Oh please. Blender is a great application for hobbyists, but there is no way in hell that you're going to see it replacing Softimage or Maya in ILM's workshop anytime soon.
It simply does not have the featureset. The materials are downright laughable, the particles are crap... the interface isn't an issue actually as anyone that's used Houdini knows what a REALLY bad interface is about.
I don't doubt that in the due course of time Blender will reach a certain level of acceptance in movie houses such as ILM, Pixar, and PDI, but it will be as a niche tool, like most other open source projects that have found use in the motion picture industry (see Cinepaint).
That line is total bullshit anyway. Modo's interface has been designed from the ground up to work however the user wants it to. You can make it have a 3ds max layout, a Maya layout, a Lightwave layout... how is that anything like Blender's shitty interface?
Of all the stuff on here, THIS gets modded as a troll? Nice. I read this as a good, and SANE, bit of skepticism that is NECCESARY to make sure that nobody gets too full of themselves.
Me. I dont' read any news sites because I'm sick of the flashing banner at the top, the scrolling banner at the side, and the huge fucking square in the middle of the article. It bugs the living shit out of me to have to fight to read something.
Ummm... so? They'd have to make a choice for the consumer in NOT having it enabled. What the fuck are they supposed to do, anyway? Do you want every firewall to be disabled upon installation? Should every piece of software not work right until you give it permission to do so? At some point Symantec decided that most people that bought this software would probably use the ad blocking and enabled it as default. If you don't like it... TURN IT OFF. Being able to whitelist certain sites might be good, but unless there's a call for it, Symantec won't do it. They have no reason to if nobody cares about it.
Boo fucking hoo. If people weren't bombarded with thirty ads for shit they don't care about on every site they go to, this software wouldn't be neccesary. I thought that it was figured out a long time ago that relying on ads was a stupid way to generate revenue.
Aside from it's interface with the iPod were there other problems that MMJB had? How do you know it wasn't a problem with an API that Apple provided MM and that it was Apple's driver software that was slow and not MMJB itself?
Incorrect. This would be a contract dispute. You don't have to show damages in a contract dispute, only that the defendant broke said contract.
IANAL, but I pretend to be 'cause it gets the chicks.
Incorrect. Linus, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, holds the copyright on the Linux name, but the code in the kernel belongs to everyone that's ever helped develop it. I may be wrong, but I think that's the way it is.
SCO should be seeing a few thousand C&D's heading their way.
No, he made the statement to the effect that he didn't want to waste so much of his time trying to get commits into the XFree CVS and if they didn't see fit to give him CVS access, he'd go someplace where he COULD get it. This is obviously a matter he has discussed before with these guys, and their lack of interest in giving the main developer of something like that CVS access is quite childish. I don't blame Hunt for wanting to get away from a bunch of immature assholes.
You're all a bunch of fucking paranoid dipshits. So there's a robots.txt file that is CLEARLY automatically generated (/kids/barney/iraq?) and used in the same fucking manner that any other file of this type is. Pull your head out, put down 1984, and join the SANE people in the sunshine, okay?
Wow, someone actually doing some thinking. I'm surprised. This is, of course, going to be IBM's argument. "Well, we'd be glad to tell them who put what where, but we have no fucking clue what the hell they're talking about, so we can't."
SCO isn't saying "We don't know what code you put into Linux, so give us everything you have." If you would bother to read the document and not just the replies, you'd see that SCO is looking for the individuals responsible and trying to find out when the code was put into Linux.
The analogy is that people were exposed to toxic materials, but didn't know how. SCO's code was supposedly exposed to Linux, but they don't know how. They want IBM to find out who put the code in, and when, and then tell them. Never is any code mentioned anywhere in that particular paragraph.
Not immoral, unethical. There's a very distinct difference.
Nobody is going to pay attention to these restrictions. The company will not care if you lend it to friends. This is to keep people from doing large-scale duplication of the jig and selling it as their own. There are already laws in place that do that, but any way you can CYA is good.
Go drive your brand new F-150 through some mud, into a ditch, through a barn full of chickens, over the river and through the woods, then see if you're covered under warranty.;)
Yeah. Shut the fuck up. It's a stupid ass argument anyway. Take that ounce of plutonium and spread it over a few thousand square miles and you MIGHT have a point.
Who claimed that the other software was "unamerican" and "like a cancer"?
Microsoft, IIRC.
Who equals the other side's zealots with terrorists?
Nobody. Since you didn't read the article, or are too stupid to understand it, I'll make it clear. The author stated that Linux users come in three major types. Those that don't care about platform, those that really like Linux, and the dipshit 13 year olds that think running nmap on M$'s homepage makes them uber l337 hax0rz and think that M$ sucks 'cuz their stuff isn't free. The author is completely correct in the statement that Linux zealots have the potential to be terrorists. Same with the people from Greenpeace and PETA.
Who claims that the other side's software is illegal without a single piece of proof?
SCO.
So what's your fucking point? Wow, three completely unrelated things. That's really an argument against.... something. *YAWN*
Slashdot Mirror
Oh please. Blender is a great application for hobbyists, but there is no way in hell that you're going to see it replacing Softimage or Maya in ILM's workshop anytime soon.
It simply does not have the featureset. The materials are downright laughable, the particles are crap... the interface isn't an issue actually as anyone that's used Houdini knows what a REALLY bad interface is about.
