I haven't used iMovie, so I can't really comment on it. I've seen other professionals I've worked with use Final Cut and it's fantastic (but not free).
As for [sarcasm]fancy schmancy fades you describe[/sarcasm], they're not fancy schmancy if you're doing anything professional. For example, I tend to use dissolves on most of my short demos -- even if it's only a 10 frame dissolve-- because it helps create a more even flow and unified feel (unless I want a jerky, abrubt feel) and ties one shot into the next better than a cut. It's rare I start anything (especially 30 second spots) with anything other than a fade in or end them with anything other than a fade out.
But then again, that's just me in my role as a professional video producer. For your use, if you're just cutting out the commercials from whatever show you're copying (instead of paying for it so those that created it can earn a few bucks for their work), I can see why you wouldn't need it.
As far as simple goes -- I've seen a number of people who get home editing software start to do photo collections. I used to do a lot of these while I still worked for other people -- you take photos and music, lay down the music, and put the photos on video with the music background. This is something that almost always works better with dissolves and wipes. If you're doing one that's 5 minutes or longer, it can get boring (even if the viewer cares about the content in the photos), so adding a few wipes and a variety of dissovles can help. As more of the home video people do more of this, I see them realizing that what they once thought was more than they needed is really a basic part of the professional toolbox.
check out the open source stuff that will compile nicely on OS X
There's some open source stuff out there, but if you're looking for anything for editing -- and you want to do editing that looks good, with a fade in and fade out, and want frame accuracy, you're S.O.L. There's some stuff out there, but a lot of it is not as good as it claims to be, or is hard to work with (Cinelerra), or only works with one file format (Cinelerra), or isn't supported and development seems to have stopped (Jahshaka), or is in very early stages of development (KDEnliven), or is only for simple stuff (like editing out commercials).
It's part of the business model. It's just one you don't like, and that's no reason to drag it down.
Or would you rather them go out of business and have one of the most user friendly distros gone so we're one step closer to having only uber geeks using Linux? Oh -- and if they go under, we'd lose the brand I see the most of on the shelves at Best Buy and other stores.
It's really nice to hear a Debian devotee praising Mandrake. I've been using Mandrake since I started seriously using Linux (my first exposure was Suse 6.4). I've tried Debian and, while I like apt, I found that I didn't have time to do all the setup things I needed to -- like setting up the mount points when I wanted to play DVDs (which isn't just for entertainment if you're doing video production). I respect Debian and the power it provides, but I prefer Mandrake, since I can get a production box up and running extremely quickly.
I've found it frustrating because many times I've heard people deride Mandrake because it is so easy to use, and I've especially heard a lot of Debian users deride it (then again, I've heard many Debian users deride anything BUT Debian). I've always thought there was a place for most of the distros out there, and Mandrake is great for beginners, or experienced users who need easy and quick installation.
I'm glad to hear from another distro user (especially an advanced one like Debian) recognizing the value of Mandrake.
Example: "Where can I get Microsoft Office for free?" / "No, you can't do that, but try OpenOffice.org instead." Or: "How do I run Adobe Photoshop on Linux?" / "No, you can't do that directly. What do you need that GIMP lacks?"
I wish I could say that was always the case. While I have seen people ask those types of questions (I think I recall someone on the OOo users list asking where they could get Office for free because all they could find was OOo), but I've seen many cases where I, or someone else were only looking for something like that.
For example (just one example), I've asked about WYSIWYG HTML editors. The response is (almost) always, "Why would you want that?" or "I always hand code my HTML. I don't like WYSIWYG editors." My point is that there are a lot of people who don't work that way or would pay for a WYSIWYG HTML editor for Linux. (IBM Homepage Builder works on older distros, but not on newer ones.) As for me, that's a big reason I still have a Windows box. Whenever I (or anyone else) asks that question, they're always deluged with responses like, "I never use one, so it's not important," or "Why would you want to do that? Those editors don't generate tight HTML." It's never, "I'm sorry, but they aren't out there right now." (I know about NVu -- but it's not ready yet.) I once searched the Quanta mailing list. With Quanta Plus now being included as part of KDE, which is, IMHO, a leader in bringing ease-of-use to Linux, I had hoped there would be plans to make it WYSIWYG. The discussion list just included a lot of comments about how hard it would be to do that and how such a program was not needed and it was not Quanta's place to provide WYSIWYG. The whole discussion was filled with rationalizations. I don't feel that there was one person in the discussion actually open to the idea and not just finding excuses to dismiss the idea before examining it first.
I've seen reports of Premiere 6.0 and Photoshop working on Linux with Codeweavers Wine (Or maybe it was the regular Wine -- not sure). As far as Office vs. OOo, it's quite different. OOo is almost completely file compatable w/ Office. I've already seen evidence it is ready for production. One of my clients, an attorney in the Washington, D.C. area, who is the top name in his field in that area, asked me about OOo and is already starting to use it in his offices, without any reported trouble. He likes it.
As for video, it's a completely different situation. OSS video editing just isn't capable of doing what a professional editor or videographer needs. It won't be up to snuff until there are companies out there who will benefit by having it out there for clients the same as Sun benefits by having OOo as a libre and free solution to not using Office.
This post has a LOT to say about problems with OSs. No community is perfect, and the OSS community certainly has its faults. This post points out a major problem with the OSS community, as does this topic. OSS revolves around programmers. There is nothing wrong with that, but it means that most of the strengths and weaknesses of programmers translate into the strengths and weaknesses of OSS. Unfortunately, one of those strengths is the urge to explore intellectually, but the reluctance to relfect on one's weaknesses outside of the intellectual arena.
For example (and there was an article on/. pointing to this earlier, if you want to look it up), a story listed the reasons programmers were not liked and trusted by users and how developers often treated users with disrespect because the users didn't have the computer knowledge the developers did. This is part of the OSS denial reflex. If you are looking for an OSS program that does something, and there is none out there, right away, everyone calls you a freeloader and demands to know why you would want to do that anyway. Instead of saying, "No, there is no OSS solution for that yet," the response is usually to claim that there is no need to solve the problem anyway.
