Dan P <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> You are reading my statements wrong. I never said I
> preferred DirectX because it was an abstraction layer anywhere

  If in a DirectX vs. OpenGL discussion you stress that "all I have said
is that DirectX is a hardware abstraction layer" you are making an
implication. Granted, you are not directly claiming anything about
OpenGL, but there's no other way of understanding it than that you are.

> No kidding OpenGL is also an abstraction layer -- that's a given and
> to assume I don't know that is pretty insulting.

  I did not claim that you don't know what OpenGL is. I said that by
accentuating something about DirectX you are indirectly making the
claim that DirectX is better than OpenGL because of that thing.

  If I'm not completely wrong, the main issue here was why use DirectX
which is Windows-only when you can use OpenGL which is cross-platform.
If you prefer DirectX you should presents arguments in its favor, and
"it's a hardware abstraction layer" is certainly not one.

> I was responding to
> Thronsten's claim that everything I say is false by listing the only
> assertions I made

  I assume that Thorsten made the same assumption as I did: By presenting
a pro-DirectX argument you are indirectly claiming that OpenGL lacks that
feature.

> Don't assume what I say, read what I say.

  It's the writer who is responsible of making his point clear to the
reader. If you write your point unclearly and in a way which can cause
confusion, it's your fault. Be careful about how you write things if
you want to avoid misunderstandings.

> You won't find many people who have hated Microsoft as much as I in the
> past. I have progressed to hating all corporations -- something opensource
> folks LIKE MYSELF should respect -- and have decided to exploit technologies
> based on which would be best for my target audience. That's my decision to
> make -- it doesn't make me stupid, it is a choice, and I never stated
> otherwise. I want to make a patch editor that uses everything that the
> newest video cards has to offer and I am targetting Windows. I haven't said
> that doing otherwise is a bad idea -- in fact, I said that I'm happy that
> people /were/ doing that so that there were alternatives to my software.

  What it seems to me is that you made a suggestion to the community,
the community gave you feedback and you didn't like the feedback and
got angry.

  You should be aware that if you make a suggestion like "hey, let's make
a very useful windows-only program for POV-Ray" you will most certainly
get answers of the type "why should it be windows-only?". That's only
normal and does not mean the community is despising your idea. It only
means that since POV-Ray is a multi-platform software enjoyed by a wide
variety of people using many different platforms, it's always nice to
get third-party utility programs which also work on those several
platforms.
  If the reason why you are making it windows-only is questionable (for
example of the type "I will use DirectX because I like it more") people
are going to complain. That's also normal and should not be taken as a
personal offence. People are not saying "DirectX sucks" or "you are stupid"
by this, they are only complaining to the fact that you are limiting the
portability of your program and thus depriving other platform users from
the program for no good reason.

  If you make such suggestion you should be aware of the response the
community will give you. Getting angry from the feedback is not wise.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message