Uhhh it OpenGL ES and its being supported in the BROWSER which unless they changed things by default is running in low rights mode anyway...yeah I really don't think anybody is gonna be seeing performance that rivals a DirectX game installed on the hardware Hoss.
It will be a WebGL wrapper around DirectX, just like Firefox and Chrome do on Windows, so I don't expect there will be anything to hinder performance there.
Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't OpenGL ES a much wimpier subset of OpenGL cooked up for cellphones and consoles NOT for desktops? That was the way I had always heard it explained which if so makes all the hubub just one more "ZOMFG we can be like the iPhone!" as far as I'm concerned.
Kind of, ES doesn't have a lot of the - now deprecated or removed - cruft in OpenGL like the Begin/End calls in favor of the more modern techniques. It isn't quite as cutting edge as the full OpenGL desktop version that you get in the latest desktop hardware, there are some features like geometry shaders that it omits - i don't think there is support for bindless graphics either - but it has pulled in features like multiple render targets and a lot of new texture format options. Generally ES gets the most used/popular features of OpenGL in the following major release.
I fail to see how this isn't a part of the Redmond Triple-E Special.
Between the major OSes Windows (XP, 7 & 8), Linux, OSX, Android and iOS with the major browsers IE, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, I hardly think the combination of Windows 8 + IE11 is going to be able to extinguish WebGL no matter what they do. Windows doesn't have anything near a monopoly on browser-based computing these days, much less the combination of Windows 8 with IE.
Wasn't Microsoft going to "support" Java way back in the day, too?
Yes, back when they owned the computing market, these days they struggle to get wide-spread adoption of their products.
As a 3d graphics dev (primarily OpenGL these days) I reckon it's great that IE is supporting WebGL, it might not be a standard of any sort yet but obviously some sort of access to 3d graphics hardware from the browser is inevitable and the ubiquity of OpenGL makes it - or at least an API based closely on it - the obvious choice, even if on some platforms it's a wrapper for whatever native 3d API that platform uses. I'm still concerned about the security and stability implications of exposing the most volatile piece of computing hardware through the browser though.
In that case, I'll have to tell you the real story. One fine day, while getting ready to pirate the crap out of Java, a Google developer was visited by Eldarr, the anti-piracy unicorn...
wtf?!
If you want to know what SPECIFICALLY, download the source and find out.
I'm not asking for code, I'm asking how they've changed the Java security model to be tied to the kernel and system security, you made the claim that they changed the Security manager and then say they've moved stuff into the kernel and system, now that on it's own doesn't make sense and I can't see any evidence to support that. It appears you actually don't know what you're talking about and you just saw 'Kernel and System' on the Android security page and extrapolated from there. You've said they've made changes and that these changes make it more secure, but the truth is you actually have no idea.
You really should be googling for this, or paying me some tuition...
Well I'm just wondering if you know what you're talking about because your answers are pretty vague. What specifically have they done with Android Java that makes it more secure than Oracle Java? 'I don't know' is a valid answer but you seem pretty confident that the Android model is better than the Oracle one.
If you move security from one place to another, you have to make some changes, yes?
Yes, if you do that, and you are indeed saying they moved code, so what code did they move? The SecurityManager still exists with seemingly most of the same functionality (looking at the API) as in Java so they haven't moved it out of the managed environment into native.
No, it needs to be in the system or the kernel to MANAGE native code.
But we're talking about modifications to Java and you're suggesting they moved security code to native so are you telling me their version of Java has been modified - because it certainly still exists - to interact with operating system security measures?
The Linux kernel and the operating system, naturally.
Well here you mentioned the Security Manager, which is in Java.lang.System, is that what you mean when you say 'system'? Or were you suggesting something else?
I know on the Android Security page it lists 'System and Kernel Level Security' but I'm wondering if you just read that and that's why you're suggesting they moved the security out to the kernel and system, which is just general OS security, or whether you're suggesting they've changed the Java security model in some non-standard way and they're using general OS security mechanisms to interact with it?
And that makes it more secure by controlling native code as well as bytecode, and by narrowing the cross section of control.
It doesn't have to be in the kernel to be native code so suggesting moving it into the kernel for that reason doesn't make sense.
They moved the security out to the kernel and system in violation of the spec.
That sentence doesn't seem to make much sense, you're saying they moved all the security to the kernel (what did they put in the kernel?) and system (you mean Java.lang.System?)? Or just the SecurityManager? In either case how does that make it more secure?
Seems Blender's Cycles renderer is still having problems with AMD GPUs, and I see the finger pointed in AMD's direction.
In what specifically? I have to support nV and AMD graphics cards and get a lot of eng samples from both and when writing to the standard i don't find AMD cards to be any more buggy.
At least with the G4 it's something actually functional. With Apple it's just hubris and appearances.
