 | | | | | | |
| |
|
Because of some of the more recent advancements in software which utilizes
the .dat file, I have been thinking about what LDraw *is*. I think we
should firmly establish what LDraw is if there are going to [and there
will] be more advancements in software and editors for the .dat file format.
LDraw originated as James' software package, with LDraw, LEdit, and the
parts libraries. But does it continue to remain just that? It seems now
that the word 'LDraw' is used to identify a broad range of programs which
use James' .dat file format and parts libraries, and is no longer limited
to his original package. I think it prudent to define and publish the
meaning of the word 'LDraw' when used on its own so it does not become a
generic term like 'Xerox,' 'Kleenex,' or 'Coke.'
Should 'LDraw' refer to James' original package only? Or should it include
new editors like LeoCad, MLCad, etc... which all use James' files for their
parts? How should ldraw.org represent these other editors? How should
ldraw.org and other websites refer to the word 'LDraw?'
If LDraw is to mean only James' original software package, how should we
refer to the other editors so it identifies them with the dat file
format? Should they be identified with that?
Another question: Because of the ambiguity of the .dat file extension on
computer systems, should we develop a new file extension that newer editors
can use? I realize this might be a controversial question because of
nostalgia and tradition, but it needs to be asked. If newer editors
defaulted towards a .ldr (LDraw) file format, but also could read from and
write to .dat files, would this be acceptable?
Please reply with thoughts.
-Tim Courtney
ldraw.org Project Coordinator
http://www.ldraw.org
http://www.zacktron.com
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hi Tim!
Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message
news:4.2.0.58.19991208154919.009886f0@pop.osiriscomm.com...
> Because of some of the more recent advancements in software which utilizes
> the .dat file, I have been thinking about what LDraw *is*. I think we
> should firmly establish what LDraw is if there are going to [and there
> will] be more advancements in software and editors for the .dat file • format.
>
> LDraw originated as James' software package, with LDraw, LEdit, and the
> parts libraries. But does it continue to remain just that? It seems now
> that the word 'LDraw' is used to identify a broad range of programs which
> use James' .dat file format and parts libraries, and is no longer limited
> to his original package. I think it prudent to define and publish the
> meaning of the word 'LDraw' when used on its own so it does not become a
> generic term like 'Xerox,' 'Kleenex,' or 'Coke.'
>
> Should 'LDraw' refer to James' original package only? Or should it • include
> new editors like LeoCad, MLCad, etc... which all use James' files for • their
> parts? How should ldraw.org represent these other editors? How should
> ldraw.org and other websites refer to the word 'LDraw?'
>
> If LDraw is to mean only James' original software package, how should we
> refer to the other editors so it identifies them with the dat file
> format? Should they be identified with that?
LDraw is James' software package. It will always be that. It's like 3D
Studio Max or Adobe Photoshop, they have special formats that other software
packages can use, but no one has redefined those names.
> Another question: Because of the ambiguity of the .dat file extension on
> computer systems, should we develop a new file extension that newer • editors
> can use? I realize this might be a controversial question because of
> nostalgia and tradition, but it needs to be asked. If newer editors
> defaulted towards a .ldr (LDraw) file format, but also could read from and
> write to .dat files, would this be acceptable?
I don't think a new extension is needed. But if it turns out that this
would be better for the group as a whole then sure. I guess under one
aspect when you search for *.dat you get a lot more than just part files. A
new extension would make them more unique.
> Please reply with thoughts.
You propose an interesting idea. One that I have thought of before, but
never put form to. We now have several packages that can use the dat file
format for Lego CAD... so what's going to happen to LDraw? Well first...
LDraw is still the premier editor in my book. It is a lot faster than any
of the other packages out there. I like MLCAD a lot, but it seems to take
forever when your model starts getting bigger. LDraw moves at a snap, even
when the files are really big. (This does depend on your system too.)
Honestly, I thought we were all waiting for LDraw2 to come out. I remember
someone was working on it, but I think they have given up because newer
editors have come along.
Oh well... I still think LDraw is on top and will retain its name as a good
software package, rather than a file format for a long time to come.
Adam
PS. Good work on ldraw.org.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
At 06:57 PM 12/08/1999 , Adam Howard wrote:
> Hi Tim!
Hi Adam!
> > If LDraw is to mean only James' original software package, how should we
> > refer to the other editors so it identifies them with the dat file
> > format? Should they be identified with that?
>
> LDraw is James' software package. It will always be that. It's like 3D
> Studio Max or Adobe Photoshop, they have special formats that other software
> packages can use, but no one has redefined those names.
Right.
> > Another question: Because of the ambiguity of the .dat file extension on
> > computer systems, should we develop a new file extension that newer
> > editors can use? I realize this might be a controversial question
> because > of nostalgia and tradition, but it needs to be asked. If newer
> editors
> > defaulted towards a .ldr (LDraw) file format, but also could read from and
> > write to .dat files, would this be acceptable?
>
> I don't think a new extension is needed. But if it turns out that this
> would be better for the group as a whole then sure. I guess under one
> aspect when you search for *.dat you get a lot more than just part files. A
> new extension would make them more unique.
