I've responded to similar comments elsewhere on this same thread. Here, I'll just say:
1) IF you were around when Empire hit the theaters, 2) IF you were interested enough to read any of the MANY articles and interviews about Lucas,
Then you would remember that Lucas had dropped many hints at that time about what had happened in the backstory and what was going to happen in the next story.
If you weren't around, or didn't read the magazines at the time, it would be easy to doubt it and to keep saying he didn't know what he was doing, but if you were there and kept track of things as they happened, then you would remember Lucas' statements BEFORE Return and 20 years before Menace that were enough to show he knew what he planned to do.
It really is funny to watch so many people almost worship the original trilogy and continue to 2nd guess Lucas now, and think they know better. I remember a lot of people being furious about Empire and the shocking revalation about Vader at the time, and the bad reviews Return received. It'll be even funnier to watch the generations that grow up after all 6 have been done and they'll think of them as being in order and many will be surprised when they learn they weren't shot in order.
Okay, lets see if you can read a number of interviews and articles about a hot new movie (back when there wasn't a block buster every summer) and remember which fact came from which magazine 25 years later.
It wasn't like I was taking notes or writing a thesis. Do you clearly remember each and every article you've read as long as 20 to 25 years ago, where the article was, which magazine it was in, and exactly which facts came from which articles?
There was a letter in Starlog magazine that I read somewhere around 1980-1982 that I specifically remember reading. It's something I've remembered for years, and something I've thought about with each prequal we've seen. I don't remember if the letter was from Lucas, and it may have been in a short news blurb instead of a letter (point is it wasn't part of a full article).
In it either Lucas stated, or was quoted as saying that Luke's Father had betrayed all the Jedi, and after that, he and Obi-Wan got in a long light sabre battle that ended with Luke's Father (he didn't use the name Annakin) falling into a volcano and was rescued by someone (he didn't specify by whom), and that was when he was put in the Vader suit -- because he needed it for life support after being almost burned by the lava.
That's one of the points that made me feel that the major point of the whole backstory that interested Lucas was the corruption of a hero and his turn to evil.
So I think that's evidence he was more than BS'ing his way through: he had at least one specific plot point he talked about for years. That doesn't mean he had the whole story plotted beat for beat. It's one thing to have a full outline, but once you start writing a story down, on paper, you realize pacing needs changing, some scenes don't work, and others detract. Then, once you have an outline, and do a script, even more changes because it doesn't work the way you want.
Also, as I said in another post, he stated the first series was more about spying (I think he used the word Machiavellian -- which I know I just misspelled), and not as much about discovery and heroism, which was more fun to watch. Look at the stories, especially Phantom Menace -- it's all about setting up plots, manipulating people and governments -- and so, basically, is Attack.
I know now it's cool to bash Lucas, which is a trend that I just don't understand. I've noticed it is much more "in" with those too young to have seen the originals when they came out. The man gave us SW in the first place. Those of us that grew up with it think of it like mythology -- sacrosanct, and have become quite ugly about Lucas every time he makes a change or does what he wants. They're his stories, for Pete's sake, so he can do whatever the hell he wants. If you don't like what he does, don't say he's bs'ing, don't waste your time attacking. Take your time to write a better script and get it produced. If you can't do that, then please, you and all others, grow up, accept he has the right to tell the story he wants to tell (and, judging from receipts that show many people see it 2 or more times, it's a story many people want to see), and Star Wars is his to extend, append, re-tell, and even, if he wants to, destroy.
Actually, that's another pont that shows he had plans for the prequal years ago. The "Episode IV" tags, though, did not appear until SW was re-released just before Empire was released.
Maybe you're too young to remember, or just didn't care, but I remember when Empire came out, in 1980, Lucas talked about it in interviews. He had said he had an entire backstory, but he started in the middle because the other story wasn't as exciting, and was more about spying and plotting, so it would not be as good or interesting. (Yes! He really said all that as early as 1980 or so -- I remember reading it while in high school, in something like Time or Starlog.)
