[sane-devel] discussion: Future of SANE-project

[m. allan noah]

these all sound like good ideas, (other than your points about free vs 
proprietary software, which i strongly dislike) and it is certainly worth 
explaining the value of sane to any vendor who will listen. however, your 
point seems revolve around wanting to supplant twain by building an 
evangalist organization, and wanting the sane developers to spend time to 
do it. In case you had not noticed, we often ARE hobbyists.

like any other open-source project, if you want something, you should be 
prepared to do it yourself. 'show me the code' by picking a vendor, 
figuring out if the backend maintainer has any good contacts, and start 
talking to the company yourself.

allan

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, David N. Paules wrote:

> Perhaps I misunderstood SANE's goals. From what I've seen, the backends do not dictate what the front-ends look like, only their capability. I don't understand why the bluster about multiple front-ends and more control over the gui. I was under the impression that one sane backend for a device will support multiple applications (front-ends) such as image capture, OCR, digital camera photo image acquisition, video acquisition from a digital camcorder, etc.
> 
> Besides, the SANE project is open for review/suggestions for enhancement, so why not get some feedback from scanner makers on what makes SANE a non-option for the future? What 'minimum requirements' are missing from the current architecture?
> 
> I can see your point about GPL'd backends. I agree it is easier to debug and extend them. But here's my point: Do you want to be the one always repairing and fixing scanners to work with SANE? Or do you want all the manufacturers to feel responsible for ensuring SANE compliance? If SANE is architected intelligently (i.e., backwards compliance with older backends), open source backends may not be necessary.
> 
> The manufacturers will currently see the SANE org as a free resource for reaching other markets they didn't officially target (i.e. the *nix markets). There is no urgency or requirement for them to support SANE just because the project is open source. In fact, that is the number one reason they will NOT be concerned. 'Those hackers at SANE-project.org will make my device compliant with their software. And I don't have to pay for it.'
> 
> But, if the ultimate goal of SANE is to supplant TWAIN as the standard for accessing image devices, shouldn't more effort be put on making SANE the future standard. This route will cause scanner makers and their support network to conciously choose to either support or not support the new standard. The SANE project's developers should then concentrate on enhancing the architecture, ensure backwards compatibility, create and market compliance badges, create plugins for Adobe products (like existing TWAIN plugins), etc. and not write new backend modules for each new device that comes on the market.
> 
> Perhaps working examples demonstrating how scanner makers can leverage their investment in TWAIN support while migrating to SANE might be useful for getting scanner makers to take notice of SANE. If an upgrade path was readily shown, techno-geeks at the manufacturer might prefer and sell the SANE idea to managers within the company.
> 
> Formal propoganda of industry heavyweight support (a consortium of scanner makers and front-end application development houses) on the web-site might make other makers feel the need to join in.
> 
> Without this kind of direction, I simply see SANE as being a hobbyist-level effort which is why I questioned the future of it. Thanks for listening and answering my questions.
> 
> Dave Paules
> Quantum Leap Innovations
> 
> > > m. allan noah wrote:
> > > > it is important to remember that the developers of sane 
> > are volunteers 
> > > > just like you. most of us got involved because we had a 
> > lame scanner too. 
> > > > we probably dont have time for such evangelism.
> > > 
> > > But if someone was offering....
> > 
> > sure, sure. i got no problem with someone acting as a liason 
> > to hardware 
> > vendors. i do this myself with fujitsu.
> > 
> > > > that said, even if someone had the time to run around and 
> > convince vendors 
> > > > of the merits of sane, there would be at least two 
> > recurring sentiments:
> > > > 
> > > > 1. sane spec is not complete, cause it does not support various 
> > > > LEDs,buttons or sensors that the manufacturers believe 
> > add so much value 
> > > > (and brand distinction) to their products.
> > > 
> > > Proposals to include this have been discussed, possibly 
> > input from a 
> > > manufacture would help.
> > 
> > sure, and none of us ever had the time to actually formallize the 
> > proposal, let alone get input from manuf.
> > 
> > > > 2. they are going to want more control over the gui so 
> > they can do things 
> > > > like show pictures and diagrams of the scanner, which 
> > means they are going 
> > > > to write their own front-end half the time.
> > > > 
> > > Or repackage existing - under GPL - is this a problem.
> > 
> > a plethora of front-ends is not a problem, but it does defeat 
> > some of the 
> > point for the vendor who is also making a backend.
> > 
> > > > then, i as a developer, and hopefully you as an 
> > open-source/free software 
> > > > user would have another complaint:
> > > > 
> > > > 3. closed-source backends are much harder to debug/extend 
> > than free, even 
> > > > if you have the vendor to complain to.
> > > > 
> > > This is looking for problems, why assume they will be closed source.
> > 
> > because experience shows that they will be, esp. in the 
> > cheaper hardware 
> > segments, where the vendors are likely to cross-license tech 
> > from each 
> > other (think winmodems).
> > 
> > > > that said, there are a couple vendors who do make 
> > backends (brother comes 
> > > > to mind). 
> > 
> > i can say that some vendors, (fujitsu) have been quite 
> > talkative about 
> > their products, and i have specs for many of them, without 
> > signing NDA, 
> > and whatever code i write is at no cost to them or you, and 
> > under the GPL. 
> > seeing more of that would be great.
> > 
> > allan
> > 
> > -- 
> > "so don't tell us it can't be done, putting down what you don't know.
> > money isn't our god, integrity will free our souls" - Max Cavalera
> > 
> > 
> 

-- 
"so don't tell us it can't be done, putting down what you don't know.
money isn't our god, integrity will free our souls" - Max Cavalera