On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, Jon Leech wrote:
> Finally, ISVs could just restrict themselves to whatever entry
> points happen to be in the libGL they're running under. This is a
> copout, but might often happen - it imposes no additional burdens on
> ISV, libGL supplier, or driver supplier.
This gets my vote.
In the case of Mesa, it's likely that libGL will rev faster than
any IHV's drivers possibly could - so there is no loss...and if
there is a loss - there are 1,000,000 Quake players out there
one of whom will fix the problem within a day of it being spotted.
In the case of commercial OpenGL vendors, it's unlikely that
a user would be switching out the back-end drivers without
getting the code from their GL vendor - in which case, that
vendor has the control to ensure that either libGL is updated,
or he has artificially limited the scope of his own users
to what he can support - which may be A GOOD THING for him -
and in any case is his own fault.
Steve Baker (817)619-2657 (Vox/Vox-Mail)
Raytheon Systems Inc. (817)619-2466 (Fax)
Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hti.com
Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
