Fullscreen mode is not handled by OpenGL, it's handled by the Windows API (or whatever OS you're using) - ChangeDisplaySettings. With this, you'll be using whatever's provided by the browser. Since, last time I looked, you couldn't call Windows API functions or otherwise go fullscreen using a browser, I don't see how adding OpenGL support would change anything.
Could you explain how this would be possible?
As for consuming your GPU power, anyone could do the same to your CPU right now, using Java or whatever else. If you're that worried, you'd better keep clear of the web altogether.
But adding a high-end graphics card to a computer just to view the web? Thats just a bit ridiculous.
Equally ridiculous is the suggestion that you need a "high-end graphics card" to run OpenGL. This isn't 1998 anymore.
Also ridiculous is the suggestion that this will be mandatory for web pages in general. You might as well claim that Google maps shouldn't exist, because good webpages ought to be viewable in Lynx. Or that YouTube shouldn't exist, because webpages ought to be viewable on computers with small amounts of CPU power. Or that Java shouldn't be allowed, because someone could write an application that uses a lot of your CPU power.
There's nothing wrong with having extra technologies when they're needed - such as someone doing an online game. Yes, it'll be stupid if someone requires a 3D card for what should be a simple webpage, but that's no different to them using Flash, or any other kind of CPU-hungry code. It's 2009 - 3D hardware support has been bog standard for years, and isn't any different to a website that requires a lot of CPU or RAM. Just as any computer these days has the CPU power to decode a YouTube video, they also have the GPU power to run OpenGL. Yes, someone could write an annoying webpage that sucked up your GPU power, but they could have done that to your CPU power for over a decade with Java.
An "underpowered GMA chipsets" can still run stuff like Morrowind fine. Are you suggesting that advertisers are going to be writing complex 3D engines of a level comparable to say, Crysis?
And if it sucks, all they have to do is disable the OpenGL web plugin. Yeah, I'm sure they're real "suckers" for not being able to see adverts! The only suckers are people who think they have to buy a high end jet-powered graphics card just in order to do web browsing.
Even low end chipsets have reasonable hardware acceleration - so unless they're managing to fit stuff comparable to Crysis in their adverts, I'm not convinced you'll need a "decent graphics card". Vista already made having a certain minimum of 3D functionality a requirement, so I don't see that this will change anything.
If the worst happens and you're using an old computer, you could always disable it - are you going to complain at not being able to see resource-hungry adverts? This won't make it a requirement.
which means it probably won't be too long before Macs and iPhones everywhere get OpenGL web apps.
I hear that it might be possible for those PC things to be able to run this too, what with OpenGL being cross-platform and all. Of course, that's probably only of interest to a few of us here on Appledot.
Obviously it's referring to a once very popular company, that then went into a bit of a decline, but is now making a comeback with their reunion phone.
I am told that DRM often holds up for 14 days, and that the devs thinks that this is worth it, since a huge amount of the sale is in those 14 days.
And at the same time, industries are still telling us how it's necessary for copyright terms to last for many decades, because most of the sales are in the long tail, and it's required for them to make back their money...
Sure, but then all I would have gotten is the episodes themselves, and not the actor and director commentaries, the "making of" featurettes, the makeup and stunts behind the scenes, etc. In short they gave me MORE for my dollar, so I bought.
I've seen complete DVD rips on bittorrent, including all the extra features...
What the "intent to deprive them of its use" bit? Yes, that's precisely why "theft" does not include acts such as copyright infringement, anymore than any other civil or criminal issue.
Yes I very much doubt there are any developers on a place like Slashdot. Obviously people around here don't have a clue what it's like to develop a piece of software.
just look at how they react to gpl infringements....
Okay, put up or shut up: find me a story where either (a) people advocated including DRM in GPL software, or (b) someone was sued $1.92 million for filesharing (i.e., not for profit) 24 GPL software items without source (or similar extortionate amounts), and where the group think was in favour of that?
