Voodoo5 will be supported by 3DFx themselves, who have commited to write BeOS drivers. Also, since Voodoo5 is not out yet, they couldn't test it. In addition, the QuakeIII port is incomplete/immature as it is waiting for the OpenGL implementation to come out.
OpenGL is not tied to SIMD processors. It simply takes good advantage of them. The reason they don't port it to PPC is because the PPC port is dying, and Be only has about 100 engineers to go around. As for NetBSD, when it performs like this, then you can speak.
MS OpenGL is not pitiful. If it is, then Linux OpenGL is down-right skanky. Be has pretty good graphics card support, and for mainstream stuff like TNT, they are high quality and take advantage of a lot of acceleration. Also, 3D card manufacturers don't write crappy drivers. In fact, nVidia's GL drivers on Windows are probably as high quality as SGI's on IRIX. (Not anywhere near same absolute performance, but close relative to the hardware.)
Its not about software is it? It's about OpenGL performance. Also, Gimp is already almost ported, and the GTK+/GDK port is nearly complete. True MS Office is not there yet, but its isn't there on Linux either. Wine is being ported, and an X11 port is already complete. FreeMWare is being ported too. And it's free. Aside from the Office thing, what's your beef?
Are you kidding about the marketing hype part? Linux is not popular because it stands on its own merits. In all fairness, BSD did it a long time before Linux became a plausible solution. Linux's increasing popularity in the business world is simply a byproduct of people reeling from Microsoft looking for another solution. Linux happened to be one of the only free OSs that were viable at the time, and also the only one that had a community vocal enough to hype it (Unlike BSD.) As such, there is nothing technical about Linux that makes it stand out. Its popularity with business is ENTIERLY hype related. In this end, the hype that OSS and the FSF create help a great deal. PS: I'm not saying that Linux has no merit for people who like the OS. I'm also not saying that OSS and the FSF is just hype. I'm saying that these things are true in the business world. (Are you going to tell me that these companies give a damn about the GPL and the philosophy behind it?) Linux and the FSF are very meaningful the members of the community, just not the business world.
It's pretty cool that they thunk to the Windows DLL, but one question (actuall a compound question.) What exactly IS thunking and how does it work? I know that Win95 thunks to the Win16 code, but I don't know what process is involved.
That sig's interesting. Are you really asking people to contribute to a closed-source OS for free? >>>>>> Yes. In the Windows world there are a lot of apps written for the good of the community. A lot of people enjoy using BeOS not for philosophical reasons, but because they like the OS. By contributing to BeUnited (most of whose projects are GPL or BSD or Artistic license) you help this community of users.
Don't get me wrong, BeOS video stuff kicks ass. Even if I could code well, though, I can't imagine going out of my way for an OS that's a) going nowhere fast and b) not really written by/for the benefit of the users who MIGHT use it, if it had more functional apps. >>>>>>> Ah, but it is written for the benefit. Be is in a unique situation that if they Open Source the whole OS, then pieces will just be ripped off and added to other projects. None of these other projects would have the fundemental "cleanliness" of the original, but would lead to a death of the original.
Why no mozilla port? Why spend all that time replacing free not-great software with Be's not-great software? >>>> You're not doing anything to help Be. (Who makes great software! Be produces good, fast, functional code.) You're helping the users of the OS. In fact, one of the projects BeUnited is working on is a Mozilla port that's about 60% complete. There is also a 70-something% complete GTK port, and a Qt port was just started.
I just want you to strip Be down to a runtime environment with multiplatform HW drivers, so people can write better video games without having to use the pissy DirectX. Is that too much to ask? >>>>>>> You can do that. BeOS is increadibly functional because of the microkernel design. The actual core OS can be booted with as little as 2MB of files. (And DirectX is NOT pissy. You just don't get it.)
BeUnited is not a help Be-the-company out sort of effort. It is to provide good applications for an OS that a lot of people like using. It does nothing to serve the company itself. (Aside from increasing the userbase OS, but since it's free, it doesn't really matter. The increased userbase just helps out the community.)
