internal ballistics software

[isprins]

i have noticed that there is no internal ballistics software that runs on native linux..
Maybe someone can make something ?

[GreyGeek]

Re: internal ballistics software

"Internal Ballistics"?

As in what is discussed here, or do you mean external ballistics, which is more commonly used, as discussed here?

[isprins]

Re: internal ballistics software

"Internal Ballistics"?

As in what is discussed here, or do you mean external ballistics, which is more commonly used, as discussed here?

yes, as in :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_ballistics

more info on the window$ software here:
http://kwk.us/ibsw.html
http://www.fnc.co.uk/ServicesProduct...B/Default.aspx

the most common one is quickload:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickLOAD

http://www.6mmbr.com/Quickload.html

http://www.neconos.com/details3.htm

[GreyGeek]

Re: internal ballistics software

Wow, that's a pretty small market niche! (BTW, you must be "visaman" who posted an identical question today at LockerGnome)

I did a brief perusal of the web and found the pickings slim to almost none.
Here is a Java app http://www.norma.cc/default.asp?Lang=2#

If that doesn't work for you then you have three choices left:

Install WINE and try one of the Windows versions of that software. (I see that most Windows versions were written for Win95, NT4, Win98, etc... i.e., they are pretty old. They should work fine in WINE.)

If WINE doesn't work then perhaps the commercial version of WINE, CrossOver Office from Codeweaver may work. I used it to run a PCL dev tool for which a Linux version was not available.

The third option is to install VirtualBox and run a copy of Windows as a guest OS, if you have a CD of Windows available, and run your Windows app in it.

[isprins]

Re: internal ballistics software

i have mailed the producer of QL :

I would respectfully request you please consider creating a Linux distribution of Quickload.
Running it under wine ( a windows emulator ) is not a option for some of us, since it is a resource hog,
and many linux purists simply does not want anything to do with Microsoft or Bill Gates, period.

Myself, I run Ubuntu Linux. With the dissatisfaction of Vista, XP becoming obsolete, and the price of either of them being inhibitive(and ridiculous!); Linux is gaining popularity as a mainstream operating system. Ubuntu Linux especially since it is free, and has excellent support via web based forums. Once again, would you please consider creating a Linux distribution of Quickload.

If you need any help or advice please feel free to contact the thousands of programmers at:
http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php

[GreyGeek]

Re: internal ballistics software

An addendum to your letter:

"p.S. - Please do not make it a MONO application, which is Microsoft's API. Besides, if you do you'll just have to redo it when MONO has to upgrade to stay compatible with .NET's next release. Qt4 or GTK+ are good API's to use."

[jyen]

Re: internal ballistics software

Perhaps check SourceForge (codeplex, google code)...

A quick search turned this up:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/chamber/
They seem to be approaching a beta release.

There may be more, but it is a rather small market. Good luck with getting something running on ubuntu though.

[GreyGeek]

Re: internal ballistics software

Perhaps check SourceForge (codeplex, google code)...

Google code, yes. CodePlex?

A quick search turned this up:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/chamber/
They seem to be approaching a beta release.

If they are then the pace is EXTREMELY slow. After a flurry of work during the intial two weeks the project was started, FOUR YEARS AGO, nothing has been done on it since. That's a definition of AbandonWare.

There may be more, but it is a rather small market. Good luck with getting something running on ubuntu though.

Small indeed! In reading the notes of the "Chamber" project it looks like the author was having trouble with a lack of convergence in his solution equations.

[jyen]

Re: internal ballistics software

Google code, yes. CodePlex?

If it turns up something useful, does it really matter?

A quick search turned this up:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/chamber/
They seem to be approaching a beta release.

If they are then the pace is EXTREMELY slow. After a flurry of work during the intial two weeks the project was started, FOUR YEARS AGO, nothing has been done on it since. That's a definition of AbandonWare.

My point being that in less than a minute I found something -- so a dedicated search might have better success. Yeah, this project is as good as dead. Fine, but I could've answered with a link to lmgtfy.com. If the OP was so inclined he could try developing it further, contacting the original developer (who may have abandoned due to finding good existing software -- commercial or not) or posting an ad on sourceforge for help picking it back up.

[GreyGeek]

Re: internal ballistics software

Wow, 37 days to reply. You must be living in the Asteroid belt!

It does matter. IF the code isn't under the GPL it will not, in the end, be of benefit to the FOSS community because it can be exploited by proprietary interests. For example, Microsoft exploited the BSD IP stack for its Win95 OS. Have you ever seen ANY of the code improvements made by Microsoft that were given back to the FOSS community? IF you don't care about the GPL then I can see how none of this matters to you.

[jyen]

Re: internal ballistics software

Wow, 37 days to reply. You must be living in the Asteroid belt!

Something like that... (or I was busy doing stuff IRL)

It does matter. IF the code isn't under the GPL it will not, in the end, be of benefit to the FOSS community because it can be exploited by proprietary interests. For example, Microsoft exploited the BSD IP stack for its Win95 OS. Have you ever seen ANY of the code improvements made by Microsoft that were given back to the FOSS community? IF you don't care about the GPL then I can see how none of this matters to you.

