Future of PsychToolBox

1
Hello all (particularly David, Denis, and Allen):

With the release of Matlab 7 today (and the increasing difficulty in getting OS 9 bootable
machines), I think it is a good time to begin more specific discussions with both the user
community and the developers on the fate of PTB development. Here are the talking points
I suggest:

1. Does Matlab 7 fix the timing bug in OS X?

1a. If so, what are the *realistic* prospects for getting a functional (=equivalent to the OS
9 version) running and in what timeframe?

1b. If not, what are our options:

2a. Shift all development efforts towards a more robust and stable Windows XP version
(you do not know how much this option pains me!!!)

2b. Shift all development efforts towards a linux or (better still) a QNX version.

3. Continue to work on ways around the OS X timing bug and get the
rest of the port to OS X done in the meantime. We need to gauge whether a workaround is
even a possibility.

4. Assess in a very careful way the option of developing the OS 9
version so as to run "correctly" in classic mode. This option seems like a major waste of
time in the long run.

5. MOST IMPORTANTLY, with Allen being "diverted" to other paid
projects, is there sufficent time and manpower to have any of the above happen in a
reasonable time frame (e.g., by the end of 2004)? Lets be completely honest here. If the
answer is no, what can the community do about this? Money? Programmers? Lobby federal
agencies and foundations?

Best, Mike Tarr
2
1. I thought I read in a recent PsychToolbox posting
that the so-called "Matlab timing bug" had been diagnosed
and completely resolved. Am I mistaken?

2. The PsychToolbox is Pelli and Brainard's baby.
I think they should decide whether they want to fix it
or abandon it, and let the rest of us know their decision.

-- David Jones



On Jun 2, 2004, at 8:31 AM, Michael J. Tarr wrote:

> Hello all (particularly David, Denis, and Allen):
>
> With the release of Matlab 7 today (and the increasing difficulty in
> getting OS 9 bootable
> machines), I think it is a good time to begin more specific
> discussions with both the user
> community and the developers on the fate of PTB development. Here are
> the talking points
> I suggest:
>
> 1. Does Matlab 7 fix the timing bug in OS X?
>
> 1a. If so, what are the *realistic* prospects for getting a functional
> (=equivalent to the OS
> 9 version) running and in what timeframe?
>
> 1b. If not, what are our options:
>
> 2a. Shift all development efforts towards a more robust and stable
> Windows XP version
> (you do not know how much this option pains me!!!)
>
> 2b. Shift all development efforts towards a linux or (better still) a
> QNX version.
>
> 3. Continue to work on ways around the OS X timing bug and get the
> rest of the port to OS X done in the meantime. We need to gauge
> whether a workaround is
> even a possibility.
>
> 4. Assess in a very careful way the option of developing the OS 9
> version so as to run "correctly" in classic mode. This option seems
> like a major waste of
> time in the long run.
>
> 5. MOST IMPORTANTLY, with Allen being "diverted" to other paid
> projects, is there sufficent time and manpower to have any of the
> above happen in a
> reasonable time frame (e.g., by the end of 2004)? Lets be completely
> honest here. If the
> answer is no, what can the community do about this? Money?
> Programmers? Lobby federal
> agencies and foundations?
>
> Best, Mike Tarr
3
> 2. The PsychToolbox is Pelli and Brainard's baby.
> I think they should decide whether they want to fix it
> or abandon it, and let the rest of us know their decision.
>

I have to disagree. At least in part. Denis and David have done a tremendous service to the
field and if they wish to hand things off at this point, that is certainly their decision and I
respect it. But the user community here is extensive. So it seems important that we have
some input on the direction of things and try and help if at all possible. Financially or
otherwise. Open source models may work here. Who knows? Another possibility is to talk
to the VSS honchos about tying PTB to VSS somehow. Would be interesting to know how
many VSS members rely on PTB. I don't think Denis and David have any intention of doing
anything except trying to make sure things move forward, but the community based
nature of this project means that the community needs to be involved.

-m
4
I'd have to support Mike's position here, particularly regarding his
suggestion of the open source model.

I've emailed Alan previously and raised the open source issue and
perhaps now is an appropriate time to think more seriously about this.
How many of us have access to untapped reserves of computer science
undergrads who would just jump at the chance to help out here (and
probably do it for nothing!)?

