have you done it yet? the best way to prove this point is to do it. ...rather than just saying "I could do it, but I don't want to". I'm sure it would work, and there's no reason it shouldn't, but seemingly simple changes often have funny side-effects in computing... you never know until you try.
But they *do* have plenty of software developers on-staff, because they don't just use the stock tools. Every big CG house uses lots of custom, in-house software.
How many people does a company like Pixar employ? If you have economies of scale, I'd agree it's probably more efficient and faster when you can put a couple of internal people on the job of modifying your own program to do the job.
But if those people usually spend their time doing their primary work, how much do you really gain?
"A week?!?! We go into post-production next week and we need a couple of days to get this segment rendered! We have to have this fixed by tomorrow!"
"Who have we got who can do this"?
"Bill did the original modifications, but he's gone off to so-and-so in India. I think Ted could do it, but it'd take him a few days to get his bearings."
"Don't we need Ted to finish his work on his project due in three days?"
This scenario isn't uncommon in any particular industry, and it's a lot more common as you get to smaller companies. Planning for this stuff helps alleviate concerns, but not every small company can afford to have multi-skilled and/or specially trained staff on hand to do modifications like this, especially when they're not a regular occurance.
And we're back with the core competency issue. How much is it going to cost in primary productivity to modify and maintain the code?
...or it can grab GPL'd software, modify it as needed and run it on commodity hardware.
Now, which type of software better serves this business?
If we take your example of a company producing computer animation, then there's a flaw in your argument.
The company is in the business of using computer animation software to produce movies. How many OS or imaging software programmers do you need for this work, relative the number of 3D-imaging specialists (maya, photoshop, lightwave, [insert generic any-license animation product here])? You wouldn't need very many above the standard IT-support infrastructure.
Since modifying source code is a secondary task to the company's core competency, how much would they have to invest in getting people to modify the source code? Extra developers, the potential for delayed production schedules as features are waited on. The cost in this cannot be underestimated. And if you think assigning some lightwave engineers to the job of modifying the software tools is a good and cost-effective idea, you'd also think assigning a software developer to the sales desk is a good idea... (and generally neither are). Explain to me how doing this as you suggested makes good business sense?
...This company can develop its own proprietary operating system(s), incurring huge costs that really only serve to support the hardware and services businesses, or the company can grab GPL'd software, port it to the company's hardware, port the software to it and train the company's services professional on it...
This highlights my point.This company is in the business of modifying and creating OS software. modifying source is not its secondary task and it would be making its money off the source modification and training required. This is an example where GPL does makes good business sense.
If noone mentioned the fact that movies inaccurately reflected reality, then movies like Shanghai Knights or Armageddon would seriously warp peoples' view of history.
I've had to correct quite a few people of primarily younger age (not that I'm old), in their perception of what's real in movies and what's not. I'd almost go so far as to say while some people are getting too sophisticated (and killing their enjoyment), others are gettings less sophisticated.
Fake Foreign Identity Syndrome
FFIS == thinking you're from somewhere else than you really are.
Come to think of it, I know of another case. remember that "australian" actor who was in JAG. He was actually British. But then, he had the accent as well... Maybe he suffered from FFIS and FAS?;) I wonder how many other actors have yet another reason to check into a clinic.:)
I can partly understand what she's going through. Having grown up surrounded by 2 or more languages (depending on the time period), My accent's all over the place. I find myself adjusting my accent based on who I'm talking to. ..which gets really screwy when there are people with different accents in the same conversation. There's nothing more weird to the ear than starting a sentence with an australian accent and ending it with an americanized one.
Maybe I could be the subject of research too! I can see it now...
Adaptive Accent Syndrome: a study into funny accents;)
zero of these games in the stores I visit. It seems more like a "top 100 most obscure games" list!
I mean, the last 3 boardgames I played were Monopoly, Risk, and Civilisation... and civ was the fist one I'd bought for many years. Boardgames are becoming a strange oddity these days.. while there's a desire by boardgame-players to see them computerized, there's also a trend in the reverse (as Civilisation is an example of).
After having slugged through setting up civ, I've realised that neither way is going to be easy, by the simple fact they're just two wildly different social interactions.
I look at boardgames now and then (on my way to EB;), but the effort required to train enough people to play a new game with weird or complex rules just isn't worth it anymore.
For everyone else, they look at the facts,narrow it down to a few choices based on input from outside
There are 1000 voices screaming for attention when it comes to supplying resources for a business project, especially when it relates to software.
A large number of those voices are blatantly interesting in pushing their own point above supplying a useful resource for the benefit of the company. Selecting choice often isn't just a matter of technical merit, or product ability, but factors which don't always matter for a personal or technical evaluation.
things like:
Can we trust this company we're dealing with (to be around for more than a year)?
Who do we go to for support?
What happens when the next version comes out?
Will program X work?
Management often wants simple answers and as of now, almost every linux distribution is unable to give a simple answer to all of these questions.
lets take MS as an example.
We're trusting them less and less. but we know how little we trust them right now.
Microsoft Inc.. Or a medium/large sized partner which the company is already aware of, who deals closely with MS.
Upgrade. Or wait and then upgrade. (I didn't say these answers were nice ones...)
