Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

SGI Releases OpenGL As Free Software

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the let-my-graphics-go dept.

Software 167

StoneLion writes "Since its release, the OpenGL code that is responsible for 3-D acceleration on GNU/Linux has been running on licenses that were accepted by neither the Free Software Foundation (FSF) nor the Open Source Initiative. Today, however, the FSF has announced that the licenses in question have been rewritten, the problems resolved, and the code freed. Peter Brown, executive director of the FSF, says, 'This represents a huge gift to the free software community.'"

cancel ×

167 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good news! (2, Insightful)

fprintf (82740) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072369)

Great news for the community. Now lets hope this helps redirect resources, so I can get those laptop drivers fixed, and then I can finally sleep/hibernate properly!

Re:Good news! (4, Insightful)

nawcom (941663) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072503)

Great news for the community. Now lets hope this helps redirect resources, so I can get those laptop drivers fixed, and then I can finally sleep/hibernate properly!

I've never heard of ACPI depending on an API for generating polygons, but hey whateva.

Re:Good news! (5, Funny)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072635)

What are you talking about? Hibernation requires you to draw two large black polygons to cover your screen to save power.

Re:Good news! (4, Funny)

nawcom (941663) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072677)

HAH! Mine only takes one!

Re:Good news! (1)

Cillian (1003268) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072805)

Are we talking two polygons because of the backbuffer, or because they are tessalated? Or am I just being stupid?

Re:Good news! (1)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072917)

Actually, that's just in case you have transparency turned on. And if the opacity is less than 50%, then you need more than two polygons.

Re:Good news! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25073337)

A rectangle is composed of two triangles, the basic render primitive in graphics.

Re:Good news! (1)

Poltras (680608) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073647)

A polygon isn't necessarily a Rectangle. Or, rather simply, "Whoosh".

Gannondorf! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25074923)

You're just angry because we still have two triangles, and you could only steal one! Run off to Japanese Affricka already.

Whoosh!

A vernal pool! Maybe if I use a floot, it'll reveal a secret.

Re:Good news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25073563)

polygons are usually triangles, and OP didn't think that a triangle could extend off-screen, so two were needed

Seriously (4, Informative)

DrYak (748999) | more than 6 years ago | (#25074189)

I can get those laptop drivers fixed, and then I can finally sleep/hibernate properly!

I've never heard of ACPI depending on an API for generating polygons, but hey whateva.

In short ACPI will take care to shut down and turn back on the power consumption of the PCIe bus. But on wake up, the *graphic drivers* will take care that everything, including the content of the graphical memory, etc. return to the exact same state, as if the 3D application running where never interrupted.

Giving an opensource OpenGL 3.x leaves more time for the developers for other parts of the drivers : to develop a nice DRI2/TTM/GEM underneath fixing low level problems like sleep/wake-up among other.

How does this effect the OpenGL patents? (5, Insightful)

Black Art (3335) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072441)

There are still a number of patents covering portions of the OpenGL functions. Does this grant a license for use or are we stuck with partial implementations?

Re:How does this effect the OpenGL patents? (5, Informative)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072637)

IT completely removes the patent stuff from the license. So you can redistribute the code even if it breaks patents, but then of course your subject to the patent laws of your country

Re:How does this effect the OpenGL patents? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25073989)

Only you can prevent word mangling.

The word "your" is entirely different than the phrase "you are" and its contraction "you're".

This English service announcement has been brought to you by the letter "r" and the number 7.

SGI's press release is pretty awesome too (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25072453)

http://www.sgi.com/company_info/newsroom/press_releases/2008/september/opengl.html

Free Software Foundation and Khronos Group Both Herald New License of Industry Standard Graphics Software

SUNNYVALE, Calif. (Sept. 19, 2008) â" As software developers the world over prepare to mark the 25th anniversary of the GNU System, Silicon Graphics, Inc. (NASDAQ: SGIC) today announced it is releasing a new version of the SGI Free Software License B. The license, which now mirrors the free X11 license used by X.Org, further opens previously released SGI® graphics software that has set the industry standard for visualization software and has proven essential to GNU/Linux® and a host of applications.

Today's announcement affects software created by SGI that forms the building blocks of many elements of today's gaming, visual computing, and immersive experiential technologies, including a wide range of proven visualization solutions provided by SGI.

