Just sent this to the eightycolumn list. I'm not going to even read any of the messages from the original post. I'm Sorry, ok.
Oh dear...
"I am guessing you are pointing to the fact that libpd encourages the production of proprietary software and their distribution on closed apps markets?"
Yes absolutely, plus the whole iThing-planetary-destruction-not-really-what-I-thought-'we'-are working-towards-type-stuff (idealistic idiot that I am).
Also seems like such a clear distinction between OSSvsFSF/FLOSS stuff. Yes I can see that on one side what's wrong with libpd sucking the core out of Pd and doing what they want, that's what the license/gift allows people to do. Then after that I guess it's also okay for the author to get on the pd-list with a 'buy my book' schtick (plus then a large cue of people saying how happy they are to get their amazon order in now; kindle version yours for £10, ebook an extra 2.50 even if you've bought the book - grrr), can you see where this is going?
So yes, then some guy from the publisher posting a link to an online review and 'hey pd's kewl man' tipped me over the edge.
Yes it's dumb Yes I'm going to spend the rest of the day cringing and apologising Yes I've recently stopped smoking and am somewhat psychotic.
Probably would have been better to have gone for a walk or something.
Anyway, onwards eh,
Julian
smoking isn't really THAT bad. as long as you don't smoke too many, it just raises your odds on diseases that have pretty low odds anyway,
long as you don't smoke too many
One is to many and a thousand is never enough.
On Mar 9, 2012, at 7:55 AM, i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
smoking isn't really THAT bad. as long as you don't smoke too many, it just raises your odds on diseases that have pretty low odds anyway,
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
the problem with cigarettes is being able to make your own.
the same thing applies on software, as i see.
2012/3/9 mark edward grimm megrimm@gmail.com
long as you don't smoke too many
One is to many and a thousand is never enough.
On Mar 9, 2012, at 7:55 AM, i go bananas hard.off@gmail.com wrote:
smoking isn't really THAT bad. as long as you don't smoke too many, it
just raises your odds on diseases that have pretty low odds anyway,
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Le 2012-03-09 à 14:26:00, Py Fave a écrit :
the problem with cigarettes is being able to make your own.
The problem with cigarettes is smoking them. If it were not a problem, then the problem would be to grow them, because if you merely roll them, then you're still buying Drum tobacco and Riz Lacroix (RizLa+) paper from the same company as Gauloises, Gitanes and JPS, for example, which are all readymade, if that's the problem you have with them.
But the problem with cigarettes is smoking them. The companies selling them created the lifestyle and encouraged the craving. Basically everybody fell for that.
An association of ninety thousand smokers sues tobacco companies over health issues for 23 billion of $ right now. They deposited their request in 1999, and one should wonder why it took that long for the courts to accept launching the trial. In the end, the Cour Supérieure du Québec will start hearing them now. This makes it the largest anti-tobacco trial ever in Canada.
http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/justice/344619/le-megaproces-du-tabac http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-soleil/actualites/justice-et-faits-divers/20120...
(But this seems extremely underreported in canadian english-language media... you may only guess why that is.)
Anyway... what you say has nothing to do with Julian's problem with cigarettes, and neither does what I'm saying now.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
Le 2012-03-09 à 13:45:00, Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
The problem with cigarettes is smoking them. If it were not a problem, then the problem would be to grow them, because if you merely roll them, then you're still buying Drum tobacco and Riz Lacroix (RizLa+) paper from the same company as Gauloises, Gitanes and JPS, for example, which are all readymade, if that's the problem you have with them.
(I blew that last sentence : I actually just mean that the same companies produce the readymade cigarettes and the roll-your-own cigarettes, if the problem is who is producing them, what's their policy, or how much of the market they own.)
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
But the problem with cigarettes is smoking them. The companies selling them created the lifestyle and encouraged the craving. Basically everybody fell for that.
Yeah one of the biggest cons going. As an ex smoker I can say the hardest thing for me is missing smoking itself. If one never took up the habit to start with, then the feeling of 'missing being able to smoke' would never be felt. It's not the craving per se but missing being able to take 5 minutes out here and there to have cigarette, that stays with you for a while.
But saying that it's not that bad..where's my hooka?
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
Le 2012-03-09 à 14:26:00, Py Fave a écrit :
the problem with cigarettes is being able to make your own.
The problem with cigarettes is smoking them. If it were not a problem, then the problem would be to grow them, because if you merely roll them, then you're still buying Drum tobacco and Riz Lacroix (RizLa+) paper from the same company as Gauloises, Gitanes and JPS, for example, which are all readymade, if that's the problem you have with them.
