SGI hunting for Open* names?

SGI hunting for Open* names?

Post by Ruud van Ga » Thu, 05 Apr 2001 18:20:08



Hi all,

I've just heard that OpenGL is pursuing holders of names like OpenAL,
OpenIL, OpenCL and perhaps in the future DemoGL and GLScene to change
their names because it violates the OpenGL trademark.

First, it's very late, since these names exist for a long time already
and often have a lot of users.
Second, any attempt to create a sort of counterpart for DirectX in a
multiplatform way should be applauded, not hunted down, like SGI is
doing now, IMHO. Searching for ways to combine open API's with similar
syntax and look & feel only helps to prolong OpenGL's lifespan. And
it's at a threat, since OpenGL1.2 is still being held back by
Microsoft, probably in an attempt to get DX8 seriously accepted.

However, lots of us have more than 1 platform we'd like to see
supported, so DX is often not an option. It's weird to see SGI taking
on the battle like this, since I think it will definitely kill OpenGL
sooner rather than help in whatever way. If SGI intends on ruling out
similarly-named API's that fill in large missing gaps in application
development, then OpenGL becomes niche again, and the step to DirectX
becomes a much more valid one, unfortunately.

I'm sorry to hear about this sad step from SGI...

Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25
Pencil art    : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
Free car sim  : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

 
 
 

SGI hunting for Open* names?

Post by Harri Haata » Thu, 05 Apr 2001 19:58:27



>I'm sorry to hear about this sad step from SGI...

Maybe they hired another microsoft agent?  :^)

--
Funk, Funking n.
   A shrinking back through fear. Colloq. ``The horrid panic,
   or funk (as the men of Eton call it).'' --De Quincey.

 
 
 

SGI hunting for Open* names?

Post by Alexis Cousei » Fri, 06 Apr 2001 00:17:55



> Hi all,

> I've just heard that OpenGL is pursuing holders of names like OpenAL,
> OpenIL, OpenCL and perhaps in the future DemoGL and GLScene to change
> their names because it violates the OpenGL trademark.

[My own opinions only in this post -- not SGI's]

That is not very accurate wording -- the slashdot article probably is

more accurate.

 > Second, any attempt to create a sort of counterpart for DirectX in a
 > multiplatform way should be applauded, not hunted down, like SGI is
 > doing now, IMHO.

A counterpart for directX that's any better would consist of parts that
play well together and preferrable with components architectured by an
Architecture Review Board.

  The fact SGI is in an Architecture Review Board for something that is
going to be called OpenML and contributes a lot to that effort should
convince anyone that SGI is indeed trying to make sure APIs on e.g.
Linux and IRIX are growing to be more complete (and that they migrate
well between these two platforms).

My guess is that (regardless of the merit of whatever someone else at
SGI is doing, and whether they're using appropriate tactics) someone at
SGI wants to avoid a world populated by confusingly named APIs that are
all named OpenXX, all sound as if they should work together, but are
actually made by separate teams with different philosophies, possibly
(for some -- I'm not disputing the merits of most of these efforts) by
everyone and his little sister.

[In fact, take the description above and substitute "OpenXX" for
"DirectX" and you have a pretty good description of DirectX].

That would also mean that SGI is convinced OpenML, nee dmSDK, will
interoperate well with OpenGL, as it *is* using an OpenXX name ;). It
does, of course, have an ARB, which means no single institution can
change what it's like at a whim.

--
Alexis Cousein                          Senior Systems Engineer

 
 
 

SGI hunting for Open* names?

Post by Scott Elya » Fri, 06 Apr 2001 02:14:41




> I'm sorry to hear about this sad step from SGI...

God save us from idle lawyers...aren't there labor camps or something to
keep their minds off useless, expensive litigation?

--
.oO=-"The picture of a faithful alligator boundin' into-=Oo.
|      daddy's lap ain't one the public is ready for."     |
|              --Walt Kelly (Beauregard)                   |
| Comic:         www.oscarquillandcoyle.org                |
`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'

 
 
 

SGI hunting for Open* names?