He also said, after Return was released, that he had a prequal storyline, but he wasn't going to do it for years because there were a lot of things he wanted to do that the fx of the day couldn't do, and that he wouldn't do the prequal until the start of the art fx work caught up to what he wanted to do.
Yes, I know it's fun to bash and denigrate and trash an icon. If you don't believe me, see how much fun you had doing it in your post. But it doesn't work when there are people who remember his original comments in interviews that are pre-web, so theyr'e not likely to be found in Google, and those comments basically say a lot about the two movies we've already seen.
Yes, Star Wars was revised. How many plot points were changed (other than Han not firing first)? How many of the changes were adding shots and scenes that were too expensive to include when it was originally shot -- or, in the case of the Jabba/Han scene in the first one, a scene that didn't contribute directly to the storyline of the particular film it was in (that scene, in it self, should show you that Lucas had planned more than we originally saw).
I've expected this movie to be pretty good. Lucas knew what stories he wanted to tell when he first wrote Star Wars, and he started with what he thought was the most exciting one. It was clear, since he started on this trilogy, that the real story he wanted to tell was Anakin going over to the dark side. The other two films were really just setting us up for this one -- he told them because they filled in the background for this movie, the one he wanted to make.
So it seemed to me this is the only one in the prequal trilogy he really wanted to make, and he's been working up to it. When he's excited about a story, Lucas does great. When he's just creating fillter (or, as in Return of the Jedi, tying up loose ends) -- that's when he's weak.
If it's in a class with Ubuntu, why pay something like $85 for Libranet before even trying it, when you can get Ubuntu for free, try it, and if you like it, then pay for it. (Or not pay for it -- as you decide.)
I'm a strong proponent of making a system as easy to use as possible, but it seems to me this guy is going by the book and needs to, well, to get a life.
Every UI can be imrpoved, but it seems he's more interested in finding things that don't meet certain technical spects than considering whether or not a system is actually comfortable and usable for the users.
It'd be interesting to find out what they're using for editing. You can do capture and playback on Linux, but the only package I've found that I would even consider using for editing is Main Actor, by Main Concept. I think it's either $200 or $300. For the price, when compared to Adobe Premeire, it's pretty good, but last time I tried the demo, I found it lacking in features I was used to using regularly. I've been watching open source editors, and I think it'll be several years before there's one with all the features of your standard professional analog switcher.
I looked at Cinelerra, but I couldn't stand it because of the GUI. It felt counter-intuitive. I've heard a few people say they liked it, but I couldn't stand it.
Part of what frustrates me is that I look at audio programs like Audacity and others on Linux, and see how you can do almost anything with sound files on Linux, but most Linux video editors do only one or two transitions (if you're lucky, they'll do a dissolve, many aren't even frame accurate, which is something I NEED as a pro) and don't have features like keying, although they may allow titles.
I'd be interested in finding out what the video people you set up are doing. By professional, are they working in the low end wedding market? Do they do promos, commercials, photo transfers, depositions, training videos or other work for corporations? If I were only doing depositions (some people make quite a good living doing that!), for example, I wouldn't need frame accuracy, but that doesn't involve much skill, just setting up the camera, reading the legal stuff at the start, making copies, and sometimes cutting out parts the lawyers later say they don't want.
Anyone doing serious video editing or DVD authoring will not be using Linux. While Cinelerra offers a good many professional features, overall video tools on Linux are not developed enough for professional use. I keep checking on them every few months, in the hope that when my business is at the point of moving toward video production, the programs on Linux will be able to support professional video work. While there are programs that let you do DVD authoring, they're not yet at the point where one can focus more on the authoring work than on how to use the tools.
That means if you're going to do professional video, you're likely to use a Mac (or possibly a Win32 based system). Networked drives aren't fast enough (although gigabyte ethernet speeds may be fast enough, I've never tried them), so you're best off storing your files on the system you do your capture and editing on. If I'm wrong on this, then things have changed, and I'd be glad to hear about those changes.