Personally, I think the driving force behind "finished" OSS (by finished I mean programs easily used by anyone who can use a computer) is becoming (and already is, to some point) large corporations that are backing OSS development, like Sun and OpenOffice. Abiword is good, KWrite is good. But until OpenOffice was released there was no word processor with the polish, ease of use, and power of professional word processing software. A lot of that comes from the fact that most OSS projects are not paying developers and programmers to write the GUIs and other work that programmers often shun because it's a pain.
The problem is that, rather than write the interfaces and adding the polish, many in the OSS community would rather attack the person who says, "This is not ready for prime time," than to step back and examine the situation and dare to ask themselves, "Is there a valid reason this person is saying this?"
I use OSS whenever possible, and I look forward to the day when I can use only OSS. I have a list of all the OSS programs I've used in starting my company and we've (me and employees) already started discussions on how to pay back those projects (would donations work better, or volunteering man hours while programmers are on my clock). We expect a major jump in income in the next year, and when that happens, we will be contributing to projects we have used, either by money or time.
It's not about getting it without paying. It's about trusting OSS and not trusting companies who have everything to gain by selling software that has flaws and charging for a new version with those flaws fixed.
Oh, and one last rant -- I've bumped into a number of purists who feel all software should be OSS, and often these people are the same ones who leap into a rant of denial when someone says, "I can't use that program. It lacks features and needs an interface." At that point, they start blaming the user for stupidity, instead of accepting that not everyone is a programmer and there are many intelligent people who are experts in their fields, but don't have time to write their own programs. You can't have it both ways. If you want people using OSS, then you have to make OSS easily accessible and usable by all users.
I would not call fading in/out a "high-level feature." I use fades to start and end almost every piece I do. A lot of programs use the same function for fade and dissolve (a fade becomes a dissolve to black). I don't know if Virtual Dub supports dissolves, but I doubt anything that doesn't do fades (which would be easier -- if you just fade to black) would do dissolves.
Fades and dissolves may not be necessary to everyone, but I can't imagine even doing simple projects without them -- It allows a smooth start and end. Even photo collections (which I'm sick of doing) are things I wouldn't bother with if I couldn't fade or dissolve.
I've spent a good deal of time searching and there isn't much out there that's open source. My company is currently doing data mining, but that's only to pay for starting and running a video/digital film production company. I found Premiere to work well, but I'm planning to switch to Mac and use some of the tools available there. There is almost nothing available in open source for DVD authoring. There is some simple software out there, but it's command line and, while I'm used to console programs and do a lot of programming, when I'd doing something like editing (or DVD authoring), I want an easy interface so I can focus on what I'm creating, not on what I have to do to make my tools help me. (I've noticed an open-source-denial system that works like this: Question: "Why isn't there open source software that does this?" Programmer's Answer: "Why would you want to do that?" -- instead of admitting there is a desire for a program, but that there is little desire to develop that program.)
I've looked into Main Actor (from mainconcept.com) and am considering using it. I've tried Cinelerra and found it frustrating to get up and running. Under KDE, there is KDEnliven, a video editor in an early stage of development (and, IMHO, the one with the most potential in the long run). There's also Jashaka (or Jakasha-- something like that), which I've heard has a good number of features, but is not well supported or backed for future development.
From my point of view, there has to be at least one solid video editor that works with different formats, allows easy out to DV, VHS, and to AVI and MPG files, as well as a full featured DVD authoring program that makes it easy to import different video format files and allows easy GUI editing of the menus and play sequences.
I've only been in the open source world for 2-3 years, and recently looked back to where things where when I started and where they are now. Video editing is still not a priority and not a task I'd expect to do with open source software. Judging from what I've seen in the past few years, though, I'm hoping it'll be there in another 3-4 years.
Honestly, as soon as I finish up with what I'm doing, I'm going to be going straight into video production and soon after that, into writing. For years I've had to give up my gym time (I used to spend 10% of my time working out), my social life, and almsot everything to spend the time programming and getting a company running. Once this stage is done, I am eagerly looking forward to NOT programming. Any further upgrades and additions will be done by my staff, who will be working on open source projects as well as company work.
I need to get a life and get back to my real love: writing. It'll be a long time before I can look at a program editor instead of a word processor and not feel exhausted.
I forgot the figures, but both the local PBS TV stations (2 in this town, plus they own one or two in other cities nearby) and the local NPR station receive far less funding from taxes than that. (They talk about it quite a bit during pledge drives.)
Pledges in this area count for something like 50% of the budget. (Plus they have a huge endowment.)
tells them next seasons episodes will have to be 1 minute shorter
Actually, the limit for number of minutes of commercials per hour is set by the FCC (which means any day now Bush will ask it to be raised so his buddies in the big corporations will be making more and Joe Citizen will still be getting less). I think the current limit is 16 minutes per hour and 16:30 per hour after midnight. I know it is at least at those numbers, which means more than 25% of all we see on TV now is advertising.
I'll take pledge week (which usually runs about 2 weeks) at PBS 2x a year over that any time.
Maybe all the super high salaries pseudo-actors in poorly written popular pabulum like "Friends" will have to adjust to reality and will only make as much as people in other professions. Or, worse yet, they might actually have to work for a living.
The execs and everyone else are just scared because they have gotten used to being powerful and able to manipulate the rest of the world and they'll have to adjust to making what amounts to fair pay for the work they actually do.
On the other hand, I like the model PBS uses. I like Nova, the News Hour, and a number of other shows on PBS, so I pledge regularly. The result is well written and well produced TV with quality I can count on every day of the year. Maybe other stations or cable channels will have to count on viewers paying directly in some way.
I know most shows on the major networks would not be worth paying for, but I have no trouble paying for shows as good as Babylon 5, Farscape, or Monty Python.
I guess that shows how different people work and learn differently. I had not programmed in over a decade and picked up a book on Perl and felt quite comfortable with it in a day or two. It took me a few weeks to learn Java and longer to feel comfortable with it. Perl is much closer to natural language for me and, from my point of view, very intuitive and easy. I can do a task in Perl in a day that might take me anywhere from 3-5 days in Java. I have problems with Java that are similar to the problems you have with Perl.
