Go to bottom

Open source cooperative demoscene

category: general [glöplog]
i also think we should start putting price trags on our demos.
added on the 2003-01-27 02:18:29 by _ _
Universal standards are fine for OS'es or API's, but infinite variety is what keeps the demoscene interesting.

cool, so i can take scoopex logo from your library, some ten-times-used-before muzik, bunch of textures created by someone i dont know, maybe some more of better looking gfx, code and stuff - aye, i gotta demo ready with a shared knowledge

added on the 2003-01-27 03:22:41 by raver raver
"You've obviously haven't understood some of the fundamental ideas behind human knowledge sharing.
Open Source has taken its ideas from the disciplines of science (you know...? math, physics and so on... ?)
The basic idea is here is that instead of everyone developing his or her incomplete error-prone ideas to themselves,
they can share those ideas with the rest of the world"

I think you misunderstand one thing here.
Knowledge and sourcecode are not the same.
You can spread knowledge without spreading sourcecode. And you can use sourcecode without knowledge.

I am all for writing tutorials about effects and things, but that's already being done.
I don't mind example code either... But why do you have to share complete working programs?
First of all, it's NOT knowledge...
Usually sourcecode is a lot harder to understand than a tutorial....
Secondly, you don't NEED the knowledge to use it.
You can just use the sourcecode without even understanding how it works.

To conclude, I think the "sharing knowledge"-argument is complete and utter bullshit, trying to cover up some freeloading lamers that think they're making the world a better place.

As for portability... According to http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist/zeitgeist-dec02.html, 92% of all google-users use Windows.
That's pretty much all PCs... Let's just ignore that 1% of linux users, it's their choice that they don't use Windows, so it's their choice that they can't watch Windows demos (lack of Direct3D makes it quite hard to port Windows demos to linux anyway. Linux is not exactly the ideal demo-OS).

As for other platforms... it doesn't make sense at all to port an Amiga-demo to PC... The world's best Amiga demo will make a really poor PC-demo... Different platforms have different standards... As for the other way around... It's virtually impossible to port a modern PC-demo to Amiga, because you don't have the 3d hardware, processing power, and memory requirements.
And let's not even start about C64 (and let's not consider Second Reality a port... they used 0 original sourcecode... Hey apparently you don't even NEED sourcecode?).
Besides, there's emulators anyway, which work quite well.

Anyone have any decent arguments? I'm getting tired of hearing the same bullshit arguments about opensource/linux/etc.
added on the 2003-01-27 09:18:45 by Scali Scali
92% are using ms windows today. But windows will not be around forever. 100% of the PC demo scene used MS Dos before 1995, most of these demos don't run on current hardware. I'm not convinced there will ever be PC emulator good enough to run those old DOS demos - or current win32 demos when they get old in a few years time.

I'm not advocating open source to port todays demos from win32 to linux. I'm advocating open source to port demos from X years ago to whatever platform the demoscene is using in X years time.

Scali's argument that different platforms have different standards is party true. Many good amiga demos probably would make bad PC demos - but IMO this is not true for all amiga demos. And besides, some platforms are similar enough - e.g. many 320x240 demos from the DOS days would look great on an iPaq. An iPaq is too slow to emulate an x86 even if such an emu existed, but if I had the source (and an iPaq ;) I could port some great demos to those PocketPC 2002 devices.
added on the 2003-01-27 11:27:54 by sang-soo sang-soo
demoscene = competition (it's like a sport by team)

you trainning with your team, but never gives the strategy to the others teams.

if you share your art, you'll have no motivations, it's like communism, you will stay at the same point for years.
what is the interest to do the 'best' if the 'good' is enough ?

it can be interesting to share the skills, the technics, but we are not a school, ask your friends for that, and you'll make a group, a team. - return to the start :)
I dislike the idea fo "open code". Imagine someone releases the source to some boring effect. You have the same effect in you're next demo. You have written it by youreself and the code looks completely different... From now on all the world call you a fucking ripper... this happend to me. Or you have watched the effect, and try to recode it... same thing.

As a sidenote: Thanks to Spinning Kids, who are releasing überboring and ugly written code and then calling people rippers... btw, NOBODY wants to use such ugly written shit. But I bet, after seeing some framebuffer copy or some speherical harmonics in a demo, RIO/SK is running around, whinig about people ripping his code without greets... this sucks.


