[shmerl]

And how exactly can you use it on Linux or any other non MS system? It's an example of the disgusting practice of using development tools for lock-in.

[ntakasaki]

Or it can be a very nice object based API instead of a state based API that made sense in 1992 as the slide deck said and certainly didn't make any sense in 2008 when the industry group Khronos sided with the commercial CAD industry to screw over Linux consumer gaming because there was no money in it. How was that DirectX's fault again?

I am guess you're not a game developer and your post is yet another case of [1].

I am a game dev and here are some links that show to non game devs why DirectX is more popular:

http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/60544/why-do-...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2711231

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/opengl-directx,2019.html

[1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/07/linus-...

[shmerl]

> Or it can be a very nice object based API instead of a state based API

That's exactly what Vulkan is. So where is MS voicing their support?

> I am a game dev

So did you ask MS why they didn't join Vulkan working group?

And I'm not sure what was your point in those links about OpenGL. We are talking about Vulkan.

[ntakasaki]

Perhaps because design by a committee of peers usually results in a fragmentation and compatibility nightmare like this:

Edit: The below blog redirects HN referrers to a funny image macro, copy paste the link instead.

https://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/06/i-have-ported-xscreensaver-...

The delayed spec hasn't even been released yet and Nvidia is already making Vulkan extensions on its own.

https://developer.nvidia.com/engaging-voyage-vulkan

[shmerl]

> Perhaps because design by a committee of peers usually results in a fragmentation and compatibility nightmare like this

It can. Or it can result in spec which helps everyone instead of just MS alone. Depends on how it's done. Vulkan is done from scratch, and so far I see no signs of them making mistakes of OpenGL. I guess we'll see more once it's released. Either way, what's the alternative? There is none, unless of course you work for MS and envision them controlling everything.

[ntakasaki]

>Or it can result in spec which helps everyone instead of just MS alone.

Just MS alone? DirectX helps hundreds of millions of gamers, a whole bunch of game and application developers and companies.

That's like saying improvements to the Linux kernel help only the Linux kernel.

>Vulkan is done from scratch, and so far I see no signs of them making mistakes of OpenGL

Huh, how do you see that? The spec is developed behind closed doors by corporate folks each with their own interests. Even the W3C holds open discussions with specs.

A real alternative would be for the FOSS/Linux dev community to create and implement a standard properly.

[shmerl]

> Just MS alone?

Yes. How can you use DirectX on non MS platforms? If MS wanted to help someone besides themselves, you could answer that question in a satisfactory fashion. But of course, they don't care about it, they only care about lock-in. Trying to pretend that lock-in serves anyone besides those who push for such lock-in is highly disingenuous.

> Huh, how do you see that?

From what was published about it so far (origin in Mantle, collaborative input of those who know better and so on).

> A real alternative would be for the FOSS/Linux dev community to create and implement a standard properly.

Linux community was involved. In fact the main link in this post is from one of the contributors to Wayland and Mesa who was working on Vulkan.

[pjmlp]

> Vulkan is done from scratch, and so far I see no signs of them making mistakes of OpenGL.

So why is NVidia already providing extensions before it even gets out of the door?

Welcome to the multiple code paths that any OpenGL game developer already suffers from.

Everything old is new again.

[pjmlp]

Where are Nintendo and Sony?

[shmerl]

In the Vulkan working group. And where is MS?