Previous SGI contributions to the free and open source community are now available under the new license. These contributions include the SGI® OpenGL® Sample Implementation, the GLXâ API and other GLX extensions. GLX provides the glue connecting OpenGL and the X Window Systemâ and is required by any OpenGL implementation using X. GLX is vital to a range of free and commercial software, including all major Linux distributions.

SGI first released the software under a licensing model in 1999. But now SGI is pleased to release an updated version of the license that meets the free and open source software community's widely accepted definition of "free."

"SGI has been one of the most ardent commercial supporters of free and open source software, so it was important to us that we continue to support the free software development community by releasing our earlier OpenGL-related contributions under this new license," said Steve Neuner, director of Linux, SGI. "This license ensures that all existing user communities will benefit, and their work can proceed unimpeded. Both Mesa and the X.org Project can continue to utilize this code in free software distributions of GNU/Linux. Now more than ever, software previously released by SGI under earlier GLX and SGI Free Software License B is free."

Re:SGI's press release is pretty awesome too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25073291)

This is why a select few of us still own IRIX boxen.

Re:SGI's press release is pretty awesome too (1)

Narishma (822073) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073451)

What's an IRIX boxen?

Re:SGI's press release is pretty awesome too (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073915)

They are blue or purple and oddly shaped MIPS-powered toy dinosaurs(by today's standards), but they are rock-solid and they NEVER crash or skip a beat.

They have a wicked cooling system: the internal compenents have MASSIVE heatsinks but not fans--the fans are part of the chassis.

Re:SGI's press release is pretty awesome too (1)

mzs (595629) | more than 6 years ago | (#25074587)

Not all SGI workstations were built like tanks. It started with the Indys, we had a lab of them and after about two years the power supplies started failing and after four only a third still worked when we removed them. In another lab a fan in the O2 power supplies would fail, but that was an inexpensive fix, except for the fact the case was so odd and it was hard to get to that fan.

Re:SGI's press release is pretty awesome too (2, Informative)

isaac (2852) | more than 6 years ago | (#25074739)

They are blue or purple and oddly shaped MIPS-powered toy dinosaurs(by today's standards), but they are rock-solid and they NEVER crash or skip a beat.

I love me some SGI gear, but 'NEVER crash' wasn't their strong suit - at least not compared to any other proprietary UNIX system vendor of the era.

They built racehorses - fancy, complex, high-bandwidth, expensive. They didn't skip a beat when blasting data around, though, at least until you got to the network.

-Isaac

Re:SGI's press release is pretty awesome too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25073917)

What's an IRIX boxen?

About twenty pounds.

Nice (4, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072475)

Interfaces are one of the most important things in modern software creation. Interfaces are often established by implementations. This change by SGI makes sure OpenGL will stay used and even wider adopted. As far as I can see, it is the only graphics library standard that has the potential for long-term usage.

Re:Nice (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072971)

I'm glad. Now, can we get it implemented in the browser? Then we'd have a first-class GUI for thin clients that'd really make the web better. maybe.

Re:Nice (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073219)

It already is. It's called VRML. And in the typical, retarded way, it's ultraverbose XML instead of a proper binary format like EBML.

Re:Nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25074293)

And in the typical, retarded way, it's ultraverbose XML instead of a proper binary format like EBML.

Nice. Very 'enterprisey'

Re:Nice (1)

Windows_NT (1353809) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073743)

oooo, GL accelerated Web Pages .. sounds good. Its cool to see OpenGL becoming 'open'. Now my hopes are (since the previous has just been fulfilled!) is for openGL to take DirectX's market share.

And as for the 3d accel'd web pages:
slashdot - your page looks like shit in IE 5.5 (i think this is becuase 5.5 has 3d acceration .. if you buy the glasses)
-Cheers, and good luck openGL

The important lesson here is. (5, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072491)

Don't be a jerk about it. From the article.

"Someone came to me on IRC and asked if people should start sending angry faxes to SGI, telling them to please clean up their licenses. And I was like, 'No, that's not the right message right now.' We were trying to avoid that kind of reaction, because among the people in the GNewSense community, there was a visceral reaction initially, and it took some time for people to realize that we needed to give them a chance. And it really paid off. SGI was very willing to work with us throughout the entire process.""

