Hi,

I started modifiying the PovRay code to test new algorithms as part of my
Ph.D. thesis. Now that version 3.1 is out, I am wondering if I should
continue in this way since it seems quite unsure that the source code will
be available for that and future releases (even for clearly non profit use).

It looks unclear what is the new philosophy of the PovRay team regarding the
source code availability. Will the Unix platforms (SGI, Sun, ...) still be
supported?

I know I could stick with the 3.0 code, but as new features will be added, I
won't be able to read the new pov files.

Any suggestions or comments would be quite welcomed
Eric


-- 
==============================================================================
= Eric Paquette
= Thesard au laboratoire iMAGIS-GRAVIR/IMAG
= Etudiant Ph. D. infographie, Universite de Montreal
==============================================================================
= mailto:paq### [at] iroumontrealca              = 
= mailto:Eri### [at] imagfr                 = 
= mailto:Eri### [at] InternetAddressCom     = 
==============================================================================
= http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~paquete
= http://www-imagis.imag.fr/Membres/Eric.Paquette
==============================================================================

Post a reply to this message

Eric Paquette <Eri### [at] imagfr> wrote:
: It looks unclear what is the new philosophy of the PovRay team regarding the
: source code availability. Will the Unix platforms (SGI, Sun, ...) still be
: supported?

  I don't see any problem with that. Povteam has never said they will not
support unix or that they will not make the source code available.
  It seems like some people are really confused with the beta version of
povray. It expires in one month and the source is not available. Some people
seem to become paranoid with this: they think that the final release will be
commercial or that unix-version is not supported anymore, etc. They don't
understand that time limited beta version is time limited beta version, and
nothing more.

-- 
                                                              - Warp. -

Post a reply to this message

>I started modifiying the PovRay code to test new algorithms as part of my
>Ph.D. thesis. Now that version 3.1 is out, I am wondering if I should
>continue in this way since it seems quite unsure that the source code will
>be available for that and future releases (even for clearly non profit use).

I am just wondering: On what facts do you base your conclusion?


Thorsten

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> 
> >I started modifiying the PovRay code to test new algorithms as part of my
> >Ph.D. thesis. Now that version 3.1 is out, I am wondering if I should
> >continue in this way since it seems quite unsure that the source code will
> >be available for that and future releases (even for clearly non profit use).
> 
> I am just wondering: On what facts do you base your conclusion?

The beta is out and the source code isn't. Why would they want to keep the
source code secret when they feel they can send out a beta version?

The time limited beta version with only compiled versions for 3 specific OS.

I really don't see the point in having a time limited compiled only version
of the application and to later release the source code.

If the PovRay team would give a good answer to the question "Why do you
release only time limited compiled version of PovRay 3.1?" and put it on
their web site, it would clear what seems to be just a big misunderstanding
(which it seems I pushed even further).

Ok, I might be a bit paranoid ;-)
Eric


-- 
==============================================================================
= Eric Paquette
= Thesard au laboratoire iMAGIS-GRAVIR/IMAG
= Etudiant Ph. D. infographie, Universite de Montreal
==============================================================================
= mailto:paq### [at] iroumontrealca              = 
= mailto:Eri### [at] imagfr                 = 
= mailto:Eri### [at] InternetAddressCom     = 
==============================================================================
= http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~paquete
= http://www-imagis.imag.fr/Membres/Eric.Paquette
==============================================================================

Post a reply to this message

>If the PovRay team would give a good answer to the question
>"Why do you release only time limited compiled version of
>PovRay 3.1?" and put it on their web site, it would clear what
>seems to be just a big misunderstanding (which it seems I
>pushed even further).


On 7/10 I asked the same question on the Windows Source code . . .

>povray.org admin team wrote in message
>
>>Due to the amount of work involved in releasing a copy of
>>the Windows source (a lot of stuff needs to be changed to
>>make it 'unofficial') the source won't be released until
>>after POV 3.1 is officially released.

My apologies to the pov team if I mess this up, but I think the general idea
is to get POV 3.1 working before anything else.

The reason for the time limited beta version is because it is BETA.  This
isn't the final release people.  Play with it if you are interested but it
has bugs.  Time limited betas means no old beta versions floating around,
and then down the road you don't have people saying "I have this problem . .
. is it a bug with POV 3.1?"  And then you have to answer "No, you have beta
version X and it works in the final release so go get that."