We could keep the parts .dat and make new models .ldr (or .ldm - LDraw
Model), or we could also change parts to .ldp (LDraw Part), just to
distinguish the difference.
> > Please reply with thoughts.
>
> You propose an interesting idea. One that I have thought of before, but
> never put form to. We now have several packages that can use the dat file
> format for Lego CAD... so what's going to happen to LDraw? Well first...
> LDraw is still the premier editor in my book. It is a lot faster than any
> of the other packages out there. I like MLCAD a lot, but it seems to take
> forever when your model starts getting bigger. LDraw moves at a snap, even
> when the files are really big. (This does depend on your system too.)
> Honestly, I thought we were all waiting for LDraw2 to come out. I remember
> someone was working on it, but I think they have given up because newer
> editors have come along.
Yeah, I'd really like to see LDraw II come out as well. I believe it was
Jacob's project, and I do vaguely recall some email we exchanged on the
subject. MLCad in my book is the best editor out there, though it could be
faster. Mike's very willing to incorporate the features LDraw users
demand, and that's what makes it great. Its about time we have a reliable
Windows editor.
> Oh well... I still think LDraw is on top and will retain its name as a good
> software package, rather than a file format for a long time to come.
Right. But then again, could we develop a way to refer to all programs
which utilize the LDraw .dat file format? There's just too much out there
right now, and some guidelines for terminology need to be set up.
> Adam
> PS. Good work on ldraw.org.
Thanks! (Notice the Christmas style page header through December) :)
-Tim
http://www.zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
If you don't believe in Gosh, you'll go to Heck, where you'll face eternal
darnation.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hi Tim!
One other thing...
You mentioned in another group about James' background and history.
One thing I would like to see is a picture of him. Can you contact his
family or put feelers out. I think that would be an excellent item to add
to his memorial page.
Thanks,
Adam
Also... I see your point about the extension name, and agree with you. It
needs to be more specialized. When I see .dxf I think of Autocad, .pdf of
Adobe, .3ds of 3D Studio Max, or .pov of POVRay. It would be nice to see an
LDraw file (part or model) and recognize immediately that it is LDraw. Good
idea.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I think that ldraw should refer to the ldraw program and the all the official
parts
then we refer to all the other tools as ldlite or mlcad or whatever
I think we should keep the .dat extension for ldraw files
--
Jonathan Wilson
wilsonj@xoommail.com
http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
At 07:53 PM 12/08/1999 , Adam Howard wrote:
> Hi Tim!
>
> One other thing...
>
> You mentioned in another group about James' background and history.
> One thing I would like to see is a picture of him. Can you contact his
> family or put feelers out. I think that would be an excellent item to add
> to his memorial page.
I don't have contact with his family, but I believe James' old rivtron@...
address still works. I would like to see a picture as well. If someone
would like to give me his family's address, I will write. If someone else
would like to write, that is fine as well.
> Thanks,
> Adam
>
> Also... I see your point about the extension name, and agree with you. It
> needs to be more specialized. When I see .dxf I think of Autocad, .pdf of
> Adobe, .3ds of 3D Studio Max, or .pov of POVRay. It would be nice to see an
> LDraw file (part or model) and recognize immediately that it is LDraw. Good
> idea.
Of course, programs should still read from and write to .dat format. But
yes, I feel a new file extension is in order.
-Tim
http://www.zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
If you don't believe in Gosh, you'll go to Heck, where you'll face eternal
darnation.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
LDraw is the original program that writes (one form of)* .dat files.
All the other programs that write this type of .dat file are 'LDraw
compatibles'.
How's that?
* i believe .dat is a fairly common extension used for lots of stuff.
John Matthews
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
> LDraw originated as James' software package, with LDraw, LEdit, and the
> parts libraries. But does it continue to remain just that?
Yes.
> It seems now
> that the word 'LDraw' is used to identify a broad range of programs which
> use James' .dat file format and parts libraries, and is no longer limited
> to his original package.
Try using terms like:
LDraw -- a (mostly historical) software package for creating LEGO-type models on
your computer.
ldraw.org -- the group formerly known as the L-CAD mailing list. A (very)
loosely organized group of people, working to enhance and evangelize LDraw and
its parts library.
Official ldraw.org Parts Updates -- collections of part files for LDraw, which
have been reviewed and analyzed before release upon an unsuspecting net.
LDraw Parts Library -- includes both files from LDraw and OLPU's.
LDraw Compatible Program -- program which works with or on LDraw files.
> I think it prudent to define and publish the
> meaning of the word 'LDraw' when used on its own so it does not become a
> generic term like 'Xerox,' 'Kleenex,' or 'Coke.'
I know what you mean--in our house, we regularly use LDraw as a verb: "I've got
to ldraw that model before I take it apart.", "I haven't ldrawn that one yet.",
etc. These days, we're usually using MLCad for editing and displaying models,
but the process is still "ldrawing".
> Should 'LDraw' refer to James' original package only?
Yes. If you say, "This is LDraw", then you are refering to James software
package. Sometimes, it just means the ldraw.exe rendering program.
I could understand the argument for lumping the entire parts library (James'
files, plus the ldraw.org updates) with the original software, and calling it
all "LDraw". But not other software.
