Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi J-S, On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Jean-Sébastien Guay jean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com wrote: Hi Robert, Competing standards are a bad thing as it breaks interoperability and divides the market place into targeting one or other, or both standards. I understand your points, but I don't see how that's different from any market... I could give lots of examples of similar competition: Mac vs Windows vs Linux, No, you just don't get it. There isn't free market competition between OpenGL and Direct3D. Microsoft is a MONOPOLY, it's been found guilty of abusing it's monopoly position in several markets segments across several continents. Because of Microsoft's monopoly position and complete control of the Windows platforms it uses it's leverage to control those who develop the competiting technology - all the hardware vendors that contribute to OpenGL also have to jump to Microsoft's demands, they run a tightrope between not pissing off Microsoft and loosing software vendors that use OpenGL. Even you're suggestion of a free market competation between Windows vs Linux vs OSX is well off make. Microsoft has hardware vendors uses it's monopoly position vigorously here as well, only completely non Windows manufacture can safely promote a non Windows operating system, this meens OSX and the small vendors like Jeremey's company that builds Linux boxes. I don't see how we can do anything to change that, we just have to accept it and try to drive OpenGL to take DirectX's market share (which is what we're trying to do, of course). Putting blinkers on when it comes to see the dynamics is not helpful, to know how best to be effective you have to understand what is really going on. There is not free market comptetion when it comes to Direct3D vs OpenGL. The hardware vendors are stuck with a very rich and powerful monopoly on one hand pushing Direct3D very hard and trying to crush OpenGL, and and a set of software vendors and on the other hand sticking to OpenGL. The only hardware vendors that might be a position to really push OpenGL is Apple doesn't, instead just behaves like a consumer of OpenGL more than a driver, perhaps because it just reuses graphics hardware components, rather than being an actual manufacturer. Perhaps if Apple was bothered about gaming it might be different, rather than multi-media - you'll notice that they did come up with and has pushed OpenCL which really is great for multi-media processing. So, first up know the underlying dyamics of the market. We have to work doubly hard to overcome the hold that Microsoft has over the hardware vendors. We have to make it more painful not to properly support OpenGL than the pressure that Microsoft can exert, and we have to make it more rewarding to properly support OpenGL than the rewards that Microsoft can provide. We can't provide direct money incentives, but we can offer killer apps that require OpenGL, and we can offer positive marketing opportunities for those that support our apps well, and we can provide negative marketing for those that don't. Given the killer app for graphics on the PC right now is firmly games, which MS has captured very well, we have to come up with either new great games that are OpenGL only or a new breed of killer graphics app. This is a challenge to come up with. Until we have a killer or set of killer apps we have to work with calling attention to our apps that are very important to smaller market segments. It's a less compelling angle, but it's what we have to work with. Our own community is pretty big, so we might be able to illustrate that OpenGL is really useful to a wide range of smaller market segments, and while each one is a minow compared to gaming, overall there are very compelling. Robert. I can also think of many reasons why competition is good, one of which is faster rate of innovation. I think if it weren't Direct3D, if some other standard were competing with OpenGL, we'd be having this same discussion. Even if that other standard was also an open standard (which could happen because of the nature of open standards). So I don't really see the point in discussing it, we can only accept it and try to make the best of it. J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guay jean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Jean-Sébastien Guay wrote: Hi Jason, Ever try DosBox ( http://dosbox.com/information.php?page=0 ) ? Yes, of course, but running it on the real hardware is its own reward. :-) Of course, like I said, it depends on *why* you keep them around. Mind you, I haven't thrown my hardware away, either :-) Plus, I hate how nothing in DosBox really runs that well (even something that ran well on a 486DX/33 has trouble in DosBox, and I have to spend about 5 minutes each time finding the right settings...). So I prefer keeping the machines around, getting them out every year or so when I feel like it and having things run exactly like they used to. In my case I had better luck with DosBox than with the old hardware. It even runs Wing Commander III pretty well on my PC. --J ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi JS, On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Jean-Sébastien Guay jean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com wrote: 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? Competing standards are a bad thing as it breaks interoperability and divides the market place into targeting one or other, or both standards. For software vendors trying to use the standards they just one a workable solution, with minimum of effort, so naturally will want to target one rather than two standards, as supporting two is often far harder than twice as much work as inconsistencies creep in, and you often end up targeting the lowest common denominator of both. If you do just target one of the standards then your market is potentially diminished. Multiple standards covering the same area are bad for software vendors. For the hardware vendors multiple standards means again they have to target one, or both. Target one as they only cover part of the market, target two and their resources will be stretched. If one is targeting two then outside and internal pressures can exist to skew the effort made to supporting one or other of the standards, only in a perfect world might you see equal support. In our case, OpenGL should have been dominant - it has all the right attributes, it was open, it was cross platform, it was mature and extensible. Direct3D when MS introduced was non of these things, it was awful, it wasn't even completive under Windows let alone dropping all the other positives attributes that OpenGL had like portability and openness. However, MS would be MS if it didn't use it's monopoly position and dirty tactics to manipulate the market, and to try and kill OpenGL under Windows. Yes MS eventually got Direct3D so they it was feature competitive to OpenGL, but it still lacks the major features of OpenGL - it's openness, portability and extensibility. If the market had not been artificially skewed by MS's monopoly Direct3D would never have got a foot hold. Now stretch the surface on what this has meant for hardware vendors, MS's has a huge hold over them, it has the ability to deicide what features get exposed in hardware or not, the hardware vendors have hardware to develop and this takes years, if they feel that a certain feature is worthy of inclusion it has to work with MS to get it in the spec, but MS always has the right to ignore them as it's in control. DIrect3D isn't extensible so if MS doesn't support their hardware features then they are screwed, their is silicon going to waste, and silicon costs money to manufacture - your profit margins are very much on the line. This means the hardware vendors have little wiggle room not to do as MS wishes, and MS plays then off against each other. MS also gets to influence their other efforts, if they go too far out of line in other areas like pushing OpenGL MS can just not play ball, they can drop them in it by not supporting their cards fully. Since MS successfully got Direct3D to be dominant on the dominant desktop platform, not support Direct3D well for the hardware vendors is suicide, and will extra pressure from MS to sideline OpenGL it won't be too surprising that the OpenGL dev teams will be smaller and less well funded. With the growth of alternate platforms the OpenGL teams will be even more stretched, as they don't just have Windows 2000, XP, Vista and 7 to support but they have Linux, FreeBSD, OSX, Solaris, embedded platforms. Now market size is