Page 1 of 2

Making money with an opensource effort, lets be straight..

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2003 12:29 am
by thorax
The reason I've been pretty hard on Eskil is in interest of
getting him to revela his intent on Verse.. He's implied his intent on
making money with his proprietary development and his need to
get hired, but I might be able to shed some light on
some others.

Eskil I believe wants a system where 3D artists and programmers
can make money. This is the eventual future of Verse and Blender..
Blender is open source it can be interpretted as a client application
like a web browser.. Imagine if you will if you are a programmer,
you want to make 3D software but its hard to sell applications
knowing that programs like Kazaa exist that can distribute your
work (life's goal, dreams, etc.) to anyone, without your being able to control it. Since the net is getting faster, people have DSL more and more, its becoming possible to distribute applications and sell services of access to methods/packages on the serverside that allow clients (blender users) to perform functions that would not normally be possible
in a open source world.

If you enter in a payment model, methods can be performed on your models for a price. This is not a conspiracy, its what peer2peer is
doing to the nature of software development and artist content.
The artists themselves are capable of performing methods (albeit inconsistently) on models that no amount of software can..
So whether you intend on selling your services as an artist or
selling software, having the kind of collaborative environment that
Verse will start, will allow you do it without fail. However
open source and free content is inevitable, its a method of advertising
and there is no way to eliminate it..

I would certainly much rather have Verse (since its open source) than
.Net (ala Microsoft) which is not necessarily open source (or open implementation).

Now this may not be what Eskil had planned, but I think for some people
it may be the only way anyone with the skills to do so will get the
freedom of working at home and be able to make a living without
having to go to work for the big boys or live in a cubicle.. I think
this is the eventual result of Verse..

Now I also think my idea of a VM on each client/server be optional
as well to allow methods to be distributed, this doesn't mean
that methods implemented have to be this way, certainly people
can still use remote method invocations but it will allow certain
kinds of data/code to always exist and become useful. But
I doubt Eskil will do it because this allows open source to
infiltrate the domain and does not encourage proprietary (for profit)
solutions.. However, it would happen anyway if it were not in the
domain of Verse, it could exist as a application that uses Verse..
I'm saying that to somethings you might want to do without being connected to the net, and since Verse is connectionless (because it uses UDP), it should also include client-side runnable objects as well to
allow for connectionless collaborations. But this can happen out of the confines of Verse by using its "Blob" object types to transfer objects with
methods.. It can also be done by transfering scripts like python scripts as
objects (data with methods).

So its not necessarily something Eskil should do or has to do, but just as free as he is to define this protocol I should be able to propose a pure object oriented approach (note its not just a protocol, how
many protocols include definitions for specific data structures like polygons, vertices, lighting, etc.. its really just a standard for 3D
graphics associated with a memory distribution and method invocation
system.. ITs distributed but the objects are nailed to the servers,
there is no framework for transferring methods only for data, and
data as I said can be interpretted as methods, so it is possible.. ).
My idea for allowing full objects to be transferred is more a general
solution than Verse, as these objects aren't limited to 3D objects
but can be used to implement anything..

Be careful about interpretting language independence as a good thing,
its the same as saying that I can choose to continue using COBOL to
write my legacy applications and be compatible with future packages
by offering up a object interface to my legacy package.. CORBA, what Verse's design was based on (Eskil admitted), implementation was designed to allow vendors of legacy packages (Eskil didn't mention) to coexist with next generation object oriented designs, but it doesn't offer
a upgrade path for true object oriented relationships where the objects
travel about the net free of any particular attachment to a server or client. Mobile objects as they are called would allow much more possibilities, like bots that can roam about your environment and
offer services to you and perform searches for objects that resemble what you are trying to make.. Eskil's design only allows clients to
ask services of remote servers possibly clients, but it doesn't allow
the services to be smart and self-sufficient even automatic, and
if the future is to contain robots and automated capabilities and
consistent environments whereveryone has at their disposal
the objects to help them create work, there needs to be a plan to
include this environment into Verse somehow, with or without Eskil's consent.

Why is there not already something like this? Because it doesn't
make any commercial-sense, and it carries with it a fear of abusive
applications (viruses).. But there are ways to reduce the threat by
carefully considering what methods an object should have access to..
By considering methods to be like resources (you can trust few programs to have direct access to your filesystem but you could put them in a sandbox [a facade for a program that allows it some freedom but within the confines of what it can do] and allow them to only see a facade of the filesystem and give them functions to only work within the sandbox).
It can be done, and I have yet to hear any problems with the concept,
just that it is slow and gives some programmers a headache because
it requires them to write high-integrity code..

