|
[Sponsors] |
![]() |
![]() |
#101 |
Senior Member
Håkan Nilsson
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Posts: 204
Rep Power: 18 ![]() |
Dear Alberto,
This message is written on behalf of the administrators of the OpenFOAM-extend project at SourceForge (note that this project is currently not affiliated with OpenCFD - it is a community initiative). It does not mean that we will take active part in this discussion, but we feel that we need to say that we are following the discussion and that we of course support community contributions such as the one by Holger. We also have a comment regarding your latest proposition: What you are describing was exactly the purpose of the OpenFOAM-extend project. Please see the original slides on the OpenFOAM-extend project, from the second OpenFOAM Workshop: http://powerlab.fsb.hr/ped/kturbo/Op...Zagreb2007.pdf. OpenCFD was invited to be one of the originators of that project, but they politely declined. You can see in the slides that the OpenFOAM-extend project is prepared for a review process, through the Forge directories. Until now this review process has not been activated and we try instead to keep the trunk as clean and bug-free as possible. Forging and Tagging to a larger extent is however something that would make sense, so we can still do improvements of the repository of course. Documentation in LaTeX format would fit perfectly into the same structure, where people can do preliminary work in the trunk, and Forge it when the documentation has been reviewed. The contributors would be acknowledged both by their names in the document, but also by their commit to the repository. Initially, the OpenFOAM-extend project hosted a bug-fixed version of the OpenCFD release, but that was made obsolete by the git repository provided by OpenCFD with release 1.5.x. We are not aiming at reproducing features that already exist. OpenFOAM users who would like to contribute to the OpenFOAM-extend project must ask the administrators for permission to do so. This is not something we like, but we feel that it is necessary in order to be able to maintain order and quality in the project. As we understand it, the documentation project wasn't completely open for people to do whatever they liked either, so we guess that you understand why we need this control. Please read about the OpenFOAM-extend project and tell us what part of your suggestion is not already fulfilled. We are aware that an involvement by OpenCFD would be ideal to incorporate features from the dev-source into the vanilla release. They are always welcome to join the project, or to start a new similar project together with the community, making the OpenFOAM-extend project obsolete. We are however in no control of OpenCFD or any other people involved in the OpenFOAM CFD toolbox. You have also privately contacted the OpenFOAM Workshop committee. The OpenFOAM Workshop is another community initiative, which is not connected to OpenFOAM-extend. Also in this case, OpenCFD was invited to be one of the originators of this activity, but again they politely declined. Note that the OpenFOAM-extend project and the OpenFOAM Workshop are community initiatives that are currently not affiliated with OpenCFD. They are driven on a non-profit basis, and the purpose is to provide the community with two alternative ways to improve the code and share information related to OpenFOAM. The OpenFOAM-extend administrators. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#103 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,912
Rep Power: 36 ![]() ![]() |
Dear Hakan,
thanks for your reply. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What I feel is missing, and this emerged from some discussions I had with friends and colleagues that use or tried to use OpenFOAM, is a single point of reference, where they can find information on how to start, and some documentation to learn how to become familiar with the code, what version to use to have a stable environment and certain features, ... In other words, a new user or a beginner has in front two realities, and it might not be straightforward to understand what he has to do, whatever release it picks (official or -dev). Holger tried to put together something to address the problem of the lack of systematic documentation of the high level solvers, which is what I feel is desperately needed, and I frankly was surprised and disappointed when OpenCFD(r) attacked the initiative so aggressively. My proposal was an attempt to find a way to have well organized community initiatives without worrying about legal aspects, and involving OpenCFD(r). At this point, the decision is neither mine nor of the community. I have no interest in taking an independent initiative (I clarify just in case someone was wondering about that), since it would contribute to divide and confuse the community even more, and that's not something I want. However I'm surely willing to help to improve the current situation, and I will follow its development. In the interest of the project, I think the problems related to the trademark should be solved once for all, in the most transparent manner. It is clear I would like OpenCFD to be part of this, but it is clear as well that a solution has to be found at a certain point, whatever their position will be, since it would be much worse to stick to the current situation, with all the initiatives under the threat of the trademark policy. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Best,
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as in both physical and virtual formats (current status: http://albertopassalacqua.com/?p=1541) OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods. To obtain more accurate answers, please specify the version of OpenFOAM you are using. ![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#104 |
Senior Member
Laurence R. McGlashan
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 370
Rep Power: 23 ![]() |
Hello everyone,
Maybe I've gone crazy, PhDs can do that to oneself. I've just started to use Git, and I seriously think this could play a part in all this. First, watch this talk; Linus Torvalds on Git. Arrogant, yes, but deservedly so. I thought that the part about trust was the best. A lot of this discussion seems to centre around the reliability of contributors (is the documentation they produce good enough/correct etc.). Well, OpenFOAM uses Git. I can clone OpenCFD's version. But say someone writes their own amazing solver for something I'm interested in. I can pull their version (merge their openfoam with mine). If it's rubbish, I can junk it. If it's good, it will spread. The simple fact is that if a contribution is rubbish, it won't get very far. I suppose this depends on the size of the userbase and whether people are willing to share their work. But I think this might be worth thinking about. It will work for documentation as well.
