what will be the future of Blender, Linux etc?

Support Basics & Interface
1

Well, first day and first thread - should be a brick so here goes!

I apologize for the length, please bear with it.

I have three questions regarding the Linux community and its development.

First, what is the limit when one programs original software for Linux? I mean, at what point does one interfere with someone else’s copyright under open source? How many programmers would be willing to donate their code in return for a non-economic public credit?

Second, how successful might it be to begin “Steining software?” Frankenstein was a virtual creature spliced into creation by combining parts from several other beings. What if several of us were to splice together or “stein” the best aspects of different open source code and distribute it without sacrificing (it would actually evolve) the open source ideology of Linux? I’m not talking about a here-there effort. Steining would be done on a massive scale.

I envision a body of “steinware” minimized in length, optimized in function and infinitely variable depending upon the user’s taste. We would try to limit algorithmic redundancy. Why have ten or twenty pieces of software (plug-ins, dormant word processors etc) eating memory and CPU to perform the same mathematics at the same time unless it is best for efficiency and effect?

We could program a given function in a couple of languages or memory allocation techniques etc to offer the computer a few alternative routes for function. We would do anything that could increase usability, efficiency and expandability of the steinware.

We could do many other things with the software by varying our use of either uncopyrighted code, code obtained by donation (permission) or code specially created for the project. We could identify needed routines, perhaps host a programming competition, receive entries and place the code before the world-wide community of programmers. They would judge applicants on all aspects germane to “good code” and then select the best ones from the submission field. These “winners” would be added to the steinware. Proper public acknowledgement would, of course, be given.

In time, our numbers would grow and we could work to solve problems which had not been previously solved rather than creating “new” solutions for the same old problems.

Third, has anyone compiled or maintained a list of hardware manufacturers friendly to Linux? Do any allow reverse engineering? How hard would it be to produce “empty” hardware? Empty hardware would be the best because we could educate it with the steinware.

Finally, there are several reasons why I ask. Mostly, I feel that we as a species are at a nexus. The modern computer has been invented. It now permeates EVERY aspect of our existence. Whoever controls the code controls the permeation and controls our lives. I would rather do something to peacefully protect individuality with this new miracle than have my life dictated by it. Isn’t that the intent of the open source phenomenon anyway?

Thank you for reading this far - below are some examples of how the steinware could be useful.

If the code can be used without violating any copyright protections then most of the work has already been done. We would only need to stein it.

I won’t discuss the usefulness of the steinware to medical, disaster relief and academic pursuits during this post. The value of a low cost all-in-one software to those applications is probably apparent anyway.

We could try to enable a user’s desire to create whatever appearance they can think of for their copy of the steinware. We could design a series of palettes which would allow the user to modify the interface without writing new code, learning complex terminology or figuring out complex sequencing. Perhaps the operating system would be based on a 3D game engine. The user could design and construct a series of buildings within the operating system itself. The new Linux OS GUI would basically look like any popular 3D game currently being made. They would know the function of each individual building. They could even see an animation of books being pulled off of the shelves when files are opened etc. The point is that there would be a greater degree of freedom than we have now and the user would see it every time they turned on their computer.

An open source and “accepted” variation of the PDF file. This variation would be combined with a stenographic translator and perhaps a voice recording system. The end routines would be distributed free of charge to every court in the world. They could print court transcripts etc directly into the steinware portable document format and store several hundred thousand pages of searchable text from any trial directly onto an archive ready disk. Defense attorneys could go to the court, request the transcripts and receive a freshly burned copy of all materials related to the case. They would pay a lot less than the $1 or $2+ PER PAGE which is currently charged. ($19.95 per 300,000 page disk?) — In other words the new PDF would make court proceedings truly public and democratic.

The evidence of the case could be modeled by the lawyers in a 3D branch of the steinware. A 3D modeling stein to create virtual environments and animate how-to guides, forensic investigations etc. This would function the same as any current 3D software, however, it would be much deeper. It could model, animate the physics, conduct FEA and do just about anything else related to space-mass interactions. Other users could use the same system for education, gaming, creating artwork etc.

