Johan Lindquist writes:

> So anyway, it was like, 09:50 CET Nov 06 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Christopher Hunter was all like, "Dude,
>> Johan Lindquist wrote:
>>> So anyway, it was like, 09:14 CET Nov 06 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
>>> Christopher Hunter was all like, "Dude,
>
>>>> a) Games are best played on a dedicated games console.
>>>
>>> Do you play any computer games yourself?
>>
>> Not any more - I have better things to do with my time.
>
> This is the other common trait of non-gamers. Beside the "games are
> better played on a console" mantra, they all seem to share this
> condescending attitude that computer games are pointless and a waste
> of time. Do you have no fun in your life other than doing "real work"
> with your computer?
>
> I find that playing a few rounds of mindless fun in whatever game is
> just as relaxing as anything else I do for leisure. It might not be as
> invigorating as walking the dog, or as physically "good for you" as
> sporting with my friends, but I definately think it has a place in my
> life among all the other things I enjoy doing in my spare time.
>
> Maybe you're just too busy doing important stuff to have any spare
> time? Me, I'd go crazy if I couldn't do something that's absolutely
> not worthwhile once in a while.
>
>>> It seems to me only non-gamers believe this to be true. In my
>>> personal experience, there are several games which can never be as
>>> good on a console as they are on a proper computer.
>>
>> Games that require clever graphics are /certainly/ better done on a
>> dedicated games console. However, the XBox is (as with everything
>> from that company) pretty poor, but there are other, more effective
>> products available...
>
> Really? I generally find that a computer has better performance,
> but my point was not really about graphics in particular. Let me
> mention the few games that I do play, and that I think fare better on
> a computer, maybe you can mention some of these games that you find
> perform better, graphics-wise, on a console.

In general, well said. A brief glance at Mr Hunter's posts suggest that
he and Chris Ahlstrom might be the same person. Clueless to the extreme
but very fond of talking about things they have little personal interest
in never mind any actual skills or experience.

After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
this bit o' wisdom:

> "Ignoramus31261" wrote in message
>
>> It is also easy to implement "async I/O" with select(). Just have a
>> thread run select() and call those callbacks. (or many threads)
>
> As long as you don't care about the order the data is written!
> Are you sure you have ever programmed anything?
> I get the idea you are making this stuff up as you have committed several
> errors so far that would make most applications fail.

Ah, a person who can debug a design and some code without ever having seen
it!

Say! You might be /just/ the guy to explain the ins and outs of MD5 sums!

--
Serving suggestion.

After takin' a swig o' grog, Steve Townsend belched out
this bit o' wisdom:

> In general, well said. A brief glance at Mr Hunter's posts suggest that
> he and Chris Ahlstrom might be the same person. Clueless to the extreme
> but very fond of talking about things they have little personal interest
> in never mind any actual skills or experience.

Welcome back, Hadron.

--
"To your left is the marina where several senior cabinet officials keep luxury
yachts for weekend cruises on the Potomac. Some of these ships are up to 100
feet in length; the Presidential yacht is over 200 feet in length, and can
remain submerged for up to 3 weeks."
-- Garrison Keillor

"Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
news:RaBQk.62253$rD2.32730@bignews4.bellsouth.net. ..
> After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> "Ignoramus31261" wrote in message
>>
>>> It is also easy to implement "async I/O" with select(). Just have a
>>> thread run select() and call those callbacks. (or many threads)
>>
>> As long as you don't care about the order the data is written!
>> Are you sure you have ever programmed anything?
>> I get the idea you are making this stuff up as you have committed several
>> errors so far that would make most applications fail.
>
> Ah, a person who can debug a design and some code without ever having seen
> it!

I don't need to see it.
If it does what he states it will make the data order somewhat mixed.
If he wants it debugged then he will have to post the code and agree the
fees.