Those are good points, and ones I had not considered, since all the data on my raid is text or tables for MySQL. So far I haven't seen any indication of a bottleneck at all. The boot drive is separate (and both RAID and boot are backed up and stored on a separate system which will be offsite one day).
I also am confused -- you say data drives are mostly multimedia, and point out that they have set bitrates for reading, then get vulgar about someone getting good performance for mp3 players. It seems you almost contradict yourself there.
Most of the people I know storing data on a raid drive are storing business data -- such as data files, documents, etc. The only case I know of where someone is storing multimedia on raid is where I had to temporarily store my ogg files on my raid while removing one old system from my LAN and preparing the new one.
If it's not included, the full package is mdadm. There are a number of tutorials on the web for it. It's easy to set up, and easy to run (just ignore it). I don't remember if it can work with hot swapping (I don't need that yet), but I'm using it on several systems. I set it up, and I haven't had to worry about it since.
When I first got it, I stuffed a lot on the raid drive, disabled it, wiped out one disk, and re-activated the raid. It rebuilt it and worked fine.
I asked this question on a Debian (or Debian based) user list at a time when a lot of experienced admins were around, and overall the feeling was that there was no need to go hardware and the software raid would do the job.
One major point on the patent was that, when making a PBJ, the J seeps through the bread. To solve that problem, Smuckers put PB on BOTH pieces of bread.
And patented that!
They got a patent on putting PB on both bread slices instead of just one!
And we wonder how the one-click-order got patented!
You make some very interesting points. To extend it a bit, here's more:
1) Whlie MS is a corporation, it is made up of people, and its direction and attitude are controlled by a handfull of people, the same ones who have been there all along. So when you're looking at how the company responds, the company's response is a reflection of how those at the top feel.
2) People don't always go through these stages in the same order. I'd say we've seen a lot of denial, but have yet to see the anger. We'll see that (even combined with bargaining) when they realize there's no way to stop FOSS and start filing all the lawsuits they can.
3) I'd say it's more of a distant threat to Windows. They're feeling it now, but if you look at the numbers, Windows systems still blow away Linux in numbers. It's not really competition for them yet.
But this brings on a bigger point. MS has been the big guy has always dealt with competition in only a few ways: 1) buy them out, 2) give away product until they go bankrupt, 3) change standards so the competition won't work. They have yet to EVER go head to head against any company on a level playing field, where MS has to compete with them on NOTHING more than the quality of the product -- at least in the long run. They may start that way, but once they realize they aren't winning, they tip the tables in their favor by whatever tricks they can, and NOT by improving their product.
Linux is different for many reasons. It's not about profit. It's not a company that can be bought or driven out of business. It's not one unified source (no pun intended) that can be quickly snuffed. It's like fighting a swarm of bees, instead of facing a cobra. You kill the cobra, and it's gone. You kill one bee, there's a hundred more to sting you again.
While MS is beginning to face the reality that Linux is here, and likely won't go away, a lot of what's going on has to do with the fact that the Linux (in specific and FOSS in general) development and deployment model is so alien to them they still don't get what's going on. They're trying to, and they're realizing if they don't adapt, they'll destroy themselves, and they're trying to understand the competition, but all they can see is the letter of the process, not the spirit.
I was thinking about that, but I didn't want to go into tons of detail.
Cameras are dirt cheap now -- you can get USB cameras, and have a number of them tied into an old system (also mounted on a ceiling) that does nothing but forward their data over ethernet. Or you could use other cheap cameras that aren't usb -- there's options. With them being so cheap. you could mount a large number on the ceiling, so it would be easy to keep it in sight of a camera.
I don't trust floor sensors (things can fall on the floor, paint can wear off, blood splotches from injuries, dropped paint cans, almost anything...) can mess up the floor. Measuring the wheel rotation can be thrown off if, for some reason, the wheels spin at all (like moving forward, with a pallet on the forklift, and the pallet end hits the wall, you might get wheel movement without moving forward). More likely there'll be slippage between the steering wheel and the wheels, and there's problems with slippage in wheels during turns, where the outside wheel travels more than the inside.
