Incoherent Open Source Hardware Releases AAAAAARRRGHHH!!!!

jzatopa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Welcome to the largest problem with open source.
> Just about every person who releases an open
> source project does not do any of the hard work.
> What is the hard work? Clear and understandable
> documentation and presentation of everything
> required to complete the project from beginning to
> end. Another reason this happens so often is
> because there has not been a suitable hardware
> version of github created. It is something that
> the world needs. I would envision it as a cross
> between github and thingiverse but without the
> skill + capital to make it, I don't know when it
> is going to happen.

I like the idea of a tailor made "Hardware GitHub"

Personally I'm just glad people share any of what they do and I'll take what they can be bothered putting out there. After all in most cases they aren't required to put anything out there.

The vast majority of these designs aren't intended for people to mass produce as kits, they're work in progress designs most of which are never "released" in any 1.0 form.

It takes discipline and a lot of organization to get what your describing out there, I'd posit most developers just want to share what they are doing, and assume people will spend the time to work out what they need, and modify things for their own requirements. The current work on various Delta designs is very much like this.
The counter examples are things like the Mendel 90 or Tantilus, where the designers clearly want to get other people building their designs.

I know having given away software, and gone through the hassle of documenting it, one of the more irritating emails I still see occasionally is "how do I do X" or "can you fix Y for me" and the answer is almost always RTFM.

@PolyGonHell

I agree completely. I am also grateful that folks take time to post up info about their designs.

My disgruntled example was aimed at larger kit machine developers who claim their machine is open source, but is essentially not build-able without essentially self-reinventing the original design.

Idol, Fair enough, although I don't see how someone who doesn't already have a printer is going to be able to take advantage of those STL files. Anyone coming into the project for the first time will either have to purchase the plastic parts or get a friend(s) to print them.

If someone presents an idea for a part (or parts) but fails to provide useful files, then one has two options. beg them until they provide them or use the underlying info to design one's own version. And you can always advise anyone considering their part of the deficiency if your still pissed about it.

I DO understand your frustration. Documentation for the project is lacking. No doubt. It's pretty much self evident that that's the case. Oh well.

The thing is, you've said in other threads that your printer is one of the best, so I'm not sure why you're so bent out of shape. It seems very odd to me. I could understand the level of frustration you are displaying if you were a newb, but by your own words elsewhere, you're not.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2013 09:00PM by xiando.

Wait a minute? All this hubbub is about a design that was released 2 days ago?

Good point about newbs not needing STL files lol.

woah woah woah, I never said I have the best printer. Truly, joking attitudes are sometimes hard to portray in text form. I have built a few really good printers. But I would not call myself the best. I would say my printing ability is average++

I have simply been put off recently by the open source claims a few kit sellers have been throwing on their machines recently.

Again fair enough. (I thought you were serious and had no reason to dispute your claims...xiando shrugs)

"I have simply been put off recently by the open source claims a few kit sellers have been throwing"

Understood.

here's a theoretical question, i ask mostly because i've actually been asked for it before, say someone designs something and releases it as for example solidworks files? is that considered releasing the source? for those who don't know solidworks is a rather expensive 3d cad program financially out of reach of most of us,

---

-=( blog )=- -=( thingiverse )=- -=( 3Dindustries )=- -=( Aluhotend - mostly metal hotend)=--=( Facebook )=-

thejollygrimreaper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> here's a theoretical question, i ask mostly
> because i've actually been asked for it before,
> say someone designs something and releases it as
> for example solidworks files? is that considered
> releasing the source? for those who don't know
> solidworks is a rather expensive 3d cad program
> financially out of reach of most of us,

In my book that counts as releasing the source code. Whatever format your sources exist in, they are your sources.

Though I'd prefer if all source code was usable on GPL software. :-) So out of niceness, someone truly wishing to release their designs should also offer .stl files as an alternative to their proprietary format.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2013 10:41PM by xclusive585.

thejollygrimreaper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...
> say someone designs something and releases it as
> for example solidworks files? is that considered
> releasing the source? for those who don't know
> solidworks is a rather expensive 3d cad program
> financially out of reach of most of us,

Since I have yet to see an equivalent, I base my expectations for released information LOOSELY on the software open source definition.

It is really a lowest common denominator issue. What can most people open? In my view, the answer to that question is a "must". anything else is "added value".

Based on that, and specifically with regards to Mendel derivative printers, I'd say STL at the very minimum, with other files as extras, since STL is the basis for path generation.

thejollygrimreaper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> here's a theoretical question, i ask mostly
> because i've actually been asked for it before,
> say someone designs something and releases it as
> for example solidworks files? is that considered
> releasing the source? for those who don't know
> solidworks is a rather expensive 3d cad program
> financially out of reach of most of us,

To me open source means open to everyone, not just open to those who can afford to access it.

Releasing solidworks files to the open-source community is akin to someone giving you a ferarri but you don't have a drivers license and can't afford the gas or insurance. Releasing solidworks files is kind of a giant "fuck off poor people" thing.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

"To me open source means open to everyone, not just open to those who can afford to access it."

