I have to disagree here...you have the right to complain...even if
something is free, it should still be working to the best possible
standards, free does not equate to shit!

Having said this, most problems i've seen or had with povray come from
not RTFM'ing, and singular problems with a specific 'puter setup.

Alessandro Coppo wrote:
> 
> Ronald L. Parker wrote in message <363b8392.7446507@news.povray.org>...
> >On Fri, 30 Oct 1998 22:16:28 -0500, "J. M. Rowlett"
> ><row### [at] andrewcmuedu> wrote:
> >
> >>What would be really cool is, if the POV-Ray engine were a COM object, and
> >>you fed it interfaces to other COM objects to render.
> >
> >If you're gonna crosspost, please do it right.
> >
> >Here's the relevant part of the new POVLEGAL:
> >....
> >the official version IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.
> >
> 
> I cannot complain about POV (I have not payed for it and, notwithstanding
> what says Richard Stallman, if you do not pay for something, you have no
> right about it... but to fix it by yourself) but unfortunately POV Team is
> growing more and more anti-Windows. Who knows, may be we might start
> studying OpenGL and DirectX and getting knowledgeable about
> Microsoft/SiliconGraphics Fahrenheit project... as Bryce demonstrates, a few
> compentent and determined people can write a great rendering tool. You just
> have be able to parse POV scripts.
> 
> Alessandro Coppo
> a.c### [at] iolit
> By the way, an ANASHAMED Microsoft henchman...

-- 
The only good politician is a dead politician !!
Politics or religion = corruption and true evil.
Believe 1% of what you see or hear.
The laws that politicians make are mostly bad laws,
  we'd do far better without them - the politicians AND their laws.

Post a reply to this message

Ronald L. Parker wrote:
> 
> This is an interesting statement, coming from someone who actually has
> POV-Ray 3.1 available for his platform.  I'm sure some Unix
> afficionados here would have a slightly different perception of it, if
> they bothered to read this group.  Maybe they're all over in
> povray.unix... nope, only Windows has its own group.  Must be an
> anti-Windows thing.

The reason for this is: Any user who has a Unix system running,
is able to install and run POV. For a Windows user this is not
necessarily true! ;-)

> That's the nice thing about that new rule in POVLEGAL.  Nobody will
> ever pollute POV with platform-specific crud like COM and DirectX or a
> shortsighted implementation of Unix shared libraries (as in panorama)
> while the POV-Team is there to exercise some control over the
> direction of development.

I completely agree. What is nice about your statement is that you
mentioned "crud like COM or a shortsighted implementation of Unix
shared libraries" in one sentence. Unbiased. Nice.

Markus

Post a reply to this message

Hi, Markus,

> The reason for this is: Any user who has a Unix system running,
> is able to install and run POV. For a Windows user this is not
> necessarily true! ;-)

  Why not? POV-Ray v3.1 for Windows installs and runs on Windows 95/NT and I
believe on Windows 98, also. Of course, there is always the MS-DOS version
of POV-Ray v3.1 for those running Windows v3.1 or Windows for Workgroups.

regards,
- Alan

Post a reply to this message

Alan Kong <alk### [at] compuserveNO-SPAMcom> wrote in article
<363EBBA7.752C6B94@compuserveNO-SPAM.com>...
> Hi, Markus,
> 
> > The reason for this is: Any user who has a Unix system running,
> > is able to install and run POV. For a Windows user this is not
> > necessarily true! ;-)
> 
>   Why not? POV-Ray v3.1 for Windows installs and runs on Windows 95/NT
and I
> believe on Windows 98, also. Of course, there is always the MS-DOS
version
> of POV-Ray v3.1 for those running Windows v3.1 or Windows for Workgroups.
> 

	I think it was meant to be an anti-windows, all windows users are as thick
as shit type comment, not one on the availability of POV for the windows
platform.

	Just ignore him, he may grow up one day.

-- 
Scott Hill
Sco### [at] DDLinkscouk
Software Engineer (and all round nice guy)
Author of Pandora's Box
Company homepage : http://www.ddlinks.demon.co.uk

"The best trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people he didn't
exist..."
								- Verbal Kint.

"the Internet is here so we can waste time talking about nothing in 
 particular when we should be working" - Marcus Hill.

Post a reply to this message

Scott Hill wrote:
> 
>         I think it was meant to be an anti-windows, all windows users are as thick
> as shit type comment, not one on the availability of POV for the windows
> platform.
> 
>         Just ignore him, he may grow up one day.

1) I think I'm grown up.
2) It wasn't anti-windows (can't be, since I'm using Windows since
   the dark days of 3.0, and, hell, I _love_ it ;-)
3) It was meant to be an ironic remark.

But feel free to ignore me, I can live with it.

Markus

Post a reply to this message

Hi, Markus,

> 3) It was meant to be an ironic remark.

  Oh. I see now that I'd completely missed the ";-)" in your earlier post.

