You are not logged in. Please login or register.
SoliForum - 3D Printing Community → Solidoodle Discussion → Solidoodle Looking for Software Developers
I think we need slashdot type ratings so we can tag the comments to this post:
Informative
Funny
WTF is this person thinking?
Agree Ian, i would never of made one from scratch for my first printer! My second on the other hand....
Solidoodle still has assembly going for it. That is a big advantage over kits. A kit still requires some DIY gumption and a bit of know-how to put together well. The Solidoodle requires some hacking and tinkering to get the best results, but provides an easier entry point to gain that knowledge. You can start printing, and then begin learning the nuances as you tinker with the printer rather than trying to learn all that stuff and build the printer at the same time.
Agreed on this and it being a stepping stone to building your own printer.
The new extruder assembly is a massive plus in my books. If they fix the woefully slow heated bed (is it still limited to 87 deg?) then the Solidoodle is a great starting point and would need only fairly easy mods to get up to scratch.
.... then the Solidoodle is a great starting point and would need only fairly easy mods to get up to scratch.
As long as you don't need to mod the firmware, or want to change thermistors (such as a new hotend), etc... once they take the firmware closed source. Thats a paradigm shift if it eventuates. Who knows - if they don't allow eeprom based changes to things like steps-per-mm - you might not even be able to do 'non firmware changing' mods so even calibration 'fixes' come into question.
Its a fairly big change to the possibilities... and not for the positive as far as I can see.
Take marlin out of the equation - and things like z-wobble software fixes, changing belts/carriages/steppers, changing temperature for new hotends... all become difficult if not impossible depending how they write their code. You're buying a closed source unchangeable (ostensibly due to lack of firmware options) and potentially limited in modification/fixes/solutions without replacing large chunks of it anyway.....
Because if you're paying to write firmware yourself you are hardly going to make it extensible and 'universal' - you'll make it work for what you (think you) need it to and little else...
Anyway - thats what my point relates to - if/when inhouse firmware eventuates; not the 'present day' situation...
I did months of research on 3d printers and I went with the SD2 (Just ordered last week) because of the fact that the user had so much control. I knew it was a tinkerer but for the $600, it is more flexible and has a bigger print bed than most printers under $1000.
To be honest I wouldn't buy a 3d printer / appliance. This tech is still pretty new and just gaining steam. I think it would be advantageous to actually know about it. SD Co. is not only facing the competition of these smaller companies but we are on the verge of the 3d printer / appliance. Once a few of these pretty machines drop down in price in the next year and a half they are gonna need to be ready to rub shoulders with their own "appliance(s)"
In regards to these smaller companies, I tried hard to find something other than a Solidoodle. I looked at alot of these companies and most of them are still kickstarters or whatever. Solidoodle is more or less actually in stock. That and the few buck you save don't equal to the features you sacrifice.
For me the SD2 was just the most logical choice. I like how they've provided a powerful and flexible machine, pre-built, at an amazing price. You have to almost double the price to get a "pretty machine" with the same capabilities that you won't have to wait 3 - ? months for.
I too, like most of you it seems, want to build my next one and the SD2 is gonna be a great way to learn about all of the parts. Things like adding stops and auto leveling, I've read so much, I can't wait to start experimenting and learning. So what they do in the future is only of mild concern to me.
I just hope that they keep making the tinker line for people like me who want a cheaper way to learn this technology and not just want an easy-bake 3d oven. Unfortunately most people want the oven so I won't blame SD for giving it to them.
That's just my $.02
lawsy wrote:.... then the Solidoodle is a great starting point and would need only fairly easy mods to get up to scratch.
As long as you don't need to mod the firmware, or want to change thermistors (such as a new hotend), etc... once they take the firmware closed source. Thats a paradigm shift if it eventuates. Who knows - if they don't allow eeprom based changes to things like steps-per-mm - you might not even be able to do 'non firmware changing' mods so even calibration 'fixes' come into question.
Its a fairly big change to the possibilities... and not for the positive as far as I can see.
Take marlin out of the equation - and things like z-wobble software fixes, changing belts/carriages/steppers, changing temperature for new hotends... all become difficult if not impossible depending how they write their code. You're buying a closed source unchangeable (ostensibly due to lack of firmware options) and potentially limited in modification/fixes/solutions without replacing large chunks of it anyway.....