Anyhow.. If you think by Eskil implementing this, he is offering a service
that we would not normally have, maybe.. But there are lots of vendors which would write lots of code if they could guarantee a captive market, and I'm just denying Eskil this potential of ignorance in the userbase,
so that free discussion in design can be take place.

Object oriented programming was developed in a kind of anomally, Xerox PARC, it was a highly funded camp of geniuses thinking up human conputer interfaces with the future of making the results a product
for Xerox, but luckily Bill Gates and Steve Jobs and others were able to peek in on PARC's developments and derive the ideas of the mouse
and GUI, and maybe OOP but it was left behind.. ITs still not very well understood by some programmers and results in software that is bug
ridden and impossible to use, inflexible.. But it also makes applications
to be bunches of plug and play modules, which is more a good thing for consumers than it is for software developers that are hoping to make a lot of money off leveraged platforms and captive audiences.. So I'm looking to open source as the paradigm of software development to develop these ideas because I know they will result in useful technologies that would not develop in a commercial paradigm of software development.

And communicating the ideas is half implementation, though it may be someone's 10% of inspiration.. If it were 10%, I guess all those millions Bill Gates and Steve Jobs made were a result of their own genius.. NOT!!
IF they hadn't of visited Xerox PARC, there wouldn't have been a Windows or Mac, might not have been any GUI's either (Xerox was not able to sell 6000 dollar workstations in the 70s that used mouses and
GUI's to allow secretaries to do desktop publishing, it wasn't fully understood until by Xerox and it took giant leeps in technology to
get it going, such as those that came about in the 80s)..

Anyhow, Good ideas speak volumes.. Implementations raise the volume of the communication and make it easier to understand..

I am rather rigid and inconsistent with how I deal with people,
Eskil expecially.. I don't expect him to be my friend, but
I would hope that others realize the potential of what he is planning
I am not easy to accpet everything, I've got mixed feelings about it,
I would rather his idea be absorbed rather than made into the
future of blender as it offers some undersireable details that
could change the state of what blender is in a bad way..
Like say you can't produce work if you need something from
somewhere else.. Blender's strength is its self-sufficient not
its distributed design, but by making the design distributed you
can sacrifice self-sufficience because people may give up
using blend files to use Verse to share data, then we lose
forward/backward file compatibility, we lose our independence
of others, we lose being able to share scenes and
confidence of having this independence..

Now the assumption is that Verse is just a seperate thing..
I would ask to see it like a parallel road, but not as THE NEXT GENERATION OF BLENDER!! Think about it as an option to
blender users, I think the opensource blender and the Verse augmented
version of blender could coexist, just don't want to limit
the future to one perception..

And as well I should say not to consider my future as your
objective future unless you really feel right with it..
But I won't say be lenient and free with the feeling and
get involved to your hearts content, think a lot about the
possible future and consider what kind of world you want to
be involved with and how you can exist in it and continue to
survive there as well as the kind where you can be independent of
the world and able to do your own thing.. OpenSource is about free speech, if you can't talk about it, it ain't open source, its a lie in the fog.

I've never been really good at making friends, its easy to make friends
if you are willing to realize the others shortcommings.. I have a problem
with allowing deceptions and misunderstanding to exist in a relationship,
maybe there is something to telling white lies just to help encourage
a friendly relationship, but there is little logic in it and I tend to always
want to apply logic to everything.. So that's how I fail, I'm not a people person.. Am an introvert and think a lot.. I like to talk ideas
and have yet to make any money off them.. I hope for a world
where people don't have to keep stuff secret to get stuff done,
its typical in business and what has resulted in things like Enron
and MBA tactics (micro-managing, outsourcing).. I don't believe it can
go on forever, I think the industrial age came in about 100 years ago
really, and when it came in people were losing lives in factories, the
eventual future until people start thinking about it could be one where
every store is Wal-mart, everyone is a widget, everyone's value is no more than what they can produce, everyone is a mechanism,
everyone is dependent on some machine, etc.. Its where we are going and its a result of how we value stuff and where we place value..
Is it in the stuff we can buy or the stuff we can produce?
Opensource is about changing the world and making it more like
how we want to interact and associate, its about breaking the mold
of dependency relationships and corporate facades, its about
realizing each persons value and supporting them..

