Software Transitions
I realize the extreme difficulty it is for a small band of volunteers to get a project of this magnitude into a highly polished form.That's true, but every project of any size dealing with a legacy architecture that's a decade old has problems going forward. It's not like Microsoft lacks for resources, yet they have had many problems and delays moving from XP to Vista. Apple just about lost it going from OS 9 to OS X. If you want a big well-funded open source example, Mozilla, almost disappeared during their transition from legacy Netscape code.
Every project has a hard time coping with end-of-life legacy code and major software transitions.
33 Comments:
Apple most certainly did NOT come close to losing when moving to OS X. Quite the contrary, they were quite healthy when they made the transition, which was gradual, giving both end-users and software companies opportunity to transition along with Apple. It also didn't hurt that OS X was already OpenStep, an established, open-source and stable operating system.
Frankly, I'm disappointed with the constant delay in the release of Glasgow, having watched the release date constantly pushed back for months and months, only to see it developed for Windows XP, instead of the *Nix platofrms. It's like a slap to the face of what is Open Source.
I will most strongly advise the developer(s) of Cinepaint to prioritize the Linux versions higher.
People who need a professional-grade photo editor on Linux, be they amateurs or professionals, want a functional, capable Open Source tool that can be installed and used without any ties to a software company.
The problem with commercial products like Adobe Photoshop is not price as such. The big probleme is Adobe's forcing Product Activation on their customers. This "feature" means that the user is at the mercy of the permanent existence of an activation service and its availability in order to get access to and work with his/her own files.
Nobody should accept that, and this is a very weighty argument in favor of Open Source software and the indispensable user control of our own computers and the software we need.
Many, many people will be boundlessly thankful for a Linux version.
I think it's okay to focus primarily on the
application instead of the build system. Sooner or later someone will set up a Linux build system. As long as the code stays portable, I see no problems when the lead developer uses Windows.
I agree with this, and want to make it clear that my intention was not to criticize the developer as much as to encourage the starting of the Linux build as soon as at all possible.
Regarding Linux build systems, nobody in open source enjoys working on them. Autoconf and make are poor programming languages. I want a better nix build technology, but that means I face learning something new. Meanwhile, if somebody wants to create a traditional GNU build system for Glasgow by mastering autoconf help yourself!
Regarding Apple, they acquired Next in 1997. OS X (and the iPod coincidentally) didn't appear until 2001. During that time, many wondered if Apple would make it and why it was taking so long to bring OpenStep to the Mac.
Actually, it appeared before 2001 in the form of Rhapsody in 1999 and the public OS X Beta, as well as OS X Server in 2000. I am aware of the acquiring of NeXT in 1997, a decision made by Gil Amelio, which brought Steve Jobs back, which is why they were actually financially VERY stable when they made the move to X. He cleared away a lot of inventory which was costing the company more money than they'd ever hope to recoup... he essentially cut all the fat off and created a leaner operation. He brought them out of the red, so to speak :-)
I'm not certain as to why you mention the iPod... it has no bearing on the move to X, but, OK, maybe you just mentioned it to mention it. OR, maybe you brought it up as a point of making money... I'll reiterate: they were financially stable when they made the move, which is why they made it when they did. Yes,the iPod has been good for their profit margin, but that does not negate the fact that they were indeed stable when the move to X was made. As for why it took so long, remember, it was running on 68k and x86, and needed to be ported and optimized for PowerPC, and more importantly, a road map needed to be established, so it would have as little negative effect on the end user as possible.
It's a simple matter of smart business; such sudden changes which jar the customer-base aren't smart changes.
And Remember, people have ALWAYS made doomsday speculations over Apple. Until recently, there have always been rumours pertaining to their demise, especially accompanying major changes to the platform. Take them with a grain of salt.
Don't misunderstand me -I think cinepaint has great potential, and I like having 24-bit color over Gimp's 8-bit and PS's 16-bit, but it's almost completely crippled on X; creating anything other than a normal layer crashes it and I'm not so certain about the Aqua-native version, as no one I know has ever seen it actually work. It's a shame, because I like the interface a great deal, too. Compiling it in the terminal is a chore! It doesn't even recognise the dependencies if they're already installed (though that may have as much to do with OS X as anything).
