There is a reason Matrox, ati and 3dfx have taken the pledge to be open. They are either tiny in the case of Matrox, or dying in the case of ATI and 3Dfx. A market leader has no real incentive to support Linux until it becomes big. And when it does, they still won't need to open the source. Corperate users really don't have the time/resources to hack a graphics driver. Second, I'm pretty sure the nVida GL will not use DRI. They made a statement that DRI was not exactly appropriate for their graphics pipelines. Most likely, it wil just be a patch to the kernel. I don't play Quake that often. I do, however, have a problem with not using my hardware to its 100% just because some OSS guys want their precious, divinly inspired idea to succeed. Hey, there is nothing ethically ambigious about my point. I could care less if their wasn't a single Open Source driver on Linux. You may, and I have nothing against that. I just want my hardware to work, and work at 100%.
I would like to vent my rage at the fact that companies think that just because Linux is not a major platform, discriminating against users of other platforms is okay. I don't really like Linux for graphics work. It is too much of a kludge with X. Yet if I choose to use Windows for my work, I have to pay for the same product that Linux users get for free?!! You do realize why Denba is only making this product free for Linux users, don't you? They can cuddle up the the Linux movement, while not really losing any sales in the process. (Really, how many graphics shops will switch to Linux just because they save a few dollars on the software? In the real world, $500 for a graphics package is nothing compared to the outlay for the artists them selves. The small, 2 person shops might, but nobody major.) If, however, Linux does become a major OS, then they will probably introduce the next version without the free license. On a related not, have you taken a look at all the companies that have jumped onto this OSS/Free software thing? 99% of them are dying companies, or companies that stand to lose nothing. Take, for example, SGI. Why in the world would the Open Source so much of their stuff? Because they are hemmoraging money, can't make it into the Windows NT market, and are thus trying to jump onto the Linux market in hopes of gaining a competitive advantage should it become big. Same thing for ATI. They are loosing dozens of OEMs to nVidia. Aside from the dying companies, there are the companies who stand to lose no money from support Linux. Take IBM and its efforts to port Linux to its computers. What are they losing? Nothing, they make money on the hardware, not AIX licenses! Same goes for SUN, Solaris really doesn't make them any money. I think that a lot of people are going to get a cold dose of reality when they realize that the Linux business model really doesn't work. Sure the OS vendors may make a few shillings from support, but nothing major. Software vendors are even worse off. Why would I pay for support on a graphics package? Has anyone every seriously called into Adobe and asked them for help? Then there are home users. Very few home users ever call a software company for help. (Pay calls of course.) If they are advanced enough, they can look on the internet, otherwise they call their system vendor. Have you looked at Redhat's financial status lately? Its once massive stock price has halved, and it is still losing money? Not to good for a company that dominates the corporate Linux market.
A) I don't use Be for 3d stuff because it doesn't have HW accelerated 3D for anything but 3dfx; Just like Linux. B) I don't like using windows for 3D, but it has the only usable 3D modlers out there. (BTW the guy who designed the Blender interface was on crack.) C) I love our closed spec obfuscated source buddy nVidia still. I'm a pretty happy camper. My card runs fast as hell, and I have no religious attachment to Linux/Be/etc. D) I think you missed the subtlety abou the DRI thing. They only DRI compenent that goes in the kernel is the DRI kernel driver. That is accelerator non-specific. Thus it will work with any card, it is just a system for the DRI driver to communicate through the kernel. It is a symantical thing, no DRI support for a particular card acutally goes in the kernel, it is loaded by the X server which uses the hardware independant kernel driver to talk to the hardware. I really don't care if Linux has no place on your drive. If you aren't willing to use a GeForce just because it doesn't run on your precious Linux, thats your problem. Don't, however, blame nVidia for it. Their product kicks ass. Have you ever run 3D Studio on a GeForce? You'd think you were on an SGI! They will have accel. OpenGL on Linux soon. If you have some problem with it being closed source and propriotry, fine. But I'm just sitting here waiting for Redhat 7 and nVidia's super tweeked OpenGL support. (BTW nVidia's drivers won't use DRI.)
I never said it did. However, the main problem is the USB has much lower overhead than ethernet. USB is just a connecter on the PCI bus. It has no real protocol to speak of. Ethernet, however, has to go through (usually) TCP/IP (great for flexibility, crappy for speed) then all the other stuff in the OSI model. Thus ethernet is impractical for a machine with a 16MHz proc. Also, USB probably hits a higher average than 10mbps ethernet
I think that those people running the dev kernels could enlighten us about a few things. (Those of use who don't use Linux or don't feel like DLing 12 megs of source and ripping out our current kernel.) 1) Is it an FASTER? 2) How is the stability? Since this is a pre release, it better be pretty stable. The 2.2.0pre series laster 10 kernels or so, so this is fairly close to release. 3) Any new features that would warrent upgrading (aside from the afformentioned speed/stability) I also have another question. What kind of resource usage are we looking at in this kernel compared to the 2.2x series? I say this because I have yet to see a major OS vendor pull a Be and actually make an already memery efficiant systems use even less memory at the same time it added a bunch of features.
