 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi there,
I'd like to bring up the discussion about the unix-version for 3.1
again.
I have the feeling, that the povray-team is quite satisfied with the
existing unofficial versions of 3.1, as there are no statements
whatsoever as to when they would release something. They must have been
in a quite final state a while ago (talking about months), as the issued
the request for Solaris-maintainers, to which i weakly volunteered and
got no reply.
I really see only two reasons for the current timeframe:
1) Holydays. A really good one, I agree, but ...
2) Porting Delphi, just to bring the editor to the unix folks :-)
Anyway, I would propose putting one unofficial version in some kind of
'state of confidence', just to give all the patchers something to work
on. In my understanding, users as well as programmers are eagerly
waiting on a 'accepted' version, one version that is known throughout
the community. That would not necessarily be an official one.
Axel
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi, Axel!
Yes, I'm waiting for an official UNIX version for POV 3.1, too. I think
there are two points that speak against the acceptance of an unofficial
version by the POVray team.
The first one would be the loss of control over their project. By
accepting it they would have to make it sure that the later release is
compatible to the accepted version so that any work by third parties
wouldn't be wasted.
The second point is that for such a semi-offcial version for sure bug
reports will be delivered to official POYray-team, which can be quite
annoying.
I believe the existing unofficial versions for LINUX should do until the
official version is released.
We shouldn't forget that POVray is a *free* program which means that the
people creating it don't see a buck for it, so that they have to earn
their living in other ways. I'm always astonished how I complex software
like povray (or linux) could be created in the spare time by people who
sure have still a life.
Well, this is my opinion. Yours may differ ;-)
Greetings,
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hey guess what, they do :-)
To clarify the important thing:
I was not talking about the povray-team releasing something. I was
talking about an agreement between users on unix-platforms and patchers
on ONE unofficial version. This will lead into more or less trouble if
the povray-team releases something, but that's a more or less distant
(timely) problem.
Now on to the religious wars :-(. You brought up the term *free*.
Well....
Povray is 'free' of monetary charge. If it would be *free* in that .....
sense, the unix-versions might have been out before anything else (just
guessing, how many hackers don't contribute to Povray because of
religious license ideas).
Povray is not free free, but the povray-team owns the intellectual
property rights (put in here something more appropriate for lawyers).
And so, citing the german Grundgesetz, 'Eigentum verplichtet' (property
goes along with responsibility), I really think, the povray-team should
care about a unix-release. That is
either providing one or giving reasons for not doing so.
Axel
PS: If you'd like to respond to the second point, PLEASE, don't argue
about the license, concentrate on the last sentence, thanx.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi Axel!
Axel Hecht wrote:
>
> Hey guess what, they do :-)
>
> To clarify the important thing:
> I was not talking about the povray-team releasing something. I was
> talking about an agreement between users on unix-platforms and patchers
> on ONE unofficial version. This will lead into more or less trouble if
> the povray-team releases something, but that's a more or less distant
> (timely) problem.
>
I fear that there is no real solution to that and the work done on
patches for this agreed unofficial version could be totally wasted. That
would be sad thing to do. Well the POVray team could be so nice and take
this into account when releasing their own official version but there is
no guarantee for that. You might try!
>
> Now on to the religious wars :-(. You brought up the term *free*.
>
No wars please!! Don't have time for that. :-)
> Well....
> Povray is 'free' of monetary charge. If it would be *free* in that .....
> sense, the unix-versions might have been out before anything else (just
> guessing, how many hackers don't contribute to Povray because of
> religious license ideas).
> Povray is not free free, but the povray-team owns the intellectual
> property rights (put in here something more appropriate for lawyers).
> And so, citing the german Grundgesetz, 'Eigentum verplichtet' (property
> goes along with responsibility), I really think, the povray-team should
> care about a unix-release. That is
> either providing one or giving reasons for not doing so.
>
Yes, they should care and I am sure they will! What I tried to say in my
last response is that the POVray-Team is spending their spare time for
this project. This is to my opinion a high sacrifice.