smaller for these other platforms so revenue is also less significant. It's easy to see that given this situation a hardware vendor might choose an easy life and just focus on Direct3D and sideline OpenGL. Now with a sidelined OpenGL, the quality and feature support will suffer, and it'll become less compelling a platform, it certainly has been under a lot of pressure. But it's software vendors like ourselves that are the pain in the butts, we demand OpenGL support, because we require portability, we require access to OpenGL extensions to get the best out of the hardware, we need longevity of support without having to refactor our code every couple of years to target the latest hardware features exposed by the next Direct3D version. Thankfully the hardware vendors have listened to our needs are kept OpenGL alive, albeit it far less vibrant than it would be if the hardware vendors weren't beholden to the whims of MS. So... the suggestion that somehow competing standards is a good thing for us rather galling. The market reality really is pretty ugly. It's are area of the market that really really deserves and Anti-trust case, but alas MS has those best placed to request it (the hardware vendors that develop OpenGL) by the balls so they won't complain, if they do MS just has to squeeze and their will
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi Jason, Ever try DosBox ( http://dosbox.com/information.php?page=0 ) ? Yes, of course, but running it on the real hardware is its own reward. :-) Plus, I hate how nothing in DosBox really runs that well (even something that ran well on a 486DX/33 has trouble in DosBox, and I have to spend about 5 minutes each time finding the right settings...). So I prefer keeping the machines around, getting them out every year or so when I feel like it and having things run exactly like they used to. J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi Robert, Competing standards are a bad thing as it breaks interoperability and divides the market place into targeting one or other, or both standards. I understand your points, but I don't see how that's different from any market... I could give lots of examples of similar competition: Mac vs Windows vs Linux, diesel vs gasoline, digital cable vs satellite, ... And in all those cases, they either coexist trying to gain higher market share from competitors, or one dies (Blu-ray vs HD-DVD for example) because of market forces (i.e. the consumer decides, sometimes based on merit, sometimes based on other factors). I don't see how we can do anything to change that, we just have to accept it and try to drive OpenGL to take DirectX's market share (which is what we're trying to do, of course). I can also think of many reasons why competition is good, one of which is faster rate of innovation. I think if it weren't Direct3D, if some other standard were competing with OpenGL, we'd be having this same discussion. Even if that other standard was also an open standard (which could happen because of the nature of open standards). So I don't really see the point in discussing it, we can only accept it and try to make the best of it. J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi JS, On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Jean-Sébastien Guay jean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com wrote: Sure, I should have said is it ratified by the ISO or another international standards body. Still, is OpenGL really a standard? A de-facto standard, perhaps, as much as OSG is the de-facto standard for scene graphs. But it's a spec, not a standard in the broader sense. Ahh, I recognize the condition now, we have an open standards denier ;-) From the Khronos website, it leads with: The Khronos Group is an industry consortium creating open standards for the authoring and acceleration of parallel computing, graphics and dynamic media on a wide variety of platforms and devices. Anyways, I want to be clear that I don't belittle OpenGL in the least. It's a great tool that I use everyday (either through OSG or not). Calling OpenGL a de-facto standard rather than an open standard is belittling OpenGL, Khronous and the ARB. Open standards take courage and conviction to develop. Sure I wish Khronous/ARB would be more open to outside contributors, I wish the process of developing OpenGL was more open, but the final specs are are a royalty free open specs. This allows Mesa to exists without buying into any consortium, and allows it's license to be be open. Robert. ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi Colin, On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Middleton, Colin (GE EntSol, Intelligent Platforms) Interestingly the OpenGL driver for this chipset is far far better on Linux than on Windows. I suspect the Open Source driver is responsible for this. This is a really interesting and encouraging finding. Makes me wonder if an open source driver might be possible under WIndows as well. I would just love to get open source OpenGL drivers to a point that they match the proprietary ones on all platforms, once you get to this point there is no turning back, the open source development model will just outpace the proprietary solutions in terms of features and stability. Both ATI and Intel have already published lots of specs on their hardware, and Intel and ATI open source drivers are under development, but it takes time to get a fully operational driver in place, so we do need to be patient. It's good to hear of success with the Intel drivers already. If only NVidia would follow suit and be more open about their hardware then we'd have potential for OpenGL drivers to all come out of hiding. An aside from this is the interesting work being done a Gallium3D http://www.tungstengraphics.com/wiki/index.php/Gallium3D Hopefully this will help spur on the efforts on developing open source drivers across platforms. It also adds another possibility in that it's rendering API agnostic, so potentially we could even write directly to Gallium3D rather than the OpenGL lib on top of it. This is rather a leap though... Gallium3D needs to become successful first, we need to develop the ability of the OSG to have multiple rendering backends... lots of if's and but's... but we given a bit of patience (like several years worth) perhaps both the Gallium3D and OSG will someday be ready to dance to together. Robert. ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Robert Osfield wrote: I would just love to get open source OpenGL drivers to a point that they match the proprietary ones on all platforms, once you get to this point there is no turning back, the open source development model will just outpace the proprietary solutions in terms of features and stability. Both ATI and Intel have already published lots of specs on their hardware, and Intel and ATI open source drivers are under development, but it takes time to get a fully operational driver in place, so we do need to be patient. It's good to hear of success with the Intel drivers already. If only NVidia would follow suit and be more open about their hardware then we'd have potential for OpenGL drivers to all come out of hiding. Anybody ever try the nouveau driver for Nvidia cards? http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/ --J ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi Robert, I just don't see us going anywhere with this discussion, we have different points of view and discussing them doesn't do any good, so let's just go back to writing great software and promoting OpenGL and OSG as much as we can! Actions speak louder than words. J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi Robert, Interestingly the OpenGL driver for this chipset is far far better on Linux than on Windows. I suspect the Open Source driver is responsible for this. This is a really interesting and encouraging finding. Makes me wonder if an open source driver might be possible under WIndows as well. I agree, that's encouraging. Though I don't think there's any precedent of any driver at all being open source on Windows (at least I don't remember seeing any). But hopefully that too can change. J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi J-S, I don't expect to win your over, but I sure want to correct things as see as off target so that others in the community don't get the wrong impression about stuff like OpenGL, etc. Robert. On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Jean-Sébastien Guay jean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com wrote: Hi Robert, I just don't see us going anywhere with this discussion, we have different points of view and discussing them doesn't do any