So, that said, there IS no comparisson possible between DirectX and OpenGL.
What's left is D3D vs OpenGL. Well, that's an ongoing holy war like *BSD vs Linux, Voodoo* vs nVidia, Linux vs Windows, European Beer vs American Beer etc..
Some options are in favor of D3D, some are in favor of OpenGL. I program using OpenGL a lot, mainly because on my Windows2000 development box, there are no reliable nVidia drivers available for my TNT. OpenGL is a tremendous nice API, but don't overreact. It lacks some serious stuff like 'ONE api call does ALL': call the api to do something, like texturing a quad. If that's done using multitexturing in 1 pass or using single texturing in 2 passes, do I care? NOT AT ALL. in D3D I can proceed, it will be delivered. In OpenGL I have to write 2 codepaths: 1 for the single texturing hardware which doesn't support ARB_multitexturing, and 1 for the ARB_multitexturing supporting hw. Nice? NO! because every new hardware wave of cards (at the end of this month we get another NEW load of cards) brings NEW options, with NEW extensions. The OpenGL API is developing so incredibly slow it's hurting.
I think that's soon the main point for dropping OpenGL in favor of D3D, especially with D3D8, which has support for hw procedural textures and hw generated primitives.
Besides that... you refered to 2D games as well. I don't know, but you were refering to 2D games with OpenGL vs 2D games with DDraw? I hope not.:) --
I mean: which NEWSStation in the USA does bring news just because it's news and NOT because it's good for the viewership figures? Anyone?...
Face it, in Europe we have public TV channels, not owned by commercial companies, who bring mostly independant news, just because it's news, not because it sells more adds or will attrackt more viewers. In the USA however, everything that's on TV is there to attrackt more viewers, thus more ADDS, and thus more MONEY. If 'news' isn't selling enough it's not broadcasted, period.
So why are you so upset about this merger? does it change anything to the system already in place? nothing at all!
Large media-companies are always a topic for 'single minded propaganda' discussions, but please keep in focus of what your world in the USA already has and suffers from. The AOL-TimeWarner merger is nothing new or more threatening to the average people than the stations already in place.
If you are so concerned about a company controlling media or content, perhaps you should starting to get a bit worried about a company who REALLY controls the media of the internet: Cisco.
Or is that not close enough to the 'anti-MS' discussion?.... --
You miss the point. People today have enough choices to choose from, if it's in the AOL-TW area or in the MS area. You and your fellow anti 'evil empire people' are IMHO blind for one simple fact: the 'average I-don't-know-sh*t-about-computers-Joe' doesn't C A R E who made the stuff he uses on his home PC as long as he can do his thing on it.
From a weird technical point of view you are probably right, but it simply doesn't matter to them, no matter how wrong it possibly is. you can put as much energy in your struggle against 'the evil' as you like, the more you do, the more you won't be understood by te majority of computer users and THUS make you look like the 'evil' to them instead of the 'evil empire' you ment. Is that what you want?
I'm sure you don't. Learn lessons from the past: Commodore marketing wasn't happy with the ultra fanatic Amiga users. I was one of these in the past, I know what they ment, I also know people don't understand what you have to say for reasons I now know they are totally legitimate.
Calm down, support ADVANTAGES of your material of choice to others, don't support DISADVANTAGES of the material of choice OF others. It wont bring you to the same point... --
Seriously: it's another BSD style OS. Ok, it doesn't have the same low level kernel as *BSD's out there but for the rest it's the same. There is _NOTHING_ Apple-ish about it. So what's left?
Another BSD.
It gets really interesting if the GUI layers will be ported as well, AND the applications who will be ported to Quartz etc on PPC and now also x86.
Till then, it's better to use (that's not equal to look at;)) *BSD and leave it alone. I mean... what's the use of 'hey, it can run NetBSD apps!', when you can have NetBSD as well on your system... I don't get it:) --
if www.createyourownlinuxdistro.com is still available... would be an AWESOME idea for a startup that will raise a tremendous amount of money at it's IPO: a site where you can create your own linux distribution.
