Slashdot Mirror


DreamWorks Switches to Linux

tal-home writes "Newsforge has a story about the decision Dreamworks made to port ALL of their front-end servers and workstations to Linux. Their new movie, called 'Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron' which will hit the theaters in late May, was created in a 100% Linux enviroment, unlike older movies like Shrek and Lord of the Rings that used IRIX servers as a rendering farm. It's a good time to mention that this move by DreamWorks also includes porting the artists workstations to Linux, in addition to the servers. Redhat and HP helped out in the switch." Word has it that Adobe may be pursuing unix versions of it's toolset as DreamWorks isn't the only shop switching.

17 of 463 comments (clear)

  1. "Adobe may be pursuing unix version" by rochlin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Adobe has had an IRIX version of Photoshop since the dim dim ages. It's not a question of porting to Unix. It's a question of porting to Linux.

  2. Re:Adobe! by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is backwards reasoning. What would really be a good thing would be if the open-source community could produce an app as good as Photoshop. Otherwise it's an admission of failure -- we have to depend forever on Adobe adobe to treat us graciously.

    If open source is going to succeed on the desktop, there have to be open-source apps. The average user couldn't care less about the OS, and may not even know what an OS is. The way to impress non-geeks with open source is to show them some applications.

  3. Adobe Lost Me at Hello by idonotexist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After the Dmitry and DMCA flop by Adobe, I will never purchase an Adobe product and I swear to gawd I will save my friends and co-workers from thinking about purchasing an Adobe product. So, if Adobe is finally convinced it can make a few more bucks by porting its apps to Linux, perhaps Adobe needs to correct its public relations fiasco and not with a mere press release, but something more sublime; maybe a contribution to EFF? Until such an event, no way, no how, Adobe --- not on this Linux box. I will not just forget Adobe's mistake and I hope others will not.

    --
    "There ought to be limits to freedom"
  4. SW-patents problem by villoks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well.

    Unfortunately there's too many patents in the field. It is impossible to create a software which doesn't violate at least some of them. For example color management is highly protected area. From this background it's pretty simple why there isn't any commercially viable open source options available...

    Ville

    1. Re:SW-patents problem by foobar104 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From this background it's pretty simple why there isn't any commercially viable open source options available...

      I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees, here. The reason there's no sufficient open-source Photoshop-alike is the same reason there's no sufficient open-source ERP system. For that matter, it's the same reason there's no all-volunteer space program, or an all-volunteer hospital.

      Writing software that's a functional and of as high quality as Photoshop is hard. Unbelievably hard. As hard as open-heart surgery, or sending a person into orbit. Writing an image editor that's as complete and as good as Photoshop would require a tightly coordinated and managed team of hundreds working full-time on the project for years. That's something that the open-source community has simply been unable to provide. Compared to Photoshop, Apache (arguably one of the strongest open-source efforts out there, and some excellent software) is child's play, both in overall complexity and in the sheer number of function points.

      Gimp? Don't even talk to me about Gimp. I have Photoshop 3.0.1 on my iBook, which I run in Classic mode. I also have Gimp on my Windows 2000 system, because I don't have Photoshop for Windows. I use Gimp when I can't use Photoshop, which is moderately often. Across the board, without exception, I find Photoshop 3.0.1-- vintage 1991 software!-- running under Classic mode on my Mac to be superior to Gimp under Windows. Lots of time and effort went into making Photoshop a well-thought-out, high-quality piece of software, and it shows. Gimp is worked on by a loosely coupled group of part-timers, and that also shows.

      I don't mean to be insulting, but Gimp is kind of like the old saying about the dog that sings. It's not that the dog sings well, because it doesn't. It's impressive simply that the dog sings at all. That's fine for singing dogs and amateurs. Professional artists will hold us-- the community, I mean-- to a higher standard.

    2. Re:SW-patents problem by marco_craveiro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Writing software that's a functional and of as high quality as Photoshop is hard.

      huh, say foobar, do you reckon that writing Photoshop is harder than say writting an entire OS, including a kernel that is portable to almost any architecture known to man as well as a compiler that works along the same lines? man, if it is all hail adobe for the real hackers work for them.

      an image editor that's as complete and as good as Photoshop would require a tightly coordinated and managed team of hundreds working full-time on the project for years.

      mate, replace "an image editor" with "a kernel", "an IDE", "a desktop environment", etc. and you will be saying exactly the same thing people were saying until those components stabilized. i dont think there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the bazar development, or we would never have what we have today. it takes 2 things to make a good app: competent interested people and time. and remember, "UI bugs are first class bugs like any other bug" so eventually the UI will get there as well.

      soup

    3. Re:SW-patents problem by dru · · Score: 2, Insightful

      do you reckon that writing Photoshop is harder than say writting an entire OS, including a kernel that is portable to almost any architecture known to man as well as a compiler that works along the same lines? http://www.netbsd.org. Making a portable OS is much easier than a well integrated app like photoshop. When creating a Unix-based operating system, you can take advantage of design idioms that have evolved over thirty years.

      and there aren't similarly evolved idioms for desktop applications.

