27-Apr-2024 22:03 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 117 items in your selection (but only 17 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 117]
[News] Voodoo driver from Elbox illegal?ANN.lu
Posted on 15-Nov-2000 22:54 GMT by Christian Kemp117 comments
View flat
View list
Andreas Meyer writes: According to a mail by Alexander Kneer, the main P96 author, the Voodoo driver from Elbox was created and distributed without permission from the P96 team and will not be supported in newer P96 releases.
Voodoo driver from Elbox illegal? : Comment 101 of 117ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 19-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 99 (John Millington):
I agree that API's shouldn't be closed, however I don't think this is
a legal issue as much as an issue of doing what is decent. If we want
a good RTG system that has to be financed, and the only likely wy I
see for that is to put the cost on hardware being sold.
Voodoo driver from Elbox illegal? : Comment 102 of 117ANN.lu
Posted by A3K on 20-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 100 (Ralph Schmidt):
Well Mr Schmidt, I purchased a Cyberstorm PPC and CybervisionPPC new from a dealer last week. That total pushed my YTD purchases for Amiga to over $2000 US. Is that enough to make you happy with my integrity as an Amiga consumer?
My opinion on what should be done is this....
The Drivers for Voodoo3 created by Elbox for the Picasso96 system should be free of charge without any cost or expense added to the product incurred by Elbox, or passed along to the consumer. This driver as I understand it is highly unoptimized.
Elbox should work with the P96 crew to make an optimized, high performance 3D optimized driver for Voodoo 3(maybe 4&5 as well) that is available only to registered users of the P96 system. That would provide incentive for new registrations and guarantee P96 some level of compensation. P96 would support ONLY the optimized driver. Users of the P96 free Voodoo distribution would in essence be using a "crippleware" version, and having tasted the performance would be inclined to purchase the better version.
What do you think? Would this be an equitable solution? I really think that they should work together to do this. That is the key. As it stands right now, no one owes anyone anything, and there is no money to be made off a free driver release for a shareware package.
If Mediator 3000 shows, I will buy (and voodoo3). If there is a commercial Voodoo3 driver for P96 that is optimized, I will register without hesitation.
Say what you will about Elbox and Mediator, but they do plan on an A3000 version... I haven't heard anything along those lines for the G-Rex. A1200 and 4000 only afaik...
Voodoo driver from Elbox illegal? : Comment 103 of 117ANN.lu
Posted by Kay Are Ulvestad on 20-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 100 (Ralph Schmidt):
Mr. Schmidt, you have some valid enough points. I am not going to comment on all
of them, becuase I believe both my opinion and their reasons have been mentioned
several times earlier. What I would like to comment on however, is this: Drop
the "mindset" thing. From the sounds of it, the only reason why someone would
disagree with you is that their "mind" is somewhat deficient of morale or some
other important feature. This attitude is nothing less than horrendously
arrogant, and being the kind of biased person I think you are, it is hard to
take it seriously. I do not think that you are a much better or more moral
person than me, and I think I, as well as all the other Amigans who disagree
with you, are entitled to our opinions, without having the "WaReZ DoOdz" stamp
firmly printed on our foreheads. So drop it. You can make a point without it.
-
Kay
Voodoo driver from Elbox illegal? : Comment 104 of 117ANN.lu
Posted by Ralph Schmidt on 20-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 103 (Kay Are Ulvestad):
The mindset issue wasn`t about piracy itself.
I only explained why RTG frameworks are marketed in a dual
strategy...the same for MUI and other software in the real
world(like for example the PSX), where you have to pay to
develop for it and where you have to pay to use it.
But what`s the real problem of this market is the hypocrisis to
excuse the events with if it`s good for the "amigans", then
get "over" it and "cooperate".
That is what`s rotten...
The toleration of every shit if some user "group" thinks it can
profit on it is what pisses off a lot developers and to drive
the last remaining developers away is the last thing a
logical thinking user should want.
I have no problem when people think that the way RTG frameworks
are marketed is inefficient for the whole amiga market and *should*
be licenced openly but as these frameworks are in no way their property
and there`s no other way to do it differently for the owners of
these frameworks it is how it is.
Voodoo driver from Elbox illegal? : Comment 105 of 117ANN.lu
Posted by Ralph Schmidt on 20-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 103 (Kay Are Ulvestad):
And what i forgot to say is...
Arrogance is always a very subjective thing and roots a lot
in *IGNORANCE*.
I think it`s highly arrogant/ignorant to the developers to
suggest them to "get over it" and accept that people
ignore their licence terms which are the base of their
business modell.