Re:The important lesson here is. (5, Interesting)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072689)

I think it depends really.

In the recent Ubuntu/Mozilla case, both Ubuntu and Fedora had behind-the-scenes quiet negotiations with Mozilla over the EULAs. However Mozilla insisted that it wanted and needed the EULA.

It wasn't until there was a fairly big uproar about it did Mozilla come back to the table to renegotiate.

So sometimes the squeaky wheel does get the grease :)

Re:The important lesson here is. (2, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072875)

Yea but only until that wheel can be replaced. Honestly I really doubt that any of the venom from the masses had anything to do with Mozilla renegotiating. The suggestion that Ubuntu would create or use an unlabeled "fork" of FireFox probably did a lot more than any of the screaming.
I don't have any problem with a click through EULA. If nothing else in the case of free software it tells people that they do have the right to use and even give it to other people.

Re:The important lesson here is. (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073417)

Personally I think it will unload a lot of terms on average users they don't understand or care about (who reads a EULA anyway) but the main concern is the message it sends; usually an EULA is a big, half-unenforceable document intended to scare you into not doing anything.

Since any unenforceable provision is simply discarded without affecting the rest of the document, the company can sue you into oblivion any time it wants.

I don't think it's unreasonable of the Mozilla foundation to want this, but I'm somewhat curious why. They've been moving in a rather Idiocracy-like direction lately; this, the SSL sham (at least let me turn it off, or give me a I DON'T CARE IF THIS IS ENCRYPTED button for sites that use gratuitous SSL), and so forth.

Re:The important lesson here is. (1)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073719)

But why would Ubuntu use an unbranded version of Firefox if there was no 'screaming' as you put it? If it wasn't for the screaming, Ubuntu wouldn't have particularly pushed it, and there would now be a EULA.

Re:The important lesson here is. (2, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072949)

Well, with the recent Firefox issue the FLOSS community was on both sides of the table and they're both fairly dependent on each other, it's a bit different than when you're trying to ask for a unilateral favor since I don't see SGI getting much in return, nor the FSF/OSI having much power if they refused. At least the distros could have banded together, told Mozilla that from now on Firefox on Linux == Iceweasel and built their own trademark. Debian doing it is just a freak thing, every distro doing it means Mozilla would have lost all control. This way they get to keep firefox as a brand and their lucrative deal with google. If it was IceWeasel, why wouldn't the distros negotiate their own deal? Or maybe they do, I prefer Opera anyway :).

Re:The important lesson here is. (1)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073679)

Oh sure, I wasn't making any comment in this particular case.

Re:The important lesson here is. (1)

mwlewis (794711) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073993)

It's true that it would have reduced Mozilla's value with respect to Linux, no amount of distro forking would be likely to have an appreciable affect on FF in Windows, which has got to be a much bigger value for Mozilla.

Re:The important lesson here is. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25072897)

Don't be a jerk about it.

That's going to be impossible for the vast majority of the OSS community.

Re:The important lesson here is. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25074527)

I concur.

75% of the OSS community are annoying, insecure douchebags without the social skills, perseverance, common sense, and courage necessary to take charge of their own lives.

Re:The important lesson here is. (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073359)

If angry letters would have any effect then polite ones would have a better one.

Where is the updated GLX public license? (2, Interesting)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072493)

The link to the GLX public license lists version 1.0 which seems to still have the problematic clauses.

Re:Where is the updated GLX public license? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25073725)

http://oss.sgi.com/projects/FreeB/SGIFreeSWLicB.2.0.pdf

No, the OTHER license. (2, Interesting)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073899)

There were two licenses listed as having problems, that's only one of them.

Quick question... (-1, Offtopic)

einer (459199) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072495)

I'm building a media display machine and I want 1080p and 3d support. Is there a card that just works? I've googled through the nvidia and ati offerings, and everyone seems to be complaining... Is there a list out there of working 3d cards (that's not 4 years old)?

I know nvidia's binary drivers are incompatible with some people's ethics. I am not one of those people. :)

Re:Quick question... (2, Informative)

nawcom (941663) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072607)

Complaining? About what? For Nvidia, what you would be looking for is PureVideo HD. I know that the Geforce 8600gt has it, and you can get that for about $80 [newegg.com] .