good, so let's just go back to writing great software and promoting OpenGL and OSG as much as we can! Actions speak louder than words. J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guay jean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi Robert, I don't expect to win your over, but I sure want to correct things as see as off target so that others in the community don't get the wrong impression about stuff like OpenGL, etc. I'm still not convinced that OpenGL itself can be considered a standard, but that's mostly semantics. opengl.org has industry standard in the page title, but that term is mostly marketing and doesn't mean much. MS could say Windows is the industry standard OS because it's widely used. It doesn't make it an actual standard. But anyways, if it's a standard then more power to them! They should put The standard for high performance graphics instead of industry standard IMHO, but that's still just semantics. I hate it when I start arguing semantics and it appears that I'm going against something I'm actually quite fond of and use everyday. Sorry for going off the mark (once again). J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Jean-Sébastien Guay wrote: Hi Robert, I don't expect to win your over, but I sure want to correct things as see as off target so that others in the community don't get the wrong impression about stuff like OpenGL, etc. I'm still not convinced that OpenGL itself can be considered a standard, but that's mostly semantics. opengl.org has industry standard in the page title, but that term is mostly marketing and doesn't mean much. MS could say Windows is the industry standard OS because it's widely used. It doesn't make it an actual standard. But anyways, if it's a standard then more power to them! They should put The standard for high performance graphics instead of industry standard IMHO, but that's still just semantics. I hate it when I start arguing semantics and it appears that I'm going against something I'm actually quite fond of and use everyday. Sorry for going off the mark (once again). J-S I guess the rest of us spectators are just confused about what OpenGL would have to do to become a standard using your metrics. Where is the bar set and why are they not reaching it? -Paul ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi Paul, I guess the rest of us spectators are just confused about what OpenGL would have to do to become a standard using your metrics. Where is the bar set and why are they not reaching it? Yes, I guess that's where my confusion stems from too. I always thought an actual standard had to be ratified by an independent standards body (ANSI, ISO, CSA here in Canada, ...). In this view, a company or consortium of companies could not unilaterally say that something is a standard. Wouldn't that lead to everyone saying that what they do is standard? I don't quite understand how open standards work, and how they're different from me just saying here's a document that defines something, I hereby declare it standard. Where do you draw the line? I would have thought the term standard carried more weight and couldn't be just used by anyone. However, if there's a kind of automatic self-regulation inherent to the process, kind of like how open source works (only the successful software survives, the others we barely hear about) then I see how it could work. And it certainly leads to faster innovation than having to have a big standards body that probably isn't a specialist in the specific field your standard covers review it before being accepted at each revision. I can certainly see the benefits of open standards, but I guess there's some part I'm missing because to me it just seems based on good will, which will end up not working eventually. Anyways, I'll have to read more about that. I'd be happy to learn more about it from you guys of course. J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi Paul, I don't quite understand how open standards work, and how they're different from me just saying here's a document that defines something, I hereby declare it standard. Where do you draw the line? I would have thought the term standard carried more weight and couldn't be just used by anyone. And another thing I don't understand about open standards: if any consortium or group can start a standard, how can anyone say that a given open standard is *the* standard for something? Like Robert said that OpenGL is *the* standard for graphics... Hypothetical situation: As I see it, if Microsoft decided to make a standards committee for Direct3D and other companies joined, it would be just as much a standard for graphics as OpenGL is. None of the two would be able to say they're *the* standard for graphics unless some independent body decided that it was one or the other... 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). Or is there something I'm missing here too? J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Jean-Sébastien Guay wrote: Hi Paul, I don't quite understand how open standards work, and how they're different from me just saying here's a document that defines something, I hereby declare it standard. Where do you draw the line? I would have thought the term standard carried more weight and couldn't be just used by anyone. And another thing I don't understand about open standards: if any consortium or group can start a standard, how can anyone say that a given open standard is *the* standard for something? Like Robert said that OpenGL is *the* standard for graphics... Hypothetical situation: As I see it, if Microsoft decided to make a standards committee for Direct3D and other companies joined, it would be just as much a standard for graphics as OpenGL is. None of the two would be able to say they're *the* standard for graphics unless some independent body decided that it was one or the other... 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. ;) 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. 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. Or is there something I'm missing here too? What if there were a world with no hypothetical questions? :) -Paul ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Jean-Sébastien Guay wrote: Yes, I guess that's where my confusion stems from too. I always thought an actual standard had to be ratified by an independent standards body (ANSI, ISO, CSA here in Canada, ...). In this view, a company or consortium of companies could not unilaterally say that something is a standard. Wouldn't that lead to everyone saying that what they do is standard? What standards body ratified TCP/IP? ;-) --J ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
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 Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi Jason, What standards body ratified TCP/IP? ;-) Hmmm, getting even more off track here, but as far as I know TCP/IP is not a standard (other than a de facto standard, which it certainly is). It's defined by RFCs and not a standard. So it's ratified by no standards body since it's not a standard. The wikipedia article on TCP/IP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tcp/ip) says: In March 1982, the US Department of Defense declared TCP/IP as the standard for all military computer networking. Which is in its power, since it only concerns itself. But outside the US military, it's just a de facto standard. They even clearly state that it doesn't follow the standard OSI model (which is itself ratified by ISO and ITU-T). At least that's my understanding of it, but once again I'm playing on semantics and only responded because you asked... ;-) J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Jean-Sébastien Guay wrote: Hi Jason, What standards body ratified TCP/IP? ;-) Hmmm, getting even more off track here, but as far as I know TCP/IP is not a standard (other than a de facto standard, which it certainly is). It's defined by RFCs and not a standard. So it's ratified by no standards body since it's not a standard. Well, if I can't get you to call TCP/IP an open standard, I'm out of ammo... ;-) --J ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hypothetical situation: As I see it, if Microsoft decided to make a standards committee for Direct3D and other companies joined, it would be just as much a standard for graphics as OpenGL is. None of the two would be able to say they're *the* standard for graphics unless some independent body decided that it was one or the other... 