Alternatively, since the only stories are about companies distributing GPL software in violation of the licence, find me a story where a company was pirating closed source material for profit, and where the group think was against that. In fact, there was one - that recent story where Sony I think it was were found with thousands of CDs ready to distribute, for profit, without a licence. And guess what - people were against Sony doing that, too.
I enjoyed hacking into my Commodore or Amiga to see what I could make them do, but now that I'm middle-aged I don't have many years left. I want my OS to "just work"
Well actually that's precisely why I chose the Amiga over PCs running DOS. But yes I agree, when I moved to the PC, that's why I stuck with Windows as a "least worse" - it seemed to me that Linux still had all the user unfriendliness that I hated about DOS.
Whoever marked the person above that a Troll failed Economics 101.
See, it's not as simple as that - by that reasoning, it costs money to get people posting to Slashdot, because of the opportunity cost of what they could have been doing instead. Technically that's correct, but people would think it a bit strange to say that, and it's misleading to imply that someone needs to pay thousands of dollars to get people posting to Slashdot.
And since the OP implied what it would cost - what someone would have to pay - I'm not convinced he was talking about opportunity cost, anyway.
20+ million - revolutionary best selling ever number 1 phone.
Is that right?
It's true that Motorola aren't doing as well as they were, but "fad" is misleading (and they were never number 1 overall - that was and still is Nokia).
But, that's where we developers have access to the most customers.
Your reference that shows the Iphone is the number 1 selling phone in existence? There are more phones besides Android ones, you know.
And nothing beats the market of 2 billion Java phones. I know that Java has its limits, but it's good enough for most phone software - why do some people yearn for a return to the bad old days when every platform was incompatible with each other? I thought with phones, we were going to avoid that, but then the Iphone came along, not supporting the common standard that every other phone supports, and messed that up.
As a developer, I don't want to have to wait months for a company to "approve" my software, or perhaps refuse to allow it at all. I expect to be able to release what I like, and for it to Just Work.
The most basic package on Sky (our satellite TV provider) costs more than DOUBLE the license fee (including fitting in first year), and the commercial channels are full of advertisements.
That's Sky for you:p Virgin Media offer 45 channels included at no extra cost, in their £11/month for the phone line. So that's cheaper than the BBC licence fee.
and the commercial channels are full of advertisements. The BBC is commercial free
The BBC run adverts for their own content, so this isn't true. They are also happy to flog the content that we paid for off to other channels like UKTV Gold - so in order to watch the older programmes, we pay for the licence fee, we pay for the cable/satellite channel, and there are adverts on UKTV Gold. (They also claim that the licence fee needs to increase in order to produce more content because of the extra digital channels - despite the fact that they've evidently got so much content that they're busily flogging them off to other networks.)
Don't get me wrong, I like what the BBC produces, and I think it's good to have some kind of public funding for TV. But I'm not convinced by arguments that they are cheap, or advert free.
I wonder what it would cost if it fell under the arm of the BBC? They presumably have a great deal of the infrastructure already, so that would be a reduction in overhead costs.
Well quite, if only they did do something like this. Yes, there's Iplayer, but they often limit the availability to just a week after viewing. We're continually paying the fee, so why not allow continual access, like Spotify does?
I agree with you in that I see little point to Spotify, but I disagree with your suggestion that it's wrong to use open source without giving anything back.
The whole point of open source is to provide free software for people, and the fact that that includes commercial use is fundamentally included in that. If you only want people using your software if they give something back in return, perhaps you should be looking at a different model.
I'm not saying I agree with the OP's response, but I don't think your reasoning makes sense. What they've done here isn't "open sourcing a little bit". This isn't open source at all. If a company does action A, and then someone whines that they didn't do B, I don't see how that might put them off doing B. Sure, it might make them less likely to bother with A, but why should the OP or anyone else wanting open source care, since that wasn't what they want anyway?
Hello troll! You alone show that this kind of bigoted attitude is alive and well today. You're the kind who ridicule bisexual and gay people for "preaching", when all we want there too is to be left alone in peace.
