I don't blame them. According to the studies I've heard, I should be blind now. I haven't had any real problems other than needing to shave my hands once in a while.
That's one of the reasons I decided to stay on the creative side. My company wants me to be a Systems Analyst but I'm fighting it. I think I'd do better with my creative skills than as an engineer.
I'm not sure what to specifically recommend to people in the techie world about that, but creativity is a rare talent. So far I've avoided 2 rounds of layoffs...
"Reminds me of the 'Wall' that President Scroob was talking to in the bathroom from Spaceballs."
Actually it was Skroob. I'm not correcting you because I'm an over zealous Spaceballs fan, but because you reminded me of something I heard once. Skroob is 'Brooks' spelled backwards. As in Mel Brooks...
"In short, I realize that Lightwave is worth the price for existing Lightwave users. The real question is whether or not that will continue to be the case for new users. At the very least Free Software makes that question more interesting. If Blender didn't exist then there would be no question that Lightwave would continue to dominate the low-end of 3D modelling, but Blender at least adds the potential for a sea change. Just because Lightwave is worth the price to you does not mean that it is worth its price to everyone that wants a 3D modeller."
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but it reads a little like you're implying that I feel that free software is bad. That isn't even close to true.
Blender could turn out to be a wonderful thing for the industry. Right now, there are so many people out there who want to do 3D. They don't have >$500 to put into a program just to see if they can use it. Demo versions just aren't good enough. Fortunately, the 3D companies out there tend to look the other way when you.. uh.. *cough* obtain the software. But that's not really enough.
I totally agree, Blender would be a big help to those people. My point was simply that the cost of the program isn't the focus of a decision like that. Those studios that were using the UNIX stations that you mentioned were using those because they knew they could make money with them. Free would have been a great price to them.
I mentioned something earlier in another post that you may find a little more appealing. I think charging for documentation is stupid and ethically wrong. That defeats the purpose of free software. If they really want to make money on it, why not provide it for free and then charge for commercial use? The advantage here is that people can evaluate this software before they drop money into it.
Bam. Simple. Been done for years. I'm happy to send Blender $500 if it gets me a $5,000 project, but sending $50 to them just to find out what those little icons are is ridiculous. What if I don't like the software?
I think my PoV's been twisted around a bit in this thread. Heh. I'm not some evil "Open Source is bad!" zealot. I've used enough free apps (like Virtual Dub) to know that documentation is valuable. The idea of making me pay for it is ridiculous.
"You can't blame that on anyone but yourself -- definitely not on the authors of the Gimp. You should have ponied up $50 for a decent book on the program, and you'd be up by $4950."
I'm glad you brought that up because you touch on a really interesting point: You see, that $50 doesn't guarantee me Gimp will do the job. If Gimp w/documentation doesn't do the job, then I'm out that $50.
As anybody would realistically do, I would evaluate a product before purchasing. If I can't make it work without having to pay for the documentation first, then forget it. Some people might, but that fifty dollar price tag is awfully steep just to see if you like it or not.
Sorry, no sale. I'm happy to pay $50 for a book on techniques, but if I have no faith in the software forcing me to buy the documentation's not going to make things easier.
"Every software program you use is going to have some cost to you involved, whether it be money, time to learn it, or something else..."
You act like I want it completely free, even though it's been made clear that I'm perfectly happy buying $600-$1,600 products to get the job done. This has nothing to do with cost, it has everything to do with this crummy model.
Want to do it the right way? Make the software free + documentation (like anybody with an ounce of common sense would do), then sell me a commercial license for it if I use it in production.
"With Linux, when there's a new version of The Gimp, I go download it, for free. When there's a new version of Blender out, I go download it, for free. When there's a new major kernel version or X Free86 version, I go download it, for free."
That's fine if you're not trying to make any money. I, however, an making a living here. I'm not using Lightwave over Blender because I enjoy spending $1,600, it's because Lightwave gives me the results that Blender cannot. If I get a $5,000 project and I have to buy Lightwave (once, I might add) to get that project done, then I made $3,400. If I use Blender, but the results aren't satisfactory, then it wasn't free. It cost me $5,000.
Now I'm not taking pokes at Blender. I'm sure it's fine. But there's a reason it's not being widely adopted by studios. I'm not sure it's being used professionally anywhere. Who knows, maybe one day it will, but not today.
The price tag is not the whole picture. It is not the central focus of why one uses an app. And I'm certainly not using a free app if the dumbshits who designed it can't throw in a little "here's how it works" documentation with it.
"Or do you expect life to hand you everything on a plate?"
If I'm willing to pay for Photoshop, as indicated in my post you quoted, then what makes you think I want everything handed to me?