A) I could really care less. I use Windows for any 3D stuff. B) The new kernel better not have nVidia support. OpenGL in the kernel would not be a good thing. (Or are you talking about the hardware independant DRI driver?)
USB has a throughput of 12mbps. The modem, however, can theoretically DL at 40 mbps. For most people, however, it is clipped to something along the lines of 5 mbps or so, thus USB is not the bottleneck.
I do wish you Linux people would stop insulting nVidia about bad X support. I all reality, it makes perfect business sense to write closed source DRI drivers. First, they are interested in the mainstream market. They really couldn't care less if the drivers are open source. If you don't like it, they don't need your business. I hear people saying they should boycott nVidia, and some other people telling a guy to stop talking about the power of the GeForce. Well.. 1) The GeForce is the most powerful consumer card available, so there! 2) It doesn't have open source X drivers and I don't care. 3) Go ahead and boycott nVidia, they probably don't care either. 4) I use windows and have better 3D acceleration, sound acceleration and hardware support than Linux will have for another year. Now how you deal with that is up to you. You can be like some people and bitch about it, or you can be like the majority of the OSS movement and write it yourself.
Hardcore source mongering Linux users don't number nearly enough to matter. Go ahead and say all you want, but don't insult them because they don't support Open Source. Thats just as bad as the people who call Open Source communist. Strong words, sure, but I am seriously pissed of at the attitude some people have. They are the reason that so many people think that Linux users are just hot tempered 13 year olds. As for their X support, it really does make business sense to keep the drivers closed. Look at all the companies that are releasing Open source drivers. Either small companies, dying companies, or companies that are irrelevant at the high end. The sheer fact that people would actually buy a Voodoo 3 over a TNT 2 just because its the only card supported in X proves it. If Voodoo 3 had no linux drivers, nobody would still consider it relevant. Matrox is building up, but are still tiny compared to nVidia. ATI never really was relevant at the high end market where linux will first penetrate. nVidia is a good company, they make great products. Sure you have to use windows to appreciate them, but to most people it doesn't matter. And when the nVidia 3D solution for Linux comes out, we will be sitting here enjoying increadible 3D accleration while the Open Source fundementalists wonder how they can overclock their Voodoo 3 to squeeze that out extra frame in Quake. PS) 3D support isn't even coming to BeOS (my prefered platform) for a while. (But when it does come, watch out!) I don't bitch. I still love nVidia. If they become corrupt like 3Dfx, then I'll ditch them. Until now, I'm sitting happy over my TNT and waiting for my GeForce.
There are a couple of people bitching about how OpenAL uses the OpenGL API style and not an OO API. Then the dumbasses on the other side retailiate by condemming everything that is OOP. Neither are right. OpenGL is a pretty beautiful API. Though it is C style to the extreme (even structs are rare) it ranks right up their the Be's API which is C++ (but not a multiply inherited extreme.) Use the right tool for the right job people. Low level libraries like OpenGL are more or less fine as procedural APIs. Ideally, they would be encapsulated into an object to make contexts easier to manage and choose, but thats about it. Making the whole over-riding the virtual function may work for an OS, but really isn't necessary for a low level API. You see stuff like GTK and Win32 and X be really clumsy because the stuff that they do really begs for an OO API. Then you see some stuff and you wonder what they developer was thinking when they made it OO. The main reason, though, that OpenAL is the style of OpenGL is because of integration. Its simply more elegant to have graphics, sound, etc. APIs have the same type of interface.
Why would you put it on top? The API could just directly work with the hardware. If COM were implemented on BeOS, even though Be uses an OO API, DirectX would still convievable work.
Are you crazy! Hasn't GLX caused enough trouble already! Shouldn't X be allowed to die and not have added features that keep people chained to it? And what about OSs that don't use X. You do realize that some OSs have gotten out of the '80s, keeping OpenAL tied only to X based OSs would be a BadThing(TM) Plus it adds another layer of abstraction to the API. Can't you UNIX people do anything directly without defining performance robbing features that 5% of the population ever uses? On a side note, if Linux is all about choice and freedom, then why is it that everytime sombody says something bad about the abomination that is X, people get mad? And why is it the only windowing system widely available on Linux?
For all of you who are complaining that 3D sound has no uses aside from games; well, yea, whats your point? It is meant for games. Unlike 3D graphics, there really isn't very many uses for 3D sound, even in media fields. Even 3D audio movies/videos will probably be using dolby or something. But by that arguement, theres no use for a $300 pair of speakers hooked up to your computer either. But what if you just like sound? There is more to using computers than programming. Believe it or not, gamers aren't lazy bastards who won't do real work. Computer gaming in enjoyable, and the 3D sound sounds really nifty! If everything were about practicality, people would all be using FVWM at home. But most people don't because most people have some sense of asthetics.