Don't worry.  POV-Ray is free and will remain free.  But, all of us on the
fringe (AlphaNT etc.) will have to wait until 3.1 is released before we have
a chance to play with it.

- arrasmith

Post a reply to this message

Eric Paquette <Eri### [at] imagfr> wrote:
: The beta is out and the source code isn't. Why would they want to keep the
: source code secret when they feel they can send out a beta version?

: The time limited beta version with only compiled versions for 3 specific OS.

: I really don't see the point in having a time limited compiled only version
: of the application and to later release the source code.

: Ok, I might be a bit paranoid ;-)

  Yes, it seems so :)
  Povteam already did this with the release of povray 3.0. The reason was
very simple and understandable: They don't want old beta versions wandering
around there for years and years (as happened with povray 2.2) and lots of
people asking about bugs already corrected in the final version.
  Also it doesn't make sense to publish half finished, deficient code. A
beta version is just what it means: a test version, not the final version.
It's designed for testing and bug hunting, not as a complete final program.
  I understand this perfectly and also agree completely, and I don't see any
problem with it.
  You should be happy that they actually released a beta version. They don't
have to release any test versions if they don't want to.

-- 
                                                              - Warp. -

Post a reply to this message

Nieminen Mika <war### [at] assaricctutfi> writes:
[...]
>   Also it doesn't make sense to publish half finished, deficient code. A
> beta version is just what it means: a test version, not the final version.
> It's designed for testing and bug hunting, not as a complete final program.
>   I understand this perfectly and also agree completely, and I don't see any
> problem with it.
>   You should be happy that they actually released a beta version. They don't
> have to release any test versions if they don't want to.

They don't have to release anything -- neither beta versions, source code
nor a final product. It's freeware.

BUT take a look at http://www.ssc.com/linux/Eric/cathedral-paper.html !
It does make sense to publish half finished, deficient code. If it works
for a big project like Linux, why not for POV-Ray? I really don't understand
why the povteam doesn't take advantage of the big number of povray users
with programming skills. 

As mentioned in the article there should always be two versions: a stable
one and an experimental one. In the case of POV-Ray this is currently
version 3.02 and 3.1b. Since the source code is availible for final versions,
it is already possible to screw it up and provide it to the net. Why are
the povteam members so frighten to show a partly finished product and
use the work of others that results from this publication? In my honest
opinion POV-Ray is a perfect candidate for a bazaar style development.
The povteam would still be the source of stable versions and the central
point for exchange - just like Netscape for the Navigator.

Just my $0.02

Thomas

-- 
Tho### [at] uni-konstanzde
http://www.informatik.uni-konstanz.de/~willhalm/
Tschieses lavs ju
An den BND: Eisbombe Fremdenfuehrer Siegfried Heilsarmee

Post a reply to this message

>BUT take a look at http://www.ssc.com/linux/Eric/cathedral-paper.html !
>It does make sense to publish half finished, deficient code. If it works
>for a big project like Linux, why not for POV-Ray? I really don't understand
>why the povteam doesn't take advantage of the big number of povray users
>with programming skills. 
>
>As mentioned in the article there should always be two versions: a stable
>one and an experimental one. In the case of POV-Ray this is currently
>version 3.02 and 3.1b. Since the source code is availible for final versions,
>it is already possible to screw it up and provide it to the net. Why are
>the povteam members so frighten to show a partly finished product and
>use the work of others that results from this publication? In my honest
>opinion POV-Ray is a perfect candidate for a bazaar style development.
>The povteam would still be the source of stable versions and the central
>point for exchange - just like Netscape for the Navigator.

Speaking *only* for myself, I don't want to see CD distributors make profit from the
work I have done. And exactly this is happening with Linux - look at the cost of CD
distributions. They range from 20 DM to about 100 DM (here in Germany about $12 -
$60). Multiply this with lets say 10000 copies and perhaps 4 new CDs per year, you get
easily more than $1.000.000 for the large distributions. OK, lets say you have to pay
20% of the cost for the CDs, packaging etc, and another 30% ($300.000) and you can
emply 10 people to update the CDs, another $100.000 for a 4 MBit internet connection
(per year). AND then you make still $400.000 profit!!! (Without having done any work
yourself!)