>
> Say! You might be /just/ the guy to explain the ins and outs of MD5 sums!

dennis@home wrote:
>
> "Ignoramus31261" wrote in message
> news:vs2dnaf7U-03zY_UnZ2dnUVZ_vninZ2d@giganews.com...
>> On 2008-11-06, Maxwell Lol wrote:
>>> Erik Funkenbusch writes:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:03:18 -0600, Ignoramus31261 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Which is entirely different from async I/O.
>>>>> Not "entirely". They are both nonblocking and do not use CPU.
>>>> No. Async I/O is not "non-blocking". Non-blocking means that you
>>>> call the I/O function and either it returns with data, or it
>>>> returns with a return code indicating there is no data yet.
>>> And when you call select with a timeout of zero, it is also
>>> non-blocking.
>> It is also easy to implement "async I/O" with select(). Just have a
>> thread run select() and call those callbacks. (or many threads)
>
> As long as you don't care about the order the data is written! Are you
> sure you have ever programmed anything? I get the idea you are making
> this stuff up as you have committed several errors so far that would make
> most applications fail.
>
I wrote an OS once for a special purpose.

The IO could do the regular IO similar to what the normal UNIX read(),
write(). seek() would do. But for the really heavy-duty IO, where we were
reading a television camera in real time, we could not do that because we
could not stop when the machine was busy or we would lose data. So I put in
additional constructs, such as (I no longer remember the exact syntax):

startread(filedescriptor, &buffer, size, recordID);
startwrite(filedescriptor, &buffer, size, recordID);
result = iostatus(filedescriptor, &buffer);

All three of these returned essentially immediately.
The reason we needed these is that we double-buffered the IO and did not
have the time between when one IO finished and the next one started to set
up the device again. We put two controllers on each device and cold set tbe
next one up when the first one finished. The startio functions did all the
device setup work, put the commends in a FIFO queue, and as one finished
with a hardware interrupt, the OS could start the next one quickly enough.
It was easy enough to setup one controller during the time the IO transfer
was occurring on the other controller. I called this model asynchronous IO
because the IO took place in parallel with execution of the application;
i.e., the application could continue to run even though it had issued one or
more IO requests.

In the UNIX model, this was impossible because once a read or a write was
called, the application stalled until the IO was completed (what I would
call serial IO) and only when the IO was complete could the nest read or
write could be issued. The return of one of these IO functions implicitly
informed the application that the operation was complete (or failed, as the
case might be).


--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 07:25:01 up 20:55, 3 users, load average: 4.15, 4.23, 4.16

On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:57:53 +0100, Steve Townsend wrote:



> In general, well said. A brief glance at Mr Hunter's posts suggest that
> he and Chris Ahlstrom might be the same person. Clueless to the extreme
> but very fond of talking about things they have little personal interest
> in never mind any actual skills or experience.

Here's another clueless tosser that can't read headers.
Also comes over as another Windows fanboi & apologist.

--
Most people are sheep. *
Microsoft is very effective
at fleecing the flockers.

After takin' a swig o' grog, William Poaster belched out
this bit o' wisdom:

> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:57:53 +0100, Steve Townsend wrote:
>
>
>
>> In general, well said. A brief glance at Mr Hunter's posts suggest that
>> he and Chris Ahlstrom might be the same person. Clueless to the extreme
>> but very fond of talking about things they have little personal interest
>> in never mind any actual skills or experience.
>
> Here's another clueless tosser that can't read headers.
> Also comes over as another Windows fanboi & apologist.

It's Hadron II, I tell you!

--
"To YOU I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition."
-- Woody Allen

Johan Lindquist wrote:

>I find that playing a few rounds of mindless fun in whatever game is
>just as relaxing as anything else I do for leisure. It might not be as
>invigorating as walking the dog, or as physically "good for you" as
>sporting with my friends, but I definately think it has a place in my
>life among all the other things I enjoy doing in my spare time.
>
>Maybe you're just too busy doing important stuff to have any spare
>time? Me, I'd go crazy if I couldn't do something that's absolutely
>not worthwhile once in a while

It's certainly no worse than watching TV...

William Poaster writes:

> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:57:53 +0100, Steve Townsend wrote:
>
>
>
>> In general, well said. A brief glance at Mr Hunter's posts suggest that
>> he and Chris Ahlstrom might be the same person. Clueless to the extreme
>> but very fond of talking about things they have little personal interest
>> in never mind any actual skills or experience.
>
> Here's another clueless tosser that can't read headers.
> Also comes over as another Windows fanboi & apologist.