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. ;) A similar situation happened in the early 90s. Many companies got together and formed a PEX consortium to create a graphics standard for X Windows. As a result, SGI redesigned IrisGL and OpenGL was born. Many companies joined on the bandwagon -- ironically, even Microsoft was an ARB member. The analogy is as follows: THEN NOW The consortium solutionPEX OpenGL The proprietary solution IrisGL Direct3D Where this analogy falls apart is that PEX (the consortium solution) was a latecomer onto a 3D graphics scene already dominated by IrisGL (the proprietary solution), compared to today, in which Direct3D (the proprietary solution) is the latecomer, with OpenGL (the consortium solution) the dominant player. Sorry I keep taking us down memory lane, but I think it's important to look at parallels with historical events. Just call me... -Old Man Martz ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi Old Man Martz, ;-) Sorry I keep taking us down memory lane, but I think it's important to look at parallels with historical events. Oh no, I find this really interesting. I got onto the 3D scene from a gaming/demoscene background, on the PC in the early 90s. So I'm aware of what transpired in the first days of commodity/gaming 3D accelerators around 1995-1998 (3dfx Voodoo 1,2,3; Riva 128,TNT,TNT2; Matrox Mystique,Mystique 220; Rendition Verité v1000,v2x00; etc.) but I know only a little concerning what happened in the professional/large-scale 3D arena (SGIs, etc.). So as much as I'm considered an old geezer for some topics and I like croning about those things, I'm always interested when some other old geezer recounts ye olde days from another perspective. Crone on, brotha! :-) J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Jean-Sébastien Guay wrote: Hi Old Man Martz, ;-) Sorry I keep taking us down memory lane, but I think it's important to look at parallels with historical events. Oh no, I find this really interesting. I got onto the 3D scene from a gaming/demoscene background, on the PC in the early 90s. So I'm aware of what transpired in the first days of commodity/gaming 3D accelerators around 1995-1998 (3dfx Voodoo 1,2,3; Riva 128,TNT,TNT2; Matrox Mystique,Mystique 220; Rendition Verité v1000,v2x00; etc.) but I know only a little concerning what happened in the professional/large-scale 3D arena (SGIs, etc.). So as much as I'm considered an old geezer for some topics and I like croning about those things, I'm always interested when some other old geezer recounts ye olde days from another perspective. Crone on, brotha! :-) J-S Memories... I had a fire in my home office in October. I was able to put it out without too much damage but the entire upper floor of my house was covered with soot. Consequently, I've been going through old boxes of stuff the cleaning crew brought back and walking down memory lane _a lot_. Just thought it was funny because just earlier today I was going through another box and found my well turned, hand-printed, Glide manual. Was a fun trip thumbing through that. Fun to see the old 3dfx stuff come up again. -Paul ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi Jason, Well, if I can't get you to call TCP/IP an open standard, I'm out of ammo... ;-) Oh yeah, sure, it is an open standard. I have seen the light :-) (I still have some unanswered questions, but I'll do some reading and not bore you with them since this mailing list is not the place to do that) J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi Paul, Just thought it was funny because just earlier today I was going through another box and found my well turned, hand-printed, Glide manual. Was a fun trip thumbing through that. Heh, I had one of those too! :-) And what's more, I actually have two nostalgia machines which I plug in once in a while. The first has a Cirrus Logic CL-GD5428 card (1MB, yessir), and the other has a Voodoo2 12MB. I'll probably keep those till I die, just because that was the time when it all started for me, even though every time we move my s/o asks why I waste space with those old computers... J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Jean-Sébastien Guay wrote: And what's more, I actually have two nostalgia machines which I plug in once in a while. The first has a Cirrus Logic CL-GD5428 card (1MB, yessir), and the other has a Voodoo2 12MB. I'll probably keep those till I die, just because that was the time when it all started for me, even though every time we move my s/o asks why I waste space with those old computers... Ever try DosBox ( http://dosbox.com/information.php?page=0 ) ? I was trying to set up a nostalgia machine as well, but I kept having problems with my old hardware. Then I found DosBox, and realized how pointless my efforts were. I guess it depends on *why* you have it around, though. --J ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Jean-Sébastien Guay wrote: Hi Paul, Just thought it was funny because just earlier today I was going through another box and found my well turned, hand-printed, Glide manual. Was a fun trip thumbing through that. Heh, I had one of those too! :-) And what's more, I actually have two nostalgia machines which I plug in once in a while. The first has a Cirrus Logic CL-GD5428 card (1MB, yessir), and the other has a Voodoo2 12MB. I'll probably keep those till I die, just because that was the time when it all started for me, even though every time we move my s/o asks why I waste space with those old computers... J-S I'm actually embarrassed to admit all of the old hardware I have shelved in my closet here at the house. Old 486 motherboards (66 mhz up to a DX4x100). Probably the saddest one is the old VFX-1 VR helmet. Pretty cool for consumer electronics. Hard to imagine now the frankenstein like setups to get something like that running: 3dfx chained to a diamond video card chained to the VR card. The fun part is when I finally decide something really is dead and I disassemble it down to the last screw to show my 5 year old son how things work. We stripped a hard-drive down to the platters and magnets the other night. It is part of his heritage after all. ;) -Paul ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Nice to see this kind of results. (I'm just a bit disapointed since I'm an Opera-conviced user ;p ) Sukender PVLE - Lightweight cross-platform game engine - http://pvle.sourceforge.net/ Le Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:06:51 +0100, Robert Osfield robert.osfi...@gmail.com a écrit: Hi All, At the end of last week I ask Jose-Luis about web stats, and the boy came good, adding awstats to the new virtual server, it's only been running since Sunday, so the logs are only a quick snapshot so far, but still interesting no less. First up the operating systems that people are accessing the site from: Windows 154463 60.7 % Windows XP 116617 45.8 % Windows NT 18640.7 % Windows Me 138 0 % Windows Vista 25972 10.2 % Windows CE 10 0 % Windows 98 122 0 % Windows 95 22 0 % Windows 200374992.9 % Windows 200022120.8 % Windows 3.xx7 0 % BSD 281 0.1 % FreeBSD 281 0.1 % Linux 37600 14.7 % Ubuntu 13965 5.4 % Suse27751 % Red Hat 563 0.2 % Mandriva (or Mandrake) 337 0.1 % Fedora 37321.4 % Debian 35791.4 % Centos 462 0.1 % GNU Linux (Unknown or unspecified distribution) 12187 4.7 % Macintosh 12800 5 % Mac OS X12787 5 % Mac OS 13 0 % Others49212 19.3 % Unknown 48799 19.1 % Sun Solaris 174 0 % Irix162 0 % Symbian OS 74 0 % Unknown Unix system What is pretty stunning is that Window only accounts for 60% of people who visit our website, with only 10% using Vista. Linux comes in at near 15%, while OSX comes in at 5%. The rest of the identifiable platforms are pretty negligible, but the Unknown is massive at 19.1% - which platforms these would map we can only guess. Anyone any ideas about what platforms this Unknown are likely to be? -- Next up the browser stats are pretty revealing too: Firefox No 108762 42.6 % MS Internet ExplorerNo 67805 26.6 % Mozilla No 30931 12.1 % Subversion client No 21572 8.4 % Safari No 14097 5.5 % Opera No 78843 % Konqueror No 21600.8 % CurlYes 508 0.1 % EpiphanyNo 256 0.1 % Unknown ? 253 0 % Others That is a pretty stunning victory for Firefox, adding on Mozilla the total is 54.7%. Also don't forget that svn accounts for 8.4%, so regular browser us is actaully higher than this still. The once dominant browser family of Internet explorer picks up second place, but has less than number of users than the Firefox/Mozilla family. -- Finally the stats for number visitors/hits are: Reported period Month Feb 2009 First visit 22 Feb 2009 - 07:15 Last visit26 Feb 2009 - 10:50 Unique visitors Number of visitsPages HitsBandwidth Viewed traffic * 4786 8060 (1.68 visits/visitor) 72397 (8.98 Pages/Visit)254795 (31.61 Hits/Visit)40.30 GB (5242.26 KB/Visit) -- What is clear from this picture is that the OSG community is very different to average computer user, which is not too surprising, but just how different is to me. Or perhaps we just aren't that different, and that perhaps as we aren't a world away from w3schools stats for Firefox adoption: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp Perhaps this strong showing of non windows OS's and non IE browsers in the graphics community might be useful in helping win over clients that go demanding MS specific solutions. The tide has turned. Robert. ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi Robert, Anyone any ideas about what platforms this Unknown are likely to be? Well, some people disable the sending of OS information by their browser, so it's possible that a number of those actually would fall into the other categories (Linux, Windows etc.) Perhaps this strong showing of non windows OS's and non IE browsers in the graphics community might be useful in helping win over clients that go demanding MS specific solutions. The tide has turned. I find your wording funny... All dramatic and foreboding. 60% is still huge. And keep in mind that's just visits to the web site... I don't think we can have a direct correlation between website visits and OSG usage. It would be a pretty big extrapolation. And the browser stats mean nothing since Firefox, Opera and others run on Windows, Linux, etc. I know many people who avoid IE like the plague, even though they run Windows. I use Firefox just because I like it more and I try to use Open Source software wherever I can. You're being pretty extremist in this whole thing. You have to understand that people can use Windows for many reasons, not only technical ones, and it's not because someone uses Windows that they're necessarily buying into MS's propaganda. It's not as clear-cut as that. IMHO, Windows is just another tool, it's superior in some respects and inferior in others, and people will choose to use it or not (sometimes for the wrong reasons, but in general you don't know those reasons so you can't make a judgement on them...) and there's nothing you or I can do about that. J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi Robert, as to the Firefox there exists a joke: Why do you have MS Internet Explorer bundled with Windows? In order to download Mozilla Firefox! OK, I know I am getting off topic here, but I couldn't stop thinking on that joke when reading your post ;) cheers -- Read this topic online here: http://forum.openscenegraph.org/viewtopic.php?p=7501#7501 ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi Robert, A big extrapolation, but typically people will develop and browse under the same platform. But are people who go to the OSG site necessarily people who use OSG? That's the extrapolation I was referring to. Actually I think you're being a little tetchy. How is pointing aspects browser stats extremist? I wasn't referring to browser stats when saying you're extremist, but more to your general comments on Windows, and how (most) people who use Windows are buying into MS and being blinded by their PR, and so on. In the past few weeks I had the impression that you were making some blanket statements, not necessarily including the Windows users on this list (I didn't feel directly pointed out, at least) but most of the Windows users. It's a tool for a job, making it into a war is useless. For me a real eye opener is that Firefox has risen so rapidly, the mind share that MS once had over Windows developers clearly has ebbed dramatically in the case of browsers. Clearly MS's OS have faired better than their browser, and kept more market share, but OS's are far more of a bed rock of daily work than a single replaceable application, replacing it is not far from easy or desirable in many cases. OK, so you're making the assumption that if 60% of visitors on the site are using Windows, but only 25% use IE, then people seem to not be buying into MS's PR anymore? I would say that the advances of Open Source software (in terms of visibility, quality, etc.) have had a large hand in that. And I agree, being in the same boat myself (Windows user but open source software user wherever I can). So that's good news right? Given the context for Gordon Tomlison's recent email about Direct3D an assertions that some clients ask for Direct3D simply because they think it's better, I think it's important to point out stats, as it's one of the tools that we have available. Times have certainly changed dramatically in the browser market, extrapolating this to a suggestion that other parts of the software eco-system might be also ripe for change as well I don't think is too unreasonable. I agree. And BTW I've been silent about your list of concrete actions, but I'll help there as much as I can of course. Just because I'm a Windows user doesn't make me self-centered :-) J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi J-S, On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Jean-Sébastien Guay jean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com wrote: But are people who go to the OSG site necessarily people who use OSG? That's the extrapolation I was referring to. I would have thought there would be a reasonable correlation between visitors to openscenegraph.org and users. For existing users there is obviously a very good correlation. For the rest of the visitors it's case of either accidentally coming across the OSG, in which I would more normal spread of OS/browser usage, or vistors that are genuinely looking at the OSG as possible candidate for use, for this set of visitors the conversion from evaluator to final users I would expect on less conversions of Windows users than users of other OS's given allure of D3D under Windows and the OSG's lack of support for it. Actually I think you're being a little tetchy. How is pointing aspects browser stats extremist? I wasn't referring to browser stats when saying you're extremist, but more to your general comments on Windows, and how (most) people who use Windows are buying into MS and being blinded by their PR, and so on. In the past few weeks I had the impression that you were making some blanket statements, not necessarily including the Windows users on this list (I didn't feel directly pointed out, at least) but most of the Windows users. My guess is that the Windows users/developers in the OSG community are likely to be less MS centric than the the majority of Windows developers/end users/purchasers. So if I do sweep a broad brush about being overly swayed by MS PR, it's the later category that I feel is where the problem lies. The problem lies in that non MS solutions don't get a fair shout even if they are as good or better solutions. Clients of OSG app developers asking for a D3D port is a case where less tech savy end users are being swayed by the MS PR machine. Seeing signs of movement away from previously entrenched MS products is encouraging, as it gives more oxygen to the argument that solutions like OpenGL are a positive attribute, for those struggling to convince end users about it's value can point to MS not necessarily producing the best technology, and that open solutions are viable and making headway. As a non Windows users I'm pretty aware of lots of places where lack of standards and portability restricts computing life unnecessary, it's not technical issues, it's issues of monopoly and a strangle hold over software and hardware vendors. If you are a Windows users then you'll probably be less aware of places where your computing life might otherwise be impinged upon as your in the MS blessed eco-system. It's a tool for a job, making it into a war is useless. I'm not trying to make war. I'm try to give perspective on what seems to be happening in the OSG community and what that might mean more widely. OK, so you're making the assumption that if 60% of visitors on the site are using Windows, but only 25% use IE, then people seem to not be buying into MS's PR anymore? I would say that the advances of Open Source software (in terms of visibility, quality, etc.) have had a large hand in that. And I agree, being in the same boat myself (Windows user but open source software user wherever I can). There has been in the past a noticeable entrenchment of the view that MS products are best, or that no alternative exists. I see it particularly in on tech communities, such as family and non tech friends where IE == internet, Word == word processor, rather than these just being products. The idea that their are alternatives to IE, let along Windows takes a bit of time to get over. Even in non tech circles we see people claiming the demise of OpenGL, and that gaming == Direct3D, both of which are demonstrably wrong, and it's MS's PR machine that has successfully engineering this. So that's good news right? It is indeed good news, it's one of key points of me posting the stats. To highlight that fact that for our community at least things aren't as MS centric as they were previously. Given the context for Gordon Tomlison's recent email about Direct3D an assertions that some clients ask for Direct3D simply because they think it's better, I think it's important to point out stats, as it's one of the tools that we have available. Times have certainly changed dramatically in the browser market, extrapolating this to a suggestion that other parts of the software eco-system might be also ripe for change as well I don't think is too unreasonable. I agree. And BTW I've been silent about your list of concrete actions, but I'll help there as much as I can of course. Just because I'm a Windows user doesn't make me self-centered :-) Having a viable choice is a good thing, having competitors to IE and even Windows starting to get on to a more level footing will mean that you'll have the choice of which platforms suits you best, and MS will be forced to start