One note on the side -- as for using generalities for my comments on learning styles, that was intentional. I had to learn a lot about this in depth when I was teaching. I burned out after a long time teaching in tough situations. While I still have all my reference materials, I have gotten to the point where I don't like to dig too deeply in that area unless I specifically need it for my writing. While I remember concepts well, I don't remember words and terms well (actually a speech path once told me that she thought I had a speech impediment because I was often unable to remember words -- almost always nouns or popoer nouns -- that were part of regular speech -- also meaning I am, in some ways, an exception to your point about language. Even though I write, word finding can be a real problem for me at times and has forced me to think in, for lack of a better word, images and/or metaphors). (And, to be honest, I may tend to deride the "programmer type" because I tend to get rather frustrated when I have to function in that role for a long time and have to keep focused on logic more than on my writing.)
I'm working in Java, too, but as little as possible. I prefere Perl and I'm one of the lucky ones that can quite often pick what language I want to work with. I've found it interesting to look at the effect programming has had on my writing. I went through a period where I experimented in seeing if I could write stories like programs by doing things like trying to keep each chapter self contained. While it was possible, I found it removed a lot of nuances and that had an overall negative impact. It's interesting to see the effect writing programs can have on writing prose or poetry.
I agree that we will be seeing a move away from generalized computing to embeded functions, but (and you pointed this out) generalized computing won't disappear. As long as we have input and output interfaces (whether they are monitors, mouses and keyboards or holograms and voice), it will be cheaper, in many cases, to do work on a general platform than a specific one. It's like Asimov's argument for making humanoid robots: specialized robots can do one task, but most machinery is fitted for humans any, so it is more economical, in the long run, to make humanoid robots that can use the equipment humans are already using. Instead of a dozen different robots, a human can use one to clean the house, make meals, drive a car, and do yard work. I do think generalized computing will always be around. I, personally, like not having to use different systems for writing and video editing -- largely due to space, although there are times where I wish I could use a dedicated editing system.
I see what you are saying about poorly designed GUIs. Perhaps the Linux GUIs feel like they are a better design because they weren't rushed. Since they're usually OSS, they are done with function and use as a goal, rather than a deadline and production quota as a goal. One example of a Windows based GUI that I think needs improvement is Adobe Premiere (I bring this up because I'm guessing that you have probably, as a filmmaker, used this). While I like the timeline layout and a few other things, there are parts of the interface that are very frustrating.
Out of curiosity, both in the context of discussing UIs and in the context of filmmaking, do you use any editing software, and what have you found are the good and frustrating parts of editing software?
One point about GUIs vs. console: There is a strong advantage to GUIs which is not (usuall) available in consoles. In a GUI, the user doesn't have to stop and think, "What command does this?" For example, I've been stuck at a DOS prompt for a few seconds trying to remember if I need to type 'ls' or 'dir' to get a listing. In a GUI, the widgets are visible to act as a menu or reminder. Menus are also available, and usually logically arranged. For example, when I switched over to KMail it wasn't har
You claim you needed OO with a GUI and support for macros to change margins. What you really needed OO for was a tool that allows you to procrastinate while looking like you are doing something.
Are you a writer? Would you tell me what you do so I can tell you how to do your job. (Or you are probably an editor -- like the one Robert Heinlein describes working with when he was writing his juvies who felt she wasn't doing a good job unless she was always getting in his way -- Read "Grumblings From the Grave" if you want to know what I'm talking about.)
Have you ever seen the format for a screenplay? Whenever a character speaks, their speech is at one margin. If there are stage directions (short ones) while speaking, those are at another margin and descriptions and actions are at another margin. When a character speaks, their name is written, centered and in caps on the page (or put at yet a 4th margin). If you are writing dialog, you can switch between characters every line, which means typing a characters name, then what they say, then a blank line, then the next character's name, what they say, a blank line, and so on. That means having to center almost every other line. If you include actions during the dialog, each time you switch from typing dialog to actions, it is another margin change. I have script pages where I change margins 20 times in a page.
New writers often say they don't like dealing with formatting scripts and try to write a script without margin changes. This gets them into trouble for a number of reasons. For one, a script page is formatted the way it is for several reasons: 1) A script page takes roughly a minute to shoot, so a script for a TV show is roughly 60 pages. 2) It is easy to read and to get an idea, from looking at it, how much is dialog and how much is visual. 3) With the formatting used, it is easy to pick up the cues for different people who do different kinds of work throughout production.
Writing a script without formatting as you write becomes a nightmare. First, it completely distorts the length so a writer has no clear idea how long (in minutes) a scene is, second, it makes difficult to format later, and third, it can make it hard to deal with re-writing as well as formatting later. Scripts should always be written in proper format from the start. If you want to argue this and say an editor should do the layout, or it should be handled separate, I have a few comments: 1) I've cited this earlier in this thread, EVERYONE has a different learning style and way of working. I've been involved in discussions and found some writers work best with a plain text editor. Many creative writers like to see how something looks on a page while they write (I've heard some say they could never write on a computer until GUIs came out with word processors that allowed one to write with black characters on a white background -- the green screens didn't look enough like a typewriter or actual paper for them). 2) There are MANY types of writing that are very difficult to write first and format later (poetry, screenplays, writing or creating brochures, etc.). 3) For many writers, the task of writing and editing is combined, it's the way many of us work and always have and always will.
When I'm writing prose, simple formatting (like chapter headings or breaks between sections) helps me. The visual cues help me keep track of where I am and give me a sense of pacing. I don't use complex formatting, but what little I use helps me. And, with OOo styles, I can simply apply a particular style and, if I need to, change that one style and it updates all the sections with that style applied to it. When I'm writing copy for brochures or other promotional pieces for my company, it is a LOT easier to write the copy directly in the brochure so I can see how the text looks. Formatting can be a big part of what I'm doing. I don't want words split with hyphens at the end of a line and I don't want a long word to force a short line because that will t
That may work for you, but that doesn't mean it works for others. If what you were saying were true, than why did GUIs catch on? If the text/console interface WERE so much more intuitive and easy for most people to use, when GUIs first came out, they would have been a novelty and few people would have used them.
