3D Labs open sources OpenGL HLSL compiler

General discussion about the development of the open source Blender

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

sscherer
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:02 pm

Post by sscherer »

ton wrote:- there's this 'sword of Damocles' still hanging, with Microsoft potentially charging a patent claim against the vertex shading in OpenGL. It's still "being investigated by MS lawyers"...
Ton, do you have any more information on this? I read a while back on The Register that MS bought a number of important OpenGL patents from SGI.

sscherer
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:02 pm

Post by sscherer »


thorax
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 6:45 am
Contact:

Post by thorax »

sscherer wrote:Here's the article, FYI

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26125.html
Microsoft was the same people who funded a campaign to stop pirating of Windows in Europe and covered it up with a anti-pirating campaign to say essentially "it doesn't pay to pirate". Actually it pays federal officers and european officials to pirate.. Because it was a civil problem, not a federal problem..

Microsoft's main weapon is hysteria and rumors, otherwise known as
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt Campaigns (Otherwise known as FUD). Their
secondary weapon is lawyers on leashes.. This is how a organization with
no means of direct control express their fear. Its purely good stuff..
If you consider Bill's religion is based on Ayn Rand's teachings, basically
we should be fighting him and his company at all costs to stick up for what everyone should have freely available, its the loophole in Ayn Rand's anti-communistic rhetoric.. She basically was anti-communist but also didn't believe in dictatorships.. Microsoft can't control the world, but they will try..

(to understand Bill, one must understand Ayn Rand.. I got a little link,
that might be fun to visit:
http://www.hypermall.com/cgi-bin/rand-quotes.pl ).. Another nice exercise is to comapre Rand's sayings with the logic in the bible (just as a logic exercise).. Really easy to find out Rand has her own flaws, Bills character flaws are even more aparent, and predictable.. Microsoft is structured on this sand..


Anyhow, as for the OpenGL, I recall when this happened.. A friend of mine, who owned a O2 and Alias, said SGI was prostituting themselves to Microsoft, at the time.. Anyhow, ideas used in OpenGL 2.0 could trace its roots back to Pixar's renderman also back to SGI a company that was formed by the destruction of the "Cray-Clubs" in hollywood that helped to produce movies like Tron, it was a the Xerox-PARC of the 3D graphics industry, all the ideas about computer graphics came out of the intent to produce animations in hollywood, it never flew, and it disbanded, the crays cost too much to use, some of the companies that results were ones like Klieser-Walczak, SGI, etc.. 3D graphics goes back even further, to evans & sutherland, papaers released at SIGGRAPH.. Microsoft as well could most likely be challenged by the graphics community for stealing their ideas.. Microsoft is like the grasshoppers in Bug's life, they put fear into everyone but together we are stronger than they are, they know this..

Anyhow, Pixar is owned by Steve Jobs, not Microsoft.. However Alvy Ray Smith works for Microsoft, he desigend Renderman. So there is things Microsoft could leverage all over the place.. But the concept of a shader language could be re-oriented in ways that are not patentable nor easy to litigate, just by turning it into something else like a object oriented language which Renderman nor OpenGL2.0 is.. Object hiearchies can be made to behave like languages. Its quite possible..

Changing the shape of the shader language would be an extreme approach, but its cheaper to just point out the claims Microsoft has against OpenGL are unenforceable, and there is always things that the industry could cliam against Microsoft.. This is too extreme.. I mean, even Pixar could also do what Microsoft is doing now, but OpenGL2.0 benefits them more than DirectX. Its possible the government could step in and slap Microsoft on the wrist too (" no monopolies, shader languages are relatively openly understood.") .. Microsoft is just trying to keep their investors happy, keep up moral, etc..

I admit I don't know the key points being discussed in what Microsoft thinks they have against OpenGL, but we all know how they work, if they object to anything its usually very benign. But there is
always a way out of a legal battle with open standards/source.
Open source is free speech.. And free speech is patentable?
That would be scary..

The discussion among programmers that is problemsome is whether source code is patentable. But the nature of
patents, the patent must have some physical relationship with machinery,
you can't patent a math formula.. So software patents have to be justified as being connected or dependent or depended upon by some specific hardware design.. This may not be the case anymore, but you can see where this would lead, patenting of information.. Like the attempt to patent DNA, considering the database of DNA information. Its possible the satabase is patentable, but only if hardware is dependent on it. Patenting of brush strokes, patenting of communication.. All this is a problem the US government and the competence of the patent office workers/atorneys to reason what is a math formula and what is a part of a mechanical design/process..

I've got a friend in New York who I used to hand my NDAs and Contracts, he could take one glance at the wording and circle the stuff that was unenforceable.. What Microsoft is doing is most certainly unenforceable, its just costly to hire lawyers to weed out the crap and expose the solid points, which are probably mostly BS.. But it costs money.. You can about bet they are just trying to slow down the OpenGL 2.0 standards process.. Its like calling the cops on the competition, knowing it will cost them and slow them down, so you can speed ahead.. Also it challenges the businesses to drop the standard because it will cost them if they adopt it, but I'm sure this is just driving everyone forward.. Microsoft expresses fear with lawyers, and their fear is open standards, they fear competition.. They fear that their users will begin to realize that they don't create technology, they steal it from grad students and their competitors. Its alll they have ever done..

thorax
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 6:45 am
Contact:

Post by thorax »

sscherer wrote:Here's the article, FYI

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26125.html
Microsoft was the same people who funded a campaign to stop pirating of Windows in Europe and covered it up with a anti-pirating campaign to say essentially "it doesn't pay to pirate". Actually it pays federal officers and european officials to pirate.. Because it was a civil problem, not a federal problem..

Microsoft's main weapon is hysteria and rumors, otherwise known as
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt Campaigns (Otherwise known as FUD). Their
secondary weapon is lawyers on leashes.. This is how a organization with
no means of direct control express their fear. Its all good, don't worry..

