Hi Paul,
Yes, if MS did that they would have a competing open standard. Though
none of us would probably care much since the earth would have shifted
off of its axis and hurtled into the sun. ;)
OK, aside from the joke (which I agree with, it was a far-fetched
hypothesis, but just to test what little I think I know about open
standards) it seems like I understand the basics.
As it is, they are their own declared standard. De facto. Like Windows
is a standard. Even their ISO standards are so encumbered as to really
skirt the line.
You mean Direct3D is a de facto standard. That's because the standard is
not open to other companies to review and give comments on, which is
required for it to qualify as an open standard. Is that correct?
If that's the case, then the fact that there are many competing
standards is just because of the nature of open standards. And the
fact that in graphics, OpenGL is the only standard is just because no
one else has bothered making their API standard (Direct3D in this case).
Yes.
OK, seems I understand the basics after all. So why are competing
standards a bad thing if they're inherent to the nature of open
standards? Or conversely, why are open standards so desirable if by
their nature, they bring about competing standards which are undesirable?
What if there were a world with no hypothetical questions? :)
I'd have a lot less posts on this mailing list, that's for sure. ;-)
J-S
--
______________________________________________________
Jean-Sebastien Guay [email protected]
http://www.cm-labs.com/
http://whitestar02.webhop.org/
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
