Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:No use fighting it (Score 1) 130

It doesn't actually matter what the studios do. The biggest reason for selling fewer shows in the future is not going to be piracy, it's going to because they make crap shows.

Well we're talking about piracy, you're hardly going to pirate shows you don't even want to watch. I'm not sure there has been any significant decrease in the watching of television shows recently due to a supposed quality decline.

Comment Re:No use fighting it (Score 1) 130

Some people will always pirate, sure, but 99% of people aren't going to ever bother if they can get what they're looking for conveniently and without paying through the nose for it.

True. They spent so much time fighting the internet rather than embracing it that piracy became the norm, it wasn't a matter of people being unwilling to pay but of studios not providing a channel. It was more convenient and ultimately you got a better product. Now we see streaming services that are even more convenient than piracy in most cases (yes there are people who dont have good enough internet connections or want to save for offline viewing, etc...) so studios should be embracing, rather than fighting this sort of technology.

Comment Re:Want big Hollywood movies? Eliminate Hollywood (Score 1) 130

I certainly agree with that, which is why I pay for content. What irks me is when content producers refuse to sell it to me because of things like region restrictions. I want the content and I'm happy to pay for it so I'll admit I do pirate some things but it's only stuff where they won't "shut up and take my money".
I don't participate in online communities for tv shows like those that discuss and analyse them but I can see how it would be annoying to want to be a part of that but to have to isolate yourself from it because content producers have shown it to some people but not to others. If you're getting the content a week or so later than in other parts of the world then obviously I can see why you would pirate it.

Comment Re:w00t! (Score 1) 152

Yes yes more "fanboy" namecalling garbage to detract from your inability to express yourself objectively. Post your criticism in the Vulkan forums, then you will see how wrong you are. It will expose both your lack of knowledge and understanding.

We can do this in tiny steps, one at a time since large things are clearly overwhelming and enraging you:

OpenGL's model means application-specific optimization code must exist in the driver rather than the application, this is wrong. In Vulkan this application code is in the application instead of the driver.

Comment Re:w00t! (Score 1) 152

Here's a short summary from a Vulkan IMPLEMENTOR on where OpenGL is better than Vulkan, and vice-versa

The only criticism in that article is that Vulkan comes with some added complexity, which is precisely why I pointed out that for people like you there is the higher level API built on top of Vulkan. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Then if you read Graham Seller's own Powerpoint AND have experience in developing LARGE applications you can see massive potential pitfalls in using Vulkan that you won't get with OpenGL

And also the massive benefits that you do get with Vulkan, so again, for people like you that can't manage the complexity and for which the benefits of Vulkan aren't an advantage there are less efficient higher level APIs for you to use.

Nope, OpenGL is more than sufficient

Not for everybody, hence the reason OpenGL (and DirectX which is wrong.

the use of the Vulkan command-buffer model gains nothing, but increases development cost.

Which is why you would use a higher level API for your use-case, problem solved. Why are you still whining about it?

Yes, OpenGL has that feature (so why use Vulkan?)

What I'm pointing out is that you citicised Vulkan for having memory barriers and now that I have educated you on the fact that OpenGL also has memory barriers you have changed your mind. You claim to be experienced yet you didn't even know this existed in OpenGL before and so criticized its existence in Vulkan. I don't expect anybody to know everything so stop pretending, you just keep looking stupid.

Sometime you should read the criticisms of the Mantle API, as this applies directly to Vulkan (which follows the same concepts), for an idea, look at this. Apple considers Metal to have better performance than Vulkan, and supposedly better than OpenGL - yet OpenGL beats Metal (and thus, Vulkan) on the discrete GPU in this benchmark

So use OpenGL (or a high level equivalent) in that case. Parallel is not always better so use the right approach for your problem, Vulkan allows this. Your issue with it is that its benefits may not be useful to you therefore they can't be useful to anybody, that is an attitude that stems from limited experience. You may be old and stuck in a rut for decades but that doesn't make you experienced.

Couple that with the fact that Apple is not supporting Vulkan (supporting OpenGL and Metal instead)

Apple's support for OpenGL is merely a token gesture, as you already pointed out they are way behind in feature support.

You think I'm "trying to convince you"? LOL !

