Fwd: Thingiverse, et al.
65 views
Skip to first unread message
Bryan Bishop
Sep 20, 2012, 4:15:43 PM9/20/12
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
From: Cassandra Brockett <cbro...@ophiuchi.net>
Date: Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: Thingiverse, et al.
To: bay-are...@googlegroups.com
Again, I look at website and other license all the time for my job,
it's part of why I make the money I do.
I do not use Facebook due to it's licensing allowing them to
circumvent the legal protections offered by the area I am currently
living in, and in violation of the privacy laws in other regions.
Secondly, Google's license for it's source-code system
(code.google.com) does NOT grant them the rights to take your code and
claim it as their own, for other sections of Google's site, they have
such rights, but I do not use those services.
In terms of your second sentence, regarding the licensing listings...
if something is released under a Non-Commercial license, then it is
forbidden from selling the product, or incorporating it into a product
to sell to others. That's the whole reason for the non-commercial
attribution. If something is released under the GPLv2 (which has no
non-commercial restriction for example), then yes, your right,
HOWEVER, as a purchaser, or an interested party, I can force the
seller to provide me with the source materials. The GPLv3 is actually
worse, it taints all other licenses it comes into contact with,
thereby making them open-sourced also (at least, that's the stance the
EFF takes on it, and has sued over). Closed source locks out such
things, and if you had read the Prusa article, you would note he
contacted Makerbot requesting the source, and was denied. Now, it is
quite likely that the person he spoke to there did not in fact
understand that they had to provide the source documentation for the
open-sourced parts, but after his follow up attempts to get
clarification where rebutted he posted to his blog what happened.
To clarify for those who might wish to try to turn this into an
argument for/against open source, my original message was not meant to
start a flame war, or to have an argument over who believes what about
open source licensing (as everyone has it wrong, even me, until there
are proven legal cases the world over, we're just guessing at what the
licenses truly mean). My original message was specifically to ask if
we wanted to start our own site to host our own models (or other
data), in a manner in which we (the bay area reprap community)
control. If you want to post Thingiverse, where you have waived your
protections under CA law (where Makrbot can use the piece with or
against your posted license), go right ahead. I will not. Perhaps
others on this list also would prefer not to, hence the request to
find out who would like to do something like this.
Please do not argue with me over what you think the terms of any
websites you use or do not use have, or you think they have. I don't
actually care about that. What I care about is that my reading of the
license to post to Thingiverse is that if I posted something there,
Makerbot is free to take my design and claim it as their own, as I
told them they could due to their site license. As I object to that,
and the license has changed recently (It was not that a few months
back when I first started looking at the site), I want to know if
others in the area are interested in starting our own site to host
stuff. If enough of us got together to do such as thing, we could
wind up with out own "sourceforge" style site for maker parts. If you
are interested, please let me know, if you are not, or wish to argue
semantics about licensing, please don't bother trying to let me know,
I'm not here for an argument.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Bay Area RepRap" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bay-area-reprap/-/JD0Ma4Y8HtkJ.
To post to this group, send email to bay-are...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bay-area-repr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/bay-area-reprap?hl=en.
--
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
Date: Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: Thingiverse, et al.
To: bay-are...@googlegroups.com
Again, I look at website and other license all the time for my job,
it's part of why I make the money I do.
I do not use Facebook due to it's licensing allowing them to
circumvent the legal protections offered by the area I am currently
living in, and in violation of the privacy laws in other regions.
Secondly, Google's license for it's source-code system
(code.google.com) does NOT grant them the rights to take your code and
claim it as their own, for other sections of Google's site, they have
such rights, but I do not use those services.
In terms of your second sentence, regarding the licensing listings...
if something is released under a Non-Commercial license, then it is
forbidden from selling the product, or incorporating it into a product
to sell to others. That's the whole reason for the non-commercial
attribution. If something is released under the GPLv2 (which has no
non-commercial restriction for example), then yes, your right,
HOWEVER, as a purchaser, or an interested party, I can force the
seller to provide me with the source materials. The GPLv3 is actually
worse, it taints all other licenses it comes into contact with,
thereby making them open-sourced also (at least, that's the stance the
EFF takes on it, and has sued over). Closed source locks out such
things, and if you had read the Prusa article, you would note he
contacted Makerbot requesting the source, and was denied. Now, it is
quite likely that the person he spoke to there did not in fact
understand that they had to provide the source documentation for the
open-sourced parts, but after his follow up attempts to get
clarification where rebutted he posted to his blog what happened.
