They should remember that no matter how long they wait, a new 'Trek' as bad as enterprise won't get good ratings eigther.
I would much rather re-watch a episode of the original series, TNG or DS9 than a brand new episode of Enterprise. Which says more about Enterprise than it does about any of the older series.
They simply need to do better than enterprise, otherwise a break will have no effect on ratings.
In my "defence", the Danish(which is my native language) word for report is rapport. Also, i dont really proof read my slashot messages so i you can't stand to read a few misspells here and there you should not read any of my comments:D
You absolutely right, I don't need all that processing power. I mentioned in another post in this thread, i sometimes like to mess around with opengl but nothing that wouldn't be doable entirely on the most modern processesor(i don't *really* need the GPU). But it is certaintly nice to have, the system in general is ligthing fast and I do run Gentoo(which can make good use op the CPU, when upgrading/installing packages). Also, it has happend that I've used the machine for tasks not on the list. Like sound encoding , and decoding/re-encoding certain video files so my hardware DVD player would play them. While this isn't something that happens that often, I certainly like the processor has somemuchle when the need is there. And regarding the gfx card, I do hope that stuff like OpenGL accellerated X will come around *sometime*.
Nevertheless, what i need and don't need regarding to power really isn't relevant to whats being debated here is it? I argued that I felt the price (which another reader dubbed "Mac Tax") it costed to get a mac, wasn't worth it. And now your replying "well, you don't need a powerfull system anyways". Do you mean I should get a old used mac, for pretty much what a new PC cost. I fail to see how this should make me feel any different about the "Mac Tax".
I hope you don't misunderstand me, I think Apple makes awsome computers. I just don't feel they're quite worth the extra $$, that all:p
game development aren't the most unattractive area one could work in, if it wasn't for the hours involved I would love to do that sort of work after im done studying.
Your mistake is thinking that Apple is a hardware company. They're not. They're a software company that sells hardware with their software. They're not alone there, Cisco has a similar business model.
Don't get me wrong, but I don't really care what the a suppliers business model are, i tend to look at the product I get from my money and try to judge if i think its worth it.
You saved $350 on the machine, and didn't get the most important part... Mac OS X. If that's not the part you wanted, if you're satisfied with Windows or Linux, then you probably shouldn't have been looking at Macs in the first place.
OSX was what I wanted, not so much because of their nice expose effect and all that, but because it offers a nice well defined platform for developing. But again, the cost was to high for it to be interesting. Besides the $350 saved, you should also take into account that all the hardware in the Mac is cheaper(a 5200 is what, $30's these days? small disk, slow drive (i dont care if their supplier(panasonic) only make slow drives, that irrellevant for me as a user) smaller screen, less+slower ram etc etc).
After thinking about how much more i would get hardware wise, AND i would save ~350, OSX simply wasn't worth it for me.
(note. I'm not the core audience for OSX in the first place, since alot of my work is done via. a shell anyways)
In the intervening time the "Mac Tax" has dropped from a factor of two or more, to about 50% more. I think you're just a wee bit churlish to complain that it's "insanely expensive". It's not... Macs are still expensive, but at least they're not completely unaffordable for the ordinary joe any more.
Well, this is an impossible debate to begin. Kinda like discussing if green is prettier than red (it is btw:p). For me, i think the "Mac Tax" as you put it, is to much for it to be interesting for me. If I was a John-Doe user, scared to death of the shell and the prospect of messing around with my kernel, or a designer wanting a system that just worked with out all the hassle of windows I might feel different.
But for 8/10 slashdot readers, I think the "Mac Tax" is considered a tad insane:p
You do get more hardware bang for the buck with a "consumer" PC, but not in the software area. The software that ships with even a Mini is easily worth more then that PC's CPU, Mobo, Memory and vid card combined, considering there is absolutely no equivelent on the PC side at all. The Mini, IMac, or any modern OSX Mac can do more out of the box then all consumer PCs on the market.
Ummh, doesn't that depend on which software you use and install on the machine?
I personally use my computer for programming, rapport writing(Latex), Maple and various internet services.
I would use the exact same software on OSX as i would on a Linux/x86 system. The attractiveness of a Mac, from my perspective, comes from a well defined coreplatform that makes distributing software a lot easier.
I have two consumer PCs similar to the one you described and one workstation PC and their overall value are no where near even my 2 year old 1GHz TI book. I use my PCs as a "cheap" rendering solutions and occasional games, but other then that, because I have XP Pro installed on them they are "very poor" computers when compared to any of my Macintoshes.