But the problem with cigarettes is smoking them. The companies selling them created the lifestyle and encouraged the craving. Basically everybody fell for that.
An association of ninety thousand smokers sues tobacco companies over health issues for 23 billion of $ right now. They deposited their request in 1999, and one should wonder why it took that long for the courts to accept launching the trial. In the end, the Cour Supérieure du Québec will start hearing them now. This makes it the largest anti-tobacco trial ever in Canada.
http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/justice/344619/le-megaproces-du-tabac http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-soleil/actualites/justice-et-faits-divers/20120...
(But this seems extremely underreported in canadian english-language media... you may only guess why that is.)
Anyway... what you say has nothing to do with Julian's problem with cigarettes, and neither does what I'm saying now.
______________________________________________________________________ | Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
I've had a horrible debate along these lines before. It's ethics, rather than technology.
But does it make you a better person to have beaten an addiction, or a fool for becoming addicted? Would it be right for someone who hasn't been through that experience to have an oppinion on it anyway? (the worst addiction I've had was tetris.... oh, and pure data)
Personally, a bit of all of the above, helps to be positive about the giving up part, anyway. Rather than getting bogged down in an ethical argument so you forget that something positive has happened..
It's probably too late at night for me to be replying to the mailing list...
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 19:14:38 +0000 From: alan.brooker2010@gmail.com To: matju@artengine.ca CC: Pd-list@iem.at Subject: Re: [PD] Tobacco (was: Web Netiquette (was: a book about libpd))
But the problem with cigarettes is smoking them. The companies selling them created the lifestyle and encouraged the craving. Basically everybody fell for that.
Yeah one of the biggest cons going. As an ex smoker I can say the hardest thing for me is missing smoking itself. If one never took up the habit to start with, then the feeling of 'missing being able to smoke' would never be felt. It's not the craving per se but missing being able to take 5 minutes out here and there to have cigarette, that stays with you for a while.
But saying that it's not that bad..where's my hooka?
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
Le 2012-03-09 à 14:26:00, Py Fave a écrit :
the problem with cigarettes is being able to make your own.
The problem with cigarettes is smoking them. If it were not a problem, then the problem would be to grow them, because if you merely roll them, then you're still buying Drum tobacco and Riz Lacroix (RizLa+) paper from the same company as Gauloises, Gitanes and JPS, for example, which are all readymade, if that's the problem you have with them.
But the problem with cigarettes is smoking them. The companies selling them created the lifestyle and encouraged the craving. Basically everybody fell for that.
An association of ninety thousand smokers sues tobacco companies over health issues for 23 billion of $ right now. They deposited their request in 1999, and one should wonder why it took that long for the courts to accept launching the trial. In the end, the Cour Supérieure du Québec will start hearing them now. This makes it the largest anti-tobacco trial ever in Canada.
http://www.ledevoir.com/societe/justice/344619/le-megaproces-du-tabac http://www.cyberpresse.ca/le-soleil/actualites/justice-et-faits-divers/20120...
(But this seems extremely underreported in canadian english-language media... you may only guess why that is.)
Anyway... what you say has nothing to do with Julian's problem with cigarettes, and neither does what I'm saying now.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:42, Julian Brooks jbeezez@gmail.com wrote:
Just sent this to the eightycolumn list. I'm not going to even read any of the messages from the original post. I'm Sorry, ok.
Oh dear...
"I am guessing you are pointing to the fact that libpd encourages the production of proprietary software and their distribution on closed apps markets?"
Yes absolutely, plus the whole iThing-planetary-destruction-not-really-what-I-thought-'we'-are working-towards-type-stuff (idealistic idiot that I am).
Also seems like such a clear distinction between OSSvsFSF/FLOSS stuff. Yes I can see that on one side what's wrong with libpd sucking the core out of Pd and doing what they want, that's what the license/gift allows people to do. Then after that I guess it's also okay for the author to get on the pd-list with a 'buy my book' schtick (plus then a large cue of people saying how happy they are to get their amazon order in now; kindle version yours for £10, ebook an extra 2.50 even if you've bought the book - grrr), can you see where this is going?
So yes, then some guy from the publisher posting a link to an online review and 'hey pd's kewl man' tipped me over the edge.
Yes it's dumb Yes I'm going to spend the rest of the day cringing and apologising Yes I've recently stopped smoking and am somewhat psychotic.