I was responding to those who were saying that using Linux gives Inderama a leg up because Linux is standard-complient (ie. Apps can be ported to it.) One of the major advantages of using off-the-shelf OSs is that apps can be ported easily and quickly. In the market of consumer apps, using Windows as a base gives you a much more "standards complient" OS in this respect than using Linux.
The problem is that you're wrong. Inderama doesn't make games for it just as Sony doesn't make games. Developers make games for it. Developers port apps to it. They port existing Win32 apps to it. Thus, MS has an advantage because they have an army of developers using the Windows platform.
Linux is not standards complient. In the real world, anything in consumer space is only standards complient if it uses the Win32 API. Not a troll, just the sad truth.
No, that's not it. They make money by charging people to make games. If you make a program that runs on Playstation, you have to pay Sony $7 for each copy sold.
I find it interesting that these Inderama people think that they can jump into the console market, and triumph over Nintendo and Sony who have been doing it for years and frankly can do it a lot beter. Without further ado, the reasons why you probably will not succeed as a gaming machine. (Though it has potential as a set-top.)
1) The hardware of the Inderama is not well suited for gaming. The problem is that there is the wrong balance within the system. Instead of Sony, which took gaming and added computing features, the Inderama people are taking computing and adding gaming features. The harware seems to be a fair bit more powerful than PSX2, but not well suited for gaming. As a whole I don't think the system will work well. First of all, there is the problem of Linux. While it makes it very convinient from a general set-box view, it is stifling for gaming. Frankly, a UNIX is just too much overhead for a set-top. Every thing from a virtual file system, to memory management, to memory protection, multiple users, and a robust networking system, all take there toll on system performance, and frankly, are useless on a console. Problematically, these are ingrained features of Linux and cannot be removed without a total overhaul. Also troubling is their use of Mesa. Mesa is not known for being the fastest GL implementation around, and it is dumb to use it on a console. Then there is the question of abstraction. There need not be any on a console. (Except maybe some for the removable drives and maybe networking.) While PSX2 starts with totally writing to the metal, then adds ease of use things such as OpenGL and other libraries, Linux starts out with a very abstracted system. It may make the system easier to learn, but we've seen where this abstraction goes in real games. Some of the original dreamcast games used the DirectX APIs of the Microsoft OS (which are much higher performance than anything on Linux) but most people eventually developed their own "to the metal" engines, and neglected to OS. Game developers like being able to write close to the hardware. It allows quite a lot of innovation, like that seen the the Crash games. That's also why games continue to get better on the same hardware for 5 or 7 years. In all, these things will outweigh the massive hardware, and in the end, I doubt performance on Inderama will be more than 30% or so better. To the console market that is nothing, because N64 still lost to Playstation even though it was more than 3 or 4 times as fast. The reason is the quality of the PSX software, which brings me to my next point.
2) MS and Inderama are starting out late. As such, they will not have the software base PSX-2 will. Even though it will take time for developers to learn PSX-2, they will be up to speed by the time MS and Inderama are 6 months from shipping. A smaller software library can, and has, killed consoles in the past.
3) MS and Inderama have no clue from a user standpoint. Neither Embedded NT nor Linux are nearly stable enough to meet the expectations of console users. You think people are going to put up with patches and upgrades all the time? In the console world, it is do it perfect or don't do it at all. That brings to issue the problematic hard drives. While great for a set top box, they are relativly useless for a console, and will only encourage lazy developers to ship unfinished products with expectations to patch them later. Secondly, I almost had a heart attack when I learned that the GPU would be upgradable. Not only does this degrade performance, (developers can take advantage of every nuance of the hardware without writing general, slower code), but it will introduce headaches to console gamers. Console users expect their $200 investment to last 5 or 6 years unchanged. They will not put up with upgrading every few months.