Well, it sound like you use your machines in a very diffent way than i do (you talk of rendering, which makes me guess your a graphics producing kinda' guy). The only graphics related work i do, is messing around with OpenGL when time permits it. Which means,I would be using the same tools on a Mac as I'm doing on a Linux platform (vim, gcc and the OpenGL libs).
As for better elements that all depends on who you are buying your parts from. First of all a G5 outclasses a P4, it may not be as fast for 32-bit operations, but its only PC equivilent is an Opteron. And if you know anything about PC's an Opteron costs way more then a P4. This is also true for the mobo it requires. So your're not comparing equivilent systems. The iMacs components are closer to a workstation in some areas. Basically the Mac uses higher grade components which cost more. The G5 towers are true worksations, if you're wondering why their price is even higher.
Aah, please. Stop beliving everything Apple tells you and try to read some the benchmarks out there which isn't publised by Apple. The G5 is a neat processor, but its far from worthy of being placed on the pedistal your describing.
Another thing, Apple is the "only" computer company on that planet that can offer true "software/hardware intgration." This area is key, it is the main reason why there are no OSX viruses or Spyware. PCs do not have that luxary and until it happens (Which will be a very long time.) they will never be as good as even a Mini for general use. It's a trade off. Buying the OS seperate from the PC components may be fun (At least for me, it's a hobby.) But everything is disconnecting, everybody has their own software utility and cheeseball interface, which sometimes leads to problems.
Do you seriously belive that the reason that there's so little osx-compatible malware outthere is because of the hardware coming from a single source? If Apple's success continues, and they get a larger marked share you might be in for a nasty surprise:p
If you're only in for gaming, then stick with a consumer PC, (They are the best choice for this.) but when you become interested in all other areas, or would simply like a better computer then buy a OSX Mac. I strongly recommend a MIni as a starter. There is nothing wrong with owning both platforms. They coexist nicely now days.
Well, as hinted earlier in my reply i dont use my computer for gaming. I just fail to see why running the same tools, from the same shell(OSX uses bash if i recall correctly) on a slower computer would give me a better experince.
Think about it this way. If the PC you described were a Camaro, then the iMac would be a Lexus. The Lexus isn't nescarly faster and does costs more, but it's certainly a better, more reliable car, with a nicer interio
Re:I would love a mac, but the pricing is insane
on
Return of the Mac
·
· Score: 1
I did go for it, when i compared the specs and prices of Apple hardware versus x86 hardware the price i had to pay for running OSX was way to high.
Seriusly, think about it. I saved ~$350 dollars, and if you compare the specs the apple is scrawnier on all fronts(5200 vs. 5900FX, 512MB ram vs. 1GB ram etc etc). So in reality i would have paid about 4-500$ just to run OSX. And while OSX is a neat OS and all that, it's not THAT neat:p
I was totally serious, I bought the x86 machine I was speaking of and saved about $350 on a machine that has more horsepower and generally is better in everyway execpt power consumption.
Aren't I allowed to feel they're to pricey compared to the alternatives or ?
That "Manhunter" game was deffently not something i would like any children to play with.
But, AFAIK sicko's have been killing prostitutes and such long before GTA and television for that matter. Are there any statistics that suggest, that because of interative entertainment are producing more psycopats today than say.. 80 years ago?
I have a hard time beliving so, if somebody get influced by a video game to go out and rape and kill somebody i think he/she would have done so anyway. I mean, if a piece of entertainment can send you on a killing spree, your a pretty unstable person and a picture of a kitty could might as well have done the trick.
Funny note, when I was a kid what freaked me out the most wasn't the horror movies i wasn't allowed to see (i did so anyways though:p) instead it was the news. NOW THATS HORROR for u, because you know (even as a kid) its real.
I would love a mac, but the pricing is insane
on
Return of the Mac
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
I was saving up money to get a G5 iMac, when it suddonly struck me that even though i still was a couple of hundred short of being able to buy a iMac i could get:
3.2 P4(800FSB) 1 GB Ram Geforce5900FX x16 DVD-R A pretty cool ALU case
TWO 19" viewsonic TFT screens, with way faster update speeds than the apple screen.
Everything in the machine is faster/better than the elements inside the Apple, the screens are larger. And it was a good deal cheaper than the iMac would have been.