Now, don't steal this idea from me, you hear! not untill I've registered this domain at NIS... wait... it doesn't allow names with 'linux' in it... --
but also on win2k. They haven't released a decent TNT driver for win2k. There are reference drivers downloadable, but these are very unstable and incorrect (try a glColor4f(1.0f,1.0f,1.0f,0.99f); et voila, a division by zero in the nvidia dll). The hardware specs they poop out are very ok and nice material to look at;) but sometimes you just want it to get it to work, especially stuff which is on the market for some time now, like a TNT. --
Couldn't have said it better. Not that MS code is better in certain areas, (ask the IBM folks;)) but 'opening up the source' is not always the way to get a program be better, just because the source gets flooded with all kinds of crapsource. --
I'm an MCSE certified engineer (9 exams) but I don't use it. Well, not all the knowledge I need I got from the exams. Most knowledge I use in my daily work as a senior software engineer is the Computer Science degree I got on the Uni. Why I did the MS exams? to get some in depth knowledge fast and to get a LICENSE that proofs I studied some of the books and thus THEORETICALLY I know what's all about.
And that's the essence of a certification: a proof you've studied the material. Like a degree on some university is a certain proof you've studied the material. If you just study the books required for an MCSE, MCSD, CNE etc certification, but you do NOT take the exams, a company interested in your IT-services have no proof that you've actually studied those books and indeed have the knowledge in your head.
With a certification in some area, you can proof you've looked into the books, studied some in depth stuff and passed some exams who (in the case of MCSE) have sometimes tough questions just to let you fail.
A lot of ZEALOTS here (I can't say it differently, sorry) just bash MCSEs as if they're the most stupid people on earth. Well, some are, but as with every qualified group of specialists, some are more clever than others. The MCSE-certification is just as valuable as any other company/product based certification.
On to the topic of Win2K certification: Microsoft gives ALL MCSEs a ONE TIME CHANGE to upgrade their certification in 1 large tough exam. You have just 1 chance. If you fail, you have to take all 4 new exams. To me, this seems fair: study hard, if you don't you fail and it's your own fault.
The exam revoking is just for keeping the value of graduation up to par. To me, the MCSE diploma has not that much value anymore because I know a lot of people faked exams by just learning the parts of the books to pass the exams. By revoking the 4 NT4 exams in a shorter timeframe, MS forces MCSEs to study harder on the topics and make the certification more valuable.
Disclaimer: I don't work for MS nor a MS related firm. I just get frustrated when people insult me and collegues who worked hard on universities and courses and have a LOT of knowledge of MS products and general IT topics. Just because they're not UNIX/LINUX focussed doesn't mean they're airheads: most MCSEs I know have CS degrees and are definitely not what I call 'brainwashed dumbo's. Be nicer to people who have knowledge. Perhaps it will give more respect for Linux/Unix under the MS oriented CS graduates.
I mentioned an example for a statemachine as currentstate + event = new state, but I used sharp brackets, so the parser skipped the 'hey these look like HTML tags' items.:) sorry. --
This is not on topic, but let's hear it: You post 2 examples of code no-one would use on both api's. it's useless to mention the Execution buffer and glVertex calls.
OpenGL is not a state machine. The api is in a certain state but a statemachine is something else: + = . This is not the case for OpenGL. Don't call it a state machine then. If you focus on Hardware you can declare OpenGL a good api, however OpenGL is based on the fact that it's totally hardware/windowmanager independant. Refering to hardware is therefor useless. And not right also: it's perfectly defendable to see a set of faces with materials and geometry as a set of objects. Visualizing these objects should be done using methods of these objects. OpenGL on the other hand is totally function based, C-style. Ok if you prepare yourself for a functionbased application, but horrible for applications that are Object based, like most common 3D engines (except perhaps Quake3's engine). In an OO based application you suddenly have a transformation to a functionbased api, which is, _logically speaking_, stupid.
