Let me quote Chris Cason :

in http://news.povray.org/46e091ef%241%40news.povray.org
<<
I share some frustration; the original developers of POV (i.e. ones who
were around in the 1.0 days) have mostly gotten somewhat older, married,
kids, mortgage, in other words 'real life'. So one by one they've become
inactive; I'm the only one left now.

In the process, we haven't picked up as many new developers as those who
have left. And our development model simply does not fit in with the way
things are done in most open software projects these days, which doesn't help.
 >>

Obviously, that's the #1 problem.  How are we going to get more people
to work on POV-Ray's core ?

Not everyone can do that.  It requires high-level programming knowledge
in C++ (which excludes people like myself).

Will the new Open Source status automagically attract people ?

Will POV 3.7's new architecture make it much easier to work on it
so more people could do it ?

Don't we need, at some point, to spread the word in other places ?
"hey, POV4 is going Open Source, we need people to participate"

Of course, non-programmers or modest programmers can do sample files,
various utilities and documentation, but with only 3 or 4 people
working on the core, they won't have much to work on...

Ideas ?

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

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...

Post a reply to this message

I tend to think POV-Ray will die without a mainstream open source model. I've
been somewhat worried about the project myself. I love POV-Ray. I don't enjoy
the Blender + Python thing. Nothing wrong with Python, but this pairing just
doesn't compare. It isn't POV-Ray, or really even close.

The trouble is that people don't know about POV-Ray like they know about open
source tools. The people who started using POV-Ray are now on OS X or Linux.

Creative geeks with a penchant for coding? Are they perhaps under-represented in
the forums these days? People don't poke around forums for software they don't
use.

POV-Ray is stuck in the old free-as-in-cost model. THAT USED TO BE A GREAT
MODEL. I got my first copy of POV-Ray on one of those BBS archive CDs. The
computer world isn't like that anymore. People who like free software are on
Linux. Artists are using OS X. They didn't used to be. Linux isn't the alpha
geek platform it used to be, and OS X isn't the (don't kill me old-school Mac
lovers. I am one too) toy that MacOS was. There are a lot of young linux users
who don't use POV-Ray because it's not in their package managers like Blender
is. Mac users are largely familiar with open source.

POV-Ray has the potential to be very popular again. YES, blow open the source.

YES YES YES!

Post a reply to this message

"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)

Post a reply to this message

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