Re:Quick question... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25074143)

Fuck the proprietary Nvidia hardware in the ass.

Re:Quick question... (2, Interesting)

nomadic (141991) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072647)

I'm building a media display machine and I want 1080p and 3d support. Is there a card that just works?

I've gotten results with a Radeon HD3450 running an HDMI to a 1080p TV. It took a little tweaking, especially of accursed X configuration files, but the standard ATI driver works.

Big news (5, Interesting)

mnmn (145599) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072521)

I'm surprised that opengl was never really 'open'. It now makes sense why it wasnt a part of glibc and/or xfree86 until recently.

The opening of video card drivers and now opengl are major steps in the success of linux on the desktop (and for gamers).

Just imagine, we can now add opengl to Heretic and Command and Conquer, and it can all still be very much free. I can't wait for when I can port Halflife2 to Linux.

Re:Big news (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072695)

erm the mesa libraries have always been open, so this isnt really going to bring about

Just imagine, we can now add opengl to Heretic and Command and Conquer, and it can all still be very much free. I can't wait for when I can port Halflife2 to Linux.

At most it will lead to better quality of code in Xorg and mesa libraries but that depends on the actual license.

Re:Big news (4, Informative)

Creepy (93888) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073491)

Mesa3D was open because it is not OpenGL - it is an OpenGL API compatible library, and therefore not subject to any licensing fees charged by SGI (OpenGL brand usage and licensing is usually paid for by hardware vendors). WINE is similar - it's a Windows and DirectX compatible library for Linux (i.e. it is not Windows or a Windows emulator).

It looks like SGI is OK with releasing the API and associated royalties, but in a way that makes sense because they are really no longer involved with it (and I'm not even sure if they've collected royalties lately - in the 1990s I recall it was around $20000/vendor).

Re:Big news (3, Insightful)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072763)

Strictly speaking, the games themselves would still be proprietary. But I've never met a free software advocate who had very strong principles against closed source games.

But this is very good news for free games and compositing managers. Hopefully it will also encourage more development and patches on OpenGL, as well; which helps everyone and not just the people building a free system.

Re:Big news (4, Funny)

Ngarrang (1023425) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072867)

Will this new benefit or hurt Duke Nukem Forever? This is the question we should all be pondering.

Re:Big news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25073389)

The development of DNF started at a time when OpenGL was the standard in the gaming world, so I think it can only benefit the DNF developers...

Re:Big news (2, Interesting)

Surt (22457) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073777)

Sadly, OGL was never the standard in the gaming world. Games went from mode13 to directx to direct3d pretty much universally. OGL was only used by a small number of players (though ID, obviously was a significant one).

Re:Big news (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 6 years ago | (#25074589)

If Direct3D is the standard, then what do non-Microsoft consoles use?

Re:Big news (3, Informative)

Surt (22457) | more than 6 years ago | (#25074769)

Usually direct hardware access. The metal is standard, so bare metal writes are fine.

Re:Big news (1)

barbergeek (1131269) | more than 6 years ago | (#25074473)

Just one more reason they'll decide to start over from scratch the day before they release. Yea! New technology!

Re:Big news (2, Interesting)

ThePhilips (752041) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073285)

"Open" in business denotes that other businesses are also allowed participate. And OpenGL was in that sense "open": many used the library, many contributed extensions and features.

As library - it is (was?) proprietary closed source. As standard - it is open.

Re:Big news (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#25074517)

Yeah... "Open" had a meaning before "Open Source" -- Open Software Foundation (OSF), The Open Group (Unix), OpenVMS, OpenBSD, OpenGL, Open Database Connectivity (ODBC). At least it's not as bad as "Free".

Re:Big news (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073559)

I don't really understand this situation. I thought OpenGL was an api, not a program. Mesa is a free software implementation of that API.

I guess I was mistaken. Specifically what code was problematic before, and why wasn't it rewritten?

Re:Big news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25074165)

"It now makes sense why it wasnt a part of glibc..."

WTF
Serously.
OpenGL in the GNU C Librari?!?
glibc doesn't even store the match functions of C in the C library, you have to use libm to get them. WTF would you assume that glibc would have opengl built in?!?