For OpenGL the reason it's being functionbased C-style is clear, it's historical. For a _NEW_ api there are no reasons to stick with C-style functionbased designs. Just because if you have an OO based application, like a game (more and more games are OO based), you want to talk to an api that understands things like 'here is the geometry objecttree, here are the sound objects'. And all sound properties/data are stored with these soundobjects. No crappy structs inside whatever array pointer vehicle. It makes so much sense to do it the OO way, ESPECIALLY Because more and more people are going the OO way.
I agree with you that having a cross platform api for sound would be very ok. However I HOPE you'll understand that a C-style API, which has to be born yet, has simply NO CHANCE on win32, where more and more is going to be OO/COM. So 'cross-platform' will IMHO eventually be just 'cross-Unix-platform', and it's not the fault of MS.
I agree that the C-style focus of a NEW api today is outdated. To relate the new api to 'OpenGL'-style to illustrate how 'great' it might be, is IMHO a big mistake. OpenGL's interface is old, and born in the C world of IRIX. Today we have powerfull tools,methods, techniques and ideas how to model data plus logic in a more 'natural' way. Keeping this new API C-style, as OpenGL is, is a missed chance to do it right: an Audio API is not about just functions, so functionbased thinking is at place; it's OO for a large part. Defining it in C style is THE first big, and IMHO the deadly nail to the coffin of this unborn child, mistake of a large list to come. I can understand it's C-style because most Unix code is C-style (still), but this library is not for the past, it's for the future. The definers of the new API should have put more time into that before publishing a definition that has only slightly a chance in the C-focussed Unix world, which is narrowing every day.
And as Jurjen pointed out: there is already a set of API's doing what this should be doing. Instead of joining these forces, the wheel is re-invented again, on a windy, dusty road towards the 1.0 version, if that will be ever reached, which I doubt.
First design the system, all the tiers (layers) in the n-tier system. Secondly, define which functionality is needed in which tier to make the system work as defined. Third, choose for each tier the right technology to make it perform at best: performance AND reliable. THEN you start implementing.
If you let your vision get blurred by focussing on one or 2 technologies before you've defined and designed the system, you'll never get to your goal.
As a global delimiter there is always the budget and what you can buy for the budget. Another is the lack of skills in certain fields of technology: some people at your team can be great Perl programmers but lousy in COM component building for middle tier software.
I know this sounds vague, but if you first do step 1 and 2 and good, you can then ask for which tier/functionality group which technology is the best to choose, concerning your team's delimiters money and knowledge/skills.
Any platform and tool mentioned in this thread will be, in a certain way, able to give what you asked for. Even Windows2000 with build in middleware (COM+), ASP, and an additional SQLserver or the free MSDE (Microsoft Database Engine, an SQLserver lookalike without storedprocs). It's however not possible to point NOW to the right direction which SET of tools, technologies and languages you'll need to create the high speed webapplication setup you'll need.
This 'clearing up' looks the same the way Mr. Putin cleared up many of Jeltsin's mumbo jumbo:)
Companies will buy the OS that let their employees get their work done. Because most people in offices use word and excel, an OS without these 2 programs is worthless, no matter how powerfull the emulators/lookalike offices are.
At home, people are buying the OS that comes with their computer AND makes them play games and do average webbrowsing and home finance crap. But it has to be easy to use. Any one who remembers OS/2 Warp should know which mistakes Linux is still making.
And the last thing I wonder: why do you all want it to be desktop ready? Desktop means mainstream, which means Money does the Talking, and decisions are made based on that rule. Mainstream means also that the geekfactor, a huge motivation to use Linux in teh first place, is gone.
With miniGL and this modeler as examples it's definitly interesting what's next. There's definitely a market for 3D apps on handhelds, there is just time needed to bring the render/calc power of a handheld more up to par:) --
This is the only Informative article in this thread. It shows a lot about the 'real nerds' and 'computer specialists' here.:
all people posting 'they're evil' etc, lie, at least about this topic: you don't know anything about the matter.
/. is not about real news for nerds but about 'how to make our readers hate (va)Linux competitors the most'. Like that will save the world. Get a life.