To clarify for those who might wish to try to turn this into an
argument for/against open source, my original message was not meant to
start a flame war, or to have an argument over who believes what about
open source licensing (as everyone has it wrong, even me, until there
are proven legal cases the world over, we're just guessing at what the
licenses truly mean). My original message was specifically to ask if
we wanted to start our own site to host our own models (or other
data), in a manner in which we (the bay area reprap community)
control. If you want to post Thingiverse, where you have waived your
protections under CA law (where Makrbot can use the piece with or
against your posted license), go right ahead. I will not. Perhaps
others on this list also would prefer not to, hence the request to
find out who would like to do something like this.
Please do not argue with me over what you think the terms of any
websites you use or do not use have, or you think they have. I don't
actually care about that. What I care about is that my reading of the
license to post to Thingiverse is that if I posted something there,
Makerbot is free to take my design and claim it as their own, as I
told them they could due to their site license. As I object to that,
and the license has changed recently (It was not that a few months
back when I first started looking at the site), I want to know if
others in the area are interested in starting our own site to host
stuff. If enough of us got together to do such as thing, we could
wind up with out own "sourceforge" style site for maker parts. If you
are interested, please let me know, if you are not, or wish to argue
semantics about licensing, please don't bother trying to let me know,
I'm not here for an argument.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Bay Area RepRap" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bay-area-reprap/-/JD0Ma4Y8HtkJ.
To post to this group, send email to bay-are...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
bay-area-repr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/bay-area-reprap?hl=en.
--
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
Bryan Bishop
Sep 20, 2012, 4:15:55 PM9/20/12
to Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
From: matthew bennett <norcal...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:13 PM
Did you guys notice Githubuverse? Not to discourage anyone; quite the contrary!
http://garyhodgson.com/reprap/2012/09/githubiverse-a-github-pages-template-for-3d-printing-projects/
-matthew-
Date: Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:13 PM
Did you guys notice Githubuverse? Not to discourage anyone; quite the contrary!
http://garyhodgson.com/reprap/2012/09/githubiverse-a-github-pages-template-for-3d-printing-projects/
-matthew-
Bryan Bishop
Sep 22, 2012, 12:06:10 AM9/22/12
to Ray Dillinger, Bryan Bishop, Open Manufacturing
From: Ray Dillinger <be...@sonic.net>
Date: Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:53 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 09/20/2012 04:04 PM, Cassandra Brockett wrote:
> I like the look, though unsure of searchability and access (github
> can be off putting to some) at this time. I didn't want to mention
> any specific options, though, more of a "hey, who likes the idea?",
> and figured we'd go from there, so thanks for shooting out an idea
> :)
Some time ago, I nabbed two domains,
"freehardwaremovement.org" and "freehardwaremovement.com"
intending to use them to develop a site that is more or less exactly
what you're talking about.
I haven't done it yet, though; I guess I'm a bit short of knowledge on
where to start, and I haven't learnt enough web programming and
database integration yet (though I've been meaning to) to do this site
well.
Help would certainly be appreciated. I can probably figure out how
to install WordPress and a Wiki System if I work at it, but a
repository of plans etc is beyond my capabilities at least until I
read a lot more man pages about databases and how to use them.
My main idea for the site was that it ought to be a repository of
plans and schematics that anybody can download and use to build
things, definitely including plans and schematics to make all the
tools you need to use all the other plans and schematics, and
specifically (but not to exclusion) focused on the use of
computer-controlled and
robotic tools.
Legally, I think plans and schematics more properly fall under copyright
law than anything else. But we don't have the situation with them that
you can make an obligation to distribute source contingent on the
distribution of an executable, because physical devices aren't
executables. I think it is reasonable, though, to make an obligation
to distribution of plans and schematics contingent on the sale
(probably not contingent merely on the distribution) of objects
constructed according to those plans and schematics.
A thought I've had is that if it is well-organized, it should be
possible to use some backward-chaining logic to automatically develop
"build plans." That is, given your current capabilities (including
tools you have and project budget) and the thing/s you want to build,
it should be possible to work out what you need to do. Starting with
building (or buying) the appropriate tools, or farming the work out to
other builders who can do it cheaper because they already have those
tools.