Can't read headers? You lost me. Are you referring to the email headers?
In which case surely you do not think they mean anything at all? It's
easy to fake headers or use different accounts. I guess you're another
Christopher Hunter then. Oh well. I spent too much time in this crazee
group already. The technical knowledge appears to be about zero.

Steve Townsend wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom writes:
>> Christopher Hunter belched:
>>
>>> You've seen the Windows source code, have you? I have,
>>> and can tell you that DX10 is /much/ less efficient than
>>> the X server. The "optimisations" for DX10 don't work for
>>> most hardware...
>>
>> DX10 is, in part, just another apron string tying some
>> people to Microsoft.
>
> If you were a programmer or had half a clue you would know
> that X and DirectX are two totally different things.

This is an example of an ad hominen attack.

> X is a
> far bigger thing than DirectX and DirectX excels at what it
> does as even a cursory glance at entertainment SW would show
> you. You would need Windows to see these games or possibly
> Wine so I doubt you know what you are talking about and are
> towing the company line in this newsgroup. Come and make your
> claims in a serious Linux programming group and you will be
> laughed at.
>
> Dx is proprietary as most efficient core libraries for
> graphics are. The open alternative , OpenGL was found lacking
> and programmers simply preferred DirectX. OpenGL, like most
> OSS, is always playing catch up.

Er, no. One word, marketing.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ectx,2019.html

OpenGL 3 & DirectX 11: The War Is Over : Introduction
2:40 AM - September 16, 2008 by Fedy Abi-Chahla

Given the prevalence of DirectX nowadays, we tend to forget that
10 years ago an all-out war was being waged between Microsoft and
Silicon Graphics in the field of 3D APIs. The two companies were
both trying to win over developers, with Microsoft using its
financial muscle and SGI relying on its experience and its
reputation in the field of real-time 3D. In this modern
David-versus-Goliath battle, the “little guy” won a precious ally
in one of the most famous game developers–-Mr. John Carmack. In
part due to the success of the Quake engine, solid support for
OpenGL became important enough to motivate makers of 3D cards to
provide complete drivers. In fact, it gave 3dfx one of its early
advantages and knocked ATI to the back of the pack as it
struggled with its OpenGL support.

[....]

With DirectX 9, Microsoft managed to strike a decisive victory,
imposing its API on developers. Only John Carmack and those who
insisted on portability remained faithful to OpenGL. But their
ranks dwindled. And yet a reversal of fortunes was still
possible. It had happened with Web browsers, after all. Even when
a company has maneuvered itself into a near monopoly, if it rests
on its laurels, it’s not all that rare for a competitor to rise
from his ashes. So when the Khronos group took over OpenGL two
years ago, many hopes were rekindled with all eyes on the
upcoming SIGGRAPH conference that year.

> http://videogameprogramming.blogspot...irectx-10.html

My only concern with OpenGL is the speed at which the governing
review board moves in terms of determining and approving new
features and functionality etc. I would hate to see OpenGL go
away simply because of its slower nature in adopting,
implementing, and supporting newer concepts. The world of
graphics is moving quickly, as it always has. However, I think
today things seem to move even faster. Obviously Microsoft has an
agenda of their own and wants to get Windows Vista and DirectX 10
out the door as quickly as possible.

Agenda == Monopoly

--
HPT

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/

1.4 The Charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy

The charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy is:

For discussion of the benefits of Linux compared to other
operating systems.

That single sentence is the one and only charter of the
newsgroup comp.os.linux.advocacy. The newsgroup's charter is for
the newsgroup as a place for supporters of Linux to gather to
discuss Linux, for the betterment of the Linux community and the
promotion and development of Linux. It supports this as a place
for those who would like to learn more about Linux to come to
learn from those who know Linux. It does not call for it to be a
place where the anti-Linux propagandists to gather in order to
discredit Linux.

High Plains Thumper writes:

> Steve Townsend wrote:
>> Chris Ahlstrom writes:
>>> Christopher Hunter belched:
>>>
>>>> You've seen the Windows source code, have you? I have,
>>>> and can tell you that DX10 is /much/ less efficient than
>>>> the X server. The "optimisations" for DX10 don't work for
>>>> most hardware...
>>>
>>> DX10 is, in part, just another apron string tying some
>>> people to Microsoft.
>>
>> If you were a programmer or had half a clue you would know
>> that X and DirectX are two totally different things.
>
> This is an example of an ad hominen attack.