No I don't preach it daily, anymore than you preach your sexuality daily, or anything you complain about here on Slashdot. I do however have the right to contribute to a discussion on a public forum. If you have a problem with that, go somewhere else where opinions aren't welcome.
No one cares about your "orientation".
Did you even read my post (not sure why you put the scare quotes - and I didn't even say "orientation", so please go back and read it)? I only wish they didn't care. When they stop criminalising it, then you can get back to me.
They most certainly do care - why not go whine about them instead?
That PDF says nothing of the sort.
It's not direct, but it does specifically list sadomasochism and pedophilia as things that should be excluded. Anyhow, that's not the main issue, and was more an example - there's plenty more issues, as I listed in my post.
Here have some fish to go with that chip on your shoulder.
Get back to me when you actually can construct an argument. What are you, 12?
There's an interesting point - is there anyone still alive today who was prosecuted under the laws? Could they get any compensation, or will they only get just words too?
Still, Brown's tolerance for LGBT people and their sexuality probably doesn't extend as far as the Spanner case, where gay sadomasochists were imprisoned for consensual S&M. When the Labour Government passed the recent law on "extreme" consensual adult images, they cited the Spanner case as justification for the new law. I'm bisexual, and masochist - but despite the welcome improvements to gay rights on the one hand, overall I can't say Labour have made me feel better regarding my sexuality over the last twelve years.
On the one hand, they propose laws banning hate speech that could cover accusing gay people of being child abusers; but on the other, they themselves compare "extreme" adult images to child porn, and sadomasochism to pedophilia.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll be waiting a long time, then.
Fullscreen mode is not handled by OpenGL, it's handled by the Windows API (or whatever OS you're using) - ChangeDisplaySettings. With this, you'll be using whatever's provided by the browser. Since, last time I looked, you couldn't call Windows API functions or otherwise go fullscreen using a browser, I don't see how adding OpenGL support would change anything.
Could you explain how this would be possible?
As for consuming your GPU power, anyone could do the same to your CPU right now, using Java or whatever else. If you're that worried, you'd better keep clear of the web altogether.
Indeed - my steam powered Voodoo Banshee from a decade ago that I have lying around happily runs OpenGL.
The 3D revolution happened over 10 years ago. Strange that on a geek place like Slashdot, this seems to have passed so many people by...
But adding a high-end graphics card to a computer just to view the web? Thats just a bit ridiculous.
Equally ridiculous is the suggestion that you need a "high-end graphics card" to run OpenGL. This isn't 1998 anymore.
Also ridiculous is the suggestion that this will be mandatory for web pages in general. You might as well claim that Google maps shouldn't exist, because good webpages ought to be viewable in Lynx. Or that YouTube shouldn't exist, because webpages ought to be viewable on computers with small amounts of CPU power. Or that Java shouldn't be allowed, because someone could write an application that uses a lot of your CPU power.
There's nothing wrong with having extra technologies when they're needed - such as someone doing an online game. Yes, it'll be stupid if someone requires a 3D card for what should be a simple webpage, but that's no different to them using Flash, or any other kind of CPU-hungry code. It's 2009 - 3D hardware support has been bog standard for years, and isn't any different to a website that requires a lot of CPU or RAM. Just as any computer these days has the CPU power to decode a YouTube video, they also have the GPU power to run OpenGL. Yes, someone could write an annoying webpage that sucked up your GPU power, but they could have done that to your CPU power for over a decade with Java.
An "underpowered GMA chipsets" can still run stuff like Morrowind fine. Are you suggesting that advertisers are going to be writing complex 3D engines of a level comparable to say, Crysis?
And if it sucks, all they have to do is disable the OpenGL web plugin. Yeah, I'm sure they're real "suckers" for not being able to see adverts! The only suckers are people who think they have to buy a high end jet-powered graphics card just in order to do web browsing.
Even low end chipsets have reasonable hardware acceleration - so unless they're managing to fit stuff comparable to Crysis in their adverts, I'm not convinced you'll need a "decent graphics card". Vista already made having a certain minimum of 3D functionality a requirement, so I don't see that this will change anything.