Every slightly MS bashing posting with some zdnet links will be moderated higher than this posting by altair1. How suprising.
People here should be more aware of the fact that programming in a language is just programming in a language and not practicing politics, to give an example. If something is bad about MS, say it. If something is GOOD, say it too. Not all visitors here use linux, allthough, if/. goes on like this, within a year the only people left are trolls and zealots.
Flame all you want. I don't care. It's just my concerns about a site that seems to post sometimes interesting subjects but more and more becomes a propaganda site for a special kind of OS. Clearly legal but please state that on the front page: 'News For Linuxnerds, stuff that matters for Linux'.
What I don't get is why some ideas are considered 'ok, you are totally right to patent that by yourself!' and others are 'hey, you thief! you are not allowed to patent that! if you do I'll boycot you!'.
If a person has a clever idea, and patents that what's wrong with that? because in THIS case some people here are NOT agreeing with the US patent commission? And should issue a boycot?
Some clever Dutch student invented a harddisk head system that could handle much smaller disktracks, so harddisks could contain much more data. Do you think he got the patent? no. The company who payed for the research did. Wrong? perhaps, but I don't see anyone boycotting any harddiskmanufacturer because he suddenly has larger harddisks for sale and thus supports this patenting issue.
Remember: perhaps on some day YOU will have a clever idea, and will rush to the patentoffice and will perhaps receive a patent for that idea. What would you do if on a certain 'nerd' site (however... nerdsite, it's more a linuxpromo site nowadays, but that's another story) people are ranting to boycot you and your little company that works very hard to realize your clever idea??
that's why you need IE. the.chm files where the help (the MSDN lib) are formatted in can only be read with IE.
Besides... every large development tool forces you to use SOMETHING you probably don't want to but have to. If you use borland's builder tools, MFC is not doable due to the lack of serious help and support but OWL is fully documented and more at reach, while MFC is THE OOP platform for win32.
It seems you consider yourself a computer hotshot because you DON'T use NT or other MS system NOR do you work with MS products or develop high end software with MS tools like VC++. What kind of attitude is that? I'm a MicroSERF now? because I use MS stuff? And not a nerd? but a luser or something? I come to this site because it has geek news, at least it had for time to time. More and more this site is transforming into a PRO linux ANTI-MS site.
Nowhere is stated it's a LINUX only ANTI-REDMOND site. Or better: PRO-Linux MEANS ANTI-MS. Or am I wrong?
Col_Panic and others: if you think you do every programmer a favor by spreading your moronic, anti-everythingmicrosoft attitude, you're wrong.
Looking at the moderation of the posting of Col_Panic, which contains very insulting texts, I can only say: I'm outta here.
'Nothing lost by seeing you leave' is probably what comes to a lot of minds here, but think again. You're not the only people on this planet with a university degree in Computer science and a lot of years of programming experience.
Sourcecode isn't executable. You need to compile it. So, does this law only have effect on executables or also on sourcecode in particular? because if so, you can include in your source a popup screen that pops up when you start the compiled code and that is the actually shrinkwrap/clickwrap license overruler
opensource that is distributed as executables, like RedHat's linux, can be protected with a shrinkwrap license, that only is effective on the EXECUTABLES, not on the source. The source is then protected by the thing mentioned above.
Furthermore: perhaps it's a good thing for The US of A to think before they vote for a new president this year. As a European citizen I can only laugh how american's generally respond to open-door remarks by politicians. perhaps you all should do something about that too?
Geezzz... I'm reading a list of reactions on the article and suddenly this poppes up. Even with treshold 1. Is this a first glance on the spamflood we'll get every day here? This is as lame as the AC's trolling raisins and gritts.
Slashdot Mirror
So, that said, there IS no comparisson possible between DirectX and OpenGL.
:)
What's left is D3D vs OpenGL. Well, that's an ongoing holy war like *BSD vs Linux, Voodoo* vs nVidia, Linux vs Windows, European Beer vs American Beer etc..