True hapiness is in the interaction with others and a sharing..
Anything less is a deception..


Now maybe you have a different world view, maybe I'm confused on some issues, but I will not change my mind unless someone
can do more than simply scoff and make shallow remarks..
Those are more transparent..

I will admit I don't know eveything I claim 100%, I have a feeling for it..
And I value logic when its discussed. But I hate decpetion and
sercrets that serve no useful purpose with a vengence, and its why I
can be kind one moment and unkind the next.. Maybe someone knows a
better way to collaborate.. Any ideas?

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2003 2:43 am
by Jamesk
I've had serious problems embracing LoqAirou/NGB/Verse all along - not for the reasons you mention, but more as a general gut-feeling. The reason for this, I believe, is that I still have not seen any sort of reasonable connection from Blender 2.x as we know it to the above software projects.

It's only natural, I suppose, to make major changes, rewrites and make paradigm shifts to get to a new major release of an application - but such changes are normally made with some amount of respect to the original material. If one should compare Photoshop 5 to Photoshop 6 for instance, there are major changes - but still the same application. I cannot see any such continuity in the current NGB-discussions.

I'd hate to appear like some kind of back-stabber (posting here, out in the open should however probably prevent that), but I think that what we see happening here is some sort of brand- or userbase-hijack. Let's assume that I've been working on a 3D-application for quite some time - I've got a couple of fairly operational alpha-releases, not complete, but at least functional as proofs-of-concept. However, I don't have any users yet, and not a large base of coders willing to add stuff to the project. Now, instead of building my own community of followers, I "infiltrate" an already well-established bunch of users and coders and pass off my own application theories as "the future of application x".

I realize that the above is quite an awful thing to say. But I have had these thoughts for a long time now, wondering what to do with them. I'll take my chances and hit "submit" below anyway... Hopefully I'm wrong, and I promise to apologize all over the place once that is proven.

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2003 4:05 am
by alltaken
Jamesk wrote:I've had serious problems embracing LoqAirou/NGB/Verse all along - not for the reasons you mention, but more as a general gut-feeling. The reason for this, I believe, is that I still have not seen any sort of reasonable connection from Blender 2.x as we know it to the above software projects.

It's only natural, I suppose, to make major changes, rewrites and make paradigm shifts to get to a new major release of an application - but such changes are normally made with some amount of respect to the original material. If one should compare Photoshop 5 to Photoshop 6 for instance, there are major changes - but still the same application. I cannot see any such continuity in the current NGB-discussions.

I'd hate to appear like some kind of back-stabber (posting here, out in the open should however probably prevent that), but I think that what we see happening here is some sort of brand- or userbase-hijack. Let's assume that I've been working on a 3D-application for quite some time - I've got a couple of fairly operational alpha-releases, not complete, but at least functional as proofs-of-concept. However, I don't have any users yet, and not a large base of coders willing to add stuff to the project. Now, instead of building my own community of followers, I "infiltrate" an already well-established bunch of users and coders and pass off my own application theories as "the future of application x".

I realize that the above is quite an awful thing to say. But I have had these thoughts for a long time now, wondering what to do with them. I'll take my chances and hit "submit" below anyway... Hopefully I'm wrong, and I promise to apologize all over the place once that is proven.




i agree with this one 100%

i have been thinking the same thing for some time.

it seems like a single handed effort with little comunity imput or help so far, and its trying to pretend to be the next official blender while not actually being it.

e.g. Next Gen "Blender" i think the Blender part inculded in the name is somewhat wrong as so far (not that i have read much about it) i feel it has NOTHING to do with blender whatsoever.

its like comparing anim8or with blender. sure they can both do 3d but what else is similar.


i have actually felt a bit reluctant to even accept that it is being talked about in the blender.org forums, i feel its somewhat detached from everyone and has not had a comunity planning stage before conseption!!!



anyway i may be convinced about it once a blender interface /skin and functionality as well as.blend file suport were added. but until then i would have to say i don't buy the idea that NGB is somehow connected to blender in any way.




Alltaken

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2003 7:27 am
by dreamerv3
Thorax: I'm Joe in real life by the way, right on!

Have you noticed that in opensource and in academic situations most poeple are much more open about information and the whole "this ball of wax is ALL MINE!!! GET AWAY!!!" mentality is absent, I value that, I value that world. Real people in the sense that they're not pretending to be a drone of some system to survive in the confines of that system, I wanna see real people. I hate deception with a passion, and here in the opensource world I was hoping everything would be out in the clear. But theres no escaping logic is there, you can find the deception if you just analyzse the potential outcomes of any design.

