How much are a dozen deep-learning researchers worth? Apparently, more than $400 million to Google with their DeepMind purchase: http://www.technologyreview.co...
GPL is not just incompatible with iPhone. (L)GPL is also incompatible with proprietary development environments on game consoles such as PlayStation 3, Wii etc (except for PS3 Linux obviously).
Just use the Zlib license and feel flattered if people consider using your software. Even if they don't give credit. Even if they don't contribute back. Some will contribute back or give credit voluntary, even through they are not required by the license.
You can publish your source code, just avoid re-distributing proprietary technology.
Apart from making phone calls, making phone calls over VoIP/Skype seems less far-fetched then other features in the comparison chart such as playing video, using internet and wifi.
Some of the Nokia and other cell phones already can do Skype (or other VOIP)
VOIP is catching on, so it is just a matter of time when it will become more popular then ordinary phones. And note that you can call normal phones using Skype out. The iPhone has all hardware and facilities (Wifi) to enable VOIP, so it is just the lack of SDK that prevents it.
In case you are interested: Blender 2.42 and later supports basic COLLADA 1.4 export/import including physics information. Also CreateDynamics and ColladaMaya supports such physics information. The open source Bullet physics engine uses COLLADA-DOM and libxml to import/export such physics files. A less bloated approach is using TinyXML, that's the approach of CreateDynamics tool.
Erwin
Saying the GPL is "restrictive" is NOT like saying emancipation is restrictive.
There is no freedom hurt due to developers who choose to embed BSD, MIT and/or zlib. So the viral aspect of GPL that foces software to give back is a restriction that BSD, MIT, zlib doesn't have.
If you don't like the closed source software, you have the freedom to not buy it.
Capitalism and closed source can co-op with BSD, MIT and zlib, and this is not the same as slavery.
"Keep in mind that if you intend to run Windows XP in Boot Camp as well as Parallels, you'll need two separate licensed copies or else you'll find yourself on the phone with MS a lot, switching the license activation back and forth"
If we could stop windows from finding 'new hardware' when sharing the same installation, and going from Bootcamp Parallels, perhaps we don't need two separate licenses?
The article is a bit misleading I think:
"It is a great prospect and now even Apple is recommending running Parallels on their Get A Mac site:"
I read the article, and it seems to be misleading. Apple doesn't recommend using Parallels over Bootcamp. In fact they don't even mention Parallels on their "Get a Mac site". Or did I miss something?
>backing up last years data to make room for more of the same.
If it's really more of the same, using delta compression on new data using last-years data would work nicely.
"I read the intel assembly guide section regarding hyperthreading, and it clearly states that performance will drop if you don't take the shared cache into consideration."
This is a general problem. XBox 360 has similar issues, 3 cores sharing the same cache.
Having multiple independent cpu's with each its local memory (like multiprocessor or PS3 SPU's),doesn't suffer from these issues.
Good point. A physics driver could be build, that is compatible with the open source license, similar to an opengl / directx driver. But I agree, that should be sorted.
I perfectly understand what you say. And I discussed with Carmack over email a few month ago, exactly about this topic.
It doesn't mean I agree. First of all, graphics is already heavily parallel, but in this case it is handled purely inside the hardware. For physics, this can be too, but he argues about the fallback path.
Not only consoles are choosing multi-core. Even Intel and Apple are going the multi-core direction, for a good reason I think.
I think it just frighens more game developers to jump on the next-gen multi-code machines.
Instead of moaning, its better to just prove him wrong. Half Life 2 had some good physics, I think that is the way to go.
True. So I added an extra link with open source / free physics engines, satisfied ?
But my point was, there is a physics engine for everyone, for any budget.
And for a lot of the physics, you get a linear speed up in the number of processors, especially when you have local memory (not shared cache).
I'm advertising that the next-gen consoles can use their parallel power to run physics much faster.
Secondly, the link is advertising a forum and open source physics. And half of the serious professional game programmers are on the forum.
salesman ?
I'm a coder, and the link is to a free forum and open source project.
Open source, ever heard of that ? probably not, seeing your bad manners.
As I posted before, Carmack is a graphics programmer, not a physics programmer. On that link you can find all opinions by professional game physics programmers, and their opinions.
If Carmack thinks next-gen is too difficult to code for, he can license middleware.
Slashdot Mirror
How much are a dozen deep-learning researchers worth? Apparently, more than $400 million to Google with their DeepMind purchase:
http://www.technologyreview.co...
See http://www.dodgycoder.net/2012/01/modern-cross-platform-development.html
In addition to Qt, GTK+ and wxWidgets it discusses some alternatives such as Moai, Corona etc.
A lot of art seems to be produced even though winning or loosing is involved. Just check out music competitions or drawing contests.
Games can be a rich expression and some of the results are certainly art.
Khronos, the main authority of OpenGL ES, tells that it "consists of well-defined subsets of desktop OpenGL"
http://www.khronos.org/opengles/
GPL is not just incompatible with iPhone. (L)GPL is also incompatible with proprietary development environments on game consoles such as PlayStation 3, Wii etc (except for PS3 Linux obviously).
Just use the Zlib license and feel flattered if people consider using your software. Even if they don't give credit. Even if they don't contribute back.