    4. Re:SW-patents problem by foobar104 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      huh, say foobar, do you reckon that writing Photoshop is harder than say writting an entire OS

      Yes, it is. Sitting down and writing an operating system based on Unix isn't, conceptually, that hard a job. Don't misunderstand me: it's a big job. Vast. Worthy of praise. But nobody has done any significant revolutionary work on the Linux kernel. It's just the writing down, all in one place, of well-established ideas. And it's not even that great; it doesn't handle large memory effectively, and it can't scale very well. But it's impressive that it works at all. (See my previous post.)

      Photoshop is different. It's fundamentally user productivity software. It's not sufficient that it should simply work. It must work in a good, consistent, user-friendly way. There is no such requirement for Apache, or the Linux kernel, or GCC. Nobody sits in front of the Linux kernel all day, except for the kernel developers themselves. But lots of people, including yours truly in a previous job, get paid to sit in front of Photoshop all day. So the standards for human-computer interaction in Photoshop are much higher.

      i dont think there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the bazar development, or we would never have what we have today.

      I don't disagree with that at all. Today we have some fantastic software that came from open-source efforts: the Linux kernel, Apache, PostgreSQL, PHP, Emacs, TeX (especially TeX!), X, and so on. But what the open-source community has provided isn't as revealing as what it hasn't. There is no adequate open-source desktop; as a long-time user of both Gnome and KDE I assert that neither one of them is worth much right now compared to the Windows desktop, or either the Mac OS "Classic" or the OS X desktops. There is no adequate open-source illustration program: we use Illustrator, or even FreeHand, instead. There is no adequate user-friendly open-source publishing software: we use FrameMaker or QPS instead. There is no adequate open-source CRM software: we use Siebel. No ERP software: we use SAP. No page layout software: QuarkXPress, or even InDesign. No spreadsheet software: Excel. No PIM software: Outlook. It goes on and on.

      Ultimately, you have to ask yourself the question, why hasn't the open-source community produced any of these things? I know my answer. What's yours?

  5. The Reality of it All by TellarHK · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The entire push to make Linux a corporate desktop system is still too fragmented and too much like a battle of wills. On one side, people lament that there's no Photoshop or Premiere or MS Office, or insert-needed-app-here. On the other, people complain that the open source equivalents are good enough and just use those and stop whining.

    You're both right, now shut the hell up and do what you can to make it all come together. Until people -feel- that open source equivalents to the commercial software are better, they won't settle for them unless they're forced to by ideology or economy. What will it take to make people feel the open source projects are better or even equal? I can't answer that, but watch the press. When the pundits start changing tune, then you'll be on the right track. For now, encourage and embrace the commercial applications. They'll do nothing but increase open source market and mind shares in the long run.

    If you can code, do what you can for the project of your choice. If not, and there are some of us out here that can't, just keep an open mind and take the long view. Be patient, and maybe give the can-do's a kick in the pants once in a while.

    *kick*

  6. I see I wasted my $$$ on the EFF by r_j_prahad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Six months ago, Adobe was evil incarnate here on Slashdot. Today there's an unsubstantiated rumor that they might port their proprietary DMCA-protected crap to Linux and suddenly they're an Angelic mom-and-pop operation that can do no wrong.

    When this lame movie comes out on DVDCCA region-encoded SSSCA copy-protected discs you'll all be like kids in a toy store, and the hell with Dmitry Sklyarov or Ed Felten or Eric Corley and what they suffered through because of companies like Adobe.

    You people are the best supporters Eisner and Hollings could ever ask for.

    1. Re:I see I wasted my $$$ on the EFF by gad_zuki! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Simply put Linux is hurting for apps. Maybe not in the server department, but certainly in other areas. Not so long ago open source types were busy condemning Netscape to hell until they released NS for linux. Suddenly going against standards was A-OK.

      I'm not going to simple-mindedly yell hypocrites from the highest mountain, but there is a criticism to be had. Until Linux is in a better position software-wise this will continue to happen. In fact this may never change, if a company can end honest criticism by releasing a version of its software for Linux, well why not? In the windows world many people use software from companies they don't like. The same will be true if Linux invades the desktop market. Microsoft could easily clean some of its image by releasing office/IE for Linux. Users and software companies make for odd bedfellows.

    2. Re:I see I wasted my $$$ on the EFF by Sabalon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Believe it or not there are some people on here who like Windows even.

      /. has how many readers? I don't remember when I signed up reading that I had to believe in the company line about everything.

      It's been said over and over - some people believe in this cause, some don't.

