Novelty: As I mentioned in my earlier post, Peter Biddle, Product Unit Manager for Palladium, very publicly and unambiguously stated during Wednesday's panel at the USENIX Security conference that the Palladium team, despite having been asked by Microsoft's anti-piracy groups for methods by which Palladium could assist in the fight against software piracy, knows of no way in which Palladium can be utilized to assist this end
The words knows of no way, if they describe exactly what Biddle said with respect to Palladium and software licensing, creates an easy-out for Microsoft. Let's say that M$ has been working all along on a scheme that incorporates Palladium in a way that can be used to manage software licensing (which, given M$' track record, is more likely than not). Come the day it's thrust on an unsuspecting consumer public, they can point to this very statement and maintain that Biddle was, in good faith, representing the thruth - that he didn't know of any effort like the one mentioned. Whether he actually did, of course, is another matter entirely. Pointy-haired corporate executives use this gem all the time to elude personal responsibility: "I'm sorry judge, I had no idea the board authorized a personal loan for $300 million."
Not hard at all...I'll just use its own scripting language to create something simple that even she can understand: A button to create a ball, one to create a cube, one to create a checkerboard pattern, and one to render. Presto.
If you're talking about making the art of 3D production easy to learn, it isn't going to happen - at least for a while.
I hear this argument so often...that making an interface 'friendly' will render it incapable of meeting the needs of those interested in high productivity. I'd argue that a good interface will meet the needs of BOTH camps, and there's no reason I can see that this can't happen.
I wouldn't argue with any of this except to say that if you spend time with it, you can come up with not only 'fairly decent material' you can do some *amazing* work with Blender.
Yes, it's excellent work. One wonders what exnihilo might have to say about the difficulties encountered while constructing the model. Do you know if he is still using Blender?
Blender is a very flexible and cleverly conceived modeler. This allows you use Blender in unconventional ways and helps make up for features that may not be directly built into Blender (or any other modeler for that matter).
What specifically are you referring to?
t will be interesting to see how many production houses will start using Blender once it matures a bit more.
I'm not sure I'd want to entrust my window management to an app that (based on at least one screen shot on the Fluxbox SourceForge project page) looks like it was thrown together by someone with a rather adolescent take on life.
If they're the kind of screen splits I remember, CICS, used on many corporate mainframes, had this function available say, 18 (+/-) years ago. I discovered the screen app about three months ago after a dire search for a linux-baed tool that would allow me to run multiple sessions in the same window. It saves a lot of time over switching back and forth between two windows, or two desktops. With or without a window manager, it's a great app. I'd go so far a to consider it a 'classic' piece of softare whose usefulness far outlives any attempt to obsolesce it based on its age - kind of like a classic work of literature.
I agree that users can be an ugrateful, demanding, and clueless bunch, and it sucks when they are. On the other hand, if you really don't care about the user experience, the whole thing is just an exercise in self-adulation. Aren't one's motivations in this situation just as skewed?
To simplify downloading a large number of files, a new download manager (KGET), which fully integrates into Konqueror, has joined the network package (kdenetwork). It manages any number of downloads in one window, where transfers can be added, removed, paused, resumed, queued or scheduled. A dialog displays transfer status, including progress, size, speed and estimated time to completion.
Ok, point taken. However, I *can* list several methods of implementation with respect to Blender's UI that cannot rationally be considered 'efficient', by any means. After using Blender for as long as I have, I've come to believe that Blender has a split personality - while some aspects do provide for some level of efficiency, there are others that do quite the opposite, thus making any overall advantage a wash. I consider Blender to be "usable but difficult." You can produce some fairly decent material with it, if you're willing to deal with the headaches.
I left AOL because, as a regular participant in the online discussion forums, I got REAL DAMN TIRED of some piss-ant, third-party forum admin randomly deleting messages without rhyme or reason. Add to this the frustration of what seemed like a never-ending cycle of changes to the forum formats and the way that you responded to messages, it just wasn't worth the hassle any more.
Of course, then I made what turned out to be a costly mistake, using Qwest as my internet provider. I've had Earthlink for a while, and aside from news servers that seem to spas out on a regular basis, I don't have that much to complain about.
Blender is currently geared towards the more experienced 3D artist with an ultra efficient UI (with a steeper learning curve) and a professional workflow that enables you to output tons of work easily (sometimes at the price of user friendliness).