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi Robert, It's a tool for a job, making it into a war is useless. I'm not trying to make war. I'm try to give perspective on what seems to be happening in the OSG community and what that might mean more widely. But you have to realize that even you aren't 100% objective, no one is. Your views are skewed by your background just as much as anyone else's. IMHO the situation with Windows users at large is less bleak than what you make out, the recent situation with Vista coming in far below expectations helped on that front. Non-tech people are starting to see that there are alternatives, and that (other than MacOS) a choice of hardware doesn't lock you onto a single OS. But that's a matter of opinion and we don't have any cold facts (other than perhaps the actual market share of Windows vs other OSes, but that won't be reflected by web server stats). We can just hope that people making products are choosing their APIs based on merit instead of based on a misguided idea of which API will sell more products... In the end I don't think a user cares whether DirectX or OpenGL is under the hood, the results are what counts, but the people managing projects are choosing one or the other sometimes for the wrong reasons I agree. It is indeed good news, it's one of key points of me posting the stats. To highlight that fact that for our community at least things aren't as MS centric as they were previously. And perhaps that's a trend that's larger than our community only? (I hope so) Having a viable choice is a good thing, having competitors to IE and even Windows starting to get on to a more level footing will mean that you'll have the choice of which platforms suits you best, and MS will be forced to start competing with better products rather than abusing it's monopoly position (like it's done so far with OpenGL/D3D). Yes, which is why I don't agree with those who say D3D should die. J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
HI J-S, On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Jean-Sébastien Guay jean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com wrote: IMHO the situation with Windows users at large is less bleak than what you make out, the recent situation with Vista coming in far below expectations helped on that front. Non-tech people are starting to see that there are alternatives, and that (other than MacOS) a choice of hardware doesn't lock you onto a single OS. Things are certainly get better than they were a couple of years ago. Netbooks and cloud computing are two factors. Vista being harder to use than XP, breaking people applications/dropping support for hardware is something that even my parents complained about vigorously when they were forced to purchase Vista on new hardware. We are still a long way from having genuine choice about hardware and software though. MS has a tremendously right grip on almost every PC manufacturer save for Apple and the specialist Linux firms. The only easy way of matching the hardware your want with the OS you want is build it yourself, this obviously isn't what the average users wants to do. But that's a matter of opinion and we don't have any cold facts (other than perhaps the actual market share of Windows vs other OSes, but that won't be reflected by web server stats). We can just hope that people making products are choosing their APIs based on merit instead of based on a misguided idea of which API will sell more products... In the end I don't think a user cares whether DirectX or OpenGL is under the hood, the results are what counts, but the people managing projects are choosing one or the other sometimes for the wrong reasons I agree. This will still be an uphill struggle when you see death of OpenGL articles being published, it requires one to see beyond this FUD. OSG users obviously already have, but I would guess to do loose potential users purely because of the year in year out FUD against OpenGL. This are certainly getting better, but there is still a massive way to go in getting the playing field levelled. It is indeed good news, it's one of key points of me posting the stats. To highlight that fact that for our community at least things aren't as MS centric as they were previously. And perhaps that's a trend that's larger than our community only? I think the trend for browsers is a wider one. None Windows OS's are certainly on the rise too, but no where near the penetration of non Windows OS's we see in our browser stats. This probably reflects that nature of the applications that OSG users develop, and perhaps the fact that tech savy users are more able to understand and act upon their preferred choice of OS. Having a viable choice is a good thing, having competitors to IE and even Windows starting to get on to a more level footing will mean that you'll have the choice of which platforms suits you best, and MS will be forced to start competing with better products rather than abusing it's monopoly position (like it's done so far with OpenGL/D3D). Yes, which is why I don't agree with those who say D3D should die. Some places competition is good, but not typically in the area of standards. OpenGL is an open standard, Direct3D is a close standard that is pushed my a monopoly with the explicit intent of destroying its competing open standard. If Direct3D hadn't existing we'd have vendors competing between quality of their OpenGL drivers, instead we have them competing primarily in Direct3D performance/quality, and OpenGL drivers from most vendors have sadly seemed to play a very distant second in priority. It really isn't a huge waste of hardware vendors time having to work on two separate HAL's for their hardware, it's a idotic situation and an extremely bad engineering solution to a problem in hand. The find it very hard to reconcile the view that competition between OpenGL and Direct3D is beneficial. One only has to point to Intel and ATI OpenGL as clear proof of the damage that is has done. Robert. ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi Robert, We are still a long way from having genuine choice about hardware and software though. MS has a tremendously right grip on almost every PC manufacturer save for Apple and the specialist Linux firms. The only easy way of matching the hardware your want with the OS you want is build it yourself, this obviously isn't what the average users wants to do. You would want manufacturers to offer a choice of OS when buying a PC? Non tech-savvy people won't know what to choose between Linux, Windows, etc. when they buy a PC, so pushing the choice all the way down to them doesn't make sense. They'll just go with whatever has the most publicity on TV or something, and we'll be right where we started. This are certainly getting better, but there is still a massive way to go in getting the playing field levelled. Massive I don't know. It's much better than it was, and I think we only need a bit more of a push to get to where competition is healthy and everyone has an equal chance. I think the trend for browsers is a wider one. None Windows OS's are certainly on the rise too, but no where near the penetration of non Windows OS's we see in our browser stats. This probably reflects that nature of the applications that OSG users develop, and perhaps the fact that tech savy users are more able to understand and act upon their preferred choice of OS. Agreed. Some places competition is good, but not typically in