Here's your article, phantom, thanks for the counterpoints.
I merely posted the link to the blog post, but I did fail to qualify it. The OP was talking about a book where the author was making some claims about DirectX vs OpenGL and that OpenGL was deliberately slowed down; the author's incorrect information about Microsoft intentionally slowing down OpenGL is probably a result of the Vista FUD campaign and the media attention it received - the blog post I linked to explains that FUD campaign; I wasn't trying to say OpenGL is better than DirectX, nor do I think it is.
I shouldn't have used the blog post's title as the text of the hyperlink, as it makes it seem like I agree with the entirety of that post and entirely support the author's viewpoint (Which I actually mostly do, but by coming to my own conclusions, not just borrowing his).
Thanks for clarifying (in your article) that the FUD campaign wasn't actually a FUD campaign and that Carmack's quotes were taken out of context - both of those points are news to me!
I stand somewhere in the middle ground myself, though I lean more towards OpenGL. Currently I only work with 2D graphics, but when I make the move to 3D, I intend to use OpenGL for two reasons:
- Because I am targeting multiple platforms like Mac and Windows and Linux.
- Because some competition is good for everyone in the long haul.
...this is in spite of Direct X seeming to be (from an inexperienced outsider looking in) better designed, and not because I think all opensource software is superior in quality to proprietary software (and just because the standard is open, that doesn't mean the implementations are).
I'm prepared to bear the pain and annoyance of OpenGL inconsistencies across videocards, not because it is better overall, but because it is better for my goals.