Linux-Advocacy Digest #790, Volume #28 Fri, 1 Sep 00 04:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Courageous)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn..... (R.E.Ballard (
Rex Ballard ))
Re: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn..... (Thomas
Corriher)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Courageous)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (Nobody)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 03:16:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Darin Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> You'll only have the money to pay the fines if it works, and
>> even *attempting* to monopolize is enough to convict you.
>
>Attempting is not illegal. In fact, just *being* a monopoly is
>perfectly legal too. It's only when you use your monopoly power to
>influence other market areas that anti-trust acts come into play.
>
>(well, that and also various unfair practices designed to maintain
>the monopoly against encroaching competitors)
Oh, Christ, don't tell me I've gotta start this whole damn thing again.
Yes, attempting to monopolize is illegal. Its in the statute:
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, [...]
shall be deemed guilty of a felony...."
>> No, its illegal as soon as you even attempt to get it:
>>
>> "the Court concludes that Microsoft maintained its monopoly power by
>> anticompetitive means and attempted to monopolize the Web browser
>> market, both in violation of § 2."
>
>Nope, this explicitly says that Microsoft already had ONE monopoly,
>and was attempting to use that in order to gain a SECOND monopoly.
Both were in violation. See that? Both?
>That's why the first legal tactic of the DOJ was to show there was an
>existing monopoly, and the first defense of Microsoft was to try and
>deny it.
That wasn't the first legal tactic; that was the first conviction. They
were convicted on three counts, and acquitted on a fourth.
>But the whole area is a complex one, and one that even lawyers and
>judges don't agree upon. Plus there are regulatory bodies,
>congressional legislation, and legal precedent, that all overlap and
>muddy the primary idea. If it was clear, easy to understand, and
>unambiguous, there wouldn't be a need for a battery of lawyers, and
>there wouldn't be two sides to this argument :-)
If you keep saying that, perhaps it will be true. There are two sides
to every argument, that doesn't prevent one of them from being correct
and the other from being mistaken. It is illegal to monopolize, and
that is defined as having monopoly power, and therefore having a
monopoly (or attempting to gain a monopoly) is illegal. If that weren't
the case, there wouldn't be any reason to argue. The primary idea is
presented again and again in every judicial decision, if you can parse
language well enough to read it correctly. It isn't as hard as you
think, and it gets easier with practice. In fact, if it weren't for the
batteries of lawyers, it would be clear and easy to understand. Popular
wisdom is leading you astray. Think harder. :-|
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 07:16:43 GMT
> (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the
> willful acquisition or maintenance of that power...")
"Willful acquisition" means "intentional acquisition". IOW,
they have to *mean* to monopolize.
> >For example, ALCOA possesses one of the only two mines on the
> >planet for a certain rare earth element. This gives them an
> >unshakeable monopoly throughout the entire western hemisphere.
>
> No, it gives them a large market share.
When your market share is the whole shebang, this is what
we common citizens call a "monopoly".
C//
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 03:19:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:14:35 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
>>So just how does that jibe with "we can't guarantee we won't sue"
>>(assuming this was an accurate quote)? I don't expect anyone would ask
>>for any such guarantee to begin with.
>
>Wrong, Max. Your house of cards is collapsing under its own weight and
>it's not the first time.
I always know when someone starts out like that, I'm going to enjoy
myself. Its a guilty pleasure, I'll admit.
>Look, at least have the decency to do some research prior to slinging
>mud around. This is not the first time you've made attacks that are founded
>on misinformation which just sort of pops in to your head.
Precisely how many references have you posted on the issue? Have you
even begun to say anything at all about the subject, or are you just
another person who doesn't like my attitude and wants to try to ridicule
me because you don't have anything useful to say?
>I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate it if some ignorant usenet clown started
>spewing defamatory rhetoric about you.
It happens all the time, Donovan. Just happened a second ago, in fact.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn.....
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 07:05:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Typical Linux...And they (the Linonuts) wonder why virtually nobody
> > who is a desktop user is migrating to Linux...
Consider also the "upgrade path" to other operating systems as well.
> > Sure, throw out your WinModem.
> And get a real modem that boosts performance by a factor of three (I have plenty
> examples on site...)
Linux does support some winmodems (search for linmodem). I know that the
Lucent chip set is supported.