Anyhow, as for the OpenGL, I recall when this happened.. A friend of mine, who owned a O2 and Alias, said SGI was prostituting themselves to Microsoft, at the time.. Anyhow, OpenGL 2.0 traces its roots back to Pixar, and Pixar is owned by Steve Jobs, not Microsoft.. However Alvy Ray Smith works for Microsoft, he desigend Renderman. So there is things Microsoft could leverage all over the place.. But the concept of a shader language could be re-oriented in ways that are not patentable nor easy to litigate, just by turning it into something else like a object oriented language, which neither Renderman nor OpenGL2.0's shader languages
are.. Its possible the government could step in and slap Microsoft on the wrist too (" no monopolies, shader languages are relatively openly
understood.") ..

I admit I don't know the key points being discussed, but there is
always a way out of a legal battle with open standards/source.
Open source is free speech.. And free speech is patentable?
That would be scary.. The discussion among programmers that is problemsome is whether source code is patentable. But the nature of
patents, the patent must have some physical relationship with machinery,
you can't patent a math formula.. So software patents have to be justified as being connected or dependent or depended upon by some specific hardware design.. This may not be the case anymore, but you can see where this would lead, patenting of information.. Like the attempt to patent DNA, considering the database of DNA information. Its possible the satabase is patentable, but only if hardware is dependent on it. Patenting of brush strokes, patenting of communication.. All this is a problem the US government and the competence of the patent office workers/atorneys to reason what is a math formula and what is a part of a mechanical design/process..

I've got a friend in New York who I used to hand my NDAs and Contracts, he could take one glance and the wording and circle the stuff that was unenforceable.. What Microsoft is doing is probably unenforceable, its just costly to hire lawyers to weed out the crap and expose the real points, which are probably mostly BS.. But it costs money.. You can about bet they are just trying to slow down the OpenGL 2.0 standards process.. Its like calling the cops on the competition so you can speed ahead.. Also it challenges the businesses to drop the standard because it will cost them if they adopt it, but I'm sure this is just driving everyone forward.. Microsoft expresses fear with lawyers, and their fear is open standards, they fear competition.. They fear that their users will begin to realize that they don't create technology, they steal it from grad students and their competitors. Its alll they have ever done..


PS- (warning prohetic so-called-rant ahead..)
On a side issue, you might want to look at
Ayn Rand's Philosophies, its beend said Bill and other businessmen adopt from these to form their own beliefs, you can see the loopholes in this philosophy, especially if you understand what drove her (Ayn Rand).
http://www.hypermall.com/cgi-bin/rand-quotes.pl . Her parents fled russia with her, and her dad was an anti-communist, but also anti-dictatorship.. Its a kind of ying-yang philosophy that forces are always in tension to keep some natural harmony.. But nothing can account for the human heart and its inconsistencies with longterm beliefs. Basically its somewhat of a naturalistic belief system.. That systems are determined to be what they are, and there will always be forces of business and communistic nature working against each other. But its really that open source is common sense and commercial software is proprietary knowledge, and there is this fuzzy space between.. Microsoft is acting as the extreme capitalistic entity and GNU the extreme communistic entity.
And you can't have one without the other, so Bill Gates will not neglect the existence of GNU or Open Standards seek for their end, he is just trying to prevent them from going to far, to allow some space for commerce. However the problem with software now is the cat is already out of the bag, we have objects, we have open source, open source is free speech, objects are reusable components that once they exist there is no way to "repackage" them especially if in open source. Microsoft uses language to change the packaging, but objects if understood are basic parts, you know them it makes selling old stuff harder. This is why Microsoft seeks to sabotage standards, object oriented languages (such as java) and alternate operating systems. They all stand for the inevitability that all software will eventually be written and just configurable objects as part of open source.. The result being that people pay for configurations of the objects and not for packages that proport to solve the problems. This will happen, eventually, if not here in America, elsewhere, in other countries..

Open source is freedom of speech, because it can be represented as words and ideas that can be expressed as words. To go against open source would be to go against what America stands for.. This might be a bit of paradox? America can't stand without free speech but it also needs to protect the businesses.. Open source is also not bounded by governmental law, it can't be easily patented, because once its copylefted, its impossible to manage, especially with the freedom of the Internet and open standards its based on.. Microsoft is just feeling threatened by all of this, especially OpenGL.. I think its eventual,
and developers know this, that software will dissolve to objects,
and must for customized design just leads to unmanageable messes..
Some might think of it as a job insurance, but even the companies that purchase the software are demanding open standards and open source.. So eventually, it will be like it was in the 70s, but mutated.. The philosophy that we should strive for language independence is a march away from object oriented design, its in the interest of somehow maintaining some non-interoperability at some level that is sellable
and will prevent anti-capitalistic processes.. Its quite interesting though
to see CORBA, for instance stressing object oriented design and language independence, it doesn't attempt to unify languages or object oriented mechanism, but to allow freedom to anyone to be stupid, basically..

A unified language that contains as subsets all languages or at least the best functionality, is the primary goal.. And probable future, but it will only get there in open source.. And open source and object oriented design both have the same goals, especially if they are always open source.. However you can use object oriented design to uphold capitalism, through the means to abstract interfaces, to hide functionality, so open source and object oriented design should always be together..

If you are a pro-capitalist, you would be against open source and
may be for object oriented design, but puting the two together would
count as "evil". Openly discussed Logical/Reasoning is evil too to a capitalistically driven entity. I'm not talking against capitalism, I'm just saying that open source and object oriented design already exists, if using business logic, the ideals of these two entities will eventually make software design unprofittable, and knowing how relatively simple the pieces are, eventually it will be so that software design will not be profittable. But configruation of existing parts will be. It all relies on ignorance.. But people get smart.. Its costing too much to support
the software development processes, and eventually it will lead to a fine grained micromanaging that is quite logical.. Programming fundamentally is easy to understand, and coupled with OO design its impossible to refute the eventual simplicity, the unification of design.

Also to do software development, there is no startup costs.. You have a computer and a brain, the rest is just configuration of information to do something useful. The more dependable industries are those that requires chemistry, physics, tangible stuffs.. Software is not such, unless it is contained in a box, and the Internet makes it to easily copied, distributed, modified.. Therefore impossible to control and impossible to trace..
Eventually all software developers will be paid to configure existing packages or better yet existing open source objects.. This is eventual..