I really do hope that everybody realizes that this is going to basically lead to an accelerated DirectX for open systems, except done right. It is clear that OpenAL is designed to interoperate with OpenGL, the API is very similar. (Though things need to be named alEnable instead of Enable) This smacks of DirectX. Its accelerated, integrated, low level, and fast. What more could you want? Now all thats left is to write the hardware accelerated Open2DGL (Open 2D graphics) the OpenIL (open input library) OpenSL (OpenSound library) and OpenML (Open Music/midi library.) Seriously though, these can't be far off. You have to admit, no matter how poorly implemented DirectX is , it IS a good idea. Shove the OS out of your way, directly (yet cooperativly) access hardware, and make the APIs all similar. There are a couple of things left wanting, however. There are still too many levels in between the hardware and the app. OSS on Linux should be replaced with OpenSL (OpenSound library) which would directly interface with OpenAL. All the other libraries should access hardware directly, not sit on top of native libraries. And before you say this dream API is already here in the form of SDL, SDL is nothing compared to DirectX. DirectX is basically a wrapper for hardware, offers a huge amount of control of the hardware, and takes much better advantage of acceleration.
Technically, all Coppermine procs faster than the 600 are overclocked because there is no real difference in the cores between a 600 MHz coppermine and a 1GHz coppermine. There are some tweeks, but mainly the only difference is that the 1GHz procs are lower yield/higher quality parts. All procs are made at the same. If a particular core can't hit 1GHz, its sold as something lower. If there is a really high yield, and no cores are failing the tests, then even cores that pass at 1GHz will be sold as something lower. Overclocking is only when a chip is run faster than the manufacturer sold it to run. (not necessarily what speed it passed at. Many 600MHz procs actually have cores that passed at a higher speed, since Intel is getting really good yields on the coppermine chips.)
Actually, the reason that graphics cards don't run at a GHz is not because the technology isn't there, (I think S3 had.18u fabs before AMD and Intel) but that the proc is a lot more complex in terms of pipeline. Its easy to pipeline a proc and make each step go very fast, thus you can complete that primative operation in x nanoseconds and drive the clock rate up to 1 GHz. For graphics cards, however, these primative ops take a lot more time thus you can only clock them at 100 or 200 MHz. Even though the GeForce uses something like a.2u process, it still can only clear 120 MHz, when a Pentium 120 did that witha.6u process.
The release of the PS2 is not a Microsoft-type, bug filled get it out the door now type thing. If that were they case, they would be doing a global launch. Instead, I think it is just some seriously powerful technology having some teething problems. Think about it, putting together a system with the power of some SGIs isn't an easy process. Neither is getting a 300MHz processor into a small box. I'm surprised that there haven't been more problems then there have. Sony makes quality products, and I've heard an interview with their CEO in the US, that their primary concern is quality. It may be later, may not be the fastest or best, but will be high quality. It does make sense, however. Even if you don't read the specs for something, if you just pick up a Sony anything, you'll usually be fine, be it a TV, a computer. They have an image to uphold, and I'm sure they'll get it worked out. Second, all you people saying that a console like this is not worth it, that eventually PCs will do it too, should buy a clue. Even taking into account the current massive growth in computer performance (doubling every year instead of every 18 months) a computer as powerful as the PS2 won't be out for another two years minimum, (if you go by theoretical polygon performance. You're talking 15M polys for a GeForce and 75M for a PS2. They're both grossly inflated, but still, the PS2 has a better chance of reaching its high because games can be programmed extremely close to the metal to take advantage of every naunce of the architecture.) And even then it won't cost the $150 that the PS2 will by then. Take a look at the N64. The thing is an obsene 5 years old, but is still chuging. It blew away the PCs of the time, and is still pretty impressive in terms of graphics, especially the new high-res games. And thats from a crappy console. Even PSX games (the PSX has a 33MHz proc) wouldn't look that bad if they only had texture filtering. There is a correct tool for everything, and if its ultimate gaming you're going after, look no farther than the PS2.
Actually, I don't think the play balancers counted on you getting Kotr before you'd beat the game. Most everyone I knew beat the game in "the proper" order. Just because you hit a weak spot in the play balancer's list doesn't mean the rest of the game is a movie. I was about level 70 going into Sephiroth and it took me 2 hours to beat the guy before him. (In one sitting, one battle) I finished the game with two guys dead and one hit point on RedXIII. I doubt I'd call that a movie.