Btw, I think RIO's spherical harmonics code is ripped from Paul Bourke... :)

flame war flame war flame war flame war flame war flame war flame war flame war flame war flame war
added on the 2003-01-27 12:22:34 by EvilOne EvilOne
warp: i'll give you several megz of assembly sources of demos from before '95, and try to hold my breath while you convert it to strongarm... (mac, amiga, c64 whatever...) Yep, old dos effects look cool at 320x240 i've had great plans for MIPS, until my 'peia died. :)

Anyways who cares about code sharing? Tutorials are what we need. And articles - like kb's on softsynths. And maybe forums where we can discuss the tutorials (good ole flamewar style :) )

If you want to create a demo without too much coding, use demopaya.
If you want to create pictures of naked women without being able to draw use your scanner/digital camera.
If you want to use a good music without even being able to write c#4 into a tracker, dl a not so well known MP3.

What will make your prod rule or suck is the feeling. And that can not be downloaded.
added on the 2003-01-27 12:27:39 by FooLman FooLman
well now.. i'm not against releasing sources here and there. it can be pretty useful. i have a few negative thoughts about the open-source concept, but let's not discuss those (let's just remember that i'm not a fucking unix long-haired hippie ;-)).

i think that "the demoscene" (oh god i hate that word) is already pretty co-operative on the coding front. lots of coders share information and code with eachother. it's not hard to obtain help or code at all, if you just try. most stuff can be picked off the web, and getting to know a few experienced coders isn't that much of a deal too.

but these ideas of "one big co-operative web-based sourcecode deposit" suck. and why? because they can *NEVER EVER* be realized. companies already are having a hard time trying to get well-paid coders work together nicely (depending on the size of the group, this might even require extra well-paid team leaders and/or managers, who do nothing but discussing and making up compromises all day, just for the sake of reducing stalls in the team's efficiency.).

how the hell would you expect that a bunch of democoders, who all have different thoughts and practices, are going to work together in a way that makes sense? i wouldn't want some idiot supplying bugs or stalls in some implementation i submitted yesterday. just as someone else wouldn't want me to reformat his freshly submitted implementation just because i think the notation is wrong or the approach should be marginally different. and who will direct a project in such a way that it won't just end up in void.. going nowhere.

we're better off this way. co-operating in small teams consisting of people who believe in eachothers competence and who get along nicely. and besides that, most coders experience others asking them for information as an ego-boost anyway, so i'm not afraid that "the newbies would be let out on the super-duper-hip techniques".
added on the 2003-01-27 12:42:28 by superplek superplek
DOS demos are gone... Some stuff can't be ported anyway (think nasty VGA hacks), other stuff is hard to port, because the sources are mostly ASM, as FooLman already pointed out.
I think it's easier/better to make movies out of these demos, like the DemoDVD project.

The stuff that can be ported, and will be ported, is welcome ofcourse. But I don't see why the sourcecode has to be released for that. Either the authors themselves will port them, or they can give the sources to a team that ports them. They don't have to release the sources to the world (if you want to make a port, mail the authors, asking for the sourcecode, and be surprised).
It's not a REQUIREMENT, and a lot of people want to make it sound that way.

As for porting demos to iPaq or such... Why?
What difference does it make whether I watch Second Reality on a 486 or an iPaq?
And again, why do you need the sourcecode? Any decent democoder these days should master all effects from Second Reality, and generally all 486-demos, at the least. If not, work on it, develop some skills!
So you can easily write it from scratch... Or even better: write a NEW demo for iPaq, be creative!
And again, 486 demos are mostly ASM, so they can't be ported anyway, and on an iPaq you probably don't have the resources to go non-ASM either, so sourcecode is a moot point.
added on the 2003-01-27 12:46:23 by Scali Scali
"yeah, endlessly customizable, usable, stable, high quality software that is absolutely free really fucking sucks. i much prefer high priced software from major corporations that has about 1% of the functionality and customizability of the free alternatives, plus half the stability."

uh, why should opesource software be more usable, stable and high quality? "because all people can contribute with improvements" sorry man, 99% of the opesource-coders out there write quite horrible code. Besides, I believe that a big, professional, development-team does a better job than those 13 year old kiddies / 50 year old bearded COBOL-coders who usally write opensource software. I like the idea of having support for my hardware/software. As a user of commerceal software, I can call support if something doesn't work like it's supposed to. And that way I get help. I am glad I don't need to hack around the sources, spending the little sparetime I have left after studying etc. opensource sucks. (although some opensource-projects don't, neither does releasing example-snippets etc)
added on the 2003-01-27 13:43:08 by kusma kusma
bu the way, for multimedia-usage (that's what I usally use my computer for, as a demoscener) no opensource operatingsystem is more stable than ie. Win2k and MacOSX. (Been there, done that)
added on the 2003-01-27 13:45:20 by kusma kusma
that would so destroy the actual idea behind the demoscene. there's that thing called competition. we all work against each other, not together.
added on the 2003-01-27 13:53:32 by dalezr dalezr
'opensource + demoscene cannot mix, since it's two different things'
Yeah, and boys + girls cannot mix, since their two different things.