I use software to get a job done. I do jobs to get paid. If I have a $5,000 project and PS gets the job done, then I make $4,400. If I use Gimp for free but the lack of documentation prevents me from doing my job, then I didn't get that software for free, it cost me $5,000.
" You've got a flat tire? So...fix it, I gave you everything you need to know to do so. Ok, no problem! I'll fix it, but it'll cost you $50. No? So let me get this straight...you want me to fix something that I gave you, even though I told you exactly how you could fix it yourself?"
"You want me to pay for you to fix the flat tire I got during the test drive?"
"If you ever talk to one of these people, you'll hear all the same, stupid arguments that have been refuted a thousand times before."
What's stupid about saying "If I do that, my computer won't do what I bought it to do."? That's like saying it's stupid when somebody says "If I convert my SUV to a pickup, I won't be able drive my family anywhere!"
"It's okay, I understand that it's a hard thing to change your OS. I mean, the buttons work differently and hell, there's not even a "Start" button to tell you where to start."
You're right. It's hard to change your OS for another one that doesn't provide benefits right away. You said yourself that people will have to 'develop a habit' in order to find it interesting.
"I'll put my money on *nix systems pervasive on business desktop systems by the end of the decade."
I'll join you in that bet. I think that will happen.
"After the herd starts using it at work, becomes comfortable with it, and develops a *nix habit will regular people start seeking out *nix systems for home use."
Um, that works to a degree. There's still work that needs to be done to reach that point. The good news is, there's lots of people doing that and it may very well happen.
"You might be happy to pay thousands of dollars for Lightwave, MS Office, Photoshop, and whatever else you run on your machine, but lots of people would rather use Blender, OpenOffice, The Gimp, and the wealth of free tools that come with Linux."
You're talking about individuals, I'm talking about businesses here. In the case of businesses, the cost of software is measured by how much it brings in, not how big a check they have to write initially. Blender is inferior to Lightwave. If you're an FX studio who wants to get a million dollar contract to make a commercial, but you lost to the guy who invested in Lightwave, then your copy of Blender cost you $998,400.
I have no doubt that lots of people will download Blender and not want to pay $1,600 for Lightwave, but nobody's going to make a free 3D prog better than Lightwave if they can't make money off it. If they do, then Newtek will work that much harder to justify that cost.
"Adobe isn't going to port to Linux, because they know that if their customers start experimenting with Linux they are very likely to start experimenting with other Free Software that comes included in most Linux distributions. Direct competition with Free Software would make it that much harder for Adobe to sell their commercial applications. "
That argument doesn't hold as much water as you might think. The reason that Adobe isn't porting to Linux is that PC is in such the vast majority that it isn't worth their time and resources to to do it. That's it. That's all. It has nothing to do with free software. If anything, free software on Linux is incentive for Adobe to get into that market for fear that their customers will switch to Linux and not be able to use their products anymore. Linux is not a threat to Adobe right now, so they're not reacting to it.
"In the end Linux will continue its inexorable march towards ubiquity not because it is especially good, but because it is "good enough" at the right price."
As I said, you have to understand the full concept of price. People have no problem buying software if it pays for itself. I paid $1,600 for Lightwave when I could have downloaded Blender for free. I have 0 regrets about that because Lightwave has proven its worth to me. That alone should give you a hint that money isn't the central issue here. It's value.
" After many years of knowing LW users, they would consider ANYthing other than LW a downgrade."
There's a good reason for that. Ever wonder why Mac users like Macs so much? It's because despite it's percieved limitations, the engrossed user can make their Mac do anything a 'Pee Cee' can do. They feel they've achieved a level of competance that even those who feel superior have not reached. Lightwave is the same way. There's lots of things other apps have that LW users are envious of. So what happens? The users adapt. "Well, I can do the same thing if I go through this convulted set of steps to arrive at that goal."
Linux is really the same way. Windows has advantages that Linux doesn't necessarily have right a way, but that doesn't mean the Linux users are incapable. They know Linux well enough that they can make it work anyway. And that's good for them, but bad for new users. They don't feel that they need to catch up to Windows. That's fine and all, but what happens when you sit Linux down in front of one newb, and Windows down in front of another newb? It all boils down to the taste of the end-user.
" *cough*mental ray*cough*"
*cough*didn't ship with Maya until like this month.*cough*
" Oh, I could probably list off a stack of features that Windows simply can't do, but it wouldn't mean anything to you. It only has value or meaning when you get there yourself."
That's a good point. What use are those features to me if I'm not looking for them now? I use my computer to work. I don't have a lot of time to explore and fool around. I could adopt Linux, and at some point it might even be able to make myself more productive with it than I could with Windows. But, if my biggest bottlenecks right now are with the apps I use and not the OS, then Linux does me absolutely no good.