The fact is when GUIs started coming out, they caught on quickly. Even the text based ones that let you point and click your way through a directory tree (or page through it with arrows and page up/down, etc).
I taught for a number of years with learning disabled students. That means I had to learn a lot about how people learned -- both when everything is working well and when there are disabilities. I found that there are a myriad of learning styles (and that doesn't apply to just learning, it applies to how we process and work with information). The kind of person who uses text as opposed to images or intuition is also the type of person who is likely to end up as a programmer and (and I'm not just saying this to be mean), they are most likely to see things in one way and not easily adapt to different points of view. It is a black and white way of thinking (ironic, since text based systems are almost black and white -- actually green and white, but you get the idea).
I know about using words. I am a writer (I said so in my original post). When I write, I worry about the words, and that is the point -- I have to be able to worry about the words I'm writing, not what menu key I have to press for this function. I have to keep my mind on what I am writing, not how I am writing it.
When I am shooting video, I work with cameras that are easy to use, not ones where I have to keep futzing with controls every few seconds (actually, few video cameras are that contra-intuitive). When I am editing that video, I have to be able to focus on the rythm and flow of the material, how the soundtrack matches the action, what camera angle I am using, etc. I've got too much to worry about, at that point, without having to add to that the worry of HOW does this program work. The same goes for authoring DVDs.
It may get on your nerves, the "endless churning," but it doesn't seem to have occured to you there is a reason for it. That reason is, quite simply, that most of us work better and faster with a GUI. You may not, but that doesn't mean others don't. What it does seem to mean is that you feel that what works for you works best for everyone and the popularity of GUIs bears out the need for intuitive interfaces. (If consoles were so wonderful for the average user, and were in demand, there would have been a huge demand to make the DOS Prompt easier to access and use on Windows.)
I can't remember all the details, but a while back there was a story here, on/., about why users and developers don't like each other and it pointed out that studies had shown that users did not like programmers creating interfaces and telling them what they (the user) needed. I know programmers tend to have disdain for users, but, face it, without end users, programmers wouldn't have well paying jobs. If most people found little need for word processors, Word wouldn't be such a popular program.
Again, I'm not saying this to be mean, but your attitude is exactly the kind of attitude that I'm pointing out is a problem. And your response is a perfect, text book example of why it is a problem. I point out that most people need a GUI to make working with computers easier and that programmers don't like writing GUIs, but they are necessary for users if a program is going to be widely used. The problem is that programmers don't see this and would rather tell everyone that a command line util is as easy to use as a GUI.
Then, after saying that, you come along and say a command line util is as easy to use as a GUI. Okay, two points: 1) That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it and 2) It may be true for you, but that doesn't mean it is true
I agree with you. I know I will be using dvdauthor for testing and "playing around" with different features. On the other hand, even with my demo DVDs, I find there are times I use mroe "esoteric" features of DVD authoring.
On a similar track (and this gets back to my original post, the one I'm replying to, and my point above), I first installed Linux using Suse 6.4. It took me a day or two to get it up and running, including my Internet connection. I would not, at that point, have recommended it to anyone who was a newbie (like I was). I think that was about 4 years ago. I just installed Mandrake 9.2 on a new system and was amazed -- other than needing to use network files for authentication, it was easier installing Mandrake than the last verison of Windows I installed.
I am really amazed at how far UIs have progressed in Linux in the past four years (even the past 2 years). OSS is catching up with commercial software in many ways. I'd say it's about 95% there -- and it'll take a few years to reach that last 5%, which includes things like being able to use drag and drop as easily as it works on a certain other OS that tends to crash and including easy to use programs for multimedia work (like video editing and DVD authoring).
I will likely have to buy a Mac G5 to do my video work. I'm sure OSS will eventually provide what I need, and when it does, I'll switch, but for now, I have to go with something I can use so I can focus on my work, not on how to use my tools.
(And I'll preface this with a comment that I've only lightly skimmed the article.)
I've seen and heard, over and over, ad nauseum, programmers and OSS advocates continually ask me why I need more or say they don't see why people need all the extra UI features, since something like this can do it all. I'm glad to see this on Linux, the problem is that it still needs a good GUI before it'll get used by many people for DVD authoring (it might be used for the actual production process, but not as much for authoring).
And, as I go into this, we reach one of the primary problems with OSS. If you're a computer person, a program like this is easy to use, since you're used to command line switches and piecing everything together by adding in images from Gimp and pulling in fragments from a number of programs. On the other hand, if you're a video producer, your focus is on CREATING THE VIDEO and PUTTING YOUR VISION on DVD. It is NOT on using the tools, figuring out the command line arguments, or other activites. While I've spent several years working as a programmer, my primary function is writing screenplays. Until OpenOffice came out, there was no word processor on Linux where I could run the program and focus ONLY on writing my screenplays (part of that is the need for macros to handle margin changes). Programmers and other computer people would say, "But you can do this with all the OSS word processors," and I'd say, "I can, but that means I have to spend my time thinking about HOW I'm doing my work, instead of focusing on the work itself."
I love OSS, I love Linux. I know GUIs are a pain (I don't exactly love writing them myself), but for OSS to be used by professionals, like writers or DVD producers, the software has to be so easy to use that the end user can focus on their work instead of focusing on figuring out the software.
Don't get me wrong -- it's great we're this far along. If I had time, I'd love to write a GUI wrapper, but I don't, and it'll be a long time before there is a GUI that makes this software accessible to DVD producers who just want to run the program and use it as a tool to help them realize their vision.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't used iMovie, so I can't really comment on it. I've seen other professionals I've worked with use Final Cut and it's fantastic (but not free).
As for [sarcasm]fancy schmancy fades you describe[/sarcasm], they're not fancy schmancy if you're doing anything professional. For example, I tend to use dissolves on most of my short demos -- even if it's only a 10 frame dissolve-- because it helps create a more even flow and unified feel (unless I want a jerky, abrubt feel) and ties one shot into the next better than a cut. It's rare I start anything (especially 30 second spots) with anything other than a fade in or end them with anything other than a fade out.