Similarly, Lars' mklist.exe is soon going to be part of LDraw, when Terry
finishes repackaging the ldraw.exe distribution/installation file (speaking of a
file which needs a different name...)
> Or should it include
> new editors like LeoCad, MLCad, etc... which all use James' files for their
> parts?
No, those are separate pieces of software. "LDraw Compatible Programs".
> How should ldraw.org represent these other editors?
Provide information and links.
> How should
> ldraw.org and other websites refer to the word 'LDraw?'
With extreme reverence. ;)
> Another question: Because of the ambiguity of the .dat file extension on
> computer systems, should we develop a new file extension that newer editors
> can use?
People are free to use whatever file extension they want. LDraw doesn't care.
Our hands are fairly tied with respect to the parts library. LDraw (and more to
the point, LEdit) are very unlikely to be changed, so the parts need to stay the
same.
> I realize this might be a controversial question because of
> nostalgia and tradition, but it needs to be asked. If newer editors
> defaulted towards a .ldr (LDraw) file format, but also could read from and
> write to .dat files, would this be acceptable?
>
> Please reply with thoughts.
My thought is that a new model-file extension would be a good idea, but is it
really necessary to encode it in the ldraw.org pages? All the website can do is
evangelize and bless a new standard. It can't make any programmers change their
programs to match.
Speaking of the website, one thing www.ldraw.org really needs is a more complete
list of the various pieces of software available.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Our hands are fairly tied with respect to the parts library. LDraw (and more to
> the point, LEdit) are very unlikely to be changed, so the parts need to stay the
> same.
I see what you mean. ledit has encoded references to parts (the 2 x 4 brick springs
to mind) that cant be changed.
--
Jonathan Wilson
wilsonj@xoommail.com
http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
[restricted reply to lugnet.cad.dev]
In lugnet.cad, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> > Our hands are fairly tied with respect to the parts library. LDraw (and more to
> > the point, LEdit) are very unlikely to be changed, so the parts need to stay the
> > same.
>
> I see what you mean. ledit has encoded references to parts (the 2 x 4 brick springs
> to mind) that cant be changed.
And if you type in a part number, LEdit adds the .DAT to make the file number.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
At 05:09 PM 12/09/1999 , Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> > Our hands are fairly tied with respect to the parts library. LDraw
> (and more > to the point, LEdit) are very unlikely to be changed, so the
> parts need to >stay the same.
>
> I see what you mean. ledit has encoded references to parts (the 2 x 4
> brick springs to mind) that cant be changed.
Does it really? I thought it all came from the parts.lst file and the
program referenced that. Or...is it because that's what the program starts
up with?
-Tim
http://www.zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
If you don't believe in Gosh, you'll go to Heck, where you'll face eternal
darnation.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
[restricted reply to lugnet.cad.dev]
In lugnet.cad, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > I see what you mean. ledit has encoded references to parts (the 2 x 4
> > brick springs to mind) that cant be changed.
>
> Does it really? I thought it all came from the parts.lst file and the
> program referenced that. Or...is it because that's what the program starts
> up with?
It's because LEdit supplies the .DAT when you type in a new part number.
Parts.lst is only used to display the parts list when you press P<enter>.
Similarly, we're stuck with leaving the ldraw directory structure more-or-less
alone, because LDraw and LEdit both expect to find files in .\models, .\parts,
and .\p.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
At 10:24 AM 12/09/1999 , Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney wrote:
> Try using terms like:
>
> LDraw -- a (mostly historical) software package for creating LEGO-type
> models on your computer.
Yes.
> ldraw.org -- the group formerly known as the L-CAD mailing list. A (very)
> loosely organized group of people, working to enhance and evangelize LDraw
> and its parts library.
Personally, I think the term 'ldraw.org' refers to the actual website. The
group of people could remain 'L-CAD' if desired, or 'The LDraw
Organization,' or something completely different. On the site, I refer to
ldraw.org as the site.
> Official ldraw.org Parts Updates -- collections of part files for LDraw,
> which have been reviewed and analyzed before release upon an unsuspecting net.
Yes.
> LDraw Parts Library -- includes both files from LDraw and OLPU's.
> LDraw Compatible Program -- program which works with or on LDraw files.
Yes. Yes.
> > I think it prudent to define and publish the
> > meaning of the word 'LDraw' when used on its own so it does not become a
> > generic term like 'Xerox,' 'Kleenex,' or 'Coke.'
>
> I know what you mean--in our house, we regularly use LDraw as a
> verb: "I've got to ldraw that model before I take it apart.", "I haven't
> ldrawn that one yet.", etc. These days, we're usually using MLCad for
> editing and displaying models, but the process is still "ldrawing".
I know from experience what you're referring to here :) I don't see any
problem with using the word 'LDraw' as a verb. Sure, Xerox might, but
we're not protecting any profits, etc.
> I could understand the argument for lumping the entire parts library (James'
> files, plus the ldraw.org updates) with the original software, and calling it
> all "LDraw". But not other software.
Would something like 'The LDraw System' work for referring to .dat format
files for parts and models, along with a piece of software which utilizes it?