No offense, but that's a bit naive. Are you saying that to be open source, we have to provide a computer and training to anyone who wants to get into 3D printing? (No, I know you're not saying that, but it is a natural extension of what you just said)

I'm not arguing that releasing only files openable by an expensive CAD program isn't antithetical to the idea of open source, since it is antithetical, but there are practical limitations to universality. AFAIK, We all require STL for path generation. Hence it is the lowest common denominator.

For me "open source" means making source available, that's orthogonal to what "source" is and in what state it is. "The GPL defines this [source code] as the preferred form of the work for making changes in it.". Since continuous work, at any given time except start, is making of modifications to what has been already done, source code most often is, content of the file that the program you work in uses to store state of your work without loss of information. So if you work in OpenSCAD source code is .scad file not .stl.

Miso, And I would not discourage your provision of whatever literal source file you use during the design. I would encourage you to provide an stl as well, as primary content, so that those who do not have access to whichever source you use are still able to print and to import into their design software. The point is to provide access to the largest set of people, not to adhere to an overly restrictive political paradigm dictated by some political commissar with an agenda we don't all subscribe to.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2013 10:46AM by xiando.

Xiando, you're conflating to things - access to tools and access to data. I'm not talking about providing the tools, I'm talking about the ability to access data and modify it to suit our needs. Providing a .stl is nice, but if the design file is in a proprietary format then it is useless for those who want to make a change to the design.

Open source to a few isn't open source at all.

.stl's are NOT source.

.stl's are output.

Pushing .stl's out to the public and publishing your design in an out of reach format isn't open source, it's faux open source.

//EDIT HAPPY NOW? I think you set the record for most use of the word "commisars" in a post. Congratulations!

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2013 12:41PM by akhlut.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

No, I am not Akhlut. I am combating the perverse misuse of the open source paradigm by children who have a myopic viewpoint.

As far as I know, STL is used by all or nearly all of the folks using these prusa-mendel-based (loosely speaking) printers. It is the sole format usable by all players. It is forward and backward compatible by the largest number of design and print programs, and therefore it is the universal.

By the way Akhlut, who decided that you are "we" chum? We is the group at large, not some self-contained group of commissars. I was doing open source long before there was a cute name and a bunch of asshat commisssars telling others how to run their lives.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2013 12:11PM by xiando.

xiando Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, I am not Akhlut. I am combating the perverse
> misuse of the open source paradigm by children who
> have a myopic viewpoint.
>
> As far as I know, STL is used by all or nearly all
> of the folks using these prusa-mendel-based
> (loosely speaking) printers. It is the sole format
> usable by all players. It is forward and backward
> compatible by the largest number of design and
> print programs, and therefore it is the universal.

But I agree with Akhlut, that it's not the "source". You cannot easily modify an .stl like you could with the actual CAD file. So, in a perfect world, both should be released.

Akhlut, if someone made a design in Solidworks because that is where their skills lie, should they then try to reproduce their finished design in Blender, or OpenSCAD? Or should people designing things for open source avoid solid geometry altogether? Is there a solids based CAD program that would be acceptable for them to design in? If they exported their Solidworks source as Step, would that be sufficient? The free version of Creo can import STP, so that is accessible should you care to learn the software. Are there other free programs that can import standard CAD formats?

I cannot modify a file I cannot open. I can modify a file I can open, even if it isn't a perfect conversion. And at the very least, I can generate a print path using an stl file, source or not. Until there is a universal CAD system, (open source of course) which provides the same level of consistency and power that closed source CAD programs offer, your attitude just proves Idolcrasher's original point about provision of files that peoplec an open, akhlut's point above before he got pedantic and political, "To me open source means open to everyone, not just open to those who can afford to access it. " and other points made by many people (including myself) regarding open access and the spirit of the open source movement.

And this type of Open source project is EXACTLY the kind of thing that will drive CAD demand in the Open Source world of wares.

+1 Reprap

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2013 12:33PM by xclusive585.

If the CAD files are released opensource by the author then another community member can release the files in STL or whatever. If the files are originally released only as STL then you're stuck at STL until someone reverse engineers the files to something else.

Release of files is author's prerogative. Whinging about an opensource author's work as "not being good enough opensource" only discourages the author and others watching the work from maintaining and releasing opensource.

To be opensource, you need to provide an exchange format I agree, so releasing only the solidworks files is not enough (in fact with the nasty habit of Dassault to change the format each release, you cannot open a say 2010 file with a 2007 release) so even them can need the exchange format.

Stl is not ideal, as it preserves only the outer shape, but the normal exchange formats in CAD are .IGES and .STEP. Almost all 3D packages read and export those 2 and preserve the hierarchy, so that is what should be used, and firstly IGES which is a U.S.National Bureau of Standards defined format (NBSIR 80-1978) specifically as vendor neutral. Outside CAD, .OBJ is acceptable too.

