Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Just another mindless attack (Score 1) 442

We all know what this is: Democrats are still pissed over the electorate abandoning their failed and useless party and are trying to attack Trump in any way possible. This one is just trying to draw a false equivalence between using an old phone for personal use and using an ancient, unsecured, personal email server for storing classified documents, because the Democrats are still pissed that Hillary's emails helped sink her campaign. (There were plenty of other things that sunk her campaign, and emails probably don't even rank in the top 10.)

Trump should not be using an unsecured phone. If Clinton was elected, she should not be using an unsecured phone. When Obama was elected he thought he would have to give up his Blackberry; however, a compromise was reached where he could use a Blackberry. It was not a stock model; it had to be specially made for him and it had to be approved by national security officials. Other limitations were placed on the use including the inability of the device to forward messages.

None of these security considerations have anything to do about who is President.

Comment Re: Simple Answer (Score 1) 86

so you seem to have COMPLETELY FUCKING MISREAD what you linked. the OP said they take an existing design/architecture (which they do) and then modify it to create their core.

This is what the OP said:

No they don't. They take an existing design supplied by ARM and make some modifications to it, they do not design their own.

Nowhere did the OP say anything about "architecture". He also said that they "do not design their own." Both are clearly misrepresentations of what Apple does.

no they don't just take a core, but neither do they design one from scratch, they license the architecture from ARM.

And neither does any ARM licensee according to you. Qualcomm doesn't. Apple doesn't. According to you neither designs chips. Both just happen to have hundreds of chip designers who do absolutely nothing all day long.

Comment Re:Vulkan (Score 1) 170

Certainly seems so from the release notes.

Again your assertion which is not based on actual evidence. You're not on the board; you don't know that Apple hasn't contributed beyond their own extensions.

You're the one who made the claim about their contributions, you back it up.

No I said Apple still contributes to OpenGL as of 4.5. You are the one who has moved the goal posts in saying Apple hasn't contributed anything beyond their extensions.

So what specifically did they contribute? You are lauding them for their contributions yet you have no idea what they are.

Again, it doesn't matter. You must prove that they only contributed their extensions. The release notes have already supports my claim that they did contribute. i don't need to point every single line that they did.

Irrelevant, we're discussing Apple, not ARM or nVidia. If you want to discuss their contributions we can do so in a separate discussion.

I'm pointing out your lack of logic and your hypocrisy. ARM may only contribute their own extensions. NVIDIA too. But you still consider that they contribute. In fact I bet you that ARM only contributes to OpenGL ES and not OpenGL. Yet you demand I show what Apple contributed line for line.

No I'm suggesting they base the web specification on an open native specification rather than a closed proprietary one.

Did you even read the summary? It says specifically Apple will base it on the IDEAS of Metal. They're not basing it on the API of Metal. How hard is that for you to understand? Your position is that Apple base it on someone else's API for something they develop. That's as idiotic as saying when Apple decided to develop a browser they should have just taken Gecko and used it instead of forking KHTML and making it WebKit.

Comment Re:Vulkan (Score 1) 170

I did and what I saw was nothing but Apple-specific extensions so that old versions still work on their platform.

And you're absolutely sure that the totality of Apple's contribution was Apple-specific extensions? See because Apple did contribute their own extensions doesn't mean they didn't contribute to other extensions. You don't know do you?

Right so don't expect them to support the cross-platform industry standard. And expect that their contributions may be nothing more than platform-specific extension for legacy support of old versions.

Again you are imposing a false dichotomy and illogical position. Because Apple as company does not want to use the latest version of OpenGL that does not mean they don't contribute to the latest spec.

Yes but my point is you are lauding them for contributing when you have no idea what they contributed. What good is contributing to an industry standard that you don't even support? Their contributions are Apple-specific extensions that nobody else will ever use.

Do you know what ARM contributes? How about NVIDIA? You don't know yet your burden is only on Apple.

Wrong, the whole point is to reduce the abstraction from the driver implementation of the native graphics API. Hence the reason you start with an API that maps well to your native one, like Vulkan...if Apple would just support Vulkan.

Your proposal is for Apple to use someone else's standard when proposing their own. Even though the final implementation may not resemble anything like Vulkan. That's just idiocy.

Comment Re: Simple Answer (Score 1) 86

No they don't. They take an existing design supplied by ARM and make some modifications to it, they do not design their own.