If the worst happens and you're using an old computer, you could always disable it - are you going to complain at not being able to see resource-hungry adverts? This won't make it a requirement.
which means it probably won't be too long before Macs and iPhones everywhere get OpenGL web apps.
I hear that it might be possible for those PC things to be able to run this too, what with OpenGL being cross-platform and all. Of course, that's probably only of interest to a few of us here on Appledot.
Well I don't know - here in the UK, we give the banks a holiday...
Obviously it's referring to a once very popular company, that then went into a bit of a decline, but is now making a comeback with their reunion phone.
I am told that DRM often holds up for 14 days, and that the devs thinks that this is worth it, since a huge amount of the sale is in those 14 days.
And at the same time, industries are still telling us how it's necessary for copyright terms to last for many decades, because most of the sales are in the long tail, and it's required for them to make back their money...
I don't disagree with your general point, but:
Sure, but then all I would have gotten is the episodes themselves, and not the actor and director commentaries, the "making of" featurettes, the makeup and stunts behind the scenes, etc. In short they gave me MORE for my dollar, so I bought.
I've seen complete DVD rips on bittorrent, including all the extra features...
What the "intent to deprive them of its use" bit? Yes, that's precisely why "theft" does not include acts such as copyright infringement, anymore than any other civil or criminal issue.
Yes I very much doubt there are any developers on a place like Slashdot. Obviously people around here don't have a clue what it's like to develop a piece of software.
just look at how they react to gpl infringements....
Okay, put up or shut up: find me a story where either (a) people advocated including DRM in GPL software, or (b) someone was sued $1.92 million for filesharing (i.e., not for profit) 24 GPL software items without source (or similar extortionate amounts), and where the group think was in favour of that?
Alternatively, since the only stories are about companies distributing GPL software in violation of the licence, find me a story where a company was pirating closed source material for profit, and where the group think was against that. In fact, there was one - that recent story where Sony I think it was were found with thousands of CDs ready to distribute, for profit, without a licence. And guess what - people were against Sony doing that, too.
So you can take your straw man elsewhere.
I enjoyed hacking into my Commodore or Amiga to see what I could make them do, but now that I'm middle-aged I don't have many years left. I want my OS to "just work"
Well actually that's precisely why I chose the Amiga over PCs running DOS. But yes I agree, when I moved to the PC, that's why I stuck with Windows as a "least worse" - it seemed to me that Linux still had all the user unfriendliness that I hated about DOS.
Quite right, it's costing me thousands of pounds alone just sitting here posting to Slashdot!
Whoever marked the person above that a Troll failed Economics 101.
See, it's not as simple as that - by that reasoning, it costs money to get people posting to Slashdot, because of the opportunity cost of what they could have been doing instead. Technically that's correct, but people would think it a bit strange to say that, and it's misleading to imply that someone needs to pay thousands of dollars to get people posting to Slashdot.
And since the OP implied what it would cost - what someone would have to pay - I'm not convinced he was talking about opportunity cost, anyway.
So:
110+ million - passing fad.
20+ million - revolutionary best selling ever number 1 phone.
Is that right?
It's true that Motorola aren't doing as well as they were, but "fad" is misleading (and they were never number 1 overall - that was and still is Nokia).
But, that's where we developers have access to the most customers.
Your reference that shows the Iphone is the number 1 selling phone in existence? There are more phones besides Android ones, you know.
And nothing beats the market of 2 billion Java phones. I know that Java has its limits, but it's good enough for most phone software - why do some people yearn for a return to the bad old days when every platform was incompatible with each other? I thought with phones, we were going to avoid that, but then the Iphone came along, not supporting the common standard that every other phone supports, and messed that up.
As a developer, I don't want to have to wait months for a company to "approve" my software, or perhaps refuse to allow it at all. I expect to be able to release what I like, and for it to Just Work.
6 would mean you could arrange them in a cube, facing inwards, with the player located inside, thus providing a completely 3D immersion experience.
