SGI Gives Open Source some OpenGL Love 211
Doctor Bob writes "Just saw this press release from SGI. I think this quote sums it up:
"With today's release, all of the necessary components to implement hardware-accelerated OpenGL drivers will be available to the open source community."
" The implementation from SGI is ready for download from SGI. Have fun.
Re:gone to far (Score:1)
Also, it'd be a lot easier to understand your opinion on this if you wrote in better English. (I'm not gonna say anything about your intelligence - I have a professor who is quite intelligent from what I can tell, but most of the time people can't understand him for love or money...)
SGI, please port Open Inventor to Linux (Score:1)
The availability of Open Inventor [sgi.com] on Linux would make it much easier to build compelling 3D applications on that platform. Releasing it under an Open Source license would be killer! Please make it happen SGI. While you're at it, please do the same with the ImageVision Library [sgi.com].
BANZAAAAAI! (-: Or, why SGI will win :-) (Score:1)
That seems to have been SGI's attitude all along, and I must say that it's far and away the best corporate attitude I've seen in any big player.
IBM is doing good, yes, but in a relatively cold-blooded way. In essence, SGI can't see the bottom of this chasm they've come to, but are willing to try jumping it anyway. That's real courage! IBM thinks that they can see the bottom, and are in for a surprise (-: IBM-shaped hole at bottom?
For SGI's multiple commitments to the public good (hey, that's me!), I'll be recommending SGI gear over comparable equipment from elsewhere for every high-end job that I spec from now on. It won't take a great percentage of the computing public doing likewise to double SGI's turnover.
Are you listening, Sun?
Re:Not only is MIPS not dead, neither is Irix (Score:1)
This is actually a very insightful take on SGI's current strategy. By promoting Linux as "Irix Jr.", they keep some of the mindshare away from NT, and towards the traditional Unix vendors (which SGI knows how to compete with).
The question is: are people really moving towards NT because of hardware costs? Or is because NT is seen to integrate easier into a "regular" corporate network with "regular" support personnel? (I know that is one main reason Macs are on the out on most corporate networks.) Sure, the smart strategy is to be "developer-centric", but in the real world there are many pennywise-poundfoolish situations.
--
Re:License debates (Score:1)
On the same token, I started using Linux around '96, and at the time, several of us realized that if we wanted corporate America, or our future bosses if you will, to take Linux seriously and consider it as something more than a hacker's toy, that we would have to persuade companies to release/port Linux versions of their software. Well, several of us have worked to do just that; and, with embarrassing regularity, these companies are flooded with emails berating the comanies for not opening the source of the program. This is an area where we should take small steps. We've been able to convince a *few* comanies to port what would be considered desktop-oriented products to what would ordinarily be considered a hacker-oriented/server-oriented operating system. To have them take on, at the same time, an entirely new development strategy would be considered by most to be a foolish business decision. I wish I could remember what company it was, or even what product it was, but I recall an interview with a developer working for a company that had just released a Linux version of their product. The developer made the point of saying, "Don't crucify us for not releasing the source," or something to that effect, stating that it was tough enough to get the pointy-haired management types to do a Linux port. There's a reason he said that.
And yes, I feel very strongly about the GPL, which is why I bristle every time someone suggests that every piece of software written *has* to be released under the GPL, and that any other license is crap. I personally like the GPL, but I certainly don't advocate GPLing everything. Hey, let's get Visa to GPL their CCN generator code
Re:Way to go SGI (Score:1)
Are you implying that Sun is doing the wrong thing for not being a consumer oriented business? Why would Sun even *want* consumers to use their products? That's not their business plan.
-BrentOpenGL *will* be open-source (Score:3)
I misspoke, and I couldn't be more happy to be corrected
If you have questions about our licensing, please check the FAQ [sgi.com]. It goes into a lot more detail.
Jon Leech
OpenGL Group
SGI
So it does:
What's missing from the current Sample Implementation?
That looks like a fun project. I assume this is the time honored hack of assembling code on the stack and branching to it, to cover all the lighting combinations without having 10,000 different inner loops.
The geometry path assembly code optimizations which we ship to our commercial licensees are actually owned by other companies, so we don't have the rights to place them under an open source license. We will work with the companies involved to try and free up these components.
Go get 'em
Thanks a bunch.
Re:Not only is MIPS not dead, neither is Irix (Score:1)
>Linux will run on low cost, high powered >hardware. IRIX will (currently) only run on >expensive proprietary SGI boxes.
I can easily put together a set of requirements that would force a Linux-based system to cost more than the "equivalent" SGI box. Real-time image processing on a video stream is one example: an R5000 O2 can do a lot in that regime (for tiny money); I don't know how you'd build the Linux box to do the same thing (assuming PC components).
I appologize, I was speaking strictly from the view of someone who uses computers to create 2D and 3D art assets for both realtime and prerendered animations. For the work I do I can easily grab a bunch of off the shelf components (motherboard, 2 PIIIs or Athlons, GeForce Quadro, SCSI card, SCSI drive, etc...) and build a box that would have a lot of bang/buck under either Linux or NT. It will be a heck of a lot cheaper than an Oxygen and it will do the job just as well.
Re:Latency (Score:1)
Did you figure in the cost of gigabit ethernet and the switches to go with it? I wouldn't even consider doing a large render on 100bt.
For more money you have one single box. Ask pixar why they used 14 sun boxes and not a fleet of cheap PC's.
Pixar used many more than 14 Sun boxes. And you know why they chose Sun boxes with slower processors? It wasn't $/cycle or anything as traditional as that. They used a measurement of cycles/square foot. Since those Sun boxes are flat they could get many many more of them in the space they had for their renderfarm. Mac, SGIs, Alpha, and Intel boxes were out because they couldn't get enough of them in the room.
But what Pixar does is -orders- of magnitude more complex than the work a team of 5 artists does for a computer game. So, no, I didn't figure in the cost of a bunch of networking equipment that wouldn't benefit us greatly.