And, while the majority of Open Source developers my dislike *Nix, the majority of Open Source users and home builders use some flavor of *Nix. Many of them will use WINE before they use Windows.
Hi Robin. The work on Glasgow is appreciated.
That said, when do you think "real work" will be feasible with it?
Richard
Robin is developing for Windows first because this is what's practical for him, if I've read him correctly.
Let me say this clearly: OpenSource is NOT the exclusive domain of Linux users. Believe it or not, all of the platform supremacy posturing misrepresents the openness and egalitarianism of the OS movement.
Windows users are not "the man": we're people trying to make a living, and we're tied to the platform because of previous investments or other practical considerations. It's the platform our clients run/our software runs on/we're more productive in.
And guess what: none of this makes either platform more or less "deserving" of free software, and if somebody doesn't deserve to be at the wrong end of these ridiculous platform wars, it's Robin. If anything, we should be truly grateful towards him instead of trying to pressure him.
HE OWES US NOTHING.
Got that?
CubOfJudahsLion stated:
"Let me say this clearly: OpenSource is NOT the exclusive domain of Linux users. Believe it or not, all of the platform supremacy posturing misrepresents the openness and egalitarianism of the OS movement."
Comment:
It was not entirely clear to whom the above message was addressed, but I would like to clarify some important things here.
My words were these:
"I will most strongly advise the developer(s) of Cinepaint to prioritize the Linux versions higher."
As should be easily seen, that statement was never directed to any person in particular. Robin has described his work with Cinepaint in sufficiently informative words to make us all understand that he does a most admirable job, and I believe no one has any reason to think that he owes us anything. However, if memory serves Robin has himself indicated the desirability that a Linux version is developed - but also that he himself may not be the one who completes that part of the project. Thus, my contribution was very far from a demand placed upon a particular person.
Further; it seems reasonable to assume that part of the reason why the development of GIMP has so far not resulted in decisions that could bring the program closer to being a professional-grade tool for serious image editing is the lack of involvement of and feedback from photographers. Feedback which encourages a certain development should not be constructed to mean inordinate demands placed upon people who have a work to to and a family to feed. On the contrary, it should be understood as a friendly call to improve a situation in need of change.
As for the statement about "platform supremacy posturing," I have to say that such impressions are mistaken. We should always strive to uphold a courteous tone, and therefore we ought not to see OS partisanship or fanaticism where no such thing exists. What I described, is a real situation: Those photographers who use recent Windows systems with or without Photoshop are forced to entrust their own pictures to the eternal availability and existence of the "activation" services on which the installation and use of these programs depend.
Activation-crippled software cannot be controlled by the user, but is dependent on a "permission" from a software company to be used. There is only one way to remedy that "disease," and that is to encourage software that functions independent from its manufacturer without any ties, time limits or other built-in restrictions that undermine user control and ultimately jeopardizes the safety and availability of our data.
This is a very weighty and above all rational argument in favor of Open Source software.
CubOfJudahsLion stated:
"Let me say this clearly: OpenSource is NOT the exclusive domain of Linux users. Believe it or not, all of the platform supremacy posturing misrepresents the openness and egalitarianism of the OS movement."
Comment:
It was not entirely clear to whom the above message was addressed, but I would like to clarify some important things here.
My words were these:
"I will most strongly advise the developer(s) of Cinepaint to prioritize the Linux versions higher."
As should be easily seen, that statement was never directed to any person in particular. Robin has described his work with Cinepaint in sufficiently informative words to make us all understand that he does a most admirable job, and I believe no one has any reason to think that he owes us anything. However, if memory serves Robin has himself indicated the desirability that a Linux version is developed - but also that he himself may not be the one who completes that part of the project. Thus, my contribution was very far from a demand placed upon a particular person.