If Apple wan't my business, all they have to do is make a model with a sane price/performance ratio.
Pixar looks for individuals who are adept at working with natural media, not some kid who took a class or two in Photoshop in high school.
That is exactly what I've been arguing, that artist are defined by their skills. I even repied this to you earlier: "The primary skills that defines a artist, are not what tools he's certified in. Its his artistic vision and style that defines him as an artist." (from one of the previous replies I've made)
If you believe for an instance they don't want their character riggers, animators, and lighting designers to know industry standard software you're an idiot
Yes.. very true, but why this turn in the discussion? You might as well have argued I was a idiot if i still belived in stanta or thought the moon is made of cheese, I completely fail to see where you got the impression that i was trying to argue such BS.
Please quote me, what did i write that lead you to this reply?
Pixar is also in a unique position where they have developers write most of the software they use in-house. You can't learn how to use Pixar Animation Studio 1.0 (or whatever they cll it) simply because no one outside Pixar has access to it.
I will still argue that most graphics houses, doing inhouse development or not, will prefer a artist that doesn't need certain apps to function. Ofcourse, it preferable to get a good artist with experince in the tools being used. Thats common sence, but if the tools are the artist then I doubt that artist will get any good job in the business.
Graphic Designers are similar. Many jobs require you to know a handful of applications so you can get up to speed quickly but what they really look for in a designer is the ability to understand graphic communication, composition, and color theory.
That's bacially what I've been saying, the most important thing is artist skills. Not what tools that are used to express them with, ofcourse it will give you an edge if you know the tools that are used in the business. I just think they are less important, than the actual artistic skills.
I haven't said ONE think that could lead you to conclude that I argue that working knowledge is bad.
What I've been arguing from the start, is IF YOU NEED ONE APPLICATION TO BE CREATIVE AND CANT WORK IN ANYTHING ELSE. YOUR NOT MUCH OF AN ARTIST.
And we seem to agree, but please stop trying to put words in my mouth. Or please inform me, exactly where I said that knowing to use any given application is a bad thing..
The learning curve deffently aways be there. If you read my original post again, it might be apparent that i was arguing that it wasn't.
I was just arguing that tools are just tools. If a artist only can be creative in one package, its not him thats creative its the packages tools that are so.
The primary skills that defines a artist, are not what tools he's certified in. Its his artistic vision and style that defines him as an artist.
Well, I did also quote Pixar a little bit from the Pixar Job FAQ. Who seem to have exactly the same stand about this issue.
But I guess Pixar/Disney just don't cut it on a global scale then..
(Also, I would like to underline(since u seem to have trouple interpreting my previous post) i wasn't working ON the production I was just working at the facilities.)
Thanks for answering, and as I said. Was was just a tad curios if you actually tried. And my point was bacially that, in my opp, a true artist won't need a certain application to be creative. But judging from your response it seems like you have no problem creating in other packages, but you simply prefer Photoshop.
Anyhoo, one last thing:
Also, I do know many artists who will discuss ad nauseum the virtues of using one particular brand of one particular type of bristle over another
I've never worked in game industry(and I'm not a artist myself), before I started my University study i felt i could use some RL experince. So i spend some years working, one of these jobs was at the Denmarks biggest TV station during the time they produced Lars von triers "Riget". And I must say this experince was pretty much the opposite of what you have experinced, here they pretty much didn't want artists that was too concerned about the tools used.
Also, take a peek on pixars job FAQ: "In general, at Pixar we look for broad artistic and technical skills, rather than ability to run one package or another. We concentrate on finding people with breadth, depth, communication skills and the ability to collaborate. If you have those attributes, we can teach you the tools."
This makes pretty good sence to me, eventough I'm not artistic at all myself. I know wouldn't consider a guy who could only do his calculations in Maple(or whatever) much of an engineer, so why should i consider a artist that only can be artistic with photoshop(or whatever) much of an artist?
I hope you don't take this the wrong way, I'm not saying i dont belive what your saying. I was just unaware that professionals acted this way("gimme what i want or i'll quit!!"), and I must honestly say I don't think they sound especially professional nor artistic to me at all:p
Have you ever tried using anything else? Or are you just blindly chanting the tune of your local Abobe salesman?
I would argue, that if you feel you need a certain program to be creative. Your not really that creative at all, I for one have never heard two artist discussing who has the best brush.