Anyway, I value the independance of blender as well. I tend to try ti minimize dependacy issues with vm's and obscure interpreters, because not every platform has them and not everyplatform works with them with equal ease, the bytecode becomes tertiary at that point.

I'm pissed that SVG is going unnoticed and flash is getting the glory because one is out and the other is not being implemented because the former is out, SVG is open, I STILL CAN'T GET A FLASH AUTHOR TOOL IN LINUX!!! But I'm not budging! You can't leverage me and my type of people into some neat little product platform.

I not against verse, I've read up on it, but I not about to go waltzing into it given all the dangers associated with it, ergo: "Hello all users of (insert verse server which offers XXX services via the internet), given our business expenses and finincial situation blah blah blah, we will be requiring a subscription and annual renewal fee of (whatever) in order to continue using this server"

Can you say L O C K O U T ?

Its not that Eskil is saying Verse will make this happen, its simply the possibility of designing that into the protocol by intent or by accident, and I'm geared towards hunting down destroying liabilities like that.

If I wanna charge people for an opensource app, I'll sell binaries and offer the sourcecode (cut up in a thousand little files, with no makefiles or other automated make scripts) That will pretty much give me at least a few months to grab some sales and by the time the first compiled clone shows it head, I'll have added a bunch of bugfixes and rearranged the code a bit so the clone makefuiles don't compile the source code for the new release). Thats short term security.

Opensource licenses never say you have to make the sourcecode nice and neat and easy to use, they simply stipulate that it must be available without restrictions.

Okay, fine "here are 200 text files in requetial order cut and paste them together and then write some configure and make scripts, have fun looking up the docs for all the quircks..."

The technology isn't being kept secret it simply is being made less convienient, less attractive to a user with no coding experience., the binary however is polished and works with all the latest code and fixes and docs in a package.

Thats as far as I would take it in a business setting.

Enough ranting, I don't have your e-mail or I would have sent some messages about the blender source and the whole effort of turning it into modules.

You can send me an e-mail via dreamerv3@programmer.net

I'll write back after I dig some more into the code, or you can just post an email address here I'll write, I would prefer you post in the NGB disscussion thread though.

Anyhow later!

Edit(jamesk, alltaken)
{

I hope you don't think I'm trying to hijack anything. Thats the furthest thing from my mind right now, its hard enough trying to figure out ways to make 3d easier and more powerful, more productive, that eats up much of my time, I don't have time to scheme about userbases, if a technology rocks then people will want to use it, if its sucks then natuirally people simply will not use it, very simple.

I'de like to see what other ideas people have that don't simply amount to : "add features X, Y, Z!" Theres more to 3d than just a few hundred rollouts, I realized that after 3d studio max, I had everytool I could ever want, and with all those tools it still took foreever to get anywhere on the macro level. To move beyond stills.


I'm simply throwing out some observations of how we as 3d users/artists/coders/ etc have been thinking and working in the past and what level of useful productivity X effort has landed us with our current methods, thats all, I want to see more than anything, mnore power in the hands of the individuals, more than anything I want to see independence in media creation, where you don't have to kiss up to someone to get resources.

I think thats a good thing, I hope you're not thinking about me when you refer to the NGB disscussions, if the community wants a continuation of blender with more functionality then I'm all for that but may I suggest we modularize it a bit into a standard so that a family of applications can grow out of the basic technology, that way we all help each other by sharing modular standardized code.

Just a thought

}

Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2003 9:26 am
by Jamesk
dreamerv3 wrote:I hope you don't think I'm trying to hijack anything.
No, I don't!
We may have different views on some issues, but that's cool...

<edit> And, I might add, I too see the need for modularization and innovative functionality beyond adding what other packages already have - so I'm with you on that. </edit>

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2003 8:19 am
by xype
Oh. My. God.

First, NGB is not trying to hijack anything. Is it _that_ hard to understand that VERSE IS A PROTOCOL.

Noone is disrespecting the work done on Blender until now. Noone is saying that Verse will become Blender (Duh! You can't change a 3D app with a protocol that simply stores data!).

And how can you say it has nothing to do with Blender? Wouldn't you want Blender to have an interface that people can code against without having to "hack" the main Blender code? Wouldn't you want Blender to get networking support, both for eventual realtime 3D as well as 3D animation creation?