I hope it has decent scrolling in the web browser, I'm not much into apps - at least nothing that isn't available across pretty much all mobile platforms - but I mainly use the web browser (Chrome) and document apps (built-in pdf reader) and on Android 4.2 on my Nexus 7 they are sluggish, there is just too much scroll/pan lag compared to my iphone 5. I really want to go to a large but pocketable sized phone like the GS4 but only if it's not so sluggish in those apps, the general UI seems fine but even bloody windows phone 7 has better scrolling performance in its web browser and adobe pdf viewer than my Nexus 7 has on Chrome and it's been the same in every version of Android i've tried. Surely the Nexus 7 is powerful enough to do this.
That said the experience in most other apps has been pretty much the same between the two devices, though the prevalence of scaled-up phone apps on Google Play over tablet versions is a bit annoying.
And that has no impact on my initial comment. Since the movie and DRM are separate I have experienced the movie without DRM to know enough that the part of the package i don't like is the DRM and that the motion picture itself is fine. Why are you having such an incredibly hard time comprehending that?
So when someone recommends a movie to you, but it left cinemas years ago and there are no foreseeable plans to show it on OTA TV, how do you usually reply?
They're not separate because the copyright owner, who has the government-granted power to declare them not separate, has declared them not separate.
They don't have to, they are separate, the evidence is in the fact that on some mediums there is no drm and that on different mediums the drm is different, if they weren't separate then the DRM would be the same on all mediums, but it isn't.
Because I want to explore the ramifications of abstaining from movies entirely except for the cinema and OTA TV.
So go do that instead of arguing an obvious falsehood.
Yes many things have DRM, and the motion picture is wrapped in DRM on some mediums - and that DRM is most often medium-specific. The motion picture and DRM are separate, even though you're desperately trying to make it seem as though they aren't, i don't understand why you're so hellbent on arguing such an obvious falsehood.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhhh it OpenGL ES and its being supported in the BROWSER which unless they changed things by default is running in low rights mode anyway...yeah I really don't think anybody is gonna be seeing performance that rivals a DirectX game installed on the hardware Hoss.
It will be a WebGL wrapper around DirectX, just like Firefox and Chrome do on Windows, so I don't expect there will be anything to hinder performance there.
Windows Blue seems to just be a codename.
Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't OpenGL ES a much wimpier subset of OpenGL cooked up for cellphones and consoles NOT for desktops? That was the way I had always heard it explained which if so makes all the hubub just one more "ZOMFG we can be like the iPhone!" as far as I'm concerned.
Kind of, ES doesn't have a lot of the - now deprecated or removed - cruft in OpenGL like the Begin/End calls in favor of the more modern techniques. It isn't quite as cutting edge as the full OpenGL desktop version that you get in the latest desktop hardware, there are some features like geometry shaders that it omits - i don't think there is support for bindless graphics either - but it has pulled in features like multiple render targets and a lot of new texture format options. Generally ES gets the most used/popular features of OpenGL in the following major release.
I fail to see how this isn't a part of the Redmond Triple-E Special.
Between the major OSes Windows (XP, 7 & 8), Linux, OSX, Android and iOS with the major browsers IE, Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera, I hardly think the combination of Windows 8 + IE11 is going to be able to extinguish WebGL no matter what they do. Windows doesn't have anything near a monopoly on browser-based computing these days, much less the combination of Windows 8 with IE.
Wasn't Microsoft going to "support" Java way back in the day, too?
Yes, back when they owned the computing market, these days they struggle to get wide-spread adoption of their products.
As a 3d graphics dev (primarily OpenGL these days) I reckon it's great that IE is supporting WebGL, it might not be a standard of any sort yet but obviously some sort of access to 3d graphics hardware from the browser is inevitable and the ubiquity of OpenGL makes it - or at least an API based closely on it - the obvious choice, even if on some platforms it's a wrapper for whatever native 3d API that platform uses. I'm still concerned about the security and stability implications of exposing the most volatile piece of computing hardware through the browser though.
No, more likely MS doesn't want to have to rely on vendors providing a working OpenGL driver, since that can be problematic (looking at you here ATi).
Particularly since it's an OpenGL ES driver, Chrome and Firefox do the same thing i believe.
In that case, I'll have to tell you the real story. One fine day, while getting ready to pirate the crap out of Java, a Google developer was visited by Eldarr, the anti-piracy unicorn...
wtf?!
If you want to know what SPECIFICALLY, download the source and find out.
I'm not asking for code, I'm asking how they've changed the Java security model to be tied to the kernel and system security, you made the claim that they changed the Security manager and then say they've moved stuff into the kernel and system, now that on it's own doesn't make sense and I can't see any evidence to support that. It appears you actually don't know what you're talking about and you just saw 'Kernel and System' on the Android security page and extrapolated from there.
You've said they've made changes and that these changes make it more secure, but the truth is you actually have no idea.
You really should be googling for this, or paying me some tuition...
Well I'm just wondering if you know what you're talking about because your answers are pretty vague.
What specifically have they done with Android Java that makes it more secure than Oracle Java? 'I don't know' is a valid answer but you seem pretty confident that the Android model is better than the Oracle one.
If you move security from one place to another, you have to make some changes, yes?