"All that's assuming you can get past the app naming conventions. You can, can't you?"
No need to be insulting. That's a legitimate crticism of Linux. (or more specifically, KDE) The main reason Windows is a success is that people can use it. People are willing to forgive instablility when at least their computer is useful to them. Think back to the days of Windows 95 when computers with confusing CLI's were a recent memory. Windows was a relief! But if Windows loaded with confusing buttons (i.e. applications on the task bar that all begin with K), then it'd be a hinderance to using the computer.
This has nothing to do with my lack of intelligence or deductive reasoning, it has everything to do with bad UI design.
-Photoshop was... I think $600, and has more than paid for itself. If Gimp is a perfect clone of Photoshop then I might have been able to save that money, but even in that situation I have absolutely no regrets. Photoshop is the de-facto standard there. Knowing Photoshop means quite a bit on my resume. Gimp isn't there. (yet)
- Lightwave was $1,600. And I'm sorry, but there is NO free app that even touches it. Argue with me if you want, but I'm making a living here.
"Do you realize that this stuff is NOT free?"
Do you realize that cost isn't everything? Why would I buy these apps if they didn't provide some sort of return for my investment? Ever think of that? You're providing me with alternatives, but you're not providing me with replacements. Corel PhotoPaint may be 'fine for you', but what makes you think it'll satisfy somebody like me who knows every little detail about how PS works? You'll notice that companies looking for texture artists aren't saying "Must know Corel PhotoPaint".
"In fact unexperienced users find it much more intuitive than Win2000, for example."
I doubt it'll be more intuitive for me. I know Windows 2000 like the back of my hand. I've already paid for it, so there's no point in my trying out Mandrake.
"I'm afraid it is you that is spreading FUD and b.s. - Outlook is at least as prone to viruses as is Outlook Express."
If that were true, then I would have been hit by one in the last 5 years that I've used it. (Well, 5 years ago I was using OL 97.)
I'm not some bizarre statistic either. My entire company uses Outlook 2000. It's my job to fix their machines if they get hit by a virus. I've only had to help one person with a virus, and Outlook wasn't the vulnerability. It was one of those viruses that tricks you into running an executable. It would have worked with any mail prog he used because it had just the right context to make him open it.
I'm not claiming that OL 2k is rock solid, but it has been quite reliable. Accuse me of spreading fud if you like, I have nothing to gain here but the affection of AC trolls by saying anything even remotely positive about a Microsoft product.
"Maya has a slightly different focus (as can be seen in its advertising) than Max or LW or even XSI. You comment would be be more truer if you compared LW to Max."
There are reasons I didn't say MAX.
a.) It doesn't work on Linux. It doesn't work on anything BUT Windows. That's the big reason.
b.) It's very expensive, close to 4k. LW is 1.6k
c.) Most Lightwave users would consider MAX a downgrade. Heh.
As for Maya, though I agree with your point, Maya is a tradeoff and not an upgrade. I'll get more sophisticated modelling and character animating tools, I would get an inferior renderer. I wouldn't find myself able to do significantly more. I would just have shakeup in the pros and cons department.:)
"I also have no reason to switch to Linux. However I get the feeling that Microsoft is going to screw themselves over sooner than later (DRM), and I'll feel like I have no choice but to get off Windows if I want to have privacy and control over my computer. Linux doesn't have to do anything but wait for MS to screw up."
You touched on an interesting point there. Everybody on/. gets their panties in a bunch every time there's a story about MS. What's funny is that every time MS makes a misstep, the Linux community has an opportunity to take advantage of it./. should be thrilled when there's a new IE exploit and Mozilla gets it fixed first. DRM? Not to worry, Linux is DRM free.
But this only goes so far. At some point, Linux has to do something better than Windows. A checklist of "we don't have MS's problems" isn't enough. I mean seriously, who's going to go to Gateway and not buy Windows because of DRM? They won't even know how it affects them until it bites them in the ass long after they've bought it. Why not make a distro of Linux catered to small group of people?
Make an artist distro where Film Gimp, Gimp, Killustrator, and a few other things have their icons on the desktop or on the toolbar or something. Make the other stuff available, but make the important stuff come out first. Make a PVR distro where right away you have the functionality you need to get the PVR going. Maybe distro is the wrong word.. configuration? Hell I don't know. I love the idea of installing Linux and as soon as it comes up it's all ready to go with compositing tools ready to launch.