Further; it seems reasonable to assume that part of the reason why the development of GIMP has so far not resulted in decisions that could bring the program closer to being a professional-grade tool for serious image editing is the lack of involvement of and feedback from photographers. Feedback which encourages a certain development should not be constructed to mean inordinate demands placed upon people who have a work to to and a family to feed. On the contrary, it should be understood as a friendly call to improve a situation in need of change.
As for the statement about "platform supremacy posturing," I have to say that such impressions are mistaken. We should always strive to uphold a courteous tone, and therefore we ought not to see OS partisanship or fanaticism where no such thing exists. What I described, is a real situation: Those photographers who use recent Windows systems with or without Photoshop are forced to entrust their own pictures to the permanent availability and existence of the "activation" services on which the installation and use of these programs depend. Activation-crippled software cannot be controlled by the user, but is dependent on a "permission" from a software company to be used.
There is only one way to remedy that "disease," and that is to encourage software that functions independent from its manufacturer without any ties, time limits or other built-in restrictions that undermine user control and ultimately jeopardizes the safety and availability of our data.
This is a very weighty and above all wholly rational argument in favor of Open Source software.
per inge:
Read antonio's comment and you'll see exactly what prompted my response. People sitting in tables where free lunch is served are in no position to make demands, but they can provide useful feedback so the cook knows if he's accomplishing what he set out to do.
Now, I find nothing in your first post to criticize. You're only telling the truth. However, your second post begins with the wrong assumption that I was addressing your first.
'As for the statement about "platform supremacy posturing," I have to say that such impressions are mistaken. We should always strive to uphold a courteous tone, and therefore we ought not to see OS partisanship or fanaticism where no such thing exists.'
My utmost respect for your show of equanimity. However, if you read antonio's first post, you'll see my point proven. Courtesy, in this case, is free to take a seat; in fact, it's entitled to a holiday as honesty and common sense take over.
'There is only one way to remedy that "disease," and that is to encourage software that functions independent from its manufacturer without any ties'.
You'll get no argument from me. Those ties are pure legal plutocracy. You own what you pay for: that's the way it's always been, that's the way it should be.
Thank you for all your hard work. I look forward to using the new version of cinepaint.
Cub,
did you read the ENTIRE post, or just the portions you felt were a good excuse for argument?
I was addressing the mistakes in Rob's commentary on the history of Apple, with regards to the development of OS X. Why? Because, quite plainly, it was incorrect. It had nothing to do with angst, nor personal attack.
As far as this "feeling of owing" you mention, I'll quote myself for a moment:
"Frankly, I'm disappointed with the constant delay in the release of Glasgow..."
I AM disappointed. It has nothing to do with any feeling of privilege, but the fact that there has been constant (and long) delay after posted dates and much hype.
I will definitely apologize for being so harsh, though. I sometimes forget there's not as much accounting for tone on the 'net, where you can't see a person or hear an actual voice, so nonverbal cues go out the window and I do tend to be blunt.
Apologies for that...
You believe yourself astute, eh? I did read your posting, and very carefully. To prove it, let's read the ENTIRE paragraph and see what you really said:
"Frankly, I'm disappointed with the constant delay in the release of Glasgow, having watched the release date constantly pushed back for months and months, ONLY TO SEE IT DEVELOPED FOR WINDOWS XP, INSTEAD OF THE *NIX PLATOFRMS (). IT'S LIKE A SLAP TO THE FACE OF WHAT IS OPEN SOURCE."
Ha ha! There are no two ways about this, you know, and it's too obvious for me to just let you weasel out of what you said. You're trying to bully Robin with the "shame" deal (of all things) but all you've managed is to insult non-*nix users and the Open Source movement, which is all ABOUT CHOICE and the democratization of software. Your pretense of advocacy is... very laughable!
I'm happy that Cinepaint is for Windows, but can nevertheless understand Linux-users' feelings concerning being without an equal option. (What about WINE?)
I also think that respectfully expressing one's negative feelings or disagreement about something is fair and reasonable, even if it means someone may dislike it. That's what openness and community is in part about.