Though at 30", it might get a bit cramped. And some people might get annoyed at footprints on the expensive monitor that's on the bottom face.
I can choose 2?? Hey that's an improvement, it wasn't that long ago it was "Choose 1" out of those.
And before that, when we had "Choose 0"...
The most basic package on Sky (our satellite TV provider) costs more than DOUBLE the license fee (including fitting in first year), and the commercial channels are full of advertisements.
That's Sky for you :p Virgin Media offer 45 channels included at no extra cost, in their £11/month for the phone line. So that's cheaper than the BBC licence fee.
and the commercial channels are full of advertisements. The BBC is commercial free
The BBC run adverts for their own content, so this isn't true. They are also happy to flog the content that we paid for off to other channels like UKTV Gold - so in order to watch the older programmes, we pay for the licence fee, we pay for the cable/satellite channel, and there are adverts on UKTV Gold. (They also claim that the licence fee needs to increase in order to produce more content because of the extra digital channels - despite the fact that they've evidently got so much content that they're busily flogging them off to other networks.)
Don't get me wrong, I like what the BBC produces, and I think it's good to have some kind of public funding for TV. But I'm not convinced by arguments that they are cheap, or advert free.
I wonder what it would cost if it fell under the arm of the BBC? They presumably have a great deal of the infrastructure already, so that would be a reduction in overhead costs.
Well quite, if only they did do something like this. Yes, there's Iplayer, but they often limit the availability to just a week after viewing. We're continually paying the fee, so why not allow continual access, like Spotify does?
I agree with you in that I see little point to Spotify, but I disagree with your suggestion that it's wrong to use open source without giving anything back.
The whole point of open source is to provide free software for people, and the fact that that includes commercial use is fundamentally included in that. If you only want people using your software if they give something back in return, perhaps you should be looking at a different model.
Generally I expect a decent album to be worth listening to for a damn sight longer than a month.
I'm not saying I agree with the OP's response, but I don't think your reasoning makes sense. What they've done here isn't "open sourcing a little bit". This isn't open source at all. If a company does action A, and then someone whines that they didn't do B, I don't see how that might put them off doing B. Sure, it might make them less likely to bother with A, but why should the OP or anyone else wanting open source care, since that wasn't what they want anyway?
Hello troll! You alone show that this kind of bigoted attitude is alive and well today. You're the kind who ridicule bisexual and gay people for "preaching", when all we want there too is to be left alone in peace.
No I don't preach it daily, anymore than you preach your sexuality daily, or anything you complain about here on Slashdot. I do however have the right to contribute to a discussion on a public forum. If you have a problem with that, go somewhere else where opinions aren't welcome.
No one cares about your "orientation".
Did you even read my post (not sure why you put the scare quotes - and I didn't even say "orientation", so please go back and read it)? I only wish they didn't care. When they stop criminalising it, then you can get back to me.
They most certainly do care - why not go whine about them instead?
That PDF says nothing of the sort.
It's not direct, but it does specifically list sadomasochism and pedophilia as things that should be excluded. Anyhow, that's not the main issue, and was more an example - there's plenty more issues, as I listed in my post.
Here have some fish to go with that chip on your shoulder.
Get back to me when you actually can construct an argument. What are you, 12?
There's an interesting point - is there anyone still alive today who was prosecuted under the laws? Could they get any compensation, or will they only get just words too?
Still, Brown's tolerance for LGBT people and their sexuality probably doesn't extend as far as the Spanner case, where gay sadomasochists were imprisoned for consensual S&M. When the Labour Government passed the recent law on "extreme" consensual adult images, they cited the Spanner case as justification for the new law. I'm bisexual, and masochist - but despite the welcome improvements to gay rights on the one hand, overall I can't say Labour have made me feel better regarding my sexuality over the last twelve years.
On the one hand, they propose laws banning hate speech that could cover accusing gay people of being child abusers; but on the other, they themselves compare "extreme" adult images to child porn, and sadomasochism to pedophilia.