Another thought was that part of the work to be done is making the
various tools integrate well with each other and be part of a common
infrastructure that operates according to some standards. A repository
of compatible plans (plans for devices that work on the same protocols
and measurements and can be controlled by the same hardware, etc) can
be a "shop distribution" in the same sense that Linux has
distributions of compatible software that all uses the same OS
services and other
infrastructure. A change in infrastructure requires compatible
changes in a lot of different tooling if that tooling is to continue
to work together, and should be part of a coordinated revision
process, where we make a new "shop distribution."
I am not focused specifically on plastic-extrusion devices. They are
nice, they are useful, they are a good "root tool" for developing
robotics and other tools. But they are not always the appropriate
tool for the job. If someone's goal is to build X thousand identical
copies of some plastic widget per month, it is a far far better thing
for him or her to immediately set about building an injection molding
system or rotocaster, and hire a builder whose tools include a mill to
mill him the molds. (or, well, building the mill himself, if he wants
to own one).
Ultimately, we're aiming for that nerdgasm scene from the "Iron Man"
movie where Tony Stark finalizes the plans for his new armor, hits
the "build" command, and his shop goes to work on building it - with
all its integrated components, including parts handling and doing
final assembly, etc -- while he goes out to a party. "Estimated time
to completion, 22 hours and 37 minutes." He's got everything from
mills to circuit printers to pick-and-place systems to hammers and
screwdrivers under robotic control. And it's my contention that that
kind of complete automated shop is something that can be built, and
ought to be built, and ought to be usable to build others. It won't
be exactly like the movies (no plot-device power sources, and I
imagine most final assembly will be by hand for a long time), but
that's what we're aiming for eventually.
Bear
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQXTY+AAoJEAOzWkqOibfNZBEH/01qQ22zuztudfYHFhALXzGF
bmcVvsT+XLVn8Oz0jT7mTZinXkUjqkjO3VUPw5iTPVnzPaMHYJQWnza8qhmMXvrm
M+LdOH8nI1XEC9/OX4HTHJJm/zAkpeqBkC0Z14alxeFdIFrpsrTBzwe2H+5ZgPxa
tYQHtaLU+AL+QUtuuLoYyYJ4oUgDhXaT8zsmYB8U1cQEBCOu3gFQnOdmrR3FYF6c
i5ZgMiYcUZkIPhrf3WV9DDBfGqwJ/SAkMGoORTbZhyO398OjiuoZ/C7CIB+VHqIC
lvP6UoQD6ZhDG4a1Dy7huSOTypAPDrYtJDMz0uYT+ODXlyT9lgEN2pkO7pXirr8=
=5hR6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 09/20/2012 04:04 PM, Cassandra Brockett wrote:
> I like the look, though unsure of searchability and access (github
> can be off putting to some) at this time. I didn't want to mention
> any specific options, though, more of a "hey, who likes the idea?",
> and figured we'd go from there, so thanks for shooting out an idea
> :)
"freehardwaremovement.org" and "freehardwaremovement.com"
intending to use them to develop a site that is more or less exactly
what you're talking about.
I haven't done it yet, though; I guess I'm a bit short of knowledge on
where to start, and I haven't learnt enough web programming and
database integration yet (though I've been meaning to) to do this site
well.
Help would certainly be appreciated. I can probably figure out how
to install WordPress and a Wiki System if I work at it, but a
repository of plans etc is beyond my capabilities at least until I
read a lot more man pages about databases and how to use them.
My main idea for the site was that it ought to be a repository of
plans and schematics that anybody can download and use to build
things, definitely including plans and schematics to make all the
tools you need to use all the other plans and schematics, and
specifically (but not to exclusion) focused on the use of
computer-controlled and
robotic tools.
Legally, I think plans and schematics more properly fall under copyright
law than anything else. But we don't have the situation with them that
you can make an obligation to distribute source contingent on the
distribution of an executable, because physical devices aren't
executables. I think it is reasonable, though, to make an obligation
to distribution of plans and schematics contingent on the sale
(probably not contingent merely on the distribution) of objects
constructed according to those plans and schematics.
A thought I've had is that if it is well-organized, it should be
possible to use some backward-chaining logic to automatically develop
"build plans." That is, given your current capabilities (including
tools you have and project budget) and the thing/s you want to build,
it should be possible to work out what you need to do. Starting with
building (or buying) the appropriate tools, or farming the work out to
other builders who can do it cheaper because they already have those
tools.