But then again, that's just me in my role as a professional video producer. For your use, if you're just cutting out the commercials from whatever show you're copying (instead of paying for it so those that created it can earn a few bucks for their work), I can see why you wouldn't need it.
As far as simple goes -- I've seen a number of people who get home editing software start to do photo collections. I used to do a lot of these while I still worked for other people -- you take photos and music, lay down the music, and put the photos on video with the music background. This is something that almost always works better with dissolves and wipes. If you're doing one that's 5 minutes or longer, it can get boring (even if the viewer cares about the content in the photos), so adding a few wipes and a variety of dissovles can help. As more of the home video people do more of this, I see them realizing that what they once thought was more than they needed is really a basic part of the professional toolbox.
check out the open source stuff that will compile nicely on OS X
There's some open source stuff out there, but if you're looking for anything for editing -- and you want to do editing that looks good, with a fade in and fade out, and want frame accuracy, you're S.O.L. There's some stuff out there, but a lot of it is not as good as it claims to be, or is hard to work with (Cinelerra), or only works with one file format (Cinelerra), or isn't supported and development seems to have stopped (Jahshaka), or is in very early stages of development (KDEnliven), or is only for simple stuff (like editing out commercials).
It's part of the business model. It's just one you don't like, and that's no reason to drag it down.
Or would you rather them go out of business and have one of the most user friendly distros gone so we're one step closer to having only uber geeks using Linux? Oh -- and if they go under, we'd lose the brand I see the most of on the shelves at Best Buy and other stores.
It's really nice to hear a Debian devotee praising Mandrake. I've been using Mandrake since I started seriously using Linux (my first exposure was Suse 6.4). I've tried Debian and, while I like apt, I found that I didn't have time to do all the setup things I needed to -- like setting up the mount points when I wanted to play DVDs (which isn't just for entertainment if you're doing video production). I respect Debian and the power it provides, but I prefer Mandrake, since I can get a production box up and running extremely quickly.
I've found it frustrating because many times I've heard people deride Mandrake because it is so easy to use, and I've especially heard a lot of Debian users deride it (then again, I've heard many Debian users deride anything BUT Debian). I've always thought there was a place for most of the distros out there, and Mandrake is great for beginners, or experienced users who need easy and quick installation.
I'm glad to hear from another distro user (especially an advanced one like Debian) recognizing the value of Mandrake.
Mozilla Editor.
Use when I can, but it not only doesn't do forms, but form elements can screw it up.
I've tried HTML in OOo, and it works until you add tables within tables to help with formatting.
But thanks for a good point.
Example: "Where can I get Microsoft Office for free?" / "No, you can't do that, but try OpenOffice.org instead." Or: "How do I run Adobe Photoshop on Linux?" / "No, you can't do that directly. What do you need that GIMP lacks?"
I wish I could say that was always the case. While I have seen people ask those types of questions (I think I recall someone on the OOo users list asking where they could get Office for free because all they could find was OOo), but I've seen many cases where I, or someone else were only looking for something like that.
For example (just one example), I've asked about WYSIWYG HTML editors. The response is (almost) always, "Why would you want that?" or "I always hand code my HTML. I don't like WYSIWYG editors." My point is that there are a lot of people who don't work that way or would pay for a WYSIWYG HTML editor for Linux. (IBM Homepage Builder works on older distros, but not on newer ones.) As for me, that's a big reason I still have a Windows box. Whenever I (or anyone else) asks that question, they're always deluged with responses like, "I never use one, so it's not important," or "Why would you want to do that? Those editors don't generate tight HTML." It's never, "I'm sorry, but they aren't out there right now." (I know about NVu -- but it's not ready yet.) I once searched the Quanta mailing list. With Quanta Plus now being included as part of KDE, which is, IMHO, a leader in bringing ease-of-use to Linux, I had hoped there would be plans to make it WYSIWYG. The discussion list just included a lot of comments about how hard it would be to do that and how such a program was not needed and it was not Quanta's place to provide WYSIWYG. The whole discussion was filled with rationalizations. I don't feel that there was one person in the discussion actually open to the idea and not just finding excuses to dismiss the idea before examining it first.
Dude, spend your money on the hardware, and then warez the software. You can buy it later when you have more money.
Obvously said by someone who doesn't have the experience of keeping accounting records for professional activities or for a business.
The sad truth is that isn't a joke.
I've seen reports of Premiere 6.0 and Photoshop working on Linux with Codeweavers Wine (Or maybe it was the regular Wine -- not sure). As far as Office vs. OOo, it's quite different. OOo is almost completely file compatable w/ Office. I've already seen evidence it is ready for production. One of my clients, an attorney in the Washington, D.C. area, who is the top name in his field in that area, asked me about OOo and is already starting to use it in his offices, without any reported trouble. He likes it.
As for video, it's a completely different situation. OSS video editing just isn't capable of doing what a professional editor or videographer needs. It won't be up to snuff until there are companies out there who will benefit by having it out there for clients the same as Sun benefits by having OOo as a libre and free solution to not using Office.
This post has a LOT to say about problems with OSs. No community is perfect, and the OSS community certainly has its faults. This post points out a major problem with the OSS community, as does this topic. OSS revolves around programmers. There is nothing wrong with that, but it means that most of the strengths and weaknesses of programmers translate into the strengths and weaknesses of OSS. Unfortunately, one of those strengths is the urge to explore intellectually, but the reluctance to relfect on one's weaknesses outside of the intellectual arena.
/. pointing to this earlier, if you want to look it up), a story listed the reasons programmers were not liked and trusted by users and how developers often treated users with disrespect because the users didn't have the computer knowledge the developers did. This is part of the OSS denial reflex. If you are looking for an OSS program that does something, and there is none out there, right away, everyone calls you a freeloader and demands to know why you would want to do that anyway. Instead of saying, "No, there is no OSS solution for that yet," the response is usually to claim that there is no need to solve the problem anyway.