Re:Big news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25074847)

Personally I can't wait until someone can port Halflife2 to the PS3

Good news? (1, Interesting)

Toreo asesino (951231) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072529)

Without wishing to piss on anyone's parade, I'm not so sure this is such a great thing....let me explain...

The fundamentals of OpenGL and Direct3d is it a standard agreed on by software developers and hardware vendors alike right? While it's great this is now free, if one target now diversifies into a hundred different variations, you can be sure the likes of NVidia and ATI drop it completely.

Don't get me wrong, I do support the FOSS philosophy but in this case I'm not convinced it's such a great move?

Re:Good news? (5, Insightful)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072621)

The code was already "free" for a given definition of "free", however, three problems were identified.

The old licences:

  • "forbid the distribution of code that infringes on somebody else's intellectual property rights"
  • distributors of the code are required to obey any export laws that might apply
  • require users to inform the distributor if they learn of any potential intellectual property infringement of code releases under the licenses

As such, it was easy to modify the code, but it wasn't free or open enough by the standards of either the Free Software Foundation or the Open Source Initiative.

OpenGL is a standard, just like Java is. The fact that there are many implementations of those standards doesn't mean that there is a problem. Besides which, it doesn't really matter, most people will code for the reference implementation (Sun Java and SGI OpenGL).

Re:Good news? (1)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072759)

Aren't the first two clauses simple facts? I don't see why stating "Don't use this in a way you can't legally use it" in a license is a problem. The third clause I understand, because it is an additional requirement or restriction added to the license.

Re:Good news? (2, Informative)

brunascle (994197) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073067)

They took issue with the first clause because, with the current patent situation in the US, anyone could be violating someone's IP rights and not even know it. The 2nd clause, because it's kind of redundant. It's already against the law, why put it in the license?

Let a hundred extensions bloom? (4, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072627)

Um, OpenGL already has a documented extension mechanism that is widely used, by virtually every vendor, to provide documented and open access to their extensions. Changing the licensing on one implementation of the standard will not increase the fragmentation of OpenGL, and fragmentation of OpenGL has not led nVidia and ATI to drop it.

In fact... looking at the listed extensions [opengl.org] I see 15 _ATI_ extensions and 54 _NV_ extensions. :)

Re:Good news? (1)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072673)

Well, Firefox is open-source, but manages to adhere (pretty well) to the standards set for HTML, Javascript, etc.

OpenOffice is open-source, but manages to adhere to a farily well-defined guideline for file formats (ODF).

There are plenty of other examples of open-source projects sticking to well-defined standards and guidelines. I understand your concern; there is no guarantee that incompatible forking won't happen. But, there is at least precedent for open-source communities working together to maintain cohesive standards. In fact, having competing open-source implementations (e.g. Gecko vs. Webkit) can go a long way to making sure that everyone uses the same standard (because they want to interoperate).

Re:Good news? (3, Informative)

MechaBlue (1068636) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072699)

One of the biggest complaints about OpenGL is that it is slow to evolve and doesn't reflect real world needs as well as Direct X. By opening it up, this allows for unofficial extensions that will be based on the standard but will help fill in some of these gaps. The most popular of these extensions will become part of future standards with the added benefits of already having an existing implementation and having been used in the real-world.

Re:Good news? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072709)

It's a matter of interface vs code. Even though the code is free there's still an OpenGL organization that puts the official stamp on what the OpenGL specification is. Sure you can deviate from that but if noone else cares the it won't be useful. And if you read the actual license issues (you did RTFA right?) none of those would have prevented you from doing the same under the old license.

Re:Good news? (1)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072801)

Good point, but there would also be great advantages in forking OpenGL if you were making a specialist derivative for a particular card, (which always would have the possibility of being reintroduced into upstream OpenGL).

Re:Good news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25073031)

You mean, like OpenGL ES?

Re:Good news? (1)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 6 years ago | (#25074039)

Right on, but also with the previously lisence-encumbered bits. Heck, they might merge some of those bits into ES as well.

Re:Good news? (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073135)

Like X, it's a matter of a vital developer community. X.org keeps to MIT/X11/BSD-style permissive licenses, but is unlikely to fork as long as the developer community is vital and active - a vendor proprietary fork is counterproductive because changes won't make it back into the ever-changing main tree. Even XFree86's license change was just the last straw - the devs were already pissed off at the impossibility of getting code into the damn server.