But there will always be a business in recognifiguration of existing stuffs, just it will be less possible to hide behind a "idea" that is easily gleened from its components of udnerstanding.. Microsoft in this environment becomes transparent and easily reduced to capitalistic software snobs..
Now that there is a lot more monkies on the island, there will soon be no more bananas for the 400lb gorilla to eat, it will get thin, small and efficient. Time to sell all your software/tech stocks and purchase something more tangible.

thorax
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 6:45 am
Contact:

Post by thorax »

sscherer wrote:Here's the article, FYI

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26125.html
Microsoft was the same people who funded a campaign to stop pirating of Windows in Europe and covered it up with a anti-pirating campaign to say essentially "it doesn't pay to pirate". Actually it pays federal officers and european officials to pirate.. Because it was a civil problem, not a federal problem..

Microsoft's main weapon is hysteria and rumors, otherwise known as
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt Campaigns (Otherwise known as FUD). Their
secondary weapon is lawyers on leashes.. This is how a organization with
no means of direct control express their fear. Its all good, don't worry..

Anyhow, as for the OpenGL, I recall when this happened.. A friend of mine, who owned a O2 and Alias, said SGI was prostituting themselves to Microsoft, at the time.. Anyhow, OpenGL 2.0 traces its roots back to Pixar, and Pixar is owned by Steve Jobs, not Microsoft.. However Alvy Ray Smith works for Microsoft, he desigend Renderman. So there is things Microsoft could leverage all over the place.. But the concept of a shader language could be re-oriented in ways that are not patentable nor easy to litigate, just by turning it into something else like a object oriented language, which neither Renderman nor OpenGL2.0's shader languages
are.. Its possible the government could step in and slap Microsoft on the wrist too (" no monopolies, shader languages are relatively openly
understood.") ..

I admit I don't know the key points being discussed, but there is
always a way out of a legal battle with open standards/source.
Open source is free speech.. And free speech is patentable?
That would be scary.. The discussion among programmers that is problemsome is whether source code is patentable. But the nature of
patents, the patent must have some physical relationship with machinery,
you can't patent a math formula.. So software patents have to be justified as being connected or dependent or depended upon by some specific hardware design.. This may not be the case anymore, but you can see where this would lead, patenting of information.. Like the attempt to patent DNA, considering the database of DNA information. Its possible the satabase is patentable, but only if hardware is dependent on it. Patenting of brush strokes, patenting of communication.. All this is a problem the US government and the competence of the patent office workers/atorneys to reason what is a math formula and what is a part of a mechanical design/process..

I've got a friend in New York who I used to hand my NDAs and Contracts, he could take one glance and the wording and circle the stuff that was unenforceable.. What Microsoft is doing is probably unenforceable, its just costly to hire lawyers to weed out the crap and expose the real points, which are probably mostly BS.. But it costs money.. You can about bet they are just trying to slow down the OpenGL 2.0 standards process.. Its like calling the cops on the competition so you can speed ahead.. Also it challenges the businesses to drop the standard because it will cost them if they adopt it, but I'm sure this is just driving everyone forward.. Microsoft expresses fear with lawyers, and their fear is open standards, they fear competition.. They fear that their users will begin to realize that they don't create technology, they steal it from grad students and their competitors. Its alll they have ever done..


PS- (warning prohetic so-called-rant ahead..)
On a side issue, you might want to look at
Ayn Rand's Philosophies, its beend said Bill and other businessmen adopt from these to form their own beliefs, you can see the loopholes in this philosophy, especially if you understand what drove her (Ayn Rand).
http://www.hypermall.com/cgi-bin/rand-quotes.pl . Her parents fled russia with her, and her dad was an anti-communist, but also against dictators (this is only natural ofcourse, but I'm sure it was the result of the traumatic experience)..

Its a kind of ying-yang philosophy that forces are always in tension to keep some natural harmony.. But nothing can account for the human heart and its inconsistencies with longterm beliefs. Basically Ayn Rand's philosophies produce a somewhat naturalistic belief system.. That systems are determined to be what they are, and there will always be forces of business and communistic nature working against each other, its natural. But its really that open source is common sense (something everyone can share is a common understanding) and commercial software is proprietary knowledge (individualistic in nature), and there is this fuzzy space between..

Microsoft is acting as the representative extreme capitalistic entity and GNU the extreme communistic entity. And you can't have one without the other, so Bill Gates will not neglect the existence of GNU or Open Standards nor does he expect to seek for their end (like the theory of chaos, you can expect that if there was no external entity to go against Microsoft, they would create one, this is an extreme thought but its something to think about).

Microsoft is just trying to prevent the forces outside of them from going to far, to allow some space for commerce. However the problem with software now is the cat is already out of the bag, we have objects, we have open source, open source is free speech, objects have the capacity to become reusable and easily understandable (someone said axiomatic?) components that once they exist there is no way to "repackage" them especially if in open source.

Microsoft uses "language", humanities one failing, to communicate in the same language, to change the packaging, but objects if understood are basic parts, you know them it makes selling old stuff harder. This is why Microsoft seeks to sabotage standards, object oriented languages (such as java) and alternate operating systems. They all stand for the inevitability that all software will eventually be written and just configurable objects as part of open source.. The ultimate end of Microsoft. The result being that people pay for configurations of the objects and not for packages that claims to solve the problems without really addressing the problems in detail.


This will happen, eventually, if not here in America, elsewhere, in other countries.. IT will happen though because open source, as the Internet will show in its open standards, are tough to enforce and protect, its tough to maintain a political agenda when the people are capable of aquiring knowledge beyond the governments control.. Communism is natural, capitalism is too, dictorships are dangerous and result from the neglect of logic and reason. Ayn Rand's philosophy adds to this that we must fight to live.. Christianity however points out that we do not determine our own survival if we believe in god and Jesus preachings which lead to a kind communistic style relationship supported by love, not mens ideas and schemes, that we support each other and are mutually subserviant, and belief in ourselves or others, but through faith in Jesus, anything not based on faith is evil. Note, I'm just saying that so you will know some of the belief systems.. If you don't believe in God, or Jesus, this doesn't apply to you, but there is always the discussion that God can exist whether you believe or not, its a personal decision. I personally question existence and logic and things like this, struggling with emotions and reasoning.. Its its easy to hide in emotions because those are what make us human.. But if you are christian, you know its impossible to determine your own future by your own heart without prayer.. Anyhow, for others, I cannot really know.. Its interesting to read the bible and see that there is even guidelines for respecting others, to seek not to destroy others, but to discuss.. But many governmental organizations and companies like Microsoft, behave in the naturalistic world view, that everything is dog-eat-dog, that eating each other will evolve into something higher or just to sustain life.. Naturalistic belief systems don't believe in life after death.. Christian belief systems do, so dieing is not he end, but the beginning of eternity, whether its hell or heaven.. Naturalistic systems belief death is chaos, possibly.. But isn't it strange that despite the chaos, the world evens out and maintains consistency, despite the evolutionary philosophies of darwin.. Chaose theory.. Etc.. Even "green peace" organizations will invent chaos to support its naturalistic determinations..
That through lack of understanding, you become the prey upon which the dog survives.. So deception leads to life.. No deception leads to futility,
its a recursive problem, its like a pyramid scheme that feeds on itself eventually..