the area of standards. OpenGL is an open standard, Direct3D is a close standard that is pushed my a monopoly with the explicit intent of destroying its competing open standard. If Direct3D hadn't existing we'd have vendors competing between quality of their OpenGL drivers, instead we have them competing primarily in Direct3D performance/quality, and OpenGL drivers from most vendors have sadly seemed to play a very distant second in priority. It really isn't a huge waste of hardware vendors time having to work on two separate HAL's for their hardware, it's a idotic situation and an extremely bad engineering solution to a problem in hand. The find it very hard to reconcile the view that competition between OpenGL and Direct3D is beneficial. One only has to point to Intel and ATI OpenGL as clear proof of the damage that is has done. I don't agree with you on that. OpenGL is an API. Direct3D is an API. They're not standards... If a video card manufacturer wants a good market share in most areas, they'll support both and support them well. If they focus on whatever market D3D caters to, they'll focus on D3D support. Now, if one graphics API were really standard, kind of like x86 assembly, then we could have one that all video cards talk and have compilers that would compile OpenGL and D3D programs for that assembly language. As far as I know that's what the video card drivers do anyways, so having competition between OpenGL and D3D is kind of like competition between C and Pascal (say) and I see nothing bad with that. Pick what you want to pick and makes sense for your projects. It's how to determine what makes sense for your projects that's hard, but I expect there were similar discussions back when C++ was a young language. ATI OpenGL is a specific case, their D3D drivers were very bad at one point too (heck, even their 2D Windows drivers would crash the machine at one point!), and I guess they wanted to improve D3D before working on OpenGL. Which they are apparently doing - I saw FlightGear running on a multi-display ATI-based set up running Linux (therefore OpenGL) at Siggraph 2008 and it ran very well. It was on public display at ATI's booth, so presumably they want to publicize that they're working on their OpenGL/Linux drivers. Sure it's just one example, but I think it's getting better. Intel is another special case: most of their integrated display hardware has no accelerated 3D support, period! So I don't think you can say they have bad OpenGL support... Hopefully Larrabee changes that. Anyways... Opinions, opinions... :-) J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi J-S, On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Jean-Sébastien Guay jean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com wrote: I don't agree with you on that. OpenGL is an API. Direct3D is an API. They're not standards... If a video card manufacturer wants a good market share in most areas, they'll support both and support them well. If they focus on whatever market D3D caters to, they'll focus on D3D support. Please go check out the the specs on OpenGL. It is a open standard. It's up to vendors to create OpenGL drivers to this standard. It's not an API like the OSG is an API, OpenGL is a standard with an standardised API. It's a standard that is derived from a standards body - this is what Khronos is all about. Now, if one graphics API were really standard, kind of like x86 assembly, then we could have one that all video cards talk and have compilers that would compile OpenGL and D3D programs for that assembly language. As far as I know that's what the video card drivers do anyways, so having competition between OpenGL and D3D is kind of like competition between C and Pascal (say) and I see nothing bad with that. Pick what you want to pick and makes sense for your projects. It's how to determine what makes sense for your projects that's hard, but I expect there were similar discussions back when C++ was a young language. I'm afraid you have not grasped what OpenGL is about. It's a standardised hardware abstraction layer. It's meant to solve the problem of targeting multiple hardware types across multiple platforms so application developers don't have to worry about the platform specifics, they just write to the standard and it works. Having two competing standards that address the same job is very rarely a healthy phenomenon. It just fragments and breaks down interoperability. It also spreads drivers writing too thinly. It's been a case of divide an conquer, MS have used their monopoly clout to marginalize OpenGL as much as they could. The quality of OpenGL drivers has very clearly been harmed by this. ATI OpenGL is a specific case, their D3D drivers were very bad at one point too (heck, even their 2D Windows drivers would crash the machine at one point!), and I guess they wanted to improve D3D before working on OpenGL. Which they are apparently doing - I saw FlightGear running on a multi-display ATI-based set up running Linux (therefore OpenGL) at Siggraph 2008 and it ran very well. It was on public display at ATI's booth, so presumably they want to publicize that they're working on their OpenGL/Linux drivers. Sure it's just one example, but I think it's getting better. Intel is another special case: most of their integrated display hardware has no accelerated 3D support, period! So I don't think you can say they have bad OpenGL support... Hopefully Larrabee changes that. ATI and Intel two special cases of poor OpenGL support? We'll that only leaves one mainstream vendor that provides acceptable OpenGL drives, and it make it the exception to the rule - so surely NVidia is the special case here, not ATI and Intel. Anyways... Opinions, opinions... :-) The fact is that the majority of our graphics vendors produce OpenGL drivers that we as community universally regard as being not good enough. This is not good for us, it's not good for our end users it's not good for the hardware vendors. It become speculation/opinion and the exact cause of this situation. From my perspective the only beneficiary of this situation is MS, something that it engineered by using is monopoly position to push Direct3D and sideline OpenGL. Knowing how we got to just point can certainly help to refine how we go about trying to redress it, which is why I think it's important to look at this recently history with unclouded vision. What I really really want is for use to have high quality OpenGL drivers, in a perfect world open sourced ones so we can fix them and support them directly. Once we get this, then we have level playing field, and there on whole topic of Direct3D will be an irrelevance. We still have to struggle to get to this point though, and unfortunately it's us that can directly make it happen. The best we can do is try to influence the commitment to OpenGL from hardware vendors, either directly or through wider support for OpenGL. Robert. ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi Robert, Please go check out the the specs on OpenGL. It is a open standard. It's up to vendors to create OpenGL drivers to this standard. It's not an API like the OSG is an API, OpenGL is a standard with an standardised API. It's a standard that is derived from a standards body - this is what Khronos is all about. Is OpenGL ratified by the ISO? No. So it's not a standard. The fact that it's a spec made by a consortium doesn't mean it's a standard, because not all companies are on that consortium and there's no way to force other companies to follow the standard (which is why we're having this whole discussion - perhaps it should become a real standard). I'm afraid you have not grasped what OpenGL is about. It's a standardised hardware abstraction layer. It's meant to solve the problem of targeting multiple hardware types across multiple platforms so application developers don't have to worry about the platform specifics, they just write to the standard and it works. In practice that's not what happens... That's the ideal case but it doesn't exist. In fact, we're lucky we only have OpenGL and Direct3D to argue about. Back in 1995-1998, on the PC side (commodity graphics hardware), each vendor had their API (look up Glide from 3Dfx, RRedline from Rendition, etc.) and games would support a list of 3D accelerators but certainly not all of them. I remember having to replace the executable for Tomb Raider 1 for another one when I changed from a Matrox Mystique to a 3Dfx Voodoo2 card. :-) Having two competing standards that address the same job is very rarely a healthy phenomenon. I have a different view. Competition is always good. I doubt we'd have OpenGL 3.0 drivers right now (let alone