This can be confirmed pretty easily. check the box or spec sheet for the os version. Install software. See how many bluescreens show up. OR ask the vendor what version its been tested on and complain to THEM if they're not telling the truth. When ppl say it will run, they have to mean it.
Basically, what I'm saying is, for most businesses linux is currently too much of an unknown, unmeasurable quantity to risk their business on. if the questions can't be answered simply by any solution, then people won't bother proposing it. I for one can't just run off the answers for linux off the top of my head...
Slashdot Mirror
have you done it yet? the best way to prove this point is to do it.
...rather than just saying "I could do it, but I don't want to". I'm sure it would work, and there's no reason it shouldn't, but seemingly simple changes often have funny side-effects in computing... you never know until you try.
How many people does a company like Pixar employ? If you have economies of scale, I'd agree it's probably more efficient and faster when you can put a couple of internal people on the job of modifying your own program to do the job.
But if those people usually spend their time doing their primary work, how much do you really gain?
"A week?!?! We go into post-production next week and we need a couple of days to get this segment rendered! We have to have this fixed by tomorrow!"
"Who have we got who can do this"?
"Bill did the original modifications, but he's gone off to so-and-so in India. I think Ted could do it, but it'd take him a few days to get his bearings."
"Don't we need Ted to finish his work on his project due in three days?"
This scenario isn't uncommon in any particular industry, and it's a lot more common as you get to smaller companies. Planning for this stuff helps alleviate concerns, but not every small company can afford to have multi-skilled and/or specially trained staff on hand to do modifications like this, especially when they're not a regular occurance.
And we're back with the core competency issue. How much is it going to cost in primary productivity to modify and maintain the code?
Now, which type of software better serves this business?
If we take your example of a company producing computer animation, then there's a flaw in your argument.
The company is in the business of using computer animation software to produce movies. How many OS or imaging software programmers do you need for this work, relative the number of 3D-imaging specialists (maya, photoshop, lightwave, [insert generic any-license animation product here])? You wouldn't need very many above the standard IT-support infrastructure.
Since modifying source code is a secondary task to the company's core competency, how much would they have to invest in getting people to modify the source code? Extra developers, the potential for delayed production schedules as features are waited on. The cost in this cannot be underestimated. And if you think assigning some lightwave engineers to the job of modifying the software tools is a good and cost-effective idea, you'd also think assigning a software developer to the sales desk is a good idea... (and generally neither are). Explain to me how doing this as you suggested makes good business sense?
This highlights my point.This company is in the business of modifying and creating OS software. modifying source is not its secondary task and it would be making its money off the source modification and training required. This is an example where GPL does makes good business sense.
I've had to correct quite a few people of primarily younger age (not that I'm old), in their perception of what's real in movies and what's not. I'd almost go so far as to say while some people are getting too sophisticated (and killing their enjoyment), others are gettings less sophisticated.
interesting paradox... :)
Fake Foreign Identity Syndrome
FFIS == thinking you're from somewhere else than you really are.
Come to think of it, I know of another case. remember that "australian" actor who was in JAG. He was actually British. But then, he had the accent as well... Maybe he suffered from FFIS and FAS? ;) :)
I wonder how many other actors have yet another reason to check into a clinic.
Maybe I could be the subject of research too! I can see it now...
Adaptive Accent Syndrome: a study into funny accents ;)
I'll definately have to take a look at some of these suggestions, next time I go hunting for something to keep me and my friend(s) occupied with.
I mean, the last 3 boardgames I played were Monopoly, Risk, and Civilisation... and civ was the fist one I'd bought for many years. Boardgames are becoming a strange oddity these days.. while there's a desire by boardgame-players to see them computerized, there's also a trend in the reverse (as Civilisation is an example of).
After having slugged through setting up civ, I've realised that neither way is going to be easy, by the simple fact they're just two wildly different social interactions.
I look at boardgames now and then (on my way to EB ;), but the effort required to train enough people to play a new game with weird or complex rules just isn't worth it anymore.
Linux lab hires lawyers for Torvalds
There are 1000 voices screaming for attention when it comes to supplying resources for a business project, especially when it relates to software. A large number of those voices are blatantly interesting in pushing their own point above supplying a useful resource for the benefit of the company. Selecting choice often isn't just a matter of technical merit, or product ability, but factors which don't always matter for a personal or technical evaluation. things like:
- Can we trust this company we're dealing with (to be around for more than a year)?
- Who do we go to for support?
- What happens when the next version comes out?
- Will program X work?
Management often wants simple answers and as of now, almost every linux distribution is unable to give a simple answer to all of these questions. lets take MS as an example.- We're trusting them less and less. but we know how little we trust them right now.
- Microsoft Inc.. Or a medium/large sized partner which the company is already aware of, who deals closely with MS.
- Upgrade. Or wait and then upgrade. (I didn't say these answers were nice ones...)
- This can be confirmed pretty easily. check the box or spec sheet for the os version. Install software. See how many bluescreens show up. OR ask the vendor what version its been tested on and complain to THEM if they're not telling the truth. When ppl say it will run, they have to mean it.
Basically, what I'm saying is, for most businesses linux is currently too much of an unknown, unmeasurable quantity to risk their business on. if the questions can't be answered simply by any solution, then people won't bother proposing it. I for one can't just run off the answers for linux off the top of my head...