Re:let me connect the dots for you (Score:1)
Sure one MIPS processor of a given mHz might outperform the same PIII at the same speed, but for the same money I can get a room full of PIIIs and have a very fast renderfarm. So what if an SGI can do 1 frame faster than my PIII. With the distributed renderfarm at the same $ I can have the entire animation done much much faster.
Plus I don't have to have yearly maintenance contracts for hardware and overpriced software that make the TCO of the machine much larger than it should be.
Re:sgi still won't be able to support itself (Score:1)
I'm not going to go into the issue of the rating system here at slashdot. I don't really care what they rated my post. in fact, I didn't post to get a rating - I simply posted just to share my views of how I saw things from the inside.
ok - you have more years at sgi than I do. great. have you not read the .ba postings while you were there? or, were we reading different .ba groups?? the one that _I_ read had lots of disgust/mistrust toward management. when they effectively cut MIPS loose there was sore feelings all around. but they DID cut it loose, for all practical purposes. in fact, when I was on the first floor and they were on the 2nd, you needed a special keycard to get into their space and vice versa. that is a SURE sign that the two had parted company. they had their own network, mostly separate from ours, etc, etc.
for the record, I have nothing bad to say about the MIPS technology, let me make that very clear. I loved their chips and designs. but business-wise, sgi and mips were just not meant to be with each other for the long run. "IA64 this and IA64 that, and microsoft for the other" was all I heard. "dump IRIX from the desktop and replace the whole shooting match with NT". we were staffing up to train our ops guys in NT and were de-emphasizing IRIX on the desktop big-time. I saw this first-hand - this wasn't just a rumor.
if you've been at sgi as long as you have, surely you know that their business direction (in the last few years) changes like the wind. so there's no basis in betting the farm on what they are currently preaching.
as to your comment 2 years at SGI doesn't give everyone insight into it's future, my reply is: how long does it take to see that staying there was a losing proposition? about 3/4 of the folks I knew when I was there had all left. perhaps even the top 3/4 of the company, talen-wise, if I may be so bold...
--
You decide the coverage.. (Score:1)
Turn them off
After all, you decide what is shown on your
personal Slashdot-page.
This is what dynamic websites are all about
Re:High-end 3d on Linux (Score:1)
It does seem odd that NewTek, once huge proponents of the Amiga, now refuse to consider alternative systems...
Re:High-end 3d on Linux (Score:1)
They are prefectly valid arguments. In my experience there's not been a professional unix admin in most small scale digital design houses. As far as a free os making turnkey a unique proposition, well that's ludicrous. It's impossible to pair up your average linux dist with any particular machine and have it "just work" with the full feature set. Support is more than paying some consultant to come and do backups and installs and kluge some scripts together. Support at this level is when someone guarantees that their product will work and when there are problems they are willing to put a man in your shop in less than 24 hours to make it work again.
No I don't miss the point. I'm seeing one large company that is putting capital into research. I see another company looking for a way off the sinking ship. When the big names are putting as much into Linux as they are into their flagship products, then we'll re-assess the support situation.
Different opinions I guess.
Re:sgi still won't be able to support itself (Score:2)
Clustering is a very important technology, that works very well for some applications. But there are some very important, real world applications that will be very difficult (if not impossible) to implement in a clustered environment.
A real world example: A travel reservation company uses a 32 processor Origin 2000 with 16 GBs of memory. They load all of the data (flight schedules, hotel availability, rental car data - about 8 GBs) into a shared memory area, where processes running on all 32 processors can access them directly.
Imagine how difficult that would be to implement in a clustered environment, with the data spread across the system memory of multiple machines. Just finding all the flights from Austin to San Jose would be a nightmare, then you have to worry about locking, etc.
Clustering is great, but it is not the best solution for all problems.
Need OpenInventor? (Score:1)
An open-source alternative to Inventor is Quesa [quesa.org]. Quesa implements the Quickdraw 3D API, which includes a nice hierarchical scene system.
Err... (Score:4)
This is of course very dependant on your skills in the area of the API. If you don't get Binary Objects, if you don't understand OO, you'll NEVER understand D3D. It will be very hard then. OpenGL is a difficult API to master as D3D is too. Everyone can cook up a spinning cube, not everyone can cook up a 10.000 poly world running at decent framespeeds with a lot of different textures.
OpenGL is orthogonal. SGI had tons of experience with IrisGL before they cleaned it up and "re-named" it OpenGL.
Well, there are still some IrisGL leftovers in the OpenGL that should have been removed already. Some things are odd in OpenGL, I wouldn't call it orthogonal
OpenGL has a consistent design (look at Direct3D having 7 versions in 5 year!) OpenGL has gone thru 2 iterations in 10 years. Does that mean OpenGL has been slow to change? No, as vendors are allowed to add any extenstion they wish.
Sorry to interrupt your dreams, but OpenGL seriously is moving forward WAY too slow. I mean by this that the 1.2 specs are great but they are great for a long time already. It's now official and finally we begin to see 1.2 compliant subsystems, but it took way too long, so currently a lot of subsystems don't support any nice features which are provided by the hardware. If the standard would have forced the functionality earlier, Matrox and S3 would have been forced to implement more functionality than they did today. NO Matrox OpenGL driver NOR S3 OpenGL driver supports ANY features which make these cards outstanding: the Matrox bumpmapping in the Gxxx series and the S3 texturecompression. Sure, extensions have an advantage: vendors don't have to wait for the library supplier to release an updated version, but it also doesn't force vendors to add the features.
D3D is a young api. OpenGL is based on IrisGL. Every new technology has it's problems when it's created. IrisGL had these too. D3D is up to par now. It's however IMHO not correct to say: D3D is crap because they had a lot of version in a short time. That's BECAUSE it's new.
OpenGL also has a conformance test, guaranteeing that all OpenGL implementations are feature complete, unlike D3D. Does that guarantee speed? No. Drivers are allowed to "fall-back" into software.