      I'm not boycotting Adobe - I wouldn't buy any of their products anyway :) I use windows for a desktop cause I think that KDE and GNOME are both not quite there yet. I can't stand most of the independant bands that people preach I should listen to. I think RMS is a smart guy, but an ass and that the government is barking up the wrong tree with the MS case.

      And I probably represent a less vocal population of /.

  7. A little surprised they switched Workstations too. by NanoGator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm a little surprised they also switched the workstations to Linux as well. In the short term I can imagine that being a real headache, but in the long term...I dunno.. that could be a really good thing.

    When you do 3D animation (or digital art of any kind, really...) you don't just have one or two programs that do all the work. You have to constantly come up with new and creative solutions to animation problems. When this happens, the artists really get close to their machines. I'll give you an example: I'm a Lightwave animator running on Windows 2000. Lightwave's scene files are text based, which means I can modify a scene without necessarily having to do it through Lightwave itself.

    I had a problem once where I wanted to animate realistic eye movement. Doing it by hand would be incredibly time consuming (Not to mention repetitive...) So I came up with an inventive solution. I parented the camera in Lightwave to the 'neck' of the person, and rendered a wide-angle avi from that person's perspective. Then I wrote a quick VB-App that used MS's Media Player ActiveX control to play back the .AVI, and then track my mouse movements over the movie. While it played back, I moved the mouse around the items of interest and saved that information into a text file. Then I converted the text file into a Lightwave motion file and loaded it into the eyes.

    The effect was surprising! Within 6 hours or so of programming, I had written a primitive mo-cap (Mouse capture?) program that would be useful for a lot of things, not just eye movement. All this was possible because I understood VB, Windows 2000, and Lightwave. This happened to be so valuable that I bought a Windows 2000 laptop so I could experiment more with this technique in my free time.

    The reason I'm surprised at the workstations switch (I should say 'initially surprised...') is that familiarity with your computer/OS is key to coming up with inventive solutions to problems. Since Linux is fairly new to the animation scene (on the creation side, not the rendering side...), it's hard to imagine those entering the animators job market would already be experienced with that OS. They'd have to re-learn how to use their computers. That may or may not be a problem, but it's a concern I have.

    My point of view on this topic is starting to change after I started to write this post. It is starting to make more sense now. It is a lot easier to get my hands on a personal copy of Linux than it is to get Windows 2000 or OSX. At that point, the brand of processor becomes the least of my concerns, just the speed of it. It'll take some getting used to, but when all the dust settles, I think Dream Works will be in for a nice boost in productivity.

    What I did with VB sounds like it'd be far easier on Linux. I can imagine 3D Animators eventually having more and more programming/scripting capabilities at their disposal. With these skills comes a more robust solution for any problems that arise. Hmm... maybe I should build a Linux box now.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  8. Re:I need a better solution than boycotting Adobe. by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you boycott something you need, it makes a greater statement. People don't go on hunger strikes to improve their figure, you know. By choosing not to use adobe, you say "This issue is important enough to me that I am willing to sacrifice for it". Otherwise, we might as well all go boycott Rolls Royce cars or something.

    Of course, your idea of letter writing is valid as well, at least by snail mail. In email form, it probably wouldn't even get opened before its marked for deletion.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  9. Re:I guess MS Bob really burned their goat by psamuels · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is great news and shows the curtain is really starting to close on Redmond.

    This is much worse news for SGI than it is for Microsoft.

    SGI used to own the Hollywood effects houses - anything not Mac was IRIX. Over the past few years everyone has started realising that while SGI sells the biggest and baddest NUMA, some things like 3D rendering are naturally parallelisable to such an extent that clusters make a lot more sense than NUMA. Clusters often mean Linux, for reasons I don't need to get into here. Which is, I'm convinced, the main reason SGI got into Linux in a big way a few years ago - they figured that was the way to keep their current big-spending customers. Remember that SGI "got religion" long before IBM or HP made serious noises about Linux. HP is a comparative johnny-come-lately both to Linux and to serious 3D graphics.

    So losing this contract to HP and Red Hat had to hurt SGI. Bad. This was their turf, and we just saw a major failure for SGI's Linux play. Nail in the SGI coffin?

    (PS: I just thought of this: it's not a total loss for SGI - they still own Alias|Wavefront, whose Maya software was used.)

    --
    "How can you claim that you are anti-crack, while still writing a window manager?" — Metacity README
  10. Re:A little surprised they switched Workstations t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well, I think many of these guys were already used to Irix workstations, so a change to linux is a logical step.

  11. Re:Dreamworks should use non-binary Linux distros by hdparm · · Score: 2, Insightful
    They've signed support contract with Red Hat. What platform would you think guys from Red Hat can support best?

    Of course, I am pretty sure DW are not running 2.4.9-x kernel, either. Whichever kernel it is, it's been hacked by Alan Cox and sorts. It must be fast as hell if DreamWorks rolled it out on ALL their machines.