But with the cost of a "real modem" ranging from $20 (ISA 56kb internal)
to $90 (external serial or USB modem), why bother sacrificing roughly 100
million instructions per second to your winmodem when you can get a real
modem, or at least one with it's own DSP and use the CPU for other things
like real-time video processing.
I have a funny feeling that even the ME machines will be dumping Winmodems.
ME touts real-time features such as video editing, streaming voice, and 10
megabit USB (Fire-Wire?). You don't want to have to spend 20 microseconds
every 2-3 milliseconds slamming bits into your d/a converter.
We're rapidly reaching the point where saving $2 on a Modem chip is no longer
a "strategic savings".
> > Throw out your Win Printer.
Why? USB still works nice. You can share "RAW" devices via SAMBA,,
and you can do transformations by using printer filters.
> And use industry standard printers without all them extra installations, dll hell
> etc.
Again, an upgrade to WinNT or Win2K reduces the benefit of winprinters.
> > Throw out your Win Scanner.
Check out the SANE (scanner access now easy) project. There are a number
of Linux compatible scanners available. Hopefully we'll be seeing "Penguins
on the labels" very soon now. HP, IBM, and UMAX all make Linux compatible
devices.
True SCSI devices tend to work better (since you can select them), than
parallel/scsi (which try to guess who's trying to talk to whom).
USB Scannerr support will probably be coming soon. The good news is
that the scanner driver can be implemented as an application.
This means that companies that don't want to give away their trade
secrets can provide their own drivers.
> Scanners in homes are just paper weights.
Still, people love to put their family album on CD-ROM or on the family
web site some folks are even creating memorial sites, complete with perpetual
funding (wiring a fund payout to an automatic payment system).
Anybody heard of an "Electronic Mosoleum"?
> Real graphic designers use high tech stuff.
> > Use half the features of your soundcard.
>
> The PC was never indented to be a hi-fi. Yet I have coupled my 16 bit sound card to
> my hi fi for the odd game. I really do not see your point here...
Still, Linux has some very nice Chrystal Ware drivers (I kept trying to run it
as a sound blaster - boy was that dumb). Lothar told me which crystal chip
driver to use, and now I have very nice, smooth sound.
Linux actually handles streaming media very well (since that was what it was
originally designed to do). Even MPEG2 video pulled through the cable-modem
or DSL plays very smoothly. You don't get that jerkiness you get with the
OTHER operating system.
> > Use half the features of your video card.
It's important to choose cards for which there are actual drivers
(as opposed to using the SVGA driver with accelerators).
Vector chips like the S3, the I128, and the Matrox cards run
very nicely under Linux, even with relatively slow CPU and
low memory (100 mhz pentium, 32 meg, and S3 works very nicely).
> Support is growing fast and soon this point will be pointless.......... lol
Every issue you raise by the way is legitimate. OEMs who provide systems
configured specifically for LINUX, and bundled with 1-3 distributions, will
do very, very, nicely.
> > Spend days configuring a firewall.
I spent 2 hours doing it the hard way. Then I realized that there was a GUI
tool that could do it for me. Finished the job in about 10 minutes.
And by the way, which version of Windows 95/98 comes with it's own
built-in IP Masquerading Fire-wall, complete with internal caching DNS,
WNS, SMB server, and Master Browser capabilities?
Some of these features are on NT Server, and even then, there is additional
software/service packs required.
And which version will run on a Pentium 200 with 32 meg?
> Less then 5 minutes actually.
That's if you know what you are doing.
> > Run a text browser.
I'm using KFM for this site, because it's faster and doesn't each as much
memory as Netscape Navigator 4.76 or Navigator 6.0. I use Navigator
when the site refuses to talk to me unless I have Javascript.
(Which means I REALLY need to see that site badly)..
> Or choose between all the others available.
Maximum Linux did a review of 15 different browsers. Since that review,
nearly all of them have been updated to handle some of the issues raised.
> > TTF and anti-aliased fonts? What are they? Ruin your eyes.
it's called deuglification. You take the 75 dpi fonts (which were designed
for 14 inch monitors) out of the search path, add the speedo fonts (scalable),
and read the "deuglification" Howto.
Linux always gives you the choice of Quick and Ugly for cheaper hardware,
and Pretty Eye Candy for machines with extra horsepower.
> Mine seem perfect - what is you case here?
He's probably trying to view 75 DPI fonts in 14 point fonts, using scaling.
