Hi, To answer your question... there isn't any one best. And you shouldn't attempt to measure it as such. Each package has its strong points and weaknesses. You must judge them according to your needs and your workflow... There's no need in spending thousands of dollars on the software and training on the more expensive packages if all you need is modeling to do web graphics.
Also, stay away from the marketing hype and common misconceptions that one renderer is better than another...Every commercial render out there is capable of doing a good job. Each renderer has it's own personality that you must learn to work with. Some like Mental Ray or Lightwave have some easy default provided by some company like Newtech, Alias Wavefront, Avid, or even Discreet. (BTW don't be fooled by renders like Mental ray or Renderman, the true power of these renders come out when you write your own shaders - a non trivial not for novice task- and not using the defaults) Others like the Maya default render require you become more personal with how the render works to achieve the same results. It all depends on what you need to achieve your goals. There's no need to spend more money if you'll never use some of the more advanced features like micro-polygon displacement, or multi million polygon scenes.
My suggestion is it not to listen to too many people, download the demo's and see which one fit your bill. All the advice that we as a community can offer can't tell you which one will agree with your artistic/technical side most and your situation. Its all comes down to a personal choice once you've weeded out your requirements.
The CIA is the sister agency of the FBI and is _STRICTLY FORBIDDEN_ to operate w/in the borders of the US.
The FBI handles things w/in ou borders. The CIA handles everything else.
Actually not true.... The CIA attempted to assasinate Fidelle Castro several times while he was on US soil... the US for the longest time has had a no assasination policy on the books (forget when it was introduced).
the CIA is all about covert ops and inteligence... To do their job requires exemption for the law as otherwise they couldn't do anything. Case in point, it is documented that CIA attempted several times to assasinate Fidel on US soil even though there was a policy that made any assasination ilegal. In other words, the CIA exercised their power within the US boundaries.
However, the CIA is the small potatoes compared with the NSA... who monitor ALL traffic both dosmestic and foreign... and by all i mean data, phone calls, cell calls, email, images, etc... anything they can get their hands on or pickup with their antenas. With this new push they are asking is taking the next step from passive observation to full out intrusion....
A quick example would be if a group of people broke into your house, noted down all your important information like credit cards, cleaned up so there was no trace they were there and left. Frankly i'd be outraged the practice was allowed! Why should the online version be any different?.
Now, here's my last point, an elaboration on my previous post. What stops something like the NSA who's mission is to spy on everybody from selling information it learns to say a foriegn goverment, or local business to buy a new multi-billion dollar computer system it can't find funding for to further its mission?.... Its one thing to send information over the airways -we can always consider that insecure and act apropriately- but to invade everybody's private property to weed out a mere handfull of individuals is crazy.
Such pushes by Government scare me... Agencies like the CIA operate above the law that other agencies like the FBI have to follow... With know activities that would be considered criminal by other agencies, what locks are in place to prevent them from funding their crusade from selling off data that they've learnt?...
When you operate above the law, there's really nothing stopping you, except from being giving the privilage in the first place.
If your looking for a bridge between the two worlds, you might want to give microsoft's Services for unix product a try... it adds stuff in AD to accomodate unix related issues... This is no guarentee that it might solve your particular problem but I have read of people getting the two to work with a single sign on setup using LDAP and kerbose and NFS...
I personally can't vouch for the solution as I was not able to try it even though i suggested it about a dozen times. My boss at the time was a die hard *NIX guy and would not hear of any mixing of the two.. So i did my best to accomodate the user's needs around him.
The the other thing is you might want to check out.net server RC1 as it introduces new tools to make AD more bearable over time... like changing the domain/forest names over time!... This is stuff that should have been there in the first round in my opinion!.
Actually, the original article didn't tell if the "nightmarish configuration issues" were on the client side or the AD side.
True, but at some point if you are maximizing reuse of standard information provided by AD, you have to somehow map this information who's names and value's may not map 100% to apple's defined values. If you look at Apple's first attempt you can see the manual mapping that is required on the client side even though custom apple specific properties were added to the AD.
A good solution from apple would be to have this mapping happen transparent to the user and only needing an admistrator via say a setup program to make the changes to the AD. This might be too much to ask though, at least on the server side:(
Since MS doesn't enable LDAP by default, ADSI probably one of the many frustrations that this guy faced. AD just doesn't play well with others, and its' default configuration doesn't play with others at all.
actually it does... that is unless they have recently changed that... if you install the support tools from the win2k server CD you can use ldp.exe (a simple LDAP client) to verify this. All windows 2000 boxes running AD should respond to ldap on port 389.
Information can be found in the windows 2000 resource kit. Expecially usefull for this topic is the book labeled windows 2000 sever distributed system's guide. It goes into much gory detail about the AD.
Since you seem to have some experience, is there any way to get Windows clients to authenticate to an non-microsoft LDAP directory? I'm currently investigating going the other way: Using Windows clients with Open Directory.