'Opensource == lamers that can't code stuff themselves freeloading off good coders.'
Or a good way to learn, you cant code until you learn to, and by looking at others code you do learn, but making demos totally based on others code = bad.
'Make a site where u can gather all demorelated tutorials, source-codes released, tips & hints, people searching for groups, groups searching for people, discussion forum about coding, gfx, music, etc.' <- YES!

'Nah, Opensource demos are quite slow (some of these productions have sync problems between the gfx an sound), I prefer native ones.' - Opensource has NOTHING to do with inter-platform-compilable-without-changes code.

So, just a rant. Anyways, sharing all code / gfx / music is not that good. I appreciate coders who share their routines and such, so that if I ever need to learn someting, I can learn from their code. But just putting your name on someone elses code / work is lame. Ask for permission, add thank-you's and make your own. Personally, I usually release the source of what I make since I wont be making any money on it anyways.
Freaking long post, flame me.

added on the 2003-01-27 14:00:39 by daxxar daxxar
I am always ready to help other coders with problems, or explaining algos, or even giving out code snippets if necessary (sometimes even writing code specifically to illustrate a problem/solution)...
But I will NEVER give out 'production code' to everyone (you can get it if you co-op though :)).

For me, part of the fun is figuring out how other coders did things, and trying to do it better/faster/etc than them. Looking at their code is like cheating. It takes out all the fun, all the competition, all the creativity.

I think a lot of coders share this view. I think this is what started the demoscene.
Releasing a demo is like "I beat you, now try to beat me". That's the true scene spirit if you ask me... FR-08 is a good example of this. They invested in a next-generation 64k intro system, and keep improving on it.
Where would the competition be, if everyone had access to this system?
And what good would it be if all 64k intros looked and sounded like FR?
Now FR set the standard, and all other groups go "Damn those bastards, we're going to beat them!".

It's like the chef in a restaurant... each restaurant has this specialty, a special recipe or ingredient... and they can never give it up. If restaurants were opensource, all restaurants would be the same. You can eat exactly the same stuff everywhere. That screws the entire idea up. You don't want to go to the same restaurant everytime, you don't want to eat the same everytime. You want different choices, different flavours.
So it's important that the secret ingredient remains a secret.

If you still don't get it, I suppose you never will.

added on the 2003-01-27 14:17:10 by Scali Scali
opensource is mcDonalds
added on the 2003-01-27 14:34:47 by kusma kusma
ah, but the point isnt that I want to RIP your source, I just look at it to understand things, and then find other ways to do it.
I totally understand what you mean, but often its hard reaching coders to get things explained, and code always (in my opinion) explains things better.
Anyways, I prefer to release my code as opensource, I might stop when I start making code people actually WANT ;)
/me sucks.
added on the 2003-01-27 15:09:24 by daxxar daxxar
s/always (\(in my opinion\) explains things better)/usually $1/;
added on the 2003-01-27 15:14:04 by daxxar daxxar
/me kicks escaping-slashes in this forum *sob*
added on the 2003-01-27 15:14:39 by daxxar daxxar
Tutorials would be a nice way to learn those newbies, giving them source code is just wrong, cause many of them just use it without understanding it.

beat this akk syn :)
added on the 2003-01-27 15:29:03 by chezuma chezuma
chezuma: SYN

Anyways, yah, tutorials work too.
But its (hard to find good)/(few) OpenGL-tutorials out there.
Especially for Linux =)
added on the 2003-01-27 15:33:35 by daxxar daxxar
linux sminux :)

opengl is opengl :) just the init code which is different
added on the 2003-01-27 15:37:02 by chezuma chezuma
This may come as a shock to you... but OpenGL is platform-independent.
So an OpenGL tutorial is an OpenGL tutorial...
Especially if the tutorial uses Glut, which takes care of the last bit of platform-dependent stuff.
added on the 2003-01-27 15:44:21 by Scali Scali
Scali, my point :)
added on the 2003-01-27 15:47:11 by chezuma chezuma
ok, ok, slap me.
You've got a point ;)
Anyways, I want (good) OpenGL-tutorials :)
added on the 2003-01-27 15:49:41 by daxxar daxxar


Go to top