And it actually seem to me, that most good graphics artist doesn't seem to care a flying f**** what program they use.
For example, say you worked on the last Potter movie and you was placed before one of the Cinepaint boxes (a gimp fork for video) would you then be forced to tell your boss you couldn't make the wanted effect/retouching because you can't be creative without Photoshop?
Seriusly, segmentation of Gnome and KDE is a good thing. If a distro is pure gnome or kde, you'll get more consistent userbase for testing and the package maintainers can focus 100% on maintaining packages relevant for the DE supported by the distro. Which makes alot of time for including more KDE | Gnome apps and goodies.
You still have your precious ""Freedom of choice", since theyre all free. And if your wanna check whats going on in "the other camp", fire up a livecd.
For example, the LVM tools was linked to a lib in/usr/lib. Not exactly cool when quite a few people have/usr on a logical volume(it's even recommended in the gentoo lvm2 guide).
I had to emerge the lvmtools from unstable to get my box to boot, go figure:p
So i don't think it makes his critizism mute at all, since it doesn't really seem too me like stable get that much attention by the devs. It rather seems like hardmasked packages should be considered unstable and ~x86 is pseudo-stable.
Personally, I like Gentoo. It's served me well for about 3 years now, but I must admit I'm keeping a eye out for alternatives since it seems to me the general quality of the distro is not rising.
I blame the extremely high number of packages in portage for this AND the fantazillion different archs they want to support.
Quite a few websites today uses open source developed software for wikis, blogs, forums etc. Chances are that quite a few of these, will use CSS2 regardless of microsofts move. And simply include little "Best expericed with Mozilla firefox", somewhere on the frontpage.
I seems like Microsoft are hoping the users wont be able to download and run firefox, and bitch to the siteadmins that the layout is broken.
I'm not sure that this will happen, since running a setup.exe is pretty much common knowledge today. And especially windows users, seem to have nooo problem what so ever installing a bunch of different apps to do all sorts of thing (like im clients, p2p, etc etc). I think the site users will simply just install firefox.
Slashdot Mirror
They should remember that no matter how long they wait, a new 'Trek' as bad as enterprise won't get good ratings eigther.
I would much rather re-watch a episode of the original series, TNG or DS9 than a brand new episode of Enterprise. Which says more about Enterprise than it does about any of the older series.
They simply need to do better than enterprise, otherwise a break will have no effect on ratings.
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/system-req uirements
s/rapport/report/
:p
:D
happy?
In my "defence", the Danish(which is my native language) word for report is rapport. Also, i dont really proof read my slashot messages so i you can't stand to read a few misspells here and there you should not read any of my comments
You absolutely right, I don't need all that processing power. I mentioned in another post in this thread, i sometimes like to mess around with opengl but nothing that wouldn't be doable entirely on the most modern processesor(i don't *really* need the GPU). But it is certaintly nice to have, the system in general is ligthing fast and I do run Gentoo(which can make good use op the CPU, when upgrading/installing packages). Also, it has happend that I've used the machine for tasks not on the list. Like sound encoding , and decoding/re-encoding certain video files so my hardware DVD player would play them. While this isn't something that happens that often, I certainly like the processor has somemuchle when the need is there. And regarding the gfx card, I do hope that stuff like OpenGL accellerated X will come around *sometime*.
:p
Nevertheless, what i need and don't need regarding to power really isn't relevant to whats being debated here is it? I argued that I felt the price (which another reader dubbed "Mac Tax") it costed to get a mac, wasn't worth it. And now your replying "well, you don't need a powerfull system anyways". Do you mean I should get a old used mac, for pretty much what a new PC cost. I fail to see how this should make me feel any different about the "Mac Tax".
I hope you don't misunderstand me, I think Apple makes awsome computers. I just don't feel they're quite worth the extra $$, that all
game development aren't the most unattractive area one could work in, if it wasn't for the hours involved I would love to do that sort of work after im done studying.
Your mistake is thinking that Apple is a hardware company. They're not. They're a software company that sells hardware with their software. They're not alone there, Cisco has a similar business model.
:p). For me, i think the "Mac Tax" as you put it, is to much for it to be interesting for me. If I was a John-Doe user, scared to death of the shell and the prospect of messing around with my kernel, or a designer wanting a system that just worked with out all the hassle of windows I might feel different.
:p
Don't get me wrong, but I don't really care what the a suppliers business model are, i tend to look at the product I get from my money and try to judge if i think its worth it.