Now that I think about it, one of Linux's biggest failings is that it tries to do a little too much. The Linux Community is all about choices. Some like Mozilla, some like Netscape, some like Opera, so let's put them all in there. Right? Bad idea. The first time I fired up Linux I was met with a number of programs all beginning in K. Who was the dumbass that came up with that naming convention? I mean it's Kcute and all, but Kwhen Kall Kprograms Kbegin Kwith Kk, Kthen Kit Kis Khard Kto Kfind Kthe Kprogram Kyou're Klooking Kfor since the list is sorted Kalphabetically. If they wanted to keep me as a Linux user, they would have slimmed down the choices a bit. I mean face reality here, I'll have to use any given program a while before I understand why this other choice is of interest.
Okay, I rambled a bit. I hope somebody out there involved in developing for Linux read this and got a little bit of insight into why I'm not a Linux user now. I'm all for ditching MS for something that is.. well. democratic like Linux is. (I'd like to see somebody try to force DRM support in Linux, heh...) but I just can't do it yet. Unless Linux gives me something I don't have in Windows, then I just don't have the time to muck with it.
"Well let's see, I can try to figure it out, pay you $100 or simply move on without ever knowing it. Since life is short and there are so many things vying for my time, I think I'll move on. Thanks for playing."
THANK YOU. That is exactly what will happen to your app when you release it and try to charge for the documentation.
" If all you do is browse the web or get e-mail, then yes, Linux is viable. But that is a much smaller market than most advocates want to admit. And even if someone thinks that's all they want, most are not going to go the "oddball" route "just in case"."
It's refreshing to see one other person on Slashdot that understands this concept. What's keeping my tied to Windows isn't going to be solved by a kernel update to Linux. What's keeping me using Windows has nothing to do with MS's monopoly or that I'm an idiot or any of those other stupid rationalizations I hear all the time. Linux is free so I should have no problem using it right? Wrong.
I use Outlook 2000 (no, not express, so spare me the virus bs.) because I choose to. It's the best for what I use it for. (Calendar, To do list, Spam filtering, synchronization with my PocketPC and Phone, etc...) There are probably clones of it out there, but so what? I already have my solution. I use Lightwave. I could switch to Maya or something, but I've already spent the money so where's the value? I use Photoshop. I could use Gimp, but Photoshop is what everybody uses. I like to play games, dare I even touch on that?
I have no incentive to switch to Linux. My computer works, it's quite stable (despite the FUD spread around here about Windows 2000 or XP), and it more than suits my needs. At some point Linux is going to have to stop playing catch-up to MS and start being better if they want me to jump ship.
Funny thing is, I'm not even pro-Microsoft. But I'm not interested in dropping everything just to enter the "I'm cool because I use Linux" popularity contest. A switch to Linux costs me a great deal, it doesn't buy me anything today.
With that said, more needs to be done to make Linux an attractive platform for companies like Adobe to port over to it. The opportunity is there. Movie Studios are starting to pick up Linux as a workstation. It ain't going to completely replace Microsoft or Apple until an artist such as myself is presented with an interface I can pick up and use. I have to be able to maintain my machine. I have to be able to install and run apps. I have to be able to communicate with people who don't run Linux (i.e. good Office port...). All of this completely fails if I have to memorize a bunch of text commands in order to configure my machine.
Solve the interface issues with Linux, and you'll see support from companies like Adobe. When we see support from these places, the interesting apps will appear.
"Hi. I'm an artist. I want to use Photoshop. I can't afford the price. Your attitude sucks. Open Source gives you the source, not the right to support. There are plenty of companies that are willing to take your money and sell you a book or other forms of documentation/support."
Seeing as how you're forced to use Gimp because you can't afford Photoshop, then wouldn't you be interested in being able to use the software? You're going to need documentation either way you go. At least with the Photoshop route, you have that guaranteed to you. If you can't get that with Gimp, then it's of 0 use to you. Reading the source code isn't going to help you either.
I think it's funny that you think my attitude of "Make sure the software you give away is useable" sucks. If you're not going to be the best at what you do, then what's the point? "Hey, look at me, I wrote an app. But it's up to you to read the source code to figure out how it works."
"Maybe the EQ players just need to get a life. I mean, if they want to experience a "player based political system", the US Govt is a good way to start. And the results are real."
Or if you fancy something a wee bit more entertaining, you could hang out all day on Slashdot and pounce on the editors for spelling errors. A least there's more participation involved.
Slashdot Mirror
"Is it, really? :)"
Maybe they hired Cmdr Taco as a consultant.
"Skroob" is not "Brooks" spelled backwards, that would be "Boorks"."
Compilation failed: Unable to locate crtvty.h
I don't blame them. According to the studies I've heard, I should be blind now. I haven't had any real problems other than needing to shave my hands once in a while.
"...i've been unemployed for a year. Not fun."
That's one of the reasons I decided to stay on the creative side. My company wants me to be a Systems Analyst but I'm fighting it. I think I'd do better with my creative skills than as an engineer.
