Open Source Article... Includes Demos?
category: general [glöplog]
I'm not saying that it's lame. It's just... week. YOu can ask for someone's code but you shouldn't use it unless it's something really hard to do right.
When coding my 4kb softsynth I looked at A LOT OF SOURCES and I didn't copy a single line. I just looked at how they worked.
When coding my 4kb softsynth I looked at A LOT OF SOURCES and I didn't copy a single line. I just looked at how they worked.
Yeah hum, and since everybody must reimplement the wheel, all demos look basically the same.
[quote]Yeah hum, and since everybody must reimplement the wheel, all demos look basically the same.[\quote]
No, that's because the graphics API on computers of today (I am talking about pc's) is designed for making 3d-games. It is fully possible to make interesting effects, but the examples of such are sparse.
No, that's because the graphics API on computers of today (I am talking about pc's) is designed for making 3d-games. It is fully possible to make interesting effects, but the examples of such are sparse.
I don't believe one bit of what you just said. Especially since shaders are becomming widespread. It could have been true in the 3dfx days, though.
Quote:
Yeah hum, and since everybody must reimplement the wheel, all demos look basically the same.
From the moment you have all the basic librarys (math, data management, file handling) it's pretty much up to you. If you keep reinventing wheels that's because there's nothing better than wheels.
You're rather inconsistent when bringing that up, because quite frankly, first you say that it's for competition's sake that we're hiding sources, then you mention in another response the precise things that one does not really have to compete on.
The common, basic management stuff.
The common, basic management stuff.
Quote:
don't believe one bit of what you just said.
Well, we might both be wrong/right or any combination since, I admit, my statement is not actually contradicting yours. However, it is clear that the arhitecture has a strong influence on the output. It takes an effort to break the influence.
Quote:
Especially since shaders are becomming widespread.
Sure! But generally shaders are used in a very uninteresting way. I find it much more interesting to watch this than that. There is no doubt which production is closest to a siggraph-style presentation and which has the most scene spirit. But then again, personal opinions etc..
What about: http://pouet.net/prod.php?which=26663..
This idea that architecture dictates a certain outlook is something that I feel strongly about. In the sense that I both seek out to use architectures in their most "natural" ways, and at the same time am interested in doing output foreign to the culture that saw them grow.
In a sense the opensource vs homegrown idea is also similar to that of using an architecture. Either we grow on our very own personal petri dish, or in the opensource forest. I guess we shine quite a bit each on our very own transparent, clinical plate. Or maybe it's just we are affraid of the shadows from the forest?
This idea that architecture dictates a certain outlook is something that I feel strongly about. In the sense that I both seek out to use architectures in their most "natural" ways, and at the same time am interested in doing output foreign to the culture that saw them grow.
In a sense the opensource vs homegrown idea is also similar to that of using an architecture. Either we grow on our very own personal petri dish, or in the opensource forest. I guess we shine quite a bit each on our very own transparent, clinical plate. Or maybe it's just we are affraid of the shadows from the forest?
Is it me, or is the opensource community too much into 'marketing'?
Or well, to me it feels like trolling actually.
Everywhere I go, there's this talk of opensource and blahblah... Feels more like politics or even religion than anything to do with actual code and technology.
Please, just go away. You don't belong here.
Or well, to me it feels like trolling actually.
Everywhere I go, there's this talk of opensource and blahblah... Feels more like politics or even religion than anything to do with actual code and technology.
Please, just go away. You don't belong here.
Now, you go first!
Open source demoscene? No thanks. Its only use would be to port stuff to another platforms If I want that, I'll just hand the code to some guy willing to do it and that's it.
It's not like the web was not already full of examples and tutorials.
Let's try to do DEMOnstrations of our own code and own ideas already, not the neighbor's.
It's not like the web was not already full of examples and tutorials.
Let's try to do DEMOnstrations of our own code and own ideas already, not the neighbor's.
let's spread the demos with their source only and force to user to CONFIGURE, MAKE ALL, MAKE INSTALL. everyone has to use gcc though.
maybe it's time for an opensource opensource-filter
Keops, at some point in life one also has to admit we aren't the amazing little prince our parents made great plans for. That our uniqueness is not our only worth.
So, demonstration of our own execution skills. It's all coming down to that I guess. And free distribution not because we like to share things with others, or some altruistic idea, but because it's how one can increase the effectiveness of the demonstration.
If our only concept of originality is that we somehow came up with something on our own, what we end up with is a perverted sort of originality. To show how broken as a concept it is: 10 people can perfectly come up with the same idea on their own and at the same time (and they will)
If our idea of sharing is focused on benefiting from the transaction, through fame, then it's an empty vessel.
So, demonstration of our own execution skills. It's all coming down to that I guess. And free distribution not because we like to share things with others, or some altruistic idea, but because it's how one can increase the effectiveness of the demonstration.
If our only concept of originality is that we somehow came up with something on our own, what we end up with is a perverted sort of originality. To show how broken as a concept it is: 10 people can perfectly come up with the same idea on their own and at the same time (and they will)
If our idea of sharing is focused on benefiting from the transaction, through fame, then it's an empty vessel.
the article is a bit like "there are hackers in the demoscene who invented a fileformat for music therefore the opensource community imust be great!" or i didnt get it at all
yes precisely, the article made no sense whatsoever.
