Subject:
|
Re: L3P Warnings
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.ray
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Jul 2010 03:09:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
37907 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.ray, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.ray, Ross Crawford wrote:
>
> > So really the only difference I see between the two is that the former provides
> > useful information for authors & reviewers, and the latter provides useful
> > information for end-users. And I don't see why one person can't have a different
> > view on each, just as you do. So what's the point of the argument?
>
> For me, the argument comes back to process vs. product, as was discussed in the
> previous thread. Additionally, it raises the question of whether LDraw is a
> tool for the end-users or a tool for the reviewers.
>
> The extended period of discussion and hand-wringing that yielded the
> over-elaborate header format also resulted in a years-long drought of new parts.
> If, after all that time, the only benefit is "useful information for authors &
> reviewers," then it's equivalent to telling the end-users to go jump in a lake.
I'd agree, if that was the only benefit of the "discussion and hand-wringing",
however the primary benefit of it was to get a library that could be freely
distributed with the blessing of the Jessimans.
> Part of the "official" reason that POV-Ray code is excluded is that changes
> might be made to POV-Ray without the consent of the good people of the LSC.
> Very true, but the LDraw parts-format has undergone more changes than have the
> relevant POV-Ray coding during the same period, so that argument becomes less
> convincing.
I don't see that it does.
> Further, when the justification for forbidding inlined POV-Ray code ultimately
> amounts to "we don't like it because we aren't in absolute control of it," then
> users who see great value in the coding are understandably likely to feel
> short-changed. "Feel free to use it," we're told, "but not in official parts."
LEGO are happy for NXT owners to use whatever programming tools they are happy
with, they even provide open specs for the hardware I believe. But they don't
officially support anything except their software & sensors, because it would be
a logistical nightmare. I don't feel short-changed because I use BricxCC, and I
don't expect LEGO to officially support it. Why would I expect the Ldraw
community to officially support POV code?
BTW, if there was a referendum on official POV support, I would probably vote
yes, just as I would like LEGO to support the various NXT tools. But I don't
expect it (the referendum OR the support).
> > I'm sure the debate would be much more useful if we stuck to the merits of each,
> > rather than pointing fingers at each other.
>
> That's true only if the parties in the debate have equal power to affect the
> outcome. When one party in the debate (or its surrogates) can rule by fiat and
> the other party can't effect any change at all, then it's hardly a discussion
> between equals, and finger-pointing is not inappropriate in that case.
The fist is just as controllable as your country's parliament. Use your power!
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) To be more precise 'with the legal blessing of the Jessiman's and everyone who has ever contributed a part.' As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread one of the benefits is that someone could release a perfectly legal version of the library (...) (14 years ago, 9-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: L3P Warnings
|
| (...) For me, the argument comes back to process vs. product, as was discussed in the previous thread. Additionally, it raises the question of whether LDraw is a tool for the end-users or a tool for the reviewers. The extended period of discussion (...) (14 years ago, 7-Jul-10, to lugnet.cad.ray)
|
46 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