How is it an ad hominem attack. It#s a statement based on the
thread. Nothing "ad hominem" about it. And its not an attack. It's an
education. Is this some kind of loony bin here or something?

>
>> X is a
>> far bigger thing than DirectX and DirectX excels at what it
>> does as even a cursory glance at entertainment SW would show
>> you. You would need Windows to see these games or possibly
>> Wine so I doubt you know what you are talking about and are
>> towing the company line in this newsgroup. Come and make your claims
>> in a serious Linux programming group and you will be
>> laughed at.
>>
>> Dx is proprietary as most efficient core libraries for
>> graphics are. The open alternative , OpenGL was found lacking
>> and programmers simply preferred DirectX. OpenGL, like most
>> OSS, is always playing catch up.
>
> Er, no. One word, marketing.

Err no. You need to look up how DirectX developed in parallel with new
hardware.

>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ectx,2019.html
>
> OpenGL 3 & DirectX 11: The War Is Over : Introduction
> 2:40 AM - September 16, 2008 by Fedy Abi-Chahla
>
>

> Given the prevalence of DirectX nowadays, we tend to forget that 10
> years ago an all-out war was being waged between Microsoft and Silicon
> Graphics in the field of 3D APIs. The two companies were both trying
> to win over developers, with Microsoft using its financial muscle and
> SGI relying on its experience and its reputation in the field of
> real-time 3D. In this modern David-versus-Goliath battle, the “little
> guy� won a precious ally in one of the most famous game
> developers–-Mr. John Carmack. In part due to the success of the Quake
> engine, solid support for OpenGL became important enough to motivate
> makers of 3D cards to provide complete drivers. In fact, it gave 3dfx
> one of its early advantages and knocked ATI to the back of the pack as
> it struggled with its OpenGL support.
>
> [....]
>
> With DirectX 9, Microsoft managed to strike a decisive victory,
> imposing its API on developers. Only John Carmack and those who
> insisted on portability remained faithful to OpenGL. But their ranks
> dwindled. And yet a reversal of fortunes was still possible. It had
> happened with Web browsers, after all. Even when a company has
> maneuvered itself into a near monopoly, if it rests on its laurels,
> it’s not all that rare for a competitor to rise from his ashes. So
> when the Khronos group took over OpenGL two years ago, many hopes were
> rekindled with all eyes on the upcoming SIGGRAPH conference that year.
>

>
>> http://videogameprogramming.blogspot...irectx-10.html
>
>

> My only concern with OpenGL is the speed at which the governing review
> board moves in terms of determining and approving new features and
> functionality etc. I would hate to see OpenGL go away simply because
> of its slower nature in adopting, implementing, and supporting newer
> concepts. The world of graphics is moving quickly, as it always
> has. However, I think today things seem to move even faster. Obviously
> Microsoft has an agenda of their own and wants to get Windows Vista
> and DirectX 10 out the door as quickly as possible.
>

>
> Agenda == Monopoly

What are you pasting that for? Did you read it?

OpenGL is there and useable. Most people dont want to.

Terry Porter wrote:

> Let's take FwBuilder as just one example,(and only one example is
> needed to prove your statement is not accurate) it's a very cool GUI
> FLOSS OOP iptables ruleset creator.
>
> www.fwbuilder.org
>
> Available for Linux: YES
> Available for Windows: NO

Better check that link again, sport.

Steve Townsend wrote:

> OpenGL is there and useable. Most people dont want to.

Here's what OpenGL developers think about the 3.0 spec: 38
pages of complaints.

http://www.opengl.org/discussion_boa...gonew=1#UNREAD

================================================== =============
"OpenGL is dead. Khronos killed it."

"DX10 is much more innovative, better designed, supported and manageable
than OGL... just see the # of the commercial engines for PC-Windows games
using OGL and the # of the DX ones... clearly OGL is loosing the battle...
each day that pass a bit more."