Because if you're paying to write firmware yourself you are hardly going to make it extensible and 'universal' - you'll make it work for what you (think you) need it to and little else...
Anyway - thats what my point relates to - if/when inhouse firmware eventuates; not the 'present day' situation...
I just want to reiterate that we are simply looking for developers. Including developers for desktop and web. The conversation here has drifted into weighing in on the open source or not question, which isn't really what we are trying to solve at the moment. We are just trying to expand the team with positive, creative individuals.
I don't think we would ever hide vital options from you. I do not see a time in the near to mid term future when we wont be using an easily re-writable AVR chip. Even if we were to close source things, I don't think we would be able to physically prevent you from flashing the things with new firmware.
We are in neither the position, or of the disposition to make something different enough to stymie efforts to reflash the boards. The firmware for 3D printers is small enough, and simple enough that reverse engineering, or injecting alterations wouldn't be hard either, even if we were to take that route (not that we have made any plans whatsoever in that direction.) As I said, we would never hide vital options from you. I can't imagine that being easily achieved from our end anyway. We just want to make the product easy for everyone.
As a side note, in terms of firmware modding, I think there has always been an issue of more casual customers being highly confused by the firmware modding community. We have met many customers who get lost trying to make alterations to the firmware for things contained in the EEPROM. One thing great that may come of this is an improved system for delivering the firmware to the board. Perhaps with automated updates, much like you phone might do when it is plugged into the computer.
Most of our customers simply cannot handle the Arduino IDE.
I've got 15+ years of COBOL coding...
I've got 15+ years of COBOL coding...
For real?
I bet banks still hire Cobol guys ^_^
Mostly banks and insurance companies. 
gwfami wrote:I've got 15+ years of COBOL coding...
For real?
I bet banks still hire Cobol guys ^_^
As a side note, in terms of firmware modding, I think there has always been an issue of more casual customers being highly confused by the firmware modding community. We have met many customers who get lost trying to make alterations to the firmware for things contained in the EEPROM. One thing great that may come of this is an improved system for delivering the firmware to the board. Perhaps with automated updates, much like you phone might do when it is plugged into the computer.
Most of our customers simply cannot handle the Arduino IDE.
Quite busy right now, but quick comment: That would be nice but, unless it's a tangential thought and/or a hint at job responsibilities, I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion about whether to prevent modding / go closed-source / whatever, or not. That's really an orthogonal support and customer service / user experience matter.
I haven't, e.g., heard Google or Amazon lament that "most of our customers simply cannot handle the bootloader / adb shell prompt". If most casual users end up here when trying to find solutions to their problems, that should say something about the documentation and support (or lack thereof) elsewhere. So, yeah, improving the end-user experience is great. In addition, if Solidoodle itself properly embraced open-source and managed the development process in a more structured way (like Google does for Android, or like Ultimaker does in 3D printing), it might also actually have a positive overall effect for end-users. That would be a better investment than, e.g., going closed source. Just my (hastily written 2c.
A couple of points:
Over the years I have been on advisory committees for several companies. The purpose was to give feedback on different ideas the company had for programs and products. We all signed non-disclosure agreements and participated on a voluntary basis. This maybe helpful to solidoodle. You would get honest feedback to help steer development while not releasing the plans to the public. You could use a product like webex to hold the meeting to eliminate travel costs.
I think all of the points here are absolutely valid. I also believe they listen to and consider the opinions expressed here. Posting the job here is actually a compliment to the group. They could have not mentioned it all. It sounds like they are going to develop an appliance like product for the casual user who wants an out of box solution. It also sounds like the are committing to keep the "open" products alive and well. I appreciate the straight forwardness concerning the size and finances of the company. They are not representing what they are not. If a company stays within their financial plan they are more likely to survive. If they do not have funding for the top developers, they simply can't hire one. I would venture to guess that those developers would be the highest paid employees there if they hired them.
I don't think being open-source is an issue. It's how to develop something that benefits everyone... look at redhat?
I think you don't understand how redhat make money.