I think they first cared for the Windows platform because this is what
most of the user are using (and maybe they use it too). I fear that the
supporters of UNIX platform are few in the team and there is a lot of
work to do (especially the editor in 3.1).
I believe it would be a good idea to ask them directly in a polite way
what's up. I'am sure that they are open to your reasonable request
(well, I think it is reasonable).
Greetings to my hometown,
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Marc Schimmler <sch### [at] ica uni-stuttgartde> writes:
>
> I think they first cared for the Windows platform because this is what
> most of the user are using (and maybe they use it too). I fear that the
> supporters of UNIX platform are few in the team and there is a lot of
> work to do (especially the editor in 3.1).
I honestly hope that they don't waste their time in porting the Windows
editor to Unix. I think that everyone who uses Unix has his/her own
favorite editor. Furthermore, Unix users are used to the command line
and ASCII configuration files. They don't need a nice GUI, but want the
new features of POV-Ray 3.1 (and the source code :-) ).
However, I might totally wrong.
Thomas
--
http://www.fmi.uni-konstanz.de/~willhalm
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thomas Willhalm wrote:
>
>
> I honestly hope that they don't waste their time in porting the Windows
> editor to Unix. I think that everyone who uses Unix has his/her own
> favorite editor. Furthermore, Unix users are used to the command line
> and ASCII configuration files. They don't need a nice GUI, but want the
> new features of POV-Ray 3.1 (and the source code :-) ).
>
Well, It's true for me. I would never leave my emacs! ;-)
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>goes along with responsibility), I really think, the povray-team should
>care about a unix-release. That is either providing one or giving reasons
>for not doing so.
we care about it. it's just that the two persons who are doing the two unix
ports have not as yet completed their work. when it's done it's done ...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
povray.org admin team <new### [at] DESPAMpovrayorg> wrote:
: we care about it. it's just that the two persons who are doing the two unix
: ports have not as yet completed their work. when it's done it's done ...
It should be nice to know, what's making so much work with the unix port.
I thought that except for the X-window version, the whole povray code is
totally portable ANSI C code, which can be compiled as is. And since the
X-window code already exists from pov 3.0, why isn't it possible to just
take the same code to 3.1?
If the core program of povray is ANSI C, what's the problem with porting
to unix?
--
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Mika wrote:
> I thought that except for the X-window version, the whole povray code is
> totally portable ANSI C code, which can be compiled as is. And since the
> X-window code already exists from pov 3.0, why isn't it possible to just
> take the same code to 3.1?
(It's two weeks later, nothing new has happened...the world still awaits an
offical unix / xwindows povray 3.1)
Yeah, why? Indeed, several people have already done this privately, and AFIK it
didn't take any one of them more than part of a day. To wit, Ron Parker
did this a couple months ago. That inspired me to try it myself, and it took
only about one hour. (Couldn't have done my color dispersion patch w/o it.)
Someone else also did this, announced it in either this newsgroup or the
.programming one.
We just need to make one of our unofficial x-window hacks more widel
available, as binaries, for all the non-programmers. What's keeping the
POV-Team from just doing it themselves?
I fear they are adding some fancy complicated feature - a text editor - that
most of us unix/linux users won't ever use. Adding a text editor would be
foolish. I love nedit, and will never consider using any other editor (though
as a practical matter I use the email editor provided in Netscape). There are
many unixes who love emacs (or vi or pico) and would never give it up or use
anything else.
OTOH, I wouldn't mind a dialog for all the rendering settings, just click a
button for a quick render, click another for a final image, etc. but such a
thing shouldn't be added into the POV-Ray code, not even in the x-windows
specific subdirectory. The approach of XFPovray is best - anyone can make
their own front end.
Maybe they've got something totally different up their sleeves?
Daren Scot Wilson
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
dar### [at] pipelinecom wrote:
: Maybe they've got something totally different up their sleeves?
I hope that it's something so great it's worth the waiting...
--
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