- Alan

Post a reply to this message

I am sorry to have started a kind of flame war. I was just upset by the fact
that the possibility of wrapping a GREAT platform-INDIPENDENT ray tracing
engine with equally GREAT platform-DEPENDENT shells was explicitly
prohibited and that this decision really looks definitive.

Please consider the whole matter over.

Alessandro Coppo

P.S.: thanks for the Panorama URL...

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 6 Nov 1998 13:11:00 +0100, Alessandro Coppo <a.c### [at] iolit> wrote:
>I am sorry to have started a kind of flame war. I was just upset by the fact
>that the possibility of wrapping a GREAT platform-INDIPENDENT ray tracing
>engine with equally GREAT platform-DEPENDENT shells was explicitly
>prohibited and that this decision really looks definitive.

No, it's not prohibited; you just have to do it in one of the prescribed
ways: either with a GUI-extension (which comes with its own, even more
restrictive, set of rules) or on the command line.  You may, of course, 
write a COM or DCOM object that invokes POV via the command line. You 
just can't add COM or DCOM interfaces directly to POV.

There's an alternative, of course.  From POVLEGAL:

   The user is granted the privilege to modify and compile the source 
   code for their own personal use in any fashion they see fit. What 
   you do with the software in your own home is your business.

and

   The user is encouraged to send enhancements and bug fixes to the 
   POV-Ray Team, but the team is in no way required to utilize these 
   enhancements or fixes.

So, you can write all the COM or DCOM interfaces you want, but you can't
distribute a custom version that incorporates them unless you can get 
them into an official version of POV.  Sounds reasonable to me.  Just
remember that you should send a short abstract of your work rather than
the complete source code when you approach the POV-Ray Team about getting
your enhancement added.

Post a reply to this message

Markus Becker <bec### [at] zessuni-siegende> wrote in article
<36402B46.764A4D39@zess.uni-siegen.de>...
> Scott Hill wrote:
> > 
> >         I think it was meant to be an anti-windows, all windows users
are as thick
> > as shit type comment, not one on the availability of POV for the
windows
> > platform.
> > 
> >         Just ignore him, he may grow up one day.
> 
> 1) I think I'm grown up.
> 2) It wasn't anti-windows (can't be, since I'm using Windows since
>    the dark days of 3.0, and, hell, I _love_ it ;-)
> 3) It was meant to be an ironic remark.
> 
> But feel free to ignore me, I can live with it.
> 

	Sorry Marcus, I was probably having a bad day or something, anyhow I
didn't realise it was meant to be ironic (like Alan, I managed to miss that
smiley) and I there are people out there that will make comments like yours
and will mean it as some kind of anti-MS or anti-windows thing and that
tends to really piss me off - usually I don't give them the satisfaction of
responding to their infantile attitudes, but, as I said, you probably
caught me on a bad day.

-- 
Scott Hill
Sco### [at] DDLinkscouk
Software Engineer (and all round nice guy)
Author of Pandora's Box
Company homepage : http://www.ddlinks.demon.co.uk

"The best trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people he didn't
exist..."
								- Verbal Kint.

"the Internet is here so we can waste time talking about nothing in 
 particular when we should be working" - Marcus Hill.

Post a reply to this message

No problem. At first I thought to omit the smiley
completely, but then it would really have started
a flame war...

Markus

P.S.: ;-)


Scott Hill wrote:
> 
> Markus Becker <bec### [at] zessuni-siegende> wrote in article
> <36402B46.764A4D39@zess.uni-siegen.de>...
> > Scott Hill wrote:
> > >
> > >         I think it was meant to be an anti-windows, all windows users
> are as thick
> > > as shit type comment, not one on the availability of POV for the
> windows
> > > platform.
> > >
> > >         Just ignore him, he may grow up one day.
> >
> > 1) I think I'm grown up.
> > 2) It wasn't anti-windows (can't be, since I'm using Windows since
> >    the dark days of 3.0, and, hell, I _love_ it ;-)
> > 3) It was meant to be an ironic remark.
> >
> > But feel free to ignore me, I can live with it.
> >
> 
>         Sorry Marcus, I was probably having a bad day or something, anyhow I
> didn't realise it was meant to be ironic (like Alan, I managed to miss that
> smiley) and I there are people out there that will make comments like yours
> and will mean it as some kind of anti-MS or anti-windows thing and that
> tends to really piss me off - usually I don't give them the satisfaction of
> responding to their infantile attitudes, but, as I said, you probably
> caught me on a bad day.
> 
> --
> Scott Hill
> Sco### [at] DDLinkscouk
> Software Engineer (and all round nice guy)
> Author of Pandora's Box
> Company homepage : http://www.ddlinks.demon.co.uk
> 
> "The best trick the devil ever pulled was convincing people he didn't
> exist..."
>                                                                 - Verbal Kint.
> 
> "the Internet is here so we can waste time talking about nothing in
>  particular when we should be working" - Marcus Hill.

Post a reply to this message