Whether something is released under a GPL is totally unrelated to which code repository it's in (as far as I can tell Microsoft don't force use of any particular license on codeplex -- which is an open-source repo). There's also plenty of code in sourceforge that's GPL, LGPL, BSD, Python license... and to be perfectly honest, there's no one-size-fits-all license. GPL is good (I have code released under GPL), but it's not magic.

And how exactly does that relate to the OP's need for ballistics software? Is the suggestion of actually searching open-source code repos that offensive? Next time I'll extol the virtues of Bing as a search engine.

[GreyGeek]

Re: internal ballistics software

Whether something is released under a GPL is totally unrelated to which code repository it's in

Nobody said it was.

GPL is good ... but it's not magic.

It is to the user, and to the success an long life of the FOSS community, and to the success of a GPL application. The OSI surrounds the GPL "Tree of Life" with a forest of pseudo "open source" trees which bear no fruit because they do not honor the Four Freedoms and the OSI even leaves monitoring of the vendor's "open source" license compliance to the vendors themselves. It is relevant to note that the founders of the OSI, Bruce Perens and Eric S Raymond, both denounce the current OSI as being a direct threat to FOSS.

Without the Four Freedoms that the GPL guarantees to the user a software project under another license is just fodder for proprietary interests, especially those which love to "embrace", "extend" and "extinguish" the software, hence my reference to the reference to the BSD IP stack.

Developers are free to use what ever license they wish, but they are not free to remain ignorant of the results of their choice. Microsoft has worked for a decade to trap FOSS developers inside its proprietary stack. Why? It controls the direction and cost of that stack, which it uses to discriminate against hospitable competitors. FOSS developers who refuse to recognize this are naive and don't understand the peril they place themselves and the FOSS community.

Several years ago the justification for several projects to create Windows versions of their FOSS applications was that it would "show Windows users that FOSS code is good" and they should migrate to Linux. Microsoft is taking that game plan and turning it on its head. The greater the number of FOSS projects that get written for Windows the fewer reasons Windows users have to migrate to Linux, essentially leaving only three: price, security and freedom from DRM. By sponsoring an "open source" Codeplex, Microsoft is hijacking the concept. You see, Microsoft doesn't want FOSS just setting ON TOP of Windows, they want it TIED INTO Windows. That is a BIG difference! So, Codeplex is nothing more than an "embrace, extend and extinguish" tactic by Microsoft and its allies to crush Linux and the FOSS movement. How? The way they've always done it. Say a FOSS application has two code bases, one for Linux and one for Windows. They are embraced on Codeplex after being given free server space and management. In that environment they are "cultivated" to "improve" the Windows version. How? One way is by adding a neat (but proprietary) control to it. Then another. And another. Change this functionality ... and this one. Pretty soon the Windows version is getting all the improvements and the Linux version languishes. Sometimes the Linux version stagnates or is abandon. This is why I advocate using only Qt4 for cross platform work, the code is EXACTLY the same, looks the same and runs the same on all platforms. If you think about it you can name several applications which now fit this scenario. I'll give you a hint about one which an ally of Microsoft embraced, now extends and is awaiting the day when its wide spread adoption can offer Microsoft the opportunity to extinguish all FOSS projects and distros which become dependent on it: Mono.

MS apologists will respond by saying that one could use Mono to write apps for both platforms. Those writing .Net or Mono iPhone applets for the Apple store know what happens when that advice is followed. You can read about it in the response Apple gave to outlawed the use of any language other than C, C++ or Object C for iPhone or other 3rd party apps, after an attempt by Microsoft to damage sales of iPhone applets using those written with .NET or Mono.

But, we'll probably agree to disagree. Good luck with your choice of licenses.

[jyen]

Re: internal ballistics software

words

Really?


Trolled by a mod... super-smooth.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing (well, maybe a little -- this is an internet forum)...

IF the code isn't under the GPL it will not, in the end, be of benefit to the FOSS community because it can be exploited by proprietary interests.

I'm not going to disagree about the microsoft rant, or the .net/mono diatribe. Mostly because you're (mostly) right. I'm not going to dis the GPL because I use it (didn't read that part, did you). But the whole bow down before the one true license bull is too much. Do you actually think the words I quoted above are 100% true? Only GPL will benefit the FOSS community? If so I question your grip on reality. Yes, GPL will benefit the FOSS community. So will a number of the other licenses listed here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-...atibleLicenses

Think what you will... get angry if you like. Go on, raise that blood pressure. I'm happy coding in C and Python and releasing under GPL or the Python license. In some cases I'm more than happy to let the code free as pure public domain - no restrictions. Will I end the known world? No. Will it help the OP get his software? More than ranting about GPL and saying what he should and shouldn't use, and where he's not allowed to look for code.

[/argument]