You saved $350 on the machine, and didn't get the most important part... Mac OS X. If that's not the part you wanted, if you're satisfied with Windows or Linux, then you probably shouldn't have been looking at Macs in the first place.
OSX was what I wanted, not so much because of their nice expose effect and all that, but because it offers a nice well defined platform for developing. But again, the cost was to high for it to be interesting. Besides the $350 saved, you should also take into account that all the hardware in the Mac is cheaper(a 5200 is what, $30's these days? small disk, slow drive (i dont care if their supplier(panasonic) only make slow drives, that irrellevant for me as a user) smaller screen, less+slower ram etc etc).
After thinking about how much more i would get hardware wise, AND i would save ~350, OSX simply wasn't worth it for me.
(note. I'm not the core audience for OSX in the first place, since alot of my work is done via. a shell anyways)
In the intervening time the "Mac Tax" has dropped from a factor of two or more, to about 50% more. I think you're just a wee bit churlish to complain that it's "insanely expensive". It's not... Macs are still expensive, but at least they're not completely unaffordable for the ordinary joe any more.
Well, this is an impossible debate to begin. Kinda like discussing if green is prettier than red (it is btw
But for 8/10 slashdot readers, I think the "Mac Tax" is considered a tad insane
You do get more hardware bang for the buck with a "consumer" PC, but not in the software area. The software that ships with even a Mini is easily worth more then that PC's CPU, Mobo, Memory and vid card combined, considering there is absolutely no equivelent on the PC side at all. The Mini, IMac, or any modern OSX Mac can do more out of the box then all consumer PCs on the market.
:p
Ummh, doesn't that depend on which software you use and install on the machine?
I personally use my computer for programming, rapport writing(Latex), Maple and various internet services.
I would use the exact same software on OSX as i would on a Linux/x86 system. The attractiveness of a Mac, from my perspective, comes from a well defined coreplatform that makes distributing software a lot easier.
I have two consumer PCs similar to the one you described and one workstation PC and their overall value are no where near even my 2 year old 1GHz TI book. I use my PCs as a "cheap" rendering solutions and occasional games, but other then that, because I have XP Pro installed on them they are "very poor" computers when compared to any of my Macintoshes.
Well, it sound like you use your machines in a very diffent way than i do (you talk of rendering, which makes me guess your a graphics producing kinda' guy). The only graphics related work i do, is messing around with OpenGL when time permits it. Which means,I would be using the same tools on a Mac as I'm doing on a Linux platform (vim, gcc and the OpenGL libs).
As for better elements that all depends on who you are buying your parts from. First of all a G5 outclasses a P4, it may not be as fast for 32-bit operations, but its only PC equivilent is an Opteron. And if you know anything about PC's an Opteron costs way more then a P4. This is also true for the mobo it requires. So your're not comparing equivilent systems. The iMacs components are closer to a workstation in some areas. Basically the Mac uses higher grade components which cost more. The G5 towers are true worksations, if you're wondering why their price is even higher.
Aah, please. Stop beliving everything Apple tells you and try to read some the benchmarks out there which isn't publised by Apple. The G5 is a neat processor, but its far from worthy of being placed on the pedistal your describing.
Another thing, Apple is the "only" computer company on that planet that can offer true "software/hardware intgration." This area is key, it is the main reason why there are no OSX viruses or Spyware. PCs do not have that luxary and until it happens (Which will be a very long time.) they will never be as good as even a Mini for general use. It's a trade off. Buying the OS seperate from the PC components may be fun (At least for me, it's a hobby.) But everything is disconnecting, everybody has their own software utility and cheeseball interface, which sometimes leads to problems.
Do you seriously belive that the reason that there's so little osx-compatible malware outthere is because of the hardware coming from a single source? If Apple's success continues, and they get a larger marked share you might be in for a nasty surprise
If you're only in for gaming, then stick with a consumer PC, (They are the best choice for this.) but when you become interested in all other areas, or would simply like a better computer then buy a OSX Mac. I strongly recommend a MIni as a starter. There is nothing wrong with owning both platforms. They coexist nicely now days.
Well, as hinted earlier in my reply i dont use my computer for gaming. I just fail to see why running the same tools, from the same shell(OSX uses bash if i recall correctly) on a slower computer would give me a better experince.