I know what you are talking about. I really underestimated the power of the dark side until I stopped cigarettes (cca a year ago). Typically, I had lost my patience towards a number of things and demonstrated unacceptable behaviour on a daily basis for a few weeks until it got better (but my body thanked for it from the fist day on). Plus at the end you'll mood will be more balanced than it used to be with the cigarettes. Forza, coraggio! :o)
I can see your point concerning O'reilly and even with libpd but I'm convinced the threat is far from the need of four-letter words. Pd's editing and programming features shall stay open and continue to support the less professional and then all will be good.
András
2012/3/9 András Murányi muranyia@gmail.com:
I can see your point concerning O'reilly and even with libpd but I'm convinced the threat is far from the need of four-letter words. Pd's editing and programming features shall stay open and continue to support the less professional and then all will be good.
What does "less professional" mean here?
alex
2012/3/9 alex alex@lurk.org
2012/3/9 András Murányi muranyia@gmail.com:
I can see your point concerning O'reilly and even with libpd but I'm convinced the threat is far from the need of four-letter words. Pd's editing and programming features shall stay
open
and continue to support the less professional and then all will be good.
What does "less professional" mean here?
alex
I meant myself, for example - and everyone who doesn't do Pd fulltime, thus cannot really afford to learn using the more complicated parts/methods. So to say, the barriers to entry shall be kept low.
András
Le 2012-03-09 à 17:08:00, András Murányi a écrit :
I meant myself, for example - and everyone who doesn't do Pd fulltime, thus cannot really afford to learn using the more complicated parts/methods. So to say, the barriers to entry shall be kept low.
Nearly none of the Pd professionals use Pd «fulltime».
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
2012/3/9 Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca
Le 2012-03-09 à 17:08:00, András Murányi a écrit :
I meant myself, for example - and everyone who doesn't do Pd fulltime,
thus cannot really afford to learn using the more complicated parts/methods. So to say, the barriers to entry shall be kept low.
Nearly none of the Pd professionals use Pd «fulltime».
Yeah. The question is, do you understand the point I was trying to make with my less professional English? Then I'm also interested if you agree with it.
András
I meant myself, for example - and everyone who doesn't do Pd fulltime, thus cannot really afford to learn using the more complicated parts/methods. So to say, the barriers to entry shall be kept low.
Nearly none of the Pd professionals use Pd «fulltime».
Yeah. The question is, do you understand the point I was trying to make with my less professional English? Then I'm also interested if you agree with it.
I don't necessarily... « à temps plein » or « full time » means as a main occupation. The definition is variable, but in my country, this is normally assumed to mean 30 hours per week in a sustained way, especially 50 weeks per year. Even when including all the non-patching activities that revolve around Pd or mostly-Pd projects, very few Pd professionals put that much time in Pd. Are there any at all ?
If you don't mean that, then it's probably not a matter of your skills of English, but rather about stating your opinion precisely enough.
But yes, I agree with what I think that you are saying. But I think that there is a continuüm of time investment that gradually makes the learning more worth the effort, and it begins at a tiny amount of part-time such as just a few hours per week.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
2012/3/9 Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca
I meant myself, for example - and everyone who doesn't do Pd fulltime,
thus cannot really afford to learn using the more complicated parts/methods. So to say, the barriers to entry shall be kept low.
Nearly none of the Pd professionals use Pd «fulltime».
Yeah. The question is, do you understand the point I was trying to make
with my less professional English? Then I'm also interested if you agree with it.
I don't necessarily... « à temps plein » or « full time » means as a main occupation. The definition is variable, but in my country, this is normally assumed to mean 30 hours per week in a sustained way, especially 50 weeks per year. Even when including all the non-patching activities that revolve around Pd or mostly-Pd projects, very few Pd professionals put that much time in Pd. Are there any at all ?
Yea, this is what we call in our wonderfully expressive Hungarian language "szőrszálhasogatás" http://hunglish.hu/search?huSentence=sz%C5%91rsz%C3%A1lhasogat%C3%A1s&en... :o)
If you don't mean that, then it's probably not a matter of your skills of English, but rather about stating your opinion precisely enough.
Quite possible, really.
But yes, I agree with what I think that you are saying. But I think that there is a continuüm of time investment that gradually makes the learning more worth the effort, and it begins at a tiny amount of part-time such as just a few hours per week.
I'll try to elaborate more my original point. Phenomena like Pd have kind of "low end" (which is where that barrier of entry is), those parts/applications which are easy to understand and to hack by beginners or amateurs. Then they have a certain "high end", the more advanced topics within - e.g. dynamic patching for me, or libPd according to Julian. Now, someone can fear that the focus of developments could move towards the "high end", leaving simple folks increasingly frustrated. I don't share, but I think I can understand that fear, and my point was that Pd shall keep the "low end" accessible and up-to-date. (IMO, a helpful UI is one factor, good help system and tutorials are another, etc.)