Now I don't seek to deceive, that's not my intent.. I wish others to discuss and consider.. Otherwise I would be forcing it down your throats.. We all are made up of bone, flesh, none of which we understand why it exists, and though we have theories we can't conceive of it, nor can we really imagine how it came to be, our peace of mind comes from understanding enough to not be so self conscious that it depresses us.. Our mind is of nerve cells, firing off in argument or concert with each other, together they help us judge right and wrong, but its dependent on our learning and our experiences.. Each of us, my belief, have a talent and capability, that none have, and together we become more powerful, but its uncertain if we have that of God, and if we ever will.. Christian belief says that this world is just a test for the next life, to help us to understand God,
otherwise finding hell.. Its the example God made to point out to the devil, "see I am just and right, you are not", essentially the devil was the weakest link, bye bye.. But before then, in fraction of God time, a second, the world was created, and we are spectacles made to the angels, we are the examples of god's glory.. We are the proof of God's glory, and contrary to all the Devil is not, the representation of what is not God's will. The devil is a recursive deception, he is his own worst enemy, and all who follow him are like.. But its impossible to determine who God will let through the door, its not for me to decide, Bill Gates may make it, who knows.. I may not, who knows.. Its not for anyone to decide..

But we can use our brains... We are not determined to be bad, we are capable of better things.. And bringing you back to open source, its possible it could be considered a religion or just an idea, I'm sure Richard Stallman takes it very seriously, but I tend to compare it to Christianity,
albeit Richard is a Atheist.. To become perfect, give all your posessions to the poor and carry your own cross.. See.. Now what this is saying is we must try to support each other, life is not found in things in what we have, true hapiness is in faith in god and that we will continue regardless of our own means to survive.. As long as we trust in god.. Now that may not be true for you, unless you believe,, Some don't some do.. I wouldn't stick your nose in it.. But just to say that this is something to consider..

Is open source close to christianity? Computers essentially a tool, they exist based on needs.. But if we make assumptions about their utility,
they can become idols to us, lies.. They stop becoming tools and start becoming our belief system.. So Open source as well is a tool.. I'm
proposing a very well designed tool at that.. Preferably ones that are reasoned from all sides, such that no stone is left unturned, that nothing is left to darkness. I do believe there are devils in everything, and they all are conspiring to get us one way or another, and we must watch out for them, the anti-devils is knowledge, and what we cannot know is a matter of faith. But we must strive to know all we can and reason as much as we can.. The devils we will recognize are those in ourselves, in others, even the self-righteousness is a sin, rebuke (especially backed up with logic) is welcome, its the means by which we test each other and learn.. Anyhow, stepping out of this recursive rant (pop a few things off the stack, pop, pop, pop, back to the state of the matter)..



Source is code, mechanisms of thought created from a kind of algebraic logic, perceivable as tools, but also perceivable as
freedom of speech, because it can be represented as words. Anyhow..
By "open" its thought to be openly discussed, readable, open to discussion..


My belief system is that where we end God begins,
that by trying our best to define this medium as openly supportive
and non-self seeking, God will pick up the complexity that we lack by using each persons skills.. Scoffing is the act of the devil, even the pharisees scoffed at Jesus, unable to justify their claims, with every claim against him he pointed out what existed in their own hearts. But Jesus even said that by their fruits you will recognize them. Are my fruits
evil or good? I hope they are not evil.. But I'm imperfect and capable of sin just as anyone else is.. WE should be open about what we are thinking..

To go against open source would be to go against what America stands for.. This might be a bit of paradox? America can't stand without free speech but it also needs to protect the businesses.. Open source is also not bounded by governmental law, it can't be easily patented, because once its copylefted, its impossible to manage, especially with the freedom of the Internet and open standards its based on.. Microsoft is just feeling threatened by all of this, especially OpenGL.. I think its eventual,
and developers know this, that software will dissolve to objects,
and must for customized design just leads to unmanageable messes..
Some might think of it as a job insurance, but even the companies that purchase the software are demanding open standards and open source..

So eventually, it will be like it was in the 70s, but mutated.. The philosophy that we should strive for language independence is a march away from object oriented design, its in the interest of somehow maintaining some non-interoperability at some level that is sellable
and will prevent anti-capitalistic processes.. Its quite interesting though
to see CORBA, for instance stressing object oriented design and language independence, it doesn't attempt to unify languages or object oriented mechanism, but to allow freedom to anyone to be stupid, basically..

A unified language that contains as subsets all languages or at least the best functionality, is the primary goal.. And probable future, but it will only get there in open source.. And open source and object oriented design both have the same goals, especially if they are always open source.. However you can use object oriented design to uphold capitalism, through the means to abstract interfaces, to hide functionality, so open source and object oriented design should always be together..

If you are a pro-capitalist, you would be against open source and
may be for object oriented design, but puting the two together would
count as "evil". Openly discussed Logical/Reasoning is evil too to a capitalistically driven entity. I'm not talking against capitalism, I'm just saying that open source and object oriented design already exists, if using business logic, the ideals of these two entities will eventually make software design unprofittable, and knowing how relatively simple the pieces are, eventually it will be so that software design will not be profittable. But configruation of existing parts will be. It all relies on ignorance.. But people get smart.. Its costing too much to support
the software development processes, and eventually it will lead to a fine grained micromanaging that is quite logical.. Programming fundamentally is easy to understand, and coupled with OO design its impossible to refute the eventual simplicity, the unification of design.