I've been slowly trying to wean myself away from Windows and closed source apps for the past 5 years, so any open source program that might nudge me a little further in that direction seems worth it.
Richard
*Respectfully* being the operative word here.
"A line drawn in the sand is composed of a billion grains."
-- Richard MacIntyre
;)
Richard
Cub, I already apologized; there was no weaseling, and I've had more than enough of your crap. Why don't you quit being so damn over-sensitive?
I have EVERY right to hold and speak my opinion and I'm certain Robin is more than capable of speaking for himself. YOU don't have to like it! If he weren't, and he couldn't take a disagreeable opinion or two, this blog would likely not be here, as it actually leaves the door open to MUCH worse. If this much bothers you, I can only imagine how much the rest of the internet affects you (though, believe me, I won't waste any sleep doing so).
Grow up a little.
Well, looks like I hit a nerve. We don't like certain truths said unto us, do we? Well, I guess that's ok, since "you don't have to like it".
Antonio, you have most certainly not apologized for that daddy's-spoiled-kid tantrum ("CATER FOR MY COMPUTER OR YOU'RE INSULTING ALL OF OPEN SOURCE"). It's ironic that you should talk about maturity. If that first comment had resembled the second, there wouldn't be so much material that could be put right on your plate ("crap" --as you put with such marvelous eloquence--, of which you don't seem to have enough: if you really don't like the taste, you shouldn't cook more of it).
How unfortunate that your right to saying disagreeable things goes both ways, no? It turns out (listen to this!) I'm every bit as entitled to produce comments and opinions you dislike, and to use your own quotes to back them up. Now be a good sport and produce a few more of the latter, please?
I will say that producing a Windows-only version of Glasgow is a real kick to the balls. Windows users already have enough raster-based editors around to make them happy, Linux users don't. I guess I'll just have to hope the Gimp folks get their act together soon, as I have no plans on switching over to windows.
I beg to disagree. Programs that provide Cinepaint's functionality (HDR formats, multi-frame editing, flipbook, etc.) are practically non-existent, at least in the OpenSource world -- and this is true for both Windows and Linux.
Antonio, I very much doubt you'll ever read this, but:
Much of what you write about OS X 's history is wrong.
OpenStep was not an open-source operating system. It was the version of NextStep OS, which was not open source although it was based on BSD, ported to the intel plateform.
It was the plateform support was the "Open" part.
Also,
when people refer to Apple almost dropping the ball on OSs, they
mean their failed OS attempt, Copland and Gershwin and Pink.
After failing to make their own operating systems, they went out to buy one, BeOS and NextStep.
It took between 1994 and 1999 to get their acts together.
"Programs that provide Cinepaint's functionality (HDR formats, multi-frame editing, flipbook, etc.),
are practically non-existent, at least in the OpenSource world --
and this is true for both Windows and Linux."
100% agree.And to my point of view,
that is the main problem that people should be focused.
As for the so-called...*nix jealots,calm down,people...we live in a capitalistic world,
and the philosophy is pretty much summarized in this motto:
"Mess with the best,die like the rest".
So,like it or not,this is what Open Source software should be:the BEST.
Take for example Mencoder and FFMpeg:
they've become to be the best transcoding tools ever,and they're both cross-platform...
so,pretty much every other video encoding tool(either proprietary/commercial or crippleware),
say the famous Canopus Procoder,pretty much is obsolete these days...
But everyone has to start from somewhere,don't you think?
I work as an AfterEffects compositor,
do you think it's a coincidence that most high-end compositing apps,
have a compatibility layer for it's plug-ins?Why should someone re-invent the wheel?
Windows is DYING:Period.
What still keeps this OS alive is not it's customers/users,XP SP2/Vista 's internal changes,
the .NET Bloatworks,the Visual Studio 2005 version,along with all their bugs/exploits...
What still keeps Windows alive,is not even the Microsoft company itself.
It's the other monopolies that make this zombie still walk:
see Adobe,that also bought Flash...owns all graphics stuff,
then also see Autodesk,who recently bought Maya,owns all CAD/3d stuff.
