
Then you (Smith) must be deaf. How about visiting IBM's web site, or Sun's, or any of the other thousands. You just might find something called CORBA.
Arc