There are an infinite number of other possibilities. The point is that much of the code has already been written. Let’s streamline and optimize any code which the author and copyrighted holder agrees to contribute.

Some of the interesting software I see on sourceforge include:

1D
PDFCreator — we could use it as a spine for the PDF scenario outlined above
ShareWords — a spine for the dictionary and translation aspect of the steinware
perlbox — a spine for the fully integrated voice activated OS part of the system
2D
GIMP — the core imaging code
FreeCAD — as the core CAD function set
LabPlot — a spine for the code used when visualizing mathematical chart data
Scilab Image Processing Toolbox — tracking images (slides)
3D
Crystal Space 3D — a starting point for design of a 3D OS GUI
K3DSurf — for modeling mathematical formulae
FREE!ship — to extend 3D functionality with tools like lofting
OsiriX-DICOM Viewer — a central integration with medical imagers
4D
Blender — the core 3D platform due to its extensive set of established code
K-3D — perhaps as a new spine for the Blender code which I’ve read has weaknesses
The Gerris Flow Solver — spine for animation and simulation of flow data
San Le’s Free Finite Element Analysis — spine for animation and analysis of FEA
Liar Liar — to analyze voice stress and statement truth

I could go on and on - sure you could as well. There is soooo much code. So much of it must be redundant.

PLEASE contribute your thoughts on this issue. If two or three dozen of us around the world began to plan our advance and develop this concept - we could then work to achieve it! After awhile - the concept would snowball.

yours
Chrysalis

2

My head…

Please preview your post before submitting it. Parsing that with ill-formed formatting is painful.

That said, I’m not sure I’m inclined to agree with your “stein” concept. Things didn’t turn out so well for Frankenstein’s creation. Not only was he re-animated dead parts (some OSS projects should probably stay in their graves), but his bits and pieces weren’t supposed to work together. Sure a stomach is a stomach, but there’s a reason I have my stomach and you have yours.

Now… if you talk about unifying the redundant bits into a library (rather than an app), I think you might be on to something. But even then, for cases of speed/optimized code, I’m still not convinced it’d work.

Of course, that’s just my opinion, though.

3

Hi Fweeb

Sorry about the clutter on the initial copy of the post. Chalk it up to inexperience with the site.

Anyway:
1 - what would the actual pitfalls be with the attempt to stein the software? Remember, we could use either one standard language (perhaps C or Java etc) or translate the code between a few different languages. A steinware java or a steinware perl etc. Likewise, we could allow programmers to determine the best language for the function for the hardware at that time and incorporate it into the released version while archiving the code as written in other languages until a time when it would be needed. < a software code archive - hmmmm >

2 - How exactly would the library concept function differently than the application?

thanks
Chrysalis

4

Hmmm, are you serious about this? (not drunk or under influence of any other drug?)

A lot of what you write doesn’t make any sence to me.

I mean, at what point does one interfere with someone else’s copyright under open source

Depends on what’s in the copyright. There are several, read them…

How many programmers would be willing to donate their code in return for a non-economic public credit?

That’s IMO what opensource is about already…

I envision a single software “stein” etc.etc…

I don’t think this is a good idea. I’d rather have a dedicated piece of software instead of a big all-in-one programm with a lot of code useless to the work i’m doing. I don’t think you have much experience in programming or how OS work. This whole “Stein” concept doesn’t rock.

has anyone compiled or maintained a list of hardware manufacturers friendly to Linux which allow reverse engineering or produces “empty” hardware

No, i don’t think there is such a list. Hardware manufactures that allow reverse engineering?? Why would you need this?

below are some examples of how the steinware could be useful

Do you think these two examples are useful? in what way?

As nice your ‘dream’ might be I don’t think it is practical or useful. I wonder if anybody will participate…

BTW This forum is questions about Blender Basics & Interface. This belongs in the Off-topic Chat forum imo

5

chrysalis, do you have any experience writing software?