Think about it this way. If the PC you described were a Camaro, then the iMac would be a Lexus. The Lexus isn't nescarly faster and does costs more, but it's certainly a better, more reliable car, with a nicer interio
I did go for it, when i compared the specs and prices of Apple hardware versus x86 hardware the price i had to pay for running OSX was way to high.
:p
Seriusly, think about it. I saved ~$350 dollars, and if you compare the specs the apple is scrawnier on all fronts(5200 vs. 5900FX, 512MB ram vs. 1GB ram etc etc). So in reality i would have paid about 4-500$ just to run OSX. And while OSX is a neat OS and all that, it's not THAT neat
Was Henrik Wann Jensen's masters project at the Technical University of Denmark.
I was totally serious, I bought the x86 machine I was speaking of and saved about $350 on a machine that has more horsepower and generally is better in everyway execpt power consumption.
Aren't I allowed to feel they're to pricey compared to the alternatives or ?
That "Manhunter" game was deffently not something i would like any children to play with.
:p) instead it was the news. NOW THATS HORROR for u, because you know (even as a kid) its real.
But, AFAIK sicko's have been killing prostitutes and such long before GTA and television for that matter. Are there any statistics that suggest, that because of interative entertainment are producing more psycopats today than say.. 80 years ago?
I have a hard time beliving so, if somebody get influced by a video game to go out and rape and kill somebody i think he/she would have done so anyway. I mean, if a piece of entertainment can send you on a killing spree, your a pretty unstable person and a picture of a kitty could might as well have done the trick.
Funny note, when I was a kid what freaked me out the most wasn't the horror movies i wasn't allowed to see (i did so anyways though
I was saving up money to get a G5 iMac, when it suddonly struck me that even though i still was a couple of hundred short of being able to buy a iMac i could get:
3.2 P4(800FSB)
1 GB Ram
Geforce5900FX
x16 DVD-R
A pretty cool ALU case
TWO 19" viewsonic TFT screens, with way faster update speeds than the apple screen.
Everything in the machine is faster/better than the elements inside the Apple, the screens are larger. And it was a good deal cheaper than the iMac would have been.
If Apple wan't my business, all they have to do is make a model with a sane price/performance ratio.
Well, it was pretty much my own fault i think. After re-reading original post again, it struck me it actually sounded kinda "agressive"/offensive.
:p
Anyhow, I think we're pretty much in agreement on this subject so lets stop debating it already
Pixar looks for individuals who are adept at working with natural media, not some kid who took a class or two in Photoshop in high school.
That is exactly what I've been arguing, that artist are defined by their skills. I even repied this to you earlier: "The primary skills that defines a artist, are not what tools he's certified in. Its his artistic vision and style that defines him as an artist." (from one of the previous replies I've made)
If you believe for an instance they don't want their character riggers, animators, and lighting designers to know industry standard software you're an idiot
Yes.. very true, but why this turn in the discussion? You might as well have argued I was a idiot if i still belived in stanta or thought the moon is made of cheese, I completely fail to see where you got the impression that i was trying to argue such BS.
Please quote me, what did i write that lead you to this reply?
Pixar is also in a unique position where they have developers write most of the software they use in-house. You can't learn how to use Pixar Animation Studio 1.0 (or whatever they cll it) simply because no one outside Pixar has access to it.
I will still argue that most graphics houses, doing inhouse development or not, will prefer a artist that doesn't need certain apps to function. Ofcourse, it preferable to get a good artist with experince in the tools being used. Thats common sence, but if the tools are the artist then I doubt that artist will get any good job in the business.
Graphic Designers are similar. Many jobs require you to know a handful of applications so you can get up to speed quickly but what they really look for in a designer is the ability to understand graphic communication, composition, and color theory.
That's bacially what I've been saying, the most important thing is artist skills. Not what tools that are used to express them with, ofcourse it will give you an edge if you know the tools that are used in the business. I just think they are less important, than the actual artistic skills.
who's sounding like a idiot.
I haven't said ONE think that could lead you to conclude that I argue that working knowledge is bad.
What I've been arguing from the start, is IF YOU NEED ONE APPLICATION TO BE CREATIVE AND CANT WORK IN ANYTHING ELSE. YOUR NOT MUCH OF AN ARTIST.
And we seem to agree, but please stop trying to put words in my mouth. Or please inform me, exactly where I said that knowing to use any given application is a bad thing..
Jeees..
The learning curve deffently aways be there. If you read my original post again, it might be apparent that i was arguing that it wasn't.
