Suggestions for Moho to go OPEN SOURCE. Discuss

idragosani · Post by **idragosani** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:05 pm

heyvern wrote:Is Python as easy to learn as LUA? Is it similar in any way?

My old crusty brain is hard to poke new knowledge in.

I've never actually... looked at Python before. I know some of the apps I use for 3D may use it in some way.

Python is very easy to learn, it's been called 'executable pseudo-code'

larpon · Post by **larpon** » Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:51 pm

heyvern wrote:This may seem weird... but I like the moho interface...

Well we're just used to use different GUI handling I guess...
In which I respect your opinon fully... A simple example I'd give from moho's UI is the mouse scrolling zoom feature with the middle mouse button... It's completly inverted from what I'm used to in every open source app I use to make graphics in

Further more I really like keyboard shortcuts and the only thing being logic to me in moho regarding this is it's ctrl-c/ctrl-v for cut'n'paste.. anyway I'm starting to get used to the small differences.

heyvern wrote: Most of the open source applications I've seen don't even have... menus at the top of the screen like other apps... they have... wierd ways of selecting things...

I'll bet you it's that damn GTK/GNOME thing

I don't like that window manager very much, it's weird as you describe it, but I do like some of the things in it.. anyway I use QT/KDE and I can't recall many apps written for KDE that doesn't have a menu in the top... But if you only have seen GTK apps or wxwigets (I presume, because that's the easiest to port to windows/mac.. QT hasn't been available on windows yet.. but I seem to recall that they're porting it for QT4/KDE4 ), I'm too tired of how they look and feel on other platforms than linux.. anyway expect a huge change when QT apps shows up on your platform in the near future

heyvern wrote: ... don't get me started on the file browsing in open source apps.... Each one seems to be different... or I should say... different in the same way. I guess this is how the linux OS works or something.

Yeah funky in GTK.. kickass in QT/KDE apps...

heyvern wrote: I use a program called jEdit which is the best open source app I use everyday. I still get confused sometimes trying to find files to open. I have to... think different (forgive the pun).

Yup.. JEdit is quite nice for an OSS editor.. besides it's java wich is still a bit too slow imho.. that's a whole different UI system aswell (swing innit?)... again I can speak good for QT.. as they're working on a java implemention.. I know I've mentioned KDE a lot now but in my desktop environment as it right now.. Alle my apps follow my current KDE theme.. done by reskinning the GTK apps.. only thing that sticks out is java apps but they're yet to come in KDE4...

heyvern wrote: That is what I call non standard interfaces. In the past Apple would not "certify" an application unless the menus fit their standards.

Trust me almost every Linux app follow their respectful GUIToolkits "standards"... again having more Toolkits brings more freedom and again there are people working on programs that streamline and tie together the different toolkits look and feel.. Giving the user a really good amount of stuff to choose from.. IceWM, KDE, GNOME, X, XFCE and a couple of others

It's damn nice to have these to choose from instead of being tied to your Teletubbie Windows interface or the smooth Darwin toolkit on macs (I do like the the look, but far from the feel)...

heyvern wrote: On windows, linux, unix... there was no standard. That is why in the beggining so many apps would have menus set up in anyway the programmers liked. Each application required you to "relearn" how to do basic stuff all over again.

I've worked on a friend's mac.. I couldn't find my way around anywhere on that desktop.. and that damn weird one button mouse

.. again it's just a matter of spending most of your time in front of your desktop of choise.. Then you'll get used to it easily.. That's my experience anyway...

heyvern wrote: So... compared to THAT... YES! Moho/AS has a beautiful GUI.

We'll never agree on this

...

myles wrote: Umm, larpon, that's called either "customer service" or "feedback" or even "feature requests", and most commercial apps have somewhere you can do it. Smile
Actually, I see what you're saying, but I think it's often just implemented differently in a commercial context (although some open source apps also have feedback forms or forums rather than direct developer contact).