(That`s the sum of most of the 200 posts in both threads)
Voodoo driver from Elbox illegal? : Comment 106 of 117ANN.lu
Posted by Kay Are Ulvestad on 20-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 105 (Ralph Schmidt):
True, arrogance and ignorance are related terms... For example, you show arrogance
when you *ignore* the arguments not benefiting your own viewpoint. If what you
get from reading both threads is that "most Amigans don't care about right or
wrong as long as they benefit from it", then certainly, you must have ignored the
great majority of factual posts not compatible with your own view.
-
In addition, I just criticized you for being arrogant, yet your reply fails to
address that criticism directly. Instead, you repeat your previous points with a
different wording, as if you for some reason thought that I had failed to
understand you the first time. Then, apparently as an afterthought, you add
something about some other people being arrogant. How is that relevant to what I
said? I also said I thought you were biased, but you didn't comment on that at
all. I suppose that means it is true, then?
-
What I was directly critisizing, was your tendency to explain opinions different
to your own by other people's "limited mindsets". You also did this on the other
long Elbox-related threads some time ago. As far as I can remember, your opposition
failed to understand that you were right because of their "limited viewpoints" and
"mindsets".
-
I have no trouble recognizing you as an authority on technical issues. However, I
also have no trouble seing that you are biased, and have a tendency of ignoring
other people's arguments.
-
Lastly, I am not really trying to be harsh here. If you find something wrong
about my reasoning, I'll reconsider my statements. It's just that this is the
impression I have got of you.
-
Kay
Voodoo driver from Elbox illegal? : Comment 107 of 117ANN.lu
Posted by Andreas Meyer on 20-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 106 (Kay Are Ulvestad):
Well, well, well,
going back through the posts i found the "mindset" passage, where Ralph just said ..."dozens of amigans showed the mindset"..., not "all amigans", later on in another post he said "certain groups" not "all users".
Guess, it is "bash Ralph Schmidt day" again ?
Andreas
PS: Can we break the 200 posts barrier on this thread ?-)
Voodoo driver from Elbox illegal? : Comment 108 of 117ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 20-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 106 (Kay Are Ulvestad):
>True, arrogance and ignorance are related terms... For example, you show arrogance
>when you *ignore* the arguments not benefiting your own viewpoint. If what you
>get from reading both threads is that "most Amigans don't care about right or
>wrong as long as they benefit from it", then certainly, you must have ignored the
>great majority of factual posts not compatible with your own view.
Well..besides a few posts..mostly by andreas meyer, david gerber,
johann Rönnblom and Haeusser(as ironic as this may be) i have mostly
seen the kind of the responses i summed up above.
-
>In addition, I just criticized you for being arrogant, yet your reply fails to
>address that criticism directly. Instead, you repeat your previous points with a
>different wording, as if you for some reason thought that I had failed to
>understand you the first time. Then, apparently as an afterthought, you add
>something about some other people being arrogant. How is that relevant to what I
>said? I also said I thought you were biased, but you didn't comment on that at
>all. I suppose that means it is true, then?
Right..i got the impression you attributed my words on user "piracy"
which was not the case.
I targeted my words mostly to the people`s opinions here about the case.
Well..biased...probably as are most people here posting "yeah..it`s ok"
which own a mediator.
I`m also biased as i`m a developer and if i see something like this
licence crap which happened to me also in the past I don`t wanna see
that crap as "normal, accepted behaviour" by the userland.
.
Personally i have no relation with the P96 people and years ago you could
probably say that there was a competition as i`m close to cfgx development.
But this isn`t about p96, cgfx, elbox, dce....this is only about some
X ignoring some developer licence in an imho unacceptable way which I
don`t wanna see happen to myself either (again).
But does bias necessarily mean incorrect posts/lies to spin the facts ?
I don`t think so..at least i try to avoid that personally.
>What I was directly critisizing, was your tendency to explain opinions different
>to your own by other people's "limited mindsets". You also did this on the other
>long Elbox-related threads some time ago. As far as I can remember, your opposition
>failed to understand that you were right because of their "limited viewpoints" and
>"mindsets".
I explained the technical problems to the core...if people don`t wanna
accept/understand this on principle because i say it then they either
have a bias problem which clouds their perception or they just don`t
understand the technical issues.
A lot people also only have their userland perspective which mostly don`t
know what`s going on behind the curtain, on the dealer or developer side.
They build their opinions through press releases, "emails" to companies
and maybe discussions on fairs.
But through such channels they mostly only see what companies want them
to see. Some are even used to evangelize for something while not knowing
the real facts as they just believe what their "contacts" tell them.
