Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <3e4c0b9a@news.povray.org> , Wolfgang Wieser <wwi### [at] gmxde>  
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>It is a program for users with a long history of stability.  None of the
>>>other projects you mentioned has _all_ these attributes:
>>>
>>
>>Sorry...
>>I did not want to join this thread again but it seems the readers
>>get to know your personal motivation for some of your optinions.
> 
> 
> Well, I had at more than one occasion to deal with some of the projects you
> mentioned.  And despite sufficient knowledge and a plain and normal system,
> I have always had problems even when working on what the authors of that
> software consider a standard configuration.  And I have looked at plenty of
> Linux (kernel) code, which makes me seriously worry if the people who work
> on it have any idea about quality at all.  Considering it is much younger
> than the POV-Ray code base, it is a total complete mess of hacks over hacks
> and completely unplanned software design.  Definitely not something I would
> install an a production system.  I rather install an M$ system because there
> I at least don't have to see how badly engineered the code is; and it can't
> be worse than Linux code anyway...
> 
> 
>>(Thorsten Froehlich, Thursday 06 February 2003 20:15:54):
>>
>>>The whole idea of the FSF and thus the GPL is to turn software development
>>>and ownership of software into some kind of communism.  It seeks to strip
>>>an elite group (programmers) from the right to make money from their
>>>creative work and sole right to their work.  Instead the masses of
>>>uneducated wannabe programmers are allowed to screw up the programs.
>>
>>[You probably noticed yourself that there are some right aspects but
>>the way you put it here is more or less bullshit. No need for flame war.]
> 
> 
> Oh, I indeed know that the way I put it is rather provocative... ;-)

Given the recent conversations in this thread, and the views that you 
have made abundantly clear, could you give us an update on the following 
statement from the POV-Team Status Report, September 1, 2000:

 > Second, we are also hoping to use a much more open development model
 > for POV 4, with public read access to our source-revision tree.
 > System analysis, design, and implementation of POV 4 will be a very
 > large task, and this is one way we hope to speed it up.  This open
 > development model would also hopefully provide development releases
 > (snapshots) more quickly to the power-user community, similar to what
 > MegaPov offers now.

Perhaps an updated status report could save you some of the time you 
spend responding to speculation in this group.

Post a reply to this message