I'm not sure what to specifically recommend to people in the techie world about that, but creativity is a rare talent. So far I've avoided 2 rounds of layoffs...
"Reminds me of the 'Wall' that President Scroob was talking to in the bathroom from Spaceballs."
Actually it was Skroob. I'm not correcting you because I'm an over zealous Spaceballs fan, but because you reminded me of something I heard once. Skroob is 'Brooks' spelled backwards. As in Mel Brooks...
I love DVD's with commentary tracks. heh.
"In short, I realize that Lightwave is worth the price for existing Lightwave users. The real question is whether or not that will continue to be the case for new users. At the very least Free Software makes that question more interesting. If Blender didn't exist then there would be no question that Lightwave would continue to dominate the low-end of 3D modelling, but Blender at least adds the potential for a sea change. Just because Lightwave is worth the price to you does not mean that it is worth its price to everyone that wants a 3D modeller."
.. uh.. *cough* obtain the software. But that's not really enough.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but it reads a little like you're implying that I feel that free software is bad. That isn't even close to true.
Blender could turn out to be a wonderful thing for the industry. Right now, there are so many people out there who want to do 3D. They don't have >$500 to put into a program just to see if they can use it. Demo versions just aren't good enough. Fortunately, the 3D companies out there tend to look the other way when you
I totally agree, Blender would be a big help to those people. My point was simply that the cost of the program isn't the focus of a decision like that. Those studios that were using the UNIX stations that you mentioned were using those because they knew they could make money with them. Free would have been a great price to them.
I mentioned something earlier in another post that you may find a little more appealing. I think charging for documentation is stupid and ethically wrong. That defeats the purpose of free software. If they really want to make money on it, why not provide it for free and then charge for commercial use? The advantage here is that people can evaluate this software before they drop money into it.
Bam. Simple. Been done for years. I'm happy to send Blender $500 if it gets me a $5,000 project, but sending $50 to them just to find out what those little icons are is ridiculous. What if I don't like the software?
I think my PoV's been twisted around a bit in this thread. Heh. I'm not some evil "Open Source is bad!" zealot. I've used enough free apps (like Virtual Dub) to know that documentation is valuable. The idea of making me pay for it is ridiculous.
"You're gaining more than you may realize, A.C. You're on my "friends" list, and the lists of several people whom I respect a lot."
Are you serious? Heh I'm sick today so my sarcasm meter is off-line.
"You can't blame that on anyone but yourself -- definitely not on the authors of the Gimp. You should have ponied up $50 for a decent book on the program, and you'd be up by $4950."
I'm glad you brought that up because you touch on a really interesting point: You see, that $50 doesn't guarantee me Gimp will do the job. If Gimp w/documentation doesn't do the job, then I'm out that $50.
As anybody would realistically do, I would evaluate a product before purchasing. If I can't make it work without having to pay for the documentation first, then forget it. Some people might, but that fifty dollar price tag is awfully steep just to see if you like it or not.
Sorry, no sale. I'm happy to pay $50 for a book on techniques, but if I have no faith in the software forcing me to buy the documentation's not going to make things easier.
"Every software program you use is going to have some cost to you involved, whether it be money, time to learn it, or something else..."
You act like I want it completely free, even though it's been made clear that I'm perfectly happy buying $600-$1,600 products to get the job done. This has nothing to do with cost, it has everything to do with this crummy model.
Want to do it the right way? Make the software free + documentation (like anybody with an ounce of common sense would do), then sell me a commercial license for it if I use it in production.
There, piece of cake. Problem solved.
"With Linux, when there's a new version of The Gimp, I go download it, for free. When there's a new version of Blender out, I go download it, for free. When there's a new major kernel version or X Free86 version, I go download it, for free."
That's fine if you're not trying to make any money. I, however, an making a living here. I'm not using Lightwave over Blender because I enjoy spending $1,600, it's because Lightwave gives me the results that Blender cannot. If I get a $5,000 project and I have to buy Lightwave (once, I might add) to get that project done, then I made $3,400. If I use Blender, but the results aren't satisfactory, then it wasn't free. It cost me $5,000.
Now I'm not taking pokes at Blender. I'm sure it's fine. But there's a reason it's not being widely adopted by studios. I'm not sure it's being used professionally anywhere. Who knows, maybe one day it will, but not today.
The price tag is not the whole picture. It is not the central focus of why one uses an app. And I'm certainly not using a free app if the dumbshits who designed it can't throw in a little "here's how it works" documentation with it.
"Duely retracted, and my apologies given. In reading my post over again that did come off worse than I had intended."
:)
Appreciated.
Thanks for the KDE tips.
