<snip> if the team
> wants the public to help out with beta testing, making it difficult to do
> so (or rather, not making it easy/easier) doesn't encourage the average
> user to do so...
>
> Jim

Exactly.

Cheers Dre

Post a reply to this message

"Dre" <aus### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
news:470ac353@news.povray.org...


> Fair enough, but I get the impression I am on one side all by myself!

       Nope, I understand exactly where you're coming from, so you're not 
alone.  :)

           ~Steve~


> Cheers Dre
>

Post a reply to this message

Dre wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message 
> news:470### [at] hotmailcom...
>> Dre wrote:
>>> "Zeger Knaepen" <zeg### [at] povplacecom> wrote in message 
>>> news:470a2ca3@news.povray.org...
>>>> "Fa3ien" <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> wrote in message 
>>>> news:470a1add@news.povray.org...
>>>>> Maybe there's something to learn from this.
>>>>>
>>>>> While the operations you describe are quite simple, maybe more testers
>>>>> could be attracted if the download of the beta was accompanied by a
>>>>> quick guide of "how to cope with 2 POV-Ray versions at the same time".
>>>> I don't see how it's the POV-team's task to teach the users how to use 
>>>> their operating system ?
>>>>
>>>> cu!
>>>> -- 
>>>> #macro G(b,e)b+(e-b)*C/50#end#macro _(b,e,k,l)#local C=0;#while(C<50)
>>>> sphere{G(b,e)+3*z.1pigment{rgb G(k,l)}finish{ambient 1}}#local C=C+1;
>>>> #end#end _(y-x,y,x,x+y)_(y,-x-y,x+y,y)_(-x-y,-y,y,y+z)_(-y,y,y+z,x+y)
>>>> _(0x+y.5+y/2x)_(0x-y.5+y/2x)            // ZK http://www.povplace.com
>>>>
>>> <deep sigh> I dont have trouble using my operating system!!!!
>>>
>>> The way I work is the way I work, having to muck around with different 
>>> versions simply doesn't gel, hence why I dont do it.
>>>
>>> Simple as that.
>>>
>>> Now, back to lurking, next time I keep my mouth shut, seesh!
>> why? the community is split on this and you happen to be in one side. Even 
>> if others think this as a holy war, that does not mean it is.
> 
> Fair enough, but I get the impression I am on one side all by myself!

No, but that may be because many others did already express their 
opinion in povray.beta-test and you are not subscribed to that group. It 
is something that has come back nearly every beta release for years.


> Its also something that doesn't really bother me that much, I just put my 
> opinion in about the time limit and I got pounded with me not knowing how to 
> use a computer!  If everyone else is so passionate about the time limit, 
> have a time limit, it doesn't bother me, I just wont use it, simple.
> 
> Cheers Dre 
> 
Andrel (who decided not to use 'Dr Dre' because there already was one in 
the music scene)

Post a reply to this message

Dre <aus### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Yep, then there are the file associations etc.  All it takes is for pov to 
> fire up the wrong version just once...

  Why would copying an .exe file into a directory change any file
associations?

> There are many reasons why it doesn't work for me

  You mentioned only one.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Dre <aus### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> <deep sigh> I dont have trouble using my operating system!!!!

> The way I work is the way I work, having to muck around with different 
> versions simply doesn't gel, hence why I dont do it.

  I can't even imagine how you are having so many problems in having
to different .exe files in the same directory, and launching either
one of them.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Dre <aus### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Yes I fully understand how to use Windows thanks very much!

> How I have my computer set up atm works fine for me, using 2 different 
> versions of pov *doesn't* work for me.

  Those two sentences feel contradictory to me.

  If you were fluent at using Windows you wouldn't have the slightest
problems in using POV-Ray 3.6 and 3.7beta (especially given that the
latter is just an .exe which you can put besides the 3.6 exe in the
same directory).