> > How should
> > ldraw.org and other websites refer to the word 'LDraw?'
>
> With extreme reverence. ;)
:)
> > Another question: Because of the ambiguity of the .dat file extension on
> > computer systems, should we develop a new file extension that newer editors
> > can use?
>
> People are free to use whatever file extension they want. LDraw doesn't care.
Ok.
> My thought is that a new model-file extension would be a good idea, but is it
> really necessary to encode it in the ldraw.org pages? All the website can
> do is evangelize and bless a new standard. It can't make any programmers
> change their programs to match.
Obviously it cannot impose anything, but advocating a standard (and perhaps
if a programmer adds this in off the bat) may influence the future of LDraw
files.
> Speaking of the website, one thing www.ldraw.org really needs is a more
> complete list of the various pieces of software available.
I couldn't agree more :) What I want is for software authors to submit the
form to get a download page on ldraw.org. I'd prefer not to only link
off-site, but provide software for download on site as well as link to the
authors' site somewhere else. I believe the template is at
http://www.ldraw.org/download/template.html (but I'm not sure). Sometime
we should get an easy form up to submit.
-Tim
http://www.zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
If you don't believe in Gosh, you'll go to Heck, where you'll face eternal
darnation.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> I couldn't agree more :) What I want is for software authors to submit the
> form to get a download page on ldraw.org. I'd prefer not to only link
> off-site, but provide software for download on site as well as link to the
> authors' site somewhere else. I believe the template is at
> http://www.ldraw.org/download/template.html (but I'm not sure). Sometime
> we should get an easy form up to submit.
I could do a form and/or a cgi to go with it. I am an expert with cgi and html etc.
--
Jonathan Wilson
wilsonj@xoommail.com
http://members.xoom.com/wilsonj/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
At 06:49 PM 12/09/1999 , Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> > I couldn't agree more :) What I want is for software authors to submit the
> > form to get a download page on ldraw.org. I'd prefer not to only link
> > off-site, but provide software for download on site as well as link to the
> > authors' site somewhere else. I believe the template is at
> > http://www.ldraw.org/download/template.html (but I'm not sure). Sometime
> > we should get an easy form up to submit.
>
> I could do a form and/or a cgi to go with it. I am an expert with cgi and
> html etc.
That would be great! I'm not sure if Jacob would want someone else's CGI
running on the server, why not ask him.
Here's the correct link:
http://www.ldraw.org/download/software/template.html
If you'd like, just work with the fields (I believe they're commented in
the HTML source) and we'll work together on ironing out technicalities once
the rough thing is in place. It would be nice if the CGI processed the
fields and spat out a page like the template with all the info filled in.
Thanks, Jonathan!
-Tim
http://www.zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
If you don't believe in Gosh, you'll go to Heck, where you'll face eternal
darnation.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Tim Courtney wrote:
<Good questions. Which I snipped.>
In my opinion:
A name is needed to identify the concept of "formated to be compatible
with LDraw and LEdit, as extended". This name needs to be separate from
the concept of "the LDraw suite of tools that JJ developed". Only one
can be LDraw, the other needs to be a different name. Which one? That's
what this debate is about.
both .mpd and .dat are poorly named extensions. .dat more so, but .mpd
is used by Microsoft Project. If future tools could recognise other
extensions that would be swell.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
[snipped other ng's from reply, although it was a toss-up between lcd and lcdol]
In lugnet.cad.dev, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Tim Courtney wrote:
> <Good questions. Which I snipped.>
>
> In my opinion:
>
> A name is needed to identify the concept of "formated to be compatible
> with LDraw and LEdit, as extended". This name needs to be separate from
> the concept of "the LDraw suite of tools that JJ developed". Only one
> can be LDraw, the other needs to be a different name. Which one? That's
> what this debate is about.
There are at least three different concepts to be differentiated--
"The Organization Formerly Known as L-CAD"
"the LDraw suite of tools that JJ developed (as maintained by TOFKALCAD)"
"part files for use with LDraw-Compatible tools, and sanctioned by TOFKALCAD"
"formated to be compatible with LDraw and LEdit, as extended"
> both .mpd and .dat are poorly named extensions. .dat more so, but .mpd
> is used by Microsoft Project. If future tools could recognise other
> extensions that would be swell.
.DAT I have a problem with, because it is historically generic. But as for
.MPD, let's face it: LDraw is *way* more important than MS-P. ;)
And file-extensions are inevitable. Out of roughly 50,000 possible TLX's,
Microsoft has sucked up half. Or so my registry tells me.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
At 01:19 PM 12/10/1999 , Steve Bliss wrote:
> There are at least three different concepts to be differentiated--
> "The Organization Formerly Known as L-CAD"
LDraw Group? LDraw Organization? LDraw Foundation?
> "the LDraw suite of tools that JJ developed (as maintained by TOFKALCAD)"
Hmmm, original software only, or original software including our updates?
LDraw? LDraw Suite? LDraw Package?
> "part files for use with LDraw-Compatible tools, and sanctioned by TOFKALCAD"
Official ldraw.org Parts Updates.
> "formated to be compatible with LDraw and LEdit, as extended"
LDraw Compatible Editor/Viewer/Utility.