a final OpenGL 3.0 spec) if it wasn't for the ongoing Direct3D vs OpenGL debate (and the OpenGL is dead articles). Yes it spreads FUD that some buy into, but the APIs themselves progress faster when there's competition. ATI and Intel two special cases of poor OpenGL support? We'll that only leaves one mainstream vendor that provides acceptable OpenGL drives, and it make it the exception to the rule - so surely NVidia is the special case here, not ATI and Intel. Please actually read my arguments instead of just focusing on the wording. You can't refute the fact that Intel's hardware is not really 3D accelerators, rather decelerators and that is in both Direct3D and OpenGL. So that dismisses one case right there, we're left with NVidia and ATI. As for ATI's driver quality, as I said it was a generalized problem, not specific to OpenGL drivers, not that long ago. That may be a part of the picture that you missed, but which gamers are all too familiar with. Up until a few years ago, ATI was behind not because of the speed of its chips, but because of the quality of its drivers. Anyways, I'll let you get back to your work. I don't think we're getting anywhere. Thanks for the server stats in any case, it's interesting. J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Indeed. I have heard of Linux users configuring browsers to act report being other browsers, I presume other platform/browsers do the same. I'm curious where this practice would be most common. Using Opera, you can switch your browser identification in one or two clicks. And you even can set (and save) identification for a particular site that is not browser-firendly... And I know many users that let Opera to be masked as IE (this is different from identify as ... because the Opera string simply diseapear when using Mask as ...). That way, ill-designed sites can be viewed normally. I don't really know about Firefox, but I guess this is the same thing (Firefox is a cool browser too, IMO, and I as far as I know it provides a set of features comparable to Opera). Sukender PVLE - Lightweight cross-platform game engine - http://pvle.sourceforge.net/ Le Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:42:04 +0100, Robert Osfield robert.osfi...@gmail.com a écrit: Hi J-S, On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Jean-Sébastien Guay jean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com wrote: Well, some people disable the sending of OS information by their browser, so it's possible that a number of those actually would fall into the other categories (Linux, Windows etc.) Indeed. I have heard of Linux users configuring browsers to act report being other browsers, I presume other platform/browsers do the same. I'm curious where this practice would be most common. I'd doubt that IE users would try and mimic something other than Windows/IE as the issue in compatibility tends to be websites excluded non IE or non Windows platforms. Perhaps this strong showing of non windows OS's and non IE browsers in the graphics community might be useful in helping win over clients that go demanding MS specific solutions. The tide has turned. I find your wording funny... All dramatic and foreboding. 60% is still huge. 60% is the majority so indeed huge. But... it's very different than the 90 or 95% figure that you see often claimed about for desktop client usage, something that is certainly worthy of mention. We are very different in terms of make up, with around four times as many non Windows users as we might expect given other published figures. While the majority are working under Windows, 40% is not a small minority of non windows machines. And keep in mind that's just visits to the web site... I don't think we can have a direct correlation between website visits and OSG usage. It would be a pretty big extrapolation. A big extrapolation, but typically people will develop and browse under the same platform. A few years back Don Burns did a poll of platform usage and the percentages were around 45% developed for Windows, and 40% developed for Linux, with a large number developing for both. So the figures I've published today probably aren't too surprising from our own community perspective. It's how different we are from wider averages than it surprising for me. The most surprising thing to me was just how dominant Firefox has come. I'm pretty sure a few years back it would have been IE totally dominating. And the browser stats mean nothing since Firefox, Opera and others run on Windows, Linux, etc. I know many people who avoid IE like the plague, even though they run Windows. I use Firefox just because I like it more and I try to use Open Source software wherever I can. You're being pretty extremist in this whole thing. You have to understand that people can use Windows for many reasons, not only technical ones, and it's not because someone uses Windows that they're necessarily buying into MS's propaganda. It's not as clear-cut as that. IMHO, Windows is just another tool, it's superior in some respects and inferior in others, and people will choose to use it or not (sometimes for the wrong reasons, but in general you don't know those reasons so you can't make a judgement on them...) and there's nothing you or I can do about that. Actually I think you're being a little tetchy. How is pointing aspects browser stats extremist? Never did I map Firefox usage to non Windows usage, the figures don't support this and I didn't suggest this. I put the two sets of stats in two separate blocks each with own quick thoughts on what this meant each individually. What is clear from the stats is that our community contains many more non windows users that the average populace. We provide a cross platform toolkit so this isn't too surprising, it's a self selective set of people visiting our website. For me a real eye opener is that Firefox has risen so rapidly, the mind share that MS once had over Windows developers clearly has ebbed dramatically in the case of browsers. Clearly MS's OS have faired better than their browser, and kept more market share, but OS's are far more of a bed rock of daily work than a single replaceable application, replacing it is not far from easy or desirable in many
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
HI JS, On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Jean-Sébastien Guay jean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com wrote: Is OpenGL ratified by the ISO? No. So it's not a standard. The fact that it's a spec made by a consortium doesn't mean it's a standard, because not all companies are on that consortium and there's no way to force other companies to follow the standard (which is why we're having this whole discussion - perhaps it should become a real standard). You really are quite bonkers ;-) Lots of international standards aren't governed by ISO. ISO is just another standards body, albeit the most broad reaching, but one now with lots of questions marks over it's fitness after the OOXML scandal. Yes Khronous is a industry consortium, but one that exists to create standards. It's best standards body that our sector of the computer industry has to offer. If ISO were to get into graphics API standards then then we defer to Khronous, it's how they often work for other bodies. Robert. ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Just a note: I've seen many users that seem too lazy to install alternatives solutions (or ask for installation). Installing Firefox/Opera/Whaterver, OpenOffice, FileZilla, or 7-zip (and others alternatives - sorry I don't have them all in mind) seem to be as hard as moving a mountain for some people... Generally you'll hear That works with installed software, I don't want to change... even among developpers. That's a pity, IMO. Sukender PVLE - Lightweight cross-platform game engine - http://pvle.sourceforge.net/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
Re: [osg-users] openscenegraph.org stats
Hi Robert, Lots of international standards aren't governed by ISO. ISO is just another standards body, albeit the most broad reaching, ... Sure, I should have said is it ratified by the ISO or another international standards body. Still, is OpenGL really a standard? A de-facto standard, perhaps, as much as OSG is the de-facto standard for scene graphs. But it's a spec, not a standard in the broader sense. Anyways, I want to be clear that I don't belittle OpenGL in the least. It's a great tool that I use everyday (either through OSG or not). J-S -- __ Jean-Sebastien Guayjean-sebastien.g...@cm-labs.com http://www.cm-labs.com/ http://whitestar02.webhop.org/ ___ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