"Does the ARB know that with the garbage they pulled will literally kill the
OpenGL community? Like seriously, every forum, I've been to that does
graphics, like GameDev, Here, and others. Alot of people have started
learning direct3d now. It sucks that the ARB doesn't give the community what
they asked for and wanted. Can't compete with Direct3D anymore, no nothing.
They basically just shot off any chance of rivaling Direct3D to bare
nothing.

Even if they release the stuff, how many more years are we going to be stuck
with stupid 1.x/2.x crap?"


"[I] am severely disappointed, if not angry or even infuriated.... Truly, a
disappointment."

"And so OpenGL dies a slow death afterall."

"DX10/11 are looking mighty attractive right about now.."

"What I'm annoyed about is the way the ARB haven't told us ANYTHING for a
year and then don't deliver the stuff they did tell us about"

"Two years have just been wasted, OpenGL is even more ancient now, Direct3D
is looking like a pretty attractive, modern API."

"...now the entire API is ancient and stuck in a phase where it can't move
forward."

"...catching up with Direct3D at this point would be near impossible."

"GL is more and more becoming a dead standard, a bloated mass of spec with
no particular sence. It still includes EVIL features like selection mode
despite driver vendors having stopped to care about it long time ago..."

================================================== =============
All paid plants by Microsoft DirectX shills of course.

"DFS" writes:

> Steve Townsend wrote:
>
>> OpenGL is there and useable. Most people dont want to.
>
> Here's what OpenGL developers think about the 3.0 spec: 38
> pages of complaints.

I know. I spent a few years designing engine cores and low level video
APIs. Dealing with the OGL guys was like dealing with obstructive civil
servants. DirectX support was MUCH better. I didnt want Dx at first, but
it soon won me over. That Chris Armstrong guy seemed to think DirectX
was the equivalent of X Windows. Some crazy nutter he is. Is he always
so clueless?

Terry Porter writes:

> On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:26:32 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Jim Moss wrote:
>>> On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 16:59:21 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
>>>> news:8SiPk.56808$bx1.52267@bignews1.bellsouth.net. ..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, but why bother running OSS on Windows?
>>>> Why not?
>>>> There is a lot of OSS out there and most of it runs fine on vista.
>>>
>>> So do viruses, trojans, DRM, WGA, and probably more than a few
>>> Microsoft and US government back doors.
>>>
>> The truth is that Linux is a great server, but struggles as a dektop due
>> to lack of apps.
>
> That's ***NOT*** my truth in anyway, shape or form.
>
> Let's take FwBuilder as just one example,(and only one example is needed
> to prove your statement is not accurate) it's a very cool GUI FLOSS OOP
> iptables ruleset creator.
>
> www.fwbuilder.org
>
> Available for Linux: YES
> Available for Windows: NO

You are wrong.

http://www.fwbuilder.org/netcitadel/index.html

The distribute 80x more Windows copies than Linux ones too. And the
money made from that means you get your grubby hands on the linux one
for free I daresay.

Probably because Windows needs it more but you could not be more wrong.

I like this group. I do not think that between you, Chris Armstrong and
Christopher Hunter I ever saw such a bunch of liars and clueless idiots.

Steve Townsend wrote:
> High Plains Thumper writes:
>> Steve Townsend wrote:
>>> Chris Ahlstrom writes:
>>>> Christopher Hunter belched:
>>>>
>>>>> You've seen the Windows source code, have you? I
>>>>> have, and can tell you that DX10 is /much/ less
>>>>> efficient than the X server. The "optimisations" for
>>>>> DX10 don't work for most hardware...
>>>>
>>>> DX10 is, in part, just another apron string tying some
>>>> people to Microsoft.
>>>
>>> If you were a programmer or had half a clue you would know
>>> that X and DirectX are two totally different things.
>> This is an example of an ad hominen attack.
>
> How is it an ad hominem attack. It#s a statement based on the
> thread. Nothing "ad hominem" about it. And its not an attack.
> It's an education. Is this some kind of loony bin here or
> something?

Interesting, insinuations of COLA as a "loony bin", calling ad
hominem rants an "education".

