In <f5d9e7eab901df344ed85d706d47c4d6@localhost>, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 19:15:28 -0600, "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." ><email@example.com> wrote: >> In <4B44B28B.firstname.lastname@example.org>, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >>> To make OpenGL >>> really scream on single user 3D chips, they had to eliminate over the >>> network OpenGL completely, as keeping that capability would have totally >>> hosed the rendering pipeline performance for 3D chips. >> >> That makes no sense. OpenGL is an abstration, like the X protocol >>itself. > >It makes sense when one takes into account that over 99% of the GL >extensions developed over the past decade target a local GPU optimized >OpenGL server. Yet again, you make no points about OpenGL that have not been make about X in the past. Yet, X (and I'm pretty sure OpenGL) still *work* over the network. They aren't as fast, but the network increases latency in all things. NFS isn't as fast as a local filesystem, either. Also the X client/server model is different than the open OpenGL remote rendering model. In the OpenGL remote rendering model a program running on a local CPU would send commands to a remote GPU and the results would be viewed on a local display. In the X client/server model a program running on a remote CPU would send commands to a local GPU and the results would be view on a local display. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. email@example.com ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.