Aaron J. Seigo wrote: >>>on the other hand, if blender and a few other projects can get their act >>>together, Linux be able to may encroach on the video editting world that >>>Mac is still dominant in. >> >>That's the point isn't it? Traditionally, the Open Source/Linux movement >>has been so fragmented, that no one seems to be able to "get their act >>together". > > > no, that isn't the point at all. free software development tends to have its > act together quite well. the blender issue has been an unfortunate act to > watch that may yet have a happy ending, and the fact that there isn't better > video edditing suites available for Linux is due largely to the user > demographic, which is shifting to create both need and supply. this doesn't > speak to many of the other successful Free software projects.
There are a few examples of Free software having it's act together IMHO. Apache, PHP, Sendmail, Postfix are a few I can think of [I'm sure there are others], many don't, and suffer from internal feuding and lack of leadership. Much open software is written by student programmers who write it for a project, do one or two releases and then abandon it. Freshmeat is full of such projects. This is the perception of Corporate Business as well in terms of Opensource/Free software. >>That's why an organization like CLUE speaking as one voice >>for the majority of Linux users/companies is so important IMHO. > > > advocating the use of and the actual development of Linux are completely > seperate issues. that said, yes, having a unified voice is important in > advocating its use. the challenge is discovering whether CLUE is the right > place to base that voice, given its capabilities (man power, etc) and its > mission (to serve/coordinate LUGs). i do believe it can help create a unified > voice in one fasion or another, though. Yes, two different issues - I don't think I alluded otherwise. > and now for the bits that are rapidly going OT, but what the hell, there are > some very important points here: > > On Monday 29 July 2002 01:57, you wrote: > >>>Free software is not inherently anti-capitalist/corporatist. they are >>>pro-Freedom (as it pertains to software). that said, there is absolutely >>>no reason why one person/group can not approach it from the Freedom >>>aspect while another group approaches it from the Business Benefits >>>standpoint. >> >>I agree with the first part above, but I don't think the "Freedom" part >>really sells well to large organizations. They care about licensing, >>support and of course that the software in question can get the job done. Freedom in terms of not having to pay restrictive licensing fees? Sure I agree, but it's not as some people think freedom of espionage... > the Freedom part sells really well to governments. especially when that > government isn't the United States Government. it also sells really well to > organizations that aren't hell-bent on cost savings. > > the CGI/movie effects houses moved to Linux for a combination of reasons, some > of them Freedom related (e.g. the ability to self support based on the > freedom to hack the code). > > in other words, Freedom is not the antithesis of corporate/government > promotion. No but it's not *THE* selling feature here. We're selling a brand that has very good licensing terms. >>>there are two ways to change this: stop using proprietary formats (e.g. >>>Flash) and help development of Free alternatives (money, testing, >>>documentation, coding, promotion) >> >>I'm not so sure that attacking proprietary software specifically, is in >>Linux best interests right now, and quite frankly the pragmatist in me, >>doesn't see such software disappearing any time soon. Hopefully such >>software can be written for Linux. > > > and so we sit waiting for Macrodmedia to port their apps to Linux so people > can make pretty (useless) web pages in Linux? i hope you have great big > lungs, because you'll be holding your breath for a good long time. Many of these companies will if the user base for Linux expands. That's what it is all about. Software sells the user base. > forutnately things are not really so dire, because you completely misconstrue > the concept of not supporting proprietary formats and building Free > alternatives to being equal to attacking closed source software. Well I'd like to see nirvana as well, however we're not going to see Linux adopted widespread unless Open Office is promoted and other apps that the enduser needs/wants are produced and promoted. We have decisions to make, do we want Linux to stay a predominate server OS or move forward? One will have to accept proprietary formats and applications in order for that to succeed. To think otherwise is "burying one's head in the sand" not reality, at least in the short term. > let's be pragmatic for a moment. ;-) if there isn't software that does task X > on the platform of your choice and nobody is willing to write closed source > software to do so (because, say, the market around that plaftorm is too > small), then the Free software world needs to write a viable option. then we > can get on with our work and grow that market segment. but waiting for the > desktop (or any other segment) to become viable by waiting for companies to > port their closed apps is a losing proposition (hint: it has to do with > chickens and eggs). > > furthermore, are closed file formats holding us to a certain platform and not > allowing people to write software targetted for alternative platforms (due to > licensing costs/restrictions combined with R&D involved in reverse > engineering)? then we must replace the closed formats with open ones so > people can cost effectively create software, closed or open. Of course they are, but then there is java...with faster processors available. > i know this requires an understanding of how software is created and works to > really grok, but Linux advocates need to do their homework. please sit down > and talk to someone who is a software professional involved in the Linux > world about these things if you aren't one yourself. i'm sure they'll yak > your head off for the price of a guinness. > > >>of, offhand. The big houses haven't really shifted to Linux on the >>desktop side, they've been using it in the render farm for some time, > > > i suppose ILM and Dreamworks don't count then. > > http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-826047.html > http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6011 > > stop listening to Apple. they are not a friend of Free software. they are only > here because they have little choice otherwise and would happily slit the > throat of Free software if only to escape once again. OH God, I'm not listening to Apple, but I am very familiar with the video editing industry. I know all about the recent articles quoted and I'm a fan of Robin Rowe's column in Linux Journal, I'm also a member of his video editing newsgroup. The point you're missing so conveniently is that Apple has bought two very popular versions of what was previously Linux only software. Both ILM and Dream works will switch in an instant if Apple decides to not produce these two apps for Linux anymore. It's also important to note that both ILM & Dream Works are experimenting with Linux, they haven't moved over to it - they're still using SGI predominately, I have friends in both organizations, so I know - trust me. ;) Now there is a push to develop FILM GIMP faster, now that Apple is coming on strong. We'll see what happens on that front. Unfortunately, I think Apple will win this battle, leaving Linux on the render farm. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