If you only bought a network card based on what it said on the box, it doesn't say much for you intelligence. The Netgear PCMCIA cards are fully supported by Linux just like the Linksys card. You should have bought a card on its merits, not just because it touted your favorite OS. Thats like buying Office just because Microsoft makes it... Oh wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>> My experience says otherwise. I know patch-installing, MS Dev subscribing, hands-on Windows MCSE/MCSD gurus who can definitely be said to have a deep knowledge of Win32. But that's it. Win32. One set of APIs. The Microsoft-centric way of doing things. "Click on these wizards here and it will do it all for you" kind of programming. Of course when it comes to having to digging down to the bones to find out what is going on - perhaps to solve a difficult problem - they're clueless. They don't have the source to the OS so they can only make educated guesses at best as to what might be going on. >>>>>>>>>> Thats a pretty sad group of programmers then. The problem is that you believe that sterotype that all Win32 programmers use app wizards. Some do, mainly hobbyists, but I know that in circles of serious programmers, even using something like MFC is frowned upon. Most can dig down into the roots to find a difficult problem. The 3D studio MAX guys could probably whip 99% of the Mesa or KGI guys when it came to graphics code. If you're talking about less serious programmers (like most Linux programmers are) then yes, maybe they do use MFC and app wizards. Windows is a fundementally different paradigm from UNIX, especially Linux. Most apps that ones uses in Linux are made by people who do it on the side. On Linux these people have to use the low level code, but on Windows they'd probably use app wizards. On windows however, you're mostly running apps from major developers, who hate MFC and app wizards. Second, I never said that windows was properly documented. For the course of a few years of college training however, you're not going to need anything more than Petzold's books and some books and algorithms. Sure there are a bunch of undocumented things, but there their mainly because your not supposed to use them. You can't critisize MS's documentation guys. DirectDraw alone has 600 pages of documentation in a word file. As for not having source code so one can learn about the inner workings in solving a problem, all I can say, is that you shouldn't need to. First, programmers have been getting along fine for decades without the source to the OS. Second, if you need the source to understand whats going on, then the API is badly designed, and the documentation is inadequate. Third, its people who look at the source to take advantage of the system who are the root of all the legacy crap today's OSs have to carry. As for CS degrees in algorithms, A) Windows is friendlier and more familier to work with B) VisualC++ is $99 for educational purposes. My high school has hundreds of licenses for it. Whats so expensive about it?
I have a question? Is the LISP in sawmill compiled? If not, why do programmers have to do these stupid nifty tricks at the expense of speed? Sure it probably won't matter now, but eventually that LISP will catch up to you. Actually, I think this is a bitch aimed at UNIX (and most other non-game)programmers in general? Why all the features put in at the expense of performance. Why is GNOME even putting in new features like COBRA when what is already there doesn't really have the speed and stability one would hope a major DE for Linux would have. Features are nifty, but if you're going to do them, follow the lead of the BeOS programmers. Only after everything is tricked out and super stable, should you go on adding features.
I don't understand why so many people are giving these guys flack. A) They are improving GNOME. B) They are polishing it so it doesn't look like some hacker project that's still in development. That may be the case, but face it, in the real world, polish counts for a lot. C) They're making it easy to install. You click on the exe, it runs the installer, you choose your options and you install the damn thing. It may not be the best way to distribute a system to hundreds of users over a network, but is the best way for the average user to install it. Say what you will, but clicking on the setup program is a lot easier than opening up an xterm and compiling it, or gathering all the dependencies, putting them into a directory, typing rmp -U *.rpm, then fucking with GDM to get the thing working. While we are on the topic of dependencies, PEOPLE HATE DEPENDENCIES. Sure the sysadmin might appreciate the flexiblity, but the average user with only a 56K connection to the internet is going to hate having to hunt for all the packages and dependencies and install them individually. Whats wrong with putting them all in one rpm? Its harder to hunt for all the dependencies, then sit there and click on each one to download it, than it is to hit download on one big rpm, and have it just not install duplicate stuff when setup is run. You might save a few megs of dl on the first way, but most people will want to just leave the thing on overnight. (15 meg on a 56 K modem takes HOURS) They're doing all these good things, so whats your (collective) problem?
Actually, a single 500MHz is never enough, but it depends on what you do. I don't consider myself a terribly demanding computer user, I chug along with a PII 300, but I do a lot of 3D, a lot of multi-threaded game programming, and a lot of gaming. I can bet you that I would be a lot happier with a 500 than a 300, and much happier with dual 850s. And I doubt they'd be spinning their wheels most of the time.
Actually, don't critisize NT for having fork() take parameters. NT was designed for threading from the ground up, and fork() and some of the other POSIX stuff doesn't mesh to well with it. Its a problem in general for systems that aren't POSIX at the core, I know BeOS really doesn't like forks() and once you use one, you lock yourself out from using BeOS threads.
You do realize that learning UNIX is not essential to having a CS degree. People can be master programmers without ever having touched UNIX. There are many reasons, but the main ones are... A) Everyone uses Windows. Face it, a deep knowledge of Win32 is much more usefull than a deep knowledge of UNIX in the commercial application world. B) The Win32 is easier to learn and has more coherent resources. Sure the UNIX APIs have much more documentation, but the books put out by MS give a pretty good overview of the entire API. C) CS degrees can also be in algorithms and programming techniques. In that case it doesn't matter what OS one uses, becuase most calls will be standard C or C++ library calls. D) CS degrees can also be in computer graphics, in that case windows is the best OS to use because it has the best hardware support for graphics APIs. And if your programming so low level that you're not using OpenGL or something of the sort, then your probably using DOS. Just because many people use it in the CS field doesn't mean its the only way to go. DOS is probably the best for beginning level CS courses, and for application design, BeOS is probably best because its API is so easy to use. For scientific and other hardcore stuff, UNIX is probably the way to go.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a reason Matrox, ati and 3dfx have taken the pledge to be open. They are either tiny in the case of Matrox, or dying in the case of ATI and 3Dfx. A market leader has no real incentive to support Linux until it becomes big. And when it does, they still won't need to open the source. Corperate users really don't have the time/resources to hack a graphics driver. Second, I'm pretty sure the nVida GL will not use DRI. They made a statement that DRI was not exactly appropriate for their graphics pipelines. Most likely, it wil just be a patch to the kernel. I don't play Quake that often. I do, however, have a problem with not using my hardware to its 100% just because some OSS guys want their precious, divinly inspired idea to succeed. Hey, there is nothing ethically ambigious about my point. I could care less if their wasn't a single Open Source driver on Linux. You may, and I have nothing against that. I just want my hardware to work, and work at 100%.
