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
Ok, for the people who haven't read it:
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.
> > 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.
>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/