Come to think of it, that IS pretty funny. How the hell do they expect to out-cheap "Free"? Once again, they're fulfilling their destinies by being the IT industry's comic relief.
I see that tongue planting firmly in your cheek, there. Seriously, though, Microsoft has three main businesses: enterprise software development tools, office applications and the desktop itself. Linux is taking a major chunk out of their server market, and slowly, inexorably the rest of their business will follow. They will either adapt or die. My guess is that they'll adapt, and take their new place to the left and just below the Throne of the Great Penguin. They're certainly not going to go away, but in about another five years, they're not going to be calling the shots anymore.
I'm probably going to get modded down for restating the obvious, but it's still a Windows-centric world. Most developers can't afford to simply trash their in-house base of expertise in Windows-centric technology and use a non-Windows OS and development tools exclusively. They have to sell what the clients want, or they don't stay in business very long.
But for what it's worth, my brother is one of the key players at a development firm in Wisconsin, and he says that almost none of his firm's clients are using.NET, and they're all pushing toward using Linux-based client-server solutions. The desktops are still Windows, but the back ends are swiftly migrating away from a Redmond-only game-plan.
Did anybody check this out? I'm betting that it was, once again, Microsoft. It's obviously marketing hype, because nobody in their right minds would prognosticate the complete inversion of the PC hardware market relative to the PDA market with any note of confidence. Moreover, predicting that WinCE, in particular, is going to dominate anything in that amount of time is being a bit hasty as well.
Where are the facts to support the thesis? I didn't see any.
In case anybody noticed, almost none of these robots have HANDS. The only ones that do are Asimo and HOAP, as far as I can see, and they're not yet in the price range where actual people can afford to buy one. The 'bots in the more rational price ranges have what, little rubber thingies that look vaguely like hands but have no moving parts? What's up with that? Why bother with arms if the hands on the ends of the arms DON'T DO ANYTHING? Until these bots have at very least opposable thumbs as a rule, they're more toys than useful tools. And I say this as a man who desperately wants a household robot that can actually do something. Get me a 'bot that costs less than half what my car costs that can actually do something useful, like fold laundry and put it away, and I'll be an early adopter.
I think a lot of developers would disagree with you on this point; speed and quality are really not issues with OpenGL which one could plausibly attack. Also, while some of those games are based on ID's engine, many are not, and OpenGL maintains a very high profile in the game development industry.
Developers who ignore the strengths and viability of OpenGL do so at their own peril, as a dependency solely on the mercurial Direct3D API is an impediment to the longevity of the product. If you'll note, the Unreal engine in particular has many adherents, and has been updated and used on numerous titles. This kind of stability in the development environment allows game developers to concentrate on making games instead of making engines, without worrying about whether the latest version of DirectX is going to break something. The OpenGL API is cleaner, simpler to use (and therefore faster to develop with). Although it is admittedly slower to adopt new features as the new hardware comes out than DirectX is, it generally lags by only a few months, and the industry leaders, NVidia and ATI, are closing this gap all the time. OpenGL also has the advantage of not being a pit of shifting sand under programmers' feet.
With respect to OpenGL drying up and blowing away with respect to the gaming industry, I wouldn't hold my breath. There would have to be some compelling reason not to use it, and so far there isn't one; in fact, quite the contrary. Over the years, Direct3D has become more and more OpenGL-like, due to tremendous pressure from the game development community and for reasons I've already mentioned. You're quite correct that OpenGL is for CAD - but that's far from the only thing it's used for. Its primary use at this point is for games, which is a major chunk of the software market (so large, in fact, that it inspired Microsoft to create DirectX in the first place) but it is used by every 3D animation package used in movies and television as well.(There are two exceptions that come to mind, but they can use either GL or DirectX - none are DirectX only, but most are GL only.)
If Microsoft stops supporting OpenGL at all, it will simply force the card makers to supply their own OpenGL drivers, as they originally did when they were beginning their foray into hardware accelerated GL. They would pretty much have to, since so many markets depend on GL working flawlessly in Windows. This they could do as part of a manufacturer's coalition, and there is already precedent for collaboration between manufacturers on matters like these.
To remove GL support completely from their Windows products will only hasten the slow migration away from Windows for business purposes, which is already a mighty big thorn in Microsoft's side. Users and supporters of OpenGL - especially gamers - have nothing to worry about for the foreseeable future.
The software development industry has seen so many different approaches to designing the design process in the past three years that the pointy haired bosses of the world are now running around in circles.
This is a good thing.
Now that the ivory tower managers are busy contemplating their navels, the people who actually roll up their sleeves and write something can actually get some work done - my point being that the time spent in such pursuits rather than doing the basic project planning that any software development manager with half a brain knows how to do in his sleep merely slows down the project and confuses the hell out of the programmers.
How many major modern 3D games are primarily rendered with OpenGL?
Let's see - all the versions of Quake, all the versions of Unreal Tournament, Anachronox, Daikatana, Doom 3, Half Life, Heavy Metal FAKK2, Homeworld and its sequel, Oni, Serious Sam, Star Trek Elite Force, Vega STrike, Soldir of Fortune, Return to Castle Wolfenstein - that enough major modern 3D games for you?
The best and most highly sought-after game engines in the industry all use OpenGL. So does every professional CAD and animation package, at every price level. Don't expect OpenGL in Windows to go away any time soon.
Don't laugh - at one time there was such a thing. They were hideously expensive and were laughably primitive by modern standards, but they did exist. They were used primarily by the automotive and aerospace industries.