Re:Good news? (1)

dilvish_the_damned (167205) | more than 6 years ago | (#25074693)

Like in the way that allowing vendors like ATI and nVidia to extend Direct3D has caused them to drop it in the past?

Re:Good news? (1)

mikael (484) | more than 6 years ago | (#25075019)

OpenGL already has a mechanism to support variations.

The original OpenGL sample implementation was very basic - no vertex/fragment/geometry shaders. Even multi-texturing was still relatively new. There is really nothing to change there. Most developers hav moved on to using to vertex and fragment shaders to keep control of rendering (rather than use OpenGL lighting).

If anyone wishes to make modifications to OpenGL, they can do so by creating extensions. It is up to vendors and the ARB to decide whether they wish to implement them or agree to a common implementation. Both ATI and Nvidia, and many other companies have their proprietary extensions.
At the last count there were well over 100 different extensions.

how many times/ways will we be paying..... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25072547)

for the failed wars & fraudulent greedmongers' follies?

http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AhHQo3IPZ2ZTFnPrjWPKZSq7YWsA/SIG=11r319kr9/**http%3A//biz.yahoo.com/ap/080919/financial_meltdown.html

Pretty obvious why ... (4, Insightful)

slashdotlurker (1113853) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072771)

The response to the latest opengl release has been, to put it mildly, underwhelming. A number of opengl developers in the blogs I have read have declared intentions of moving over to directx. This is the way for opengl developers to get a bigger share of the open source developer mindshare and development effort to make up for the egg they laid earlier this year.

Re:Pretty obvious why ... (1)

dekropisvol (801636) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072921)

Couldn't this get more innovation to OpenGL, no more long boring extensive board meetings, and the innovations getting quicker into the library.

Re:Pretty obvious why ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25073017)

OpenGL isn't a library. It's a standard that describes a set of APIs for vendors to implement in their own libraries.

Re:Pretty obvious why ... (1)

paniq (833972) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073651)

centralize! centralize! it worked in the thirties!

no, wait...

Re:Pretty obvious why ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25074945)

centralize! centralize! it worked in the thirties!

no, wait...

lul

Re:Pretty obvious why ... (2, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072925)

The response to the latest opengl release has been, to put it mildly, underwhelming. A number of opengl developers in the blogs I have read have declared intentions of moving over to directx. This is the way for opengl developers to get a bigger share of the open source developer mindshare and development effort to make up for the egg they laid earlier this year.

Would that be mindshare among the people developing open source 3D games? (Both of them)?

Or the people developing open source desktop apps that depend on 3D? (who are either already fairly committed to OpenGL anyway or weren't even remotely interested in open source, regardless of 3D API)

Re:Pretty obvious why ... (2, Informative)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073781)

Ehem, for those less fortunate comrades outside the US, "lay an egg" is a baseball expression meaning "make an error"

Carry on. :-)

Re:Pretty obvious why ... (1)

slashdotlurker (1113853) | more than 6 years ago | (#25074141)

Memories of 1929, and all that.

Re:Pretty obvious why ... (1)

Yfrwlf (998822) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073957)

Right, now OpenGL will probably see more improvements, I hope OGL 3.1 will add the wanted and missing features.

However, with articles floating about talking about the end of GPUs and graphics APIs as we know it, I wonder if OGL or DX actually have futures any way. For the time being they do at least.

Just to set the record straight. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25072845)

This wont magically solve your driver issues.
This wont magically port your game to opengl.

The openGL headers have always been available to compile against.

This is the source for the reference implementation of openGL. It would be of interest if your planning on writing a 3D 'rendering' engine (not 3d game engine) from scratch, or are interested in how the opengl stack works.

FYI, mesaGL's source has always been readily available and is based off SGI's implementation.

Re:Just to set the record straight. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25073751)

Only you can prevent word mangling.

The word "your" is entirely different than the phrase "you are" and its contraction "you're".

This English service announcement has been brought to you by the letter "e" and the number 7.

mod8J up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25072895)

Was in \the tea I

SGI to IBM (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072919)

...your move.