You also see this when people talk about price level and product
expectations and never really think about the market size and product
development/production costs which to me either means...they don`t
have a realistic judgement on the size of the market itself or just
have no idea about the real costs involved.
That`s what i meant with "limited viewpoint" in threads several
weeks ago. I can't see in what way this is arrogant...
>I have no trouble recognizing you as an authority on technical issues. However, I
>also have no trouble seing that you are biased, and have a tendency of ignoring
>other people's arguments.
Sure..i have a problem with the kind of arguments which were given here
to excuse the ignoring of licence rules some developer defined for his
product.
If somebody pirates something he mostly knows it`s wrong and has to
deal with it on his personal level.
But promoting something simular(give a fuck for its licence and business
modell by a *commercial* company) as the *right* thing for this market
is what stinks.
Voodoo driver from Elbox illegal? : Comment 109 of 117ANN.lu
Posted by Andrzej J. Debicki on 20-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
OK. Let's imagine the situation as follows. There is someone who
understands the way the CGX and P96 works. This person is able to
make his own RTG really soon. But with his knowledge he made driver
for one of the existing systems and released it for free. Let's
imagine that someone made has made graphic card for clock port for
A1200. And the driver is for this gfx card. So who should pay licence
fee? Programmer? Maybe gfx card designer? Or maybe Amiga Inc. because
A1200 and its clock port belongs to them? If RTG guys still want the
licence it means this particular RTG system is dead and they want to
earn some money for free.Is there someone who can prove Elbox resourced
any of P96 code?
Voodoo driver from Elbox illegal? : Comment 110 of 117ANN.lu
Posted by Kay Are Ulvestad on 20-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 108 (Anonymous):
>Well..besides a few posts..mostly by andreas meyer, david gerber,
>johann Rönnblom and Haeusser(as ironic as this may be) i have mostly
>seen the kind of the responses i summed up above.
-
All the people you listed here are people who have the same opinion as you. My
complaint wasn't with you ignoring the people who actually *agreed* with you.
-
>Right..i got the impression you attributed my words on user "piracy"
>which was not the case.
-
Whoops...my fault. I guess I was thinking of the last "big fight" on ANN, when I
think you did mention piracy as one of the great problems with the typical Amigan
"mindset". I guess I was just getting annoyed by the the negative view you seem
to have on Amigans in general, or at least those who disagree with you.
-
>But this isn`t about p96, cgfx, elbox, dce....this is only about some
>X ignoring some developer licence in an imho unacceptable way which I
>don`t wanna see happen to myself either (again).
>But does bias necessarily mean incorrect posts/lies to spin the facts ?
>I don`t think so..at least i try to avoid that personally.
-
Well, I for one do not think that this case is actually covered by the P96
license. As bad as Elbox' handling might seem at times, I think that they are
in their rights this time. Their attitude could be better though...
-
As for the "incorrect posts" part, no you don't. But you're critisizing other
people for their mindsets, I just thought it was somewhat relevant that your own
position is not totally objective. Your view on Elbox is not positive from
start, is it?
-
>That`s what i meant with "limited viewpoint" in threads several
>weeks ago. I can't see in what way this is arrogant...
-
Well, I seem to remember other developers posting views differing from yours,
and I did get the impression that you were applying the limited viewpoint/bad
mindset explaination to most or all your "opponents". Dismissing other people's
opinions because they're somehow less objective or knowledgable than you would
appear arrogant in most situations, I think.
-
>Sure..i have a problem with the kind of arguments which were given here
>to excuse the ignoring of licence rules some developer defined for his
>product.
-
Can you see any good arguments in favour of Elbox? I agree some of them are
irrellevant.
-
>But promoting something simular(give a fuck for its licence and business
>modell by a *commercial* company) as the *right* thing for this market
>is what stinks.
-
If I'd thought that was what was going on, I would have agreed.
-
Kay
Voodoo driver from Elbox illegal? : Comment 111 of 117ANN.lu
Posted by Kay Are Ulvestad on 20-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 107 (Andreas Meyer):
>going back through the posts i found the "mindset" passage, where Ralph just
>said ..."dozens of amigans showed the mindset"..., not "all amigans", later
>on in another post he said "certain groups" not "all users".
-
I was trying to address his general *attitude*, and I did get the impression
that he was applying it to all or most who disagreed with him. Since you're so
fond of details and semantics, why don't you count how many people actually
posted the kind of views mentioned, and see if it fulfills the term "dozens"
(which should mean at least 24). My view is not based solely on one or two
recent posts, by the way.