I don't like radio signals, since there are likely metal walls, and could be a lot of metal in boxes and crates (since we don't know what's in them), so I know I'd prefer some form of visual reckoning, and it'll be easier to track a forklift than to have a forklift with different cameras (or turning cameras) tracking something else (and fewer moving parts, which means fewer parts to break.)
There might be better ways, but this seemed the simplist overall method to me.
I know a lot of forklifts or other equipment sometimes have a flashing light on top. Could you do something similar, like have a bright light on top of the forklift (and if you have multiple forklifts, each could have a different color light), and have a few video cameras mounted on the ceiling. Every second or so a screencapture program could read a frame from each camera and scan it for the color of the light.
That might cause a problem with employees and their clothing, so you could even use two lights on a forklift, each a different color, so one lift is identified by red and green, or maybe several lights so it shows up as a large blob, bigger than any employee. You won't have to worry about echo or other problems that come from a radio signal in a large warehouse (which is probably made of metal).
You've got the (same problem as the first suggestion.
Any bar codes or anything else on the floor will wear out unevenly and after a few years, will require a constant cycle of painting to keep up with it.
But with a lot of forklift traffic, people walking in and out, and boxes and crates that are picked up and put down (that will shift by small amounts when the forklift places or lifts them), and you'll find the paint gets worn away unevenly. After it's been on the floor for a year or so, it'll be hard to keep up with repainting the areas as they wear out.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny -- noobody else that remembers all the discussions and interviews and articles seems to remember that...
Until they get older -- and by then, they'll have seen the movies many times and won't be looking at them too closely.
I've responded to similar comments elsewhere on this same thread. Here, I'll just say:
1) IF you were around when Empire hit the theaters,
2) IF you were interested enough to read any of the MANY articles and interviews about Lucas,
Then you would remember that Lucas had dropped many hints at that time about what had happened in the backstory and what was going to happen in the next story.
If you weren't around, or didn't read the magazines at the time, it would be easy to doubt it and to keep saying he didn't know what he was doing, but if you were there and kept track of things as they happened, then you would remember Lucas' statements BEFORE Return and 20 years before Menace that were enough to show he knew what he planned to do.
It really is funny to watch so many people almost worship the original trilogy and continue to 2nd guess Lucas now, and think they know better. I remember a lot of people being furious about Empire and the shocking revalation about Vader at the time, and the bad reviews Return received. It'll be even funnier to watch the generations that grow up after all 6 have been done and they'll think of them as being in order and many will be surprised when they learn they weren't shot in order.
Okay, lets see if you can read a number of interviews and articles about a hot new movie (back when there wasn't a block buster every summer) and remember which fact came from which magazine 25 years later.
It wasn't like I was taking notes or writing a thesis. Do you clearly remember each and every article you've read as long as 20 to 25 years ago, where the article was, which magazine it was in, and exactly which facts came from which articles?
There was a letter in Starlog magazine that I read somewhere around 1980-1982 that I specifically remember reading. It's something I've remembered for years, and something I've thought about with each prequal we've seen. I don't remember if the letter was from Lucas, and it may have been in a short news blurb instead of a letter (point is it wasn't part of a full article).
In it either Lucas stated, or was quoted as saying that Luke's Father had betrayed all the Jedi, and after that, he and Obi-Wan got in a long light sabre battle that ended with Luke's Father (he didn't use the name Annakin) falling into a volcano and was rescued by someone (he didn't specify by whom), and that was when he was put in the Vader suit -- because he needed it for life support after being almost burned by the lava.
That's one of the points that made me feel that the major point of the whole backstory that interested Lucas was the corruption of a hero and his turn to evil.