Another thought was that part of the work to be done is making the
various tools integrate well with each other and be part of a common
infrastructure that operates according to some standards. A repository
of compatible plans (plans for devices that work on the same protocols
and measurements and can be controlled by the same hardware, etc) can
be a "shop distribution" in the same sense that Linux has
distributions of compatible software that all uses the same OS
services and other
infrastructure. A change in infrastructure requires compatible
changes in a lot of different tooling if that tooling is to continue
to work together, and should be part of a coordinated revision
process, where we make a new "shop distribution."
I am not focused specifically on plastic-extrusion devices. They are
nice, they are useful, they are a good "root tool" for developing
robotics and other tools. But they are not always the appropriate
tool for the job. If someone's goal is to build X thousand identical
copies of some plastic widget per month, it is a far far better thing
for him or her to immediately set about building an injection molding
system or rotocaster, and hire a builder whose tools include a mill to
mill him the molds. (or, well, building the mill himself, if he wants
to own one).
Ultimately, we're aiming for that nerdgasm scene from the "Iron Man"
movie where Tony Stark finalizes the plans for his new armor, hits
the "build" command, and his shop goes to work on building it - with
all its integrated components, including parts handling and doing
final assembly, etc -- while he goes out to a party. "Estimated time
to completion, 22 hours and 37 minutes." He's got everything from
mills to circuit printers to pick-and-place systems to hammers and
screwdrivers under robotic control. And it's my contention that that
kind of complete automated shop is something that can be built, and
ought to be built, and ought to be usable to build others. It won't
be exactly like the movies (no plot-device power sources, and I
imagine most final assembly will be by hand for a long time), but
that's what we're aiming for eventually.
Bear
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQXTY+AAoJEAOzWkqOibfNZBEH/01qQ22zuztudfYHFhALXzGF
bmcVvsT+XLVn8Oz0jT7mTZinXkUjqkjO3VUPw5iTPVnzPaMHYJQWnza8qhmMXvrm
M+LdOH8nI1XEC9/OX4HTHJJm/zAkpeqBkC0Z14alxeFdIFrpsrTBzwe2H+5ZgPxa
tYQHtaLU+AL+QUtuuLoYyYJ4oUgDhXaT8zsmYB8U1cQEBCOu3gFQnOdmrR3FYF6c
i5ZgMiYcUZkIPhrf3WV9DDBfGqwJ/SAkMGoORTbZhyO398OjiuoZ/C7CIB+VHqIC
lvP6UoQD6ZhDG4a1Dy7huSOTypAPDrYtJDMz0uYT+ODXlyT9lgEN2pkO7pXirr8=
=5hR6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bay Area RepRap" group.
To post to this group, send email to bay-are...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bay-area-repr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bay-area-reprap?hl=en.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bay-area-repr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bay-area-reprap?hl=en.
Bryan Bishop
Sep 22, 2012, 11:13:56 AM9/22/12
to bay-are...@googlegroups.com, Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 3:20 AM, Cassandra Brockett <cbro...@ophiuchi.net> wrote:
I highly recommend not using wordpress for thingiverse2. Don't do that.
new site with a wiki, content manager (aka wordpress type thing, maybe even wordpress *grin*), mailling list manager, database setup, et al, would probably only take about an hour...).
I highly recommend not using wordpress for thingiverse2. Don't do that.
Bryan Bishop
Sep 22, 2012, 8:45:17 PM9/22/12
to bay-are...@googlegroups.com, Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Ray Dillinger <be...@sonic.net> wrote:
Please mention a specific reason for your objection. I might agree
heartily with you, if only I knew what the problems were.
Are you a programmer? Let me know what level I need to explain this at.
Also, please recommend an open-source alternative that you consider
to be a better choice, and say why it's a better choice.
There is no open source thingiverse yet. Wordpress isn't a thingiverse. You would need to make your own. You're not going to get git integration in a wordpress plugin without a lot of additional php. But if you're going to be making that sort of investment, you might as well just setup a basic MVC web app anyway, both for future programmer's sanity in maintaining it and present development.
Nils Hitze
Sep 23, 2012, 2:18:46 AM9/23/12
to openmanu...@googlegroups.com
Build the scaffold, but it on GitHub, I'll make sure it has Programmers ^_^
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
To post to this group, send email to openmanu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufactur...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
Bryan Bishop
Sep 23, 2012, 1:19:06 PM9/23/12
to bay-are...@googlegroups.com, Open Manufacturing, Bryan Bishop, Ray Dillinger
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Ray Dillinger wrote:
> On 09/22/2012 05:45 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> done much "web." There are lots of other programming languages I'm
Okay. Wordpress is notorious in the web development community for its
security blunders. Additionally, the architecture doesn't promote good
application programming practices. People try to shoehorn it into each
situation even when it doesn't really make sense, especially through
the theme and plugin APIs that mix content, presentation, and business
logic.