Yeah.. they way of reaching the devs comes in many flavours, but honestly I don't feel my feature requests nor my feedback is "heard" in the same way that they are in the oss world...
It's like you have to dig through this enormous "shell" of some sort to reach the commercial apps... (I do speak of the majors here.. Adobe, Microsoft, Apple etc.) So I do see your point here.. but with the smaller companies...

There we go.. was what I liked to write this round

idragosani · Post by **idragosani** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:01 am

larpon wrote:
I'll bet you it's that damn GTK/GNOME thing I don't like that window manager very much, it's weird as you describe it, but I do like some of the things in it.. anyway I use QT/KDE and I can't recall many apps written for KDE that doesn't have a menu in the top... But if you only have seen GTK apps or wxwigets (I presume, because that's the easiest to port to windows/mac.. QT hasn't been available on windows yet.. but I seem to recall that they're porting it for QT4/KDE4 ), I'm too tired of how they look and feel on other platforms than linux.. anyway expect a huge change when QT apps shows up on your platform in the near future

What Gnome or GTK+ applications do you use that don't have menu bars? It's pretty standard on every GTK+ application I use on Linux and Windows and see very little difference in the GUI between platforms (GTK+ on Windows versus Linux).

BTW, Qt3 has been running on Windows and Mac (in addition to various Unix flavors) for quite a while now:

http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/qt ... orms/index

larpon · Post by **larpon** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:30 am

idragosani wrote:
larpon wrote:
I'll bet you it's that damn GTK/GNOME thing I don't like that window manager very much, it's weird as you describe it, but I do like some of the things in it.. anyway I use QT/KDE and I can't recall many apps written for KDE that doesn't have a menu in the top... But if you only have seen GTK apps or wxwigets (I presume, because that's the easiest to port to windows/mac.. QT hasn't been available on windows yet.. but I seem to recall that they're porting it for QT4/KDE4 ), I'm too tired of how they look and feel on other platforms than linux.. anyway expect a huge change when QT apps shows up on your platform in the near future
What Gnome or GTK+ applications do you use that don't have menu bars? It's pretty standard on every GTK+ application I use on Linux and Windows and see very little difference in the GUI between platforms (GTK+ on Windows versus Linux).

Short answer: none
Though gimp is a little different in the way that it has top menu's in every window... I've read heyvern's question like he misses the ultra top menu's (you know.. if you embedded gimp into one environment (like GIMPshop for windows) or every mac app has entries in the top menu.. could be way off here though...

idragosani wrote: BTW, Qt3 has been running on Windows and Mac (in addition to various Unix flavors) for quite a while now:
http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/qt ... orms/index

Running, yes... but not used in any ports? I though QT4 was the version that actually would make it useful?... Pretty damn cool it runs on Windows 95 though.. hats off

heyvern · Post by **heyvern** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:50 am

On the menu issue...

In jEdit for example. The "Mac" standard menus at the top don't exist. They are replaced by the jEdit "versions" of these menus. Fine I guess.

Other similar apps... might do that as well... but they migh look or behave differently.

The Mac OS... look and feel might not be "perfect"... but I use it every day... so as was said... I got use to it. You change that... and I have to switch my brain with every open source application.

Another example... Jahshaka, an open source video editing effects application.

No menus. Not even... "alternate versions". No top menus. The menus are... all over the place... buttons... wierd non standard (to me anyway) interface.

I can't learn the software till I learn how to make the buttons work... uh... I guess that is the same thing. But the interface interferes with learning the tools is my point.

My feeling is... "basic" interface, GUI interface elements... these standards... level out some of the learning curve.

There is a familar environment to start from. With a lot of these apps (3d stuff especially) the interface is so different... it is like having to learn a new OS and also learn the application at the same time.

EDIT:

Audacity... that is open source AND uses the standard Mac interface. It feels like a... "real" application... not a port. It was a piece of cake to use right away. 5 seconds... boom. Knew exactly what to do.

-vern

larpon · Post by **larpon** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:09 am

Jahshaka's interface is indeed a pain at first sight or in general.. but it's using it's own UI system afaik, no other apps are similar to that UI... Then again this approach is also showing up in many Windows apps... winamp is just one of them.. though a mp3 player UI differs a lot from larger apps...