If it's so good, why haven't real professional tools like Maya and Lightwave copied the interface?
I think it is...big means big infrastructure, and big infrastructure means big bucks in terms of fixed costs. AOL needs to sustain a certain amount of revenue in order to pay for this.
If Enron and Worldcom can bite it, I certainly don't think that AOL is immune. Although, I think I'd probably rather see M$ hit the skids myself, if for no other reason than to bring the hubris under control. : )
There was an article in the WSJ a few weeks back about how Starbuck's, while growing wildly, is actually losing market share to local coffee houses.
This is good news. Since Starbucks is an overpriced, overmanufactured, pop-culturally-contrived version of the real thing, it's good to see that there there are unrelated alternatives. I've always felt that if a coffee house can offer quality goods (no 2-week shelf life, guys), a nice ambience, and a staff that knows the difference between a shot of espresso and a shot gun, there's a good chance they'll succeed.
Oh please. Blender has its own way of doing things, and I know from experience (at least mine), that it's not always the best or most effective way. I am very happy that the prospect for alternatives exists. I've not looked at M3d yet, but if you look at K3d, or Wings3D, for example, you'll see that they take a decidedly different approach to the workflow, offering different feature sets, and different methodologies. This kind of choice is needed, since there's no way that one app can be all things to all people.
Blender has potential, but nearly everything about it is non-standard. It certainly incorporates some nice ideas, but in an off-center sort of way. It would be great if the mojo in the modeling community at large could move it more toward the center. Whether or not that happens, choice and diversity of ideas is a good thing.
Why is everyone making such a big deal about Blender? And going so far as to buy it as a community to GPL it? All I see here is people bitching about it (not intuitive, interface sucks, missing crucial features). Why not join together as a community and purchase something better like a mail/calendaring server that could compete with exchange?
I wasn't aware that Exchange had a 3D modeling/animation/rendering module.
I bitch a lot about Blender. Why, you ask? (or maybe you don't). I do it because I've invested hundreds of hours putting up with the things I hate about it, in order to enjoy the things I like about it. Now that the code is free, hopefully I'll see some of the things that people dislike the most, change for the better.
As for Exchange, wouldn't it make more sense to rally the interest of people who actually use it?
Re:Bitch'n moan about the UI...
on
Blender Is GPL
·
· Score: 2
Anyway, I don't think that Blender has this interface because easier interface are just so hard to invent. In fact, I'd say that more thought was invested Blender's keyboard/gesture oriented interface than in most professional tools. They tried to be original. To re-invent the wheel. Unfortunately, they chose to make it square.
I like this analogy. I suppose the question is whether or not Blender will remain in this 'rebel' mode or grow out of it. FWIW, I am by no means a newbie, and it's precisely because of this that certain things about the interface are a pain in the rear. For example...using the alt-j function with the text editor you get a teeny little window that pops up with a with a new hybrid buttonentryfield. You can click and slide back and forth, you can click repeatedly to advance the line number, or you can shift-click, and enter the number manually. If you enter the number manually, then you have to click out of the field for it to 'take', and finally, you can't just hit return or enter, you HAVE to click on the OK button (AFAIK). What ever happened to a simple text entry field? Since you probably know what line you're jumping to, replacing all of this overhead with a simple alt-j/type number/hit return process would make this a much more efficient process.
Here's something else: create a complex rig using armatures and vertex groups. Log the amount of tim you spend hunting through an unsorted list group names to find the one you're looking for. Count how many times you have to shift-click into the name field and scroll back and forth just so that you can be sure that you have the right group selected (the field usually isn't long enough to display the entire name).
It's because of problems like these that I let out a long sigh when ever people try to convince me how 'efficient' the interface is. I often wonder just how much of it they've actually used.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with blinking links...the same way there's nothing wrong with wearing your undies on the outside, or walking out of the bathroom with a piece of stray toilet paper attached to your shoe.
This is why it might be a good idea for a patent holder to demonstrate the ongoing application of said patent- to take possession of an idea is one thing - to take possession of an idea and then go after those to endure the risk to see if it actually works is a completely different matter. I wonder how it would change the currently rather backward patent process if patents were awarded to those who a) had an idea, and b) can show material evidence that they are or have taken the steps necessary (and the risk) necessary to implement them.
