Actually, it's completely relevant. They parent was responding to a debate centered on VIDEO drivers; using NIC drivers, which are an order of magnitude SIMPLER than good graphics drivers, as an example simply doesn't do ANYTHING to justify the claim presented. While OSS developers may have be able to pull such feats with NIC drivers, it is by no means clear as to whether the same would be up to the task of putting together something much more difficult.
Unfortuneatly, that over-simplifies things. Your analogy would only work if modern 3D was built entirely around three dimensional pixels, aka voxels. In reality, the core of 3D acceleration is built around meshes, and the 2D representation of the scene is calculated from that 3D mesh.
But when you throw in all the different programmability options (vertex shaders, pixel shaders, etc) modern GPUs support, it becomes an entirely different beast. We're talking about a piece of hardware whose capabilities are so complex people have devoted efforts towards using it for things OTHER than it's purpose, such as folding and even physics.
I'm sorry, but writing drivers for modern high-end 3D graphics hardware is NOTHING like writing drivers for a NIC, or even 2D graphics drivers.
Fact of the matter is the the big boys of the GPU world, nVidia and ATI, will NEVER open source their drivers. There are simply too many trade secrets that rest in that code, and releasing those to the general public would cripple them from a buisiness stand-point.
With that in mind, there are two options. Either suck it up and accept closed-source drivers, or make your own. Since third-party reverse-engineered graphics drivers, well, suck, that would effectively kill Linux gaming off once and for all.
If Linux is to be considered a viable alternative to the behemoth that is Windows, it cannot afford to cut out functionality such as this.
Except that GPUs are about a thousand times more complicated than NICs. Seriously, how can pushing bits onto a cable EVER compare to the millions of calculations a modern GPU performs a second?
If I buy a game, I should have the right to make a backup so I don't worry about the original being scratched. I don't really have that option right now, so I watch in horror as my son just casually tosses around $50 game disks.
Making a copy for legitimate backup purposes IS legal under fair use. But modding your XBox so that you can actually USE that backup is illegal. Making backups is legal. Using backups isn't. Funny thing, that.
My XBox is modded. And I intend to throw in a new HD, too. Because I effin' hate load times on the games I legally own.
From the article: while rival firms' online video offerings would be transmitted at lower speed and with poorer image quality.
Meaning they're hampering their user's choices.
That could mean that a company like Yahoo might have to pay AT&T to send high-quality video to AT&T subscribers.
Read: Out-right extortion.
From the/. article: in order to protect pricing leverage over the users.
I believe someone already rephrased that the way it should have read to begin with: screw the users.
It's the latter; if they did the former, even the old original Pentium (heck, ever the MUCH older Intel chips) would try to use SSE2, and we know how that'd end up...
Well, if AMD chips claim support, and that support is buggy at best, Intel should do everything they can to expose that, and they would, and they couldn't be held responsible.
Basically what I'm trying to say is, Intel could enable those optimizations on any proc that claims to support them, and couldn't be held responsible if they don't support the instruction set properly. After all, THEY made the instruction set, THEY have the final say on how it should work. If they're disabling the optimizations on non-Intel chips, it isn't because they're trying to cover their asses...
Bzzt, wrong answer. AMD chips report support for instruction sets the same way Intel procs do, meaning any code that checks for support for SSE2 will work on both Intal and AMD chips. That means if the AMD chips aren't using SSE2, it's because of another reason entirely. It isn't a simple matter of "not detecting" it, it's a matter of specifically crippling AMD chips.
My Logitech set kicks the set out of a Microsoft set I tried from the same price range.
Well, there's you problem, MS products always cost 2-3 times as much as their competitors.
Actually, they could just make it a seperate thread; make one for sound, physics, synchronization, etc.
And its a SINGLE CPU with three CORES. There's a difference.
Actually, they do have a "cause of action", because these practices are discouraging, and sometimes outright preventing, manfacturers from using AMD chips as they would otherwise.
I have no problem with the service. Other people, however, have stated that they can't. If they really want to play, they shouldn't have to put up with Blizzard's lack of support.
Actually, a lot of the time online play ISN'T "just a minor feature". Sometimes, its the only reason people choose to play a game; so they can claim the cheap thrill of victory against REAL people. And if you bought the game so you could play it online, only to find out its not supported in your region, well, damnit, you'd want to do something about it too.
As far as the DMCA goes in this issue, is bull crap. The closest it gets to going around copy protection measures is letting them play online. They could still play single player, and could still play online using tunneling protocols (VLAN), so saying that bypassing Battle.net violates it is bunk.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it's completely relevant. They parent was responding to a debate centered on VIDEO drivers; using NIC drivers, which are an order of magnitude SIMPLER than good graphics drivers, as an example simply doesn't do ANYTHING to justify the claim presented. While OSS developers may have be able to pull such feats with NIC drivers, it is by no means clear as to whether the same would be up to the task of putting together something much more difficult.