The whole problem with the whole "PCs pretending to be consoles" is that their developers just don't get it. People don't want to put up with patches, upgrading, or the difficulties of managing a PC, even a simplified one. We're talking about people who can't program their VCRs. You expect them to be able to manage this? I'd like to see the 10,000 complaints from users who manage to fry the GPU while upgrading it, or bend one of the pins. "What do you MEAN I have to shock myself first." or "I was installing this in winter while wearing socks and walking on shag carpet. Why doesn't it work." or "I broke off one of the pins, where can I get extra?"
Excuse me, since when is it easier to change to source than to FTP a different package? "Oh, I think I'll upgrade to KDE2 now by changing the code. It is way to much trouble to download it." Or are you on a 300bps modem or something? If it hampers you, sure. But I get the impression that there are a lot of people who really have no use for the code, but like to bitch at others about it.
You hit the nail on the head. Software is a tool. You people who have some emotional attachment to the software (unless of course you wrote it) have a problem. As such, freedom and right to software ARE little things, unless they hamper your use to the tool.
I'm just wondering why the KDE people don't just change the license on KDE. That would solve numerous problems. The license could still be very GPL-like, but with an exception for the QPL. Sure that would mean the Debian guys couldn't use it, but anybody that obsessed with the philosphy behind a piece of software is too far gone to help.
No you're not really free to do that. The minute you put your software under some other license, the GPL people come bitch at you and boycott your software!
The problem is the GPL is too iffy. In this case it is not the fault of RedHat/SuSE/Corel, but the fault of KDE. They are the ones using non-GPL code inside GPL code. Of course, I really don't think the GPL is right in this case. They way it should be is that the GPL should be allowed to use code from other licenses if that license allows it. I'm sure this is happening all over Linux. Do you mean to tell me that there is not a line of BSD code somewhere in Debian?
Slashdot Mirror
Voodoo5 will be supported by 3DFx themselves, who have commited to write BeOS drivers. Also, since Voodoo5 is not out yet, they couldn't test it. In addition, the QuakeIII port is incomplete/immature as it is waiting for the OpenGL implementation to come out.
OpenGL is not tied to SIMD processors. It simply takes good advantage of them. The reason they don't port it to PPC is because the PPC port is dying, and Be only has about 100 engineers to go around. As for NetBSD, when it performs like this, then you can speak.
MS OpenGL is not pitiful. If it is, then Linux OpenGL is down-right skanky. Be has pretty good graphics card support, and for mainstream stuff like TNT, they are high quality and take advantage of a lot of acceleration. Also, 3D card manufacturers don't write crappy drivers. In fact, nVidia's GL drivers on Windows are probably as high quality as SGI's on IRIX. (Not anywhere near same absolute performance, but close relative to the hardware.)
Its not about software is it? It's about OpenGL performance. Also, Gimp is already almost ported, and the GTK+/GDK port is nearly complete. True MS Office is not there yet, but its isn't there on Linux either. Wine is being ported, and an X11 port is already complete. FreeMWare is being ported too. And it's free. Aside from the Office thing, what's your beef?
Are you kidding about the marketing hype part? Linux is not popular because it stands on its own merits. In all fairness, BSD did it a long time before Linux became a plausible solution. Linux's increasing popularity in the business world is simply a byproduct of people reeling from Microsoft looking for another solution. Linux happened to be one of the only free OSs that were viable at the time, and also the only one that had a community vocal enough to hype it (Unlike BSD.) As such, there is nothing technical about Linux that makes it stand out. Its popularity with business is ENTIERLY hype related. In this end, the hype that OSS and the FSF create help a great deal.
PS: I'm not saying that Linux has no merit for people who like the OS. I'm also not saying that OSS and the FSF is just hype. I'm saying that these things are true in the business world. (Are you going to tell me that these companies give a damn about the GPL and the philosophy behind it?) Linux and the FSF are very meaningful the members of the community, just not the business world.
Just testing my sig.
It's pretty cool that they thunk to the Windows DLL, but one question (actuall a compound question.)
What exactly IS thunking and how does it work? I know that Win95 thunks to the Win16 code, but I don't know what process is involved.