For example (and there was an article on
Personally, I think the driving force behind "finished" OSS (by finished I mean programs easily used by anyone who can use a computer) is becoming (and already is, to some point) large corporations that are backing OSS development, like Sun and OpenOffice. Abiword is good, KWrite is good. But until OpenOffice was released there was no word processor with the polish, ease of use, and power of professional word processing software. A lot of that comes from the fact that most OSS projects are not paying developers and programmers to write the GUIs and other work that programmers often shun because it's a pain.
The problem is that, rather than write the interfaces and adding the polish, many in the OSS community would rather attack the person who says, "This is not ready for prime time," than to step back and examine the situation and dare to ask themselves, "Is there a valid reason this person is saying this?"
I use OSS whenever possible, and I look forward to the day when I can use only OSS. I have a list of all the OSS programs I've used in starting my company and we've (me and employees) already started discussions on how to pay back those projects (would donations work better, or volunteering man hours while programmers are on my clock). We expect a major jump in income in the next year, and when that happens, we will be contributing to projects we have used, either by money or time.
It's not about getting it without paying. It's about trusting OSS and not trusting companies who have everything to gain by selling software that has flaws and charging for a new version with those flaws fixed.
Oh, and one last rant -- I've bumped into a number of purists who feel all software should be OSS, and often these people are the same ones who leap into a rant of denial when someone says, "I can't use that program. It lacks features and needs an interface." At that point, they start blaming the user for stupidity, instead of accepting that not everyone is a programmer and there are many intelligent people who are experts in their fields, but don't have time to write their own programs. You can't have it both ways. If you want people using OSS, then you have to make OSS easily accessible and usable by all users.
Cinepaint is FilmGimp (I think) -- not for editing, but for touching up frames in video files.
I would not call fading in/out a "high-level feature." I use fades to start and end almost every piece I do. A lot of programs use the same function for fade and dissolve (a fade becomes a dissolve to black). I don't know if Virtual Dub supports dissolves, but I doubt anything that doesn't do fades (which would be easier -- if you just fade to black) would do dissolves.
Fades and dissolves may not be necessary to everyone, but I can't imagine even doing simple projects without them -- It allows a smooth start and end. Even photo collections (which I'm sick of doing) are things I wouldn't bother with if I couldn't fade or dissolve.
I've spent a good deal of time searching and there isn't much out there that's open source. My company is currently doing data mining, but that's only to pay for starting and running a video/digital film production company. I found Premiere to work well, but I'm planning to switch to Mac and use some of the tools available there. There is almost nothing available in open source for DVD authoring. There is some simple software out there, but it's command line and, while I'm used to console programs and do a lot of programming, when I'd doing something like editing (or DVD authoring), I want an easy interface so I can focus on what I'm creating, not on what I have to do to make my tools help me. (I've noticed an open-source-denial system that works like this: Question: "Why isn't there open source software that does this?" Programmer's Answer: "Why would you want to do that?" -- instead of admitting there is a desire for a program, but that there is little desire to develop that program.)
I've looked into Main Actor (from mainconcept.com) and am considering using it. I've tried Cinelerra and found it frustrating to get up and running. Under KDE, there is KDEnliven, a video editor in an early stage of development (and, IMHO, the one with the most potential in the long run). There's also Jashaka (or Jakasha-- something like that), which I've heard has a good number of features, but is not well supported or backed for future development.
From my point of view, there has to be at least one solid video editor that works with different formats, allows easy out to DV, VHS, and to AVI and MPG files, as well as a full featured DVD authoring program that makes it easy to import different video format files and allows easy GUI editing of the menus and play sequences.
I've only been in the open source world for 2-3 years, and recently looked back to where things where when I started and where they are now. Video editing is still not a priority and not a task I'd expect to do with open source software. Judging from what I've seen in the past few years, though, I'm hoping it'll be there in another 3-4 years.
Honestly, as soon as I finish up with what I'm doing, I'm going to be going straight into video production and soon after that, into writing. For years I've had to give up my gym time (I used to spend 10% of my time working out), my social life, and almsot everything to spend the time programming and getting a company running. Once this stage is done, I am eagerly looking forward to NOT programming. Any further upgrades and additions will be done by my staff, who will be working on open source projects as well as company work.
I need to get a life and get back to my real love: writing. It'll be a long time before I can look at a program editor instead of a word processor and not feel exhausted.
I forgot the figures, but both the local PBS TV stations (2 in this town, plus they own one or two in other cities nearby) and the local NPR station receive far less funding from taxes than that. (They talk about it quite a bit during pledge drives.)
Pledges in this area count for something like 50% of the budget. (Plus they have a huge endowment.)
tells them next seasons episodes will have to be 1 minute shorter
Actually, the limit for number of minutes of commercials per hour is set by the FCC (which means any day now Bush will ask it to be raised so his buddies in the big corporations will be making more and Joe Citizen will still be getting less). I think the current limit is 16 minutes per hour and 16:30 per hour after midnight. I know it is at least at those numbers, which means more than 25% of all we see on TV now is advertising.
I'll take pledge week (which usually runs about 2 weeks) at PBS 2x a year over that any time.
Maybe all the super high salaries pseudo-actors in poorly written popular pabulum like "Friends" will have to adjust to reality and will only make as much as people in other professions. Or, worse yet, they might actually have to work for a living.
The execs and everyone else are just scared because they have gotten used to being powerful and able to manipulate the rest of the world and they'll have to adjust to making what amounts to fair pay for the work they actually do.
On the other hand, I like the model PBS uses. I like Nova, the News Hour, and a number of other shows on PBS, so I pledge regularly. The result is well written and well produced TV with quality I can count on every day of the year. Maybe other stations or cable channels will have to count on viewers paying directly in some way.
I know most shows on the major networks would not be worth paying for, but I have no trouble paying for shows as good as Babylon 5, Farscape, or Monty Python.
I guess that shows how different people work and learn differently. I had not programmed in over a decade and picked up a book on Perl and felt quite comfortable with it in a day or two. It took me a few weeks to learn Java and longer to feel comfortable with it. Perl is much closer to natural language for me and, from my point of view, very intuitive and easy. I can do a task in Perl in a day that might take me anywhere from 3-5 days in Java. I have problems with Java that are similar to the problems you have with Perl.
