3 ms·

Then again, Bryce was developed in a proprietary environment and then released as open source in an attempt to build goodwill. Was it even improved in terms of

Then again, Bryce was developed in a proprietary environment and then released as open source in an attempt to build goodwill. Was it even improved in terms of speed or stability? I can't imagine open source developers actually adding features to it. The reason I had the time to blog about it is that Microsoft Word's control revision system is simple enough that I got my job done way before deadlines. As much as I love TeX typesetting, that would NEVER happen in a LaTeX+CVS/Subversion/darcs/git environment.I'd be still struggling the "quantum theory of patches".

tjr 18y ago
Hmmm. I've used Texinfo+CVS+patches extensively working for the GNU Project. I despise using Microsoft Word for anything but the most simple tasks. Perhaps folks just think differently about software usage.
- syntaxfree 18y ago
  Note "GNU Project" and how the text emphasizes that "open source software attends to the hacker community's needs, not the end user needs". I did some solo writing with LaTeX and darcs, but there's no way that would fly in an office environment. And I work with very smart people -- my main work colleague has finished his MSc. in physics at age 21 before dropping out of academia. But should we bothered to establish a protocol and working practices to collaborate on documents? Microsoft Word does that and enough document type-setting/FrameMaker stuff that five-digit projects are written straight into Microsoft Word with no posterior editing work. Microsoft Word's UI is sometimes counterintuitive, but it's simple enough that people outside the hacker community can use it. One problem with open source I didn't point out because the main idea was to focus on de Landa is that too many people thought competing with Microsoft had much to do with compatibility. If there was a working environment for collaborative writing as usable as Microsoft Word people would eventually go for it because it's cheaper. I know, I know. I actually wrote my undergrad thesis on compatibility issues in software competition and how Apple was attempting a "partial compatibility strategy" by adopting Unix while keeping Macintoshness. But with time I realized that wasn't really the core problem, it was just a road bump.
  - tjr 18y ago
    Sure, I wouldn't expect most computer users to learn TeX/CVS/etc. I wouldn't even expect a majority of new hackers to learn it any more. But for those that do learn it to a sufficient level of mastery, it's not only usable but at times wonderful. I think there are actually two "problems" going on at the same time. On one hand, open source software is "too difficult" for most people to use. I agree. But on the other hand, most people aren't putting that much effort into learning the software. Is software supposed to be easy to use? As much as possible, I would think. But some "hacker" software that has a tremendous initial learning curve (TeX, Emacs, even Lisp, depending on your background) offers equally tremendous rewards over similar software that is easier to learn. The reason, perhaps, is that in learning TeX, you are learning how to prepare documents at a more abstract level than Microsoft Word. The resulting documents may be largely identical, but TeX offers the user more power and control in exchange for taking the time to learn how to operate it. This is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if your job is to prepare documents. It may be a totally awful thing if you only need to prepare an occasional document, as the benefits of TeX are not likely to be worth the effort required to learn it for you.
    - syntaxfree 18y ago
      We don't need more power than we already have. I have done the whole hacker grand tour (well, I don't know C but I know Haskell and some Common Lisp), learned Emacs, became profficient in Vim, etc. etc. The cost-benefit equation just doesn't work for "hacker software" as you say it. We're busy doing econometrics (we do use GNU R, but Matlab, Stata and SAS are far superior for most work) and statistical work, and just need to get reports done. We're trying to make money in here, not join a religion.
      - tjr 18y ago
        Perhaps folks just think differently about software usage.
        syntaxfree 18y ago
        People sometimes make software usage a religion. It's only human. I was a Haskell religious nut for a while. (Then I stopped programming and changed hobbies to skateboarding. But I'm studying modal logic from Konyndyk, so I'm still in the Haskell-ish geekspace).
jcl 18y ago
You wouldn't happen to have a link to open-source Bryce, by any chance? The only relevant link I can find in Google is a newsgroup post dated six weeks ago indicating that they might open-source it, so I'm not surprised it hasn't been improved yet, assuming it was released. Blender of course has been open-source for years now and is being improved, but note that it too was proprietary software prior to being open-sourced.
- syntaxfree 18y ago
  I meant Blender. My bad ;)
  - rtf 18y ago
    If you meant Blender then your offhand remark of "was it ever improved" kind of missed the mark: http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/ http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/ is the second open movie project based around Blender - this one and the first, Elephant's Dream, have pushed major improvements into Blender. They're doing a game project next. The commercial packages can still claim a lot of additional features, but Blender is clearly catching up.
  - jcl 18y ago
    I have to agree with rtf, then: Blender is actually a counterexample to your point. It has improved dramatically since it was open-sourced; it has actually implemented some features (like automated texture unfolding and Python scripting) earlier than its proprietary competitors.
    - tokipin 18y ago
      blender is a great example of how poor people can be at UI design. why open source usually very shitty UI?? it's unfortunate, and is the major reason i stay away from linux (that and font rendering, which is related)
      - jcl 18y ago
        I'm not going to disagree about Blender's interface; I don't like it much, either. But I am used to other 3D programs, so perhaps I am not the best judge. UI is a tricky thing, especially in graphics applications, where once you're used to one application, the others feel wrong. And especially in 3D applications, where there's no standardization -- look at Max and Maya, both now from the same company, or look at ZBrush, whose interface is equal parts brilliance and lunacy (although version 3 is much improved). This is not merely an open-source vs. proprietary thing; Blender's interface was at least as bad when it was a proprietary product. Wings3D, on the other hand, has one of my favorite interfaces. It's open source, but its interface is inspired by Nendo, a defunct commercial product.