> I dont know why you are getting so fired up about this

  Because you are badmouthing the pov-team by (IMO) unjustly criticizing
how they are distributing the 3.7 beta.

> use as many versions of pov as you like and fill up your 
> desktop with useless shortcuts, *I* dont work like this.

  The desktop is one place where you can put the shortcut. You can put
it somewhere else. Heck, you can put it in the same place where you
have the shortcut to pov3.6. I just can't see the problem you are having.

  Even if you don't use a shortcut for pov3.6 *at all*, I still can't see
the problem. That means that you are launching pov3.6 by directly going
to its directory and launching the executable. What is the problem if
there was another executable (pov3.7) there as well?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Warp wrote:
>   Because you are badmouthing the pov-team by (IMO) unjustly criticizing
> how they are distributing the 3.7 beta.

Fine, let's bad-mouth the POV team.

I don't mind having two versions of POV installed at the same time. I
have POV and MegaPOV on my machine right now. What pisses me off is
other people meddling with my computer and telling me when and how I can
use the software on my machine in my own home. It's my own damn
computer, and I'm going to use it whatever way I want, thank you very much.

Microsoft tells people how they can use their software, and puts people
through all this activation bullcrap to install Windows XP and later. I
don't use Microsoft software unless I absolutely have to.

Apple cripples their software so that it only runs on Apple hardware. I
don't use Apple products without a good reason.

Hollywood, the American music industry, and the video game industry put
"DRM" anti-copying software on all their products. I fight the urge to
spit in the face of anyone who buys said products, and wish their
creators nothing but ill.

Linus lets me use Linux any freaking way I want. I use Linux every
chance I can get.

The license for the POV stable releases gives me a degree of freedom
that I'm willing to live with. The POV betas are crippled to a degree
that I won't put up with.

While I'm ranting, why the hell does the POV team sit on the source code
for each new revision until the "final release"? Would letting people
see it somehow violate its sanctity? Is it not pretty enough? Or is the
POV team just so anal-retentive that they are frightened that someone
just might *improve* on their beta code? Shock, horror.

Alright, I'm done now.

- --
William Tracy
afi### [at] gmailcom -- wtr### [at] calpolyedu

You know you've been raytracing too long when you buy a new hard drive
so that you can have 2Gb worth of swap space.
    -- Nathan O'Brien
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHC9OkcCmTzQ++ZncRAup7AKCU8vwg6k2PasiZPR0h6T1ujUSKKgCfU5Xy
LDzXg5XuVa6AFv9uKAM7QWk=
=xLWh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message

William Tracy <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote:
> It's my own damn
> computer, and I'm going to use it whatever way I want, thank you very much.

  You can't. Laws prohibit you from doing certain things, even if it's
just your "own computer". Distributing illegal material is one example.

> Microsoft tells people how they can use their software

  It's their right, both ethical and legal. You don't have to use their
software if you don't agree with their terms.

> Apple cripples their software so that it only runs on Apple hardware.

  Not true.

> Hollywood, the American music industry, and the video game industry put
> "DRM" anti-copying software on all their products.

  Well, it's their products and they can do whatever they want with them,
exactly like you can do whatever you want with your computer.

> Linus lets me use Linux any freaking way I want.

  Not true. Linux is bound to the GPL license, which limits what you can
do with it. For example, you can't take the linux kernel and build a
closed-source commercial product with it. You certainly can not do whatever
you want with it.

> The license for the POV stable releases gives me a degree of freedom
> that I'm willing to live with. The POV betas are crippled to a degree
> that I won't put up with.

  So it's just a question of principle, not of logical reasoning?
You protest the fact that you can't "do whatever you want" with the
betas?

> While I'm ranting, why the hell does the POV team sit on the source code
> for each new revision until the "final release"?

  Odd question coming from a person who just a few paragraphs earlier
defended his own right to do whatever he wants with what he owns.

  So you want to be able to do whatever you like with what you own, but
you don't want to allow others to do the same? That sounds a bit like a
double standard.

> Would letting people
> see it somehow violate its sanctity? Is it not pretty enough? Or is the
> POV team just so anal-retentive that they are frightened that someone
> just might *improve* on their beta code? Shock, horror.

  The reason is that the pov-team has high standards for quality. They
want to distribute a stable, well-tested system, not a barely-working
development beta version full of known bugs.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

470bd3a6@news.povray.org...

> The license for the POV stable releases gives me a degree of freedom
> that I'm willing to live with. The POV betas are crippled to a degree
> that I won't put up with.

It's a beta version, which means that it's an uncomplete, unfinished, 
crippled, potentially hazardous version that only exists for evaluation 
purposes and helping the developers to find and fix bugs. People who use 
betas are called beta testers, not "final users".  If you don't accept the 
risks of a beta testing (which is perfectly normal), don't use the beta. 
That's the general agreement when testing new technology, be it software, 
fighter jets or condoms. If you get someone pregnant after testing the new 
[insert brand here] XtraSupersize++, I don't think you'll be able to sue 
them either ;)

G.

Post a reply to this message

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dangit, Warp, why do you have to be so good at arguing. :-)

Warp wrote:
> William Tracy <wtr### [at] calpolyedu> wrote:
>> It's my own damn
>> computer, and I'm going to use it whatever way I want, thank you very much.
> 
>   You can't. Laws prohibit you from doing certain things, even if it's
> just your "own computer". Distributing illegal material is one example.

Fair enough.

>> Microsoft tells people how they can use their software
> 
>   It's their right, both ethical and legal. You don't have to use their
> software if you don't agree with their terms.

And I don't.

>> Apple cripples their software so that it only runs on Apple hardware.
> 
>   Not true.

I challenge you to install OS X on an arbitrary PC.

There's no easy, legal way to do it, because OS X is tied to Apple's
firmware.

>> Linus lets me use Linux any freaking way I want.
> 
>   Not true. Linux is bound to the GPL license, which limits what you can
> do with it. For example, you can't take the linux kernel and build a
> closed-source commercial product with it. You certainly can not do whatever
> you want with it.

I can can personally use it however I see fit.

As soon I as start redistributing it, that's a *whole* different can of
worms.

>   So it's just a question of principle, not of logical reasoning?
> You protest the fact that you can't "do whatever you want" with the
> betas?

As long as I'm not hurting someone else, then yes, I should be able to
do whatever I want. Does it hurt anyone else if I continue to run a beta
on my own machine after the expiration date?

Posting retarded bug reports and just running the software are two very
different things. If you want to sign people up to watch for bug reports
filed against old betas, and laugh and call those submitters names, I
will cheerfully volunteer.

>> While I'm ranting, why the hell does the POV team sit on the source code
>> for each new revision until the "final release"?
> 
>   Odd question coming from a person who just a few paragraphs earlier
> defended his own right to do whatever he wants with what he owns.

Alright, you've got me there. Yes, it is well within their right to do
so. It just always struck me as a strange attitude to keep the
development sources secret, when you're going to publish the finished
version, anyway.

I actually would to the opposite of what the POV team does with its
betas: Distribute sources, and not binaries. Having to compile your own
software would filter out the people who aren't going to submit helpful
bug reports, and would make it possible for people to submit patches as
they find bugs.

But, yes, I concede that is the POV team's decision, and not mine.

I don't know why I'm ranting now--if all the promises about POV 4 come
true, then my complaints will be completely moot.

- --
William Tracy
afi### [at] gmailcom -- wtr### [at] calpolyedu

You know you've been raytracing too long when you've seriously thought
about investing in a true 3D scanner.
    -- Quietly Watching
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHC+phcCmTzQ++ZncRAscdAJ9YPmHnYMzFyD854wv+lrjuWse4iACfTjG2
PHhVOr0EG0oLdEfxN3NPC+8=
=Xegg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Post a reply to this message