Post by Ruud van Ga » Fri, 06 Apr 2001 02:53:17





>>I'm sorry to hear about this sad step from SGI...

>Maybe they hired another microsoft agent?  :^)

Well it seems like some people use SGI as a step-up to MS. ;-)
So they first try out things at SGI, shudder, and then proceed to MS,
where it fits more in the strategy of things, lol.

Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25
Pencil art    : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
Free car sim  : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

 
 
 

SGI hunting for Open* names?

Post by Ruud van Ga » Fri, 06 Apr 2001 03:05:44


On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 17:17:55 +0200, Alexis Cousein


>[My own opinions only in this post -- not SGI's]

>That is not very accurate wording -- the slashdot article probably is
>more accurate.

Ok, for the people who haven't read it:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/03/29/1718204&mode=thread

There is talk about a 'concern' about the OpenIL name, and the author
is requested to change the name, as is OpenCL and OpenAL is just
outside the door.

Quote:> > Second, any attempt to create a sort of counterpart for DirectX in a
> > multiplatform way should be applauded, not hunted down, like SGI is
> > doing now, IMHO.

>A counterpart for directX that's any better would consist of parts that
>play well together and preferrable with components architectured by an
>Architecture Review Board.

It doesn't necessarily have to be better; it just has to exist. I
agree, it would be better to have such a thing with an ARB board
behind it. However, it seems a sudden move to make space now for
something like that. I would welcome an OpenGL-philosophy-based
attempt to do a system-width collection of API's under the watchful
eyes of a board though. It might be better in that case to have such
an argument brought forward when requesting people to change their API
name, that would make it certainly less harmful.

Quote:>  The fact SGI is in an Architecture Review Board for something that is
>going to be called OpenML and contributes a lot to that effort should
>convince anyone that SGI is indeed trying to make sure APIs on e.g.
>Linux and IRIX are growing to be more complete (and that they migrate
>well between these two platforms).

I hope this also includes Win32, since that is important for the
lifecycle of an API; more success can be gained WITH Win32 inclusion
rather than without, IMHO.

Quote:>My guess is that (regardless of the merit of whatever someone else at
>SGI is doing, and whether they're using appropriate tactics) someone at
>SGI wants to avoid a world populated by confusingly named APIs that are
>all named OpenXX, all sound as if they should work together, but are
>actually made by separate teams with different philosophies, possibly
>(for some -- I'm not disputing the merits of most of these efforts) by
>everyone and his little sister.

>[In fact, take the description above and substitute "OpenXX" for
>"DirectX" and you have a pretty good description of DirectX].

Perhaps it would be a thing to look at the existing OpenXX libraries
and see whether or how it could fit into the OpenXX framework, rather
than requesting a name change.

Quote:>That would also mean that SGI is convinced OpenML, nee dmSDK, will
>interoperate well with OpenGL, as it *is* using an OpenXX name ;). It
>does, of course, have an ARB, which means no single institution can
>change what it's like at a whim.

That's a good thing. The world needs something like that, since DX is
getting pushed by MS, and OpenGL is being held back. And I'm doing a
SGI/PC project which uses OpenGL, but DirectX for everything else
(well, I could have used OpenAL), since there are no matching
libraries to fully develop applications in the OpenGL-ish way.
Hopefully OpenML (wasn't that MultiProcessor? Or Media?) will go a
long way and we can enjoy it on a variety of platforms; mainly
Linux/IRIX/Win32 and Mac. Quite important for the success, I think,
there's no use in a Linux/IRIX-only API. It just won't win.
And an independent API collection on Win32 can have developers not
depend too much on Win32's weaker points. :)

Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25
Pencil art    : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
Free car sim  : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

 
 
 

SGI hunting for Open* names?

Post by Emmanuel Flora » Fri, 06 Apr 2001 17:45:04



dit...