Well that's not factually true. An Apple Ax processor is not an existing design by ARM; they are wholy designed Apple chips.

NVIDIA and Samsung, up to this point, have gone the processor license route. They take ARM designed cores (e.g. Cortex A9, Cortex A15, Cortex A7) and integrate them into custom SoCs. . .With the A6 SoC however, Apple joined the ranks of Qualcomm with leveraging an ARM architecture license. At the heart of the A6 were a pair of Apple designed CPU cores that implemented the ARMv7-A ISA. I came to know these cores by their leaked codename: Swift.

You're just dead wrong.

Comment Re:Vulkan (Score 1) 170

Open source license for what? Where is the source they contributed that is covered by this license

Dear Lord, can you even read? To use OpenGL and see the source, it is covered by open source. To use the trademarks and claim conformance, you need to work out a separate license. Where is the source? Are you saying you are incapable of seeing the source code from 15 years ago is your problem?

So show me the "open source" contribution they made.

Bahahahahahaha, So now you are moving the goal posts since you were proven wrong. You refuse to accept that won't you.

So what exactly are you saying they contributed that is open source? Where is their contribution?

Because unlike you I don't claim to know every single line of the specification Apple contributed to. Do you know what ARM contributed to OpenGL? You don't know don't you. You were frankly wrong and won't admit it.

If you actually bothered to read what they contributed it was Apple-specific extensions to make legacy features work on their platforms.

From the release notes:

OpenGL 4.5 is the result of the contributions of many people and companies. Members of the Khronos OpenGL ARB Working Group during the development of OpenGL 4.5, including the company that they represented at the time of their contributions, follow.

Some major contributions made by individuals are listed together with their name, including specific functionality developed in the form of new ARB extensions together with OpenGL 4.5. In addition, many people participated in developing earlier vendor and EXT extensions on which the OpenGL 4.5 functionality is based in part; those individuals are listed in the respective extension specifications in the OpenGL Registry.

Nowhere does it say that Apple only contributed Apple specific extensions. It does say that they did contribute them. Considering that version after version, Apple has contributed, it would no sense that's all Apple did.

Because you are ignorant of the technical side of it. As I said it would be intentionally disingenuous to suggest that all Linux, Windows, Android and iOS programs are available on Mac, sure they are through VMs and emulators but that defeats the point of it and nobody who isnt being willfully disingenuous (or mentally defective) is going to argue otherwise. Since you have no idea about 3D graphics APIs you don't even understand why your suggestion is so ridiculous, go get educated so you stop looking so foolish.

Are you sore that I prove you wrong over and over again. You were wrong. Accept it.

So when Apple says Vulkan isn't available on their platforms you are saying they are lying? In fact they aren't lying it is just that you quite clearly cant understand the fundamental issue here. I have tried pointing it out to you but you refuse to learn.

Apple does not support Vulkan; they don't provide it. That doesn't mean it isn't available. There's this whole group of software called "3rd party" that provides software that that manufacturer does not provide.

I do, it is to start with an API that maps to their own native proprietary API, this means more performance and less overhead for them instead of going with an industry standard.

No you don't. WebGPU may be so abstracted from APIs that it does not matter what is being used by the hardware. For example, all Javascript support has nothing to do whether you use Direct3D or OpenGL.

Comment Re:Vulkan (Score 1) 170

Where exactly are they contributing?

Well if you didn't read the release notes, (and I suspect you didn't) Apple still works within the Khronos Group on OpenGL extensions.

You realize they don't even support a version even close to the latest version of OpenGL, right?

Also as I stated before, Apple itself does not use anything newer than 4.1 in their OS; however, that doesn't mean they can't contribute to the spec, the group, etc. These two things are not mutually exclusive.

What part of the latest versions have they contributed?

As I stated above they've contributed to EVERY version of OpenGL even the latest one 4.5.

And why do they not even support these supposed contributions?

What does that mean? Apple supports OpenGL; they choose not to use it in the latest one in their own OS. These are not mutually ideas. Just like macOS is UNIX 03 compliant; it is not UNIX 98 compliant.

I didn't say it is going to be proprietary but it most certainly is in their interest to try and drive it to map best to their underlying driver implementation of their API to minimize the overhead of an abstraction layer.

WebGPU is likely to be so abstracted from the driver that your point is moot.

Slashdot Top Deals

"There are some good people in it, but the orchestra as a whole is equivalent to a gang bent on destruction." -- John Cage, composer