Using Direct3D limits you to desktop Windows and the XBox. Using OpenGL lets you use the same code on handhelds and consoles as well.
Which consoles? I don't think any consoles use the OpenGL (or even ES) Standard. The Playstations uses PSGL and the Wii uses a proprietary Nintendo API, both are somewhat based on OpenGL but you certainly can't use the same code across platforms, particularly when the versions they are based off and the supported shader versions are so different.
Blender's interface is completely OpenGL - and it runs fine on Linux.
You end up with a myriad of slowdown and stability issues running it on anything but nVidia cards though. Hopefully with the new ATI open source drivers this will change.
Most software has to be sold directly, it's a fraction of software that can be sold along with the source. For most software the value is in the code, not in services or hardware sold with it.
That's exactly right, and why OSS can never be the be-all and end-all solution.
No one's stopping anyone from competing. In this field, the Stallman followers could make their own open standard graphics cards too, much as they make Arduinos.
I agree, i think the major issue though is with open source hardware. It means that spending millions in R&D gains you nothing more than a headstart in the market because since it's all open source the clone manufacturers can jump on board as soon as your product is out and the clones will be equally compatible.
In other words, the FLOSS people only need to write alternative drivers if the hardware companies do an appallingly miserable job providing their own drivers.
Or if the license terms conflict with the views of part of the community. nV have had very good closed-source drivers for a very long time.
This problem, which consists of the failure on the behalf of hardware companies to support their products
To be fair they push more support for the larger market, which is obviously what a corporation would be inclined to do. I don't expect them to support every possible OS out there with the same effort.
The complication is that the freedom to pass out the product to all and sundry is mutually exclusive with getting paid for your labour. No matter what he claims, he most certainly is against people making money from software.
Kind of, his idea is that, to be paid, those who build the software must be the ones that use the software to make money. The problem with that is not all software can be used to make money without actually selling it - games for instance - and not all companies that use software to make money can afford to have a development team working to improve/maintain that software. The reality is that neither proprietary nor open source is the be-all and end-all solution and they can coexist quite nicely.
OK, perhaps "clone" is too strong a word. How about, "Wow, this really looks highly similar to the iPhone interface? Couldn't they think of anything different?"
The iPhone interface isn't exactly that much different to what you see on an old nokia menu screen.
Well, he didn't explicitly say iOS, he just said the OS.
The OS of the iPhone is iOS when you're comparing the iPhone as a platform.
Technically speaking you are modifying the OS of the phone if you replace it with something else.
Technically speaking? No. I'm not modifying Windows if i replace it with Linux, just as I don't end up with a modified version of iOS if i replace it with Android.
How about success, which was the only thing I was talking about in the first place?
Really? You were trying to say apple's platform is successful? Wow...maybe you should change your name to Captain Obvious.
Jesus, how hard is it to read the damn thread you're involved in?
Well actually i did, and you said they must 'have a clue' about user interface design (is there anything that restricts it to UI design and not every other part of the OS?) and that the proof of that is their large amount of sales so by that logic MS must have a comparatively good handle on PC operating system design vs their competitors given their marketshare.
But such claims aren't really valid since there are too many other factors (marketing for example) at play.
I didn't even disagree with your argument, i just disagreed with your justification for it, and by your retarded logic that immediately makes me an apple hater?! wtf are you on you retard?!
Hows all that "open platform" "not locked to a walled garden" "no need to jailbreak" Android working out for all the people that rant and rave against the iPhone?
The iPhone can't even get OTA updates so I think that's a pretty idiotic comparison.
There's a saying... it's better to keep quiet to seem like a fool than speak and remove all doubt.
Then you probably should've kept your mouth shut, you certainly look the fool with that post. Replacing iOS with Android is not the same thing as modifying iOS.
FWIW, there's no way (afaik) to stop icons from jiggling when you're done rearranging them, other than pressing the home button. I guess they'll have to fix that one.
QFT...you'd have use things like the lock or volume buttons, but apple already shit all over the people that tried to have their camera app use the volume buttons to take pictures.
I like the idea for one reason - Maximized Screen Space. The entire front of the device will be a multitouch surface.