Quote:> That's a good thing. The world needs something like that, since DX is
> getting pushed by MS, and OpenGL is being held back. And I'm doing a
> SGI/PC project which uses OpenGL, but DirectX for everything else
> (well, I could have used OpenAL), since there are no matching
> libraries to fully develop applications in the OpenGL-ish way.
> Hopefully OpenML (wasn't that MultiProcessor? Or Media?) will go a
> long way and we can enjoy it on a variety of platforms; mainly
> Linux/IRIX/Win32 and Mac. Quite important for the success, I think,
> there's no use in a Linux/IRIX-only API. It just won't win.
> And an independent API collection on Win32 can have developers not
> depend too much on Win32's weaker points. :)

dmSDK was primarily developed on Win32 for SGI320/540. Then it has been
ported back to IRIX/Linux, and the Win32 drivers are in the works for
first the Vx10 family AFAIK.  So yes, it intend to be an all-platform
API.
By the way I fully agree SGI should help openXX developers to work for
complete interoperability with openGL/openML instead of threatening them
- apparently they're all just traveling on the same road.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Florac                 | Kreode technologies
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

SGI hunting for Open* names?

Post by Jon Lee » Sat, 07 Apr 2001 03:14:23





>dit...
>> That's a good thing. The world needs something like that, since DX is
>> getting pushed by MS, and OpenGL is being held back. And I'm doing a
>> SGI/PC project which uses OpenGL, but DirectX for everything else
>> (well, I could have used OpenAL), since there are no matching
>> libraries to fully develop applications in the OpenGL-ish way.
>> Hopefully OpenML (wasn't that MultiProcessor? Or Media?) will go a
>> long way and we can enjoy it on a variety of platforms; mainly
>> Linux/IRIX/Win32 and Mac. Quite important for the success, I think,
>> there's no use in a Linux/IRIX-only API. It just won't win.
>> And an independent API collection on Win32 can have developers not
>> depend too much on Win32's weaker points. :)

>dmSDK was primarily developed on Win32 for SGI320/540. Then it has been
>ported back to IRIX/Linux, and the Win32 drivers are in the works for
>first the Vx10 family AFAIK.  So yes, it intend to be an all-platform
>API.

    Yes. Most of the Khronos SIG members (www.khronos.org) support
Windows, and the specification covers both Windows and X11 bindings and
display control. In the future, OpenML will probably move to embedded
environments under other OSes too.

    Jon Leech
    SGI

 
 
 

SGI hunting for Open* names?

Post by Alexis Cousei » Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:05:04



> I hope this also includes Win32, since that is important for the
> lifecycle of an API; more success can be gained WITH Win32 inclusion
> rather than without, IMHO.

Address your desires to see anything that could divert people away from
APIs under *total* control of Microsoft to Microsoft -- *most* certainly
for any API that would also exist under Linux.

There's enough historical documentation around for me to avoid any
further comments (the US temperature scale spontaneously pops up in my
mind)...OpenGL under Windows exists because it is "incontournable", and
it is unavoidable because of its success on *non* Windows platforms, so
my (personal) opinion is that if you want a non-Microsoft API into
Windows, the only thing you can do is make it so successful outside of
Windows that not having it in Windows would cost Microsoft license
revenue...

--
Alexis Cousein                          Senior Systems Engineer

 
 
 

SGI hunting for Open* names?

Post by Ruud van Ga » Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:01:26


On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 12:05:04 +0200, Alexis Cousein



>> I hope this also includes Win32, since that is important for the
>> lifecycle of an API; more success can be gained WITH Win32 inclusion
>> rather than without, IMHO.

>Address your desires to see anything that could divert people away from
>APIs under *total* control of Microsoft to Microsoft -- *most* certainly
>for any API that would also exist under Linux.

It's strange somehow that Microsoft is so PC/Intel oriented. They're a
software company and shouldn't care less on what platform their
software is running. Get DirectX to work on Intel/Linux/Sun would only
speed up their taking over OpenGL, I think.
Sometime they'll see that light, just like they did with the Internet.
And then, even DX gets interesting, even with the robotic, mechanical
feel of that unhuman interface.

Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25
Pencil art    : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
Free car sim  : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

 
 
 

SGI hunting for Open* names?

Post by Harri Haata » Wed, 11 Apr 2001 18:02:25





>>> I hope this also includes Win32, since that is important for the
>>> lifecycle of an API; more success can be gained WITH Win32 inclusion
>>> rather than without, IMHO.

>>Address your desires to see anything that could divert people away from
>>APIs under *total* control of Microsoft to Microsoft -- *most* certainly
>>for any API that would also exist under Linux.

>It's strange somehow that Microsoft is so PC/Intel oriented. They're a
>software company and shouldn't care less on what platform their
>software is running. Get DirectX to work on Intel/Linux/Sun would only
>speed up their taking over OpenGL, I think.

You really think M$ software would run on any other platform?
It hardly runs on x86 and port attempts (NT's of hayday) have been
complete fiasco's.

As for software company, They also own some/most/all? of Apple's products
and if you look, Macs are filled with M$, office, IE...

Quote:>Sometime they'll see that light, just like they did with the Internet.

I'm not sure whether to laugh or to give that sentence attention.

--
If it walks like SPAM and quacks like SPAM, it is very likely SPAM.

 
 
 

SGI hunting for Open* names?

Post by Ruud van Ga » Wed, 11 Apr 2001 21:28:02





...
>>It's strange somehow that Microsoft is so PC/Intel oriented. They're a
>>software company and shouldn't care less on what platform their
>>software is running. Get DirectX to work on Intel/Linux/Sun would only
>>speed up their taking over OpenGL, I think.

>You really think M$ software would run on any other platform?

Well, given your next sentences about so much MS stuff on Macs, I'd
say you've answered your own question. ;-)
But really, I don't mean Windows, which is obviously a good attempt at
doing a userfriendly Unix but with a bad OS at the end of the day.

Quote:>It hardly runs on x86 and port attempts (NT's of hayday) have been
>complete fiasco's.

Ok, but I was talking about things like MS-Office and such. I don't
want to have a Windows running on MIPS, I want to have MS-Office
running under IRIX, for example.

Quote:>As for software company, They also own some/most/all? of Apple's products
>and if you look, Macs are filled with M$, office, IE...

>>Sometime they'll see that light, just like they did with the Internet.

>I'm not sure whether to laugh or to give that sentence attention.

Laughing is more fun. :)
And I'm not MS, so I won't be able to tell Where they'll go Tomorrow.

Ruud van Gaal, GPL Rank +53.25
Pencil art    : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/
Free car sim  : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/racer/

 
 
 

1. cvd/cvperf "Can't open Dso named..."

I'm having some trouble with the cvd performance analyser.

After the process completes the Performance Analyzer window
appears along with a box which says "Resolving externals from
libexc.so". Then I get a message which says:

Can't open Dso named
'/people/eiscat/integrate/64/source_esr_day1.drv.so'; also tried *_Copy
and *.sspix.
Was the dso cache removed?
Was experiment recorded on a different machine?

The DSO is most definitely there, the program just used it.
It wasn't run on a different machine.

Anyone have any ideas why cvperf can't open the DSO?
What is the dso cache?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Wade, System Administrator, Space Plasma Physics Group,
            University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK

Phone :     +44 (0)116 2523568, Fax : +44 (0)116 2523555

2. Shared printers

3. NIC-names: per-port ip names on sgi irix 6.5.17

4. Blade 100 and NT 4 on SUNPci2 install problems

5. hunting Challenge XL and L

6. VBA and Scale function

7. open inventor/open gl books

8. GM "Bin of Parts" image database

9. help on open storage for open systems

10. named for BIND Domain Name Server

11. How to change in sendmail the machine-name to another name?

12. Job opening for SGI developers

13. Weird file-open problem in Lucid CL (SGI)