For a while, people were going nuts with fonts, and there were over
100 megabytes of fonts. Many enterprises use font-servers to reduce
the storage requirements. Most applications and window managers will
tune the font to the environment if you aren't too fussy.
> > Run 5 different programs to read mail/news offline.
And each program comes in 3 competitive flavors depending on the
particular needs of the user. If you're trying to handle 200-300 mailing
items/day and 3-5 newsgroups that generate 300 postings a day, you might
want to use things like an MH based mail reader (which puts each mail item
in it's own searchable file) and a thread based news reader such as TRN.
If you aren't trying to manage correspondence from 5 mailing lists 2 news
groups, and 200 spammers, then you can stick with Communicator, or you can
try kmail and knews.
Remember, the swiss-army-knife applications you ran on Windows were designed
to make up for deficiencies in Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11, Windows NT 3.51,
Windows 95, Windows NT 4.0, and Windows 98. You didn't have the ability
to read BOTH NTFS and FAT32 on the same machine until Win2K. Until
this was available, you often had to share FAT filesystems which allocated
storage in 32k clusters (for large partitions).
You ran threads to improve performance, which means that the application
DLLs had to be linked together using a compiler such as VB or VC++. Even
J++ required compiled ActiveX controls.
> Huh? What about Pine or Netscape?
or mh, or xmh, or kmail, or knews or gmail or gnews or Xemacs, or
...
With Windows I get my choice of 3 text editors (edit under dos, notepad,
or wordpad/word with save-as text option).
> > Spend days setting up an internet connection sharing system.
>
> Again, less then 5 minutes - actually did it in less then 4 minutes the other night
> in RH6.2 (2 PC's). I get a kick out of it these days to see how fast I can do
> things.
>
> >
> > Get your ISP pissed at you when you mention Linux.
My ISP did request that I have a machine running Windows. When I was having
trouble getting NT to renew the DHCP configuration, the tech brought in his
own laptop. Once we confirmed that DHCP was working, I plugged the ethernet
cable into the second ethernet card, let linuxconfig initialize the card
(changed a parameter, saveed, and let it do it's thing.
I didn't even have to reboot the box. The tech watched and waited to make
sure that everything was working under Linux.
Linuxconfig and control-panel both call netconfig, which is the gui for
setting up the LAN cards, DNS, routing, and firewalling.
You have to have an ipchains.conf file to be able to configure it via the GUI.
> No need - the only time surf is down is when ISP has a problem on their side. Then
> again - plenty of ISP's use Linux anyway, so I don't really see your point here -
> AGAIN.
Yup. Now that I have the right-of-way established, I can have my choice of
ISP support. I still travel quite a bit, so I'll keep my dial-up provider as
well. (And they do use Linux).
> > Right..............
> >
> > No wonder Linux has been a dismal failure in it's lame attempt to
> > challenge Windows or Mac for the desktop market.
I'm amused by the number of peoople who consider 200%/year revenue
growth for nearly 5 years a failure. They consider 240%/year server
shipment growth a failure. Thay see an increase in market share by
1% per month in an established market of 600 million users to be a failure.
Sure, Linux only has about 5% of the current market. Which is remarkable
since it' has only been recognised as a workstation and laptop platform fol
about 6 months.
Linux distributors shipped 4 million "official" licenses in the year ending
March 1999 (IDC), estimates are that they will be shipping about 4 million
Linux machines between now and the end of the year. That number
could quickly and easily jump to 2 million machines per month in very
short order.
IBM, Compaq, Dell, HP, Gateway, and several others have concluded
contracts with Microsoft that will open their ability to market Linux machines
(and possibly dual-boot machines) as early as september 1st.
With partts shortages in the high end, and only 98 and Linux to offer
in the Sweet spot, Linux becomes a nice way to market low-cost
machines at higher margins.
IBM's A20, T20, and X20 are all certified to run Linux (including modem,
sound card, and USB). Dell's lattitude notebooks are also certified. And
Compaq is also offering certified machines.
> > Linux isn't even a HAS been, because it HAS been nowhere and that is
> > where it will stay...
Actually, it has taken Linux 5 years of exponential growth to reach the point
where 5% of all COE "official" licences shipped are Linux licenses. In the
absence of any further court intervention that number is only likely to
increase to 10% within the next two quarters (typically the peak season for
computers).