> > both .mpd and .dat are poorly named extensions. .dat more so, but .mpd
> > is used by Microsoft Project. If future tools could recognise other
> > extensions that would be swell.
>
> .DAT I have a problem with, because it is historically generic.
Yes. How bout these?
.ldr
.ldm (LDraw Model)
.lgo (stepping on toes there?)
> But as for
> .MPD, let's face it: LDraw is *way* more important than MS-P. ;)
Yeah, lets keep it .mpd.
> And file-extensions are inevitable. Out of roughly 50,000 possible TLX's,
> Microsoft has sucked up half. Or so my registry tells me.
DANG!
-Tim
http://www.zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
If you don't believe in Gosh, you'll go to Heck, where you'll face eternal
darnation.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Tim Courtney wrote:
> > But as for
> > .MPD, let's face it: LDraw is *way* more important than MS-P. ;)
>
> Yeah, lets keep it .mpd.
I think he was being sarcastic. Project is probably installed on 4000
times as many PCs as all the LDraw compatible tools put together. If you
do anything that has to be planned, you can't live without Project and
there really isn't a good alternative to it. Trust me.
>
> > And file-extensions are inevitable. Out of roughly 50,000 possible TLX's,
> > Microsoft has sucked up half. Or so my registry tells me.
>
> DANG!
Ya, they're hogs and if we check to find another extension, they'll
never bother to check to see if it is used before they may grab IT. But
still, I think we should consider change, if we change one, we should
change them all.
However there is a good argument to be made against changing them. I
just want to see it hashed out.
> -Tim
>
> http://www.zacktron.com
> http://www.ldraw.org
> AIM: timcourtne
> ICQ: 23951114
>
> If you don't believe in Gosh, you'll go to Heck, where you'll face eternal
> darnation.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
At 11:26 PM 12/11/1999 , Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Tim Courtney wrote:
>
> > > But as for
> > > .MPD, let's face it: LDraw is *way* more important than MS-P. ;)
> >
> > Yeah, lets keep it .mpd.
>
> I think he was being sarcastic. Project is probably installed on 4000
> times as many PCs as all the LDraw compatible tools put together.
Is that an educated guess of a figure? ;)
> If you
> do anything that has to be planned, you can't live without Project and
> there really isn't a good alternative to it. Trust me.
Yeah... .mpl (Multi-Part LDraw) ?
> >
> > > And file-extensions are inevitable. Out of roughly 50,000 possible TLX's,
> > > Microsoft has sucked up half. Or so my registry tells me.
> >
> > DANG!
>
> Ya, they're hogs and if we check to find another extension, they'll
> never bother to check to see if it is used before they may grab IT. But
> still, I think we should consider change, if we change one, we should
> change them all.
Agreed.
> However there is a good argument to be made against changing them. I
> just want to see it hashed out.
That would be a good thing. The only argument I see against changing them
is tradition, to which I say, 'poo.'
-Tim
http://www.zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
If you don't believe in Gosh, you'll go to Heck, where you'll face eternal
darnation.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Tim Courtney wrote:
> Lar said:
> > I think he was being sarcastic. Project is probably installed on 4000
> > times as many PCs as all the LDraw compatible tools put together.
>
> Is that an educated guess of a figure? ;)
It's a SWAG. Probably exaggerated by one order of magnitude, on
reflection... Fairly educated, though. Let's work the LDraw side... how
many LDrawers do you think we have? I'll let you make that guess, you'd
know better than I, but I'd be surprised if it was much more than 1000
at this point.
As to the other side, 80-90% of all project managers use it. That's a
stat I got from Project Management Institute in an article about project
management tools. They were estimating that somewhere between 1 in 5 and
1 in 100 PMs were members of PMI. PMI has 50,000 members.
(http://www.pmi.org/) And I know that on projects that *I* run, I make
EVERYONE on the project use Project, if only to review the plans and
submit actuals against estimates. Most PMs make at least the team leads
use it, so that's a scaleup of probably 2-3
So: 50K * (5 to 100 non members of PMI) * (2 to 3 per team not PMs) *
80% tool penetration
is somewhere between 400,000 and 12,000,000 Project users. Using 1K
Ldraw users is 400 to 12,000 times as many Project users. So 4,000
wasn't a bad shoot from the hip answer.
PS : We NEED to see if we can get your posting fixed, you never seem to
be threaded right when viewed from a newsreader... did you ever track
down what the issue was there?
ObCredentials: Former PMI member, former Project Manager, former Program
Manager, fairly skilled Project user, fairly skilled user population
estimator
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
At 12:18 AM 12/12/1999 , Larry Pieniazek wrote:
[...] Snippety-poo
> So: 50K * (5 to 100 non members of PMI) * (2 to 3 per team not PMs) *
> 80% tool penetration
>
> is somewhere between 400,000 and 12,000,000 Project users. Using 1K
> Ldraw users is 400 to 12,000 times as many Project users. So 4,000
> wasn't a bad shoot from the hip answer.
Ok... I'd take a shot that there are maybe 1000-1500 LDraw users. There
are a lot of hits to ldraw.org, average of about 70 pages/hr from a couple
weeks ago. I don't have up to the minute stats on it.