Some will contribute back or give credit voluntary, even through they are not required by the license.
You can publish your source code, just avoid re-distributing proprietary technology.
Apart from making phone calls, making phone calls over VoIP/Skype seems less far-fetched then other features in the comparison chart such as playing video, using internet and wifi.
Some of the Nokia and other cell phones already can do Skype (or other VOIP)
VOIP is catching on, so it is just a matter of time when it will become more popular then ordinary phones.
And note that you can call normal phones using Skype out.
The iPhone has all hardware and facilities (Wifi) to enable VOIP, so it is just the lack of SDK that prevents it.
The same argument probably applies to the restrictions of the Apple iPhone in the US:
* Lack of Skype support
* Lack of public SDK, so there is no freedom to add your own VOIP
The Apple iPhone is a very attractive phone, but it seems to lack Skype support. http://forum.skype.com/index.php?showtopic=74159 http://www.disruptivetelephony.com/2007/01/apples_ iphone_a.html
Lack of SDK means we just have to wait until people hack the iPhone so Skype support might be added through homebrew.
In case you are interested: Blender 2.42 and later supports basic COLLADA 1.4 export/import including physics information. Also CreateDynamics and ColladaMaya supports such physics information. The open source Bullet physics engine uses COLLADA-DOM and libxml to import/export such physics files. A less bloated approach is using TinyXML, that's the approach of CreateDynamics tool. Erwin
Saying the GPL is "restrictive" is NOT like saying emancipation is restrictive. There is no freedom hurt due to developers who choose to embed BSD, MIT and/or zlib. So the viral aspect of GPL that foces software to give back is a restriction that BSD, MIT, zlib doesn't have. If you don't like the closed source software, you have the freedom to not buy it. Capitalism and closed source can co-op with BSD, MIT and zlib, and this is not the same as slavery.
Thanks for the report, John! I'll definately look into it and try to fix it for next release! In the meanwhile, please try out the latest physics demos here: http://download.blender.org/demo/test/engine-physi cs-demos-2.42-preview34.zip
"Keep in mind that if you intend to run Windows XP in Boot Camp as well as Parallels, you'll need two separate licensed copies or else you'll find yourself on the phone with MS a lot, switching the license activation back and forth"
If we could stop windows from finding 'new hardware' when sharing the same installation, and going from Bootcamp Parallels, perhaps we don't need two separate licenses?
thanks for pointing it out, I missed that sentence.
The article is a bit misleading I think: "It is a great prospect and now even Apple is recommending running Parallels on their Get A Mac site:" I read the article, and it seems to be misleading. Apple doesn't recommend using Parallels over Bootcamp. In fact they don't even mention Parallels on their "Get a Mac site". Or did I miss something?
I'm using Bootcamp, and it works all great. Wouldn't it be great to share the same Windows installation between Parallels and Bootcamp?
>backing up last years data to make room for more of the same. If it's really more of the same, using delta compression on new data using last-years data would work nicely.
"I read the intel assembly guide section regarding hyperthreading, and it clearly states that performance will drop if you don't take the shared cache into consideration." This is a general problem. XBox 360 has similar issues, 3 cores sharing the same cache. Having multiple independent cpu's with each its local memory (like multiprocessor or PS3 SPU's),doesn't suffer from these issues.
Good point. A physics driver could be build, that is compatible with the open source license, similar to an opengl / directx driver. But I agree, that should be sorted.
I perfectly understand what you say. And I discussed with Carmack over email a few month ago, exactly about this topic. It doesn't mean I agree. First of all, graphics is already heavily parallel, but in this case it is handled purely inside the hardware. For physics, this can be too, but he argues about the fallback path. Not only consoles are choosing multi-core. Even Intel and Apple are going the multi-core direction, for a good reason I think. I think it just frighens more game developers to jump on the next-gen multi-code machines. Instead of moaning, its better to just prove him wrong. Half Life 2 had some good physics, I think that is the way to go.
True. So I added an extra link with open source / free physics engines, satisfied ? But my point was, there is a physics engine for everyone, for any budget. And for a lot of the physics, you get a linear speed up in the number of processors, especially when you have local memory (not shared cache).
And obviously the open source physics engines: ODE (ode.org) Bullet and free (but not open source) Newton (http://www.physicsengine.com/) Tokamak http://www.tokamak.com/ and others.
I'm advertising that the next-gen consoles can use their parallel power to run physics much faster.
e wtopic.php?t=62&sid=9dc86d5b23a3d1099165eddc7aa982 48
e wtopic.php?t=54
Just scroll down to the bottom of that link.
Secondly, the link is advertising a forum and open source physics. And half of the serious professional game programmers are on the forum.
Here is the doom 3 programmer: http://www.continuousphysics.com/Bullet/phpBB2/vi
Or what about Halo 2 ? http://www.continuousphysics.com/Bullet/phpBB2/vi
salesman ? I'm a coder, and the link is to a free forum and open source project. Open source, ever heard of that ? probably not, seeing your bad manners.
As I posted before, Carmack is a graphics programmer, not a physics programmer. On that link you can find all opinions by professional game physics programmers, and their opinions. If Carmack thinks next-gen is too difficult to code for, he can license middleware.