That sig's interesting. Are you really asking people to contribute to a closed-source OS for free?
>>>>>>
Yes. In the Windows world there are a lot of apps written for the good of the community. A lot of people enjoy using BeOS not for philosophical reasons, but because they like the OS. By contributing to BeUnited (most of whose projects are GPL or BSD or Artistic license) you help this community of users.
Don't get me wrong, BeOS video stuff kicks ass. Even if I could code well, though, I can't imagine going out of my way for an OS that's a) going nowhere fast and b) not really written by/for the benefit of the users who MIGHT use it, if it had more functional apps.
>>>>>>>
Ah, but it is written for the benefit. Be is in a unique situation that if they Open Source the whole OS, then pieces will just be ripped off and added to other projects. None of these other projects would have the fundemental "cleanliness" of the original, but would lead to a death of the original.
Why no mozilla port? Why spend all that time replacing free not-great software with Be's not-great software?
>>>>
You're not doing anything to help Be. (Who makes great software! Be produces good, fast, functional code.) You're helping the users of the OS. In fact, one of the projects BeUnited is working on is a Mozilla port that's about 60% complete. There is also a 70-something% complete GTK port, and a Qt port was just started.
I just want you to strip Be down to a runtime environment with multiplatform HW drivers, so people can write better video games without having to use the pissy DirectX. Is that too much to ask?
>>>>>>>
You can do that. BeOS is increadibly functional because of the microkernel design. The actual core OS can be booted with as little as 2MB of files. (And DirectX is NOT pissy. You just don't get it.)
BeUnited is not a help Be-the-company out sort of effort. It is to provide good applications for an OS that a lot of people like using. It does nothing to serve the company itself. (Aside from increasing the userbase OS, but since it's free, it doesn't really matter. The increased userbase just helps out the community.)
I was responding to those who were saying that using Linux gives Inderama a leg up because Linux is standard-complient (ie. Apps can be ported to it.) One of the major advantages of using off-the-shelf OSs is that apps can be ported easily and quickly. In the market of consumer apps, using Windows as a base gives you a much more "standards complient" OS in this respect than using Linux.
The problem is that you're wrong. Inderama doesn't make games for it just as Sony doesn't make games. Developers make games for it. Developers port apps to it. They port existing Win32 apps to it. Thus, MS has an advantage because they have an army of developers using the Windows platform.
Linux is not standards complient. In the real world, anything in consumer space is only standards complient if it uses the Win32 API. Not a troll, just the sad truth.
It runs embedded NT.
No, that's not it. They make money by charging people to make games. If you make a program that runs on Playstation, you have to pay Sony $7 for each copy sold.
I find it interesting that these Inderama people think that they can jump into the console market, and triumph over Nintendo and Sony who have been doing it for years and frankly can do it a lot beter. Without further ado, the reasons why you probably will not succeed as a gaming machine. (Though it has potential as a set-top.)
1) The hardware of the Inderama is not well suited for gaming. The problem is that there is the wrong balance within the system. Instead of Sony, which took gaming and added computing features, the Inderama people are taking computing and adding gaming features. The harware seems to be a fair bit more powerful than PSX2, but not well suited for gaming. As a whole I don't think the system will work well. First of all, there is the problem of Linux. While it makes it very convinient from a general set-box view, it is stifling for gaming. Frankly, a UNIX is just too much overhead for a set-top. Every thing from a virtual file system, to memory management, to memory protection, multiple users, and a robust networking system, all take there toll on system performance, and frankly, are useless on a console. Problematically, these are ingrained features of Linux and cannot be removed without a total overhaul. Also troubling is their use of Mesa. Mesa is not known for being the fastest GL implementation around, and it is dumb to use it on a console. Then there is the question of abstraction. There need not be any on a console. (Except maybe some for the removable drives and maybe networking.) While PSX2 starts with totally writing to the metal, then adds ease of use things such as OpenGL and other libraries, Linux starts out with a very abstracted system. It may make the system easier to learn, but we've seen where this abstraction goes in real games. Some of the original dreamcast games used the DirectX APIs of the Microsoft OS (which are much higher performance than anything on Linux) but most people eventually developed their own "to the metal" engines, and neglected to OS. Game developers like being able to write close to the hardware. It allows quite a lot of innovation, like that seen the the Crash games. That's also why games continue to get better on the same hardware for 5 or 7 years. In all, these things will outweigh the massive hardware, and in the end, I doubt performance on Inderama will be more than 30% or so better. To the console market that is nothing, because N64 still lost to Playstation even though it was more than 3 or 4 times as fast. The reason is the quality of the PSX software, which brings me to my next point.