Redhat charge for support and updates, they sell consultancy to enterprise businesses who are bound by rules and regulation (like FSA regulations requiring institutions to use software that is "supportable").
given that there are no filament based "enterprise customers" this just isn't comparable. -professionals are buying stuff from strasys. because their resin printers are a lot closer to plug and play than anything that FDM has to offer are ever going to be.
+1 to many of you. Any further moves away from open source are bad.
I believe a lot of people purchased Solidoodles after stumbling across this great community while doing their research. They saw a large, active community with knowledgeable and generous members willing to help with problems and provide the files/instructions for upgrades.
They can still sell a lot of printers the other way but the product will need to be damn good. They will be in Makerbot territory so hopefully they know what their in for.
as the reprap "person" -not sure what you'd call him. Adrian has said before, closed source distributions are doomed to die.
Open source are destined to flourish...
more eyes will look at and correct an open source distribution than can look at a closed source distribution
if I'm honest I saw the price tag when I bought mine, building a printer wasn't out of the realms of possibility, but I wanted something that'd work out of a box rather than a box of parts for not so much less money... and with the newer price tags I can't see them getting too many more of those kinds of customers.
I just want to reiterate that we are simply looking for developers. Including developers for desktop and web. The conversation here has drifted into weighing in on the open source or not question, which isn't really what we are trying to solve at the moment. We are just trying to expand the team with positive, creative individuals.
perhaps the question is why? I mean without wanting to hear whole business plans etc I don't think asking why is a big question.
do you want to go your own way, distance yourself from the open source efforts that the solidoodle has clearly grown from. and used so far?
I don't think we would ever hide vital options from you. I do not see a time in the near to mid term future when we wont be using an easily re-writable AVR chip. Even if we were to close source things, I don't think we would be able to physically prevent you from flashing the things with new firmware.
We are in neither the position, or of the disposition to make something different enough to stymie efforts to reflash the boards. The firmware for 3D printers is small enough, and simple enough that reverse engineering, or injecting alterations wouldn't be hard either, even if we were to take that route (not that we have made any plans whatsoever in that direction.) As I said, we would never hide vital options from you. I can't imagine that being easily achieved from our end anyway. We just want to make the product easy for everyone.
you know that there are fuses to prevent reading the flash, and write protect fuses to prevent re-writing the flash?
the question comes... how soon does the position change?
I mean do you start protecting the firmware from being read after you invest $10,?$100? $1,000,000 when a VC firm tells you to if you get bought out?
when your firmware is better than an open source alternative and people are "stealing" it via reading flash and then re-writting it? will "I" a solidoodle customer be able to upgrade to your latest firmware releases or will "I" need to buy a new board to get the most of it? how long before it's just too tempting to define the read protect fuse as "on"
As a side note, in terms of firmware modding, I think there has always been an issue of more casual customers being highly confused by the firmware modding community. We have met many customers who get lost trying to make alterations to the firmware for things contained in the EEPROM. One thing great that may come of this is an improved system for delivering the firmware to the board. Perhaps with automated updates, much like you phone might do when it is plugged into the computer.
I'm not entirely sure that I understand.
I get that you want your own firmware, and your own branded software, but after that... why?
so when you/customers want auto Z levelling (like in a recent thread) you can sell a part and check on a feature is software and that'll take care of the compiling and flash writing/rewriting for you?
I get that it is a lot easier to ship a while part rather than saying take this bit off and that bit off attach this that and the other etc.
Most of our customers simply cannot handle the Arduino IDE.
but there is nothing "wrong" with the printers that you're selling.
simply, those who want to upgrade and can should, those who want to upgrade and can't should not.
Nobody would expect a Ford garage to re-fit the engine etc when a customer comes back complaining that the super sized nitrous turbo replacement that they tried to fit didn't work like they expected...
why should the customer support you provide be any different?
"Sorry we don't support customer modifications, we'd suggest that you contact the modified part vendor for information on how to make this work"
basically I'd say that my view is, modifying your printer is not a bad thing to do. but there isn't a lot that's left stock on my solidoodle any more, perhaps the frame, rails and branded plastic door! when things have gone wrong I've had to fix them, not call up support wondering why xyz firmware mod that you clearly didn't include for a reason isn't working like I thought it might.
pcm81 wrote:SD's MAIN advantage over the more polished designs is that it IS open source. Lets face it, if SD was closed source (but hardware remained the same) and say it would cost $1500, most people would just buy makerbot2x or another printer.