6

Well, first day and first thread

and didn’t bother to check which forum to post in…

7

“Hmmm, are you serious about this? (not drunk or under influence of any other drug?)”

I would not have taken the time to compose the post if I were not serious about the topic. Additionally, no I was not inebriated. The accusation was a little immature.

“I’d rather have a dedicated piece of software instead of a big all-in-one programm with a lot of code useless to the work i’m doing.”

Surely, you do not acquire source code and edit it to remove all functions you do not use on a routine basis. Most of us accept that superfluous code is designed into the software to offer functions which we may need at some point in the future. Many of us actually seek the diversity. However, everyone has their own tastes. Perhaps others want a more steamlined and inclusive option.

“I don’t think you have much experience in programming or how OS work.”

“chrysalis, do you have any experience writing software?”

My resume as a programmer, artist, paramedic or engineering/pre-law student is not the issue. I admit that I do not know everything about every programming language, OS strategy, algorithm construct, interface design or any other single issue relating to computer technology. I doubt anyone knows everything about anything. The best anyone can say is that they know more than some and less than others depending on the topic. Keep an open mind, explore, learn and the rest will come.

“Hardware manufactures that allow reverse engineering?? Why would you need this?”

Software is usually useless without appropriate hardware interfaces. That concept should be pretty simple. Unfortunately, most manufacturers complicate it by either refusing to adopt Linux compatability or they do so half-heartedly (eg Wacom). There are some companies which facilitate user programming of their devices (Saitek?). Some may allow modifications to the code within embedded systems (essentially reverse engineering). My question asks who they are.

The question also mentions reverse engineering because anything patented (eg a tablet) receives patent protection for only 16 years. Many of those patents are starting to come to an end. It should be possible (and legal) to reuse, recycle and improve the technology. We would first need to replace (Rev Eng) all of the embedded and user accessed software incorporated into the device by the OEM. Remember, 75+ year copyright protection extends to the software only. <Even a design patent expires within 20 years of issue.> The rest of it is itchy and the reason I plan to study Intellectual Property Law.

At some point the steinware would need to be accessed by the user. The mechanism they use to do so should be as versatile and seamless with the steinware as we can make it. In the future we could develop protocols to interface the software with hardware for optimal effect.

Do you think these two examples are useful? in what way?

1 - it is faster and easier to learn one standard interface system than several
2 - many current software applications contain algorithms which are in effect duplicated - streamlining the code would reduce memory consumption and perhaps increase speed - not that we would be limited to it, but, the simple editing of code documentation would make it faster
3 - practitioners in medical and disaster relief occupations operate in environments which need a great degree of functionality for a variety of situational applications - we don’t always know what we will need before we need it - provide as much as possible and when someone in the field realizes that they need a new function; program for it. - the last thing one wants to do when every second counts is to switch from one program to another and wait for it to open. - think of an old woman trying to access a software program for an emergency refresher when she needs to perform the heimlich maneuver on her choking son.
4 - a game-like interface with the OS could be more friendly and easier to use than what is currently available - users should have the choice
5 - the democratic effect of an open source PDF-Stenographic-Translation system for jurisprudence should be obvious - cases are frequently won by those who can afford to pay up to $10 per page for thousands of pages of court transcripts - that’s an oligarchy (dictatorship?) rather than a democracy
6 - a Forensic Modeling aspect would need to receive, model and communicate the data from almost every field of science - the software would need to be rock solid and standardized to provide the judicial system with the highest possible level of confidence, otherwise, its use would not be accepted under the rules of evidence - that rigor would essentially madate the steinware concept

“As nice your ‘dream’ might be I don’t think it is practical or useful.”

I can’t help it if a few people say they don’t understand the ramifications of the steinware concept. Maybe they don’t want to.

No one knows what is practical until it is tried. The result of failing to try to acieve this type of ‘dream’ could be a nightmarish future. Tell your doubt to the kid who chokes to death or the innocent man executed for murder because someone wasn’t confident enough to try.

“BTW This forum is questions about Blender Basics & Interface. This belongs in the Off-topic Chat forum”

“didn’t bother to check which forum to post”

The title of this forum is Blender Artists Forum - Basics and Interface.