You could even check the "upcoming" Ahead's monopoly,
that pretty much has/wants to take control of all AAC/MP4/CD/DVD authoring...
It might sound kind of...political,but my answer/motto is this:
"Reclaim their APPS!" ;-)
Build cross-platform software better than theirs:
it's the only way to get rid of the Windows zombie:
otherwise,it will still walk around for quite some time...
It's not the OS,that daily users care about,damn it...
it's the apps that make it a viable choice.
Is it so difficult for some "*nix" people to realize it?
Sure,I hate Windows,to be honest,I'm not even very fond of Linux either,
FreeBSD is the 100% perfect choice to my eyes and taste...
But hey...what am I gonna tell my boss?
Ok,Gimp and OpenOffice instead of Photoshop and MS Office...
but NO Avid,Digital Fusion,3ds max,AfterEffects here?Let's be set serious,people...
my guess,pretty much every post-production studio out there,
will just have to update to Vista,
at the same moment a "brand-new" version of this software comes available in the stores...
For those of you who would like a Linux (etc.) version, but lack the coding skills, you might want to consider hiring a coder to build a port. Glasgow is open source afterall.
Richard
".....we live in a capitalistic world,"
"...OpenSource is NOT the exclusive domain of Linux users..."
"People sitting in tables where free lunch is served are in no position to make demands..."
Statements like these prove the writer has no friggin idea as to what he/she is talking about. Just another troll looking for a pissing contest to get involved with.
1. We don't live in a capitalistic world, no matter where you live, you live in some version of socialism/communism, even here in the United States. So spare me your re-constructionist bull-****.
2. Wake up and smell the coffee Open Source IS the exclusive domain of *nix users. This is not to say, 'Open Source offering do not exist for Mac/Doze.' But everything about Open Source IS definitely Linux. Always has been always will be.
3. Free Lunch? Are you stupid? You assume to much doze-troll. I have bought and paid for Windows ME, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows XP, Mac 9, and OSX, I have also bought the entire Adobe CS2 suite, and about a thousand other software packages. Are you saying I am after a free lunch because I would like to see CinePaint developed for the Linux platform first? Adobe does this with Mac. Adobe is native to the MAC only! Even the documentation states this, so whats wrong with CinePaint doing the same thing. I know Mr. Rowe has his reasons for doing what he is doing. But frankly Cubs statements are uninformative, unimaginative, and fraught with political zealous and ridiculous idealism.
To quote Carlos Mencia;
"Der, Der, Der!"
"...Adobe does this with Mac. Adobe is native to the MAC only! Even the documentation states this, so whats wrong with CinePaint doing the same thing..."
So if photoshop is native to Mac then what's wrong with such an application being developed for windows? If Adobe likes Mac, then so be it, but if Robin wants to use windows then whats so wrong with that? Granted, I'm all for cross-platform apps but so long the program can be ported then the best platform is the the in which the programmer can work most efficiently. Isn't it?
Also,
"...We don't live in a capitalistic world, no matter where you live, you live in some version of socialism/communism, even here in the United States..."
Unless you take 'communism' to mean an incredibly pro-buiseness government then I can't really see how you take the United States to be "...some version of communism/socialism...".
I would suggest some reading material, the communist manifesto might be appropriate.
And cheers to robin for all of the work on Cinepaint! I can't wait untill its ready for real work!
"Der, der, der". I'm overwhelmed by your eloquence. There's a slightly amusing, rather blunt irony in having someone call you names and then argue that you are the troll...
Ahem. Dear Celt (and others like him): Linux advocacy is one thing, but neither Linux nor FOSS need this flame-throwing sort of "defense" -- it reeks of mindless zealotry. The Open-Source movement is better defended by intelligent discussion and sharing and offering it as the better alternative it is. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, if you get my drift. Ever heard of ReactOS? No? Check it out.
*Waits, tapping his foot on the floor*.
Now you see? Muhammad must go to the mountain. The community is, undoubtedly, flexible enough to recognize the existence of Windoze, share the FLOSS vision with them, and hopefully win them over. Hey, they're even trying to make an OS version!