I was just arguing that tools are just tools. If a artist only can be creative in one package, its not him thats creative its the packages tools that are so.
The primary skills that defines a artist, are not what tools he's certified in. Its his artistic vision and style that defines him as an artist.
Well, I did also quote Pixar a little bit from the Pixar Job FAQ. Who seem to have exactly the same stand about this issue.
But I guess Pixar/Disney just don't cut it on a global scale then..
(Also, I would like to underline(since u seem to have trouple interpreting my previous post) i wasn't working ON the production I was just working at the facilities.)
Thanks for answering, and as I said. Was was just a tad curios if you actually tried. And my point was bacially that, in my opp, a true artist won't need a certain application to be creative. But judging from your response it seems like you have no problem creating in other packages, but you simply prefer Photoshop.
:p
Anyhoo, one last thing:
Also, I do know many artists who will discuss ad nauseum the virtues of using one particular brand of one particular type of bristle over another
Yes, but they can paint with both types right?
I've never worked in game industry(and I'm not a artist myself), before I started my University study i felt i could use some RL experince. So i spend some years working, one of these jobs was at the Denmarks biggest TV station during the time they produced Lars von triers "Riget". And I must say this experince was pretty much the opposite of what you have experinced, here they pretty much didn't want artists that was too concerned about the tools used.
:p
Also, take a peek on pixars job FAQ:
"In general, at Pixar we look for broad artistic and technical skills, rather than ability to run one package or another. We concentrate on finding people with breadth, depth, communication skills and the ability to collaborate. If you have those attributes, we can teach you the tools."
This makes pretty good sence to me, eventough I'm not artistic at all myself. I know wouldn't consider a guy who could only do his calculations in Maple(or whatever) much of an engineer, so why should i consider a artist that only can be artistic with photoshop(or whatever) much of an artist?
I hope you don't take this the wrong way, I'm not saying i dont belive what your saying. I was just unaware that professionals acted this way("gimme what i want or i'll quit!!"), and I must honestly say I don't think they sound especially professional nor artistic to me at all
Have you ever tried using anything else? Or are you just blindly chanting the tune of your local Abobe salesman?
I would argue, that if you feel you need a certain program to be creative. Your not really that creative at all, I for one have never heard two artist discussing who has the best brush.
And it actually seem to me, that most good graphics artist doesn't seem to care a flying f**** what program they use.
For example, say you worked on the last Potter movie and you was placed before one of the Cinepaint boxes (a gimp fork for video) would you then be forced to tell your boss you couldn't make the wanted effect/retouching because you can't be creative without Photoshop?
...idea :p
Seriusly, segmentation of Gnome and KDE is a good thing. If a distro is pure gnome or kde, you'll get more consistent userbase for testing and the package maintainers can focus 100% on maintaining packages relevant for the DE supported by the distro. Which makes alot of time for including more KDE | Gnome apps and goodies.
You still have your precious ""Freedom of choice", since theyre all free. And if your wanna check whats going on in "the other camp", fire up a livecd.
For example, the LVM tools was linked to a lib in /usr/lib. Not exactly cool when quite a few people have /usr on a logical volume(it's even recommended in the gentoo lvm2 guide).
:p
I had to emerge the lvmtools from unstable to get my box to boot, go figure
So i don't think it makes his critizism mute at all, since it doesn't really seem too me like stable get that much attention by the devs. It rather seems like hardmasked packages should be considered unstable and ~x86 is pseudo-stable.
Personally, I like Gentoo. It's served me well for about 3 years now, but I must admit I'm keeping a eye out for alternatives since it seems to me the general quality of the distro is not rising.
I blame the extremely high number of packages in portage for this AND the fantazillion different archs they want to support.
*empty*
Quite a few websites today uses open source developed software for wikis, blogs, forums etc. Chances are that quite a few of these, will use CSS2 regardless of microsofts move. And simply include little "Best expericed with Mozilla firefox", somewhere on the frontpage.
I seems like Microsoft are hoping the users wont be able to download and run firefox, and bitch to the siteadmins that the layout is broken.
I'm not sure that this will happen, since running a setup.exe is pretty much common knowledge today. And especially windows users, seem to have nooo problem what so ever installing a bunch of different apps to do all sorts of thing (like im clients, p2p, etc etc). I think the site users will simply just install firefox.
And use MythTV, or any of the other OS PVR software.