I would like to vent my rage at the fact that companies think that just because Linux is not a major platform, discriminating against users of other platforms is okay. I don't really like Linux for graphics work. It is too much of a kludge with X. Yet if I choose to use Windows for my work, I have to pay for the same product that Linux users get for free?!! You do realize why Denba is only making this product free for Linux users, don't you? They can cuddle up the the Linux movement, while not really losing any sales in the process. (Really, how many graphics shops will switch to Linux just because they save a few dollars on the software? In the real world, $500 for a graphics package is nothing compared to the outlay for the artists them selves. The small, 2 person shops might, but nobody major.) If, however, Linux does become a major OS, then they will probably introduce the next version without the free license. On a related not, have you taken a look at all the companies that have jumped onto this OSS/Free software thing? 99% of them are dying companies, or companies that stand to lose nothing. Take, for example, SGI. Why in the world would the Open Source so much of their stuff? Because they are hemmoraging money, can't make it into the Windows NT market, and are thus trying to jump onto the Linux market in hopes of gaining a competitive advantage should it become big. Same thing for ATI. They are loosing dozens of OEMs to nVidia. Aside from the dying companies, there are the companies who stand to lose no money from support Linux. Take IBM and its efforts to port Linux to its computers. What are they losing? Nothing, they make money on the hardware, not AIX licenses! Same goes for SUN, Solaris really doesn't make them any money. I think that a lot of people are going to get a cold dose of reality when they realize that the Linux business model really doesn't work. Sure the OS vendors may make a few shillings from support, but nothing major. Software vendors are even worse off. Why would I pay for support on a graphics package? Has anyone every seriously called into Adobe and asked them for help? Then there are home users. Very few home users ever call a software company for help. (Pay calls of course.) If they are advanced enough, they can look on the internet, otherwise they call their system vendor. Have you looked at Redhat's financial status lately? Its once massive stock price has halved, and it is still losing money? Not to good for a company that dominates the corporate Linux market.
A) I don't use Be for 3d stuff because it doesn't have HW accelerated 3D for anything but 3dfx; Just like Linux.
B) I don't like using windows for 3D, but it has the only usable 3D modlers out there. (BTW the guy who designed the Blender interface was on crack.)
C) I love our closed spec obfuscated source buddy nVidia still. I'm a pretty happy camper. My card runs fast as hell, and I have no religious attachment to Linux/Be/etc.
D) I think you missed the subtlety abou the DRI thing. They only DRI compenent that goes in the kernel is the DRI kernel driver. That is accelerator non-specific. Thus it will work with any card, it is just a system for the DRI driver to communicate through the kernel. It is a symantical thing, no DRI support for a particular card acutally goes in the kernel, it is loaded by the X server which uses the hardware independant kernel driver to talk to the hardware. I really don't care if Linux has no place on your drive. If you aren't willing to use a GeForce just because it doesn't run on your precious Linux, thats your problem. Don't, however, blame nVidia for it. Their product kicks ass. Have you ever run 3D Studio on a GeForce? You'd think you were on an SGI! They will have accel. OpenGL on Linux soon. If you have some problem with it being closed source and propriotry, fine. But I'm just sitting here waiting for Redhat 7 and nVidia's super tweeked OpenGL support. (BTW nVidia's drivers won't use DRI.)
I never said it did. However, the main problem is the USB has much lower overhead than ethernet. USB is just a connecter on the PCI bus. It has no real protocol to speak of. Ethernet, however, has to go through (usually) TCP/IP (great for flexibility, crappy for speed) then all the other stuff in the OSI model. Thus ethernet is impractical for a machine with a 16MHz proc. Also, USB probably hits a higher average than 10mbps ethernet
I think that those people running the dev kernels could enlighten us about a few things. (Those of use who don't use Linux or don't feel like DLing 12 megs of source and ripping out our current kernel.)
1) Is it an FASTER?
2) How is the stability? Since this is a pre release, it better be pretty stable. The 2.2.0pre series laster 10 kernels or so, so this is fairly close to release.
3) Any new features that would warrent upgrading (aside from the afformentioned speed/stability)
I also have another question. What kind of resource usage are we looking at in this kernel compared to the 2.2x series? I say this because I have yet to see a major OS vendor pull a Be and actually make an already memery efficiant systems use even less memory at the same time it added a bunch of features.
