Rafal 'Raf256' Maj <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote:
> I only dont understand why such greate program must also follow philosofy 
> of "greate" programming companys (like micro$oft) - that the program knows 
> better then user what is good for him, and all users are stupid and 
> shouldnt be allowed to do some thing just because program knows better.

  Nope. In this case the beta version is made so that it's best for the
purposes of the team. The team doesn't want old beta versions floating
around causing bug reports which have been fixed long time ago.
  It's a public beta version, not a public release. The team can do with
the beta version whatever they want. They could even not publish it at
all. The beta version has limitations and if you want to use it, then
you are bound to the limitations.
  As has been told many times already, if these limitations irritate you,
then don't beta-test it. Use the official release.

> Chances that one could not install old 3.5 and needs to use installed pov 
> (3.6) *right now* are small, but are notacible.

  Too bad then, because there's no POV-Ray 3.6 yet. No matter how much
you complain about it, this fact remains the same.

> This is *just* a sugestion ofcourse authors will do what they think is 
> best, I only can say that personaly I would add instead dialog box:

  Do you really think people are going to care about a warning?
  Besides, why do this? It's a test version. It's not intended to be
used as a final product. If you don't want to test it, then don't.

-- 
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

On 1 Apr 2004 11:16:11 -0500, "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote:
> I only dont understand why (...) the program knows 
> better then user what is good for him, and all users are stupid and 
> shouldnt be allowed to do some thing just because program knows better.

That's the point where you do not understand this feature. It is not that
software knows what is best for user, but it is that designers of software
know what is best for their development. That's big difference. Note that
software is developed _for_ users.

ABX

Post a reply to this message

Rafal 'Raf256' Maj <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote:
> Ok, I will not report other things that I find irritating, neither I would 
> report any requests, wishes, bugreports, etc, if it just leed to such rude 
> answares.

  Don't you think that's a bit childish?

  When people tell you that your irritation about beta expiration is
unfounded, you take "revenge" by not going to report anything else about
the program which you may find? What's the logic in that?

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
> I mean the source (all req. files) that was compiled to beta 2. You seem to
> imply that re-compiling beta 2 (with a new expiry date) is not possible, since
> the source files required for that no longer exist in the same state. Or have I
> misunderstood?

  The sources are continuously being updated.
  You can probably get the original beta2 sources from the versioning
system, but why go through that trouble? Just compile the current
version as soon as it's stable enough.

-- 
plane{-x+y,-1pigment{bozo color_map{[0rgb x][1rgb x+y]}turbulence 1}}
sphere{0,2pigment{rgbt 1}interior{media{emission 1density{spherical
density_map{[0rgb 0][.5rgb<1,.5>][1rgb 1]}turbulence.9}}}scale
<1,1,3>hollow}text{ttf"timrom""Warp".1,0translate<-1,-.1,2>}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

On 1 Apr 2004 11:20:05 -0500, "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote:
> Ok, I will not report other things that I find irritating, neither I would 
> report any requests, wishes, bugreports, etc, if it just leed to such rude 
> answares.

You kidding, right ? 1st april ? :-(

follow-up set

ABX

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly wrote:
> [...]
> 
> I mean the source (all req. files) that was compiled to beta 2. You seem to
> imply that re-compiling beta 2 (with a new expiry date) is not possible, since
> the source files required for that no longer exist in the same state. Or have I
> misunderstood?

You can get the source from any point of time in the past using the 
versioning system but this is completely beside the point.  Several 
reasons have been mentioned already why there might be delays but in the 
end it all boils down to one thing:

Bringing out a new beta version is the combined effort of a lot of 
people who all are working on POV-Ray in their free time and also have 
their real life obligations.  It should be pretty obvious that this can 
cause delays.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 21 Mar. 2004 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in message news:406c4333$1@news.povray.org...
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:406c4225@news.povray.org...
> > Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
> > > Ah - reading between the lines here, I take it that no pure source still
> exists
> > > for beta 2? That seems, well, odd, but at least explains things.
> >
> >   What do you mean "pure source"?
>
> I mean the source (all req. files) that was compiled to beta 2. You seem to
> imply that re-compiling beta 2 (with a new expiry date) is not possible, since
> the source files required for that no longer exist in the same state. Or have I
> misunderstood?

We use a version control system that allows us to re-create any released version
of POV-Ray (alpha, beta or official) since the first private 3.5 alpha.

However for me, for example, to re-created beta 2, would require me to check in
all files which I currently have checked out, then sync my workstation to the
3.6.beta.2 label (+ the connection to the server happens to be via a modem), THEN
to change the date, THEN re-build the EXE in 'profile generation' mode with the
ICL compiler (as the current profile data I would have is not relevent to the old
code), THEN run the resulting EXE on the benchmark and a few dozen other selected
source files (normally I run it on the entire portfolio and insert menu as well),
THEN re-compile the EXE after telling the compiler to use the generated profile
data from those runs, THEN upload it to the website and update the HTML, THEN
re-sync my workstation to the head revisions (assuming I was working on head in
the first place) and resume where I left off.

So yes, I can re-create it. But it's not worth the effort given that I could
better use that time in getting beta 3 done, and beta testers already know that
it will expire and can live without it in the meantime.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

"Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <spa### [at] raf256com> wrote:
>
> > It is also quite stupid to ask the same question again...
>
> Ok, I will not report other things that I find irritating, neither I would
> report any requests, wishes, bugreports, etc, if it just leed to such rude
> answares.

I apologise if the tone of Thorsten's reply offends you. However you have
been told several times about the role of the beta expiry.

Please do understand that the download page you got the file from clearly
stated that it expired on March 31; re-downloading the same file isn't going
to change that. We were just a little late in getting the new versions in
place. Please have patience.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

Rafal 'Raf256' Maj wrote:

>>It is also quite stupid to ask the same question again...
> 
> 
> Ok, I will not report other things that I find irritating, neither I would 
> report any requests, wishes, bugreports, etc, if it just leed to such rude 
> answares.

Pot, kettle... I'm very, very sorry you were rudified because of my 
comment. Sending bug reports is useful, complaining multiple times about 
the same issue is not when the answer has been given you at least 
equally many times. I think it is stupid. (I never said that _you_ are 
stupid ;-)

This matter has been now explained to you many times and you still keep 
on complaining. I just find that very odd. You should direct your energy 
to something more productive - like downloading and trying beta 3...

Severi S.

Post a reply to this message

"Chris Cason" <new### [at] deletethispovrayorg> wrote in message
news:406c4859@news.povray.org...
>

<snip>

Thanks for the info, all.

I should stress I haven't even d/l'd the beta at all, and, in relation to
the expiry date,  fully support a) the right of the developers to do this
and b) the reason the developers do this.

Having struggled with some C the past few days (my work doesn't normally
involve C), I'm beginning to get a glimpse of some of the dependencies that
occur...

Post a reply to this message