Shame on you guys! You think one tool is all anyone would ever need? Look at mainstream computer graphics market. How many 3D modeling and animation applications are there? ONE?!? I don't THINK so. Last time I checked, there were five or six major animation packages, and about a dozen more minor ones. Cut it down to modeling only, and you've got another half dozen or so.
Diversity is what we're all about, whether it's open source or not.
Slashdot Mirror
Come to think of it, that IS pretty funny. How the hell do they expect to out-cheap "Free"? Once again, they're fulfilling their destinies by being the IT industry's comic relief.
I see that tongue planting firmly in your cheek, there. Seriously, though, Microsoft has three main businesses: enterprise software development tools, office applications and the desktop itself. Linux is taking a major chunk out of their server market, and slowly, inexorably the rest of their business will follow. They will either adapt or die. My guess is that they'll adapt, and take their new place to the left and just below the Throne of the Great Penguin. They're certainly not going to go away, but in about another five years, they're not going to be calling the shots anymore.
I'm probably going to get modded down for restating the obvious, but it's still a Windows-centric world. Most developers can't afford to simply trash their in-house base of expertise in Windows-centric technology and use a non-Windows OS and development tools exclusively. They have to sell what the clients want, or they don't stay in business very long. .NET, and they're all pushing toward using Linux-based client-server solutions. The desktops are still Windows, but the back ends are swiftly migrating away from a Redmond-only game-plan.
But for what it's worth, my brother is one of the key players at a development firm in Wisconsin, and he says that almost none of his firm's clients are using
Did anybody check this out? I'm betting that it was, once again, Microsoft. It's obviously marketing hype, because nobody in their right minds would prognosticate the complete inversion of the PC hardware market relative to the PDA market with any note of confidence. Moreover, predicting that WinCE, in particular, is going to dominate anything in that amount of time is being a bit hasty as well.
Where are the facts to support the thesis? I didn't see any.
To quote a famous chicken:
"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred."
In case anybody noticed, almost none of these robots have HANDS. The only ones that do are Asimo and HOAP, as far as I can see, and they're not yet in the price range where actual people can afford to buy one.
The 'bots in the more rational price ranges have what, little rubber thingies that look vaguely like hands but have no moving parts? What's up with that? Why bother with arms if the hands on the ends of the arms DON'T DO ANYTHING?
Until these bots have at very least opposable thumbs as a rule, they're more toys than useful tools. And I say this as a man who desperately wants a household robot that can actually do something. Get me a 'bot that costs less than half what my car costs that can actually do something useful, like fold laundry and put it away, and I'll be an early adopter.
With respect to OpenGL drying up and blowing away with respect to the gaming industry, I wouldn't hold my breath. There would have to be some compelling reason not to use it, and so far there isn't one; in fact, quite the contrary. Over the years, Direct3D has become more and more OpenGL-like, due to tremendous pressure from the game development community and for reasons I've already mentioned. You're quite correct that OpenGL is for CAD - but that's far from the only thing it's used for. Its primary use at this point is for games, which is a major chunk of the software market (so large, in fact, that it inspired Microsoft to create DirectX in the first place) but it is used by every 3D animation package used in movies and television as well.(There are two exceptions that come to mind, but they can use either GL or DirectX - none are DirectX only, but most are GL only.)
If Microsoft stops supporting OpenGL at all, it will simply force the card makers to supply their own OpenGL drivers, as they originally did when they were beginning their foray into hardware accelerated GL. They would pretty much have to, since so many markets depend on GL working flawlessly in Windows. This they could do as part of a manufacturer's coalition, and there is already precedent for collaboration between manufacturers on matters like these.
To remove GL support completely from their Windows products will only hasten the slow migration away from Windows for business purposes, which is already a mighty big thorn in Microsoft's side. Users and supporters of OpenGL - especially gamers - have nothing to worry about for the foreseeable future.
The software development industry has seen so many different approaches to designing the design process in the past three years that the pointy haired bosses of the world are now running around in circles. This is a good thing. Now that the ivory tower managers are busy contemplating their navels, the people who actually roll up their sleeves and write something can actually get some work done - my point being that the time spent in such pursuits rather than doing the basic project planning that any software development manager with half a brain knows how to do in his sleep merely slows down the project and confuses the hell out of the programmers.
How many major modern 3D games are primarily rendered with OpenGL? Let's see - all the versions of Quake, all the versions of Unreal Tournament, Anachronox, Daikatana, Doom 3, Half Life, Heavy Metal FAKK2, Homeworld and its sequel, Oni, Serious Sam, Star Trek Elite Force, Vega STrike, Soldir of Fortune, Return to Castle Wolfenstein - that enough major modern 3D games for you? The best and most highly sought-after game engines in the industry all use OpenGL. So does every professional CAD and animation package, at every price level. Don't expect OpenGL in Windows to go away any time soon.
Don't laugh - at one time there was such a thing. They were hideously expensive and were laughably primitive by modern standards, but they did exist. They were used primarily by the automotive and aerospace industries.
Shame on you guys! You think one tool is all anyone would ever need? Look at mainstream computer graphics market. How many 3D modeling and animation applications are there? ONE?!? I don't THINK so. Last time I checked, there were five or six major animation packages, and about a dozen more minor ones. Cut it down to modeling only, and you've got another half dozen or so. Diversity is what we're all about, whether it's open source or not.