Intreasting
this would suggest that we make a command line utility that say read
in axial maps/DXFs GIS what ever and produced tables of numbers that
could be re-attached. Then if someone wants to play with the
algorithms they can play but in a way that only other experts could
re-use.
The user interfaced based software would then be separate based on
the 'core' computations and the average architect/student/researher
who wants to try out space syntax can down load the software and then
operate in confidence.
interesting model of development/distrbutioin and one we might want
to consider.
sheep
On 26 Jun 2007, at 10:28, Jorge Gil wrote:
> We can look at the model of Computer Fluid Dynamics (CFD), another
> analytical and simulation based scientific field. Many CFD codes are
> available and open source while commercial CFD applications are
> extremely expensive.
>
> The CFD codes are simply different implementations of different
> algorithms developed through academic research and supported by papers
> explaining and demonstrating the results. Anyone is free to adopt and
> adapt these codes for whatever purpose as the codes by themselves
> don't
> make up a software. Most of these are libraries for open source
> platforms favoured by academics written in C, C++ or Fortran, with a
> simple command line interface, restricted in terms of inputs/
> outputs and
> installation is elaborate.
> In recent years some open source application projects have been
> started
> and we can look how they are doing. But some are not live yet after
> several years or have stopped activity...
>
> The commercial CFD applications add an enormous range of features and
> functionality that is of no interest for researchers to develop,
> but is
> essential for users who want to apply the CFD analysis to their
> projects. These developments make the bulk of the software development
> and aren't open source as they are "accessory" to the science itself.
> We're talking about importing and exporting a variety of file formats,
> displaying and editing the base models, displaying results in richly
> visual and interactive ways, providing technical support, training and
> documentation.
> Furthermore, because we're dealing with analytical and simulation
> software, the providers expect a certain level of expertise and
> understanding of the science by end users, and training using the
> software is mandatory. As Alan mentions, the results of these
> applications may not be immediately obvious and the preparation of the
> models is extremely delicate. Just because the user doesn't understand
> the results it doesn't mean the calculations are wrong, and if the
> user
> blindly accepts the results as correct it can have serious
> consequences
> of which the software developers don't want to be liable for.
>
>
> Jorge
>
>
> _________________
>
> Jorge Gil
> Associate, Research & Development
>
> SPACE SYNTAX
>
> D +44 (0) 20 7422 7611
>
> [log in to unmask]
> www.spacesyntax.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Penn
> Sent: 26 June 2007 09:31
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Syntax2D Licensing
>
>>
>> As I understand it, as a user of open source software (such as
>> Firefox
>
>> and OpenOffice), this is not a problem because there is version
>> control and measures are taken to ensure to code does not "fork" into
>> different and potentially incompatible versions.
>>
>> --
>> Anzir Boodoo
>
> I think that this is the point. To maintain consistency and ease of
> use
> of the user-interface as well as to maintain the validity of the code
> requires investment of time and effort. Commercial organisations put
> this investment in because by making use of a large number of unpaid
> enthusiasts they get benefit of the occasional good idea and
> innovation.
> I suspect that the lion's share of hacker code is just thrown away. In
> addition they take advantage of a kind of 'ideological' brand - the
> open
> source movement - which is a powerful loyalty marketing device and
> against which their most powerful competition (eg. Microsoft) cannot
> compete.
>
> The point is that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
>
> Now this is fine for a web-browser, or a wordprocessor, or even for a
> GIS.
> These are applications which work or don't work in a very obvious
> way. I
> type a weblink into Firefox and either I get to the webpage and it
> displays, or I don't. The mess the hacker makes of the code will be
> pretty obvious if it matters. But take Sheep's example of analytic
> software. Here the whole point of opening up the source is to allow
> people to try out entirely new things where by definition one doesn't
> know what a 'correct' result will look like. Certainly the individual
> with the new idea might, but if they get it wrong would it be possible
> for a centralised 'version control' vetting group to know? I
> suspect not
> without a serious layer of meta data associated with code stating what
> the intention was in very precise terms, and then a large
> investment of
> time and effort on the part of that group to validate the code and - a
> point I have made before - the empirical usefulness of the idea itself
> in helping to explain anything about the way the world works.
>
> Taken all in all, I wonder whether the open source model works for
> this
> kind of analytic software development - there must be examples from
> other fields of science. Does anyone know of them?
>
> Alan
|