If you’re referring to openglow that was definitely not deleted (aka Macgeek)’s group.
6 Likes
This was about to be my response and perhaps it was poorly worded on gf’s end as legalese ends up being, but many read it as it would be release so that if gf went down the machines would still work.
I believe the “deleted” isn’t referring to the work but is what he changed his name too when he left in a huff. Or was that someone else…wasn’t macgeek well after the Open flow project had already given up?
It’s been a “few” years so I must admit to being vaguely blurred on some of the finer details.
5 Likes
Yes. I was the person who initially told Jon (aka Deleted, aka Macgeek) about openglow. He was really interested in reverse engineering the Glowforge but was not part of the openglow project, which I think was a few people including @scott.wiederhold.
You can go through his old topics here:
https://community.glowforge.com/search?q=%40scott.wiederhold%20in%3Afirst
And you can visit openglow’s community (not very active) here:
7 Likes
It was required due to the open source libraries they used. The license for those requires people using them to also publish their code as open source as well. GF declined to publish for some time until Scott W and others started getting vocal. I believe there was then one drop of code and nothing more. GF may have rewritten their code to remove the components that required further code publishing or they could simply be ignoring the license requirement.
The non-bricking software release was a much more nebulous promise in the event they went under. I’m sceptical they can do that now with the complexity they’ve added to the application over the past few years and the built-in reliance on AWS servers. I expect they’ve got a fair amount of embedded AWS services built into the code that would require rewriting or users would need to sign up for AWS contracts ($$$).
6 Likes
yeah, at this point, it’s an “i’ll believe it when i see it” issue. not counting on it happening. but let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.
6 Likes
It’d be slick if you could run a local docker instance (or app) with some DNS tricks to make it work locally.
Of course most GF users would probably say “excuse me, what?” But it’d be cool nonetheless.
Heck combine that idea with some BitTorrent shenanigans and you could have a distributed network of glowforgers all providing the backend of the service. They could pay us instead of bezos.
It’s a major fantasy but an interesting concept.
8 Likes
For some people, this may be good news. But I’ve had Snapmarks for years and now they’ve shoved it behind the pay-wall. This is a HUGE step backwards for me.
2 Likes
Did they do that, or are you worried they will?
3 Likes
Yeah I was wondering the same. If we take previous situations into account generally they grandfather people in like that.
5 Likes
honestly, i suggest reaching out to GF on the support email and making an issue of it. they shouldn’t be removing features like that. as @evansd2 said, they’ve always been good about grandfathering people on things like this.
8 Likes
Ah, I was thinking it was linked to his Facebook group, but now that you remind me of OpenGlow, that’s definitely it.
4 Likes
Agree with @shop and @evansd2 - they’ve had a busy couple of weeks but someone should be able to address this for you. It’s not okay to take it away!
5 Likes
GF has made it clear to me that if I’m not paying their ransom, I don’t get it.
After contacting Support (which isn’t completely obvious since their “Support” link goes to a dead page) and letting them know my situation, I received an email which began with, “Thanks for your interest in Snapmark. Unfortunately, it is no longer available for additional customers to receive access.” The rest of the message was links to the Community site, a recommendation for the Camera Recalibration tool, and this gem… “When your Glowforge is working as expected, prints should land on your material within 1/4in of where you place them in the app.” 1/4”? Are we working with lasers or throwing darts? No wonder support has never successfully resolved anything I’ve brought to them.
I replied to this message indicating that I’m not an “addition customer” and have had access to this functionality for years. I also let them know that the Camera Recalibration, while making my camera more accurate, did mess up the system’s understanding of my bed and now I have to be super careful not to place anything too far to the right or the head bumps into the side, throwing off the rest of the cut. Yes, I’ve run the tool again. No change.
The second email from them “acknowledged the frustration of the situation” with Snapmarks, then proceeded to focus on the calibration.
6 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 32 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.