András
Le 2012-03-09 à 19:58:00, András Murányi a écrit :
Then they have a certain "high end", the more advanced topics within - e.g. dynamic patching for me, or libPd according to Julian. Now, someone can fear that the focus of developments could move towards the "high end", leaving simple folks increasingly frustrated.
Many projects are driven by the high-end. It's necessary. They're also driven by the high-end. Many low-end features start existing because high-end features first allowed them to exist. If someone makes an easy-to-use polyphonic synth, this synth might be using dynamic-patching features, perhaps new ones or new ways of using the old ones. This needs high-end development. In projects like Pd, development has always to be multi-focus.
It isn't just that. Even in the case of unrelated features, high-end features are what keeps the high-end users around, and they're the ones who write externals and abstractions, both for themselves and for others. Low-end users don't produce nearly as much low-end abstractions and externals as high-end users do.
It's that the very ability to figure out what should go in a given abstr/extern, and what should be left out, and all the strategies of how to specify args, etc., those are all skills that are characteristics of high-end users. Every such skill moves you towards the higher-end.
At some point I had to realise that I couldn't just ask students to make abstractions... I mean that I couldn't just teach them the mechanics of $1 arguments and $0-foo local variables. They still haven't thought about how to figure out which ideas should become abstractions and which shouldn't, etc. ; they'd need something of the order of « Introduction to programming », perhaps several semesters, but I remember that in university, after the 4th such course, students only began to figure out what could be a good library vs a bad one. So, definitely, Pd users who didn't go through the equivalent of those courses (or of some other related courses) rarely would publish a library that other people would want to use. So, it's important that high-end users keep on making low-end components.
It's also that everybody needs to use some of those « low-end components »... there are lots of things common to all users. And even though high-end users can more easily tolerate design problems and bugs and various difficulties, they don't necessarily like them.
I don't share, but I think I can understand that fear, and my point was that Pd shall keep the "low end" accessible and up-to-date.
Actually, I wonder which features you have in mind when you say that.
Yea, this is what we call in our wonderfully expressive Hungarian language "szőrszálhasogatás" :o)
What I mean about that, is that for making your point, saying full-time isn't simply a small exaggeration. Otherwise, I don't think I'd have made a fuss.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 08:39, Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca wrote:
Le 2012-03-09 à 19:58:00, András Murányi a écrit :
Then they have a certain "high end", the more advanced topics within -
e.g. dynamic patching for me, or libPd according to Julian. Now, someone can fear that the focus of developments could move towards the "high end", leaving simple folks increasingly frustrated.
Many projects are driven by the high-end. It's necessary. They're also driven by the high-end. Many low-end features start existing because high-end features first allowed them to exist. If someone makes an easy-to-use polyphonic synth, this synth might be using dynamic-patching features, perhaps new ones or new ways of using the old ones. This needs high-end development. In projects like Pd, development has always to be multi-focus.
It isn't just that. Even in the case of unrelated features, high-end features are what keeps the high-end users around, and they're the ones who write externals and abstractions, both for themselves and for others. Low-end users don't produce nearly as much low-end abstractions and externals as high-end users do.
It's that the very ability to figure out what should go in a given abstr/extern, and what should be left out, and all the strategies of how to specify args, etc., those are all skills that are characteristics of high-end users. Every such skill moves you towards the higher-end.
At some point I had to realise that I couldn't just ask students to make abstractions... I mean that I couldn't just teach them the mechanics of $1 arguments and $0-foo local variables. They still haven't thought about how to figure out which ideas should become abstractions and which shouldn't, etc. ; they'd need something of the order of « Introduction to programming », perhaps several semesters, but I remember that in university, after the 4th such course, students only began to figure out what could be a good library vs a bad one. So, definitely, Pd users who didn't go through the equivalent of those courses (or of some other related courses) rarely would publish a library that other people would want to use. So, it's important that high-end users keep on making low-end components.
It's also that everybody needs to use some of those « low-end components »... there are lots of things common to all users. And even though high-end users can more easily tolerate design problems and bugs and various difficulties, they don't necessarily like them.
I agree. And NB when I advocate the low-end, I'm by no means against the high-end. The high-end is the avant-garde, so to say. It's not an either-or game.
I don't share, but I think I can understand that fear, and my point was
that Pd shall keep the "low end" accessible and up-to-date.
Actually, I wonder which features you have in mind when you say that.