Feature complete is somehow a bit stupid here. 'Feature complete' refers to the 1.1 or 1.2 featureset. 1.2 is too new to be very common, and 1.1 is very old. To be 1.1 compatible doesn't say a thing nowadays. For example ARB_multitexturing, a MUST HAVE feature today, isn't in the 1.1 set. The software fall back is a thing that annoys me the most on OpenGL. When I do a glEnable(GL_POLYGON_SMOOTH); on a GeForce card, it falls COMPLETE to software, because it can't do a part of the pipeline in software, but in D3d only parts of the not by hardware supported features, are done in software. That's IMHO a better approach.
I can only laugh about this.
Take care...
DemoGL [www.sd.nl] main developer. DemoGL is a win32/OpenGL multimedia library.
Re:Microsoft and Softimage (Score:2)
Re:Whats the big deal? (Score:1)
Re:WooHoo! (Score:1)
Re:Been there, done that (Score:2)
Re:Whats the big deal? (Score:1)
I'm not sure about nVidia. Glide was a proprietary driver from 3Dfx (it's OS now too). But OpenGL was initially drafted as a standard 3D lib. Not quite sure on much of the other details, but simply put, it's a matter of one standard across the board irregardless of whether you've got a TNT or a VooDoo (or whatever).
Re:Sample Implementation? (Score:2)
How does the Sample Implementation compare to Mesa?
We believe the Sample Implementation is strong in areas such as internal state management as well as complete feature coverage (such as the optional imaging features of the OpenGL 1.2 Specification, which Mesa does not provide). By comparision to the currently distributed SI, Mesa will probably provide better software rendering performance, and there are existing open-source hardware drivers projects based on Mesa. We think the two codebases can be complementary. Based on discussions with some of the active Mesa developers, there's a reasonable chance of merging the two together into a single reference implementation and driver kit over time.
What does this mean for Mesa-based drivers?
In the long term, it may be possible for the Sample Implementation and Mesa codebases to merge together, drawing on the different strengths of both. Whether or not this happens, elements of the Sample Implementation such as the previously released GLX will continue to be used to support drivers based on either Mesa or the Sample Implementation. We expect both Mesa-based and SI-based drivers will be widespread for some time to come.
What's missing from the current Sample Implementation?
Dynamic assembly code generation for rasterization is not yet included, making software rendering performance slow. The geometry path assembly code optimizations which we ship to our commercial licensees are actually owned by other companies, so we don't have the rights to place them under an open source license. We will work with the companies involved to try and free up these components.
There are also a number of companion libraries, such as the GLS stream codec and the GLC character renderer, which are not being open sourced now because we are uncertain of their value to the community relative to the significant resources we'd have to expend on releasing them. We continue to evaluate what OpenGL-based SGI software technologies would be suitable for open sourcing.
Re:SGI vs X4 vs Mesa (Score:5)
XFree, being an implementation of an X server, has pretty much nothing to do with OpenGL. There are two limited ways they deal with each other:
Mesa is an implementation of the OpenGL API. So is SGI's OpenGL® Sample Implementation. In fact, the reason SGI first started calling it "Open" (instead of simply "GL" for "Graphics Library") was because they cleaned up and published the API, then gave people permission to implement it.
As has been posted elsewhere on this thread, SGI is making vague noises about OpenGL and Mesa merging. This would be a wonderful example of how open source licenses actively discourage forking (as discussed in the context of the GPL in Linuxcare [linuxcare.com] back in November).
If you want to know more about the hoary guts of OpenGL, and not just the API, I'd suggest looking up some of Akeley's articles on the hardware from prior SIGGRAPH [siggraph.org] proceedings.
Both Inventor and Performer are toolkits developed by SGI to run on top of OpenGL and simplify application development. Inventor is targeted more at interactive applications, like modelers (I wrote one in Inventor before it was released in less than five days, having never seen the library before - see Paul Strauss's and Rikk Carey's SIGGRAPH paper). Performer is targeted more at walkthroughs, flight simulators, and the like.
Re:Microsoft and Avid (Score:2)
its the same thing! (Score:1)
One thing I really like about OpenGL is that there have only been 3 versions. v1.0, v1.1, and v1.2. That makes it pretty easy to pick your applications and your implementations. SGI has done the (TM)"Right Thing" and I believe will lead to a much better, much more compatible Mesa and accelereted OpenGL implementations created by many people.
Look at the results:
Companies can now release the source to their Windoze GL implementations, leading to integration of accelerated hardware support possibly being implemented in Mesa. I doubt this will change the OpenGL trademarking or certification procedures, hence Mesa will still not be certified. However, Mesa can finally be really compliant while supporting in a single code tree all hardware whose respective companies choose to release source! A very good thing.
Software rendering is dying quickly (Score:1)
Re:Latency (Score:1)
If that's the case, then wouldn't 1U (unit) rackmounted linux/freeBSD boxes be the trick?
Most of the SGI stuff can be Rackmounted. The Octanes were great too! (the only thing it was missing was a cdrom drive)
Re:Not to get into advocacy but... (Score:1)
the OpenGL newbie will definitely have a rotating polygon sooner. But that's not the point I was refering to
Once you need to start worrying about Visible Surface Determination, the API isn't the bottleneck: Your culling / occlusion algorithms are, along with state minimization, and texture management. Wouldn't you agree?
I agree. It's however funny to see people first don't understand statechanges are expensive and visual face determination IS important
For the most part it is. I'm curious, what part of OpenGL isn't orthogonal? For me: display lists: it's a whole bunch of hoopla but no speed increase nowadays, and the global orientation of the code: it's nice to have everything global, but it can also work against you, especially in a OOP environment IMHO.
MS shoved D3D down our game developer throats whether we wanted it or not. OpenGL works for games, as Carmack has shown us. They already had OpenGL on NT, why did they have to go and FIX ANOTHER API?
There were numerous api's. Not one was 'major', perhaps Glide was. MS created DX (not only D3D) to provide a uniform layer of abstract code using COM, which was always the same, independant of the underlying hardware. It solved a problem for gameprogrammers: which api would we take? Glide? MeTal? OpenGL? Not one of these was supported by ALL cards. D3D is. For gameprogrammers this was a blessing because they could now focus on 1 API.