Some options are in favor of D3D, some are in favor of OpenGL. I program using OpenGL a lot, mainly because on my Windows2000 development box, there are no reliable nVidia drivers available for my TNT. OpenGL is a tremendous nice API, but don't overreact. It lacks some serious stuff like 'ONE api call does ALL': call the api to do something, like texturing a quad. If that's done using multitexturing in 1 pass or using single texturing in 2 passes, do I care? NOT AT ALL. in D3D I can proceed, it will be delivered. In OpenGL I have to write 2 codepaths: 1 for the single texturing hardware which doesn't support ARB_multitexturing, and 1 for the ARB_multitexturing supporting hw. Nice? NO! because every new hardware wave of cards (at the end of this month we get another NEW load of cards) brings NEW options, with NEW extensions. The OpenGL API is developing so incredibly slow it's hurting.
I think that's soon the main point for dropping OpenGL in favor of D3D, especially with D3D8, which has support for hw procedural textures and hw generated primitives.
Besides that... you refered to 2D games as well. I don't know, but you were refering to 2D games with OpenGL vs 2D games with DDraw? I hope not.
--
hehe but if you'd left out the the sentence about the sun, I would have found it possible this kind of actions DO take place in the US :))
;)
a well... perhaps we see too much US movies in europe
--
I mean: which NEWSStation in the USA does bring news just because it's news and NOT because it's good for the viewership figures? Anyone?...
Face it, in Europe we have public TV channels, not owned by commercial companies, who bring mostly independant news, just because it's news, not because it sells more adds or will attrackt more viewers. In the USA however, everything that's on TV is there to attrackt more viewers, thus more ADDS, and thus more MONEY. If 'news' isn't selling enough it's not broadcasted, period.
So why are you so upset about this merger? does it change anything to the system already in place? nothing at all!
Large media-companies are always a topic for 'single minded propaganda' discussions, but please keep in focus of what your world in the USA already has and suffers from. The AOL-TimeWarner merger is nothing new or more threatening to the average people than the stations already in place.
If you are so concerned about a company controlling media or content, perhaps you should starting to get a bit worried about a company who REALLY controls the media of the internet: Cisco.
Or is that not close enough to the 'anti-MS' discussion?....
--
You miss the point. People today have enough choices to choose from, if it's in the AOL-TW area or in the MS area. You and your fellow anti 'evil empire people' are IMHO blind for one simple fact: the 'average I-don't-know-sh*t-about-computers-Joe' doesn't C A R E who made the stuff he uses on his home PC as long as he can do his thing on it.
From a weird technical point of view you are probably right, but it simply doesn't matter to them, no matter how wrong it possibly is. you can put as much energy in your struggle against 'the evil' as you like, the more you do, the more you won't be understood by te majority of computer users and THUS make you look like the 'evil' to them instead of the 'evil empire' you ment. Is that what you want?
I'm sure you don't. Learn lessons from the past: Commodore marketing wasn't happy with the ultra fanatic Amiga users. I was one of these in the past, I know what they ment, I also know people don't understand what you have to say for reasons I now know they are totally legitimate.
Calm down, support ADVANTAGES of your material of choice to others, don't support DISADVANTAGES of the material of choice OF others. It wont bring you to the same point...
--
Aftershock is also open source and does quake3arena rendering. Ok, it's not totally finished but therefor the source is open in it's own CVS.
http://www.planetquake.com/aftershock
--
Seriously: it's another BSD style OS. Ok, it doesn't have the same low level kernel as *BSD's out there but for the rest it's the same. There is _NOTHING_ Apple-ish about it. So what's left?
;)) *BSD and leave it alone. I mean... what's the use of 'hey, it can run NetBSD apps!', when you can have NetBSD as well on your system... I don't get it:)
Another BSD.
It gets really interesting if the GUI layers will be ported as well, AND the applications who will be ported to Quartz etc on PPC and now also x86.
Till then, it's better to use (that's not equal to look at
--
if www.createyourownlinuxdistro.com is still available... would be an AWESOME idea for a startup that will raise a tremendous amount of money at it's IPO: a site where you can create your own linux distribution.