Wow-- that was a very well thought out response!
One note on the side -- as for using generalities for my comments on learning styles, that was intentional. I had to learn a lot about this in depth when I was teaching. I burned out after a long time teaching in tough situations. While I still have all my reference materials, I have gotten to the point where I don't like to dig too deeply in that area unless I specifically need it for my writing. While I remember concepts well, I don't remember words and terms well (actually a speech path once told me that she thought I had a speech impediment because I was often unable to remember words -- almost always nouns or popoer nouns -- that were part of regular speech -- also meaning I am, in some ways, an exception to your point about language. Even though I write, word finding can be a real problem for me at times and has forced me to think in, for lack of a better word, images and/or metaphors). (And, to be honest, I may tend to deride the "programmer type" because I tend to get rather frustrated when I have to function in that role for a long time and have to keep focused on logic more than on my writing.)
I'm working in Java, too, but as little as possible. I prefere Perl and I'm one of the lucky ones that can quite often pick what language I want to work with. I've found it interesting to look at the effect programming has had on my writing. I went through a period where I experimented in seeing if I could write stories like programs by doing things like trying to keep each chapter self contained. While it was possible, I found it removed a lot of nuances and that had an overall negative impact. It's interesting to see the effect writing programs can have on writing prose or poetry.
I agree that we will be seeing a move away from generalized computing to embeded functions, but (and you pointed this out) generalized computing won't disappear. As long as we have input and output interfaces (whether they are monitors, mouses and keyboards or holograms and voice), it will be cheaper, in many cases, to do work on a general platform than a specific one. It's like Asimov's argument for making humanoid robots: specialized robots can do one task, but most machinery is fitted for humans any, so it is more economical, in the long run, to make humanoid robots that can use the equipment humans are already using. Instead of a dozen different robots, a human can use one to clean the house, make meals, drive a car, and do yard work. I do think generalized computing will always be around. I, personally, like not having to use different systems for writing and video editing -- largely due to space, although there are times where I wish I could use a dedicated editing system.
I see what you are saying about poorly designed GUIs. Perhaps the Linux GUIs feel like they are a better design because they weren't rushed. Since they're usually OSS, they are done with function and use as a goal, rather than a deadline and production quota as a goal. One example of a Windows based GUI that I think needs improvement is Adobe Premiere (I bring this up because I'm guessing that you have probably, as a filmmaker, used this). While I like the timeline layout and a few other things, there are parts of the interface that are very frustrating.
Out of curiosity, both in the context of discussing UIs and in the context of filmmaking, do you use any editing software, and what have you found are the good and frustrating parts of editing software?
One point about GUIs vs. console: There is a strong advantage to GUIs which is not (usuall) available in consoles. In a GUI, the user doesn't have to stop and think, "What command does this?" For example, I've been stuck at a DOS prompt for a few seconds trying to remember if I need to type 'ls' or 'dir' to get a listing. In a GUI, the widgets are visible to act as a menu or reminder. Menus are also available, and usually logically arranged. For example, when I switched over to KMail it wasn't har
You claim you needed OO with a GUI and support for macros to change margins. What you really needed OO for was a tool that allows you to procrastinate while looking like you are doing something.
Are you a writer? Would you tell me what you do so I can tell you how to do your job. (Or you are probably an editor -- like the one Robert Heinlein describes working with when he was writing his juvies who felt she wasn't doing a good job unless she was always getting in his way -- Read "Grumblings From the Grave" if you want to know what I'm talking about.)
Have you ever seen the format for a screenplay? Whenever a character speaks, their speech is at one margin. If there are stage directions (short ones) while speaking, those are at another margin and descriptions and actions are at another margin. When a character speaks, their name is written, centered and in caps on the page (or put at yet a 4th margin). If you are writing dialog, you can switch between characters every line, which means typing a characters name, then what they say, then a blank line, then the next character's name, what they say, a blank line, and so on. That means having to center almost every other line. If you include actions during the dialog, each time you switch from typing dialog to actions, it is another margin change. I have script pages where I change margins 20 times in a page.
New writers often say they don't like dealing with formatting scripts and try to write a script without margin changes. This gets them into trouble for a number of reasons. For one, a script page is formatted the way it is for several reasons: 1) A script page takes roughly a minute to shoot, so a script for a TV show is roughly 60 pages. 2) It is easy to read and to get an idea, from looking at it, how much is dialog and how much is visual. 3) With the formatting used, it is easy to pick up the cues for different people who do different kinds of work throughout production.
Writing a script without formatting as you write becomes a nightmare. First, it completely distorts the length so a writer has no clear idea how long (in minutes) a scene is, second, it makes difficult to format later, and third, it can make it hard to deal with re-writing as well as formatting later. Scripts should always be written in proper format from the start. If you want to argue this and say an editor should do the layout, or it should be handled separate, I have a few comments: 1) I've cited this earlier in this thread, EVERYONE has a different learning style and way of working. I've been involved in discussions and found some writers work best with a plain text editor. Many creative writers like to see how something looks on a page while they write (I've heard some say they could never write on a computer until GUIs came out with word processors that allowed one to write with black characters on a white background -- the green screens didn't look enough like a typewriter or actual paper for them). 2) There are MANY types of writing that are very difficult to write first and format later (poetry, screenplays, writing or creating brochures, etc.). 3) For many writers, the task of writing and editing is combined, it's the way many of us work and always have and always will.
When I'm writing prose, simple formatting (like chapter headings or breaks between sections) helps me. The visual cues help me keep track of where I am and give me a sense of pacing. I don't use complex formatting, but what little I use helps me. And, with OOo styles, I can simply apply a particular style and, if I need to, change that one style and it updates all the sections with that style applied to it. When I'm writing copy for brochures or other promotional pieces for my company, it is a LOT easier to write the copy directly in the brochure so I can see how the text looks. Formatting can be a big part of what I'm doing. I don't want words split with hyphens at the end of a line and I don't want a long word to force a short line because that will t
That may work for you, but that doesn't mean it works for others. If what you were saying were true, than why did GUIs catch on? If the text/console interface WERE so much more intuitive and easy for most people to use, when GUIs first came out, they would have been a novelty and few people would have used them.