I can see how that would matter on the iPhone, but not on the iPad. Though the iPhone is the place where - even with a 4" screen - 4 or 5 finger gestures are not usable.
And that is exactly why SJ wants to do away with the "home" button. If you remove the home button, then you can expand the screen and utilize all the "dead" space around the Home Key. Essentially you can make a device with a larger screen, yet still fit into the same form factor.
Even if you had a 4" screen on it it would be idiotic to make 4 or 5 screen gestures the only option for home button functions, it's just too small.
So then explain why all of the other smart phone touch-screen interfaces are essentially clones of the iPhone interface?
You obviously haven't used Android or BlackberryOS or WP7 then because they are absolutely not clones of the iphone interface, they are not just 'buttons on the homescreen' like the iphone is. I'd be interested to know how you come to the conclusion that the competitors have cloned the iOS interface.
Which doesn't mean a single app can't use the two cores
Then you end up with quite a fragmented platform (i know this is already the case with other platforms but this was the advantage of the iPhone), the iPhone4 will be only a year old - the white version still isn't even out yet - and it will already be effectively obsolete. There were a few iPhone4-specific apps but just about everything runs all the way back to the 3G. If apps are making effective use of multiple cores they will likely be unusable on older versions.
Slashdot Mirror
Using Direct3D limits you to desktop Windows and the XBox. Using OpenGL lets you use the same code on handhelds and consoles as well.
Which consoles? I don't think any consoles use the OpenGL (or even ES) Standard. The Playstations uses PSGL and the Wii uses a proprietary Nintendo API, both are somewhat based on OpenGL but you certainly can't use the same code across platforms, particularly when the versions they are based off and the supported shader versions are so different.
Blender's interface is completely OpenGL - and it runs fine on Linux.
You end up with a myriad of slowdown and stability issues running it on anything but nVidia cards though. Hopefully with the new ATI open source drivers this will change.
Most software has to be sold directly, it's a fraction of software that can be sold along with the source. For most software the value is in the code, not in services or hardware sold with it.
That's exactly right, and why OSS can never be the be-all and end-all solution.
No one's stopping anyone from competing. In this field, the Stallman followers could make their own open standard graphics cards too, much as they make Arduinos.
I agree, i think the major issue though is with open source hardware. It means that spending millions in R&D gains you nothing more than a headstart in the market because since it's all open source the clone manufacturers can jump on board as soon as your product is out and the clones will be equally compatible.
Stallman is for free as in speech, not beer.
Though it's true that often times its easier to milk profits out of a market if you keep others from competing with you.
Free as in Freedom ends up being Free in terms of Cost anyway, the converse doesn't necessarily have to be true.
In other words, the FLOSS people only need to write alternative drivers if the hardware companies do an appallingly miserable job providing their own drivers.
Or if the license terms conflict with the views of part of the community. nV have had very good closed-source drivers for a very long time.
This problem, which consists of the failure on the behalf of hardware companies to support their products
To be fair they push more support for the larger market, which is obviously what a corporation would be inclined to do. I don't expect them to support every possible OS out there with the same effort.
The complication is that the freedom to pass out the product to all and sundry is mutually exclusive with getting paid for your labour. No matter what he claims, he most certainly is against people making money from software.
Kind of, his idea is that, to be paid, those who build the software must be the ones that use the software to make money. The problem with that is not all software can be used to make money without actually selling it - games for instance - and not all companies that use software to make money can afford to have a development team working to improve/maintain that software. The reality is that neither proprietary nor open source is the be-all and end-all solution and they can coexist quite nicely.
OK, perhaps "clone" is too strong a word. How about, "Wow, this really looks highly similar to the iPhone interface? Couldn't they think of anything different?"
The iPhone interface isn't exactly that much different to what you see on an old nokia menu screen.
iPhone does OTA carrier updates. Doing a major update OTA is just asking for problems when a battery dies from Joe Blow not understanding.
That's just carrier settings, not OS updates.
Well, he didn't explicitly say iOS, he just said the OS.
The OS of the iPhone is iOS when you're comparing the iPhone as a platform.