So I think that's evidence he was more than BS'ing his way through: he had at least one specific plot point he talked about for years. That doesn't mean he had the whole story plotted beat for beat. It's one thing to have a full outline, but once you start writing a story down, on paper, you realize pacing needs changing, some scenes don't work, and others detract. Then, once you have an outline, and do a script, even more changes because it doesn't work the way you want.
Also, as I said in another post, he stated the first series was more about spying (I think he used the word Machiavellian -- which I know I just misspelled), and not as much about discovery and heroism, which was more fun to watch. Look at the stories, especially Phantom Menace -- it's all about setting up plots, manipulating people and governments -- and so, basically, is Attack.
I know now it's cool to bash Lucas, which is a trend that I just don't understand. I've noticed it is much more "in" with those too young to have seen the originals when they came out. The man gave us SW in the first place. Those of us that grew up with it think of it like mythology -- sacrosanct, and have become quite ugly about Lucas every time he makes a change or does what he wants. They're his stories, for Pete's sake, so he can do whatever the hell he wants. If you don't like what he does, don't say he's bs'ing, don't waste your time attacking. Take your time to write a better script and get it produced. If you can't do that, then please, you and all others, grow up, accept he has the right to tell the story he wants to tell (and, judging from receipts that show many people see it 2 or more times, it's a story many people want to see), and Star Wars is his to extend, append, re-tell, and even, if he wants to, destroy.
Actually, that's another pont that shows he had plans for the prequal years ago. The "Episode IV" tags, though, did not appear until SW was re-released just before Empire was released.
Maybe you're too young to remember, or just didn't care, but I remember when Empire came out, in 1980, Lucas talked about it in interviews. He had said he had an entire backstory, but he started in the middle because the other story wasn't as exciting, and was more about spying and plotting, so it would not be as good or interesting. (Yes! He really said all that as early as 1980 or so -- I remember reading it while in high school, in something like Time or Starlog.)
He also said, after Return was released, that he had a prequal storyline, but he wasn't going to do it for years because there were a lot of things he wanted to do that the fx of the day couldn't do, and that he wouldn't do the prequal until the start of the art fx work caught up to what he wanted to do.
Yes, I know it's fun to bash and denigrate and trash an icon. If you don't believe me, see how much fun you had doing it in your post. But it doesn't work when there are people who remember his original comments in interviews that are pre-web, so theyr'e not likely to be found in Google, and those comments basically say a lot about the two movies we've already seen.
Yes, Star Wars was revised. How many plot points were changed (other than Han not firing first)? How many of the changes were adding shots and scenes that were too expensive to include when it was originally shot -- or, in the case of the Jabba/Han scene in the first one, a scene that didn't contribute directly to the storyline of the particular film it was in (that scene, in it self, should show you that Lucas had planned more than we originally saw).
I've expected this movie to be pretty good. Lucas knew what stories he wanted to tell when he first wrote Star Wars, and he started with what he thought was the most exciting one. It was clear, since he started on this trilogy, that the real story he wanted to tell was Anakin going over to the dark side. The other two films were really just setting us up for this one -- he told them because they filled in the background for this movie, the one he wanted to make.
So it seemed to me this is the only one in the prequal trilogy he really wanted to make, and he's been working up to it. When he's excited about a story, Lucas does great. When he's just creating fillter (or, as in Return of the Jedi, tying up loose ends) -- that's when he's weak.
If it's in a class with Ubuntu, why pay something like $85 for Libranet before even trying it, when you can get Ubuntu for free, try it, and if you like it, then pay for it. (Or not pay for it -- as you decide.)
Yep, they've released Reader (although I don't know if it was official, or what, but I had a copy of Acrobat on Linux a while back).
Have they released the PDF creator end? OR any other program other than a passive reader for Linux?
Now we'll never see DreamWeaver on Linux.
Actually, that is setup. IIRC, it's automatically set up in Debian, but I don't remember it if was setup or if I set it up.
I'm a strong proponent of making a system as easy to use as possible, but it seems to me this guy is going by the book and needs to, well, to get a life.
