8 ms·

You're talking about macOS. We're talking about AGX2. If you want to complain about Apple's API support in macOS, a discussion about AGX2 support for Linux is n

You're talking about macOS. We're talking about AGX2. If you want to complain about Apple's API support in macOS, a discussion about AGX2 support for Linux is not the right venue. I am, quite honestly, getting very tired of all the off-topic gratuitous Apple bashing in articles about our Linux porting project.

BolandJ 6y ago
Shmerl pops up on every thread mentioning Vulkan/Apple spouting conspiracy theory nonsense that every design decision is some kind of evil plan to screw over open standards. Ignore him. Keep up the great work, plenty of people really appreciate it.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  And keeps forgeting no one in the games industry, or console vendors for that matter, cares about his conspiracy theories.
  - shmerl 6y ago
    Lock-in proponents bring their kool aid. Not impressed. Gaming industry is pretty messed up when it comes to lock-in. Everyone is paying this tax.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      I am aware of my limitations as human being in this society, speak from actual work experience, and will use any tooling that I rant about when it is on the best interests of the customers, regardless of my personal agenda. Something to think about, or maybe not.
  - glaze 6y ago
    Yup, I doubt he has experience working in the games industry. Many engines support multiple graphics APIs and there's often only 1-2 employees implementing/maintaining them so speaking about vendor lock-in is not a strong argument.
    - shmerl 6y ago
      How is that a counter argument to anything? The need to support multiple APIs is not free. It's a tax on everything else.
      - glaze 6y ago
        You're right that it's not free. But compared to the whole game engine codebase size the renderer backend is usually not big.
        shmerl 6y ago
        It is a waste of time that could be avoided. And exists only becasue of insistence on lock-in by the likes of Apple.
mlindner 6y ago
Yes I agree it's tiresome, I wish hacker news had rules against people making bad faith arguments more so than they do now.
shmerl 6y ago
The article points out that their API matches the hardware and it's the only API they care about: > Their only properly supported API is their own Metal, which they may shape to fit the hardware rather than contorting the hardware to match the API. Meaning they don't care to take Vulkan into account when making their GPU. If it would happen to work well - good. If not - tough luck. So it's not just about macOS, it's about making hardware too. If you don't find it a damaging stance - well, good for you. I find it pretty nasty and I don't see a reason to avoid criticizing Apple. They aren't some neutral party in this especially with their size and impact.
- pertymcpert 6y ago
  I think you haven't effectively countered their point.
- marcan_42 6y ago
  Your argument is equivalent to criticizing ARM for putting in instructions to optimize Javascript into their architecture, as if that "sabotages" every other programming language. Or Intel for putting in instructions to optimize AES into their architecture, as if that "sabotages" Salsa20. It doesn't make any sense. Of course Apple optimizes Metal for their GPUs and their GPUs for Metal. None of that is hostile towards other APIs. All of this hardware is Turing-complete and by definition can implement any conceivable graphics API. The only question is how well it performs with those APIs, and until we have benchmark numbers, your argument is based on assumptions lacking any evidence.
  - shmerl 6y ago
    I'm not sure what Turing completeness argument has to do with anything. Turing machine is also Turing complete. You are going to make GPUs like that. We are talking about a simple fact - Apple don't care to collaborate on Vulkan, neither when designing their GPUs nor for their OS. I see no point to further argue about facts. And I see criticism of that as completely valid.
    - glaze 6y ago

BolandJ 6y ago

Shmerl pops up on every thread mentioning Vulkan/Apple spouting conspiracy theory nonsense that every design decision is some kind of evil plan to screw over open standards. Ignore him. Keep up the great work, plenty of people really appreciate it.

pjmlp 6y ago
And keeps forgeting no one in the games industry, or console vendors for that matter, cares about his conspiracy theories.
- shmerl 6y ago
  Lock-in proponents bring their kool aid. Not impressed. Gaming industry is pretty messed up when it comes to lock-in. Everyone is paying this tax.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    I am aware of my limitations as human being in this society, speak from actual work experience, and will use any tooling that I rant about when it is on the best interests of the customers, regardless of my personal agenda. Something to think about, or maybe not.
- glaze 6y ago
  Yup, I doubt he has experience working in the games industry. Many engines support multiple graphics APIs and there's often only 1-2 employees implementing/maintaining them so speaking about vendor lock-in is not a strong argument.
  - shmerl 6y ago
    How is that a counter argument to anything? The need to support multiple APIs is not free. It's a tax on everything else.
    - glaze 6y ago
      You're right that it's not free. But compared to the whole game engine codebase size the renderer backend is usually not big.
      - shmerl 6y ago
        It is a waste of time that could be avoided. And exists only becasue of insistence on lock-in by the likes of Apple.

mlindner 6y ago

Yes I agree it's tiresome, I wish hacker news had rules against people making bad faith arguments more so than they do now.

shmerl 6y ago

The article points out that their API matches the hardware and it's the only API they care about: > Their only properly supported API is their own Metal, which they may shape to fit the hardware rather than contorting the hardware to match the API. Meaning they don't care to take Vulkan into account when making their GPU. If it would happen to work well - good. If not - tough luck. So it's not just about macOS, it's about making hardware too. If you don't find it a damaging stance - well, good for you. I find it pretty nasty and I don't see a reason to avoid criticizing Apple. They aren't some neutral party in this especially with their size and impact.

pertymcpert 6y ago
I think you haven't effectively countered their point.
marcan_42 6y ago
Your argument is equivalent to criticizing ARM for putting in instructions to optimize Javascript into their architecture, as if that "sabotages" every other programming language. Or Intel for putting in instructions to optimize AES into their architecture, as if that "sabotages" Salsa20. It doesn't make any sense. Of course Apple optimizes Metal for their GPUs and their GPUs for Metal. None of that is hostile towards other APIs. All of this hardware is Turing-complete and by definition can implement any conceivable graphics API. The only question is how well it performs with those APIs, and until we have benchmark numbers, your argument is based on assumptions lacking any evidence.
- shmerl 6y ago
  I'm not sure what Turing completeness argument has to do with anything. Turing machine is also Turing complete. You are going to make GPUs like that. We are talking about a simple fact - Apple don't care to collaborate on Vulkan, neither when designing their GPUs nor for their OS. I see no point to further argue about facts. And I see criticism of that as completely valid.
  - glaze 6y ago