Technically speaking you are modifying the OS of the phone if you replace it with something else.
Technically speaking? No. I'm not modifying Windows if i replace it with Linux, just as I don't end up with a modified version of iOS if i replace it with Android.
Where? You're 3 for 3, moron.
Read what you wrote:
Apple's success in this field obviously means they have at least a clue what they're doing
In response to comments about UI design, or did you not read what you were responding to?
I find that offensive.
That's because:
feminist
Why not a grandfather ?
Because then all the misogynists would be up in arms. And we can't go with GrandTransexual...because u don't wanna mess with trannies.
How about success, which was the only thing I was talking about in the first place?
Really? You were trying to say apple's platform is successful? Wow...maybe you should change your name to Captain Obvious.
Jesus, how hard is it to read the damn thread you're involved in?
Well actually i did, and you said they must 'have a clue' about user interface design (is there anything that restricts it to UI design and not every other part of the OS?) and that the proof of that is their large amount of sales so by that logic MS must have a comparatively good handle on PC operating system design vs their competitors given their marketshare.
But such claims aren't really valid since there are too many other factors (marketing for example) at play.
You haters make the fanbois look sane.
I didn't even disagree with your argument, i just disagreed with your justification for it, and by your retarded logic that immediately makes me an apple hater?! wtf are you on you retard?!
Holy fuck you people are dense. Where did I say it was superior? You haters make the fanbois look sane.
oh ok, so you tell me then, which specific qualities can you and can't you judge on pure sales then?
Hows all that "open platform" "not locked to a walled garden" "no need to jailbreak" Android working out for all the people that rant and rave against the iPhone?
The iPhone can't even get OTA updates so I think that's a pretty idiotic comparison.
http://lifehacker.com/5693309/how-to-install-android-on-an-iphone-in-six-easy-steps
There's a saying... it's better to keep quiet to seem like a fool than speak and remove all doubt.
Then you probably should've kept your mouth shut, you certainly look the fool with that post. Replacing iOS with Android is not the same thing as modifying iOS.
FWIW, there's no way (afaik) to stop icons from jiggling when you're done rearranging them, other than pressing the home button. I guess they'll have to fix that one.
QFT...you'd have use things like the lock or volume buttons, but apple already shit all over the people that tried to have their camera app use the volume buttons to take pictures.
I like the idea for one reason - Maximized Screen Space. The entire front of the device will be a multitouch surface.
I can see how that would matter on the iPhone, but not on the iPad. Though the iPhone is the place where - even with a 4" screen - 4 or 5 finger gestures are not usable.
if you're on any kind of moving transport and you hit a bump everyone's iphone goes back to the homescreen.
And that is exactly why SJ wants to do away with the "home" button. If you remove the home button, then you can expand the screen and utilize all the "dead" space around the Home Key. Essentially you can make a device with a larger screen, yet still fit into the same form factor.
Even if you had a 4" screen on it it would be idiotic to make 4 or 5 screen gestures the only option for home button functions, it's just too small.
So then explain why all of the other smart phone touch-screen interfaces are essentially clones of the iPhone interface?
You obviously haven't used Android or BlackberryOS or WP7 then because they are absolutely not clones of the iphone interface, they are not just 'buttons on the homescreen' like the iphone is. I'd be interested to know how you come to the conclusion that the competitors have cloned the iOS interface.
The proof in the pudding is their amazing sales.
I guess Microsoft Windows is absolutely brilliant in almost every way, and FAR superior to any other offering in the PC market then.
Which doesn't mean a single app can't use the two cores
Then you end up with quite a fragmented platform (i know this is already the case with other platforms but this was the advantage of the iPhone), the iPhone4 will be only a year old - the white version still isn't even out yet - and it will already be effectively obsolete. There were a few iPhone4-specific apps but just about everything runs all the way back to the 3G. If apps are making effective use of multiple cores they will likely be unusable on older versions.
iOS 4 comes with Grand Central Dispatch support.
woo...theadpool
Does this support the iphone 2?
What's an iPhone 2? Do you mean the second iPhone (the iPhone 3G) or the iPhone 2G (the first iPhone)?