JaggedSac said:
Soleron said:
@Legend11
So? Almost all big companies do charitable works to boost credibility. However, the way Bill Gates acquired most of the cash was through illegal lock-in deals, antitrust, abuse of monopoly position and political payoffs. Also, his Foundation is a for-profit thing that makes investments in not-very-charitable companies too.
By the way, all of those school "charity" projects are creating future Windows customers where there influence is weak.
|
The hate is strong in this one. Ever since your hlsl2glsl comment, I take whatever you say with a grain of salt. I am still waiting for a link to show where this compilation in the drivers takes place. You could be right, but all I found where information on how to use hlsl2glsl as a command line tool, developed in an effort to boost porting of directx games to opengl. |
I made a mistake with that one (don't know where I read it originally) because I've since read that hlsl2glsl is, as you said, just an external library. I believe OpenGL was better designed than DirectX up until DX9 but has since stagnated as no one uses it for games. Still, Microsoft used a lot of questionable methods to get DX adopted, and of course they had unlimited cash to get it to be that way.
Yes, I hate Microsoft's business practices to the extent that I think they would be found guilty of many anticompetitive actions, especially OEM bundling of Windows, if the justice system worked. As it is, Microsoft is too powerful to really challenge in court. However, if they came out with a well-designed product that wasn't force-bundled with most computers and had interoperability with no-royalty standards, I wouldn't continue to hate them.
Everything would change if the UK/US governments followed their own reports' and inquiries' conclusion and adopted free software where possible. >90% of government work could be done using OpenOffice, for example, and it would save tens of millions in Office licenses at minimal impact (OO is closer in user inteface to Office 2003 than Office 2007 is, and for basic tasks it functions the same).
So, please don't think I'm irrational or biased. I'm trying to get justice, or failing that at least some competition in the OS and office software market. Even the most benign monopoly is inferior to a free market with actual choice. I'm also going to declare similar feelings in the CPU market, where Intel has and continues to use similar tactics to MS. However, I accept that their products are better at the moment, but from 1999-2006 Intel had demonstrably inferior products and >80% marketshare. A truly free market wouldn't have that.