Isn't it time that you realized what "Open" in "OpenSource" means?
So shriek and flame and call names. You're not helping anyone, most definitely not the cause of Open Source, but I do hope that people don't think you're representative of that fine community: debate-wise, your argument is so emotionally charged that I couldn't take it seriously if I tried. Do yourself a favor and try to post with a cool head next time.
Ojk I have been watching this thread for many months. All I see is fighting and nothing else. Does anyone know what is happening with the development of Cinepaint?
I hope that Robin does not give up on things based on all this grbage in this thread.
> I hope that Robin does not give up
> on things based on all this grbage
> in this thread.
NO WAY RAVIOLI HEAD ;)
Richard
1)"...Just another troll looking for a pissing contest to get involved with..."
...so,I'm a troll,
because I am obligated to work all day long under Windows with AfterEffects,
having my eyes to hurt,and getting all the pressure from my boss,
in order to produce crappy CAPITALISTIC "Trainspotting-alike", catchy-in-the-eye advertisement clips for clients...
2)2)"We don't live in a capitalistic world,no matter where you live,you live in some version of socialism/communism,even here in the United States.So spare me your re-constructionist bull-****"
...didn't knew what the word "re-constructionist" means,
so I googled for it...
well,it's seems to be a Jewish political/religious movement.
Now,I don't get this one...
what's your problem with the Jews?
For the record,
I'm half Greek/half Lebanese,
and as it is widely known,Lebanese probably don't have exactly the best neighborhood relationship with Israel...
But this goes WAY too much,
what are these non-sense crap you're talking about...
what's this,some weird kind of... Fascists Supporters of Linux Movement or something?
======================
...In any case,I am glad to see Robin a new version today,and even more,
to see more developers in the changelog...
thanks to all of you guys for spending your time,
and offering CinePaint to end-users,
we surely owe you a lot...
Still anyone there ? It was a long time since anything happened concerning the CinePaint project. Even the last comment on this blog is old!
Well, I've been popping in here since last year... Maybe Robin's too busy for the project...
"Robin Rowe hosts weekly filmmaker events at ScreenplayLab in Hollywood. He's an entertainment journalist and screenwriter-producer."
...Or, maybe there's a lot of work being done behind the scenes...
Perhaps it would be nice if Glasgow got forked. If we were all interested here and getting impatient enough, maybe we could all pitch in and either hire a coder or 3 and/or plug the project in forums with coders around the net. Or take some time to learn coding for Glasgow ourselves. What can one learn in a year. ;)
Richard
I don't really know anything about coding, what language would we have to learn? We might be better off going after Blender for 'cinepaint' abilities. Blender has been attracting attention in its newly revamped Video Sequence Editor and has long been popular for creating 3d effects in video.
Post a Comment
February 10-11, 2007.
Exhibits 10:15am to 5:30pm. Cost $10.
Conference cost is $60, but see below for half-price tickets.
SCALECinePaint and LinuxMovies.org will have a booth at the Fifth Annual Southern California Linux Expo. Come by and see me and other guests. I'll be answering questions about CinePaint, Glasgow and Linux in the motion picture industry.
Booth volunteers wanted. If you'd like to help us for a few hours on the show floor let me know!
Get half price conference tickets! Email
me for a special code to get into the conference for half price. When you write me please put 'CinePaint at SCALE' in the subject so I can't miss your email. I get a lot of email!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
There's been some discussion recently comparing CinePaint and GIMP/GEGL. I tend to avoid that topic because it's often old ground not worth repeating, but here are a few technical comments that could be helpful.
Well, since GIMP is still limited to only 8-bit images, I would claim that any improvements to GIMP over the years are essentially meaningless...unless one is interested in designing exclusively for the web.That's what I think, too. The point is that pro users demand higher image fidelity (16-bit and 32-bit channels) and such deep paint capability is hard to add to software later.