Now, don't steal this idea from me, you hear! not untill I've registered this domain at NIS... wait... it doesn't allow names with 'linux' in it...
--
but also on win2k. They haven't released a decent TNT driver for win2k. There are reference drivers downloadable, but these are very unstable and incorrect (try a glColor4f(1.0f,1.0f,1.0f,0.99f); et voila, a division by zero in the nvidia dll). The hardware specs they poop out are very ok and nice material to look at ;) but sometimes you just want it to get it to work, especially stuff which is on the market for some time now, like a TNT.
--
the person typed the m and the a wrong:
In Dream
--
Couldn't have said it better. Not that MS code is better in certain areas, (ask the IBM folks ;)) but 'opening up the source' is not always the way to get a program be better, just because the source gets flooded with all kinds of crapsource.
--
I'm an MCSE certified engineer (9 exams) but I don't use it. Well, not all the knowledge I need I got from the exams. Most knowledge I use in my daily work as a senior software engineer is the Computer Science degree I got on the Uni. Why I did the MS exams? to get some in depth knowledge fast and to get a LICENSE that proofs I studied some of the books and thus THEORETICALLY I know what's all about.
And that's the essence of a certification: a proof you've studied the material. Like a degree on some university is a certain proof you've studied the material. If you just study the books required for an MCSE, MCSD, CNE etc certification, but you do NOT take the exams, a company interested in your IT-services have no proof that you've actually studied those books and indeed have the knowledge in your head.
With a certification in some area, you can proof you've looked into the books, studied some in depth stuff and passed some exams who (in the case of MCSE) have sometimes tough questions just to let you fail.
A lot of ZEALOTS here (I can't say it differently, sorry) just bash MCSEs as if they're the most stupid people on earth. Well, some are, but as with every qualified group of specialists, some are more clever than others. The MCSE-certification is just as valuable as any other company/product based certification.
On to the topic of Win2K certification: Microsoft gives ALL MCSEs a ONE TIME CHANGE to upgrade their certification in 1 large tough exam. You have just 1 chance. If you fail, you have to take all 4 new exams. To me, this seems fair: study hard, if you don't you fail and it's your own fault.
The exam revoking is just for keeping the value of graduation up to par. To me, the MCSE diploma has not that much value anymore because I know a lot of people faked exams by just learning the parts of the books to pass the exams. By revoking the 4 NT4 exams in a shorter timeframe, MS forces MCSEs to study harder on the topics and make the certification more valuable.
Disclaimer: I don't work for MS nor a MS related firm. I just get frustrated when people insult me and collegues who worked hard on universities and courses and have a LOT of knowledge of MS products and general IT topics. Just because they're not UNIX/LINUX focussed doesn't mean they're airheads: most MCSEs I know have CS degrees and are definitely not what I call 'brainwashed dumbo's. Be nicer to people who have knowledge. Perhaps it will give more respect for Linux/Unix under the MS oriented CS graduates.
--
I mentioned an example for a statemachine as currentstate + event = new state, but I used sharp brackets, so the parser skipped the 'hey these look like HTML tags' items. :) sorry.
--
This is not on topic, but let's hear it:
You post 2 examples of code no-one would use on both api's. it's useless to mention the Execution buffer and glVertex calls.
OpenGL is not a state machine. The api is in a certain state but a statemachine is something else: + = . This is not the case for OpenGL. Don't call it a state machine then. If you focus on Hardware you can declare OpenGL a good api, however OpenGL is based on the fact that it's totally hardware/windowmanager independant. Refering to hardware is therefor useless. And not right also: it's perfectly defendable to see a set of faces with materials and geometry as a set of objects. Visualizing these objects should be done using methods of these objects. OpenGL on the other hand is totally function based, C-style. Ok if you prepare yourself for a functionbased application, but horrible for applications that are Object based, like most common 3D engines (except perhaps Quake3's engine). In an OO based application you suddenly have a transformation to a functionbased api, which is, _logically speaking_, stupid.