Yes you in fact are, you respond to every one of my points and avoid my questions. Please post your criticisms on the Vulkan forums and you will see how wrong you are, apparently you "don't have time" for that but you do have time to desperately respond to me.

Vulkan is not cross-platform in the way OpenGL is (at least, it won't be for a few years).

Of course not, nobody is suggesting even getting rid of OpenGL at this stage, just having Vulkan as an option for developers for which it will be advantageous, why do you have such baseless and irrational objection to that?

Comment Re:What's the point (Score 1) 312

Yeah that's a good point. I still think that Hurd is a good investment for the FSF because while Linux happened to be in step with the FSF's views at the time this is changing and will continue to change as the computing world evolves. For example the FSF sees Tivoization as bad yet the operating systems it endorses have Linux at their core, a project that sees Tivoization as a good thing. It's a little difficult to believe the FSF is really committed to this stance if they just use Linux because it's easier and aren't putting effort into a project that aligns with their views.

Comment Re:w00t! (Score 1) 152

I got thsoe points from Vulkan powerpoint presentations.

Link me to the powerpoint presentations that have those points then. I doubt they exist, they are your points and they are derived from your own misinterpretation of the information.

I'm merely pointing out that Vulkan is a worse choice than OpenGL for desktop and workstation application developers.

If that is how you feel then use one of the various alternative solutions I already outlined for you.

I've been developing a lot of stuff in the last two decades. I've used a LOT of complex APIs, but my experience has shown me that a poorly designed API doesn't last long

But it isn't poorly designed, your specific criticism is that it has memory barriers - just like GLSL does - so when you say you have all this experience yet you don't understand the basics of asynchronous programming and don't even know GLSL very well certainly calls your claims into question.

That's not a bad idea. The only problem is that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. I see Vulkan as much of a design mistake as Mantle was. I could spend time arguing how to make it better, but what is the point trying to convince people who are so bad at API design they are completely oblivious as to what their intended audience actually need?

No, I said post your objective criticism, the problem is you are so misinformed that you don't have one. You've gone to great effort to make baseless claims about things you clearly don't understand but then tell me you don't have time to post such things on the Khronos forum? No sorry that's just rubbish. If you really thought it was a waste of time and not that you're just going to look like an idiot then you wouldn't be spending all this time trying to convince me. Quite frankly when your only criticism of the design of the API is because it has memory barriers (and you think that is telling you the internal state of the GPU, which it isn't) then you have proven all this credential-dropping is untrue since you don't even have any experience with the basics of asynchronous programming and you think application code belongs in the driver. Every time you get backed into a corner you throw out the obviously false claim that you are expderienced, which you clearly are not.

I'm sure you'll post yet another long rant desperately trying to convince me but won't post on the Khronos forums.

Comment Re:What's the point (Score 1) 312

While this is true, RMS had abandoned HURD a long time ago, and instead took Linux, stripped it of any 'non-free' components, branded it 'libre-Linux' and promotes THAT.

Evidently that was pretty short-sighted - not to say I wouldn't have made the same decision in his place - with Tivoization and the myriad of companies using Linux in SaaS solutions but not actually distributing it. Your proposal re: minix is an interesting one but I wonder if a more practical solution (albiet without the microkernel aspect) would be to create a GPLv3 fork of Linux itself, features from the mainline could be merged in and the onus would be on the developers to create innovative and compelling features that Linux users want that would drive them to use the GPLv3 fork. Competition drives innovation and the GPLv3 camp could leverage the work of the GPLv2 camp.

Comment Re:What's the point (Score 2) 312

What's the point of continuing with Hurd?

Well the FSF doesn't really have an operating system kernel representative of the Free Software ideology. The closest thing is the Linux kernel which Linus has clearly said simply uses the GPLv2 for tit-for-tat contributions because it is a good license, not because Linux is a free software project. Of course it also doesn't do copyright assignment to the FSF and also is not GPLv3 and is unlikely to migrate to further revisions of the GPL in future.

As the FSF evolves the Linux kernel's position on free software does not evolve with them so to evangelize free software the FSF really needs an operating system representative of their ideals, that is what GNU Hurd is.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is contrary to reasoning to say that there is a vacuum or space in which there is absolutely nothing. -- Descartes

Working...