A) I could really care less. I use Windows for any 3D stuff.
B) The new kernel better not have nVidia support. OpenGL in the kernel would not be a good thing. (Or are you talking about the hardware independant DRI driver?)
USB has a throughput of 12mbps. The modem, however, can theoretically DL at 40 mbps. For most people, however, it is clipped to something along the lines of 5 mbps or so, thus USB is not the bottleneck.
I do wish you Linux people would stop insulting nVidia about bad X support. I all reality, it makes perfect business sense to write closed source DRI drivers. First, they are interested in the mainstream market. They really couldn't care less if the drivers are open source. If you don't like it, they don't need your business. I hear people saying they should boycott nVidia, and some other people telling a guy to stop talking about the power of the GeForce. Well..
1) The GeForce is the most powerful consumer card available, so there!
2) It doesn't have open source X drivers and I don't care.
3) Go ahead and boycott nVidia, they probably don't care either.
4) I use windows and have better 3D acceleration, sound acceleration and hardware support than Linux will have for another year. Now how you deal with that is up to you. You can be like some people and bitch about it, or you can be like the majority of the OSS movement and write it yourself.
Hardcore source mongering Linux users don't number nearly enough to matter. Go ahead and say all you want, but don't insult them because they don't support Open Source. Thats just as bad as the people who call Open Source communist. Strong words, sure, but I am seriously pissed of at the attitude some people have. They are the reason that so many people think that Linux users are just hot tempered 13 year olds. As for their X support, it really does make business sense to keep the drivers closed. Look at all the companies that are releasing Open source drivers. Either small companies, dying companies, or companies that are irrelevant at the high end. The sheer fact that people would actually buy a Voodoo 3 over a TNT 2 just because its the only card supported in X proves it. If Voodoo 3 had no linux drivers, nobody would still consider it relevant. Matrox is building up, but are still tiny compared to nVidia. ATI never really was relevant at the high end market where linux will first penetrate. nVidia is a good company, they make great products. Sure you have to use windows to appreciate them, but to most people it doesn't matter. And when the nVidia 3D solution for Linux comes out, we will be sitting here enjoying increadible 3D accleration while the Open Source fundementalists wonder how they can overclock their Voodoo 3 to squeeze that out extra frame in Quake.
PS) 3D support isn't even coming to BeOS (my prefered platform) for a while. (But when it does come, watch out!) I don't bitch. I still love nVidia. If they become corrupt like 3Dfx, then I'll ditch them. Until now, I'm sitting happy over my TNT and waiting for my GeForce.
Actually, BeOS fully supports anti aliased fonts. And it has the upside that people actually use it.
There are a couple of people bitching about how OpenAL uses the OpenGL API style and not an OO API. Then the dumbasses on the other side retailiate by condemming everything that is OOP. Neither are right. OpenGL is a pretty beautiful API. Though it is C style to the extreme (even structs are rare) it ranks right up their the Be's API which is C++ (but not a multiply inherited extreme.) Use the right tool for the right job people. Low level libraries like OpenGL are more or less fine as procedural APIs. Ideally, they would be encapsulated into an object to make contexts easier to manage and choose, but thats about it. Making the whole over-riding the virtual function may work for an OS, but really isn't necessary for a low level API. You see stuff like GTK and Win32 and X be really clumsy because the stuff that they do really begs for an OO API. Then you see some stuff and you wonder what they developer was thinking when they made it OO. The main reason, though, that OpenAL is the style of OpenGL is because of integration. Its simply more elegant to have graphics, sound, etc. APIs have the same type of interface.
Why would you put it on top? The API could just directly work with the hardware. If COM were implemented on BeOS, even though Be uses an OO API, DirectX would still convievable work.
Are you crazy! Hasn't GLX caused enough trouble already! Shouldn't X be allowed to die and not have added features that keep people chained to it? And what about OSs that don't use X. You do realize that some OSs have gotten out of the '80s, keeping OpenAL tied only to X based OSs would be a BadThing(TM) Plus it adds another layer of abstraction to the API. Can't you UNIX people do anything directly without defining performance robbing features that 5% of the population ever uses? On a side note, if Linux is all about choice and freedom, then why is it that everytime sombody says something bad about the abomination that is X, people get mad? And why is it the only windowing system widely available on Linux?
For all of you who are complaining that 3D sound has no uses aside from games; well, yea, whats your point? It is meant for games. Unlike 3D graphics, there really isn't very many uses for 3D sound, even in media fields. Even 3D audio movies/videos will probably be using dolby or something. But by that arguement, theres no use for a $300 pair of speakers hooked up to your computer either. But what if you just like sound? There is more to using computers than programming. Believe it or not, gamers aren't lazy bastards who won't do real work. Computer gaming in enjoyable, and the 3D sound sounds really nifty! If everything were about practicality, people would all be using FVWM at home. But most people don't because most people have some sense of asthetics.