Also to do software development, there is no startup costs.. You have a computer and a brain, the rest is just configuration of information to do something useful. The more dependable industries are those that requires chemistry, physics, tangible stuffs.. Software is not such, unless it is contained in a box, and the Internet makes it to easily copied, distributed, modified.. Therefore impossible to control and impossible to trace..
Eventually all software developers will be paid to configure existing packages or better yet existing open source objects.. This is eventual..

But there will always be a business in recognifiguration of existing stuffs, just it will be less possible to hide behind a "idea" that is easily gleened from its components of udnerstanding.. Microsoft in this environment becomes transparent and easily reduced to capitalistic software snobs..
Now that there is a lot more monkies on the island, there will soon be no more bananas for the 400lb gorilla to eat, it will get thin, small and efficient. Time to sell all your software/tech stocks and purchase something more tangible.

PPS- If you are Christian, you realize open source is how we reveal are thoughts.. It is how we learn, we discuss and think heavily about what we are doing.. Think spirtually, metaphysically, theorize, think, etc.. But to survive and do what we need to do, that's all it is to us. Is it not more than just a tool to do what we need? How will it bring people to recognize God? If we are not doing this, what does all this mean to us?

I know I may count myself as the fool, maybe I should not discuss anything, but am I not worthy to discuss Jesus before sinners? Am I not a sinner? Do I not think? Can I not discuss? Reason.. What caused us to seperate church and state, wasn't it the freedom of belief that formed america or a freedom to practice a protestant religion in the faith of christianity? What was the reasoning behind privatizing our belief..

Look at Fox television, I would question Rupert Murdoch's belief in Jesus
or that Fox represents anything more than a news organization that has made christians and replubicans its "market" for survival. God doesn't need television, celebrities or the pope to represent him, God is
just and right despite the ways of the world.. And all kings will lay their crowns before him.. Because he greater than all, are we not a dust in the wind, existing for such a small amount of time, what does all this matter, what we care so much about, what comes of our dreams, what is the eventual result? Is our lives worth nothing?

No actually we matter more to him than anything of this world.
That's the truth.. Now to everyone else what I've said is follishness, I know, as is said about the bible as well and Jesus preachings, it will
be percevied as foolishness to the unbelievers.. Why is this,
its something to ponder.. Even George Harrison studied eastern mysticism, and look, what more did he discover through the chants?
His last album was called "Brainwashed".. I wouldn't say we are perpetually brainwashed, that implies and element of lack of reason of
consideration.. No I ask to consider my thoughts, discuss, shoot down, etc.. I don't care.. But I do care about absolute truth and believe there is such a thing..

thorax
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 6:45 am
Contact:

Post by thorax »

sscherer wrote:Here's the article, FYI

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26125.html
Microsoft was the same people who funded a campaign to stop pirating of Windows in Europe and covered it up with a anti-pirating campaign to say essentially "it doesn't pay to pirate". Actually it pays federal officers and european officials to pirate.. Because it was a civil problem, not a federal problem..

Microsoft's main weapon is hysteria and rumors, otherwise known as
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt Campaigns (Otherwise known as FUD). Their
secondary weapon is lawyers on leashes.. This is how a organization with
no means of direct control express their fear. Its all good, don't worry..

Anyhow, as for the OpenGL, I recall when this happened.. A friend of mine, who owned a O2 and Alias, said SGI was prostituting themselves to Microsoft, at the time.. Anyhow, OpenGL 2.0 traces its roots back to Pixar, and Pixar is owned by Steve Jobs, not Microsoft.. However Alvy Ray Smith works for Microsoft, he desigend Renderman. So there is things Microsoft could leverage all over the place.. But the concept of a shader language could be re-oriented in ways that are not patentable nor easy to litigate, just by turning it into something else like a object oriented language, which neither Renderman nor OpenGL2.0's shader languages
are.. Its possible the government could step in and slap Microsoft on the wrist too (" no monopolies, shader languages are relatively openly
understood.") ..

I admit I don't know the key points being discussed, but there is
always a way out of a legal battle with open standards/source.
Open source is free speech.. And free speech is patentable?
That would be scary.. The discussion among programmers that is problemsome is whether source code is patentable. But the nature of
patents, the patent must have some physical relationship with machinery,
you can't patent a math formula.. So software patents have to be justified as being connected or dependent or depended upon by some specific hardware design.. This may not be the case anymore, but you can see where this would lead, patenting of information.. Like the attempt to patent DNA, considering the database of DNA information. Its possible the satabase is patentable, but only if hardware is dependent on it. Patenting of brush strokes, patenting of communication.. All this is a problem the US government and the competence of the patent office workers/atorneys to reason what is a math formula and what is a part of a mechanical design/process..

I've got a friend in New York who I used to hand my NDAs and Contracts, he could take one glance and the wording and circle the stuff that was unenforceable.. What Microsoft is doing is probably unenforceable, its just costly to hire lawyers to weed out the crap and expose the real points, which are probably mostly BS.. But it costs money.. You can about bet they are just trying to slow down the OpenGL 2.0 standards process.. Its like calling the cops on the competition so you can speed ahead.. Also it challenges the businesses to drop the standard because it will cost them if they adopt it, but I'm sure this is just driving everyone forward.. Microsoft expresses fear with lawyers, and their fear is open standards, they fear competition.. They fear that their users will begin to realize that they don't create technology, they steal it from grad students and their competitors. Its alll they have ever done..


PS- (warning prohetic so-called-rant ahead..)
On a side issue, you might want to look at
Ayn Rand's Philosophies, its beend said Bill and other businessmen adopt from these to form their own beliefs, you can see the loopholes in this philosophy, especially if you understand what drove her (Ayn Rand).
http://www.hypermall.com/cgi-bin/rand-quotes.pl . Her parents fled russia with her, and her dad was an anti-communist, but also against dictators (this is only natural ofcourse, but I'm sure it was the result of the traumatic experience)..

Its a kind of ying-yang philosophy that forces are always in tension to keep some natural harmony.. But nothing can account for the human heart and its inconsistencies with longterm beliefs. Basically Ayn Rand's philosophies produce a somewhat naturalistic belief system.. That systems are determined to be what they are, and there will always be forces of business and communistic nature working against each other, its natural. But its really that open source is common sense (something everyone can share is a common understanding) and commercial software is proprietary knowledge (individualistic in nature), and there is this fuzzy space between..