Yes it is:

http://tantek.pbwiki.com/TrollTaxonomy

Ad hominem troll

Ad hominem troll at its simplest, will attack people personally,
rather than the merits of their statements or methodologies.

The ad hominem troll often has already lost a rational argument
about a topic, and thus its goal is to change the argument from
being about a topic, to being about the people opposed to the
troll (which could mean any/all rational person(s) in the
discussion), in the hopes of both discrediting people's ideas
indirectly by discrediting the people, and engendering an
emotional reaction from the people by attacking their egos /
self-image. The "getting a reaction out of" goal is common to
most troll types.

The simple ad hominem troll is easily detected and dealt with by
calling them on their ad hominem attacks.

However, often ad hominem troll will start its discourse with
seemingly reasonable commentary, perhaps an analogy etc. Using
rational tone, they may lull you into thinking that they are
rational in general and thus their entire message should be
considered rational. Once they have established such an
impression, then they will then descend into personal attacks
which may even sound reasonably worded, until you recognize them
for what they are, nothing more than personal attacks.

Example: thacker. thacker starts by ignoring the previous comment
(which itself was a rational challenge to thacker's earlier
statements), repeating himself (see the section below on
Repeating themselves), then moves onto an analogy. Afterwards he
continues with personal attacks, starting subtly worded, then
increasingly harsh:

* "some here, yourself included, will not see nor understand
the parallels"
* "Your noses are simply buried too deeply into the
proverbial bark."
* "Or you lack the courage, will, ability to step away and
ask the truly difficult questions. That is a shame."

>>> X is a far bigger thing than DirectX and DirectX excels at
>>> what it does as even a cursory glance at entertainment SW
>>> would show you. You would need Windows to see these games
>>> or possibly Wine so I doubt you know what you are talking
>>> about and are towing the company line in this newsgroup.
>>> Come and make your claims in a serious Linux programming
>>> group and you will be laughed at.
>>>
>>> Dx is proprietary as most efficient core libraries for
>>> graphics are. The open alternative , OpenGL was found
>>> lacking and programmers simply preferred DirectX. OpenGL,
>>> like most OSS, is always playing catch up.
>>
>> Er, no. One word, marketing.
>
> Err no. You need to look up how DirectX developed in parallel
> with new hardware.

Er, no. You need to read:

>> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ectx,2019.html
>>
>> OpenGL 3 & DirectX 11: The War Is Over : Introduction 2:40
>> AM - September 16, 2008 by Fedy Abi-Chahla
>>
>>

Given the prevalence of DirectX nowadays, we tend to
>> forget that 10 years ago an all-out war was being waged
>> between Microsoft and Silicon Graphics in the field of 3D
>> APIs. The two companies were both trying to win over
>> developers, with Microsoft using its financial muscle and
>> SGI relying on its experience and its reputation in the
>> field of real-time 3D. In this modern David-versus-Goliath
>> battle, the “little guy” won a precious ally in one of the
>> most famous game developers–-Mr. John Carmack. In part due
>> to the success of the Quake engine, solid support for OpenGL
>> became important enough to motivate makers of 3D cards to
>> provide complete drivers. In fact, it gave 3dfx one of its
>> early advantages and knocked ATI to the back of the pack as
>> it struggled with its OpenGL support.
>>
>> [....]
>>
>> With DirectX 9, Microsoft managed to strike a decisive
>> victory, imposing its API on developers. Only John Carmack
>> and those who insisted on portability remained faithful to
>> OpenGL. But their ranks dwindled. And yet a reversal of
>> fortunes was still possible. It had happened with Web
>> browsers, after all. Even when a company has maneuvered
>> itself into a near monopoly, if it rests on its laurels,
>> it’s not all that rare for a competitor to rise from his
>> ashes. So when the Khronos group took over OpenGL two years
>> ago, many hopes were rekindled with all eyes on the upcoming
>> SIGGRAPH conference that year.

>>
>>> http://videogameprogramming.blogspot...irectx-10.html
>>>
>>

My only concern with OpenGL is the speed at which
>> the governing review board moves in terms of determining and
>> approving new features and functionality etc. I would hate
>> to see OpenGL go away simply because of its slower nature in
>> adopting, implementing, and supporting newer concepts. The
>> world of graphics is moving quickly, as it always has.
>> However, I think today things seem to move even faster.
>> Obviously Microsoft has an agenda of their own and wants to
>> get Windows Vista and DirectX 10 out the door as quickly as
>> possible.