For OpenGL the reason it's being functionbased C-style is clear, it's historical. For a _NEW_ api there are no reasons to stick with C-style functionbased designs. Just because if you have an OO based application, like a game (more and more games are OO based), you want to talk to an api that understands things like 'here is the geometry objecttree, here are the sound objects'. And all sound properties/data are stored with these soundobjects. No crappy structs inside whatever array pointer vehicle. It makes so much sense to do it the OO way, ESPECIALLY Because more and more people are going the OO way.
I agree with you that having a cross platform api for sound would be very ok. However I HOPE you'll understand that a C-style API, which has to be born yet, has simply NO CHANCE on win32, where more and more is going to be OO/COM. So 'cross-platform' will IMHO eventually be just 'cross-Unix-platform', and it's not the fault of MS.
--
(Hi Nix :))
I agree that the C-style focus of a NEW api today is outdated. To relate the new api to 'OpenGL'-style to illustrate how 'great' it might be, is IMHO a big mistake. OpenGL's interface is old, and born in the C world of IRIX. Today we have powerfull tools,methods, techniques and ideas how to model data plus logic in a more 'natural' way. Keeping this new API C-style, as OpenGL is, is a missed chance to do it right: an Audio API is not about just functions, so functionbased thinking is at place; it's OO for a large part. Defining it in C style is THE first big, and IMHO the deadly nail to the coffin of this unborn child, mistake of a large list to come. I can understand it's C-style because most Unix code is C-style (still), but this library is not for the past, it's for the future. The definers of the new API should have put more time into that before publishing a definition that has only slightly a chance in the C-focussed Unix world, which is narrowing every day.
And as Jurjen pointed out: there is already a set of API's doing what this should be doing. Instead of joining these forces, the wheel is re-invented again, on a windy, dusty road towards the 1.0 version, if that will be ever reached, which I doubt.
--
First design the system, all the tiers (layers) in the n-tier system. Secondly, define which functionality is needed in which tier to make the system work as defined. Third, choose for each tier the right technology to make it perform at best: performance AND reliable. THEN you start implementing.
:)
If you let your vision get blurred by focussing on one or 2 technologies before you've defined and designed the system, you'll never get to your goal.
As a global delimiter there is always the budget and what you can buy for the budget. Another is the lack of skills in certain fields of technology: some people at your team can be great Perl programmers but lousy in COM component building for middle tier software.
I know this sounds vague, but if you first do step 1 and 2 and good, you can then ask for which tier/functionality group which technology is the best to choose, concerning your team's delimiters money and knowledge/skills.
Any platform and tool mentioned in this thread will be, in a certain way, able to give what you asked for. Even Windows2000 with build in middleware (COM+), ASP, and an additional SQLserver or the free MSDE (Microsoft Database Engine, an SQLserver lookalike without storedprocs). It's however not possible to point NOW to the right direction which SET of tools, technologies and languages you'll need to create the high speed webapplication setup you'll need.
Please keep that in mind.
--
This 'clearing up' looks the same the way Mr. Putin cleared up many of Jeltsin's mumbo jumbo :)
Companies will buy the OS that let their employees get their work done. Because most people in offices use word and excel, an OS without these 2 programs is worthless, no matter how powerfull the emulators/lookalike offices are.
At home, people are buying the OS that comes with their computer AND makes them play games and do average webbrowsing and home finance crap. But it has to be easy to use. Any one who remembers OS/2 Warp should know which mistakes Linux is still making.
And the last thing I wonder: why do you all want it to be desktop ready? Desktop means mainstream, which means Money does the Talking, and decisions are made based on that rule. Mainstream means also that the geekfactor, a huge motivation to use Linux in teh first place, is gone.
