This is an advantage of the (real, meaning free software) open source.
It enables the contributors to have some degree of control over the
future of the host application, even taking it out and create a new
subproject based on it.
Unfortunately for us, most of the current space syntax developers have
a huge legacy to take in account. As Alan pointed out, there is no
such thing of free lunch.
It is certainly pointless for Space Syntax Limited or UCL, to invest
vast sums of money (or Alaisdair time :) ) just to port their code to
an good open source platform. Open code of a plugin for an expensive
commercial application such as MapInfo is not a good start.
Transforming Depthmap in open source means keeping Alaisdair busy for
the next two years...
I guess the final solution must start from scratch.
As an incentive for the future adventurers: "best beats first".
Best Regards,
Lucas
On 26/06/07, S. N.C. Dalton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Yes I agree there is a certain amount of logic to having the
> untouchable user interface but with the new measures as plug ins. It
> is the logical extension of the CFD experience.
>
> It is a very good solution but.
>
> 1 - new programers have real problems making plugins
> 2 - Some times it takes a change in the user interface to make new
> measures work. For example take something in the later versions of
> webmapAthome the ablity to introduce a new type of visibility link.
> With visibility you add in the links were you can see a connection
> but not walk. For example you can do an atrium or a half height
> partition or model pedestrian barriers. To make this work in webmap I
> had to add both new user interface elements and new representations
> ( the layered network) and importantly more user interface elements.
> Plugins rely on the host developers having all possible user
> interfaces sorted out ( notice that there is a new version of firefox
> in the work ).
> 3 - It works on a PC ( my primary reason for not using it )
> 4 - Host versions, Spatailst had this problem it was based on
> microstation ( logical choice for architects you might think - why
> does everyone go for GIS instead). The problem was that the host
> application evolved forward in versions and but the the host plug-in
> could not be maintained. Eventually the plug-in became left in the
> water. ( new version of Spatialist sounds very cool by the way how
> was it made)
>
> With a fully open source version people do get to make sure that the
> code can always be revised and made to work again.
>
> all food for thought, lets see how syntax2D works.
>
> by the way I count 54 open source licences which ones would be the
> best for an open source application ?
>
> sheep
>
>
> On 26 Jun 2007, at 11:46, Alasdair Turner wrote:
>
> > I didn't want to mention this, because I don't want to oversell
> > Depthmap, but Depthmap does have the facility to add plug-in
> > algorithms (in C, C++, and I believe Visual Basic and Java through
> > the DLL interface). These, if the developer wants, can be open
> > source. This allows the developer to concentrate on the algorithm,
> > while having easy access to the graphs and visual display.
> >
> > This is very similar to the Firefox example: where developers write
> > plug-ins (e.g., AdBlock, dictionaries or other add-on
> > functionality), and the core is fairly stable -- I suspect because,
> > as ever, it is easier to start from scratch than to understand
> > someone else's code, so developers tend to work on the small add-on
> > project, leaving the main project to those that know it well.
> >
> >
> > S. N.C. Dalton wrote:
> >> 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
>
--
Lucas Figueiredo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucasfigueiredo/
Mindwalk
http://www.mindwalk.com.br
|