>>
>> Agenda == Monopoly
>
> What are you pasting that for? Did you read it?

See comment above.

> OpenGL is there and useable. Most people dont want to.

Not true, most people are users and do not care what is under the
bonnet, per say. It is a software issue, continuing the Windows
gaming monopoly and preventing any other OS players to enter in.

It is simply maintaining another barrier to entry.

--
HPT

High Plains Thumper writes:

> Steve Townsend wrote:
>> High Plains Thumper writes:
>>> Steve Townsend wrote:
>>>> Chris Ahlstrom writes:
>>>>> Christopher Hunter belched:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You've seen the Windows source code, have you? I
>>>>>> have, and can tell you that DX10 is /much/ less
>>>>>> efficient than the X server. The "optimisations" for
>>>>>> DX10 don't work for most hardware...
>>>>>
>>>>> DX10 is, in part, just another apron string tying some people to
>>>>> Microsoft.
>>>>
>>>> If you were a programmer or had half a clue you would know
>>>> that X and DirectX are two totally different things.
>>> This is an example of an ad hominen attack.
>>
>> How is it an ad hominem attack. It#s a statement based on the
>> thread. Nothing "ad hominem" about it. And its not an attack.
>> It's an education. Is this some kind of loony bin here or
>> something?
>
> Interesting, insinuations of COLA as a "loony bin", calling ad hominem
> rants an "education".

You do not think correcting someone as clueless as Mr Armstrong is
education? Or do you think X Windows and DirectX are the same thing?

>
> Yes it is:
>
> http://tantek.pbwiki.com/TrollTaxonomy
>
>

> Ad hominem troll
>
> Ad hominem troll at its simplest, will attack people personally,
> rather than the merits of their statements or methodologies.
>
> The ad hominem troll often has already lost a rational argument
> about a topic, and thus its goal is to change the argument from
> being about a topic, to being about the people opposed to the
> troll (which could mean any/all rational person(s) in the
> discussion), in the hopes of both discrediting people's ideas
> indirectly by discrediting the people, and engendering an
> emotional reaction from the people by attacking their egos /
> self-image. The "getting a reaction out of" goal is common to
> most troll types.
>
> The simple ad hominem troll is easily detected and dealt with by
> calling them on their ad hominem attacks.
>
> However, often ad hominem troll will start its discourse with
> seemingly reasonable commentary, perhaps an analogy etc. Using
> rational tone, they may lull you into thinking that they are
> rational in general and thus their entire message should be
> considered rational. Once they have established such an
> impression, then they will then descend into personal attacks
> which may even sound reasonably worded, until you recognize them
> for what they are, nothing more than personal attacks.
>
> Example: thacker. thacker starts by ignoring the previous comment
> (which itself was a rational challenge to thacker's earlier
> statements), repeating himself (see the section below on
> Repeating themselves), then moves onto an analogy. Afterwards he
> continues with personal attacks, starting subtly worded, then
> increasingly harsh:
>
> * "some here, yourself included, will not see nor understand
> the parallels"
> * "Your noses are simply buried too deeply into the
> proverbial bark."
> * "Or you lack the courage, will, ability to step away and
> ask the truly difficult questions. That is a shame."
>

>
>>>> X is a far bigger thing than DirectX and DirectX excels at
>>>> what it does as even a cursory glance at entertainment SW
>>>> would show you. You would need Windows to see these games
>>>> or possibly Wine so I doubt you know what you are talking
>>>> about and are towing the company line in this newsgroup.
>>>> Come and make your claims in a serious Linux programming
>>>> group and you will be laughed at.
>>>>
>>>> Dx is proprietary as most efficient core libraries for graphics
>>>> are. The open alternative , OpenGL was found
>>>> lacking and programmers simply preferred DirectX. OpenGL,
>>>> like most OSS, is always playing catch up.
>>>
>>> Er, no. One word, marketing.
>>
>> Err no. You need to look up how DirectX developed in parallel
>> with new hardware.
>
> Er, no. You need to read:
>
>>> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ectx,2019.html
>>>
>>> OpenGL 3 & DirectX 11: The War Is Over : Introduction 2:40
>>> AM - September 16, 2008 by Fedy Abi-Chahla
>>>
>>>