The name Next Generation Blender basically comes from the idea that Verse could be used as a foundation for the next Blender to store/interact with 3D data and it's something that Ton finds a good idea to pursue - it's not like Eskil came hopping to the Blender community having this big master plan to "take Blender over" or anything like that.

It's just a protocol. I don't see anyone complaining about people implementing QuickTime support, although some people around here could as well think it's Apple trying to take over Blender.

I'm not sure whether you guys saw the demo Eskil did at the Blender Conference, I think you should have a look in case you didn't, it might help you understand his ideas/concepts a bit better, since he does show some demos that probably illustrate his point much better than us talking here for days and weeks.

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2003 8:51 am
by Jamesk
Oh.My.God.right.back.at.ya...

I know perfectly well that Verse is a networking protocol. And there's nothing wrong with net-enabling Blender, and I don't have a problem with that per se. There has been stuff going on _before_ that you know.

I personally only have a problem with the fact that the suggested new GUI-theories, sort of demonstrated in the early versions of Loq Airou, were around as public betas even before the Blender sources were released. And that they were suddenly passed off as "the next blender" soon after the blender coderelease.

Application rewrites are made with respect to the original concept. You don't see the new LightWave version X suddenly looking like Animation Master just because some of the developers found that "cool". No it keeps looking and feeling almost as before, even though most things have been reworked from scratch to work better and do more things.

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2003 10:09 am
by smart
So it's a branding thing then. That is if E. would wait branding his tools NGB until the Blender community would express acceptance things would be ok. I can see that <edit>until that would happen, there is a problem</edit>.
But still E. may and shall do what he thinks is correct for him. No matter what it is. All in all it's positive since it's an offer. In the end, though more rough, what comes out of R.e.d. m;o#n!d:P is just an offer, too.
The only thing that is to be made sure by the community for sake, is that what they use for their tools can't be used to lock their own things/their own product out. In that respect as long as verse as a protocol itself would be say GPL'd... it's an option !

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2003 10:59 am
by Jamesk
If the next major relase of Blender is something like Loq Airou with Verse - then what on earth was the point of shelling out 100 K euro's for the "old" Blender source? And why should it be considered to have anything to do with Blender?

I hereby proclaim that this cool email-client with 3D-buttons I wrote in Java is the next generation Blender. Start coding.

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2003 11:07 am
by smart
What E. does is independent from what the current Blender developers do. The Blender developers MAY decide to use what he does and vice versa, if licensing permits that. Blender is GPL. It may not incorporate anything locking and nothing like that can be created out of it. That's what the 100k have been paid out for. No more, no less. I think it's a good investment cause it's what gives the choice that lies in this discussion into the developers hands.
I trust that.
I just think that E's work is still respectable, no matter what he wants to do with it. It doesn't harm Blender. It cannot harm Blender by requirements of the licensing (though i'm no lawyer sicko, but that's what i get from it).
The possibilities that are described with verse though, sound useful to me, as i think it can increase productivity a fair bit if it's possible for more than a single person to work directly in one enviroment. It seems to me like a move from single- to multiprocessing. Again, the developers will decide on it, but as long as the GPL is kept up and intact, i can't see any harm caused by economical interests. So not seeing any problem there (is verse protected somehow ?), i would think that usefullness should be the base of the developers decision.
I would just not suggest the discussion based on FUD. So, what's the license for Verse ? E. that's you to state.

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2003 12:04 pm
by thorax
xype wrote:Oh. My. God.

First, NGB is not trying to hijack anything. Is it _that_ hard to understand that VERSE IS A PROTOCOL.

Noone is disrespecting the work done on Blender until now. Noone is saying that Verse will become Blender (Duh! You can't change a 3D app with a protocol that simply stores data!).

And how can you say it has nothing to do with Blender? Wouldn't you want Blender to have an interface that people can code against without having to "hack" the main Blender code? Wouldn't you want Blender to get networking support, both for eventual realtime 3D as well as 3D animation creation?

The name Next Generation Blender basically comes from the idea that Verse could be used as a foundation for the next Blender to store/interact with 3D data and it's something that Ton finds a good idea to pursue - it's not like Eskil came hopping to the Blender community having this big master plan to "take Blender over" or anything like that.

It's just a protocol. I don't see anyone complaining about people implementing QuickTime support, although some people around here could as well think it's Apple trying to take over Blender.