How do you measure the value of a chair? There's your answer.
My point is simple: you can't sell music. In a pure capitalist economy (with NO government intervention)...
I disagree that you can't sell music. You can sell it, and this is aptly demonstrated by the fact that people can and do pay for it - not because it's the law, but because it's right thing to do. There is nothing in this world that guarantees anyone a right to the fruits of someone else's labor. If the terms of acquisition aren't agreeable, there's always the option to walk away.
Copyright law creates an artificial scarcity, that is, an ARTIFICIAL environment, because selling music wouldn't work any other way.
Artificial scarcity? That's interesting. There are recordings that sell millions of copies, and somehow that represents a form of scarcity?
I suggested musical artists make their money by performing because it works as a business model. I pay for their TIME, not their music. Isn't that what bards did in the past, travel from town to town performing?
I dare say they didn't have recordings back then, so the issue is moot. Today, however, a recording allows you the convenience of experiencing the benefit you derive from an artist's creative talent practically whenever, whereever, and how often you want. I'd say that $15 is a small price to pay for this convenience.
I believe you should give me your music for free because you're fooling yourself if you think I'm going to pay for it.
Then I'll turn this around and pose the following: If it has such little value to you, then surely you won't mind forgoing the opportunity to listen to it, will you?
Don't get me wrong, I still think you should make money from your artistic skills. I just think that there's a better model for doing it than the current one.
The current model of 'record once distribute many' is far more efficient than traveling from town to town, setting up and breaking down a stage, and paying gobs of people to do it. It consumes far fewer resources, and provides you, the consumer, with a maximum degree of flexibility. And you still find this problematic?
There's one thing that complicates this issue a bit when it comes to something like Office or 'doze...the absence of practical alternatives. The question then becomes, "How much can the market afford not to pay for it?" When this happens, buying the software is merely the lesser of two evils.
Slashdot Mirror
Novelty: As I mentioned in my earlier post, Peter Biddle, Product Unit
Manager for Palladium, very publicly and unambiguously stated during
Wednesday's panel at the USENIX Security conference that the Palladium
team, despite having been asked by Microsoft's anti-piracy groups for
methods by which Palladium could assist in the fight against software
piracy, knows of no way in which Palladium can be utilized to assist
this end
The words knows of no way, if they describe exactly what Biddle said with respect to Palladium and software licensing, creates an easy-out for Microsoft. Let's say that M$ has been working all along on a scheme that incorporates Palladium in a way that can be used to manage software licensing (which, given M$' track record, is more likely than not). Come the day it's thrust on an unsuspecting consumer public, they can point to this very statement and maintain that Biddle was, in good faith, representing the thruth - that he didn't know of any effort like the one mentioned. Whether he actually did, of course, is another matter entirely. Pointy-haired corporate executives use this gem all the time to elude personal responsibility: "I'm sorry judge, I had no idea the board authorized a personal loan for $300 million."
Coming to a Congress near you: DMCCA
Digital Milennium Coffee Cup Act.
Not hard at all...I'll just use its own scripting language to create something simple that even she can understand: A button to create a ball, one to create a cube, one to create a checkerboard pattern, and one to render. Presto.
If you're talking about making the art of 3D production easy to learn, it isn't going to happen - at least for a while.
I hear this argument so often...that making an interface 'friendly' will render it incapable of meeting the needs of those interested in high productivity. I'd argue that a good interface will meet the needs of BOTH camps, and there's no reason I can see that this can't happen.
I wouldn't argue with any of this except to say that if you spend time with it, you can come up with not only 'fairly decent material' you can do some *amazing* work with Blender.
Yes, it's excellent work. One wonders what exnihilo might have to say about the difficulties encountered while constructing the model. Do you know if he is still using Blender?
Blender is a very flexible and cleverly conceived modeler. This allows you use Blender in unconventional ways and helps make up for features that may not be directly built into Blender (or any other modeler for that matter).
What specifically are you referring to?
t will be interesting to see how many production houses will start using Blender once it matures a bit more.
Interesting indeed.
I'm not sure I'd want to entrust my window management to an app that (based on at least one screen shot on the Fluxbox SourceForge project page) looks like it was thrown together by someone with a rather adolescent take on life.
export BOOBS="large"
import -window root boobies.jpg
is something I'd expect to see from a 12-year-old.