PTB is such a useful beastie that it would be a shame to see its
development languish.

Thoughts?

cheers

stu



--- In psychtoolbox@yahoogroups.com, "Michael J. Tarr"
<michael_tarr@b...> wrote:
>
> > 2. The PsychToolbox is Pelli and Brainard's baby.
> > I think they should decide whether they want to fix it
> > or abandon it, and let the rest of us know their decision.
> >
>
> I have to disagree. At least in part. Denis and David have done a
tremendous service to the
> field and if they wish to hand things off at this point, that is
certainly their decision and I
> respect it. But the user community here is extensive. So it seems
important that we have
> some input on the direction of things and try and help if at all
possible. Financially or
> otherwise. Open source models may work here. Who knows? Another
possibility is to talk
> to the VSS honchos about tying PTB to VSS somehow. Would be
interesting to know how
> many VSS members rely on PTB. I don't think Denis and David have any
intention of doing
> anything except trying to make sure things move forward, but the
community based
> nature of this project means that the community needs to be
involved.
>
> -m
5
Hi All,

While I am fond of GPL'd software and the like, I am pessimistic that
it could work for the psychtoolbox. This comes from following the
progress of two other projects, the visionegg and PsychoPy for the past
few years. While both projects have their merits and both follow the
"open source" model, both projects seem to be the result of the
contributions from a single individual (see the list of contributors
for both projects, http://www.visionegg.org/thanks.html and
http://psychpy.sourceforge.net/credits.php). OSS projects only tend to
attract large numbers of quality contributors when the "fame factor" is
high - I doubt the slashdot crowd will flock to port the psychtoolbox
to OS X when they could be spending their time (and getting more bang
for their work) coding something like OpenOffice.

Best,

Chris

--
Christopher Taylor

Bennett/Sekuler Vision & Cognitive Neuroscience Lab
McMaster University, Psychology Complex
1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4K1
905-529-7070 x24489

http://psych.mcmaster.ca/taylorcp

On 8-Jun-04, at 4:47 PM, Michael J. Tarr wrote:

> I would like to encourage Alan, David and Denis to consider (whatever
> happens with PTB)
> to sourceforge. It is a wonderful model and support system for open
> source software.
>
> I don't think this solves all the issues about getting an OS X
> version up and running - we
> really need Alan for this! But it is a nice way of moving towards a
> longer-term sustainable
> model.
>
> Best, Mike
>
>
> --- In psychtoolbox@yahoogroups.com, "wande11a" <smithst@t...> wrote:
> > I'd have to support Mike's position here, particularly regarding his
> > suggestion of the open source model.
> >
> > I've emailed Alan previously and raised the open source issue and
> > perhaps now is an appropriate time to think more seriously about
> this.
> > How many of us have access to untapped reserves of computer science
> > undergrads who would just jump at the chance to help out here (and
> > probably do it for nothing!)?
> >
> > PTB is such a useful beastie that it would be a shame to see its
> > development languish.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > stu
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In psychtoolbox@yahoogroups.com, "Michael J. Tarr"
> > <michael_tarr@b...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2. The PsychToolbox is Pelli and Brainard's baby.
> > > > I think they should decide whether they want to fix it
> > > > or abandon it, and let the rest of us know their decision.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I have to disagree. At least in part. Denis and David have done a
> > tremendous service to the
> > > field and if they wish to hand things off at this point, that is
> > certainly their decision and I
> > > respect it. But the user community here is extensive. So it seems
> > important that we have
> > > some input on the direction of things and try and help if at all
> > possible. Financially or
> > > otherwise. Open source models may work here. Who knows? Another
> > possibility is to talk
> > > to the VSS honchos about tying PTB to VSS somehow. Would be
> > interesting to know how
> > > many VSS members rely on PTB. I don't think Denis and David have
> any
> > intention of doing
> > > anything except trying to make sure things move forward, but the
> > community based
> > > nature of this project means that the community needs to be
> > involved.
> > >
> > > -m
>
>
>
>
> http://psychtoolbox.org
> POST a message to: psychtoolbox@yahoogroups.com
> UNSUBSCRIBE by sending a blank message to:
> psychtoolbox-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <yhoo0504_testa_300250a052604.gif>
> <l.gif>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> • To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psychtoolbox/
>
> • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> psychtoolbox-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>
6
As author of PsychoPy (now at http://www.psychopy.org incidentally) I
would agree with Chris that open-source projects tend to be a
one-man-show to start with. But that isn't a reason to avoid being
open-source. It's just lessens the utility of it. At the very least, the
open-source model allows transparently the cross-pollenation of software
projects (the licencing of Vision Egg and PsychoPy for example, mean
that they can easily borrow code from each other where its useful).