Microsoft is acting as the representative extreme capitalistic entity and GNU the extreme communistic entity. And you can't have one without the other, so Bill Gates will not neglect the existence of GNU or Open Standards nor does he expect to seek for their end (like the theory of chaos, you can expect that if there was no external entity to go against Microsoft, they would create one, this is an extreme thought but its something to think about).

Microsoft is just trying to prevent the forces outside of them from going to far, to allow some space for commerce. However the problem with software now is the cat is already out of the bag, we have objects, we have open source, open source is free speech, objects have the capacity to become reusable and easily understandable (someone said axiomatic?) components that once they exist there is no way to "repackage" them especially if in open source.

Microsoft uses "language", humanities one failing, to communicate in the same language, to change the packaging, but objects if understood are basic parts, you know them it makes selling old stuff harder. This is why Microsoft seeks to sabotage standards, object oriented languages (such as java) and alternate operating systems. They all stand for the inevitability that all software will eventually be written and just configurable objects as part of open source.. The ultimate end of Microsoft. The result being that people pay for configurations of the objects and not for packages that claims to solve the problems without really addressing the problems in detail.


This will happen, eventually, if not here in America, elsewhere, in other countries.. IT will happen though because open source, as the Internet will show in its open standards, are tough to enforce and protect, its tough to maintain a political agenda when the people are capable of aquiring knowledge beyond the governments control.. Communism is natural, capitalism is too, dictorships are dangerous and result from the neglect of logic and reason. Ayn Rand's philosophy adds to this that we must fight to live.. Christianity however points out that we do not determine our own survival if we believe in god and Jesus preachings which lead to a kind communistic style relationship supported by love, not mens ideas and schemes, that we support each other and are mutually subserviant, and belief in ourselves or others, but through faith in Jesus, anything not based on faith is evil. Note, I'm just saying that so you will know some of the belief systems.. If you don't believe in God, or Jesus, this doesn't apply to you, but there is always the discussion that God can exist whether you believe or not, its a personal decision. I personally question existence and logic and things like this, struggling with emotions and reasoning.. Its its easy to hide in emotions because those are what make us human.. But if you are christian, you know its impossible to determine your own future by your own heart without prayer.. Anyhow, for others, I cannot really know.. Its interesting to read the bible and see that there is even guidelines for respecting others, to seek not to destroy others, but to discuss.. But many governmental organizations and companies like Microsoft, behave in the naturalistic world view, that everything is dog-eat-dog, that eating each other will evolve into something higher or just to sustain life.. Naturalistic belief systems don't believe in life after death.. Christian belief systems do, so dieing is not he end, but the beginning of eternity, whether its hell or heaven.. Naturalistic systems belief death is chaos, possibly.. But isn't it strange that despite the chaos, the world evens out and maintains consistency, despite the evolutionary philosophies of darwin.. Chaose theory.. Etc.. Even "green peace" organizations will invent chaos to support its naturalistic determinations..
That through lack of understanding, you become the prey upon which the dog survives.. So deception leads to life.. No deception leads to futility,
its a recursive problem, its like a pyramid scheme that feeds on itself eventually..

Now I don't seek to deceive, that's not my intent.. I wish others to discuss and consider.. Otherwise I would be forcing it down your throats.. We all are made up of bone, flesh, none of which we understand why it exists, and though we have theories we can't conceive of it, nor can we really imagine how it came to be, our peace of mind comes from understanding enough to not be so self conscious that it depresses us.. Our mind is of nerve cells, firing off in argument or concert with each other, together they help us judge right and wrong, but its dependent on our learning and our experiences.. Each of us, my belief, have a talent and capability, that none have, and together we become more powerful, but its uncertain if we have that of God, and if we ever will.. Christian belief says that this world is just a test for the next life, to help us to understand God,
otherwise finding hell.. Its the example God made to point out to the devil, "see I am just and right, you are not", essentially the devil was the weakest link, bye bye.. But before then, in fraction of God time, a second, the world was created, and we are spectacles made to the angels, we are the examples of god's glory.. We are the proof of God's glory, and contrary to all the Devil is not, the representation of what is not God's will. The devil is a recursive deception, he is his own worst enemy, and all who follow him are like.. But its impossible to determine who God will let through the door, its not for me to decide, Bill Gates may make it, who knows.. I may not, who knows.. Its not for anyone to decide..

But we can use our brains... We are not determined to be bad, we are capable of better things.. And bringing you back to open source, its possible it could be considered a religion or just an idea, I'm sure Richard Stallman takes it very seriously, but I tend to compare it to Christianity,
albeit Richard is a Atheist.. To become perfect, give all your posessions to the poor and carry your own cross.. See.. Now what this is saying is we must try to support each other, life is not found in things in what we have, true hapiness is in faith in god and that we will continue regardless of our own means to survive.. As long as we trust in god.. Now that may not be true for you, unless you believe,, Some don't some do.. I wouldn't stick your nose in it.. But just to say that this is something to consider..

Is open source close to christianity? Computers essentially a tool, they exist based on needs.. But if we make assumptions about their utility,
they can become idols to us, lies.. They stop becoming tools and start becoming our belief system.. So Open source as well is a tool.. I'm
proposing a very well designed tool at that.. Preferably ones that are reasoned from all sides, such that no stone is left unturned, that nothing is left to darkness. I do believe there are devils in everything, and they all are conspiring to get us one way or another, and we must watch out for them, the anti-devils is knowledge, and what we cannot know is a matter of faith. But we must strive to know all we can and reason as much as we can.. The devils we will recognize are those in ourselves, in others, even the self-righteousness is a sin, rebuke (especially backed up with logic) is welcome, its the means by which we test each other and learn.. Anyhow, stepping out of this recursive rant (pop a few things off the stack, pop, pop, pop, back to the state of the matter)..



Source is code, mechanisms of thought created from a kind of algebraic logic, perceivable as tools, but also perceivable as
freedom of speech, because it can be represented as words. Anyhow..
By "open" its thought to be openly discussed, readable, open to discussion..