> PS : We NEED to see if we can get your posting fixed, you never seem to
> be threaded right when viewed from a newsreader... did you ever track
> down what the issue was there?
Yeah we do. I didn't track it down, but its my email program, Eudora Pro
4.2 (according to Todd). I'm hoping when 5.0 comes out it will be
corrected. I wonder if some of the Lugnet software could be written to
adjust to Eudora users, I'm sure I'm not the only one who uses Lugnet
[1]. I don't like Outlook or Outlook Express, so I don't want to make the
switchover.
[1] Todd, how does the software handle threads from news-by-mail users?
> ObCredentials: Former PMI member, former Project Manager, former Program
> Manager, fairly skilled Project user, fairly skilled user population
> estimator
Watch out, we have a professional on our hands ;) <ducks, runs>
-Tim
http://www.zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
If you don't believe in Gosh, you'll go to Heck, where you'll face eternal
darnation.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney wrote:
> At 01:19 PM 12/10/1999 , Steve Bliss wrote:
> > There are at least three different concepts to be differentiated--
> > "The Organization Formerly Known as L-CAD"
>
> LDraw Group? LDraw Organization? LDraw Foundation?
I'd prefer that the group and website both go by ldraw.org. When refering
specifically to the people, it would be 'ldraw.org group'. For the webpages, it
would be 'ldraw.org site'.
> > "the LDraw suite of tools that JJ developed (as maintained by TOFKALCAD)"
>
> Hmmm, original software only, or original software including our updates?
Which updates? The new mklist.exe? Fixed versions of James' part files? New
parts we've written?
I'd say it's everything included in the ldraw.exe distribution file. Which will
be the first two items (mklist and fixes), but not the third (new parts).
> LDraw? LDraw Suite? LDraw Package?
LDraw.
> > "part files for use with LDraw-Compatible tools, and sanctioned by TOFKALCAD"
>
> Official ldraw.org Parts Updates.
I thought ldraw.org was the site, not the group. ;)
> > "formated to be compatible with LDraw and LEdit, as extended"
>
> LDraw Compatible Editor/Viewer/Utility.
>
> > > both .mpd and .dat are poorly named extensions. .dat more so, but .mpd
> > > is used by Microsoft Project. If future tools could recognise other
> > > extensions that would be swell.
> >
> > .DAT I have a problem with, because it is historically generic.
>
> Yes. How bout these?
>
> .ldr
> .ldm (LDraw Model)
> .lgo (stepping on toes there?)
None of them sing to me.
> > And file-extensions are inevitable. Out of roughly 50,000 possible TLX's,
> > Microsoft has sucked up half. Or so my registry tells me.
>
> DANG!
I'm kidding.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
At 11:19 AM 12/14/1999 , Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > LDraw Group? LDraw Organization? LDraw Foundation?
>
> I'd prefer that the group and website both go by ldraw.org. When refering
> specifically to the people, it would be 'ldraw.org group'. For the
> webpages, it would be 'ldraw.org site'.
I would have to disagree here. I clearly see 'ldraw.org' as a website,
since that's the name the website has been given. But the group of people
is an organization, who uses the site as its central resource for LDraw
materials. The organization should have a separate name, because of the
ambiguity of calling it as well 'ldraw.org.' Adding 'group' and 'site' to
the end would add complexity to things. For example, every reference to
'ldraw.org' on ldraw.org refers back to the site itself.
Is there something wrong with the above suggested names? Perhaps retaining
L-CAD? (though this was mailing list-specific)
Anyways, I'm pretty much against referring to the group as 'ldraw.org.'
Another thought, I'm 'ldraw.org Project Coordinator,' Jacob is 'ldraw.org
Site Administrator,' and you're 'ldraw.org Parts Update Manager,' all which
refer to our specific roles as pertains to the website. My title doesn't
mean I'm coordinating the *group*, Jacob isn't administrating the *group*,
etc..
> > > "the LDraw suite of tools that JJ developed (as maintained by TOFKALCAD)"
> >
> > Hmmm, original software only, or original software including our updates?
>
> Which updates? The new mklist.exe? Fixed versions of James' part
> files? New parts we've written?
All updates, including the new parts we've written that have been included
in the official updates.
> > > "part files for use with LDraw-Compatible tools, and sanctioned by • TOFKALCAD"
> >
> > Official ldraw.org Parts Updates.
>
> I thought ldraw.org was the site, not the group. ;)
Why you little... ;) I am actually referring to the site in this
name. The updates are officially sanctioned by the site, though they went
through the group for approval.
> > > .DAT I have a problem with, because it is historically generic.
> >
> > Yes. How bout these?
> >
> > .ldr
> > .ldm (LDraw Model)
> > .lgo (stepping on toes there?)
>
> None of them sing to me.
I didn't expect them to. If you ever hear text on a screen sing, let me
know before you call the media. I want to be the first to know ;)
Now more seriously... I personally like .ldr. Anyone else?