Unfortuneatly, that over-simplifies things. Your analogy would only work if modern 3D was built entirely around three dimensional pixels, aka voxels. In reality, the core of 3D acceleration is built around meshes, and the 2D representation of the scene is calculated from that 3D mesh.
But when you throw in all the different programmability options (vertex shaders, pixel shaders, etc) modern GPUs support, it becomes an entirely different beast. We're talking about a piece of hardware whose capabilities are so complex people have devoted efforts towards using it for things OTHER than it's purpose, such as folding and even physics.
I'm sorry, but writing drivers for modern high-end 3D graphics hardware is NOTHING like writing drivers for a NIC, or even 2D graphics drivers.
Fact of the matter is the the big boys of the GPU world, nVidia and ATI, will NEVER open source their drivers. There are simply too many trade secrets that rest in that code, and releasing those to the general public would cripple them from a buisiness stand-point. With that in mind, there are two options. Either suck it up and accept closed-source drivers, or make your own. Since third-party reverse-engineered graphics drivers, well, suck, that would effectively kill Linux gaming off once and for all. If Linux is to be considered a viable alternative to the behemoth that is Windows, it cannot afford to cut out functionality such as this.
Except that GPUs are about a thousand times more complicated than NICs. Seriously, how can pushing bits onto a cable EVER compare to the millions of calculations a modern GPU performs a second?
About three feet to the left.
Funny, last I saw the USA was a democratic nation. Troll.
If I buy a game, I should have the right to make a backup so I don't worry about the original being scratched. I don't really have that option right now, so I watch in horror as my son just casually tosses around $50 game disks.
Making a copy for legitimate backup purposes IS legal under fair use. But modding your XBox so that you can actually USE that backup is illegal. Making backups is legal. Using backups isn't. Funny thing, that.
My XBox is modded. And I intend to throw in a new HD, too. Because I effin' hate load times on the games I legally own.
Three points I got out of this:
/. article:
From the article:
while rival firms' online video offerings would be transmitted at lower speed and with poorer image quality.
Meaning they're hampering their user's choices.
That could mean that a company like Yahoo might have to pay AT&T to send high-quality video to AT&T subscribers.
Read: Out-right extortion.
From the
in order to protect pricing leverage over the users.
I believe someone already rephrased that the way it should have read to begin with: screw the users.
All hail the ueber-nerds...
Hell, I'm surprised no one's modded this thread 'funny' yet... busted a gut, myself.
Not that I care. I'm using my employer's volume liscense. And no, I won't share.
He's right; if the checkbox defaults to checked, then its opt-out on grounds that you have to take action to NOT be in.
It's the latter; if they did the former, even the old original Pentium (heck, ever the MUCH older Intel chips) would try to use SSE2, and we know how that'd end up...
Well, if AMD chips claim support, and that support is buggy at best, Intel should do everything they can to expose that, and they would, and they couldn't be held responsible.
Basically what I'm trying to say is, Intel could enable those optimizations on any proc that claims to support them, and couldn't be held responsible if they don't support the instruction set properly. After all, THEY made the instruction set, THEY have the final say on how it should work. If they're disabling the optimizations on non-Intel chips, it isn't because they're trying to cover their asses...
Bzzt, wrong answer. AMD chips report support for instruction sets the same way Intel procs do, meaning any code that checks for support for SSE2 will work on both Intal and AMD chips. That means if the AMD chips aren't using SSE2, it's because of another reason entirely. It isn't a simple matter of "not detecting" it, it's a matter of specifically crippling AMD chips.
I wouldn't complain too loud, the microphones the CIA planted in your shoelaces might pick it up...
My Logitech set kicks the set out of a Microsoft set I tried from the same price range.
Well, there's you problem, MS products always cost 2-3 times as much as their competitors.
Actually, they could just make it a seperate thread; make one for sound, physics, synchronization, etc. And its a SINGLE CPU with three CORES. There's a difference.
Expect a visit from Nintendo's lawyers for giving away their trade secrets...
Actually, they do have a "cause of action", because these practices are discouraging, and sometimes outright preventing, manfacturers from using AMD chips as they would otherwise.
I have no problem with the service. Other people, however, have stated that they can't. If they really want to play, they shouldn't have to put up with Blizzard's lack of support.
Actually, a lot of the time online play ISN'T "just a minor feature". Sometimes, its the only reason people choose to play a game; so they can claim the cheap thrill of victory against REAL people. And if you bought the game so you could play it online, only to find out its not supported in your region, well, damnit, you'd want to do something about it too. As far as the DMCA goes in this issue, is bull crap. The closest it gets to going around copy protection measures is letting them play online. They could still play single player, and could still play online using tunneling protocols (VLAN), so saying that bypassing Battle.net violates it is bunk.
It ain't vorpal funny til your head pops off.
About as often as people sue because their illegal were backfired.
And I'm sure that most parents would get a little ticked off if their kid threatened to hack someone else's system.