Every UI can be imrpoved, but it seems he's more interested in finding things that don't meet certain technical spects than considering whether or not a system is actually comfortable and usable for the users.
It'd be interesting to find out what they're using for editing. You can do capture and playback on Linux, but the only package I've found that I would even consider using for editing is Main Actor, by Main Concept. I think it's either $200 or $300. For the price, when compared to Adobe Premeire, it's pretty good, but last time I tried the demo, I found it lacking in features I was used to using regularly. I've been watching open source editors, and I think it'll be several years before there's one with all the features of your standard professional analog switcher.
I looked at Cinelerra, but I couldn't stand it because of the GUI. It felt counter-intuitive. I've heard a few people say they liked it, but I couldn't stand it.
Part of what frustrates me is that I look at audio programs like Audacity and others on Linux, and see how you can do almost anything with sound files on Linux, but most Linux video editors do only one or two transitions (if you're lucky, they'll do a dissolve, many aren't even frame accurate, which is something I NEED as a pro) and don't have features like keying, although they may allow titles.
I'd be interested in finding out what the video people you set up are doing. By professional, are they working in the low end wedding market? Do they do promos, commercials, photo transfers, depositions, training videos or other work for corporations? If I were only doing depositions (some people make quite a good living doing that!), for example, I wouldn't need frame accuracy, but that doesn't involve much skill, just setting up the camera, reading the legal stuff at the start, making copies, and sometimes cutting out parts the lawyers later say they don't want.
Anyone doing serious video editing or DVD authoring will not be using Linux. While Cinelerra offers a good many professional features, overall video tools on Linux are not developed enough for professional use. I keep checking on them every few months, in the hope that when my business is at the point of moving toward video production, the programs on Linux will be able to support professional video work. While there are programs that let you do DVD authoring, they're not yet at the point where one can focus more on the authoring work than on how to use the tools.
That means if you're going to do professional video, you're likely to use a Mac (or possibly a Win32 based system). Networked drives aren't fast enough (although gigabyte ethernet speeds may be fast enough, I've never tried them), so you're best off storing your files on the system you do your capture and editing on. If I'm wrong on this, then things have changed, and I'd be glad to hear about those changes.
Those are good points, and ones I had not considered, since all the data on my raid is text or tables for MySQL. So far I haven't seen any indication of a bottleneck at all. The boot drive is separate (and both RAID and boot are backed up and stored on a separate system which will be offsite one day).
I also am confused -- you say data drives are mostly multimedia, and point out that they have set bitrates for reading, then get vulgar about someone getting good performance for mp3 players. It seems you almost contradict yourself there.
Most of the people I know storing data on a raid drive are storing business data -- such as data files, documents, etc. The only case I know of where someone is storing multimedia on raid is where I had to temporarily store my ogg files on my raid while removing one old system from my LAN and preparing the new one.
If it's not included, the full package is mdadm. There are a number of tutorials on the web for it. It's easy to set up, and easy to run (just ignore it). I don't remember if it can work with hot swapping (I don't need that yet), but I'm using it on several systems. I set it up, and I haven't had to worry about it since.
When I first got it, I stuffed a lot on the raid drive, disabled it, wiped out one disk, and re-activated the raid. It rebuilt it and worked fine.
I asked this question on a Debian (or Debian based) user list at a time when a lot of experienced admins were around, and overall the feeling was that there was no need to go hardware and the software raid would do the job.
So is the babe wearing only lettuce and tomato?
I'll buy that for a dollar.
Yes, you're right.
One major point on the patent was that, when making a PBJ, the J seeps through the bread. To solve that problem, Smuckers put PB on BOTH pieces of bread.
And patented that!
They got a patent on putting PB on both bread slices instead of just one!
And we wonder how the one-click-order got patented!
