 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/2/2011 9:57 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Wait - it's written in *Java* and yet it can access the *graphics card*??
>> How is that even possible?
>
> It's not. It's using a library interface between Java and OpenGL
> probably written in C or C++. Hence the security restrictions people
> were talking about.
You mean it's not "pure" Java? :S
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge wrote:
> You mean it's not "pure" Java? :S
I was always amused to see things on software like "100% Pure Java!"(*)
(*) Requires Java 1.5.2.4 or later.
In other words, it's 100% pure java because their particular native
interface got incorporated into the JVM just recently. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge wrote:
> Evidently there are some security issues involved with allowing an
> applet to access graphics hardware, which is likely the reason the new
> version of JRE is so intolerant.
Did you get it working on the new version? I kind of lost track.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/2/2011 11:44 AM, Darren New wrote:
> stbenge wrote:
>> Evidently there are some security issues involved with allowing an
>> applet to access graphics hardware, which is likely the reason the new
>> version of JRE is so intolerant.
>
> Did you get it working on the new version? I kind of lost track.
No, but when I get the JDK downloaded/installed, I will (assuming that
signing my applets is the cure).
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge wrote:
> (assuming that signing my applets is the cure).
Heh heh heh. Remember all the crap that Microsoft got for ActiveX security? :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/2/2011 1:10 PM, Darren New wrote:
> stbenge wrote:
>> (assuming that signing my applets is the cure).
>
> Heh heh heh. Remember all the crap that Microsoft got for ActiveX
> security? :-)
I missed that... But I imagine if a company is faced with a potential
lawsuit, they'd rather make things more difficult for developers rather
than suffer the pain inflicted by hurled legal documents :/
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
stbenge wrote:
> On 2/2/2011 1:10 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> stbenge wrote:
>>> (assuming that signing my applets is the cure).
>>
>> Heh heh heh. Remember all the crap that Microsoft got for ActiveX
>> security? :-)
>
> I missed that... But I imagine if a company is faced with a potential
> lawsuit, they'd rather make things more difficult for developers rather
> than suffer the pain inflicted by hurled legal documents :/
Back when Java applets first came out, and ActiveX, everyone mocked ActiveX
because it allowed unsafe code to run as long as the developer had signed
the ActiveX package so you could track it back to him.
Now, 15 years later, Java gives in and does the same thing, because people
really do want to run unsafe code sometimes. (Altho what's unsafe about
OpenGL I can't guess. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/2/2011 5:43 PM, Darren New wrote:
> stbenge wrote:
>> On 2/2/2011 1:10 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> stbenge wrote:
>>>> (assuming that signing my applets is the cure).
>>>
>>> Heh heh heh. Remember all the crap that Microsoft got for ActiveX
>>> security? :-)
>>
>> I missed that... But I imagine if a company is faced with a potential
>> lawsuit, they'd rather make things more difficult for developers
>> rather than suffer the pain inflicted by hurled legal documents :/
>
> Back when Java applets first came out, and ActiveX, everyone mocked
> ActiveX because it allowed unsafe code to run as long as the developer
> had signed the ActiveX package so you could track it back to him.
Ah, so /that's/ the point. I *knew* there had to be some reason behind
it. But... aren't there file-hosting servers a person can use in
conjunction with free website companies that would make anonymously
distributing applets possible? I guess it can all be tracked down
eventually, but it's not stopping some people, evidently.
> Now, 15 years later, Java gives in and does the same thing, because
> people really do want to run unsafe code sometimes. (Altho what's unsafe
> about OpenGL I can't guess. :-)
I don't know either. I'm sure there's a weakness somewhere (there always
is [this is somehow more true for Microsoft apps]), or they wouldn't
have made it an issue. Right? :(
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's the edge technique described in Milkdrop's preset authoring page.
From what I can tell, very little is actually *described* in the
Milkdrop documentation.
> When used carefully, you can produce reaction/diffusion and "skin dot"
> effects.
Yeah, you can do all kinds of really funky stuff with systems of
differential equations, and the graphics hardware is pretty much
designed for this type of number crunching.
> Evidently there are some security issues involved with allowing an
> applet to access graphics hardware, which is likely the reason the new
> version of JRE is so intolerant.
I can't imagine what the possible security risk could be...
>> I wish to God I could figure out how half of Milkdrop works. There are
>> some amazing 3D effects which cannot be done in realtime, and yet it
>> does them in realtime, even though that's clearly impossible.
>
> It's really not that difficult to learn (mastering it OTOH...). It draws
> graphics (shapes, dots) to a texture residing on a screen-wide...
Oh, yeah, I get how a graphics card works. What I can't figure out is
how some of the effects that Milkdrop generates are mathematically
possible. Figuring out the math is the hard part; actually making the
hardware do it is usually quite simple.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/3/2011 2:08 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> It's the edge technique described in Milkdrop's preset authoring page.
>
> From what I can tell, very little is actually *described* in the
> Milkdrop documentation.
It's enough to get a person going with preset authoring.
>>> I wish to God I could figure out how half of Milkdrop works. There are
>>> some amazing 3D effects which cannot be done in realtime, and yet it
>>> does them in realtime, even though that's clearly impossible.
>>
>> It's really not that difficult to learn (mastering it OTOH...). It draws
>> graphics (shapes, dots) to a texture residing on a screen-wide...
>
> Oh, yeah, I get how a graphics card works.
Actually, I was describing what /Milkdrop/ does with a graphics card.
All VJ'ing apps are pretty similar, I think.
> What I can't figure out is
> how some of the effects that Milkdrop generates are mathematically
> possible.
OK, you're going to have give me an example... give it over! Pick a
preset from Milkdrop's standard distribution that epitomizes this
nearly-impossible effect, and I'll tell you how I *think* it's done.
Maybe other, more knowledgeable people will join in as well, and we can
get to the bottom of this thing ;)
Sam
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