Is OpenGL a player anymore? (3, Insightful)

cOdEgUru (181536) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072935)

I am sorry, but someone has to ask. If you had told me that this happened five six years ago, I would be ecstatic, as this would have proven to be a worthy deterrent to Microsoft's DirectX, which was lagging behind OpenGL adoption.

But with DirectX with what 90% of the market(?), I fear its too little, too late. SGI, though one of the icons of the past, has had to suffer from people at the top in late 90s who had really not much vision as to how the PC world was going to pan out over the next few years and was really caught unaware when OpenGL went the way of the doodoo.

But hey, SGI was still the only place then who had Aeron chairs (this from a friend of mine who was gracious enough to invite me to their awesome lunch cafe).

Re:Is OpenGL a player anymore? (5, Interesting)

ckaminski (82854) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073497)

OpenGL has NOT gone the way of the Dodo, and as far as I know, is still kingpin of the 3D visualization world outside the gaming community (CAD/CAM/Modelling).

OpenGL was never very big in the gaming world either. Quake/HL was a standout in this regard, but most 3D game engines have been very custom, or based on DirectX - DirectX was sort of mandatory once game authors lost direct access to hardware.

Re:Is OpenGL a player anymore? (3, Funny)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073511)

SGI, though one of the icons of the past, has had to suffer from people at the top in late 90s who had really not much vision as to how the PC world was going to pan out over the next few years and was really caught unaware when OpenGL went the way of the doodoo.

I can assure you that the doodoo is very much stil around, and in fact fills the pants of every non-toilet trained infant and toddler around the world.

Re:Is OpenGL a player anymore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25073561)

Sure, 90% of the market for ONE operating system. Otherwise Direct3D doesn't exist anywhere else when needing to run 3D apps on any other OS.

Yes, it is. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#25073665)

90% of which market? 90% of the PC games market, maybe. But OpenGL is widely used in professional 3D Applications and is an industry Standard there.

Too little, too late (1)

Mex (191941) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073693)

At least for the gaming market.

If they'd done this back when DirectX was just beginning and OpenGL was actually relevant, things would be much different now.

As it is, DirectX went on to beat OpenGl soundly.

This might have some bigger effect on the non gaming graphics applications (CAD and 3D stuff), but for gaming it's just irrelevant now.

I know you might say "Well, it means I can finally play (Insert game from the year 2000 on Linux!", but for 99% of gamers out there, Linux is still irrelevant.

Re:Is OpenGL a player anymore? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#25074303)

Well, DirectX is obviously going to be the big thing by volume. However, I think the way graphics interfaces work will change quite a bit and the most exciting part of that is Gallium3D. It's a low-level interface to expose programming functionality in a generic way, while you have frontends like DirectX, OpenGL and such working as state trackers and APIs for applications. Since modern graphics cards are pretty much all moving to a unified shader architecture, it's not going to be like the old days when you pushed things into a fixed pipeline. Instead you can make up as thin or heavy a graphics library as you want that all target the Gallium3D interface to actually render it. While it won't do anything to make DirectX games use anything else, I hope it'll make Linux 3D far easier and better.

And for their next trick (3, Informative)

mihalis (28146) | more than 6 years ago | (#25072981)

they should fix the GLUT license.

Re:And for their next trick (1)

idiot900 (166952) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073487)

they should fix the GLUT license.

Use SDL instead. IIRC it does a fair amount of what GLUT does.

Re:And for their next trick (3, Informative)

Creepy (93888) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073593)

GLUT is just a bunch of convenience methods, and is decade old abandonware, anyway - use freeglut [sourceforge.net] instead.

Unusual slashdot article (4, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073575)

... How often do we see an article on SGI here that doesn't either forecast their demise or have updates on their latest bankruptcy filing?

Re:Unusual slashdot article (1)

MagikSlinger (259969) | more than 6 years ago | (#25073997)

... How often do we see an article on SGI here that doesn't either forecast their demise or have updates on their latest bankruptcy filing?

I was tempted to post: "Holy crap, this is big news!! SGI is still in business!!!"

Re:Unusual slashdot article (2, Informative)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#25074311)

I was tempted to post: "Holy crap, this is big news!! SGI is still in business!!!"

Surprisingly enough, not only is SGI still in business, but they'll even sell you a workstation with a MIPS processor [sgi.com] (if you really want one).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?