Sorry, I'm sick now and don't have much fight left in me. Take care man.
"Or do you expect life to hand you everything on a plate?"
If I'm willing to pay for Photoshop, as indicated in my post you quoted, then what makes you think I want everything handed to me?
I use software to get a job done. I do jobs to get paid. If I have a $5,000 project and PS gets the job done, then I make $4,400. If I use Gimp for free but the lack of documentation prevents me from doing my job, then I didn't get that software for free, it cost me $5,000.
"THEN USE SOMETHING ELSE!!!!!!!"
You mean like the reasonably priced commercial program that is documented properly? Okay.
" You've got a flat tire? So...fix it, I gave you everything you need to know to do so. Ok, no problem! I'll fix it, but it'll cost you $50. No? So let me get this straight...you want me to fix something that I gave you, even though I told you exactly how you could fix it yourself?"
"You want me to pay for you to fix the flat tire I got during the test drive?"
Nice troll, but I'll bite...
"If you ever talk to one of these people, you'll hear all the same, stupid arguments that have been refuted a thousand times before."
What's stupid about saying "If I do that, my computer won't do what I bought it to do."? That's like saying it's stupid when somebody says "If I convert my SUV to a pickup, I won't be able drive my family anywhere!"
"It's okay, I understand that it's a hard thing to change your OS. I mean, the buttons work differently and hell, there's not even a "Start" button to tell you where to start."
You're right. It's hard to change your OS for another one that doesn't provide benefits right away. You said yourself that people will have to 'develop a habit' in order to find it interesting.
"I'll put my money on *nix systems pervasive on business desktop systems by the end of the decade."
I'll join you in that bet. I think that will happen.
"After the herd starts using it at work, becomes comfortable with it, and develops a *nix habit will regular people start seeking out *nix systems for home use."
Um, that works to a degree. There's still work that needs to be done to reach that point. The good news is, there's lots of people doing that and it may very well happen.
"You might be happy to pay thousands of dollars for Lightwave, MS Office, Photoshop, and whatever else you run on your machine, but lots of people would rather use Blender, OpenOffice, The Gimp, and the wealth of free tools that come with Linux."
You're talking about individuals, I'm talking about businesses here. In the case of businesses, the cost of software is measured by how much it brings in, not how big a check they have to write initially. Blender is inferior to Lightwave. If you're an FX studio who wants to get a million dollar contract to make a commercial, but you lost to the guy who invested in Lightwave, then your copy of Blender cost you
$998,400.
I have no doubt that lots of people will download Blender and not want to pay $1,600 for Lightwave, but nobody's going to make a free 3D prog better than Lightwave if they can't make money off it. If they do, then Newtek will work that much harder to justify that cost.
"Adobe isn't going to port to Linux, because they know that if their customers start experimenting with Linux they are very likely to start experimenting with other Free Software that comes included in most Linux distributions. Direct competition with Free Software would make it that much harder for Adobe to sell their commercial applications. "
That argument doesn't hold as much water as you might think. The reason that Adobe isn't porting to Linux is that PC is in such the vast majority that it isn't worth their time and resources to to do it. That's it. That's all. It has nothing to do with free software. If anything, free software on Linux is incentive for Adobe to get into that market for fear that their customers will switch to Linux and not be able to use their products anymore. Linux is not a threat to Adobe right now, so they're not reacting to it.
"In the end Linux will continue its inexorable march towards ubiquity not because it is especially good, but because it is "good enough" at the right price."
As I said, you have to understand the full concept of price. People have no problem buying software if it pays for itself. I paid $1,600 for Lightwave when I could have downloaded Blender for free. I have 0 regrets about that because Lightwave has proven its worth to me. That alone should give you a hint that money isn't the central issue here. It's value.
" After many years of knowing LW users, they would consider ANYthing other than LW a downgrade."
There's a good reason for that. Ever wonder why Mac users like Macs so much? It's because despite it's percieved limitations, the engrossed user can make their Mac do anything a 'Pee Cee' can do. They feel they've achieved a level of competance that even those who feel superior have not reached. Lightwave is the same way. There's lots of things other apps have that LW users are envious of. So what happens? The users adapt. "Well, I can do the same thing if I go through this convulted set of steps to arrive at that goal."
Linux is really the same way. Windows has advantages that Linux doesn't necessarily have right a way, but that doesn't mean the Linux users are incapable. They know Linux well enough that they can make it work anyway. And that's good for them, but bad for new users. They don't feel that they need to catch up to Windows. That's fine and all, but what happens when you sit Linux down in front of one newb, and Windows down in front of another newb? It all boils down to the taste of the end-user.