Openscad dont seem to read IGES but it is a flaw of openscad. About everybody else do.

Aklut is very wrong to say that you need to use opensource software exclusively to do opensource.

I think STL files are fine and they are my primary source files. I am actually making extensions for Tantillus right now and I started with the old STL files and not the source because I prefer working with the STL as the source. So when you guys say only the original source is editable or we need a universal CAD format please be sure to add the words "for me to be happy" because it is you that has the problem with STL files and not the whole world or all users.

---

FFF Settings Calculator	Gcode post processors	Geometric Object Deposition Tool Blog
Tantillus.org	Mini Printable Lathe	How NOT to install a Pololu driver

IanJohnson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Akhlut, if someone made a design in Solidworks
> because that is where their skills lie, should
> they then try to reproduce their finished design
> in Blender, or OpenSCAD? Or should people
> designing things for open source avoid solid
> geometry altogether? Is there a solids based CAD
> program that would be acceptable for them to
> design in? If they exported their Solidworks
> source as Step, would that be sufficient? The
> free version of Creo can import STP, so that is
> accessible should you care to learn the software.
> Are there other free programs that can import
> standard CAD formats?

Ian,
Absolutely. I'm not suggesting that people who have expertise with a tool should stop using it. But if you want to publish something and call it open source shouldn't you want the design to be available to as many people as possible? Publish to .step or .iges or another format that a lot of different software packages can access. Makerbot did all their work in Solidworks - look how well their "open source" machine has been iterated by 3rd parties.

As for free tools, I started on 123D beta 5 or 6. It has since gone away and been replaced by Inventor Fusion. Both are free, and both can open a variety of formats. I think Inventor Fusion may be able to open old .sldprt files as well. If you're feeling frisky you can download an education version of Inventor from Autodesk - full functionality for FREE.

Are they open source tools? No. But they're quite good tools, ones I'd be happy to pay a reasonable sum for if they weren't free.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

I wouldn't get down in folks who use expensive/obscure programs/file types. I have seen some kind folks release files on old/obscure/expensive programs whose true intentions were to make their design available to others.

I think it is [insert printer vendor here] who does-not/will-not release a BOM and/or omits STL/DXF files that don't rate calling their machine open source.

ultimately in the grander scheme of things, it really doesn't matter in terms of the experiment as to what format something is released in because in the end it's the target audience who decides on it's usage and inclusion into future/current projects based on a wide criteria,

---

-=( blog )=- -=( thingiverse )=- -=( 3Dindustries )=- -=( Aluhotend - mostly metal hotend)=--=( Facebook )=-

It's the documentation that I tend to struggle with.

As a general rule of thumb, engineers, programmers, developers, all tend make lousy documenters because they/we can be too familiar with the product.

Documentation, unless prerequisite knowledge is specified, should always be written for complete newbies.

Don't use jargon, don't use assumed knowledge. Write down every step, then go back and perform the task yourself by following your own steps exactly as they are written, and then make some effort to keep the document up to date with respect to any materiel changes, i.e. up to date links to current firmware versions or STL files.

Sure the document might end up twice as long, but then situations like the one Idolcrasher describes (I've totally experienced that same frustration) will be be dramatically reduced.

And just because something is open source, that shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference!

The ones that make their mark in the world of open source are the ones that provide good documentation and support.

I think some of you are confusing producing a guide/tutorial for publishing open source designs. An open source design simply is a design where the source is released, be it Solidworks, Rhino, OpenScad, etc.

The designer shouldn't HAVE to walk everyone through the whole process to be labelled open source, this certainly does not happen with open source software.

yydoctt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think some of you are confusing producing a
> guide/tutorial for publishing open source designs.
> An open source design simply is a design where the
> source is released, be it Solidworks, Rhino,
> OpenScad, etc.
>
> The designer shouldn't HAVE to walk everyone
> through the whole process to be labelled open
> source, this certainly does not happen with open
> source software.

thats half the problem though if somone releases somthing in solidworks you need a copy of solidwork to open it, and solidworks aint cheap, i've recently heard the argument "well then get the education version", the problem there is you have to provide proof that you are a student in order to obtain a license,
ultimatly if somone releases their source in solid works, then it's not as much of a problem it's just a case of finding somone with solidworks that can convert it for the rest of us

---

-=( blog )=- -=( thingiverse )=- -=( 3Dindustries )=- -=( Aluhotend - mostly metal hotend)=--=( Facebook )=-

... it's a common problem with publishing 3D content

I was designing complex 3D-parts and (complete animated/simulated scenes and 3D-worlds) in Lightwave for comercial use ... and was designing/developing some of my own constructuions with it too.

When publishing the data, I had to select the export format and mesh-size, so others, not having LW could read it - made this mostly in OBJ or STL ... but had to install a STL-exporter first too

And then too, some users were claiming the LW-sources ... others wants other native formats ... or started heated discussions like in this thread too

So what? -- at last I stopped releasing 3D-objects

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]