I'm not sure whether you guys saw the demo Eskil did at the Blender Conference, I think you should have a look in case you didn't, it might help you understand his ideas/concepts a bit better, since he does show some demos that probably illustrate his point much better than us talking here for days and weeks.
I have his talks on Quicktime.. Maybe you know something I don't..
Maybe not.. All I know is he talks incredibly individualistic and commercially driven than any open source developer I've known (note: this is a lie, I've know at least one other).. I just have a distaste for advertising campaigns surrounding an open source project, its too easy to do.. When will somebody opensource something without trying to leverage it somehow?

And vendors are known to skew talk and source movements in their favor.. Don't get fooled.. I will not code anything for blender until I see a complete design spec and documented code and blueprint for this future of blender.. And I will help to produce this, but its got to be free of Ton's palette knife, I think he can have his future and Eskil as well, we need to clarify what blender is to become.. I don't think Ton gave us Blender only, I mean God gave us Ton, by transitivity God gave us Blender..

But we all have Talents just as Ton, he may be the grand designer,
but I don't believe he can imagine what blender is to become.. Nor
can Eskil.. Together we define what blender is to become..

Ton, remember blender was to be the Atomic Bomb?

Also I suggest the name for Verse with Blender , to be Blender-Verse, its more catchy and doesn't sound like sci-fi TV show..

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2003 12:29 pm
by Jamesk
smart wrote:I just think that E's work is still respectable, no matter what he wants to do with it.
I can fully agree on that.

I would only wish that there was some sort of collaboration from the start - a pre-design exchange of ideas - not like "here's an almost finished implementation of something completely different that is totally unrelated to Blender, and that's what we're going to use. C'mon, take it or leave it."

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2003 1:24 pm
by smart
This would only be possible, if the suggestion is convincing enough that developers willingly form behind it, right ? In the extreme, it would even be possible to fork your own project based on hit, though it was highly redundant prolly. I mean, nobody can be forced in an opensource project against his inner being. There may be outlines and borders, say styleguides interfaces whatever... but still developers must feel they are doing the right thing, otherwise they wouldn't participate.
While i don't think that it is at all possible that a single person can define a whole app down to the nail as complex as this, i think that if one did, and would effectively do it good, then the one shouldn't be ruled out because of his weird nose. Furthermore, i don't think it is what E. did. He created, for a single person, quite a lot of components in what i think is a cool way and he obviously upset a part of the community by labeling it blender, as it seems without common agreement.
While i agree that such might be no good, i think it's not enough for serious punishment.
At the same time, Blender has gained steam and released a new version. There are several developers behind it (i don't know the actual number). So currently i'd say, if you are after a comparison, you could say Blender is the winner. Do we look at that ?
We should prolly look at the tech and just as the question if what is offer by E. suits Blender. Will it break us ? Does it help ? Does it match ? Do we want it ?
Those that work on it decide about it.

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2003 1:54 pm
by Jamesk
smart wrote:obviously upset a part of the community by labeling it blender, as it seems without common agreement.
While i agree that such might be no good, i think it's not enough for serious punishment.
I'm definitely not aiming to punish anyone :D However, I still can't shake the hijack-feeling, so I guess I'll just stick to that, quit moaning and go work on my own stuff.

As for the future of Blender - I hope it's a good one!

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2003 4:44 pm
by xype
Just who is passing Eskil's previous work (Loq etc.) as the NGB? I beg you pardon, who wants a UI rewrite? If anything, the UI itself will be completely independant from Verse and from all the work going on with Ghost and Blender's current UI I don't see any evidence that it will be replaced just-like-that.

Noone is saying or wanting Blender to take a 180° turn and while Eskil may have his own UI ideas, he said many times that he will do it on his own for his private pleasure, not as an official part of Blender.

If the next major relase of Blender is something like Loq Airou with Verse - then what on earth was the point of shelling out 100 K euro's for the "old" Blender source? And why should it be considered to have anything to do with Blender?

I think you are afraid of the wrong things. If the talk about NGB/Verse is confusing you, just say so, and don't go on a crusade trying to "protect" something that's not endangered in the first place. And I think sooner or later a paper outlining the Blender Strategy is due anyway, to avoid even more confusion.

There still is no real "vision" of the future of Blender yet (like Thorax said), and everybody knows so. So please let us not act like kids whose toys were taken away. Because we still have the toys and even in the worst case scenario where Ton goes mad, tells Eskil to rewrite Blender with a interactive-boobie-fumbling UI and moves to an caribic island the Blender 2.x code base is still GPL and still has people developing it. And if everything else fails, you can take the code and work on it yourself.