" *cough*mental ray*cough*"
*cough*didn't ship with Maya until like this month.*cough*
" Oh, I could probably list off a stack of features that Windows simply can't do, but it wouldn't mean anything to you. It only has value or meaning when you get there yourself."
That's a good point. What use are those features to me if I'm not looking for them now? I use my computer to work. I don't have a lot of time to explore and fool around. I could adopt Linux, and at some point it might even be able to make myself more productive with it than I could with Windows. But, if my biggest bottlenecks right now are with the apps I use and not the OS, then Linux does me absolutely no good.
"All that's assuming you can get past the app naming conventions. You can, can't you?"
No need to be insulting. That's a legitimate crticism of Linux. (or more specifically, KDE) The main reason Windows is a success is that people can use it. People are willing to forgive instablility when at least their computer is useful to them. Think back to the days of Windows 95 when computers with confusing CLI's were a recent memory. Windows was a relief! But if Windows loaded with confusing buttons (i.e. applications on the task bar that all begin with K), then it'd be a hinderance to using the computer.
This has nothing to do with my lack of intelligence or deductive reasoning, it has everything to do with bad UI design.
"How much did you pay for that?"
-Outlook came with my PocketPC.
-Photoshop was... I think $600, and has more than paid for itself. If Gimp is a perfect clone of Photoshop then I might have been able to save that money, but even in that situation I have absolutely no regrets. Photoshop is the de-facto standard there. Knowing Photoshop means quite a bit on my resume. Gimp isn't there. (yet)
- Lightwave was $1,600. And I'm sorry, but there is NO free app that even touches it. Argue with me if you want, but I'm making a living here.
"Do you realize that this stuff is NOT free?"
Do you realize that cost isn't everything? Why would I buy these apps if they didn't provide some sort of return for my investment? Ever think of that? You're providing me with alternatives, but you're not providing me with replacements. Corel PhotoPaint may be 'fine for you', but what makes you think it'll satisfy somebody like me who knows every little detail about how PS works? You'll notice that companies looking for texture artists aren't saying "Must know Corel PhotoPaint".
"In fact unexperienced users find it much more intuitive than Win2000, for example."
I doubt it'll be more intuitive for me. I know Windows 2000 like the back of my hand. I've already paid for it, so there's no point in my trying out Mandrake.
Did you get my original point at all?
"I'm afraid it is you that is spreading FUD and b.s. - Outlook is at least as prone to viruses as is Outlook Express."
If that were true, then I would have been hit by one in the last 5 years that I've used it. (Well, 5 years ago I was using OL 97.)
I'm not some bizarre statistic either. My entire company uses Outlook 2000. It's my job to fix their machines if they get hit by a virus. I've only had to help one person with a virus, and Outlook wasn't the vulnerability. It was one of those viruses that tricks you into running an executable. It would have worked with any mail prog he used because it had just the right context to make him open it.
I'm not claiming that OL 2k is rock solid, but it has been quite reliable. Accuse me of spreading fud if you like, I have nothing to gain here but the affection of AC trolls by saying anything even remotely positive about a Microsoft product.
"Maya has a slightly different focus (as can be seen in its advertising) than Max or LW or even XSI. You comment would be be more truer if you compared LW to Max."
:)
There are reasons I didn't say MAX.
a.) It doesn't work on Linux. It doesn't work on anything BUT Windows. That's the big reason.
b.) It's very expensive, close to 4k. LW is 1.6k
c.) Most Lightwave users would consider MAX a downgrade. Heh.
As for Maya, though I agree with your point, Maya is a tradeoff and not an upgrade. I'll get more sophisticated modelling and character animating tools, I would get an inferior renderer. I wouldn't find myself able to do significantly more. I would just have shakeup in the pros and cons department.
"I also have no reason to switch to Linux. However I get the feeling that Microsoft is going to screw themselves over sooner than later (DRM), and I'll feel like I have no choice but to get off Windows if I want to have privacy and control over my computer. Linux doesn't have to do anything but wait for MS to screw up."
/. gets their panties in a bunch every time there's a story about MS. What's funny is that every time MS makes a misstep, the Linux community has an opportunity to take advantage of it. /. should be thrilled when there's a new IE exploit and Mozilla gets it fixed first. DRM? Not to worry, Linux is DRM free.
You touched on an interesting point there. Everybody on
But this only goes so far. At some point, Linux has to do something better than Windows. A checklist of "we don't have MS's problems" isn't enough. I mean seriously, who's going to go to Gateway and not buy Windows because of DRM? They won't even know how it affects them until it bites them in the ass long after they've bought it. Why not make a distro of Linux catered to small group of people?