--
Edward Patel wrote a 3D modeling tool for the Palm OS which can export to VRML and OpenGL:
? sid=65968720000302182859&prodID=6263
:)
http://www.palmgear.com/software/showsoftware.cfm
With miniGL and this modeler as examples it's definitly interesting what's next. There's definitely a market for 3D apps on handhelds, there is just time needed to bring the render/calc power of a handheld more up to par
--
People here should be more aware of the fact that programming in a language is just programming in a language and not practicing politics, to give an example. If something is bad about MS, say it. If something is GOOD, say it too. Not all visitors here use linux, allthough, if /. goes on like this, within a year the only people left are trolls and zealots.
Flame all you want. I don't care. It's just my concerns about a site that seems to post sometimes interesting subjects but more and more becomes a propaganda site for a special kind of OS. Clearly legal but please state that on the front page: 'News For Linuxnerds, stuff that matters for Linux'.
--
What I don't get is why some ideas are considered 'ok, you are totally right to patent that by yourself!' and others are 'hey, you thief! you are not allowed to patent that! if you do I'll boycot you!'.
If a person has a clever idea, and patents that what's wrong with that? because in THIS case some people here are NOT agreeing with the US patent commission? And should issue a boycot?
Some clever Dutch student invented a harddisk head system that could handle much smaller disktracks, so harddisks could contain much more data. Do you think he got the patent? no. The company who payed for the research did. Wrong? perhaps, but I don't see anyone boycotting any harddiskmanufacturer because he suddenly has larger harddisks for sale and thus supports this patenting issue.
Remember: perhaps on some day YOU will have a clever idea, and will rush to the patentoffice and will perhaps receive a patent for that idea. What would you do if on a certain 'nerd' site (however... nerdsite, it's more a linuxpromo site nowadays, but that's another story) people are ranting to boycot you and your little company that works very hard to realize your clever idea??
You would join those ranting people? I guess not.
--
that's why you need IE. the .chm files where the help (the MSDN lib) are formatted in can only be read with IE.
Besides... every large development tool forces you to use SOMETHING you probably don't want to but have to. If you use borland's builder tools, MFC is not doable due to the lack of serious help and support but OWL is fully documented and more at reach, while MFC is THE OOP platform for win32.
ah well...
It seems you consider yourself a computer hotshot because you DON'T use NT or other MS system NOR do you work with MS products or develop high end software with MS tools like VC++. What kind of attitude is that? I'm a MicroSERF now? because I use MS stuff? And not a nerd? but a luser or something? I come to this site because it has geek news, at least it had for time to time. More and more this site is transforming into a PRO linux ANTI-MS site.
Nowhere is stated it's a LINUX only ANTI-REDMOND site. Or better: PRO-Linux MEANS ANTI-MS. Or am I wrong?
Col_Panic and others: if you think you do every programmer a favor by spreading your moronic, anti-everythingmicrosoft attitude, you're wrong.
Looking at the moderation of the posting of Col_Panic, which contains very insulting texts, I can only say: I'm outta here.
'Nothing lost by seeing you leave' is probably what comes to a lot of minds here, but think again. You're not the only people on this planet with a university degree in Computer science and a lot of years of programming experience.
Have a nice life
Perhaps I'm wrong but:
Sourcecode isn't executable. You need to compile it. So, does this law only have effect on executables or also on sourcecode in particular? because if so, you can include in your source a popup screen that pops up when you start the compiled code and that is the actually shrinkwrap/clickwrap license overruler
opensource that is distributed as executables, like RedHat's linux, can be protected with a shrinkwrap license, that only is effective on the EXECUTABLES, not on the source. The source is then protected by the thing mentioned above.
Furthermore: perhaps it's a good thing for The US of A to think before they vote for a new president this year. As a European citizen I can only laugh how american's generally respond to open-door remarks by politicians. perhaps you all should do something about that too?
http://www.microsoft .com/downloads/release.asp?ReleaseID=17726
MS has already released a patch for this problem.
.com/downloads/release.asp?ReleaseID=17727
http://www.microsoft
Geezzz... I'm reading a list of reactions on the article and suddenly this poppes up. Even with treshold 1. Is this a first glance on the spamflood we'll get every day here? This is as lame as the AC's trolling raisins and gritts.
And no, I'm not interested in your HW.