The D3D drivers are very small, because the HW vendor just has to implement the very basic stuff to communicate with the hardware. The rest is already implemented in the HAL. That's why it's easy to provide a good d3d driver, the opengl icd has to contain that HAL AND the HEL and the driver.
Question: How does a vendor provide extensions in D3D ? Oh wait, they CAN'T, unless they pesister MS to provide it in a future D3D version.
Afaik, Dx7 also contains an extension mechanism.
Nice job on DemoGL.
Thanks!
Way to go SGI (Score:1)
need indy linux port w/ hw accel gl (Score:1)
they need to make a concerted effort to get more tools ported, too -- maybe even that cvd debugger.
man i love their hardware, it is always so funny to see the monkeys post about their "750 mhz athlon" -- they have absolutely no clue how wonderful it is to develop under SGI/Irix -- it really makes me cringe to write under linux/pc crapware.
hope SGI continues to embrace os community.
Re:Not only is MIPS not dead, neither is Irix (Score:1)
I have heard it said, and I will say it myself, Irix is perhaps the BEST operating system in existence right now.
Well, I'm definitely in agreement with a qualifier similar to your other comment:
It is a joy to be a developer on IRIX.
That's really the key isn't it: development. What people forget that the most expensive resource isn't the computer; it's the developer. Chances are very slim (in today's economy) that, if you're a working developer, you cost your employer less than the computer that you work at. Even better, your fully loaded rate (with overhead, etc.) is likely several times higher than an amortized billing / lease rate for your machine.
In short, it makes economic sense to pick the tools that make your (expensive!) workers most effective. In my case, I've been working with UNIX (and other OSes) for about 20 years; I find IRIX to be the best all-around package. Then there's the real-time capabilities: nanosecond-level real-time clocks, anyone?
On the other hand, for those running render farms (batch processing of animations), they need cheap cycles, so they don't really care about "development." To my mind, they shouldn't be buying computers at all, they should be renting the cycles. That sort of drives down your "total cost of ownership...".
My favorite comments, though, are when person P says something along the lines of "application X isn't supported on IRIX, so it sucks and is dying off" (e.g., Multigen Creator).
Well, if application X is a requirement right now, it's a requirement; choose a supported a platform and get to work. Note, however, that a lot of those types of applications are also not supported on Linux. Well, P, by the transitive property, you're saying that Linux sucks and is dying off, too. Are you sure you want to say that? Here? Go on, I dare you....
First Post? (Score:3)
Re:Everyone's gone... (Score:1)
Something tells me that is the whole point of Open Source. To benefit from open source development. Or did I miss something?
-BrentBeen there, done that (Score:1)
Re:Latency (Score:1)
The newer flat PIIIs might work better, but those weren't available when Pixar was working on TS2.
Re:Not only is MIPS not dead, neither is Irix (Score:1)
...cheaper than an Oxygen...
I meant Octane. (must not type late at night...)
SGI vs X4 vs Mesa (Score:4)
___
Re:[OT]Sun did OS their code (Score:1)
I know that. However I was replying to a post that seemed to imply that Sun was solving the wrong problem because consumers didn't want > $5000 computers.
I am asking why do you think that Sun would even want consumers to use their computers. That's not what their computers are being made for. Sun has no problems with the fact that little old ladies aren't using Solaris to read their e-mail. That has nothing to do with source, or cost, or anything, really. Just that Sun exists to solve a different problem.
-BrentRe:[OT]Sun did OS their code (Score:1)
No, not Sun, not SGI either are in the business of consumer devices.
-BrentRe:Everyone's gone... (Score:1)
Besides, they will likely be giving as good as they get. IRIX is a very high end system, and it would be cool to have some of those features released for Linux (such as xfs, for beginners. In fact, they already have a sample code release for it). SGI has to move towards the low-end because that's where most people are going. Movie studios, for instance, are beginning to favor farms of Linux boxen to render films as opposed to just one big-ass server.
Not to get into advocacy but... (Score:1)
>This is of course very dependant on your skills in the area of the API.
Take a newbie and get him started on D3D.
Take another newbie and have him use OpenGL.
Who will have working code sooner?
Granted, once you understand the 3d pipeline, moving to another API is not too difficult.
> If you don't get Binary Objects, if you don't understand OO, you'll NEVER understand D3D. Everyone can cook up a spinning cube,
Seems like OpenGL is easier to learn then?
> not everyone can cook up a 10,000 poly world running at decent framespeeds with a lot of different textures.
Once you need to start worrying about Visible Surface Determination, the API isn't the bottleneck: Your culling / occlusion algorithms are, along with state minimization, and texture management. Wouldn't you agree?
> Some things are odd in OpenGL, I wouldn't call it orthogonal
For the most part it is. I'm curious, what part of OpenGL isn't orthogonal?
Last time I read the spec, I didn't see any discretions. Maybe Jon Leech can point out a few?
> Feature complete is somehow a bit stupid here.
Compared to cap-bits?! Capability bits break when you have 2 mutual exclusive features. No thanks. Of the 2 methods, I'll take (slow) feature complete, over missing features. Its the best of worst worlds.
Let's not forgot "feature complete" and cap-bits, do not tell you how FAST something is implemented. Remember, some people prefer quality, others prefer framerate. Feature complete or cap-bits doesn't answer those 2 scenarios. At least your game will visually look the same on different hardware (assuming the drivers aren't broken.)
> It's however IMHO not correct to say: D3D is crap because they had a lot of versions in a short time. That's BECAUSE it's new.
So you're telling me that you still want to use executive buffers from DX3 ? I don't see them in DX7 ! D3D is already 5 years old, thats not new.
>> Thats because Microsoft IS so bull-headed after buying Direct3D from Rendermorphics
> I can only laugh about this.