You make some very interesting points. To extend it a bit, here's more:
1) Whlie MS is a corporation, it is made up of people, and its direction and attitude are controlled by a handfull of people, the same ones who have been there all along. So when you're looking at how the company responds, the company's response is a reflection of how those at the top feel.
2) People don't always go through these stages in the same order. I'd say we've seen a lot of denial, but have yet to see the anger. We'll see that (even combined with bargaining) when they realize there's no way to stop FOSS and start filing all the lawsuits they can.
3) I'd say it's more of a distant threat to Windows. They're feeling it now, but if you look at the numbers, Windows systems still blow away Linux in numbers. It's not really competition for them yet.
But this brings on a bigger point. MS has been the big guy has always dealt with competition in only a few ways: 1) buy them out, 2) give away product until they go bankrupt, 3) change standards so the competition won't work. They have yet to EVER go head to head against any company on a level playing field, where MS has to compete with them on NOTHING more than the quality of the product -- at least in the long run. They may start that way, but once they realize they aren't winning, they tip the tables in their favor by whatever tricks they can, and NOT by improving their product.
Linux is different for many reasons. It's not about profit. It's not a company that can be bought or driven out of business. It's not one unified source (no pun intended) that can be quickly snuffed. It's like fighting a swarm of bees, instead of facing a cobra. You kill the cobra, and it's gone. You kill one bee, there's a hundred more to sting you again.
While MS is beginning to face the reality that Linux is here, and likely won't go away, a lot of what's going on has to do with the fact that the Linux (in specific and FOSS in general) development and deployment model is so alien to them they still don't get what's going on. They're trying to, and they're realizing if they don't adapt, they'll destroy themselves, and they're trying to understand the competition, but all they can see is the letter of the process, not the spirit.
I was thinking about that, but I didn't want to go into tons of detail.
Cameras are dirt cheap now -- you can get USB cameras, and have a number of them tied into an old system (also mounted on a ceiling) that does nothing but forward their data over ethernet. Or you could use other cheap cameras that aren't usb -- there's options. With them being so cheap. you could mount a large number on the ceiling, so it would be easy to keep it in sight of a camera.
I don't trust floor sensors (things can fall on the floor, paint can wear off, blood splotches from injuries, dropped paint cans, almost anything...) can mess up the floor. Measuring the wheel rotation can be thrown off if, for some reason, the wheels spin at all (like moving forward, with a pallet on the forklift, and the pallet end hits the wall, you might get wheel movement without moving forward). More likely there'll be slippage between the steering wheel and the wheels, and there's problems with slippage in wheels during turns, where the outside wheel travels more than the inside.
I don't like radio signals, since there are likely metal walls, and could be a lot of metal in boxes and crates (since we don't know what's in them), so I know I'd prefer some form of visual reckoning, and it'll be easier to track a forklift than to have a forklift with different cameras (or turning cameras) tracking something else (and fewer moving parts, which means fewer parts to break.)
There might be better ways, but this seemed the simplist overall method to me.
I know a lot of forklifts or other equipment sometimes have a flashing light on top. Could you do something similar, like have a bright light on top of the forklift (and if you have multiple forklifts, each could have a different color light), and have a few video cameras mounted on the ceiling. Every second or so a screencapture program could read a frame from each camera and scan it for the color of the light.
That might cause a problem with employees and their clothing, so you could even use two lights on a forklift, each a different color, so one lift is identified by red and green, or maybe several lights so it shows up as a large blob, bigger than any employee. You won't have to worry about echo or other problems that come from a radio signal in a large warehouse (which is probably made of metal).
You've got the (same problem as the first suggestion.
Any bar codes or anything else on the floor will wear out unevenly and after a few years, will require a constant cycle of painting to keep up with it.
But with a lot of forklift traffic, people walking in and out, and boxes and crates that are picked up and put down (that will shift by small amounts when the forklift places or lifts them), and you'll find the paint gets worn away unevenly. After it's been on the floor for a year or so, it'll be hard to keep up with repainting the areas as they wear out.
No, it means Taco will have to work for a living now.