My belief system is that where we end God begins,
that by trying our best to define this medium as openly supportive
and non-self seeking, God will pick up the complexity that we lack by using each persons skills.. Scoffing is the act of the devil, even the pharisees scoffed at Jesus, unable to justify their claims, with every claim against him he pointed out what existed in their own hearts. But Jesus even said that by their fruits you will recognize them. Are my fruits
evil or good? I hope they are not evil.. But I'm imperfect and capable of sin just as anyone else is.. WE should be open about what we are thinking..

To go against open source would be to go against what America stands for.. This might be a bit of paradox? America can't stand without free speech but it also needs to protect the businesses.. Open source is also not bounded by governmental law, it can't be easily patented, because once its copylefted, its impossible to manage, especially with the freedom of the Internet and open standards its based on.. Microsoft is just feeling threatened by all of this, especially OpenGL.. I think its eventual,
and developers know this, that software will dissolve to objects,
and must for customized design just leads to unmanageable messes..
Some might think of it as a job insurance, but even the companies that purchase the software are demanding open standards and open source..

So eventually, it will be like it was in the 70s, but mutated.. The philosophy that we should strive for language independence is a march away from object oriented design, its in the interest of somehow maintaining some non-interoperability at some level that is sellable
and will prevent anti-capitalistic processes.. Its quite interesting though
to see CORBA, for instance stressing object oriented design and language independence, it doesn't attempt to unify languages or object oriented mechanism, but to allow freedom to anyone to be stupid, basically..

A unified language that contains as subsets all languages or at least the best functionality, is the primary goal.. And probable future, but it will only get there in open source.. And open source and object oriented design both have the same goals, especially if they are always open source.. However you can use object oriented design to uphold capitalism, through the means to abstract interfaces, to hide functionality, so open source and object oriented design should always be together..

If you are a pro-capitalist, you would be against open source and
may be for object oriented design, but puting the two together would
count as "evil". Openly discussed Logical/Reasoning is evil too to a capitalistically driven entity. I'm not talking against capitalism, I'm just saying that open source and object oriented design already exists, if using business logic, the ideals of these two entities will eventually make software design unprofittable, and knowing how relatively simple the pieces are, eventually it will be so that software design will not be profittable. But configruation of existing parts will be. It all relies on ignorance.. But people get smart.. Its costing too much to support
the software development processes, and eventually it will lead to a fine grained micromanaging that is quite logical.. Programming fundamentally is easy to understand, and coupled with OO design its impossible to refute the eventual simplicity, the unification of design.

Also to do software development, there is no startup costs.. You have a computer and a brain, the rest is just configuration of information to do something useful. The more dependable industries are those that requires chemistry, physics, tangible stuffs.. Software is not such, unless it is contained in a box, and the Internet makes it to easily copied, distributed, modified.. Therefore impossible to control and impossible to trace..
Eventually all software developers will be paid to configure existing packages or better yet existing open source objects.. This is eventual..

But there will always be a business in recognifiguration of existing stuffs, just it will be less possible to hide behind a "idea" that is easily gleened from its components of udnerstanding.. Microsoft in this environment becomes transparent and easily reduced to capitalistic software snobs..
Now that there is a lot more monkies on the island, there will soon be no more bananas for the 400lb gorilla to eat, it will get thin, small and efficient. Time to sell all your software/tech stocks and purchase something more tangible.

PPS- If you are Christian, you realize open source is how we reveal are thoughts.. It is how we learn, we discuss and think heavily about what we are doing.. Think spirtually, metaphysically, theorize, think, etc.. But to survive and do what we need to do, that's all it is to us. Is it not more than just a tool to do what we need? How will it bring people to recognize God? If we are not doing this, what does all this mean to us?

I know I may count myself as the fool, maybe I should not discuss anything, but am I not worthy to discuss Jesus before sinners? Am I not a sinner? Do I not think? Can I not discuss? Reason.. What caused us to seperate church and state, wasn't it the freedom of belief that formed america or a freedom to practice a protestant religion in the faith of christianity? What was the reasoning behind privatizing our belief..

Look at Fox television, I would question Rupert Murdoch's belief in Jesus
or that Fox represents anything more than a news organization that has made christians and replubicans its "market" for survival. God doesn't need television, celebrities or the pope to represent him, God is
just and right despite the ways of the world.. And all kings will lay their crowns before him.. Because he greater than all, are we not a dust in the wind, existing for such a small amount of time, what does all this matter, what we care so much about, what comes of our dreams, what is the eventual result? Is our lives worth nothing?

No actually we matter more to him than anything of this world.
That's the truth.. Now to everyone else what I've said is foolishness, I know, as is said about the bible as well and Jesus preachings, it will
be percevied as foolishness to the unbelievers.. Why is this,
its something to ponder.. Even George Harrison studied eastern mysticism, and look, what more did he discover through the chants?
His last album was called "Brainwashed".. I wouldn't say we are perpetually brainwashed, that implies and element of lack of reason of
consideration.. No I ask to consider my thoughts, discuss, shoot down, etc.. I don't care.. But I do care about absolute truth and believe there is such a thing.. And I think George did too.. I really like his music and
believe him to be very spiritual, fairly consistent and good.. But that's my perception, I don't really know him, nor do I know anyone here, God knows everybody better than the hairs on their own head.

thorax
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 6:45 am
Contact:

Post by thorax »

sscherer wrote:Here's the article, FYI

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26125.html
(huge rant removed)

Things should be openly discussed, Microsoft will always be against
open discussion, but for several reasons:
To satisfy investors, to slow down competition, to
allow for fair competition.

However I believe that open source and objects go hand in hand..
Microsoft will use manipulations in speech, whether it be interfaces,
programming languages, standards or source code, to deceive
the public. To buy time, but they know its impossible to stop free speech, they just mean to delay competiton.

The eventual future is that programmers become configuration managers, people pay the developers to configure software, the software will be axiomatically simplistic objects, and the engineering of objects is what
is the ultimate solution of software developement and the ultimate dissolution of the hacker programmer type. But as sure as we live and die, there will always be the chance that time will dissolve our plans and schemes, they may come to nothing.. For what we cannot achieve by our own hands we pray to God to help us acheive.. As we cannot achieve everything. Bill Gates is slowly finding this out himself. Will it drive him to a belief in God, possibly..