tjr 18y ago

Hmmm. I've used Texinfo+CVS+patches extensively working for the GNU Project. I despise using Microsoft Word for anything but the most simple tasks. Perhaps folks just think differently about software usage.

syntaxfree 18y ago
Note "GNU Project" and how the text emphasizes that "open source software attends to the hacker community's needs, not the end user needs". I did some solo writing with LaTeX and darcs, but there's no way that would fly in an office environment. And I work with very smart people -- my main work colleague has finished his MSc. in physics at age 21 before dropping out of academia. But should we bothered to establish a protocol and working practices to collaborate on documents? Microsoft Word does that and enough document type-setting/FrameMaker stuff that five-digit projects are written straight into Microsoft Word with no posterior editing work. Microsoft Word's UI is sometimes counterintuitive, but it's simple enough that people outside the hacker community can use it. One problem with open source I didn't point out because the main idea was to focus on de Landa is that too many people thought competing with Microsoft had much to do with compatibility. If there was a working environment for collaborative writing as usable as Microsoft Word people would eventually go for it because it's cheaper. I know, I know. I actually wrote my undergrad thesis on compatibility issues in software competition and how Apple was attempting a "partial compatibility strategy" by adopting Unix while keeping Macintoshness. But with time I realized that wasn't really the core problem, it was just a road bump.
- tjr 18y ago
  Sure, I wouldn't expect most computer users to learn TeX/CVS/etc. I wouldn't even expect a majority of new hackers to learn it any more. But for those that do learn it to a sufficient level of mastery, it's not only usable but at times wonderful. I think there are actually two "problems" going on at the same time. On one hand, open source software is "too difficult" for most people to use. I agree. But on the other hand, most people aren't putting that much effort into learning the software. Is software supposed to be easy to use? As much as possible, I would think. But some "hacker" software that has a tremendous initial learning curve (TeX, Emacs, even Lisp, depending on your background) offers equally tremendous rewards over similar software that is easier to learn. The reason, perhaps, is that in learning TeX, you are learning how to prepare documents at a more abstract level than Microsoft Word. The resulting documents may be largely identical, but TeX offers the user more power and control in exchange for taking the time to learn how to operate it. This is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if your job is to prepare documents. It may be a totally awful thing if you only need to prepare an occasional document, as the benefits of TeX are not likely to be worth the effort required to learn it for you.
  - syntaxfree 18y ago
    We don't need more power than we already have. I have done the whole hacker grand tour (well, I don't know C but I know Haskell and some Common Lisp), learned Emacs, became profficient in Vim, etc. etc. The cost-benefit equation just doesn't work for "hacker software" as you say it. We're busy doing econometrics (we do use GNU R, but Matlab, Stata and SAS are far superior for most work) and statistical work, and just need to get reports done. We're trying to make money in here, not join a religion.
    - tjr 18y ago
      Perhaps folks just think differently about software usage.
      - syntaxfree 18y ago
        People sometimes make software usage a religion. It's only human. I was a Haskell religious nut for a while. (Then I stopped programming and changed hobbies to skateboarding. But I'm studying modal logic from Konyndyk, so I'm still in the Haskell-ish geekspace).

jcl 18y ago

You wouldn't happen to have a link to open-source Bryce, by any chance? The only relevant link I can find in Google is a newsgroup post dated six weeks ago indicating that they might open-source it, so I'm not surprised it hasn't been improved yet, assuming it was released. Blender of course has been open-source for years now and is being improved, but note that it too was proprietary software prior to being open-sourced.

syntaxfree 18y ago
I meant Blender. My bad ;)
- rtf 18y ago
  If you meant Blender then your offhand remark of "was it ever improved" kind of missed the mark: http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/ http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/ is the second open movie project based around Blender - this one and the first, Elephant's Dream, have pushed major improvements into Blender. They're doing a game project next. The commercial packages can still claim a lot of additional features, but Blender is clearly catching up.
- jcl 18y ago
  I have to agree with rtf, then: Blender is actually a counterexample to your point. It has improved dramatically since it was open-sourced; it has actually implemented some features (like automated texture unfolding and Python scripting) earlier than its proprietary competitors.
  - tokipin 18y ago
    blender is a great example of how poor people can be at UI design. why open source usually very shitty UI?? it's unfortunate, and is the major reason i stay away from linux (that and font rendering, which is related)
    - jcl 18y ago
      I'm not going to disagree about Blender's interface; I don't like it much, either. But I am used to other 3D programs, so perhaps I am not the best judge. UI is a tricky thing, especially in graphics applications, where once you're used to one application, the others feel wrong. And especially in 3D applications, where there's no standardization -- look at Max and Maya, both now from the same company, or look at ZBrush, whose interface is equal parts brilliance and lunacy (although version 3 is much improved). This is not merely an open-source vs. proprietary thing; Blender's interface was at least as bad when it was a proprietary product. Wings3D, on the other hand, has one of my favorite interfaces. It's open source, but its interface is inspired by Nendo, a defunct commercial product.