-Tim
http://www.zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
If you don't believe in Gosh, you'll go to Heck, where you'll face eternal
darnation.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
It would be great if the parts request list could be moved to LDraw.org. It's
kind of hard to find. I'm having trouble trying to locate it now. Those darn
*.shtml files...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
At 08:33 PM 12/14/1999 , Michael Horvath wrote:
> It would be great if the parts request list could be moved to LDraw.org. It's
> kind of hard to find. I'm having trouble trying to locate it now. Those darn
> *.shtml files...
I'd like to see that happen too. But AFAIK I don't know of any reply from
Zach Benz on the question. If he gives the OK, I'm all for it. Jacob
would have to write something to make it run, I'm a dud when it comes to
programming.
-Tim
http://www.zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
If you don't believe in Gosh, you'll go to Heck, where you'll face eternal
darnation.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney writes:
> At 08:33 PM 12/14/1999 , Michael Horvath wrote:
> > It would be great if the parts request list could be moved to LDraw.org. • It's
> > kind of hard to find. I'm having trouble trying to locate it now. Those • darn
> > *.shtml files...
>
> I'd like to see that happen too. But AFAIK I don't know of any reply from
> Zach Benz on the question. If he gives the OK, I'm all for it. Jacob
> would have to write something to make it run, I'm a dud when it comes to
> programming.
>
> -Tim
>
> http://www.zacktron.com
> http://www.ldraw.org
> AIM: timcourtne
> ICQ: 23951114
Could you tell me the address of that site? I can't find it.
Mike
> If you don't believe in Gosh, you'll go to Heck, where you'll face eternal
> darnation.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney wrote:
> At 11:19 AM 12/14/1999 , Steve Bliss wrote:
> > In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > > LDraw Group? LDraw Organization? LDraw Foundation?
> >
> > I'd prefer that the group and website both go by ldraw.org. When refering
> > specifically to the people, it would be 'ldraw.org group'. For the
> > webpages, it would be 'ldraw.org site'.
>
> I would have to disagree here. I clearly see 'ldraw.org' as a website,
> since that's the name the website has been given. But the group of people
> is an organization, who uses the site as its central resource for LDraw
> materials. The organization should have a separate name, because of the
> ambiguity of calling it as well 'ldraw.org.' Adding 'group' and 'site' to
> the end would add complexity to things. For example, every reference to
> 'ldraw.org' on ldraw.org refers back to the site itself.
Right now, the website pretty much *is* the organization. We don't have a
membership list, or a secret handshake, or even a definition of who's in the
group. I'm alright with this loose organization, but I feel that there isn't a
big point of making a distinction between the group and the site. Besides, if
the same name is used, normies (aka mundanes) will have a better shot at finding
the site, if they know the group.
> Is there something wrong with the above suggested names? Perhaps retaining
> L-CAD? (though this was mailing list-specific)
I was trying to cling to L-CAD for awhile, but no one else was using it. And
lugnet.cad.dev doesn't seem right.
> Anyways, I'm pretty much against referring to the group as 'ldraw.org.'
I noticed that.
So, Tim and I disagree. What do you other 'members' think?
> Another thought, I'm 'ldraw.org Project Coordinator,' Jacob is 'ldraw.org
> Site Administrator,' and you're 'ldraw.org Parts Update Manager,' all which
> refer to our specific roles as pertains to the website. My title doesn't
> mean I'm coordinating the *group*, Jacob isn't administrating the *group*,
> etc..
Check the title you've given Jacob. You say he's 'ldraw.org site
administrator'. That's ambiguous. I read it as "administrator of the ldraw.org
site".
And I'm administering (administrating?) the parts updates for the *group*. It
just happens that the updates are published on the site.
> > > > "the LDraw suite of tools that JJ developed (as maintained by TOFKALCAD)"
> > >
> > > Hmmm, original software only, or original software including our updates?
> >
> > Which updates? The new mklist.exe? Fixed versions of James' part
> > files? New parts we've written?
>
> All updates, including the new parts we've written that have been included
> in the official updates.
No, then just the original software. But my *intention* with this item, was
that it was James' original package, plus software and parts-file fixes (but no
new parts).
New parts are in next bit ("part files...").
Orig package + new parts is something else.
> > > > "part files for use with LDraw-Compatible tools, and sanctioned by • TOFKALCAD"
> > >
> > > Official ldraw.org Parts Updates.
> >
> > I thought ldraw.org was the site, not the group. ;)
>
> Why you little... ;) I am actually referring to the site in this
> name. The updates are officially sanctioned by the site, though they went
> through the group for approval.
Nope, doesn't wash. The site has no will, it can't sanction anything. The
*group* sanctions the updates. And the group publishes the updates on the site.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
At 11:06 AM 12/15/1999 , Steve Bliss wrote:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > I would have to disagree here. I clearly see 'ldraw.org' as a website,
> > since that's the name the website has been given. But the group of people
> > is an organization, who uses the site as its central resource for LDraw
> > materials. The organization should have a separate name, because of the
> > ambiguity of calling it as well 'ldraw.org.' Adding 'group' and 'site' to
> > the end would add complexity to things. For example, every reference to
> > 'ldraw.org' on ldraw.org refers back to the site itself.
>
> Right now, the website pretty much *is* the organization. We don't have a
> membership list, or a secret handshake, or even a definition of who's in the
> group. I'm alright with this loose organization, but I feel that there
> isn't a big point of making a distinction between the group and the site.