Well, thats just an example, and even if you find that the calculation is wrong, do
you think the companies do it for no profit?

And it is still a lot of work just for Eduard, Anton and me to keep out Macintosh
sources in sync...imagine 20 people working on it. POV-Ray is a "small" project
compared to Linux, it would be very difficult to direct work for more than 100 people!

This is just *my* opinion.


Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany

Post a reply to this message

"Thorsten Froehlich" <Tho### [at] csicom> writes:

> >BUT take a look at http://www.ssc.com/linux/Eric/cathedral-paper.html !
> >It does make sense to publish half finished, deficient code. If it works
> >for a big project like Linux, why not for POV-Ray? I really don't understand
> >why the povteam doesn't take advantage of the big number of povray users
> >with programming skills. 
> >
> >As mentioned in the article there should always be two versions: a stable
> >one and an experimental one. In the case of POV-Ray this is currently
> >version 3.02 and 3.1b. Since the source code is availible for final versions
> >it is already possible to screw it up and provide it to the net. Why are
> >the povteam members so frighten to show a partly finished product and
> >use the work of others that results from this publication? In my honest
> >opinion POV-Ray is a perfect candidate for a bazaar style development.
> >The povteam would still be the source of stable versions and the central
> >point for exchange - just like Netscape for the Navigator.
> 
> Speaking *only* for myself, I don't want to see CD distributors make 
> profit from the work I have done. 
[...]

No, no. This wasn't the point. I do not want you to change your policy
about distributing POV-Ray. POV-Ray is small enough to be distributed
via the internet and in a single package. (However, POV-Ray is
currently included in at least one distribution of Linux and therefore
sold with it.)

I'm sorry for my bad English, but I hope that you will understand my
suggestion this time:
What I wanted to say is that your group should change your attitude 
about including fixes and improvements from people that are not part
of your team. In fact, in mu opinion it seams advisable to even encourage 
programmers to find and report bugs or add missing features.

> And it is still a lot of work just for Eduard, Anton and me to keep out 
> Macintosh sources in sync...imagine 20 people working on it. POV-Ray is a 
> "small" project compared to Linux, it would be very difficult to direct 
> work for more than 100 people!

Well, if it is possible for Linux, why not for POV-Ray. You even say, 
that it is a "small" prject compared to Linux.

Let me provide a concrete example: Jochen Lippert has added a nice new
object type named "sphere sweeps" to POV-Ray.
(http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~vader/pss/pss.html)
How about the chances that this code will be included in future releases
of POV-Ray? Of course some testing has to be done before it can be
included, but it was quite easy to include his files in my custom version
of POV-Ray on a Unix system. I guess that the same is true for Windows,
even though Jochen wrote his code on a Mac.

Or what about the "Isosurface Patch". I think that these extensions are
of great value for the users. I know, that there are at least two errors
in this patch, but will this code ever go into the official distribution 
once it is cleaned up? My impression is that the answer is "no", and it 
makes me sad. Supposing that the authors of this patch agree, the
inclusion of (parts of) the patch would improve POV-Ray -- with less
effort than programming the same features by the povteam.

I've written a new nice recursive pattern for POV-Ray. Of course it's
not as much of work as the previous examples. I won't clean up the
code, because I'm almost sure that no one will compile a separate version
just for this feature and on the other hand it will never be included
in the official release.

Apart from new features it even strikes me more that detailed bug reports 
aren't encouraged by releasing the source code. A short message before
and/or after each rendering can warn the user about the beta version.
Are you really afraid, that somebody will remove this message and
distribute the beta as a final version?

Once, I have written a bug report including a hint what to change in the
source code to Chris Young. I've never got a reply and the bug is still
included in the current beta. Why does this happen? This really discourages
me to look for bugs in future. I guess that the same is true for other 
people with some interest and knowledge in programming, maths, and raytracing.