__________________
Laurence R. McGlashan :: Website Last edited by l_r_mcglashan; November 3, 2009 at 10:35. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#105 | |
Assistant Moderator
Bernhard Gschaider
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,225
Rep Power: 51 ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#106 |
Senior Member
Laurence R. McGlashan
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 370
Rep Power: 23 ![]() |
It is rather long. Apologies.
12:15 and onwards for 10 minutes. There's also a transcript here: Search for 'audience laugh' on that page and read the next few paragraphs if you're interested.
__________________
Laurence R. McGlashan :: Website |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#107 |
Senior Member
Mark Olesen
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: https://olesenm.github.io/
Posts: 1,714
Rep Power: 40 ![]() ![]() |
Posting removed
Last edited by olesen; November 10, 2009 at 08:08. Reason: removed |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#108 | |
Senior Member
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,912
Rep Power: 36 ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Moreover, they refused to rediscuss the naming of the project to verify the compliance with their trademark policy. It is surely OK from a legal point of view. It speaks by itself when you claim you drive an open project too, especially since the initiative was very far from being commercial and competitive with them (is a sponsored documentation project feasible? who would pay to release documentation on the features he paid to include?). Point 5 of their policy is funny. Do you imagine a Microsoft(r) .Net(r) or a Java(r) developer that are forced to define themselves "developer using Microsoft(r) .Net(r) developer" or "developer using SUN(r) Java(r) technology"? It is quite clear that if you are not associated formally with OpenCFD, you are not a developer of the official release, but you still develop that code. It seems simply another way not to recognize that important developments are going on outside of the main release, mainly because of their closure towards any kind of contribution not tied to a support contract. I frankly fail to see where the ideas of open source and open development are in all this. Best,
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as in both physical and virtual formats (current status: http://albertopassalacqua.com/?p=1541) OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods. To obtain more accurate answers, please specify the version of OpenFOAM you are using. ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#109 |
Senior Member
Mark Olesen
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: https://olesenm.github.io/
Posts: 1,714
Rep Power: 40 ![]() ![]() |
Posting Removed
Last edited by olesen; November 10, 2009 at 08:09. Reason: Removed |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#110 | |
Senior Member
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,912
Rep Power: 36 ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Technically a common word cannot be used alone in a trademark, and it is common practice to combine it with something else to create a unique trademark. In the US trademark system however, it is practically possible, essentially due to the absence of controls and of transparent rules, to register whatever you want, and this is at the base of the discussion about reforming patent and trademark systems. Foam is a common name in general, and it is also widely used in physics, fluid dynamics and, as a consequence in CFD. Let's look at the definition of foam, again from OED: Foam: The aggregation of minute bubbles formed in water or other liquids by agitation, fermentation, effervescence, ebullition, etc). There are specific CFD applications that deal with polymeric foams too for example. Looking at it from a strictly legal way, there is another important difference however: Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft(tm), "foam" is not registered by OpenCFD(r).
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as in both physical and virtual formats (current status: http://albertopassalacqua.com/?p=1541) OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods. To obtain more accurate answers, please specify the version of OpenFOAM you are using. ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#111 |
Senior Member
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,912
Rep Power: 36 ![]() ![]() |
For your information, I have not received any comment from OpenCFD(r) at this point, and I do not think at this point there is any interest on their side in finding a solution to the problems affecting the development of an active and growing community.