Audacity? I guess the devs has been more lucky on the mac port then

It's very GTK like (actually a bit Amiga like) on linux

Fazek · Post by **Fazek** » Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:09 am

What is this all about? Is there anyone who want to write something? (A software?)

To Python experts: for Lua, it is very comfortable to write C/C++ expansion libraries. What about Python?

Oh yes, and Lua has the ability to compile Lua code inside a Lua program. So it is possible to embed Lua language chunks into a scene. This is great (the Layerscrips in AS) and I think it could be very important in a flexible application. Think about: user-defined layer types, user-defined rendering, loading/saving...

Lua (and maybe Python, too?) is an interpreter (pseudocode) language, it is too slow for some very dumb algorythms, like merging two pixelmaps with alpha. So at least for the rendering, I think we must write some code in C or even in Assembly. For the graphics, I don't like huge packets like libgimp. It is a nightmare if you want to install these from source. It is against portability and there could remain unsolved, animation-specific problems. So I prefer to write an own rendering library. I am familiar in the programming of pixelmap operations so if somebody wants to begin something, I can help.

For 3D, I think the best choice is to use OpenGL, but I don't know, I'm not familiar with 3D. Maybe OpenGL can be used in the 2D rendering too.

For the GUI, I see in Papagayo they used the wxPython library and it looks great under Linux/GTK. It has menus, drag-and-drop etc. wxPython seems really platform independent.

Fazek · Post by **Fazek** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:04 am

I think it would be better to use both Python (or any other good scripting language) for the body of the program and Lua for the embedded scripts in the scenes.

Python can compile a source file to an 'object' file only but Lua can do the same with strings in the memory and I think this is what required for the scenes.

The possibilities of the embedded scripts I think must be restricted (like in Moho) because of the security holes. But for the program modules, these restrictions are wrong.

pyrokenx · Post by **pyrokenx** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:37 am

Open Source can make money for software developers, it really can..

In some cases giving away your product to the world, can be the smartest and largest money making thing you have ever done.

Reason being, is because Open Source solutions, when there are no others (which are nearly as good anyhow). Causes roaring increase of users. Many more people will get and use anime studio for it being free and open (what would they have to lose by trying?), in turn, many people with decent programmign knowledge will contribute, and maintain.

Anime Studio/MoHo would become a finer product than it is. So back to my initial statement, how in the world does this make companies and groups that specialize in programming money at all?

Simple, you have a huge dedicated fanabse now, and are more recognized than ever before. If you contracted out your programming services, you will get lots of customers. People will come to you because they know and respect a famed work of yours. People can make money on open source in this way and others, look at Google, and now.. look at Apple, even Microsoft is working its way towards open sourcing their document formats and other things. ;p

Using gained fame from the open and free release of something, can work wonders on a programming business.

Not to say this is right for any of hte developers of this work.. I am just here to defend the idea of money in OSS.

heyvern · Post by **heyvern** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:26 pm

Apple and Microsoft were never open source.
Google makes money from advertising.

None of them are even remotely examples of open source.

Unless you consider that Bill Gates made some of his money STEALING from open source.

-vern

The400th · Post by **The400th** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:40 pm

Why are these people picking on AS? You don't see them posting on Flash or Toonboom forums.

Go on, Pyrokenx and Guest, go over to ColdHardFlash and Toonboom and make your arguments there.

This really smells of spoiling tactics by the competition.

idragosani · Post by **idragosani** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:54 pm

pyrokenx wrote:Open Source can make money for software developers, it really can..

In some cases giving away your product to the world, can be the smartest and largest money making thing you have ever done.

Reason being, is because Open Source solutions, when there are no others (which are nearly as good anyhow). Causes roaring increase of users. Many more people will get and use anime studio for it being free and open (what would they have to lose by trying?), in turn, many people with decent programmign knowledge will contribute, and maintain.