> may eventually result in a software fork. But in the absence of a
> better alternative, I don't see a reason to not start with the
> available software off the shelf.
Are you judging "better" just by the sheer number of bloggers that use
wordpress, versus the <500 people who run git-backed hardware hosting
sites?
> 0) A channel for news, announcements, and project updates, with
> backchannels for discussion-of and feedback-to. This is the
> role I'd been considering WordPress a good fit for. Each
Having a place to post RSS isn't a big issue these days. If you were
to release a website with just this feature, it wouldn't have much of
anything to do with hardware.. just saying. Wordpress can definitely
do RSS, but so can a million other things. RSS isn't going to enable
more hardware, it's just a nice-to-have on a website, and it
definitely makes sense, but not as a central focus.
> 1) Mailing lists with webby archives, and a web-form that allows
I agree mailing lists are nice things.
> 2) Open Discussion Forums. For support and user discussion
What is the difference to a mailing list?
> 3) A wiki-ish repository of information. I imagine each project
How about just put the wiki in a repository, like all the other sane
version-controlled wikis? ikiwiki comes to mind, but github wiki pages
are also in a repository. Or, erm, at least, bitbucket's wikis are.
> control was more naturally (and more easily) tied to a wiki
> than to a discussion forum or announcement channel anyway,
> which is why I'm not too concerned about integrating WP with
> git. Wikis have their own revision control built-in, so
Most wikis are insane like that. I don't recommend mediawiki because
of it. For example, diyhpl.us/wiki is a git-backed wiki if you want to
play around with that.
> 4) Revision control -- git is certainly a lead contender but not
> the only contender.
Wordpress doesn't offer that.
> 5) Bug database -- needs to be integrated with source control,
> wiki, and mailing lists, but also have its own face. This is
> probably the most challenging part of the web design.
Why not use github issues? (Actually, a few years ago I would have
recommended bugseverywhere, except development stopped, and for some
reason nobody other than me cares about tracking issues inside your
version control repository.)
> The problem with that approach is "lock-in"; if you change a
> component, all the extant URLs that point at pages generated
> by that component no longer work, because the new component
> is unlikely to generate the same set of URLs. Sometimes,
That's not a problem because of server-side URL rewriting. Just make
sure you document the before/after URLs when you are making big
changes. But your users will hate you if they have to memorize a new
set of URLs or URL formats. (Google Groups, I'm looking at you.)
> I favor the straightforward and simple; "serial ID tags"
> for every chunk of content (or at least every URL target) on
> the whole site. Every single update to anything would get
> a unique serial number from a central counter, and these
I disagree with this approach strongly because it makes it harder for
me to memorize URLs.
> These we would use to build redirection tables. For
> every URL, we'd record the serial number of the document
> it points to. Then when a new component takes over some
> role, after all the "content migration" that doesn't respect
> any integration with other components, we can find the URLs
These are trivial issues solved by modern web frameworks. You
shouldn't be concerned with this _at all_.
> There's a QA problem with build plans and schematics
> that's familiar from cookbooks, but which we don't see with
> conventional computer software. Finding out whether a build
> plan or recipe actually works can't easily be automated.
I have some code in http://diyhpl.us/cgit/skdb or
https://github.com/kanzure/skdb in that direction, but I agree it
remains largely unsolved.
> You can't easily write a test suite, nor do automated
> nightly builds to see if something broke a dependency.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it anyway.
> On 09/22/2012 05:45 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Ray Dillinger wrote:
> >> Please mention a specific reason for your objection. I might
> >> agree heartily with you, if only I knew what the problems were.
>
> > Are you a programmer? Let me know what level I need to explain this
> > at.
>
> C and C++ and various LISPS and shell scripting languages, but haven't
> >> Please mention a specific reason for your objection. I might
> >> agree heartily with you, if only I knew what the problems were.
>
> > Are you a programmer? Let me know what level I need to explain this
> > at.