I think at this point any further community contribution should be oriented towards the only truly open community oriented initiative that originated in these years around FOAM. I am clearly talking about the FOAM-dev/-extend ( http://sourceforge.net/projects/openfoam-extend/develop ) initiative, where it is actually possible to take part to the development of the code, with the idea of creating an open code that can be a reference for the CFD community. In my personal opinion, to make things easier and more clear to everyone, some additional step is necessary to
This step is painful and annoying, but at this point it is also necessary, since the trademark policy ( http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?r...entry=79040040 ) has very wide implications, and covers almost all the important activities around the code itself. In particular the policy applies also to
However, it is time to look forward, to build on the existing community initiatives, and to work on the expansion of the collaborative environment originated around the -dev/-extend initiatives and the workshops. Clearly the final decision on how to proceed exactly is not mine, since I am not associated with any of the involved parts, and moreover, because there is people active in these initiatives with more experience and involvement than me. On my side, I will support their efforts, and my contributions will more oriented in that direction. Best,
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as in both physical and virtual formats (current status: http://albertopassalacqua.com/?p=1541) OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods. To obtain more accurate answers, please specify the version of OpenFOAM you are using. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#112 |
Senior Member
Mark Olesen
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: https://olesenm.github.io/
Posts: 1,714
Rep Power: 40 ![]() ![]() |
Posting Removed
Last edited by olesen; November 10, 2009 at 08:09. Reason: Removed |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#113 | |
Senior Member
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,912
Rep Power: 36 ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
what you define "strong opinions" are the natural and direct consequence of the absence of any kind of reply from upstream developers to the issues raised in this thread, and before on the discussion board and during private communications. Before easily concluding that I have strong opinions, you should make an effort with your memory, and remember that I was not exactly against the trademark policy OpenCFD(r) originally introduced. You and me discussed about it when it was introduced the first time ( http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/ope...rk-policy.html ), and I was not exactly strongly opinionated. I still think that the trademark policy could not be a problem if used correctly, and not against community initiatives without any commercial interest, as they did very explicitly. Unfortunately the attitude of upstream developers, and their openness to discuss of alternatives and shared solutions does not exist, and this leaves, in my opinion, no alternative to a fork, since, in the current situation, one part is clearly at a disadvantage with respect to the other. We should not forget that upstream developers
If you have other concrete proposals to make that might address some of the problems discussed in this thread, and you think might be accepted by OpenCFD(r), I think all the thread followers will be happy to read and discuss them. I will surely consider them carefully. Defending the current situation, at this point, seems pointless to me, since it seems quite evident it is unbalanced. Best,
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as in both physical and virtual formats (current status: http://albertopassalacqua.com/?p=1541) OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods. To obtain more accurate answers, please specify the version of OpenFOAM you are using. ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#114 | |||
Member
Maxim Loginov
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 33
Rep Power: 17 ![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
- good building system for fully automated build (again I refer to freefoam). this ensure that can be at least compiled without problem. - unit testing framework (I did not find it in OF). this ensure that new code does not break existing code. - solver needs not simple tutorial, but kind of validation test case with comparison against established analytical/experimental/numerical data. at least one can clearly see if solution is converged to the right result. this also can be considered as integral testing. - style/formatting issue can be solved easily with GNU indent utility, choose any style and publish it. unfortunately, documentation review is really manual process. Quote:
OF-dev community is rather good model. bit bulky but acceptable. I'd prefere them to move repostory to git and have better technical integration with opencfd and freefoam branch |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#115 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,912
Rep Power: 36 ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]() Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Best,
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as in both physical and virtual formats (current status: http://albertopassalacqua.com/?p=1541) OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods. To obtain more accurate answers, please specify the version of OpenFOAM you are using. ![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#116 | ||||||
Member
Maxim Loginov
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 33
Rep Power: 17 ![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
- easy/difficult is relative category - most probably no - no. there is nothing to do with performance, unit testing is performed on compilation/installation stage. - personally I do not use any at the moment, you better check wikipedia Quote:
Quote:
if OF-dev converted their repository to git, then you can easily include/remove any branch, OF-dev to OF or vice versa. merge any patch to any branch, do (almost) whatever. true flexibility is possible. of course to really achieve this flexibility everyone need to follow git rules and practice for commits, but this is not a rocket science. (well, I have to note that opencfd practice is far from ideal or even good: separation 1.5 and 1.6 repositories is something) |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#117 | ||||||
Senior Member
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,912
Rep Power: 36 ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
![]() I think basic review and validation has to be done, or it becomes too expensive in terms of time and money to do it by yourself everytime you use the code, and at that point you look at other solutions, sometime commercial sometime open, where this is done. The complexity of the review process can be easily reduced:
A review process is not extremely necessary if the group of contributors is trusted (even then, we all make mistakes!) and relatively small, but if the number of contributors grows, it becomes a must to avoid quality problems. Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Both kind of works are OK, but to check if the numerics is correct and the model is implemented correctly, it is much easier to find an elementary case where you can define the analytical solution, and use it. Quote:
Best,
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as in both physical and virtual formats (current status: http://albertopassalacqua.com/?p=1541) OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods. To obtain more accurate answers, please specify the version of OpenFOAM you are using. ![]() |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#118 |
Senior Member
Mark Olesen
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: https://olesenm.github.io/
Posts: 1,714
Rep Power: 40 ![]() ![]() |
Posting Removed
Last edited by olesen; November 10, 2009 at 08:09. Reason: Removed |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#119 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 38
Rep Power: 17 ![]() |
I've been reading the posts and am also saddened by the stance of OF folks. I have looked at funding combustion-code source modifications through them, but now I'm becoming leery of doing that since I might loose the code I "buy."