MS shoved D3D down our game developer throats whether we wanted it or not. OpenGL works for games, as Carmack has shown us. They already had OpenGL on NT, why did they have to go and FIX ANOTHER API?
> If you know how d3d drivers are developped, you'd know that a vendor can create a d3d driver for his card with a very small piece of code.
I can't comment on this having never seen any d3d driver code. I'm not a driver writer, just a game developer. Have you seen any d3d driver code?
Ok, I'll buy the bit where OpenGL drivers are harder to develop then D3D drivers.
> It's however a shame not all of those cardmakers include all the new HW features in the ICD via extensions as nVidia does
That's for sure.
Question: How does a vendor provide extensions in D3D ? Oh wait, they CAN'T, unless they pesister MS to provide it in a future D3D version.
Nice job on DemoGL.
Cheers
Re:[OT]Sun did OS their code (Score:1)
Re:Not sure I get this "implementation." (Score:1)
Am I even close?
look at the Project List page (Score:4)
Re:Any word on Open Inventor? (Score:1)
Not sure I get this "implementation." (Score:1)
I agree it's a step towards full open source, but I wonder if it's not just a baby step.
J.
Re:Been there, done that (Score:1)
--
Re:Well great... (Score:1)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
DirectX/Direct3D is the way forward (Score:1)
OpenGL is available on almost all major/minor platforms. For starters: Win, Mac, Linux, Be, etc.
First glQuake, now OpenGL source. Its a good year to be a 3d programmer.
3Dfx OpenGL finally now?! (Score:1)
No flames, but the OpenGL driver has been in beta now, for what, a year?
Cheers
MesaGL influencing OpenGL (Score:1)
Now I'm wondering, if they are thinking about merging both sources, is there any chance that what's different in Mesa could influence OpenGL's specification?
Re:Any word on Open Inventor? (Score:1)
High-end 3d on Linux (Score:2)
If you poke around on the A|W site, you'll find information about becoming a beta-tester for the Linux beta of Maya. You'll have to find it yourself because I don't want to cut into my chances of actually making the cut.
Softimage, I don't know, although it would be really nice to see. Avid has owned Softimage for a couple of years now, and Softimage development is actually done by some company in Germany I think, (rather like the way 3DSMax is, or was, owned by Autodesk but developed by Kinetix.) so it's kind of confusing to follow, but IIRC, they do at least offer their Mental Ray rendering engine on Linux and have for a couple of years now.
-=-=-=-=-
D3D, and display lists (Score:1)
I don't see D3D drivers for our $10,000 video cards. I see OpenGL drivers, but no D3D.
> For gameprogrammers this was a blessing because they could now focus on 1 API.
You've never done any ports, have you?
D3D is not available on consoles. That's a BIG chuck on the games industry right there !
Use D3D and you're LOCKED into Windows. That's a curse, not a blessing. I'd rather use an API that lets our games be developed on several platforms.
OpenGL is portable among Win, Linux, Mac, even to a degree on N64.
What did Carmack say, how many lines of code was different for Quake3? 18K ?
> For me: display lists: it's a whole bunch of hoopla but no speed increase nowadays
I can see you've also never used the high-end SGI's. Display lists were faster, since the geometry had to be static.
But you're right, today on PC's display lists show no gain, due to bandwidth bottlenecks.
Cheers
Re:Not only is MIPS not dead, neither is Irix (Score:1)
Thanks, I like pretending I know what I'm talking about....
The "NT mindshare" question is an interesting one, as is the "move." As far as I can tell, smart folks are thinking "we want to move away from HP (or VAX or whatever) hardware to something that's more commercial / consumer grade." The smart ones are not saying, "NT is better than UNIX." They just haven't had a viable choice up until now (remember, all decisions must be defensible).
I am literally watching government project managers changing their minds and saying, "No, we've decided to go with Linux rather than NT on our PC-based-replacement for legacy hardware. Why? Because it's X-Windows, Unix-ish, etc., and thus has lower risk than MFC-ing, NutCrackering or Java-ing our code." We're seeing the NT "pull" evaporate; as far as I can tell, the only "push" left is inertia (of which the government has a lot).
Two somewhat related items:
1. I'd seen several remarks implying that SGI hardware rules SETI but might have limited utility elsewhere. I think we've agreed that if something is in use (and has strong advocates), it's gotta have measurable utility.
However, I'd never tried the SETI work units on my R12000 at work. Given that some benchmarks indicate that Pentium III-based machines are right on top of SGI performance (e.g., CPU95 at www.spec.org), I thought it'd be interesting to try a "real" cross-platform application (remember, your mileage may vary; chances are slim that your full-time employment is as a SETI scientist...):
3 h 27 m: PIII 500 Mhz Wintendo98 = 4%
16 h 22 m: PMMX 233 Mhz WinNT = 58%
3 h 27 m: R12K 300 Mhz Irix 6.5 = 100%
Swell, the R12000 does great FFTs, what's the point? The thing is, that's the kind of thing I do: lots of real-time floating point. More importantly, we're not talking about a few percent; this is a different order of magnitude! For completeness, compare the price on a Dell workstation (as tested for SPEC) to a single R12K SGI Octane. The SGI will likely be more but not by an order of magnitude....
2. In terms of "pennywise", I've started pushing for the idea that if we developers are willing to have less people (at hiring time, not layoffs!), the management should reinvest that "savings" into our infrastructure. Salary + benefits + overhead comes to quite a lot in today's economy. Split between a group of 3-4 developers, it can buy lots and lots of toys
I've actually started using it as a metric for employment; if your PHBs just pocket the money, you know it's time to look for another job.
Re:Not only is MIPS not dead, neither is Irix (Score:1)
Well, if application X is a requirement right now, it's a requirement; choose a supported a platform and get to work.
Which was my point in the other part of this discussion (which I think you are refering to). The question I was answering was not about MIPS, but about the previous poster's (in that branch of this discussion) query as to why anyone would consider art asset creation on NT boxes.
We had SGIs. They were expensive to buy, expensive to own, and had very expensive software with expensive yearly support contracts. Then those application developers started making their software for NT (many times devoting their resources to the NT version before the IRIX version). Suddenly being on IRIX wasn't very useful. Moving to NT got us the better software, at better prices, and with lower $/machine. We went where the tools we needed were.
Now, IRIX might not be "dying", but a lack of applications on any given platform is usually not a good portent for the continuing viability of that platform.
Note, however, that a lot of those types of applications are also not supported on Linux. Well, P, by the transitive property, you're saying that Linux sucks and is dying off, too. Are you sure you want to say that? Here? Go on, I dare you....
I never infered that Linux sucks. It most definately doesn't. I've already asked numerous people at MultiGen if they are considering a Linux port of Creator and if so, when. We moved from IRIX to NT because that was where the tools we needed were and the hardware was much less expensive. We'll move again if there is sufficient reason (i.e. needed applications exist there and the hardware won't bankrupt us) to do so.
Comparing Linux to IRIX (or saying that I'm infering that Linux sucks because of a lack of certain applications) in the context of this discussion isn't really valid. Linux will run on low cost, high powered hardware. IRIX will (currently) only run on expensive proprietary SGI boxes. If the choice came down to Linux on Intel or IRIX on MIPs, all other things being equal, we'd take the Linux route because it would be a better use of our $.
Re:MIPS is not dead (Score:1)
Halting the 320 & 540 was the best decision SGI made in relation to the whole NT thing.
Sad to say, I have to agree with you. I loved the 320; I came close to buying one for my home (and cash flow is tight with another kidling on the way). At the same time, I need SGI to stay in business; they're still making the best tools for my work. If SGI can manage to make something much like the 320/540 but is commercially viable over the long haul and runs all my favorite applications (!), I'm there.
Re: MIPS = dead: somebody's confused. MIPS makes the most popular embedded processor in the world. Period. Maybe User X (who may or may not have worked for SGI in the past) doesn't do floating point calcs anymore, but 3.5 hours for a SETI work unit is a serious motivator in my business. Signal processing and visualization at the same time?!
BTW, when I heard about the "SGI is a UNIX company = Linux + IRIX" press release, my first response was, "Now there's a ballsy decision." I still feel it was the right move (and I wish I had had serious money to buy SGI when it was at $6 per share).
PS: Let me know if SGI could use any east coast industry-advocates. I accept payment in cool t-shirts....
[An early 1990s beta-tester for Crimson, Irix 5.0a, Delta C++, etc.]
Re:What will happen to Mesa? (Score:1)
Now what I'd like to know is what's going on as far as SGI/Linux graphics machines go - you see, I have this old PC I'd love to upgrade soon :-)
From what I gather, it appears that SGI might be asking VA Linux to build the systems using Nvidia graphics hardware and, probably, an SGI openGL subsystem.
May I also make a suggestion that SGI consider what to do about the other multimedia API's they own - video and audio in particular. Although I cannot expect PC hardware to easily support an API like SGI's libvl, SGI should perhaps look to support this on hardware they build (or have built). What's the chance of ever seeing something like OpenVL and/or OpenAL?
After all, once XFS (and hopefully XLV) is ported, we'll need something substantial to thrash those disks - what's better than D1 video?
Keep up the great work!
Alastair
Re:what good (Score:2)
--
Re:Any word on Open Inventor? (Score:1)
Coin [coin3d.org]
Re:WooHoo! (Score:1)
they bought D3D? (Score:1)
At this list [vcnet.com] there is a list of all the products and companies that MS has purchased rather than just imitating, and practically every single thing they own is on that list. Such 'innovation'!
Also, the sheer amount of things listed in the '99 secion there is truly disturbing.
Re:High-end 3d on Linux (Score:2)
Probably about the same of Sun's workstations.
Their more competition in the low-end space on Macs, so probably only 10% of G3 and G4 (not iMac) owners would be interested in lightwave. They make that up with volume.
How many Linux users use 3D software in Linux everyday? Probably about zero. How many will spend $1500 for a 3D package? probably not many, either. If New-Tek starts getting letters from people who are already customers requesting Linux ports, they'll probably do it. But if they get 10,000 letters from slashdot readers, that's still not 1 firm commitment to buy. It's just lots of linux advocates. If they needed or wanted Lightwave, they'ed have swallowed their Linux pride and purchased an ample machine running Solaris, Irix, NT, Mac OS, or an old Amiga for that matter.
Yes, there's lots of linux machines out there. But lots are completely incapable of running lightwave. And all the capable ones are acting as servers or developers workstations.
If you said that the market for Lightwave was larger for Linux than SGI/Sun combined, they could easily turn and call you a liar. No offense.
About the best you could do is go buy a real copy of lightwave and then maybe return it as a symbolic gesture that you actually do have the money to spend if they bring the product over. But don't count on it.
Sample implementation.. (Score:4)
Now we just need OpenInventor open sourced, and there will be a real chance of DirectX biting the dust. (Novices find it far easier to put together interactive 3D apps with a decent scene graph implementation).
SGI Hardware and Linux (Score:1)
Re:Whats the big deal? (Score:2)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Re:Wipes drool off chin... (Score:2)
There will be future SGI graphics workstations that run* Linux :) This would be (at least from what I've heard) one of the reasons we open-sourced OpenGL.
* - This is in addition to the ones that run Irix, which, of course, will continue to be produced.
I speak for myself, not for SGI.
Re:Way to go SGI (Score:2)
Hi J, maybe I can explain... (Score:2)
It's a quantum leap towards full Open Source by SGI- it's been one of their crown jewels.
Re:Wipes drool off chin... (Score:2)
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
What will happen to Mesa? (Score:5)
It's not obvious that anybody will necessarily assimilate anybody. Let me be perfectly clear that we are not doing this to "kill Mesa" or anything idiotic like that. Mesa has a lot of good stuff in it and, unlike the Sample Implementation, there are some open source Mesa hardware drivers available today. On the other hand, the SI does some things that Mesa does not, and almost all closed source hardware drivers are based off the SI - so companies who choose to open source their own drivers in the future will be able to do so now.