I don't doubt that in the due course of time Blender will reach a certain level of acceptance in movie houses such as ILM, Pixar, and PDI, but it will be as a niche tool, like most other open source projects that have found use in the motion picture industry (see Cinepaint).
That line is total bullshit anyway. Modo's interface has been designed from the ground up to work however the user wants it to. You can make it have a 3ds max layout, a Maya layout, a Lightwave layout... how is that anything like Blender's shitty interface?
Quite frustrating. It's so insanely fucking stupid not to have an UNDO function. I can't believe nobody is even TRYING to implement one.
If every shitty text editor in the world has an undo, why doesn't a piece of software that NEEDS it have one?
Of all the stuff on here, THIS gets modded as a troll? Nice. I read this as a good, and SANE, bit of skepticism that is NECCESARY to make sure that nobody gets too full of themselves.
So what you're saying is that absolutely nobody that works at MS or SCO is smart enough to do something clever? Riiiiiiiiight.
Me. I dont' read any news sites because I'm sick of the flashing banner at the top, the scrolling banner at the side, and the huge fucking square in the middle of the article. It bugs the living shit out of me to have to fight to read something.
Ummm... so? They'd have to make a choice for the consumer in NOT having it enabled. What the fuck are they supposed to do, anyway? Do you want every firewall to be disabled upon installation? Should every piece of software not work right until you give it permission to do so? At some point Symantec decided that most people that bought this software would probably use the ad blocking and enabled it as default. If you don't like it... TURN IT OFF. Being able to whitelist certain sites might be good, but unless there's a call for it, Symantec won't do it. They have no reason to if nobody cares about it.
Boo fucking hoo. If people weren't bombarded with thirty ads for shit they don't care about on every site they go to, this software wouldn't be neccesary. I thought that it was figured out a long time ago that relying on ads was a stupid way to generate revenue.
Aside from it's interface with the iPod were there other problems that MMJB had? How do you know it wasn't a problem with an API that Apple provided MM and that it was Apple's driver software that was slow and not MMJB itself?
;)
You haven't ever used MMJB, have you?
Incorrect. This would be a contract dispute. You don't have to show damages in a contract dispute, only that the defendant broke said contract. IANAL, but I pretend to be 'cause it gets the chicks.
Incorrect. Linus, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, holds the copyright on the Linux name, but the code in the kernel belongs to everyone that's ever helped develop it. I may be wrong, but I think that's the way it is. SCO should be seeing a few thousand C&D's heading their way.
Yeah, but that's not funny.
No, he made the statement to the effect that he didn't want to waste so much of his time trying to get commits into the XFree CVS and if they didn't see fit to give him CVS access, he'd go someplace where he COULD get it. This is obviously a matter he has discussed before with these guys, and their lack of interest in giving the main developer of something like that CVS access is quite childish. I don't blame Hunt for wanting to get away from a bunch of immature assholes.
Considering that nobody else in THIS PARTICULAR THREAD has bothered to do so, yes.
You're all a bunch of fucking paranoid dipshits. So there's a robots.txt file that is CLEARLY automatically generated (/kids/barney/iraq?) and used in the same fucking manner that any other file of this type is. Pull your head out, put down 1984, and join the SANE people in the sunshine, okay?
Because the psycho paranoiacs that hang out here jizz anytime they read the number 1984.
This is /. and you expect things to be THAT easy?
Wow, someone actually doing some thinking. I'm surprised. This is, of course, going to be IBM's argument. "Well, we'd be glad to tell them who put what where, but we have no fucking clue what the hell they're talking about, so we can't."
SCO isn't saying "We don't know what code you put into Linux, so give us everything you have." If you would bother to read the document and not just the replies, you'd see that SCO is looking for the individuals responsible and trying to find out when the code was put into Linux.
The analogy is that people were exposed to toxic materials, but didn't know how. SCO's code was supposedly exposed to Linux, but they don't know how. They want IBM to find out who put the code in, and when, and then tell them. Never is any code mentioned anywhere in that particular paragraph.
Not immoral, unethical. There's a very distinct difference.
Nobody is going to pay attention to these restrictions. The company will not care if you lend it to friends. This is to keep people from doing large-scale duplication of the jig and selling it as their own. There are already laws in place that do that, but any way you can CYA is good.
Go drive your brand new F-150 through some mud, into a ditch, through a barn full of chickens, over the river and through the woods, then see if you're covered under warranty. ;)
Yeah. Shut the fuck up. It's a stupid ass argument anyway. Take that ounce of plutonium and spread it over a few thousand square miles and you MIGHT have a point.
Can I get an Amen?
The Rangers weren't his fault. They sucked before he got here.
Who claimed that the other software was "unamerican" and "like a cancer"?
Microsoft, IIRC. Who equals the other side's zealots with terrorists?
Nobody. Since you didn't read the article, or are too stupid to understand it, I'll make it clear. The author stated that Linux users come in three major types. Those that don't care about platform, those that really like Linux, and the dipshit 13 year olds that think running nmap on M$'s homepage makes them uber l337 hax0rz and think that M$ sucks 'cuz their stuff isn't free. The author is completely correct in the statement that Linux zealots have the potential to be terrorists. Same with the people from Greenpeace and PETA. Who claims that the other side's software is illegal without a single piece of proof?
SCO.
So what's your fucking point? Wow, three completely unrelated things. That's really an argument against.... something. *YAWN*