2) MS and Inderama are starting out late. As such, they will not have the software base PSX-2 will. Even though it will take time for developers to learn PSX-2, they will be up to speed by the time MS and Inderama are 6 months from shipping. A smaller software library can, and has, killed consoles in the past.
3) MS and Inderama have no clue from a user standpoint. Neither Embedded NT nor Linux are nearly stable enough to meet the expectations of console users. You think people are going to put up with patches and upgrades all the time? In the console world, it is do it perfect or don't do it at all. That brings to issue the problematic hard drives. While great for a set top box, they are relativly useless for a console, and will only encourage lazy developers to ship unfinished products with expectations to patch them later. Secondly, I almost had a heart attack when I learned that the GPU would be upgradable. Not only does this degrade performance, (developers can take advantage of every nuance of the hardware without writing general, slower code), but it will introduce headaches to console gamers. Console users expect their $200 investment to last 5 or 6 years unchanged. They will not put up with upgrading every few months.
The whole problem with the whole "PCs pretending to be consoles" is that their developers just don't get it. People don't want to put up with patches, upgrading, or the difficulties of managing a PC, even a simplified one. We're talking about people who can't program their VCRs. You expect them to be able to manage this? I'd like to see the 10,000 complaints from users who manage to fry the GPU while upgrading it, or bend one of the pins. "What do you MEAN I have to shock myself first." or "I was installing this in winter while wearing socks and walking on shag carpet. Why doesn't it work." or "I broke off one of the pins, where can I get extra?"
You've hit the nail on the head. That's exactly the problem with most OSS software. They are collections of complex, arbitary feature sets :)
Excuse me, since when is it easier to change to source than to FTP a different package? "Oh, I think I'll upgrade to KDE2 now by changing the code. It is way to much trouble to download it." Or are you on a 300bps modem or something? If it hampers you, sure. But I get the impression that there are a lot of people who really have no use for the code, but like to bitch at others about it.
It was a joke. Laugh.
If you can use BSD code in GPL apps, why can't you use QPL code in GPL apps?
You hit the nail on the head. Software is a tool. You people who have some emotional attachment to the software (unless of course you wrote it) have a problem. As such, freedom and right to software ARE little things, unless they hamper your use to the tool.
I'm just wondering why the KDE people don't just change the license on KDE. That would solve numerous problems. The license could still be very GPL-like, but with an exception for the QPL. Sure that would mean the Debian guys couldn't use it, but anybody that obsessed with the philosphy behind a piece of software is too far gone to help.
No you're not really free to do that. The minute you put your software under some other license, the GPL people come bitch at you and boycott your software!
Aren't the static libraries in DJGPP lgpl? There is a rule that one cannot link to GPL code from non-GPL code. That's why the LGPL exists.
The problem is the GPL is too iffy. In this case it is not the fault of RedHat/SuSE/Corel, but the fault of KDE. They are the ones using non-GPL code inside GPL code. Of course, I really don't think the GPL is right in this case. They way it should be is that the GPL should be allowed to use code from other licenses if that license allows it. I'm sure this is happening all over Linux. Do you mean to tell me that there is not a line of BSD code somewhere in Debian?
Making Qt GPL also has the nasty effect of making all Qt using apps GPL. Are you sure you don't mean LGPL?
Oh I see, my mistake. I had thought that GPL required the code made availbe for free or cost of media.