I really do hope that everybody realizes that this is going to basically lead to an accelerated DirectX for open systems, except done right. It is clear that OpenAL is designed to interoperate with OpenGL, the API is very similar. (Though things need to be named alEnable instead of Enable) This smacks of DirectX. Its accelerated, integrated, low level, and fast. What more could you want? Now all thats left is to write the hardware accelerated Open2DGL (Open 2D graphics) the OpenIL (open input library) OpenSL (OpenSound library) and OpenML (Open Music/midi library.) Seriously though, these can't be far off. You have to admit, no matter how poorly implemented DirectX is , it IS a good idea. Shove the OS out of your way, directly (yet cooperativly) access hardware, and make the APIs all similar. There are a couple of things left wanting, however. There are still too many levels in between the hardware and the app. OSS on Linux should be replaced with OpenSL (OpenSound library) which would directly interface with OpenAL. All the other libraries should access hardware directly, not sit on top of native libraries. And before you say this dream API is already here in the form of SDL, SDL is nothing compared to DirectX. DirectX is basically a wrapper for hardware, offers a huge amount of control of the hardware, and takes much better advantage of acceleration.
Technically, all Coppermine procs faster than the 600 are overclocked because there is no real difference in the cores between a 600 MHz coppermine and a 1GHz coppermine. There are some tweeks, but mainly the only difference is that the 1GHz procs are lower yield/higher quality parts. All procs are made at the same. If a particular core can't hit 1GHz, its sold as something lower. If there is a really high yield, and no cores are failing the tests, then even cores that pass at 1GHz will be sold as something lower. Overclocking is only when a chip is run faster than the manufacturer sold it to run. (not necessarily what speed it passed at. Many 600MHz procs actually have cores that passed at a higher speed, since Intel is getting really good yields on the coppermine chips.)
Actually, the reason that graphics cards don't run at a GHz is not because the technology isn't there, (I think S3 had .18u fabs before AMD and Intel) but that the proc is a lot more complex in terms of pipeline. Its easy to pipeline a proc and make each step go very fast, thus you can complete that primative operation in x nanoseconds and drive the clock rate up to 1 GHz. For graphics cards, however, these primative ops take a lot more time thus you can only clock them at 100 or 200 MHz. Even though the GeForce uses something like a .2u process, it still can only clear 120 MHz, when a Pentium 120 did that witha .6u process.
The release of the PS2 is not a Microsoft-type, bug filled get it out the door now type thing. If that were they case, they would be doing a global launch. Instead, I think it is just some seriously powerful technology having some teething problems. Think about it, putting together a system with the power of some SGIs isn't an easy process. Neither is getting a 300MHz processor into a small box. I'm surprised that there haven't been more problems then there have. Sony makes quality products, and I've heard an interview with their CEO in the US, that their primary concern is quality. It may be later, may not be the fastest or best, but will be high quality. It does make sense, however. Even if you don't read the specs for something, if you just pick up a Sony anything, you'll usually be fine, be it a TV, a computer. They have an image to uphold, and I'm sure they'll get it worked out. Second, all you people saying that a console like this is not worth it, that eventually PCs will do it too, should buy a clue. Even taking into account the current massive growth in computer performance (doubling every year instead of every 18 months) a computer as powerful as the PS2 won't be out for another two years minimum, (if you go by theoretical polygon performance. You're talking 15M polys for a GeForce and 75M for a PS2. They're both grossly inflated, but still, the PS2 has a better chance of reaching its high because games can be programmed extremely close to the metal to take advantage of every naunce of the architecture.) And even then it won't cost the $150 that the PS2 will by then. Take a look at the N64. The thing is an obsene 5 years old, but is still chuging. It blew away the PCs of the time, and is still pretty impressive in terms of graphics, especially the new high-res games. And thats from a crappy console. Even PSX games (the PSX has a 33MHz proc) wouldn't look that bad if they only had texture filtering. There is a correct tool for everything, and if its ultimate gaming you're going after, look no farther than the PS2.
Actually, I don't think the play balancers counted on you getting Kotr before you'd beat the game. Most everyone I knew beat the game in "the proper" order. Just because you hit a weak spot in the play balancer's list doesn't mean the rest of the game is a movie. I was about level 70 going into Sephiroth and it took me 2 hours to beat the guy before him. (In one sitting, one battle) I finished the game with two guys dead and one hit point on RedXIII. I doubt I'd call that a movie.
If you only bought a network card based on what it said on the box, it doesn't say much for you intelligence. The Netgear PCMCIA cards are fully supported by Linux just like the Linksys card. You should have bought a card on its merits, not just because it touted your favorite OS. Thats like buying Office just because Microsoft makes it... Oh wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
My experience says otherwise. I know patch-installing, MS Dev subscribing, hands-on Windows MCSE/MCSD gurus who can definitely be said to have a deep knowledge of Win32. But that's it. Win32. One set of APIs. The Microsoft-centric way of doing things. "Click on these wizards here and it will do it all for you" kind of programming. Of course when it comes to having to digging down to the bones to find out what is going on - perhaps to solve a difficult problem - they're clueless. They don't have the source to the OS so they can only make educated guesses at best as to what might be going on. >>>>>>>>>>
Thats a pretty sad group of programmers then. The problem is that you believe that sterotype that all Win32 programmers use app wizards. Some do, mainly hobbyists, but I know that in circles of serious programmers, even using something like MFC is frowned upon. Most can dig down into the roots to find a difficult problem. The 3D studio MAX guys could probably whip 99% of the Mesa or KGI guys when it came to graphics code. If you're talking about less serious programmers (like most Linux programmers are) then yes, maybe they do use MFC and app wizards. Windows is a fundementally different paradigm from UNIX, especially Linux. Most apps that ones uses in Linux are made by people who do it on the side. On Linux these people have to use the low level code, but on Windows they'd probably use app wizards. On windows however, you're mostly running apps from major developers, who hate MFC and app wizards.