If they're the kind of screen splits I remember, CICS, used on many corporate mainframes, had this function available say, 18 (+/-) years ago. I discovered the screen app about three months ago after a dire search for a linux-baed tool that would allow me to run multiple sessions in the same window. It saves a lot of time over switching back and forth between two windows, or two desktops. With or without a window manager, it's a great app. I'd go so far a to consider it a 'classic' piece of softare whose usefulness far outlives any attempt to obsolesce it based on its age - kind of like a classic work of literature.
I agree that users can be an ugrateful, demanding, and clueless bunch, and it sucks when they are. On the other hand, if you really don't care about the user experience, the whole thing is just an exercise in self-adulation. Aren't one's motivations in this situation just as skewed?
To simplify downloading a large number of files, a new download manager (KGET), which fully integrates into Konqueror, has joined the network package (kdenetwork). It manages any number of downloads in one window, where transfers can be added, removed, paused, resumed, queued or scheduled. A dialog displays transfer status, including progress, size, speed and estimated time to completion.
Does it come with the required bandwidth?
Ok, point taken. However, I *can* list several methods of implementation with respect to Blender's UI that cannot rationally be considered 'efficient', by any means. After using Blender for as long as I have, I've come to believe that Blender has a split personality - while some aspects do provide for some level of efficiency, there are others that do quite the opposite, thus making any overall advantage a wash. I consider Blender to be "usable but difficult." You can produce some fairly decent material with it, if you're willing to deal with the headaches.
I left AOL because, as a regular participant in the online discussion forums, I got REAL DAMN TIRED of some piss-ant, third-party forum admin randomly deleting messages without rhyme or reason. Add to this the frustration of what seemed like a never-ending cycle of changes to the forum formats and the way that you responded to messages, it just wasn't worth the hassle any more.
Of course, then I made what turned out to be a costly mistake, using Qwest as my internet provider. I've had Earthlink for a while, and aside from news servers that seem to spas out on a regular basis, I don't have that much to complain about.
Blender is currently geared towards the more experienced 3D artist with an ultra efficient UI (with a steeper learning curve) and a professional workflow that enables you to output tons of work easily (sometimes at the price of user friendliness).
If it's so good, why haven't real professional tools like Maya and Lightwave copied the interface?
I think it is...big means big infrastructure, and big infrastructure means big bucks in terms of fixed costs. AOL needs to sustain a certain amount of revenue in order to pay for this.
If Enron and Worldcom can bite it, I certainly don't think that AOL is immune. Although, I think I'd probably rather see M$ hit the skids myself, if for no other reason than to bring the hubris under control. : )
There was an article in the WSJ a few weeks back about how Starbuck's, while growing wildly, is actually losing market share to local coffee houses.
This is good news. Since Starbucks is an overpriced, overmanufactured, pop-culturally-contrived version of the real thing, it's good to see that there there are unrelated alternatives. I've always felt that if a coffee house can offer quality goods (no 2-week shelf life, guys), a nice ambience, and a staff that knows the difference between a shot of espresso and a shot gun, there's a good chance they'll succeed.
What do you think the core of Blender code is based, on? Uh...could it be....code that's 4 years old? (some of it could even be older).
Oh please. Blender has its own way of doing things, and I know from experience (at least mine), that it's not always the best or most effective way. I am very happy that the prospect for alternatives exists. I've not looked at M3d yet, but if you look at K3d, or Wings3D, for example, you'll see that they take a decidedly different approach to the workflow, offering different feature sets, and different methodologies. This kind of choice is needed, since there's no way that one app can be all things to all people.
Blender has potential, but nearly everything about it is non-standard. It certainly incorporates some nice ideas, but in an off-center sort of way. It would be great if the mojo in the modeling community at large could move it more toward the center. Whether or not that happens, choice and diversity of ideas is a good thing.
Why is everyone making such a big deal about Blender? And going so far as to buy it as a community to GPL it? All I see here is people bitching about it (not intuitive, interface sucks, missing crucial features). Why not join together as a community and purchase something better like a mail/calendaring server that could compete with exchange?
I wasn't aware that Exchange had a 3D modeling/animation/rendering module.
I bitch a lot about Blender. Why, you ask? (or maybe you don't). I do it because I've invested hundreds of hours putting up with the things I hate about it, in order to enjoy the things I like about it. Now that the code is free, hopefully I'll see some of the things that people dislike the most, change for the better.