Should it stay this way, or should we move towards a more structured
organization? If so, what are the criteria for membership? Does the group
need a leader(s), and if yes, what is the role(s) of the leader(s)?
> Besides, if the same name is used, normies (aka mundanes) will have a
> better shot at finding the site, if they know the group.
But it (or the JJ Memorial, which now redirects traffic to ldraw.org) is
widely linked to, and also referred to on Lugnet with its own group and such.
On the other hand, a search for 'ldraw' on Yahoo brings up many different
peoples' pages, including a subsection of the old JJ Memorial on
Geocities. I recall that I did submit the site to Yahoo, and I wonder if
that can be fixed...
I wonder...should the pages behind the splash on the old JJ Memorial be
deleted? For people who don't know, I put up a redirect page on the
Geocities site last night. Have a look.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2244/
> I was trying to cling to L-CAD for awhile, but no one else was using it. And
> lugnet.cad.dev doesn't seem right.
True. I like the nostalgia L-CAD has, but obviously not many others still
hold on to it. And this 'group' pretty much concerns LDraw or at least
LDraw DAT file format programs.
> So, Tim and I disagree. What do you other 'members' think?
Perhaps a small vote thingie on the site? Include 3 or 4 options and a
little explanation of the question...
> Check the title you've given Jacob. You say he's 'ldraw.org site
> administrator'. That's ambiguous. I read it as "administrator of the
> ldraw.org site".
Clearly that's what the title means, but for the sake of brevity and
non-mouthfullness its written like that.
> And I'm administering (administrating?) the parts updates for the
> *group*. It just happens that the updates are published on the site.
That really has no relevance towards your argument of calling the group
'ldraw.org.'
> > All updates, including the new parts we've written that have been included
> > in the official updates.
>
> No, then just the original software. But my *intention* with this item, was
> that it was James' original package, plus software and parts-file fixes
> (but no new parts).
Ok. Agreed.
> New parts are in next bit ("part files...").
>
> Orig package + new parts is something else.
Could the original package be 'LDraw' and the package + parts files be
'LDraw Suite' or 'LDraw Package?'
[Official ldraw.org Parts Updates]
> > Why you little... ;) I am actually referring to the site in this
> > name. The updates are officially sanctioned by the site, though they went
> > through the group for approval.
>
> Nope, doesn't wash. The site has no will, it can't sanction anything. The
> *group* sanctions the updates. And the group publishes the updates on the
> site.
In this case, either one of two things:
1) They're sanctioned by the group to be *on* the site, therefore they
contain the site name.
2) To avoid this confusion, the name of the parts updates is changed to
something like 'Official LDraw Parts Updates.' ...but 'LDraw' refers to
the original software, *without* the new parts files.
-Tim
http://www.zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
A man dreamt he was a car, and woke up exhausted. Later he recalled that
the dream was a weird auto body experience.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
At 08:02 PM 12/09/1999 , Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In my opinion:
>
> A name is needed to identify the concept of "formated to be compatible
> with LDraw and LEdit, as extended". This name needs to be separate from
> the concept of "the LDraw suite of tools that JJ developed". Only one
> can be LDraw, the other needs to be a different name. Which one? That's
> what this debate is about.
Correct. I like the phrase 'The LDraw System' identifying the original
.dat format and the programs which use the 'System.' [1]
> both .mpd and .dat are poorly named extensions. .dat more so, but .mpd
> is used by Microsoft Project. If future tools could recognise other
> extensions that would be swell.
Obviously .dat files have become integrated with part files. I like .ldr
or .ldm for 'LDraw Model.' .mpl for 'Multi-Part LDraw?'
[1] Would this conflict with TLG and 'Lego System?'
-Tim
http://www.zacktron.com
http://www.ldraw.org
AIM: timcourtne
ICQ: 23951114
If you don't believe in Gosh, you'll go to Heck, where you'll face eternal
darnation.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Can we pick one newsgroup for this discussion? Please?
In lugnet.cad, Tim Courtney wrote:
> At 08:02 PM 12/09/1999 , Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > In my opinion:
> >
> > A name is needed to identify the concept of "formated to be compatible
> > with LDraw and LEdit, as extended". This name needs to be separate from
> > the concept of "the LDraw suite of tools that JJ developed". Only one
> > can be LDraw, the other needs to be a different name. Which one? That's
> > what this debate is about.
>
> Correct. I like the phrase 'The LDraw System' identifying the original
> .dat format and the programs which use the 'System.' [1]
I don't see much of a need for this, other than saying programs can claim they
are "LDraw Compatible".
> [1] Would this conflict with TLG and 'Lego System?'
Nah.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.cad, Tim Courtney writes:
> Correct. I like the phrase 'The LDraw System' identifying the original
> .dat format and the programs which use the 'System.' [1]
>
> [1] Would this conflict with TLG and 'Lego System?'
>
> -Tim
No. But using the phrase "The LDS" may require some troublesome
context switching from anyone familiar with the Mormon church.
Kidding ... I think.
--
jthompson@esker.com "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily"
| | | | | | |
