Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Red Hat Joins Khronos, The Group Behind OpenGL & Vulkan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by birdie View Post
    I thought OpenGL development was complete and now Khronos is only developing Vulkan.
    Did you even read any of the Vulkan slides? They said multiple times that OpenGL development continues as usual.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
      I'd be shocked if they don't add an extension which allows OpenGL to accept SPIR-V shaders instead of GLSL. Depending on your definition, that could be a pretty major change, or a minor one.
      I do not know enough about GLSL/SPIR-V to comment there, but I'd say that would be a medium one.
      I am not sure if there is a point to that, or if an open-source converter wouldn't suffice.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
        I'd be shocked if they don't add an extension which allows OpenGL to accept SPIR-V shaders instead of GLSL. Depending on your definition, that could be a pretty major change, or a minor one.
        I mean, it would be pretty cool because you'd no longer be at the mercy of shitty proprietary GLSL compilers, but what GL version would that be? 4.6? 4.7 and ES 3.2? If you want to target that high of a version, you might as well just cut off 90% of your revenue (and don't tell me older versions can get it via ARB extensions, everyone knows nobody in the mobile world ever updates their devices). I already see devs very reluctant to use DSA because it's in 4.5. Oh, and OSX? Yeah, you can probably forget that platform alltogether.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by belal1 View Post
          My question is, why would Red Hat want some input on this matter at all? What does graphics ability have to do with Red Hat's fundamental competencies?
          next time you will ask why do they do gnome and libreoffice?
          maybe you are living in some fantasy world?

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by The Walking Glitch View Post
            Discrediting his concerns by labelling him a "conspiracy theorist," classic.
            i'm with you, duchebags shouldn't be labelled "conspiracy theorist", they should be called duchebags

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Ancurio View Post
              Oh, and OSX? Yeah, you can probably forget that platform alltogether.
              that is a good idea in general, non only with opengl

              Comment


              • #27
                I think that whatever the outcome is, having a big Open Source company in the Khronos group is always for the better.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by MoonMoon View Post
                  Ah, the conspiracy theorists again.
                  No, this is fact.

                  Originally posted by MoonMoon View Post
                  Open source is all about having the source code available, that is its defining feature (on would think quite obvious, when you see the name "open source"). That does not automatically imply that open source software must have an open development model or must be centered about a community.
                  You're right, Apple has a closed development model for Darwin. But this is not the same case for Red Hat. Red Hat is developer of community projects like GNU, GNOME, Wayland, open source drivers, Linux, Docker and others.....and now, a company which makes non-portable software is associated to a specification? Sorry, but a developer of non-portable software interested in specification is NOT good news anywhere around the globe -_-.

                  Originally posted by MoonMoon View Post
                  Well, he was suggesting RH is going Microsoft on open source ecosystem.
                  Your conclusion of my "conspiracy teory" IS the only conspiracy theory here :P. But ok...even M$ is doing open source for .NET and portable, so the only thing I suggest is we can trust more in M$ for investing in graphics specifications than in Red Hat, because:
                  -Microsoft are opening source of its softwares (I know, slowly)]
                  -Its open source projects have concerned to be portable
                  -Microsoft has the desktop and gamer market for years, so investing in graphics specification is an obvious thing.
                  But we know they have its own DirectX.

                  Originally posted by MoonMoon View Post
                  How is that not a conspiracy theory?
                  The way to answer that is simple:
                  Is Red Hat doing in open source world the same as Microsoft have done in proprietary world?
                  If yes, so it's not a conspiacy theory.
                  Else, it is.

                  Where is Microsoft? Office market, desktop market, gamer market, development market, hardware partnership, mobile market, SaS market, linux market and the "new" containers market
                  Where is Red Hat? Server market with support services, desktop market, development market, hardware development, linux everywhere, virtualizations, containers, file system development, mobile market and now graphics?

                  so, it's not a conspiracy theory.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by MoonMoon View Post
                    Ah, the conspiracy theorists again. Open source is all about having the source code available, that is its defining feature (on would think quite obvious, when you see the name "open source"). That does not automatically imply that open source software must have an open development model or must be centered about a community.
                    And this is why the whole "Open Source" versus "Free Software" brouhaha was stupid, as Open Source is, if anything, a more loaded term as it does actually imply that the software has an open development model, thanks to the likes of the OSI and Eric Raymond. Free Software does not have this expectation.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Dharc View Post
                      Red Hat is developer of community projects like GNU, GNOME, Wayland, open source drivers, Linux, Docker and others.....and now, a company which makes non-portable software is associated to a specification? Sorry, but a developer of non-portable software interested in specification is NOT good news anywhere around the globe -_-.
                      GNU: portable
                      GNOME: portable
                      Wayland: portable
                      open source drivers: drivers are usually aimed at using a specific kernel, so I don't see yopur point here. Anyways, the BSDs actually port Linux drivers to their kernels, so: portable
                      Linux: Hmm, OK, I would like to see what a portable kernel is, I can't imagine such a thing
                      Docker: It specifically uses Linux features, but I don't see any real hurdles to port it to other systems that provide similar functionality (namespaces and a COW filesystem), but I give you this one

                      So from the 6 things you named only one can count as not portable (leaving the Linux kernel aside, I am still baffled by that, to what would you port the Linux kernel?), so calling RH a company that develops non-portable software is far fetched at best. In the meantime, you tell us that Microsoft can be trusted more than Red Hat, because a few of their dozens of software projects get open sourced. Yes, I still stand by that, you are a conspiracy theorist and your opinions are not based on facts. Or, the other possibility, you try to be a troll and utterly fail with that.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X