Subject:
|
Re: The future of LDraw?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad
|
Date:
|
Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:03:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
29094 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.cad, Timothy Gould wrote:
>
> > That information isn't there for the end users. It's there for the people
> > volunteering their time to make the parts. As Philo said it's very easy to add
> > automatically with DATHeader and thus next to no effort for the parts editors
> > but it is a good source of credit for those that have donated their time.
> >
> > Likewise the legal issues may seem superfluous but with the new license the
> > parts library is finally legally able to be used and distributed in a more
> > verstile way. That's a good thing.
> >
> > The trick for the parts library is finding a balance between parts that are
> > perfect for the user (including being consistent) and parts that are easy to
> > develop. _Possibly_ there is too much focus on the former but it's got little to
> > do with the mostly non-issues you raise.
>
> Non-issues to you, perhaps. To an outsider, they are symptomatic of a big
> exercise in narcissism.
Possibly so but I'm of the opinion that those that make and share the parts are
entitled to some narcissism. And I speak having done minimal part authoring in
quite some time (due to laziness) so it's not self-interest at work.
--snip--
Your analogy isn't really a fair one IMO as the ST club is not actually creating
anything for others to use. I see your point but I'm not sure it entirely
applies here.
> I'm not diminishing the efforts of the parts authors, nor am I writing this out
> of thin air; I've personally authored well over 1,000 parts that will never be
> included in the LDraw library. That is, I *know* how difficult the authoring
> process can be.
But how much of that difficulty stems from making the part and how much comes
from filling in a few lines in the header? I've authored a bunch of parts myself
(both easy and hard) and I've simply never had trouble (well OK I have but Chris
has fixed them on the Part Tracker).
> I've spoken with at least three other people who find the hyper-legalistic
> process equally off-putting, and I'm confident that we're not the only four who
> think so. Part of the question in the OP was about why people have drifted
> away, and I've given an answer.
>
> You may dismiss it as a non-issue if you wish.
I shall continue to do so I'm afraid until I understand why it's an issue. As I
said above I just don't understand why a few lines in a header make such a big
difference. And I'm honestly not being obtuse here either. I'm ready to change
my opinion if I understand and agree with what you're saying. I feel I must be
missing something.
Tim
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
| (...) It is an issue IMO. Probably a small one compared to other ones, but it's the sum of real or subjective obstacles that makes me worried about recruiting new LDraw authors. What I believe is the biggest issue is nobody's fault: All the easy, (...) (17 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
| | | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
| (...) Well, I singled out the header-code not as the problem in itself but as symptomatic of a shift that's taken place over a period of years. I don't know how else to say it without sounding petty, and I'm absolutely not singling out any one (...) (17 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The future of LDraw?
|
| (...) Non-issues to you, perhaps. To an outsider, they are symptomatic of a big exercise in narcissism. Decades ago, when I was without a tv but hoping to see the "Spock" episode of ST:TNG, a friend and I went to Penn State's Star Trek club. They (...) (17 years ago, 20-Mar-10, to lugnet.cad)
|
105 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