The problem is that GEGL was almost dead for a long time, and the code is still a good long way away from making it into GIMP.GEGL design leadership and their code architecture have changed many times over the years. In 2000 it was DAGs, there was a never-completed compiler called Gil, it took a turn toward the Java Image Library API (JIL), and now it's based on babl which is DAGs again. The GEGL image core is one thing, but how would any new deep paint GIMP core architecture graft into the legacy GIMP 8-bit GUI?
Building a flexible multiple-depth image core is hard and only the beginning. Even Photoshop still struggles with deep paint, that not all parts of that program can deal with their new deep paint core. Ordinary users won't care whether the underlying engine is DAGs, tiles, channels, scanlines, or whatever. The important question is how will GEGL-GIMP integration overcome the same challenges that Film Gimp overcame in 1999 in adapting GIMP to handle deep paint?
From a C coding standpoint (what GIMP uses), everywhere GIMP code touches a channel will need a switch-case statement added and a different code path for each supported depth. That sounds just like Film Gimp, a design that GIMP has dismissed with many negative comments. Using C++ in Glasgow means we can use virtual classes instead of switch-case. Will GIMP use switch-case just like Film Gimp? When will GIMP start work on a deep paint GUI?
Where could I start in comparing Glasgow and GEGL code architectures?CinePaint Glasgow img_img code:
ImgChannelNames.himg_img main.cppGIMP GEGL code:
gegl.hhello-world.cBeing dependent on volunteer developers, Open Source projects tend to be less capable than commercial endeavors, but the fact that Open Source has produced what it has already, namely Cinepaint, LittleCMS, Image/GraphicsMagick, and Netpbm, et al, is, in my opinion, nothing short of remarkable.We're not less capable, just very short of resources. What open source does with less is amazing.
Robin
--
CinePaint.org
2 Comments:
Open Source Projects which are great competitors for real world companies:
Blender 3D (also deals with floating point images):
www.blender.org
Inkscape, ...
Before reading this I was totally unaware of the topic. Thanks for Explaining in such a nice way. I found your website perfect for my needs. It contains wonderful and helpful posts. I have read most of them and got a lot from them.
Check Engine Light Fort Worth
Post a Comment
The POSIX-compatible Glasgow source code should build on Linux and Mac without trouble, but not before someone creates project build files for those platforms. The Glasgow code builds on Windows using a library called libunistd that provides POSIX Windows compatibity. Glasgow for WinXP is built using VC++ project files.
What Work is Needed to Build Glasgow on Linux Using autoconf?
The Glasgow autoconf files get outdated every time I make changes on the Windows side. For someone who is an expert in autoconf it may be no big deal, but that's not me. Linux build environment tools suck. Having wasted many frustrating hours on it in the past, don't expect me to help with autoconf. I don't have that kind of time to waste. If somebody else wants to take charge of supporting Glasgow autoconf, that's fine.
Choices in Linux build environments, in the order in which I would attempt:
cons
pmk
cmake
autoconf
I'm hoping someone else will pick up the Glasgow Linux build environment as a personal project, but I will get to it eventually if nobody else does. FYI, copies of cons and pmk sources exist in CinePaint CVS. No need to track down.
What About the Macintosh?
Who would like to create an Xcode project?
What's the Glasgow Code Layout?
The layout of Glasgow is that the app subdirectory builds to the executable. The other subdirectories build to static libs (that link with cinepaint app), except for subdirectories of the plug-ins folder that build to dynamic libs. The plug-ins link to the plug-ins lib, the utility lib, plus any relevant 3rd-party lib (e.g., TIFF). The 3rd party sources exist in CinePaint CVS. You don't need to download any external source code. To be neat, project files created should be in a separate subdirectory (like the VC++ project files in vcpp7 subdirectory).
What's Coming Next?
The img_img command-line tool with support for PPM, SGI, DPX and OpenEXR.
2 Comments:
Just to let you know:
cmake is used by KDE, and the KDE project has made very good experiences with it - even with communicating with the cmake developers.
So I guess if you need help with cmake you could even ask the KDE developers.
Glasgow Plans for Linux and Macintosh ?
Post a Comment
