 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Nikias v2.0" <tim.nikias (@) nolights.de> wrote in message
news:400820a0$1@news.povray.org...
> I'd say, why not make a more common group for external tools? Poser would
be
> one, but PoseRay, Spatch and several other programms are tools a fellow
> Pover might use as well, and making a general group for external tools
> sounds like a better idea to me than to have a certain group for a single
> external programm. OTOH, I don't know if a new, more general group
wouldn't
> be flooded with questions regarding all kinds of kinky little tools...
That works for me. I think Christoph's idea of putting [poser] or [spatch]
in the subject header also makes a lot of sense.
--
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mike Williams" <nos### [at] econym demoncouk> wrote in message
news:zyH### [at] econymdemoncouk...
> But it may not be the only app of its kind for long. DAZ Studio is
> currently in pre-beta testing. I believe that DAZ decided to write their
> own application because they can't use Poser-5 due to the restrictive
> nature of its user licence.
>
> DAZ Studio may possibly find greater acceptance within the POV community
> because the full-beta version will be free to everyone. The current
> version is free to people who've paid to become members of the DAZ
> Platinum Club.
>
I thought about that as well, but I wanted someone else to actually suggest
the "and other 3rd party tools and utilities" aspect. It sounds like that's
the direction that we're going.
--
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Ken" <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote in message news:4008A67A.C2FFEF8C@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Gilles Tran wrote:
> >
> > news:5pp### [at] tritonimagicode...
> >
> > > I think a common group for all 3rd party tools would be a good idea
> > > (povray.tools or povray.utilities). This way it would be easier to
> > > adapt to tools becoming more popular and others less.
> >
> > povray.tools + the prefix gets my vote.
> >
> > There's a lot of intersection between these tools (Poser + Poseray for
> > instance) so keeping them all at the same place is a good idea.
>
> From a consistent hierarchy point of view I would think that povray.text.utilities
> would be a better fit. I have often thought it inconsistent that we had the
> povray.utilities.binaries group without the .text group for related discussions.
If you feel moving around, deleting or renaming groups is a good idea, I'll support
that and add that now is the time to decide on what to do. I have to move all the
news groups to the new server so that would be an ideal opportunity. It's going to
happen in the next two or three days ... so you don't have long ;)
-- Chris
BTW I think a poser group would be a good idea.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chris Cason" <new### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote in message
news:400af77a@news.povray.org...
>
<Hack!!>
I like the idea of a povray.tools then adding the specific program name in
the subject line. Far too many modeling programs to give any one of them a
separate group.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news:400af77a@news.povray.org...
> If you feel moving around, deleting or renaming groups is a good idea,
I'll support
> that and add that now is the time to decide on what to do. I have to move
all the
> news groups to the new server so that would be an ideal opportunity. It's
going to
> happen in the next two or three days ... so you don't have long ;)
I don't know how heretic it is, but I'd be in favor of putting "binaries" at
the end (it's already the case for international.binaries) for all the
groups that have it on second level, and dropping "text" entirely.
povray.images.binaries
povray.animations
povray.animations.binaries
povray.scene-files
povray.scene-files.binaries
povray.tools
povray.tools.binaries (instead of binaries.utilities)
When I think of it, I suspect that the "binaries" term is not exactly clear
for users without a tech background. Wouldn't be "files" (binaries or not in
fact) preferable now (Web forums like the Yahoo groups use "files" for file
storage groups)? Likewise, the "text" term could be replaced by "discussion"
if necessary.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
>
> I don't know how heretic it is, but I'd be in favor of putting "binaries" at
> the end (it's already the case for international.binaries) for all the
> groups that have it on second level, and dropping "text" entirely.
>
> [...]
The .binaries first is common in usenet (alt.binaries.* etc.) so it
would be consequent IMO to maintain it. The other argument is that
people might treat the binaries groups in general differently (like
reading them with a different newsreader, only downloading them on
demand and not in advance) and therefore would appreciate the
distinction on top level.
I agree that the .text groups do not make that much sense.
povray.scene-files
povray.binaries.scene-files
povray.tools
povray.binaries.tools (instead of binaries.utilities)
povray.tutorials (instead of text.tutorials)
povray.binaries.tutorials
Of course the non-binary groups would be prone to people falsely posting
binaries there (like in povray.animations).
And note that renaming large old groups would result in quite some work
or everyone who keeps the postings (you either have to download
everything again or replace all group names in the files).
Christoph
--
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 11 Jan. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
> I agree that the .text groups do not make that much sense.
>
For me the (faulty) implication was always that they were for posts with
attachments that were in text format instead of bitmap or compiled
modules or other.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote in message
news:400bf267$1@news.povray.org...
> Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I agree that the .text groups do not make that much sense.
> >
>
> For me the (faulty) implication was always that they were for posts with
> attachments that were in text format instead of bitmap or compiled
> modules or other.
That was my impression as well.
--
Jeremy
www.beantoad.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