There are a lot of ways we may be able to share code and work together, and we've been in touch with Brian Paul about this for quite a while. None of us know exactly how this is going to work out, but we are talking and we all realize it's important to work this out.
Jon Leech
OpenGL Group
SGI
Re:sgi still won't be able to support itself (Score:2)
As Tim Sweeney (Unreal programmer) pointed on his rant about programming languages, games have a big influence in the course of graphics technology. Last year it looked like ActiveX was winning more and more mindshare in the games industry. If it weren't for John Carmack and the Linux crowd, M$ would have had its way.
Now OpenGL is back again, but it needs the support of the community. The only way to get it is to support open source.
I think OpenGL is in the same position as Netscape. They are cross-platform, and what is clear now from the success of Linux is that bein cross-platform is a huge advantage! OpenGL will be a success and will draw money towards SGI enviroment. If they change their business model and work out how to cash a part of this money, they will be back again.
If you look at Sun, they are making money of Java even though you can get all of the stuff for free (except the EEJB brand). But they make money because people thinks about SUN when they think about Java.
In short. I expect both Mozilla and OpenGL to be big successes in the medium term.
Mips is Not Dead (Score:4)
I always enjoy posts from the previous SGI-er. Somehow, the world hasn't changed for them, and their knowledge of what is happening in SGI. Every line of code, every building, we even are still using the same coffee grounds .
Mips is _not_ dead. In spite of the fact that MIPS was spun out, SGI retained the high-end design teams within. SGI has announced and shown the roadmap for Mips chips and technology for computers (versus the embedded world) that currently runs through 2006.
Please take a look at the Irix/Mips Roadmap. [sgi.com]
Dave McAllister
Re:Sample Implementation? (Score:4)
"Sample Implementation" means that the code serves as a reference to how the OpenGL, GLX, and GLU APIs are supposed to work. It's also used by our current licensees (and hopefully by open source projects in the future) as a starting point for writing hardware drivers.
The release includes what our commercial licensees have been receiving, except for a handful of optional elements that SGI does not own, such as tuned geometry acceleration for different CPUs. Hopefully the other companies involved will choose to open up those pieces too.
Basically, this is one part - albeit a big part - of the set of things that go into an OpenGL driver.
Jon Leech
OpenGL Group
SGI
Re:But OpenGL won't be open-source (Score:5)
I don't know how you could consider it not open source; please read the license [sgi.com].
Being "GPL-compatible" is a red herring. Mesa is now under the X license, and the Sample Implementation we just released is under a license designed to be compatible with the X license, in both cases for the same reason: so that the code can be incorporated into XFree86. XFree86 is, if you will, "GPL-incompatible" and that is a conscious decision by the XFree86 project.
If you have questions about our licensing, please check the FAQ [sgi.com]. It goes into a lot more detail.
Jon Leech
OpenGL Group
SGI
Why this caveat? (Score:2)
However, after browsing through the source tree for a while, I've found that the version released for Linux does not have these optimisations.
Before I give my speculations, I'd like to point out that I'm pretty new to the OpenGL programming scene, and I'm not completely aware of SGI's motives and resulting tactics in the past.
Here are the reasons I can speculate for this:
1) This is an example OpenGL implementation in order to assist developers in getting the implementation correct, the algorithms are not the focus of this release.
2) SGI has their own motives for not letting others know the dynamic code generation secrets due to political reasons, though I cannot fathom what they'd be.
3) Their original intention for the release of this source tree was to assist Mesa3D, and Mesa3D is a portable implementation of OpenGL, and an x86 code generator would defeat that.
All in all, I cannot settle on a single reason as to why SGI would benefit to not release the highest possible quality OpenGL code.
Any ideas?
But OpenGL won't be open-source (Score:3)
Until OpenGL is *fully* GPL-compatible, Mesa must remain the number one 3D platform for Linux.
Re:SGI Hardware and Linux (Score:3)
--
Re:Not only is MIPS not dead, neither is Irix (Score:2)
--
The issue WAS OpenGL vs. Direct3D (Score:3)
> 1. OpenGL much more than DirectX because of easier use,
OpenGL is WAY easier to use then D3D.
OpenGL is orthogonal. SGI had tons of experience with IrisGL before they cleaned it up and "re-named" it OpenGL.
OpenGL has a consistent design (look at Direct3D having 7 versions in 5 year!) OpenGL has gone thru 2 iterations in 10 years. Does that mean OpenGL has been slow to change? No, as vendors are allowed to add any extenstion they wish.
> 2. better performance,
Not true. D3D and OpenGL perform very similiar.
> 3. more/better "API" (functionality)
Today, the 2 API's are very similiar. OpenGL used to have more features then D3D back in the early days.
> and better graphics
Again, very similiar.
OpenGL also has a conformance test, guaranteeing that all OpenGL implementations are feature complete, unlike D3D. Does that guarantee speed? No. Drivers are allowed to "fall-back" into software.
>
Thats because Microsoft IS so bull-headed after buying Direct3D from Rendermorphics.
> so now i wonder (like you) if this "open sourcing" of OpenGL give some advantage to OpenGL
It will definately help Mesa. The video card manufactors ALREADY have the OpenGL reference code. They aren't happy having to support 3 API's either... 1) Their own API, 2) OpenGL, and 3) Direct3D
> also i'm looking for some more info about "OpenGL vs. DirectX" issue.
Sorry, you're late to the party. It was over 2 years ago.
> do someone got some URLs?
All this history can be found here...
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/3d.html [vcnet.com]
Cheers
3D Game Programmer
Well great... (Score:3)
But we're not just interested in "porting" are we? What we really want is portman. This is why I am proposing a new standard called "OpenNP".
OpenNP is what every open source programmer wants. Direct access to Natalie Portman's low level functions is the stuff of dreams around here. But not only will OpenNP provide direct low-level access... it will also provide a very pretty interface.