The only reasons to *avoid* open-source as far as I can tell are either
for propriety/security (which don't usually apply to academically-funded
software) or because it's potentially harder to manage the overall
steering of the project. That might very well apply in the case of
psychtoolbox.

just my $0.02
Jon

>Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 23:01:20 -0400
> From: Christopher Taylor <taylorcp@...>
>Subject: Re: Re: Future of PsychToolBox
>
>Hi All,
>
> While I am fond of GPL'd software and the like, I am pessimistic that
>it could work for the psychtoolbox. This comes from following the
>progress of two other projects, the visionegg and PsychoPy for the past
>few years. While both projects have their merits and both follow the
>"open source" model, both projects seem to be the result of the
>contributions from a single individual (see the list of contributors
>for both projects, http://www.visionegg.org/thanks.html and
>http://psychpy.sourceforge.net/credits.php). OSS projects only tend to
>attract large numbers of quality contributors when the "fame factor" is
>high - I doubt the slashdot crowd will flock to port the psychtoolbox
>to OS X when they could be spending their time (and getting more bang
>for their work) coding something like OpenOffice.
>
>Best,
>
>Chris
>
>--
>Christopher Taylor
>
>Bennett/Sekuler Vision & Cognitive Neuroscience Lab
>McMaster University, Psychology Complex
>1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4K1
>905-529-7070 x24489
>
>http://psych.mcmaster.ca/taylorcp
>
>On 8-Jun-04, at 4:47 PM, Michael J. Tarr wrote:
>
>
>
>>I would like to encourage Alan, David and Denis to consider (whatever
>>happens with PTB)
>> to sourceforge. It is a wonderful model and support system for open
>>source software.
>>
>> I don't think this solves all the issues about getting an OS X
>>version up and running - we
>> really need Alan for this! But it is a nice way of moving towards a
>>longer-term sustainable
>> model.
>>
>> Best, Mike
>>
>>
>> --- In psychtoolbox@yahoogroups.com, "wande11a" <smithst@t...> wrote:
>> > I'd have to support Mike's position here, particularly regarding his
>> > suggestion of the open source model.
>> >
>> > I've emailed Alan previously and raised the open source issue and
>> > perhaps now is an appropriate time to think more seriously about
>>this.
>> > How many of us have access to untapped reserves of computer science
>> > undergrads who would just jump at the chance to help out here (and
>> > probably do it for nothing!)?
>> >
>> > PTB is such a useful beastie that it would be a shame to see its
>> > development languish.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > cheers
>> >
>> > stu
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --- In psychtoolbox@yahoogroups.com, "Michael J. Tarr"
>> > <michael_tarr@b...> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > 2. The PsychToolbox is Pelli and Brainard's baby.
>> > > > I think they should decide whether they want to fix it
>> > > > or abandon it, and let the rest of us know their decision.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > I have to disagree. At least in part. Denis and David have done a
>> > tremendous service to the
>> > > field and if they wish to hand things off at this point, that is
>> > certainly their decision and I
>> > > respect it. But the user community here is extensive. So it seems
>> > important that we have
>> > > some input on the direction of things and try and help if at all
>> > possible. Financially or
>> > > otherwise. Open source models may work here. Who knows? Another
>> > possibility is to talk
>> > > to the VSS honchos about tying PTB to VSS somehow. Would be
>> > interesting to know how
>> > > many VSS members rely on PTB. I don't think Denis and David have
>>any
>> > intention of doing
>> > > anything except trying to make sure things move forward, but the
>> > community based
>> > > nature of this project means that the community needs to be
>> > involved.
>> > >
>> > > -m
>>
>>
>>
>>

--
Jon Peirce
Nottingham University
+44 (0)115 8467176 (tel)
+44 (0)115 9515324 (fax)

http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/staff/jwp/


This message has been scanned but we cannot guarantee that it and any
attachments are free from viruses or other damaging content: you are
advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.