Make an artist distro where Film Gimp, Gimp, Killustrator, and a few other things have their icons on the desktop or on the toolbar or something. Make the other stuff available, but make the important stuff come out first. Make a PVR distro where right away you have the functionality you need to get the PVR going. Maybe distro is the wrong word.. configuration? Hell I don't know. I love the idea of installing Linux and as soon as it comes up it's all ready to go with compositing tools ready to launch.
Now that I think about it, one of Linux's biggest failings is that it tries to do a little too much. The Linux Community is all about choices. Some like Mozilla, some like Netscape, some like Opera, so let's put them all in there. Right? Bad idea. The first time I fired up Linux I was met with a number of programs all beginning in K. Who was the dumbass that came up with that naming convention? I mean it's Kcute and all, but Kwhen Kall Kprograms Kbegin Kwith Kk, Kthen Kit Kis Khard Kto Kfind Kthe Kprogram Kyou're Klooking Kfor since the list is sorted Kalphabetically. If they wanted to keep me as a Linux user, they would have slimmed down the choices a bit. I mean face reality here, I'll have to use any given program a while before I understand why this other choice is of interest.
Okay, I rambled a bit. I hope somebody out there involved in developing for Linux read this and got a little bit of insight into why I'm not a Linux user now. I'm all for ditching MS for something that is.. well. democratic like Linux is. (I'd like to see somebody try to force DRM support in Linux, heh...) but I just can't do it yet. Unless Linux gives me something I don't have in Windows, then I just don't have the time to muck with it.
"Well let's see, I can try to figure it out, pay you $100 or simply move on without ever knowing it. Since life is short and there are so many things vying for my time, I think I'll move on.
Thanks for playing."
THANK YOU. That is exactly what will happen to your app when you release it and try to charge for the documentation.
" If all you do is browse the web or get e-mail, then yes, Linux is viable. But that is a much smaller market than most advocates want to admit. And even if someone thinks that's all they want, most are not going to go the "oddball" route "just in case"."
It's refreshing to see one other person on Slashdot that understands this concept. What's keeping my tied to Windows isn't going to be solved by a kernel update to Linux. What's keeping me using Windows has nothing to do with MS's monopoly or that I'm an idiot or any of those other stupid rationalizations I hear all the time. Linux is free so I should have no problem using it right? Wrong.
I use Outlook 2000 (no, not express, so spare me the virus bs.) because I choose to. It's the best for what I use it for. (Calendar, To do list, Spam filtering, synchronization with my PocketPC and Phone, etc...) There are probably clones of it out there, but so what? I already have my solution. I use Lightwave. I could switch to Maya or something, but I've already spent the money so where's the value? I use Photoshop. I could use Gimp, but Photoshop is what everybody uses. I like to play games, dare I even touch on that?
I have no incentive to switch to Linux. My computer works, it's quite stable (despite the FUD spread around here about Windows 2000 or XP), and it more than suits my needs. At some point Linux is going to have to stop playing catch-up to MS and start being better if they want me to jump ship.
Funny thing is, I'm not even pro-Microsoft. But I'm not interested in dropping everything just to enter the "I'm cool because I use Linux" popularity contest. A switch to Linux costs me a great deal, it doesn't buy me anything today.
With that said, more needs to be done to make Linux an attractive platform for companies like Adobe to port over to it. The opportunity is there. Movie Studios are starting to pick up Linux as a workstation. It ain't going to completely replace Microsoft or Apple until an artist such as myself is presented with an interface I can pick up and use. I have to be able to maintain my machine. I have to be able to install and run apps. I have to be able to communicate with people who don't run Linux (i.e. good Office port...). All of this completely fails if I have to memorize a bunch of text commands in order to configure my machine.
Solve the interface issues with Linux, and you'll see support from companies like Adobe. When we see support from these places, the interesting apps will appear.
"Hi. I'm an artist. I want to use Photoshop. I can't afford the price. Your attitude sucks.
Open Source gives you the source, not the right to support. There are plenty of companies that are willing to take your money and sell you a book or other forms of documentation/support."
Seeing as how you're forced to use Gimp because you can't afford Photoshop, then wouldn't you be interested in being able to use the software? You're going to need documentation either way you go. At least with the Photoshop route, you have that guaranteed to you. If you can't get that with Gimp, then it's of 0 use to you. Reading the source code isn't going to help you either.
I think it's funny that you think my attitude of "Make sure the software you give away is useable" sucks. If you're not going to be the best at what you do, then what's the point? "Hey, look at me, I wrote an app. But it's up to you to read the source code to figure out how it works."
"Maybe the EQ players just need to get a life. I mean, if they want to experience a "player based political system", the US Govt is a good way to start. And the results are real."
Or if you fancy something a wee bit more entertaining, you could hang out all day on Slashdot and pounce on the editors for spelling errors. A least there's more participation involved.