But I personally believe we will always have something to do, despite the standards and solutions.. But not to palce too much faith in the schemes to make money or get rich, instead think about ways that help people and consider mutual support and the grander scheme of things, than just what is important to me or you.. I believe this is what its meant to be "Open"
beit a source (descriptive processes) or a standard (standards on the process).

OpenGL2.0 will continue in some form or another, but Microsoft is just responding instinctively to this as competition.. Everything they do ia a result of being threatened. And this behaviour should be interpretted as a form of success.. Microsoft plots out huge markets of where they see their success, and if anyone gets anywhere near to being competitive,
they will respond in any number of ways:

1. duplicate the technology and sabotage it.
2. start rumors about it, tell the press lies..
3. send lawyers after it..
4. change the language, confuse the users..
5. hire paid evangelists to spread Microsoft ideals

These are among the major ones.. Maybe some others can think of more.. But how successful are these techniques now that we
know what to look for?

Oh yes, you might want to read some of the philosophies of Ayn Rand,
Bill Gates is a big fan of her, and shares some of her philosophies and ideals:

http://www.hypermall.com/cgi-bin/rand-quotes.pl

(its a form of capitalistic fortunte cookie system, but
is quite interesting, you might ask "how close is Bill Gates
to these set of ideals?" ).. How would open source and open standard fit in.. I think utlimately, the open standard should be open source,
eventually, it brings the standard out fo the realm of being just and interface standard, which is really all OpenGL is.. It doesn't
allow us to play with the technologies that are behind its interface
standard.. So open standards such as OpenGL are considered quite closed in comparison to open source. Open source can become to be more standard than the standards.. At the extreme end of the spectrum opposite of open source is closed source.. Open standards are somewhere in between.. The closer it gets to being open source, the more Microsoft will try to control it, to keep it closer to their
technology, ultimately allowing them more control.

The closer to open source and open discussion, the more Microsoft
will try to destroy it.. They would be less likely to destroy commercial competitors as they would open source..

LethalSideParting
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 12:53 am
Location: Bucks, England

Post by LethalSideParting »

:shock:

Crikey Thorax, that took some typing...and some reading too... :D

Can I suggest that you keep your post lengths down to a more reasonable length, and try to keep them a bit more on topic? I don't mean it as a criticism - far from it, it's good to see people taking an interest in these discussions - but I don't think that people reading these forums have the time to wade through that much stuff... And I believe that sscherer was asking about the potential OpenGL 2 legal spat, not Microsoft's wrong-doings (a post about all of MS's wrongdoings would take pages, let's face it ;) ).

sscherer: AFAIK, the problem with MS stems from the fact that MS acquired a lot of SGI's intellectual property not too long ago. Now DirectX development has been steaming ahead compared to OpenGL's relatively slow development recently,and so it contains a lot of new technologies that haven't been implemented anywhere else yet (including vertex and fragment shading, I think). When OpenGL began to catch up, MS took note, and in a meeting of the OpenGL architectual board a few months back made reference to some of SGI's intellectual property, claiming that this technology had been in DirectX for months and suggesting that the OpenGL committee should licence it from MS before using it. Now at the moment nothing particularly serious is happening - no legal action or anything - but just the suggestion that MS *could* try to scupper OpenGL in the future by sueing is enough to get some people nervous, hence the 'sword of damocles' that Ton mentioned.

Hope this cleared things up,

LethalSideParting

ton
Site Admin
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 12:13 am
Contact:

Post by ton »

Thorax, you abuse these forums again.

If you have so much to say, post that at your own site and provide us a link. You beat discussions completely dead that way.

I just don't have the time, but if this continues I will hack this forum code to limit the size of postings...

Timothy
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 3:20 pm
Contact:

Post by Timothy »

ton wrote:Thorax, you abuse these forums again.

If you have so much to say, post that at your own site and provide us a link. You beat discussions completely dead that way.

I just don't have the time, but if this continues I will hack this forum code to limit the size of postings...
If you don't have the time for it, I would be happy to take a look at that on an evening this week, should take me no more than 15 minutes so it's no problem at all.

Greets,
Timothy

xype
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 10:36 pm

Post by xype »

Timothy wrote:If you don't have the time for it, I would be happy to take a look at that on an evening this week, should take me no more than 15 minutes so it's no problem at all.


I would be really thankful - I just don't want to scroll a page for 15 minutes just because some people think the best way of doing long posts is to "save often". I just tested it myself, and the Edit button works - maybe someone should give Thorax a hint.

macke
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:57 pm

Post by macke »

xype wrote:maybe someone should give Thorax a hint.
I think maybe someone should give him a clue too, cause he definatly ain't got one.

thorax
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 6:45 am
Contact:

Post by thorax »

I was quite suprised to see how much I wrote, I'm starting to
wonder if my evil twin is getting into it while I sleep..

There is this whole side to my psychy that is bugging me a bit, the
feeling that anything that is not straightforward and correct is
evil, I mean as far as development goes and programming,
software in business etc.. My gut feeling is that it can't continue,
development of objects will need to happen on a grand scale, not
only in the languages.

What I was meaning to say about OpenGL was why is it just a library,
why not an object hiearchy that can be extended? The fragment shaders sound like microcoding of instructions, why not implement them as objects that can transform themselves as needed to the particular card
or application?

I guess all objects are ever used for is abstraction within the
specific language, not as a method of interfacing hardware/software..
But just imagine what that would be like if you could..

PS- Note its not commercially advantageous to make an open source
object architecture, it makes technology pluggable and makes the
users able to swap technologies out for other technologies, including
Microsoft (which doesn't mind creating an architecture that allows
everyone to be swappable, except for them)..

Computer Languages are merely human interfaces a complex
architecture that would require and understanding of parallelism,
parallelism is best desribed by connecting of objects than as a
language.. It might require a stretch of thought for some but for others
its pretty obvious.. Objects are like modules in a synthesizer setup,
they create stuff, that is modified by other stuff, and then
produced as output, mixed, etc.. But happens in parallel, how is this
different from the object transformations pipeline in OpenGL?
What if you could get OpenGL to emualte the graphics architecture
for a particular graphics card or add functionality to a graphics card
that does exist, as object relationships (beit a pipeline or a
sharing interaction between graphics cards that occurs while the CPU
is doing other things?).

Post Reply