Slashdot Mirror
The Makerspace Is the Next Open Source Frontier
An anonymous reader writes: Jono Bacon explains that in the same way open source spawned millions of careers and thousands of companies, the same openness has massive potential when applied to products. It could potentially jumpstart a revolution in how we conceptualize, build, and share things and how we experiment and innovate to push the boundaries of science and technology. He outlines some steps for adapting open source principles to physical creations: "...we will need to create a premise of a blueprint bundle. In much the same way I can download a branch from Git or a tarball with some code, complete with build system, we will want to be able to download a single branch or tarball with the full software, hardware designs, and more for how to create an open product. ... we will need to figure out how we collaborate and improve different pieces of these projects. For example, if someone refines a 3D printed piece of a drone, how do they fork the blueprints, submit their changes, have them reviewed, and get them merged into the project? Another question could relate to automated testing: when building physical products we can't always afford to build and test new physical hardware for it to then crash and burn, so how can we have unit tests for hardware or test in a virtual setting?"
doesn't it?
This article is spot on. I've experienced this when working with 3D objects on Thingiverse. It allows you to "remix" someone's work, but that is a fork. It doesn't really allow for collaboration. Lots of times I've found someone's .SCAD model and improved it but I have no way to contribute it back to them other than to post a comment and hope they notice. So some objects have dozens of "remix" forks, which have more forks, etc.
Lots of people make their objects to work for just themselves. It's the hardware equivalent of "works on my machine!" It's great that they have a way to publish and get the object out there. It allows other people do the "systems engineering" and figure out how to make the part work in general. But most of that engineering work gets lost. So many times I download an object, only to find it didn't quite work. I improve it, and then nobody else gets to benefit from that. It's kinda sad.
Isn't there software which allows you to simulate real machines in software? Adobe Inventor or something?
Has anybody made an open source version of something like this?
If you could just continuously integrate this kind of stuff with your designs to simulate the actual mechanics, you could "build" it without making the physical device each time.
I honestly know little about this space, but I'm sure I've seen some demos of software which lets people build the device virtually and make sure there's no issues.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
It really isn't like that. The participatory pool is extremely limited right now, and the cost is too high. Maybe in time it will be like open source, but not until I drop some recyclables into a hopper and have it spit out something in return do I really have something kind of like an open source maker space.
when building physical products we can't always afford to build and test new physical hardware for it to then crash and burn ...
Well, it should just follow the software industry's path breaking achievements in shaping user expectations and user behavior.
First there should be an EULA claiming the body and soul of the user, with added clauses to add more demands later any time.
Then user should be made to accept, "it is going to crash and burn. Can I get get something done in the mean time?".
If it builds we ship. Then the customer feedback is how we know whether what we built works. This is the software industry standard.
If you don't want to be evil, you will very generously call your product "in beta".
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Aren't Makerspaces a trademarked name? I was told we couldn't call ourselves a Makerspace because 1) technically we were a hackerspace and 2) we would have to pay for the privilege of using that word.
I think Makerspace is a more friendly, accurate term, but anything you've got to license doesn't seem that open.
Slashvertisement.
Click-bait alert! Reader beware!
... Surprise? I feel like it's kind of an obvious place for this.
for thingiverse - from maker-stealideas-bot
when building physical products we can't always afford to build and test new physical hardware for it to then crash and burn
The design phase of a hardware product is but a small part of the overall development process. It is necessary to also perform tests, and simulations aren't sufficient. One of the biggest misconceptions in the maker community is that they think that developing hardware is as simple as developing software. The article should say, "when building physical products we must allocate resources to build and test new physical hardware to prove that it meets the specs."
"We will need to figure out how we collaborate and improve different pieces of these projects. For example, if someone refines a 3D printed fork, how do they fork the fork blueprints, submit their changes, have them reviewed, and get them merged into the project?" Just had to say that. To me there is something funny about forking a fork. In seriousness, it will never happen because big industry wants to monetize. The only way to break that ability is to destroy capitalism. So again this is all fluff and FUD.
if someone refines a 3D printed piece of a drone, how do they fork the blueprints, submit their changes, have them reviewed, and get them merged into the project?
Where I work, this happens as part of our normal product develop processes. Design documents, whether for hardware or software, are still documents. Granted, "merging" changes in a "blueprint" or 3D model is harder to do, but not impossible. Right now, it still requires a lot of human work, but that can improve over time.
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
In other words, 'nerds' will discover what the DIY and crafting communities have been doing for longer than any of us have been alive, but since THEY do not have those hobbies it must be a new revolutionary idea!
Which is kinda the pattern I see a lot in tech, people living in bubbles discovering what others have already been doing, giving it a new name, and claiming they came up with something new that all those non-makers couldn't have.
Most makerspaces are hobbyist-level workshops. They don't usually have industrial grade software or fabrication machines available, because those are expensive. I'm working on the idea of a "MakerNet", where instead of a converted warehouse space with hobbyist tools and home-made workbenches, you have more commercial-grade machines spread around, either run as small businesses, or owned by groups of more serious hobbyists. For example, a $6,000 lathe might be split among half a dozen people. When you have a more serious project to do, you send the files for the various pieces to the respective machines that can make them. You also send payment, or deduct from a network account, to pay for the raw materials and other items you use up.
So higher quality machines, and people who regularly use them, therefore better output. But networked and distributed cost, so it is affordable on a hobbyist budget, and you have access to machines you can't afford on your own. Makerspaces can certainly be part of such a network. They would just need to have some machines and people that are able to do the better quality work.
Thanks, have a nice day :)
http://www.educa.net/curso/cur...