Hmm. Definitely the GUI comes to my mind first, the put menu-bar, autocompletion, search, zooming, the magic glass - these all make it more accessible and "user friendly". I guess, beginners and amateurs (like me) need these more than experts do.
Yea, this is what we call in our wonderfully expressive Hungarian
language "szőrszálhasogatás" :o)
What I mean about that, is that for making your point, saying full-time isn't simply a small exaggeration. Otherwise, I don't think I'd have made a fuss.
My original wording was "professional". Professional, full-time, or high-end, all different essays to verbalize my fuzzy idea.
András
Hi,
I'm actually hoping that there is some mistranslation here (although what would Deleuze say about that eh?).
High & Low Art - I thought that was played out a loooong time a g o.
Really unsure where you're coming from Andras and that's with giving you the benefit of the doubt (my Hungarian is appalling btw) but you are most definitely misquoting me.
BTW- I never at any point said I have a problem with 'advanced topics'. Ever. Well tbh I prefer the 'here's 3 objects now go and form a laptop ensemble' approach to coding but that's nothing to do with Luddism.
As a 'full-time' 'professional' 'artist' who 'works' exlusively with 'Pd' as well as doing 'research' in 'academia' I am 'happily' 'high' most of the 'time' with occasional cranky but insightful 'low' moments.
Still don't really get your point, sorry.
Julian
2012/3/12 Julian Brooks jbeezez@gmail.com
Hi,
I'm actually hoping that there is some mistranslation here (although what would Deleuze say about that eh?).
High & Low Art - I thought that was played out a loooong time a g o.
Really unsure where you're coming from Andras and that's with giving you the benefit of the doubt (my Hungarian is appalling btw) but you are most definitely misquoting me.
Hey, I was not quoting you. I was basically replying to Matju's mail which was basically replying to mine, in which I was trying to explain my idea about the importance of Pd staying accessible for amateurs, and one of the expressions I used the describe the "amateurs" was "low-end". Sorry if I made any confusion, by the time we arrived to "low-end" and "high-end" I was not having your previous posting on my mind any more. Clearly, you were talking about something else when I, sort of by-the-way, said "Pd's editing and programming features shall stay open and continue to support the less professional and then all will be good." I meant nothing more, nothing less, and especially nothing personal.
BTW- I never at any point said I have a problem with 'advanced topics'. Ever. Well tbh I prefer the 'here's 3 objects now go and form a laptop ensemble' approach to coding but that's nothing to do with Luddism.
As a 'full-time' 'professional' 'artist' who 'works' exlusively with 'Pd' as well as doing 'research' in 'academia' I am 'happily' 'high' most of the 'time' with occasional cranky but insightful 'low' moments.
Still don't really get your point, sorry.
Julian
peace,
András
Le 2012-03-13 à 02:09:00, András Murányi a écrit :
Hey, I was not quoting you. I was basically replying to Matju's mail which was basically replying to mine, in which I was trying to explain my idea about the importance of Pd staying accessible for amateurs, and one of the expressions I used the describe the "amateurs" was "low-end". Sorry if I made any confusion, by the time we arrived to "low-end" and "high-end" I was not having your previous posting on my mind any more.
To me, the use of expressions low-end and high-end was clearly something idiosyncratic, expressions that aren't used in the same way outside of this conversation, just like one would invent new words in a casual manner. I don't see them as corresponding to low art and high art.
| Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
" the more advanced topics within - e.g. dynamic patching for me, or libPd according to Julian."
"The high-end is the avant-garde"
"Peace"
Indeed.
2012/3/13 Mathieu Bouchard matju@artengine.ca
Le 2012-03-13 à 02:09:00, András Murányi a écrit :
Hey, I was not quoting you. I was basically replying to Matju's mail
which was basically replying to mine, in which I was trying to explain my idea about the importance of Pd staying accessible for amateurs, and one of the expressions I used the describe the "amateurs" was "low-end". Sorry if I made any confusion, by the time we arrived to "low-end" and "high-end" I was not having your previous posting on my mind any more.
To me, the use of expressions low-end and high-end was clearly something idiosyncratic, expressions that aren't used in the same way outside of this conversation, just like one would invent new words in a casual manner. I don't see them as corresponding to low art and high art.
______________________________**______________________________** __________ | Mathieu BOUCHARD ----- téléphone : +1.514.383.3801 ----- Montréal, QC
-
ALAN BROOKER -
alex -
Andrew Faraday -
András Murányi -
i go bananas -
Julian Brooks -
mark edward grimm -
Mathieu Bouchard -
Py Fave