I have to say that there is a real issue about the learning curve for OF if it gets fragmented into various forks - a noob like me may not find even how to get started! (i.e., what to download, how to set up .cshrc - or not! - how to compile - or not! - etc., etc., etc.) I'm my own sysadmin, laboratory worker (I hate changing vacuum pump oil, but my laboratory won't run without this) and still have to write papers and attend conferences... One of the blessings of OF was that it was easy to install and get test-cases running. In reading all these posts I can see that ease slipping away. (I have no idea what "git" is though I've been using opensuse for years - but it doesn't sound friendly...) Please, let's keep the newbies and pseudo-sysadmins in mind when designing this - or else new folks will bounce off the confusion-bubble surrounding (some new fork) and opt for (inadequate?) commercial software... as I have in the past for other opensource software. Patti |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#120 | |
Senior Member
Alberto Passalacqua
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ames, Iowa, United States
Posts: 1,912
Rep Power: 36 ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
I would not jump to the conclusion you will lose your code, developed using a support contract, if a fork takes place. First, an official release will still exist, and your code would work there. Second, at least initially, a fork won't be much different from the official release, as a consequence a port, if required, would not take much time and effort. The whole idea behind the documentation project is to make the code more accessible and more friendly to users, reducing the learning curve. I would not support an effort in the opposite direction, since it would mean contradicting what I have been saying for years. I do not think a fork will lead to a significant change in the user experience, especially for newbies. If a fork will take place, since no other solution will be found, I promise that I will take care of making installation and system configuration process well documented. About Git, we are on one side discussing of it to simplify contributions. Git is already used by OpenCFD(r) to provide code fixes after a major release (for example, 1.6.x is hosted in a git repository). From a user perspective, git requires you to know two commands: git clone and git pull Once the code is downloaded from the repository, the same procedures used to compile OpenFOAM apply, without any additional difficulty. Best,
__________________
Alberto Passalacqua GeekoCFD - A free distribution based on openSUSE 64 bit with CFD tools, including OpenFOAM. Available as in both physical and virtual formats (current status: http://albertopassalacqua.com/?p=1541) OpenQBMM - An open-source implementation of quadrature-based moment methods. To obtain more accurate answers, please specify the version of OpenFOAM you are using. ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() LinkBack to this Thread: https://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/openfoam/69068-foam-documentation-project-shut-down.html
|
||||
Posted By | For | Type | Date | |
?????????So-net blog | This thread | Refback | October 18, 2009 18:46 | |
Horse Bits | This thread | Refback | October 17, 2009 15:36 | |
OpenFOAM(r) related posts removed | This thread | Pingback | October 13, 2009 12:57 |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[blockMesh] BlockMesh FOAM warning | gaottino | OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion | 7 | July 19, 2010 14:11 |
[blockMesh] Axisymmetrical mesh | Rasmus Gjesing (Gjesing) | OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion | 10 | April 2, 2007 14:00 |
[Gmsh] Import gmsh msh to Foam | adorean | OpenFOAM Meshing & Mesh Conversion | 24 | April 27, 2005 08:19 |