Given the prevalence of DirectX nowadays, we tend to
>>> forget that 10 years ago an all-out war was being waged
>>> between Microsoft and Silicon Graphics in the field of 3D
>>> APIs. The two companies were both trying to win over
>>> developers, with Microsoft using its financial muscle and SGI
>>> relying on its experience and its reputation in the
>>> field of real-time 3D. In this modern David-versus-Goliath
>>> battle, the “little guy� won a precious ally in one of the
>>> most famous game developers–-Mr. John Carmack. In part due
>>> to the success of the Quake engine, solid support for OpenGL
>>> became important enough to motivate makers of 3D cards to
>>> provide complete drivers. In fact, it gave 3dfx one of its
>>> early advantages and knocked ATI to the back of the pack as it
>>> struggled with its OpenGL support.
>>>
>>> [....]
>>>
>>> With DirectX 9, Microsoft managed to strike a decisive
>>> victory, imposing its API on developers. Only John Carmack
>>> and those who insisted on portability remained faithful to
>>> OpenGL. But their ranks dwindled. And yet a reversal of
>>> fortunes was still possible. It had happened with Web
>>> browsers, after all. Even when a company has maneuvered
>>> itself into a near monopoly, if it rests on its laurels, it’s not
>>> all that rare for a competitor to rise from his
>>> ashes. So when the Khronos group took over OpenGL two years
>>> ago, many hopes were rekindled with all eyes on the upcoming
>>> SIGGRAPH conference that year.

>>>
>>>> http://videogameprogramming.blogspot...irectx-10.html
>>>>
>>>

My only concern with OpenGL is the speed at which
>>> the governing review board moves in terms of determining and
>>> approving new features and functionality etc. I would hate
>>> to see OpenGL go away simply because of its slower nature in
>>> adopting, implementing, and supporting newer concepts. The
>>> world of graphics is moving quickly, as it always has.
>>> However, I think today things seem to move even faster.
>>> Obviously Microsoft has an agenda of their own and wants to
>>> get Windows Vista and DirectX 10 out the door as quickly as
>>> possible.

>>>
>>> Agenda == Monopoly
>>
>> What are you pasting that for? Did you read it?
>
> See comment above.

Which one?

>
>> OpenGL is there and useable. Most people dont want to.
>
> Not true, most people are users and do not care what is under the
> bonnet, per say. It is a software issue, continuing the Windows
> gaming monopoly and preventing any other OS players to enter in.

Are you insane? Clearly I was referring to the SW developers who must
choose an API. That was abundantly clear from the context. Or I would
have thought it was.

>
> It is simply maintaining another barrier to entry.

Huh?

Hadron II quacked:

>> It is simply maintaining another barrier to entry.
>
>Huh?

Tough to figure-out, eh?

dennis@home wrote:
>
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
> news:RaBQk.62253$rD2.32730@bignews4.bellsouth.net. ..
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> "Ignoramus31261" wrote in message
>>>
>>>> It is also easy to implement "async I/O" with select(). Just have a
>>>> thread run select() and call those callbacks. (or many threads)
>>>
>>> As long as you don't care about the order the data is written!
>>> Are you sure you have ever programmed anything?
>>> I get the idea you are making this stuff up as you have committed
>>> several
>>> errors so far that would make most applications fail.
>>
>> Ah, a person who can debug a design and some code without ever having
>> seen
>> it!
>
> I don't need to see it.
> If it does what he states it will make the data order somewhat mixed.
> If he wants it debugged then he will have to post the code and agree the
> fees.
>
>>
>> Say! You might be /just/ the guy to explain the ins and outs of MD5
>> sums!
>
>
>
Well mind if i don't take you up on that. You are the second person who
appears to be talking out of their arses.

The asynch bit is all done in the kernel.

What is the point of having an active thread waiting for data anyway?

The whole POINT or a thread is to sit there and get put to sleep if
there is nothing for it to do. Like waiting for IO.