Second, I never said that windows was properly documented. For the course of a few years of college training however, you're not going to need anything more than Petzold's books and some books and algorithms. Sure there are a bunch of undocumented things, but there their mainly because your not supposed to use them. You can't critisize MS's documentation guys. DirectDraw alone has 600 pages of documentation in a word file. As for not having source code so one can learn about the inner workings in solving a problem, all I can say, is that you shouldn't need to. First, programmers have been getting along fine for decades without the source to the OS. Second, if you need the source to understand whats going on, then the API is badly designed, and the documentation is inadequate. Third, its people who look at the source to take advantage of the system who are the root of all the legacy crap today's OSs have to carry. As for CS degrees in algorithms,
A) Windows is friendlier and more familier to work with
B) VisualC++ is $99 for educational purposes. My high school has hundreds of licenses for it. Whats so expensive about it?
I have a question? Is the LISP in sawmill compiled? If not, why do programmers have to do these stupid nifty tricks at the expense of speed? Sure it probably won't matter now, but eventually that LISP will catch up to you. Actually, I think this is a bitch aimed at UNIX (and most other non-game)programmers in general? Why all the features put in at the expense of performance. Why is GNOME even putting in new features like COBRA when what is already there doesn't really have the speed and stability one would hope a major DE for Linux would have. Features are nifty, but if you're going to do them, follow the lead of the BeOS programmers. Only after everything is tricked out and super stable, should you go on adding features.
I don't understand why so many people are giving these guys flack.
A) They are improving GNOME.
B) They are polishing it so it doesn't look like some hacker project that's still in development. That may be the case, but face it, in the real world, polish counts for a lot.
C) They're making it easy to install. You click on the exe, it runs the installer, you choose your options and you install the damn thing. It may not be the best way to distribute a system to hundreds of users over a network, but is the best way for the average user to install it. Say what you will, but clicking on the setup program is a lot easier than opening up an xterm and compiling it, or gathering all the dependencies, putting them into a directory, typing rmp -U *.rpm, then fucking with GDM to get the thing working. While we are on the topic of dependencies, PEOPLE HATE DEPENDENCIES. Sure the sysadmin might appreciate the flexiblity, but the average user with only a 56K connection to the internet is going to hate having to hunt for all the packages and dependencies and install them individually. Whats wrong with putting them all in one rpm? Its harder to hunt for all the dependencies, then sit there and click on each one to download it, than it is to hit download on one big rpm, and have it just not install duplicate stuff when setup is run. You might save a few megs of dl on the first way, but most people will want to just leave the thing on overnight. (15 meg on a 56 K modem takes HOURS) They're doing all these good things, so whats your (collective) problem?
Actually, a single 500MHz is never enough, but it depends on what you do. I don't consider myself a terribly demanding computer user, I chug along with a PII 300, but I do a lot of 3D, a lot of multi-threaded game programming, and a lot of gaming. I can bet you that I would be a lot happier with a 500 than a 300, and much happier with dual 850s. And I doubt they'd be spinning their wheels most of the time.
Actually, don't critisize NT for having fork() take parameters. NT was designed for threading from the ground up, and fork() and some of the other POSIX stuff doesn't mesh to well with it. Its a problem in general for systems that aren't POSIX at the core, I know BeOS really doesn't like forks() and once you use one, you lock yourself out from using BeOS threads.
You do realize that learning UNIX is not essential to having a CS degree. People can be master programmers without ever having touched UNIX. There are many reasons, but the main ones are...
A) Everyone uses Windows. Face it, a deep knowledge of Win32 is much more usefull than a deep knowledge of UNIX in the commercial application world.
B) The Win32 is easier to learn and has more coherent resources. Sure the UNIX APIs have much more documentation, but the books put out by MS give a pretty good overview of the entire API.
C) CS degrees can also be in algorithms and programming techniques. In that case it doesn't matter what OS one uses, becuase most calls will be standard C or C++ library calls.
D) CS degrees can also be in computer graphics, in that case windows is the best OS to use because it has the best hardware support for graphics APIs. And if your programming so low level that you're not using OpenGL or something of the sort, then your probably using DOS.
Just because many people use it in the CS field doesn't mean its the only way to go. DOS is probably the best for beginning level CS courses, and for application design, BeOS is probably best because its API is so easy to use. For scientific and other hardcore stuff, UNIX is probably the way to go.