> But what is the problem with that?  They are in two completely different
> directories!!!  It doesn't cause any problems for the other platforms, and
> didn't in the past ten years for Unix either, so why would it be a problem
> for Unix archives today?  If someone does not even bother to check about the
> directory they are in, well, sorry, a tiny bit of thinking is required when
> downloading software.

	Here I agree with Thomas.

	The point is that it's annoying to rename a file you want to
download when its content (the tar archive) is clearly containing the
version information. Untaring a povuni_s.tgz file can led to either
povray-3.50c/, povray31/ or povray30/ folders. A filename, as a variable of
function name, should be something explicit enough as to avoid
confusion. Futhermore it's been a long time that *nix systems are
not limited to 8 caracters in filenames.
	If you keep several versions of the povray tar file, you have
to rename it yourself, while it _can_ be done already for you (exactly
as a ./configure script is made for simplicity).

	I definitely vote (can I ?) for renaming:

povuni_s.tgz to povray-3.50c.tar.gz for the current version.

	It's obvious the source are therein. For binaries there
are all those .rpm or .deb extension. For seperated docs, a -doc
suffix can be added. The configuration scripts I recently proposed
are available as a povray-3.50c-config.tar.gz file.

	It's nothing to do for the POV-Team, but it clarifies things
a lot for all thousands -- billions ?  :o) of unix users.

	- NC

Post a reply to this message

Thomas Willhalm wrote:
> Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>> In article <3e48f6f1@news.povray.org> , Thomas Willhalm
>> <tho### [at] uni-konstanzde>  wrote:
>> 
>> There are no changes to the code that are not Unix specific.  Labeling
>> the code as you suggest would only cause confusion.
> 
> Are you ignoring our point on purpose? We want _version_numbers_ in the
> _filename_. The archive for 3.5 with source code for unix is called
> povuni_s.tgz, the archive for 3.1g with source code for unix is called
> povuni_s.tgz, and the archive for 3.0 with source code for unix is called
> povuni_s.tgz. If you don't believe me, check it yourself on
> ftp.povray.org.
> 
Well, that was not what I wanted to point out. Becuase the directory 
these files are in identifies them. However, it is generally a good 
idea to increase subversion or patchlevel numbers each time the 
content of a file changes. Relaying on the modification time stamp 
is a bit problematic and forces you to know which _date_ you last 
updated. 

I'm quite sure that NOT using such version numbers causes more confusion 
than using them (at least as symlink). 
OTOH I was again not aware that you actually have different source code 
packages for different platforms (which is quite uncommon to me). 

So, do what you think is best :)

However, if bandwidth is a problem for POVRay people, supplying 
pachtes between different UNIX source code versions could help. 
(Because I can either dl a patch at 4.5 kb/sec or dl complete POVRay 
on the university account and create my own patch there...)
This, however, would require subversion/patchlevel numbers. 

Wolfgang

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <3e4a1b89@news.povray.org> , Thomas Willhalm
> <tho### [at] uni-konstanzde>  wrote:
>
>> Why does it work for them but not for you?
>
> Because fools (aka people who don't read any manuals, readmes, etc)
> start patching those versions and the distribute them.  Or people
> compile them and never update and then come back three years later
> complaining that bugs supposedly haven't been fixed.  Has happened in
> the past...

So the whole idea is junk just because you have a problem with a few idiots.
Would the benefits of open development not outweigh the problems.


--
Rick

Kitty5 NewMedia http://Kitty5.co.uk
POV-Ray News & Resources http://Povray.co.uk
TEL : +44 (01270) 501101 - FAX : +44 (01270) 251105 - ICQ : 15776037

PGP Public Key
http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x231E1CEA

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:

> In article <3e4a1b89@news.povray.org> , Thomas Willhalm
> <tho### [at] uni-konstanzde>  wrote:
> 
>> Why does it work for them but not for you?
> 
> Because fools (aka people who don't read any manuals, readmes, etc) start
> patching those versions and the distribute them.  Or people compile them
> and never update and then come back three years later complaining that
> bugs
> supposedly haven't been fixed.  Has happened in the past...

Then I suggest that you stop completly distributing source code and include 
an expiration date in every binary. Otherwise you can't make sure that 
similar things will happen again.

Again: What makes povray so different from all the projects I mentioned?

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

In article <3e4b6184@news.povray.org> , Thomas Willhalm 
<tho### [at] uni-konstanzde>  wrote:

> Then I suggest that you stop completly distributing source code and include
> an expiration date in every binary. Otherwise you can't make sure that
> similar things will happen again.
>
> Again: What makes povray so different from all the projects I mentioned?

