Re: Quake performance SGI vs Sun

From: joe smith (john.smith_at_iiuaudhahsyasdy232462643264276asdhfvhdsafhasdgdsagyufasgyufdashufdas)
Date: 03/30/04 

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 03:30:11 +0300

> IIRC, he said a triangle is a polygon. You answered saying that a triangle
> is a subset of a polygon (only confirming what he said) and then
> contradicting yourself by saying that a triangle is not a polygon because
> it only has 3 sides.

I wrote a triangle ALWAYS has (precisely) three vertices, polygon three or
more vertices, I never said anything about sides. Triangle has two sides, a
front and back side, or using OpenGL terminology, face. Triangle has three
edges. If we insist on being pedantically correct, let's go all the way.

This is a subtle difference why this makes a difference, like I explained
the OpenGL does not give guarantee to handle non-planar polygons correctly.
This means, if you want to tesselate and be able to render the NURBS patch
correctly all the "polygons" degenerate into triangles. What is so unclear
about this?

> Also that you take offence even when it is obvious none was intended. (For
> example, when someone [you removed his name] said that the CAD users who
> are allways braging about their PeeCees tend to call the help desk more
> than the UNIX users, you got on the defensive saying that you never called
> the help desk...)

That was silly of me, but notice, I admit my mistakes.

> No, it is yours.

Please explain how it is a problem for me, that I know what I am talking
about?

> If by "agreed" you mean "ignored". You are still removing attributions.

I agree with the snipped content, what more you want?

> You still are hiding behind a fake name and fake email address. You still
> are trying to be offensive, and offended.

I would not pollute another email address by posting it to the Usenet in a
million years. I can make hotmail account if you want, but I wouldn't read
it.

> Your repeated saying that your opinions are facts and objective doesn't
> help either.

I wouldn't be saying that unless the discussion would not be steered towards
my person rather than the what this person is actually saying. For example
right now. If participants here would be interested in the facts, they would
not comment on the person, but seems I am more interesting topic to some
than discussing OpenGL and the topic in general.

If I am not objective, or the things I write are not true, howcome it is so
difficult to prove these things incorrect and concentrate on claiming that I
am trolling and generally commenting my posting style? If I am completely
way off target and incorrect, it should be fairly trivial for SGI
specialists to prove that I am infact wrong on things that I write about.

I am fully aware that people have better things to do than that, but that
they don't have time for rational argument but flamewars is, well, alarming.

> > If someone treats me like a child I will act like one.
>
> It only proves their point.

That they are assholes? That was their point, to insult, correct?

> It started when you joined it, as Dominik pointed out.

Yes, I wrote that P90+VoodooGraphics ca. 1997 has enough fillrate for the
job at hand. This upset people (why else such extreme reactions?).

> Some things cosmo says brings out extremly defensive reactions from you
> too.

Because he appears to be clueless and capable only of laughing last, when
someone else says something witty. So far he has not been able to
participate in any of the technical discussion at hand. Correct me if I am
wrong.

> > If it insults someone that Pentium90 + 3dfx card from ca. 1997 is very
fast
> > in Quake, that's not my problem. It is the truth. I been the first to
agree
>
> And no one said it is the truth either.

*ahem*, P90 + VoodooGraphics does not run Quake at 60 frames per second at
640x480x16 ? Anyone can dispute this? Step forward.

> Or freak reactions from you to what others have written. Almost 50% (if
> not more) of the recent posts to comp.sys.sgi.hardware are from you.
> That is yet another indication that you are a troll.

What difference would that make? Someone come forward and prove that what I
have been saying is incorrect. I'm waiting. No bull*** about how much you
dislike me. Just the facts. As I been saying all along, have I not?

> Now it is up to you. You can either read this and try to act less like a
> troll, or you can ignore me completely, as you did with Dominik's post.

I did not ignore Dominik's post completely now did I? You are a liar and
twisting facts to suit your purposes. What possible good do you think you
get from discussing personal issues in a public newsgroup? I sticked to the
facts only. I did not go into personals, unless I was responding to comments
made about me. This is fully legal as far as I am concerned.

> Your choice. I don't intend to participate in this discussion any more.

Good for you. A tip for forthcoming replies: try to stick to the topic, I
would not be the only one to appreciate this.