Thanx... but i'm afraid i can't really answer your last question.. swapping out AD for some other LDAP might not work as their kerbose (default authentication for win 2k+)authentication depends on AD functionality... wether that's hardcoded or not I simply don't know. And besides, even if you could, creating a working solution with another ldap would probably be more work than it worth considering all the information that is stored in a standard AD repository. If your looking for a replacement and all your interested is authentication and admin stuff try NDS ala novel... Its been a long long time but at last check they did a great job along all platforms. Problem is that you loose some of the niceties that AD brings.
What's your current perdicament... perhaps i can shed a bit of light into it?.
I'll add a simple illustration. Netscape for the longest time had some serious issues with following standards (its propriatetary layers vs w3 DHTML) but nobody here has given them a hard time about it. On the contrary... Netscape is seen as the sole fighter in a one man's army against the beast..
What I think he's trying to point out is that there is a massive bias against anything Microsoft in all concievable ways. There's a FUD first reason later (if at all) mentality running around...
Now... i don't know about you... but that's just scary...
"It sounds like your real problem is getting AD to play nice with LDAP clients. The reason that Microsoft clients integrate "seamlessly" with AD is that they use some funky proprietary directory protocol, whereas everything else (Linux, Mac, etc.) speaks straight LDAP. I've found that 10.2 has pretty darn good LDAP integration, but getting it to work with Microsoft takes some accomodation on the AD side.
Remember that Macs use open protocols and tools for their Windows integration. Samba is used for the SMB stuff and LDAP for directories. Any time you're using proprietary MS protocols, you're going to run into problems. You'll run into the same situation with Linux, Novell, or anything non-MS. If your mandate is to make the Macs behave exactly like Windows, then they're setting you up for failure"
I'd like to correct a point here, AD has a full implementation of LDAP protocol that you can use to access it (although I have not actually tested how great/bad it is). The proprietary protocol (ADSI) you speak of is merely a convenience for accessing directory services. If you don't like it use the original protocol in which it is based. You do have a choice. And in Apple's case... their using LDAP to access AD.
The problem that is happening is not protocol based, its more of a mapping between which properties are actually used to describe resources. AD is setup from scratch to suit a windows world... No questions there... The problem Apple has is how to map as much of the existing structure and settings while making as few Apple specific properties.
Now, to point out an obvious and sound design choice by Microsoft that annoys many, is that, making changes to AD is strongly discouraged. And as such they make it as difficult as possible to prevent unnecessary changes, and frankly a pain in the ass to make changes. This is the second biggest problem for Apple as AD is windows specific out of the box most admins have never changed the schemas in the AD. SO proper seamless integration with AD would also include a proper setup (AD Schema) that would be robust enough for MacOS as to resist change over time to prevent corruption... Something that is unlikely to come in the near future as window integration with apple is in constant flux not to mention important new features like Rendezvous which can offer redundant functionality found in the Active directory and window services.
The documentation for integrating 10.1 with AD is a crude attempt that is far from perfect but a step in the right direction. "Seemless integration" seems like a dream with such different design philosophies, my personal hope is that enough ground can be covered as to at be able to call it a workable illusion of seamlessness for both the user and Admin. But only time will tell...
Slashdot Mirror
Also, stay away from the marketing hype and common misconceptions that one renderer is better than another...Every commercial render out there is capable of doing a good job. Each renderer has it's own personality that you must learn to work with. Some like Mental Ray or Lightwave have some easy default provided by some company like Newtech, Alias Wavefront, Avid, or even Discreet. (BTW don't be fooled by renders like Mental ray or Renderman, the true power of these renders come out when you write your own shaders - a non trivial not for novice task- and not using the defaults) Others like the Maya default render require you become more personal with how the render works to achieve the same results. It all depends on what you need to achieve your goals. There's no need to spend more money if you'll never use some of the more advanced features like micro-polygon displacement, or multi million polygon scenes.
My suggestion is it not to listen to too many people, download the demo's and see which one fit your bill. All the advice that we as a community can offer can't tell you which one will agree with your artistic/technical side most and your situation. Its all comes down to a personal choice once you've weeded out your requirements.
but that's just my 2 cents.
The FBI handles things w/in ou borders. The CIA handles everything else. Actually not true.... The CIA attempted to assasinate Fidelle Castro several times while he was on US soil... the US for the longest time has had a no assasination policy on the books (forget when it was introduced).
the CIA is all about covert ops and inteligence... To do their job requires exemption for the law as otherwise they couldn't do anything. Case in point, it is documented that CIA attempted several times to assasinate Fidel on US soil even though there was a policy that made any assasination ilegal. In other words, the CIA exercised their power within the US boundaries.
However, the CIA is the small potatoes compared with the NSA... who monitor ALL traffic both dosmestic and foreign... and by all i mean data, phone calls, cell calls, email, images, etc... anything they can get their hands on or pickup with their antenas. With this new push they are asking is taking the next step from passive observation to full out intrusion....
A quick example would be if a group of people broke into your house, noted down all your important information like credit cards, cleaned up so there was no trace they were there and left. Frankly i'd be outraged the practice was allowed! Why should the online version be any different?.