  1. Copyright under GNU is a very basic concern
  2. Steining and improving code for greater speed, versatility and memory usage is a very basic concern
  3. The availability of hardware which interfaces with the Linux system as well as the ability to improve it are very basic concerns and deal with interfacing (should be obvious)
  4. Individuality under the GNU is a very basic concern
  5. The freedom to control our use of software is a very basic concern
  6. The examples and software are mentioned to explore the function of the steinware concept
  7. The core of the steinware would be three dimensional graphics - Blender would be the spine

If Blender were the spine of the program - any basic or interface question building upon the function of Blender is germane to this part of this site.

Let’s stow the arrogance, rudeness, immaturity & naysaying and concentrate our energy on the viability of the project. If you don’t want to be part of it - have a good life and quietly watch as those of us who do - DO!

8

I can’t help it if a few people don’t understand the ramifications of the steinware concept. Maybe they don’t want to.

Or maybe they do understand it and simply don’t want to subscribe to your point of view?

I’ve been an applications programmer for over 20 years and personally, I think you’re:

A. Too idealistic
B. Too unrealistic
C. Simply full of crap.

Take your pick.

9

This site needs to be able to recive document posts from word processors.

10

The game-like OS interface might be the best place to start.

Where do you think we should start?

These are what I perceive to be the initial requirements:

1 — Getting into Blender’s code at the beginning of steinware’s development should improve its function later in the project. That’s not to imply we should ignore weak code within the Blender system. We can compare it to other software such as K-3D and formulate a plan for improvement / recruitment.

The improved software would serve as a spine. All of the other steinware modules would rib off and eventually flesh it out.

2 — A strong Linux Operating System. Other LOS software could be autopsied and steined into our improved LOS as per GNU copyright provisions. Blender should work better on an OS specifically tailored for its functionality.

3 — A sturdy 3D Game Engine. The 3DGE (tredge) already operates the disk, cpu, graphics card etc during game time. Most tredges already save player and character data files. some games, such as SimCity, allow players to use pre-designed components to build the game’s virtual world. Users of steinware could either select pre-designed buildings for their “community” or design these components themselves within modules that are today called Blender. The tredge would facilitate all GUI functions between the LOS and keyboard. The only exception might be those files which use a flat GUI like Microsoft Word.

Say the user designs a hospital for their “community.” When the character representing the user enters their hospital they see the interior as they left it. Perhaps there are books on the shelves. When the user selects one, they see a hand pull it off the shelf, put it on a desk, open the book and see their data. The file actually opened when the book was pulled off and the data was revealed when the book opened. <No obvious waiting period.> Perhaps there is a doctor character to guide them through a newly updated medical database or link via teleconferencing with a real doctor’s office. Perhaps there is a nurse to guide the user and document the person’s glucometer or other important self-exam data. Regardless of how the user customizes it, the hospital would organize all of the user’s medically related items.

The user, a student, now goes to the university which they designed for their system. Within that “building” are all of the user’s education related files. They stay in that area until the need to go to another. On and on!

So far, all of this is being done in part in several different programs. We just need to restructure, harmonize and combine it.

11

I know many people won’t want to subscribe to my point of view. I’m trying to find those who do.

A — As for the idealism aspect - hearing a patient’s mother blame herself for not knowing how to perform CPR on a child who just died changes a man. It should make anyone with a heart want to try to find a way to prevent a future paramedic from hearing and a future mother from saying the same thing. If the desire to try makes me an idealist - WONDERFUL!

B — What specific part of the idea is too unrealistic? Most of it already exists. It just needs to be combined and streamlined.

C — Are you concerned about what the software could do to your career if it works? Why else would you insult someone who is willing to propose the attempt? If you are not willing to try - then ignore the issue and go away.

12

Is this thread sold by weight or by volume?

13

:slight_smile: Perhaps whichever will do the job most efficiently

14

I think you need a reality check. This forum is dedicated to Blender and it’s various aspects. It’s not about your “Holy Grail” approach to software design, it’s about issues, solutions and techniques regarding BLENDER.