Anime Studio/MoHo would become a finer product than it is. So back to my initial statement, how in the world does this make companies and groups that specialize in programming money at all?

Simple, you have a huge dedicated fanabse now, and are more recognized than ever before. If you contracted out your programming services, you will get lots of customers. People will come to you because they know and respect a famed work of yours. People can make money on open source in this way and others, look at Google, and now.. look at Apple, even Microsoft is working its way towards open sourcing their document formats and other things. ;p

Using gained fame from the open and free release of something, can work wonders on a programming business.

Not to say this is right for any of hte developers of this work.. I am just here to defend the idea of money in OSS.

While I support free/open source software, I don't know that making once commercial software into open source is a good business model... (Blender isn't a good example, since it was a failed business). This is especially true if there are developers who depend on that software. For desktop/workstation applications, especially in multimedia/audio/graphics, there is very little software I can think of that has actually been revenue generating and made a profit. Software in the enterprise/server domain has been successful because a company can sell support and commercial business services (i.e., Apache, Red Hat EL, PostgreSQL, etc).

Software like Moho/AS has a very limited market (and the 2D animation market in general, digital or not, is getting smaller in light of the 3D market), so it's very unlikely making it open source would make it that much more popular.

pyrokenx · Post by **pyrokenx** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:21 pm

heyvern wrote:Apple and Microsoft were never open source.
Google makes money from advertising.

None of them are even remotely examples of open source.

Unless you consider that Bill Gates made some of his money STEALING from open source.

-vern

Google everyday supports open source project with money,

Havent you heard of Summer of Code?

Apple releases sourcecode many of the improvements they ahve made upon the Mach microkernel, Havent you heard of darwin?

Microsoft today has created open specifications XML document formats for their new office suite.

All 3 of these corporations are moving moreso (if only in the slightest) open source.

The400th wrote:Why are these people picking on AS? You don't see them posting on Flash or Toonboom forums.

Go on, Pyrokenx and Guest, go over to ColdHardFlash and Toonboom and make your arguments there.

This really smells of spoiling tactics by the competition.

I am not even going to argue about Picking on AS because thats utterly stupid, I am merely saying money can be made on open soruce, the developers choose it to be closed, I *RESPECT* their decision, please understand.

Aside, when AS comes out on Linux I definitely plan to be a first time buyer

As for spoiling tactics by the competition, I've never even used your competition, I reside mainly at the sega of america boards and variosu other boards, I am a technology and software enthusiast as my hobby. Your product caught my eye and looked like it would be good, I joined your forums, at the same time I defend the idea of open source in the market, and now I am espionage, what a community. ;p

I am not here to argue at all.

heyvern · Post by **heyvern** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:42 pm

Those companies were billionaires long before jumping on the "open source" band wagon.

They are bad examples of monetary benefits from open source.

They did not get rich from their own open source offerings. They got rich and powerful from the products they charged for...

... and also from OTHER open source code. Mac OSX based on freeBSD, Google's thousands of servers running on linux.

I wonder how rich those people are?

I bought Tiger recently... not free... not open source.

-vern

pyrokenx · Post by **pyrokenx** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:19 pm

heyvern wrote:
I bought Tiger recently... not free... not open source.

-vern

*sigh*... Apple is based on the Mach microkernel from BSD licensing and many ported features built upon it from teh FreeBSD project.

The source code can be obtained freely here.

http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/

Only thing not open and free about OS X is Aqua amd Cocoa, various other APIs, other than that it is all available somewhere or another.

Microsoft is making more money byt heir formats opening up, reason being is mroe peopel can edit them (more specifically read them using them for web applications) and show mroe interest in using them. Driving MS Office Sales.

Google may not release much in open soruce but they throw money at it year round with summer of code, where hoobyist programmers and comptuer science students build neat new open applications for people to use. Google builds great public relations doing this and in turn it gains them money for their services and products.

it doesnt matter anymore, the point was that money can be made on open source and I wont argue it anymore, if you disagree we will jsut agree to disagree. I'm out of this.