There are two key events that could trigger a jump to between 20% and 30%
within a very short period of time. First, the federal court could lift the
stay on the behavoiral remedies and effectively put Microsoft on "Probation"
(meaning that if Microsoft can behave and obey the spirit and intent of the
agreement, it wouldn't have to be broken up). This would break the monopoly,
but wouldn't go into effect until next August/September. It's quite likely
that Microsoft's current contracts will be reviewed and possibly be weakened
and some anticompetitive clauses nullified if it appears that Microsoft has
completely ignored the judgement and the ruling.
Second, Microsoft will give the OEMs more liberal terms that promote the
deployment of dual-boot , and provide maximum discount on less than 100%
(like 80% - with the option to buy more at the lowest discount if needed).
That means that OEMs could sell 20% of their machines without having to pay
Microsoft royalties on Linux-only machines, and would be able to charge a
higher price for dual-boot Linux/Windows machines.
> > A wet dream in the minds of the geeks...
True. The OEMS have long dreamed of the day when they didn't have to
pay more in tribute to Microsoft than they paid to their own investors
(or in retained earnings). CTOs and CIOs have long dreamed of the
day when they wouldn't have to have that "charming" meeting with
the CEO explaining why they had to pay an amount that was equal
nearly 1/5 of the entire payroll, to have the latest "Must Have" upgrade.
And CEOs have also become geeks. More and more, the CEO and
even the CFO realize that money spent on IT gives very low ROI
when invested in Windows, and very high ROI when invested in
UNIX and Linux.
The ISVs have dreamed of the day when they could market their products
to a market that wasn't locked up by Microsoft bundleware. Even if this
means they have to compete against Linux bundleware, at least they have
access to the marketplace again. About the only market Microsoft hasn't
Locked out, is the video-game market - but then there is the X-Box.
> > Hopefully you didn't waste half a day trying to install that video
> > card?
Again, my laptop was known to install correctly. My desktop was built
with exclusively Linux-compatible components. It took me about 2 seconds
to confirm that the card Mandrake said I had was the card I had.
> > Claire
> Get your facts straight, please.
>
> Nico
>
> --
> --------------
> The following signature was created automatically under Linux:
> .
> YOW!! What should the entire human race DO?? Consume a fifth of
> CHIVAS REGAL, ski NUDE down MT. EVEREST, and have a wild SEX WEEKEND!
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Corriher)
Subject: Re: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn.....
Date: 1 Sep 2000 07:15:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], abuse@[127.0.0.1], support@[127.0.0.1]
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 16:20:32 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Modem speeds above 9600 baud are not measured in baud. These
>> speeds are measured in bits per second (BPS). A 14.4 modem is
>> not 14400 baud. It is a 14400 (or 14.4k) bits per second
>> equivalent modem...
>Yes, quite so. What can I say? Those of us who have experience
>that well predates the the greater than 9600 baud modems have a
>tendancy to fall back to those days in our terminology. I still
>sometimes still refer to computer memory as core as well.
Don't sweat it, or feel embarrassed either. I think everyone
makes that mistake. Athough, some of us are too young to
remember core memory.
Didn't Abraham Lincoln's computer use core memory? I think
I remember that from history class.
--
From the desk of Thomas Corriher
The real email address is:
corriher at surfree.
com
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 07:24:37 GMT
> Monopolization is illegal. Monopolization is defined as a company
> acquiring or maintaining monopoly power.
Hrm. You just went to some length in another post in the thread
to point out that it is *willful* acquisition and maintenance
of monopoly power. Unless you are arguing that the use of the
word "willful" in the case histories is specious?
> An honest business has little need to pay
> attention to market share, ...
This isn't always true. For example, the AMD has commented, and
rightly, that the very fact that they have such a small market
share in the microprocessor market has been a barrier to entry
for them. Other companies have used (in the past, but even to
some extent now) AMD's small marketshare as a per-se justification
for not buying their products.
> The only solution is to teach people, all people, that market share
> cannot be used to justify *any* action by a vendor, and even the *hint*
> of concern for market *share* over profit is sufficient grounds to
> *suspect* an attempt to monopolize. And attempts to monopolize are a
> felony, not "business as usual".
I'm not sure that I buy that. Consumers *themselves* find themselves
subconciously justifying buying decisions based on the market
share of the product offerors. I believe that one of the reasons
Windows sells so much is because it sells so much, if you follow
me...
C//
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 03:32:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >
>> >> I attempted to elicit information, you were reticent. Your problem, not
>> >> mine.
>> >
>> >Nope. Roberto answered your questions. But they weren't the answers you
>> >wanted to hear, so you chose to ignore them.
>>
>> I didn't like them, because there wasn't enough to them to tell if they
>> were or were not what I might have wanted to hear, once I figured out
>> what it was.
>
>So, you just can't read English then, is that it?
No, I'm afraid I'm forced to interpret it, as well.
>Roberto was quite clear.
Thanks for your opinion.
>Ok, Max, why don't you just be honest for once. You have used the same
>stupid tactics over and over in this ng:
>
> Step 1. Make totally false and outrageous claims about something your know
>nothing about.
> Step 2. When someone calls you on it, you get angry and demand that they be
>more clear.
> Step 3. Insist that you don't have time to look up the truth yourself. It
>is now everyone else's responsibility to refute your claims
>
>There is a name for people like you, Max.
Yea, ain't that ironic? I am the ultimate troll, in a way, aren't I?
Here's my take:
Step 1. I say something that someone disagrees with, most probably
because they didn't understand it.
Step 2. They say "Wrong" and then force me to try to wring some
semblance of an argument out of them because they're entirely incapable
of presenting one themselves, so scared are they at the challenge of
intellectual debate, and so cowed are they by the constant and incessant
ankle-biting which occurs on Usenet.
Step 3. I try to response, providing further reasoning for my position
and some possible clues as to what troublesome spots might bear further
examination, were anyone interested in engaging in a productive
conversation on the subject.
Step 4. They try to ridicule me outrageously, providing some pretense of
clarity.
Step 5. I try to explain the reasoning behind my reasoning, and
illustrate why I think they are having difficulty comprehending my
statements, which are never really revolutionary, but are occasionally
insightful and from a somewhat unique perspective, and while presented
in a possibly naive and certainly unorthodox manner, they are based on
sound logic, if not every (unknown) relevant facts.
Step 6. The trolls descend. One pulls an almost trivial random
quotation from and earlier post, and starts trying to brow-beat me with
its putative factual inaccuracy.
Step 7. I point out there intellectual dishonesty, explaining patiently
and repeatedly the context in which it was said, and why it is trivial,
and generally why I refuse to be brow-beaten by either their
out-of-context quote or their misrepresentation of either my arguments
or my position.
Step 8. We proceed with the un-ending cycle of meta-posts, as countless
trolls try to convince me I'm clueless and delusional, and I come off
sounding like an arrogant twit.
>> Why don't you stop whining. If you've got more brilliant ideas than I
>> do, how come I'm not reading them, but just more whining?
>
>You are the one whining, Max. I'm just have a grand old time laughing at you.
No, I am the one trying to explain my words; you are the one trying
(unsuccessfully, IMHO) to ridicule me with yours.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Nobody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 00:42:23 -0700
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:43:06 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> : Yes. And? Does it define a games programming interface? No. OpenGL is
>> : supported on Win9x and NT/2000. So program for that and not DirectX -
>> : problem solved.
>>
>> Note this is despite extreme lobbying on the part of MS to game
>> developers and hardware makers to use Direct3D and not OpenGL,
>> despite OpenGL having many major advantages over Direct3D and
>> Direct3D having no technical advantage over OpenGL.
>
>Actually, this is no longer the case. Direct3D now surpasses OpenGL in most
>of the recent advances in 3D technology. The problem is that OpenGL is
>controlled by comittee and takes years to change the standard. They have an
>extension mechansim, but every vendor implements these extensions
>differently, forcing a developer that wants to use the new features into
>supporting each vendors version of those features.
No, Direct3D in DirectX 8 will finally be the equal of OpenGL in many
ways.
>For instance, Direct3D 8 will include volumetric textures, multisample
>rendering (including T-Buffer support) and several others.
>
eh? It's been possible to do volumetric textures and multisample
rendering with OpenGL for years and years.
>On top of this, DirectX 8 actually greatly simplifies Direct3D (It's
>complexity was one of the biggest complaints by people like John Carmack).
Carmack's core complaint was the structure of the then Direct3D IM.
>
>Fact is, MS is pandering to the game developers and doing what they want.
>OpenGL is dragging it's feet, without implementing things even Direct3D 5
>was doing.
Such as?
----
Glenn Davies
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