Actually - No. The Solidoodle is already Closed Source/Hardware.
It uses Open Source/ GPL based software (and border on being in violation as they dont ship the printers including details of the GPL software they ship on it - namely the firmware that arrives burnt on the printrboard which counts as 'distribution' - a requirement when you are commercially redistributing GPL licensed assets).. but nothing that makes a solidoodle a solidoodle is open source. All aspects of their hardware is considered closed and not for public distribution. In fact - their level of hardware information secrecy borders on the paranoid. But I guess, since everything else they use IS open source (or was in the case of RH) - all they got is the mechanical hardware.
So yes, the solidoodle as it ships today uses Open Source software in the form of the firmware running on the controller - as do many many printers - but thats it. Nothing else you see on the printer is open source including all of the mechanical hardware in it entirety...
Have the community reverse engineered many aspects to allow modification and reproductions ?sure have.. in effect producing open source copies for people to use through the release of the designs into the public domain. But don't ever mistake the Solidoodle for being open source or open hardware. It is not. It purely leverages other peoples open source (Firmware, schematics for the Printrboard, the host software...) whilst keeping all Solidoodles "developed" elements closed source.
The only difference this proposition makes (running bespoke in house code as opposed to the GPL Marlin...) is that it will massively set back the printers firmware (and thus capability) development. Instead of having 1000's of printers debugging the code used on Solidoodles - they will have a handful. Instead of 100's of people debugging and logging issues and importantly, providing enhancements and bugfixes - they will have maybe 1. More aptly - instead of all the people that currently offer help and assistance, code improvements, and free technical support - everyone will have to 100% rely on solidoodle tech support.
Good luck with that. Let me know how that works out for you.
(Oh, to be fair, the other difference this proposition makes is it makes SD a darn lot more attractive to Angels, VC's and buyouts... as those parties do NOT like business bases built around open source. MBI anyone??).
Setting aside my sarcasm... if Solidoodle were proposing to properly fork marlin, clean it up for solidoodles, and use 'their own branch' as a base (like Ultimaker/RepRap UK do) then it would vaguely make a lot of sense - its more or less what we as a community have done and would be far better controlled, and far more regular in occurrence, if it was done as the responsibility of a full time engineer that had a vested interest in the whole endeavor... then THIS would work really well I would think.
My own personal beliefe is that the Solidoodle is about as open source as you can get...
certainly the solidoodle 2 that I got...
uses the sanguinolu, (open source)
running marlin firmware (open source)
using the makergear hotend (open source)
attached to a standard Jhead extruder mount (open source)
using a variation of a pretty standard mk7 direct extruder (open source)
as far as i can see pretty much everything about the printer is pretty open source. either in core reprap designs, or many designs that have been about in the reprap community.
Just because solidoodle don't redistribute designs it doesn't make the designs any less open source...
I'm not sure that very slight redesigns count as any less open source - essentially the board that they are shipping now might be something they designed themselves, but regardless of how different it looks it's still based on and contains those GPL licensed designs, it's a derived product and should be licensed also as GPL with source/designs released too.
Though I suppose changing from a solid and pretty reliable direct drive extruder to 5 sheets of difficult to put together and easily broken acrylic is something that they did all by themselves!!
Basically the solidoodle is either using GPL products (firmware)
or is either wholly or partly derived from GPL products - and therefore must be distributed as GPL.
and solidoodle continue to not comply with the license mostly because nobody gives a crap.
most of the reprap developers are quite happy selling their things inside their eBay shops etc and would rather get on and design new stuff than drag people through the courts for not complying with a licence, where there would be little to no benefit to the developer anyway...
Other than that I completely agree about the firmware that you're saying, continue to use open source, stay as much as possible at the edge of the curve with latest benefits from the latest firmwares, but clean it up a lot for solidoodle customers.
and then of course comply with the license.
SoliForum - 3D Printing Community → Solidoodle Discussion → Solidoodle Looking for Software Developers
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