Yes, if you do that, and you are indeed saying they moved code, so what code did they move? The SecurityManager still exists with seemingly most of the same functionality (looking at the API) as in Java so they haven't moved it out of the managed environment into native.
No, it needs to be in the system or the kernel to MANAGE native code.
But we're talking about modifications to Java and you're suggesting they moved security code to native so are you telling me their version of Java has been modified - because it certainly still exists - to interact with operating system security measures?
The Linux kernel and the operating system, naturally.
Well here you mentioned the Security Manager, which is in Java.lang.System, is that what you mean when you say 'system'? Or were you suggesting something else?
I know on the Android Security page it lists 'System and Kernel Level Security' but I'm wondering if you just read that and that's why you're suggesting they moved the security out to the kernel and system, which is just general OS security, or whether you're suggesting they've changed the Java security model in some non-standard way and they're using general OS security mechanisms to interact with it?
And that makes it more secure by controlling native code as well as bytecode, and by narrowing the cross section of control.
It doesn't have to be in the kernel to be native code so suggesting moving it into the kernel for that reason doesn't make sense.
They moved the security out to the kernel and system in violation of the spec.
That sentence doesn't seem to make much sense, you're saying they moved all the security to the kernel (what did they put in the kernel?) and system (you mean Java.lang.System?)? Or just the SecurityManager? In either case how does that make it more secure?
Android has redone the security manager, the part that keeps getting bypassed in the many plugin based exploits that have been all over the IT news.
In what way? Like what is it that they have done that can't be done in Oracle's version of Java?
Consider how much worse it would be if it was vanilla Java.
What would be worse? I'm not much of a Java guy so I'm not sure what is inherently worse about Oracle/Sun Java than Google Java.
"most big companies avoid GPLv3 like the plague"... [citation needed]. This simply isn't true. A few very specific large firms do, Apple being one.
Which big companies have adopted GPLv3?
Seems Blender's Cycles renderer is still having problems with AMD GPUs, and I see the finger pointed in AMD's direction.
In what specifically? I have to support nV and AMD graphics cards and get a lot of eng samples from both and when writing to the standard i don't find AMD cards to be any more buggy.
It's currently the trend to throw things out and replace them but it's not particularly environmentally responsible.
And repair isn't economically viable, so make your choice.
At least with the G4 it's something actually functional. With Apple it's just hubris and appearances.
I hope it has decent scrolling in the web browser, I'm not much into apps - at least nothing that isn't available across pretty much all mobile platforms - but I mainly use the web browser (Chrome) and document apps (built-in pdf reader) and on Android 4.2 on my Nexus 7 they are sluggish, there is just too much scroll/pan lag compared to my iphone 5. I really want to go to a large but pocketable sized phone like the GS4 but only if it's not so sluggish in those apps, the general UI seems fine but even bloody windows phone 7 has better scrolling performance in its web browser and adobe pdf viewer than my Nexus 7 has on Chrome and it's been the same in every version of Android i've tried. Surely the Nexus 7 is powerful enough to do this.
That said the experience in most other apps has been pretty much the same between the two devices, though the prevalence of scaled-up phone apps on Google Play over tablet versions is a bit annoying.
I still don't understand how you plan to put your likes and dislikes into practice legally.
I don't and never said I did, if you had been able to comprehend a simple one-line post then you would know that.
I understand what you think is fine and what you don't like.
Finally, you got there in the end! That's all there is to it, see: The movies themselves are fine, it's the DRM i don't like. And now you understand...took you a while.
What is fine and what you don't like are sold as a package deal.
So? The movies themselves are fine and the part of the package I don't like is the DRM, what part of that very simple concept can't you understand?
What I'm having an incredibly hard time comprehending is how to remove the part you don't like legally.
You can't, but how is that at all relevant to my comment?
And that has no impact on my initial comment. Since the movie and DRM are separate I have experienced the movie without DRM to know enough that the part of the package i don't like is the DRM and that the motion picture itself is fine. Why are you having such an incredibly hard time comprehending that?
And lucky for me the DRM and the motion picture are separate, so i can strip away the DRM and be left with just the movie, after all, as i initially said: The movies themselves are fine, it's the DRM i don't like.
So when someone recommends a movie to you, but it left cinemas years ago and there are no foreseeable plans to show it on OTA TV, how do you usually reply?
borrow their dvd.
They're not separate because the copyright owner, who has the government-granted power to declare them not separate, has declared them not separate.
They don't have to, they are separate, the evidence is in the fact that on some mediums there is no drm and that on different mediums the drm is different, if they weren't separate then the DRM would be the same on all mediums, but it isn't.
Because I want to explore the ramifications of abstaining from movies entirely except for the cinema and OTA TV.
So go do that instead of arguing an obvious falsehood.
Yes many things have DRM, and the motion picture is wrapped in DRM on some mediums - and that DRM is most often medium-specific. The motion picture and DRM are separate, even though you're desperately trying to make it seem as though they aren't, i don't understand why you're so hellbent on arguing such an obvious falsehood.