As for Exchange, wouldn't it make more sense to rally the interest of people who actually use it?
Anyway, I don't think that Blender has this interface because easier interface are just so hard to invent. In fact, I'd say that more thought was invested Blender's keyboard/gesture oriented interface than in most professional tools. They tried to be original. To re-invent the wheel. Unfortunately, they chose to make it square.
I like this analogy. I suppose the question is whether or not Blender will remain in this 'rebel' mode or grow out of it. FWIW, I am by no means a newbie, and it's precisely because of this that certain things about the interface are a pain in the rear. For example...using the alt-j function with the text editor you get a teeny little window that pops up with a with a new hybrid buttonentryfield. You can click and slide back and forth, you can click repeatedly to advance the line number, or you can shift-click, and enter the number manually. If you enter the number manually, then you have to click out of the field for it to 'take', and finally, you can't just hit return or enter, you HAVE to click on the OK button (AFAIK). What ever happened to a simple text entry field? Since you probably know what line you're jumping to, replacing all of this overhead with a simple alt-j/type number/hit return process would make this a much more efficient process.
Here's something else: create a complex rig using armatures and vertex groups. Log the amount of tim you spend hunting through an unsorted list group names to find the one you're looking for. Count how many times you have to shift-click into the name field and scroll back and forth just so that you can be sure that you have the right group selected (the field usually isn't long enough to display the entire name).
It's because of problems like these that I let out a long sigh when ever people try to convince me how 'efficient' the interface is. I often wonder just how much of it they've actually used.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with blinking links...the same way there's nothing wrong with wearing your undies on the outside, or walking out of the bathroom with a piece of stray toilet paper attached to your shoe.
Where are they getting these figures?
Did they ever exist in the first place?
At least he will have left behind a noble legacy - a completely new application of the phrase, "on the Fritz."
This is why it might be a good idea for a patent holder to demonstrate the ongoing application of said patent- to take possession of an idea is one thing - to take possession of an idea and then go after those to endure the risk to see if it actually works is a completely different matter. I wonder how it would change the currently rather backward patent process if patents were awarded to those who a) had an idea, and b) can show material evidence that they are or have taken the steps necessary (and the risk) necessary to implement them.
How do you measure the value of a song?
How do you measure the value of a chair? There's your answer.
My point is simple: you can't sell music. In a pure capitalist economy (with NO government intervention)...
I disagree that you can't sell music. You can sell it, and this is aptly demonstrated by the fact that people can and do pay for it - not because it's the law, but because it's right thing to do. There is nothing in this world that guarantees anyone a right to the fruits of someone else's labor. If the terms of acquisition aren't agreeable, there's always the option to walk away.
Copyright law creates an artificial scarcity, that is, an ARTIFICIAL environment, because selling music wouldn't work any other way.
Artificial scarcity? That's interesting. There are recordings that sell millions of copies, and somehow that represents a form of scarcity?
I suggested musical artists make their money by performing because it works as a business model. I pay for their TIME, not their music. Isn't that what bards did in the past, travel from town to town performing?
I dare say they didn't have recordings back then, so the issue is moot. Today, however, a recording allows you the convenience of experiencing the benefit you derive from an artist's creative talent practically whenever, whereever, and how often you want. I'd say that $15 is a small price to pay for this convenience.
I believe you should give me your music for free because you're fooling yourself if you think I'm going to pay for it.
Then I'll turn this around and pose the following: If it has such little value to you, then surely you won't mind forgoing the opportunity to listen to it, will you?
Don't get me wrong, I still think you should make money from your artistic skills. I just think that there's a better model for doing it than the current one.
The current model of 'record once distribute many' is far more efficient than traveling from town to town, setting up and breaking down a stage, and paying gobs of people to do it. It consumes far fewer resources, and provides you, the consumer, with a maximum degree of flexibility. And you still find this problematic?
This is a very enjoyable debate.
I take that as a compliment.
I'm not sure why this is even news- it seems to be little more than the next logical step within the whole get something for nothing mentality.
There's one thing that complicates this issue a bit when it comes to something like Office or 'doze...the absence of practical alternatives. The question then becomes, "How much can the market afford not to pay for it?" When this happens, buying the software is merely the lesser of two evils.