Now, here's my last point, an elaboration on my previous post. What stops something like the NSA who's mission is to spy on everybody from selling information it learns to say a foriegn goverment, or local business to buy a new multi-billion dollar computer system it can't find funding for to further its mission?.... Its one thing to send information over the airways -we can always consider that insecure and act apropriately- but to invade everybody's private property to weed out a mere handfull of individuals is crazy.
When you operate above the law, there's really nothing stopping you, except from being giving the privilage in the first place.
just my 2cents.
Holy Gaming Mania Batman!... Sign me up!
You gota love Nasa's Moto... If you don't succeed the first time, spend millions more in another attempt.... :)
Sure we've been to the moon... but I'm still not convinced the earth is round. ;)
I personally can't vouch for the solution as I was not able to try it even though i suggested it about a dozen times. My boss at the time was a die hard *NIX guy and would not hear of any mixing of the two.. So i did my best to accomodate the user's needs around him.
The the other thing is you might want to check out .net server RC1 as it introduces new tools to make AD more bearable over time... like changing the domain/forest names over time!... This is stuff that should have been there in the first round in my opinion!.
Good luck :)
True, but at some point if you are maximizing reuse of standard information provided by AD, you have to somehow map this information who's names and value's may not map 100% to apple's defined values. If you look at Apple's first attempt you can see the manual mapping that is required on the client side even though custom apple specific properties were added to the AD.
A good solution from apple would be to have this mapping happen transparent to the user and only needing an admistrator via say a setup program to make the changes to the AD. This might be too much to ask though, at least on the server side :(
Since MS doesn't enable LDAP by default, ADSI probably one of the many frustrations that this guy faced. AD just doesn't play well with others, and its' default configuration doesn't play with others at all.
actually it does... that is unless they have recently changed that... if you install the support tools from the win2k server CD you can use ldp.exe (a simple LDAP client) to verify this. All windows 2000 boxes running AD should respond to ldap on port 389.
Information can be found in the windows 2000 resource kit. Expecially usefull for this topic is the book labeled windows 2000 sever distributed system's guide. It goes into much gory detail about the AD.
Since you seem to have some experience, is there any way to get Windows clients to authenticate to an non-microsoft LDAP directory? I'm currently investigating going the other way: Using Windows clients with Open Directory.
Thanx... but i'm afraid i can't really answer your last question.. swapping out AD for some other LDAP might not work as their kerbose (default authentication for win 2k+)authentication depends on AD functionality... wether that's hardcoded or not I simply don't know. And besides, even if you could, creating a working solution with another ldap would probably be more work than it worth considering all the information that is stored in a standard AD repository. If your looking for a replacement and all your interested is authentication and admin stuff try NDS ala novel... Its been a long long time but at last check they did a great job along all platforms. Problem is that you loose some of the niceties that AD brings.
What's your current perdicament... perhaps i can shed a bit of light into it?.
I'll add a simple illustration. Netscape for the longest time had some serious issues with following standards (its propriatetary layers vs w3 DHTML) but nobody here has given them a hard time about it. On the contrary... Netscape is seen as the sole fighter in a one man's army against the beast..
What I think he's trying to point out is that there is a massive bias against anything Microsoft in all concievable ways. There's a FUD first reason later (if at all) mentality running around...
Now ... i don't know about you... but that's just scary...
Remember that Macs use open protocols and tools for their Windows integration. Samba is used for the SMB stuff and LDAP for directories. Any time you're using proprietary MS protocols, you're going to run into problems. You'll run into the same situation with Linux, Novell, or anything non-MS. If your mandate is to make the Macs behave exactly like Windows, then they're setting you up for failure"
I'd like to correct a point here, AD has a full implementation of LDAP protocol that you can use to access it (although I have not actually tested how great/bad it is). The proprietary protocol (ADSI) you speak of is merely a convenience for accessing directory services. If you don't like it use the original protocol in which it is based. You do have a choice. And in Apple's case... their using LDAP to access AD.
The problem that is happening is not protocol based, its more of a mapping between which properties are actually used to describe resources. AD is setup from scratch to suit a windows world... No questions there... The problem Apple has is how to map as much of the existing structure and settings while making as few Apple specific properties.
Now, to point out an obvious and sound design choice by Microsoft that annoys many, is that, making changes to AD is strongly discouraged. And as such they make it as difficult as possible to prevent unnecessary changes, and frankly a pain in the ass to make changes. This is the second biggest problem for Apple as AD is windows specific out of the box most admins have never changed the schemas in the AD. SO proper seamless integration with AD would also include a proper setup (AD Schema) that would be robust enough for MacOS as to resist change over time to prevent corruption... Something that is unlikely to come in the near future as window integration with apple is in constant flux not to mention important new features like Rendezvous which can offer redundant functionality found in the Active directory and window services.
The documentation for integrating 10.1 with AD is a crude attempt that is far from perfect but a step in the right direction. "Seemless integration" seems like a dream with such different design philosophies, my personal hope is that enough ground can be covered as to at be able to call it a workable illusion of seamlessness for both the user and Admin. But only time will tell...