All of Oculus’s Rift headsets have stopped working due to an expired certificate

Post by dmix » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 9:36 PM UTC

mattnewport wrote: post #249

DanAndersen wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow! I'm glad you were able to get it figured out. Sounds like a nightmare scenario. By the way, do you have any links to your surgical training startup? I'm doing some research into VR/AR for surgical telementoring and training and would be interested in seeing how it's in use.

Osso VR - http://ossovr.com/ We've had a fair amount of press coverage in specialist press recently so a search for Osso VR should turn up some recent articles too.

Post by washadjeffmad » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 9:42 PM UTC

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #212

p1necone wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the exclusives as a negative. I don't want to support their efforts to build a closed ecosystem around what should be an open API that any headmounted display + tracking can expose.

> I see the exclusives as a negative Would anyone with a straight face say the same about Nintendo's exclusives? I don't see anyone else in the market funding great things like Medium, Quil, Lone Echo, Robo Recall. Feels it's just cutting off your nose to spite your face to complain about this.

Post by retromario » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 9:50 PM UTC

agar wrote: post #274

teawrecks wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like a cert is necessary for it to function. A VR headset is basically a monitor you wear on your face. This is their own poor design choice that just ensures they're going to lose business of anyone who needs reliability in their headset.

The "monitor you wear on your face" trope is simply inaccurate, and essentially a misunderstanding of the state of VR today. I say this not to either criticize you or excuse the mistake by Oculus (they really needed to countersign their cert with a timestamp server), but to educate. These are non-obvious issues to people that don't follow the VR sector. Monitors work without low-level drivers because their maturity (…

Post by erikpukinskis » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 10:17 PM UTC

andreareina wrote: post #202

erikpukinskis wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you’re talking about the proliferation of declarative APIs over explicit, imperative ones. My pet theory is that because we typically understand our needs before we understand the code paths required to fulfill them, our V1 APIs are usually a declarative “this is what should be” interface. Then we spend days or months making it happen and by the time we understand the required code paths, we’ve totally baked our…

I lean towards providing both -- high-level abstractions sufficient for the 90% built on lower-level abstractions that are available if needed.

Post by adrianratnapala » Thu, Mar 08, 2018, 10:46 PM UTC

binarymidget wrote: post #272

adrianratnapala wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem in this case is much deeper than their fault / your fault. The problem is that in this industry we do (have to?) lean too much on the power of abstraction. Whether you are writing SQL or graphics code you are constantly told "just express what you want to express directly, and the system is smart enough to do things as efficiently as possible". But that might not be very efficient at all. The people who w…

"...or graphics code you are constantly told "just express what you want to express directly, and the system is smart enough to do things as efficiently as possible"." Who is saying that? I've worked in video games for 18 years and never heard that. In fact, anyone who said that would get puzzled and suspicious looks. We generally use a very C-like variant of C++.