/., about why users and developers don't like each other and it pointed out that studies had shown that users did not like programmers creating interfaces and telling them what they (the user) needed. I know programmers tend to have disdain for users, but, face it, without end users, programmers wouldn't have well paying jobs. If most people found little need for word processors, Word wouldn't be such a popular program.
The fact is when GUIs started coming out, they caught on quickly. Even the text based ones that let you point and click your way through a directory tree (or page through it with arrows and page up/down, etc).
I taught for a number of years with learning disabled students. That means I had to learn a lot about how people learned -- both when everything is working well and when there are disabilities. I found that there are a myriad of learning styles (and that doesn't apply to just learning, it applies to how we process and work with information). The kind of person who uses text as opposed to images or intuition is also the type of person who is likely to end up as a programmer and (and I'm not just saying this to be mean), they are most likely to see things in one way and not easily adapt to different points of view. It is a black and white way of thinking (ironic, since text based systems are almost black and white -- actually green and white, but you get the idea).
I know about using words. I am a writer (I said so in my original post). When I write, I worry about the words, and that is the point -- I have to be able to worry about the words I'm writing, not what menu key I have to press for this function. I have to keep my mind on what I am writing, not how I am writing it.
When I am shooting video, I work with cameras that are easy to use, not ones where I have to keep futzing with controls every few seconds (actually, few video cameras are that contra-intuitive). When I am editing that video, I have to be able to focus on the rythm and flow of the material, how the soundtrack matches the action, what camera angle I am using, etc. I've got too much to worry about, at that point, without having to add to that the worry of HOW does this program work. The same goes for authoring DVDs.
It may get on your nerves, the "endless churning," but it doesn't seem to have occured to you there is a reason for it. That reason is, quite simply, that most of us work better and faster with a GUI. You may not, but that doesn't mean others don't. What it does seem to mean is that you feel that what works for you works best for everyone and the popularity of GUIs bears out the need for intuitive interfaces. (If consoles were so wonderful for the average user, and were in demand, there would have been a huge demand to make the DOS Prompt easier to access and use on Windows.)
I can't remember all the details, but a while back there was a story here, on
Again, I'm not saying this to be mean, but your attitude is exactly the kind of attitude that I'm pointing out is a problem. And your response is a perfect, text book example of why it is a problem. I point out that most people need a GUI to make working with computers easier and that programmers don't like writing GUIs, but they are necessary for users if a program is going to be widely used. The problem is that programmers don't see this and would rather tell everyone that a command line util is as easy to use as a GUI.
Then, after saying that, you come along and say a command line util is as easy to use as a GUI. Okay, two points: 1) That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it and 2) It may be true for you, but that doesn't mean it is true
I agree with you. I know I will be using dvdauthor for testing and "playing around" with different features. On the other hand, even with my demo DVDs, I find there are times I use mroe "esoteric" features of DVD authoring.
On a similar track (and this gets back to my original post, the one I'm replying to, and my point above), I first installed Linux using Suse 6.4. It took me a day or two to get it up and running, including my Internet connection. I would not, at that point, have recommended it to anyone who was a newbie (like I was). I think that was about 4 years ago. I just installed Mandrake 9.2 on a new system and was amazed -- other than needing to use network files for authentication, it was easier installing Mandrake than the last verison of Windows I installed.
I am really amazed at how far UIs have progressed in Linux in the past four years (even the past 2 years). OSS is catching up with commercial software in many ways. I'd say it's about 95% there -- and it'll take a few years to reach that last 5%, which includes things like being able to use drag and drop as easily as it works on a certain other OS that tends to crash and including easy to use programs for multimedia work (like video editing and DVD authoring).
I will likely have to buy a Mac G5 to do my video work. I'm sure OSS will eventually provide what I need, and when it does, I'll switch, but for now, I have to go with something I can use so I can focus on my work, not on how to use my tools.
(And I'll preface this with a comment that I've only lightly skimmed the article.)
I've seen and heard, over and over, ad nauseum, programmers and OSS advocates continually ask me why I need more or say they don't see why people need all the extra UI features, since something like this can do it all. I'm glad to see this on Linux, the problem is that it still needs a good GUI before it'll get used by many people for DVD authoring (it might be used for the actual production process, but not as much for authoring).
And, as I go into this, we reach one of the primary problems with OSS. If you're a computer person, a program like this is easy to use, since you're used to command line switches and piecing everything together by adding in images from Gimp and pulling in fragments from a number of programs. On the other hand, if you're a video producer, your focus is on CREATING THE VIDEO and PUTTING YOUR VISION on DVD. It is NOT on using the tools, figuring out the command line arguments, or other activites. While I've spent several years working as a programmer, my primary function is writing screenplays. Until OpenOffice came out, there was no word processor on Linux where I could run the program and focus ONLY on writing my screenplays (part of that is the need for macros to handle margin changes). Programmers and other computer people would say, "But you can do this with all the OSS word processors," and I'd say, "I can, but that means I have to spend my time thinking about HOW I'm doing my work, instead of focusing on the work itself."
I love OSS, I love Linux. I know GUIs are a pain (I don't exactly love writing them myself), but for OSS to be used by professionals, like writers or DVD producers, the software has to be so easy to use that the end user can focus on their work instead of focusing on figuring out the software.
Don't get me wrong -- it's great we're this far along. If I had time, I'd love to write a GUI wrapper, but I don't, and it'll be a long time before there is a GUI that makes this software accessible to DVD producers who just want to run the program and use it as a tool to help them realize their vision.
Ahem.
I mean a Java class as in:
class LoadData {
yada yada yada
}
as in a class in Java is an object, a construct -- a part of the language.
There is no way on Earth I'd ever be up at 2:30 am doing anything for the other type of class. (I never was a good student.)
We're talking about the real world here.
is chess really a viable way to test whether man or machine is truly superior?
Define superior.
Does it mean able to win more chess games in this case? If so, in what other ways (if any) does this make that particular computer superior to humans?