I would suggest that if you want to interest people in your “project” that you setup and pay for a forum of your own. It’s rather rude of you to continue “your project” thread, which has little or nothing to do directly with Blender using the resources of this forum, IMO.

Are you concerned about what the software could do to your career if it works? Why else would you insult someone who is willing to propose the attempt? If you are not willing to try - then ignore the issue and go away.

Frankly I have less than ZERO interest in the crap you’re proposing but I DO have an interest in furthering my experience with Blender. You’re posting in this forum is inappropriate and interfering with that experience.

15

I’ll ask the question again - In what way is the project too unrealistic?

Actually, the approach has everything to do with Blender’s basic construct and interface as they would be core aspects within the project. The idea certainly concerns one possible track of development for the Blender software. As such the future development of the Blender software is an issue. The reusability of the Blender software an issue. The interfacing of the Blender software is an issue etc etc.

My concept would benefit from participation by programmers familiar with the Blender code. This is where they are so this is where I came to talk with them. The website for the “Holy Grail” as you referred to it will come later.

Verbally assaulting someone as you did in your last post - that’s rude. The insults also violate the member’s agreement we all accepted when we joined the forum.

Trying to communicate with people who are interested in doing something that is motiviated by human compassion rather than $$$$$ may be idealistic but it isn’t rude. It fulfills the idealistic intent of the Linux phenomenon. By extension, anyone using the Blender software is either doing so because they want to develop the idealistic resource upon which it is built OR because they want something for nothing. I’m interested in those who want to advance the true intent of Linux and Blender - to freely help others.

If you are not interested in the idea, then go away. Your abrasive attitude won’t be missed.

I hope you find success.

You do not rule. I did not contact you. I did not attract you to this thread. I may be saying things you don’t want to hear. If you don’t like that - too bad. I am not keeping you from simply going away. I am not interfering with you or your experience in ANY way. In fact, your insulting violation of the member agreement is interfering with my experience on this forum. It is also interfering with anyone who may be interested in the concept.

Finally - and again - What exactly about the concept is “too unrealistic.”

16

[quote]“didn’t bother to check which forum to post”

The title of this forum is Blender Artists Forum - Basics and Interface.

  1. Copyright under GNU is a very basic concern
  2. Steining and improving code for greater speed, versatility and memory usage is a very basic concern[/quote]
    The War in Iraq is a very basic concern which could ultimately affect all Blender users. Armageddon is a very basic concern for some which would certainly affect all Blender users if it happens. Are they legitimate discussions for this forum too? No they are not.

Why not…?

The forum title may well be basics and interface but the forum is in the support group of forums, not the discussion group. It is about asking questions on how to use Blender with specific regard to the basics and the interface. It is not a place to discuss possibilities, religions or the pros and cons of pre-emptive military action regardless of the merits of those discussions or any perceived impact they may have on Blender coding or users.

Frankly, I don’t even know what you’re on about but I’m already doubting your credibility. Your incredulous defence of what I’d first assumed was a simple error makes the thread looks like a zealot’s crusade. Way to go!

17

…makes the thread looks like a zealot’s crusade.

Or a troll’s…

18

Alright, boss… here’s the deal. My question about your programming experience was simple and honest. It wasn’t a flame or a poke.

It is, however, an issue. When you start talking about consolidation without knowing details about implementation, you’re gonna come across some tough questions that cannot be answered without adequate experience (as you may be noticing). You’re drowning out honest criticism with a lot of words. The more you go on, the more it sounds like your knowledge is cursory. And for a proposal such as this one, that kind of thing is going to get you in way over your head with a quickness.

I don’t think this is feasible, for the reasons I outlined in my first post. But no one’s stopping you from going ahead and proving the world wrong.

19

/me predicts this thread will be a great source of amusement before it gets locked for either being off topic or consuming too much disk space. Should we have a pool as to how long it goes on?

20

At least ten more posts from the threadstarter 10,- €