The source should only be released as open source if it is funny.. Like void hammertime( bool stop );) ... Look the semi-colon is both the terminating character && the start of the smiley.. We should have more coop demos though.. You can strike twice as hard by combining your forces and fan-bases :) But no internet-licensed-philosophy coops though. The source should only be open at close range.. Like one room at a time... yes
just make your demos with adobe flash animations!""!123121
Quote:
Another difference is that the groups of today tend to code in C/C++. Hardcore (old school) demo coders tend to be detractors of these languages and say that a demo can only truly be called a 'demo' if it is written in Assembly and it talks to the hardware directly.
Lol. The article is written by a totatly clueless guy! I bet the guy hasn't watched more than 5 demos!
Anyone trying to explain the "history of the scene" to the general public obviously missed the point of it all.
Besides, all these articles say the exact same things. If you've read one you've read them all. And you still don't have a clue what it's all about.
Besides, all these articles say the exact same things. If you've read one you've read them all. And you still don't have a clue what it's all about.
Let's make funny open source code to obfuscate them all!
Loaderror::U.CantTouch(this);
Loaderror::U.CantTouch(this);
The problem the scene has with OSS is exactly what Scali, and others, said.
But, that's just what you're choosing to see. There is lots of people in the open source 'community', and the loudest ones are the people with ideals and all that bollocks.
But that isn't everyone. Look at Linus - one of the most prominent OSS coders - and he mostly doesn't give a shit, he just wants to write code.
The GPL tends to introduce a lot of religion. Solution to that is simple: ignore it. The BSD licence for example, is a lot closer to scene spirit - do whatever the fuck you want with my code, just make sure you credit me.
I think there is benefits and disadvantages to an OSS demoscene, but for the most part i don't really think it'd make any difference. Sceners already spread knowledge through discussion and articles, so that part doesn't really help... and coder spirit often means someone wants to write something themselves anyway.
But i think the scene should stop dismissing OSS as 'lame'. Which was my point above - there is lots of people and things out there, different approaches.
Basic tools and libraries benefit from being open source, stuff that isn't cutting edge. Sound systems for teams who don't have a sound coder, small graphics libs like PTC, etc...
Summary: OSS has its place in the scene, and sceners need to change their closed-minded opinion of OSS, but the scene itself doesn't really need to go OSS.
But, that's just what you're choosing to see. There is lots of people in the open source 'community', and the loudest ones are the people with ideals and all that bollocks.
But that isn't everyone. Look at Linus - one of the most prominent OSS coders - and he mostly doesn't give a shit, he just wants to write code.
The GPL tends to introduce a lot of religion. Solution to that is simple: ignore it. The BSD licence for example, is a lot closer to scene spirit - do whatever the fuck you want with my code, just make sure you credit me.
I think there is benefits and disadvantages to an OSS demoscene, but for the most part i don't really think it'd make any difference. Sceners already spread knowledge through discussion and articles, so that part doesn't really help... and coder spirit often means someone wants to write something themselves anyway.
But i think the scene should stop dismissing OSS as 'lame'. Which was my point above - there is lots of people and things out there, different approaches.
Basic tools and libraries benefit from being open source, stuff that isn't cutting edge. Sound systems for teams who don't have a sound coder, small graphics libs like PTC, etc...
Summary: OSS has its place in the scene, and sceners need to change their closed-minded opinion of OSS, but the scene itself doesn't really need to go OSS.
Quote:
10 people can perfectly come up with the same idea on their own and at the same time (and they will)
Actually, this is exactly why I try to work out everything by myself.
If it turns out that I managed to come up with a similar solution as some wellknown programmers, then it proves to me that my problemsolving skills are approaching theirs in that particular area.
It's how I develop myself as a... developer.
I gain experience by this. Somehow I don't think anyone will ever become a good coder if he just copies other people's stuff most of the time.
In a way it's like a crossword puzzle or something like that. We all know the solution is already known, and lots of others have also done the same puzzle... but by doing it yourself, you exercise your mind, and you have fun doing it.
It seems to me that demoscene innovation is not as much about inventing ways to do things as it is about inventing things to do. Some group come up with an amazing, new demo effect. Everybody go "Wow! How did they do that?". But two years later, everybody is doing the same thing. Not because they copied the source or was told how to do it. Simply because knowing that something can be done is a large step towards finding the solution.
Example: Some years ago, I spent a lot of time trying to come up with a c2p merge operation running in less than 7 cycles, but without any luck. Then, all it took was for Jamie/Skarla to tell me that it was possible to do it in 6 cycles. Half an hour later, I had found the solution.
The true innovators are the ones who are the first to do things. And for that, open source or not won't make the slightest bit of difference.
Example: Some years ago, I spent a lot of time trying to come up with a c2p merge operation running in less than 7 cycles, but without any luck. Then, all it took was for Jamie/Skarla to tell me that it was possible to do it in 6 cycles. Half an hour later, I had found the solution.
The true innovators are the ones who are the first to do things. And for that, open source or not won't make the slightest bit of difference.
releasing source code to demos should be optional and should be seen as a nice guesture only, people will not give the shit about it anyway.... who the fuck has the time to read source? .. and if you're not talented there's no way you will pull it off w/o being caught anyway... and if you're talented you will not read it.... but still, some small things in there might be good for newbies... but in this 3d craze the demos are not in the code no more... maybe the shaders...