It is a program for users with a long history of stability.  None of the
other projects you mentioned has _all_ these attributes:

1. a long history
2. a stable source base
3. did not fork wildly or was abandoned for an extended period of time
4. cross-platform compatibility
5. all operating system support
6. user, rather than computer scientist centric
7. does require substancial knowledge about topic to make modifications
8. is more than a "I don't like M$ project"

The projects you mentioned don't have:

OpenOffice 1,2,7,8
GCC        3,6
KDE        3,5,7,8
Gnome      3,5,7,8
FreeBSD    3,5,6
Linux      3,5,6,8
Xfree      3,6,7
Mozilla    1,2,7,8
Apache     5,6,7
Darwin     1,3,4,6
Blender    1,2,5
Wings3d    1,2,5

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

"Rick [Kitty5]" wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> So the whole idea is junk just because you have a problem with a few idiots.
> Would the benefits of open development not outweigh the problems.

Just to make sure this does not get lost - nothing prevents anyone from
starting an 'open development project' based on the official sources
(within the restrictions of povlegal of course).

But you surely have noticed that none of the unofficial versions of
POV-Ray that exist is developed with free access to the working branch of
the code.

But getting back to the origin of this thread - somewhat more frequent
version updates are surely something a lot of people would appreciate.  It
is something Megapov tries to cover (at the cost of other things in which
official POV-Ray is superior to Megapov) although i admit at the moment
Megapov is not updated very often either.

Christoph

-- 
POV-Ray tutorials, include files, Sim-POV,
HCR-Edit and more: http://www.tu-bs.de/~y0013390/
Last updated 31 Dec. 2002 _____./\/^>_*_<^\/\.______

Post a reply to this message

In article <3E4B7491.5FBB5892@gmx.de> , Christoph Hormann 
<chr### [at] gmxde>  wrote:

> But getting back to the origin of this thread - somewhat more frequent
> version updates are surely something a lot of people would appreciate.  It
> is something Megapov tries to cover (at the cost of other things in which
> official POV-Ray is superior to Megapov) although i admit at the moment
> Megapov is not updated very often either.

The reason is simply that many changes require a lot of testing.  All
projects with commitment to stability have few releases with the consequence
that users update infrequently...

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> In article <3e4b6184@news.povray.org> , Thomas Willhalm
> <tho### [at] uni-konstanzde>  wrote:
>> Again: What makes povray so different from all the projects I mentioned?
> 
> 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. 

Hint for the readers: Especially note point 8 in the list below and 
combine it with: 

(Thorsten Froehlich, Sunday 02 February 2003 13:56:19)
> The GPL comes with a
> political message that is not acceptable to all team members. 
> It certainly isn't acceptable to me.

...and...

(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.]

Let's read on: 

> 1. a long history
> 2. a stable source base
> 3. did not fork wildly or was abandoned for an extended period of time
> 4. cross-platform compatibility
> 5. all operating system support
"all OS support" wow...

> 6. user, rather than computer scientist centric
That depends on how you see it. 

> 7. does require substancial knowledge about topic to make modifications
> 8. is more than a "I don't like M$ project"
> 
> The projects you mentioned don't have:
> 
> OpenOffice 1,2,7,8
OpenOffice used to be 8. But no longer IMO. 

> GCC        3,6
> KDE        3,5,7,8
> Gnome      3,5,7,8
> FreeBSD    3,5,6
> Linux      3,5,6,8
>
Note: Linux has 8 but FreeBSD not. Hm. 
So, running FreeBSD is not 8 but running KDE on FreeBSD _is_ 8...

> Xfree      3,6,7
7: Patching POVRay is easier than patching XFree86, at least for me. 
6: Hm?

> Mozilla    1,2,7,8
I object to 8 here. You certainly know what IE is?!

> Apache     5,6,7
> Darwin     1,3,4,6
>
Note: Darwin does not have 8 but 6 ?!

> Blender    1,2,5
> Wings3d    1,2,5
> 

Wolfgang

Post a reply to this message

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... ;-)

>> FreeBSD    3,5,6
>> Linux      3,5,6,8
>>
> Note: Linux has 8 but FreeBSD not. Hm.
> So, running FreeBSD is not 8 but running KDE on FreeBSD _is_ 8...

Yes, because the FreeBSD license would allow even M$ to use code from it.

>> Xfree      3,6,7
> 7: Patching POVRay is easier than patching XFree86, at least for me.
> 6: Hm?

The 6 is there because the driver model is so unstructured.  It improved in
4.x of course...

>> Darwin     1,3,4,6
>>
> Note: Darwin does not have 8 but 6 ?!

No use can possibly install it on a Mac, really!  And large parts are forked
from FreeBSD.  the license allows hardly anybody to fork from this codebase,
so it isn't competitive, but just marketing.  Hence no 8.

In any case, the main point of the list is to show that all these projects
are very different from POV-Ray.

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

> 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, it's not because you don't see what's in a black box
that you should trust it...
	Of course you were kidding (please tell me you were).

	Do you know that, since the open-source community contributed
so terrible code, Microsoft is re-using most of it by rewritting all
things in their graphically-based-windows-which-is-not-good-for-an-OS ?
That means introducing even more bugs and/or security holes ?

	I'm not against microsoft windows at all. I like it. But I use
it on my PC at home mostly to watch DVDs. I won't use it for my work
(and unfortunately I use POV only at work). But who cares.

	- NC

Post a reply to this message