>
> done much "web." There are lots of other programming languages I'm
Okay. Wordpress is notorious in the web development community for its
security blunders. Additionally, the architecture doesn't promote good
application programming practices. People try to shoehorn it into each
situation even when it doesn't really make sense, especially through
the theme and plugin APIs that mix content, presentation, and business
logic.
> may eventually result in a software fork. But in the absence of a
> better alternative, I don't see a reason to not start with the
> available software off the shelf.
Are you judging "better" just by the sheer number of bloggers that use
wordpress, versus the <500 people who run git-backed hardware hosting
sites?
> 0) A channel for news, announcements, and project updates, with
> backchannels for discussion-of and feedback-to. This is the
> role I'd been considering WordPress a good fit for. Each
Having a place to post RSS isn't a big issue these days. If you were
to release a website with just this feature, it wouldn't have much of
anything to do with hardware.. just saying. Wordpress can definitely
do RSS, but so can a million other things. RSS isn't going to enable
more hardware, it's just a nice-to-have on a website, and it
definitely makes sense, but not as a central focus.
> 1) Mailing lists with webby archives, and a web-form that allows
I agree mailing lists are nice things.
> 2) Open Discussion Forums. For support and user discussion
What is the difference to a mailing list?
> 3) A wiki-ish repository of information. I imagine each project
How about just put the wiki in a repository, like all the other sane
version-controlled wikis? ikiwiki comes to mind, but github wiki pages
are also in a repository. Or, erm, at least, bitbucket's wikis are.
> control was more naturally (and more easily) tied to a wiki
> than to a discussion forum or announcement channel anyway,
> which is why I'm not too concerned about integrating WP with
> git. Wikis have their own revision control built-in, so
Most wikis are insane like that. I don't recommend mediawiki because
of it. For example, diyhpl.us/wiki is a git-backed wiki if you want to
play around with that.
> 4) Revision control -- git is certainly a lead contender but not
> the only contender.
Wordpress doesn't offer that.
> 5) Bug database -- needs to be integrated with source control,
> wiki, and mailing lists, but also have its own face. This is
> probably the most challenging part of the web design.
Why not use github issues? (Actually, a few years ago I would have
recommended bugseverywhere, except development stopped, and for some
reason nobody other than me cares about tracking issues inside your
version control repository.)
> The problem with that approach is "lock-in"; if you change a
> component, all the extant URLs that point at pages generated
> by that component no longer work, because the new component
> is unlikely to generate the same set of URLs. Sometimes,
That's not a problem because of server-side URL rewriting. Just make
sure you document the before/after URLs when you are making big
changes. But your users will hate you if they have to memorize a new
set of URLs or URL formats. (Google Groups, I'm looking at you.)
> I favor the straightforward and simple; "serial ID tags"
> for every chunk of content (or at least every URL target) on
> the whole site. Every single update to anything would get
> a unique serial number from a central counter, and these
I disagree with this approach strongly because it makes it harder for
me to memorize URLs.
> These we would use to build redirection tables. For
> every URL, we'd record the serial number of the document
> it points to. Then when a new component takes over some
> role, after all the "content migration" that doesn't respect
> any integration with other components, we can find the URLs
These are trivial issues solved by modern web frameworks. You
shouldn't be concerned with this _at all_.
> There's a QA problem with build plans and schematics
> that's familiar from cookbooks, but which we don't see with
> conventional computer software. Finding out whether a build
> plan or recipe actually works can't easily be automated.
I have some code in http://diyhpl.us/cgit/skdb or
https://github.com/kanzure/skdb in that direction, but I agree it
remains largely unsolved.
> You can't easily write a test suite, nor do automated
> nightly builds to see if something broke a dependency.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it anyway.
James Barkley
Sep 25, 2012, 5:08:28 AM9/25/12
to openmanu...@googlegroups.com, Bryan Bishop
There are a number of alternatives to thingiverse:
- https://opendesignengine.net/ with kickstarter backign
- CERN OHR, http://www.ohwr.org/projects/cernohl/wiki
- GrabCAD, http://grabcad.com/
- http://code.nasa.gov/project/, "We hope to lower the barriers to building open technology in partnership with the public,"
- https://opendesignengine.net/ with kickstarter backign
- CERN OHR, http://www.ohwr.org/projects/cernohl/wiki
- GrabCAD, http://grabcad.com/
- http://code.nasa.gov/project/, "We hope to lower the barriers to building open technology in partnership with the public,"
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
To post to this group, send email to openmanu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to openmanufactur...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages