zeroin23 wrote:
> "nemesis" <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Fa3ien <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> wrote:
>>> Will the new Open Source status automagically attract people ?
>> I don't think so.  Blender's standard raytracer is yafray, who is maintained
>> mostly by one guy alone...
>>
>> face it, guys:  it's not like the average Joe VB will make wonders in
>> implementing hardcore math algorithms... projects like this or optimizing
>> compilers will always only get a handful of souls knowledgeable enough to
>> contribute any significant bits...
> 
> 
> in terms of human resource management, the best programmer typically can output
> more usable lines of code with less bugs then the good programmer (the
> differences are exponential)
> 
I partly disagree, the best programmers solve the same problem in 
*fewer* lines of code with less bugs per line.

Post a reply to this message

Fa3ien <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> wrote:
> Will the new Open Source status automagically attract people ?

Maybe. You can't work on what you can't see :)

Tom

Post a reply to this message

"Tom York" <alp### [at] zubenelgenubi34spcom> wrote:
> Fa3ien <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> wrote:
> > Will the new Open Source status automagically attract people ?
>
> Maybe. You can't work on what you can't see :)
>
> Tom

Well, the source code is already available, so there's nothing stopping them
from seeing it except for snobbishness on their part (for refusing to touch
free software that isn't GPL).

....Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:23:45 -0500, Chambers wrote:

> so there's nothing stopping
> them from seeing it except for snobbishness on their part

It isn't always necessarilly snobbishness - it's wanting to protect 
themselves from being accused of introducing non-GPL'ed code into GPL'ed 
products.

For example, I know a few Linux kernel developers (not well, mind you, 
but I've talked about a few things with them) and they won't even look at 
the VMware networking drivers (for vmnet and vmmon) because the code is 
not GPL.  If they created something that behaved somewhat similar in some 
way to either of these modules, they could be accused of injecting code 
not released under the GPL into the kernel.

Which is kinda what SCO was going on about, BTW - so it's not like it's a 
theoretical threat; false accusations cost time and money to refute as 
well, after all.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

> "Tom York" <alp### [at] zubenelgenubi34spcom> wrote:
>> Fa3ien <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> wrote:
>>> Will the new Open Source status automagically attract people ?
>> Maybe. You can't work on what you can't see :)
>>
>> Tom
> 
> Well, the source code is already available, so there's nothing stopping them
> from seeing it except for snobbishness on their part (for refusing to touch
> free software that isn't GPL).

Actually, there is a reason that's stopping them. 3.6.1 source code is 
available. 3.7 changed lots of structure. It may be a waste of time to 
edit 3.6.1 code if you'll have to re-adapt to 3.7, which may not be easy.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:

> > "Tom York" <alp### [at] zubenelgenubi34spcom> wrote:
> >> Fa3ien <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> wrote:
> >>> Will the new Open Source status automagically attract people ?
> >> Maybe. You can't work on what you can't see :)
> >>
> >> Tom
> >
> > Well, the source code is already available, so there's nothing stopping them
> > from seeing it except for snobbishness on their part (for refusing to touch
> > free software that isn't GPL).
>
> Actually, there is a reason that's stopping them. 3.6.1 source code is
> available. 3.7 changed lots of structure. It may be a waste of time to
> edit 3.6.1 code if you'll have to re-adapt to 3.7, which may not be easy.

exactly.  3.6 code is still largely C with classes and from a few hints from the
developers, it seems the 3.7 codebase is now largely full C++ with proper use of
classes and namespaces.  A very good thing, indeed.  Unfortunately, no source
for 3.7 yet available for now, AFAIK.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> it seems the 3.7 codebase is now largely full C++ with proper use of
> classes and namespaces.

  Not "full" (as it still has quite a lot of C-style code, including
tons of preprocessor macros etc), but closer.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp escribió:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> it seems the 3.7 codebase is now largely full C++ with proper use of
>> classes and namespaces.
> 
>   Not "full" (as it still has quite a lot of C-style code, including
> tons of preprocessor macros etc), but closer.
> 

As long as there are no goto's :D

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> As long as there are no goto's :D

  There seems to be 16 of those.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:

> > "Tom York" <alp### [at] zubenelgenubi34spcom> wrote:
> >> Fa3ien <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> wrote:
> >>> Will the new Open Source status automagically attract people ?
> >> Maybe. You can't work on what you can't see :)
> >>
> >> Tom
> >
> > Well, the source code is already available, so there's nothing stopping them
> > from seeing it except for snobbishness on their part (for refusing to touch
> > free software that isn't GPL).
>
> Actually, there is a reason that's stopping them. 3.6.1 source code is
> available. 3.7 changed lots of structure. It may be a waste of time to
> edit 3.6.1 code if you'll have to re-adapt to 3.7, which may not be easy.

Yes, that's what I was getting at, but too indirectly. I've added things to
3.6.1 (well, MegaPOV) but there's no point going on with that when 3.7 will
change things. Plus it's a bit depressing now to add a feature and see only one
core out of the four doing the rendering, vs. 3.7 (the beta).

Tom

Post a reply to this message