-
>Guess, it is "bash Ralph Schmidt day" again ?
-
That's right, I have a personal vendetta going on here. He points out unpleasant
facts, thus I have decided to hate him. This is clearly evident from what I wrote,
isn't it?
-
>PS: Can we break the 200 posts barrier on this thread ?-)
-
I doubt it, but we could always try. :-/
-
Kay
Voodoo driver from Elbox illegal? : Comment 112 of 117ANN.lu
Posted by Andreas Meyer on 20-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 111 (Kay Are Ulvestad):
>>going back through the posts i found the "mindset" passage, where Ralph just
>>said ..."dozens of amigans showed the mindset"..., not "all amigans", later
>>on in another post he said "certain groups" not "all users".
>I was trying to address his general *attitude*, and I did get the impression
>that he was applying it to all or most who disagreed with him. Since you're so
>fond of details and semantics, why don't you count how many people actually
>posted the kind of views mentioned, and see if it fulfills the term "dozens"
>(which should mean at least 24). My view is not based solely on one or two
>recent posts, by the way.
By incidence I am working on semantics, where did you know that from ???
>>Guess, it is "bash Ralph Schmidt day" again ?
>That's right, I have a personal vendetta going on here. He points out
>unpleasant facts, thus I have decided to hate him. This is clearly evident
>from what I wrote, isn't it?
I not only referred to your post with that. I meant the general attitude
of some (many) people to flame him for everything he says. I saw you
arguing with David Gerber about pretty much the same things, but I cannot
remember you flaming him that much for even referring to "most" users.
>>PS: Can we break the 200 posts barrier on this thread ?-)
>I doubt it, but we could always try. :-/
Come on, don't be so negative ;-)
Andreas
PS: Some wise words:
In Signatures,
I often read "40xCDROM" I seldom read "Idefix/CacheCDFS"
I often read "XYZ Ethernet card" I seldom read "Miami Deluxe"
I often read "8xCDWriter" I seldom read "MakeCD"
I often read "56k Modem" I seldom read "IBrowse"
I often read "XYZ Scanner" I seldom read "ScanQuix"
I often read "C/BvisionPPC" I seldom read "CyberGfx V4"
to be continued...
Voodoo driver from Elbox illegal? : Comment 113 of 117ANN.lu
Posted by Kay Are Ulvestad on 20-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 112 (Andreas Meyer):
>By incidence I am working on semantics, where did you know that from ???
-
It was a kind of a giveaway... :-)
-
>I not only referred to your post with that. I meant the general attitude
>of some (many) people to flame him for everything he says. I saw you
>arguing with David Gerber about pretty much the same things, but I cannot
>remember you flaming him that much for even referring to "most" users.
-
Well, I certainly don't put certain people or companies down on principle (well
perhaps Microsoft). What I wrote was actually never intended as a flame. I prefer
to keep my posts as polite as is possible to me in my current state of mind, and
as the situation allows. I'd like to think that I stayed rather factual on that
one, although I was a bit annoyed.
-
>>>PS: Can we break the 200 posts barrier on this thread ?-)
>>I doubt it, but we could always try. :-/
>Come on, don't be so negative ;-)
-
Well, 113 and counting. Seems like most of the noise has died down though...
-
Kay
Voodoo driver from Elbox illegal? : Comment 114 of 117ANN.lu
Posted by A3K on 21-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 113 (Kay Are Ulvestad):
Well... no one replied to my suggestion. I thought it was pretty good.
That might be good for another 80 or so posts
Voodoo driver from Elbox illegal? : Comment 115 of 117ANN.lu
Posted by Olivier Fabre on 21-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 114 (A3K):
Hmm ah... what about this one:
Elbox should pay 2 or 3% of the retail price to P96 to get support from them. A price 2 or 3% higher shouldn't be a big problem for any customer I guess.
Voodoo driver from Elbox illegal? : Comment 116 of 117ANN.lu
Posted by Kay Are Ulvestad on 21-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 115 (Olivier Fabre):
Might have been fair enough if it was done from the start, but not now, when Elbox have already sold a lot of Mediators at the original price...not that I personally would mind such a price rise.
-
Kay
Voodoo driver from Elbox illegal? : Comment 117 of 117ANN.lu
Posted by Johan Rönnblom on 21-Nov-2000 23:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 116 (Kay Are Ulvestad):
If they could get a p96 registration for an increased price by 2-3%,
then I see no reason people should complain. I know I would regret it
Anonymous, there are 117 items in your selection (but only 17 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 117]
Back to Top