I have started a web page [nportman.com] for the project. Please go there to volunteer or just check out where the project is headed.
thank you.
Any word on Open Inventor? (Score:2)
Re:Why this caveat? (Score:2)
OpenGL Project (Score:4)
The page mentions that this OpenGL implementation will be released under a very open license. They will be using the SGI Free Software License B. Another interesting thing mentioned is that in the long term, the sample implementation and Mesa might merge together. It will be very interesting to see how Mesa will continue to develop.
I'm glad to hear that SGI released this, because OpenGL was one of Linux's weaker points, since Mesa isn't fully OpenGL 1.2 compliant. Way to go SGI!
License debates (Score:2)
*sigh* That old thing again?
Very similar to the USA's Bill of Rights, the GPL makes sure certain things (RMS calls them "freedoms", you call them whatever you want) will always be available. And, like the Bill of Rights, it does that by limiting other things.
Now, it is up to the developer to choose the license they like best. Personally, I prefer the GPL, but I don't get all bent out of shape over it.
Seriously, the GPL is far too limiting.
*shrug* See above. There are those who think the GPL's "limitations" are like the "limitations" that prevent citizens from murdering one another.
If we, as a community, are to be taken seriously, we need to break the notion that all software companies, once they open their source, need to be flooded with responses amounting to, "your license is crap, make it GPL so it's truly free!"
I agree. I also think we need to break the notion that shouting "DIE SOUP NAZI" and going off on a rant about the GPL every time someone suggests it accomplishes anything.
Practice what you preach.
Regarding Hardware accelerated OpenGL (Score:2)
Microsoft and Softimage (Score:2)
Basically, the only effect of MS's acquisition of Softimage had been ports of its software to NT, which then started to make inroads into graphics/rendering/animation. Even MS didn't have the clout to abandon SGI support.
Wheee!! (Score:3)
yay! (Score:5)
This is the way things should work. Slashdot has been really depressing lately. All the patent infringement and privacy issues that have been wearing down on me, and I've questioned a few times why I continue to read Slashdot (afterall, who wants to spend their day depressed). Every once in a while though, something like this comes along and gives me some hope.
Oh, one last thing while I'm on my podium... I would like to see just a little bit less coverage of these patent infringement/privacy type news posts and get a little more of the science and programming content we used to get. I know this stuff is important, and I don't want to see it go away, but the other content has been a bit barren lately (and what happened to quickies? They come once a month if that now).
Thanks for the hard work and great web site.
Re:Been there, done that (Score:2)
message from brian on mesa mailing list.. (Score:4)
I know a lot of people are waiting for my "official" response to the SI release. However, I'm still studying the ramifications of the SI license.
I'm hesitant to endorse any code migration between the SI and Mesa code bases until the implications of the licensing are completely clear. The issues of tainting and copyright ownership have to be well understood first.
-Brian
(Hope this doesn't get me in trouble!)
Stupid people! DirectX is NOT only Direct3d (Score:2)
BTW> Two points. Quake III uses DirectInput, and Linux NEEDS something like directX. Integrated, low-level, and hardware accelerated. Heaven. (sans 3D API of course.)
A little clarification (Score:2)
SGIs are indeed very nice for image processing, but that has as much to do with their memory model, graphics hardware, bus speed, and other architecture considerations as the CPU itself. Seti doesn't stress the memory nearly as much as real image processing does and obviously doesn't use graphics hardware so it isn't a good benchmark for real use either.
I don't think SGI is going to loose their grip on the high end of image processing any time soon, but the low end keeps getting better with faster memory busses, better graphics boards and of course faster CPUs. For many purposes, SGIs are a luxury that is increasingly hard to justify.
--
Re:yay! (Score:2)
I would like to see just a little bit less coverage of these patent infringement/privacy type news posts and get a little more of the science and programming content we used to get.
I agree--perhaps the patent infringement stuff could be its own section? there's definitely enough of it.
Re:But OpenGL won't be open-source (Score:2)
*stops giggling...wipes eyes..takes breath*
Seriously, the GPL is far too limiting. If we, as a community, are to be taken seriously, we need to break the notion that all software companies, once they open their source, need to be flooded with responses amounting to, "your license is crap, make it GPL so it's truly free!"
Quite frankly, the developers and proponents of open-sourcing commercial software, many of which probably worked hard to get a restrictive license put on the software, will just become alienated and never push again.
And, besides, the GPL doesn't give freedom. It takes it away.
MesaGL (Score:3)
Re:Way to go SGI (Score:2)
This is interesting none-the-less.
sgi still won't be able to support itself (Score:5)
I worked for sgi for a little over 2 yrs. not all that long, but long enough to see the decline of sgi at its during its prime pinnacle.
it was the coolest company I ever worked for. the spirit and atmosphere was unmatched (talking about life on the mtn view campus). I look back at those times with a smile on my face - and a tear in my eye for what it let itself become.
sgi does cool stuff. problem is, they price themselves out of the market and since the market has changed drastically (ie, graphics workstations are now sub-$2k and linux clusters can be built that outperform the o2000 line for a fraction of the price) their business model didn't adapt - so it dies.
I watched the birth and ultimate death of the NT box (called 'wbt', internally; wintel box thing). I saw cray being bought, then attempted to be assimilated, then ultimately thrown away. irix, once a reasonably resilient (albeit somewhat incompatible) version of unix, is essentially dead. the MIPS cpu is essentially dead, with sgi selling its soul to Intel and hoping the merced will save its sorry ass. custom graphics hardware may also be dead at sgi. so what's left? linux??? will sgi attempt to convert from a hardware company that leverages software, to a software-only company?
again, I love sgi and wish them well. but in the last 4 yrs or so, they've demonstrated they know nothing about how to adapt to the New World Order of computing (cost models and such). trying to hang on by rallying behind "the linux thing" is just too little, too late. and there's just not enough profit in it to support the giant that they still are (building- and people-count wise).
--
Re:MesaGL (Score:3)