Best regards,

Thomas

-- 
Tho### [at] uni-konstanzde
http://www.informatik.uni-konstanz.de/~willhalm/
Tschieses lavs ju
An den BND: Eisbombe Fremdenfuehrer Siegfried Heilsarmee

Post a reply to this message

In article <qqm### [at] goldachinformatikuni-konstanzde> , Thomas Willhalm
<Tho### [at] uni-konstanzde>  wrote:

>> Speaking *only* for myself, I don't want to see CD distributors make 
>> profit from the work I have done. 
>[...]
>
>No, no. This wasn't the point. I do not want you to change your policy
>about distributing POV-Ray. POV-Ray is small enough to be distributed
>via the internet and in a single package. (However, POV-Ray is
>currently included in at least one distribution of Linux and therefore
>sold with it.)

Well, this was just an example how Linux distribution works and to make clear it is
*different* from POV-Ray. And, of course this all ends up at the following point:
Linux used GPL and POV-Ray is freeware (with copyright)!

>I'm sorry for my bad English, but I hope that you will understand my
>suggestion this time:

Well, it is a little bit stupid for two people speaking German to talk in English and
to misunderstand each other. If you wish, we can (apart from this thread) discuss the
issue in our native language :-)

>What I wanted to say is that your group should change your attitude 
>about including fixes and improvements from people that are not part
>of your team. In fact, in mu opinion it seams advisable to even encourage 
>programmers to find and report bugs or add missing features.

Hmm, I obviously misunderstood you. As you know the base of the team is the POVRAY
forum on CompuServe, thats all I can say. Please note that I can *only* speak for
myself, not for the team nor for any other team members and I never had to deal with
this issue.

>> And it is still a lot of work just for Eduard, Anton and me to keep out 
>> Macintosh sources in sync...imagine 20 people working on it. POV-Ray is a 
>> "small" project compared to Linux, it would be very difficult to direct 
>> work for more than 100 people!
>
>Well, if it is possible for Linux, why not for POV-Ray. You even say, 
>that it is a "small" prject compared to Linux.

I think it is possible for Linux *because* of its size. Everybody can work on a
different part of the whole thing - with POV-Ray you may end up with two people
changing the same function...

>Let me provide a concrete example: Jochen Lippert has added a nice new
>object type named "sphere sweeps" to POV-Ray.
>(http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~vader/pss/pss.html)
>How about the chances that this code will be included in future releases
>of POV-Ray? Of course some testing has to be done before it can be
>included, but it was quite easy to include his files in my custom version
>of POV-Ray on a Unix system. I guess that the same is true for Windows,
>even though Jochen wrote his code on a Mac.
>
>Or what about the "Isosurface Patch". I think that these extensions are
>of great value for the users. I know, that there are at least two errors
>in this patch, but will this code ever go into the official distribution 
>once it is cleaned up? My impression is that the answer is "no", and it 
>makes me sad. Supposing that the authors of this patch agree, the
>inclusion of (parts of) the patch would improve POV-Ray -- with less
>effort than programming the same features by the povteam.
>
>I've written a new nice recursive pattern for POV-Ray. Of course it's
>not as much of work as the previous examples. I won't clean up the
>code, because I'm almost sure that no one will compile a separate version
>just for this feature and on the other hand it will never be included
>in the official release.

As far as I know nobody willingly does *not* include such features. I started myself
this way (contributing the multiple-undo support for 3.0.2 Mac). The team discusses a
lot of enhancements/fixes send by people outside the team and quite a few are in now,
I think.
There may be a lot of reasons why none of this features you mentioned is in, you
should ask Chris Young about this, he will tell you why the team decided not to
include it.

>Apart from new features it even strikes me more that detailed bug reports 
>aren't encouraged by releasing the source code. A short message before
>and/or after each rendering can warn the user about the beta version.
>Are you really afraid, that somebody will remove this message and
>distribute the beta as a final version?

*I* am afraid of it, yes.

>Once, I have written a bug report including a hint what to change in the
>source code to Chris Young. I've never got a reply and the bug is still
>included in the current beta. Why does this happen? This really discourages
>me to look for bugs in future. I guess that the same is true for other 
>people with some interest and knowledge in programming, maths, and raytracing.

Hmm, Chris Young is a nice guy, maybe he missed your e-mail? I don't know! Why don't
you remember him?
BTW, what was/is the bug?

>An den BND: Eisbombe Fremdenfuehrer Siegfried Heilsarmee

You don't expect the German secret service to listen to newsgroups - are you sure
there is anyone who knows what this is?  ;-)

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany

Post a reply to this message